Uh, good evening. It's March 17th. This is our city council meeting. >> Um, potential call to call. >> Mayor Akor here. Councelor Penergrass >> here. >> Council Pillos >> here. Councelor Rise >> here. Councelor Spring
>> here. >> We got Joe here. Mike is not present. Myself, Kane. I think this Oh, we showed up and Rachel. >> All right. So, we have a
form. Next item is our approval of the agenda. >> Yes. >> The agenda. >> Go ahead. >> Make a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll second it. >> Any amendments or anything? >> Seeing none. All those in favor the
agenda signify by saying I >> I oppos a three minute time limit is our public forum tonight. City council welcomes and encourages participation from community members. Please keep in mind that your comments must be pertinent to city
business and must adhere to data privacy rules. No employees names may be used. Please do not expect action from the council this evening regarding your concerns. To address the city council during the public forum, please step up to the podium, state your name, address,
and fill out the white form provided. Speakers will be recognized only once. We'll be timed. Begin speaking with the green card is raised. Yellow card indicates you have 30 seconds left and the red card indicates you have reached your threeminut time limit.
With that, the public forum will open at 6:32. Anybody would like to speak, please. >> Hi, I'm Kov. Um, my address is 72127th Street Northwest Oronco. I'm not actually a citizen of the city of
Oronoko. I'm here tonight because um a month ago you were talking about funding uh for an age friendly or inoper area and there were some concerns about where we were getting our funding sources and so I'm here tonight to kind of clear up if you you still have some questions. You have a letter in your packet that
tried to clarify where the funding sources came from. So that's why I'm here. I just want to make sure that you have the correct page eight is what Kathy's referring to. So, I thought the letter memo was very clear
in your comment and uh I personally have not heard of any um anything of a concern, I guess. So, I hope that's unless some council members have something else to share.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Joy Binger, Southwest Orino. I've given my address on the sheet. Um, I did send a letter to Jason Baker uh last week and
you should have probably got it. I see today. I just I know that the council has been going through a big process looking at the planning and zoning and I appreciate all the hours that you put in. I was part of the steering committee
so I know the hours you put in. Okay. I just know that there has been some comments made that uh residents over the age of 65 in Oronokco only make up 10%
of the residents in Oronokco. However, in the 2020 census, it's actually closer to 30%. And also, there's been comments that it's just uh residents here. the majority are families with young
children. That's incorrect. If you look at it's called um the city of Oroco 2024 community engagement report, it actually shows that it's almost an even number for the people that responded. Um I know
you're planning I know there's some planning coming up with uh lots that are looking maybe for the 65 or older. Um, and I just hope that when you're looking at the planning, the zoning, the lot
sizes that you take that into consideration. Thank you for your time. >> Good evening, council and mayor. Uh, my name is Kevin Mcder. um uh former mayor and council member here in the city and
I just want to kind of reaffirm what Joy had talked about. Um I'm a part of that age friendly or in Oklahoma area and and it's has become quite apparent to me that um as we get older especially
people who live here in this community um more and more of us and and I guess I got to talk for myself but want to stay here and and I want to see you know that older generation as they you know unless they decide to move south or go
somewhere else um have a place to live here and that you know that may include downsizing smaller home, smaller lot and so I just ask that as you all are in your planning process that you keep that in mind because there's a there there's
a growing number of us that love this community um have spent a lot of time here um and we just really want to see you know like Joy said beautiful lots and the beautiful neighborhoods and they're huge and
they're gorgeous, but we need to uh take a look at at at the older generation and people that want to uh stay here but downsize a little bit. So, as you're planning and going through your planning process, I ask that you really look at areas that can be fit in there with a,
you know, um, onele homes or, uh, that I can't remember the gentleman that was here last year that's talking about a subdivision that, um, it's all on one slab. That's a beautiful opportunity, I believe, for this community. I I would like to see I was pretty impressed with
I came to that meeting and saw his plans and uh I was pretty impressed with how that how that came about. Um and and I hope to see that we can uh we can get some of those things done for for this older generation. So, thank you for your
time. Have a good night. Thank you. >> Second call for public forum. Stephen Garland, 845 First Street Northwest. As you know, I have a concern about the phase 1A uh water project and the
easement agreements. Uh but I'd like to remind council and all city employees. Um and I'll share what happened. A week and a half ago, about 8:00 a.m. in the morning,
I got a knock on my front door. I looked out the window and two individuals were in safety vests and I thought they were there to help get this easement agreement all taken care of.
That was not the reason. The reason was for an entirely different project. So in my opinion, those city's employees, which I'd like both of those individuals,
had no right to be parked their truck, a city truck in my driveway, come down, walk onto my deck, and knock on my door. Okay,
that's part of the reason why I want this easement agreement defined and narrowed down instead of the blanket easement is to permit not to permit these individuals
from now until eternity to come on my home. And I know they went they had a list of names that they were going to and I'm sure some of them were in my neighborhood, but I'd like to make that to council and make it to the public works department
that Oh. Then I asked the individual if they he says, you know, I'm a homeowner like you. I have a large piece of property like yours. I would never go on. I wouldn't appreciate somebody
coming on my property without knowledge. Well, guess what? They did. You know that he was should at least make a phone call and he's well, they did not make a phone
call to tell me they were stepping coming out. So, make that clear. Thank you. Third and final call. All right, we'll close the public forum at 6:41. All right.
Well, there's a sheriff. Paul, I don't see him in the room here, so we can't respond to anything questions we might have. Next item was the age friendly council letter that I
think had responded to. It was a U. >> This is in addition to Joy, isn't it? >> That was the same. >> It's the same thing. >> Yeah. Oh, next item I guess is the fire department.
