[0:00] It is Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. It is now 6:00. Time to start the Horry

[0:05] City Council meeting. Please join me in staying saying this

[0:08] pledge of allegiance. >> [clears throat]

[0:13] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

[0:18] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with

[0:24] liberty and justice for all.

[0:32] » All right. Uh Jim or Jolly, can I have you guys

[0:36] silence your mics? I got feedback somewhere here.

[0:44] Good. All right. So, we're going to call this meeting to order.

[0:47] We do have quorum here tonight. We do have Ross Renner,

[0:50] Naomi Berkeland, Rachel Dwyer, and Chad Chalmers present,

[0:54] as well as me, Mayor Jeff Trudell. Um has everybody had a chance to review

[0:58] the regular agenda for this evening? >> Yes.

[1:01] » Are there any changes or modifications to the regular agenda?

[1:07] » No. >> Hearing and seeing none, I will look for

[1:09] a motion to approve of the regular agenda.

[1:12] » I make a motion to approve the regular agenda.

[1:13] » Okay. Ross got it. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[1:17] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:19] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[1:21] » All right. Motion carries. Moving on to number four, approval of

[1:24] the consent agenda. Has everybody had a chance to read through the consent

[1:27] agenda for this evening? Are there any modifications or anything

[1:30] that needs to be pulled?

[1:36] Hearing and seeing none, I'll look for a motion.

[1:38] » So moved. >> I have a motion to approve. Do I have a

[1:41] second? >> I'll second.

[1:44] » Rachel got it. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

[1:47] » Aye. >> All right. Motion carries. Moving on now

[1:51] to number five.

[1:58] Number five, approval of the city council meeting minutes from August

[2:00] 17th, 2026. Has everybody had a chance to read through the meeting minutes from

[2:04] August 17th, 2026? >> Yes.

[2:08] » Any changes or modifications? >> No.

[2:11] » Okay, if none, I'll look for a motion to approve.

[2:14] » I'll make that Oh, sorry. I'll make that motion.

[2:17] » Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[2:19] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[2:20] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[2:22] » All right, number five carries. Moving on to public comment, I received

[2:26] two comment cards from this evening. I do not believe anybody else has turned

[2:29] one in yet. Um I'll go ahead and start with Martin uh Martin Wohlhuter. Please

[2:33] come up and um turn on the mic and address yourself.

[2:40] » [snorts]

[2:45] » Uh good evening. I think it's working.

[2:48] Uh Martin Wohlhuter is 10609 County 17 South. I had a quick question about

[2:54] maintenance of the ditch along County 17. And I've asked you about this, Jeff,

[2:59] and appreciate your comment back to me, but it left me maybe with more questions

[3:02] than >> [laughter]

[3:04] » than anything. So, the So, my question was who maintains the ditch along County

[3:10] 17 cuz I also own property along County 17, which I mow and maintain,

[3:15] um which I'm fine with. Um but I've noticed city mowers uh north here and

[3:21] south actually today just north of 100th mowing mowing the county ditch. Um

[3:27] and the reason you'd given me, Jeff, I think you'd talked to Brent about it was

[3:30] it's egg land, which I don't know where that comes into play.

[3:35] But it's city resources that are going into mowing this ditch. I have to expend

[3:39] my resources to mow my ditch, which I'm fine with, but

[3:43] it's either one way or the other. I don't know why egg or zoning plays into

[3:47] it. Um and then I had a little conversation here with Brendan before

[3:50] the meeting, and he said, "Well, there's places you know, makes sense potentially

[3:55] um where I saw the mowing today was along the corn field. I'm not sure why

[3:59] or how that's relevant. So, I'm looking for a little clarification on that. Um

[4:04] you know, budgeting time is coming along here, too. And I think yes, we look at

[4:09] the 3% cap and we look at all these things and revenues coming in, but we

[4:12] also got to look what's going out. And this is one of those things it's like

[4:16] are we basically

[4:18] expending resources where we don't have to where money's tight, staff is tight,

[4:22] all this other stuff is tight. Um I'd also like clarification on the

[4:25] ordinance um as far as property owners like myself, what the rule is for mowing

[4:29] the county ditch.

[4:33] » Okay. We can take that under

[4:35] advisement to get that answer for you. >> Okay.

[4:38] » All right, cuz I don't know if I have it. Do you want a quick one?

[4:40] » Go ahead. >> So, when the city enters into an

[4:42] agreement with the DOT to construct the shared use path along County Road 17,

[4:46] they also enter into a maintenance agreement for the path itself at that

[4:50] time. So, the paths are maintained by the city in that's agreement with the

[4:53] DOT when the funding comes through from the government to do it. Uh the grass,

[4:57] I'm not sure on, but the paths, there is an agreement for the paths.

[5:00] » Okay. And to me and to me that's logical. I

[5:02] appreciate the clarification because it's like yeah, it's a city kind of

[5:06] public area. But this ditch is more of a gray area

[5:10] where it's, you know, typically in the country the farmer would mow, you know,

[5:14] as required by the county, right? Or like I have to mow cuz it's in front of

[5:18] my house and whatever. So, but that's all I had.

[5:22] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[5:28] » All right. Second comment card is from Lynette Weber. Lynette, go on come on

[5:32] up.

[5:52] » My name is Lynette Webber. I live at County Road 17, 10005.

[5:57] Um, the corner of County 17 and County 14.

[6:01] I am speaking on the residents of County Road 17.

[6:06] Um, Charlie brought up to the council's attention on August 3rd that with the

[6:10] switchover from county to city that we'd have to possibly change our name.

[6:15] Um, two and the suggestion was Main Street.

[6:18] Um, I'm not a fan of being called Main

[6:21] Street at the end of County 17. Um, and

[6:26] there's a lot of things to change when you start having to change addresses.

[6:30] So, I

[6:33] had a little help with that some of the residents,

[6:36] but I'd like to read something that I we kind of wrote up and it's includes some

[6:40] of the comments from the residents as I spoke to the residents along County 17.

[6:45] We the residents of County Road 17 as our current address would like to keep

[6:48] our current addresses with transfer jurisdiction of County Road 17 from Cass

[6:53] County to the City of Horace on January 1st, 2027.

[6:57] We're providing a signed petition to keep our current addresses.

[7:00] Unfortunately, I was not able to speak to all the residents that I but the

[7:03] residents that I did speak did speak to stated they do not want to

[7:07] change and sign the petition. Our reasoning for wanting to keep our

[7:11] current addresses include one, many of our residents have existed for

[7:15] 30 or 40 years or more under the current addresses.

[7:19] And we as owners have adopted the identity and pride of addressing over

[7:22] those many years.

[7:26] Two, a change of address would require to extend great effort and possibly

[7:30] expense to change all the financial businesses and other contacts along with

[7:34] legal documents, driver's license, notary documents, as well as changing

[7:39] the addresses for our friends and family members.

[7:44] This may involve a significant number of changes for many of the affected owners,

[7:47] maybe a hundred or more for some.

[7:51] Number three, for some of the residents in particular, this would be the third

[7:55] address change. As they were County Road 17 South Fargo,

[8:01] then City of Horace um

[8:06] was annexed into County Road 17 Horace. So, Main Street would be their third

[8:11] address change. Number four, this would not only affect

[8:15] residents' addresses, but also some of the residents are doing billing out of

[8:18] their homes for the businesses. They would have to change their personal and

[8:22] their business addresses, websites, mailing letterheads, envelopes.

[8:29] Number five, a changing our addresses would cause our mail to go through the

[8:32] centralized mailing system, which could delay our mail.

[8:37] Which would then mean we'd be late for bills, payments, not to mention if the

[8:40] residents are involved in estates, sometimes notices

[8:43] are not sent immediately, and those mail pieces could be returned

[8:46] to sender if our forwards have expired.

[8:51] Six, many of us would be concerned that this could add confusion for emergency

[8:54] response that we don't currently have with our firmly established addressing

[8:58] and 911 mapping. Not to mention all these changes would

[9:01] be entered manually and there's always a chance of error in keying manually.

[9:08] So, the residents There was a group of us that decided to

[9:12] email the county. Um

[9:15] Cass County Engineer Kyle Klich, he asked if the change of address required

[9:18] with transfer. Mayor Trudo, you were also included in

[9:21] that email. Mr. Klich he looked at a applicable

[9:25] North Dakota Century Code, Cass County policy, and the memorandum of

[9:29] understanding between Cass County and the City of Horace regarding the

[9:32] upcoming roadway transfer. Based on Mr. Klich's review, Cass County

[9:36] is not required to change name on January 1st. The MEU states the transfer

[9:40] of ownership maintenance responsibility, but it does not require a name change.

[9:45] From the county's perspective, they would prefer the name change just for

[9:48] the fact that there may be confusion as far as who's maintaining it, the snow

[9:52] removal and construction. Although a simple simple phone call

[9:56] would answer that question. And I believe that most of the residents

[9:59] already believe the city is maintaining it, unfortunately.

[10:06] The North Dakota Century Code 40-05-0120 does give the city the authority to name

[10:11] change the name of a street, avenue, alley, or

[10:15] other public place. So, council would have the authority to change name, but

[10:19] the residents are residents are requesting that it remains County 17 and

[10:23] not the suggested Main Street. Sorry.

[10:29] Speaking to the Red River Dispatch assistant director, she said it would

[10:34] not necessarily affect the 911 because they go by the addresses that are

[10:37] entered in the GIS system, the 911 system. It's who to dispatch the address

[10:41] if we called into the into the 911 system.

[10:45] It would remain the same providers, the Cass County Sheriff's Office, the

[10:48] Southern Valley Fire Rescue, and the Sanford [clears throat] Ambulance. So,

[10:51] it would not affect them. Speaking to the Horace Pass Postmaster,

[10:55] Chad Olson, he stated he preferred the address to remain the same. Carriers

[10:58] clerks are currently accustomed to the current address. A street name change

[11:01] would not affect just one mail carrier, but two routes. Also, the sub carriers

[11:05] would also be having the address change. Their stance was to keep the addresses.

[11:11] Speaking with the Southern Valley Fire Chief, Chris Mahoney, he stated that he

[11:14] also preferred the address to remain the

[11:16] same. Current staff, um all the new members,

[11:19] know that four-digit County Road 17 is headed north,

[11:23] five digits heading south Main Street is the center of town.

[11:32] This is easier when you are in a rush to head

[11:36] out to a fire call. The thoughts in your mind already going where you're headed.

[11:39] So, as you're putting on your gear, you're already thinking about where

[11:41] you're headed. So, he also preferred that the addresses stay the same.

[11:46] So, after speaking to Cass County, Red River Regional Dispatch, Horse

[11:50] Postmaster, and Southern Valley Fire, I decided to talk to each of the residents

[11:53] that the street name change would affect and asked for their signature if they'd

[11:56] like to keep their current addresses. Again, due to the holiday weekend, I was

[12:00] not able to speak to all the residents, but got a fair amount of signatures.

[12:06] So, I'd like to continue to keep my County Road 17 address if all is

[12:11] possible. I asked the city council do that. And I'd like to submit our

[12:15] petition with the signatures for the residents that were home and were able

[12:18] to sign. The ones that I do not have signatures,

[12:21] I could not get a hold of, stopped at many of the residents three, four times,

[12:25] but with a holiday week weekend, a lot of them were gone.

[12:30] Do you have any comments back, city council?

[12:32] » I do. Brenton, can you make sure that everybody on the council gets that

[12:36] letter from the county? I couldn't forward it to everybody, so

[12:40] I'll let you guys do that just so that everybody at least has a copy of it.

[12:44] » And I did see all the the email from there and I agree with what was said.

[12:48] » Yep. We get We get passed it on and just so you know, the street name change is

[12:52] asking council, what would you like to do?

[12:55] So, if you guys want to keep it County Road

[12:58] 17, you're able to. It's staff asking, what do you want to do?

[13:03] So, being that it's changing ownership, so it is

[13:07] » I just want to make sure that the council was aware that they're not

[13:09] forced to change it. That's all. >> Yep.

[13:13] » Can those street names coexist? Can some people change to use one and some people

[13:20] keep their old address? Not really. >> You're going to cause confusion and you

[13:23] don't want that confusion. If I put a 911 call and I want hope that people are

[13:29] on their way and they know which direction they're headed.

[13:31] » We we do have an area of County Road 17 that folks do use Main.

[13:38] » The Main Street >> over there by like Biggers, the fire

[13:40] hall, that general area. They do use Main, but they're able to use 17 or

[13:45] Main, is my understanding. Uh but other than that,

[13:50] everybody along 17 does use County Road 17 and

[13:54] Miss whoever she brought up the concern she just, you know,

[13:59] the county's preference was to change it so it just is more clear of who actually

[14:03] owns it, but you know, that's up to the council what

[14:07] you want to have it named. >> I would just like, I mean, if the

[14:11] residents are adamant about keeping their address, I don't see why we

[14:15] wouldn't.

[14:19] » So >> Agreed.

[14:21] » So yeah, we do plan on that being a future. I am again, we council tabled it

[14:26] last time we had discussion on it. So then we bring it back. We're just trying

[14:31] to not have it while we had such a full

[14:35] agenda, so. >> Sure.

[14:36] » Yeah. >> And if there's a big snowstorm and the

[14:39] road hasn't been plowed yet, I definitely want it to be County Road,

[14:42] so. >> [laughter]

[14:44] » You got till January 1st. >> I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. No,

[14:48] we be we'll be responsible, so. >> Okay, any other questions for Lynette?

[14:53] » No, thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[14:58] » All right, and that'll conclude our public comment period for

[15:01] tonight. Um next up is the sheriff's update. I

[15:04] have uh Keenan Bryce uh and Mr. Donner, looks like.

[15:21] Are we on? >> Okay.

[15:24] » All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Um as normal,

[15:28] we're going to present our law enforcement brief at the next meeting.

[15:30] Looks like our agenda's pretty full for tonight. Uh I don't have a whole lot of

[15:33] touch points for today. Um besides, I wanted to bring up again,

[15:37] make sure um we're locking cars and trailers and things at night. Uh we've

[15:42] had an uptick in recent weeks for uh vehicle break-ins, uh specifically

[15:46] construction trailers again. Um so, myself and Deputy Murray will be

[15:50] going around uh again um here in the near future to

[15:55] uh address our city ordinance for overnight parking of trailers uh with

[15:59] all our contractors to hopefully eliminate them even coming to town to

[16:02] look at those things. Um I've also been talking with uh some

[16:07] different developments uh as far as the relevant

[16:10] uh residents inside those developments and seeing what kind of issues are up in

[16:14] their areas. Uh it's been brought to my attention that there's been an abundance

[16:18] of vehicles parking over sidewalks. So, we're going to try to address that in

[16:20] the future, too, and do a lot of education uh so everybody can walk and

[16:24] use their sidewalks without any issue. So, that's really all I have, Sheriff.

[16:29] » Sure.

[16:31] Thanks, Deputy Noonan. Um Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, I just wanted

[16:35] to address everyone quickly and just mention obviously this weekend in Horse

[16:39] is going to be a busy weekend. And um we've kind of shifted gears. I

[16:43] know I mentioned this to the council members in the past. We've shifted gears

[16:47] over the last 3 years on our response to larger events out in the county.

[16:52] Um certainly uh we don't have any information that anything would uh be

[16:57] unsafe down here. Um however, we always want to make sure

[17:01] that we take the appropriate precautions and we have the proper resources to

[17:05] respond in to anything that may come up. So,

[17:08] um I just simply wanted to uh let the commission know that we'll

[17:12] have additional resources down here um and an operational plan as far as the

[17:18] the parade events the morning of Um, I believe it's the 12th is that

[17:22] Saturday? So, the 12th. Um,

[17:25] and so with that we'll we'll have uh, seven extra people down here.

[17:30] Some of those you will see, some you won't. So, just

[17:34] have some undercover stuff going on down here.

[17:36] Um, and uh, again that's just literally to make sure that we can keep everyone

[17:40] safe. We can respond to um, situations as they arise if we need

[17:46] to. And um, that we're prepared. So, uh,

[17:50] your guys' event has become very very large along with Kindred's and

[17:54] Castleton's. And so, like I said, we just want to

[17:57] make sure we're prepared. So, I just want to give you that information. Does

[17:59] anyone have any questions uh, for me on that response? I'll be

[18:02] down here as well acting in in sync command.

[18:10] » No, I can touch base later on just with the safety

[18:12] » uh, everyone is uh, welcome on the commission to uh, visit further about

[18:16] that if you'd like to uh, to know some of those things, but

[18:19] certainly some of our operational we want to make

[18:22] sure that we not all information gets out. Um, but yes, certainly I'm

[18:27] available to visit with whoever. I have visited with uh, Council member Renner a

[18:32] little bit just as far as uh, his experience with these things and then

[18:35] being a portfolio person today. So. Yep.

[18:41] » No questions on that? >> And I appreciate uh, I know that

[18:44] Sergeant Dells and Dells has been working with with Brenton and Paul for

[18:48] some time to to uh, make sure that we get the proper information for all the

[18:52] events that are occurring. So, we appreciate that partnership. I

[18:55] appreciate his uh, his work on it and then the collaboration from your city

[18:59] officials to make sure that we can uh, prepare appropriately.

[19:03] So.

[19:06] » Anyone else? Anyone?

[19:08] » Thanks for your consistent good work during Bean Days and all the time. We

[19:12] appreciate you guys. >> Absolutely.

[19:13] » Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you.

[19:17] » Yep. >> So, the the parking across the

[19:19] sidewalks, is that as a result of your observations or complaints?

[19:23] » A little bit of both. Um I I'll be very honest. Uh normally during my travels,

[19:27] if I see one, I might if there's somebody out and around, I'll address it

[19:30] and have a conversation with them, but it's not something I go out of my way to

[19:33] enforce. Uh but it's been um a complaint that I've seen over multiple different

[19:38] people that I've talked to. Uh so, obviously it's an issue. Um if people

[19:42] are out and about walking around and using strollers and and bikes, and if

[19:45] they have to take the grass. Um poses a safety issue, and obviously we

[19:48] have an ordinance and a century code for a reason for it. So, we'll start that.

[19:54] » I've actually received a couple of those personally and then sent uh Bryce to

[19:58] check on those for us, so. >> Have you written citations in the past

[20:01] or not? >> No, it's it's normally the something

[20:03] that can be resolved with a education and a warning. Um so, typical with

[20:08] parking violations, I like to reach out to the registered owner of the vehicle,

[20:11] make sure they're aware of the the uh the underlying issue, and try to find a

[20:15] way to resolve that or find them a legal spot to park uh before issuing a

[20:18] citation. Um if the second time comes around and they're still doing the same

[20:22] thing, that's usually when I start the citations in the uh municipal court.

[20:26] » Sure. Thank you.

[20:27] Thank you.

[20:31] » Any other questions for us from the commission?

[20:34] All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.

[20:42] » All right. Next, we have a Vision Zero presentation by Leah Kelm.

[20:58] » Good evening. Um my name is Leah Kelm, and I am the

[21:02] Vision Zero Coordinator for the Southeast region of the state. Um there

[21:06] are six of my position in the state and you can see that I have the red counties

[21:10] down in the corner that I do outreach in uh, for Vision Zero. If you're not aware

[21:14] of what Vision Zero is, it is North Dakota's initiative across the state to

[21:17] try to bring down our motor vehicle fatalities and serious injuries.

[21:21] Um, if you want to scroll down a little bit.

[21:25] Uh, our numbers throughout the state, um, thankfully

[21:28] have been going down. Um, last year was the lowest we had been in over 20 years.

[21:34] This year, unfortunately, that's not the case. We've seen quite the uptick in

[21:38] fatalities and serious injuries. So, we still have part of the year left, but

[21:43] that's something that especially my position, enforcement, infrastructure,

[21:48] we're all working together as a team trying to bring down that number. Um,

[21:52] but it just, unfortunately, sometimes people just don't love to buckle up and

[21:57] that seems to be one of our biggest things along with distracted driving,

[22:00] um, with our fatalities. So,

[22:04] I wanted to give just a little bit on the outreach that I've done in your

[22:08] community over the past year. So, last fall I did a car seat check with

[22:12] Southern Valley, um, and we were able to check a variety of car seats. People

[22:18] came in with the car seat they had. We helped them install it and if they

[22:21] needed something new, we helped them and provided education.

[22:25] Um, that was also with the Highway Patrol and Safe Kids. I have presented

[22:29] in your driver's ed classrooms at the high school on reckless and distracted

[22:32] driving. Um, during the Packers vs. Hawks boys basketball game, we did a

[22:37] LEOS and free throws contest at halftime which featured three law enforcement

[22:42] officers from West Fargo PD, the, um, Cass County Sheriff's Office and the

[22:47] Highway Patrol. Um, the Highway Patrol did win, but he is the only one that

[22:51] practiced ahead of time, so we'll give that to him. Um,

[22:55] so, and then fans also had a chance to guess who would win, um, for their

[22:59] chance at prizes as as Go to the next slide. Um, one of the

[23:03] biggest and probably one of the events I'm most proud of, we did a Hawks Vision

[23:06] Zero Day at the high school in May. Um, I worked with the school resource

[23:11] officer and we had hundreds of students come out and do a variety of traffic

[23:15] stations from a variety, um, of local partners. So, there was everything from

[23:21] impaired driving goggles to distracted driving simulator. We had an actual

[23:25] crash vehicle there from a family that unfortunately lost their lives due to an

[23:30] um, impaired driver. We had a fire truck. We had the

[23:34] ambulance. So, just quite a few different local first responders and

[23:39] then we also even had the Horse Park District come out. And I had them set up

[23:44] some different sports equipment and they read a story, um, and then the kids

[23:49] afterwards had to try to remember what the story was. So, it was a distracted

[23:52] driving thing while using recreation. Um, so again, it was one of the biggest

[23:58] events by far that I have done here. Um, they want to do it annually and we were

[24:02] able to give the kids, um, prizes at the end if they went to more

[24:06] than four stations thanks to the booster club.

