e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e good afternoon it's 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday April 1st 2025 we will call the city council meeting of the city of New to order first item of business is the
consent agenda counselors what are your wishes I'll move it second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I motion carries item number 2.1 is a public hearing on vacation of
street right of way Mr schnober hello Madame President members of the city council um the city council received a vacation petition from John Gog on behalf of GMG rentals
Incorporated and you received that at your March 4th 2025 meeting and at that time you set a public hearing for today's meeting the legal description of the proper that is proposed for vacation
is 16th North Street adjacent to lot one block 205 North of Center Street and the vacated alley in said block 205 North and adjacent to lot 7 block 206 north of
Center Street and the vacated Alley located in Block 206 north um GMG rentals owns all of the property that surrounds this area and according to the city Charter that
qualifies them to request the vacation of that street rideway so the street rway that we're talking about is approximately a half block and it extends uh from the uh rear of the Gog
sheet metal building to the bike trail now um both the Pu electric department and Comcast have uh cable within the area that is proposed uh for
vacation um other utility services are located in North Front Street um notice of the vacation request was sent to um the two adjoining property owners um staff would recommend approval
of this request um for the following reasons number one the vacation would facilitate future development of the property number two City and pu departments as well as local communication companies
have no objections to the vacation three this is an area in which a number of alleys and side street segments have been vacated in the past with no adverse impact on the ab ability to develop or access
properties and four the RightWay is not required for any current or future city purposes um the um request uh we would uh recommend um
some conditions there are three of them those conditions are number one that they prepare a vacation plat and file the plat in the authorizing resolution with the Brown County record's office two that they pay
the vacation approval fee of $2,090 and three um there is uh the utilities uh and the cable that is um currently located within the area
proposed for vacation and we will in our letter to um GMG rentals we will advise them that um that cable if it is to be
relocated or removed that that would be the cost of GMG rentals um to to be paid at that time um in the attachments there is an exhibit showing an aerial photo
that shows a Loc ation um of the property um I would note that in 2023 we vacated additional rights of o in this area for GMG rentals uh as well um the
segment that we're talking about today sits between two former bunkers where um corn was stored by um one of the local elevators so thank that would conclude the staff
report report thank you Mr schn at this time we will open the public hearing if anyone cares to be heard please come to the microphone state your name and address for the record seeing nobody wants to be heard I'll close the public hearing and offer resolution authorizing with conditions the vacation of 16th North Street
adjacent to lot one block 205 North of Center Street and the vacated alley in said block 205 North and also adjacent to block or lot 7 block 206 north of Center Street and the vacated Alley located in said block 206 North Second
thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion director jensson please call the role councelor Christian yes councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes and president Becker yes that motion carries item number
3.1 conditional use permit for National Guard Readiness Center special purpose fence Mr niely uh good evening council president counselors John nisle planner with the city of New Alm uh so the city of New Al's fence regulations outline that a barbed wire fence is considered a
special purpose fence in the city and can be permitted with a conditional use permit in 2021 the National Guard was issued a conditional use permit for this uh same location but for only the field
maintenance shop on the rear of the property uh the proposed new fence is identical with 7 foot of chain length and then one additional foot of barbed wire at the top of the chain link uh the property is located at uh two uh 2100
Palmer Avenue uh similar fences have been permitted uh within the city of new with a conditional use permit the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this conditional use permit with four conditions those conditions are in the staff uh report to the
council um I would note that it is anticipated that the Readiness Center um facing Highway 14 is um should be completed by Midsummer and that concludes the staff report nicely being that this is a normal thing for a
military I'm not going to call it a base of it but establishments I'm going to offer the resolution to approve the conditional use permit with conditions to allow the installation of a special purpose fence on the property legally described as lot one block one Palmer Edition street address 2100 Palmer
Avenue second second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion I just had a quick question did you say it's just one wire of barb wire a foot higher than the 7even foot frence or is it rolled or it should be three strands okay and it's 1 foot total
uh in height so it's a 8ft tall fence in total 7 foot of its chain length the upper foot of barer gotcha thank you any additional discussion director J please call the role Council Christian yes councelor warut yes councelor schmidtz
yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes that motion carries item 3.2 is a interim use permit for 115 North Washington Street all right this proposed in interim use permit is to allow a Gunsmithing business uh to continue to
be located in a detach garage on property zoned rt2 uh at 115 North Washington Street rt2 is a residential zoning District uh the applicant was originally issued an interim use permit um for the same
business at the same location um in 2020 uh today it staff has received no complaints or concerns regarding this business or its operations on this property uh in addition to city regulations the applicant is also required to maintain all appropriate
licenses and approvals from the Department of Justice and ATF so those are federal uh regul ations uh the Planning Commission recommended approval of the interim use permit with 14 conditions um which were the same as uh what were approved in
2020 uh and those conditions can be read uh in this staff report uh to the council they did recommend approval of the interim use permit for a period of five years that concludes the staff report thank you Mr nisley and five years is the max correct five years is
the max cor thank you so much me we've done this before we've had no complaints it's worked out and I've heard nothing on it I'm going to offer the resolution to approve with conditions the interm use permit application of Brent Meyer to allow operation of a Gunsmithing business on
property located in rt-2 zoning district and legally described as Lot 4 block 140 North of Center Street second thank you we do have a motion and a second any additional discussion director Jorgenson please call the role councelor Christian yes
councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes that motion carries thank you Mr nle item 3.3 is a simple lot division part of block lot five block one Front Street Industrial Park second
edition mam president members of the city council the applicant is Willis schaer the property owner is Robert dri um the street address of the property is um 1,000 North Front Street
um property is generally located east of North Front Street and south of 12th North Street um schaer weal company is in the process of purchasing the property from Robert Dietrich on a contract for deed
basis um the total lot area of lot five is 10.5 ACR the applicant is proposing to subdivide that property into two Parcels um in your attachments if you
look at attachment one and attachment two there are drawings showing the location of this um subdivision um the new parcel of property would be uh created on the north side of the property by the
Minnesota Valley testing Labs building um it would allow schaer Contracting to construct a new office building um in this area the new parcel would have approximate dimensions of 150 ft in
width and depth of 470 ft um the proposed legal descriptions are provided um in the uh staff report those would be the southeasterly 150 ft of the
northwesterly 190 ft of the southwesterly 47.79 Ft of of lot five the second description would be lot five block one Front Street Industrial Park Second Edition city of New Al Brown
County Minnesota accepting there from the northwesterly 40 ft of the southwesterly 89019 ft and also exempting there from the northwesterly 190 ft of the
southwesterly 47.79 ft in the I2 zoning districts we do not have any lot area lot width or lot depth standards um there are required setbacks
but none would impact the lot Division and finally the staff has not been advised of any utility conflicts caused by the proposed lot division um staff and and the commission
recommended approval of the simple lot division with one condition and that was that the approval is subject to the applicant recording the resolution authorizing the simple lot division with the Brown County Recorder's Office that
would conclude the staff report thank you Mr n or thank you Mr schnober you want that one recommendation read in or it's fine just to read it just yeah I think it's fine I'll offer a resolution approving a simple o to of lot five block one Front
Street and D Park Second Edition city of New Home Brown County Minnesota accepting there from the northwesterly 40 ft of lot five block one Front Street Industrial Park second div Edition second thank you we have a motion and a second any additional
discussion director Jorgenson please call the role councelor Christian yes councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes motion carries moving on to Old business item 4.1 regarding 2025 Street utility and Alley Improvement
project thank you madam president city councilors as previously authorized staff received and open bids on Wednesday March 19th for the 2025 utility Street and Alley Improvement project the bids were open and read allowed as follows Mr Paving and Excavating
$3,282 n952 GM Contracting 4,158 18988 the m Paving and Excavating bid was tabulated and found to be correct is read the GM Contracting bid was
tabulated and found to have an error and the correct amount was $4,150 7461 low bid was found to be 28.7% under our engineer detailed estimate of 4,612
1550 when reviewing the bids unit prices across the board were lower than estimated based on last last year's pricing was especially noticeable in underground utility work associated with the project the bids appeared to be balanced When comparing to anticipated project location
costs should note these are Bid prices that we haven't seen for 10 to 15 years based on results of the bid opening the bid or the bonding need for this project is approximately $2.2 million um with a gross bonding need of
around 5.3 for the remaining projects scheduled Within the 2025 Capital Improvement plan um and that includes the 2025 airport projects and storm sewer Improvement project I'd be happy to answer any questions the council may have thank you Mr
