[5:59] I would try to be one friend that would attend. No, we actually have to might not do it, but I got a clarification on it. So, I'll have to do that one with that. And then I had this project that we were faced with, she wants to do it, and then just, like, we'll take care of that, sorry, over here on the point. That is.

[12:24] Christ for the pledge of allegiance.

[12:27] Christ for the pledge of allegiance to the life of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

[12:34] One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[12:40] Will the clerk please call the roll?

[12:42] Council of the Dean.

[12:43] Yes.

[12:44] Councilor Rancickel.

[12:45] Councilor Mafe.

[12:46] Here.

[12:46] Councilor Spiney.

[12:47] Here.

[12:48] Councilor Finnecy.

[12:49] Councilor Allen.

[12:50] Vice President Ludwig, Councilor Herrick, Councilor Johnson, and President Krasky.

[12:56] We have a quorum.

[12:59] Item 4.1 is the approval of the September 3, 2024 regular council meeting minutes.

[13:05] Motion is by Councilor Herrick, second by Councilor Elm, is their discussion.

[13:10] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[13:13] Those are the polls saying no, motion carries.

[13:16] Item 6.1 is report from Mayor Paine.

[13:18] Good evening again, Councillors. First, I just want to clarify something. You see me making

[13:23] recommendations under new business and so you're aware, I guess, that was a little bit

[13:29] of a struggle for me. What should go under the business by the mayor and what should go

[13:33] under new business? Basically, decided if something relates to the function of the office of

[13:39] mayor, it will be under item six here. So that's committee appointments, the budget, anything

[13:44] else that might come up. But if it's council business, if I'm recommending policy of some kind,

[13:49] I'm going to be the same as the rest of the end, just recommend it with new business

[13:52] and no special treatment. So my report is going to be lengthy. As I promised last week,

[14:00] I would give you an update on the budget. This is not the budget presentation. I'm not introducing

[14:05] the budget. You have a document in front of you of the general fund budget only, it's expenses and

[14:10] revenue, that will tell you very little. I think that this will give you about as much

[14:17] information as a poster would about a movie. That said, I'm going to give you a point

[14:22] you to a couple of things so you can see the broad structure of how the general fund

[14:27] budget will look this year. The vast majority of the decisions about the general fund have

[14:32] have been made. So I barring new information or possibly negotiation with some counselors

[14:40] or a mistake that we've made, this is unlikely to see change. But I don't want to breeze

[14:46] too far past that second point. I have negotiated with counselors before I release the final

[14:51] budget. This is the next two weeks or your opportunity to do that. It is going to be a tough

[14:56] negotiation. This budget is done and we put a lot of work into it.

[15:00] So I'm just going to plunge right into this and then I will invite any questions. I will answer every question I can again with the caveat that the answer could change in two weeks when I present you the budget. But I want you to have your hands on this document. I'm not releasing the digital document yet where you can pour through all of the departments line by line, but you will have that before the presentation two weeks. Conceival, I was just very close to releasing it tonight. It's possible we release it tomorrow.

[15:29] if we're feeling comfortable about it, maybe based on how this discussion goes if we think we have changes to make.

[15:36] The so, I will plunge in here, interrupt me if you have questions, but this isn't too much, I guess.

[15:44] First, some revenue and expenditure facts.

[15:47] Let's get the worst news out of the way first, the terminal tax declined.

[15:51] It did not go up, it declined by $143,115.

[15:55] That's significant because the terminal tax is the main funding source for our CIP.

[16:00] So, if you remember how the CIP works, we project for five years and we generally

[16:04] project the existing amount of the terminal tax for those five years.

[16:09] If it goes down, we project it going down for five years.

[16:12] So, that number I just gave you, multiply it by five, that's the hit that the CIP just took.

[16:17] And don't worry, we just started.

[16:21] Second, there have been significant changes in the levy calculation.

[16:24] This is going to be the hardest part about this process, we're not going to be able to tell you a lot about what the final tax bill is going to look like.

[16:30] There have been a number of changes in Wisconsin state law, the most significant of which is the repeal of the personal property tax.

[16:37] It's important to note we did not lose that revenue. The state replaced that revenue but it's a different form of revenue.

[16:43] It's no longer a tax and therefore it doesn't figure into our levy calculation in the same way that it did before.

[16:49] As a very brief primer, if you've forgotten, we have limits by how much we can raise the levy every year.

[16:55] We are capped by the percentage in growth in net new construction.

[16:59] If there are new buildings, new value added to the city, we can increase the tax base by that much but no further.

[17:07] Well, it's a much more complex formula than that.

[17:10] But the move of the revenue for personal property tax from a tax to a state benefit to the city has made that shared revenue and moved it to that side of the budget, which really changed the levy calculation mostly in positive ways, but we can get to that.

[17:30] That's a shared revenue.

[17:32] We had a different shared revenue law last year that gave us a major increase in shared

[17:38] revenue and then tied the growth to the growth in the state average sales tax rate.

[17:46] I am still learning all of these laws as they go but what that amounted to this year was

[17:50] a 2.3% increase in shared revenue.

[17:53] So right there it starts helping our revenue numbers.

[17:57] Okay, what you're going to find in the budget, I'm going to come back to some of the bottom

[18:00] line stuff.

[18:01] Right now, I've added no new staff positions.

[18:03] I know it's going to be a disappointment to many of you.

[18:07] We took a big hit in revenue with the loss at Terminal Tax because it's important to remember

[18:11] the Terminal Tax also funds the general fund, and so we have to make much more difficult

[18:15] choices when that goes down.

[18:17] So I've added no new staff positions, but, and this is a very big but, that does not mean

[18:23] and we cannot add new positions in 2025.

[18:26] What it means is I'm not funding them in the budget.

[18:29] The city, as I'm going to get to tonight,

[18:32] and especially in two weeks,

[18:34] the city has, is in a very fiscally smear,

[18:37] we had a deficit in previous years,

[18:38] that was a paper deficit.

[18:40] We call that market to market.

[18:42] That basically means our investments,

[18:44] because of the way the interest market has worked,

[18:47] we have a number of low yield, high security investments

[18:51] and think I'm like CDs, like you would buy from your bank,

[18:54] we would not be able to liquefy those without a loss.

[18:57] Or two years ago, we would not have been able

[18:59] to liquefy those without a loss.

[19:00] And our auditors make us book that loss.

[19:03] However, as they mature because they're bonds

[19:05] and we were promised that money,

[19:07] as they mature to their maturity value,

[19:09] we gain that money back.

[19:10] A lot of that position, the surplus you're seeing,

[19:13] is that new gain.

[19:14] However, both of those affect our reserve.

[19:17] So according to our reserve policy,

[19:18] that one and a half million is just going into the reserve.

[19:20] of it's just going to serve the reserve this year.

[19:22] So we don't get to play with that.

[19:24] A little bit of bad news, but I'm going to,

[19:27] I know it sounds like all bad news,

[19:28] but I promise I'm saving the best for last.

[19:30] The, we're looking at the end of the expenditure

[19:34] restricting program.

[19:35] We no longer qualify because the expenditure

[19:40] restricting program was created for disenfranchised

[19:44] communities, communities that have high rates of poverty,

[19:47] low incomes and therefore end up with very high tax rates to cover the cost of services.

[19:56] In other words, in a wealthy community, a low tax rate can pay for the exact same services

[20:01] that a much higher tax rate must pay for in a lower income community if that makes sense.

[20:06] We have to ask more of people that actually make less if our economy and our fiscal system

[20:11] is not working well. We appear to have solved that problem. You in order to qualify for the ERP,

[20:17] you must be in have a higher than average tax rate in the state of Wisconsin.

