Morning. >> Good morning. >> Yep, we're ready. Okay. Good morning everybody. I'd like to officially call to order um the city council special meeting this Tuesday, September 30th, 2025 at 8 a.m. Um the
first agenda item Oh, Tom's not here. >> I guess I would just move on to Okay. >> C. Um we can't do agenda item B, the 2026 road bond appraisal until our city
attorney gets here. So, let's come back to that and move to the solar project and grant first. Um, and Tom Blommer, if you want did you want to address first or have me turn it to Dave and Lori? Okay, why don't you guys feel free to
come up? This is my associate with premium grant writing service. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Uh we're offering to help you get a solar project going and we think that uh
it would be best to put it over on your wastewater treatment facility or best angle to the sun and least obs least obstruction into anything else. Um can I grab the remote?
This is started by the state of Minnesota just this summer. Um they had three previous rounds for it called solar on schools, but now they opened it up to public buildings. Uh so anyhow eligible applicants will
skip the slide are cities, tribal nations, counties, townships and other things. And this is review for most of you that have seen this already, but I just want to review it. So they can give they will give you up to $112,000
in a grant and that is a maximum of Kowatt system and that's about enough to power four average homes. So the direct pay uh makes up the other
30%. So the combination of the 70% and 30% gives you 100% paid for system. And what we're trying to do is to get the grant writing services paid for you also. So it doesn't cost you anything.
It may cost you something for a little bit of interim capital between the time that projects finish and the time that they get paid from the government. Usually, it's 30 days for the state of
Minnesota and 60 to 90 days for the federal. >> Can I have you come talk So the direct pay is part of the uh what they call 48e clean electricity investment and that is
paid for by the federal government that's part of the IRA the investment uh tax return. So, we're in the process right now of uh getting this put together for you. The challenge that we have is timing. Uh
we've we've done all of these things already and we've consulted with the clean energy resource teams and we've talked to the director about it and the project is eligible. So my company Wkelman Solar Developers
develops the projects and the way we get paid is from the installers at the end of the project. We've done hundreds of projects uh over the last 35 years. We've done quite a few for the
city of St. Cloud. We've done about eight projects there including the Great River Regional Library. We've done some for St. for CLC and Staples. I I want to say something just for the
mission of solar. Solar one solar panel, one panel is equal to reducing the pollution equal to 17 mature oak trees over 30 years. So solar reduces our emissions compared to fossil fuels. And
that's one of the reasons that I'm doing it. One of the other reasons I love to fish and there's mercury more mercury in the fish than ever before and there's getting to be more and more each year because of coal fired power plants. The
mercury goes up in the air and then it rains down over our lakes and ends up in the fish. And now the DNR says you can't eat more than one a week if you live here or one a month if you live here and one a week if you visit. Um, I put up my first solar array in
1996 when I was a little younger. What we do is we get multiple bids for you so you don't have to go through the RFP process and we have a list of our
list of our installers here and uh we've worked with these installers on one or more projects each. Some of them we've worked with you know 20 30 projects. I know that someone had asked about Cedar Creek Energy the other
day and they're one of our installers. So, what we do is put together the plan, take it out for bids for you, get the bids to you, and then you decide who you want to do the project, and then we follow through after you decide.
So, this is the work that we do for you upfront. We do the feasibility studies. We conduct the site assessment. We learn the uh power company's rules. And you're Minnesota Power, I believe. And we we've
worked with them on many projects. And we develop preliminary designs. We get forecasts for 20 to 30year production. We do the long-term environmental aspects and get the quotes for you. And then we maintain communications for
everybody. So our payment comes at the end. In order to accomplish that, we ask for site control. Now we want to have two years of exclusive site control so that we can have our work bear fruit. Um if
we don't have site control, then we could, you know, do all the work and and lose the project. So it's no cost to you. There's no charge for the site control, but that's how we work. And so I'm going to turn it over to Lori
Prem now. She's going to explain a little bit about the grants and the process for getting those. >> Good morning. I'm Lori Prem from Cross Lake. I've been writing grants for about six years. Prior to that, I had a 28-year career with a census in Brainer.
