[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6474853,"mediaKeyId","5739177-19baf1af92880552c0bbc9b534e0a7a8","parentId",5739177,"title","Minot Council debates 2026 budget guidance: vehicle reserve, vacancy policy, recycling and consultant reviews","audioSeconds",378,"startMs",391000,"endMs",12419,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5739177-19baf1af92880552c0bbc9b534e0a7a8&start=391&end=12","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5739177-19baf1af92880552c0bbc9b534e0a7a8/thumbnail_391000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6474853/Minot/Ward-County/North-Dakota/Minot-Council-debates-2026-budget-guidance-vehicle-reserve-vacancy-policy-recycling-and-consultant-reviews","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474853-386568f328dad7b3a7591ab9674a56eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775198185&Signature=ISdG5uHu7GsUtOKUyngr8tunn3~4Grs6lTcpZ8aRV1JLeoOZ8CRwSXeRQbUsCjqEE3RU79T5gCkPN58qhTzoYOs4YgkFBGwS5MWFdchEdQWcYK4mvYJe3fQbMzrkNRkdWG~wgdWBLD0TK-nPQa6XsJeBCbhCEpFBeqGlS4e9IfWQgTs43wCm6zFqy8Oz8RyDkGR8Q~sfY8kPPyZPoK9f-E1d7ak3mFWO96IJcJt7tym6Mz3z5l6dLQ3t-yeJwwoa1R8hfal1jdpmHpZGZhgBO5DLfw-pH0JXfYaeSq8DkHMlCy27xBD6Di6IV8PZNcCG51OCqGaqnbgH~6Hk6Za6Hw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Minot, ND","date","2025-09-09T17:56:35Z","article","The Minot City Council spent most of its Sept. 9 special meeting on guidance for the 2026 budget, debating several policy choices that could shift millions of dollars in property-tax-funded spending.

Council members and staff focused on four consequential topics: the proposed Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund (VERF), a proposal to move open positions into the city manager’s budget and apply a vacancy factor, a review of consultants and other professional services for potential cuts, and a motion to remove the city’s recycling mandate (the recycling motion was tabled by the council). Members also discussed street maintenance funding levels, a sales‑tax penny allocation proposal, and a late motion to restore a part‑time library position.

City Finance Director Dave briefed the council on levy arithmetic and three possible starting points: keeping the levy at the 2025 level, adopting a 3% plus growth increase, or implementing items from the president’s message. Dave explained a technical point about the 3% limit: the cap applies to dollars, not mill rate, so the mill rate can move differently from a nominal 3% public expectation. He presented dollar figures for each approach and said that returning the levy to the 2025 amount would require roughly $2.2 million in cuts from the president’s recommendations.

VERF: scope and debate
Brian, who led the VERF briefing, told council the vehicle and equipment inventory shows a 2026 replacement need “trending towards about $6,100,000” if the city fully funds the multi‑year replacement plan. Proponents described VERF as a way to “level load” large, lumpy costs (fire apparatus, heavy equipment) so replacements do not create spikes in single years; opponents said starting the VERF now raises near‑term property‑tax costs and asked for a department-level list of items that would need to be added back to the budget if the fund were cut.

Alderman Fuller moved to cut the VERF contributions for 2026 and delay funding; several council members asked staff to model what would be required to buy critical items (for example, police vehicles) if the VERF line were reduced. Staff said the proposal on the table would reduce about $2.3 million in the VERF line but noted that roughly half of that is paid from enterprise funds rather than property tax. The transcript records extensive debate and requests for data but does not record a final roll‑call result for that cut motion.

Vacancy management
A separate budget motion from Alderman Lehi (later revised) proposed moving open positions into the city manager’s budget and applying a vacancy factor (a suggested 60% funding factor was discussed). Council members and staff supported gathering historical vacancy data and modeling a department‑by‑department factor rather than immediately shifting all positions centrally. The motion was modified on the floor and seconded; the council directed staff to bring back a proposal for how to implement a vacancy‑based budgeting approach before finalizing the 2026 budget.

Consultants and professional services
Alderman Fuller moved that staff review consultant and “other professional services” line items for possible reductions and return with options showing the operational impact of any cuts. Staff pointed to big tickets already in the consultant lines — software/ERP modules, CityWorks asset‑management upgrades, ADA services and contracts such as parking management — and noted contractual or timing constraints. Council asked departments to identify what would not be done if a particular consultant line were reduced. The council gave staff direction to examine the consultant and OPS budgets and return with a list of impacts and possible savings; the transcript records the instruction to staff but does not capture a final dollar vote on cuts.

Recycling mandate
Alderman Lehi moved to remove the city’s recycling mandate and asked staff to return a proposal showing fee and participation impacts. Staff and council discussed operational complications (route changes, seasonal opt-outs, the difficulty of managing drop‑off sites and contamination). Several council members requested a public hearing and more modeling; after discussion the council voted to table the motion to remove the mandate so staff could return options with financial and operational detail.