[20:23] We now have a lower than average tax rate in the state of Wisconsin.

[20:26] In fact, we are one of the highest performing communities in the state in terms of fairness in our mill rate.

[20:35] But that costs us money. Good news is, there is a little bit left.

[20:37] We get one final bump of the ERP. It's not as big as the more season counselors are used to.

[20:43] There is a little bit of money. It's in the budget.

[20:45] but next year we won't have that anymore.

[20:47] And we, I think we should all congratulate ourselves

[20:50] for building great budgets

[20:52] that and treating our citizens fairly,

[20:55] but that means we have to act like a fiscally responsible

[20:58] and fiscally strong community

[20:59] and come up with that revenue somewhere else.

[21:02] Almost done here.

[21:04] You're gonna get a much longer presentation on debt service

[21:07] or on our debt position at the next council meeting.

[21:12] So I'm not gonna say too much about it tonight

[21:14] except to say that our debt service continues to fall and our debt capacity continues to rise.

[21:21] We have not been bonding, therefore the cost of servicing our debt, the debts just keep getting paid off.

[21:26] I did a lot of celebrating about that position last year that it was a more,

[21:31] we've reached historic levels of debt responsibility in the city that position has only,

[21:37] or will only improve for 2025.

[21:39] Okay, and that is among the best news, what this all adds up, and I can explain a bit more because this is a very detailed document when you get into the individual departments and you get the full presentation.

[21:50] Overall, big picture numbers. Our revenue increased by a net of 2.95%. Our expenses increased by 0.63%, less than 1%, which generates a surplus.

[22:06] plus we did, we were able to through cuts,

[22:09] responsible spending, finding extra revenue,

[22:11] some strong economy, some luck.

[22:14] We are able to build a strong budget

[22:15] that generates a very large surplus.

[22:17] I have eliminated that surplus

[22:20] by reducing the terminal tax transfer

[22:23] to the general fund for the second straight year.

[22:26] So as I said earlier, we use a portion of the terminal tax

[22:30] to help fund the general fund.

[22:32] It's just been so hard to fund the general fund

[22:33] that for years, we hauled some of that,

[22:35] millions of dollars from the Ternel Tax over to just pay our day-to-day bills.

[22:39] Past councils have disagreed with that and felt that we should be moving away from that.

[22:45] I have come to really agree that's not, we think that's a long-term stable source of

[22:49] revenue.

[22:50] Well, it did fall, this year it really didn't fall by very much.

[22:54] But if we are in a position to do so, reducing that only increases revenue to the CIP and allows

[22:59] us to make up for that shortfall I described earlier.

[23:02] So that means the CIP will also have more revenue.

[23:06] So we actually solved the problem I described earlier.

[23:09] Another fun little milestone though, well we avoided a bad milestone.

[23:14] Had we not reduced the terminal tax transfer to the general fund, for the first time ever

[23:19] that transfer was projected to be roughly half or more than half of the total terminal tax

[23:26] allocation.

[23:27] We prevented that.

[23:28] But for the second straight year, it will actually fall, which you can see on your revenue

[23:32] sheet, which is the second sheet.

[23:34] And then finally, I just kind of saved the best for last.

[23:37] I am going to propose a decrease in the collected levy for the second straight year.

[23:43] We will decrease the tax at last year.

[23:46] The tax levy was 12,904,000 collected.

[23:49] This year, I am proposing 12,882,000.

[23:53] As of 6.50pm on Tuesday, the budget is presented in two weeks, so it's possible that could change, but I'm confident enough to say it out here in public on the record.

[24:05] Second straight year of the levee going down. One thing I want to caution you, though, while I've given you a gift in communicating with your constituents, you don't believe me?

[24:14] Well, I've given you a gift to communicate with your constituents.

[24:18] Please be very careful in the way we communicate this tax levy.

[24:22] Because while it is 100% true, if we adopt this budget, as is with this levy number,

[24:27] it will be 100% true that the city decreased taxes.

[24:31] The only tool you have to decrease taxes is to decrease the debt service or decrease the operational levy.

[24:37] A lot of this is a decrease in debt service, but it is going down.

[24:40] the, however, as you all know, the tax bill that will arrive in January is a, say,

[24:50] is whatever happens to your tax bill, it wasn't the city's fault.

[24:54] The city didn't do it. The city is trying to be as responsible as possible,

[24:59] particularly in this year. I think that's, did I have more notes?

[25:08] Yeah, just lastly, what's next?

[25:10] We may have some final corrections, minor edits, and I like I said we'll fix those future

[25:17] projections.

[25:18] We will begin work on the CIP, probably first thing tomorrow.

[25:23] This is the fun part where you schedule meeting with me, whatever date you meet with me,

[25:28] you can see the budget as it exists that day.

[25:32] We still have quite a few more budgets to complete before we finish the budget book, the enterprise

[25:36] funds, the nonprofit grants, specifically ESD, landfill, all of those little small budgets.

[25:42] We're going to try and go over them all so that they're all in the budget so you can make all of

[25:45] your decisions at once. And then the last thing we'll do is assemble the budget book so that the

[25:49] public can actually read it. It wasn't too long. Your questions, please, if you have any, we can wait to.

[26:00] For the oil pipeline terminal that's going down, do we know, do you get any word why it went down or?

[26:06] Yes, the value of the terminal actually increased, but the taxable rate in Wisconsin decreased.

[26:13] So basically, Wisconsin decreased how much the taxes collected on properties of this kind.

[26:19] It's a very unique tax and very difficult to predict. This actually happened once before.

[26:24] It didn't actually go down, but it was lower than we projected it to be.

[26:29] and I can't say that this is a true connection but it did cause, there was an increase in the following years.

[26:36] So what DORs told us to expect is combination of the tax rate, the projected value of the terminal, we should expect this to stay flat in coming years.

[26:46] But the terminal is continuing to increase in value.

[26:49] Okay, so yeah, okay, that makes sense.

[26:51] So then are we, would we expect the future years for projected 26 and 27 to go back?

[26:59] Because right now it's projected 4.8 for the future.

[27:03] You're looking at the revenue line for the terminal tax transfer.

[27:06] Yeah, that'll be one of the things that we work on when we look at the projections.

[27:10] Most likely, I will not, because I'll bring it down to this year.

[27:14] So what I tend to do with the terminal taxes.

[27:15] is absent some other reason or an important decision,

[27:19] I don't change a number going forward.

[27:23] So if we project what's internal tax number this year,

[27:27] I'm projecting $4.3 million in the general fund,

[27:30] I'll likely put $4.3 million in each of those years going forward.

[27:36] Instead of the $3.8.

[27:38] Actually, I'm sorry, I was looking at the wrong line.

[27:41] $3.8 is the correct number.

[27:43] I will project $3.8 in the coming years.

[27:44] Okay, that makes sense. And then the no longer qualifying for the EL ERP, right?

[27:52] Yes. Is that something that changed or did we just, the, the scales just tip across the,

[27:57] the state of Wisconsin? No, our tax rate's been falling. It's, it's been falling. The mill rate's

[28:03] been coming down. That's a complicated question, and we're, we're learning about it pretty rapidly,

[28:07] and seen as director Reiner has come up. My, well, he's done this work, and most of the time I can

[28:12] carry it but. One specifically I want to talk about with the mill rates it's going on and this

[28:18] is a statewide issue where we're seeing mill rates all across cities come down. This looks at the

[28:23] equalized mill rate. With with the revalue we should equal the equalized mill rate right now that's

[28:27] what the state says our value should be. But what we're seeing is we're seeing equalized value go up

[28:33] up up and we're seeing everyone's mill rate go down. So it's not exactly that we're changing the

[28:41] way we lever your anything, it's just that value keeps increasing, so that tax rate keeps

[28:45] coming down. That's a huge proponent in what's happening right now.

