[0:01] regular meeting of the Windsor High City
Council.
[0:06] Susan Serious here. Jones here. Fletcher
Barry
[0:09] » here.
>> Uh Terresa Arms
[0:13] » here.
>> James
[0:17] [clears throat]
[0:19] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:24] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:29] for all.
[0:33] » Thank you. Approval of the agenda.
>> So moved.
[0:36] » Second.
>> Call.
[0:38] » Susan Skiris.
>> Yes.
[0:40] » Joseph Jones.
>> Yes.
[0:41] » Fletcher Barry.
>> Yes.
[0:42] » Theresa Harms.
>> Yes.
[0:44] » Item three, public forum. This time set
aside to comments from the public on
[0:48] topics of city business other than those
listed on the agenda. My action may be
[0:52] taken. Please come to the podium. State
your name
[0:56] » and address for the record and keep your
comments to no more than 5 minutes.
[1:05] » No public item four, consent agenda.
>> Move to approve.
[1:10] » Second.
>> Roll call.
[1:13] » Susan Series.
>> Yes.
[1:14] » Joseph Jones.
>> Yes.
[1:15] » Fletcher Berry.
>> Yes.
[1:16] » Lauren Campbell.
>> Yes.
[1:20] » Yes.
>> 5A. discussion of FY26 year-end
[1:24] financials.
>> Michelle and I are going to tag team
[1:27] this one. I would note that there is a
uh an overview of SF 2472 in the packet
[1:33] as well. Our intent isn't to actually go
through that since we have a lengthy
[1:37] agenda here tonight unless otherwise
requested. Um but it is good reference
[1:41] point for just kind of outlining the
impacts of the current property tax bill
[1:45] as well. U I'll let Michelle kick things
off,
[1:50] » I guess. please.
[1:58] I
>> think it's on. Uh Michelle Swisser, uh
[2:01] finance director. Um just going to go
over the year and financials. Um I don't
[2:06] have the f um the um AFR quite done yet,
but um that'll be at the next council
[2:12] meeting, but um Adam and I just thought
it would made sense to get you guys an
[2:16] update um since we have so many things
going on with the budget.
[2:21] Um overall cash uh we actually increased
from 12.44 million um at end of FY25 to
[2:27] 13.92 million at end of FY26 which is an
11.9% increase. The primary driver of
[2:34] this is is our local option sales tax
and to a smaller extent earned interest
[2:40] but the earned interest actually wasn't
in the general fund. It was in our other
[2:44] funds um construction um streets garbage
storm water those kinds of things.
[2:51] Um some the chart actually gives us some
fund balance comparisons. Um I don't
[2:56] want to necessarily go through all of
these unless you guys have a question
[2:59] about them. Um the big one, the general
fund, we did actually have a net change
[3:04] of 84,981.
Uh this was driven, this is a deficit
[3:09] driven by operating expenses. Um that
increased and then interest revenue did
[3:13] decrease from the previous year.
um road use tax fund went up quite a
[3:19] bit, but that was actually a transfer
from the 73rd Street project because we
[3:23] transferred TIFF funds that were
received in the 73rd Street project and
[3:27] then we transferred them we received se
TIF funds in the 73rd Street project. So
[3:32] then we transferred road use tax we had
transferred previously back to the road
[3:37] use tax fund. Um the employee benefits
fund was the spend down. Uh the TIFF
[3:43] fund is actually up, but that's um for
future TIFF projects and debt service.
[3:49] Um the future streets project fund, we
did add 1,30,246.
[3:55] This was a transfer from lost and then
we did close out quite a few street
[3:58] projects.
Uh the equipment revolving fund actually
[4:03] did decrease by 211,000, but that was to
buy the new plow truck and the police
[4:07] cruiser. And then the stormwater fund.
Uh there was planned spending on uh
[4:12] storm water projects.
Any questions about any of that?
[4:18] Michelle, just real quick based on your
um
[4:23] where you think we should be for each
one of those things. Do you feel like
[4:27] we're on par or do you have any concerns
that anything isn't where it should or
[4:31] needs to be based on our projections
going into the next fiscal year?
[4:35] » I think we're right on track. Um I do
think I mean when you look at the
[4:39] reserves that are needed right below
that I do go into how what the reserves
[4:43] are. We're actually over um our 25%
limit by 377,000 in our general fund.
[4:50] And then uh and we're still below the
35% cap because there is that new cap
[4:54] that we have to be within. Um so I think
we're we're good in our general fund um
[5:00] having that kind 1.5 million in
reserves. uh we only need to have 1.1
[5:05] million. And then the other fund that um
doesn't actually have a state cap or any
[5:10] sort of limit even within our own um
policies, but the road use tax fund
[5:16] reserves I like to keep it at 20 at
least 25%.
[5:20] Which would only be $269,000.
But the current um the current reserves
[5:27] in there is 1,77,000.
So, we're over our cap, our 25% cap by
[5:32] $975,000.
So, there are definitely road use tax
[5:36] funds,
>> although a lot of those funds are
[5:38] intended for future capital improvement
projects over the next 5 years.
[5:43] » Absolutely.
Any questions about that?
[5:48] Um, we'll go to the next one, the next
slide or the next chart, I guess. Um,
[5:53] the FY25 and FY26 actual expenses.
And I'll just pull a few of these. um
[6:01] comparisons. I think when you look at
the totals in the general fund, um we're
[6:07] actually at a 6.53%
decrease. And this was due to us really
[6:12] trying our hardest to find those cuts
that we could make that w wouldn't
[6:18] affect really especially people. It
wouldn't affect employees um meaning the
[6:24] number of employees.
>> Just to make sure I understand. So that
[6:27] was in fiscal year 26 or as we look to
fiscal year 27.
[6:31] » In fiscal year 26 we actually went okay
we had um between 25 and 26.53%
[6:37] decrease.
>> I just want to thank you.
[6:39] » Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Um there's some
there's a few things. I mean we in in
[6:44] like say police we did go up a little
bit but we had a 6% union wage increase.
[6:50] Um Westcom increases the start of the
CIT program. Um,
[6:56] uh, ambulance reflects the union step
wage increases. Uh, building
[7:00] inspections, that one is skews, skews
really
[7:04] wild because of the construction
activity that decreased because of the
[7:09] Windsor. So, that one went down by 65%.
Um, and the library looks really skewed
[7:16] as well. 70% um, change, 70% increase.
Well, there was an FY25 payment made in
[7:22] FY26, so that's why that skews that.
Um, any questions on any of those?
[7:30] Anybody have any that they want to
discuss specifically?
[7:37] » Just know we do break out separately the
transfers out in the economic
[7:41] development fund. Those are kind of
weird operating budget ones and those do
[7:44] swing wildly from year to year. Uh so
that first subtotal is kind of where you
[7:48] sit at operationally and then uh
>> below that are those two additional line
[7:52] items that are a little bit different.
>> Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry about
[7:56] that.
>> And the special events that shows the
[8:00] 12.93% increase. That's because of the
fundraising. So it's not really an
[8:06] increase. It's just
>> funds received in fiscal year 25
[8:10] intended to be spent in fiscal year 26.
So, it appears to be an increase, but
[8:13] there is a revenue offset from the
previous year that sits in the reserve
[8:16] fund.
>> Yeah, that's exactly how it we have we
[8:19] determined a while back that that's how
that was going to work.
[8:23] In the non- capital funds, um we had a
decrease of 1.92% in the road use tax, a
[8:29] little bit of an increase in street
lights, snow removal, we had an
[8:33] increase, forestry went down, uh and
benefits went up by 21%. But that can be
[8:39] um attributed to um in FY25 we had costs
that were um allocated in different
[8:45] funds and then FY26 we put everything
back into the employee benefits fund so
[8:49] that we could actually get a better
handle on where we were and what we were
[8:53] spending. So that's what that is. Grand
total overall reduction in expenses
[8:58] 2.16%.
[9:03] Um, and the next one, the next chart is
the FY26 and 27 budgeted expenses.
[9:10] And this just gives a comparison what we
budgeted in FY26, what we budgeted in
[9:14] FY27.
Um,
[9:18] most of them have a decrease. Uh,
there's a few. Uh, animal control went
[9:23] up by 10% which is actually $500. So,
that one
[9:27] » very small uh percentages. I love that
about them. uh housing and urban
[9:31] renewal. This one does go up by 300% but
that is because of the FY27
[9:37] by annual trust fund application that we
um we and then actually pay into
[9:44] » [clears throat]
>> um of the $37,000 instead of just the um
[9:49] administration fees.
Um let's see that subtotal actually then
[9:55] year-over-year change um 8.86% decrease
And then the actual total when you take
[10:02] in economic development uh 6.29%
decrease.
[10:07] » And and just want to reinforce I guess
some of what you're seeing here is the
[10:11] multi-year intent to really bring our
budgeted expenses in line with our
[10:16] actual expenses. It it becomes difficult
just because of swings across
[10:20] departments. But we feel the need to try
to reflect uh the actual expenses as
[10:25] closely as possible so that as we start
uh making adjustments in the coming year
[10:29] coming years um we have a better idea of
what our true expenditures will be and
[10:34] then also on the revenue side going
forward as well trying to really project
[10:38] as accurately as possible what our
revenues are going to be and that may
[10:42] mean more budget amendments going
forward.
[10:44] » Yeah,
>> I think in years past we've done zero or
[10:46] one kind of an end of the year one. Uh
but as we try to get tighter on these um
[10:51] expenses and the revenues uh
particularly on the expense side uh we
[10:55] will need to adjust those uh when
unexpected expenses show up uh and
[11:00] there's potential overages in specific
funds. Is that fair to say?
[11:03] » Yeah. So we'll try to do that quarter
quarterly now
[11:06] » if we need to.
>> The other big thing to keep an eye out
[11:09] here is on the police side um you see a
decrease there that 8.04% 04% that
[11:15] reflects that tighter budgeting. But
there's also in this budget for fiscal
[11:19] year 27 uh the 13th sworn position
that's not currently filled and the
[11:24] historical overtime amounts that would
reflect back filling positions or shifts
[11:29] uh when somebody's on PTO training or
otherwise. So, there'll still be an
[11:33] overtime element uh but it will not be
to the extent of that historical
[11:37] overtime. If the current model being
used, which will be reviewed at the next
[11:42] city council meeting stays in place,
you'd expect to see a year-over-year
[11:46] change beyond that uh 8% reduction under
the current operational model as it
[11:52] stands today.
>> So, just so I I make sure that I
[11:56] understand. So that current in PD for
example that 8% currently reflects the
[12:03] um it doesn't in that 8% includes
>> the historic 13th position
[12:12] » right so that is budgeted even with that
that uh reduction of 8%. Okay I just
[12:19] make sure I un I heard that right. Thank
you.
[12:23] Any
[12:26] other questions on the budgeted
expenses?
[12:30] » I guess I'd also just note on the
administration side as well, you see a
[12:34] significant decrease. Some of that is
again trying to allocate allocate
[12:37] expenses uh more closely to where
they're being incurred. Uh for example,
[12:41] our deputy city clerk spends about 30%
of his time on the CEC. And so we're
[12:46] trying to make sure that we're
adequately reflecting where staff time
[12:50] is spent on specific subd departments uh
so that we get a clearer picture of
[12:55] what's driving those costs. And so
that's one example as well as allocating
[12:59] uh engineering expenses to capital
improvement projects more tightly as
[13:03] well driving some of that decrease in
administrative related costs.
[13:11] All right,
you take
[13:15] » Yeah. Uh, looking at the next page here,
fiscal year 27 general fund operation
[13:19] changes. Uh, these are just primarily
changes that were talked about at the
[13:23] start of this fiscal year uh or during
the start of the budgeting for the
[13:26] current fiscal year here. Again, uh
you'll see some changes potentially
[13:30] between budget and actual expenses on
the PD side based off of the uh the
[13:34] trial that's occurring right now. Um
other than that it's primarily a list of
[13:39] uh things that have been implemented as
part of this budget year. Uh the PD is
[13:44] also uh planning to move over towards
laser fish uh for their PED data
[13:49] management. Uh that's what we use at
city hall as well. Uh various other PD
[13:53] departments across the metro use laser
fish and have good experience with it.
