[0:00] Uh with that said, uh we should be at

[0:02] the point of finally getting that one

[0:04] closed out. We have notified them of

[0:06] liquidated damages, uh which are in the

[0:08] amount of $28,800.

[0:10] So, it is our intent to collect on those

[0:12] liquidated damages for failure to

[0:14] failure to meet milestone completion

[0:15] dates. And we really want to push it.

[0:18] We're definitely well over the final

[0:19] completion date, too. But, uh um

[0:21] certainly the milestone completion date.

[0:23] » Okay. And then in the future we will

[0:25] probably not um entertain any of their

[0:29] proposals.

[0:30] » Yeah. That Yeah. So any any u any bids

[0:34] coming from that contractor would um

[0:36] likely be rejected.

[0:38] » So So Chris, just for um just for their

[0:41] sake, it mentions the 2026 project being

[0:43] substantially complete, but they will

[0:45] see lots of pipe sticking out of the

[0:47] ground about every two weeks or about

[0:48] every two blocks or a block or so. I

[0:50] believe those are street lights,

[0:51] correct? at this correct utilities.

[0:53] » Yeah. So the work the work to be

[0:55] performed by the uh by the project um

[0:58] contractor is complete mostly complete

[1:00] um new utilities is installing uh

[1:03] lighting on the east side of the road

[1:05] and they wanted to have our contractor

[1:08] complete before they came through to

[1:09] complete those that light installation.

[1:10] So that's why it's happening um

[1:13] sequentially instead of at the same

[1:14] time. So

[1:14] » Do you know a rough timeline on when

[1:16] they plan to have those lights

[1:18] installed? Uh, I thought they said two

[1:19] to three weeks somewhere in that that

[1:21] neighborhood if that sounds right.

[1:22] » Two weeks.

[1:23] » Two weeks.

[1:24] » Yeah.

[1:25] » Okay.

[1:27] » And then there's some work on Highway

[1:28] 19, but that's not related to our our

[1:30] project. So that's something else.

[1:32] » Oh, you mean with the

[1:33] » With the gas going on? Yep.

[1:35] » Because that's in what state

[1:38] » There? It's in the state right away, but

[1:40] private utility.

[1:41] » Okay. Any other questions for Kurt or

[1:45] Chris before we go on to the item B?

[1:49] Okay. If not, we'll get into the First

[1:51] Avenue Southeast uh turnback.

[1:53] » Okay. Uh next item I have for you

[1:55] tonight is related to the First Avenue

[1:57] Southeast uh Lassour County Lassur Cas

[2:00] 60 uh uh potential turnback project. Uh

[2:04] so I believe it's back in June. We are

[2:06] authorized to complete a uh complete a

[2:09] preliminary engineering report um to uh

[2:12] review the uh potential turnback of this

[2:14] roadway from Lisser County ownership to

[2:17] the city of New. Um we have been uh

[2:20] looking at this potential turnback for

[2:23] three years now probably at this point.

[2:25] Um and uh just need to kind of nail down

[2:28] a few things as far as what the cost

[2:30] would be, what the cost shares would be

[2:32] and what the potential improvements

[2:33] would be. So, uh we did uh review the um

[2:37] existing roadway um make um proposed uh

[2:42] uh made recommendations for proposed

[2:44] improvements um and uh some costs and

[2:47] potential funding. Um the the roadway

[2:50] itself we have split into four different

[2:51] areas working from south to north.

[2:53] [snorts] Um area one and area two are in

[2:56] the worst condition. Area two is um from

[2:59] about 11th Street uh circle southeast to

[3:01] about fifth street. southeast. Um, so

[3:05] that would take care of the south half

[3:06] mile line.

[3:13] » So, so we're good. Yeah.

[3:16] » Okay.

[3:16] » You woke me up. [laughter]

[3:19] » So, that'd be the south half mile of the

[3:20] roadway. Uh, the remaining half mile is

[3:22] is considered areas three and four. Um,

[3:25] areas one and two were uh improved. um

[3:29] the middle area two was improved in 1986

[3:32] to show what show how old that roadway

[3:34] was. Um area one was uh in the in the

[3:38] 90s it was 1998 and then area three um

[3:41] the north portion and uh area threes and

[3:44] four uh were early 2000s and then I

[3:46] guess with the more recent Main Street

[3:48] paving project. So um so we have gone

[3:51] through this. We have had a meeting with

[3:53] Lassour County to review um the cost and

[3:55] cost for the project, the potential

[3:57] funding splits. Um and um we did have a

[4:00] very positive meeting with them.

[4:02] Everything seems to be in agreement with

[4:03] what we show in the report as far as how

[4:05] we would um likely go through a a

[4:07] turnback. So, um, as far as the costs in

[4:11] this project, we did, uh, largely match

[4:15] what was performed on the Scott County

[4:18] turnback projects more recently, 209

[4:21] and, uh, 2022. So, we're regarding uh,

[4:25] Columbus Avenue, more most the most

[4:27] recent one. Um, copied identically how

[4:30] the cost share was done on those as far

[4:32] as who paid for what, um, whether it's

[4:34] street cost, sidewalk costs, utilities,

[4:36] and and so forth. Um and uh that's what

[4:40] was used as a guide for preparation of

[4:42] this report. Um so with that said um as

[4:45] I mentioned before working from south to

[4:48] north um we do have costs for um area

[4:52] one uh which we have estimated to be

[4:54] about $850,000 $847,000 total project

[4:58] cost. Um area two we have a total

[5:02] project cost estimated $977,000.

[5:04] that's including engineering and soft

[5:06] costs and all the other associated

[5:08] items. Um and then uh areas three and

[5:11] four have been kind of lumped together

[5:12] since they um would have similar

[5:15] improvements at about $713,000.

[5:18] So areas one and two we are proposing to

[5:20] do a pavement reclamation which is to um

[5:23] leave the curb in place but grind up the

[5:25] black top with the gravel um repave the

[5:27] roadway um remove the excess material

[5:30] and then repave the roadway with six

[5:31] inches of new black top. Um so the

[5:33] roadway would be um same geometrics as

[5:36] it is today just with new surfacing. Um

[5:39] that would be for areas one and two. The

[5:41] south half of 1 Avenue Southeast while

[5:43] the north half is proposed for Melon

[5:45] overlay um because it is in much better

[5:47] condition and that uh um is currently

[5:52] being proposed to uh potentially be a

[5:54] future project whether it happens at the

[5:56] same time or not because it is

[5:58] [clears throat] in much better

[5:59] condition. So there's seven inches of

[6:00] black top on that portion of the roadway

[6:02] which is probably the heaviest roadway

[6:04] in the section in town I imagine with

[6:06] that um section.

[6:10] Uh I mentioned some timing on there. Um

[6:15] the next step in this process uh we do

[6:18] have the the report in front of you here

[6:20] today would be to move into a memorandum

[6:21] of understanding which is to outline the

[6:24] expected cost participation by uh city

[6:26] new and um lassur county. Um and then uh

[6:31] moving after that it'd be moving towards

[6:32] a uh turnback agreement. Um that'd be

[6:36] the more formal process which would have

[6:38] all the same findings um from the

[6:41] memorandum of understanding but would

[6:42] likely be uh take place uh concurrently

[6:44] with with bidding of the project when

[6:46] costs are a little more finalized.

[6:49] There's a process to kind of follow

[6:50] through that. Um the turnback process

[6:53] itself wouldn't be initiated until um

[6:56] likely March at the latest so that the

[6:58] turn back of the roadway at the soonest

[7:00] could happen in uh 2028. Doesn't mean

[7:03] the improvements can't happen before

[7:04] that, but that's when they officially uh

[7:06] would change jurisdiction.

[7:09] Um and that is uh just based on mind

[7:12] cycles as far as when those when that

[7:14] timing would happen.

[7:16] So, uh, with that said, um,

[7:22] I I don't have information on

[7:24] assessments. That wasn't part of this

[7:25] report. That would be something that'd

[7:27] be completed afterwards if the project

[7:28] does move forward. Um that is something

[7:31] that uh we didn't want to include with

[7:33] the u report uh beyond just saying city

[7:36] share of costs because assessments are

[7:38] would not be um something that the

[7:41] county would participate in a cost for

[7:43] determining since they are uh going to

[7:45] be uh providing about 50% funding

[7:47] towards this report that was put

[7:49] together. So we as a city item we

[7:51] decided to leave that one out. So the

[7:54] next step would be a feasibility report

[7:56] and uh if the project moves forward well

[7:58] sorry the next step would be a

[7:59] feasibility report for assessments and

[8:01] then as a project moves forward all your

[8:03] normal um normal improvement schedule

[8:05] for prioritizing [clears throat] bidding

[8:07] and construction all that stuff.

[8:10] So

[8:13] this is all broken down in areas. Is it

[8:15] something that we're planning to do

[8:17] everything next year?

[8:19] » No. So, uh, section one and two

[8:23] » Mhm.

[8:23] » Are the ones that we were proposing that

[8:25] I proposed to the county of last week

[8:26] when we met that we would like to see

[8:28] one and two done. That would be the 600

[8:31] block roughly to the south and then

[8:33] anything north of that was done in 2002

[8:36] 2003ish. Um, that is the proposed just

[8:39] to leave it and just pay the city lump a

[8:41] lump sum payment and then we'll do that

[8:43] down the road. In my opinion, we could

[8:46] hopefully see another 10 years out of

[8:48] that, maybe five years. Obviously depend

[8:50] on Minnesota winner. Um but that that

[8:53] road still has a lot of life in it

[8:54] before we would do any maintenance to

[8:55] it. So and the county was in in

[8:57] agreeance. Um me, Chris, and Ken met

[9:00] with the the county and it was a very

[9:02] good meeting. They were agreeance on

[9:04] pretty much everything we proposed. We

[9:05] like Chris said, we just pretty much

[9:07] everything the council approved in 2019

[9:09] and 2022 on the Scott County agreement.

[9:12] That's what we proposed to them. So,

[9:16] » And again, I just asked Chris to come um

[9:18] since he was here today already to

[9:20] present this. I know this has been a

[9:21] major top topic for three, four years

[9:24] with that First Avenue on the south side

[9:25] deteriorating as fast as it has been.

[9:27] So, um I thought it was good information

[9:29] for you guys to see where we're at and

[9:31] all the steps that we have been taking

[9:32] already to get to this point.

[9:37] » Um I got a few questions. In area three,

[9:39] you talk about the last sentence on the

[9:41] 2.2 2.3 area 3. Um, improvements to this

[9:47] portion of 1 Avenue Southeast may not be

[9:49] imminently needed, but would generally

[9:51] be expected within 5 years. So, uh,

[9:54] because of that, we are doing a Milan

[9:57] overlay because it's going to be only

[10:00] useful life of five years. Are we doing

[10:02] a Millan overlay and that's only going

[10:04] to last for five years?

[10:05] » Yeah. So the the improvements that are

[10:07] identified in um area three which is the

[10:09] north half mile of the road. So there's

[10:11] a north half I should just um put it

[10:13] that way. Uh we've identified mill

[10:15] overlay of the pavement surface and then

[10:18] ADA improvements are probably the most

[10:19] substantial part of the project on that

[10:21] one. Um the uh sidewalks go through

[10:24] driveways and a lot of those were done

[10:25] the way they were done 20 years ago and

[10:27] don't meet any current standards. But

[10:30] there's nothing in there that's um

[10:32] there's it doesn't have potholes.