[28:52] So if everybody across the state, their equalized value is increasing and the mill rate is decreasing,

[28:58] that makes sense. I mean, just the, you know, the market that we're in. How does that, if it's

[29:03] happening across the state, how does that separate us from now not qualifying for, for that

[29:09] expenditure?

[29:09] because we already had little millerades.

[29:12] So we're just quite a bit lower than the rest of the state.

[29:15] Right, got it.

[29:16] Thank you.

[29:23] And then can you just explain the one thing

[29:26] that you said was no new staff, but if we have some slow hires

[29:30] that we might be able to work it in,

[29:33] or we could look to the future like we do the CIP,

[29:37] can you explain how that would work

[29:41] or how you envision that work? Which one? Those would be different.

[29:47] Okay, so one option is if we decide we want to hire right now. Let's say there's a proposal.

[29:54] I've usually resisted this because the budget process is a chance for us to look at the entire city.

[30:00] The public safety committee may recommend hiring police officers, while the finance committee wants to beef up the finance department. And I think, to a certain extent, we can still provide global advice. We will still have the priorities that the council created for this year. So, if our fiscal position is looking strong in the first or second quarter, and a councilor or a committee says,

[30:25] says, hey, the fifth highest priority was staff for this department.

[30:31] I think we should move forward with this, or this is a new idea somebody's come up

[30:37] with and it's just so great.

[30:39] I think we'd be in a position to say, well, we can afford it.

[30:43] We'd at least be able to say, yes, we can afford to do that, and then we can project it

[30:47] in the future budgets.

[30:49] Another option, though, would be to say we're going to say we value this position, we're

[30:56] going to create it, we're going to start it in 2028.

[31:02] And it would be a way of identifying our values early, so it would have to be removed by

[31:07] that point.

[31:07] But what it does, what that does, is it sort of makes this cost permanent, and I guess the

[31:14] way I would see that as I wouldn't be able to remove that any more than I would be able

[31:17] remove a vacant position that exists now. I mean, maybe I can do that. I've just never done that.

[31:23] So that's novel and I don't really know how that would work. It would be a new process to do

[31:28] that. And so we're inventing it as we go. But we have created some staff positions during the year.

[31:33] It's very rare or we've started positions early. That's happened. Saying the budget should be

[31:39] strong enough to handle that or it might be strong enough to handle it. Another option is we

[31:44] You pull somebody back from the CIP and we just fund positions at the council insist on it, right?

[31:49] Okay, that makes sense.

[31:51] The way I understood it at first is you're saying it would be okay to take $50,000 from 2027 and apply that to next year.

[32:04] So I'm glad I misunderstood that, that was all.

[32:08] Thank you.

[32:08] Any other questions, Councillor Herc.

[32:10] Yeah, I'm assuming all the re-evaluations are done, is that correct?

[32:16] For the city?

[32:17] Yes, I believe so.

[32:19] Yeah, the re-evales complete.

[32:20] Okay, so will those re-evaluations take effect on this tax bill coming up in December?

[32:26] Yes.

[32:26] Okay, so with that being said, I'm sure the school board will base all what they're looking for on all these new increases, correct?

[32:36] Yes, including, I don't know that I know exactly how the school board creates its levy.

[32:43] I mean, I've served on the county board and at the city of Superior and I've worked

[32:46] on both of those budgets, and I think the school district is quite a bit different.

[32:53] However, it is a property tax, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's tied to property value.

[32:59] and the, but there is also that extra variable of the referendum.

[33:04] And so if the referendum changes that levy, I actually don't even know if that affects 25 or 26.

[33:09] Okay, all right, all right, thank you.

[33:11] I promise you, Counselors, it's on my list of learning how the school does their levy.

[33:15] I just a lot of other things in front of it.

[33:19] Counselors, me.

[33:20] If in 2023 our revenue exceeded expenses by 1.5, that was just head.

[33:29] in 1.5 million. Yes. Yes. So that's roughly 5%. So was that generated from excess revenue

[33:41] or were expenses reduced by that? It's always a little bit of both and a third mark to market

[33:49] gain. So mark to market gain is just our investments matured and created value that simply did

[33:58] not exist on the books. That's when I say a paper game. It means nothing. There was

[34:02] no cash exchange. But, yeah, there's always the most common source of coming in under

[34:07] budget on expenses is unfilled positions. That saves a lot of money. You go a couple

[34:12] months without filling a position. And revenue, even our fairly accurate projections, there's,

[34:20] as you see, the expenses, it doesn't even fill one big page here. The revenue is two full

[34:27] I mean, we may still have a lot of work left to do on this.

[34:29] We might find more money in this tomorrow, but so, yes.

[34:34] That's where I was going, is that okay?

[34:36] Thank you.

[34:38] Any other questions while you have me here?

[34:44] And again, feel free to schedule meetings.

[34:46] The budget will be rapidly coming together.

[34:47] One thing that will be important, if there is a, the budget's only going to get bigger.

[34:52] It's going to have many other budgets, and I know many of you do your work on your committees

[34:55] or political interests you have, if there is a department, a budget, especially among the enterprise funds that concerns you, please reach out to me so that we can talk about those budgets before I release them.

[35:09] Last call for questions?

[35:13] Okay, then one other thing not related to the budget, the clerk has asked me to remind you that we have for children 18 years and younger.

[35:22] We have a contest to create a new I voted sticker a lot of communities are doing this now

[35:27] It's a lot of fun and I believe she's put a business card in front of you to help recruit poll workers for the upcoming election

[35:33] This is the big one folks. I don't know how many folks have been

[35:37] Intellective of elective office for a presidential election, but it's a rough day

[35:42] And so if you or or people you know would like to serve as an election inspector you would be doing a service for your community

[35:51] Okay, we can proceed with the business which is just one appointment.

[35:54] Item 6.2, the community appointment to the liability claims committee to appoint Mark Connelly for a three year term expiring September 2027.

[36:04] Motion's by Councillor Helms, second by Councillor Fennessy, is there a discussion here in Councillor Sweeney?

[36:11] Is that a new appointment? Is she been on there before or is that a new brand new?

[36:16] New, right? Yeah, he's new.

[36:17] You know, that's why it's not.

[36:19] Thank you.

[36:20] Any further discussion?

[36:22] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[36:25] Those opposed to saying no, motion carries.

[36:28] Item 7.2 is the business of the Public Works Committee with a meeting held on September 5th is a report from the chair.

[36:36] Thank you, clerk.

[36:39] Yes, thank you.

[36:42] The Environmental Services Division visited Public Works to give a brief overview and an abbreviated

[36:50] orientation regarding the storm water flood control program.

[36:55] And again, this is one of the most popular programs, I think, in the city where we will help change out and update residential infrastructure.

[37:05] And this is a, has a large return on investment.

[37:12] These are really important tweaks regarding foundation drains.

[37:15] So if you're interested in watching that orientation on behalf of your residents who might have questions or would like to sign up, please

[37:23] you can view that anytime.

[37:26] I also want to congratulate ESD on their gold award.

[37:31] They won for their 2023 work.

[37:34] I believe they also earned this recognition in 2019.

[37:38] So congratulations to them.

[37:40] And thank you to Amy and Erin for coming by.

[37:43] There are two ordinance additions here regarding North 18th and North 58th, one by Jack

[37:52] Ennis or Ennis Park, and then responding to some speeding concerns over by that park

[38:01] and as well in South End.

[38:03] There's been just some concern around traffic pattern changes and congestion regarding North

[38:10] in South travel and how that impacts residents post-quick trip construction.

[38:18] So, hopefully the changes that we have put in place will help there.

