Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the mayor and city council workshop Wednesday, April 8th, 2026. If you'd please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance. United States of America. Appreciate the enthusiasm, Harry. Got to give it a second. Up next, we have the our Please show all council members present. Um, up next we have a review of the minutes from the March 9th 2026 combined meeting. Does anybody have any comments, questions, concern regarding the minutes? Hearing none, I am proceeding forward. I'm opening or is there any council member statements regarding conflicts of interest that council would like to make tonight? Hearing none, I'm heading to public hearing ordinance 22-25, amendment to fences and walls. This public hearing will be open throughout the entirety of the meeting and then it'll be closed at the end of the meeting. If you would like to make a comment during the time, please uh raise your hand for attention. I'll call you up to the podium over the amendment to fences and walls. Up next, we have public comment pertaining to agenda and non-aggenda items. To comment on a specific agenda item after it has been discussed by council, please sign up with the city clerk and you'll be asked to come forward at the appropriate time. Would anybody like to come up for the public comment part? I know you I'm assuming you signed up for agenda item.

I did.

And that's going to be deferral, I'm assuming. Yeah. Anybody else? Hearing none, I am proceeding to consideration review. Is there anything is do any council members need a moment to look over anything before we start into the agenda for the night? Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward. Um, the two resolution ordinances agreements that we have are the charter resolution CR202601, charter resolution CR2026-02. Again, both these are just temporary placeholders as we go through a charter amendment process. Is there any additional com comments anybody would like to make regarding those two charter resolutions? Again, they are just sitting in limbo as we go through a charter review process. Jim, let's go ahead and move those down. Are we able to move those to old business? Yeah, old business just as as we're going through it. That'll at least keep track of what we've looked at so far. Any additional comments on those two items? Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to adoption ordinance 22-2025, amendment to fences and walls. Again, nothing's uh really changed over the course of the past couple months. We had to reintroduce this ordinance um as it lapsed the 70-day period. Um any comments, questions, concerns from council. There's no motion to be made tonight. You know, that'll be Monday. Hearing none, proceeding down. Ordinance 03-2026, bypass corridor developmental deferral. I'll let council talk first and then I'll call up public comment. Does council have any additional comments, questions, concerns regarding the bypass corridor development deferral? Just an update regarding that. We've had a couple different meetings with uh people in that area as far as the bypass goes uh ranging from developers to uh property owners in the area to again try to make sure we're achieving the goals as far as easements and whatnot goes. Um again the reason for this ordinance is basically to allow administration to use tools that are necessary to kind of push our objective of securing the easements

and again start a basically review um working group in regards to the uh bypass corridor and happenings in that se sector. Is there any additional comments, questions, concerns from council before I open up to public comment? Hearing none, opening up to public comment.

Thank you. Good evening everyone. Kelly Miller, 73 East Main Street, Westminster, Maryland 21157. As you all are aware, I represent Ward Communities and its perspective development of what's known as the Mountain Brook community. Um, we appreciate that opportunity for the exemptions that are drafted in the deferral. Um, that said, we continue to oppose the deferral and would request that you not adopt the deferral. Um, I think you've heard me here before and I'll just say it again because I have to for my client. Um, that we question the necessity and legality of the deferral. If the emergency basis is to provide for the bypass and help traffic situations in the town, Word's plan provides for the a large swath of the bypass through its proposed development. Um and therefore the target of the deferral on Ward Ward being the only one with a pro plan in process in the area the geographical area that's impacted by the deferral uh is unnecessary. Ward would continue to work with the town in processing the plan as it's proposed with the bypass the necessary right ofway and the construction of the bypass. The deferral or moratorum on development seems like a drastic measure for uh a bypass that is shown on a master plan and therefore there are tools in place to provide for and account for said bypass. Um I will point out to you that one of the impacts of any moratorum deferral you can call it whatever you'd like but in effect it is the same thing. the impact of that trickles down because developers across the board, not just residential, commercial, industrial developers are it causes hesitancy and uncertainty in the development world and therefore causes an lack of willingness to invest in a jurisdiction. And so I think that

specific to this deferral, when there are other tools in place to acquire the bypass, to obtain the the portion of the bypass that the town seeks to obtain, imposing a deferral or moratorum that is unnecessary is a is a drastic measure to take and we would ask that you continue, as we have at every meeting so far, continue to work with ward communities on its processing of the plan uh which would secure a huge portion of the bypass. again within that geographical area that is noted um in the ordinance there. So with that we would ask that you reject the deferral. I is tonight the scheduled adoption or is that for that would be Monday.

Okay. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional comments, questions, concerns from council

or the legal side of this? Yep. I assume we have. So, uh, and me, the city manager, and Jay G have all worked on this ordinance. Um, Jay's been through the process from when we were originally discussing the, uh, conceptual parts of it. So, again, this has had our legal, our current legal working on it as well. And again, this some of the suggestions that are in there are suggestions from him directly. So, it has been working through our legal as well.

Assume that was the case, but I just wanted to hear it. I guess I have one question if Kelly if you don't mind. It's more specific to you. I mean this is 180 days. I was unaware that developments typically move that quickly. What you've you've mentioned you're against it and I know you're saying on behalf of your client. I didn't hear any real specific reasons. I mean it's 180 days. What are you saying this will prevent you from accomplishing within the next six months as it relates to progressing forward with Ward? It's possible that word would be in the position to process some plans through planning commission and the opportunity in the deferral in the draft ordinance itself provides for extension periods. So right now there's a lack of certainty. Is it going to be 180 days? Is it going to be up for extension? Um I think even without the specific provision for the extensions that's drafted in the ordinance that you're looking at, there still be an opportunity for council to request an extension. So any action like that causes uncertainty and certainly a little bit of heartburn in terms of continuing to spend significant engineering expenses in processing plans when right now well presumably when this gets adopted right now what would be on the books is a you can't receive a final approval on this plan. Um part of uh Mr. Kelly, I don't think you were here during the last meeting when I spoke on this, but at some point during one of those meetings, I mentioned that Ward has invested over a million dollars in its pursuit of this development to date. And that's a plethora of costs, some of which are engineering, some of which are legal, some of which are contract related costs. Um, but that's a significant investment. And so to continue to make that engineering investment specifically in processing plans when there's something on the books that says you can't go for a final approval causes concern if nothing else. Let's put it that way.

I'll add just one counter to that and that would just be that again the it does allow for an exemption if the DAR if there's a DAR worked out that again protects what we need as far as the bypass goes. So, I'd say the only issue with where that corridor is right now is let's say uh let's say word only does phase one and they don't do phase two. The likelihood chance of somebody buying the property for phase two to actually develop it becomes basically non-existent. Um that kind of shutters any idea of the actual bypass going through that corridor. And that's part of why we need the easement with flowerve as well because that corridor has to be protected. um without without A and B as part of with again without part one and part two of that plan being fully accomplished, the actual addition to the city is just additional traffic going through again our circle and our squares. Um and again, we don't have a resounding uh I'd say mandate from residents to continue to exacerbate the problem of you know traffic that we have here in town. So again, my my thing and the whole part of the ordinance to begin with is again just protecting the interest of the residents, which is making sure that we have something on paper that is agreed on that says that hey, yes, the easements are protected. Yes. Um again, we're going to develop everything as it has been presented. Um same thing with going to Flow Serve is again we need the easement through Flow Serve, we need these through VAPCO, we need these been through two other properties over in the southern part. So again, it's not just uh it's not just ward communities. There's other people we're going to be putting pressure on as well to got try to get those easements. Um, and part of that part of that is also working with the county to try to get those. Um, specifically, you know, talking with our commissioner Joe Vigliotti. You know, I've mentioned more working on here as well, and we plan to have a meeting as far as the bypass corridor goes with them. Um, so again, there's a bunch of different moving parts. It isn't just ward, but as far as there is an exemption in there that does allow you guys to work through us through with us on that property to make sure that again the bypass corridor is protected and you guys can still get through with your plans. Um, again, my interest and part of the reason I've worked on this proposal with the city manager and our attorney is to make sure the resident's interests are protected. Um, so again, we we're willing to work

and we've always been willing to work. You we've had several meetings. You know, it's uh we'll continue working through the process. This isn't just saying no to development. Again, this is just making sure that the resident's interests are protected as we're going through with everything.

