[0:00] Lead us
[0:03] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:09] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:14] for all.
[0:21] » Okay. So, we call to order at 7 p.m.
Roll call, please.
[0:27] » Here.
[0:30] Papa.
[0:33] » Um, semero
>> here.
[0:36] » Tell
>> yes
[0:37] » here
>> here
[0:38] » andled
>> here
[0:41] » and shooty
>> here.
[0:44] » Thank you everyone. Uh, item C on the
agenda is approval of meeting minutes
[0:48] for the city council meeting from August
10th, 2026.
[0:52] » Don't move the minutes.
>> Moved by Ray.
[0:56] » Second. Second by Aldag. Thank you both.
Ray, any comments on the minutes?
[1:01] » No, thank you.
>> No, thank you.
[1:03] » Joe, anything that you saw?
>> No.
[1:05] » Thank you. I'm all set as well. If you
could please call a vote to approve the
[1:08] minutes.
>> No. Uh, yes. No, thank you.
[1:14] » Said already.
>> Wrong question.
[1:18] » Yes.
>> Ald.
[1:19] » Yes.
>> Um, and Kio.
[1:22] » Yes. Motion carries four to zero. We got
both.
[1:26] » Yes. Okay. We have no pre-arranged
participation. So, we're down to
[1:30] non-arranged participation. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like
[1:34] to speak under non-arranged on any
topic? If so, please raise your hand.
[1:41] We'll allow five minutes or 10 minutes
for a group.
[1:46] Seeing none, is there anyone online that
would like to speak this evening?
[1:51] Not seeing anyone online. There also
no non-arranged participation. We're
[1:57] down to item F. Are there any conflicts
of interest to declare?
[2:04] Hearing none. That's fabulous. Will
somebody be so good as to move the
[2:07] approval of the agenda?
>> I move the agenda with no supplement.
[2:12] » Second.
>> Moved by Tel, second by Sam Faroh.
[2:18] Is there any discussion or moving around
of anything?
[2:27] Joe, just so you know, we as you read in
the minutes, we postponed the L1 and
[2:32] what's now L2 because you weren't here
and you had been the one to bring up the
[2:35] false alarm topic.
>> So,
[2:39] here we are. Those are on the agenda,
buddy, with you present.
[2:43] » I appreciate the gesture. It was
unnecessary but
[2:46] » well you had a short staff and store
board last meeting too. So
[2:51] » yep.
>> Thank you.
[2:53] » Okay. Please call the vote to approve
the agenda.
[2:56] » Pharaoh.
>> Yes.
[2:58] » Hell.
>> Yes.
[2:59] » Ald.
>> Yes.
[3:00] » You.
>> Yes. Motion carries. We have no public
[3:04] hearings this evening. So we're down to
communications in the packet. A meeting
[3:09] calendar is on page seven.
Does anybody have any comments on the
[3:14] meeting calendar?
[3:19] Seeing none, we'll go to our first
report tonight from our public services
[3:21] superintendent, Ray. Not Ray. Sorry,
Tim. How are you? How am I Tim?
[3:28] » Good. How's everybody tonight?
>> Very good. Tim,
[3:32] » okay, you got the twoe report in front
of you. I can field any questions. I
[3:36] doesn't look like there's a lot of
people there, but
[3:39] » Okay, let let the record. Tim, hold on a
second. Let the record reflect that
[3:42] council member pop off has joined
virtually um via his military service.
[3:49] So he will be voting online as part of
the regular course of our action.
[3:57] » Okay, Tim, back to you.
>> Yeah, like I said there you got your two
[4:01] week report in front of you guys. I can
uh field any questions if needed.
[4:08] Does
>> anybody have any questions on Tim's
[4:10] report?
[4:13] I I had one. The the trees behind
Huntington Bank, those are our trees.
[4:19] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[4:21] What was wrong with that?
>> There's nothing wrong, but because of
[4:24] the project um for the parking lot
project, they're taking them down. Uh
[4:30] one was for the because of the the
dumpster corral.
[4:34] So, and I got to have uh because of the
electrical lines and stuff like that and
[4:40] with the cars, it's just easier if we
have uh not our crew do it. Put it that
[4:44] way.
>> What? Finish the sentence. Sorry. One
[4:47] more time.
>> I said it's it's easier to have Burmans
[4:50] do it. They're, you know, I I don't want
my guys going around electrical lines.
[4:55] » Gotcha. Are the trees in the way of the
DR?
[4:59] » Yes, the one is. And then the other one
is for the sewer.
[5:04] » So under under the one on the um uh
not the bakery side, the the embroidery
[5:11] side. Um and on the uh pedestrian
walkway side of the alley
[5:19] there there's a there's a small bed with
a with a tree in it.
[5:21] » Okay.
>> And and so the um sewer line that is
[5:25] getting replaced runs right under that.
I see. right under that tree. Um on the
[5:30] other side on the on the dumpster corral
side, um that bed is being removed to
[5:37] allow for better um
>> uh turning radius for for the um for the
[5:43] uh trash truck. Um but what we did
notice is that both trees are growing up
[5:48] into power lines and like like fully
fully encasing power lines. Um, so they
[5:56] would need to be cut back significantly.
>> Sure.
[5:59] » No matter what.
>> Are we losing landscaping back there
[6:02] then?
>> Uh, not the bed on the uh pedestri on
[6:08] the pedestrianity side that that is
going back in after the sewer line goes
[6:12] in. The the only landscaping
is is is the the small grass bed where
[6:19] the tree is. Okay.
Thank you.
[6:26] Sam.
>> Uh, hi Tim. This is Sam. Um, do you know
[6:31] if the work um on the gas pipeline south
of Industrial Park has finished?
[6:39] » I could check on that, but I'm pretty
positive it has.
[6:42] » Um, do you have an idea if they have
taken all the their equipment and stuff
[6:49] out and or there is more work from that
aspect?
[6:53] I could check on you that to be 100% I'm
I'm almost positive everything's been
[6:58] taken out.
>> So, I did get an email from Libby um and
[7:03] she said that she talked with uh one of
the contractors and they said that their
[7:08] last day was last week and and she saw
them moving their stuff out.
[7:12] » Thank you. Y
[7:19] » any other questions for Tim?
Tim, thank you for joining us.
[7:25] » Thank you.
>> Next up is our community development
[7:28] manager, Michelle. How are you?
>> You're really good.
[7:32] » Well, great.
>> Reckon still.
[7:35] » I'm feeling much better this week. Thank
you. How is council?
[7:40] » Good.
>> Excellent. We have some newbies.
[7:43] Welcome. Uh you have my report in front
of you. If you have any questions, let
[7:49] me know. I don't have really any I have
one small verbal update to provide.
[7:58] » Are you going to talk about the up the A
and B items on your report?
[8:03] » Um I can provide more information if you
have a specific question.
[8:09] I'm
[8:12] I'm wondering if Well, they almost look
like they're related just because they
[8:18] » um
>> not directly, but
[8:20] » Yeah, they're indirectly related because
the trail head is planned in the corner
[8:26] the um
>> next to the cemetery.
[8:29] » Yes.
um
[8:31] uh between it's on that little piece of
Broad Street, I'm sorry,
[8:36] » Grand
>> the 3045 Broad Street property as well
[8:40] as the unimproved portion of the Grand
Street right away. So, um excuse me. I
[8:47] like to keep them separate right now
because we're looking at two different
[8:52] things when I talk about this. Excuse
me.
[8:56] um the 3045 Broad Street that Fledo
Group is working on the redevelopment of
[9:02] those five different parcels. They are
working with Hods and Black. They are
[9:07] they were hoping to have had their
concept um plans already to review with
[9:14] us, but um um between vacation schedules
and people getting sick, it kind of
[9:20] delayed that process. And so um um when
I spoke with Luke last week, he expected
[9:28] it might be another couple weeks, but um
they're excited to move forward. They do
[9:35] have some concerns about the ability to
um do the placement of their buildings
[9:42] because of the power lines. and he did
mention something about um um shifting
[9:49] the project and utilizing that area
where we're planning for a trail head.
[9:54] Um what I did tell him initially was um
it's a topic that's never come up. It is
[10:01] a planned area has been that way for a
long time. Um, but
[10:09] I didn't tell them not to pursue asking
the question because we tend to be a
[10:15] group that, you know, is open to
questions and not like to make knee-jerk
[10:19] reactions. Um, um, since this was done,
um, trying to remember the meeting we
[10:28] had.
[10:33] Oh, I think I can't remember if it was I
think it was a DDA meeting, although
[10:37] forgive me brain fog. The topic of the
trail head came up and it and it's very
[10:45] clear that is a real area that we expect
to be developed. And so I went back to
[10:52] Luke and explained to him, you you can
ask, but I wouldn't put all your eggs in
[10:58] the basket.
Well, I mean the the the
[11:03] comment that's in the packet, right? You
know, would they would we consider
[11:07] vacating Grand Street?
>> You know, it's it's kind of hard to
[11:10] respond to something with that unless
you have an idea of what it is you're
[11:14] » right, which is
>> counter proposal is,
[11:16] » right? I'm just giving you the heads up
that this is something they
[11:20] » going to want to discuss. Yeah. um um
after my second conversation with them,
[11:26] they may completely take it off the
table, but in the event that they don't,
[11:30] at least you're not caught offguarded by
by the ask. Um and and they will be
[11:37] showing it with a set of concept plans
if they come forward with it. Okay.
[11:42] » I think the the first thing that comes
to mind for me is normally during a
[11:46] vacation, the property owners on each
side of the vacated area get the
[11:50] property
So, we'd be giving half the right away
[11:54] to the cemetery,
>> which I don't know if that makes any
[11:58] sense to me.
>> We would have to do it by law. And that
[12:02] is also something that Luke and I talked
about. And he he um talked about how
[12:07] they'd have to see if they could
purchase it back from the cemetery or if
[12:13] the cemetery would be willing to quit
claim it to them. I mean, I
[12:20] it sounds to me like they just need to
have smaller buildings
[12:25] is the is the the message is the message
I would refer back to them.
[12:29] » Well, but I that could be but that may
that would be an assumption on my part
[12:34] that the buildings are too big.
>> No, if it's an assumption on my part.
[12:37] » I know share my assumption with them.
>> Happy to share your assumption. Um but
[12:43] um I can see why you would say that
considering what their concept was when
[12:48] they came in with their um letter of
intent. It could be that
[12:53] » so m Michelle just from from my
perspective, my vision of the I like
[12:57] that there's a gap at Forest
the Forest Street right between
[13:03] » the 150 Jefferson building and whatever
happens on 3045,
[13:06] » right?
>> With the power lines. I like that
[13:08] there's a gap there.
>> Mhm. I like that there's a gap at grand.
[13:12] If we vacate grand,
we probably only get two gaps.
[13:17] » Okay. Instead of three.
>> You like gaps.
[13:20] » Yeah. I like I like space. I like to be
able to see. I like views. Yes.
[13:24] » Okay, that's fine. And And
>> less is more in terms of building size.
[13:29] » Okay.
>> More is better with gaps.
[13:33] » The
power lines go through.
[13:37] » They go right down the middle. Well,
opposite the alley, right? Perpendicular
[13:41] to the Well, they they end up going down
the alley that's parallel to Forest and
[13:46] Grand
>> or in line with the alley.
[13:48] » Yeah. If you were going down the alley,
you'd go straight out. That's
[13:51] essentially where the lines go.
>> Correct.
[13:52] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um the second part there, the trail head
[13:57] grant,
>> right,
[13:58] » that's to
>> that's for the area that we've talked
[14:03] about,
>> right? But that's to facilitate a
[14:05] discussion around how that might be
constructed or designed.
[14:09] » Yes, it's a it's it would be it would
allow us to go out for an RFP for
[14:15] professional design and engineering
services. Um there'd be public
[14:20] participation as part of it so that
we're getting feedback on what that what
[14:26] it could look like. you know, not just a
physical structure, but you know, how
[14:32] how will it
how will a trail head with public on
[14:38] street parking and public restrooms
how will that be designed?
