Call to order the city council regular meeting for the city of Wyoming, Minnesota, August 5th, 2026. Let the record reflect we do have a quorum. Member Luger, member Schilling, member Joerger, and Mayor Iverson are present. Please stand for the pledge of
allegiance. >> 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.
>> Next on our agenda is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on items that are on or may not be on current agendas. Items requiring council action may be deferred to staff or boards and commissions for research and
future council agendas if appropriate. You will be limited to three minutes and we ask that you conduct yourself in a professional, courteous manner and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by this policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. I understand there are three
people here to speak. Yep. Come on up. Stay. Okay. So, first one. I don't have the names, so it's okay. It's all right. Just come on up. Bruce, state your name, where you're from, address. Bruce Spangler, 5983 258th Street.
Not looking for any answers or anything. I just wanted to bring up that in the past and recently we've had 30 water systems in Minnesota that reported compromises uh to to recent cyber attacks. And I'd just like to know if there are steps
that we can take to re-evaluate and um and harden our our systems. Just wanted to bring it up. >> Yeah, we could probably answer that right now. So, Mr. Lynwood, >> I think so. I'll probably ask Mr. Reeves. This has been a a topic very uh that has been very seriously taken
within the public works community on the city community and I'll maybe let Mr. Reeves start with some of the work that he's been doing and some of the notices and different things they've been doing with our vendor. >> Yeah. So, it's a great question. Um, obviously very timely. Um, fortunately we were not a part of the compromise, we weren't a compromised system and we are
working closely with our IT partners with Metro Inet and then also with uh total control who is our telemetry uh vendor that we utilize and uh a portion of why we weren't affected is because we have the proper firewalls and um
two-factor [clears throat] authentic I get this word goofed up uh >> two two factor authentication Um >> you sound like the mayor now, so you're all good. >> So, [clears throat] but um we've we've
got uh all those uh securityities in place and then obviously following anything, watching our SCADA system all the time, our on call operators, checking that um throughout the day as well as our assistant superintendent. So, staying a breast of this situation and then also thankful that we weren't a
part of it, but also leaning on our vendor to make sure that we continue to stay protected. Sorry. >> Yeah. And I question I can also answer as chair of the Joint Sewer Commission. Same thing. We weren't affected by it. We have a lot of security um things in
place, same as what this city has. So, um I made sure I got an update on that right away once we heard that coming through. So, we're we're protected as I'm doing this. So, thank you. Next person wants to come up. We have two more. Okay. We know who you are, but you still got
to stand. drive. Um I have three things but I probably only have time for two. So I know we had the groundbreaking today on the new building and uh so I was just wondering um not just with the first my
understanding I could be totally wrong that there's going to be work here and city administration and the police comes later. What is the total cost and what is that going toffect average homeowner property
taxes every year? First question. My second question, what type of bonds are we doing? It looks like CIP bonds. >> Okay. What's your third question? Do you have you have time for the third one? We'll just get it all in and answer them
all at time. >> Okay, that's one topic. Okay. >> Topic then is um you know we did the road work that got done over by my area gold finch and whatever looks great but 259th in the old drive that I know
is done next year. I just went just for fun today and I I went and looked and there's 10 on just 259 there's 10 huge ples 39 medium and 50 small on that short stretch there's seven large 21
medium and 25 small and I know early on those files leaves because that's sometimes I think there's more film I understand this part's going to get done next year but
>> Mr. Reeves, >> we just got our pothole patching patching machine back this afternoon. It was in for maintenance. Um and we will be at out actually in that area tomorrow. Um that's already in the plans that have been prepared for the remainder of the week here. Um but we have been out patching throughout the
city um all along through the season. So we don't just patch once and then leave, but uh we do patch as often as needed. >> That's been I run I run down that It's been since the initial
just got worse and worse and worse couple months at least. >> Yeah, we were I remember being out there initially at the beginning of the season and then we've moved around based on severity and then we work off off of a list and then obviously as complaints come in we address those as well.
>> And Mr. Babbot, do your third and then I'll have um Mr. Lynwood answer your first. So let's go to your third. >> The third one's going to take a while. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then we'll have next meeting. >> Okay. You'll come next meeting. Okay. Good. All right. Mr. Limwood, do you want to address the first
>> in regards to the project? So, the first phase of this project is uh as the council has approved is a 9.3 million for that. Um I can't give you an exact based on your household what the impact will be. Our the council is working through our preliminary budget right now. Um the initial budget that we are
um gave to the council last uh last work session was 8.6% 6% based on our preliminary levy amount. Um that was including the bonds from that issuance. Um the second phase of that is what we have identified when we purchase that building is that other half of the building or about twothirds of it would
be for our police department. Um we don't have we have some estimated costs on that and which is probably between four and five million for the police portion but that would come at a later time and that will obviously depend upon uh city council direction as we get closer to that. So there is an existing
business owner and lease holder within that and the city council is honoring that lease per the request of that business owner. Um originally that is not the case anymore. I should um track back on that but that was the original request with the city council honored. So um that would be down the line and
that would probably be within 2029 would be that second phase because the current lease goes until 2028. Um in regards to the EDA the bonds the bonds are not geo bonds they are EDA lease bonds. That is a direction that the city council gave. Usually with the difference between an ADA lease bond versus a geo bond is
about 5 to 20 basis points that you're looking at. So 0.05.2%. >> So if you go the handout I had 15ear lease cost an extra 320,000 cost >> because I don't know the handout you're
I don't know the handout you're looking at. So >> yeah that was from a work session last year. I you lay out the that was the direction that the city council gave staff. >> Why would we do that? >> Well, I can answer that. I one of the
reasons is we have put this off for six, seven years. Costs keep going up. If we were to wait another year, it has to go um on the ballot. Has to wait. Maybe it's two years from now. I forget the timing, but it's just going to keep going up. This way, we can get this done
at the prices that they're at. Um and then on top of that there is a chance to refinance those down the road and you can corre correct me Mr. Lynwood that it's down the road quite a bit. >> There is a redemption period and and based on that that was last year so that the market has actually uh is better. I
just talked to our financial adviser today and we actually have a better setting in the market right now based on those numbers when they were pulled last year. So I didn't get a basis differentiial differentiation but interest rates are better than those that were pulled last year at this time. May I ask one more question?
>> Yeah, you're good. >> Um, so in this debt from last year, I guess September 202 referring to sir >> we don't have because we've been doing roads every year and they need to be redone.
>> Correct. But we've >> now put a big chunk. >> Correct. But we've been um we've not taken out debt consistently. We have pretty much gone to a pay as you go. We did take out some debt in 2024 and then previously, but we have a very small debt ratio compared to most cities. So, we are able to bond for these facilities
and in the future if we needed bonding for other road projects or facilities in the next five years. Right now, we have our road projects as pay as you go. So, we won't be taking out any debt for them. So then I get the whole thing about the election,000. >> Yeah.
>> Noted. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. You're welcome. >> And we have one more. My name is Neil Gatso, 5481 East Viking Boulevard. Uh, actually this is in regard to number
31 on the agenda about the referred to as the uh the history walk signs. >> Yeah. few years ago I spent a couple of hours uh talking to a young lady who was
putting together information. I don't know whether she was with the engineering firm or whether she was a consultant and I gave her a reams of information and she told me oh certainly we'll talk to you before you know this
becomes a final product. I'm a little disappointed that didn't happen but I did find out about that was on the agenda and had to take a magnifying glass to read it. There are things in the way it's written now on two of them,
the transportation and the community part that are I read them as a historian. They're confusing or incorrect. I'll give you an I'll give you one example and actually it's something that has shown up on the
city's website for some time. Uh there's a notice from uh the Wyoming Enterpriser from 1915 and it was trying to uh build excitement in the community and bring in things. They were looking to get a doctor and a
dentist. But they were talking about there were two secret societies, there were barber shops, there was, you know, and one of them said there were there are 400 people in Wyoming. And I've seen that a number of times. I've
never said anything about it before, but that's that's a lie. >> Okay. >> In uh a few years earlier, the census showed that there were 207. And the sign coming into Wyoming in 1950 a population of 225.
