All right, we will get this meeting started. It's uh safety and public works Brainer City Council Chambers 6:45 PM and we have five items on our agenda. The first of which is to approve final pay uh for uh improvement 2115 Buffalo
Hills Gully Remediation and um city engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, we have the final pay request here in the agenda. Uh we've had some discussion with the contractor and they are agreeable to finalizing this project. Uh we were holding over the project until the
spring when we can get some of the live stakes or essentially shrubs placed in the gully and that uh wraps up most of the project there and uh we're ready to close this one out. Uh so we're recommending approval of the final pay request of essentially the retaining
64,000 and change. Uh I did want to note that soil and water is planning to nominate the project for uh their award with the Minnesota Association of uh soil and water conservation districts as well and that's planned to be announced at the annual conference in December.
>> All right, fantastic. Any comments or questions? >> I got a question if I could. Um >> the um we've had a lot of rain and have you noticed? Is it all good after seeing a lot of rain this year with any kind of erosion after it's been completed?
>> It has done very well actually. Okay. >> Um the one thing that we'll have to continue to monitor is the uh outfall treatment. Uh it's being very effective in why we put that there. It's collecting some sediment that's uh coming out of the pipe. Uh so we'll have
to clean that on a regular basis uh and monitor that. Uh, but that's what really what was intended for was to collect sediment rather than send it down to the creek. >> So there's is there a catch there then? >> Uh, it's kind of like a rip wrap bowl I would say. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah. Just real quickly, Mr. Dean, can you just walk me through um the change order, the 10 roughly the $10,000 change order? This is for top additional top soil. Um, can you just kind of walk me through how
this is our item, not a bit a bidder or performer item? This the change orders were uh referenced earlier on in the project. Uh, wasn't necessarily for top soil. Um, let me scroll down to that one really quick. Uh, so there was a few different
pieces that were in there. There was some concrete debris that was uh identified early. uh we had to have that removed. That was not included in the plan. That was not planned. >> Okay. >> Um there was some additional uh manhole heights that were adjusted. Um a lot of
them a lot of the cost was in uh that and some handplaced rip wrap uh uh towards the end of the project at the south end of the project and as well as the northern limits of the project. >> Um so those were mostly of the change orders. The top soil uh there were some
disturbed areas along the slope banks. um during grading. Okay. >> Uh we realized that we wouldn't be able to reed those without u bringing in top soil. I mean trying to seed on sand. Um so we wanted the contractor to make sure that they placed a a layer of top soil along those banks to make sure they
stabilized properly. >> And none of these were eligible through like a was there a contingency number in there that you know of Jesse? >> We didn't include a contingency but they're all eligible for the the >> understood. That's all. >> All right. Fantastic. Any other comments or questions? Otherwise, I'd be looking
for a motion to approve this. >> Move to approve the >> motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion and a second. Those in favor or any any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Those opposed, same sign. Uh motion carries. All right. Our second item um to approve bids and award contract improvement 2408 M Street outfall replacement project and city engineer Dean.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh we opened bids uh a week or so ago and uh we were lucky enough to get 10 biders uh bidding on this project. So, it was very attractive to the contractors in the area. The low bid would came in from Tredder Excavating in the amount of
$116,141. Uh, which is about $38,000 below our engineers estimate. Um, in reviewing the the bids and the numbers, the unit prices, uh, they do appear appropriate in comparison with the other contractors as well as what we expected. Um, and per
the WSB letter, uh, we're recommending approval of the bids and award of the contract to treader excavating. >> All right. Fantastic. Any questions or comments? Uh, Councilman Chzik. >> Uh, Jesse, on your explanation of the costs being rather low and considering
all the other ones, could you just tell me I think there was two in the 160,000 range. Is that correct? The two next highest from that one. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Did you did can you tell us what the I think you attributed the cost was associated that the differences of
mobilization. >> Yes, sir. That was the main difference between that bidder as well as the rest of the biders is uh he had a very low number in mobilization. Um this is something that we see typically with some of our local contractors that don't have the same distance as other contractors do.
>> Would you know about how much that was like from that bid that we're looking at to the next two highest approximately? >> I remember the low bid was 10,000 and I want to say the next two biders were 40 to 50,000 right off the top of my head. >> That makes perfect sense and thank you.
