Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2026LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of January 13, 2026, City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $46,202.07 4. CONSENT a. December Financial Report b. Fourth Quarter Investment Report 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. TH280 Project Update by MNDOT Area Engineer Chris Bower b. Environment and Sustainability Commission Open House on Climate Action Plan — February 11 from 5:00 — 7:00 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. 8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEM a. Update from City Attorney on Matters Related to Federal Agents 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. Revisions to Sewer Utility Ordinance b. Selection of Architect for Lauderdale Municipal Cannabis c. Broadband Franchising Conversation with Cable Commission Attorney Mike Bradley d. Planned Unit Development Application for 2421 Larpenteur Avenue West (February 24) 12. WORK SESSION a. Staff Project Updates b. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to three (3) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. 13. CLOSED SESSION a. City Administrator Performance Review 14. ADJOURNMENT You are invited to a Zoom webinar! When: Jan 27, 2026 07:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) Topic: January 27, 2026 Lauderdale City Council Webinar Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89375745837?pwd=gGrLokm5U8QpfFmE8bdyMv 1lh0mej c.1 Webinar ID: 893 7574 5837 Passcode: 795170 Join via audio: +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcmTn7pm1A LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 3 January 13, 2026 Call to Order Mayor Gaasch called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Councilors present: Sharon Kelly, Evan Sayre, Duane Pulford, Jeff Dains, and Mayor Mary Gaasch. Councilors absent: None. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; and Miles Cline, Deputy City Clerk. Approvals Mayor Gaasch asked if there were any additions to the meeting agenda. Mayor Gaasch added support for our immigrant community to the Additional Items section of the agenda. Councilor Pulford moved and seconded by Councilor Kelly to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Gaasch asked if there were corrections to the minutes of the December 9, 2025, City Council meeting. There being none, Councilor Sayre moved and seconded by Councilor Pulford to approve the December 9, 2025, City Council meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Gaasch asked if there were any questions on the claims. There being none, Councilor Kelly moved and seconded by Councilor Pulford to approve the claims totaling $267,040.27. Motion carried unanimously. Consent Councilor Sayre moved and seconded by Councilor Pulford to approve the Consent Agenda thereby approving Resolution No. 011326A — Approving the 2026 Tobacco Licenses; Resolution No. 011326B — Approving the 3.2 Off -Sale Malt Liquor License for 2026; Resolution No. 011326C — Authorizing Application for the Execution of the Municipal Infiltration and Inflow Grant; the 2026 Northeast Youth and Family Services agreement; the Abdo Financial Solutions audit preparation agreement; the 2026 City Council meeting schedule; and acknowledging the November Financial Report. Motion carried unanimously. Councilor Dains joined the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Public Hearings A. Resolution No. 011326D — A Resolution Establishing License and Permit Fees and Administrative Fees and Fines Butkowski said staff review the fee schedule in anticipation of the year ahead. This year, staff have very few recommended changes. Rum River provided a letter explaining changes to their proposed fees that are adopted as part of the City's fee schedule. Prior to adopting the fee schedule, the city council must hold a public hearing. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 3 January 13, 2026 Mayor Gaasch opened the floor to those interested in addressing the Council on this topic. There being nobody interested in speaking, Mayor Gaasch closed the floor. Councilor Pulford made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 011326D - A Resolution Establishing 2026 License and Permit Fees, and Administrative Fees and Fines. This was seconded by Councilor Kelly and carried unanimously. Discussion/Action Item A. 2026 Committee Appointments and Assignments The Council determines committee assignments and makes other designations at the beginning of the year. Staff carried over the assignments from 2025 to 2026 as a starting point that staff can revise based on the discussion. There being no changes, Councilor Dains made a motion to adopt the 2026 Committee Appointments and Assignments as presented. This was seconded by Councilor Kelly and carried unanimously. B. Revisions to Purchasing Policy Butkowski explained that the City's purchasing policy was last updated in 2015. State laws around purchasing and bidding requirements have changed since then. The purpose of the policy is to be both transparent when making purchases but also weigh the costs of the formal public bidding process against the benefits. The formal public bidding process is only required for purchases expected to be over $175,000 because the process comes with costs for preparing, publishing, and formally evaluating responses. These costs should not outweigh the benefits. Councilor Sayre made a motion to adopt the Purchasing and Contracting Policy as presented. This was seconded by Councilor Dains and carried unanimously. Additional Items A. Support for the Immigrant Community Mayor Gaasch shared her support for the immigrant community in Lauderdale. She read the Council's resolution from 2017 clarifying the rights of all Lauderdale citizens. Gaasch also noted statements issued by the St. Anthony Police Department and the city attorney. The Council contributed to the discussion with their support for Lauderdalians as well. Councilor Kelly made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 011326E To Support and Stand with All Members of the Community of the City of Lauderdale. This was seconded by Councilor Dains and carried unanimously. Mayor Gaasch opened the floor to those interested in addressing the Council. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 3 January 13, 2026 Rebecca Slater, Eustis Street, shared her concerns for her children, their daycare, their schools, and the general lack of safety due to ICE presence in the Twin Cities area. Andi Moffatt, Fulham Street, thanked the Council for reaffirming the 2017 resolution. She shared her concerns for the residents of the apartment complexes in the city because of potential threats from ICE. There being nobody else interested in speaking, Mayor Gaasch closed the floor. Set Agenda for Next Meeting Butkowski stated that the next meeting would include a TH280 project update by MNDOT area engineer Chris Bower, the December financial report, the fourth quarter investment report, revisions to the sewer utility ordinance, and the selection of an architect for the Lauderdale Municipal Cannabis store. Work Session A. Broadband Franchising Opportunity The Council discussed the idea of franchising broadband operators. This would allow the City to require equal access to services and to control its rights -of -ways more efficiently. It was decided to continue the conversation with the cable commission attorney at a later meeting. B. Community Development Updates Butkowski shared that the roof at City Hall is leaking where a tree fell on it a few years ago. The solar grant has been finalized, and installation is expected in the springtime. C. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Mayor Gaasch opened the floor to those interested in addressing the Council. There being nobody interested in speaking, Mayor Gaasch closed the floor. Adjournment Councilor Dains moved and seconded by Councilor Pulford to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Miles Cline Deputy City Clerk CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAUDERDALE CITY HALL 1891 WALNUT STREET LAUDERDALE, MN 55113 651-792-7650 Request for Council Action To: Mayor and City Council From: City Administrator Meeting Date: January 27, 2026 Subject: List of Claims The claims totaling $46,202.07 are provided for City Council review and approval that includes check numbers 29727 to 29739. Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date User: Printed: miles.cline 1/23/2026 3:06 PM Check No Vendor No Invoice No Vendor Name Description Check Date Reference Check Amount ACH 34 AFSCME MN Council 5 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Union Dues 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Unic Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 34: ACH 389 BCBSM Inc PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Vision Insurance 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Visi, Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 389: ACH 415 Securian Life Insurance Company PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Life Insurance ACH 423 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Life Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 415: Madison National Life Ins Co Inc 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Long Term Disability PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Lon; Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 423: ACH 43 Public Employees Retirement Association 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 PERA Coordinated PR Batch 50200.01.2026 PER PR Batch 50200.01.2026 PERA Coordinated PR Batch 50200.01.2026 PER ACH 44 ACH 45 ACH 46 ACH 93 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 43: Minnesota Department of Revenue 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 State Income Tax PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Stati Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 44: ICMA Retirement Corporation PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Deferred Comp PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Deferred Comp 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Defi PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Defi Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 45: Internal Revenue Service 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Medicare Employee Pc PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Mee PR Batch 50200.01.2026 FICA Employee Portio PR Batch 50200.01.2026 FIC. PR Batch 50200.01.2026 FICA Employer Portio PR Batch 50200.01.2026 FIC. PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Medicare Employer Po PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Mee PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Fed( Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 46: Minnesota Dept of Employment/Economic 01/16/2026 PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Minnesota Paid Leave PR Batch 50200.01.2026 Min PR Batch 50200.01.2026 MN Paid Leave Emplo PR Batch 50200.01.2026 MN Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 93: 258.08 258.08 12.82 12.82 225.35 225.35 463.75 463.75 1,525.26 1,321.90 2,847.16 965.33 965.33 1,160.95 2,016.33 3,177.28 374.12 1,599.60 1,599.60 374.12 2,529.97 6,477.41 97.42 97.42 194.84 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/23/2026 3:06 PM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Invoice No Vendor Name Description Check Date Reference Check Amount Total for 1/16/2026: 14,622.02 29727 56 James Bownik 01/27/2026 012026 4Q2025 Mileage Reimbursement 8.68 29728 192 