We'll call this Wilmer City Council meeting to order. Roll call. >> Mayor Ree >> here. >> Council member OS >> here. >> Nelson >> here. Gilbertson >> here. >> Gardner >> here. >> Baggerly >> here.
>> Davis >> here. Butterfield >> here. >> And shoulders >> here. >> Nine present, zero absent. >> Please stand for the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Additions or deletions. >> Motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> Second. We have a motion and a second.
Discussion. Roll call. >> Council member Davis. >> I. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. >> Osc. >> I. >> Faggerly. >> I. >> Gardner. >> I. >> Gilbertson. >> I. >> Shes. >> I. >> And Nelson. >> I.
>> Eight eyes's zero nos. >> That motion passes. Then we have the consent items. Call on Renee Larson, city clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, today for your approval, I have the city council minutes of February 17, 2026.
The Wilmer City Council and Planning Commission joint work session minutes of February 12th, 2026. The planning commission minutes of February 18th, 2026 is a draft. The Wilmer Municipal Utilities Commission minutes as fe of February 23rd, 2026 is a draft. Approval
of the Supervisor's Union 2026 through 2028 agreement. the 2027 budget calendar, Ed Service Towing's license agreement, the Rocky Mountain Elks Foundation lawful gambling application, the Wilmerfests, Inc. Minnesota lawful
gambling application, consideration of a state 1 to 4day temporary onsale liquors license permit for Intuition Brewing LLC and the accounts payable report from 212 of 26 to 225 of 26. And for your information, we have the review to
review the planning commission and zoning appeals board applicants and the Wilmer Municipal Utilities Financial Report from December 2025. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. We got a motion and a second to
approve the consent agenda. >> Roll call. >> Council member Gardner. >> I should. Hi >> Baggerly. >> Hi >> Osc. >> Hi >> Gilbertson. >> Hi >> Davis. >> Hi >> Butterfield. >> Hi
>> and Nelson. >> I >> Eight eyes's zero nos. >> That motion passes. I assume we have no open form. Okay. We'll go on to the public hearing.
Call on Kyle Box. Oh, it's it's Robert. >> Robert Scott. >> Okay. The public hearing is continued. All right. Mayor, members of the council, this is a continuation of the public hearing on an ordinance to amend
three sections of the city charter. The three sections at issue all relate to um procedures available to the citizens of Wilmer to initiate a special election through the provisions of
initiative, referendum, and recall. Uh this is a just a technical housekeeping change. This ordinance would make changes to each of those three sections in each case designed to bring the city charter into compliance with regulations that the secretary of
state has adopted for what petitions that can result in a special election have to contain. The issue was under the existing charter uh that did specify some requirements, but they were not necessarily consistent with and they certainly weren't as
thorough as the Secretary of State's regulations. Um, which means that someone uh group of citizens in Wilmer could uh pursue one of these three avenues to file a petition for a special election with the city council, look at the
charter, format the petition as the charter requires, and still run into uh trouble because it wouldn't be in compliance with the secretary of state regulations. I won't get into all the technical requirements. They tend to deal with font size, number of signatures per
page, the title of each page, uh just requirements for what the actual petition looks like, size of the paper, for example. Um the secretary of state's regulations are are more extensive than what the city charter said. The amendments would have the effect of just
striking what's in the city charter and adopting essentially verbatim the secretary of state requirements. Um, this came to our attention from the League of Cities. The League had contacted several charter cities to flag this issue. I'm not sure if there was an
issue in another city that caused them to take a look at everybody's charter. U, but that was the impetus for this uh, charter amendment ordinance. The charter commission did recommend that the council approve it. And this is a charter amendment ordinance which requires a unanimous vote of the entire
city council and the mayor to adopt. Um, this is a public hearing. So, if there is anyone in the public that wishes to address the council, now would be the time to do it. >> It's good to have the review by the League of Minnesota Cities. I I
appreciate that the hearing is open. Um, is anyone here from the public to speak to this issue? Anyone here to speak to this issue?
I will close the hearing and call for a motion to adopt the ordinance amending the city's charter. >> So moved. >> Second. >> And we got a motion and a second.
