City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call the meeting door. Please stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of America to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley and justice for all. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the city council meeting. Bri, take the roll call, please. Mayor King, present. Council member at large Austin, present. Council member Waller, present. Council member Baskin, Council Member Posma, present. Council member Hely, present. Council member Obala, present. Council member Fischer, present. Mayor King, we have a quorum.

Thank you, Bri. Uh, item number one's a motion to adopt our agenda with the amendment number 11. So moved. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Item number two, a motion approving our minutes from April 6th, 2026. It's all moved. Second. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. Item number 300, recognitions and awards. We have an Arbor Day proclamation to read. And here it is. Whereas trees and forest soils keep our lakes and streams clean by absorbing absorbing and filtering pollutants and sediments. And whereas forests prevent flooding and reduce storm water by capturing and storing rain water and snow melt, which is then slowly released to our lakes, streams, and groundwater. And whereas careful management of our trees and forest protects drinking water and reduces the cost of water treatment. And whereas sound management of forest land surrounding the Mississippi River ensures clean drinking water for more than 1 million motans. And whereas about threequarters of motans get their drinking water from the forested parts of the state. And whereas planting and maintaining trees is a natural and easy way to keep our water clean. And whereas throughout the month of May, motans pay special tribute to our trees as natural resources and de dedicate uh and dedicate ourselves to the vitality of our forests. Now therefore, I Stephen M. King, mayor of Austin, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as Arbor month in the city of Austin. Very good. We'll get that back to you brief for the park and wreck but uh proclamation for Arbor Day. Uh looking for item number four is a motion for the consent agenda. So move.

Second. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. On to bid opening and awards. Item number five is a resolution receiving bids for the 14th Street Milan overlay. Stephen, our final major street project is a mill and overlay on 14th Street Northwest from 8th Avenue North to I90. We'll look to piggyback this project when the inter 14th Street interstate bridge is closed for for minimal traffic through this area along Riverland Community College. Um this is a major roadway for us and we're we look to do a mill and overlay on this segment along with some crack repair and also a sanitary sewer kind of spot repair down at 8th Avenue and 14th Street. Uh the bids on this project, there were two biders with Rochester Sand and Gravel being the low bidder at $395,296 was their bid amount. And this dollars for this project will come from uh fund 42 and fund 61, which are uh 42 is our municipal state aid street fund and fund 61 is our wastewater treatment plant fund. And we would recommend awarding the bids.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Lang. Council any questions for Stephen on this? Otherwise, looking for resolution awarding the bid. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Release.

Council member Fischer. I. Council member Waller. Hi. Council member Posma. Hi. Council member Hely. I. Council member Obala. Hi. Council member Large Austin I. Resolution passes 6. Thank you Bri. Item number six under petitions and requests is a resolution approving how right in votes are counted in municipal elections. Bri, good evening mayor council members.

Before you I have a resolution authorized under Minnesota statute section 204B.09 subdivision 3. This allows cities to establish how writein votes are counted in municipal elections. If adopted, this resolution would allow write-in votes to be individually tallied and recorded only when the total number of write-in votes for an office is equal to or greater than the lowest number of votes received by a candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In simple terms, if a number of write-in votes is too low to affect the outcome of the election, election judges would not need to spend time individually counting and recording these votes. This helps reduce unnecessary administrative work while still complying with state law and preserving the integrity of the election process. Once adopted, the resolution would remain in effect until the council adopts a future resolution on the same subject because this resolution must be in place before the first day of filing for office. The city clerk's office is requesting council approval this evening.

