Common Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

All right.

[clears throat]

Yes. I think it too. Wow. Don't worry. the opportunity.

Yeah.

[laughter] [clears throat]

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, November 10th, 2025 meeting of the Martinsville Common Council meeting is hereby called to order. Mr. Merid, would you please call the role? I'm going to go the opposite direction so Susie has a chance to sit. Decker to second present. Phil Decker Senior currently hospitalized. Ann Miller, present. Josh Baron, present. Ben Mayan, present. Susie Lips, present. John Badger, present.

Mayor, we have a quorum. Okay. Thank you. This time I would like for everyone to stand. Clerk Ben Merida is going to offer our prayer tonight. Then remain standing for our pledge of allegiance. Pray with me. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this great country that we get to live in. Lord, we thank you for this wonderful community that we're in. Lord, I ask that you be with those that are ill, not feeling well. Lord, that you just lift them up, bring them to full health soon. Lord that you would lead guide and direct the city council, the mayor and the city administration that you would move the city forward and in line with your will. Lord give us meeting tonight asking all that's done and said in your name we ask it. Amen.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Thank you, Ben. Prior to tonight's meeting, each of you received minutes of the Monday, October 27th meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? I make a motion the minutes be approved as presented. Second.

It's been a motion made and seconded to approve the minutes as presented. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. Motion carries. Mr. Merida, do you have a report tonight?

Yes. our uh current balance on our current interest that we've earned year to date. Uh we did break our last year's record. We're up to 586,247.50. That's as of October 31st of this year. Uh last year we did right at 572,000. So still trending very well even though interest rates have dropped a little bit. Um so still doing well there. Um your approved budget for next year has been submitted to Gateway. Um, and DLGF has accepted the budget presented by you. Um, so following up with them, just getting everything geared up to close out this year and get next year open and ready there. U, we're also working on paying off a couple bonds. So, your general obligation bond 2024 and the redevelopment commission bond 2022. Both will be paid out this year. We're also looking at um paying off our park bond from 2018. um it's not really due to drop off till this time next year, but we're [snorts] in conversations with the bond council on potentially paying that off this year. Uh that will require some action from the city council that'll most likely be at your next council meeting for your um consideration. Um also, just so the council's aware, we did um did make contact with Bank of New York on potentially paying off our fire lease for the fire station a little early. Um unfortunately we've been told that uh we signed part of the agreement on that is to not pay that off before its maturity date. So so we are we are stuck with that bond until February 1st of 2028. We cannot pay that off early. So um but we've been able to pay off five early um mainly sewer one water that we pay off early. So we are trying to do a little bit of a debt snowball to get some of these bonds off the books. What's the dollar amount of the bonds that you're paying off?

Uh, that is a great question. I did not have that with me. Um, I will get that to you though. Are you wanting the payoff or the original bond amount? Just the paid off everything. Normally, I would know that, but I don't want to go off on memory because that can get you in trouble sometimes. So I see you are busy scrolling through there. Are you looking for that now or?

Yes. So go bond 2024 that payoff's going to be 342,000 and then the RDC 2022 that payoff is going to be 463,000. And the park bond, I can tell you that one just because we've been talking to them that today. That one's right at 152,000. We're not saving a substantial amount of money by paying these off early because these are not go bond. We're not really saving anything because it's supposed to drop off. RDC, we're RDC 2022, we're saving about $10,000 by paying it off early. The park bond um it looks like it's going to save us about $7,000 pay it off early. So, we're not talking big dollars on these because we're not paying them off super early, but it does add up. So, it does help.

Any other questions for Mr. Merida? Thank you, Ben. Thanks. Uh, Councilwoman Miller, uh, you and Councilman Badger has been working on the peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants,

correct? Yes. Um you see what that it's in your packet uh that we would like to add registration requirements, regulations. Um we would like to have this uh them all go through the police department. So, we would appreciate the police department um being a able to handle all this with the background checks uh issuing a um an ID tag and of course then they uh the peddler would also have to issue would have to pay a fee of $40 um for a 10day license or $150 for 120day license. Um, we feel that them going through the police department that way that they would have to uh, you know, the background check would be easier for them to complete. John, is there anything else you want to add?