So I've been around the area for a long time. I have Ann Raph from 50 Lakes permission to have you uh get a recommendation on the work. I've I've uh uh received several hundred thousands in uh grant
funding for the city of 50 lakes on various projects, park project, solar, and so forth. I work for several nonprofits in the area and a public safety uh as well at 50 lakes. Met David through the 50 Lakes project. He's uh been coordinating a solar installation
for them. and we've had good success in getting the the two grants that I'll mention to you today. Uh first of all, if if you are serious about this solar project and want to move forward, this is a wonderful opportunity. My radar is up every day because this is what I do
now is uh searching for grants, writing grants, uh reporting on grants. Um and I I've been watching this solar grant for some time. And as David said, there were predecessor um versions of it. Uh the prior one to this was just if you were in the Excel
Energy footprint, uh then you could apply for this grant. Now they've opened it up to any utility company in Minnesota. And uh so that has given David an opportunity to talk to folks like you uh to see if we can get some solar more
solar installations going in the area. Um, so I've agreed to do a little bit of uh pro bono time to tee some of this up with him. Uh, I have a colleague in the Twin Cities who's also in the Grant Professional Association um, certified
master's degree um, who will probably be partnering with me on some of this grant work should you decide to move ahead. But we'll we'll be very transparent about that about uh the the people involved and so forth. Um, so as David
mentioned, the solar and public buildings grant is an amazing opportunity coupled with the federal payback of the 30% together. Uh, as he said, it's it's almost free. Some uh cash flow funding uh for for the gap
timing, a little bit of staff time involved certainly. Um, I can't write a grant in a vacuum. So, I need a contact to speak to about demographics, uh, reviewing narratives that I write and things like that. So, there's definitely some staff time involved. As David said,
time is of the essence, so those things need to move very quickly. Um, uh, deadlines deadline driven. So, the solar and public buildings grant is due on November 14th. We never want to submit on the last day. Systems can
crash and so forth. And the sooner we can get that in, uh, the better because, um, it gets into the review queue more quickly. They are picking up grants as they come in rather than waiting for a deadline and then starting to review. So, it's to our benefit to get in early.
There is some risk of the funding running out, but they've had 14.5 million available. And I think because some of the timing issues that David and I have run into, I haven't talked to the director there recently, but they had a
pretty slow start of grants coming in simply because the projects weren't teed up and ready quickly enough. So, I think we have a pretty good shot at that funding. Um, and then the other piece of it is that the other expense is the grant writing
piece. Given the experience that I've had with some of my other clients, we have determined that the fees are running right around $5,000. Coincidentally, and luckily, we have a um a couple of options for funding the
grant writing. One is Sourcewell, who has a third party reimbursement grant. You have a 15,000. Every local entity has a u $15,000 limit. you can only hire two people at that uh to use up that $15,000 limit. My guess is with all of
the things that Niswah has going on, you've already used that up for the year, but that is something to check on. The other one that we used for 50 lakes um was a League of Minnesota cities. They have a grant navigator program. They will fund somewhere between 5 and
10,000 depending on what you're doing for grant writing fees and pre-engineering fees. they have a uh special focus on uh conservation energy conservation projects. So, and that one we won successfully for 50 lakes and we
won the solar and public buildings uh for 50 lakes as well. So, that project got fully funded through several grants. So, that's kind of exciting. Yeah, it could open up the one that says picture
JPEG. Yeah, that's the one. Um, with Tom's blessing here, I, you know, picked the larger of the lagoons. Not I mean, with Tom's help, I'm going to be picking out the site here. This is
your wastewater treatment plant on the the north end of where her cursor is. That's what we're looking at. Looks to be uh the best. And we can hook up to little buildings in the middle with the electricity.
So, this is something you know to decide. We don't have to decide the location immediately, but the sooner we can do a site plan, the sooner we can get the exact details for construction. So, this is something we ask you to
consider. Have you talked about this? Has anybody given Tom, do you have any feelings about it? >> Well, I think I mentioned it the other day when you asked me about this. I have concern I don't want them on the D. It
can't be on the sewer and if you go for that there's a wet spot there beyond that state. >> Okay. So that would have to be
>> maybe the larger lagoon would be a better spot >> the north end of that. >> Again that you can't tell by this picture but you know that's is really steep. >> Sure. >> And it runs almost up to the fence line which is our property state.
