[0:01] Roll call.
>> Parker
[0:04] » here.
>> Miss Lich
[0:06] » here.
>> Bergen
[0:07] » here.
>> Zitra
[0:08] » here.
>> Chisel
[0:09] » here.
>> Whittle
[0:10] » here.
>> Neil
[0:11] » here.
>> Item three, public comment. Uh, I have
[0:15] Leon Felkey signed up to address the
council.
[0:22] » You have three minutes, sir.
>> Hi.
[0:26] » Hi. Uh, my name's Leon Faly. I don't
know most of you. Talk to you Brent and
[0:33] nice to see you here. Um, did I get like
three minutes or four minutes? I got it
[0:37] pretty short. I I rewrote everything
here. I'm going to go through it very
[0:40] quickly. Uh, I am going to hand out some
things. Don't take my three minutes for
[0:44] that though. Okay.
[0:53] » I believe
about
[1:00] about two weeks ago that I got this
in the dark.
[1:24] » I do have another one that compares what
they want to
[1:34] Okay. My name is Leon Fal and uh I
purchased my property from Sunflower 26
[1:38] years ago, built my new home on it and
because of nice space and privacy and uh
[1:45] but things have changed a lot in the
last three years up there. In the last
[1:48] three years, we've got traffic just
booming on on Highway 9 and we have only
[1:53] one driveway out of our spot. And keep
that in mind by the way. And uh that has
[2:00] disappeared because uh they moved the
school and more traffic because they
[2:04] moved the school buses out to Freeport
from up by Luther College. So all the
[2:09] school buses come up Highway 9 and uh
just to get them get them there. And
[2:14] then the city of Ball Diamond is out in
Freeport now, too. and that I'm told and
[2:20] I I don't this is just coffee talk but
I've heard that they they would expect
[2:24] maybe three to four 400 vehicles there
if they had um uh big games because
[2:30] there's four four uh fields there and I
don't know if that's correct but it's it
[2:35] would be close I think. Um anyway,
uh I I received
[2:43] my first
thought on this whole thing right here.
[2:48] This was uh August 12th of this year.
And people asked me, "What's going on up
[2:53] there?" And I I don't know. I haven't
heard a thing. I'm going to read
[2:56] something here that really bothers me.
It says um over 60% of of of this uh um
[3:04] housing survey and I never got one of
these. I I got this in this envelope. It
[3:09] says respondents prefer to live on the
edge of town. Good. It's a nice spot. I
[3:15] like it. Uh and near a park. There's no
park there. And a trail. There's no
[3:23] trail there. Playground. No playground
there. Or a community garden. there none
[3:28] of those things there. So, I have to
wonder why they're even thinking about
[3:31] putting those those homes up there. And
the other thing is we'll go on down the
[3:37] list here real quick. And uh excuse me u
get halfway done here. Uh the thing that
[3:47] uh that kind of bothered me about the
whole thing uh is that those people that
[3:52] live there, they can't walk to a store.
They can't walk any place. They all have
[3:56] to have cars. If you got husband and
wife there, that's two cars. And kids,
[4:01] maybe an extra car there. And right now
there, that plat that I gave you is
[4:07] showing 30 homes. That means 60 cars.
And that's if they're all full. And uh
[4:13] more than And then if they got kids,
it's more than that. And then they
[4:17] they're going to have uh 30 people with
uh visitors coming in uh 24 hours a day,
[4:25] seven days a week. Sunflower was very
good because it was only five days a
[4:29] week, weekends, no traffic. And so
anyway, it's it keeps building because
[4:34] of that. And uh uh the city will not be
plowing those streets, I understand,
[4:40] because they're too narrow. I think 60
feet is and I don't know that those
[4:44] things but this
>> Could you wrap it up?
[4:46] » They said that the city will not plow
it. Is that correct?
[4:49] » I'm sorry. What was that?
>> The the on that plat there the because
[4:55] it's very very narrow. It's a one-way
street. So, I'm assuming they won't plow
[4:58] it for snow. So, they'll anybody that
lives there, they'll have to find their
[5:02] own. And uh in case of a storm, uh
there's a real problem there, I think.
[5:07] And I did talk to Mike Ashbacker to see
about how our fire would be uh taken
[5:13] care of up there. And he said, "Well, we
don't do much until everything gets
[5:18] settled and like that." But anyway, if
we had a fire in one of those row houses
[5:22] that you live there, uh it's right next
to the cemetery and say, we got a little
[5:26] wind with it. It knocked a house down or
something and a fire started.
[5:30] » Lean, I'm going to have to cut you off.
We have more people who'd like to speak.
[5:33] We're going to schedule a meeting with
you as well.
[5:35] » I'm sorry. We're going to schedule a
meeting with the residents up there.
[5:38] » Okay. So, it is up.
>> Uh yeah, we can talk about it uh after
[5:42] the meeting.
>> I'm sorry I can't hear you.
[5:43] » Can we talk after the meeting?
>> I still didn't understand.
[5:46] » Could we talk after the meeting?
>> I'm sorry. What?
[5:50] » Could we talk after the meeting?
>> Oh, yes. I sure can. Yeah. And that
[5:53] would be fine. All right. Thank you.
Appreciate your time.
[5:57] » I have Herb Hegman next.
>> I thought I could talk faster, but I'm
[6:03] not a fast.
>> That's all right. We got a lot on the
[6:05] agenda tonight. So, appreciate you
bringing that.
[6:07] » Anyway, thank you. And yeah, I would
like to visit after the meeting because
[6:10] I didn't get to the the problem that
>> that I think really very deeply engraved
[6:17] up there. So,
>> good evening. I'm Herb Heamman and I
[6:21] live at 300 Pleasant Hill Drive. You
could say Pleasant Hill
[6:27] » Road because one side of the sign says
drive and the other side says roads.
[6:32] sort of unique in Dora. Uh I've lived in
Dora for over 40 years at different
[6:39] times.
I'm a member of the Phelps Cemetery
[6:43] board neighbors to the site we're
talking about for de for the high
[6:50] density development.
In fact, um we boardroom on two sides
[6:58] and um some of the we want to be good
neighbors and I certainly am in favor of
[7:05] additional housing in Decora,
but
[7:11] looking at the plan,
my main concern is
[7:16] that the current drawn plans show a lack
or a complete lack of playground and
[7:25] playground equipment and green spaces
for children to play. Now, I understand
[7:31] this is not housing for the elderly
targeted, right? Probably. Anyway, so
[7:38] they're probably going to have children
and um
[7:43] we don't want to become the playground
for this development.
[7:48] Cemeteries are sacred and should be
revered. My wife is buried there. My
[7:53] in-laws are buried. Many, many of my
friends. But any cemetery deserves to be
[8:01] protected and to be a quiet, nice
environment.
[8:06] And so we, the board members are
concerned about that. We just don't want
[8:13] to become the playground for the
development.
[8:16] And I speak here. You're saying, "Well,
why are you speaking to this group,
[8:21] Herb?" Well, the mayor,
city manager,
[8:28] couple council people are part of the uh
Decora jobs group that supposedly owns
[8:36] the land. Sometimes they hear they do,
sometimes I hear they don't. But I did
[8:41] talk to Stephanie from and she agreed on
some points on the plat. One was where
[8:49] they showed remove the fence on our
property line. The next was put in a
[8:55] concrete segmented retaining wall right
at the property line. Now, if you're
[9:02] going to put a retaining wall that's
possibly six foot tall and you remove
[9:06] our fence,
you're going to have people tumbling
[9:11] over. A real hazard.
And there's other things about it that
[9:17] just aren't aren't as right as they
could be. They first of all, they talk
[9:24] about a three and a half acre lot. Well,
there's a good half acre that is not
[9:29] usable for building. That is the
driveway that goes to the private homes
[9:35] and that area south
>> be between
[9:39] » Herb. Can I cut you off? Sorry, time's
up.
[9:42] » Okay, I apologize.
>> Well, my concern is
[9:47] mayor, city manager, council members, is
this going to become a matter of
[9:53] conflict of interest? Think about it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd
[9:58] like to address the council this evening
have three minutes?
[10:12] I do think Andy, you were saying that
we're going to try to have a meeting
[10:14] with homeowners. So, there will be a
meeting with homeowners in the air by in
[10:18] the nearby vicinity that I think we're
working on. Um
[10:22] » Yep. Absolutely. So, so there'll be an
opportunity to talk among
[10:28] » I anyone who want I I mean I think we'll
be open to
[10:30] » repeat
>> there there is planned a planned we
[10:34] haven't scheduled it yet but we have
planned to talk to homeowners and
[10:37] interested parties about the development
in the near future. So we won't respond
[10:41] to all the comments right now. I'm just
letting you know that we have heard what
[10:44] you have to say like an opportunity.
>> Typically we don't we don't do back and
[10:48] forth during the public comment section.
>> Okay. But I wanted you to be aware.
[10:52] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Item four,
introduction of Jeff Bun, new uh code
[10:59] official.
>> Yes. So, as much fun as I had playing
[11:04] building official and code enforcement
official this summer, uh we have filled
[11:09] the vacancy formerly held by Greg
Swanson with Jeff Bun who joins us from
[11:15] uh prior to was the building official
for the city of Wine. So, a number a
[11:22] number of contractors that work in the
city of Dora have worked with Jeff in
[11:26] the past and very positive things to say
about their experiences when he worked
[11:31] down there. as well as uh my counterpart
in Wine had very positive things to say
[11:38] uh about Jeff, not so positive things
about me for taking him, but um so did
[11:45] want to introduce Jeff tonight and
anything Jeff you want to add?
[11:55] » Jeff, have you relocated to Decor?
>> Okay.
[11:59] » Well, we're happy to have you and
welcome you to Dora. Thank you.
[12:04] » All right.
>> And he doesn't live in Wine, so he's a
[12:07] lot closer than that.
>> Okay.
[12:09] » Yeah.
>> Good deal.
[12:11] » All right. Item five, city manager
department head and council reports.
[12:15] » All right. The only thing I'll just
remind everyone about airport ribbon
[12:19] cutting. Uh that'd be next week,
Wednesday, at 4 o'clock p.m. if you want
[12:25] to be up there in attendance for that.
The airport commission has a meeting
[12:30] that'll follow at 5:00 after that. But
4:00 p.m. next Wednesday if you want to
[12:35] do uh want to be there for the ribbon
cutting. And uh with that, I'm going to
[12:41] go to John first. John, can you hear me?
All right.
[12:47] We'll go to Carrie first. All right,
there's John.
[12:50] » John.
>> All right.
[12:53] » Yep, we can hear you, John. John's busy
working in his office offsite in the
[12:58] second floor of the street shop, uh,
trying to get stuff done. But, uh, John,
[13:03] you want to give some report and I'll do
a screen share here soon.
[15:52] All right. Thank you, John.
>> I have a couple quick follow-ups for
[15:56] John, but I'm not sure if his audio
allows it. Is that okay, Mayor?
[15:58] » Go for it.
>> Um, John, if you can hear me and if
[16:00] we're able to hear your response. I I uh
I saw someone asserting on Facebook, and
[16:06] I know that's always a great start to
something, um that that the blasting
[16:10] itself cost $1 million and that it was
solely for the purpose of creating a
[16:15] bike path pedestrian trail. Uh and and
that that was asserted to say something
[16:20] about the priorities of some of the
people sitting at this very dis. Um and
[16:24] I'm curious, could you could you correct
anything that's wrong about those
[16:27] assertions so that uh we have good
information? And then if you want to
[16:31] feel free to comment on the character of
people who would just make stuff up and
[16:34] put it on the internet like that.
[17:35] John, are you talking about the entire
scope of the DOT project? The entire
[17:39] » project, correct? I don't want anyone to
get confused.
[17:42] » I think I think what Steve is getting at
is that the blast wasn't just because of
[17:47] the bike trail, right? that it was
multiple needs of the highway
[17:51] infrastructure that caused the blasting
and we happened to get a bike trail as
[17:56] part of that. It's hard to hear your
audio, but
[19:49] Thank you.
[19:52] » Any other questions for John?
>> All right. Next, we'll move on to we'll
[19:58] go out to Chopper first.
[20:05] Okay. Hey, just going to give a quick
update on uh Decor Fiber. Um
[20:10] this week we're wrapping up some of the
CO headend uh things to get ready to uh
[20:16] start up some customers down in the zone
2, which is the flats. Uh we're hoping
[20:22] that uh by next week we'll have a couple
test customers going and then we'll
[20:27] about a week or two after that we will
be ready to kind of turn the spot and
[20:31] let the installers go for the flats. So
there's like 338
[20:36] homes I think in that zone which is
called zone 2 in our in our world. Um
[20:42] so then within a month uh of today's
date zone three will be completed and
[20:48] ready to go to. So we'll we'll have
quite a few customers to in a sense go
[20:52] after to potentially get as decor fiber
uh installs here coming up. But so the
[20:58] next two to three weeks um we'll be kind
of moving along with some things
[21:02] happening down in the flat. So, that's
really exciting to get some customers
[21:05] going and live here.
>> Absolutely.
[21:09] » I have a couple questions for you,
Chopper. Yep. That I've just gotten uh
[21:12] related to the trenching and and such.
One is um and I'm pretty sure this is
[21:17] correct. What customers have said is
that they go in with the they get their
[21:21] orange tubes out and then they're
putting sand down, but not necessarily
[21:26] dirt. And then some people say they suck
out the sand and then put back in the
[21:30] dirt.
>> Correct. The sand is a temporary
[21:32] solution. Okay. So, Fridays are
typically the days that they do most of
[21:36] their cleanup, the hydro seating and the
areas that they messed up during the
[21:39] week. Okay.
>> So, that's usually Fridays, but in the
[21:42] meantime, they don't want to leave trip
hazards, things like that. So, whether
[21:46] it's where the um equipment was or where
they had to in a sense what they call
[21:50] pothole, which means that every time
they c cross gas or electric, they have
[21:55] to see their the head of the drill.
>> Um go uh above or below that. So, so
[22:02] that means any time you cross Alliant or
Black Hills, they have to see that and
[22:06] they have to pothole that section. So,
that's usually the sections that get
[22:09] filled with sand in the interim, then
they'll suck that back out and then put
[22:13] the dirt back in or if it's cement in
some cases, we've had a couple where we
[22:17] had to do that in a sidewalk or in a
sense, we had one recently we had to put
[22:21] one in someone's driveway just because
the way the gas was. Um, but that's
[22:25] usually what the steps that take. So,
Fridays are typically the cleanup day.
[22:28] Okay? and they try to explain that to
the homeowners when they're in their
[22:32] area working and a lot of them come up
with questions and they're curious of
[22:36] how that's done and what's put in and
things like that. So, yes.
[22:38] » Okay. And I have a lot of neighbors
asking how soon they can get signed up
[22:42] and I think that's zone three. So, I
should tell them a month.
[22:44] » I would say within a month we'll be
starting zone three. Yes.
[22:47] » And people are really excited. So, thank
you.
[22:52] » Thanks, Robert.
>> All right. Next up, Carrie.
[22:56] » Okay. Uh just continuing to work on our
messaging to the residents regarding the
[23:00] water and sewer billing. Um we've heard
some positive comments after the last
[23:05] statements that we sent out with the
email notification, but we are really
[23:09] pushing um residents. We have about half
of the residents of the city that are
[23:12] now paying through a online payments.
And we really really are pushing them to
[23:17] go to a because there's no fees with
that. That's directly through us or
[23:21] their bank if there's no fees with their
bank. But um there was some confusion
[23:26] there, but it seems to be getting
better. The calls are less calls, but
[23:30] we're still helping people through that.
So again, if you hear anything, please
[23:35] send them our way.
>> Thank you.
[23:42] » Anybody want to add anything else? I
think we got
[23:45] » any other department heads?
>> No. Council members,
[23:50] » nothing.
>> I've got two quick ones. Um uh the first
[23:53] is I I know that in several different
ways the city's expressed gratitude for
[23:58] what patience the public has shown and
had for all the various
[24:03] construction projects happening around
the city uh this summer and last summer.
[24:08] Um and uh and I I certainly, you know, I
I think that's very true. I'm excited
[24:13] about all the improvements and and uh
and I'm looking forward to seeing some
[24:16] of the orange barricades that have been
haunting my dreams uh go away. Um I I uh
[24:22] in particular though I I just have you
know been been thinking about a few like
[24:26] heavily affected businesses especially
from the highly construction projects.
[24:30] Um businesses like uh the bowling alley
and the uh the movie theater and and you
[24:35] know services like the post office that
we've effectively put at the end of uh
[24:39] hard to get to dead-end places for the
last couple construction seasons. And uh
[24:44] and and that's the cost of progress in
in some ways. And you know, that's how
[24:49] things sometimes are. But, uh, I just
think I just wanted to to I was at the
[24:54] bowling alley the other night and I was
happy to see it was busy. And I I just
[24:57] want to say a special word of
appreciation to those businesses and
[25:00] residents who've been most affected by
this construction season. And and I hope
[25:04] everyone's equally excited that it's
coming uh closer to a close. Um, and the
[25:11] other comment I wanted to make tonight
has to do with uh, so some of us up here
[25:15] review receipts where we we sign off on
uh, expenditures the city's made. This
[25:20] is a requirement of Iowa law for elected
officials that we actually sort of know
[25:23] where the money is going and and agree
with it. Um and uh and so last week I
[25:29] was signing a receipt and I noticed uh
that that the city was now participating
[25:33] in what seemed like a really good thing,
which is uh participating in a cost
[25:37] share with the sheriff's office on on a
program that's used for an investigative
[25:41] tool related to uh downloading cell
phone data when when there's an
[25:46] investigation happening related to a
phone. That's just something that
[25:49] happens these days and it's an important
tool for for police work. Um, and I was
[25:53] glad to see that instead of there being
two copies, one for our police station
[25:56] and one for our sheriff's office, that
that uh the the chief and and and the
[26:02] sheriff uh worked out a way to to to
share some of those costs. And I I want
[26:07] to commend um both both uh both the
department and the office for that
[26:13] cooperation. And and I I see it as as a
kind of cooperation that there should be
[26:17] more of in this city and not less of.
And I say this all by way of saying that
[26:21] uh I I don't like the way that the costs
are shared in this particular case. And
[26:26] and this is not new to my colleagues at
here up here at the dis that sometimes I
[26:31] think that when we are determining cost
sharing arrangements between the city
[26:35] and the county we forget that city
residents are also county residents and
[26:40] often end up paying for things twice
because of that. Um that was a little
[26:44] bit true with this particular
subscription. Um but but I want to make
[26:48] it really clear that in raising
questions about these kinds of cost
[26:53] shares, it is not saying that we should
not be cooperating with our close
[26:57] partners in the county law enforcement
community as a city police department.
[27:00] It is saying that we should make sure
that uh that that that to the extent
[27:06] that various people are benefiting, they
are paying their fair share and and that
[27:10] that that is a way to make sure that our
law enforcement community both in town
[27:14] and in the county are as well supported
as possible. So, u I hope we continue to
[27:19] work towards increased cooperation. I
thank uh I thank Chief Tine and and and
[27:23] Sheriff Marks for their collaboration
and and hammering out this new
[27:26] agreement. And I encourage all of us,
uh, surely I see you here. Thanks for
[27:31] being here. Our two bodies, I encourage
us to continue to find ways to to save
[27:34] the people we represent money.
[27:39] » Um, and I just wanted to give an update.