[14:44] um how will that be could be constructed
so that it is complimentary to our park
[14:50] and the
that's just I mean that's such a jewel
[14:56] want to make sure that if any any
additional jewels to the crown
[15:00] complimentary and not overpowering
>> good thank you
[15:04] » welcome
Ray
[15:08] » how does the uh they're wanting to do a
make alternative
[15:14] um trail head. How does that affect
here? It says uh for the trail the grant
[15:20] they have to give a application due by
26. Is that going to affect our
[15:25] application? Don't they need to know it?
>> The city um won't be isn't submitting
[15:31] the application. Um here on Water
Waterlue Pathways Initiative is doing it
[15:36] on our behalf. Okay. They've already
done the leg work to um to get the
[15:41] approval to do a full application, which
is
[15:45] it's not a 100% yep, you're going to get
the grant, but it is a very strong it's
[15:53] strongly weighted that you've got really
good chances of getting it.
[15:56] » So, there was a specific site
attached to that grant request.
[16:02] » Yes, sir.
>> So, whatever they're talking about
[16:04] wouldn't have nothing to do with this
grant.
[16:07] Whatever
>> they want to do through the middle.
[16:10] » Correct.
>> Cor correct. Whatever 30 45 Broad
[16:13] Street, the Euro Group wants to do,
we're not stopping our grant moving
[16:18] forward.
>> Um we wouldn't stop that going forward
[16:21] unless there was um clear direction from
the 3045 Broad Street subcommittee, the
[16:28] DDA, and ultimately support from council
for that.
[16:31] » Did they remove the old wooden poles
down here?
[16:34] » Yes, sir. We're done. So, so I I would
say if everybody loved the idea of the
[16:40] trail head going through the middle,
>> then that could be reflected in in the
[16:47] project that the grant will help fund.
>> Um,
[16:51] but as of right now, I think we're
proceeding under the assumption that the
[16:54] the the project for the trail head is at
the the end of Graham Street.
[17:00] » Yeah. I'm not the bill directed
otherwise,
[17:03] » right? I don't know. The timeline of the
other guys seems kind of uh maybe a
[17:07] little little late. I don't know. But
the trail head's always been a pin in
[17:13] the board for us.
>> Mhm.
[17:15] » Just like you can look down Baker Road.
You can look right down. Was that Grand?
[17:19] And you can see the water. And
that's I want to be able to see the
[17:24] water from as many points as I can.
>> Michelle, when did they sign their
[17:30] pre-development agreement? That would
have been May I want to say May 5th.
[17:36] » Okay. So May,
>> right.
[17:37] » So they have a Ray. They have a year to
do due diligence with
[17:42] » Do we have a time?
>> Yes. I can um uh periodically as
[17:48] » one year to do it and they can ask for a
six-month extension.
[17:54] » I have a timeline I can give you and I
can update you at your next meeting.
[17:58] » I know even though we ain't got a dog in
this fight. uh moneywise they're
[18:04] developing the grant. I don't want to I
don't want to see a
[18:08] a difference of opinion,
you know, suddenly pop its head up after
[18:13] we dumped 50 to 75
and did a lot of planning, had a lot of
[18:19] meetings
>> and and it may still be a while or or
[18:23] maybe a couple of months before we know
whether or not we got the grant I if we
[18:28] get the grant at all.
>> Yeah, I'm just shooting for November.
[18:31] Yes, November is about the time.
>> I guess we got a couple months,
[18:38] » but HWPI
had no problems getting will have no
[18:42] problems getting the grant in by the
date,
[18:44] » right? I'm more concerned about down the
road where it's imperative that they
[18:49] have it through the middle or they can't
financially make
[18:54] hurts my head just thinking about it.
>> Pablo, any any Any questions for
[19:01] Michelle?
>> No, no questions for Michelle. Thank
[19:04] you.
>> Good conversation though.
[19:07] » Wow, you look Whoa.
[19:12] » Okay. Any further questions for Michelle
from here?
[19:15] Michelle, thanks again. I appreciate the
report.
[19:19] There is a written county sheriff report
in the packet.
[19:24] Are there any comments on item J3A?
[19:33] Seeing none, I'll keep moving. How about
on the uh Western area value express
[19:38] report?
[19:42] Wrership looks steady 469.
Okay, we'll go down to city manager
[19:48] report.
Justin, if you're ready, sir.
[19:51] » Sure. Uh so we had a great uh paint
Dexter festival. Um, thanks for
[19:57] everybody who um, you know, volunteered
their time and, you know, came to visit
[20:02] us in the tent and, you know, enjoyed
themselves and bought paintings and, you
[20:06] know,
>> I can't believe you sold 200 paintings.
[20:09] » We we we didn't sell 200 paintings. We
sold 104,
[20:12] » but still.
>> Yeah.
[20:17] » Yeah. I mean, our our our our whale in
the room didn't uh didn't uh splurge
[20:23] this year.
[20:27] Oh, we get one in here.
[20:35] » It's just building.
>> Um, no, but it it went really well. Uh,
[20:41] luckily the the weather held out for us
and it ended up being a really really
[20:45] nice weekend.
>> Yeah, I was amazed how many people were
[20:47] in that tent on Friday. It was
unbelievable. Justin, how many people
[20:50] volunteer for that event between staff
and the AC committee and just others
[20:54] that are interested?
>> Oh, probably 20 to 25.
[20:57] » It's impressive.
>> Yeah. I mean, uh, you know, um, Josh set
[21:01] up a really good, uh, program where, um,
members of a each take kind of a captain
[21:07] shift where, you know, we we expect one
of them to be in the tent at all times.
[21:11] Um, Sam spent quite a bit of of time in
the tent, which which we appreciate. Um
[21:17] and then uh we had a good number of NHS
students um help out this year.
[21:22] » Nice. Yeah,
>> it was very nicely done. Josh, Justin,
[21:27] thank you. It was um it was a wonderful
event. The weather was nice. The uh I I
[21:35] thought it was very well organized this
year and and so many people coming and
[21:39] enjoying. So it was it was lovely. We
had record number of people applying
[21:44] though for the 75 spots we have.
>> Right.
[21:48] » Interesting. Do you remember how many
how many applied?
[21:51] » Uh you said it was around 200 at one
point.
[21:54] » Uh it was less than that.
[21:58] But it was Yeah, it was the most we had.
I mean I had my weight list when we
[22:04] turned it off or like when we had to
close we had like 25 or 30 artists still
[22:08] holding good. So we turn people away.
>> We
[22:13] need a bigger park.
>> It's a lot to manage.
[22:16] » We should put that on a ballot.
>> See
[22:22] the Well, so um for for Friday morning
for artist check-in is always kind of
[22:27] chaos.
>> And if we accepted more artists than
[22:32] what we accepted, I I don't know how we
would be able to to handle that.
[22:35] » You'd have to dedicate someone.
>> Mhm.
[22:39] Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[22:43] » Well, thank you to all these volunteers
that make it such a great event.
[22:46] » Absolutely.
>> Um uh we did set a date uh with Carrie
[22:53] Mccroy um for Dementia Friendly Services
in their presentation uh for Thursday,
[22:58] September 24th at at 12:30 uh here. uh
for any members of council who want to
[23:03] attend.
Um they will we just had a meeting this
[23:08] morning uh to walk those roads that are
going to be impacted by the 2026 uh fall
[23:14] road program. Uh so that's going to be
Alpine uh the alley behind Main Street
[23:20] between uh Beerado and um Dexter Print
and Embroidery.
[23:25] uh Third Street and Fourth Street, both
of those from Central Street um going
[23:29] towards like the Dead End and um like
Iness.
[23:34] Um but uh they're planning on starting
that next week and the that was uh
[23:41] intentional because uh the contract date
uh to open the roundabout was August
[23:46] 28th at the end of this week. And it
looks like the the county is planning to
[23:51] meet that date and have the roundabout
open and then our project will start
[23:55] right after that.
>> So we'll have 2 days of free rain and
[23:59] then we put more barrels up.
>> Oh, no. The the the signage has already
[24:03] gone up or the road clos the the signage
has already been delivered to to the
[24:08] site. They haven't been like erected to
like block the the traffic yet.
[24:11] » Slow traffic right down through my part
of town.
[24:14] » Yes, it will.
Um but so that that was going to be one
[24:19] of my updates was that uh the county has
stated um they did a public release that
[24:23] um they are planning to meet uh um the
road open date uh for the for the
[24:29] roundabout in Island Lake by the end of
this week.
[24:31] » Did you get invited
>> for the for the ribbon cutting? Uh I I'm
[24:35] not aware of a ribbon cutting date or
time if if they're having one. So, so I
[24:41] know it says they're going to be um
working on the underground work in the
[24:45] alley behind Main Street where the trees
are that
[24:48] » Yep.
>> I asked the question about, right?
[24:50] » Will they be working on third and fourth
at the same time or or are they holding
[24:53] on those streets until
>> Yeah. So, so they're what they've said
[24:57] that their plan is is to start on the
alley, do the underground work there,
[25:01] and then uh try and coordinate the alley
mill and pave with the alpine mill pave.
[25:08] And then while that's going on, have
their um like storm water and
[25:12] underground crews move over to third and
fourth to get started there. And then
[25:17] just have their mill follow behind their
their other crews who are doing the um
[25:22] non mill and overlay work, the the storm
water, the concrete,
[25:28] all that fun stuff.
[25:33] Um
[25:36] uh I did get a a notice from Washington
County Parks that they started um uh
[25:43] installing the uh pilings
uh in through the the wetland and creek
[25:49] area.
>> Um there's that they started that end of
[25:52] last week. So they're they're making
really good progress on on the Dexter
[25:57] Chelsea trail connector which is great.
Um I think their target date was uh
[26:01] November to to get that open and I
haven't heard that they've been delayed
[26:05] in any form or fashion. Um I know that
they have said that they've gotten the
[26:09] concrete work done on the
maybe the the west side on the Dexter
[26:15] Chelsea road side. Um so they're they're
making really good progress there.
[26:21] » Yeah, that went amazingly fast. Mhm.
Well, I mean, I mean, they don't have
[26:26] the the bridge up or any of the the
decking up yet, but they're they're
[26:30] getting through it pretty quick.
Um,
[26:35] with that, does anybody have any
questions?
[26:38] » Okay. Um, did you get any uh feedback on
the striping in front of the bakery?
[26:45] » Yes. Yeah. So, so that there is a um
memo included attached to to my report.
[26:50] » Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Um, that's okay. Uh so essentially the
[26:53] the um answer is that uh in order to
meet standards um there's supposed to be
[27:01] a uh 30 foot or no sorry a 20ft um uh
vision distance from all crosswalks.
[27:11] » Okay.
>> And the striping was installed to to
[27:15] provide that 20 foot gap.
Is that part of the
[27:22] grant addendum that we have to follow?
Is that federal money?
[27:28] » Yeah. So, well, so the the the project
uh did utilize federal funds overall. Uh
[27:33] the um parking stalls the the parking
stalls on Main Street um were what are
[27:39] called category 3, which are
non-participating. Okay.
[27:42] » And so those are 100% city funded for
the for the mill overlay and striping of
[27:47] those parking stalls.
>> So we're not going to get that reduced.
[27:52] » I mean
>> not worth the effort.
[27:54] » We can we can ask the engineers in the
room
[27:58] » one part. I mean what' we lose two?
>> Don't I need you?
[28:01] » Mhm.
>> So So we technically could have more
[28:05] pedestrian area.
>> Yeah. You could have if money to do it,
[28:10] right?
I mean that could be
[28:14] » like raised and and concrete
>> after Yeah. whatever. I mean
[28:19] » we have to go another 20 ft.
>> I think it's from the crosswalk
[28:24] » from the stop bar or from the crosswalk,
[28:30] » but you would gain pedestrian space
>> instead of just I mean I know they're
[28:34] going to use it for snow plows.
>> Yeah. Yeah,
[28:37] » you know the snow's going to go there.
>> Safe limited
[28:39] » till they I mean they're going to have
taken it out a few days later, you know,
[28:42] but that's
>> Oh, Tim.
[28:46] » Oh, we don't do that.
>> He just rejoined it.
[28:51] » Oh, I had one other question.
>> Okay.
[28:54] » Page 51 of consent.
>> 51.
[28:58] I think you're good, Marcus. Thanks,
Marcus.
[29:03] » Um,
what do we got here? US Bank 136.
[29:10] » One of them refunds we got a new or
>> those are bond payments.