[10:34] doesn't have a lot of surfacing surface

[10:35] raveling or anything like that that's

[10:36] creating a a condition where we need to

[10:39] take care of it right now. Uh when I say

[10:41] five years, it's just more of a and and

[10:43] matches at 10 years. So something five

[10:45] to 10 years somewhere in that range. The

[10:47] expectation would be that the the

[10:48] pavement would need a repair a mill

[10:50] overlay um but not before five years. Uh

[10:54] if it goes after 10 years, it probably

[10:56] becomes something more substantial than

[10:57] a mill overlay. But that's just as

[10:59] » Okay. My mind is a turn around. One and

[11:01] two would be done now. three and four be

[11:03] done later.

[11:04] » The the Yeah, that the expectation is

[11:05] that areas one and two would be

[11:07] completed um as soon as 2027

[11:11] and um the areas three and four would be

[11:14] yeah the city has received receive the

[11:16] funding now and take care of that

[11:18] project when you're ready.

[11:19] » Then if we when this happens, we would

[11:22] sign an agreement to take it back with

[11:25] the stipulations that they would still

[11:27] share cost in area three and four.

[11:32] » [clears throat]

[11:32] » Usually in the past, Scott County had

[11:34] paid like Scott County has paid us a

[11:36] lump sum payment for objects that we

[11:38] were looking at doing down the road. So

[11:40] assume that's how we do the same thing

[11:41] as

[11:42] » So they would pay us and then we'd say

[11:44] we just have that money in a

[11:45] » That is correct.

[11:45] » An account uh that

[11:47] » A fund that we could use it when we're

[11:49] ready to.

[11:49] » That is correct. Yep.

[11:52] » Uh talking about new sidewalks. Um it

[11:55] references that the expectations that

[11:57] we'll get traffic back up to what it was

[11:59] and maybe I think it was cited as 2024

[12:01] or something like that. Okay.

[12:03] » Uh in the report,

[12:04] » Something like that. And then this is

[12:06] more of a comment than really a question

[12:08] I guess.

[12:09] » But then you talking about the

[12:11] sidewalks.

[12:12] Um,

[12:15] I think you say something about it be

[12:16] preferable to have on both sides, but

[12:20] I'm not sure if it's financial is the

[12:22] main reason that it's just one side or

[12:24] » And I apologize. I didn't I didn't go

[12:25] into the sidewalks when I when I talked

[12:27] about the project improvements. So, uh,

[12:29] the north halfway, north half of the

[12:30] project primarily has sidewalk on one or

[12:32] both sides. Most of it, both sides. I

[12:34] think the south block or so only has it

[12:36] on one side, the east side of the

[12:37] roadway. Uh we are proposing to extend

[12:40] the sidewalk a six foot wide five or six

[12:42] foot wide sidewalk further south all the

[12:44] way to um highway 29 15th street

[12:47] southeast. Um the uh sidewalk is only

[12:50] proposed on one side of the roadway at

[12:52] this time. Um topographically it'd be

[12:55] difficult to put the sidewalk on the

[12:56] west side due to steep driveways,

[12:58] steeper areas, retaining walls, things

[13:00] are kind of in the way.

[13:01] » The west side is steeper.

[13:02] » There's some steeper driveways. There's

[13:04] some retaining walls too. So it it it

[13:06] becomes one of those things that yes,

[13:07] you can put it in there um but becomes a

[13:09] much more extensive um type of

[13:11] improvement when you've got some

[13:12] driveways that are exceptionally steep.

[13:15] So trying to put in a sidewalk

[13:17] » Means we're probably taking out driveway

[13:19] up to someone's garage practically in a

[13:21] couple spots. So

[13:21] » Yeah, I think of the east side as being

[13:23] more steep.

[13:23] » It's I think there's one driveway on the

[13:25] east side that identified as being kind

[13:27] of tough. Um but uh

[13:29] » Yeah, I was referring to sidewalks, but

[13:31] yeah.

[13:32] » Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Well, the sidewalk

[13:33] through the driveway is okay. Is what

[13:35] I'd say. So, when the the steepness is

[13:37] usually a bigger concern at driveways

[13:38] because we're going to have a grade

[13:39] break to put the sidewalk through there.

[13:41] Um, and then you have to u remove

[13:43] everything around it to make it work.

[13:45] And that's why the north half of the

[13:47] project does have so much sidewalk

[13:48] replacement is because a lot of them go

[13:50] through driveways and a lot of that

[13:51] sidewalks directly behind the curb. Uh,

[13:53] so it's preferable to have sidewalk on

[13:55] both sides if we can take it all the way

[13:57] to the south end. Um, I would say we do

[13:59] have sidewalk allocated into the city

[14:01] share. new sidewalk allocated to the

[14:03] city share of the project. So, um if as

[14:05] you move forward you had the um wanted

[14:07] wanted to install a sidewalk on both

[14:09] sides, you certainly can make that

[14:10] decision. There just be of course a cost

[14:12] associated with that.

[14:14] » Yeah, I'm not advocating that we do

[14:16] both, but I do when I think about the

[14:18] geography in that area,

[14:21] we do have kind of a geographic

[14:23] bottleneck in that part of town. That is

[14:26] our main exit for quite a ways.

[14:30] I imagine when the Tokulski side on the

[14:32] west side might get developed, there may

[14:34] be other access to 29 coming off of

[14:36] there maybe or something.

[14:38] » But um and I'm not saying that we need

[14:41] another pedestrian way there, but that

[14:43] is the most that would be the most

[14:46] widely used pedestrian

[14:48] access to get out of there. But uh

[14:52] unless there's really a community

[14:55] the community really is wanting it or

[14:57] screaming for it. I guess I would I just

[15:00] wanted to ask about that I guess.

[15:02] » Yeah. And we did try to include future

[15:04] pedestrian improvements. So you know

[15:05] hope at some point maybe there's a trail

[15:07] on on 29 or something and we are trying

[15:09] to account accommodate that but uh we

[15:11] did accommodate for it with the 10th

[15:12] Avenue improvements

[15:14] » Or something to maybe happen later on

[15:15] but uh at this point just accounting for

[15:17] it not necessarily designing for it. the

[15:20] east side where I I saw a sidewalk would

[15:22] be going and the steepness there. I

[15:24] think in the diagram you referenced that

[15:26] the hill would be shaved down. I was

[15:28] just curious

[15:29] » Who was going to give us permission to

[15:31] shave down the hill and is that cost in

[15:33] the

[15:34] » There's a cost associated with that and

[15:35] we did have a conversation with the

[15:36] property owner seemed able with it. Yes.

[15:39] » Okay.

[15:40] » So, and I should probably mention that.

[15:42] So, um on the the east part of the prop

[15:44] east side of 10th Avenue um north of uh

[15:48] north of the county 29 that is um

[15:52] private property the center line of the

[15:54] road. So there is a rightway acquisition

[15:55] that is needed before the turnback

[15:56] agreement actually goes fully processed

[15:59] because um the goal is with the turnback

[16:01] um process is this is inherited as a

[16:04] turnback a casad turnback onto your

[16:06] state aid system. So you're able to

[16:08] collect uh needs funding from it. Um if

[16:11] you uh did not collect it that way or

[16:13] not uh acquire that right away or the

[16:16] county did not acquire that right away

[16:17] um as part of the turnback process, then

[16:19] you would not be able to collect needs

[16:20] over the south

[16:22] » Thousand feet of the road or whatever it

[16:24] is.

[16:24] » The uh intersection at 29 is is that

[16:27] area going to be built up more? I mean

[16:30] um on the east side because

[16:33] roundabout or something there's it's

[16:35] really low there.

[16:36] » Yeah.

[16:37] Nothing's proposed as far as what we're

[16:39] talking about with the turnback at

[16:40] least. Um I haven't had any

[16:42] conversations with with uh Dave Tees

[16:45] regarding any improvements at the

[16:47] intersection there though. So

[16:49] um not there there's nothing proposed at

[16:51] the intersection um the far south end.

[16:53] » Yeah. I don't know if it's you know more

[16:55] than I do if that's something that

[16:58] should be considered to build it up more

[17:00] around the sides. But

[17:02] » Will you look for volunteer flaggers if

[17:04] you're interested? flaggers.

[17:07] » Yeah, that that would be likely uh if

[17:09] it's if that's something that was to

[17:10] ever be to go through, there' probably

[17:11] be extensive amount of work going in all

[17:13] four legs of that intersection, make

[17:15] something work. So, outside the scope of

[17:17] a turnback, but certainly could be

[17:19] something that uh maybe in the future.

[17:22] » Yeah, I was just curious when I drive by

[17:25] there, the 11th Street Circle, the U

[17:28] that that just seems like it needs

[17:31] attention. I don't know if that

[17:32] » That's part of this project, but

[17:33] » Oh, it is. Well, it's part of the

[17:35] project, but not part of the turnback.

[17:36] So, that's why we're not even discussing

[17:38] 11th Avenue. That would be added on to

[17:39] the project as that that needs a milling

[17:41] overlay. That still coding failed

[17:42] extremely bad. And it's um we were

[17:44] waiting to get to First Avenue so we

[17:46] could do 11th Street.

[17:47] » Okay. Y sounds good.

[17:50] » Okay.

[17:52] » Any other questions? Uh so, what are the

[17:53] steps we have?

[17:55] » At this point, there's no action to

[17:56] take. I did get a uh and I mentioned

[17:58] these guys. Yep. I did get an example

[18:00] memorandum of understanding from Lura

[18:01] County. Um you just had one other

[18:02] question through that.

[18:04] » So I mean the next step would be the me

[18:06] memorandum of understanding I guess

[18:08] » The cost of the rightaways in the budget

[18:12] » In this plan.

[18:12] » It is not and I'm not sure if we talk

[18:14] about that Ken or not if they're the

[18:16] property owner.

[18:16] » Yeah. [clears throat]

[18:17] » So the property owner would be expected

[18:18] to dedicate that rightway with the

[18:21] development of their property

[18:23] [clears throat] when we have met with I

[18:24] met with the property owner a couple of

[18:25] times and then most recently I think it

[18:26] was Matt Chris myself uh met with the

[18:29] property owner the family I should say.

[18:31] And um I think they realize that whether

[18:34] they develop or a future property owner

[18:36] develops, it's going to be provided as

[18:38] rightaway. I we have not talked cost to

[18:41] acquire that because that would be a

[18:42] requirement of obviously platting the

[18:44] property.

[18:45] » So in the map when you showed the I

[18:47] thought it was the rightways with the

[18:48] blue dotted line. Is that meaning

[18:50] rightaways for all of property owners

[18:52] all the way in section three?

[18:54] It would just be the uh the only one

[18:56] we're looking at needing right away from

[18:58] is going to be the south two properties

[19:00] on the east side. The farm field and

[19:01] then the the um house at the corner.

[19:05] » I misunderstood then. What's the dotted

[19:07] sidewalk

[19:09] » Sidewalk?

[19:10] » Oh, okay.

[19:11] » Yeah.

[19:12] » Acquisition needed on parcels.

[19:15] » Yeah. So, we'd be looking at I believe

[19:16] 40T I think [snorts] is what we

[19:18] identified from center line of the

[19:19] roadway um onto the east side of the

[19:21] road. [laughter] So we did stake that

[19:24] last year just where we thought [snorts]

[19:25] it would be for the property owner to

[19:27] » That acquisition label for those that

[19:30] those two pages just goes to the farm

[19:32] field through there and so they're just

[19:34] signifying that we would need to have

[19:35] that rightway dedicated along that last

[19:39] section on the south part of it.

