Good afternoon. It is 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. We'll call the city council meeting of the city of New to order. First item of business is the consent agenda. Councilors, what are your wishes? >> I so move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Those in favor signal by saying I. I. >> I. That. Motion does carry. Item 2.1 is the Herman Monument reconstruction cost estimate. Mr. Schugle. Good afternoon. >> Thank you. Council President Ber City
Council. Uh at your November 4th, 2025 meeting, you authorized professional services contract with McDonald and Mack for uh cost estimates on Herman Monument Reconstruction Project. Uh we are here today because we have those cost estimates that were shared with you at
the last work session and McDonald and Mack uh Todd Grover, Scott McDonald and team are here uh to present on that full cost estimate report. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Schulo. All right. Thank you and welcome.
>> So as you go through just like control over here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Yes. >> Then just go forward and back is just the arrows here. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh thank you C council president counselors. Uh my name is Todd Grover. I
am uh a principal at McDonald Architects. We have been working on uh the Herman monument for a number of years and um really excited to come here to present this cost estimate that we've been working on for the past few months um on this project. Um today I have um
Maline Sunberg from our office who's actually been working on Herman for probably in six seven years maybe. And then Dave McDonald uh he uh from Mats and McDonald Young Engineers also been working on Herman. And then Ray Dangline from EAI who helped us with the cost
estimate um and putting together the cost um that we'll take a look at in a little bit. Oh, let's see. We'll go down do that. Okay. So, um project overview
the what we've been really looking at and what we were um tasked for by by the city was to look at the project to maintain the Herman Monuments National Register Register of Historic Places uh uh designation. Part of the problem
right now, and I'll I'll show that in a little bit, is some of the significant deterioration that is uh occurring on the monument. Um, a lot of it is um related to water infiltration both at the at the dome and then also at the base. Um, we'll talk about this in a
little bit. The the the Herman statue itself has gone through a couple of restorations and recently had restoration. A lot of the focus that we're we're looking at now is actually on the monument from essentially the statue down. Um but in order to do that,
one of the things because of the condition because of the dire condition is um we're looking at the secretary of material standards for reconstruction. So in order to maintain that national register status, we are going to I'll talk about this in a second essentially
disassemble the monument. Um and then there is a process for reconstruction and that reconstruction process has guidelines that are associated with that and so by doing it that way the the monument can essentially go back and
maintain its national registered designation. Um so that was kind of the parameters or the umbrella that we've been working under um as part of this this cost estimate. Um so that uh this estimate does include the deconstruction cost but then also the rebuilding um for
structural integrity but also uh safe public access. Oh, keeps on doing this. Um I thought just because I thought it would be helpful to to take a look at this. There have been a number of major
repairs that have happened to the monument since it's been constructed. And so I wanted to share this timeline of essentially big repairs that have happened that that we've been aware of. Um so the Herman monument uh built in 1888 to 1897, but you can see as early
as 1901, so a few years after it was actually built, there was um interior finishes on the main level. So that lower level that's enclosed that were already being deteriorated because of water infiltration. So as of you know uh 25 years ago we were actually already
seeing um uh deterioration happening uh on the monument but there have been a number of of repairs that have happened in time 1905 repairing the main level uh plaster repairs carpentry and tin work in 1915 um steel reinforcing uh was
added to the dome in 1919 um replaced damaged dome dome bricks in 1921 um repairs to address the column in 1948. But there are two dates that I want to that have I called out that I highlighted that I want people to to be
aware of. Um in 1951 um there was a large sand blasting um operation done to refinish the columns. But importantly, there was this sprayed gunnite that was installed on the outside of of the stonework. Gunite is, if you're not
familiar with it, is a cementitious uh coating that is a thick coating that has an aggregate that's essentially sprayed onto the the stone. In this case, the reason why they did that was because they saw that there was a lot of water
infiltration that was happening at the base, but also at the dome of of the building. Gunite is okay in the sense of it will keep some of that water out, but it actually has a really really poor um characteristic. It
cracks easy. And so once that cracking started to happen at the joints at other places, water got in, but the problem was water could not get back out. Masonry uh a masonry building or a masonry structures uh allow water to come in, but they're naturally allowing
water to escape too. So they have this kind of cycle that they go through this wetting cycle, wetting and then letting it out. But what the gunnite did is it prevented that water from from escaping, evaporating. And so starting in 1951, this cycle started to occur. 1958 there
was some refinishing of iron work, repointing the masonry. But then 1973, so 22 years after the first gunnite that was installed, um there was a big project that happened um to repair the statue, install ventilation to help with moisture on the main level. So you can
see that moisture was building up in these 20 years. Um they sand blasted and repointed all the masonry. That is a uh extreme extremely difficult process to do to masonry, especially for brick or stone. you take off some of that that
outer surface um and you uh essentially harm that. So what they did there at that time is they sandlasted it but then they uh recotated the gun recotated it with gun eight again and so we have this cycle of happening of of trying to repair it trying to keep water out of it
but really what it did is soon after that when the leak started to recur again it actually trapped the water inside of there. So um in 1999 the um the main level was rep was repainted. Um the Koopla flooring was replaced and
that's when also the Herman statue was was repaired. So we came along in 2018. So uh about 6 years ago um I'm sorry about 8 years ago to do this our first condition assessment on on the building. As part of that condition assessment, and I'll show you that to you in a
little bit, um we did some core drills through the base walls, but also through the floor of the of the kind of plaza that as you walk up to the first level and then go up the circular staircase. Um we did cord drilling through there.