We understand that and appreciate that. I think just to clarify when I say targeted, what I mean is that the way the ordinance is drafted right now with that geographical area, Ward is the only plan in process right now that would be subject to that. It's not to say that somebody else in that area couldn't try to submit a plan tomorrow that would be subject to it as well. But currently, Ward is the only um development that has a plan in process that would be subjected. So when I say that, that's that's what I'm talking about there. And we do understand and appreciate and as you're well aware, Mr. Mayor, we have no objection to trying to get the right of way through Flowserve. It's just something that's out of our control specifically. So um we certainly share a collective goal in trying to accomplish that and um if a DRRA becomes an effective mechanism, we are here and and open to that as you're well aware. Um I would just say that again the deferral itself is unnecessary to accomplish that. Thank you.

Um it seemed when Ward came before the planning commission that they were at a crossroads so to speak. um you presenting whether we were more interested in the bypass or in housing and uh and essentially the way it was described to us or the way that we understood it was that the chance of the bypass making it to 140 at this point was was nil was basically nil. Um and the planning commission at that time fairly unanimously said that then it's not a good plan that the the housing is not a good plan for us. So I think some of the uncertainty has been brought in because especially because of that particular presentation where it was brought up that hey we're not going to be able to do the bypass. So

well that that presentation was full and accurate at the time because that was the indication that had been given to flowserve. So, I hear you and I understand that, but at the same time, in order for Ward to continue processing anything, there has to be that open dialogue about that. I mean, we were just we are seeking to be as transparent as possible. Um, and I understand that through this this effort, this def uh deferral effort that there are hopefully resumed discussions with Flowserve initiated by the town and we're hopeful that those will be uh beneficial in potentially changing what was the status at that meeting. Um, and I would also hope that given the emergency basis for the deferral that perhaps we'll see some um allocated funding towards acquiring that right of way so that we can all make that happen. Um, Ward shares the the goal of making that happen. What was presented at that meeting was just the reality of the situation based on property that was out of control at at that point. Um, but I I think the mayor is I know the mayor is making efforts to continue those conversations with full serve and we're we'll hope we are hopeful that that will shift course.

Well, I think I think the basically where it comes up is the fact that it would have been a pretty much a non-starter if I'm because I believe I was at the the first meetings back in the day before I was on planning commission. um it without the bypass there there would have been basically been a non-starter to be putting another housing development on the other side of 194. So, I think that's that's where some of the the consternation's coming in is that that is that this some some people are not don't have the highest confidence that the uh that that we're actually going to be able to get the bypass at this point and we'd like to make sure that that's in place before we uh before we do something that's going to make something make uh part of the town worse.

Understood. And I think that uh your ordinance calls for the requirement of traffic studies for that very reason, right? To evaluate that with any proposed development and then you're tied to the constitutional requirements related to the impacts of the development on the proposed infrastructure. So that's in place and Ward is well aware that they have to address that and and has provided their traffic impact study accordingly. So no matter what happens, that's something that would have to be addressed and resolved through any site plan process.

Mayor, I have one one final question just to make sure I understand the language that we have in this. I said we're going to be voting on it on Monday. Uh but from what I understand and this is the fine print that is attractive for both parties that even with this deferral if Kelly and your client proposes a favorable uh you know development rights and responsibilities agreement that even while there's an effective um you know deferral and let's say worst case scenario it does get extended again that that allows them the opportunity to still move forward on development with the city even when this is in effect.

Yep. The entire point of the deferral is again bringing all parties to the table and getting a work workable compromise for what we need for the bypass. Um it it isn't necessarily just to put a stop on everything. The idea again behind that language that is specifically there is to again there is a way for all parties to come to an agreement and that is again making sure that what we need for the bypass is protected because again that is a essential property in that bypass corridor and has been essential property for you know three decades of planning. Um so again part of my worry is also again was hurt the planning commission. And I know uh it's also protections for the planning commission as well because even though you know what they might be bound to what they might not be bound to you know they are a citizen board and you know they also have the citizens interest at heart. Um and again a a lot of people ask themselves how can they how can I consciously agree to something that exacerbates a problem that we all know that we have and that's the traffic that comes to the square. Um I know the planning commission has that problem that mayor and council has that problem. Um, so again, for us, it's just making sure we're using all tools and resources we can to make sure that there's a favorable agreement where the outcome is favorable for the residents because that's who we serve, that's who the city serves. Um, and I know you guys have spent a sizable money on this, but again, you're talking you're talking something that could drastically alter the course of something residents have asked for for 30 to 40 years. Um, so again, I ask that you take that under consideration. It's not that we're trying to stop your particular development or anything like that. Um, it's make sure all parties are coming to the table, reaching an agreeable conclusion that is in the best interest of the residents of Tonnytown. And again, that's why that language is in there is again we we have the open door to get there. We can work to get there. Um but no matter what the outcome and the win has to be in the has to be in the interest of the people that we serve.

Again, that that is specifically why that language is there. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Any uh anybody else? Just a quick side question. Is the is the new balloon new blue proposed bypass line uh on the west side of 194. Is that accurate where it comes out on one at 194? So you're talking about this this guy here. Yeah. So there's going to the idea is to try to get a realignment here so you don't have that weird uh you know what I'm talking about where it does that weird crossover right there. Kind of a safety issue that was you know what I'm talking about Jim where down through you go past the backco. where it splinters off into the two rigs. Yeah, you've got crouch mill that comes off there.

So that's kind that's the accurate representation of where we have it right now. But the idea is also a connector there that would essentially curb what was going on here. Oh, no. I I I agree that that we need that. I just was verifying that that was the the correct location based upon what was being proposed on the other side of the road. And again, it's it is subject to change with easements and in negotiations and so forth. And we still we still do have alternate, you know, options on the on the exhibit. So, we just wanted to make sure there was an exhibit presented in a road proposed in that. Okay. I just was checking. Any additional comments, questions, concerns from council?

Hearing none, I am proceeding forward. Ordinance 04-20226, amendment to section 193, vehicles and traffic. Is there any comments, questions, concerns from council on this? Again, there has been a I would say a major overhaul on a major addition to it that I'd like to understand the background on the bicycles. Yeah, that was my question is where did the bicycles come from?

Yep. So there were a bunch of um areas of the of the code that were in conflict with other art one article being in conflict with another um and just some general updates that were necessary. So this started out as trying to make sure that we removed any specific dollar amounts that were specified as fines to set them by resolution. uh when I reached out to the police department for their uh assistance and and view on some of the items um you know we also realized that we needed to update the the bicycle section. There was nothing about ebikes in there and um that's obviously they were becoming more and more popular. Uh so while the patient was on the table so to speak, we wanted to go in uh and and make those updates as well. Uh the police department also looked looked at the um uh continuous parking section uh basically and also there was a section in there that talked about any violation of the entire chapter uh would pay a $5 fine to the the city clerk uh which obviously was in conflict with the fines specified in the various articles of the chapter. So, uh, Lieutenant Castellar at the police department updated that section to reflect what the what the department currently does and the I guess the statutory language that supports it. So, again, while while we were what is the goal here though, like what what's the problem and how does this fix it other than than you're trying to update language? That's what I'm trying to understand.

A lot of it is updated language. Um, it's also getting the dollar amounts out of the code to set them by resolution. Um, and procedurally the section that uh me get in front of me. I think they're I think they're mainly specifically asking how we got to the ebikes. Um, no. I'm just I'm just the whole the whole thing because do did we not have the the the b this bicycle language in before was that there was a small blurb of bicycles but I don't think it was to this no this is much more detailed. This is this is a lot

and this was and I'm going to tell you I know me and you Harry spoke about bicycles before but I didn't notice that this had come in with the 193 and I know when talking with the chief again he indicated today that him Jesse or Jesse and the plan and zoning um Andrew they were working on this so again this is newer for me as well um but I will tell you it is something that has continuously come up is the ebikes um I'm sure you guys I was going to say but you and I talked about scooters which is which It's a different Yeah. Which is a different thing than an ebike.