260479840 Total for Check Number 29727: 8.68 Comcast Holdings Corporation 01/27/2026 January Internet 413.00 29729 25 County of Ramsey EMCOM-013059 December CAD Services EMCOM-013075 December 911 Dispatch Services 29730 25 Total for Check Number 29728: 413.00 01/27/2026 83.17 553.67 Total for Check Number 29729: 636.84 County of Ramsey 01/27/2026 PRRRV-004037 2025 TIF Admin Costs 510.36 29731 31 Kennedy & Graven Chartered 191347 1852 Carl Street Proceedings 191347 December Legal Services Total for Check Number 29730: 510.36 01/27/2026 135.00 460.00 Total for Check Number 29731: 595.00 29732 185 Lauderdale Certified Auto Repair Inc 01/27/2026 012026 December Fuel 73.79 012026 December Fuel 15.81 012026 December Fuel 15.81 29733 30 League of Minnesota Cities 440385 MN Cities Stormwater Coalition Contributions 443223 Day on the Hill Event - SK & DP 29734 10 Total for Check Number 29732: 105.41 01/27/2026 630.00 198.00 Total for Check Number 29733: 828.00 On Site Sanitation Inc 01/27/2026 0002015760 01/17/2026 - 02/13/2026 Park Portable Restroon 202.00 29735 388 PS-INV 109250 Total for Check Number 29734: 202.00 PeopleService Inc 01/27/2026 February Wastewater 190.00 29736 26 Stantec Consulting Services Inc 2511562 Eustis Street Sidewallc Repair 2511562 2025 Sanitary Sewer Project 2511562 I/I Grant Paperwork 2511562 Wetland Deliniation Review 2511562 MNDOT TH280 Review 2511562 2421 Larp Review 2511562 MS4 Compliance Total for Check Number 29735: 190.00 01/27/2026 2,691.60 11,430.25 582.00 1,173.00 204.00 1,189.00 8,537.30 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/23/2026 3:06 PM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Invoice No Vendor Name Description Check Date Reference Check Amount 29737 90 Verizon Wireless 6132393302 December Cell Phone 6132393302 December Cell Phone 6132393302 December Cell Phone 29738 425 Vestis 2500883701 January Uniforms 2500883701 January Uniforms 2500889549 January Uniforms 2500889549 January Uniforms 29739 74 Xcel Energy 959263651 Larpenteur Bridge Lights 959277877 Dec. 2430 Larpenteur Avenue W 959624854 Dec. 1891 Walnut Street 959624854 Dec. 1891 Walnut Street 959632113 December Street Lighting 959649250 Dec. 1885 Fulham Street 959649250 Dec. 1917 Walnut Street 959649250 Dec. 1917 Walnut Street 959649250 Dec. 1885 Fulham Street 959681973 Dec. Larpenteur Avenue Total for Check Number 29736: 25,807.15 01/27/2026 77.62 38.81 38.81 Total for Check Number 29737: 155.24 01/27/2026 25.53 25.53 25.53 25.53 Total for Check Number 29738: 102.12 01/27/2026 62.12 10.21 527.00 210.01 548.79 104.84 27.36 200.79 263.46 71.67 Total for Check Number 29739: 2,026.25 Total for 1/27/2026: 31,580.05 Report Total (22 checks): 46,202.07 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/23/2026 3:06 PM) Page 3 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Meeting Date January 27, 2026 Agenda Item Monthly Financial Action Requested Consent Action ❑X Public Hearing ❑ Resolution ❑ Discussion ❑ ❑ Work Session ❑ DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Every month, staff provide the Council with an updated copy of the city's finances. Following are the revenue, expense, and cash balance reports for December 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the city's financial report for December 2025. General Ledger Cash Balances User: heather.butkowski Printed: 1/9/2026 12:14:21 PM Period 12 - 12 Fiscal Year 2025 Description Account Beg Bal MTD Debit MTD Credit Current Balance Cash 101-00000-000-10100 -2,809,754.35 518,138.62 548,644.09 -2,840,259.82 Change Fund 101-00000-000-10300 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Cash 226-00000-000-10100 35,478.86 145.90 1,108.00 34,516.76 Cash 227-00000-000-10100 98,810.65 22,881.13 7,056.76 114,635.02 Cash 306-00000-000-10100 224,188.05 951.67 0.00 225,139.72 Cash 401-00000-000-10100 47,887.43 203.28 0.00 48,090.71 Cash 403-00000-000-10100 609,995.29 11,771.98 0.00 621,767.27 Cash 404-00000-000-10100 218,324.13 926.78 0.00 219,250.91 Cash 406-00000-000-10100 382,527.12 1,623.82 0.00 384,150.94 Cash 414-00000-000-10100 326,030.86 1,365.74 4,300.00 323,096.60 Cash 416-00000-000-10100 38,456.50 31.01 31,150.79 7,336.72 Cash 602-00000-000-10100 736,074.37 58,909.16 62,484.64 732,498.89 Cash 603-00000-000-10100 382,529.21 27,258.45 17,028.02 392,759.64 Current Assets 290,648.12 644,207.54 671,772.30 263,083.36 Petty Cash 101-00000-000-10200 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 Petty Cash 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 Investments - Fair Value101-00000-000-10410 3,293,173.37 215,944.77 0.00 3,509,118.14 Adj Investments 3,293,173.37 215,944.77 0.00 3,509,118.14 Grand Total 3,584,121.49 860,152.31 671,772.30 3,772,501.50 GL - Cash Balances (01/09/2026 - 12:14 PM) Page 1 YTD Butane 0 U unt Number U 1-4 04 N O t-OM p M NO,,CD 7t O 40 cn M p O\ co O co <t O b CD C- N 0 pp OMO O • O O O C O —v) O cn N ,.0 on O Ov) ONt- M 001�0 d: VOO Opl t- I-00 p O� r HO O O v)0040 0 4G on N 04 vi 0 7 �--, N NO -. 04 v) M O N oo O r I-, N N O N 0 G0 N N ON M oo M ri 4d'.NVi --...,�, �M 0000 .~40 ti• cf) e-1 O\v1 O M 04 o0 p N O ,t or O\ p rnMvi1(4 -i0 0 N t-t--0'd' 40 0040000440'-, .--, O 00 40 •-+ .-+ N N M ti N 7. N 0 0 Op Cr) to v) vi vi p VD - ,:r., In Or)GO 000 ,D v-1 N 40 O In h1 to GO 000 0111 t N CDO --I '-i — N -, O O O O N)1 pl on d' N on CDOI [t 04 t--CDv) CD C- CD ,..0 00O CD‘C.'M on v l O M 7 t— 7t O CDM v l Cl O O O 0 O -• CO 00 40 00 M en,--+ en., 04 O N rn ,-, n1 N N r-+ GO vi 04 N N N N N) O O 0 40 M O O O O O O O O M of dam' 00 p M N on o) v) N 'Y N - 7t rl 1-1 0 4) b0 .C. U 0 U T ? • • U tom o a0i o ai Q • W (%OUO General Fund 0 GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) C.)O\ O h CD O O r: * 06 O c U W C.)N Ov1 pp 0 N O cn O CI cV YTD Balance allo 0 0 o -- ono 00 O O o00 O 00 N O O O Op) M 0 0 06 O r 11I1 a v t M Ib oOMIN O N 00 -OMO 00 �D H , N O M 60 t� i O\ O\ — O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O CD pI p O� OOO p O - 00� O vtOO ' 00 O O r-i ti OOOpI 0 OoOOI O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 00 O o Od p OOOoo O h t M M V1 N N M M o c• j d Q) bn U • a4 o O � O � N cdCA 0 1b� y G • U U • a.P°'-�LT, Q N N In gz N O N it U z Communications GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) a) \ Cr \ R_R /\ Current Period \ • a) 2 \ \ t \/ -0 W \d / /\ \ © ~,® ® \ -/% '/ \\\� a==/ a Q Q % CD rQCc 3 f \�/� k 41 44. 7 25\3 /a"d 2 g /% \3 7 g\\@ N N na 00 /crd § CD)/ G { \ a w \ f § @ \ & @ %% q /@K\ I \ CT, 00 \} $ 4 » 6 00 a o Q 1 « N / \ \\\ c »oe R \ & 00 / \ 5 \ �CO ) L) %{ \ {& t G( § /o)D Vim,\ / k0 /0 ( \\'§/ ( k °®a•° t E§yi} 2 ° ]]a\ g k=zou r ] GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) p p l O O p O 0 O p O O p O O O G p p) o p p) 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 7441 YTD Balance Current Period 0 •U r— p) o pl 0 0 O p O O p O O ppl ppl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ppI 0 ppl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © to > 0 R; aa) 4a' a P4 0 a, cg a, cu O '4 c) 0 y a- CGat Pc, b a`-p aa i k � •E k 44g4 g WUO W Gr � p l to IN (N.) po N 0 N \ N�.—I 0 b y ❑ •G U 0 00 00 c'' a a a w N N GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) YTD Balance 'L1 Current Peri ppl CD CD 0 0 O p O O O C O p) CDpl 0 0 O p O O p O O O p I Op l O O O p O O O O O O p I O O p l O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O p l O O p O O GO TIF Revenue Bonds 2018A tn M M GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) ✓ W N "71. 00 U 00 .M-. yy CO M 0 N M- . N YTD Balance Current Period Description s C\ OVI N CO d' ON N O p MccD O N NO O ON 000 p( p I O N IO V~1 O n O O ON ON 2019A Improvement Bonds o �; a., N c a) O N N aN(1O z �a.aw o co GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) Current Period \ $ Crl 5\\1 \ ?\\ 6Cd C c;\ @ 2 /| \ 5 / 51 7 0 3&6 w a - a 00 N % \ \ 7 $ } @@@| @ @%@ a&3 w 37a 2 2 \% J 4 3\ 5\@ 4 53\ \ § ar6 w 666 c 8 A q /\\| @ @@/ 666 3 a66 \ CT, r n tel %J \ \ ƒ \ co), \ §g0 / ®)\ a 2 \Ac 8 a. ea ))\ .0 )/./ a)�0g 7)Em\ ( m\Q/ § / Ubh t / /� / §$\\3 k 4ouo ƒ General Capital Projects \/ \a 1 \� c \ «23 \ \.; Z �2/ 'A\\\ 0 2 @ /=QQ a -71- - GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) { %2/ 2 //5@ § \ /§ 3/33 \ 00oo / Cl . ; cmo 00 c<cc q V) » g9c R R®cc C § ©c» 3 5/6» - \ GN / ©e w e ƒ /\ f m ® @\@ § 5%5/| - 2 /\6 q dada / \ s / % g /\ G ▪ q \&/� 7 @55\) @ 7 p/c p 3366 e p c w K ed q q \@/| @ @@@@| \ \ \ \ 6 / in 0 k § $% - ® ® 14 4 § ƒ Street Capital Projects \ GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) O ONO000 C.) N p O CO Q] O N O N col0 0 O ti N U 0 U O O p O O O Op .O O O a O O O co ▪ O O O co '-, D O\ OCli CO-+ rl O CZ e-1 rr ri '-1 Current Period k l VO .a !V N O • N-n] -0 • 0,0�c1 0 • w • Q. fi � v 40 O O p O O O p O O © o p C O O p D D © 00 00 00 o h 000p © 00 O N p N 0 0 © N O\ O• O c) O OO OI O O O co O O co O O co O O O O t� h O coM * H a) > o 0 0) O o a.)0i N O .n o Ncn p�, 004 bq N v, 7 E O O O go,N 0 N 0 to y 0 h 67 U O to p g.9 0 g WcnOO W Park Capital Projects 0) GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) YTD Balance Current Period rn h VD 00 cri 1-1 0 0 0 0 tn N 0 0 0 0 ri ri N Park Dedication GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) YTD Balance 00 00 M O M O O VD O co O 00 o - o O 00 it:'�V" O co M N I [� r M CD 0I O OM O O M N - p r 0l r I CD N ar;O b O O O M ,-� .•-i �t et N 0 0I o CD p 0 0 0� o O O o ,� - .-i 00 0 bA N N A U ,.0 U 0 u NO Cip b v, N F U U V U •, N p L7r • upp 0 • 0 4 0 U y • U U 0. ate A g 0 g W O O W Development GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) 8 YTD Balance Current Period § Account Number @| @ @ @ @ as a 33 e e @ 5| @ @ @| @ @ as e £3 3 a \ 3| / /| @ ? ca o 63 d e S \| 5 /| \ @ 36 o 3£ o e /| @ @| 2 2 3 c d c; a e \ \) f t/ 4 ( ® / 2 * t o • ,a tt �\.) o(\ o e05\ ( mcD /5 > \\\\ / f\/ Housing Redevelopment bt) / GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) N O O I v) • M O- O N r1-4 N-i U iM� • 00— O mod' V1 M In in 0 N to g U C 0 p l 000 oho O� Op l ,01 N O 00 N O O O b h M O M M O 7 Current Period C". it ,.Q z co in O M d• O 00 O I N r-I 01 00 p 60 00 CD Vl p 'ct V. N • O A O CON., en OM O N N 01 CA --, N 'cY VI \O ‘D rV V:, O M O M OOO O © C\ ti -1 e-1 0000OOOOI O O D Okri O O O p 0 O O t!) V1 lO N N N ell bfl cn 1 a U N a�i g U 1-1 N C CU q O a4 bA z �G NA Q1 cy < > U O ti ..GU ^S O O N A N s., i. Li t.. cJ p °D G, C P .O a) C. bx Y >W4-, E�RH O 4 OOQO W TIF District No. 1-2 GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) 0 G"r DC U O N 00 O O O 0 0 O - 0) 0�0 OR le; Gd ONN iy -,a\ Gd O 0 N Current Period N O\ N O\ N O M N M M Vl O O CT CO C CD 00 O M O O\ p( 00 O ON Tt 00 V C O O dam' O , VD VD M [ 00 r+ N 00 N V) M d' M VZ Oro 0 ern 0O— 00 OMO O ▪ M V. \D OM O t,i OT 00 'n O\ •-. N 00 M 00 M N b N 0N p)��NOrwor-1 d:cn OGp O tC d VN' N InN 0 0 .r-1 N O\ O O M Cam) O \D I!) N Cn e-1 N 'O .-+ [1' M Vl \O .-+ d' VD ' 000 O O 000061 O O 0 0 0 0 O 00006 O O Opp 0 0 ccnn O�,tO 0 N N 00 O 000000 t,, O O 0 �O t: O cf 7 m M M N N b N to O 0) 00 > N N ti C Py ▪ o a;00 0 O y C4 N ai O O • N O rn rn 0 O 'U 8 ;5, O� c`A O N C Cj d . 