[0:01] [music]

[0:03] You are watching Access Leaport County

[0:05] Channel 97. Coming up next is the

[0:07] September 14th [music] meeting for the

[0:09] Long Beach Town Council. You can find

[0:12] more information [music] for this

[0:13] meeting by visiting www.acess

[0:16] leaport county.org.

[0:19] [music]

[0:22] » Welcome everyone to the September town

[0:24] council meeting. Let's please stand for

[0:26] the pledge.

[0:31] To the flag of the United States of

[0:33] America to the

[0:36] stand,

[0:39] liberty and justice for ally.

[0:42] Amen.

[0:46] » Thank you. Meg, could you do roll call,

[0:48] please?

[0:48] >> Sure. President Joy Schmidt,

[0:51] >> here.

[0:52] >> Vice President Anita Remis,

[0:54] >> present. Kendra Bartlett,

[0:55] >> here. Colleen Lane

[0:57] >> here.

[0:57] >> Cindy Levy

[0:58] >> here.

[0:59] >> Attorney Willoughby

[1:00] >> present.

[1:02] >> Chief Swiss

[1:04] >> present.

[1:05] >> Clerk Collins I am present. And that

[1:06] concludes role.

[1:09] Uh thank you. I have no opening remarks.

[1:13] Uh the consent agenda tonight includes

[1:17] the approval of the minutes council

[1:19] meeting August 10th, 2026. Town Council

[1:22] Executive Session August 17, 2026.

[1:26] Building revenue report for August 2026.

[1:28] Permits approved totaling $2,21,385

[1:33] with revenue of $25,515.82.

[1:38] Five electric permits with revenue of

[1:40] $99. One street cut permit with revenue

[1:43] of 200.

[1:45] Invoices for payment approval. Sender

[1:47] Dalton, July Town invoice 12873 for

[1:51] $3,23546.

[1:55] Sender Dalton August town invoice 12951

[1:59] for $4,616.94.

[2:03] Sender Dalton August water invoice 12952

[2:07] for $47.50.

[2:10] H Jan August 2026 closeout invoice

[2:15] 2024361-20

[2:17] for 225.74

[2:21] house September invoice

[2:24] 2024374-13

[2:27] for 23523.75

[2:32] lw wall constructors LLC July invoice

[2:35] number 3286 for $933.33

[2:39] 3. Elwall Constructors LLC August

[2:43] invoice for number 3287 for $8,695.83.

[2:50] Uh note, Council Member Colleen Lane is

[2:53] going to recuse herself from the

[2:55] consideration and all decisions

[2:56] regarding invoices from and payments to

[2:59] LW wall constructors.

[3:02] Claims approval town checks

[3:05] number 22821

[3:07] through 22884

[3:09] totaling $149,34549.

[3:15] Note, council member Colleen Lane will

[3:17] recuse herself from the consideration

[3:19] and all decisions regarding payments to

[3:21] LW wall constructors LLC.

[3:24] Water checks number 55565

[3:27] to 55769

[3:29] totaling $171,311.

[3:34] August payroll $81,82169.

[3:40] July combined bank reconciliation.

[3:43] We'll be taking two votes tonight for

[3:46] the consent agenda. One to prove all

[3:48] matters except those involving LW wall

[3:51] constructors constructors LLC and two

[3:55] matters involving LL Wall L Wall

[3:58] Constructors LLC for which council

[4:00] member Colleen Lane recuses herself from

[4:03] consideration in all decisions.

[4:06] Chris, is there you want to jump in

[4:08] here?

[4:09] I think you did great. So I think that

[4:12] it would be appropriate if inclined to

[4:14] take the first vote to approve all

[4:15] matters on the consent agenda except

[4:18] otherwise accepted

[4:20] regarding a wall constructors LLC.

[4:23] >> Okay, I will make that motion. Do we

[4:25] have a second?

[4:26] >> Second. Anita Remiges.

[4:28] >> Uh any discussion?

[4:30] >> Just to be clear. So Mrs. Lane gets to

[4:32] vote on this portion and she is you are

[4:35] not you voting on LW wall constructors

[4:38] LLC matters.

[4:40] >> Okay.

[4:42] Uh any other discussion? All in favor

[4:46] say I.

[4:47] >> I. Any opposed?

[4:49] Thank you. Uh okay for the second or

[4:51] second vote. Um if you're inclined then

[4:55] someone a motion and a second to approve

[4:58] uh payment of the LW wall constructor's

[5:00] invoices and authorize those claims

[5:04] under the claims approval and from which

[5:06] if she is inclined Mrs. Lane will recuse

[5:10] herself from any consideration.

[5:13] I'll recuse myself for any consideration

[5:16] of El Wolf constructor's

[5:18] um payment approval or claim approval in

[5:21] the town checks.

[5:23] >> Okay. With Colleen recusing herself, I

[5:25] would make a motion to approve

[5:29] uh

[5:31] all matters involving the LW wall

[5:34] constructors LLC,

[5:36] >> including payment of invoices and the

[5:38] claims um register. Yes, including that

[5:43] >> second.

[5:45] >> Uh any discussion?

[5:48] All in favor say I. I.

[5:50] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Uh we'll now

[5:53] open up for public comments which will

[5:55] be limited to three minutes. So, anyone

[5:58] in the audience have any public

[5:59] comments? Sean, can you step up to the

[6:01] podium there and make sure the

[6:03] microphone is on?

[6:06] >> My name is Sean Casmmer. I live at Stop

[6:09] 16 in Long Beach. We our family's been

[6:11] there since 1970. I had heard that

[6:13] somebody wanted to start to basically

[6:16] kill deer. And I strongly want to

[6:21] push back against that. All the people

[6:24] that I know around where I live deer.

[6:26] I'm doing like 70 80 hours a week this

[6:29] summer behind a computer, which I love

[6:30] doing. It's not bad. But when I get out

[6:33] and I see like these deers, it's a big

[6:35] important thing to me. It's not just a

[6:38] little thing. you really get inspired

[6:40] and that's why we're here is because of

[6:42] nature and I want people to consider

[6:44] especially the council if there's some

[6:46] way that we can look at the people that

[6:48] want to kill the deer and get them to

[6:50] move some kind of resolution some kind

[6:53] of penalty or ticket if they

[6:58] start to bother the deer and people like

[7:01] that shouldn't be living here because

[7:03] from what little I see cuz I'm so busy

[7:06] I'm not as connected as

[7:08] there's a strong I'd say 70% at least

[7:12] strong favor for nature and for the

[7:14] deers. So whoever is wanting to kill

[7:18] deer that seems like a little bit out

[7:22] from what the majority of people really

[7:24] want. And I want to summarize by saying

[7:27] that for me seeing nature is like being

[7:29] near God especially if you're pushing

[7:31] yourself and you got to deal with things

[7:33] that you don't really want to deal with

[7:35] like politicians or politics. So, in

[7:38] that sense, I just want to summarize by

[7:40] saying that there's a very strong need

[7:43] and desire for nature and to protect all

[7:46] the deers. I mean, that's why Moon

[7:48] Valley is there. So, when you go out,

[7:50] you can actually see some. And I thank

[7:53] you very much for your patience. And I

[7:55] would really like to consider that if we

[7:57] get a lot of push back from these people

[7:59] that shouldn't be here, if they don't

[8:00] like nature, if there's something that

[8:03] we couldn't do that other people in the

[8:06] in America have done and take what they

[8:08] have done and replicate that here and I

[8:10] can research that if if anybody needs

[8:12] that. So, thank you so much for your

[8:14] time and for your patience.

[8:15] >> Okay. Thank you, Sean. And

[8:16] >> thank you for your service, too, for all

[8:18] the stuff you do here.

[8:19] >> Thank you. Uh any more comments, public

[8:22] comments in the audience here? Any

[8:25] public comments on Zoom?

[8:31] Uh, seeing none, we'll move on to

[8:34] committee reports.

[8:36] Um, police department Chief Swiss.

[8:41] >> Good evening. For the month of August,

[8:43] the Long Beach Police Department

[8:44] responded to 356 calls for service when

[8:48] compared to 450 in the previous year for

[8:51] a decrease of 94 calls.

[8:54] During the month of August, 16 I'm

[8:56] sorry, 13 incident reports were

[8:58] documented and a total of two

[9:00] individuals were arrested. One felony

[9:02] arrest for dealing marijuana, one

[9:04] misdemeanor arrest for driving with a

[9:06] suspended license. Um, no major concerns

[9:10] um to pass along from August. However,

[9:14] um in the last week, we have been

[9:18] investigating three separate attempted

[9:22] um burglary investigations from stop 29

[9:25] to stop 31. Um the investigations are

[9:28] still ongoing. Um our deputies are

[9:32] working with um the Leaport County

[9:34] Sheriff's Department officials um

[9:36] because we believe our suspect is

[9:39] related to one of their recent

[9:41] investigations as well. Um, we would

[9:44] like to thank um a resident that was

[9:47] able to provide us with some security

[9:50] footage from one of the locations that

[9:53] was very helpful putting together a

[9:55] timeline and providing us with a vehicle

[9:59] description. Um, based off of that

[10:01] vehicle description, we have been able

[10:03] to utilize our license plate reader

[10:06] system, our LPR flock system here in the

[10:08] town and we have since identified the

[10:11] vehicle and is assisting the

[10:13] investigators throughout the

[10:14] investigation. So, um that information

[10:17] um actually was very helpful for the

[10:19] other authorities as well and um hope to

[10:22] give you more information in the

[10:23] following weeks, but right now the only

[10:25] thing I can say is it's under

[10:26] investigation and our deputies are well

[10:29] aware what happened there and we are

[10:31] actively working on it. So can't say

[10:34] enough um making sure that you know your

[10:36] vehicles are always locked, no property

[10:39] in plain sight and sight in vehicles and

[10:41] then also um related to your homes um

[10:44] just making sure that you have adequate

[10:46] lighting around your home at night and

[10:48] if you have a security system at your

[10:50] home um especially a camera system just

[10:53] every once in a while test it to make

[10:54] sure that it is recording and that you

[10:57] do have that footage because it is very

[10:59] beneficial for us when these unfortunate

[11:01] um crimes do occur. It helps us

[11:04] immensely.

[11:05] And then um next month I will begin

[11:08] conversations with the communities of

[11:11] the Dunland Beach Association and the

[11:13] Town of Michigan Shores. Um the

[11:15] contracts, police service contracts with

[11:18] both of those communities um shortly

[11:20] after the first of the year will be

[11:21] coming up for renewal. Um, so I'll

[11:23] report back to the town council how

[11:25] those conversations go and then um we'll

[11:28] have to get uh new contracts for renewal

[11:31] um probably in either December or

[11:34] January before the council.

[11:36] And there is no police commission

[11:39] meeting. We have one scheduled for this

[11:41] Thursday. However, I'm cancelling it at

[11:43] this time. May reschedule. Um but I

[11:45] don't have any new business to present

[11:47] this week. Um but I may reschedu here in

[11:49] the near future. And that's it from the

[11:52] police department report.

[11:54] >> Thank you, town administrator, Chief

[11:56] Swiss.

[11:57] >> Couple of things. Um, one dating back to

[11:59] August 11th, um, we had the unfortunate

[12:03] high winds storm that impacted all of

[12:05] northwest Indiana, the town of Long

[12:07] Beach. Actually, we made it out of that

[12:09] um, fairly well compared to other

[12:11] communities to the west. Um, but I do

[12:14] want to take a moment to thank our Long

[12:16] Beach Volunteer Fire Department. Um, the

[12:18] police department. um they worked

[12:21] together handinand during that storm. Um

[12:24] made a great impact to the community,

[12:26] getting the roadways open, making sure

[12:27] that our residents were cared for. So, a

[12:30] big thank you to our emergency first

[12:31] responders. Um to our street department

[12:34] and water department team, um they

[12:37] worked for weeks after that storm just

[12:40] cleaning up our community. So, a big

[12:42] thank you to all of the um public uh

[12:45] works members for all the work that they

[12:47] did cleaning that up. uh Melrose Park

[12:51] last week. Uh the cleanup there was uh

[12:54] completed and we're very pleased with

[12:56] the overall work that was done to clean

[12:59] the rubber matting and the park

[13:01] equipment. At the community center, two

[13:04] new heat pumps were installed in the

[13:07] gymnasium. They still have a little bit

[13:09] of work to finish. Um some sheet metal

[13:12] work needs to be completed. Um both the

[13:14] units are functional currently. However,

[13:17] there's a few punch list items they need

[13:18] to complete there. And then lastly, just

[13:22] want to get information out on the fall

[13:25] leaf collection. That will be on next

[13:28] month's agenda in front of the council.

[13:32] Tenatively, we are looking at November

[13:34] 2nd through December 4th. It'll be a

[13:37] fiveweek um cleanup throughout the town.

[13:41] um working with Tom and Healey's

[13:43] Landscaping will be submitting a

[13:45] contract to the council prior to your

[13:48] October meeting.

[13:50] That's all I have.

[13:52] >> Thank you. Volunteer

[13:54] >> say just one thing. I think um and maybe

[13:57] you mentioned it, but there was a group

[13:59] of people I think Dave Alers and a

[14:01] couple others who actually put their

[14:05] personal numbers into I think you called

[14:08] it we care and that I I'm trying to

[14:11] remember who else it was. Um but that

[14:13] was really very nice of you to do that.

[14:17] >> It was and they um I know posted it on u

[14:21] we sent a mass email out social media.

[14:23] Um, I figured Chief Elers was going to

[14:26] talk about that, so I didn't want to,

[14:27] >> sorry,

[14:28] >> steal his thunder there, but hopefully

[14:29] he'll touch on that for us. [laughter]

[14:32] >> Volunteer Fire Department Dave.

[14:37] » Good evening, everyone. This is a report

[14:41] uh for the first eight months of

[14:43] activity in the town of Long Beach. As

[14:46] far as the fire department's concerned,

[14:49] year to date, we're at 82 fire calls.

[14:53] were up um 8% 76 the same period last

[14:58] year 57 of the calls have been in Long

[15:02] Beach, 19 in Dulan and six in Michigan

[15:06] Shores.

[15:08] The breakdown uh for the month itself,

[15:11] we had one fire call and that was a

[15:13] mutual aid uh assisting uh Michigan on a

[15:17] residential fire.

[15:19] We had nine

[15:22] hazardous conditions, which ties into

[15:25] what Mark was talking about August 11th.

[15:28] Um, trees, power lines, I'm sure there

[15:33] may have been some that we sort of tried

[15:36] to take care of that weren't even called

[15:37] in. And then we had eight false alarms

[15:41] for a total of 16 calls in the month

[15:45] itself.

[15:47] Number of members showing up for fire

[15:49] stands at nine members.

[15:52] We go to medical, we're I guess it's a

[15:55] good thing we're trailing than what we

[15:58] were last year. 66 year to date compared

[16:01] to 77.

[16:03] 65 of the calls have been in Long Beach.

[16:05] One was in Dulan

[16:08] uh as a mutual aid request.

[16:12] The breakdown itself for the month, we

[16:15] had one respiratory respiratory call,

[16:19] two personal injuries, two sick persons,

[16:24] and two unconscious victims and one

[16:27] medical alert

[16:29] for the eight that took place in August.

[16:33] Average turnout of personnel,

[16:36] five members.

[16:39] Our year-to- date overall response time

[16:42] for fire stands at 5 minutes 16 seconds.

[16:48] Medical is 4 minutes and 37 seconds. Our

[16:53] members have donated

[16:56] 2,848

[16:58] hours uh year to date. And I'm going to

[17:04] I'll come back to

[17:06] uh that August 11th event. One of the

[17:09] things that we're

[17:13] be before I leave the department, one of

[17:16] my goals is to challenge the department

[17:20] to be

[17:23] a class

[17:26] three department from an ISO standard.