What we had uh I'll talk about that in a second. So um condition assessment then and then uh we it's kind of hidden on here. In 2024, we did a feasibility study on reconstruction, what it would take to look at the reconstruction. Part
of that report was to bring this to the state historic preservation office to talk about the significance of the building. Can we repair it or if we do need to reconstruct it, what are what is the process that that's going to happen um during that time? Uh the last one
you'll was a date that was uh this this recent uh cost estimate that was done. So you can see here that we did have a significant amount of repair work that had already gone ahead that really didn't fix the the issues that we're looking at. So these are a couple of
pictures. I'll go through a series of pictures here um talking through some of the conditions here. You can see uh water from that main staircase going up to the plaza level. Um you can see the gunnite on the on the right hand side. Um that gunnite has a thickness to it
probably between/ an inch to an inch. Um, but it just was covering the brick, covering the stone, and once that did, it just trapped the moisture inside of the structure. And then later on, cracking and peeling off just in sheets.
Um, this is it's a little hard to see, but right where my cursor is is one of the areas where we did a cord drill that essentially goes horizontally through the the wall of the base. And we did a number of core drills. And as we pulled
those out, two things were were significant. One is everything that was in there just crumbled. A lot of times when you do core drills, you can you do it's a bit that kind of has a a center that's that that doesn't if you can pull
it out, you can pull out a long core and you can kind of look at the different layers. It just fell apart. Um the second thing was water was just coming out of there. It was just wet through throughout there. So water has really been trapped in this base for many many years. That's another picture of of some
of the uh the scaling that's coming through showing the water infiltration um on the lower level. Um other other um shots of stone that's that's fragmenting around the windows. The windows were especially up on the
top um the dome were areas where water was was still making its way in. Um keep going here. uh rusting on the bottom of the stairs. Uh both uh the the straight stairs, but also these are the circular stairs that are going up to the to the
observation deck. Uh these are pictures of the columns that this the iron columns that are going up in the capitals. Um you can see rusting uh even from when if we were to compare pictures from when we did the condition report back in 2018 to 2026. So over the eight
years significant amount of deterioration that had been happening even in those in those last eight years. Uh go here. Um on the brick arches um this is a tie rod
that's on on the underneath the dome of the brick arch. And that tie rod is supposed to be embedded inside of of the brick up there. It's actually pulling out of the of the brick. So the essentially not providing any of that structural support. You can see here um
just the brick deterioration on on the underside of the dome. This is where the staircase goes up. Here is a picture that's uh to explain this is brick essentially dust from when the bricks had been deteriorating so much. There's essentially kind of a half inch, 3/4 of
an inch to an inch of dust that just is collecting on the bottom of of that um kind of that that uh level up there that's right below the dome. Uh this is outside of the dome. Um little hard to see, but you can see here's this cracking that's happening
both through the stone base, uh the stone banding, but also the brick base. But you can also see like here is heaving. So, this is actually brick that's being pushed out um because of of water, ice, but also just the the force
um that's pushing out the um the brick at the base of um right below where where Herman is. Um, couple more pictures of loss of, you know, this is the gunnite that's right here, but the problem problem is the
gunnite looks. It's in in in okay shape, but it's elsewhere where the cracks happen, where other things happen that um the the water gets in and essentially the the the gunnite prevents it from from evaporating out. Um, and here's a good here's a good uh uh area here where
you can see just the layers of gunnite and just how it's been spalled off because um you know once water gets in there especially during the winter it freezes off um and it has that kind of uh significant force that that spalls that off. So when we were looking at at all of
this uh I think I think that's my last photo here. Hang on. Yeah. So when we were looking at all of this, it really came down to this fact that the base, the dome underneath Herman um really is beyond repair. It
just is so significantly damaged. the history of repairs that have happened there. When we did a core drill through the ceiling of of the um the enclosed area to where the plaza is, um we noted there was three or four different layers
of concrete that had been put on the plaza because they had tried to re fix the water that was coming in by putting a new layer of concrete on there and it just it it didn't work. It just kept on coming in and coming in. The gunnite really was when they started to install that in the 50s, instead of doing a
proper masonry repair that we do all the time to fix the the water issues, they just had essentially sealed the water inside of the building. And that was, you know, we've been now seeing 70 years of constant deterioration, constant water getting in there, free thaw
cycles, just essentially eroding it. the bricks are are crumbling inside. The mortar is crumbling inside and the and the sand sandstone is just, you know, essentially crumbling from all of these years of water infiltration there. So, as we were looking at that, it just was
this collective understanding that it this is something too difficult to repair. And so, the the when we were working with the city, the turn was then, okay, let's look at reconstruction. We still saw this as a significant uh site. So how do we go in