[13:57] And as our dispatch system has changed
over to the cloud. uh there's some
[14:02] systems that are intertwined with our
current system that uh are getting out
[14:05] of date and moving to laser fusion will
save us money and create some
[14:09] efficiencies there. So I applaud uh PD
on on moving forward with that and we'll
[14:13] probably see that change over in the
next couple of months is my guess as we
[14:16] start to stand that up. Uh otherwise
just also note we completed the airport
[14:21] funding and the dart supplemental
funding in last fiscal year as well. So
[14:24] you see some reductions in expenses
associated with um the end of those
[14:28] commit funding commitments.
Uh and then finally uh we'll expect to
[14:33] have an ad hoc benefits committee
meeting uh coming up here and then some
[14:37] recommendations coming out of that which
depending on the timing of the
[14:40] implementation would create some
additional savings potentially as well
[14:43] on both the general fund and the special
revenues fund.
[14:47] » Can I ask a question? Um, so the laser
fish for the PD, will we have to pay
[14:53] like we did a part-time or we had
somebody come in to kind of use to do
[14:59] all the documents because there were so
many. Is that something that we're going
[15:03] to have to do? So, is that I see that
there's like the part-time elimination
[15:08] of part-time staff for that and then the
anticipated move. The the difference
[15:13] between these two is that um the
movement of data at the city hall side
[15:18] was from physical papers to laser fech.
The movement of the data on the PD side
[15:23] is going to be from one digital platform
to a different digital platform, one
[15:26] which we already subscribed to and have
no cost structure change other than
[15:30] building out the correct system to be
able to transfer that data and then
[15:34] transfer in new data as efficiently as
possible. Is that fairly stated, Adam?
[15:38] » Yeah. So it's something that we can take
care of in-house and it won't cause
[15:44] » other than the co initial cost with the
laser fee subcontractor to create the
[15:48] system that will transfer the data over
to us and allow us to upload new data to
[15:53] it. Yes.
[15:57] » Uh and then again uh you've seen some of
that reduction in expenses reflects the
[16:02] effort to better align budgeted expenses
with actual expenses year-over-year. And
[16:06] you'll see some of that effort on the
revenue side as well in this coming
[16:10] fiscal year 28.
[16:14] Moving on to fiscal year 28. Uh so
again, we've had House File 718 into
[16:20] effect for a couple of years here and
the effects of 27 uh excuse me, Senate
[16:25] File 2472 really start in fiscal year 28
uh and then sort of stair step uh pro
[16:32] providing some flexibility for cities up
through fiscal year 31. uh and then from
[16:38] fiscal year 28 and thereafter uh the 2%
uh revenue uh growth cap is in place uh
[16:46] for any existing valuation.
And so I think where things stand right
[16:51] now is not an immediate crisis, but it
does create some long-term uh structural
[16:55] constraints for the city. Uh and we do
have that sort of a three or four year
[16:59] window to here begin addressing some of
those structural changes that are going
[17:02] to be needed. uh and that's part of what
our strategic planning uh efforts here
[17:06] that we'll talk about later are intended
to help address
[17:11] the fiscal year 28 then constraints that
occur are uh primarily the 10% homestead
[17:17] exemption uh that'll apply to about
1,250 homes in Windsor Heights. Uh that
[17:23] does reduce taxable valuation uh from a
preliminary estimate of $17 million. uh
[17:28] and there are a number of assumptions
kind of built into this entire uh staff
[17:32] report going forward. We're continuing
to learn information from the state and
[17:36] the county and from our financial
adviserss, but uh I think from a
[17:41] broad spectrum I think these numbers are
relatively accurate. um that would be a
[17:46] reduction. Then it equates to about
$150,000 in general fund annual revenue.
[17:51] And then the state backfilling of that
historic homestead tax credit, which is
[17:56] the $4,850,
uh ceases over the course of three
[18:00] years.
the state backfill into the two-tiered
[18:03] assessment limitation that was created a
few years back. That's the first
[18:07] $150,000 of assessed value on commercial
taxes gets rolled back to the
[18:13] residential rate. That backfill is
eliminated in fiscal year 28. Uh it
[18:18] looks like the impact of that on the
general fund would be about $15,000 in
[18:22] fiscal year 28.
Uh and then looking forward, the
[18:26] multifamily assessment class, which was
eliminated several years back, is
[18:30] reintroduced. Uh and that'll be at the
roll back rate um of the single family
[18:35] for fiscal year 28. But in 29, it'll
move to the single family roll back plus
[18:40] 3%. And then it'll sit at after fiscal
year 30 at single family roll back plus
[18:46] 6% thereafter. Uh that should equate to
about $20,000 in additional revenue
[18:51] associated with the multifamily
assessment. in Windsor Heights, but it
[18:54] does not impact fiscal year 28.
Uh so the primary challenge is how we
[18:59] want to address the homestead exemption
in fiscal year 28.
[19:03] Uh the staff recommendation or my
recommendation is that there is a
[19:07] release of uh corresponding TIFF
valuation. Uh that would balance out
[19:12] that revenue reduction in the general
fund and instead reduce it out of the
[19:16] TIF valuation which we have some more
flexibility and bandwidth currently. Uh
[19:20] we're still working with Tiana on the
specifics of what that looks like for
[19:25] our CIP in the long term. Uh but it does
look like we have enough bandwidth to be
[19:29] able to overcome that $17 million
reduction in fiscal year 28 uh with that
[19:34] release and that would help balance out
the general fund revenues without an
[19:39] increase in the general fund rate um for
fiscal year 28. uh if there was no TIFF
[19:45] release and the desire was to keep
revenue flat, uh that would be about a
[19:50] 55 cent revenue or 55 cent levy increase
in the general fund. Uh and then just as
[19:55] a reminder for SF 2472, cities are
granted some flexibility on what their
[20:01] levy rates are up till fiscal year 31.
Uh so it can go above and beyond that
[20:06] 810 until fiscal year 31. We're
currently above 810 today and I'd be I'd
[20:12] have some hesitations about further
increasing that levy knowing that in
[20:16] fiscal year 31 there'd be a requirement
to reduce it. Uh so that's kind of an
[20:21] underlying assumption built into this
and welcome feedback over the next
[20:24] couple of months on uh whether that tiff
release is appropriate. Um because if
[20:29] that isn't going to occur then we'd
probably need to incorporate that into
[20:32] our strategic planning conversations
going forward. But again, it appears we
[20:36] can release that 24%
30% worth of tiff valuation in fiscal
[20:41] year 28 uh and navigate that impact on
our capital improvement projects for the
[20:46] immediate future.
Uh and then focus on general fund
[20:50] operations over the course of the next
few years and structural changes there.
[20:56] Uh beyond that, there is uh that 2%
revenue growth cap limitation that goes
[21:02] into effect next year. uh just because
of Windsor Heights uh build out and lack
[21:08] of new developments opportunities, we'd
expect to see I think new valuation
[21:13] increases uh be fairly nominal going
forward other than redevelopment
[21:16] efforts. Uh and so new new valuation is
exempted from that 2% uh limit. But
[21:23] existing valuation would move every
other year with the reevaluation years.
[21:27] Uh and then on years that we're not
seeing reevaluation other than remodels
[21:32] uh or other changes to existing
households, you could expect to see a
[21:35] fairly nominal increase in valuation on
those years. Uh which would likely
[21:39] averaged out to be a 0 or 1%
uh valuation increase year-over-year, I
[21:44] would suspect, uh going forward for
Windsor Heights.
[21:49] Uh we'll be talking about 73rd Street
South reconstruction later today as well
[21:53] and some options there. that as a
reminder is a TIFF funded project
[21:56] primarily along with some STBG funds
that the city has been awarded and of
[22:00] course we've been uh making efforts on
the uh build grant as well for potential
[22:05] funding of that project there. Uh but as
we work through budget implications for
[22:11] fiscal year 28 and beyond, uh
incorporating in the plans for
[22:15] reconstruction of 73rd Street South and
fiscal year 30 uh becomes important
[22:19] context as uh for tiff uh costs going uh
going forward as well. And so better
[22:25] understanding the engineering, the
timing and the total cost structure to
[22:28] the city for that project uh becomes
very important just because uh the
[22:32] limitations that we may impose on
ourselves from a tiff perspective.
[22:42] Uh a few other things that are in the
works uh then is uh we have the current
[22:46] changes at the PD uh that are under
trial. Uh we'll have the results of the
[22:51] Windsor Heights Clive Urbanddale and
Walke Fire Department study uh here
[22:54] within the next month or so uh and be
presenting that to city officials uh on
[22:59] potential options for efficiencies
there. Uh and any takeaways from that
[23:04] study of course are subject to the uh
the decisions of multiple city councils
[23:09] uh that are participating in that in
that study going forward.
[23:13] Looking forward to fiscal year 29
through 31. uh will continue to face
[23:18] that 2% revenue cap uh increase. And
then in fiscal year 31, the requirement
[23:24] to move the consolidated general fund
levy down from 831 where it currently
[23:29] sits to 810 uh will need to take place
to comply with Senate File 2472.
[23:35] And that 21 cent reduction in the levy
equates to about 50 to $60,000 in
[23:39] general funds.
Uh so again just want to mention uh you
[23:44] know we've got several years to kind of
deal with the operational changes that
[23:48] the property tax bill are likely to
create uh for the city. Uh we have
[23:53] significant reserves uh and some
structural changes that are being
[23:56] discussed and already in the works. Uh
but we have some time to to kind of work
[24:00] through that uh and with that runway and
do so thoughtfully and implement those
[24:04] necessary changes over the next few
years. The impacts of these property
[24:08] bills I think are uh pretty significant
to a lot of different cities in the
[24:12] metro. Um it depends in part based off
of the percentage of valuation that is
[24:18] residential of which we are heavy on. uh
how much new valuation is coming online
[24:22] of which we have a limited amount uh
because we are built out the
[24:26] infrastructure needs of a city the
public service uh delivery expectations
[24:32] uh and what the multifamily and
industrial uh property tax uh base is as
[24:37] well because those are less impacted by
uh the budget changes than residential
[24:42] properties
uh beyond the general fund because this
[24:46] was really intended to focus primarily
on the general fund uh we've talked
[24:50] about kind where we sit at from reserves
on the road use tax perspective. Uh
[24:53] we're also sitting in a healthy position
with our storm water fund. Uh the
[24:57] special revenues fund. Um there are a
few changes that have occurred there
[25:01] from the city contributions rates for
protective classes in the last year. Uh
[25:06] we also have some changes um that are
proposed potentially by the benefits
[25:10] committee. Uh and then the corresponding
release of the tiff valuation would also
[25:14] help support uh balancing the the
special revenues fund without any
[25:18] increases as well.
lost revenue uh which is used primarily
[25:23] to fund capital infrastructure projects
in Windsor Heights uh in equipment
[25:26] purposes equipment purchases and the CC
supplemental operations uh continues to
[25:32] incrementally grow and increase uh and
it appears like it's in a good position
[25:37] combined to continue to fund our CIP
projects over the next 5 years uh more
[25:41] or less as planned.
[25:45] So, a lot of information there. Uh, but
looking at what's next is really the
[25:49] strategic planning efforts that'll
inform those objectives uh for
[25:52] priorities uh on an operational side and
those structural changes that uh we want
[25:56] to pursue going forward.
Uh and then over the next coming months,
[26:02] I think we'll continue to better
understand what the impacts are from uh
[26:06] staff members at the state and at the
county uh and be able to put a finer
[26:10] point on uh what those constraints and
the dollar amounts of revenues uh will
[26:15] be for fiscal year 28 and going forward.
Beyond that,
[26:20] really not looking for any specific
feedback on this tonight. Just really
[26:23] wanted to kind of bring council up to
speed on the information that we
[26:26] currently have and what we're seeing
from a numbers perspective, but open to
[26:29] ask any questions. We'll try to either
provide an answer tonight or uh bookmark
[26:34] that to do some more research on and
give you an answer in the future.
[26:44] » No questions.