Very good. Thank you. Council questions. Item number six. Looking for resolution. So move. Second. Bri,

Council Member Fischer. Hi, Council Member Waller. Hi, Council Member Postma. I, Council Member Heli, I. Council member Obala, I. Council member at large Austin. I, Resolution passes 6. Thank you, Bri. And item number seven is uh appointing our election judges. Bri

before you, I have a resolution to appoint our election judges for the 2026 elections as required under Minnesota statute section 204B.21. State law requires that the governing body of a municipality to make these appointments. The resolution would also allow for additional appointments if needed to ensure we have adequate staffing for the election administration throughout the year. The clerk's office is requesting council approval of the resolution. Very good. Council, any questions or comments for Bri on item number seven? Certainly appreciate those that step up and become our election judges. There's a big list here before us. Looking for a resolution to approve it. So moved. Second. Bri.

Council member Fischer. I. Council member Waller. I. Council member Posma. I. Council member Hely. I. Council member Obala. I. Council member at large Austin I. Resolution passes 6. Thank you. And uh item number eight is a resolution approving our airport statement of qualifications. Stephen,

every 5 years we're required to invite consultants to bid on or provide proposals for completing our 5-year CIP at the Austin Municipal Airport. We reached out to three qualified consultants to provide proposals and we received one back from has been our airport consultant for the past 25 years or so and so we were happy to get another proposal from them. The statement of qualifications really just lays out their experience and ability to complete projects very similar to ours that are identified in our five-year CIP. So, what we would request tonight is that we would um approve short Elliot Hendrickson as our airport consultant for the next five-year term.

Very good. Thank you, Stephen. Council, any questions? Item number eight, looking for resolution. So moved. Second. Bri. Council member Fischer. I. Council member Waller. I. Council member PMA. I council member Heli I council member Obala I council member at large Austin I resolution passes 6 thank you bra number nine we're looking for a resolution approving an off-site gambling application for the American post 91 resolution so moved second please council member Fischer

I council member Waller I council member Posma I council member Hely I council member Obala I council member Elar Austin I resolution passes 6 thank you item number 10's resolution approving the cancellation of the proposed MIDOT noise wall project Stephen

at the last council meeting we discussed an agreement with Mandot for the city's share of costs and future maintenance related to the I90 noise wall and also the pedestrian bridge that crosses the Cedar River on the north side of I90. Uh since that meeting, there have been some discussions and concerns about the increased costs associated with that project. uh our the greater Minnesota noise wall program is set up such that the state will provide a 90% grant to fund noise walls in greater Minnesota and then the local entity uh funds the remaining 10% of the costs. Back in 2023, we discussed this discussed this grant opportunity and it was decided at that time that council would fund the local 10% share using 5% of through assessments and 5% through tax levy. At that time, the total lo the total project cost was around a million dollar. So the 10% local cost would be $100,000 again split between assessments and local tax levy. Uh more recently we received um more updated cost proposals from Mandot uh that was presented at the last council meeting in that agreement and those costs indicated that prices had increased. Um construction costs had increased whether that be steel prices for the rebar that's used in the sound wall or concrete prices or just labor and construction costs in general. uh approximately doubling the cost of the project to a $2 million project for the sound wall. That would mean the local

cost of 10% would be $200,000. Again, split half of that toward assessments and half of it to our local tax levy. Um again, since that meeting, there have been some discussions and concerns about the uh proposed costs. So I have reached out to Mindot and discussed with them the possibility of this. Well, let me first just go through this in detail a little bit more. Here were the the costs for the 11 bene benefiting property owners. Their cost is all based on their re reduction in noise that they would receive from the soundwall. And you can see here uh we had we had multiple options for that were reviewed a couple years ago. Option three was the option that was chosen. And at that time the estimated costs for each property owner are listed here. Um now with the new estimated cost for Mindot, you can see how those assessments for the adjacent property owners have more than doubled and also the cost for the city to cover has also doubled. Uh we would be sharing again a cost of just over $200,000. So here is $104,000 of assessments and there would be approximately $14,000 of of local cost covered through tax levy as well. Um so since that meeting I have reached out to mindot and asked about are there any opportunities for the city to cancel our participation in the noise wall project. working with our local contact with Mandot. They have indicated so so the project actually bids on

