[0:10] All right, with that being said, I'll call to order the September 8th common

[0:16] council meeting. Um, it is 700 p.m. and the agendas were appropriately noticed.

[0:22] Item one on the agenda this evening is the roll call. I will ask our city clerk

[0:27] Joanne Maron to call the role. >> Mayor Kim Smith

[0:32] » here. >> Alder person Tom Smith

[0:35] » here. >> Alder person Jim Bash

[0:37] » here. >> Alder person Kathy Lowendorf

[0:41] » here. >> Alder person James Voychick

[0:44] » here. >> Alder person Steven not

[0:46] » here. >> Okay. So we are all in attendance. And

[0:51] just for a little helpful information, if you have your mic on, you should be

[0:56] speaking. When you're not speaking, turn it off and then the audio will come out

[1:00] of the speaker in front of you and aid in clear hearing of what's going on. Um,

[1:05] item number two is the pledge of allegiance.

[1:32] Thank you for that. Item three is the rules of the city of an Alaska common

[1:36] council and its subcommittees. This is a harassment-free forum. The city council

[1:41] and subcommittee meetings shall be conducted in a courteous manner.

[1:45] Citizens, council, and committee members shall be allowed to state their

[1:49] positions in an atmosphere free of slander, obscene remarks, or threats of

[1:54] violence. Sufficient warnings may be given by the sergeant at arms or the

[1:58] chair at any time during the remarks. And in the event that any individual

[2:02] shall violate the rules of decorum as set forth, such person may then be cut

[2:08] off from comment or debate. Item number four is public input. Those

[2:15] members of the public who wish to speak today have provided us notice and I'll

[2:20] call on you in just a moment. Each person will be given three minutes to

[2:25] speak. The first person is Jeff Falmei. You'll have to help me with the

[2:31] pronunciation. Um Jeff, please come forward.

[2:39] And then make sure that microphone is red.

[2:47] Okay.

[3:01] » My name is Jeff Bowing. I've been with St. Pats for quite a few years and I've

[3:07] uh done traffic control there for funerals. I asked a funeral home

[3:13] director to come tonight, but he uh couldn't make it because he has the

[3:19] service going on tonight. So, all I'm basically asking is to be reinstated

[3:26] to direct traffic at 11th in Maine for St. pass for

[3:32] funerals going to and from to the cemeteries once they leave the church by

[3:41] uh with that being stated, I have done it in the past and I was given the uh

[3:48] permission by the uh current police chiefs uh that we had years ago now is

[3:57] retired or so on moved on and they took the responsibility away from me. And so

[4:05] I'm here tonight again. I was here before asking for it and I'm here again

[4:10] tonight. By that being said, I'm I want to

[4:14] protect the families going to the cemetery,

[4:19] not happen to have the burden of an accident. And while I was doing the

[4:25] control, we didn't have any. And I did watch out

[4:30] the window a couple times and it was close calls. So I'm asking again to be

[4:37] reinstated. Thank you. >> Thank you for sir for your input. This

[4:42] will be discussed under agenda item 11D later in our agenda this evening. Okay.

[4:49] Our second speaker today is Eugene Van Ruden.

[4:54] um he does not wish to speak, but he does want people to know that he is in

[4:58] support of the ATV UTV survey results and if someone has a question, he's

[5:04] available to answer questions.

[5:09] That's everything I have for public input. So, we'll continue on to the

[5:13] report from the mayor. Um item A is Miss Wisconsin Jardine Butler Day

[5:18] proclamation. You'll find in your packet that proclamation. It was presented um

[5:23] to Jardine at her sendoff meeting and she is an an Alaska native currently

[5:28] serving as Miss Wisconsin. So congratulations to Jordine. Item number

[5:32] two, oath of office and recognition of fire chief Jeremy Southworth. It's my

[5:38] pleasure to introduce him and we'll do

[5:43] we'll do a swearing in for him. Um and we're really happy to welcome him as our

[5:49] current fire chief. Once again,

[5:59] » raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I, Jeremy Southworth

[6:02] » I, Jeremy Southworth, >> having been appointed to

[6:05] » having been appointed to >> the office of fire chief

[6:07] » the office of fire chief >> for the city of an Alaska

[6:09] » for the city of an Alaska >> swear that I will support

[6:12] » swear that I will support >> the Constitution of the United States

[6:15] » the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of

[6:18] Wisconsin >> and the Constitution of the State of

[6:20] Wisconsin >> and will faithfully and impartially

[6:22] » and will faithfully and impartially >> discharge the duties

[6:25] » discharge the duties >> of set office

[6:27] » of set office >> to the best of my abilities

[6:28] » to the best of my abilities. >> So help me God. So help me God.

[6:31] » Congratulations.

[6:58] Congratulations, Chief. Item number C is the oath of office and

[7:04] recognition of the assistant police chief Shawn Kan. Sean

[7:37] It's nice to have a full house. Okay, if someone can find Sean, we'll

[7:43] get him up here. >> All right, he's got to make his way

[7:47] through the crowd.

[8:00] Thank you, Sean.

[8:10] Okay, just pause a minute until everyone gets settled. If people are taking

[8:14] pictures, you can feel free to move to a different spot.

[8:18] Make sure you get a good picture.

[8:23] » Raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I, Sean Kan

[8:26] » I, Sean Kan, >> having been appointed to

[8:28] » having been appointed to >> the office of assistant chief of police

[8:31] » the office of assistant chief of police >> for the city of an Alaska

[8:34] » for the city of an Alaska >> swear that I will support

[8:37] » swear that I will support >> the constitution of the United States

[8:40] » the constitution of the United States >> and the constitution of the state of

[8:43] Wisconsin >> and the constitution of the state of

[8:45] Wisconsin >> and will faithfully and impartially

[8:47] » and will faithfully and impartially >> discharge the duties

[8:50] » discharge the duties >> of set office

[8:52] » of set office >> to the best of my ability

[8:54] » to the best of my ability. >> So help me God.

[8:56] » So help me God. >> Congratulations

[9:23] Congratulations.

[9:36] Congratulations, Assistant Chief.

[9:42] I'm just going to pause a minute here.

[10:29] And that's why I like to do the public swearing ins.

[10:32] Okay, we'll move on to the agenda. Um on item we're up to 5D, appointment of the

[10:39] third district alder person. Um uh interviews were held earlier this

[10:44] evening um of the candidates who had put their names in to be included. Um this

[10:51] appointment will be effective on 9926 and it is to fill the vacancy created by

[10:56] the resignation of Larry Jurassic for the term ending on April 19th of 2027.

[11:03] So, at this time, I would like to name Kristen Odigard as my appointment to the

[11:09] third district and turn that matter over to the common council this evening.

[11:20] » So, someone would have to make a motion and second it.

[11:26] I will move to approve Kristen Odigard as the replacement for Larry Jurassic in

[11:32] the third district of an Alaska. >> I'll second.

[11:36] » Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Steven not. It's been seconded by Kathy

[11:41] Lowendorf um to um endorse the appointment of Kristen Oldard. Now under

[11:47] discussion, would anyone like to comment?

[11:52] Uh Stephen. >> Yeah. Just want to thank all of the uh

[11:56] individuals who came up and threw their their hat in the ring on that one.

[12:01] » Again, I keep turning on. I keep getting

[12:05] » Oh, [gasps]

[12:08] um I'd like to thank everybody who did throw their hat in the ring and come

[12:11] forward on that. Um it takes a lot of courage um to be able to come up in

[12:17] front of everybody at this raised DS and go through a basically a job interview

[12:22] or its equivalent. So, I really appreciate everybody doing that.

[12:27] » Thank you for those comments, Stephen. Anyone else have a comment?

[12:32] I will add that I was very impressed with all the candidates. I think any of

[12:36] them would be a great um a great um person to step into the vacancy. Um,

[12:43] some of the things that drew me to Kristen is that I guess the main

[12:48] probably the main thing is that she's already involved on several local

[12:52] committees. So, she's a person that is understands um how our local government

[12:57] is working, how the committees work, what committees there are. Um, and will

[13:01] be able to, I think, quickly with her work with the long range planning

[13:05] committee, she has a good idea of the vision that's been established by her

[13:10] predecessors. and I think she'll be able to just step right into the role and

[13:15] succeed um quickly for as for the other candidates with Kristen's appointment

[13:20] that will vacate um several positions that she was filling and so I'll be

[13:25] looking to those candidates um and reaching out within the next few weeks

[13:29] um to bring forward some appointments to the following to our following meeting.

[13:34] Okay, any other discussion? Okay, motion on the floor is to approve Kristen

[13:38] Odigard. All those in favor, please say I.

[13:41] » I. >> I.

[13:42] » Any >> I.

[13:43] » Any oppose say no. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you

[13:48] and congratulation Kristen. Okay. Item E is appointment of the newly appointed

[13:54] third district alderperson to the following standing standing committees,

[13:58] boards, commissions, and other committees. Um those that were vacated

[14:02] by Alder Jurassic are the ones that we'll be asking Kristen to fill. They

[14:06] include the board of public works and utilities, the public transit committee,

[14:11] and the long range planning committee. So, I would like to entertain a motion

[14:14] to appoint her to those three committees.

[14:18] » So moved. I'll second. >> Motion by Steven KN, seconded by Tom

[14:22] Smith. Is there any further discussion on this item?

[14:27] All those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[14:31] » Any oppose say no. >> That motion also carries unanimously.

[14:35] Thank you. Next up on the agenda is recommendation

[14:40] for approval and or possible action from the following committees, commissions,

[14:44] boards, and officials. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered

[14:48] routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate

[14:53] discussion on any of these items unless a council member requests removal, in

[14:57] which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered

[15:01] in the order of business on the non-consent agenda.

[15:05] Are there any items the counselors would like removed from the consent agenda?

[15:13] If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[15:17] » I move to approve the consent agenda. >> I second.

[15:21] » Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Tom Smith or excuse me, motion by Steven

[15:25] not seconded by Tom Smith to approve the consent agenda. There is no discussion

[15:31] on this item. So please answer when your name is called.

[15:36] » Steven not >> I.

[15:38] » James Vchick >> I.

[15:40] » Jim Bash >> I.

[15:42] » Tom Smith >> I.

[15:43] » Kathy Lowendorf. >> I.

[15:45] » All persons voted in favor. The consent agenda is now approved.

[15:54] Moving on to the non-consent agenda. Item seven is a recap of items pulled

[15:59] from the consent agenda. There were none. Item eight is the finance

[16:04] committee. I'll turn it over to our chair um to report on that item. Tom.

[16:09] » Uh thank you. Uh the following list of monies were expended since the last

[16:13] common council meeting on dated August 11th, 2026 7,527,718.71.

[16:24] I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

[16:30] » We have a motion on the floor by Tom Smith. It's been seconded by Stephen Kn

[16:34] to approve the vouchers. Um, under this item for discussion, Sabrina Steiger,

[16:40] our finance director, um, would like to add some commentary. Sabrina,

[16:44] » thank you. Um part of the vouchers this month is $4,697,975

[16:52] towards our bond payments for um they're due October 1st. So that's why it's such

[16:58] a large dollar figure this month. Usually we're closer to 3 to four

[17:01] million. Um but that is the reason for the larger number this month. Thank you

[17:06] for that. Any other questions or comments regarding the vouchers?

[17:12] Okay. The motion on the floor is to approve. All those in favor, please say

[17:16] I. >> I.

[17:18] » I. >> Any oppose say no. Motion carries

[17:22] unanimously. Thank you. Item number nine is an older person report from Alder

[17:28] Lowendorf. I'll turn the floor over to you, Alder. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I

[17:32] won't be long. I just wanted to share that on uh August 28th, I had the

[17:36] opportunity to ride along with Officer Dimmitri Phillips for a few hours. Um,

[17:40] we responded to a few calls and I was able to briefly see how our police

[17:44] department reacts with the interacts with the the public. [snorts] Um, I

[17:50] appreciated Officer Phillip's calm demeanor and approach towards situations

[17:53] that we that we dealt with. Uh, and I encourage my fel fellow alders to set up

[17:58] a time to to ride along with a police officer if they get a chance to as well.

[18:04] » Thank you for that. Item number 10 is the city attorney report. Amanda

[18:10] Jackson, give me just one second to pass out some stuff.

[18:23] Normally we'll be able to show these things up on the screen. Um, next time.