[29:13] » Oh, they're okay. One's refund and the
other one at four
[29:17] that's state revenue revolving fund at
423.
[29:22] » Yep. So they're those are are those are
both bond payments. Um
[29:26] » both come off pretty quick though within
10 years. So I know the US bank and
[29:30] trust uh is uh water sewer uh revolving
fund. Um so those will be between 2030
[29:38] and 2032.
>> Um the other one is Yeah. 2021 general
[29:45] obligation. So that's that's for city
hall.
[29:47] » City hall.
>> Yeah. So
[29:48] » what 423?
>> No, the 136.
[29:50] » Oh 136 county.
>> Yeah. So that comes off in 2041.
[29:55] » 2040 2041.
>> And then the 423 for the sewer. sewer
[29:58] » is is water sewer.
>> We got to be coming up on the end of
[30:01] that
>> the 2030 to 2032. So somewhere in that
[30:04] couple range. Yeah.
>> God just hate seeing seven digit numbers
[30:11] leaving me.
>> Thank you.
[30:17] » Okay. Anything else?
>> Unless there's questions.
[30:21] » Okay.
Thank you for your good report.
[30:26] Um, I just want to remind everybody
under my report that there is a
[30:30] walkthrough of the Pelum for council and
staff on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. If you
[30:35] can join us,
wear some good shoes.
[30:39] » Can I drive there?
>> You can drive and park behind the fire
[30:44] station, walk up the hill.
>> Will there be a shuttle?
[30:50] » You could you there will not be a
shuttle that I'm that I'm aware of. if
[30:55] it becomes available. Well, that's still
>> I I can pick you up if you need Ray.
[31:00] » I got to see it that bad. I'll just
hobble up there.
[31:07] » I'm just interested in that long one.
>> Joe, the I saw there was a meeting I
[31:13] guess today for discuss proposed R&D
permitted uses. Was there anything of
[31:20] interest or to note? So,
um, we last updated our zoning ordinance
[31:28] in February of 2023.
I'm
[31:32] » sure you all remember that fantastic
discussion we had.
[31:35] » I guess
it was, if you remember, a long process,
[31:38] but the official date that our zoning
ordinance was last updated, it was
[31:41] February 2023.
>> We had to update a issue with the
[31:45] storage notation or something. There was
a mistake. I thought that was the last
[31:49] we did. We well I think we did quite a
bit in in that
[31:52] » and before that we more we had one last
update.
[31:55] » I think there might have been like
formbbased code and all sorts of stuff
[31:58] that that appeared.
Um,
[32:02] one of the
principal uses in the R&D district that
[32:08] is no longer
uh in the ordinance is contractor
[32:13] establishments.
Um,
[32:18] like Phoenix Contractors is there
and
[32:23] QED Environmental is there
and what's the other one? We had one
[32:28] other one. Um
>> anyway, there's three there's three
[32:33] examples that are there, but for
whatever reason, we no longer have that
[32:36] in our zoning ordinance.
>> I tried to go back during the meeting
[32:40] and see the notes, couldn't find that.
It might be that just got omitted, but
[32:46] uh Ryan Joss is trying to
explore all options for the property
[32:53] videos. And so he was asking that type
of question that that was brought up. Um
[33:00] there was some conversation as to
whether some of the light industrial
[33:04] uses that we have could overlap the R&D
district just because we have such a
[33:09] small
R&D area or light industrial area when
[33:14] you think about the the area back here
which is essentially treatment plant and
[33:21] uh Alpha Metals. And then um
>> over on Second Street where we have the
[33:27] old Adair printing building and the
telecom place that just added their
[33:32] front porch. And
>> Mhm.
[33:34] » Um I wouldn't say there's a whole lot
that came out of the meeting other than
[33:38] we encouraged
we encouraged them if they had a
[33:42] question to write a letter to the
planning commission with their ideas for
[33:46] discussion.
Then we just tried to explain the logic
[33:50] of how the R&D district was set up. Best
thing to do.
[33:56] » That's basically what the meeting was,
Joe.
[33:59] » Okay. Thank you. Oh,
[34:03] » and as a part of that, I I talked about,
you know, the there's a delicate balance
[34:08] on that corridor between the schools and
the business research park and, you
[34:12] know, uses that add heavy amounts of
traffic or truck traffic or traffic at
[34:18] the key times of day that the schools
create
[34:22] a busy stretch of traffic. Um,
but I think he's just looking for as
[34:30] many options as possible to,
you know, build there.
[34:35] » Okay. He hasn't started obviously
building those storage units that he
[34:40] um
that he got approved for. So, he's
[34:45] searching, I think.
[34:48] » Oh, one more question.
>> Yes, sir.
[34:50] » Oh, go ahead.
>> Oh, no, no, you go ahead. I had one one
[34:54] more thing to add.
>> I just wanted to follow up on the fire
[34:57] station concrete meeting. I know it was
just this morning.
[35:02] » Yeah. So, so uh um it was a relatively
short meeting. Um essentially, uh OM is
[35:09] going to provide uh Cunningham Limp with
the most recent um uh elevation shots
[35:17] that they took of of the um area
underneath the pergola.
[35:20] » Okay. the uh the area underneath the
pergola has been um trapping water. It's
[35:25] been it's been bird bathing. It's been
holding water.
[35:28] » Um and so there's been questions about
um what to do about that area and
[35:35] whether or not there there's
a concrete issue from an from an
[35:40] engineering perspective.
But based on um the meeting this morning
[35:45] there there is like that area is flat
and so it's not sloped to be able to
[35:49] shed the water and so they per the the
meeting this morning they will have to
[35:54] do something. Um but uh Cunningham is
going to take a look at what OM sends
[35:58] them and and um make a recommendation.
>> Are you talking outside of their lounge
[36:02] area?
>> Did they ever define the leak
[36:06] into the commons area? Uh so so they
they they have resolved the interior
[36:13] building leak.
>> Uh it sounds like there may be a leak in
[36:16] the bay.
>> Um that that that they're working to
[36:21] figure out where that's coming from.
>> And where are we at on at the concrete
[36:26] apron there? We finished all that out.
>> Yes. Well, so I I uh drafted an
[36:31] agreement and I I shared it with Scott
Manzel, who I still have to follow up
[36:36] with um to get a attorney review on
that.
[36:40] » We should see that in September.
>> Mhm.
[36:42] » Yeah. You wrap that up.
>> Mhm. Yeah. But then I I have to send it
[36:47] back to Cunningham Lymph and their
subcontractor for their blessing or, you
[36:52] know, yay or nay on that. Um so I would
expect to see it in September.
[36:57] » All right.
Thank you.
[37:01] » One last thing kind of going back to my
report real quick. Um I did just notice
[37:05] uh for uh item unfinished business item
L2.
[37:09] » Uh I I copied forward what was on the
last agenda and what was in the last
[37:15] packet. So um I had included September
14th as the potential public hearing
[37:20] date. Um if somebody chooses to move
that uh later it should be September
[37:26] 28th. Yeah. Okay.
need need a motion for that or just
[37:30] change it at the motion.
>> No, let's see if we get there.
[37:34] » Because we'll need more than three weeks
between now and now.
[37:38] » Yeah. So, I mean, if if we if somebody
wanted to move it, um the first time we
[37:42] could publish it would be the the notice
of public hearing would be uh September
[37:46] 2nd and there isn't 15 days before uh
September 14th. Understood. Thank you.
[37:53] So,
[37:57] Okay. Any further questions for Justin
or I?
[38:01] Pablo, you still okay?
Okay. Thumbs up. Thank you, sir.
[38:07] Okay. Are there any council member
reports under J7?
[38:13] Okay. We have two items on the consent
agenda. Would somebody make the motion
[38:16] for the consent agenda, please?
[38:22] » I'll move uh consent agenda. Number one,
consideration of bills and payrolls in
[38:26] the amount in in the amount of
$834,4348.
[38:33] Number two, consideration of retirey
healthc care buyout agreement with
[38:37] Maurice Sherry.
Second motion by Tel, second by Sam
[38:42] Faroh. Thank you both. Please call the
vote to approve the consent agenda.
[38:47] » Ald,
>> yes.
[38:50] » Papa,
>> yes. Sam Faroh.
[38:54] » Yes.
>> Yes. Motion carries.
[38:58] Thank you. We're on page three of the
agenda. Uh unfinished business item L1
[39:04] is consideration of an amendment to the
general code of ordinances section 50
[39:09] article 3 false alarms.
[39:15] As I as I mentioned, this was on the
agenda, potential agenda last meeting
[39:19] and then we we moved it Joe primarily
because you had brought this up as a
[39:24] topic and in the interim we've gotten a
feedback from
[39:30] Chief.
Um,
[39:35] not sure if you have any thoughts or
[39:41] changes or
questions.
[39:45] » First, we still have the motion, right?
So, we don't need a motion. We already
[39:48] got a motion out there to approve,
>> correct?
[39:51] » Because it was
>> I I I think the the the previous motion
[39:55] was to postpone.
>> Well, the first one was motion on the
[39:59] table and then it was postponed.
>> Okay. post
[40:01] respond a couple times. Y
>> um
[40:09] you agree? Yes. Okay.
[40:17] From what I remember of when we
originally
[40:21] did the alarm the type of thing for the
police alarms back whenever it was done
[40:28] is my remembering and I could be wrong
but at the time we had said you know it
[40:35] was people had alarm systems in their
house and you know they'd leave their
[40:40] windows open and their curtains would
flap around and sl set off
[40:44] uh motion detector and the police would
come out and look and say, "Oh, there's
[40:48] nobody home." And you know, they'd leave
and they would get these on a regular
[40:52] basis. And people weren't
uh
[40:57] people weren't addressing those concern.
They were letting them go. And the
[41:02] intent of the ordinance at the time was
to make sure that they did address those
[41:06] things and that they didn't reoccur. And
um I I know it's not in the ordinance
[41:12] now, but I could have swore at
originally there was a you know uh the
[41:16] first time something like that happened,
it was a education moment and we'd let
[41:21] them know and u you know if it happened
again then it was going to then it was
[41:26] something that we would start billing
back cost for. Um I I don't know that I
[41:31] agree with
with the chief in some of the you know
[41:37] some of the thoughts that are there
about
[41:40] um that people are going to be less
likely to
[41:46] I guess to to activate their alarms. I
mean, I I don't know how they can,
[41:52] you know, the whole idea is for them to
be more vigilant, to be more conscious,
[41:56] to be more, you know, engaged when
they're using these type of systems. And
[42:02] our issue is when there's a problem and
nobody steps up and says, "We'll address
[42:09] that." and then all of a sudden the city
gets potentially a, you know, tens of
[42:14] thousands of dollars in billing back
because of the way we allocate our
[42:19] billing. So,
[42:24] I would I would like there to be and I
thought about this. I don't know that it
[42:28] necessarily needs to be in the
ordinance. I mean, I read through it
[42:32] really quickly and it says there's
there's an automatic appeal or I
[42:37] shouldn't say automatic. There is the
ability for people to appeal um to us.
[42:43] » To us. Exactly. Um I didn't know if we
could have a policy that said that we
[42:50] would allow you know the the
if an issue came up for allow the first
[42:57] one if somebody had a problem that you
know obviously came up and they weren't
[43:01] aware of and then they addressed it um
to way of a first one. Um,
[43:08] but
it's it's really trying to, in my
[43:13] opinion, trying to address something
that um could be a larger issue for the
[43:19] city overall because it wasn't addressed
when it should. Um, I mean, another
[43:26] option would be is if the DFD says,
"Okay, we're not going to bill for false
[43:30] alarms." Great. that if that addresses
the issue as well, you know, I'm I'm
[43:37] fine with that. Also, I just don't with
with the issues that we're having as far
[43:42] as budgets and stuff goes. I think it's
important that we have something that
[43:45] gives us some mechanism that says
you have to be responsible for and take
[43:51] responsibility for
a system that you have. And I mean, the
[43:56] other part of this is
let's say somebody pulls a fire alarm,
[44:00] right? just literally,
you know, there's a false alarm and
[44:06] intentionally obviously there's criminal
things that go along with that, but I
[44:10] mean, we don't have any way to recoup
those costs right now, you know,
[44:14] necessarily. So, um,
and and even in that case, the other
[44:20] thing that I thought about is what
happens when there's false alarms and
[44:23] they're related to somebody who's the
tenant versus the owner of the property
[44:27] because we're going to attach the the
fees to the property. Now, I I think
[44:32] most landlords would be within their
rights to hold their tenants responsible
[44:36] for those type of those issues and
things, but but um
[44:42] I know there's a lot there. I've just
been thinking about it. Um, like I said,
[44:47] I I would prefer there to be a um some
way to allow either through a policy or
[44:55] administratively we say, "Okay, it
happened one time. We understand it's a
[44:59] learning experience and it's not going
to happen again." Um, and if it does,
[45:03] there's associated um costs that are
with that. Um,
[45:09] or if we just let it go through and say,
"We understand you had an issue. File an
[45:14] appeal if that's what it is and you say,
"This was the first time it happened.