>> Um if you were further to the east where you see the road coming off of it then then the property becomes ours but there have to be quite a bit of sight work very little off something there. And Tom, could you come to the mic because also um I was
just looking at the memo that you put together and if you wouldn't mind, I'd love for you to just speak to it because I feel like we're talking here, but then there's some considerations here as well. >> So, as you know, um this is a significant project. We're talking hundreds of
thousands of dollars potentially. Um I feel that needs to be vetted. Um, I had a conversation with the city attorney and he feels that this we should probably slow down on this. Unfortunately, the the time that's
allowed by the project doesn't give us that. So, after talking with Tom Pearson, the attorney, uh, there's some risks uh that this may not all be paid for by grant.
Um, and right now we don't have anything budgeted for a project like this. So my recommendation is that we hold our cards for another opportunity and maybe we could build the project, put it together. So if if a grant were say
extended or something, we could approach it then. But I think at this time I don't think it's a project the city should involve themselves in. is the grant this grant window it closes and then it's done. >> It does >> or it might come around again
>> since we've seen it repeat y from the past if they don't use up the funding that's available right now. David could speak to this as well. I would not be surprised if there was another round in 2026 but there is nothing stated that that will happen. So no guarantees.
Yeah, because the things that stand out to me um in Tom Blommer's memo, one, well, number one, we we have we don't have it budgeted. Two, we have these deadlines approaching, but it doesn't give us a time for, as Tom said, for quotes or vetting the project. And then
also, um, for us to be able to go to the public and ask the citizens for feedback. And that's number one. We need to have transparency. We need to get feedback from the citizens. I think for me, that's of critical importance. And then also the budget because we're going through the budget process now for 26
but 25 is already done. But um council members on I think it looks like you have a question or comment. >> Do you have uh by chance top of head when the window opened up for this grant in 2025 >> in August? >> In August.
>> Yeah. So possibly anticipate August of 26 >> possibly. But the federal government is clawing back almost all of the incentives for solar. So I don't expect there was going to be another round for this because even where the funding comes from from Excel Energy's Prairie
Island renewable development fund, uh that money is slated to go elsewhere. So I don't think there's going to be another round of this particular grant. Hopefully, there will be some other grants, but those of us in the solar industry are feeling kind of bad right now because the government's clawing
back all the incentives. >> Council member Freillley or London, do you have any questions or comments? saying, you know, transparency in the public. >> I just think it's too little amount of time to get everything set up, looking,
see how the public feels about it. Um, and honestly, I'm not a big supporter of solar or wind. um due to the fact that the environmental impact of the materials needed to build solar which nobody ever points out that's very
toxic. Um let's talk to the kids down in that are dying from mining some of the materials needed for well not only solar but for batteries too. Um and so my opinion is not to push forward
with it. That's just where I sit. Well, what about lighting? You know, this is similar to doing lighting on buildings, putting in LEDs to reduce your electricity bill. Does that require all this jumping around? Can't we just say, "Okay, let's
reduce our electric bill with some panels out in the lagoon." It's not that earth shaking of a deal. in regard to to toxic emissions. There's so much more toxins that come from other
types of energy forms that it's hardly even comparable. Solar is mainly glass and aluminum and silver and silicon and silicon is sand. So there there's not a lot of toxins
that are coming from that then I would rather use nuclear than solar. Pardon? >> If I had my preference, nuclear is cleaner than solar. I would rather go with nuclear than solar. >> Well, in my opinion, we need them all.
We We need nuclear. We need coal. We need oil. We're our civilization is expanding so fast, we can't get electricity fast enough. And the old grid is falling apart. And solar can help enforce your grid. If you added a battery to this later on, you'd have
your own power company. and then you could run your lagoons regardless of electric co uh grids. So, it's it's a good opportunity, but that's all it is. And I don't want to try to force it down your throat. I just want you to realize that, hey, this may
never happen again. >> I we didn't hear from council member Hall yet, so I want to see if he had any >> I guess I don't really have any comment on it. I mean, I'd take Tom's recommendation just on on waiting. >> Yeah.
That's I think you know you're presenting an opportunity. We truly appreciate it. Um and I don't know if someone wants to make a motion or not, but I just keep going back to to Tom's recommendation. I with how we're trying to be more transparent and have citizen involvement and we have to go through a process and
city governments, municipalities are held to more processes and you can't just do decide to do things or you shouldn't just decide to do things. You should follow the process. That's where I'm kind of stuck at this point. Um, but I don't know if any any council member up here has a motion at this
point in time. >> I don't think there's enough support for it anyway. So, um, >> what it is. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for the opportunity. >> Yes. No, thank you. We appreciate it.