[18:51] Okay. As the city is sort of just evaluating different ways that we can

[18:57] look at cost savings, um, one of the things that I wanted to

[19:01] talk about is our general liability coverage. Um, so the city has kind of a

[19:06] variety of different insurance coverages. General liability

[19:10] um, covers property damage, um, general just

[19:17] general kind of liability type stuff. So like think of you know like claims

[19:21] against the city of sort of a general nature. So this would not include like

[19:25] employment issues or workers comp. I mean it doesn't include damage to city

[19:30] vehicles but it would include damage if we struck another vehicle. So that would

[19:35] fall under general liability. Um bodily injury um is another one covered

[19:42] by general liability. And so what I'm going to walk through is if you

[19:48] look at the first page that you got, that is our claims history. And I went

[19:53] back I actually tried to go back 30 years. It gets a little bit murky in

[19:57] recordkeeping past 2000. And so we're going to really focus on 2000 to 2026.

[20:02] So about 26 years of claims history. Um we have

[20:08] high five over 26 years only had eight claims. um you will see nine on there.

[20:14] One is um two claims, one incident. So, uh that's actually really really

[20:20] amazing. Um and we should be proud of that that we we are very good at at

[20:24] minimizing risk here in the city. Um and so if you look across the entire 26

[20:32] years, that's one claim about every 3.25 years. If you looked at just the last um

[20:39] let's say from like 2015 on, we've only actually had one claim on average of

[20:43] every eight years. So we have had very few claims actually um in fact only two

[20:49] since 2010 to 2016. So you will see that these are all claims that are above our

[20:56] self-insured retention. So self-insured retentions are sort of like deductibles.

[21:00] So that would be anything above what the city would cover. So, we cover the first

[21:05] $17,500 um of any major claim. And so, these

[21:10] claims would be all of those that would hit that self-insured retention dollar

[21:14] amount. And so, what I want to walk you through

[21:18] is as we're looking at premium renewals for 2027,

[21:22] um we probably have the capacity, should we choose, to take on some more risk.

[21:27] And so, I tried to kind of break that down for you. So, if you look at um that

[21:34] second page, I'm going to kind of walk you through that. So, right now, as I

[21:38] mentioned, we have a self-insured retention of $17,500.

[21:43] So, for every claim on that first page, we paid the first $17,500, which means

[21:49] our total dollar amount spent across all those claims was $157,500.

[21:57] So, what I am looking at is what would it look like if we were to have a higher

[22:02] self-insured retention and a lower premium over the same time period. So,

[22:07] our self-insured retention options above 175 are 25,000, 375, 50,000 or 75,000.

[22:19] And so if we were at a $25,000 self-insured

[22:25] retention, those same claims would have cost the city $26,827

[22:32] and change. So that is a difference of about 50,000.

[22:36] Our premium savings over those 24 years would have been $75,888.

[22:44] So the city's net savings across again we are talking 24 years this is a long

[22:49] game not a short game would have been 26,560.

[22:55] If we go up to 37,500 those claim costs would have gone up to

[23:00] $249,11

[23:04] and change. That would have been an additional 91,000 we would have paid,

[23:09] but our savings over that same time period in premiums would have been

[23:14] almost 160,000. So net savings would have been about

[23:18] 67,000. If we took on even more risk at 50,000

[23:23] self-insured retention, those same claims would have cost the city $261,61

[23:29] and change, which is an extra 104,000 for a premium savings over 24 years of

[23:36] $225,480,

[23:40] which would be a savings again, that savings over 24 years of $121,378.

[23:49] If we went to the and this is not the highest, this is the highest they quoted

[23:53] us. I mean, when we were talking big municipalities, like I'm pretty sure

[23:56] Madison's or not Madison's like Green Bay's self-insured retention is like

[24:00] 150,000. Like this is kind of like the lower end of of the self-insured

[24:06] retentions. Um, but at 75,000, our cost of the same claims would only go up a

[24:12] couple hundred. At that point, it's $262,129.62,

[24:18] which is the actual cost incurred of every single claim. So at that point, we

[24:22] would be paying every claim on that sheet outright,

[24:26] which is a difference of 104,629. But our premium savings over those 24

[24:32] years would have been $319,000 in premium savings, which would have

[24:38] been a net savings to the city of $214,378.

[24:44] And so, as I mentioned earlier, this is when you look at it year-over-year, the

[24:49] savings doesn't sound like much, but when you look at the savings over time,

[24:53] right, it starts to add up. Um, and so because we are, knock on wood, a

[25:00] relatively low-risk city and have been over time, is there any appetite by this

[25:05] council to take on more risk? We have a healthy reserves. um we do have the

[25:11] capacity on some level to pay to pay claims should they come. Also, we're

[25:15] never locked in. So, if we have a bad couple years and we want to lower our

[25:19] premium or increase our premium, lower our self-insured retention, that is

[25:22] always an option. So, the question before you tonight is

[25:28] sort of what is your opinion on this? Is this something We are at the absolute

[25:32] lowest self-insured retention that Civic offers at 175. So, we're paying the

[25:36] highest premium for the lowest self-insured retention. And so, if you

[25:40] go on that very last page, that shows you what the estimated premium is for

[25:46] each of these dollar amounts

[25:54] with the corresponding self-insured retention amount. So, again, when you

[25:57] start to look at it by the year, it doesn't look like much, right? Maybe

[26:00] it's 3,000, 5,000, 10. I mean, we get up to about

[26:06] um 13,000 by the time you get to 75, but it

[26:10] does add up over time. So, I will turn it over to you for

[26:16] feedback.

[26:19] Okay, Jim Bash,

[26:24] [clears throat] >> I think you you made a good point, but

[26:28] and I do agree that we should probably uh raise our self-insured retention. I

[26:34] think 50,000 in my opinion would be a good idea, but unfortunately we know

[26:40] that insurance is not static. So, as the years go by, we're almost certain that

[26:45] there's going to be a raise in premiums. So, our savings may not be as great as

[26:51] estimated, but and in fact, we'll still have some savings. Um, I that's my

[26:56] opinion. I do think we should raise our self-insured

[27:00] uh retention and uh just keep in mind that insurance premiums are not going to

[27:07] remain the same year after year. And I think as uh communities grow uh our risk

[27:13] may or may not be different. I mean, we've

[27:17] got the police and fire and we're pretty well

[27:22] pretty good shape right now. So, I don't think it would hurt us to increase it.

[27:27] » Thank you for that, Stephen. Not >> Yeah, I'm generally in support of

[27:32] anything that brings about any cost savings, but I do have a question for

[27:35] Sabrina. um any kind of insurance risk is

[27:39] ultimately going to be determined by each individual budget. And I'm

[27:42] wondering what would be the amount of risk we could incur without making a

[27:47] lasting impact on uh our own budget if we did get hit with say two of these in

[27:53] one year. >> Um if you're good, you're good,

[27:57] » Sabrina. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so I mean a couple

[28:02] of them in a year would not be a huge risk for the city. $100,000 if we had to

[28:08] pay out of pocket would not be detrimental to our fund balance. Um, if

[28:14] we had 10 in a year, then we'd be talking a little differently. Um, but if

[28:20] we, you know, based on the average, if we had one or two in a year, um, there

[28:26] really it would not affect the city as a whole.

[28:30] » Thank you. >> Thank you for that, Sabrina. Any other

[28:33] questions or comments from the counselors? Tom Smith.

[28:37] » Yeah. May uh Sabrina, I just want to clarify this would if we did have these

[28:40] losses, they'd come out of the the fund, the the not the our budget, but the

[28:44] actual reserves, right, >> Sabrina Stager. Thank you. Um so likely

[28:52] what would happen is we would come forward, we have actually a sir line in

[28:56] our budget. We would likely charge it to that account. And if if we were to come

[29:02] under budget in other areas or reserves would be slightly high or sorry not

[29:07] reserves revenues would be slightly higher than what we projected we may not

[29:11] have to use reserves. So it would just kind of depend how that year would shake

[29:15] out. >> Okay. Thank you.

[29:18] » Thank you for that Sabrina. Any other questions or comments from the

[29:21] counselors? >> Okay James,

[29:26] » I would be for not being at the bottom of the list. I think we can take on some

[29:30] amount of liability without taking on the most possibly. Um like I said, we

[29:35] can always change it if it's becomes a bad idea or something or we can go

[29:40] higher later or lower back down. Either which way.

[29:46] » Um Tom Smith. >> Yeah, I I agree. I I would support I'd

[29:50] go to 50,000 would be my preference. >> Thank you for that. Um Rick Neymar, did

[29:56] you want to say something? City administrator

[30:00] I I'll just say that we did have a conversation about this um previously um

[30:04] um Amanda, Sabrina, myself. Um and I said I was comfortable doing the 375,

[30:08] but anything beyond that I wanted to get the um input and and guidance from

[30:12] council on that. Um just again the cost savings I think over time would be an

[30:15] appropriate thing to do, especially as we face tight tighter and tighter

[30:18] budgets moving forward. Um the other piece of it is not being locked into

[30:22] this for a long term. um each year we look at it again um and if we decide to

[30:27] make some changes for whatever reason we still have that option to do so.

[30:32] » Okay, Stephen KN. >> Yeah. So this item is now as for

[30:35] discussion. So is this just for giving the staff some guidance or are we

[30:38] looking for actually a decision here tonight?

[30:42] » Guess I'll defer to either our city administrator or our city attorney for a

[30:47] response to that question. I mean, I think at this point it we're

[30:52] going to take your feedback and then we're going to budget accordingly. And

[30:54] so I think you're really you're when you approve the budget, you're approving the

[30:58] amount that we've budgeted, which would be at the based on the feedback we're

[31:02] receiving at the $50,000 rate. Um while we are talking about about insurance and

[31:07] liability, um we are adjusting our auto deductibles slightly as well. Um, Civic

[31:13] used to offer um only that you would have the same deductible for every

[31:17] vehicle and now they've moved off that and you can have different deductibles

[31:21] for different classes of vehicles. And so we are moving to $1,000 deductible on

[31:25] our regular fleet, 2500 on squad cars and 10,000 on vehicles with a gross

[31:31] weight of 16,000 lbs or more, which are our very, you know, kind of large

[31:36] vehicles. Um Jared and the chiefs were generally

[31:40] comfortable with this. It takes a lot to damage those large vehicles. Um,

[31:46] as you may remember from the snowplow incident earlier this year, um,

[31:50] generally we do more harm than is harm is done to those larger vehicles. Uh, we

[31:54] had actually quite a bit of savings on that side of things. I think it was like

[31:58] somewhere around 15 to 20,000 just to do that slight deductible change. and

[32:03] looking at our claims history, there was no question that we were going to come

[32:05] out ahead even if we did have actually a couple claims in each category. Um, and

[32:11] when you get into vehicles, if you we're not at fault also, then everything gets

[32:15] picked up by the other insurance. And so that is one other change while we're

[32:18] just talking about it that we are making on the insurance side.

[32:22] » Thank you for that, Kathy Lowendorf. Uh, speaking of the the snowplow, I actually

[32:27] didn't notice that that was on here. Is that was that not

[32:33] Um, so this these claims were only ones that hit the 175,000. Got it. And so

[32:39] that I think was like an $8,000 claim. So that didn't rise to this level.

[32:43] » Got it. Thank you. Um, I actually I also would be in support of changing it to

[32:48] 50,000. I think that's appropriate based on our historic claim amounts.

[32:55] » Thank you for that. Tom Smith, did you have another comment?

[32:58] » I just had a question. Is this liability policy a year policy or a threeyear or

[33:02] you know they usually go in is it one or three year? One year. Okay. Thank you.

[33:08] » Okay. Any other questions or comments from the counselors

[33:12] or staff? Okay. I think we have reached somewhat

[33:17] of a consensious and then if it wants to be readressed it could be done at the

[33:22] time of the budget. Item 11, city administrator

[33:28] Rick Neee number. Well, I'll turn it over to you. You can work your way

[33:31] through. >> Sounds good. Thank you, mayor. Um, first

[33:34] is the updates on various city projects. Again, it's the report is in front of

[33:38] you. I won't read it word for word, but um just a couple updates. Uh we did

[33:42] conduct the EOCC tabletop exercise um late in August. Um more information will

[33:47] be coming here to council on that um as we do need to make some changes to

[33:50] ordinances and policies. Um and I'll give you a more in thorough update.