Yeah, that difference seems to put it right in the ballpark there. >> Yes. >> Um, all right. So, any other questions, comments? Otherwise, you'd be looking for a motion um to approve this as well. >> I move to approve the uh bid being recommended here. >> Second. >> All right. Motion in a second. Any
discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. All right. Our third item, authorized South Brainard sewer study and um engineer Dean again.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so staff is requesting approval from the council to uh authorize SE to perform a sanitary sewer study in the Buffalo Hills neighborhood, South Briner neighborhood. Uh we've been approached by uh some potential developers um somewhat
recently here. Uh there's various properties in that South Briner area west of the highway. Um, one thing that we wanted to make sure of is, uh, how much capacity we have in some of our sanitary sewer shed in that area. Um, some areas are a little bit smaller on
pipes than others. Um, and then we have a pretty large bit of neighborhood with some very developable land in the area. Uh, so we really like to do a study to determine what the capacities are for one of our smaller lines for sure. um that leads to a potential develop
developable area but also as the neighborhood as a whole. Um SE came to us with a proposal um kind of broken into two different phases. Uh the first one is to prioritize the 8 in line that runs from Woodland Hills to Buffalo
Hills uh on Crest View. Uh it's one of our smaller lines and has some reasonly reasonably dense development on it existingly. Um so we'd like to evaluate that first and then further then to expand to kind of a phase two of that
study which is the neighborhood as a whole. Uh just to see what the capacity is the sewer in that area without having to do um essentially expansions of the system. Uh using's current u uh services agreement
that we used for the surveying under construction projects this year. uh we were able to expedite this a little bit because there is some timeliness to get some uh develop potential developers some information that they're requesting. Um so that's where we felt like this would be the most appropriate
way to go around this um because we won't have to issue RFPs. We're working under an existing agreement and uh does have a lot of background information uh in this neighborhood with the staff that they're putting behind it. Uh so we feel that there's some efficiencies to be
gained that way as well. Um, with that staff is recommending approval of the proposal uh from SE in the amount of $15,710. Uh, understanding that uh likely we would bring a a phase 2 um proposal at a
a future council meeting. >> All right. Thank you for that background. Any questions or comments? Councilman Jagger. >> Thank you. Uh just to just want to talk through this just a little bit on kind of where my what my mindset is. So this current developer is
only in conversations phase right now. There's no letter of intent. There's no applications that have been filed or so forth. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> And their assumption is is that the undergrounds need to to to meet a certain standard for them to move forward. Is that right? >> Essentially how much capacity that we
have right now. Yep. So, where I'm going with this is is it seems to me that this is just a a little bit of us, you know, pushing some chips forward in the hopes that this works out. I would prefer I don't know if this is possible that if this developer is serious they say look we're serious about developing this but
we need this amount of underground and but I would like that tied to some version of a letter of intent or a document that says okay if we go ahead and do all this underground study and it does end up being satisfactory to what you're doing you either reimburse us for the money on the study or you move ahead
with the project if that makes sense. >> Yes. Yeah. So, what I guess what I'm saying is if somebody just doesn't walk in and say, um, we're thinking about XYZ. Can you guys go ahead and put in 20 30 grand in underground study and we may may not do it. Don't know. Granted, this stud is probably usable for another f
potential builder, but I'm wondering if there's a mechanism of which we can tie the work that we're willing to do to make sure that it's there because if it isn't there, I'm sure they're going to be coming back to us asking us to fix it or to get it up to what they need for underground requirements. Any thoughts on how we might be able to do that,
guys? Just so we're not just spending this money and then our developer just walks away. James, please. >> So, I do want to add um this potential development um they um are moving forward with an EAW, which is um quite costly. Um so, they're, you know, they're certainly not just looking to
have the city pay for everything. >> Understood. So, they're putting some skin in the game at this point as well. Is that right? >> Significant. Yes. >> Okay. Understood. That's all then. >> And then if I can add really quick, Mr. Sure. >> Um, >> in general, usually the potential developer is responsible to developing