to look at the reconstruction? So um within that there's kind of two different cost breakdowns that we were looking at. One was the deconstruction phase. So essentially mobilizing it, taking pieces off that we can hopefully salvage and reuse um items like the
columns, the the the lions, some of the staircases, maybe some of the railings, obviously Herman. Um those elements, what can we try to reuse? Um, so I wouldn't So we're trying to carefully peel away, but um knowing that we do
have some areas or some elements that are just going to that are just gone. The brick, a lot of the stone, those things we we just are going not going to be able to salvage much of those. Um, steel beams that are um underneath the dome, trying to save those. Those are are things that are already there. Um,
but trying to be careful about it. Um, but knowing that there we do have to demo it, too. And there's some materials that are just going to have to be demoed as a part of it. Um so and then looking at the reconstruction phase, uh new foundations, uh the interpretive center
on the main level, stairways, um a concrete structure. So when we put this back, and it still follows with the Secretary of Interior standards. Um when we put it back, we are looking at a concrete structure inside instead of a masonry structure inside. So, this is essentially a concrete and steel
structure that would have the cladding that you you would see on the outside. Steel columns we would hopefully be able to save. The the column that's in the middle hopefully be able to save, but a lot of the detailing that's on the outside, the historic detailing would essentially be more of a cladding. Um,
and that again follows the the the Secretary of Interior standards for reconstruction. we can um whatever isn't seen, we have a little bit more flexibility on making that more contemporary, making that more structurally sound. Um but then cladding it in the historic materials.
Um and so that was it's I can't Oh, there I can scroll down there. There you go. Uh the estimated cost for that um including a new HVAC uh uh system and um was the was the 6 million. There's some miscellaneous costs for bonds, uh project management, professional fees,
and a contingency for unknown conditions. Um uh was the last um budget amount. And then for that would essentially bring us to that 11.6 million cost that we were looking at. Um I did include sheets if we wanted to get into some of the details. This is what
Rey helped us put together um to try to look at some of the line items um on there. But really in the end um this was um why we're looking at this now and and um trying to understand the costs are
that as we look at um as we look at further deterioration. We could be looking at increasing costs that would be associated with that from being you know just being able to access the areas and the materials we want to we want to save but also just you know for safety for any contractor that's going to be
coming at the site. Um we did have a add in this escalation that seems high and it kind of is high right now at 10%. But across the industry um we've just been seeing that from last year to this year um the been talking to a lot of contractors they're actually saying 12%
was the escalation from last year to this year for construction. they think it's going to back off a little bit. But um for instance, if we were and when we were talking with the city escalating this for um next year um just as a as a starting point, that was the escalation
for every year beyond 2026. Um we do have some historic preservation requirements again kind of under this umbrella that we were looking at for retaining or re you know uh having this historic significance retained on there. know that there are some aspects to of
that the reconstruction materials must be compatible with the original um and and and that's really to retain that listing. And then uh you know one other consideration we were looking at as a part of these cost estimates was just security storage. Um there's an
archaeological monitoring that we have to do on the site now just because of of other um other things that have happened. the state is becoming more and more uh conscious of archaeological remnants that are on the site. So, um we're going to have to coordinate with
that. Um but essentially those were a lot of the things that we were including miscellaneous things that um are were beyond the construction but as we were con considering the costs for this. So um I think that's my last slide. So I'd be more than happy to answer any
questions and if I need to call on some of my fellow uh consultants and colleagues here um welcome them up. So, >> so you would agree in reality 10% we're going to be looking at 12 to 14 million for real?
>> Well, the temper the the the 11.6 includes the 10% escalation right now. So, >> one year >> for one year. Correct. Yep. And so I I I don't know what the building industry is saying. I mean, Ry, I don't know if if if if you have anything, but when in
looking at it, they're they're hesitant. you know, they're speculating that it could they're hoping it can go back down, but right now that's a lot of what we're looking at just for material and and and labor costs. Um that it again, I dialed it we dialed it back a little bit
just because it we saw this big hump from 25 to 26. Um so hopefully that's leveling out a little bit, but there will be an escalation that's going to be higher than what we've seen in the past. So >> thank you. In your opinion, is it still safe to to
go up? You know, should I mean, as a city, you know, to be, you know, thinking about safety for the public, >> do we, you know, how do we go about that or your advice or >> councelor Mack at this point? Um, that's going to go to park and rec commission,
but we did get a letter basically stating that we are not allowed to have people go up unless they have private tours. >> Okay. President and counselors, I've got a couple of quick questions. One, um, Mr. Grover is, um, is there any other
example in Minnesota or the upper Midwest for this deconstruction reconstruction concept of a national or internationally significant monument? >> Not really. Um, the So, I'll take a step back and get a little bit granular here.