[24:10] Um, and then the last thing I did this summer is I helped with the kid safety

[24:14] course with the park district and with the Cass County Sheriff's Office. We did

[24:19] bike education, um, for kids that were ages 5 to 8 and we did some different

[24:24] hands-on activities for that.

[24:27] Um, one other thing that I have done in your

[24:31] community and that your community has been nice enough to let me put this sign

[24:35] in your community since the project started is the smart sign driver

[24:39] behavior pilot program sign. So, the project duration, um, was October of

[24:45] 2023 and it will end the pilot will end next month. Um, the

[24:51] program will still keep going on. We were able to do it in Cass County thanks

[24:55] to federal grant funding. And the way that it works is it uses a smart sign,

[24:59] which you can see with the phone down right there. It uses a detector, which

[25:03] the detector is infrared technology. It is not a camera. It's not something

[25:08] that's recording anything. It's totally anonymous. That's why we were able to

[25:11] use it. And then there is a dashboard. And the

[25:15] detectors, we have eight of them throughout the county. And with that,

[25:19] they're able to detect if someone is speeding, not wearing their seatbelt, or

[25:23] driving distracted. And then we have one sign that can move around to those

[25:27] detectors to provide feedback to the people that are doing those behaviors.

[25:31] So, it will say phone down or buckle up if people unfortunately are doing those

[25:35] behaviors. It is We were the first in the entire

[25:39] Midwest to bring this here. It's new technology.

[25:44] There've definitely been a lot of bumps. It has been I call it my perfect

[25:48] dumpster fire. But it has definitely been a

[25:53] project that there just isn't technology out there

[25:56] that's able to detect this. And unfortunately, distracted driving

[26:00] crashes are very underreported due to lack of like witness

[26:06] witnesses wanting to admit that they did it

[26:10] among other reasons. So, being able to have this and being able to get the data

[26:15] and numbers of people that are driving distracted and not wearing seatbelts

[26:18] was nice. It also is not automated enforcement at all. Law enforcement can

[26:23] use the reports to help with targeted but it does not provide tickets. And

[26:28] like I mentioned, it does not have a camera.

[26:30] Next up Let's see here. So, one of the most

[26:35] popular I would say and the biggest kind of case studies that we've done was in

[26:40] fall of 2024. We put the sign right outside of Heritage Middle School.

[26:46] And the reduction when it was up there for over a month um, 39% of people that

[26:52] were texting and driving. This study has actually been used nationally um, and so

[26:59] it has been featured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[27:03] um, just to showcase the difference that this technology made and I would just

[27:07] like to thank you for letting me put this technology in your city

[27:11] um, because otherwise we wouldn't have this sort of results to be able to

[27:14] provide. Um, if you want to go to the next one.

[27:19] So. And like I mentioned, the project has

[27:23] been recommended nationwide as a community traffic safety innovation.

[27:27] Um, but like I mentioned to you, along along with the successes, there have

[27:31] definitely been challenges um, with the rural locations.

[27:35] Unfortunately, sometimes the traffic numbers are super low, so they aren't

[27:40] we aren't getting the data. Sometimes it's too far away from the roadway.

[27:45] Um, equipment reliability, we've had to change a lot of things out and weather

[27:48] conditions. Uh, I was told that it would work in our weather. I did not believe

[27:52] that and it definitely did not. So, they had to come up with self-heating

[27:56] batteries, which it now can work through the winter. Recently, with the hot

[27:59] temperatures, they did have to come up with some other things and kind of

[28:03] insulate the detectors. So, again, it's been um, it's been a

[28:08] learning curve, but it is something that we will be able to continue to have if

[28:12] you do let us keep it in your community. Um, right now the sign is actually in

[28:16] West Fargo, but there are still two detectors that are along um, right by

[28:20] Heritage Middle School going east and going west.

[28:23] We have been told that we will get the service from this company for another

[28:27] year for free just with all of the issues that we have had. They are going

[28:31] to provide um, moving of the detectors and service and

[28:37] a dashboard for at least another year. Um, we also started with the dashboard

[28:43] and with this company being a startup, we were able to provide some feedback

[28:46] and have them give us, you know, change the dashboard for it. As you can see in

[28:49] the bottom corner, that's a heat map for law enforcement. Um as of right now,

[28:55] um Deputy Nunan isn't receiving those, but we are working with the company for

[28:59] him to receive a automated report every single month so that he will be able to

[29:03] have the information and use it in real time.

[29:10] Um the most recent analytics on the smart sign um were

[29:15] going westbound, you're unbelted were 3.8%, you're distracted were 2.7, and

[29:19] you're speeding at least 6 miles over were about 17.

[29:23] Um for eastbound, I did not put the unbelted number because I think

[29:27] something is off with the I think like the number just did not add up to me, so

[29:31] I didn't want to give you an incorrect number. Um distracted is 1.2, and then

[29:35] your speeding is 31% of six 6 miles or more over. That's how many people are

[29:41] going that speed. But again, um if this is

[29:46] something that you still would allow me to keep in your community, uh that's

[29:50] awesome. Otherwise, I do understand as well if it's something that you have

[29:54] decided um has run its course. So.

[30:02] » All right, any questions? I think it's a great program, actually.

[30:07] » Thank you again. >> Thank you.

[30:11] » Thank you.

[30:20] » All right, moving on to item number nine, uh River's Edge third edition.

[30:26] Uh DeJolie, you're going to start this one, looks like.

[30:31] » Okay. Uh so, this is a request for a rezone

[30:35] and a plat. Uh the rezone request is to uh

[30:39] rezone the property from agriculture to compact residential.

[30:44] The the solid blue lot

[30:48] area is only subject property. So, they're using a very small portion of

[30:53] those two parcels in the blue outline. The

[30:57] applicant is proposing three lots in that area. They range, I think a

[31:04] little over half acre per lot. They are all accessed from a private

[31:11] drive.

[31:14] The the rezone and the plat request does

[31:18] comply with the comprehensive land use plan.

[31:21] The future land use map categorizes this as suburban. So, the density does comply

[31:28] with that. For the surrounding areas to the north,

[31:33] you see is directly connected to the Traverse Edge second, which is compact

[31:37] residential. To the south and west is agriculture currently, but that's part

[31:42] of Traverse Edge. So, it's in the future going to

[31:45] be rezoned to compact residential or

[31:49] something similar or compatible. And then to the east, there is SR3.

[31:57] Staff thinks it's not a very drastic change from SR3 to compact residential.

[32:03] However, we also still think that the size of the lots do comply more with SR3

[32:10] zoning district. However, staff does not have much ground to deny that request

[32:16] because it still complies with compact residential.

[32:19] Overall, we we

[32:23] analyzed this to comply with the land use ordinance also. So, staff recommends

[32:28] approval of both the plat and the rezoning request.

[32:32] The planning and zoning commission did recommend approval. They had one

[32:36] condition on the plat, which is already met by the applicant, so we have no more

[32:41] comments. And the applicant is present if you have any more questions, and if

[32:45] we can answer any of your questions.

[32:54] » Is it all the same property owner? >> Yes.

[33:01] » I had one question looking at that Hepkin Drive.

[33:05] » Oh, yes. Matt, can you go to the next slide, please?

[33:09] So, the Hepkin Drive comes from the east and kind of takes a 45° almost angle.

[33:17] » Okay.

[33:21] » Um Mr. Mayor, this is also a public hearing.

[33:27] » All right, before I open the public hearing, uh does anybody have any

[33:30] questions for Jadali?

[33:37] Okay, hearing and seeing none, I'm going to look for a motion to open the public

[33:40] hearing. >> Motion to open the public hearing.

[33:42] » Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[33:45] » I'll second. >> Okay, I have a motion and a second. All

[33:46] those in favor, say aye. >> Aye.

[33:49] » All right, public hearing is now open. Does anybody from the public wish to

[33:52] speak on this? Oh, hey Jace, how you doing?

[33:54] » Hello. Good evening, [laughter] Mr. Mayor and members of the council.

[33:57] Uh for the record, Jace Hellman on behalf of River's Edge uh development

[34:01] for this project. Uh really simple with this one. The The

[34:06] private drive is already existing. The services that were installed with

[34:09] River's Edge second edition. All's we're doing with this one is

[34:13] essentially just platting three lots around the existing infrastructure

[34:16] that's already there. So, there is no proposed improvements with this

[34:19] development. Um water, sewer,

[34:22] storm, everything is accounted for these three. We're just adding three more

[34:26] buildable lots to the inventory out there.

[34:34] » Okay. Anybody have any questions for Jason?

[34:46] I see no questions. Thank you, Jason.

[34:54] All right. Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this matter?

[35:00] And going twice. Anybody else from the public wish to speak about River's Edge

[35:03] third edition?

[35:09] And for the third and final time, anybody wish to speak on the River's

[35:12] Edge third edition?

[35:17] Hearing and seeing none, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing.

[35:21] I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[35:25] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[35:26] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[35:28] » All right. So, discussion from the council.

[35:38] » I I went out and visited the area. Wow, you guys did great job. It's the

[35:44] vision for what you have out there and what you're putting together.

[35:47] Just another Just another uh Just a Just a great project in my

[35:51] opinion. So.

[35:56] » What was the What was the This went to

[36:00] » Planning and Zoning.

[36:03] The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.

[36:07] » Okay. >> Yeah. They They had that one condition

[36:10] to add a note on the plat and which has been addressed. So, we have no other

[36:13] outstanding comments.

[36:19] » All right. >> Yeah.

[36:22] Seems like the next step in the master plan and uh

[36:25] I have no issue with it. It looks great. >> Okay.

[36:29] Um Lucas, quick question. Did you want me to open a public hearing for the plat

[36:32] as well, or are we going to do those separate?

[36:34] » The assumption was that you open the public hearing for the plat and rezone

[36:37] at the same time. That's how we've been doing the developments past

[36:41] couple years. >> Well,

[36:44] um before I get ahead of myself,

[36:47] um I'll go ahead and just

[36:49] uh make sure it's okay with everybody else

[36:51] on the council that and then I'll just look to see if

[36:54] there's anybody that wanted to make a public comment on the plat at all. If

[36:57] you do, then we can open up a a public hearing on that.

[37:01] And if not, then I'm going to look for a motion

[37:04] um to address both the rezone and the plat.

[37:07] » I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the River's [clears throat] Edge 3rd

[37:10] Edition rezoning from AG to CR and the plat requested as presented.

[37:16] » Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[37:18] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[37:20] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[37:22] » All right. Motion carries.

[37:27] Moving on to number 10, land use ordinance amendment. Nathaniel, you got

[37:30] this one.

[37:33] » This is unchanged from the prior uh

[37:38] appearance. The

[37:41] current situation is that a plat approved by city council

[37:46] is valid for a year. That means a an applicant with an approved plat can wait

[37:51] up to a year to record it. Um

[37:55] the plat does not automatically expire, but needs an affirmative action by

[37:59] yourselves in order to require that applicant to come back through the

[38:04] uh approval process. This amendment would reduce the amount

[38:10] of time after a final plat is approved to 6 months,

[38:13] um and would automatically cause expiration if if a uh extension wasn't

[38:19] granted. It would also cap the extension at 60 days.

[38:23] You heard testimony last time um that this could cause problems for developers

[38:30] who need additional approval from agencies such as Southeast Cass Water

[38:35] Resource District. Um

[38:38] I take the point of that.

[38:42] My response would be the

[38:47] Planning Commission's approval is an approval of the city.

[38:51] Um if you look at um West Fargo has a

[38:57] plat approval process where the Planning Commission approves a preliminary plat

[39:03] and the City Council approves a final plat.

[39:07] Quite similar to our own process, but with different names assigned to the

[39:12] steps. Um

[39:16] I will readily admit that I don't know the developers' side of the business

[39:22] half as half as much as they do. Um my

[39:26] suggestion would be that the Planning Commission could be treated as

[39:32] a preliminary plat under our current process. After that step

[39:37] whereas we have been trying to move quickly from

[39:40] Planning Commission approval to yourselves

[39:42] um instead inserting more time for shopping around to any necessary other

[39:47] agencies for coordination and then proceeding to

[39:51] City Council approval only immediately before recording.

[39:56] My two cents, happy to be told I'm wrong. That's that's my pitch.

[40:02] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any

[40:05] questions for Nathaniel?

[40:11] » I don't have any questions.

[40:15] » So um

[40:18] you are recommending to have a You said a 60-day renewal.

[40:26] Or the potential to have a 60- I'm sorry, 60-day extension.

[40:29] » Yes, that is that is included in this. >> included.

[40:32] » Yes. >> So, it gives 60 days.

[40:35] And the way that they acquire those 60 days is

[40:39] through >> an affirmative action by yourselves.

[40:42] » Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.

[40:43] So, it would be an automatic 6-month approval period. Again, this only

[40:47] impacts a final plat approved by City Council.

[40:52] Planning Commission approval today does not have any shot clock

[40:56] attached to it. It also would not have any shot clock attached to it if if this

[41:01] were adopted. Um so,

[41:04] » Say that again. Can you explain what you mean by

[41:05] » So, Planning Commission approval there's no expiration in our ordinance.

[41:11] Um the final plat

[41:15] approval already has I'm going to call it a tentative

[41:19] expiration as shown in in the markup of of 1 year.

[41:23] Um it's not a hard expiration date cuz it doesn't automatically take effect. Um

[41:28] but there's no there's no sunset window between when

[41:33] something appears at Planning Commission and when it appears before yourselves.

[41:36] So, we have a lot of flexibility in that stage already and and would continue to.

[41:45] I don't know if that makes sense, but >> And And just Sorry, just to add to it,

[41:50] that that time between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council can

[41:55] be truly utilized to address a lot of those other comments. And when you they

[42:01] come to Council, they should have it already to go at that point with maybe

[42:06] minor adjustments, but nothing more than that.

[42:11] » I think I can agree that. Um I mean, I guess in the past I felt like

[42:16] we were so quick to trying to get it to council because developers requested and

[42:21] said that the process was just taking too long.

[42:24] So, if they are like hold off on getting it to the council so we can finish up a

[42:29] couple um loose ends on our end, then that's

[42:34] fine with me. But yeah, I I do think like once it gets to the council level,

[42:39] I mean most of those things should be buttoned up.

[42:43] And if they're okay with waiting to get it to council, then I see no issue with

[42:47] it. >> I don't claim to speak for

[42:51] any any developers, so I I wouldn't

[42:53] » No, I'm I mean, I'm just from my own experience with the developers, I just

[42:58] always assumed they wanted to hurry up and get it get it into council. But if

[43:03] if the if if they want to hold off and finish up loose ends before it comes to

[43:08] us for final approval, >> I just I just mean to say I'm proposing

[43:12] an idea. I haven't uh run it by

[43:16] Well, I I've talked to one of the developers.

[43:18] » from the developers at the last time that we discussed this, it sounded like

[43:22] they were concerned that with the final approval at council level,

[43:27] they would run into issues. But if they get the issues taken care of before it

[43:31] it even comes to us, it shouldn't be an issue.

[43:35] So, I'm fine with that.

[43:39] » Ross.

[43:43] And Chad, anything? >> Um yeah, I just want to make sure that

[43:47] uh that that that every all the the the

[43:50] developers know the process so that it's not a surprise, you know,

[43:55] on day what 184, whatever. I mean, you know,

[44:00] that they're like, "What?" You know, I I I I don't want

[44:04] Do would we would we send them an email like a week before saying hey or I mean

[44:09] do I take it we're we're going to be in

[44:11] contact with these people that potentially could expire?

[44:14] » So this would >> Just to give them the benefit of the

[44:16] doubt, right? >> Right. Just a reminder this would only

[44:18] apply to future plats. Nothing already done changes.

[44:23] Um I mean it's not spelled out in the

[44:26] ordinance. My instinct would be this would be handled

[44:29] by a talk before something goes to city council.

[44:33] » Just just to give them a good faith. >> Yeah. Are you really sure?

[44:36] » Are you ready? >> Are you ready to go?

[44:37] » it? >> Yep.

[44:39] » Cuz the expectation under this new ordinance would be for rapid recordation

[44:46] after approval. >> And and we do plan to work with them to

[44:51] let them know or give them a heads up. Hey, you have 1 month left or you know,

[44:56] something like that. I think that would be beneficial too.

[45:00] » Yeah.

[45:04] » All right. With that Rachel, anything else?

[45:06] » Nothing to add. >> Okay.

[45:09] If there is nothing else, I'll look for a motion.

[45:11] » Uh I'll make that motion, please. >> Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a

[45:15] second?

[45:18] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[45:20] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[45:23] » All those opposed? >> Aye.

[45:26] » Anybody confused?

[45:29] » [laughter] >> Aye.

[45:36] » You're good with the motion? >> All right. So three to one, right? Is

[45:39] that what you just said? Okay. >> And and Mr. Mayor, just for the

[45:42] council's awareness, that's approval of the first reading. So it's an ordinance.

[45:45] We'll do a second reading likely on the consent agenda at your next council

[45:49] meeting. >> Sounds good.

[45:51] Okay.

[45:53] All right. Next up is a memorandum of understanding between Fargo and Horace

[45:58] and Lucas and Jim, I I you both will be taking this.

[46:02] » Yes, good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'll take these memos and

[46:06] if there's anything that um I am missing, Jim can fill me in on this.

[46:11] You'll recall at your um last City Council meeting, we had

[46:15] representatives from the City of Fargo in attendance to discuss any questions

[46:19] or concerns that the Horace City Council had with the MOUs for veterans and then

[46:24] the other one for uh the second connection for the sanitary sewer uh

[46:28] service from Horace to uh Fargo. I think the council had most of its

[46:34] questions answered that night from representatives from Fargo. The council

[46:39] then gave me direction to um discuss additional revisions to the memos with

[46:45] uh the city attorney's office for the City of Fargo. So, I did that. Um

[46:51] we exchanged emails and had some um revisions that I wanted to present to

[46:56] the city uh of Fargo and and they um were great to work with. Uh we got two

[47:02] memos that I think um make sense for both the City of Horace and the City of

[47:06] Fargo. Uh I believe the council received those revised versions in your packet.

[47:11] So, I'm just going to present on the revisions that were made. We don't need

[47:14] to go through um

[47:16] through everything. So, I'll I'll actually start Mr. Mayor with well,

[47:20] veterans is first. Um veterans memo actually had fewer proposed changes.

[47:25] Um Council member Berglin actually suggested

[47:29] um through that conversation on

[47:32] extending construction or allowing construction to start or commence in

[47:35] 2029 um for cities uh the city's budgeting purposes. So, I added that

[47:41] language into section 1A I. Um and that says for budgeting

[47:46] purposes, paving on this portion will not commence prior to 2029. And that's

[47:51] for the portion um from 64th Avenue South to 76th Avenue

[47:55] South, which Fargo will oversee. And again, so adding that language

[48:00] language in there, that construction will not start until 2029. So, the city

[48:05] of Horace can budget and actually so both

[48:07] entities can budget. And then, same thing with section 1 B I,

[48:12] adding in there that construction of that portion of Veterans

[48:16] wouldn't take place until 2029. And then, the only other

[48:22] real change I think I had is in section 3,

[48:28] the second to last

[48:33] third to last sentence, the parties hereby agree that each party will pay

[48:36] one half the project costs of any such pavement preservation project. I had

[48:42] them incorporate in there mutually agreeable

[48:45] pavement preservation project. So, if there's going to be any

[48:48] pavement preservation to Veterans, the parties will work together and Horace

[48:52] and Fargo have to agree on that work before it gets done. Again, that's for

[48:56] budgeting purposes and for Horace's awareness

[48:59] if if those projects are to proceed. So, with that, Mr. Mayor, those

[49:05] are the only suggested changes that I had and that's based on

[49:10] my review of this and then the council's comments that were made during the last

[49:14] meeting. There really wasn't much to Veterans.

[49:19] And for the council's awareness, too, the reps that were here

[49:23] at the last meeting, they asked if they should come again tonight and we didn't

[49:25] think it was necessary. So, they did ask multiple times if they should be here.

[49:31] » Okay. Any further discussion here on just Veterans Boulevard?

[49:35] From the council?

[49:41] » Was this still tied were we still tied to their development approval with this

[49:47] MOU? >> For 2029.

[49:50] » So, they haven't approved it.

[49:55] I still am kind of confused why they why Fargo would

[50:02] make their development contingent upon us signing this. I mean, they approved a

[50:10] plat. >> Cuz they wanted to make sure the city of

[50:11] Horace was okay with this MOU before they

[50:15] give the green light to the development to proceed. And then, on top of that, we

[50:18] added in there that 2029 language at your suggestion.

[50:24] » Okay, well, I guess so be it.

[50:28] » What's What's your concern? Just at least get it out just so we

[50:31] » Yeah, yeah. >> I guess it's just confusing to me

[50:33] because I've never tied one of our developments to like saying, well, I'm

[50:38] going to wait till Fargo votes on something, you know, votes on a project

[50:42] or a MOU of some sort. I mean, we also have this other section

[50:46] that we are probably going to have to be dealing with at some point, too. I

[50:50] didn't time tie that development to Fargo. So,

[50:54] » And so, my interpretation of it is it's a courtesy from Fargo to Horace

[50:58] » Okay. >> that they're saying, developer, yes, you

[51:01] have this plat, but we are trying to work out an agreement with the city of

[51:04] Horace. We need the city of Horace to be agreeable to that before we can let you

[51:08] start constructing this. >> Is this urgent to them?

[51:12] » They would like to get this these agreements or these MOUs finalized.

[51:18] » And I think my question has been I don't know what kind of, you know,

[51:23] obviously someone talks leverage and they think, oh, that's a negative thing,

[51:26] but what I look at is worst-case scenario if they decide to put a

[51:30] junkyard, you know, on the other side of Veterans

[51:34] next and then the across the street is one of our subdivisions. W-

[51:39] At what point are we going to have any leverage with the city of Fargo to

[51:42] prevent them from putting a junkyard? I'm I'm saying they're going to do it,

[51:46] but >> Yeah, so it's any kind of leverage of

[51:48] control >> Reverse

[51:49] » the roles. >> Yeah, well

[51:50] » You know, the city of Horace could do the same thing.