>> Okay. >> Uh there are a handful of things that I would I'd like to work with staff or whoever you choose >> to maybe rewrite a little bit or correct some things. Um otherwise I I certainly
want you to pass the resolution, but I'd like the opportunity to work with somebody uh on a few items in terms of not the pictures or anything, but just a printing. >> Yeah. Um Mr. Do you think was that through the EDA? >> No, it was through probably Candace Amber, I believe, is who reached out to
you, Mr. Gatau. And I I guess it was our staff's um understanding that she had spoken with you and you had given her information and for the for the signage. So, um I guess we weren't aware that she was going to reach back out to you. Um I don't know within the scope of the project if we have remaining funds on
this to as they usually our consultants charge us for that but um certainly we can I guess if there are historical inaccuracies we can take a look and make sure that they're corrected. >> Yeah. And um why don't we can we reach back out to Mr. Gatso in a couple weeks
maybe do you think just to see typos or how do a little research on it? We can talk. We can we can reach out to Miss uh Amber and have a conversation with her about if there's some a couple concerns. >> Is that okay, Mr. G? >> Yeah, that's fine. I I want everything to go forward. I don't want it to cost
more. >> Yeah. >> But there's there's some wording and a few >> Yeah. >> Uh facts that need to be adjusted, I think. >> Sure. Well, we always appreciate you being the historian of the city. So, along with being previous to make sure that it went out. >> Yeah. >> And somebody came back later and said,
"What are you talking about? Didn't you have anything to do with [laughter] this? So anyway, >> yeah, we'll reach out. We'll make sure we reach out and get that corrected. >> That's fine. Just let me know and I'd be happy to sit down. I've I've made my notes and stuff like that, but I need I would need to explain it.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Is there anyone else who'd like to come up and speak? >> Seeing none, we'll move on to number one. Um, approval of minutes. Consider approving the minutes of the work session of the Wyoming Minnesota City Council for July 21st, 2026. If there
are no questions or changes, do we have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number two, consider approving the minutes of the regular meeting of the Wy Wyoming
Minnesota City Council for July 21st, 2026. If there are no questions or changes, do we have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second by member Luger. All in favor? I opposed. So approved.
>> Um schedule a public hearing number three to consider uh resolution 260885 of a resolution authorizing the submission of a Minnesota investment fund application for the Rosenbower America expansion project. Mr. Lynwood, are you taking a
>> I will. Yes. Uh this will really cover both of the resolutions that it was necessary within this process that the city call for the public hearing regarding the NIF. Um as part of the process for this, we also have a resolution for a job creation fund, but that is held at a state level for that public hearing. But just to give a
little bit of background here, um exciting to announce that Rosenbower America has announced a plan for significant expansion. Um their proposed project rep represents almost a 20 million private capital investment and concludes new construction of 51,240
square feet of manufacturing building and then 8770 ft of an addition to an existing facility. Uh it'll increase their manufacturing capacity, improve operational efficiencies, and support the company's continued growth in Wyoming. Uh the project is expected to
create 57 new jobs approximately will bring them they're currently at about 650 jobs will bring them to 707 jobs. Um to support that project as I discussed Rosenbower has applied for financial assistance through two programs in Minnesota but in Minnesota that's um administered by the Minnesota Department
of Economic uh of employment and economic development. Um the myth Minnesota investment fund that is the public hearing that we'll be holding tonight and then job creation fund which is the JCF. Both programs are designed to encourage private investment, [clears throat] business expansion, and job creation. We do have a myth
resolution tonight for the authorizing the city to submit an application for a $200,000 Minnesota investment fund grant. And we serve as the legal sponsor for the project and then we execute all the necessary grant documents uh should that application be approved by deed, which as of right now we have had um all
the indications that it will be. Uh the myth program is administer administered through the city. But just to be clear, the funding is provided by the state of Minnesota and is contingent upon Rosenbower meeting the required investment in job creation. So it essentially is a pass. There's no refinancial responsibility on this myth
grant to the city of Wyoming. The other resolution attached is for the job creation fund that provides uh findings of fact that is required by deed in support to Rosenbower's application for 800,000 in job creation fund assistance. Uh the resolution documents the city u and that's the city's determination that
the project is in the public interest supports the city's economic development strategies and objectives and satisfies the stat statutory findings of that approval of these resolutions does not commit the city once again to any financial resources but it just authorizes the participation within both
of these programs. Uh staff is recommending that the council approves resolution 260885 and 260886. We will need to hold a public hearing for the first resolution for the Minnesota investment fund. >> Not not the second or do they have to be separated?
>> Um we just just the one just the first and then I can stand for any questions by council and then we can open a public hearing. >> Okay. So uh we need a motion to [clears throat] go into a public hearing please. >> So moved. >> We have a motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second from member Luger. We are an open hearing starting at 7:19. Is
there anybody who would like to come up and speak in regards to um resolution 2608? >> Seeing none, we will need a motion to come out of the public hearing. >> So moved. >> We have a motion by member Luger to come out. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second from member Schilling. All in favor?
>> I. Um we are um back into regular council hearing. Questions from council. We'll start with member Luger. Any questions regarding resolution 260885? >> Uh I have no questions. I think this is just a fantastic way for uh the city to partner with um you know a major a major
business in the area creating jobs and um contributing to the city. So I love this. >> Okay, member Shel. >> Uh no questions either. Very excited for it. Uh it's a good thing and it's a partnership that benefits them and costs us nothing other than additional
employees here and growth on a business that's very vested here. So >> member Jerger, >> no questions. was glad to see this happening. >> I have no questions either. I just know that um Rosenbower has been a great partnership within the city of Wyoming
and just the fact that they're coming up to over 700 jobs amazing. So um we I'll move the motion to approve resolution 260885, a resolution authorizing the submission of the Minnesota Investment Fund application for the Roosevelower
America expansion project. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number four, to consider resolution 260886, a resolution regarding the support of a job creation fund application in
connection with Rosenbower America LLC. Again, we don't need to go into open for this. >> For this note, this is handled at a state level. So we we are just asking the council to approve this as our applicant and to go through the findings of facts within the resolution. Not that you have to go through them, but just to approve that resolution. It's a necessary document for the application.
>> Perfect. Okay. Member Schilling. Any questions? >> Uh, no questions. Member Jagger. >> No questions. >> Member Luger, >> also no questions. >> And I have none neither. I'll make the motion to approve resolution 260886, a resolution regarding the support of a job creation fund application in
connection with Rosenbower America LLC. Uh do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Lucer. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. Consent agenda. It's rather long. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 and 18. Does anybody wish to pull an item from the consent agenda? >> Seeing none, we need a motion to approve consent agendas number five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Sometimes I feel like >> a question. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Mr. Lim or Mr. >> I think we have some openings or we need a few more. Uh so yeah, election judging is open to any resident or I guess anyone in in the state that reaches out with an interest in it. Um from there, um we do then bring their names forward
to the council for appointment. Uh once they're appointed, then we register them at the county for training. Um and I guess I don't know if there was a specific part of your question maybe that I I I didn't catch, but it it is just these are residents that asked to do it. They're appointed, they go through the training, and then they work on election day.