[19:40] » Okay. Yeah, it wasn't delineated what it

[19:43] was referring to I guess in the map.

[19:46] [snorts]

[19:47] » Thank you.

[19:48] » Any other questions?

[19:51] Then I guess the ne letter C the MS4

[19:56] proposal that uh is in front of us.

[19:59] » Yes. So the next item I have in front of

[20:01] you is uh in relation to the uh MS4 um

[20:05] permit that the city is um now going to

[20:08] be u required to complete. So you're

[20:10] notified a couple years back um that uh

[20:14] the city of New Prague would become an

[20:16] MS4 community. Um, this is in relation

[20:19] to

[20:20] MS4 communities typically are of a

[20:22] certain population. I believe it's

[20:23] 10,000 or larger. Um, or you're within

[20:26] uh a distance of an impaired water of

[20:29] significance. Um, and in this case, Sand

[20:33] Creek is is that waterway. Um and

[20:36] because um that [clears throat] uh uh is

[20:38] an impaired water um the city of New

[20:40] Prague has been notified that you will

[20:42] need to start uh um start preparation of

[20:47] MS4 documentation. So uh this is a uh

[20:51] technically you're into it now. Started

[20:53] January 1, 2026. There's no

[20:55] documentation needed the first year. So

[20:57] you get a lot of little bit of leeway to

[20:59] kind of start getting your bearings and

[21:00] figure out what you need to do. um what

[21:02] we have done is provided you a proposal

[21:04] uh to um assist you with um assist you

[21:09] with that documentation. So um on the

[21:12] first [snorts] level we have a phase one

[21:14] uh approach which is a um largely a

[21:16] document uh information seeking type of

[21:19] a proposal. So um a lot of the items

[21:22] that you need to include with your MS4

[21:24] um permit um are things that you're

[21:26] likely already doing. Um there's

[21:28] probably a lot of things you still you

[21:29] need to start doing. Um and we largely

[21:33] don't know what that is yet. So this is

[21:34] kind of an information gathering process

[21:37] um meeting with city staff uh [snorts]

[21:38] meeting with uh um uh council and and uh

[21:43] going through some sort of a public

[21:44] involvement uh stage here at the

[21:46] beginning. So um the the the biggest

[21:48] things right now uh we've identified for

[21:51] for this information is what we kind of

[21:53] identified in this um schedule at the

[21:55] bottom here and we're we're some of

[21:57] these will get pushed back. We're we're

[21:58] reviewing it here today instead of

[22:00] August 17th. But u we do have a a

[22:02] questionnaire which is a documentation

[22:04] we send out basically saying what are

[22:06] you doing now so we can kind of start

[22:08] adding that information. Um and then we

[22:10] do have um a couple workshops and then

[22:12] uh summary report and checklist. So

[22:15] that's putting together uh basically

[22:18] uh what are you doing, what do you need

[22:20] to do and um this would all be used in

[22:23] preparation of um like we have phase two

[22:25] which is implementation um and that's

[22:29] starting to to uh complete the the items

[22:31] that you need to do for your for your uh

[22:34] MS4 permit which I believe would be um

[22:37] ultimately submitted in in May which is

[22:40] I think it's May every year. So this is

[22:42] kind of one of those things that um

[22:45] it's going to be kind of a learning

[22:47] process

[22:48] um for not FCS has done many of these

[22:51] but just learning what you are doing um

[22:53] at the beginning here and uh kind of um

[22:57] working with the city as far as um what

[23:01] you need to do, what do you want to do,

[23:02] what do you want us to do. And then

[23:04] that's kind of what goes into the second

[23:06] phase is u we do have the ability to

[23:08] complete a lot of this documentation for

[23:09] you but there's probably not much reason

[23:10] for us to [snorts] to do that um at

[23:14] least not uh you know forever because

[23:16] this is something you'll be doing on a

[23:18] annual basis. It doesn't mean you'll be

[23:20] doing this proposal on annual basis but

[23:22] once you start doing the the submitts

[23:24] and documentation that you need to

[23:25] prepare that is something you have to do

[23:27] every year. Um there will be a um every

[23:30] five years you should expect to be

[23:32] audited from that information. Um so

[23:34] there are certainly um certainly some

[23:38] reasons to getting sure you get it I

[23:39] guess the way you need to do it. So

[23:41] you're probably doing a lot of the work

[23:42] you need to [snorts] do pond inspections

[23:43] and things like that um that get

[23:45] implemented into it. Um you're going to

[23:47] have a lot more stuff you need to do.

[23:49] you're going to identify someone that's

[23:51] doing um SWIP inspections, looking at

[23:53] private developments, doing all sorts of

[23:55] stuff you aren't necessarily doing now,

[23:57] but uh so you will have some extra work

[23:59] added to your [snorts] um to your staff,

[24:02] but uh um that's basically what we need

[24:05] to find out. What do you need to do

[24:06] here?

[24:08] » Okay.

[24:09] » So, the proposal we have in front of you

[24:11] here today is an hourly not to exceed uh

[24:13] fee of $29,900.

[24:16] Um this would be led by uh Jeremy

[24:18] Walgrave who's in our water resources uh

[24:20] group. Um Jeremy's met with uh city

[24:23] staff here through a couple meetings now

[24:25] already. I think maybe a year two years

[24:26] ago I think we had the first time and

[24:28] then um early this summer as well. So um

[24:31] he's prepared these [snorts]

[24:33] um he's assisted several cities with

[24:35] preparation these documents and has has

[24:38] a good background for that.

[24:40] So, is this December 15th

[24:43] date a firm date, which means I know

[24:47] we're we're missing some of the earlier

[24:48] dates, but

[24:49] » Yeah. So, the

[24:50] » Something that we can still achieve.

[24:52] » Uh the December 15th date, I would

[24:54] expect we'd still be able to to stick

[24:56] with that. Um or [clears throat]

[24:58] certainly before Christmas. There's

[24:59] nothing in here that says you have to

[25:00] get it done by 4, December 15th. This is

[25:02] just trying to get us prepared so that

[25:04] um we know what we need to do so we can

[25:06] start working on that next step in

[25:07] January is the general idea so that uh

[25:10] then everything do need to get ready for

[25:12] that first uh permit submittal um first

[25:16] documentation is ready for that I think

[25:17] it's I believe it's May has to be

[25:19] submitted. So it's just uh yeah I think

[25:22] a lot of stuff will probably be shifted

[25:23] back a little bit but I don't see that

[25:24] December 15th date changing a whole lot.

[25:26] Maybe I would probably just say before

[25:28] Christmas on that one. Okay.

[25:31] » Besides uh inspections, do you uh

[25:34] foresee us in the future needing to

[25:36] either adjust zoning or ordinances or

[25:39] how we uh allow developments to occur or

[25:42] our permit process?

[25:43] » Yeah, there will some of the items put

[25:45] in there is are going to include

[25:47] ordinance um updates and that's going to

[25:49] be some of the things that whether it's

[25:51] Ken and his staff work on it or

[25:52] something that a CH helps out with.

[25:54] there's some template um items that we

[25:57] can provide and you just kind of orient

[25:58] it towards how you want to work with it.

[26:00] We can write them all directly and do

[26:01] all that kind of stuff. So again goes

[26:03] into our determination of what you need

[26:04] to do. But yes, you will need to change

[26:07] change things um that that are in your

[26:10] um in your city code.

[26:12] » Someone building a commercial building,

[26:14] will they notice notice a difference

[26:16] from yesterday to next year?

[26:20] I'd say most uh most developers that are

[26:22] coming in at this point, we're making

[26:24] them aware of the changes and I think

[26:26] the the items that we're referring to

[26:27] right now are going to still follow

[26:29] those guidelines that MS4 will have the

[26:31] the storm water requirements. Um so we

[26:34] are trying to get them oriented towards

[26:35] that even though it's not officially

[26:37] ordinance, [clears throat] but once you

[26:38] have the permit, I mean you're you're

[26:41] going to be you're going to be the

[26:42] permit holder and people in your in your

[26:44] city are going to have to be following

[26:46] it as well.

[26:49] Okay.

[26:50] » One thing I want to point out, Chuck, um

[26:52] or mayor, sorry. Been talking to you too

[26:54] much lately outside of the council

[26:55] meetings. Um [clears throat] so the cost

[26:58] for this um study is 29,900 like you

[27:01] said. So I pro I budgeted 15,000 for

[27:04] this in the 2026 budget. We've had a

[27:07] good uh budget this year for the storm.

[27:09] Um I anticipate we'll have the

[27:12] additional 15,000 to cover that

[27:14] difference, but if we do not, we would

[27:15] have to take out of the fund balance. Um

[27:18] and we are sitting uh very well in the

[27:21] storm budget so that would not be an

[27:22] issue but this is a necessary step. It's

[27:25] one audit and they miss we miss one

[27:26] thing in our um paperwork and that fine

[27:30] would exceed this. So this is a

[27:31] necessary step but uh on top of that

[27:33] we've talked about this for so many

[27:34] years now that the city will become an

[27:36] MS4 city. It's coming up. We've been

[27:38] preparing for it. Um, we doing a lot. I

[27:40] know we're doing 75% of the things that

[27:42] we should be doing already to be an MS4

[27:43] city, but there are that 25% of stuff

[27:46] that we could be missing that we need an

[27:48] expert that's done this with other

[27:50] cities to understand exactly what we're

[27:51] missing.

[27:53] » What triggers that, Matt, becoming an

[27:56] MS4 city?

[27:57] » Well, this one doesn't You would think

[27:59] New Prairie hasn't changed much in five

[28:00] years. How could this um how did we fall

[28:04] into this lap now? Well, I know a lot of

[28:06] the bordering cities, New Market, Bell

[28:07] Plane, I think just recently landed in

[28:09] at the same time we did. I think it's

[28:11] because what who we dump into. Is that

[28:13] correct?

[28:14] » Yeah. So, if you're over 10,000

[28:16] population or if you are part of a

[28:18] regional water significance or impaired

[28:20] water, I should say. So, Sand Creek

[28:22] wershed is is the reasoning for it. So,

[28:23] once that got designated as an impaired

[28:25] water um and I want to say it was within

[28:28] I can't remember the the range of miles.

[28:30] I think it might be within five miles. I

[28:31] can't recall exactly, but um but because

[28:34] of the proximity to Sand Creek um that's

[28:37] why you got put on to it. So um yeah,

[28:41] even though you're less than 10,000

[28:42] population, so a lot of the other that's

[28:44] why the metro communities are included

[28:45] in there, but uh you were not.

[28:50] » Okay, any other questions?

[28:53] If not, I guess I'll look for a motion

[28:55] to approve this uh proposal, the MS4

[28:58] proposal.

[28:59] » So move

[29:01] And I will second. I got a motion by

[29:03] Rick S, second by Chuck Nikolai.

[29:06] There's no other questions. All in favor

[29:08] say I.

[29:09] » I.

[29:09] » I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0.

[29:12] Thanks, Chris.

[29:12] » See you in two weeks.

[29:14] » Okay,

[29:17] next we have John, right?

[29:20] » Yes.

[29:20] » From Wald.

[29:23] » Unless it's easier for me to do it. I

[29:24] can either way.

[29:26] » Either way. Plug in there.

[29:32] » [snorts]

[29:43] [snorts]

[29:50] » There we go.

