One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Item three on the agenda, roll call. Administrator Pusoose. >> Council member Ball, >> present. >> Council member Jensen, >> present. >> Council member
>> present. Mayor Robenamp >> present. >> And council member Scott is absent. >> Thank you. Moving on to item four, open forum. City council invites residents to share new ideas or concerns related to city business not already on the agenda.
However, individual questions and remarks are limited to three minutes per speaker. Now, city council action will be taken. Although the council may refer issues to staff for followup or for consideration at a future meeting, the mayor may use discretion if speakers are repeating views already expressed or ask
for a spokesperson for groups of individuals with similar views. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Do we have anybody here that wishes to address the council in open forum this evening? Bill to 31877 Green Scene Drive, Breezy
Point. And I'll be brief. I see you got a big agenda tonight. Um, I just wanted to follow up on the previous conversation the last time I was here about interest rates. Today's market rates, this is from today. The 15-year general obligation doublea rated municipal is going for 3.814 to 4% and
the general obligations will always obtain the lower rate. The tenure is at 3.016 to 3.387. Uh they have tightened up from the last time that I looked at what they were providing. Um members of the Breezy
Point Alliance, we've talked about, you know, if I go to a dealership and I'm going to buy a truck for 10 year and get a 10-year loan versus a fiveyear loan, uh my payment is going to be lower on the 10year, but I'm going to pay almost 100% more interest. So most of us feel that we'd like to, you know, shorter
period of time frame obviously to pay back that loan. Now, I know all of you have probably talked to people in your network, so you've got ideas about how this is going to play out, but uh we're going to be it's going to be interesting to watch what you guys decide. One other stat, then I'll be done. Uh 83 of the
106 incident calls that are going to be talked about tonight occurred in the Discoff complex. 51 occurred in the discoff expansion just over the last two years. I know you all know what the Breezy Point Alliance solution is to this, but I just wanted to make you
aware that's where most of the incidences that are happening in the park complex. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. T. Is there anybody else who wishes to address the council in open forum? I'll ask again. Is there anybody else
who addresses wishes to address the council in open form? hearing none. Open form is now closed. Moving on, item five, consent agenda. 5A, approve claims totaling 171,87.19
for checks 14761 to14847 and e checkeks 4060 to 4075. 5B. Approve city council meeting minutes from December 1st, 2025.
5 C. Approve city administrator performance review summary. 5 D approved not to wave TOR liability limits. 5E approve pay equity implementation implementation report.
5F resolution number 01-2026 approve Crowing County hazard mitigation plan. 5G resolution number 02-2026 approve electronic transfers for 2025.
5H resolution number 03-2026 approve cemetery wreath donation. 5 I approve engineering proposal for sanitary sewer metering improvements. and 5J resolution number 06-2026
regarding SS4A grant funded Brainer Lakes Area Vulnerable users plan. Having read the consent agenda, is there any comments from the council? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read? >> So moved.
>> I have a motion from council member Jensen. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from council member Further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. The motion
carries. Moving on. Item six, special presentation 6A, Bolton and Mink County Road 11 traffic study update. Jake Bongard, come forward, please, if you want to introduce yourself. >> Yeah. Hi, my name is Jake Bongard. Um, I work with Bolton Mink and I was uh
helping out on the this County Road 11 and Eagle View Elementary site circulation study. >> All right, great. >> Great. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for for having us here today. So, I just want to run through a quick presentation. So, uh, this is a study we've been working on for about the past six months to to
enhance safety and improve operations at the Eagle View Elementary School um, located off Highway 11. So, if we could go next slide. So just generally for what we're planning to cover uh with this [clears throat] presentation is just give a study overview kind of over there overview of the extents that we're looking at talk through the goals and
objectives um talk through the alternatives as well as the engagement that occurred as part of this um hit on the evaluation uh re metrics that went into kind of the decision-m into the recommendations and then follow up with those recommendations. So analysis um so
from a project schedule standpoint as I mentioned we started about 6 months ago and really where we started was the existing conditions analysis. So we like to build that foundation for what the recommendations are start from. So we went out collected data shortly after school started um ran some safety
analysis and really culminated that first phase with an open house at um at Eagle View Elementary School. Um following that initial input, we moved on to the alternative analysis phase from October to November. And from there, we took that initial existing conditions, we looked forward and looked
at for future forecasts on Highway 11. Um and started to look at some options and we'll we'll show some roundabouts, some traffic signals, some things that were reviewed on the school site as well. Um but really started to dig into those metrics. And that second phase again um ended with an open house that
happened at Eagle View again and we we timed that accordingly with the uh conferences that happened at the school and had a really nice turnout for feedback um in that phase of it. And now we're in the conclusions and presentations. So um we've we've done the existing conditions, we developed alternatives, and now we're we're moving
into developing some final study documentation and looking to share these findings and get input from uh the cities as well as the school board. So, in general for a project overview, um we're looking at it's [clears throat] it it is focused on the Eagle View
Elementary School intersections. As you can see on the map, we did look at um the Nickel Road to Nickel Road area. Um so, we wanted to make sure we inclusive, we were inclusive just because there is some some hills and some sighteline issues that we wanted to make sure were addressed and considered as part of this
project. Um but again, we did focus primarily on the school access point. So the west access point is is [clears throat] where and I I don't know many of you may have kids that went to the school as well, but the west access point um is where the parent school or the parent drop off pickup comes in and
out. So vehicles cue in a few different rows coming through the parking lots to drop kids off. Um the school's very organized in how they receive parents and let kids go and then they kind of motion out and and enter back onto Highway 11. The east school axis is is the bus axis. So that's where buses go
in and out. And then there's also ECF um drop off and pickup. So a little less traffic at that location um in a different nature. It's not the not necessarily the high volume of parents entering and exiting on a daily basis. Um and just a few quick facts. So as as
you know folks that drive this corridor quite a bit, the speed limit is 55 miles per hour. Um we did some study during the existing conditions and we found that people were driving generally 50 to 55 miles per hour during these outside of school hour times. Um there are some