>> We're very Yep. >> And that actually that is a state statute as of 2020. Um so when they do provide interest forms I receive political affiliation and then we have to make sure that we have the uh a parity in the number of Democrats, Republicans and independents and
independents can fill in if we're short Democrats or if we're short Republicans. And then when they do curbside voting as well, I make sure that the two individuals that go to the car are of uh different uh political parties. So they try to keep parody as much as they can. >> Thank you. Of >> course. >> All right. We are now going to
acknowledge receipts of reports of officer boards, commissions, and department heads number 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Does anybody wish to pull a report for further discussion? [clears throat] >> Nope. Seeing none, we'll move on to
number 24, communications. Number 24, Chicago County HDA consumer shopping survey. Mr. Lynwood, are you taking this or >> Well, yes. Thank you, Mayor Mayor, members of council. Uh, the Chicago County HDA in partnership with cities throughout the Chicago County. They've
launched a countywide consumer shopping survey to better understand local shopping habit habits, identify retail gaps, and help guide future business attraction and retention efforts within Chicago County. Um, the survey is open to anyone who lives, works, or shops in Shiago County and takes less than five
minutes to complete. Uh, responses are confidential and will only be reported in summary form. The survey will remain open through August 16th, so about another week. And then it is incentive to participants who are 18 years of age or older. You may enter a drawing to win six gas one of six gas cards ranging
from$100 to $500. Uh essentially this will provide results uh really good information to our county regarding consumer shopping habits like I said and identify some of those efforts about um other retail establishments that we can maybe attract to Chicago county. So just trying to bring some uh interest to this
and um we've had um some good push from Wyoming and our residents to to take this and the county just asked if we would be so kind to help communicate this at any venue. We had it last night at night to unite and we're putting it forward, putting it on the council agenda just to try to get a little extra pub for them and a little more information out there
>> and I do think we had quite a few people that took the cards, the postcards from night to unite. So, um I know I still have to take it. So, I'll put that on my on my calendar to do that. Any questions from council? Starting with um member Jerger. >> No questions. >> Member Luger. >> No questions. >> Member Schill.
>> Uh no questions. >> All right. We'll move on to new business number 25 to consider resolution 260895. A resolution approving a variance from maximum impervious area at 5181260th Street. Application Emily Nep on behalf
of Rosenower, Minnesota LLC. Property ID 21.00468.33. Is the applicant here? I'm not seeing the applicant. No. Okay. So, um, Mr. Wack, you're taking this one for us? >> Yes. Yeah. Mayor, council members, um this ties into the resolutions adopted
for the myth and the job creation thing. So 5181 260th Street um they're requesting a variance and then the next resolution is for the site plan review. Um so they're constructing um one new multi-use building and then they're expanding an existing accessory
building. Um they'll be doing paving and striping. Um they're going to may need a variance for the impervious surface area maximum. Um currently zoned industrial um comp plan guides it for industrial. So the zoning and comp plan are correct.
Um so the site plan they're constructing a 51,240 ft multi-use building and then expanding that other building by 14,600 ft. Um they have 216 parking spaces proposed. There's 205 um on the maximum shift um
including the new building. Um so we're okay with the parking. They're not creating new any new public roads or access points. Um there will be increased traffic on site, but we're not anticipating any traffic problems. There are lights um at the other end of Fall
Brook and the 257th. Um the proposed building and the addition meet the architectural standards and the municipal sewer and water already available on site. um for SC landscaping. Um you have a updated drawing over the one that's on
the the screen there. Um showing parking along that which be on the right side which is the south end of the property. Um so showing those new parking locations. Um I'm sorry. There we go. That's the one I was thinking of. Um so some of the
parking lot is too close to the property line. So one of the conditions is to move that parking area back. Um they're requesting a variance of 83.4% for impervious. They will be constructing two infiltration basins and the city engineers provide comments and two items be included in the conditions of
approval. The findings of fact um meet the requirements of the ordinance. Um and then the conditions of approval there are seven. Um planning commission is recommending approval but the staff
commit the staff's recommendations of conditions. Thank you, Mr. Wack. I think the only thing I'm going to state on that first is there was some question at the planning commission about trees. >> Yes. >> And um what was interesting about that is it looked like they were going to be
all removed. And really what Rosenbower is doing is that they're taking out trees that are dead and they're actually planting better trees that'll work better within um where they want them at. So um I was really impressed with the fact that they're willing to do that
and replace them. So, and then they're also building a like a little I'm going to call it a porch, lack of better word, but for people for lunches and stuff and that'll all be shaded as well. So, again, they're just great partners. Um, we will start with member Luger. >> Uh, I have no questions.
>> Okay. Member Schilling. >> Uh, no questions on this. >> Member Joerger. >> I see Rosenber was requesting a waiver of the landscaping. They were and that was for the security and after discussion the areas where
we're asking for the landscaping aren't going to be impeding their security. >> Okay. So condition number five is okay. >> They're not looking to have condition number five eliminated. >> Landscaping. Yeah, that was my
understanding. >> Yeah. She'll submit landscaping plan based on the staff report. Yeah, >> building department landscaping plan shall include >> there. I actually just spoke to their landscape architect today. So there they will be submitting plan because they
still have to move the park areas over. Okay. So yes, >> so waiver and everything it's >> no problem. >> There's there's no way. Yeah, there's no problem. >> Okay, that's fine. That's all I heard. Okay. So, with no further questions, we need a motion to approve, and I'm not
going to read all of it. Resolution 260895, a resolution approving a variance for maxima impervious area. Do we have a motion to approve? >> So, moved. >> We have a motion to approve by uh member Luger. We have a second by member Schilling. >> Yep. Second. >> All right. Um, all in favor? I opposed.
So, approved. Number 26 to consider resolution 260896, a resolution approving a site plan review application at 5181260th Street. Application Emily Nep on behalf of Rosabower Minnesota LLC. Property ID
21.00468.33. Mr. Wick, >> I have nothing to add. >> It's all prior powerpoints. >> Okay. Um I'm just [clears throat] questions from council member Joerger. >> Member Schilling. Uh, no questions. >> Member Luger. >> No questions. >> We have no further questions. We need a
motion to approve resolution 260898. Do we have um a motion? >> So moved. >> A motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Luger. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. >> Number 27 to consider resolution 260897,
a resolution approving a variance for the setback from the Felton Avenue right ofway at 26885 Felton or Forest Boulevard. applicant, city of Wyoming, property ID 21.00171.0. I'm assuming, Mr. Wack, you're going to
take this one. >> Yes, Madam Mayor, council members, um, we're talking about the fire department. The new city hall location does not require any zoning approvals. There's there's >> So, just to let you know about that. So, um,
applicant is here. So requesting site plan review and a variance request um for the set back from um the rightway at Fel Felton Avenue. Um there's a minimum 20 yard set back um the east building edition which will be along this wall here um will be
10 ft away from the property line. That's the needing for the variance. >> So back over here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um we're adding on to the current government administration building occupied the city hall and fire
department. It's a 1.199 acre site. Um it's zoned commercial and comprehensive plan guides it for commercial use. Um current contains this existing city hall and the fire department um parking garage and for the department of the parking area. Uh the proposed additions
are highlighted in red. Um the one on the right hand side that's an equipment bay. The one on the left hand side is also equipment bay but ties into the city or the fire department offices. And the one in the center is the hose tower. to allow the fire department to try the
hoses after an incident. >> So those towers out that way. >> Yes. No, that way >> where the the main four doors are. >> Okay. >> Um it's meeting all everything's meeting all the setbacks except for the one for
Felton Avenue which is various request. Um kind of covered most of this. Um the additional storage and operational support for the fire department. Um, parking area is proposed near the south property line with a three-foot setback from the property where 15 ft is
required. Adjacent property is also city- owned. Um, so we're not looking for a setback variance there. We also we could combine the two lots and and take care of that one. So, we're just asking not asking for a variance on that. Um, parking, there's 24 existing parking
stalls, six proposed for a total of 30. Um the building would require 52 parking stalls. However, the building would include signific significant apparatus storage and garage space reducing parking demand. Um the fire department's currently um allowed 30 firefighters. Um
so the parking would facilitate training and in a large incident. Um we share parking with the library. Um and the lot across forest boulevards where park is can be um overflow parking if needed.
