All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Please stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City Council meeting. Bree, take the roll call, please. Mayor King. >> Present. Council member-at-large Austin. Present. Council member Waller. Present. Council
member Baskin. Council member Postma. Present. Council member Helly. Present. Council member Oballa. Present. Council member [clears throat] Fischer. >> Present. Mayor King, we have a quorum. Thank you, Bree. Item number one is a motion to adopt our
agenda with the amendment number 11. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. >> Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number two is a motion [cough] to approve the minutes [clears throat] from April 6th, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.
>> Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number three under recognitions and awards, we have an Arbor Day proclamation to read, and here it is. Whereas trees and forest soils keep our lakes and streams clean by absorbing absorbing and filtering pollutants and sediments, and whereas forests prevent flooding and reduce stormwater by
capturing and storing rainwater and snowmelt, which is then slowly released to our lakes, streams, and groundwater. And whereas careful management of our trees and forests protects drinking water and reduces the cost of water treatment. And whereas sound management of forest land surrounding the
Mississippi River ensures clean drinking water for more than 1 million Minnesotans. And whereas about three quarters of Minnesotans get their drinking water from the forested parts of the state. And whereas planting and maintaining trees is a natural and easy way to keep our water clean. And whereas
throughout the month of May, Minnesotans pay special tribute to our trees as natural resources and dedicate uh and dedicate ourselves to the vitality of our forests. Now, therefore, I, Stephen M. King, Mayor of Austin, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as
Arbor Month in the City of Austin. Very good. We'll get that back to you, Bree, for the Park and Rec, but proclamation for Arbor Day. Uh looking for item number four is a motion for the consent agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.
>> Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. On to bid opening and awards, item number five is a resolution receiving bids for the 14th Street mill and overlay, Steven. Our final major street project is a mill and overlay on 14th Street Northwest from 8th Avenue North to I-90. We'll
look to piggyback this project when the inner 14th Street Interstate bridge is closed for for minimal traffic through this area along Riverland [clears throat] Community College. Um this is a major roadway for us, and we're we look to do a mill and overlay on this segment along with some crack
repair and also uh sanitary sewer kind of spot repair down at 8th Avenue and 14th Street. Uh the bids on this project, there were two bidders with Rochester Sand and Gravel being the low bidder at $395,296
was their bid amount. And this dollars for this project will come from uh fund 42 and fund 61, >> [clears throat] >> which are uh 42 is our Municipal State Aid Street Fund, and fund 61 is our Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund, and we
would recommend awarding the bids. >> [clears throat] >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Land. Council, any questions for Steven on this? Otherwise, looking for a resolution awarding the bid. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Bree, please. Council member Fischer. Aye.
Council member Waller. Aye. Council member Postma. Aye. Council member Helly. Aye. Council member Oballa. Aye. Council member-at-large Austin. Aye. Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you, Bree.
Item number six under petitions and requests is a resolution approving how write-in votes are counted in municipal elections. Bree. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. Before you, I have a resolution authorized under Minnesota Statute Section 204B.09,
Subdivision 3. This allows cities to establish how write-in votes are counted in municipal elections. If adopted, this resolution would allow write-in votes to be individually tallied and recorded only when the total number of write-in votes for an office is equal to or
greater than the lowest number of votes received by a candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In simple terms, if a number of write-in votes is too low to affect the outcome of the election, election judges would not need to spend time individually counting and recording
these votes. This helps reduce unnecessary administrative work while still complying with state law and preserving the integrity of the election process. Once adopted, the resolution would remain in effect until the Council adopts a future resolution on the same subject. Because this resolution must be
in place before the first day of filing for office, the City Clerk's office is requesting Council approval this evening. Very good. Thank you. Council, any questions on item number six? Looking for a resolution. So moved. Second. Bree.
Council member Fischer. Aye. Council member Waller. Aye. Council member Postma. Aye. Council member Helly. Aye. Council member Oballa. Aye. Council member-at-large Austin. Aye. Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you, Bree.