dynamic speed signs that flash and let you know and let you know how fast you're going and we found that that does reduce driver speed to about 40 miles per hour during those school times. So um it is it is working to help slow some vehicles down. But again just looking for if there are additional safety improvements that could be implemented
out here. Um and then from a crash perspective, I'll move on quickly, but just from a crash perspective, um there was observed uh two crashes at the west intersection in the past five years and um no crashes at the east one. So, uh not a ton of
crashes, but again, any any time a crash involves a family or kids, it's something we want to take notice of and and and take a look at. So, from a project perspective, uh the goals that we established were um trying to set a shared vision for a collaborative system. So, we want one that serves the [clears throat] current
and future needs for all users and for both the school and the county road. We know um that the county road does does more than just serve the school. It serves through traffic. It does increase by about 20% during the summer months as well. So, we want to make sure we have an inclusive improvement that that does
remedy issues for school but doesn't necessarily uh hinder or does continue to accommodate county traffic. Um we want to develop safe and functional alternatives for the county road 11 during all times of year. uh maintain acceptable access points for nearby properties. So we we understand that the
these two access points for the school aren't the only ones. So how does that interact with the the adjacent intersections um and establish safe and efficient facilities on the school site? So accommodating parent pickup and drop off in addition to busing. So again looking at both the highway 11 and the
school site improvements. So circling back a bit to the engagement piece of this. So um even before we we started to roll out alternatives in that second phase, we we saw a lot of comments really concentrated at these the school access intersections and a lot of discussion immediately of signal
roundabout. Um so that that was definitely a focus of something that we began to evaluate during the process. But as we looked at 11, we heard some comments. We saw some comments on Nickel Road. We saw some comments on uh the sight lines and and the grade changes as you approach the intersection. But a lot
of it was heavily concentrated at those two intersections. And as you can see, the feedback that was was provided was about a 50/50 split in those in favor of either roundabouts or traffic signals. And included there are a number of comments that folks left. But again,
just just a variety of input, I guess, of people either favor or opposed to those different improvements. Um, is was there a slide before that? Oh. No, there wasn't. Okay. Um, there was at the school board a minute ago. Um, and [clears throat] then we just we
received a lot of good feedback, I guess, from uh from the school site as well, just relative to parent and pickup, drop offs, and and wait times uh exiting the site and just sight lines for those folks and uh trying to provide safe solutions. So, that was we we did receive a good amount and most of the
comments were related to Highway 11, but we did have some commentary on on the school site as well. Um, so if you could back up one, sorry I'm making you work. Um, so from an alternatives perspective, we we started out by looking at just alternatives uh
exclusive to Highway 11. Um, understanding that entering and exiting the school site is a challenge or can be a challenge during these peak conditions. We wanted to look at both roundabouts and signals. So um, the top right shows a couple al roundabout alternatives that were drawn both at the
west and the east axis. Um and then the lower one just represents some signals that were looked at as well. So with those um with the signalized improvements, it would still need to be accompanied by ADA improvements. So ped ramps and things like that on each corners and push buttons to get people
safely across. Um so it it does look like a a simple traffic signal, but it would require additional improvements at the intersection as well. uh from a school site perspective, we we we were looking at really looking at any and every option we could to improve
flow and improve safety and in in this attempt to I guess try to concentrate the vehicle movements to a singular intersection. So the alternative that we have shown here uh reconnects the loop essentially uh in front of the school. So currently it's divided as I mentioned
with parent pickup on the west axis, school bus or school or school bus drop off and pickup on the east. And this one would merge those two and concentrate all entering traffic into that west access point and all exiting to the east access point. Um so so this is one
alternative that we carried through our evaluation um matrix just in how we we looked at the I guess the system as a whole. Um if you could go to the next slide. We also looked at a few different alternatives here um of how to really concentrate those movements again to a
singular intersection as we look at providing improvements to highway 11. Um and these two here you can see the dash line or the hatched lines over the the east axis. So this is proposing closure of that east access and facilitating those movements um all through the west
axis. So the the bottom image has kind of a additional access road to loop vehicles around and provide another option to get over to that side. Um and then the the top one just kind of shows a repurposing of that existing uh facility there just to keep uh just to
allow circulation to get folks back to that wax access to exit there. So both of those options were dismissed. Um but again I think we we did a pretty comprehensive review of trying to evaluate uh different alternatives and options on the school site
and the next image we have here uh represents that as well. So again, I think we just we showed three options there that were considered. Uh we we had many many many conversations with the school uh of different things that we could look at just to try to improve circulation safety and if there was ways
to again consolidate access um reallocate parking, find better locations to enter and access 11. And and it's just it's a complicated site. Um and for example, we have the the road um going through the middle of the two fields uh accessing Highway 11 trying to
consolidate those accesses and uh that was that was met with some opposition again I think just with it it would complicate it for for children kind of running around the schools and it would kind of segregate their site a little bit more. So, um, again, I think we we looked heavily at trying to find inclusive improvements for the highway
and the site to try to find a good option. Uh, and we're just met with many challenges in doing that. So, from an evaluation standpoint, then as noted there, eight alternative combinations were evaluated and that's really looking at those roundabout alternatives at uh, providing them at
both intersections or providing one at the west intersection or providing one at the east intersection. And then same thing with the traffic signal. Um and then we also carried the one-way loop that was shown um through the evaluation criteria as well to try to identify which one best serves the need of both
the school and the county highway. Um and from that our our recommendation was to implement a single lane roundabout at the western school access intersection um as as being the one that that best meets the metrics for uh moving mainline traffic, accommodating safely