[17:29] The town used the fire department used

[17:31] to be class five 10 is sort of you

[17:35] really don't have a fire department one

[17:38] only a handful that achieved that um we

[17:43] moved up to four and I can't remember

[17:46] how many years ago and I want to

[17:48] challenge the members to go for three

[17:52] class three and to me that is in and of

[17:57] itself

[17:59] If we can achieve that, we're a great

[18:00] department now, but if we can track

[18:04] things a little differently using

[18:06] software and everything comes down to

[18:10] being able to track what happens in the

[18:13] fire department from the minute a call

[18:15] goes off until you come back and

[18:17] everything in between. Every time a

[18:19] member walks in that building, I want to

[18:22] know what are you doing? Are you going

[18:23] to fitness? Are you going to work on the

[18:25] trucks? And the more we can keep track

[18:28] of that utilizing software,

[18:31] I think we can achieve this. I mean, we

[18:33] are a tremendous department now, but I'd

[18:37] like to be able to say we're a class

[18:39] three because the difference between

[18:43] a higher number class and where we are,

[18:47] hundreds of dollars as far as what your

[18:50] uh homeowner's premium is. the the lower

[18:54] the number ISO,

[18:57] the insurance company will look and

[18:59] hopefully lower your premiums. So,

[19:03] that's a goal to shoot for, but for me,

[19:05] it's personal. I know we can do it. I

[19:08] know we're already there, but we have to

[19:11] prove it in

[19:13] numbers. And that is one of the things I

[19:16] am going to strive for. And I hope I can live long enough to achieve

[19:22] that. Coming back to what Mark talked

[19:25] about, I was going to and I know I've

[19:28] said this before. It's not I'm trying

[19:30] not to blow smoke up his skirt, but he has provided so much personal

[19:37] opinion, so much leadership to this

[19:41] community, to the residents, to the

[19:44] council,

[19:46] to the employees, the police officers,

[19:49] more so than the town manager,

[19:52] because

[19:54] we have such a unique relationship with

[19:57] the police. now and it's

[20:02] we want to help each other that night.

[20:07] Let's see. Matt Dispro, I think, was

[20:10] out.

[20:11] I mean, maybe some other officers came

[20:13] in. I'm not sure, but I I just I look

[20:18] back and I think, man, this is the way

[20:20] it's supposed to be. And that's how I've

[20:23] always envisioned it for this town.

[20:26] not where a small group of people have

[20:28] their

[20:30] fifoms.

[20:32] It's where we're working together to

[20:34] make this the best community we can.

[20:38] And I'm starting my blood pressure is

[20:39] starting to go up. But I just I'm so

[20:42] thankful that Mark is part of our team

[20:46] and I personally thank you from the

[20:48] bottom of my heart.

[20:49] >> Thank you.

[20:53] Any questions?

[20:56] No. Thanks, Dave.

[20:58] And thank you, Mark. Uh, fire commission

[21:02] is going to meet this Thursday, uh, at

[21:05] 400 p.m. right here in this room if

[21:07] anyone's interested.

[21:09] Uh, Nerpsy, Colleen,

[21:12] >> um, Nerpsy meets quarterly. So, our next

[21:14] meeting is November 17th at 9:00 a.m.

[21:18] >> Okay. Public works, Kendra.

[21:22] Our next meeting is um September 28th.

[21:26] The last meeting before that was June

[21:28] 22nd because we as well public works

[21:30] meets quarterly.

[21:32] Storm water board Cindy

[21:34] >> um storm water board is going to be

[21:36] meeting on Monday, September 28th at

[21:39] 8:30 a.m.

[21:41] >> Thank you. Park board Kendra.

[21:50] So, the garden walk date has been set

[21:53] for June 26, 2027. Summer camp has ended

[21:57] with 140 total kids. First Saturday Arts

[22:00] has started. Um, the park department is

[22:04] moving ahead with getting more finalized

[22:06] quotes from RVI, the uh company they

[22:10] chose to help with the tennis court

[22:12] pickle ball park um rehabilitation.

[22:16] They're looking to raise $100,000 for

[22:18] that. Hoping to get 50,000 or more from

[22:20] residents and then a matching grant for

[22:22] 50

[22:24] uh Melrose Park. Mark already touched on

[22:26] this and just want to thank you Mark for

[22:28] coordinating all that. Um and it's not

[22:30] an easy job. So that's all cleaned up

[22:32] now. Power wash the equipment and as

[22:34] Mark said the clean that poured rubber

[22:36] surface mat.

[22:37] Um ongoing stop maintenance at 19 and

[22:40] 23. Um, apparently Ellen may touch on

[22:43] this, but at 24 there's a black locust

[22:46] tree coming down. Um, some maintenance

[22:48] to a bench at stop 16 and um they're

[22:53] also looking at replacing um maybe

[22:55] working with Cindy on this, the

[22:57] replacement of the beach signs, the stop

[23:00] signs um not the red car stop signs, but

[23:03] stop two or stop 1923, those type thing

[23:06] signs. Um, so they're looking into that

[23:09] and also looking at a new swing set at

[23:12] the upper Melrose or Triangle Park over

[23:14] there at Stop 20, which is not the main

[23:17] Melrose Park, but the one on um I forget

[23:20] those streets up there. Um, it's just a

[23:23] little small area right now, but they're

[23:25] looking at replacing um the swing

[23:27] [clears throat] set up there.

[23:29] They're aware of the benches in the main

[23:31] park that need repair, and they're

[23:33] working on that. Um, invasive cleanup is

[23:36] still going on by PZOS, which is the

[23:38] third party um, contractor company

[23:41] they're working with to help control the

[23:43] invasive species at stop 24. And I just

[23:46] want to give um kudos again to Paul and

[23:49] Zach on the park board for leading the

[23:51] huge project on the courts tennis courts

[23:54] remodel and for just their open

[23:56] transparency and help holding extra

[23:58] workshops um this whole time to answer

[24:01] people's questions along with tons of

[24:04] emails and just lots of great

[24:05] communication gathering feedback from

[24:07] everyone. And the park board next

[24:09] meeting is September 22nd so next week.

[24:13] >> Thank you. community center. Anita,

[24:18] >> the community center did not meet uh

[24:22] Labor Day, September 7th. The update on

[24:25] the vinyl flooring at the two entrances

[24:27] to the building, which will really clean

[24:30] things up. The carpet will not be a

[24:32] mess, will be taking place in the next

[24:35] two weeks, week or two. Um and our next

[24:39] there have been other uh repairs that

[24:41] have been done but um nothing

[24:44] significant to report and our next

[24:46] meeting is October 5th

[24:49] >> at 2 p.m.

[24:50] >> Thank you. Budget and finance Meg.

[24:54] >> Budget and finance met on September 1st

[24:56] and went through the 2027 budget. We

[24:59] went through each fund and discussed any

[25:02] outstanding items. The budget was

[25:04] noticed. Then on September 2nd, I had it

[25:07] got it entered on I believe the 1st and

[25:11] the first reading in the public hearing

[25:13] will be held this evening and then the

[25:15] totals were distributed to council as

[25:17] part of the meeting packet. The August

[25:20] town and water bank wrecks are

[25:22] completed. The Bank of New York

[25:24] apparently the after the Indianapolis

[25:27] office closed or not office but

[25:30] location. So we our contact stopped

[25:34] responding and uh long story short we

[25:37] just don't he used to email the

[25:39] statement so that we didn't have to wait

[25:40] on the one that comes physically in the

[25:42] mail but this la this month and last

[25:44] month we've had to wait. So once New

[25:47] York bank wreck is completed after we

[25:50] received the statement then I'll

[25:51] distribute financials including the cash

[25:54] allocation report the revenue expense

[25:55] reports and fund projections to the

[25:58] department heads and council.

[26:01] The, as I said, the first reading of the

[26:03] budget is this evening with the second

[26:04] reading and the adoption scheduled for

[26:06] the October 12th council meeting. And

[26:09] our next meeting will be held October

[26:11] 6th at 10 a.m.

[26:13] >> Thank you. Human resources, Cindy.

[26:16] >> Uh, human resources uh did meet on

[26:19] Monday, August 17th. Um,

[26:23] uh, chief reported on the open billing

[26:25] inspector position. there was some uh

[26:29] lengthy discussion about uh adopting an

[26:32] AI policy for the employee manual and

[26:36] that discussion is going to continue at

[26:39] our next meeting which will be Wednesday

[26:41] September 23rd at 9:00 a.m.

[26:44] >> Thank you.

[26:47] >> Uh tree board Ellen,

[26:51] » the tree board did not meet this month.

[26:53] We're going to be meeting in September.

[26:55] The only thing we're working on now is a

[26:57] list of trees that I work with Chief and

[27:00] Tom Dolph and then we'll decide, you

[27:02] know, um which ones are coming down. I

[27:05] know some people are concerned about

[27:06] certain trees and we listen to

[27:08] everybody. So, um and Kendra, stop 24, a

[27:13] black lost is falling down. Did you just

[27:16] say that? That was on um Yeah, I was I

[27:20] thought you would have more information

[27:21] than me. They said that

[27:23] maybe the Pisos uh people gave them that

[27:26] information. They said it needed to be

[27:28] removed that it was dying.

[27:29] >> Oh, I you know I'm not not thinking stop

[27:31] 24. Yeah, that part of that was an

[27:33] invasive thing. Janu Janice would

[27:35] probably have the most information about

[27:37] that because she worked she goes over

[27:38] for all the times they're there. Okay.

[27:40] All right. I'll look into it though.

[27:41] Okay. Okay. All right.

[27:42] >> And um that's it.

[27:44] >> Thank you.

[27:48] Uh, the building commission met on 8:21

[27:52] and [clears throat] 911. Permits

[27:54] approved. 2528 Lakeshore Drive for a

[27:57] landscaping plan. 1503 Lakeshore Drive

[28:00] for a new addition. 2016 Golden Gate for

[28:03] a rebuild of existing entry stoop. 2964

[28:07] Lakeshore Drive for an addition over a

[28:09] garage. 2816 Elbridge for remove and

[28:13] replace decking. 2113 Lakeshore Drive

[28:16] for a new septic,

[28:18] 1414 Lakeshore Drive for sand removal

[28:21] and regrade. And I just want to state

[28:24] here that all of the sand removal

[28:26] projects involve meeting with the comm

[28:30] the contractor has to meet with the

[28:31] homeowner and the uh and the building

[28:35] commissioner, Larry Wall, before

[28:36] anything is started. They've got to take

[28:38] pre- pictures and post pictures and they

[28:41] meet with Larry F.

[28:43] uh project is completed. Uh 1416

[28:47] Lakeshore Drive sand removal and

[28:49] regrade. 1420 Lakeshore Drive sand

[28:51] removal and regrade. 2011 June Drive for

[28:55] a pool. They received a variance uh but

[28:58] from the BZA.

[29:00] 2010 Lakeshore Drive sand removal and

[29:03] regrade. 2016 Lakeshore Drive sand

[29:05] removal and regrade. 2234 Lakeshore

[29:08] Drive Sand Removal and Regrade. 2230

[29:12] Lakeshore Drive Sand Removal and

[29:14] Regrade. 2206 Chasselton Kitchen and

[29:17] Deck Edition. 2520 Shorewood, a

[29:21] perimeter fence around the entire

[29:22] property. Uh most of it will only be 4T

[29:27] tall. Uh portion of it will be 5T tall.

[29:32] Uh 2943 Lakeshore Drive, extend

[29:35] retaining wall to enclose a wash out

[29:38] area. Uh Larry Wall recused himself.

[29:42] 2925 Lakeshore Drive, demolition of an

[29:45] existing house and deck. Larry Wall

[29:47] recused himself. 2306 Lakeshore Drive,

[29:51] new beach stairs compliant with the

[29:53] shore protection standards. 2922

[29:56] Lakeshore Drive, switched plumber on a

[29:58] new home. Larry Wall recused himself. Uh

[30:01] the APC requested a recommendation from

[30:04] the building commission for setbacks in

[30:06] business zoning districts. The building

[30:08] commission recommends they be the same

[30:09] as residential.

[30:11] A stop work order was issued to 1528

[30:14] Lakeshore Drive. A wall was built on top

[30:16] of a deck not included in the permit and

[30:19] it violates view protection. A motion

[30:22] was made to start the process to set a

[30:24] public hearing to address continued

[30:25] violations with this contractor.

[30:29] Uh that was it for the building

[30:30] commission.

[30:32] and BZA met on August 12th, 2026.

[30:36] 2011 June Way Drive had a public

[30:38] hearing. Their variance was approved for

[30:40] a pool in the setback. 1701 Story A had

[30:44] a preliminary hearing. It was set for

[30:46] public hearing on 9926.

[30:50] Uh the 9926 public hearing was cancelled

[30:52] due to improper notice by the applicant.

[30:56] Any questions?

[31:00] Thank you. Uh APC Anita

[31:03] >> Advisory Plan Commission met on August

[31:07] 17th.

[31:09] Um there was uh the three

[31:11] representatives of McKenna who were

[31:14] working with us on the update to the

[31:17] advisory to the um comprehensive plan uh

[31:21] were with us on Zoom and we went through

[31:24] what they have provided us um based on

[31:27] our feedback and uh they will now be

[31:31] making additional changes to the draft

[31:34] of the update to the 2016 comprehensive

[31:37] plan. Um, so far we don't have it, but

[31:40] um, that should be coming to us and

[31:43] hopefully it will be considered at our

[31:45] next meeting, which will be a week from

[31:47] today, September 21st at 700 p.m.

[31:52] >> Thank you. We'll move on to unfinished

[31:55] business, uh, new salt storage building

[31:57] construction update.

[32:00] In recent weeks, I have been in

[32:02] communication with both of our

[32:05] contractors that were awarded that

[32:06] project. The state of Indiana um

[32:10] Homeland Security Division has our

[32:12] certificate of design release for

[32:15] review. Currently, um the town had to

[32:18] file a variance for the foundation due

[32:22] to the fact that the salt building is

[32:26] not a typical um residential or

[32:29] commercial foundation. So therefore, it

[32:32] required a variance. Um it's just a

[32:35] matter of policy with the um more or

[32:38] less building commission homeland

[32:40] security division. We're just waiting

[32:42] for that variance to come back and then

[32:44] our completed CDR will go back to the

[32:47] state for review and hope to hear

[32:49] something in the next two weeks. Once

[32:51] that is released, then the contractors

[32:53] will give us an updated timeline on

[32:55] construction.

[32:57] >> Thank you. Uh Marsh paving project

[33:01] review of quotes from Rereath Riley and

[33:02] Milestone Paving.

[33:06] >> This particular project we have been

[33:08] working on since the spring of this

[33:10] year. Um those of you who have traveled

[33:13] out to Marsh Court um would have seen

[33:16] the poor condition that that roadway is

[33:19] in currently. We've received

[33:22] information, photographs, emails from

[33:25] residents along that corridor as well.

[33:28] Um part of the overall issue with

[33:31] Marshia Court is over the years the

[33:34] garbage trucks and recycling trucks have

[33:37] gotten larger. And these large trucks

[33:40] when they turn the very tight radius on

[33:42] Marsh Court as you're traveling into

[33:45] Marsh Court making that first lefthand

[33:47] turn, that radius, um I just drove it a

[33:50] week ago is now becoming even worse than

[33:53] what it was 2 months ago. Um with all

[33:55] the heavy rains that we've had this year

[33:57] as well, um what asphalt that was

[34:00] remaining there is all washed out. Um we

[34:02] are now down to the bare earth and sand

[34:05] that's there and um it is just a

[34:08] complete muddy mess through there. We

[34:10] have a drainage structure that is about

[34:12] at the halfway point of Marsh Court as

[34:15] well. Um it is undized. Um it is aging

[34:19] and is not performing in the manner that

[34:22] it should. Um therefore it's been

[34:24] recommended to replace that particular

[34:27] drywall drywall structure there. um

[34:31] they're going to be replacing it with an

[34:33] 1825galon

[34:36] brand new dry well to include um

[34:39] concrete on the approaches leading to

[34:41] that drywall system. Just the storm

[34:44] water work alone on that roadway is

[34:48] going to run approximately

[34:50] $35,550.