Item number seven is an appointing our election judges. Bree. Before you, I have a resolution to appoint our election judges for the 2026 elections as required under Minnesota Statute Section 204B.21. State law requires that the governing body of a municipality to make these
appointments. The resolution would also allow for additional appointments if needed to ensure we have adequate staffing for the election administration throughout the year. The Clerk's office is requesting Council approval of the resolution. Very good. Council, any questions or
comments for Bree on item number seven? Certainly appreciate those that step up and become our election judges. There's a big list here before us. Looking for a resolution to approve it. So moved. Second. Bree. Council member Fischer. Aye. Council member Waller. Aye.
Council member Postma. Aye. Council member Helly. Aye. Council member Oballa. Aye. Council member-at-large Austin. Aye. Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you. Item Item number eight is a resolution approving our airport statement of
qualifications, Steven. Every five years, we're required to invite consultants to bid on or provide proposals for completing our five-year CIP at the Austin Municipal Airport. We
reached out to three qualified consultants to provide proposals, and we received one back from SEH. SEH has been our airport consultant for the past 25 years or so. And [snorts] so, we're happy to get another proposal from them. The
statement of qualifications really just lays out their experience and ability to complete projects very similar to ours that are identified in our five-year CIP. So, what we would request tonight is that we would um approve Short Elliott
Hendrickson, SEH, as our airport consultant for the next five-year term. Very good. Thank you, Steven. Council, any questions on item number eight? Looking for a resolution. So moved. Second. Bree.
Council member Fischer. Aye. Council member Waller. Aye. Council member Postma. Aye. Council member Helly. Aye. Council member Oballa. Aye. Council member-at-large Austin. Aye.
Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you, Bree. Item number nine, we're looking for a new resolution approving an off-site gambling application for the American Legion Post 91. Is there a resolution? So moved. Second. Bree, please. Council member Fischer. Aye.
Council member Waller. Aye. Council member Postma. Aye. Council member Helly. Aye. Council member Oballa. Aye. Council [clears throat] member-at-large Austin. Aye. Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you. Item number 10 is a resolution approving the cancellation of
the proposed MnDOT noise wall project, Steven. At the last Council meeting, >> [cough and clears throat] >> we discussed an agreement with MnDOT for the city's share of costs and future maintenance related to the I-90 noise wall and also the pedestrian bridge that
crosses the Cedar River on the north side of I-90. Uh since that meeting, there have been some discussions and concerns about the increased costs associated with that project. Uh our the Greater Minnesota noise wall program is
set up such that the state will provide a 90% grant to fund noise walls in Greater Minnesota, and then the local entity uh funds the remaining 10% of the cost. Back in 2023, we discussed this
discussed this grant opportunity, and it was decided at that time that Council would fund the local 10% share using 5% of through assessments and 5% through tax levy.
At that time, the total the total project cost was around a million dollars. So, the 10% local cost would be $100,000, again split between assessments and local tax levy.
Uh more recently, we received um more updated cost proposals from MnDOT. Uh that was presented at the last council meeting in that agreement. And those costs indicated that prices had increased. Um construction costs had increased,
whether that be steel prices for the rebar that's used in the sound wall, or concrete prices, or just labor and construction costs in general. Uh approximately doubling the cost of the project to a $2 million project for
the sound wall. That would mean the local cost of 10% would be $200,000, again split half of that toward assessments and half of it to our local tax levy. Um
again, since that meeting, there have been some discussions and concerns about the uh proposed costs. So, I have reached out to MnDOT and discussed with them the possibility of this Well, let me first just go through this in detail a little bit more
here. >> [clears throat] >> Here were the the costs for the 11 benefit- benefiting property owners. Their cost is always on their re- reduction in noise that they
would receive from the sound wall. And you can see here uh we had we had multiple options for that were reviewed a couple years ago. Option three was the option that was chosen. And at that time, the estimated cost for
each property owner are listed here. Um now, with the new estimated cost for MnDOT, you can see how those assessments for the adjacent property owners have more than doubled. And also, the cost for the city to cover
has also doubled. Uh we would be sharing again a cost of just over $200,000. So, here is $104,000 of assessments, and there would be approximately $104,000 of of local cost covered through tax
levy as well. Um so, since that meeting, I have reached out to MnDOT and asked about are there any opportunities for the city to cancel our participation in the noise
wall project? Working with our local contact with MnDOT, they have indicated So, so the project actually bids [cough and clears throat] on Wednesday. So, it's it's right around the corner. And um I guess
it is it is important to to make uh decisions so that we can get back to MnDOT with a a firm decision on what direction we want to go. But, these are the five steps that they have outlined that we would need to do in order to
um remove this the sound wall portion from this project. Uh MnDOT has indicated they would need to delay the bidding till for about a month uh to make some changes to the plans and specifications to remove the sound wall
portion. The city would need to pass a resolution at tonight's meeting indicating our desire to remove the sound wall from the project, and then I would be forwarding that to MnDOT tomorrow so that they have what they
need to to make the necessary amendment changes. Um at some point in the future, we would then need to terminate our current cost share agreement that was approved at the last council meeting. Uh a new maintenance agreement would be developed for maintenance of the bridge
project only. That was that was also included in the dual project previously. And then finally, that new maintenance agreement would come back to council for approval. So, it'd be kind of a five-step process there for the city, and then MnDOT would be working in the background to make those
plan changes. So, I recognize there are some residents here tonight that may want to speak to this topic, but we have drafted a resolution for council to consider if this is the direction that they ch-
would you all would choose to go that um you know, whereas the MnDOT has prepared plans and specifications for this noise wall project. Uh bid letting is whereas a bid letting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026.
