--------- committee meeting 6:30 p.m. uh council chambers. We've got nine items on our agenda. The first of which is to approve change order for improvement 2407 L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L LOL L safe routes to school and it looks like we've got engineer Jesse Dean on this one.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So attached we have three change orders for the council to review. Uh the first is for top soil borrow. This was to accommodate for top soil that was needed to be hauled into the project to do some final restoration. uh the quantity was not reflected in the original plan set and it was necessary that we had this
material to perform the final restoration. The second was to modify a storm sewer catch basin due to an error in the final elevation in the plans. Um and then finally a resetting of the RRFB pedestal bases uh just to ensure that
they met ADA requirements. Uh they were set at the incorrect location and height and then thus needed to be reset. Um as the second two change orders were really due to some WSB oversightes uh they did commit to cover the cost of those two change orders. Uh the top soil item
would have been necessary to construct the project appropriately and thus would have been covered using uh thus we're recommending using state aid construction funds to cover that cost. Um a final pay request uh to close out the project since it is completed. Uh we're expecting that at the next meeting
as we're finalizing some details with the contractor. Uh but staff is recommending approval of the three change orders for the low safe routes uh project as presented. >> All right. Thank you very much, Jesse. Um any questions or comments of committee members? >> Mr. Chair.
>> Yes, Councilman. >> Yeah, Jesse, did you say that uh the engineer had a an error and they said they would cover it, but yet there's still a change order. Did I misunderstand that? Maybe >> that is correct. They're going to cover the cost of the second two. So, but it's
a change order we're approving that they will cover it. Is that how I understand it? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Because the the contractor's contract is with the city and not WSB. >> Yep. I think uh to further clarify that there three change orders, one of which
we would be covering out of state aid, the other two they're covering. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Jagger, >> just real quickly, uh, just for a point of a clar clarification on the importation and the exportation of Phil, Jesse, is that unit pricing identified
in the RFP or is that not identified and then it's it's at market rate when a when a change order comes or do we agree on the unit pricing before the contract is signed? >> So, the items that are in the bid, um, those are, uh, based on whatever they
put in there for their bid before they open. uh for this item. It was reviewed after the proposal was received from the contractor and we reviewed as WSB also reviewed this to make sure that it was in line with what we would expect for a unit price. >> So it's it's it's current market rate. We don't at the time of signing a
contract we don't agree to an importation or exportation fill unit pricing before before the project begins so that we can anticipate what the change order might be for import for Phil. Correct. If it's in the project, then we'll have a bid cost. If it's not already uh in the bid unit items, then
we'd have to negotiate a a contract amount afterwards >> during the project. >> Understood. And the $11,900, does that have profit and overhead in it or it does not? It appears that it's a >> It does. Okay. >> Yep. That's all encompassing. >> That's all. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any
other comments or questions on this one? The only other thing I just wanted to add the acronym there that's like um I'm missing an R but it's what rapid flashing beacon. It's the the flashing lights essentially for >> correct. Yep. >> Chair. >> Uh yes sir.
>> Move to approve the three staff. >> Motion in a second. I think we heard the motion. >> Mr. I'll finish it. Move to approve three staff recommendations on the change. >> Second. >> Uh any any discussion hearing? None.
We'll take it to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. We're moving quick. Uh, second item to discuss 2025 2026 downtown snow removal and public works director Havagor.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attached to this request are bids that we received for 2526 downtown snow removal services. Competitive bids were directly solicited to eight contractors as well. We publicly published in the dispatch and the website. Staff received one bid for
the annual contract from Tom's backhoe. Staff reviewed the bids. The proposal are approximately 20% over last year's cost. The costs associated with the bids are $8,571 for streets, $1,986
for uh sidewalks. The proposal for each additional inch after the first four inches uh are for streets and sidewalks are $2,44 and $418 respectively. Using an 8 in snowfall as an example,
the total cost for the snow removal under the proposal would be $18,189 for streets and $3,658 for sidewalks totaling $21,847. An alternative an alternate to utilizing
contracted services would be to utilize internal city staff to perform this service as presented in the um uh 919 9:15 uh council meeting. So staff is seeking direction for the 2526 snow
removal. Uh we have two options before us. We can award the contract to Tom's Backho and or we can also look for public works uh parks crew to complete the snow removal and we can take questions at this time. >> All right. Uh thank you Mr. Habigor. Any
questions or comments of committee members? >> I have a couple. >> Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Um, how many, um, I understand parks, uh, you know, if snows overnight, they'll be called out at say 4:00 a.m. And, um, how
many employees will actually get called on a 5 in snowfall? >> A total of the six of them. >> Six. Okay. >> Well, six from parks and then streets, they have their eight individuals that would be called out also, but very specifically for this downtown snow just for downtown
>> would be six. Six individuals. And will they be using any of the street department equipment to do this snow removal? And it's both sidewalks and streets they'll be doing, right? >> No, they have their own equipment. Okay. >> We do have uh two Well, we have right now we have currently we have three back
hoes, but uh yes, they'll be using their own equipment. >> Well, you won't use a backhoe for a snow remover, right? >> No, I meant they have three skid steers and we could be using two or three of those at any given time. >> Okay. Um because in the past they had graders do the streets. We won't be
using a grater, right? Correct, >> Marks. Correct. >> Okay. But you have the machinery to do it is Yes. I mean, okay. Um, yeah. Uh, and then, um, that's I think that's all I need. Just as long as we have the equipment and personnel, I >> Yeah.
>> All right. >> That's what I got. That's all for now. >> Thank you very much, Councilman Jagger. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mike, can you please just shed just a little bit of light on how if we use park staff >> and they get a call, we got snowfall, they're going to go do the streets
first. Do they are they only able to work a certain number of hours and then if they don't get to the ice, you know, the ice rinks, are they just not going to do the ice rinks that day and then try to get them on the next day or tell me how this will work with, you know, with their current obligations with all the park stuff at the same
time? Which one is priority and how do we get them both done? >> Correct. And first would be our first priority would be downtown. Downtown snow removal is number one priority when it when it comes to winterizing anything. When it's winter, we got we got to remove the snow whether it's on
the streets or downtown. So after they get called in, they should be done by approximately 9:00. And again, they're just going to be wind rowing and then the streets will come in the next day and then remove the snow. So after 9:00, then they're back on their uh ice rinks to clear them. And so that's how that
operation would go. Got it. >> And just to clarify the equipment, park crew, they have their own B um their skid steer that has a plow very specifically for for streets and maneuvering type maneuvering for
downtown, which will be perfect. We also have a small uh John Deere tractor that can fit on the sidewalks. And we have another uh small tractor that we can be using also for the parking lot and so forth. So, we'll have uh plenty of equipment to keep everyone moving and to
speediate that downtown snow removal. >> Awesome. And is it my understanding, Mr. Havagor, that the that the park board has already this is already filtered through their discussion and they were in favor of >> they were well they were they had a motion that went they recommended that
the city council go out for RFP for this for the snow removal. >> Yep. >> That's what their motion was to go out. Was there concern during I wasn't at the meeting so forgive me but was there any concern from the park board of using park staff for uh for the streets >> correct there there was discussion on
that and they didn't want to muddy the water with what they already do. Um so with this icing rinks and that's their main priority in the winter time we would shift that a little bit and then downtown snow removal and then we'd jump on the >> but we would be muddying their water just we would be mudding the water a
little bit with Okay, got it. >> Yep. That's all. >> And just to clarify if I could um regarding summertime versus wintertime, winter is our snow is our slow time. I would rather RFP something during the summertime,
>> the roundabouts, downtown, uh cleaning up that college drive, those things that we desperately need help with and we do. There's no way that we can complete all that. So I if I'm managing all of this, where do I want to send out an RFP? And
that is during the summertime. >> Understood. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thanks for that well answers to those questions, but that additional clarification and that was going to be you kind of touched on what I was going to ask is I know the park board did have concerns over the rinks and then I think correct me if I'm wrong in addition to
that they do a lot of the maintenance on some of the equipment in the off season which >> right >> obviously is very important work and a good use of their time during that slower season. But hearing what you're saying, it, you know, it's anticipated that that's we're going to still be able to handle the wind rowing, the ranks,
and continue maintaining some of those equipment. So, >> um, and then I just wanted to say too, I I think it's it's time we try something new. And you, you know, in your report here, you say you went out for, you know, directly solicited eight um, companies, and I know year after
year we only get one. I think there's been some years we have had to go back out. we didn't get any. Um, and I don't remember the last time if we ever even gotten two. So, I think it's um, from my my standpoint, I think it's worth trying something new. So, yes, Administrator
Broyals, >> just one quick comment. Um, I think this bid is on the expensive side and I don't think it's atypical. In fact, I know from my experience, it's not atypical for parks crews to help out street crews during heavy snowfalls in the winter
time. So, this is in line with kind of industry standards. >> Thank you very much. Uh, any additional questions, comments? Otherwise, I'd be looking for a motion on this. >> Um, yeah, my only comment would be is usually when you only get one bid, it's not generally on the low side. So, I
will make a motion to assign the public works uh park crew to complete the snow removal of downtown for 2526. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. And motion
carries. Our third item, approve change order number two for improvement 1712. Uh this is pertains to the right street and 10th reconstruction project. Um engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so as you
mentioned, it's a a change order request for the right and 10th reconstruction project. uh the change orders for some uh materials for fire suppression temporary service lines. Um when this was uh brought up to our attention that the 2-in that were planned uh would not
be sufficient. Uh these were found to be a pretty long lead time item when the project was already getting behind schedule was about a 3-w week lead time uh for these specialty materials. So staff did indicate to the contractor to start sourcing these materials to keep the project as generally on course as
possible. Um we continued after finding the uh proposal was a pretty significant dollar amount uh we continued to work with not only the fire marshall but some of the businesses and the contractor to try and find some sort of an alternative solution that uh did not require these
uh specialty materials uh especially at that cost. Uh we were able to come up with a a solution that kind of satisfied everybody uh at least for this project. Um, however, some of the materials that were already on the way, uh, were not able to be returned.
Uh, so essentially the city taking ownership of about $20,000 in, uh, some of those specialty materials, and we would take ownership of them once we've paid for them. Uh the change order also reflects an additional 15 calendar days um due to the dates from when we notified that the materials would be
requested to when staff informed the contractor of that alternative plan and that the materials would no longer be necessary. Um we've also included with this item a memo that summarizes the project update uh in a lot more depth to provide some additional background to the council based on some of the challenges that we've seen on this
project already this year. Um, but right now at this point, staff is recommending approval of the attached change order in the amount of $20,484.30. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Dean. Any questions or comments, Mr. Councilman Chzik? >> Yes, it it seems like a mystery material. Can you just tell me what it
is exactly? The the material that we're $20,000 worth of What is the material? Uh it's a lot of fittings. Uh some other specialty rated hoses. Uh there is a listing of all the materials uh that
were Oh gosh. >> Is it in the It's 167 through >> Okay. >> Yep. So the there's a highlighted section. I can't recall if it was the I believe it's the red section that uh those are the materials that were unable to be returned. >> The lovely red section,
>> all the expensive stuff. >> I'm pretty sure that was the ones that it was. So, uh, we do have a listing of that. So, we were able to verify which ones, um, based on what they got from their, uh, from corn maintenance supplier. >> And then one more question. Do you see any, uh, the city having any use for
this? >> Uh, it's it's tough to know until we get it in in house and we can talk with our our water crew staff uh, what would be >> able to be used. And if uh, worst case scenario, there's there's things that we aren't able to use, we could put those up public surplus and resell them.
>> Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Councilman Jagger. >> Mr. Dean, what percentage how many projects do we have that need temporary fire service a year average? Is it a lot? >> It's not. Most of the work that we do is uh very rarely with temporary fire
suppression. Um generally, that's why we see it um most commonly like a 2 in. So, a lot of the highway 210 that we're planning for is going to be with 2in uh supply lines for fire suppression. Uh something that we found on this project is the industrial loads were a lot higher than expected. So the 2-in
service lines that we were planning for uh didn't carry the same flow and pressure requirements for those systems. Um so it it was a very complicated situation that we ran into. >> Understood where I was going with this is if this is a high frequency item and we're already buying half the parts,
should we buy the other half the parts and then just apply this in the future and potentially remove that from scope of work? But it sounds like that may not be a good fit. >> It's not very often that we're working in the industrial park. So I would say it's a a >> note to the public. We're going to have some parts for sale. Very good. That's
all. >> Thanks. Along those lines, too. You know, it sounds like, you know, most of the time we won't need these. And if we do, it's going to be the 2 in. And in this rare case, we needed the the larger ones. So,
>> any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I'd be looking for a motion. Motion to approve the change order for the the uh unused parts. >> Uh second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a
second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. >> And motion carries. All right. Our fourth item uh approved change order number uh two for improvement 2113 is Beach Street Oakidge
reconstruction and engineer Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is an attached change order for Beach and Oakidge. Um this includes some additional traffic control materials that was necessary to reroute what our plan detour was um for Oak Street while we were constructing
water main across Oak Street to connect in. Um and uh the route we were able to come up with was going around state highways 25 210 as well as county road 45 on 13th Street uh as our alternative. The original plan was uh to run them
down 28th and then kind of through the project over to Pine. However, 28th has really come apart on us from a surface standpoint and uh with where they're at with construction, it was going to be really hard to pass them around to the Pine. Um so we had to pivot and come up with an alternative plan and that's what
we came for. uh came up with uh we also discussed that with both mindot and crowing to kind of utilize those routes during that short period and they were amendable to that. Um we did request the proposal for from the contractor for the cost of rerouting that detour understanding that that proposal should
reflect just the additional signage that was going to be needed because we had already had some signage that was planned. So um it's kind of giving us you know credit for costs that were already planned to be in the bid. Uh, so right now staff is recommending the approval of the change order in the amount of for $14,364.58.
