The discussion regarding the fire department revealed challenges in acquiring new equipment within a reasonable timeframe. Council members noted that fire truck prices are increasing by 6 to 10% annually, posing a financial burden on the city. The notion of “locking in” a rate now was proposed to mitigate future cost hikes. The rarity of finding a good used truck, described as a “unicorn,” was highlighted, with neighboring cities retaining their older trucks and making it harder to source suitable options.

The council also reviewed the existing electric truck options, which were found to be prohibitively expensive, ranging from three to five million dollars. Integrating such a vehicle into the current fleet was deemed impractical, especially given the size limitations of the existing 2006 GMC 5500 truck. The conversation underscored the specialized nature of rescue trucks and the impracticality of combining them with other vehicles.

A proposal was made to increase the Fire Relief payment to $60,000 for 2024 to support firefighters’ retirement. There was also a discussion about establishing a more structured pay scale for calls.

The council emphasized the necessity of having an on-call officer during weekends, particularly in the summer, to ensure adequate coverage for emergency calls. The proposed compensation was a two-hour minimum pay structure, with reference to neighboring city Mano, which pays around $26 per hour for similar duties. Additionally, current proposals aimed to establish paid positions for assistant chiefs and the president of the fire department, suggesting figures of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively.

The discussion then turned to budget allocations for various city departments. The primary focus was a budget work session led by the city administrator, who explained the process for reviewing budget requests from department heads. A memo outlining the 2025 budget process was presented, emphasizing the legal requirement for the city to prepare and adopt a proposed budget and property tax levy annually. The timeline for the budget process was detailed, including the need for a special meeting before the end of August to review a complete draft budget.

Concerns were raised regarding the Local Government Aid (LGA) for 2025, which had increased by only $744. The administrator highlighted that LGA and property taxes combined account for about 80% of the general fund revenue. A discussion point was the potential cost of living adjustment (COLA) for employees, with the Consumer Price Index indicating a rise of 2.7%. Most other cities are budgeting between 3% and 4% for their COLAs, leading to a recommendation for a 3% increase unless directed otherwise by the council.

Wage adjustments were also discussed, with the council referencing a prior wage study suggesting varying increases based on position, averaging 6% for employees receiving favorable performance evaluations. Health insurance rates were anticipated to rise by around 8%, although final figures would not be known until October. The administrator noted that there would be no changes to Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) contributions.

The council was informed about a concerning decrease in the total taxable tax capacity, primarily attributed to a decline in residential market valuations. This reduction could potentially impact the tax rate, which would be assessed in the upcoming work session.

The public works department presented budget requests, including a proposed addition of $10,000 for street repair and maintenance, specifically for tree trimming along boulevards. An additional $2,500 was suggested for training costs related to obtaining a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) for staff. One member articulated that addressing dangerous conditions is crucial, but it would not be fair for compliant residents to bear the financial burden of those neglecting their responsibilities.

The parks budget discussion included a proposal for a $3,000 increase in operating supplies to maintain the new Pavilion and additional restroom facilities. There was concern about the allocation of rental fees collected from park usage, which are directed into the general fund rather than earmarked for specific park maintenance or improvement projects. A proposal was put forth to separate these funds into distinct line items for better clarity.

The council also discussed the pond within the park, with a prior budget increase intended for pond improvements leading to a bid of approximately $280,000 for necessary cleanup work, which was deemed excessive. The conversation centered around the distinction between maintenance and improvement, asserting that the park board’s role is more aligned with innovative projects rather than upkeep of existing infrastructure.