accommodating uh vehicles in and out of the site uh uh in the safest way we can um and just best serving the area. Um so yeah, there were there are options to address safety and congestion issues immediately at a lower cost as well. So,
um that's that was the recommendation that came from the the more robust evaluation. Um we know that that also roundabouts come at a cost as well and they take time to implement. So, we wanted to dig in a little bit further to see if there's other options that could be pursued out here as well. Um so, if
you could go to the next slide. uh an interim alternative that we [clears throat] look to uh potentially incorporate out here was enhancing the the offset right that is currently provided for the west access. So, I don't know if you can see it on your
screen clearly there, but currently there is a just a painted gore area. And what that does is just kind of a an open space that separates that right turn movement from the the mainline movement. And what happens currently then is that stop bar uh you can see it in its
current location today is is recessed back. Um, so one of the things that we were looking at as an interim option here is to um replace that painted area with a concrete raised median just to provide a little more definition and a
little more protection in that area and potentially extend out the east side of that northbound approach coming out of the school uh just in order to be able to move that stop sign up as well. And what that would do is is move the line of sight from its current location to
bringing it forward past where that turn lane is and where there could be a vehicle turning into that intersection really blocking sight lines and making it more complicated to turn out of the site during those peak hours. Um so this the image here shown is just
a very crude mockup of the west intersection. We are also looking at it for the east intersection as well, knowing that bus drivers have the same difficulty pulling out that um that the parents do on the west axis. So um looking to implement that at at both the
west and east intersections and the images shown here um again I think is so the west school axis is on the top the east school axis is on the bottom and what we like to do from a a sighteline perspective is to understand uh how far someone needs the vehicle to
be away to be able to safely pull out from that side street movement. Um excuse me. So, the distances that are shown here are for 55 mph. Um, and the red represents a vehicle sitting at its current location where that stop bar exists today. Um, the the blue would be
if a vehicle were to be able to pull forward uh with this interim measure. And you can see that line of sight or that that red area where that there's a green car shown in that right turn lane coming in. So, if we were to move that stop bar up, we would move the line of sight up and that would allow someone to
see a vehicle coming more safely, be able to judge that gap, and hopefully be able to pull out more safely and more efficiently. So, as we look at reduced speeds, so 40 miles per hour during the um during these peak or during the the school
condition time, uh those sight triangles aren't quite as long just because with the speeds, it doesn't take quite as long. You don't need quite as much reaction time to pull out. Um, but still it's it's much of the same where uh that vehicle in that right turn lane does kind of block things where it currently
sits today. And then next slide. So yeah, from a recommendation standpoint then, so um the most fiscally responsible solution in the immediate time frame, uh we're recommending to implement the interim alternative of reconstructing the eastbound right turn lanes and north and
extending that northbound approach at each of the school accesses. Um and then in the event that safety or operational issues persist, the long-term recommendation for this area is to implement a roundabout at the west school access intersection. um and next steps following this. So
again, I think we're we're here in front of you all today. Um the school board as well. We also have a representative from our project team over at Peekquat Lakes today giving a similar presentation. So our goal is to gather feedback from all participating agencies and and just get a good handle on what comments,
questions, uh feedback is out there. Um so we can kind of uh get that assembled uh in respond to anything that comes up and then looking to finalize our study documentation here uh within the next uh month or so. >> Okay, great. Thanks for the
presentation, Kurt. Council questions uh any comments? I know uh we've had one council member has been involved in the meetings, but if you have any comments or thoughts. >> Yeah, I would just like to thank Bolton and Men Crow and County Engineering. They were great to work with, as was the
school. You know, I mean, everybody wants to see safety for the children. But I think the key to the recommendation summary is the cost outweighs the benefit. um you know a
single roundabouts 2 point what 2.2 million it was roughly in that area. >> Yeah. Yep. Somewhere in there. >> I think the alternative proposed is a better path to go down at this point. Um I it should do the job. Um it'll
definitely improve sight lines which is the issue but I just don't think the roundabout at this point personally is a viable solution. And then with that too, I think as as we look forward to I having I guess from a
recommendation standpoint, having input I guess from this group and the other communities and kind of a shared agreement on what their recommendation is. It allows allows the county to to align and and pursue additional funding. I guess if if safety issues persist or get worse, um it's it's kind of a shared
vision for folks to to kind of pursue collectively, which in in pursuing outside funds, if that is the case, it it helps a lot showing that there's a shared interest in uh a shared movement to to get that money aligned. >> Uh yeah, I guess I would just say, um I
like that there's sort of an interim solution. I I go through that area every day with my children. So, um certainly like a roundabout seems to me like it would during that period of time
like the flow of traffic would be much better um than having to just like hope you can make it out in time. But >> it would be nice to see if the if this fixing like the sight lines would help. I don't I don't know. I mean, it'd be
worth trying, I guess, if it's cheaper. This reduced speed certainly helps a lot I think when when they do drive 30 but >> yeah definitely >> you can tell when you're trying to pull out but >> well I had a question so there was the
alternative of going to one way as was there any thought process of joining that together with this alternative that you're looking at as a way of not only increasing the sightelines but now you're increasing how that flow traffic. So instead of having it coming and going
out of both ends, you have that flow coming in one way and going out the other way and now you have improved sight lines as well. So, it's the it's like combining those two together to maybe have further improved flow of that traffic uh with regards to also
improving the sightelines because if you think about it, if your traffic is coming in one way and going out one way and you don't have dual traffic, now your sight line stuff changes as well because now we're not at times dealing with two vehicles, one going out, one coming in. Now you've got one coming in
and one going out. So, I don't know if that's something that's worth considering or thinking about. Um, I I look at it from a perspective of I like the alternative, but then I and and this is on the county because ultimately
county 11 is theirs, but it's is is to put the funding into changing it. And what happens if ultimately you have to look at it and go, "Okay, now we still need to put the roundabout in." So, while the cost is there, I get that.