And whereas concerns of the local cost share have caused council to reconsider the city's involvement in the project. Now, therefore, the city council of the city of Austin uh [clears throat] hereby request MnDOT to remove the noise wall project from the current advertisement
for bid. So, that is the resolution that we have drafted. And now, we turn it over to council for any questions that you may have of us. And Steven, so just as long as the signatures are are there and on time tomorrow, >> [clears throat] >> that we can keep that we keep the
pedestrian bridge moving forward. Is it delayed at all because of this with the sound wall? The the bid opening would be delayed about 1 month in order to modify the plans and specifications. Um some some timelines that MnDOT is
trying to meet is their current fiscal year. As we know, their fiscal year ends June 30th. So, they want to get this project bid, get these funds encumbered. There is about a 6-month process to fabricate the new bridge. So, it would likely it was
currently planned and likely to begin in the spring of '27, and this new schedule would still allow for that to occur. Thank [clears throat] you. Any council any questions? Or I take the public comment. Was the Steven, was the current of the new on-ramp in that area there,
was that redesigned to fit this wall? I mean, do they have to do a reconstruction in that area now? No, the sound wall was separate and stand-alone from the original 4th Street Bridge project. So, there would be no
changes to what we see out there today. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'd like to hear what they have. Yeah, anybody want to step up to the microphone and give us your address if you're here to speak, it'd be great. Yes, I would like to. Sure, come forward. Just need your name and address for the
record, please. >> [clears throat] >> My name is Susan Bedner. I live in the Pasture Heights um division. Address 1414 2nd Street Northwest. Um you'll have to forgive me. I'm going
to be my speech was composed a couple days ago, so I'm going to be repeating some of the things that Take your time. We have a short meeting anyway. We're used to longer ones. >> [laughter] >> I just talked about, so.
In 2022, Nancy Quadnoan and I met with city engineer Steven Lang to raise long-standing concerns about highway noise affecting our neighborhood. Since our homes were built 35 years ago,
there have been significant changes in traffic patterns, especially the volume of semi truck traffic, engine braking, >> [cough] >> aftermarket [clears throat] exhaust systems,
and emergency vehicle traffic. That was due to the relocation of Mayo ambulance service. Um these changes had measurable impact
on the quality of our life. In response, the city commission the city commissioned a professional noise study. The study confirmed unsafe decibel levels affecting 11 homes in our area.
Following the study, neighbors worked with the city through the assessment process. While it was not unanimous, a clear majority of the affected homeowners supported moving forward with the noise
wall and agreed to be assessed based on benefit received. Others um others did not support paying for it. But, even so, the neighborhood as a whole has consistently supported the
wall as the only meaningful solution to the documented noise problem. In May 2023, the city council formally approved the noise wall project to move forward in coordination with the MnDOT
bridge projects. Residents were told that homeowners cost would would not exceed the agreed-upon amounts. And the families in the neighborhood relied on that.
Since that approval, significant work has already been completed, including engineering, design, planning, coordination with MnDOT, and preparing the project for bidding.
