[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[54:50] This file is a little bit large, so I'm hoping it's going to cooperate with us today.
[54:57] But so first we'll talk about the horizontal curves.
[55:00] So the first curve that was noted that does not meet 30 or a 35 mile an hour, design is just up here at the end. So this little curve here, you're coming into a stop condition. So that's generally not a significant, you know, if you, if the sightlines are clear and you're coming around a horizontal curve and you know there's a stop sign there, that's not of significant concern.
[55:30] Then the other area horizontally and everybody is quite familiar with this area is the curves
[55:38] in the area of the six-mile creek crossing. So those would mean a 40-mile-an-hour design,
[55:47] let's see if it loads. It meets 35 but not 40. And that's currently posted as a 35-mile-an-hour
[55:55] area through that section. So but it does meet 35 to
[55:59] not 40. Whole road is 35 isn't it? Currently the
[56:03] posted speed limit. So the city determined a rural
[56:08] residential district through the central portion of the
[56:12] roadway. So where there's homes, where there's driveways
[56:15] accessing. So that was in accordance with state statute at the
[56:18] time. And now we can change that. So under the new law, the city
[56:23] It has more control over setting the speed limit.
[56:29] It's a little unclear yet how one does that, because the language says we still have to have
[56:35] an engineering study and all sorts of reasons for why we need to do it.
[56:40] So cities are currently trying to figure out what the legislature meant by what they're
[56:45] looking for for a study.
[56:48] I thought they didn't have to, as long as it was a residential.
[56:52] Correct, but this wouldn't meet the definition of a residential street along its whole corridor.
[56:59] So within a neighborhood where you have house after house after house after house,
[57:05] that would meet the definition of a residential roadway.
[57:09] Where land use on either side of it is single family or multifamily homes.
[57:13] So go back to my question.
[57:15] Isn't the road in fact 35 from end to end or were you saying it changes?
[57:21] It's unposted on either end.
[57:23] There's a posted speed limit in the middle.
[57:26] Okay, got it.
[57:27] And that was in accordance with state statute at the time.
[57:30] The Council passed your resolution to designate
[57:32] that a rural residential district that allowed you to post it at 35.
[57:37] All right, and that's the only posting on the road.
[57:38] It's what a mile and a half.
[57:40] Okay.
[57:42] Thank you.
[57:44] Okay, so that otherwise horizontally, the roads fairly straight.
[57:49] If there weren't any other horizontal curves worth noting when we did our review.
[57:56] Now vertically, so the bottom half here is showing the road profile.
[58:00] So if you drive down the center of the road, each curve has information associated with it
[58:08] and there's design standards for what how steep those curves should be, what the length
[58:13] of the curve should be, and it takes into account things like stopping sight distance.
[58:18] So if you're, let's say you're, you know, coming up a hill and you're going, let's take
[58:25] ourselves somewhere other than here, you're going 65 miles an hour.
[58:29] You need to be able to see over that hill so that you don't suddenly, somebody stopped
[58:35] on the other side of the hill and you smash into them because there's a driveway that
[58:39] are turning into, you can't see them, you're speeding up over the hill.
[58:43] So, you know, design speed is intended to design a road that's safe so that you aren't
[58:49] seeing accidents and things of that nature.
[58:52] So working our way from one end of the road to the other, beginning by kind of road 43,
[59:00] this first little uphill climb does not meet 35 mile an hour design speed, but it does
[59:11] 30 and again you're coming into a stopped condition. So it's pretty close to a 35 and we
[59:20] really in this graphics scanned for 35 mile an hour. So if I don't stop on it it means it's
[59:27] 35 mile or better. So here is the big hill by Schmeeg's house and that one does not need a 35 mile
[59:40] design speed but it meets a 30.
[59:46] And then we have one more little guy at the end that does not
[59:51] meet 30 but it's a stop condition. You're coming up to the intersection of 11 so it's not from
[59:58] technical perspective, it's not...
[1:00:00] As great of a concern. The rest of the curves vary from 40 miles an hour to 60 to 35, 35, 35, 55, 65, 60, 40, 35. So, lots of 35s along the corridor.
[1:00:18] If you were to say that you wanted the design speed to be 40, then there would be more curves that would need to be vertically adjusted in order to meet that design speed.
[1:00:29] So to talk through what that means a little bit, so the length of this curve is
[1:00:41] 250, I can't read this as well.
[1:00:45] But the curve as it exists today is 250 in order to be 35 miles an hour, it would need to be 275.
[1:00:55] So what that means is we would need to drop the road down a little bit and lengthen the curve.
[1:01:00] So you'd be lowering the center of the road in order to achieve that 35 mile an hour curve.
[1:01:10] So as it stands the way preliminary design was authorized, we were directed to match the existing conditions.
[1:01:17] If the council wanted us to start taking a look at shifts in alignment horizontally or vertically from a design speed perspective,
[1:01:27] that would be something you would want to do as we move into final design. So you wouldn't
[1:01:33] want us to go through all of final design and do a bunch of engineering work and then when we
[1:01:38] present final plans say oh hey we need to make that curve a 35 mile an hour curve that now
[1:01:46] would be the appropriate time to make that transition in the in the project if that was something
[1:01:52] that the council was interested in doing and we can come back to that.
[1:01:58] Okay, so the next thing we're going to talk about is the trail.
[1:02:02] So the council authorizes us to look at adding a trail on the north side of the road.
[1:02:09] And as you recall, when we talked about it, there was a lot of questions.
[1:02:13] Well, what does it mean? What's it going to cost? Are we going to need a bridge?
[1:02:17] how are we going to fit this along certain parts of the road?
[1:02:21] We need a wall, three impacts, things of that nature.
[1:02:26] So, the first thing we did was work with the consultant
[1:02:29] to come up with a couple of different alternatives
[1:02:31] for how that trail could be added.
[1:02:35] Given what the recommendation was relative to the road itself.
[1:02:42] So, leaving the road and it's existing horizontal location
[1:02:44] and then adding a trail on the north side with a little bitty ditch in between was one of the alternatives they looked at.
[1:02:54] They also looked at, so this is creating some red flags in terms of how things were tied into the existing neighborhoods,
[1:03:03] neighbors to the north and landed to the north.
[1:03:06] So the consultant ran an option where you put some curving gutter in and then really dropped the trail down below the road.
[1:03:13] When you drive that corridor along the north side there's a lot of areas where the slope slopes away from the road so they were trying to kind of capture what was happening out there.
[1:03:24] Then they also looked at.
[1:03:29] Because then it was starting when you look at battle alternative it was starting to push the trail in certain areas outside of the roadway easement.
[1:03:36] So, the existing gravel road isn't necessarily centered exactly in the existing roadways meant you can picture how that would happen over time when you're dealing with a gravel road.
[1:03:47] It isn't fixed the same way a road with curbing gutter might be.
[1:03:54] So, under that alternative too, we were starting to see that the trail was really starting to skirt onto private property in a couple of sections.
[1:04:04] So, they ran an option where they moved the curb, moved the trail right up next to the curb.
[1:04:10] So, like we have on Smith Town Road, it's actually a sidewalk, but it's the same concept where you have curb,
[1:04:16] but the trail right next to the road.
[1:04:19] This option minimizes the impacts to the adjacent property owners, but it has the highest cost,
[1:04:25] because you're running curving gutter along the whole length of the project,
[1:04:30] and then you would also need to introduce stormwater treatment.
[1:04:33] So, one of the important factors for us to look at with the trail is what permit requirements
[1:04:42] would be triggered by constructing the trail and under water-said district rules if the trail
[1:04:48] drains to a green area that's half the width of the trail.
[1:04:54] The trail is exempt from needing treatment.
[1:04:58] So, if the...
[1:05:00] This trail half the width of it is draining into this green area. We wouldn't suddenly be obligated
[1:05:05] to construct stormwater ponds and storm sewer and whatnot to treat the impervious surface from
[1:05:11] the trail. In the case of this alternative, we would have had to. So I disliked that alternative
[1:05:18] pretty quickly from the cost implication associated with it. I spent considerable time with
[1:05:27] pages and pages of cross-sections of design detail, looking at those three options.
[1:05:33] The impacts to the property owners between the three didn't vary too wildly, but the cost
[1:05:42] of this one being higher caused us to rule that out.
[1:05:47] So, where we landed with what we wanted the consultant to finally drop and cost estimate off of was really similar to that first alternative, the only differences is we ended up shifting the road a little bit to the south so that the footprint was centered in the right away.
[1:06:12] So, there's parts of that road that are not quite centered in the roadway easement.
[1:06:18] We shifted the whole thing back to center, essentially so that we were splitting the impacts
[1:06:23] of the trail between the south side property owners and the north side property owners.
[1:06:27] Because it really was just starting to shove a little bit to far north and outside of the
[1:06:32] roadway easement.
[1:06:33] So, we would have had to acquire easements from the property owners in order to fit that
[1:06:37] trail.
[1:06:39] So you're going south all the way down the road?
[1:06:44] Just to smidge.
[1:06:45] So it's a time mode of couple feet.
[1:06:48] That it's just shipped.
[1:06:49] As you know, we have south.
[1:06:50] One of the residents would like you to go north.
[1:06:53] But we're still operating within the existing.
[1:06:57] This puts a footprint within the city's current authority
[1:07:02] to construct the improvements without acquiring easements
[1:07:04] from any of the landowners if you wanted to build a trail.
[1:07:08] If you built a road, you would normally go down the center of the surveyed right away.
[1:07:17] So when we build a brand new road, we locate it in the center.
