[0:28] Okay, we'll call this city council
[0:30] meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and we'll
[0:32] rise for pledge of allegiance.
[0:35] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:38] United States of America and to the
[0:40] republic for which it stands, one nation
[0:43] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:46] justice for all.
[0:49] » [clears throat]
[0:52] » Move on to public comment period. Is
[0:54] anybody here for public comment?
[0:58] Okay. Move on to approval of the agenda.
[1:03] We do have two additions. Uh under other
[1:05] we'll add resolution 2026-35
[1:08] preliminary love levy and then 2026-36
[1:12] the fund transfer.
[1:19] I think council member Linquist and
[1:21] Wloff will not be in attendance today.
[1:28] » I make a motion to approve the agenda.
[1:30] » All right.
[1:32] » Second.
[1:32] » We have a motion and a second. Any
[1:34] further discussion? Hearing none. All
[1:36] those in favor say I.
[1:37] » I.
[1:38] » Oppos? Same sign. That carries. Still
[1:40] move forward with approval of the
[1:42] consent agenda items A and B with claims
[1:44] totaling $8,856.15.
[2:02] I make a motion to approve the consent
[2:04] agenda items A and B with claims to from
[2:08] September 8th totaling 80,856.15.
[2:13] I'll second that. Motion second. Any
[2:15] further discussion? Hearing none. All
[2:18] those in favor say I.
[2:19] » I. Same sign. That carries. And we have
[2:22] Attorney Jansen with us today with some
[2:25] updates, etc. Maybe.
[2:27] » Yep. So, I have a just a couple things
[2:29] after the last city council meeting.
[2:32] Guess we'll start off with the issue of
[2:34] those curb projects and looking at that.
[2:37] Seems so the city did get in contact
[2:38] with the sheriff's office
[2:40] [clears throat] and at this point the
[2:43] sheriff's office was in contact with Mr.
[2:46] Worm on the subject and he has agreed
[2:49] that he would pay the city back by
[2:51] January 1st of 2027.
[2:54] So, at this point, I guess we'll be
[2:56] looking for that date and then seeing
[2:58] what happens by then.
[3:02] And then moving on to the property over
[3:05] at 5:30 Third Street. So, we have
[3:08] drafted the notice for that. And at this
[3:11] point, the notice just needs to be
[3:12] signed and then it can be sent out and
[3:16] then the city can start proceeding with
[3:18] that process with allowing this other
[3:20] party to come here and try to say what
[3:23] they have to say about their property.
[3:26] And then looking at that 296 m, we're
[3:31] still just waiting on getting an update
[3:33] from the building inspector. Our office
[3:36] has been in contact with the building
[3:37] inspector and he did discuss that he is
[3:40] on that. So at this point we are just
[3:43] waiting to hear back from when the
[3:45] inspection gets kind of updated.
[3:48] » Perfect.
[3:50] Thank you sir. Any questions for city
[3:52] attorney Jansen?
[3:54] » Perfect. We'll move on with Abdo.
[4:02] » All right. Good evening Mayor, members
[4:03] of the council. Um, I'll start with the
[4:06] preliminary levy and budget approval or
[4:09] preliminary budget approval.
[4:12] Um, the proposed 2027 budget is designed
[4:15] to maintain. Actually, let me share my
[4:17] screen here first. So, don't just have
[4:20] to look at the paper. If you could
[4:22] accept my request, mayor sheets.
[4:24] » I sure will. We'll get you rolling here.
[4:28] » I was just too excited to get started.
[4:33] » No, I get it. Yeah, you work your magic.
[4:35] I'll I'll throw you on the screen. I'll
[4:36] get the TVs rolling. Sounds good.
[4:40] I can turn it on by hand here. We'll get
[4:42] by.
[4:44] All right.
[4:45] » Hit a button on here.
[4:46] » Yeah, if you find that power button,
[4:48] that would be wonderful.
[4:49] » On the left or right side?
[4:50] » It's somewhere on there. It's uh kind of
[4:52] a hidden button. I think it's right in
[4:53] the front.
[4:55] » Right where the red light is. Is that
[4:57] what it is?
[4:59] » There we go.
[5:00] » Thank you so much.
[5:04] up here.
[5:09] Oh, you're you're good to go, good sir.
[5:12] » All right.
[5:28] All right, that's much better now. So,
[5:30] we'll start with the 2027 budget and
[5:32] preliminary levy.
[5:34] The proposed 2027 budget is designed to
[5:37] maintain current service levels, address
[5:39] inflationary cost increases, and
[5:41] continue funding future capital needs.
[5:45] The preliminary levy is proposed at
[5:47] $825,341,
[5:49] which is an increase of approximately
[5:52] 10% over 2026. This is this increase is
[5:56] driven primarily by the 3% cost of
[5:58] living adjustment, inflationary
[6:01] costs, and ongoing capital planning. The
[6:04] city capital levy increases to support
[6:07] future facility and infrastructure
[6:09] needs, while the fire capital levy has
[6:11] been reduced based on the capital
[6:13] funding projections. Overall, the
[6:15] proposed levy balances current
[6:17] operational needs with long-term
[6:18] financial planning.
[6:21] Moving on to page two.
[6:25] Um before discussing operations, it's
[6:28] important to understand changes
[6:29] occurring within the city's tax base.
[6:32] Updated estimates indicate total tax
[6:34] capacity is projected to decrease
[6:36] approximately 5% for taxes payable in
[6:39] 2027.
[6:40] Residential properties account for most
[6:42] of the decline, while agricultural,
[6:44] apartment, commercial, and personal
[6:46] property classes are expected to see
[6:47] growth.
[6:49] As a result, the city's levy will be
[6:51] spread across a smaller tax base,
[6:53] creating additional pressure on the tax
[6:56] rate.
[6:59] Moving on to page three,
[7:02] we'll look at kind of tax rate
[7:04] comparisons over the last 15 16 years or
[7:08] so. Uh the combination of a higher levy
[7:10] and lower tax capacity results in an
[7:12] increase in the estimated tax rate for
[7:14] 2027.
[7:16] Current projections so show the urban
[7:18] service district tax rate increasing
[7:19] approximately 84 from approximately
[7:23] 84.8% to approximately
[7:28] um 98.2% in 2027 while final rates
[7:32] depend on the county certified values.
[7:34] Current estimates indicate taxpayers may
[7:37] see a higher tax rate next year. Um,
[7:41] this page also indicates how Minnesota
[7:43] property tax system applies different
[7:45] tax rates over different types of
[7:47] property classes.
[7:50] Moving on to page four, which is the
[7:52] general fund budget summary.
[7:55] The proposed general fund budget is a
[7:58] balanced budget including $884,000 of
[8:01] revenues, $884,000
[8:03] of expenditures. The 884,000 of
[8:06] expenditures does include the $61,000
[8:09] transfer to the fire fund for the city's
[8:11] portion to cover those costs.
[8:15] Property taxes remain the city's primary
[8:18] source of revenue. Building permit is
[8:20] budgeted higher to reflect anticipated
[8:22] development activity. On the expenditure
[8:25] side, notable increases occur in general
[8:28] government, financial administration,
[8:30] public safety, and building inspections.
[8:33] These adjustments reflect professional
[8:35] service needs, contractual cost
[8:37] increases, and anticipated workload
[8:39] demands while maintaining the current
[8:41] service levels.
[8:45] Next, we're looking at the enterprise
[8:47] fund budget summary.
[8:49] The city's utility and refuge funds
[8:51] remain financially stable under the
[8:53] proposed budget. The water fund includes
[8:56] funding for system maintenance and
[8:58] infrastructure improvements while
[8:59] maintaining a positive operating
[9:01] position.
[9:03] The sewer fund remains self-supporting
[9:05] and continues to generate an operating
[9:06] surplus.
[9:08] The refuge fund also remains stable,
[9:10] covering service costs while maintaining
[9:12] positive operating results.
[9:15] Overall, these funds continue supporting
[9:17] operations without reliance on general
[9:19] fund resources.
[9:22] Um the next pages are just a summary of
[9:26] broken down revenues and expenditures by
[9:29] funds, different departments, and
[9:31] different object codes.
[9:34] In summary, the proposed 2027 budget
[9:37] balances rising costs with responsible
[9:39] financial management, maintains
[9:40] essential services, and continues
[9:42] investing in the city's long-term
[9:44] capital needs. While tax capacity is
[9:46] projected to decline, the budget
[9:48] positions the city to address current
[9:50] operational needs while preparing for
[9:52] future infrastructure and facility
[9:54] improvements. And with that, I will
[9:56] stand for any questions.
[10:00] » Thank you very much.
[10:02] Any questions on those projected right
[10:04] now?
[10:14] I don't hear any. David,
[10:16] » With no questions, I will leave it to
[10:18] council for approval of the preliminary
[10:21] levy.
[10:26] » Which we can move that up from other if
[10:28] you wish. We'll get that rolling for us
[10:30] so that we can get that done in unison
[10:32] so you can sign out. That would bring us
[10:35] to resolution 2026-35.
[10:38] resolution adopting the 2026 preliminary
[10:40] tax levy for city green out for
[10:42] collection in 2027.
[10:44] And I'll bring that up for a vote.
[10:47] [clears throat]
[10:50] » Yep. I'll make a motion on it.
[10:53] » I'll second.
[10:53] » We have a motion. Second. Any further
[10:55] discussion? Then hearing none. Roll call
[10:57] vote. We'll go with council member
[11:00] layout.
[11:01] » Yes.
[11:01] » All right.
[11:02] » Yes.
[11:03] » I am a yes. And then two absent. That
[11:05] carries.
[11:08] Thank you, Abdo. Anything else you need
[11:09] from us or should we do the fund
[11:11] transfer as well? We can get that done
[11:12] as well. Um, look at that. Roll in.
[11:15] 2026-36,
[11:17] a resolution to approve fund transfer.
[11:20] It's the water and sewer fund
[11:23] enterprise funds for the purpose of
[11:24] accounting for the revenues and expenses
[11:26] of the city's utility operations.
[11:28] Pretty standard. We do this every year.
[11:30] Transfer of 150,000 from fund 602 sewer
[11:33] to fund 601, water. So I'll make a
[11:36] motion to approve that resolution.
[11:38] » Second.
[11:38] » Motion second. Any further hearing?
[11:41] None. Roll call vote. We'll start with
[11:42] you again, Harrison.
[11:43] » Yes.
[11:44] » Yes.
[11:44] » And I'm a yes. And two absent and that
[11:46] carries.
[11:48] » Mayor.
[11:49] » Yes.
[11:50] » I um can go through the long-term plan
[11:54] and the utility rate study.
[11:56] » That would be wonderful. We're ready for
[11:58] you.
[11:58] » All right. I will share my screen.
[12:06] All right. Are you able to see that?
[12:08] There it goes. It looks like it just
[12:09] popped up for you.
[12:11] » Great.
[12:13] Um, so the city has engaged with us to
[12:16] prepare a utility rate study and a
[12:18] long-term financial plan to look at um
[12:21] some forecasts related to utility
[12:24] revenue and utility rates and then just
[12:27] the stability of all of the funds that
[12:29] the city has. I'll start with the
[12:31] utility rate study.
[12:34] Um we'll go through some assumptions um
[12:37] some rate current rates and forecasted
[12:40] rates and then look at financial results
[12:42] and recommendations based on those rate
[12:45] increases.
[12:47] Um I'm going to focus on just a few
[12:49] pages within this document. Um but after
[12:52] tonight's meeting, you will get this
[12:54] document to review and we can take any
[12:57] additional questions that the council
[12:59] may have. Um, but wanted to walk through
[13:01] this report with you before you get it
[13:03] and um, see all of the data that's
[13:06] there.
[13:12] Um, so currently um, we analyze the
[13:16] water accounts and the sewer accounts
[13:17] with the city. So there's about 403
[13:21] water accounts and about 406 sewer
[13:24] accounts within the city. Um the average
[13:28] bill for
[13:30] just water for a residential property is
[13:33] um about $2569
[13:36] and commercial is about $595
[13:41] and then on the sewer side residential
[13:43] is um $64.79
[13:47] and commercial is $60.37.
[13:50] So this is using some average data that
[13:53] we um reviewed over the last three
[13:56] years.
[14:00] Um looking at rates here, this is maybe
[14:06] a little bit small on the screen. Um
[14:12] try to zoom in a little bit here.