You also look at what's the cost to do what you're doing now and then if you have to put the roundabout in later there's an actual increased cost as well which ultimately at the end of the day while there's a county road it doesn't impact our taxpayers. >> So I look at it that way too. So
>> on one hand I see the I see the value of going with a alternative that says hey let's try this and see if it works but I also see it from the idea that you save money in one hand but then you lose money on the other hand. So anyway,
I I just my thoughts on it, but you know, if that's ultimately what's decided to do, then I think at least it's moving in the right direction for the safety of our families and our children that are in going in and out of that school because it can get heavy. And I know that our officers patrol that up there on a regular basis as well. And
I think that helps a lot too. Um, and I know that'll continue to happen as well. So I think it's great. you guys did a good job putting it all together and and I think there's some good options there, but maybe there's some combination of things that that might might work out to be that one-way flow might change that
and now you don't have to go to that because it changes how that whole dynamic works in there. So, >> yeah. No, and and I can answer a couple of those questions. So, I think from the one-way flow perspective, um, we we primarily ran that with the assumption that, uh, an improvement would happen at
that intersection at 11 and what would be the east access for getting people out. Um, if we were to keep that in a side street and we'd have to look at it. Um, but we you already see those backups today with just all that traffic kind of split between the two. If you were to
concentrate it at one, I'd be curious how much longer that stacking would be. Um, so with that, if there'd be added weight times and potentially some people making some poor decisions, pulling out, uh, we we could definitely look at that. Um, from a cost perspective, I I think, yeah, we we share the same concerns and,
uh, Tim can speak to that, too, from from the chip coming up, uh, for highway highway projects that are planned and not wanting to put something in that inevitably gets ripped up soon after. Uh there is money set aside in 2029 to
improve Highway 11 and it does not include these these offset improvements, but anytime you have a larger improvement and you wave in something like this, uh it comes at a cheaper cost than if it were a standalone project. Um so I think that that could be a time
frame to target. If there are issues that are prevalent today and there is an interest from locals to push that ahead sooner, there could be an opportunity for some cost shares or or locals to come to the table with with some additional funds to push that ahead. So, I think from a a fiscally responsible
standpoint, I I know the county, I don't want to speak for Tim, but has has many many priorities across it and and understanding that that this is an intersection, albeit an important one, um it has to be looked at holistically and how it fits. >> Yep. So if you have anything to add, Tim.
>> Yeah, just real quick, >> Mr. Mayor, uh council members, thank thanks for letting me speak. Um the county engineer, Tim Bray, and I appreciate your participation in this study and uh uh really moving forward and I know Steve was involved throughout
the whole thing. I we appreciate that. I I just wanted to reiterate something that he said about the shared vision and what we're asking to all the elected bodies uh tonight. um to take a look at this over the next month and give us the
comments because eventually what we would like is that all the entities endorse it because we've been look talking about this for 12 years and we've been in in uh implemented some interim solutions you know already um the
school zone there which which I believe Rebecca said was um helping slowing down the speeds having [clears throat] having people better judgments of the gap that they need to pull out and that kind of stuff. And um so just the interim
solution we're looking for an endorsement so we can move forward and stop I don't I say stop talking about it but just move forward with a a shared vision. And I'm up if we would have finished the study we started 12 years ago probably even
more I think almost yeah 12 years ago and we had the shared vision we would have not had to spend the money on this study that we all participated in and move forward. The bottom line is that the the need for the roundabout and the timing for it is uncertain
and in terms of Breezy Point there will be a cost share with that because it includes Edgewater Farm and um the interim solution on the other hand I don't envision the Breezy Point having to participate at all. We've actually had a conversation with the school board
about uh cost sharing with them and they're interested in something immediate as you can imagine. um they don't want to wait till 2029. And so that's my homework to go back and look at our highway improvement plan and the budgeting with that to see if we can
somehow build something sooner than 2029, but then also not put it in jeopardy of being taken out as we do the larger improvement to 111. And so I just wanted to just reiterate that over the next month we'll come back. I'll come
back. uh our consultant will not but looking to answer your questions and see if we've incorporated your comments into a document that can uh be endorsed and so we can go look for money which could move up the priority of things help defay some of the costs for both the
county and eventually uh Breezy Point if the roundabout is the option that we have to go with because crashes and concerns still happen there. So, uh, I'd be happy to answer any other questions. >> I have one additional question. In the
initial meeting, um, the cost share you had mentioned would be 25% for Breezy Point and 25% for Peekquat. Is that still the case or now Breezy has to absorb 50%. Um, I think what I remember is that
there there was a good amount of discussion about how we're going to split the cost for this study and it ended up being 50% Crowing County, 40% the school district and then split 5%. >> That was for the study though. >> That was for the study. >> For the study, but I'm talking about a roundabout,
>> right? It would it would um fall to our cost share policy which essentially everybody pays for their own legs. So, Crowing County beyond 50% Um I would ask that the school also uh pay 25% along with Edgewater Farm be
breezy points responsibly. So that's just a bas that's just a basic starting point. >> Um but but we're not there yet. And so when it's an important distinction that if when and if you're endorsing this report, you're not agreeing to paying
for anything a certain amount. It's just there's a shared concept about how we're going to address this so we don't have to come back five years from now, pay another $80,000 to Jake and his group to re look and rehash it everything. And we can and what that'll do is allow us to
look for money for the interimm solution and possibly the long-term solution if it if it's warranted. You know, if something continues to have crashes there or some bad crashes, we're going to have the plan how to address it. It's going to cost money, but at least we don't have to wait extra time to go
through all this study. Again, >> thanks for clarifying that. That would have been my next question, Tim. So, >> was that Thanks for clarifying it. I mean, I would have asked, you know, for an explanation of that as well. >> Yeah. Each So, when an actual project comes in, you all get another bite at
the apple in terms of what your cost share is and if you agree to that. So just by signing this the findings of this doesn't mean you're locked in to paying at all. As we seek grants and things like that, we may ask for letters of support to make it a robust application. The competition for these
funds is ridiculously um competitive. So, the shared vision of of what we're going to do in the short term and long term will really help improve our chances to find some money that help us all out, help all our budgets out.