Discussion hearing. None. Roll call. >> Council member Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. Nelson. >> Hi, >> Mayor Reese. >> Hi, >> Council Member Faggerley. >> I >> should
>> I >> Osc. >> Davis, >> I. >> And Gardner, >> I. >> Nine eyes's, zero nos. The >> motion passes. Then we'll call for a motion to publish by summary.
Second. >> We got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call. >> Council member Schultz. >> Hi. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. >> Davis. >> Hi. >> Gardner. >> Hi.
>> Osc. >> Hi. >> Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> I. >> And Faggerly. >> Hi. >> Eight eyes. Zero nos. >> That motion passes. Thank you, Robert.
Next is a resolution to rescend Wilmer Connect phase one award of bid and I'll call on Kyle Box, operations director. >> Good evening, mayor. Good evening, council. We've got two u back-toback agenda items
that the council will consider when it comes to rescending and awarding this project. If it's okay with you, Mr. Mayor, I'll touch on both agenda items at the same time and we can recap um if and when we get to the second piece here.
Uh so going back to uh December 2nd, 2025, the city of Wilmer opened bids for phase one of the Wilmer Connect project. Uh subsequently uh the council did award uh the bid for that project to NC3 LLC
back on January 20th, 2026. Prior to the award, staff, consultants, and in consultants engaged in our due diligence discussions with the contractor to confirm project readiness, financial capacity, and the ability to execute the work as bid.
Uh over the last two weeks, uh NC3 has informed uh the city that its uh bid uh on additional work and no longer has the uh financial or operational capacity to complete the Wilmer Connect project as originally proposed. Now, we did have an
opportunity to meet with NC3 a few different times over the last uh couple of weeks to better understand their needs uh the situation uh and the limitations that were in front of them. all while trying to maintain the phase one uh scope of the project and
maintaining project viability. Uh back on Friday, February 20th, uh staff, members from Bolton and Mink, Hometown Fiber, as well as city attorney Robert Scott, uh discussed the situation um and to come up with a plan of action
or course of action for the council to consider tonight. Uh at this time staff and consultants uh no longer have um confidence in this contractor to perform the work as bid and are recommending to rescend
this contract or the award of bid from NC3. When we look at the uh bid tabulation back in December, we do have uh there were 10 active biders on that list. Now we are on our third. Um the first bidder, if you do recall, um that was
received from FiveStar Energy Services LLC. Um but however, after those bids were opened, it was uh we were notified by FiveStar Energy um that they would be withdrawing their bid due to material pricing mistakes on their bid. So that was not considered or not before the
council. So next on the list is Kramer Service Group out of Wisconsin. uh they have been contacted um and have um confirmed that they are still willing to be on uh confirm confirmed that they are still willing to be a contractor for this project under their original bid
price. Uh the contractor has stated they do have the financial capac capacity staff staffing and operational readiness to complete the project as specified in the bid. uh as well as um the due diligence uh that we've completed which is also
included in your Bolton and Mink memo or the memo attached in your packet from Bolton and Mink. Uh they have submitted a valid bid um and they would be um you know in in our eyes they've completed responsible contractor forms. They have an effective bid bond. Uh Kramer Service
Group is a well-known contractor within the industry and has completed similar uh types of project and size and cost uh for a number of cities that uh not only Bolton and Mink have overseen but have also hometown fiber is aware of as well. Those projects include um projects that
Bolton and Mink has been a part of uh the city of Buffalo which was completed uh last year as well. My understanding is this group is also be will be doing phase two of Superior Wisconsin's um open access network this year as well.
Uh the considerations that the council should be aware of um that is that this bid is approximately $569,570,000 higher than the bid award to NC3. Uh however we are uh continuing to work on a economic development grant, a
federal grant uh that would cover portions not only fiber but its full infrastructure, roads, water, sewer etc. But also includes fiber uh which we are anticipating uh that would reduce the phase one cost of construction or the scope by approximately 1 million to 1.5
million. Uh this this recommendation would have came regardless of the contractor. Um it's we're not to a point to where that can we're not receiving funds yet but we are working towards that. Uh the contractor is aware Kramer is aware of this scope reduction um and
are uh in agreement with that um and that will that uh scope of work or that will come back to the council as a change order at a future date. There are two action items or two agenda items that we'd be asking the council to
consider tonight. One is a resolution to rescend the award of bid to uh NC3 LLC for the Wilmer Connect phase one project. Mr. Mayor, I'll pause there if there are any questions and then I we can go into the next agenda item.