[33:55] We're currently looking at the um afteraction plan with the emergency

[33:59] management director um to see um the feedback. So more to come on that one.

[34:03] Um as you know, council chamber technology upgrade. Um we're still

[34:07] working through some of the processes to utilize it. Um that will take us a

[34:10] little time with the new system and how that's going to work. Uh but really the

[34:14] big part of it I wanted to point out here is the sound quality. Um how much

[34:18] difference that makes. Um and also for the assisted hearing devices that they

[34:22] are much much better than what we had before. So just wanted to bring that up.

[34:25] Fire department union negotiations continue. That's later on on our agenda.

[34:30] Uh we're meeting with them again on September 21st.

[34:33] Staff success day was last month, end of last month. Um had a great day of

[34:37] speakers for their presentations. Um staff were able to learn a number of

[34:41] different items. Um so they were able to interact with each other. Um learn a

[34:45] bunch of things and have some fun. uh mayor gave a presentation as well about

[34:49] the history. So that was wellreceived and of course the coveted day of

[34:52] vacation. So um was done as well. Um and then as you all know the 2027 budget

[34:57] process is well underway. Um at our October meeting is when the budget will

[35:02] be handed out to the council members. That's everything on that one.

[35:06] [clears throat] Um the next one is the ATV UTV survey

[35:10] results. Um, I know we're having some technical difficulties this evening. So,

[35:15] I will probably talk more about it than I was going to otherwise. Um, for the

[35:19] benefit of our audience, um, as I would want them to be able to hear what the

[35:22] results were as well. Each of you does have a print out of the results in front

[35:27] of you. Um, so we'll just go over those um, go over those. Now, so as you may

[35:32] recall, how this all started out was back in March, there was a presentation

[35:35] done by Kulie Cruisers. Um, and there was a request to consider opening

[35:40] streets in city of an Alaska to ATV and UTV traffic. After that meeting, I put

[35:45] together a group of staff members um who did meet um a number of times um to have

[35:50] some discussion. So some of the things that we did is we did some of our own

[35:54] research um whether it would be on Google or just looking at other

[35:58] communities as to what they were doing. Uh we did reach out to some local

[36:02] communities as well too to have some conversations about how things have been

[36:05] going with them. Um we did contact individual um I'm going to say

[36:10] Lieutenant Jake because I can't pronounce his last name. Uh but he was

[36:14] he works for the DNR and he is one that does provide um safety and training

[36:19] courses for those who drive ATVs and UTVs um among other things. So he did a

[36:24] virtual session with us um gave us a bunch of information regarding the

[36:27] operation of ATVs, UTVs um and then also u provided us with some additional

[36:32] information. So we had a good conversation with him as well. And then

[36:36] as a group we decided to go ahead and do a um survey. And so what we're here to

[36:40] talk about tonight, at least initially anyhow, are the results of that survey.

[36:44] And so again, for the sake of those individuals who are present here or

[36:47] online, I do want to go over each of the 13 questions that were asked. Um, and so

[36:52] we'll talk a little bit about that. So the first question that was asked is, do

[36:56] you live in the city of an Alaska? And we had total of 552

[37:03] responses overall. So that was the number of people who responded to this

[37:06] survey. 499 of them identified as being a resident of city of an Alaska. So 90%

[37:12] of them um identified as an Alaska. Um and 53 or just under 10% said no. The

[37:18] remaining questions that we're going to go over are from the perspective of the

[37:22] residents of the city of an Alaska. Um while we appreciate everybody's input on

[37:26] the survey, it was very helpful. Um I'm focusing on what the city of uh the

[37:30] residents of the city of an Alaska answered to the following questions. So,

[37:35] question two was, "Do you own an ATV UTV?" Um, 423 people or 84% of those who

[37:42] said they were City of Alaska residents said yes and 15% said no.

[37:49] Next question asked about their age range. Um, as you can see here, I will

[37:55] note on each of the um, >> sorry, Rick, your last the last uh,

[38:02] » oops, I'm sorry. Sorry. >> Nope. That's right.

[38:07] Oh, I'm sorry. 85 said no. Yes. Thank you for that. 85 said no. 85% said no

[38:13] and 15% said yes. Sorry about that. Um, for all the remaining questions, unless

[38:19] otherwise noted, all 499 residents answered the question. Um, for this one,

[38:25] four did not answer the question, and it was just basically the age range of

[38:29] individuals. These were predetermined ranges that were given and they just had

[38:34] to simply click on the area of where they fell. Um, as you can see, the

[38:38] largest group was 55 plus at 63%. Um, and then various ones from there on

[38:44] down.

[38:47] Question four, ATV UTV routes are being proposed within city of an Alaska limits

[38:54] and there were three options for people to choose from. They support all roads

[38:58] to be open, support limited routes, and no roads should be opened. And

[39:03] supporting all roads to be open was 20%, limited routes 18% and no roads should

[39:10] be open 62%.

[39:16] Uh, the next question five. If ATV you and UTVs are allowed on streets in the

[39:22] city, how do you feel about the hours of operation between 7:30 a.m. and 1000

[39:27] p.m.? Um, and again, predetermined answers that they had to click on the

[39:32] one that they agreed with. It was I agree with the hours was 25%.

[39:37] The hours are too short, 3%. The hours are too long, 13%.

[39:43] I don't want ATVs, UTVs on streets in the city, 59%.

[39:51] We also asked some open-ended questions where they could put in their own

[39:55] information. One of those was question number six. What do you think are the

[40:00] benefits of allowing ATVs, UTVs on city streets?

[40:04] So, there was once we got the results back, there was probably about seven

[40:08] pages of individual responses from all the all the people. Um, and so while I

[40:13] did look over them all, I threw them all into AI to summarize what are some of

[40:17] the top points um that came out of there. And so these are divided into key

[40:22] themes identified by supportive respondents and key themes identified by

[40:27] opposed respondents. Again, I don't won't read every single one of them, but

[40:31] some of the supportive um respondents increased access to local businesses and

[40:36] restaurants, economic development, tourism, um connection with other

[40:40] neighboring communities, uh recreation, family activities. Some of the opposed

[40:45] residents cited no meaningful public benefit. Um proposal is not appropriate

[40:51] for urban or suburban community. um potential benefits would be outweighed

[40:56] by concerns related to safety, traffic, noise, etc.

[41:02] Question seven, um again, another one of those open-ended ones. Um what do you

[41:08] think are the negatives or concerns of allowing ATVs, UTVs on city streets?

[41:14] Again, a lot of responses. I put it through the AI and this is what it came

[41:18] back as identifying themes. Um that there is increased likelihood of crashes

[41:24] with um cars and pedestrians, failure to obey traffic laws, underage

[41:30] and inexperienced operators, traffic congestion, impaired driving,

[41:35] those types of things. Uh uh wear and tear on roadways. There were some

[41:39] comments that did indicate that there were few or no concerns if properly

[41:43] regulated.

[41:46] Question eight. If the city of an Alaska opens ATV UTV routes in city on city

[41:53] streets, how likely is it you would use them? Again, these were predetermined.

[41:58] Anywhere from very likely, likely, unlikely to very unlikely?

[42:03] Uh, very unlikely was 68%, very likely was 13% um with likely and unlikely at

[42:10] 9% each.

[42:16] Question nine. Do you support ATV UTV usage on city of an Alaska roadways?

[42:24] 69% don't support, 30% support. Again, the word support and don't support were

[42:31] listed and they had to choose one of those.

[42:36] Question 10. If ATVs, UTVs were allowed to operate on city streets, what

[42:42] regulations or safety measures would you support?

[42:46] Everything you see listed on there was pre-populated. So, it was listed there

[42:50] and they could check on as many of them as they felt appropriate that they

[42:53] wanted to see as regulations. So, as you can see, headlights, tail lights, brake

[42:57] lights, um was was the top one. Driver's license um driver's license is not

[43:02] required by the state. um insurance, hours of operation, designated routes

[43:08] and streets, mandatory helmets, seat belts, licensing

[43:12] or permitting process, noise reduction, restricted cruising, the other category,

[43:19] we'll get to that in just a moment. Um and then none that there wouldn't be any

[43:24] um regulations in place. So the next question, question 11 was

[43:29] another open-ended question that if you selected other in response to question

[43:34] 10, what other regulations or safety measures would you support? Again,

[43:40] lengthy list of responses. Uh ran it through AI. Um there were 104 that

[43:45] responded to this one. So not all 499 responded. um a lot of the same things

[43:50] that were identified in previous questions such as um

[43:54] challenging to enforce training requirements, user fees, um blinkers,

[43:59] lights, um some indicated no amount of regulation would make them supportive of

[44:03] the proposal, um strict penalties, those kinds of things.

[44:10] Question 12. If measures listed above were in place,

[44:15] ATVs, UTVs should be allowed on city streets and on Alaska. Do you, and then

[44:21] I gave you five options, strongly disagree to strongly agree. And 46% were

[44:28] strongly disagree, 18 almost 19% were strongly agree. And then agree and

[44:34] disagree were 13% each. And then there was a small percentage that did not

[44:39] either agree or disagree.

[44:44] And then the last question was number 13. Provide any additional comments

[44:48] related to ATVs, UTVs on city streets in an Alaska. Again, open-ended.

[44:54] 210 responded, not the full 499. Um some of the key themes identified by

[44:59] those supporting um allows neighboring communities um to connect um just

[45:05] indicating that city of Lacrosse and Village of Pullman do not currently

[45:07] allow. help local businesses, affordable transportation option, supportive if

[45:14] proper regulations in place, and then key themes identified by those opposed.

[45:19] Um, safety concerns, um, ATVs, UTVs are designated for trail

[45:24] use, noise concerns, and quiet neighborhoods, add to issues surrounding

[45:29] bikes, ebikes, scooters, e- scooters, and no compelling reason to open streets

[45:33] to ATVs, UTVs. So, that was the the information we got

[45:39] back from the survey. I guess I'll stop there and just see if there's any

[45:42] questions that anybody has. >> Did the counselors have any questions

[45:46] before Rick goes on? >> I think you're good.

[45:51] » Okay. Um, so that with so based on the meeting we had in March, um, the

[45:55] directive was to gather information and then come back. So based on the

[45:59] information that staff have has gathered and based on the survey results that

[46:03] we've received um from the staff's perspective, we don't have any plan to

[46:07] move forward with any proposal to open any of the city streets unless we are

[46:10] directed by council to do so.

[46:15] » Thank you. Do the counselors have any comments or questions? Stephen not.

[46:19] » Yeah. So a couple of items. when uh this survey was uh issued, did they have the

[46:27] informative information that the UTV ATV uh personnel that would be uh and

[46:33] vehicles that would be using the streets if approved are going along at the same

[46:38] speed limit as everybody else already have some of the safety features that

[46:42] are that are included in this as would you agree or disagree on that? I mean,

[46:46] some of these they have to have already or they won't be street legal. So, I'm

[46:50] wondering if this was all explained ahead of time because otherwise this

[46:53] might actually be leading to some uninformed uh decisions being made by

[46:57] the uh personnel that replied to the survey. I do want to put out I I do not

[47:02] have an ATV or UTV. I've never had one. I don't intend to ever have one. Uh I

[47:07] don't have any friends of mine who have one that would be street legal. Uh but

[47:12] I'm kind of leaning towards, you know, the freedom element of this,

[47:16] too. And uh I I I'm always reluctant to restrict people from exercising certain

[47:23] freedoms, especially when I'm not convinced that this survey was performed

[47:27] in a way that was totally informative to the people who responded to it. I'm in

[47:32] I'm going to guess the way I look at this, the way I'm seeing it now is they

[47:35] were thinking these these will be crawling along at 20 miles an hour. They

[47:38] won't have any of the safety features on it and all that would be not true.

[47:44] So, there was an introductory paragraph that just advised them that there was a

[47:48] request um to open city streets um to ATV UTV traffic. Um that

[47:54] uh I should pull it up here and read it, but there was an instructor paragraph

[47:57] just indicating that they are not currently allowed um and we're looking

[48:00] for feedback in regards to how to proceed on next steps and that this

[48:04] information would be going to staff and to council for considering next steps.

[48:08] So, we did not go into any preconceived notions. Part of it was because at the

[48:13] state level, not all of these things are required in the first place. Um, and so

[48:17] we thought if we started doing that, it was going to get so kind of in the

[48:20] weeds, so to speak. So, we were trying to figure out what is kind of the pulse

[48:24] of the residents at this point in time based on what they know.

