[0:02] All right, it's 6 o'clock. 6 o'clock we'll call a meeting order. We'll start

[0:06] with the pledge

[0:10] algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[0:15] for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice

[0:21] for all. >> All right. Thank you everybody for

[0:25] coming out tonight. Um, is there any additions or deletions or

[0:30] corrections to the agenda? >> I do have one ad under uh my report

[0:33] would be uh I5 and it's uh related to the election lecture we talked about.

[0:41] » Anybody else? Not take a motion to approve.

[0:45] » Make the motion to approve. >> Thank you, Ryan. Do we have a second?

[0:48] » I'll second. >> Thank you, Sheldon. All in favor? I

[0:51] » oppos. Thank you. >> Consent agenda. Is there any item on

[0:54] there you'd like to discuss? If not, I'll take a motion to approve.

[1:00] » The motion to approve. Thank you, Ryan. Do we have a second?

[1:03] » I'll second. >> Thank you, Mel. All in favor?

[1:06] » I. >> Okay.

[1:09] Up next is visitors to the council. Right. We have

[1:17] no visitors. Um, we'll go to the mayor's report. I just got one quick item on

[1:22] that. School's going to be starting soon. Please be patient with the buses

[1:28] out there. Please be patient with the students out there crossing. They're not

[1:31] always going to push crosswalk button. Just watch out for them.

[1:36] You know, sometimes they get in a hurry and forget. So, just be patient, work

[1:40] with them, know that traffic's going to get a little slow. They're in front of

[1:43] the school before you start, before you leave. Just just a little public service

[1:50] so you don't forget. Um that's it. Public forum. We have one card. Shannon

[1:55] Peters. If you like come up to the podium with name, address.

[2:06] » Hi, good evening everyone. Um my name is Shannon Peters. I live at 603 Street

[2:12] Northwest. I'm here today to voice my strong

[2:17] objection to the placement of the new ground loaned solar array on the Cassen

[2:21] public lawn and library. This public utility footprint is 125 ft away from my

[2:29] front door, completely destroying my neighborhood view, impacting my property

[2:34] value, and threatening I don't know if you've done a solar glare um reflective

[2:40] gr glare study. What makes this situation even

[2:45] completely more accept unacceptable is the double standard. If I, as a

[2:50] taxpaying person, wanted to put ground mounted solar system in my yard, the

[2:55] city's zoning ordinance outright bans me from doing so to protect the

[3:00] neighborhood character. Yet, the library roof couldn't

[3:04] structurally support these panels. So, the city gave itself a pass, deciding

[3:09] it's perfectly fine to dump an industrial ugly footprint on the public

[3:14] lawn right in front of my living room. I do support green energy, absolutely,

[3:19] but I do not support discriminatory discriminatory zoning. This is an R1.

[3:26] The library is in residential one. And the total lack of transparency that led

[3:31] to this layout, I don't know where it came from.

[3:35] The city should hold its residents, The city should not hold its residents to a

[3:39] standard of community harmony that it refuses to practice itself. You've

[3:44] already laid the um concrete. You've put the post in. You've got the stands

[3:48] there. Now, um it's ugly. Um you've left 25 ft from the curb to the first post or

[3:55] I'm sorry, you've left 16 ft from the first post to the curb.

[4:01] Um it's just ugly. Um I would like um you

[4:07] to make public for all three that you have put up um that I'm that I'm aware

[4:13] of. I would like to make um see the glint and glare assessment for all three

[4:17] of those in the neighborhood. I would like the city to commit um commit to a

[4:24] binding cityf funed mitigated plan that includes a highquality privacy fence or

[4:29] a dense row of mature trees on that property so that I do not have to look

[4:34] at your ugly solar system. My other concern is the safety of the

[4:39] community and children that play there. The kids that do their cartwheels there,

[4:43] play hideand go seek there. If you're not putting a fence up around there,

[4:46] shame on you. Um, also

[4:52] this permit that was given to me by Ian the other day, $10,000. Is that for the

[4:58] total project for that public library project? That's the assessed value. That

[5:04] is fraud. I took this to three electricians today. They said the

[5:08] electrical alone would cost probably 8 to10 grand. So what are you doing? You

[5:12] got $103,000 grant money, which by the way is my

[5:16] taxpayer money and everyone in this room's taxpayer money. Ridiculous. What

[5:21] are you doing with the rest of it? Um, you have failed your community.

[5:27] I'm just saying you have failed me. You have failed the community with putting

[5:30] this in a neighborhood right in the front of somebody's living room.

[5:35] If you want, I can show you pictures if you'd like them, but I'm sure you're you

[5:40] know what you've done. just disgusting. You should be ashamed

[5:44] of yourselves.

[5:47] I would like a written response to my questions and how you're going to deal

[5:51] with this within 10 days. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[5:58] » We'll put that under staff to

[6:03] » Okay. Um that's the only card I had for public forum. There's no public hearing

[6:10] committee report EDA.

[6:15] » All right. So, the first item that I have for you this evening is the uh

[6:19] draft subordination agreement that was presented to the EDA at our meeting

[6:25] earlier this month. Um so it has to do with um Elite Marketing Investments and

[6:32] Joe Lonzo's business. Um so long time ago, at least 10 years ago, the EDA did

[6:40] give a loan in the amount of $90,000 to um that business um to aid in their to

[6:47] assist in their relocation here to Cassen. Um fast forward to today, the

[6:52] balance on that loan is just over 55,000.

[6:56] Um but since then um another lender MBT Bank has given Elite

[7:06] additional loans. Um but after all of that, the EDA's mortgage on the property

[7:14] um just across the street here, the EDA's position is in first place ahead

[7:20] of all the subsequent leans on the property.

[7:23] Um, so the request here with a subordination agreement would move the

[7:30] EDA from first position um down to third position behind the the bank's existing

[7:39] um loan on the property and um the proposed 475,000

[7:47] letter of credit that would go towards Elite for the purpose of um operation

[7:52] operational expenses. Uh I did have the city attorney review

[7:58] the subordination request and she had recommended that the EDA not

[8:04] agree to the subordination agreement um

[8:09] since it does place more risk on the EDA by moving it from first down to third

[8:16] position. Um however um Mr. Alonzo did come to the

[8:22] EDA meeting early this month and there was a rather long uh discussion that we

[8:27] had. Um so we learned a bit more about the situation from his perspective. Um

[8:33] he had also shared a a Mims report that he had prepared um in advance of asking

[8:40] for um the additional letter of credit from the bank um placing the value of

[8:45] his property closer to uh 1.2 just under $1.2 $2 million.

[8:51] Um we discussed a few alternatives to the subordination agreement. Um one of

[8:59] which was to uh instead of the third position take a second position behind

[9:04] the bank's um existing lean but still ahead of the proposed $475,000

[9:13] letter of credit. Um Mr. Mr. Lonzo said that the bank wouldn't wouldn't agree to

[9:18] that um positioning. Um we also discussed the option of wiping out Mr.

[9:25] Lonzo's existing loan but then um taking that third position and lending him back

[9:31] the remaining balance but at a higher interest rate considering the increased

[9:36] risk to the EDA. Um but Mr. Lonzo was not in favor of that idea either. Um but

[9:43] at the end of all of that, the EDA um did end up recommending approval of the

[9:49] subordination agreement as as was drafted. Um so that is what is before

[9:55] consideration of you tonight. As it's noted, it says we're third, but

[10:01] technically according to M MBT Bank, they would roll both of their loans into

[10:06] one, and that would make us technically second because they classified theirs.

[10:11] Yes, it's two loans, but they would recover them as one.

[10:15] » Yes. >> So, so that would put us back, that was

[10:18] where the EDA discussed it. That would put us back in second where we were

[10:21] originally when we did the loan. And then when he had to rebuild the

[10:27] building, we became the only loan on it at the time. That's why we

[10:31] » that's why we're in first position. >> That's why we moved to first. But so

[10:34] technically we're not third. We'd be second

[10:38] even though it list cuz MBT would just roll said that's they count that as one

[10:42] loan. Even though it shows as two paper trails in the bank, they would they look

[10:47] at it as one. That was part of the reasoning the EDA went back and said,

[10:52] "Well, then we're second." And he plus he's never missed a payment from the

[10:56] beginning.

[11:01] » If that's what I recall from that meeting.

[11:03] » Yeah. Yep. How long was the time frame on that?

[11:05] » He's got 10 years left. >> 10 years left.

[11:07] » Yeah. He's about halfway through. >> No payments missed.

[11:11] » No pay. We did give them a year off when the building went under fire and they

[11:16] had to rebuild. So that's why it's a little over half

[11:21] left due on it because he he was allowed a year grace period due to the rebuild.

[11:28] » Right. >> Even at that he's the payments have been

[11:32] timely and >> he's lived up to all the other all the

[11:36] other agreements in the contract. He's held true on that. Okay.

[11:42] » And there's still value in that one building that would cover everything.

[11:51] That was that was the logic of the EDA at the time.

[11:59] » So, is any we got any questions for Ann or

[12:02] for a motion? I >> I had one more.

[12:04] » Yes. >> So, the it's just MBTL that's listed in

[12:09] that. Is there a third party? >> It would just be between MBT and and us.

[12:15] Okay. There's just those two parties and that could move us to the second.

[12:19] » Yeah. I mean, yeah, they'll still have the two loans, MBT, the

[12:23] » the line of credit and the loan, >> but they they said

[12:27] » they're like packaged. >> They package it, but they still leave it

[12:29] as two separate because it's two separate interest rates for them, but

[12:33] they count that as one if they had to foreclose

[12:37] be anything. So that would put us second technically,

[12:41] but it in logistics, yes, it is third, but the bank looks at it as more of a

[12:48] one two. So >> the the amount that would still be left

[12:52] in there to be covered is enough for us to recoup though, right?

[12:57] » Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz he's at 750,000. >> Yeah. Up to

[13:03] » Yeah. Up, you know, and that's up too on their credit form, you know. So, and

[13:08] that building appraising according to the report you have in here shows like a

[13:13] 1 almost 1.2 million.

[13:25] Oh, any other questions or concerns? I guess I would take a motion to

[13:33] approve the subordination agreement. Make the

[13:37] motion to approve the subboard and agreement.