[14:15] Um,
[14:17] looking at water, you've got separate
[14:19] rates for residential and commercial. In
[14:23] 2026,
[14:25] the base fee for residential and the
[14:27] base fee for commercial are different.
[14:30] Residential is $11.85
[14:33] and commercial is $10.30.
[14:37] We're recommending right sizing those
[14:39] and making them the same amount, but
[14:42] doing a one-time increase of 15 to $15
[14:47] for that base fee. That base fee helps
[14:50] to cover just normal operations within
[14:53] um that water fund. Um so, you know,
[14:58] increasing that and making them the same
[15:00] since residential and commercial are all
[15:04] connected to the same system.
[15:06] um just we feel that that is better to
[15:11] have them the same there.
[15:14] And then you get into the consumption or
[15:16] usage fees.
[15:19] Um there is a tiered structure for
[15:21] residential and commercial and they are
[15:24] different. So residential tiers are um 1
[15:28] gallon to 10,000 gallons, 10,0001 to
[15:31] 25,000 gallons and then over 25,000
[15:34] gallons.
[15:36] Commercials um tiers start at 1 gallon
[15:40] to 80,000 gall and then 80,0001 to
[15:44] 120,000 and then over 120,000.
[15:49] um
[15:51] we feel that that's
[15:53] consistent and fair based on water usage
[15:56] within
[15:58] those different um property types within
[16:01] the city. Um but the rates are also
[16:04] different for those different tiers. So
[16:07] residential um in 2026
[16:12] is build $6.14
[16:15] per 1,000 gallons or 6614
[16:21] per gallon um and increased based on the
[16:24] tiers. Commercial starts at um $468
[16:30] per 1,000 gallons.
[16:33] Um, and we're leaving that structure the
[16:36] same. Um, however, I think the council
[16:39] should consider um,
[16:43] adjusting those tiers for commercial in
[16:46] the future. Um, I know you've got a few
[16:48] properties that use more water than some
[16:53] others. Um, so just something to think
[16:55] about in the future.
[16:58] But with that, we're recommending then a
[17:00] 5% increase year-over-year for um the
[17:05] water rates and a standard 5% across um
[17:09] both residential and commercial going
[17:12] forward.
[17:14] Looking at the sewer fund, um the sewer
[17:17] fund also has a base fee um as well as
[17:21] tiered consumption or usage fees. We are
[17:25] not recommending a change to that
[17:27] structure.
[17:28] Um but we are recommending a 4% increase
[17:31] year-over-year in those rates.
[17:43] Um we include some graph information
[17:46] here. Um this page looks at the
[17:50] water fund specifically and looking at
[17:52] projected rates.
[17:54] um
[17:56] rate. So those rate increases factored
[17:58] into revenues and expenses within the
[18:01] fund. So uh the water fund has debt
[18:05] service expenses which are in this
[18:07] orange,
[18:09] operating expenses in the gray. We're
[18:12] not projecting any capital outlay
[18:14] expenses within the water fund over the
[18:17] next five years.
[18:19] Um and then this green line is cash
[18:21] receipts. So
[18:24] um [clears throat] in our projections
[18:26] we're projecting that total expenses so
[18:29] those debt service and operating
[18:31] expenses
[18:32] are very close in line with those cash
[18:36] receipts year-over-year.
[18:41] And then we look at the uh projected
[18:44] cash balances
[18:46] compared to target cash balances.
[18:50] Um, we target cash balances at 100% of
[18:54] debt service payments plus 100% of
[18:58] future capital payments or capital
[19:01] » [clears throat]
[19:01] » Um, needs in the next year and then 50%
[19:05] of operating expenses.
[19:08] So, what this shows is that um this
[19:11] yellow or orange line is your target
[19:14] cash balance, which is
[19:17] um around that 80 or 90,000
[19:20] um each year. And after the one-time
[19:24] transfer um of the $150,000
[19:28] that was approved,
[19:30] um cash will stay above that target
[19:33] reserve year-over-year.
[19:36] And that will just ensure that there's
[19:37] cash available for um any unexpected
[19:43] capital needs um you know a water mane
[19:45] break um or other items that may come
[19:49] up.
[19:53] We look at that same information here
[19:55] for the sewer fund. Um the sewer fund
[19:59] has historically had more cash available
[20:03] than the water fund.
[20:06] Um, so again, we're looking at debt
[20:08] service. In the orange, operating
[20:11] expenses in gray.
[20:14] We're not showing any projected capital
[20:16] outlay in the next 5 years within this
[20:19] fund. And then cash receipts. So here,
[20:21] cash receipts are slightly over um the
[20:24] debt service and operating expenses.
[20:30] Again, our orange bar here is that
[20:32] target cash reserves. and we um
[20:35] calculate that tax
[20:37] cash reserve at the same uh rates that
[20:40] we do for the water fund.
[20:44] Um so we have sufficient cash reserves
[20:47] here within the sewer fund.
[20:58] The last few pages of this report um
[21:01] show you u the cash flow analysis for
[21:05] the water fund.
[21:07] Um so starting out with those operating
[21:09] activities. This is um payments coming
[21:13] in from customers as well as payments
[21:15] going out to your vendors.
[21:18] Um, here we are showing that one-time
[21:21] transfer in from the sewer fund as well
[21:24] as the regular transfers in from the
[21:27] sewer fund year-over-year for debt.
[21:33] And then our debt service payments.
[21:37] We did have a capital asset a purchase
[21:40] in 2025 and that was a generator. Um, so
[21:43] any future capital would show up in that
[21:45] area as well.
[21:48] Um so this is more of just the numbers
[21:51] of the graphs that we saw earlier but
[21:53] again showing that we've got excess cash
[21:56] reserves here um as we start planning
[21:58] for future needs of the city and future
[22:02] capital.
[22:06] Um looking at what these rate increases
[22:09] would do for um that average monthly
[22:13] bill for a residential customer. We
[22:16] really focus on residential since that's
[22:18] the majority of the tax base within the
[22:21] city. Um
[22:24] we're seeing monthly dollar increase in
[22:26] just the water portion of their utility
[22:29] bill of being about $3.84
[22:32] for 2027
[22:35] and then um under $2 per month
[22:42] in 2028 and beyond. with that 5%
[22:47] increase year-over-year.
[22:57] Um, looking at that same information
[22:59] here for the sewer fund.
[23:03] There we go. Um, again, payments coming
[23:07] in from customers, payments to suppliers
[23:11] and vendors.
[23:12] um those transfers then out of the sewer
[23:16] fund into the water fund.
[23:18] Um and debt, principal, and interest
[23:22] payments here.
[23:24] Again, we see then the cash reserves
[23:27] growing year-over-year to ensure that
[23:29] we've got cash available for any needs
[23:33] um within the sewer fund.
[23:36] And with a 4% increase in the utility
[23:39] rates, um we're anticipating um about
[23:43] $259
[23:46] up to about $3.3
[23:48] year over year for um the next 5 years
[23:52] with that 4% rate increase.
[24:00] Uh we also completed a comparison to
[24:03] some surrounding cities. Uh looking at
[24:08] water, um
[24:11] this bottom bar is the current rate
[24:15] structure and this top is the proposed
[24:18] rate structure. So you can see you're
[24:21] very much in the middle of um
[24:25] your neighboring communities with the
[24:28] monthly billing for water.
[24:32] And same for sewer. Um you're kind of
[24:36] right in that average
[24:40] um monthly billing for sewer compared to
[24:43] your neighboring cities.
[24:47] And with that, I'll take any questions
[24:49] on the utility rate study
[24:53] » To get the items change from residential
[24:55] to commercial so that it's all equal and
[24:58] uniform between business and home use,
[25:01] right? So that's just a resolution, I
[25:02] assume. Correct.
[25:05] » Um that would be something that when you
[25:07] approve your utility rates later in the
[25:11] year, um that change could be made at
[25:13] that point.
[25:14] » Excellent.
[25:18] It's nice to see we're average when it
[25:20] comes to the water rates and sewer rates
[25:21] because I know that's been a concern
[25:23] brought forth. So,
[25:26] um, when it came to the
[25:30] water rates, you mentioned that the
[25:33] billing structures were a little bit
[25:35] different from residential to
[25:36] commercial. You mentioned trying to
[25:41] make them more similar or something. You
[25:44] mentioned changing them in the future.
[25:46] » Yes.
[25:46] » How would you change them in the future?
[25:51] » Um changing the tiers for commercial.
[25:57] Um
[25:58] as the rate structure stands at this
[26:00] point um
[26:03] the
[26:06] the amount of gallons per tier for
[26:08] commercial are promoting con water
[26:11] conservation.
[26:13] Um so
[26:16] you know we see a lot of irrigation
[26:18] within um commercial and industrial you
[26:22] know there's large generally larger
[26:24] properties and have more green space. So
[26:25] there's often a lot of watering that
[26:27] happens. So um
[26:32] you know that that outside use water is
[26:34] being charged at actually a lower rate
[26:37] than residential.
[26:40] Um,
[26:43] so that's where I would I would change
[26:46] um likely just
[26:48] changing the tier structure to be more
[26:51] similar to residential
[26:54] » Makes billing easier. And if I remember
[26:57] right, Julie, I kind of looked at that.
[26:58] That's that's pretty uncommon is to have
[27:00] two different structured
[27:03] rates like that. It's it's not something
[27:05] that's common in Minnesota at all.
[27:07] » Right. So, not sure where that came
[27:09] from, but it's not a significant
[27:10] difference, but it would streamline our
[27:12] billing, [clears throat]
[27:15] » Big time,
[27:18] » Right?
[27:20] » So, we got our utility rates coming up.
[27:23] I think that's in a few months, but any
[27:27] other questions for Julie?
[27:30] » Not at this time.
[27:31] » I think we're all set. We'll wait for
[27:33] that copy and we'll be golden.
[27:35] » Great. I'll run through the long-term
[27:37] financial plan here as well. Um, I'll
[27:41] focus more on the tax levy um supported
[27:46] funds in this, but this document will
[27:50] also cover those water and sewer funds.
[27:53] Um, so similar to the utility rate
[27:57] study, we've made some assumptions
[28:00] um in our calculations here. Um, we're
[28:02] anticipating normal operating expenses
[28:05] increasing 3%.
[28:07] Um, governmental operating revenues
[28:10] increasing 2%.
[28:13] Um, we talked about those water and
[28:15] sewer rates.
[28:17] Um, we are not anticip or not factoring
[28:21] in any growth in these assumptions. So,
[28:24] we're assuming, you know, the number of
[28:26] households that you have, the tax base
[28:28] that you have within the city is staying
[28:29] the same. Um we know that there are some
[28:32] housing developments happening and new
[28:35] homes being built within the city. So um
[28:38] that will impact or will change some of
[28:41] these assumptions but um for
[28:45] ease of
[28:48] uh projections [clears throat]
[28:49] we have eliminated that information
[28:51] here.
[28:57] Um, [clears throat] looking at cash
[28:59] balances,
[29:00] um, we use kind of that stoplight
[29:03] approach when we look at cash balances.
[29:06] Um, cash balances throughout all of the
[29:09] funds within the city are sitting really
[29:12] well over the next five five years. Um,
[29:17] no concerns that we see there.
[29:28] Um, looking at
[29:32] the tax levy, we don't anticipate
[29:34] needing any significant changes in um,
[29:38] the tax levy structure that the city
[29:40] currently has and is operating under.
[29:44] Um, we would factor in um, about a 4%
[29:49] increase to the general fund levy
[29:51] year-over-year.
[29:53] And um I believe we've got a 4% in here
[29:57] for the capital project fund as well. So
[30:00] for 2027 um that capital project levy is
[30:03] at 144,000. So we'll um factor in a
[30:07] small increase to that year-over-year to
[30:10] continue saving for capital um including
[30:14] any of those fire fund capital items.
[30:21] We also look at any debt and any
[30:24] projected debt that the city may have.
[30:27] Um, currently we're not projecting any
[30:29] new debt coming in. Um, the two bonds
[30:32] that the city is currently holding are
[30:35] the RS fiber tax abatement bonds. Um,
[30:38] those bonds mature in 2037
[30:42] and then we have the water and sewer
[30:44] revenue bonds and those mature in 2041.
[30:49] So, um,
[30:52] we still have bond payments going out
[30:53] quite a ways and have factored those
[30:55] into this as well.
[31:01] » Thank you very much.
[31:04] Does that cover it, Julie?
[31:06] » Yep.
[31:07] » We're golden. All right.
[31:09] » Thank you so much. We appreciate it.