>> Steve, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Box, do we intend to pursue the bid bond from NC3? >> Council member Gardner, yes. Um we did notify NC3 on February 24th um of our intentions to be here not only
this evening um but that we are informing them that we're reserving all of our rights remedies available under the contract including pursue pursuit of their bid bond or other legal recourse should it be necessary to recover cost or damages incurred due to the situation.
um they are acknowledge that they are open to that. Um and we'll have continued conversations. I'd like to see where those conversations go um maybe from a negotiated standpoint versus acting on their bid bond immediately. Um but yes, we have every right to pursue
that bid bond. >> Why would we negotiate with them? They submitted a bid. >> They went and bid more work, which isn't our problem, >> right? >> And then they tell us they can't do it because they went and bid more work, which again isn't our problem. That's the whole point of a bid bond. >> Yep.
>> And they're going to cost us $560,000. >> Yeah. Council member Garner, we intend to follow up one way or another, whether it's through negotiations or directly going after their bid bond. I I don't foresee a situation where the city needs to lose out in this on because of a
situation that we did not cause. >> I'll be very disappointed if we do not recover that bid bond. >> Noted. Thank you. Would that recovery be or the difference between the two bids?
>> So, the bid bond that was submitted was for 5% of the contract. So, it's a little right around 350,000. However, um I know Attorney Scott uh and I have had conversations about how we would like to what whether we're limited to that 5% or
if we are able to go to the full difference between the second and third bid received. I don't have an answer a direct um answer on that for you, Mr. Mayor. Councel. I don't know. Attorney Scott does or not. Robert. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of the council, the
city has a claim for the full difference between the uh bid submitted by NC3 and the bid submitted by the next lowest bidder. Um it appears that the bid bond will not cover that entire difference. So just consider that while you have the
claim to the full recovery, the bid bond is only going to secure a portion of that. Tom, >> with all that being said, what happens if we don't accept this the next bid number three? What happens with that bid
bond? Then that null void then we don't move forward with the fiber. >> I would say the city would still have a claim to go after that bid bond. Council member Butterfield, but maybe attorney Scott would have a an answer on that.
I'm not certain. >> There would still be a claim. I think the amount of damages would be less defined. We would have to quantify what the city lost by uh as opposed to just the difference in contract price between NC3 and the next lowest bidder. It would
be a different measurement of damages that we'd have to look into. All right. Are we ready to make a motion to adopt the resolution rescending the award bid of NC3? I have a motion. >> So moved.
>> We got a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Further discussion? >> Got a question? >> Rick. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, what's it going to cost the city to fight this?
Uh, Council Member Feige, um, I have not had an opportunity to run a have a conversation with Attorney Scott on that specific question. >> Our attorney won't be doing the filing. It'll be an outside firm then.
>> Again, I'm not sure. Council member Fle or percentage or >> Right. I would use utilize the city attorney as much as we can unless Robert has another opinion. Um certainly our office is capable of handling the claim. This would be a city
financed claim. Um that you know there may be a remedy through the bid bond to recover attorney's fees as well. But again you're limited I think to the percentage of the bid >> because I'm sure they aren't going to roll over. So they'll find it.
What I would say, Mayor, council, is there will be subsequent action items coming to the council to authorize uh formal claims where we'll lay out all of the implications for that. >> Steve, just so I'm clear, we do not have
a signed contract by we're not withdrawing a contract or terminate a contract. We're rescending an award. >> Correct. They have not signed the contract. Termination of contracts is a whole other issue. >> Yep. >> Any further discussion?
>> Roll call. >> Council member Faggerly. >> I >> Davis. >> I >> Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Gardner. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Osc. >> Hi. >> Shelz. >> Hi. >> Butterfield.