Um so the secretary of material standards has four treatments for historic properties. So one is preser one is restoration. So you have a a building that maybe had had a lot of changes in time and you want to restore it to a specific time and um that's what
restoration is. So you bring it back to a very specific time. Preservation is you essentially uh take a building, it's significant and you try to preserve it with any changes that have happened over time and uh and and you try to keep it the way it is right now. Um uh
rehabilitation means taking a historic building and giving a new use to it. Um the last one is reconstruction and reconstruction really isn't used a lot with the amount of of projects. So McDonald has been around um for close to
50 years actually. uh 1976 the two founding principles is when they started the the the um the firm um I think we've only had a couple of reconstruction projects over those 50 years. So it's it's unusual. Um but when we have t talked to the state historic
preservation office they had you know they have a a broader understanding and they connect with the national park service across the country. There are uh more uh a little bit more projects that have dealt with reconstruction. Um I
think of um Williamsburg um that was a reconstruction just because there was a lot of those buildings in Williamsburg that were not there and they wanted to recreate that and they had documentation to recreate that. Um that's one of the big things about reconstruction is
having that proper documentation to um take something that doesn't exist and reconstruct it. This is a little bit different because we have it there. It's just we know it's in such poor condition. So that's part of the process of that deconstruction is documenting
all of those pieces. So when we do that reconstruction and that's usually the reconstruction usually is usually held to a higher level of accuracy in order to then put that back on the national register. So we have that advantage I think in this situation where we can
follow those procedures very carefully in order to get that end result to have it back on the national register. So, but unfortunately not not really a lot of examples that that I you know we could could point to other examples of those other three treatments. Yes. But not the reconstruction.
>> Yes. And we also apparently don't have original uh blueprints, original design documents from, you know, centuries ago. >> Um and then my final question is uh we're hosting the national forum this year. The National Alliance of Preservation Commission's forum is in
Twin Cities. >> Twin Cities. Um, this might be an interesting case study for one of the workshops or sessions, even though I think they have their program set. >> They have their program, but I we've been talking to to some folks to see if we can maybe get in on one of their
like, you know, big moderating sessions. But yeah, this they they were asking for papers. I think Maline, do you remember? I think it was last fall or earlier. So, um, yeah, but doesn't mean that even though it's here, it doesn't mean that in a future year we couldn't go, you know, present this at a at a future one.
But again, it's, you know, I think I think the the interesting thing about this is is, you know, it would be having them local here. So, they do know about the project that whether or not we can they can fit us in or something. It would be be interesting. So, thank you. >> Yep.
>> Um, I did have one question and it may have been overlooked. I was just kind of looking at like phase one with the deconstruction and site preparation and I don't see anything uh any costs for storing >> the materials for storing Herman. Do we
know where they would be stored? Um I know that's going to be a question that people where is Herman where is it? >> Um I I think the dismantling is is within there. I think some of the ideas were that the storage was going to happen on some of it was going to be on
site. Um, Ray, I don't know if you just >> Some of it was going to be on site, some of it's going to be at the local yard that they had here, >> the city. And really, the first phase there was pretty much just to bring the monument down and have it set so that if the rest of the funding doesn't come for
a year or two, this whole thing can still be viewed. >> Correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you very much. Um, unless there are any other questions or comments, I would look for a motion to receive this report. >> President and counselors, I'd like to
make a motion to receive an order filed the Herman Monument Restor Herman Monument Reconstruction Costimate Report and authorize staff to pursue funding strategies. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. any further discussion?
I just wanted to hear from the mayor just because I wanted to see if you had any comments or anything to add because I know that we were just in St. Paul and had some conversations with legislators about these estimates and um now that we're kind of getting a you know a bigger rundown. I wanted to just grab
your thoughts before we vote. >> Well, my thoughts are this. I've been around for a while. I was served on the commission back in the 1999 uh when the lions were put on and uh we had moisture issues then and uh it's
taken a while for us to catch up and to get to a point where we want to take action. A colleague of mine, Darla Gard, also sat on that commission at the time. So, I think we're both elated to see that we've come this far, that we've got our arms around the costs because it's
always been speculative and issues related to uh the um preservation state preservation office Shipo whether they'd allow us to deconstruct and and we felt like we were between a rock and a hard place for a long time. So, um, this is
very encouraging to see that there's potential and we can perhaps see not the light at the end of the tunnel because funding will be a big issue. Uh, but this is a quantum leap for us to get this far. So, thank you for the opportunity to address that. >> Yes, thank you very much. We do have a motion and a second. Any additional
discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. I. >> I. That motion carries. Thank you very much. Item 2.2 two is a conditional use permit for 1016 North Valley Street. Uh, and are do we have Mr. Schno or Mr.