[51:53] » us, we would we wouldn't want to put something detrimental to what they're

[51:56] going to do on on their side. So, at what point would we negotiate any of

[51:59] that that type of thing? >> Understood. So, so when the

[52:02] representatives were here last, I believe they did address that and

[52:06] they did say state that they were looking at

[52:10] having residential budding up against the city of Horace.

[52:14] » Okay. >> That is if if I remember right, that is

[52:17] the other high in in terms of elevation property that allows them to continue

[52:21] building something while the diversion is still underway.

[52:25] » Okay. I I just wanted some assurances that we

[52:28] weren't going to run into a zoning issue where

[52:31] you know, some of our developers are developing you know, in that area

[52:35] and then there's something that doesn't it doesn't it doesn't

[52:39] » Yeah, so the the plat that council member Berglin referenced that is for

[52:43] residential development. That's Lost Lost Creek addition.

[52:47] So, that [clears throat] that will be residential.

[52:49] » to you Mr. Crocker is have you ran this past them? I'm trying to remember back

[52:53] to what they talked about and 2028 sticks in my mind as to date that they

[52:58] wanted to actually have their their

[53:02] next development started.

[53:07] » I don't know what the date of the development, but the the road was 2029

[53:11] and they agreed to that. >> Okay.

[53:13] » The development would start earlier. >> Correct.

[53:15] » Lost Creek is way north, right? Lost Creek is

[53:19] » Off of 64. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.

[53:21] » Yeah, and I think they wanted at least veterans

[53:26] by that year so that we could just because of the interchange.

[53:30] » And I'm trying to think of what the trigger was if it was 64th or if it was

[53:33] yeah. >> Okay.

[53:36] » That'd be my only comment is just making sure that this is actually you know,

[53:39] agreeable by them. I mean, obviously we we can we can approve it and then they

[53:43] can say no, we're not going to do that and then we're back in the drawing

[53:45] board. So >> when I was working with the city

[53:47] attorney's office, they then coordinated with the

[53:50] city engineer's office and then um

[53:54] » [clears throat] >> the water department. I can't remember

[53:55] what that water water reclamation Yeah.

[53:58] » Okay. >> All right.

[54:00] » I Okay, are we saving our comments for after he talks about changes to both?

[54:05] Okay, I will. >> Yeah, I'll

[54:08] Right now we're just discussing veterans. If you

[54:10] have comments on veterans >> Um it's okay, it's kind of on both, but

[54:14] I do appreciate all of the changes that you made.

[54:17] » There there were more in the sewer one, yeah.

[54:21] » Okay, I'll I'll save my comments. >> [clears throat]

[54:25] » All right then, what do you guys want to do?

[54:29] Do you want me to discuss the sewer one or do you want to act on the veterans

[54:33] one? >> Well, okay, I still have a major hold up

[54:38] with I guess um

[54:42] I just fundamentally disagree with kind of accepting that boundary.

[54:47] Um that strip annexation without doing some

[54:51] checking about how that came about, like how and when and why.

[54:55] Um I know some people think it's impossible to change, but I still just

[55:01] feel like I mean, I love Horace. I really care about the community like we

[55:05] all do up here and it feels like they outmaneuvered us and I just do want to

[55:11] know if there's anything that can be done about it. Um

[55:15] because the document does say that we accept that strip annexation as now and

[55:19] in the future as our boundary and that feels like a really big thing to accept

[55:23] from them without some more information. Um

[55:28] to me like going east, you could have parks, green space. Those people could

[55:33] Has anybody talked to the landowners over there to know if they want to be

[55:36] Fargo or if they want to be Horace. I I don't I'd like to know how that all

[55:40] went. I know it was like 2006. Um I guess I would like some answers about

[55:46] that before I'm comfortable [clears throat] accepting this strip as

[55:49] the now and in the future boundary between our cities.

[55:52] Um to me that's a

[55:55] big hold up and I don't know how my fellow council members feel.

[55:59] But even just directing Lucas to look at the history of the annexation,

[56:04] um who initiated it, if the landowners around there were talked to, if Horace

[56:09] agreed to it, why it was done, and some sort of a legal opinion as to

[56:14] if it is um set in stone or if it is something that can be worked around

[56:18] because it completely cuts our city off from any

[56:22] um space that way to I mean continue to

[56:27] I don't know. >> Yeah, so so as you mentioned it would

[56:30] that a lot of that annexation was done through the legal process in 2006.

[56:36] The cities of West Fargo and Fargo were also dealing

[56:40] with it or West Fargo and Horace um in 2003.

[56:44] So it was an issue around that time when the three cities were all dealing

[56:49] with annexation type proceedings. Uh and I

[56:53] think it started with Fargo and West Fargo with their discussions and then

[56:57] the Horace one I our law firm wasn't representing the city at that time, so I

[57:02] can't speak to the annexation at that time.

[57:05] Um but

[57:07] my my opinion is that the annexation part

[57:11] that was done in 2006 is all outside of the scope of this MOU and I don't think

[57:15] this MOU necessarily accepts anything in terms of

[57:21] Uh and I know what you see with when you read the the MOU to to draw upon that

[57:26] because it does reference >> that is permanently our border now and

[57:30] in the future. >> down.

[57:33] But this MOU is not something that is going to change

[57:37] how that's done.

[57:47] I understand your comments as to why is it in there. That's that's probably the

[57:52] easiest way to sum it up. >> in 2006, and I think we

[57:57] don't need to I mean, we don't need to accept it permanently if there's any way

[58:04] um to

[58:08] I don't know. It seems like we were out-strategized at that point, and

[58:12] » And And I don't know what the history was.

[58:15] » Right. >> What transpired or how it how it went

[58:18] down in 2006.

[58:24] » I would agree with Commissioner Dwyer. I think that there's some answers that

[58:28] need to be had in reference to that question. And it certainly it doesn't

[58:31] sound like we're I I get that this has been back and forth a few times, but um

[58:37] as it references within the agreement, I I do think it has some bearing, and I

[58:41] think prior to making a decision uh it would be prudent for us to try and

[58:47] find out that history. >> Do you guys mind if I make a motion to

[58:50] direct Mr. Crocker to do some research on this?

[58:54] Um would that be the appropriate next step, would you say?

[58:58] So, like um I'd like to make a motion to have Mr.

[59:02] Crocker research the history of the annexation,

[59:05] um maybe when, how it happened, who

[59:07] initiated it, whether landowners and Horace agreed to it, and

[59:13] potentially why it why it was done, and a legal opinion on on what options we

[59:18] have to reconsider.

[59:22] » That's fine. Um I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[59:25] » I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[59:28] in favor say aye. >> Aye.

[59:29] » Aye. >> All right, Lucas. I'll let you have some

[59:31] time to um research that, and then we can move on

[59:35] to the um the second MOU.

[59:38] » Sounds good. >> So, the second one was for the sewer

[59:41] service. Uh this one had more um changes to

[59:47] to this. The first one, section one, I just wanted

[59:50] um more of a definition of what the effective date was to say that it's the

[59:53] date um of the last signature appearing on

[59:56] the document, which is typical for our agreements.

[1:00:00] Um Changes to any reference to 57th Street

[1:00:03] just being Veterans Boulevard, because that's what it's uh being called now.

[1:00:09] And then, some of it was just comments for the city's awareness. One of them is

[1:00:14] um Matt, for you, section 4A uh II, just that um

[1:00:21] the cost of the upgrades to lift station two that the city's responsible for, um

[1:00:26] $450,000. So, just for budgeting purposes that the city is aware of that.

[1:00:31] Um that that's part of the the upgrades. I think a large portion of the Well, I I

[1:00:39] know a large portion or a majority of my comments were on

[1:00:43] um the infrastructure, the the force main line from

[1:00:48] point of connection to to Fargo's sewage collection system,

[1:00:52] which is planned to be extended um from 66th Avenue South to 45th Street

[1:00:57] South. Uh and just figuring out So, the city of

[1:01:00] Horace is paying for that portion or that infrastructure, but it's located

[1:01:06] within um

[1:01:07] Fargo's jurisdiction. And so, my comments or my questions to to them was

[1:01:13] if if Horace is paying for the infrastructure, does Horace have

[1:01:17] exclusive use of it? If Horace doesn't have exclusive use of it,

[1:01:22] or if there are any connections to it, will Horace be paid for those

[1:01:27] connections? Um and so I received a response from

[1:01:30] them saying that um

[1:01:34] that that portion will be uh

[1:01:38] used exclusively for the city of Horace, but Fargo wants it

[1:01:42] um wants the agreement to to leave the

[1:01:44] language the way it is because they'll have maintenance responsibilities of it

[1:01:48] and so they want it to stay. So I'll just read

[1:01:51] um what they provided. So with respect to the force main, I confirmed with

[1:01:54] Nathan, um who is the assistant city engineer, that the force main is being

[1:01:58] constructed, installed solely for the benefit of Horace, but the force main

[1:02:03] will be within Fargo. In other words, this force main is being placed solely

[1:02:07] to benefit Horace, which is why the agreement is structured for Horace to

[1:02:11] pay for it. Fargo, however, will need to oversee the maintenance and repairs of

[1:02:15] the force main since it is located within Fargo per section 4B, Fargo does

[1:02:21] not have the ability to allow any connections to the force main without

[1:02:25] Horace's approval. The city is fine with your edits to

[1:02:28] section 4B, but I wanted to clarify why Horace is paying for the force main.

[1:02:33] Uh and then just goes on to say, I believe this has been discussed and

[1:02:36] cleared with Jim Dollman. So I think the council had some questions on that exact

[1:02:41] matter. So for the council's uh awareness

[1:02:46] that's why it's structured the way it is. So Horace is paying for it, but

[1:02:49] Horace will have exclusive use of it. Fargo will um

[1:02:53] maintain it. So that, like I said, that was was the

[1:02:57] big concern I had for that. The other one um

[1:03:03] » And it's written in there um that they have to

[1:03:09] if somebody wanted to tie in, they would have to

[1:03:12] » Horace Horace has to be part of that that approval.

[1:03:15] » And we have What was I reading? We have a right to

[1:03:18] object to any work on the Forest Main so does I

[1:03:26] » So yeah, that some of that language comes from where Dwyer was is what I

[1:03:29] added into the agreement was just allowing the city of Horace to

[1:03:33] reasonably object object to some of these matters.

[1:03:37] Um

[1:03:40] And so that's that is in section 4B.

[1:03:47] » Yeah. >> Um where it talks about uh giving Horace

[1:03:51] that 90 days for budgeting and then it also says Horace has the opportunity to

[1:03:55] reasonably object to any such project. If Horace does not provide a reasonable

[1:03:59] objection within the 90-day period, Fargo may proceed with the project.

[1:04:04] So that's um that's in reference to infrastructure to

[1:04:08] accommodate point of connection two. >> Can you

[1:04:11] Can [clears throat] you give me an example of what that would be, Jim?

[1:04:14] Like what and what improvement would they

[1:04:19] Like give me an example of >> there's a break in the main or they

[1:04:23] needed a valve was stuck and they needed to replace a valve,

[1:04:26] they would be >> Which obviously we would need to fix.

[1:04:29] Like we wouldn't really want to be objecting to that. Okay.

[1:04:33] » No, of course not. I think just in theory like

[1:04:35] if we pay for it and they're just doing I mean

[1:04:39] » using it for expansion. >> Right.

[1:04:41] » Yeah. >> Right.

[1:04:42] » We didn't want that. >> of

[1:04:46] matters, Councilmember Dwyer, that's why I put in there that objection portion of

[1:04:50] it's for Horace's awareness and Horace's ability to object to it or at least have

[1:04:53] a conversation on okay, why are you doing this? How much is it going to

[1:04:56] cost? >> Right.

[1:04:57] » Is there a way that we can do more of a minimal type repair, minimal type

[1:05:01] project? So that >> So but Jim, you just said for expansion

[1:05:05] if they were to like expand. I thought we had to

[1:05:08] » We don't We didn't want that. >> Okay.

[1:05:10] » That was what this was for was that that infrastructure paid for by Horace

[1:05:14] outside of the >> Will not. Okay.

[1:05:16] » isn't going to be used by another agency.

[1:05:25] » Okay. >> I do have a question further on down

[1:05:27] when you get to it.

[1:05:32] Um so moving down

[1:05:38] item number 14.

[1:05:42] » 14? >> Yeah.

[1:05:44] Um so I have in there a note, ensure Horace knows about this provision prior

[1:05:48] to decommissioning the lagoons. That still says we will retain one pond. Is

[1:05:52] that correct? Okay. And Jimmy, you're okay with that?

[1:05:55] » It's creating a surge tank basically for those high water events where they're

[1:05:58] going to charge us more. We can regulate the flow going there and not have that

[1:06:03] double per thousand gallon per thousand charge.

[1:06:08] » Were we always intending on decommissioning all but one lagoon? I

[1:06:11] guess I pictured that we were always planning on decommissioning all the

[1:06:13] lagoons. >> It's come up as the project has kind of

[1:06:16] evolved. The ability to maintain the furthest

[1:06:19] west one next to the drain cuz it's really not a developable area.

[1:06:23] And it allows some more efficiencies in operation to the city for us and not

[1:06:26] just sending all the clear water or or the higher flows to Fargo at $6 or

[1:06:33] whatever it is, double per thousand that it would be

[1:06:35] for the >> But would that be would that be only for

[1:06:38] part of the community then? Cuz I thought some of them go directly to

[1:06:41] Fargo. >> It would be for only part of it, yeah.

[1:06:43] » Okay. >> Those that originally come to lift

[1:06:45] station number one now. >> Okay. So we would be able to have our

[1:06:50] staff if there was some kind of thing going on

[1:06:54] with the lift stations, we could stop it over there, but we could still get the

[1:06:59] fees from the ones that connect directly.

[1:07:02] » Correct. But there is an interconnect at lift station four and we'd be taking a

[1:07:07] couple other ones off Deer Creek to go down to the south.

[1:07:12] » Oh, okay. >> be as drastic as what

[1:07:14] » What we've had. Okay. >> At least the one time.

[1:07:18] » Okay. So, when that happens, just for my own uh

[1:07:23] understanding, like in an event a rain event and we

[1:07:27] have a big downpour or something, like let's say

[1:07:31] that happened at like 3:00 in the morning,

[1:07:34] does our staff get an alert then that they need to do something to put it to

[1:07:39] the lagoon? >> would, yeah. They they get notified from

[1:07:41] all the lift stations when something happens or there's something going on,

[1:07:44] but if there's an anticipation or something, they can get out ahead of it

[1:07:47] and turn some valves and and relocate some of that raw sewage.

[1:07:51] » would be maybe a question uh Joel, like that's the expectation then that if

[1:07:56] we're keeping that lagoon, our city staff would know like, "Hey, I got to

[1:08:00] get up and like take care of this." >> Yeah, there's multiple different ways.

[1:08:03] There's obviously a physical valve the guys can out there 2:00 or 3:00 in the

[1:08:05] morning do, or there's with our Insight that controls all of our lift stations,

[1:08:09] there's other ways to kind of automate that process depending on how often it's

[1:08:14] used. If it's getting used once or twice a year,

[1:08:16] probably not worth, you know, spending the money to automate it, but if it's

[1:08:19] going to be something that happens, you know, monthly a couple times a month,

[1:08:22] then it'd be something we'd look into. >> Okay.

[1:08:23] » So, moving on down to number 17 then, with what you just said, Jim,

[1:08:28] um how does that work if uh we don't have the ability to reroute part of our

[1:08:33] city and the fire department can just shut us off

[1:08:36] due to an event? >> What we relied on in the past is um

[1:08:41] shutting the lift stations down and then shuttling it to the lagoon

[1:08:44] via um a vacuum truck.

[1:08:48] Use the lift station wet well itself, let it fill up,

[1:08:52] pump it out, take it to the lagoons. >> So, there is some process at least if

[1:08:57] all >> pump it out into a truck, yeah.

[1:08:59] » Okay, so if if worse happens, you know, we have some sort of ability to do

[1:09:03] something. >> Correct.

[1:09:05] » Understood. >> Is maintaining one lagoon a safety net

[1:09:08] because of this uh dependence that we will have on the city

[1:09:13] of Fargo? Okay. And then, Joel,

[1:09:17] like I just want to make sure like has our

[1:09:21] public works staff seen these points? Like are they comfortable

[1:09:25] with I mean, emergency Fargo Manor up services? Like

[1:09:30] » Yeah, it's kind of goes with the job, unfortunately. You know, anytime there's

[1:09:32] an emergency, you know, it's snowfall in the middle of the night, you know, the

[1:09:35] water main breaks or force main break, you know, it's just unfortunately part

[1:09:38] of the job that uh that's why we always have at least one member on call.

[1:09:42] » Okay. >> 24/7.

[1:09:44] » Okay. >> One other question, when those events

[1:09:47] happen where we do divert water to the which will be the lone lagoon.

[1:09:54] Uh the percent uh is there an estimated percentage of

[1:09:58] what what that mix will be of rain water versus, you know, standard sewage? Is it

[1:10:02] like a 20%? Is it like a How diluted down typically is it that's going to go

[1:10:07] into that? >> Typically very little of it is actual

[1:10:10] sewage. The majority of it is, you know, gray water.

[1:10:13] » rain water, 5%? >> Correct.

[1:10:16] » Okay. >> Something in that ballpark.

[1:10:17] » Okay. So, 95% rain water. I think I I just for the people in that area so that

[1:10:23] they would know, okay, when there's a rain water event, it's

[1:10:27] going to be 95%. >> Right. It'll The lagoons will be fenced

[1:10:30] off like they currently are and it The only adjacent building will be the

[1:10:34] future public works building. So, there won't be, you know, it won't be in the

[1:10:37] backyard of a neighborhood or anything like that.

[1:10:39] » Okay.

[1:10:42] » It seems like you added in a section, too, to protect

[1:10:45] um if there's a dispute on rates.

[1:10:50] So, that's good.

[1:10:53] » I want to say that one was done before. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:11:00] » Then the the last one I had was

[1:11:03] um in the event of termination of the

[1:11:05] agreement I had concerns with with how section 15

[1:11:10] was worded. Uh and so we agreed to add a sentence that if termination occurs

[1:11:14] under this provision, then the May 8th, 2017 sewer agreement shall be uh

[1:11:20] reinstated cuz right now this MOU replaces the previous one that the

[1:11:24] parties entered into in 2017. So for any reason the courts or

[1:11:29] um some jurisdiction says that this MOU is

[1:11:32] invalid, we'll go back to the previous one that the parties had. And then

[1:11:37] that's that was it for changes to that MOU.

[1:11:46] So any other questions on that one?

[1:11:51] » No. Thank you for Thanks for getting some of

[1:11:55] those things clarified that I talked with Jim about. Um

[1:12:02] You guys have any concerns? >> Uh question for Brett and probably a

[1:12:05] number 19. Um currently do we do anything in

[1:12:09] reference to that? Enforcement.

[1:12:13] » Is there a variance to stormwater compliance?

[1:12:15] » Well, it says "Horace will take appropriate steps to enforce the sewer

[1:12:18] ordinance and amend from time to time including a program of inspections."

[1:12:22] » So currently we don't really do a whole lot with the stormwater enforcement. We

[1:12:29] can if the council would like us to take a lot harder stance on that. Uh we have

[1:12:35] the ability we have a we our equipment to be able to fog out

[1:12:40] per se like a house to be able to see if they're discharging out or into the

[1:12:44] sanitary sewer system. Uh

[1:12:46] haven't used it yet cuz it wouldn't be a very popular thing, but if the council

[1:12:50] does want to tighten that up and do that enforcement we could go through

[1:12:55] putting some more teeth into that ordinance to where we could

[1:12:58] do that. Now we have a fairly basic ordinance we

[1:13:01] could we could put more teeth into it and propose that for council

[1:13:05] uh if you wanted to. >> And I have requested that as part of our

[1:13:08] inspections our final inspection to make sure that it's done and actually Yeah.

[1:13:12] Directed appropriately not pointed at the sewer.

[1:13:16] » Yeah, we could do that during the final inspection but somebody does change that

[1:13:19] up later and that's a valve you just change on your house so people could

[1:13:25] if they're not changing it during the season like they are supposed to

[1:13:29] that's where you'd have like the smoking smoke up machine or things like that you

[1:13:33] could do. >> Yep. So.

[1:13:36] » But checking during inspection we could do we could do that.

[1:13:40] » I guess my concern is in reference to that particular. Right now it doesn't

[1:13:44] sound like we have a program so it'll probably cause us to do something

[1:13:48] in relation to this so. >> But

[1:13:51] You you see some other cities will have where I think West Fargo has where folks

[1:13:57] could pay like a voluntary charge or of a certain amount I think

[1:14:03] it's like $100 they could pay to where they're able to

[1:14:06] legally discharge into the sanitary sewer.

[1:14:09] Uh I believe that's intended to help just cover the additional cost.

[1:14:14] Uh if somebody is not complying my understanding is then

[1:14:20] like the city could address them through compliance a lot

[1:14:23] more. But

[1:14:26] that's one option there but what I believe throughout the metro area is

[1:14:29] voluntary compliance. That's why you see like news will have

[1:14:33] reminders out for people cities will be kicking out reminders saying hey

[1:14:38] please discharge your sump pumps so outside

[1:14:42] that's why you'll see that on the news at times. Cities will try to push that

[1:14:45] out and push for voluntary compliance more often than not. That's what we try

[1:14:49] to get. >> We did redo our sewer ordinance in 2024

[1:14:53] and there is a clause in there about sump pumps going to the sanitary. So, we

[1:14:57] do have it written in our ordinance currently.

[1:15:02] » Yeah, I guess that what I'm saying is according to this agreement, we have to

[1:15:05] come up with something more than what we're doing.

[1:15:08] » And and I can understand that. I mean, right now the the cost is going to go up

[1:15:13] considerably if we have another event. >> Yeah.