[13:39] » Ryan, do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[13:42] » Sheldon. All in favor? >> I

[13:44] » I post. Okay. Next on your EDA ready.

[13:52] » Yep. So, next item in there is the second half investment um going towards

[13:59] ready. Um the EDA has been an investor and ready for a few years now. Um

[14:06] through that we've um been a participant in the communities council and um you'll

[14:13] c recall last year the um the housing roundt that was had over in Byron. Um,

[14:21] more recently we did have kind of a group meeting with the other investor

[14:26] communities um, just to talk more about the future of the group and strategic

[14:32] planning as far as regional economic development goes. Um, and so at the EDA

[14:39] meeting earlier this month, um, there was a motion to recommend investing for

[14:45] the second half of of this year. So that would take us through the end of this

[14:50] year. Um you'll see the invoices included in the packet. If there's any

[14:55] questions,

[15:01] we did did voice our opinion at the EDA level that we want to see more out of

[15:07] them. So I mean they did send a little packet, but it's almost like you got to

[15:12] force them to do it. So, you know, so they are aware and there's

[15:16] other cities that voiced their same opinions that yeah, you say you want to

[15:20] help, but where's, you know, in where's more input for us?

[15:26] » So, what did we get out of the first half?

[15:31] » Uh, well, they've been talking about the that strategic planning and all of that.

[15:35] I think that's where u most of it has gone. They tried applying for a few

[15:40] different grants to um actually like develop an actual written plan. Don't

[15:46] think they were successful. Um but that is a lot of where the time was was spent

[15:51] in this first half of the year. >> Ian meets with them monthly.

[15:55] » Yeah. >> To discuss issues in the region.

[15:58] » Um they do provide support on different you know economic development

[16:01] initiatives. Um they've been talking a lot about different things in in the

[16:04] that are coming to Rochester and the Mayo area and the the different

[16:07] projects. I mean that's part of the reason that we want to see more from

[16:10] them. I mean if we were pretty clear like we want something tangible. You

[16:13] know economic development work can be hard. It doesn't always generate what

[16:16] you want it to generate. But doing an event like for example like that housing

[16:19] forum a couple years ago was beneficial. I told him I said you know you need to

[16:22] do something like that regularly because then I can see what tangibly you know

[16:26] even if it you know it's not forcing someone to build here but at least it's

[16:29] it's bringing that tangible thing there. And it was interesting, you know, I

[16:33] think everyone at the meeting was kind of doing the Minnesota nice thing right

[16:36] until the last 15 minutes when I said that. And then all the other cities kind

[16:39] of chimed up and said the exact same thing. And some of them were even a

[16:41] little bit more demonstrative than than than we were. But but it was it was good

[16:45] for them to know like put your money where your mouth is, you know, kind of a

[16:49] thing. So

[16:54] » do you need a motion on that? Yes. >> I would look at a motion to approve the

[16:59] second payment. make the motion to approve that second

[17:03] payment. >> Brian, do we have a second?

[17:06] » I will second. >> Thank you.

[17:09] » With the provision that I would like to see like at the end of the year, are we

[17:13] getting anything out of this? >> Sure.

[17:16] » Sounds good to me. >> Yeah, I agree. So, we have a motion to

[17:20] second. All in favor? I >> oppose. Thank you.

[17:24] » Excuse me. >> You guys use your microphone.

[17:27] » Oh, sorry, Dave. Thank you.

[17:31] All right. Um, next planning commission public works preliminary and final plat.

[17:36] » Yes. So, at the planning commission meeting just last Monday, we did have a

[17:43] public hearing to discuss the preliminary plat of the public works

[17:49] subdivision. Um, I'll just show it up here on the map. So, you're all familiar

[17:54] with the public works site. It's actually uh right now it's just one

[17:57] parcel just shy of 80 acres out on 16th Street Northeast.

[18:03] Um so it includes the actual public works facility itself, the their garages

[18:10] and everything, the wastewater treatment facility, um quite a lot of open space

[18:15] um in the middle areas and the far extent to the north. Um and some wooded

[18:21] acreage on the um the east side of Masten Creek up over here. Um so with

[18:29] this preliminary plat um it would divide the entire parcel up into um five

[18:36] different parcels labeled 1 2 3 4 and five um as you can see on the plaid up

[18:41] here. Um so a couple things with this proposal.

[18:47] Um since access is only provided via 16th Street

[18:53] Northeast and then a drive that comes off of it. Um some of these lots are

[18:59] going to not have direct um frontage off of the public street. Um so to remedy

[19:05] that situation um we do have an access easement running through um the entirety

[19:13] of the lot, almost the entirety of the parcel um which would provide access to

[19:19] um those lots that don't have the the exact um access off of the public

[19:24] street. Um so you'll see in the resolutions we've got a couple of

[19:30] things. Um one is just um making sure that the declaration that's included in

[19:38] the packet as exhibit B. Um having the city attorney review that and

[19:42] everything. Make sure it's all ship shape before um we actually move to

[19:47] record the plat and the access agreement to go the access easement to go with it.

[19:53] Um let's see. There were a few comments that came up during the public hearing.

[19:59] Um, some of them having to do with this

[20:03] proposed lot five um down in the southeast corner. Um, right now it's

[20:09] it's just wooded acreage. Um, I did share that one proposal by the city was

[20:15] to um develop it possibly as a single family residential housing. Um, however,

[20:22] a lot of those present felt that it would be better utilized as a public

[20:26] city park. Um, but I just want to reiterate that, um, the single family

[20:32] housing was just a proposal. Um, and the effect of approving these plat lock, um,

[20:39] that proposal in by any means. Um, so I just want to share that with everyone.

[20:45] Um, and then there were some comments about the land owners out here to the

[20:50] east. Um, they expressed wanting to have some access to a portions of their

[20:57] property, although it also sounded like they did have access already. um um

[21:03] little bit of a a situation there, but um even with that

[21:09] I think I don't think there were any issues that would have um there weren't

[21:15] any issues that the planning commission felt um would have prevented them from

[21:20] recommending approval of these plat. So um in your packets you do have the

[21:25] preliminary and final plat together um separate resolutions for each um any

[21:31] questions.

[21:42] No questions. So we need to prove the preliminary

[21:47] plant first, right? That's right. So, I would guess

[21:52] I'd look for a motion to approve the preliminary plan for the cast and public

[21:57] works subdivision. >> Make that motion. Ryan, do we have a

[22:01] second? >> I'll second.

[22:03] » Sheldon. All in favor? >> I.

[22:08] » Next. Uh, the final plat. We look for a resolution to or a motion

[22:16] to approve that resolution. >> Make the motion. Brian, do we have a

[22:21] second? >> A second.

[22:23] » Thank you, Sheldon. All in favor? >> I

[22:26] » I >> Thank you. Um

[22:31] the exhibit B the the access agreement, you'll need Is there any questions or

[22:36] concerns in that from anybody? >> Yeah, I mean, as far as access, we do a

[22:42] an easement back in there. Um, that is a waste. That is our water treatment

[22:47] plant. You know, that's who comes and goes driving right around

[22:54] there. It is off by itself. A little concerning in my opinion. And granted,

[22:58] somebody could go back there, but anyway, there's no gates, right?

[23:03] » Well, the the plant is gated off. >> Okay, that is

[23:06] » the plant is. So, then this road would kind of go along that just know. So, I

[23:10] don't know if you you can't really see the fence on there, but it is fenced

[23:12] there. And they actually I think earlier this year we reinstalled new gates

[23:15] there. So they're those are the ones they they got approved in I think

[23:18] February. But yeah, so this does kind of head up behind Berts but there kind of

[23:21] between where they store some of the the soil borings and things like that. But

[23:25] » but yeah, >> that was the only concern. Just little.

[23:30] » Mhm. >> Well, and it's all property still owned

[23:33] by the city, >> right? Correct.

[23:36] » And the far is the far lot. That's farther north. Lot one. Is that where

[23:43] the >> Yeah, on the west side of that. That's

[23:45] » is the solar, right? >> That's right.

[23:48] » Brandon, mayor, if I could. >> Yes.

[23:50] » Um, just to be clear, um, you mentioned to access anybody going back there. So,

[23:53] if we have an access agreement, that's only going to be dedicated to that

[23:56] property. So, it's not going to be necessarily public access. It's going to

[23:59] be access just for that specific property. So, if they were to put solar,

[24:02] whatever, up there, um, or farm it as it is today, be accessed just for that

[24:06] property owner. So that'll be in the access agreement. So it's not a public

[24:10] access. >> I'm good.

[24:18] » Everybody's gone through and looked over the specifics of the agreement.

[24:23] So with that, I guess I would take a motion

[24:28] to approve. >> Make the motion to approve.

[24:32] » Ryan, do we have a second? >> I'd second.

[24:34] » Thank you. No. All in favor? I >> I

[24:39] » thank you. >> Next up, old business.

[24:47] » Colarium. I'll just preface this and I'll let

[24:50] Linda and Ian take over because I mean maybe Linda probably the one here. Um,

[24:54] so this is a project we talked a little bit uh earlier this year about um

[24:58] possibly doing an improvement at the cemetery site by adding Colar and we're

[25:02] seeing a lot more of the cremations and um so this is a this is a kind of a want

[25:07] not a need but we do think it would extend the life of um letting people

[25:11] obviously have burials here in Cassen. Um so I think that Linda and Ian work

[25:16] together and Linda I'll let you take it over there. She's included the one that

[25:20] she thinks might be the best choice to start with I think. Is that kind of what

[25:23] you're looking at Linda? It is it is that is um the one that Ian and I kind

[25:28] of agreed on. Uh the price is on there. We are responsible for the concrete pad

[25:34] foundation that goes on and the crane rental

[25:38] » microphone >> using grab microphone.

[25:42] » Sorry. Sorry. Um we are responsible for the concrete

[25:48] pad that the the uh columbarium will sit on and the crane rental to lower it onto

[25:54] that. Um each niche

[25:59] will hold two. So if if there's a couple that want to

[26:04] be together in one, um the stones are then etched by the company that we buy

[26:13] this for. Um they are very reasonable and that

[26:18] would be they would so that all the printing and everything is uniform.