>> Hi. Eight eyes's, zero nos. >> Motion passes. Next is uh be Kyle again with the ward bid connect phase one. Uh yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the
council. So continuation um for the council's consideration is the next lowest bid uh from Kramer Service Group uh from Wisconsin. Their bid amount is in is in the amount of $8,197,392.50.
The recommendation uh to the council would be to award this in that bid amount, but knowing that there will be a future change order coming back to the council that would reduce the overall construction financing needed for the construction of phase one. And you we're
estimating between close to a million and a half dollars uh would be a final reduction. So again, under even under the original bid amount, however, recognizing it, the scope of work is also reduced. I'll pause there for any questions. Mr.
Mayor, >> Steve, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Box, has Kramer indicated how much they have in their scope of bid for the industrial park portion? You threw on 1.5 million. You've also indicated that's the amount of the potential grant that we're going
to get that we don't yet have. Mhm. >> As Kramer indicated, how much of their bid is the industrial part? >> Um, yes. Um, in a roundabout way, Council Member Gner. So, the way the the bid was done was in unit prices. Uh so
the way uh that is still being worked with um Kramer we did go back hometown and uh and Bolton the mink have gone back and reviewed the the material and footage that would be going into the industrial
park and have been corresponding that um that information back and forth with the contractor to make sure that it would still work with the bid that they submitted and altering the overall scope of work. Um, so that number is still being finalized,
but we're again estimating close to that 1.5 million uh based off of the direct unit prices and items used that would be used in the industrial park. >> And you expect the grant to be 1.5 million
>> for the fiber portion of the grant I believe is close to 1.7 million if I understand cor if I recall correctly. Now, there is a a cost share, a federal share, and a city share with that. That
1.7 is the total amount. Um, it's close to a 50/50 split, I believe, on city responsibility and federal uh grant award. Okay. Are there wage requirements that come with that grant? >> I would imagine so.
>> So, that'll drive the cost of the project up. Does Kramer aware of that? Since our original bid isn't bid with wage requirements, that'll be two separate contracts likely. >> Yep. I did not explicitly have that conversation with them, but they are aware of this grant and are interested
in bidding on that project when it >> Yes, they are. >> Um, comes out. >> Of course they are. Um, and then, uh, I had one more question. So, our prices went up by $560,000 as a result of NC3 or NG3, whatever they
are pulling their bid. Um, do we know how much contingency Kramer has in their bid because this project is going to increase in cost? >> There is a contingency built into the bid. Um
we are also uh we are into the bid as well as planning for a total of a 5% contingency. Uh that number with NC3 was I believe we were anticipating another 275,000 of contingency that we would
that we would be building into the project. That was outside of the bid that was submitted. Um I would anticipate when it's all said and done it should be a similar similar contingency that we would need if not a little bit less because the scope of
work is being reduced. >> One final question um when Kramer comes back to us as they inevitably will and say hey things in Iran are pushing the cost of oil therefore the cost of interduct is skyrocketed because it's made of plastic and oil. What do we do?
Do we hold hold them firm or do we give them a price increase because of the cost materials increase? >> I think with all change orders they are um all change orders are going to be reviewed and analyzed and we'll bring
forward the best solution that we can. >> Okay. See we do not get that grant because that's not guaranteed yet, right? Correct. Correct. >> Okay. So, when we first awarded got the word, it was for 7.3. Then it went up to
7.6. Now we're up to 8.1. If we don't get this 1.5, where's the city going to make up this extra million dollars? >> Council member Butterfield, thank you for the question. Our intent with this
uh 8 point almost $ 8.2 $2 million is to inevitably reduce the scope of work. Um, and if we receive the grant, that's fantastic. Otherwise, we will have to build the industrial park at a later time. >> That was the original thing of this was
to get the industrial park done. >> Correct. >> And then we added on the list. Now we're taking away from what was first brought up to we need this for industrial park. Now we're removing it from industrial park. This is three red flags. this project so
far within, you know, a few months. Our taxpayers can't be gambling with this. I I don't know how the city wants to move forward gambling with taxpayers hardearned money when everything just keeps falling apart
on this and we don't even have uh anything really into the ground on. I think we cut our losses where we're at right now on the project. wait until later on we know we have enough people to make the bond payments signed up. We don't have to do this today, tomorrow can be done a year or
two years from now. We've already push it back a little bit. We don't need to be rushing a gun and putting our taxpayers in the burden. I understand where you're coming from, councelor Butterfield, but this council
likes to do that, kick things down the road. I still believe this is a good thing for the city. Um, it it's unfortunate that uh things are going the way they're going, but I still believe that this is a good thing for the city of Wilmer, and so I'm I'm still in
support of this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, how many parcels will be out in the new industrial park? How many clients? >> I don't have that number off the top of my head. >> 10. >> Five.
