[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.