[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

City of Green Isle City Council Meeting (09/08/2026)

Transcript