[1:15:20] » I and and I I equally support that. I you know, my sump is draining out in my

[1:15:25] yard. You can walk in my backyard and see it.

[1:15:29] You know, I'm complying. It's not It's not convenient to have this the way it

[1:15:34] is, but I mean, it is what it is. So, I I

[1:15:38] If somebody's not complying with this, maybe because they don't know or I I I

[1:15:42] mean, I or maybe they do know, but they don't care. I I don't know, but

[1:15:46] we're all in the same boat here with getting these these bills from Fargo

[1:15:49] now. And and we we've definitely got to do what we can to to mitigate those

[1:15:55] um mitigate those big utility bills. So, we

[1:15:59] we I I certainly don't want that to go up because somebody just doesn't doesn't

[1:16:02] care to um

[1:16:06] to to comply with the city ordinance on how to discharge your sump. So,

[1:16:10] » Uh at one point, we were looking at having a code enforcement officer.

[1:16:15] But somehow Don Dabbert took him. Kidding.

[1:16:18] » [laughter] >> I'm kidding.

[1:16:19] So, but yes, we will have to look at, you know, finding a code enforcement

[1:16:22] officer at some point and um >> [clears throat]

[1:16:25] » finding a way to start enforcing some of this.

[1:16:28] » I I would do anticipate it would take a significant amount of time for that

[1:16:31] enforcement if we were to be doing it across the board. So,

[1:16:39] » All right. Anything else?

[1:16:43] » No.

[1:16:46] » Okay. All right. Hearing seeing none, I'm

[1:16:49] going to look for a motion. See what you guys think.

[1:17:00] » All right, then I'll make a motion to approve the sanitary sewer agreement.

[1:17:04] » Okay. >> Uh

[1:17:06] the changes that were made by Mr. Kroger.

[1:17:10] » Okay. So, Naomi made a motion to approve the sanitary sewer agreement MOU with

[1:17:15] the said changes by uh Lucas Kroger.

[1:17:19] I'll look for a second. >> I'll second.

[1:17:22] » I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

[1:17:24] » Aye. >> Aye.

[1:17:25] » All right, motion carries. >> [sighs]

[1:17:28] » Okay. Um

[1:17:30] moving on then to uh item number 12, Lost River Pond. Jim, you have this one?

[1:17:36] » Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council. This is more of an update than anything else.

[1:17:39] Um at the last meeting the developer of Lost River came forward with a I guess

[1:17:43] kind of a concept or potential proposal for

[1:17:46] um some of the cattail removal of the Lost River Pond.

[1:17:50] Um we had a little bit of an estimate with that and some plan sheets that went

[1:17:53] along with it that resolv- resolved in or needed some easements and some other

[1:17:57] access. We did have a meeting last Monday to talk a little bit about that.

[1:18:02] Um basically we there something needs to come forward with a plan, be it either

[1:18:06] HOA driven, be it city driven, be it a participation between either. Um

[1:18:11] right now we just don't have how that's going to come forward to the city

[1:18:14] council yet. There are some things we worked out on the side too of if the

[1:18:18] city is all right with an HOA working in that area, if it's

[1:18:23] has to be an agreement or something done with that for constructability and and

[1:18:26] other stuff. So, it this is unless any one of the council members has an

[1:18:30] opinion on this that they like to share, I think we're more of just still in the

[1:18:34] gathering mode for it for right now. >> Do you have a timeline?

[1:18:42] » Hasn't been fast enough. I mean >> I mean I'm just wondering cuz we've like

[1:18:46] had this on the agenda so much time and I'm just wondering like when we can

[1:18:51] be >> Right. I would agree with you.

[1:18:53] » Cuz people are probably exhausted. >> Yeah.

[1:18:56] » Do you think you could work on a timeline on it?

[1:18:59] » Well, I don't know what how long it takes to get the information that

[1:19:02] they're looking for. I mean >> I guess the question is this is the city

[1:19:05] willing to put money towards it? Is the city city not willing?

[1:19:09] That we don't have a quote or anything from a contract. We don't have any type

[1:19:13] of a bid. The estimate was significantly below the $250,000

[1:19:18] bid threshold, so it could be a quotable project. We have done improvements

[1:19:21] through quotes before. Would it be the city leading that

[1:19:24] effort? Would it be a developer leading that effort?

[1:19:27] And what does the cost look like on the back end? I think the money is where

[1:19:32] the question lies. And then what is the city council's

[1:19:36] wishes when it comes to working on within the public right of way

[1:19:41] as a private entity.

[1:19:46] » I guess is what I'd like to see is uh kind of a brief on the project, what

[1:19:51] occurred. Uh

[1:19:53] there was some language in the contract, uh some information about that.

[1:19:57] What we started out with as far as uh an issue in the pond, how much sludge

[1:20:02] there was in the pond, how many cattails were there in the pond at that time.

[1:20:06] Uh and and really some answers related to

[1:20:09] uh you know, what was the city's obligation

[1:20:11] back at that point and really what it is what the obligation is today.

[1:20:16] And I mean this has big impacts on us for the future because of these

[1:20:19] decisions. There's a lot of ponds in the city.

[1:20:22] Uh if we accept responsibility, uh I would think you would be setting a

[1:20:26] precedent, but I certainly don't want to do that without having all the

[1:20:29] information. So I would ask that a brief be completed in reference to

[1:20:33] what we're really looking at here. >> Like a history of what's happened and

[1:20:38] » Yep. >> what was expected to have happened

[1:20:43] including with the recent construction or work done on it.

[1:20:49] » What I'd be looking at is is what the condition of the pond was when the pond

[1:20:53] contract was awarded uh

[1:20:56] for the cattail removal. Uh how much were they over there in the

[1:21:00] steer wise? Was it full like it is today with cattails?

[1:21:03] Uh was it not? I don't know cuz I I wasn't there. I didn't see it. Uh how

[1:21:08] much sludge was in there at that time and possibly how much is in there at

[1:21:11] this time if it's available for information. Really just to see what our

[1:21:14] obligation is uh in relation to what we originally

[1:21:18] said that we agreed we would do.

[1:21:22] » But my question also is was the pond designed to have regular maintenance

[1:21:28] come in and out of the pond without destroying sidewalks and trees and and

[1:21:33] and walking path whatever. Was it designed okay you're it's going to have

[1:21:38] maintenance and here's where the maintenance vehicles come in and out to

[1:21:41] to work on the pond. What is it was was the original design set up

[1:21:45] » So, there's a shared use >> or our pond go ahead.

[1:21:48] » Oh. >> There's a shared use path on the north

[1:21:50] side. There's a shared use path on the south side. It's typically 5-in

[1:21:53] reinforced concrete. Typical for light duty trucks. Maybe not necessarily for

[1:21:58] heavy duty equipment. >> Okay.

[1:21:59] » With this being a wet pond, there is some additional maintenance maybe that

[1:22:04] comes along with that through the silt silt and sediment and and whatever.

[1:22:07] » Mhm. >> Um but access is limited with heavy

[1:22:11] equipment. It is. >> So, what we're saying is the the the

[1:22:15] pond was not designed to have the the size and equip the amount of equipment

[1:22:21] that would I guess that we're being we're at being

[1:22:23] asked to What the and get it back to where it where it needs to be.

[1:22:27] » And I don't know what the what the intent of getting equipment in there in

[1:22:30] the in the past. You know, we did the city did a mock excavation of the Maple

[1:22:34] Grove Pond. Maple Grove Pond was right off of a city

[1:22:38] street. We're able to back up trucks right to it, drive an excavator, drive a

[1:22:41] dozer right down there and not go across concrete, not go across finished

[1:22:45] backyards. >> Okay.

[1:22:47] » Stay within a right-of-way or a parking lot. So, access is a bit of a challenge

[1:22:51] to this area. When the city did the project in 2 years ago, it was we had an

[1:22:56] easement across a lot that didn't have a home built on it at the time. There's

[1:23:00] since been a home built on that. So, the proposal that was brought forth um

[1:23:04] 2 weeks ago had or 3 weeks ago at this time had

[1:23:08] getting a private easement on a lot that doesn't have a home on it on this north

[1:23:14] west corner, but there is still crossing of the concrete shared use path that

[1:23:18] would have to be have to be done to get down there. So,

[1:23:22] would heavy trucks going down there damage the sidewalk?

[1:23:26] Pretty good chance. Getting a any type of tracked machinery

[1:23:29] down there could be done, mud mats, that type of

[1:23:32] stuff, but it's not super super easy, I guess is

[1:23:36] what I would say. >> So, so we're saying the pond was not

[1:23:39] designed designed to have the type of The original design was not to have the

[1:23:44] type of equipment to come in and do the maintenance of what we're proposing or

[1:23:48] what what what is needed or >> I would say that there's always a means

[1:23:53] of getting in there. Like I said, mud mats or something like that.

[1:23:56] » Do Do we need to start develop these designing these ponds with with access

[1:24:00] for for this type of >> we are looking into that. This was the

[1:24:03] second storm water pond that was constructed with new subdivision. So,

[1:24:07] allowing access, getting to them with vac trucks, getting to pump stations

[1:24:11] with vac trucks, getting to um these these areas with maintenance equipment

[1:24:16] is definitely more of a priority now than it would have been at that time.

[1:24:20] » Well, I mean, okay, there's nothing in our packet and I feel like there's kind

[1:24:25] of no new info. >> Not much.

[1:24:27] » What came from the meeting? >> Basically, we just talked about here's

[1:24:32] what the estimate was based off of. We looked at some pictures from the

[1:24:36] project. We looked at some pictures from the Maple Grove cleanout and there was a

[1:24:41] dozer up to its middle of its tracks in muck. There was a excavator in the pond

[1:24:46] up to the turntable in in um the muck and then we showed the

[1:24:50] trucks backing in and out of there, which

[1:24:54] raised the question of constructability and how do you get the equipment down

[1:24:57] there? And it it might not be just as as straightforward as we'd like to think it

[1:25:01] it is. Just with that other example that we had from 2017.

[1:25:07] And that's really where where it lied. >> But okay,

[1:25:10] Councilmember Renner brought up really good questions, but I also feel like

[1:25:14] these are things that we should almost know by now, right? Like we just

[1:25:18] keep spinning our wheels. >> together. We'll We'll put it together.

[1:25:21] We'll We'll put that information together. I've I've done some research

[1:25:24] on it. Um I just didn't have a chance to put it all together for

[1:25:28] you tonight. So, I will do that.

[1:25:31] » Could we get it by the next meeting and then with the intent that we have a

[1:25:34] discussion and >> Right. Like

[1:25:36] » move forward for some people one way or the other.

[1:25:39] If possible. >> Mr. Mayor, [clears throat]

[1:25:41] would you be okay if I asked them a question?

[1:25:46] The people who are here for the Last River Pond.

[1:25:49] » Go ahead. >> I just have a quick question for you.

[1:25:52] Are you for your level of expectation for the pond, is it that you want to see

[1:25:59] like minimal cattails, zero cattails? What level of

[1:26:06] expectation? Because I don't think I've actually heard what your level of

[1:26:10] expectation is for the pond. Can I just ask that really quick?

[1:26:14] » I guess for for me,

[1:26:17] I've got [clears throat] a reasonable ex- expectation that it's never going to

[1:26:20] be perfect. >> Okay.

[1:26:22] » You know, and and it's we got to be realistic here.

[1:26:25] Not looking for the pristine way it was even 5 years ago when it was new.

[1:26:30] » Mhm. >> But just a radical significant

[1:26:33] improvement would be desirable.

[1:26:36] » Okay. >> If I can just piggyback off of that, I

[1:26:38] think from my perspective it's like what we were sold on, right? Like what

[1:26:42] it looked like. There was cattails in the middle of the bed.

[1:26:44] » Okay. >> A significant amount of cattails. And to

[1:26:47] your concern about whether it's designed to do the amount of remediation it needs

[1:26:50] now, that implicates this idea that there hasn't been any maintenance for 5

[1:26:55] years. So, was it designed to do the like the drastic amount of remediation

[1:26:59] now? Maybe it wasn't, but that's comes in part because of the lack of

[1:27:04] maintenance for the the lack of minimal maintenance for the last 5

[1:27:08] years. That has >> So,

[1:27:09] » drastically gotten worse every year. >> I know like the city's kind of like in

[1:27:13] this weird spot of like stormwater ponds

[1:27:18] to city staff, they serve a purpose and it's not necessarily to them like an

[1:27:23] aesthetic thing. To you guys, you're just looking for it to do its purpose,

[1:27:27] but also be a little bit more cleaned up.

[1:27:30] Um my I just need to know one more question so

[1:27:35] that I can help determine next meeting.

[1:27:39] If you guys what's your what's your level of

[1:27:43] expectation as far as beautification? I mean, is this something that you guys

[1:27:48] uh the community in that area would want to have the HOA start doing more

[1:27:55] beautification over there? Um because the city it um

[1:28:00] in my opinion, we can't the the resources are just not there for

[1:28:04] the beautification aspect of it. So, I I guess for me to make a decision in

[1:28:09] moving forward with whatever comes um to us for from staff.

[1:28:15] I guess is the level of expectation that the

[1:28:18] residents in that area would be willing to work with the HOA to make sure that

[1:28:24] it's Okay, I'm seeing heads shaking. Yes.

[1:28:27] » I feel like a one-time cleanup and then a continual HOA or maybe a yearly

[1:28:33] check-in from the city staff or what would

[1:28:38] » It feels like there's been like a miscommunication between the HOA and the

[1:28:41] city as to who has the right or the responsibility to maintain it.

[1:28:44] » Okay.

[1:28:47] Okay. So, that helps. Um,

[1:28:53] Sure.

[1:28:55] » One more thing, the project last year, I think that was that expectation that

[1:29:00] they had the access to the pond. It was in there to clean it out.

[1:29:04] » Yeah. Okay.

[1:29:05] » Right.

[1:29:10] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:29:13] » And there was funds allocated and approved by the council to to to to do

[1:29:17] some sort of cleaning that never got done. It got repaired but it wasn't

[1:29:20] cleaned.

[1:29:32] » Okay. So,

[1:29:35] thank you guys for just I need to I just need to like have some clarification on

[1:29:40] some things in order to like figure out

[1:29:43] what it is the ask is of me. Um, so Jim, given that there maybe is

[1:29:50] some confusion on like HOA versus city, is that something that we need to also

[1:29:55] can we put together an agreement on

[1:30:00] whatever >> I think public works has been looking

[1:30:03] for a level of expectation since the ponds were started 10 years ago.

[1:30:07] » Can we I [clears throat] think in order to for me anyways, and I don't want to

[1:30:11] speak for the rest of council is if there seems to be this confusion of

[1:30:15] cities, you know, city is like we're looking at it from a functional

[1:30:20] standpoint versus the residents are looking at it from a different

[1:30:24] standpoint or maybe a combination. Um I think it might be beneficial if we try

[1:30:30] to figure this out um as far as getting a an agreement in place. And then also

[1:30:37] um depending on that agreement that way we can try to make a decision on

[1:30:43] something cuz I I I'm not going to lie, this is getting

[1:30:47] it's keeps going and going and going and um as frustrated as I feel, I can only

[1:30:52] imagine and and I and I I don't know

[1:30:57] and I don't know what the right answer is. I guess what I'm looking for is we

[1:31:00] have to start getting a level of understanding between the HOAs and these

[1:31:04] ponds. And and also we need to have like a couple options. Here's what we can do.

[1:31:11] Tell us council what you want us to do in a in an agreement with the HOA.

[1:31:17] » So in terms of the agreement with the HOA, we have done that with recent

[1:31:20] developments. So we can certainly draft that if that's the council's desire.

[1:31:23] Just give the direction and I'll whip something up and you can take a look at

[1:31:26] it. >> I I would prefer that we start like

[1:31:29] moving on something. >> Could we Could you guys work on that

[1:31:33] independently um with the HOA? I mean, that doesn't have

[1:31:37] to be with us. I think the big decision is who's paying for the initial cleanup

[1:31:41] and then what the ongoing maintenance looks like. Does seem like that could be

[1:31:46] a document that perhaps comes to us, but that could be worked on

[1:31:51] in the meantime. >> I mean, I just I don't think it's

[1:31:56] I mean, I kind of share the same sentiment as uh

[1:32:00] council member Renner because I mean, we have a lot of ponds.

[1:32:07] The city's looking at functionality, and then we have We just need to make sure

[1:32:11] that, like, we have the ducks in a row with the

[1:32:15] agreements. Um, if there is that level of expectation to like make sure it's

[1:32:20] not as I mean, it it does look swampy. It really does.

[1:32:25] Um, >> [clears throat]

[1:32:26] » and I do blame the

[1:32:30] the actual construction of it, because it I I blame that it's not deep enough.

[1:32:36] I don't know whose problem that is, but I do think that because it wasn't deep

[1:32:40] enough when it was constructed, as you said, Jim, it was our second

[1:32:44] second pond, you know? So,

[1:32:47] I I I struggle because I agree with with, uh, Renner, but I also know that

[1:32:54] we have been dealing with this same pond having so many issues. I want to see if

[1:32:59] there's a like a one-and-done that we can come up with and move it

[1:33:04] over to the HOA. >> So, in reference to the agreements, why

[1:33:08] would we enter into individual agreements with different HOAs and not

[1:33:11] just go with the blanket city policy? >> So, for for some of the developments,

[1:33:16] it's been with the larger ponds and just who is responsible for what, because

[1:33:21] around some of those larger ones, there's more infrastructure, and some of

[1:33:25] it's city infrastructure, some of it's park, and so it's just outlining who is

[1:33:29] responsible for what within those. For this type of pond, we typically don't

[1:33:34] have any sort of agreement with the HOA. So, if there's a desire for a a policy

[1:33:39] for these types of ponds instead of an agreement, that's fine, too, if that's

[1:33:43] the desire of the council. Just give me the direction that you want, and we'll

[1:33:46] » I'm fine with I'm fine with a policy, too. I just feel

[1:33:50] like in order for me to make a decision where I can look at the HOA and say,

[1:33:57] "I did my part, you do yours." Like if the residents have a level of

[1:34:01] expectation, then you guys need to work together for

[1:34:05] the pond as well because I I mean I can't I can't keep having

[1:34:11] this.

[1:34:14] » So my my thoughts are if the city isn't going to do anything or we were in

[1:34:18] paralysis because we don't know what to do,

[1:34:21] we at least need to say, "Okay, since we don't know what we're going to do, we

[1:34:24] don't have the power to do anything, we're going to empower you guys

[1:34:28] to say, I mean, 10 guys in chest waders, you know, going out there ripping them

[1:34:32] out by hand. I mean, what what whatever it takes, you know. Um

[1:34:36] we need to be able to empower them to to do something.

[1:34:40] Say if somebody drowns or something like that while they're doing it, obviously

[1:34:43] it's on city property, so we'd have to work out some sort of liability

[1:34:46] something, right? And then whatever plan they'd come up

[1:34:50] with, we'd have to have >> I think the issue is a little more than

[1:34:53] just the cattails. I think it's all the sludge that's in there, so it's

[1:34:56] » well, I mean, we're we're looking at the cattails.

[1:34:57] » I think I I think you hit hit it or addressed it earlier with this city will

[1:35:02] give you options at your next meeting. If you want to give me direction on

[1:35:05] either agreement or to work up a policy for these types of ponds, let me know.

[1:35:09] We'll get that whipped up, but it's I don't think you're going to come to any

[1:35:12] sort of a motion tonight, so

[1:35:15] » Agreed. >> a solution tonight.

[1:35:17] » So let me look for a motion then to direct uh Jim to um prepare

[1:35:22] uh an agenda item packet

[1:35:25] » [clears throat] >> um to address

[1:35:28] the options that we have for the Lost River Pond. Is that sufficient, Jim?

[1:35:33] Perfect. >> I'll make motion.

[1:35:34] » Thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[1:35:37] » Yeah, I'll I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:35:39] in favor, say aye. >> Aye.

[1:35:40] » Aye. >> Aye.

[1:35:41] » All right, motion carries. Thank you for showing up tonight, folks.

[1:35:45] » Thank you and thank you, Mr. Mayor, for allowing them to speak.

[1:35:50] » All right. Coming up next, uh Lost River 8th

[1:35:53] Edition. Jim, you got this one as well. >> All right, Mr. Mayor.

[1:35:56] » myself from this one. Sorry to interrupt.

[1:35:58] » Sorry. >> [snorts]

[1:35:59] » Okay.

[1:36:04] » So, as the city tradition transitions away from special assessments versus

[1:36:08] development projects, um the typical process for construction

[1:36:13] engineering or for project inspection has been that the developer has the

[1:36:16] option to design the project themselves, turn it over to the city, the city

[1:36:20] constructs the project within the city right of way, it then accepts the

[1:36:23] project and maintains it for future. This is one of the first ones that's

[1:36:26] going to be privately funded, the construction portion of it, so there

[1:36:30] won't be a request for reimbursement from the developer

[1:36:33] um to to do that. So, at the March 16th, 2026 meeting, the decision was made by

[1:36:39] the Horace City Council that the city engineer would be the doing the project

[1:36:42] inspection, making sure that the project is built to the in accordance with the

[1:36:45] plans and specifications, then ultimately accepting the project on

[1:36:48] behalf of the city for the city to own and maintain for the rest of of time.

[1:36:53] So, uh the first thing we have on here with the developer's request to amend

[1:36:58] the developer's agreement, I believe Lucas can take that one. He handles the

[1:37:01] agreement side of it, but it's a request from the developer to use their design

[1:37:05] engineer for the construction side of it as well. So, um Lucas, are you

[1:37:11] want to add on that or >> I don't think any I mean, based on

[1:37:15] recent conversations, I don't think anything has to change to the

[1:37:18] developer's agreement. It's just a matter of what level of services are

[1:37:22] provided for in the document that you're presenting to the council.

[1:37:25] » Okay. >> Is my understanding.