Fire department was a Johan had a manual. report on page nine questions from that kind of explains the background what's happened over the last couple months their training and um I do have a question about the
walkth through for arburist of Rochester which building is that that Adam's building or who whose building is that? >> Oh, it's a bullshed that's up off of Fifth Avenue up street, sorry, up north
of that. So, uh, Adam Adam Haney is the owner of that. So yeah, just just our continued um it's great to have a pre-plan for all the area businesses, local businesses, and even and even
residents if they want that. Um gets us keeps us better prepared for response. So >> So you have a punch list that you ask of that business owner? >> It's about six pages, right? I can totally provide that to you guys too if you want to if you want to see
the the items that we're asking for. >> I'm glad to hear that. That provides consistency and getting your information that you're looking for. Any other questions to Johan about that report? Okay.
Um, there's a control gas burn grass burn memo in Riverwood Hills Park. Is that in the packet? >> Did anybody see that? >> That was from last year that we were going I think they were going to do it. >> Tried to do it yet, but it got too wet
and too green too quick. So, there is a memo in there. They want to do a controlled burn um in Riverwood Hills hopefully when all the snow melts. Um maybe um but it would >> and where's it at? >> Riverwood Hills Park
>> by the drainage package here. >> Oh, it's on there. Um I'm writing diligence so I >> uh it's on page on the last page n >> page where >> nine. >> Yeah, it's right after Johan's
>> I'm sorry. >> I think Johan had something in his report too about that. So, >> it's more just for awareness. I think they have all the >> all the DNR >> um >> things are done. They're just waiting for timeline. I think here it's just an
awareness and um the conversation with some of the parks the parks and trails committee was making sure that we let the residents know there's an HOA um email that we could use um to let them know it will be happening hopefully and then when it gets closer um to let them
know kind of the exact day just so that they have that awareness because there's homes all around it and that park right there. So, just so they have that awareness. >> I do have another question for Johan. Since since we're on the fire department stuff, you know, we you took care of the
DOT stuff >> on them trucks, but there was expressed concern before about having a leak on one on the tanker. Has that been taken care of or you had estimates on it? >> Yep. Both tankers had had issues. One
was um something with the air brakes. So there's a leak in the the airlines and >> that's the DOT part. >> Yep. And that so they >> I thought I thought we had an issue with the water leak. >> Uh that has been somewhat remedied. It's it it's holding
water right now. So um nope. The DOT part, all the all those things have been taken care of. We actually did have tanker tanker one go down to Fire Safety USA to to have that that get fixed. is just easier in the shop than up at our station. So, yeah, understood. Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah, >> we get back to your comments about the communication to citizens. >> That's Riverwood Hills HOA. >> Y' be aware of it. >> Yeah. And then we could put something on Facebook too. Um but just trying to overcommunicate for that. So one, people
have an awareness that it's happening, that it's managed and controlled, and to maybe try to keep them out of there. >> So when, and Johan, this is a question, when you do a burn like this of that
size, do you have a set level of zero wind blow or when how do you how do you keep the smoke? >> Stay up there. Um, you look forus 15 day. No wind probably, right? >> Right. Yeah, we're So ideal conditions,
right, would be little to no wind. Um wind out of the north um or northeast, so it's blowing away from from residents homes. Okay. >> Um >> yeah, that's our that's our ideal. So, in that too, um I when I presented to parks and trails, um I had a I don't
know a couple page long memo of, you know, kind of safety things and one of that was weather conditions. Um which is something that going over with the DNR as well. They're, you know, these are ideal. Um could there be a little bit of a winch? Sure. Um but we'll make sure
that we wet down areas, you know, around the perimeter. I'm going to work with Kane and Public Works to see what we can do about, you know, mowing real short around some of the areas as well. So once, you know, that fire line won't won't travel into where we don't want it to go. >> Mhm.
>> So Mhm. >> Okay. But that hasn't been done until >> Nope. We were kind of hoping we thought about the delay. >> It's pretty controlled.
>> It's called the delay. >> Yeah. So again, you know, it's it's it's weather dependent and then it's, you know, kind of rain and other precipitation dependent. Um, we want to hit it before it gets, you know, start burning it before it gets green. Okay. >> So, yeah. So, TBD, but again, like
Murray said, we're going to overcommunicate. So from um you know the city city web page, city socials, fire department socials, right? Um uh email groups for the homeowners associations were going to be overcommunicative.
>> So you guys just notify the association. They let whoever else know. >> Well, I think that and Facebook, too, so people are aware of what's going on. So, and there's there's a couple associations that we're going to try to get to, but there's, you know, two kind of back up against that the park itself.
Okay, sounds good. >> All right, any more questions for fire department? >> All right, thank you. Thanks. Next item is resolution 20 26-07, a resolution accepting fire
relief equipment donations from 2025. This is for a new 2024 CANM model allterrain vehicle. >> I make a I make a motion to to accept resolution
>> 2026-07. >> I'll second it. Good. >> Um, so the question I have is that uh what's the plan with the current sixer that you have? >> You guys have it.
>> The city's got it. It's out at um uh the wastewater treatment plant is where it's sitting at. This was a new one with the old one's over there. They donated it to the city. >> So we got >> this is officially accepting the donation for the one we currently have.
There was never a resolution done for the acceptance of that vehicle. >> I read it as being a new one. >> Yeah. No, no, no. This this is >> 204 here. >> Yeah. So that's fine. This is all for insurance purposes, isn't it?
>> It's on the rules. >> Any other comments? Seeing none, this is a voice vote. Mayor. Hi, Councelor Penigrass. >> Hi, Councelor Rice Dorfer. >> Hi, Councelor Phillips. >> Hi, Councelor Spring. I
>> item is 20 resolution 2026-08 accepting the 10% gambling monies from Oronoko relief for $51.77. Oh, go ahead. >> Make a motion to accept resolution number 2026-08.
Second. Comments or questions? Seeing none, voiceful, please. >> Mayor Horse. >> Hi. >> Councelor Penigrass. >> Hey. Councelor Riserford. >> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi. First responder report. I see on these
resolutions since we're on them, there's no place to jot down the the motion maker in the second that's done at the top and then I look there too.