>> All right. Thank you, Jesse. Any questions or comments, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yep. Councilman Chzik. >> So, the vast majority of this $14,000 is for the signage. Correct. >> Correct. Yep. That's all of it. >> The contractor will keep that signage. >> Yeah. It's it's essentially renting the
signage. So we're I would say it's basically paying by the week, but this is the lump sum based on the time duration that we were expecting. >> Does that seem odd that if we're paying them to buy the sign and then they keep it? So it's a I didn't catch that. It's a leasing >> essentially. Yep.
>> You say potentially? >> No, essentially. Uh that's very typical for a lot of our temporary traffic control is it's it's brought on for the project and then removed after the project. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. uh timeline on that project really quickly. Is it looking at like the end
of the month still or a little bit into November? >> It's going to be a little bit into November. It's getting really close. They're wrapping up within the next day or two the last of the underground work uh the storm sewer work. Uh from there, they're going to be scrambling really fast to uh begin grading, get the f some
additional fabric in there to stabilize the area and get some gravel in there. Uh so the next two weeks going to be fast and furious in that north half. Uh and then some sidewalk is planned to go in here this week. It's everything's coming together really really fast. Um but it's going to be right there at the end of the season and obviously we're
we're very attentive to the weather forecast because a lot of that is very weather dependent. >> Well, they've had the weather for it last month or so. So, all right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, be looking for a motion. >> Motion to approve the change order, Mr.
Chair. >> I'll second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion hearing? None. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And. And those opposed. Same sign. And motion carries. Our fifth item, approve change order number one,
improvement 2314. This is for Hawkins Ronald Joseph resurfacing project and engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this change order has two parts. So, first is the replacement of the water main materials on Hawkins. Uh, so going to utilize ductal iron rather than the plant PVC
for some of these short runs. uh feeding the uh hydrant replacements on Hawkins. Um because of the short runs, these are going to provide a more comfortable conductivity connection, especially for locating uh having like forlike materials. Um and then can shorten the
length of the replacements rather than having to go all the way to the main. Um the second part of the change order is to replace the paving subcontractor, the intended paving subcontractor in the project. Uh in the past we've already mentioned some of the issues we have with Anderson Brothers as an illigible
subcontractor on our projects and just not allow required not to allow them to perform on our public contracts. Um so the total amount is just under 28,000 for the two change order or the two parts of the change order roughly is about 4,800 to the water main work. Um
but we're expecting to find some cost savings there to offset some of those costs. Um, like I said, shorter runs and u and things of that nature. We're gonna we're going to save a few bucks on that. Uh, the remaining um 23,000 and change is is for the replacement of the paving
subcontractor. Um, as we mentioned, it it is very impactful for us when we lose a a very important paving subcontractor in town. Um, right now, currently, Hawkins is under construction and planned for completion shortly. Um the remaining streets are going to have to lag behind a 2026 to accommodate the
finishing of the roundabout. Um so that's just a quick update for the council on that. Uh staff is recommending approval of the attached change order in the amount of 27,794.50. >> Thank you. Um but Hawkins portion of that is underway now or is that >> that is correct. Yep. >> Almost complete. I would
>> it's getting close. >> Yep. What was the you said the material the pipe materials being changed. We were going from what to what >> in the original plan it showed PVC for the the leads to the hydrants but because we're just going to replace a
small we're going to replace a even shorter section of those leads. So trying to match the like forlike materials. >> Got it. >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh Councilman Chzik. So, when we get a a different amount for the I guess it's the asphalt because of the um conundrum
with Anderson Brothers. Um how do we know we're not getting uh kind of taken advantage of with that price for that? I mean, >> it's it's a good question. That's something that we have to review, you know, I mean, for any change order for that instance. But we review this
against what is kind of average bid pricing that MDOT sees as well as kind of historical stuff uh that we see. So we review a lot of that to make sure that it's in the realm of what we would consider reasonable. Um also understanding that um changing
subcontractors at this time of the year. Um scheduling can be a very big challenge. Um sourcing of their material uh where they're getting that material from uh that can be a challenge as well. So, uh, we trying to balance all those when we review those change order proposals to make sure that it is is
fair and reasonable to your point, not being taken advantage of. >> Was there more than one? >> My understanding is they got a proposal from one that uh the uh prime contractor was familiar with. My my assumption is that Knife River has been kind of
claiming, I guess, a lot of the paving subcontracts on some of these ones that we've been replacing lately. Uh, this is not. My guess is availability is a big part of that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman Jagger. >> Yeah, thank you. Just real quickly, this this ca when this came up before
previously, I asked a couple questions about this and it it really wasn't formed in the version, you know, of an actual motion and that. But I did ask that that maybe you know city attorney could look at our contract wording in the contracts that we sign with these
because this is really ultimately the non-performance of a subcontractor to the sub to the contractor that we hire. I can't wrap my head around how this is not Anderson's bill to pay. This just does not make sense to me. This is non-performance of a subcontractor. So
unless there is some version of an exclusion on futures or subcontractors written with the contract that we have with the main contractor, I just can't wrap my head around how we should be absorbing the non-performance of a subcontractor. So I'm just going to kind
of ask again that we look into the language that is in our contract and maybe Mr. Langle could look at that to just assure me that this is in fact our bill and that when a subcontractor defaults for whatever reason it is, the primary contractor at their own will can
just hire whatever contractor they want subcontractor at whatever price they think is fair market value and we just get the change order no matter what. So, at the very least, u I don't think we should be paying a contractor's fee on this, but uh that's really what I'm hoping for, Jesse, is somebody can just look into that because most construction
contracts have protections to subcontractor default or non-performance. That's all, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Council, >> I think to Mr. Jagger's point, if I'm not mistaken, we heard from uh Attorney Langel, but I think that was more revolving around the fact that we had
state aid on either that project or those projects that we had. Would that be correct that that's why it seemed more re rational that we we were paying that change order for the additional cost of the uh is am I misunderstanding
what happened? Does anybody recall that? >> Yes, Mr. Chzach. Um so that's part of the the discussion. The other part is the responsible contractor statute. So essentially any work over $50,000 done on a project. Um they need to meet
responsible contractor um certification. And by the definition in the statute if they land on either the federal or state dear list, it doesn't matter either one. It doesn't have to be both. They are no longer eligible as a responsible contractor under the that definition.
Thus, it doesn't irregardless of federal, state, or local money. Um because of that state statute, they're ineligible to perform on our contracts. Maybe a very small contract um but not on something like this.
>> Okay. So, that but I think I don't want to speak for you, but I I think Mr. Jagger's asking though, they're not eligible, but it's due in part because of what they're responsible for, not anyone else.
And so that's would I be correct in how I state that? >> That's exactly right. I mean, where I'm going with this is we don't really care who the subcontractor is or why they can't perform. We had a contract with the primary contractor to do x amount of work for x amount of dollars. It's up to them to write. That's the whole point of
paying a contractor is they're writing out the risk of the subcontractors. That's the entire reason you hire a contractor is to mitigate your own risk or exposure in a project. So that's what I'm just asking for clarification on in our contract
language. If it isn't there, that's absolutely something we should jump on is non-performance of subcontractors to protect us from that. it it if I may. Um it's kind of like if somebody's building a house, you hire a general and they have a flooring guy and
you know after you move in, you've been there six months, your flooring starts falling apart. You don't go to the subcontractor to put the flooring in. You go to your general who then goes to the subcontractor. Is that a good analogy? >> That's correct. That's an ex exact. or if that or if that person that provided the bid to do the flooring wasn't able
to do the work for XYZ, it's on the general to find a replacement for that subcontractor for the same amount of money, not just come back and say, "I couldn't get the original guy, so now the contract needs to be changed." That's my point on this. >> So, at this point, Mr. Chair, may I ask um if we decide to not approve this
change order, can we look into this in the meantime? May is Mr. Langel here? >> He's he's not here yet. >> Okay. Is that I mean would that what would be the problem if we did that Mr. Engineer? >> So there there's a couple pieces I I
would have to direct the contractor not to pave. Um obviously we're running in late into the season that puts us at risk of not being able to pave before winter. Um I can confer with the attorney. I know a lot of it is timing based. So when they
got their proposal uh from the subcontractor, it would have been before a lot of this came to light. Uh we would have accepted the bid at that time and then the debarment notification uh came after the fact. So it wasn't necessarily
within the the prime contractor's control. Um there's some provisions in this mind specifications that talk about what's excusable, what's not excusable from a compensation standpoint. uh it usually falls within the things that are within their control within their with
not within their control. Um it's a big generalization, but that's kind of the guidance along those lines in that specification. Um this kind of falls into that bucket of things that aren't necessarily within the prime contractor's control. Um so that's how the specification kind of reads is um
this would be something that they would be eligible for from a claims uh perspective. So there there's a couple pieces of it and whether or not we could write something into our contracts to protect ourselves further. Uh we definitely can. It's just very very uncommon that we would run into this
situation ever. This is the first time I've ever had any debarred contractor on any of my projects in my career. Um and from who I've talked to, it's very similar. So it's not a very obviously common occurrence, but um it is
something that we can look into. I think it's just a risk of the potential for not having it paved before we just >> I think dissolve that further. This is a really unique um rare occurrence and we've already approved
two similar uh situations with different projects and I don't think we can well we certainly could but I wouldn't be in favor of um directing them not to to finish up the pavement particularly on Hawkins of
course. um just from my perspective, I think these are really good questions moving forward for us to consider for future contracts to protect us against similar situations is my opinion on this. But any any other discussion otherwise be looking for >> Well, I guess I I mean I I understand
the conversation. I I guess it seems to me uh we're we're um charging our taxpayers this money additional and to Mr. Joerger's point, we hired a general contractor. They have hired the subcontractors. It's beyond their control what happened to their uh
asphalt provider contractor, but it would be out beyond their control if that same provider went out of business. It would be, you know, it would be if they if there was if the asphalt provider couldn't get the material and couldn't do the work. Um it just seems
like maybe we made a mistake approving the previous ones in that regard, but um if it we h how can how can that general contractor say I need more money when they submitted a
bid, we approved it? I I'm that's that's the part I think I won't speak for you, but I think that's the same thing you're hung up on now. I mean, this goes back to our earlier discussion a couple months ago, but >> yeah, that is the part that I'm hung up on, Mr. Chzok. And I guess where I'm at is we obviously want to get this project
done. We don't want to, you know, affect that. So, my recommendation here, I think, would be to go ahead and approve this change order. If we do find some findings that come back to us uh that that prove that we do have some leverage to go back on the contractor for this and then ultimately the subcontractor
then I think we would uh even I don't think that you know approving this at this time would negate our ability to leverage that. So >> second >> engine before that uh second hand up. So engineer Dean
>> no that's okay. I I just wanted to in to uh Councilman Jerger's point, we can put something together uh review it with the attorney and get something in front of the council on the next meeting. >> I'd sure >> just to give you some guidance. >> It's a great scenario for both Anderson and the contractor, terrible for everyone else. >> So clearly
>> the two people that are responsible >> clarification the motion and then >> so yes, I'll clarify that I recommend the approval of the change order number one the amount of 2779450. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Uh thank you very much. And then our sixth item, award engineering services 2026 resurfacing uh projects. And uh engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so we solicited
RFPs for engineering services for the resurfacing projects for next year. Um there's a there's a handful of streets that were on the plan currently. Um we received four proposals. Uh Bolton, SE, WSB, and Witsth were the four responses.
Uh we scored those proposals kind of on a weighted scale. Um it was because of the simplicity of the design and uh construction, we put a little bit more weight u on the cost and fees proposed uh compared to some of the other factors of understanding uh experience and work
plan. Um after scoring those uh WSB was the highest scoring uh proposal at 8 and a 8 8.8 and then Bolton Bank right behind them with 8.7 um because of the costheavy uh waiting uh WSB as the
lowest cost did rise to the top which makes a lot of sense obviously with a a costheavy rating. Um, but Bolton Mink did a really good job for us this last year uh with administration of the uh resurfacing projects down in South Brainard. Um, so staff would definitely
recommend uh either one uh because of the cost and the rating coming in just a hair higher. Uh staff's recommendation is WSB. Uh but we would definitely support either one uh depending on uh what the council would like to elect to. Um, but as of right now, staff's recommendation is WSB uh for the
engineering services on uh next year's resurfacing projects in the amount not to exceed $95,042. >> All right. Thank you very much. Questions, comments at this time. >> Can you remind me of what Bolton and Mink was on that? >> It was le more than 97,000, right?
>> Bolton and Mink was Oh, they scored 8.7. Sorry. >> No, I mean their price. >> Just a moment here. Yep. >> I don't believe I have it here on the on the packet. I can't pull it up. I'm sorry. The computer's not working. It
was Yeah, I the uh the number was just slightly above. It wasn't a a large difference. It was It was not significant. Sorry. I wish I could get those numbers for you right off the top, but I'm just not able to log into it.
I think I've got it here. Um, page 204. Let's see. It's going to be different on the PDF. >> Oh, >> 206. >> Thank you. Broken down there. Yep. >> Uh, so give or take 109,000. >> Oh, no. Hold on. It's looks like 204.