Those um those efforts represent real-time efforts and public resources already invested in the project. We recently learned that the city is now
considering canceling the the noise wall due to increased costs. We understand inflation and budget pressures. Everyone feels them. But the project was approved before costs increased
by 100% and residents acted in good faith based on that approval and the progress already made. We're not alleging an open meeting law violation.
But from our perspective, it appears that a major decision reversing a previously approved project may have taken shape outside of regular public meeting process.
Given the importance of this project, we simply want reassurance that deliberations are happen are happening openly. So we can understand how and why
this change is suddenly [clears throat] being considered. Canceling the noise wall at this late stage does not undo the noise problem or recover past costs. It simply leaves
residents with the impacts the city has already acknowledged. We respectfully respectfully ask the council to honor its prior decision. Keeping the noise wall as part of the MnDOT project
>> [clears throat] >> and allow this long-planned solution to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Ms. Bednar. Um anybody else wishing to speak? >> can I just ask a quick follow-up with
Ms. Bednar? So you would be in favor of keeping it at the new price understanding >> price. At the old. Only old. >> So so if you had to choose between keeping it at the new price or no wall, which one would you pick? We want to
keep it at the the original price that we were told would not exceed what we agreed upon. So that's what we think is fair, which would Um I'll go ahead. Which would cost the city another
25,000, I believe. Um Is that right, Stu? It would You would You would cover 75% and we would be covering 25%
which would keep it at the amount we all agreed on. And the council agreed on. And we were We can't understand how a project um
can increase by 100%. Um >> [clears throat and cough] >> But if that really is the case, I'm also consi- or curious as to is MnDOT paying 100% more for the bridge projects now and they've
agreed to do that. Yeah, okay. So So I think uh clarify your question there is you're you're requesting that the local residents share of 50,000 stay
at 50,000 as it was in 2023 and that the city pick up the remainder up to 200,000, which is the current estimate. So the city would be picking up 150,000 and the residents would be picking up 20 50,000. I believe that's what
Yeah. being requested. That's what we think And help me fair. I recall it being a percentage, not a not a not to exceed. I thought it was 10% that the city was going to split with the residents.
It was 10%. But not to We didn't have an amount. We had a 10%. Now the percentage went way up. I get that, but We We did have a an agreement that we would be paying 50,000 and the and the city would be paying 50,000.
And and those numbers were all based on our our best estimates that we had at that time from MnDOT. Um But it stated in your May 1st um video of your meeting May 1st of '23
that Tom Dankert, I believe, is the one that spoke on this and said assured us that we would not that what we were being assessed on
um would not um get any higher than that. In in your email to me, just correct me if I'm wrong, but and I'm I didn't go back to look at any of the videos or research where that comment had come from, but I I believe that was in reference to once the final assessment
amounts are sent out, they won't increase. Believe is kind of what you had put in the email, right? >> um our assessment would be and he indicated that we would not the what we were told would not exceed
could possibly be less, but would not exceed what we were told and what we agreed to and voted on. So So if I recall a little more context to that is I believe we were considering
assessing these folks right away in 2023 and at that time these were the best numbers that we had. We talked about that and we elected to wait until the final construction costs came in because [clears throat] as Ms. Bednar is stating, once we assess
someone and we give them an assessment amount, a formal notice, we cannot raise it at all. And I believe again, I'm putting simulating things from 3 years ago, but I'm sure I would imagine that was the context >> [clears throat] >> of Mr. Dankert's statement that once we
send out those formal notices, we can't increase it. So that's why we decided to wait. >> And at the same meeting, um Mr. Dankert did say that the assessment notification letters would be sent out in 2024
and we all know that didn't happen. I So I'll just I understand the frustration of the increased cost. Believe [clears throat] me, we unfortunately are dealing with this as a council over and over and over again, whether it's cost of a snow plow, fire truck, road, sound wall. I I can appreciate your perspective that
you'd like the wall, but you don't want to pay more. I will say for me and I voted against this project the first time um because I just didn't think it was a good use of city resources at the time. Um I I'm very interested in yourself or whoever else is planning on speaking. I
I I understand for folks who are planning on this happening feeling that the rug's getting pulled out from under them if that doesn't happen and I don't like that feeling. That being said, there are only two option. It is either we do not do the wall or the costs for all of us, the city and the residents,
double. So I'm looking for anybody to talk about which of those two options that live in that neighborhood. They're okay with paying the extra because they want the wall or it's too much and they don't want the wall. And you know, in response to your concerns about when things are going to get decided, I