[1:07:22] When I reconstruct a road, I typically recommend reconstructing it along the same centerline of the existing
[1:07:30] traveled way to minimize the impacts to adjacent property owners.
[1:07:34] So things like trees, hedges, fences, things like that.
[1:07:41] Just a new road or a reconstructed road?
[1:07:44] It's a reconstructed road.
[1:07:47] But if the intent is to not acquire easements,
[1:07:50] this is the way we would have to shift it
[1:07:52] to fit the trail without having to acquire easements from the adjacent landowners.
[1:07:56] And when we walk through the layout,
[1:07:58] I can show you some of those areas where it was a little bit tight.
[1:08:01] And then the other alternative of course was the no trail alternative.
[1:08:08] So we will walk through the detailed layouts a little bit so you can see the difference between those.
[1:08:15] But I am just going to touch on a couple of things before we go into that detail so you kind of have some background in your head before we get there.
[1:08:26] So, in terms of where we landed on costs, so total costs, including construction, contingency,
[1:08:34] engineering and administrative costs, the roadway only with no trail, as depicted here,
[1:08:40] is about 2.1 million. The roadway plus trail kicked us up to 3.5 million.
[1:08:47] And what you really is driving that, and you can see that on the detailed cost estimate that's in your packet.
[1:08:53] you of course have the expense of the trail base and the pavement. That's obvious. But in order
[1:09:00] to fit that trail in and match it in with existing conditions and not start impacting outside
[1:09:06] of the city's roadway easement, you have to look at constructing some retaining walls in
[1:09:13] some areas and there's just additional grading because you're working outside of just the
[1:09:19] existing roadway footprint.
[1:09:21] So I'll highlight that as we walk through the details
[1:09:24] of the two layouts, where they're different.
[1:09:27] I'll note that the 2020 CIP included 2.482 million
[1:09:33] for this project,
[1:09:36] so you can see here the difference.
[1:09:39] These are the two detailed cost estimates.
[1:09:42] And we've got ditch grading for 95,000
[1:09:45] that we wouldn't have to do in that alternative for where
[1:09:48] we're just matching the road that's there.
[1:09:51] And then we have potentially $460,000 worth of retaining walls.
[1:09:57] That number might be able to be reduced if the land.
[1:10:00] Notice adjacent to some of these areas would be willing to grant temporary gate grading easements and let us grade beyond the right away line.
[1:10:10] So in the farm land or into their front yard, depending on where we're talking about along the corridor, there might be an opportunity to reduce that.
[1:10:18] This is the cost of the trail and itself.
[1:10:21] And then this is additional grading that would need to happen in order to, you know, the trail has to
[1:10:27] It can't just be floating in the air, so you would need to do some grading associated with it.
[1:10:33] I do want to note as the question seemed to be raised today from one of the property owners or it might have been from the hunt club.
[1:10:44] Under the city's assessment policy trails such as a trail along marsh lake road is not assessed.
[1:10:50] So, those under the city's assessment policy, the trail is not assessed, that would need to be funded by the city through the general tax level.
[1:11:01] Under the city's adopted assessment policy, a portion of the street and storm sewer costs would be assessed under the city's adopted policy.
[1:11:11] If we move forward to final designer when we move forward to final design, so we actually know the scope of what we're building,
[1:11:19] we'll end up running the project through the city's policy, and then we'll be coming back to the council for direction on what to do relative to the city's assessment policy.
[1:11:30] So you're not making any decisions about that yet.
[1:11:33] we wouldn't be prepared to present you information.
[1:11:37] What I would like to know is that we've been reconstructing
[1:11:41] a rehabilitating streets since 2003 and every single project
[1:11:46] has included some number of assessment to the adjacent property owners.
[1:11:51] I can tell you that every single project the neighbors had a reason
[1:11:55] why they shouldn't be assessed and why their project was different.
[1:12:00] But I can say with pretty good consistency
[1:12:02] and the advice that we have always given the council along the way is our advice is to try to treat everybody fair and equitably.
[1:12:12] And so that'll be the lens through which you'll be asked to take a look at whatever assessment calculations we might come back with.
[1:12:19] This quarter is unique from the other ones because we have these large tracks of undeveloped land.
[1:12:24] I had mentioned at a previous meeting that I would anticipate we would be going through the special benefit analysis process.
[1:12:30] process, like we did for stagger lake land, to help sort out what the assessments amount
[1:12:36] amount should be relative to state statute pertaining to special assessments.
[1:12:42] So if we move ahead, we'll have a whole meeting just on assessments alone.
[1:12:48] We'll have a whole meeting with the neighbors on assessments alone.
[1:12:51] That'll be a whole piece to come, but the council certainly it's the council's decision
[1:12:55] on how you would address or implement your policy on that.
[1:13:00] So, I did want to just note that there briefly.
[1:13:04] Okay, so we're going to look at the layout review with no trail.
[1:13:08] We're going to look at the layout review with a trail.
[1:13:10] And I just wanted to highlight some things for council discussion
[1:13:15] that will come after we take a look at those two different layouts.
[1:13:20] The big question is trail or no trail.
[1:13:22] So, again, you don't want to change your mind on whether you're building a trail or not.
[1:13:29] once you're in final design. Once you start spending the expensive engineering dollars to produce
[1:13:35] detailed plans and specifications for bidding purposes, you really want to know what you're building,
[1:13:42] otherwise you're going to end up doing a lot of re-engineering, which we've already spent plenty
[1:13:47] of money on engineering on this project. I'd like to see us try to minimize what we spend there
[1:13:53] going forward. But the trailer, neuro-trail decision also sort of spills into some of these
[1:14:00] other things. So the council's gotten some feedback from property owners. So I just wanted
[1:14:06] to highlight some of the things that have been raised to the council as possible scope
[1:14:11] modifications. So vertical and horizontal alignment, we do have a property owner who's requested
[1:14:17] that the horizontal alignment be shifted, which will highlight when we walk through the layouts.
[1:14:24] There also was a little bit concern expressed or at least questions asked relative to those
[1:14:30] vertical curves. So should any of those vertical curves be modified from a 30 mile in our
[1:14:37] design speed to a 35 mile in our design speed? I don't think anybody in the residence realm
[1:14:44] advocating for a higher design speed than that. A question was raised about whether
[1:14:50] berms could be constructed along the road. Council would need to, if that's something
[1:14:56] that Council's interested in, I would need some direction about.
[1:15:00] Who are we screening? How big of a berms? What sort of criteria am I evaluating the berms on? With those take the place of the retaining walls or in addition to the retirement.
[1:15:11] You know, berms are tough because it really depends on the existing conditions adjacent to the property. So if you've got a roll that's going this way in a big giant retaining wall down to somebody's farmland.
[1:15:25] In order to build a berm, you'd have to go way up and then have an even bigger retaining wall on the back side of the berm.
[1:15:34] But in other areas where the road might be draining yards might be draining down to the road, then you could potentially fit a berm in there.
[1:15:45] But if that's, I wouldn't expect you to say tonight, yes, build berms.
[1:15:49] But if that's something you want me to investigate further, I would need that direction because that isn't currently in the scope.
[1:15:55] Why? What do we want berms for? I would imagine that, and the city, you know, certainly
[1:16:03] when development comes in, we'd be looking at Birmingham requirements for the development
[1:16:08] adjacent to a road such as this. It provides screening, essentially, from the roadway.
[1:16:15] Okay. So like the berms along Connie wrote 11, you know, those big, I know, yeah.
[1:16:22] Yeah, but that's for those, it's to hide the developments and protect the noise crack.
[1:16:30] That what it is for the noise.
[1:16:31] Yep, and visual separation between the two.
[1:16:34] And the developers pay for it.
[1:16:36] Correct.
[1:16:38] So is this just for the new development?
[1:16:40] It was a question raised in an email to the council, is whether firms were included in the
[1:16:46] project or not, and they aren't currently, but could be should the council want to explore
[1:16:50] that further.
[1:16:51] Okay.
[1:16:51] The next one was street lights, so this is a noteworthy topic, we've added trails in a couple
[1:17:01] of different locations. The most recent was a long 78th in Cochia. We did end up adding
[1:17:10] some street lights along that trail in order to light the trail. That was occurring in conjunction
[1:17:18] with the whispering hills development so there wasn't anybody living there yet so you know you're
[1:17:23] putting lights in so that when people move in they're used to the lights. Adding street lights
[1:17:28] after the fact can be challenging when you know you have existing homes in an area that are used to
[1:17:36] having it be dark and then you come in and start putting street lights. Street lights are not currently
[1:17:40] in the scope that is that is something that the city council could direct us to take a look at
[1:17:45] me the first question is trail or no trail. My kind of quick answer is that I've the only place
[1:17:52] and I need to talk with the park and director about it, but the place for street lights that
[1:17:57] comes to my mind would be at locations where future roads tie in. So if a new residential street
[1:18:04] connects, you know, typically you'll see a street light at an intersection. So when you're driving up
[1:18:10] you can, you know, find the intersection you're supposed to turn into. Okay. But those could be added.
[1:18:16] Correct. Afterwards. Those street lights could be added after the fact, because it's those are
[1:18:23] Minnesota Valley would be the provider there. It isn't like downtown here where we're paying for.
[1:18:29] And I mean, we'd have to pay for this street lights either way, but we run the electrical system for all of these lights.
[1:18:36] Overhead utility lines, there are some overhead lines along that road.
[1:18:43] In the option where we have no trail, we wouldn't need to relocate or bury those overhead
[1:18:50] power lines. The city certainly could choose to pursue that.
[1:18:55] The city would pay 100% of the cost associated with burying those lines.