Uh, just the pedler would be responsible for paying for the background checks on here. What's that cover? Is it just not just one individual? Is it like a group, you know, or what's the I think we said that would be cover an individual. Correct, John? Believe. So, yes. Yes, that would be an per individual. We didn't have anything for a group price. Um I just know there's groups. I'm sorry. I just know there's groups and stuff that have come down. Right. Right. Um that's something we can add if you think Um

this is just what she and I came up with. So it's not I mean you can add or subtract whatever just yeah this this can be added to amended. This is just you know re a recommendation

then it looks like throughout the clause they've got I'm sorry every person every solicitor also says that each I just looks like it says every

when you guys are putting this together. Did you reference other municipalities? Yes. Yes. Right. Um Green Castle, Shelbyville. Is that right, John? Yes. Um what were the other ones? Green Castle, Shelbyville, Madison, Madison, Indiana. I don't know. There was four or five of Dale got a son and Ann got one from someone else.

Shelby, you said Shelby. So, this would be something we'd like to see added to our existing peddler's license. or peddlers. Do we have an ordinance currently? We do. Wouldn't this replace the the current ordinance? Yes. Yeah, that's what I thought. This would replace the ordinance we have.

So, Mr. Coffee, if the council decides that they would like to replace our current ordinance with this modification would I'm assuming we would need to vote on that and you would have to draft the ordinance and work it back go through the process. I think probably the the proper way of doing it is if if there's indication that council would like to entertain a a modification to current ordinance, then what I can do is put together a first draft and then that'd be placed on the agenda for consideration um discussion. Uh we could work through any changes, but ultimately if they wanted to vote on passing that since then it does have a um a dollar amount in it. It would take require public hearing and it would be effective upon publication. [snorts] So if they violate the ordinance, what's the what's our recourse from law enforcement trespass or

I don't see that documents? [clears throat] Yeah, I don't there's nothing in what you folks have put together in regards to a penalty. Well, that's something that we could Yeah, seems like it take it back and revise it to add that. Who currently monitors that? I'm sorry. Who currently monitors that? We don't have the the current ordinance goes to the clerk treasur issue a license, but there is no real penalty or teeth to it. Seems like to be effective there would be a penalty associated with it.

We could we could do that. We could we could uh bring this we could add that to this and bring it back at the next meeting. I think the penalty should be higher than what their fee is. Sorry, what did you say?

I said I think the penalty should be higher than what their fee is. Yes. You make the penalty $20. Well, I'll run roll my dice. If I go through this, it's 40. And that's kind of the issue currently is it it cost $10. there's really no recourse if they don't do it. Um, so the citizens assume that that we've done due diligence and that these people are invented out, but that's really no [groaning] recourse if they haven't. So,

do these fees look reasonable from a from the clear treasur standpoint to process? These have a lot more teeth than our $10. $10, I mean, we were losing money. I mean, it's Does this is this reflect what the actual cost? I would say this would be more in line to what our actual cost would be. Yes. Chief Lang, what does it cost to do background check? Do you know? Uh I think it's $15. I think there's a couple different kinds you can get. It depends on what you're looking because I think there's some that's actually free.

Limited background check. Which one are you talking about? The 15 chief uh the one that would go to ISB downtown which has eventually where it's going to go to anyway. Okay. What were we asking? I'm sorry. Were you asking something or we were talking about background checks? Okay. How much is the cost? Some comprehensive ones are up to like 35 or 45. Yeah, I know. I know. Limited background checks that you can do right on the spot are not as much. Okay.

Chief Lang, so where you would send it to would be downtown and those come run 15. Uh, yes. And I don't want you to quote me exactly on that price because I'm not really sure. Uhhuh. But uh but yeah, all those background checks, we can do it locally here. Uhu. Uh but it's not as comprehensive as if you send it downtown. So it depends on what you want. Okay. So we would probably need to What's the scope of what you do here? Is it just related to things within the

Well, it's going to be an local NCIC check through computer, but Sometimes those haven't been updated and and uh sometimes uh the states other states haven't submitted their things to the repository down there you know so uh so the most comprehensive will go through ISP records you know but we can do at least a limited background check. So, is that something we should probably add to the $40?

Either that or they just know they have to pay for it on their own. I mean, okay. You know, right? So, just they would have to pay for that that on their own plus $4 like paying for their own background check. Even if they're going to be employed, they don't like it. Okay. I think if if I may, if you're thinking about uh make an adjustment to this uh by the next meeting I could have a more uh exact uh answer for the questions that you have in your that'd be great about the payment. Okay, thank you. That'd be that'd be great.