[31:12] And then moving on here, Brian, I don't
[31:16] know what you want to do, but today's a
[31:17] special day. It's Amy's birthday and I
[31:19] assumed her being here on her birthday,
[31:21] she might want to sneak out. You Golden.
[31:23] » That's fine to me.
[31:24] » All right, we'll uh we'll move Brian to
[31:27] the end. We'll have a school update.
[31:31] » You're up.
[31:32] » I will share a little bit of information
[31:33] from behind the scenes. City clerk Diane
[31:36] and I have been emailing. We did reach
[31:38] out to attorney Ken Jansen. Uh the chair
[31:42] from the school needs to sign the lease
[31:44] termination agreement yet. So everybody
[31:46] knows um she would like to go through
[31:49] the school's attorney.
[31:50] » Yep.
[31:50] » Which makes total sense to me. She
[31:52] doesn't want to sign it without working
[31:54] with the attorney. So we did reach out
[31:56] to attorney Jansen. Attorney Jansen let
[31:58] Diane and I know that the bank's
[32:01] attorney would be working with the
[32:04] school to sign that lease agreement.
[32:08] So that is all we know.
[32:10] It's sitting there. Diane and I did not
[32:12] feel it was our
[32:14] We're not the attorney, so it was not
[32:16] our part to
[32:18] » No. And I I had a call from the chair at
[32:20] the school, too, and it's just not in
[32:21] our purview to try to convince him to
[32:22] sign it. Let the let the legal speak
[32:24] happen. I guess that's the best way to
[32:27] take it.
[32:30] » So, that is all I have in the school.
[32:32] I'm still waiting to get those documents
[32:34] signed.
[32:36] » Yeah. Yeah. And I in the lease
[32:39] agreement, I think it does indicate that
[32:40] it would it would lapse and I think it's
[32:42] more of a formality, I would assume, but
[32:45] it's Yeah. I don't know if the attorney
[32:46] is going to be willing to move that
[32:49] along. I suppose K will know more as we
[32:51] progress, but
[32:54] perfect. Hey, we have an update on the
[32:56] school. That's a good school update.
[32:59] » Nothing on EDA. We are meeting next
[33:01] Monday because it was Labor Day
[33:03] yesterday. Next Monday, 700 p.m. for
[33:06] that one.
[33:08] » Perfect.
[33:09] » Planning and zoning. We went through the
[33:12] Minnesota code, Minnesota basic code.
[33:19] Is there anything? Uh, we kind of got
[33:21] stuck on our public institutional
[33:23] district and some of the language on
[33:26] there. We got pretty stuck. So, that's
[33:28] where we ended our planning and zoning
[33:30] meeting and we will pick that back up at
[33:33] the October meeting.
[33:35] » Did either of you have anything we
[33:37] wanted to add on that?
[33:41] » Okay.
[33:43] Um,
[33:44] tree committee.
[33:47] Tree committee
[33:50] » Also discussed the basic code.
[33:51] » Also discussed the basic code. The big
[33:53] thing planting those [clears throat]
[33:56] trees, either the Brandon Cedar or the
[33:59] Emerald Arbor Videy. Um, the committee
[34:03] would like to ask for $1,500.
[34:06] » Yes. To
[34:09] buy trees and we were going to see about
[34:14] what it would cost to have them planted
[34:17] by not volunteers. Mhm.
[34:20] » Um if the cost is reasonable, then
[34:24] possibly have been planted
[34:26] professionally. If it would be
[34:28] unreasonable, then we'd be seeking out
[34:30] volunteers again.
[34:31] » And that was only if we had it planted
[34:33] this fall.
[34:34] » Yes. Because um our um mowers, our lawn
[34:40] grounds people have time to do it this
[34:43] fall.
[34:44] » Okay. So, we're not sure how much it
[34:47] would cost if we could get someone to
[34:48] plant those for us. They're looking at
[34:50] about 20 20 plants. I believe
[34:53] » We did have one quote. They were $50
[34:56] each for five gallon
[34:59] five gallon buckets, four to six foot
[35:01] tall arbores.
[35:04] » And they grow very fast. So, if they're
[35:06] already that tall,
[35:08] [clears throat]
[35:09] » I know we had part of the tree city. We
[35:11] do have to reserve some budget for the
[35:13] trees. So that wouldn't
[35:14] » Yep.
[35:14] » Be a bad idea to your mark for that for
[35:17] this year. 2026 is what you're using it
[35:19] for, I assume.
[35:20] » Yes.
[35:22] » Yes. If we plant it this year, it would
[35:23] go towards this year's The application
[35:25] period just opened. I got the email.
[35:27] » Yeah.
[35:30] So, we need to submit that again.
[35:32] » Okay. And I think that's reasonable. It
[35:34] would be helpful for the council and
[35:36] city itself to get that looked at. Not
[35:38] necessarily that we're spending. It's
[35:39] just giving me the ability to move
[35:40] forward with it as a committee instead
[35:42] of waiting months.
[35:43] » Right. And I did see it was on the the
[35:46] survey results we just received from the
[35:48] park board, the archery barrier.
[35:50] » Yep. That's been a big one.
[35:52] » So it's Yeah. Multiple it hits multiple
[35:55] target.
[35:58] » I move to approve up to $1,500
[36:01] um for tree planting for the tree
[36:03] committee.
[36:05] » Second.
[36:05] » Motion second. Any further discussion?
[36:08] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[36:10] » I.
[36:11] » Post. Same sign. And that carries.
[36:16] So up next, park board. Are we still on
[36:19] trees?
[36:20] » Actually,
[36:21] » Still trees.
[36:21] » No, not trees, but can I go back to PNC?
[36:25] » Yep.
[36:26] » I did speak or had some communication
[36:29] with um the developers for Lake Estates,
[36:32] and that project is on hold right now. I
[36:36] did send Mayor Sheets some feedback that
[36:39] that uh the group received on the
[36:42] community and why they would not be um
[36:45] investing in our community. And one
[36:46] thing that they noted was 21 houses were
[36:49] sold in the last 24 months. And for us,
[36:53] that's awesome. That is almost a house a
[36:55] month. That that's a lot of growth in
[36:57] our community. But that is a relative
[36:59] number. uh for Chask or Shakipi it was
[37:02] really low for the developers and the
[37:06] realtors that they are working with if
[37:08] they're from the you know the I94 494
[37:11] 694 loop
[37:12] » They're looking at you know that many
[37:14] houses in one month so
[37:16] » Yeah they're doing a comparable with the
[37:18] metro versus rural Minnesota
[37:20] » Gorgeous they're not I mean for almost
[37:23] one house a month I think that is pretty
[37:24] good for a community the size three
[37:26] right now and those houses would sell
[37:28] but they're not
[37:29] » In a heartbeat Yeah, that they're
[37:31] looking to. So that's why that project
[37:33] is on hold for right now. I just wanted
[37:35] to share that with the council
[37:36] » And he remains a taxpayer until then. So
[37:39] » Correct.
[37:40] » Yeah,
[37:41] » They can hold it and see what he wants
[37:42] to do with it. But I think we as a city
[37:44] have done plenty and and Amy has worked
[37:46] endlessly to try to make something
[37:47] happen there. So whatever metrics
[37:50] they're looking at, I I would stand that
[37:53] they seem a bit flawed for rural
[37:55] Minnesota. So, it's my opinion.
[38:00] [laughter]
[38:02] All right. And then, uh, park board.
[38:06] I don't really have an update on the
[38:08] park board at this moment in time
[38:09] outside of our survey. Um, we're just
[38:11] waiting on preliminary survey results to
[38:13] share with the council. I think you'll
[38:14] be pleasantly surprised with a lot of
[38:16] that. Um, we don't have a summary quite
[38:18] yet. I'm going to ask where we're
[38:20] sitting with that so we can get that to
[38:21] the council. I haven't seen
[38:22] » I think it's in
[38:23] » Is it Do we have it in our packet? Yeah,
[38:25] it was
[38:25] » I may have missed that one. You have
[38:27] that one,
[38:29] » I think.
[38:30] » So, yeah, if the council wants to review
[38:32] that so you have some time, just make
[38:33] sure to look at that the survey summary
[38:35] and what we'll do is we'll be discussing
[38:37] that. We'll discuss that more at our
[38:39] following meeting because I think that's
[38:40] important to take more time to go
[38:42] through.
[38:43] » I'll put it on the agenda.
[38:44] » Yeah, we'll put it on the agenda just a
[38:46] survey review publicly and we'll throw
[38:48] it on the screen for those online
[38:50] watching as well. But that's all I have
[38:52] for that. um Heritage Fest update
[38:56] » Meeting this Thursday at 700 p.m. It's
[38:59] getting faster paced now
[39:01] » And I'll be there at this one
[39:03] » Probably.
[39:05] Um yeah, everybody's just kind of
[39:07] scrambling at the last moment trying to
[39:09] get things in. I think we have a good
[39:10] number of vendors that have come
[39:11] through.
[39:12] » We do
[39:12] » Vendors. I think we're just waiting on
[39:14] um kickball and
[39:18] cornhole tournament members. I think we
[39:20] really got to push that. So, if you know
[39:21] anybody that wants to partake, I think
[39:23] I'm gonna be signing up for cornhole,
[39:26] even though I suck at it. Um,
[39:28] I I have to do my part. So, if anybody
[39:32] has an idea, let's Yeah, please spread
[39:34] the message. We need kickball people. Do
[39:36] we know the How many are on a team
[39:37] usually for that? I'm not certain. I
[39:41] don't know how that works.
[39:42] » I'm not a kickball connoisseur,
[39:45] » But somebody had a good idea to to reach
[39:47] out to like a state kickball association
[39:49] and just let them know. So, I'll be
[39:51] emailing them on that piece to see if
[39:53] they have any feedback or
[39:54] recommendations. Otherwise, I'll
[39:56] probably grab more flyers. I've got
[39:58] Heritage Fest posted all the way up to
[40:00] Anoka, so at every gas station.
[40:04] So, it's there. If anybody goes to the
[40:06] bathroom, you're going to see it. So,
[40:10] but I think you're making good headway.
[40:11] So, 7 p.m. this Thursday, and I'll set
[40:13] up a Zoom link for those that reach out
[40:15] to you on a Zoom. So, we have that ready
[40:16] to go. You
[40:17] » Should. Thank you.
[40:19] » Yeah. It's coming up now very quickly.
[40:22] » It is.
[40:24] We're at comp plan update.
[40:26] » We will be meeting next next Tuesday the
[40:30] 15th.
[40:32] » Perfect.
[40:33] » We'll be going over um we will be
[40:36] talking about the weed ordinance.
[40:38] Correct.
[40:40] We'll review that as well at CPIC.
[40:44] » Excellent.
[40:46] And any questions for Amy so she can
[40:49] enjoy your birthday?
[40:51] » And I just add one thing. It's not
[40:53] necessarily a question, but just kind of
[40:55] something that the council should
[40:56] address, and that's kind of looking back
[40:58] to the school.
[41:00] » I guess we would be kind of looking at
[41:03] the attorney for the bank was looking at
[41:06] if the city would be willing to escrow
[41:09] the amount to reassemble the boiler. and
[41:11] that it's just something that the
[41:13] council should be addressing at this
[41:15] point. I guess I don't really see
[41:18] any necessity for the city to do that,
[41:20] but
[41:22] should be addressed.
[41:24] » So the Yeah. No, thank you for bringing
[41:26] that up. The the boiler the disassembly
[41:29] of the boiler is an industry practice
[41:31] for the summer months and non-heating
[41:33] seasons. So that you don't need a
[41:34] licensed boiler technician to be
[41:35] responding out there to do its routine
[41:38] checks uh per state law, I believe. So,
[41:40] I I just I don't see a need for us to
[41:43] pay for that. We've we've been very
[41:45] clear that we're done with this and our
[41:47] offer has been issued at the bank and
[41:49] we've been firm on our offer and I think
[41:51] we've been very courteous. So, I don't
[41:54] see any interest or benefit in us
[41:55] putting that in escro to pay for for the
[41:58] reassembly of a boiler when it's an
[42:00] industry practice. So, if they want to
[42:01] start heating the building, they should
[42:02] look at it and pay for it on their own.
[42:03] That's my opinion.
[42:05] » I would agree.
[42:06] » All right. So I'll make a motion that
[42:07] that we will not be paying for the escro
[42:09] removing that um for the boiler. We'll
[42:11] leave that up to the bank.
[42:13] » Second.