0 4-4 0 ▪ h cd N Cl 0 rrio P. vR• 'i )40 "0 Ri WP. cn000 W Wy.,� M wJ > Q3 l to — cW s. _) �0 o N N _ aOca 471 Q) ..) N rr O Al U i QD W P 4L, LL U N N b b Sanitary Sewer GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) Q YTD Balance Current Period \ count Numb \ \JJ � oN/ \� f 3%KJ\ 0 - �CO/� 0 CD CO CD 0 1 ««>c / %gR R /mm-o ✓ &24 /VV < p< & ¥®% a ® \® 00 00 00 / © %\@@| /\/\@| 7 A 7 w 3 - N-- m 00 \// k \2\\ \ % »/± § @ 77 / 7 co—c) /rrcc1 - VIoVDgo s<co _ 6}76 Ti ®\/6» 0 q 7 \ \ % ± % /� / ^ c Q « \| @ @@\\\) \ © k 00 / F 2 e %2 K § $ 7/ \ - Storm Water GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) U CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O p O O O O O p O OO O U 000 0 00000 I O o o0 o O o000 0 0 0 600 0 00000cct 0 0 U PP A Current Period Account Number 00 OI o 0000 OI O O O O 0 O 0000 0 O O O O p O O O O O O O O CD CD (DI O OOOO (DI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0000 O O C7 0 0 0 I O 000001 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O © p O O O O O p O O o bA 0 N cy u N O V) 0 '0R bA O 0 . >, 0 • 0 o N > .0 v' L7 0 0 0� 0 • 0 0 at C/1 b 0 D k. D y Pa.O a 0 44gE-H0 o s • 40 CU2o W w GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) U YTD Balanc Current Period a Nhrj M W1 . O N , -. • O O cd - 1 ▪ N *a'H H O 1.).) 0 • o aCi q `✓ P4 P.0,L -) Pi;WC7 GL - Revenue vs Expense (01/09/2026 - 12:16 PM) LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Meeting Date January 27, 2026 Agenda Item Investment Report Action Requested Consent Action X❑ Public Hearing ❑ Resolution Discussion ❑ Work Session ❑ DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Following is the Fourth Quarter Investment Report for 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the Consent Agenda, the Council acknowledges the investment report for October - December 2025. Fourth Quarter 2025 Investment Report INVESTMENTS As of December 31, 2025, the City had the following amounts with official depositories: North Star Bank Northland Securities RBC Dain Rauscher 4M Fund TOTAL 8% 29% $ 287,329 1,572,750 1,094,937 841,331 $ 3,796,347 ❑ North Star ■ 4M Fund ■ RBC Dain Rauscher ❑ Northland Securities DEPOSITORIES AND INVESTMENT TYPES North Star Bank Checking Account $ 287,329 4M Fund Joint Powers Investment $ 841,331 RBC Dain Rauscher US Government Securities $ 0 Certificates of Deposit $ 1,094,937 (11) Northland Securities Money Market Account $ 472,750 Certificates of Deposit $ 1,100, 000 (11) The City's Investment Policy sets some perimeters for investments, such as no more than 60% of the investment portfolio, or $2,000,000 (whichever is less) shall be invested with any one investment company. No investments shall be made with a term over ten years unless with prior approval from the City Council. INVESTMENT TERM Liquid assets are money market accounts. 1-5 Years are made up of certificate of deposit and US Government Instrumentality Securities. 6-10 Years are US Government Instrumentality Securities. 11-15 Years are US Government Instrumentality Securities. 15+ Years are US Government Instrumentality Securities and bonds. US Government Instrumentality Securities are financial intermediaries established by the federal government to fund loans to certain groups of borrowers, such as homeowners, farmers and students. Most active issuers are Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Tennessee Valley Authority. Maturities range from three months to 30 years with fixed interest rates. 2 50 40 30 20 10 EOY 2024 Investment Portfolio by Holding Period ■ Liquid Accounts ■ Up to 1 Year ❑ 12-24 Months ❑ 24-36 Months ❑36-48 Months ■ 48+ Months Fourth Quarter 2025 Investment Portfolio by Holding Period 40y 35Z 30-7 25-7' 20-7 15-/— 10-Z 5� 0� • Liquid Accounts ■ Up to 1 Year ❑ 12-24 Months ❑ 24-36 Months 0 36-48 Months ■ 48+ Months 3 INVESTMENT TYPES Money Market $ 1,314,081 Bonds 0 Certificates of Deposit 2,194,937 US Government Securities 0 US vovernment Bonds Securities Certificates of Deposit Money Market Maturity Date Type 8/7/2028 7/28/2028 9/23/2027 5/10/2027 2/12/2027 1/19/2027 1/19/2027 12/4/2026 11/9/2026 10/7/2026 9/21/2026 9/11/2026 8/13/2026 8/12/2026 8/6/2026 7/31/2025 7/17/2026 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 5/11/2026 3/13/2026 3/13/2026 2/6/2026 12/11/2025 12/10/2025 11/13/2025 Interest Rate CD 4.20% CD 4.30% CD CD CD CD CD 3.90% 4.00% 4.10% 4.05% 3.85% CD 4.20% CD 4.15% CD 4.25% CD 4.00% CD 3.95% CD 4.15% CD 4.20% CD 4.25% CD 4.20% CD 0.95% CD 4.20% CD 4.40% CD 4.25% CD 4.15% CD 4.40% CD 4.40% CD CD CD 4.25% 4.40% 4.50% Investment Schedule Investment Broker RBC RBC RBC Northland Northland RBC RBC RBC Northland RBC RBC RBC Northland Northland Northland RBC RBC Northland RBC Northland RBC Northland Northland Northland RBC Northland Amount 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100, 000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 Bank Central Bank, Little Rock Horizon Bank Northeast Bank Live Oak Banking Trustone Financial CU Gate City Bank Blue Ridge Bank State Bank of India DMB Community Bannk JP Morgan Chase Bank First National Bank Sioux Falls American Express Bank New England Merrick Bank Harborstone Credit Union Bank Sierra Texas Exchange Bank, Crowley Preferred Bank, CA Washington Fed Bank Seattle First Federal Savings Bank Israel Disc Bank Austin Telco Fed CU Freedom Bank (TX) Barclays Bank Flagstar Bank NA Enterprise Bank The investments in blue matured this quarter. No new investments were purchased. Staff plan to continue investing in non -callable CDs to guarantee good yield over the next three years in spite of ebbs in the market. The City continues to hold one sub one percent investment purchased before the interest rate increases. 5 INTEREST EARNINGS The following chart shows the interest earnings since 2005 with 2007 being the best year with earnings of $161,884. Investment interest earned through the end of 2024 totaled $150,812.11. Investment interest through the fourth quarter 2025 totaled $155,130.88. Most of the increase is from higher yields at the 4M Fund. Ideally, in 2026 the City will best the 2007 interest record. 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 o`' eN o� ,,,. ,,� 4h p. .°' ti'` ti� by 6 a' U N O N - W M'' T. , M V O O 0 0 '- '- ,, ' O o0 0 0 00 00 0 O O 6 0 O O, 888888888888 0 __ _ 0 0 0 0 0 •- .- 0 0- 0 0 0 M V' m `. ,, 888888 O o p 0 ' _ _ _ .- 0_ , �_ ,_ w 0 0 0 o O O O ,, O666666 C')) O O `-' O O 0 O O O ‘- '- '- m m V T M 0- ImMD .6 ,, mV h N Y1 0 W M Transfers Transfers Interest( Purchases Sales in out Dividends - -10,966.99 - 307.21 352.47 - - 352.47 356.71 - - 356.71 360.96 - - 360.96 373.70 - - 373.70 373.70 - - 373.70 382.19 - - 382.19 377.95 - - 377.95 352.88 - - 352.88 2,545.75 - - 2,545.75 2,545.75 - - 2,545.75 2,545.75 - - 2,545.75 399.18 - - 399.18 - 10,966.99 10,966.99 - 11,274.20 ,, N r )- t00 O M r M r r W 0- m m M NM N W '- . 0W n m m M NM ggM O N v M O v N - - 203,142.05 130,000.00 2,075.37 - - 1,871.79 - 203,142.05 130,000.00 3,947.16 - 214,109.04 I 214,109.04 130,000.00 } 18,363.41 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,646,260.67 Fund 101 Balance 3,041,627.93 604,632.74 Investments 3,646,260.67 Interest 18,363.41 New Balance 3,664,524.08 V N C b N N M m O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0000 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O r r 0 0 o000 0 0 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wo 0 0 0 r r m 0 0 W 0 0 0 N O O O O O 1D W t0 M m m m i� N 0) my 0 V) r O r W O tU �- n U y V C 00 F N �V c 1- N 0 a M m m N V M r v 1- m r O^ m m ' 0 CI 0 M M M M W o o m n W n rn r rn ,r`r, mnn con M M M CO M M t20 N M m N m n N - 2,041.64 - - 2,041.64 - 80.68 - - 80.68 - 373.70 - - 373.70 - 2,218.08 - - 2,218.08 - 382.19 - - 382.19 - 104,813.15 - - 4,813.15 - 109,909.44 - - 9,909.44 '' - 109, 909.44 150, 000.00 1,975.82 2,092.50 - 109,909.44 150,000.00 4,068.32 - I 112,886.30 112,886.30 I 150,000.00 I 17,273.41 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,758,987.26 Fund 101 Balance 2,994,713.69 764,273.57 Investments 3,758,987.26 Interest 17,273,41 New Balance 3,776,160.67 U O N a m M m O O O 0 0 o0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O00000 888888888888 0 M W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 888888 000000 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 o 0 00 0)) OO 00 0 0 O O O O W m 03 N n V W fV Oi fO 01 r N 4 N n O N o 0 N 1� m WO p_ 0 a 0 O V N N N N N N N O N N N O N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M f� r` W W W W W W W W W N N r0 ,O r0 r0 r0 O O N N N N O O O N o o N N 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O M 0 0 0 0 O O O o0 0 0 0 0 0 10 N O O M O ,0 ,0 o O N '0 N N N N V V ,O V 0 0 0 0' v v v v v v v v a v v v v v o vi vi vi v �' .-vrnooM WNru)o WNW eco �oQ>wm¢>woaFYm�oSo� rot (7N)LN W (n}d7 a M N W M W W O r W r0 Nr W O, O V N N N W M N M M V W W N V W 3) WW M V O � O N W I� M W m N 0 W N 0 M W V' N O ,O WO m r N m ro Y) W N O ,[) V r M M N W W W M t` Portfolio Value V' V V' V' V V N V 0< V V' N O N N N O O O O O m O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N� N_ N M N N \ ON0 N0 NO NO N N N N N No No 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N \ W O O O N N h 0 00) O 00) O ,OO O O O O N M O) O W N O 0) N 01 V 0 0 r0 N vvoiv rivvcivovvvavv 6 oz m am N m 5 2 a 8 �omOLLEf V S Z g m a IL Q m LL m {- > ?> j 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m20000000000000000, A m m v C O 0)) N N a' o O N V O M N t� rn r r rn M M M M M cry) m V m 6 V 1 ' 22 co,:-, M 4- M v Mig 4 O (M�) 4' i0 M 0) M m From "Cash Balances" Report Investments Fund 101 Balance Investments Interest New Balance V N C O O N m N V r M N N 0 o r r 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o r 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 _' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O c 0 0 V O M N N r r O o 0 0 o O r r 0 0 0 6 0 0 888828 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m o 0 0 0 l 6 m 0 0 0 0 O 0 0_ W O M (' N V V N N N N N 0 N O�0 W N M U W N 9 C) — Q C O H F ry N N U (O N m N O O , , M N 88 8,O M N M t0 l0 M t` r (O N (m0 (h0 M M M M M M M , Q (O ,O O N (O (O O r M (O (O (O M M M M M M M M O M r V N O O N O Nm W oo N O - - 439.72 439.72 - - 78.08 - - 78.08 361.64 - - 361.64 439.72 439.72 439.72 439.72 - 100,000.00 439.72 - 988.12 - 2,071.21 - 100,000.00 439.72 - 3,059.33 - ( 203,320.54 I 103,760.26 ( 439.72 I 6,913.78 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,364,176.11 Fund 101 Balance 3,044,418.83 319,757.28 Investments 3,364,176.11 Interest 6,913.78 New Balance 3,370,989.89 O N C O N b mM v W N pipO v O O r . O r , O_ O_ oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 O O r 0 0 0 0 0 , 288828222822 _ _ _ _ o 0 0 0 0 ���`��000000 (O N N O o 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 e-e-.-.-.- 0 0 m o 0 0 g 0 0 OM) 0 0 0 v - m o 0 0 r �) ID (O O) v M m 1� W V ri ,n,)N r r tO m M 3,464,076.11 as H N� C > N O F F- m TOW N a' o M M Cii N v r, , N, (�J V M r nrnm� m.r' 6666 N n r , , MMCr'l M M M M (— O) r Or m m . 0) 0 0) 0) (o (ro 0 ro M M O m N W m N - - 454.38 454.38 - - 80.68 - - 80.68 - 373.70 - - 373.70 - 454.38 454.38 454.38 454.38 - - 454.38 125,000.00 1,517.67 - - - - 2,016.66 - 454.38 125,000.00 3,534.33 H O M n M j N h, lO W N v M From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,456,855.53 Fund 101 Balance 3,098,494.34 358,361.19 Investments 3,456,855.53 Interest 7,320.58 New Balance 3,464,076.11 V N O q N mz,M 0) M V 82 r O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O 'V N '- r 223222 r r tJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 V g 0 0 0 ) W <O M M 0 V 24 (0 O M W 'O M 0) 0 M N h i2 M MO s _ O (_ F N t0 (n m n . N ' M M, ' , ' M m O M(MO N N m N , (NUJ CN') M M 10 M M , N 0 r , v. . i M M M M M M M M O M P: 0 N W N - 10,253.84 10,253.84 - 1,933.97 - - 1,933.97 1,909.18 - - 1,909.18 1,983.56 - - 1,983.56 1,958.77 - - 1,958.77 72.88 - - 72.88 337.53 - - 337.53 2,057.95 - - 2,057.95 10.253.84 10,253.84 10,253.84 10,253.84 10, 253.84 100, 000.00 1,855.42 - - - 2,076.57 10.253.84 100,000.00 3,931.99 a N� m N eDe- Cl m From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,564,624.08 Fund 101 Balance 3,044,912.69 519,711.39 Investments 3,564,624.08 Interest 17,231.45 New Balance 3,581,755.53 C yr Ti N Nr a. N of Vr 1z n M � O m r r r r 0' N N OO M O IMM r rN m. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 2 n r r r r r r r r r r r r t- r m 0 m O V r 1� r r T M r r c r N N t0 g O M r N O� r r M co co cor M <n c� in M M v 00 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rMO 0' r m r p I� �O r r M M M rm C N O P O r r r r6 6MN m Om rO .- „ (V „ N O N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r MO 2 r r r r r .. r r r r r r r h N M NM V M W O N r V O K O r r r r r (0 O c0 ' (p N M (O V' cr c cr Mr] m m r m m N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r W '0 M O 4 - O N O V c- r - 11,548.08 175,000.00 298.85 - 100,000.00 1,824.10 - 11,548.08 275,000.00 2.122.95 NrM (n r From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,355,829.75 Fund 101 Balance 2,864,518.61 491,311.14 Investments 3,355,829.75 Interest 18,377.20 New Balance 3,374,106.95 U N m N m O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M G O O 0 0 C C G C 0 0 r r r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: N 0 0 0 0 __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c c f 0 0 0 0 0 ` c0 <0 6Ni h r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 8828220 C C (D O C G O r O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... O O O __ O __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __" 0 0 0 0 0 O� 0 0- r h 2 (0 rn Q N N O M r ro W N 2 O N r r N 0 N W 1� 3,630,729.75 Transfers Transfers Interest/ Purchases Sales in out Dividends - 410,492.89 500,000.00 287.53 100,000.00 - - - - 100,000.00 - - - - 352.47 - - 352.47 100,000.00 - - - - 100,000.00 - - - - 100,000.00 - - - - 356.71 - - 356.71 - 360.96 - - 360.96 - 373.70 - - 373.70 - 373.70 - - 373.70 - 382.19 - - 382.19 377.95 - - 377.95 - 100,347.12 - - 347.12 - 102,504.25 - - 2,504.25 - 102,531.92 - - 2,531.92 - 102,531.92 - - 2,531.92 500,000.00 410,492.89 410,492.89 500,000.00 10,780.42 - 454.38 454.38 - 100,000.00 - - - - - 80.68 - - 80.68 373.70 - - 373.70 100 000.00 454.38 454.38 454.38 454.38 - - 454.38 200,000.00 1,140.05 - - - 2,081.17 - - 454.38 200,000.00 3,221.22 600,000.00 I 410,947.27 ( 411,401.65 I 700,454.38 I 14,456.02 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,616,373.73 Fund 101 Balance 3,032,196.83 584,176.90 Investments 3,616,373.73 Interest 14,456.02 New Balance 3,630,729.75 N V N C A(� A'- r O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O n 000a o00 (O o000000 o0 000o r N M n (O M r 0 0 0 0 O O O O 828822r 0 0 0 0 (O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O o o `' _ _o 0 0 o m o o o 0 0 o m o o o000o r tD (O M m m (ND N r (13 (G 0 m(n n 0(0 r N (n m 3,716,273.73 Transfers Transfers Interest/ Purchases Sales in out Dividends 2,494.52 - 690.11 - 34110 - - 341.10 345.21 - - 345.21 349.32 - - 349.32 361.64 - - 361.64 361.64 - - 361.64 - 369.86 - - 369.86 - 365.75 - - 365.75 - 2,494.52 2,494.52 - 3,184.63 - - 4,630.00 4,630.00 - 100,000.00 - - - - - 2,008.36 - - 2,008.36 100,000.00 - - - - - 78.08 - - 78.08 361.64 - - 361.64 2,181.92 - - 2,181.92 200,000.00 4,630.00 4,630.00 4,630.00 4,630.00 - 154,630.00 200,000.00 1,650.32 - - - 2,075.66 - 154,630.00 200,000.00 3,725.98 200,000.00 I 7,124.52 I 161,754.52 I 204,630.00 I 11,540.61 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,704,833.12 Fund 101 Balance 2,943,002.74 761,830.38 Investments 3,704,833.12 Interest 11,540.61 New Balance 3,716,273.73 N N O DI b 0 0( GO r r 0 0 r r 666666666666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O gs,IfNI M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N •- e- e- .- e-.- , T- , e- �- 0 r 0 0 0 o ro o 0 o r O O O O O O O O O M v O O Or O O O O 8880.. 0 go.. c. N- ,. , m (O OH) ((`o m 00 r i� N h n O to r n M N NO t7 4 N n4 '1,3O Nd Q rV r r r :22 M r r �; N r r M M 2 r N r r r r r Yl 2 r r M M cp c M M M M M (V r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N M N r r M aN V MO 2, r r r M r r r r 2 M r r r i r r r r r r r r r r r M < n V p 2 N r m O N O r 0 r r N O O m N O O N. V r N tMJ O 2, V N O N N O V M M W N N N 66 O ry M r N O j M M O N O N nlh V O O O O O O O O O OggS 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C'' ,00......... __ O V o oao O V V r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2M O O O O ' C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'' O O O O O O m O v o o o 00 o m o m '0 0)i 0) W O M V ^M O '' O M 3,509,018.14 Transfers Transfers Interest/ Purchases Sales in out Dividends - 109,866.05 - 1,086.61 - 328.77 - - 328.77 - 336.99 - - 336.99 - 2,105.75 - - 2,105.75 341.10 - - 341.10 - 341.10 - - 341.10 345.21 - - 345.21 349.32 - - 349.32 345.21 - - 345.21 349.32 - - 349.32 - 361.64 - - 361.64 - 361.64 - - 361.64 - 104,300.00 - - 4,300.00 - 109,866.05 109,866.05 - 10,952.66 345.21 - - 345.21 718.63 - - 718.63 78.08 - - 78.08 101,844.38 - - 1,844.38 102,986.30 - - 2,986.30 - 302,986.30 - 779.67 - 1,226.14 - 302,986.30 - 2,005.81 - I 212,852.35 1 412,852.35 I - I 15,944.77 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,493,173.37 Fund 101 Balance 2,827,142.33 666,031.04 Investments 3,493,173.37 Interest 15,944.77 New Balance 3,509,018.14 ,0 C N N �p �0 M . �- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^^ n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ' o 0 o m O o 0 0 ._ n _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 ' ' 0 0 0 V O I� O f� h 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 g 0 0 O O O O O O O O ' o 0 0 0 0 o o c O o 0 o m O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ _ 0 0 0 O O O a{ O c___ `^ O O N 0 0 � m ,o m V m M; 00 m o n r• N � N_ , M � � 1� ro th l0 3,293,073.37 0 -'0 'C y'O c > — o C O H N d m 0. M N ,.,.,,.0.- m 0 0 r N V V 0 m r r m t M a N 00 IMD )00 0) t0 M M r 0 „ , , MMM MMMMMM M 04 m M O n N a v n rn m m � n m N N 8 O l0 O t�J M N , M V' ,() M t'0] M N M r r M M M M M M M M M o , m ( '0 04 0) p 8 r 6 m 0 OJ r , (0 , , , 0 M M V M '4 r M , r0 'to M , , M M C rn M V M V M r MV _......... - 437.39 - 492.69 - - _ - 1,236.75 437.39 - 1,729.44 - I 104,395.21 I 104,832.60 437.39 6,936.02 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,286,237.35 Fund 101 Balance 2,803,753.95 482,483.40 Investments 3,286,237.35 Interest 6,936.02 New Balance 3,293,073.37 t0 C N N m,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 oo '' o o O 0 0 0 0_ O O O o 0 0 0 ... n' O O O o 0 0 0 0 o N O O O O O O e- �- '- �- •- O v Imo � o r . 0 0 0 0 0) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ' o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o OMi o o_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ..... , - 8 Oc Or 2 co OMi m ,0 M 1� �- � m N m - M r m n N t0 M . 2 )D N Transfers Transfers Interest/ Purchases Sales in out Dividends - - 4,093.17 - 705.56 591.78 - - 591.78 336.99 - - 336.99 341.10 - - 341.10 341.10 - - 341.10 345.21 - - 345.21 349.32 - - 349.32 345.21 - - 345.21 - 349.32 - - 349.32 - 361.64 - - 361.64 - 361.64 - - 361.64 369.86 - - 369.86 4,093.17 4,093.17 - 4,798.73 - - 105,388.35 105,388.35 - 345.21 - - 345.21 - 353.42 - - 353.42 - 4,250.00 - - 4,250.00 78.08 - - 78.08 - 100,361.64 - - 361.64 105.388.35 105,388.35 105,388.35 5,388.35 Z£'£b8' l 00'000'00l 9£'88£'90l - - LZ'6L4't 00'000'001. - - - 90'b9E - 9£'88£'90l - - - I 109,481.52 I 214,869.87 I 205,388.35 I 12,030.40 From "Cash Balances" Report Investments 3,274,206.95 Fund 101 Balance 2,953,361.03 320,845.92 Investments 3,274,206.95 Interest 12,030.40 New Balance 3,286,137.35 u N C O N N O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '' N O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ' m N N N — 0 O O O O O O) 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 O t0 O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O) O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 ' m 2 OM) N M W M ,g N O N V N N N 0'0) O� 5 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Meeting Date January 27, 2026 Agenda Item TH280 Reconstruction Action Requested Consent Action ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Resolution Discussion ❑ Work Session ❑ DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Chris Bower, North Area Engineer for MnDOT, will be at the meeting to present on the plans for reconstructing TH280 in 2026 and 2028. His slides are attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Chris Bower 1 Area Engineer Metro District > O 0 O C E LO N O Cu) N .Q 0 00 O 0 U Li • • Expect NB Hwy 280 to close as soon as April 13 SB Hwy 280 closure follows a couple weeks later • • • Hwy 280 re -opens August 2026, in time for the fair N 0 W U L 0 w 0 U N ca U 0 Q aJ 0 C b 0 c6 E rt3 LL V) O DO.. • What to expect/watch for? 0 -a co v w U 0 0 4J bD 0 U CU E O U N Q • avenues Z Z b -6 i > a) m N >, •§ ca 0_ c6 — co Q c Q 0) C c CU T 0 (/) CU WO c (13 4-1 D 0 U c 0_ CD c c Ca) c c • -0 C. 0 -0 ("0 -0 csa 0 co cu cc -0 c (13 cL (/1 • _ 0 o_ a) li ri II // ..., - 1 '... E a) 4 Eo. a) 8 Li" LC) CN Ramsey County Plans for Larpenteur Ave. 12.-2s30 TRASNPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PRO RA 2026-2030 projects C 0 0 0) cn C O 0 -ii C a) to a) J Pavement preservation Corridor studies Pedestrian & bicycle N > 0 un 0 -0 c E liD N 0 N N N a) cu O U a) O Q co N O N • Wabash Ave. >- (0 ca O L m O 00 N E O L 4- N Q) U U f0 c L -2 al > O E N • St. (right turn access remains) • Reconstruct Hennepin Ave. west of Hwy 280 . ADA improvements at Hennepin/Larpenteur . avenues CO 0 bD O -O E 3N PM8 Ieponpul Como Ave SE rn 0 en 0 O c E 0 E NNa) co O ML What we heard: a) s N -a C (1) U O L (6 D bA CD a `� N tan }-+ L i O c O CO 1^ as_) 4- O0J O • -o N LE 4--1 Q i c13 J c 0 ('3 L 0 4-1 • bA -a tan an ('3 N 0 cu L 0 cu 0 photo taken 12/2020 Existing View - Hwy 280 at Broadway St looking north. "This will add 20 seconds to my Costco run" • • 0 i 0 tp 0 E Proposed View - Remove Left tum access to Broadway St. v c a) Y c c o o 4J C To c 3 ; o a) � N � > L 0 ck.Q coL) E ro cc c co 40 L • C (0 • ,C U C 1- O (d a) L 3 b wc o_o c-c co 0 t o D 0 Z Q Z 4, Ramsey County will likely make bigger changes here in 2030. c a) c 2 4-- O N (3) 0 s 0 .Q 0 Q u t 0 a) (O t .O C Q a) c c a) 2 (a •L V▪ I c c 0 C 0 U 7 a, VI 0 U C 0 c c as 4O c L 4-, (6 2 0 0 c E N N N V U 0 un 4 J E E 0 un 0 4J Ul CU V Eb 2 « 4' E ry E N n • E • e C243 ice+ ▪ = 5 • E rc O c 9rn • 0 29 0 E O N N Kennedy CHARTERED DATE: January 23, 2026 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone TO: Mayor and Lauderdale City Council Heather Butkowski, Lauderdale City Administrator FROM: Ron Batty, City Attorney RE: Discussion of Possible Regulations/Management on ICE activities This memo responds to the request to provide information regarding what, if anything, a city can do to manage U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. Additionally, this memo intends to provide written guidance regarding the rights of city officials and employees related to ICE or other federal immigration enforcement agencies' requests for information or presence on city property. Can ICE be on City Owned Property? ICE can enter publicly accessible areas of businesses without a warrant because these are considered public spaces with no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. However, public employees of local jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, do not need to assist ICE agents in locating individuals and do not need to allow ICE access to nonpublic areas of city property. Local governments do not enforce federal immigration laws but they cannot interfere with federal enforcement in its own enforcement. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 934 (1977); 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Employees, elected officials, and appointed officials may be subject to prosecution by the federal government if they obstruct or interfere with ICE's actions or agents, hide individuals or employees, or assist them in evading the search. Does the City have to help ICE arrest or detain? No, local governments are not obligated to enforce federal immigration laws. If the local government knows that a person previously had been convicted of a felony in the U.S. and, after the conviction, was deported or left the country, then the local government may choose to assist with federal enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252c by arresting and detaining the noncitizen who is in the U.S. unlawfully. Under this statute, the law enforcement officers must confirm the noncitizen's immigration status with federal immigration officials prior to making the arrest and the individual may only be held until federal immigration authorities take them into custody. Does the City have to provide data to ICE? If ICE has requested immigration status, then yes, but only immigration status data is required. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) is the federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with DHS about "information regarding the immigration or citizenship status" of individuals. Section 1373 does not require local or state LA135-3-1072819.v1 agencies, officers, or governments to proactively collect and report data, and, as a result, does not prohibit those local jurisdictions from adopting policy regarding not asking individuals about their immigration status. Additionally, the Minnesota State Driver's License law prohibits the dissemination of information about cardholders and applicants to federal agencies that enforce immigration law, except pursuant to a valid search warrant or court order. Can local jurisdictions, their employees and officials, be prosecuted under federal law for interfering with federal ICE process? Yes, the federal government has cited a number of federal statutes regarding possible prosecution for interfering with ICE. Also worth noting, President Trump has stated local governmental entities considered sanctuary cities, counties or states, will not receive federal funding.' First, committing any assault against a federal officer represents a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 111. A simple assault does not always require physical contact between the perpetrator and the federal agent. This means someone can commit an assault without ever touching the officer. Depending on the circumstances and the severity of the alleged assault, this crime may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, with significant penalties if convicted. This federal law covers different types of offenses, such as simple assault, serious assault without a weapon, and serious assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon. Simple assault involves not only forcibly assaulting, but also resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers in performing their duties. Next, obstructing justice represents a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 or §1501 which generally has been invoked when an individual engages in intentional actions that corruptly interfere with judicial proceedings (§1503) or in the service of a writ, legal process, or warrant (§1501). Violations may result in severe penalties, including a maximum imprisonment of ten years and substantial fines. The prosecution must establish the defendant's intent, which distinguishes criminal behavior from mere negligence. 18 U.S.C. § 372 makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to prevent federal officers from carrying out their duties through "force, intimidation or threats" and 18 U.S.C. § 371 makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. These two statutes represent the authority cited by the federal administration with respect to Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Historically, this statute has been used in cases involving coordinated efforts to obstruct federal authorities, typically involving violence or explicit threats. Public criticism of federal policy is generally considered protected speech unless it involves direct coordination or incitement to impede law enforcement. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 criminalizes the harboring, concealing, or shielding of unauthorized aliens, and penalizes those who encourage unauthorized individuals to enter the United States. Convictions under § 1324 generally involve defendants who provide unauthorized aliens with affirmative assistance. While actions like issuing an official statement in support of immigrants would likely have protections under the First Amendment, the federal government may consider warning Funding Impact 2 LA135-3-1072819.v1 communities about impending ICE raids as harboring or shielding immigrants, which is prohibited under § 1324. What acts constitute interfering? What actions rise to the level of interference remain unclear. Certainly, interfering in a physical way with legal process or law enforcement qualifies. That is true even under state law. Minnesota Statutes, section 609.50, subd. 1(2) prohibits anyone from "obstruct[ing], hinder[ing], or preventing] the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense" or from "obstruct[ing], resist[ing], or interfere[ing] with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties". In reviewing state obstruction cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court deemed that although verbal conduct rarely rises to the level of obstruction, it can if `fighting words' or any other words that by themselves have the effect of physically obstructing or interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties. The federal administration appears to interpret interference more broadly. Not surprisingly, the federal administration views physically blocking, preventing, or hindering an ICE officer from carrying out lawful duties as "a crime," that could lead to prosecution under federal obstruction or assault -on -a -federal -officer statutes. Additionally, the federal government also considers the enactment of certain ordinances or policies as interfering with or hindering its process in immigration enforcement and has brought legal actions against various local jurisdictions for doing so. What other risks exist for cities that adopt ordinances or policies? Loss of federal funding on any number of grants represents one of the biggest risks to cities. The federal government has stated it will not pay out federal funds to any local entity it deems has passed a policy or law that interferes with immigration enforcement. Additionally, the federal government may choose to bring (and has brought) cases against local jurisdictions based on local policies or ordinances that the federal government considers sanctuary policies, arguing that those laws or policies violate the supremacy clause2 and federal law. In some of these cases, the federal government also sued individual elected and appointed officials for obstruction. So far, courts have dismissed those claims against the individuals. Finally, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a memorandum which instructs prosecutors to conduct investigations of "misconduct" of local jurisdictions, including elected and appointed officials of local government, for potential violations of the "Supremacy Clause" and prosecute if necessary. The DOJ argues the Supremacy Clause requires state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch's enforcement initiatives," and that "[f]ederal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration -related commands and requests." Finally, I-9 audits are becoming more common. An I-9 audit constitutes a review conducted by ICE to ensure that an employer is following federal laws requiring verification of the identity and work authorization of individuals hired in the United States. ICE begins the process by serving the employer with a 2 The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution, the federal laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution and treaties represent the supreme law of land. Because of the Supremacy Clause, when state law conflicts with federal law, federal law preempts the state law. 3 LA 135-3-1072819.v 1 written Notice of Inspection, giving the employer three (3) business days to gather and produce I-9 forms and related documents. Cities must comply with these audits. Have other Cities adopted ordinances or other policies that attempt to regulate immigration or ICE activity? Yes, though very few cities have chosen to do so and most of the ordinances or policies adopted merely reflect practices that already fall under the City's authority. This memo provides an overview of the Minneapolis ordinance and brief summaries of ordinances found in other jurisdictions. Minneapolis Ordinances. i. Ordinance generally. Minneapolis' separation ordinance3 is both symbolic and functional. On a symbolic level, it has a broad policy statement, noting its necessity to protect Minneapolis' peace, health, and safety4 and codifying the city's intent to not have city or city staff enforce federal immigration laws. At a functional level, the ordinance only governs what the city has direct authority over (city property and employees) and does not actually limit federal immigration operations within the city. It prevents city employees and contractors from using city property and resources to enforce federal immigration laws and limits public safety officials from enforcing federal immigration laws or verifying immigration status, with certain exceptions. Minneapolis' ordinance also sets up a reporting mechanism to the Minneapolis City Council for certain interactions between public safety officials and federal law enforcement, or in those instances when Minneapolis becomes aware of an ongoing action to enforce federal immigration laws within the city. Finally, the ordinance prevents the use of nonpublic city property as a staging, operations, or processing area for enforcing immigration laws, and defines nonpublic city property as city - owned or controlled property not open to the general public. ii. Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. Minneapolis' separation ordinance currently is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the federal government which alleges that the ordinance improperly conflicts with federal immigration laws.' The federal government has labeled it as a "sanctuary ordinance", and in a recent memo defined "sanctuary jurisdictions" as those jurisdictions that "obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws", "refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1373", or "willfully fail to comply with other applicable federal immigration laws." A memo dated January 21, 2025 directs investigation of incidents of local governments obstructing federal functions, including immigration enforcement actions. The DOJ also has indicated it will impose conditions on funding to limit access to federal grants by cities that do not cooperate or that they consider sanctuary jurisdictions. Similarly, courts have upheld a federal policy of giving 3 Minneapolis first implemented its separation ordinance in 2003. Following recent expansions of federal immigration enforcement activity throughout the United States and in Minnesota, Minneapolis adopted an amendment to that ordinance on Dec. 11, 2025, with Mayor Jacob Frey approving the amendment on Dec. 17, 2025.3 4 Separation Ordinance 19.10. Com 2I 108-14 ,United States v.. Minnesota, No. 0:25-cv-03798, (D.Minn., 2025). 