[1:37:27] » So, with that being said, um and on your discr- your um

[1:37:34] decision made in March, we did have an engineering services agreement with the

[1:37:38] city engineer, Inner City Engineering, provided for your review tonight. Um

[1:37:42] after discussions with the city attorney, we have a summary in here that

[1:37:46] talks about the services that would be that would be provided. I can look at

[1:37:50] that right now for you. We'll summarize it. So, we have resident

[1:37:55] project representative. That's the one who's on site observing the construction

[1:37:58] for uh making sure that it's built in

[1:38:00] compliance with the project plans and specifications.

[1:38:03] We have the construction administration phase, construction drawing modification

[1:38:07] phase, post construction phase, and then GIS

[1:38:10] mapping and data management phase. Uh the last two phases are what we've done

[1:38:14] on all other projects when it comes to making sure the as-builts are correct,

[1:38:19] making sure that the information gets put into the GIS mapping and the utility

[1:38:22] viewer that the city has for public works use.

[1:38:25] Um Lucas, when we were talking earlier

[1:38:27] about the potential for task phases two and three to be removed from our

[1:38:31] agreement, and that would be work that would be done by the design engineer at

[1:38:35] that time. So, um

[1:38:38] I'm fine with that if because the direction of the city at in the March

[1:38:41] was for the inspection, so that would just

[1:38:44] be phase one four and five. Um comments on that?

[1:38:49] » Yes, essentially what we're trying to do with this is just to make sure that the

[1:38:52] city has a representative involved with these developments from start to finish.

[1:38:56] The city had ran into issues previously with developments that had no city

[1:39:00] oversight, and the city continues to have issues come up in those

[1:39:04] developments. Mostly, it's around drainage. And and so with this process,

[1:39:08] the city's engineer will be involved with inspecting um first the the plans

[1:39:13] and specs to make sure those are done in accordance with city standards. And then

[1:39:17] while the project is actually being constructed, they'll do site visits to

[1:39:21] ensure that the the work that the contractor is doing is actually

[1:39:24] complying with those plans and specs. And again, it's making sure that the

[1:39:27] city has that representation there from start to finish, and that is identified

[1:39:31] within the developer's agreement. And now what Jim is presenting to you is

[1:39:35] just the scope of services for the city engineer

[1:39:39] with the city to do that level of work. >> Question.

[1:39:43] » Um so

[1:39:46] when the city constructs projects, it has a contingency in case things go

[1:39:49] wrong. Um the developer taking this on his own,

[1:39:54] does he have to set aside any kind of money um

[1:39:57] for X number of months in case anything were to go wrong with the development?

[1:40:04] » So that you know, I mean, I could take this and so that's it's on the developer

[1:40:06] and that's why I want to be careful with what what connection the city engineer's

[1:40:10] office has to the to the work and to the contractor. This will be owned by the

[1:40:15] developer, not owned by the city. Typically, when we are working with

[1:40:18] these projects, the city is the owner of the project. In this situation, the

[1:40:22] city's not the owner of it until it is the infrastructure or the improvements

[1:40:28] are accepted at the end. So those the infrastructure that gets installed has

[1:40:32] to comply with city standards and the city engineer's approval before the city

[1:40:37] will accept it. So the actual work getting done, that's on the developer

[1:40:42] working with their design engineer and then the contractor who's selected by

[1:40:46] the developer.

[1:40:48] » Can I ask a question? So if

[1:40:52] so if the developer is requesting that they have their own engineering

[1:40:58] looking at and at the end we

[1:41:03] like you said, accept like we we own it at the end.

[1:41:08] If we're not how do we ensure

[1:41:12] if we're not out there that we want to accept it then?

[1:41:17] » So the city engineer's office will have a representative out there. That's where

[1:41:21] he discusses the um the resident project representative. So

[1:41:27] outlined within this document, they have what roles the resident

[1:41:31] project representative does with inspecting the project. Um

[1:41:37] so the city will have representation. >> I'm assuming that is through Interstate

[1:41:41] Engineering then? >> Correct.

[1:41:42] » And then uh I'm not going to assume, I'm going to

[1:41:45] ask. Okay, what what are you looking at for

[1:41:49] um how

[1:41:52] often, how much this representative will be on site?

[1:41:56] » So we got the contractor schedule. It's roughly 18 weeks. We're proposing this

[1:42:00] as an hourly contract, not a percentage or nothing nothing like lump sum or

[1:42:05] anything like that, just hourly. So while we're there,

[1:42:07] I believe it was 450 hours a week for 18 weeks. Granted, if they're there,

[1:42:11] there's there's not always a necessarily a reason. Do you have it there?

[1:42:15] So 18 weeks at 50 hours per week and then we had a part-time for 2 weeks at

[1:42:19] 20 hours per week. So um obviously that if we reduce the

[1:42:24] that is where our RPR is, yeah. So that's what our

[1:42:27] thought is, 18 years. >> So with that or or you know, they doing

[1:42:31] any of the surveying or the actual >> Surveying is being provided by the

[1:42:34] contractor on this project. Typically, we do incorporate that on a city

[1:42:38] project. We do provide that service. >> Okay.

[1:42:40] » But um it's not really expressly written in the

[1:42:44] in the uh private infrastructure policy. So we did

[1:42:48] we didn't push on that one.

[1:42:52] » Okay. Ross, I'll let you go. >> So uh is this a deviation from what your

[1:42:56] standard practice has been? >> The way that it's funded is the

[1:43:00] deviation from what the standard practice has been. Otherwise, this isn't

[1:43:03] this is pretty much straight straight what what we've done in the past.

[1:43:06] » Okay.

[1:43:16] » Okay. I feel really stupid right now. I'm very sorry.

[1:43:19] Um so are you saying

[1:43:25] What am I What am I actually voting on here? Am I voting on

[1:43:29] a different agreement? If I mean, I see Mr. Dwyer's

[1:43:34] email here. He's requesting that he has his own

[1:43:37] engineering and it's not the city. >> Correct.

[1:43:40] » Is that what I'm voting on? >> So, what you're discussing tonight is

[1:43:44] the >> [clears throat]

[1:43:45] » city engineer provided you a memo with their scope of services. And so,

[1:43:50] within that and based on our conversation, we're

[1:43:54] going to modify that and he's just asking you to limit the scope of

[1:43:58] services to Do you guys Are you guys all looking at

[1:44:01] it? Do you Do you have it? So, on on page three

[1:44:05] » Is it the Which which number? Wait, is it the 13A

[1:44:11] developer agreement? >> It'd be

[1:44:14] » B. >> B.

[1:44:15] » 13B.

[1:44:23] » Yeah, I don't know what the For A, I don't I don't know what the actual

[1:44:26] request is. I I don't don't think I've ever seen it.

[1:44:29] » Okay. So,

[1:44:32] anyways, continue. >> I I was just going to say on A, my

[1:44:35] understanding is the developer is asking to have their own engineer do the

[1:44:39] construction engineering. And the city's practice, when the city

[1:44:44] developed the privately funded public infrastructure policy earlier this year,

[1:44:49] they used the definition saying inspections.

[1:44:53] And council was very animate about having inspections done by the city

[1:44:59] engineer. Now, I believe the understanding was

[1:45:02] inspections includes construction engineering, like what Jim was talking

[1:45:06] about there. The developer is asking to be able to

[1:45:09] use their own engineer for construction engineering. Now, if they were to do

[1:45:13] that, then

[1:45:16] coun- we would basically need council to say yes or no. What do you want to do?

[1:45:21] But, like I said, the council was very animate about

[1:45:24] having the city engineer do inspections, and I believe the understanding was

[1:45:28] inspections was covered that. So,

[1:45:31] and then B is the whole agreement from Air State to what they typically do for

[1:45:37] any development. >> Okay, so you're saying A and B on the

[1:45:40] sheet, they're they're contradicting each

[1:45:43] other. So, we need to decide A or B.

[1:45:46] » Basically, the developer's asking for being able to have their own engineer

[1:45:51] for construction engineering services, and use Air State

[1:45:55] » believe for inspection. >> And B is

[1:45:59] for Air State to do it. >> I

[1:46:02] I think to put it in layman's terms, well,

[1:46:05] that's what I do. I put things in layman's terms.

[1:46:07] The two extremes are oh, we're getting overcharged and they're running up the

[1:46:11] bill on us on one side. On the other side is oh, everything's going to get

[1:46:15] rubber stamped. And we need to meet somewhere in the middle where obviously

[1:46:19] the the engineering bill's not being run up,

[1:46:21] and it's not getting rubber stamped. So, that that the goal is to meet somewhere

[1:46:25] in the middle. >> Yeah, and so what I originally discussed

[1:46:28] is doing what you're referring to right there, which is to bring everything into

[1:46:31] the middle. >> Yeah.

[1:46:33] » And that's the modifi- So, the developer's agreement with with with

[1:46:36] what I'm saying, the developer's agreement does not have to change. The

[1:46:39] way it's drafted now, it it should be fine to cover what the developer's

[1:46:42] asking and what the city is requiring. >> Yeah.

[1:46:45] » So, the and then the other part of that there where the modification is for kind

[1:46:49] of what the developer's requesting is within the engineer's scope of services

[1:46:54] to limit what's actually going to be done through the

[1:46:57] um through the city's engineer, which is the one, four, and five that Jim

[1:47:02] originally discussed. One being resident project representative, which that is

[1:47:07] that's where we're talking about those inspections. So, they will do the

[1:47:10] inspections, they'll review the plans inspect right away, and they will have a

[1:47:13] representative on site on behalf of the city looking at those

[1:47:18] improvements, monitoring construction as it progresses.

[1:47:21] And then four is post-construction. And then, five is GIS mapping and data

[1:47:26] management. So, what he's talking about getting rid of or taking out is the

[1:47:30] construction administration and construction drawing modifications. That

[1:47:34] will be the developer's engineer that will still be responsible for doing

[1:47:37] that. So, Lowry will be responsible for those tasks. Interstate will be

[1:47:42] responsible for one, four, and five. >> Oh, so it is a hybrid. Okay.

[1:47:46] » Correct. And that's that's why to Councilmember

[1:47:51] Chalmers' point, it's the meet in the middle with what 13A and 13B are saying.

[1:47:56] » And And we're not accusing either engineering company of doing either

[1:47:59] thing, but that that's the concern, I guess, what on either side.

[1:48:02] [clears throat] >> No, what we're trying to do, too, is

[1:48:04] like like Jim said, this is not typically how these developments are

[1:48:07] done in the city. So, we want to make sure that we're getting this right.

[1:48:09] » Yeah. And And I feel like

[1:48:12] I understand their concern, but I also see our concern, too, is

[1:48:16] » 1,000%. >> have

[1:48:18] we we have some issues um from past Yeah, and and

[1:48:23] » stuff. >> With you being on the Council for as

[1:48:25] long as you you've been on the Council, you've seen it on multiple developments,

[1:48:28] and it's the developments that are the older developments that the city wasn't

[1:48:31] involved in, and then the request is, "Well, we were promised this. We We paid

[1:48:35] » Mhm. >> you know, X for this lot, and now it

[1:48:38] doesn't drain. City, fix it." And it's like, "Well,

[1:48:41] our hands are kind of tied. We weren't involved with it at all. We don't know

[1:48:42] what was done with that." >> So, would it be the expectation that

[1:48:45] this would be the template going forward?

[1:48:48] » We'd like to clean up the language to be If that is the case, yes.

[1:48:52] » Perfect. >> Because I What I don't want is

[1:48:54] to redo this because it's not right.

[1:48:58] » Right. >> Because if we continue to do these

[1:49:00] self-funded developments, of course, we have to have a a standard way of doing

[1:49:05] things. Otherwise, we'll have all kinds of requests for all kinds of different

[1:49:08] things. >> Yeah, and the And that's why I don't

[1:49:10] want to make any changes to the developer's agreement. That's something

[1:49:14] that we have used in the city. I don't want to change that. That has been used

[1:49:18] with all the developments. It's a matter of what services are included within the

[1:49:23] engineers services agreement. That is what's being discussed with the council

[1:49:26] tonight. With what we've presented so far.

[1:49:30] » And then that's what I would like to formalize is what services are we going

[1:49:33] to require. Because otherwise it'll become a bargaining match.

[1:49:36] » One, four, and five. >> Okay, but going forward beyond this.

[1:49:40] » Like he's talking about the next self-funded development. Can we just

[1:49:43] have the same set of standards?

[1:49:46] » That's the intent. Is is that we want this to be a consistent message and we

[1:49:50] want to just make sure that if the city desires this option, which I think

[1:49:54] everyone agrees that it's a good option to provide developers to finance it on

[1:49:57] your own. But then to just make sure that the city is involved with the

[1:50:00] process so these developments aren't getting done in the dark of night and we

[1:50:05] don't know what what infrastructure's going in and then it's okay city, we're

[1:50:08] done. Here you go. Here's the infrastructure and we have no idea if it

[1:50:11] complies with city standards. >> Okay. All right. I think I'm I'm good

[1:50:15] with that. >> And the Mr. Mayor, the developers

[1:50:18] representative is uh she's here. >> I don't have any questions.

[1:50:23] » Good. How are you? >> [laughter]

[1:50:25] » Welcome to the front table. >> Yeah, thank you. Um Blake Nybakken

[1:50:29] representing Winnie Development tonight. Um just a couple comments um if I might

[1:50:34] um Mr. Mayor and members of council. Um

[1:50:36] yeah, I mean I I I think uh Lucas explained things very well. I guess my

[1:50:41] So, we didn't feel that it needed to be amendment just based on you know, the

[1:50:46] the items in 6A and 6B where it talks about um

[1:50:50] developer must make the improvements under the guidance of a or supervision

[1:50:54] of professional engineer licensed in North Dakota. Um I guess my only

[1:50:58] question when it comes to um the agreement with Interstate and I

[1:51:02] apologize I didn't have that um pulled up in front of me, but the

[1:51:05] resident project representative um you know, with with the agreement that

[1:51:11] the developer has with Lowry, um you know, there will be a full site a

[1:51:15] full-time on-site supervisor there for that construction administration with

[1:51:19] the engineering. And so, it seems like there might be some redundancy there.

[1:51:23] Um and I don't know if there's any way to pair that portion of it down. You

[1:51:27] know, they've got a not-to-exceed contract with Lowry Engineering, which

[1:51:31] is one of the reasons why they were very comfortable and why they were wanting to

[1:51:34] move forward with that aspect of it to to make sure that they had their arms

[1:51:37] around the budget very well. Um and so, I guess

[1:51:40] the and I don't know if maybe I

[1:51:42] misunderstood Jim if if if all of that's um proposed estimate would still be

[1:51:47] needed or if it would just be coordination items and and you know,

[1:51:51] certain key milestones that needed to be observed and and and um

[1:51:56] you know, directly supervised. >> To to Mr. Renner's point though, um I'm

[1:52:01] not I'm not saying anything bad about your guys's engineering company. Um what

[1:52:05] we've dealt with in the past in various different areas of town from different

[1:52:09] engineering companies has left a bad taste in our mouth. Uh

[1:52:12] having to afford several hundred thousand dollars in bills to fix what

[1:52:17] has gone on. So, I don't think it's necessarily you guys, it's just trying

[1:52:21] to standardize is is probably the best way to put it.

[1:52:24] » Okay. And and that that is my concern cuz if

[1:52:28] like you brought up, this is something that the city is going to carry forward

[1:52:31] for all of these types of developments and it's it's going to be a potentially

[1:52:34] a different engineering firm every time. Since we just need to make sure that

[1:52:37] there is consistency from the city's stand point by the city's engineer.

[1:52:41] That's what I'm looking for with with this.

[1:52:44] » So, what would their engineering firm I just want to make sure I understand Jim

[1:52:49] for non-construction people like me. >> So, the way that I had ours structured

[1:52:53] was the construction engineering and contract drawing modifications. The

[1:52:56] question here becomes with reference to the owner in the documents we have.

[1:53:00] That's what Lucas was commenting on is that the city isn't necessarily owner

[1:53:03] until it's all said and done. So, we would clean up those documents

[1:53:06] [clears throat] that section of here, too, and then discuss with them kind of

[1:53:10] what the roles and responsibilities would be.

[1:53:13] » Okay. >> So,

[1:53:14] » that's where >> Okay.

[1:53:16] » we'll be at. >> Sounds good.

[1:53:18] » Okay. >> Okay.

[1:53:19] » Thank you. >> Any other questions for Blake?

[1:53:22] » No, thank you, Blake. >> Okay. Thank you for your time.

[1:53:24] » Thank you.

[1:53:26] » All right, what do you guys want to do?

[1:53:31] » I I do think it's a balancing act between

[1:53:34] cutting corners and running up the bill. So, I you know, what if you guys feel

[1:53:39] like this is a good compromise, you know,

[1:53:42] where where we have aspects of both, where we can

[1:53:46] where we can verify that it's being built to standard.

[1:53:48] » Yeah, and we didn't do a percentage base because of that. We just did our relief.

[1:53:52] So, the time you're there is the time you get paid for it. So,

[1:53:55] » And I'm not accusing you of running up the bill, either. I you know, but I

[1:53:59] mean, I know I know that's >> a concern.

[1:54:00] » Yeah. >> Cost is always a concern.

[1:54:02] » Yeah. >> So,

[1:54:04] » And this this discussion is what I think Alliance with the developer's agreement

[1:54:08] says. So, this was a good conversation for staff and consultants as well to

[1:54:12] figure all this out and then present it to the council for discussion cuz again,

[1:54:16] this is a newer way um for Horus to be doing this, but

[1:54:20] so, yeah, we want to make sure we get it right, too.

[1:54:23] » So, if we develop this process or thing, we

[1:54:27] shouldn't have this question before us again?

[1:54:30] » To be honest, I think you want to go through it once and then review it just

[1:54:33] because this is the first one. >> Yeah.

[1:54:35] » Just to evaluate how it went and then for maybe the next construction year,

[1:54:39] really get it honed in. >> Yeah.

[1:54:41] » So, I wouldn't want to say that one is our going to be the

[1:54:44] » Yeah. >> I understand it, but like down the road,

[1:54:47] this should be a pretty streamlined process.

[1:54:48] » should very definitely require a lot of >> outside input other than what the policy

[1:54:53] is and follow the policy and move on. >> Right.

[1:54:57] » Okay. Any further questions? >> Done.

[1:55:01] » All right, I'll look for a motion, then. >> So, what you'd be approving then if

[1:55:05] you're going to do B would be tap phases 1, 4, and 5 as as presented.

[1:55:11] of our agreement. And Lucas will work to modify that

[1:55:15] prior to signatures. Sound right? >> Yeah.

[1:55:21] Makes sense?

[1:55:24] » For me, yeah. Do you want me to state it? Fine. Um I I just don't know what

[1:55:28] what they want to approve, whether >> So, A or B.

[1:55:31] » Got you. Oh.

[1:55:36] » I mean, I'm I'm fine with the hybrid. So, that would be

[1:55:42] » B.

[1:55:45] » I guess I'm looking for the language of what we would need to have make a motion

[1:55:48] on. >> The motion would be to approve

[1:55:53] um 13B with modifications per the city

[1:55:56] attorney for items 1, 4, and 5.

[1:56:00] » Okay. So moved.

[1:56:02] » Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[1:56:05] » I'll second it. >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[1:56:07] favor say aye. >> Aye.

[1:56:09] » All right, motion carries. Moving on to number 14, Cub Creek 3rd

[1:56:12] Edition. Brenton, you have this one? Or is it Jim?

[1:56:17] » I have I have this one with Jim, I guess, but uh

[1:56:20] basically, this is a continuation that was tabled from the last city council

[1:56:24] meeting regards to the consideration of developer's request for Cub Creek 3rd

[1:56:27] Edition. Um from what I recall, the council was looking They They wanted to

[1:56:32] have a little bit more time to consider this. And then also, I know that

[1:56:36] there've been discussions like I know council member

[1:56:40] Burgan tried to work with the developer on different uh

[1:56:44] different option or so. I met with some of the other council

[1:56:48] members just to see where other ideas are,

[1:56:53] what our thoughts behind this, and uh bring this back up for discussion.

[1:56:58] Like I said, it was just tabled. Uh, what would the city council like to

[1:57:02] do in regards to the developer's request in regards to how the cash in lieu

[1:57:08] payment is handled and if there's any credits or reductions to that cash in

[1:57:13] lieu. Uh, from the staff perspective, we are

[1:57:17] concerned if you're doing reductions to that cash in lieu in

[1:57:20] regards to the overall policy and where does it go

[1:57:23] from the next development and then the next one. Uh, but ultimately that's the

[1:57:27] council's decision what you would like to do.

[1:57:37] » All right, discussion.

[1:57:49] » I mean, I am happy that they're

[1:57:53] interested in doing a developer's funded neighborhood and to reduce special

[1:57:57] assessments and um

[1:58:00] I just wish it weren't

[1:58:05] being asked to come from the parks um

[1:58:09] for the cash in lieu because

[1:58:13] I mean, funding parks and playgrounds and splash pads and all these community

[1:58:17] amenities is so important. So

[1:58:24] I have a a hold up about that. Um

[1:58:32] but I also value that they are

[1:58:37] over building their locals to meet regional

[1:58:43] uh benchmarks. And so, I mean, I see that

[1:58:48] also.

[1:58:50] I think this is super complicated, but what do you guys think?

[1:59:02] » I also appreciate the fact that you're you're kind of doing it on your own,

[1:59:05] which is a good thing and that's the direction I'd like the city to go over

[1:59:08] to be quite honest with you in the future. Uh but I also have some issues

[1:59:12] with the cash in lieu and I'll probably depart a little bit from what Rachel

[1:59:17] said in reference to the the parks. We have a very large

[1:59:20] special assessment debt that the city is currently going to be

[1:59:24] carrying soon um

[1:59:27] that we will have to service in the future

[1:59:30] uh even though the parks are important, we also have

[1:59:35] that debt that we have to address at some point

[1:59:38] in the future. So, if it were to be that uh we were going to give

[1:59:44] the the money back to developer in the aspect of future improvements I I

[1:59:50] I don't know that I would choose to take that money and put it that place right

[1:59:53] at this time.