>> Thank you. Council member Rooney, did you have any comments? >> Nothing additional to add? No. >> Okay, >> sounds good. Any other questions, comments from the council? All right. Well, we will do that. We'll take a look at it and hopefully be able to come up with something that's a consensus here from our council to share back with the county so that they have an
understanding of where Breezy Point stands. So >> yeah, it could be it could be next month, but I don't think that it's it's imperative that you deal with it next month. We'll take as long as it takes to answer your questions. >> Sounds good. Thanks. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. Thanks for having us.
>> All right, moving on with the agenda. We're at uh item seven, business items. We're going to 7A, resolution number 042026, receiving amended feasibility report for the 2026 street improvement project and
Nick Peterson. >> Good evening, council. Nick Peterson with Woods. Um this resolution uh is for the amendment to the feasibility report that was sent to the city on December 12th. Um, additional information became available regarding the ability to
assess five lots on uh, Bluebird Lane. Um, we had discussion with city staff and adjusted the uh, estimated the total amount of accessible lots and the estimated cost share splitting in the feasibility report. Additionally, uh
after the public, um improvement hearing that we held, uh some public comment became uh available as well as city staff input and uh that led us to incorporate an extension of Piney Way to
the end of the platted rightaway that the city has into the feasibility report. Uh we updated those cost cost estimates as well. >> All right. So basically we're looking at um approving the updated resolution or
amended based on what Nick presented. Are there any questions from the council? >> Any comments? >> For me. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the amended feasibility report as as given? >> So moved. >> I have a motion from council member Ball. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Second from council member Jensen. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. The motion carried. Moving on to 7B. Resolution
number 05-2026. Order improvements and authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 street improvement project. Again, Nick. >> Um, I don't have the resolution in front of me. >> Oh, sorry. I can do that. >> Sorry, Ally.
>> Administrator Popus. >> Sorry. Hold on. Let me scroll back up. Uh well, as part of the 2026 street improvement projects, the next step after we held the public hearings earlier [clears throat] tonight is to officially order the improvements and authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for the 2026 street improvement project. Um this also kind of falls in line with your next action item, which will be the design contract. So, this is just the next steps in the process. >> All right. Are there any questions or comments from council? It's pretty
clear-cut what we're looking at doing here. and we know this is a part of the process. So, do I have a motion then to approve resolution number 05-2026? >> So, moved. >> I have a motion from council member Jensen. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a second from council member Ball.
Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Extensions. The motion carries. And moving on to 7 C. >> [clears throat] >> approved proposal for design and
contract administration of 2026 street improvement projects. Nick, >> uh in front of you is our proposal for the design and construction administration. Um if you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Uh one additional thing
with this proposal, um it was we forgot to include our 2026 fee schedule along with this proposal as well as our general provisions. These are in the other proposal that was in the consent agenda. So, they're in your packet still. They're just not attached
to that specific proposal under uh 7 7 C. So, same general provision, same fee schedule, not attached there. So, if you're missing that any [snorts] additional questions, feel free to let me know. >> Does the council have any questions for
Nick? I think he explained what the piece was there, but it was in the consent agenda, so it was there and improved. >> Great. Well, hearing no other further comments, do I have a motion to approve the proposal for design and contract administration of the 2026 street
improvement projects? >> So move. >> I have a motion from council member Moroni. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from council member Jensen. Further discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I
>> opposed. [clears throat] Extensions. The motion carries. Thank you, Nick and Ally. >> Moving on. Uh 7D, Bushman Road Bond Alternatives discussion. Administrator Puss. >> Yes, thank you. Um, so as you know,
throughout the 2026 budget process, the finance committee and council reviewed options for the 2026 Bushman Road funding, um, and identified a 15-year level levy bond as the preferred option. I put in your packet some considerations at the time. Um, the 15-year level levy
was what was included in the 2026 budget. However, a 10-year bond has been raised as a as a um possible alternative. We've been in contact with Ellers, our bond adviserss, and Janette and I have identified two separate 10-year bond term alternatives as seen
in your packet. Um, some conclusions that we came to or findings of the different alternatives are, um, the 15-year term bond results in the lowest annual levy. The 10-year options benefit from an interest rate uh of
approximately 1% lower, resulting in about half a million in interest savings over the life of the bond. Option two includes just a one-time levy impact of about 100 grand. This is about a 4% increase to the levy next year. So,
that's just kind of baseline what you'd be looking at in 2027, but then it levels off for the rest of the life of the bond. Um, if this option is chosen, I you will likely see a double-digit levy next year. I think it will be hard
to get under that 10% if you just think cost of living, benefits, other items, and then a 4% on top of it. Now, that could be acceptable. Um, that's up to the council, but just letting you know, you'd likely hit double digits next
year. Um, option three includes a 50 or 50 $50,000 increase until 2030. This would equal about a one per 1.5 levy increase per year. Um, and then it levels off
after 2030 for the remainder of the life of the bond. These are all financially viable. Um, our first payment will likely not be until 2027, I think Februaryish. So, we do have time to budget for the different alternatives if we need. Um,
so you guys should discuss and let us know how you'd like to move forward and then we can um proceed with whatever you guys choose with our bond council. >> Thank you, Administrator Pus. Very good explanation. All right, council. You've
got some options in front of you. Hopefully, you've had a chance to review them and look at them. So thoughts >> just one question. The 15-year levy or the 15-year level levy, that one's built into the >> that's what was budgeted for
>> for right now. >> So that's almost like you're starting at ground zero. That that's 0% levy increase next year. >> So option two would be a 4% increase. Option three would be a 1.5% increase for the next five. >> I know we've talked about this for other