Bolton and Mangs got it broken down to >> 204,000. Uh 108.99 >> page 205 yeah 10898 >> 98,000 >> 108,998 >> so about 13 14,000 more
>> 97 to 95 to 109 >> 95 >> um that's all I have Mr. Sure. >> Very good. Um, anyone have a mot uh WSB? Correct. >> That was the I and those opposed. Same
sign. Motion carries. >> All right. Similarly, our seventh item solicited RFPs for engineering services for this upcoming 2029 project. This is Oak Street's reconstruction uh essentially from 19th to the end at the highway. Uh just a quick reminder that
uh the city did receive a million dollars in federal grant money uh that go towards the construction of that project. Um obviously with with federal funding there are some additional requirements that go along with uh a project such as this uh things like uh environmental reviews and things of that
nature. Um this is why the staff is uh recommending uh the engineering services just at this time because it provides enough time in the runway going up to 2029 to perform all those tasks. Um so the scope of the work generally includes
survey design and construction engineering. Um because of the nature of Oak Street being kind of one of those major gateways into the city, uh staff's also recommending that uh a corridor study be done just to evaluate not only
the uh intersections that in interact with this as we potentially develop some more additional area in southeast Brainard. Um, but as a gateway to the city, is there some uh aesthetic treatments to turn this into more of of
that gateway coming in rather than old trunk highway 18? Um, so that was kind of part of the the requested proposal from uh the respondents there. Uh because it is a little bit more complicated of a project, we we changed the uh weighted uh scale of how we um
reviewed those proposals. Um, of the four respondents we received, Bolt Mink, more engineering, SE and WIDS. Uh, so we went through and reviewed all those. Uh, the top scoring proposal and respondent was WHDS. Um, with the 50% uh, weight on
the cost and fees. Um, that was a big part of why they probably rose towards the top. They had actually a really good proposal as well. Um but they also consequently were one of the lowest uh cost proposals as well. Um staff is
recommending uh that the city award the engineering services to uh Witsth uh in the amount not to exceed 799,241. Um one thing I will note because it is a state aid street the engineering cost would be state aid eligible and can
answer questions. >> All right. Thank you. Questions comments? Yeah, I I got a question. Um just um based on this amount um the project's estimated to be about what 2.8
the total project cost with engineering >> three something I >> I thought it was at least three. >> Is that about right? >> I'm pulling it up on the cap right now. >> About 3.2. >> Okay. All right. And then what's the
where's the start and end point on I know you said 18 u >> 19th Street uh just east of there is about where the limits of the last reconstruction um 20 so years ago or whatever it was. Um not even that long actually. Um we would take off from that
most recent reconstruction just east of 19th and go all the way to the highway. Um thank you. >> We would stop just short of the highway. Um MDOT is developing plans for work at that intersection. So we would stop before getting in that so we don't put
in new work that gets ripped up soon. >> So uh thank you. Roughly this 800,000 for engineering services total project cost 3.2 we have a million dollar grant for the construction portion.
Um see I was going to ask about the termini. You've already answered that. Um, I had one other question. It escapes me. So, um, yeah, carry on. I guess I had one other question I'm forgetting about, but >> um,
>> any other >> We're just And assessments will be a 5050 on this. >> That would be correct. We would assess on our current special assessment policy at a 50/50 >> uh, match with the city with all the adjacent property owners. >> It came back to me now. So on the last
one you had said you waited more costheavy. On this one it wasn't necessarily it was more 50/50 cost. Can you describe why that why the difference? I guess >> so because of the uh nature of the project it's a little bit more of a complicated uh design if we're going to
be talking about potentially reconfiguring aesthetics and intersections. um we wanted to wait a little bit more into some of the qualifications and experience of that uh consultant uh what their plan would be and their availability because we want >> somebody that's got a really good
understanding of the project. So that way when they come into it uh there's maybe a little bit less less risk for uh trips and contract amendments uh when they have a very clear understanding and a good work plan moving forward and we felt like DUP would set put that together in theirs.
>> Great. Thanks. I like that you've included that corridor plan element in it. So, you had a one other question, one other question, I guess, before I jump over to you. Do you know what portion of the 800,000 would be towards that planning piece?
>> Yes, it's it's broken down in their uh in their cost proposal. I have to >> Is it a large portion or you know, do you have a >> It is not. Um it is actually a pretty small amount. uh all things considered, a lot of the preliminary engineering uh
construction engineering and uh surveying is a a vast majority of the cost because of the the federal reconstruction. Um the corridor study is actually pretty small. Um >> kind of built into that project understanding percentage. You got you got it broken out there a little bit. I would imagine
it's a piece of that. Um, one thing I did want to mention if the council so part of our special assessment policy does include the engineering fees in that um, calculation if the council wants to take on the uh, burden of the
essentially the corridor study and the kind of rein reinvisioning of that corridor and take that part out, we can separate that. U, but that'll I'll leave that up to the council to determine how they want to do that. >> I kind of monopolize some of the questions, but >> that was going to be my question. So the
corridor study's in the 800 grand, right? Correct. >> How much is it if we decide to self-perform that roughly >> because I think it's lumped in with >> about 50,000 is in the corridor study. Just the corridor study. >> Okay. >> Uh it'd be very challenging for us
because it requires a a handful of different people uh with different specialties that go into it. >> Yeah. I didn't mean like self-p performing like our guys out on the street. I meant like uh we would just we would hire that done ourselves independent to other that's that was my question. >> We we could you lose a little bit of efficiency having to coordinate
different consultants but >> all right if there's further questions comments entertain those now although I was looking for a motion. My motion is I'll go ahead and make a motion to uh move forward uh with the proposal for engineering services for the 2029 Oak Street reconstruction to uh
project to Woodsth and the amount not to exceed 799241. And I move >> second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Our eighth item, request for
sanitary service cost for 601 South 9inth Street and public works uh excuse me, engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, after the uh October 6 council meeting or at the council meeting, the council heard the testimony from the contractor um
regarding the service line at 601 South 9th Street. Um and the claim that the issue was related to the main rather than the sewer service itself. Uh we did review this. Uh we verified with our maintenance crew that there was not flow
issues in the main. Um we generally do jet and address any tree road intrusion on all of our mains. Um but if there's any trouble spots, we do those a little bit more regularly. Uh if we were having a a backup issue, we would have seen more than just one property. Usually
it's a a few properties that might be on this uh area, but this was not an area that we were having issues with the main. Um generally we uh indicate to the property owners or contractors that that connection is their private service connection. It doesn't serve a per
public purpose or like the uh the actual main itself. Uh so the cost to make those connections to repair uh any blockages or uh broken connections is on the the property themselves. Uh so staff recommends that the property owner is responsible for the cost of that
replacement with that private service line um and that the city does not participate in the cost and uh staff would look for direction from the council. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> I got a question, Mr. Chair. >> Yep. Go ahead, Mr. >> So Jesse, I I'm could be mistaken. I
when they were here and described it, um did they not indicate and I certainly I I I didn't go back and listen, but I'm trying to remember what I thought >> in the room now. Okay. Okay. >> Um, did they say that the line they replaced, the service line coming from
the home, it was part of the problem was the connection to the existing main that caused a little bit more expense or more difficulty? Was that something that I understand? And that would be the uh the the problem with the main itself
be or did I misunderstand? >> So I I apologize that this will be a little bit difficult. There is a photo of the uh Y connection prior to their replacement uh in the packet that I was able to take during that day. Um a lot of the intrusion, the tree root
intrusion is right there on the joints. Um so you're seeing a lot of the issue that was likely causing a lot of the backup. Um it is an old main, so having them to cut out a section uh to install a new Y connection uh is not uncommon.
Um, so that is something that the contractor would have to perform. >> Um, so as you mentioned, they're they're here. You know, we've we've heard from the two of you gentlemen. I'm not sure you'll have a chance to speak at council, but would any one of you like to just We don't have much time before the council meeting, but if you could
>> summarize it briefly here and then we'll >> real quick before he comes up. Go ahead. They can come up. Jesse, this picture is before the repair or after the repair? >> Before the repair. >> This is before the repair. >> Yes, sir. >> And if you would state your name and address. >> Text. Absolutely. Uh I'm Jim Runberg and
I thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening. Uh I started getting pretty comfortable back here in the chair. So I got to snap to it here. Uh very quickly uh there was a history of problem uh with this building that I
bought way back in 19 76. And uh subsequently the sewer was backing up. I hired a company. I can't even remember the the name, but their connection failed and I began having
sewer uh intrusion by Rutz. Uh I had hired a company to put a camera down and and it was Rutz. Uh I hired um Tommy Thompson, Tom's backhoe in 19, excuse
me, 2004. A few years after there was intrusion again and you see the problem here, but at the time uh it was maybe you know going back to 2008
uh maybe once a year I called um the Rotorooer company and they would come out. uh through the years up to the present it became uh about three times a year I had to call Joe the routter man
and uh he was quite concerned about what he was finding out here at the connection and uh the sewer main. Um, I did visit with Jesse uh requesting that the city take a look at it because
uh way back when this connection was approved by the city, uh they stood down in uh the engineers stood in the hole with Tommy Thompson for about an hour talking about this connection, this very
connection. Um, obviously it it was a failed connection. Should never been approved this way. That's my concern. Um, once I talked with uh Jesse asking, in fact, is there a plan to tear up the
main because it is an old main. It's an old part of town. Um he told me there's no uh in a 10-year program there's not going to be any sewer repair or replacement in the road.
So I and there was um uh at this point then it would be all my responsibility which I did. I hired uh Mr. Terry Quick who is here and maybe can add some more specifics. Terry tore it up or actually he hired uh David
Rosinski, Rosinsk's plumbing company. So we I had uh qualified certified uh companies looking at this and uh of course you can see it was new PCV piping from the way to
from the east end of my triplex building um out to the connection uh uh to the city main and I'm asking for relief on on this bill that I've received now for the uh
connection and replacement, which is unusual, I understand, for the city to ask a homeowner to pay for the replacement of the city main and and that's what's been done. Uh Jesse did
show up at the site uh after being notified by Mr. Rosinski as well as myself. I actually came to the city hall requesting him to the site which he eventually did uh later in the morning
and Mr. Rosinski can probably tell better what he said. I understand he told Mr. Rosinski what to do and then do it which included rem removing the main replacing it and of course I don't feel I should have to pay for that. Uh, in
fact, going back to the beginning of the issue of this event, I think it was the city that failed when they sent out the engineer who approved this system. And with that, I turn it over. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Yes. Yes, sir.
>> Um, I know the two of you spoke at the last meeting. We've got to take action on this and another item before our council. Any other final thoughts to go for the next 30 seconds? only that I request help from your council um in
making the payment. $10,250 is what I'm being charged. >> Can I ask you question? How much how much of that amount was the actual main price to replace the >> You know, Jeff, I'm going to have to ask
David or or Terry quick on that. >> Yeah. And I I would say I I got to look back at my notes exactly what material costs are not that much. Jess >> All right, gentlemen. I hate to cut you off. We got a couple minutes. We got
this and another item and then we got to get to councel. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jim. I think we got a good understanding of it. Um, >> bring it back to committee. >> Yeah, Jesse, was the sewer main actually replaced by the property owner? It is very typical that so Y connections are
kind of an inline connection. Um to replace the entire sewer Y you do have to replace that section of main to get a connection. So it is very typical that uh they would have to replace a small section especially if there's an older man like this where they may have to go
a little bit e extra to find a suitable piece. In this one there was probably an extra foot or two. Um but overall we're talk not talking about like lengths of sticks. Um >> so was part of the sewer main replaced the >> a short section. Yes.
>> Okay. And he they came in here and said there were three-foot ceramic tile or ceramic sections if I'm not mistaken. >> It is very I want to say it's 1915 clay. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. >> Answer your question Jeff. >> Yeah.
>> All right. comments, questions. I think you know maybe a question for Jesse. I mean is this this scenario plays out often and we you know with the Y connection and how do we handle that? Is this the way we've
handled is it typical of [Applause] how we've handled throughout town and a typical other situation? This is very typical for the contractor to find suitable replacement for their wise uh that they have to find a suitable piece. If there is concern from staff that uh
there needs to be a much larger project um to replace maybe a a larger section of Maine, uh we would work not only with our maintenance but potentially a contractor um to look at that a little bit more comprehensively. But this is not atypical for a sewer Y replacement.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Yes. >> Make a motion to um have the um contractor for the property owner come in, discuss with Jesse what they estimate their cost to be for that
actual line of city sewer line and perhaps some labor costs included and separate that from the total cost. And I would move to approve that to come back with that cost differential so we can work on whether we should approve uh
approve a portion of their uh of their cost. He said $10,000 and change if they replace part of the city sewer line. That's our responsibility. I just want to exclude that from their cost. That's what I know it's a lengthy motion. So if you want >> understood
>> manipul massage, >> I'm I'm going to second the motion just because I want this to come back to us. Also, if what I'm seeing in the photo here is what I think I'm seeing. It looks like we got issues with both the private line as well as the city line, but I I'm feeling rushed here and I just want to get this right. So I want to come back so we can talk through this. That's all. So I I did second the
motion. >> Thank you. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. So staff, you know, it'll we're going to make that recommendation to council. Council will vote on it and um but you
heard the motion. So all right, our last item, uh 2026 2035 capital improvement plan. And who's taking this one? Engineer Dean again. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is the 10-year capital plan report. uh is just
kind of a follow from the uh council approval of the uh capital improvement plan from a couple months ago. Uh so we encompassed this in in the report entirely. Uh we did some quick updates to include the sewer lining program uh as discussed at that meeting and then we
updated the cost estimate for highway 210 uh based on some more recent numbers uh and then some additional holdover projects in 2025 just showing those as uh continued construction into 2026. Uh with that u staff is looking for any other discussion or direction from the
council. Um but like I said this is essentially the same 10-year capital plan that you saw a couple months ago. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any >> Yeah. Were you able to find the differences, Jesse, on um >> the sanitary versus the water? Remember what I asked you before the meeting?
>> Yes, sir. I was able to get a I'll be quick about it. So, roughly about $800,000 less in the water uh from what was seen in August and then roughly another 50,000 more on the sanitary side. >> And the water's on the 210 project, correct? >> Both both of them are. Okay. There's a
lot less sanitary on the project. uh water is all-encompassing throughout the whole thing. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And Jesse, are you looking for action? It's just request discussion by council. So >> if if council has action to take on it, uh we'll take direction from the council. Um All right.
>> But as of as of right now, this is just a report based on what was received at the August meeting. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? >> Yeah. Are we required to accept your uh change? I yeah I would just move to uh
um acknowledge the changes in the 10ear SIP. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Good catch. Good clarification. So motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And those opposed same sign. Motion
carries. And brings us to the end of the agenda. We're adjourned. >> Onto the wire. Part: 2
to the org chart and how the HR department is currently structured and if that is the uh best way to keep it structured moving forward with one director and one assistant under it. Their answer was yes. They want to continue. They think it's best for the
city to continue with that structure. So we they have no changes to recommend and we'll just go with the status quo. >> Thank you. Chris Schubert, how many years? 37 and 3/4. >> That's it, huh? >> Yeah.