[1:19:01] If we're putting the trail in and the utility lines are in the way of the trail, then under a right away ordinance we can require the utility company to relocate.
[1:19:13] And they likely would have to relocate to the non trail side of the road.
[1:19:18] Then we would only pay the incremental costs to bury the lines, the costs to relocate.
[1:19:24] They have to pay, so we would just be paying the incremental cost to bury.
[1:19:30] I think it would be important to understand trail or no trail before you really start looking at the overhead utility lines.
[1:19:37] Typically that's an in-final design, we'll be looking at any impacts to gas lines, power lines, any existing cable lines that might be an area.
[1:19:47] That would be part of the final design scope, so that's one that you could still.
[1:19:52] Do we have room in the existing right away to bury those or would we have to acquire right away to do so?
[1:19:58] We could put them under the trail if we wanted.
[1:20:00] Since it's our right away, we have some flexibility over what our comfort level would be and I think we'd pursue keeping it within the existing roadways, meant versus purchasing additional right away.
[1:20:10] Our goal tends to be first looking at it from the perspective of what's the lowest cost and the least amount of impact is typically how we'll first approach a project on a city project.
[1:20:24] The other question we were asked was whether the project included extension of sanitary sewer
[1:20:30] and water to the residential homes in the area.
[1:20:33] The project does not currently include that.
[1:20:36] Under the city's assessment policies, 35% of the people who would be in the area for connection
[1:20:45] to sewer and water would need to petition the city to have a study extending sewer and water
[1:20:51] to them.
[1:20:53] under the assessment policy, the property owner pays a 100% of the cost of that extension.
[1:20:59] So, you know, this isn't a trunk line extension, this would just be a lateral water line extension to the homes.
[1:21:05] I think realistically, just given what I know about how far away sewer and water is currently from the existing homes,
[1:21:13] it's probably premature to pursue that.
[1:21:17] If I'm them, I would want to maybe look at it once the pipes are a little closer.
[1:21:24] But that's if that's something that the property owners are interested in, that's certainly
[1:21:27] something we can talk through with them.
[1:21:30] And they have the right to petition at any time, the form is on the city's website that can
[1:21:36] happen.
[1:21:37] We were also asked about high speed internet and I would just note that the city does not provide
[1:21:42] internet services so that's all privately operated and extended so the
[1:21:51] property owners would want to reach out to the internet providers and I did
[1:21:55] share information with the residents that asked me about it about who those
[1:21:59] providers are. So those are the things to kind of have in your background as we
[1:22:05] walk through the different layouts, and I will start with the trail layout first, I think.
[1:22:19] So, a giant file that hopefully will load. So, first of all, just to orient yourself what you're
[1:22:26] seeing, this yellow is the road with the shoulder on either side of the road. The pink is the trail and
[1:22:32] These dashed blue lines are what I would refer to as preliminary grading limit lines.
[1:22:39] Now this is just generated off of a standard typical section and match point thrown into
[1:22:46] a software program.
[1:22:47] When we get into final design, we'll start tweaking what those match points are to minimize
[1:22:53] the impact on adjacent property owners.
[1:22:56] So you shouldn't perceive that as being for sure how far we're going to have to grade
[1:23:02] outside of the roadway easement in order to do the work.
[1:23:07] These little yellow lines are the 66 foot wide roadways easement.
[1:23:12] Is that creating with the trail or without the trail?
[1:23:14] So this option you're looking at right now is with the trail.
[1:23:18] So this is not going to come as any surprise to anyone,
[1:23:22] but here's the pool.
[1:23:24] The trail does not fit adjacent to the pool.
[1:23:28] So we'll come back to this area once we jump over to the other line.
[1:23:31] But if we're going to look at putting a trail, pass the lakeside drive entrance all the way up to 43, we for sure can't fit it.
[1:23:39] We would have to move the road over in order to fit the trail.
[1:23:45] Oh, far.
[1:23:47] We'd have to decide how far we'd want to be.
[1:23:50] I mean, that's a design decision. So we'd take a look at what the design speed is coming around the corner.
[1:23:55] And then what we think is an appropriate setback from the pool.
[1:23:58] So that we'd be working with the planning department
[1:24:00] to see what they might recommend
[1:24:02] for how we should shift that over.
[1:24:06] So then we get into this section.
[1:24:09] So this is the Lakeside Estates neighborhood.
[1:24:11] There's two cul-de-sax that don't come through.
[1:24:15] There's landscaping already planted
[1:24:17] along the road right away and a wetland down here.
[1:24:23] We, if we're putting in a trail in,
[1:24:25] we're for sure gonna need to construct a retaining wall
[1:24:27] through this section because we don't want to rip out trees that were just planted and we don't
[1:24:32] want to impact a wetland in order to fit a trail in. So this this wall is included in the
[1:24:37] cost calculation and is something that that I would see not needing not being able to be eliminated.
[1:24:49] And then again we're just still following the existing footprint. So just to orient everybody.
[1:24:55] This is the lightener property and this is Jeremy Rock's house.
[1:25:00] This is Jeremy Rocks. On developed land, I guess I'm going to refer to it that he purchased, but they live in this house.
[1:25:09] And again, you're seeing some some gradient limits extending out here past some trees that are located within the roadway easement.
[1:25:18] And it's with this trail option.
[1:25:22] It looks to me based on my detailed review that we probably would be looking at potentially
[1:25:27] having to move some trees within the road right of way, the roadway easement in this area
[1:25:35] in order to protect those trees.
[1:25:39] But again, when we got into final design, there's different things we can take a look
[1:25:44] at to see if we can save them.
[1:25:45] first goal is always preservation of trees regardless of where they are. We try to look through
[1:25:51] that lens. Coming around this curve, so we are recommending that in any scenario we would have
[1:25:59] curb and gutter on both sides of the road through this section in order to minimize impacts.
[1:26:04] We have a wetland and a creek crossing and some pretty steep slopes off either side, but even with
[1:26:11] We potentially still need a retaining wall through this section.
[1:26:18] This area.
[1:26:19] The curb and gutters to avoid erosion problems.
[1:26:21] Correct. Yep.
[1:26:22] So what does water go?
[1:26:24] We would just then outlet at the end of the curb into the ditches.
[1:26:29] In this area, this is an example where the layout is showing pretty significant grading into this lot.
[1:26:36] But when I take a look at the grades in final design,
[1:26:38] we can pull that back. It isn't going to be that significant.
[1:26:43] A lot of those we can start to match in.
[1:26:46] So now here's an example where we would need a retaining wall.
[1:26:50] Here and all the way along the schmigs property.
[1:26:56] If we were trying to minimize the need for grading easements onto their property.
[1:27:03] Now because this is farmland, it's quite possible that the property owner would say
[1:27:08] sure we'll work with you and let you do some grading as long as, you know, you do it at a time
[1:27:13] that doesn't impact our farming operation. So, because I imagine they don't want to
[1:27:18] wall along their property either. So, you know, there might be some opportunities to minimize that
[1:27:23] sort of thing in working with the landowner. But the direction that, you know, we first gave the consultant
[1:27:30] was stay within our property. Let's not, let's try to avoid that and what does that look like.
[1:27:38] So aside from that, you do, you are going to just have some additional like kind of wider
[1:27:47] grading limits in order to make the slopes match in because we are adjusting the roads
[1:27:53] slightly.
[1:27:54] When I didn't move the center line, this trail was starting to kick out on to private property,
[1:28:00] which then we'd be into land acquisition and everything in order to fit the trail in.
[1:28:05] Not in this particular area. I'd have to go back and look at where it was in my notes here, but
[1:28:12] So alternatively if we take a look at the option
[1:28:15] Whoops, I have it open here with no trail
[1:28:23] So starting back over here on the
[1:28:27] West End
[1:28:31] one thing that the city council could consider doing I
[1:28:35] I don't know that I would invest in reconstructing this existing paved section.
[1:28:43] Let's say you aren't doing a trail.
[1:28:45] I wouldn't recommend that you invest reconstructing the part
[1:28:49] from Lakeside Drive back to County Road 43 in its current location
[1:28:54] because of its proximity to the pool even as it exists today.
[1:28:58] We do know that this property is for sale for development.
[1:29:01] So, you know, realistically, if a development comes forward and they do seem to be motivated
[1:29:08] sellers, we've had a number of different developers look at the property, part of what
[1:29:13] their questions were was what's happening with marsh lake road and as we're developing
[1:29:17] and increasing certainty from council direction to the state, it'll be easier for them to
[1:29:22] understand what that looks like, but we could at the time that this parcel develops then
[1:29:29] realistically shift this road over some amount of feet and work to purchase or acquire the
[1:29:36] property through the development process and then program the reconstruction of that section
[1:29:42] of road. This existing road is paved. It's in not great condition, so as part of a project,
[1:29:49] I would probably recommend we invest some maintenance to this road, so we do some additional patching.
[1:29:55] You know, we take a look at that a little bit more closely if that, if that was the direction
[1:29:59] the council was.
[1:30:00] But I, to me, you know, if this was never going to develop, then I think you maybe would want to look at it a little bit differently.
[1:30:07] But because it's for sale and people have come a calling about it, you maybe would want to limit the project's end point to be that time into that existing pavement, and then we figure out how to get it shifted over with or without a trail at some greater point in time.
[1:30:24] So, as you run along the rest of this corridor, and if you put them side by side or had the
[1:30:32] pleasure, so what I get to look at is cross sections every 50 and 100 feet of what those
[1:30:37] tie-in points look like, we can really match the existing slopes that are out there and pull
[1:30:45] these blue grading lines really up close to the road by just tying into the slopes that are there
[1:30:51] to really make sure that we aren't impacting any trees
[1:30:55] or impacting any private property improvements
[1:30:58] that might exist in that area.