>> I was just going to say thanks for
[26:47] putting this together. I think it's very
helpful. gives a really nice landscape
[26:49] and um as we go into our strategic
planning, our comprehensive report, our
[26:57] fiscal year 28 budgeting, it really
gives a clearer lens um of what we need
[27:02] to be thinking about. So, thank you for
thank you both for your work on that.
[27:08] » Very well laid out, easy to read. So,
appreciate that.
[27:15] » Anything else? That's all that I have.
>> All right. Uh 5B, discussion of 73rd
[27:23] Street South reconstruction plans.
[27:30] » Not long.
[27:33] » Like what? Another week.
>> What's that?
[27:35] » We're another week and we're all done.
>> Yeah, this is a different one.
[27:39] » Oh, this isn't [laughter]
>> so what comes next.
[27:43] » Yeah, Justin's bold neck. Uh what we
have in front of you just a quick thing
[27:48] on this staff report is um since we
started design we had a little change
[27:53] coming up with the potential railroad
>> um aspect here.
[27:57] » Um so just to remind everyone the be the
first concept was shifting everything to
[28:03] get that sidewalk in. Well now we have a
little bit of a different option
[28:07] potentially coming up. So just kind of
um before you are the two options
[28:12] preliminary layouts of one we have
showing with the sidewalk and two
[28:17] utilizing the the potential abandonment
of the rail line. Right. So um we're
[28:22] kind of at a point here we've kind of
waited for preliminary design has been
[28:26] stopped for a while just because of well
one we're a little ways out yet but um
[28:32] two dealing with the build grant and
stuff like that. So, we're getting to
[28:36] the point now where we have to kind of
figure out where we're going to go, if
[28:38] we're going to meet these deadlines for
2030 and whatnot. So, um before he was
[28:44] just a staff report, uh there's two
alternatives in there, like I said,
[28:48] along with the concept for those build
addited added options, I guess. Um,
[28:56] so really not to read everything off
here, we're just kind of looking for
[29:00] council's somewhat direct or a direction
on whether we stay with the sidewalk
[29:06] design as we had on the original
goaround and we've been planning for a
[29:10] while now or kind of offshooting to the
the trail which is is a a somewhat of a
[29:17] big design but not necessarily a whole
change. It just gives us a different
[29:21] options. Um,
>> and this would be for preliminary
[29:23] design. You know, could shift if the
railroad rightaway is not available,
[29:27] then we would shift back to the
sidewalk. If kind of the engineering
[29:29] work was geared towards the the trail,
but
[29:32] » yeah, the with with the preliminary
design moving forward a little bit more.
[29:36] It helps us hone in on those actual
costs of the project. Right. Right now,
[29:41] we're just high level with just kind of
what you see with line work and not
[29:45] actually sitting down with grading and
what all has to go on. So a lot of our
[29:48] budget estimates were estimates at that,
right? So moving in farther in design
[29:53] helps us kind of hone in on what those
true cost will be.
[29:58] » And a better understanding of those true
costs um will help us with the tiff
[30:02] projections going forward of of what we
need to retain within our tax increment
[30:06] district as well to be able to fund this
plus existing debt obligations that are
[30:11] being paid out of tiff such as
University AB and 73rd Street North. uh
[30:15] and then incorporate the future CIP
projects that may have TIFF funding
[30:20] associated with it as well. But there's
still the question of whether there's a
[30:24] build grant, whether there's additional
STBG funds that might be awarded to the
[30:28] project. Um but over the course of the
next couple years, we need to bring that
[30:32] together to better understand that
financial picture um towards fiscal year
[30:36] 30
[30:39] » because with these with this comes
federal money. So the process of design
[30:44] and the length of it takes years instead
of a year. So and we're getting there.
[30:50] Time's flying, right? School starts soon
and we're we'll be in fiscal year 20
[30:56] here shortly. So
>> nth grade orientation today.
[30:58] » Yep.
[31:02] » So the the staff recommendation is to
move forward with at least conceptually
[31:06] alternative one which is the trail
design. uh that would potentially
[31:11] eliminate reworking of that westmost
lane and the on-ramp and the on-ramp
[31:16] off-ramp of the DOT which is DOT
property and they can reconstruct that
[31:22] on a timeline that they find
appropriate. Um but the estimate is
[31:26] maybe that would save approximately
$350,000.
[31:29] Um that would be refined over time.
whether grants for the trail might
[31:33] become available um uh and you know just
additional things learned from
[31:39] underground conditions and and whatnot
through engineering. Uh but it would
[31:43] provide probably the best pedestrian
access um for folks on 73rd Street, but
[31:50] it is subject to again the potential
railroad abandonment. conversations with
[31:54] Clive about where that connectivity
point would be for the trail. Uh if it
[31:59] runs directly alongside 73rd Street
because they have existing trail kind of
[32:04] on the west side of uh of 73rd Street,
they may not need portions of the
[32:08] railroad right away or the railroad
property if it becomes available. And so
[32:12] where's that connection point? It
probably isn't where it crosses the road
[32:15] today. Uh but it would need to be
determined where that best safest
[32:20] location would be to do that. Um whether
that's at the bridge of Walmart or the
[32:25] Don Steel Bridge or or elsewhere.
[32:29] » Have we had any conversations with Clyde
to see like just fill them out or
[32:36] » I think the question is a little less
pressing for them right now just because
[32:39] there's a lot of uncertainty on whether
um the railroad will be acquired. Uh so
[32:44] we've had conversations about what it
might look like from them, but I think
[32:47] they're internally contemplating from
what I understand. But if this is kind
[32:51] of the option that we want to move
towards preliminarily, then I think we
[32:54] would engage a lot deeper with them on
what that might look like going forward.
[33:04] » I think getting the DOT, not having to
deal with the DOT would be amazing and
[33:09] not have to try to reconfigure that
would be good. And then um you know the
[33:16] 10-ft shared use um the the trail. I
think that would be a good since we're
[33:22] trying to push people to various
different cities, not just Windsor
[33:26] Heights, but you know promoting um all
the businesses, all the the trails. I
[33:31] think that would be
probably the best in my opinion the best
[33:37] if we can pull it off.
[33:42] And we do have the NO here as well. I
don't know if you have any further
[33:45] comments on that. Uh or part of the
conversation is also going to be what
[33:48] our intentions might be going forward
for the build grant. We could kind of
[33:52] put that as question number two. Uh but
depending on the perspective of where we
[33:56] want to go with for the preliminary
design would also impact how we want to
[34:01] pursue or if we want to pursue a build
grant going forward as well. Um, I could
[34:06] dive into that unless there's more
comments on kind of the two options,
[34:10] alternative one or the original design.
>> Does the NPO have a thought on that?
[34:16] Governor, do you have an opinion or
>> I'll speak? Yeah. Governor Olson's
[34:21] » Lauren's online so you got to come up
here. Sorry.
[34:25] » Governor Olson's MO. I think the staff
recommendation makes a lot of sense
[34:29] given the context of where we are right
now. Um, I do think the context of the
[34:33] railroad is changing. Uh, for what it's
worth, we feel positive about that.
[34:37] Won't go too much into detail, but we're
feeling pretty positive that that is the
[34:40] likely outcome that the region will end
up with that. Um, and also the context
[34:45] that you talked about in your financial
report, the finances have changed and
[34:48] some of your partners that were involved
before may not be able to participate
[34:52] going forward. Um, that being said, you
would still have a back pocket option of
[34:56] doing the build grant. Uh the build
grant that was put in this year was a
[35:00] project of merit and that has
significance because you could put it in
[35:04] again in the next cycle and be already
past the first cut. You would already be
[35:08] front of the line. So I wouldn't throw
that option out the window right away.
[35:12] Um but I think it's a very reasonable
position to put it in your back pocket
[35:15] and start down this other path because
the contact is kind of pointing in that
[35:19] direction.
[35:24] You also put in a very competitive grant
application for service transportation
[35:27] block grant funding this year. So, thank
you.
[35:30] » Thanks, Conor.
>> And we have not had our DOT feedback
[35:34] session on the build grant yet. Uh we
have been contacted to schedule one and
[35:39] we've returned with some options. Um
we'd expect that to occur probably in
[35:43] August hopefully.
>> Um
[35:45] » early September.
>> Early September. Um so that will also
[35:48] probably govern the decision on how we
want to respond to build uh for the
[35:52] upcoming application cycle as well.
[35:57] Um, no. I would just say I mean as a
person who uses the trails, biking,
[36:02] walking, running, whatever I'm u
participating in, no emotos though. Um,
[36:08] that um that's this has always been a
vision, a dream. I think Gunnar, we've
[36:13] talked about this many times about how
we'd love to see that railroad be
[36:16] transition into trail. So, I think that
would be like if if it's a possibility,
[36:22] I think it makes the most sense.
I agree.
[36:27] And we also know what we should get you
for a holiday gift.
[36:32] » Well, chip in. [laughter]
>> I'm not saying I don't have them. I'm
[36:36] saying
there's no trail riding.
[36:40] » Yeah, makes sense.
>> You have your direction?
[36:45] » I believe. So, we will uh continue to
move forward with design on alternative
[36:48] one and uh report back to council once
we've had our DOT feedback session with
[36:52] a recommendation on how and whether to
pursue uh build going forward.
[36:57] » Cool.
>> Okay.
[37:01] All right. Uh 5C, [clears throat]
consideration of resolution number
[37:05] 202656,
a resolution approving a professional
[37:10] services agreement with Bolton and Mink
for the 2026 CDBG grant application.
[37:17] » So move
>> second
[37:19] » AJ
some background Justin.
[37:22] » Sure. Um for this grant award, uh just
going run some background. So Pulk
[37:28] County has um just over 2.5 million
awarded nine eligible cities for this
[37:34] project or for this funding source,
right? So meeting staff meeting
[37:39] together, we kind of brought up thought
of three different potential projects.
[37:42] Uh one was 67th Street um reconstruction
from University Avenue to School Street.
[37:48] The second one was Kobe Park storm sewer
improvements and the third um just some
[37:53] facade improvements. So with with the
these funds there are is really tied to
[38:00] LMI. Um with that we have to do an LMI
survey for these particular areas um to
[38:08] figure out if if these if the locations
are eligible for that. Right? So so
[38:15] there's two kind of aspects to the the
the professional agreement. One was to
[38:18] conduct LMI survey and then two if you
qualified to move ahead. Um so if we
[38:24] didn't qualify, if a city didn't qualify
for the LMI seller survey, we would do
[38:28] an application. So um also part of this
is depending upon which project we
[38:34] choose and then the next year it could
choose another project, right? Some of
[38:39] those LMI surveys could be used again
depending upon where we're at. Um then
[38:43] the community might have to supplement
um depends upon which one we choose
[38:47] going forward but um the hope is to use
a lot of it yet if it qualifi again if
[38:53] it qualifies. So unfortunately right now
we don't know if it qualifies. So the
[38:57] first step like I said is to do the LMI
study for that part. So
[39:02] » just a little bit more background then
is um I think our sense is that 67th
[39:07] Street Reconstruction is probably the
best opportunity to qualify for the LMI
[39:11] study. Uh and if that one does qualify
then the KBY Park storm sewer project
[39:17] which is a project that impacts a a
broad area. It's not just for the park.
[39:21] It a lot of storm sewer in the community
flows through that. Uh and then same
[39:26] with the facade improvement, which would
be uh kind of that 65th to 66th
[39:30] University Avenue corridor of of
buildings, three different property
[39:34] owners. Um if the 67th Street one came
back positive, uh P Countyy's indicated
[39:40] multiple submissions are encouraged
because we're not abundantly clear on
[39:46] where preferences might be for types of
projects. It might be beneficial to to
[39:50] submit more than one. Uh but the
application process is al also fairly
[39:56] indepth uh and not inexpensive to go
through. So 67 street is probably the
[40:02] easiest path for us. But if that survey
comes back, we may even come back with a
[40:07] suggestion that we apply for more than
one this year uh before the pool of
[40:12] eligible cities potentially increases,
which we understand it might as well.