Um we're increasing the surface area by 0.15 acres. We're adding storm water. Um there's no wershed district or flood plane permits required. Um city storm water's available.
We'll be removing some of the trees and they'll be replaced with nine trees and 12 shrubs. Landscape is concentrated around the eastern edition and other available site areas. Um and then here's a copy of our elevations again showing um those additions in that
host tower and the additions comply with the city's exterior building architectural standards. Sorry. So again, the 10 foot set back from Felton, we can't there's a 135 foot setback from the county road. Um, which
so if we were to go the other way, we still need to various for that. Um, existing parking emergency vehicle circulation of the site layout limit other expans expansion options. Again for the findings of fact a stand 10 standards for gradient variance and five findings of fact meet the standards
of the ordinance. Um staff is recommending approval of both the setback variance and also the site plan review and with those listed conditions and the planning commission is recommended approval with those same
conditions. >> Um I'm gonna actually kind of piggyback on that just a little bit. So, um, one of the things we that the, um, planning, um, commission questioned about the parking not having enough parking space. And one of the things we brought up is
the fact that they don't have 30 cars here every single day. So, there's maybe maybe Chief Bower can answer that. Might be maybe a couple. >> Yes. I mean, basis.
>> Yeah. that would require all of the parking spots allocated for the most part. Um, but on a daily basis, it's it's significantly less than that. Yeah. I mean, call response, >> if we got 30 firefighters, I would be
amazed. That would be everyone leaving their sporting events and everything else and coming. So, yeah, that would be difficult. >> Okay, that's kind of was the question for um planning as well and we brought that up. So, thank you for clarify that. Um, we will start with um member Luger.
>> No questions. Member Jagger, >> probably a you would consider it a dumb question, but is would it be a conflict of interest the city reviewing the city's variance request? >> Well, our consultant reviewed the
request. City staff did not, but we're the the [clears throat] city staff right now is >> okay. Because your name was on it and it's like he's reviewing his boss's variance request. >> Have to be the applicant on the request. But WSB, our our contractual planner, was the one who advised it. I think Mr.
Wackers is presenting tonight. We figured we'd save the city money and not bring Miss Linquist in here to >> Oh, no. I wasn't worried about about bringing in Miss Winkquest, but the city is reviewing the city's request. >> Mr. Lunan, can you
>> Well, ultimately the the council is the only authority that can approve or deny the request. As long as the city has found that the conditions have been met, um, then the city can approve the request. If if there's a citizen or a neighbor who is agrieved, they can challenge the city's decision, but ultimately the city has to approve the
request. So, it is a weird situation. We're the only we're the only ones who can approve it. >> Okay. So, basically, there's no conflict of interest. >> That's what I was trying to ask. Um, the other question I had, the the
first page of the memo talks about a western expansion that's constrained but talking about possibly expanding west in the future. What's kind of up with that? It says the
the request um the pro proposed project includes renovations to the existing building and construction of additions. Oh, I had it marked off here. The existing building condition and
required stress back setbacks constrain development on the property and limit the ability to expand the facility further to the west. Well, we >> based on the setback for Con County Road 30. I don't know, Mr. Wack, if you want to speak on that. >> I mean, are we planning to go out west in the future or
>> I think I I think I I'm not sure where she would go there, right? We would either change also parking lot there. So, to move into the parking lot, we lost
>> it. It was kind of confusing the way it was written. It was kind of suggesting that uh you were going to look to expand west in the future. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I think it says the existing building location required setbacks
constraint site uh is constrained because there are technically three front yard setbacks with the west side being considered the primary front yard. So yeah, >> I think the component was support of the variance on the east side of the building in regards to the um county road 30 setback that we have to comply
with and that more or less it was supporting the variance application because we are doing the expansion on the east side and not the west side. I don't think the intention was to um look at a future expansion on the the west side of the building or that was something we're entertaining. I think was more or less saying it makes sense to go on the east side of the building
for the >> Well, yeah, that's fine. It was just the way it was written. >> I had a question. Is there anything else? >> No, that's it. >> Okay. Member Schilling. >> Uh, no questions actually. >> Okay. Then we need a motion to approve
resolution 260897, a resolution approving a variance for the setback from the Felton Avenue right away at 26885 Forest Boulevard. Do we have a motion? >> So move. >> We have a motion by member Schilling, a second by member Luger. >> All in favor?
>> I opposed. So approved. Number 28 to consider resolution 260898, a resolution approving a site plan review application at 26885 Forest Boulevard application, city of Wyoming, property ID 21.00171.00.
Mr. Wet. >> All right. So, any other questions? It's No. Okay. So, we need a motion to approve, please. >> So, moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member um Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second by member Schilling. All in favor? I oppose. So approved.
>> Number 29. Uh Chief Bower, you'll be working with this one on us to consider resolution 260899, a resolution approving a one-year contract renewal with Flock Safety in the amount of $12,000. Chief Bower. >> Uh yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor and
members of council. Uh before you tonight, I'm presenting a renewal for a one-year renewal for the current contract that we have. um for our ALPR system. Uh the annual cost is $12,000 per year. Uh this is no cost increase
from our previous contract year and funding would continue to be coming from not the levy, but it would be coming from our public safety aid funds that are remaining. Uh, as you may remember, a year ago, we began using APR cameras for
investigative purposes, um, to identify legitimate law enforcement concerns, including stolen vehicles, uh, wanted persons, um, those vehicles connected to criminal investigations and other vehicles associated with active alerts,
the, uh, missing people, um, the, uh, individuals that have left home and are missing, those type of individuals. So, um it does not track speed. It does not issue citations and is not used for red light or automatic traffic enforcement.
Um since we have put it in place, it has been a valuable tool. Um I just like to highlight a few cases. A recent secondary DWI arrest occurred as a result of a flock arrest, a flock alert. Um last fall, the system assisted
us with identifying a stalking indivi complaint. um as a result of someone that was stalking an employee at the hospital. Um they were very concerned about this. We without the system we would not have been able to identify even though there's video at the hospital that video did not give us
license plate information. Gave us vehicle description and we were able to then identify the vehicle as a result of the ALPR system and it also has assisted us with warrant arrests. Um, beyond that, it it encourages our officers to be out in the area doing
proactive law, proactive enforcement, um, making contacts with individuals regarding stolen vehicles, uh, those individuals with suspended and revoked licenses and other legitimate, uh, uses for while they're on patrol. Um, I'm just going to rock through a
whole bunch of things here, okay? So, please ask questions at the end, um, when you're given the opportunity. Um we do maintain a transparency portal that wasn't put in place a year ago. Um it gives the the it is accessible through our city website. Um it gives a snapshot
of how it was used. Um including 30-day report of searches that you can pull up and you can see what the reasons were for why the searches were performed. Um it's important because understanding that there's there are concerns about access to the data. Um,
also recognizing that there is a lot of public discussion going on right now about ALPR techn technology. Um, a lot of it misleading, a lot of it inaccurate. Um, and I I just want to remind us that I'm focused on what we
have control over here in our city. That is the scope of what we have ability to control. Um, our role or my role is to make sure that we are limiting access to when needed. Um, we are documenting our uses, that we're conducting audits as
necessary, and we're following department policy, state law, and making sure that um we are maintaining the security of the data according to our contract with with our provider. Um, we recognize that there are concerns about
this system, these systems across the state and nationally. Um the reality is these systems collect an image of the license plate, an image of the vehicle. Um they are looking at the back of the vehicle. They do not capture faces. I
have yet to see a face on any of these cameras. Okay. They're intentionally placed that way to not capture that. Understanding that it needs to be handled carefully. However, um in the last year, I have not had any uh reports of misuse. Um, and a recent audit of the
system that I performed internally, I had no concerns related to the use of the system. Feedback up to this point was just to provide I was able to easily identify why it was used. I'm just asking again for more is better. Okay. Um, I shouldn't
have to figure that out. I can tell, you know, from 26 years of experience. I can tell why they're using it. Um, but I'm just asking for additional information. But I had no concerns based on that. Um, in fact, I recently worked with a third party vendor, uh, a contractor that does
bodywn camera audits. We're going to work with them. Um, we're looking at doing a mid one year, uh, after we've had it in place for a year for them to do an audit. We are not required to do that. The cost is a couple thousand dollars. Um, that's worth our to just verify that we're on the right path.