[48:27] » Okay? Because, um, my I brought this up when we first discussed this. You know,

[48:31] I have a lawn tractor and, uh, it's street legal. It's got the blinkers.

[48:36] It's got the the warning triangle. It's got the headlights. It's got the tail

[48:39] lights. Got the brake lights. All that. And I can legally go down the street

[48:43] right now and I'd probably be cruising along at a maximum rate of about 15

[48:47] miles an hour. And that's legal. Um, so I'm just trying to take that as an

[48:53] example and extend it out to UTV, ATV. And I'm just not getting there on why

[48:59] this would be restricted from them because they would actually be flowing

[49:02] with traffic. Um, and again, some of these things that are on here, um, such

[49:08] as having the lights and what have you, they would already have to have or they

[49:11] won't be street legal. >> So, I think we should clarify that they

[49:15] aren't automatically street legal unless somebody takes action to allow them. So,

[49:19] by state law, they are not allowed to be driven on roadways unless a municipality

[49:23] takes action, >> but they would have to become street

[49:25] legal to do so. Well, the definition of street legal is what each municipality

[49:29] makes it because a state has regulations that doesn't necessarily require

[49:32] everything that's on this list. Like licensing is not required in order to be

[49:36] drive one of these down the street down the roadway. Um I'd have to go back and

[49:40] look at what some of the other seat belts I don't believe are um so

[49:43] insurance is not required. So there's a number of things that aren't required at

[49:46] the state level that municipalities would really have to address if they

[49:49] choose um to make sure that they're being operated in what's deemed to be a

[49:53] safe manner by that municipality. Okay. And we could do that.

[49:57] » By ordinance, you can enact something >> because I'm leaning actually that I

[50:01] would like to see this move forward. And again, I don't have any skin in this

[50:05] game. Uh I I don't ever intend to, but I just uh you know, one of the it's a very

[50:11] common phrase now that some of you may have heard already. You know, a true

[50:14] democracy is two wolves and a sheep having a vote on what's for dinner. And

[50:18] u I'm kind of looking at this in this manner right here when I'm seeing these

[50:22] charts especially when I think you know I don't know that everyone who responded

[50:25] this was fully informed before they before they responded. So um I don't

[50:30] know I might be a person all alone on this one but uh I still my conscience is

[50:36] saying that we should continue to move forward on it.

[50:40] » Thank you for that Stephen. Um I'm going to go ahead and speak on this topic. I

[50:44] do own a UTV. Um, I would like to see our streets open to them. And I also do

[50:50] think that this survey wasn't really the best way to gauge the opinion of our

[50:57] community. Um, because a lot of the people, I mean, just in this discussion

[51:01] that we saw right here between Rick and Stephen, there is a lot of

[51:05] misconceptions and misunderstandings in the community about the what the rules

[51:09] are. And what the rules actually are is that our community, the city of an

[51:13] Alaska, if it so chooses to move forward, can put whatever restrictions

[51:18] on the UTVs or ATVs that the community would like to see. Um, in my opinion,

[51:26] the the most successful way for consistency and enforcement is if we

[51:31] mimic what our surrounding communities have. The Lacrosse County has approved

[51:37] this and in the townships it is approved. In West Salem, it's improved.

[51:42] Sparta, many of the surrounding communities have their roads open to the

[51:46] UTVs. Um, and so to be consistent with that would probably make the most sense

[51:51] to me because it's difficult for people coming from outside in to know if there

[51:55] is a change in the rules. Um, but I think if you did a similar survey and

[52:00] you did it for say motorcyclists, probably just as many people would say

[52:05] they don't like motorcyclists. They think people should have to wear a

[52:09] helmet even though it's not required by law. Um, I mean, you can't wear a seat

[52:13] belt on a on a motorcycle, so that couldn't be it. But, I mean, all the

[52:18] similar things. And I think consistently through my service here, I've always

[52:22] promoted as many forms of transportation as what we can allow people. And the

[52:27] fact of the matter is, what people think of as an old-fashioned ATV is not what

[52:32] these modern UTVs are. People are spending $40,000 on these vehicles, and

[52:37] they're certainly able to go in the flow of traffic, and nobody is asking to go

[52:42] on the numbered highways. Um, but that's just my opinion, but whatever the

[52:46] council decides will be the ruling tonight. Any other questions or

[52:49] comments? Kathy,

[52:53] » I do wish that we had a larger sample size. Um, I think that the survey, um, I

[52:58] personally almost missed it because it fell out of my water bill when I got it

[53:04] and I I am one that I keep the bill and I toss everything else. So, I would like

[53:10] to know, you know, I I'm concerned that maybe we didn't get enough residents.

[53:15] Um, however, that said, the ones that did respond overwhelmingly are against

[53:21] allowing it. So, um, it's it's difficult. I I also am about freedoms

[53:27] and if you you know want to be able to if you have access to be able to drive

[53:30] this or bicycles or whatever. Um I have also seen though people driving golf

[53:36] carts and UTVs, ATVs in smaller communities and are making very poor

[53:42] decisions with them from going from their house to the bar back to their

[53:46] house to the gas station to grab a six-pack cuz they ran out. it's really

[53:51] easy and convenient to get not have to get behind the wheel of the car because

[53:54] they think it's different. So, those are those are just some some concerns that I

[53:58] would personally have. Um, but that said, I'm not necessarily against um

[54:03] opening our roads to additional forms of traffic.

[54:08] » Thank you, Kathy. Jim Bash.

[54:13] [clears throat] >> Well, I think the survey did a good job.

[54:17] I think that uh I've from the people that I've heard that uh they really

[54:22] don't want them because they perhaps they don't understand. Mostly what you

[54:28] hear are the noise and the accidents that you get into when you see it on the

[54:31] news. Now, having dealt with uh motor vehicle accidents for 30 years, uh ATVs,

[54:39] you can usually get you're pretty well hurt when you get in an accident. Same

[54:44] thing with motorcycles. So, I don't think having seat belt requirements and

[54:48] helmets on an ATV, if you don't have them on a motorcycle, is certainly not

[54:52] going to last on a ATV. But, uh, I don't think we have enough

[54:57] information right now to say that we want ATVs in the city of an Alaska. Uh,

[55:04] there are too many variables. If you get into an accident and you don't tell them

[55:08] to have insurance, you're putting the other person at risk. Uh, you need a

[55:12] license. And we're having issues right now with razor scooters and ebikes. Uh

[55:18] kids on the street. Uh I often see people doing a uh children on razor

[55:24] motor uh scooters going through stop signs at intersections. So,

[55:30] uh, until I get more information on how we can educate the public, I don't

[55:35] think, uh, right now is a good idea to start allowing other vehicles on the

[55:40] road when we haven't completely figured out how we're going to handle e-

[55:43] scooters and ebikes and children on bikes uh, riding on the street uh, speed

[55:49] limits of 20 25 miles an hour. They they shouldn't be on the road and they do go

[55:54] that fast. You could make a face, but they do go that fast. I see it on Oak

[55:58] Avenue North, the kids going to school. Uh they do proceed too fast and they've

[56:04] got their ebikes and they are exceeding the speed limit. Um and I I I get a

[56:12] little nervous when I see these at these intersections with these kids going to

[56:16] school and I do see teenage drivers on their cars doing rolling stops all the

[56:21] time. So until I get more answers, um I would not be in for and not be forward

[56:27] for us, not moving forward. >> Thank you. Stephen, we I'm going to do

[56:32] first time for everyone first and then I'll come back to you. James, do you

[56:35] have any comments or questions? >> Uh at this time,

[56:40] » thank you. Tom Smith, would you like to say anything?

[56:42] » Yeah, I'm I'm I'm supportive of it with some restrictions um and a little bit

[56:47] more information before we charge down that way. My concern is how do you

[56:52] enforce some of this stuff? Uh that that will be a challenge I think for our

[56:56] police officers and stuff because I see kids running all over the place too with

[57:01] these things. They're really flying on the sidewalk and the street and uh it's

[57:05] a it's a hazard and I have a lot of neighbors that complain about the noise

[57:10] and I get that and motorcycles are the same thing. But I I think we could

[57:14] probably come up with some kind of uh policies or restrictions or create our

[57:19] own rules to do support because there is an avenue of people who are supportive

[57:24] of this and like it. I don't think it shows in the survey as well and maybe

[57:28] that's part of our problem is our survey isn't broad enough. I don't know. Um but

[57:33] I I I'm supportive of it. I don't want to end it, but I think we have to learn

[57:38] more about it and we have to decide how we can best manage it. Thank you.

[57:43] » Thank you for that, Tom. With Tom's comment, I mean, we do have the chief in

[57:47] the audience. Chief, would you like to comment on your um position on this

[57:51] topic? >> Thank you.

[57:58] » So, I'm not overly opposed to it. Um but I am concerned about the number of

[58:05] people in the community that are opposed to it. I I feel like it is going to lead

[58:10] to um quite a few complaints for us. So I think that we if we are going to move

[58:16] forward with it, it needs to be um regulated and that needs to be very well

[58:22] thought out. Um I'm also not really too excited about having ATV routes. I think

[58:29] if we're going to open it, then we should open everything that the law

[58:33] would allow us to. um simply because I think it's going to be difficult if we

[58:37] just have one or two routes through town. Our residents are going to want to

[58:41] drive to those routes, you know, that that live maybe four or five blocks away

[58:46] from that. So, um if we're going to go in that direction, I I would like to see

[58:52] something very thorough. Um, but I I think based on the results of what I'm

[58:57] seeing in the survey, that is going to upset

[59:01] some of our our residents and we're probably going to have to deal with

[59:05] those complaints as well. I definitely would like to see everyone

[59:10] licensed. Um, I do have concerns about ATVs more so than UTVs. I I don't think

[59:16] there's as much there to protect somebody. Um, so that would all need to

[59:21] be looked into. Thank you, Chief. Okay, Stephen not.

[59:26] » Yeah, just final comments here. So, yeah, as far as the survey is going, I I

[59:30] definitely think we need to listen to all voices, and this is where I'm

[59:33] looking at compromise, and I'm especially looking at the two pages that

[59:37] talk about if they were allowed, what would you want? And then the other

[59:40] responses on the next pages. So, you know, like the chief was saying,

[59:44] absolutely. I think there should be licensing requirement with the driver's

[59:47] license, the headlights, the tail lights, the blinkers, the brake lights.

[59:50] I mean, these would be motor vehicles on the road, and I think they would have to

[59:53] come mostly within compliance of that. I'd like to personally see insurance

[59:59] um yeah, um helmets or seat belts we can have a discussion on, especially if

[1:00:04] they're under 18 in there. Uh but um and then I think so I think there's a way to

[1:00:11] get there to where maybe we don't make everybody happy, but at the same time,

[1:00:16] we achieve a compromise that serves the community the best. I I think that your

[1:00:20] example with the motorcycles is is spoton. If we were to do this for

[1:00:24] motorcycles, I almost guarantee you would get the same results. Those people

[1:00:28] who have own motorcycles or know people who have motorcycles and their family

[1:00:32] would respond yes. And the folks who don't would say no, and it would

[1:00:36] probably be about the same percentages. And uh I just uh I you know, folks, we

[1:00:42] got to let people live their lives. And uh I think there's a compromise here

[1:00:45] that can be made. >> Thank you. Any other people want to make

[1:00:50] a last comment?

[1:00:54] Um Amanda Jackson, >> I just wanted to make two comments um

[1:00:58] from a legal perspective. So one is is while I understand the analogy to

[1:01:04] motorcycles, there are still some differentiations. For example, if you

[1:01:08] drive a motorcycle intoxicated, you will lose your license. If you drive a UTV

[1:01:11] intoxicated, you will not lose your license. And so UTVs are not treated

[1:01:16] equally as vehicles under the law. So just that's something to consider. The

[1:01:20] second is is when you start to deal with peacemeal regulation like this where the

[1:01:24] state chooses not to maybe regulate something on a holistic level then we

[1:01:28] start to have municipalities come up with their own rules. And I'm going to

[1:01:31] say this again next month because we are going to talk about ebikes and e-

[1:01:34] scooters. Um, but when that happens, then we have to be really careful about

[1:01:38] communicating, right? Because if our regulations for a UTV are a little bit

[1:01:43] different than the counties or they're a little bit different than West Salem's,

[1:01:46] um, it gets challenging for the person using the UTV to understand what they

[1:01:50] need to do when they come to their community. And so, you are likely going

[1:01:54] to have to pay for signage. We're going to have to be really clear on how to

[1:01:58] find these rules and regulations. Again, I'm not I'm not against them, but I just

[1:02:02] want to make sure that we if this is the route we're going to go down, that we

[1:02:05] think these things through. Um, and so really thinking about, okay, what are

[1:02:09] the requirements that we want in the city of an Alaska? And then how do we

[1:02:12] communicate those out to the people that will use them?