[38:23] We also spent a fair amount of time discussing our pesticide ordinance regarding the application

[38:29] of herbicides and fungicides in the city.

[38:33] You, of course, are not able to do that on public city of superior parcels, except in very few situations, so just trying to get a better understanding of that application, where it happens and how often and what those quantity and chemicals and contractors look like in the city.

[38:55] You'll also see a contract just north of $160,000 to study what is referred to as day lighting over at fax and creek.

[39:09] So this will be more complicated than just day lighting a creek that has been encased in infrastructure over the years because of a large sewer interceptor in that area as well.

[39:24] So this will be probably just a bit more complicated in trying to manage that water and rehabilitate facts and creak over in central park to be more of a natural, more of a natural feature through that park.

[39:41] And I believe that contract was approved through 2026.

[39:49] And I also want to invite the council to the Gibby's Geasing Minis or Wisconsin Point.

[40:02] There is an event tomorrow at four o'clock where the Wisconsin Point Committee parks the city of superior has supported and partnered with the Lake Superior Estuary and the Nation of Fondal Act on risk.

[40:17] storing the land that was returned to them in 2017.

[40:22] That effort was initiated in 2003, transferred after the surplus was declared by the Army Corps.

[40:30] It's about just more than 10 acres.

[40:32] And Fondalac has just now received $350,000 from the federal government to restore that acreage out there.

[40:42] So if you haven't been there in a while, you'll notice that the two residents,

[40:47] the light house keeper residents, those who are raised earlier this year.

[40:51] So it's looking quite a bit different.

[40:54] So again, you are invited to attend tomorrow at four o'clock.

[40:59] This is a really big project, a really big grant, and

[41:05] partners like UWS and the NER will all be there.

[41:10] Next month that the Public Works Committee, we are going to discuss the special area.

[41:16] a management program, which is a really unique program in our city.

[41:20] And I will move to approve items four, five, and six, and ask the clerk to read items one, two, and three, and happy to take any questions about that.

[41:32] That motion is to approve items for the 4th, 5th, and 6th recommendation of the Public Works Committee as the APEX Fire Suppression System Purchase, Purchase of 2 Hydro Gritters for the Grit Removal System and awarding the Design Contract for the Fax and Interceptor and Creek Improvements Project.

[41:52] Second is by Councillor Graski. Discussion on those three items.

[41:59] Hearing none. All those in favour, please signify by saying aye.

[42:04] Those opposed say no. The motion carries. Please read the ordinances.

[42:08] Item 1 is the approval of an ordinance emitting City Code Chapter 112, traffic code, Article 7, Schedule A, stops.

[42:14] Removing the yield signs and adding a four-way stop sign at North 18th Street in Hewitt Avenue.

[42:19] No.

[42:21] Motion is by Councilor Allen, second by Councilor Ludwig, is there a discussion?

[42:25] Hearing none, all those in favour, please signify by St. I.

[42:28] No.

[42:28] The other poll is St. No.

[42:29] Motion carries.

[42:31] Item 2 is the approval of an ordinance emitting City Code Chapter 112, traffic codes, Article 7, Schedule A, stops, to add North 59th Street, the following stops at Binks Avenue.

[42:43] Motion is by Councillor Dink, second by Councillor Ludwig, is there a discussion?

[42:48] Hearing none, all those in favour please signify by St. I. Those opposed to St. No?

[42:52] Motion carries.

[42:53] Item 3 is the Approval of an Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 112, Traffic Code Article

[42:58] 7, Schedule A stops to add at banks avenue the following stops at North 60th Street.

[43:06] Motion is by Councillor Dink, second by Councillor Ludwig, is there a discussion?

[43:11] Hearing none, all those in favour please signify by saying aye.

[43:14] Those opposed saying no, motion carries.

[43:17] Item 7.4 is the Business of the Licensing and Feast Committee with the meeting held on September 6 is a report from the chair.

[43:29] Yes, sir, I was off here,

[43:38] I was on a different pdf, what item number are you on?

[43:43] 7.4, the Business of the Licensing and Feast Committee.

[43:45] Just asking if you have a report from that.

[43:46] No, I don't.

[43:47] All right. Item 8.1.1 is the business of the urban forestry tree where with the meeting

[43:55] held on August 15th, there's a report from the chair.

[43:58] Yes, I do have a short report. At our August 15th meeting, we started to review our tree

[44:06] planting and maintenance standards and our tree permit form. One of the things we focused

[44:15] Just in on is our tree removal convenience fee that is if someone wants to remove a tree for convenience, a healthy tree for convenience sake, of course there is a fee for for diameter tree, and it was suggested that maybe we contact other cities to see what their removal fee is before we make a decision on whether to change our fee or not.

[44:43] One of the newer, maybe exciting things are we found a new supplier for obtrees.

[44:52] It's a local company from here in Wisconsin, and Linda correct me if I'm wrong, but I think

[44:57] our suppliers have been from out east, correct?

[45:01] So, it's kind of exciting to find one in the state of Wisconsin. And actually, they have a proprietary way that they grow the trees which they stress the development of roots rather than the development, you know, the diameter of the tree. Which, of course, we that are interested in plants and have grown plants know that the all the importance of root development before the plant grows.

[45:29] So we're trying, they're called legacy trees, and so we're trying this new supplier.

[45:35] We have planted some tree, replaced our trees on Tower Avenue, and so we will see how

[45:41] those trees grow, and hopefully it'll be successful, and so we'll have a new supplier

[45:49] from the state of Wisconsin.

[45:51] And the last thing is that we do have an amendment to an ordinance here tonight and the

[46:01] amendment is because we found a discrepancy between, it has to do with hunting between

[46:09] our chapter 90 and chapter 86 where you'll notice that number nine in our chapter 90 says

[46:17] that there should be no hunting and trapping, and we know that we do allow hunting, like archery, hunting, and waterfall hunting.

[46:29] And so this amendment is just to make the two chapters match.

[46:35] And then the other is that as far as permitting is required, the permit part of the ordinance read that the permit should be approved through parks and

[46:46] commission and then brought on to the council and the Urban Forestry Tree Board thought

[46:52] it important that any permitting that has to do with the municipal forest should also

[46:57] be run by the Urban Forestry Tree Board, mainly because Parks, Rec, and Forestry, and I'm

[47:03] on both committees and so Parks, Rec, and Forestry, we're more focused on the recreational

[47:08] part. Whereas the Urban Forestry Tree Board of course focuses on the health of the forest,

[47:14] How to balance the recreation with the health of the forest and so we thought that any permitting should also be that has to do with the municipal forest should be run by the urban forestry tree board also and so I will turn it back to you click to read the ordinances. Thank you.

[47:29] The first recommendation is to approve an ordinance emitting City Code Chapter 90 Parks Recreation and Forestry Article 6 Municipal Forest to state that hunting or trapping of wildlife is prohibited unless specified in Article 3, Sections 86-74 through 86-120 and add Urban Forestry Tree Board to Article 6, Section 90-332 alongside the Parks and Recreation Commission for Permit Requests.

[47:59] Motion is by Councillor Ludwig. The second by Councillor Dine is their discussion.

[48:04] Hearing none, all those in favour, please signify by saying aye.

[48:08] Those opposed say no. Motion carries.

[48:11] Item 8.1.2 is a business of the golf course committee with the meeting held on August 22nd. Is there a report from the chair?

[48:19] We don't have the chair of the golf course committee here, but I believe Councillor Sweeney and Graskey serve on that. Do I have a report to give?

[48:26] It comes with a D. Any report to give?

[48:29] Okay. We'll just read the business.

[48:32] I can tell you what I know.