[34:54] um that includes the concrete work

[34:56] around the structure and then um the

[34:59] 23,250

[35:00] for the drywall drywall itself. We have

[35:04] solicited two um separate quotes for

[35:08] this project. The first was from Rereath

[35:11] Riley Construction. The second was from

[35:14] Milestone Construction. We have reviewed

[35:17] and compared both quotes for the scope

[35:20] of work. um the shoulders and the

[35:24] radiuses that I described earlier. The

[35:27] proposals from both of these contractors

[35:30] is to remove any of the existing asphalt

[35:34] to a depth of 15 in. We will then rather

[35:38] than replacing that with asphalt, they

[35:41] would pour concrete in these areas. um

[35:44] concrete will sustain much longer the

[35:47] impact of these heavy trucks traveling

[35:49] through those radiuses and um that will

[35:52] be done at both um the first lefthand

[35:56] turn and then the left I'm sorry the

[35:58] second lefthand turn as you come out um

[36:01] going back onto Mount Clair. So, when

[36:04] looking at both of these, um, the lowest

[36:08] quote received was from that of Rereath

[36:10] Riley for $132,650.

[36:15] And then the proposal received from

[36:20] um milestone construction was $138,889.

[36:26] Um that difference

[36:30] um

[36:32] we tried did not try on this one to get

[36:35] three. Um we were only able to get two

[36:37] quotes on this particular project. So

[36:40] but I think that we're still under

[36:41] 150,000

[36:44] or is it required? I'm sorry. I'll turn

[36:46] over.

[36:46] >> Sorry. You have to solicit three. You

[36:48] don't have to receive three.

[36:50] >> My apologies. Um we only received and

[36:53] solicited two on this. Um, so yeah,

[36:57] that's kind of where we're at on this

[36:58] one. So I guess

[37:02] um we're getting at a time crunch

[37:05] because the mills will start to close in

[37:07] November and um the construction season

[37:10] will close upon us soon. So

[37:14] yeah, and just by nature of process, but

[37:18] you are required. So, you know, maybe if

[37:21] you have not to add to your meetings if

[37:22] you have to have a special meeting if if

[37:24] something comes up, but I would at well,

[37:27] you're required to invite even if you

[37:29] don't get at least for the record be

[37:31] able to establish that you've requested

[37:33] three.

[37:36] >> Where is the funding coming from for

[37:38] this? Megan and I spoke about that

[37:41] earlier, but she can touch on that from

[37:43] the various paving projects in that. Um,

[37:46] I did I guess going back to I originally

[37:50] did get three quotes. Indiana asphalt

[37:52] was also they quoted it. However, they

[37:54] couldn't do the drywall work. So,

[37:59] >> I do have, so now that I think about it,

[38:01] I do have a quote from Indiana asphalt

[38:06] and uh Indiana asphalts um was only for

[38:10] the re the milling and the resurfacing

[38:14] and um I'd have to pull it up on email

[38:16] for you, but it was in the 60,000 range,

[38:20] but it did not cover any of the storm

[38:22] water work. it did not cover the

[38:24] extensive work at the corners for the

[38:26] concrete and the buildup of the radiuses

[38:29] as well. So

[38:30] >> yeah, so I I would say as long as that

[38:32] gets put in the record with these and

[38:34] because it wasn't responsive to the

[38:36] specs that were sent out in the request

[38:38] that you could go ahead and and that

[38:40] would be a formal one as long as chief

[38:42] were to provide that to me to put in the

[38:44] record.

[38:47] I spent a lot of today working on the

[38:49] capital plan to confirm the questions

[38:52] that would arise tonight with some of

[38:54] these projects and our overall uh we

[38:58] would we would be okay to afford this

[39:01] project. So we've got uh additional

[39:06] paving money that is available due to

[39:08] the fact that we are submitting the CCMG

[39:11] grant for Lakeshore Drive but we are not

[39:13] actually paving this year. So we did not

[39:15] need to come up with the match that we

[39:18] would have needed to which was

[39:20] originally on the capital plan if we

[39:22] were paving this year. Uh we also have

[39:25] money left in riverboat and

[39:30] uh

[39:32] also seed it has 50,000 in paving. So,

[39:36] um, and I think we're getting towards

[39:40] the end of any hospital bills related to

[39:43] paving because they will be submitting

[39:45] the grant. So, there will be additional

[39:48] engineering costs for each phase of the

[39:50] project

[39:51] when we do pave. Um, and we will need to

[39:55] just kind of keep an eye on the paving

[39:57] in the next each year to see what we can

[40:00] afford with the grant being a million

[40:03] and then our match being $250,000

[40:06] to make sure that we can afford to do

[40:10] the entire amount of the grant.

[40:12] Hopefully, we can. Um but for this year,

[40:16] if we do that project and if we do the

[40:20] town signs, uh we are still positive by

[40:23] $25,000. That's assuming we spend every

[40:26] penny of our projects on the capital

[40:30] plan, which you know that includes

[40:32] $100,000 for community center. They

[40:34] usually don't spend that full amount. Um

[40:38] I we were out of internet for the last

[40:41] hour of the day today. So I will send

[40:43] this out to council just so you have the

[40:45] updated version. Um but I am comfortable

[40:49] with this project.

[40:52] >> Okay. As I

[40:53] >> Oh, so am I.

[40:55] >> As I look at the um estimate received

[40:57] from Indiana Asphalt, which is their

[41:01] estimate number 426

[41:04] um just for the mill and repaving of the

[41:10] roadway. That's removing the existing

[41:13] um pavement

[41:15] um taking it down 4 in. applying 2.5

[41:20] commercial binder with 1.5 of commercial

[41:22] surface. their quote for that and again

[41:26] this isn't they weren't able to put in

[41:27] that large dry well they couldn't handle

[41:29] the storm water working in that there

[41:32] that particular quote was 57,750

[41:37] and when you compare that to the same um

[41:39] item of scope of work with wreath Riley

[41:42] which is number one under roadway mill

[41:44] and resurface

[41:46] um their quote for that particular work

[41:49] is 54,140

[41:52] is the lump sum there. Um, so Ruth Riley

[41:55] obviously came in um, you know, $3,610

[42:02] cheaper just for the asphalt work there.

[42:04] So, and again, as we address this

[42:07] project, we've heard from the homeowners

[42:09] the storm water concerns were a major

[42:12] part of this um because that roadway

[42:14] floods out in the lowest portion of the

[42:17] road. um our plow drivers um this past

[42:20] winter um had difficult time plowing

[42:23] that particular roadway um because of

[42:26] the condition um the large divots that

[42:28] were in there um there's large sections

[42:31] of the asphalt that are completely

[42:33] missing there and um that's why we were

[42:35] wanting to address this this year. A

[42:37] matter of fact, um, one of the residents

[42:39] that I spoke to on the very end of the

[42:42] roadway, um, she tells me that this was

[42:45] on the town's, um, scope of work on

[42:48] their capital plan some years ago. She

[42:51] said maybe 5 to seven years ago, and she

[42:53] was disappointed that the town didn't

[42:55] address it then, and she was excited to

[42:57] hear that we're looking at addressing it

[42:59] this year because she travels that

[43:00] roadway often. So

[43:03] >> I can add to I I just forgot that we

[43:05] also have storm water funds

[43:08] >> but towards that project as well.

[43:10] >> Okay,

[43:10] >> that's a

[43:11] >> I just Oh, a quick just some a couple

[43:14] quick comments. One, um I I'm not I

[43:18] don't know how long this will take, but

[43:20] just that there are a few things I mean

[43:22] hopefully the residents will understand.

[43:25] one that, you know, it'll be closed off.

[43:28] So, their trash and recycling may have

[43:31] to be redirected. And they also talk

[43:34] about tree trimming or tree removal. So,

[43:37] if things are being widened or

[43:39] something, they may have to help with

[43:42] that. I'm I'm just mentioning that um

[43:45] just because they may have to be

[43:48] >> very true and all good points. Um when

[43:50] we met with both the contractors out

[43:52] there, we are hopeful depending on

[43:54] construction schedule that we would um

[43:58] schedule the work after the Tuesday

[44:01] recycling and start that work then so

[44:04] it's completed by the following Monday.

[44:06] But the concrete work that's going to be

[44:08] done there, we will at least need to

[44:09] keep it closed for probably a good week

[44:11] to allow the concrete to cure before

[44:14] vehicles can start driving over it,

[44:15] especially the heavy trucks. So,

[44:20] >> okay. I would make a motion to approve

[44:21] the RET Riley uh proposal for $132,650.

[44:29] » I'll second that.

[44:30] >> Any more discussion?

[44:34] All in favor say I.

[44:36] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you.

[44:41] AI generated information policy. Cindy,

[44:44] I think you said that's going on your

[44:46] next HR meeting. Okay.

[44:48] >> Ongoing discussion.

[44:50] >> Okay. Thank you.

[44:51] >> Just add one item to that. Uh

[44:55] once HR

[44:57] reviews more like further the AI policy

[45:00] that was proposed, we will also have K

[45:03] plus our IT provider look at the policy

[45:06] and give us their any suggestions they

[45:08] have as well. Okay.

[45:12] Thank you. Town signs, welcome signs,

[45:14] and masonry pillars. Pendra.

[45:17] >> Yes. Um, so tonight I'm asking for a

[45:20] motion to approve construction for the

[45:23] welcome pillars, we're calling them, at

[45:25] Chastelton. Um Cindy and I have been

[45:27] working with Mark on this and we came up

[45:30] with what I think will be a really

[45:32] beautiful

[45:33] um

[45:35] entry way there and we can put it on the

[45:39] website later if this is approved and

[45:41] going to move forward so people can look

[45:42] at it since we weren't able to load it

[45:44] tonight. But everyone here on the

[45:45] council I think saw the email that I

[45:47] sent the picture of how that should

[45:49] look. I mean it's not going to obviously

[45:51] be exactly the same. That's not

[45:53] Chastelton Road. It's in the picture,

[45:55] but it's the best I could do. Um, so

[45:59] Mark helped a lot with this and

[46:01] discovered after talking with Nipkco, if

[46:03] we did solar lights um on there, we'd

[46:06] save about $1,200 a year. So that was a

[46:08] really great recommendation. And we

[46:10] think we can match the lights on top of

[46:13] the pillars that the existing pillars

[46:15] have around Long Beach. So they'll still

[46:18] look the same, but they'll be solar. So,

[46:20] this um proposal would we would run

[46:23] conduit up through the um pillar so that

[46:27] if future use it would be ready for

[46:28] electrical if we needed to if if for

[46:31] whatever reason the solar lights didn't

[46:33] work or we just wanted to um change that

[46:35] up. So, right now the solar lights turn

[46:37] off about 3:00 a.m. So, they're not

[46:38] necessarily dusk to dawn, but they would

[46:41] turn off about 3. Um

[46:45] so, let's see. Um, I'm the motion I'm

[46:49] seeking to approve would be for a total

[46:51] of I'm asking for 35,000. The total cost

[46:54] of the pillars is 31,500, but I want to

[46:58] build in a little bit of a cushion there

[47:00] in case we need it. And also, one thing,

[47:03] not in the hard quote, cuz it would be a

[47:06] different company, the actual sign

[47:08] inside the brick pillar that says um

[47:11] like Long Beach or established 1921 or

[47:14] welcome to Long Beach, whatever we

[47:15] decide. that is a um different material

[47:18] that has to be put inside the pillar. So

[47:22] the masonry guy would not do that. So I

[47:24] think the 35,000 would still um provide

[47:27] enough cushion to just you know have

[47:29] that all in there. So

[47:32] I guess first I'll entertain any

[47:34] questions.

[47:35] >> I got a question. Who's doing the

[47:36] construction?

[47:37] >> Bob Salot or Salot. He has to he's not

[47:39] registered right now but of course we

[47:41] get the permits and he be he would get

[47:43] registered but he's done a lot of work

[47:44] for the town over the years. He just

[47:45] happens to not for 2026 have his

[47:47] registration. But

[47:49] >> he's Tom's worked with him a lot. He's

[47:51] done almost all the pillars that we've

[47:53] ever had to reconstruct when especially

[47:55] when contractors back into them. We have

[47:57] to redo them. So, um, and I've I've

[48:00] worked with him before on some other

[48:02] stuff. He rebuilt 18 was the last pillar

[48:04] that I was involved in doing and he did

[48:06] that a great job on that. So,

[48:08] >> the pictures look great. I thought, um,

[48:11] Chris, is this something we have to get

[48:13] three

[48:15] If you have not, there should be

[48:17] >> have. Yes, we've probably tried to get

[48:19] like 20 quotes.

[48:21] >> Yeah. I mean, one quote was uh 60 grand.

[48:23] No, one quote was

[48:26] >> 120 grand. 60 grand each. So,

[48:28] >> I would just make sure you submit.

[48:31] >> Can you share

[48:31] >> along with this to make sure that has

[48:34] for the record

[48:37] >> even if you solicited to and didn't get

[48:39] back. Yeah. But the record just needs to

[48:41] show

[48:42] >> the companies that I talked to. or or

[48:44] that you've solicit. Yes, that you've

[48:45] reached out.

[48:46] >> Okay.

[48:50] I can do that later though, right? Okay.

[48:52] Because I have them somewhere

[48:54] because this has been going on for three

[48:56] years, I think.

[48:58] Um

[49:00] >> can I make the motion to approve the

[49:02] funding for the signs?

[49:04] >> Meg, do you want to weigh in on um

[49:07] >> Yeah. So, it's the same as with the

[49:08] Marsh Court that we do have funds. Um

[49:12] the park project is also on the capital

[49:16] plan and but that takes us into the

[49:19] negative. So the signs did as well but

[49:21] the cost of them has been cut in half

[49:23] for this year. I think if you guys do

[49:25] any additional work that would be

[49:26] carried into next year. So uh we can

[49:29] afford this this year. Um if council

[49:32] wants to proceed with it

[49:36] and I'll just add too I don't since it's

[49:38] what it's September right now. if we

[49:40] approve, he still has to do the permits,

[49:42] has to probably get approved in the

[49:44] October building commission meeting and

[49:45] then we're into November, December with

[49:47] the weather. So, this very well may not

[49:49] be able to start construction till

[49:51] spring. So, I don't know, Meg, if

[49:52] that'll throw things off, but um you

[49:55] know, like to get going as soon as

[49:57] possible, but it might roll over into

[49:58] the other year.

[50:00] >> Yeah. No, that should that should be

[50:01] okay.

[50:02] >> Okay. Okay. We've got a motion. Do we

[50:04] have a second?

[50:08] I'll second it.

[50:10] >> Any more discussion?

[50:13] Uh so the motion is to approve 35,000

[50:17] for to move forward with the signed

[50:19] project.

[50:20] >> Um all in favor say I.

[50:23] >> I. Any opposed?

[50:25] >> Yes.

[50:26] >> Okay. Passes

[50:29] 4 to one.

[50:32] uh road salt quotes for 2027 snow

[50:35] plowing season.

[50:38] >> All right, this um I'm going to give you

[50:40] a little bit of history going back to

[50:42] last year. Um last year we all know was

[50:45] a challenging year with the weather that

[50:48] we faced um here in northwest Indiana

[50:50] with the snow and the cold. Typically we

[50:54] purchase our annual supply of road salt

[50:58] on a annual basis we would go through

[51:02] 700 to roughly a,000 ton of road salt.

[51:07] Historically the town of Long Beach has

[51:10] always purchased treated road salt. Um,

[51:13] the reason that we purchase treated road

[51:15] salt is [clears throat] that anything

[51:18] under 20° of temperature that begins to

[51:21] go into the negative, the treated road

[51:23] salt, [clears throat] excuse me, will

[51:25] work, I believe, all the way to about

[51:27] -20.