[45:17] I've taken care of it. It won't happen
again." That's fine, too. I mean, if we
[45:21] want to go with that tack um
uh I think it's important to have it one
[45:27] way or another. So, so in your example
of
[45:32] uh like you know one
free pass so to speak
[45:38] » how often would they get the free pass?
I mean is it they get they get one a
[45:45] year?
>> I agree with you. there needs to be
[45:47] something that calls out something like
that and and I don't
[45:52] because
>> well some of the discussion that we had
[45:56] previously like you know the 3,000 is
obviously based upon the cost per run
[46:00] » right
>> okay but it's an awfully steep number it
[46:02] is okay I mean on purpose right but if
there's a good explanation you'd hate to
[46:07] have to have somebody pay something when
there was a reason for it you know as
[46:12] the chief mentions there's reasons for
false alarms that happen unbeknownst to
[46:18] even if it's working. Right.
>> Right. And that's why there's an appeals
[46:22] process.
>> Correct. Yeah. Correct. Um
[46:30] you know I I I think one of the
questions we asked was how many of these
[46:33] did happen have happened in like the
last year and I'm wondering how many
[46:38] appeals we're going to have in the
course of a year.
[46:41] » You know don't really want it to be a
part of the agenda. Mhm.
[46:44] » appeals the council.
>> Well, and that's why I said that maybe
[46:49] there's there's a policy that we
implement that allows a certain amount
[46:53] of that being addressed.
>> Pablo, welcome.
[47:02] » Hi, folks. I honestly my concern is the
cost that we're asking. I think $3,000
[47:08] is a steep cost even for um
[47:14] It just I think it's too much too severe
of a penalty to ask uh people to pay in
[47:20] case of um a fire alarm mistakenly going
off even if it's several times
[47:25] especially if it's elderly um and
accidentally pushing the alarm um I know
[47:33] you know through family members in the
past who've had those incidences and um
[47:38] there's not always a cognition to be
able to know if you're pushing that
[47:42] alarm uh when it needs to be pushed. Um
it and that $30,000
[47:51] cost it just seems too severe
considering that there are plenty of
[47:54] criminal um fees I guess that people
sometimes have to pay if they break the
[48:01] law that are never at that level. So, I
do favor having something. I It's just
[48:08] that $3,000
as it stands currently seems way way uh
[48:14] too steep of a number for me to
um to be comfortable with.
[48:24] » Um thank you. I I agree with the
conversations. I think um my question is
[48:29] like um what are the numbers like how
big of a problem this is and I think
[48:35] Justin is currently counting.
>> Yeah, it it's uh it's 20 uh that were
[48:41] within a 12-month period
um from May to May
[48:49] and six of those were from the same
location.
[48:54] » So thank you. Um, another option. I I do
agree that a
[49:00] $3,000
all of a sudden it it's it's a big
[49:05] amount for for people. Um,
my suggestion suggestion would be to
[49:13] have a
tiered sort of thing. If it's your first
[49:18] offense that is actually it's something
maybe it's an educational thing, we say
[49:24] it's okay. The second one is like $500
and then the third one is,000 and after
[49:29] that becomes 3,000. um something that is
and numbers I just, you know, came up
[49:36] with, but something that is more tiered
towards helping with that education and
[49:43] um
not all of a sudden having somebody with
[49:48] a $3,000 bill.
[49:56] Is that a bad idea?
[50:02] thoughts,
>> Pablo? Uh,
[50:07] » I honestly think Sam's idea is great.
Um, I think a small penalty with a
[50:13] second or even third uh false alarm is a
very very good um cautionary warning
[50:22] prior to the full price kicking in. Um,
I think Sonoma is spot on.
[50:30] So, where would we say that, Justin?
>> Email.
[50:35] » The tiered idea. Where would that be
incorporated?
[50:39] » I was going to say I thought we had a
lot of our or number of our ordinances
[50:43] say as set by
>> Right. Well, that's the special
[50:46] assessment part is what I'm thinking.
Right.
[50:48] » Yeah. So, I I mean I would probably put
it under fees and fees and regulations.
[50:53] Uh 50-125.
>> What page on? uh page 66
[50:59] » and it does say not more than the actual
cost. Doesn't say there's a minimum
[51:05] amount.
>> Yeah. And and I mean you could change it
[51:08] to um an amount as set by council
resolution.
[51:13] » Yeah.
And then that would be easier to change.
[51:18] » Yeah, that's where I'm going with it.
Okay.
[51:20] » Don't we have like a fee schedule that
we can
[51:23] » add it there? So, we update that instead
of
[51:26] » Well, and if it's a fee set by council,
the first fee could be zero for the
[51:30] first time.
[51:35] » Please come on up.
I can't believe you waited this long.
[51:41] Welcome, Chief. Thank you.
And I nothing in my memo actually
[51:48] contradicts what synonymous predicted or
proposed that you know I I think for
[51:54] habitual defend uh offenders there is
there should be some escalating penalty.
[52:01] I I would just ask that
maybe there be a discussion about what
[52:07] is a false alarm
>> because we code things as false alarms
[52:13] such as somebody was cooking and burned
the toast or burned something and that's
[52:18] an accident as opposed to a an equipment
malfunction. And we've had instances
[52:25] where smoke from outside from burning
leaves or something else has come in and
[52:30] actually set off a smoke detector.
That's that's the system working as it
[52:35] should, but still generates a response
that
[52:40] results in maybe us coding it as a a
false alarm because we get there and
[52:44] there's not a fire or a problem found. a
spider getting into a smoke detector or
[52:50] dust can trigger u the the alarm. So I
think there are instances where even the
[52:57] most diligent
owners can run into a situation that
[53:03] results in an alarm triggering that is
not
[53:07] necessarily a an equipment problem or a
failure on their part to to do
[53:11] something. Right now, we are responding
to a house where a neighbor hears a
[53:17] smoke alarm going off inside a house and
called. Um, they're not finding
[53:23] anything. We'll probably classify that
as a false alarm, but the homeowners
[53:27] wasn't home, didn't call, the neighbor
called. So, I I just think there are a
[53:31] number of sort of situational
like this that get lumped into false
[53:38] alarm category.
And the one that the six within a
[53:43] two-day period at the same address that
was really over 40 alarms, we had
[53:48] somebody that was stationed there and
kept just resetting it, resetting,
[53:51] resetting it because it was a faulty
water sensor. And our only other option
[53:55] was to turn the sprinkler off to the
whole building. And we didn't want to do
[53:59] that at 2 in the morning when there were
people there sleeping and and sort of
[54:02] take away their fire suppression. So we
we helped manage some of those false
[54:07] alarms to keep those numbers down.
Um but we did leave a couple times and
[54:12] kept after we responded back a few times
then we we sort of managed it by by
[54:16] staying there on site. So uh I I think
there is a a place for this type of
[54:24] ordinance and you certainly should have
the ability to capture it for sort of
[54:28] non-compliance. But I would just caution
uh to not be too broad because as I said
[54:35] um you know I I think it does
disincentivize people who are
[54:40] discretionarily
choosing to connect their alarm systems
[54:45] to a uh a system that phones into a
central center and does summit help even
[54:50] if they can't do it. you know, if they
know that there is a potential
[54:55] significant penalty for the very first
time that the the system doesn't work as
[55:00] designed or summons help unnecessarily,
then I I think their decision or others
[55:07] decisions to to move forward with that
sort of protection, which is something
[55:11] we're trying to educate and promote,
could be interfered with, impacted.
[55:17] » So, let me ask a question. Um,
Doug, you're pretty good at writing. Uh,
[55:24] would you have you have you read our
definition of false alarm?
[55:29] I mean, maybe not lately, but could
would you would it make sense for us to
[55:33] maybe postpone this one more time and
let him work on the definition a little
[55:37] bit for us to see to for those
other circumstances that aren't as
[55:42] intended?
>> Well, I or do or do you like like
[55:46] leaving it this way? No, I I think the
problem that we're going to run into is
[55:51] trying to get a definition that fits
every potential scenario, blah blah
[55:56] blah. Yeah.
>> Well, and that's why I said originally,
[55:59] I think the first one, you should, you
know, give somebody grace on the first
[56:04] one or if we have something that
elevates over time, then that works as
[56:08] well. I think that
>> yeah I I think that an easy one would be
[56:12] right
after a first response that's determined
[56:16] to be a fixable you know or equipment
issue that is not addressed a return
[56:22] response generates a that's kind of
>> like and frankly the I know you guys
[56:28] worked with the the the department
worked with managing that one particular
[56:33] multiply it and stuff but frankly that's
not what you should be doing the the
[56:38] whoever the building
>> we we we got it dealt with the ne very
[56:42] very next morning but
>> I understand but
[56:45] » but literally the phone call should have
gone to that person and they should have
[56:48] been there that night and they should
have been there turning the alarm
[56:51] » we completely agree and we made the
phone calls they just didn't get
[56:53] answered so
>> right and exactly the whole point so so
[56:58] I and and really that was the discussion
that we had that sort of kicked off this
[57:02] whole investigation and stuff
>> right so I I mean I again I think we
[57:07] could come up with a definition that
says, you know, as we talked about in
[57:10] the first case, we make a response,
they're they're instructed to to get a
[57:17] service obtained, they don't do it, we
come back, then that certainly says
[57:23] something actionable. I I think that
providing an emergency number that
[57:28] doesn't get answered or, you know, they
don't provide a call tree that does
[57:32] connect us with someone at the moment of
alarm in the middle of the night or on a
[57:38] weekend. That also could be then another
reason because you're right, we we did
[57:43] tie up resources. Unfortunately, we
didn't need them elsewhere, but
[57:47] » that was not what we're equipped to do.
>> Yep.
[57:52] » So, I I agree. Yeah. So, Pablo,
[57:58] » uh, thank you, Chief. Um, I wanted to
make a comment regarding this, um,
[58:05] incident where multiple alarms went off,
but only six, it was marked as six um,
[58:13] calls. Um, did that, does that mean that
only six of them were build to the city?
[58:19] Um, right. Did we essentially pay for
six calls in that particular situation?
[58:23] » It's just um honestly
>> and I can say that even even for this
[58:28] building
>> uh when the elevator was first put in or
[58:31] the the smoke detector or something,
there were multiple alarms and we wrote
[58:35] it down as one even though we our our
guys got up in the middle of the night,
[58:39] came over here, reset the alarm panel
four or five times in the middle of the
[58:43] night and we we only charged one run for
for managing that situation. So uh
[58:49] » well sir I think we just find ourselves
in a situation where there are two
[58:54] decision-m points here. One is on your
end where you choose based on um the
[59:02] situation how many times you feel is
fair to call it a false alarm right
[59:08] because the intent of this entire
conversation is to recuperate costs uh
[59:14] that the city incurs uh because of the
false alarms. So theoretically should
[59:19] then the city
right we're essentially having you
[59:24] prefilter
that decision-m process for us right you
[59:28] tell us hey it's not 40 it's actually
just six uh but so there's some
[59:36] some things that this ordinance will
have very little control over so the
[59:44] council I guess the question and the
comment for the council is how
[59:48] comfortable are we where
the actual number of false alarms that
[59:55] we'll get to the city to action on is
not something that necessarily is in um
[1:00:00] control the ordinance in the first place
and chief if you can comment on that as
[1:00:03] well would appreciate that.