[42:13] » Motion second. Any further discussion?
[42:16] Hearing [clears throat] none. All those
[42:16] in favor say I.
[42:18] » I.
[42:18] » I. Opposed. Same side. And that carries
[42:21] there. We got a response for that. We
[42:24] should be set.
[42:25] » All right. Well, you enjoy your
[42:26] birthday.
[42:27] » Thank you.
[42:28] » Thank you so much.
[42:29] » Thank you.
[42:29] » And then we'll move up to ISG Brian.
[42:32] Thanks. Thank you, good sir. No problem.
[42:33] Hate it.
[42:34] » Um good evening everybody. Um there's a
[42:36] couple things I guess in the agenda for
[42:38] for us to discuss. The first I think
[42:40] maybe I'll it might be later in your
[42:41] packet but maybe we should just take
[42:43] care of it first. Um the geotechnical
[42:45] evaluation um for the 2026 street
[42:49] project the the storm sewer and street
[42:52] project on Church Street in Gloria. Um
[42:55] so I mentioned previously that we had
[42:57] solicited proposals on behalf of the
[42:58] city to do some contracting evaluation
[43:00] work. In this case, we um put an RFP out
[43:03] there for um 16 borings at a depth of 14
[43:06] 1/2 ft. The reason 14 1/2 ft is because
[43:09] after 15 ft that you have to consider
[43:11] them like a a well essentially required
[43:13] to be sealed. So that's why we stop it
[43:15] at 14 and 1/2 ft.
[43:16] » Um because we're not doing anything
[43:18] deeper in this case anyways. Um
[43:23] so we we reach out to American
[43:25] Engineering Testing and Brun Intertech
[43:26] both um well known in this area both
[43:29] very capable of doing the work. Um
[43:31] American Engineering Testing they their
[43:33] proposal was for $18,000
[43:36] estimating about 5 to seven weeks um in
[43:39] total time to do the to do the work. Uh
[43:42] Brown Intertech came in with a proposal
[43:44] of 16,466
[43:47] um with potential reductions if they
[43:49] feel they don't need to do um flagging
[43:51] for their traffic control. Um but they
[43:54] do estimate a little bit longer time of
[43:55] 8 to 11 weeks. Um I guess in my opinion
[43:58] with where we're at in design and where
[44:00] we're at, you know, bidding probably
[44:02] very early next year that I'm not super
[44:04] concerned with that that difference in
[44:06] um
[44:07] » In lead time, I guess, personally. So I
[44:09] guess our recommendation would be to um
[44:11] to be approved the the bronze proposal
[44:15] » Broad intertech and I'm sure you guys
[44:16] have worked with them plenty in the
[44:17] past.
[44:18] » Correct. We work with both of these.
[44:26] » I think that that's part of that study.
[44:28] We need to get something rolling there
[44:29] to address this issue and have a good
[44:32] plan in the future. So I would move that
[44:34] we move forward with Bron Intertech.
[44:37] We've already done the RFPs and
[44:38] everything. So,
[44:40] » I'll second.
[44:41] » Motion second. Any further discussion?
[44:43] Hearing? None. All those in favor say I.
[44:46] » Oppose. Same sign. And that carries.
[44:48] » So then D, if you can send me a sign
[44:51] proposal.
[44:54] [clears throat]
[44:55] » Um so then moving on, we're here also
[44:56] tonight to present the I guess a draft a
[45:00] draft of the payment manager report. Um,
[45:02] and I have with me online, um, I believe
[45:05] he's still on line is Michael Redenbau,
[45:07] who, um, has a much longer resume than I
[45:10] do, payment management reports. So,
[45:12] that's why we've kind of tagged him in
[45:14] to help with this one. So, he did a good
[45:16] chunk of the lifting on on preparation
[45:18] of the draft proposal. And he's also
[45:19] worked with um, this subcontracting firm
[45:22] that we used to prepare the data and do
[45:24] the the data collection. So, um, so
[45:27] yeah, with that, um, I'll maybe hand it
[45:29] off to, um, Michael. I believe he's got
[45:31] some form of presentation prepared. Uh
[45:33] you might have to give him permission to
[45:36] share his screen.
[45:40] » There you go. We see you.
[45:42] » Perfect. Perfect. Everyone hear me? All
[45:44] right.
[45:44] » Yep.
[45:47] » Awesome. Yeah. So, Brian noted been
[45:48] working on this pavement management plan
[45:50] uh for a little while now. A little bit
[45:52] about me. This is um I've done quite a
[45:54] few pavement management plans before
[45:56] this uh across the upper Midwest, South
[45:58] Dakota, Iowa, and then now uh into
[46:01] Minnesota. Um so got a got a quite a
[46:04] repertoire of those under me uh in in a
[46:07] short amount of time. So uh they're kind
[46:09] of interesting to me. A lot more science
[46:11] into them. So uh I'll try to keep it
[46:12] short and sweet for you and and um
[46:15] convey the information. So getting into
[46:18] it. Um
[46:21] getting into it. There we go. Um, so you
[46:24] may have seen this van uh back in June.
[46:26] Uh, this is what actually was collecting
[46:28] the raw data throughout town. Uh, on
[46:31] that van you can see various sensors.
[46:33] Uh, and what those are taking are uh
[46:36] various readings of the pavement
[46:38] surface, you know, crack length, crack
[46:40] width, crack depth. Also looking at the
[46:42] type of cracking, any sort of
[46:45] deflections or ruting or whatnot. Um and
[46:48] really just just collecting as much
[46:49] information on that pavement surface uh
[46:52] as it can. Uh one thing to note is is
[46:55] since it is just from a van driving over
[46:57] the road uh it is from the surface and
[46:59] we're not actually evaluating any of the
[47:02] um the soil or aggregate base under the
[47:05] road. So all of our uh conclusions uh
[47:08] and recommendations are based on what we
[47:10] can see from the surface. Uh then we
[47:12] take that data and
[47:14] um run through standard procedure uh
[47:17] developed by the army corps to calculate
[47:18] the pavement condition index or PCI.
[47:23] Uh green has a lot of uh asphalt
[47:25] streets. I believe they're all asphalt.
[47:27] Um and asphalt uh deterioration is
[47:30] typically broken into two categories.
[47:32] One uh is based on load and the other is
[47:35] due to uh age. uh with the size and
[47:38] anticipated traffic of of that within
[47:40] Green Isle, I would expect a lot of the
[47:43] um deterioration that you're seeing to
[47:45] be primarily due to the age of the road
[47:46] and less so due to the um any traffic
[47:50] loadings um unless you know had an
[47:52] inadequate section that really just
[47:54] wasn't designed for the load if if a
[47:55] road is busier than than what we
[47:57] thought. So, uh a few examples are shown
[48:00] there. On the left is alig alligator
[48:02] cracking. Uh this is typically caused by
[48:05] load. Um and load deteriorations are
[48:10] typically bottom up meaning they are um
[48:13] primarily caused by deficiencies in the
[48:16] subgrade. Um and what the subgrade is is
[48:18] the compacted soil that the roadway is
[48:20] built on. So as you can imagine um load
[48:24] related failure of a roadway um bottom
[48:26] up is very expensive because you have to
[48:28] remove the pavement surface as well as
[48:29] the aggregate base course that the
[48:31] pavement rests on.
[48:33] Uh the middle there is rudding. Uh
[48:34] you've all seen it, I'm sure, just due
[48:36] to the wheel paths, repetitive loading.
[48:38] Uh similar to alligator cracking, except
[48:40] it's it's more concentrated to that
[48:42] wheel path. Uh I would say a lot of the
[48:44] time, ruting eventually develops into
[48:46] alligator cracking. Um and once again,
[48:49] this is caused by traffic loading. Uh
[48:52] the one on the right is what you
[48:54] probably most commonly see throughout
[48:55] town, uh is the longitudinal cracks. Um
[48:58] what this is typically caused by is the
[49:00] age of the roadway. As that roadway um
[49:03] you know the years go by um seasons
[49:06] change ex uh the pavement expands and
[49:09] contracts um it just loses its ability
[49:12] to do so more um to do so. So instead of
[49:17] expanding contracting with these seasons
[49:20] uh it it simply cracks. Um, so the the
[49:24] nice thing I I guess I'll say about
[49:26] longitudinal cracking is it is uh top
[49:29] down cracks meaning it starts at the
[49:31] pavement surface and then works
[49:32] downwards. So correcting this is is much
[49:35] easier much more cost effective than say
[49:37] fixing an alligator crack. So now we
[49:40] know about pavement distresses and how
[49:42] the data was captured start looking at
[49:44] the pavement condition index. Um as
[49:46] noted uh this is from the calculated
[49:49] from the data um and is a numerical
[49:52] rating system uh to estimate the
[49:55] structural capacity of a road. Uh much
[49:57] like grades in school 100 is is a
[49:59] fantastic perfect road. No issues and
[50:02] zero is failed. It needs to be redone.
[50:04] Uh now um as noted it is non-destructive
[50:08] and based on visible surface
[50:09] characteristics. Um, what that can mean
[50:12] is, uh, in other municipalities I've
[50:15] worked with, um, they had a lot of
[50:16] concrete roads. Well, once the panel
[50:19] started to break, became a little
[50:20] disjointed, they would just overlay them
[50:22] with asphalt. Well, um, looks great for
[50:25] a year or two, but then as uh that
[50:28] asphalt overlay begins to age, you know,
[50:30] the reflective cracks come through and
[50:33] then really back to where you started.
[50:34] Um but what that means in terms of the
[50:38] uh PCI is that if for whatever reason we
[50:41] were to uh capture that data uh the year
[50:46] the same year or the year after that
[50:47] road was overlaid, it would show a very
[50:49] high PCI despite the actual underlying
[50:52] surface uh the original roadway being
[50:54] maybe down at a 25 or lower. Right? So
[50:57] it can uh basically put lipstick on a
[50:59] pig uh and hide some of the issues that
[51:01] are underneath.
[51:03] Um, as previously [clears throat] noted,
[51:05] once again, we're not directly
[51:06] evaluating those subgrade soils, but we
[51:08] are using key indicators uh that we can
[51:11] see at the surface to um to estimate
[51:13] what we're seeing and and determine the
[51:15] causes of those roadway deteriorations.
[51:20] Um typically it's d broken out into a
[51:23] few categories uh which then are used to
[51:25] evaluate and determine which type of
[51:28] maintenance or repair is uh most
[51:31] appropriate and most cost effective for
[51:34] the pavement section.
[51:37] Uh in addition to the PCI uh another
[51:40] thing that was captured in that
[51:43] um by that van is the roughness index.
[51:46] This is more so driving along. This is
[51:48] what you feel in the car, every bump,
[51:49] every crack. Um, you know, I'm sure
[51:51] you've all driven along a uh concrete
[51:53] roadway and you feel every single
[51:55] contraction joint that they saw into the
[51:57] pavement. Um, and then similarly, you
[51:59] know, you hit a pothole, um, a rut,
[52:02] whatever it may be, you're feeling that
[52:03] in the car and that is what this uh,
[52:06] reflects and what this calculates. Uh,
[52:08] it's on the same scale. Uh, 0 to 100.
[52:11] 100 is is roads perfectly smooth and
[52:12] zero is it's uh may as well be a gravel
[52:16] road with a bunch of potholes in it or
[52:17] some washboarding. Um but is less
[52:21] important uh in our opinion in urban
[52:23] sections uh due to the lower travel
[52:25] speed uh you know if this were a DOT
[52:28] application where you're traveling you
[52:29] know 50 60 70 m an hour a small bump can
[52:33] really uh cause a lot more folks to lose
[52:35] control versus at 30 m hour or 20 mph
[52:37] through town. So uh something to note
[52:40] but not uh the primary uh thing we are
[52:42] looking to correct throughout town.
[52:46] Oops. Uh so now we'll base some of the
[52:50] distresses and how the PCI relates uh
[52:53] looking at some of the recommended
[52:55] maintenance generally uh at each PCI
[52:58] range. So, um, before I get into it, I
[53:01] will say water is a huge, uh, driver and
[53:04] probably the main contributor to roadway
[53:06] deterioration. Uh, as water gets in
[53:09] through cracks or unsealed joints or at
[53:12] the back of curb even, um, it gets into
[53:15] that subs soil, you know, with our
[53:17] temperature fluctuations we have over
[53:19] season over the seasons, um, you know,
[53:21] that can freeze and thaw and freeze and
[53:23] thaw, uh, cause some heave in the road.