[51:30] This year we were notified by the

[51:31] Indiana Department of Transportation

[51:33] that Leaport County was excluded from

[51:37] the state's uh quantity purchase

[51:40] agreement with the supplier Cargill Salt

[51:44] and that we were unable to get treated

[51:47] road salt through them and that we were

[51:49] on our own this year to find a vendor to

[51:52] supply treated road salt to our

[51:54] community. I have been working with the

[51:57] town of Trail Creek, the city of

[51:58] Michigan City, and we have all been

[52:02] struggling trying to get quotes. Um, we

[52:05] have secured some quotes, but it was

[52:07] difficult at best to get them. We

[52:09] reached out to six different vendors. We

[52:13] reached out to Mid-American Salt,

[52:15] Cargill, Indiana Salt Supply, Ninja

[52:19] Salt, Morton, and Midwest Salt. Um, the

[52:24] city of Michigan City has been a

[52:28] previous client of Midwest Salt and they

[52:32] were able to actually secure um treated

[52:36] road salt with Midwest Salt.

[52:39] I did speak to Midwest Salt today um

[52:42] because they were nonresponsive to our

[52:45] request for quotes. So, prior to

[52:48] tonight's meeting, I thought it was at

[52:49] least worth a phone call. Um, it was our

[52:52] last ditched effort to try and get

[52:54] treated road salt for our community

[52:56] because as of today, there is not a

[52:58] single salt supplier out there that will

[53:00] sell us treated road salt. They will

[53:03] only provide us with untreated road salt

[53:06] which will take us down to that 20°

[53:08] temperature. So when I spoke to Midwest

[53:10] Salt today, he could not give

[53:13] Superintendent Dolph and I a guarantee

[53:16] that they could sell us treated road

[53:18] salt, but he said that we could supply

[53:21] you with up to 700 ton of untreated road

[53:24] salt. And the price for that would be

[53:28] $15,468

[53:30] a ton. To put that in perspective, last

[53:34] year we were getting treated road salt

[53:37] at roughly $90 a ton.

[53:42] He did tell me today that if I am able

[53:45] to treat the salt for you, add an

[53:48] additional $15 to that, that would take

[53:50] us to $16,968

[53:54] for treated road salt for this year. Um,

[53:57] we need to order approximately 700 ton.

[54:01] So Tom Dolph and I began to strategize

[54:06] how can we address this concern for the

[54:08] town this year. We are currently sitting

[54:11] on approximately 250 to about 300 ton of

[54:16] treated road salt that's left over from

[54:18] last year. Um we have it at the street

[54:21] department facility. It's under tarp and

[54:23] some of it is in our aging salt barn as

[54:26] well. Tom and I have discussed that he

[54:29] is going to move the treated road salt

[54:31] that he has in the salt barn over to

[54:33] where we have the other treated road

[54:35] salt tarped and we're going to treat

[54:37] that like it's gold.

[54:40] We're going to let it sit there and

[54:42] we're only going to touch it unless the

[54:43] temperatures we see in the forecast are

[54:46] going to be severely cold and we're

[54:48] going to try and utilize as a latch last

[54:51] um ditch effort for the town.

[54:53] So getting back to how do we get the

[54:56] additional road salt that we need to

[54:57] meet about our thousand ton that we use

[55:00] annually because we're sitting on about

[55:02] 300. We need to order about another 700.

[55:05] So we did get only um two other

[55:09] companies that were responsive. One was

[55:12] Ninja Salt. Ninja will sell us untreated

[55:16] road salt at $130.82

[55:19] a ton. And then the other is Morton Salt

[55:23] Supply. Um they actually were the most

[55:25] responsive. Um they were replying to our

[55:28] emails consistently and actually we have

[55:30] a contract um here tonight at our

[55:33] meeting that they provided. They were

[55:35] able to provide us untreated road salt

[55:38] for $125.35.

[55:42] The other issue um Superintendent and

[55:44] Dolph and I met this morning is if the

[55:47] town were not to move forward this

[55:50] evening and executing and awarding a

[55:53] contract um which we recommend that we

[55:57] um recommend to the council tonight that

[55:58] we move forward with a contract with

[56:00] Morton Salt for 700 ton of salt at

[56:04] $125.35.

[56:07] As part of that contract,

[56:10] we are required to begin accepting salt

[56:15] as early as October

[56:18] at our request. However, all 700 ton

[56:23] must be purchased by March 31st of 2027.

[56:27] Superintendent Dolph and I discussed

[56:29] that we don't have any concerns with

[56:31] taking the 700 ton because we'll more

[56:33] than likely go through that and maybe

[56:35] even more depending on the weather that

[56:37] we have coming. Um, I will caution the

[56:40] council and share with you that if we

[56:42] don't execute a contract with a salt

[56:44] vendor, we may be stuck in a position

[56:47] that no one will supply us salt or they

[56:50] will at a cost of probably greater than

[56:53] $200 a ton. Um, so it is the

[56:56] recommendation after meeting with

[56:57] Superintendent Dolph today that we

[57:00] recommend to the council this evening

[57:02] that we move forward with the Morton

[57:05] contract, $12,5.35

[57:08] per ton for 700 ton. And that allows us

[57:12] um the security and peace of mind of

[57:14] knowing that we can at least get the

[57:16] treated road salt for our winter snow

[57:18] plowing needs. Now, if we go through

[57:20] that 700 ton and the 300 ton that's

[57:23] under TARP, um we'll just have to

[57:25] solicit um quotes from the vendors that

[57:28] are out there, come back to the council

[57:30] with proposals. Um I'm hopeful that El

[57:33] Nino hits this year and that we don't

[57:35] need the thousand ton. Um but again, as

[57:39] you know, our current salt barn only

[57:42] holds a little bit over 200 ton

[57:44] undercover. the new salt barn will hold

[57:47] um in excess of 400 ton um which is

[57:51] good. So, so whatever is left over this

[57:54] year once that new barn goes up, we'll

[57:55] at least be able to have it under cover

[57:57] for next year. And then we're hoping

[57:59] that the state QPA comes back around in

[58:01] 2027. Um again, we're not the only um

[58:05] city or town that was excluded. It was

[58:07] all of Leaport County and there were a

[58:10] couple other counties throughout Indiana

[58:11] as well that were excluded this year. Um

[58:14] when I asked INDOT for an explanation,

[58:16] they couldn't give me an explanation.

[58:18] They just said that they thought it was

[58:20] because of the um supply and demand.

[58:23] There is not much. Um I will tell you

[58:25] Midwest Salt shared with me today.

[58:27] They've ordered two additional barges.

[58:29] They know what the cost of that is

[58:31] coming in. The quote they gave us today

[58:33] was based on those prices of the new

[58:35] barges that are in route to um Illinois.

[58:38] Um, so again, it's just it's been a

[58:40] total struggle getting these quotes for

[58:43] Road Salt. Um, so I recommend tonight

[58:45] that we at least move forward with

[58:47] Morton. One of these other companies

[58:48] that are still out there that hasn't

[58:50] responded, they could respond next week

[58:53] and maybe a few dollars less or a few

[58:55] dollars more. Um, I don't want to risk,

[58:57] you know, us putting ourselves in a

[58:59] position that we don't have any salt for

[59:01] the season. So, I know it's a long u

[59:05] explanation, but that just kind of

[59:07] paraphrases all the conversations I've

[59:09] had in recent months. Um, honestly, this

[59:12] goes back to about May or June when we

[59:15] started researching salt quotes.

[59:19] >> Thank you.

[59:22] » Any questions?

[59:25] Mark, did you say that the this is

[59:27] untreated and then to treat it

[59:30] ourselves?

[59:31] >> To treat it ourselves, which we're

[59:33] hoping not to do. Tom estimates it could

[59:36] cost us

[59:38] 50 to 60 cents a ton because we would

[59:41] have to buy the brine and then obviously

[59:43] we've got, you know, time inhouse that

[59:46] we would have to um do to treat all of

[59:49] this. Tom hopes that we don't have to do

[59:51] that. Um but he is preparing to research

[59:55] the cost of the brine. Um he has done

[59:57] this before for the town. Um he says the

[1:00:00] town's been in similar situations before

[1:00:03] where we've had to purchase the brine

[1:00:05] and um mix it ourselves here. Um similar

[1:00:08] to like what Midwest said earlier.

[1:00:09] Midwest said they would charge us, you

[1:00:11] know, $15 a ton for them to do it on a

[1:00:14] large scale. Um just to put this in

[1:00:17] perspective, we're ordering 700 ton. The

[1:00:20] city of Michigan City is looking at

[1:00:22] 3,500 tons. So that's why they're able

[1:00:24] to get what they're getting a much

[1:00:26] larger quantity and they're a previous

[1:00:28] client of, you know, this vendor as

[1:00:30] well. Trail Creek, they're in the same

[1:00:32] position as us. Um they're struggling to

[1:00:34] find quotes as well. Um so yeah,

[1:00:39] I'm sorry. So you

[1:00:40] >> Okay, I would make a motion to

[1:00:44] >> Yeah. So, the recommendation would be to

[1:00:46] move forward with approving the contract

[1:00:48] with Morton Salt and then authorizing

[1:00:51] the town council president Schmidt to um

[1:00:54] execute the contract with Morton Salt,

[1:00:56] which actually the deadline for us to

[1:00:58] resubmit is tomorrow afternoon. I have

[1:01:01] to have this back. They would only give

[1:01:03] us 7 days on the quote as well. That's

[1:01:06] how fast they're selling the salt right

[1:01:08] now. So, this quote is only good until

[1:01:11] close of business tomorrow. and I

[1:01:13] received it last week.

[1:01:15] >> Okay. I would make a motion to uh move

[1:01:18] forward with a Morton salt.

[1:01:20] >> I'll second that.

[1:01:23] >> Any more discussion?

[1:01:25] All in favor say I.

[1:01:27] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:01:30] >> Thank you. Uh storm water fee increase.

[1:01:34] I think we were waiting for a

[1:01:35] recommendation from budget and finance.

[1:01:42] » Yes. and we we worked on the budget and

[1:01:46] really did not talk about this, but uh

[1:01:50] Tristan and I and Mark have all talked

[1:01:52] about it and

[1:01:54] the amount of phone calls and uh the

[1:01:58] need for storm water projects is very

[1:02:01] evident. So Mark, I don't know if you

[1:02:04] want to touch on all the specific areas

[1:02:08] that need work and also

[1:02:11] just all of our paving projects. So

[1:02:13] Lakeshore Drive, each phase is going to

[1:02:16] have storm water work to the tune of

[1:02:19] thousands of dollars. So um I think the need as anything nothing is costing

[1:02:27] less as we do projects. So, um, did you

[1:02:31] want to add anything?

[1:02:32] >> Sure. Um, just starting with phase one

[1:02:35] of Lakeshore Drive, phase one has

[1:02:38] approximately $300,000

[1:02:41] just in storm water work. In phase one,

[1:02:43] phases two and three are estimated to at

[1:02:46] least be um near that or slightly under

[1:02:50] the $300,000.

[1:02:52] We have um aging dry wells um that need

[1:02:56] to be addressed across the town. Um, one

[1:02:58] in particular is at Indianapolis and

[1:03:01] Hidden Hills Trail. Um, we have one

[1:03:03] there that we actually need to go in and

[1:03:06] probably add probably a 2,000galon dry

[1:03:08] well beside the current one that is

[1:03:10] there. Um, so there is storm water work

[1:03:13] throughout the town. I've spoken with

[1:03:16] our street superintendent, Tom Dolph.

[1:03:18] Um, there is much more storm water work.

[1:03:21] He would like to um take on projects

[1:03:24] each year. However, we are limited with

[1:03:26] the amount of funding that comes in

[1:03:28] currently at the $15 a month per

[1:03:30] household. Um, we're looking at, and

[1:03:33] Megan and I had discussed um looking at

[1:03:36] the possibility of raising it to $20.

[1:03:38] So, it' be $5 more a month for a total

[1:03:41] cost of $60 per home um per year to do

[1:03:45] some of this additional work. and then

[1:03:47] um we can prepare for you some um

[1:03:51] additional material to assist you in

[1:03:55] knowing some of the projects that are

[1:03:57] coming up in the next 5 years um to help

[1:04:00] better understand the need for the

[1:04:02] increase. So, so we can work on that and

[1:04:05] get that to you.

[1:04:07] >> Okay. So, that doesn't need a motion

[1:04:08] tonight.

[1:04:10] >> No, I just think that it's good that we

[1:04:12] have it on the agenda for discussion. um

[1:04:14] come back with some additional

[1:04:15] information on future capital

[1:04:17] improvement projects and then um at some

[1:04:20] point um ask attorney Willoughby to, you

[1:04:23] know, work with the council on a

[1:04:24] updating of the fee structure.

[1:04:28] Do

[1:04:28] >> you know how much additional funds a $5

[1:04:30] increase would give us?

[1:04:33] >> Meg, have you looked at those numbers

[1:04:35] based off of um what we're bringing in

[1:04:37] currently on the household number?

[1:04:39] >> If I do,

[1:04:40] >> I know we had it. I just don't have it

[1:04:42] with me.

[1:04:45] It's

[1:04:50] » and one of the things is every year on

[1:04:51] the CCMG paving projects um we have

[1:04:55] storm water work that's done with every

[1:04:57] single paving project. Um and that also

[1:05:00] helps pay for this part of the you know

[1:05:02] CCMG match as well. So

[1:05:06] >> it

[1:05:06] >> okay

[1:05:07] >> I roughly it would be 70 around 60 to

[1:05:11] 70,000 a year based on

[1:05:14] I believe our billing I think it's 1237

[1:05:19] but it could be like our trash is a,083

[1:05:23] I think so that is

[1:05:27] 60 almost 65,000 so roughly that 65,000

[1:05:33] a additional.

[1:05:35] >> Correct.

[1:05:35] >> So, so by raising it to $5 a month per

[1:05:38] household would bring in the 65,000

[1:05:41] additional. To put that in perspective,

[1:05:43] the Marsh Court project that we just

[1:05:46] approved um this evening just for that

[1:05:49] one single 1825galon

[1:05:52] drywall structure there. Um that work

[1:05:55] again came to

[1:05:58] 35,550.