haven't decided my vote yet. Literally, what I hear from the neighbors will help me decide that. So those are the two options I'm looking at. >> But your own agenda states that you will be voting to cancel the noise wall. So I'm wondering how that >> That's just the way the resolution's
written as of right now. We could We could actually change that when we come to our final vote if it's decided to move forward with it. It we're not stuck to that resolution if Yeah, if we turn this down right now, what we passed in the last meeting goes forward and the
project moves forward at the doubled cost for everybody. So that's what we're looking for input on right now. And just some clarification too. I'm a little bit confused cuz we we This was brought up last meeting and we and we were going to continue even though the price was was higher. And then I got a call from Jason
Bascom who said one neighbor, a resident, contacted him who would like to get rid of it because it's too high. And so we just put it on the agenda to talk about it again. So it came from the residents to to back off this cuz the price was too high. And that's why we're here. We're There's
no meetings behind meetings and anything like that. It was just a You got a call from residents, does his due diligence, and says, "Hey, can we put it back on the agenda to discuss?" Yeah, happy to do that. Cuz the price went up. And we And we were feeling for you guys. You know, it was maybe 4,000, 2,000, now it's 9,000. 21
>> Those things. So it it's a it's a big deal. So and I I can understand Mr. Postma's perspective because back in the in the time I can't believe it's been 3 years. Um but this >> [clears throat] >> This is 11 resident 11 households that this affects.
And we're spending pretty good chunk of city money. It's 1% of levy to to carry this forward for What are the other 24,000 people in the city thinking? You know, is this something that we should I would think they would say, "No, please don't." But we did back in '23, so we'll honor that, but we're
holding back because the residents now said, "We don't want to pay our portion, so please don't do it." We don't that that'd be forcing you to pay $21,000 to the Quatnow's. No, we're not interested in doing that either. Same time, if we can save some money and not do it, that's what that's what we're here for. Mhm. So, now this surprises me
that you're hearing I'm hearing that no, you'd like it still, but you now you want the city to pay more, and I don't think the city has an appetite for that myself. But, please if anybody else has any issues or something to discuss, I'm happy to hear more. >> [clears throat] >> Hey. Thank you. Thanks. Do I need to
come up here? Please, yeah. Name and address whoever steps forward. >> [snorts] >> My name is Gary Quatnow. I live at 1407 2nd Street Northwest. About 80 ft from the interstate. Um I did go door-to-door in the
neighborhood, and I canvassed the people that are involved. I talked to everybody except two, and they didn't answer the door when I when I was there. Of the nine people I talked to, nine of them said, "You know, we're okay with what the original assessment was.
We agreed to that, and we would stand behind that and pay it. But, as far as the extra cost, I got nine no's from the people that I talked to. Um I know in my case,
ours went from 9,700 to 21,000. If I put it on my taxes, it's over $31,000. Uh that's just you know, if if it does pass, I'll sell the house, pay the assessment, take it out of the proceeds from the house, and move
someplace. I cannot afford $31,000. It's it's that simple. And at age 78, I can't imagine I'm going to get too many years >> [laughter] >> benefit out of the noise wall. Not saying I'm not in good health, but you never know. >> [laughter]
>> That's how your hearing is. So, that's that's that's that's my input, because I didn't want to come here and say this is what I heard, this is what I didn't heard. So, I actually went door knocking, and that's what the people people told
me today. Um I believe in the wall. I still think it's a good idea. I think it's something we need. Um but, from what I can understand from the people that talked to me, they are not interested at the higher
cost. And I'll I mean, I know it's between a rock and a hard place. My only other comment is my neighbor heard about it when he stopped in a local business, and somebody said, "How would you like to pay double for your noise wall?" My brother-in-law called me a few days later
and said, "Hey Gary, I hear your noise wall is going up twice." I said, "Really?" If we could get some information on this, we would have been at the meeting 2 weeks ago, and maybe saved everybody a little consternation. So, that's that's my only
that's my only comment. I thank you for your time, and and uh good luck on the vote. Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. And ma'am, you had a comment, too? No? I have to come up? Yes, please. Name name and address, please. Kristen
Ansorge, 14th Place 314th Place Northwest. I guess my my concern is that I heard it through someone who talked to someone at the coffee house where my son works, and my son came back to me. So, I feel the lack of transparency was kind of the most frustrating thing for me. Um
cuz I believe when the idea came up, we got something in the mail um into our mailboxes, but it's been mum ever since then. So, I feel like that lack of transparency is a little frustrating. I think a lot of people a lot more people are reading Eric Johnson's article in the paper, cuz it was in the paper the
decision >> read the paper. >> That's the that's the issue. It's out there. It's in the public forum. That's how people might have heard about it. That's how But, if you I mean, we can you can send 11 letters to 11 residents to let them know. Thanks. So, so you you're not in favor of it I'm am I understanding?