They're they're actual like definitions. Um, so because I've got different ideas of what scooters can go on as opposed to what ebikes can go on because ebikes are basically bicycles. They should follow all the bicycle rules. They should follow all of the road rules that that bicycles are supposed to follow. Um, but yeah, what what we were talking about was scooters, which isn't in here. Yeah. So, scooters is a separate scooters is a separate issue. Scooters is something we're dealing with at a park currently. Yeah. Um

and and I had a question like no person under the age of 16 shall operate a class 3 ebike. I don't even know what a class 3 ebike is. Like what that is that like a a motorcycle basically like what are we why are we restricting? I believe they travel at a higher speed. Yeah, it's probably gonna it's probably going to be a speed classification is what I'm thinking. Yeah. again wherever the mo whatever the motor on it essentially. I'm looking up it says the essentially it can get the rider up to 28 miles per hour which is a very slow motorcycle essentially but that's a very fast bicycle

for again someone under 16 to be operating which I'll tell you I would tell you even the scooters currently I was just at a Best Buy the other day and the Segway scooters that you can get for $500 they go up to I think 32 miles per hour. Yeah. I mean that that's seems pretty standard for a an ebike. I would think, right? Like the ones that I think did you just say Costco? Because like the ones at Costco are go like that. Yeah. I mean that that speed is pretty standard these I mean again they like is are we saying that

there smaller there is smaller ones. There are smaller ones for kids but I'll say anyone that you're getting into again I don't know specifically what the class 3 is. You know said there's 28 miles per hour. I don't know if they put the class specification when they sell these things, but um I'd have to double check the mar code, but it looks like there's already restrictions for being 16 or 17 plus older offer class 3. More than likely, this is just a reflection of what's already there. Just we're allowed to enforce it more as a local ordinance rather than because I think you can actually enforce these as a uh traffic violation. Yeah. So, the idea would be to take it from traffic violation to a local ordinance violation for enforcement.

Okay. And then another question, uh, it's talking about basically selling somebody's bike or bike if they it's not claimed after 15 days. Like what why would we take somebody's bike to begin with? Uh, that's section E. Uh, that's under C impoundment. But no, I I remains unclaimed for a period of 15 days following the date of empoundment, the city may dispose of such property in a reasonable manner. consistent with applicable law. I think I think the idea is to try to get them to actually come and get these things from our inbound. Um because it's kind of the same thing with all of our inbound stuff is we have stuff that just sits there for months and months and months.

Under under B it says if you violate it uh one of the in what could happen is also the uh the vehicle in question could be uh immediately impounded until the fine fade. Yeah, I think again I mean it's pretty I mean I've seen a lot of towns that found like motorcycles and all sorts of Yeah, but I'm that fall under by either with this at all like I I need to I need to digest this. I need to understand it. Yeah, this is this is a lot to to to throw at at it because right now just driving around on ebikes that go 30 miles per hour without even helmets on.

Well, You know, my kid's a good kid, but if she's running around with it, you know, her bike and and the the police take it and, you know, we just don't have time to get there and then it's gone, I'm going to be pissed. What if a family's on vacation for some reason and they're like, "Oh, thank you for holding on to this for like, you know, the last month." Yeah. Like I'm I'm not saying we shouldn't have some restrictions. I I just don't know that I'm comfortable with what I'm seeing here at the moment.

Chief, do you have any It's not a definite disposal. Yeah. Like do do you have any It is a may. Sorry. I was just going to point out that um there is a section on skateboards and scooters in the existing code. Um it's not it's not detailed in the ordinance because we didn't make changes. Yeah. That so what's in the ordinance is just what's changing. Yeah. And uh and and but this is a lot. I mean I think it's good to have it separated bicycles and ebikes like just to so nobody can question. How about this? Um how about we take this out of this ordinance separate into its own separate ordinance revision. Uh the representative from TPD to explain

for Monday. I mean, we can we can do that as well on Monday, but I'd say the backup plan would be to separate the ordinances. So, let's have a separate ordinances has that has this separated out because again, we're going to hit the 70-day mark if there is no approval on Monday. So, portion or Yeah, this is this is separate from what the original intention of this. Yeah, this was I'm good with everything else, but you know, this addition struck me and I had a lot of questions about it. like, yeah, I'm I'm I'm not currently comfortable with with with that, but everything else I don't see why we should have to hold it up, you know, if that makes sense. I agree. Yeah, it was it was kind of out of the blue.

I will say this, I think this probably comes in relation to complaints that we've been receiving across town in relation to ebikes. Um, again, the scooter stuff, that was a parks and wreck thing about riding scooters and bike on the field or whatever. But we have received complaints throughout the city regarding ebikes, blowing through stop signs, uh, the kids at McDonald's riding them around the parking lots. Um, again, the I mean, those are violations of like normal traffic law. I mean, that's I mean, it's the same thing with the kids riding dirt bikes, right? Right. Like I I don't know that that's an ebike specific problem. I mean, that's just a a problem with kids not following traffic laws, I think.

And again, I guess it's up to council whether they want some kind of enforcement mechanism for that, but our response, I guess, to people right now is our code doesn't really address specifically the ebikes. Um,

you know, and again, it's I'm fine with whatever. Again, this is a new addition. I know, uh, when we talked today, Chief, you told me that they were working on this. I didn't know it was added in the one tonight. Um, but I'm fine with it going to a separate ordinance for discussion by council. But again, let's do two backups. Let's have Jesse, if you can come in on Monday to talk about it, and then let's have two ordinances prepared as well. One that separates this out so council can look over the original one for the empoundment because again, we've been working on the empowerment or the uh booting part for a minute now. We we kind of got to get something settled on that. So, let's separate them two different ordinances so council can discuss the bike part as a separate one just in case again that there needs to be further discussion on it. Um, does that does that sound like a good compromise for everybody?

That that's good. That's good with me. This just sort of Yeah, this just sort of came out of the blue with the we we we had we had the commercial vehicle parking ordinance and all of the sudden now we've got uh now we got an entire section on bikes and ebikes. I'm going to tell me and you talked before I even read through and saw the part. So again, don't take it as I was trying. No, that that's fine. I'm just saying that yeah, this is I I definitely have some questions on on the the does say may this but I mean again I I mean that if we could but still

if we could separate them we could also figure out if there isn't more um lenient verbiage that can be put in there again maybe 15 days is expanded to give more leeway to come and get the I mean it should just be uniform with how normal disposal of like vehicles are which is you send certified letters and you usually do 21 days and after seven days of this like usually there's there's already statute with Maryland how things work for disposable automobiles. So, I would just hope if we're going to do this, which I don't like disposing of someone else's property from a government standpoint that we should at least do it in line with how other agencies do it already.

And more more than likely, there is literally already something probably in the traffic enforcement. So, if they got stopped traffic enforcement wise, there is probably something subject to empoundment in the disposal. Um, again, this is just local ordinance that would take it from traffic regulation to a local ordinance on it. So again, I have no doubt that there's probably something on there for the actual disposal, but yeah, we'll have Jesse come talk about it. Um, if you want to Yeah, I'm aware that he will be training next week, so we could join you virtually if that that works too. Unless unless you want him to brief you on the subject and you feel comfortable, I'll be there as well. Yeah, whoever feels comfortable discussing the matter as far as TPD's recommendation on it. Yes, sir. be happy to uh enlighten you and and he has

and Jim talk with Andrew and see if he has if Andrew has specific recommendations as far as because I know this was a collaboration between Andrew. Yes. And he's also referred to other cities on their measures. Yeah. That sort of thing. We'll be happy to discuss it. Are ebikes and scooters really the scourge that that the mayor is suggesting? Like I mean I see kids ride around with them but but I don't see them was originally drafted. uh it was a different world. A lot of people have them and and they are problematic and you can have serious even faith something that we need to address. We're happy to hear your hear your thoughts and and we'll figure it out. It's it's not that far.

And I can also and again it's this has been a conversation on Facebook as well where I think it had 100 plus comments regarding ebikes and again what people are seeing across town. I can link that out to council so they can see some of the public comments regarding them. Um, but personally I see maybe I really don't see Ultimate ebikes. I know there's one that travels to Rainy and I think it's a I think it's a kid who goes to school on it. I mean he he rides it like 25 down the road. Um, but he doesn't like drive it crazy.

No, he doesn't drive it crazy or anything about he doesn't have a helmet or anything like that. Um, but it is I would say all it takes is one kid getting injured on one of those. Why didn't the city have more safeguards and protections on them? Or again, somebody on the sidewalk getting hit by a scooter going 20 plus miles per hour. Why didn't the city do more on it? Um so again, I'd say that's why the presentation is to council on it probably. Um again, I I wasn't expecting this myself for this meeting um for it to be this, but I'm fine. Let's again, let's prepare a separate ordinance as well for further discussion. Um that way again we can at least say that hey we did present uh measures to council and been plenty of complaints on Facebook

bikes just blowing through stop signs and people having to slam on their brakes. It's not ebike problem that's a but that's what I'm saying. I don't think anybody has a problem with ebikes having to follow the same rules as bicycles. Wear a helmet follow all traffic laws whole nine yards. I think what tripped a lot of us was the was the uh the the penalties and and and that side of it and how how how government taking somebody's property. I'm not especially the 15 days later

mostly going to get kids. So I need to I I I would like to hear more on that side. I don't think anybody's arguing the fact that ebikes need to follow the same rules as bicycles. Um so I think I think Am I out of line? I think I think that's probably the section that's that's tripping us up the most is the uh is the enforcement uh side of it. So so most of those uh uh so I guess BCDE my only ask from council would be to consider what do they feel proper enforcement is between now and Monday. So again that discussion can happen as well. Um so I would I would be very just eager in what our police department says and what your recommendation is would hold a lot of weight to me. I mean okay very good. Thank you, Chief.

