City Council - workshop

Eric Pershman, can you hear us? Thumbs up if you can hear us. Eric. Eric Pershman, can you hear us? Eric? Eric, give us a thumbs up if you can hear us. Eric, I'm texting you, can you hear us? You're waving, but give me a thumbs up if you can hear us. Can you give us a thumbs up if you can hear us, Eric?

Eric, can you hear us? Eric?

Hello, Eric? Eric Pershman, can you hear us?

I can't hear you.

Hey, we're working on it. Hello? We see you. We're working on it.

How's it going? Good.

How about now? Can you hear us, Eric? Can you hear us? Can you hear us? Is your volume up?

I'm texting all that. Because I have done that before.

Hello, Eric.

Can you hear us?

But you should be able to hear me.

Can you hear me? So he said that your mic is muted. Does that have anything to do with

MINE IS MUTED. OKAY. SO IT ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE ZOOM COMPUTER.

YOU SAID IT'S NOT HIS COMPUTER.

ARE YOU SURE?

I DID. THIS IS THE LAST ROUND. I LIKE IT. YEAH. OH, I LIKE THAT COLOR. IT'S A GOOD COLOR. IS THAT LIKE A SPOKENNESS? TEAL. TEAL SPECTRUM.

It's very teal forward. But it's like that iridescent. Oh, you're still struggling to hear us, Eric, right? Cool.

Thanks.

He can't hear us.

Uh-uh. I was telling everybody I took my kids to the zoo today. Oh, he's going to leave and rejoin. I said, I took him to the zoo today and I did not do my normal.

He's leaving and trying to rejoin.

So I'm a little, no one had water.

Not my computer is what he said.

Yeah.

He said, it's not his computer. Brenda's mic is muted. Not my computer. I said, it's run through a different computer.

I got everybody in the car to go. I was still hung over from the black socks game yesterday. Because it was the last home game of the year, it was two buck beers.

Nice.

And so we enjoyed ourselves. As parents with young children, we do sometimes. Yeah. And at one point, Tony convinced me to be the Lions.

All right, Eric. Can you hear us now?

For the Lions for like an inning. Shoot. It was quite the game. What? I'm also of the age that it's like three beers and I'm happy. You know how it is. No. So... No, he can't hear us. We can hear him. You bring your own heater with you.

Are you sure your computer, darn it, is your age?

Yes, it's just a personal place.

you sure here hey check your phone Eric check your phone all summer all right it looks like we're on air if anybody is watching we're just working through some technical difficulties now he's on there twice so I think he's trying to do it through his phone can you hear us now Eric Eric when you can Brent is trying to call you. Hey, Brent.

So I've tried from my phone and two different devices. It's not a volume setting.

There we go. Can you hear us okay? Okay. So I think

We're going to have to kind of talk in the directions of Brent's phone.

This is where Eric would meet anyway. We need a cardboard cutout.

Okay. Eric, I will try to keep an eye on the Zoom. If you can't hear us or if you have any questions, just, like, wave your hands. Like, you just don't care. Appreciate it. Okay. All right. It is 535. I will call this work session to order for August 3rd, 2026. Up first, we have the cell phone policy draft policy. Mr. Merrick. Yes.

You'd think after that delay that I rockin and Roland gave you an extra 5 minutes. So console attached in your packet is an update to the city's cell phone policy. We kind of started off on this just kind of like an update. We had reviewed it in several years. The 1 thing that we are looking to add that you'll see is kind of what we classified as a low. Low volume user primarily related to some of the accounting staff and Lynn's department and like, here and there, we might have a need that wouldn't really kind of lend itself to the full reimbursement just with security checks that are quite often done in the accounting area. So that's a primary change. And then we started a discussion related to including the city council on that. So what we have done is. Uh, the policy language provides an optional, um, inclusion of the council in that we've left up whether the council would consider themselves a high volume user or a low volume user to, like, your discussion tonight and direction. And I would say big picture wise, whether or not you even want to have that included. So, I would say the kind of the primary issue is that point of discussion. But happy to answer any specific questions and any changes. It has been reviewed by the city attorney as well. And there's a red line copy or draft of the policy in your packet. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Brent on this? And we just regardless of if we have any questions, we have to talk about the city council component of it. So.

Kayla, I can start. That would be fantastic. I was about to say that and then Christy took a big deep breath, so I didn't want to interrupt her. I would not like to include city council. I think that, you know, we honestly, it's a little bit here, a little bit there, but it's not enough to really at this point in the way cell phones work to justify anyone having to increase access. Um, their cell phone plan, 25 dollars. Um, it's a very small amount, but I, I would like to remove city council from the plan. If we choose to have city council as part of the plan, I would like to see them as a low volume user. That's my opinion.