[40:18] » Yes. So, what I have in front of you
just for one project, like I said, the
[40:22] next one would be roughly the same,
maybe a little cheaper just due to the
[40:27] extent of the LMI survey, which is
roughly around 5,500 bucks probably to
[40:31] to do that. Depends upon if everyone
participates is a big key. So, a lot of
[40:35] door knocking and making sure people
actually take the survey. So,
[40:38] » I was just going to ask, how are we
going to promote that? How are we going
[40:41] to get the the most? Because like if I
get something in the mail, it's kind of
[40:46] a 50/50 shot if I'm going to actually
either be it or do something about it.
[40:50] » A lot of it going to be door knocking
because you're you're targeting specific
[40:53] areas, right? You're not widely
broadcasting it through the community.
[40:57] So, a lot of door knocking and hopefully
people answer and take the
[41:03] » anonymous
>> and inform them why we're why we're
[41:06] making the request. so that we can
receive grant funds for a project that
[41:09] they hopefully are supportive of
reconstruction of their street or other
[41:12] improvements in the community
>> and hit a certain percentage of people
[41:16] to actually take the survey. So
otherwise it goes against it.
[41:21] » I'm a good door knocker.
Happy to help.
[41:25] » Perfect.
>> Um I I like the idea of 67th Street
[41:29] first being the priority then part I
like the the three that we've laid out
[41:34] in that priority order.
[41:39] I agree.
[41:45] » All right. Do we need a vote on that
then? Yep. Okay.
[41:49] » Are there further questions, comments?
[41:57] Roll call.
>> Susan Spears. Yes.
[41:58] » Joseph Jones, yes. Fletcher Barry, yes.
Lauren Campbell,
[42:02] » yes.
>> Yes.
[42:07] Item D, uh, consideration of resolution
number 202657, a resolution authorizing
[42:13] withdrawal from the agreement from the
suburban emergency response team, CERT.
[42:18] AJ,
>> yes. Uh, the city rejoined Cert in early
[42:23] 2025.
Uh, we had an officer at the time was
[42:26] interested in participating, Officer
Jax. Uh, our police uh, patrol schedule
[42:31] uh, it goes through various cycles and
there's been some changes to that. uh
[42:34] starting in July and that new schedule
uh does not work well with the training
[42:41] schedule for C and officers Jax has also
had some life changes uh and so at this
[42:46] point we're not aware of any other
officers that are interested in being a
[42:49] member of C and before the renewal
period and that fee associated with it
[42:55] in September uh our recommendation would
be go ahead and withdraw from that 280
[43:00] here today uh and in the future uh
depending on officer interest funding
[43:05] availability and uh corresponding
schedules that work to be a member of
[43:11] CERT. Uh it could be reconsidered in the
future. Uh but uh as it stands today uh
[43:16] we've discussed with finance committee
uh they seem supportive of that. Uh we
[43:19] didn't have time to bring it in front of
the public safety committee prior to
[43:22] this meeting. Uh but I think the intent
is to have some discussion with them uh
[43:26] at their next meeting as well. Uh but
the uh the request here tonight is to go
[43:30] ahead and withdraw from that for the
time being. uh and then it can be
[43:34] reevaluated going forward uh if officer
interest and council interest is uh
[43:39] there for the future. Uh there are some
other organizations that we have
[43:43] agreements with that provide similar
similar services uh as so we do retain
[43:48] the ability to respond
uh for large tactical reasons uh without
[43:53] being a member of C. Uh, Chief Roth is
here to answer your questions and I can
[43:58] as well
[44:02] » questions.
>> I guess I'm not opposed from withdrawing
[44:08] from from the the CERT. I understand
staffing and and scheduling challenges.
[44:14] Um, I just want to make sure that I
understand how these challenges led to
[44:19] the conclusion that leaving CERT is the
best operational decision for us. Um, I
[44:25] just think we need to clearly understand
what the problem is that we're solving,
[44:29] what we'll gain, what we give up, um,
and what replaces the resources, which
[44:34] we've kind of already written out here.
But, um, just want to make sure that we
[44:39] re remain consistent in how we evaluate
our regional partnerships. If we're
[44:44] saying that another agency can provide a
specialized service when we need it,
[44:48] then we need to be willing to apply that
same reasoning consistently when we
[44:53] evaluate other regional programs. So,
this isn't about one program versus
[44:58] another. It's about making sure we're
using the same standard and the same
[45:02] logic when making these decisions. So,
again, not opposed to it. I I understand
[45:10] scheduling changes. um things in life
change for for officers and if you don't
[45:16] have anybody that is wanting to step up
there's not really anything you can do
[45:21] you don't really want to force that on
an officer but uh I just want to make
[45:25] sure that we maintain our consistency on
how we evaluate this regional aspect and
[45:32] approach.
[45:35] Did you say we rejoined in 25 implying
that we've already been a part and left?
[45:41] » Uh I believe that's correct. The city's
been a member of either C or precursors
[45:46] to C at various times in the past.
Metroar a precursor to C. So uh yeah
[45:52] there is some history of this or similar
type organizations going back 15 20
[45:57] years that the city's been member of. um
when we joined in 2025
[46:02] uh I'm not sure when the LA was it maybe
seven or eight years since we'd been a
[46:05] member of a similar type organization
[46:15] we had an officer on Metro or Pete Roth
with the police department um we had an
[46:20] officer on star metro star night when I
joined the department here and then
[46:25] historically I believe we were always
metro star because we were dispatched
[46:29] out of Pulk County. In 2021
or two, we switched over to Westcom and
[46:34] there was a push to have u an officer
join which kind of is a Westcom agency
[46:41] type of a of a of organization. Um, as
you know, the officer that was on Metro
[46:46] Star left for another agency back in
September, October, I believe, of last
[46:52] year. So, there was no member that
expressed interest in joining that team.
[46:58] uh as you know a tactical team has to
you have to meet certain qualifications
[47:01] certain expectations which include a
physical agility test firearm scores uh
[47:07] you have to commit to monthly training
and have some sort of mindset that you
[47:12] commit also to some I believe there's
annual training as well or quarterly so
[47:16] uh there is the officer assigned to had
asked to to resign his position uh we
[47:23] talked about his supervisors and we
discussed it with him several times and
[47:29] he was committed to that. So, we floated
it up the chain. Uh I don't want to have
[47:34] an officer participate in this group if
they don't want to be there or can't be
[47:38] there. And with all the other uh
concerns and challenges that we're we're
[47:42] kind of working through now, it it was
uh easier for us just to withdraw at
[47:46] this point. So, we don't have to we're
coming up on our membership fee, which
[47:50] will be due here soon. So, we didn't
want to, you know, pay for that if we
[47:54] didn't have anybody participating with
the group. So,
[47:57] that answers your questions.
>> What What's the membership fee? How much
[48:00] is it?
>> $900 a year.
[48:02] » Okay.
>> And then we also paid for training. So,
[48:04] there was about a $1,500 commitment from
last year, last fiscal year, but that
[48:09] doesn't also include some training
ammunition that we also purchased, but
[48:14] » $1,500.
>> Okay.
[48:20] » Any other questions?
>> So, how does this work since it's going
[48:23] in front of us here? If we and you can
sign the resolution, then it's going to
[48:29] go to the public safety just for them to
agree with us or just for their input or
[48:36] just for their knowledge or I guess I'm
just confused on the way it because
[48:41] normally it's reversed. It goes to them
first and then it comes to us. So I'm
[48:45] just
>> Yep. the request from the officer to uh
[48:49] to no longer serve in that capacity came
recently and with the membership due
[48:55] coming uh it seemed important to at
least bring it forward uh here this
[48:58] evening and then I think there's still
an opportunity to weigh in from a public
[49:02] safety committee standpoint on how we
want to treat uh membership of C or
[49:06] similar type organizations going
forward. Uh there's nothing precluding
[49:10] the city from rejoining if there's an
officer interested in schedules align uh
[49:14] in agility test passed. Uh but as it
stands right now, we don't have an
[49:19] officer to participate in it and it
would seem imprudent to spend dollars on
[49:24] a membership unless we know that we have
somebody that is able to fill that role
[49:29] for us.
>> I do have a follow- on question from
[49:32] Susan's question pertaining to
regionalism. Obviously, I'm going to
[49:36] support us doing that at all costs. Is
there any benefit or drawback of paying
[49:43] that membership fee and not have an
actual member join that team? I mean,
[49:47] it's $900.
[49:52] I will leave that to council. Uh we also
pay MA we have a MAC agreement with the
[49:58] city of De Moine which is um provides us
homeland security uh evidentiary ident
[50:04] type of services. So Metroar has always
been able to help us if if needed. Uh
[50:11] the state also has a tactical team DPS
does that's made up of their own um
[50:17] troopers and agents and stuff. So
they're always also they're based out of
[50:21] the De Moines area. So they're
available. Um I'm also Yeah, I would
[50:25] also it's budgeted in our in our budget
this year. Uh part of that training cost
[50:31] was split between all the member
agencies. It's kind of like Westcom
[50:34] model. Each agency pays a portion of
that to to run it. Not not any a maybe
[50:39] West De Mo Urbanddale could have their
own teams by themselves. But I believe
[50:43] if I go back into the history,
Urbanddale and West De Mo were the two
[50:46] kind of founding agencies because of
they just could not support a team on
[50:51] their own and kind of got into the
sharing model. So um it's $900. I know
[50:58] that we still participate with with them
on other things too. So I mean I also
[51:03] also don't like paying for something
that we're not participate, you know,
[51:05] we're using either. So that
>> I guess I could leave the public safety
[51:09] committee. We meet here in September on
the that third Thursday.
[51:15] » So Cert has budgeted with us being a
part of it already.
[51:21] » Well, the $900 just came out of our our
budget that in it's budgeted from last
[51:25] year because our budget was submitted or
was turned in again back in December or
[51:29] whatever it was last year. So this
request from the officer to resign only
[51:33] came come came to us several weeks ago.
>> City has budgeted to be a member of C
[51:37] for the coming fiscal year.
>> You're asking about
[51:40] Certific
[51:43] » is certing that from us.
>> Did they plan? Is it in their budget?
[51:48] » Have they already planned based on us
being a part of it?
[51:51] » That is a great question. The the cert
actually the C um chairperson or
[51:56] director right now is Chief McCluskey
and I did have a chat with him about
[51:59] about this last week and he did not say
anything about they they they need this
[52:03] to support their ongoing activities.
They do have a a fund that they use. Now
[52:09] all the equipment and training time is
all provided by the departments. They
[52:12] don't pay for that. They use their
budget for training and and other
[52:17] miscellaneous things. Uh it's not used
for personnel if that makes any sense.
[52:21] So if that answers your
[52:26] be in favor of the $900 spend. I think
it's part of being a team player. This
[52:29] is something that's a Westcom. Um we're
part of that. Um,
[52:35] and this is kind of just a personal
gripe. When searching C, it shows up
[52:40] every agency that's part of it except
for ours. Um, so whether we remain or
[52:45] not, I think we need to be listed as a
agency on there, especially for paying
[52:49] into it. So,
I don't know. I'm in favor of it. So,
[52:54] » I believe Pulk City also is getting
someone on the the team as well, but
[52:58] they're not also listed. the were the
two two younger or juniorous members of
[53:03] that working of that team. So
>> I think I just start
[53:08] remaining the 280 in place. I I know
that we've had some budget challenges
[53:12] that we're trying to save every penny
and uh I just wanted to get ahead of
[53:16] this before the bill came. I'm all for
still being on and leaving it open, but
[53:20] I I guess I'd like some council
direction on how to proceed with that.
[53:23] So
>> all right, council, what do you want to
[53:26] do? Well, I actually have a Oh, go
ahead.
[53:30] » I was say Lauren does have a she
messaged me that she has a comment.
[53:33] » Lauren, go ahead.
>> I just wanted to add that uh I like the
[53:37] idea of staying involved and and keeping
it front of mind for officer
[53:41] development. I know that we don't always
have as much uh as many career growth
[53:46] opportunities as some communities for
advancement and promotion. And so
[53:50] thinking of like the stretch assignment
or the um additional um things like this
[53:56] like mine that um are become development
opportunities for folks. Thanks.