Nisley to present on this? >> Hi, Mr. Nesley. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh, good afternoon, Council President, counselors. John Nisley, planner with the city of Newm. Um, this first item is for a conditional use permit to allow
the construction of a 28x 32 detached accessory structure on a lot that's non-conforming in size and located in the RT2. That's our traditional neighborhood single and two family residence district. Um, the planning commission at its March 26,
2026 meeting unanimously recommended approval of this request with five conditions. I'll just give you a little bit of background um on this. Um so the total lot area uh of this property is.12 acres or 5,227
square ft. Um a traditional RT2 lot is 50x 165. That's 8,250 ft. So it's significantly smaller. Um the lot uh shape is in trapezoidal uh in shape with the north property line being
100 ft in length and the south property line being 106 ft in length and the width of 50 ft. And that's because the railroad track behind it had cut off part of the property um that is now facing uh or on the other side of the railroad track on on the front street
side. Uh there is currently a small residential structure on the property that is to be removed prior to the construction of the new 28x32 detached accessory structure. Uh the property has full utility services available to it. A
new curb cut will be needed on uh um on the street uh in order to access the structure and the city engineer has reviewed that uh reviewed the site and the curb cut is allowed in that location. the property owner lives at 1023 North Valley Street just northwest of the
property be considered for this conditional use permit. So we have in our zoning ordinance a special provision um that states that if a lot is non-conforming in size and not abudding a lot with a permitted use and owned by the owner of the non-conforming lot, an
accessory building may be allowed on the non-conforming lot with the issuance of a conditional use permit. Now, that w that provision was specifically put into our ordinance when it was updated in 2022 because we have a few of these types of lots in this neighborhood in
particular um in New where they're really not desirable to be built on or not buildable um because of of setbacks or the railroad or that type of thing. Um in the past we were issuing um the allowance of the building those uh types of detached structures without a
principal use or a house through a variance but a conditional use permit is is a better process uh for that. So we change that in 22. Um, a detached residential accessory structure must be set back 5 feet from the side and rear property lines and 30
feet from the front front property line. Can't exceed 16 uh ft in height at the peak and uh can't be uh can be a maximum of 1,000 square ft um in size. So, we did in your packets you can see we did
receive um one email with regard to this uh conditional use permit. That email was concerned that the structure would be too large, wouldn't meet the setbacks, and would be too tall. Well, the um the property owner understands um and we have as part of our report to
you, a detached residential accessory structure in that zoning district still has to meet the standards. The applicant isn't uh requesting a variance from those standards. Um we do have five proposed conditions. One, that the applicant shall 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 for accessory uses in the RT2 zoning district. Three, there shall be no exterior storage on the property. Four, uh, the detached accessory structure shall not be used
for commercial purposes. And then five, all detached accessory structures on the property shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. And that would conclude the staff report. >> Thank you, Mr. nicely. >> I don't have any questions with it. We've issued them down there before a
few years back. I think we did one last year. To me, it's fine with the property. If there's no other discussion, I'm going to offer the resolution to approve with conditions a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 28x32 detached accessory structure on a lot that is non-conforming in size and located in
the traditional neighborhood single and two family resident district legally described as part of lot 11 block 10 north of center street. >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. We do have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion?
Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Nicely. Item 2.3 is another cup for 318 to 326 North Broadway for scooters
coffee drive-thru service. Madame President and members of the city council, uh the proposed street address um for this project is 318 to 326 North Broadway.
Um, as part of the resolution that would approve uh this request, uh uh it includes the findings of fact that u the planning commission um recommended for approval in their
motion. uh planning commission considered this at their uh March 26, 2026 meeting and unan unanimously recommended approval of the request with 10 conditions.
The um owner of the property is SLD Properties LLC. The applicant is gentleman by the name of Brett Skilbread. Um and their proposed project uh
involves the construction of a building approximately 6,000 square ft and within that 6,000 square ft there would be three stores. Um the and so for one of those stores, the
applicant is proposing a drive-thru service and that would be for the southerntherly most um store area. So that's adjacent uh to the Broadway house. And if you look at the um drawing
um on the screen, you can see the area that we're talking about um in green. And so the proposed drivethru
would uh be located uh for off of uh 4th North Street. That's its starting point. You would come in, you would take a right, then you would drive around the
building until you reached um a menu board which would be located um um on North Broadway on the North Broadway uh side of the of the building. And then
you would pick up your coffee um where the arrow is currently pointed. and then you could leave either by using the alley or going back to fourth street. Um, scooters
does not have interior service uh for customers, although we have heard uh recently that they possibly might have a window where people could walk up and uh purchase um coffee.
Um, the proposed use does qualify as a drive-thru service according to our zoning ordinance. And so the provisions that apply to that type of use are going to apply in this particular
um situation. uh drive-thru service is permitted in the B4 zoning district with a conditional use permit. The B4 zoning district is our downtown area, central business district.
Um, we have accessory use standards um for this uh type of uh use and I'd like to go through those. There are are seven of them.
The first one is that service provided by the drive-thru facility is accessory to an interior on-site service within the same structure. Number two, drive-thru lanes shall be designed to avoid disruption of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow both on and off site. Number three, drive-thru lanes shall not be located between the restaurant entrance and customer parking spaces whenever possible.