[29:53] » Evening, [clears throat] mayor and

[29:54] council. It's good to be back on a

[29:56] different project this time. And this

[29:58] one is is is the relocation of city hall

[30:02] over to the uh building that uh the city

[30:05] just recently purchased. Um we've met a

[30:08] couple of times with city staff to kind

[30:10] of go over some ideas on what we can do,

[30:13] what we can defer in the building and um

[30:16] are looking for some feedback tonight on

[30:19] a couple of different ideas that um are

[30:21] important as we look at this building.

[30:23] not only from a building usage but also

[30:26] from the side of public access. Um so

[30:29] those of you that are looking at this,

[30:31] we do have a public parking area on the

[30:34] south side. It's noted on the drawings

[30:36] here as there's 11 stalls there. Uh

[30:38] there is a sizable parking lot behind

[30:40] the building with 41 stalls in there.

[30:43] And so while there isn't a lot of

[30:45] traffic to city hall, there are

[30:46] sometimes meetings in the council

[30:48] chambers and whatnot that will involve

[30:51] the potential of using uh the back lot

[30:53] for public parking. So we wanted to make

[30:55] sure to present some options that would

[30:57] not only help with access to those

[31:00] public spaces, but also uh enhance

[31:03] security in the building as well, so

[31:04] that we don't have people kind of

[31:06] walking up back ways like what we do in

[31:08] this building here. Um, so this is just

[31:10] to illustrate that there are a number of

[31:12] entries on the building that we'll need

[31:14] some level of control over. And so we've

[31:16] had a number of conversations related to

[31:18] how we want to do that. And we'll kind

[31:20] of talk through that uh as we go through

[31:23] the presentation.

[31:25] So for option number one is kind of a

[31:28] more traditional um look at how we might

[31:30] organize the building. Kind of the main

[31:32] vestibule on kind of the southeast side

[31:35] there at the angle. Um there's a very

[31:37] large open rotunda in there, that

[31:40] octagonal space uh that sets up nicely

[31:43] for some sort of a service counter in

[31:45] that area. And so what we would envision

[31:47] is capturing probably about half of that

[31:49] area uh for city staff to have a

[31:53] singular uh service counter in that

[31:55] building. So kind of combining those

[31:57] into one location so that uh the public

[31:59] coming in has kind of a one-stop shop

[32:01] for city services. Um, a couple of

[32:04] things to note in that lobby is there is

[32:06] no security in that lobby from uh what

[32:09] we're noting in this option as the

[32:10] council chamber. So, we would add some

[32:12] [snorts]

[32:12] some doors in that area to allow uh for

[32:16] the public to kind of be in that public

[32:18] area and the staff spaces and the

[32:21] council chambers uh would be secure and

[32:24] only opened based on uh usage. Uh this

[32:28] option here would add two handicap

[32:30] accessible toilets. We have done a

[32:32] preliminary occupancy count of the

[32:35] council chambers and based on the usage

[32:37] of that and the square footage of that

[32:39] space it kind of dictates how many

[32:40] restrooms we would need in that public

[32:42] area and two are the number. So we are

[32:45] proposing two uh unisex bathrooms in

[32:48] that area non-gendered toilets. Uh we do

[32:51] have um a service counter that we're

[32:55] proposing to have um impact resistant

[32:58] glass, not ballistic glass, but impact

[33:00] resistant glass, kind of similar uh but

[33:02] more uh designed into that space. Uh a

[33:05] little public uh terminal in there. Um

[33:07] and then a kind of a sub lobby area

[33:09] leading into the council chambers. Uh

[33:11] this option here envisions uh doing some

[33:14] renovation in that corner by the council

[33:16] chambers to not only add a toilet but to

[33:18] add a a conference room in that area. So

[33:21] not unlike the conference room that's

[33:23] downstairs in this building. Something

[33:24] that's in the more public area so that

[33:27] uh we don't have uh to escort people

[33:29] into the back area. We are showing a

[33:32] council chambers as oriented to the

[33:34] south. So the council would sit on the

[33:36] south side against that southern part of

[33:38] that octagon octagonal area there. We

[33:41] are suggesting that that existing side

[33:43] door would be a safe and secure way for

[33:47] uh city staff and council to exit that

[33:49] space should there be some emergency

[33:51] that's necessary that so that we don't

[33:53] have to go back through the public area.

[33:55] Um and then from our conversations with

[33:57] staff, we have added a um side area uh

[34:00] to connect our uh staff positions to the

[34:04] council uh DAS in there. The council

[34:07] disated similar to what you have in

[34:09] here. We are budgeting to add uh

[34:12] ballistic protection to the council dis

[34:15] uh safety reasons. It's a traditionally

[34:18] the way that we do uh council chambers

[34:20] uh today. And we do have a desk in there

[34:24] for uh the media location um similar to

[34:27] what you have here. Um during our

[34:30] conversations, [snorts] it was noted

[34:31] that we would likely relocate all of the

[34:34] council equipment that's in here to the

[34:36] new building. And so that would be

[34:37] something that would need to be

[34:38] coordinated uh during construction as to

[34:41] how that IT stuff gets moved over there.

[34:44] Uh the remainder the remaining part of

[34:45] the building would pretty much stay as

[34:47] is today. Maybe a little painting and

[34:49] touchup here and there, but as if you've

[34:52] toured through the building, it's in

[34:53] good shape. So, we don't expect there to

[34:55] be a lot of changes that are necessary,

[34:57] but we would be adding a card access

[34:59] system to the building. And through our

[35:01] conversations with code official, we

[35:03] would need to provide uh handicap

[35:05] actuators to uh any location where we

[35:08] would have the public coming and going

[35:10] from the building. Um, in this option

[35:13] here, we're leaving the existing

[35:14] training room on the east side, uh, as

[35:17] is. Um, and adding a door near where

[35:21] those bathrooms are. So, as it's being

[35:23] used as a polling location with two

[35:25] separate polling areas in there, uh,

[35:27] having access to public bathrooms would

[35:29] be important. So, adding another point

[35:32] of security in that area would allow the

[35:34] public to use those restrooms um, if

[35:37] there is a need for that.

[35:40] When we go to option two, uh we had some

[35:43] conversations related to um usage of the

[35:48] east training room versus the um

[35:51] octagonal space. And we had some

[35:53] conversations related to the the parking

[35:56] lot on the north side, having more

[35:58] parking available there. Would it be uh

[36:01] possible to put the council chambers in

[36:04] that training room and have it

[36:05] completely separated from the rest of

[36:07] the building? uh we would still provide

[36:09] access to those public restrooms. That

[36:11] would solve uh the need to provide two

[36:14] bathrooms off the main lobby. Uh in this

[36:16] version, we would only need one unisex

[36:18] bathroom off of the main lobby. It would

[36:21] retain the octagonal space as a training

[36:23] room in future growth for the city. Uh

[36:26] and the rest of it would remain the

[36:28] same. It's just a different way of

[36:30] looking at it. And that's one of the key

[36:32] components that we would like to um get

[36:35] feedback from the council uh tonight. So

[36:38] I'll pause there before we go through

[36:40] the um the current estimate for the

[36:44] project and u look for any questions

[36:46] from the council we would like to get

[36:49] some consensus on which option that we

[36:51] want to go with so that we can advance

[36:53] the drawings to the next stage. Is the

[36:56] yellow meaning construction or does

[36:59] yellow mean something in particular?

[37:01] » It's where we're doing the most

[37:02] renovation. Yes.

[37:03] » Okay.

[37:05] And I guess more question for Josh. I I

[37:07] was just surprised when I looked at this

[37:08] that there aren't that many offices. Are

[37:11] we still having

[37:14] do we have enough

[37:16] space for the individual staff members?

[37:19] » Yes. So, if you were to count current

[37:21] city hall staff members today, we have

[37:22] about 12 people that work out of city

[37:24] hall full-time. So, when you look at the

[37:27] various spaces, there's the what amounts

[37:30] to four kind of office environments. If

[37:33] you make that one a council uh a

[37:35] conference room, you the one, two, three

[37:38] kind of as they go around the curve.

[37:39] There's a larger space that could work

[37:41] as an office. Um, right now we're kind

[37:44] of viewing it more as like a supply

[37:45] closet, copers, all the noisy stuff that

[37:49] we deal with, a kind of a work room with

[37:50] maybe a desk in there.

[37:52] » Then there's another a fourth office

[37:54] kind of across that little hallway there

[37:56] then.

[37:56] » And then you end up having um

[38:00] kind of going south there, you've got a

[38:03] large enough space that you can put four

[38:04] or five kind of workstations in there.

[38:07] And then in that front lobby area, the

[38:09] staff that would are the most direct

[38:11] with the public all of the time, there's

[38:13] enough space for three or four

[38:14] workstations kind of right up front

[38:16] there um for those people that deal with

[38:18] the counter on a consistent basis. So

[38:20] you end up dealing with I guess roughly

[38:23] that gives you

[38:25] uh off top my head

[38:26] » 13 14

[38:29] » 13 spaces without really having to jam

[38:31] people into spaces that don't make

[38:33] sense. Um, like I said, then as you get

[38:35] into it, I mean that that works that

[38:37] work office space is large enough you

[38:40] could fit desks in there in the future

[38:41] if [clears throat] you have to.

[38:42] » And then ultimately, as we kind of

[38:44] talked through this whole process, um,

[38:46] depending on which way you went, you

[38:47] would have a space on one side that

[38:50] would be able to be expanded into in the

[38:53] future if you saw a staff staff

[38:55] expansion, if that became something that

[38:57] um, was a big need of the city at the

[38:59] time. So when you walk in, are you

[39:02] envision or am I to envision that

[39:05] there's a person standing on that part

[39:08] that's diagrammed as a wall

[39:10] » Is as a service counter that would be

[39:12] actually like a a built-in desk service

[39:15] counter.

[39:16] » But I Yeah. And I don't know at least we

[39:18] talk it doesn't sound like there's

[39:20] somebody working directly at the

[39:21] counter.

[39:22] » Yeah. To clarify we based on our

[39:24] conversations we want the most

[39:25] flexibility there. So staff would be

[39:27] sitting at their workstation and then

[39:28] whoever would walk up to the counter,

[39:30] whether it's somebody to see the

[39:32] building official, planning and zoning

[39:34] question, a finance question, uh the

[39:36] staff would come up to the counter to

[39:38] service them. So it'd be more of a

[39:39] standup work area uh on both sides.

[39:42] » So it wouldn't be someone sitting there

[39:44] then?

[39:45] » No, not permanently. No.

[39:46] » Okay. So otherwise the spacing didn't

[39:48] seem to see seem right if you have four

[39:51] three or four people behind a person

[39:54] sitting at the front here. So those

[39:56] those beige dashed things are intended

[39:58] to be workstations for staff.

[40:01] » Okay.

[40:03] » So in my [clears throat] packet I see

[40:06] the

[40:08] um proposed budget for option one

[40:12] » But not for option two and

[40:14] [clears throat] the pages are

[40:15] sequential.

[40:16] » Correct.

[40:17] » Um what would be the proposed budget for

[40:21] option two? uh the because there is more

[40:24] construction that's needed for option

[40:26] two with adding a vestibule and um into

[40:30] the council chambers and some of the

[40:32] additional work that would be needed in

[40:33] there. Uh our opinion is is that the

[40:35] cost estimate is negligible between the

[40:37] two of them. So council can make the

[40:39] decision based on operationally what

[40:40] works the best.