[53:26] Um, you know, causing it to swell when
[53:27] it comes back. you know, that's placing
[53:29] extra strain on that pavement. So, water
[53:32] is a a a huge contributor to roadway
[53:34] damage. Uh, and so we recommend crack
[53:37] sealing at a a large range of PCIs. Uh,
[53:40] you know, I'd go as far as say anything
[53:41] above 40, you want to crack seal. Um,
[53:44] even above 30. Um, because uh, as we'll
[53:47] discuss later, uh, once it's down below
[53:50] and slated for a reconstruction, our
[53:52] recommendation is is to ride that out.
[53:54] So, um, between 70 and 100, uh, you're
[53:58] looking at your your surface coats. You
[54:00] know, think of a seal coat, a fog seal,
[54:03] a chip seal. Um, anything at the surface
[54:05] to really maintain, uh, maintain that
[54:08] pavement, help seal it, and prevent
[54:10] cracks from occurring.
[54:13] Uh, once your road is deteriorated a
[54:15] little bit further, uh, between 50 to
[54:17] 70, uh, you're typically looking at a
[54:19] millin overlay. Uh and that is is best
[54:22] on the roads that have longitudinal
[54:25] cracks. Uh essentially you mill down
[54:26] that 2 in uh below where that crack has
[54:29] spread to. Uh remove it down there, get
[54:32] the get back to the good lift of asphalt
[54:34] and then reoverlay it. Uh and then you
[54:36] essentially get uh a brand new road uh
[54:38] without having to go through the cost uh
[54:40] and pay for a brand new road. And then
[54:43] typically anything below 50 um is where
[54:46] it starts exhibiting some of that uh
[54:48] load related failure or you know failure
[54:50] in the subgrade. Uh and so it does
[54:52] require that more uh involved invasive
[54:55] reconstruction um and repair to get it
[54:58] back to where it needs to be. Uh and as
[55:00] I noted, you know, once it's below 50,
[55:02] once we've identified that um got to
[55:05] work the rework and recompact that
[55:07] subgrade, um typically you don't want to
[55:10] replace your eye when it gets to 50. um
[55:12] being money conscious, you want to
[55:14] stretch the life of that roadway out as
[55:16] long as possible. Uh so that essentially
[55:18] your cost per year of that road is as
[55:21] low as possible.
[55:26] Uh just showing some examples here of
[55:28] some of the pre preventative
[55:29] maintenance. Uh again, this is for your
[55:31] higher PCI roads just to keep them at a
[55:33] high PCI. So typically 70 to 100. Uh so
[55:36] crack and joint sealing in that upper
[55:38] left. Uh sure you're familiar with it
[55:40] there. Uh chip sealing is one that uh I
[55:43] justly haven't dealt with much, but I
[55:45] know it was very common uh a couple
[55:47] decades ago. Uh I'm more familiar with
[55:49] slurry sealing. Uh in the southeast
[55:52] South Dakota region, um there's a a very
[55:55] large annual slurry seal contract that I
[55:57] think 30 communities are a part of. Uh
[56:00] and they really like that because um
[56:03] don't have chips flying up catching on
[56:05] tires and breaking windshields and you
[56:07] can drive on it that same day and and
[56:08] provides the same if not uh a higher
[56:10] level of benefit. Uh and then that lower
[56:13] right corner um not something that's
[56:15] done too often in residential areas in
[56:19] my experience uh is seal coating. Uh
[56:21] where you'll typically see this is um
[56:24] along the interstate shoulders. Um, it's
[56:27] one of the things I know DOTs like to do
[56:29] because, you know, the the shoulder
[56:30] isn't driven on much, but they want that
[56:31] pavement to remain nice enough if
[56:33] someone needs to pull off temporarily.
[56:35] So, uh, it's more common on driveways.
[56:39] Uh, moving on to pavement repairs. As
[56:42] noted, that millin overlay, um, you can
[56:44] see that existing pavement that, uh,
[56:46] down below, uh, basically that top layer
[56:48] was removed and we're just replacing
[56:50] that, um, driving surface. Uh, lower
[56:53] left is a full depth repairer. Uh this
[56:55] could be used in scenarios where the
[56:57] curbon gutter is in really good
[56:58] condition. Uh but it's really just that
[57:00] that asphalt pavement between them that
[57:02] has just started to really degrade. Um
[57:05] this is um this is a good way to be
[57:08] really really stretch your dollars. Um
[57:10] typically carbon gutter will add about
[57:12] $80 to $100 per foot uh to roadway
[57:15] reconstruction projects. Uh and then as
[57:17] noted uh in the lower right is just
[57:18] looking at a complete roadway
[57:20] reconstruction. um really really
[57:22] removing the whole thing and and
[57:24] replacing it starting from scratch. So
[57:26] the one benefit of a full depth repair
[57:29] and a complete roadway reconstruction um
[57:31] typically you want to pair these with a
[57:33] utility project um and and kind of
[57:35] double dip there. Don't want to uh pay
[57:38] one year to replace those utilities,
[57:40] then replace the pavement so you can
[57:41] have that driving surface over winter
[57:43] and then come back in the spring and
[57:44] say, "Wow, the you know the road's not
[57:46] in great condition. Let's replace the
[57:47] road." Right? um from a funding
[57:49] perspective as well as a a scale of
[57:51] cost, it's it's more effective to uh
[57:53] plan and combine those projects if
[57:55] possible.
[57:58] So, why do we manage pavements? I've
[58:00] talked a lot about different repair
[58:02] types and PCIs. Um well, uh at the
[58:07] looking at the graph on the right, the
[58:10] yellow line is essentially the PCI of a
[58:13] road if the city were to do nothing to
[58:16] it. It starts off really good. It holds
[58:18] its um it holds its PCIs in good
[58:21] condition for the first, you know, 10
[58:23] 15ish years and then once it starts to
[58:25] degrade, it it really falls off. Um
[58:28] right um think of think [snorts] of it
[58:30] as as a car, you know, you don't you
[58:34] don't drive the engine until it until it
[58:36] dies and replace it, right? you're
[58:37] replacing, you're doing an oil change,
[58:39] you're doing tire changes, you're
[58:40] replacing the brake pads, you're
[58:42] repairing the pieces, um, instead of
[58:44] just completely replacing the car,
[58:46] right? It makes it last longer, it
[58:47] stretches your dollars further. It's
[58:48] it's a better investment. Um, and same
[58:51] thing can be said for roads. So, um,
[58:54] researchers have found that it is less
[58:56] expensive to keep roads in good
[58:57] condition than it is to completely
[58:59] repair damaged roads. So, if you start
[59:02] at the top of that yellow line and kind
[59:04] of move to the right, you know, it
[59:05] starts to degrade a little bit getting
[59:07] down to call it a PCI of 80 or so, maybe
[59:11] it has a crack or two. At that point,
[59:13] you know, you'd look to crack seal,
[59:14] maybe chip seal or slurry seal, right?
[59:17] And then you can see then you'd follow
[59:18] that red line where it it bumps that PCI
[59:20] back up and keeps it high uh for, you
[59:23] know, for a much lower cost, right?
[59:25] that's repeatable uh several times. Um
[59:30] uh until a point where, you know, some
[59:31] of that load over, you know, over the
[59:33] years gets to it and you need to do a
[59:35] little something a little bit more
[59:36] involved or the cracking has just gotten
[59:38] so deep that um you know, the crack
[59:40] sealing or or the seals are not are not
[59:44] as effective. Right? At that point, you
[59:46] know, you maybe do something a little
[59:47] more costly like a mill overlay, right?
[59:50] still not a full reconstruction but
[59:52] something a little more intensive to
[59:54] bump that PCI back up. Um
[59:58] so uh additionally researchers have
[1:00:00] found that you know spending that call
[1:00:02] it that dollar on those preventative
[1:00:03] maintenance items saves $6 to $10 on
[1:00:07] rehab um over the course of the uh over
[1:00:10] the course of the roadway. So uh most um
[1:00:15] geotechnical uh companies are and and uh
[1:00:20] in consultants uh when providing a
[1:00:22] pavement section for development or any
[1:00:24] roadway typically looking about that
[1:00:26] 20-year life um assuming really you know
[1:00:29] minimal maintenance um looking at the
[1:00:31] traffic loads uh and projected uh
[1:00:33] traffic volumes whereas if you maintain
[1:00:36] it you know roads can certainly last uh
[1:00:38] more than 60 years won't be perfect by
[1:00:40] any means I won't I won't try to say a
[1:00:42] road a 60-year-old won't be without
[1:00:44] flaws, but um significant cost savings
[1:00:48] over those 60 years compared to, you
[1:00:50] know, replacing the road every 20 years.
[1:00:54] Um I will pause there uh answer any
[1:00:58] questions that the council has. That was
[1:00:59] a quite a bit of information. Happy to
[1:01:02] um make sure I'm um not not leaving you
[1:01:06] behind.
[1:01:09] » I think we're good.
[1:01:11] Okay, perfect. We'll keep moving.
[1:01:14] So, moving on to uh the city of Green
[1:01:16] Isle specifically, this is this is the
[1:01:18] city's pavement uh network. Uh based on
[1:01:22] the data was collected in June. Um
[1:01:24] compared to compared to other cities
[1:01:26] I've worked with, the the city's in in
[1:01:28] pretty good shape. Um typically, um uh
[1:01:31] it's calculated as a backlog. You want
[1:01:33] to typically stay above uh stay below
[1:01:35] 15% of the roads backlog. And I want to
[1:01:38] say the city was sitting around 10 or
[1:01:40] 12%. Um which means uh essentially means
[1:01:44] that the city can typically stay on top
[1:01:47] of it then without major changes to
[1:01:49] funding or um you know a sweeping plan
[1:01:53] or bonds. Um so uh it's in good shape.
[1:01:57] Uh this is one where I, you know,
[1:02:00] following the meeting, uh, you know, ask
[1:02:02] the council to to review the the full
[1:02:04] pavement management plan draft and just
[1:02:06] kind of make sure like the PCI that
[1:02:08] you're seeing on the map aligns with
[1:02:10] what you're you're feeling in town,
[1:02:12] right? Um there may be some discrepancy.
[1:02:14] Um certainly, but I would hate for there
[1:02:16] to be, you know, road that shows as
[1:02:18] excellent on here, but really is is
[1:02:20] rough because that's something we'd want
[1:02:21] to correct and look at a little more
[1:02:23] in-depth uh just to ensure that the plan
[1:02:25] really is is suiting the needs of the
[1:02:27] city.
[1:02:30] Um with
[1:02:34] uh and following the PCI information, we
[1:02:36] typically will look at, you know,
[1:02:37] reconstructions because they are the
[1:02:39] most costly um
[1:02:42] most costly item for the city. following
[1:02:44] these plans uh because uh city the size
[1:02:48] of Green is is not not frequently doing
[1:02:51] uh a reconstruction. So we want to make
[1:02:54] sure we are uh picking correct picking
[1:02:57] the correct streets uh placing them on
[1:02:59] the plan and and you know coming to an
[1:03:01] agreement there. So that's one thing I I
[1:03:03] would ask other council is is review
[1:03:04] this list uh make sure it it aligns and
[1:03:08] hopefully the rating on the next sheet
[1:03:10] provides some justification to this
[1:03:12] list. Um
[1:03:14] so with that um typically
[1:03:17] [clears throat] how we how we determine
[1:03:18] the list for those reconstructions uh
[1:03:21] we've developed this over the past plans
[1:03:24] and found that
[1:03:27] um in cities without
[1:03:29] traffic data for every street. uh can
[1:03:31] typically, you know, kind of review that
[1:03:33] roadway network, identify where, you
[1:03:35] know, maybe the M through streets are or
[1:03:37] or the the more main streets. Uh and
[1:03:40] then combine that with a a couple other
[1:03:42] pieces of information such as the number
[1:03:44] of accesses. Uh reason being is if it's
[1:03:46] a commercial user or has quite a few
[1:03:49] homes on it, you know, there's going to
[1:03:50] be more traffic on that road. Why?