[1:06:02] So half of what Meg has just shared with

[1:06:05] us would get us this one dry well. And

[1:06:08] there are numerous dry wells throughout

[1:06:10] the community that we've been trying to

[1:06:12] improve. Um this year I will say in my

[1:06:17] six years I have been overwhelmed with

[1:06:19] storm water calls because we've had a

[1:06:21] heavy amount of rain this year and we've

[1:06:23] identified areas that need work. Um we

[1:06:26] have a few homes that are taking on

[1:06:28] water in their garages just because of

[1:06:31] the dry wells are und sized and then

[1:06:33] it's flowing over into you know the

[1:06:35] residents um driveways and that those

[1:06:37] obviously are priorities. Others we're

[1:06:40] getting, you know, I have a puddle at

[1:06:41] the end of my driveway. Tom and the

[1:06:44] engineers are telling me that if that

[1:06:46] puddle, you know, is gone 24 hours after

[1:06:49] a heavy rain, that's really not a

[1:06:51] concern, an immediate concern. I try to

[1:06:54] explain that to some of the residents,

[1:06:55] but you know, a lot of times that isn't

[1:06:57] what they want to hear. They want to

[1:06:58] hear, "I want that puddle gone at the

[1:07:00] end of my driveway." But more

[1:07:01] importantly, we've got to address the

[1:07:02] serious concerns first. Not saying that

[1:07:05] theirs is not serious, but there are

[1:07:07] priorities. And obviously, as you can

[1:07:10] see, it's quite expensive for storm

[1:07:12] water work because a lot of this we

[1:07:14] can't do in-house. It takes heavy

[1:07:16] machinery. um these 1,800-gallon

[1:07:19] drywalls, we don't have the equipment to

[1:07:21] lift them and place them into the

[1:07:23] ground. And then there's, you know,

[1:07:25] significant trenching that needs to

[1:07:27] occur and we have to bring in outside

[1:07:29] contractors to do this type of work. So,

[1:07:31] >> and just what you're saying about um

[1:07:34] residents, I know that you've met with

[1:07:37] uh Commissioner Wall and Tom Dolph um

[1:07:42] about a neighbor of mine on Florond and

[1:07:44] she's been looking at the problem for a

[1:07:47] minimum of two years and she's ready to

[1:07:50] move forward with what she can do to

[1:07:52] mitigate it, but she'll be looking to

[1:07:54] the town for help with her her issues

[1:07:57] and like I said, she's put out and is

[1:08:00] going to put out a significant amount of

[1:08:02] money. But then you talk about what the

[1:08:04] town will have to do to help. So,

[1:08:08] >> as I have been learning more about the

[1:08:11] town's storm water infrastructure, I'm

[1:08:14] seeing the history of the town. Um, our

[1:08:16] newer paving projects, the large round

[1:08:19] cylinder dry wells, typically from 500

[1:08:24] to 2500 gallon are placed under the

[1:08:27] surface of the roadway. And that's where

[1:08:29] we capture a lot of our storm water. And

[1:08:31] that what I'm seeing is the history of

[1:08:33] the town is many of our drywall systems

[1:08:36] are from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. They're

[1:08:39] bricks. And those bricks were laid into

[1:08:42] the ground in a small 4tx 4 ft area with

[1:08:46] a catch basin on top. And then once that

[1:08:50] storm water gets into that catch basin,

[1:08:52] there's nowhere really for that water to

[1:08:54] go. where in a dry well system that kind

[1:08:57] of cylinder timble is just surrounded

[1:09:00] with two feet of of rock and then that

[1:09:03] allows the water to disseminate out of

[1:09:05] there where these old brick systems that

[1:09:07] are very aging in the town. Those are

[1:09:09] the ones we need to tear out of the

[1:09:11] ground, need to get the new dry wells

[1:09:13] into. So those are the ones that we have

[1:09:15] to address moving forward in that cuz

[1:09:16] we're finding many of the old ones just

[1:09:19] cannot keep up with the amount of of

[1:09:21] rainfall that we get and they're

[1:09:22] collapsing, falling apart. the bricks

[1:09:24] are aging. So,

[1:09:27] >> okay, let's leave this on the agenda for

[1:09:30] uh October meeting

[1:09:33] um for more discussion and if you guys

[1:09:36] want to discuss it again at budget and

[1:09:38] finance.

[1:09:39] >> Yes, I will add it to our agenda.

[1:09:42] >> Okay, moving on to new business. Uh

[1:09:44] combining the park lots. [sighs]

[1:09:47] >> Uh Joy, we did a

[1:09:49] >> interest

[1:09:50] >> conflict of interest statements.

[1:09:52] >> What? conflict of interest statements.

[1:09:55] >> Oh, here you could pass the that to

[1:09:57] Joey.

[1:09:58] >> Your yours changed.

[1:10:02] » Okay. Thanks.

[1:10:04] >> Okay. Conflict of interest statements,

[1:10:07] Chris.

[1:10:08] >> Um, thank you. So,

[1:10:11] hopefully I don't get emotional because

[1:10:13] this one is a little bit of a sensitive

[1:10:15] issue or I'm out of line, but it won't

[1:10:17] be the first. Uh, recently it was

[1:10:19] brought to my attention. I'd like to say

[1:10:22] from as a result of those who had good

[1:10:24] intentions, but it appears keyboard

[1:10:27] warriors or people who had bad

[1:10:29] intentions filed a complaint alleging,

[1:10:34] for lack of a better description,

[1:10:35] misconduct on the part of council member

[1:10:39] Lane, um the or clerk treasurer, and the

[1:10:44] building commissioner, all alleging that

[1:10:46] they have conflicts of interest, haven't

[1:10:48] complied with the law that came to light

[1:10:52] um because of mailing by whoever

[1:10:54] submitted it confidential confidentially

[1:10:58] had a mistaken address to which they

[1:11:01] addressed the package to and it got

[1:11:02] returned to the town hall because that

[1:11:05] same person or persons put a return

[1:11:08] address of the town hall as if it was

[1:11:09] sent from here and it was sent to

[1:11:12] various state agencies or county

[1:11:15] prosecutor seeking investigations etc.

[1:11:18] Since then, I've taken the time to do

[1:11:21] some due diligence, have assured those

[1:11:23] who have inquired that there no

[1:11:27] intentional acts here. Um, but

[1:11:32] one thing that came to light which I was

[1:11:34] unaware of is we all know Larry Wall,

[1:11:37] he's the building commissioner and has

[1:11:38] been. We all know that his daughter is a

[1:11:41] council member. We all know his niece is

[1:11:43] the elected clerk treasurer.

[1:11:46] What wasn't aware or on every the front

[1:11:49] of everybody's mind is at the end of

[1:11:52] 2024, approximately December 23rd at the

[1:11:55] council's year-end meeting, there was a

[1:11:58] renewal and a contract entered into with

[1:12:00] Larry Wall for two years and then two

[1:12:03] subsequent automatic renewals. That was

[1:12:06] after Colleen Lane was elected but

[1:12:09] before she took office. That is all

[1:12:12] legal.

[1:12:14] Mag Collins is a niece, but she doesn't

[1:12:16] approve any payments, etc. So, Colleen

[1:12:19] Lane did not participate in granting

[1:12:22] that contract, nor does she have any

[1:12:24] say. However, I also learned or was

[1:12:28] reminded that Colleen Lane works for

[1:12:32] Elwall

[1:12:33] Constructors LLC. Why that is important

[1:12:37] is

[1:12:39] when the contract was entered into,

[1:12:42] Larry hired as the building commissioner

[1:12:45] wanted and and the the council agreed to

[1:12:48] have his company LW wall constructors

[1:12:51] LLC

[1:12:52] as the recipient of the payment. And so

[1:12:55] that's been a couple years ago. And when

[1:12:58] Colleen took office, nobody thinking of

[1:13:01] that because Larry is the building

[1:13:04] commissioner, thinking of him as the

[1:13:06] individual. Can't speak for him, but

[1:13:08] ultimately I can assume that was for

[1:13:10] liability purposes and that's why he put

[1:13:12] the company there as the contracting

[1:13:14] party. So technically there is an

[1:13:17] argument and my opinion is that Colleen

[1:13:20] Lane each year should despite the fact

[1:13:23] that it's being known file a conflict of

[1:13:25] interest statement to make it known.

[1:13:27] She's the office manager there. And so

[1:13:31] the point of that is to make sure

[1:13:32] there's no air of impropriy. She hasn't

[1:13:35] hidden where she's worked. Everybody

[1:13:37] knows where she works. Everybody knows

[1:13:39] where her father works, what he does.

[1:13:42] However, there's just a certain group of

[1:13:44] people who don't like the walls. It it's

[1:13:47] um it baffles me and it's insane because

[1:13:52] those who want to allege and make

[1:13:54] allegations against Larry just needed a

[1:13:57] witness 2018 2019 when all those homes

[1:14:00] could have been washed into the lake and

[1:14:02] he spent time while he's waiting or post

[1:14:06] um you know working to keep living with

[1:14:09] the transplant and his family made bones

[1:14:12] on seaw walls and he didn't take any of

[1:14:15] those contracts. And yet he's out there

[1:14:18] for some of the same people who might be

[1:14:20] responsible for this complaint, helping

[1:14:23] them save their houses and advising them

[1:14:25] for free as his duty as the building

[1:14:27] commissioner. All of that said, and I'll

[1:14:29] get off my soap box on that,

[1:14:32] what's before you tonight is to write

[1:14:34] the ship. The 2025 we can't speak to.

[1:14:37] These are supposed to be filed at the

[1:14:39] beginning of the year, but we're going

[1:14:40] to file a retroactive

[1:14:43] um or what's before you as approval and

[1:14:45] acceptance. So, you have conflict of

[1:14:48] interest statement for 2025 for Colleen

[1:14:51] as council member acknowledging that she

[1:14:54] works for LW wall constructors and that

[1:14:56] she's the office manager. It has the

[1:14:59] amount the contract her Larry or the

[1:15:03] building commissioner gets paid $50 an

[1:15:06] hour and the total amount paid for last

[1:15:08] year is on the 2025 statement and year

[1:15:11] to date is on the 2026 statement. I do

[1:15:14] not believe that Larry Wall necessarily

[1:15:16] has to, but my advice has always been on

[1:15:18] these. When in doubt, file one. It

[1:15:21] doesn't hurt anything. Everybody's aware

[1:15:23] of these. So you have the same thing for

[1:15:26] Larry Wall acknowledging that he is the

[1:15:29] owner of Elw Wall Constructors LLC

[1:15:32] that he is the building commissioner and

[1:15:34] surprise surprise the council person

[1:15:36] known as Colleen Lane is his daughter

[1:15:39] and office manager. So that I believe

[1:15:42] brings us into compliance. And again,

[1:15:45] it's unfortunate. I um while it slipped

[1:15:49] by me where she where Colleen worked for

[1:15:52] them or where she was employed and how

[1:15:54] that contract was in 2024,

[1:15:57] I ultimately pride myself on being a

[1:15:59] protector not against those who want to

[1:16:02] break the law or have intentional acts,

[1:16:04] but to make sure that I properly advise

[1:16:06] you and help you make informed

[1:16:07] decisions. So, for the public that wants

[1:16:10] to beat up the walls, blame me. And with

[1:16:12] that, you know, I I'm willing and and we

[1:16:16] can I don't want to discuss it tonight

[1:16:18] to to resign as the town attorney. And

[1:16:21] not making this about me in terms of

[1:16:23] what it is, but if there's a failure,

[1:16:26] it's on my part. Not on Colleen's part,

[1:16:28] not on Meg's part, not on Larry's part.

[1:16:31] So, first, I would ask that you consider

[1:16:35] approval of those conflict of interest

[1:16:37] statements that are before you. And if

[1:16:40] you all you're doing is voting to accept

[1:16:42] them. And then between Meg and I, we

[1:16:44] will get those filed with the county

[1:16:46] clerks and that will take care of it.

[1:16:48] And then every year after that, anybody

[1:16:51] who has the same or sit similar

[1:16:53] situation, it is in the handbook. It is

[1:16:55] a policy. It is state law.

[1:16:58] And I do think those who had bad

[1:16:59] intentions and rather than be human,

[1:17:02] rather than care about your town and try

[1:17:04] to improve it or maybe casually mention

[1:17:06] it to anybody, you rather be a keyboard

[1:17:09] warrior. So here we are fixing those and

[1:17:12] again blame me for that. So that's the

[1:17:14] first part. Then I'll I'll go to the

[1:17:16] next item.

[1:17:17] >> Okay. I would make a motion to accept

[1:17:19] the conflict of interest statements from

[1:17:21] Colleen Lane and Larry Wall.

[1:17:24] >> I'll second.

[1:17:25] >> Any discussion? I just want to say

[1:17:28] thanks for Chris for the uh explanation

[1:17:31] and transparency and then thanks for

[1:17:33] explaining.

[1:17:36] >> I'd also like to say um that council

[1:17:39] members as well could have uh picked up

[1:17:42] on something like this. So, I I

[1:17:45] appreciate that you say you're the town

[1:17:46] attorney, but it is something that I

[1:17:50] think all of us have probably

[1:17:52] experienced filing conflict of interest

[1:17:55] forms throughout our careers.

[1:17:59] And um I would also take responsibility

[1:18:02] for not picking up on that as well.

[1:18:08] >> Any more discussion?

[1:18:11] >> Do I need to recuse myself from this?

[1:18:13] You should. That would be appropriate.

[1:18:15] >> Accuse myself from this vote. [laughter]

[1:18:17] >> Okay. With the exception of Colleen. All

[1:18:20] in favor say I.

[1:18:21] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:18:23] >> And Meg, you have the signature copies.

[1:18:26] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:18:28] >> All right. So, the next line it'll see

[1:18:30] asinine, but to clear the record, you

[1:18:34] paid um let's see here for transparency,

[1:18:38] which is important.

[1:18:41] In 2025, the total amount paid to LW

[1:18:43] wall instructors.

[1:18:51] Well, I don't have that.

[1:18:54] 96,000. Do you have that Meg in front of

[1:18:57] you? There are two.

[1:18:59] >> It's on there.

[1:19:00] >> It is, but I have the same copy.

[1:19:03] It's Oh, good game.

[1:19:06] No, it's not on that one.

[1:19:10] Sorry.

[1:19:14] Nope.

[1:19:16] I'll read it. Let me pull it up here

[1:19:18] because I have the exact numbers.

[1:19:25] » Yeah, that's sort of. All right. So in

[1:19:28] 95 or sorry 2025

[1:19:32] you paid LW wall constructors the total

[1:19:35] sum of $96,952

[1:19:40] and then in 2026 year to date of

[1:19:43] $69,133.33

[1:19:48] based on

[1:19:50] what I will say is my oversight.

[1:19:54] Colleen should not have participated in

[1:19:57] any of those any votes that would have

[1:20:00] resulted in payment because of the

[1:20:03] nature of the way things are done and

[1:20:04] you don't have everything itemized and

[1:20:06] that's not making an excuse.

[1:20:08] It is clear why those would

[1:20:12] slip by or not be noticed in approvals

[1:20:15] because they're in the form of a check

[1:20:17] register and you're not seeing all the

[1:20:19] invoices or addressing them

[1:20:21] individually.

[1:20:23] The reason I've asked this agenda item

[1:20:26] to be on there is so that you can take a

[1:20:28] vote, if you're inclined, to void out

[1:20:32] your pre the council's previous approval

[1:20:35] of all payments in 2025

[1:20:38] and 2026 year to date. The reason why

[1:20:41] those years or dates are important is

[1:20:43] because that's so far the am the tenure

[1:20:46] of Colleen Lane as a council member. So

[1:20:50] to write the ship, to be transparent, to

[1:20:53] make sure that the record accurately

[1:20:56] reflects what has happened, what should

[1:21:00] happen, and what will happen going

[1:21:01] forward is to make sure that she recuses

[1:21:04] herself

[1:21:06] and to then you can consider those

[1:21:08] without her input. And again, she's the

[1:21:10] office manager of LW wall constructors

[1:21:13] LLC. All things that have been known,

[1:21:15] but we want to make sure. And again, the

[1:21:17] public isn't wrong to make those points.

[1:21:21] But maybe sometimes it's not what you

[1:21:23] say, it's how you say it. So the the

[1:21:25] intention of doing these is to and we've

[1:21:28] consulted with the town's financial

[1:21:30] consultants, otherwise looked into this.

[1:21:32] And again, we thought this was the best

[1:21:33] route to correct the record. So, I would

[1:21:37] ask that you consider taking a vote to

[1:21:40] revoke the council's approval for all

[1:21:44] payments to Elwall Constructors LLC for

[1:21:47] the calendar year 2025 and year to date

[1:21:50] 2026.

[1:21:52] >> I'll [snorts] make that motion.

[1:21:54] >> Pardon? One except for those that were

[1:21:57] approved earlier today where Colleen

[1:21:58] recused herself.

[1:22:00] >> I'll second that motion.

[1:22:02] >> Yep. And then Colleen,

[1:22:04] >> I'll recuse myself. Yes. [laughter]

[1:22:08] >> Any discussion?

[1:22:10] All in favor say I.

[1:22:12] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:22:14] >> All right. So now your options are this

[1:22:17] is to are to consider those without

[1:22:20] Colleen's input and ratify and approve

[1:22:24] all payments made to LW wall

[1:22:25] constructors for 2025 and yeartoyear

[1:22:28] date 2026.

[1:22:31] Oh,

[1:22:32] >> to ask well I want to give you full

[1:22:34] disclosure options. You can feel that

[1:22:37] there was malfeence here and something

[1:22:39] done wrong and decide that you want to

[1:22:42] seek repayment or reimbursement from LW

[1:22:46] wall constructors

[1:22:48] or take no action. So I want to make

[1:22:50] sure you have all of those out there so

[1:22:52] that again that transparency and you get

[1:22:55] to decide how you want to move forward

[1:22:57] from there.