that capacity study, >> but because we're looking at it from a more bigger neighborhood uh sewer, >> those ancillary nodes is what you're saying. >> Yeah. We have a lot of different development areas, it's not isolated to just this one property. Okay. So, we want to make sure that we have a pretty
good idea of uh what the entire neighborhood capacity is and if one development would potentially restrict us from other areas and uh what our limits are there. >> Okay, understood. That's all. >> Yeah. Uh that's kind of what Mr. Chad, one moment. I was going to say that's
kind of what my mindset was too. I mean, this wasn't necessarily our only inquiry or development proposal in the area. I think there's a larger area that this serves and it's frankly I think exciting to hear a lot of the the development uh potential that that area has and I think
it's it's good for us to be moving forward with this just to have knowledge on our end um from the study standpoint uh of what the capacity is as we found with um Country Manor. Not that it was a capacity issue, but I think it's good to study it so that we have understanding
it, you know, so we don't have a similar type of situation where we're playing catch-up. Uh so I'm I guess I'm in support of this moving forward. But uh Councilman Chzik, you had your hand up. >> Yeah. Um so we're giving them all the
locations, all the sizes, all the uh u as builts. uh that's term scares me after the country manner but that that's what we're giving them and they're going to come back with a model and I I did have a conversation with James I know this isn't in necessarily James'
wheelhouse but you then are able to determine the flows better with a model is that is that fair way you told me James is that one of the reasons why we're doing this >> Councilman Chz uh yes that's generally what the intent is that we would be provided that model uh so we could
essentially mock up other potential developments as they do arise and check them against the model. >> Okay. And then um when we do this um there we don't have the ability to do this in house. >> No, I mean time staffing
computers whatever. We don't have that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. That's kind of what I think your agenda request said. Um and then uh what else was it? Um yeah, I think that's all I had. But I I'd move to
approve the uh this agreement with SC. >> Second. >> All right. Motion and a second. Then any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Of course. Motion. Motion passes. Brings us to our fourth item which is the approval of the
10-year CIP 2026 through 2035. And uh public works director Abigor, please. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is our 10-year capital plan. We've been working with BPU very closely on this and one of the newest uh things that we've sort of developed and modeled with
our help of our interns is uh every project is going to be scoped very specifically regarding um is it going to be sewer, water, curb, gutter, storm, just resurfacing or full reconstruct? And we're all going to agree to each one
of those projects in detail of that. And then also we're just going to be talking about pre-esign 30% uh drawing 60% everyone is going to be checking that box as we go along the project so that everyone is on the same page throughout
and that's just going to help really solidify any miscommunication that may happen. Um nothing is going to get sent to be paid when it's not ready and all the punch list is done. So, I just want to, you know, um, indicate that Jesse
and and all of the staff has just been working hard to make sure that that communication is solidified and our projects are going smoothly out there in the field. And it has been working very well. So, Jesse's outlined some great
projects, not as many as this year, thank goodness, because this year is really stretching our staff and overtime and and everything. So, you can look at the 10-year construction plan. Jesse's indicated some, you know, highlights of that. Um, but I just wanted to indicate
to the committee that the strides that we're taking to help our communication to ensure everyone is on the same page. So, and so staff is just recommending that you approve look at this and uh approve it so that we can move forward for next few years anyway. and every
we're really going to be solidifying the next three years and because it's hard to move past that in a very detailed sense because there's so much factors that go into road resurfacing and sewer and whatnot. So, I just want to brief and make sure that everyone's aware that
this is not written in stone, this 10-year plan that every two years, every year, we're going to be remodifying, looking at this, reanalyzing, and then submitting it, re resubmitting this every year. So, I just uh want to emphasize that. And with that, we can