[2:00:00] » Chad. >> Um

[2:00:03] » [sighs] >> I I I I am

[2:00:07] I I you know, I've heard both sides of the story on this one. Um

[2:00:11] and it is uh

[2:00:17] as far as some of these paths, you know, I I saw some of the paths where they're

[2:00:21] you know, well, that's a bike path. I I I I don't know if that's a bike path

[2:00:25] or it's a it's a sidewalk or glorified sidewalk. I I mean, I just I don't know

[2:00:29] what defines a bike path versus a a glorified sidewalk. So,

[2:00:34] the other thing is, you know, taking into account things that happened

[2:00:37] previously and applying them to today sometimes you have to look at okay, so

[2:00:42] if that's what we're doing, then we have to open up the you know, you know,

[2:00:45] box of everything that happened previously and sort through everything

[2:00:49] individually one by one. Like I I I you know, I was under under saying there's

[2:00:53] some previous land dedication that went to a stormwater pond or something like

[2:00:58] that. It turned into a stormwater pond? Does anybody know about that?

[2:01:06] What's that? >> So, basically, are we able to

[2:01:09] » Yeah. Go ahead and come on up.

[2:01:13] » I didn't fill out a card. >> What's that?

[2:01:15] » I didn't fill out a card. >> That's fine.

[2:01:17] » Okay.

[2:01:20] So, uh good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. Uh to

[2:01:25] So, Cub Creek, our general timeline is

[2:01:29] probably 6, 7 years from really when the initial concept started getting laid

[2:01:34] out, started construction, and go through the multiple phases.

[2:01:37] Um when Cub Creek first was platted,

[2:01:42] it was already part of the master plan and the and the pond

[2:01:45] land was uh conveyed to the city for a purchase price at that time.

[2:01:52] Um based on what the preliminary engineering

[2:01:56] uh estimated to be for size. As it went on

[2:02:00] and as more of the development got built out,

[2:02:04] Lakeview, other things got built out, the determination was made that it needs

[2:02:07] to be increased. >> Okay.

[2:02:09] » So, that's why it went from it went from initial 10 acres, it's now

[2:02:15] 12 acres and some additional green space around

[2:02:18] there as well. Because much like you've talked about of

[2:02:21] what you've learned in other developments around ponds and such, uh

[2:02:25] Cub Creek first, the where it

[2:02:29] um it almost seems like you would own almost up to the edge, but there was

[2:02:34] when the property line and private property line stopped and then the city

[2:02:38] took over, there was it was very ambiguous because other than

[2:02:41] a little, you know, piece of rebar or a T-post to say it was yours. So, we tried

[2:02:46] to uh in future phases

[2:02:49] make it more defined with a path or sidewalk, anything else like that to try

[2:02:55] to really set set that stage apart. The only reason why we

[2:03:01] and I will say I'm I'm open to suggestions

[2:03:04] as to how we want to get creative with not having to do an

[2:03:08] improvement district. I've said before, I'll say it again, I'm

[2:03:12] very comfortable and and and willing to pay for everything that's in front of

[2:03:16] the lots of what what we're going to sell.

[2:03:19] The curb, the gutter, the street, the street lights, sidewalks, any of that

[2:03:22] stuff. What I don't think is fair that we are

[2:03:25] asking the people your citizens that will be in Cub Creek

[2:03:29] III to be paying for that arterial road, upsizing a storm,

[2:03:35] up- upsizing of some other stuff that will be benefiting

[2:03:39] basically the whole 1 square mile with the exception of

[2:03:44] way over here on the on the west side, but three three quarters of that square

[2:03:48] mile is is going to be um

[2:03:52] benefited from the pond, 83rd,

[2:03:56] um the rest of that stuff to go through

[2:03:58] there. If if that wasn't required, 83rd would

[2:04:02] be much smaller. No no diagonal parking, this

[2:04:06] you know, not concrete, asphalt. So, there's a there's a number of things

[2:04:10] that when the initial master plan was laid

[2:04:13] out that as we're building it out now, had we gone on the way it would be, we'd

[2:04:18] be asking for an improvement district, set up a special assessment, go through

[2:04:23] the protests, award it. Now we do it where this

[2:04:27] specials are certified prior to the shovel going in the ground and and

[2:04:31] getting that done. So, we know more up front, but we're just simply trying to

[2:04:35] say we'll pay for all of it.

[2:04:40] But how do we how do I get reimbursed for the public road that once it's

[2:04:45] completed, obviously the the internal local roads, you know, go without saying

[2:04:50] that that's dedicated right away. It's just the extra cost

[2:04:55] of of the 83rd, the concrete, and some of

[2:04:58] those other things as I mentioned. So, all of that land in Cub Creek third

[2:05:04] currently has paid their proportionate share of 63rd s-

[2:05:10] um 83rd um part of 76 if they're uh on the north

[2:05:15] side anything of wall

[2:05:17] » Lakeview drainage >> Lakeview drainage

[2:05:20] um that lift station

[2:05:23] so we're just simply saying we either need

[2:05:26] to continue on with the path of which we've started

[2:05:31] because, you know, we've already we've already moved money over here to this

[2:05:34] land from this other stuff. And now if we can't

[2:05:38] share have the rest of the of the section share in in this last section of

[2:05:42] road then then how is that fair for those

[2:05:46] citizens? Because the cost has to get there.

[2:05:49] And we're not by no means have we ever advocated or or

[2:05:53] called out to say it's, you know, that has to come from park.

[2:05:57] The way we do the cash in lieu is to public infrastructure. It's up to now uh

[2:06:03] at the current policies to of the commission to divvy up the money to see

[2:06:07] where it's going to be earmarked or anything else for it versus before when

[2:06:11] it was I think the language was specif-

[2:06:14] specifically to park district. Well, now

[2:06:17] that is since been removed. So, I'm not so sure that the million dollars for

[2:06:22] general number round numbers that if we were to pay that into it, if we could

[2:06:28] know that that would be going towards the 83rds um regional any of the paths

[2:06:34] or anything else, it just it's up to your guys's

[2:06:39] discretion to how you're going to divvy up the the bucket of of money. If some

[2:06:43] still going to go to park.

[2:06:46] I mean, the situation could exist where the cash

[2:06:51] in lieu is a million, but the allocation back for reimbursement to the developer

[2:06:56] for the road may only be 750,000. So, there is still money that could go to

[2:07:02] other projects, park, whatever, you know, whatever the city

[2:07:07] would deem necessary. Um, but we just need to kind of have some direction

[2:07:13] because if this this really isn't going to be feasible, then the next meeting we

[2:07:18] would just end up the plan would be is like we can't come

[2:07:22] up with a creative idea amongst all of us, then we revert back to

[2:07:28] what we've only thing we've been able to do before, come here,

[2:07:32] ask for a special assessment improvement district.

[2:07:36] This much will be the local and this much will be the regional and this is

[2:07:40] what's going to get spread out to come first, Cubs, Cubs, second, Lakeview, uh,

[2:07:46] and the rest of those that stuff through there at

[2:07:48] just like the improvement district boundary that we had

[2:07:51] you previously utilized for what what that

[2:07:57] benefit area ultimately is. >> So, with the numbers you're proposing,

[2:08:01] this isn't this this isn't an all or nothing offer. It's not an a la carte.

[2:08:06] It's not a well, we you know, I agree with you on the oversized and the uh,

[2:08:10] construction of the 83rd to regional standards, but I'm having

[2:08:14] trouble with the paths or I mean, it's either all or nothing. Either the

[2:08:18] numbers work with this or they don't work, one of the two.

[2:08:21] » No, uh, no time did I ever want to convey that.

[2:08:25] It's just it seems like we either meaning the private funding concept is

[2:08:30] either going to work and be malleable as to what that wants to look like or we're

[2:08:35] simply that going with the

[2:08:38] with the improvement district. Now there could be a third in my opinion a third

[2:08:42] hybrid option where it isn't all specially assessed,

[2:08:46] it isn't all privately funded, but what we could end up doing is just the

[2:08:49] improvement district for for a portion of what is going to be regional.

[2:08:54] Agree. In terms of small, but it wouldn't be

[2:08:58] the full if the full build out is $12 million the

[2:09:01] improvement district for the regional component would be

[2:09:03] a million dollars or 1.5, you know. >> And I I like that I

[2:09:08] I think the idea is to get specials off of the the table as far as selling the

[2:09:13] houses. >> Well

[2:09:14] » selling the development. >> from what I've heard that part of the

[2:09:17] the rub with the city is to a you just mentioned is the the the

[2:09:24] bloated balance of special assessments that is is is there and so if that can

[2:09:29] ultimately removed right away, there's no expense for the bonding

[2:09:34] you know some of those other fees that go along with getting it to that point.

[2:09:39] Um the developer then is in in their

[2:09:42] discretion as to how to allocate you know the lots and in terms of pricing

[2:09:46] because it's it's not um it's not up to the city.

[2:09:51] But I think it's going to be important because we we have so much intertwined

[2:09:56] and commingled of of stuff here to somehow not saying we're going to

[2:10:01] bifurcate everything that's going to go happen this point on it has to be

[2:10:05] privately funded and there's no no reimbursement for it or it's still going

[2:10:10] to be some sort of a hybrid or you know I don't I'm not advocating that we would

[2:10:15] come back in and by any way ask for an improvement district for the whole

[2:10:19] thing. I think that model is currently damaged, broken,

[2:10:26] uh stressed, whatever you want to say. Uh I don't want to sit in hear any more

[2:10:31] of those meetings of a special assessment discussion or anything else

[2:10:34] for it. So, we're just here trying to say, "Hey,

[2:10:37] let us try to do this." Um I I believe it it'd be very much

[2:10:43] within your purview to say, "Okay, this cash in lieu,

[2:10:46] we can debate about the dollar amounts still because if there's been some

[2:10:51] uh short calculations or anything else of

[2:10:54] it's, you know, the easy math is 1.1, but we're saying

[2:10:58] it's really probably closer to 800 or whatever. And I think that's your point.

[2:11:01] That's where I think we need to kind of work work work over the the the final

[2:11:06] tally of it. The difference will be is the willingness that of the city to

[2:11:12] either special assess for that regional or fund it through other means

[2:11:18] of the city would have. >> And then obviously for the park

[2:11:21] district, um if this starts uh setting a trend for the park district that they're

[2:11:26] going to be, you know, losing either cash in lieu or land dedication,

[2:11:31] yeah, what what what's their future? You know, what's their future like with with

[2:11:34] all the different subdivisions? How How can we How can we balance what we're

[2:11:39] doing or we're trying to you know, reduce and eliminate specials,

[2:11:43] but also let the park district, you know, still do their thing.

[2:11:47] » Yeah, and I think that's going to be an ongoing policy and really kind of a

[2:11:51] case-by-case basis because some areas they want the land. I think we've been

[2:11:55] very good stewards of of of of giving land and and and beautification to the

[2:12:00] city and making all the neighborhoods a real

[2:12:03] asset. I appreciate your your recognizing that that that is a you

[2:12:07] know, >> and I I don't give that out lightly. I I

[2:12:10] mean, you'll hear me Yeah, criticize things too, and it but it's not

[2:12:13] definitely not your >> And and so

[2:12:16] to that Councilman um and Cham um Chalmers,

[2:12:21] What you saw out there today is all born from the HOA in the development itself,

[2:12:26] not special assessments in the sense that it's going to other places or

[2:12:30] they're taking away from the park. That was in addition to.

[2:12:34] So, I would certainly see and and want to

[2:12:37] advocate still some sort of funding for the parks to go forward because

[2:12:41] we would have relished the cherished the fact that we

[2:12:44] could have had a park there during Cub 1 and Cub 2. Cub 3 will likely be built

[2:12:49] out in well into Cub 4 based on Wade's preliminary estimate

[2:12:55] last meeting when any of that park beautification would would

[2:12:59] infrastructure would go in. People want to see what it's going to

[2:13:03] be. They can, you know, be skeptical or they can be

[2:13:07] trustworthy or anything else, but it's like, "Okay, what what are we getting

[2:13:11] here? When are we getting it? You know, what what's it going to cost?" So,

[2:13:16] whether it's, you know, still some sort of funding through there or we recognize

[2:13:20] the CIB, you know, again,

[2:13:23] we are we are picking and choosing some of the stuff out of the whole policy.

[2:13:27] Well, if we're going to really redo or rethink the whole reimagine the whole

[2:13:33] entire funding of it, I think we need to imagine reimagine the whole entire

[2:13:38] mechanism for it, not just say, "We're going to do it privately, but

[2:13:43] what yet we still have to pay over here for

[2:13:46] for the infrastructure or for the cash in lieu.

[2:13:50] That's all I'm saying is it's almost it's kind of a double dip because we're

[2:13:53] if we end up paying for everything, this is say the city decides not to pay

[2:13:57] for anything on 83rd. No upsizing of storm sewer or anything

[2:14:02] else. The developer goes in and does all of

[2:14:05] that. So, there's no regional

[2:14:09] special assessment. No one else is paying for it. The city isn't paying

[2:14:12] contributing anything. And we are asked to pay the nominal million

[2:14:17] dollars for the cash in lieu. So, the people that are right here

[2:14:23] on the Cub 3 side

[2:14:27] are essentially paying for everything again. Paying for all that

[2:14:30] other infrastructure that was across the the cooley.

[2:14:34] Paying for their own stuff and in addition paying for part of a you know

[2:14:38] one 1/4 of the splash pad.

[2:14:41] I mean I think the estimate was around 4 million dollars which I I I

[2:14:46] blanked out a little bit when I hit my head on the floor, but sorry but uh

[2:14:49] uh So, anyway the the fact that I mean that

[2:14:54] by my own estimation seems like this is a

[2:14:58] a feature that's going to be centralized to the whole entire city, but yet we're

[2:15:02] asking for 80 acre 60 acre net swath of land to pay for 25

[2:15:08] Yeah. Pay for 25% of it. >> lots to pay for 25% of a 4 million

[2:15:13] dollar asset. >> There's only 190 lots in Cub Creek 3rd.

[2:15:18] That's all it It's all it ended up is very long. It it

[2:15:22] goes a long way, but it's very skinny because we're

[2:15:25] uh veterans and the cooley ended up being it's very

[2:15:28] much a pinch point. So, that's where we were saying like

[2:15:32] this it just doesn't it doesn't seem right. You're a

[2:15:36] community of how many thousand residents now or lots or parcels and 25% is born

[2:15:43] on 100 109 110, you know.

[2:15:48] So, we just want to bring this forward. We

[2:15:51] want to be part of the solution. We want to try to be

[2:15:56] good partners to to Horace.

[2:16:00] Um >> But you want a fair and equitable deal.

[2:16:02] » Fair and equitable. We want to be at the table to figure out what is that outside

[2:16:06] the box solution for a real problem that the city's facing and that's the

[2:16:09] regional districts. I don't think the city's really bad at the eyes at the

[2:16:12] local improvement districts because that's born on it.

[2:16:15] But as a growing city should want to expand and create efficiencies in the

[2:16:20] regional infrastructure that is the pinch point that's happening

[2:16:23] over and over and over again. So, what is that outside of the box solution?

[2:16:28] Counter two are outside the box solution that that works and has benefit.

[2:16:33] And can carry that community benefit tag that this cash in lieu of land

[2:16:38] dedication is for. >> I think it's important to note, I just

[2:16:42] want to make kind of pull the record so to speak that while I'm here advocating

[2:16:47] as the developer, I'm here advocating for 109 of your future citizens.

[2:16:52] I'm very much um you know, pro housing and and with my involvement at the

[2:16:57] National Association of Home Builders, it's every day that we're trying to look

[2:17:00] at regulation, whether it's the stormwater to OSHA to any of this other

[2:17:04] stuff. And to simply just

[2:17:08] drop this much burden on these lots, it just simply it it

[2:17:15] it it's it's so out of balance that the infrastructure compared to what the lot

[2:17:20] value is is is lopsided because of it's it's bearing so much of the of the load.

[2:17:27] » I have a question for the people up here with me.

[2:17:31] I think we've been fairly inconsistent with with trails and credit whether we

[2:17:35] do give trails trail systems a cash in lieu credit or not.

[2:17:42] Um we probably want to look at that and

[2:17:44] make a decision on that. Right? We have sometimes

[2:17:48] um accepted that and then

[2:17:53] but not always. It's just kind of been this inconsistency.

[2:17:58] » And it's probably a little bit more or less of a an issue again if it was the

[2:18:02] old way where everything kind of got thrown into the bucket of specials.

[2:18:06] » Yeah. >> And then just spread out that way. Well,

[2:18:09] now we're down to the tiny bucket, a spoonful really, compared to the whole

[2:18:14] millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure that it's gone into that

[2:18:18] square mile. Uh we're down we're down to the last 10 12 million dollars here.

[2:18:22] » Yeah. >> But it's it would still be too much

[2:18:25] because if it was only the raw dirt that was there, it would it would be it would

[2:18:29] be palatable, but it's the existing. So, some of those lots will have

[2:18:34] before we do anything as it would be platted right now with the 109 10 lots

[2:18:39] um anywhere from 20 to 30,000 dollars of infrastructure debt special assessments

[2:18:46] per lot before we put a shovel in the ground.

[2:18:52] And that is all from no benefit to that end citizen at this point.

[2:18:59] It's all for their their their share, their willingness of these 109 lots to

[2:19:05] to help pay for all the rest of this stuff over here on the other side of it.

[2:19:09] And there's this nothing reciprocating for the rest of the 2/3 of the

[2:19:13] development to help pay for the last 1/3. Actually, price let's just say 7/8

[2:19:19] to to 1/8 that's left. >> Just for my own education, is let's say

[2:19:25] that we did away with regional specials and required those to be within the

[2:19:29] district. What impact would that have on you as a developer in the future?

[2:19:34] » Yeah, well, and that's a a very big topic to discuss because, you know,

[2:19:39] if if I were to be the land owner on each

[2:19:42] side of the road, it's pretty straightforward. It can you know, I get

[2:19:47] the benefit on the east side and the west side and when this road goes in and

[2:19:51] we pay for it. The difference will be is when

[2:19:54] one developer owns on the east side of the road and you're a different

[2:19:56] developer. So, who puts the road in first? Is there any sort of clawback or

[2:20:02] credit with the next developer B end up having to pay for a 50% of the of

[2:20:08] their road when, you know, their time comes or even up front? And I think, you

[2:20:13] know, short of being able to have some again, this is going to be so important

[2:20:17] to have this collaboration because as you guys are setting policy and and and

[2:20:22] setting this stuff up, um because to say, "Yeah, you know, um

[2:20:27] you know, whatever developer B over here, I'm

[2:20:30] like, "Yeah, if I send them an invoice for $2 million, I can about imagine what

[2:20:34] they're going to do with that." Uh, you know, but they thanks for the road. So,

[2:20:38] and likewise, you know, there's going to be someone that's going to be putting

[2:20:41] something in sooner. I can think of 64th Avenue. You know, obviously we have a

[2:20:46] big chunk of land on 64th Avenue. Um all towards the diversion.

[2:20:51] And when 64th goes in, obviously there's land a lot of land to the south and

[2:20:56] there's land to our west. And how is that going to be put in? So, if it's the

[2:21:00] first person that comes in and they they are maybe the the smallest land

[2:21:05] portion owner, does that person bear all the cost to

[2:21:09] put in 64th Avenue, the bigger infrastructure, the regional lift

[2:21:13] station? Um

[2:21:15] and I think what dance your question, too, why I think we need to have some

[2:21:18] sort of this still this regional component,

[2:21:21] it doesn't make sense for the city of Horace to have 10, 12, 15 different

[2:21:26] individual lift stations when if it's master planned, uh just like

[2:21:31] when we did Prairie View, we upsized that one. We only were putting another

[2:21:34] 50 or 75 lots in, but we up almost essentially doubled it for intense all

[2:21:39] intense purposes because we knew to the east was going to be [clears throat] the

[2:21:42] next one going in. So, rather than digging and having a lift station right

[2:21:45] here and put in another one, you know, two blocks away, okay, what can we do to

[2:21:49] make this one bigger? And I think that's going to be long-term maintenance

[2:21:54] uh cost or what's more cost-effective. So there there just definitely needs to

[2:21:59] be somebody that's going to be pulling everyone together to collaborate

[2:22:04] and do a a regional benefit for the city and the landowners.

[2:22:08] » And I did I think J's brought up the same thing with the Horse Energy Park

[2:22:11] back when that was going in about when he worked for the city about

[2:22:15] putting in a you know the lift station that would be

[2:22:18] benefiting the entire area. And not just just the energy park it

[2:22:22] would be I think you where you where you had it

[2:22:25] estimated. So so I understand that you know we we don't want to build 20 lift

[2:22:29] stations. We want to have you know >> It's it's about building the efficiency

[2:22:33] and redundancy in your system and how you want to connect. So I mean the

[2:22:36] question can be asked back is what does the city want to see with their regional

[2:22:39] infrastructure on that. I mean if they're fine with just

[2:22:43] you know not connected just individual systems over and over again it's going

[2:22:47] to have long-term maintenance cost. You know I I worked in Idaho for for 5

[2:22:52] years prior. There was no special assessments out there.

[2:22:55] But their policies for the streets were half street policies. The people if you

[2:22:59] didn't own both sides you developed half the street plus 12 to build a two-lane

[2:23:03] travel section until the next person took it over. Like you know what is the

[2:23:06] appetite to do that? Lift stations the first one in the

[2:23:09] section put it in. But they everything they oversized they were reimbursed for

[2:23:14] through way camera fees. So as those tap fees came in that developer who put in

[2:23:17] that initial infrastructure gets reimbursed for that oversized. So what

[2:23:21] is the the larger discussion willing to be had by the city of how

[2:23:25] that infrastructure looks down the road cuz I don't think the city I mean just

[2:23:29] from a a love of cities I don't think you sell yourself short on just creating

[2:23:34] these these micro systems that don't connect and don't interact with each

[2:23:38] other because your long-term maintenance burden is going to far exceed what that

[2:23:42] upfront cost is. And I mean and that's kind of been the

[2:23:45] difficult through special assessments is trying to get people to realize what the

[2:23:49] benefit of these larger systems is, but in the same breath you can't expect one

[2:23:54] person to put in a master lift for the entire section

[2:23:57] and not see any kickback whatsoever through that. I mean, that's just

[2:24:01] eliminating your cost efficiency in the >> Recoup some of that cost, but just like

[2:24:05] so take 57th we were talking about some of that up-sized pipe that goes

[2:24:10] from 57th on the shorter distance over to the pond to get it into the regional

[2:24:14] system versus a mile of pipe to go all the way up to 76th or 64th.