>> I am not in favor for the increase, no, because I feel like we should have had >> True. you know, some discussion about this not being >> [clears throat] >> surprised. And then I found out there was a meeting a week ago that I didn't know about, either. So. So, that's good. >> Thank you. Thank you. Council, I'd love
to hear some comments on this. Um I think I I I asked this question before um before we voted on this if the resident were alert about these changes. So, and um and I knew with the increase is is [snorts] too high, you know. So,
I had some phone calls um that um um people living in that area, so the increase was really high after we voted for it. I think it's pretty clear the resident they're overwhelmed with the increase of of this assessment.
Um I think we have to listen to them. So, as as part of the city, we are already very thin on the budget. So, and that I I I think um we're here from the people those who um we supposed to serve,
and that overwhelming already. I think it'll be good to listen to the resident. Um if we can keep it to the original assessment, I think there's no need of moving forward um in my [clears throat] part, cuz we don't have a bigger budget for it, and also the resident they're overwhelmed
with the increase of assessment that surprised them. Yeah, we can't keep it at the original or change it. But, I I hear what you're saying. I I feel for you, you know, you got double the amount you're going to spend. Um I'm also hearing
I don't want to spend the money, but I want the wall. Well, we've been doing the budget for months now, and we're we're tight. I mean, we're we're letting and not replacing jobs as people are retiring, because we don't have the money.
I think for us to spend more money on the wall is something that at this point we can't do. So, it's either the residents spend more money, or we don't do it. I'll I got one more thing to say. I'm Adam Ansorge, 314th Place Northwest. Um
I said this last time we met in 2023, and I I I wonder about, you know, we're talking about Arbor Day or the or the month of May being a month for What was the term you used? Or Minnesota to pay special tribute to our trees as natural resource?
>> Yes. And I mean, this community's been hard hit obviously by ash borer and Dutch elm disease, oak wilt. And I feel like I I was just actually in my uncle's woods today. Uh and I just noticed how the sad state
of his particular 35-acre plot of woods. And I I know a lot of trees in this area has been suffering. So, I don't know what kind of funds there are to replenish the stock of our trees in this community, but that'd be one place where we could, you know, look at adding a bunch of bushes and trees.
If you put in a a fairly thick buffer line, that would help alleviate the noise issues that we're seeing in that neighborhood. Uh and perhaps there's grants available uh to this community from the state or federal level for that. I do not know. I haven't looked into it at all, but just
something I think that could be looked into if we decide to go against the wall. I think we should seriously look at looking at at planting a buffer with trees and bushes, and I think that'd help, you know, a number of things. So, just a thought. >> We have got some grants lower here on the Park and Rec Board. I know the Ormao
Foundation has kicked in significant amount of money to replant trees Okay. as we're taking them down. So, that's it's a real thing. I appreciate it. >> need those trees, so I but it's just one area that we could do. [cough] I'm all for it. Okay. Thank you. I
I I guess I shouldn't say if anybody's supposed to speak, but I guess based on kind of feedback I'm hearing, and also kind of where I was on this to begin with, I would try to What's the phrasing that I need to use here, Bree or Steven, to vote move forward rescinding the
approval, or what's the what's the phrasing that we're looking for here? Council will vote. Well, approve the resolution, which will cancel the wall. Okay. It's the most recent Then then I would make that motion. Most recent motion. I second that.