[26:24] It would all go up to that company. This company is in

[26:29] shoot Krookton. >> Yeah. Yeah. A Minnesota company.

[26:34] » A Minnesota company.

[26:42] Yep. So this is the 64 niche. So there's room for 128 people.

[26:52] » So it averages out to about $1,000. >> What

[26:56] » averages out was estimated cost is 64. >> That's for the concrete pad and the

[27:03] crane rental. >> Just the pad. Oh going down.

[27:06] » No, the 64,000. That's only for the colarium. That's not the cement pad and

[27:11] the crane rental.

[27:18] » It is more expensive. Um, we would charge more for this too cuz right now a

[27:24] cemetery lot is $775. We were thinking if they bought a niche

[27:31] um to raise it up to $2,000 because then they could put two in there

[27:39] and it would be then like $1,000 per person, but charge $2,000 for each

[27:44] niche.

[27:47] Um the cemetery is nothing that we ever make money on.

[27:52] Uh we're lucky if we ever break even. Um, but Tim found, where did you find

[27:57] the money? >> I I think, you know, we're planning

[28:01] using some of the reserve funds there. You know, it's one of those things

[28:05] where, you know, people come and they still want to be buried here if they can

[28:07] be. And, you know, you're running out of lots that are desirable lots and like I

[28:12] said, we're seeing the cremation. So, like I said, at the end of the day, it's

[28:15] a want. It's not something that you have to approve. I think isn't going to

[28:19] necessarily cost the taxpayers anything. You know, we'll we'll use the reserve

[28:22] funds from the cemetery. Um but you know if you you don't want to do it you know

[28:26] that's fine too. It's something we've talked about for a couple years just

[28:28] sort of kicked around and you know the question is do we want to pursue it or

[28:31] not? If we don't then you know I don't you know I think staff has brought you

[28:35] what they found and >> we've been we've been putting we've put

[28:38] new fencing in. We've tried to keep making updates. This sounds like a good

[28:42] one if we can use >> right. Our goal is to try and keep that

[28:44] as attractive as it can be you know and and I think you know we've been able to

[28:47] do that over the last couple years for sure.

[28:49] » How many >> We're not out of lots. We we actually we

[28:52] have a lot left. Um there's a lot along the trailer court side that are on that

[28:58] side. There's um some on the west road down towards the front and there's some

[29:05] back in the souththeast corner. I mean we must have

[29:12] three 400 lots left, >> right?

[29:15] » How much >> we have a lot.

[29:16] » How much space does this take up? I mean, how many lots would we have to

[29:19] take out of lots and turn to this? >> We would only take out one block, which

[29:24] is eight lots. >> Eight lots. Okay.

[29:27] » We put it towards the front by the uh storage

[29:31] » building there. >> Why did you pick 64 versus the 96

[29:37] or >> cost?

[29:38] » Cost. Okay.

[29:44] I'd like before we would go forward with this, I would like a little bit of a

[29:48] number on a concrete pad and crane rental. Just a rough estimate. You know,

[29:53] if we could bring that back to a next meeting just so we have an idea of what

[29:57] we possibly >> cost. Yeah,

[30:00] » I know it's an estimate. It won't be exact, but I think that would

[30:04] » we should be able to come up with something.

[30:05] » Yeah. So, if we could have that by the next

[30:09] meeting, we could just table us until then.

[30:11] » I can do that. >> Well, I'm fine with that. We want to

[30:13] make sure you guys get all the information you need.

[30:17] » All right. Thank you. Up next, old business. We got the fireh hall rental.

[30:22] So, we've discussed this a few times. Um,

[30:28] I guess my opinion is we we said that let staff

[30:36] pick a rate for a nonprofit and bring it back to us

[30:41] and then, you know, cuz they seem to know exactly what goes into each thing.

[30:47] So that would be my recommendation is we'd let staff set it right and bring it

[30:51] back and forward it on. But any thoughts from everybody else?

[30:58] » That's fair. We want to find a good plan for this and

[31:01] » sure we're helping people but also not >> hurting anyone.

[31:05] » Yes, that's our goal. I mean we want to make sure that it works for everybody.

[31:09] » Yep. >> Am I allowed to ask a question?

[31:13] » Yeah. Are you talking fireman staff? like the staff of the fire department.

[31:17] » We're we're looking at if a nonprofit rate for when people want to use the

[31:23] fire room, right? >> Where the truck bay is.

[31:25] » Yeah. >> Yep.

[31:26] » So, who's going to make that decision? >> We'll have staff direct staff.

[31:29] » Yeah. We will talk to the fire the fire department as well, ministry of staff.

[31:33] Yep. >> Yep. So, that way the whole fire

[31:36] department >> So, basically, you're talking you want

[31:37] to create a nonprofit rate and you want us to try and talk to them, see what

[31:41] kind of number we can come up with. >> Yes. Okay. and make it work

[31:46] for everybody. No pressure. So, if you could bring that back,

[31:50] » if anybody has any other questions, I mean, I guess that, you know, we talked

[31:53] about it last time and I know, >> you know, it's a question of do you want

[31:56] to do the nonprofit rate or not? >> I think we do. I think we do. I think we

[31:59] have enough interest from folks for that. So, I think that's probably fair.

[32:02] And then I know Linda has been looking at it and she's talked with uh, you

[32:05] know, people about things, too. And so, yeah, I think that should be something

[32:08] that we can come up with. them. Um, you know, the biggest push back is going

[32:13] to be from folks who are from the general public who are going to say,

[32:16] "Well, why do we have to pay which is probably going to be more, you know, if

[32:20] they're using the same facility?" I mean, that's that's just so you're

[32:22] aware, that's probably the biggest push back would be is, well, if I'm doing X,

[32:25] Y, and Z, why do I have to pay more? And I mean, I think, you know, the argument

[32:28] has to be, well, the nonprofits are providing a service to the to the

[32:31] residents or to the community. Um, and that's if somebody came in, that's what

[32:35] I would tell them. might say, "Well, that's why the council decided to do a

[32:38] nonprofit rate as well as the regular rates."

[32:40] » Yeah. Do we set that where do we draw that line on the non where the nonprofit

[32:44] go? That would be an important thing to me. Is it local

[32:47] » kind of a thing? That would be >> Well, I mean that's the hard part like

[32:51] because if you set a nonprofit rate, it's not going to matter whether it's,

[32:54] you know, the folks at Carisher or one of the other, you know, local ones or if

[32:57] it's, >> you know, the Eagles Teleathon or

[32:59] something like that, you know. I mean, I think you probably have to just kind of

[33:02] have one. I mean, because you don't want to do an out of town nonprofit or

[33:05] something. I just think you get to be too,

[33:07] » but we were adding a caveat that they have to have the firemen there. They're

[33:11] they're hiring the firemen. So, as long as the firemen are there,

[33:15] » right? >> That's the caveat that goes with these

[33:17] nonprofits >> because it is all it is the fire

[33:19] department's equipment and they have to maintain it, move it, bring it back in

[33:23] and be there to m to supervise it. That was the whole

[33:26] » We want to make sure they're 100% comfortable with what's going on

[33:28] » because I know the fire department has said in the past that they've didn't

[33:34] want to rush we weren't able to support the um you know function last year from

[33:38] post you know the post problem because it

[33:41] » it didn't fit very well with what the fire department wanted to have. So

[33:44] » yeah. >> So

[33:46] » so is just so that I'm crystal clear on this I mean both of these instances the

[33:51] the fire relief association is gaining a benefit because of the sale of alcoholic

[33:55] beverages. What happens if we have a group that wants a nonprofit that wants

[34:01] to come in and use the entire facility, but they are not selling alcoholic

[34:06] beverages and therefore there's no benefit to the fire relief association.

[34:11] » That's where the caveat comes in where as long as the firemen

[34:16] » are there in some as hired as some

[34:21] » okay >> um it

[34:24] for some event. Okay. >> Because both the the Blaine Halverson

[34:28] and the Karen share hire well not hire but have the firemen there and the

[34:35] firemen get the profits from there but the firemen are there and that's where

[34:39] any nonprofit that came in would have to have the firemen there in some capacity.

[34:45] » Okay. >> As long as the firemen agree, I would

[34:49] think that they're going to be there in some capacity. I don't know. Maybe

[34:55] they'd have firemen, I don't know, watching bounce houses or I I don't

[35:00] know, you know, >> something that I mean, the fire

[35:03] department is going to have to talk to us. They're going to they're going to

[35:05] have to communicate with us like saying, "Okay, yes, we're going to be there."

[35:07] They're okay with it because in the long run, I mean, I'm not moving the trucks

[35:10] in and out. I don't have the ability to do it myself. They're going to have to

[35:13] be there. So, yeah. >> Linda, how many nonprofits would you say

[35:16] we have renting that space now? >> Oh, these are the only two.

[35:19] » Two. Okay.

[35:24] You guys came in last time. Is this are we moving towards the direction you were

[35:26] hoping to or is this >> I mean absolutely. I think so. I mean I

[35:31] think just taking the effect of like thinking critically about the nonprofits

[35:35] and how we like we definitely all of this funding goes right back to KM

[35:39] residents. So I think I love that idea and it just gives us more money to be

[35:43] able to put back into the community. I mean and we understand the fire the fire

[35:47] department is incredibly helpful. Um they're wonderful men and women that are

[35:51] there every you know the last two years for us and so um I mean if we can get it

[35:56] as low as possible that's the goal right I mean I realistically I know it costs

[36:00] money for us to be there and I understand that and I I definitely want

[36:04] the city and the fire department to break even but if we can come to

[36:07] something of like not making a profit off of it that would be I mean

[36:12] preferable you know because none of us are trying to make a profit you know our

[36:15] caterer is donating 15 to 20% back to us this where you know everybody is

[36:20] donating something. So that's I think what we're looking for is just like a

[36:23] break even cost would be awesome >> because we we do give a lot back to the

[36:27] community. >> Yeah. No problem.

[36:32] » Yeah, I think I think we should be able to have some for you on the 9th.

[36:34] » Perfect. Yeah. >> Try and have this all finalized.

[36:39] » Thank you. >> Up next, uh request for proposal for

[36:44] auditors. You'll see those in your packet.

[36:48] » Yeah, I'll let Sarah talk to that. >> Yeah. So, we sent out an email to eight.