[1:00:08] Well, well, I think we're we're not
trying to manipulate the numbers, but we
[1:00:12] are trying to
be respectful of of how the current fund
[1:00:17] allocation is assigned. So, in in the
case of the waterflow alarm that kept
[1:00:23] going off, we just contacted dispatch
and said, "Don't type these up. Don't
[1:00:27] page these out. Don't count these as
calls. You know, we're here on site.
[1:00:32] We're going to when it goes off about
the time you get the phone call, we're
[1:00:36] already in there resetting it." And uh
so we we just chose to manage that
[1:00:40] situation. That's not how we typically
handle it because as you can see from
[1:00:45] the history of alarms over the last
year, we've not had a significant number
[1:00:51] of repeat offenders. For the most part,
we go there, we we find that there's an
[1:00:56] issue, we get with the right person and
say, "This needs to be fixed." And they
[1:01:02] take care of it. And uh you know that
reduces and hopefully
[1:01:08] for the most part eliminates this sort
of repeat problem.
[1:01:15] » Floor is still yours.
>> My followup question to that would be so
[1:01:19] imagine that in that situation the
ordinance was already in place and was
[1:01:24] voted as to have one. um knowing that um
in this instance six alarms would
[1:01:31] trigger uh Sam's idea of cascades and
you would know that substantial
[1:01:38] financial penalty would be incurred.
Would you see yourself as billing it
[1:01:44] only as one incident or would you still
um put it as six separate calls even
[1:01:49] though it was um 40 actual true alarms
to start with?
[1:01:56] We tend to
I mean we have a definition for what's a
[1:02:00] call and you know it's it's a it's a
response out of the building you know
[1:02:06] after a dispatch uh it includes a
dispatch and it generates a a run number
[1:02:14] in our CAD system. So we we we tend to
honor those. It's just in this case uh
[1:02:22] the same wi way with the case uh here in
the city. We we managed those alarms
[1:02:29] because we were on site and we heard
them and we were able to reset them
[1:02:32] before that whole cascade
reached the point of it being considered
[1:02:40] a call. And that's that was a decision
we made to do because we were there and
[1:02:45] able to do it. But if if we get a if we
get dispatched a call and we start to
[1:02:51] respond and whether we get canceled in
route or we get there and find out that
[1:02:57] there's no emergency, then we do count
that as false alarm and we document that
[1:03:05] as a run.
>> Pablo, we need to talk about that more
[1:03:10] at DFD.
I I guess so.
[1:03:14] » Okay. What's what's the difference
between
[1:03:17] go ahead keep going?
>> Uh I think I mean this actually answered
[1:03:21] my question perfectly. That's the part
that I was worried about the
[1:03:23] technicality of it. But if the chief
says that yes we're already there so
[1:03:27] technically they can respond to
obviously continuation of the false
[1:03:33] signal. U that's one thing because what
my worry was is what is fair in one
[1:03:39] situation uh might not be perceived as
unfair in another. And then we have a
[1:03:43] situation where someone who's getting a
penalty would be upset because they feel
[1:03:48] like they were not treated the same as
someone else. But if the chief says that
[1:03:52] yes, clearly we were there and while we
were technically still on the same call,
[1:03:57] that shouldn't be counting as a false
alarm because we were physically there
[1:04:00] present responding.
>> Then they return they return and now
[1:04:05] five minutes later they have to repack
everything and go again. Then there's a
[1:04:09] clear technical distinction between the
calls which makes me a lot more
[1:04:13] comfortable with
>> Yeah. And that's how we got the
[1:04:16] designation is we we we attempted to
leave or did leave and got called back
[1:04:21] and you know eventually said okay this
this is going to continue. So we made
[1:04:28] the decision to to stay on scene and
just continue to manage it from from a
[1:04:33] scene.
[1:04:37] Thank you for answering my questions,
>> Ray.
[1:04:41] Um,
do most of our false alarms unless how
[1:04:48] many are fire alarms that are false
versus medical?
[1:04:54] » There were three or four medical I think
on that list. I don't have it in front.
[1:04:59] » All right. Because I I know when I run
calls, the majority of our calls are
[1:05:03] medical.
And then um you know the fire alarms
[1:05:08] every commercial building should be
alarmed. I'm amazed their insurance
[1:05:11] doesn't require it. I used to drive to
Whitmore late 4 in the morning because
[1:05:15] the meet cops out there. So I know it
can be done and our alarm company was
[1:05:22] very adamant about um billing us if
there was more than x amount in a month.
[1:05:29] So I I don't know we want to look at
that. My other thing is
[1:05:33] is the commercial versus residential.
Commercial is different than
[1:05:38] residential. And I'm I'm trying to
figure out where the medical fits into
[1:05:42] the residential because I know we extend
a courtesy to certain people that
[1:05:47] require extra help and stuff and and
that's fine. I'm almost willing to
[1:05:55] subsidize it just because of how long
they've been in the area and what
[1:06:00] they've given to the community and
everything. But when I look at
[1:06:05] my report from the fire department and I
see my budget, you know,
[1:06:11] you know, it multiplied 10 times, I
think, within 10 years. So, it's getting
[1:06:15] to the point where it's becoming
it's becoming dire. Um,
[1:06:20] » speaking to the medical alarm
specifically, that's that's the alarm
[1:06:24] pendant that, you know, seniors can can
sign up for and in the event they fall
[1:06:31] or in the event they're they're ill and
unable to get to a phone or someone
[1:06:34] help, they can push a button. Those
those buttons do get pushed
[1:06:39] accidentally. They sometimes get uh worn
outside the home and sometimes when they
[1:06:44] just get out of distance from the home
base, they'll activate. Uh so there are
[1:06:50] a number of ways that those can generate
a a request for assistance that turns
[1:06:55] out to be false.
>> At the same time, I do notice certain
[1:06:59] trends where the same address will call
within three to four days. You know,
[1:07:03] it's like there's an ongoing situation.
Perhaps they just return,
[1:07:07] you know, we
>> and that's a courtesy. I understand that
[1:07:10] » we do make recommendations to social
services, connect them with resources,
[1:07:14] provide them information about
additional care that we think they might
[1:07:19] need when it's clear that they're sort
of relying on the fire department for
[1:07:26] care that they might need to be seeking
elsewhere. So you do extend sort of an
[1:07:32] educational
>> Absolutely.
[1:07:34] » supplement to them because I think
that's what
[1:07:38] » when I look at the runs I automatically
fire or medical and I I know 90 out of
[1:07:44] 100 are medical and then there's a
million degrees of medical. So, I don't
[1:07:49] know.
Do you treat three times
[1:07:55] in two days as false or are those
regular calls because they went through
[1:07:59] 911 or
it you know oftent times the it it
[1:08:06] depends
for false what we consider false is some
[1:08:12] sort of electronic system that summons
help and we get there and there's no
[1:08:16] help needed.
I think that we differentiate that from
[1:08:21] some sort of service call where we're
providing
[1:08:25] uh lifting assistance for someone who's
fallen and is unable to get up and their
[1:08:31] spouse is unable to help them up. Uh you
know, we we do respond, we help them and
[1:08:38] check them out, find no injuries, return
to service. And some of those
[1:08:44] I mean as you look at the reports
there's two or three addresses where uh
[1:08:48] we do make
frequent course and that goes with the
[1:08:53] population as we age. So I just turned
70. I might be calling you guys all the
[1:08:58] time from now on. I mean I don't know.
>> Well, we'll come pick you up.
[1:09:02] » How much? Three bills.
I ain't got a stack. uh that that was
[1:09:09] always been my number one consideration
for as long as I've read a a re a review
[1:09:15] of uh runs, you know, though I've
spotted that when
[1:09:20] um Chief Schmidt was over there. I think
I even seen it back then bitching about
[1:09:25] it.
>> You have a discussion coming up later
[1:09:27] about a change in the run or the the
allocation of of cost which would soften
[1:09:35] the impact of of an individual call.
>> Yeah, I'm uh
[1:09:46] I'm just I'm I'm trying to be brutal
here. It's like from a cost thing to a
[1:09:54] user thing, you know? That's I mean, I'm
being as brutal as the formula is to
[1:09:58] charge me three grand. said, "Well,
three grand to go up a flight of stairs,
[1:10:03] three grand to fight a barn fire for 6
hours. You know, where's the parody
[1:10:07] here? I can't get a handle on what's
going on. I don't want us to subset
[1:10:11] everyone out. Two bales of hay, you
know, $500. One farm, $1 million,
[1:10:17] but
I don't know how much more I can
[1:10:20] subsidize.
No matter
[1:10:25] how correct it's supposed to be, I you
know, I'll just say it. I'm I'm just
[1:10:28] being I'm just looking at worst case.
You know,
[1:10:33] push comes to shove and I ain't got no
money.
[1:10:36] Now, I think the residential smoke
alarms are
[1:10:42] small
compared to commercial, but that's all
[1:10:46] it's really dealing with is fire alarms.
Not dealing with nothing medical.
[1:10:51] I don't see anything in here that says
medical, unless we're just defining all
[1:10:55] runs as fire runs.
[1:10:59] Yeah, I mean defined differently because
there's some police instances where fire
[1:11:03] wouldn't respond.
>> Yeah. And then and the the report that
[1:11:07] the chief shared doesn't break it up by
medical versus
[1:11:11] » fire if it's it's it's just false alarm
malfunctioning alarm and no emergency
[1:11:17] false alarm accidental alarm.
[1:11:24] » Okay. Okay. So, we've had two
suggestions that I've heard.
[1:11:28] Well, maybe it's not two, but maybe it's
the same that the tiered approach.
[1:11:33] Okay. So, Justin, where would that be?
Does that affect the draft false alarm
[1:11:41] ordinance
or is that something that would be
[1:11:45] incorporated into something we refer to
that sets the penalty?
[1:11:50] » Yeah. So, I would um
>> because like the like 3000 isn't, you
[1:11:55] know, listed on page 66.
[1:11:59] » Yeah. Yeah. So, I I would probably
change section 50-125B
[1:12:05] on page 66 to something to the effect of
um
[1:12:11] uh the fees charged to the owner unless
he of an alarmed premises for a false
[1:12:14] alarm in the schedule of fees uh shall
be set per uh city council resolution
[1:12:23] or or something to that effect.
>> So, we don't need to do the special
[1:12:26] assessment.
[1:12:31] We we would we would still do the
special assessment. Yes.
[1:12:38] I mean that's that's how we
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay.
[1:12:41] » That's how we we would ultimately
collect if they choose not to pay.
[1:12:48] » Okay. I see. That's if they don't pay.
>> Yeah. The the the special assessment
[1:12:54] process is the
>> Okay. So that's what I'm getting at. Do
[1:12:57] we want to send this back to let staff
incorporate that idea or are we going to
[1:13:02] try to do this on the fly?
>> I'm okay with going back and
[1:13:09] » Yeah.
>> and then seeing it one more time.
[1:13:10] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:13:12] » So, what else do we what else do we want
to and then maybe chief you could look
[1:13:16] at our definition?
>> I'm happy to help in any way if
[1:13:20] » if um
[1:13:23] there's a tweak there maybe.
Joe, when you when you you mentioned
[1:13:28] there's a a policy,
talk to me about that policy again.
[1:13:33] » Well,
what I suggested was that
[1:13:38] the way the ordinance is written, it
doesn't there is no provision for
[1:13:43] » administrative
>> administratively addressed or not
[1:13:47] charging straight, right?
>> That's Yeah, that's the way I read it. I
[1:13:50] mean, you it says to set a I mean, it
says to set a number. I hadn't thought
[1:13:56] about setting I mean, I did think about
we could set it up in
[1:14:00] » I like the escalating better. I think
that addresses that concern because
[1:14:04] that's the policy we put.
>> Do you want Do you want the ability for
[1:14:08] administration to handle
[1:14:12] burnt toast?
>> Yeah, that's the Z first one.
[1:14:18] » Are you suggesting two?
>> Well, no. I I'm saying do they have to
[1:14:21] physically appeal it or can
administration say we understand that's
[1:14:25] your that's your first one as opposed to
us having to hold some type of reason
[1:14:29] » I think administration handles all of
them when they're zero if the first one
[1:14:33] is zero they handle all of them right
they just say okay here you go it's your
[1:14:36] first one it's zero it doesn't I mean I
guess they could appeal it if they
[1:14:39] wanted to but there's no associated with
it
[1:14:44] » is that what this reads though
>> it doesn't read that way that's what I'm
[1:14:48] getting Yeah.