Okay? It's more of a validation of what we're doing at this point. Um, we're required by state statute to hire a company, third party provider to do an audit every two years. Okay, this would be a preemptive to make sure we're on the right path. Okay, so we just I just met with him this week. Um, and he
frankly scares me. Uh, the uh I recently did a significant update to our policy. Um, I just want to touch on what those updates were. Uh, this is an administrative policy. It does not require council approval, but I just wanted to make sure because of all the uh attention around this topic, I want
to make sure that you have the opportunity to see it and I believe was provided in your council packets. Um, this does not expand our use or give us any new authority authority to use it. Um, it just provides additional details and clarification.
Um, it also reflects our current usage and I just wanted to make sure we're we're on that it's very clear from our users and our officers on how it needs to be used. Um, understanding that the update provides uh clarification and reinforcement that it's not to be used
for generalized surveillance in the of the public. Um, and it's only to be used for legitimate law enforcement and public safety purposes. Uh, provides me more responsibility to oversee the program. uh that I have to do an administrative audit of the program uh annually
making sure that we're in compliance with law looking at making sure who has access to the system that we have for form employees are removed um that the audit logs are in place that I'm reviewing on a regular basis the settings. Okay, there are multiple pages
that I go through all the time and I'm making sure that the boxes are checked appropriately and that the settings are how we want this to be in place. um reviewing our data sharing agreements. Um we have put in place an agreement with other departments that if they want
access our data they need to submit a authorization if they don't um and remove them or don't provide access to begin with. Um recently I just reduced sharing of our data um to our surrounding agencies. That's uh you know Chisagra County uh Forest Lake Lakes
Area PD and Ina County. Um and those those have that those agreements in place. Okay. So we're not sharing across the state. Um not sharing Wisconsin. Um, we've I've limited it down to just those agencies that are essentially touching our city or have investigative purposes
to be related to our our investigations or their investigations. Um, uh, covered that making sure this is a misunderstanding I think or misinformation that's disseminated. Um, officers are required to treat alerts as
investigative leads only. Okay. They do not take action based on a hit alone. All it is is a pointer system. Okay? So they are required if a vehicle comes up as stolen on the flock system, they are required to fi vis visibly verify the
plate, run it through the system that we've had for a million years since I began. Um run the system. If it shows up as stolen, the same way would provide alert shows the stolen. They advised dispatch, I'm out with this out. I'm behind this vehicle. We're going to be
doing a, you know, a stop dot dot dot on down on down the list. Okay, that none of that has changed. All this is is a okay, there's a stolen vehicle potentially here. Okay. Um, understanding that it does have misreads at times. Okay, and this is why that's in place. There's a fantastic example
when I was going through this. Um, it was reading as an E because a trailer hitch was in the way. It was an F. Okay. I went before multiple officers. Totally set them up and I said, "I'm going to set you up. Understanding I'm putting you in a bad spot here. This is the
plate. You just got a flock alert. This is a stolen vehicle. What are you going to do?" And they're like, "I don't know what that is. That plate, I don't know what the plate is." Okay. None of them were yeehaw. I'm sending the dogs in. Okay. So, like this is that is the um the whole idea here is that they are
they every one of them understood that they were going to verify the plate before they're going to take action. And it was concerning enough that like I don't know what that plate is right here. I want to physically see it and verify it. That one was really interesting because they both registered the stolen vehicle and the incorrect plate both registered to Chevy pickups.
So, I totally set them up more. I'm like, "All right, this is how this one comes back. A Chevy pickup. This one's also a Chevy pickup." And they're like, "Yeah, that one's out of Sandy. This one's not." So they all did fantastic. So that's that's how the system really works. If you've seen news stories
potentially in other agencies or other communities, I can't speak directly to it, but my lens when I saw what happened was that step may have been missed. Okay? And that's not my responsibility. I'm responsible from our department. Okay? And I'm very confident that's what
they're going to do. I have no additional information to say one or the other, but as I watched some of the stories and read them, that was my thought is they missed the step. Okay. So, that that's that's on their department to enforce that. Um protected activities is also in the policy making sure it's not
being used for constitutionally protected activities relating to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, um on down the list. Okay. uh addresses emerging uh technology that um you know any AI and this isn't you know we don't even
have this in place but I'm just preventatively saying that if there is AI in place down the road um that would or any of our technology that would assist investigations but it does not replace our judgment constitution any of those other things okay so it's just a preventative measure uh I talked about
the data sharing agreements already um we have follow Minnesota law regarding retention of data. Um our data is saved for 30 days and then it is purged at that point. I cannot access it. Audits um search history is retained
indefinitely. So I can look back months a year ago and see that a search was performed for this license plate that I can keep. The actual data itself though is no longer there if that makes sense. Okay. Um,
uh, annual training is required. I just pushed out, uh, they updated their training for the system. I just pushed out mandatory training, um, which they absolutely love when I push out these things because I give them about a week to do it. Um, but again, it's important to get it done and it's it's new and improved and it's uh, I required that
they get it done this week. So, um, we're staying on top of that. um complying with data practice law. Again, uh clarifying agents and circumstances. So, hypothetically, let's say Brainer PD has a um case that they,
you know, look and see that they believe um you know, they have a missing person that was uh or an abduction that was potentially um coming through our community. Okay. um those exigent circumstances would allow the officer to search our data,
get a form signed afterwards. We don't want to delay with bureaucratic process um if it's that urgent. Okay. And I provide clarifications on what those are. So that's um imminent life threat or safety, missing or endangered person, um an active emergency when we can get
documentation after the fact, but I don't want to delay that by saying let me wake a sergeant up out of bed that they have to come in and sign a form. That's not realistic. Um, immigration concerns. Uh, since day one, I've had all of immigration enforcement
turned off on the system. Um, in the issues that you may have seen in the media where certain sheriff's offices were searching on behalf of um, we were not listed in that. We did not have any misuse of our system. Um, and there's no indication that was used for immigration
enforcement. Um, let's see. data sharing. I talked on that. You may have noticed, you know, there are other communities that have recently paused uh trash bagged, covered up their their systems. Um again, this is based on
their community needs, what they're defining as their what they believe is relevant. Um and it's our scope to decide whether or not this is relevant for our community. um you know there's also been discussion around uh stories across the country
about misuse. Okay. Um that that is has happened. No denying that. And the fact that there's media attention and departments are handling it that they're being disciplined, terminated on the list. That tells me that the system that is in place um and this is no different
than rewind 15 years ago when the DBS system was being accessed and there's you know $2,500 per uh search was provided for people that were searched you know whether it's uh media uh personality
sports sports personalities they they you know that there was misuse it was addressed and I everyone is very clear that you are not looking up X's um you know local tal talent uh and on the list
I mean that is made abundantly clear um everyone in our department recognize that this is a privilege that we're provided um and we want to make sure we are able to maintain and if there's a reason why it is our contract needs to be terminated it's not because of our actions
um let's see here I've gotten a couple emails uh from community members or Facebook messages, variety of sources. Um concerns about AP alprs. I've engaged with each of them had some discussion
about um you know data collection related to people are not as suspected of a crime. Um creating a feeling of being watched even though it's not being used for speed or anything like that. There's no facial recognition in the system. Um concerns around access to federal agencies, data retention, cyber
security, um and on the list. Um, I've engaged with them. I've offered to meet, have one-on-one discussions, show how the system works. Um, you know, I was really optimistic that I might be able to at least we may not agree that the system what the purpose of it is or that that that they don't may not feel
comfortable with it, but at least there'd be some understanding on how the system functions in reality. I was willing to do that. Um, I haven't been taken up on that offer. Um, which is unfortunate. we can't come to a common understanding of how the system actually works when when um we're not able to