[54:04] » I also wanted some I I'm sorry just some
clarification. Um Chief, you mentioned
[54:08] that we're also a member of MAC and
something with Homeland Security. So do
[54:13] those provide all of the same services
that C provide? I mean the same types of
[54:19] services. I'm confused by that. Can you
explain that?
[54:23] » Again, the MAC was entered in before I
arrived. It's a it's a continuation a
[54:27] continual 2080 and it does provide
access to a bomb squad. It provides us
[54:32] access to a tactical team. And this is
just off the top of my head without
[54:37] looking bringing up the 2080. It also
accesses investigative services in case
[54:42] we have a you know major crime scene.
They would send over their ID unit to
[54:46] help us. and uh and that just helps us
with the other things that we're not
[54:51] able to to to support on our own. So, um
we just like to have an officer. It was
[54:56] just nice for us to have an officer
involved in in the in the team so we
[55:00] knew what was going on and gave us a
little bit of of a resource in the
[55:03] department to kind of do a little
training with us to have that kind of
[55:06] knowledge and expertise, too. So,
[55:11] » Okay. So, do we do we pay for the MAC
membership?
[55:14] » We do.
>> Okay. How much is that?
[55:17] I think it's 7,000, but I that's I want
to grab my computer.
[55:21] » We pay you
>> city de mo,
[55:24] » right?
>> So that's city of de mo. So is everybody
[55:28] else regionally member of that too or
just us?
[55:31] » Uh metroar. I don't know who actually is
a signer on the MAC. Uh but uh um it was
[55:38] um something again prior to my to my
being here and we don't and have some of
[55:43] those uh resources that the de mo offers
us uh like for investigative services
[55:49] and bomb squad and does not have a bomb
squad.
[55:53] » Okay. Cert does everything else but the
>> they do they do a tactical response only
[56:01] » 7,151
>> was that July one
[56:05] » hit it July 10th
>> this year
[56:14] » I guess I'd be interested in
understanding what are all the different
[56:18] membership fees we pay what services we
get for each one of these
[56:23] and then where we should be investing
our resources to get the all to get the
[56:29] services that we need. So if we have
MAC, we have mine, we have C,
[56:35] what else do we have?
>> Westcom, uh Animal Arl is our 911.
[56:42] » I'm just I'm you say all the contracts
I'm
[56:45] » No, in in this space what is I mean I I
see that as I understand what Westcom is
[56:50] and what we get there. Um what these are
like services outside that are otherwise
[56:57] supporting
or providing services that otherwise RPD
[57:02] is not. Is that correct? Is that fair
way to say that
[57:05] » that we don't we're not able to to do
ourselves. Yes.
[57:08] » Okay. All right. So
Mac
[57:13] » mine mine.
>> I off the top of my head that that that
[57:18] sounds right.
So before we I I guess for me before I
[57:24] make a complete decision I just want to
know how much we're spending in each
[57:28] group if there's parts that overlay why
they overlay if there's also did uh plan
[57:39] on our $900 to make their budget go for
this next year because that's I don't I
[57:46] mean $900 is only $900 in the scheme of
things But I also don't want to make our
[57:52] friends in various cities upset with us
um just because we don't have an officer
[57:58] currently which could change um given
you know a turnaround or or whatever. So
[58:06] I'm not really too hip on just
cancelling right now. um maybe public
[58:12] safety, having a talk through, having a
better understanding of putting all the
[58:18] pieces together because I feel like we
just have little tidbits here, here,
[58:22] here, and we need to to get the puzzle
pieces all together so that we can fully
[58:26] understand what services we have
inhouse, what services we contract out
[58:31] of our house, and how we can be the the
best financial
[58:38] givers of of that, you Well, I think we
can we can inventory that at our public
[58:44] safety meeting. But I think to
Fletcher's point, I'm I am perfectly
[58:47] fine with us accepting that officer Jax
wants to resign from search and still
[58:53] being a member of CERT for now.
>> There may be a participation component.
[58:57] I just I don't know if I can still be a
member without having
[59:00] » a person on the team, but I would I can
always I can always ask. [clears throat]
[59:04] » So, it sounds like we need to gather a
lot more information. I'm wondering
[59:07] should we just table this um for our
next meeting?
[59:11] » When do they need to know by?
>> We paid the bill in September last year.
[59:16] So I'm sure it's going to and we don't
have another meeting until I'm sure I
[59:20] can hold them off. I mean I don't think
I mean I've already told them. So
[59:23] » I need to call a special counsel meeting
for $900. I guess
[59:27] » we we can we can take time.
>> Well, that's what
[59:29] » get a pass due notice and that'll
probably be all right.
[59:32] » Seems to be the I'm sure they know where
we're heading here.
[59:34] » Who is the person in charge of it? Is it
Chief McCcluskey
[59:37] » for now? Vote. They vote. The board
votes to see who what chief wants to who
[59:42] who does it. So,
>> so maybe he'll take a little kindness to
[59:45] us since he used to be here and he has a
softness.
[59:49] » Friends and family discount. Sure.
[laughter]
[59:52] » Well, I think what would be helpful
whether it's public safety looking at
[59:55] this, but I'd like the information as
well. So, um, exactly what Susan
[1:00:00] outlined. So, what are the services?
What are the associated costs? The total
[1:00:03] cost to our budget? um how it the
interaction with ours all of those like
[1:00:11] outline that for certine so we can and
then if there's anything else that pops
[1:00:15] up in your space um that would be
helpful
[1:00:23] » looks like public safety will meet on
the 17th third Thursday Thursday next
[1:00:27] council meeting is the 21st so we'll be
able to bring it back either on the 21st
[1:00:30] or the first meeting uh in a October Any
[1:00:37] other question?
>> Thank you.
[1:00:39] » Move to table it, please.
>> Move to
[1:00:44] your pen amend the motion.
>> My motion to table the item.
[1:00:49] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:00:51] » Roll call.
>> Susan Skir.
[1:00:52] » Yes.
>> Joseph Jones.
[1:00:53] » Yes.
>> Fletcher Berry.
[1:00:54] » Yes.
>> Lauren Campbell.
[1:00:56] » Yes.
>> Harms.
[1:00:58] » Yes.
>> E. Consideration of resolution number
[1:01:00] 202658, a resolution approving a
professional services agreement with
[1:01:04] Lyall Sumc.
>> Yes.
[1:01:08] » Which one is it?
>> Simk, I believe.
[1:01:10] » Okay. Simick Associates for leadership
and strategic planning services.
[1:01:16] » Uh staff has visited with Lyall and
discussed potential dates for holding
[1:01:21] these sessions after our last council
meeting. Uh it does not look like
[1:01:25] there's a good date that is going to
work in August or September for the
[1:01:29] two-day city council session. Uh and so
it looks like the best option would be
[1:01:35] to look for something in early November
most likely. Uh
[1:01:40] the ideal would be two consecutive days
um between 6 to 8 hours uh both days
[1:01:48] with Lyall. And then there's a lot of
work on the staff side that'll lead up
[1:01:52] to that as well as a zoom interview with
each elected official done at the
[1:01:57] elected officials kind of scheduling
preference u prior to that. So my
[1:02:02] suggestion is if we want to move forward
with the strategic planning uh in
[1:02:06] November or possibly uh late October if
we find a date that works uh we take a
[1:02:12] minute here tonight or this week and try
to find a couple of dates that work for
[1:02:17] everybody at the dis and for staff. uh
and then we can backfill in kind of all
[1:02:22] those components that lead up to that
city council uh session or the two
[1:02:27] sessions.
[1:02:32] So I guess the the two questions are uh
is everybody still supportive of moving
[1:02:37] forward with the strategic planning with
Lyall uh potentially in November a
[1:02:41] little later than we discussed last
time. Uh, and if so, do we want to
[1:02:45] compare calendars here tonight or I can
get u another poll out to everybody on
[1:02:50] availability and we can try to identify
two ideally consecutive dates that work
[1:02:54] for uh all parties involved. Lyall is
available uh the entirety of November.
[1:03:00] Uh and key staff appear like they'll be
available all of November with the
[1:03:04] exception of November 1st and November
2nd. So, we should have a pretty good
[1:03:09] window of days to be able to choose from
in everybody's calendar.
[1:03:13] Let's do it.
I'm on the 5th through the 11th.
[1:03:19] [snorts]
[1:03:22] » You're gone on Veterans Day again for
like the ninth year in a row.
[1:03:24] » It's my
>> Don't talk to me if you start watching
[1:03:27] your land.
[1:03:31] » about the coming following weekend 13th,
14th, 15th.
[1:03:42] I'm open.
>> That's open
[1:03:46] » once Lauren 13th through the 15th.
>> So you see then or you're available
[1:03:51] suggesting that. Okay,
>> that should be fine.
[1:04:00] » I'll just move one thing around. Are we
talking Friday, Saturday? Are we talking
[1:04:03] Saturday, Sunday? Are we talking Friday,
Saturday, Sunday?
[1:04:11] Your pleasure. Uh Lyle's available at
our discretion from those dates from
[1:04:15] what I choose if you want to do evenings
or daytime. Uh people make it work. Uh
[1:04:21] hopefully other department heads here
also kind of have their calendars open
[1:04:23] if there's any hard stops. I know that
the only two I was aware of trying to
[1:04:27] catch everyone. And chief, I know you
were out of country at the time, so I
[1:04:30] didn't catch you on it, but November 1st
and November 2nd. So, as it stands, I
[1:04:34] think we can make anything work. A
Friday might be kind of nice if we can
[1:04:38] do it partially during the workday. Um,
but whatever council would like to move
[1:04:41] forward with, I think we can do.
>> I can do it from noon on on the 13th.
[1:04:49] » I'll just block it all off on my
calendar.
[1:04:53] I can make that work.
>> All that noon to 8 on the 13th.
[1:05:00] » Will there be Casey's pizza?
>> Maybe.
[1:05:05] » Or something better. I love that.
[laughter]
[1:05:09] at least one meal needs to be provided.
I feel like
[1:05:12] » have something
>> um at the CC probably
[1:05:17] » if it's available.
>> Oh yeah.
[1:05:22] » Otherwise likely here.
>> He's going to check.
[1:05:27] » Yeah, I can see and I block it right
now.
[1:05:31] » And then the 14th as the second
consecutive day. Is there a preference
[1:05:35] start early in the morning or
>> not too early?
[1:05:38] » Same time.
>> Yeah. No, no, not not that early.
[1:05:42] » To 8
>> like 10
[1:05:44] » after noon. Afternoon.
>> 9 or 10.
[1:05:50] » 10 to 6.
>> Yeah.
[1:05:54] Council member Campbell, 10 to 6
potentially work for you.
[1:05:56] » She's gone.
[1:06:02] devices. Oh, she should pop back up in a
second.
[1:06:06] » Where's she at? I
>> think she's driving. Not herself
[1:06:11] driving. She's in the vehicle.
>> All right. Well, we can figure out the
[1:06:15] loop. Go.
>> There she is.
[1:06:19] » Council member Campbell, does the 14th
from 10 to 6 p.m. potentially work for
[1:06:24] you as the second date after the 13th?
[1:06:33] You're on mute if you responded.
[1:06:37] » I heard a yes. Okay, let's go.
[1:06:42] » All right. Well, I'll circle up with her
and uh we'll tentatively plan on that.
[1:06:46] I'll follow up with uh more specific
dates for items leading up to that
[1:06:50] location and everything else afterwards,
unless any issues um anybody else has
[1:06:55] said. Okay. Anything
else you need besides the vote? Besides
[1:07:00] the vote. Yes.
>> All right. Roll call.
[1:07:03] » Susan Skiris.
>> Yes.
[1:07:05] » Joseph Jones.
>> Yes.
[1:07:06] » Fletcher Berry.
>> Yes.
[1:07:08] » Lauren Campbell.
>> We have a motion.
[1:07:11] » Do we have a motion?
>> Didn't we?
[1:07:14] » I thought so.
>> I got some extra time to be able to
[1:07:18] unmute and say yes.
>> I don't have a motion. No.
[1:07:23] » Did you not write a motion?