[1:02:17] » Thank you, Amanda. Is there any other staff that wants to comment?

[1:02:22] Okay. Um, we'll go well, let's let Katie speak first and then we'll go to Timberg

[1:02:27] next. Um, I just wanted to address that

[1:02:30] comment related to the amount of response that was received. I can tell

[1:02:34] you that this was an extraordinary amount of population that responded. Um,

[1:02:40] compare it to my 2022 community survey where I had double the amounts of

[1:02:45] responses, but I had said individual postcards, two mailings, um, Facebook

[1:02:52] notifications heavily heavily promoting this and we gave over an extended period

[1:02:58] of time. So, the fact that we were able to achieve this using water bills and a

[1:03:03] single survey on our website these results, it is notable. um that we got

[1:03:10] the response rate that we did. So, I don't want to underwhelm you with that

[1:03:15] number because yes, it may seem very small, but based on how the city has

[1:03:20] received comments on surveys in the past, it's very remarkable that we were

[1:03:26] able to achieve such results that we did. Thank you.

[1:03:30] » Thank you, Katie. We're going to go to Chief again now and then we'll see who

[1:03:35] else wants to speak. >> Thank you. I would just ask that if we

[1:03:39] do move forward, everybody understand we we we have a limited amount of

[1:03:43] resources. So the regulation um and uh responding to potential complaints or

[1:03:51] enforcement activities by the police department, we will need patience with

[1:03:55] that because the emergency calls for service will have to take priority over

[1:04:00] that. >> Thank you, Chief. Anyone else? Tom Smith

[1:04:05] and then Kathy you can go next. >> I guess this is a question for Rick and

[1:04:09] we had talked once before about maybe talking to the schools school district

[1:04:12] on Alaska and Homeman and you know getting the student perspective and the

[1:04:16] school perspective. Have we done anything with that with ATVs and that

[1:04:20] kind of stuff? >> Not with ATVs UTVs. We're doing that

[1:04:23] with the bikes and the ecooters and those kinds of things but we have not

[1:04:26] with ATVs UTVs now. Okay. >> You know people are required to take

[1:04:29] certain training um in order to drive them anyhow. Um, so there is a

[1:04:33] requirement already at the state level for that.

[1:04:35] » Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. >> Thank you for that question, Kathy.

[1:04:41] » Um, just to Chief Berg's point, um, assuming that we're already doing some

[1:04:46] sort of monitoring of whatever trails are available. Do do we have the

[1:04:50] equipment available at the city level for an officer to be able to go um say

[1:04:55] on a UTV and go on the trails to make sure that they're nobody's doing

[1:05:00] anything nefarious out and out there. >> Well, it wouldn't be this would be on

[1:05:05] the city streets. >> Um but the city does have a UTV. Chief,

[1:05:10] I'll let you answer. Sorry. >> Yes, we have equipment available to to

[1:05:15] do enforcement. I don't see that as being a problem. It's just a matter of

[1:05:18] the um promptness or the attention might not be as high as some of the

[1:05:24] expectations could be. >> Thank you.

[1:05:29] » Okay. Any other questions from anybody at all? Stephen, not

[1:05:33] » just comment on this. So, yeah, looking up with what Amanda said. Yeah, the um

[1:05:39] there's no loss of license for a DUI with an ATV or UTV. However, there are

[1:05:44] fines, jail time, permanent mark on your record. I would like to also, if we

[1:05:48] proceed with this, try to petition through our own state representative and

[1:05:53] senator or legislator and a rep and senator to try to get that law changed

[1:05:58] in Wisconsin to where if we're going to allow them on public streets that they

[1:06:01] will lose their license for an OWI conviction.

[1:06:06] Okay, thank you. Are there more comments or is the council ready to

[1:06:12] make some kind of a or what are you asking for tonight, Rick? What do you

[1:06:15] need tonight from the council? >> What I'm gathering so far based on the

[1:06:19] comments received that there is an appetite to move forward with something.

[1:06:22] And what that is basically I think you're looking to staff to come back

[1:06:25] with something is what I'm taking away from the conversation. Um I don't know

[1:06:29] that I need a formal motion unless legal thinks we do. But um if and correct me

[1:06:34] if I'm wrong, but I get the impression we want you want to look at something

[1:06:38] and you want something brought back to take a look at. Is that fair to say?

[1:06:42] » Other than Alder Bash, of course. Okay. So,

[1:06:47] I guess that's up to the council to decide if you want staff to put together

[1:06:51] something for consideration. It can still be voted down later, but at least

[1:06:55] to try to move forward or not be a council decision. So,

[1:07:01] » and the other question is, you know, are you looking, we talked about education

[1:07:04] to the public? I mean, are we looking to have some kind of a open forum where the

[1:07:08] public can come in and talk? I I'm not suggesting it. I'm just asking is that

[1:07:11] that was something that sounded like I heard from a couple members as well too.

[1:07:18] » I guess I'll leave it to the council to comment.

[1:07:24] » Mayor Tom Smith. >> Yeah, I would I would say that we should

[1:07:27] go ahead and pursue and and uh do some more research, find some al alternatives

[1:07:31] and issues and bring them back to us and let us take a look at that's my thought.

[1:07:39] Okay, James, >> I also would like to see something

[1:07:43] brought back that we could go through and maybe add or subtract from it, but

[1:07:49] not drop it here. I'd rather see it keep going.

[1:07:54] » Okay, any other questions or comments?

[1:07:59] » All right, you good, Rick? >> Yes. The only thing I will say is um

[1:08:03] this might be an after the budget um that come when it comes back. Um I don't

[1:08:08] expect it to be in October, November just because of what's going on right

[1:08:11] now with budgeting process. So um it'll be something that'll be brought back um

[1:08:14] later this year, early next. >> Thank you.

[1:08:19] » Thank you for that good discussion. We'll head on to item C then, Rick, if

[1:08:23] you want to keep going. >> Thank you, mayor. Um so the next thing

[1:08:26] on the um agenda is in regards to the drift link program. So just as a little

[1:08:32] background, I know there was a memo in your packet as well. So um the current

[1:08:37] contract that we have with Running Incorporated um who is the um vendor who

[1:08:41] does operate our drift link or our shared ride program does expire at the

[1:08:45] end of this year. So earlier this year we did issue a request for proposal RFP.

[1:08:51] Um and we did receive one response and that was from Running Incorporated.

[1:08:57] I will preface any conversation tonight with we have been very happy with

[1:09:00] running incorporated and the job that they have done running our program. So

[1:09:04] there are no concerns or questions or issues there. Um with the proposal

[1:09:09] coming back um not unexpectedly there were increases in the rates under the

[1:09:14] contract. Um they were higher than it maybe anticipated. And so obviously as

[1:09:19] you all know we are in this um program with both the village of Holman um and

[1:09:24] the village of West Salem. Um so they are also having very similar

[1:09:27] conversations with their boards and councils just as we are tonight. So as

[1:09:31] it shows in the um me memo is that there was a a pretty significant increase in

[1:09:37] the rate that would be under the contract. You'll also notice attached to

[1:09:41] the me memo there was some proposals and Sabrina is going to go over those here

[1:09:46] um in just a moment and explain what the impact that will have on the city of an

[1:09:50] Alaska. um what ultimately the process is, just to give everybody a heads up.

[1:09:55] So, the public transit committee did approve the RFP. It was sent out. They

[1:10:00] had a meeting um two weeks ago, I believe it was, um and discussed the

[1:10:04] response and some potential for options. This now comes back here to um the

[1:10:09] council again. Each um township is having or village, I'm sorry, is having

[1:10:13] a conversation with their board. They will then go back to the special public

[1:10:17] transit meeting on Monday evening to talk about the positions from each of

[1:10:22] the three different municipalities. From there, they will forward a

[1:10:26] recommendation back to their respective boards and council for final approval of

[1:10:30] whatever that recommendation would be. Um so there is a little bit of a process

[1:10:34] that we need to go through here yet. Um but what we're looking for tonight is

[1:10:38] your representatives which are Alder not Bash and now going to be the new um

[1:10:42] Alder who is going to be starting tomorrow. Um we'll have that discussion

[1:10:46] with the public transit committee meeting committee on Monday. So that's

[1:10:50] kind of the process we're looking at. I'll turn it over to Sabrina now to talk

[1:10:53] a little bit about the proposals that are in your packet as well.

[1:10:57] » Thank you for that introduction Rick. Sabrina,

[1:11:00] » thank you. Um, so the way the funding works for the share ride, so the share

[1:11:05] ride we get our total contract amount, which that was the huge increase of 19%.

[1:11:12] So it's going to $4147 per hour. So the way our share right is

[1:11:19] set up is that the contractor can do up to 31,64

[1:11:25] hours for the entire year. So, when we figure out how much that's going to

[1:11:30] cost, um the cost would go to 1.3 1,313,118.

[1:11:39] For 2026, that number was $1,97,000. So, that's a huge increase there, just

[1:11:46] the the total contract price. Um from there we then running collects all of

[1:11:54] the shares sorry all of the fairs. So if someone um pays for a ride which they

[1:12:02] all have to um if they pay for the ride running keeps that money and then they

[1:12:08] submit us a bill monthly. So from there I typically budget some

[1:12:14] writership revenue. So, under the first proposal um that was given to you, I um

[1:12:21] projected 240,000, which is very similar to what we received in 2025. And we're

[1:12:28] on par to hit that in 2026. From there, we subtract that out and

[1:12:35] then that's our total contract cost. Then we are able to from that dollar

[1:12:42] figure we're able to um use federal dollars up to 50%.

[1:12:48] Now the federal funding has gone down over the years. Um we are for 2026 we

[1:12:55] got $424,771.

[1:13:00] For 2027 the split letter that we received from the state was $412,845.

[1:13:08] we can dip into another year's grant to help pay for some of the costs to get us

[1:13:15] to that full 50%. And that's what we did in um proposal B and C that is in front

[1:13:22] of you. But in proposal A um I kept it as the amount that we received. So that

[1:13:28] $412,845.

[1:13:33] Then we also receive state shares. So that number also has been kind of

[1:13:39] decreasing over the last several years. Um I proposed potentially that we would

[1:13:45] get around $200,000 from the state which then leaves this remaining $460,273.

[1:13:55] That number for 2026 was $252,492.

[1:14:01] So, a large increase from 2026 to 2027. From there, the way we calculate how

[1:14:10] much each municipality pays is by contract. Um, and that contract does say

[1:14:16] that they each municipality pays the percentage of ridership for the months

[1:14:21] June, July, and August. When we prepared the budget, we did not have August

[1:14:27] numbers yet, and we actually still don't. Um so we used April, May and

[1:14:32] June. So the percentage wrership um for the

[1:14:37] village of Holman was 25.26% and the percentage for West Salem was

[1:14:43] 15,000 or sorry 15.72% and then the remaining 59.01%

[1:14:52] for the city of an Alaska. So, what that means for the city is that we would see

[1:14:58] an increase to our local share of I don't have the exact number here. I

[1:15:04] think it's on this other page. Um, give me one second here.

[1:15:17] So, that our our share would be $271,629.

[1:15:24] for the city for 2026 it was 140,000. So that is a huge

[1:15:31] increase of $130,000 to continue to operate the share ride as

[1:15:37] is. So doing this we then came up with a couple of options. So those are

[1:15:44] proposals B and C. Proposal B is what was presented to the public transit

[1:15:52] committee where we would use more federal dollars to bring the cost down

[1:15:57] to the municipalities and then that cost for 2027

[1:16:04] approximately again assuming ridership would stay the same would go to

[1:16:11] 1999,357.

[1:16:14] So quite a big savings by using more federal dollars.