>> So, I mean, in order for it to be zero,
[1:14:52] they would have to appeal.
>> No, not if we set it up for an
[1:14:55] escalating. First one was zero, second
one was X, third one was Y, fourth one
[1:15:00] was Z, something like that
because
[1:15:04] » Okay. I guess I'm not understanding
where that's reflected is my problem. Is
[1:15:07] that in the ordinance or is that in the
schedule?
[1:15:10] » That's what I would need to
>> Yes.
[1:15:13] » Somehow it needs to say the first one's
free in here in my opinion. Well, so I
[1:15:16] mean what we can do is we can just say
in here is the first point of appeal is
[1:15:21] administration. Second second second
point of appeal is city council, but you
[1:15:26] can still have it where the fees are are
are set separately by council
[1:15:30] resolution.
>> I get that to me the fee is separate
[1:15:33] from how the like the issue is handled.
>> Sure.
[1:15:38] » The ordinance covers how the issue is
handled. the fee is what they pay if
[1:15:42] after it happens
to me.
[1:15:46] » Yeah. And I'm I was just thinking that
yes, that that I I agree that the first
[1:15:52] one the zero it's handled
administratively and then we have two
[1:15:56] more tiers after that. So it's not super
complicated or people constantly
[1:16:05] think it could be and the fees we can
you know decide but like the second tier
[1:16:09] and then the third tier and then it
stays at third tier basically every time
[1:16:13] » like 500,000 or something like that.
>> Yeah. Maybe 5 500,000 and then the 3,000
[1:16:17] and it stays at that at
from third and onward.
[1:16:24] So, so what what I what I would plan to
do then is prepare a separate resolution
[1:16:30] to be adopted separately by by council
setting the the fee
[1:16:34] » fee.
Okay. Okay.
[1:16:38] » Um,
I would say if council wants to proceed
[1:16:45] or or wants to to postpone this item,
but wants to proceed with setting the
[1:16:50] public hearing for the um single lot
assessment.
[1:16:56] » I would recommen
do do it all at the same time on on the
[1:17:01] same day.
You're saying wait on L2.
[1:17:07] » I I would say wait on
>> I thought I was following that enough.
[1:17:11] » Sorry. I would say postpone postpone L1
until the same date as L2.
[1:17:16] » Correct.
>> Yeah.
[1:17:17] » Yeah. But we could still set the
>> correct do L2.
[1:17:21] » You can still do L2.
>> Yeah. I'm with you.
[1:17:25] So essentially what you're asking for or
I'm going to ask for is there a motion
[1:17:28] to postpone item L1 to allow staff to
incorporate the items discussed today?
[1:17:34] » So moved.
>> I second.
[1:17:36] » Okay. Moved by Sam Faroh, second by
Alde. And it's postponed to September
[1:17:42] 28th meeting.
[1:17:46] Unless you have questions before that,
you can ask them. But that's when we'll
[1:17:49] see it next. Yes.
Everybody discuss everybody okay with
[1:17:53] the pathon?
[1:17:57] » Okay. Please call the vote to postpone
until September 28th to allow staff to
[1:18:01] make the modifications to the ordinance.
>> Alde,
[1:18:05] » yes.
>> Pop off.
[1:18:07] » Yes.
>> T.
[1:18:09] » Yes.
>> Serrow.
[1:18:10] » Yes.
>> The
[1:18:12] » yes.
Okay. Thank you. The motion post one
[1:18:15] passes. Chief, thanks for your input on
all this.
[1:18:19] Uh, new business or unfinished business
item L2 is consideration of setting a
[1:18:23] public hearing for September 28th.
I move to uh consider setting a public
[1:18:29] hearing on September 28th, 2026 to
consider adopting an amendment to the
[1:18:34] general code of ordinance section 42
special assessments.
[1:18:38] » Okay. Motion by Aldag
second by Saro.
[1:18:44] Any discussion on setting the public
hearing date?
[1:18:49] » No.
>> No. Okay. Please call that vote.
[1:18:55] » Tell
>> yes.
[1:18:56] » Alde,
>> yes.
[1:18:57] » Seero,
>> yes.
[1:18:59] » Papa,
>> yes.
[1:19:02] » Yes.
>> Motion carries. Okay. So, that puts
[1:19:06] those two items on the September 28th
agenda. Thank you. Thanks again, Chief.
[1:19:11] Uh new unfinished business item L3 is
discussion of the Dexter Township Fire
[1:19:16] Services proposal. At the last meeting,
we asked that this be kept on until such
[1:19:21] time as we could formulate a response or
have enough comments to make our own
[1:19:27] editable version back. Um has anybody
had a chance to look at or have thoughts
[1:19:31] on this?
[1:19:34] If not, we'll keep on.
>> Yes. Um so that was a a thought. Um I I
[1:19:42] see that the throughout the article or
the the the
[1:19:47] draft
>> the draft thank you. Um
[1:19:50] there was a change in um from main
station and substations to substation
[1:19:56] one two and three with Dexter being
substation one. And as part of it, the
[1:20:01] the first article one, the purpose um
the the line that says the center of
[1:20:07] operations and control of the department
be located in Dexter is crossed out. I
[1:20:13] still think that it would be beneficial
to have a um sentence about
[1:20:22] our fire station comparing to the other
two because there was a great um level
[1:20:30] of discussion and details and
conversation went on about why this
[1:20:37] station should have all the things that
is part of a main station. Um, I mean
[1:20:47] like our Dexter station, right? We did
not just build another one that is like
[1:20:52] Dexter Township or Webster Townships. We
built this fire station based on
[1:20:59] activities that would go on this one as
the main station for the AFD. So I I was
[1:21:06] thinking of something along that the
center of the operation maybe not the
[1:21:11] control. I I see why that could be a
problematic
[1:21:15] phrase, but the center of the DAFFD
operation shall be located in the city
[1:21:20] of Dexter or at the station known as a
station one. I'm fine with you know that
[1:21:26] that it's a station one but just having
if we are having chief's office there if
[1:21:34] we are having that
to go with all the conversation we had
[1:21:39] about why this station should have been
built differently than any other station
[1:21:43] is because it is our main station.
[1:21:50] » Okay.
[1:21:53] else.
>> Joe,
[1:21:57] » the discussion that we had the
sort of the the lead in from Dexter
[1:22:03] Township was they didn't believe that
the way the funding is currently set up
[1:22:09] was a good policy. Um,
[1:22:15] they provided a chart that showed the
breakdown of the funding back I think
[1:22:21] 10-ish year, something like that. And at
one point in time, Dexter Township was
[1:22:25] actually about where we are in terms of
the way the breakdown is right now. So I
[1:22:31] I think in some ways part of it is, you
know, they're looking at it and
[1:22:35] thinking, you know, maybe in five years
this flips around and all of a sudden
[1:22:39] we're in that position and they're
funding it through a millage and they
[1:22:43] would be in a similar situation that
we're looking at that it's becoming a
[1:22:47] burden on the budget and I think they're
looking for something that's more
[1:22:51] predictable, something that moves less
slowly, um, you know, is tied to some of
[1:22:56] the communities a little bit more and
frankly
[1:23:00] what has been stated as is good policy
versus what they see as as I said bad
[1:23:07] policy. Mhm.
>> So, um
[1:23:11] because when you look at the numbers and
stuff, Dexter Township is proposing this
[1:23:15] and and and would be increasing the
funding requirements that they would
[1:23:19] have, but I think they probably see it
from the aspect of what they're buying
[1:23:26] is um some long-term stability and some
predictability along with something that
[1:23:34] they believe truly I I really get the
feeling that they truly believe it's a
[1:23:38] more fair allocation. So, um, so I
[1:23:45] the thing about these type of
allocations of cost, there's literally
[1:23:49] infinite ways you can break all these
up. And um,
[1:23:54] I don't think anybody is going to say,
"I think we should do this." And
[1:23:57] everybody else is going to say, "Oh,
yeah, that's the way we do it." And but
[1:24:00] I think this one is is is
it would be acceptable to me if that was
[1:24:05] what we ended up agreeing to as a
>> DFD.
[1:24:16] Pavo Ray, any thoughts since last
meeting?
[1:24:19] » I think my thoughts still stand from uh
where I was last time. Um I think the
[1:24:26] formula does not incorporate enough. Um
the algorithm is too simple. Um I don't
[1:24:34] uh think the other factors uh like the
value of the property or the value that
[1:24:40] the
certain members of the agreement are
[1:24:44] protecting for the same cost uh is fair.
Um so my comments from the previous
[1:24:50] meeting are still
still the same.
[1:24:53] » You want to see you want to see tax
taxable value or SUV involved in the
[1:24:57] » Yes, absolutely. And I think it kind of
goes with what uh Joe was pointing out
[1:25:00] too. If you really want a more
predictable uh model and you want an
[1:25:05] algorithm that really is not going to
wildly change uh the cost and take you
[1:25:10] on a roller coaster ride, then you it's
kind of like those numerical polomials,
[1:25:15] right? you need to have multiple factors
so it gets in closer and closer to the
[1:25:19] reality on the ground, right? It's a
better fit for the curve. So it has to
[1:25:23] have more factors in the model and the
current number of factors is just simply
[1:25:28] um still will maintain that
unpredictability and um honestly having
[1:25:33] more factors is just
there is more stability from it. So uh
[1:25:39] and people can actually budget um
consoles can budget ahead further ahead.
[1:25:46] So yeah, I feel like we need to add more
factors to the model. Thank you.
[1:25:55] » Yeah, fine.
>> Okay. Well, I I think Justin, I think
[1:26:00] you and I need to sit down and maybe
incorporate some of the stuff in and
[1:26:06] propose back what we might want to go
back with. Is that something we could
[1:26:09] work on?
Take it into account council's comments
[1:26:13] and
we don't meet with the group again until
[1:26:17] September, but we still have about one
month to
[1:26:23] get this in shape.
[1:26:27] Okay. We'll keep putting in the packet
just as an ongoing item. That's okay.
[1:26:32] Uh under unfinished business. Um okay to
move to M1. New business item discussion
[1:26:38] of the 2027 Broad Street roadwork
design.
[1:26:43] Thanks Scott.
[1:26:48] Should have did that one first.
[1:26:58] So, how do you wanna you want to
introduce this or
[1:27:02] » Sure. Um, so,
uh, as council should be aware, um, we
[1:27:08] received, uh, grant dollars, uh, to do
road work on Broad Street in 2027. Uh so
[1:27:16] this would be a uh starting in May, June
going through probably September,
[1:27:24] August, September, uh 2027 uh road
project. Uh part of Broad Street would
[1:27:31] be fully reconstructed and a portion
would be milen overlaid. Uh main main to
[1:27:36] fifth would be milen overlaid and then
uh fifth to third up to the pavement
[1:27:40] change over here would be reconstructed.
Um but as a part of the design uh
[1:27:46] essentially we're targeting
uh the streetscape to mirror central
[1:27:52] street.
Um and uh to that end um Marcus with OM
[1:27:58] is here to uh point out uh things of
note and ask questions and see if
[1:28:04] council has any feedback on on the draft
design.
[1:28:08] Go. Um
I was just thinking about something the
[1:28:13] that hadn't occurred to me before
literally this moment.
[1:28:16] » Um Broad Streets are truck route, right?
>> It is. Uh so is Central Street.
[1:28:21] » Central Street is also
>> Mhm.
[1:28:25] » Yeah. So uh Central
uh is and then
[1:28:31] fourth is a truck is is a major.
I don't know if it is considered a truck
[1:28:37] route. I'm g have to look. Okay.
>> But uh fourth, Hudson,
[1:28:44] » second,
>> second are all majors.
[1:28:48] » I guess the only question is how do we
manage truck traffic through town
[1:28:51] because I mean semis are not going to be
able to make the turn around onto
[1:28:55] Central Street, but
>> I can answer that. So this um is
[1:29:00] actually going to be the same season
that the
[1:29:04] Joy um
>> Oh yeah.