projects. I really like like the gradual kind of increase. It helps with planning. So, if we were thinking about going to like a 10-year, I do like which is still quite a bit lower in interest. I do like the gradual approach to it where it would slowly increase and then
we could sort of budget for that a little easier. So, that would be my preference. Um I think would be maybe the 10-year gradual, but >> looking at the three right now. >> Yeah, I guess I would agree with that. I think the interest rate savings
is substantial. Um, I think everybody here, I mean, I know when I started out, we took a 30-year mortgage. We did that for one reason and one reason only, to lower the payment. And I don't necessarily agree with
bonding for 15 years because it's the life of the road. Um I think I mean for a city our size $500,000 of savings in interest is substantial so >> um the question is we've budgeted for
the 15-year where do the funds come you know >> well I think they'd be so if you do the gradual levy >> yeah the gradual >> your budgeted funds would just kind of shift so then your 2028 would be a little lower your 2029 would be a little
lower. So that would be the intention. We wouldn't increase. So the levy would remain at the 305 and then the other ones would decrease slightly. Yeah, because that's already levied for. I mean that was in our budget. >> We'll get that revenue. Um but it' just
be applied differently. >> Council member Moroni. No, I looked at this and uh you know, thinking with my own finances and where you're at with the budget and everything and and taking the gradual step allows the ease of burden, if you would uh to to save up
for that and so that that makes sense uh to me is the 10ear gradual. >> Well, yeah, I mean it it does. Um and I agree. I think the to council member Ball's point, I think it's when you increment it like that and you kind of
know, it's easier to plan and when you budget and you know what that increment is going to be rather than sometimes that other you don't know sometimes and that can change. Uh I think the other thing is that the interest amount is a big thing. And you're right, Council Member Jensen, you spoke very well. Half
a million dollars, you're dang right that's a big big cost savings. um interest rates at a full um not a full percent, pretty close to a full percent less if we go that route. So um I looked all of them as well. And while I know
that if we look at uh the 10-year levy without the increments, the interest is a little lower. I still think that we're better off going that way just because I'm thinking about what we have coming next year, how we budget, how we look at that, and I think
it's a better route to go at the to the the little levels at a time, slow increases. Um, and and we know then that we can we can manage that well. So, I'm kind of on board with the same thought. I'm going with that option through the 10ear gradual levy.
So basically, administrator POS, you're looking for direction from the council as to what direction to go. So I'm I'm kind of hearing the same thing from this council sitting here tonight. So do we need to make some kind of an action here or would we prefer just >> make a motion to direct us to move
forward? >> I would agree. Do I have a motion? >> So move. So, I have a motion by Council Member Rooney to go ahead and have staff pursue the 10-year gradual levy at an estimated interest rate of 3 uh 28% with
that annual living increases over that kind of that one and one and a half% per year. Do I have a second on that motion? >> Second. >> I have a second from council member Jensen. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I opposed. Abstensions. The motion carries. So, you have your direction, uh, Administrator Popo. So, >> great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right. Moving on to item 7E,
parks and recreation ordinance discussion. Administer Povus. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, so at the November meeting, the council directed staff to provide some information regarding a proposed park ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance would be to provide the police department with clear authority to enforce the rules and address any
violations when necessary. Currently, there is an existing public beach ordinance that is enforceable. And then there is a separate code of conduct for our disc golf course and recreation area. Um because the that code of conduct was approved with a resolution,
the police department is not able to um issue any citations for violations when necessary. They just issue warnings and educate. Um, a proposed ordinance would encompass all of the public recreational areas. We I did a little bit of research about
what other cities include in their ordinances, and I've provided a few categories that are consistent throughout all cities, but we can always if there's a category that you think should be on there, should not be on there. You know, I just kind of gathered what I thought was kind of consistent
throughout all of them. Um, if the council wishes to draft an ordinance, the categories included in your packet are identified as options for regulations. The council should discuss the options provided or options not provided and direct staff to either return to a future meeting with
additional information or work with our legal counsel to present an ordinance amendment for review reflecting the council's decision. >> Thank you for the presentation, Administrator POS. So, we've got some uh we've got some things some recommendations in front of us here.
Hopefully, all of you have taken the time to kind of look it over. Um, as you heard administrator PFU, she talked about the fact that she took a look at what other cities do uh to be consistent to give us some some kind of some boundaries or guidelines. So, um I guess
would start just any input from the council thinking about what they see and what they're thinking about. Um, overall I like the ordinance. Um, I do have issue with the category of hours.
Um, if you look at our parks, um, you have the SAD park on Breezy Point Drive. You could have that open 24 hours. It wouldn't make any difference. I mean, nobody uses it. The fishing dock, people go fishing a lot of times early in the morning. There's never been
a problem there. Um the public beach is patrolled regularly by the officers. Um I think those hours are appropriate 10 [cough] to 8. Um for the disc golf
courses um the driving force behind this push for an ordinance really came about because of the once the expansion course opened in my opinion. And I think changing the hours on the
disc golf course from 6:00 a.m. to 10 or 11:00 p.m. or sunrise to sunset or, you know, 6:00 to 9. Currently, they're 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. That's plenty of hours. Um, the police, due to the the
just the way, you know, terrain of that course, you physically I mean, you could walk it, but it's just not feasible. you need the side by side to be able to patrol it. Now, I understand, you know, most cities I understand wanting one,
this is the time that the parks are open, but due to three of them being in residential areas and you know, the disc golf course is noisy, um, I don't think that you can have consistent hours across all parks in my opinion.