take any questions. >> Um Mike, before we kind of open it back up here, uh the underneath staff's recommendation, there's two sub bullets that I'm seeing. Can you kind of elaborate on on those? The additional 50,000 for the uh sanitary sewer lining program. We've seen those. We've we've
had those in the past, of course, but the additional 50,000 >> and then the discussion on uh workshop. >> I'm going to let Jesse take that uh that first one. But just the public outreach stuff is really going to be helpful for us to get everyone um on board. We want
the the big thing that we want the community to know is that we're moving forward that we are we have a plan and we're moving forward with that plan. So Jesse, >> thank you. With uh Mr. share the two items there. Uh so we have a recommendation to add at least 50,000 if
not more depending on what the council would want uh to a a new essentially uh sanitary sewer lighting program which would allow us to roughly do about two blocks of uh two standard city blocks of sanitary sewer lighting. Um right now
it's mostly just replacement as part of reconstruction projects and then uh we address maintenance on a as needed basis. dig down and and address breaks and things like that. Uh this helps us uh rehab sanitary sewer in parts of neighborhoods that uh are simply not
feasible to replace. Um Greatton is a good example. North Brainard is a good example uh where some of these lines run underneath structures and stuff like that. Uh this would allow us to essentially rehab those pipes for an extended long-term period. um the
workshop for information collected from public outreach for franchise fees. This was something that came up uh over the last year since the last uh budget workshop. It was I believe June uh last year. Uh since then we've done some outreach uh collected some input from uh
various different folks on franchise fees, done some presentations and stuff. Um, I think we're at a point where we want to bring this back to council and uh kind of see what council wants to do in regards to the proposed uh franchise fee program as a replacement for uh some
of our construction funding and special assessments um and what those next steps would be if that's continue forward developing uh a policy and a program or if uh the council no longer wants to move that forward. So kind of those are the two uh additional recommendations
behind uh most of the 10-year CIP as well some of the high points that are included in there. Um and we can discuss those at another time but things like Delmare uh I indicated in there that um we aren't proposing an extension of
utilities but we'll take direction from council uh if different. Um, and there was another one about the seal code budget and trying to uh extend some of the pavement life on some of those chip seal streets. So, there's some additional things in the high points that we'll take comments on and take
input on. Um, but very specifically, we wanted some direction from the council on those two items. Sure. >> Besides the tenure. >> Yeah, thanks for uh elaborating on that. Just mostly for our discussion as we're crafting a motion. I wanted to, you know, call that out for our discussion. those particularly those two items and
then the on the sewer line the 50 additional 50,0002 I you know it's my understanding there's a bit of a mismatch between the um kind of the infrastructure age of what's underground oftentimes and what's on on the road surface and so this would help us address someone in those situations too
when there's as you said difficulty getting to that when there's not a a project planned for perhaps years so yes Mr. I also want to indicate that our sewer is we're going to be doing well we did a sewer study was it two years ago Jesse
and that's going to be renewed we're going to have to renew that because it's 2% every year and then they're suggesting a rubber band effect on the fifth year of 17%. I would rather look at it from a perspective of four, five, six. And that way that rubber band
effect isn't quite so two-digit numbers. And so that's something that we're going to have to look at also. >> All right. Well, that that was of course my question. Any other comments, questions? Councilman Chzik. >> Yeah. If we're going to give 50 or whatever for sanitary sewer, don't we
have to adjust our rates? >> That's up to the council. Um we typically do a a rate study about every five years and it's based on the next uh five years identified in the CIP. Um unfortunately the East River Road lining
project and this $50,000 potential program are not identified in that last rate study. >> So that that's what I'm getting. I mean um where if we say yeah for we want to give 50,000 where do you where do we see that
in a capital plan? Where do we see that in our budget? Where does that $50,000 show up if we're going to agree to that or or whatever we agree on to improve to to take care of lining sanitary sewer lines that need a lining? >> Typically projects like that are funded
through the sanitary sewer fund. uh we would recommend uh executing another uh sewer sewer rate study uh spec specifically the sanitary sewer uh if not both sanitary and storm uh just to re-evaluate where those rates are.