[40:42] » I'm surprised by that because you're

[40:44] eliminating a bathroom and that the

[40:46] savings there is going to be eaten up by

[40:48] the

[40:50] » The training room. it's within, you

[40:53] know, it's within5 to$10,000 between the

[40:56] two of them. And we can certainly run a

[40:57] detailed estimate on option two. Uh

[41:00] tonight was to give you kind of an idea

[41:01] where we're landing from, you know, kind

[41:03] of the traditional putting the council

[41:05] chambers in the octagonal space. Um and

[41:08] once we kind of get that decision, we

[41:11] can u finalize the details of what it's

[41:13] going to take to do it and update it uh

[41:16] at our next council update.

[41:19] I guess in my opinion having the council

[41:22] chambers in the octagonal

[41:24] area makes more sense to me to keep that

[41:30] training room open for expansion of

[41:33] employees and perhaps more cubicles

[41:36] um if needed in the future.

[41:42] » I would agree with you Maggie.

[41:45] [clears throat] That's a very large room

[41:47] and it could have multiple uses.

[41:49] » Correct. Yeah, it's a nice bit of

[41:51] flexible space to have available.

[41:52] » Yeah,

[41:53] » I'm good with option one.

[41:55] » Yeah, I also agree with Maggie's

[41:57] statement, too. I think the the look

[42:00] that that council chambers on option one

[42:04] I think gives it

[42:06] a unique look and I think that's

[42:11] » We have access to the parking lot from

[42:15] that public exit then

[42:17] » Yeah if you look if you go back to the

[42:19] site plan um there is a sidewalk that

[42:22] leads to that side door so either coming

[42:25] our thought was for council meeting

[42:28] night, we would have the lobby, the main

[42:30] lobby area be open, but also have the

[42:32] ability to utilize the back parking

[42:33] area.

[42:35] » I Yeah, I mean, for all of this, I would

[42:37] assume staff will always be parking up

[42:39] in the north lot, kind of like we do

[42:40] here now. Um, and then even if with you

[42:44] guys with key cards to get in, whether

[42:46] that's locked or not, you guys would

[42:47] have access. So, if you wanted to park

[42:49] them behind, too, you just have access

[42:51] to that back door, leaving that front

[42:53] lot open for any visitors. Is is there

[42:56] one uh option that you feel provides

[42:58] more value to the taxpayer than the

[43:01] other?

[43:02] » Initially

[43:04] um there was some intrigue about the

[43:06] training room because of its you know

[43:08] location and that type of stuff but I

[43:10] think from looking at kind of a more

[43:12] traditional formal council venue. The

[43:15] octagonal room kind of fits better for

[43:17] that because as you can see you're

[43:18] sitting at a desk with angles in it

[43:20] already and so that room tends to to

[43:23] lend itself to that. The only caveat is

[43:26] it's got a lot of windows in it and so

[43:28] um we just have to be able to control

[43:30] daylighting and some of that type of

[43:32] stuff in there. So, um if you want my

[43:36] opinion on this, I think option one also

[43:38] probably provides the best flexibility

[43:40] in the future, but we wanted to at least

[43:42] explore a couple of different ideas for

[43:43] you.

[43:45] » Yeah, I like option one. And um the

[43:47] thing I don't like about it

[43:49] » Is you're cornered in there. So there's

[43:51] no escape

[43:53] » Or

[43:53] » If there was uh something going on with

[43:55] the residents

[43:56] » In option one.

[43:57] » Yeah.

[43:58] » Well, so there there is that staff exit.

[44:00] And that's kind of why I know we talked

[44:02] of where they're positioned and but how

[44:05] you could potentially build that in a

[44:07] way that that provides an exit if

[44:09] needed.

[44:10] » Yeah. That staff is there is that a

[44:13] closet in in between

[44:16] If you look to where the council would

[44:17] be sitting,

[44:19] » The the dark line, is that [snorts] just

[44:20] like a half wall or?

[44:22] » Yep, that's just a half wall. That's it

[44:24] would be kind of like this ramp here,

[44:25] but maybe with a more formal wall to

[44:28] kind of blend it in.

[44:32] » Uh, are most new buildings uh putting in

[44:36] ballistic protection? Yes.

[44:38] » Is that a pretty standard thing now? I

[44:41] have since uh I don't know probably a

[44:44] third of way my through my career uh

[44:46] we've been putting ballistic material in

[44:49] uh council desks to be able to give you

[44:51] the ability to protect in place if

[44:53] necessary

[44:54] » And it's only in the desk then that this

[44:56] would be in

[44:57] » Y

[44:57] » Nothing.

[44:58] » We are proposing to put film on the

[45:01] exterior windows to provide some level

[45:03] of impact resistance to those existing

[45:06] windows in there just because we have

[45:08] such a large quantity of windows. Uh

[45:10] certainly that's a budgetary decision

[45:12] you can make, but it seemed prudent

[45:14] based on how much glass is in there for

[45:16] us to have some amount of impact

[45:18] resistance to um council changes

[45:21] » And that just and just for their sake

[45:23] kind of talk there's different ways you

[45:25] go about that. you could physically

[45:27] replace the glass,

[45:29] » Which was the much higher cost option.

[45:31] And then similar to I'm assuming like

[45:33] when you put the window tint on your

[45:35] window, there's a film you can put over

[45:37] it that just

[45:38] » I guess probably like putting a

[45:39] protector on your screen on your phone,

[45:41] just provides a little bit more

[45:42] resistance than what the glass provides.

[45:44] » There's a lot of products that came

[45:46] about with a lot of the school work that

[45:48] we do that have transitioned into a lot

[45:50] of our government projects as well, just

[45:53] all the research that's been done out

[45:55] there. So what we're trying to do is

[45:56] just slow people down.

[45:58] » Chief Applin, were you consulted in any

[46:01] of this?

[46:04] » Just at a high level, but I haven't been

[46:05] a part of the conversations.

[46:07] » No.

[46:08] » Thank you.

[46:13] » Is staff get ballistic material, too?

[46:15] » Yes.

[46:15] » Okay.

[46:16] » Mhm.

[46:19] » What are you saying?

[46:20] » Just smile [laughter] at me.

[46:21] » Just ask.

[46:23] because I care about you.

[46:25] [clears throat] Thank you.

[46:26] » You'll be expected to wear a target on

[46:29] yourself.

[46:30] » So I I think Bruce, are you in thinking

[46:32] option one is a better option? I I think

[46:36] » The parking was the only concern I had

[46:38] on that. But I think if you have access

[46:40] to the back way,

[46:41] » Yeah,

[46:41] » That that's me. I

[46:44] » So I assume that consensus is option

[46:46] one.

[46:47] » Yes, for me. Yes.

[46:48] » Yes.

[46:50] for me. But

[46:51] » Yep, we will uh continue to build some

[46:54] details around that. We would enjoy to

[46:56] review with the council at a future date

[46:58] the design of the dis and what that kind

[47:00] of public facing piece would look like.

[47:03] Um we should look at the budget a little

[47:05] bit. Uh we did a little bit more

[47:06] detailed budget uh on this based on um

[47:09] our being on site and some of the design

[47:12] work that we've done. Uh and right now

[47:14] including a roughly about a $23,000

[47:18] estimated contingency, we're at roughly

[47:20] about $480,000 in construction. Now,

[47:23] this assumes that a general contractor

[47:26] is doing all of the work. There has been

[47:27] some conversation about using city

[47:29] resources to do that. We have not taken

[47:31] that into consideration at this point in

[47:33] time because literally we're just at the

[47:35] point of finalizing the design and we

[47:37] would just need to make sure that that

[47:38] doesn't have overburden uh your other

[47:41] staff people. But our intent would be to

[47:43] come back with a recommendation on uh

[47:46] how we would split that work scope out.

[47:48] A couple of other things to note in here

[47:50] that still need some uh additional work,

[47:54] which is the technology uh budget. We've

[47:56] established roughly about 115,000 as a

[47:59] set aside budget for technology just

[48:01] based on conversations. Um obviously we

[48:04] would like to reuse uh what we have at

[48:06] city hall right now. Um and so that may

[48:09] have some impact on that as well as uh

[48:12] this does include uh an updated card

[48:15] access system for the building. So this

[48:17] includes modification of doors to

[48:19] provide for card readers and all of that

[48:22] stuff is included uh in the budget. Uh

[48:24] there's some miscellaneous site stuff

[48:26] that will likely be done by the city for

[48:28] parking lot lights and the sign out

[48:30] there and then an overall u project

[48:33] contingency for unknown. So, at at the

[48:36] schematic design level that we're at,

[48:38] it's it's critical to have some uh

[48:41] contingencies in there. And as we go

[48:43] through the next phase of construction

[48:45] documents, we'll be working on uh kind

[48:48] of the final engineering, figuring out

[48:50] what things we uh can save on and then

[48:54] bringing back a final recommendation to

[48:55] council at a future meeting. One thing I

[48:58] would like to note guys is when you look

[48:59] at that technology budget um one of the

[49:01] things that we are having to adapt

[49:04] around is I guess you could currently

[49:06] call city hall the brains of our city

[49:08] operations. We have connected all of our

[49:09] buildings with fiber and a lot of the

[49:12] brains of the city are located here. So

[49:14] we have to move those brains somewhere.

[49:16] Um and this building uh fiber is about a

[49:19] block and a half away. And so, um, part

[49:22] of that technology budget is just

[49:24] acquiring fiber and then working through

[49:26] our own utility that can do the work to

[49:27] run that fiber, um, over to the new city

[49:31] hall location. So that way we have the

[49:33] new building connected to the rest of

[49:34] the hub. But also then working with, um,

[49:37] Bruce and staff and just trying to

[49:39] figure out the is would this location be

[49:41] the best place for a new brains or

[49:43] center of the city or are we better off

[49:45] putting it in like the power plant or

[49:47] that sort of thing. um hopefully trying

[49:50] to eliminate maybe a need if in 30 40

[49:52] years to have to move it again, but

[49:54] that' just be conversations we have

[49:56] internally.

[49:59] » Well, Josh, when we walked through it

[50:01] was going to be a couple of bathrooms

[50:02] and we thought 200,000 and then it was

[50:04] then we gave you a check for 650 and now

[50:07] it's 760 and we're not even done yet.

[50:09] » You didn't give me a check for anything.

[50:10] Well, but we in our budget meeting you

[50:12] asked for 650

[50:13] » And that was where we I I guess we

[50:15] working with Matt, him and I kind of

[50:17] walked the building and we made a very

[50:18] general guess as to what we thought it

[50:20] would be. And so um

[50:23] » Yeah and like I said that that was with

[50:26] staff doing some work and as as John

[50:28] mentioned this is uh all contractor work

[50:32] at this point, contingencies built in,

[50:34] that sort of thing. So, as we get

[50:36] through this process, my hope is that

[50:37] this will get narrowed down a little bit

[50:39] um to a more realistic number. So,

[50:43] » I guess I was asking for clarification

[50:45] on that, too, because the number seems

[50:47] more than what we talked about. And when

[50:50] we talked about a $400,000 construction

[50:53] budget, I'm not sure maybe we the when

[50:56] we use that word, it might mean

[50:57] something different for different

[50:59] people. So, I'm not sure if that was

[51:00] meant to mean the construction budget or

[51:03] the direct construction scope, but in my

[51:06] mind, 400,000 meant the whole

[51:08] construction part of it.

[51:10] » So, I'm not sure. Are we thinking of

[51:13] trying to get that back down to what we

[51:15] thought around that 600,000 number or

[51:17] » I I mean that that's our hope obviously

[51:19] and I think working through some of this

[51:20] a lot of it even comes down to what what

[51:22] do we need to do now? What can we do

[51:23] later? Um some of it comes down to um so

[51:27] uh and we're certainly aware this is

[51:29] higher than what was anticipated. Uh but

[51:32] this this is the scope that we've talked

[51:34] about. Our intent is to continue talking

[51:36] about it and figuring out if there are

[51:37] some ways to to save. We haven't even

[51:40] had our mechanical engineers out to the

[51:42] building yet to try to figure out what

[51:44] we can reuse, what needs to be modified.