>> But, >> yeah, I I'd agree with that, too. I don't there was a reason we sort of had limited hours for the dis golf course and I don't think we should be changing those now. Although it does mean that there would be one park with different hours but I think that's manageable.
Um so I guess I'm in favor of leaving the hours as they are now as well for that. Um, I guess I'd be curious like if there were other things that aren't listed here that maybe I'm not thinking of that were maybe in some other ordinances like
is there like would it be worth like seeing a list of that. I was just thinking like >> you I mean I thought like noise was mentioned like I don't know if there's things like that like like or if the hours would be enough to limit that or should we be talking about like loud
music or things like that. I don't know. I just maybe there's things I'm not thinking of that we would want to consider putting in there, but obviously these are all good. [clears throat] >> Yeah. So, Brian Joe and I met to discuss all this and we had a pretty deep discussion about noise in general and
how it's terribly hard to enforce and I don't know if you want to speak to that at all, Brian. So, [cough] [clears throat] uh, for noise ordinance, and we have one in place now for like construction and stuff, early morning, certain hours, technically you need a decibel meter in order to be able to
enforce those. We don't, we just, you know, obviously go tell people you need to be mindful of the time. You can't start these projects until whatever time in the morning. Um, and then as onto some of the other stuff as well, I don't think we need to bog this down with a
bunch of different possible violations because state statute handles a lot of that. So, if we start getting into disorderly conduct, we're not going we're not going to issue a city ordinance violation. That'll be a state citation. >> Okay. >> Um, we already have the alcohol ordinances. Um, and some of our current
ordinances cover the parks as well. So, um, you know, I don't >> Okay, >> I think we have a a pretty good, um, grasp on what's needed out there. And I think that's in that proposed ordinance now. >> And I [clears throat] think that was,
you know, why we wanted to pull the calls, like what are we getting calls about and how do we address those calls, not what new calls could we possibly get that we maybe have to address, you know? So, I think that was kind of where we came up with these is to keep it simple,
keep it what what are we having issues with right now and how do we hopefully, you know, curb those issues. >> Not just the random one. >> I think also as part of this, it's a separate issue, but it kind of ties into this discussion that, you know, in March
of 2024, the sidebyside was approved. It's primarily for search and rescue, but it was, you know, there was mention of the equipment being used for extra patrol hours on the disc golf course, you know, community policing, um, things
like that. That was budgeted for with overtime. And I think at the time, what was it? It was the intent was to fund an additional 15 patrol shifts at 8 hours for 120 hours total aimed at golf cart and park
patrol. >> But I think we need to keep that discussion, you know, have that discussion again because it is important and it's it's up to resources that Chief Sandell has. I mean, that's what he can provide because it's on an overtime basis. So, he can't guarantee. But I
think it's important with the amount of calls we've had on the disc golf courses specifically the expansion with two years only that there is some type of patrol but there's also I think the and Chief Sandell you know can comment on
this as well that community policing is very is embraced in this community with the officers out on the side by side you know in neighborhoods and they do a good job of it you know not you you know, being in the four by side by side, just
out on their regular patrols. But I think it's a discussion that we need to make sure things are getting, you know, patrolled in the parks. Um I reported a violation at the park this November here at city hall. I mean, they damaged um
the picnic tables. They were dragged out into the fields. Um the individuals seem to have a good time throwing away throwing around the poop bags and things like that which Officer Garcia and myself cleaned up. Um and it happens and
Officer Garcia mentioned that you know long-term the city should look at cameras and you know lighting too but that's another discussion is it's expensive. But at least the patrol part I think needs to be part of the conversation.
>> And I don't disagree with that, but I would say that's a separate piece. So I think we need to keep that separate from what we're looking at right now. So I'm I'm in agreement with what you're talking about with as far as the patrols, but I think >> it's in tandem with the ordinance, but
it's separate, right? Okay. Just so we're clear on that. Council member [laughter] >> of course. I apologize. [snorts] Um, I liked everything I saw. I liked everything that has been talked about.
Um, I I I kind of agree you can't, as much as it would be nice to blanket the hours, I think the use cases and locations are different and therefore warrants the different timings. Um, so I think that still can be amended per per
location on on what we see is fit there. Um, otherwise I liked everything. The biggest thing would be to to sign it um to to make sure that these these ordinances and and rules and regulations are are visible to anybody visiting. You
know, if if we put a um example, the beach has the hours posted um at the entrances, making sure if anything is uh set for hours, those are posted at every single entrance. You know, the park here, we have three or four at different access points to it. uh making sure that
that's well known or at least there's a central spot that people can have ease of access and find that information. >> Yeah, sorry I didn't touch on that in the review, but yeah, Joe and I >> the memo about signs and so so I think that's just the biggest thing is that we need to make sure that all access points
can be properly signed of of what our rules and regulations and ordinances are. >> And I would agree with that 100%. And I think it goes even beyond just stating the hours. I would go so far as that that signage includes all the different rules
>> because I've been to other parks and it's literally it's there. I mean, every one of them. Yes, no alcohol is allowed. That it goes right down the list because if you don't have it there, then they think it's they it's allowed. So, I think, you know, that's how people kind of think it's unfortunate, but I think
that's the way it goes. As far as the hours, if I if I heard what you said right, currently right now, the hours that are set for the disc golf course were made through a resolution, so they're uninforceable. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, basically, we could take the hours that were in that resolution and supplement them into the ordinance.