[48:37] They're currently working on the budget for next year,

[48:39] and it's a pretty lengthy sophisticated budget

[48:42] with the company that we have managing.

[48:45] So this is the first time for our new golf pro,

[48:49] so he's going through that.

[48:51] I know that the, I just got to know

[48:53] So my information from fellow councillor that the cities come out and they've gone through the golf course to especially the properties to see what has to be upgraded.

[49:05] So that's being done.

[49:08] They turned on the water for the first time for water in green and I think July 15th was the day I heard I don't know if you're accurate.

[49:18] I think I'm pretty close to that so that was that's the first time ever that they've gone that long without a watering so the course is

[49:26] They say an excellent shape and I haven't clicked up I've been out there a few times

[49:30] And so it looks beautiful things are going they've had a lot of rain

[49:34] So of course that's affected play a little bit and all four rounds are down slightly

[49:39] But they're looking to have a good year. So that's what I know from from this end

[49:44] Can I ask you any questions if anyone wants to hash me?

[49:51] Only confirm.

[49:51] I took my first real round of golf at the Magic Golf ever this summer and can confirm

[49:58] the irrigation system works because it turned on while I was approaching the green.

[50:06] One more question.

[50:08] Can you confirm that you had a hole in one out there the first day you played?

[50:12] I'm not saying I didn't.

[50:13] All right,

[50:18] there are two recommendations.

[50:19] One is to approve the buyout of a golf cart lease of 100 carts.

[50:26] Motion is by Councillor Dine, second by Councillor Graski.

[50:28] Is there a discussion?

[50:30] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[50:33] Those opposed to say no?

[50:34] Motion carries.

[50:35] And approve the buyout of the utility vehicles and beverage carts lease.

[50:41] Motion is by Councillor Dine, second by Councillor Graski.

[50:44] Is there a discussion?

[50:46] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[50:48] Okay, those are Paul Steno, motion carries.

[50:51] At this time, are there any further committee or commission reports to be made?

[50:57] Sena.

[50:58] New business item 10.1, I am recommending the approval of a temporary class B beer and temporary class B wine license application for the Richard I bond Veterans Historical Center for the American Legion, auxiliary second annual SIPs and support event located at 305 Harbor View Parkway to be held from 11 to 430 PM on October 12th.

[51:21] The motion is by Councillor Herrick, seconded by Councillor Elm, is their discussion.

[51:27] Hearing none, all those in favour, please signify by St. I. Those are the polls, St. No.

[51:31] Motion carries. Item 10.2, I'm recommending the approval of a temporary

[51:36] class B beer license for the border tone betties for the e-mail prom event to be held from 7 p.m.

[51:41] to 10 p.m. on October 5th. I'll note there's a slight correction to the agenda in the agenda

[51:46] a packet, the actual event location in their application is 1401 tower avenue.

[51:54] Motion by Councillor Graski, saying my councilor Elma, is there a discussion?

[51:58] Hearing none, all those in favour please signify by St. I?

[52:01] Aye.

[52:01] Those opposed to St. No, the motion carries.

[52:04] And Councillor, the next two items are mine, but I wanted to introduce both 1st 10.3, I'm

[52:10] recommending an extension of the memorandum of understanding with the Superior Public Museums.

[52:15] I placed this on the agenda because this was on the Finance Committee and discussed by

[52:19] the Finance Committee who made a recommendation, but because they meet Thursday evening, it

[52:26] misses our deadline for the agenda, so I just put it on the agenda so that we were

[52:30] protected and discussing it.

[52:32] I believe the Finance Committee made a recommendation other than November 1st, but I can't remember exactly

[52:36] what it is.

[52:37] Councillor Sweeney, do you want to remind us what the Finance Committee recommended and then

[52:41] you're free to make that motion?

[52:42] We recommended 1231 or earlier.

[52:46] Would you like to make a motion extending the MOU until 1231?

[52:53] I would.

[52:53] Okay, is there a second to that motion?

[52:56] Second is by Councillor Fennessy.

[52:59] Okay, discussion.

[53:01] The reason I recommended, I believe the Finance Committee has their own reasons, we are now in, I think, true negotiation.

[53:08] Well, Councillor Sweeney, do you want to explain what happened at the Finance Committee?

[53:13] Well, we are in the Mayor's and Negotiation with both entities and I think it reported

[53:22] a lot to the Finance Committee that there are real negotiations apparently going on now

[53:26] after some lack of whatever happened there and so we do have to continue that, it expires

[53:36] So we had to make it, we wanted to make it a 1231 earlier, so we wouldn't have to keep coming back in case that didn't, in case we couldn't negotiate and there wasn't a contract or whatever before the ended it and I think it ends is that 1031 is that when it level 101 or 101 right and so that's why we extended it either one is fine as long as we, but we thought we just give a little more time for a couple months and it's done earlier that's fine.

[54:07] for any further discussion?

[54:11] Councilor Moffitt.

[54:13] I spent like probably six or seven hours today preparing notes,

[54:16] and I'm not going to read them all.

[54:18] But I have some concerns about how this process is gone.

[54:23] And I'm going to skip to the end of my notes in the saving on time.

[54:34] And my colleagues, you know, the benefits

[54:36] of open and transparent bidding processes

[54:38] Several of you recently spoke about how everything over $25,000 should go to bid.

[54:43] Meanwhile, because we have been unwilling to accept the responsibility of not changing

[54:47] the MOU for years, this has gone over $2 million without a review for the public.

[54:53] We shop around our healthcare for employees.

[54:55] We shop around our large equipment purchases.

[54:57] We shop around for engineering services, but it's been 20 years and we haven't shopped around

[55:01] our management for the museums to make sure we're doing the best for our citizens in terms

[55:05] terms of cost and or services.

[55:07] There are several other local history boards that could apply to assume management of these

[55:11] facilities, including but not limited to UWS.

[55:14] In Duluth, UMD manages the management of Glandshin, one of the most successful house museums

[55:21] in Midwest.

[55:23] The Richard Bong Veterans Historical Center, this organization has already been through

[55:27] a similar contract process with the city and has existed, existing related staffing to the

[55:34] skills that would be needed for these facilities.

[55:36] A world of accordions.

[55:38] Their board is supposedly recently re-energized.

[55:41] They have experience with managing a large facility,

[55:43] hosting events, managing a large collection.

[55:46] The commemorative Air Force, Lake Superior Squadron

[55:48] and Superior here has experience with events,

[55:51] historical exhibits, and collections management.

[55:53] And the Douglas County Historical Society,

[55:55] they managed Farrellon from 1963 to 1999.

[55:59] 56% longer than SPM has currently been there.

[56:02] They have a strong board of directors and they have experience with fundraising capital projects exhibits and collections care

[56:08] and other groups potentially are unknown. We haven't asked for proposals.

[56:15] I am okay with the deadline. I recognize that we don't want to lose management of these precious resources in our community

[56:22] but I hope that we'll put this item out to bid in the public's best interest.

[56:26] First,

[56:29] further discussion,

[56:34] Councillor Fennish.

[56:35] If I understand the words of Councillor Moffitt correctly, that he's suggesting that in an effort of transparency, as the President of DCHS, that we open this up to bid for organizations like DCHS.

[56:54] I find that a little strange to suggest that in the name of transparency that we open this up for my organization that I'm the president of.

[57:11] I don't see us off base on the conversation. It's all relevant. It's all germane, but I would remind the council that the question before us is merely changing the date of the MOU.

[57:22] We have plenty of conversations that we can still have, including tonight about the process

[57:28] that we're going to use, but as Councilor Sweeney mentioned, I will negotiate directly

[57:32] with the museums, quite frankly, or anybody else it wants to, and ultimately, my goal is

[57:39] to produce a contract that I can recommend to the Finance Committee and the Council, but

[57:45] as I think you all know, I'm only going to recommend a contract that I believe can pass.