[51:46] So we have placeholders in the budget

[51:47] for what we would expect for restrooms

[51:49] and that type of stuff and ventilation

[51:51] systems. And so as we go through the

[51:53] next stage of design, we're going to do

[51:55] that field verification and make sure

[51:56] that we are looking to reuse what we can

[51:59] in the building.

[52:02] » Okay. So obviously you understand which

[52:06] direction the council would like to go.

[52:08] Uh what's the timeline then of the next

[52:11] step, Russ?

[52:12] » So we're early September. I think uh we

[52:15] had proposed to be pretty well done with

[52:17] the schematic design here in September.

[52:19] So, we're on track right now for where

[52:21] we would hope to be. I think we had

[52:22] allowed a couple of months to do final

[52:24] design documents. And so, I'll work with

[52:27] Josh and staff to kind of finalize the

[52:29] details on that. And we'll look to come

[52:31] back to council probably some midpoint

[52:33] in the next phase of design. So,

[52:35] probably sometime in October

[52:37] » To uh review kind of the final design of

[52:40] the council chambers and we'll have an

[52:42] updated estimate at that time. and we

[52:44] expect to be done with the bidding

[52:46] documents probably in that November time

[52:48] frame sometime. So, we're still on track

[52:49] to what we had expected at this point in

[52:51] time.

[52:52] » Okay. Any other questions?

[52:56] » All right. Well, looks good. Thank you

[52:58] very much.

[52:59] » Well, thank you.

[53:00] » Thank you.

[53:05] » Next on the agenda is

[53:07] ordinance for introduction. Is this a

[53:09] first reading uh Ken of ordinance number

[53:11] 367? This would be the first reading.

[53:14] So, I give you a little background. Um,

[53:16] council will recall we did do some um

[53:19] minor amendments to the unified

[53:21] development code on July 6th that were

[53:24] adopted. Um, those are some quick

[53:26] changes we needed to make. Some

[53:29] kind of more we'll say more important

[53:31] and more critical amendments from when

[53:33] we adopted that back in March that

[53:36] [clears throat]

[53:37] immediately. uh this next set of

[53:40] amendments and we hope we've got uh most

[53:42] of them subject to u one final item

[53:46] we're bringing back to the planning

[53:47] commission in September regarding solar

[53:50] power but um planning commission did

[53:52] review uh these changes in July and held

[53:55] a public hearing at our August 26

[53:58] meeting. We did not have any um public

[54:01] comment received at that meeting on

[54:02] August 26, but just wanted to go over uh

[54:05] in general terms the uh changes that are

[54:09] proposed. So number one um in the

[54:12] unified development code wanted to

[54:14] specifically call out that shipping

[54:16] containers and storage containers are

[54:18] not allowed as structures or permanent

[54:21] buildings. Uh there's a set of concerns

[54:23] and then also concerns meeting building

[54:26] code. That was something that um just by

[54:29] [clears throat] the fact that it wasn't

[54:30] listed specifically as being uh allowed

[54:33] that they were prohibited but we want to

[54:35] make that clearer because we did have

[54:38] some inquiries about that. Um so the

[54:41] language he put together surveyed number

[54:43] of the cities in the area what they were

[54:45] using for that clarifying language that

[54:47] is included in that [clears throat]

[54:49] uh clarifying again language regarding

[54:52] uh the city requirement building permits

[54:54] for all solar systems and explicitly not

[54:56] allowing ground mounted solar um again

[55:00] the city code or the uh UDC does not

[55:03] specifically allow these at this point

[55:06] but we're just clarifying the language

[55:08] that one you need a permit if put solar

[55:10] panels on the road. And then number two,

[55:13] uh, specifically listing that ground

[55:16] mounted solar are not allowed that

[55:18] inquiries. Well, ordinance doesn't say

[55:20] they're not allowed. It's like, well, by

[55:24] state statute, if you don't allow it, it

[55:27] is prohibited. So, we're just clarify.

[55:30] Uh, third one regarding parking vehicles

[55:33] in uh front yard or even back or

[55:36] sideyard or residential properties. Uh,

[55:39] put that language in there. So, you

[55:40] can't just park on the grass. We had uh

[55:43] again some questions of people saying,

[55:45] "Well, I don't have a passenger vehicle.

[55:48] I have a commercial vehicle." So, we're

[55:51] uh suggesting making the change saying

[55:53] that any vehicle parked in the grass in

[55:55] your front yard, side yard, rear yard is

[55:57] not allowed unless it's on a paved area.

[56:00] So, that's another change.

[56:04] Um we do allow them in certain cases to

[56:06] be on gravel I should note but this is

[56:09] saying yeah improved but um this is

[56:12] being changed so that you can't make the

[56:14] argument that it's some commercial

[56:16] vehicle that um you get an exception for

[56:20] just know we're clarifying that you

[56:22] can't park.

[56:24] Uh fourth one uh regarding that uh

[56:28] commercial industrial building that are

[56:30] accessory. Um previously to the UDC

[56:33] being adopted we didn't require any

[56:36] design requirement requirements for

[56:38] them. PL commission had quite a bit of

[56:40] discussion about this uh following the

[56:42] public hearing uh at the meeting in

[56:45] August and there's kind of a list of

[56:47] different things that they have to meet

[56:49] from uh using varying colors, varying

[56:51] roof lines, windows,

[56:54] accents to the the garage door. Um and

[56:58] the way the code was written, they had

[57:00] to pick two of these criteria which

[57:01] applied to principal buildings. We've

[57:04] never intended that to apply to

[57:06] accessory buildings. So planning

[57:07] commission determined that they should

[57:09] pick at least one of these aesthetic

[57:11] requirements um that are kind of a menu

[57:14] of options that they can pick. So that

[57:17] was what the planning commission

[57:19] one of the design elements that have to

[57:21] be incorporated into your commercial or

[57:23] industrial accessory buildings like a

[57:25] shed or a garage.

[57:28] Uh fifth one regarding decks. This is

[57:31] another kind of clarifying item. U we've

[57:34] had more and more people wanting to put

[57:35] decks around uh pools that are in their

[57:38] backyards. And the way we had UDC

[57:40] written and even going back before we

[57:42] did the big adoption and change back in

[57:44] March, it was just that you couldn't

[57:46] have a deck less than 20 ft from your

[57:49] rear lot line that was intended for

[57:52] attached decks u and for fire uh

[57:58] separation purposes and and that type of

[58:00] thing. With these detached decks, they

[58:03] really are like an accessory building

[58:05] and pools are already allowed to be

[58:06] within uh 10 ft of a rear side lot line

[58:10] anyway. Um and this was limiting people

[58:13] to not have detached deck above ground

[58:17] pool is really what this would

[58:20] play with. This is saying that as long

[58:22] as they're not attached to the home,

[58:24] they just accessory structure setbacks

[58:27] of basically 10 ft instead of

[58:30] um wasn't an issue that comes up a ton,

[58:32] but didn't make sense that a detached

[58:35] deck should have the same setback

[58:37] requirements as an attached one because

[58:39] it didn't have the fire connection uh to

[58:42] the principal structure. Main reason why

[58:45] we wanted

[58:48] and then uh finally we said multiple

[58:51] references to zoning ordinance in the

[58:54] UDC and I should have said other

[58:57] sections of the UDC

[59:00] zoning ordinance. So that was really

[59:02] just kind of a clean up item. So believe

[59:05] we have uh all the major items again

[59:07] planning commission is going to hold a a

[59:09] hearing on the the topic of solar again

[59:12] um at their meeting on September 16th um

[59:14] that's coming up next week. Um so that

[59:19] will be kind of item I think of this

[59:21] batch coming out of the uh the new UDC

[59:25] that again was was initially the major

[59:28] adoption was handled back in so it's

[59:31] been working well um so far but we just

[59:33] believe that there's some good

[59:35] clarifying uh items uh that the planning

[59:38] commission wanted to review and did make

[59:40] the motion to move in front of you for

[59:42] introduction here uh tonight at the

[59:44] council level

[59:46] » And what

[59:48] issues are coming before the planning

[59:50] commission with regards to solar.

[59:52] » Um solar specifically, I think the issue

[59:56] was we're actually not I shouldn't just

[59:58] say solar also regarding alternative

[1:00:01] energy systems. So like um windmills

[1:00:06] and I think specifically Sean brought up

[1:00:08] at the meeting, correct me if I'm wrong

[1:00:10] Sean?

[1:00:10] » No, you're right. There was once uh

[1:00:12] particularly a case that came up in Oro

[1:00:15] with a housemounted um wind

[1:00:18] » Turbine

[1:00:18] » Turbine that was noisy unsightly

[1:00:22] um and in state statute we can't out

[1:00:25] prohibit them but we can severely limit

[1:00:28] where they're allowed. So that's what

[1:00:30] we're going to be looking at commission

[1:00:32] hearings. And that was a the whole house

[1:00:35] fan type of deal.

[1:00:37] » Uh just a I was rough mounted um

[1:00:40] windmill.

[1:00:41] » We had a lot of them in the city.

[1:00:43] » What's that?

[1:00:44] » We did a lot of them in the city.

[1:00:46] » Yeah. And we're not saying we prohibit

[1:00:48] them. We just wanted to put some some

[1:00:50] guard rails up. So we we have been and

[1:00:52] are continuing through this week to do

[1:00:54] research on what other cities have for

[1:00:57] um regulations for them because right

[1:00:58] now we don't have any.

[1:01:02] And mine was not even housebased. I

[1:01:04] think the orno case was it was out in

[1:01:07] the backyard, but it was 30 feet high.

[1:01:10] It was huge. So,

[1:01:12] » In the farm, huh?

[1:01:13] » Yeah.

[1:01:14] » So,

[1:01:15] » I'm surprised. Don't we have uh

[1:01:17] residents with shipping containers being

[1:01:19] used right now as structures to store

[1:01:22] things?

[1:01:23] » You know, um I hope we don't because

[1:01:27] » By the ordinance, we we do not allow

[1:01:29] them. So, they have not been allowed and

[1:01:31] we've never had anybody ask to put one

[1:01:32] in the yard. So, if there are any,

[1:01:34] they're legally placed.

[1:01:35] » They're next to the chickens.

[1:01:36] » Would people ask the coupe?

[1:01:39] » Um, I don't know that everybody would

[1:01:40] ask, but if we if we have seen one and

[1:01:42] we have not at this point, we would

[1:01:44] definitely address it.

[1:01:45] » Maybe we should drive through the alleys

[1:01:46] again.

[1:01:48] » We definitely can do that. And if you

[1:01:50] know of an area where we should look, be

[1:01:52] happy to to hear that.

[1:01:53] » No, no, no, no, [laughter]

[1:01:56] » No. I think it is uh

[1:02:00] I I think that's that's an area that can

[1:02:02] be u

[1:02:04] there might be some people that have

[1:02:06] arguments about that one but

[1:02:09] » Contentious

[1:02:10] » Some of the structures that people store

[1:02:11] stuff in

[1:02:13] don't look as good as the storage

[1:02:15] containers.

[1:02:19] [clears throat]

[1:02:20] [snorts]

[1:02:21] » So any other questions?

[1:02:24] If not, I guess I'll make a motion for

[1:02:27] the first reading of ordinance number

[1:02:29] 367.