6 Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives, Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388531/d1?inline=&utmmedium=email&uthn_source=govdelivery. 4 LA 135-3-1072819.v 1 extra "points" to grant applications from jurisdictions which cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration. St. Paul Ordinance. St. Paul Ordinance St. Paul is considering amending its ordinance; however, as of now, the ordinance states that the city works cooperatively with all state and federal agencies but does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. i. Ordinance generally. St. Paul's ordinance acknowledges that the Department of Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws in the city and requires the City to avoid enforcing civil immigration laws. The ordinance further provides all residents with equal protection and equal access to city services, without regard to their immigration status under federal law. The ordinance prohibits city officers from stopping, questioning, or detaining individuals solely to determine immigration status and from participating in operations aimed at detecting undocumented individuals unless it is part of a criminal investigation. It allows city officers to assist federal authorities only in criminal investigations, not civil immigration enforcement. Further, officers working for the city must not discriminate based on immigration status or other protected characteristics. Nonpublic safety employees may perform their routine duties (including, but not limited to, verifying I-9 employment eligibility documentation and allowing lawful federal audits of these forms), employees may not (i) inquire about or record a person's immigration status, unless required by law or program guidelines, (ii) request documents solely to verify immigration status, (iii) use immigration information in ways not mandated by law or (iv) maintain immigration data unless legally mandated. The ordinance does note that employees must comply with valid subpoenas —even those involving immigration -related matters. ii. Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. Nothing specific to St. Paul to date. The State of Minnesota, however, is on the sanctuary list published by the Justice Department, which includes certain states, cities and counties the federal government has identified as having policies, laws or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.8 Roseville Ordinance. The City of Roseville has drafted but not yet considered an ordinance which codifies the overview of interaction between federal and state law outlined herein regarding immigration and reflects what Mankato already does in practice. Ordinances of other jurisdictions. i. Washington, District of Columbia. In 2021, the Council of the District of Columbia9 strengthened Washington, D.C.'s status as a sanctuary jurisdiction by limiting the city's cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies other than in very limited situations. The District may not assist federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant or order issued and cannot hold someone past their lawful release time due to an immigration detainer request. The District also cannot provide ICE or other immigration authorities with office space, equipment, or access for general searches or inquiries or allow interviews of individuals in District See City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1174-83 (9°i Cir. 2019). e https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publishes-list-sanctuary jurisdictions 9 D.C. Law 23-282. 5 LA135-3-1072819.v1 custody unless a judicial order authorizes it or the individual requests the interview, and the individual has counsel present (or waive counsel knowingly and voluntarily). Federal immigration authorities also cannot freely access D.C. jails or take custody of individuals there unless the District has a valid judicial warrant to rely on. The law further requires training for District staff on its provisions and mandates annual reporting on immigration -related requests and D.C.'s responses. Federal Government Reaction to Ordinance. The federal administration (i) asserted that D.C.'s sanctuary rules were void once the city was placed under federal control, (ii) publicly named D.C. as a sanctuary jurisdiction subject to funding cuts, and (iii) ordered federal agencies to identify and sanction jurisdictions that have limited cooperation with ICE, including D.C. ii. Lancaster Pennsylvania. (enacted February 2024) Ordinance generally. Lancaster's ordinance requires the city to maintain a minimum three -star rating from Welcoming America, a national organization that evaluates municipalities on policies supporting immigrants and refugees. Like the other two ordinances, it codifies what the city has authority over including requiring provision of city services to all residents regardless of immigration or refugee status; ensuring that city officials treat all individuals equally, without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or English proficiency; and affirming the city's stance that enforcement of civil federal immigration law is solely a federal responsibility, not a municipal one. iii. Cook County, Illinois & Chicago, Illinois. Ordinance generally. Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance ("WCO") prohibits the City and its employees from requesting, maintaining, or sharing "the citizenship or immigration status of any person". The ordinance also prohibits local law enforcement from complying with civil detainers but allows officers to respond to inquiries/requests accompanied by a criminal warrant. Reaction to Chicago's ordinance. In February 2025, the Trump administration sued the state of Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago, alleging that their sanctuary city policies are blocking federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws. It represented the first federal lawsuit the DOJ filed against a state or municipality for sanctuary city policies or ordinances in effect. A judge dismissed that lawsuit in July 2025. Now, the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration, alleging federal agents conducted an illegal "occupation," during which they utilized violent and unlawful tactics in violation of the Tenth Amendment and federal statutes. iv. Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is considering an ordinance limiting the use of county property from being used for uses other than county purposes, including for any civil enforcement staging, processing, or operations, including civil immigration enforcement. City Formed Committees to Advise on Policy. i. Santa Fe, New Mexico Immigration Committee. City of Santa Fe Immigration Committee Sante Fe, New Mexico, a charter city, has a charter provision related to Human Rights, and it recently revived and redefined its city advisory committee called the Immigration Committee (Santa Fe Resolution No. 2025-31). The Santa Fe Immigration Committee has been tasked with 6 LA135-3-1072819.v1 monitoring human rights conditions, informing the Council on possible policy, and promoting inclusive protections for all immigrant residents. The City also has a policy that no municipal resources can be used to identify or apprehend any non -citizen residents on the sole basis of immigration status. ii. New York City Immigration Affairs Office. New York City also has a provision in its Charter that creates a Mayoral Office of Immigration Affairs. The responsibilities of this office include advising and assisting the mayor, council, and other agencies on programs and policies related to and designed for immigrant New Yorkers; tracking state and federal policy and law that will impact immigrant New Yorkers; increasing access to city programs, benefits, and services by conducting outreach; and helping advise on the legal service needs of immigrants. This office further must consult with the community and other stakeholders and coordinate an interagency task force on immigrant affairs, as well as work with the relevant city agencies to address the needs of immigrant crime victims and witnesses, including working with agencies on the issuance of U visa certifications and T visa declarations. Response by federal government to New York City. President Trump has deemed New York City a sanctuary city and has stated the federal administration will withhold funding from sanctuary cities starting February 1, 202610. New York City, in the past, has successfully stopped the federal government from withholding funds. In October, a New York federal judge barred the Federal Emergency Management Agency from withholding $34 million in anti -terrorism grants to New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority after FEMA told Congress it would pull those funds due to sanctuary policies. Executive Orders. Albany, New York. Not a policy, but an executive order. In City of Albany Executive Order 1-17, titled "City of Albany Policy Regarding Community Policing and Protecting Immigrants," the Mayor has prohibited Albany police and all city departments from requesting proof of citizenship or immigration status when providing services. This applies to all residents, including victims, witnesses, or anyone seeking help. Police Department Policies. Roseville Police Department. The City of Roseville, Minnesota, revised Lexipol Policy 420, Automated License Plate Readers to strengthen the language by explicitly say that ALPR data cannot be used or shared for immigration matters or with ICE. The city also reached out to Flock and Axon vendors to verify ICE does not have access to the city's data. The City of Roseville, Minnesota, also made minor revisions to their Lexipol Immigration policy (numbered for them as 413) to further clarify local jurisdictions' limited role. 10 List of cities here: Office of the Attorney General J U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List Following Executive Order 14287: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens. 7 LA 135-3-1072819.v 1 New Orleans Police Department Manual. New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") adopted 41.6.1 to make it clear the department would not hold a detainee without a judicial order or criminal warrant. It prohibits officers from initiating investigations, stops, arrests, or any actions based on immigration status. Officers cannot inquire into a person's immigration status except in narrowly defined exceptions and NOPD shall not engage in, assist, or support immigration enforcement unless there is a direct, articulable threat to life or public safety, or assistance is required to safely execute a criminal warrant or court order by a federal or state judge. Are Cities and States suing the Federal Administration? Yes, cities have started to sue the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and some other federal actors individually. Because cities have just started filing these lawsuits, there is not much information on the success of doing so. Of particular interest, San Diego filed suit against the federal govermnent for trespass, public nuisance, and abuse of authority under the Administrative Procedures Actl l to halt the federal government's construction of razor wire fencing and the storing of materials on City -owned property. The suit is a bit unique as it seeks to protect environmentally sensitive land that is part of the City's Multiple Species Conservation Program and ensure compliance with longstanding agreements to preserve critical habitats.12 Other cities that also have started lawsuits against the administration regarding enforcement efforts include Chicago (along with state of Illinois), Minneapolis, and St. Paul (along with the State of Minnesota). Additionally, twenty-two states, including Minnesota, have started actions against the federal administration about withholding funds and have asked the court to order the administration to halt the freeze and release the funds. In addition to ordinances or policies, what other requests have cities received to regulate or monitor ICE? i. Following and documenting. Some cities have directed its officers to follow ICE and document activity of ICE officers, without interfering. This has not yet been challenged and likely does not subject those individuals to risk of prosecution other than if a situation arises in which the officer makes a judgment call about intervening because of public safety concerns. Having officers tracking and documenting ICE also likely will result in increased overtime to ensure availability of officers to do this and still provide normal coverage for public safety. ii. Reporting out ICE activity on City Website. Cities have received requests to start posting ICE activity on the City website. Federal law sets forth clear criminal penalties for interfering with federal immigration enforcements efforts and for providing false information to ICE. Proactive posting about specific situations could be considered interference. However, to the extent sharing facts on the city website about public safety events represents common practice for the city generally, then doing so likely would not raise as many issues as long as information shared stays strictly factual. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine makes this a bit tricky as it prohibits treating the federal government differently than other individuals or agencies. If allowed, this practice should only provide a brief factual, statement with public information contained in the " The APA provides that federal courts shall "hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right. 12 San Dieeo Comulaint 8 LA135-3-1072819.v1 call for service and the city should also report out on other non -ICE calls for service, when received, in a similar manner. iii. Placing Moratoria on Evictions. Many cities have asked about enacting moratoriums on evictions. A city's enactment of an eviction moratorium on private landlords likely runs afoul of the Contract Clause and potentially the Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. The Contracts Clause forbids state and local government interference with contractual obligations, and evictions represent a term addressed in lease contracts.13 If, however, a city wants to institute an eviction moratorium over housing it owns, the answer likely is yes. Cities, as property owners, have the same rights as private property owners and a private landlord could determine not to evict a tenant. Cities should review any grants which are applicable to the tenant or the housing to ensure no conflicting provisions exist. iv. Prohibiting ICE from using portions of city property. As stated earlier in this memo, the City need not allow ICE to use nonpublic areas of city property. However, if ICE has a judicial warrant, then the City must comply with the judicial warrant. ICE, however, can enter publicly accessible areas of businesses without a warrant, as these areas represent public spaces with no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. v. Responding to I-9 audits. If received, cities must respond to I-9 audits. An I-9 audit is an official inspection by a government agency —most commonly ICE —to determine compliance by an employer with federal employment -eligibility verification requirements. The federal government uses the audit to detect and deter the employment of individuals not authorized to work in the U.S. Other agencies (e.g., the Department of Labor) also often review I-9s when investigating broader workplace issues. The federal agency, in this instance ICE, issues a Notice of Inspection which gives employers at least three (3) business days to produce documents. Employers must provide all current employees' I-9s and payroll records. Cities should work with their city attorney to review the Notices if the Notice requests additional documentation. ICE then reviews the records it receives for missing forms, errors in completion, incomplete or outdated documents and employment of unauthorized workers. vi. Acting on missing license plates. Cities have received reports of ICE and other DHS officers using unmarked vehicles without license plates during immigration enforcement actions across the state. Depending on ownership of the vehicles, this practice may violate state law. 41 CFR 102.34.175 provides a limited exemption of certain vehicles from displaying federal government license plates and Minnesota Statutes, section 168.012 recognizes this exemption by stating "[t]he following vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this chapter requiring payment of tax and registration fees... (1) vehicles owned and used solely in the transaction of official business by the federal government". Specifically, though, these exemptions apply to vehicles that the federal government (i) owns, leases commercially or leases through the General Services Administration Fleet, (ii) which the federal agency regularly uses to perform investigative, law enforcement, or intelligence duties and (iii) for which the agency received an exemption from its 13 See Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4t1 720, 727-32 (8th Cir. 2022). 9 LA135-3-1072819.v1 commissioner.14 For vehicles, other than those for which the federal government holds title, state law applies and license plates must be located on the car for which the plate is registered. The Director of Minnesota's Driver and Vehicle Services already has warned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that switching out or removing license plates on their vehicles violates state law and subjects them to citations.15 However, it is important to reiterate that, as stated above, Minnesota law recognizes an exemption for federal government vehicles. These exemptions make enforcement difficult for local officers. What federal laws is the federal government relying upon? i. Supremacy Clause. In some instances, federal law may override state law when Congress explicitly states preemption in a statute (express preemption). Also, preemption under the Supremacy Clause occurs when federal regulation occupies an entire field so entirely that no room for states or local jurisdictions exist to regulate (commonly called field preemption). ii. 8 U.S.C. 1373. The Federal government also relies upon 8 U.S.C. 1373 to argue express preemption of the relevant sanctuary laws/policies, stating that statute restricts ordinances or policies from prohibiting sharing information with the federal government "regarding" an individual's "citizenship or immigration status". It is important to note that Courts have stated that "regarding" does not encompass providing other pieces of information such as contact information, custody status, and release dates. The federal government disagrees. iii. Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine. The federal government often cites the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, arguing state and local governments cannot discriminate against the federal government. The doctrine of intergovernmental immunity is a constitutional principle limiting the ability of the federal and state governments to interfere with one another's governmental functions. This concept protects the separate sovereignty of both levels of government within the United States federal system. The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment support this proposition. The primary purpose is to prevent one sovereign from imposing taxes or regulations that undermine the other's ability to carry out its essential governmental functions. Courts apply a functional analysis, assessing whether an action unduly interferes with or discriminates against the other government's operations. iv. Sensitive areas. On January 21, 2025, the Trump Administration ended a policy that previously protected sensitive locations from immigration enforcement activity such as schools, hospitals, and churches. This change means that ICE can now conduct arrests in places where vulnerable individuals, including undocumented immigrants, seek essential services. Cities such as New York passed state -level protections like the Protect Our Courts Act to block ICE civil arrests in and around courthouses. 14 In those instances, the head of the agency must deem the exclusive control of the vehicle essential for effective performance of duties and may grant an exemption from licensing. 75 Minn. Stat. 168.36 states "Any person who manufactures, buys, sells, uses or displays motor vehicle license number plates, motor vehicle registration certificates, or tax receipts issued by this state or any other state, territory or district in the United States, without proper authority from such state, territory or district of the United States, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." 10 LA 135-3-1072819.v 1 What are cities' responsive legal arguments? i. Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment makes up part of the Bill of Rights, which outlines the balance of power between the federal government and the states. It states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, belong to the states or the people. The Tenth Amendment intended to protect states from federal overreach and preserve the states' ability to govern local matters such as policing and public safety. Minnesota (and Illinois) in their lawsuits claim that the federal government's intrusion into the state and the unlawful and violent tactics being used, have disrupted the lives and undermined the liberties and property rights of the people, injuring those states' sovereign and proprietary interests. ii. Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedures Act provides that federal courts shall "hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity." (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).) This same act further directs federal courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Cities suing the federal government have included claims in their complaints about violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. The issues covered above intend to provide an understanding of the positions of the federal government as well as those of state and local entities. The situation and legal landscape continue to evolve related to these matters, all within the background of a very fluid political situation. 11 LA135-3-1072819.v1 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Meeting Date January 27, 2026 Agenda Item Performance Evaluation Action Requested Consent ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Discussion ❑ Action ❑ Resolution ❑ Closed Session ❑X DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The Council last evaluated the city administrator's job performance in December 2024. Attached is a copy of the current employment agreement. I think the open discussion evaluation format has worked in the past. I am happy to talk to Councilors in advance of the meeting as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to go into closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, Subd. 3, to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority — the city administrator. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. The meeting will be recorded, and the recording will be preserved for eight years. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into this 9t1' day of January, 2024, by and between the City of Lauderdale, (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Heather Butkowski-Hinriohs, (hereinafter referred to as "Employee"). WITTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City desires to continue Heather Butkowski-Hinrichs' appointment as City Administrator under the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, Heather Butkowski-Hinrichs wishes to continue serving as City Administrator under the terms and conditions set forth herein, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Duties The City hereby agrees to continue employing the Employee as the full-time City Administrator of Lauderdale to perform the functions and duties of City Administrator as specified in the job description and to perform such other legally permissible and proper functions and duties as the City Council from time to time shall assign. Section 2. Term Employee will serve as the City Administrator effective immediately for an indefinite term. Employee will serve at the will of the Council and may be terminated with or without cause at any time. Employee may resign from her position at any time by providing at least 30 days advance written notice to the City Council unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The position is classified as exempt pursuant to state and federal fair labor laws. The Council shall conduct an annual performance review of Employee. Section 3. Termination and Severance Pay If the City terminates Employee when she is willing and able to perform the duties of the City Administrator, then the City will pay her at the time of receipt of last pay check a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6) months aggregate salary and all accrued but unused vacation and sick time off at her current hourly rate. The City will also continue to provide and pay for the benefits set forth in Section 8 for a period of six (6) months following termination. If Employee is terminated because of malfeasance in office, gross misconduct, conviction for a felony, conviction for an illegal act involving personal gain, or gross inefficiency or incompetence in office that she has failed to correct after reasonable written notice from the City, then the City shall have no obligation to pay the termination benefits referenced herein. If the City reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than an across-the-board reduction for all non -union employees, or if the City refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provisions of this Agreement benefiting Employee, or she resigns following a formal suggestion by the City to resign, then Employee may, at her option, be deemed to be "terminated" on the effective date of her resignation and she shall be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth above. If Employee voluntarily resigns from her position, she shall not receive the termination benefits set forth above, except for a lump sum payment for all accrued but unused vacation and sick time, Section 4. Compensation Beginning March 1, 2023, the Employee's compensation will be as per the attached spreadsheet. The adjustment for the position is based on the recently completed class and compensation study. Annual pay increases thereafter will be at the same rate afforded other staff or otherwise set by the City Council. Additionally, the City Council shall conduct a performance review of the Employee before November 30 each year. The City Council may consider a merit increase based on the Employee's overall performance. Section S. Dues, Subscriptions, and Registration Expenses The City agrees to budget for and to pay the professional dues and subscriptions of the Employee necessary for her full participation in associations and organizations necessary and desirable for her continued professional growth and development. Such memberships include, but are not limited to the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA), Minnesota City/County Managers Association (MCMA), and Metropolitan Administrator and Managers Association (MAMA). The City agrees to budget for and pay for the Employee's attendance at the annual ICMA Conference once every three years if it is the desire of the Employee to attend the conference. Section 6. Mileage and Subsistence The City recognizes the Employee is required to attend meetings in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in her official capacity and agrees to reimburse the Employee for mileage and reasonable subsistence expenses within the guidelines established by the City Council. Section 7. Vacation and Sick Leave The Employee shall continue to earn vacation and sick leave at the current level and shall advance in accrual rates based on City policy. Section 8. Insurance and Other Terms and Conditions of Employment A. The City will pay the cost of hospital, medical, and life insurance for the Employee in the same amount it pays for other union and non -union City employees. B. All provisions of City Ordinances, personnel policies, and regulations relating to vacation and sick leave; retirement and pension system contributions; holidays; and other fringe benefits and working conditions shall apply to Employee as they would to other employees of the City except as provided herein. C. Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement to the contrary, the City Council may fix, from time to time, such terms of employment regarding the Employee, provided such terms are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this agreement, any other law, or ethics requirements established by the International City/County Management Association. D. The employment provided by this Agreement shall be for the Employee's sole employment. Recognizing that certain outside consulting or teaching opportunities provide indirect benefits to the Employee and the City, the Employee may accept teaching, consulting, or other business opportunities with the understanding that such arrangements shall not constitute interference with or a conflict of interest with her responsibilities under this agreement or present a potential violation of the ICMA Code of Ethics. Section 9. Indemnification The City shall defend and indemnify Employee pursuant to Minn. Stat. 466.07 and 465.76. In addition, the City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Employee from all torts, civil damages, penalties, and fines, and violations of statutes, laws, rules and ordinances, provided that Employee was acting in the performance of her duties as the City Administrator at the time of the alleged tort or violation. Section 10. Complete Agreement This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede any prior agreements, understandings, or undertakings between them. This Agreement may only be modified by written agreement signed by both parties and approved by the City Council. Section 11. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City. Section 12. Binding This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, and administrators of Employee's estate. Section 13. Severability The parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement are reasonable and not known to violate any federal, state, or local law or regulation. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision herein to be illegal or unenforceable, such court may modify that provision to make it valid and enforceable. The declaration of a provision as unenforceable shall not invalidate any other provision of this Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have signed and executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, on the day and year first above written. The City of Lauderdale 1° \' Mary Gch, Mayor or Heather Butkowski-Himichs Employee JOB TITLE Maintenance Worker - New (FT) (Future Public Works I) Proposed 2023 Wage Schedule 3% increase (FT based on 2,080 hours) STEP 5 STEP 4 STEP 3 STEP 2 STEP 1 71,481,65 $ 67,928.96 $ 64,320.58 $ 60,805.99 $ 57,159.23 5,956.80 $ 5,660.75 $ 5,360.05 $ 5,067.17 $ 4,763.27 34.37 $ 32.66 $ 30.92 $ 29.23 $ 27.48 Maintenance Worker - Utility License (FT) (Future Public Works II) Public Works Coordinator (FT) Deputy Clerk (FT with Market Adjustment) Asst to the City Administrator (FT with Market Adjustment) City Administrator (FT - Exempt) JOB TITLE Maintenance Worker - New (FT) (Future Public Works I) $ $ $ $ 76,290,29 $ $ 6,357.52 $ $ 36.68 $ $ 80,778.08 $ $ 6,731.51 $ $ 38.84 $ $ 73,548.55 $ $ 6,129.05 $ $ 35.36 $ $ 81,617.00 $ $ 6,801.42 $ $ 39.24 $ $ 127,474.52 $ $ 10,622.88 $ $ 61.29 $ 72,484.84 6,040.40 34.85 76,748.77 6,395.73 36.90 69,893.14 5,824,43 33.60 77,549,53 6,462.46 37.28 $ 68,640.95 $ 5,720.08 $ 33.00 $ 72,678.76 $ 6,056.56 $ 34.94 $ 66,180.42 $ 5,515.03 $ 31,82 $ 73,450.97 $ 6,120.91 $ 35.31 121,404.30 $ 115,623.14 10,117.03 $ 9,635.26 58.37 $ 55.59 $ 64,835.13 $ 5,402.93 $ 31.17 $ 68,649.06 $ 5,720.76 $ 33.00 $ 62,564.21 $ 5,213.68 $ 30.08 $ 69,371.90 $ 5,780.99 $ 33.35 $ 110,117.28 $ 9,176.44 $ 52.94 61,015.55 5,084.63 29.33 64,604.80 5,383.73 31.06 58,812.00 4,901.00 28.28 65,291,20 5,440.93 31,39 $ 104,873.60 $ 8,739.47 $ 50.42 Proposed 2024 Wage Schedule 3% increase (FT based on 2,080 hours) STEP 5 STEP 4 STEP 3 STEP 2 STEP 1 Maintenance Worker - Utility License (FT) (Future Public Works II) Public Works Coordinator (FT) Deputy Clerk (FT) Asst to the City Administrator (FT) City Administrator (FT - Exempt) 73,626.10 $ 6,135.51 $ 35.40 $ 78,579.00 $ 6,548.25 $ 37.78 $ 83,201.42 $ 6,933.45 $ 40.00 $ 75,755.01 $ 6,312.92 $ 36.42 $ 84,065.51 $ 7,005.46 $ 40.42 $ 137,863.69 $ 11,488.64 $ 66.28 $ 69,966.83 $ 66,250.19 $ 62,630.17 $ 58,874.01 5,830.57 $ 5,520,85 $ 5,219.18 $ 4,906.17 33.64 $ 31.85 $ 30.11 $ 28.30 74,659.39 6,221,62 35.89 79,051.23 6,587.60 38.01 71,989.93 5,999.16 34.61 79,876,02 6,656.33 38.40 134,689.88 11,224.16 64.75 70,700.18 5,891,68 33.99 74,859,12 6,238.26 35.99 68,165.83 5,680.49 32.77 75,654,50 6,304.54 36.37 $ 127,595.56 $ 10,632.96 $ 61.34 66,780.18 5,565.01 32.11 70,708.53 5,892.38 33,99 64,441.13 5,370.09 30.98 71,453.06 5,954.42 34.35 $ 120,509.60 $ 10,042.47 $ 57.94 62,846.02 5,237.17 30.21 66,542,94 5,545.25 31.99 60,576.36 5,048.03 29.12 67,249.94 5,604.16 32.33 $ 113,420.80 $ 9,451,73 $ 54.53 JOB TITLE Maintenance Worker - New (FT) (Future Public Works I) Proposed 2025 Wage Schedule 3% increase (FT based on 2,080 hours) STEP 5 STEP 4 STEP 3 STEP 2 STEP 1 $ 75,834,88 $ 72,065.84 $ 68,237.70 $ 64,509.08 $ 60,640.23 $ 6,319.57 $ 6,005.49 $ 5,686.48 $ 5,375.76 $ 5,053.35 $ 36.46 $ 34.65 $ 32.81 $ 31,01 $ 29.15 Maintenance Worker - Utility License (FT) (Future Public Works II) Public Works Coordinator (FT) Deputy Clerk (FT) Asst to the City Administrator (FT) City Administrator (FT - Exempt) 80,936.37 $ 6,744.70 $ 38.91 $ 85,697.47 $ 7,141.46 $ 41.20 $ 78,027.66 $ 6,502.30 $ 37.51 $ 86,587.48 $ 7,215.62 $ 41.63 $ 141,999.60 $ 11,833.30 $ 68.27 $ 76,899.17 6,408,26 36.97 81,422.77 6,785.23 39.15 74,149.63 6,179.14 35.65 82,272.30 6,856.02 39.55 72,821.18 6,068.43 35.01 77,104.90 6,425.41 37,07 70, 210.80 5,850.90 33.76 77,924,13 6,493.68 37.46 68,783.58 $ 64,731.40 5,731.97 $ 5,394.28 33.07 $ 31.12 72,829.79 $ 68,539.23 6,069,15 $ 5,711.60 35.01 $ 32.95 66,374,37 $ 62,393.65 5,531.20 $ 5,199.47 31.91 $ 30.00 73,596,65 $ 69,267,43 6,133.05 $ 5,772.29 35.38 $ 33.30 138,730.57 $ 131,423.43 $ 124,124.89 $ 116,823.42 11,560.88 $ 10,951.95 $ 10,343,74 $ 9,735.29 66.70 $ 63.18 $ 59.68 $ 56.17