[57:49] And so I hope that I have your, I understand your interest well.

[57:53] If I would encourage folks to meet with me individually, if you have strong feelings about how this should go.

[57:58] If I don't believe I can build consensus, and we need to do an open process, then we'll do an open process.

[58:03] But typically, my office has led negotiations on behalf of the city as far as we can.

[58:13] Again, the council executes this contract.

[58:16] the Council enters this arrangement, I am at your service in that effort. I cannot make a deal

[58:23] with absolutely anybody, I can only make a recommendation in this case. And of course, sign,

[58:27] sign, or veto the final, the final deal. But so if folks have strong opinions, I'm happy to hear

[58:33] those about how this process should go. Absent those, I'll just begin negotiating with whoever's

[58:39] willing to talk.

[58:42] Any further discussion?

[58:46] Hearing none, the question is on extending the MOU to

[58:49] December 31, 2024.

[58:52] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[58:54] Those opposed say no.

[58:56] The motion carries.

[58:58] Item 10.4, Mayor Pena's recommending approval of a contract with MC2 collaborative for a final amount, not to exceed $106,000.

[59:07] I should probably introduce this as well.

[59:10] This is the contract that included the memo.

[59:12] This was originally proposed by Councillor Moffitt in the spring for what we are calling the climate justice grant.

[59:17] At the time we approved that, the council approved it for, it was just an agreement or proposal that they sent.

[59:25] There was no contract, there was no agreement, but the council did put it at a not to exceed amount of $81,000, which we have now met.

[59:34] I don't think we expected it to meet that, so I met with the consultant to ask what had caused us to reach that limit.

[59:42] and they're on the line tonight, folks, have questions for them.

[59:46] Their answer to me was, you know, we applied for everything that we had intended to apply for.

[59:53] So the grant will include the fire hall, connect superior, a splash pad or a part of the...

[1:00:00] So, we have a special splash bad, potentially library parking lot and affordable housing unit partnering with one-room housing. So, the, that took extra time, which maxed out our bill. So, I asked to complete it, as with all of those projects, how much more would it take? They quoted me about 25,000. So, we asked for a contract this time to reflect that. And I don't know if the, not to exceed amount, the 106 is, the,

[1:00:27] be actually in the contract, but it would be just as binding as it was.

[1:00:32] If that's what you adopt, if that's the not to exceed you put on there, that would be what we would be held to in terms of spending.

[1:00:39] In terms of what that buys, though, I also asked specifically what deliverables we still have outstanding.

[1:00:46] So you do have a bunch of options and while I am recommending approving this tonight for the 106, and I'll say why.

[1:00:54] Well, I'm recommending it because what it would buy is we have not completed the library parking lot project, which would be a green infrastructure parking lot for the public library.

[1:01:05] That grant, that part of the grant is not finished yet, we would be able to finish that.

[1:01:09] We would also get a compliance package that would help us if and when we are audited by the federal government for the grant administration, it would also assist in the administration.

[1:01:20] and my finance department has told me

[1:01:24] that that would be valuable.

[1:01:25] You could approve a lesser amount,

[1:01:27] you could approve none.

[1:01:28] If you do not approve this tonight,

[1:01:30] the remaining grant, so everything but the library,

[1:01:34] I am assured is ready to go, we can hit send.

[1:01:38] So again, I recommend the full amount.

[1:01:40] It would be funded via the ARPA money.

[1:01:42] We have nearly reconciled ARPA

[1:01:45] for the final, final, final time.

[1:01:47] And there is just a little bit of money left over,

[1:01:49] about 130,000 to this extra 25,000 would be, I think,

[1:01:53] in keeping with that.

[1:01:54] That said, before we have a discussion,

[1:01:58] this is the council, so is there an interest

[1:02:00] in approving this at this amount or any other?

[1:02:04] I would entertain a motion before we go into further discussion.

[1:02:11] The motion is by Councillor Graski,

[1:02:12] second by Councillor Elm to approve the contract

[1:02:15] and not to exceed by 106,000.

[1:02:18] Councilor Johnson.

[1:02:19] Thank you.

[1:02:20] Just a couple of questions about the contract.

[1:02:23] some of them, and they're really just minor, I think, in number three scope of work, I see

[1:02:29] a random A, B, and C, C, a random A, B, and C, a couple of different times, but I don't

[1:02:35] see a random A, B, and C in the contract. Maybe I just, I'm not seeing it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[1:02:44] If somebody can point me into those, I would appreciate it.

[1:02:49] You're saying it's referring to

[1:02:51] to addend them.

[1:02:52] So, number three, scope of work, specific specialized duties, it says CMN-M-A.

[1:03:00] Yeah, you're correct, I don't see those attached to the agenda package.

[1:03:05] I guess I wouldn't be in favor of approving something that we don't have in front of us.

[1:03:11] And then back up to the top one, and maybe it's because they're a corporation company

[1:03:18] in Wyoming but consultant rights and duties, E, says they will conform to the rights of the state of Wyoming.

[1:03:27] I don't know if that matters that we're in Wisconsin, but I guess just a question there.

[1:03:33] I don't know if you can answer that.

[1:03:36] I don't think there's anything wrong with obligating them to conform to the requirements of the state of Wyoming as they apply to providing professional services like this,

[1:03:46] But I also don't know what those provisions are.

[1:03:51] Okay, so those are just two questions, I guess I would like to see the amendums before proving this, but that's just, that's my opinion.

[1:04:03] Further discussion.

[1:04:07] Hearing none, the question is on whether to adopt the contract in a not to exceed amount for $106,000.

[1:04:14] That's a final amount that includes the $81,000, so it's only an additional $25,000.

[1:04:21] I assume the original contract was on a per-hour basis, not per project, that's why we're at this point.

[1:04:27] This is also a per-hour process, so yes, the agreement, they'd be billing us per hour.

[1:04:33] This just limits us from spending more than 106,000 total, so at that point, they just don't work anymore.

[1:04:39] Okay, and the only thing that we've got left is the complete library project and the compliance guide.

[1:04:44] Okay, and I assume that's not something that we've got the capacity to do in

[1:04:49] else. Right, that was, what Director Ryan

[1:04:53] heard told me, and he can tell you himself if you have questions for him,

[1:04:57] administering this grant is quite a bit of work and pretty complex, and the audit

[1:05:03] for it would be quite a bit of extra work in the audit. I'm summarizing now, so

[1:05:08] if you want to fill it, remind me what you said. So, a couple of different parts that

[1:05:14] are going to plan to this, one of the big things is the budget work for this project.

[1:05:19] And I know a budget sounds like something a finance director would normally do, but

[1:05:24] when we're diving into the Religious Federal Grants, it's a little different than that.

[1:05:28] So example, we know a fire haul cost X amount of dollars.

[1:05:31] That's not all they're looking for when they're reviewing these grants.

[1:05:35] They're looking for specific parts of the fire haul, so it's a breakdown of the fire haul

[1:05:39] expenses.

[1:05:40] Is it going to have this?

[1:05:41] Is it going to have that?

[1:05:42] solar, geothermal, things were kind of looking at a fire haul, we had to break all those

[1:05:47] down.

[1:05:48] And then on top of that, we have to spread justifications as to why we're doing these

[1:05:52] specific items.

[1:05:53] So on top of breaking it down, you've read these additional justifications which need to

[1:05:59] be specific for that grant.

[1:06:01] So when you're diving to these grant experts, for example, sorry,

[1:06:08] I lose my translate, they

[1:06:09] know what these specific grants, they know what these people want.

[1:06:12] Without me spending hours and hours of doing this, I don't know exactly what these grants

[1:06:17] want.