Wednesday. So it's it's right around the corner and um I guess it is it is important to to make uh decisions so that we can get back to Mandot with a a firm decision on what direction we want to go. But these are the five steps that they have outlined that we would need to do in order to um remove this the sound wall portion from this project. Uh MDOT has indicated they would need to delay the bidding till for about a month uh to make some changes to the plans and specifications to remove the soundwall portion. The city would need to pass a resolution at tonight's meeting indicating our desire to remove the sound wall from the project and then I would be forwarding that to Mindot tomorrow so that they have what they need to to make the necessary amendment changes. Um at some point in the future we would then need to terminate our current share agreement that was approved at the last council meeting. uh a new maintenance agreement would be developed for maintenance of the bridge project only that was that was also included in the dual project previously and then finally that new maintenance agreement would come back to council for approval. So there' be kind of a five-step process there for the city and then Mindot would be working in the background to make those plan changes. So, I recognize there are some residents here tonight that may want to speak to this topic, but we have drafted a resolution for council to consider if this is the direction that they ch would you all would choose to go that um you know whereas the mindot has prepared plans and specifications for this noise wall project uh bid lighting is whereas

a bid lighting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026. And whereas concerns of the local cost share have caused council to reconsider the city's involvement in the project. Now therefore, the city council of the city of Austin uh hereby request mindot to remove the noise wall project from the current advertisement for bid. So that is the resolution that we have drafted. And now we turn it over to council for any questions that you may have of us and Stephen. So just as long as the signatures are are there and on time tomorrow that we can keep that we keep the pedestrian bridge moving forward. Is it delayed at all because of this with the soundwall?

The the bid opening would be delayed about one month in order to modify the plans and specifications. Um some some timelines that Mandot is trying to meet is their current fiscal year. As we know their fiscal year ends June 30th. So they want to get this project bid get these funds encumbered. There is about a six-month process to fabricate the new bridge. So, it would like it was currently planned and likely to begin in the spring of 27 and this new schedule would still allow for that to occur.

Thank you. Council, any questions or I take the public comment? Was the Stephen was the current of the new on-ramp in that area there was that redesigned to fit this wall? I mean do they have to do a reconstruction in that area now? No, the sound wall was separate and standalone from the original four street bridge project. So there will be no changes to what we see out there today. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'd like to hear what they have. Okay. Anybody want to step up to the microphone and give us your address if you're here to speak? It'd be great. Yes, I would like. Sure. Move forward.

Just need your name and address for the record, please. My name is Susan Bedner. I lived in the pasture heights um division address 1414 2nd Street Northwest. Um you'll have to forgive me. I'm going to be my speech was composed a couple days ago. So I'm going to be repeating some of the things that take your time. We have a short meeting. We're used to longer ones.

Fill the gap here talked about. So, in 2022, Nancy Quadnau and I met with city engineer Steven Lang to raise long-standing concerns about highway noise affecting our neighborhood. Since our homes were built 35 years ago, there have been significant changes in traffic patterns, especially the volume of semi-truck traffic. engine braking, aftermarket exhaust systems, and emergency vehicle traffic that was due to the relocation of male ambulance service. Um, these changes had measurable impact on the quality of our life. In response, the city commission city commissioned a professional noise study. The study confirmed unsafe decel levels affecting 11 homes in our area. Following the study, neighbors worked with the city through the assessment process. While it was not unanimous, a clear majority of the affected homeowners supported moving forward with the noise wall and agreed to be assessed based on benefit received. Others um others did not support paying for it. But even so, the neighborhood as a whole has consistently supported the wall as the only meaningful solution to the documented noise problem. In May 2023, the city council formally