Um, Decor Jobs was just announced in the
[27:44] Iowa Workforce Housing Development. They
just put out publicly um that uh our
[27:48] economic development team at Decor Jobs
did um get awarded the workforce housing
[27:52] tax credit for the housing project. Um,
and the number is escaping me, but
[27:57] Travis, he might know it. Is it a
million?
[27:59] » I think it's a million.
>> I think it's a million, too. So, we got
[28:01] a million dollars worth of housing tax
credits um for the housing project um
[28:06] that just came out today.
[28:12] » Anyone else to share? Council
>> and congratulations to Christopher for
[28:16] being inducted into the NICC Hall of
Fame.
[28:18] » Oh, yeah. Congrats.
>> Thank you.
[28:22] » Oh, yeah. Congratulations to Zach
current, too, for adding hopefully a
[28:26] future volunteer firefighter or
full-time firefighter for that matter.
[28:30] » Oh, did he have a baby?
>> Yeah, last Friday.
[28:32] » I had no idea. Yay.
>> I'll congratulate Lauren.
[28:36] » Yeah, Zach didn't have the baby. Let's
be clear.
[28:39] » That's awesome. I did not know that.
>> Um, what I've been up to, uh, I did was
[28:43] invited to Luther to speak to the
incoming freshman class, uh, class of
[28:47] 432 if I remember correctly. Um, so I
appreciated that. uh talk about the
[28:52] relationship between Decor and Luther.
Um also met with the library and they're
[28:56] willing to do some help um with regards
to our bond referendum and helping with
[29:00] some of the social media planning and
things of that nature. So appreciative
[29:03] of them. Um yeah, it's been kind of a
slow couple of weeks. Do I dare say
[29:09] that? No,
>> you can say that.
[29:11] » No, it hasn't been. Anyways, uh moving
on. Item six, consent agenda.
[29:16] » Item A, minutes of August 17, 2026.
council meeting and August 24th, 2026
[29:22] work session minutes. B claims C.
Issuance of addendum one for
[29:28] comprehensive park plan request for
proposals.
[29:32] D. Construction administration proposal
with ISG for Raleigh Sports Complex
[29:36] final phase. E. Class E retail alcohol
license ownership amendment for Casey's
[29:42] on Old Stage Road and College Drive. F.
Class C retail alcohol license with
[29:47] outdoor service service renewal Skyline
Lanes LLC. G retail tobacco ownership
[29:54] amendment for cases on Old Stage Road
and College Drive. H. Carlson Park
[29:59] Gateway Trail Project application number
11.
[30:03] I Dora Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvement Project pay application
[30:07] number 10. J. Dora 2026 Hiveley Street
intersection improvements project pay
[30:13] application number five.
K Dor Athletic Complex pay application
[30:18] number five and L Phelps Park Holiday
Lighting Agreement.
[30:25] » Can I get a motion for the approval of
the consent agenda?
[30:30] » Move for approval as presented.
>> I'll second.
[30:33] » Okay. I have a question about
>> um in the Phelps Park holiday lighting
[30:38] agreement uh in the park board's
discussion um was holiday defined
[30:47] » as far as like the timing that they
would be up
[30:50] » no I understand that the timing is what
I was wondering what constitutes a
[30:54] holiday display
>> colors words content imagery
[31:04] Yeah, more of a time frame. So, uh
40-day period.
[31:09] » So, it's but no content or anything
discussed. Uh as I understand it, it's
[31:14] to put lights in the trees. It's not
ground mount stuff. Correct.
[31:18] » Yep. And then the pavilion as well,
right? So, is the is the agreement
[31:23] documented in your conversations to be
like string or individual lights like
[31:28] not light up Santa and Frosty?
>> That is correct. Uh along the trails and
[31:34] then on the gazebo as well.
>> Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure
[31:38] that that conversation had been
discussed and noted.
[31:42] » Also like to thank the Thornton family
for donating that.
[31:46] » Uh any other questions, comments?
[31:51] All right. Motion by Chisel, seconded by
Miss Linich. Roll call.
[31:54] » Chisel.
>> I.
[31:55] » Miss Limich.
>> I.
[31:57] » Parker.
>> Hi.
[31:58] » Bergen.
>> I.
[31:59] » Zitigrin.
>> Hi.
[32:00] » Whittle.
>> I.
[32:01] » Neil.
>> I.
[32:03] » Consent agenda is approved. Moving on to
item seven. Consider resolution
[32:06] approving voluntary annexation of Eric
Teal real estate in the vicinity of
[32:10] northeast of intersection of Locust Road
and Laurel Drive. Travis, you want to
[32:14] get background there?
>> Yes. So this is um to refresh your
[32:18] memories in case you forgot from the
first time we approved this the I'm not
[32:23] bitter but the state said we didn't
follow their process uh of 14 days
[32:30] publication advance uh in advance of the
action taken. Well we were 14 days but
[32:36] they said no we mean 14 business days.
So uh we did have to republish. The
[32:43] county supervisors already provided
plenty of notice because we tried this
[32:47] three months ago at this point. So
anyway, here we are. Uh background for
[32:52] this is the same as item 7. The Eric
Teal property is the most adjacent. The
[32:58] home is already within the city limits.
There's additional land owned just to
[33:04] the north that sits outside in the
county. So this annexation as well as
[33:10] item eight uh for the Mossman property
for those to be annexed in is a
[33:15] requirement for well uh as part of their
development. We've got a preliminary
[33:21] plat that's approved contingent upon
their annexation. So that first phase is
[33:26] the background for item 8 as well. Um
that's the area that'll be annexed in as
[33:32] part of item 8. notes sent to the
supervisors June 24th, republished
[33:37] August 6th. So, we've met uh all the
requirements by Iowa code.
[33:44] » Again, for approval,
[33:47] » I'll second.
>> Motion by Chisel, second by Missich. Any
[33:52] further discussion?
[33:57] Roll call.
>> Chisel.
[33:58] » I.
>> Miss Lynch.
[33:59] » Hi.
>> Bergen.
[34:00] » I.
>> Zitrin.
[34:01] » Hi.
>> Whittle.
[34:02] » Hi. Neil
>> I
[34:04] » Parker
>> I
[34:05] » motion passes unanimously. Item eight
consider resolution approving voluntary
[34:09] annexation of Tom Mossman Construction
Inc. Real estate in the vicinity
[34:13] southeast of intersection of Locust
Road, Middle Hesper Road
[34:20] » Travis. Okay. I was going to say we
don't really need to go over again for
[34:24] the resolution.
>> I'll second. Okay.
[34:28] » Motion by Chisel, second by Missinich.
Any further discussion?
[34:33] Roll call.
>> Chisel.
[34:35] » Hi.
>> Miss Limich.
[34:36] » Hi.
>> Bergen.
[34:37] » Hi.
>> Zitigrin.
[34:38] » Hi.
>> Whittle.
[34:39] » Hi.
>> Neil.
[34:40] » Hi.
>> Parker.
[34:41] » Hi.
>> Item nine. Consider resolution
[34:44] authorizing execution of lease
agreements with uh Enterprise Fleet
[34:47] Management.
>> All right. So, we do have
[34:51] representatives of enterprise fleet
management here. I'll give kind of a
[34:54] high level and then turn it over to
Ethan to uh fully present. So, the
[35:00] proposed resolution would allow staff to
replace, and I use the term replace, but
[35:06] uh only three would uh we would sell
off, but five current vehicles with a
[35:12] lease option previously presented to
council as part of a an umbrella master
[35:17] lease agreement. Again, three would be
sold. One we would rotate to the airport
[35:22] and sell a different vehicle that's
currently there and one we would keep
[35:27] and actually utilize um as kind of a
travel but the primary vehicle for the
[35:32] building official at this point. U there
are instances where we got to take stuff
[35:38] from the street department or something
uh to be able to use for travel
[35:42] vehicles, but that one is still
sufficient. Um, it's a decent vehicle,
[35:50] but not well equipped for plowing. We've
had issues with it. So, it'd be a good
[35:54] backup for the building official or good
primary vehicle knowing that we've got
[35:58] other travel vehicles that can be the
backup.
[36:02] So, that's what we would do um if moved
forward with five.
[36:08] Bless you.
>> Excuse me. So further analysis of
[36:10] individual vehicle replacements are
included in Dropbox as file 9B. And this
[36:17] resolution would also authorize, we
talked about this briefly during the
[36:20] master lease agreement. Uh would
actually also allow us to enter into a m
[36:25] maintenance agreement for the duration
of the lease. Both of which are expected
[36:30] to save the city operational costs assoc
over fiveyear term.
[36:36] Travis, do we usually is five years the
life of a city vehicle or do we usually
[36:40] have them much longer than five years?
>> No, we usually have them much much
[36:44] longer.
>> Um,
[36:46] » so so why then a calculation of saying
five years saves us money when we own a
[36:53] vehicle much longer than that?
>> Yeah. So
[36:56] the way this lease is is structured is
that it has the acquisition price from
[37:03] enterprise fleet management and the
estimated resale value after five years
[37:12] and those two the difference between
those two are used to calculate the
[37:16] monthly payments for the lease the lease
period.
[37:22] Right now, we do
extend that vehicle life out 15, 20
[37:27] years, but there is no resale value. We
typically sell it at auction for for
[37:33] $1,000 or so. Um,
our maintenance costs also ex, you know,
[37:42] obviously the longer you own a vehicle,
you have higher maintenance costs. By
[37:46] pairing the two together,
we're able to lower both our
[37:53] maintenance costs associated with our
entire fleet as well as the um
[38:00] if we take our acquisition costs and
amvertise it over the life of the
[38:06] vehicle
and then cut it down to fiveyear period.
[38:11] We're still looking at a savings with
the lease as opposed to holding it and
[38:18] then just moving it through the system
every five years. And I know I I just
[38:23] realized I did not explain that very
well. Give me a second here.
[38:30] Like I feel like we're I feel like what
I have right now is apples and oranges
[38:34] because I don't know what the the cost
of buying a vehicle and owning it for 15
[38:39] years compared to
leasing a vehicle and then trading it in
[38:45] in five years or would we buy the
vehicle in five years?
[38:49] » The option.
>> We'd have the option but then how do I
[38:52] compare the total cost?
[38:57] Well, there's trade-offs on both sides,
right? One is you're probably not gonna
[39:01] have to deal with a ton of maintenance
issues if you get rid of it after five
[39:04] years,
>> right?
[39:06] » Well, I get that. I mean, I but I I I
have a hard time thinking we say I I
[39:10] think I said this last time. I have a
hard time thinking we save money leasing
[39:13] a vehicle because
>> and I I was willing to accept the fact
[39:17] that okay, maybe a corporate lease is
different than just a personal lease,
[39:21] » but I still want to understand that and
then what happens? Yeah. So,
[39:25] » could you come to the podium so we can
have some questions.
[39:28] » Thank you.
>> So, Emily, if you look at it'd be on
[39:32] page looks like 64 of the council
packet. It's an Excel spreadsheet that
[39:39] unfortunately it's really long. So, it
is multiple pages so that you can
[39:42] actually still read it. We're on page
64. It's got the state acquisition or
[39:47] internal quote. So, those are the
pricings that we've received for an
[39:50] outright purchase of a vehicle. So if we
were to take that and say this is we're
[39:56] going to structure this over 15 or 20
years of a vehicle life, you depreciate
[40:02] it over that time
as opposed to
[40:08] the next page which has EFM, their
acquisition cost, their monthly lease
[40:13] rate, full maintenance.
[40:18] Next page has their annual cost to us.
>> Is this also in document B? That's what
[40:25] I was looking up.
>> Correct. So yeah, it's all within
[40:28] document B, but it's multiple pages
because
[40:31] » like I said, unfortunately, it's a
really long spreadsheet because there's
[40:34] only just a few lines to it, but I have
to chop it up into a couple pages to
[40:39] make it actually legible.
But the on page 67, the last column on
[40:47] there shows the anticipated resale price
at term. So they take that, which for us
[40:55] is under our current method is like
$1,000.
[41:00] They take that anticipated resale price
at term and subtract that from their
[41:05] acquisition costs to come up with the
lease rate over five years.
[41:10] » Am I explaining that correct, Ethan?
Yeah, I think I understand that.
[41:15] What I don't understand is if we hang on
to the vehicle.
[41:20] » Well, I'll let other people ask
questions because I have more.
[41:28] » I Oh, I I got a question. I think the
last time you're here, I mean, you had
[41:33] like a list of agencies or uh
individuals that use Enterprise. Um, and
[41:38] I think I I asked if there's like a
like a close government entity that has
[41:45] used Enterprise that it maybe hasn't
penciled out that kind of backed away.
[41:50] Um, and you didn't know the answer at
that time. I'm just curious if you're
[41:52] able to look at that or uh if there's
like some place close that have had it
[41:57] for a while and stopped using
Enterprise.
[42:00] » Um, yeah. So um to to my knowledge uh
still es in my tenure and and in the
[42:06] recent history um not that I know of
have we worked with an agency that has
[42:09] has worked with us for an extended
period and then ultimately decided to
[42:12] leave uh from a government end. Um on
the commercial side of our business um
[42:17] that that has happened in the past. Um
but to maybe kind of speak to your your
[42:21] question or maybe I should just ask you
u if there are some concerns about what
[42:25] it would look like to to walk away from
a program like this. Um, I'll just add
[42:29] that what we do is is always as
conservative as possible in our client's
[42:33] best interest and Travis and I have
discussed this u multiple different
[42:38] occasions, but as far as what it would
look like to walk away is a really
[42:41] seamless process. Um, if we started with
these five vehicles today and a year
[42:46] from now, uh, you guys determined that
that was no longer something you could
[42:49] our partnership was something you wanted
to pursue, it's as simple as either, um,
[42:53] continuing to pay for the vehicles that
we have on on lease. um we'll service
[42:57] them throughout their lifetime at the
end of that fiveyear period can shake
[43:00] hands and split up or alternatively
you're welcome to to purchase out the
[43:04] vehicles themselves or we can resell
those for you and ultimately uh
[43:08] liquidate and remove from the program as
well. Um so again our goal is is at the
[43:13] end of the day to be a service provider
to you all and to make that as seamless
[43:16] as possible. Is that maybe kind of what
you were getting at?
[43:19] » Yeah. No, I was just curious if there
was anybody that, you know, because it
[43:22] it it kind of um just curious if
anybody's gone with enterprise lease
[43:27] vehicles and then have gone away from
that. So, if there has, you know, that
[43:32] that I'd just be curious on why they
decided to go away from enterprise
[43:36] leasing vehicles if they've,
>> you know, but to your knowledge that
[43:40] everybody that's gone with you, you're
saying, has stayed with you?
[43:43] » Yes, my knowledge and actually uh
invited a colleague with me today. Um uh
[43:48] Raven's with our with our team for quite
a while longer than I have been. So she
[43:53] may have an experience to speak to
there.
[43:55] » Yeah. So what I would say is um at the
end of the day we are here again to to
[44:00] Ethan's point to make it as easy as
possible for the municipalities that we
[44:04] work with. I actually come from the uh
client man client strategy manager side
[44:09] of the house where I manage onboarded
clients and at the end of the day if
[44:13] there is a situation where it's not
penciling out I'm going to be the first
[44:17] one to tell you that like our our team
will be the first one to tell you that.
[44:21] Um, what I will say is the where I have
seen it not work out the way that we
[44:27] have, which I think that our our
projection is um $140,000
[44:32] of savings over the course of 10 years,
is where we come up with a plan and then
[44:36] the plan isn't isn't executed on because
um the whole idea of our program and the
[44:42] what reason that the scent per mile and
the total cost of ownership um view of
[44:47] owning and operating a vehicle works is
because we're able on the government
[44:52] side to purchase low because you qualify
for really high incentives um from the
[44:59] manufacturers and then sell on the
wholesale market at the end of the term.
[45:03] So um at the end of the day that that
scent per mile actually um that gap
[45:09] closes and then the vehicle program ends
up paying for itself almost like an
[45:14] internal service fund.
>> I got one more question. Yeah.
[45:19] » So, obviously, you know, entities go
into the cost savings. Where do you make
[45:23] your money off of us leasing vehicles?
>> Yeah. Really?
[45:27] » Yeah. I mean, because obviously it's a
business. You wouldn't be here if it's
[45:30] there's not something for you, right?
>> Absolutely.
[45:31] » Yeah. Absolutely. Um Yeah. It's a simple
for lease structure. There is an
[45:35] interest rate. Um we do of course uh
profit from there. Um and then uh kind
[45:41] of additionally, there are some there's
some management fees uh as well built in
[45:45] uh based on the acquisition price of the
vehicle. Um those are really the two
[45:49] largest uh opportunity for us. Um I know
Travis mentioned our uh maintenance
[45:55] program. Um isn't really a necessarily
as much of a profit center for us. Um
[46:00] essentially what we do is we look at
historically the cost of operating a
[46:03] vehicle of its type um across you know
our fleet of rental vehicles on that on
[46:08] the rental side of our business but also
from the remainder of our clients out in
[46:11] the field. And from that uh using that
data to predict what the cost is going
[46:16] to be like with a little bit of padding
kind of no different from an insurance
[46:18] agency would just to ensure that we're
we're in a right position at the end of
[46:22] term but also ensuring you guys are
paying the lowest amount possible over
[46:25] it lifetime. Um and then lastly would be
at the end of end of term of a vehicle.
[46:30] Um this is is again not really a profit
center for us but it is a cost that you
[46:34] would see on a statement. We do charge a
$500 fee associated with reselling the
[46:40] vehicle at the end of its term. Um,
again, that's built into the complete
[46:43] leases that Travis has had a chance to
see and hopefully you guys have had a
[46:46] chance to see. Um, but those would be
the big big areas that are coming to
[46:49] mind for me.
[46:53] » And what exactly does the full
maintenance program cover?
[46:56] » Yeah, absolutely. So, that covers uh any
any routine maintenance on the vehicle
[46:59] over the course of its lifetime or up to
100,000 miles. Um, the only things that
[47:04] wouldn't be included that are commonly
asked would be things like brakes and
[47:07] tires. Um, so outside of that, any oil
changes, tire rotations, everything like
[47:11] that fully included in that cost. Um, so
outside of those brakes and tires, and
[47:15] of course any like collision or body
damage, um, we we assume the risk on on
[47:19] the cost of the vehicle. Okay.
>> Are there requirements or limitations
[47:22] about where maintenance can occur?
>> Uh, yes, we do ask that you work through
[47:27] our vendor network. Uh, it's the same
network we built rental side of our
[47:30] business. It's quite expansive. I think
here in Dora at a 10 mile radius there's
[47:34] five locations and I think if you
stretch that out to 25 miles or a
[47:38] handful more um so plenty of
availability timeliness is a huge factor
[47:42] in how we determine our vendors. Um so I
wouldn't anticipate any issues there.
[47:46] » Travis, do you know if that would change
where we currently
[47:50] have our vehicles sent for maintenance?
>> We've got a pretty good spread of where
[47:53] we take all our different types of
vehicles. So it might change where we
[47:58] take grab that list here again.
[48:20] So, actually, this wouldn't change. Uh,
PD takes their vehicles to a place
[48:24] that's not listed on here, but the rest
the rest should be good. We wouldn't
[48:30] have to change them.
>> I mean, I'll take that list because I
[48:32] can get my can't get my car in anywhere.
So, um uh great. And then just uh make
[48:39] sure I understand the terms correctly.
So, it's five years um and 10,000 miles
[48:45] per year per vehicle.