stadheim President and counselors um I would like to make a uh motion to award the contract for the 2025 utility Street and Alley Improvement project to Mr Paving and Excavating Incorporated in the amount of 3,282 n952
second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I that motion does carry item number 4.2 is a reconsideration of North Garden Street layout um and the recommendation from the safety
commission um I cannot take additional action on this but this I believe can be reopened Mr dton so in order to reopen this um one of the counselors that was in favor uh initially has to make the motion to reconsider consider the the item I will make a motion to reconsider
North Garden Street layout second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I that motion does carry and this item is now open once again Mr stadheim thank you madam president City
councilors at the request of uh councilors warka and Schmitz uh this item is back before you today I will throw up the present so just a short presentation uh again showing the layouts uh one and two and then as well
as a alternative layout number three um that was requested by the council so as previously discussed layout option one um just the 44t street similar to what's north of fifth North Street uh with the angled parking
adjacent to Harmon Park uh an update on the parking variance request for Harmon Park that was approved by the mot variant committee last week um so we should be getting an order from the Department of Transportation commissioner uh with that approval for
that design variant so that is good news for the project uh layout option two uh as a reminder included the med median between 2 North Street and Fifth North Street again all of these options include the mini roundabout at fifth North Street as well I did include a couple pictures
from uh this is from East 21st Street in sou Falls South Dakota it's kind of a similar situation uh their roadways here are a bit narrower than what we were proposing but I did want to give some uh real life examples as opposed to the
concept drawings you saw a couple weeks ago just a couple pictures for consideration talking with their public uh Works maintenance staff they have uh that's a priority route for their snow removal operations and they have parking
enforcement in any snow event over 2 in of snow so when it snows over 2 in there's no parking on the street but as soon as their whole plow is completed parking is then allowed on on the street after that and here's just an overhead view of
that location in sou Falls this this extends for probably about eight blocks um this is in the area of Vera hospital so then finally as request Ed we did have SE prepare a concept drawing showing the bump outs at uh at all the
intersection locations I do want to note that fourth North Street is slightly um slightly an issue due to a driveway being kind of offset in the middle of that intersection um after reviewing that slightly I guess it' be my
recommendation that we would not include fourth North if if you elect to move forward with this layout option um while we could extend the bump outs on both sides of second North and then also complete the bump outs on third North
Street as well so that is the um presentation I have for you today and um like Council have your discussion thank you I'll be right up front Okay I mean we're reconsidering it is Council
wishing to change what option we want to go to that's what I'm interested in hearing I I guess I am at this at this point the amount of people um that have reached out the amount of people that have
signed petitions um warranted the uh reconsideration I would like to hear from the public here I assume there's some people that are probably from the neighborhood or want something to say about this um it was one of those things that we've had open houses this was open
to the public to come to the meeting we didn't get any the feedback that we wanted to have I mean this was something I mean you see the pictures that were up there it's something that was going to be Grant driven not a taxable item that it was something let's make a positive change that was all I was personally
looking at but I'm not too proud to say that if there's people that have uh alternative ideas I'm definitely want to hear about it and I definitely like seeing the bump outs on this one I that's my biggest concern with this was keeping keeping people safe getting
across those streets having bump outs as an actual option is uh is what I now favor seeing it but I I'd like to hear from people if there are residents if they'd be in favor of something like this too being this is kind of the first that's been seen and if you can state your name and
address for the record uh West lud Dragon 423 North Garden uh lived there for 20 years um just a couple thoughts I have I do like to bump out idea a lot better than Center median there are 13 people that have driveways and the center meeting
will affect each and one one every one of us um there are six people that don't have access to the alley so the only thing they have is their driveway um the parking with the snow I mean
Garden streets are wind after wind so you're going to have drifting and drifting and my opinion the center median is just a snow blockage for the snow um and again the safety commission recommended not putting it in so I don't
know um let's see what else do I got you're near you're already naring the street to 44 ft if you don't put them in so I feel that it's effective not having the center medion in because you're already naring it by 16 ft and just that
uh it's going to pack impact probably 18 of us that you know directly as far as using our driveways and access to our homes and safe parking or off street parking so that's pretty much all I got to say thank you for your time thank
you uh Lori Ludwig also at 423 North Garden and I guess first of all I appreciate you reopening this um we had attended the open house and I did email through the website the project website our preference of no uh Center median um