approved the noise wall project to move forward in coordination with the mindot bridge projects. Residents were told that homeowners cost would not exceed the agreed upon amounts and the families in the neighborhood relied on that. Since that approval, significant work has already been completed, including engineering, design, planning, coordination with MDOT, and preparing the project for bidding. Those um those efforts represent real time efforts and public resources already invested in the project. We recently learned that the city is now considering cancelling the noise wall due to increased costs. We understand inflation and budget pressures. Everyone feels them. But the project was approved before costs increased by 100%. and residents acted in good faith based on that approval and the progress already made. We're not alleging an open meeting law violation, but from our perspective, it appears that a major decision reversing a previously approved project may have taken shape outside of regular public meeting process. Given the importance of this project, we simply want reassurance that

deliberations are happen are happening openly so we can understand how and why this change is suddenly being considered. Canceling the noise wall at this late stage does not undo the noise problem or recover past costs. It simply leaves residents with the impacts the city has already acknowledged. We respectfully respectfully ask the council to honor its prior decision keeping the noise wall as part of the mindot project and allow this long planned solution to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Miss Bner. Um, anybody else wish can I just ask a quick followup with Miss Bner? So you would be in favor of keeping it at the new price. Understanding at the new price at the old. So So if you had to choose between keeping it at the new price or no wall, which one would you pick? We want to keep it at the the original price that we were told would not exceed what we agreed upon. So that's what we think is fair, which would Stephen um

Oh, go ahead. which would cost the city another 25,000 I believe. Um, is that right, Steve? It would you would you would cover 75% and we would be covering 25% which would keep it at the amount we all agreed on and the council agreed on and we were we can't understand how a project um can increase by 100% Um, but if that really is the case, I'm also cons or curious as to is Mindot paying 100% more for the bridge projects now and they've agreed to do that.

Yeah. Okay. So, so I think to clarify your question there is you're you're requesting that the local residents share of 50,000 stay at 50,000 as it was in 2023 and that the city pick up the remainder up to 200,000 which is the current estimate. So the city would be picking up 150,000 and the residents would be picking up 20 50,000. I believe that's what being requested. That's what we think. And help me.

I recall it being a percentage, not a not a u not to exceed. I thought it was 10% that the city was going to split with the residents. It was 10%. But not to we didn't have an amount. We had it at 10%. Now the percentage went way up. I get that. But we did have a an agreement that we would be paying 50,000 and the and the city would be paying 50,000 and and those numbers were all based on our our best estimates that we had at that time from MDOT. Um,

but it's stated in your May 1st um, video of your meeting, May 1st of 23, that Tom Dankard, I believe, is the one that spoke on this and said, assured us that we would not that that what we were being assessed on um, would not um get any higher than that

in in your email to me to correct me if I'm wrong, but and I'm I didn't go back to look at any of the videos or research where that comment had come from, but I I believe that was in reference to once the final assessment amounts are sent out, they won't increase, I believe, is kind of what you had put in the email, right? what um our assessment would be and he indicated that we would not the what we were told would not exceed could possibly be less but would not exceed what we were told and what we agreed to and voted on. So, so if I recall a little more context to that is I believe we were considering assessing these folks right away in 2023 and at that time these were the best numbers that we had. We talked about that and we elected to wait until the final construction costs came in because as Miss Bender is stating, once we assess someone and we give them an assessment amount, a formal notice, we cannot raise it at all. And I believe Again, I'm putting simulating things from three years ago, but I'm sure I would imagine that was the context of Mr. Danker's statement that once we send out those formal notices, we can't increase it. So, that's why we decided to wait.

And at the same meeting, um, Mr. Danker did say that the assessment notification letters would be sent out in 2024, and we all know that didn't happen. I so I'll just I understand the frustration of the increased cost. Believe me, we unfortunately are dealing with this as a council over and over and over again. Whether it's cost of a snowplow, fire truck, road, sound wall. I I can appreciate your perspective that you'd like the wall, but you don't want to pay more. I will say for me, and I voted against this project the first time um because I just didn't think it was a good use of city resources at the time. Um, I I'm very interested in yourself or whoever else is planning on speaking. I I I understand for folks who are planning on this happening feeling that the rug's getting pulled out from under them if that doesn't happen. And I don't like that feeling. That being said, there are only two option. It is either we do not do the wall or the costs for all of us, the city and the residents double. So, I'm looking for anybody to talk about which of those two options that live in that neighborhood, they're okay with paying the extra because they want the wall or it's too much and they don't want the wall. And, you know, in response to your concerns about when things are going to get decided, I haven't decided by vote yet. Literally, what I hear from the neighbors will help me decide that. So, those are the two options I'm looking at.