All right, for me, we had talked about this before, and I know that to even have that the council involved, we had to get enough of us to agree to look at it. So I'm glad that we're looking at it. I. I'm fine with a low volume user for city council. I think that I've never seen something like this before. We're in a cell phone policy. There's kind of this breakout between high and low. So I'm not sure where that came from, but I think, um, I think it as well. I think it's, it's fine in here and I, for me, I think city council can fall under the low volume user.

Um, I agree with you Kayla. I know the 1st, time we went through this, I was the only 1 who didn't like the idea of. Of not having city council included, and then that changed after we kind of did the 1st round of feedback. Um, but I don't I don't. Well, 1, I don't know that I have anything different to say than what you said, but I just don't think that we have the volume. I mean, cell phone plans. don't charge extra for extra calls and for even for extra data in some plans. I don't see the need for it.

Um, it's a tough one for me. I was looking to to see like, it's part of the compensation in my mind. Also, like your total compensation. I know we have some staff that gets reimbursement for vehicles. I don't know if they still do at one time, the city of Chaska got memberships to their community center. So, I mean, there's not like open up other things to look at, but it's just kind of falls under that bucket of not perks, but like a total compensation. Like, you know, you're being compensated for the time, we are being compensated for the time that we put in. I am for the low usage, the $25 a month. I'd be comfortable with that. I feel like it's a compromise for what we're all kind of wanting something different.

Only because you said it, you know, I would, this feels like, I remember when we did franchise fees, we talked about a tax by any other name is still a tax. Like this is potentially bumping our salaries. By any other name, it's still bumping our salaries. I would support revisiting our compensation structure before I would support the cell phone allowance.

I know Eric needs to jump in here, but I want to counter that a little bit with the fact that if we look in here too, we have the fire chief who has a phone. I'm looking, I'm just looking at us for right now. That's fine. I am saying that if we're looking at talking about compensation packages, I don't think that this is false, at least for me. Under the same category of looking at franchise fees. I think that there are certain positions here at the city who have cell phone allowances and other allowances for things. I think that for council, if we are to be expected to. Be available, I mean, outside of business hours, we all operate some level outside of business hours. I think that having the device allowance for that doesn't fall. Too far out of line from looking at some of our other folks who work for the city who have the same thing. I mean. Certainly Lynn could take a phone call outside of business hours on her cell phone and we could make the same argument that she shouldn't get it because she has a phone or something like that. So, I think that for me again, I'm happy to go with that low volume user for city council. Eric.

Okay, so my opinion on this.

First of all, I just want to address for anybody who's paying attention that nobody sitting at that desk is doing this for the money. If anyone were to look, you would find that it's, for some folks, it probably doesn't even pay the expenses. So I rethought this, and what I asked for is that this be an opt-in option, which it is. So I am not going to impose whether or not you have incurred more expenses than the city reimburses today. I agree with the mayor that maybe we should look at the total amount that everyone receives. But I have no problem with the cell phone reimbursement plan if it's an opt-in plan. um because then you know it's a choice you don't have to opt in you don't have to take a reimbursement if you feel that it's not necessary so i'm okay with the language and i would support what this states um you know it's all up to us whether or not we want to opt in and utilize that thanks eric i didn't hear you opine on um low volume user or high volume user So was that a choice? I thought that this was being accepted as a whole. If we're going to select one of the two, sure, low volume is fine. We're not, this isn't our day job. So, but I didn't, I thought that this was, I thought that was up to the participant to choose one of those.

No, it's it's up to us to say, if we want city council to qualify for lower high.

Okay, then then yeah, sure. Let's let's do low. It's not our data.

Okay. All right looks like we have direction and a majority saying that they're okay with low volume user for a 25 dollar a month reimbursement for cell phone use for council. Any other questions thoughts or concerns just on the policy as a whole.

As Eric said, though, with opt-in, so will that be written in the language, I guess, if it's in here, just to make sure it's stated that, yeah, okay.

i just want to bring up a thought and not that i see this an issue um which i just feel like super confident it's not at all like in the next six months but not knowing who's going to be in our seats in six years 60 years i wouldn't ever want it to come up as something of contentious even though this is a small dollar amount but for someone to say like one council member is doing it for the money or one's more greedy or one's more giving Even though that seems really silly right now, but you just never know the optics.

I think that's a personal choice then. I'll just use myself. So if I was going to run for a council seat and someone said, are you taking this? I guess that's on me then to answer for that. You know what I mean? And if you don't take it, then you don't have to worry about it.