[2:24:20] Well, someone's going to have to pay that later. City citizens, state,

[2:24:25] whoever. So, does it make sense now? And that's why the engineers smarter than me

[2:24:30] came up with this like, well, we should run it from, you know, we can put much

[2:24:34] smaller pipe in the in the right-of-way along Veterans

[2:24:37] and then, you know, dump it into the the bigger system that's there that's

[2:24:42] already been kind of planned for it. But, again, that comes at the cost and

[2:24:46] the burden then of of 109 citizens of of Copper Creek there to pay for that

[2:24:50] larger pipe for the benefit of the benefit of the good of the city of

[2:24:54] Horace to save money on future infrastructure storm sewer.

[2:24:59] But, Mr. Ryan, I didn't mean to cut you off if you

[2:25:01] » No, we're fine. I'll save my comment for from Well,

[2:25:05] we'll have a discussion. >> Yeah, I was just going to say

[2:25:08] based on everything we just talked about, do you guys feel comfortable

[2:25:10] moving ahead with anything today or do you guys want to take another couple

[2:25:13] weeks? >> I have a question for staff. Um

[2:25:18] I it's news to me that cash in lieu is not only for parks. Have we ever had

[2:25:23] a time where council reduces it and have we had times where it's not used to go

[2:25:29] going to directly to [clears throat] parks?

[2:25:31] » So, not really reducing the cash in lieu much. It's been

[2:25:35] the situation I could think of where we didn't use apply the cash in lieu to

[2:25:39] parks was Sparks addition where we took land and that land is

[2:25:45] There was land dedication instead of the cash in lieu and the land is used for um

[2:25:50] where City Hall will be and also uh

[2:25:54] where the Westmark hockey arena is going. Uh however, Parks did still get

[2:25:59] some land dedication out of that. So, the city ended up buying a little bit of

[2:26:03] land from Sparks still. And instead the park district not getting anything,

[2:26:09] they were still able to get like a little pocket park and some park land uh

[2:26:13] we'd say in in that racetrack area there, but uh that's So, park district

[2:26:19] still got something out of it. They just didn't get the cash in lieu dedication

[2:26:22] on that one. The That's the main one off top of my head.

[2:26:26] » Mr. Mayor, can I add to those two other other instances? Eldorado Edition also

[2:26:31] was a rejection of cash in lieu for the public works property and then Sunset

[2:26:35] Valley was a reduction based off their pathway connections.

[2:26:41] » Yeah, those two were Yeah, Eldorado was Eldorado was originally a cash in lieu

[2:26:48] and council tried to work in through that where they could pay it over a

[2:26:51] period of time and that didn't really work out to where

[2:26:55] then when they did the third edition they did

[2:26:59] a land dedication there instead to clean up all of the

[2:27:05] previous versions and the current there. Uh and then for Sunset

[2:27:10] that was a unique situation where they did a pri-

[2:27:14] privately and council agreed to let them do it for a few paths.

[2:27:22] » And that was negotiated before obviously before they put the paths in or after

[2:27:26] they put the paths in? >> Before.

[2:27:28] » Okay. And that that that, you know, that

[2:27:32] I I take it these these paths are already in, aren't they?

[2:27:34] » No. >> No, they're not in. Okay.

[2:27:36] » The only piece we get >> The The The only piece that is in is the

[2:27:39] the southernmost connection to 88th. That got put in with Cub Creek second.

[2:27:44] » Okay. Yeah, there was. Yeah, I knew there was something.

[2:27:46] » And that connection up to 76 are not in at this point.

[2:27:49] » Okay. Oh, yeah. Oh, the full connection.

[2:27:52] » Correct. The full connection. >> Yeah, the full connection. Okay.

[2:27:55] » I also asked Jace for like more information. I didn't feel like the

[2:27:58] one-pager just like gave me enough. And so, I feel like our packet maybe should

[2:28:04] include the four-page document. It is more thorough and I think it's just

[2:28:11] better to have more information. But, um

[2:28:15] » Well, there's just so much done wrong. >> There's so much. I know. At the one

[2:28:18] page, I needed more details than that. If the three choices are like your

[2:28:22] proposal, option one, option two just special assess everything, and option

[2:28:27] three is a hybrid where developer is funding the local and then special

[2:28:33] assess in the regional, I I don't know. I mean, I don't know any

[2:28:38] way other than number three, the hybrid, that makes

[2:28:41] Unless there's more creative options, I I can't

[2:28:46] I don't know what to do. >> And it would still give you a reduced

[2:28:49] special for the lots. But, you know

[2:28:52] » Right. It'd be about a million and five that would get spread out over the

[2:28:57] larger portion of the section. >> But, I I I think the larger conversation

[2:29:01] of that is council's willingness to assess that per

[2:29:05] policy. And not just have that be an assessment

[2:29:08] district that gets slapped right back to Cub third.

[2:29:11] And I think that's our one concern of going forward to specials is

[2:29:15] right, wrong, or indifferent, the appetite would be to just reduce that

[2:29:19] district down to Cub third even though policy would dictate

[2:29:23] otherwise. And that's kind of where my fear in this situation of going through

[2:29:28] anything special assessments, A adding to the debt, B

[2:29:33] does it just end up in the exact same result and we're

[2:29:36] no one's out anything positive because then we're still going through

[2:29:39] assessment hearings, we're still adding to the debt, and we're still taking on

[2:29:43] that cost. >> Right.

[2:29:48] » I wouldn't the say that I would accept it as

[2:29:51] written today, obviously. I don't think others kind of have the same opinion,

[2:29:55] but I I certainly don't want to miss out on an opportunity to do something that

[2:29:59] that benefits uh the residents that are currently here and then those people

[2:30:03] that are going to come in the future. I I Everybody probably already knows

[2:30:07] this, those regional assessments are an issue for me.

[2:30:11] Uh not me, I'm not the one being impacted right now, but uh I did have a

[2:30:14] meeting with uh neighborhood uh group over the weekend

[2:30:18] and there are a number of those folks that are are talking about leaving

[2:30:21] Horace because they're not so certain that

[2:30:24] they're not going to get hit with special assessments again even though

[2:30:27] they're included in the most recent one. Uh so it's a concern and I I I'm sure

[2:30:32] you understand that. >> Yeah, as ours as well. So we were that's

[2:30:35] why we ultimately the the goal would be to do it all privately

[2:30:40] with a a partnership really with the city

[2:30:43] um through either sales tax or any other of

[2:30:46] that revenue and or even that cash in lieu. Um council read the statute or

[2:30:52] your guys' ordinance exactly and it it it is it's fairly fairly broad as to

[2:30:57] what what that can go to as long as it goes to public infrastructure. I don't

[2:31:01] want to you know, put words in his mouth or anything.

[2:31:04] » I mean it's public facilities. >> I I just don't want to miss out on an

[2:31:07] out on an opportunity to develop something that could help us in the

[2:31:09] future. >> Yeah.

[2:31:10] » So I I I think it requires more discussion.

[2:31:12] » Is municipal facilities what what's the definition of that?

[2:31:16] Could it be a road? I mean is that a considered a facility?

[2:31:19] » And that's where [clears throat] the city has the gray area. It's not

[2:31:22] defined within the land use code, but the the part where

[2:31:28] Mr. Dabert was referencing that I read previously

[2:31:31] is um the city finds that it shall be required

[2:31:34] that the owner or developer of every subdivision or resubdivision dedicate

[2:31:39] land for parks, playgrounds, public open space, public trails, municipal

[2:31:45] facilities, park facilities, and or pay a fee in accordance with this section

[2:31:50] for the purpose of providing the above-mentioned public uses and

[2:31:53] facilities for existing and future residents of the community. So, we tried

[2:31:58] to make it so it was more broad than just the dedication for parks

[2:32:03] or park land. >> Okay. Well, that does mention trails

[2:32:07] specifically if we're talking about moving forward and looking at that as a

[2:32:11] but >> And I don't want it to be lost that

[2:32:13] there is no parks in in Cub 1, 2, or and or even

[2:32:18] an extension of of 3. Uh quite extensive. Um you know, certainly with

[2:32:23] the the part of the pond that's there and and with the park, the diagonal

[2:32:27] parking that was set up to facilitate fishing and and community as and

[2:32:32] the whole idea from this very concept multiple years ago was to have

[2:32:37] this it's almost kind of in the center of what will eventually be the center of

[2:32:41] town and we really wanted to make this a jewel for there and that everyone else

[2:32:45] can kind of come to this as well. So, that's why the again, the ponds are

[2:32:49] oversized, the ponds are deeper, there's no cattails because they are dug deeper,

[2:32:53] they're dug deep enough to hold and hold those fish and

[2:32:57] and have that. Um you know, so it was all set up as a community benefit, not

[2:33:04] just exclusive to to the Cub Creek residents.

[2:33:09] » And and so, I guess with the the cash in lieu and the land dedication for park

[2:33:13] district, obviously, there's a aggregate number of what what they're expecting as

[2:33:19] far as value. And how much of that actually lands on

[2:33:24] their plate is is the question going forward. Is should it be 100%?

[2:33:29] Obviously, with Sparks and some of these other different things,

[2:33:33] a portion of that money has been taken away from the parks.

[2:33:36] Obviously, the parks is probably not happy with that. Um

[2:33:40] so we as a council, I guess we have to decide

[2:33:43] how how much in in the future that that we're going

[2:33:47] to approve to not go land on their plate. And if there's a percentage

[2:33:51] that's being siphoned off for for different like city hall or, you know,

[2:33:57] the new public works. Um the those different types of things. Or

[2:34:01] in this case, you know, it sounds like building a building a

[2:34:05] road. I mean, I I I I I guess we have to have a policy on what

[2:34:09] we're going to be able to divert that park money for

[2:34:13] and how what what how much we're going to be diverting. And and I think the

[2:34:17] word is diverting, isn't it? Cuz I mean, otherwise it it's supposed to go to

[2:34:20] them. >> And that's I want to be clear that it's

[2:34:23] not supposed to go to them. This the way the ordinance is drafted, how we revised

[2:34:28] it was that the city received either the land dedication or

[2:34:32] payment in lieu of land dedication for the benefit of the residents in that

[2:34:36] area. So it it gave discretion to the council

[2:34:39] » Okay. >> to decide. The So the park district

[2:34:41] simply makes a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning

[2:34:45] commission makes a recommendation to the city council and the city council

[2:34:48] ultimately has the authority to determine what to do with either land

[2:34:51] dedication or payment in lieu of land dedication. And when the payment in land

[2:34:56] payment in lieu of land dedication is actually made, the city's supposed to

[2:35:00] hold that in a separate fund for that area.

[2:35:05] And so, I mean, it it's the city. The city is the one that has that

[2:35:09] responsibility in in looking out for the public.

[2:35:13] » So you're saying if we have that authority, technically, we would put

[2:35:18] that in its separate fund and we could use that

[2:35:22] for the infrastructure for that road.

[2:35:28] » If that's the the council's desire, and and I know that in talking with Matt

[2:35:32] previously, the city has the different funds with the payment in lieu of. So,

[2:35:37] the the city's already doing it. It's just I think there's

[2:35:41] there's always this idea that it's the park district. It's always the park

[2:35:45] district, but it's not necessarily the case. Yes, there there the city does

[2:35:50] land dedication [clears throat] for parks and holds payment in lieu of land

[2:35:53] dedication for park equipment, but that's only one part of the ordinance.

[2:35:58] » This might be a little off topic, but

[2:36:01] the state aid that we get, is that a possibility to

[2:36:07] if we were to do something like this right now with this request,

[2:36:12] would that be a possibility to increase their state aid at the park level if we

[2:36:18] were Just Just

[2:36:20] not because I know that this the cash in lieu is not technically

[2:36:24] supposed to go there, right? But, if we want to be good partners,

[2:36:29] is that something that we can do? >> So, the state aid dollars go into their

[2:36:33] general fund. They typically use that for operations side.

[2:36:38] Where these dollars or cash in lieu are dedicated to those improvements within

[2:36:43] [snorts] that development there. So, you can't change that up and the dollar

[2:36:48] amounts you're talking about are probably very different. Um

[2:36:53] I mean, that And then also,

[2:36:56] currently we do of the state aid dollars that we get, 10% towards fire, 10%

[2:37:04] towards park district. So, that would be a council decision there, too. But,

[2:37:09] just so I make sure you're aware of that. And then, the other thing I would

[2:37:13] just caution is whatever you would do, just I just

[2:37:18] caution that anything done by the council regards like this type of

[2:37:22] request or any types of request, >> [clears throat]

[2:37:24] » you're probably going to get other ones. So, please make sure that whatever you

[2:37:28] do, you're able to we're able to be

[2:37:31] sustainable of it. Because, like I said, you're probably going to have other

[2:37:36] requests. So, just be careful. >> I I'm certainly not interested in, you

[2:37:42] know, shrinking the park district share dramatically through all these different

[2:37:47] people jumping on board with, "Hey, let's do it let's do what they did." You

[2:37:51] know, the type thing. That that that would

[2:37:54] I mean, that that would be a a dilemma. I guess that's the word. But, I really

[2:38:00] I really think this is this is moving in the direction of a solution that we need

[2:38:04] for a headache. The headache is the word special assessments. That we we

[2:38:08] have to address that as a city or it's going to kill us. You know what

[2:38:12] I mean? So. >> I mean,

[2:38:16] that's the thing like I think about regional assessment over

[2:38:20] there and

[2:38:24] I kind of have PTSD about >> Yeah, I mean, that's the that that's the

[2:38:28] ultimate issue here is regional assessments. That's that's what we've

[2:38:31] seen. That's what we've seen for years with these assessment districts. It's

[2:38:35] the regional part of it. That's the struggle. And that's where I don't I

[2:38:39] don't know if we're going to get anything resolved tonight cuz we went

[2:38:42] pretty high level with where this discussion went or global, if you will,

[2:38:46] where it's not just going to impact one development. We're talking about

[2:38:50] impacting how the city is potentially doing

[2:38:53] regional type projects and and what the funding mechanism is for that and the

[2:38:57] struggle that Horace has had is Horace isn't that large where it has enough

[2:39:04] funds built up where it can contribute to the regional projects as a city. And

[2:39:09] so then it's well, what do you do? Because you don't you don't the city

[2:39:12] itself doesn't have the money. So the only option is to create these

[2:39:16] improvement districts. And then the struggle we have is regional

[2:39:19] assessments. So if this is something where we need to look at this more on a

[2:39:22] global level, I think we can. I don't know if the council is going to

[2:39:26] come up with any decision tonight on this. I could be

[2:39:29] wrong. >> I I feel bad because this is

[2:39:34] what number are we on here revisiting this? Is this number two or three?

[2:39:38] Two? >> Kind of 2.5.

[2:39:40] » Okay. Not to speak for the developer, but I think they want the city to get

[2:39:43] this right, too, because it's going to impact more than just one development.

[2:39:47] » And and here's the thing, like I'm going to just be real. I I'm not ready to I

[2:39:51] don't think I can vote on this tonight. Um

[2:39:55] I'm I'm telling just to the council I do not want to do a regional

[2:40:01] assessment. I just don't.

[2:40:06] I those people over there excuse me for saying this, but they I

[2:40:11] mean it they went through hell and it was not fun. This this was not

[2:40:16] this was October was really bad. I think we really need to take another

[2:40:22] week. Think about

[2:40:26] what are we going to like what are you comfortable doing? Are you comfortable

[2:40:29] setting up an assessment district for all those people again?

[2:40:35] Or are we going to just say

[2:40:39] we don't I mean there's nothing we can do?

[2:40:42] I think I'm just not ready to make I'm not ready to make that decision. I I

[2:40:47] feel like I I'm looking at the parks. I understand that they have plans. They

[2:40:53] rely on a policy. Um

[2:40:57] they rely on you know, having

[2:41:01] almost like their CIP, right? With these funds, I'm sure is what they is what

[2:41:05] they do. Um

[2:41:09] but this is this is a bigger regional

[2:41:14] assessments are a bigger problem for our community

[2:41:17] um that have caused a lot of heartache. >> And I agree with you and like I am not

[2:41:23] interested in a big regional assessment either. I don't really know

[2:41:27] what to do. Could we direct staff to be looking at some solutions or what would

[2:41:32] be a good thing to do at this point because

[2:41:34] » I've been racking my brain. I don't know what the solutions are and

[2:41:40] I don't know. >> I I do think we have have priorities and

[2:41:45] once we establish our priorities, then we can make a decision.

[2:41:49] You know, I

[2:41:51] you know, I I think I think I pissed people off by saying, you know, I don't

[2:41:54] really play baseball, you know, I'm not a baseball guy.

[2:41:58] I don't have a kid in school. You know, I'm not going to not going to

[2:42:01] not pay my taxes because I don't have a kid in school and they take up 51% of

[2:42:04] our our taxes. You know, it's just part of life.

[2:42:09] And with the city with such a low portion of our real estate tax at 19.5%

[2:42:16] compared to other cities, that's that's really low. That's really low. We're

[2:42:21] we're we're not responsible for the you know, for the lion's share of that of

[2:42:24] that bill. And so

[2:42:27] but I think Naomi's right. We can't keep you know, throwing people into this this

[2:42:32] special torture chamber. We we can't keep doing that. We we've got to find

[2:42:36] creative ways right now to to pay for some of these

[2:42:41] these things and and specials has to be try to be our

[2:42:45] last resort. That has to be try we have to try to make that Now, we can't do

[2:42:49] that every time. We we at least need to try to do that

[2:42:53] and if you guys are putting forth the effort and you've got an idea

[2:42:56] if we can, you know, if we can move some numbers around and

[2:43:00] and figure out how to make it work, I think we have to, rather than vote no,

[2:43:04] just go ahead and special people. I think we we have to

[2:43:08] we have to hammer out a deal somehow. Um especially like Naomi said for these

[2:43:13] people, you know, we we we we just we can't put them back in the the special

[2:43:17] torture chamber. So. >> And I just I just can't help to mention

[2:43:21] the fact that it's two splash pads of $4 million

[2:43:26] for a city the size of Horace. Plus Plus Horace didn't come along with their one

[2:43:31] splash pad for many many years. I'm not There's a lot of things I would

[2:43:36] like to go out and buy and get, but I, you know, my eyes and my pocketbook have

[2:43:40] to be in alignment with it. And I just don't know if it's the right time to be

[2:43:44] » I I am >> fiduciary responsible.

[2:43:46] » Yeah, as far as being the liaison for the park district with being in my port

[2:43:50] portfolio, I I I don't even talk in the meeting at all. I just sit there and

[2:43:54] watch. But I I do feel that there's a little disconnect.

[2:43:59] I do I do feel there's a disconnect and and obviously we're we're the ones that

[2:44:04] got to be responsible with the money with the with the taxpayer money. We're

[2:44:08] the ones tasked with that. When people are upset with

[2:44:11] those types of things, they're looking at us.

[2:44:13] And so we're the ones that got to deal with this. So

[2:44:17] if if if I've got a choice between, you know, making sure a $4 million splash

[2:44:21] pad goes in or our infrastructure gets built

[2:44:25] without, you know, taxing everybody to death, I I'm going

[2:44:29] to I'm going to build the infrastructure. I'm just telling you

[2:44:31] right now that's what that's what I'm going to do.

[2:44:33] » Well, I I think if you were to do a straw poll and ask the those residents

[2:44:37] that would be impacted by this regional assessment, would you rather have a $4

[2:44:40] million splash pad or no special regional assessment?

[2:44:44] » are those are difficult things to say, especially that I do respect what the

[2:44:47] park board does. I respect each each member. I don't want somebody resigning

[2:44:51] because I you know, because we said that, but we we we we are facing

[2:44:56] extraordinary um

[2:44:59] » budget I mean it's just a special >> I mean the entire state was watching

[2:45:03] Horace with their specials. The entire state. It wasn't I mean I know you know,

[2:45:07] I know people in Minot and they're like, "Oh my gosh, what's going on there?" You

[2:45:11] know? And and

[2:45:13] to to be the the focus of of the entire state with these things going on, it it

[2:45:18] definitely it lets you know that it wasn't it wasn't a little deal. It was a

[2:45:22] big deal. And and the fact that you are trying to come up with with solutions

[2:45:26] for us, that's I I'll spend as long as it takes to try

[2:45:31] to try to hammer out a deal with that. And and I and I'll stop talking here,

[2:45:36] but I I just want to I just want to reinforce my appreciation for what you

[2:45:40] guys are trying to do. >> I appreciate that, but I was going to

[2:45:43] say too for imagine the the the reach to Minot, I mean it it was very loud and

[2:45:49] amplified here in the metro and Horace it was

[2:45:54] you know, um was no longer their first choice to

[2:45:58] where they would want to build because of that. Right, wrong, or indifferent,

[2:46:02] the perception was that these specials are out of control and everything else

[2:46:05] about it. And so that is really what kind of precipitated

[2:46:10] the like, "Okay, we need to come up with a

[2:46:12] different funding mechanism for this this infrastructure." So

[2:46:17] » Okay. You want a couple more weeks?

[2:46:20] » I I I'd like to you know, if I have to sit down with Jace or or you know, I I

[2:46:24] don't know, put a put some sort of a task force together

[2:46:27] or just do something. >> I I would suggest that we assign a

[2:46:32] couple people on the council or not, obviously have more than what we are

[2:46:35] allowed to do to to meet with them and start some discussion about options that

[2:46:40] and then we can come back and report to the rest of the council as well or

[2:46:43] whoever it might be. >> Okay.