Can we just table this to the next meeting then? Sure. Okay. Just go if you and John want get back together and once you've got something get it to Mr. Porter. We'll get it on the Okay. Good. Thank you for working on that. The two of you. Council, I also asked I'm sorry. I asked uh Treasurer, please uh send us email the current ordinance so you'll have a copy of that so you can compare the two and see what it is in case you're not aware. Yeah, I I was trying I was dead for a minute, but I just he had it. I was going to have him just shoot it out email. That way they've got it.

Okay, moving on. We have to have two public hearings this evening. So, without objection, the council will be in recess for the purpose of conducting the public hearings. The first one is ordinance 2025-1899 setting salaries of elected officials. Mr. Coffin. So what you have is uh the ordinance for elected officials proposed ordinance for 2026. see that we have the uh mayor, clerk, treasurer, common council, and judge of city court. So, those are elected officials in the city of Martinsville. I believe the dollar amounts are the same as 2025. So, it does not reflect any raise for 2026 for elected officials. I I don't have my minutes in front of me, but the city court judge is Judge Terrell, right?

That's correct.

And I I think I remember at the meeting that we used the same salary for Judge Pete as her, but was it that amount? the the amount that's presented on page two of that ordinance 1899. I thought it was higher for some reason significantly, but maybe I'm thinking of something else. I'm sorry. I believe that's the pay for 2025. Yes.

Okay. What's What's the amount you're seeing, Susie? I I see $47,750 annually. Correct. That is correct. I was thinking it was almost double that. So maybe I was thinking, did we [snorts] agree for a two-year or something with her or No. No. Okay. All right. He always kept it pretty low. Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you for clearing the fault. Are there [clears throat] any other questions for Mr. Coffee?

I guess I would have one other question. Um are the other appointed officials are they getting raises and are increases and these people are not or is so that's going to be in your next uh public hearing which is for the salaries of certain appointed officials and employees to answer your question is yes there is proposed raise for those individuals. Okay. Any other questions? [clears throat]

If not or is there anyone in the audience like to comment on this topic? If not, we'll move on to ordinance 2025-1900 setting salaries of certain appointed officials and employees. Mr. Coffee. So, this is the ordinance for the employees. There is a raise. Uh Mr. Marina believe was it 4% of the raise next year.

Uh it's not really a percentage. It equates to an employee working 40 hours a week. It would equate to a dollar an hour. It's right at $2,80. [snorts] But there are some that are not getting raises. I believe Mr. Dunn, Mr. Porter, Stacy are the three that are not getting raises. Was that a request on their behalfs or No, I wouldn't necessarily I wouldn't call it a request. We just saw that we needed to balance the budget and Okay.

We were cutting any money. They volunteered.

Yeah. As the mayor indicated, this uh would support a budget that is balanced. So, the salary is crafted as such. Is this time for comments?

Okay. Um, page 19 under [snorts] section 13, I see we have working foreman, working foreman, water utility. And the description of the first one and the second one are slightly different, but the titles are the same and the pay is the same. Is that supposed to be like that? Are do we have two with just a I mean, but the wording underneath one says certified plant operator, the other one says sorry of the working foreman, but they're both titled working foreman. Yeah, I can answer that. So, part of our collective bargaining agreement, we have working foreman for each. So, we we do have a working foreman that works out of our Malbury Street location and then we have another working foreman that works at the wastewater treatment plant.

And the one that works at the wastewater treatment plant is required to be certified as a plant operator. Thank you. And then on page 10 under school crossing guards, do we have school crossing guards? Uh, I don't know that we have anybody actively fulfilling that role. Chief Lang may have that information, but

that might be another gap in the budget there because I don't know how much we're accounting for that. But I don't unless there's school crossing guards that I'm unaware of that seems like we've budgeted for something we don't do anymore because I know the MSD of Martinsville has been told by the police that we're not doing them. Correct. School crossing guards.

Yeah, that that's correct. We we uh had some longtime school crossing guards that had been employed for many years that we were continuing to go ahead and pay out of the city's budget, but we were told to school that when those folks retired that would be the end of the city covering those school crossing guards. So I I don't know if any of those folks are still employed. My guess is no, but I don't know the exact answer to that. They are employed but the MSD of Marto pays their salary now because we were told [snorts] that the city would no longer pay it. My understanding as well

maybe something we can just take out that the paragraph can just be removed. I don't believe there's anything in the budget before crossing guards was there. No, our understanding is nobody was currently fulfilling that but I guess I wasn't aware that that was agreement change. Was there a lot of statute or something to cover that? I only questioned that once before trying to figure out why we were paying.