and so I kind of felt like some of that stuff wasn't even heard so I'm appreciate you reopening this um and yeah we did run go through the neighborhood and kind of Knocked door too and got quite a few people that were also opposed to the center median as
well we invited some of those with us as well um so hopefully we appreciate you listening to us um and our concerns thank you thank you Mary I live at 311 North Garden I have only been there for two years but I have been a resident of newm for 30
years and I do think the median is not a great idea um the amount of traffic that I see on that road I walk newal every day I go down to Center Street I go up Center Street Hill and I do see a
majority of bicyclers utilizing Garden Street so essentially you are eliminating the bicycle route no matter what what idea you go with because you're shrinking our straight down to 44 feet and I'm already concerned about getting
out of my door when I park on the street and cars are flying by me most of them go at least 30 if not over 30 and so I feel like my safety is concerned I do not have a driveway access on Garden Street and so the only way to get up to
my house through the alley is up a number of stairs so I I'm not imp I'm not opposed I am opposed to the the median so that's all I have to say excellent thank you so much would anyone else care to be
heard I guess you know it's a it's a great thing to get civically involved and I'm so happy that there's so many people here uh Joel bam 411 North Garden we've been there about 30 5 years um 37
Cindy's been there longer um guess where we were out of town when this whole thing went down and guess we were understanding we'd have a little bit more time than this but it happened pretty quickly it would deeply affect our backing out of our driveway that and
I guess we really don't want to see the mean thank you thank you well I think it's a consensus amongst the people that live there that the median is uh is uh not in favor and Council you guys have any other
opinions on like layout 3 layout yep come on up I'm Cindy Blick and I live at 411 North Garden and I've been there for 39 years and my grandma lived there since 1967 so I've very familiar with the
traffic on Garden Street and I've always appreciated that that street was wider like you said for the the the bikes and it's just been a a privilege to have that street be wider and I noticed that down the road there are no
crosswalks um on the street and that would help with people's you know being aware that you really should stop for the kids because there are no down on Fifth North there's the they're marked down I looked the other day and they're not marked also
parking is an issue because if we have friends and Gathering people like the people across the street have no driveways and you can't park in Winter where are they going to park on Fifth North you can't really Park on our street because and our block is the 400 block and the 300 there is no Side
Street between it's all connected and I'm not sure where you're talking about the bump out on fourth or it's it's proposed in one of the the layout options okay but anyway that is some of my concerns so thank you thank
you um well I I'll say um as far as the layout for option three you know if there is some conflict with putting that bump out on Fourth um fourth North you know I would be okay I mean is the plan is the plan to put bump outs on like
every single um every single intersection because I know the majority of the crossing is done at first North and fifth north um and so um if there are some conflicts with putting it at Fourth North or even you know third
North I'm not sure how frequently that's crossed in um consideration of the fifth and first but I guess my question is is the plan to eventually put bump outs at every intersection I guess Madam president say so this would be if bump outs are ordered in at third
and fourth that would kind of go against our policy of putting them where they're needed right um typically we've done them adjacent to schools obvious we've done them um on Fifth North adjacent to the newx campus um we've done them on
German Street adjacent to Johnson and Johnson sporting complexes um uh I I would say the short answer to your question is no um they do not belong at every intersection um we try to focus on focus them where we have the
higher pedestrian traffic um adjacent to parks and things of that nature uh that's why you know the recommendation to not include fourth um I I guess I would stick with that recommendation and ultimately let the council make the decision um if you wanted to see him at
third or both sides a second but I guess um yeah my recommendation would try to keep them in those more heavily pedestrian traveled areas and that's not to say if you you know if we put them there maybe that pedestrian traffic
increases as well right um but um it's the same as you know signing and and things of that nature you don't want oversaturation because then they don't become important right um so I guess was kind of my comments to kind of answer on
your question a little bit but in short no they don't deserve to be at every intersection okay um my question then would it be possible to consider kind of layout option three with bump outs at um at first North and then it looks like
they'll be roundabout at fifth North would that roundabout include a bump out as well I'm just having trouble identifying that from the picture Madam president no there would not be a bump out in the roundabout as the the roundabout footprint itself serves that same Purpose with the the meetings that
are included at the Crossing locations thank you counselors mayor other comments uh my comment would be first of all to thank all of you residents that uh showed up here tonight and others that signed a petition those of you who went door too our government