>> Yes. So that 10,000 miles is based on
[48:49] the a average application
of the typical of the vehicles you guys
[48:53] are operating today. So that is subject
to change if you guys have any any
[48:56] change in the vehicles. Um but yeah,
we're looking at that 5year 50,000 mi
[49:01] period.
>> So something changed around the use of
[49:03] one of the vehicles and mileage was
going to go up. That is something that
[49:06] we could address or negotiate with you
without waiting for that 5year term.
[49:10] » Yeah, absolutely. And part of our
account team's process and I've spoke to
[49:14] Travis about this is to review all the
ongoings in the fleet um in some in
[49:19] really deep detail at least twice a year
one of the primary targets of those
[49:23] meetings is ensuring that everything is
where it needs to be at from a term and
[49:27] depreciation standpoint. Um, so if we
notice that a vehicle is going 50% more
[49:31] miles uh between years two and three,
it's absolutely a conversation that we'd
[49:35] have with Travis and and likely the
department has operating the vehicle and
[49:39] ensuring that if anything needs to
change that it does well before there's
[49:42] any sort of potential
u you know significant issue.
[49:46] » Um and then I do want to add just to um
Miss Neil's point earlier, the the lease
[49:52] that we have um the open-ended lease is
very different from like a traditional
[49:56] dealer lease. So while The terms are
written at 10,000 miles per year for
[50:02] five years. If you do end up going over
that, there aren't any penalties
[50:07] for going over that. The only thing that
would be impacted is the resale value
[50:11] that we expect at the end, which um you
know, higher mileage, older vehicle,
[50:15] whatever the case may be that gets
changed. Um that would that would impact
[50:19] the equity that comes back to the city
um to either roll into the next
[50:23] generation of vehicles or back into the
city's budget.
[50:27] What about if there are ding scratches?
I mean, these are vehicles that will be
[50:30] heavy used.
>> We don't have wear and tear charges.
[50:34] Again, the only thing that's impacted
from dense dings, higher mileage is the
[50:38] resale value that we get,
>> right? And so, we should expect sort of
[50:44] the prime resale value. We should expect
a lower resale value that
[50:48] » and at the end of the day, we do
anticipate um we we're very conservative
[50:52] with our resale values. So even what
we're projecting today is based on what
[50:56] we would expect for a typical city
vehicle. Um you know using being used
[51:02] the same way that any other city
vehicle. to to clarify, are you saying
[51:05] that that when you were guessing resale
values for the proposed five vehicles in
[51:10] the packet, uh you were using uh
municipal use vehicles for plowing and
[51:17] and street maintenance vehicle resale
values after 50,000 miles of wear and
[51:21] tear and hard breaking and things.
>> Yes. So, our fleet strategy team put
[51:25] those values together.
>> Is that written down anywhere?
[51:28] uh the the the resale value for
>> I'd like to I'd like to understand how
[51:32] you came up with the resale values
because you know as as you've all noted
[51:36] um your assumptions lead to this
incredibly rosy projection of how all
[51:40] this money is just going to come out of
thin air that we're currently
[51:43] squandering and and uh and that's how
you're going to make your end and the
[51:46] city's going to come out ahead. Um but
but I don't I I don't quite see the
[51:51] comparisons documented and so I'd like
to understand where they come from.
[51:55] » Yeah, absolutely. I can I can definitely
get Travis and the council as well the
[51:59] full kind of rundown of of what we
anticipate values to look like. Um but
[52:02] everything we do is assuming um you know
fair or less than condition uh in in the
[52:09] state of government um you know
essentially treating them as as
[52:13] commercial vehicles, right? So non um
and non- retail use um and we're
[52:17] assuming a level of wear and tear uh is
to be expected. So everything we're
[52:22] showing is is a conservative projection
with 80% of that um is what we're taking
[52:27] to to to Travis and building into our
analysis. Um I I haven't I haven't yet
[52:32] to see a time where we're not exceeding
on those expectations. I know we've seen
[52:35] some some really big wins just recent
rec recently in our partnership with
[52:39] Mason City. Um but to answer your
question again, we're assuming mid-level
[52:44] or worst condition uh commercially rated
vehicle as opposed to retail rated
[52:49] vehicle. And with that comes the
assumption of some wear and tear, door
[52:52] dings, bed scratches, things of that
nature.
[52:54] » How long have you been working with
Mason City?
[52:56] » Um, I believe our partnerships, it's
either just coming up on six years or
[53:00] seven years.
>> And what what area do you cover? Like,
[53:05] uh, what what's your region as far as
the people you serve or lease vehicles?
[53:11] » Um, our local team is Iowa and Nebraska.
Um, however, we span across all 50
[53:17] states.
And we have municipalities.
[53:20] » Yeah. I was just curious like you two
like you're Iowa Nebraska.
[53:24] » Yes. Iowa Nebraska.
>> Mike, quick question. How's the street
[53:28] department? Would they are they have any
opposition? Are they all right with
[53:32] this? Do you think the 10,000 miles is a
fair projection for what we normally
[53:36] would put on? Probably. I would assume
less than that, but obviously we don't
[53:39] know what the word brings.
>> Close to 10,000.
[53:41] » Not even close.
>> I' I've talked with Kevin about it and
[53:44] I've talked with Travis about it.
>> Okay.
[53:48] questions have been answered and um I
don't have any reservations right now.
[53:53] » Okay.
>> So,
[53:54] » good to know.
>> I do, but I I want to have that
[53:56] conversation as a council and so I want
to make sure that we've had a chance to
[53:59] ask the enterprise reps all the
questions that we need if others have
[54:03] questions for them.
>> Anyone else?
[54:08] » All right.
>> I have questions for Travis.
[54:12] » All right.
>> That maybe that might be helpful to the
[54:14] conversation. Um, Travis, can you talk
about where uh where in our budget lines
[54:20] lease payments would come from in
relation to it was different when we
[54:23] were looking at it in budget season and
purchasing.
[54:26] » Right. So, of the five listed here,
three of which were planned capital
[54:32] replacements.
>> The two parks, right, both parks and one
[54:38] water, the street ones were not planned
replacements.
[54:43] Uh but we've already actually found a if
council if we move forward with this uh
[54:50] Mike actually just today uh it was
discovered our one plow that we're
[54:55] actually proposing to replace the the
unit cracked in half and so we have to
[55:01] replace the plow not the truck the plow
unit itself but that's 10,000
[55:08] $10,000. So that's where the funding
would come from one of these because
[55:13] that's the full annual lease payment on
one of these. Uh the 3/4 ton ram.
[55:21] » I'm confused. The truck is fine. The
plow is broken. Like the front of it,
[55:25] » correct? So the plow mount itself just
to replace the plow unit is $10,000.
[55:32] » But this would replace the whole truck
and the plow
[55:35] » for the lease payment
>> for one year of the five. for one year
[55:38] of the five. So what what I was saying
is that we have a $10,000
[55:44] expense
with the plow that we would forego
[55:51] in lie of this for this fiscal season
and uh the other 10,000 we would call it
[56:01] uh would actually offset our maintenance
budget for was it the maintenance budget
[56:07] Mike that we were talking about within
road use tax for the street one.
[56:15] » So that
the three that were budgeted as outright
[56:20] capital purchases
were water and two out of parks.
[56:26] Water is a service. It's paid out of its
own enterprise fund. The two out of
[56:30] parks are general fund instead. So those
would be
[56:35] already covered within the general fund
budget. And did we um we paid that we
[56:40] allocated dollars for that in the budget
out of the general fund separate and
[56:43] distinct from the park and wreck sort of
quote unquote standard budget.
[56:49] » They have to identify within their
budget as a whole that they that the
[56:54] council approves.
>> Yep.
[56:56] » They have to identify which account code
that's associated with.
[57:00] » So it is it would be associated. Yeah.
>> Correct. It's associated with an
[57:04] accountant.
[57:08] Um, I I don't think I'll be supporting
this path forward and I want to be
[57:13] really clear and and I'll only I'll try
to just say the one thing. It'll take a
[57:19] while though, so just bear with me. Um,
I think we're trying to solve a problem
[57:23] that's a real problem and uh and and I I
admire uh that that that we've
[57:28] identified, you know, one possible way
to address uh the age of our vehicles
[57:32] fleet. Um the the fact that our the
pressures on our budget have put us in a
[57:38] position where we kind of keep things
limping along as long as we possibly can
[57:41] to the point where there's holes in the
floor of some of our trucks and and
[57:44] things are breaking all the time and we
spend a lot of valuable staff time and
[57:48] city resources uh on constantly chasing
repairs. Uh my concern though is is
[57:54] largely with what I think is pretty
clearly an asymmetric information
[57:59] environment. And by that I mean that
that uh these wonderful people uh are
[58:03] very good at their jobs, I'm sure. Um
and and they they spend a lot of their
[58:07] time going in front of people like us
who don't enter into these kinds of
[58:10] agreements except for once every five or
15 years to sell us on something. You
[58:15] know, that's that's how this works. Um
and and I don't know what the
[58:20] counterarguments are. I read I read this
language and I see what I know are not
[58:25] applesto apples comparisons between uh
the city's financial options. We're
[58:29] comparing um a uh you know a program
where where we buy cars through this
[58:34] lease program. We we make the payments
of about $10,000 per car per year for
[58:40] five years. Like that's a half of a
full-timer that we could we could hire
[58:44] instead with that money. And then at the
end there the cars will have or the
[58:47] vehicles will have resale value, right?
Um and we just have to make a guess as
[58:51] to what that resale value is. And
enterprise has made some projections
[58:54] that do end up making things look rosy.
But again, we are very hard on our
[58:59] trucks. And it may be that we don't want
to sell or to to have a new vehicle
[59:04] every 5 years. So what will we do? We'll
we'll buy them from them right when the
[59:09] maintenance costs start ramping up
probably. Uh and and and then we'll be
[59:14] responsible for the maintenance. In the
meantime, the maintenance plan, which
[59:18] sounds like a big selling fee, right? we
don't have to take care of things for
[59:20] the first 5 years are covering uh
vehicles that probably won't have a
[59:25] whole lot of things come up because or
if they do come up, we would have them
[59:28] covered under warranty under any other
purchase agreement. And furthermore,
[59:32] this maintenance agreement doesn't cover
the two major recurring costs, tires and
[59:36] brakes. That's especially a major
recurring cost in the kinds of vehicles
[59:40] that we use for street work and for
plowing. And so personally, I'm not
[59:45] comfortable with the quality of the
comparison we're getting between uh the
[59:50] status quo, which we should not
continue. It costs us too much money,
[59:54] but then this possible alternative where
I don't I got to say I just don't trust
[1:00:01] it. Um and and and that's not anything
to do with YouTube or Enterprise.
[1:00:06] Believe me, if you were Herz here, I
would say it was something to do with
[1:00:09] you because Hertz completely jobbed me
uh the last time I rented a car. But uh
[1:00:14] so far, Enterprise has been pretty
decent to work with personally and uh
[1:00:17] and I have no reason to think we as a
city shouldn't consider a good deal for
[1:00:21] us. I also don't have enough reason to
know that this is a good deal. And in
[1:00:26] particular, uh, the kinds of things that
that would help me understand better if
[1:00:30] this was a good deal would be a true
applesto apples comparison showing the
[1:00:34] city, uh, seeking his own financing,
purchasing these same vehicles, if we
[1:00:38] really would purchase these five
vehicles if it was, you know, upfront
[1:00:42] payments with cash dollars. I don't
think we probably would buy all five at
[1:00:46] this this fit and trim level. I think
this is more vehicle than probably we
[1:00:49] need if we really ask those hard
questions. Uh, so but but let's just say
[1:00:53] we bought all five of these vehicles.
what kind of interest rates would we get
[1:00:56] on those? Um, Enterprise has already
done some work for us, so we know after
[1:01:00] five years what they think they'll be
worth after five years of nominal city
[1:01:03] use. Uh, we we can we can do the math
and figure out if that's a better
[1:01:07] comparison. And I'd like to see us do
it. Now, the downside of that is our
[1:01:11] staff are busy. They work hard. And this
is a clean solution where we sign paper,
[1:01:16] we pay money, they find savings.
Presumably, they're better at finding
[1:01:19] vehicles and probably they're better at
selling vehicles than we as a city are.
[1:01:23] Um, I don't know how much of that you're
being better at selling vehicles goes
[1:01:27] away in charging us $500 to sell our
vehicle though. Um, especially do you
[1:01:32] charge us 500 to sell it to us?
>> Like if if we bought it from you? No.
[1:01:37] » The $500 wouldn't or if we bought it if
we bought out the lease at the end of
[1:01:41] five years?
>> Uh, no. That uh that fee typically is is
[1:01:44] just enough to cover like auction or
>> That's that's helpful. So, I I I get
[1:01:49] that they bring some efficiencies to
this and I get that it may be that
[1:01:52] something like this is the best path
forward to the city, but I don't think
[1:01:55] it'd be smart of us as a council to
proceed without at least pricing out
[1:02:00] what kind of competitive interest rates
we can get on these new vehicles. Maybe
[1:02:03] we need to start making payments on
cars. Um, and that's that's kind of my
[1:02:07] speech about why I don't think we should
move forward tonight. And I want to say
[1:02:10] a second thing, much shorter. Um,
I'm not comfortable with a city of
[1:02:18] Decor's size needing to make payments to
afford vehicles. I don't think that
[1:02:24] reflects uh the kind of future planning
that we as a as a community are capable
[1:02:30] of and it doesn't reflect uh the
financial resources that that a a city
[1:02:35] with a $13 million or whatever annual
budget should be able to to to leverage
[1:02:40] for purchases that are between 25 and 60
or $75,000.
[1:02:45] Um, I I understand that budget pressures
make it so that we end up just keeping
[1:02:50] things limping along and along and along
and we can't afford to to do it. And so
[1:02:54] this this seems like a way out, but I'd
rather take a really hard look at where
[1:03:00] we do spend our money and find ways to I
I I know we've all tried to look for
[1:03:04] ways to cut, you know, this mythical
waste that we're all searching for all
[1:03:07] the time. Um, but
if we can't afford $50,000 for a broken
[1:03:14] park truck, what are we doing?
And so I personally would like to see us
[1:03:19] proceed another way. Um, and my last
question, and this truly isn't a gotcha,
[1:03:23] okay? I I hope I hope you understand
that these are good faith questions. I'm
[1:03:27] doing my very best to represent um
people who whose cost of housing is
[1:03:32] partially affected by these kinds of
decisions. Um,
[1:03:38] what interest rates are assumed in your
payment models?
[1:03:43] And it's and and I guess here's why I'm
asking you, just so you don't think it's
[1:03:46] a gotcha question. I did the math and I
think it's like 10%. And I feel like we
[1:03:51] could do better as a city, but maybe I'm
I'm not a banker. So, could you could
[1:03:54] you explain to me how you all came up
with with the interest rate?
[1:03:59] » Yeah. So, the interest rate is based on
the three-year T bill plus 200 or 300
[1:04:03] basis points. Um, but I do want to also
make sure that you're aware that the the
[1:04:09] um the lease payment is what it's
labeled as. Um, that also includes the
[1:04:14] uh management fee for the resources and
everything behind enterprise,
[1:04:18] » right? And the maintenance the
maintenance is a separate charge on top
[1:04:21] of that though. Is that I'm
understanding that right. So, so
[1:04:25] fiveyear T-Bo plus three
>> three year
[1:04:28] » three year plus three great and T bills
have been getting worse and worse like
[1:04:33] they've been going up. So I I'm I'm a no
on this and I think I've said enough.
[1:04:41] » I try to want I kind of want to
understand some things and I want to see
[1:04:44] if I have pieced together.
>> So when we purchase let's say that we
[1:04:49] want to purchase a vehicle after five
years do we get credit for our payments
[1:04:52] or not? Reason I asked that is because I
was confused about the
[1:04:57] chart that says sum of payment minus
resale. What is that column telling me?
[1:05:03] It's on page
[1:05:09] I don't know
>> page 68.
[1:05:11] » Well, I'm looking at the the B
uh 9b
[1:05:17] the individual.
So it says anticipated equity at the end
[1:05:22] of term, sum of payments minus resale,
cash purchase minus resale.
[1:05:31] » I can feel that one.
>> Yeah, I thought you were. Sorry.
[1:05:34] » I'm sorry. You were looking over there.
Um yeah, again, that's just comparing um
[1:05:37] if you went out today, paid cash for uh
you know, for a $50,000 truck, uh ran
[1:05:43] it, ran it for its lifetime, and then
resold it, what is your what is really
[1:05:47] your sum of payments look like at the
end of its lifetime? Ah, so that really
[1:05:49] has nothing to do with what we're paying
for the vehicle.
[1:05:52] » Yeah, that that would be at the end of
at the end of its life uh what the
[1:05:56] investment would be essentially.
>> Got it. Okay.
[1:06:01] » If we were to let's take one of the
vehicles, right? Because it's nice just
[1:06:04] to have a case scenario. Absolutely.
Okay. So, let's start with the one that
[1:06:07] is essentially closest to 10,000 because
I like round numbers, which is the half
[1:06:11] ton pickup truck. No, I lied. Sorry.
Yeah, it is. Right. So, 9500, but let's
[1:06:16] just round it to 10. Okay. So, let's say
that we make five years, $50,000 worth
[1:06:21] of payments for that vehicle. What would
it cost us to buy that vehicle at the
[1:06:24] end of that?
>> Absolutely. There should be a column
[1:06:26] there uh that shows the residual value
and that's essentially the value that
[1:06:30] we've written down the lease term for.
So, at the end of five years, um I'm not
[1:06:34] sure which what it is off the top of my
head. Um say it's written down to a
[1:06:37] $6,000 residual. At the end of that
fiveyear period, the city determined
[1:06:42] that it wanted to purchase that vehicle
and hold on to it for a longer period.
[1:06:45] That's all that's remaining. um on the
vehicle. So, be that $5,000 purchase,
[1:06:49] whether that's one time or spread evenly
across another 12-month period. Uh
[1:06:54] regardless, that's all that's owed on
the vehicle. Alternatively, we would of
[1:06:58] course recommend that we resell that
vehicle at the end of its lifetime. Um
[1:07:02] that difference would come out of its
resale value and the remaining cash
[1:07:05] would go back into the city.
>> Okay. So, what you're saying essentially
[1:07:08] if we bought a
we'd be buying a $60,000 vehicle at the
[1:07:13] end of five years. We paid 50. We have
10 left to pay. We'd pay $60,000 for a
[1:07:18] truck.
>> That's how the math would work out.
[1:07:20] Yeah.
>> Right. So then what would it cost us to
[1:07:22] just buy that cut truck out outright on
day one?
[1:07:25] » That one was
>> 43, right?
[1:07:29] » 43,370.
[1:07:33] » Yes.
>> Okay. So it's a $15,000 difference
[1:07:35] between leasing it or buying it, but
that doesn't account for any maintenance
[1:07:40] on it. So the question I would have in
my mind is in five years do we spend
[1:07:45] $15,000 on maintenance of a vehicle?
[1:07:50] » First five probably not
[1:07:55] » and then in the second five
we spent 15
[1:08:04] » near the end of it gets closer to that.
I mean that's I mean I have to I have to
[1:08:08] think in simple terms for my residential
you know small budget brain because it
[1:08:14] to me it's like what's the that's how I
make every economic decision like what
[1:08:18] it what is my long-term gain and what
does it really do to my budget? Am I
[1:08:23] actually making an investment? So when I
look at the $15,000 difference if we
[1:08:28] bought it outright now or we bought it
in five years which is 15,000 I guess I
[1:08:34] need to be a little bit convinced why
that $1,000 is worth it because multiply
[1:08:38] that by five right now we're looking at
a lot more than I want to do math.