And that and that's what I'm going to tell you is the police department's the one who wrote this. So, this is the recommendation. Um, but my only thing would be again for council to think if they aren't in favor of the police department's recommendation for the enforcement, what does council believe the enforcement should be? Because again, if if it is that, hey, we believe in the police department's recommendation, again, the lieutenant from the police department is the one who wrote this. Um, so he would have he would have the expertise. And while my initial reaction is the same as yours, Councilman Nick, it's if that's what the police have done their research and this is what they think is the best interest, then I would support that.

And again, that's that's my only thing that I ask council to take into consideration is that this is the police department did take part in writing this and this is their recommendation on it. But if you believe there should be different enforcement practices in regards to it, again, even if you feel the day should be changed or whatever, my ask is just be prepared on Monday to speak on that. Um, if everybody's good with that and again, we'll just have that discussion. Um, it doesn't have to be a part of this ordinance. We can easily separate. I was say I think I think we probably should separate it out because it seems like it needs to be it needs to be debated.

I want to digest. I I like I want to be able to hear what Castellar has to say. Play play around or or the chief has to say about it in in in detail in a briefing, you know, play around with it with the idea and then and then go back and digest it, right? Like I don't know that I'm going to have like fully articulated thoughts at that time because like I didn't I don't I don't necessarily know that I see this as a problem outside of like helmets and follow regular traffic laws like basic stuff, right? Um so I I just I remember being a kid riding a go-kart around streets. I was say there's a there's a trail in my house kids blow by the kids are kids.

I mean we're we're in a rural town like it's super normal for that kind of stuff. So like what are we doing? Then and again I know again this is just part of addressing concerns that you know police department has had on their ends that we've had on our end. Um I know we're going to put out kind of a public safety initiative just saying hey make sure you're wearing your helmets and whatnot here in the next month. Um but again whether we need to go as far as to impounding bikes you know that's that's in council's perview if they want to take that. So again just continue to think on that. Jim let's just go ahead and separate them two different ordinances.

Um that'll make this simpler. I will point out that under the uh section on skateboards and scooters that that uses the same 15 days after the violation as far as the um disposal of the the property if it's impounded. So I think the idea was just to be consistent with what's already in the code. And again, I'm going to tell I'd have an argument on that one, too. So yeah, same I mean I have the same same thought there. I'm going to tell you a lot of this is there in case we need to use it that we have the available availability to use it. the chief. In your recolle recollection, can you remember impounding a scooter and selling it since you've been here?

And that's what I mean. Again, a lot of this is stuff to have on the books to be able to address a problem if we have the problem. Um it isn't necessarily that every scooter we see that blows a stop sign is going to be immediately impounded and sold in 15 days. It's more so that hey um if we have you know a little Timmy who's blown through the stop sign five times you know we've given him citations five times and Timmy decides you know six days blown through the stop sign again the officers have the ability to take the scooter because again it's uh I mean it's just like a car you well but I Yeah but they they don't there's like you can get hundreds of speeding tickets in DC and they don't take your car away um my

depends on how severe it Reckless driving. They arrest you, your car gets impounded. Right. That's reckless driving. But what we're But what we're But what we Little Timmy's a reckless driver. Hey man, little Timmy gets some speed. Okay. What we're talking about though is like the running of stop signs and things like that. Yeah. But how many how many times are you going to allow that kid to stop sign? I'm in a camera that points at what the stop sign and there's people that blow through it every day, multiple times. That doesn't mean their cars are going to be taken away cuz every day they run through the same stop sign in front of my house. Like I But we already have a problem with people running stop signs in the subdivisions in cars. Yes.

We also going to be how how much are we going to be able to enforce this? And again, it's not uh it's not that we're going to sit officers every corner trying to catch kids on ebikes. The idea is if there is a reoccurring problem, I believe again that's how we normally do gun enforcement. there's a reoccurring problem that is not being addressed. There has to be something on the books to actually address it. Or what do we tell people is that yeah, you know, you're giving little Timmy five citations and little Timmyy's just a little rascal. Um I mean, can't we just find him into in infinity, but just not take their property away from them? I mean, I mean, if Timmy's got bank and he can just keep shelling for the fines and pay the city, I mean, I just don't like taking someone's property. That's my Maybe that's a hill I shouldn't be dying on, but I just don't like

I mean, I don't I don't disagree. Nobody wants to take little Timmy Scooter here. I don't think nobody wants to take little Timmyy's ebike either. I think the the bigger problem is just that um you know we already have people who don't pay code enforcement fines. Are we taking little Timmy to court firm to pay his fines or are we just I mean again there there has to be I mean there doesn't have to be again if council's I whatever council want I am fine with on it. It's not a we see it and I'm going to tell you people have asked what we're doing to combat it. Um, but is it a daily thing that has happened? Well, it is a daily thing that's happening. There's people riding ebikes daily through the city, but is it a daily problem? You know, I' I'd question that. Um, but I will say all it takes is, you know, uh, one little Timmy going 25 miles per hour and uh, old Miss Daisy's on the sidewalk and gets hit by little Timmy going 25 miles per hour on the sidewalk. And

but that would be an insurance issue between that parents insurance policy and that older or that individual who got hit as a pedestrian. Yeah, that's an insurance I don't see that being able to be stopped unless you just ban them alto together. Let's let's say that same little Timmy received five, you know, I don't know, es scooter citations. Why Why didn't the city do more? Why was he allowed to get five citations still riding e scooter around? And again, it's it's one of those the exact same argument that we're having about cars and stop signs and things now, too. So,

that's the argument that people make about guns. Just get rid of them and then nobody can shoot anybody. But, I mean, a certain point the government can't fix a a parental issue. If a if a parent's kid is blowing through stop signs, that's a conversation that as a small town, we should be trying to have with the parents. And if the parent ignores us, I mean, we're not a big metro area and I don't want us to turn into we're just going to take people's property because little Timmy is a rascal. Like like Timmy's probably a piece of work. It needs to be fine, but I'm not going to take his property. I don't know. That's just where I think about it.

No, again, whatever council wants to do on it, but I'm going to say it is a problem that's going to keep getting bigger. More and more people are getting them. Um, so again, the police are only able to do what ordinance allows them to do. Um, so just be aware of that. So again, if if the question is is that why aren't we doing more, you know, and this is this is again why these things are proposed to council is that me the police department we can say that hey the council has indicated that that again they want to stick to a citation base for the ebikes and whatnot. That is our that you know that would be our response essentially um that you know we proposed different solutions to it but we have we have to have a response on our end that hey we did try to propose something that might help alleviate it. Um so again I Do I want to take little Timmy scooter? No, obviously. Um, do I believe that the police department needs to have some kind of mechanism to enforce further? I mean, this is kind of the same thing we have with law enforcement in the city is that, um, if it's just handing out the fines and citations, the actual compliance rate is going to remain low. Um, yeah, we have people, it's kind of the same thing. And it's not to pick on anybody who parks on the street parking for street sweeper day, but there's people who just leave their cars out and pay the $15 citation. I mean, it's 15 bucks.