>> Are you referring to the industrial park as a whole or >> Well, they already got fiber in the industrial park. >> Um, not entirely true. There are there are portions, yes. Um, but most of it is not served by fiber.
>> Okay. So, why would we put fiber out there when Arvig's already got fiber going to the airport along Highway 40? If the people that go into the industrial park want it, Arvig will put
it in at their cost. And I received a call last week from a financial advisor. He said, ' Do you know a firm that's in town already is going to spend a lot of money in two communities in Minnesota? It's going to
be Rochester and Wilmer. It's going to be Spectrum Charter. I think we should let the private sector do this. I've been against it all along. You know, originally we had a bid from a
firm in the next county. They were going to connect from Cano High to Industrial Park for $1.3 million. They said once they came into town, they would branch off and go to residential. I don't know what happened. They talked
to somebody from the city. They talked about a franchise fee. You can't have a franchise fee with fiber. Would have been a lot cheaper to go with them at that time because we've already spent over 800,000 on surveys and
whatever. So, this is going to be a mess. I'm sorry to say, but I differ on that, Rick. Um, >> that's your opinion, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, I know. >> You were county commissioner when the
county went with uh clean water program up at the landfill. >> Yeah. >> How'd that work out? Not really. No one talks about it anymore because of a disaster. That was millions of dollars that they
spent. Well, I think this is a good idea that I understand you and I don't agree on that. Um, but I think this will be good for the
city of Wilmer. I'm going to call for a motion to adopt a resolution accepting awarding bid for Wilmer Connect one phase one in the amount of 8,197,39250
to Kramer Service Group. >> I got one more question. >> I got one more. I I was hoping to get a motion, but then we can have a discussion. >> I'll move
>> second. >> We got a motion and a second. Discussion. Tom, Miss Box, with the we find out that they were want to get out of their bid. Did we reach out to that private company that wanted to come
into Wilmer was that were interested in putting in the fiber that was brought up here a few uh meetings ago? >> No, Council Member Butterfield, >> we still would have time to reach out to them, see if they would still be interested in it. Um
yes. Um however, uh that that always would be an option for the city. However, um we are to a point where if we don't have a contractor starting to order material, we will not have a 2026 project.
>> You know, uh it's just another thing that the the city's draw here. You had the time to reach out to them, see if they would still be interested. You could have brought us that information so we could made a well wellin informed uh vote on this. You know, if
there's a private company that's still willing to come here and do fiber, great. I say let them have at it and we don't have to throw all the burden on the taxpayer if this thing does fail and not have to throw it on there. I'm I'm
sorry. I just can't see spend any more money on this. >> Rick, thanks, Mr. Mayor. So, I had asked, I don't know if it was a year ago or two years ago, the city buildings have fiber now
>> and I had asked, "Are we going to go with our own system?" >> And you said you weren't sure yet because of security. Are we going with whoever? >> Yes, Council Member Fagerly. Um, the reason I paused during that question and I reflect on that every once in a while
um is I was all I was trying to state or frame is that the city would always retain the option. We can say no. Again, why would we not? Um, but we will have reserved fiber for the city and all of its facilities within this network.
Okay. >> Any further discussion on the motion? Roll call. >> Council member O. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Baggerly. >> No. >> Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Davis.