is all about the people and participating and listening to you I uh applaud the uh Council for reopening this opportunity to revisit uh the different layout for Garden Street and
encourage us to consider and to listen to the residents thank you thank you mayor uh president and counselors um and engineer stadheim I see you know that fourth um fourth North intersection is
unique in the project and that it um you know forth North Terminus is there on Garden Street it doesn't continue to the to the West um correct correct yeah so I I certainly uh see why that intersection
is just a three-way and it's uh you know a different intersection than the other ones in the project Zone um so if we were to to choose the bump out option number three I would support um treating you know the
intersection at Fourth North differently um and maybe not having bump outs there that's one comment I have um another comment at our last meeting we talked about possibly no parking in the winter time um because of snow issues um but
there may be also a possibility of allowing parking in the winter um but just temporarily during a snow emergency um so that cars would have to move if there's a snow emergency declared just as we do downtown um
so I wanted to mention that and you know this is a very busy thorough there is it a county state aid route not County it is a municipal state aid route Municipal state aid route so it's not a slow sleepy quiet neighborhood um Street it's
a main thoroughfare um and I think it's important I think we all realize that um so those are just a few comments I have I also do appreciate hearing from the uh you know the neighbors and residents um I Echo what uh the mayor
just mentioned yeah I I really appreciated actual just positive feedback it was civil normal I mean we didn't have to get violent or anything about this it was actually really really nice to actually get to visit with a lot of the people here I too don't support it need
seeing a need at fourth in any capacity but I do still like seeing them at third and second first just to help people slow down a little bit once they start getting to those Parks I with the football practices that go on a lot of boy a lot of kids walk down there soccer
is going to be being used down there the parks are going to be hopping in the summer and I'd like to see people slowing down and those bump outs do kind of dictate that also with not having a median the snow plowing isn't really a major issue at all anymore the the need
to have it be a snow emergency route um so I guess there's a lot of lot of good with option three you I'm going to kind of tag along with councelor warmka and a little history behind that it's not the first time we've argued about medians in new home 98 there was an argument with
Center Street and I I had pulled it out are you remember at that time Joel alick was a counselor and he made the statement about no Street reconstructed benefits only the owners said councelor Joel alri We don't build streets for individuals it's for the community at
Large what I'm taking on with councelor warka is it's not just the general people in that area Westside Park is heavily used by young kids crossing the street dashing out from cars and whatnot so
it's not the first time we argued about medians well and I'd like to also add to that I mean some of the other locations in our community that do have mediums medians obviously Broadway Center Street North Highland you know those those areas are certainly uh you know high
traffic areas um and probably higher traffic areas than this section of Garden Street um I don't know if we have tra traffic counts Madam president City councilors uh rough uh traffic counts are around 4,000 vehicles per day 4,100
maybe on on Garden Street and how might that compare to Center Street or uh it's about half of Center Street no maybe two-thirds yeah okay but Center Street would have sign significantly more than that correct y
okay I guess I'm going to just chime in a little bit you know from my last vote you know you know aesthetically I and because you know the information that we received and you know we didn't have any other uh people in the audience you know speaking on behalf of their neighborhood
you know I actually liked option two you know it looked very attractive and met our comp plan needs you know but uh this option three you know with the bump outs and if we can satisfy some of that and get a compromise I'm okay with that
so I mean it's change you know we're forever changing or trying to look at opportunities you know from all sides that's a good opportunity to fix up a road that needs to be fixed and good opportunity to make a make a change
for positive I guess we anyone else want to share anything else otherwise I can I'll make a motion to direct staff to move forward with layout option number three uh minus bump outs at Fourth North uh for the
2027 North Garden Street project for the area between 2 North Street and 5th North Street second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion the only discussion I would like to add is I appreciate the work put
into this uh additional option I know we discussed it briefly at the last meeting but to to see it here in front of us and presented um I think it's uh it's still a very nice expansion of our boulevards and The Greening of the area and the
safety at our intersections uh I greatly appreciate staff's work on this thank you my only other comment perhaps it's a question can I can I get some head nods in One Direction or another from the yeah okay all right I do have one
other question for the engineer maybe he knows it or not with that option three the boulevards how much do we gain well I would go back to the option one footprint so we should off top of my head I think those are 8ft boulevards 8