Four, landscaping and other improvements are included which screen automobile stacking space from the public street. Five, voice amplifiers used in conjunction with drive-thru services
shall not be audible to adjoining residential areas. Six, minimum stacking space shall be provided per the requirements of section 10.7L. Seven, a solid screen fence at least 6 feet in height and complying with
section 10.3 fences and walls shall be constructed along the property line when said use abuts any residential zoning district. And we do have a residential zoning district in this particular instance
that being the Broadway house. And then number eight, a driving lane may not cross a front property line street on a property designated as a um historic preservation landmark or district.
I would note that the uh proposed project uh complies with all of those standards with the exception of number two, number four, number five, and number seven. And so they will need to
do additional work in order to meet our requirements. And they are aware um of that fact. Um a few other things about the um project.
Uh there will be off- streetet parking. There are 40 42 parking spaces and they would be situated between the building and the alley. Um the
um the main building entrances will be on the alley side of the property. As you look at the site plan, there are doors on both the front and the rear. Now again, the front being the
alley side, the rear being actually the Broadway side. And but the re uh rear uh doors are intended as uh for e used in emergency situations. Um a drive-thru
um based on its use is required to have a minimum number of stacking spaces. In this particular case, this um
drive-thru is classified as a drive-thru restaurant. And so they're required to have four uh stacking spaces from the place where you would pick up the coffee and four stacking spaces from
where the menu board would be located. So that would be eight spaces and they have provided us with a drawing which shows that they very easily will um meet that um requirement.
Um the applicant um indicated uh to us and to the planning commission that they plan to have a landscape buffer or block wall to control headlight cast off noise and
traffic per the city code. that number two, a drive-thru in the proposed district will not alter the appearance or character of the area. Number three, the development and operation of a drive-thru will not hurt
the economic welfare of the community. Four, the design thoughtfully and intentionally considers traffic congestion, circulation, and parking to be as efficient as possible. And the final one is the benefits of a
local drive-through coffee shop outweigh the negatives. It will draw customers to the central district and drive commerce for the city. Now the conditions that were identified
um by the planning commission included the following. Number one, the applicant property owner will pay the cost to record the permit with the Brown County Recorders Office. Number two, all business activities will
take place within the new building as provided in the submitted architectural documents. Number three, uses on the property shall comply with the city of New Alm noise restriction regulations found in section
808 of the city code. Four, the owner will remove from the grounds and surrounding properties any debris or garbage associated with or generated by the activities on the site.
Number five, no exterior storage will be permitted on the property. Number six, the project will comply with city landscape regulations. Number seven, the applicant will provide
a garbage disposal area in compliance with city zoning regulations. And I would note that um they already have identified an area uh for that purpose. Uh number eight, the applicant sign will
provide sufficient signage advising customers of the business in the building and that the alley adjoining the property is a one-way alley proceeding in a north to south decoration direction. This building is
somewhat unique in having the main entrance off of the alley. So, your main signage is going to be in that location and yet you're going to have Broadway on
the other side. And so, some type of um identification or signage uh would perhaps also be appropriate in that location. and we're going to have to look at um you know the size of the signage that they're proposing before
we can determine if there's a problem or not with that issue. Um number nine, the applicant will attempt to preserve the two trees located in the northeast corner of the property. They're fairly large. We like
to save them if we could. And then number 10, section 9.3, accessory use standards, item nine, identifies the zoning regulations that the drive-thru service shall comply with.
I would also note that within the community, there are other locations that have similar types of uh uh turning movements. Um, if you look at some of the banks
downtown, look at Citizens Bank right across the alley. When you leave there, you're taking a sharp turn and then you're taking a sharp turn to get onto the um alley. Um, Fransen Bank has to a lesser
degree that same issue. Um, if you, um, look at Walgreens, uh, drive-thru, it's fairly tight, I would say. Um, then McDonald's, Caribou Coffee,
Hardies, any fast food restaurant that has a drive-thru is going to have some fairly tight turning movements for vehicles to get to the um, appropriate location. We also um looked at other
locations where there are scooters um um businesses since this is a franchise type of operation and they're found different parts of the state of Minnesota and tight turning movements is
fairly common to many of their sites. That would uh conclude the um staff report. >> Thank you. I have one question for Mr. Snow, but you got to refresh my fencing ordinance. I know we have to have that between residential and commercial.
Dave, is that fence going to come out to the building Broadway side or to the curb? >> So, what staff would propose is that we use vegetation from the sidewalk to the front of the
building. And then at the front of the building is where we would start the fence. >> Okay. Good. >> And extend it um past the um end of the building >> cuz it's very unique coming down Broadway. There's this threetory. Now we're going to a brand new nicel looking
building and we're going to cover it up with a fence. >> Yeah. And our fence regulations say in the front yard you're supposed to be 4 feet and two. So we would have that conflict. So, we think uh the vegetation that we're looking at is something that
would um you know in in the winter time would still serve as a as an effective barrier. >> All right. Thank you. >> I have a question. Was it considered to kind of like take this and just flip it the other way? I just I have concerns
with the aesthetic purely, but the look of just having these exit doors in the back and everything's facing Broadway and yeah, we'll have some trees and yeah, we'll have a fence that covers it, but as people are kind, you know, driving by like I mean, is there anything that we're doing to make sure
that the back of the buildings like at least don't look Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Okay. I just want to make sure cuz Yeah. >> Yeah. We we've uh dealt with both civil
engineers and with um architects um on this particular project and we have had those discussions with them and they just felt that this was the best approach for them to take. >> Okay. But we wouldn't require them to
put any signage like on the back of the building or anything like that. Like I'm just >> No, we don't we would not require that. Um we Yeah, we would like them to get maximum exposure if if that's possible.