>> I. >> Schultz. >> Hi. >> Gardner. >> No. >> And Butterfield. >> No. >> Five eyes. Reos. >> Motion carries.
next. Thanks, Kyle. Um, >> thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. >> You're up next, too, on the 2026 bond sale. >> Go ahead, >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh, this agenda item before you was originally scheduled for tonight,
regardless of the last two action items. This is a another continuation through procedure with the bonding uh that the public hearing was held at and uh called and held at the last council meeting. Uh, this resolution is authorizing Baker
Tilly to conduct the sale or take bids, excuse me, on behalf of the city on April 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. It authorizes staff to work with Baker Tilly to develop the official statement and those bids would be presented to the city council at its regular meeting that
evening. I looking for a motion to adopt a resolution providing for the competitive negotiated sale of up to 9,200,000 general obligation tax abatement improvement bonds.
>> So second we got a motion and we got a second. Discussion. >> Roll call. >> Council member Scholdes. Hi >> Gardner. >> Hi >> O. >> Hi >> Gilbertson. >> Hi >> Baggerly.
>> No >> Nelson. >> I >> Butterfield. >> No. >> Davis. >> I. >> Six eyes's two nos. >> Motion carries. Next. Kyle, will you tell us about the
runway pavement maintenance professional services? >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Uh, tonight before you is a uh pavement uh professional services agreement for runway 1331. It's a pavement maintenance uh project that the city was awarded uh
by the state of Minnesota. Apologies, I lost my notes. Uh this project is proposed as a 7030 uh split when it comes to cost share. Those professional services are detailed uh in your uh overview in your packet. Um the
project timeline is um designated for a 2026 project with design um beginning in March and construction uh beginning and ending this summer, June and July of 2026. And that would be in conjunction with the lighting project that will also
take place this year um at the airport. Uh this portion of the professional services contract is for $17,000. $17,500. And again, as I referenced, it is a cost share between the state and the city, and those breakouts are included in your
packet. Mr. Mayor, I'll pause for any questions. Steve Fox. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Fox, I brought this up multiple times before and I'm going to ask it again, and this time I'd like to know what the regulatory guidance is that allows a
firm to put 225% overhead markup on a bid. Uh, Council Member Gardner, thank you for the question. Uh, there is a specific rule that I will need to look up that provides guidance from the FAA,
I believe, on how uh firms are um how firms need to structure their um o overhead and their rates um within FAA projects. Please
understand you don't have right now. >> Absolutely. You will absolutely have that. >> Looking for a motion to adopt the resolution entering to an agreement with Bolton Mink for professional services for runway 1331 pavement maintenance at
the Wilmer Municipal Airport. So move. >> Second. >> We got a motion and a second. Discussion. >> Roll call. >> Council member Gardner. >> Hi. >> Davis. >> I should. >> Hi. >> Faggerly. >> Hi.
>> Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> I. >> And Osk. >> I. >> Eight eyes's zero nos. That >> motion carries. Kyle, tell us about the purchase and
conveyance of property beneath the First Street Bridge. >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. This is the last one for me this evening. Uh, this action item is a motion to refer the purchase of property beneath the first street bridge to the planning commission. This is um included
in your packet is a license agreement that is drafted between the city of Wilmer and Cityline Towing Sales and Service LLC. Uh prior to the council acting on the license agreement, uh there is a within that agreement, there is a consideration to purchase or uh
purchase land or convey land back to the city uh located underneath the bridge. uh and the action would be to refer this the uh property portion only to the planning commission for their consideration. That meeting will take
place on uh this coming Wednesday. Um and then after that happens, after those actions are action is considered by the planning commission, that would come back to the city council. Uh the entire license agreement would come back to the city council at its next meeting on
March 16th for your consideration. Entertain a motion to refer the purchase of property beneath the first street bridge to the planning commission. >> So move >> second. >> We got a motion and we got a second discussion.
>> Roll call. >> Council member Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Davis. >> I Nelson. >> Hi. >> O. >> Hi. >> Gardner. >> Hi >> Chelz. >> Hi >> Butterfield. >> Hi. and Faggerly >> I.