So, mayor, let me let me ask you. I'm in favor of the city taking trying to improve a bad situation. I think, and Nick and Harry, please correct me, that that the property issue is is the issue within the language and dimension. We want to digest it. Is there something that that you have the thought of that could allow the the police department stronger measures without taking someone's property away? I mean, I don't know the answer to the question. I just something that you would recommend that would allow the police department the ability to resolve this problem without seizing property or that the chief in in Castellar. Yeah, that's that's that's the big thing would be good and that's kind of and that's kind of what I was going to add earlier is is that again if council has if council believes there is a better way of enforcement than what the police department has recommended then you know we we would like to hear that that's why I want to ask council hey sit on it digest it we'll separate two different

say let's yeah separate this out and we'll sit on it I think I think we beat this to a we've definitely beaten little Timmy's scooter situation we we we know this is really about the mayor doesn't like Timmy. He wants to to take Timmy's scooter and and you know that's going to be that's going to be the mayor's scooter. That's what this is really about. Well, Timmy's a problem to my inbox. Man,

I don't know how how many more messages I can take. Um but no, again, what it comes down to is again this is the police department's recommendation of what they put into the ordinance. If council does have a an idea of a different means of enforcement, definitely all yours. Um again ask you know Jesse when you when you guys go back tomorrow and whatnot you know think if there is other enforcement mechanisms I might be able to achieve a uh stronger compliance rate. Um you know I would say just based on thinking of the same problem that we have with uh motor homes parked on streets and trailers parked on streets. Um there I mean unless we start booting little Timmy's bikes um again there's there's really only so much you can do before you get to some kind of empoundment of personal property and we have that for everything. There's basically empoundment of guns, there's empoundment of cars. Um it's part of the personal responsibility to make sure that you are using the tools and u mechanisms that you have appropriately. Um so again it's u it's something for council to think on just be aware it is something that has been brought up regularly of what is the town doing about the ebike problem. So again I don't blame the police department for putting this in here. I know they've been working on it and I know we've been working on again a public safety announcement regarding the ebikes. Um again yeah just think on it council. Any additional comments, questions, concerns by council hearing? None. Proceeding forward. Uh resolution 2026-02 fine schedule for chapter 193 vehicles and traffic. So this is basically just a res obviously with the 193. Um it says that there will be a resolution setting the fine schedule for um the booting of vehicles if they are booted. Um this is the resolution that goes along with

that. Is there any questions, comments, concerns by council on the resolution regarding the violation and fines? Out of curiosity, and I guess this doesn't matter too much, but I'd like to know uh how did the dollar amount for these fines come up? They're the they're consistent with what's in the code now. Okay. What are they What about other towns? I mean, I they just seem low. I don't I have no way of knowing if they're low or higher or whatever. I'm just curious round numbers.

There there is one thing I'll note on this and it's the um it's the actual booting part is the it takes less I would say it takes less effort than our actual empoundment of vehicles. So while the dollar amount is low it is easier for us to continuously boot if that makes sense. Um rather than again the main problem is is it is a lot of hassle to try to actually impound a trailer or impound a motor home into our impound lot. So this is a faster mechanism to again apply some kind of adverse um adverse response takes up a lot of space right like y'all only have that little

uh did did we come up uh did we cover the uh the problem with the booting larger vehicles that uh is that is that able to be addressed? I know we had asked if there was uh basically is is there is there different boots that we have to buy for the different vehicle types I guess but I know one of the talks that we've had is actually the windshield booting.

Yeah. So that's what we'd have to have the different mechanisms to address the different types. But again the window mechanism is you're going to get basically any size vehicle with that that needs to be operated. Um the actual trailer boot I imagine that's just a regular wheel boot. So, um, you know, I don't I don't know how much larger it gets than that. I know there's some trucks that have some pretty big tires, but Well, I just know that the regular uh from hearing from from a couple other places, the the regular boots don't necessarily work on some of these big 18-inish wheeler type cars. So, that's what that's what the concern was because there there's a there's a couple of that size that uh that like to park in in areas and I think that's where that window boot would come into play.

Yeah. No, 100%. So, if we've got that covered, then then uh I'm good. I'd like to look at the numbers themselves uh and match them up to what's going on just to for my own Yeah. And just be aware the the resolution one that is something council can change in a night essentially. There is no 30-day waiting period. So, you can you can adopt an initial resolution. Again, if you if the infractions are still happening, if there's still an issue, you can then readress it essentially through the fee schedule. Yeah. So again, just be aware that this is separating it from the ordinance where it had an amount to the resolution where it has an amount. It gives you guys more flexibility to actually adjust if there's a reoccurring problem.

There is there is one item that was in the existing chapter in 1935 skateboards and scooters where it talks about uh penalty for a violation of that section is $100 and the immediate impoundment of the skateboard or scooter until the fine is paid. Um, that one we didn't list a specific fine in the new resolution. We just kept it as $50 first offense, $100 for repeat offenses. So, that that's one thing that did change slightly is there's not a specific fine for uh 1935 C. It's just lumped in with everything else in the article. Now otherwise it should be whatever amount is in the existing code where now the modification says will be set by resolution. The dollar amounts the same as it was in the existing

and again the resolution allows more flexib allows you a faster response on it. Yep. Um I know this was something that brought up. Jim, have you looked into the ability, I guess, to charge per day that is in our inound or if it's booted? Wait, do we not have something where we charge? Apparently, no. That's why Oh, yeah. You got to fix that. That's why our impound lot is when I was originally looking into this, other cities do um raise it based on how long it's been there. And they do charge quite a bit more because they actually charge for um like administrative paperwork and all the admin work when where we don't

these don't have an admin fee. We don't have a storage fee. We don't have a recurring tier 2 fee after days. Well, we have the two tier fee as far as infraction goes. But again, that's the problem why we have the current issue in the empowerment line. current issue that we have as far as impounding vehicles is that essentially we impound the vehicle, we spend however much. They again they pay the empoundment, the actual towing fee or whatever, then we impound it, they pay $250 and they get it back and they could have stored it there for two years. Wow. Yeah. I'd love to get my car impounded just for free storage. I mean, that's a great deal. And so that's kind of that's kind of the issue with the uh motor homes for instance, right? People are storing them there instead of going to an actual storage lot. Oh, yeah. They're very expensive to store those. So if we impound it for a year and they just come pay their 250 at the end, they actually save money. So

yeah, correct. Yeah. So again, that's why we're trying to address those fees as well. Um but again, it's kind of the same thing. You guys can change that by resolution. This was mainly just to start the boot process so we can start acquiring them. However, Jim, if you want to work with Andrew and the chief on actually coming up with a fee schedule on like that for a resolution for either May or June. So just start thinking on that. So again for that fees asking Rachel about that for basically the escalating one of them start on that. Um but again that doesn't have to be part of this one because same thing it's a resolution. You guys can adopt that in a singular night if you want. Um

and the the current code provides for um you know for somebody to to come retrieve their impounded vehicle. uh they have to pay the sum for all acred costs, fines and um outstanding summon citations or any other legal process. Um so basically fines and costs that's how we you know costs that's how we recover our towing um that we pay for you know the vendor to put the vehicle in the impound yard. So um certainly that's that's more a procedural a policy thing than a code thing when you would a better model be cost plus

be cost plus. So like if it cost us $200 to tow then you get that out the gate and then plus what some graduating fees or you do at cost with an admin fee or at cost with a storage fee. Yeah. That's why that's what I mean by cost plus like every other tow vendor is going to charge a fee to store their vehicle. Doesn't sound like that's what we do. No, we we charge one base fee, right? And doesn't matter how long it sits there. Certainly, we'll we can come up with with an estimate of the actual cost involved because our, you know, our fees are supposed to be based on the cost to provide that service or or um yeah, we should be recovering that function.

And I think correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the what we charge or the violation cost is just the amount of like how much it is to tow the vehicle. Correct. Yeah. Um, one of the things would be in addition to any other fines that may have been associated with why the vehicle was talking about what we do right now. But as far as our costs, it's just the just the towing. One other thing to check, Jim, um, before you guys try to present that in May or June, u, make sure there's no conflict with the charter. I thought the charter had a cap on what um, actually has like a monetary cap of what we're allowed to issue in like a citation or fee. Just make sure you should that be in code, not a charter. No, I'm pretty sure there's a charter. Interesting. Is there

there's I thought I thought there was somewhere in charter that places a cap on it. And you know, I guess the reason for that is to make sure nobody can do something in code that creates some kind of outrageous fee on somebody. But I I I could have sworn there's something in charter that has a cap and it caps the fees that we can issue. Um just double double again, I could be wrong, but double check that because I thought I saw that in there the last time I looked at this. And also is there anything with like for hardship clause or any type of for that? I know like hey let's take this vehicle but you know like some people in a bad way. Yeah.