[36:52] We got three back and you can see the the pricing in there.

[36:57] There's really no decision to make because of the differential. So,

[37:02] resonate. It was significantly cheaper. >> Yeah.

[37:09] They're thousands of dollars cheaper.

[37:13] » 10 and $13,000. Yeah.

[37:20] » Anybody got any questions for Sarah? >> Give me a motion.

[37:24] » So, if not, I guess I would look for a motion to approve a three-year

[37:30] commitment with Conresnic for our annual audit.

[37:34] » I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.

[37:38] » Thank you, Ryan. All in favor? >> I I

[37:42] » Thank you. Thank you for reaching out to him and getting back. Appreciate it. And

[37:48] I don't think that was much different than the past contracts.

[37:52] » Yeah, apparently the last time it was similar.

[37:55] » Yeah. All right.

[37:59] Uh up next, we got the 2012 joint powers agreement with Dodge County on the ice

[38:05] arena.

[38:09] We're looking at I'd like a motion to direct staff pursuant to the 2012 joint

[38:14] powers agreement that a city is exe executing its right to end its current

[38:19] position as the operator of the Dodge County Ice Arena. So in our contract we

[38:23] have to give them a fourmonth notice if we would like to talk to and change the

[38:31] contract. So

[38:35] that was just I would look for a motion to have staff

[38:42] notify the county >> that we would like to discuss

[38:46] » like to discuss the terms of the Yes. >> I'll make that motion.

[38:50] » We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> A second.

[38:54] » There any other questions? Not I would. All in favor? I

[38:58] » I >> reach out to stat county.

[39:02] » Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. New business. We

[39:06] have the SRO agreement. This is

[39:14] » so both the uh KM and the Z SRO agreements are similar to the last

[39:18] agreements we had for the last two years. Um only changes are some uh

[39:21] statutory changes that we had to add for language for SRO duties. And about the

[39:26] financial changes too. >> Uh ju just the the same percentages that

[39:30] we had before. >> What are the differences in language

[39:34] that were statutory? >> All the SRO duties

[39:41] » which we were already doing that stuff was just reporting into the contract.

[39:49] Is this a two-year contract? >> Two two years each. Yes.

[39:55] Just as a reminder, the cameras don't turn on while they're in the building

[39:58] talking to kids. They when they wear their cameras,

[40:00] » those aren't >> that's up to them if they want to

[40:02] activate it for some reason. So, if they think it's could be a criminal event,

[40:06] then they would. It's not be it's not recording 24/7.

[40:08] » Yeah. Okay. >> And the schools has gone through the

[40:13] contract. >> Uh CAM has already agreed to it and said

[40:17] they have uh their next meeting. >> Okay. Okay.

[40:22] meetings tomorrow. >> Okay.

[40:24] » I work there. >> Okay. Um, does anybody else got any

[40:30] questions for the chief on SRO?

[40:35] » Okay. Do we have to approve of both or one?

[40:38] » Make one motion to approve both the Z SRO agreement and the KM SRO agreement.

[40:42] » So, I'd look for a motion to approve both SRO agreements. One with Cass and

[40:46] Manavville School and one with the Zed. >> Do I have to abstain since I work for

[40:51] the district? Hope so. >> I was gonna say

[40:55] I have no position as far as I know. >> No, I don't.

[40:59] » The bone and get him a camera over there. He'll be all set. You know,

[41:02] » I never thought to ask that after 5 years. I probably thought I should have.

[41:05] Okay. Doesn't hurt to ask, but no, you should be good.

[41:08] » Get in trouble. I'll make the motion to approve.

[41:12] » We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[41:14] » Thank you, Sheldon. All in favor? I >> oppos. Thank you.

[41:22] budget presentation. So, so earlier tonight, obviously, we

[41:27] had our long range uh planning meeting with Mr. Rubani. Um we did uh meet with

[41:33] department heads, spent a lot of time and Sarah spent a lot of time meeting

[41:36] with them in data entry. So, I appreciate her work on that. Um think

[41:40] we've uh this is kind of our first look at the budget. And included in your

[41:43] packet, you have a couple of items. Um one is kind of what I call the budget in

[41:47] brief. It's just the top sheet. It shows you the the numbers from the library,

[41:51] the general fund, economic development, um the debt service, capital levies, as

[41:55] well as the tax abatement levies. Um and you can see there the numbers um biggest

[42:00] changes in the budget for um 2027 or healthcare that continues to be an area

[42:07] of uh increased cost. I think right now what was the projection, Linda? Uh I

[42:13] think we put in the budget 20% but um Bill was talking 12 to 15.

[42:19] » So we're hoping that that can drop down but I know as council's kind of guide in

[42:22] the past to be conservative with that. Um so you know and last year we did have

[42:27] a really large deductible increase too which has mitigated some of that but um

[42:31] so anyway that's a big increase. Uh the other is the uh police department with

[42:35] that position as you're you're aware um that was added. So there's a little bit

[42:39] larger than standard jump in their budget too. Um otherwise, you know,

[42:43] overall debt levies are flat. Um you could see there that that's not changing

[42:48] much. Um the library fund does have a little increase too and part of that is

[42:53] their health care as well. Um you know, and and the tough part about for them is

[42:57] so much of their budget is staff. You know, probably I don't know 85% of their

[43:01] budget actually comes down to healthcare and wages for their staff. And so the

[43:05] truth is even when somebody just switches from single coverage to family

[43:08] coverage, you know, that's 12 to $20,000 a year depending on what option they

[43:12] pick. So I mean, you know, the they do the department heads to do the best job

[43:16] they can going off of previous years, as you're aware. You know, libraries had

[43:20] some changes in staffing over the last three years, too. So, and they're going

[43:23] to continue to have some changes in staffing. I don't know. I think we'll

[43:25] get that probably in our next packet. We do have a library staff person who's,

[43:28] you know, taking a different position. So, you know, they, you know, they do

[43:32] the best they can, but that is why they see a little bit larger jump than

[43:34] normal. Um, most of it's related to wages and benefits there. Um, so, you

[43:40] know, I I think, you know, we're at, you know, a number that's it's well under

[43:44] where a lot of cities are coming in. I'm happy about that. We expect to get it

[43:46] lower. You know, as those healthcare numbers come in, they firm up. That'll

[43:50] be something that we'll be gladly glad to cut. Um, otherwise, um, we do have

[43:54] the clear doc document in there and Sarah can bring it up maybe or do you

[43:57] have access to bring it up, Ian? I do. >> Um, and Sarah can talk to any points

[44:02] that she wants to highlight there, too. I think it's um, you know, you've got

[44:05] the PDF in your packet, but also the link is available online and I think

[44:09] send >> everybody the link.

[44:10] » Yeah, I think she emailed it out to everybody. We will have that on the

[44:12] city's web page and we also will put that on Facebook. So, if members of the

[44:15] public want to take a look at the budget and it's got the um, audited financials

[44:19] from 25. It's got this year's budget number and then it has the budget number

[44:23] for 27. So, people will be able to see kind of that that bar chart and the

[44:26] graphs. they can kind of see where the trend is. Uh we don't have a lot of

[44:30] capital items next year. Um in fact um you know there are a number of areas

[44:35] where they're they reduce their capital cost to a certain extent. Um and you

[44:39] know we're hoping that interest rates come down a little bit as well as fuel

[44:42] cost. Fuel cost is something that was kind of an unplanned force spike this

[44:46] year. Um and that's on a federal level. There's not a lot of control we have

[44:50] over that. Um so some departments see a lot more use of that. Obviously the

[44:54] police department sees a lot more use there. They also have some more capital

[44:57] items. I know that. Um and and the good news is Josh is going to present that in

[45:01] September. He'll be here. I think we're planning on uh the police department and

[45:05] also public works parks. So, some of the biggest general fund line items will be

[45:10] here to talk about their their needs because there's a lot of technological,

[45:14] you know, changes coming for Josh and for the body warn cameras that kind of

[45:17] that data stuff is still um I don't want to say it's it's exploding in cost, but

[45:22] you know, it's going up pretty fast and we're hoping that if we lock in some

[45:27] longer term agreements, maybe it'll kind of mitigate some of those costs, but it

[45:30] seems like every year there's another thing the state requires or something

[45:33] like that. So um yeah, otherwise we consider the staff to be fully staffed

[45:37] at this time. There is um if you look at the admin budget, um we do have some

[45:42] additional money for training there um for additional staffing. We we have been

[45:47] notified that one of our staff uh will be retiring, two of them actually in the

[45:51] next year or so. But um we want to be able to possibly bring some people on a

[45:55] little early to do some training in house because um last time on the

[45:59] finance department it was difficult um hiring outsource. Thankfully, we have

[46:03] some good um you know, clerk um kind of employees possibly may be able to fill

[46:08] Linda's job internally. Um but you never know. And we just felt like it would be

[46:13] it would be beneficial to have that budgeted um ahead of time just so

[46:16] because we know that those those vacancies are coming in the next 18

[46:19] months. So, I don't know, Sarah, if you have

[46:22] anything else you want to highlight on there. No,

[46:25] » if you want. >> But yeah, take a look at it. You know,

[46:27] we'll have those department head presentations in September. Um, as I

[46:31] said, hopefully did we would we know when healthcare is coming in? Did we get

[46:34] that earlier date? >> Coming till October.

[46:36] » October. Okay. I know in the past we've we haven't gotten till next year. We're

[46:39] going to change it so we get our numbers in July. We're going to change it to a

[46:43] December 1st start date. >> Like to see some highlight.

[46:47] » The insurance would go through the end of the year, but the rates would change

[46:51] December 1st, but that means we get our new rates July 1st.

[46:56] » It's okay. So, your HSA plan, your insurance runs calendar year, but um the

[47:04] the um rate change would start December 1st

[47:10] where next year when we do this, we can actually stay in the 27 rate. So,

[47:16] whatever we get for next year, we would renew at that same rate.

[47:23] » Okay. the way Bill was explaining it to me.

[47:28] » So, >> because we wouldn't change plans, we'd

[47:32] just keep going. >> Okay.

[47:36] » So, that's our plan for next year. >> Yeah.

[47:39] » Because that would make budgeting a lot easier.