have a discussion. Uh you were provided a ton of information. I'm open for questions. Uh >> all right. >> I'm recommending we sign the contract when we get it. Um there's some discussion still about possible insurance policies as you know, Mayor
mentioned early this evening about damage. We do have these insured through our insurance company. um you know, so if they are damaged or stolen, um we do have coverage on them. They are just recently offering insurance through the company as well that I don't even have the information yet. I just heard that came out today. So,
>> um I'm open for any questions. >> Okay. Uh my first question is that $2,000 for the audit just coming out of the fund that you have for the flock or where is that coming out of? >> Um we have impound fees. I've got citation fees. There's there's all kinds
of ways that I can pay for that outside of the levy. >> Okay. because it's not a budgeted item, right? This was something that we just literally this week I'm like, "Yep, let's do it." >> Yeah. I'm gonna just say I always appreciate how thorough and methodical you are on anything that you present to
us or come up with um policies and um I've heard from a lot of my mayor friends throughout the state of Minnesota and there are bad actors and I do really believe that you've taken the time to really cover that based on the conversations I've had with other mayors
in other cities. So really appreciate that. So um we're gonna start with um member Joerger. >> Okay. I'm glad that the price hasn't gone up, but back last June, according
to the minutes of June 17, 2025, we had to approve the contract immediately because to get the locked in discount pricing, which was going to expire June 30th, 2025, and we had a special meeting
so we could do that. Subsequently, I read the paper and every other city still being offered the same 3,000 a camera and the price of our cameras have not
gone up. So, what happened to we had to get this before we lose the the $3,000 pricing. >> That was the price that was offered at the that time. Um, I think any company that you're purchasing from, whether it's a sales, whether it's a vehicle, whether it's a uh, you know, I think
there's always that promise of pricing, and I don't know, we don't know what the price is going to go up to. I don't think that's predictable. Um, and I think the since over the last year, thinking that they're going to increase the pricing with the increased attention um, would be a motivator for communities to potentially terminate their
contracts. I think that's very real. maintaining the pricing is at least consistent. Um, and it's not an additional money grab. Um, understanding that uh that you know if we want to continue that it was actually in our contract last year that the pricing we could stay consistent as well.
>> Oh, it was in the contract. >> Oh, good to know. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I do. Is the original agreement where Flock keeps the data in their system and can disclose it when reasonably necessary still enforced?
>> The >> are those the same conditions? >> The terms and agreements are online as well if you'd like. I can provide those. >> Uh I had copies when you provided them last year, >> right? It's been updated. >> It's updated. It's we we own the data. >> I know we own the data, but it's in
their system. So, it's the same as it was when we signed up >> essentially. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, since you approve all the sharing agreements, um, future sharing agreements, will council be told who we're sharing with?
>> It is on the transparency portal. >> So, we have to go look it up. >> It's not a council decision at this point. It's you're signing you're agreeing to sign the contract. It's not >> and we and we don't get to see the what the sharing agreement looks like. >> I can provide it's consistent with every
other department in the state. And I've asked you provide something else once a few months ago. Never got it. So >> I'd be happy to follow up with whatever that request was at any point. >> Whatever. >> Member Jagger, please be respectful. That was not a respectful comment.
Please. >> Please. >> Uh >> do you have further questions? >> Yes, I do. Actually, I do. I do have some observations. >> Okay. Please be respectful in your questioning. I don't think I was dis any disrespectful disagree.
>> Uh and that will be a matter of opinion since respect >> is thrown out. >> Please continue. >> All right. So I have some observations after having the cameras for a year. The four cameras that we do have in town are gathering detailed information on any
car that drives by them. Whether the person is guilty of something or totally innocent. There's there's still no distinction. the data that is held by the data is still held by flock and the data can be released when reasonably
necessary and also as you pointed out accidents, mishaps, misuse, whatever does occur. So at the end of the day, you you can put as many filters, you can change policies, you can update as much as you want, the data can still get out.
And uh I don't know, you could, you know, despite your best efforts, the data could still get out. Um, according to the last quarterly report I received, most of the vehicles flagged were those with revoked or
suspended license or variations thereof. The you only have a less than a handful of uh bigger cases that you've solved. According to your memo, this you what you call 61 successes among four cameras
and two cameras produce minimal su successes less than 10 and then two and then you had two investigative leads taken as a whole. I don't know if that appears to produce a lot of values given
the price of the cameras. I mean the first question I would have if you have two cameras that have less than 10 what you call successes do we really need those cameras? I also noticed that there's room to expand the surveillance through the use
of AI and other technology that's available through the ALPR system. And then for those of you who are concerned about optics, I think these optics look bad. There have been many numerous stories in many newspapers and
news sites where people are expressing their concerns about the cameras and how the data is collected. Many people don't like them and many communities have terminated their contracts with flock and actually I believe Wyoming should should join them.
>> Is there a question in there or you're making a statement? Okay. Thank you. >> Member Schilling. >> I have a couple of questions. Um >> do we have currently have police vehicles in our fleet that have AP alops or readers on them now on top of the vehicles? We
>> do not. Now, for those of you that don't know, there's a lot of departments, they've already had these for years. Um, I know this for a fact because I happened to be driving north on 61 and I had a cop on my butt and had no idea why. Bought a car, they didn't transfer the plate. The dealer didn't do it. So, the
officer was very nice. He said, "Hey, this is why. No problem. Go do this and take care of it." Um, access to our other systems. Everybody's concern with Flock is somebody has access to it. How much other data is on all our other systems that we use?
>> These systems are stay stored in the exact same manners whether it's our records management system that we're going to move to the cloud. Yep. >> Um every system is stored I mean there's a very limited >> uh limited number of places that you can
store uh criminal justice data. Okay. and that whether it's our records management which is extremely invasive data um would be very concerning if that got out that's stored in the same locations >> right >> um and that that is how criminal justice
and the FBI and BCA um I'm just working through an audit right now that is uh significant and I do need to provide you know if I'm storing data elsewhere you know we need to provide whether it's a uh roll call sharing
platform or whether whether it's even an agreement with the Chicago county because they store some of our data. I need to have agreements in place and those things need to be making sure that they're vetted appropriately. >> Yeah. So my point with this is our current systems have far more information can be accessed no different
than any other system. So that's the other reason I don't have concern with this system. We do completely control this. More and more communities are turning off all access and only granting who they have contracts with. um
there there abuse. Obviously, we've all seen stories about that. But again, we've had multiple issues. The media chooses what to put out. Okay? And social media is one of the funniest things I've ever seen in my entire life. It's the worst experience gone bad. You
can put something on there and it explodes. There's no fact, no truth, no nothing. Call it misinformation. Call it whatever you want. People start to react to that. They go start cutting poles down. They cut cameras down. and they spray paint cameras, but yet I ain't seen anybody do that to a the 50,000
traffic cameras we have. Every business you go in has a camera tracks everything you do. Your phone tracks everything you do. This isn't adding anything to it. It's a It's a license plate reader. Yes, it has capabilities, but it's controlled. If we're going to argue about this, then argue about everything
else. Sorry. Uh and then I was going to ask if we have had any vandalism to our four cameras. >> No. No. Okay. >> And then as chief stated, you know, bad things happen. There was an article about South St. Paul. There was a couple other cities. Uh if you notice the
article West St. Paul was not mentioned because we had our controls completely sealed into the where it was us and only us and no one had access to it. So, and that's where I'm going to end. >> Okay. Thank you. Um member Luger, >> um two questions. Um first is and I I
remember discussing this because we had a number of very thorough discussions about this, what it does, what it is, um, etc. Can you remind us how many days that the data is stored because because I know there's a state statute you can go under that, you can't go over it.