But your own agenda states that you will be voting to cancel the noise wall. So, I'm wondering how that's just the way the resolution's written as of right now. We could we could actually change that when we come to our final vote if it's decided to move forward with it. It we're not stuck to that resolution if

yeah, if we turn this down right now, what we passed in the last meeting goes forward and the project moves forward at the doubled cost for everybody. So, that's what we're looking for input on right now. And just some clarification too, I'm a little bit confused because we we this was brought up last meeting we and we were going to continue even though the price was was higher and then I got a call from Jason Baskin who said one neighbor a resident contacted him would like to get rid of it because it's too high and so we just put it on the agenda to talk about it again. So it came from the residents to to back off this because the price was too high and that's why we're here. There's no meetings behind meetings and anything like that. It was just a you got a call from residents does his due diligence and says can we put it back on the agenda to discuss yeah happy to do that because the price went up and we and we were feeling for you guys you know it was maybe 4,000 2,000 now it's 9,000

those things so it's a it's a big deal so and I I can understand Mr. postman's perspective because back in the in the time I can't believe it's been three years um but this this is 11 resident 11 households that this affects and we're spending pretty good chunk of city money. It's 1% of the levy

to to carry this forward for what are the other 24,000 people in the city thinking, you know, is this something that we I would think they would say, "No, please don't." But we did back in 23, so we'll honor that, but we're holding back because the residents now said, "We don't want to pay our portion, so please don't do it. We don't that that'd be forcing you to pay $21,000 to the quad." No, we're not interested in doing that either. Same time, if we can save some money and not do it, that's what that's what we're here for. Mhm. So now this surprises me that you're hearing I'm hearing that no, you'd like it still, but you now you want the city to pay more and I don't think the city has an appetite for that myself, but please if anybody else has issues, something to discuss, I'm happy to hear more. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks. Do I need to come up? Please. Yeah. Name and address. whoever steps forward.

My name is Gary Quinn now. I live at 1407 2nd Street Northwest about 80 ft from the interstate. Um I did go doortodoor in the neighborhood and I canvas the people that are involved. I talked to everybody except two and they didn't answer the door when I when I was there. Of the nine people I talked to, nine of them said, you know, we're okay with what the original assessment was. We agreed to that and we would stand behind that and pay it. But as far as the extra cost, I got nine nos from the people that I talked to. Um, I know in my case, ours went from 9700 to 21,000. And if I put it on my taxes, it's over $31,000. Uh that's just, you know, if if it does pass, I'll sell the house, pay the assessment, take it out of the proceeds from the house, and move someplace. I cannot afford $31,000. It's it's that simple.

And at age 78, I can't imagine I'm going to get too many years of benefit out of the noise wall. Not saying I'm not in good health, but you never know. That's how hearing is.

So that's that's that's that's my input because I didn't want to come here and say this is what I heard, this is what I didn't heard. So I actually went door knocking and uh that's what the people people told me today. Um I believe in the wall. I still think it's a good idea. I think it's something we need. Um, but from what I can understand from the people that talked to me, they are not interested at the higher cost. And I'll I mean, I know it's between a rock and a hard place. My only other comment is my neighbor heard about it when he stopped in a local business and somebody said, "How would you like to pay double for your noise wall?" My brother-in-law called me a few days later and said, "Hey, Gary, I hear your noise wall is going up twice." I said, 'Really? If we could get some information on this, we would have been at the meeting two weeks ago and maybe saved everybody a little consternation. So that's that's my only that's my only comment. I thank you for your time and and uh good luck on the vote.

Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate and ma'am, you had a comment too. No. Yes, please.

Name name and address, please. Kristen and Sourge 14th place 300 14th place northwest less. I guess my my concern is that I heard it through someone who talked to someone at the coffee house where my son works and my son came back to me. So I feel the lack of transparency was kind of the most frustrating thing for me. Um because I believe when the idea came up, we got something in the mail um into our mailboxes, but it's been mom ever since then. So I feel like that lack of transparency is a little frustrating. I think a lot of people a lot more people are reading Eric Johnson's article in the paper because it was in the paper the decision. I don't read the paper. That's that's an issue. It's out there. It's in the public forum. That's how people might have heard about it. That's how

Yeah. But if you I mean we can you can send 11 letters to 11 residents to let them know. Thanks. So So you're not in favor of it. My understanding I am not in favor for the increase. No. Because I feel like we should have had you know some discussion about this not being surprised. And then I found out there was a meeting a week ago that I didn't know about either. So what that's about. Thank you. Thank you, council. I'd love to hear some comments on this.

Um I think I I I asked this question before um before we voted on this if the resident were alert about these changes. So and um and I knew the increase is is too high, you know. So I had some phone calls um that um um people living in that area. So the increase was really high after we voted for it. I think it's pretty clear the resident the overwhelm with the increase of of this assessment. Um I think we have to listen to them. So as as part of the city we are already very thin on the budget. So, and that I I I think um we're here from the people, those who um we supposed to serve and that overwhelming already. I think it would be good to listen to the resident um if we can't keep it to the original assessment. I think there's no need of moving forward. Um in my part, because we don't have a bigger budget for it and also the resident, they're overwhelmed with the increase of assessment that surprised them. Yeah, but we can't keep it at the original without changing it. But I I get what you're saying. I I feel for you. You know, you got double the amount you're going to spend. Um I'm also hearing I don't want to spend the money, but I want the wall. Well, we've been doing the budget for months now and we're we're tight. I mean, we're we're letting and not replacing jobs as people are retiring because we don't have the money. I think for us to spend more money in the wall is something that at this point we can't do. So, it's either the residents spend more money or we don't do it.

I got one more thing to say. Adam Ansour, 314th Place Northwest. Um, I said this last time we met in 2023 and I I qu I wonder about, you know, we're talking about Arbor Day or the or the month of May being a month for what was the term you used or motans pay special tribute to our trees as natural resources.

Yes. And I mean, this community has been hard hit obviously by ash bore and um Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, and I feel like I I was just actually in my uncle's woods today. Uh and I just noticed how the sad state of his particular 35 acre plot of woods and I I know a lot of trees in this area has been suffering. So, I don't know what kind of uh funds there are to replenish the stock of our trees in this community, but that'd be one place where we could, you know, look at adding a bunch of bushes and trees. If you put in a a fairly thick buffer line, that would help alleviate the noise issues that we're seeing in that neighborhood. Uh and perhaps there's grants available uh to this community from the state or federal level for that. I do not know. I haven't looked into it at all, but just something I think that could be looked into if we decide to go against the wall. I think we should seriously look at looking at at planting a a a buffer with trees and bushes and I think that'd help you know a number of things. So just thought

we have got some grants. Laura, you're on the park and record. I know the Ormouth Foundation has kicked in significant amount of money to replant trees as we're taking them down. So it's it's a real I know a lot of areas need those trees. So but it's just one area that we could do. I'm all for it about Okay. for it. Thank you. I I I guess I should see if anybody else wants to speak, but I guess based on kind of the feedback I'm hearing and also kind of where I was on this to begin with, I would try what's the phrasing that I need to use here, Bri or Stephen, to vote move forward rescending the approval or what's the what's the phrasing that we're looking for here? Cancel.

