[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.

8.17.26 Regular City Council Meeting

Transcript