Yeah. Are we trying to make people's life even worse than it is please? Little Timmy's dad it's Hey I mean dadmy's family little Timmy's dad got his bulldozer parked on the street and I'm just saying like if why kick somebody when they're Why you guys got to do little Timmy like this? Um, at least maybe plan or something, some kind of language for discretion by the head down a slippery slope as to making exceptions to, you know, well, normally

if you're if the intent is to get people to not store their vehicles by charging a, you know, an ongoing fee for that storage. Um, and you know, obviously we want the city to be m made whole. We want to recover the cost we've incurred to impound and store that vehicle. So, I'm not sure, you know, unless unless you want to create another donation type fund. Well, from the

setting up criteria for a hardship exemption for somebody not to have to pay those costs from the cities I was looking at, they had to provide documentation on why they needed the hardship clause. And on top of it, they had to um like anybody that gets their vehicle stolen and they can't af stolen impounded and they can't afford to get it out. Like they're not going to just sit there and let it like let it sit there. They need it. They're going to work to get it out. It's not you're you're not worried about the people that need the hardship clause. You're worried about the people that don't. I believe that and I will check this with special counsel but I believe the council could establish a payment program with someone for essentially any city fee

and make the exception to do something like that. So, um I think it's always good to have something would be an option to consider that if somebody is in that situation and they want to come and make their case before council and you know come up with some payment arrangement um so that they can recover the vehicle while still owing you know certainly there's there's risk involved with that but sure I mean I think you can carry a big stick and still have a heart is what I think Rachel's ultimately getting at you I think you could also almost make a discretion of the department head. For instance, the police chief.

That's what I was going to say. That doesn't need to be council thing. That could be a gym or if the police department could make those decisions, but it would be still an improvement of having no fee system to having a fee system with a hardship clause. You know, we don't win.

We don't have to get compl complicated on the hardship clause. Just make a tour. Again, they can submit a written explanation to the chief and the chief can accept it for some kind of waiver, monetary waiver of whatever it is. It's that simple. Um, again, I check with legal on it, but I don't see why there is an issue that we couldn't do that. Um, it's kind of a similar to our uh I think some of the uh code enforcement citations, they can be appealed to the city manager, for instance. But I see no reason why the police chie chief of police, you know, if he submitted, if someone submits to him is like, "Hey, you know, obviously my family, we can't afford this, you know, uh xyz. Here's what happened. Here's the explanation." You know, if the chief of police says, "Yeah, I don't I don't see why it's a big deal." Um, but again, just uh prepare a couple different scenarios. Just think on it. Have staff think on it. again just just trying to protect the city and and and our our collective wallet so to speak. So if if we incur costs because somebody's created, you know, uh has a violation situation, we need to be made whole. You know, we didn't create the situation. So just keep that in mind for the for the budget. So

Okay. Uh any additional comments, questions, concerns by council hearing? on proceeding forward city manager report. Jim, you got anything for us?

Well, since I'm limiting my report these days to uh projects and code things, it's getting a little shorter. Um, obviously we talked about fences and walls already. Um, we will make the modifications on the vehicles and traffic chapter to pull out the bicycles like we talked about. So, uh, but the sign article of the zoning chapter is what we're currently focusing on. um would like to make some changes to the downtown business district and also to uh speak to non-residential uses that are permitted in residential districts. Right now we allow things like uh libraries, community centers, uh museums, other other institutional type facilities that are restricted,

doctor's offices are all allowed in residential districts, but the sign code does not provide for any signage for those uses. So obviously, if you have a doctor's office, you're going to want to sign. If you have a museum, you're going to want to sign. Um, so those have been issued signs for decades. Um, you know, if you can picture the doctor's offices that are kind of in residential areas, um, they've had signs for years and years, but the code never really provided for it. So, uh, that's one of the things we'd like to fix as well as some, um,

I double check as well because last time we went through this, um, there were actually it was actually more restrictive than downtown business on some business and community uses than it was in residential. And that doesn't seem like it should be the case. So, just double check to make sure.

So, that's one of one of many things that that we think we need to take a look at. Um and also uh the idea of adding a little bit of flexibility based on building size in the downtown district similar to the way we do it in the general business district. Uh but we haven't come up with a formula yet. But um those are a couple of the things that we're looking at right now. So hopefully in the next month or so we'll have a a draft to circulate before we put it in ordinance form just to get some feedback. Um, I know there's been some uh comments about different sign things that that folks would like to see changed. So, if you have any specific ideas or want to talk about a particular section of it, uh, feel free to reach out to me. Uh, and we'll keep chipping away at that one. Uh, nothing new on Roberts Mill Road and Broad Street this month. And, uh, for Memorial Drive, the contracts executed. Uh, we had a pre-construction meeting late last month. Uh we don't have a specific start date, but the contractor expects his uh schedule to be freed up to the point he can start the job in early May. Um I do want to call to your attention the memo that was in the packet that has to do with the um granular activated carbon filters at well number nine. Uh we've had breakthrough of contamination there at um let's see if I can say I'll just say PCE so I'm not going to try to pronounce it. Um but uh it's broken through the first filter, so we're still good, but we need to replace those carbon filters on that on that well in that wellhouse. Um the system was furnished and designed by Iokqua Water Technologies. And if we use them, we can get the project done much more quickly than if we have to do a bid specification and and entertain other bidders. Also, they can basically use

more of a plug-and-play approach. um you know they designed the vessels and the apparatus around it so they can basically come in and swap out the carbon filters um and the well will be down for a much shorter period of time than if we use some other uh product and we have to do uh more adaptation in the warehouse. So, um, when we do not send something out to to bid at this price point, we just need to get something in the city council meeting and make make council aware of the the decision not to go out and put the the item to bid. So, that's what the memo is about. That's why I'm talking about it now. So, it'll be in the minutes and um that will authorize the mayor to go ahead and sign the purchase order and and the contract. this about how long does it take to fix?

Uh, it should be down no more than two to three days. I I wonder if I I don't really understand why they why what caused this to fail. Is this something that they they just over time they they uh basically they're they catch so much in the in the way of the contaminants they can't they can't catch anymore. um they basically get just like any filter, you know, it eventually gets clogged up from doing its job. I understand that. But but is there it seems like there'd be some maintenance required that this this is essentially prevent that. Yeah. Isn't this the maintenance like

this is basically like any like a fridge filter, right? I got to change my fridge filter every 3 to four months or whatever, right? Or my water filter. I can't just take it to the water, you know, and rinse it out or whatever. How long do these things usually last? Um, these are about five years. Like every five years they fail and need to be replacedish. Yeah. Yeah. And really it is kind of a Did this one meet its life expectancy or close to it? It it depends a lot on on the pumping rate for that particular well. So, you know, the lifespan could be different depending upon the flow rate going through what? Um, but

you still have plans to explore going deeper on the whales? I'm looking at this as like one of the most shallow wells as well. I mean, if we're going to take it offline, is that still something we want to explore from a PAS perspective? Is the dep talked about that before is again we're seeing the PAS at the shallower wells as opposed to the deeper wells. Yeah. Um, and of course the the granular carbon filters catch the PAS as well. Um, so but this these filters were initially put on for the the the PCE that was that was detected in the well. Um, so I I suppose in a way you could say this is a maintenance item, but it's just a the relatively high price tag for one time's the important factor here. So yeah,

what what did you say? I didn't hear you. Time factor. The the down the down time from it being down. So we we approved this within three days. It's it's back up and and running is what you're saying. And actually, it's it's this is really about me notifying you that we didn't that we didn't put it out to bid. So, because our it's it's above our usual bid threshold. So, in a situation where it's not advantageous to the city to bid something above the threshold, we have to um make it known and a couple different steps we have to take in the meeting in the minutes. So to your point though, um, again, this one already has the filters on it, so it's already getting that DAS contaminant. Gotcha.

Um, Jim, was that all you had for city manager? Do you have anything for department? Uh, no, that's it. There is a little bit in the uh public works uh report about the filters also if you want to see a little bit more about it, but that's it for me. I think on park side uh I heard that they got state highways permission for Memorial Park, right?

Yes. It it was uh a little bit cloudy, but but yes, they they basically said um you need to do these four things on your access permit. So um they never come out and and and say, you know, congratulations, you're approved, right? it was, you know, okay, now do this. Well, we cleared the hurdle, though. We've cleared the hurdle now. So, we're we're hoping to be on the uh planning commission agenda at the end of the month. It's it's like when you get a concealed carry permit and they say you have been not disapproved. Nice.

It's been good about that for like 30 seconds over there. Just any additional comments, questions, concerns on the city manager and department reports. Um, I saw something in I think it was the nitrogen report that I was curious about. Uh, what is it? I thought I saw that our one of our I don't know if it was phosphorus or nitrogen was above the that or above the limit. Am I reading that wrong? Uh, this one. So phosphorus is looking good right now. I think we're

So you're talking the nitrogen one then? Yeah, nitrogen. Yeah. Uh I think red line is our limit if I'm remembering correctly. Gold line is where we're actually at and we're trending above. So I'm I'm wondering uh if that's potentially problematic. What? Uh, I might have had I would I would say it'd be problematic if we're hitting May, June, and still above. But I will say we did have a lot of we had the snow events, we had the rain events, but again, that's January, February, and I don't think March is going to be any better because we had a lot of rain events in March. But, I mean, I'm assured they're already adjusting the chemicals to try to bring it back into

we we did have a spike after the snow melt. Um, but um the as long as we can trend it back before it's it's an annual limit, right? So, as long as we bring it back in line, um, we nothing too concerning yet. But if it persists later on into the year, then if you if you see it still trending upwards after a couple more months, then again, that that's when we'll probably have to have more conversations on it. Probably had the spike and had to What? That's just that's just January, February. I I suspect we'll see it back on track in March. Okay, cool. I'm just wanted to raise it because I thought it was above the line.