Once we're not in these seats, they could eliminate it. They could change it to $300 a month. true so okay but i i see where yeah yeah thanks for bringing it up okay do you have what you need from us

Can I add 1 thing?

I heard a couple folks mentioned there might be an appetite to look at the council member salaries. Just a reminder since I'm here and heard that the, that has to be done by ordinance. So it's separate from this, which wouldn't be a compensation question. This is a phone reimbursement thing. And the statute says that if you do adopt an ordinance, it wouldn't, it cannot take effect. Um, a salary increase can't take effect until after the next municipal election. So. I say that because I think you're kind of on the clock here. If you want something to go into effect before, after the next election, which is in November, if you waited until after that, it wouldn't be able to go into effect until two years from now. Just, again, something to keep in mind as you're thinking through that process.

That's not one of my top 37 priorities right now. But if maybe we do need to have the conversation or if anybody else wants to bring it up that they feel like it's a top priority for right now. It has been. Four years since we. It's been a while.

It's been a. I'm fine either way. But for me, it is an election year. And I what I don't want to see is that somehow things get twisted that anyone who might be looking to be. elected is somehow I'm gonna you know I want to sneak this in so I get paid make sure I get paid more if I get on that kind of stuff I don't know I think I would rather wait to do it next year than have it take effect whenever the next cycle goes on that's just my personal opinion but and I think that's what we've done more traditionally has done it more towards the beginning of that two-year cycle if you will so let's if anybody else that's just my I don't think that was the right time I agree

Eric, any thoughts I have no need to look at this with any immediacy. I just agreed with the logic that if we want to look at. Increases, that's the way to do it.

And besides that, I think, too, I don't want to feel like we're rushed into it. I think we need to make sure we've done our diligence on it, but Dave, thank you for the timelines.

All right up next. We're good. Do you have what you need from us on that? 1? Okay, let's talk to golf carts. Mr. Anderson. All right.

Thank you mayor and council. So. I know at the last, I think it was just the last work session. We talked about golf carts after a resident had raised the desire to. For the city to allow golf carts on public streets, and there was interest from the council in looking at ordinance language. And so staff put together some draft language as provided in the memo in your packet. It's generally very similar to the process that we use right now. And I think it'd be easy for staff to. To roll this out, just because it's almost identical to the permitting that we do. I suspect they would probably use the same forms. Look at a lot of the same things. It has a lot of the same requirements. There are a couple of requirements that we did include in here just in consultation with staff. that are worth pointing out specifically. Some of the requirements are mandated by state law, those related to nighttime operation, right? Like with headlights and taillights, brake lights, those kinds of things. There's language in here about the exceptions when you can't operate. That's also statutory. The provision about inclement weather and visibility and things that are in that subparagraph F in the draft ordinance. There's a few equipment requirements. The 1st, 2 are required under state law, the rear view mirror and the slow moving vehicle emblem requirement. The 3rd, 1 was requested to be included in here by staff just for discussion that talks about having these golf carts equipped with driver and passenger seat belts. There are a very small percentage, I would say, of cities that require that. In order to get a permit, you have to prove that you have that equipment installed on your vehicle. I think as far as we can go as requiring that it be installed on the vehicle, I don't think we can require that it be worn Um, there's reasons for that primarily a case that talks about, um, uniformity and operation requirements when it comes to vehicles for folks that might be. Uh, driving a vehicle in 1 city, and then they drive into another city and the laws are different. So they state law doesn't accommodate the ability to, um, control operation. But in terms of permitting requirements, I do think we can make equipment. Uh, requirements, and that's why I think the only couple of state cities, excuse me that do require seat belts don't require that they'd be worn, but they require that they be equipped. Um, and then there's a few other requirements in here that, um. Get at operation related to a number of passengers kind of common sense safety things, right? You can't. put 15 people in a golf cart or even more than what the design occupant load might be. You can't operate on county or state or federal highways unless you're crossing at a designated intersection. And then there's language about how the laws in Chapter 169 generally apply. The same laws that apply to folks that are driving a car or a motorcycle would apply to you if you're driving on city streets Golf carts and just like it does now for you TV. So I included that in there too, just for clarity beyond that. I think it's a policy discussion and if there's any questions about the language or further direction staff is here to answer them. And if there's an appetite to bring this to upcoming council meeting for potential approval, we can do that too.

Dave, I have a couple of questions, and it was the part that you just said about what applies to all other vehicle drivers. I did not see a part in here that said, like, you've got to be 16 and a licensed driver and whatever. Is that in here? Is that assumed?