So, basically we are canceling it, right? Correct. Okay. I I second that. Okay, I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. Then uh Bree, take a roll call, please. Council Member Fischer. Aye.
Council Member Waller. Aye. >> [clears throat] >> Council Member Postema. Aye. Council Member Hallie. Aye. Council Member Obala. Aye. Council Member Fischer or Council Member at Large Austin. Aye.
Resolution passes 6-0. Thank you, Bree. Uh under the addition item number 11, there's a under petitions a request approving a contract for engineering services at the wastewater treatment plant. Steven. Just give me 1 second. So, this addition is related to uh
coatings that have failed in industrial EQ digester number two, and we have a proposal from an engineering firm to evaluate the coating failure, and give us some information related to what may have caused that failure. So, before you tonight is a
proposal from KTA Tater uh with a cost we've written it up they they gave us a range from 13,500 to 15,500. We've written it up in the attached
resolution that it would be um maximum of 15,500 dollars and uh it's to perform some engineering testing and services based on their expertise to give us an analysis of what may have caused the coating failure. So, we would recommend
uh extending a contract with KTA Tater Inc. and request authorization for myself the city engineer to sign that contract for this work to move forward. Very good. Thank you, Stephen. Council any questions on item 11? Move to resolution. So moved.
Second. Free. Council member Fisher. I. Council member Waller. I. Council member Postma. I. Council member Helly. I. Council member Obala. I. Council member at large Austin. I.
Resolution passes 6-0. Very good. Thank you, Briana. On the citizens addressing the council or anyone in the audience here other than the sound wall folks. Uh was someone looking to talk to somebody at our city council about an issue? All right. Under reports and recommendations,
Craig, anything? I have nothing. Oh, hang on. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. I thought I was leaving. Yeah, I thought you were leaving. I thought you were I thought you were done with us. >> [laughter] >> Name and address. Nancy Quanno. And I live at 1407 2nd Street Northwest.
And I'm here to voice my disappointment and frustration with the outcome of the noise barrier project. In 2002 I asked MnDOT, 2002, I asked them to do a noise barrier study. And it was 2023
when they did the noise barrier study. And I support what they did. My question is how does how did the assessments land to 11 people who would get benefit
and not the whole 23 neighbors that live in that area? That was one question I had. But it's moot. Most remember that process today will no um will no longer will no longer get the noise barrier. I just want to say it's
too bad that money dictates our lives regardless of the quality of life issues that we face each day. Again, I thank those who helped us and you know who you were and are.
And I'm sorry for the outcome. And I hope in the future that the citizens input continues to matter to this group. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to council? And Craig, [snorts] you had nothing.
Rebecca. Nothing, your honor. Mike. Uh nothing, your honor. Jeff. Uh nothing, your honor. Laura. I just want to announce again that 4th Avenue Fest will be at Horace Austin Park on Wednesday, June 3rd. Um mark your calendars.
Um and then also want to recognize um just uh as an everyday activity in the city of Austin, our staff are always looking to save us money. So, um something that happened in the last couple weeks is that the park staff fabricated a new
dock approach for Mill Pond and they used recycled bleacher parts to fabricate that that dock approach um to save us money. I I think there's lots of these examples that happened. This is one that I that I know about and can shout out and say thank you um to our
staff. I think um I'm hearing a lot from the public that the city needs to pinch every penny till it screams and I think that's a great um example of us uh doing that. That's it. Thank you, Laura. Obala. Nothing, your honor. Wally. Nothing, your honor. All right. I got some April
anniversaries of our city employees. Want to read a few here. Tim Hanson uh with Austin Fire, 24 years. Tim Rogers, Park and Rec, 18 years. Spencer Waller, Park and Rec, 14 or 15 years. Steve Turner, Park and Rec, 13 years. Courtney Schmidt, Library, 13 years. Dave Joseph,
Sewer Maintenance, 10 years. And Mike Collopy with the police, 8 years. Congratulations and thank them for their service to the city so long. Good to have folks stick around the city for their employment. Uh with that, looking for a motion to adjourn to our work session in 5 minutes.
So moved. Second. All in favor? I. I. Any opposed? We're [clears throat] adjourned to May 4th. Thank you.