[1:22:59] I would make a motion to reconsider all

[1:23:03] the payments for to L wall constructors

[1:23:07] in 2025 and 2026

[1:23:11] >> having Colleen recuse herself

[1:23:13] >> then so approval of those.

[1:23:15] >> Yes.

[1:23:18] >> All right. I'll recuse myself from the

[1:23:19] vote.

[1:23:20] >> Yes.

[1:23:22] >> Any more discussion?

[1:23:24] All in favor say I.

[1:23:26] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:23:29] >> All right. Thank you for indulging me on

[1:23:30] that long- winded

[1:23:32] >> Chris. Um,

[1:23:34] >> thank you for the resolution

[1:23:36] of it.

[1:23:38] >> Uh, moving on a new business we have

[1:23:40] combining the park lots. Um,

[1:23:44] across the street there's four four

[1:23:48] different lots and in an effort to uh we

[1:23:51] are changing the zoning for parks.

[1:23:55] actually that's in the works at the APC.

[1:23:58] Um, but I would like uh to make a motion

[1:24:02] that we ask Chris to move forward with

[1:24:05] combining the four lots into one across

[1:24:07] the street for uh

[1:24:11] their new park plan project. And and

[1:24:15] before you do that, authorizing the town

[1:24:18] president to to work with me because it

[1:24:21] it's going to actually be a pretty

[1:24:22] simple process, but it'll take the two

[1:24:24] of us just notify and communicating that

[1:24:27] with the real estate office and then

[1:24:28] they can get that done pretty easily.

[1:24:30] So, just need your authorization for

[1:24:32] both of us to take those actions.

[1:24:35] >> I'll make that motion to um move forward

[1:24:38] to let Joyce Schmidt work with Chris to

[1:24:40] combine the four lots in the park.

[1:24:44] I'll second it.

[1:24:45] >> Any discussion?

[1:24:48] All in favor say I.

[1:24:50] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:24:52] >> Here's the four lobsters.

[1:25:00] » Okay. Uh

[1:25:02] now we're going to open a public hearing

[1:25:05] for ordinance number 2026-05,

[1:25:08] the 2027 budget on the first reading.

[1:25:14] Uh

[1:25:17] so is there anyone who wants to speak

[1:25:19] for or against the 2027 budget in the

[1:25:24] audience?

[1:25:29] Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to

[1:25:31] speak for or against the 2027 budget

[1:25:37] proposed budget?

[1:25:42] Hearing none, I will close the public

[1:25:44] hearing

[1:25:48] and I will make a motion that we approve

[1:25:51] on first reading the proposed 2027

[1:25:54] budget

[1:25:56] as noticed to the taxpayers.

[1:26:03] [clears throat] Do we have a second?

[1:26:05] >> I'll second it. Second it.

[1:26:08] >> Any any discussion?

[1:26:11] All in favor say I.

[1:26:13] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:26:16] Uh, INDOT, update from the August 24th

[1:26:19] meeting with the deputy commissioner

[1:26:21] about US12 congestion and 2027 paving

[1:26:25] project lane reduction.

[1:26:31] » You want to take the top on that?

[1:26:33] >> Sure. Um the town of Michigan Shores,

[1:26:37] their town president, um Diana Dumbre,

[1:26:40] actually initiated reaching out to the

[1:26:42] Indiana Department of Transportation

[1:26:45] and they wanted to address some of the

[1:26:47] concerns with US 12 congestion. Um she

[1:26:52] actually then brought together a meeting

[1:26:54] with the deputy commissioner Matt

[1:26:56] Dichley. um Adam Parkhouse from INDOT

[1:27:00] who is their community uh kind of

[1:27:04] leazison outreach person along with

[1:27:07] state representative Randall Novak and

[1:27:09] state senator Michael Bahache met with

[1:27:12] members from the town of Michigan

[1:27:14] Shores, the Dunland Beach Association,

[1:27:17] and the town of Long Beach. Um on August

[1:27:20] 24th, um INDOT informed us that next

[1:27:24] month, October of 2026, they will be

[1:27:27] letting out for bids a US 12 um repaving

[1:27:32] resurfacing project. This project will

[1:27:36] start near Blue Chip Casino. Will then

[1:27:40] head east to the Indiana Michigan line.

[1:27:44] US12 will be converted from a four-lane

[1:27:48] highway to a threelane highway. It will

[1:27:51] be one lane eastbound, one lane

[1:27:53] westbound with a dedicated center turn

[1:27:56] lane throughout that entire stretch that

[1:27:58] I just described. Um, new pavement

[1:28:02] markings will be in place. Uh, Senator

[1:28:05] Bahachic um brought forward a

[1:28:08] recommendation near Notre Dame School at

[1:28:10] Moore Road in US12 that INDOT engineers

[1:28:14] consider placing um school zone signing

[1:28:18] in that area which would um lower the

[1:28:21] speed limit in that area both in the

[1:28:24] morning and when school is letting out

[1:28:26] in the afternoon. Um they weren't too

[1:28:29] promising on that because they said that

[1:28:31] the school property did not touch the

[1:28:33] actual highway, but they would take the

[1:28:35] information back to their engineers. Um

[1:28:37] the 212 um US12 um interchange, that

[1:28:41] intersection was discussed. At this

[1:28:44] time, there are no plans um immediately

[1:28:46] for that interchange there um other than

[1:28:49] some um striping work um pavement

[1:28:52] markings that will occur in the spring.

[1:28:54] Um we did ask if they were considering

[1:28:57] any type of roundabout or you know

[1:28:59] intersection there. Um they said there

[1:29:02] is nothing in the works for the next 5

[1:29:04] years on US12 other than the project

[1:29:07] that will start probably in April of

[1:29:10] next year and hopefully conclude in the

[1:29:12] fall of 2027.

[1:29:15] U the speed limit along US12 um that

[1:29:18] conversation came up. There will be no

[1:29:20] change in the speed limit. it will

[1:29:22] remain as is. And um we asked if this

[1:29:27] project was uh you know full speed

[1:29:29] ahead. Are there any changes in the

[1:29:32] works? And they said nope, it's been

[1:29:34] approved. It's in INDOT's uh capital

[1:29:36] plan and that it'll be letting out again

[1:29:39] in October for um bids and then starting

[1:29:42] construction in the spring of 2027. So,

[1:29:46] um, from the police department

[1:29:48] standpoint, I'm interested to see how

[1:29:49] the intersection of Carwick and US 12 is

[1:29:52] on July 3rd, um, when this actually goes

[1:29:55] down to three lanes. Um, they did do a

[1:29:57] traffic study, they told us, and they

[1:29:59] said that the traffic study came back,

[1:30:01] um, with the car count of a normal

[1:30:04] volume to support the three lane

[1:30:06] recommendation. Um, they did state that

[1:30:09] we do have a heavier traffic count on

[1:30:12] specific months. Um that would more

[1:30:15] align probably with the current

[1:30:17] configuration out there that being a

[1:30:19] four. Um but the engineers are moving

[1:30:22] forward with the three lane

[1:30:23] configuration. We will be putting

[1:30:26] information out in our upcoming town

[1:30:28] newsletter in the spring newsletters and

[1:30:30] we intend on putting this information on

[1:30:32] the town's website as well to begin

[1:30:35] sharing this information with all of our

[1:30:37] residents. Um, but I'm waiting for INDOT

[1:30:40] to give us the specific language that

[1:30:42] they're going to use on their social

[1:30:44] media pages so that we use their

[1:30:47] specific language when we put it out to

[1:30:49] the public. So, if I missed anything,

[1:30:52] both uh council representatives um Anita

[1:30:56] and Joy were at the meeting as well. and

[1:30:58] clerk treasurer measins.

[1:31:01] I think um just a couple things. They

[1:31:04] really talked

[1:31:06] repeatedly about the different studies

[1:31:08] that were done which were important and

[1:31:12] the safety or the calm lane in the

[1:31:15] middle and the traffic studies again.

[1:31:18] and they answered repeatedly questions

[1:31:22] about the intersection of 12 and 212

[1:31:26] that while it may seem confusing to

[1:31:30] people, they really don't have any need

[1:31:33] to put hundreds of thousands of dollars

[1:31:36] into it because they just don't have

[1:31:38] accidents, which to them means that

[1:31:41] people at least pay attention there,

[1:31:44] which I know, you know, I mean, I do,

[1:31:47] but that they just don't have anything

[1:31:50] to say, okay, you might not like it, but

[1:31:53] people are I that was kind of the gist

[1:31:55] of it, right? That people are paying

[1:31:57] attention there and it's working. So,

[1:32:00] they just don't they can't justify with

[1:32:02] the studies that they did on that

[1:32:05] intersection doing anything different

[1:32:08] with it.

[1:32:10] So, hopefully it'll help with the

[1:32:12] traffic.

[1:32:14] >> Yeah, I agree. But they did make it

[1:32:16] pretty clear that their decisions had

[1:32:17] been made and uh we didn't really have

[1:32:21] any input. It was more of anformational

[1:32:23] meeting.

[1:32:26] Okay. Uh police department flock license

[1:32:28] plate reader policy update.

[1:32:34] back um in 2025,

[1:32:37] we

[1:32:39] signed on with Flock Public Safety for

[1:32:42] four license plate reader cameras for

[1:32:44] our community. Um that contract for four

[1:32:47] cameras is $3,000 per camera for a total

[1:32:50] of $12,000 annually. When we initially

[1:32:53] um started the installation of our

[1:32:55] cameras, they went live January of 2026.

[1:32:59] um from the prior to the time they went

[1:33:02] live back on December 8th of 2025, the

[1:33:05] Long Beach Police Department has had a

[1:33:07] policy regulating um the use of our

[1:33:10] automated license plate reader system,

[1:33:13] which is abbreviated by ALPR.

[1:33:16] Um August

[1:33:18] 13th, just a couple weeks ago, Flock

[1:33:22] Public Safety came out with some new

[1:33:25] changes um with their software, with the

[1:33:28] administration of how the um data is

[1:33:33] saved, how it's researched, some

[1:33:35] privacy, some accountability. So, as I

[1:33:38] began to read up on this and also paying

[1:33:42] close attention to a lot of the national

[1:33:45] publicity relative to um flock LPR

[1:33:48] systems, I wanted to make sure that our

[1:33:51] policy meets um the changes that are

[1:33:53] forthcoming. So, in the policy that you

[1:33:56] have before you tonight, the council has

[1:33:59] um the changes that are recommended by

[1:34:03] um Flock Public Safety. one is um an

[1:34:07] evidence um mode. Um that particular

[1:34:10] feature would allow would allow one of

[1:34:12] our deputies to go in and request that

[1:34:16] the um data um from a particular search

[1:34:19] be saved for a longer period of time.

[1:34:22] However, the deputy would have to

[1:34:24] account for that request through the

[1:34:26] documentation of a case investigation.

[1:34:29] having a case report number, all the

[1:34:32] other information relative to an

[1:34:34] investigation must um back up that

[1:34:37] request to save data for longer than the

[1:34:39] 30 days that we have in our policy.

[1:34:42] Um in addition to that um there's a new

[1:34:45] accountability, there's an audit assist

[1:34:48] um feature with the system. Um, this

[1:34:51] audit assist will alert the

[1:34:54] administrators of this software when,

[1:34:58] for instance, if we have a deputy that

[1:35:02] works from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. in the

[1:35:06] morning and we're finding that a deputy

[1:35:08] is getting on the license plate reader

[1:35:10] system at 10:00 a.m. in the morning when

[1:35:13] he's not on duty that would flag it to

[1:35:15] the administrators and would then allow

[1:35:18] us to do an audit into the searches of

[1:35:21] any particular officer. I find this to

[1:35:23] be a very beneficial feature because

[1:35:25] it's a way of policing the system so

[1:35:28] that if we know a typical deputy because

[1:35:30] all of our deputies are on assigned

[1:35:31] shifts. Um, so if they're on a 6 pm to

[1:35:34] 6:00 a.m. and we have a deputy searching

[1:35:36] things at 10:00 a.m. in the morning and

[1:35:38] he's not working an overtime assignment

[1:35:40] or filling in for the day shift deputy,

[1:35:41] it alerts us. And so um, that new audit

[1:35:45] assistance um, is a very good tool. It

[1:35:48] also will alert us if an officer is

[1:35:51] running a particular plate um, for more

[1:35:54] than a certain number of occasions. Um,

[1:35:57] it also has a proactive lockout. it will

[1:36:00] lock the officer out and we'll notify

[1:36:02] the administration that uh this audit

[1:36:05] assist has locked an officer out and

[1:36:08] then we can begin to immediately look

[1:36:10] into the searches in the system to make

[1:36:13] sure that they are legitimate use of the

[1:36:16] technology. Um this also requires case

[1:36:19] codes for any search. um if an officer

[1:36:23] responds to a burglary investigation

[1:36:26] um or let's just say even an alarm call.

[1:36:29] The deputy pulls up at the alarm and

[1:36:31] let's say a red Chevy vehicle four-door

[1:36:34] sedan pulls away from the residence as

[1:36:36] he's arriving at the alarm call and he

[1:36:39] finds something suspicious at the alarm.

[1:36:41] that deputy would then want to get into

[1:36:44] the flock system and would want to put

[1:36:46] the information for that vehicle that

[1:36:48] sped away and begin a search for that

[1:36:50] vehicle. This now requires um before the

[1:36:54] old standards where you could just go in

[1:36:56] there and start searching for any red

[1:36:58] vehicle. With the new audit assist and

[1:37:00] the new accountability system, the

[1:37:02] deputy must enter a case number relative

[1:37:06] to the search. So, for auditing

[1:37:08] purposes, when we go back to look at a

[1:37:10] deputy's searches, it should have either

[1:37:13] an incident report number, which would

[1:37:16] be a criminal case investigation number,

[1:37:19] or what we call a CAD number. A CAD

[1:37:22] number is our computer aided dispatch

[1:37:24] number. Every call that we go on has a

[1:37:27] CAD number. It starts out with 2026.

[1:37:31] The next two numbers would be for um the

[1:37:34] month of September would be 09 and then

[1:37:37] the corresponding number of whatever

[1:37:39] call it is for that month. Um so this

[1:37:41] requires that the officers require case

[1:37:44] codes. Um there is also

[1:37:50] with that um in the policy you have

[1:37:53] tonight the very last section that I

[1:37:56] have added is a accountability and

[1:37:59] discipline section. Um the previous

[1:38:03] policy that was passed by the council

[1:38:05] last year did not have um subsection 9

[1:38:09] in there which is accountability and

[1:38:11] discipline and I will read that in its

[1:38:13] entirety. Abuse or misuse of the flock

[1:38:18] technology at any level is unacceptable.

[1:38:21] Any employee found to have used the ALPR

[1:38:25] technology for purposes outside the

[1:38:27] scope of their law enforcement duties

[1:38:29] shall face disciplinary action up to and

[1:38:32] including termination. Additionally,

[1:38:35] employees may be subject to criminal

[1:38:37] prosecution if found to have violated

[1:38:39] state or federal law as applicable. Um,

[1:38:42] so I wanted to make sure that with the

[1:38:45] new accountability that we had um,

[1:38:47] language in there that also educates our

[1:38:50] officers and alerts them to the fact of

[1:38:52] the penalties of misuse of this type of

[1:38:54] technology. Um, as I indicated earlier

[1:38:57] today that, you know, the most recent

[1:38:59] investigation was very helpful with our

[1:39:01] LPR system and I could, you know, speak

[1:39:04] of a handful of other cases tonight

[1:39:06] where it's been helpful in the past

[1:39:07] year. Um but overall the highlighted

[1:39:10] sections that you have on the policy

[1:39:12] before you tonight um those are the

[1:39:14] amended changes to this policy and I am

[1:39:17] recommending um to the council that we

[1:39:21] accept the amended policy with the date

[1:39:25] of September 14, 2026 as the revised

[1:39:28] date for the policy um update and then I

[1:39:33] would welcome any questions that anybody

[1:39:34] may have as well.

