[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.