Well, approve the resolution. We'll cancel the wall. Okay. It's the most recent. Then then I would make that motion. most recent motions. I second that. So basically we are cancelling it. Right. Right. Right. Okay. I I second that. Okay. I've got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Then uh Bri, take a roll call, please. Council member Fischer. Hi. Council member Waller. Hi. Council member Posma. Hi. Council member Hely. I council member Obala I council member Fish or council member at large Austin

I resolution passes 6. Thank you Bri. Uh on to the addition item number 11 is uh under petitions and request approving a contract for engineering services at the wastewater treatment plant. Stephen,

just give me one second. So this addition is related to uh codings that have failed in industrial EQ digtor number two. and we have a proposal from an engineering firm to evaluate the coding failure and give us some information related to what may have caused that failure. So before you tonight is a proposal from KTA Tater uh with a cost we've written it up they they gave us a range from 13,500 to 15,500. We've written it up in the attached resolution that it would be um a maximum of $15,500 and uh it's to perform some engineering testing and services based on their expertise to give us an analysis of what may have caused the coding failure. So we would recommend uh extending a contract with KTA Inc. and request authorization for myself, the city engineer, to sign that contract for this work to move forward.

Very good. Thank you, Stephen. Council, any questions? Item number 11. Looking for resolution. So moved. Second. Bri, council member Fischer. Hi. Council member Waller. I. Council member Posma. Hi. Council member Hely. Hi. Council member Obala. Hi. Council member at large Austin. I. Resolution passes 6. Very good. Thank you. Brian. Uh. On to citizens addressing the council. Anyone in the audience here other than the sound wall folks? Uh looking to talk to somebody or city council about an issue. All right. Under reports and recommendations, Craig, anything? I have nothing. No, hang on. Oh, sorry.

You thought I was leaving? Yeah, I thought you were leaving. Thought you were thought you were done with us. Name and ad.

Nancy Qunno and I live at 14072nd Street Northwest. and I'm here to voice my disappointment and frustration with the outcome of the noise barrier project. In 2002, I asked Mindot 2002, I asked them to do a noise barrier study and it was 2023 when they did the noise barrier study and I support what they did. My question is how does how do the assessments land to 11 people who would get benefit and not the whole 23 neighbors that live in that area? That was one question I had but it's moot. Most remember that the process today will no um will no longer will no longer get the noise barrier. I just want to say it's too bad that money dictates our lives regardless of the quality of life issues that we face each day. Again, I thank those who helped us and you know who you were and are. And I'm sorry for the outcome and I hope in the future that the citizens input continues to matter to this group. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to council? And Craig, you had nothing. Rebecca,

nothing. Mike? Uh, nothing, your honor. Jeff? Uh, nothing, your honor. Laura,

I just want to announce again that 4th Avenue Fest will be at Horus Austin Park on Wednesday, June 3rd. Uh, mark your calendars. Um and then also want to recognize um just uh as an everyday activity in the city of Austin, our staff are always looking to save us money. So um something that happened in the last couple weeks is that the park staff fabricated a new dock approach for Mil Pond and they used recycled bleacher parts to fabricate that that dock approach um to save us money. I I think there's lots of these examples that happened. This is one that I I know about and can shout out and say thank you um to our staff. I think um I'm hearing a lot from the public that the city needs to pinch every penny till it screams and I think that's a great um example of us uh doing that. That's it.

Thank you. Laura, nothing. Your honor, nothing your honor. All right. I got some April anniversaries of our city employees. I want to read a few here. Tim Hansen uh with Austin Fire, 24 years. Tim Rogers, park and wreck, 18 years. Spencer Walner, park and wreck, 14 or 15 years. Steve Turner, park and wreck, 13 years. Courtney Schmidt, library, 13 years. Dave Joseph, sewer maintenance, 10 years. And Mike Hulliper with the police, eight years. Congratulations and thank them for their service as long good to have folks sticking around the city for the employment. Uh, with that, looking for a motion to adjourn to our work session in 5 minutes. So, move second. All in favor? I

opposed. We're adjourned to May 4th. Thank you.