[47:41] » Yeah. >> Right. To to know earlier would give us

[47:43] that shity. Absolutely. >> So, yeah, if you have any questions,

[47:46] feel free to contact me or contact Sarah, reach out to her. Um, glad to run

[47:50] through it with you. If you want to go line by line, we can do that. you know,

[47:53] it's easier when we do it one-on-one or two-on-one or whatever, but you know, uh

[47:57] the budget's all going to be available online and uh you know, we're certainly

[48:01] looking for feedback on it, hoping that uh we can get that number whittleled

[48:04] down. Absolutely. So,

[48:10] » all right. Thank you for all that work on that.

[48:13] Uh next, administrators report. >> Sure. And I'll just uh highlight a few

[48:18] things here kind of um LGA announced uh the new amounts there. Uh our numbers

[48:23] are pretty flat. You know, it's they didn't do any increase at the state

[48:26] level. Um so it's it's pretty flat, but thankfully that's been certified. So

[48:30] we'll receive that funding for next year. That still is a good chunk of

[48:33] change there. Uh state revenue tops the forecast by about 400 million in July.

[48:37] So Minnesota Management and Budget released their report. So, you know, it

[48:41] sounds like their numbers are stabilizing. So that's a that's a

[48:44] positive. Obviously, they'll have their their late November, early December

[48:48] report, and they'll use that for their next two-year budget. So, the state's

[48:51] kind of in the middle of their benium budget. Um the 27 street and utility

[48:56] projects. Um thankfully, we're coming to a close. Uh hopefully, right, give

[49:01] Brandon some thanks there for pushing and proddding people along. But, um

[49:04] Southwest Reconstruct that it's been all paved. The the bottom coat is anyways.

[49:08] They haven't got the top coat on as far as I know yet. A lot of the sod's been

[49:11] laid out there. Um, Main Street, uh, seal coating and striping, as far as I

[49:15] know, it went very well. You know, we had some folks who say, "Oh, you know, a

[49:19] lot of the work got done before businesses even opened up in the

[49:21] morning." So, that was great. I think it looks really sharp. Um, they did widen

[49:24] the parking lane, so we're really happy about that. Um, so that's done. Um,

[49:28] water tower project, to be honest with you, the water tower itself has made a

[49:31] lot of progress. We're still kind of waiting on the booster station, and

[49:33] that's a matter of when that shows up, they can hook it up and we can actually

[49:37] get things going. that that's, you know, something that Brandon can probably

[49:40] answer before me and maybe he can't even because it's kind of a that's the tough

[49:43] part of the of the uh the market is supposed to be coming. So,

[49:46] » yeah. So, hopefully that um otherwise uh the Reagan edition, if you've been up

[49:50] that way, they've made a ton of progress up there, too. The retaining walls

[49:54] almost finished. A lot of units have been built. Um so that you know, and you

[49:58] know, I haven't been in. I'd like to I'd like to get in see what one of those

[50:01] units look like because it's it's good to be able to talk about it. Same thing

[50:03] for the fourth lane flats apartment building that has some occupants. I

[50:07] don't know how many yet, but it's it's up and operational. Um, we'll watch how

[50:11] that goes. Um, Brandon's going to talk about street feasibility. Let's see

[50:15] here. 27 budget. We we kind of talked about that already. I did include some

[50:19] numbers in the packet um from Dodge Cent's audit. So, their ambulance fund

[50:25] performed well last year, so that's a plus. Um, you know, I've got a note in

[50:29] here. You know, in the past, we contributed 5,000 for training

[50:31] equipment. Last year, we contributed 12,000. Um if the city council would

[50:35] like to continue to contribute at that higher level um certainly you can direct

[50:39] direct me to you know we we can certainly see if we can find some

[50:42] funding for them um you know planning and zoning talked about that and then uh

[50:46] the farmers market which we'll talk about during the round table at the end.

[50:49] So that's my report. Then I've got a couple other things in here. As I said I

[50:54] mentioned the Dodge County >> Yep. My Dodge County ambulance audit uh

[50:58] numbers there. Um we've got our conservation report from the electrical

[51:01] system. uh the report from the state revenue projects and then one of the

[51:05] items we talked about with Mr. Bubani tonight would be that I5 the electrical

[51:08] borrowing and basically what I'm looking for from council is direction if you'd

[51:12] like to proceed with that this year or not. Um otherwise I need to let folks

[51:16] know that we're not going to be proceeding with the electrical

[51:18] borrowing. We kind of will change change gears. Included in your package you do

[51:21] have I5 you have that staff report. Um, basically what this funding would be

[51:26] going for would be the um, substation on the north side. Last month is a good

[51:31] example where we had that during the fair, you know, Excel had a a

[51:36] transmission line fail and I think uh, Kassen was dark pretty much for 2 hours

[51:42] thereabouts from about 6:00 until 8. You know, there are a couple points of

[51:46] failure in that system and that was a big one. Obviously, you know, we run off

[51:49] of um, Excel's transmission system. In the case of this substation, we'd be

[51:53] looking at it going off of Simpa's transmission. Um, Simpa's southern

[51:57] Minnesota power. They're based out of Rochester. So, um, we think it might

[52:00] give us an option, you know, opportunity to have a little bit more diversity in

[52:03] the in the power supply for the city. Um, still can't guarantee there's never

[52:07] going to be a failure obviously u when they have a major transmission line goes

[52:10] down like that. But, um, that's what that project that's what the money's

[52:13] for. That's what it's going toward is is that substation project. So, I know for

[52:17] us, we're looking at direction is as the council, you know, if if we can get a

[52:21] motion to move forward with that, that's what we're looking for. Um, Mr. Bonnie's

[52:24] kind of run some of the numbers and he's got it here for you. We won't be

[52:27] increasing rates for it. It's a matter of um we have prepared for that funding

[52:31] wise. So, we think it's a good project to provide more reliability for the

[52:34] electric grid. >> And where is it going again?

[52:38] » Um, well, that's one of the reasons we approved that plat there for the the

[52:42] public works. It would actually be going north of the north of the public works

[52:47] building. And so there's the the public works building that fronts off of 16th

[52:50] Street and then there's a building behind that that's kind of long and it's

[52:53] got like the salt sand storage. That's the electrical building right now where

[52:56] they got most of their stuff stored. So it would be going north of that.

[52:59] » So what we'd end up doing is right now we tap off of the on 16th Street we tap

[53:04] off of the Excel sub there. So what we would do is we would run a high trans

[53:07] high voltage transmission from that substation, the new one, down onto

[53:11] Simpa's line, which also runs along 16th Street, and then that would run over to

[53:14] the Byron sub where their line goes, and then their line proceeds into um

[53:19] Rochester. They also have a 161. So that's a 69 KV. I know we're using

[53:24] terminology here. 69 KV is it's the lowest level of high voltage

[53:27] transmission. The next level would be 161. So they also have a 161 line that

[53:31] runs along the railroad tracks. So if you kind of if you go out you know if

[53:35] you can kind of almost you can see it from 14 when you so the idea would be in

[53:39] the future eventually you know he talked about second barring potentially the

[53:43] idea would be to create a ring around castm so you'd have two substations you

[53:47] have one off of the 161 line and one off of the 69 so that if you did have

[53:51] something happen for example a tornado or something like that where it knocks

[53:55] out one of those substations what you can do is you can shunt the whole city

[53:58] onto the other one and then you would have that reliability so you wouldn't

[54:01] see a failure with the So obviously that's in the future, but

[54:06] we do think that it would be beneficial long term for for the community. So

[54:10] because even with all the efficiencies, the power demand is is not going down

[54:13] and we're still seeing quite a bit of growth. So

[54:23] » how big would the substation be? >> What's that?

[54:26] » How big? Um, well, I think it would be smaller than what Excel's just for

[54:30] comparison purposes. You know, if you go past Excel sub, we would it would

[54:34] probably be smaller than that. What we would probably do is we would we would

[54:37] fence off an area similar to what Excel has fenced off

[54:41] » and we would have two spots for two tubs. So, you'd have one 20 megawatt tub

[54:46] and then you'd have space for another just because you want to have that once

[54:49] again the duplicate, you know, and if you're putting it in then you want to

[54:52] make sure you size it right because after the fact

[54:54] » once you, you know, you can't really go back, you know. So Excel like when they

[54:57] upgraded their sub three or four years ago, they had to basically go in and cut

[55:01] down and tear out and put more gravel and stuff. We think it would be better

[55:03] just to have that prepared kind of already ahead. Even if it's just the

[55:06] fencing, we could put a concrete slab in there later. That's not a big issue. But

[55:10] um so I mean I would I would guess that's a 5 acre parcel. So I'm guessing

[55:14] we'd probably look at about uh 3/4 of an acre to an acre we'd want to maybe have

[55:18] fenced off. >> I mean I know it's something we need.

[55:22] It's something we've been talking about for a while. Yeah.

[55:25] » So, you're looking at lot three.

[55:31] » Yeah, that's right. Exactly. Yep. That'd be that lot. That's, you know, behind

[55:33] there >> because that's the public.

[55:35] » That's Flood Works and then there's the electric building and then Yep. That's

[55:37] 4.6. It would be part of that. Yep. Okay.

[55:41] » And that'd be the other, you know, consideration is we'd have our battery

[55:44] storage in that area too potentially. So, it would work in tandem. Yeah.

[55:54] What are you you looking for something tonight?

[55:56] » So yeah, if I can get a motion to proceed with uh preparing a borrowing,

[55:59] you know, you're still going to you know, as you know in the past, Mr. Ruban

[56:02] will bring the documents in. You'll have an opportunity if something doesn't look

[56:05] right, then at that time we wouldn't proceed with it, but we want to get that

[56:08] so I can kind of task him to get moving on that. Do a rating call um with Sarah

[56:12] and with with Mike and then we'd, you know, be able to set that up. So

[56:16] probably early this fall, maybe October, we would try and commit that borrowing

[56:19] so that it gets on the calendar before the end of the year.

[56:22] » So just to be super clear, this having this substation would diversify a little

[56:27] bit more our power coming into town. It would provide backups for emergencies

[56:33] like we had with that. >> Absolutely. I mean that that's probably

[56:36] the biggest the biggest plus to it is, you know, in an emergency if Simpline

[56:40] Line failed, you could still run off of Excel if you if you needed to. Right.