[1:39:37] The only um the only comment I had was

[1:39:40] um something that I know I brought up in

[1:39:42] the beginning which was holding on to

[1:39:45] the um data and um and ours of course

[1:39:50] calls for 30 days and I just wanted to

[1:39:53] mention the um AWS is another

[1:39:56] abbreviation that's used which is Amazon

[1:39:59] Web Services and Amazon Web Services

[1:40:04] automates the permanent deletion of

[1:40:07] footage and plate data, which defaults

[1:40:10] to a rolling 30-day window or shorter

[1:40:12] depending on local agency settings. So I

[1:40:16] think it's important that that um

[1:40:20] residents people understand that it AWS

[1:40:25] does delete the data as requested after

[1:40:30] 30 days as part of their policy

[1:40:34] >> but we're only retaining it for 7 days.

[1:40:37] >> Well that's being updated. So, there was

[1:40:39] an original discussion about 7 days

[1:40:41] because that was Flock's proposal, but

[1:40:43] Indiana retention laws require 30 days

[1:40:48] um with regard to this subject matter

[1:40:51] and it could be longer as Chief Yes.

[1:40:53] summarized in the policy that you know

[1:40:56] investigations and other reasons under

[1:40:58] the law which there's some catchall

[1:40:59] language in there that might dictate

[1:41:01] longer for again valid reasons but

[1:41:04] otherwise our policies by virtue of the

[1:41:06] state of Indiana dictate that it's 30

[1:41:09] days

[1:41:09] >> right and as does AW I mean I'm just

[1:41:13] saying I had those anyhow I'm I just

[1:41:17] wanted to reiterate that 30 days it's

[1:41:20] permanently deleted

[1:41:22] And

[1:41:23] >> thank you.

[1:41:24] >> Just a couple otherformational things

[1:41:26] outside of tonight's discussion on the

[1:41:28] policy. I think just to share with

[1:41:30] everybody is that um

[1:41:34] next year you'll probably see July 1st

[1:41:36] of 2027 a new Indiana state law

[1:41:39] regulating the use of this technology

[1:41:41] and I fully support that. Um I know that

[1:41:44] um Senator Mike Bohachek has already

[1:41:46] reached out to me and Senator Bohachek

[1:41:48] along with a few other legislators are

[1:41:51] working on proposing um legislation for

[1:41:54] 2027 regulating the use of this um

[1:41:58] police technology. I strongly support

[1:42:00] that because I believe that the men and

[1:42:02] women who use this technology need to

[1:42:04] have some guidance on um how this

[1:42:07] technology should be used and they also

[1:42:09] should be made aware of the penalties

[1:42:10] for the misuse of the technology as

[1:42:13] well. Um so you'll probably see

[1:42:14] something forthcoming um next year. And

[1:42:17] then this Friday, September 18th at

[1:42:20] 11:00 a.m. in St. John's, Indiana, um

[1:42:23] Flock Public Safety is going to have

[1:42:26] representatives at the St. I'm sorry,

[1:42:29] the St. John's Community Center on

[1:42:32] Friday and they are meeting with um the

[1:42:35] majority of the Northwest Indiana chiefs

[1:42:38] um to share some of the changes that

[1:42:41] have come forward at Flock and then also

[1:42:43] making themselves available for the law

[1:42:46] enforcement administrations to ask

[1:42:48] questions of them this Friday. and um I

[1:42:51] plan on attending that um because I have

[1:42:53] been reading over and trying to stay um

[1:42:56] up to date on a lot of this information

[1:42:58] that's coming out. So, just wanted to

[1:43:01] share that asformational for you.

[1:43:04] >> Thank you. Uh okay. I'll make a motion

[1:43:07] to approve the flock LPR policy update.

[1:43:12] >> I would second.

[1:43:14] >> Any more discussion?

[1:43:16] All in favor say I.

[1:43:18] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you.

[1:43:23] Request to purchase equipment police

[1:43:24] department two taser 7s which will

[1:43:27] replace two tasers.

[1:43:31] The police department um currently has

[1:43:35] the Axon Enterprise Taser 7 and Taser

[1:43:40] X2. Um, both of these devices, um, the

[1:43:45] newer version is the Taser 7, the older

[1:43:48] version is the Taser X2. These are our

[1:43:52] less thanlethal options that are

[1:43:55] available to our deputies um, to utilize

[1:43:59] in the field um, rather than having to

[1:44:02] resort to the use of their handguns. Um,

[1:44:04] this is a very important piece of

[1:44:06] equipment to our deputies. Um, this less

[1:44:09] lethal option, also known as an ECW,

[1:44:12] which is an electronic control weapon,

[1:44:14] allows our deputies to deescalate a

[1:44:18] situation

[1:44:20] um into

[1:44:22] um an area where less or I'm sorry,

[1:44:24] where less I'm sorry, where lethal force

[1:44:27] would not have to be used. The proposal

[1:44:30] that is before us tonight is to upgrade

[1:44:35] two of our current X2s. Um, which the

[1:44:38] goal through our annual equipment

[1:44:40] purchases is to phase out the X2s. Um,

[1:44:44] the current X2s that we have, they are

[1:44:46] all out of warranty and we want to

[1:44:48] replace them with the X7s. The goal is

[1:44:51] to eventually have only the X7 in our

[1:44:55] equipment inventory. Um, the reason this

[1:44:57] is before the council tonight is that

[1:44:59] the expenditure um exceeds that of a

[1:45:03] $5,000 expenditure. So, we want to make

[1:45:06] sure that we have it before the console

[1:45:08] for review and approval. For two of

[1:45:11] these X7s, the total purchase price

[1:45:16] is $6,55122.

[1:45:21] That is for the two ECW Taser 7s, the

[1:45:27] holsters, the cartridges, the batteries,

[1:45:31] and also includes um $69960ents

[1:45:36] of software. Um the software is required

[1:45:40] for these um because they are

[1:45:43] downloadable devices. Um, so when it is

[1:45:47] deployed in the field, the officers then

[1:45:50] take the batteries from the device, put

[1:45:52] it into the charging station. The

[1:45:54] charging station is then hooked to our

[1:45:56] software system and it gives us a report

[1:45:58] of how long the device was used, when it

[1:46:00] was deployed, all of that data. also

[1:46:05] these devices for information that when

[1:46:08] the Taser 7, if a deputy is to um draw

[1:46:13] the weapon from the holster and activate

[1:46:16] the power switch on the Taser 7 by

[1:46:19] activating the power switch on the taser

[1:46:23] automatically turns on the officer's

[1:46:25] body camera. Um that feature is also

[1:46:27] there. And then um we also have that

[1:46:30] same feature in our holsters that if our

[1:46:34] deputies were to draw their sidearm that

[1:46:37] it also activates the bodywn camera

[1:46:40] system as well. So if the officers walk

[1:46:43] into a a you know hostile situation,

[1:46:46] they don't have time to activate it

[1:46:47] manually by drawing their taser or their

[1:46:50] weapon, it automatically activates the

[1:46:52] bodywn camera. So these are very

[1:46:55] sophisticated um pieces of technology.

[1:46:58] Um they are very expensive as well. Um

[1:47:01] but they do come with a 5-year warranty.

[1:47:04] So both of the devices would be

[1:47:06] warrantied for 60 months. And so we are

[1:47:08] respectfully asking that the council

[1:47:10] approve the $6,55122.

[1:47:14] This would be coming out of the police

[1:47:16] department's 2026

[1:47:18] um equipment line item within our

[1:47:21] operating budget. And I have confirmed

[1:47:23] with the clerk that we do have

[1:47:25] sufficient funds to make the purchase.

[1:47:29] Thank you. Uh I would make a motion to

[1:47:31] approve the upgrade uh of the two tasers

[1:47:35] for 65 $6,55122

[1:47:39] from Axon Enterprise.

[1:47:41] >> I'll second it.

[1:47:43] >> Any more discussion?

[1:47:46] All in favor say I.

[1:47:48] >> I.

[1:47:48] >> Any opposed?

[1:47:52] Uh, moving on to directional boring

[1:47:55] proposal to authorize the creation of an

[1:47:57] ordinance regulating directional boring

[1:47:59] in the town rideways. It's my

[1:48:01] understanding that someone

[1:48:03] bored through one of our storm drains

[1:48:06] for our dry wells.

[1:48:08] >> That is correct. That has happened

[1:48:10] previously. And the concern moving

[1:48:12] forward is phase one of the Lakeshore

[1:48:15] Drive roadway improvement project. Um

[1:48:19] the majority of the new storm water

[1:48:22] infrastructure for that project is going

[1:48:24] to be underneath the center of the

[1:48:25] roadway. Um the infiltration gallery,

[1:48:30] what they describe is 7 ft wide and

[1:48:33] approximately, I believe, 24 in tall.

[1:48:38] in that system will be where our new

[1:48:40] storm water will then be disseminated

[1:48:42] underneath the roadway and will no

[1:48:44] longer fall out to the lake in the areas

[1:48:47] where we'll be putting this new storm

[1:48:49] water um infrastructure in. The concern

[1:48:53] both from the engineering team at HOS

[1:48:56] Engineering and our public safety, our

[1:48:59] public uh works team is that currently

[1:49:03] directional boring for the cable

[1:49:06] companies, the fiber companies, the

[1:49:08] utility companies.

[1:49:10] They will call in for 811, but they

[1:49:13] don't notify the town of where, when,

[1:49:17] and at what address that they're doing

[1:49:19] the directional boring.

[1:49:21] We want to encourage the council to

[1:49:25] draft a ordinance similar to other towns

[1:49:29] and cities, similar to our street cut

[1:49:32] permit where we would have a process

[1:49:35] that they would have to apply for a

[1:49:38] directional boring permit. We would then

[1:49:40] have that connected to the IWorks system

[1:49:43] similar that we do with the street cut

[1:49:45] permits currently with the building

[1:49:47] department. And then we would have

[1:49:49] historical um data to go back and look

[1:49:51] at and making sure that when we have a

[1:49:55] directional boring request, we can then

[1:49:58] share with them the blueprints, for

[1:50:00] instance, of our new Lakeshore Drive

[1:50:02] roadway improvement plan, we can share

[1:50:05] the blueprints and show them that if

[1:50:07] you're going to put in a new fiber drop

[1:50:10] at 2400 Lakeshore Drive, you have to

[1:50:14] bore down to 4T to get underneath. let's

[1:50:18] say our town infrastructure so it's not

[1:50:21] damaged. The concern is if we just allow

[1:50:24] this to continue the way it is with no

[1:50:27] oversight on it. Any directional boring

[1:50:29] company once they call 811 and they drop

[1:50:32] a new fiber line to or a Comcast cable

[1:50:35] line to a home, they could directional

[1:50:37] bore at 24 in and go straight through

[1:50:39] our new infrastructure. We may not

[1:50:41] notice it right away. 6 months, a year,

[1:50:44] three years later, our roadway begins to

[1:50:47] um heave. Um it begins to maybe collapse

[1:50:51] all because of our, you know, storm

[1:50:53] water system was compromised and

[1:50:55] somebody had bored through it. Tom Dolph

[1:50:57] has shared with us um I think it's off

[1:50:59] of LMA portal um where we have one of

[1:51:02] our dry wells that literally has a three

[1:51:05] or 4 inch gas line board right through

[1:51:07] the middle of our dry well. And the only

[1:51:10] way we found this out was because Tom

[1:51:12] was out with the vac truck cleaning out

[1:51:14] the dry well and he sent me a picture

[1:51:16] and I see a yellow PVC gas line that's

[1:51:19] right through our corner of our dry well

[1:51:22] and the boring company put it right

[1:51:24] through our drywall. Um, so

[1:51:27] I was told by our town team that a lot

[1:51:31] of these boring companies when they do

[1:51:34] have incidents of errors in that, a lot

[1:51:37] of these LLC's, they close up overnight

[1:51:39] and then the next thing you know you

[1:51:41] have a new boring company a few months

[1:51:42] later and they're back out boring again

[1:51:44] and there's no oversight on them. So

[1:51:46] they're recommending to the town that we

[1:51:49] come up with an ordinance and direct the

[1:51:51] town attorney through the council's

[1:51:52] direction to have an ordinance to

[1:51:54] protect us. So

[1:51:57] >> yeah and some of I mean already

[1:51:58] shouldn't they when they register have

[1:52:00] bonds in place as well right? So that

[1:52:02] might be just need to make sure

[1:52:05] that that's adequate and that those are

[1:52:08] posted too. So,

[1:52:10] >> do they know when I mean is there I

[1:52:12] don't I don't know maybe Colleen knows

[1:52:14] the answer, but if you're boring and you

[1:52:17] hit something like that, do you know

[1:52:19] that you've hit something and you just

[1:52:21] keep going?

[1:52:23] >> So, I had asked

[1:52:24] >> I don't know. I had asked that very

[1:52:25] question and they said that a lot of

[1:52:28] times um you probably would know but a

[1:52:31] lot of the boring companies aren't this

[1:52:33] is what our team shared probably aren't

[1:52:35] going to be forthcoming to say that they

[1:52:37] might have went through something and

[1:52:39] they just complete the boring and then

[1:52:41] they move to the next project. Um, at

[1:52:43] least now if we have an ordinance in

[1:52:45] place, we have a um like a GIS map where

[1:52:50] we can overlay our water lines, our

[1:52:54] catch basins, our dry wells, our storm

[1:52:57] water lines. I spoke to both

[1:52:59] Superintendent Dolph and Superintendent

[1:53:01] Ashcraft and both of them have informed

[1:53:04] us that they have overlays for the town

[1:53:06] so that if we get a boring request, they

[1:53:08] can provide the overlay to the

[1:53:10] contractor to say this is what you need

[1:53:12] to bore around. This is what you have to

[1:53:14] be careful of. This is the town

[1:53:16] infrastructure that's there. Um, right

[1:53:18] now we we don't find out this

[1:53:20] information and you know, maybe we need

[1:53:22] to charge a fee similar to the $200 that

[1:53:25] we charge for the street cut permit. Um,

[1:53:28] you know, maybe there's a fee we have to

[1:53:30] charge with this as well, cuz there will

[1:53:31] be time that the building department

[1:53:33] will need to spend inputting this into

[1:53:35] eyeworks. Um, our team from both water

[1:53:38] and street will need to take the time to

[1:53:40] provide documents and information to the

[1:53:43] companies. They will need to go out and actually follow up on the boring

[1:53:47] request um in the individual areas as

[1:53:50] well. So, um, these are all things I

[1:53:52] think we need answers to as we develop

[1:53:54] our ordinance. And then um the goal is

[1:53:57] first quarter of 2027. We would like to

[1:54:00] have this in place um starting for you

[1:54:03] know next year. So

[1:54:05] >> do boring companies right now have to be

[1:54:08] registered?

[1:54:10] I was going to add Chris, I believe any

[1:54:12] util my mic's not on. Just to add, I

[1:54:15] believe any uh utilities,

[1:54:19] NIPCO or Comcast all just give the town

[1:54:23] a blanket bond each year. It's not even

[1:54:26] each year. I just had NIPCO update

[1:54:28] theirs because it was it was old, the

[1:54:30] one that we had on file. So, if NIPCO is

[1:54:33] hiring somebody else to do their boring,

[1:54:36] I don't know how that works.

[1:54:39] Well, we'll have to check that out and

[1:54:42] see what their bond I mean it's still

[1:54:44] under their umbrella.

[1:54:46] >> Trust me, from my private life, I had

[1:54:49] plenty of contractors who have even made

[1:54:50] mistakes and NIPCO is very harsh on

[1:54:53] those. Um, and and the law supports and rightfully so, right, things the

[1:54:59] chaos that could be created. So, yeah,

[1:55:01] I'll work with you to look, but I would

[1:55:02] say NIPCO's if they sub that work out,

[1:55:05] it's still their responsibility.