>> Eight eyes's zero. >> That motion carries. >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councel. >> Thank you, Carl. Next, I'll call on our human resources director for reorganization of the information technology department.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um tonight before you you have two action items related to the reorganization of our information technology department. Um over recent years there's
been a significant expansion of our use of technology here in the city including expanded platforms and integration public facing services and increased cyber security needs. So we're recommending a reorganization of this department to redirect resources in a
way that would prioritize the greatest needs right now. The first action item is related to approving an IT director position. Um this position would have decision- making and oversight related to the city's technology and the enhanced staff positions within that
department. It would coordinate with vendors on platform use and equipment needs and support other departments in each of their unique needs. We are requesting tonight your approval of the creation of this position and to promote current information technology
coordinator Jonah Johnson as the information technology director. I'll open it up to any questions on that first item. >> Do I have a motion first of all? >> So moved. >> Okay.
Second. A motion and a second. Discussion. >> Roll call. >> Council member Gilbertson. >> Hi. >> Nelson. >> Hi. >> Faggerly. >> Hi. >> Schultz. >> Hi. >> Davis. >> Hi. >> Gardner.
>> Hi. >> O. >> Hi. >> And Butterfield. >> I. >> Eight eyes. Zero nos. That motion passes. >> Thank you. The second item before you is for the approval of the IT security analyst
position. This position would be focused on addressing heightened cyber security compliance and risk mitigation needs within the city. And I'll take any questions on that item. >> Move to approve. >> We got a motion. How about a second?
>> Second. >> Got a second. Discussion. Steve, is it does all this fall within our current budget year? >> Yes, we will be reallocating funds from other areas for this >> specific. >> Yes, we've eliminated a different
position. >> So, it still falls within labor. We're not moving. >> Correct. >> Yep. Just rep prioritizing what the current needs are of the city to focus on the top priorities for the time being. >> Which position did we eliminate? >> The multimedia technician.
Is there a person in that position? >> Yes. >> Sad for that person information technology and we've been talking about accommodating technology tonight and this is an
appropriate move for the city. >> Yeah. the needs in this area change more rapidly than pretty much any other. >> Um, so it's >> looking to make sure that we are in a good position to utilize technology with
the public within the city and to do it safely. >> Any further discussion? >> Roll call. >> Council member Faggerly. >> Hi. >> Oi. >> Nelson. Hi. Gilbertson. >> Hi >> Gardner.
>> Hi >> Butterfield. >> Hi >> Davis. >> Hi. And shoulders. >> Hi. >> Eight eyes, zero nos. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Um, congratulations Jonah.
>> Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Next is the 2027 street and other improvements, feasibility study and preliminary survey professional services. Call on public works director Shane Stefani.
>> Good evening, mayor and council. Um, tonight before you, you have the 2027 uh feasibility report and preliminary survey professional services for uh Bolton and Mink. Um just kind of a rundown of what we're going to cover
this year. We're going to do a reconstruct of 16th Street Southwest and then we're going to do a mill and overlay on Industrial Drive Southwest, Trot Avenue Southeast, 22nd Avenue Street Southwest, 15th Avenue Southwest.
We're also going to pursue the Vos Park Pond improvement and the 2027 storm water capital improvement project will be a couple hydrodnamic separators uh for business 71 and Ella Avenue.
Um this will the services for Bolton and Mink will cost us $54,200. That'll give us the um initial information to pursue design and construction once complete.
Any questions? >> We have a motion to adopt the resolution approving the professional services agreement. >> So move. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Rick. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor.
16th Street was on the docket last year and we pulled it. So, is most of the work done from Bolton and Mink on that? >> Um, yeah, you uh if you look in the um cost breakdown, you can see that the preliminary survey
is already completed. So, we only have the feas feasibility report for $6,000. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. Any further discussion? If not, roll call. >> Council member Faggerly. >> I
>> Nelson. >> I >> Butter, excuse me. Gilbertson, >> hi >> Gardner. >> Hi, >> Butterfield. >> Hi, >> O. >> Hi, >> Davis. >> I should >> I >> eight eyes, zero nos.