>> Appreciate that. Okay. Parks and trails. Um has a memo regarding portable restrooms in 2026. We have first responders next or not. >> Um, was there any action in it? I
>> No, I just it was just >> Okay. Uh, Kane on the portable restrooms. Um, if I may ask, have you considered Porta Pros? >> Uh, we have not. LRS and On-site. Those
are the two that I contacted this year. LRS is the one that uh supports Gold Rush. Had really good luck with them. They uh they're good good service. >> Okay. >> Kind of local deal about one or maybe two people. So they've been the most
economical in the past and this year they are too. >> Okay. Uh just an FYI, we're looking at them for Gold Rush mainly because they offer servicing at night. >> Oh. Not during the day like everybody else has LRS on site. >> Sure.
>> And um it was very competitive price too. >> You know the other company I contacted was affordable portables. >> Yeah. Kenyon or >> Yeah. I think they're kind of limited. >> Yes. >> So I I did contact three. I've been in
contact with them over this years. So LRS still kind of the most value there. >> I have no problem. They were very competitive to what we found from board appears but just service aspect for us that >> servicing. >> Okay. Well, I make a motion we approve
um >> operate LRS 2026 park rentals. >> I'll second that then. >> Any other comments or questions? What did we budget for at
>> one second? >> A whole lot different than in years past. >> Okay. >> What was the question? >> I asked him what what we budgeted for that. So, if we're within budget for that 5248, >> if you give me one second, I'm just signing in the BSNA right now. I'll I'll
get it right to you. Uh >> bear with me. It it is in the budget. Uh I'll get you that number here very shortly. How's that? >> Sounds fair. >> Thank you. >> The LRS bid was for $5,248. So,
>> sounds good. All right. All right. So, do we need to order that? >> Yes, we should. Um, oh, there was a spreadsheet that was in your package 16 shows in Just looking here at
See, one's got a cheaper delivery charge. Maybe we get one to deliver them, the other one to clean them. >> Well, I think I have what Kane's proposing to us. So, I >> I'll make a motion. No, >> don't see the reason we don't. >> If there's no other comments, all those
in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose. >> Thank you. >> 7,000. >> Okay. >> 7,000 budgeted. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Next item is approving the
paving of the trails. And uh that's tied in with our um street maintenance program too
to include with the paving. So we can I'll make a motion to approve the our um paving on the trails. So, we should maybe identify one of path number two. We're going to
get bids on path number two and then Ornoco Park. Um, as Lions Club is interested in contributing some of that. So, I think within RCIP funds, depending on bids, we could do both. And then we'll ask for the Riverwood
Hills Park the path one um in CIP for 2027. So we'll do it in two two phases. >> You do number one and number one option next year. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Number two actually goes by the park and it already connects to Pave Pass. So it
makes sense to do that versus the first one. So that kind of goes to nowhere. Um, so we'll do one next year if we can get that in the budget. >> It goes to nowhere if number two isn't paid. >> Yeah. >> So I also inquired about the temper line
drive to Sixth Street. >> Y >> and Joe put together some >> paving cost and a rocking cost. >> Okay. >> Um, >> okay. I I recognize it's late, but at the same time, I don't know if we want to include that to see if we have a possibility of
if the bids come in because it is going to be an bidding option type thing versus any contractor. So, >> um yeah, we can get quotes if you'd like. Um I'm not real optimistic that oil prices
are going to help us out here uh this year based on the numinous and fuel. Um, but we'll see. >> I think we should stick within what we have budgeted for it and leave it at that. I don't see going beyond the budget
at this point. >> Yeah, you could bring that back to hooks and trails, too. And maybe we have some bids to know where we're at. Again, I don't know. We don't know exactly how much the Lions Club is willing to put in, too. So, there could be
additional money left to do some of those things. But right now, even I think with the two, we're it will be tight. Um >> maybe we could use those numbers to offset next year's. >> Yeah. >> To reduce the cost of next year's end of it. Um I have no problem with that. I'll
share with you what Joe presented back to us. If we do an 8 foot gravel, 355 ft, it's $11,473. And um but if I just do the gravel, it's 9,178.
Uh so 11,473 is with a 10% contingency and 15% engineering services. If we do the puminous pathway, it's 23,306.
If we do the rock today, $11,000. This year and next year, the paving would be $11,833. So that's of a that's of an additional trail to these two, right? >> Yes. It's a trail that's been we when we
did phase 1A, it was part of an easement that we purchased from um uh the county, I think it was or state. >> Check. >> Jack. >> Yeah. So it's it's it was intended to be a path. We had citizens asking if they
go to River Park from Timberline, this be a path for them to go to River Park itself, the park work. So it's just a thought. It's just if we're under budget like optimistic thought that we can do that, but we've bled into
the 175,000. I think what parks and trails is also looking at is potential of getting grant funding even as we get bids. There may be opportunity to use that money as match money for some of those. Again, if we can find some, the more we can do.
Um, and then even with the park bench work, we want to make sure that we're not putting park benches that aren't paved um because they'll be rework and we might not want that trail to go that way. So again, I think we're trying to like sagegate it a little bit too, but I
think that would be something that we should bring back to parks and trails to keep on their radar because we might be able to get some grant money that could offset the big costs of these and then maybe we could do more too. >> Yeah, I think it was just FYI, but at
the same time, >> I can put that back on their agenda to talk about. Y we know we have a lot of trails to pave and a lot of parks to upkeep. So >> that's true. >> Yep. >> So in the meantime we don't we don't So
meantime we don't add that into this. >> So in the meantime we don't add that into this cost. >> No, we'll wait for that. That's no f I think that's fine with for the reasons that Marie mentioned and there's a lot of things tied all parks and trails. So
>> give you the opport give the opportunity to seek out. >> So we we'll forgo a motion to approve the trail but include that in with the next item paving because it's all kind of lumped together in the fine.