[1:31:01] So even in this area where we had a pretty significant
[1:31:03] retaining wall, we can just tie into the slope that's there.
[1:31:08] So the slope that's there is steep today,
[1:31:11] it'll remain steep, but certainly we could minimize cost
[1:31:15] by doing that.
[1:31:18] As we get over by Jeremy's property again, this blue line starts to kick out past these trees,
[1:31:26] but when I looked at it in detail, it looks to me like we can pull the gradient and not impact
[1:31:32] any of those trees that are in the roadway easement. We won't know for certain until we get to
[1:31:37] detailed final design, but whether we have to extend the curve out a little bit further,
[1:31:42] would be something we could consider. So all of these really blue lines, like here, you're
[1:31:48] seen blue kick out of the roadway easement and I do think that we can match at the easement line
[1:31:56] and not impact what would be private landscaping and whatnot outside of the road edge. Driveways would
[1:32:05] end up tying in pretty consistently with how they are today. This driveway actually is a little
[1:32:13] of a challenge with the trail, I haven't quite figured out how we do that because you've
[1:32:16] got the trail there and their driveway is kind of coming uphill, but that would be a
[1:32:21] design detail that we'd work through. Same thing with this here, we would just, the slopes
[1:32:27] are steep off the sides of this road, so we'd be just looking to tie them in as close as possible
[1:32:32] to the existing edge. So then we're really, you know, minimizing the impacts along there. And
[1:32:41] And so when you do that, you end up reducing the cost.
[1:32:45] So if you go back to what the costs are between the options, that's why you're seeing
[1:32:52] such a significant difference in cost between the two because you're really just matching
[1:32:57] what's there.
[1:32:59] To be clear that 3.5 doesn't include acquisition of the right away, though, either doesn't
[1:33:04] attempt grading.
[1:33:06] Correct.
[1:33:06] So we can correct.
[1:33:08] So it doesn't deal with the West End realignment.
[1:33:10] Right. I mean, do you have a ballpark? Is it a half a million dollars for right away acquisition?
[1:33:16] I mean, it's 200,000.
[1:33:17] I mean, from the meat cutters property, that would be the only place we would need it.
[1:33:22] That's the only place we'd need it.
[1:33:24] If we, if the council authorized shifting the alignment, the rest we figured out we can fit within the current
[1:33:30] Worldweight easement, we just would need to possibly pursue some temporary grading easements from property owners.
[1:33:37] historically we haven't paid for temporary graining easements.
[1:33:41] Got it. So it's 3.5 million plus.
[1:33:45] I am.
[1:33:46] I was in for the re-cutters, the shifting road.
[1:33:53] We somehow tried to work that into, you know, passing it on to the property.
[1:34:02] I mean, with the city of any recourse on recovering the cost of that shift.
[1:34:13] You're saying don't shift it until it develops, though.
[1:34:16] Yeah, but I think you'd have to fund the road improvement.
[1:34:20] I think you'd have a pretty tough case to say that they have to not only accommodate your additional right away,
[1:34:25] but they also have to build the new road when they have a perfectly good road.
[1:34:30] Yeah.
[1:34:31] I want to be clear, I threw out 500,000.
[1:34:35] I have no idea if that's anywhere near.
[1:34:38] So is the 2.1 reconstructing the road just to the existing surface?
[1:34:48] No, we included since the council had authorized the entire corridor, the cost estimates
[1:34:54] assume so rebuilding the entire road cracked, but if we, I mean, you know, you'd...
[1:35:00] I'll have the expense. It's just you'd defer the exilator to some later point in time. Okay. And then did we?
[1:35:09] Okay. Let me. Okay. Were you done?
[1:35:12] I think the only other thing that I wanted to say was that really what we're asking for tonight, if the council is ready, would be to move for final design for marsh lake road with or without a trail and maybe provide some direction if you want.
[1:35:29] us to look at vertical and horizontal alignment revisions or any of these other elements.
[1:35:35] If you're not comfortable making a decision tonight, we certainly could revisit this.
[1:35:40] My recommendation would be at the first meeting in January.
[1:35:43] So we don't impact the project schedule.
[1:35:48] If there's additional things you'd like me to look at between now and then, it would be helpful
[1:35:53] for you to provide that direction.
[1:35:55] But with that, then I'm finished.
[1:35:56] Okay. Thank you, Judy. Go ahead. Well, I just wanted to check with you because of the
[1:36:03] rack residents wanting to move the road north.
[1:36:11] Would this increase the cost?
[1:36:14] Yeah, going back to my, how much it would, so Mr. Rock is requesting that the road be shifted to
[1:36:22] north adjacent to the house that he owns here and the land he owns here. What he's
[1:36:29] indicated is that we wouldn't have to purchase the right away in order to accommodate
[1:36:33] that shift. I would anticipate he would provide the right away in exchange for vacating
[1:36:39] the existing roadway easement adjacent to his house. You know the front set back from his
[1:36:45] house and Vicki's house is pretty close to the existing road. So I think his intent is
[1:36:50] move the traffic a little further away from is property. As a rule of thumb, as I indicated earlier,
[1:36:59] the second news shift the road off the existing alignment by some number of feet, 10, 20,
[1:37:04] 30, 40 feet, whatever the number is, you are going to add cost. Are those cost significant to
[1:37:10] not as subjective? We would have to do a comparative analysis to see what sort of additional
[1:37:19] grading we'd have to do, so that, you know, if that's something that council is interested in,
[1:37:23] that's direction you could give us to try to quantify how much are we shifting it and what
[1:37:28] would that cost be? You do need to remember in the context though of we're also tying into these
[1:37:36] curves on either end, so we still have to, you know, you got to tie the road together. You can't just
[1:37:42] pick up a section and move, so we'd have to do a little bit of design work to see where you'd
[1:37:47] that in.
[1:37:50] How many feet does he want to move the road?
[1:37:54] He's like 50.
[1:37:55] 50.
[1:37:58] And move it north.
[1:38:02] And over here is city park.
[1:38:04] So we already have land available here.
[1:38:07] Two shift it.
[1:38:10] Thank you.
[1:38:11] If we needed to.
[1:38:15] He's asking, at the moment, how much we cost to check that out and come up with a dip?
[1:38:23] My understanding, he's asking for the Council of the Authorized Shifting the Alignment,
[1:38:31] but there's, we would be doing it as a favor to him because he wants more space.
[1:38:37] And that's what he's asking.
[1:38:40] I didn't mention that to him and he seems to think that it's a safety issue as well.
[1:38:45] So I don't know, he, you know, he had Cubskout meeting tonight.
[1:38:50] So he couldn't, couldn't be at two places at once.
[1:38:55] If, and I did, I did ask him, I said, if this, if you wanted to do this,
[1:39:01] and it did cost extra, would you be willing to cover that?
[1:39:04] Because the residents on the rest of the road aren't going to want to pay for that.
[1:39:10] I don't think.
[1:39:12] They're all shaking their heads now.
[1:39:15] I asked him if,
[1:39:22] basically, I said that, from what I understood, there were additional
[1:39:28] costs to gain geotechnical data, et cetera, besides just moving dirt.
[1:39:34] Each city area has different soil conditions that would affect the outcome of the construction.
[1:39:41] So that's affecting the cost.
[1:39:42] And I said, I will see if Carrick can give us a ball part number if there would be additional costs to move the road and how much she would anticipate them to be.
[1:39:53] And then he had said he had talked to some road builders and I asked if he had numbers from the road builders.
[1:39:59] And
[1:40:00] Are you willing to be assessed for the additional costs to move the road for you if there
[1:40:05] are any. The road design and its current alignment is within the 30-get 35-mile design
[1:40:11] standards. So it looks like at this point moving the alignment would only be a benefit
[1:40:16] to you. And I said, that's a hard sell. The city and the other residents have marshley
[1:40:21] growth. So any additional info on your part would be helpful. And then he did write that
[1:40:27] quickly that the geotechnical data, they took was already in this location.
[1:40:35] So I don't know if we have that or not.
[1:40:41] And the roadway is 66 feet wide now, the area to the side by 50 feet is effectively
[1:40:49] in the same location as the current geotechnical data.
[1:40:53] They took, there's no difference.
[1:40:54] But the difference is you'd have to build a new road bed.
[1:40:59] Now we would be rebuilding the road bed and it's current configuration, but it's really,
[1:41:05] you know, picture if you pick it up and you move it 50 feet. Well, you got a,
[1:41:09] the area that you've now vacated a road needs to be graded to tie into the new road.
[1:41:15] And it needs to be restored with some sort of surface.
[1:41:19] So do those costs end up being significant.
[1:41:21] I wouldn't be comfortable throwing out a number without doing some estimate.
[1:41:25] The only thing I can tell you is that it would be at it.
[1:41:28] How much of a question would it be?
[1:41:31] Do you need a lot of time and effort to come up with that?
[1:41:33] I don't think so.
[1:41:34] I think our consultant would be able to look at that.
[1:41:37] Because of the, they have the county alignment,
[1:41:39] which is really the alignment that he was more interested in.
[1:41:44] And so, I think they did that through that.
[1:41:47] question, is give them some idea of how expensive this is?
[1:41:51] If it's too expensive to do, then we didn't know to stay right in the current alignment
[1:41:59] and not move anything.
[1:42:02] If it's not going to be that big of a deal to slide that road up right along through there,
[1:42:12] I don't think he's not going to, he's going to donate that property and then when he has
[1:42:17] on the side. I guess the grading would be okay, but he would be his yard.