>> Correct. >> While they would be different from the other ones, they would be there, which then would allow our enforcement to be able to enforce it if it was being violated. >> Yep. So, you just have a separate >> Yep. >> Yes. Okay. I just I I just was curious about that. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I didn't
have any problems with everything that was listed. I think those are the most common things you have. And then I also hear that, you know, you've talked about the other things that you don't have to have listed because we have it covered in other areas. So, it may not be in here, but there's something else that we've got out there, state statute,
that's going to cover us if it's in that situation or comes about. So, and I like the idea of of KISS, meaning keep it simple um and straightforward. I think the less complicated you can make it, the better off you're going to be. >> Um, because it needs to be
straightforward. Um, so yeah, I mean I other than, you know, probably including definitely including the hours for the disc golf course and making that different and having a category in there for it. Um, and then making sure that if we're going to do this, it really gets
signed and then have the ability that and then ultimately at the end of the day there's a further conversation about what we want to do as far as how do we then go about helping enforcement to do their job and I think that's where you're talking about and that's where it becomes a different statement and that's working with Chief Sandell and the
department and our administrator and understanding what the resources are and what we can do and what we can't do and maybe there's other opportunities that we can take advantage of out there too that we don't know about yet. So, um, [snorts] so basically, we need to give staff some direction. Now, there's a couple
different things we can do. We can just have them go back and do some more research, or we can actually have them start the process of drafting an ordinance. Now, I can put that in a form of a motion to make it official, which I think we should do um, so that it's on record, but it's up to the council what
direction they want to go. So, >> I would agree with making the motion, having them start on the ordinance because spring comes quick. >> Yep. I agree. >> And if there's an issue and there has to be a rewrite, we want this in place, you know, by April. I would
>> Well, and it's going to require a public hearing because it's an ordinance as well. So, we have that to put in there as well. Not to speak of all the other things I know we've got going on coming up. So, all right. So, if that's what you'd like to do, then we do need a motion to follow through on that. Is there anybody that wants to make the
motion to address the staff to go ahead and start the drafting of a park ordinance with the amendments? >> I'll make that motion. >> I have a motion from council member Ball. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a second from council member Jensen. Again, this is to have the staff
move forward with taking the current park ordinance, drafting it with amendments to it based on what the discussion was on tonight, working with legal, and then bringing it back to the council for further action. >> [snorts] >> Is there any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor
signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. All right, Administrator Pus. >> Thank you. Um, so I would I would love to get this back to you guys in February. We'll see how fast I can get
back from legal, but we'd like to get start on the signage too before the summer. So, >> fine. >> We will we will work on it. >> You you you got the march in order. So, >> yes, I do. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Um 8 on the agenda is department
departmental updates 8A. City administrator PFO. >> Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to update you guys kind of per was it in our December meeting? I can't I can't even remember. Um short-term rentals, we've received 12 applications so far this year. Um, we'll be bringing that back in
March for review per the council's direction. So, we should have that ready. I will be sending out a request for quotes for a sewer rate study that was in your guys's budget last year. So, hopefully that's coming up this spring as well. And then just a reminder, we
have our strategic planning session on the 3rd from 5 to 8 p.m. >> February 3rd. >> February 3rd, 5 to 8. >> And you'll send us a reminder, right? I will send reminders, don't you worry. Yes. And then um Nick did include some
information in your packet. But that's all we had. And then Todd and I talked about including council reports as a part of the updates as well. So >> yeah. So we'll Yeah. So, as we go through starting probably next meeting, if you attend a committee meeting,
whether it's parks, roads, planning, and zoning, I'll be looking for you guys, fire to make a report back to uh the council so they can kind of get a feel for what's going on. I know we used to do that, but I'd like to get back to that because I help I think it helps us stay engaged with what the committees
are doing and and give that. So, uh I know parks is meeting on the 8th. I'll be attending that meeting. So, I'll have a report in February on that. We'll be reviewing the master plans. >> Just as a side note to the short-term rentals, um when I was reviewing the minutes, um one of the individuals that
spoke um was worried and losing sleep over inspections. I the address was listed. I looked it up and the home was built in 2022. So that was inspected by our building inspectors. There should be no issue
with inspection. So, I think um you kind of have to look at it case by case as to the concerns. You know, an individual with an old cabin up on the hill, you know, there's some could be issues there. You know, look at grandfathering.
But, um I just think the way the inspection was written and just sent out, you know, caused a lot of the confusion. Well, I I would think what we do is just let staff do their work, have them come back to us with their stuff,
and then we'll go from there. I don't, you know, we there's lots of different ways for us to get to where we need to go. So, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm just saying I think staff's got it in hand. They've been working on it and I know they'll bring some stuff back to us that I think we're
going to come away with something that's going to work for everybody. And you know, at the end of the day, I've always said this, you can't make everybody happy all the time. There's just no way to do it. And so, at the end of the day, we're going to do what we can do for the best of majority, but we also have to take watch out for the city as well.
That's part of our responsibility. So, I think that's where we get in with the short-term rentals, but we'll I know staff has been working on it and putting some time in us. They're going to have some stuff to bring back to us, and I think the things you're concerned about will be addressed. So, I think >> was more actually a concern, just an
observation that um you know, a home built in 2022 that's been fully inspected. I find it hard to believe that there's any inspection that we could do that would fail. >> I I think it's important too that we remember that as we work on this short-term rental piece is that it's
city's responsibility to make sure this is safe. And I don't want to go back and re go back over what we did the last meeting, but you know, um I'm not beholden to a VBO fivestar rating that in my mind that has nothing to do with
what we're responsible for. And I think that's where some of the clarification needs to come in and just get everybody on the same page. And I think we can do that. So I'm not overly worried about it. And I know staff's got it well in hand. So I'm looking forward to see what they bring back to us. So good point.
All right. So, city engineer Nick Pearson just gave us some information. So, we have that. Thank you, Nick, for providing that. We appreciate that. Um, and other than that, I am to item nine, which is adjourn. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.
>> I have a motion from council member Jensen. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a second from council member Ball. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. This meeting is adjourned at 7:35 p.m.