>> Thank you for everything. I know we got a few months left with you, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any more discussion? >> Going to make it an even 38. >> Yeah. >> All right. There we go. Looks like we have no more discussion, so let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Our final item is to enter into a service agreement with UFS for a rate study. The motion is to authorize staff to enter into agreement with UFS as presented to prepare financial plans and rate design studies for the sanitary
collection system and storm sewer rates and ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. >> It is a very very simple math problem that we could do inhouse but staff is pretty uh adamant that they would get better service, better rates for our
rateayers and taxpayers if we went out and hired an outside service to do it. So I'll trust them in their in their assessment. >> Okay. Jagger. >> Yeah. Uh is the anticipated frequency of the study typically two to three years?
That's kind of one that's the last time we did one was a couple years ago and that's kind of is that the what we should be anticipating is every two three years. >> I think it's I think that's best practice is to look at it every few years because as costs go up we need to be adjusting rates up to pay for
everything. >> Understood. Thank you. >> The last time we adjusted rates was was it just a year ago? >> 23 >> 23 two years ago, but we had we had adjusted those rates a couple times, I believe, in that year, if I remember right. Is that correct? Okay. Either
way, it's good to have it right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson, >> end of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Moving on to 7B. This is safety and public works
committee chairman Tad Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We've got nine items on our agenda. The first of which is to approve change orders. Uh number two, um which of which there are three parts 2407 L Elementary
Safe Routes to School. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order uh numbers 1 through three for l safe road to school in the amount of 15,787.70 11,000 of which 11,900 of which would
come from state aid 3,887.70 the remainder of which would be paid by WSB and I so move >> second motion by Ericson second by Chzach. So there was a lot there. So some clarification. There's three items. Um the first of which is the additional
top soil um which was not included in the original uh bid and agreement. That is the amount the 11,900 of which would be the city's responsibility and would be covered by state aid. The other two having to do with structure modification
and for the pedestal for the rapid flashing beacon. Those are the two smaller amounts equaling the 3800 and some change. And both of those uh WSB said that they would cover because it was their um they took responsibility for that essentially.
>> Thank you. More discussion, questions, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. Our second item is discussion on the 2025 2026 downtown snow removal
bid. Uh that's bid singular. Motion coming out of committee is to assign uh public works parks crews to complete snow removal of downtown and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So, as I said, there was one bid that
came in. It was approximately 20% higher than last year's. Um I think as many of us know that there's, you know, usually only get one bid for this. And um discussion coming out of committee was that you know despite park board having
some reservations uh about their ability to get to the ice rinks and maybe perform some of the maintenance on the equipment during the off season um we felt like this was a good opportunity a good uh good change to assign public works park parks crews to complete the
snow removal. >> Thank you. >> Any more discussion >> Mr. President? >> Yeah, Mr. Chzac. Yeah, we were assured that the park staff will have the proper equipment and um I uh I'm confident that if they're
uh expected to do this, they will do their best. So, I'm looking forward to see how this turns out. I uh know change is always difficult. So, um I'm going to be a big supporter of our park staff uh managing this properly and uh
hopefully getting the other responsibilities taken care of as well. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah, I just want to add also u not to overstep Mr. Chzach, but uh just to re uh make sure everyone understands that the park staff will only be getting it into Windows. Street staff will be taking it from there. So, uh park staff
will not be doing all of the snow removal. That's all. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Johnson. >> Yeah, I just have a question on the finances. Is this special service being even if it's provided by public employees? It's still a special service to the downtown district, are we still
going to be billing the tax roles of the property owners for the special service district and that money will just be going to public works instead of a private contractor? >> Is that part of the discussion, fellas? Part of it will the sa there will be a savings and that will be less assessed
to downtown businesses. >> There won't be a s it will it will cost more but I just want to make sure that we're still assessing for this special service. The city doesn't go to my house and remove snow off of my parking lot and driveway before 10:00 in the morning after we're doing that downtown now.
It's a special service. They need to be built. Are we going to be building them for that? >> Mr. President. Yeah. So the the discussion we had, the motion we had did not address the the method of assessment. Um just awarding this this
bid. I guess I guess my assumption was that that assessment policy stands regardless. >> Yes, it does. >> Whether we're, you know, doing it through an RFP or or >> since we'll be doing our time cards, the number of hours that will be uh tracked downtown will already be recorded and
that will be part of the calculation for assessing downtown businesses. >> Thank you. Does that address your question? >> That addresses that question. >> Thank you. >> You have more questions? >> I have more. Yeah. Uh, so I heard that the city is just the part the parks department parks maintenance crew is
just going to put it to the middle of the street. >> Then it's going to sit there until the street guys are done with the emergency snow routes and north south and then they'll go downtown at the end of the day presumably. >> We were told one to two days, Mr.
Johnson. So, we'll have big mounds in the middle of the street for one to two days every time we get a 4 inch plus snowfall. Have we addressed this with downtown property owners or businesses or anything? Sorry. >> Go ahead, Mr. Abber.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, even our normal streets downtown is the next day. Sometimes we'll get there the same day, but it all depends on the the snowfall itself. So, a larger snowfall, even our Laurel Street here will be the next day that our streets will be coming by and
and doing that. The one thing that we've talked about is making sure that into parking lots, into driveways, into alleys that we that we plow that out so people just don't have to jump over that. So, those are type of measures that will be taking place to ensure
traffic flow of of uh cars can continue to go. So, how special of a service is it if they're just being treated like Laurel Street in front of city hall? >> Every snowfall will be every sidewalk will be cleared uh on that whether it's a 2 in, 6 in or so forth, right? Because
right now how it is is uh if it's a three and a half inch snowfall, the businesses have to clear that and then clear that uh to the street and then we'll take it from there. Here, the city staff will take that. and the example on page 17, Max, if you can pull that up on
the PowerPoint. So, even with uh we've calculated a good average winter, a 12-in snowfall, um two 8 in snowfalls, three average 4-in snowfalls, and eight 2in snowfalls. So, we took the
calculations and put that in there so that you could really see what our current practice would be, how much we're going to charge every business with a 50-foot frontage compared to if the city staff were to do that. Okay. And then one final question
semi-related. I know the city doesn't pay the special services. Nor do does the city plow its sidewalks on like seventh street and front street and wherever we have abuing sidewalks will get shoveled abudding city streets or city properties.
>> Just the downtown. Just the downtown. >> We own parking lots downtown that have sidewalks that abut them that we do not remove snow from currently. Would they be removing that snow? >> Would we be do Yes. Jesse's in. Yes. Would we be paying the special service rate? Then >> the frontage for the parking lots is
factored into the assessment roles. So that that portion is covered by the uh the parking lot fund the parking fund. So for frontage on the um on the parking lot specifically. >> Okay. Thank you, Jesse. I'm I'm
generally risk averse. I don't think this is an improvement on the service that we were currently providing downtown. I think since we have a bidder, a known bidder who's done this for years and years, I would really prefer to award the contract to Thomas Backho. So, I'll be a no on this one. Thanks, Mike.
>> Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. I just have more concern with what of this has been communicated to the property owners because if we're going from it used to be that every 4 in your your snow was removed for you, but now every time it snows, it sounds like
we're going to be removing the snow is what I'm hearing now. That's a massive change. And then if we're only removing the snow to the middle of the street and then picking it up later, again, that's a massive change. I I would if I was a property owner who is paying for this, which is what it is. It's a service to
those property owners. I would like to make sure that they're aware that this massive of a change is going to be made. I I don't care which direction we go because again, this is something we do specifically for these property owners, but we do it for these property owners. And if we're going to be making a change
to it of this drastic of a level, I I'd like to know what they think about it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ericson. >> So, clarification question of Mike or Jesse. Uh pushing the snow to the center in the windows and having it picked up the next
day or is there a difference from what we're proposing in this to what is currently? >> I thought I heard it was no difference and now I that it is a difference. Currently, if the third party contractor does it, they totally remove all the snow downtown.
>> Okay. So, no windows downtown. >> Correct. If the contractor does that. Correct. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Just one followup. So, they're from their special service amount of money that they're now going to be paying. They're just going to be paying for the snow to be removed from
their sidewalk. They're not going to be paying for the windross removal as well. They will be paying for the snow removal. We'll be removing the snow those wind rows the next day. >> But that's not going to be charged to them.
>> Not with Jesse. Can you clarify that one? >> Yes. So 30 some odd years ago uh the the standard snow removal uh was calculated into that original calculation an offset from the uh from the assessment because
that was intended as what the additional special service was minus what the city was already kind of doing for street removal. Uh so that's factored into the um the calculation already is what what's expected normally uh to roll that cost out of it. Um kind of the special
service like Mike mentioned is you got the sidewalk removal which we do not do elsewhere uh as well as the prioritizing of the downtown district uh over other areas that normally receive higher priority. Uh so getting in here and having the snow removed uh prior to
businesses opening uh that's a lot of the the special benefit. Um the the positive and negative of this type type of an alternative is you do get snow removal on every snowfall event rather than just the 4 in when we would dispatch the contractor. The detriment
is uh we only have uh the streets crew available after they've cleared out all the streets to do the wind row removal. Um but all the this general traveled areas and the parking lots and sidewalks would still be clear for those businesses to operate. >> But the wind row would not be charged to
them. that's factored into that calculation. So they are Yes. Correct. >> They are or are not paying for. >> They are not. >> They're not paying for it. Okay. >> Mr. Johnson, >> one final observation. I don't know if anybody like goes downtown in the
winter, but I do. If you go in the morning after a snow event or during a snow event and the contractor's out there currently working, if you're at like 8 in the morning and they have the wind rows in the middle and they're working, they're moving snow around. With the bumpouts we have on the
corners, which we didn't have 30 years ago, it's a giant pain to try and navigate with those piles of snow in the middle of the road. It's tough to park. It's tough to get out of a parking spot. And even when people are parked, you have the wind row and the lane of traffic is so narrow that full-size
trucks may not even be able to get through it sometimes without kind of off-roading through the wind row. I don't like the idea of wind rows sitting in the middle of our core downtown where we have the bumpouts because that already has the traffic calming condensing things that we don't have a
lot of extra space there for snow to just be sitting around for a day or two. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. President >> Ericson. Yep. >> Given the observations about the difficulties of the the windross, is it question for staff. Is it possible to
have streets not wait a day or two and get those done immediately? >> That's hard to say. It all depends on the the number of inches of snow that we get. Our streets are critical to get done first and so people can travel.
>> So, it's hard to say right now. >> Sure. No, understood. Just as a point of, you know, consideration is a lot of municipalities remove the windows at night because removing the windows is also highly disruptive to the downtown. You got trucks, equipment, people don't feel like they want to pull in there when there's bulldozers and all that in
there. So, you know, something else maybe to consider is you get the windows out the first day and then that evening or that night, if that's possible, don't know, but we remove the windows after hours in the downtown district. >> All things are possible with double time pay. >> Yeah,
>> that's right. Will they just be early on the next day? Gabe, >> it seems like One second, Mr. Chzac. It seems like there's the debate is are we going to keep spending more and more on a contractor to do this service, which we know they do a great job. There
there's no doubt about it. Um or do we try and find a different alternative that we're not charging or assessing this to downtown business owners? We've had business owners come in here and speak against having the service. We've had others come in here and speak for
keeping the service, but it seems to me in this conversation that there might be an opportunity to find a hybrid here where we don't have the opportunity for our employees to go in after they've been plowing all day long to go and remove those wind rows at night. But if you could have a
contractor come in and just remove those wind rows and have that as just their part of the service, that might change this bid completely. So, it's just an idea to throw out there. I think it's maybe a better idea for a hybrid. >> That's a great idea. >> Something to think about >> because I think that's what maybe they
don't like is the sidewalks. >> Mhm. Right. Mr. Chzot. >> Yes. Um maybe uh staff um maybe Mr. Habacor, you sent out an email responding to I think a question from Chairman Ericson. Um are you able to pull that up? The one
you sent out this afternoon? >> Yes, it's actually on uh Max on page 17 on the handout. That's not it. Okay, it's in the handout. Can you show that? >> It what it does, it gives a breakdown of what we currently pay for for the
property 50 foot property owner pays for these events based on the number of inches and such. Um, can you show that and just look at the difference between what's estimated to be the charge to a property owner with 50 feet
uh for the different events. >> It's up now. >> Okay. Um, so it's about half I think roughly for the city staff to do that. >> And I I know a number of people have complained about the cost. I think that's what had me leaning
towards this. And I thought, well, if if this is really a bust, which I I agree with Gabe, that this could be really difficult. I think we all know that. I mean, I I remember when it was 30 years ago, as Jesse indicated, it it got to be
a bit difficult. Um, and we still see the wind row here out in front on uh Laurel Street in front of city hall even and that's that's all taken care of by our city staff, right? currently. >> So when you see that wind row out here and it's acrossing uh Laurel and Fifth
and all that and I think it uh I don't know doesn't extend east across six but so there are difficulties but if people are looking at what what are they getting for their dollar? Yeah it's a higher cost with the new 20% addition
am I correct there at about the savings or the difference is about half >> 614 compared to 1130. So that's okay. >> Anyway, that's what I was looking at, too. So, I thought, well, we got a a year. If snow falls light this year, we
probably wouldn't even have a real concern, but if it's heavy, it's it's going to be difficult for anybody. So, that's why it was agreeable to moving forward with the motion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. So, looks like we've had a discussion here if if there's any final points
anyone wants to make, but otherwise I think we should move on and at least vote on the motion. >> Roll call, please. >> We will do a roll call. Just to remind you guys, if you're voting yes, you are voting to have staff do this and not award this to a
contractor. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> OD, >> yes. All right, moving forward. >> All right, thank you very much. Our third item is to approve change order
number two for improvement 1712. This is Wright Street and South 10th reconstruction project. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order number two in the amount of 20,484.30 cents and I so move. >> Second.
>> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Mr. Ericson. >> Yeah. So um this project as we we learned from last meeting and some of the discussions prior to that was uh behind schedule. One of the issues that uh caused that was the temporary fire
suppression supply lines. Uh the issue was that in order to meet our own code, the supply lines that the contractor had were too small and so needed to they needed to purchase larger um temporary supply lines. And this is the cost for
that. Um the alternative is provided in the packet. The alternative um would be for the city to procure those at roughly um $93,000. And so staff had gone with this alternative of working with the contractor to get um get those supply
lines and get that solution which resulted in this $20,000 484 and 30 cost. >> Thank you, Mr. Ericson. More discussion. Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah. This is actually really odd because we will own this material with
this change order. >> Is that correct? >> Part of it. >> Yes. >> Part of it. All of it, isn't it? >> All the material that was not returnable. Correct. >> Yeah. It wasn't returnable. >> Not returnable material. So, we're paying for that, but we will own it. And
that's correct. Right. >> Correct. And so we would be able to use this or perhaps uh I don't know go on a auction site and reverse some of our costs. I don't know but it's very unusual I think. >> Thank you. More discussion.
>> Yeah. Just a clarification. Jesse, you said the items in red are the non- returnturnables. Is that correct? >> Accurate. >> I believe that's that's the case. I'd have to confirm that, but I'm pretty sure that was the case is the red ones were the unturnable materials. >> Yep. >> All right. It's on page 166 just so
before there >> more discussion on this. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our fourth item uh approve change order number two for improvement
2113. This is Beach and Oak Ridge reconstruction. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order. Uh number two in the amount of 14,364.58 cents. I so move. >> Second >> by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson.
>> Yeah. The reason for this one um with again with Beach Street, as we learned from our last meeting also being um somewhat behind schedule, we were not able to utilize the initial detour route that we had planned uh through 28th Street and Pine Street. Uh so staff had
to work with the contractor to reroute um a new uh detour utilizing the county roads and the and mindot's roads and this is the additional cost primarily for the signage. >> Thank you chairman Ericson. >> More discussion on that.
>> Just a question Mr. Chair >> Mr. Beans. >> So so the 1436458 is because the project's behind correct. No, I thought that's what you just said because it was delayed. We weren't able to use the initial traffic rerouting.
>> Yeah, that's that's my understanding. Because we weren't able to use the initial detour that we had assigned, >> we had to select a different detour and there was additional cost for the signs. >> Any idea why we weren't able to?
Uh because Pine Street, Beach Street, the connection of Beach and Pine Beach wasn't completed in time. >> So it was because we were So we're having to spend $14,36458 because contractor couldn't make their deadline. That's what I'm hearing.
>> Is that correct, Mr. Dean? >> That That's how I stated it. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's how you stated it. Okay. >> I'm going to vote against this. >> Mr. Dean, you had your hand up over there. >> I can clarify. So, a big driver of this was the condition of 28th Street. It wasn't necessarily attributed directly to any kind of a delay by the
contractor, but 28th Street is in actually pretty poor condition. Uh, it's really come apart uh especially this uh this last year. Uh so, we really didn't want to run Oak Street levels of traffic down uh not only 28th Street, but again through the project back onto Pine. uh
they were still working in that Pine intersection and we were concerned about the ability for them to put that back together in time for this detour uh to carry that amount of traffic. So, it wasn't necessarily attributed to the contractor delay, but uh just the conditions of what that detour would look like by the time that this work had
to occur in Oak Street. Uh which is why we came up with an alternative plan. >> Thank you, Jesse. I just can't fathom what a $14,000 set of signs looks like when we were already purchasing signage for the same amount of detour. >> That's just rent, by the way. We don't own them.
>> Signs, >> correct? >> Those are some really special signs. I I could do without them. I'm going to vote no on this. Anything else? >> I have a question. >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chz.
>> Okay. This doesn't pass, Jesse. what happens. >> The contractor had to install these signs for the work to occur on Oak Street. So, those signs were brought to the site um to accommodate that work. Um for us not to pay the contractor, that would likely lead to a contractor claim
uh for compensation for work completed. Uh and we would go through the claims process from that. >> Mr. Johnson, >> question. Would the contractor have to complete the work before they could claim work completed? the traffic control signage was installed. Uh,
>> right. There's like seven of them on 13th Street. I don't know why it's two miles away from the project, but I've seen them. So, just work completed for that $14,000. Not that they will ever get the street done. >> Correct. >> Yes. This this is attributed just to the signage installed. So, for the cont the
subcontractor to come to the site, manpower, equipment, uh, and the signage materials themselves. That was what the proposal was for. Thank you. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Against. Same sign. I >> Okay. Call the roll. >> Dagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Bevans, >> no. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> nope. >> OD, >> no. >> Mr. Mayor,
>> I I don't like it at all, but I'm going to vote yes. >> All right, that motion carries >> with the mayor's support. Chairman Ericson. >> All right, thank you, Mr. President. Our fifth item, uh, approve change order number one, improvement 2314, Hawkins
Ronald Joseph resurfacing. Motion coming out of committee is to approve change order number one in the amount of 27,794.50 and I so move. >> Second. Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson, >> essentially two components to this one.
Uh the first of which is a revision to the water main pipe materials uh for the hydrant replacement and then the other portion is as we've had in other projects uh due to um this subcontractor being disbarred. uh the general
contractor had to um get a new subcontract and the cost associated with that is the the um the second component of that. >> Okay. Thank you. Any more discussion? Johnson
>> question. Can we put this off two weeks? >> The contractor is really close to u completing the Hawkins portion. Uh if we wanted to wait two weeks, we would have to direct the contractor to hold off on that paving work two weeks. Uh the concern that we have is the weather in two weeks if it would be still conducive
for paving. Uh it's going to be really close. Uh we're already really worried about the other couple projects. Um but we we'll take direction from the council if you want to hold off. But your the estimation is this project will actually be paved before the next meeting or
pavement work will have begun on it. >> Work's already begun on Hawkins. It's >> pavement work. >> The the pavement work we would expect within the next two weeks. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Chairman Ericson >> not to exceed 95,00042 excuse $95,420 and I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson second by Chzach
chairman Ericson >> yeah so there was uh four u bids on this um both WSBN Associates and Bolton Mink scored very closely um the other two were the other the first three were
pretty close um the fourth dropped off substant stantially. Uh the difference between the the the top two um staff when they reviewed these they weighted it um costs uh pretty costheavy and that was the difference between the two. WSB
came in uh what was it about 13,000 below um below the second highest bidder. So >> thank you. Any more discussion? >> Looks like no more discussion. Let's go
to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our seventh item, award engineering service proposal for 2029 Oak Street Reconstruction Project. Motion coming out of committee
is to award the proposal for engineering services for the 2029 Oak Street reconstruction project to Width in the amount not to exceed $799,241. I so move >> second by Ericson, second by Chzac. Chairman Ericson.
>> All right. Thank you. So with their proposal um or the the RFP rather that staff put out, they included a component um for a corridor study as uh as we all know Oak is one of the main gateways corridors into the community. So part of
this study would include uh excuse me, part of the services would include that corridor study component. Uh this 800,000 would be for the engineering services. The total project cost um for construction would be uh is
estimated at 3.13.2 and we do I'll just add to uh we have a $1 million grant that would be for the the construction uh component. Um so just overall picture of the project this uh having to do with just the
engineering services would also include that corridor study >> and we've roughly 800,000. >> All right. Thank you. More discussion. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Beaven, >> I'm just thrilled to let you know all of
you, this will be the fourth time Oak Street's been done since I've been on the council. We're in the wrong business. >> Just do an Oak Street. You can make a living. >> Okay. Worked four times in the last 20 years and been good to go. >> Yep.
>> All right. More discussion. See none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Again, same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you. This is our eighth item. Um, review and request the reimbursement of cost of sanitary sewer
services replacement for 601 South 9th Street. Uh the motion coming out of committee is to direct staff uh to meet with the property owner and uh take a look at the costs for that the property owner has outlaid for the water
main portion um and provide a cost differential for that and I so move. >> Second I have >> by Ericson second by Chzac. I'll just I'll I'll tee this up and um uh Councilman Chzik, it sounds like he has
a comment as well. Um I think a lot of you heard kind of the the this last meeting and then the comments from the committee. Um the motion really has to do with the property owner provided a dollar amount that they were hoping to be reimbursed for. Um, some of that I it
seems has to do with the service line, the Y connection, and then it does sound like there's a portion of the the city's main line that was replaced. And so I think the gist of the motion is for to determine the cost that the property owner outlaid for that uh city main
portion. >> All right. So, this isn't actually approving any uh cost. >> Correct. Directing staff to come back cost more. >> Okay. Mr. Chzock. >> Yeah. The the intention here is to have the contractor or property owner who paid him um come back to staff and show
them what the cost was for the actual sewer main. Uh Mr. Ericson mentioned water. It is sanitary sewer line, but that is the city's responsibility. The sanitary sewer line, the main is the city's responsibility. They replaced a portion of that. Not a very big portion,
but there was labor involved. And so if we're going to be fair to people, I I just thought it's important that we look at that and determine a relative cost for that work and the material and maybe make an amendment to uh their bill and we cover that. I would
call it a probably a very small portion. Not interested in paying the whole thing because that's their service line. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzock. I I will say that there's a risk to setting this as precedent because I don't I don't disagree with you that maybe that's the best way to go, but if you open this up
to contractors replacing sanitary sewer lines, every time they come up to a main, they're going to reconnect that main and they're going to to replace part of the main and they know they can charge the rest of that to the city. Maybe they have to come up with an argument, but that's what you're that's
what you're opening up to in the future with this, but I'd still like to see what that cost differential is, Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, I appreciate this motion. This is exactly what I where I was hoping we would go as as a council is figure out what the portion was the main and reimburse the property owner for that. I
did catch part of the committee meeting and I guess it is pretty standard practice for the property owner to pay their contractor to fix that Y joint that looks like it maybe busted in in two different spots. I don't know, maybe it's just dirt over the top. But I think I don't I think maybe setting this
precedent isn't a bad idea and perhaps should be a city policy that when somebody is fixing their connection to the main that they do if it looks like there needs to be two three feet that they do fix it and that the the fund the sewer fund will reimburse them the small
amount it cost for the additional work because that would help the entire system as a whole every time and you wouldn't get the work that you got done in 2008 where they jammed in a PVC pipe and dumped a bag of quick treat on it and called it a job, you know. So, I mean, let's it might be
a good idea to just have as a policy going forward, but I'm very interested to see what this comes back as. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Good points. >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Chzach. >> I I I just have to ask u I don't believe
this is I'm asking staff, is this a common practice when somebody's replacing their service line to have to replace a portion of the main Anyone from staff, Jesse? >> It it depends on the situation. Some service lines, they don't even replace
the Y connection. They just replace the lateral uh pipe itself. Uh so it it varies between u the service line and service line if they have to replace the Y connection. But it is very typical that they have to replace a a small portion of the sanitary sewer main to
make the connection with the new Y. Um, but it all depends on what's what the service line lateral condition is and where the issue is. >> Well, I kind of look at this as a cost share then it's a small amount and that's our responsibility the main. So,
>> thank you Johnson. And I think that answer from Jesse reinforce reinforces my point that we may want to just make this as policy citywide because a cost a property owner looking for cost savings or a contractor trying to keep the job as as least expensive as possible
wouldn't go and extend to do that extra 3 ft of work because it's not theirs. They're not required to save money but may not fix the problem. We should encourage problems on our sanitary sewer system to be fixed. >> Mr. Beans,
>> here's how we do it on the north side. >> Uhoh. So, recently I had my water line done. And on the in the the curb stop, you have to dig down to hook the new line up to the curb stop. So, I have to
dig a hole. I have to the property owner. I have to pay for the copper. I have to pay for a guy to pull it from the meter inside out to the curb stop. At the same time, I have to let the public utilities know that I'm doing this. And they come out and put in a new
curb stop. I don't know how much it cost them. Probably 20 minutes. And I got a brand new curb stop cuz they're replacing them at a certain age as they go. Why don't you just do the same thing here? You know, the guy's doing it. He's going to have the hole there anyway. Have the street and sewer people go out
there and replace the Y 20 minutes, half an hour. Mhm. >> I mean, it just I think we're over complicating this. >> Takes the question out of the scenario for sure. >> Yeah. Just to say, you have to you have to notify the city that you're doing this. You're going to have a hole anyway. We probably have a pile of these
wise somewhere. We bought a bunch of pipe that as Mr. Chzik said that we're collecting pipe. So, >> could we use that? >> Yeah, maybe. I don't know. With enough quickrete, apparently we can do anything. I'm just saying I think we're over complicating
this. I don't think we need to get in an argument every time, but I think I presume somebody's going to go out. Somebody went out and looked at this and approved it. Why didn't they bring a Y with them and go, "Oh, no, no, no. This is a problem waiting to happen. Let's just fix this." I I don't I don't think
we need to >> I agree. I agree. >> I don't I think we're over complicating this. It just would seem like as long as we're there, if it looked like this when it was done, >> Yep. >> that would have been the time. And I realize no. Nobody on staff. I'm not pointing the figures on staff. I'm just
saying see a policy. If it needs it, let's do it while there's a hole there. >> Okay. Well, I agree. I'm I'm pretty sure we've gotten to the point where we're not speaking about the motion anymore. >> But can you clarify that motion again for us, Mr. Ericson, before we go to a
vote? >> Thank you. Yeah, the motion was to direct staff. >> Thank you. >> So, no more discussion, it looks like. >> Yeah. Not to pay it, pay it, but just to find out the >> second. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. Again. Same sign. That motion
carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our last item. This is the 2026 2035 capital improvement plan. And the motion coming out of committee is to approve the u 10-year capital improvement plan with the additional changes that were made from the
discussion of the August 4th meeting, including the addition of annual sanitation sanitary sewer main lining projects at $100,000 per year. Updated highway 210 Washington reconstruction 2026 2027 cost estimates.
And then the last item, addition of holdover projects in 2025 shown for continued construction 2026. Those are those three listed above. >> Thank you. >> And I so move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion by Eritton, second by Chzach. Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Moving on to number eight. This is unfinished business. First, we have a call for applicants. And first up, we have the
honorable Mayor Bedell. >> Thank you, President O Day. We have positions available on many boards and commissions. The following are available. Charter Commission, two terms expiring 2025, two terms expiring 2026.