[1:55:08] and and this recommendation was our last

[1:55:11] um project update meeting for the

[1:55:13] Lakeshore Drive paving project. The

[1:55:16] engineering team at HOS recommended to

[1:55:18] us that the town needs to you know

[1:55:20] protect our infrastructure. Um you know

[1:55:23] next year we'll be if we get the grant

[1:55:25] for the CCMG, we'll be putting $300,000

[1:55:28] of storm water infrastructure into

[1:55:30] Lakeshore Drive and the goal is to

[1:55:32] protect that $300,000 investment from

[1:55:34] damage occurring in that. So that's the

[1:55:37] whole overall goal of this ordinance is

[1:55:39] to protect the town's investment into

[1:55:42] our overall infrastructure throughout

[1:55:44] the town.

[1:55:46] >> So Chris, could you put something

[1:55:47] together that we

[1:55:49] >> work on it?

[1:55:50] >> Okay. Uh to include like they'll need a

[1:55:53] permit.

[1:55:57] Okay. Uh moving on to wildlife deer

[1:56:00] management. Before I turn this over to

[1:56:01] you, Kendra, I just want to mention that

[1:56:04] hunting is not a permitted use in our

[1:56:06] zoning code.

[1:56:08] >> What's that? I I didn't hear you. What's

[1:56:10] not permitted?

[1:56:11] >> Hunting is not a permitted use in our

[1:56:13] zoning code.

[1:56:14] >> Mhm.

[1:56:15] >> But it it is permitted if you're in a

[1:56:17] deer reduction [clears throat] um for

[1:56:20] the ordinance that was passed in 2021 or

[1:56:23] whatever that was. Um, if you're doing

[1:56:25] we have a deer reduction ordinance on

[1:56:27] file and if that if we choose to

[1:56:30] implement that that is bow and arrow.

[1:56:33] >> Okay. So,

[1:56:35] um, so I was just going to say I'm not

[1:56:37] looking to get into a debate. We all

[1:56:40] have a difference of opinion and I for

[1:56:42] one do not feel um just because people

[1:56:45] have difference of opinions they're not

[1:56:47] allowed to live in this town. we all

[1:56:48] need to find a way to get along and I

[1:56:51] for one um feel like the best thing to

[1:56:54] do for the town is to implement a deer

[1:56:56] reduction program. Um [clears throat] so

[1:56:59] I'll I'll read my statement and then

[1:57:01] it's a pretty simple um you know yes or

[1:57:04] no. I'm not looking to have a big debate

[1:57:06] or fight or anything like that. It's

[1:57:08] just something I feel strongly about as

[1:57:10] we all do and I respect everyone's

[1:57:11] opinion. Um not all people do obviously.

[1:57:15] So, the deer population in Long Beach

[1:57:17] has reached a point where there where

[1:57:19] this is no longer simply a matter of

[1:57:21] protecting a few flowers or garden

[1:57:23] plants. Residents are taking

[1:57:24] increasingly significant measures to

[1:57:26] protect their property, including

[1:57:28] installing fencing as high as 8 to 10 ft

[1:57:31] around entire properties. Trees are

[1:57:33] being browsed to heights of

[1:57:34] approximately 6 ft and landscaping,

[1:57:36] vegetation, and other property are being

[1:57:38] repeatedly damaged. I have personally

[1:57:41] experienced this problem on my own

[1:57:42] property with approximately 6 to eight

[1:57:44] deer regularly in my yard. Deer have

[1:57:48] torn through netting and fencing and

[1:57:49] cause thousands of dollars in damage to

[1:57:51] trees, grass, bushes, landscaping, and

[1:57:54] landscape lighting. This is not a

[1:57:56] problem that can reasonably be addressed

[1:57:58] through sprays or other plant deterrence

[1:58:00] alone. The frequency and extent of the

[1:58:02] damage demonstrate that we have a deer

[1:58:04] population management issue and we are

[1:58:06] in a deer reduction zone. Long Beach has

[1:58:09] already established a legal framework

[1:58:11] for addressing this issue. In 2021, the

[1:58:13] town council allowed hunting within the

[1:58:16] town and to recognize lawfully

[1:58:17] authorized deer reduction hunting

[1:58:19] programs. The town's previous deer

[1:58:22] reduction proposal contemplated a

[1:58:24] controlled program using qualified

[1:58:25] archers, including traditional bows,

[1:58:28] compound bows, crossbows, no firearms. I

[1:58:32] am therefore asking the town council to

[1:58:34] take the next step and determine whether

[1:58:35] we are willing to move forward with a

[1:58:37] controlled deer reduction program for

[1:58:40] the upcoming deer season under the

[1:58:42] authority already provided by our

[1:58:44] existing ordinances. This proposal is

[1:58:46] different. This proposal is specifically

[1:58:48] limitated limited to participating

[1:58:51] private properties. No hunting would

[1:58:53] take place on town owned property. This

[1:58:55] is not a proposal for the town to

[1:58:57] conduct hunting on public land or to use

[1:58:59] public property for a hunting program

[1:59:01] like others that have been proposed. It

[1:59:04] [snorts] would provide private property

[1:59:05] owners who voluntarily choose to

[1:59:07] participate with a means of addressing

[1:59:09] their deer population on their own

[1:59:11] property protecting their own property.

[1:59:14] Of course, subject to appropriate town

[1:59:16] safety requirements and oversight. The

[1:59:19] program would also be privately funded.

[1:59:21] Homeowners who voluntarily choose to

[1:59:23] participate would be responsible for the

[1:59:24] costs associated with the program. No

[1:59:27] town tax dollars would be required to

[1:59:29] fund the hunt and residents who do not

[1:59:31] participate would not be required to pay

[1:59:32] for it. At this stage, I'm not asking

[1:59:35] the council to approve every operational

[1:59:37] detail of the program. If the council

[1:59:40] agrees that we should move forward,

[1:59:41] these details can then be developed in

[1:59:43] coordination with the town

[1:59:44] administrator, attorney, clerk, DNR, and

[1:59:47] other appropriate stakeholders. That pro

[1:59:50] process would establish the necessary

[1:59:52] safety requirements, hunter

[1:59:53] qualifications, homeowner participation

[1:59:56] procedures, notification requirements,

[1:59:58] oversight, and other safeguards before

[2:00:00] end any reduction takes place. The

[2:00:03] question is straightforward. Does the

[2:00:05] town council support moving forward with

[2:00:07] developing developing and implementing a

[2:00:10] privately funded properly regulated deer

[2:00:12] reduction program parti program program

[2:00:15] on participating private properties

[2:00:17] under the authority already provided by

[2:00:19] the town's existing ordinances? If the

[2:00:22] answer is yes, so I I want to say I

[2:00:26] absolutely love the deer. I think

[2:00:28] they're beautiful, but

[2:00:31] there are so many of them. Um,

[2:00:35] I truly would like to look at how many

[2:00:38] deer are there versus how many deer can

[2:00:41] what kind of deer population can Long

[2:00:43] Beach hopefully support. Um, I would be

[2:00:49] in favor of a deer reduction program. I

[2:00:52] don't know if I would

[2:00:56] I don't know exactly what that would

[2:00:57] look like. I would definitely be willing

[2:00:59] to talk about what it would look like.

[2:01:03] Um I know that the DNR does have a

[2:01:06] program that um

[2:01:10] the the DNR will pay for processing of

[2:01:12] the deer and then if the meat is donated

[2:01:16] to uh homeless shelters and women's

[2:01:18] shelters. So, um, that part of the

[2:01:21] program can be like a very good thing

[2:01:25] for communities like ours because deer

[2:01:27] processing can be expensive. Um, and I

[2:01:31] uh there was a couple other things that

[2:01:33] I I wrote down. Um, I know that Beverly

[2:01:36] Shores does something. I know like my

[2:01:40] friend Miles does is it Dulan Beach? My

[2:01:43] friend Miles is in a head of the call in

[2:01:45] Dulan Beach. I mean, tons of communities

[2:01:48] like ours have the same problems that we

[2:01:50] do. And I love the deer. They're

[2:01:52] beautiful. But I also think that we need

[2:01:54] to think about the health of the deer

[2:01:58] overall. I mean, the scarcity of food,

[2:02:00] you see their ribs sticking out, the

[2:02:03] when when the the males, their antlers

[2:02:05] are all scraggly, that the genetics

[2:02:07] aren't good. Um, I do think we need to

[2:02:11] look into a deer reduction program. Not

[2:02:13] because I hate the deer and I'm mad

[2:02:15] about them messing up my hydrangeas. I

[2:02:18] think we need to look at the overall

[2:02:20] health of the herd or whatever they're

[2:02:22] called. So that's that's my two cents.

[2:02:23] So yes, I'd be willing to talk about it,

[2:02:25] look into it.

[2:02:27] >> Um I would just say that uh the USDA

[2:02:30] uses as their safety guideline

[2:02:33] uh no hunting within 200 yards of any

[2:02:37] residence or any habitable building. So,

[2:02:41] uh, because of safety issues, I'll never

[2:02:44] vote for any kind of a hunt in the town

[2:02:48] of Long Beach

[2:02:50] that I mean, I totally respect

[2:02:52] everyone's opinion, like I said, but I

[2:02:53] would just kind of question that USDA if if they don't allow 200 yards, why do

[2:02:59] we have an ordinance on the books that

[2:03:00] we would have approved that? I mean,

[2:03:02] that doesn't make any sense. And we were

[2:03:04] in 2021

[2:03:05] >> allowed on public lands.

[2:03:07] >> Oh, right. And this is not public lands.

[2:03:09] This is privately funded on private

[2:03:11] homeowners property. So it would not

[2:03:13] involve um

[2:03:14] >> well an arrow can go a lot farther than

[2:03:17] someone's property.

[2:03:20] » I mean I I it we would have to have you

[2:03:24] know a hunter safety course be passed.

[2:03:26] We would have to have

[2:03:29] >> I have I haven't written down all the

[2:03:31] things.

[2:03:32] >> Yeah. I mean I' I've been through this.

[2:03:33] I've talked to Miles. I've talked to the

[2:03:35] all the programs the DNR has been to the

[2:03:37] house and I I totally am I'm in

[2:03:39] agreement like if I if this were to move

[2:03:41] forward I would come back with those

[2:03:43] types of answers and anyone who wanted

[2:03:45] to help that that kind of stuff could be

[2:03:47] ironed out but I'm just like

[2:03:49] um taking a temperature if you will of

[2:03:52] the town council because um it's there's

[2:03:55] no point in you know it's just I I I

[2:03:58] felt the same way 10 years ago or 20

[2:04:01] years ago when we moved here there was a

[2:04:02] few once in a while it wasn't n't a

[2:04:04] problem. I really didn't care about my

[2:04:05] hydrangeas. Maybe I'd get another one,

[2:04:07] but we can't even. Our dog caught mange

[2:04:10] because of the deer. That was literally

[2:04:12] probably an8 to a $10,000 pro diagnosis.

[2:04:15] So, we didn't know what it was until Dr.

[2:04:16] Bailey Bailey figured it out. But, we

[2:04:18] can't sit in our yard. They come out of

[2:04:20] nowhere. They're in

[2:04:23] Anyway, everyone's got their issues or

[2:04:25] everyone's got their their love or not,

[2:04:26] but I used to feel the same way until

[2:04:29] it's just gotten out of control. the

[2:04:30] sheer number of them makes it um for

[2:04:33] everyone who loves them, there's another

[2:04:35] person who hates them. So, I just think

[2:04:36] it's it's the five of us responsibility

[2:04:39] to do what you feel is best in for the

[2:04:41] town or your heart or whatever. And if

[2:04:43] the vote is no, we're done, that's

[2:04:47] totally fine. I mean, I'll be, you know,

[2:04:49] it's not what I want, but that's fine.

[2:04:50] It's everyone's got their opinion. And

[2:04:51] if it's let's get more information, want

[2:04:53] to move forward. And it's an honest

[2:04:56] thing because it's a lot of work. I've,

[2:04:58] like I said, I've talked to Beverly

[2:04:59] Shores. I've talked to Miles. I've

[2:05:00] talked to everybody and

[2:05:03] I'm happy to do it, but not I don't want

[2:05:05] to do it just for I don't know someone

[2:05:09] saving face for the next meeting or

[2:05:10] something. So, um

[2:05:12] >> So, your motion is

[2:05:14] >> Well, before you go further, I just want

[2:05:15] to add as your consideration and not

[2:05:18] everybody's aware there was a recent

[2:05:20] case out of Stallbring's court. um Judge

[2:05:24] Stallbring so locally that resident

[2:05:27] challenged a neighbor

[2:05:29] and while I don't agree with all of the

[2:05:32] facts and some things that were accepted

[2:05:34] the finding was that if zoning so it's

[2:05:37] Nermberg versus RER and there isn't I

[2:05:40] don't actually have the reporter side I

[2:05:42] have the case that I'll share because

[2:05:44] I'm not saying that it's right now it's

[2:05:47] a reported case that's recent and and

[2:05:50] published as of June but the finding was

[2:05:54] that because hunting was not a specific

[2:05:57] use that was allowed in a residential

[2:05:59] district that it was not allowed. Now,

[2:06:02] that doesn't mean that your code is

[2:06:03] apples apples. I'm just as you're doing

[2:06:05] your due diligence, as you said, for

[2:06:06] discussion purposes, I'll share this

[2:06:08] case. Again, doesn't mean it's dead in

[2:06:11] the water. Doesn't mean that even if

[2:06:13] that were the case that you guys can't

[2:06:14] decide you want to change it. But I do

[2:06:17] think that that's a new development of

[2:06:19] reported law that didn't exist the last

[2:06:21] time you guys had this conversation.

[2:06:23] >> But doesn't our code support it the way

[2:06:25] our code is written?

[2:06:27] >> You're you have a you added for that

[2:06:30] hunt, right?

[2:06:31] >> But zoning code deals with uses. And so

[2:06:34] the issue is whether those reconcile

[2:06:37] based on this finding and then whatever

[2:06:39] jurisdiction or ability to uh deal with

[2:06:44] the deal population under the

[2:06:46] jurisdiction of DNR. So you have lots of

[2:06:48] things but I just want to point that one

[2:06:50] out is

[2:06:52] that may say that you need to change the

[2:06:55] zoning code to reconcile or have some

[2:06:57] exceptions based on that or it might not

[2:07:00] be apples to apples. I'm just bringing

[2:07:01] it cuz as you said, you're doing your

[2:07:03] due diligence and

[2:07:05] >> and you know we can see if it's

[2:07:07] applicable here.

[2:07:08] >> Yeah.

[2:07:09] So, um yeah, just to keep it short, like

[2:07:12] I said, I would like to make a motion to

[2:07:15] proceed with moving forward with

[2:07:17] developing and implementing

[2:07:19] um a program. again

[2:07:25] contingent upon the qualifications of

[2:07:28] everything being approved with the

[2:07:31] attorney and with with Mark and and and

[2:07:33] those sorts of things. Like I said, I

[2:07:35] just don't want to waste time going

[2:07:36] through that cuz I've been down that

[2:07:39] road before. So, if there's a motion to

[2:07:40] move forward, um

[2:07:44] do we have a second? Thanks.

[2:07:45] >> I'll second that.

[2:07:48] >> Any more discussion?

[2:07:52] All in favor say I.

[2:07:53] >> I.

[2:07:55] >> All opposed. I opposed.

[2:08:00] >> Sorry. Thank you. Can you

[2:08:02] >> What was that vote? Two to three. So

[2:08:04] two. It did not pass.

[2:08:05] >> It did not pass. Okay. Thank

[2:08:09] >> you. Voted.

[2:08:11] >> Um,

[2:08:13] >> yes.

[2:08:14] >> Same. No.

[2:08:17] >> Okay. Do we have any council comments?

[2:08:23] Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to

[2:08:25] adjurnn.

[2:08:26] >> I'll make the motion to adjurnn.

[2:08:29] >> I'll second.

[2:08:30] Any discussion? All in favor say I.

[2:08:34] >> I.

[2:08:34] Thank you everyone.

[2:08:39] [music]

[2:08:51] » [music]

Long Beach Town Council September 14, 2026

Transcript