[1:03:51] That's uh that's an identifier for us
[1:03:53] that hey, this road gets more traffic
[1:03:55] and it has a higher justification to be
[1:03:58] redone. Uh on top of that we do have the
[1:04:00] PCI uh that is a a big driver for uh
[1:04:04] reconstructions uh roughness index to a
[1:04:07] lesser degree uh and then uh have a
[1:04:10] composite ranking there. So based on our
[1:04:13] inputs, you know, looking at that third
[1:04:15] street section uh from State Highway 5
[1:04:17] to Western Avenue uh as the number one
[1:04:20] priority. However, you know, there's
[1:04:24] um there certainly is a little bit of
[1:04:25] play that that could be had. I'd say
[1:04:27] between the first three or four on this
[1:04:29] list um based on based on the council's
[1:04:31] input. So this is what we've come up
[1:04:33] with based on how we've set up the
[1:04:35] criteria scoring. Um if there's you know
[1:04:37] if there's a street that is is more um
[1:04:40] important higher priority you certainly
[1:04:41] we will um we can put that one first on
[1:04:45] the on the list if you'd like. So
[1:04:49] and other uh followup is uh reason this
[1:04:53] this rating came to be is is we had
[1:04:55] another town uh another community that
[1:04:57] we were working with where um you know
[1:04:59] they they were very fortunate they were
[1:05:01] able to do you know six blocks of
[1:05:04] reconstruction a year uh for a town of I
[1:05:07] think 2500 right that's that's a
[1:05:10] significant investment that that that
[1:05:12] they were able to to do um there were
[1:05:15] concerns from citizens
[1:05:17] um on the streets being chosen. You
[1:05:18] know, it was a street here, a street
[1:05:19] there. Um nothing really uh without
[1:05:22] rhyme or reason. Well, come to find out,
[1:05:24] you know, it was the streets that, you
[1:05:26] know, the council members or mayor lived
[1:05:27] on and or family members.
[1:05:31] So, um the new mayor came in, had us do
[1:05:35] this plan, and was like, I want a
[1:05:37] data-driven approach. You know, I I
[1:05:39] don't want there to be any um uh bias in
[1:05:42] selecting the streets. I, you know, I
[1:05:43] want it to come from a ranking with some
[1:05:45] justification to it other than, you
[1:05:47] know, it's the street I live on. I want
[1:05:48] a nice street. So, that's where this
[1:05:50] comes from. But also, you know, our
[1:05:51] criteria scoring. I want to uh I want to
[1:05:53] cater it to some degree to to what the
[1:05:55] needs of the city are. So,
[1:05:58] » Perfect. The mayor doesn't live on any
[1:05:59] of those. So, you're golden.
[1:06:01] » Perfect. Love to hear it.
[1:06:04] » Yeah, because you already made yours
[1:06:05] blue.
[1:06:06] » That's true. Ours is blue, apparently.
[1:06:08] Yeah. I'll take it. Awesome.
[1:06:13] So, uh, as I noted previously, you know,
[1:06:16] as far as, uh, the municipal um,
[1:06:21] what I call it, the rideway, uh, you
[1:06:23] know, municipal items within the
[1:06:24] rideway, you know, the roadway is just
[1:06:25] one piece, right? You have storm sewer,
[1:06:27] you have sanitary sewer, you have, uh,
[1:06:30] the water mane, sidewalk, you know,
[1:06:32] maybe street lights, um, quite a few
[1:06:34] things, but there's the roadway is just
[1:06:36] one piece. So, you know, we'd love to
[1:06:40] just just redo the road, but we want to
[1:06:42] have that economy of scale, right? I I'd
[1:06:44] hate to redo a road uh and just have a
[1:06:47] road project and then come, you know,
[1:06:49] come to find out it's like, oh, there's
[1:06:50] no sidewalk access to there or, you
[1:06:52] know, the water may needs to be
[1:06:53] replaced. There's been leaks, right? So,
[1:06:56] um, prior to to doing a reconstruction,
[1:06:58] I think it's it's worth to do a a review
[1:07:01] of the, uh, adjacent uses and ensure
[1:07:03] that, uh, the scope of the
[1:07:05] reconstruction includes all items that
[1:07:07] need to be replaced, um, just to ensure
[1:07:10] that, um, you know, those dollars are
[1:07:13] stretched even further. um on the
[1:07:16] projects I've worked on in South Dakota,
[1:07:18] um roads, the roads were in poor shape,
[1:07:22] but they were primarily utility driven.
[1:07:25] Um and a lot of municipalities actually
[1:07:27] went out to the state SRF program for
[1:07:28] funding on those projects. Well, since
[1:07:31] the water, sewer, and storm were all um
[1:07:35] covered under the state's SRF fund, um
[1:07:38] and they had to remove the roadway to
[1:07:42] um had to remove the roadway to access
[1:07:44] and replace those utilities. Uh they
[1:07:46] were actually able to put the cost for
[1:07:48] roadway replacement on that loan. So, it
[1:07:51] was all uh it was able to all be loan
[1:07:52] funded instead of the city having to pay
[1:07:54] out of pocket for those roadway items.
[1:07:56] So, um I'd leave that to to Brian uh for
[1:08:00] specifics on the on the Minnesota SRF
[1:08:02] program. Um but that's that that may be
[1:08:04] an option for the city if there is a a
[1:08:06] combination project uh and if funds are
[1:08:09] tight.
[1:08:10] » Yeah, it's similar here in Minnesota
[1:08:11] with the PFA the the excuse me, that's
[1:08:13] what we call clean water botting fund or
[1:08:15] drinking water botting fund. If you're
[1:08:17] funded through those programs, they do
[1:08:19] allow for like a 10-ft strip or or
[1:08:21] depending on the depth of the sanitary
[1:08:22] sew that might be wider um to be
[1:08:25] included in that low interest loan or
[1:08:26] potentially eligible for some incentive
[1:08:28] grants through those those state
[1:08:30] programs.
[1:08:34] » And then the last thing I'll look at as
[1:08:35] as far as other improvements go is is
[1:08:37] roadway design standards. Uh we've had a
[1:08:39] couple communities now that have been
[1:08:41] primarily um developer driven uh where
[1:08:45] the city wasn't putting in any new
[1:08:46] streets. It was all you know private
[1:08:47] development built wanted to build houses
[1:08:49] sell lots uh and as such they were
[1:08:51] putting in the roadways. Well, they had
[1:08:53] struggles for a few years where you know
[1:08:55] developers are are trying to maximize
[1:08:57] their profits and and um I'll say being
[1:09:00] cost-ffective where they can and you
[1:09:02] know the roadway section suffered. Uh
[1:09:04] and as that is something that is
[1:09:05] typically transferred and conveyed uh to
[1:09:08] the city um want to make sure that that
[1:09:10] roadway section lasts and the city gets
[1:09:12] the full life of it. uh would hate for,
[1:09:15] you know, a brand new road to go in
[1:09:17] developer installed and then, you know,
[1:09:19] five years later, oh, it needs major
[1:09:22] maintenance a mill overlay because it
[1:09:24] was 3 in of asphalt or 4 in of asphalt
[1:09:26] on 6 in of of aggregate base, right? We
[1:09:29] want to make sure that um the city
[1:09:34] um has a good road network regardless if
[1:09:36] they built it themselves or if it was
[1:09:38] essentially given it to them from
[1:09:40] developers. So, if that's something the
[1:09:42] city has seen an issue with in the past
[1:09:43] or would like us to include in the
[1:09:45] report certainly certainly can as well.
[1:09:50] Um, some cost-saving ideas. Um, I
[1:09:54] provided the example where roadway costs
[1:09:56] could be provided in the SRF fund. Um
[1:09:59] but when when they're not able to be
[1:10:01] included in those low interest loans, uh
[1:10:03] my experience is that funding for
[1:10:05] roadway either grants or loans is very
[1:10:07] sparse and typically comes directly out
[1:10:10] of either a bond or the city's uh city's
[1:10:13] reserve. So, you know, trying to be
[1:10:15] efficient with our roadway network. Um
[1:10:17] seen seeing opportunities in other
[1:10:19] communities for street closures. Um
[1:10:21] evaluating roadway if uh rightway if
[1:10:24] it's even needed. Uh and then reviewing
[1:10:26] a special street maintenance fee, you
[1:10:27] know, modifying that, implementing that
[1:10:29] or adjusting that is needed to to cover
[1:10:32] uh annual maintenance costs. Uh so as
[1:10:34] far as street closures go, you know, if
[1:10:37] there's say if there's a street in town
[1:10:38] that doesn't uh that connects two
[1:10:41] roadways, but there's no alley access,
[1:10:42] no driveway access, um no nothing under
[1:10:45] it, you know, that may be a contender um
[1:10:48] to to close it down, then it's one less
[1:10:50] block, say, that the city has to
[1:10:51] maintain. Uh it typically is a divisive
[1:10:53] topic I will say. Um but it it is out
[1:10:56] there if if the city is uh really
[1:11:00] needing to cut back costs in the future
[1:11:02] which uh based on the budget and funding
[1:11:04] it didn't seem like uh that was quite
[1:11:06] the case. Uh and then similarly
[1:11:08] literally rightaway ele evaluation uh
[1:11:11] had a had a situation in another
[1:11:13] community where uh industry had bought
[1:11:16] both sides of the rideway and
[1:11:18] essentially uh through you know
[1:11:20] handshake deals or what uh what seu had
[1:11:23] basically developed across the entire
[1:11:25] public rideaway uh put their put their
[1:11:27] lot there and and um really wasn't a
[1:11:31] road there. it was a it was a glorified
[1:11:32] driveway and that was a scenario where
[1:11:34] we recommended that they just you know
[1:11:36] deed that back to that entity. Um the
[1:11:39] city doesn't want to be liable for that
[1:11:41] rightaway. It's essentially you know
[1:11:43] part of their lot wrong right or
[1:11:45] otherwise. Uh and then you know where
[1:11:47] that would adjust uh the intersection
[1:11:50] with that other road that would then
[1:11:52] essentially be their driveway access.
[1:11:53] So, I didn't notice uh any of that in
[1:11:56] Green Isle, but you know, should it come
[1:11:58] up or should should things change,
[1:11:59] certainly uh keep it in mind.
[1:12:03] Um so, funding sources uh as noted, you
[1:12:06] know, those general funds, special
[1:12:07] assessment, the state revolving fund,
[1:12:09] the clean water and drinking water uh
[1:12:11] loans there, uh bonds, and then state
[1:12:13] sales taxes. Um as noted, grants are
[1:12:16] available, although they are typically
[1:12:18] sparse and highly contested. um and
[1:12:22] typically uh are economic development
[1:12:25] centered. So if it's uh it's probably
[1:12:27] not going to get a grant for a
[1:12:29] residential reconstruction.
[1:12:33] So uh in conclusion, uh based on input
[1:12:37] from the council, as as noted
[1:12:39] previously, you know, recommend
[1:12:40] implementation of a of a 5-year capital
[1:12:42] plan, uh whether that is, you know, a
[1:12:44] reconstruction uh in a couple years or
[1:12:46] just yearly maintenance or a little bit
[1:12:48] of both. Um, and then, you know, prior
[1:12:50] really prioritizing that preventative
[1:12:52] maintenance. Uh, the city's got a good
[1:12:54] um a good roadway network on them. And
[1:12:56] I' I'd like to see it stay that way. Um,
[1:13:00] so keep those good good roads good. Uh,
[1:13:02] and then, you know, update this plan.
[1:13:04] Uh, get new data typically every 5
[1:13:07] years. um just so we can stay on top and
[1:13:10] make sure that our our our payment
[1:13:13] maintenance operations um are being as
[1:13:16] as effective as we hope and then ensure
[1:13:18] that um areas aren't degrading faster
[1:13:21] than anticipated where we would need to
[1:13:22] to shift plans or identify a source for
[1:13:25] some of that degradation.
[1:13:27] » So
[1:13:29] with that I'll
[1:13:31] open it up for questions again.
[1:13:33] » Perfect. Any questions so far? Very good
[1:13:36] review. I do appreciate you bringing
[1:13:38] this up. I'm glad we did it.
[1:13:41] Um Ryan, do you have anything you want
[1:13:43] to cover?
[1:13:44] » Maybe just Michael, just [clears throat]
[1:13:45] a clarifying I guess question or
[1:13:47] statement for you. I know we had
[1:13:48] discussed, you know, that the city is
[1:13:49] we're currently working on design for
[1:13:51] Church Street. I didn't see it in your
[1:13:52] list, but it is rated as you know lower
[1:13:54] at least part portion of it lower on the
[1:13:56] scale. Did that factor in your list at
[1:13:58] all? um as you're preparing it
[1:14:02] at least unless I
[1:14:05] maybe I just missed it.