There was nothing in the statute that required us to pay it. We And you're right, Mr. Decker. We attempt We had a head scratcher a few years ago about why we were doing it and no one could really understand why we were. So, we made the choice at that point to say, "Well, these longtime people that we have been, as long as they're still working, we'll do it." Uh, and then apparently that at some point went away. But we we did indicate the school, they need to pick that that up from now on as far as who paid the school crossing guards.

So, should that paragraph on page 10 be taken out? Yeah. I mean, if we're not paying them, I we need just let's just remove it. Just remove that whole paragraph from page 10. Did we budget any amount for it, Ben?

Uh, we budgeted for one person fulfilling that, I believe, at 10 hours a week. So, so that will create a little bit of a cushion there. So, don't tell Chief Lang because we don't want him to Any other comments from the council? It's the compliance director. Was that a position? Is this a new position or is this one that we had prior? Do you want me to address that or?

Well, at the And some of you may not realize that, but at the end of the year, Mr. Oaks is going to be retiring. So we see that there's a need for maybe not necessarily director of planning and engineering is someone that's either a compliance officer or a city planner. We don't really need both. If we find the right candidate, we think that both one person could do both those jobs. Gary has handled so many things on the compliance side and been certified for so many different things and the state just keeps getting more and more that they're handing down to us. So, uh that was the need for uh maybe somebody that's just going to be working on that. Also, with a city planner, uh it seems like every major project that we work on, you got to have a certain type of engineer that's qualified to do that or whatever, sign off on it or or whatever. So, we felt like, you know, if we had a city planner that was able to handle those responsibilities, might be a little bit better situation for a city our size. So that's kind of why you see both those in there.

So no one's officially filling this position currently for next year potentially and and hope and we're not going to get two. We're hoping to find one that will do both. So is that is it correct to be in this document? It's two separate positions.

Yeah, you can have it in there. That way it gives you the flexibility to hire, you know, if you need to. Mr. Mayor, if I may, to your question, Ben, the compliance officer, I've encouraged them to have somebody in that position. As I work with the other banks, the other businesses, they all have a compliance officer. Regulations are getting deeper and deeper by the day. Particularly, [snorts] we're paying this out of storm water. We our income out of storm water is about 40,000 a month. Uh the compliance with storm water requirements are excessive. Now, every time it rains, we're supposed to go out and inspect all these sites. Uh, it's continually to make sure the construction sites are properly maintained, that their self fences are up and they complied with how they're dumping their concrete. So, storm water has become the biggest issue that require compliance, but we deal with everything IDM requires at our wastewater treatment plant, at our our transfer stations, all those kind of things. So regulations are excessive now. So that's why I've encouraged it

and the levies going there are a few others. Yeah. Yeah. We have to have ley superintendent even now. So yeah. Does it matter? So you have the storm water fund. Does it matter where this money is being what fund it comes out of to pay this person? It matters. That's that's why we put it in the ordinance just so it spelled out. We actually had this I think is worded differently but I think we had it in the cycle two years ago if remember right and it was going to be on storm water fun then so it's something that we talked about before we just thought we had more time but they're not limited to just storm water as funds

can we go back to in the ordinance It's 2025-1900. Everyone but three people are getting a 4% increase. Is that correct? It's a dollar. They're going not doing the percentage. They're doing the dollar. Dollar figured on 40 hours work [clears throat] hours because they do the percentage and that's when we get that wide range.

Okay. So, [clears throat] except for people, right? Everybody has it except for three. And I understand trying to have the budget be correct and sacrifices and people volunteering not to have their salary go forward. And I think that's very gracious, a wonderful thing. But couple things with that. To me, it doesn't seem equitable and nothing ever is equable. But thinking of the future people that will be sitting in these three employers positions, these employees positions. We're not moving this salary ahead this year because of the sacrifices of these people. But they're not is going to hold these positions. So the salary is stagnant for the year and down the road. Yeah. I mean not that it's going to impact significantly that we need to do a salary study I believe or did a salary study does annual salary survey. So one of the things we're trying to accomplish is to get our salaries in line with that of our competitors and also to try to gear up for the reality of Senate Bill one.

And so these so yes also why we did not have we don't have increases for next year. Thanks for the explanation. Thank you. Hi. I had a quick question. Um on ordinance uh 20 25-900. Um is the executive assistant to superintendent. Is that a new position? No. No.