[2:46:47] » Sure. >> Okay.

[2:46:49] » You've already been there. You're going to have to be second.

[2:46:52] » I mean, I just I feel bad putting it on hold, but it's these are really big

[2:46:58] these are really big decisions and you know, like the city staff said to you're

[2:47:03] going to precedent

[2:47:06] uh regional pro- like it's all it's like a

[2:47:10] big dust ball in my mind in my mind. Do you

[2:47:14] know, it's just how do you how do you move forward without

[2:47:21] hurting people and hurting entities and

[2:47:26] you know, it's these are big things, so

[2:47:29] » Okay, so somebody make a motion, please.

[2:47:36] » Uh the motion would be to table it for tonight uh to provide further discussion

[2:47:40] and uh possibly meetings in the near future to discuss uh further options.

[2:47:45] » You guys okay with that? Okay.

[2:47:48] » Yeah, we welcome it. >> All right, so I got a motion. Do I got a

[2:47:50] second? >> Second.

[2:47:52] » Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye.

[2:47:54] » Aye. >> Aye.

[2:47:55] » All right. Thank you, guys.

[2:48:00] » All right. You guys just want to move your own

[2:48:03] chairs here? >> [laughter]

[2:48:07] » Move now to number 15, Willow Creek or excuse me, Willow Grove first edition.

[2:48:13] Jim. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh the city

[2:48:16] of Horace infrastructure funding policy approved by the city council in July of

[2:48:20] 2025 allows for design fee reimbursements reimbursements for work

[2:48:24] performed by the developer's engineer and not by the city of Horace. Willow

[2:48:27] Grove was in the process prior to this infrastructure funding policy approval

[2:48:31] and is identified in the policy as a project available for reimbursement

[2:48:33] through the special assessment process. The developer provided invoices in the

[2:48:37] amount of $266,121.50 in reimbursable expensive

[2:48:42] expenses. I reviewed the submitted invoices and discussed additional

[2:48:44] information and clarity with a developer. I provided that

[2:48:47] correspondence attached. Previously, there have been $0 requested. This is

[2:48:51] current request is for 266,121.50. Um the fees have been accounted for in

[2:48:56] the final project budget. Um we did have all the invoices in my correspondence in

[2:49:00] your attachments. Did anyone have any questions or anything for me?

[2:49:12] Depends on the developer. Um this one I don't anticipate any more because they

[2:49:16] pretty much capped their design on this one and that's where their the

[2:49:18] reimbursements stop. It's at the end of the design.

[2:49:29] » All right. Does anybody have any questions for Jim?

[2:49:40] » [snorts]

[2:49:42] » Okay. Further discussion amongst us.

[2:49:50] Everything is all in order in order, Jim. They haven't

[2:49:53] » Yeah, we they called out You see that I crossed out some stuff on there.

[2:49:56] Um platting services typically are not included. That's a developer expense, so

[2:50:00] we crossed those out. >> Why do they keep putting them in?

[2:50:03] » [laughter] >> Uh they get the invoice from the from

[2:50:04] the um from their consultant and then they just

[2:50:07] » Put them on. >> They rely on us or they cross them out

[2:50:09] themselves. >> Okay.

[2:50:12] » So we have changed our policy on what can

[2:50:16] be reimbursed and tightened that quite a bit, right? And so what's crossed out

[2:50:20] are things that we no longer include We no longer reimburse.

[2:50:23] » haven't included platting in there. That's always been a developer developer

[2:50:27] » a couple years ago was a big debate what was and what wasn't reimbursed.

[2:50:31] » Yep.

[2:50:35] » So I mean I feel like if it's following the policy, I I'm comfortable with it.

[2:50:39] » Yep.

[2:50:42] Okay, I will look for a motion. >> I'll make the motion motion to

[2:50:49] approve the design fee reimbursement request number one for Willow Grove

[2:50:53] First Edition 2020 4-6. >> Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a

[2:50:57] second? >> I'll second it.

[2:50:59] » Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

[2:51:02] » Aye. >> All right, 15 aye carries.

[2:51:06] Move on to number 16, Jim. Your engineering and public works works

[2:51:09] report. >> All right, I'll go first and then Joel

[2:51:11] can can follow behind. So, the first thing I had here is County Road 17

[2:51:15] shared use path out front. As you see, they seeded it, got it cleaned up, and

[2:51:19] they were watering it today. So, that one is

[2:51:21] uh pretty much complete. Sparks and Luther, I believe you got a

[2:51:26] it's a project summary sheet in your packet

[2:51:30] for that project. Let me double-check. Yep, you do. So, all the pertinent

[2:51:33] information is in in the the summary sheet for that one. Willow

[2:51:37] Grove is the same. Deer Creek Estates is the same. They're progressing nicely.

[2:51:41] Willow Grove uh hopes to be paving the first phase or the first milestone here

[2:51:45] by the end of the week. Uh Deer Creek, I believe their plan was

[2:51:49] to have the underground all in, which I believe they did

[2:51:52] for the majority of it by last Friday. North Dakota Department of Environmental

[2:51:57] Quality has sent out requests for project questionnaires and update

[2:52:02] questionnaires for their CWSRF program, which is clean water drinking

[2:52:06] clean water state revolving loan fund, which is the flushable side of things.

[2:52:11] And they've also requested projects for the drinking water state revolving loan

[2:52:14] fund, which is the drinking water side of

[2:52:16] that. So, we'll prepare the um updates on those. Typically, the CWSRFs

[2:52:21] are lift stations, and then the DWSRF uh once the city went through Horace proper

[2:52:26] and re- redid a bunch of the piping in there,

[2:52:29] it's [clears throat] been water storage has been what's been pushed for with

[2:52:33] that. The diversion

[2:52:35] submitted the railroad second edition plat.

[2:52:40] Um some of the

[2:52:43] um lingering items on that are drainage in

[2:52:46] those backyards. So, AE2S on behalf of the diversion was out at today, and I

[2:52:51] believe they'll be out tomorrow, too, surveying that to provide the required

[2:52:54] drainage plan as part of a plat application.

[2:52:58] Uh there've been some residents that have provided some concern with drainage

[2:53:01] in the back and have requested easement on behalf of the city.

[2:53:04] Um this is going to identify those flow patterns and those flow paths, so we can

[2:53:09] evaluate the easements. >> At a cost to the city or a cost to the

[2:53:12] diversion of the >> of the the diversion. This is part of

[2:53:14] what new plat in the city you're supposed to provide a drainage drainage

[2:53:18] plan.

[2:53:21] Uh we've got to we've got to schedule some public input meetings when it comes

[2:53:24] to some regional infrastructure, so that ought to be interesting.

[2:53:28] And then uh next week we have the rounds of first round of objections with the

[2:53:32] special assessment commission for the seven seven remaining

[2:53:36] uh projects. So. >> All in one night?

[2:53:39] » No, there's two nights. >> Okay.

[2:53:40] » Weds- Tuesday Five on one day and two on the next.

[2:53:45] Weds- Wednesday, Thursday or Tuesday, Wednesday?

[2:53:46] » Tuesday, Wednesday. >> Tuesday, Wednesday. 15th and 16th.

[2:53:50] Questions, comments, concerns?

[2:53:55] » Joel, you're up. >> Uh one thing I'm going to add to what

[2:53:58] Jim said is after Bean Days, they are going to be shutting down the

[2:54:01] intersection of 8th Street, or sorry, 8th Avenue and Nelson to uh complete the

[2:54:06] construction of the Sparks development. Um so, you'll see some detour signs and

[2:54:10] everything up for that, but they're going to wait until after the Bean Days

[2:54:13] celebration. So. >> Any update on our uh pipe fitting

[2:54:18] problems?

[2:54:22] » Have not heard anything on that one. >> You know I'm going to stay on that,

[2:54:26] right? It's going to be like County Road 14 all over again.

[2:54:29] » You want to house the broken ones so we don't forget? We also got to do

[2:54:32] » You want to You want to just put them on a plaque on the on the wall here?

[2:54:36] Okay. >> Um and then about the only other thing I

[2:54:38] could say is uh we did finally get our clearance from FEMA that we are all in

[2:54:41] good standings with them. Um we got kind of a list of issues from the last 10 to

[2:54:46] 15 years that we've been tackling with them and uh last week we got the

[2:54:51] official letter saying we're in good graces again.

[2:54:56] » Huh.

[2:55:00] » Uh any word on the water usage, uh water tower, any updates on that? And And the

[2:55:06] other thing is do do we have an estimate of when we'll need to replace or upgrade

[2:55:10] our water tower? >> Um

[2:55:14] I You know the best time to replace it was

[2:55:16] last year. Um that's kind of how it always is with water towers. Um but you

[2:55:21] know you know we're still seeing high usage, especially you know it's been a

[2:55:23] drought. Um the water tower is doing what it can to

[2:55:27] keep up, but uh you know working with Cast Pearl Water sending us some more

[2:55:30] water and we're closely monitoring it every morning, but uh

[2:55:35] the town's growing. The water tower doesn't grow.

[2:55:39] » So the water tower has been on the intended use plan with the state

[2:55:43] revolving loan fund since probably '22, '21 as a placeholder.

[2:55:49] Um at the time when the decision was made to become a bulk user to Cast

[2:55:54] Pearl, they had just built that tower. That tower was funded

[2:55:58] quite a bit with State Water Commission at the time, which is now Department of

[2:56:01] Water Resources funds. So as the city continues planning for a

[2:56:07] new tower, um finding the right time to apply for

[2:56:11] another tower next to a bigger tower is one thing that we're working through,

[2:56:14] but with the volume that's been used in the last year, we've got better records

[2:56:19] of that now than what we had prior with it all going through a central meter

[2:56:23] coming from Caswell with knowing what we're billing

[2:56:27] as far as the usage is it's a little bit of an easier sell as

[2:56:31] to that 75,000 gallons isn't isn't enough. So, we anticipate picking that

[2:56:37] that process up. So, ever since

[2:56:40] about 22 I've been in contact with Landmark Structures. They're the ones

[2:56:43] who built the tower up here just if there's any questions or any we need any

[2:56:47] budgeting or something like that. So, you will see the DWSRF application or

[2:56:52] project questionnaire update form come through for more water storage in the

[2:56:56] form of an elevated tower before the end of October.

[2:57:00] So, we keep

[2:57:02] pushing it in planning. It's just a matter of they're not

[2:57:06] overly they're costly to build.

[2:57:10] » It's all what three three four million dollars something like that.

[2:57:13] » That's on the high side I would say cuz we were originally we were looking at

[2:57:16] about a million gallons so it'd be similar to what what this one had. Um

[2:57:20] when you have some users in the peak in July using 100,000 gallons of water

[2:57:25] that's it's crazy. 200,000 I guess.

[2:57:29] » It's the city hall I I take it the bills went out city hall

[2:57:33] we get any calls from

[2:57:38] » Casper and Oriana a few residents put down sod and used 189,000 gallons of

[2:57:42] water in one month. >> Yeah.

[2:57:45] So, when the bills went out and they were obviously

[2:57:48] we've got the bills tiered were there any responses like what are you guys

[2:57:52] doing to me type thing or did they just pay the bill and

[2:57:54] » They paid it. They paid it. My guess is they already

[2:57:57] knew that their bill would be high and they budgeted for it.

[2:58:01] » I believe I heard that public works was able to talk to them

[2:58:06] and kind of tell them that their bill is high and

[2:58:08] they had just watered or just not watered had just

[2:58:12] planted grass or sod or something and kind of

[2:58:15] knew they were going to have to do that. Maybe not as as they got, but it was

[2:58:18] going to be high. >> Okay.

[2:58:21] » Okay. Uh another question. Um

[2:58:24] tornado siren on the south end of town. Do you guys uh have that on your radar

[2:58:28] at all? >> As far as anyone

[2:58:30] » Yep. South end of town. Not not you know.

[2:58:34] » Fire department additional one. >> But apparently you should, yes.

[2:58:38] » So they find out? >> Thank you.

[2:58:40] » Your front yard available? >> I was thinking the uh cell phone tower

[2:58:44] if it's going up over there. But

[2:58:48] uh I know at one point um I think there was talk about the lift station um out

[2:58:52] in Maple Grove. So.

[2:58:56] » Okay. And then other not any other questions for Jim or Joe?

[2:59:03] All right. Hearing seeing none. Brent, you're up.

[2:59:09] » Okay. For uh

[2:59:11] North Dakota League of Cities annual conference, that is next week Wednesday

[2:59:15] through Friday. Um we do this every year. Have they identified who the

[2:59:19] delegates would be? Um

[2:59:23] that meeting where they have their uh business meeting is on September 18th

[2:59:28] at 8:30 a.m. For Horace's population, we would have

[2:59:32] three delegates. So we need to have council appoint three delegates for

[2:59:36] that. Um I understand it's Cass County Chamber Chalmers is atte- are planning

[2:59:41] on attending the conference there. Uh I will

[2:59:46] be attending most of the conference there. I'll probably just day trip it

[2:59:49] each time. Uh and then the jolly plans on going, and

[2:59:55] then Mayor Trudeau, I don't know if you're planning on being there for just

[2:59:58] portions of it or just where a meeting or two or

[3:00:03] if you're going to go on Thursday, Friday or

[3:00:05] » I thought about just going to the mayors meeting, but

[3:00:07] » Just the mayors meeting, so. Mhm.

[3:00:11] So if you're attending just the mayor's meeting, then my suggestion for a

[3:00:14] council would be to just appoint the delegates probably myself to Jolly and

[3:00:18] Council member Chalmers that were the three that would be attending

[3:00:22] the conference, but we just need to have that

[3:00:26] appointed for or identified by the council. So, and

[3:00:30] we'd be attending the business meeting for on behalf of Horace where that

[3:00:36] » Okay. I'll make that motion, please.

[3:00:41] » I'll second. >> Okay, I have a motion and a second. All

[3:00:43] those in favor say "Aye." >> Aye.

[3:00:44] » Aye. >> Aye.

[3:00:46] » Motion carries.

[3:00:50] Okay. All right. And then, uh, other items I

[3:00:54] have, just last Thursday, Council approved or

[3:00:59] certified the 65th Avenue in Southdale Farm 6th Addition,

[3:01:03] uh, districts, the 10-day payoff period without interest. We're going to have it

[3:01:08] started, I believe, for today. Just cuz of the holidays there. Uh,

[3:01:12] that's a 10-day period where folks that have special assessments tied to

[3:01:20] those improvement districts, their certified amounts, they could pay that

[3:01:23] off without interest. So, we'll have that posted.

[3:01:27] Um, I'm also trying to coordinate with council members for a special meeting

[3:01:32] next week, uh, about probably early next week in

[3:01:36] regards to addressing the two other districts that

[3:01:40] were tabled last Thursday. That would be Ubatuba and Deer Creek

[3:01:45] Estates 2nd and 3rd. Uh, so, I will be touching base with you

[3:01:49] on availability if I haven't already. Um,

[3:01:53] and then, also, I wish Nathaniel the best. He accepted a new position or a

[3:01:58] position elsewhere. Uh, his last day is September 25th. So,

[3:02:03] opportunity he felt He found He found an opportunity he felt would

[3:02:08] be a better fit for him, so he took advantage of that.

[3:02:12] Uh like I said, we wish him the best and appreciate what he has done here for the

[3:02:16] city. So, that's all I had.

[3:02:20] » All right. Um from a mayor portfolio, uh first

[3:02:25] I'll also uh wish Nathaniel um the best. Um I'm sure he will enjoy his new

[3:02:30] opportunity. Um probably less stress in the city of

[3:02:34] Horace. Um as far as my portfolio goes, um

[3:02:39] I think we uh I was going to ask Britain on um posting

[3:02:44] of any positions um for the HR portfolio.

[3:02:48] And then um as far as my stuff uh coming up um I

[3:02:54] was going to try to make it to the League of Cities for the mayor's

[3:02:57] meeting. Um I just got to figure out what time that was. Uh see if I can

[3:03:01] actually drive out there for that. And

[3:03:04] um other than that, uh Ross and I have a meeting tomorrow

[3:03:08] um afternoon. I didn't remember that,

[3:03:11] sorry. Tomorrow morning, I have a doctor

[3:03:13] appointment. Thankfully, I can get rid of these uh staples.

[3:03:17] And other than that, um we have Bean Days

[3:03:21] coming up. Um so, we will be doing some videos, I don't know, tonight

[3:03:26] or tomorrow, uh depending upon uh availability, I guess, of Paul.

[3:03:31] And um other than that, that's it. We're going

[3:03:34] to be having a uh uh

[3:03:38] a opportunity to meet the public uh with the

[3:03:42] uh improvements for uh or I shouldn't say improvements, but

[3:03:46] the city hall plans for the public spaces um that we are uh

[3:03:51] preparing uh for the community.

[3:03:55] Those Hopefully, everybody can attend um the car show on Friday.

[3:04:00] And we will be using this meeting space and probably the parking spaces right

[3:04:04] out in front of it Uh uh um to have some tag boards to show some of the

[3:04:07] preliminary designs. Um and we will be looking for public input as far as um

[3:04:14] whether it meets the mark for process. Um if it's if it's something that the

[3:04:19] public can use and make use of um but also try to lower the cost for

[3:04:24] the city. So with that

[3:04:27] I will move on to Russ. >> I don't have anything other than what uh

[3:04:32] Mayor covered. We're going to meet with uh fire department uh board just to kind

[3:04:36] of talk about uh our relationships and and

[3:04:40] where we're going and where we expect to go for the future and uh get to know

[3:04:44] those good guys a little bit. I don't know them at all. So it'd be a good time

[3:04:46] to introduce each other. >> Okay. Naomi.

[3:04:53] » Uh my meeting uh with Jim got canceled

[3:04:57] uh the other day. So I wasn't able to connect with him on that, but

[3:05:02] um we'll have to probably cancel next week.

[3:05:07] Um gone next week. Um

[3:05:11] the entire week pretty much. So yep.

[3:05:14] Otherwise, that's it. >> Okay. Rachel.

[3:05:19] » Uh I don't have any updates from Metro Cog. Um B and D is you you did say that

[3:05:23] it's all this upcoming weekend. It's going to be great. Uh the

[3:05:28] the agenda is posted many locations. The website's up

[3:05:32] and live. Lots of applicants for all the things, the car

[3:05:37] show, um food trucks, vendor fair, everything

[3:05:41] that has an open link apparently has good turnouts. And then yep, just to

[3:05:47] piggyback off what the mayor said Friday from 5:00 to 7:00 is when we'll

[3:05:52] be here at the car show talking, also showing the community what we

[3:05:58] what what we have planned but specifically with usable spaces for the

[3:06:02] community. Um

[3:06:05] and a more in-depth look at it for just

[3:06:08] council. We were hoping to

[3:06:12] um just show council the the full plans and

[3:06:17] kind of everything um especially including budget and

[3:06:21] tentatively we had looked at um like a lunch. I don't know how that

[3:06:25] works for everybody but talking with JLG September 22nd at

[3:06:31] lunchtime seemed to be a time that um I don't know if you guys have that

[3:06:35] available. We can keep working on finding the right day for a lunch

[3:06:40] that we could meet uh online or in person, whatever works for people.

[3:06:45] I think they were calling it a brown bag lunch. Like bring a lunch.

[3:06:48] » the day? >> September 22nd at noon.

[3:06:52] » Yep, to be hosted as kind of like a workshop.

[3:06:54] » Yeah, workshop like a discussion of what we're thinking. It's pending having PCL

[3:07:02] there like the just so we make sure, you know, if we cut this, well, how does

[3:07:06] that change the price? Like they really need to be at the table too for this

[3:07:09] conversation, so. Does anybody have conflict with that

[3:07:12] day?

[3:07:15] Okay. Okay. Okay. September 20

[3:07:18] seconds at lunch.

[3:07:24] What if it's online?

[3:07:28] Could be Teams meeting or it could be here.

[3:07:31] Okay. >> Okay.

[3:07:33] Anything else? Oop.

[3:07:36] » Um nothing else. Thank you. >> All right. Chad, you're up.

[3:07:40] » Um I was at the uh park board meeting. Um they approved a 2007 preliminary

[3:07:47] budget with a total of expenditures of 1.486

[3:07:50] million and a total levy of 1.394448

[3:07:57] for their budget. So,

[3:07:59] um obviously that's the preliminary, but uh

[3:08:03] uh as far as planning and zoning, we've got

[3:08:07] our uh evaluations for the comprehensive plan.

[3:08:11] Jolly I have been working on that, so um

[3:08:15] I believe is it nine different companies?

[3:08:17] » Oh, we received 10. >> 10 10 okay.

[3:08:20] » consultants who applied for the RFQ, so that's exciting, but now we have to make

[3:08:25] a decision and I sent everybody from the CAPC all the scoring sheets.

[3:08:30] Uh the deadline for those is September 11th, the Friday.

[3:08:38] And once I mean once I have them, I'll compile them and then I'll reach out to

[3:08:42] the whole committee and go from there. >> Yeah.

[3:08:46] And it is interesting looking through these different packets, you know, some

[3:08:49] people are they they want to let you know that hey

[3:08:52] I we we understand Horace. The other ones it looks like sometimes it's just

[3:08:56] like a templated thing that they sent out to everybody, so

[3:08:59] um it's it's pretty interesting. Uh I've never been part of something like this

[3:09:02] before to you know,

[3:09:05] go through the different applicants, so and with that I obviously it's late, so

[3:09:08] I'm not going to bloviate anymore. >> Okay. All right, with that I will look

[3:09:12] for a motion to adjourn. >> Motion to

[3:09:15] adjourn. >> Oh, you're in deep doo-doo.

[3:09:19] » [laughter] >> Okay, I'll second.

[3:09:20] » Oh, I I I

[3:09:22] I recede my >> a motion and a second. All those in

[3:09:24] favor say I.

September 8, 2026 Horace City Council Meeting

Transcript