[1:08:46] » Can I
>> Anybody can explain.
[1:08:48] » Yeah. So, one one thing I'll add as well
is that that the resale factor is is a
[1:08:52] big piece. What's um what's calculating
ultimately like what we call total cost
[1:08:57] of ownership. It's all over our
documents. is everything we do is just
[1:09:00] looking at the vehicle, determining what
it's costing the city to operate to to
[1:09:04] fulfill its needs over its lifetime. Um,
and to your point, would it have cost
[1:09:08] $15,000
um to maintain a vehicle in the first
[1:09:11] five years? Almost certainly not right
at the end of a 10-year period, we are
[1:09:16] getting closer there. And especially
when you factor in things like brakes
[1:09:18] and tires, which we have, of course,
admitted from our analysis, um, very
[1:09:22] close. And and to I think your point
earlier, really what the city's doing is
[1:09:26] operating them for 15 or closer to 15 in
some cases. And so what what we've done
[1:09:31] and what we've built and uh hopefully
you guys have that kind of 10-year
[1:09:35] analysis available to you is really just
saying if we make a few small changes or
[1:09:40] the city makes a few small changes and
how it manages it manages its vehicles
[1:09:43] today, what you'll see is not only some
cost reduction on the front end for the
[1:09:47] types of vehicles that we purchase. Um
Stephen, you made a great point about
[1:09:51] the trim levels. Um everything built has
been in conjunction with Travis. Um, but
[1:09:56] you often are saving from ordering from
a manufacturer like we'd recommend
[1:09:59] versus buying what's available on the
lot. So, there's cost savings on the
[1:10:03] front end. By operating a newer vehicle,
we're paying significantly less in
[1:10:07] maintenance over its lifetime to the
point where our organization is willing
[1:10:10] to to roll the dice and take the risk on
your behalf. And and to Stephen's point
[1:10:15] again, like we're avoiding significant
uh repair costs that would be covered by
[1:10:19] warranty because we're operating more
vehicles. And then as we get throughout
[1:10:23] its lifetime and eventually resell the
vehicle, ideally we're reselling a
[1:10:27] 5-year-old pickup truck with 25 to
30,000 miles on it and able to take that
[1:10:33] 15 to $20,000 worth of equity to put it
down on what we'd call like the second
[1:10:37] generation vehicle. So instead of
starting with the $50,000 pickup truck
[1:10:42] that we're riding down to a $10,000
residual or 5,000 whatever we agreed on
[1:10:46] $5,000 residual, we're rolling that
extra 15 or $20,000 into it. So we're
[1:10:50] financing even less of the vehicle,
right? So the program really gets to be
[1:10:54] that like kind of self-funding,
self-sustainable model. So you're paying
[1:10:58] less out the door every month and then
reciprocating it over its lifetime. And
[1:11:02] what you'll see in that 10-year analysis
is just saying, "Hey, if we take the
[1:11:05] equity that's in the fleet today, right?
We sell those trucks. Some may maybe
[1:11:09] only worth a couple thousand dollars,
but replace the ones that probably
[1:11:12] aren't on your guys' radar for the next
three or four years sooner, we can
[1:11:16] capture that equity and get closer to
that second generation vehicle to begin
[1:11:20] with.
>> Even if the second generational vehicles
[1:11:22] are already going to cost more than
first generation first place, so if we
[1:11:26] have $15,000 extra that we're putting in
a second gen vehicle, we probably buy a
[1:11:30] vehicle that costs more than first gen.
>> Yeah.
[1:11:32] » Yes. But the the almost certainly over a
fiveyear period, it's not going to
[1:11:37] increase by $15,000. So you would be
spending less in the second generation,
[1:11:42] which is why many of our municipalities
and our nonprofits who get to take
[1:11:46] advantage of really high upfront
incentives are actually spending less
[1:11:51] and sometimes getting paid on the back
end of the for the vehicle when they
[1:11:54] resell it because it can be sold for
more than what we ended up paying for
[1:11:58] it. Um, additionally, I do want to back
to um I mean you brought up interest as
[1:12:04] well. Um we have very very flexible
terms. So if it is the preference of the
[1:12:10] city to purchase the like to pay the
vehicle down to a dollar at the at the
[1:12:14] onset of that's 100% an option that we
can offer you and that offsets the cost
[1:12:20] of of the interest. But at the end of
the day when we look at it from a total
[1:12:24] cost of ownership from like the resale
or from the purchase like the
[1:12:27] acquisition cost to the resale side the
cost of ownership. The interest is a
[1:12:32] very very small factor and I I don't
want that to be something that's being
[1:12:36] skipped is that the the shortened life
cycle is really in the reselling of the
[1:12:41] vehicle at the right time and that um
cost avoidance of the higher fuel and
[1:12:45] the higher maintenance is really the the
value proposition that Enterprise brings
[1:12:50] to our municipalities.
[1:12:54] » John, can I put you on the spot for a
second? Did you have a chance to look
[1:12:56] over the master lease agreement? And
>> if so, were there anything maybe that
[1:13:01] did you see anything that raised your
eyebrow or anything that
[1:13:03] » Let me I was just looking back. I
reviewed it months ago. Sure.
[1:13:06] » Um
>> just wondering if there was anything
[1:13:09] that maybe
>> you didn't like or questioned.
[1:13:15] There were some comments, but I think
either all or most were added into
[1:13:24] the new lease.
>> Yeah. And I don't I I I don't know if I
[1:13:27] saw the most updated one. My initial
review, uh I wanted to make sure the
[1:13:32] language was clear that the city had the
option to purchase the vehicles because
[1:13:36] the original agreement I saw, uh the
language was clearly only a lease. uh
[1:13:43] and to make sure there was a a schedule
for what those um purchases would be.
[1:13:48] And I think that those questions have
been answered. Um
[1:14:02] » Travis, what what do you believe the
cost savings to the city is over five
[1:14:05] years?
>> Sorry, can John finish?
[1:14:07] » Oh, sorry. I thought he was
>> Yeah, sorry. Sorry, I was going through
[1:14:09] my notes because I from before um I had
a question on there's a term in the
[1:14:14] lease about you can't uh transport
hazardous vehicles and I think uh my
[1:14:19] concern was well street department or
police department would there be any
[1:14:25] issue? I I don't the police department
isn't involved with this lease so that's
[1:14:29] a non-issue. Uh I'm not sure about the
street department for the vehicles that
[1:14:34] are being purchased. It looks like
they're smaller trucks, so you wouldn't
[1:14:38] be transporting any hazardous material.
Um,
[1:14:47] » water can be dangerous, John.
>> Well, depending on where you get it. Uh,
[1:14:55] and then I had questions about the
maintenance and I think costs of
[1:14:59] maintenance and what
maintenance the city is responsible for.
[1:15:05] And again, I'm going off of my prior
review. I think there's some
[1:15:08] maintenance, routine maintenance, like
oil changes that the city pays for. No,
[1:15:14] that's all included.
>> Those are uh included in the program.
[1:15:17] » Okay.
>> Tires and brakes are the two things that
[1:15:19] Steve brought.
>> Tires and brakes are not included. Not
[1:15:21] included,
>> just to be clear. Yeah,
[1:15:22] » not included. Um and then I had a
question on uh the warranty. Uh again,
[1:15:29] I'm going off of the agreement I saw. Uh
it said Lesor makes no representation or
[1:15:34] warranty of any kind express or implied
with respect to any vehicle um uh in
[1:15:40] regards to condition, merchantability or
fitness for any uh particular purpose.
[1:15:45] vehicles are leased as is and that's I
wanted to make sure that in fact they
[1:15:52] are warranted and if the uh that the
vehicles will if there is a problem and
[1:15:58] are pro who pays for it you know just to
make sure that's clear and it looks like
[1:16:02] that's has been cleared up.
>> So you're saying some concessions have
[1:16:07] been made and they've met us kind of in
the middle or at least
[1:16:10] » concessions and it might have been in a
in a a schedule or an addendum. I didn't
[1:16:14] actually see
>> they they actually edited the lease
[1:16:18] agreement and sent us a new lease
agreement with those comments.
[1:16:21] » Yeah. And I I know there was another one
that I saw where they address some of
[1:16:25] the uh like where you return the vehicle
when you're done with it.
[1:16:29] » Yes.
>> Remind me again who the cities are Mason
[1:16:33] City in our area
>> that we currently work with. Um yeah, so
[1:16:36] the cities of Mason City and the first
two line here in Iowa. Um I know just in
[1:16:41] the last last month's council meeting
Dodge also just approved our program so
[1:16:47] we working really closely with Ryan mail
over there
[1:16:51] » and then um I know we work with city of
Austin as well in
[1:16:56] » while not a city Luther College has
added them a few months ago as well
[1:17:03] » it seems to summarize I mean I feel like
it's really I I'm not sure if we all
[1:17:09] still understand this I think this is
important for us to understand before we
[1:17:12] commit to it So, I'm going to say what I
think this agreement gets us and and I'd
[1:17:17] like to be corrected if I'm wrong or if
people think I'm wrong. I think in ex
[1:17:22] like we're kind of the benefits to us
are uh are administrative convenience.
[1:17:27] Um that's that's a big one that right
now uh buying a vehicle takes hours of
[1:17:31] staff time and so so we sort of
outsource the administrative functions.
[1:17:35] So in terms of council goals, we've
established as a council goal
[1:17:38] identifying ways that we can outsource
functions from our overworked
[1:17:41] administration. And to me that seems
like a valuable thing and and worth
[1:17:45] pursuing. Um and in addition we get uh
the conversion of occasional really big
[1:17:51] hits to the city budget which are harder
and harder to manage. Uh instead of that
[1:17:55] we get kind of a steady commitment to a
monthly payment pretty much in
[1:18:00] perpetuity. Um that's I bet how this
ends up working. Um, and we get access
[1:18:06] to enterprises expertise that we don't
have in house in terms of procuring
[1:18:10] vehicles that we maybe couldn't buy on
the open market at lower trim levels.
[1:18:14] Uh, and and we get not having to deal
with maintenance stuff except for tires
[1:18:18] and brakes, although those are pretty
big deals. Uh, and maybe some of that
[1:18:21] maintenance stuff would be under covered
under warranty. And we get um a partner
[1:18:26] in making a decision about what to do
after 5 years or seven or 10, just kind
[1:18:30] of whatever we identify as a service
life. Um, and what we're giving up is is
[1:18:35] uh is and I think this is the big one, a
number of dollars. Um, some of which is
[1:18:41] gathered from those efficiencies, but
quite a bit of it is gathered from that
[1:18:45] interest rate. And, uh, and for me, um,
I don't, you know, I'm sorry, that's my
[1:18:51] summary. Um, am I missing something,
>> Travis? Does that seem like Okay.
[1:18:56] » No,
>> thank you.
[1:18:58] » I think you're pretty right. It was
pretty complicated and and I
[1:19:01] » see them write that down. But
>> my my grandpa told me never to make a
[1:19:05] deal I didn't understand. I I've not
followed his advice always, but I want
[1:19:09] to do better. And there's a lot of deals
that come to us that I don't understand.
[1:19:13] So,
>> um what happens if Okay, so we generally
[1:19:17] have a maintenance vehicle replacement
schedule.
[1:19:20] » So, we did not have five years vehicles.
We did not have five vehicles on our
[1:19:25] schedule this year. Next year, we
probably have two or three.
[1:19:29] So,
>> the the one vehicle on there that
[1:19:34] probably raised a few eyebrows is the
2007.
[1:19:40] It's a 17, right, Mike? Yeah, there's a
2017.
[1:19:44] And the reason for
uh pushing or excuse me, not pushing,
[1:19:50] but there would be one street vehicle
replaced next year, the 2012
[1:19:56] uh as part of our replacement, but the
17 listed here has given us nothing but
[1:20:02] issues. That is not one that's one we
would look to sell. Um it's been a
[1:20:08] maintenance nightmare and so that's one
of the reasons that's that's on the
[1:20:13] list. But yes, next year would have had
at least one street truck uh replaced
[1:20:17] for it. Um but what it typically ends up
happening, less so on the street side,
[1:20:24] more park wreck. Um anything general
fund related, we've gone through this
[1:20:28] process enough times where many of you
have partaken this. You get the list of
[1:20:33] capital improvements that are submitted
by department heads and you get a lot of
[1:20:37] them that have red lines crossed through
them, right? And so to Stephen's comment
[1:20:41] earlier about when these higherend
oneoff purchases come up, if we're
[1:20:46] trying to budget in the general fund
to to have a black positive number
[1:20:55] operationally,
those tend to be what's cut off the
[1:20:59] list. If it's something that still
works,
[1:21:03] but we're trying to be proactive in the
replacement, we typically don't do that
[1:21:08] because we have to cut other things to
make that happen, especially within the
[1:21:13] general fund.
>> So, I think Oh,
[1:21:16] » no. I I just wanted to ask on that
because how do we how do we cash flow
[1:21:21] that, right? So, this is going to be 70
$72,000 out of the general fund to pay
[1:21:25] for five vehicles. But now, what if we
need another vehicle? we either add it
[1:21:29] to the lease or we buy it outright. So
at some point are we going to be
[1:21:34] spending $120,000 out of the general
fund on vehicles and that's a lot more
[1:21:37] than the one vehicle that we buy every
year or the two vehicles.
[1:21:41] » Yeah. So one of the reasons of with this
being um again five vehicles proposed
[1:21:51] the two parks ones are the general fund
need we need to get these two replaced.
[1:21:57] Those are the hardest ones for us to us
to budget every year. Water side, it's
[1:22:04] an enterprise fund. It's uh we can
incorporate that into our water rate
[1:22:09] analysis.
It's a lot easier to offset or to be
[1:22:15] able to afford those water purchases,
sewer purchases,
[1:22:21] street less. So that's road use tax.
Those are dollars that come from the
[1:22:25] state on a per capita basis,
but most of those go towards wages for
[1:22:33] the street department. So, we have um a
lot of that already kind of earmarked as
[1:22:39] well.
We would still use road use tax dollars
[1:22:44] to pay for the street portion that we
need to, but it's a much smaller. Again,
[1:22:50] it's the same with the general fund.
Instead of one large capital project
[1:22:55] cost, you're spreading it out and easier
to incorporate into your operational
[1:23:00] expense if it's only 10,000 a year.
[1:23:05] » Um,
this is not meant to be a tangent and I
[1:23:08] so I'm going to like try to put it in a
box and then come back here. Um, I do
[1:23:12] think that there's an opportunity for us
to uh look at improving our vehicle
[1:23:17] purchase maintenance process. And what
you're just describing, Travis, is the
[1:23:23] pain point that I'd like to see
different. That the purchasing a vehicle
[1:23:27] right now is a, oh, we have a big dollar
amount and we need to budget this year.
[1:23:34] And I'd love to be in a position where
when we purchase a vehicle, we are every
[1:23:39] year allocating not only the payment of
that vehicle, however that was
[1:23:43] organized, but the the department is
also putting money in the maintenance
[1:23:47] fund, putting money in the replacement
fund. Like this is a one-time purchase
[1:23:52] over these years, and we know it will
have to be replaced. And how can we
[1:23:56] become mindful of that earlier on? Um,
and I
[1:24:03] I know that's complicated and I think I
and I and I believe it's important,
[1:24:08] right? So, how does managing vehicles
across the city become regular and
[1:24:14] routine, which may mean we restrict cash
going out for other projects and
[1:24:18] prioritize maintaining or being ready to
purchase again.
[1:24:24] I see the argument here that we could
just lease the vehicles and then we
[1:24:29] don't have to do that. And I am worried
that a five-year lease is just avoiding
[1:24:37] this this practical budget pro problem
that every city has. How do we maintain
[1:24:43] what we have with rising costs? We're
just kicking it down five years and then
[1:24:49] probably many of us won't be sitting
here and this a different group of
[1:24:52] people will be pitched the same idea and
and then you are leasing and paying
[1:24:58] money for other people to service things
that we we have been for decades doing
[1:25:03] in house. And so it's this
are we avoiding a true maintenance
[1:25:09] investment that we need to be making and
are we entering a slipp slippery slope
[1:25:14] of lease forever? And I and and like the
five vehicles is a lot,
[1:25:20] » right? Like we we haven't until
Enterprise M the June meeting when we
[1:25:27] had that like we weren't talking about
five vehicles. So the ease of the lease
[1:25:32] is potentially already working and that
is a I'd like more friction. The lease
[1:25:37] feels like there's not enough friction
in the decision-m process.
[1:25:43] » And I know I was looking at you Travis
and I wasn't necessarily like please
[1:25:46] answer all of the questions
>> because I was trying to follow along but
[1:25:51] » it's just yeah
>> it's a lot to take in.
[1:25:56] Any other comments, questions by
council? Few of you haven't spoken.
[1:26:04] » Is it compromise trying it with a couple
vehicles as opposed to five? Maybe most
[1:26:09] needed. I mean, I know they're all
needed, but heist. So,
[1:26:14] » we had to prioritize.
One of one of the thoughts being that if
[1:26:19] five is a path is what selected. I'm
sorry, I can't remember your name.
[1:26:25] » Raven.
>> Raven. her comment earlier was where
[1:26:29] they have seen those projections get off
is if there isn't um I don't want to
[1:26:37] call it adherence to the 10-year plan,
but just if you don't stick through it,
[1:26:42] you don't see the results of it. That is
part of our thought process as well as
[1:26:47] if I already talking about two trucks
that we would budget to replace next
[1:26:53] year. So that instead of doing three
this year and then two next year, our
[1:27:02] thought is if we do five
and we get two, three years down the
[1:27:08] road and we realize this isn't working
and we want out. Also to Ethan's
[1:27:14] comments earlier, we can either buy them
outright, continue through the rest of
[1:27:20] the five-year lease, and just be done
with it. But this way, we're not strung
[1:27:24] out in a series of one-year lease or
excuse me, a a series of five-year
[1:27:29] leases with one year in between them. So
our thought was if we started a little
[1:27:35] more that we could
analyze those results,
[1:27:41] not do anything next year, but we'd
still be on the plan or on track for the
[1:27:48] plan that at the end of year two if we
say, "Hey, this is clearly isn't
[1:27:53] working." Like we are overpaying,
obviously we're we're done. And then we
[1:27:59] look to either buy out uh the vehicles
or we continue for the remainder of the
[1:28:05] three years but don't lock in anymore.
>> Travis, how do you see us saving money
[1:28:09] on this? Like in your own words, what do
you see as the advantage?
[1:28:18] » So
one is going to be the
[1:28:23] focusing on the resale price.
[1:28:28] We don't see much. Like I said, we see
like a thousand dollars at the end of
[1:28:33] any vehicle we sell. Now, I will say
part of that is we we are rough on
[1:28:39] vehicles.
I was looking out back to see if it's
[1:28:43] the parks truck that's got a white half
white bed on it because we've got paint
[1:28:48] that just spilled everywhere. But I'll
be honest with you, there was really no
[1:28:52] reason to clean it up because it was an
improvement on the truck. That's the
[1:28:56] other flip side of it is that we run our
vehicles into the ground. We do have
[1:29:02] staff also spending um
um a lot of downtime with vehicles.