>> Oh, I guess I did. Just I think we just
[1:07:26] » move to move forward on in November.
>> Second.
[1:07:30] » Roll call.
>> Susan Scarce. Yes.
[1:07:33] » Joseph Jones. Yes.
>> Fletcher Berry. Yes. Lauren Campbell.
[1:07:39] » I think she already said yes, wasn't
she?
[1:07:44] » She had enough time. Yes.
>> Technical difficulties.
[1:07:50] » We'll wait on that. Yes, Lauren.
>> I'm back again. That's a big yes.
[1:07:56] » [laughter]
>> All right. Uh, item F, consideration of
[1:08:01] resolution number 22659. Is that
supposed to be 202659?
[1:08:06] » Yeah, I just saw that.
>> Yeah, 202659. A resolution authorizing
[1:08:10] the public arts committee to approve a
contract for the 6587 University Avenue
[1:08:16] Mural Project and authorizing
administration to execute the contract.
[1:08:19] » Move to approve.
>> Second,
[1:08:22] » AJ.
>> Yes. So the we have uh received some
[1:08:26] public feedback on the finalists. Uh the
committee uh the public arts committee
[1:08:30] met and uh voted on the finalist uh
worked on some revisions that they'd
[1:08:36] like to see uh to the mural on the west
wall as well as the awning uh last week.
[1:08:42] Got those in front of KBY interest. And
I see we have uh Liz uh legit as well
[1:08:48] online here our consultants on the
project. uh got that in front of the uh
[1:08:53] board of trustees for
uh Kobe interest. Uh they were
[1:08:57] supportive of the west wall piece uh but
did have some concerns about the awning
[1:09:02] uh both the nature I think of doing a
mural on the awning and maybe the the
[1:09:07] amount of design um that was on the
draft awning uh mural as well. And so we
[1:09:15] do have a schedule uh that we were
trying to adhere with uh for our
[1:09:20] finalist and that would include
continuing or moving forward with the
[1:09:25] installation on the west wall in August
and into September. And since we don't
[1:09:30] meet again until midepptember uh we sort
of have some inflection point here
[1:09:34] tonight on how we want to proceed uh
with the mural holistic label the awning
[1:09:39] and the west wall. And uh the suggestion
would be go ahead and approve uh a
[1:09:46] contract or approve authorizing staff
and the public arts committee to move
[1:09:50] forward with that west mar wall mural as
designed and approved by the committee
[1:09:56] shown on the attachment here this
evening and approved by KBY interests.
[1:10:00] Uh but then additionally authorize uh
staff and the public arts committee to
[1:10:05] engage with KBY interests on any
potential revisions to the awning mural.
[1:10:12] Uh either modifications to that or maybe
some considerations of u installation
[1:10:17] and potential removal if needed due to
circumstances or design conflict on
[1:10:22] that. Uh but that is sort of the
question in front of you here today. And
[1:10:26] I do have some cost information included
in that staff report. Just as a
[1:10:30] reminder, uh there are um Bravo funds
that were received specifically for the
[1:10:37] west wall piece. Uh that was $40,000
or up to 75% of the west wall and the
[1:10:44] mural design costs. And then there was a
Prairie Meadows grant that we recently
[1:10:48] received uh that did uh notate
specifically the awning. Uh so that was
[1:10:53] 10,000 there. And then the city had
budgeted $40,000.
[1:10:58] Uh but the actual cost um if everything
stands today would be closer to that
[1:11:04] 20-ish,000
range. um if everything was completed
[1:11:08] and all grant funds received after
considering uh the mural protection on
[1:11:13] the west wall uh the consultant expenses
and then the four finalist designs uh
[1:11:18] give or take. So depending on whether
that awning piece moves forward uh could
[1:11:24] have grant implications uh for the uh
the Prairie Meadows funding uh the west
[1:11:32] wall being all approved and the funds
from Bravo specifically for that piece
[1:11:38] uh should be fine and I think from a
cost perspective we would be able to
[1:11:43] receive and utilize all or nearly all of
that $40,000.
[1:11:49] Um, but we don't have a final design
that's approved for the awning and we
[1:11:55] need to have conversation with Colby
interests over the course of the next
[1:11:59] few weeks to see if we can finalize that
design and then move forward within that
[1:12:04] September time frame to complete that
design uh on on the awning. So, that's
[1:12:10] kind of the question here tonight is if
you want to move forward with the west
[1:12:12] wall and authorize the committee and
staff to try to finish up uh the awning
[1:12:17] piece or you can hit pause, but we do
have some time constraints both on the
[1:12:22] artist side as well as from the grant
funding side of uh moving forward with
[1:12:27] and completing this mural. And Liz, I
maybe you want to give a little bit of
[1:12:31] update for your conversations with uh
the artist or the finalist uh on her
[1:12:35] perspective. And we did receive from her
today an updated awning design as well,
[1:12:41] maybe to try to move the needle a little
bit on that. That's been circulated with
[1:12:45] the committee. Uh but we haven't brought
it to council yet. Just received it
[1:12:47] today.
>> Yes, it's been wonderful to work with
[1:12:51] Heather. She's a Windsor Heights
resident, so it's been she's really
[1:12:56] excited about it. I think the West Wall
specifically is the major show piece. I
[1:13:03] think the awning piece of it as well. um
is an important part of the design, but
[1:13:08] it is not the main piece of the design.
It's not the um overall welcoming image,
[1:13:17] and that's really the west wall piece.
So, um Heather's been great. She
[1:13:22] understands what's been going on in the
last week. She's very eager to get going
[1:13:27] on the West Wall. um not only for her
own schedule, but just in terms of
[1:13:33] making sure that paint adheres to a
building. We need to make sure that
[1:13:37] we're doing this before temperatures
drop. Um really the the mark is about
[1:13:45] 40° at night, so we're not there yet, so
we're still good. Uh we also were trying
[1:13:50] to get things done by Fall Fest.
[1:13:57] Um, as a member of this committee, I of
the arts committee, I just want to say I
[1:14:02] I think that we're at a point in time to
move forward. I I would recommend that
[1:14:06] we move forward with the the west wall
right now. We can figure out the awning,
[1:14:10] you know, as it moves forward or get K's
approval. Um, with with that, I don't
[1:14:16] think it's, you know, a mandatory
component. I understand there's budget
[1:14:21] implications and all those sorts of
things. I feel like we can get it worked
[1:14:24] out. Um, but I think right now, let's
get moving so we can get this done. Um,
[1:14:30] it's been a work in progress for a
period of time and so it's time to move.
[1:14:35] I I feel like it's time to move and get
it done and we've got the grant funds,
[1:14:38] so let's let's get her going.
>> I agree. I if we could just get the the
[1:14:45] west wall started and deal with the
awning issue later. Um, if we even have
[1:14:49] to do the awnings, um, that would be my
suggestion.
[1:14:56] for me. If folks are generally
supportive of that, the proposed motion
[1:15:01] is to authorize the public arts
committee to approve and city
[1:15:04] administration to execute a contract
with Heather Hansen to complete the west
[1:15:08] wall mural in accordance with the design
approved by the KBY interest trustees
[1:15:13] and authorize the public arts committee
to approve an administration to execute
[1:15:17] a contract with Heather Hansen to
complete the awning mural subject to
[1:15:21] approval by KBY interest trustees any
and any mutually agreed upon
[1:15:27] modifications. ations. Such approval may
be conditioned upon the city removing
[1:15:31] the awning mural and restoring the
awning to its existing condition if
[1:15:35] within 6 months of completion the Kobe
interest trustees notify the city that
[1:15:40] the mural is unsatisfactory and that the
total cost of the mural agreement shall
[1:15:44] not exceed $70,000.
I would like to I want the west wall
[1:15:50] done, but I would like to see in front
of council before and and not that I
[1:15:55] don't trust the arts committee at all.
Um, but I think we put everything else
[1:16:00] in front of council and I think that
this the awning should be something that
[1:16:04] is also brought in front of council
after it's approved. Um, just kind of
[1:16:10] dot the eyes, cross the tees, and be
consistent on on how we handle our
[1:16:14] decisions here.
Liz, are there any concerns about the
[1:16:18] ability to complete that mural if this
didn't come back in front of city
[1:16:21] council until midepptember?
>> I think that it's going to take her
[1:16:26] approximately 3 weeks to get that west
wall done. So, it would be probably
[1:16:31] aligning with that timeline.
>> Still should be able to get complete
[1:16:35] this year then,
>> I believe. So, yes.
[1:16:38] » So, just so
>> it all depends on weather, quite
[1:16:41] frankly. I mean, there's there's a
little bit of what happens in October.
[1:16:47] I just want to make sure like I would
like the west wall to get started and if
[1:16:52] we could cut out the the whole part of
the awning in that contract so that that
[1:16:58] comes forth to council for approval
prior to it being done. But the west
[1:17:03] wall, I would love to have it done
before uh Fall Fest and maybe have a
[1:17:07] little bus tour that kind of just goes
right around that and everybody can see
[1:17:12] it so that they know it's there and we
kind of showcase it. Um, so
[1:17:18] that's my two cents on it.
[1:17:23] And if that's that preference, then the
first half of that motion, everything
[1:17:26] before the and uh would just authorize
the committee and staff to execute that
[1:17:31] contract, which is not finalized at this
point, just because this has been a work
[1:17:35] in motion. But Liz, I think you were
expecting that would be approximately
[1:17:39] half the cost.
>> I said 30 I said 35,000. That's what's
[1:17:42] in the contract right now. And that's
what her invoice was for.
[1:17:46] » Okay. So 35,000 then.
So we approve the wall. It gets done in
[1:17:52] roughly two three weeks by the time we
meet again and then by then there should
[1:17:57] be an awning proposal
at that time.
[1:18:01] » A proposal whether that is accepted by
Colby interest board of trustees is to
[1:18:05] be determined but I think we should be
able to give council some direction by
[1:18:10] midseptember of whether that can proceed
or not.
[1:18:13] » And when would she be able to start the
mural given if we approve it tonight
[1:18:18] like this? When is
>> she wants to start this week as soon as
[1:18:21] possible. So, as soon as the contract
and check gets cut, she's going. She's
[1:18:26] ready.
>> Now, let's just hope the weather.
[1:18:28] » Yeah, exactly. I mean, again, it's all
weather, but she wants to start this
[1:18:32] week.
>> Not tomorrow.
[1:18:33] » Hey, [laughter]
[1:18:37] » yeah.
>> So, a revised motion would be authorized
[1:18:39] the public works committee to approve
and city administration to execute a
[1:18:42] contract with Heather Hansen to complete
the West Law mural in accordance with
[1:18:46] the design approved by the Colby
interest trustees for an amount not to
[1:18:49] exceed 35,000. or revise my motion.
>> Was who was the second?
[1:18:54] » I think you did. Joseph.
>> Joseph.
[1:18:56] » Oh, we're planning to revise the
resolution, too.
[1:19:00] » Yeah,
it's Yeah.
[1:19:04] » Okay. [clears throat]
>> One more.
[1:19:21] like an agreement.
[1:19:29] Okay. So, the last whereas of the
resolution
[1:19:34] » will need to be revised.
Um
[1:19:48] to match the motion so that any final
approval of the awning is going to
[1:19:52] return back to city council for approval
prior to authorization.
[1:19:58] » Good with that, Adam?
>> Yep, you got it. Okay.
[1:20:02] » Um
[1:20:07] and then section one, the public arts
committee authority.
[1:20:11] » Mhm.
We're going to need to revise that um
[1:20:17] because as I'm understanding the council
is not providing um authority for
[1:20:21] modifications to the project scope
design or contract.
[1:20:25] So all of that will come back to the
council once we have an updated design
[1:20:28] on the awning.
[1:20:42] and then strike section two. Yep.
[1:20:53] And section three
um
[1:20:58] striking the first part of that. So,
it's going to start by reading, "The
[1:21:02] city administrator or the city
administrator's designate is authorized
[1:21:05] to execute the contract on behalf of the
city,
[1:21:11] provided
[1:21:16] that any additional modifications will
return to council for approval.
[1:21:29] And I think four and five are okay.
