The primary focus of the meeting was the continued deliberation on the city’s preliminary budget and property tax levy for 2025. This marked the sixth meeting on this topic. Mr. Ericson provided an overview of the budget process, noting that all departments had been covered except for the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Library, Water, and Sewer.

The EDA’s budget proposal included a $40,000 allocation from the property tax levy to support its operations. A noteworthy development was the creation of a separate revolving loan fund, designated as fund 208, which would receive loan repayments, such as those from the Pet Stop Vet Clinic. The EDA’s expenses covered staff time for the Community Development planner and the City Treasurer, overtime pay, office supplies, training, and education. Additionally, a marketing campaign budget of $7,500 was allocated, following the EDA’s recent discussions on digital marketing strategies. The EDA had discontinued a contract with APG and decided to work with a Westra marketing proposal for social media marketing.

The library’s budget was another significant topic. Mr. Ericson explained that the library’s revenues primarily derive from the property tax levy, fees from Rice County, and donations. The library’s expenses included wages, benefits, office supplies, and professional services, with significant allocations for various subscriptions and programming support. For the upcoming year, the library’s funding request was set at approximately $173,000.

The discussion then shifted to the water and sewer budgets. Mr. Ericson anticipated the construction of ten new homes in the upcoming year. He discussed the status of ongoing projects and the importance of aligning with county requirements. A question arose regarding the connection fees for the AES building, which Mr. Ericson clarified would apply per connection based on the facility’s size. He also provided background on the city’s water sales, noting that sales were below projections due to a lack of watering caused by weather conditions. The implications of these sales figures on the budget were discussed, highlighting that the city’s average water and sewer rates were competitive compared to neighboring communities.

Inquiries about the operational budget for the water and sewer departments addressed various line items, such as continuing education, fuel costs, and maintenance expenses. Mr. Ericson provided insights into the costs associated with water main breaks.

A point of focus was the Wellhead Protection Plan, with an estimate of $25,000 proposed for its completion. Alongside this, a recommendation was made for a water tower siting study, which was noted as not yet budgeted. The siting study would assess potential locations and specifications for the water tower, including size and whether to maintain the current tower or consider alternatives such as underground tanks with pumps. The need for alignment with the project priority list and intended use plan for potential low-interest loan funding from the Public Facilities Authority (PFA) was emphasized, as funding would depend on the city’s readiness and prioritization compared to other communities.

Concerns were raised regarding the necessity of a rate study to accommodate the proposed improvements, particularly with regard to a booster station aimed at increasing water pressure in the northwest portion of the city. The conversation highlighted that without raising water rates, securing funding would be challenging. Historical context of prior funding requests was referenced, indicating that without adequate rate increases, future funding opportunities would be jeopardized. It was noted that previous adjustments had been made, including a base fee increase of $3 to support funding initiatives.

The meeting also addressed the status of utility inspections, which had been discontinued due to their ineffectiveness for the city. The inspections had initially been intended to eliminate cross-connections that could lead to clean water contamination but evolved into a more burdensome process. The city now sees a reduced influx of unwanted water during rain events.

On the topic of sewer maintenance, the budget for the upcoming year was examined, with planned expenditures for various services including televising, flow meter testing, and manhole sealing. It was proposed that no new manhole sealing would be undertaken in the next fiscal year, with funds instead allocated for street maintenance materials and adjustments to manholes. It was noted that the city was operating without a depreciation fund, which traditionally builds reserves for future projects.

Library updates were briefly touched upon, confirming that the reconfiguration of the library would not lead to an increase in shelf space despite improvements in design. The library’s collection would remain capped at 15,000 until a new building could be secured. A grand reopening event for the library was announced, inviting attendees to celebrate the new layout, with assurances of refreshments available.