>> Okay. >> All right. I just I want to make sure that if we're moving forward with this in this way that it's not going to be something that everybody's going to complain about for 25 years. So, thank you.
>> I'm just I'm being serious. >> I've got no questions. I'm not seeing anybody else. Any more questions? So, I'm going to offer a motion recommend approval with conditions to the applicant of bread skill bread on behalf of SLD Properties LLC to allow the operation of a drive-thru service for
Scooters Coffee on properties zone B4, Central Business District, as shown on the above. approve building plans for the project and located on the property legally described as lot 8-10 block 69 north of center street city of Newm
Brown County Minnesota >> second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> It's a resolution. >> It is a resolution. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Um so Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian. >> Yes. >> Councelor Schmidtz. >> Yes.
>> Councelor Mack. >> Yes. >> And President Becker. >> Yes. That motion carries. Thank you. Now on to old business. Item 3.1 is the 2026 utility street and alley improvement project. Mr. Stoddheim. >> All right. Thank you, Madam President. City councilors, as you previously
authorized, staff received and open bids on Wednesday, March 18th for the 2026 utility street alley improvement project. We received bid three bids for this project and the bids were read aloud as follows. GM Contracting 2,427,112
MR Paving and Excavating 2,447,514.3 and Crow River Construction 3,898,739.65. All bids were tabulated and found to be correct as red. The low bid was found to be $623,6458 or 20.5% under the engineers's detailed
estimate. Uh when reviewing the bids, unit pricing across the board was lower than estimated, but we noticed that especially in the underground utility work associated with this project is where we saw the most cost savings. um which is pretty consistent what we've
seen in the area with other municipalities uh projects being bid. Um the low bid was responsive and responsible all documentation included. It is staff's recommendation that we would award the contract to the low
bidder GM contracting. Uh it after the bid opening it is estimated that the 2026 bonding need of $1.2 $2 million for this project. Um, and then a total gross bonding need of 2.2 million for the
remaining projects scheduled within the 2026 CIP. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Stoheim. Um, I do just have a question if Mr. Scott is on this evening.
>> Yes. Good evening. Uh, council president, council member, can you hear me? >> Hi, Robert. Hi. Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Nice to see you. Um, so I did have a question. Um, councelor Wormka was not able to attend the meeting today. He did have, um, a work commitment that, um, he's on call for
and was trying to get here, but, um, he had some constituent, um, I guess questions and, um, suggestions that we really that we take a look at potentially awarding the contract to Mr. behaving given that there's only a
$20,000 difference um and that this would be a local company doing the work. So, I was curious um just you know obviously for for me and so that councelor Warmut can report back from to his constituents with the proper information that um I guess my question
is are we required to go with the lowest bid by state statute? >> Uh thank you council president, mayor, members of the council. The answer is yes. Um, on a project like this that's subject to mandatory competitive
bidding, the city is legally required to award to the lowest responsible bidder from all the bids received. >> Um, so really for the city to not award to the low bidder, you would need to do one of two things. The council would need to find that uh in some material
respect the low bid did not conform to the city's bid specifications. um or if it did uh that there's some issue with the party submitting the low bid that made them not a responsible bidder. Um reviewing the materials doesn't appear that there's any uh
concern with the low bidder. So if that is in fact the case, the city would be legally required to award to the uh lowest responsible bidder. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. That answers my question and then it gives us the information that we can use to go back to our constituents um after we
vote to approve this. Thank you so much. I'm on a motion to award the contract for the 2026 utility street alley improvement project to GM Contracting Incorporated in the amount of $2,427,000 and $11 and2.
>> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. Opposed. That motion does carry. Um item 3.2 Two under old business is the
airport cross wind runway 927 construction project. >> Madam presency councilors again as authorized staff received an open bids for this project on March 24th. Uh we received two bids for this project. Low
bid was Dunick Incorporated at1,623,968. Second bid was Matawitz Construction 1,868,881.50. 50 cents. The low bid was found to be 27% below the engineers's estimate for this project. Uh again, as a reminder, this project is uh 95% funded through a
future FAA CDS grant. So that's congressionally directed spending grant. Um at 95% and then a state grant will cover an additional 2.5% leaving our local share at 2.5% or approximately $40,000.