[56:44] » Right. And that's you know threequarters of the year we don't have a lot of

[56:47] issues you know fall winter spring cast is a very heavy loaded summer it's air

[56:52] conditioning users and so we go all the way from 2 and a half megawatts of load

[56:57] on a on a kind of a quiet day in the winter all the way up to 14 megawatts

[57:02] potentially of load in the summer. So I mean it's a you know big big difference

[57:06] but but yeah I mean that that's where we want to just provide that option for the

[57:09] residents. So, and all this borrowing this comes out of the

[57:14] electric fund. >> That's right. Yeah. And it's been it's

[57:17] something we do do the rate study every 5 years for. We prepared for it for a

[57:20] project of this nature. Kind of that handout he's giving you, you know, kind

[57:23] of breaks down where we anticipate it would be around $630,000 a year in

[57:28] borrowing, you know, payments. But that's easily covered by our free cash

[57:31] flow in the electric system right now. So,

[57:34] » because I just wanted to make sure that people know if we were looking at it's

[57:37] not coming out of the levy. It's coming up.

[57:39] » No, absolutely not. No. Sep. Totally separate. And that's not why we run the

[57:43] utilities the way we do. So,

[57:48] » anybody else got any questions for Tim? Concerns?

[57:53] » I just think it might be a good idea. Um, this town isn't getting any smaller

[57:59] and that's one of the things that creates a big problem in the near

[58:04] future, I see, without having an upgrade.

[58:10] With that, I would look to for a motion for staff to move forward with

[58:17] the electric system borrowing. >> Electric system borrowing.

[58:21] » I'll make that motion. >> Thank you, Mel. Do we have a second?

[58:24] » I'll second. >> Thank you, Sheldon. All in favor?

[58:27] » I thank you, everybody. >> And that's all I've got. I think that

[58:31] was enough. >> Okay. Up next we have the engineers

[58:37] report. >> All right, more big items. So uh before

[58:40] we jump into the two items on the agenda, just wanted to note uh water

[58:43] tower painting. Um the painting contractor is looking at it um city

[58:46] staff um citing the location of the casting logo. So I think I sent uh

[58:50] council location one on the south face, northeast and northwest corner of the

[58:53] tower. Three logos similar to the way the other three other two are painted.

[58:57] Um, so unless council provides other direction myself and I think I'll have

[59:01] Ian come out tomorrow morning after our staff meeting, we'll cite those with the

[59:04] tower contract unless you guys have other directions or thoughts. So

[59:07] » I just have a question. >> Yeah, Ryan. Ryan, he's school's out. So

[59:10] Ian, you're off the hook, but >> yeah. No, I have we have you worked with

[59:14] other cities that have looked at um

[59:19] selling space on their water towers. Uh we do sell space in our water towers for

[59:23] uh communications >> logos.

[59:25] » Um no, I'll be quite honest. Like a personal level, I'm surprised we haven't

[59:29] put uh banners and electrical um LED um sponsorships on our water tower to be

[59:34] quite honest with you, but that's just kind of my thing.

[59:36] » That's it's a thing now and I was just wondering if that's

[59:39] » I haven't seen any towers that have had it. Okay. I'm surprised that we haven't

[59:42] to be honest with you. >> Yeah, I know we we rent space on them,

[59:45] but I more marketing based. Yeah. I didn't know if that was something that

[59:48] was coming down or if you've heard of other cities that have looked into it.

[59:51] » It's not or even just you know logos for you know what

[59:53] » businesses. Yeah. Mhm. >> Not that we want to but if it brings in

[59:57] revenue. I didn't know if it was something that's becoming the norm

[1:00:00] business. It is >> yeah

[1:00:05] question. >> Um just lighting them is the only thing

[1:00:07] that we've seen from the from the ground up. Rosemont St. Clouds um got a nice

[1:00:11] one that's lit and then we light one from St. Charles too there. So, so we

[1:00:16] can talk about if you know if looks nice during the day if we want to light that

[1:00:19] more, we can have that conversation. >> Yeah, I was just curious area. So,

[1:00:23] » yeah. No, that they would like that. >> St. Charles over by the interstate. St.

[1:00:26] Cloud on the interstate. >> I understand that. No, I was just

[1:00:28] curious. >> I'm I'm surprised it hasn't been a

[1:00:31] bigger discussion on our history to be honest with you. So

[1:00:34] » So, okay. Unless you got any other comments, we'll plan on doing that

[1:00:37] tomorrow. >> All right. So, I'll jump into the agenda

[1:00:39] tonight. Um, first item is First and Second Avenue Northwest Reconstruction.

[1:00:44] Um this is something that was discussed at the council workshop um and also

[1:00:48] discussed tonight with Mike Bubani in your financial kind of forecast and

[1:00:52] foreshadowing. Um so in your council packet is three items. Number one, the

[1:00:55] feasibility report. Number two, we're going to ask for resolution calling

[1:00:58] public hearing on the improvements. And then finally, a professional service

[1:01:00] agreement with WHKS to to start uh doing some engineering. So um to kind of close

[1:01:06] on that, um ultimately um that's what we're going to be asked tonight to start

[1:01:09] incurring some significant costs for this project. So, if there's anything

[1:01:12] that we need to discuss or delay, um, now is the time, um, because we're going

[1:01:16] to start some significant work on the project if we move forward, I think

[1:01:18] tonight. Um, so that's where we're at on the highest level. Um, to talk about the

[1:01:23] assessment process. I think we may have may one counselor that may not be real

[1:01:26] familiar with it. Um, the other ones have been part of the process directly.

[1:01:30] So, um, it's been been uh, so they're well aware of it. Um, so tonight is step

[1:01:34] number one of the special assessment process. We're going to um discuss the

[1:01:38] report, potentially have the resolution to approve the report and call the first

[1:01:41] hearing on the improvements. Um and that will be a hearing about a month from now

[1:01:45] at your council meeting to thumbs up or thumbs down the project. After a hearing

[1:01:49] with the property owners, I'll do a presentation going over this report. Um

[1:01:53] you'll hear comments um and then you'll have a decision to continue on at that

[1:01:57] point. Um assuming we are moving on. Um we will work through the winner. We'll

[1:02:01] have a polar meeting with the property owners. We will bid the project. we'll

[1:02:03] get some better cost and then you'll have the final hearing on the

[1:02:06] assessments which is the drop dead we have to decide the assessments we're

[1:02:10] going to talk about some numbers tonight um but we're not setting those if

[1:02:13] there's questions comments that we want to bring to the first hearing more than

[1:02:16] happy to do that um so we're not you know the more clear that we can be

[1:02:19] throughout the process the better because we are proposing special

[1:02:22] assessments and that can be politically unpopular um or it takes political

[1:02:26] capital to do that uh we all know why we we do do that um so that's that's where

[1:02:30] we're at on the highest level um so if there's no questions I'll jump into the

[1:02:33] report um and then obviously have questions at the end um as needed. Okay.

[1:02:38] Um so again this is First and Second Avenue Northwest reconstruction um is

[1:02:42] what we're calling it. Um this is ultimately and there's a figure um one

[1:02:45] in the report but uh is bounded by Third Avenue um to the west which has been

[1:02:50] recently reconstructed in 2017. Uh Main Street to the south that was recently

[1:02:55] reconstructed in the early 2000s. It's not so recent anymore but generally a

[1:02:59] newer street and we've been providing some maintenance on that to maintain

[1:03:02] that street here. here as we talked about tonight. Um and then on the east

[1:03:04] of Highway 57, which obviously has been reconstructed in the last couple years,

[1:03:08] um full reconstruction up to Third Street. Um so kind of three blocks north

[1:03:12] there. Um and then the two alleys behind the businesses on Main Street from 57 to

[1:03:16] 2nd Avenue. Um we are not planning from Second Avenue over to Third because

[1:03:19] that's recently been repaved and there's a small amount of infrastructure. Um so

[1:03:23] we don't think the bang for the buck is quite there yet. So staff is comfortable

[1:03:26] to not um include that alleyway. Um, so that's what's included uh in the project

[1:03:31] for footprint. Um, existing conditions. Um, when I go to public works and say,

[1:03:35] "Where's your worst area in town? Where are we going next?" After we did third,

[1:03:39] fourth, and fifth, and southwest 57, it's this area here. Um, if you go down

[1:03:43] the alleyway now, it's blocked off because we had another catch basin

[1:03:46] collapse um by CAM Telecom. Um, if we fixed one last year, we had a sewer

[1:03:51] collapse or partially collapse. Um, every time they jut that, they get a lot

[1:03:54] of sand. So, um, it's in a state of dis disrepair. Um it's had it useful life.

[1:03:59] Um some of the streets on the uh first street going into um HY there is in

[1:04:05] really rough shape. Um so ultimately that pavement is in um rough shape. So

[1:04:09] we're looking at uh replacing that. Um that's existing condition. Proposed

[1:04:13] construction very typical of the previous reconstruction we did in third,

[1:04:16] fourth, and fifth or southwest. Full reconstruction rebuilding the roadway.

[1:04:21] Um drain tile behind the back of the curb. Sub drain services. We don't have

[1:04:24] some pump pumping to the street. New curb and gutter driveways. um new sewer,

[1:04:28] water, um increased storm sewer system to prevent flooding and reduce the

[1:04:32] frequency of flooding um like we've done in um typically all of our

[1:04:35] reconstructions. Um there is some notes here. Um we ultimately stubbed out some

[1:04:40] utilities from third, fourth, and fifth and 57 um to accommodate that, including

[1:04:45] some larger storm sewers. We're kind of setting this project all up ready to go.