All right. So, the next item is the motion to approve our paving maintenance program which includes streets as well as the paving of the pathway to Oracle Park.
It's a memo from Joe on page 20 outlining the cost. Joey, if you want to speak to that. I I did put a memo together after speaking with city staff. You know, we really got kind of three pieces of the puzzle that we're looking
at. Uh one is the um crackfail seal coat restriping that we've been talking about. That's about uh $224,000 worth of improvements. That's what the city budgeted for. That's what was in the paper management plan for this year. Uh that's really uh Fifth Street North
uh east is in Vintage Road as well as the River Park subdivision streets. So that adds up pretty quick. Um the fifth street, Vintage Road is a a higher volume, higher speed uh roadway and we
do seal coat that and we then fog seal it over top the seal coat and then of course we have to restripe it all. So that one gets expensive. um those improvements are over $175,000. We have to publicly advertise and bid that process or bid that project. It
takes longer to do that. So, uh I would prepare plans and specs. I bring them back in August or I'm sorry, April for the city council to review and authorize advertisement for bid. and we immediately advertise those uh plans and
specs for 3 weeks uh and hopefully get bids back to the city council in May for award consideration. So, the process takes some time. The other piece of the puzzle really really deals with um miscellaneous paving pavement patches.
Um I think everybody's aware of uh segments of pathway in the city that are um problematic and need some attention. The city's got a $50,000 budget to do that work. Um, we work with the sewer or the streets committee to identify and prioritize what we can do within the
budget aotted. Uh, and the other piece of the puzzle is uh the pathway uh work that we've been talking about. I apologize. I was just thinking that you had intended to have me look at the pathway in Riverwood Hills. So, that's
what I put a cost for. If we add the Orno Park project, that's fine, too. Um, I was thinking we maybe add about $3,500 in cost so we can kind of deal with that to what I've got in this for at least the engineering services component of
it. So, um, and the thought process is that we would prepare plans and specs for that, send out the quote package. We don't have to advertise that because the total is under $175,000. Um, but we bring that back at the same time we bring back the seal code. um
package in May uh for award. And so hopefully then we get into that kind of that midsummer construction scenario where we we'll get farewell bid prices and and I obviously that's the ideal time to do all of this work. And so I put together uh this letter
proposal uh to do that. The total engineering costs I think um for the seal coat work totaled $16,366. For the uh pathway and street repair work totaled of 14,980. But if we do the ornicle park piece, I'd
ask that you at least consider adding about $3,500. Um and I'd have to do the math on that. >> Quickly got a quick question on that. You know, Riverwood Drive is is really deteriorating
>> quickly. I >> Where are you going to go with doing redo the whole thing that there is? Uh what were you going to do? >> Well, I got to look at it first. Um I think its condition probably is changing. >> It's getting worse. Yeah, because it
continues all the way up where the center part of that is is going back through the the first coat that there is. So, it's it's it's bad. >> Yeah, it seems like it's delaminating. Um, and so we'll have to evaluate it when the frost is out of the ground and
make some decisions. But, you know, we really have some options there. You know, the cheap option would be seal coat, which is basically an aesthetic >> um solution probably not appropriate. Uh, the next option would be a mill and
overlay or just a simple overlay. Um, that's probably the route we'll go, but we'll have to evaluate that. And then the most expensive option would be to reclaim, grind it up, and pave it again. Uh, but that would be probably three times the cost of the mill and overlay.
So, I I think I think a mill and overlay to me would maybe work. Okay. And that's kind of what I'm looking at. But there's so much traffic that goes through there. It's it's heavily trafficked. Okay. It's >> Has it slowed down at all?
>> No, it's getting worse. >> No. I mean, has this traffic slowed down? >> No. >> So, that didn't solve the problem. >> That's why campgrounds don't fill fill holes. It slows the traffic down. >> There's some truth to that. >> Go right over. Yeah.
>> So, we'll kind of take a wait and see approach, but I I think a mill and overlay approach would be a reasonable approach. But you know the extents of that >> when you're talking milling, you're talking grinding it up as they go and laying it back down. And >> yeah, there's two two types of that. We
could just simply do kind of a butt mill and then overlay all everything. But if we continue to see delamination, I don't know that I would want to pave over pavement that's delaminating because it probably likely to fail. And so taking that top coat off with a mill, even
though it's expensive, >> would would probably be more effective. you can see where the other code is underneath it. So, I mean, is that part of it? But the other thing too with that is you've got a lot of traffic that's going through there and there's no other
way to get in and out of there. >> Yeah. This type of work be done in a day. >> Okay. You know, um they actually they might mail it one day, you can drive it out over it immediately and they'll come back and pay the rest in 4 hours. So,
it's, you know, there'll be a little bit inconvenience. They'll still be able to get people in and out. Um, but over that those short durations, you kind of have to work work traffic. >> No, I was just fast. Yeah. Okay. >> That's just it's major over there. So,
>> yeah, for sure. >> And that was planned for 2028, right? >> 27. I thought, was it 27? I just yellow >> 68 30 28. Yeah. It just is never going to make it. Okay.
