It is 6 o'clock. We will call a Tuesday, July 28th, 2026, Fable City Council to order. First item is a roll call. Heather, >> council member Barnes >> here. >> Here, Ross >> here. Rowan >> here. >> Here,
Mayor Spooner >> here. Second is pledge of allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Item number two is approval of tonight's agenda. >> So move. >> Second. Motion by Duoya, second by Barnes. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All oppose. Agenda is approved. >> Presentations and introductions. We have
none. Approval of the minutes of 2000 of July 14th, 2026 and July 14th, 2026 special meeting close session. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Ran, seconded by Ross. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> I. Opposed. as most are passed. Requests to be heard. We have one tonight. You have three minutes at the podium. Please come forward. State your name and address. Mike Cross. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is
Mike Cross, 1412 Street Northeast, Fairbolt. I'm a dad. I'm a citizen. And as of two weeks ago, I'm going to be a candidate for the school board. I ran two years ago off common sense. And I'm just going to give a little
common sense to you guys. These guys here want answers on what's going on with the data center. I know you don't have them all, but you got some. Get from behind where you're at now. get with these people in a town hall where there's no Robert's rules of order
and and talk to them and get them to feel comfortable. You went to them when you got voted in. Now they want answers from you and they're not getting them. You're hiding behind behind stuff there. Thank you for your time. >> You
on to item number six, consent agenda items. Would anybody like anything pulled? >> Yes, mayor. I would like to pull uh items 6F and 6 I. I'll second. Let's go ahead and approve 6 A through
6E GH J through Q. >> So moved. >> Moved by Barnes. Second. Second by R. All those in favor of that signify by saying I. >> I. >> All opposed.
>> All right. Mr. Ross, resolution 2026-209 it. What would you like a question? >> Um, let's go to uh let's go to I first. The uh >> I All right. >> Uh water meter. That'll be a simple one. Um it says in there that we've been
replacing these for two years and there's already some bad. Are the ones going bad within two years old? I will uh have public works director Block talk about this. >> Uh thank you, mayor, members of the
council. The ones that we're replacing are ones that were not originally placed as part of when we started this process. They're not ones that are going bad. They're just ones that we did not get to when we started the project. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're replacing old ones. It's not >> correct. Yep. We're just trying to finish up the last six. Got it.
>> No more questions on that one. Mayor, >> can we get a motion on that one? >> I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda item six. >> I second >> by Ross. Second by
>> I. >> All opposed. >> All right. What's your question? >> Uh 6F uh for the approval of the IT services contract. I feel this is a a fairly big topic. Um, it's a new topic that we don't that you
know we haven't had a lot of experience with. So, I'd like to move this to a work session. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I have a motion and a second by Ross, seconded by Ron to move this to a work session. All
>> I >> I >> All opposed. Hold that one till next week. Uh the next work session will be on I think there will be a special work session potentially on the 12th or the 18th of August.
>> Right. All right. We're done with consent agenda items. Thank you. Public hearings. We have none. Items for discussion. Resolution 2026-210 uh amending the internal loan for Vioaduct Park Kendra.
Good evening, mayor and members of the council. Uh this this is an item that we um have been discussing. It's as high as it goes. We've been discussing now for several months. Um the Videuct Park internal
loan was originally issued um with estimates based on what we believe the franchise fees would be coming in for for that parkland fund. Uh we have a couple years of history now showing that we are historically getting about $560,000.
And so we're proposing extending the term of that loan from uh 10 years to 15 years um so that the repayment schedule fits those franchise fee receipts. Um I've also proposed reducing the uh terms
of the interest rate on that loan from 5% to 4.25% 2.5% which is the highest interest rate that we're receiving on any of the city investments at this time and that is what that loan could be invested in the market at at this time.
>> Thank you, mayor. Um I believe you answered my question, but um I was wondering about lowering the interest rate but extending out the uh payback period. That's just to lower the overall total payment. >> Uh yeah, exactly. The recalculation exercise was really to say the thing
that we know is that we will have 560,000 in franchise fees for debt service and this is the schedule that allows us to make those payments. >> Do we have do we have any idea from the
parks department? I mean um will will these assets last 15 years without us having to replace them? you know, the obviously the building. Let's let's assume that. Well, but you know, the splash pad, I mean, are we going to have to rebuild this thing in eight years or
[clears throat] >> I think I'm sure our assets match our >> There's going to be some components, but on a $6.3 million project, you'll you'll have some components that won't have a useful life that end up being capitalized as part of the project. But the main components, the construction,
the earthwork, um the splash pad. Yeah, we're looking at uh I think building is 50 years on our um >> Yeah, the building on buildings. [clears throat] >> And I think 20 on the like the recreation piece of it. And I see Mark in the back shaking his head. It
shouldn't be a problem. The life of the assets. >> All right. Satisfies me. Thank you. Sure. >> So, the interest rate that you're proposing, that's the lowest we could go by law, or is that just your recommendation? >> We could go lower. Um, but when I when I
picked that rate, I picked the most recent bonds that we invested city assets into and matched that rate. So, if we didn't have the loan from the sewer fund, I could I could get that loan. The sewer fund could get that
return by investing in bonds. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Other questions, >> Mayor Spooner? >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-210. >> Second. >> Motion by Ros, second by Vance Loose.
All those in favor of resolution 2026. >> I All opposed. All passes. On item B, Cavalry Hill Commons vacation preliminary and final platinum variance planning manager Harry Davis.
>> Thank you, mayor, and good evening, council. The um project in front of you is for Calvary Hill Commons. It's at 3105 Highway 60 West. Um the applicant is is Tim Peterson.
He's the surveyor on the project on behalf of Jeff Jandro of Jeff Jandro Properties LLC. Um the location is approximately 3105 uh Highway 60 West. It's where the uh soon to be old KGP
office is uh sort of in that area and surrounding Calvary Cemetery. Um, it's a preliminary and final plat, a rideway vacation, and a variance. Um, here's where the property is in relation to different parts of Farbo. And then
here's more of a zoomed in, um, aerial of the property. So, it does include what will soon be the old KGP office. Um, but it includes a number of properties that have not yet been developed. the three requests in front of you. The
first one is to vacate some existing uh partially constructed rightways. So, Calvary Drive is partially constructed as it goes past the cemetery, but it's not constructed going all the way to uh I35, but its rideway goes all the way to
I35. So, it would be um vacating the uh rideway that's not used um which would then be replatted as a part of the preliminary and final plat process. So that part of the process uh does include replatting three parcels into five
buildable lots, two storm water lots and then three outlots for future development. And then the third uh proposal in front of you is for variance. So um our our maximum deadend
street length for a new road is 650 ft. They're asking for 250 ft. So that variance is somewhere around 1,400 feet. Here is the vacation area. So it's it's constructed most of the way. It's just
this last part uh which will then be replplatted uh into a new version of Calvary Drive with the plat. Uh on the left hand side is the final plat. So, um, all of the properties that are on the northern, uh, I would say
half of this plat area, those are all either existing developed, uh, particularly the soon to be old KGP office. Um, and then proposed to be developed as a part of this plat, this uh, phase of the plat C, all lot D, and
lot E. Um, there's a weird part with outlot E where it actually uh, leaprogs. uh I35 and so that's actually um on the other side of the interstate. So that uh will be an unbuildable lot until someone
can buy it and bring it into their property as a part of their development. But outlot C and outlot D, those would be future phases of this Calvary Hill Commons area. On the right hand side is just how I'm measuring the variance
distance. So, it goes all the way from 38th uh all the way along Calvary Drive uh to the proposed end of Calvary Drive where there will be a temporary turnaround in the future. The idea is that that street would then be extended
even further to go down south. Um so, just you know, trying to trying to help you guys understand that in terms of the vacation, there are no issues with this. Uh the road's going to be replatted. Um there are no concerns other than just making sure that some
existing infrastructure ends up in a drainage and utility easement for the preliminary and final plat. It does meet all of our requirements for zoning as well as the comprehensive plan. And then the variance itself um this actually has a practical
difficulty. um for a street like this. Even on our comprehensive plan is as as well as our highway 60 master plan, we show a connection of Calvary Drive going through the properties uh where it's proposed today going all the way to the
south and eventually uh coming to a second connection point either uh just a little bit farther down into the southeast or going all the way out to uh the the far west. So this is this is
sort of as as expected. It's on our comprehensive plan as well as our as well as our master plan. Uh the fire chief does support the variance. He doesn't feel like that there will be any concerns uh providing emergency services to the end of the street. Um so you know
at least from staff's point of view it does meet our comprehensive plan and zoning requirements. Planning commission did vote unanimously in support and there was no public comment at the planning commission meeting. So the three items in front of you um the first one is to uh recommend
approval uh of the ordinance. So that would be the vacation. Second one would be the resolution to approve the preliminary and final plat. And then the last one would be a uh resolution to approve the variance.
With that, I'm happy to take questions. >> Thank you, mayor. Um the uh road concerning the variance that's going to be a public road not a private road. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. Mayor >> that's loose was up. Uh what's the reasoning for the standard 650 ft for a
dead end road? Why why is that amount that length chosen by default? >> Right. So you're asking why is it limited to 650 ft? Yeah. So there are a number of things uh that that kind of get baked into that. Part of that is the
idea that if you had a number of lots that were on a dead-end street, there's a maximum in terms of fire code, uh, where they feel comfortable, uh, I've seen fire chiefs say anywhere between 30 and 40 lots. If you have a 650 foot long road, you would be able to fit a bunch
of residential lots on that. Um, and so you might get close to 30. Uh, fire code would then kick in anyway. But really, uh, I think what I'm trying to get at is that the 650 is is pretty close to what we would imagine, uh, would be the limitations anyway of what fire code
would say is, you know, any more than this. Uh, it's not safe. We don't feel like uh, from the fire uh, department standpoint that they can easily get back there in case there was an emergency. >> And is there going to be a culde-sac or a turnaround point at the end of the road? There'll be a temporary one and
then eventually in future phases where they'll extend it, there'll end up being a uh probably another temporary one until the rest of that Highway 60 master plan area on the south side can be built out. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, this is just going to be
conventional housing, not high density. >> No, it and I do apologize. This is a commercial and industrial subdivision. So this is in compliance with our comprehensive plan and our highway 60 master plan which both identify industrial and commercial in this
location. >> Do we know what his intent is? Are we going to get yet another place to put storage units? >> Uh I think the uh initial uses that are interested in this area would uh one of them would be um car sales and I think
another one would be a hotel. I believe the applicant is here and can speak to uh some of the intent behind having the subdivision now, but those are some of the initial uses that I know of. >> Okay. All right. I'm good with that. Thank you. [clears throat]
>> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-10. >> Second. >> Motion by Ross, second by Barnes. This is an ordinance and will require a roll call. Council member Barnes. >> Hi. >> Tumba.
>> Hi. >> Ross. >> Hi. >> Rowan. >> Hi. >> Vince. >> Hi. >> Mayor Spooner. >> I. That ordinance is passed. Resolution 2026-211, the preliminary and final plots. >> Mayor Spooner.
I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-211. >> Second. >> Motion by Vance, second by Barnes. All in favor of the resolution signify by saying I. I. All opposed. Resolution
passed. Resolution 2026-212 >> owner. >> Yes. >> Make a motion to approve solution 2026-2. >> Second. >> Motion by Duoya, second by Barnes. All those in favor of the resolution signify by saying I. >> I.
>> All oppose. That motion is also passed. On item C, resolution 2026-213, approval of a conditional use permit. Once again, Harry Davis. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh, so this next item in front of you is for a
residential care facility at 3015 Cardinal Avenue. So, the applicant for this is Michael McHugh and this is on behalf of Midwest Recovery um with the consent of the property owner Patrick Cashion or Rick Cashin. Um, again, the
location is uh 3015. I apologize for the typo there. Cardinal Avenue, and it's a residential care facility for 32 patients. Um, here's where the property is in relation to different parts of Farbo. So, it's the um it's the northern uh
interchange for I35. Um, here's the property in an aerial. So, of the two apartment complexes, if you were to visit it today, it's the northern apartment complex that is proposed to be this residential care facility. Um, the apartment complex was
built very recently um within the past uh 3 years, I believe. And so, the request by the applicant is to allow a 32 patient uh residential care facility um for Midwest Recovery.
they uh have uh addiction recovering uh uh services and this would be in an existing multifamily structure. Um it should be noted that as a part of this request uh they're only asking for this now just because there are changes at
the state level. They have actually been using this location as a residence for uh their patients for the last two years uh without really any complaints uh from from from staff's knowledge. um the it's just changes in terms of rules at the
state level that now require them to get this conditional use permit. So that's just some context um within the broader discussion. Um here is actually the site plan that was approved for uh what was
then a multif family structure, what is now proposed to be the the residential care facility. They do have adequate parking for um this particular use. None of the patients will have their own cars. That will be a policy. Um and it can be a condition as a part of this
conditional use permit. Um but really they have adequate parking. Uh they do plan to share some uh garbage facilities with the adjoining property uh which is also owned by uh Rick Cashion. And then here's the proposed project um
both in terms of what it was proposed like in terms of the elevation and then what it would be uh what it is today. um no changes proposed to the outside of the structure. So it will remain uh in for all intents and purposes uh in terms
of appearance, it'll remain as a multifamily looking structure. The conditional use permit uh from staff's point of view, we do feel like um that this actually does meet our zoning and comprehensive plan uh requirements. There's adequate parking.
uh they are dealing with trash and um we've had no complaints on this particular use uh since they've moved in about two years ago. So we do feel like it it meets the comprehensive plan and our zoning requirements and the planning commission did vote unanimously to support the project. Um no public
comment was received at that time and uh the only uh recommendation or the or the only motion today would be the resolution to approve the requested conditional use permit. And with that, I'm happy to take questions. >> Mr. Davis, thank you. Was I reading this
correctly? It looked like the clientele numbers were actually were going down and it and if that's so, was that based on the new state um up ordinance that the state had passed? >> Uh Mr. Mayor, I I'm I'm not an expert in
terms of the state laws regarding residential care facilities, so I don't know if that's a requirement from that. I know that there was a lot of discussion initially trying to make sure that they had uh adequate parking for this use at this location. And so I
think that them actually reducing the number of patients on site is probably trying to make sure they can accommodate additional parking if they need it. um without trying to impact or or without resulting in some sort of impact on that multif family structure to the
south. >> Okay. And that's where I was confused because it sounds like the clientele aren't allowed to have vehicles, >> correct? >> So, I just needed clarity on that. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Okay. um the cup that the state ordinance had passed. I was reading that
there's certain things the city then will be allowed to do such as the city could stop in and and do an inspection or if there was a planning concern we could freely freely go to that property not necessarily in it but to the property and look at it. Um
do you know how long the cup will be? Is this a one year or a two-year? So, this this conditional use permit that we're granting here would actually run with the land as long as this use is uh at at the property. Um, as soon as the use
goes away, say uh Midwest Reovery decides, hey, we're going to pull our people out, we're going to move to a different location, and then it goes back to say being a multif family structure, then they would lose that conditional use permit at that time because it would switch back to a permitted use. So, this this this runs
with the land. In terms of the uh licensing requirements from the state, again, I'm not an expert. I don't know if they have people check in every year. Um, my thought is that they probably do. >> Thank you for the clarity. Um, it sounds
like there will be potential expansion, which is great. So, thank you, >> Mr. Davis. Didn't we actually approve this like across the street like four years ago? new to finances. Not correct.
>> Yes. Yes. Very similar. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, I'll entertain a motion. >> Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> And make a motion to approve resolution 2026-213. >> Second. >> Motion by Barn, seconded by Vance on
resolution 2026. >> Signify by saying I. >> All opposed. That passes resolution 2026 214 approval of a variance. Once again, Harry Davis, this is your night.
>> I promise this is the last time. Um [laughter] uh thank you, mayor and councel. So this um this proposal in front of you is actually for a fence variance. Um the owner of the property is a Geneo Turkey store. So, this is sort of going around
their property and the applicant is Michael Stabin on their behalf. Um, you know, it's the Jenny Turkey store. I'm not going to go into exactly where that is. You know, here's the location map in terms of uh in relation to different parts of Farbo. Um, here's the property
in question. And so the request by the applicant is to actually have a 8-ft tall fence that would go uh up to the property line but then all around the entire three parcels that you see are
highlighted uh on this on this image. Um the requirement within code is that if you are in a front setback with your fence uh even in a industrial setting you cannot be higher than 4 feet. So the
variance would actually be for 4 feet to go up to 8 feet. Um here's the area that uh I've determined would actually be the front of the property. Uh this is kind of a a weird property in terms of it has
maybe what you might consider a few different parts where you would enter it, what could be fronts. Um, but this is in staff's perspective, uh, the interpretation as to what would be the front and it would be along 7th Avenue. Um, as it kind of snakes past,
uh, South Alexander Park and then as it connects to 13th Street Northwest, um, it would be that entire frontage. Here's what the fence would look like in different sections. So on the left would be the primary fence that you would see
go around most of the property. Uh it would be utilizing uh these these slats uh that would go within the chain link fence. Um that's more of a concern regarding um uh just the sightliness of
uh frankly processing animals for consumption. Um that's their consideration in terms of having those slats. The other part of it is actually safety and security. Um the fence by itself is supposed to be uh addressing
safety and security for um the uh facility as well as uh a requirement from the FDA. on the right hand side uh is actually as you get farther along towards the west um there is flood plane
and we've determined that uh through engineering review uh with uh concurrence from the city engineer that having a um chainlink fence does not constrict uh any water flow. So in the
case that there could be any flooding in this area within that flood plane, um the fence would not restrict anything. So that deals with some some uh worries that the DNR had about this particular variance. Um we do think that this request does
demonstrate practical difficulty. Um it's a piece of critical infrastructure, food infrastructure for uh the nation. Um the FDA does mandate that there be some security and safety for uh infrastructure like this. So we do
completely understand why having the fence is necessary. Um there are limitations to the site itself where if they were to set it back it would cause some issues. Uh putting a fence in the middle of their parking lot doesn't
really make sense. Um, so we do feel like having a fenced in property even all the way to the property line makes sense for a industrial use. So from staff's point of view, we do feel like it meets our comprehensive plan and zoning requirements. Um, planning
commission did uh vote four to two in support of the request. those that descented uh wanted to see a more decorative fence, particularly um when it becomes adjacent to South Alexander Park as well as when it gets a little bit closer to the homes on the north
side. Uh we did not receive any public comment at the meeting or before then. Um with that, uh staff and the planning commission recommend that city council approve the resolution for this variance. And with that, I'm happy to
answer questions. >> Mr. Ran, >> I fully support this. We went through quite the battle in 2016 and 2017 to get the south side of this buttoned up like they agreed to in 1988
and decided not to do until we said do it. So, this is good. This is something that the homeowners in the area wanted for a long time. I applaud staff for getting it done. >> Barnes. >> Yeah, Mr. Davis, I did see that two um
planning commissioners that suggested the privacy fence, and I respect that, I I absolutely understand where they were going with it. But the more and you touched on it, the more I thought about it, if there is a flood, a privacy fence isn't going to make it. And it's also good for air flow to have that um chain
link fence. My question is, typically when there's those plastic slats for privacy, they get real junky very quickly. um if they break, if they snap off, if they need replacement, most times you don't see that being done. Is there any way that we can hold that
accountable? Would that be an ordinance or what would that be? >> Uh Mr. Mayor, so the the screening is something that they have offered. Uh you know, generally we do require screening between industrial properties and
residential properties. So we might be able to say at least in the cases where um it's across the street from residential properties that hey you need to maintain your screening. So there are provisions within code. Um the other part that I might look at would actually
be code compliance making sure that your fence is wellmaintained which is a requirement under our codes. So, you know, I think that there are probably two ways that we can approach it. Whether it's screening for adjacent uses or making sure that your property is wellmaintained.
>> If we were to do a provision within the code, is that something we can do today? >> Stipulation. You mean >> like a condition >> instead of code enforcement having them do this just having that stipulation put in.
Uh yeah, you know, I could see a condition of approval perhaps being added to the resolution. Um you know, I think maybe at that point, um I would wonder, do we need to go back as as staff to add it in there to make sure
that the language is is correct before we before we move forward? Um, is that >> if if we have a good understanding in the council, >> okay, >> do we need approval or how does that
work? >> Make it in your motion. >> Okay. I make a motion to amend uh resolution 2026-214 to include the provision to the code. Is that how you want me to word it?
>> Um, you can state the sentence. Would you state what you'd like and I I got this. State what you'd like to have in this >> to include that the slats u remain clean and an orderly condition to the fence. >> I'll second.
>> All right. Motion by bar on a question. >> Um no. I'm just making a statement. I think I would vote no on her motion. the way she has worded it. I don't feel that that is an advantage moving it into a specific property as opposed to just
keeping ordinance when we have two means through our ordinances of enforcing this. So, this property has a history, a documented history, if you go back and look at the old city council meetings of
agreeing to things and not following through. So, I don't think her point is ill advised. And I al if I may >> and I also >> I don't know what that meant, but go ahead. >> Thank you. I agreed, Mr. uh Rowan and
also I think code compliance or code ordinance um sometimes is inundated. We aren't able to keep up and plus we're hiring that out of house. It's not in-house service right now. So it'll just add to the costs. This will keep them accountable. It's it's in the
contract. It's an easy thing in my mind. >> No, I mean I think you were part of those discussions when we had all that issue. So, do you understand what she's saying? She's just simply saying, "Look, instead of tying up all the staff time, we'll just make it a stipulation of this
approval process." I No, I fully understand her her intent, and her intent is is uh well intended. Let's put it that way. I just I just uh feel that it's covered through our ordinances and we don't need to add
it to a specific resolution. But I don't and I want to just make that statement so that when I vote no, I mean I have a feeling it's going to approve anyway. But if it doesn't, my approval, my disapproval is only based on her changes to this resolution. And I would
like to see it come back if that were to happen. But I don't think it's >> um I think it would be easier if um if we are removing wings from the ordinance than you know putting [clears throat] in a fresh sentence
cuz we already went through this before coming here and trying to inject I think uh that's a little bit complicated. We when you say we already went through this do you mean?
>> No like no like reading the package before coming from thing and yeah >> but this is coming from the planning um committee and it's reaching us now so it's our turn to vote on it. >> So what's this specific sentence that
you want to be and where should be under which paragraph you want it to be injected? That's above my pay grade, [laughter] >> but I would suggest that it be added. >> Just just so be clear, >> we have here is a variance from 4T.
>> You added a stipulation to just say that had to be kept up. >> Correct. I mean, that's in the ordinance. I'm going to vote in favor of this just because I don't want to stall this out and just have a simple fence that one of our major businesses in town brought
forward and they proposed this. So, I'm going to vote in favor because I hate to see this go down and then we start from scratch. >> Yes. >> It would go in section two as item four. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Then, um I'm in favor.
>> Yep. So, Mr. Ros, I certainly understand where you're coming from, too. But a simple fence variance as here. Okay. I have a motion by Barnes, second by Ran with the agenda of keeping
it up in shape. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> All opposed. >> Nate. >> Motion passes. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Resolution 2026-220, order improvements and plans for
citywide tree program. Mark Duchain, director of engineering. >> Thank you, Mayor Spooner, members of the council. Yeah. >> So, Council Member Barnes made a motion to amend the resolution. Now, you need to vote on the resolution as amended. >> Oh, okay.
>> I think that makes the most sense. It could be read both ways, but I I think the city minister was correct on this. Yes. >> And we'll make it Martins as amended. >> Seconded by Ron. >> Correct. >> So, it's a new This is a new make a motion to approve. >> To approve.