[1:29:12] I think our savings is on the less on
there is some financial savings that I
[1:29:20] think's here based on trying to sell at
the end of five years.
[1:29:26] use Enterprise Fleet Management and
their access to markets that we don't.
[1:29:30] We hold an auction back here that Joe
Gavely comes and I think he volunteers
[1:29:35] to sell to 10 people that are standing
out back. Um,
[1:29:40] » but how often do we sell a car in five
years? Don't we just keep them?
[1:29:43] » No, we sell one or two usually one or
two a year.
[1:29:47] » Emily's question Emily's question was
how often do we sell them after five
[1:29:51] years?
>> Oh, sorry. Sorry. Gotcha. Yeah, they're
[1:29:55] all a after five years. You know,
usually they're 15 20 years and so
[1:30:03] they're all after that, but they're
pulling about $1,000.
[1:30:08] » So I
uh Andy, you say compromise. Um okay,
[1:30:14] just before I use this number, I'm on
page 66 and the far right column is
[1:30:17] anticipated resale price at term. Is
that the that's like the number that
[1:30:22] we're talking about that if we wanted to
buy it in year six, we'd be paying that
[1:30:26] amount.
>> That's what's expected at the end of
[1:30:29] five years. What Enterprise would be
able to resell it out on the market.
[1:30:36] » Correct. The the residual value column
would represent what is what is the
[1:30:41] remaining cost of the vehicle to buy out
at your
[1:30:44] » and we would pay you that amount to
purchase the vehicle.
[1:30:47] » Yes. if that was what you'd like to do,
purchase out the vehicle. That would be
[1:30:49] the the cost and that could be spread
over another 12 months or or upront.
[1:30:53] » Sure. So, I mean, I think uh this is
probably not where you are going with
[1:30:57] Andy and has nothing to do with this
lease. Like, what I would what I'm not
[1:31:02] excited about leasing this many vehicles
for this many years without
[1:31:08] without information that feels firmer
and I'm Yeah. So, uh, I would see I have
[1:31:18] appetite for if we took that $19,851
anticipated real resale price for the 34
[1:31:26] ton pickup 3/4 ton pickup truck and
divided that by 60 months and I saw the
[1:31:33] that in the budget of every department
saving that the whatever department line
[1:31:37] that is saving that money. So when the
year lease ends, we have $19,851
[1:31:44] to buy that truck.
>> So if we buy it, it would be the column
[1:31:49] in front of that. It would be $9,270.
That's our purchase price.
[1:31:54] » I heard. Okay.
>> The 19,000 is their estimate that they
[1:31:57] give.
>> Cool. So divide $9,270
[1:32:00] by six months.
So, we have a plan to buy these vehicles
[1:32:05] and not a plan to lease forever.
>> So, what I might offer is what's great
[1:32:13] about if they're 10,000 a year lease
payments.
[1:32:17] » You get to sign the check.
>> No, no, no. I don't sign any checks to
[1:32:22] be clear.
>> Um, not on any accounts.
[1:32:26] » Travis gets to approve it.
>> Yeah. No, what I was getting at is
[1:32:31] the 10,000 a year payments for fiveyear
lease and the residuals are all 10,000
[1:32:37] or less. That's year six. You make that
payment now we own it.
[1:32:45] » Okay. So, no cost savings. Do you see
cost uh do you see it being a financial
[1:32:50] hit?
>> I I don't know a good way to calculate
[1:32:55] this. I'll be honest with you. It's too
We can't get as granular as I'd like to
[1:33:01] get. I mean, you guys have seen me mess
with numbers uh without going through
[1:33:06] all our records and pulling all the
maintenance receipts for specific
[1:33:11] vehicles.
>> And how do you value staff time? I mean,
[1:33:14] that's tough,
>> right?
[1:33:15] » Yeah.
>> So, that that's fine. I mean, I'm
[1:33:18] inclined to try it because of staff
time, right? If you're if you can't tell
[1:33:21] me that we can get a huge if we're not
going to get a huge hit, but it is this
[1:33:25] is just and I I I think that's what I'm
trying to this is really hard to make a
[1:33:29] judgment on when we're not really able
to make an acute comparison financially.
[1:33:35] Well, I wanted I wanted to be clear that
without me without myself or Carrie
[1:33:41] going and by myself or Carrie I mean
Carrie and her staff pulling this
[1:33:45] information for me all of those
maintenance records for individual
[1:33:50] vehicles to see what those expenses are
amounting to all we can go off of really
[1:33:55] our average costs to maintain. And so
these are estimates.
[1:34:01] That is why, you know, obviously not
proposing to change over an entire
[1:34:05] fleet, but I would not recommend we do
another year of this right off the bat,
[1:34:09] but be able to actually look at what we
had been historically
[1:34:15] spending as a whole
and what a lease payment for a year
[1:34:22] year plus
>> Yeah.
[1:34:23] » would look like.
>> Yeah. And that's a really good like
[1:34:26] pilot quality improvement pro project
process that I really respect. And we're
[1:34:30] going to be offloading the worst
vehicles and unloading onboarding five
[1:34:35] new. So like yes, there should be
significant maintenance reduction.
[1:34:39] Correct. Right. By nature of vehicle
replacement and I think the question is
[1:34:44] is the vehicle replacement via lease the
thing that is saving money. Mhm.
[1:34:49] » And I think that is going to be like I'm
with you that's gonna be really hard to
[1:34:52] measure even if that's something we want
to look for in the data.
[1:34:56] » Yeah. Because even if we didn't use a
lease and we just went out and bought
[1:34:58] five new vehicles, which obviously we
can't do, but we went out and bought
[1:35:01] five new vehicles, our maintenance costs
should dramatically decrease. It's
[1:35:05] really and it really is like what what I
feel like we're trading off is
[1:35:11] no one's going to pay a lot of
maintenance on the five-year vehicles.
[1:35:15] So, if we own these vehicles in five
years, we're back to owing we're back to
[1:35:19] having maintenance costs on them again
like we do now. So, we're not really
[1:35:23] saving on maintenance costs unless we
just wind up in a perpetual lease
[1:35:26] situation, right? We lease these, we
give them back, we lease new ones. So,
[1:35:30] we're always leasing new because if we
buy these, we're really not saving money
[1:35:35] on maintenance.
>> And what actually might be an option?
[1:35:37] You know, we're talking a lot about the
maintenance costs and the maintenance
[1:35:40] savings. The maintenance is a separate
contract. Correct.
[1:35:44] » Correct.
>> We could look at moving forward without
[1:35:48] the maintenance as part of the contract.
And it's easy for me to say it because
[1:35:55] I'm volunteering other staff time as
part of this, but maybe we can monitor
[1:36:00] as we're bringing in these individual
vehicles. Let's start keeping tabs on
[1:36:06] what these individual vehicles are in
mind to for maintenance costs that when
[1:36:11] we revisit we look at whether it's worth
adding it or not.
[1:36:16] » And does those does the maintenance
contract include things like regular oil
[1:36:19] changes and all of that?
>> Yeah, it's all that just not brakes and
[1:36:22] tires.
>> Okay.
[1:36:23] » To clarify on the brakes and tires, we
can still facilitate that with the shops
[1:36:27] that we work with. It's just something
that would be build back through the
[1:36:31] monthly statement with the enterprise at
our cost. So I want that to be clear
[1:36:36] too. It's not like you know and and you
also have a client strategy manager that
[1:36:40] would be you know able to analyze and
like make recommendations based on that
[1:36:45] and that's what's included with the the
um the service chart or the service.
[1:36:53] Um, I've never bought a new car in my
life and so, you know, also that might
[1:36:56] be a part of this. Um, and my dad always
told me never to buy for the extras. So,
[1:37:02] that's appealing to me. Travis, uh, I
just like we know we know the people who
[1:37:07] fix our cars and we know how much the
tires are going to be and like we're a
[1:37:10] tiny town. Everybody know like I don't
know that we need a client service
[1:37:14] manager to help us figure out who's
going to change our tires in Decora.
[1:37:18] Um, do you have electric vehicles in
your fleet or service specifically
[1:37:23] electric vehicles for any of your
government entities?
[1:37:26] » Uh, not in the Iowa Nebraska area. We
did just um have the first contract
[1:37:31] signed with a nonprofit that's going to
be onboarding some electric vehicles,
[1:37:35] but we do have them throughout the
country. Yes,
[1:37:38] » this is just like a general to the room
conversation. Um this is uh this is yet
[1:37:44] again another vehicle investment
conversation without conversation about
[1:37:49] when we electrify our fleet and
resources. And so even when the answer
[1:37:54] is that's not feasible or doesn't make
sense right now. Um it's always
[1:37:58] disconcerting to me that the requests to
spend money uh come without background
[1:38:04] for us if uh electric was explored.
Any
[1:38:15] other? No, go ahead, Cody.
>> Um,
[1:38:19] » because we can get out of it when we
want when we fe when we find if we find
[1:38:26] that it's not working for us. I'm not
super opposed to it. But I am
[1:38:30] apprehensive and a big picture level.
For one, personally, I have moral issues
[1:38:35] with the enterprise. not you two
specifically, but corporation as a
[1:38:39] whole. Um, for another thing, I
hate seeing
[1:38:45] us hand more and more over to privatized
corporations to fix problems that I see
[1:38:52] as being created by privatized
organizations. In the big picture, it's
[1:38:57] like the U Amazon Prime conversation we
just had.
[1:39:04] small businesses needing assistance from
Amazon now after decades of Amazon
[1:39:12] hurting small businesses and I see a lot
of the power of what happens in our
[1:39:18] country right now being in the hands of
corporations and so I I don't like
[1:39:23] handing over
control over the property that we have
[1:39:28] even though it's a lot of maintenance
and they're old trucks that we're
[1:39:33] dealing with right right now. I
don't like that we don't have complete
[1:39:38] control over what we own. Um, the
nonprofit that I work at, we got a email
[1:39:44] the other day that uh warned people not
to print
[1:39:48] more than they need because we got
charged for the extra printing. Even
[1:39:53] though we have the printers and the
paper and the ink, because we went
[1:39:59] through this outside privatized
entity, we have to ask permission and
[1:40:06] pay more and jump through all of these
hoops that I don't think that we need to
[1:40:12] that we need to do. So
obviously you guys are much more in
[1:40:18] touch with the direct needs and um the
everyday of it all. Um so I trust in you
[1:40:26] that you've been going through all of
this. But just big picture, I I don't
[1:40:29] want to see more things handed over to
privatized entities that have their own
[1:40:36] interest um in mind and less control for
us over the things that we pay for. Um,
[1:40:43] and big big picture, it's just
it's extra incentive to the rigors of
[1:40:52] the system to
[1:40:56] it's a reward for for that behind the
scenes stuff. And I um that's why I'm
[1:41:04] apprehensive. It's going to help us out
right now, but we can but we can get out
[1:41:09] of it. We're not locked in. um
something that we can't get out of, then
[1:41:14] I'm I'm okay with moving forward with
it. But I just
[1:41:19] I hate seeing
more and more privatized or uh entities
[1:41:26] involved in the system. That's all I
have to say.
[1:41:32] » I think two things I'm hearing that help
me make the decision are that
[1:41:36] thinking about this as a pilot, thinking
about it as a trial. Um, also the
[1:41:42] respect for city staff that they think
that this is a good way to go for right
[1:41:47] now. Um, or they wouldn't have brought
it to us. So, I mean, there's a certain
[1:41:51] amount of I feel comfortable with that.
Um,
[1:41:55] I I I I hope that we don't rush into
then leasing more vehicles. Like, I'd
[1:41:59] like to know that we're gonna going to
try this. Um, and we wouldn't be doing
[1:42:03] this with police vehicles.
>> Not at this point.
[1:42:06] » Okay. So to me, like I hear all all your
points, Cody, and even you saying like,
[1:42:13] but um I think logistically when I think
about the alternative, we don't really
[1:42:17] have an alternative to buy five vehicles
right now. And we don't No. And I get we
[1:42:22] don't need to, but it does sound like
we're about to have to turn around and
[1:42:24] buy two or a plow or this. Um and we
have to get a little creative, I think,
[1:42:30] in terms of how we flow our money, which
this might be as we think about budget
[1:42:35] cuts. So, I have lots of reservations. I
feel like the information we have make
[1:42:41] it makes it a difficult decision. So,
once again, I think I I go with the idea
[1:42:45] of trust and pilot and we have to think
innovatively and this might be it until
[1:42:49] we're presented with something else. Um,
so that's kind of where I'm sitting
[1:42:53] right now.
>> Um, I'm I I don't know where people are
[1:42:58] going to go with this. Um, if if council
members are willing, I' I'd like a week
[1:43:03] to try to figure out an applesto apples
comparison, which I don't think we've
[1:43:06] seen yet. I' I'd like to take one of
these vehicles, and I'd like to really
[1:43:11] rigorously dig into uh, you know, what
cities sell a 3/4 ton truck for after 8
[1:43:17] years and and what we could get
financing for if we had to finance it.
[1:43:20] Um, I I I personally would like a week
to look into that for my own needs, but
[1:43:25] I understand if council has heard enough
that they want to move forward. Uh, and
[1:43:28] and I've said my piece.
>> Are you making a motion to table?
[1:43:31] » I I don't want to do that if it's going
to fail six to one because then I look
[1:43:34] bad in the newspapers.
>> Just make the motion you want and we'll
[1:43:38] figure it out.
>> I assume this would be a morale boost
[1:43:40] too for our departments. Is that fair to
say, do you think?
[1:43:45] » No.
>> No. I don't know about five.
[1:43:51] » That's what I'm saying. I think it would
be a little bit of morale boost,
[1:43:53] wouldn't it?
>> She's a clean used one owner.
[1:43:57] » I don't know about two of the three of
those.
[1:44:00] » Travis, tableabling this hurt anything.
>> It It doesn't in reality. Uh if that's
[1:44:07] something the council wants to choose to
do, that's there's no real no harm, no
[1:44:10] foul except for um maybe just join us
via Zoom next time.
[1:44:15] » 100%.
But um to the question of morale, I
[1:44:21] don't know it's as much morale. Maybe
there's a little benefit there, but
[1:44:28] there, you know, I've actually heard
with I've had some people say public
[1:44:33] works needs to wear uniforms.
Like the presentation among the public
[1:44:39] needs to be a certain level. And so I do
think there's some value there that when
[1:44:47] our parks department pulls up to uh Will
Baker in a pickup truck that you're not
[1:44:55] Fred Flintstoning through the flood
floorboards.
[1:44:58] That's that's a better image of our park
system than than what we currently have.
[1:45:06] I'm not saying that's the only reason
that we should do it, but I do think
[1:45:09] that's an added benefit that we're not
taking into consideration.
[1:45:12] » I I agree that the current situation
with our vehicles needs to change and I
[1:45:16] don't think that tonight's vote should
reflect whether you agree with that or
[1:45:19] disagree with it.
>> Um I I will move to table until our next
[1:45:23] council meeting. Uh and uh and maybe it
will give all of us a chance to seek
[1:45:28] alternative perspectives and learn
something.
[1:45:30] » I'll second that.
>> Okay. Motion by Zitiguan,
[1:45:36] seconded. Sorry, motion to table by
Zitiguin, seconded by Parker.
[1:45:40] » Any further discussion?
>> I just want to say that at the next
[1:45:43] meeting, let's all remember that we've
already said a lot of this tonight.
[1:45:46] » Thank you.
>> And and we should bring new information
[1:45:48] and make a decision and move on.
>> Agreed.
[1:45:51] » Roll call.
>> Zitiguin.
[1:45:53] » I
>> Parker.
[1:45:54] » Hi.
>> Chisel.
[1:45:56] » Hi.
>> Whittle.
[1:45:57] » Hi.
>> Neil.
[1:45:58] » Hi.
>> Miss Lynch.
[1:45:59] » Hi.
>> Bergen.
[1:46:00] » I.
>> Motion passes unanimously to table.
[1:46:03] Thank you for joining us tonight.
Pleasure.
[1:46:04] » Thank you. Appreciate your time.
>> Item 10, consider resolution setting
[1:46:08] speed limit for Pleasant Avenue.
>> Okay. So, the county engineers been
[1:46:13] evaluating the surrounding rural speed
limits with the state law change that 60
[1:46:17] is now the new standard unless posted
otherwise. And the city's been asked to
[1:46:21] consider changing the speed limit of
Pleasant Avenue for southbound traffic
[1:46:25] as it um changing that down to 35 miles
per hour because once it gets outside
[1:46:32] the city limits, there's a vertical
curve that the county is going to have
[1:46:36] to post for 35 with the restriction
there. So they uh what we're being asked
[1:46:42] to keep that consistent instead of going
from 35 up to 45 then the county going
[1:46:48] back down to 35 for that corner. So
that's the ask.
[1:46:54] » So because I didn't have time to drive
by Emily's house today. Um you're saying
[1:47:00] that the we're being asked to lower the
speed limit.
[1:47:03] » Correct.
>> I didn't know what the speed limit was
[1:47:05] on this.
>> Yeah. It's currently 45 through this
[1:47:08] stretch. Okay, great. Thank you.
>> And uh right
[1:47:12] » Yeah.
>> 25 up to there.
[1:47:14] » So go 25 to 35.
>> Correct. Be consistent through that.
[1:47:17] » And then south or excuse me, northbound
traffic is actually already at 25
[1:47:22] through this stretch.
[1:47:27] » Uh I'm totally in favor of it. Thank
you. And uh let's get some feed
[1:47:32] » monitoring people up there because
people go way more than 45. So,
[1:47:35] » as somebody that crosses that road
almost daily with my dogs, I don't think
[1:47:39] you could I don't care what you post on
that. They're not going to follow it.
[1:47:43] So, just throw that out there. That's
that's the lu coming into town at 65.
[1:47:48] It's not a lot.
>> It's a beautiful flat
[1:47:50] » lot smooth road, but
>> we lowered that down.
[1:47:54] » What's that?
>> Oh, yeah.
[1:47:54] » We lowered Locust Road. I mean, I
remember when it used to be 50 miles an
[1:47:58] hour through there before any
improvements.
[1:48:01] And and of course this should be yet
another reminder that people will drive
[1:48:05] the speed that we design the roads for
and not what we put on them in terms of
[1:48:10] a speed limit. And so we should keep
that in mind if we want people to drive
[1:48:13] calmly uh in in residential areas. We
need to divine design roads that that
[1:48:18] encourage drivers to drive calmly. And I
think that we need to do better than we
[1:48:22] have been doing.
>> Motion by Chisel. Is there a second?
[1:48:26] » Second.
>> Thank you, Christopher.
[1:48:30] Motion by Chisel, seconded by Missinich.
Any further discussion?
[1:48:35] Roll call.
>> Chisel.
[1:48:36] » Hi.
>> Miss Linich.
[1:48:37] » Hi.
>> Whittle.
[1:48:38] » I.
>> Neil.
[1:48:39] » I.
>> Parker.
[1:48:40] » I.
>> Bergen.
[1:48:41] » I.
>> Sudig.
[1:48:42] » Hi.
>> Motion passes unanimously. Item 11.
[1:48:45] Consider resolution authorizing
professional services agreement with
[1:48:48] WHKS for water distribution system
hydraulic modeling.
