[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.

August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript