Good afternoon. It's 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026. We'll call the city council meeting of the city of New to order. First item is the consent agenda. Councilors, what are your wishes? >> Move. Second. >> Thank you. >> Motion and a second. Any additional
discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. I I >> That motion does carry. Item 2.1 is a public hearing on a tax abatement program between the city of New Alm Garden Terrace Newm 2 LLC and Oak Hills
Living Center. Mr. Schno, hello. Yes. >> U Madame President, members of the uh city council, this is the third time that this particular item is um before you. So, you'll probably hear uh some
familiar uh things. Uh the action that we are requesting tonight is a resolution that would approve the establishment of a tax abatement program and it's for the
property at 1011 North Garden Street. Now, the city council conducted what at at the time we thought was a public hearing at your November 18th meeting
when you at which time you uh approved a tax abatement agreement for that particular location. You approved an amended tax abatement agreement at the December 16th meeting.
Um, Garden Terrace 2 is the owner and developer of an apartment project at that location. Um, Oak Hills will lease, operate, and maintain the project and property and at
some time may take ownership of it. Garden Terrace 2 had requested the establishment of a tax abatement program to help pay for excessive project expenses.
The legal description of the property after replplatting is lot 2 block one garden terrace second edition. Project involves the construction of a three-story apartment building for
seniors 55 and older with 39 units and 39 enclosed parking spaces. In addition to the city of Newm, Brown County has also approved their
participation in the tax and bank program and that was done at their December 16th meeting. Recently, following a review of project documents, it has been determined
that the city did not publish the required public hearing notice in the journal for the November 18th meeting. As a result, the city council's approval
of the tax abatement program was not valid and it's necessary to go through the approval process again. And that's what brings us to today's meeting.
The tax abatement program that is being proposed will remain the same as previously approved with the exception of changes in dates and the need to nullify uh the existing agreement and certain
actions that have been taken in the past. The total proposed debatement amount for the city will be $585,176 and that will be paid over a term of 10 years. So that averages $58,517.
The city will also receive a tax abatement program fee of $4,000 and we receive that um $1,000 a year maximum. There will be no job creation
requirements since uh this is a housing project. Uh there are no changes required in the Brown County agreement uh for this particular project.
The resolution if approved also approves the development agreement for the project. The official approval date then for the new tax abatement program would be
today, March 3rd, 2026. So this is a superseding tax abatement agreement that you will be adopting. And so in your agenda packet, you have a
copy of the resolution as well as the tax abatement agreement. And that would conclude the um staff report. >> Uh one question Dave, very familiar with it. It's been in front of us. So we we
don't have any need that we have to nullify the existing agreement. That's in your overview. >> Um that um is in the agreements. Okay. Both the resolution and the tax abatement. >> All right. Thank you,
>> Madame President and counselors. Um, I think these these are some additional wonderful housing units um for our city and uh as W3 counselor, I I'm very proud to uh offer this resolution um approving the establishment of a tax abatement
program as described in the attach tax abatement agreement between the city of New Alm, Garden Terrace, New Alm 2 LLC as GT2 and Highland Manor Incorporated doing business as Oakill living center
oh uh for the property at 1011 North Garden Street. >> Second. >> We do have a motion and a second, but I will state for the record that this is a public hearing and if there is anyone that would care to be heard, you can come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
>> Should we amend that? It should say close the public hearing. >> Nicole, >> yes, we probably should. So, Miss uh Councelor Schmidt, can you remake your motion when you are ready if you so desire? >> Yes. I would like to uh offer a
resolution closing the public hearing um and then approving the establishment of tax abatement program as described in the attached tax abatement agreement between the city of Newm Garden Terrace Newm 2 LLC GT2 and Highland Manor Incorporated
doing business as Oakills Living Center O for the property at 1011 North Garden Street. >> Second. >> Thank you. We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the
role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Warma, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. That motion does carry. Thank you very much. Item 2.2 is a public hearing on a tax abatement program for SLD Properties LLC. Hi, Mr. Nicely. >> All right. Good evening, council
president, counselors. John Nisley, Planner with City of New. So, the city council received a letter at its December 16th, 2025 meeting from Mr. Matt DS on behalf of SLD Properties LLC requesting tax abatement assistance
for a multi-tenant commercial project. Uh, the project site is legally described as lots 8 through 10, block 69 north of Center Street, and is generally located east of North Broadway and south of Fourth North Street.
is located north of the Broadway house and west of the Glock and Spiel. If you remember, there was a single family residence at that site a couple summers back. Uh the building uh being proposed will be one story in height and have three
storefronts. Uh a parking lot with approximately 32 parking spaces will be situated between the building and the alley. And the property is zoned B4. That's the central business district or the downtown uh business area. Uh the total land area for the project is 0.57
acres. A drive-through lane would be located on the north uh and west and south sides of the building. And this driving lane would allow vehicles to access the business located on the south side of the building. Tax payment program allows the city to rebate a portion of the property taxes
after development and use those proceeds to offset development or redevelopment costs incurred by the property owner um or the city. The city has four existing tax abatement programs and three pending uh tax abatement programs. City has retained the firm David Drowns
Associates Incorporated to determine the feasibility and the terms of the tax abatement program for SLD. Uh, this firm has provided the following information on the project. The project is eligible for tax payment assistance. The county assessor's projected increase in market
value as a result of the project is $1,524,700. The maximum tax abatement amount to be provided would be $256,958. The term of the tax abatement would be 13 years. Uh, and the projected annual
abatement amount would be $19,776. And in no event will exceed will it exceed the increase in the city's property tax attributed to the increase in the market value for the property. Uh, the city fee to establish the tax abatement program is $4,000 and the city
fee will be paid in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per year. Payments will only be made if the applicant is not in default with the terms of the development agreement. Uh a permitted use of tax abatement is general economic growth resulting in an
increased tax base. SLD is required to provide invoices or receipts showing the expenditure or funding for eligible activities. Uh the establishment of the tax payment program will require a development agreement and a copy of the development agreement is attached uh
with your council packets. Uh the development agreement addresses the payment of the property taxes, tax payment project definitions, responsibilities of SLD and the city construction schedule and the specifics on the abatement program and the events
of default. Um SLD is requiring tax payment assistance to help pay for the removal and remediation of highly variable and unsuitable soils throughout the site, including building rubble, debris, organics uh buried on site, top soils, and clay. The existing fill was
determined to be unsuitable for supporting the building and pavement. Brown Intertech has recommended the complete removal and replacement of these materials with structural fill to ensure a long-term uh ensure the long-term stability and safety of the development. A review of the Sandbour
Sanborn fire maps uh provides evidence of numerous structures previously located on the property. And then we did attach a picture from the New Alm Journal um showing a previous building that was located at that um located at that corner of Fourth North and Broadway
called Wilch Saloon. It's a nice looking brick building um but you can see them doing the demo and more than likely it probably got buried on the site as well. Um there are no job creation requirements uh with this project. Uh the project was intended to be
constructed with no financial assistance from the city. It was only when the extent and the degree of the soil remediation became known that other sources of revenue were deemed necessary for the project to proceed. Uh the city elected to use tax abatement assistance
uh to address the new deficit in the project financing and it was the sole reason for the city to provide this assistance. The establishment of new jobs was not a consideration in the city's decision to use tax payment assistance. rather it was unexpected soil conditions and the res uh and the
resultant cost that necessitated the establishment of the tax payment program. I would note that um not only could the tax payment pay for these soils to be removed but if there's other construction costs associated uh with this project tax payment could be used
for that as well. um tax payment schedule. The first tax payment revenue will be collected from taxes payable in 2028 and the first uh payment will be made to SLD in February 2029. Um the tax payment program will be
conducted on a pay as you go basis and this process requires SLD to initially pay all project expenses and the city will reimburse them as tax payment revenues are received from Brown County. If the project does not generate sufficient tax baitment revenue, SLD
will assume financial responsibility for any uh deficiencies. Um tax baitment is an established Minnesota program that promotes economic development and the city attorney and city staff are authorized to make minor changes to the documents. Uh I would
note I did talk with a representative from CBC Fisher Group. They they wish they could be here tonight, but they had another conflict uh come up, but they're excited about this project. So, that concludes the staff report. >> Thank you, Mr. Nicely. >> Uh, we're all familiar with the project.
At first, is there anybody wishing to speak on it? It's a public hearing. >> Um, not seeing any, I'll offer a resolution, close the public hearing approving the establishment of a tax abatement program as described in the attached tax abatement agreement for SLD Properties Limit Liability Company at
318 to 326 North Broadway. >> Second. >> Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christensen, >> yes. >> Councelor Warmka, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Ber,
>> yes. That motion does carry. Thank you. Item 3.1 is a temporary on sale liquor permit for Farm City Hub Club Show. >> I'll make a motion to approve an issuance of a temporary on sale uh liquor permit for the Farm City Hub Club to sell alcohol at the Newm Civic Center, 1212 North Franklin Street on
Friday, March 13th. uh 2026 from 7 pm to 10 pm for an event uh subject to compliance with all city and state requirements. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I.
>> That motion carries. Item 3.2 is a bingo and raffling gamut gambling permit for Twin Cities mothers of multiples. I'll offer a motion to approve the issuance of lawful gambling permit for Twin Cities Mothers of Multiples to conduct bingo and raffles gambling at Newm
Conference Center, 21101 South Broadway, New Minnesota, Friday, April 24th, 2026 and Saturday, April 25th, 2026. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I.
>> I. >> That motion does carry. Item 4.1 is a cup for 810 North Front Street for Royal Oaks Recycling. Hello. >> Okay. This is a a request
for a resolution to approve with conditions a conditional use permit allowing the operation of a recycling business that engages in the transloading, shipping, receiving, and
bailing of paper and plastic at 810 North Front Street. and it's on the property legally described as lot one block one Front Street Industrial Park second edition
planning commission at its February 26 2026 meeting unanimously recommended approval of the request with nine conditions. Chapter 13 of the city code defines a
recycling center as a facility whose primary activity is where recyclable materials are collected, stored, flattened, crushed, or bundled prior to shipment to others who will use those materials
to manufacture new products. Hazardous waste and special waste as defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall not be received at a recycling center.
Section 9.2 two of the zoning ordinance. This establishes specific use standards and there are 13 of them for a recycling facility.
In staff's opinion, uh, reviewing the proposed business and its assumed location, it was determined that a recycling facility would comply with all of the
use standards with the exception of number one and number two. And variances would be required for those. And that would be the next item on the agenda.
The primary structure um on the property has approximately 52,888 square ft and was constructed in 1979.
Royal Oak Recycling is proposing to lease the north 32,888 square ft of the building. Would draw your attention to the screen. So, the area that North Oaks would lease
is this area right here. This is Front Street. This is the recreation trail. goes around behind the building. There is a second tenant in the building that
leases this space here and their name is act dust collectors. There are also two accessory buildings. Um, one is located on the property. The
second is located on an adjoining parcel of property. The shipping and receiving of recyclable materials will take place through the existing load loading dock located at
the northwest corner of the building. That would be right here. Um, recyclable materials will be moved through the covered loading dock and stored in the building until there is sufficient amount of material to ship
via semi-tra. The site will operate mainly as a transfer facility. There will be no sorting or separating large amounts of recyclable material on
site. There may be the opening of some bulk bales. They will be stored within the building until a sufficient quantity of material is collected to provide a larger bail of shipping. I
would draw your attention to your agenda packet and there is a layout of the business um uh their their proposed uh floor plan. So the business will take place almost entirely within the building envelope
with the exception of the parking of trucks um in the parking lot. Hours of operation would generally be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Um, so this is not a typical recycling
operation and they do not handle residential recycling materials. Um the business should be similar from an operational standpoint and intensity standpoint as one of the
previous occupants of the building that being shelter uh products. This industrial area of the community also has a variety of businesses that involve the use of trucks and generate truck traffic.
The proposed business should fit with those land uses. The conditions that were recommended were as follows. Number one, the applicant will pay the cost to record the conditional use permit with the
Brown County Recorders Office. Two, the applicant shall comply with all of the standards listed in section 9.2 two of appendix A of the city code regarding the use specific standards for a recycling facility.
Three, there shall be no exterior storage on the property. Four, the operator of the business will remove from the grounds and surrounding properties any debris or garbage associated or generated by business
activities taking place on the site. Five, all building activities will take place within the existing building as provided in the application. Six, Royal Oak Recycling shall operate
the business as described in the application. Seven, Royal Oak Recycling and SPD LLC, that is the owner of the property, shall secure approval of the variances,
those two variances from the requirements of the use specific standards for recycling facilities found in section 9.2 item H of the zoning ordinance. Number eight, no residential recycling
materials will be allowed to be accepted at the site. And nine, the site will not be open to the public for recycling purposes. That would conclude the uh staff report.
>> Thank you. Just going to add from the zoning meeting, we did have one individual that came from the audience uh that wanted to speak on behalf of his daughter that lived nearby and he just was inquiring what was going to be done there for type of activities and stuff like that. And
then he had no concerns after reviewing all the information with staff. So >> that's kind of what I was wondering if you've heard from anybody No personally on that. No. And it's just it's basically a transfer and then as a commission that's where we highlighted just to kind of keep it
>> so cuz uh to commercial only not residential needs. So >> yeah, >> Mr. Knight just mentioned that we did have some uh contacts uh at the office. You want to speak to that?
We we did have one more um property owner reach out to us who was also located in that industrial area and operates an industrial business and just wanted to make sure that if there's any materials that blow off the site that they're responsible for picking that up that the the business is responsible for
picking that up and we made sure to add a condition in the variance request uh to try to address that and and they were fine with that. So perfect. >> Thank you. I'll go ahead and offer the resolution to approve with conditions a conditional use permit allowing the operation of a
recycling business that engages in the transloading, shipping, and receiving and bailing of paper and plastic at 810 North Front Street and legally described as lot one, block one, Front Street Industrial Park, second edition. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. Any additional discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. Councelor Wormka. >> Yes. >> Councelor Schmidz. >> Yes. >> Counsel Councelor Mack. >> Yes. >> President Becker. >> Yes. That motion carries. Uh moving on to item 4.2. Related to the previous
item is a variance requests for 810 North Front Street for Royal Oaks Recycling. >> All right. Good evening, council president, counselors. John Eley, Planner with City of New. Uh Dave largely uh would be doing the or did the exact same staff report I have in your
packet. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to skip a lot of the background information regarding this site and kind of move on to the the request in the unique circumstances. Okay. Um, so the request for a variance was to one, they have two requests. Uh,
one to reduce the minimum uh minimum parcel area for a recycling facility from 4 acres to 3.69 69 acres and then two to reduce the required minimum setback from a residentially zoned area from 500 ft to 325 ft. The planning
commission at its February 26, 2026 meeting unanimously recommended approval with three conditions. Um as Mr. Schno stated before, there are use specific standards tied to a recycling facility. um if it's going to
be developed in new homem and uh of those you specific standards uh staff believe that or they only didn't meet two of the standards and that's that the facility be on a parcel uh with an area of at least 4 acres and then two that
the facility should be located at least 500 ft from any residential zoning district, school or daycare. Um so the unique circumstances with this property um that the planning commission believed warranted a variance were that
the proposed facility is almost exclusively being operated indoors and functions more as a transfer facility. Uh that the recycling facility is only taking commercial recycling clients and not recyclables from residents. and then
that there's a physical barrier with the residential zoning district to the east of the proposed recycling uh facility. And that barrier includes an elevated railroad bed, trees, and then another additional I2 um industrial business.
Um, as we just uh mentioned, we did receive two comments from the public. One was an adjacent property owner who just wanted to ensure that we address any trash or recyclables leaving the site. and then another uh resident who's representing their daughter who just
wanted to get all the details on the uh proposal um and they were okay with it after we had explained the project to them. Uh staff believes that the recommended uh conditions along with you specific standards adequately address the concerns raised by the public
regarding this use of the site as a recycling facility. There were three recommended conditions. One, that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office. Two, that any recyclable materials that are collected on site are responsible to remain on
site um prior to shipment. Materials that accidentally blow off the site will be collected by Royal Oaks Recycling and brought back to the site. And then three, that the applicant shall comply with section 9.2 2 of appendix A of the city code regarding use specific
specific standards for a recycling facility. That concludes the staff report. >> Thank you, Mr. Nicely. >> Well, I'm going to offer the resolution approving with conditions the variances requested by Royal Oaks Recycling for the property located at 810 North Front
Street and legally described as lot one, Block One, Front Street Industrial Park, Second Edition. The variance requests are as followed. To reduce the required minimum parcel area for the recycling facility from 4 acres to 3.69 acres and
to reduce the minimum setback from residentially zoned areas from 500 ft to 325 ft. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? >> Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christensen? Yes.
>> Councelor Wormka? >> Yes. >> Councelor Schmidz? Yes. >> Councelor Mack? >> Yes. President Becker. >> Yes, that motion does carry. Thank you very much. Um, under uh old business, item 5.1 is the 2025 year end transfers and incumbrances. Councilors, this is just an addition to
the transfers that you approved in December. It's just a normal year-end activity. It includes um it shows you what was collected for the colarium this year will be transferred. um what money was used out of the 290 syncing funds. And then it also includes requests for carryovers um for the various
departments and most of those are for purchase orders that have already been opened but the materials were not received or projects were not completed in 2025. >> Madame President, counselors, uh this is an annual activity of ours and I would like to offer the resolution approving
the recommended 2025 yearend transfers and incumbrances. >> Second. Do >> we have a motion and a second? Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Warmka, yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes.
>> President Becker, that motion carries. Under new business, item 6.1 is snow removal appeals. >> All right, this one I'll open up with discussion. I was gone for a while as the counselors know. I did get back to a couple of individuals. One is not on
this request. uh their biggest concerns, I told them I'd get back to them, was our admin fee, which I don't know how many years ago we had done that, actually different counselors were here where we raised it up to the $150 to make it
hurt. We don't want to be in the snow business. Um I heard both their stories about it. They were not they weren't upset with the cost, the $75, $80 for removing the snow. They just thought that that really stings, that $150 admin fee. I mean, I
will get back to both of them after coming up to staff, looking at the pictures, reviewing, read through the letters. I'm open for a discussion on it. Uh, I used to be in that enforcement department. I understand the people's
complaints. One of my feelings is though, we're not in the business of snow removal. I don't like to be the police company on that, having to send staff out going through the city. I still do get phone calls from some elderly people and ADA people
and I I don't have the answer except shovel the sidewalk. Um, do we set a precedence with this? Let's be careful with it. If we do for one, we do for all. I I understand the hardships. So, I read through all the
criteria with the surgery, not getting to it, one of them hiring somebody, didn't get the completed job done. Uh, those are my comments. >> We do evaluate that administrative fee every year and the city does not profit
from that fee at all. Um, there's a lot of staff time in various departments that goes into those proc those those claims or into those um complaints before any snow is even removed. Um, so all those wages of those uh individuals are taken into account. Um, and I would
have to say I don't even know that we're recovering them 100% with that fee. It's just a lot of time >> that goes into those. >> That part I understand, but explaining it to the general public, >> right? >> You know, I understand that. I guess my question is, you know, what
other types of things take up a lot of administrative time? I mean, is this the same across the board where, you know, when we do weed removal and those kind of things, is that $150 as
well? >> And I guess I don't >> I wonder what that fee is, >> right? a wood weed removal fee. >> I mean, is there the administrative fee associated with like weed removal or like if they have to mow your grass or something like that? >> Yes.
>> I don't I just don't know that fee off the top of my head. >> No, it's a building official. Um, I don't know that fee either, but it's I thought it got brought up to the exact same as what the snow removal was for
>> for the >> open the fee schedule, >> but there they send out a letter >> and that occupant has 7 days to take care of the >> mowing of the the grass where this was deemed a safety concern. >> We get a complaint, we just go out and do it.
>> Okay. >> I do remember commenting on Mr. Zables years back we actually weren't enforcing the city ordinance >> and it finally it it got brought up to council not to approve let's enforce the
ordinance it's on the books we don't have any excuse >> yes I understand there's a lot of certain circumstances but >> right >> in my mind I'm speaking for myself I'll get back to these individuals careful going down that road if we start
forgiving Right. >> And I do have a question. Finance director Kenna I know the admin fee a lot of people think it is stiff. A lot of these we come to us we have to approve the people don't pay the bills. Now it goes on we assess them. Yes.
Property tax. That's where a big cost comes in. >> That is staff >> time. The cost that's figured out. >> And as you all well know we see it come across here. Not everybody pays their bill with the weeds and the snow. >> Sure. >> That's where a lot of the staff time comes in.
Madam President, city councilors, I was able to pull up the city fee schedule. The weed notice is the same as the same. Yep. >> Okay. Um, you know, I I just want to make sure that we're being fair on those and and one of the things that's very hard um for a lot of folks to understand
is administrative fees and what those go to. Um, I agree that we do not need to go down this road, but I do think that, and I'd like this on the record, that we look at maybe extending it from a 24-hour to a 48 hour uh for snow removal because
there's always circumstances and that gives people just a little bit more time if there is a hardship, >> right? And, you know, >> it's still enforcable and it's still fair and other cities do 2 days, 48 hours instead of 24. I think that would solve a lot of our problems.
I I disagree. I used to be in that business. Never have we gone out before. Am I still correct? Three days. You Well, we could go out at 24 hours. We wait for complaints. And that's strictly
what we've been doing. >> Mhm. Um, I made a little tour, not after this last snowfall, but the one before that, uh, valley front and a little bit of Broadway, and there was probably 30 properties in just that little bit that could have been dealt with.
>> Um, so that's >> So, we only are following up with these if there's a complaint. Is that what you're saying? >> Currently, that's been the policy. There was only one time I remember >> years ago when I first started, the manager said, "Go out and do it and we came back with 150." So, snowy
sidewalks, >> right? >> But but am I still correct? By the time the complaint comes in and we line up our contractor, it's never sooner than three days. >> Usually we don't get complaints till the second day. So yeah, it's usually >> two to three days before something gets
done. >> Yellowwood, would you say it's sometimes the same pattern or like the same properties that we might get the complaints on? in a few. >> Yeah, there's a few there's a there's a few of those and generally if we get >> um two complaints on, we'll put those on
the list that we just go out and do those. Um cuz usually it we get one complaint, it's usually taken care of. But there's a few that over the years that um just were habitual abusers of it and we just put them on a list that we
went out and looked at them after the snowfall. Madam President, counselors, I just have a a couple of quick comments here with these three. It appears that one is concerned about, you know, a health issue and the ability to get out there
>> to remove snow due to a health issue. Another is uh concerned about the administrative fee. And the third, it appears very much documentation related to I don't know when the snow emergency was called or or when the snow fell. Um,
has that one been uh researched and uh addressed? Um, what I've got on it is what what the gentleman sent back was that there was light snowfall at what 7 7:55 on January 21st.
Um, the picture was taken at just before 1:00 on the 22nd. The phone call was made to our snow removal person. believe it was around 4:30 on the 22nd
and they removed the snow on the 23rd is when they took care of the snow. >> So there is the 24hour in there that >> Okay. Thank you. Well, in continuing with this discussion, uh, Madame President and
counselors, um, I think it's very important that snow rem gets removed on our walkways and sidewalks and, you know, um, expeditiously. There's a lot of citizens, residents, and visitors that uh, walk and uh, transport
themselves along our sidewalks. Um, so I'm going to make a motion to approve um regarding snow removal charges for 1017 3rd 3rd Street South, 624 South Front
Street and 1326 South Pain Street. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? Just for clarification, approving. So approving would be you're approving the appeals. Denying would be you're rejecting the appeals for clarification.
>> Excuse me. Thanks for that clarification. Um I want to make my motion that I'm denying the appeals. You know, approving the expenses. Denying the appeals regarding snow removal charges for 10173rd
Street South, 624 South Front Street, and 1326 South Pain Street. >> I'll get a second. >> Is there any other discussion? >> Yeah, one one question, Mr. Zabel, on that third complaint. It's a lengthy
document. Item four, snow removal completed within the ordinance time frame. You had said January 23rd the work was completed. >> Correct. >> His says January 22nd. >> Well, the invoice that we've got from
our snow removal contractor states that they went out on the 23rd and did the the snow removal. The picture was taken on the 22nd. >> I just want to make sure we're cover. We were a day off there. All right. Thank you. Yes, >> I am that third person.
>> Okay. Would you care to be heard if you'd like to state your name and address for the record? >> Uh, Andrew Mau, 1301 South Washington, uh, here in New. Uh, thank you for hearing me out, everybody. Um, and this is pertaining to specifically
to 1326 South Pain Street here in New the snow removal. Uh I utilize uh Eric Zobel services for snow removal at that property. Uh documentation that I provided um shows that there was conversation with him prior and during
and then we lined up for when the snow was going to be actually going to be removed. Um I did receive a letter from the city uh early February about the cost associated with their statement or their alleged removal of that snow. Um
documentation that has provided though shows that uh first and foremost um the ordinance allows for 24 hours for snow removal uh from when the snow snowfall stops uh as was mentioned earlier. Uh there was still late snowfall according
to the new mun municipal airport's um weather center uh at 7:55 on January 21st. So 7:55 January 21st is the soonest that the 24-hour clock could start. Um the
image uh provided by the city um the metadata in there shows that that image was captured January 22nd at 12:53 p.m. Um which is clearly before the 24 hours would be passed from the uh snowfall
stopping 7:55 p.m. the night before. So the city kind of got ahead of themselves with doing the snow uh documentation removal enforcement. Um and my guy as further documentation that was provided shows there was
communications back and forth as to uh when he was going to get out there that he got out there. And the documentation also shows that uh he did state that he was done with the snow removal at uh let's see here
uh January 22nd at 5:14 p.m. So that's uh 20 hours before um the the city alleged that they had their service crews go out there and remove the snow. Uh I've used Eric's services many times this year, many times last year. Um he's
always been spot on. The documentation of communication I provided here is similar to everything I've done and worked with him in the past for snow removal at this property. Um,
and not only that, but first and foremost, like I said, city got ahead of themselves with preeibly going out there before the 24-hour window is up. However, in summer of 2024, 2023, the
city had also sent lawn uh care services to my address at 1301 South Washington or South Washington. and we had received no documentation that there was anything wrong with our lawn. Further research showed that they actually meant to send it to a Spring
Street property and it was a case of uh well just error. >> Mhm. >> So >> So can I ask why this one is on the list then? If it if we have if we have documentation that's showing it's within 24 hours.
I mean we clearly have the snowfall records from the airport. I'm assuming those have been vetted and verified and we have text messages here that it hasn't been within 24 hours. >> So, I would look at if we can reach out
to Sundag and see when he actually cuz if he says he did it on the 23rd and it was removed on the 22nd, he usually, my understanding is he drives by the property. If the snow was gone, then he just continues on and doesn't bill us. So, he did work on the 23rd. What that
work again. That's why I question it. 22nd, 23rd. >> Well, I can't speak to the the city's efforts for the snow removal. My documentation does show though that I did have prior communication with my snow removal person and we communicated
continually through uh the event of the snow removal and the city, you know, got ahead of its trying to document it hours before snowfall ceased. >> I'm guessing this was based on a complaint that was received prior to the
end of the snowfall. Okay. In this case, I'm not comfortable approving or denying this request, but the other two make sense. >> Madame President, counselors, um I'm
willing to revise um my motion. um and direct staff to further investigate um that third comp the third situation. >> One more question. I'm still just a
little confused. Your I'm reading item number four. Your contractor says work was completed on January 22nd, 2026 at 5:14 p.m. So, the uh third page of screenshots of
text messages. Um, yes. January 22nd, 5:14 p.m. He respond replied with, "Got it." Uh, and Mr. Zobel's responses have been like that when he's completed the the work before him. They're short. He's just letting me know it's done. I don't
have to worry about it. >> So, >> our documentation shows the 23rd we went out remove snow. >> That's not that's not making sense to me. >> So, what I can say is that Mr. Zobel
has, like I just said before, done this work many times for me. Never had any issues or problems with it before. um have had an issue where the city issued staff to mow a lawn and they had the
wrong address. So, I make no mistake uh that same Spring Street property in years past, the city has had to remove the the lawn or the mold lawn for it. Uh and we paid it. There's no argument. City did it. We paid it.
wasn't going to do it the second time here a couple years ago with lawn with the uh lawn care and knowing my guy, I'm not too keen on paying for something that I do believe he took care of and I paid him for his service. >> Thank you, Mr. Mer. >> Thank you.
>> All right, that being said, do we have enough information um or uh like councelor Schmidtz recommended, deny um two of the three appeals and then request additional information on the final appeal? Or we also have the option to deny two appeals and approve one
appeal at this time to save staff time and administrative costs. >> I guess I'd be in favor of that. I mean, things don't line up correctly here, but >> that's my thought.
>> When did you want staff to have the opportunity to revisit the issue uh and come back with a their recommendation? >> Do we have that? When the complaint came in or the the time on when cuz boy, that's a real
20 to 22nd. >> I would have to look. I'm I my assumption is being the picture was taken at 12:30 that the complaint came in before that. Um the phone call wasn't made till 4:30 that afternoon for our
snow removal company to go out and take care of it and then like I say their invoice shows that they removed it on the 23rd. What time on the 23rd, I don't know. >> Okay. But that's about as much verification as we've got on
>> be able to do on that >> and based on what's provided, do we want to use more staff time to research this? Well, Madame President and counselors, to move this forward, um I'd like to amend my motion to deny the appeals
regarding snow removal charges for 10173rd Street South and 624 South Front Street. Um, and if staff determines through further
evidence that this third residential location at 1326 South Pain Street should be further pursued. Um, staff can bring it back to us in the future.
It's kind of a long motion. basically denying the first two. >> And >> can we provide direction for staff though? >> Like we're kind of leaving it up to them, but we should we should clarify
whether we want them to take a look and bring this back to us or not. >> That's what you said in your motion. >> You said leave it up to staff, but I'd prefer that we we provide the direction one way or another. So, would you like to direct staff to
investigate? Um, >> yes, I would like to have staff um confirm the details and facts of that third location, please. >> Thank you. I will second that. Um, any additional discussion?
Um, I just want to say that I think this this just showed me that we have an opportunity to be better neighbors to each other sometimes instead of just making a phone call right away. um you know reading through some of these I mean yes it's unfortunate yes property owners are
responsible for the snow removal um but instead of kind of constantly complaining you know maybe it's an opportunity to help so I will leave it there any additional comments those in favor signal by saying I
>> opposed that motion does carry thank you very much um item 7.1 claims and estimates report of claims paid >> make a motion and accept the list of claims paid in the amount of 5,889,488.13. >> Second. >> Thank you. We do have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion does carry. And with no additional