[1:02:31] » I'll second.

[1:02:32] » We got a second by Maggie Bass. There's

[1:02:34] no other questions, comments. All in

[1:02:36] favor say I.

[1:02:37] » I.

[1:02:37] » I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes.

[1:02:40] » Thank you.

[1:02:41] » We don't have any ordinance for

[1:02:42] adoption. Next is a resolution dealing

[1:02:45] with officially naming

[1:02:48] the area where the pops

[1:02:52] stage is being built. Is that correct?

[1:02:55] » Correct. Um, so I think I'd given you an

[1:02:58] update maybe a month and a half ago or

[1:03:00] so. Um per the adopted policy for uh

[1:03:05] park naming uh that we have uh council

[1:03:08] adopted policy I should say had quite a

[1:03:11] lengthy uh process that had to be

[1:03:13] followed beginning with the um park

[1:03:15] board and ultimately ending with the

[1:03:17] park board [clears throat] uh to collect

[1:03:19] names collect a public um comment period

[1:03:22] and all the comments on the names that

[1:03:24] we had solicited. So, we had six names

[1:03:26] initially that were um solicited.

[1:03:28] Milpond Commons, Central Park, D'vorox

[1:03:31] Landing, Harmony Park, Milpond Park, and

[1:03:35] I'm going to butcher this from Mavka

[1:03:38] Park, which I believe is a park in the

[1:03:40] Czech Republic um that were uh formally

[1:03:43] submitted, and we had given the council

[1:03:45] an update on those at that time. So, we

[1:03:47] did have a public comment period that

[1:03:49] had run for most of the summer, and that

[1:03:52] wrapped up on August 10th. Uh the park

[1:03:54] board did review uh the names and again

[1:03:57] the comments that were on all the names.

[1:03:59] I did include that information in the

[1:04:01] packet here tonight for the city council

[1:04:03] to consider. Uh but ultimately the the

[1:04:06] park board did uh pass a recommendation

[1:04:09] on to the council tonight to um utilize

[1:04:12] the name of Mil Pond Commons for the

[1:04:14] formal name of what we've uh temporarily

[1:04:17] been calling city center where the pops

[1:04:19] facility is located. So, I do have a

[1:04:23] resolution in the packet tonight that

[1:04:25] would uh establish the formal name of

[1:04:28] Milon Commons for that property uh where

[1:04:32] the

[1:04:32] » Before you go into that part, can I ask

[1:04:34] a question?

[1:04:34] » Sure.

[1:04:35] » Why did this come up?

[1:04:37] » Why did it come up is because

[1:04:39] » With the comments part at the end, it

[1:04:40] almost sounds like there's an apartment

[1:04:41] building right over there. So, that

[1:04:43] actually did come up at the uh park

[1:04:45] board meeting with Mil Pond Apartments.

[1:04:49] And the common's idea was that it's not

[1:04:51] just simply a uh park, but rather a park

[1:04:56] with the surrounding development that

[1:04:58] has not yet occurred on the north end of

[1:04:59] the property with the council and the

[1:05:01] concept plan and um all of that small

[1:05:04] area planning that uh the park board and

[1:05:06] the council did a few years back with

[1:05:08] the comp plan that there could be future

[1:05:10] development both north of Pops as well

[1:05:13] as on the u adjacent to the railroad

[1:05:16] tracks on the west side of u the gravel.

[1:05:19] Third Avenue.

[1:05:19] » Well, almost definitely the north north

[1:05:22] end there is going to have to get

[1:05:23] rebuilt up. Yep.

[1:05:24] » I'm just saying that we could sell it

[1:05:27] and everything like that and they could

[1:05:28] put something anywhere they want there,

[1:05:30] but

[1:05:31] » We would be changing the name sooner or

[1:05:34] later from Commons to something else.

[1:05:37] » Yeah. And I I I think the the general

[1:05:39] consensus and again with the public

[1:05:41] comment was the Milon Commons.

[1:05:43] Obviously, one of the other ones was

[1:05:44] Milpond Park. So it wasn't a huge,

[1:05:49] you know, outpouring of park versus

[1:05:52] commons. Commons just had more comment

[1:05:55] in the affirmative for that. And maybe

[1:05:57] Maggie can shed some more light on

[1:05:59] » It. Sounds like it was pretty common to

[1:06:00] have a common.

[1:06:01] » Yeah, Commons, I think, is is also known

[1:06:04] as a gathering place. So, because I

[1:06:07] think of the pops stadium, the storm

[1:06:10] water pond, maybe a

[1:06:12] a trail, and you know, some other

[1:06:15] amenities. It's a place for people to

[1:06:17] gather. So, it's just a a different use

[1:06:20] of verbiage.

[1:06:22] » I think you see it actually on you go

[1:06:24] south of the border down to Mexico. When

[1:06:25] you think like traditional

[1:06:27] Mexican towns, a lot of have that common

[1:06:29] square right in the middle, right?

[1:06:31] Commons. Yeah. In this instance, I think

[1:06:33] common is referring more to the public

[1:06:35] gathering place open to everybody,

[1:06:38] but

[1:06:39] » I think park will kind of screw that

[1:06:42] you're going to have park playground

[1:06:45] equipment type there

[1:06:46] » And I don't think

[1:06:47] » There there may be but

[1:06:48] » Maybe at some time but I don't think

[1:06:51] that I mean growing up in New Prague

[1:06:54] that was always the mill pond area

[1:06:56] » Even when there was no pond but

[1:07:00] I mean I'm you I think that's a a very

[1:07:04] good option for a name. Um because we

[1:07:07] are going to have kind some kind of a

[1:07:08] pond, aren't we? A holding pond of some

[1:07:10] sort on that end.

[1:07:11] » We still hope that

[1:07:15] » Are your buddies at deed having fun with

[1:07:17] you or

[1:07:18] » We're getting there.

[1:07:18] » We're feel like we're this close.

[1:07:21] » Yeah, we're this close in May.

[1:07:23] » Isn't that the feeling Yeah. you had in

[1:07:24] May? The same feeling.

[1:07:26] » Every month we have

[1:07:27] » We're not getting any farther away.

[1:07:28] [laughter] We actually Yeah.

[1:07:31] Well, now if we got a name, tell them,

[1:07:32] "Hey, you got to put the pond there."

[1:07:38] » Any other comments?

[1:07:44] » Okay. If not, I guess I'll look for a

[1:07:45] motion to approve resol resolution

[1:07:49] CC-26-9-08-02.

[1:07:53] » So moved.

[1:07:54] » Officially naming mil pond comments. And

[1:07:57] I got them

[1:07:58] » A motion by Maggie Bass.

[1:08:01] » I'll second it.

[1:08:02] » Second by Rick Syler. If there's no

[1:08:04] other comments, all in favor say I.

[1:08:07] » I.

[1:08:08] » Any opposition? All right, that's fair.

[1:08:10] » I bet you we have to change that one of

[1:08:12] these days.

[1:08:13] » Well, go through the process again.

[1:08:15] » There you go. Uh, there's no general

[1:08:18] business. So, we're now at the

[1:08:19] miscellaneous. Rick, do you have

[1:08:20] anything?

[1:08:21] » No.

[1:08:22] » Bruce?

[1:08:23] » No.

[1:08:25] » Maggie? No.

[1:08:26] » Sean.

[1:08:27] » Um, just a question for Tim. Do we got

[1:08:30] an open house date yet set?

[1:08:34] » We are looking at

[1:08:38] Give me one second.

[1:08:42] October the 24th.

[1:08:44] » Okay, great.

[1:08:45] » So, we're doing our uh

[1:08:48] we do our carving with the cops event.

[1:08:50] » Oh.

[1:08:51] » So, kind of jointly do that at the same

[1:08:54] time. Perfect. Sounds great. Thank you.

[1:08:56] » Yep. Well, we were just uh working on

[1:08:59] the flyers today, so hopefully it'll be

[1:09:01] out here by the end of the week. We can

[1:09:03] start putting that out there.

[1:09:04] » Okay, good. Thank you. That was it.

[1:09:06] » No, that was it.

[1:09:07] » Sean or Josh?

[1:09:08] » Uh yes, real quick. Um, I had a talk

[1:09:12] with the fire chief uh about their

[1:09:15] pension fund and due to some wise

[1:09:17] investments that fund has continued to

[1:09:19] grow and so he wanted to sit down and

[1:09:21] have a kind of a discussion to see if

[1:09:23] there was possibility maybe of using

[1:09:24] some of that funds. As you guys may

[1:09:26] remember, the only way we can use that

[1:09:28] funds is by disseminating it to

[1:09:29] firefighters. So, I know in the past

[1:09:32] generally the council has selected kind

[1:09:34] of a subcommittee of two people and

[1:09:35] myself to sit down um with the rural

[1:09:38] board as well as um kind of the fire

[1:09:40] board and kind of talk through that and

[1:09:42] then bring back any sort of

[1:09:43] recommendation to the council. And so

[1:09:45] I'm just kind of wondering if the

[1:09:46] council wants to go through that process

[1:09:47] again. Um I think the last couple times

[1:09:51] we've done it, it was the mayor and

[1:09:54] Sean, wasn't it? And three of us. But um

[1:09:56] just wanted to check with the council if

[1:09:58] that's kind of process we wanted to go

[1:09:59] through again. Um let me just uh trying

[1:10:03] to understand how that works again. Is

[1:10:04] that just transferring money into their

[1:10:07] pension program?

[1:10:08] » Yeah. So the way that works is cities do

[1:10:10] it a few different ways. What we do is

[1:10:12] we receive a fund. We receive basically

[1:10:16] an amount from the state every year and

[1:10:18] we as a city just act as a pass through

[1:10:19] them to move that over into their

[1:10:21] pension fund. And then when they leave

[1:10:24] the uh service, whether it's like retire

[1:10:27] or slightly early, I don't know the

[1:10:28] exact payout schedules of it, they would

[1:10:30] get a portion for serving within um the

[1:10:34] fire department. And so a lot of times

[1:10:36] when they retire with 20 years and their

[1:10:38] full pension, they would then take a

[1:10:40] lump sum of that. And so generally as we

[1:10:43] um review this and part of it I think

[1:10:45] they um we use uh

[1:10:49] Shannon Brouso kind of looks over that

[1:10:52] fund for them we make sure that that

[1:10:55] fund can [snorts] hold or pay out

[1:10:57] basically all of its current debts and

[1:10:59] if for some reason that drops below 90%

[1:11:02] which I believe it's happened once

[1:11:03] hasn't it Sean were you hearing that

[1:11:04] happen the first time

[1:11:05] » And Chuck there was one time

[1:11:07] » Um the city basically has to come up

[1:11:09] with funds to catch up to that now

[1:11:13] last couple times that fund is hitting

[1:11:15] around 115% of being covered and the

[1:11:18] city said okay there's only one thing we

[1:11:20] can do with this it's not like we can

[1:11:21] recoup it for ourselves like it goes out

[1:11:23] to pay out these funds and so we said

[1:11:25] okay we're going to up the amount of

[1:11:27] retirement for the annual years of

[1:11:29] service

[1:11:30] » So what they're asking is if they can

[1:11:32] increase our pension benefits

[1:11:34] » Yep so right now they're saying our our

[1:11:36] current fund balance is sitting at

[1:11:38] whatever it is I I don't know the exact

[1:11:39] number is there something we could do to

[1:11:41] look at increasing the pension fund

[1:11:43] benefits to use some of that fund

[1:11:45] balance.