[1:42:23] Yeah, I don't think that doing that analysis. I think we could do that analysis by the 13th.
[1:42:29] I think that'd be a reasonable thing to do.
[1:42:31] Without it being a big endeavor.
[1:42:36] At least to give you some, I mean, if I knew, I want some sort of idea of what added cost means.
[1:42:43] It would be a favor of looking at doing the analysis also a little bit of consideration
[1:42:51] if we were to start to shift it, we would soften that one curve, which is rated at a 35
[1:42:58] mile an hour curve, is that correct?
[1:43:01] Yeah, we could soften that one a little bit, is that make sense?
[1:43:04] And when you're reconstructing these roads to a nine-ton road, weren't we bringing in two feet
[1:43:13] Because we're not putting new sewer and water lines down the entire length of the road, we think we could
[1:43:19] That one foot of sand would be sufficient in this area and still to meet the nine tons standard. We wouldn't necessarily need the second foot self
[1:43:27] Or we just adding a foot on top of it and raising the bed
[1:43:31] Now we'll be removing everything that's there bringing in a new new section and there are some areas that we
[1:43:38] to state having to do some soil correction below that one foot section.
[1:43:42] Or absolutely sure if you only do one foot of sand that you're getting in a nine-ton
[1:43:46] roll.
[1:43:47] So, yeah, we'll have a design section, now certainly that could be modified in the field.
[1:43:53] So, typically we'll build in some subgrade correction, we'll build in some contingency in
[1:43:59] the event that we have to do some additional correction, but yeah, again, I've been
[1:44:07] Working on these roads in this community for a very long time and the best remedy for our heavy clay soils in order to produce a road that's going to last is to have that sand section underneath there.
[1:44:20] But we don't want to put any more than we need.
[1:44:23] So if we're doing that road construction with the extra sand, I could see there's an added cost, but I don't see it as being astronomical.
[1:44:33] Yeah, it might be a reasonable added, particularly when you have a willing landowner, if you didn't have a, if you had to purchase the lander relocated, then you'd really be into some more significant dollars.
[1:44:48] But, you know, that, again, that certainly something we couldn't give you a ballpark on. I'm not going to design both, but at least give you a speaking of these shifts.
[1:44:56] Frame of reference.
[1:44:57] Getting back to the shift by the.
[1:45:00] New the 43 intersection. I mean, it hasn't been established that that intersection is going to have to be rebuilt, because it will be problematic, with either wrong about or something.
[1:45:14] And therefore the intersection is going to be rebuilt, and so the road is going to end up being somewhat aligned no matter what.
[1:45:20] So, so what we'll take a look at, if, if, when we start looking at this section more closely with development, we have the county's alignment.
[1:45:30] Now, if this city were to say, yes long term, this is going to be a county road, then, then we're probably going to recommend that we try to acquire the right away for what the county's envisioned alignment was there.
[1:45:43] They were looking at a 55 mile in our design speed.
[1:45:46] We would like that likely kick that down from 55 as the city street.
[1:45:51] So these curves here, I don't have the county's design in front of me, but the curves
[1:45:57] in this location were getting lengthened horizontally because of that 55 mile in our design
[1:46:04] speed.
[1:46:04] So we take a look at the counties, we take a look at a lower design speed, take a look
[1:46:09] what we think the right way needs are for a city street and then fit that all in there and see
[1:46:16] see how it looks. So that's certainly something that if authorized we could also have SRF
[1:46:22] start looking at it a little bit more closely if you want to understand how that might shift.
[1:46:27] Alternatively we could wait till a developer comes forward and then do the work in conjunction
[1:46:31] with the developer. And I would like to I'd like that idea better once the developer comes
[1:46:39] We just, we just paved up to the development and then that road do the repairs that we need
[1:46:48] until such time as a developer comes in and then that can be finished off.
[1:46:52] But this is, this is, we've had buyers on this reoccurring over time.
[1:46:59] So what does necessarily fire in the future that there might be, you know, the development?
[1:47:04] It could be, it could be, you know, next week somebody calls me.
[1:47:07] The differences is, you know, we now have a better idea of what project the city's moving
[1:47:12] forward and we got some feedback on the future county road question.
[1:47:17] So I have more information today than I did three weeks ago if a developer were to call.
[1:47:25] But yeah, realistically, I mean, again, starting a dial into that a little bit is not,
[1:47:31] we're not talking about significant engineering dollars.
[1:47:34] It's me getting some feedback from MasterF and providing some professional judgment.
[1:47:40] So I want to talk a little bit about the trail.
[1:47:42] So there is not any trail currently along this corridor at all.
[1:47:47] So we would be constructing the first trail.
[1:47:50] And it just connects at this point on either end of the of the corridor.
[1:47:56] And there's no trail connections that come in correct at this point.
[1:48:01] Now, this trail, I and would scold me if I didn't note that this trail is part of the county's regional trail system.
[1:48:09] So, the county's plan calls for a 10-foot wide trail along Marshley Road.
[1:48:16] Now, that was developed in conjunction with the fact that this was also going to be a county road.
[1:48:23] So, you know, typically we put 10 foot wide trails.
[1:48:27] 10-ton. 10-foot wide trails along county roads. Our city standard trail is 8 feet. But yeah,
[1:48:37] so it ultimately will connect into this trail system that comes up through here. We need some
[1:48:45] boardwalk up through here and then ends not here, but it ties into the Chaska Trail down to
[1:48:53] whatever is over here. I'm kind of useless once we hit the system going through
[1:49:00] Glendars area, isn't it? Yeah, so the city has...
[1:49:03] And Marshall Lake Road as soon as this is developed.
[1:49:06] Now the city did require the construction of a local trail system through all of these neighborhoods,
[1:49:12] so there's an existing trail that comes through here that will tie into Wasserman Park.
[1:49:19] We use this way back through and pops out somewhere and then it's on road and then it comes back
[1:49:26] through here and
[1:49:29] then up along here and then
[1:49:33] ties in to like town tenth and then also back into the school system. So there is
[1:49:40] internal trail. I've developed it. They'll be a trail through there and
[1:49:44] Right now, there's a trail through a userman area of developments that will go up to
[1:49:49] Westman Park.
[1:49:51] So you'd be able to go from this trail up to Westman Park.
[1:49:54] Correct.
[1:49:56] This whole neighborhood, I'm doing.
[1:49:57] The whole neighborhood.
[1:50:00] The public can't see where you're pointing. The whole neighborhood that Lenar's done has trails in it, so they can get 243 or a lot of their own neighborhood. They don't have to come down to marsh Lake road to do that. Personally, I think we need to wait on that trail because we have other trails that need to be taken care of. And we're not connecting to anything yet.
[1:50:24] Yeah, the other thing I didn't note with the know trail option is certainly in these areas where you have undeveloped land.
[1:50:34] You could shift the responsibility of construction of the trail adjacent to the corridor onto the developer.
[1:50:41] Similar to what we do along Connie wrote 11 and other Connie corridors so we can create more trail gaps through development.
[1:50:52] but that, you know, that would be an alternative to start to build that trail and that work.
[1:50:57] I'm from the opposite side of the school of thought here. This trail, if it's not completed
[1:51:05] and it's done herky jerky, trail connections, the prices on a small trail connection started at
[1:51:12] a half million. And we've got a dozen of them, 12, 15 of them identified, each of them's
[1:51:19] to be probably in that range. So we can only do in the next couple of years. We can do in the next
[1:51:24] five years. We can do one or two trail connections. That's all we can afford. That's separate
[1:51:30] funding. There's a separate funding for trail connections. There's basically very little
[1:51:35] separate funding for trails per se. All of the major thoroughfares that this city has built
[1:51:41] last 10 years, 15 years, 86th Street, 70th Street, Slash Cochia, Smith-Town Lane, and if
[1:51:52] you consider County Road 18 or Rolling Hills, we've put in, in most cases with the exception
[1:52:00] of Rolling Hills as a small problem, we put in trails. So we've built them in every neighborhood
[1:52:08] that has a straight thoroughfare that's about this long.
[1:52:13] 86th Street, 78th Street, Smithtown Lane, they're all about this long.
[1:52:19] They all have trails that were put in when the street was done.
[1:52:24] So what it is, are precedent.
[1:52:26] And the idea of that you can just save this 1.5 billion
[1:52:30] by not doing the trail right now.
[1:52:34] I would submit that the cost of doing this trail piecemeal is going to be a lot more than 1.5 million.
[1:52:42] I'm blessed it's going to come very erratically and very, it'll be almost useless until it's completely done.
[1:52:52] So I'm not in favor of skipping the trail.
[1:52:54] I think it's an investment that we have to do, and we have a precedent for doing it.
[1:53:01] We, we'll drive down if you want. We'll drive down all the streets in this town that we've built with trails on them.
[1:53:09] I'm in favor of doing a trail as well. I think that we do, we don't want to exacerbate a problem that we already have in the city by not doing a trail.
[1:53:20] And it will always be more expensive to come back and do it again.
[1:53:23] I'd say it's twice as expensive.
[1:53:25] And there's nothing more frustrating than not spending your text dollars wisely.
[1:53:31] Well, the trail, the trail connections that aren't getting done, those are kind of more and more all the time.
[1:53:37] How do you justify that?
[1:53:40] We've set up a county mechanism to save money for the trail connections.
[1:53:45] We'll take that, a million and a half and do three trail connections.
[1:53:51] This is different.
[1:53:52] This is different.
[1:53:52] You can.
[1:53:53] Trail connections.
[1:53:54] We just spend it in different places what Judy is suggesting.