>> So, if we add that orno park piece in, it would be about $34,846 is what I come up with. >> What's the 34,000 include? >> No. What What all does it include? >> Well, I did include a work plan that
kind of details out all the tasks and hours. Now, this is work that's being done on hourly basis. So, you can kind of see the tasks times the hours times the hourly rates yields the cost. So this is everything from you know project management and project setup through
development of the plans and specs through um you know developing the project manual uh the bidding documents advertisement for bids reviewing the bids and then overseeing construction and uh administering construction bring
pay request back to council. um you know working with the city on public engagement and announcements, notifications, all of those types of things. >> What's the addition in Oronoko Park? I guess I haven't heard that one until tonight. >> Well, we talked about doing the additional pathway in Orono Park. I was
under the assumption that we're just doing pathway segment number two in uh Riverwood Hills, but we've kind of talked about adding the piece in Oronoko Park. And of course, if we add that, that's fine. and it just takes me a little bit more time to prepare the bidding documents and oversee the
construction and and deal with it. So, I'm kind of guessing $3,500. And we do this work on an hourly basis. So, um you know, if it's less, if we're more efficient, if the contractor is really good, you know. So, >> is that what we were talking about? From
the parking lot to the pavilion, from the pavilion to the out >> and that's where the Lions was going to contribute some of that for that, too. We just don't know how much. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it'll be a nice improvement. It's just everything cost money. >> Yeah, it's $3,400 seems pretty
reasonable and so on. >> Oh, that that's from my cost. That's not the construction. Um >> I don't Do you remember happen to remember what that cost? >> Yeah, you had for orno park it was about 10,380 for just construction.
um $1,038 for contingency factor and then 15% for engineering was um $1,5557. >> Okay. So, >> currently isn't in the budget, is it? >> No.
Well, we would use our CIP funds for for Orno Park and Riverhead Park to assuming that we could try to get them within >> I believe those p plans have been previous parks and trails information our packets
too. >> It's in your packet under the paving section. And it's got a drawing of the schematics for Orno Park and for Riverwood Hills. >> And what I might also suggest is we'll bring the quotes back. If if the quotes
come in over budget, we can >> pick and choose what we want to do and work with the contractor to work within the budget. >> And that was the I mean I don't know what Lions Club is willing to donate. If it's a,000, 3,000, 5,000, all of it.
Again, I don't I don't know. Sorry. So, >> so there's some flexibility moving forward. >> Yeah, that's a thought. Okay. So, 17 and I believe you mentioned your memo too at the second page or the second paragraph
that the U renewal Riverwood Drive would come out of our annual $50,000 budget. >> Yes. >> Not the small city assistance that we got a couple years ago that's covering the major. That's what I understand from
talking to Kane. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> There any state funding for road infrastructure or not really anything? >> There is some funding um not for local roads really. Um we are eyeing some
funding for um Lake Shady Avenue. Uh and the reason for that it's a higher traffic, higher volume roadway um adjacent to a trunk highway. We think that we can
put a decent application in and potentially get some money to rehab that pavement. It's it needs it. Um I think those >> it was rough shape when they took it from when they got it from the state. >> It was. Yeah. >> Yeah. And so, uh,
the application for that grant process is in August, September of next fall. So, you know, June, July, we should start talking about putting together that application. >> When we talk about doing that road, are
we talking possibly replacing the concrete on it? >> Well, there's a lot of options there and they're all expensive. Um, you know, a payment rehab would be the least costly, but you know, realistically, could you
do even a payment rehab for less than 300,000? >> Okay. >> Not a big one. Um, you know, the shoulders on that roadway are in need of help. Um, >> there's basically no shoulder on the >> There's a lot of cracks on that, too,
the repaving. Will that break back down again? Well, the the turn lanes will break back down. The shoulder will be break back down. There's a few considerations there. You know, that's a an old trunk highway. Um, and you know, it's designed
to fun was designed to function as a trunk highway. Well, it's not anymore. And so, do the turn lanes really need to be as long as they are, for example? Well, probably not. Um, you know, uh, do the shoulders really need to be paved, at least on the off side? probably not.
So, could you afford to let some of that go back into gravel? You could. Um, is it nice the way it is? Yeah, it is. Um, but you know, you could spend millions of dollars on that to to re take out the concrete pavement, put something new
back. Rehabbing what's there is probably a better I shouldn't say better, it's a more cost-effective option. So, but if we can get some grant funds, well, that makes things a lot more palatable. >> But probably the September
October time frame is when the application goes in so we can have further discussion then >> well in in advance of that even because it'll take >> um a decent effort to put a good application together. So to move this forward were you to do the work to come
back in April. Do we need a motion for that to have you proceed with? >> Yeah, I think that that's appropriate this discussion, but I make a motion we approve uh Santac to proceed with the 2026 street maintenance repair pathway
improvements work plan specifications. >> Second it. Is that is that the budgeted stuff or is that >> what he's doing? He'll come back with the specs. We'll approve that in May to
go out and get bids. No, no, he'll come back in April. Between April and May is when he will go out and get bid and we'll award the bids in May for this budgeted CIP funds that we have. >> As long as it's for the stuff we budgeted, I don't want to see us add it more to them.
>> Yes. So to be clear, are we or are we not including Orno Park on that and see what it but the um timber line one will wait for 2027.
>> Okay. >> So yeah, just that addition of horn park. >> We should try to find out what Lions is going to give us too. So we have that. >> What's the Timberland portion? >> We'll discuss that next year. But right now there's a pathway. There's a piece of city property between Timberline and
Sixth Street behind um where Joe Fogertive is familiar to that. >> So it's a it's a connection between the residents that live on Timberline that are part of the River Park development, but they don't have access to the River Park. >> Gotcha. And so they would like to have a
a paved path, gravel or paved so they can come down there. Right now they have to go to Second Avenue, come down Second Avenue and then go down Sixth Street. So it's a 333 foot path, a short path. >> So the trail that the trail that leaves Riverwood River Park now that just goes
up to Cedar Woods, too, right? >> Yes. Just a Cedar Woods. Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't cut up to river. It goes behind those homes. So >> And so if we add $2,500 to that cost, it comes out to 33846. And that's okay.
>> Yeah. And uh so I'll bring that back to you in pardon April and pardon me May. >> Okay. >> Any other comments? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I approve. It's for the next. >> Okay. Um, next item is planning and zoning and
um, we have a new member Justin Reese Dorfer to join the planning and zoning commission. >> Make a motion to accept him. Second planning and zoning would be a good fit.
I'll second it. Jim Paul. Second first seconds comments. >> No, we're we're still we're full now, but we might have another vacant date.