[1:16:20] Proposal C, what that did is we we increase this was

[1:16:26] a recommendation from the public transit committee that we increase ridership the

[1:16:31] ridership fair by $1. So all fairs would increase to $1. Our

[1:16:38] current fair is $4 or $450. $450. $4 if you're a senior or student. So that

[1:16:46] would go to $550 and $5. So to project this out, I did use um the

[1:16:54] fact that ridership would stay the same, that it would stay stagnant um that we

[1:16:59] would still have the same amount of rides because we just don't know. We

[1:17:04] [snorts] don't know if that would decrease wrership or not. But if we were

[1:17:08] to increase um the fairs by that $1 and use up to the 50% match, that would

[1:17:17] bring the city share um down to 170,542

[1:17:25] or just the share ride, the drift link program.

[1:17:29] The other things that are in your packet tonight is we did also get information

[1:17:35] from the MTU and the MTU cost is going up 48%. Um

[1:17:43] for 2026 it was $54,431

[1:17:48] and for 2027 it is 80,421.

[1:17:54] So, those are the figures. Um, where we're currently at. Um, what questions

[1:18:01] do you have, >> Sabrina? Can you say how many years it

[1:18:06] has been since the MTU has had a raise? >> The MTU.

[1:18:11] » The MTU. >> Um, it's been since COVID. So, they've

[1:18:15] been keeping the cost down. I believe they were using ARPA dollars that they

[1:18:20] had received to keep the cost down to the local municipalities.

[1:18:24] So since 2021, I mean that's as far as I have up here on my spreadsheet. Um but

[1:18:31] we were at like 52,000 and so we went from 52,000 and in 2026 it was 54,431.

[1:18:39] So we have not seen an increase for the MTU.

[1:18:43] » Yeah. And I just want to bring that up because I do sit on the MTU board and

[1:18:47] they have not raised that for a very long time. So while the number does seem

[1:18:51] kind of large, it is also because they were using ARPA funding for all the

[1:18:56] public transit um and now they're just trying to get back to kind of balancing

[1:19:02] their cost same as us. Okay. Councelor's question. Stephen KN.

[1:19:07] » Yeah. So, um, again, I'm on that public transit committee, and after we,

[1:19:14] uh, adjourned, I talked to Sabrina about another potential option. Um, and that's

[1:19:21] that, uh, we increased the fairs by $1.50, which in my mind is still a

[1:19:25] bargain price. We have not increased fairs for for the uh, Drift Link/Share

[1:19:31] uh, since at least 2020 is my understanding. Might be 2019. So, and of

[1:19:36] course since that time our country uh you know we had about 30% inflation from

[1:19:40] 2021 to 24 and we've been averaging somewhere I don't know just shy of three

[1:19:44] or a little over three in the in the uh last year and so far this year. So

[1:19:50] that's still pretty substantial and we user should expect some of that to have

[1:19:54] to happen. So by by but but by by going up to $150 and the potential of not

[1:20:01] renewing the MTU contract, we could actually get this to where the the share

[1:20:07] ride uh might be able to be affordable at least for a couple more years. Now

[1:20:12] why would I be more concerned about shareide than MTU? It's because MTU

[1:20:17] provides a service that cannot be duplicated by anybody else.

[1:20:22] uh folks who in an Alaska might be using the MTU could have the option of using

[1:20:26] an Uber for instance. Folks who are using the share ride, quite a few of

[1:20:30] them either through age or disability are mobility challenged. Uh those share

[1:20:35] ride drivers are able to go right up to the door and assist them into their

[1:20:38] vehicle. They have vehicles that are equipped that can assist them as well if

[1:20:42] they have special equipment. They don't have that option on the MTU. So, uh,

[1:20:48] that's something else I'm looking at possibly entertaining when we meet

[1:20:51] again. Um, and if we were to do that, uh, it was my understanding with those

[1:20:56] discussions that we actually might come up with some tens of thousands of

[1:21:01] dollars, um, that not only would cover our extra cost, but could potentially be

[1:21:07] used uh, on other purposes during the budgeting process here. You know, we've

[1:21:11] had certainly some increases in cost in other areas. Um, so it looks like at

[1:21:17] least in my perspective that if we look at that that that could be a way to

[1:21:23] where we could still provide this service to our mobility challenged

[1:21:26] residences or uh residents.

[1:21:31] » Thank you for that, Stephen. Any other comments from the counselors

[1:21:37] or from staff? Sabrina, >> I was just going to add um Rick did send

[1:21:43] back to the municipality is kind of four options um that we keep things as the

[1:21:50] way they are. So that would be our option A. Um that we move forward with

[1:21:56] using more federal funding, that we, you know, increase fairs at some level or

[1:22:03] that we decide that we don't we no longer want to do the program. So really

[1:22:08] what we're looking for is your guidance so we can go back to the public transit

[1:22:14] committee on Monday and have a discussion.

[1:22:18] » Thank you for that Sabrina. Before we go to we can do Amanda's question first and

[1:22:23] then go ahead Amanda.

[1:22:27] » Sorry not used to these. Um we did ask for some data from running um if anybody

[1:22:32] is interested in that. um just kind of asking where where our people are going.

[1:22:39] And so um we looked at that data just briefly today. The number one to or from

[1:22:48] spot um that share goes uh is the MTU bus

[1:22:54] stop. So that is the number one most dropped off or picked up from location

[1:22:59] that shared ride goes to. Um, beyond that, the next one was Walmart.

[1:23:05] Um, Quick Trip was very high up there. Um, and then after that would be uh to

[1:23:13] or from collectively what I'm going to call our senior living. So, your uh and

[1:23:18] not just on Alaska. So, like your Moulder um on a care center um

[1:23:23] Springbrook, some of these smaller care centers that may not have their own

[1:23:27] transportation. So, collectively they would be a very high-end user. Um, and

[1:23:31] then you start getting into your Gundersons, your Mayos, um, and just

[1:23:35] sort of like churches and random locations beyond that. But as we are

[1:23:41] talking about MCU, I thought it was at least worth everybody knowing that that

[1:23:44] is the number one pickup and drop off location for shared ride.

[1:23:48] » Thank you. I just want to ask Sabrina one more thing. So, you're rattling off

[1:23:51] the numbers pretty quick and I was having trouble kind of seeing what page

[1:23:55] you were on. I I want to make sure everybody understands like this public

[1:24:00] transportation we have been able to successfully have this because it is

[1:24:04] heavily subsidized but can you say again Sabrina what the total cost is for the

[1:24:10] MTU for on Alaska and for the shared ride without like including the

[1:24:16] subsidies like how much it costs for the programs. Um I've always supported um

[1:24:21] public transportation and I'll continue to do so. Um, but you know, we have we

[1:24:26] have a lot of we can't prioritize everything. So, I'll ask Sabrina that if

[1:24:31] she do you have it available? >> Yeah, I do. I guess I'm just curious. Do

[1:24:34] you want to know including the the share ride and the MTU what our cost is

[1:24:40] separately? >> Separately. Okay. So for 2026, the total

[1:24:45] cost of the MTU um is $54,431

[1:24:51] and the cost for the share ride is 143,573.

[1:24:57] And then as for 2027, it depends which proposal that we move forward with. Um,

[1:25:05] proposal A would be $271,629

[1:25:12] for the share ride and then the MTU would go to the I think it's 80,421.

[1:25:21] So for that first number that is what we're paying but taxpayers are all the

[1:25:28] taxpayers are also contributing to the subsidy. So, I meant I meant the amount

[1:25:34] including what the state government and the federal government is paying toward

[1:25:39] the program because I think that's often overlooked is like our direct cost is in

[1:25:45] this case for the shared ride it's 143,500

[1:25:50] and something but the cost is higher than that. Yes. Um, so the total cost

[1:25:58] for the share ride is $1,313,118.

[1:26:04] Of that, $612,845

[1:26:09] comes from federal and state funding. $240,000

[1:26:13] is the wrership revenue, leaving the remaining 446,273

[1:26:22] for 2027. And then the 80,421

[1:26:26] for the MTU. >> Thank you. That's what I was getting at.

[1:26:30] All right, Stephen.

[1:26:34] » So, um, with the ridership on the share ride, did I miss it? Did you mention how

[1:26:38] many rides were going to the hospitals?

[1:26:43] » Um, I had the clinics, I had Gunderson and Mayo in there. They were probably

[1:26:47] like four and five on the list. >> I just missed it then. All right.

[1:26:50] Thanks. The other thing too with mayor is that

[1:26:54] there are municipalities uh you know with West Salem and Holm that contribute

[1:26:58] to this too and um within their discussions whatever they decide will

[1:27:02] directly impact us as well. Um yeah I mean in the end I don't think there's

[1:27:08] probably anyone here who doesn't want to provide these services. The questions

[1:27:12] are can we provide both of them? Can we provide any of them? And uh what is the

[1:27:20] financial impact on this? because we do have a budget that has to be balanced

[1:27:24] each year and uh that's just the reality of life. We can't do everything. There's

[1:27:28] limited resources. So, >> Rick Neimra,

[1:27:32] » thank you, mayor. Just a couple additional items. So, we did also take a

[1:27:36] look at what are other options in the event. I'm not recommending this, of

[1:27:40] course. Um what other options for transportation are out there? Um

[1:27:44] although not I've talked quite extensively that there's you know Uber

[1:27:47] and Lift of course and we just check randomly during the day to see what

[1:27:50] those fairs look like during the day and could be anywhere from six to 12 dollars

[1:27:53] or something along those lines um during the day. Um so there's that as an

[1:27:57] option. Um Abby Vans um does serve our area as well as well as other areas. Um

[1:28:03] so there's another opportunity. um local cab companies. Again, none of these are

[1:28:07] ideal for some of the population that is being served by our Drift Link program,

[1:28:11] but I also just wanted to make sure you have all the information that there are

[1:28:14] some options out there. Um they just may not be as ideal. Um and then the other

[1:28:19] piece I wanted to mention, um I did reach out to MTU because I wanted to

[1:28:23] know what our writership was for 24 and 25. Um and for 2024 the writership was

[1:28:29] 46,619 and this is just on Alaska. in 2025 it

[1:28:34] was 41,790. So it is a heavily used um service in

[1:28:39] Alaska. Um Adam did advise me that starting next month I believe they are

[1:28:44] going to be able to monitor specific stops. Um so they'll be able to know

[1:28:48] which stops are being utilized the most as well versus just the the geographical

[1:28:52] location. Couple things I just wanted to throw out there forformational purposes

[1:28:56] as well.

[1:29:00] » Okay. So the transit committee needs direction from this council as to how

[1:29:06] they should move forward. So

[1:29:12] know if anyone has any direction you would like to bring up.

[1:29:20] Okay. Jim Bash first and then Stephen not second.

[1:29:25] » Well, I'm on a transit committee. uh one of the things that if we were to take

[1:29:29] more federal money, we would actually be dipping into the future and get less

[1:29:34] money in the future. So that's really something that we discarded. Uh the best

[1:29:39] option we thought was increasing the ridership. Uh Drift Link provides some

[1:29:45] services that other places do not because you can get into wheelchair and

[1:29:49] things like that. Um the other question that came up was if

[1:29:54] we did increase it are we going to see a drop in wrership and uh the consensus

[1:30:01] was maybe not. We don't want to overburden the people that this is going

[1:30:05] to be serving by taking away any money that they live on a uh a certain income

[1:30:09] level. But a dollar or$150 shouldn't be too severe. And uh the other thing that

[1:30:17] I had asked was are we obligated to provide this service and there's no

[1:30:22] statutory obligation. It's just one that um this is a service we do for the

[1:30:28] community. So is it worth it? I do think this is it serves those who cannot serve

[1:30:34] themselves to get to certain areas that they have no other way of transporting.

[1:30:38] And considering the present economy, we may even see writership go up. Who

[1:30:42] knows? But it it seems to be a worthwhile proceeding. Uh we do have

[1:30:47] budgetary concerns. Uh our discussion was increasing the amount per ridership

[1:30:54] per person might help us offset some of those costs.

