Minutes - Council Work Session - 07/14/2026

Home

Councilmember Specht asked whether the employee was currently at the top step of the Engineering Technician III pay scale but would have additional room for salary growth after moving to the Civil Engineer I position. Councilmember Buscher confirmed her understanding that, although the employee is currently paid less than the Building Inspector, the new Civil Engineer I pay scale provides greater long- term earning potential as the employee advances through the remaining pay steps. Councilmember Buscher asked why the employee moving into the Civil Engineer I position would initially earn less than the Building Inspector II position. She asked whether the City limits the size of salary increases when employees are reclassified so they continue progressing through the established pay scale. Ms. Lund explained that reclassification increases are designed to fit within the City's pay structure, allowing employees to continue advancing through future pay steps rather than immediately moving to the top of the scale. Mr. Hagen added that the City's pay equity system assigns points to every position based on responsibilities, required expertise, and level of authority. He explained that an Engineering Technician III receives fewer points because the position cannot independently sign engineering plans, while the Building Inspector position carries additional responsibilities under the City's classification system. Councilmember Specht commented that if the City approves the GIS Technician position, he hopes the successful candidate is interested in using artificial intelligence tools, noting that AI has the potential to improve mapping and GIS capabilities. Ms. Lund added that the salary figures presented are based on a projected 3 percent cost-of- living adjustment. She noted that the pay ranges are still being reviewed against comparable cities and could change before the final budget is presented to the Council. Mr. Hagen recommended moving into the capital budget discussion before returning to broader budget strategy. Ms. Lund then reviewed the City's primary capital funding sources, explaining how the Capital Equipment Fund and the Core HRA Fund are used to finance eligible capital projects and equipment purchases. She walked through the current balances and projected cash flow for both funds, noting that future revenues remain dependent on Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 and could be affected by property valuation appeals and future development. She also pointed out that the cost of the City's aerial fire apparatus had decreased, improving future projections. However, she reminded the Council that other significant capital needs, including the replacement of the City Hall chiller, must still be considered. Ms. Lund also reviewed the Capital Equipment Fund. She emphasized that while the fund balances appear healthy, some revenues will not be received until future TIF repayments are City Council Work Session / July 14, 2026 Page 8 of 14