[1:48:53] » Okay. So this is based on the request
for qualifications that the council
[1:48:59] approved the scoring at the last
meeting. The way RFQS work, each
[1:49:04] respondents evaluated based on their
qualifications that ranks established
[1:49:08] and then scope of services agreements
are negotiated with that top scoring
[1:49:13] scoring uh organization and if we can't
enter then you can move on to number two
[1:49:19] so on so forth. So anyway, staff uh
discussed we met with WHKS talked about
[1:49:25] the full scope uh as expected for the
distribution system modeling. Again,
[1:49:31] this will help identify deficiencies,
areas of improvement within the existing
[1:49:36] structure. Um help develop that into a
capital improvement plan. also used uh
[1:49:43] for modeling future planning efforts on
system capacity or planned upgrades
[1:49:47] needed to be placed for community
growth.
[1:49:51] Agreement also establishes hourly rates
for training and hosting within that
[1:49:54] first year at $1,350 with subsequent
years at 9,000 or excuse me $950 a year
[1:50:01] for the hosting and that EZRI license
that's needed to look at the model. Uh
[1:50:05] the model service agreement is for the
lump sum of 75,500 to create the model.
[1:50:19] Thank you, Travis.
[1:50:25] » Any discussion?
>> Do you want someone to move it first or
[1:50:28] » Sure.
>> Whatever you want.
[1:50:30] » I I have questions again. U but um uh I
don't know if people would rather talk
[1:50:37] about the motion after it's been made.
Uh I I am I'm concerned that this uh
[1:50:44] sets us I so so I I want to do better
capital planning than we've done. I want
[1:50:49] to do better forward thinking planning
than we've done. And I especially want
[1:50:52] that forward planning to be informed by
the commitments that that we've made
[1:50:56] about the values of of our city with
regard to long-term fiscal
[1:51:00] sustainability. um uh growing in a way
that that doesn't inflate property taxes
[1:51:06] for everyone over the years because we
spread ourselves too thin that we need
[1:51:09] to raise taxes to pay for the additional
miles of curb and gutter and pipe and
[1:51:13] road and sewer. Um and and this is the
kind of project that would help us
[1:51:18] understand where we're at today. uh and
maybe put us in a better position to um
[1:51:24] to to to think thoughtfully about how
this information can steer us as a city
[1:51:29] towards uh a stronger, more resilient,
fiscally more responsible future. Um to
[1:51:34] that extent, I think that's great. What
I'm concerned about is that um uh I
[1:51:40] don't think that that makes the
engineers from Cedar Rapids enough money
[1:51:43] if we do it that way. And and so like
this is just another reprise of the the
[1:51:47] argument that I just made about
enterprise and I won't rehash it all. Um
[1:51:50] but but but um I feel like they're going
to identify a lot of deferred
[1:51:55] maintenance needs in our water system.
And I think they're going to say, hey,
[1:51:57] you know, like we're projecting growth
here and here and here and probably
[1:52:00] here, too. And if you're like every
other community that's been growing in
[1:52:04] America in the past 40 years, you're
going to want lots of really spread out
[1:52:08] properties served by lots of uh
expensive water systems. And uh and
[1:52:13] aren't you lucky? we happen to know the
perfect engineering firm to help you uh
[1:52:17] take out a bunch of debt to to build out
this new system and make all these
[1:52:21] repairs and and I get the attraction of
kind of an all at once let's fix
[1:52:25] everything fix and just kind of tuck the
payments into water rates going forward.
[1:52:30] Um but but uh I think that that that's a
dangerous road to go down as a council.
[1:52:36] Uh, and I do think there's also wisdom
in what has gotten us to this point as a
[1:52:41] city, which is um has been incremental
and has been responsive to to needs as
[1:52:48] they've arisen. Uh, and it hasn't always
been perfect. Maybe there's been areas
[1:52:52] of of low pressure or or systems that
could have been better maintained along
[1:52:56] the way. And I think we need to do
better at those things. Um, but I'm
[1:52:59] scared that going down this path takes
us down the path of of uh, well, now we
[1:53:04] need to spend $20 million fixing our
water systems and planning for the
[1:53:08] future and and the assumptions that are
brought into what that future looks like
[1:53:14] make us weaker and make taxes higher and
make utility rates higher. And so, uh, I
[1:53:20] don't know how, uh, how to avoid going
down that path because I think that
[1:53:25] WHKS, am I getting that right or is that
a radio station? I think that the
[1:53:30] engineering firm is really good at
convincing us to spend a lot of money.
[1:53:35] And uh, and and sometimes we need to,
like that's just part of running a big
[1:53:39] city. Um, I'm just not always convinced
that it's the best thing for us to to to
[1:53:46] go down that path without really uh
clear leadership from people who do
[1:53:50] understand this. And so, you know, I I I
I don't know, you know, like trusting
[1:53:55] staff who knows these things, trusting
Todd, trusting Travis. That's a big part
[1:53:59] of our job is hiring good people and
then trusting their recommendations.
[1:54:03] But I really hope that our staff
remembers that when they're giving us
[1:54:06] recommendations, we need to hear things
that align with what we have expressed
[1:54:11] as this community's values with regard
to the long-term need for any new
[1:54:16] investments in our city, not to create
additional property tax burdens on the
[1:54:20] taxpayers because we can't afford
anymore and the state government won't
[1:54:23] let us even if we could.
>> So that's that's what I'm worried about.
[1:54:27] I think we have expressed
the need to do this type of work though.
[1:54:33] I mean I don't know that this is the
type and scope of work that we can do
[1:54:36] in-house right um given the job scope
that people have and what needs to be
[1:54:40] done and we do need an analysis like we
have you know old water towers we have a
[1:54:47] whole new segment of growth coming out
like we do need a water analysis so I
[1:54:52] guess in my mind I'm thinking like we
would hire any engineer before we're
[1:54:56] going to undertake a major project or to
write a comp plan for Dora this is the
[1:55:00] planning that we need in order to make
the informed decision so that he can do
[1:55:03] incremental growth as opposed to doing
it all at once.
[1:55:06] » Yeah, I I agree that that that that we
do not have the capability to do this
[1:55:11] thoughtful, forward-looking work in
house. My concern is that um
[1:55:18] every North American city is broke. And
they're broke because of decisions that
[1:55:24] councils make like this 50 years ago, 40
years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago,
[1:55:29] 10 years ago now. and and and I worry
that um that the wrong kinds of uh
[1:55:36] influences
and and incentives uh animate
[1:55:41] projects like this to the point where we
end up with reports that we can't afford
[1:55:47] to do much about. I do know that we have
two tanks up by Phelps Park that are 100
[1:55:52] years old and uh and I've looked we've
done some repair work on them, right,
[1:55:55] Todd? I think we've we've done some
maintenance here and there. We don't
[1:55:58] know how much longer they'll last. it'll
be a big deal when they break. Um, and
[1:56:02] and I know that having reports about
their lifespan and what it costs to
[1:56:05] maintain and maybe one day replace them
is important. Um, but like what if you
[1:56:11] know like I I just want to know how this
is so much obviously better than fix
[1:56:14] things when they break. Mhm. So, one of
the things though I do want to point out
[1:56:20] or agree with there's this is not
something we can perform in house. Like
[1:56:26] this is far and exceeds and I'm not
speaking down about our staff's ability
[1:56:30] here. like this is a highly specialized
area to be able to model out what's what
[1:56:39] would potentially happen when you have
the proposed Mossman subdivision on the
[1:56:44] north end of town. What's that going to
do for your water pressure within the
[1:56:48] system and what improvements can you do
to the system? Especially given our
[1:56:55] topography. Now, that's where Dora is a
key outlier in the rest of, you know,
[1:57:01] I'll say the rest of the state of Iowa.
You know, if you're in Independence,
[1:57:05] you're doing a water model where your
elevation from one side of town to the
[1:57:08] other is maybe 20 feet difference,
that's a lot easier to figure out, oh,
[1:57:13] we just add more water tower capacity or
and and we're good to go because it's
[1:57:18] all gravity based. But here, how many
different pressure zones do we have,
[1:57:23] Todd?
five different pressure zones. So it's
[1:57:29] like five separate systems within each
other. Uh they do they do work with each
[1:57:35] other but they are
different in their capacity as well. So
[1:57:42] this is something that
[1:57:46] to the comment of yes this will help us
capital improvement plan for
[1:57:52] infrastructure that needs replaced but
it'll also help us identify if hey don't
[1:57:56] put 6 in pipe back in the ground here
because if you put 6 inch pipe back in
[1:58:02] the ground here instead of eight you're
going to shut off your ability to keep
[1:58:07] going north or south or whatever that
direction is that's also part of this
[1:58:12] modeling is to identify what
improvements the that's the deficiencies
[1:58:19] or areas of improvement is hey 6 in main
well 4 inch main used to be standard I
[1:58:26] mean two we don't have any twoinch
sections left do we D thank god
[1:58:36] » got under
>> yeah but
[1:58:40] Anyway,
that's when your older parts of town
[1:58:44] were built out and maybe had a 4 inch
maid and you grow out in a circular
[1:58:50] fashion. Well, now your constriction
points are all in the middle of the town
[1:58:54] right where your smaller main sizes are.
So, it'll also help identify which of
[1:58:59] those mains when we go to replace them
by upsizing the pipe. it'll increase the
[1:59:05] volume, not necessarily the pressure,
but the volume that's able to get on
[1:59:10] either end.
So, that's one of the reasons I do want
[1:59:14] to point out this um this is really
important when it comes to communities
[1:59:21] like us where we've got a lot of
elevation change throughout the
[1:59:24] community.
>> I guess my question for Todd or Mike
[1:59:28] would be what's what would be the
biggest benefit if you could choose one
[1:59:31] thing or one or two things out of here.
What would be the one or two things you
[1:59:34] would choose that you would really want
to know or be able to utilize?
[1:59:47] » It have been funnier if you gave it to
Todd after you did that.
[1:59:50] » Talk first talks last because usually
everyone remembers who talks last.
[1:59:55] » The big thing is is the different
pressure zones.
[1:59:58] » Okay. And if there's development, like
Travis just said, I mean, that's if
[2:00:02] you're talking 20 PSI and everyone's out
washing their vehicle and it drops down
[2:00:06] to 15 and there's a fire. I mean, you
got to be prepared. And if there's more
[2:00:11] development happening in the near future
up there, I mean, obviously, you got to
[2:00:15] know what's going on and plan for. You
don't want to have someone come in and
[2:00:19] want to put 50 more lots up there and
say, you know, we got to do a study.
[2:00:23] Maybe in four, five, six years, we can
do that, but not now. I mean, you want
[2:00:27] to be prepared of of what might might
happen in the near future.
[2:00:30] » And to at least know what that needs. We
don't need to be built out and ready,
[2:00:34] but to at least know would be a key part
of that.
[2:00:39] » Yeah. It's it's just what we can and
can't do with what we already have for
[2:00:42] infrastructure.
>> You know, even building to the south as
[2:00:46] far as the Minnow Heights area with this
new development that wants to go in or
[2:00:49] with that pressure zone. Those are
pressure zones in themselves. the
[2:00:53] Bruning Edition and and well, Minimal
Heights is actually fed from our ground
[2:00:58] storage tanks, but the industrial park
and Locust Road area that those are two
[2:01:02] completely separate. They have storage.
The rest of them don't. All we're
[2:01:07] getting them when we when we supply
water to those other zones, it's just
[2:01:11] coming from a pressure tank.
>> There's no water storage there. So, if
[2:01:15] they have issues, it has to come from
our ground reservoirs.
[2:01:20] So, if we're going to keep adequate fire
protection and whatever else in some of
[2:01:24] these small pressure tank zones, that's
what we need to know. I can't design it
[2:01:30] » with the two ground storage tanks that
we have up by Phelps Park. Like I said,
[2:01:35] the one is 130 years old.
>> And you put those two tanks together,
[2:01:40] that's half of Decor's
gravity water supply. If one of those
[2:01:45] fails, do you replace that one? Do you
replace them both? And if so, where do
[2:01:50] you put them? And that's not going to
happen overnight. That's going to be
[2:01:54] years of of construction. So there
you've eliminated half of Decor's water
[2:01:59] supply for the main part of Decora,
which is the gravity fed. So those are
[2:02:05] the things that I would like to see come
out of this.
[2:02:08] » The reason I asked was I wondered if we
could maybe do a lesser scope of this
[2:02:11] project for less money, but it sounds
like that it's kind of the big the big
[2:02:16] thing here that we need is the
>> I feel like we this project when we've
[2:02:20] talked about it
>> for future development obviously too.
[2:02:23] » Yeah. I mean for future development
where we are in terms of our replacement
[2:02:25] costs like I think this is going to be
extremely informative to our water
[2:02:29] supply
>> and to the point since it is for the
[2:02:33] water system this isn't coming out of
the general fund.
[2:02:36] » Correct. This is
>> water so it wouldn't be a tax
[2:02:40] base per se. It's user fee. So
>> correct
[2:02:43] » I would move for the agreement. second
[2:02:48] » just u a comment in agreement that we
need this and I feel like I've been
[2:02:53] someone who's been asking for it. Um I
wonder if uh Stephen some of some maybe
[2:03:00] one part of the reservations you were
sharing is the assumption of growth
[2:03:05] language that is baked into this. So, in
the in the scope um I'm sorry, I was
[2:03:13] trying to pull these numbers and I'm not
going to be able to. But, uh in the
[2:03:17] scope of services provided, there are
things like um review land use
[2:03:22] development trends, comp plans,
historical population trends, develop
[2:03:26] population and growth projections for a
number of years out to 2046, coordinate
[2:03:32] assumptions about future growth pro
projections. I mean, I do think I think
[2:03:36] our entire country has seen
plans everywhere based on we're going to
[2:03:41] grow our population and so one thing
might be like could we check the the
[2:03:48] definition of growth?
>> So, we did actually we were very clear
[2:03:51] in our meeting uh with them that we
recognize population wise it's fairly
[2:03:57] static like we're not seeing a
substantial growth. don't come out with
[2:04:01] like a two or 4% growth, you know,
compounded annually, but we are seeing
[2:04:08] number of housing units. We are seeing
growth there. And that's um when you're
[2:04:13] building out the infrastructure, that's
almost the more important part.
[2:04:16] » Yeah.
>> Is the number of units.
[2:04:19] » Yeah.
[2:04:50] extremely helpful, John. Thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you. Um, and I I guess uh I
[2:04:56] also will take the mic anytime I can say
we should get a new comp plan. There are
[2:05:00] growth estimations and projections in
our comp plan that I that I don't think
[2:05:04] I mean I'd like them to be even lower.
And so if the reference is WHKS, use our
[2:05:09] comp plan, I'm going to be like,
actually, no, could you please be more
[2:05:12] conservative of that? And one of the
things that we do need out of this is um
[2:05:19] where can we grow with uh where it's
phys fiscally responsible to put
[2:05:26] infrastructure
>> and I think our comp plan is like grow
[2:05:30] everywhere there might be land. So if we
could have this study and then say
[2:05:35] because water infrastructure will be
less expensive or easier to maintain
[2:05:41] grow in this way that would be a far
more helpful document when we're
[2:05:45] thinking about what housing are we
incentivizing what developments do we
[2:05:48] want to support.
>> Yeah. And I I'll I'll support this plan.
[2:05:52] Uh but but I think when we receive it,
we should remember that there are going
[2:05:55] to be engineering recommendations which
come from a place of expertise and there
[2:06:00] may also be value assumptions which may
not line up with what we want for our
[2:06:05] community uh and maybe the kinds of
values that have led to lots of other
[2:06:08] communities uh being in in receiverhip.
So let's not you know necessarily go
[2:06:13] down every road recommended but but I
don't mind taking the temperature of our
[2:06:16] water system and understanding it
better.
[2:06:19] » Motion by Chisel, seconded by Neil. Any
further discussion?
[2:06:22] » I just think that it's a it's a good way
to look at the infrastructure that we
[2:06:26] have and plan for the future. I want to
push back on one comment that was made
[2:06:30] about
all
[2:06:34] all cities in North America are broke.
True.
[2:06:37] » It's hyperbole, but yeah, it's probably
not exactly
[2:06:40] » I know. But I want to also tie it into
what I was saying before and it's not an
[2:06:44] attack on you. It's just a o overarching
thing. It's not
[2:06:49] it is true that all communities are are
hurting right now, but it's not at the
[2:06:54] as a result of the decisions that
council is making specifically. It goes
[2:07:00] back to the big picture thing I'm
talking about with uh uh corporations.
[2:07:05] It is the
the wealth being funneled to the top and
[2:07:10] leaving us all in survival mode on
shoestring budgets and
[2:07:17] having to cut things, having to fix
things when they arise.
[2:07:21] There is a lot of responsibility that
goes into the decisions that we make as
[2:07:25] council. But I also I wanted to I want
to take every opportunity that I have to
[2:07:31] speak out against
why we are all struggling
[2:07:36] and it is a big picture
wealth distribution
[2:07:42] priorities of funding wars over
infrastructure education things like
[2:07:47] that. Um, so
again, not an attack on the comment,
[2:07:53] just uh I want to take the opportunity
to point out big picture issues and um
[2:08:01] the real
>> I should have said given that we're
[2:08:03] being screwed. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just uh just that was
[2:08:07] all I just want to take the opportunity
to point out big picture stuff whenever
[2:08:10] I can. I think this is a good thing for
our city. Um I'm in agreement or u I
[2:08:17] support it.
That's all.
[2:08:20] » Any further comments?
Roll call.
[2:08:23] » Chisel.
>> Hi.
[2:08:24] » Neil.
>> Hi.
[2:08:26] » Whittle.
>> Hi.
[2:08:27] » Parker.
>> Hi.
[2:08:28] » Miss Lynch.
>> I.
[2:08:29] » Bergen.
>> I.
[2:08:30] » Zitro.
>> Hi.
[2:08:32] » Motion passes unanimously. Item 12.
Consider resolution approving contract
[2:08:36] with Upper Explorer Land for sidewalk
inspection program.
[2:08:40] » Okay. Okay. So, the proposed resolution
would authorize a three-year agreement
[2:08:44] with Upper Explorer Land to perform
sidewalk inspections for ADA compliance
[2:08:48] uh at $15,000 per year and assist with
property owner notification compliance
[2:08:53] for an additional $3,000 per year. The
sustainability commission did include in
[2:08:58] their budget 26,000 for this current
fiscal year for um transportation 1.1.3
[2:09:06] move toward increase city oversight
enforcement for sidewalk construction
[2:09:10] improvement and implement policies to
ensure citywide accessibility of
[2:09:14] sidewalks, curb ramps, and crosswalks.
So staff would propose the use of
[2:09:18] sustainability funds as part of the
prepared budget from the commission.
[2:09:24] » So don't we
Don't we have a sidewalk assessment
[2:09:27] already? We have I know I sat down with
Jeremy might have been two years ago,
[2:09:32] three years ago now. Time flies. Maybe
it's been five. Anyhow, we have like the
[2:09:36] whole city of Dora and red yellow. We
have an assessment of our
[2:09:40] » we have where it exists, where it
doesn't exist, and where it's not in
[2:09:44] great shape.
>> Right? So what this would do is actually
[2:09:49] go through over three years the entire
city of do decor and identify this
[2:09:56] sidewalk has a cross slope of greater
than 2%. This sidewalk has a uh more
[2:10:04] than half inch deviation which is
considered a trip hazard by ADA. It
[2:10:09] would go through
all of the city of Dora and identify all
[2:10:15] of those
and then follow them up with letters to
[2:10:20] the property owners of the deficiencies
of the sidewalk.