[1:14:07] » Church
[1:14:11] » Church to Gloria on E6
[1:14:15] church to end South Lane Church Street
[1:14:17] to end. No,
[1:14:19] » I think these are Yeah, I don't see
[1:14:20] Church Street specifically on the list.
[1:14:22] So,
[1:14:24] » I know it's something we had talked
[1:14:25] about, Michael. I just wanted to clarify
[1:14:26] if that was part of the
[1:14:29] Yeah, and certainly if that's a if
[1:14:30] that's Yeah, we can we can add that and
[1:14:33] add that to the list. Make sure it
[1:14:34] doesn't get missed. I know you're
[1:14:35] working on it now. Um we can for
[1:14:38] budgetary purposes certainly throw it on
[1:14:40] the 2027
[1:14:42] um just so it's there and so we can
[1:14:44] accurately, you know, budget the
[1:14:46] following years.
[1:14:50] » Yeah, cuz I see 365th up by Shamrock.
[1:14:56] That's a red one. But
[1:14:58] » Oh, so yeah, that
[1:15:00] » That's that's the church because that's
[1:15:01] where it turns into 365th.
[1:15:04] So right where you see South Lane, um
[1:15:07] where it's red there as well, that's
[1:15:09] 365th, but that's technically church. I
[1:15:11] mean, that's that's what the city name
[1:15:13] is till you get up past sixth.
[1:15:18] So that's the only thing that I really
[1:15:21] would recommend, too. Good catch on that
[1:15:23] one.
[1:15:23] » Ask for questions today.
[1:15:25] » Yep. Um, sir, I just want to say I know
[1:15:29] there's a lot of that alligator cracking
[1:15:31] that you had mentioned and some really
[1:15:33] big holes on Fourth Street and I see
[1:15:36] that that one is listed as very good
[1:15:38] compared to like First and Third. So, I
[1:15:40] wanted to make sure that that was
[1:15:42] actually correct in your assessment and
[1:15:46] that alligator cracking is actually not
[1:15:48] as bad as I think it is or if that one
[1:15:51] got mislabeled because I know
[1:15:54] » Mr. Linquist, council member Linquist
[1:15:56] had brought up four street times.
[1:15:59] » Which segment?
[1:16:00] » The segment is the segment from Maine to
[1:16:03] Western. So, I think that one
[1:16:04] » Okay. It's hard to see on here.
[1:16:06] » Oh, yeah. That's kind of
[1:16:07] » It is orange. It's orange. The rest of
[1:16:10] the street is labeled good to
[1:16:13] » Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just see. Yep,
[1:16:16] now I'm seeing what you're talking
[1:16:17] about. Okay, cool. Thank you.
[1:16:19] » You did it, Michael. [clears throat]
[1:16:21] » Um,
[1:16:22] » You got it.
[1:16:22] » One question. Most of the list it looked
[1:16:24] like was the red streets, but kind of
[1:16:27] earlier you'd mentioned
[1:16:29] that once it kind of gets down to like
[1:16:31] that low orange or red, sometimes you
[1:16:34] just kind of switch over to run to fail
[1:16:36] » And correct. So, I guess I was kind of
[1:16:39] wondering like, okay, we got a few
[1:16:40] yellows in here. Would it almost be
[1:16:44] better if we focused on yellow and like
[1:16:48] the marginal, the fair, that 40 to 60
[1:16:51] range, making sure that those don't get
[1:16:53] worse, getting those back up to our good
[1:16:56] to excellent,
[1:16:57] and letting some of those red roads just
[1:17:00] run to fail.
[1:17:03] » Yeah. And that's I mean that is 100%
[1:17:05] keeping the good roads good mindset. Um
[1:17:09] one thing there is you know uh when it's
[1:17:11] it's marginal there could be a mix of
[1:17:13] distresses. You know I I' um
[1:17:18] like I said I'd hate to put lipstick on
[1:17:19] a pig and and do something where I start
[1:17:21] to see some alligator cracking um on
[1:17:23] some of these yellow streets. Um but
[1:17:26] certainly we can evaluate those. Um the
[1:17:28] reconstruction list is not like these
[1:17:30] are the first ones to do by any means.
[1:17:32] you know, we may do uh the reconstruct
[1:17:34] next year and then have four years of
[1:17:36] milling overlays or or slurry seals or
[1:17:38] chip seals, right? So, um those are just
[1:17:41] the first streets we identified for full
[1:17:44] reconstruction as that is typically the
[1:17:45] highest capital cost to the city.
[1:17:48] » Yeah, I think that's the point of
[1:17:49] clarification is that list was
[1:17:50] specifically for what we'd recommend as
[1:17:53] getting to that point where it would
[1:17:54] need a full reclamation.
[1:17:56] » Got it. We're not suggesting that the
[1:17:58] state should suspend any maintenance on
[1:18:00] the better ranking road too.
[1:18:02] » So yeah, like I like your analogy,
[1:18:04] lipstick on a pig. I was going to say
[1:18:05] painting a turd, but uh I think I think
[1:18:08] both work and I I hear what you're
[1:18:10] saying on that. That makes total sense.
[1:18:12] » Yeah. Yeah. So, I think I think kind of
[1:18:14] Michael's the main reason I tonight that
[1:18:16] he outlined kind of those reconstruction
[1:18:18] areas is to get um some consensus or at
[1:18:20] least some some input from from council
[1:18:22] or the city and like which of those do
[1:18:25] you see as the highest need like so for
[1:18:28] example the railroad street from Parnell
[1:18:30] Street to the end like perhaps that's
[1:18:31] not a higher need because it's a deadend
[1:18:33] road that maybe doesn't serve volume of
[1:18:35] traffic right so trying to get an idea
[1:18:38] of maybe where the city stands on that
[1:18:40] list from a full reconstruction
[1:18:41] standpoint But then in the final report,
[1:18:43] we would include also some maintenance
[1:18:45] recommendations. Is that correct,
[1:18:46] Michael?
[1:18:48] » Correct. Yep. So, um, kind of one thing
[1:18:51] I hope to gain from this meeting is is
[1:18:53] how aggressive the the city would like
[1:18:55] to be with reconstructions because, you
[1:18:58] know, if you're going to be more
[1:18:59] aggressive with the higher cost items,
[1:19:01] it's going to leave a little, you know,
[1:19:03] less money for some of those regular
[1:19:05] maintenance items. Um,
[1:19:08] and then conversely, you know, if if you
[1:19:10] do truly want to let these these red
[1:19:11] streets just ride them out, um, then we
[1:19:14] can we can really focus uh some of those
[1:19:16] more intense maintenance items like
[1:19:18] milling and overlay on on the yellow
[1:19:19] streets um as as necessary.
[1:19:23] » Yeah, it seems like mill overlay is our
[1:19:26] tends to be our go-to on the yellow, but
[1:19:29] the Yeah, the red we're just going to
[1:19:31] have to put that in our CIP to plan to
[1:19:33] do a full-on overhaul.
[1:19:35] Yeah, and I will there there is a little
[1:19:37] bit of caveat I I I will say um with
[1:19:40] some of the red and reconstructions. So
[1:19:42] looking at this this culde-sac here,
[1:19:44] right, that's that was shown as very
[1:19:46] poor, but being a culde-sac, it has very
[1:19:49] low traffic volumes, you know, that's
[1:19:51] one where
[1:19:52] » I mean, realistically, you probably
[1:19:54] could mill and overlay it despite maybe
[1:19:56] being below the range
[1:19:58] » And and see and and get an extended life
[1:20:01] out of it.
[1:20:04] So there there's a little bit of nuance
[1:20:05] to it.
[1:20:05] » It's a good point.
[1:20:06] » I know. I'm looking at that section at
[1:20:08] Third Street and we got first through
[1:20:10] fifth. If you're trying to get to
[1:20:12] Western, you have a half you have
[1:20:14] several options there and there's no
[1:20:16] driveways that open up to that section
[1:20:17] of Third Street.
[1:20:18] » So that that that'd be one that I'd
[1:20:20] probably start saying, you know, was
[1:20:22] very low priority because you there's
[1:20:24] other options to get around and there's
[1:20:25] no driveways on that section,
[1:20:28] » Right?
[1:20:29] » So yeah,
[1:20:31] » Those considerations.
[1:20:32] » Yeah. and Michael put in the access
[1:20:34] points um how many access points are in
[1:20:36] there which is good to see when we're
[1:20:38] looking at the roadways too. So
[1:20:41] yeah, we'll keep it on our agenda for
[1:20:43] the next meeting as well once we all get
[1:20:46] a chance to really review this and
[1:20:47] hopefully two uh streets committee
[1:20:50] members will be present have chance to
[1:20:51] review as well as let them know that we
[1:20:53] looked at it today.
[1:20:56] » Brian or Michael, anything else on this?
[1:20:58] No, I think yeah, I think what we'd be
[1:21:00] looking for from council then is after
[1:21:01] you've had a chance, we can get the
[1:21:03] draft report out, but wanted to run
[1:21:05] through it with you first similar
[1:21:07] approach, but um yeah, then once we get
[1:21:09] that input, we can work on finalizing
[1:21:11] that final report that you guys
[1:21:12] » Be wonderful. So, yeah, if we if you
[1:21:15] guys send out the draft, we'll we'll
[1:21:16] look at that in detail and have some
[1:21:19] information back at the next meeting for
[1:21:21] you guys.
[1:21:24] » Awesome. Well, thank you for your time.
[1:21:26] » We appreciate you. Thanks, Michael.
[1:21:29] » All right, then we'll move on to we got
[1:21:34] street projects. The snow removal
[1:21:35] location. Um I think we do this every
[1:21:37] year is just decide where the heck we're
[1:21:39] putting snow.
[1:21:40] » Do we want to table some of these
[1:21:41] because we can street?
[1:21:42] » Yep. That's all related to streets. So
[1:21:45] » The members
[1:21:46] » Y. So I would make a motion to table
[1:21:49] street projects including any
[1:21:50] conversation for the snow removal
[1:21:52] location.
[1:21:53] » Motion second. Any further hearing?
[1:21:55] None. All those in favor say I. I post
[1:21:57] same sign that carries. So, those are
[1:21:58] that's tabled. Um I think we can
[1:22:01] probably cover the the rest of it. The
[1:22:03] the holiday lights, as we all know, I I
[1:22:06] called Excel our contact. Um it was
[1:22:08] brought up at the last meeting with the
[1:22:10] the new kind of protocols Excel Energy
[1:22:12] has. We can't plug and play on them
[1:22:15] anymore with the lights. So, we got to
[1:22:17] come up with an alternative. Um and to
[1:22:20] be clear, the the road on Parnell, that
[1:22:23] is city lights. So that's why we have
[1:22:24] the Christmas trees on there. That's why
[1:22:26] Excel didn't have a a say or play in
[1:22:28] that at all. Everything else for our
[1:22:30] lights is where it's it's plugging into
[1:22:32] these old street lights at Excel when
[1:22:34] they did their I like to say upgrade,
[1:22:36] but it's not. It's just their their
[1:22:37] maintenance and new poles and all that.
[1:22:40] Um that's kind of the new generation
[1:22:43] generational thought is is no more
[1:22:45] plug-andplays from the city because
[1:22:47] essentially we're getting free
[1:22:48] electricity out of the deal too. I see
[1:22:49] where they're coming. The liabilities
[1:22:51] that come from it. So, we do need to
[1:22:53] think about what the heck we're going to
[1:22:54] do with our holiday lights and how we're
[1:22:56] going to display them. Should they be in
[1:22:57] the parks? Um, what do we do on the
[1:23:00] highway if we want to do anything? So,
[1:23:03] I'd almost um like to discuss possibly
[1:23:05] implementing some sort of bringing back
[1:23:07] some sort of holiday lights committee
[1:23:09] for the time being and just have a meril
[1:23:12] appointed committee at that point and
[1:23:14] see what the consensus is of the group.
[1:23:18] Either that would or would park board
[1:23:19] have capacity?
[1:23:20] » If they have capacity, that would be
[1:23:22] wonderful, too. I don't know. We can we
[1:23:23] can bring it up at the park board
[1:23:24] meeting. We'll have that as an agenda
[1:23:26] item.
[1:23:27] » Um, which is a good point. We'll see if
[1:23:30] if any of them want to take that on. And
[1:23:32] if not, um, we can open that up because
[1:23:35] it used to be a separate committee, but
[1:23:37] I don't want it to be a standing one. I
[1:23:39] don't see that being necessary.
[1:23:41] » Short lived when we did
[1:23:42] » It was
[1:23:43] » Several years ago. All the new lights.