>> Um, now we'll jump back to the 2026 road bond appraisal since Tom is here. since Tom made it. Apology I had 8:30 in my mind. So I apologize for >> but that's why I thought it was at 8:30 and I called Mark and he said no it's at 8. So I would have been here at 8:30
too. >> Sorry I didn't think to >> people got better things to do than wait on me. I apologize next week. Tom, well before we start with yours, is it best to have a motion to not move forward with the solar project and grant or
doesn't >> I think it's just been a presentation for the council to consider. If the council wanted to move forward, certainly that would take a motion, but I don't think a motion not to is required. >> Okay. I had either
>> and got it till this morning. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Am I what? >> Are you up on those kind of projects >> that happen in the state? these projects of this type of grants. >> No, we construct 500 to 2,000 acre solar
farm projects. This is >> small, >> very small. And that's >> if we could just monitor it, see what see if it does come back around. >> No, his point is accurate and we think we all know the clawback on the federal side in regards to the inflation reduction act and um it likely won't
come around again. Uh that's what it is until change in the Oval Office perhaps but uh uh the the federal ITC's have been gutted
by the executive branch and the secretary of treasury. So I would not anticipate this come up again for a while. >> Is it expiring now? >> The grant deadline is November 14th and it may not come back. Right. It's been going for three years.
>> It may with the state >> but not with federal. >> It may with the state but likely not the federal side. The ITC tax credits that have been allotted to uh solar developers, wind developers have been gutted. Strangely enough, battery storage remained untouched.
Um I don't again I would not anticipate it coming back for a few years. just reviewing through that sample >> unless unless the state and sorry unless the state forks up more or the utility provides more and I mean this state has a 100% carbon-f free power generation
goal by the year 20 240 >> 20 240 um you might see it more from the state but you won't see it from the feds >> you know the concern Tom and I had we were looking at that sample grant agreement which is if you got it signed that agreement and it was it's full of
one-way termination at the legis lature decides to pull a U-turn on it, um, you know, you're left holding the bag. It just made me super uncomfortable. >> The one thing about his presentation that I did not understand either was why he they would need to maintain ownership
of the project for two years. Now, there is a warranty window, yes, but there's no warranty or there's no maintenance when it comes to that. It's generating power or it's not. You troubleshoot it, you restart it. Um,
if it does come back around, we'll have enough time to dig into it and be able to go solicit additional proposals perhaps. >> Did you, Tom, did you prepare this this morning >> or did this did not get out to us yet? >> Yeah, I had to prepare it this morning. >> Okay.
>> Oh, okay. >> Apologize. I couldn't get it to you sooner, but >> All right. >> That's when I had information and a moment to get it ready. So, >> okay. Uh, in Tom's defense on that, if there's a defense needed, that was stuff
that we were reviewing on Friday. >> No defense needed whatsoever. This popped up when Mr. Wkelman came to the public works meeting on >> last week, >> Wednesday. >> So, one of the things he had said at our public works meeting, this whole grant
thing wasn't released until August 29th. So, it's essentially September 1st. >> Oh. Of this year. >> Yeah. So for us for us for for the for the type of grant that we would >> be eligible for well for us to move from let's say September 1st till today
approving this large of a project. Uh there's so many things we would have to review. Um even just the mechanics of it you know how does it work with our backup generator stuff. I don't know any of that. I would have would like to have had some more time to vet it. Uh it might be great but I just don't think we
have enough time to >> Makes sense. Um should we move to the road bond appraisal? >> Sure. >> You want me to have the floor on that? >> Sure. >> Okay. So um as you know um we've engaged
the city's engaged Melinda Johannic to um review these road sets and give us an estimate of what the work will be to appraise these uh these different road systems. Um what you see here is obviously not a hard quote. It's not even a real firm estimate about what the
grand total will be simply because just in talking with her. So, I've talked to her a few times. Then Tom and I had a conversation with her on Thursday or Friday, I forget which one. Um, so Tom could hear some of the things that she had told me. Uh but she reached out to
me after she got the after she got the road sets and they did their their original their initial investigation of these road systems to tell me that um there's a lot of variation obviously in these road sets and the sorts of properties that are in these road sets
from not extensive valuation to extensive valuation. And some of these uh road systems, for instance, hole in the day, old government trail uh represent um potentially significant damage estimates.