[1:29:06] » roundabout happening. So that'll be
another long summer. We don't have all
[1:29:10] the details from the county yet. That's
a sign significant rebuild that
[1:29:15] roundabout.
>> Sure.
[1:29:16] » So that's going to limit a lot of
through just because that project even
[1:29:21] we weren't doing broad street. So the
timing actually does went out pretty
[1:29:24] well.
>> Okay. Gotcha.
[1:29:26] » I I hadn't even thought of that but
Yeah, that's a great unintentional
[1:29:34] » feature, not a bug.
>> It's a feature, not a bug.
[1:29:39] » Um, okay. Well, yeah, I just, uh, good
evening, council. Thank you for the
[1:29:42] time. Um, just want to touch on a couple
of the key points on the project, make
[1:29:47] sure everybody's aware some expectations
of what the project is. Um, answer
[1:29:53] questions.
Uh there are a couple items that we are
[1:29:56] looking for some feedback and I'll point
those out specifically. But as Justin
[1:30:01] mentioned, uh the reconstruction section
uh which is between Fifth Street and
[1:30:06] right around the curb where we left off
when we did third and broad project
[1:30:10] here, um is going to continue. And
there's a graphic in the in the memo on
[1:30:15] page 97 in your packet actually a
picture of Central Street. So it will be
[1:30:18] that exact same crosssection
uh on street parallel parking both sides
[1:30:23] of the road bike lanes lanes and then
two travel lanes. Um the section between
[1:30:30] fifth and main street is scheduled part
of the same project that is just the
[1:30:35] mill and resurface of the asphalt. I'll
talk about the fifth street intersection
[1:30:40] specifically in a minute. Um but that
that section road we're not proposing to
[1:30:45] change the curve line. So that will go
back essentially as it is now through
[1:30:49] travel lanes and angle parking.
[1:30:54] Um
big piece of the project is the storm
[1:30:58] water management. Uh so right now Broad
Street is uh open shoulder not really
[1:31:04] even very well defined ditches on the
reconstruction section between fifth and
[1:31:09] third. Um so going with the curb cross
section that will include um underground
[1:31:14] storm sewer which will actually be
directed um both directions. Some of the
[1:31:20] some of it will outlet to the pipe that
was put in that runs behind little
[1:31:24] railroad building here and then down and
outlets um railroad rightway that was
[1:31:29] all constructed as part of the third
street project in size to accommodate
[1:31:32] the drainage. Um then a small amount um
of the water then uh is directed through
[1:31:38] the pipe that runs down Fifth Street and
and out to the railroad right away as
[1:31:42] well. Um one of the things that we were
able to incorporate in the project um is
[1:31:48] actually been a
drainage um problem area for many years
[1:31:54] on Forest Street at the alley. So, um,
past the funeral home there and there's
[1:32:00] been multiple
um, band-aid approaches, I guess you
[1:32:05] could call them ways to try to get the
water out of those low areas. And one of
[1:32:08] those was actually, um, send some of the
drainage down Fourth Street uh, alley
[1:32:14] there uh, to the west. Um all that
drainage that hits the four street right
[1:32:19] away as part of this project is going to
be captured in the storm system and
[1:32:23] directed through city pipes and out to a
proper outlet which will um limit uh or
[1:32:30] it'll help the the drainage issues uh
that the properties that have that low
[1:32:35] area along the alley which 3355
road I think was the the new build
[1:32:43] that's going there. They had a site plan
into in addition to the house had a
[1:32:47] garage and kind of worked out pretty
nicely that they they have their own
[1:32:52] drainage thing that they need to handle.
But out of that came the fact that there
[1:32:56] was this this much rightway drainage
going probably not to the best spot. So
[1:33:01] we're be able to capture that and
redirect that drainage to take care of
[1:33:04] the city's piece of that issue.
Um couple of items that we're looking
[1:33:12] for some feedback
uh from council on. Um one is the the
[1:33:17] pedestrian
uh configuration we're proposing. So,
[1:33:23] um I don't have the council packet
number on these sheets, but if you look
[1:33:28] at sheet what sheet um
nine of the OM plans, uh that that shows
[1:33:37] the um fifth and broad intersection. Uh
the proposal now is to include the
[1:33:44] decorative crosswalks on both legs of
Fifth Street. Uh so crossing Fifth um
[1:33:49] north and south of Broad and then on the
west leg of Broad Street. Um and at this
[1:33:57] time we are not proposing a decorative
or any crosswalk on the east leg of
[1:34:02] Fifth. Uh the reason for that is several
um difficult location due to the
[1:34:09] location of the existing utility poles,
guywires, trees, other other utilities
[1:34:13] that are in the area. Um but there's
another reason is there's no sidewalk
[1:34:19] running along this street um to the
north. So if they you could cross there,
[1:34:25] you would still have to cross anyway. So
you'd be crossing two legs in either
[1:34:29] event. Um
this intersection has been identified as
[1:34:35] sort of the edge of the downtown
corridor. Um and it made sense uh
[1:34:44] we thought not um that to help that
visually to show that transition as
[1:34:51] you're moving away from downtown. Um the
other big reason is for initial
[1:34:56] construction it's not as big of a deal
but it it limits and increases the cost
[1:35:01] of future maintenance when you have
crosswalks on all four legs can be dealt
[1:35:06] with and did it recently on main
obviously but it's more difficult and so
[1:35:10] if the crosswalk doesn't provide a lot
of value initial capital cost and the
[1:35:16] increased future maintenance costs um
are consideration
[1:35:22] Moving to the next sheet uh shows the
blow up of um
[1:35:27] um
[1:35:30] the same page here.
>> This is page 108.
[1:35:34] » Yeah. So going down to four street a
couple sheets over which is sheet 12 of
[1:35:39] the drawings. Um
that's a T intersection. So that there
[1:35:44] is the alley that runs up the hill. Um
but it's not a a street crossing. So
[1:35:49] that would just get regular sidewalk and
uh like a drive approach. So the
[1:35:54] decorative crosswalks are proposed on
the west leg of broad and the south leg
[1:35:59] of four street. Um and again for similar
reasons um looking at the pedest the
[1:36:05] likely pedestrian
routes in the area, we didn't think that
[1:36:10] a crosswalk on the east leg really
provided much value. uh because
[1:36:17] uh we did we did um with the crosswalk
at the curve here as part of third
[1:36:22] street job. So you're only 300 or so
feet away. Um and just looking at trip
[1:36:28] origins and destinations um that leg
didn't make sense to us either. Um but
[1:36:33] we wanted feedback on that if if there's
a consensus that all legs is more
[1:36:39] appropriate solution and we're happy to
do it. It can can be done. Um,
[1:36:44] » Marcus, I think it's very consistent
with what we have elsewhere.
[1:36:47] » We agree.
>> So, I I think it it looks
[1:36:52] it looks good to me.
[1:36:56] » And I like that they're perpendicular.
>> The one other I guess really
[1:37:03] I forgot to mention I have Chris Pow
here with our transportation group. He's
[1:37:06] uh helping to manage the project. Um,
he's here. We're getting we have some
[1:37:11] more technical geometric questions about
radi or like that. I'd probably ask him
[1:37:15] to jump in. Um, one other thing that
we've been hearing from the beginning is
[1:37:22] a concern. Anytime you
um
[1:37:27] build a road, new fresh pavement,
there's at least a
[1:37:33] impression that that speeds are going to
increase or do increase. Um, how do you
[1:37:37] mitigate that? uh you're limited um a
little bit on federal aid eligible roads
[1:37:43] by the funding mechanism
truck route. Um so that is a limiting
[1:37:48] factor as well. Um but there are things
that can be done and one of them that is
[1:37:53] commonly used and pretty effective is um
uh necking down at the intersection. So
[1:38:00] that accomplishes a couple of things. It
it it narrows
[1:38:04] visual corridor for the driver. Uh, so
especially the the cross-section we're
[1:38:09] proposing with parking and bike lanes
and travel lanes, that's a pretty wide
[1:38:13] swath, especially if it happens to be a
time of day that nobody's parked. Um, so
[1:38:18] neck and bound when the intersections
are this close together, that really
[1:38:22] helps with uh attenuating speeds, um,
traffic hauling. Um the other the other
[1:38:29] uh benefit of that is that it reduces
the distance the pedestrian has to
[1:38:35] travel um you know the open road. So
even if it's um parking like I say there
[1:38:42] doesn't happen to be are parked that day
that's still exposure to the
[1:38:46] pedestrians. So having those bumpouts at
the intersection um is a good thing for
[1:38:51] those reasons. Uh so the plan we have
now at Fifth Street includes um blowouts
[1:38:58] on both corners uh of Broad Street or
both both legs of Broad Street. Um which
[1:39:03] essentially what that'll do is if you go
out there now and you look where there's
[1:39:06] all the cross-hatching where there is no
parking, it's just handled with paint.
[1:39:10] That will become basically curve would
kind of mimic that outline and then
[1:39:16] spaces would start up after that. I
don't have an exact figure for you
[1:39:20] today. We're still um working out the
details, but the parking would remain
[1:39:24] largely unchanged. May lose a space or
two out of the 55, I believe, that are
[1:39:30] angle parking that are on that block. Um
we'll get you that exact figure, but
[1:39:34] it's not going to be a significant
change when it's there today.
[1:39:39] We did look at providing a um
before and after calculation on parking
[1:39:47] between fifth and third. It's kind of a
free-for-all right now with the open
[1:39:52] gravel. So, there's really not dedicated
spaces. Um, so we will have the we will
[1:39:58] show um with with the curve and the
stripe spaces exactly how many and where
[1:40:03] those exist. But we we do have to
consider the criteria that were
[1:40:08] mentioned earlier about offset from
driveways, uh, crosswalks, etc.
[1:40:13] » Marcus, let me interrupt real quick.
Justin, do we still have any money left
[1:40:16] over that we can use towards parking?
Yes. I I I don't believe we ever touched
[1:40:23] 100,000 or so.
>> Is that how much we have?
[1:40:27] » I mean, can that be used to build this
parallel parking? I think we did some of
[1:40:30] that on Central at one point.
>> I don't see why not.
[1:40:35] » Something to think about. Okay.
[1:40:39] um at Fifth Street uh
where the crosswalk cross broad is it'll
[1:40:46] be great to have that be shorter with
the bumpouts
[1:40:49] in addition to your traffic coming. Do
you think you'll be with your milling do
[1:40:52] you'll be able to take some of the crown
out make that flat enough to
[1:40:56] » Yeah, we looked at there's a pretty
>> it goes up to eight big 8% in some spots
[1:41:01] on the
>> I mean bringing the bump outs will help
[1:41:04] because you're cutting into that a
little bit. Um but we have looked at
[1:41:07] that and and looked at the boring and I
can tell you I don't pay exactly how
[1:41:11] much but it was definitely flagged by
our design team early on that wanted to
[1:41:15] try to soften that
>> something there okay
[1:41:16] » the extent possible without even
>> giving up too much cross-section for
[1:41:20] structure
>> yeah even if the reconstruct has to
[1:41:24] shift a little into the that block
>> right
[1:41:28] » yeah with the bump out it
[1:41:37] Even if you go back
[1:41:41] » Yeah, that that that section has
potentially a softer crown for the
[1:41:46] travel lanes and then it gets steeper
into the parking
[1:41:49] » right
>> pull that. Yeah, I don't remember
[1:41:52] thickness center my head, but it would
take a million.
[1:42:14] » Do we have this program for the DDA to
contribute anything? Not currently
[1:42:19] » for the Okay, we might want to get that
on the radar.
[1:42:22] » Um the one thing that we we have talked
about is um uh doing the design for the
[1:42:28] Broad Street parking lot behind um Joan
Rosies and Hotelman and Ways and Things
[1:42:35] um and doing that parking lot at the
same time as as this work is going on.
[1:42:43] » Okay. Um, what about
lighting?
[1:42:51] Central. Central has
>> has decorative.
[1:42:54] » We added lighting on central when we did
central.
[1:42:57] » Mhm.
>> Is there any discussion? Any discussion
[1:43:01] at all?
>> The decorative lighting ends shy of
[1:43:05] fifth street a little bit with the
glass.