No. I I don't have an assistant, but I'm helping to pay the salary. um the executive assistant, the mayor. It's always been that way. Okay. It's always been that way, but he helps everybody, so it's just the way the salary is spread. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. That's one in my opinion. It has historically been that way. Is that the correct way to do it? It is because you have to specify where that line is coming from. So, twice. It's It is confusing.

Yeah. I'm sorry. I was trying to look at the notes cuz I know we had our head stretching because I was on the opposite end. So, I was trying to figure out why all the years I've been here conceptually. I don't know if we should leave that in. is here confirmed that I'm I'm trying to find a bill Indiana law says requires local governments to provide crossing guard to cities and towns having authority to use park funds pay for them responsibility generally falls to municipal or county government has jurisdiction of the school corporation can't pay for yards but the local government is able to do so provided they pass a specific resolution I just I just want to make sure we're not taking something out we should be taking if hospitals was saying as a school official, she was under impression that the city was saying they're not going to do it. So they have still have those people employed. Pretty exciting. I just I want to make sure we're again I don't have to do something that well you can leave it in if you want. I mean I mean there's no harm in leaving it in. uh if we're not paying it, we're not paying it. And so the money will won't be spent, but having in the ordinance would allow for you if you ever needed to. That's why you leave it in. See, there's no harm in having it in. If you wanted to leave it in, I I I just don't want to have to go back to say wait, you know, the gang absolutely can't pay for whatever they want. You know what I'm saying? I I just don't want to take it out when I finally come back and redo it. I just want to do it right. So, is everybody good to leave it in on page 10 school crossing paragraph?

Do we do we have a specific states that we will pay for it? We will. No, because it based off each year. That was my question back then. I'm trying to figure out why we were and then that statute was presented to us. So if we don't stop but if we don't have an existing you know if you take that it's gone if there's not an ordinance already somewhere that says we're going to do this sounds like that's how that reads from the state.

Yeah because they were saying basically it's a safety issue. It's not the schools not in the safety enforcing safety. It's under your safety boards under the police departments. Uh because the roads under our jurisdictions not theirs. That's what they're saying. That's the municipality to generally pay for it unless they can't afford to then the school board has to get their attorney and has pass. That's that's why just a resolution and that's why I just I just want to check something out. You know, couple times we've had to do that. We've taken things out and then back. I I just don't want to redo it. Not paying I mean it's not a purpose but Miss Lip goes back. She gets her understandings together and says, "No, we do want them." And I I know they only use them like a post.

We want crossing guards. We have crossing guards. We had them at Smith and Post, but the last few years have just been posted because of the narrow um drive, the the street and all of the buses and everything going in and out. But now we don't have it in post cuz I know you did away with Mitchell and May right when she retired right I knew you you had the one post street right there right and so I just I'll make sure

we still use crossing guards but we're just not being And the explanation was because we have we have our own police department now. Police don't do the crossing guards just citizens do them. We pay them like we were doing in the past. In fact, it's the same gentlemen that was used before that the city school police department has oversight of those citizens. No, not really. The principal of the school does, but the city didn't either. The city just paid and now we're in and that

Well, it's because your police department is the same because the municipalities have a function of public safety, not school corporation police department. It's a municipality points. So the school district's police should it has the jurisdiction of safety there. But but this but that's a city street is what you're saying. Yes. That's why I'm saying that's what the statute that's how I was reading. Yeah.

I like again I'm just going because last time I was on the Society and that was presented to us and that's why changed my mind about it. So that's why I say I we hashed out once before we that is our responsibility. This is the reason why. So that's why I just trying to figure out why is it going to change again. So you need more clarification, legal clarification. I I do, but also I don't want to hold our separates. That's why I say it's best I think to put it in there.

Yeah. I didn't bring this up to be fine about the crossing guards. I just thought it would add some monies that we didn't have that we you know we just to point out that we're not spending that right now. the city isn't spending that right now. But I agree leaving it in then if if we can do that but just knowing we're not going to be spending it then then it hasn't gone away from the books since then if we have to go back to it in the future right

which is kind of like what we're doing with the other where there's two positions we're only going to select one. It's kind of like keeping a spot for

if that's leave it in there, but I would like to give us a definition on clear definition of what I'm finding and whatever. I apologize for bringing it up. No, I appreciate you bringing it up. I wasn't aware of it. So we back to leaving that in then I don't know if you sounds like thank you.

