[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.