We have an open we have an opening. Any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Group employee relations.
So in your packet for your awareness was Jason's u resignation notice. So like the April 17th. So um
he will be missed. We appreciate his service for us and uh was a forward to um his continuing of a city administrator at another city. Wish him well. And along with that is a a copy of the
contract that we used when we went to look for city administrators and Mike Humple from SCSC your packet for your information of his uh contract Jason's contract and also
there's a uh at the end of the job description for city administrator here. So, um Mary and I as the ERCAP been talking about this about the next
steps and um I think that's well first of all I don't know if we need a motion to accept Jason's resignation letter. So, I make a motion we accept that >> you're you're mayor. This is Mike.
Sorry. You don't you don't you don't need to make a motion to accept the resignation. >> What's that, Mike? >> Sorry. Sorry. You don't you don't need to make a motion to accept the res. >> You don't need to accept it. >> Thought Chris told us we did.
>> Oh, Chris did. >> Thought he did when we talked to him, but maybe not >> in the past. But anyway, >> being you brought up Mike Humple, that contract is is over with. Correct. >> I'm sorry. Being you brought up Mike Humble, his contract is over with, correct?
>> That was a two-year contract. >> That's part of our discussion on the ERC committee because the the contract um look like for a two-year period and uh the dates are really close to being together. There's a little bit offset.
Um, and he is um I'm expecting because I raised the question of his of the two-year contract and the date of when Jason's leaving uh if there's any opportunity to work with us with because we're so close to that
time frame. So, haven't heard back, but um we think there might be some opportunity there. That's all part of what we like to bring back to the um council of our recommendations of either
looking at a continuing a city administrator role or interim city administrator. Um, we're reviewing all of the job descriptions with administration assistant full-time city clerk Jason
as well as our finance clerk too that we were looking at that's been approved and to see we look at those four applications right now. Is there is there too much overlap that we can are the good descriptions or they need to be consolidated whatever
the case may be. So, we're having our uh Flagerty and Lady Hood HR attorney look at those options. So, >> anything else? >> I think I think we just have to acknowledge that we will be without an administrator. Hopefully, it's
shortlived and or we figure out what is needed for the city. Not saying that we should replace just to replace that position, but I think the what Ryland said of looking at their job descriptions and having clear role descriptions is going to be key and it might not be a need for an
administrator. Maybe it's a different role or changing in roles um just to make sure that we're not recreating maybe some of the issues of everyone's trying to work on one thing and it's all in their job description and then no one's accountable for it. So, I think
that's some of the work that we're doing. I think we might even have an interim step just to make sure that we're not letting anything slip, but get to that long-term idea, too. Um, so we might have maybe a phased approach here to make sure that
nothing's falling through the cracks as well. I I agree with that direction that there is to take a look at that. Um and and just to identify, you know, there might be other options or different directions to go that that that makes sense. So, I'm glad you're you're reviewing that
and looking at that. So, I'm I'm all in favor of looking at that and and identifying and and discussing with us, you know, with the council. So, >> LMC does have a list of interim administrators that we'll be getting I
got one. We'll get the latest I may put that way, but so that's a possibility. So, >> okay. So, that was mainly the reason for putting it in the agenda today, just to let you know that we're starting to have those discussions and bring something
back for consideration. So, >> we're going to try and have um wrap the financial portion up >> all at the same time. So, we won't post for that until Okay. >> Yeah, I think what we
>> I think what we talked about again, no decisions, but maybe even because originally that position was not to post until like June with the idea of bringing someone on in July if we can find someone. I think we need to escalate that that timeline to bring a
finance person and then think about what is that interim support of administrative duties. Sure. >> And what does it look like for current staff and how? But again, I think with Jason leaving, um, that need for a finance person is now heightened. So, I
think we need to potentially thinking about hiring and posting and doing that sooner than later. >> Yeah, because I think we start our budget stuff in July. So, that would be a >> Y and LMC does have a list of interim
financial officers that we could also look at to that. Yeah. >> Are those contracted for a certain amount of time? Like would we say, "Okay, we'll finish out 26 or is that >> it's negotiable?" It sounded like Okay.
>> Yeah, from Chris. We talked to the HR attorney and he made it sound like their contract is very negotiable. Time frame, pay, what their responsibilities are. I mean, so I think if we're not finding qualified candidates for any of this, I
mean, that would always be an option, but I'm not sure if that's the best long-term solution >> because we'll we'll just kind of recreate >> interim administrator. We had she was required to give a 30-day notice before she left. >> Yeah. >> When Shirley was there,
>> she gave a 30-day notice before she left. So, that gives time to work, too. Yeah, it's >> and it may be good for just getting us by, you know, as we think about what is what is the right structure for our city and maybe it's not having all these positions, but thinking about how do we
think about the work differently as we grow and what's going to be needed versus what we've had today as well. I mean, I know there was a lot of work. Jason did a lot of work, so it's hard to say we don't need that role, but maybe it's different roles within our staff that can help offset
that andor think about a different role as well in there as >> Yeah, I think this is a good time to do that. So, it's an opportune time for for taking that look. I agree. >> Okay.
All right. Um along with hiring, unless there's any other comments, we'll move on to the public works assistant position. Um which page are we on now on those? >> Page 41, I think. >> Has a memo and
two candidates. Candidate one, candidate two. So with candidate one, I make a motion we approve hiring of candidate number one. >> Second it.
>> Um so candidate one has a lot of great experience. you can see in the memo regarding uh K. Do you want to speak to this or >> Yeah, I mean it's this is an interesting one. So >> your
>> I didn't read this memo but I can speak to it. >> So we should talk about this public works experience I think wastewater. >> Yep. Applicant one. He's got a wastewater DL license and a water D license. So he's got about five plus
years of experience. snow removal, streets and roads, tree planting, tree trimming. Uh past experience, he was an arborist for many years. Uh great great interview. Um I I
think he checks a lot of the boxes we need. >> Good question. With class D on the waist fighter, what would it take if he's got that many years for him to go to a C? >> C three. three years at an A facility.