[1:53:58] Yeah, I should note that the budget only includes 2.5 million, so you would need an additional
[1:54:03] million from somewhere else in the budget.
[1:54:09] So that's a careful budget though, it's not, is there 2.5 million sitting in some accounts
[1:54:18] somewhere?
[1:54:19] No.
[1:54:19] So it's closing the line for the budget.
[1:54:28] So I've been sitting here to listen to this discussion.
[1:54:32] I think we need to step back for a second and remember what the objective here was.
[1:54:39] When this council unanimously voted to keep it a city road,
[1:54:44] the discussions all at that time was I think there's two key points that I think is worth repeating now.
[1:54:50] Number one is this is a temporary road in the sense that eventually it will become a economy road.
[1:54:56] 20, 30 years at some point in the future it will become a county road.
[1:55:00] Therefore, if we start putting in, like, from, we did agree on a nine-ton road, but if we start putting in all of these additional things we put in the trail, that stuff is probably for the most part going to be ripped out in 20 years.
[1:55:17] The other thing too is we talked about, at least I talked about, where as development goes south out of Victoria,
[1:55:28] and properties connect up to marsh lake road at that time, we can always direct staff to enter into negotiations with the villagers to acquire additional right away, to provide room for future road, because the road will have to be improved at some point.
[1:55:43] The same thing goes for the south side, where it's like town township, as the annexation occurs.
[1:55:50] We can negotiate additional right away at that point where we were not trying to force the acquisition, but we can pick it up.
[1:55:59] And I cite as an example, just west of Jeremy Rock's property.
[1:56:05] We've already got a berm built, and there's been no formal road design.
[1:56:09] And don't we have a burn and a part of that?
[1:56:12] If you'd point that on in the map, so this has already been done without a road design.
[1:56:17] And we last Monday, this council voted not to complete that road design.
[1:56:23] So the point I'm getting to is, I don't think we should put the trail in.
[1:56:28] I don't think we should do the burn lights or anything else simply because of the cost
[1:56:33] and this road was designed to get us to the point where 20 years from now we can either
[1:56:40] improve it because the growth will require it, that time it could be sanitary sewer could be the by that time we may also have a lot more of the land acquired and I want to minimize the cost here.
[1:56:53] I simply want to if if if I could convince this council to do it, I don't even want to do a nine-ton grow.
[1:56:59] This road has been driven on for 50 years. I just want to pay it where it exists right now.
[1:57:04] I'm also concerned that if we, if we act we yet act we ask and spend the taxpayer's money
[1:57:11] because one resident asked to have the road moved, what are we going to tell the residents
[1:57:15] on the West End when they come in and say, well, I want you to look at this too, that doesn't make
[1:57:20] a lot of sense here. That road was there when they bought the house. I think what we ought to do
[1:57:26] is minimize the cost here wherever possible, paved the road and be done with it, knowing full
[1:57:33] Well, at 20 years, this is all going to be read down in 20, 25 years.
[1:57:37] At least at that point, I'll have a better sense for growth development and need because
[1:57:44] there's still debate and argument as to whether or not the traffic flow is going to warrant
[1:57:49] a county road at that time.
[1:57:51] As part of this process, I think last Monday, I think we actually ought to, if in fact, we
[1:57:59] keep it a city road and we've got the complaint that goes out 20 years and we're going
[1:58:03] build some sort of a road at least for 20 years, we should actually go back and revisit the fact
[1:58:08] that we voted not to change the complaint and I actually voted for that. And in a rest respect,
[1:58:14] I think we need to change it. I think we need to tell the county that, no, we're going to keep
[1:58:18] this a city road. At least for the next in this complaint, which is 20 years, we're not going
[1:58:24] to change it. We've already decided that. So I disagree. I think we need to minimize the actual costs
[1:58:29] here into Council Member Black's comments, the million and a half bucks give or take that would
[1:58:37] be put into putting a trail on just this road based on the budget discussion earlier tonight
[1:58:42] from Trish. I can't remember the figures exactly, but I think the first three priorities
[1:58:48] that came out of the Park and Rack, which admittedly this council hasn't decided on yet,
[1:58:53] but if you took, I think the total cost of all those is I did a quick addition to my head
[1:58:57] like a little over a million dollars. So we're talking about 1.5 million for a trail here that
[1:59:02] we're going to rip out in 20 years, or we can spend a little bit less money and actually make
[1:59:06] three trail connections where they need to be made already. So consult comments, Mr. Gregory.
[1:59:13] Thank you.
[1:59:16] I tend to agree with the council member vote. No one that building a trail now is
[1:59:22] cheaper than trying to piece mell it in later. However, last week I think the county made it pretty
[1:59:31] clear. They still want to keep their foot in the door as keeping this in their comp 2040 plan
[1:59:38] as a county road. So they haven't given up on it and we did direct staff to talk to them. So we're kind
[1:59:45] going on a little bit of a dual track mode here, and I would like to hear them out to see
[1:59:54] what their thoughts are as far as making this into a county road at some point.
[2:00:00] The future.
[2:00:03] I did agree to a nine-time road because I think this road will be here for a significant
[2:00:08] amount of time. And the notion of, and I agree with the mayor, if we were to spend all this money
[2:00:19] to put this trail in, build all of these retaining walls. There is a good chance that at some point
[2:00:25] county would want to reconstruct this and build their their county road system at that point.
[2:00:31] All of that would be ripped out.
[2:00:36] So I am a little bit torn, but I would like to hear the county
[2:00:40] out a little bit and see what they are proposing as far as keeping their foot in the door
[2:00:47] is making this into a county road. But as of tonight, if we had to make a decision, I would go
[2:00:53] without a trail.
[2:00:57] All right, so who's going to pay the cost that we're
[2:00:59] going to spend because of a Jeremy Rocks request?
[2:01:04] Do you think the taxpayers, let's focus on that one issue right now?
[2:01:07] Should the taxpayers pay for that?
[2:01:10] And how it doesn't that say that dangerous precedent
[2:01:12] for other homeowners when they don't
[2:01:15] like the alignment of a road someplace?
[2:01:18] I think he's asking Mr. Reyer.
[2:01:19] He's asking us to, for all part, the cost that would be.
[2:01:22] And then pursue discussion after that.
[2:01:26] Right, that's what he's asking, but there's
[2:01:27] cost associated with that.
[2:01:29] So are we willing to bear that shift that cost to the taxpayer?
[2:01:34] And then we just defined the answer, is that correct?
[2:01:37] And then we don't, I mean, was it 50 grand, 100 grand, 2,000, 200,000?
[2:01:42] We don't know how much it would cost to move the road and actually put the road
[2:01:45] bit up there.
[2:01:46] My point is, do we actually do that for a single resident that
[2:01:51] have it moved, right? If the, what's to say the people in the West End aren't going to come back and say,
[2:01:58] well, I want you to move it here, what's it going to cost to move it here too, right? So I just think we open up a
[2:02:04] dangerous precedent that every time we get another request or we're going to go ahead and tell that
[2:02:09] resident then okay, we'll go spend money and look at that request too. At some point we have to make a decision here.
[2:02:14] I asked before the meeting tonight, we spent, we the city that is between SRF and Focus
[2:02:23] Engineering.
[2:02:23] This has been going on since 2016.
[2:02:26] I know just after I was sworn in, I can't remember if it's January or February of
[2:02:30] 17.
[2:02:31] I was presented with a plan for the West End, the meat cutters property that showed the
[2:02:36] road completely redone, which would have solved all the problems on the West End of the
[2:02:42] and this whole question about marsh lake road.
[2:02:46] Why that development was allowed to go in?
[2:02:49] As it was built, I can only think that this was everybody.
[2:02:54] It said, we're going to move this road, but that never occurred.
[2:02:59] It makes me wonder how I was able to, I was actually provided diagrams
[2:03:04] that showed the road move with a whole new development in there
[2:03:07] and that marsh lake road property almost if it was a done deal.
[2:03:11] Well, it wasn't a done deal.
[2:03:14] So, and that was three years ago.
[2:03:15] We've had all sorts of people look at the marsh lake property.
[2:03:17] We don't know what's going to happen down there.
[2:03:19] I'm just opposed to putting any more money into marsh lake road
[2:03:22] beyond what's required to pay it and get it so that we can use it in the public
[2:03:28] can use it for 20 years.
[2:03:30] If you want a nine-ton road and it's not going to cost that much.
[2:03:33] We've got the estimate fine.
[2:03:35] I can agree to that.
[2:03:36] But I think the trail and any other adjustments is just added cost that we throw away
[2:03:41] in 20 years, and to Council Member Black's point,
[2:03:46] I think we could spend, if we're gonna spend,
[2:03:48] and decide to do that, we don't have funds for any of this,
[2:03:50] but if we're gonna borrow money and go work on trails,
[2:03:55] to me, if we fix those,
[2:03:59] do we have a hard copy of packet,
[2:04:00] do we know how much of those three trails were
[2:04:02] that was in Trish's presentation earlier?
[2:04:05] The hard copy is over there.
[2:04:07] All right, for sake of argument, just say it was like two trails.
[2:04:12] There were three in the budget.
[2:04:16] For sake of argument, let's just say it was 1.2 million.
[2:04:19] So a little bit of less money for connecting three trails,
[2:04:23] versus building one trail that doesn't connect on either end
[2:04:26] in whom no long, how long it's going to take before it actually connects.
[2:04:30] I'd rather connect the three trails for less money
[2:04:32] and that benefits probably a lot more residents
[2:04:35] in sheer number of homes and neighborhoods, then this one trail where we have what maybe
[2:04:40] it doesn't homes along much like road.