[2:10:24] » And do we not ourselves have capacity to
give notices to the public of
[2:10:28] deficiencies in sidewalks currently?
we could if we didn't have the current
[2:10:35] level of construction going on and um
you know maybe if we have a little
[2:10:41] slower year next year but we part of
this cost is upper explorer land would
[2:10:51] purchase a software that the
sustainability commission had actually
[2:10:56] included as part of this budget was for
the city to buy this software for 23,000
[2:11:04] or so was I believe the budgeted cost
for this software.
[2:11:09] So in lie of the city purchasing it for
23,000 for the year
[2:11:17] and not knowing the staff capacity to
execute
[2:11:25] consulted with upper explorer land about
taking a regional approach to it of how
[2:11:31] about you buy this software
and we contract you and you can go to
[2:11:38] other communities.
and say, "Hey, we can do this for your
[2:11:42] community, too. We can go to WCON. We
can go to Postville. You can go
[2:11:45] wherever.
You buy one software.
[2:11:50] We'll contract with you to do the work
plus the
[2:11:56] compliance letters."
Now, this in itself will generate plenty
[2:12:01] of staff u
staff response time. Uh, as John has
[2:12:08] pointed out to me, every sidewalk letter
we send is three phone calls to the
[2:12:14] engineering office. The first one is the
property owner saying, "I got this
[2:12:18] letter. What do I need to do?" So, they
have a convers.
[2:12:23] They show them what they need to do.
Second phone call is the contractor that
[2:12:28] says, "Hey, the homeowner called me.
What do I need to do?" So, they go, they
[2:12:32] point out what needs to be done. And the
third one is the contractor again says,
[2:12:36] "Okay, I have this formed up. Can you
come out and make sure I'm doing this
[2:12:40] right?"
So, the thought is we could at least
[2:12:44] remove one component of those phone
calls by the homeowner calling Upper
[2:12:49] Explorer Land and saying, "Hey, what do
I got to do?"
[2:12:54] So, that's that's part of that $3,000
contribution is they're mailings out and
[2:13:00] they're fielding that first one from the
homeowner that says, "Hey, what do I
[2:13:04] need to fix here?"
>> And are they then determining the
[2:13:06] priority of who needs to fix what when?
Are they just going to blanket the whole
[2:13:08] city with letters of you need to fix
your sideb?
[2:13:10] » It's over three years. So, it'd be a
third of the community
[2:13:15] each year.
>> And is that just for magnitude of their
[2:13:19] ability to handle that? less their
ability and more our financial ability.
[2:13:24] So the city of Dora pays for the
additional foot for anything wider than
[2:13:30] four feet wide of a sidewalk.
>> Yeah.
[2:13:33] » And and we can handle that financially
if we do all of this.
[2:13:37] » Oh, a third is is still going to stretch
what we currently allocate. Now, if
[2:13:41] council wants to to allocate more
towards this, it you know, we can do it
[2:13:47] then, but it would be substantially more
than what we current allocate towards
[2:13:53] sidewalks as well as so that's one foot,
excuse me, I I didn't phrase that the
[2:14:00] best way. It's anything beyond four
feet. So, if it's a section that's an
[2:14:04] eight foot sidewalk, we're paying for
half of that sidewalk.
[2:14:08] Um,
in addition, the city pays for any
[2:14:14] corner that has the truncated domes.
>> Mhm.
[2:14:18] » We pay for those. So, that's another
substantial cost.
[2:14:23] Um,
anything that is a result of a boulevard
[2:14:27] tree that may have created the trip
hazard, the city has a policy pays for
[2:14:32] those panels.
So,
[2:14:36] if we don't segment this into couple of
years,
[2:14:42] the council, we're going to have to
allocate a lot more funding than we do
[2:14:46] annually for sidewalk improvements.
>> And I I guess I that's one of the
[2:14:50] concerns I have with this is one, we
have not had a discussion about how much
[2:14:54] we want to allocate towards sidewalks.
And given that, I feel like we're going
[2:14:57] to send out a lot of notices and then we
can't uphold our end of the bargain. Um,
[2:15:02] I would much rather we spent that money
focused on our own sidewalks like for
[2:15:05] the city and working on so I guess I
feel like in terms of pri priorities
[2:15:09] first the city and our sidewalks. I feel
like we would be letting up explorer
[2:15:13] land drive that bus instead of the city
and I feel like the city needs to drive
[2:15:17] the bus on what is the priority and then
we can say to upper explorer land this
[2:15:21] is what we want you to focus on as
opposed to just dividing our city into
[2:15:24] thirds. The reason I say that is I feel
like we tried this with Bruning. Oh,
[2:15:27] we'll just do this area. That clearly
backfired on us. um we still have not
[2:15:32] fulfilled our like these are the
sidewalks we need to take care of of our
[2:15:36] own. Like we haven't finished that work
yet. And so I guess I
[2:15:40] um
we also I think need to to be able to
[2:15:46] coordinate the streets we're going to be
working on in the next three years with
[2:15:49] the sidewalks because I'd hate to have
someone put in a sidewalk and then all
[2:15:52] of a sudden we do the streets and now
something needs to be different. Um, so
[2:15:57] I guess I'm a little I feel like I don't
have enough information on this one
[2:15:59] either to be like, "Yeah, upper explorer
land do this." I feel like what's going
[2:16:02] to happen is they're going to want us to
do a bunch of things that we aren't
[2:16:05] prepared to do at this point.
>> Question on software. Is that only good
[2:16:10] for one year
[2:16:14] » the
>> No, it's deep. I mean, if you It's a one
[2:16:17] year, you purchase it, but you can keep
using it, right,
[2:16:21] » Mike? Do you remember this when we
looked at it? If we were to acquire it,
[2:16:36] » here, give me a second. I can
>> Can I talk for a moment?
[2:16:42] » You run the meeting.
>> I I spent about three hours researching
[2:16:45] this on Sunday, I think it was. Um,
>> sorry. So, one, I'm going to throw the
[2:16:50] kudos out where they belong, and that is
this is in the sustainability plan,
[2:16:53] right? Is in T1.1.3
and T2.2.1.
[2:16:57] And I also commend the use of
sustainability funds for something like
[2:17:01] this. What I don't like is the fact that
where we ran into issues last time is it
[2:17:05] was we just picked and choose and that's
why everyone was upset was why are you
[2:17:08] choosing this now? So, I I think
spreading this out over three years is a
[2:17:12] mistake. I think I think we should do an
RFP. There's many reputable companies
[2:17:17] that do this. Civil, Street Scan, City
Logix, Path View, DAX Spot. I talked to
[2:17:24] the founder of Civil through email on
Sunday. Um, and we can do this a lot
[2:17:28] cheaper. Uh, Daxbot, for example, did
Parisburg, Ohio for about $225 per mile.
[2:17:35] Banger, Maine, 627. That's kind of the
middle. We'd be looking at about $1,125
[2:17:41] per mile. So, we could, I think, save
considerable amount of money just at
[2:17:45] least opening this up, looking at other
>> 40 miles of sidewalks.
[2:17:48] » 40 miles of sidewalks.
>> Is that both sides of the street or is
[2:17:51] it 40 miles total? Like I said, be both
sides, I believe. Thanks,
[2:17:54] » man. Um,
I think that
[2:18:02] the idea of us just not looking into
some of these and just saying, "Okay,
[2:18:07] we're going to go deep. I can do this
over three years." uh a town of where
[2:18:12] was it? Genanoa, Illinois had 28 miles
of sidewalk. They did it in four days
[2:18:16] using internal staff. So, I feel like
we're capable. And I know I talked to
[2:18:22] Jeremy and he said they used interns.
>> Yep.
[2:18:24] » You know, in the summer to do it last
time. Daxbot is just a little robot that
[2:18:29] just goes up and down the sidewalks and
does all these calculations. So, we may
[2:18:33] not even need, you know, interns or
summer help. And I don't know how staff
[2:18:36] would feel about, you know,
participating. But I feel like you do it
[2:18:40] in one swoop, right? Um that way there's
no, you know, calling out the council
[2:18:45] and saying, "Why did you choose this
zone first?" or and that's the same
[2:18:49] issue we ran into last time. So I'm
sorry to throw a grenade or, you know,
[2:18:54] gas on the fire here, but um I just I
can't I I don't have an issue though
[2:19:00] with
using upper explorer land to do the
[2:19:04] compliance letters and stuff like that.
do the, you know, the follow-up work if
[2:19:08] Travis thinks that they're, you know,
too busy, which you guys usually are.
[2:19:13] So, I wouldn't mind hiring them out to
do some of the paperwork. Well, and I
[2:19:18] talked about the engineering office, the
on-site inspections that come out of
[2:19:22] that, but the uh letters and stuff come
out of Car's office, and as we're going
[2:19:28] through, not currently the the utility
bill, hopefully that we've got that
[2:19:33] running seamlessly by the time these
letters would go out, but these letters
[2:19:39] also when we do them in house come out
of the city clerk's office as well as
[2:19:46] the followup of, hey, we haven't heard
from these property owners. Here's a
[2:19:50] second notice and then the third three
notices. So,
[2:19:56] those also come out of Car's office. Um,
I was able to pull up deep when it was
[2:20:04] quoted if the city of Dora were to
purchase it. That was in February of 25
[2:20:14] was the pricing I have. It was
just shy of 20,000 for the scanning of
[2:20:21] the sidewalk. 39 miles at five $512 per
mile. And then the web platform. So the
[2:20:30] scanning is the most costly side. And
then the web platform subscription is
[2:20:36] 2,000 annually.
[2:20:42] » Um where's the other money for this?
Where would the other money outside of
[2:20:46] the sustainability funds come from for
this?
[2:20:49] » Just sustainability funds. Just sustain.
>> Oh, it's not bigger than that amount.
[2:20:53] » No, over three years.
>> Over three years. Thank you.
[2:20:58] » Um
[2:21:04] and what is our sidewalk repair cost
share budget annually?
[2:21:09] » About 30,000.
>> 34,000. We use that with franchise fee
[2:21:13] money. Correct.
>> Correct.
[2:21:15] » From from gas mostly
>> fee.
[2:21:22] » Um I'm hugely in favor of walkability
and connectivity. Uh and I think uh a
[2:21:27] huge top- down systematic approach that
will cause a lot of chaos and probably
[2:21:32] not result in a lot of improved
walkability isn't the best way forward
[2:21:34] for us as a city. Uh I do think getting
good information is a good first step
[2:21:38] and it sounds like there's pretty cheap
ways to get good information. Um I think
[2:21:42] a place where uh the expertise of a
local company like uh Upper Explorer
[2:21:46] Land or someone else uh would be really
handy is and once that information is
[2:21:50] developed um I I would like to see as a
city us and this be a later conversation
[2:21:56] but like identify what of those
identified issues uh are should be high
[2:22:01] priority in terms of creating additional
safety or better connectivity or
[2:22:04] accomplishing city goals better. Um, I
think that we should not treat a
[2:22:08] sidewalk out in a suburb with like two
cars an hour. Uh, that that needs to be
[2:22:13] repaired with the same urgency that we
treat uh a huge gap in in in in a
[2:22:17] sidewalk between a school and and a
playground, for instance. I'm not
[2:22:22] identifying one in my head. I'm just
saying let's get the information and
[2:22:25] then let's prioritize and uh and I think
we've got a good way forward. So, thanks
[2:22:28] to the mayor for all the research he
did.
[2:22:31] So I would move to table this proposal
and look at other options.
[2:22:36] » Second.
>> So just to clarify, table typically
[2:22:41] means next meeting. Are you wanting it
immediately on the next meeting or
[2:22:45] unless requested by
>> unless requested by I would like to
[2:22:51] » until requested by other council. Yes.
>> There's still companies couple companies
[2:22:55] haven't heard back.
>> I mean we won't be doing anything till
[2:22:57] the spring. So to me we can kick this
down the road.
[2:23:01] You'll have to use the road.
>> And I I mean I think if we're going to
[2:23:04] do something with sidewalks, we better
look at our sidewalk budget. $30,000 to
[2:23:08] Yeah. fix a third of the town. Sidewalks
won't cut it. So
[2:23:14] » all right. Motion to table by Chisel,
seconded by Neil. Any further
[2:23:17] discussion?
>> Roll call.
[2:23:21] » Chisel. I
>> Neil. I
[2:23:24] » Parker. Hi.
>> Miss Lynch. Hi.
[2:23:26] » Bergen. Hi.
>> Zitiguin. Hi.
[2:23:28] » Whittle. Hi.
>> All right.
[2:23:30] Motion to the table passes unanimously.
Item 13, discussion, possible action
[2:23:34] regarding water and sewer service repair
cost sharing.
[2:23:41] Okay, so this has come up in the past
and been discussed by uh by council.
[2:23:48] Staff has identified a possible avenue
to try and balance costs associated with
[2:23:51] the individual property and the system
as a whole. staff's proposing that the
[2:23:56] ownership and responsibility to maintain
the service stay with the property owner
[2:24:00] but repaving costs. So I know council
members were actually just emailed a
[2:24:06] estimate for business downtown where
paving was a over a fifth of the costs
[2:24:12] associated with it. So, um, staff's
thought is a way we can make sure that
[2:24:19] the the to balance again that system
stability or excuse me the let me get
[2:24:27] back to my notes
to maintain that the service stay with
[2:24:31] the property owner. We cover the
repavement the pavement cost that
[2:24:37] doesn't attribute the uh
[2:24:44] deficiencies of the existing service to
be born by the system right away.
[2:24:50] One of the items that was pointed out in
previous discussions was if the main is
[2:24:54] on one side of the street versus the
other that it's not fair that this side
[2:24:59] of the street doesn't have to pay to
replace an entire street. This side
[2:25:02] does. So, we thought it that balances
that. But also, we do have a couple, for
[2:25:09] example, we've got a couple service
repairs that have been done this year
[2:25:12] that the street still isn't fixed. The
ste street still isn't repaired. So, it
[2:25:17] would put the city in control of making
sure the street actually gets repaired
[2:25:22] timely.
And we could actually have um some
[2:25:27] efficiencies to be gained if the city is
reaching out to replace four or five
[2:25:33] service u service cuts as opposed to
each individual property owner paying to
[2:25:40] have theirs repaved.
So that's what we've come up from a
[2:25:44] staff perspective. And you're proposing
that that would come out of that would
[2:25:49] be out of the water enterprise fund
>> or sewer if it's associated with the
[2:25:54] sewer service repair alternatively not
alternatively but and also um that staff
[2:26:02] discussed there's a Todd remind me was a
division for example there's like a temp
[2:26:08] where asphalt was put back in and and
yeah so um if it's a street that's
[2:26:14] identified for
um for significant repair in our street
[2:26:20] plan, then it's one that we wouldn't
necessarily attribute to water or sewer,
[2:26:25] but we would actually just make it part
of a bigger street project if it's a
[2:26:29] specially already planned one
>> and not then allocate, but we would just
[2:26:33] pay for the infrastructure under the
seat under it.
[2:26:36] » Well, that's if the repair has already
been made. So let's say the street city
[2:26:41] has
um you know we have we're gonna next
[2:26:47] month with our work session
is that next two months John and Mike
[2:26:55] » in October we have
>> October is the one big one for fiscal 28
[2:27:00] where we're going to come and have a
conversation with a street capital
[2:27:03] improvement plan. So, if the city's
identified it as a street capital
[2:27:08] improvement, but the homeowner had to
have a service replacement done, we
[2:27:14] wouldn't attribute that repaving cost to
the water of the sewer side because
[2:27:18] we're planning to redo the street
already.
[2:27:21] Follow,
>> but we wouldn't give it to the homeowner
[2:27:23] either. We would take it on as part of
our capital improvement.
[2:27:26] » Correct. Yeah. So, when you asked if the
breakdown if it's paid out of the water
[2:27:30] fund, Yes. water if it's a water
service, sewer if it's a sewer sewer
[2:27:35] service uh repair, unless it's part of a
street capital plan project anyway.
[2:27:41] » So under this model though, if there was
a a break within the system under the
[2:27:46] street,
essentially the business would still
[2:27:49] have to pay for the repair under the
street. We would just help we would just
[2:27:54] cost share 5050 the pavement. No, we
would cover the like they wouldn't even
[2:27:59] have to facilitate repaving.
>> So all they would have to pay for is
[2:28:03] pipes and
>> excavation and pipe work.
[2:28:09] » I mean I still have trouble with with
quite honestly anyone paying for
[2:28:14] infrastructure under a city street. To
me that is public property and the
[2:28:18] public should pay for. Um so I am still
uh someone who believes that public
[2:28:25] infrastructure under public street
should be paid for by a public entity
[2:28:29] collective.
[2:28:34] Sure.
[2:29:17] So to summarize, John said the main
that's public, the service, those are
[2:29:24] all treated as private,
>> but those ser those private entities
[2:29:29] extend into the public infrastructure,
right? I mean that so essentially we
[2:29:34] have some some service lines that run
all the way through the street to the
[2:29:37] other side
and and that's where I mean ideally yes
[2:29:41] ideally we would have built
infrastructure such that it ends at the
[2:29:45] property line and then you hit the the
city's main
[2:29:49] » here's I'm not I am playing devil's
advocate I guess but I'm drawing a a
[2:29:54] comparison to my driveway also extends
into the public right away the city
[2:30:00] doesn't pay to replace my driveway,
>> but it doesn't extend into the middle of
[2:30:04] the street,
>> but extends into the public rightway
[2:30:08] » and you're required to have it.
>> So my point being is that we treat that
[2:30:14] portion of the public rightway as
private because it serves one property.
[2:30:20] The street, to John's comment, the
street is public because anybody can use
[2:30:24] it.
Same, you know, same with the water
[2:30:29] side. The main is public because it runs
through the rightway and it's for the
[2:30:33] entire systems benefit. The service that
goes off of it, even though it's going
[2:30:38] through the private rightaway, only
benefits the one property.
[2:30:42] » Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, John and Travis.
That was really helpful for me. Um I uh
[2:30:48] I'm not interested in taking action on
this right now. And I stand exactly
[2:30:53] where I stand the last three times we've
talked about this, that without a rate
[2:30:56] study, which needs to come after the
water study we just talked about, I'm
[2:31:02] uninterested in committing us to any
more uh maintenance or financial
[2:31:08] responsibility to water, sewer
infrastructure. Um, not saying that this
[2:31:12] isn't creative and thank you and thank
you for hearing the discussion and the
[2:31:16] the public comment we've had. Uh, but I
don't have appetite for this. we without
[2:31:21] we don't know it is not clear what
financial uh expectation we would be
[2:31:27] putting into our water and sewer
enterprise functions and what that would
[2:31:31] do to the rateayer who is who would
cover this cost
[2:31:37] » I think with that I'm not willing to
give it up so I mean I think that we
[2:31:42] need to do some type of relief for
businesses quite honestly who are
[2:31:48] dealing with old infrastructure
um and absorbing costs that to me the
[2:31:53] public should bear some of the
responsibility for and if it is the only
[2:31:57] thing that works is that okay then let's
cost share the streets I think that's
[2:32:01] something we should look at um but I
forget our last conversation how many
[2:32:06] mains we've had breakdown um for every
business now we've got businesses who
[2:32:11] want to be proactive which I think is
awesome um and so if the only thing that
[2:32:16] council has appetite for is cost sharing
pavement then I think we should move
[2:32:20] forward with that and we can uh talk
about something else later. Um and I can
[2:32:25] buy the argument that everyone benefits
from the public street so therefore if
[2:32:31] we need to then remove the street in
order for a business to be able to fix
[2:32:34] the pipe then we should then cost share
it back.