[1:04:48] Um and then we also have some long services that kind of go down the

[1:04:51] boulevard. We'll extend some mains out. did that a lot of that on third, fourth,

[1:04:54] and fifth um to ultimately so property owners don't own services all the way um

[1:04:59] to a side street to kind of square them up and have them with traditional

[1:05:02] service. Um there's a couple blocks that are um don't have um sidewalk. There's

[1:05:07] some gaps there specifically on First Street that we're looking at filling. Um

[1:05:11] and if you look jumping ahead to the schedule, we do have a public meeting

[1:05:14] coming up. So that's some of the things we'll talk about. um if you um continue

[1:05:18] with the first hearing, uh we want to ultimately sit down with those property

[1:05:21] owners and and have some conversations on what they feel about sidewalks. We

[1:05:24] feel pretty strong it's in the downtown district. There's heavy pedestrian uses

[1:05:27] there directly to our um local H high. So um we have included that um in our

[1:05:32] cost estimates, but again tonight we're considering report. We'll work on final

[1:05:36] design back as we proceed. Um street rightway and easements. Um nothing

[1:05:41] really of the discuss there of importance. Uh plenty of cost. You can

[1:05:45] see we're at about $4.7 million project that includes everything. Um, as we said

[1:05:49] today of again an engineer looking at something in a short amount of time just

[1:05:52] come up with general cost there. Um, and then recommend recommendations and

[1:05:56] schedule. We do have a city assessment policy of 30% total roadway. That's what

[1:06:01] we applied on third, fourth, and fifth southwest. 57 was a little muddled with

[1:06:05] the state project, but ultimately we kind of made it right um of that same

[1:06:09] amount of a traditional street. Um, so you can see the total amount to be

[1:06:13] assessor is just under 800,000 based on that policy. Um, it's a little bit

[1:06:17] unique. Um, it's not as residential as Southwest or third, fourth, and fifth

[1:06:21] was. Um, but we ultimately apply the RE unit. Uh, we have 159 which is higher

[1:06:28] than what we generally see. So again, we don't need to work on that number yet

[1:06:30] tonight. Um, as we move forward, that number comes down and it's a non-issue.

[1:06:34] Um, but I'll hold on the conversation of talking about RUS to maybe the end. Um

[1:06:39] but ultimately we are proposing our use. Um we can consider that because we are

[1:06:43] ultimately assessing um some of the alleyways. So maybe we want to do that a

[1:06:47] little differently. It's going to be a discussion um later on tonight or um in

[1:06:51] the future. Um so moving forward to schedule again um this is the first um

[1:06:56] consideration of the feasibility report and then a resolution to call the public

[1:07:00] hearing um on the hearing on the improvements. We get to work, talk to

[1:07:04] neighbors, do the design, come back this winter, um present the plans, go off for

[1:07:09] bids. We have bids we know hard to mount. Therefore, we can talk about the

[1:07:12] final assessment mounts with the property owners at that time. That'll be

[1:07:14] this winter. Um and then assuming everything moves forward, we finalize

[1:07:19] the assessments at that hearing. We award contract we're constructing in 27

[1:07:22] and finishing things up. And as Tim mentioned earlier in the meeting, uh we

[1:07:25] kind of pair this project down not only for financing, but what's a realistic

[1:07:28] project size that a contractor can get done. Um, so that's what we have before

[1:07:32] you tonight. Um, construction cost. I won't go in detail there, but you can

[1:07:36] see we broke it up into street, sidewalk, sanitary sewer, storm sewer.

[1:07:41] Um, and then water mane um to show the grand total there. Um, with the idea

[1:07:45] that the enterprise funds are going to be participating in paying for the

[1:07:48] project, the portions that are not assessed. Um, so we break that up to

[1:07:51] help um Sarah and staff work on that. Um, and then I'll go to the figure

[1:07:56] number one with all the pretty colors on it. Um, should look familiar. We've um

[1:07:59] seen these before on 57 and Southwest and we assess those projects. But uh um

[1:08:04] in blue is a one RU. Um a house is a house is a house. We're rebuilding

[1:08:08] neighborhoods. Everybody in that neighborhood if they own a traditional

[1:08:11] size house gets one RU um for their portion. You can see on the westand side

[1:08:15] there we have some residential houses in purple that are a half. Um those were

[1:08:19] assessed a half with the Third Avenue project. So we're only going to assess

[1:08:22] them half to make a hole with the overriding concept that one RU one

[1:08:26] residential equivalent is what they would be assessed in modern time

[1:08:30] assessments. Similarly on 57 there in red we don't have any assessments there

[1:08:34] because they were assessed a full one with the 57 project. So um again with

[1:08:38] the spirit that they're one RU um they would be zero. Um you can see some other

[1:08:42] ones in yellow there. Um those are currently four RUS. You can see HY um

[1:08:46] there would be four. they did get assessed four on the third avenue in the

[1:08:50] back side of their project. So that'd be eight. Um and that is all broken down um

[1:08:54] in the notes in the role that I have on the next sheet. Um and then similarly

[1:08:58] cam telecom there about four houses for RUS is kind of our thinking there. Um in

[1:09:04] green there one and a half for those properties there. They're larger

[1:09:07] commercial properties so you know maybe they have larger needs wer water and

[1:09:12] sewer services etc. more frontage um incurring more cost there is one and a

[1:09:16] half reu um similar there for u Denmark um that property there couple properties

[1:09:22] they did get one on the 57 project but they also have an alley access so there

[1:09:27] could be potentially some more benefit there and then all the properties along

[1:09:31] but budding the alley at a half RU um they were assessed with Main Street all

[1:09:35] their sewer and water services come off of Main Street but they do have an alley

[1:09:38] access so the thought there is there's some benefit to having a new alley and

[1:09:42] storm sewer through So I've assigned that to half. We struggled internally on

[1:09:46] kind of what we'd recommend. So I think that could be a point of discussion. Um

[1:09:50] but I think it should be something it shouldn't should not be zero is going to

[1:09:54] be our recommendation. So if it's a half 0.25 a full one that's unfortunately as

[1:09:58] a council you guys get to make those hard decisions. I can only recommend. So

[1:10:02] um that's where I that's where I fell on as a half. I thought that was a good

[1:10:04] starting point. Um and ultimately where where we were at um and we came up with

[1:10:10] the the RUS we came up with. Um so again we'll have soon we move forward in that

[1:10:16] hearing we can start talking about these REU concept with property owners. This

[1:10:20] is above and beyond what technically we have to share with them but myself as an

[1:10:23] engineer to get the numbers I have to do it. So let's share it and get it out

[1:10:25] there early. We've done that on other projects and then we can start kicking

[1:10:29] things around on where things land um after the fact. So, um, that's the

[1:10:33] pretty picture of the RUS. Um, breaking that down again to RUS, you take the 30%

[1:10:38] of the street cost, calculate your RUS, um, and then come up with the

[1:10:42] assessment. And I do have some notes in there because it is important. Um, we're

[1:10:45] even going to send notices of the ones that were zeros because, um, they're

[1:10:48] part of the project. So, I want to be crystal clear. Um, we owe that to

[1:10:51] taxpayers and these property owners why they'd get zero or why somebody'd be off

[1:10:55] the hook, if you will, will not off the hook. They got it when we did 57. Um, so

[1:10:59] that's why the notes are on there. um to be transparent. So then you could start

[1:11:03] sizing up why, you know, why is HY only four? Well, they got four on third,

[1:11:07] fourth, and fifth. So they're technically eight. So if eight's the

[1:11:09] number, well then let's roll with it. Um if the council directs otherwise, we can

[1:11:13] we can we can adjust and then obviously when we have the final assessment

[1:11:16] hearing, they can object to that in person and then we can even we can even

[1:11:20] adjust it at that point if needed. So um that's the the gist of what we got.

[1:11:24] Again, the assessment, I won't go into that unless you like to go into more

[1:11:27] depth. Um but that's the feasibility report. Um, and I'll pause there, mayor,

[1:11:31] if anybody has any questions. Happy to answer them.

[1:11:34] » So, anybody got any questions for Brandon?

[1:11:39] Okay, we're good.

[1:11:41] » All right. Easy off. Well, then like I said, there is a resolution um to call

[1:11:44] on the public hearing on the improvements um ultimately a resolution

[1:11:48] laying out um that you've considered it um deemed it necessary um to ultimately

[1:11:52] move forward with this hearing. Um, and then attached to the resolution is the

[1:11:58] notice of public hearing. That is the notice that will be sent to the property

[1:12:02] owners. Um, so Linda and I got some work to get some mailings out to these

[1:12:04] property owners. Um, and then the hearing will be held on September 23rd,

[1:12:08] um, 2026. Um, and the impact assessment will also go in the newspaper. So, the

[1:12:13] special assessment process is pretty rigorous. Um, and we will send notices

[1:12:17] to property owners in the newspaper um, based on the assessment role that you

[1:12:20] guys has considered. So, I'd ask for your consideration of that resolution.

[1:12:25] Okay. I would look for a motion

[1:12:29] for the resolution calling a public hearing on improvements on First and

[1:12:32] Second Avenue Northwest reconstruction. >> I'll make the motion.

[1:12:35] » Ryan, do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[1:12:38] » Mel, all in favor? >> I.

[1:12:41] » All right. Thank you. >> All right. And then last related to this

[1:12:44] item, um, is our engineering contract to ultimately um, do the engineering from

[1:12:49] start to finish? um meaning survey all the way through construction including

[1:12:52] the work that we just did here tonight. Um so you can see that professional

[1:12:56] service agreement in your council packet um includes project management meetings

[1:13:00] um topographic survey feasibility report we just presented preliminary final

[1:13:04] design assessment assistance we'll work with staff on getting those assessments

[1:13:08] um processed calling the hearing get in the newspaper etc. um construction

[1:13:12] administration, so having weekly construction meetings, um getting

[1:13:16] construction staking, etc., and then observation, um to observe the

[1:13:20] contractor and report quantities back so we make payments like we did today on

[1:13:23] some other projects, um is all included in that engineering agreement. So, I'll

[1:13:26] pause there and answer any questions you may have, mayor and councel.

[1:13:29] » Does anybody get any questions for Brandon? No.

[1:13:33] » So, we'll look for a motion to approve the professional service agreements with

[1:13:37] the engineering department. >> I'll make the motion to approve the

[1:13:40] professional service agreement. Brian, do we have a second?

[1:13:43] » A second. >> Thank you, Sheldon. All in favor?

[1:13:45] » I >> I.

[1:13:48] » That concludes that item, I think, mayor.