Oh, sorry about that.
[1:21:34] » Sorry.
>> I've got it.
[1:21:51] » Are we good?
>> You're good. So,
[1:21:55] » are you good with those changes?
>> I am good with those changes.
[1:21:57] » Thank you, John. You good with those
changes?
[1:21:59] » All right,
>> roll call.
[1:22:02] » Susan Skus,
>> yes.
[1:22:03] » Joseph Jones,
>> yes.
[1:22:04] » Lecher Berry,
>> yes.
[1:22:05] » Lauren Campbell,
>> yes.
[1:22:08] » Raise the harms.
>> Yes. [clears throat]
[1:22:11] » 5G. Consideration of the first reading
of ordinance number 202602, an ordinance
[1:22:17] amending provisions pertaining to fiber
optic cable license.
[1:22:20] » Move to approve. Second.
>> AJ.
[1:22:24] Uh, city staff, Mayor Jones and legal
have had conversations with G Fiber
[1:22:28] about a potential buildout of a fiber
network uh, within Windsor Heights. Uh,
[1:22:32] be kind of similar in nature to how
Metroet built out a number of years
[1:22:36] back. Uh,
G Fiber had some concerns with the
[1:22:41] current ordinance and its restriction on
a 2-year licensing agreement. I think
[1:22:47] that concern is is that uh a significant
investment in underground infrastructure
[1:22:53] uh and the overall network servicing
customers uh that would be subject to
[1:22:57] review and potential uh requirement for
removal of all that infrastructure at
[1:23:02] the end of a 2-year uh duration uh
wasn't generally in line with uh what
[1:23:08] they see in other cities and uh an
acceptable investment model. We did take
[1:23:12] a look at some other cities uh fiber
ordinances
[1:23:16] uh and it does appear that our two-year
limitation is atypical.
[1:23:23] Uh what they are proposing is a longer
term agreement potentially up to 20
[1:23:27] years uh which isn't uncommon. Uh it
would include some additional provisions
[1:23:33] above and beyond what is currently in
our ordinance as far as notification
[1:23:37] requirements for residents, restoration
work, uh other areas of concern that
[1:23:42] staff have met and discussed about
typical problems that we see or issues
[1:23:46] we see arise uh when there's substantial
infrastructure being uh put underground
[1:23:51] in our rightway. Uh so the potential for
a longerterm agreement would be subject
[1:23:57] to them fulfilling those elements um as
well as what's in our ordinance um but
[1:24:02] grant them some more security uh on that
investment long term beyond what's
[1:24:07] currently limited to two years in the
city. Uh the city does have other uh
[1:24:13] franchise agreements with other
entities. Metronet proceeded under anou
[1:24:19] from what I see not a franchise
agreement. And then we also have uh
[1:24:24] other entities that have fiber
infrastructure in Windsor Heights fairly
[1:24:29] limited in nature uh that just operate
under our current uh bianual annual
[1:24:35] license that uh that they pay. Uh so the
proposed language uh would remove that
[1:24:41] two-year requirement or minimum
uh and then it would uh provide some
[1:24:47] additional language there regarding the
potential removal of that fiber
[1:24:50] equipment uh at the end of a term. Uh so
this would be the first reading of that.
[1:24:56] uh if it were to proceed to passage, you
could expect to see a G fiber license uh
[1:25:04] be brought in front of council later
this fall most likely and then potential
[1:25:09] installation occurring either late fall
or potentially next year depending on
[1:25:14] where they're at with build out with
other communities within the De Moines
[1:25:17] metro uh and their contractor
availability.
[1:25:24] Happy to answer any questions. Uh this
conversation's kind of been moving back
[1:25:29] and forth over the last couple of weeks.
So uh certainly welcome any thoughts
[1:25:32] that you have. There's opportunity to
make changes on this, but uh it appears
[1:25:36] to be a rational uh change to ours. Uh
it would encourage long-term investment
[1:25:41] uh but still enable us to enter into
agreement that would contain uh
[1:25:45] stringent requirements uh for their
behavior in the rightway uh and removal
[1:25:50] of the equipment uh if not met.
So, since it removes the existing
[1:25:56] two-year license term, is there a
license term? When I looked at this
[1:25:59] ordinance, I didn't see any type of term
information, and maybe I just missed it
[1:26:04] as I read through this late at night,
>> no license fee,
[1:26:11] » and that's it. So, they just instead of
having the two-year,
[1:26:15] » right now, there's a license fee that
folks that don't have a franchise
[1:26:19] agreement for fiber uh pay by annually.
Um, and there's some conflicting
[1:26:24] language in our existing ordinance about
an initial grant and then an annual
[1:26:29] license. So, this would clarify that and
just make it an annual license for
[1:26:33] anybody that doesn't have a longerterm
license agreement with the city. They
[1:26:37] would pay their annual fee uh as long as
there's no issues. Uh, they are subject
[1:26:41] to our ordinance uh and may maintain
their fiber equipment within the city
[1:26:45] right away as previously proved approved
and installed.
[1:26:55] and we still monitored like if they've
ensured that they are doing what they're
[1:27:00] supposed to like restoring the property
and all of that since I remember
[1:27:05] » we do our best uh it is a constant fight
>> there's instances where
[1:27:13] we will call the state uh and use their
enforcement mechanism there are
[1:27:17] instances where after many attempts they
don't restore it appropriately. Public
[1:27:21] works has done the restoration work and
we have invoiced uh the contractor. Uh
[1:27:27] but yes uh we do make efforts to try to
make sure that the restoration work
[1:27:31] occurs per our ordinance and if we
cannot get the
[1:27:36] leee or contractor to do so then uh
public works has taken steps in the past
[1:27:40] to do that. Uh but it is always a battle
and it's always a matter of seasonality
[1:27:44] as well. if the work's occurring in the
dead of summer, the restoration work is
[1:27:49] impossible to do and then you're
expecting them to actually remember to
[1:27:51] come back several months later and and
do that and potentially water some sod
[1:27:56] or water some uh seed uh on a little
patch of ground that they may have
[1:28:02] disturbed. And practically there are
challenges for them to do that. I think
[1:28:05] we understand that. Uh but we do try to
get them to live up to the expectation
[1:28:08] of of what's in the ordinance. I just
know there were lots of complaints the
[1:28:12] last time they that we had a company
come through and I know that same
[1:28:18] company has had lots of issues in other
cities. So I just don't want our
[1:28:22] residents to have to deal with that
again kind of being my own self.
[1:28:27] » There will there will inevitably be
issues
[1:28:30] utility hits restoration issues and a
buildout of the entire city. I that's
[1:28:34] the one thing I can promise you. Um
>> wow really make this sound amazing.
[1:28:41] jump on board. And this is I if if uh G
Fiber were to come through, that would
[1:28:47] be for the whole city, not just
portions, or do we know yet?
[1:28:51] » Typically, what we hear is that um these
type of companies, as long as there's
[1:28:56] density, we'll try to service the entire
community, which we have the density. Uh
[1:29:00] but if there are apartment complexes or
private drives, then they would be
[1:29:06] subject to obtaining permission from the
HOA or the governing body to be able to
[1:29:11] serve that apartment or that private
street complex. And that's usually where
[1:29:16] their commitment will stop is, you know,
that just depends on private interest at
[1:29:20] that point. And so they won't promise to
serve the entirety of the community, but
[1:29:23] usually their intentions are to serve as
much of the community as as they can.
[1:29:33] Any other questions?
[1:29:37] » Also, thanks for going through this
because I read this and it did not make
[1:29:40] much sense to me when I was reading
through it. So, I had lots of questions.
[1:29:48] » Roll call.
>> Susan Skiris. Yes.
[1:29:51] » Joseph Jones. Yes.
>> Fletcher Barry.
[1:29:52] » Yes.
>> I did get a message. Lauren did have to
[1:29:55] final drop. Uh Terresa Harms.
>> Yes.
[1:30:00] reports, Miss Harvest.
>> Yes. Um, so a couple of things. Um, MAC
[1:30:07] meeting was last week. We had, uh, four,
uh, we had chiefs and officers in from
[1:30:14] Anken, Norwok, Clive, and Walke to talk
about their e-motal ordinances and kind
[1:30:19] of how they're implementing those um,
enforcement and that sort of thing. It's
[1:30:24] really uh for this first year education
focused. Walke and Ankeny both noted um
[1:30:31] that they're seeing a lot of these for
sale on you know like Facebookark
[1:30:36] marketplace after the implementation of
their ordinances. Um a lot of parents
[1:30:40] not understanding what um you know that
one they weren't legal or they weren't
[1:30:47] appropriate for their you know children
under the age of 14, those sorts of
[1:30:51] things. Um and then identifying, you
know, situations or or talked through
[1:30:57] like how they managed situations of
enforcement um when there was um um you
[1:31:03] know, like a kid running into a car,
like literally running into a car, being
[1:31:09] hospitalized because he had a
concussion, all of those sorts of
[1:31:11] things. um
and having education conversations that
[1:31:18] fell on deaf ears for ultimately then
having to move to you know an
[1:31:23] appropriate fine um uh not the goal but
it was how they had to deal with the
[1:31:29] situation. So as we work through ours I
think that was um certainly helpful to
[1:31:34] understand and hear theirs are all
similar in nature. I think ours is
[1:31:38] similar to the, you know, there's like
these core tenants of each one. Um, so
[1:31:44] as we start, you know, finalizing ours
and going through that, it'll be um it
[1:31:49] was good to see and hear how it's going
in their communities. And I think
[1:31:52] overall positively their their calls for
um you from
[1:31:59] um residents about them have decreased
and all those sorts of things. So um the
[1:32:03] education is making a difference and
they have they've created educational
[1:32:06] materials as well. So more to come on
that and we did talk about what happens
[1:32:11] at the state level. Um you know really
ideally the state putting in kind of a
[1:32:16] baseline um and we know that I've in
conversations with several legislators
[1:32:20] that were expecting legislation to be
introduced. Now whether or not that
[1:32:24] passes is a whole another, you know, uh,
thing, but at the end of the day, you
[1:32:28] know, kind of setting a standard
definitions and those and those sorts of
[1:32:32] things with the idea that still would
require local governments to come in and
[1:32:37] set the standards because what's
different for, you know, Storm Lake or
[1:32:41] Alden, Iowa is going to be very
different than here in, you know, De
[1:32:45] Moine or Windsor Heights or Urbanddale
or whatever. So, um, so we had a really
[1:32:49] good MAC discussion on that. Um lots
more Windsor wonderland planning coming
[1:32:55] along is coming along really nicely. So
um you know mark your calendar if you
[1:33:00] haven't yet. Um also participated in uh
DW waterwork strategic planning uh focus
[1:33:07] group session. um Gunnar was in that
with me as well as um several other it
[1:33:12] was a a very positive um how do they you
know start planning out 5 10 years and
[1:33:17] so that was it was a good and good to
connect with the community you know a
[1:33:22] lot of the they had a lot of resident um
what's the um neighborhood
[1:33:29] groups that were around there um so that
was really good they are going to be
[1:33:33] doing some more to continue to gather um
information So, um, Adam, I told them to
[1:33:39] send them over. They're going to send a
thing for our newsletter with QR code,
[1:33:42] so people can go in and put their
feedback and that sort of thing as
[1:33:46] they're looking about planning out. Um,
and then just a reminder, I did send
[1:33:51] out, hopefully everybody got your email,
the city admin evaluation. Everybody got
[1:33:55] that? Okay, great. It's due August 28th.
Don't forget, mark your calendar. Don't
[1:34:00] be late. Got about 10 days. All right.
Thank you.
[1:34:06] Yes, mom. [laughter]
>> No, I would have to abuse my yelling
[1:34:11] voice.
>> Leave the
[1:34:16] remind me the I think the young man who
unfortunately rode into a car. Was he
[1:34:22] the same one? Didn't he ride into a
house?
[1:34:25] » Um
>> could could be. There were multiple I
[1:34:28] feel bad for the Ankeny feel. I feel
like they've dealt with a lot of
[1:34:32] » horror stories,
>> shenanigans over they seem to be, but
[1:34:37] there is somebody I don't know if it was
the same one, but that definitely was a
[1:34:40] story that was shared as well.