Other budget items and motions
- Street maintenance: Alderman Blessum moved to reduce the proposed street maintenance program to $10 million (from about $11 million). Staff described tradeoffs (system pavement condition index targets, reconstruction vs. maintenance) and noted potential backlog impacts; the transcript records discussion but does not record a final recorded vote on the motion.
- Sales‑tax penny allocation: Alderman Blessum proposed revising the city’s penny allocation to direct 50% to flood control, 25% to infrastructure improvements and 25% to property‑tax relief (replacing a prior 15% economic‑development allocation). Council members asked for public input; the council discussed that the penny allocation has been altered in the past and that a public hearing would be appropriate before a long‑term change. The proposal remained under consideration in the transcript and was not adopted on the record that night.
- Library part‑time position: After budget discussion, Alderman Fuller moved and Alderman Samuelson seconded restoring a $20,000 part‑time children’s services position in the library budget; the council voted and the motion carried.

Next steps
City staff said they will update budget worksheets to reflect the changes and directions given by council and return with modeled options before the Oct. 6 second reading of the budget. Council members repeatedly asked staff for department‑by‑department impacts (what exactly would be restored or cut under alternate levy scenarios) and for clearer modeling of the VERF, vacancy factor and recycling opt‑out scenarios.

What the transcript does not show
The public‑comment portions of the meeting and any written analysis staff prepares after the session will be important to finalize decisions. The transcript records several motions and clear direction to staff, but in multiple cases (notably the VERF and several budget‑level dollar tradeoffs) the transcript does not record final roll‑call tallies on motions; the council planned to receive staff follow‑up before final votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special City Council Meeting 9/9/25 at 1:00 p.m.","oneSentenceSummary","The Minot City Council spent its Sept. 9 special meeting debating key elements of its 2026 budget — including a contested vehicle and equipment reserve, a proposed vacancy‑based budgeting change, consultant and professional services spending and the fate of the city’s recycling mandate.","taxTitle","Minot, Ward County, North Dakota","taxId",55035,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6474857,"Minot City Council approves $1.25 million flood buyout for 420 15th Street SE",143,266000,409000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5739177-19baf1af92880552c0bbc9b534e0a7a8&start=266&end=409","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5739177-19baf1af92880552c0bbc9b534e0a7a8/thumbnail_266000.jpg","/articles/6474857/Minot/Ward-County/North-Dakota/Minot-City-Council-approves-125-million-flood-buyout-for-420-15th-Street-SE","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474857-ff3ed64f5d66d89122174ad027670c08/orig.mp4?Expires=1775198185&Signature=EAvjVH27QCyQ6np0pYFQbiDA~792~RoaVSddgfmJ9Bu86CkPMN530yU2FbzV9RjEgysC9nW5RItY8kuMVJ3l6Ir7r6Y7SCTUboicSmtxgNE7CZHAUgDgDqoJPViLfEw19nPwwXfwKTjnUAoKyJC4zWk5UOggh6FL5J~K0I~wJriyvP28R8OLeoQdJcdTznY4gYucBWY10d~ZAIczNFYsO0Ci8xMIdyqMabP5Rcd2atksfaFFLeDDxwBhciEwccbRzNK57mZqpz3UAxQDXC7gQR9NMgQ3f0PpuLW6UZ7SUpaKzzEs5VzreBLXvXZI6DvoZGLyDXs1JKX0DS8IudxdRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Minot City Council voted unanimously Sept. 9 to concur with a $1,250,000 purchase price for a flood buyout at 420 15th Street Southeast.

City Finance Director Dave said the amount was the seller’s “final and best offer,” and that the buyer requested a closing by Sept. 16, prompting staff to fast-track the transaction for council approval.

The buyout was presented as item 3.1 on the special meeting agenda. The council’s roll call and pledge preceded the item; the finance director explained the pricing and timeline before a motion was made and seconded. The council then voted; the minutes record that “The motion passed unanimously.”

Council members who spoke during the brief discussion praised staff work arranging the transaction. The council indicated the buyout is being processed quickly to meet the buyer’s requested timeline; staff said a second property buyout would be handled separately.

The city did not specify in the meeting record which funding source is being used for this purchase, nor did the council provide additional details about the property’s parcel number, the seller’s identity, or the timeline for demolition or land reuse. Those details were not stated during the recorded discussion and are therefore listed as not specified in the meeting record.

City staff said they will return with any follow-up items as needed for implementation.","The Minot City Council unanimously agreed Sept. 9 to concur with a purchase price of $1,250,000 for a flood buyout at 420 15th Street SE, with staff indicating the buyer requested a fast closing date.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Minot Council debates 2026 budget guidance: vehicle reserve, vacancy policy, recycling and consultant reviews

Minot City Council approves $1.25 million flood buyout for 420 15th Street SE