[2:04:43] So I'm opposed to the trail.
[2:04:45] I want to keep the cost as low as possible.
[2:04:49] What's the lifespan of the nine-ton road that we anticipate?
[2:04:58] So typically...
[2:05:00] People will talk about roads with a 20-year design life. So that would be typical. We are seeing roads that have our
[2:05:06] sand section underneath it are performing longer. So the base itself, we hope to get 50 years out
[2:05:14] of it for the roads that we've built new in the new neighborhoods. We're hoping to not have to revisit
[2:05:21] that base for 50 years, but only have to revisit the gravel in the asphalt on the top. So it's effectively
[2:05:26] up to a 50 year life. I think all of the nine times. All of the discussion we heard at the
[2:05:33] last meeting especially from the residents and having done their research is that the likelihood
[2:05:38] of needing a county road is not 20 years off. It's 30 years, 40 or 50. So we should build something
[2:05:47] that's going to last, you know, and where we wait in 30, 40 years to get a trail,
[2:05:56] I go back
[2:05:59] to meeting this thing to death. Our precedent is that we put the trail in when we do a road.
[2:06:06] Well, the other thing, too, it counts remember Black pointed out all of those neighborhoods in
[2:06:10] Victoria. They're all connected to the trail system through the neighborhoods. So it's not like they're
[2:06:14] connected already. The only difference is that we just want to have a trail along marsh Lake.
[2:06:18] This one will be connected in two places, be connected through an hour and it's connected to
[2:06:23] the wasumen neighborhood. Right? But if we don't build a trail they can still get to downtown
[2:06:27] and they're still connected to the trail system. You just don't have a trail along marsh Lake road.
[2:06:32] That'll put those bikes on people on the roads then and now it's the safety issues.
[2:06:37] The bikes of the marsh Lake road residents? No, anybody who wants to go on and get to the other trail
[2:06:43] system. No, they can go through the neighborhoods. They can't go through the neighborhoods and get to
[2:06:51] paint a trail to go into Alaska. These bikers go everywhere.
[2:06:59] Well, they do. I just don't think that the 1.5 million is worth it. If we're going to spend 1.5
[2:07:03] million on trails, I just think we can get more bang for the buck and other parts of the city.
[2:07:08] So, and I think we have to take a bird's eye view of this, right?
[2:07:13] I'd love to be able to build a trail.
[2:07:15] I supported it first.
[2:07:16] I wanted to look at the cost too, but now that we have the cost, I just think it's
[2:07:19] cost-evitative.
[2:07:21] So, we have to, we have to make some decisions here tonight, and we clearly have a split
[2:07:26] in the council, which is fine.
[2:07:28] Do we have resolutions with this, care?
[2:07:31] No.
[2:07:32] All right, so, I don't want to cut off discussion if there's further
[2:07:37] discussion, but if not, then we need to make some decisions in order to do so.
[2:07:44] I would ask that we have a motion on what councilmember wants to make a decision.
[2:07:49] So, I want to bring one thing up, and that is, I move that we actually do amend the
[2:07:55] comprehensive plan to nominate March Lake Road as a city road. Is there a second?
[2:08:04] Second, we have a valid second discussion on this. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
[2:08:13] All right, so that motion now carries three four two are yet.
[2:08:19] Three.
[2:08:22] Three four two against.
[2:08:26] So.
[2:08:29] The motion does carry.
[2:08:31] We are going to modify the comprehensive plan to annotate marsh lake road as a city road.
[2:08:40] Would another council member like to make another motion related to this?
[2:08:47] Did you want to do that?
[2:08:49] Do you want a motion to authorize final design from marsh lake road?
[2:08:52] I make a motion to authorize final design from marsh lake road with a trail.
[2:08:57] Is there a second please?
[2:08:58] Second motion.
[2:08:59] Discussion.
[2:09:00] The council is any further discussion?
[2:09:02] Yeah, much like a question, Cara, we've got a half million dollars in retaining walls here.
[2:09:10] That's a big number and you mentioned that we may not need hardly any of those.
[2:09:16] Um, I, you know, I don't know, maybe half.
[2:09:20] Okay.
[2:09:20] But it really depends on the landowners.
[2:09:22] So I don't want to presuppose the landowners are just seeing the alignment.
[2:09:28] Right.
[2:09:28] So first time, so we haven't had any conversation about that.
[2:09:33] I had a question.
[2:09:35] Right.
[2:09:35] With those retaining walls, is that going to affect the farm equipment?
[2:09:42] Yeah, certainly if we were moving forward with the trail, we'd want to spend some time with the landowners in all of those areas.
[2:09:49] And that would be typical as part of a final design process.
[2:09:53] We would meet with the adjacent landowners and take a look at if they're willing to let us grade.
[2:09:58] we'd have to show them how much we'd need it.
[2:10:00] Great to avoid the walls. Our goal, of course, would be to minimize walls at all costs because they're expensive and somebody's going to maintain them. So, the first goal is to not have them, but sometimes they're unavoidable.
[2:10:13] Further discussion?
[2:10:15] Okay, so we have a valid motion for authorizing final design from our select road with a trail.
[2:10:21] Is that correct?
[2:10:22] Yes.
[2:10:23] All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[2:10:26] All opposed signify by saying nay.
[2:10:29] No.
[2:10:30] Motion does not carry.
[2:10:32] It fails three to two.
[2:10:34] I move that we've authorized final design from our select road is a nine-ton road without a trail.
[2:10:40] Is there a second?
[2:10:41] Second.
[2:10:43] Discussion?
[2:10:44] hearing no further discussion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? No.
[2:10:51] The motion carries three to two. Send to you have that. Okay.
[2:10:57] Cara, is there other issues or related to marshlight road that we need to discuss?
[2:11:03] I based on the motion. So just so there's clarity on my mind. We would be proceeding with final design as it was presented here tonight.
[2:11:13] If the council wishes to direct us to add any additional scope, from these items listed here,
[2:11:20] like alignment revisions, I'd be looking for specific direction for that.
[2:11:24] If there's something the council wants us to look at.
[2:11:27] So, council, is there anything that anybody wants to make a motion or add any additional guidance?
[2:11:33] Mr. Garer?
[2:11:33] Mr. Garer?
[2:11:34] How much would it cost to get an estimate to re-align the road?
[2:11:38] Jeremy Rocks. I don't think a lot of money. I mean, I don't we're trying about a couple hours of
[2:11:47] handful of hours from SRF, a hour or two of my time to review that work. So let me get a, I want a point of clarity.
[2:11:55] Only a few hours to to be able to give the council an estimate of what would cost to act assuming they agreed to
[2:12:01] realign the road. Okay, so it's only a few hours then. No, yeah, and that's information I certainly
[2:12:07] would anticipate being able to bring back at the next council meeting that you then could
[2:12:12] provide direction on, whether it's early in the final design process, where it wouldn't, you know,
[2:12:18] consulting wasted. Based on previous discussion, my council jump in if I'm wrong,
[2:12:24] four of you supported. And if it's only a few hours, I'll support it too. And so without objection
[2:12:30] from the council, go ahead and get an estimate on the cost to move the road north as requested
[2:12:36] by Jeremy Rock.
[2:12:37] And you said that's only a few hours, right?
[2:12:39] Correct.
[2:12:39] The cost.
[2:12:40] All right, incident.
[2:12:41] One other thing just popped in my head that I think we have to do here in the council, we need
[2:12:45] a vote on it.
[2:12:47] And that is, because we changed tonight the comprehensive plan to a city road, believe we now
[2:12:54] need to direct staff that during the act was either during the annexation process or during
[2:13:00] the development process on the Victoria side that we actually direct city staff to work
[2:13:08] with county staff before the process because it was always a county road that was included
[2:13:12] now it's not since we have a disconnect so therefore I move that we direct city staff during the
[2:13:20] the development process and the Victoria side and the annexation process on the Lake Town
[2:13:25] Township side to work with County as part of that process for development of acquiring
[2:13:31] right away. Can I get a second to that motion please? Second. Discussion. The reason I made that
[2:13:38] motion is because before it was automatic, as long as the council kept the plan to say it was
[2:13:49] motion in order to direct staff to still continue to discussions with the county as we do the
[2:13:55] acquisition hence the motion. So that was why I made the motion council any further discussion
[2:14:01] on that motion. Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye, aye, all opposed. Okay, that motion
[2:14:08] carried unanimously.
[2:14:11] Cindy, did you get that? Is there any other guidance then? Anything else you
[2:14:18] from the council? Not unless the council wants to provide any other guidance on any of these
[2:14:22] issues. I have what I need, but if you, you know, want me to look at any of these other things,
[2:14:27] I would prefer to be directed to. Wait if this question is familiar, go ahead and we find out
[2:14:32] from some anyone how long changing the comprehensive plan takes. Yeah, absolutely.
[2:14:39] There's a
[2:14:40] process you will have to go to the best council and go under all of certain process.
[2:14:45] Council member vote, but Mayor members of the council, yes, they're certainly a process to go through.
[2:14:51] So I don't, it's very prescriptive and I don't have that information in front of me.
[2:14:56] But yeah, it will take some time and we've got, we've got, we've got...
[2:15:00] The direction here, and we can begin that process.
[2:15:03] Would you be, when you get a chance, I know the holidays are coming up, would you get some more information
[2:15:08] to answer council members, votes, question, and just distributed to council members?
[2:15:14] Yes, happy to do that.
[2:15:15] Is that work?
[2:15:16] Council is anything further?
[2:15:19] Okay.
[2:15:20] That wraps up 2.4.