Uh the local share for this project is included with the 2025 bond issuance. Um letter of recommendation is included from our consultant engineer Men Hunt on the project along with the tabulation and other information provided in the bid documents. Uh the low bid was
responsive and responsible uh after review of the bid documents. It is our recommendation that contract is awarded to Dunik pending the city receiving the CDS grant and the state companion grant to complete this work. Madame President and counselors, uh, I'd
like to make a motion to award the contract for the airport crosswind runway 9/27 construction project to Dunach Incorporated in the amount of 1,623,968 contingent on the city receiving the federal and state companion grants to
complete this work. >> 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 3.3, we have a Bombag rubber tired roller equipment
purchase. And hi, welcome, Mr. Hoffman. Hello. >> Uh, thank you, Madam President. Uh, and city council. Jeff Hoffman, public works superintendent. Um, back in February of 3rd, the council meeting, we tabled the uh roller uh repair and purchase of a
new one. Therefore, looking for a better pricing. Um, little background, our 2022 roller was 3 years old, had $300 on it, blew a hydraulic motor, and it contaminated a whole hydraulic system.
um to get it fixed was $63,125 or we could buy a new one back then for 96,450 or no 98,900 and they were only going to give us 9,000 for our trade in on our broken roller. So, I know we tabled it last
time and I went back talking to them the last two months going back and forth with Bome and RMS and they came up with a new price as you can see in your packet. A new price on the rollers 96450
and the new tradein price was 48,500. So, with the difference of 47,950 for a new roller, a 2026 roller, plus they threw in a 3-year extended warranty on it.
So, that's where we're at right now. Again, discussed at that last meeting. I'm fine with those numbers. I'm going to approve the purchase of a new 2026 Bomb
roller tire roller from Bomb Egg, an RMS company for the public works department for the maximum amount of 47,950 including trade in of unit number 52. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor
signal by saying I. >> I. I. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you for your work. I appreciate it. We all appreciate it. Item 3.4 is a new trap range building. Mr. Zabel, we are hearing from everybody
today. Madam President, uh, city council Zabo, building official, uh, we're looking to, um, advertise plans and specifications for the new trap range building. um had a bid opening on octo on April 28th.
The packet it shows um we last the 17th meeting we um attained professional service from RW Carlstrom to plan get the plans and specs um written up and and take care of
the bidding process. Uh they have cont they have finished that off. Uh the bids will be um set out to uh be on our website the paper and it will be on their construction trades um program. Also
just that one question I have for Mr. Zabel or Mr. Schugle. I know that DNR grant, you know, had that deadline on it. Were they cut? >> That's been extended. >> That's all I wanted to know. Madame President and counselors, I uh greatly support this project and I'm happy to
offer the resolution to approve the plans and specifications. Order the advertisement for bids for trap range building setting the opening bid date and authorize staff to receive and open bids for the project at 2 p.m. Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 in the city hall
council chambers. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Under
new business, item 4.1 is we have an appointment to the Sister Cities Commission. >> I'll have for a motion to approve the appointment of Hal Wald to the Sister Cities Commission for a three-year term ending December 31st, 2028. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in
favor signal by saying I. >> I. >> I. That motion does carry. Thank you very much and welcome Al. Item 4.2 is public right-of-way use for parking lane for Delta Innovative Services.
>> Council President, counselors, um this is a request to close the rightway uh for construction at 3M. Uh city engineer and I have already approved this as they wanted to start on April 6th. So, this is coming to you uh after the fact cuz you need to approve anything that is
over 14 days. >> Madam President, counselors, um I think this is a a good uh move here and I would like to make a motion to receive an order filed the public rightofway use application for Delta Innovative
Services, 4141 Fairbanks Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. uh and place traffic barriers and barriers on the sidewalk along the parking lane by 3M Company at 1700 North Minnesota Street to allow material handling and staging for roof
replacement from Monday, April 6, 2026 to Friday, May 8, 2026. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion. >> Those in favor signal by saying I. I. >> That motion does carry. Item 4.3 is use
of parking stalls by Misfit Crafters event coordinators. >> I'll have for a motion authorize the use of parking stalls by Misfit Crafters event coordinators located in the second North and Broadway Street parking lot adjacent to city hall to hold a shop the
lot craft and vendor shows on the following Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. April 25th, 2026, May 23rd, 2026. June 20th, 2026, July 25th, 2026,
August 22nd, 2026, and September 19th, 2026. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion. Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. >> That motion carries. Item 4.4 is to set a public hearing date for a noise
variance for 209 Pub and Grow. A motion to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. for a request from the 209 Pub and Grill for a noise variance to permit Apple Pied Sound on Minnesota Street between Second and Third North Streets on
Saturday, August 22nd, 2026 from 7:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. during the fundraising event. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? >> Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. I. >> That motion carries. Item 4.5 is a fire
department donation. >> Madame President, counselors, I'd like to offer the resolution to accept the $500 donation from Marilyn Reinhardt. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role.
>> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, yes. >> Councelor Mack, yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. Motion carries. Last item of business today is item 5.1, report of claims paid. >> For a motion to accept the list of
claims paid in the amount of 3,662,3465. >> Second. >> We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. I. I. That motion does carry. And with no additional business today, this meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.