[1:43:08] » That's where the D Yeah, which is the
DDA boundary. Fifth Street is a DDA
[1:43:11] boundary. I think
>> well that hasn't been talked about as
[1:43:14] part of the project extending that. Um
>> I'm not saying we have to do it. I
[1:43:18] didn't I just I just was asking that
question. Does are there are there
[1:43:22] utility beyond storm sewer? Are there
other utility plans upgrades?
[1:43:27] » Not not beyond structure adjustments um
for
[1:43:31] » Okay. So the water the water man that's
there is where it's going to stay.
[1:43:34] » Water man's in good shape and it's going
to stay
[1:43:38] » in the sanitary. What about the church
there on the corner of Fifth and they
[1:43:43] had that sanitary lead issue at one
point in time.
[1:43:46] » That's been talked about.
>> Yeah.
[1:43:50] » Okay.
>> Yeah. I think I think Izzy if she hasn't
[1:43:53] reached out to them. She she was
planning to to see if they wanted to run
[1:43:56] their lead out out front.
>> Out the front.
[1:43:58] » Yeah, that would be the time certainly.
And Eric made aware of that.
[1:44:02] » All right. Well, just wait. You
mentioned just Dan and I were both
[1:44:05] involved in that a few years ago and we
said we'd at least come to them with
[1:44:10] » now's the time if you're going to do it
type thing.
[1:44:12] » Absolutely.
>> Okay. Help them best you can. Pablo
[1:44:17] hand.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um I have a question for
[1:44:21] you in regards to um the trail, the
bicycling trail.
[1:44:27] anticipation that a lot more use is
going to come out of it with um the
[1:44:32] connection that will be made over uh the
creek. Uh do you think uh since it will
[1:44:39] be a major route just having a lane as
it is currently or as you're proposing
[1:44:45] currently just demarcation is sufficient
or do you think we need to plan for
[1:44:49] something uh or just consider something
a little bit more robust um as they have
[1:44:55] for example on Miller uh in Ann Arbor?
>> You're asking about like the separated
[1:45:02] bike curves.
>> Yes. Yes.
[1:45:06] » Um, we haven't looked at that. I mean, I
guess what I would say to that is u the
[1:45:12] non-motorized plan and the
the cross-section for streets bike lanes
[1:45:19] that the city has utilized elsewhere.
This is what we're following. So, we
[1:45:23] haven't looked at new new or different
solutions here. Um,
[1:45:29] we could, um, but I I think unless
there's a
[1:45:35] um, I call policy shift necessarily, but
a new a new standard is is agreed on, it
[1:45:41] it wouldn't you wouldn't gain a lot by
putting that in a twob block section if
[1:45:45] you're not going to eventually have a
plan to do it elsewhere. and the fact
[1:45:49] that Third Street had had this, you
know, the typical bike lane um
[1:45:56] configuration along the central and
other places in town.
[1:45:59] » Yeah. I think the the other the other ch
the like other at least one challenge
[1:46:04] that I can think of associated with that
is do in the areas where you do that
[1:46:09] where you install kind of what I'll call
protected bike lane do you then lose the
[1:46:14] potential to also have the on street
parking associated
[1:46:18] » if a flip
>> yeah can you can do it it's a pretty
[1:46:23] significant
[1:46:26] design change that hasn't it had simply
hasn't we haven't looked it can but but
[1:46:32] again I think it would only make sense
to look at it seriously if the city is
[1:46:37] interested in changing what they would
want their standard application to be
[1:46:43] because to do it for one or two blocks
each and not have a plan to do it
[1:46:49] um continue it wouldn't I don't think
it very much
[1:46:59] Right.
>> I thought I heard you said you're going
[1:47:03] to maintain the um
drive-in parking
[1:47:08] the current pull in.
>> Yes.
[1:47:10] » And how many space you think you lose?
One
[1:47:12] » one or two I think for that. Well,
there's 55 I want to say 54 55 between
[1:47:18] Fifth and Main Street.
>> Yeah. I hate to see another big old
[1:47:22] uh patch. I don't know. The plan allows
the crosswalk to be
[1:47:28] 20 feet based on I mean in front of
Danny's house. I can understand that big
[1:47:32] point out there
>> and I think that would be handled at at
[1:47:36] fifth with if it's it sounds like people
are feeling good about the bumpout
[1:47:39] option you would have that in lie of
striping.
[1:47:43] » It wouldn't be much
already out there. The north side is
[1:47:51] might be spanned by a couple feet. the
south side more than
[1:47:57] so
at the moment you lost one on the north
[1:48:01] side
[1:48:06] » with the phone kind of matching that
>> and of course that's
[1:48:11] where they're from downtown.
>> Yeah, they won't hear nothing else.
[1:48:14] It'll be parking. They don't care about
your sewer. They don't care about your
[1:48:19] power. you know, hear about your depth
of gravel.
[1:48:25] Um, but I think that those are the major
points and don't need all the answers
[1:48:30] tonight. I guess if there's thoughts,
feelings that you want to convey back to
[1:48:34] Justin. Um we do have a schedule to keep
as far as we are waiting still
[1:48:40] um on getting uh feedback uh approval
from NEPA shipo clearance has been
[1:48:48] submitted months ago um don't have that
yet so there's a little bit of time so I
[1:48:52] don't um don't want to have anybody feel
rushed but if you sleep on it and have
[1:48:57] feedback that that we need to be aware
of please communicate that we'll get it
[1:49:03] but right now what I'm hearing They tore
it down the oldest house on the block.
[1:49:09] » Sounds like the bump out traffic calming
thing. People have a good feeling about
[1:49:12] that and and the decker crosswalk
configuration that's shown in the
[1:49:16] drawings.
Um
[1:49:18] » and it looks like you're lowering the
profile on the other blocks which is
[1:49:22] good because the sidewalk underwater a
lot of times. So that's good.
[1:49:27] » It's good.
>> It's exciting project. It's
[1:49:32] the been dragging down the city's
average major road ratings for a long
[1:49:37] time. So tackling this one is going to
um really improve the overall metrics
[1:49:42] for the city system.
>> Very good. Appreciate you being here
[1:49:48] tonight. Any questions for Marcus or the
team?
[1:49:54] » Okay. Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you.
[1:49:56] » Keep up the good work.
And last but not least is item M2,
[1:50:00] consideration of moving the September
14th, 2026 city council meeting to
[1:50:04] Monument Park. Joe,
>> we
[1:50:10] move the September 14th, 2026 city
council meeting to Monument Park with an
[1:50:14] alternate location of city hall in the
event of inclement weather.
[1:50:19] » Motion by Santa Farah.
>> Second.
[1:50:22] » Second by tell
[1:50:26] Pavlo. Any discussion needed?
>> I mean, I held this meeting outside. I
[1:50:32] uh hid in my HV there for five minutes
because it started raining,
[1:50:36] » but back outside.
[1:50:41] » Excellent. I I thought you'd be doing
the reading from the swamp.
[1:50:44] » Uh well, you know, it's 110 degrees
outside and super humid, so it's about
[1:50:50] as swampy as it gets.
>> Yeah. Okay.
[1:50:52] » Oh, where's that at? Because it ain't
here. So, you're confident we could make
[1:50:56] an attempt at this and give it a try.
>> Yeah. So, uh it's actually interesting.
[1:50:59] We the um original setup that we used
over at St. Andrews for when you know
[1:51:05] just just postcoid and we could start
holding meetings but virtually.
[1:51:09] » Um we're basically going to
>> bring that over
[1:51:12] » bring that over and
>> and uh reuse it.
[1:51:16] » Will is it Zoom accessible?
>> Uh so so for the outdoor meetings we we
[1:51:21] would not do Zoom.
>> Yep. Okay.
[1:51:26] Okay, please call a vote.
>> Wait.
[1:51:29] » Oh, did Jeff, did you I'm sorry, I
missed a hand. Please.
[1:51:31] » Um I going back to the the um
the um in my opinion the work that this
[1:51:40] put on staff. Um I I think yeah, we can
give it a try this time. I'm you know it
[1:51:48] it I'm not super comfortable with all
the work but I I think we can give it a
[1:51:54] try. I think for following years, if we
want to do this in the summer, um we
[1:51:59] should plan to take advantage of when we
have the the tent up between
[1:52:06] um the um summer festival and the and
the um Paint Dexter festival because it
[1:52:13] gives us a lot of the infrastructure
that we need for this. And um also if
[1:52:21] the weather is, you know, pouring, we
still can potentially keep going. Um so
[1:52:27] I think we we should u we should do
that. Um I'm again
[1:52:32] not in favor of putting this much work
on staff, but I think we can give it a
[1:52:37] try. And I would really appreciate that
after this we hear good feedback from
[1:52:42] staff on the level of work that this was
done um for us to make good decision for
[1:52:48] next year.
[1:52:52] Any other comments?
Okay, please call the vote.
[1:52:57] » Papa,
>> yes.
[1:53:00] » Faroh,
>> yes.
[1:53:02] » Yes.
>> Alder,
[1:53:04] » yes.
>> Yes. Motion carries.
[1:53:09] We are back around and non-arranged
participation.
[1:53:12] » Is there anyone in the audience or
online that would like to speak this
[1:53:15] evening?
[1:53:19] Seeing none, we'll do council comments
starting for with Mr. Tell this evening.
[1:53:22] No, thank you. Mr. Popoff.
>> No, thank you.
[1:53:28] » Student reps.
All
[1:53:30] » good. Joe, sorry to break the streak.
It's okay. The um
[1:53:37] We get a little bit of feedback from Sio
Township. So I
[1:53:43] don't know how I would request I I guess
what I'm requesting is that by the next
[1:53:48] meeting we have something in writing
that we can
[1:53:53] communicate with Scio Township with
respect to a 425 letter and also
[1:54:00] know definitively what we need to do to
initiate the filing at state boundary
[1:54:06] commission because
[1:54:10] I mean, I appreciate that they're
meeting with us, but we haven't made any
[1:54:14] progress in a few months. And um I think
we're trying pretty hard and uh have
[1:54:21] made suggestions and proposals and um
we're not getting a lot of feedback.
[1:54:29] Um I'm just on that I'm expecting to
hear from Mariah Wednesday. Understand?
[1:54:34] and maybe that'll inform that for the
next meeting.
[1:54:39] Um
[1:54:42] there was a decision tonight by the
Supreme Court that um mail-in voting
[1:54:50] could potentially
be dictated by the executive order that
[1:54:56] was issued previously.
it potentially could impact whether or
[1:55:02] not we can do mail-in ballots.
So my question for feedback again for
[1:55:09] the next meeting would be what are we
going to do if that's the case? I mean
[1:55:14] because if we aren't mailing out ballots
then I assume people would have to come
[1:55:19] in and vote. We would have to go through
the absentee process as it normally is.
[1:55:26] Part of it is whether or not voter lists
are going to go to the post office so
[1:55:30] that they'll have an approved list of
people that can receive ballots. So, I
[1:55:34] don't know where it's all going to shake
out. I'm assuming that the clerks of
[1:55:39] Michigan are going to have a lot of
dialogue in the next couple of days
[1:55:43] about this and uh obviously we're coming
up on the elections pretty quickly.
[1:55:48] Um,
[1:55:51] and uh, the last thing is I want to uh,
thank Pablo for Mr. Papa for bringing up
[1:55:57] the uh, the meeting in the park. Um, I I
do agree it's potentially going to be
[1:56:02] some additional work, but I think it's a
great idea and uh, looking forward to it
[1:56:06] and I'm hoping that it's something we
can manage and continue in the future as
[1:56:11] well. Looking forward to it.
No.
[1:56:16] » Last but not least.
>> Thank you.
[1:56:18] » You're all set.
>> You all said it all.
[1:56:19] » Okay. Okay. Who wants to make the motion
for adjournment?
[1:56:24] » Move by tell.
>> I second.
[1:56:26] » Second by Aldag. All in favor signify by
saying I. Please. I
[1:56:30] » I
>> I.
[1:56:31] » Good evening and a good Labor Day
weekend. And uh
[1:56:35] » see you back here in three weeks.
>> Yeah.
[1:56:37] » Actually, not here. Don't come here.
>> Go to the park.
[1:56:40] » Go to Don't go to the park.
>> Have a good one, Pablo. does anything
[1:56:44] crazy like jump out any planes.
>> Jumping on the 12th.