[2:15:23] The next item, 2.5 authorized, change order number one for well-setting study, phase two,
[2:15:32] And apparently I've developed a cough again, which seems to happen when I have to talk a lot.
[2:15:38] Okay, so we are still in the same area of town.
[2:15:41] We're talking about our well-sighted studies.
[2:15:45] So the Council had a detailed workshop on October 14,
[2:15:49] where consultant reviewed it.
[2:15:50] to really provide it a background refresher on the potential water supply within our south
[2:16:00] growth area, as well as our initial findings associated with the well-siting study.
[2:16:06] So just to recap, Trout has completed four well-borns to date at locations, I'll show you
[2:16:20] We would have the potential to supply 500 to 700 GPM of water from a screen well in the
[2:16:26] Jordan Aquifer in those areas, but really what we're after is 1200 GPM.
[2:16:32] So, our South Korea, we want to have 4 1200 GPM wells that serve our South Korea, there's
[2:16:38] an additional treatment plant in that area.
[2:16:41] For only getting 500 GPM out of a well, we're going to need twice as many wells.
[2:16:46] and there's costs associated with the construction of the wells, the maintenance of the wells,
[2:16:51] and the connection of those water supplies. So that certainly isn't ideal.
[2:16:59] However, as was started to be indicated at that meeting,
[2:17:03] bar did take a look at the information that we have available in is recommending that we pursue
[2:17:09] one additional boring in the location shown here is number six in this general location.
[2:17:16] The other boarings were completed. These blue dots on the gash stock and welter properties.
[2:17:21] So they're based on what they found there. They're requesting that we do one more boring.
[2:17:27] Real quick. I'm sorry. Number two was never grilled.
[2:17:30] Correct. Because the findings of three were unfavorable. They directed us to go north instead of south.
[2:17:37] So free was removed and five was added.
[2:17:41] So originally we were doing one, two, three, four.
[2:17:44] But after we did one and three, they said don't do two.
[2:17:48] We added five, so we just swapped two for five.
[2:17:51] But now they want us to add a fifth location,
[2:17:53] which is location number six, even though it's the fifth location.
[2:17:58] Let's just, I know I ended up, that's okay.
[2:18:03] up to you. Let's say number six finds enough flow. Then we'd have to pipe all of the water down
[2:18:10] throughout the southern part of the city. Yeah, so what we're hoping to find with location number six
[2:18:17] is something better than number five, so we could proceed with well number five to accommodate development.
[2:18:25] It still doesn't answer our question of how we really want to take a look at providing water
[2:18:29] for the entire self-growth area.
[2:18:32] So simultaneously to that work,
[2:18:34] we have initiated conversations with Chaska and Carver
[2:18:38] to gain information about what they're doing outside of our city
[2:18:43] limits to see, if they're not having supply issues,
[2:18:47] should we be pursuing purchasing water from them,
[2:18:50] doing some sort of joint project?
[2:18:53] We're in the early stages of those discussions.
[2:18:55] They're providing me with their water supply plan information,
[2:18:58] so we can take a look at their system relative to our needs.
[2:19:03] The other thing that I just wanted to note to the church,
[2:19:07] the Westbrook community church is located at the intersection of 10 and 11,
[2:19:12] and that's going to be constructed at that intersection,
[2:19:15] and they need to provide sprinkler protection.
[2:19:18] So they need some pretty significant water supply.
[2:19:21] So we also, I had a conversation with the pastor on Friday,
[2:19:25] and then we'll be circling back to bar to see if we want
[2:19:29] combined efforts in any sort of way. It might be as simple as we get an opportunity
[2:19:34] to observe their well when they do the boring to find out if there's additional
[2:19:39] information there or you know bar may say yeah we should investigate that even
[2:19:43] further. But so on the big picture front we are going to continue to do work but
[2:19:48] meanwhile we do have development pressure in this area that we you know by the
[2:19:52] time we get a couple hundred homes online we are going to need additional water
[2:19:56] supply, so we do want to continue to move forward.
[2:20:00] If six doesn't produce a better result than five, then I suspect we'll be looking at five for the location of well number five.
[2:20:09] And those wells take a little bit of time to construct and get online. So we do want to keep moving forward in order to be able to provide more answers to the developers.
[2:20:19] Right. So tonight you're asking us to approve six.
[2:20:21] Correct. So what that would be would be, and I actually need to go back to the packet because I didn't word it correctly in my slide.
[2:20:29] but approving change order number one,
[2:20:33] thereby increasing the contract amount by 49,925
[2:20:36] and extending the project completion date to May 16th.
[2:20:41] And the weld drill will get us on their schedule,
[2:20:45] but we wanted to make sure we had enough time
[2:20:47] in the change order to, so we're completed.
[2:20:50] So that 49,000, almost 50,000 dollars this
[2:20:53] for one more boring, correct?
[2:20:55] Yes.
[2:20:55] How much water did you say number five could produce?
[2:20:58] I believe that was in that five to seven hundred range.
[2:21:03] So we're going to need another well quicker than we would have had we found.
[2:21:09] The higher volume.
[2:21:11] We'll pretty quickly need to be continuing to look at our comprehensive water plan and what those triggers are.
[2:21:17] And we've been operating under an assumption of 4, 1200 GPM wells spaced out over a number of years.
[2:21:25] You know, this information is going to cause us to need to re-look at.
[2:21:30] Oh, 2.5, we had the money to be in cash.
[2:21:34] Well, number 5, we're going to have to borrow.
[2:21:39] It was a combination for the $4 million dollar ad.
[2:21:43] We're going to have to borrow for sure.
[2:21:45] Yeah, I mean, we'll want to, so as part of the rate study, that sign going, we'll take a look at,
[2:21:50] we'll have, you know, updated information.
[2:21:52] We'll take a look at the projection of timing of wells in the future water treatment plant.
[2:21:57] And that analysis will roll into the right study
[2:22:00] to determine what corfies,
[2:22:04] water availability charges
[2:22:06] and rates should be to accommodate that future demand.
[2:22:11] So the timing, it's good that we're
[2:22:14] learning this information in conjunction with doing
[2:22:16] the right study.
[2:22:20] All right, council, was that it here?
[2:22:22] Yes.
[2:22:23] Council questions?
[2:22:24] Discussion?
[2:22:28] Are they going to look at the church property?
[2:22:31] Yes, so separately from this change order authorization without for well-journaly we'll continue to work with bar on these other questions and I will be sending them
[2:22:41] A graphic showing where that property is and bringing them up to speed on what opportunity might be there.
[2:22:47] So I spoke with the church on Friday and need to relay that information to bar yet.
[2:22:52] Was he open to that?
[2:22:53] Yes, he called me after being at the south
[2:22:55] the Victoria Works Open House. He chatted with some sub set of you and called me.
[2:23:03] Okay great. Yeah. It was helpful.
[2:23:05] It was close to water over there.
[2:23:08] All right. I will make a motion to approve change order number one.
[2:23:11] Thereby increasing the contract amount to 49,925 bucks.
[2:23:15] And extending the project completion date to May 16, 2020.
[2:23:20] Thank you, second please.
[2:23:22] Any further discussion?
[2:23:23] Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye, aye, all opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
[2:23:29] Okay, that wraps.
[2:23:32] Hmm?
[2:23:32] I think you got a line, but you locked out.
[2:23:34] Or you're still lying the door low.
[2:23:37] Must have self locked.
[2:23:43] Okay, that completes the special media agenda.
[2:23:47] There's one last two last items.
[2:23:49] Roundtable real quick.
[2:23:51] I want to find out if the council has any objections to adding to our
[2:23:56] Legislative agenda letter to legislators on changing the open meeting law based on what our city has experienced before and the Supreme Court case I think there's changes to be made to that.
[2:24:12] And without objection from the council I'd like to draft up some of those suggested changes.
[2:24:16] to get them drafted in a letter by Dana, and then allow each of you to see those changes.
[2:24:23] And then we can bring this back at another time to talk about it, but I'd like to get
[2:24:27] a draft letter, at least a letter drafted rather, for the council to consider as far as
[2:24:34] potential changes.
[2:24:36] Question, do we have others who are joining in with us on this legislation?
[2:24:42] is this going to be part of our legislative agenda from the League of Ministers' cities?
[2:24:49] We had three items, correct, Dana, that the council approved in the last meeting,
[2:24:56] as far as legislative priorities.
[2:24:58] Right, this would be a fourth one.
[2:25:00] For our city. So there's not other cities that I'm asking us to join with on asking this city to add that item to our list.
[2:25:07] But I don't want you to add it blindly. I want to have Dana draft a letter that each of you can look at and then we can bring it up for discussion at a later time.
[2:25:17] I like to see what would be on the letter because I know one of that is Mr. Mayor that you were discussing with the lead is something I disagree with.
[2:25:26] So that's fine.
[2:25:27] That's why I want to, so you have something that you can look at, instead of just arbitrarily
[2:25:31] you're going to need something without, right, right?
[2:25:34] So without objection?
[2:25:35] No objection.
[2:25:37] No objection.
[2:25:37] All right, Dana, I'll work with you and draft something that we can then bring back to
[2:25:41] the council for them to take a look at.
[2:25:44] All right, there's nothing else.
[2:25:46] So there's no reports on a special meeting like this.
[2:25:49] So at this point, I ask for a motion for adjournment, please.
[2:25:53] Motion to adjourn.
[2:25:54] Second, please.
[2:25:55] Okay.
[2:25:55] Any discussion here in none on favor signify by say night.
[2:26:00] Hi.
[2:26:00] We are adjourned. Thank you.
[2:26:02] Merry Christmas.
[2:26:03] Wow.