Library, one term expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2028. Transportation Advisory Committee, two terms expiring 2025 and one term expiring 2026. And as of November, we will also have a position available on
my beloved park board as one Paul Sandy will be stepping into a position with the city. So if you are interested in the parks and want to spend most of your Tuesdays with me having a good time, let us know. >> You don't want to scare people away. That's >> best time you can possibly have on a
Tuesday night. >> All right. As council president, I have two terms still open for the water tower committee and that is all. Moving on to are we on eight? 8 8B. This is a resolution awarding the sale
of general obligation bonds series 2025A fixing their form and specification uh directing their execution and delivery and providing for their payment. I believe this is finance director Connie Hillman. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Chris Hogan with
Baker Tilly is online to present an overview of the city's bond rating as well as a tabulation of the bid results that were received earlier today. >> Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Okay, >> we can hear you. >> Perfect. Um, thank you, Mayor, Council President, and members of the council.
Uh, Chris Hogan, director served the city as their municipal advisor. Like Connie said, the city sold bonds earlier today. So I'm here to present the results of the sale result of that sale. So earlier today, the city sold 300
3,425,000 general irrigation bond series 2025A. Proceeds of those bonds will be used to finance uh the construction of various accessible public improvements, various improvements to the city's water and
store sewer systems and to pay the cost of issuance of the bonds. The overall repayment term of the bonds is 20 years. The accessible improvements and storm sewer systems are going to be repaid over a 10-year period with the water
system improvements paid over 20 years. The bonds will be paid with a combination of general tax levies, special assessments, and net revenues from the city's water and storm sewer funds. And the bonds were set up to have optional redemption uh February 1, 2035,
which is a 10-year optional redemption, meaning that the city can call the bonds at that time. So about a month ago, we were we had an estimated market through interest cost of 4.14. Uh last week, we always like to do an
update based on current market environment. So last week at the end of the week, we were estimating a purchase estimate of 3.75 and actual results today had the lowest bid of a tick at 3.50.
So uh there was three biders. These are the list of three biders of the Raymond James, Robert Fair and TWW Financial Products. Uh, and their bids you can see on the right, uh, the lowest one at the 3503 was by Raymond James. And as you
can see, the other two, all three bids were very close. So, that's a good show of a good competitive bond there. >> Mr. President, >> uh, yeah, Mr. Chzac, >> what were the other two? Uh the other two are 3.542048%
and 3.587294%. >> Uh this is just a snapshot of the the sale pricing. So this is just show us how um the bonds price. This is the 20 years. Um you can see that the coupons generally were um higher rates than the
yield. And what that means is that the bonds overall priced at a premium. that premium it was 290,000 and that is basically additional bond proceeds. Um the premium is for the coupon is more than the yield and thereby like I said
it reduces it generates additional premium or proceeds and in this case we use those premiums we able to use premium to apply to reduce the um bonding amount. So we started with a 3,ion425. We did reduce the bond issue
size to 3,275. So part of a market um competitive transaction is that you go through a rating process. You get your bonds rated. Um this S&P we did that rating process with S&P. S&P assigned a rating of double E minus to the bonds. Um
there's a number of reasons why you get bonds rated. Um but primarily you do that for it gives measure the city's financial strength and ability to repay the debt terms of the independent third party assessment. Um it supplements investors due diligence. So investors
that are interested in bidding they they know um what the bonds are rated and they have access to they get the rating report as well. Uh the stronger the rating the lower interest cost of the bonds. >> I have a question Mr. President. >> Mr. Mr. Johnson has a question.
>> Yeah. Is the double A minus rating unchanged from the last time we known for a debt issuance? >> That is correct. It's the same. >> Thank you. >> They kept the same rating. Um just a couple of highlights or comments from the credit rating report. They noted
that uh they had the city has healthy fund balance and liquidity uh conservative management practices. the city, they've noted the city has experienced continued market growth, market value and population growth. Uh
the city has a formal investment and a debt management and a fund balance policies which are all very um good things to have. And they did note that even with plans to issue additional debt in 2026, the expected cost of that debt
will likely remain manageable. Um factors that could lead to an upgrade would be the core metrics. If core metrics were to improve to levels comparable to higher rated peers and factors that could lead to a downgrade would be financial deterioration,
weakening of reserves or debt that would hamper financial flexibility. So given the sale and the outcome, I would recommend that the city council approve the resolution awarding the 3,275,000
general obligation bonds series 2025A to Raymond James and Moscius based on their low bid of 350. >> Happy to take any questions. Second Chris, does anybody have any questions for Chris? >> Any more questions?
Appreciate your presentation, Chris. So, we are >> without any more further questions for you, but we're looking for a motion. >> So, move. >> It was already seconded also. >> I didn't ask for one yet, but is that your motion? >> What she just said? >> And is that your second, Mr. Bevans?
>> Yes, sir. >> All right. We have a motion by Chzok, second by Bevans to accept that recommendation. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Mr. President, >> there's a roll call. >> Oh, go ahead and call the roll then, Tony.
>> Yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. >> All right, moving on. 8C, we have a final reading for proposed ordinance 1592, text amendment for an accessory greenhouse for a cannabis micro business
and an IUP amendment and variance request to operate a micro business at a current accessory greenhouse at yesterday's gone. Parcel ID 41241525. I believe this is dire uh community development director James Cranvic.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so Steve Zinsky has submitted a request for a zoning text amendment to allow for a cannabis micro business to operate an accessory greenhouse in the town center zoning district. Uh micro businesses with retail endorsements are allowed in the town center zoning district. Currently, green houses in received
pre-registration approval from the city code uh as as city code only allows for two. Uh this would not be allowed in residential districts as micro businesses are not allowed in residential districts. Uh the applicant has also applied for an amendment to his existing interim use permit as cannabis
growth uh would be considered a greater use of the property and is subject to city council approval. Uh in addition, the applicant has also applied for a variance from the fence height requirements as commercial districts um are currently allowed to have a maximum height of 8 foot of an 8ft fence. Uh the office of cannabis management requires a
10-ft fence uh for security purposes. The applicant is proposing a 10-ft chain link fence. Uh city council should not make one sweeping motion for all the requests. Uh the recommendation from the planning commission is as follows and in the order that council should consider each request. Number one, to conduct the
final reading of proposed ordinance 1592 and dispense with the actual reading. Note, a vote to dispense with the actual reading of the ordinance must be unanimous. Number two, to approve proposed ordinance 1592. Number three would be approval of the interim use permit with the following conditions. No outdoor storage. Indoor
storage shall be limited to material incidental to the operation of the greenhouse. Cannabis products must be grown indoors. Should the establishment seize operations, the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days. The interimm use permit amendment is approved for a period of three years upon approval by
city council. And number four would be approval of the variance request as presented and I can answer any questions. >> Chairman Johnson. >> Yeah, just a question on the variance. Is the uh planning commission going to amend our zoning code to add that 10-ft
fence so it's no longer a required variance since it's a state law? At this time they have not directed staff to do that but it is something that if city council would like uh certainly something the staff could could work on. >> Wink wink tad. >> Yeah. If we had a liaison I don't see it
coming up very often in the future but if it does we can revisit it. >> Yeah. >> Any more questions for staff? Chzach. >> Yeah Mr. Kanick. Um on the interim use permit, is this something um I I had got
a number of calls uh people concerned um that there can be um a lot of strong odor that could affect neighboring properties. And I believe you sent us an email. It's in our packet. Um I think you're recommending if we were to
address that, we could go to a two-year interim use permit instead of a three. And then uh is this something that in your opinion would you think it appropriate to put conditions on the odor to a certain extent? Um if I know
it's hard to gauge and all that, but would you be recommending something to that effect to us before we approve the IUP to add it add it as a condition? >> So certainly city council could reduce um the term limit for the interimm use permit from 3 to two years if there's concerns. Um, city council may also add,
as I indicated in the email, a condition to the IEP that odors cannot be detected by a person with a normal sense of smell at the exterior of the facility or at adjoining use or property. Um, that was from um another municipal code that wasn't actually added as a condition.
Um, it would add a layer of protection to surrounding businesses and residents. Um, however, applying this condition if the city believes the property in violation may be difficult as there's not really a scientific measurement involved with this. Um so it may be added but uh certainly may be difficult
to interpret or you discern um what that looks like. And with that I can answer any other questions. >> So if um if we had nothing there's nothing we could do. If we had something we could then have u
uh staff or even council just go and uh get a indication on their own of what may be uh offensive or not and gauge it from there. Could that >> that's correct. So, a discussion could at least be had at that point. >> Okay. All right.
And then if we wanted to change that, uh, we do that at the time that comes up. >> Yes, that could be added at the time of consideration of the interimm use permit. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Any more questions for staff? >> Mr. Mayor, >> correct me if I'm wrong, though. If it's
an interm permit, we can remove the interimm use at any point. >> That's correct. Interimm use permits can be removed or stricken from the code and then they would seize operation. >> So if we had any of those problems, we could just go through that process at that point. >> That's correct.
>> All right. It is very difficult to measure smells. I don't know if Disney has come up with that yet. >> They had a smell smell it sir. >> Oh, they like to create smells. But can they with a normal person's nose detect
>> the smell of cannabis plants? I don't know >> which one of our city staff has the most normal sense of smell. Do we have that person? >> I don't even think we've measured that yet, >> but it is something to consider when we moving forward and and having this for the first time. >> You know, it's something to pay
attention to. I'm sure there are ways to abate that smell, but we'll find out as we go here. Um, but we're looking for first we're looking for a motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1592 and dispense with the actual reading.
>> So move second. >> Motion by Chzach, second by >> Johnson discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign.
>> That motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to approve proposed ordinance 1592. >> So, move by Chzach. >> Second. Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, Tony, call the roll. >> Jagger, >> yes.
>> Erikson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzox, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Next, we are looking for approval of the interim use permit with the following conditions. No outdoor storage. Indoor storage shall be limited to material
incidental to the operation of the greenhouse or of a greenhouse and cannabis products must be grown indoors. Also we have should be established should the establishment cease operations the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days.
And also we have the interim use permit amendment is approved for a period of three years upon approval of the city council and approval of the variance request as presented. >> Do the varian separate. >> Do the variance separate.
>> So I'd move the interim use permit with the stated conditions. >> Motion by Johnson. Looking for a second. I'll second. >> Okay. Second by Jagger. >> I'm interested to hear the discussion.
>> Yeah. Any discussion, >> Mr. Jagger? >> I do. I just had one discussion. I really was hoping to maybe do this before the motion, but um it was about the uh I just want to make sure the establish se the establishment ceases operations. It my thinking is it could go back to a normal greenhouse. I could
go back to so I'm not sure that I'm on board with ex I want to clarify that the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days. Does that mean the uh cannabis greenhouse or can could we go back to growing tomatoes? Uh just that's all that was my question there.
>> This must have been something that came up in planning and zoning. >> It did not, but you could further um clarify that should cannabis establishment sees operations. Um so there could be a further clarification in there. >> That's all. Sorry. >> Yeah, it is confusing if that's not the
intent of it. >> Yeah, Mr. President, I I'd like to amend my motion and remove D since the greenhouse is an allowable use as an accessory structure to a restaurant that he could go back to growing or continue to grow vegetables and whatnot for the restaurant. So, I' I'd like to move
amend my motion to approve the interim use permit with all of the stated conditions except for D. >> And I will second the amended motion. >> Okay. Friendly amendment. All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, do we need a roll call?
>> I would recommend it. >> Maybe. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Again, same sign. >> That motion carries. >> Next, we're just looking for approval of the variance request as presented.
>> Somebody have a motion on that motion by Was it Chzac? Second Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries.
>> All right. That takes care of that item. Moving on to 8D. This is a consideration for a resolution for a future land use map amendment and final reading proposed ordinance 1593 reszoning the CN2 contemporary neighborhood 2 or GC general commercial to allow for an
office building at 3424 Oak Street and I believe this is James Cranick again. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So Joel Jacobson on behalf of Jake Excavating has applied for a reszoning and a future land use map amendment from contemporary neighborhood 2 zoning district to general commercial zoning district to
allow for the construction of an office retail building on vacant property at 3424 Oak Street. Uh the applicant wishes to meet clients at the property for Jake Jacobson excavating. If approved, the business could not operate as a contractor office with bulk materials um
and equipment without uh a conditional use permit. The applicant has indic uh included drawings for the proposed project. So, city council has an idea of the proposed use for the site. However, as this is a resoning, it does not lock the project into the property like a conditional use permit does. Uh office
retail is a permitted use in the GC district. As directed by council, staff did include a table that shows the difference in uses between um CN2, TN2 as well as general commercial. So, with that, the recommendation is as follows. Approve the attached resolution amending the future land use map designating the
parcel from medium high density to commercial. Number two would be conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1593 and dispense with the actual reading. And number three would be to approve the proposed ordinance 1593 and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Cran. Does anybody have
questions for James or staff? There are no questions. We are looking for the first of those three action items. So move >> second motion. Motion by
bunch of people up here. Second by Bevans. >> I think it was Erikson. Second by Bevven. So any discussion on this part of the motion, this part of this item. Seeing none. Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes.
>> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Ches. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yep. >> OD. >> Yes. Next, we're looking for a motion to conduct the Seeing none. Let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Again, same sign. Motion carries. Next,
we're looking for a motion to approve the proposed ordinance 1593. >> Move to approve. Second, Johnson. >> Motion by Ericson. Second by Johnson. Any discussion? >> Tony, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Evans, yes. >> Chzac,
>> yes. Johnson, >> yes. >> Odic, >> yes. All right, moving on to 8F or 8E. Final reading of proposed ordinance 1594, the sign ordinance. James Kravik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so staff
provided a summary of the ordinance at the last meeting and can answer any questions of city council. Uh, the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance 1594. And with that, staff recommends to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1594 and dispense with the actual reading. Number two
would be to approve proposed ordinance 1594. >> Thank you, James. Any questions for James? >> No questions. >> Approve. >> Motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1594 and dispense with the actual reading. Is that what you said? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion by Chzach. Second by Ericson. Discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Thank you. Moving on to uh next item is or next recommended action approval of
proposed ordinance 1594. Do we have a motion? >> I'll move Johnson. >> Motion by Johnson. >> Second. >> Second by Chzach. Any discussion. >> Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Evans. >> Yes. >> Chzach. Yes. >> Johnson.
>> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. That motion carries as well. We're on a roll now. Moving on to proposed ordinance 1595 amending section 320 for administrative citations. Again, James Krabbitic. Thank
you, Mr. President. Uh so, council directed staff to add junk and debris to the list that would allow for administrative abatement as well as as well as an expedited abatement for repeat offenders. So, with that, staff recommends to first hold a public hearing. Number two, to conduct the
final reading of proposed ordinance 1595 and dispense with the actual reading. And then finally, approve proposed ordinance 1595. And I can answer any questions. Thank you, James. Anybody have questions for James? Seeing none, we're going to hold a
public hearing on proposed ordinance 1595 and it is 8:42. I will open the public hearing. If there's anybody here to speak on this proposed ordinance, please do so now. Come forward to the microphone. And if
you're online, you'd like to address us on this, press star three. Ask again if if anybody would like to address the council on this, please come forward. And if you're online, please press star three.
Not seeing anyone. Max. Nobody. Just Eric. Hey, Eric. >> All right. >> With that, we will close the public hearing at 8:43. Next, we're looking to uh conduct the
final reading of proposed ordinance 1595 and dispense with the actual reading. >> So move. >> Motion by Ericson. >> Second, Jagger. >> Second by Jagger. Reminder that this has to be unanimous
to dispense with the reading. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to approve the proposed ordinance 1595. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson. Second by Jagger.
Any discuss discussion? >> Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Shazak. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. That ordinance is passed. Next, we're moving on to 8 G. This is
providing direction to um to the contested nuisance assessments. And this is again James Cran. Take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, at the last meeting, city council adopted a resolution with the full nuisance assessment amount and staff indicated that additional information would be provided at the next meeting for the
three properties disputing their assessments. First one was 523 Grove Street uh which had some property maintenance issues that have been corrected. Uh paint was the specific issue with that property. Uh staff noticed some other minor issues in which violations have been sent uh after
review of the property before the the packet went out. Uh 1718 Pine Street originally corrected their junk and debris issue, but has since added junk and debris and is currently not compliant. Letters were also sent for that. And then 1420 Quinn Street uh received a $7,000 vacant registry fee.
Uh the fee was for an unfinished house project lasting several years with significant junk and debris and blight in the yard. Uh the exterior project is nearing completion and staff no longer considers the property to have significant blight. Uh staff did note that a couch is in the rear yard which a
letter was also sent for that. Uh so after reviewing the memo and additional documents, city council may consider the following for each property. remove the nuisance assessment total, uphold the nuisance assessment total, or modify slashred reduce the nuisance assessment total, and I can answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Kravik. Anybody have questions for James? >> What? Yeah, one question, Mr. Johnson. >> It wasn't clear to me. What are you recommending? >> Uh staff did not provide a specific recommendation for each one of them. >> Provide an update on where the problem >> an update on each one of them. Um
certainly uh staff would provide a recommendation if if something was made an error um or if something was promised to the resident that the that the fees would be re uh waved upon completion. Uh that did not occur for any of the three properties. >> They've all still have the same problems
that or similar problems. They have not fixed all of the problems. >> Yeah. Staff staff didn't make any promises that that fees would be waved, nor did um any of them were made in error. >> And it sounds like all three are still a problem in the city. And I I'm favorable to keeping the
assessment total. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Chzock, >> was there a motion? >> No. >> Oh, okay. >> Just a second. But go ahead, Mr. Chzach. >> Help us out, Mr. Chz. >> Okay. I just had a question on the third one with the $7,000. What's that? What's that called again? The um
>> uh vacant registry fee. >> And um is that uh they can get that reimbured though, correct? by going through the >> at this time. Um, it would not be if it were to be assessed to the property. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Johnson. >> I just want to say just to remind you,
Jeeoff, 1420 Quint is the one that's been under construction for in excess of 12 years and hasn't had anybody living in it. Hasn't completed any projects. I'm surprised you could see the couch in the backyard given all of the other junk that's laying there. So, it is a vacant house and we do have a vacant house
registry and it deserves to be on it. Thank you. Any more comments? If anyone wants to take a shot at a motion, >> I'll make a motion to uh uphold the nuisance assessment total.
>> Second. >> All right. Motion by Joerger, second by Bevans. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Moving on to 8H.
This is a continuence of public hearing and consideration of assessments for improvements 2316. Uh again, uh this is actually city engineer Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, at the last meeting on October 6th, uh there is
one uh proposed assessment that was pulled from the assessment role uh at request of the council uh for any contest contestations for the proposed assessment on the South Brainer resurfacing project. Uh we did not receive any further contestations uh
in that time. Um Mr. Lundine's property is the one that is uh contesting his assessment. Uh the council did hear from him at the public hearing at the last meeting and staff did include uh the documentation that was provided to the council in the packet. Um staff did
review this and we are um we did try to address a lot of the drainage issues with the project. A lot of it was related to some of the issues with the catch basins in that area. Um, we further uh looked into this with the the small water, the small amount of
standing water uh right nearby his property um to see what further could be done because we are um sensitive to the concerns that he does have in regards to that little spot there. Uh while it does have grade intended drain to the catch basins, uh we did review that with both
Bolton and Mink and Knife River and they are performing a cut out and patch uh of that area right there in front of his property. They did remove it today. Uh they're planning to get that paved back in tomorrow. Uh so we are addressing that area of concern for him specifically on that one spot uh that
was indicated in some of the slides there. Uh with that uh staff is recommending holding the hold over public hearing for the assessment uh from the October 6th meeting. Uh at the conclusion of that staff is recommending adop adoption of the attached resolution
uh that adopts the assessment for that specific property uh P 41350550 and I can answer questions. >> Thank you Mr. Dean, Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you Mr. President. So, I I'm glad to hear that we are
trying to, you know, re put some pavement down to fix the drainage issue that clearly existed before and still exists. But I'm under the impression that the contractors out there in the project tried to address the drainage issue. They had a little bit of a lip or
something to try to send and it didn't work the first time. How can we be so confident that it's going to work this time with the new patch? So, the first two uh this it's essentially an infrared where they heat
up the pavement and try and reroll it to try and smoothing out the the imperfection. Uh so that they did that twice and that's the remainder of kind of what you saw there was that little strip of uh standing water. Here we're not going to try that in infrared. We're
actually just going to cut and replace >> and just have a bigger slope. >> You're right. We we verified that with Balden Mink that there is an upgrade to go from where we cut out uh to the the curb and gutter. So there shouldn't be a a concern there. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. More questions? >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chzac, >> is there an additional cost to the contractor >> for that work? >> Uh that'll be something that we're going to um warrant as a city because we are directing the contractor to address that.
>> Thank you. All right, more questions. Uh, Mr. Mayor, >> more of a comment. I just want to say that this is a good example of if you have an issue with these projects that are occurring, let us know and hopefully we can work something out to get it fixed. So, this is a great example of something that clearly needed to be
fixed and we are able to take care of it. That can't always be the case, but in most instances when something like this arises, just come forward with it so we can at least have that conversation. >> We'll see when it rains next time. Oh, I would also like to add, can we >> proof?
>> Yeah. Once we get through it, I I have a comment afterwards as well. So, >> y Mr. Jagger, do you have something? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Seeing nothing more, we will uh open and hold the hold over public hearing that
was adjourned from October 6th, 2025 meeting. So, we'll open that now. It's 8:51. If you're here for that public hearing for that project improvement 2316, please come forward.
Or if you are online, press star three. Not you, Eric. I mean, you can, I guess. Anyone here want to come forward for this project? Please do. So,
looks like nobody. So, we'll close the public hearing at 8:52. Next, we're looking for a motion to adopt the attached resolution after conclusion of this public hearing. Adopting the
assessment for P 4135550. >> So, move Jagger. >> Motion by Joerger. Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Any discussion on that motion? >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Beans, >> I'm going to vote against it. I just don't have the same faith. I'm sorry. I mean, we did it that
everybody knew ahead of time this was a problem. He had pictures from before. It's $2574.20 that we're going to saddle the guy with to not fix the problem that he has asked to have fixed before the project was even started. I just think it should I
mean, if we could if we could get it done and be sure, but I don't think it's fair to him. I I think the mayor might be incorrect on this one. I don't think this worked on his behalf. I mean, I I'm just not I don't have the faith, especially when he showed it to us twice
beforehand. I'm I'm sure the contractor wants it to be done so they can get paid. But to pull this now, I I think is the right thing to do. So, I'm going to vote against this. >> I I think the rest of it should be
certified, but So, you'd rather have the 2574? >> I'd rather have it in the customer's pocket. >> Okay. >> Right now, cuz I mean, imagine buying a car and being asked to pay for it, but you can't have it. But maybe you can have it in two weeks. Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe you can have it in two weeks, but we're not going to let you have it until the next time it rains and we can see. You're going to end up with the same situation that you got with those people out in uh southwest Brainard with the County Road 48 draining into their
property. You know, Danny Bolague and those people, you can have the exact same thing here. The potential is it's easier for us to not to to shoulder the burden. It was our project. He didn't he didn't come asking for it.
>> Yeah, I see your argument. More discussions, >> Mr. President. >> Mr. Chzre, >> uh to Mr. Beaven's point, if we were to vote this down and u I think I think if I could, Kelly, you're waiting. You want to just wait and see how it turns out.
Is that what you're suggesting? >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay. >> I I mean, I think we can find a way an agree come to an agreement with the property owner if it works. I I don't think, you know, I don't know how you would legally do that. You'd ask him to
pay for it. >> My assumption is that property owner will be right back in here if it doesn't work. >> Mine, too. >> But with >> But it could be a year down the road. Yeah. >> And here he is, you know, I mean, he did everything he
could do to tell you that the problem he had didn't work. Didn't the fix that we off that we're asking him to pay for didn't work. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. President, >> yeah, Mr. Mr. I could ask staff um and
maybe I'm not following the process here, but the motion is to approve the assessment on this individual's property with the expectation that the problem is going to be fixed. If we don't approve
it, um can we bring this back if once we learn that at least initially it seems to be fixed? >> Mr. Langel, do you have an answer to that? >> Yeah, mayor council. So, he's reserved
the right to appeal by filing his objection. If you pass this tonight, then you're you're essentially overriding his objection and and approving the um the assessment. So, at that point, if
for whatever reason the street repair doesn't work, could you settle with him on the objection or if he if he appeals it further? Yes, you could do that. >> Thank you. If this didn't pass, would we just be essentially holding another
continuence of the public hearing and then hearing this one more time? >> You could continue this again if if >> another two weeks will provide some rain. >> We could keep going for a year, >> another three years. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Jagger, >> I just want just where I'm at on this.
To me, the assessment and the repair are kind of not related. if you're you're getting he's going to get assessed for fixing for the street repairs like everyone does in this city. We pay for assessments for the fact that it we've got an an issue that needs fixed either needs fixed and we need to fix it or or
keep trying to fix it or eventually get to a point of where it is fixed. I think that never goes away to me. The two are kind of not related. I think he can come back and say, "Hey, look guys still didn't fix this." In which case, we send the street guys out there and we just keep going until we eventually get it fixed. But still, I don't I'm not sure
that I see us in a place where, okay, we're just going to let people just leverage money till we get things fixed to where they think it should be. I just that seems weird to me. To me, you pay for something and then if you're it is not working, you go back, you get it
fixed. That's where I'm at. >> Yeah, it is a tough one. Um Johnson, go ahead. >> Yeah, I seconded the motion, but I think I think Kelly has me convinced, especially after Joe spoke, like I don't want to override his objection. And I I I fully agree with his objection and I
think his objection is related to directly to the assessment because we assess abuing property owners and legally we can't assess more than the value added to the property. And when we're draining water and creating a big pool in front of his property, we're not adding any value. He shouldn't have to
pay $2,500 unless we fix the problem of the water pooling that he let us know of ahead of time. you like the perfect citizen did everything right like Kelly said and here we are. We're working on it. I'm hopeful we get it fixed but we
haven't yet gotten it fixed. So I I'm with Kelly. I think I'd want to keep 413505 out until it's fixed and then address it at that time. >> Okay. >> There's one one of two ways to go about
it. We either we we either approve it or or we we fix it. we find out if it's fixed or not later and he comes back to us. >> Miss Dean, did you have a comment? >> I just wanted to add to the timeline from the attorney. So, the waiting for
the next meeting, it it does add a little bit of complication because after the assessment or the assessment is ratified, that starts a 30-day prepayment clock uh for the property owner to prepay that assessment uh without interest before it goes to the county. and the county has a deadline of
December 1st uh to us to get those um put on the tax rules. Uh so this is kind of that that last meeting to start that 30-day clock before that deadline. Um but we'll we'll take our uh direction from the council. I mean we can continue to address this until it is corrected if
that's the case from the council or continue to hold this out. It's just that's the complication with a 30-day payment clock. >> I think the big thing is that it gets fixed. I think that's we're all in agreement on that up here. Making sure that that gets fixed. Mr. Chzac. >> Yeah. Uh, currently the contractor is
working on this. Uh, there comes a point in time where that won't be the case, right? If it's not fixed correctly or do we just keep having them go back to try to fix it? Because I think Mr. Jagger mentioned city staff just keeps going back and
street. Is that a is that a is that pose a problem here with who's actually doing the work? Right now, >> we would go back to the contractor to repair this. at this point. Uh obviously the I'll call them rehab treatments of the infrared did not solve the issue which is why we're doing the cut and patch which is a little bit more
obviously invasive. Uh if this doesn't solve the issue that we would go back to the contractor to correct it. >> So I mean if it's u April we can do that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Mr. Mayor >> just as a followup to my comment that
since Kelly uh so rudely said that you know I have too much faith in this getting done. My follow-up comment was going to be that I would like to see this come back to us so that we have some kind of reassurance that this has been done correctly and we're not just
leaving this um citizen out on their own to fend for themselves that we're keeping an eye on this because I agree with you uh as fast as possible. >> Yes. >> Anyone else? It's time to take a vote on this.