>> Yeah, we retain it for 30 days. >> 30 days and then and then the fact that it's something was accessed stays there, but what was accessed goes away after that amount of time. Okay. So, >> data refreshes, >> it goes away. >> Yes. I'll provide just a little
clarification as well. If it is used in a as was a pointer system for a criminal investigation or we we would pull that out of the system, retain that in a different system. So, it's no it is no longer in the fleck database. If it is
evidence that we're going to use um we export it as a PDF just like anything else and attach it through our records management system or our um our evidence.com system. So saying that everything disappears in 30 days. Yes. >> But
>> asterisk if it's evidence we would export it. It's no longer in that system. We would curate at that point. >> I appreciate that clarification. um on the transparency portal that is available on the website to literally anybody who can access it um and wants
to take a look at some of the data and the numbers as well as our policy which a lot of time I know was put in on because again we had many conversations um and and and that covered a lot of questions and procedures um to what
information we have how that information is used how long it's stored for um and that you know for the public to know. It's really important that like our department ALPR policy is at the bottom of this transparency portal. So, I would suggest that you know I would recommend
it more information is always better um in knowing what what our city does um and and how tools are being used. My question is um it says that camera alert activity there were 148 alerts
that is over the last 30 days. of those in fact let's not even I don't even want to talk about those for the last 30 days in the year that we've had this >> sure >> what do you feel like um based on what you can share publicly has been the most
successful like where has this had the biggest impact to our community in terms of um its use as a tool? >> Sure. Um I think what I would say is that you know getting at several points that have been brought up. Um this is
there's a lot of dependence on the data. So when we say there's been 60ome successes I don't know I remember off the top of my head um that rel relies on an officer not being on a call. We usually have one officer staffed right now. Okay. One to
two. So they might not be in the area. When I hear their their cameras or their computers in the office, alerts are continually going off. That's whether it's stolen vehicle, whether it's a revoked driver, a warrant, you know, the
cameras that are in certain locations like the south end of the city. Um, obviously our biggest traffic area is off the freeway. Okay, that makes the most sense. And that central location is generally, you know, if our officers are uh doing proactive work, that is
generally where they're going to be. Unless they're doing neighborhood checks and those type of things, they have to be within a very close area to able to react to it. Um, so there's a lot of alerts that will pop up that rely on us being in the area. A lot of things have
to be in place in order for us to take action on that. And I'm answering a long long response to your question, but I think it's important to emphasize this. It also is important. It's the investigative back end of it when we get um we just were looking at a case this
week. Um it's in Lynwood Township uh burglary. Okay. So, we're using that to assist them to search our system for a vehicle that didn't have license plates on it. We were just talking right before I came, so I don't even know the end result at this point. But that is where from our intent on the front end of this
that is more valuable to me is that investigative data afterwards like that harassment case. Okay, that was the this nurse was very concerned. It was a random person showed up, delivered flowers and a card to her. Um and it was
very concerning. They got an order for protection or a harassment restraining order against that person preventing them from doing this in the future. Um that's that safe. That's that sense of safety that we were able to provide to that staff person that the security
cameras didn't capture it 100% we would have not been able to identify that person and the concern is that would this have escalated I can't predict the future but that is a significant case where even though there was not criminal charges ultimately uh on it still is they were able to get a harassment
restraining order and preventing them from moving forward. >> Thank you. >> That was a long answer but I hope I got to your point. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um, I have no further questions. We need a motion to approve resolution 2608.99, a resolution approving a one-year contract renewal with block safety in
the amount of $12,000. I'll make that first. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved to consider resolution 2608100, a resolution ordering preparation of a feasibility report for public
improvement to all our portions or portions of roadway identified as the 2027 street project improvement. Mr. Ericson, I think it's your turn. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor and members of council. I'll provide just a little bit of background uh in advance of uh the
detailed request. uh public works and engineering staff as you know work pretty closely um with regards to um evaluating and understanding our infrastructure. Um we do road tours. Um you also as a council participate in an annual road tour as well. Um you might
recall in 2024 we have uh a road rating that's completed. Um an AI road rating that maps all the cracks and distresses in the roadway infrastructure. Uh we do that every three years. So that'll come up in 27 again. So, we utilize a lot of different information to prioritize um
those improvements that we think are necessary. And um it's not always a worse firstcase scenario. Um you know, there we've we've discussed some strategies for um saving the city um some some funds with regards to more proactive approach rather than uh taking
the worst first when we know doing the worst first isn't going to change the type of improvement. But we can also potentially save uh funds by uh addressing roadways and proactively um addressing them in a manner that's less costly. And so in this case here um
you're likely aware we had a recent work session where staff had presented a draft capital improvements plan for 2027 to 2031. And that next roadway uh project uh we identified as the 2027 street improvement project included uh roadways
that were in fact brought up this this evening uh from uh Mr. Babbot uh regarding 259th Street. Uh we have Finch Court, Floral Court, Flink, I'm sorry, Flint Trail uh and Glenn Oak Drive. So we have portions of those roadways
included. U we've had a number of projects in the area. uh this really kind of buttons up a lot of that and really kind of ties those projects together. And so we're pleased with the plan. Uh the project uh is anticipated to be in that $ 1.7 to $ 1.9 million
range. Uh we have worked closely with our financial um partner there um and and they have developed a financial model. we've plugged in that five-year capital improvements plan and um kind of worked on the size of the projects to make sure that we're working within the
resources that we do have. And so staff is comfortable rec recommending moving forward with um the authorization to prepare that feasibility study. If you're inclined to do that, um we'll certainly start that public engagement process and preliminary investigation, but we want to make sure we get their
input in advance of finalizing that feasibility. So there'll be a number of opportunities for those property owners to participate in that. >> Okay. Um Mr. Ericen, my only question um is this will be a complete reconstruct. Correct. >> Yeah, there's most of it. >> Yeah, I think there's certainly a lot of
it that will rem include the full um replacement of the pavement rather than a mill and over like we had before. There are some areas that we will look at and evaluate. We'll do some cores to understand what the pavement structure is, what the distresses are, and there might be an opportunity to look at uh a
potentially a mill and overlay for a segment or two, but for the most part, we know that this is a little bit more um more of a intense project than what we had with just a simple mill and overlay. But it will consist of uh replacing uh curb and gutter uh in larger segments, but also areas that
will uh keep the curb and gutter as well that it's in good condition. >> Okay. So once we approve this, how soon will it be before these residents get to hear the good news that there's going to be some movement on the road to fix it? >> We'll likely try just to get uh some schedule. We're going to try to get uh
we always televise our sanitary sewer so we understand is there any improvement needs there. And so before we start having a cing crew or a survey crew or a a person with a jetting truck and a televising uh crew, uh we want to make sure we communicate that with them. So,
probably next week, we'll send out a notice just informing them that the council once once we have a little bit more of a schedule kind of assembled, we'll send out a notice to all the property owners and then give them an idea of when that first opportunity will be to meet and share uh their input because a lot of times they are familiar
with things. We want to understand what, you know, their concerns are. They might highlight a drainage concern that, you know, maybe public works or I aren't aware of um because they live there and they see it every day and it might be a rear yard drainage issue that we can accommodate with improvements with our project as well. And so we'll want to
hear from from them on that and so uh that'll be relatively soon. We we'll get that process moving soon. >> They'll be very happy. >> The roadways are in poor condition and I know >> public works wants this um improved more than anybody. I know that they they get a lot of complaints. um will will work.