>> Yep. Yeah. I make a motion to approve. >> Second >> as amended. Motion by Ross. >> No. >> Motion by R. Second by [laughter] >> Barnes. >> Over off a fence ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> All opposed.
>> Nay. It's incredible. >> We're on to resolution 2026-220. Approval and plans for bids. Mr. Mark Duche, director of engineering. Please, please keep it simple for me tonight. [laughter] >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Uh before you tonight is year
two of the citywide tree removal program. We did this first of all last year in 2025. Um we're back again this year. This year we had 73 properties respond to the interest out on the internet and on the city website um for a total of 154 trees to be removed. A
reminder these are voluntary assessments where the city will put out a contract for the tree removal. We'll get bids for each tree to be removed. Uh once we have those bids, we will put together a voluntary assessment agreement for each of the property owners and then at that time they can elect either move forward with the project or decline and find a
way to remove the trees on their own. Uh the benefit of doing it through the city program is that we fund all the upfront cost to have the trees removed and then we specially assess the cost for the removal to each property owner over a 5-year term at an interest rate that'll be set in the fall based on where our current bonding rates are at that time.
Uh so if there's any questions, I'd certainly answer them. One reminder, this is one of two programs this year. We will be back probably in the first meeting in August with the relief grant program. That was a program for incomequalified residents to have their trees removed, their stumps grinded, and
new trees planted through a grant through the DNR. Um, so the folks that are in this contract tonight did not qualify for that relief program. So with that, uh, we are asking approve resolution 2026220. >> Questions?
Mayor Spooner. >> Yes. >> I make a motion to approve resolution 226-220. >> Second. >> Oh, 20226-220. >> I still second it. [laughter] >> Motion by Ross, second by Vance Loose. All those in favor of resolution
2026-220 signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All oppose. That motion passes. Thank you very much everybody. Bids tonight we have none. Boards, commission reports, announcements. Anybody have anything? Administrator Kins or
>> Yes, just to clarify some schedule changes coming up. Um, this next Tuesday is National Night Out, so there will not be a work session. Uh, there will also not be a special work session on Wednesday, August 5th. The following week, Tuesday, August 11th, is primary
day. So, there will not be a regular council meeting on Tuesday, August 11th. Our regular council meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 12th at 6 PM here in council chambers. Um the other thing to point out is August 12th would be when we'd have our monthly council chat.
We are cancelling that because of having the city council meeting that night. So there will be no August council chat. The next council chat will be September 9th at Central Park 5 to 6:00 p.m. as an open office hours. Come and chat.
Uh, administrator, I didn't even get the first calendar change put in. So, would you please just email that out? >> Yep. We will do that. >> Thank you. >> Um, so I received a sad news this
morning from back home. I lost my first cousin. So, um, maybe I don't know yet how we do that, but I'm thinking about having one. But that could change too because I'm in
communication with the >> Yeah, I would let her know. We would keep in touch um in case of anything. >> No problem. >> Boards commission. >> Introduce Shade. Would you like to chime in here? >> If if you'll give me the moment, mayor. Uh we are beginning the planning process
for reconstructing 7th Street Northwest from Central Avenue to Heillet Avenue. This is tendedly scheduled for an early 2030 time frame, but we're starting now so that we can get a geometric layout configuration selected as well as give us enough time to pursue outside funding for what will be a significant project.
Um, we are hosting two popup neighborhood engagement events. We will be at the community center for night toite and we'll also be in Central Park um that Thursday after the pet parade. Well, during and after the pet parade, if residents want to come by, see some early construction boards, provide input on Seventh Street. We understand the
importance of that road to the city as a whole. It's more than just a neighborhood road. So, um, we invite folks to come out. There's also a spot on our city website if you're unable to attend to provide feedback through a link and a form there. >> Perfect. Rowan, >> are you going to get rid of the bridge?
Because I'm sure that's what everyone wants to know. >> At this time, we're soliciting input for all options and ideas for the project. Well put. You betcha. Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion by ran, second by Duoya to
adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> All opposed.