Any additional comments, question, concerns from on city manager, reporting department reports? Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward. Um, so old business approval revisions to general specifications for street and storm water management facilities construction. Um, again, you guys should have a bunch of reading material on that. Um, so I'm not going to look for approval on that this month. I'm going to give everybody another month to digest and think on it. However, I am open to questions, comments, concerns, discussion regarding um Harry, did you want to speak on the planning commission's recommendation? uh planning commission had a couple of uh couple of recommendations. Um the uh in the order that they were on here, it was uh to increase the travel lanes to 10 ft per the National Fire Protection Association uh guidelines. Um they are currently 9 ft on the uh on the plans on these plans um with a 9- ft wide parking shoulder on each side so as to try to not use the gutter or not include the gutter as uh as road surface. Um that's one thing that we ran up against in another uh in another approval that we had to come up with is they had uh they were using the gutter as road surface and we didn't really have anything to go against it. Um the uh again on this single-sided parking uh the shoulder uh it's it's 8 foot on the plans. We requested nine. Um and we also would like common terms for travel lanes uh because that's not called out on on a lot of these. Um the other uh the other la the last thing was service drives and alleys uh we believe need some form of cement curbing uh because right now it's just pavement that just ends and especially in an alleyway if you're using that for trucks and things like that you're going to end up with the te

the edges of it are going to start getting torn up immediately. So uh the so planning commission recommended some form of cement curbing on the uh on the alleyways. I have a lot of thoughts with that, but it seems like anytime we propose alleyways, the develop first thing the developer wants to do is get rid of them. So, it was it was in here, so we commented on it. Well, you you're you're right. And and uh I just call everybody's attention to Andrew's letter to council to the staff regarding the comments on that meeting. I I think he's probably right on with what he's saying here. With which part?

Staff memo. The service driver Ally needs cement curving. Is that he's talking? He's Yeah, the the the the memo that you're on. Yep.

So, I I do have a lot of thoughts here. Um, so you you you guys are saying you want a 38 foot plus plus the gutter. This is like a highway. You want highways to be residential streets? No, not um that is actually what's this is bonkers big. Like does the tax base that these neighborhoods can that can that support it? So the the option is what what was your total 38? I mean that this not my total that's 10 10 ft per travel length. That's 20 ft plus 9 ft on each side. That's 38 ft minimum plus the gutter like so what you're talking about.

So you're so so how big are you going this cycle? So so the option is 34 or 38. Why why are those the options? Because that's the op because in order to have the travel lanes plus parking the current proposed was 9 foot travel lanes with 8ft parking parking on both sides. Can can the can the tax base support any of it though is what I'm is what I'm asking, right? Like uh I mean the it costs what like a million dollars to replace the last quarter mile road that we did. Um this this is like almost

Yeah. You shrink the development area and you have more road which means more maintenance and more cost and then it means you have to have more taxes to pay for those things but you have less homes to pay those taxes on. That's right. Especially if we're doing quarter acre plus lots. Like I don't I don't know that the tax base can support this. Like this is guar. This is also assuming that nobody has driveways. Like I said, that's that was my other question. Like especially if these things are are are mandated to have driveways plus plus uh uh garages. Like can I make the roads smaller and give more of the land to the resident? Well, you're also creating bigger roads that lead to more speeding. Yeah. like

and people having to create greater safety issues because they have to walk further across the road. I mean, I might be okay with something like this if you can if you can prove the financing that the the tax base can support something like this. I'd be shocked if it could though. Like th this to me looks like guaranteed tax increases within the next like 5 to 10 years. And I think they would be very significant. But the but the the question the question comes you've got developments that are going to have parking on both sides. Okay. Because otherwise who doesn't get parking?

But if they're c if if we're do if we're going with the low density model that means low revenue, right? It also means that that that that they're going to be again they're mandated to have driveways plus garages. like they should have parking with their property to to begin with. I I hate to bring the kids into this, but if you had your kid run across the street, do you want a smaller street that they don't have to run across as much road? And you know, you if you have an elderly couple that wants to walk across the street, it's a lot of road they have to walk across. They ain't going to be walking. They got ebikes on one side. I'm just messing with you. It happens in bigger

I mean for for for me just like there has to be some financial analysis to make sure that the the tax base can can like like what can the tax base support if the tax base can support can support these these like super wide roads plus we want to make everything walkable so I assume there's going to be sidewalks on one or both sides of the street like 5t is 88 I think I I I think I think I'd need to see whether or not the tax base what's the cost of a 20 foot versus a 30 foot to the tax and like what's the what's the tax amount to for that? Like we can we can model these out in in very dirty math and like I two things two things. I don't think it gets there man. First the 10 foot per travel lane was National Fire Protection Association.

I don't have any problem with the travel lanes. It's more the the street parking stuff that I potentially have a problem with. Um okay 10 10 feet we need to get our fire trucks through. But like again going back to if if we're mandating driveways plus garages and then also making sure that everybody has ample ample uh uh uh room to park their tanks. Like what are we doing? Well, and this was actually an argument that I had with uh with Garnet Ridge. That's the one that's out.

Yep. That's the 55. the the 55 and older that and it kind of fell on deaf ears is that the demographics of 55 and older is changing and it didn't feel like they were planning ahead for that. Um does that sorry what does that mean? That's because of the different size vehicles that are being driven by different generations that are now turning 55. um their uh their I I told them their garages weren't deep enough and their their driveways weren't deep enough. If it's happening on on on a homeowner's property, I don't have a have an issue like in that in that

development, we ran into the fact that you've got houses you've got some houses have parking in front of their house and some houses that don't. And if you go for the smaller street model, you end up with where we are in Me's Crossing where if you went back there during the snowstorm. Um so, and this is pretty much any snowstorm, people aren't parking all the way to the edge because there's snow on the edge. Oh, that's another cost factor, too, is how much pling would cost with the even bigger street. Well, do you have the cost? you to have you have something that works because that that was not allowing that was not allowing two-way traffic

to be able to support it though. But it didn't allow two-way traffic. But if the tax base can't support it, then then the city's finances to be able to do what we want versus what we want to do.

I I did I did some really dirty math on this before before I came in. Right. So roughly a/4 mile of u of street on on your quarter acre lot size you can fit about 30 houses right our um uh tax rate I believe is is 37% or 37 basis points right so average house there tax assessed value will probably be in like the $500,000 range that's that's only per per quarter acre that's only $72,150 per that quarter acre in tax receipts Right. You you have to to think a third of that is automatically going over to uh uh the public safety police. A third of that's going to uh uh DPW. Roughly a quarter of that's the parks. So most of that is gone out the gate. So you're you're left with only like $10,000 a year to potentially go to pay for these streets. And a quarter acre or I'm sorry, quarter mile of of street that is like half the size is costing a million dollars today. in 20 years or 30 years when it's going to need to be replaced. It's going to cost like $4 million.

It's going to cost even more with acrewing acrewing$10,000$20,000 of expense a year doesn't get you anywhere close to being able to to pay for that. I mean, it's cost just so we're not going and that's just streets like that's not all the other stuff that we've got to do.

Just just so we're not going back and forth in this tonight. um for May or let's go for May. Can you try to work with Andrew to provide any kind of modeling on the different street with how much they'd cost? Um what kind of tax base would be needed from those houses to kind of support that kind of residential neighborhood? Um as well as any expected snow removal increases that we'd incur if we to when we took those streets over. Um there's one other thing I want I'd like to think on in regards to this. um if we're able to look at the police department and probably reach out to the Carol Vista HOA. Um complaints regarding parking in the Carol Vista area. Those are some of our smallest neighborhoods as far as the streets go. Um let's see if we have any parking complaints on Me's Crossing as well. Parking complaints a lot of times are just people thinking that the street isn't public.