[1:13:50] » So, move on to the second item. Uh, the 2026 lead service line replacement. So,

[1:13:54] I think lead service line, I think, we all should be experts in that now. So,

[1:13:57] it's been a it's been a it's been a process, but uh past actions for the

[1:14:01] council's been um ultimately the the federal government through the Minnesota

[1:14:05] PFAS um had some funding available for us to go find services. So we went door

[1:14:09] to door um through our sump pump inspection program. We had some

[1:14:12] self-reporting um activities. Um we did some work on the back end looking at

[1:14:16] newer houses. Um so we ultimately found some services that have um in our case

[1:14:20] is galvanized. We don't have any lead but galvanized is the same as lead in

[1:14:23] their eyes. Um to be ultimately replaced. You approved us to move

[1:14:26] forward with engaging the PFA to ultimately secure some funding to get

[1:14:30] the replacement. So tonight asking for your consideration of a resolution to

[1:14:34] award the bid uh for the 2026 lead service line replacement project. Um as

[1:14:39] you can see there the low bid is CAM excavation at 195,841

[1:14:44] and I'm sad to report CAM excavation has nothing to do with KM. It actually is a

[1:14:48] contractor out of Mano. So I know we're getting a local local person but we are

[1:14:51] not. Um and you can see I had nine bids there um as we bid the project on

[1:14:56] Tuesday. Um, so we surprisingly have seen a fair amount of these contractors

[1:15:00] bidding the work, which is good. Um, Kim Excavation also got Manville's um,

[1:15:03] project, so we're going to be working with them. Um, but they're relatively

[1:15:06] newer. Um, some of the recent references I've checked out. Um, so we're prepared

[1:15:11] to recommend them um, to award tonight. Uh, with that said, I will note on the

[1:15:16] bottom paragraph of the resolution, it does say conditional approval for the

[1:15:20] Minnesota PFA, which is ultimately paying for this project. Um, and is

[1:15:24] ultimately you are, um, resolving tonight that the proper city official

[1:15:27] authorized execute that agreement with the PFA, which we don't have in our

[1:15:31] hands yet. So unless you're uncomfortable with that, um I think

[1:15:33] myself and staff um are ultimately looking for you guys to approve this

[1:15:37] with that condition that we um will assign that agreement or are authorized

[1:15:41] to sign that agreement with the PFA to ultimately get reimbursed for this work.

[1:15:45] Um there's a small chance there be some cost associated with this project, but I

[1:15:49] don't think we're there yet. Um if things don't go well, which we're a

[1:15:52] little uneasy about, but it is what it is. We think most of it will be in re

[1:15:55] reimbured, but if we don't find some refined some other things, um we'll have

[1:15:59] that conversation. But um not too concerned about that yet. So I'll pause

[1:16:03] there answering any questions there. So there's if you're there there's a cap on

[1:16:08] the amount that you can do per service. So depending on what we find and we have

[1:16:12] some con construction consistency, we may exceed that which is $25,000 a

[1:16:16] service. We're like 18 right now. So there could be some fluctuation on how

[1:16:20] the bids ultimately are paid out. So if we exceed that cap, but we're not

[1:16:24] expecting it, but there is a cap on how things work out. So, um, we have an 10

[1:16:29] in there and you can see it's, you know, it's less than that. So,

[1:16:35] and I presumably the city's interested in the agreement with the PFA to recover

[1:16:38] the costly for our property owners. And we've got a fair amount of

[1:16:42] participation, too. We've sent notices in the agreement that the council

[1:16:44] approved to the property owners to ultimately sign off on us doing the work

[1:16:48] before uh we go do the work to limit some liability in the city side. So,

[1:16:52] we're getting those received and some of our staff have met with those property

[1:16:55] owners too already. So, um, we're off and running and it's a good service.

[1:16:59] Somebody has it. Um, reach out to that number that's on there, learn about the

[1:17:02] service or call city hall to, um, learn more, have them verify your service cuz,

[1:17:06] um, it's not going to go away if it's if it's there. So, here's a chance to get

[1:17:09] it done for free. So, okay. Does anybody got any questions for

[1:17:15] Brandon on this? I would take a motion to approve the

[1:17:19] resolution awarding the bid for the 20 26 lead service line

[1:17:25] replacement.

[1:17:28] » Thank you, M. >> We have a second.

[1:17:31] » Second. >> Thank you, Ryan. All in favor?

[1:17:33] » I opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. >> It's all I had tonight. 16th Street

[1:17:38] should be other than I guess not all I had tonight. All other than 16th Street

[1:17:42] should be open here I think next week. So I think they just got some signage.

[1:17:45] They striped it. So people are still going down it. I seen they put the road

[1:17:48] close sign back up. >> Yeah. So,

[1:17:51] » got around that pretty. >> Are we putting no parking signs

[1:17:54] » on the 8th? >> Yes.

[1:17:55] » Yeah. They're they're going to be in I think tomorrow or early next week.

[1:17:59] » Yeah. In the bike lane. >> The countyy's putting them in. They

[1:18:01] weren't in. So, >> y

[1:18:06] » Okay. Thank you. >> Uh nothing under personnel

[1:18:12] attorney. Do we want to just hold on to that one for a second? Just do

[1:18:16] correspondence. All right, we'll finish. We could finish our regular schedule and

[1:18:19] then go into that. >> You want to do the round table and then

[1:18:21] » Yeah, let's talk about the round table. Um, so everyone got an email from a

[1:18:27] couple of folks in town here about this farmers market. At least I think

[1:18:31] everybody got there. Did everybody take a look at that? Um, so they asked uh in

[1:18:35] that email to to talk about it and I had correspond with and I think I CCD you on

[1:18:39] that um >> told the lady that you know we could

[1:18:41] talk about it and we put on an agenda if they wanted to come and talk more to us

[1:18:45] about it. But I guess I'm just trying to get your feedback, you know, initially

[1:18:48] what your thoughts are. I mean, I think the idea of a farmers market sounds

[1:18:51] great. I don't know that the city owning it or operating is feasible really. You

[1:18:56] know, she kind of alludes to that in the email, but um we certainly just like any

[1:19:00] other event in town. You know, we provide barricades or we help with

[1:19:03] parking, that kind of thing. I think that uh we certainly would do what we

[1:19:07] felt was legal to support it if people wanted to give it a try because I mean,

[1:19:10] I think that it would be it would be really nice to see something like that.

[1:19:13] I these folks are willing to put their effort into it. So I don't have any

[1:19:17] objections to it initially. I need more details obviously. Um and to let them

[1:19:20] know that like just legally speaking us owning and operating it seems unlikely.

[1:19:24] You know it's it's not dissimilar to like the the festival in the park where

[1:19:27] we have a private group that runs that which by the way want to thank all those

[1:19:30] volunteers. Um a lot of compliments. Obviously the weather always contributes

[1:19:33] when it's really nice out. It helps but they did a great job this year and I

[1:19:37] think it went really smoothly. similar in the way where I could see where if

[1:19:40] they want to do a farmers market, maybe even at Veterans Park or something like

[1:19:43] that could make it into a little bit bigger event. Um, obviously there's

[1:19:46] different towns where it works better in some places it doesn't work as well, but

[1:19:50] um, you know, I I didn't have any objections to their actual proposal.

[1:19:52] Just want to know more about it. Anything you've got there, Sheldon?

[1:19:56] » No. No. >> Be nice to see something like that come

[1:19:59] to town. >> Okay. So, if they want to come present

[1:20:02] some information to >> Yeah. So, I I think I invited her to

[1:20:04] come. I'll let her know maybe September, either the 9th or 23rd would work. I

[1:20:08] mean, it's probably not real feasible to do a lot the rest of this year. I mean,

[1:20:11] kind of at the tail end of the produce season anyways, but um try and get

[1:20:15] something maybe they can get something ready for next year then.

[1:20:17] » Okay. Well, that's what I'll do. I'll see what our calendar schedule looks

[1:20:20] like and if we have some available time, then we could slot them in.

[1:20:23] » And that's all I have really for that. It's just wanted to see where you guys

[1:20:26] were at with that. So, >> round table. Can I ask about the

[1:20:33] Reagan? Is it Reagan? Rean >> Rean edition. Yep.

[1:20:36] » Yep. Are they They've got the path in. Are they almost finished with their

[1:20:40] phase one? >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:20:43] » Okay. I know we had made some contingencies on phase two. We had a lot

[1:20:47] of concerns from citizens about phase two and when that gets started with

[1:20:51] their connections to 57 or 16th, where are we at with are they contacted you at

[1:20:55] all about phase two? >> Answer.

[1:20:57] » Well, yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah, I would say they've not only

[1:21:00] talked us about phase two, they've talked to us about phase three

[1:21:02] potentially going to the east. they they're well aware of that that

[1:21:05] requirement of phase 2 is needs to be punched out to 57 um as part of the

[1:21:10] approval of phase 2. So they acquired that property so they're aware of it. So

[1:21:14] » does the road have to be put in while they're doing phase 2 before after

[1:21:18] that's my >> the discussion we had. I maybe

[1:21:20] » yeah we need to figure that out. >> Have to probably go back and look at

[1:21:23] that because to your point you have what is what's phase two? Is it the start of

[1:21:28] utility construction phase two or is it the start of home building construction

[1:21:30] in phase two or is it opening of phase two? I don't know if that's been

[1:21:34] addressed or was addressed in the council approval.

[1:21:36] » We can we can rehash that. >> Review the meeting minutes for that.

[1:21:40] » Yeah, I think that might be important. So, I've had some people reach out and

[1:21:43] ask they're concerned about I certainly think before

[1:21:46] » I would certainly say before there are people living and occupying those um if

[1:21:50] they're building new town homes or whatever. I think before the traffic

[1:21:53] increase would come, we would definitely want to have that road punched through

[1:21:56] if possible. Yeah. >> Um that would make sense to me. That was

[1:21:58] a big concern from from citizens was traffic and flow and

[1:22:03] » yes we can talk about that tomorrow our staff meeting.

[1:22:04] » Sounds good. Okay. >> All right. That's it then. Uh I'll thank

[1:22:12] everybody for coming. We will be doing a close session. You're more than welcome

[1:22:15] to stay in another room while we're having our close session discussion and

[1:22:20] come back. If not, thank you for coming tonight.

[1:22:25] Tim, you know, hang.

[1:22:34] » Yeah, we can be sure to come to the

City Council Meeting Before Closed 8 19 26

Agenda

Transcript