>> Um Tony, >> can we clarify the motion? Sorry. Um >> yeah, clarify the motion. Who who Whose motion was this? >> Evans. >> It was my It was my motion to to to move forward with the uh >> You went with the recommendation? >> Yes.
>> So, you're recommending this is a motion to adopt the attached resolution. >> At this point, I'm going to rescend my motion >> if I if I'm able to do that. >> Mr. >> I'm convinced. You got I'm convinced. And if I'm going to er any direction, I'm going to heir on the side of a citizen. So all the hubhub works I'm I'm
convinced. >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Beans, >> I move to adopt the attached resolution uh setting aside the assessment for P 4135. >> Second motion by Bevon, second by
Johnson on the new motion. Any discussion? >> Oh, good except for you. Okay, attorney Langel. So just for clarification, setting aside meaning you're going to hold the hearing, you're going to uh table
>> leaving off leaving off the assessment motion to deal with that >> but not including leaving off not assessing. >> Okay. Okay. It's pretty clear.
>> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> This is a resolution. No. Come on, Johnson. An hour and a half into this. Don't start messing with me now. It's my birthday. >> Just adopt the attachment. >> I'm going to move next that we make a statue to Mayor Bedau because I treated
him so poorly. >> So, it was a resolution. Go ahead, Tony. >> Yes. >> Jagger. Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That carries. Mr. Mr. Beaven,
>> I have a second motion. I move that staff work with the property owner at uh 41350550 as to how to ha as to how to handle the 257420 equitably handle after the repairs are
successful. >> Second >> motion by Bevon, second by Johnson. Is that clear to everybody? Any discussion on it? >> It's not clear to Joe. I was going to say it looks like what do you think Mr. Lango >> given that we're at the hearing stage
for that property I would it would be best if adding to that motion that we would continue to hold over the hearing until the next council meeting >> add to that motion that's fine I have no problem okay >> friendly amendment seconders okay >> all right um
>> question Mr. Chaz, >> how does it determine when the U fix is successful? >> What determines that? >> It sounds like a discussion between staff and the citizen. >> Okay, it's fixed until the water pools. >> Good enough.
>> More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Moving on to new business. 9A. We are revisiting potential organizational changes with appropriate
charter language. I believe this is administrator Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. At the 7 April council meeting, a motion passed to cease and desist discussions of utility services to be included in the public works department being amended with a charter change.
um staff feels that we we potentially have an opportunity for some potential organizational changes that we would like to discuss with the charter commission and if they see fit to bring before the city council. So staff is basically asking for some reprieve from
that seven April motion um to explore some creative and innovative ideas as we look at some potential organizational changes. So the recommended motion from staff would be to move to allow staff to discuss potential organizational changes with both the charter commission and the city council.
>> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzach, >> I would move to resend the motion from April 7th to cease and assist all discussion of moving public utility services to public works. >> Motion by Chzach, second by was it Beans? >> Yep.
>> Any discussion on that motion? >> Uh yes. Um >> Mr. Chz, >> it it it's the same thing as Mr. Broyals is asking for. >> Yep. >> They're free to do as they wish with that motion. >> Yep. That was the motion. Kind of putting a halt to those discussions. All right.
>> Any more discussion? See none. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> I. >> Motion still carries. >> Moving on to 9B. This is a resolution um to receive a fe feasibility report and
call for a public hearing on improvement 25005 Southeast Brainer Reconstruction Project. And I believe this is uh Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so few meetings ago, we had the council adopt a
resolution that ordered the feasibility report. Um, we've prepared that feasibility report with uh kind of a follow-up from theformational meeting that we held with residents on August 19th here at city hall to kind of go over the uh scope of work including the
discussion topics that were brought up with the council in regard to some of the new sidewalk, the paving of Laurel Street uh and the like. Um, so some of those comments and the at least the general sentiment was included in that feasibility report for council review. Uh at this point, staff is recommending
adoption of the attached resolution that receives the feasibility report as presented and then calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvement uh proposed to be held on November 17th at the council meeting at 7:30. >> All right. Thank you.
Anybody have questions? Doesn't look like it. We're just looking for a motion. Motion to recommend adopting the resolution receive the attached feasibility report and calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvement to be held November 17th,
2025, 7:30 p.m. So move Johnson. >> Second by Johnson, second Bevans. Any discussion? Tony >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Tzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, OD,
>> yes. That motion carries. All right, moving on to staff reports. Tony Gage, you got something, right? >> Not yet. >> Still not anything yet. Okay, Chief Davis, >> just like to invite all trick-or-treaters to stop by the Briner Police Department Halloween evening from
3:30 to 6. Say hi and uh get a little candy. >> Thank you, Max Hannon, CLC. >> Happy birthday. >> Oh, thank you. >> Oh, make a statue for you as well. >> Finance quick over there. Mike Aigor.
>> Yes. The only thing that I have is that the annex um proposal for remodel and improvement will be on the next council agenda. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Again, James Kraik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, from the last uh planning commission meeting, the commission uh did review a public
hearing in December. Uh also, the planning commission has begun discussions on an update to the comprehensive plan. A major goal will be to increase the threshold for a mandatory EAW. Uh, one major component is evaluating the implementation of the comprehensive plan and that is all.
>> Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Joe Langel, >> nothing here. Thank you, >> Chris Schubert. >> Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, we've talked a handful of product project updates. There's just a couple more I want to highlight. Uh, the M Street outfall up by the uh Evergreen Cemetery
is progressing. We're running in uh into some rather unexpected surprises out there, but uh we are still moving forward and trying to get that wrapped up here over the next couple weeks. And then the roundabout uh is moving forward very quickly. Uh they're wrapping up a
lot of stuff uh this week. Uh we had a little bit of delay in some of the signage that we need to have installed for safety purposes. So, it's going to wait a little bit longer to get that opened up. Uh but we're very hopeful that things should be open at that roundabout before Halloween. Uh that's kind of what they're shooting for is
Halloween, but it may even be a day or two sooner than that. Uh so things like the trunk or treat at the Lutheran church there should be able to progress without any kind of hindrance with that. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean, for that disappointing thing that you just told
us about at the end. >> Eric Sharpender, H. >> Yes, Mr. President. do have one update um grant put through and this will help offset the city's portion of the cost for some of that streetscape uh improvements that will happen for the
next two years. So, wanted to let the council know about that and we're we're very excited to be able to to help with that project. >> Thanks, Eric. Thanks for the great news. Administrator Broyals, >> three things. First, congratulations, Paul Sandy. He's going to be a great addition to the team. Second, um
received some kind words from folks as we were out in New Mexico and we dealt with some medical things with my mother. She is doing well. Um her situation gave me more time with our one-year-old grandson, so it was bittersweet, but we're glad to be back
home. Last thing is the MA conference. If if just as just by by a by a reminder that's the international city and county managers association the annual conference is in Florida. I will be flying out Friday. I will be returning
next Wednesday. Um so I'll be down for it was in Pittsburgh last year going to be in Florida this year. So looking forward to that. >> Where in Florida? >> Tampa Bay. >> Right in the middle of hurricane season. >> Yeah. >> Good luck. >> That's a fun airplane. >> Thank you Administrator Broyals. Next we have the honorable mayor Bedau.
>> Oh, I have four items. I know that's more than three, but it is four. Uh, first of all, I want to I don't know if you guys are paying attention during that bonding thing, but I really appreciated when the bonding lady said that if our bond rating was better, our bond rating would be better. I really appreciated that part of it. That was
good insight. Uh, secondary momentous occasion tonight, folks. Momentous occasion. The mayor voted tonight. Put it on the put it in the paper. Make sure that everyone's aware. I had something to do tonight. It was amazing. Uh, also the downtown spooktacular will be
happening this Saturday 11 to 1. So, I don't know if you've ever participated in that, but a lot of kids getting down there getting some candy. Again, 11 to1 downtown. Uh, please participate in that if you got small children. I know that all the businesses down there love having them. So, uh, and then just
lastly, just a quick note. I you you may have noticed that tonight, uh, Council Member Stun is not with us. Um he is having some health issues and uh I I was asked to just uh quickly say to everyone uh please keep him in your prayers and
uh he's going to be gone for a little bit from us but he's going to be back. So uh just be thinking about Councilman Sunni and uh we look forward to his return. End of report. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Let's move on to Mr. Chzach.
>> Thank you President ODay. Um, one thing I um just wanted to wish a belated happy birthday to one of our cornerstone cornerstone pillars of our community. Um, five days belated and uh not many of you historians will know, but she
actually was able to set the cornerstone of this building, Mary Cop, 93 years old on the 15th of October. God bless her. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Mr. Bevans, >> thank you. I uh got a chance to run down
to the firehouse open house last week or two weeks ago and what a hoot that is. If you have not gone, I mean it's not just for kids, although kids can go, you know. I mean, they really put on a good open house at our fire department. So,
thank you to everybody. They have a helicopter there. I mean, it was cool. I didn't want to leave. >> Did you get a helmet? You know, I I had an opportunity to get a helmet, but I passed cuz I figured I'm beyond help. >> Did they put you in the dog suit? >> No.
>> Oh, that would >> I don't fit. >> It's a little dog suit. >> Jagger. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Airport ticker. Uh D. Uh so, a couple things. Uh new our new airport, uh our new ARF employee started and we welcome him aboard,
Patrick Nelson. He got we got to get him a little bit of fire training. We're going to uh get him up to speed, but uh had a good pleasure of meeting him today. Seems like a great guy and we welcome him aboard. Uh unfortunately uh he's being brought aboard because we are losing a longtime employee by the name of Jim Wolf out there who's been with us
for a very long time and we are taking some time on October 27th at 1:00 to show some appreciation for his uh years of great service out there. He's just been uh you know a pillar of the airport out there and we sure hate to see him go. Uh I'll quick update on our new
director. We uh are d we are open for uh receiving applications for our director and that uh will remain open until the 24th and I will say we've had a highly fruitful turnout already. Uh we've received at least 20 applications. Uh
many of those are highly highly qualified people to take over the directoral role. So, uh, the airport commission certainly has is going to have, uh, their hands full with trying to select this new person. I'd like to thank Mr. Planer for his help with that and and our intent is to, uh, make an
announcement or or offer that job at the December meeting for the airport commission. So, we've going to do some interviewing process throughout November, but hopefully at the December meeting, we'll be making a recommendation there. Um, so good good great news there. government shutdown
has a potential delay on the EAS announcement regarding our uh you know our pending uh service provider for EAS. We're still hoping for an early November announcement uh with our EAS uh provider out there. And just a couple other couple uh little fun tidbits. The EAA
who meets out there uh that's the uh experimental aircraft association. Believe it or not, there's a lot of experimental air aircraft over our heads every single day. About 10% of the aircraft in the in the sky are experimental. But anyways, there's a group of guys. They're EAA and or group of people and they meet every uh first
Saturday every uh u month out there. And last month they did a a they basically a flyer they they invite kids, anybody who wants to come and they take them for flights. They get a bunch of pilots and they took 59 kids for flights around Briner to try to introduce those uh ch kids into the world of aviation. So huge
thanks to those uh pilots and for those guys for putting that on, all the kids that showed up. That was awesome. Youth fly. That was our youth fly. And EAA is also has something else uh that's really exciting that you're going to want to get out to the airport to see. They have been restoring a 1933 Longster. This is
a four-cylinder airplane uh which we will be hanging in the foyer in the rafters uh in in the uh near future and it's going to be a really cool addition to the airport. It's going to be fun to see. So, we're partnering with Meet and Hunt. We're partnering with Hi-Tech out there. Mr. plans or has been so generous
as to help with uh there's cost associated with this as you might imagine and uh yeah get out and check it out. It's named the Edna G after the first female flight instructor uh in the United States. So it's a kind of a cool thing and that is your ticker on the
Yep. D on the airport uh report. >> I get 10 bucks for that. >> Thank you Mr. Jagger. If I were to dress up as a kid and go out to the airport, would they put me in a >> experimental aircraft? fly me around Brainer. >> Well, actually, uh, and I stand standing
invitation. Anybody that would like to go out to the airport and get a tour of the facility, the, uh, the equipment, and do what I did last year, which is get a ride in a snow plow while they're plowing out there. You got to kind of coordinate that with the event, obviously. But, uh, the our airport is your airport. So, come on out, have a
look, see what we do out there every single day, and we love to have people. And just as a little hint, this is a little spoiler, but we are looking at potentially a pretty big deal in the spring, which will be some version of an open house, flyin, car show, food, kids, all kinds of jazz in the in coming up in
in uh in the spring. And so >> Mr. OD already know he dresses like a kid. >> How do you know, Jeff? >> Words around town. >> So your so your answer is yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, >> we invite anyone out to come on up. >> Yep. >> Mr. Jagger, Chairman Johnson. Oh, Max
already stole my thunder. I was going to wish you a happy birthday, but I was also going to offer city administrator Broyals the opportunity since it is Mike's birthday today. You're here at a city council meeting. >> If you would like to sing him happy birthday, a solo rendition of Happy Birthday.
>> Here's your birthday song. It's not too long. Hey, >> I would yield my time to you. >> Don't do it. Don't do it. It's a trick. >> It'll pass. Well, I'll try next time we have a birthday. >> Jim Theen used to do it all the time. And by all the time, I mean all the time.
is not here >> for a cup of coffee. >> Nothing further. Thank you. >> All right. And let it be known that I do not make a big deal out of my birthday. I just wanted Mr. Johnson to stop picking on me and I use it as an excuse. Otherwise, nobody would have known.
>> It was my birthday last meeting. Did you hear it one single time? No, you did not. I've heard nothing but your birthday tonight. >> Nobody was picking on you. >> I just threw out the idea of making you a statue. Quit your whining. All right. I have nothing further to add tonight. Thank you everybody for putting
up with us. Again, uh we will see you in a couple weeks. We're looking for a motion to >> pick >> by Bevans. >> Second by Johnson. All in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. We are >> journed. 13 to