But again, let's see if

Vista is private, so we really stuff there. But but I'd reach out to the HOA, see if they have comments or again, if they let's say the HOA reaches back, it's like, yeah, you know, these streets are horrible. We hate messing with them. Again, that's kind of some clarification that council could use as far as are these workable streets and whatnot. So, uh, reach out to them or whatever their community organization is. Um they again they they should be able to I just ask them for a comment essentially. Is there any comment that you guys have regarding your streets and how they work for your for your residential neighborhood. Um and then again let's check meets to see if we receive like what kind of the amount of complaints we receive regarding parking on the roads uh ability to get by and again let's definitely look at it during the uh when we had the snow events. I know that's where we received received some more more complaints than not was during the snow events as far as the parking and transversing the roads. But again, that's all information I think council could use to really weigh the benefit versus the cost on what's going on with the roads. Um, is there anybody that wants any other additional thing information that might be useful to them?

I would like to point out one thing with regard to the wids and the um discussion as far as the gutter pan being counted or not. Um the gutter pan um Oh yeah. What is is 18 in wide. So if you park farther than 12 in from the curb, you're not parked legally. So I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the gutter pan should be included in the parking lane width. I understand the argument of I don't drive on the curb or I don't drive on the gutter, but if you don't park at least partially in the gutter, you're parking in violation of hampers and forcibility.

Forgive my ignorance, but is the gutter pan the concrete part that sticks further out before it touches? Okay, so we are or are not counting that the current proposal. That's part of the debate is is the commission the planning commission prefers not to count that. Um, every soul parks right next to the curb and that's why everyone's got curb rash, but nobody parks on the asheold only. That's they use that to park on, right? And and as I was saying, if if you don't park at least on a typical street that has the the usual roll curb um or mountable curb,

um if you if you park if you don't park on the concrete, you're parked illegally basically. So, I think that I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the 18 inches of the gutter pan um that's essentially, you know, it's a 3/4 to one slope, you know, it functions as a gutter. If you're saying people shouldn't park there, you create an issue as far as the transversibility of the road. that as far as the width of the parking lane that that could be counted

and that that may be something of a compromise where you maybe perhaps you don't count that when it's a travel lane situation, but you do count it as part of the parking lane because you you essentially have to park on it or you're parked illegally. So, just food for thought as you ponder this. Okay. It does. Uh, is there anything else that you want the city to look at in regards to bringing this up back up in May? Anybody going once, going twice? I am proceeding forward. Um, welcome signs parking meters. Again, those are being worked into the current budget. Um, those are going to be budget talks we're going to have throughout this month regarding the different assets across the different departments. You guys should be seeing that in May for introduction. Um, and again, we're going to try to get to you as soon as possible. My hope is by the end of this month we'll have additional time to review it before the actual meeting. Um but again there is a lot to work with and a lot to try to fit in currently. Um next up we have new business month. Does anybody have any questions, comments, concerns the welcome? We've already talked about them. Um I know Alex, you weren't here when we went through the welcome signs and the parking stuff. Did you have any comments, question concerns on them?

I'll just defer to what you guys have already done because I'm not going to say I know enough about it. So again, they'll uh in regards to when we present the budget, we'll also prevent some of those uh present some of those contracts for the initial um demo essentially and then what it would look like for the full implementation of these as far as the parking meters goes. The welcome signs is a little bit easier. Um staff does need to start work as far as where we're going to be looking to put those. So Jim, that's uh something for you guys to start thinking on. Um new business monthly financial report. Any questions, comments, concerns from council? Can you remind me what happened in December to make the expenses spike? A million dollars happened there.

Um, is that when we committed the money for memorial? There was something we committed. Maybe when we when we did the uh the the Morton building for the multi-purpose building. That's what I think. That's what I think. That's when we That's when we signed We'll find out for Monday. That's when we signed the contract for it, I thought. Um, so again, that might be it. Is that more than building for the Memorial Park expansion? But yeah, double check, Jim. How much was it extra? Was it was around 6 to800 or you said a million? Uh, it it's Yeah, December exp operating expense was nine. God uh glass is 8 $900,000. 800

I can't quite read that. Sorry. Yeah, we'll we'll double check that, but I think it's going to end up being in the Morton building for the Memorial Park expansion. I think that's when we initiated the contract on Oh, it most definitely is because we initiated to make sure that the uh price of materials doesn't go up. So, we I think that's when we locked it in. Um, and another question. I at the moment we're we're in the red. I think we're mostly in the red on uh with the addition of the capital project which looks like it was police up up uh up fitting on cars. Um are we expecting to receive uh more revenues than expenses over the next couple of months to make up for that so we're not in the red for the year?

Yeah, they come in waves. Um so you can see some of the bigger waves of the blue. Um but they come I think they come in like quarterly waves essentially. Um, yeah. So, and there is a bigger wave. I think it's either May or June, Jim. I think it's June when the uh I forgot what it is that comes in, but it's a it's a pretty big lump sum of money. Um, what am I thinking, Jim? You know what I'm talking about, right? Property tax receal chunks chunks. But there's some there's something big. Is it highway? Does does that come in in the chunk? Highway user comes in chunks also. Um something that comes in one big chunk though and it's towards the end of the year because I we we go through this every year towards the end of the year.

I don't know. We'll find out though. Um but I'm pretty sure there's like a big chunk that comes in right around the May June time. Got it. Um and then there's also um I thought there's stuff that comes in right after the fiscal year ends, but I don't remember. Um, but again, as far as as Barry expressed any concerns, um, we're we're a lot tighter this year than typical. Um, but I think we expect to come out okay. Okay.

Looks like the normal bullet March yet because Yeah. Okay, we're good. Thank you. Any additional comments, question, concerns regarding the monthly financial report from council hearing? None. I proceed forward to accounts payables. Any question, comments, concerns regarding accounts payables. Any additional comments, questions, concerns regarding water specifications? Well, I guess yeah, we already went through this. Um, same thing, sewer specifications. Anything comments, question, concerns? Um, hearing I'm sorry. Do these have like highle executive summaries? Uh

did you I thought you sent a summary. We can understand this in in a better Yeah. In in layman's terms, but also, you know, uh might have been something I asked you for. I thought you sent a summary regarding it, but maybe not. I don't think I did on the water and sewer specs. Um maybe not. There there are not.

It both of these are mostly just updating to um current model numbers and specifications. Um, on the water side, the I guess notable changes are that we're going to begin allowing uh PEX piping on the customer side of water service lines. Currently, we require type K copper all the way to the house. Uh, so that should reduce costs for developers and homeowners uh when they do need to replace their their lateral lines eventually. and we are shifting to meter pits rather than meters being located inside the houses. Uh so by putting them out of the house, we don't have to coordinate with with the homeowner to gain access to the house to replace batteries and transmitters and things like that. And also having it in the pit should reduce the likelihood of tampering as well. And just to clarify that to council, there has been a couple instances of tampering with water meters currently of people bypassing water meters.

Um, so again, this would alleviate the issue in future developments of us and as we only caught it because of circumstanc. So, so those are the the I guess significant changes as far as the water goes. I forgot about the pit part. Um, any additional comments, Chris, concerns for council on that? Jim, can you provide can you write something? Yeah. Get something together on it. Um, did you want like a motion from council on those two things?

If if council is comfortable this month, then we we can adopt it. But if you want to wait a month and have some time to digest them, give them the summary and we'll prepare that for May as well. So May, we'll do the water specifications, sewer specifications, then the general uh specifications for street and storm water management. So move those both to May. Give you guys some extra time to review over those when they send out the executive on the to down there. Um any additional comments, questions, concerns hearing? None. One thing I want to make note of is the history museum uh opening on the 12th, right, Harry? You're right, McCarron. 12th. Yeah. What time is it? One. One. Yeah. 1 o'clock. Saturday or Sunday. Sunday. Sunday. Sunday. Sunday.

So, this Sunday, 1 p.m. at the history museum. Is there a one right up the road? Yeah. Is there opening for the season? So, just be aware of that. Um, that'll be before our meeting. That's the only reason I'm bringing it up now. Um, yeah, that's all I got. Um looking for a motion of adjournment. So move. Looking for a second. Second. All those in favor sign I. Before you vote, can you close the hearing for the fences and walls? Good call. Good call. Okay. I am giving a last call for public hearing ordinance 22-25 amendes and walls. The public hearing is now closing. If you have anything to say, please approach.

You got anything? No, it doesn't sound like nobody in the audience has anything. I am closing the public hearing on ordinance 22-2025 amendment to fences and walls at 9:04 p.m. Um I am now looking for well I'm going to go back to the original motion of adjournment. We had a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I thank you everybody. You never gave me a chance to say nay. I know. I forgot we were going