So we've had further discussion. Is there anybody in the audience besides if I have a comment. And just to be one more thing, just to be clear on the planning commission on page 13, the $2,662 that goes to um the administrative assistant in um in Bob's office. Is that right? Is that money goes to where you have page 13 administrative assistant of the planning commission?

Uh yes. Okay. 24 on the benefits said you retire. the fire 18% will go up with this jump for next year on what 77 fund is going from that was 23% correct from 11% to 23% yeah this is referring to those that we would consider the 1937 plan okay 37

yeah 77 is dictated 23 that's a separate separate fund this one we actually by the state. And then you have the current firm is 112%. Yes. Share is 3%. Correct. That's part of the hybrid plan of the state. Does that change? That's not changed.

When the state says both, do they set both all 77 37 37 you can change we just haven't historically just because the folks that we pay directly we're 100% the other two that is our agreement with her as part of being their plan the 11.2% is part of the hybrid plan and then the 23.3% is part of the 1977 plan we said that or does the state that state that

[cough] Any [clears throat] other questions. Then without objection, the public hearing is closed on ordinance 2025-1900.

I ask for No, I was making fun of him as he was walking. My bad. And also we're closing the public hearing on 20 ordinance 2025-2099. So without objection the common council is back in session. First two items on the agenda. First reading for ordinance 2025-1899 and 2025-1900. Mr. Anything else you need to mention at this time? I didn't have anything else at this time.

Okay. Next on the agenda are the sent copy of those prior to the meeting. Are there any comments? I just I just have a question. Um uh bulk salt for the winter um looks like we paid $14,342.35. Do we have additional monies uh if we need to go over that?

We do. Good. We have uh probably 240 ton sitting there. We have six trucks with spreaders and plows and one other truck with just a plow. So, we have seven vehicles locked and ready to go. We have a lot of salt. Perfect. Good. Okay. And um this storage uh for the salt, where where is this located? You can see it from the road. It's right back to the left of the office. Uh you'll see it off there to actually it's right behind the senior center senior center. Okay. You'll see it there. Okay. And that is privately owned by somebody.

No, we own it. You own it. Okay. Who is uh we have sand in there right now. We can't we couldn't put salt in there because you can't put salt on concrete for one year. Has to be cured. So unfortunately the timing we're going to be using it this winter but sand only we have the salt over in the bar. Okay. So what was this uh the uh rental repair whatever that Davies County metal sales for the salt storage farm street department.

That's the building that that we we built to house salt and sand for the winter time. Okay, that is the building. Okay, but if if we own it, why why are we having to pay like a lease? We're not paying a lease. That's that's I think that's the line it's coming from. You can use it for owning or lease either one. It's just the appropriation line it's coming from. Okay. So, the $26,369 or for the building itself that we own. So, there's like a link to site so you can access. So that's our building. They bought it.

Oh. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Mac on that salt. Are we also doing the liquid again? No liquid. Uh we're really not capable of doing a liquid. We've always done either clear lane, which is salt with magnesium chloride in it. We use just straight salt. And then sometimes when there's not a whole lot of snow, we just need traction, we'll use sand. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the claims. I'll second.

Motion made and seconded to approve the claims as presented. All in favor say I. I. Oppos? No. Motion carries. Any other comments from the council this evening? I'd like to thank Mr. Collier for getting the parking opened up downtown a day before they were planning on opening it up. It's really helped out a lot. Council coffee, I was going to ask you did do we need to take any further action from the previous meeting on 2025-1907 that clause on the back where I inquired about

I'm sorry. What is it? Remember when Mr. Cassini said they we're talking about the utilities? Oh yeah. And I I talked to Mr. Cynic after the meeting. and he assured me that was a typo. So, I told him I would change it within that order. I don't know if we need to revote that within that plan. Um, we don't have to revote on it because he assured me it was a typo. I told him I was going to change it. Said that was fine. So, thank you. Yeah, because he they are uh that was one of the main reasons they're coming in the city to get both water and sewer. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else from the council? Anyone in the public any comments? If not, all non-emergency city offices and services will be closed tomorrow, November 11th, for the Veterans Day holiday. Uh for those residents who normally get their trash picked up on Tuesday, it would be picked up on Wednesday. Ask that you have your trash out by 7 o'clock Wednesday morning. Additionally, our local veterans organization will conduct their annual Veterans Day program at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. It will be at the Veterans Park here at Jefferson and Washington. Next regular meeting of the common council will be on Monday, November 24th at 7:00. We are adjourned. Absolutely.

Thank you. I told