But for the purposes of what you're looking at today, which is this estimate, also because of those potential significant damage estimates, it's a different set of appraisal work that's necessary. So, what Melinda has set out for you here and talking with Tom and I on at
the end of the week, she believes that there are there are certain reports here that could be less expensive because they're going to be less valuation properties that we're talking about all the way up to uncomplicated reports
um where damage valuations could exceed $25,000. So, a more extensive reporting set, appraisal set would be necessary. Um, my guess, and she's not saying it here, and I wouldn't expect her to, but we probably got appraisal costs that
could be could be touching six figures. >> And then, um, be ready for some of these properties um to yield pretty extensive damage estimates. >> Um, we're not just talking about front
footage. were we're as she explained to us for instance any properties that are on G Lake aren't just looked at like what the roadside value that somebody's talking about it's it's the lake frontage that that comes into play right and then some of these properties with
extensive landscaping and other and other things much like we saw on the trail right we saw the variations that happened with trees with fencing that kind of thing that add severance damages when you take proper take portions of property here. So, the
to me what we need here is some conversation if you want to have it because we certainly need to go through appraisals. Um, I'd like to get a motion after we're done talking to to engage her even though you don't have a firm
quote on this, just knowing roughly what I think the range is going to be. Um, then I think you need to have a discussion. I'm going down the wrong track here. Let me know, Tom. I think you had need to have a discussion about whether or not to pair back this project somewhat
because of the because of the exposure there could be to significant damage appraisals on some of these road systems. >> I'll stop there. >> If I can add comment to that. Would you potentially suggest that we the city
consider alternate solutions for lakeside roadage prescriptive services versus the proposed? >> So after talking with Tom, what I would
suggest we do is we go back and we look at the list of the roads and the culde-sacs like he was calling out old government trail. um there's not a lot of people that are served by those roads. I think we could operate within the prescriptive easement
and maybe we just simply resurface those. Um while I would like to clean up the rightway for future generations and do some of the drainage work that we've outlined, um it might be just too co cost prohibitive. Um, I think if we're
going to purchase right away and go down that uh path, I think we should save our resources for more significant roads, say like upper Roy Lake Road or >> City Hall Street. Um, and I think with Bill's help, we can probably just go through the list and make a
recommendation to you with where we would continue to seek right away and others where we're just going to simply do um a repaving project. Do you know um based on the 2026 road? I don't have the list of the roads in
front of me today, but >> is it just these two roads that are we're running into this with or is it >> No, there there'll be others. Um >> it it might be less extreme. I think Old Government Trail and Poke Road are probably the most extreme in this set,
>> but I'm sure there's other ones where we're going to run into some folks who uh have property that has significant value. >> Hole in the day. >> Hole in the >> Y. And I think she mentioned Edna Lake Road
as potentially a big one, >> too. Yep. >> Where that sets >> Oh, and there's there's a property or two down there that >> on the end >> have some building buildings that are
close to setbacks as they are or within setbacks roadside. >> Now, that one's kind of interesting. It might be as simple as Freda Lake Road. There are spots where erosion is a big problem and so we may want to continue with certain aspects of that road. uh to
seek the right away, but maybe the rest of it we don't have to. That again, it's something I'd have to review with Bill and Tom to make a recommendation of, >> you know, we still need to do this, but we can forego it in other areas. >> It's like one of those situations where
you're damned if you do, damned if you don't because >> we understand why we've even considered curb and gutter for proper drainage. So there's other >> if we don't do it now, what is the project cost going to be for the next generation as you allude to, right? I
mean, >> but we got to be cognizant with the resources. The top >> Oh, do you have something? >> Um, just on old government trail there, you know. Um, I know our ordinance doesn't currently allow, you know, the
private roads, stuff like that. I do know an individual there that would be interested in taking over a chunk of that road. They had mentioned in the past if that's something that we wanted to consider turning over part of it and
