[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.

City of Decorah Council Meeting 09-08-2026

Transcript