Um we learn we learn things with every project how we can do things better as well. And so we we're getting uh we're getting to a point like this project I think went really well. I know we had um good success. They're they're completed in advance uh of the the deadline. Um they're substantially complete. They're
not complete, but um they they have some minor punch list items and things like that remaining. >> Perfect. Um just speaking real quickly of the project this year. Thank you for there was some concerns from certain people. I know you went out there, discussed it with them, and I understand they were very happy with the
conversation. So, I appreciate that. I know that that's what you do. Okay. So, questions from council. We're going to start with member Schilling. >> Uh, no questions. And I will second the uh conversations of people really want this done because my wife and I walked this road, you know, several people and
they keep asking and I said right now it's tenative for 2027. So, I'm in proof of obviously the feasibility study. So, >> and Mr. Babbot runs it. So >> yeah, >> I was gonna say you run it and I know exactly where you're talking about that transition and you are right. It is not good. Right. So
>> it's good. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. [clears throat] It's because Mr. Reeves was doing a good job in trying to get those fixed. Right. >> Yeah, that's the crew. There we go. All right. Uh, so member Joerger. >> All right. Your memo says this is a full
depth reconstru reclamation like when the truck comes, eats it up, digests it, spits it back out. >> Yeah, it might. In this case, it might, you know, we call it that. And sometimes they reclaim it and mix it with the underlying aggregate. In this case, in a
lot of in a lot of the project area is a urban section with curbon gutters. So we can't just simply leave that material in place and and build it. So, a lot of times when they reclaim it, it goes right into a dump truck and hauled away. And so, those are um those are things, but it would most I think a large portion of the project will be a full
depth pavement replacement, but there are some segments that might warrant a mill and overlay. And so, we'll evaluate those. And then there's also a a rural section along Flint. >> Okay. Mayor mentioned reconstruction. All my years up here, I've noticed
reconstruction was a more uh extensive fix than a reclamation. >> It >> so which is this >> the terminology is somewhat interchangeable and so whether it's reconstruction I mean I I think we don't know the exact extents of the project and so that's part of that feasibility
study. We'll do some exploration um we'll understand what drainage concerns are. If if road has to change elevation then all the curb comes out and it is a reconstruction. So we do we do have some investigation to do. We need to understand what the pavement thicknesses are and things of that nature. So um
yeah, there there definitely is uh a range of opportunities here to fix this and we just don't know exactly what the the I mean I think we anticipate with our development of our capital improvements plan that we think it is more in line of what we call like a reclamation project. But we we will find
out more as we develop the feasibility study. So, when talking to the residents, we should tell them it's a reclamation project rather than a reconstruction project. >> I think I would um I would maybe just ask them to participate in the in engagement in the public process. Um I
think we're going to have a roadway improvement project and the exact extent of what the improvements are, I think we should >> Well, that's great for when I see them at >> have new pavement in any case, >> right? When I see him at 7:00 in the morning and I don't remember to tell them to to come to the public hearing
three three weeks from now, should I be saying reclamation? >> I would tell them they're going to have a roadway improvement project. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it it likely is a reclamation type improvement. Um, but I I think just to be safe, I think I think it'd be best
just to say they're going to have a roadway improvement project. >> Okay. Maybe we need that in the memos. what uh what we're doing. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Member Luger. >> I have no questions. I'm really excited about this roadway improvement project.
>> All right. Uh we need a motion to approve resolution 2608100, a resolution ordering preparations of a feasibility report. Um do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> Have a motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. We're
down to the last one. Okay. >> Number 31. Are we ready? Number 31. To consider resolution 2608101, a resolution approving the purchase of the history walk signs for railroad park project. Is Mr. Get >> I was going to say I didn't see him. Yeah. I was like, you're up.
>> Okay. I Mr. McFarland, are you doing this presentation? Honorable mayor, members of the uh city council, city staff and WSB have continued to work on the development of the railroad park uh park in the city's downtown corridor. Uh the second phase, this history walk portion of the project
that is comprised of the half circle walkway where some of the donor bricks are. Um is designed to be lined with signs that display the history of the Wyoming community. uh staff has worked closely with WSB who have worked closely with Wyoming Historical Society and the Park Advisory Commission as well to finalize these signs if you installed
the park. Uh the proposed signs of which the um signs were in your memo as well cover the topics of Wyoming's community, transportation and colonization. The park advisory commission did review this at their July meeting and they did recommend moving it forward for approval at the city council. Um WSB has
identified Verer Sign after going out for bids as the lowest responsible bidder for the project with a fabrication cost of $2731. Peterson Companies uh will perform the installation of the signs for a cost of $6,525
uh and that brings the project total to $9,256. I would note that in Miss Alberg's letter of recommendation, it did state that um shipping costs weren't incorporated into that. They've since let me know that that was incorporated. So shipping costs would not be anything extra on top of that. Um should also
note that um obviously we had Mr. Gatsaw in here earlier today. My intent after this is I'll email Miss Umberg and then I'll call her tomorrow as well and just ask that she reaches out. I think the good news with that was that most of what he said um any kind of changes sound like they're within the text and not the design itself. So I believe that
that wouldn't change the cost of any of the fabrication. Um so I'll still let her know that we should be good to move forward, but I'll refer to her as well. But I think the resolution is fine as is and if there was a change we would come back. >> Okay. Mr. Mr. McFarland, where's the money coming out of? >> Uh, so that'll come out of we have a dedicated fund for Road Park that's been
completely um uh donorfunded. Um whether it be from donors in the community, the businesses or through our buy brick program. >> Okay. And we do have quite a funds in there to cover this. >> We have enough to cover this. Yep. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Uh we're going to start with um member Luger.
>> Uh I have no questions. Okay. Member Joerger. >> Uh Grant just answered mine. >> Okay. Member Schilling. >> No questions. >> Okay. Yeah, like it said, correcting text, not uh design. So, >> perfect. I'll make the motion to approve resolution 2608101, a resolution
approving the purchase of the history walk sign for the railroad park project. I'm excited to finally get this part of it done. It's been a long time. So, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Luger. All in favor? I opposed. >> So, approved. We're going to go quickly
with council reports. Starting with member Luger. Um, I attended the groundbreaking ceremony earlier tonight. Um, thank you for coming. >> Okay. And member Schilling, >> uh, also attended the groundbreaking ceremony prior to this meeting and thank
you for those coming and have a good night. >> Okay. Uh, member Joerger. >> Oh, I attended the groundbreaking ceremony and then went to what was used to be National Night Out where the friends scooped like 360 about 360 ice cream cones.
Okay, I attended the night to unite. Um, I asked a question with Chief Bower on our Facebook message and nobody commented. So, I'm wondering if maybe you can give the answer. Why did we go from night from um National Night Out to
Night toite? >> Uh, it's a regulated >> trademarked. >> We have to pay to use it. I don't think that's a good use for our money. So, we went to Nightite. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um, I attended planning as well. the groundbreaking ceremony. I just um am excited to say
six or seven years in the making. Getting this done felt like a huge win and just proud of our commissions, proud of our council members, of our staff, everybody involved. This is a big deal. So, I would like to say thank you to
everybody for that. Um and then I just want to bring up uh stopout suicide 5K on Saturday. Um two things. one we have between a th00and to,200 people that attend the event very healing very moving there's been a question about the paint on the new road Mr. Reeves, can
you talk about how um those directional marks are not going to damage the road and what you'll be using on that, please? >> Yeah, so this week we took a shipment of uh it's it's essentially a high-grade chalk and it can be removed uh with a pressure washer just with rain and water
and uh so we'll be utilizing that on the the new patuminous surface. >> Okay. And it won't hurt wildlife. It's not going to hurt trees when the I mean somebody's gonna ask that. >> No, it won't. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, appreciate that. All right, that's all we have. We talked to everybody. Mr. Ericson was
even speaking with us tonight, so we're good. All right, we need a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> We have a motion to adjurnn by member Luger. We need a second. >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed. We are adjourned at 8.