[1:31:00] » Thank you for that. Jim Stephen not >> during that meeting um I requested and I

[1:31:07] think everyone is in agreement that that was okay that um H Homeman and West

[1:31:12] Salem also invite their finance directors to come to that next meeting

[1:31:17] because this really the big driver on this is that huge increase in cost for

[1:31:22] um for the shareide program and how we if at all possible we can do this. Um, I

[1:31:29] mean, I I'd [clears throat] like to see us do everything possible to try to save

[1:31:33] this program, but in the end, the other uh participating communities will have a

[1:31:40] say in this that may remove ours. Um, because this is ultimately going to be

[1:31:46] how many resources do we have available to do it. Um, again, I'd like to look at

[1:31:51] other options even above and beyond what were discussed in that meeting. Um, and

[1:31:56] we can bring it up at the next one. So, >> Rick, is a decision going to need to be

[1:32:02] made because we have the RFP out and we're coming to the end of the contract.

[1:32:06] What is the timeline for the decision? >> Certainly something sooner rather than

[1:32:11] later. I don't know if we have a dead hard deadline. What I would say is if

[1:32:15] for some reason, and these are all hypothetical speaking of course, um if

[1:32:18] for some reason the contract, the proposed contract um starting in 2027 is

[1:32:24] not acceptable, do we have to go out for a new RFP to see if there will either

[1:32:27] get some some new responses or if they'll change their proposal. If we do

[1:32:31] that, they know that's going to take some time as well too. If a new vendor

[1:32:36] would come in, they would need some time to be able to do what they need to do.

[1:32:39] So really, it's sooner rather than later from a practical standpoint before

[1:32:43] budget um gets submitted to council. Um we know need to know what we need to

[1:32:47] budget for. So there's no hard and fast deadline, but the sooner we know the

[1:32:50] better. >> Um that brings up another question. And

[1:32:53] Sabrina, did you have a chance to research what would like hypothetically

[1:32:58] speaking if the Drift Link program were to be discontinued because we have the

[1:33:05] assets like how does how does is there how complicated is disassembling the

[1:33:15] it will take some work. Um we will have to obviously file our own resolution

[1:33:21] contract. um like that we are ending the program but

[1:33:26] then also we'll have to file some paperwork with the FTA as well as the

[1:33:30] DOT and then all of the vehicles we would have to um dispose of them and

[1:33:37] then pay back the federal government for the amount that was left for the useful

[1:33:42] life of the vehicle and likely we would get that in the selling of the vehicles.

[1:33:49] Um, so that wouldn't be money that would be retained by the municipality unless

[1:33:54] it was over what was owed back to the federal government.

[1:34:00] Thank you. I just think that's a good consideration like if it were to be

[1:34:06] discontinued, it is we kind of need to know that so we can start working out

[1:34:11] the details. Sabrina, >> I was just going to add um our current

[1:34:14] contract does end December 31st. Um, so we we actually do have a decent um like

[1:34:23] we don't have much time. Like if we if we don't make a decision, then we could

[1:34:30] be going a couple months without the transportation because our contract does

[1:34:35] end on December 31st. >> Okay. Uh Rick has one more comment.

[1:34:41] » Sorry, that's okay. >> Along Sabrina's line, too. We've done

[1:34:44] all the extensions of the contract that we can do already. Um, so that's why we

[1:34:48] can't go beyond December 31st with our current contract. Um, and then the other

[1:34:52] piece since we brought up the van piece as well, another component of this

[1:34:56] program is we will need new vans to be replaced periodically. U, we do get

[1:35:01] matched from the federal government for a good portion of it. Um, but those are

[1:35:04] things that the municipalities who are participating in the program will also

[1:35:08] have to contribute to as time goes on. Sabrina can tell you how many we replace

[1:35:12] on a regular basis, but that is also a cost that we will have to consider

[1:35:16] coming up soon.

[1:35:21] » And I believe this was open record, but let me make sure uh when we're talking

[1:35:25] with the with the contract here, the duration and the option years, uh those

[1:35:30] are open record, right? Yeah. So just so everyone knows what we're talking about

[1:35:33] here is if we do move forward, we're obligating oursel for two years and then

[1:35:39] we have three plus one years potential where we can, you know, go one year,

[1:35:44] decide to go another year and decide to go another year before that contract

[1:35:47] runs out. So it's a 2 plus one plus one plus one. Okay.

[1:35:55] » Okay. What would the council like to do?

[1:36:02] Well, I said my piece. I'd like to see us you get do other options and see if

[1:36:06] there's any way to salvage this.

[1:36:13] » Tom Smith. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think we got to look

[1:36:17] at some other options because even if the West Salem and the other ones come

[1:36:21] back and they don't want it, then we're pretty well out of the water, right? So,

[1:36:25] but maybe a rate increase of a dollar, dollar and a half is is probably the

[1:36:29] best option if we keep it. That's my thought.

[1:36:35] » Okay, Kathy, any comments?

[1:36:39] I'm not a huge fan of increasing fees, but um knowing that if we take

[1:36:43] additional government funds, that's going to be coming out of future years

[1:36:47] and then we still have to figure out how then to budget for those future years.

[1:36:51] Um I I'm kind of leaning towards increasing the fee.

[1:36:56] » Thank you, James. I think increasing the fee would be

[1:37:01] reasonable considering for how long it hasn't been and it should honestly be

[1:37:06] raised every year because prices on everything continue to go up

[1:37:11] so it we're probably overdue on that. >> Thank you for that. Jim Bash, did you

[1:37:16] want to add anything? [clears throat] Uh Steve and I had talked about or were

[1:37:22] at the transit committee meeting and listened to the other participants. Um

[1:37:30] they were going to go back and see where they were going to go with this and then

[1:37:33] we'll know a little bit more, but there seemed to be a general consensus to

[1:37:38] increasing the wrership cost to help offset the budgetary concerns.

[1:37:45] uh it seems like the other municipalities do want to continue this

[1:37:50] but they are in the same position we are with budget concerns. I think that's one

[1:37:56] reason that Steve would wanted the finance directors or whomever to show up

[1:38:00] to kind of give their opinion. But um if we can move forward that would be uh

[1:38:06] something we're doing for the people of our cities and uh if possible we would

[1:38:12] have to increase wrership or uh the funds for wrership.

[1:38:18] » Okay. So what I'm hearing a general consensus saying to raise potentially

[1:38:24] theoretically $1.50 but not take from additional grant money that could affect

[1:38:30] future years. Is that correct,

[1:38:36] Stephen? >> Yeah, I think so. That was consensus

[1:38:39] also at the um well the consensus there at that time was $1, but uh even a $150

[1:38:44] is going to be under what an Uber costs with a higher degree of uh of uh service

[1:38:50] especially for those with mobility challenges. But um understand if it's

[1:38:55] just $150, we still have a substantial increase in our in our uh cost for 2027

[1:39:01] 2828. That's why I was looking at other ways to offset with possibly having to

[1:39:06] choose between MTU and uh the share ride.

[1:39:12] Thank you. Any other comments on that? Okay. I don't think we need a motion. I

[1:39:19] think that gives the team enough information to go forward back to the

[1:39:24] transit committee. We'll see what happens there. Um and then report back

[1:39:28] next month. Okay, everyone's good. All right, Rick. back to you.

[1:39:34] » Great. Thank you. Let me just get to the memo on the last item here, at least

[1:39:38] under my section. All right. This is in regards to traffic

[1:39:42] control attendance. Uh this is a topic that has come up periodically um as I

[1:39:46] indicated in my memo. Um has come up from staff members, council members, but

[1:39:51] it also has come up. I recently had a call from um Steve Doyle's um assistant

[1:39:56] um asking questions about this as well. Um, and so I'm going to give a brief

[1:40:00] introduction and I think Alder might be able to shed a little light onto the

[1:40:04] information on this as well. Um, but traffic control attendants, you heard

[1:40:07] the individual who spoke during public comment earlier tonight. Um, there is a

[1:40:11] pro provision under state law that does allow for municipalities to appoint them

[1:40:15] in order to do certain things. Um, I just included a portion of the statute

[1:40:19] just to show the um, the reference to it. Um, but it is a program that must be

[1:40:23] adopted by ordinance and there are certain requirements that the statute

[1:40:27] does set forth that must be met, but it also leaves a lot to the municipalities

[1:40:32] to have to determine what's the appropriate thing. One example is each

[1:40:36] person that is appointed must have some form of training. Well, there's not a

[1:40:40] traffic attendant um program training out there. Um, and so based on the

[1:40:44] research I did, the best one I could come up with was likely the same

[1:40:48] certification you need to become a flagger. um if you're going to be

[1:40:51] working on roadways um I talked with Jared Halter from public works about

[1:40:55] that and um just the process that it would take um and it is every two years

[1:41:00] needs to be renewed. So that's something but again there's no guidance in the

[1:41:02] statute but that's what it appears would be required. Um each time it can't be a

[1:41:09] blanket appointment for someone to do it just for any time that there is let's

[1:41:13] say a funeral for example each funeral would have to be a separate appointment

[1:41:16] by the municipality. So there would be have to be a process. So there just a

[1:41:20] number of things that would have to work through. Um you know public records

[1:41:23] keeping um you know making sure that things are complied with. Those are just

[1:41:27] some things that as staff we talked about we had some concerns. Having said

[1:41:31] all of that there is an opportunity for a program out there under state statute.

[1:41:35] Um I'm going to give turn over to alternat. He can probably provide some

[1:41:38] additional information about the historic um use of this program.

[1:41:42] » Thank you for that. Um Rick Nemer will turn it over to Stephen KN for

[1:41:46] additional information. So, um, yeah, I'm even questioning the need to go

[1:41:50] through flagger training. Ultimately, what this is is in the past when this

[1:41:55] service was able to be provided is that we had an individual who dawned a uh

[1:42:03] basically it was a crossing guard outfit. He he put on a reflective vest,

[1:42:07] had a stop sign and a whistle, and when the funeral procession is leaving the

[1:42:13] church, or I guess it could also be a uh funeral home, um that that individual

[1:42:20] would blow the whistle, go out into the street just like they would if they had

[1:42:23] kids crossing the road to go to school, and hold that that sign up and stop

[1:42:27] traffic going both ways so the funeral procession can get out safely. That's

[1:42:32] all it is. So, and I, you know, I know that for instance, the individual who

[1:42:36] came up and gave public input was call referring to it as traffic control, too.

[1:42:40] I guess it kind of is, but all you're doing is blowing a whistle and stopping

[1:42:44] traffic. You're not trying to direct traffic or anything like that like a

[1:42:48] flagger might do. You're just telling them to stop and then, okay, you can go

[1:42:52] now. That's all it is. Um, certainly, if we go forward with this, um, any cost

[1:42:58] for training would have to be borne by the funeral home andor churches. It

[1:43:02] would not be something that I would support being subsidized by the city,

[1:43:06] but I can't imagine the cost being all that great to be honest, especially if

[1:43:10] we can set the standards for this. It's folks, it's just going out with a stop

[1:43:15] sign with a whistle. That's all it is. Um, we're not flagging people down and

[1:43:20] you can stop and now go and stop and now go and directing traffic or wherever.

[1:43:23] It's just stop. Okay, now flow of traffic can continue. Now, why is this

[1:43:28] service necessary? You can talk to any funeral home director, any church. There

[1:43:34] are accidents. People do not understand that they need to stop for a funeral

[1:43:39] possession procession. Uh I know that uh my own um pastor of my own church uh

[1:43:48] when he was uh servicing out in Toma was t-boned uh while he was coming out

[1:43:52] second in the procession. I've heard from a funeral home director where the

[1:43:56] hearse itself was t-boned. And this is while they're even while they're being

[1:44:00] stopped, let alone now that they don't have this service. Uh I witness it

[1:44:04] myself with uh folks clearly not understanding they're supposed to stop.

[1:44:10] And uh it gets very scary. I'm in one of those cars myself cuz I assist my pastor

[1:44:16] since he's mobility challenged when he goes out to the uh to the cemeteries.

[1:44:20] And it's like, yeah, I don't think this person's going to stop. And it's it's

[1:44:23] very scary. did not have the that the the number of occurrences

[1:44:30] uh when we were able to have that service. I will tell you that the number

[1:44:35] of incidents has increased exponentially since we've lost that service. Almost

[1:44:39] every single time that funeral procession pulls out now to head to a

[1:44:43] cemetery, there is somebody who clearly does not understand they're supposed to

[1:44:47] stop. And it gets very scary when they stop at the last second. So, I really

[1:44:52] think that we need to try to get some way to do this. Again, I think uh from

[1:44:56] what I've talked to with other churches and and especially with other funeral

[1:44:59] directors, that is universally we need to do this.