>> Ran into a house.
[1:34:43] » Yeah, I think it was the same one. Yeah.
Yeah. Now that you said that,
[1:34:46] » must have had some bad luck or so
>> bad skills.
[1:34:49] » Yeah.
>> Well, the crazy part about that and not
[1:34:52] only because you brought it up is um it
was
[1:34:58] damaged, right? like it after it hit the
car like you couldn't ride it anymore.
[1:35:03] His parents wouldn't bought him another
one.
[1:35:08] » Third times a charm with learning.
>> Yeah. Oh,
[1:35:11] » Mr. Barry.
>> Yep. Um attended a recent chamber ribbon
[1:35:16] cutting for Wellpoint USA in which we
were able to fill backpacks for unhoused
[1:35:20] individuals. So, that was cool to to
help out in that way. Uh attended the
[1:35:24] Icon Water Trails uh board meeting.
their principal point um site is
[1:35:29] essentially complete and it'll be open
to the public next summer. Uh which is a
[1:35:33] pretty big proof of concept for this
organization uh the region and
[1:35:37] partnerships going forward. Attended
Chambers Wake Up Windsor Heights at SP
[1:35:42] Salon here in Windsor Heights. Um
thought it was a cool story. Sarah Pearl
[1:35:46] grew up in Windsor Heights. Her parents
still live here. um after kind of moving
[1:35:50] away um she wanted to set up her own
salon um and chose Windsor Heights to do
[1:35:56] so. So
>> she also started her nonprofit
[1:35:59] » and Oh yeah y and started on Yep. That
was that was new to me that at that
[1:36:03] meeting too. So cool. That's all I had.
>> Jones
[1:36:07] » uh our last AR meeting at the beginning
of the month we talked about um the
[1:36:11] complimentary paratransit that we call
uh bus plus and what that service area
[1:36:16] looks like. We talked about um D on
demand um some of the service changes
[1:36:21] that will take effect at the end of next
month. Um and we started to talk about
[1:36:27] um local funding scenarios. So there was
a survey that went out to me and Lauren
[1:36:32] and Adam and of course to all the other
member communities. So commissioner,
[1:36:38] alternate city administrator, manager um
just asking our thoughts on on different
[1:36:43] things. But we'll have a workshop at the
end of this month on the 28th um to talk
[1:36:49] through some of those conversations.
>> That's it.
[1:36:54] » Carries.
>> Um let's see. Last Friday night
[1:37:00] like yeah uh was August movie in the
park. Huge thank you to everyone who
[1:37:04] volunteered and helped make the evening
happen. Special thank you to Adam over
[1:37:08] here for being our staff member who
stayed until the very end and helped
[1:37:12] make sure everything was taken care of.
Thanks also to public works for being
[1:37:15] out there. Attendance was a little lower
than I anticipated since it was a nice
[1:37:19] night out there, but we still had
approximately 300 people come out and
[1:37:23] enjoy the evening together. Uh we last
Wednesday we had uh yeah last Wednesday
[1:37:28] we held wham committee meeting where we
put together a game plan for an up for
[1:37:33] the upcoming 5K. I like to have a
personal goal and that's to have 75
[1:37:37] people registered for the 5K walk. So
now the work begins to get the word out
[1:37:42] and have people sign up. So please
spread the word, get your friends sign
[1:37:45] up. We're looking at having an 80s
themed race with a possible prize for
[1:37:51] the best8s theme look because Windsor
Heights is turning 85 sometime here in
[1:37:57] the next few days, weeks, month.
>> Already happened back in June. July.
[1:38:02] » Back in June. July. Okay. Well, I don't
even know where in August, so [laughter]
[1:38:07] it happened a month ago. There we go.
Uh, note that you don't actually have to
[1:38:12] run or walk the race to win the prize.
You just need to be a registered racer.
[1:38:16] So, if you don't want to walk and you
don't want to run, just show up in your
[1:38:19] 80s attire and you'll be in the running
for the the prize. I attended the annual
[1:38:24] Catch De Mo State Fair breakfast this
morning. had the opportunity to meet
[1:38:28] members of the state fair bear board
again as well as the 2026 Iowa State
[1:38:32] Bear Queen. Uh two stat two statistics
given today by Jeremy with the Iowa
[1:38:38] State Fair is that on Saturday alone
there were there was 44 $4.55 million
[1:38:47] worth of food just food not including
drinks uh sold purchased on Saturday
[1:38:54] alone. So that that was just Saturday's
big goal. Yeah. Um then there was also
[1:39:03] uh Sunday's concert had the highest
ticket sales with over 17,000 people. I
[1:39:08] think it was like 17,200
or something like that. Um state fair
[1:39:14] they were on pace to have the highest
number of tickets sold sales sold for
[1:39:18] concerts at the grandstand. But with
Brad Stewart uh dropping out, there's
[1:39:23] questions on how to handle how all those
tickets, how to kind of put all those
[1:39:29] ticket numbers together. So, waiting to
hear how that actually works out.
[1:39:33] Tomorrow, I'll be back at the state fair
with Catch De Mo again and the Iowa
[1:39:36] State Fair for a scheduled tour of the
fairgrounds. Wednesday have women in
[1:39:41] government tour of the flu treatment
plant followed by a metro waste
[1:39:45] authority meeting. Then um Friday,
is it this Friday? We have our August
[1:39:53] special events committee meeting. And
then on August 24th, we'll have our uh
[1:39:59] hopefully final ad hoc benefits
committee meeting. Uh Catch De Moines
[1:40:04] sent out an email with a short video
about Junior Olympics. And they also
[1:40:08] have two important awards that they're
trying to to win. One is the most
[1:40:12] influential nonprofit. Note, there are
some other great choices like the
[1:40:16] Urbanddale Food Pantry is on there. I
think even the Urbandale Chamber is on
[1:40:19] there as well. Um, and the second is for
the best amateur sports event in the
[1:40:24] 2026 sports travel awards for hosting
the National Senior Games in 2025. I'm
[1:40:31] happy to forward the email on to you if
you would like to watch the video and
[1:40:34] then vote in the two award categories.
Finally, looking forward to volunteering
[1:40:39] at the World Food Prize Festival on the
28th. I encourage everyone to take a
[1:40:44] look at the volunteer opportunities that
are still available. See if you can sign
[1:40:48] up for a shift or two. It's a great way
to support a a great event. And as an
[1:40:54] added bonus, volunteers receive dollars
they can use for their favorite food
[1:40:58] vendor or use an use as an excuse to try
something new. I think they give you
[1:41:03] like two or$4 dollars, but you know,
it's still something. Try something new.
[1:41:11] Andy has a introduction to make.
>> He's like I'm still here.
[1:41:19] [laughter]
[1:41:24] » Hey everybody, Andy Larson, public works
director. Um I'd like to introduce our
[1:41:30] new public works supervisor, Greg
Slaughter. Um Greg comes to us from
[1:41:34] Habitat for Humanity. He's got prior
experience working with the city of
[1:41:38] Clive Dallas County. secondary roads.
Um, Greg started last Monday with us, so
[1:41:44] he's a weekend and he's still here, so
that's a good sign. Um, I even left him
[1:41:49] alone for two days last week and let him
run the show. So, uh, his focus right
[1:41:54] now is just trying to understand what it
is from operations standpoint, get
[1:41:58] accustomed to, uh, the types of
responsibilities
[1:42:02] uh, that we do, uh, learn staff, kind of
integrate with staff. Um, and then I've
[1:42:07] tasked him with kind of taking an
assessment, um, giving some
[1:42:12] recommendations on improvement from an
operation standpoint. Um, and and really
[1:42:17] just overseeing the day-to-day stuff.
Um, so
[1:42:22] » Greg,
>> hi, I'm Greg. [laughter]
[1:42:25] » Welcome.
>> Welcome, Greg.
[1:42:27] » Welcome to the to to Greg. It's a
welcome addition to the staff. I think
[1:42:32] uh everything has gone well so far and
we're excited to have him on as much
[1:42:36] work. So, welcome. Thank you.
>> So, do you do house building on the
[1:42:40] side? How does that work?
>> Uh no,
[1:42:44] » I mean I do I I used to do some things
on the side. I did a lot of different
[1:42:48] things. Plumbing,
um you know, remodels, a little bit of
[1:42:52] that, a little bit of that. So, he's got
a lot of experience when it comes to
[1:42:55] concrete pavement, uh, which is is is
really a heavy focus for us from
[1:42:59] pavement standpoint, preservation type
of stuff. So, um, as he kind of gets
[1:43:04] more accustomed to,
uh, getting integrated with our
[1:43:08] department, uh, he'll start to to
spearhead a lot of that work and you'll
[1:43:12] see him out in the street, uh, really
out in town working with the guys and
[1:43:17] overseeing the work that they do. So,
>> goal is to get more in-house.
[1:43:21] » Yeah. Keep it keep it in house. Very
good.
[1:43:24] » That's great.
>> Thank you. Welcome.
[1:43:26] » Nice to meet you guys.
>> You too.
[1:43:28] » You too.
>> Uh just one other update then. The
[1:43:31] public safety
exercise room, the second floor there of
[1:43:36] our garage. Um thanks to Chief and Andy
and his team uh for coming out Friday
[1:43:43] evening. Uh we borrowed a bucket truck
and Andy is up on the roof cutting the
[1:43:49] the limb off uh getting plywood back on
there and tarping it. Uh in a way we're
[1:43:54] lucky because it it only damaged the
roof. It came through the roof and then
[1:43:58] through the drywall into the workout
facility, but it it did not damage the
[1:44:02] wall of the building and it is a it's a
fairly small hole. So our intent um
[1:44:08] right now is to likely patch
uh the roof. Uh the we're near end of
[1:44:14] life on the shingles. Um but we'll patch
the shingles, we'll likely patch the
[1:44:20] drywall, and then yeah, I
[clears throat] think post FD study uh
[1:44:26] there is a million dollars set aside for
facilities improvements here at public
[1:44:30] safety.
And uh I think that'll probably be
[1:44:34] either some improvements to that
building. The siding is about shot. As I
[1:44:38] said, the roof is is about shot. So
that'll be probably a component of that
[1:44:42] or some other change. So we just hate to
throw too much money at that building
[1:44:46] right now on the cusp of improvements at
public safety. I think we can probably
[1:44:51] get it back into serviceable condition
for several thousand.
[1:44:56] Andy's shaking his head. Uh well,
>> and then uh the the property on which
[1:45:04] » got here just in time. [laughter]
[1:45:08] » The property in which the tree fell from
was the property the city acquired from
[1:45:14] it.
>> Yes, it did.
[1:45:18] » Good timing. Good.
>> So, we had already planned to take this
[1:45:20] tree down uh as soon as we acquired the
property and and whatnot. So, uh, yeah,
[1:45:26] bad luck. But we've taken possession of
the property. Uh, we've signed a
[1:45:31] asbestous inspection contract. So,
within the next couple weeks, we'll get
[1:45:34] the the house inspected for asbestous. I
won't even bother with mold because
[1:45:38] there's plenty of mold in there. And
then, uh, once that's been remediated,
[1:45:41] we'll move forward with an RFP or some
professional services process to get the
[1:45:46] building and trees demolished that need
to go away. and we'll have the stage set
[1:45:51] for spring of next year for the storm
sewer project
[1:45:56] uh on 65th Street. So, that's our
general game plan there. Uh once we wrap
[1:46:01] that all up, the intention still is to
put that property back out um publicly
[1:46:05] to see who has interest in it and have
it redeveloped and returned back to uh
[1:46:10] taxable evaluation for the city. Talk
more about that process once we get
[1:46:15] through the the first few steps.
That's all I have.
[1:46:21] Motion to adjurnn. So moved.
>> Second. Second. No. I don't ever
[1:46:27] » one of us.
>> We'll call.
[1:46:28] » Susan Scary.
>> Yes.
[1:46:30] » Joseph Jones.
>> Yes.
[1:46:31] » Veterary?
>> Yes. Theresa Huts? Yes.