to 10t boulevards 6 foot sidewalk okay so um obviously they'll boulevards will be a little larger at in the vicinity the bump outs so um but all right thank you maybe one more comment that goes back to our last meeting when President beer was
talking about maintenance you know with this uh option three in the the boulevards um being a responsibility of Maintenance of the neighboring um land owner um is an important aspect I think for the community as opposed to the
median maintenance uh would fall upon our city staff is min understanding so I think uh if the homeowners are willing to uh make maintain a larger Boulevard I think this um this this can
fly thank you um only other question how will this affect the bike lane because we are losing some or the bike riding I guess m president City councilors it's still going to be on the the bike route um we it there's not a designated Lane
we don't have markings for a lane it's it's there sherow and share the road signage um that will remain the same it that won't change um it's going to be very similar to what's north of fifth North in front of the clinic okay thank you so much any other comments questions
or concerns we do have a motion and a second um those in favor signal by saying I I I opposed that motion does carry thank you so much thank you everyone I hope you stick around for the
rest of the meeting you can see what else we get to do do okay moving on um to item 4.3 is the 2025 airport apron expansion taxi Lane Extension and Airfield pavement maintenance Project M Madam president City councelor so bids
were opened and received um for this project uh and a little bit of History well we've gone through the history it was um kind of started the planning process for this uh back in 2023 with a task order executed by Council
um so we this uh bid package had the base bid plus a couple alternates um alternate one and two so we had three schedules um on this project um bids were open back on
um did I not put that in there that was open on March 5th sorry about that uh we were a we had three bids on the project um so ultimately instead of reading all the amounts and all the
alternates um ultimately the low B was Mr Paving and uh Excavating and this included all schedules at 1,293 77226 however um the engineers estimate for all schedules was about uh 1.1
million so about $200,000 more than what was anticipated as this project is 95% funded by uh the feds 22% by the state and 25% local um and with the m of uh
dedicated funding we had for this project um the bid amounts caused our local share to go up quite significantly because we were out of entitlement funds to fund the remaining portion of the project so we are recommending that the
base bid plus alternate number two be awarded so that includes the expansion of the apron which is needed for the fuel system which would be the next item for consideration along with the Airfield pavement maintenance so that includes crack filling and crack
repairing on the primary Runway and uh primary taxiway so that total base bid plus the alternate number two uh is $996 34.97 and that is what we are recommending for the contract Ward to uh
Mr Paving and Excavating that's a little bit of is about 15% over the engineers estimate um and the federal and the uh breakdown would be that 95 2 A2 and 2 and a half and that would be two years worth of
consecutive federal grants so we would fund this project upfront and reimburse ourselves over the next two years through the federal state and state Grant process so um within the packet was the recommendation award letter from her consultant at Meen hunt along with the
bid results and tabulation so I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have President and counselors um um I fully support um our airport and its operations and and and maintenance and improvements um it's also in in ward 3
so I'd like to make a motion to award the contract for the 2025 airport apron expansion and Airfield pavement maintenance project base bid alternate bid number two to Mr Paving and Excavating Incorporated in the amount of 99600
34.97 contingent on the city receiving the companion federal and state grants to complete this work second thank you we do have a motion in a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I that motion does carry
item 4.4 is the 2025 airport fuel system replacement project which we've known has been coming um mad president city councilors um so the this one's a little bit more muddy compared to the last one so the
total low bid for this project was Minnesota Petroleum Services at 1 Point 1, 617951 15 Engineers estimate for the project 1, 43,41639 a 7030 split 70% by the state 30% by the
city however um the state only funds up to a million dollars for a fuel system project so that 70% uh would not cover um or the the 1 million would not cover the full 70% again causing our local share to go up quite
significantly anticipating this our consultant engineer uh broke this project into two schedules and that included schedule one which is the site work including the access road and all pavement associated with the construction of a fuel system schedule
two is the actual fuel system itself um so when we break schedule one out from schedule two turns out the low bid would be Mr Paving and Excavating at $65,900 it is our recommendation that we go
ahead and award schedule one and schedule one only taking advantage of that 7030 uh cost share with the state of Minnesota there are Rumblings within the state uh agency that there will be a second solicitation for fuel system only grants
um after the state fiscal year starts over uh July 1 at that time we would reapply for a grant to fund the fuel system only portion of the project and go out for rebidding and develop a new bid proposal package for just the fuel system at that time so again our