>> That motion carries. Thank you, Shane. Have a good night. Next is a request to publish notice for joint orderly annexation agreement with Wilmer Township. I'll call on our city planner, Christopher Corbett. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the
council. Um, I'm going to go ahead and take a second just to pull up the parcel. The parcel is located in currently in Wilmer Township. Um it is just north of
1 Avenue West and 45th Street Northwest and owned by Vaxanova. This actually came to city council as information only back in October 2025 when Vaxanova petitioned the city to
annex. uh their goal is to have this parcel annexed into the city and to build a facility on the parcel itself. Um so we took a look at a few things. I'll walk through kind of your agenda item as well. Um this will go to the
Wilmer Township for briefing on the joint orderly annexation resolution on tomorrow. Um again, tonight is for your information and to request to publish um a notice of the annexation agreement.
We'll be at planning commission on the 4th, so Wednesday, and just to have a motion to approve the annexation. Again, this has been a over a year conversation that we've had with Vexanova, the township, and um city boards and
commission. And then um there's a there was earlier a um a date for a public hearing, but this will not need a public hearing at this point. It would just be the resolution for the um
agreement. Also, just want to point out a few things that all the agreements are still pending attorney review um and we're currently negotiating uh the maintenance of the future rows and um of the annex
station. So, for 45th Street Northwest, we're in talks with the county just to um make sure that we have an agreement in place for that, too. Um the joint resolution for the annexation is pretty standard language that's in
your packet and you have your map and everything there too to take a look at. I'll stop there and pause. Um, we had a conversation with Vexanova and I know that the building that they're the facility that they're looking to build
has a estimated valuation of about 20 million um and more. And so um it'll be great to annex the property um into the city but also take a look at a long-term plan for the entire area too and ways that we can better serve them too. I'll
pause now for questions. >> Christopher, where are they going to build? I mean they're Oh, I'm sorry. This >> they've got property around it. >> Mhm. So, this parcel here is my understanding um parcel number 330070020.
>> Okay. >> In this corner, >> we're taking in slide up a little bit. No, the other way. taking in the uh select genetics
property and J Dan properties. >> Those are >> that's already in the city limit. So this is the city. Yes, this is the city limits here outlined in the yellow. Let me zoom out a little. >> And so these parcels are already in the city here. >> Okay.
>> And this is the one that's up for annexation. >> Okay. Thank you for clearing that up for me. >> You're welcome, >> Carl. >> Yes. So, uh, Mr. Corbett, in our packets, it also shows, uh, it shows the parcel for Vacova in blue and then it
also has blue along the old highway 12. Would that be a next in as well or what? What's >> correct? So, part of the agreement that we're negotiating with the township is to take um the road into annexation as
well. state statute kind of lays out that we can pay anywhere from two to eight years in revenue loss to the township because we are taking in the road and negotiating the terms for maintenance. Uh we are comfortable with recommending
to pay the two years um which is kind of detailed in the packet for you >> Vicki. Well, I'm just wondering looking at the maps, I see Vaxanova also has
a little bit of land south of that >> 30007 0120. Why would we not annex that, too? >> Uh, Council Person Davis, you're speaking of this L-shaped parcel here, too. >> Yeah. Uh, we believe that in a future
time that they would um annex it. Currently, I believe it is a land for them >> or just land that they're not ready to move forward with at this point. >> Oh, it just seemed like be easier to do it >> altogether. I agree. >> Any other questions?
>> Do I have a motion? I don't have a motion. >> Uh, no. This is um it is a motion to um or a request for me for a motion to publish notice of the intent to include property in the orderly annexation area. Do you have that in your notes?
>> I I need a motion. So moved. >> Second. >> Okay, we got a motion in a second. Any further discussion on this? If not, roll call. >> Council member Gilbertson. Hi >> Gardner. >> Hi >> Nelson. >> Hi >> Schultz.
>> Hi >> Waterfield. >> Hi >> Baggerly. >> Hi >> Davis. >> Hi >> and Osk. >> Hi. >> Eight eyes's zero nos. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Christopher.
>> With that do we have any announcements? >> Nobody. All right, we have a >> We're adjourned.