[2:32:37] » Do you think homeowners should also get
the same sort of treatment? I do
[2:32:41] actually and was one thing Randy and I
agreed when we redid Maine that we
[2:32:46] should redo the infrastructure and not
the cost to the homeowner. But I also
[2:32:49] think homeowners have insurance. So
homeowners can get insurance for this
[2:32:53] type of thing. Businesses cannot.
>> When I
[2:32:55] » and I don't understand why that is the
case
[2:32:58] um but they can't
>> because because an insurance company
[2:33:03] would be foolish to to write paper on a
40-year-old water pipe service line. I
[2:33:08] mean, it it's it's not insurable because
we know what's going to happen to them
[2:33:12] over time. And that's why some
businesses in town have invested in
[2:33:16] replacing the end of life uh lines
running to their business. And that's to
[2:33:21] me an ordinary cost of doing business.
Now, I don't say and I I I think
[2:33:25] everyone knows that I'm one of the
biggest advocates on this count council
[2:33:29] for finding ways to incentivize and
encourage downtown economic activity,
[2:33:33] which has an outsized return for the
whole town, not just our downtown. If
[2:33:38] you look at a map of where we generate
property taxes versus where we spend
[2:33:42] city dollars, downtown is one of the
engines that makes the rest of the city
[2:33:46] possible. And so, we should absolutely
be supporting downtown businesses. I'm
[2:33:50] just uncomfortable with removing the
very important feedback that potential
[2:33:55] investors have when they're considering
a building's state of repair. Um, when I
[2:34:00] have toured a building, uh, you know, I
know that important questions to ask are
[2:34:04] what's the roof like? What are the
windows like? What's the HVAC like? And
[2:34:08] what's the water service like? And
presumably no one here, uh, no one who
[2:34:12] owns a building downtown has owned it
since that street was laid. Um, so so
[2:34:16] everyone has had an opportunity to do
their due diligence. I do kind of like,
[2:34:20] and this is where Johan and I maybe
don't see eye to eye. I think there's
[2:34:23] maybe an argument, especially downtown,
because
[2:34:27] the style of the street, it's sort of
important that it be more expensive than
[2:34:31] than the street in front of my house,
for instance, for for lots of reasons.
[2:34:35] Um, and that that's an economic activity
and benefit that occurs not just to the
[2:34:40] business whose street is being repaired,
but to the whole community in a way that
[2:34:45] my street being repaired pretty much
benefits me and my neighbors. Um, so
[2:34:49] like I can see paying for the concrete
to to be put back really nicely. I think
[2:34:52] there's I I like this as a compromise
and I I wouldn't hate moving forward
[2:34:56] with it. Um, although I think Johanna
makes some good points about why why
[2:35:01] push this ahead of a rate study.
I think I'm also in the camp that feels
[2:35:07] like we should financially support or
help um help these businesses deal with
[2:35:14] uh with issues that pop up old
infrastructure. I had a conversation
[2:35:20] with um
you know Michael Bachmann Tabox and uh
[2:35:26] the just an issue that ended up costing
a ton of money and I think of how much
[2:35:32] we as a community benefit from Tabox and
how grateful
[2:35:37] we are to have places like that like
impact like uh like these institutions
[2:35:44] downtown that we all benefit from. I
think that um
[2:35:48] I think that it's important that they
don't have to pay for all of the cost.
[2:35:53] And I think that this is a good creative
solution in taking some of that off of
[2:35:58] their plate and um in a way that we can
we can do it and we can also factor it
[2:36:05] into um street projects going forward.
So I like this. I think it's a good
[2:36:10] solution. I think it's a good middle
ground. Um, would that be
[2:36:16] applicable to people who are making um
proactive
[2:36:21] um like say the email that we just got
about the business that wants to take
[2:36:26] proactive steps and fixing it now as
opposed to dealing with a busted main
[2:36:31] down the road? Would it also apply to
them?
[2:36:34] » Yeah, it would apply to any service
whether it's a repair for a break or
[2:36:39] » a planned service replacement. because
we do have we do have a few of those
[2:36:44] from time to time.
>> Usually those are the service or sewer
[2:36:49] where
>> they fix an immediate issue and then
[2:36:52] they plan to replace that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:36:54] » I mean I
Go ahead. Sorry.
[2:36:57] » I uh agree that uh it would be
beneficial to have the uh the rate
[2:37:02] analysis.
So that would be great to get
[2:37:06] beforehand, but everything else I'm
fully supportive of and I think this
[2:37:12] this is a great forward
progress, great first steps, good way to
[2:37:18] deal with it um now and if more problems
should arise down the road then we could
[2:37:25] uh address it then and talk open the
discussion up more.
[2:37:29] » Did you want to make a motion to adopt
Cody? I
[2:37:33] » we don't have any writing like what are
we adopting? Um
[2:37:37] I want to push I I have questions.
>> I was just asking him. He said he
[2:37:42] supported it for a minute. So I wondered
if it was a motion.
[2:37:45] » Sure.
>> Yeah, he can make a motion.
[2:37:48] » Do we need language? I mean I think that
I would I would ask staff to draft if if
[2:37:52] needed or if we can just say that we
because I I am interested in making a
[2:37:56] motion. Um I do think that this is
something we should do. Um, I think we
[2:38:00] don't need a rate study because I think
it's the right thing to do. Um, I think
[2:38:04] Steve made a really good point about and
and when I look at this, I really do
[2:38:09] look at our small businesses downtown um
and the risks that they assume for the
[2:38:13] benefit of all of us um and the ways in
which um small business makes Dora and
[2:38:21] small business is a giant risk in Dora.
And one of those risks is that you want
[2:38:26] to go to this historic downtown. And
yeah, the infrastructure under it is 40
[2:38:30] years old. And if we could, I would say
as a city, we should replace all the
[2:38:34] infrastructure. We can't. We don't have
the financial resources to do it. Um, so
[2:38:38] this is that happy medium of all right,
either you can be proactive and fix it
[2:38:42] and we'll help you with the pavement. In
the same way that if you redo your
[2:38:45] building, we'll help you with the
windows and the facade and the roof. To
[2:38:48] me, this is just one more investment in
that nature. Um, as I said, I just think
[2:38:54] um
[2:38:59] it's it's the right thing to do, I
guess. And and I appreciate Steve
[2:39:02] bringing that comment about helping out
the downtown businesses and how much
[2:39:05] they help our local economy.
>> Cody said, too.
[2:39:09] » Yeah. Uh I I want to Well, I I want to
be clear. I am not saying that this is a
[2:39:16] bad idea. It might be a great idea. We I
don't know how much this might cost. I
[2:39:22] don't understand like I don't have any
data to know what we're how many uh are
[2:39:28] we going to be proactive? Because that's
not if we're moving the language in our
[2:39:32] background notes that doesn't clarify
things about if it's proactive. What if
[2:39:35] you repaired your your main in the last
12 months? Do we recoup that? Do we what
[2:39:42] is the district that this is? Is this
just C3? Is it the overlay we haven't
[2:39:45] talked about in the C3? So I I'm here to
say that two things. One is I don't have
[2:39:52] enough information and I don't think I
will until we have a rate study to
[2:39:56] understand what this impact this
decision would impact. And two, I don't
[2:40:01] see in this language enough detail about
what I'm approving. So like it's even if
[2:40:07] if if Yeah.
>> I can give the language on terms of what
[2:40:11] I think we should approve because I'm
about to make a motion on it.
[2:40:14] » Okay. And I thank you. I have to say
that I am not super excited about our uh
[2:40:21] verbal editing the motion three or four
times and then turning into practice
[2:40:27] and I don't watch Matlock but if I did I
would have left 22 minutes ago. Um I'm
[2:40:32] I'm just I'm tired. It's hard to hold
these concepts in mind. The other thing
[2:40:36] is I just want to push back Cody and
Emily both on you proposing a
[2:40:40] compromise. A compromise with whom
and middle ground. How do you know it's
[2:40:46] the middle ground if we don't have any
numbers?
[2:40:48] » Okay, so I guess what I'm not thinking
of it as a compromise. I'm thinking it
[2:40:51] about a public benefit. So as I said, I
don't need numbers when I believe,
[2:40:56] right, the value of that infrastructure
to the community, right, is something
[2:41:02] that the city should be investing in and
that the street is public
[2:41:05] infrastructure. So if something happens
below the street and public
[2:41:08] infrastructure needs to be fixed, we
should be responsible to put it in. I
[2:41:12] believe the whole thing is public infra
infrastructure. So for me, I don't need
[2:41:15] the number because of my value system
that this is public infrastructure that
[2:41:18] benefits the entire decor community. I
have a question for John before I make
[2:41:23] the motion. We had discussed we couldn't
that it's probably not best that we just
[2:41:27] do this for the C3 and that we should
just say
[2:41:31] » or can we say C3
[2:41:36] or can we pilot in the C3?
>> It's really I I think there is a
[2:41:41] question. Are you discriminating against
the rest of the city by doing that? At
[2:41:45] the same time, we do have uh downtown
facade improvement programs.
[2:41:51] » Exactly.
>> Uh and this is a little bit different
[2:41:54] because this involves utilities that are
throughout the town and you have
[2:41:59] businesses that are not in the C3
district. So to me, it's a it it looks
[2:42:07] different than the downtown betterment
program. So, I do have some concerns
[2:42:12] about that. I don't have an answer for
you, but it does feel like it's not the
[2:42:17] same.
>> Travis, when you made this
[2:42:19] recommendation, were you thinking just
citywide?
[2:42:21] » Yeah, just citywide.
>> Yeah. So, I think my motion is that
[2:42:24] citywide um we we will cost share the
pavement. No, we pay for the pavement um
[2:42:32] underwater main breaks or if people are
proactive about changing.
[2:42:36] » I do sometimes stall just for the sake
of stalling. I I know I do. Uh tonight,
[2:42:40] tonight though, I think it might help us
govern as effectively as possible if
[2:42:45] instead of considering a motion at the
meeting, uh we directed staff to prepare
[2:42:49] a motion at our next meeting for our
consideration.
[2:42:52] » Sure.
>> And then we would have language that
[2:42:54] that did their
presented that argument as well as as
[2:42:58] staff can make it and and we'll have a
more enlightened conversation.
[2:43:02] » And I I do want to remind uh council at
least that we spent $5 million putting
[2:43:07] water infrastructure to other
businesses, right? So, it's not as if we
[2:43:10] haven't made huge concessions to other
businesses across our community in order
[2:43:15] to incentivize business for happening.
We recognize economic growth is
[2:43:19] essential to our town. Um, and I guess
this is one way that I think will really
[2:43:24] bolster local de local small business um
when these types of costs are
[2:43:30] detrimental quite honestly to them. And
as for homeowners, like I said,
[2:43:34] homeowners can get insurance in a way
that businesses can't. But I do based on
[2:43:39] that premise that the street is public
infrastructure believe we should be on
[2:43:43] the hook for the cost of the street at
the very least.
[2:43:46] » Todd or Mike, how many of these
situations do you think we run into per
[2:43:50] year?
>> As far as water,
[2:43:53] » yeah,
>> service lines that we'd be looking at
[2:43:57] dealing with
>> 30. Okay. With the aging infrastructure
[2:44:02] we have, which is mostly 80 plus years
old, correct?
[2:44:06] A lot of it
>> depends on the neighborhood, I suppose.
[2:44:10] » I think I remember when I was on,
>> right?
[2:44:16] So, we do have a lot of aging
infrastructure, correct?
[2:44:20] » Yeah. Is that fair to say? Could this
potentially balloon into way more than
[2:44:25] 30 per year?
[2:44:30] » Sure.
>> If you make it for voluntary If you make
[2:44:34] it for voluntary upgrades, Yeah. But we
could get hit pretty hard, right?
[2:44:38] » So, I also don't know if we're opening a
can of worms here,
[2:44:40] » right?
>> These are good conversations when we
[2:44:42] have a motion in front of us next next
meeting.
[2:44:44] » I think I think staff can create a a
good motion that accomplishes the goal
[2:44:49] and protects the city from everyone
deciding that they want to redo their
[2:44:52] water their service lines.
I'm also thinking more specifically,
[2:44:57] like I don't want to cut out the rest of
the town, but the the downtown Water
[2:45:02] Street business district area is the the
biggest thing in my mind because I want
[2:45:09] to see a thriving downtown. I want all
the storefronts to be filled with
[2:45:15] businesses. Um, but buying a buying a
building is already expensive enough if
[2:45:21] you're starting a business and then
having uh 30, 40, 50 grand expense pop
[2:45:28] up out of nowhere is um
detrimental to a thriving downtown. And
[2:45:34] um as somebody who's had a business
downtown but never owned a building, uh
[2:45:40] I wouldn't have been able to deal with
anything like that. And um I want to see
[2:45:45] entrepreneurial
I want to see ideas take shape and
[2:45:50] become businesses. And uh it's always
kind of blown my mind too that our
[2:45:54] downtown buildings
um which kind of represent the the
[2:46:01] the iconic nature of what Dora is as a
town is left kind of in the hands of
[2:46:09] people who may or may not take care of
of the businesses. So that that's a
[2:46:14] separate thing. But I think that like
the downtown historic brick building
[2:46:20] infrastructure that's there is is
part of the community. It's part of the
[2:46:26] town. And so I just I want to do what we
can to alleviate some of that pressure
[2:46:30] from entrepreneurial business building.
So when I think about it, I think of it
[2:46:35] kind of specifically to that area. It
could be a can of worms if we're opening
[2:46:40] it up to the whole community. But I do
want to be supportive of business owners
[2:46:46] in town here. So hopefully that wasn't a
circular
[2:46:51] ramble.
>> Do we have a motion to for any action or
[2:46:54] are we going to table it or
>> No, I think we I I will resend my motion
[2:46:58] with Steve's ask of city staff to come
with come with a motion drafted for us
[2:47:05] to vote on to the next meeting. Um,
>> even if you plan to vote no, I do I
[2:47:11] personally think it'd be an okay thing
to talk about. So, tra let Travis know
[2:47:14] if you're okay with that. It helps him
to see us nod when someone says
[2:47:17] something like this so he knows it's not
just Emily's opinion
[2:47:24] » and if this is going to be a motion and
we would come back with a resolution.
[2:47:28] » Sure.
>> Yeah.
[2:47:29] » Oh, got it.
>> Is it is it going to be citywide C3
[2:47:33] district? What's the geograph know what
citywide means? That means all
[2:47:36] residential, all industrial, like
everything.
[2:47:40] » Yeah. I mean, if you're okay with C3, I
guess I would start with C3 and let's
[2:47:43] see how it goes. Personally, um, if you
and Travis feel like it has to be
[2:47:48] different, then you will tell us that
next meeting. But I guess for right now,
[2:47:51] I'm interested in looking at the C3
district primarily.
[2:47:55] » Infrastructure on the west side of Decor
is 50 years old under that business
[2:48:00] district.
So, you're thinking we should include
[2:48:04] all business districts?
>> I think you should do if you're going to
[2:48:07] do it fair for one, fair for all.
>> Okay.
[2:48:11] » And am I hearing commercial and
residential, industrial, or just
[2:48:15] commercial?
>> I mean, now,
[2:48:19] » Travis, you you proposed the whole all
of it because you think that's feasible?
[2:48:26] » It would raise rates. It's feasible. It
would um
[2:48:33] but I
I don't think we'll see a mass influx of
[2:48:38] people running out for preemptive water
and sewer main replacement. I mean, if
[2:48:42] you've priced one of these out to have
your water sewer line, you you're
[2:48:46] talking 10,000 plus,
>> right?
[2:48:48] » Well, if it's if it's voluntarily done,
that's not on us. If it's an emergency,
[2:48:54] that's different. if they're repairing a
sewer or water service, if they're
[2:49:00] repairing their repair or replacement of
their service, I don't know how we would
[2:49:05] differentiate, especially on the sewer
side, whether it's preventative or not.
[2:49:11] So, I don't think the sewer side you can
really differentiate between the two.
[2:49:16] » And that's that's why I think I mean I
think that that is honestly what we're
[2:49:20] saying is that it's already going to be
an expensive cost to businesses and
[2:49:24] homeowners. they already have to pay for
the underground. We're just now going to
[2:49:27] pay for the pavement, right, to get the
street returned. So,
[2:49:32] to me, I don't see that there's going to
be a rush of like, "Yes, let me please
[2:49:35] go spend $10,000 and have my service
line redone." For businesses, the only
[2:49:40] reason a business would want to be
preemptive is because, as the letter
[2:49:43] pointed out to us today, right, you're
going to lose more business if your line
[2:49:47] fails you than it's going to cost in the
$20,000 of repairs. So, I mean, and
[2:49:54] bless them for doing that on Water
Street because it doesn't just affect
[2:49:56] their business when that line breaks, it
affects a a whole block of downtown. And
[2:50:02] so, by not doing this, we're really
hurting our economic development
[2:50:07] downtown. And so, I guess I am okay with
a motion that is or with a resolution
[2:50:13] that is citywide. Um, I also know of
homeowners who had to do it twice,
[2:50:18] right? Okay. They had to pay for this
twice. I don't remember what it was, but
[2:50:22] it was over on the west side. They had
to redo their water line twice. This was
[2:50:26] a couple years ago.
>> They live in the house for 40 years.
[2:50:30] » No, it it literally wasn't at I think
their pipes froze once and then
[2:50:33] something else happened to the line.
>> That's true.
[2:50:37] » What?
>> Anyhow, their service line was on the
[2:50:39] other side of the street. Um but um so I
I am okay with a resolution that is
[2:50:45] citywide.
>> Yeah. And after having
[2:50:49] after Ry's comment, I'm thinking about
the last comment that I made about just
[2:50:53] being all downtown. And then in that
moment, uh residential people have
[2:50:58] popped up that had to deal with a
massive Yeah. Anyway, I'm I'm I agree.
[2:51:06] » So citywide in any all types of property
Y
[2:51:12] » and we'll have another discussion at the
next meeting to
[2:51:17] fill
fill in the blanks, scratch things out.
[2:51:22] » Well, this gives I mean it's a good
>> Yeah.
[2:51:24] » Does that give a start?
>> Yeah. I I mean I I don't think you guys
[2:51:27] need to come up with like a a you know
publishable resolution. We don't need to
[2:51:31] but but come with something in writing a
policy and and if you can develop a
[2:51:35] policy for us to consider that that I
think saves us some staff time in terms
[2:51:39] of preparing a resolution.
>> And you I mean you wrote this with
[2:51:41] something in mind that was that you said
was sort of this compromise. I say go
[2:51:45] with it, put it down on paper and we can
vote on
[2:51:49] » and I I really appreciate the work
that's gone into it so far. Travis
[2:51:54] » and you guys
>> or them.
[2:51:56] » Yes.
>> All right. Okay. Is there any further
[2:52:00] discussion needed on item 14 or 13,
excuse me?
[2:52:04] Seeing none, moving on to item 14, board
and commission vacancies. We still have
[2:52:08] a tree board, historic preservation,
human rights, and library board
[2:52:12] openings. Any other matters on the
agenda for this evening?
[2:52:17] » Wow, that was a long one.
>> Oh, yeah. We do have a work session um
[2:52:22] on the for tomorrow night at 6 with for
talking about our fire department.
[2:52:28] All right. Bon referendum issue. All
right. Seeing none, hearing none.
[2:52:34] » Move to ajourn.