[1:06:18] And to be honest, I'm not a grant writer.

[1:06:20] It's not my expertise.

[1:06:21] I don't know how to write to those specific requirements.

[1:06:24] Director Reiner, could you answer as well the value of the compliant sky?

[1:06:30] Absolutely.

[1:06:31] So this is a complex federal grant.

[1:06:36] This isn't a simple grant, it's going to hold a lot of requirements.

[1:06:39] Just to kind of dive into some of those, any building product that we do is going to be subject to BABA and prevailing wages.

[1:06:48] So, for example, BABA by America, Build America, any steel we use in projects due to being a federal grant is going to have to be American made steel.

[1:06:59] Any wages provider are going to be subject to prevailing wages by the contractors and we have to track a lot of that.

[1:07:05] So this audit guide kind of puts together

[1:07:07] those standards of what we need to be doing

[1:07:10] to make sure we're successful in the audit.

[1:07:13] Okay, yeah, that's very, very helpful.

[1:07:15] Thank you.

[1:07:17] I also have a little hesitation approving this

[1:07:20] where it's not a complete contract

[1:07:22] where there's some of the addendums that are missing.

[1:07:26] With this, how much would this throw anything off

[1:07:29] if we just refer this to the next council meeting for?

[1:07:32] I mean, it would be weird for us to approve a contract that's only 25% of the actual contract.

[1:07:41] Yeah, I don't disagree that typically I would like to see the whole contract.

[1:07:48] So, one second, they're the two questions.

[1:07:53] One, we didn't approve a contract in the first place.

[1:07:55] We merely authorized the administration to work to spend money with this consultant.

[1:08:00] So we did that, which allowed us to go above the threshold wherein we would typically put something out to bid and approve it.

[1:08:06] So we've worked without a contract before, but how does that delays the submission of the grant, which we would still be able to submit the grant on time, but you can submit multiple rounds if I understand it correctly.

[1:08:20] If we do not get approved in the first round, we then submit and second round it delays our submission.

[1:08:24] And Sarlisa from MC2, did you have a response to this question?

[1:08:29] We

[1:08:49] get them, even, and we can make sure that you have a song record and I apologize,

[1:08:53] but we didn't confirm that you have to get all of these things that will happen.

[1:08:58] When it comes to the grand application that you've described, you're correct.

[1:09:02] It wouldn't be the way, but we can continue to move forward, meaning if we can send the information,

[1:09:09] and if you want to post on that, this isn't the next album, maybe we can certainly do that.

[1:09:13] In addition to that, I do have some remarks that I wanted to share specifically about the staff.

[1:09:20] You would have to accelerate in this project in a much bigger way moving it from two or three projects to five projects.

[1:09:28] And it's important to note that your staff has really done some remarkable work they have worked diligently and ever moving behind the team.

[1:09:36] I know that it doesn't feel that way when we get everybody in the pipeline head of the thing

[1:09:41] directed it to be a little complex and that we can assure you based on all the conversations

[1:09:47] and experiences that we have in our staff and everyone who is interested in this project

[1:09:52] are really there to serve the people and trying to do the best projects for the community.

[1:09:58] It's impressive and we function at a higher level of collaboration

[1:10:01] we also come to the higher level of capacity.

[1:10:04] We ask a lot of people who are interested in those projects.

[1:10:09] And so this is our chance to also brag about the people

[1:10:11] who have been interested in the damage of the work

[1:10:13] and it's not going to be count.

[1:10:16] And I would also add, and we have,

[1:10:19] one time, we have four BPA projects specifically,

[1:10:21] and they are very robust.

[1:10:23] And if you want to talk to those who have been involved,

[1:10:25] people also share, and maybe a few extra great areas

[1:10:29] have been added through this process.

[1:10:31] When it comes to the scoring in the fund,

[1:10:34] it is a particular project.

[1:10:36] When we look at our pool,

[1:10:38] we'll be able to project forward

[1:10:39] and with your community specifically

[1:10:41] breaks the highest score of only.

[1:10:44] So you're meeting the criteria,

[1:10:45] you're meeting the participants,

[1:10:47] you need the needs,

[1:10:47] and you're meeting the EPA strategy.

[1:10:50] And yes, you can put it in a grant

[1:10:51] and then that means these come Monday,

[1:10:53] whether or the case may be

[1:10:54] if you want to hit that submit,

[1:10:57] but you can hit that submit button

[1:10:58] when you're ready to go. But what you're describing in that extra package of

[1:11:02] layers of what we're providing is entirely different. Seeing different set of

[1:11:06] I being able to run that conference and conference to make sure that all I've

[1:11:10] literally done is that everything spreads through to the budget. Thank you

[1:11:14] director for being able to be heard to that on account of the financial.

[1:11:27] But on that

[1:11:28] have a onsite from East Pacific towards green and post and even during Q1, that prescanes

[1:11:35] that have all of the data that's referred to and referenced the way they refer to it.

[1:11:40] So it's one of the final loans on the package that are very important to us.

[1:11:45] And if you recall some of that really conversation, we discussed compliance and we're doing the reverse engineering.

[1:11:50] We're preparing you for that compliance factor while we're writing that grant.

[1:11:54] And that's because we have the cap of being able to take years before we package it and something we're very proud of and a staff who are responsible for the grant management and the financial components will be very grateful for it but it is also a federal requirement.

[1:12:09] So it does keep some time and consentment and it's something that we value and I know that your staff will as well.

[1:12:15] So thank you for letting me answer those additional comments and I'll turn it back to you later.

[1:12:23] I would rather postpone this until the next council meeting, because I don't think we should be approving a contract that's only, whatever, is 25% here, 50% here, whatever, because we don't know what we're approving that's in that the other addendums that aren't in this packet.

[1:12:44] So I'll make a motion to postpone this until the next council meeting to, so we can see the full contract.

[1:12:52] So motion to postpone, is there a second?

[1:12:55] Motion is by Councillor Fantasy, second by Councillor Johnson, to postpone.

[1:12:58] Discussion on the motion to postpone.

[1:13:00] Councillor Graskey.

[1:13:02] We don't have anything in front of us really except the company's information.

[1:13:06] When we passed the initial $81,000, we didn't have a contract.

[1:13:11] That's right.

[1:13:11] We had a proposal.

[1:13:12] So, we're asking what the difference is 25,000 now between?

[1:13:19] Okay.

[1:13:21] Further discussion on the motion to postpone, Councillor Fence.

[1:13:25] The difference is what we would be approving tonight is a contract that we've seen only part

[1:13:31] of that contract.

[1:13:33] I'm not an attorney, but I can't imagine that that's good practice.

[1:13:39] Further discussion on the motion to postpone.

[1:13:42] Councilor Vancek.

[1:13:43] Would it be possible to take a recess?

[1:13:48] Can the documents be sent?

[1:13:51] I mean, I'm not an attorney either, I don't know if I can get through the boiler plate,

[1:13:55] but is that something that can be distributed or is that public meeting issue?

[1:14:01] No, it's not a public meeting issue.

[1:14:04] We can take a recess, it's a matter of, yes, you have the right to take a recess, you'd have

[1:14:10] to set the amount of time. And first of all, I'm sorry, Michelle, right? Michelle, do you

[1:14:18] have the documents, the, the addendum on hand? Is that, would that be possible?

[1:14:24] You're

[1:14:24] on mute.

[1:25:38] Okay, Councillors, it is 8 p.m. I'll call us back to regular order. A reminder we pick up from a recess exactly where we left off. So the question on the floor is whether to postpone the motion to fund the grant and amount not to exceed, or to approve a contract funding the grant and amount not to exceed $106,000. Understanding as you have been sent the addendum on this motion, Councillor Graski and Fennesee have both spoken once. So the floor is open to all 10 Councillors. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion?