you know eliminating some costs there if we were able to turn it over privately but just conversation piece for some of these neighborhoods like that where dead ends >> similar as we've talked about with East and West London possibility of that happening there too. So, right. >> I mean, I think those are discussions we
should have, >> right? I know that runs into hiccups for Tom. They always want, hey, come plow my road then and do that. So, there's there's, you know, the the I'll say future
um people calling in here asking the same questions over and over about a private road versus expense to us. So it's why we discourage that these days when fresh plats come >> back in the day that was pretty common thing. Um now we don't let it happen for
precisely that reason. >> I think some folks would probably be happier if we um develop a rustic road standard that I've talked about a couple times. I think that gives them the best best of both worlds where they would have more of a private road feel but the
city still does the plowing >> tree clearing and that kind of thing. >> So Tom, you said you need you would like a motion to engage Melinda. >> We do need a motion for that because we
need to get her going on this. And then before you get there though, Tom, kind of playing this on the fly. Um, assuming there is a motion to approve that, we talked with Melinda about a discussion once you do this where we would sit down with her, at least the three of us, and
maybe also Bill, and then sort of go through and sort which of these road systems could fall under the heading of the least expensive, the MDA, MDV, uncomplicated. So, she's got some directions about which ones to use, which reporting feature for. Um
once we do that, it may be that some of these road systems end up the recommendation is to pair some of these road systems out of this project. And if that's the case, that probably takes your approval to do that. And if that's the case, my recommendation
is that we would continue this meeting to the end of the week so that we can have a final final for you as far as and and probably a better idea at that point once we sort these for what a cost will be from her. >> Well, when you say final final, Tom, you're referring to the specific set of roads.
>> Yes. that would be included in >> if we come out of that discussion with a with a suggestion to you that some of these road systems should be taken out of this process that will help her refine her quote and we'll have it sorted as to which sort of appraisal report >> for the rest of the council to kind of
have a general >> idea of it. Are we generally assuming the the G Lake roads? And I guess additionally, let me ask, is this just for 26 road bond project or also 27?
>> Today we're just talking about 26. >> Yeah. Yeah. We don't even know >> what the news will be. >> Uh, right. But this this conversation will come up a year from now for 27. So it will but but the but what we'll do
for for the following project is because of the complexity of it >> this conversation will be happening a lot earlier so we can so we have some better idea of what realities might look like like the one we're talking the ones we're talking about today. Um this is
happening now um so that she can get to work um and and we're only discovering stuff we couldn't know based on their driveth through of some of these road systems. That's why she called me with an alert last week to say some of this thing could go this stuff could go right through the roof. >> So, you would want to come back to us at
the end of this week. >> Yeah. What do you think about that? >> Um, >> or could we move to next week because we're meeting >> Wednesday when we have our other meeting? >> We have a meeting next Wednesday. It's fine. >> Or is that too late? >> Either way, I can I guess Tom, you tell
me what you >> It doesn't matter. We could probably spin it to there because I think what we could do is we'll sit down with her like we talked about and game plan and sort these and we may come out of that meeting with what we think is going to be a recommendation about some of these road systems, but she can still get started on the ones we know she's going
to do >> based on the fact that they're hiring her today. >> Then we can go back to the council to get an affirmation of that recommendation. >> So, just kind of building on what we've talked about a little bit. Um,
so if we wanted to repave these roads as they sit with they are, we can we could use our prescriptive easement and we wouldn't need to pursue easement >> to just do that. >> Agree with that. >> I mean, we're doing that with a lot of stuff the way it is. Yeah, remember
that's what you figure was outside. >> And in a lot of cases >> and in a lot of cases the uh that's how we came up with whether we needed an easement or not. If we were outside of if the construction limits were outside
of that prescriptive easement line, then that's how we came up with um coming up with a permanent or a temporary easement for those parcels. Um, and that was the case on a lot of these roadways using prescriptive use.