>> Okay. So then what we when we look at capital tenure SIP here are any of these sanitary lines that we have on this capital improvement plan are they are any of those that are in this going to be lined or are they all replacement? uh these are all identified for
replacement with the exception of the 2027 lining job >> down on the river. Okay. >> And then um when we uh >> So I mean I noticed how you said that it's you're asking for 50 to get going
on this and um can you can can we get a like some sort of projection of where and where the locations are? I see some of these streets are just resurfacing and you're we're confident that what's underneath doesn't need it's not at an
age where we we'd be better off digging it up instead of going back in 5 years after we resurface it. So something like a sanitary line or water line that needs replacement. You you you have you can assure us that you've checked all that. >> So what I'll say is we evaluate all of
the underground utilities before we're scoping out a resurfacing pro uh program. uh we're not going to uh go first to replacement. We want to evaluate it first. If there's sufficient life left in the utility, uh we want to
just resurface the the street itself cuz the utilities do have a different life cycle than the pavement does. They they do age quite a bit differently. Uh so we want to make sure that we're we're timing those utility replacements at the right time versus the pavement. Uh because it is quite more of an expense
for full reconstruct. Uh that said, we do have some priority areas for a sanitary lighting program. Uh North Briner is a very good example. We have a lot of lines in backyards um that need lining that are 100 years old that we can't replace. Uh the Hawkins or not
Hawkins, the Joseph Ronald Alley is one we've discussed recently as well. Um so those are a couple different areas that we would prioritize. Um downtown area is another area that would fall right behind it. >> Um so like Ronald Joseph Hawkins, that one. Um, and we had a lot of discussion
about that. That's really deep. I get it. We can't replace it. Does what I mean. I guess with with the funds we have right now in this sanitary sewer fund, what what can we do? What could we accomplish if if if we I mean, what
where's our balance at in that? Don't I understand it's around the 600 800,000? >> I I couldn't tell you what the existing balance is right now. U we generate about $800,000 a year. Uh but that's to fund the entire program. >> Yep. Okay. I I got my questions
answered. Thank you. >> Yeah. Councilman Jagger. >> Yeah. Thank you. Just real quickly here. Anytime I'm looking at a CIP, I'm always coming back to the people that create it because it's a CIP to me is only as good as the as the people looking at the information and creating that CIP themselves. So, I'm just going to ask
you guys that have worked on this and thank you so much for the time and effort you've put into it. in the in your minds, is this CIP ambitious and aggressive? Is it uh is it conservative? Does it have deferments in it? Is it right in the middle? If if you were just
to give a summary of this CIP, are we just holding our own? Are we getting ahead? Are we making up ground? Are we still slowly falling behind? What is what is this number in your mind enabling us to do in the next 10 years? >> I I'll take the first tab, but I'd
really want Jesse to chime in also. Just the first blush is that we are not funding our sewer and storm uh uh funds properly. >> We're falling behind. >> We are way falling behind. Um >> do we know how much roughly? >> No. >> Yeah. Okay. And >> I won't put you on the spot. I just
>> Right. But uh there's I we want to map everything out and then indicate this line here is going to be x number of dollars and indicate all of that and then say, okay, get a total dollar amount and then work backwards from there. Um, but we need to more
aggressively look at it and then we're not going to be making this decision for next year. We're going to be making this decision for 20 years from now so that individuals that are in our seats will be in much better shape to make a decision. >> That was my leaning because the numbers look low to me not knowing anything about underground pipes. Jesse, did you
have anything to add? >> No, that's okay. Essentially what uh my comments are. We craft this within the framework of the funding that we have currently. Uh so it does address as much as we possibly can and it is a little bit moving forward from what we've done previously. >> That was going to be my question. It's
funding driven scope of work, not scope of work driven by need. Understood. Uh just one quick follow-up question. You may not know the know this right off the bat, but what do you guys use for a multiplier? Uh yeartoyear looking as an outlook for um goods and services, >> right?
>> 3% 5% 8%. >> I'm usually using about 2% a year. >> 2% for year to year. >> All right. Thank you. And and just regarding the the 50,000 for sanitary sewer lining that you have that sub bullet under the recommendation, I to me I think that's that's money well spent.