>> So eight to be an A operator. >> I'm just looking because I mean that that would be great to go from a D to a C. Yeah. >> Moving us up that direction which is what we need. So >> Yep. >> And his availability is did he say >> you know he had a he had a family
vacation he was already committed to this spring. So, uh, we'll have to reach out and get some details there >> or I whoever should reach out Jason maybe Jason probably >> any other questions
seeing none all those in favor of candidate number one signify by saying I >> I approve >> uh the next uh candidate gohead >> the next candidate uh applicant too I guess we could call him he uh
>> you do Yeah, >> I'll make a motion we approve hiring candidate number two. >> Second. >> We have discussion >> here. Go ahead. >> Comments. No, I wanted to hear about candidate number two. Yeah. Candidate
two, uh, a younger individual. Uh, a lot of, uh, hands-on experience running equipment, different pieces of equipment, excavators, skid loaders, uh, some landscaping experience, some tree trimming experience.
Uh, kind of, uh, ready to work, ready to start a career off, and, uh, you know, I think he, uh, he shows some promise. How many years was he uh working here as as previously worked for for us as a seasonal?
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I I forgot that he did work for us for a season as a seasonal um as a seasonal employee. So, he does he does know the area. He knows the parks. Uh you know, but this is a full-time position. This is the real deal. uh there's going to be
expectations and responsibilities and uh and everything that comes with that, right? So excited. We're excited for him. He interviewed well. Uh local knows the area.
Seems like a our a great choice. >> Other comments? All those in favor of candidate number two significant by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. K. >> Got a couple good ones there.
>> Fingers crossed. >> All right. Um, next item. New business is a um a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve going to uh.gov.
gov platform by June 1st, 2026. >> Second. >> I'll second it, >> Mary. Thank you. So in your packet is a a memo from Joe or excuse me from Jason about the transition
Minnesota law >> memo page 46. >> Well the memo is two pages. The attachments are attachments. The attachments the other 20. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This is a effective law by
Minnesota that we have to comply with by June 2026. So just the transition over to the gov emails and explains why and all the attachments there. >> But it doesn't take any of our content
and move it into like ADA. >> No, that's a different off. >> That's a different thing. And we have till 2027. That's a that's a different one that's coming. >> Okay. But this is just moving. Just thegov transition. It's a security
thing. More secure networks going. Yeah. The government ada.gov fact sheet goes into a lot of detail of what you can do, what you can't do.
regulation that going to cost us >> transition. I think it was about $450 with on-site. >> Yeah, that's all just the on-site thing. So, >> see a price on >> that reimburseable
like from federal if they're making this. >> It's going to be under miscellaneous. I don't know that the feds are going to reimburse. >> Put it in there with the dollar, please. >> Send them a bill. I'll send them an invoice. >> Yeah.
>> Is it in the fee schedule? >> Do any more changes? Is anything else we need to look at in there? >> No, I really got to go. We got to go. We might We can move along. So >> any comments or on that motion?
>> Nope. >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I we don't have a choice. >> No, we don't have a choice. >> As long as we don't have a choice. I don't know. We need a vote. >> Sums it up. That's approved. Thank you.
And there's a quote up on site for the $150. So I'd make a motion we approve that. >> Second because that's part of the process. >> Yeah, part of the process.
>> That was already understood, right? >> Yeah. Favor signify by saying I. I. Okay. Next item is a motion to approve the monetary limits and liability coverage as listed in Minnesota statute 466.04.
Is this an annual thing, Jason, or is this something new? This is our annual. We went through and revised everything. Um they every year they send out say, "Hey, look at this. What properties do you have? Don't you have? Have you sold? Is anything off the books? This just
kind of shows that yes, we went through, we've added this, this, and this or this has been sold and should be removed. >> This includes all titled vehicles and stuff too then. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All the work, all the mean list
stations, any vehicles, buildings, things like that. Um, they would be included in this. So, um this is just the um the renewal portion. The price will come
a little bit later. We renew our insurance in May of 2025. So, this is the start of that process for them to start getting us the actual numbers. I guess I don't know that anything really needs to be approved in here. Um more or less it was just us. This is what we
have and um I think the approval would come when we actually get the finalized numbers. So >> you know what we have >> it's in the budget >> in the budget it's usually around 56,000 58,000 somewhere around there.
>> So all through MC anyway so it's going to be good. >> So I make a motion to approve this. Well, there's nothing there to approve yet, is there? until we get the >> Well, there is I guess on the first page here
>> it talks about waving and not waving the >> It looks like it's pages uh 107 >> 101 to 107 7 >> as amounts. The last one was 107 >> 71 >> 107
I'm trying to remember if we did >> do you remember if we wave the limits or we don't wave the limits on the insurance >> you recall >> I don't think they hear you Jason >> not I can kind of hear you it's a little
bit echoy >> do you do you remember on our insurance last year if we wave the monetary ary limits or do not wave the monetary limits. >> I I don't know what you did. Um I'm not sure what most cities do either. It's I
somebody had asked me I think Melissa asked and I told her to >> um reach out to LMCIT to get an explanation of the difference your insurance carrier so that they could explain what the difference is between the waiver and the non-waver. Um it
probably it's it's the 466.04 is the tort claims act. It's the statutory limits in the torque claims act. So it limits the liability that cities can have for torque claims by statute. Oh, and it's right in there. I clicked on the agenda item. It's right, they copied
the statute right in there. Um, so I guess I don't know the strategy behind or strategically why you would want to wave or not wave. >> I think we wave it because it it allows you to um claim more per claim.
Um, okay. You don't wave it, you can claim no more than 500,000. If you wave it, you can claim up to 2 million. >> I see. Okay. Yeah. So, you've probably waved it in the past. >> I think so. I think we >> Yeah.