[1:26:08] to postpone.

[1:26:13] Councillor Elm.

[1:26:14] This is not to discuss the documents that we received right now or is that after voting

[1:26:19] on this? I'm not going to say it's not your main.

[1:26:24] If discussing the documents helps you decide whether to postpone, feel free.

[1:26:29] Right. That's why I ask. So, denim A was sent to us and the categories of what this includes

[1:26:36] but it's not limited to these items.

[1:26:39] Could there be some elaboration from the consultant of what billable services would be outside of the items that are here?

[1:26:48] Is Mueller please?

[1:27:16] So, it doesn't be also has the heat schedule.

[1:27:20] So, the chair, where what the standard heat schedule is.

[1:27:24] And, it doesn't be just a clear, it's not included because it is product and services.

[1:27:28] It would be specific to define still reports, but it's not related to this particular contract.

[1:27:34] So, it doesn't be, it's not needed as you can see in the comments.

[1:27:53] If we pause upon this, what is the process, the procedure, and what will we do, and who

[1:28:01] will do it?

[1:28:03] If we postpone, I'm not aware that we have anything to do, I think we just pause the grant process, pick it back up if and when the council approves.

[1:28:15] So, have we vetted this, my concern is that this company, have we vetted this company to the proper whoever in charge of doing that within the city, have we vetted this company to know what we hope they are?

[1:28:29] We've been working with them since April, so this is just an extension of what it's awarding additional funds, so they can complete the work.

[1:28:39] I mean, but did being that before us, did we go, whether we started in April or whenever we did, did we vet them to some criteria that we must have within the city to decide that, and I'm sure they have a track record with us from April, and they probably performed well, I would assume I don't know that.

[1:28:58] But did we at whatever time we started doing business with them, what was the process to determine that they were the company that we wanted to work with?

[1:29:11] The administration did not vet the company, Councilor Moffett proposed working with this company originally, he recommended directly to the council, and he provided a memo explaining why he felt they were the best company to work with, that memo is in the packet today.

[1:29:24] So it was actually his recommendation, the council then endorsed that in April.

[1:29:29] Okay. Thank you.

[1:29:31] Councilor Johnson.

[1:29:32] Yeah.

[1:29:35] One minor thing in the contract on page three, it does still say see a

[1:29:40] DMA through C for more description or details but doesn't say C is as needed.

[1:29:46] So just a small correction there.

[1:29:50] Attorney probably had a chance to look over this. Did you see anything that was glaring to you?

[1:29:56] seems to be boilerplate for you as well.

[1:29:59] Right.

[1:30:00] You know, I've had a chance to look over the addendums, specifically addendum A, which is two pages, as you see, the fee schedule, then be one page, no addendum C. And I don't, neither gives me any heartburn in terms of affecting the substance of the contract. Okay. I think that answers my concern with not seeing the full contract and we'll support this.

[1:30:29] The question again is to postpone.

[1:30:31] phone, Councilor Ellen.

[1:30:35] Again, looking at the big picture here, we got to our cap quicker than we expected.

[1:30:41] Has anyone reviewed the invoices if this is billable hours?

[1:30:46] I don't want to propose or suggest that there's anything the fariest going on, but just like we got caught off guard, it seems like it can hit that cap faster.

[1:30:55] There just has anyone reviewed those invoices and does that seem to line up with the work that was done?

[1:31:01] Yes, absolutely, I asked both Chief of Staff Shurf to review but also the finance department and director Reinhard met with me somewhat extensively and he had a number of follow-up conversations with MC2 about the invoices and then I had a meeting directly with him after he had briefed me.

[1:31:19] Okay, thank you for validating that.

[1:31:23] One of the dangers of delaying here, I mean, does this hurt our chances for timing of application?

[1:31:29] I'm not sure I can answer that, I think that's a matter of opinion.

[1:31:33] My understanding is if it is approved tonight, we're prepared to submit within two days from now.

[1:31:40] So you will submit later, I really don't know the full consequences of that.

[1:31:44] But on either end, it may be completely inconsequential and we'll pick the work back up and submit a few days after the next council meeting or it could miss an opportunity for the first round of the grants that could hurt the grant. I just don't know.

[1:32:06] It's, yeah, Miss Mueller, are you able to answer that at all? I know it's something of an opinion.

[1:33:33] in. Councilmember Flores-Cellar. No, thank you. I think that helps.

[1:33:40] Councilor Moffett.

[1:33:42] Thank you. I just want to echo the consultants comments that we could delay and submit this later, but if we're going to submit it, it's better to submit it early because of all the reasons they just stated essentially.

[1:33:56] This is a rolling deadline. They're already reviewing grants. They've already awarded.

[1:34:01] I believe last I heard was 17 applicants, but they're planning to award 150 projects.

[1:34:11] So sooner we get it and essentially our odds are better because they haven't allocated the money

[1:34:16] to somebody else's project yet because they haven't submitted yet.

[1:34:20] So we're at an advantage for turning in early versus turning it in later.

[1:34:25] I've been sitting in on the weekly meetings for this all summer.

[1:34:30] and done a bunch of work on helping with the grant narrative and adding language into

[1:34:35] that and things.

[1:34:35] It's been a substantial project both for the consultants and for our staff.

[1:34:41] I think there were some unknowns going into the process because this is a grant we

[1:34:47] haven't applied for before and it's such a large substantial grant with a federal agency

[1:34:53] that I think as we're going through the process which just came up with, oh, and we need this

[1:34:58] component here and we need to talk about this component here and then it's like kind of putting all the

[1:35:03] information together and coordinating work between different people and then for each section we

[1:35:09] are describing something. There's five subsections of that because we have all these different projects

[1:35:15] and so it's just a very complicated grant and I was caught off guard that we hit the budget so quickly

[1:35:22] We on it, but it's been a substantial amount of work and I hope that we can just get the application in as soon as possible, both for the city's interest and for my personal interest as well, so I'd like to be done.

[1:35:40] Any further discussion on the motion to postpone?

[1:35:46] Yeah, but she wasn't asked a question, Councillor Johnson.

[1:35:49] I think this is my last one, and I probably know the answer, but these addendums will be put it into the online packet with the minutes.

[1:36:00] Yes.

[1:36:04] Further discussion on the motion to postpone?

[1:36:08] Hearing none, all of those in favor of postponing to the next council meeting, please signify by saying aye.

[1:36:16] Those opposed say no.

[1:36:19] The motion fails.

[1:36:20] The question is on approval of the contract in an amount not to exceed $106,000, any further discussion.

[1:36:31] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[1:36:34] Those opposed say no.

[1:36:36] The motion carries.

[1:36:41] Item 10.5, Human Resources Director Janago is recommending the confirmation of Nick Abraham to the public work superintendent position.

[1:36:51] Motion is by Councillor Fennessy, second by Councillor Vance, sickle.

[1:36:54] I just want to add that director Todd Jannego and myself join Kami in the recommendation.

[1:37:04] Is there any discussion?

[1:37:07] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by St. I.

[1:37:11] Those opposed to St. No?

[1:37:12] Motion carries.

[1:37:13] Item 10.6, I'm recommending approval of miscellaneous licenses.

[1:37:16] It says motion is by Councillor Sweeney, second by Councillor Herrick, second by Councillor Johnson, any discussion?

[1:37:26] Hearing none, all those in favour, please signify by saying aye.

[1:37:29] Those of the polls say no, the motion carries, do we have any public comment?

[1:37:34] We have no further business and are adjourned, just good evening, Councillor.

[1:37:40] Thank you.

City Council

Agenda

Transcript