[1:45:04] » Thank you for that explanation. Do the counselors have any comments or

[1:45:07] questions regarding this, >> Kathy? I just never realized that this

[1:45:12] was Sorry, I never realized this was a city um program. I I always thought that

[1:45:17] it was something that the funeral homes or churches

[1:45:22] Amanda. Oh, I was I just thought I always

[1:45:26] thought that was something with the that the uh funeral homes or churches would

[1:45:29] provide that you know that's where the funeral is coming from that that's I

[1:45:33] guess I've never really paid attention though. That's all.

[1:45:36] » Okay, Amanda, >> just for clarification, this has never

[1:45:39] been authorized by law. So I I don't know what was formally done at St. hats.

[1:45:45] If it was being done, it was not being done under any state statute that allows

[1:45:49] it to be done. >> Uh

[1:45:52] the statute that we're talking about tonight, the one that Rick mentioned, is

[1:45:56] sort of a backdoor way of doing this legally. Um this came into fruition in

[1:46:03] 2012 with a bill that was passed in 2011. Um it was meant for special

[1:46:08] events, which is why it's very specific as to the date and time of each event.

[1:46:14] So, it was really meant for like largescale traffic control at something

[1:46:17] like the state fair or major events. Um, I do from a liability perspective have a

[1:46:25] little bit of a concern about putting somebody out in the middle of traffic um

[1:46:30] with nothing but a whistle and and a vest. I mean quite and a stop sign,

[1:46:36] you know, much for the reasons that Stephen described. Um, you know, people

[1:46:42] these days don't always pay attention to normal stop signs, let alone like who's

[1:46:46] going to bear the liability when this person gets hit. Will the city bear the

[1:46:49] liability? Will the funeral home? Will the church? Um, because that's a factor.

[1:46:55] If we're going to be the ones that are going to regulate this program, we're

[1:46:59] likely going to bear some liability. Is there going to be an insurance

[1:47:02] requirement? Um, that would be a question I would have. Um, so I do think

[1:47:07] that that there's probably answers or questions that we don't have answers to

[1:47:12] as of this moment. >> Thank you for that legal perspective.

[1:47:16] Amanda, we appreciate it. Counselors, any other comments or questions.

[1:47:22] Okay, we'll go with James first and then Jim Bash.

[1:47:26] » Is there any reason a can't arrange to have a police officer block traffic at a

[1:47:32] certain point in time of the day?

[1:47:37] We'll let our chief of police answer that question.

[1:47:39] » That that would be very difficult for us to do unfortunately just to guarantee

[1:47:45] that we would have someone there. Um we would have to bring someone in on

[1:47:49] overtime just so we could guarantee that that person was going to be available.

[1:47:54] Um the scheduling and the cost of that would be very difficult.

[1:48:00] » Thank you for that, Chief Jim Ban. I just a question. Uh, is it possible to

[1:48:08] put the onus on the funeral home and the churches to provide their own people

[1:48:14] rather than the city? Well, I'm I'm saying uh can they do this

[1:48:19] legally? That's my question. Can the funeral home and the churches provide

[1:48:24] their own personnel without the city getting involved?

[1:48:27] » Okay, we'll let our city attorney answer that question. Thank you, Jim Bes.

[1:48:31] » No, they cannot. they would need to do it under a program as kind of described

[1:48:36] by Rick where the city would need to approve the time, the location. Um, they

[1:48:41] would we would need to have proof that the person doing it had whatever

[1:48:45] requisite training was required. Um, if we wanted to throw an insurance

[1:48:49] requirement on there, I would be in support of that as your attorney. Um but

[1:48:53] but no, it would need to be basically like a city-run program almost like

[1:48:57] we're permitting the use of a traffic attendant at this

[1:49:01] particular for this particular occasion. >> Isn't there a a state law or is this

[1:49:07] just a city thing? Um I know there are some cities that when you're in a

[1:49:12] funeral position, you're allowed to go through red lights and people have to

[1:49:16] stop. You drive with your headlights on and you're allowed to proceed.

[1:49:20] » Correct. That's state law. That is a state law.

[1:49:23] » Okay.

[1:49:26] » Okay. Any other? Okay. Kathy Londarf. Um I actually um was just thinking about

[1:49:33] the Sorry, I literally just lost it.

[1:49:39] It was something about what what Amanda had said. Um

[1:49:43] basic Oh, um about the uh notification of the frequency, right? It sounds like

[1:49:48] it this was really intended for like if we're going to have a concert, we can

[1:49:52] bring somebody in, hire them, and so they can direct traffic. If we were to

[1:49:58] uh approve an ordinance for this as a municipality,

[1:50:03] we're looking at potentially probably adding in another committee to approve

[1:50:09] specific dates and that, right? Am I thinking of that right? And like if we

[1:50:14] if we have to have certain uh um notification of dates in advance that

[1:50:21] potentially is going to be uh prolonging the time of a funeral too, right?

[1:50:27] » You could set up that. We also do have a lot of permitting and licensing that

[1:50:31] city staff has the authority to approve. So it could be something where if they

[1:50:34] meet the requirements set under ordinance that either the chief of

[1:50:37] police or the clerk or somebody within the city would have the ability um to

[1:50:42] approve that. Okay. >> Um,

[1:50:45] so that would be one option. >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:50:49] » Stephen. Not >> Yeah, I think for understanding

[1:50:52] timelines on this, uh, generally speaking, when there's a funeral, it's

[1:50:55] going to be usually at least 72 hours out. I've seen them occur within 48, but

[1:51:00] I mean, the family has to get with the funeral home. They have to get with each

[1:51:03] other. They have to make determination on what they want to do. It's not

[1:51:07] something that happens today or tomorrow. It's uh you're going to have

[1:51:10] enough time where uh they should be able to get with the city and uh okay, here's

[1:51:15] my in this case, you know, here's my proof of a training. Here's the date and

[1:51:19] time I'm going to need it and uh do I have an approval? They should have 48,

[1:51:23] 72, 96 hours to do that. Sometimes even longer. Some people delay funerals for

[1:51:29] quite literally months. So, yeah. >> Okay. So, counselors, how would you like

[1:51:34] staff and Rick to proceed with this request? Oh, Chief Berg, please comment.

[1:51:41] » Thank you, Mayor. I just did a quick calculation today and we have 11

[1:51:46] churches, if my calculations are correct, and four funeral homes. So, if

[1:51:52] this is necessary, again, I would just ask the council to consider staff at

[1:51:57] least at the police department because if we're looking into training people or

[1:52:03] ensuring people are trained, approving dates, um potentially background checks,

[1:52:08] because if we're giving our stamp of approval for these people to go out and

[1:52:13] stop traffic, um are we looking at routes? Um, it I think there's a lot

[1:52:18] more here than what it just first appears to be. And I'm not trying to

[1:52:24] make it overly complicated, but my experience tells me that that's kind of

[1:52:28] how these things can get. >> Thank you.

[1:52:34] » Thank you, sir. Okay, Stephen. Not >> Yeah. So any uh solutions or options we

[1:52:40] come up with in the future I do think should be transferring any costs onto

[1:52:44] either funeral home or uh or church and that would include liability insurance.

[1:52:49] Um if there are background checks, you know, that's that's I I mean I think

[1:52:53] it's reasonable to assume that their people who are doing this should have to

[1:52:57] go through that. I don't know that background checks would be necessary or

[1:53:01] not because we're not dealing with children. We're dealing just with cars.

[1:53:05] I understand there are people in the car, but uh um but uh whatever those

[1:53:10] costs may be, you know, equipment, obviously, all that should have to fall

[1:53:14] on them, not on the city. The only thing we're doing is trying to figure out a

[1:53:17] process and in order to approve it. >> Thank you. Okay, Rick Neimire, at this

[1:53:25] point of the discussion, what do you need from the council?

[1:53:28] » Does C does council want us to put together what this program would look

[1:53:31] like and bring it forward, what that process would look like? Um, and while I

[1:53:36] agree that, you know, from my perspective, the cost would get would

[1:53:38] get passed on, you know, we are now adding another process that staff are

[1:53:43] going to have to work through every time that someone wants one of these. You

[1:53:46] know, we don't know if it's going to be 10 times a week, if it's going to be

[1:53:49] once a month. We don't know what that's going to look like yet, but we are

[1:53:52] looking at, you know, record retention. You know, storing these records for the

[1:53:55] requisite period of time also is a cost to the city. Um, staff time and

[1:53:59] processing these things, making sure that their eyes are dotted, tees are

[1:54:02] crossed, so to speak. I just I want to make sure that it's clear that, you

[1:54:05] know, those are things that while I get that it might be someone as simple as,

[1:54:09] you know, going out in the street with a whistle. I'm not trying to be sarcastic

[1:54:12] about it, but as Amanda said, it is putting somebody in a lane of traffic

[1:54:16] where there's always the opportunity for somebody to, you know, not be paying

[1:54:20] attention. So, it does create some liability, I think, on behalf of the

[1:54:24] city to some extent. So, I just want us to be cautious in regards to how we

[1:54:27] might proceed on this. Having said all of that, just need direction. Is this

[1:54:31] something the council wants us to come back with?

[1:54:34] » Thank you. What is the desire of the council?

[1:54:42] » I'd be interested in seeing something come forward with this.

[1:54:46] » Do you need an actual motion or is like a headnot? Okay.

[1:54:50] » I think much like the one with the um ATV UTV, if we know that you want to at

[1:54:54] least take a look at something, as someone indicated, you still have to

[1:54:57] consider it and decide whether to pass it or not. So, um, we can put together a

[1:55:01] proposal. >> Okay. So, BA there's basic interest in

[1:55:05] having staff pursue this. Okay. I'm seeing several yeses. So, I

[1:55:09] think you have your answer, Rick. Thank you.

[1:55:14] Does that conclude your report? [laughter]

[1:55:16] » I'm finally done. >> We should have timed. It was longer than

[1:55:19] the mayor's report. [laughter] Okay. So, we have two um close session

[1:55:26] items on the agenda tonight. Um, I'll read them into the record. We'll have

[1:55:30] Amanda do a brief comment about why the close session will be necessary for

[1:55:34] these items. We'll have a roll call vote and then we'll continue on. So, item two

[1:55:41] is discussion and possible action on the fire department union negotiation

[1:55:45] update. Um, please note that the common council may convene in close session

[1:55:49] under section 19851E of the Wisconsin state statutes for the purpose of

[1:55:54] deliberating or negotiating the purchase of public properties, the investing in

[1:55:59] investing of public funds, or conducting of other specified public business.

[1:56:04] Whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session, the

[1:56:09] council may reconvene in open session to take the necessary action and continue

[1:56:14] on with the printed agenda. And then item number 13 is discussion and

[1:56:20] possible action on the offer to purchase from amplify for the Gunderson parking

[1:56:25] ramp. Note that the common council may convene in close session under section

[1:56:29] 19851E of the Wisconsin statutes for the

[1:56:33] purpose of deliberating or negotiating the purchase of public properties, the

[1:56:38] investing of public funds, or the conducting of other specified public

[1:56:42] business. Whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed

[1:56:47] session, the council may reconvene in open session to take the necessary

[1:56:51] action and or continue on with the printed agenda.

[1:56:56] Amanda, as our city attorney, can you please advise us on these two items?

[1:57:04] » Uh, thank you, your honor. So, you know, as you described, we will be discussing

[1:57:08] the fire department union negotiations. These are our standard regular contract

[1:57:12] negotiations that we enter into um every time a contract is set to expire, uh,

[1:57:17] which the fire department contract is as of 2027. Um and then as mentioned under

[1:57:24] um number 13, we'll be discussing the parking ramp purchase. Um and again,

[1:57:30] anytime we are looking at the purchasing or selling of public properties, um that

[1:57:34] is necessary to do in close session. >> Move to go into close session.

[1:57:41] » Second. We have a motion by Steven N. It's been seconded by Kathy Lowendorf to

[1:57:46] go into close session. Please answer when your name is called. This is a roll

[1:57:50] call vote. >> Alder Wick

[1:57:54] » I. >> Alder Smith

[1:57:56] » I. >> Alder Bash.

[1:57:57] » Hi. >> Alder Lwendorf

[1:57:59] » I. >> Alder not.

[1:58:00] » Hi. >> Okay. We are in close session. The time

[1:58:03] is 900 p.m. Um we'll secure the room and reconvene in about five minutes.

Common Council - September 8, 2026

Transcript