recommendation is to award schedule one and schedule one only are Paving um based on the results in your bid in your Council action form thank you president counselors um I will also offer to make a motion to
award the contract for the 2025 airport fuel system replacement project schedule one to Mr Paving and Excavating Incorporated in the amount of $ 765,7 n53 contingent on the city receiving the
companion State Grant to complete this work second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion one question maybe the finance director can or cannot I notice we added that we're going to cover that overrun but we're well within our guideline right with the bond issue yes
we okay yeah we go all right that's all I want to know excellent thank you any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I I that motion carries item 4.5 comprehensive Safety Action plan for
uh Professional Services contract all right Madam president City councilors so uh as previously authorized we prepared and uh solicited proposals from Consulting Engineers for the development of a city of New comprehensive Safety Action Plan
proposed action plan will help identify roadway improvements to our roadway network with the goal of increasing safety and eliminating Serious injury and fatal acents within the city so as uh authorized we we received those proposals and reviewed them uh we
received five very uh well done proposals uh that final ranking is included within your agenda packet and ultimately staff is recommending that we award the contract to srf Consulting Group um their Max their average score
out of 100 was 92.3 three um and the range was that score to 86.67% to um to make come to an agreement and a decision um just a reminder this project is uh fully funded by the federal
government and the state of Minnesota with the matching ija funds uh the Federal grant is in hand so that has been executed and then the uh we will develop a force account with mindat for the remaining portion of the project so
as you can see the fee amount is right at that $250 ,000 and that that amount equates to our award amount U combining the two grants so we are again recommending uh srf uh perform this work for us and one item of note they
actually have an accelerated schedule within their proposal to complete this about uh four to five months in advance of what uh we specified within the proposal document or request for proposal well with the information given um I'll gladly award the contract to srf
Consulting Group Group Incorporated to provide Professional Services to deliver a city and Norm comprehensive Safety Action Plan in the amount of $249,999 A50 second thank you we have a motion in a second any further
discussion those in favor signal by saying I I I that motion carries item 4.6 is a purchase agreement with land Haven Development LLC thank you Mr niely good evening council president
councilors um if it's okay with the council uh we would like to pull this agenda uh item for tonight um and uh review it at the next council meeting this is per the request of the actual um the uh name in the purchase agreement
land Haven development policy perfect thank you so much can I get a motion to pull the item so move second thank we do have a motion and a second any further discussion those in FA favor signal by saying I I I that motion carries item is
pulled thank you so much item 4.7 second consideration of ordinance number 2025-the that we talked about last time I'll just kind of summarize um for you so again we are limiting it to two licenses um per
council's uh Direction uh registration fee um will be $350 um and then a renewal would be 700 but there are a couple more licenses that you'll be approving on the schedule um that'll be detailed
out um hours of operation uh Monday through Saturday will be 8:00 a.m. to 10: p.m. and then Sunday will be 10:00 a.m. to 10: p.m. operating hours for temporary can cannabis events would be 10: a.m. to 10 p.m. and then onsite
consumption um the consensus was to allow on-site consumption while in commercial grade fencing sounds fun back and redefine commercial grade fencing okay thank you so much no I this
is another one I I have not heard any negative feedback um from from people I mean obviously we we know it's it's coming um you guys have done done your work and I think uh I am very in favor of the two license uh limited in our town um so I'll make a motion to conduct
the second consideration and adopt ordinance number 202599821 city of New Alm second and approve the summary publication please and and approve the summary of publication second thank you have a motion in a second any further discussion those in
favor signal by saying I I that motion carries under new business item 5.1 is setting fees related to cannabis businesses council president counselors um again we're looking at uh the retail business license um low po low potency
hemp retail license and cannabis events um again the retail business license the initial registration fee will be three set at 350 um the retail business license renewal not annual fee um it'll be a renewal fee is
$700 uh the low poent low potency hemp retailer license will be set at 50 recurrently there isn't a fee for that that is a new fee uh and then cannabis events will be at $100 per day president and counselors um I would
like to offer the resolution adopting the addition of the following cannabis and hemp retail business license fees effective May 15 2025 the retail business license of $350 initial registration fee the retail business license of $700 for the annual
fee renewal fee renewal fee of $700 thank you and the low potency hemp retailer license of $50 for an annual fee and the cannabis event
uh $100 for a daily fee second thank you we have a motion and a second any further discussion director jensson please call the role councelor Christian yes councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes president Becker