Um you know these areas that it's nearly impossible to get to. I think that's um the alternative is uh the cost, you know, balloons uh ex exponentially. So to me the 50,000 is um is money well spent under that. But any other comments
or questions? Uh Councilman Chz. >> Mr. Chair, I think that 50,000 is way low. I I at the very least, I'd like to see that doubled. I'd be all in favor of doing that instead of kind of piddling away. Um if we got lines that need to be lined or sewer lines that need to have
liners in them, we should do it because once they collapse, you can't line it. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, what do we then? We got to replace it and it costs more money, right? >> Correct. >> Replace. Yeah. So, if if we're going to do this, you know, I I I think you guys
were if I I don't want to put words in your mouth. It seemed like the 50,000 the way it worded is like a little hesitant like Yeah. would as staff would you guys like to see us approve more money than 50? >> Oh, yes. Well, and what I was going to suggest, Mr. Councilman Jezach, is that
we I would like to Jesse and I and Connie meet and get a formal plan to look at our sewer and see what we could do more aggressively. and then also come back and ask the council to approve the rates so that we don't have a 17% rubber
band in a few years. um that is uh an approach that I think is very more appropriate and I think that would be uh I would like that approach and also the second bullet there are the franchise fees um and hope I'm not sure where your
thoughts are on the franchise fees but uh um the big thing with this is that it's going to take many individuals communicating the same message to the general public to win the the favor of such uh franchise fees. It is now going to be
everyone will have the equal load of our our uh fees that are going to support our sewer and and and our infrastructures underneath, not just select few. So, I really think franchise fees is the more appropriate way. We're not going to have assessment hearings
and it just is a way to if we just did it to lighten staff load that would be a huge, you know, wick uh a win. But now we're also going to be funding it more appropriately. Now that's a second win. So I would I'm a huge uh uh in favor of
the franchise fees and again if we could help if the council members can help when we're you're talking about the to the various business owners, residents and so forth that you speak on you know why are we doing this and uh so anyway I just want to speak of that. Yeah, thank
you. And um so we'll we can have a workshop on that discuss that you know at length, but essentially instead of assessing it property by property, project by project, it's citywide for every project. >> And whoever contributes to the sanitary
pays for that. Right now it's not every >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. And other comments, questions? Otherwise, we're looking to maybe craft a motion here. >> Yeah. Not sure exactly what the motion is at this point, but I I just feel like if there's if we're going to have a CIP put in front of us, I if there's bad news, I want bad news. I I feel like
CIPs or projects that are driven by budget is a incredibly risky enterprise, and all that does is just push push kick the can down the street, so to speak. So, I'm not sure what the motion is you're looking for, Mr. Eric. >> So, they've they've put together the CIP um their recommendation. and they're
they're asking us to approve that 10-year CIP with those two additional um the 50,000 for the sanitary sewer. That number is obviously um I don't say negotiable, but that's up to council. And then the second thing is they want to have a workshop discussion. So I
guess that would be >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to approve the 10 years of CIP and then uh included in that that we also bring to the full council a recommendation that we instead of instead of 50,000 we
start at 100,000 to do our sanitary sewer lining to get this off it at least start get going on it. That's my motion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'll second that. >> Very good. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? My only discussion would be is if if 50 is not
the number and 100's not the number. I just want to know what the real number is. I just I want to know what's coming. That's all. >> Thank you. And Mr. Chzik, I of course heard your motion, but the workshop on the franchise, we can handle that separately. Yep. >> In your mind. Okay. >> Um I did want to comment on this as far
as the uh what Mr. Jagger just said. I I I I'm also prepared to make another motion that that on this discussion at council to uh I'll just let you know to uh have staff come back with uh more detailed recommendation on uh where
aligning is needed most. U maybe we can talk about that at at council to come back with something more instead of just uh continually talking about this and and not actually taking action and getting something going on it. So I'm just prepared to do that at the council meeting. Excellent.
>> Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. >> And then I just u we'll just uh we'll just bring I we I don't need a motion. We'll just bring up discussion when it works for a meeting. >> Sure. Yep. >> Okay, >> that's perfect.
Thank you. And of course, that motion carries, bringing us to our fifth and final item, direction on active code enforcement. Community Director Cranvic. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff are bringing one property before the committee for review, 523 Grove Street, and are looking for direction from council on
how to proceed with the case. The property has received three citations and have not corrected the issue uh for the peeling paint. Uh so with that, staff recommends a $300 citation every month until the structure is compliant. And I can answer any questions.
>> All right. Uh thank you, James. Any comments or questions on this one? Staff recommends 300. approve staff's recommendation. >> Second. >> All right, we got a move. >> You do have a specific recommendation or did we have to tell you what? >> Yeah, we did. >> He does have a specific
>> I know. I read it. I just >> Okay. >> Yeah, but I can restate it. So, the staff recommendation was a $300 citation every month until the structure is compliant >> and motion as I understood it was to take staff's recommendation. Motion a second. Uh any further discussion on that hearing? None. Those in favor say
I. I. >> I. And those opposed, same sign. And of course, the motion carries. >> I got a question before we finish it here. >> Yes, sir. >> On this um um Oh gosh, I lost my train of thought. Uh
>> secretary, >> I I forgot it. It's >> No problem. We can help you anything. >> No. Okay, >> I'm good. >> Sounds good. Well, we will adjourn our portion of the or the committee meeting here at 7:18 and move on to um full
counsel at 7:30. So, how are you? See you.