>> So, just just for frame of reference though, let's talk about uh hole in the hole in the day bay drive. The last house for example before you get on the 371 right where the the culvert is converts to a dirt road to connect over to Interlockan or Golic Drive. They have
landscaping right up to that pavement. Um, >> how much how much footage would we be looking to obtain through this easement? Would we be needing to obtain for this project on both sides? >> Uh, one of the things
>> because I'm trying to I'm trying to gauge like a a guesstimate of of what say one particular property on G Lake could be. And that's a great example because >> that's the example. >> Yeah, that is the example. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> What we were proposing to do with that parcel, that's the one that we're
talking about right at the corner is Mandot's 371 plan um redo that uh hole in the day drive right in front of their house all the way ac around the the lake right there. So, our plan for the 26
streets was basically to end right before that property began and let Mindot deal with the rightaway acquisition and all the stuff that they needed to do there. We would just um we would just get drainage to work in that location and let MDOT deal with the
rightway acquisition. >> But as of right now, >> but that MDOT project's >> that project is on hold. >> Yeah. It's not >> driving forward, >> but we can we can blend in or we can match into that existing roadway >> with what we have right now.
>> So, let's just then use reference the the the property before that the LA the house that you're >> right the one before that we would have >> how many feet are we looking to would would the city be trying to acquire? Is it >> five 10?
>> I think that house before it is sad up on the hill. What what what what so the width of the road now we're going to what width are we staying the same width? So how much land are we going to have to acquire on each sides of the roads or just on one side? Is it are we
looking at five feet as Jesse said? Are we looking up to 20 feet? >> But it's usually you like on the on the 371 side that's mind rightway. on the other side of that property. And what we're putting in there is a a ditch. So
we're like 10 feet. >> So we're probably adding asking for another 10 ft five or 10 feet in there. >> And if on the lakes >> on the lake bed. So now you've you've got Oh gosh. So if that property if a
property value is $2 million taxable value and we're taking that much which could represent one two 5% of what the total is. I mean >> that's expensive. >> That's a lot of money. >> Yeah. You're tracking with the math and
and it's not just the land. That's that one is just an example of extensive landscaping >> more in there that are >> Yeah. That's just easy to see when you roll by there. Yeah. So we need you guys to come back. >> So kind of to clear this up, I mean this
is accurate, but what I would say is some of these lower trafficked roads where the property values are high, we would use prescriptive easement and so the roadway would be milled up and put back in its current width. >> Um there would be no
migrating from where the pavement sits today are very minimal at the best. So, uh, ditching and that kind of thing wouldn't happen. Um, the cost to the city, if you will, is, uh, we aren't doing the ditching and some of the drainage improvements. The pavement may
not last the full 30 years that we're hoping for, but that's that's the tradeoff. So, >> okay. >> I would say try and turn more roads over to Mindot. >> Yeah.
Right. Yeah. You'd think a big portion of it would >> So, would you like a motion for a continuation of this? >> Well, I think he needs a motion first Melinda. >> We need a motion to engage. >> We need a motion to go ahead and engage her to go to work. Um, as far as a
continuation, when's the next meeting? Another special meeting next week? >> Wednesday. >> Wednesday. >> 8:30. >> Okay. So, Okay. 8:30. That was my confusion. There you go. All right, I'll be here at 8:00, of course. Right. So, two motions. One would be to go ahead
and authorize um the hiring of Melinda Johannic to do this work. That would be the first motion. The second motion would be to continue this agenda item to that Wednesday meeting so that we can come to you at that point uh with a final recommendation for which roads we're doing. I'd like to make a motion
to uh authorize the engagement of Johanic appraisals uh at the recommendation of the city attorney. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any additional discussion on this motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries. I'd also like to
make a motion for continuation of the topic of 2026 road bond appraisals to the Wednesday, October 8th special meeting uh scheduled at 8:30 a.m. >> Just to add to that, this agenda item continued to that date.
>> Yes, >> I did say that. >> I think he did say that. >> Oh, just in my version, >> continuation of this agenda item. There it is. >> Okay. Now, do we have a second? Okay. Any additional discussion on that
motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Bruce. >> Well, can I I would just like to be involved in that meeting with you three guys or you guys. So, >> no.
>> I think I think there's some things that we can discuss. >> I had your BW. >> Oh, I know. I just just wanted to make sure that was listed. >> Okay. Is there any additional discussion that we need to have on the this topic? Otherwise, it sounds like
>> I just I just have one question. When the meeting happens, then will a bunch of this stuff then be looked at to push off to 27? And then if so, can we get a plan for what 27 might look like or how we might reform that with with part of
the conversation? >> My intention is not to push any of these off to 27. is just a change of scope for each road. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Any other dialogue from council? Otherwise, a motion to adjurnn would be in order. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone. What