yes motion carries item 5.2 establish fund 254 local affordable housing aid and transfer funds counselors this is more of a housekeeping item that I discovered when I was getting ready for this year's audit or for 24's audit um these are funds we started receiving in
2023 um it was just brought to my attention um in reading some of the new guidance that was released last year that it needs to be kept in a separate fund so I just need a motion to establish that fund and then move those remaining um funds into that new
fund president and councilors I would like to offer the resolution to establish fund 254 local affordable housing aid and transfer 65,8 $645 balance of funds received in 2023
and 2024 from fund 101 general fund to fund 254 second thank you we have a motion and a second any further discussion director jensson please call the role councelor Christian yes councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz
yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes motion carries item 5.3 is a joint Powers agreement between uh the port authority of St Paul in the city of New council president councilors this is a simple joint Powers agreement um that
would allow us to take uh part in the Minnesota property assess clean energy program be Minnesota Pace um River Haven um which is the project up by the airport would like to do a pace loan uh and what the pace loan does is they can
take out the loan for a clean energy construction and then that loan would be assessed to their property and they'd be paying it back through the through their property tax so um what we as a city would have to do um kind of the only responsibility we'd have is to place
that assessment on that property and then remit payment to the Port Authority when they make their property tax payment president counselors I support this project in Ward three and I would like to offer the resolution approving The Joint Powers agreement between the
port authority of the city of St Paul and the City of New Alm to implement the Minnesota property assess clean energy program Minnesota Pace in New Alm second thank you we have a motion in a second any further discussion ask have we done this in the past ever is this new to us
this would be new to us so I know the county does have a joint Powers agreement but looking into that theirs is for a much um smaller portion um I think they can do up to potentially 250,000 I think the um River Haven is
looking for a much larger larger loan okay how do they calculate do they calculate like a simple interest or something or yeah so the Port Authority um when they get the application they'll go through they have to do um River Haven would have to do an energy audit
so they do a lot of calculations so by us doing the joint power agreement is just a step the Port Authority still has to approve the loan make sure they qualify and do all of that stuff before anything can happen but they technically can't even apply until we have this have this in place this is just all the
preliminary then basically okay thank you we have a motion and a second any further discussion director jensson please call the role councilor chrisan yes councelor wara yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes motion carries item 5.4 is Police
Department donations Chief Madam president members of the council Dave bker chief of police for the city of Noam um in front of you is a request to accept a monetary donation of $2,000 from herb kutson and $200 from the NM
dental clinic um both very generous donations requested to support the K9 program thank you so much it's an absolutely amazing thing that herb does for the town with that Polar Plunge and what he gets and gives back from that is
is unreal and and so kind so I'll gladly offer the resolution to accept the monetary donation and the amount of $2,000 from herb canuteson and $200 from New Alm dental clinic to support the new New Alm Police Department K9 program second thank you we have a motion in a
second any further discussion director jensson please call the role councelor Christian yes councelor warka yes councelor schmidtz yes councelor Mack yes president Becker yes motion carries thank you very much last item um is claims and estimates report of claims
paid I'll make a motion to accept the list of claims paid in the amount of 1,987 1892 second thank you we do have a motion and a second any further discussion those in favor signal by
saying I I I that motion does carry um at this time we do have an agenda item that needs approval and this would be a closed session um so at this time I'll ask approval of um agenda top oh a motion to suspend the rules to accept
the um closed session and then I'll read some information into the record I so move second we have a motion in a second those in favor signal by saying I I I that motion does carry at this time the city council will move into a closed
session prior to adjournment um I need read this now right yep um so the agenda item is for consideration of offers or counter offers for the city's purchase of portions of the following Parcels of real property identified by the
following partial numbers 1 190 24108 020 parcel 1 19024 41060 parcel 1 90230
01020 1 parcel 1 1902 42054 parcel ID 1 90230 496 0 and parcel 1
92400 31160 um for the for this agenda item this meeting will be closed to the public pursuing to Minnesota statutes sections 13.05 subdivision 3C the property to be discussed in Clos session is real property located west and east
of the city's airport consisting of portions of the tax Parcels identified in the above addendum to the city council for today's meeting I am looking for a motion to close the meeting and move into a closed session so I'll move second thank you we do have a motion and
a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I I that motion does carry we are now moving into closed session in the booth please let us know when you are ready thank you for