[1:11:45] » Okay. So then and I'm not trying to make

[1:11:48] a statement here or anything but just so

[1:11:50] I understand the financial part of it.

[1:11:51] So if we do that increase their benefits

[1:11:54] then there's a greater risk that we

[1:11:55] might fall short in the future.

[1:11:57] » That is correct. That risk exists. I

[1:11:58] know was it a couple years ago we

[1:12:00] started putting away a little bit of

[1:12:01] money at the end of each year when we

[1:12:03] had revenue surpluses just to kind of

[1:12:05] hold as a just in case too for that. But

[1:12:07] yes, obviously as their benefit

[1:12:10] increases, it does increase that risk,

[1:12:11] which is why we then look at it and say,

[1:12:13] "Okay, where is it sitting? What would

[1:12:16] the market have to adjust to potentially

[1:12:18] put us into that default risk?" That's

[1:12:20] » So there's no automatic increase in

[1:12:22] benefits each year.

[1:12:23] » Correct.

[1:12:23] » Is nothing.

[1:12:24] » That is correct.

[1:12:26] » Okay. So

[1:12:27] » Yeah. Yeah. They basically get a benefit

[1:12:28] based off of years of service and what

[1:12:30] we have set the annual benefit at. And

[1:12:33] often it goes two or three years before

[1:12:36] we ever changing

[1:12:37] » Without anything changing. So

[1:12:39] » When was the last time we changed it?

[1:12:40] Was it two years ago? Probably.

[1:12:41] » I was going to say I I thought two, but

[1:12:44] uh it could be as soon as or maybe it

[1:12:46] was last year.

[1:12:46] » It wasn't like No, because I mean Chuck

[1:12:48] wasn't here. It was back when was so I

[1:12:51] think it was two years ago.

[1:12:52] » Okay.

[1:12:55] » Yeah. I'd be in favor of changing it.

[1:12:57] » Yeah. and not doing it dramatically, but

[1:13:00] » And I think that you usually we change

[1:13:02] if we go from like 3,000 to 3,300 or

[1:13:05] like I said, I know we last few years we

[1:13:07] put that analysis into it of okay, if we

[1:13:09] do this, where does that put our fund

[1:13:11] balance and what are our liabilities and

[1:13:13] what would that market likely have to

[1:13:15] change to affect and really affect the

[1:13:18] city because at this point the city

[1:13:20] doesn't put anything into that

[1:13:22] » Where I know some budgeted to put

[1:13:25] something in it. We started a few years

[1:13:26] ago when it was fluctuating quite a bit

[1:13:29] that we just to cover so we didn't have

[1:13:32] some un

[1:13:32] » So do you have it in this budget?

[1:13:35] » Uh no. So yes. Yeah. So we have an so

[1:13:37] yeah we've taken we get to the end of

[1:13:39] the year and say oh we've got these

[1:13:40] excess revenues from the year like and

[1:13:43] we talk to the auditors and they tell us

[1:13:44] a little bit of fund balance like that's

[1:13:46] where we we designate some of that fund

[1:13:48] balance just to set aside kind of like

[1:13:49] we've also done for the aquatic center

[1:13:51] in case for some reason.

[1:13:52] » Right. But I thought for a few years we

[1:13:54] actually budgeted an expense

[1:13:56] » Just so we wouldn't have some huge swing

[1:13:58] just in case.

[1:13:58] » We don't do that anymore.

[1:13:59] » We don't do that anymore.

[1:14:00] » Okay.

[1:14:01] » Okay.

[1:14:04] » I think that housing I think if I

[1:14:06] remember right it was like 60some

[1:14:08] thousand that the city had to come up

[1:14:09] with one time before you and I were on.

[1:14:12] » Yeah.

[1:14:12] » But during like the housing crisis when

[1:14:14] everything

[1:14:15] » Right end of 2008

[1:14:17] » Or something. Yeah. There's only been

[1:14:19] one year I think.

[1:14:22] Yeah, I guess

[1:14:23] » So. Oh, yeah. So, I guess would you

[1:14:25] sorry the whole point of that

[1:14:26] conversation, would you guys like to

[1:14:27] kind of do that whole subcommittee thing

[1:14:28] like we've done before? Like I said, I

[1:14:30] know Sean sat on the last few ones at

[1:14:32] least and has been the mayor, but if

[1:14:34] you'd like a different makeup, we can

[1:14:35] certainly do that, too. It's up to you

[1:14:36] guys.

[1:14:37] » I'd be happy to do it, but if somebody

[1:14:39] else wants to do it, that's

[1:14:40] » Happy to do it, too. If it's fine.

[1:14:42] » It's just an hourlong meeting.

[1:14:43] » I'd be happy for you guys to do it.

[1:14:45] Well, then [laughter]

[1:14:47] » And I I I guess if that's

[1:14:48] » Second motion,

[1:14:49] » If that's the case, I know some dates I

[1:14:51] got kind of right off hand that would

[1:14:53] work if kind of the 22nd, 24th, or 17th.

[1:14:57] I guess I put those in the wrong order.

[1:14:59] 17th, 22nd, or 24th work here this month

[1:15:02] at like six o'clock. So, I think it's a

[1:15:04] Thursday, Tuesday, Thursday.

[1:15:07] Be next Thursday or after that, Tuesday

[1:15:10] or Thursday?

[1:15:11] » I think Thursday probably works a little

[1:15:13] better for me. I don't have my I left my

[1:15:15] phone in my car so I don't

[1:15:16] » So if I call you tomorrow Yeah.

[1:15:18] » Just kind of confirm that.

[1:15:19] » Sure. Okay.

[1:15:19] » Yeah, that's fine.

[1:15:21] » Oh, wait. You have golf on Thursday.

[1:15:23] » Uh

[1:15:23] » I can do Tuesday.

[1:15:25] » The 17th is our last golf meet. League

[1:15:29] meet day.

[1:15:30] » League? Not your last golf day?

[1:15:32] » Well, no, but

[1:15:34] » Okay. I'll I'll call you guys tomorrow

[1:15:35] and see if I can confirm something on

[1:15:36] that.

[1:15:37] » Okay. Anything else?

[1:15:38] » That's all I had.

[1:15:39] » Ken, do you have anything? Robin,

[1:15:42] Kim,

[1:15:50] » I did want to share a little

[1:15:51] information. Um, well, I feel like

[1:15:53] there's so much

[1:15:55] negative

[1:15:57] stuff in the world, social media,

[1:15:59] newspaper, everything. I wanted to share

[1:16:01] a little bit of positive stuff about the

[1:16:02] our community. Um, the last three weeks,

[1:16:05] uh, hopefully I'm not stealing your

[1:16:06] thunder, Chuck, but the last three

[1:16:08] weeks, uh, New Prague held the state

[1:16:10] amateur baseball tournament. Um, while I

[1:16:13] made, uh, while I was there a lot, I

[1:16:15] only made one game, but it I couldn't be

[1:16:17] more impressed with this community. Um,

[1:16:20] there is talking to Nick Shenker, he was

[1:16:22] one of the one of the main guys that

[1:16:24] helped get that tournament here,

[1:16:26] including many. Uh Chuck was part of

[1:16:27] that board and everything, but um

[1:16:29] there's 29,000 people that attended uh

[1:16:32] all the games through four uh four

[1:16:34] venues, three main venues with the

[1:16:36] fourth one. Uh New Prague had the

[1:16:38] highest attendance at uh over 9,313 paid

[1:16:42] attendance. Um

[1:16:45] these events do not take place without

[1:16:47] hundreds and hundreds of volunteers

[1:16:49] throughout the three weeks. And I'm not

[1:16:50] joking. It's hundreds and hundreds of

[1:16:52] people that uh volunteer their time. Um,

[1:16:56] city staff spends a lot of time on that

[1:16:58] field. We are extremely proud of that

[1:17:00] field. Uh, the big renovations that took

[1:17:02] place 10 years ago. We were so excited

[1:17:05] when we see all these people come into

[1:17:06] our community to get to see our field.

[1:17:08] Um, I heard nothing but great

[1:17:10] compliments of how great the field

[1:17:12] conditions were, how great this

[1:17:14] community is, and how do you get so many

[1:17:16] volunteers that are all happy just

[1:17:19] willing to help and uh just make it a

[1:17:22] better event. Um, I just I really cannot

[1:17:26] express how excited I was. Someone

[1:17:28] that's born and raised in New Prague,

[1:17:30] New Prague means the world to me. Um,

[1:17:32] just seeing everybody come together and

[1:17:33] make this vent, this event, I would

[1:17:36] argue one of the best events. Um, I

[1:17:39] think a lot of the people I talked to

[1:17:41] would say the same thing. So, one, I

[1:17:43] want to thank all those people that did

[1:17:44] that uh, volunteer their time. I want to

[1:17:46] thank my staff for all the time they put

[1:17:48] into that field. Um,

[1:17:51] a lot of time, a lot of money has

[1:17:53] obviously been put into that field. Uh,

[1:17:55] a lot of money that, uh, this tournament

[1:17:58] raises to put back into that field. Um,

[1:18:01] really every dollar they make goes back

[1:18:03] into that field and it gets lets us do a

[1:18:05] lot of the projects we've done. So, I

[1:18:08] really just want to thank everybody in

[1:18:09] the community, staff. Um, it was an

[1:18:12] amazing event. and uh coming down hole

[1:18:16] 18 on Sunday when the class B tournament

[1:18:18] was. I thought they were all cheering

[1:18:19] for me, but then I realized they

[1:18:20] weren't. Um but it was really

[1:18:23] impressive. That's all I wanted to say.

[1:18:24] Thank you uh to Chuck, everybody that

[1:18:26] volunteered, if any of you guys did. Um

[1:18:29] it was I know I'm rambling on, but it

[1:18:31] was a very special event. So, I just

[1:18:32] wanted to say that.

[1:18:33] » And we all thank you guys because I

[1:18:35] heard that you did a lot of work on this

[1:18:37] too, Chuck. So,

[1:18:38] » Yeah. No, I to reiterate that. I mean, I

[1:18:41] think we had a lot of positive feedback

[1:18:44] from people who've never heard of New

[1:18:46] Prague, uh, because we had a lot of

[1:18:49] class C games, which they came two or

[1:18:51] three hours, they drove like a New York

[1:18:54] Mills and and, uh, Buffington and all

[1:18:57] this stuff and they come in and they

[1:18:58] were not only impressed with the ball

[1:19:01] field, but the community as a whole. And

[1:19:04] uh I I think it really showcases that we

[1:19:07] uh are doing the right things in this

[1:19:10] community and uh we got great workers.

[1:19:13] Matt, your people did a great job and

[1:19:15] the board was impressed. I know we did

[1:19:17] it in 2018, we broke a record also and

[1:19:21] this record that we broke uh stood since

[1:19:24] 1961.

[1:19:26] So uh we got to be very proud of of what

[1:19:28] we did. And you are right. Uh the

[1:19:30] volunteers and there's people Johnny was

[1:19:33] there two or three times and and other

[1:19:35] people that you know they they would

[1:19:37] look on sign up genius and they they

[1:19:39] didn't care if they were there six

[1:19:40] hours. They would sign up for different

[1:19:42] shifts if there was gaps in it and we're

[1:19:44] very fortunate to that. So

[1:19:48] all right Mitch, you got anything?

[1:19:51] Patrick?

[1:19:54] I don't have anything. So I guess I'll

[1:19:56] make a motion to adjurnn.

[1:19:59] Second.

Untitled meeting

Transcript