>> Um, yeah, that's all I can say. I mean, nobody's ever really asked me till Melissa did and I asked her to just inquire with LMCIT so that you had an some sort of explanation as to, >> you know, and and I'm not that makes sense though. So that I guess that's all
I can say about it. Honestly, >> there's a two paragraph two point bullet points. One says if the member does not wave, one is if the member waves $2 million for single occurrence. Table this until we get more information.
Why don't we just why don't we just have a a council consensus that we do not wave or check the box says does not wave. And if it's different than that, have come back to council >> or I can look at what we did last year
and go with what we did last year if council's okay with that. I'll let everybody know what it says because I know it was off of the advice of insurance the insurance company the last two years we've done it 24 and 25 we've used the same thing. >> I just don't recall off the top of my
head tonight what that is. I think we want to wave it. Not >> because the wave gives us $2 million for single occurrence. >> If council's okay with letting me review it what we've done in the past, look at it and make that decision.
>> We've done in the past and just let you all know. That's how we can proceed with that. >> Yeah. >> On the rating survey, Jason, it has total fulltime. It's a six and then update to seven. Should we update it to eight?
where which uh >> it's on the survey rating survey responses. What page? >> I'm indiligent. So, I'm on page nine of the >> Now, I got to see where >> Yeah. So, it looks like >> page nine of that.
>> It looks like it was six update to seven. It probably should be eight full time. >> So, I found someam I found an explanation that might help you um from LMCIT online. It says um
that members must decide whether to wave or retain the statutory tort liability limits under 466.04 the TOR claims act. Not waving keeps liability at lower levels 500,000 or 1.5 million aggregate reducing
premium costs. Waving the limit increases coverage up to the policy limits that you decide to purchase but raises the premiums in which would benefit the claimants. Um and then the impact if the city does not wave an
individual claimant can recover no more than 500,000 and the total uh for a single occurrence is 1.5 million. And if you wave it the single claimant could potentially recover up the full amount of whatever insurance you purchase. Is this is this kind of in lie of umbrella
insurance? >> Yeah, it has umbrella insurance into it. Has all of it incorporated into it. >> So we just need to have a difference on the cost between wave and unwave is what we need to do. I want to say we this does not wave to keep the cost lower
than the previous years. So like I said, I can go back and review what's been done the last couple years and make the decision based off that. >> That doesn't mean you can't be sued for more. just means that's how League of Minnesota is going to pay out.
>> It also says here, and take this for what it's worth because it's I haven't researched it at all, but it says many entities choose not to wave to maintain lower insurance costs and protect public assets. Um so, um and they have they have a memo
on it here. Um I'll read you a little bit more. or LMCIT gives the city the option of waving the statutory li liability limits. Liability coverage is more expensive if the city waves the limits. The cost difference is 3.5% of liability
premiums for members that choose to wave. Waving the limits does not give the city better protection. Um the benefit is only to the party who is making the liability claim against the city. So if you wave it, people that sue the city are going to have higher
uh recovery amounts. Um so there's that. >> There's basically no benefit to the city one way or another other than it costs more for the $2 million. >> Yeah. If you if you wave it, you're going to you're going to pay more and get more. You're going to pay higher
premiums and get more insurance. If you don't wave it, you're going to pay less but get lower limits. you get the you get the torque claims limits in the statute. That's what it seems like. >> We'll just find out what the premium numbers are and go from there.
>> So Jason, you'll look into that. Yeah. Email us. >> All right. of page >> 107 108. >> Yeah, there's a couple things in here that are not
were added to the agenda for the fire department before we go to financials page 108 108 and 109 before the tiff. Um, so the 10 the first
one is a fire department 7 and 12 horsepower compressor. >> Well, that's the stuff that's going back into the city. That's what you bought before last year. Okay. So, it's just being brought into the city. It's already paid for. >> That was the resolution that you guys voted on. It was for the side by side
and for the air compressor. >> Need to be in the packet or just We already voted on it. >> It's in the packet. >> Just it's done in the right order. It's not with the other side by side stuff. >> So the same thing would apply to the
river valley is the is the vehicle itself the can that we purchased that we last year. So in resolution 07 it talks there's two different whereas we're accepting for the canam and for the
compressor and this is the compressor. >> Yeah. 108's the compressor 109's the canam >> in resolution 2026-07. It has both. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So that's just
the wrong place. Yeah, >> should have been added back there. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. Then there's a a TIFF final fund balance and motion to approve or I make a motion to
approve payment tools county for 38,529. close out the CH Robinson and TIFF and Joe's Jason's provided a certification >> second that >> descertification. So the financial impact
sorry was the second name I understand with the check going out for 38,529 from fund 220, the city would receive 13,000 unencumbered unpleasured revenue after
county redistribution. >> Well, that's a new fund I've never heard of before. >> The 220. >> Yep. Never heard of that. >> Yeah, that's been the TIFF fund. you know, we had a separate tip.
>> So, it's good to have that paid off and uh taken care of. So, the money that comes back to the city, where does that end up at part of our property tax revenue that all of their tax revenue
says it's unbudgeted? It says it comes in as unbudgeted revenue. So there's no place for it to go right now. So it'll go >> it's part of the TIF stuff. So it's unbudgeted revenue versus
next year will be just part of your tax stuff when it comes in with the taxes. >> Yeah, I thought that's what you were asking. >> It would be more than 13,000. >> Oh yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> We'll be able to budget for that
>> for 27 either. Yeah, you'll see that in first. >> Any other comments? That'll be revenue coming back into the city then. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Make a motion we approve the consent
agenda. Second. comments, questions, >> seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Make a motion to. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> 750.
>> Wow. We're getting better. Not bad. >> Right. I told somebody at home. You >> mean 10:15? Oh, 7:15. >> That's pretty good. I was right. I said I'd be home in about an hour and a half. Well, >> there you go.