[1:23:45] » All the new lights. So it'd be it'd be
[1:23:46] very shortlived for this. So maybe the
[1:23:48] parks committee would have a say in it.
[1:23:49] So we'll add that for that one.
[1:23:52] » Um
[1:23:53] » To clarify, the main issue is not using
[1:23:57] their power or not using their pulse.
[1:23:59] Oh,
[1:24:00] » Okay.
[1:24:00] » I and this might be I mean a point, who
[1:24:03] knows? I'm waiting to hear back from
[1:24:04] Excel. Maybe they'll say, "Look, let's
[1:24:06] work something out. You guys arrange the
[1:24:09] the electricity up there, get it set,
[1:24:11] work with our vendors, and we'll make it
[1:24:12] happen." I don't know. But holidays are
[1:24:15] coming in hot, so we better figure it
[1:24:16] out soon.
[1:24:18] So, but Parnell is is the cities. That's
[1:24:21] why all the lights have been up there.
[1:24:22] That's why that's never been
[1:24:23] problematic. We'll continue to do that,
[1:24:25] but it's where do we put the the old
[1:24:27] highway lights moving forward?
[1:24:30] Um, weed ordinance. I think you got us a
[1:24:33] nice updated draft to review and then
[1:24:36] that's going to the capital or comp plan
[1:24:40] improvement committee, right?
[1:24:42] » Yes. So
[1:24:47] let me double check
[1:24:57] it.
[1:25:06] Yeah, I don't believe
[1:25:11] trade commit or sorry um the the um non
[1:25:15] bank committee has reviewed this section
[1:25:17] yet.
[1:25:18] » It's out of title nine. Um so we will
[1:25:22] try and get this brought up next time.
[1:25:26] The one in front of you
[1:25:29] is pretty well copy pasted straight from
[1:25:32] the basic code with the exceptions of
[1:25:36] modifying it from 12 in to 8 in. And
[1:25:40] then the penalty section
[1:25:44] is brought in from the draft that was
[1:25:47] presented last week as the code
[1:25:50] typically references the penalty section
[1:25:52] without doesn't exist.
[1:25:56] I like it. I like that it's going to be
[1:25:57] uniform as well. It's a lot of weeds to
[1:26:00] think about.
[1:26:04] But I think I think it'll be nice to
[1:26:05] have an updated weed ordinance. I think
[1:26:07] we were due. We were do. I'd be curious
[1:26:09] what the comp plan committee has to say
[1:26:12] on it as well. Um but I assume we we'll
[1:26:15] have this on the next agenda.
[1:26:17] » Yes.
[1:26:17] » Okay. We'll keep that rolling.
[1:26:21] Anything else on the weed ordinance? and
[1:26:23] get a good getting that set up and
[1:26:26] organized wonderfully. Uh we'll move on
[1:26:29] to ordinance 200804.
[1:26:32] I think Hunter had something he wanted
[1:26:33] on that.
[1:26:35] » Yeah. So, I was just reviewing that. Um
[1:26:37] it's the ordinance talking about special
[1:26:40] assessment
[1:26:41] » Guidelines I think is what we can call
[1:26:43] them. Um that we set however many years
[1:26:45] ago in 2008 I guess as a city. Um, and
[1:26:50] as the other street projects come up
[1:26:51] earlier this year, I think council was
[1:26:53] in agreement. We do not like special
[1:26:55] assessments.
[1:26:56] » No, we do not.
[1:26:56] » Um, so I was just looking at that. It's
[1:26:59] still on our books. Um, I asked attorney
[1:27:01] Jansen to review it and see if that's
[1:27:04] something that does need to apply to all
[1:27:06] of our street projects.
[1:27:07] » But it sounds like, and keep me honest,
[1:27:10] it's it's a guideline. It's optional. We
[1:27:12] don't have to apply that, but it might
[1:27:15] be good to amend or repeal it if we're
[1:27:20] all in agreement that we don't ever want
[1:27:22] to do special assessments to ensure
[1:27:24] consistency in the future.
[1:27:26] » Yeah, I know there's always a time for a
[1:27:29] special assessment to remove it from the
[1:27:31] books would be troubling, I think, for a
[1:27:33] municipality.
[1:27:35] It's good to have in there. Maybe the
[1:27:37] language change. I would agree with
[1:27:38] that. Maybe we need to look at the
[1:27:39] language of it so that it's crystal
[1:27:42] clear that if it's not an assessment
[1:27:44] then the the four fifths majority would
[1:27:48] not apply here.
[1:27:49] » Yeah.
[1:27:50] » Nice to have it worded.
[1:27:52] » Yeah.
[1:27:53] » So it's more obvious it's optional or
[1:27:55] only applies to when we want to do
[1:27:56] assessments.
[1:27:58] » Would you agree with that, Leo?
[1:28:00] » Yeah. because I know looking through it
[1:28:02] it's you can tell just kind of by the
[1:28:04] language that it's definitely aimed at
[1:28:06] these assessments on there, but the
[1:28:09] language on it is is kind of
[1:28:11] wonky on some certain spots on it where
[1:28:14] I definitely think it could be updated
[1:28:16] just to keep it a little bit cleaner
[1:28:18] going forward for if there is a
[1:28:20] situation when special assessments.
[1:28:22] » Yes. Is there a model ordinance that you
[1:28:24] are familiar with that we might be able
[1:28:26] to look at?
[1:28:27] » So, I can certainly check. I know we did
[1:28:30] recently work on a special assessment.
[1:28:33] » Okay.
[1:28:34] » Or at an incident. I can certainly
[1:28:35] » If you have examples that'd be wonderful
[1:28:37] to bring back. Is that kind of where
[1:28:39] you're rolling with it?
[1:28:40] » Yeah. I guess either that or have we
[1:28:42] seen it in the Minnesota basic code
[1:28:44] » Yet? I know.
[1:28:46] » CPIC hasn't reviewed it explicitly, but
[1:28:48] I don't know if it's covered in there.
[1:28:50] » That's a it's a good point because I
[1:28:51] don't know if it would be covered for
[1:28:53] special assessment because it's hard to
[1:28:55] standardize that for every city. That'd
[1:28:57] be a really challenging one. Mhm.
[1:29:01] » But yeah, any examples? I think we'd
[1:29:03] keep that on our agenda as well. Um,
[1:29:06] » And look at what we can do with it. It's
[1:29:08] a good catch. Update the language.
[1:29:10] » I think it would be good to visit that
[1:29:12] looks like the basic code does not
[1:29:14] mentions special assessments, but does
[1:29:17] not ever actually define them. So that
[1:29:20] might be one of those extra things we
[1:29:21] want to tack on to the end of it.
[1:29:24] So you can bring that to CIP as well
[1:29:25] then probably to discuss that or capital
[1:29:28] comprehensive plan implementation
[1:29:30] committee CPIC.
[1:29:32] » Perfect. Anything else on that? Good
[1:29:34] sir. No,
[1:29:35] » I think that's good. Good catch. All
[1:29:38] right, we'll move on to waste management
[1:29:40] donation resolution 2026-34,
[1:29:43] which I think is amazing and I thank
[1:29:45] them very much that Waste Management has
[1:29:46] offered to donate the use of 20 garbage
[1:29:48] bins for the city's heritage festival
[1:29:51] and it will assist us in maintaining a
[1:29:53] clean, safe environment during the
[1:29:54] Heritage Fest will reduce event related
[1:29:56] operational expenses. Um 20 bins and
[1:30:00] that's that's a huge cost that that
[1:30:02] we'll be saving. So I do thank them a
[1:30:04] lot for this if council so chooses. I'
[1:30:07] I'd uh make a motion to approve
[1:30:08] resolution 2026-34.
[1:30:11] » I'll second.
[1:30:12] » Motion second. Any further discussion?
[1:30:14] Discussion. And this will be a roll call
[1:30:16] vote.
[1:30:17] » Yes.
[1:30:18] » Yes.
[1:30:18] » I'm a yes to absent. That carries
[1:30:23] and we will
[1:30:24] » We'll make a motion to
[1:30:27] have one more.
[1:30:28] » I would kind of like to
[1:30:29] » Oh, yes. Thank you.
[1:30:31] » Yes. tonnage. Um so the the we discussed
[1:30:34] at the last meeting um for all the rock
[1:30:37] over here on on Industrial Park who's
[1:30:39] getting it pushed back. There is a a
[1:30:41] person that reached out to Diane
[1:30:43] interested in
[1:30:45] possibly doing it um for us. May have
[1:30:49] somebody lined up to take the rock blah
[1:30:50] blah blah but he's looking at it from a
[1:30:52] tonnage standpoint not a by the yard
[1:30:54] standpoint which we originally
[1:30:56] discussed. I looked up what the average
[1:30:57] ton removal rate is in Minnesota for
[1:31:01] such a job and it was 50 to I think 150.
[1:31:04] I'd recommend we we tell them 50 a ton
[1:31:07] to remove the rock and have it gone.
[1:31:09] » Do we have a ballpark idea how many tons
[1:31:12] are there?
[1:31:12] » It's a great question. We could put a
[1:31:14] limit on the tonnage too if we wanted
[1:31:16] to, but that's going to be a challenging
[1:31:18] one is to know exactly what it is
[1:31:21] » And this person would be willing to take
[1:31:22] all of it.
[1:31:23] » Yes.
[1:31:24] » Mhm.
[1:31:25] And actually they were looking at some
[1:31:27] of the
[1:31:29] oh
[1:31:30] » Over at Patterson Sand those larger
[1:31:33] hills if you will grass
[1:31:35] » Of the same type of product where it's
[1:31:38] not of any value
[1:31:40] » Would be interested in some of that as
[1:31:41] well.
[1:31:45] » So I think some of that that limestone I
[1:31:47] don't know if that's worth anything. I
[1:31:48] know that he's looking at all that old
[1:31:50] rip. Yeah,
[1:31:51] » The old stuff. We're keeping the smaller
[1:31:54] » The actual good limestone and
[1:31:56] » Correct.
[1:31:56] » Yeah. So, this would be all the old rip
[1:31:59] wrap and and just really from probably
[1:32:01] from when they put the spur in two years
[1:32:03] ago. So, I don't know if we want to cap
[1:32:07] that at a at a certain amount, but he's
[1:32:10] willing to enter, but we're going to
[1:32:11] just reach out to him and entertain that
[1:32:13] idea of 50 if the council so chooses.
[1:32:17] I'd like to have a cap. I get I have no
[1:32:20] idea what appropriate price is, but I
[1:32:22] would like to just see it all taken care
[1:32:24] of.
[1:32:24] » I would too. So, if if I think we can
[1:32:27] trust our city clerk treasure that if it
[1:32:28] exceeds a certain amount or it looks
[1:32:30] looks to be a little bit more than we
[1:32:32] anticipated that that she would work
[1:32:34] with the vendor and they would reach
[1:32:35] back out to us. I think there's that
[1:32:38] piece of trust. I don't see us ever
[1:32:40] surpassing an astronomical amount there
[1:32:42] if he's doing it by the ton.
[1:32:45] I guess, you know, if you want to put
[1:32:47] some kind of number,
[1:32:49] » It's a hard one because I'd hate to to
[1:32:50] limit that, but
[1:32:51] » Yeah, I would say not to exceed
[1:32:54] » $5,000.
[1:32:57] That gives you wiggle room. 100 tons.
[1:33:00] 100 tons.
[1:33:01] » Okay.
[1:33:02] » I'll work with him because he probably
[1:33:04] can maybe even assess looking at
[1:33:06] » Yeah, if he can do that, too.
[1:33:08] » I don't know if we necessarily need a
[1:33:09] motion. This is going to get you to at
[1:33:10] least bring it up to them to discuss
[1:33:12] because they'll have a meeting. So,
[1:33:13] » Okay. I just want to make sure that
[1:33:14] council is okay
[1:33:16] » Moving forward
[1:33:18] » I think
[1:33:18] » With my conversation tomorrow morning
[1:33:19] with him.
[1:33:20] » Yeah, he's the only person that's
[1:33:21] reached out so far. So, I really like
[1:33:23] that. So,
[1:33:24] » We're making headway on it. Um Harrison,
[1:33:27] you want to do that motion again? You
[1:33:28] did?
[1:33:28] » I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second.
[1:33:30] » Motion second. Any further discussion?
[1:33:33] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[1:33:35] I. Oppos. Same sign. And that carries.
[1:33:38] Meetings adjourned at 8:36