It is in here. So it is under the permit section, which is paragraph A. That's the longest paragraph. That is essentially the identical language we have for UTVs. I think there's language about being a licensed driver in here. Let me just double check where that is. Oh, I'm sorry. It's down under D&E where it talks about daytime operation and nighttime operation. Kind of hidden in there, not where you maybe would expect it, but I was trying to be consistent with the language we have for UTVs.

Thank you. And then my only other nit that I found, in nighttime operation, it says... That third line under nighttime operation says cart has original equipment, headlights, taillights, brake lights, either original equipment or aftermarket installed. I don't know. I hate it when we get to wordsmithing these, but does the first original need to be taken out?

I think the first original that relates to headlights, taillights, and brake lights is a state statutory requirement. There is no statutory requirement about turn signals. That is new language that the city, I believe, requires for nighttime operation of UTVs.

Sorry, I missed what you said.

We do for UTVs. I can confirm that, but I think that's where that came from. So I mirrored it to that. And the reason for allowing aftermarket is because a lot of golf carts, I think, don't come with turn signals. And so it might be hard for somebody to find a golf cart in a particular model that they want. That would be legal to drive in Carver unless they were to get after market turn signals. And so I would the way I would envision the process working is when a permit is applied for staff would review the equipment that they have on the golf cart just to make sure it meets the 4 or 5 requirements from an equipment perspective that the city has and then they would be eligible for the sticker and it will go on there.

Okay. I have no other comments. I like this a lot. Um, I think it covers everything nicely. I do have 1. One, I guess, question now that you were talking about it, Dave, when it comes to the seatbelts, which are aftermarket, right, that you have to print. But if we can't enforce it, then why are we requiring it? And that just seems not nothing in my brain. It doesn't seem like we should have them. But if it why are we going to include something we can enforce? That seems actually a little bit.

And why could we not you can enforce the equipment requirement that they have it on there. I think what you're saying is why require the equipment if you can't require people to wear it.

Right?

It's a valid question. I think it's a policy question. My guess is folks can put passengers in there. And I think whether the council wants passengers to have the ability to buckle up if they're in someone else's golf cart, that's up to you. Um, and so. Um, I guess I would defer to you on whether you think that's reasonable or not. Sounds like maybe some could argue it's not. Um, but again, I've looked at dozens, I would say of golf cart ordinances and including the league model. Um, most of them, most of them do not require seatbelts. Um, a couple do and. Um, I guess I'd also defer to Brent. I know we had talked about it. Maybe it'd be good to include it in there for discussion. Um, so I think he might have some thoughts just on the general requirements. Eric.

Yeah, just to be clear, do we require them in?

We do not, I don't believe I can confirm right now, but I don't believe.

If we don't require them in a UTV, I don't know that we require them in a golf cart. That would be where I'd want this to be in parallel. Golf carts typically don't come with seat belts. UTVs typically don't, you know, they either have a harness or they have nothing. So if we're not going to do it for UTV, I'm not. And again, I wear a seatbelt. You couldn't you wouldn't catch me without one. But I'm worried about protecting other people. I'm not as worried about protecting people from golf cart so uh check the language let's match i i say we match it up to what we require in a utv we don't just for we do not require it for utvs i do remember discussing it and the thing was the utvs have the um cage if i'm calling it the right thing thank you yep the roll cage

I'm sorry, what I was saying is that if it's something we can't, well, I didn't finish with my four before I got it, but I just wanted to say, if it's something that we are going to say, you have to have it, but we can't require it, then to me, I would rather leave it out because it seems, it seems unneeded if it's something we can't even enforce or just the use of.

Yeah. Is there, like, when I go home in my car tonight, I'm going to be required to wear a seatbelt. What I do with that is up to me. But you're not required to wear a seatbelt if it's in a vehicle, like a golf cart or a UTV?

Not these types of vehicles. Most of them don't have them. ATVs, UTVs, golf carts all can be operated on city streets through permitting, and the vast majority of those vehicles don't have seatbelts. That's by their nature, just they don't. I think that's why it's so rare, too, that most cities don't have that requirement in their code. But again, like I said, I think it's Lakeville. There was maybe one other city that I saw that had it, but that was it.

Okay. Eric, do you want to keep going?

No, I think we just the questions answered. We don't require it for you TV and there was a question. Somebody mentioned something about roll cages and you TVs. There are plenty of you TVs that are built like a golf cart where it's easy path through one side to the other and there no seat belt so. I again I would I would keep it the same requirements as we have for you TV.

No concerns with the way it's written, except for maybe the seat belt, just so that the 2 would align. Not having a seat belt isn't in the. Like, as a standard equipment is not required. I think leave it up to the owner and the passengers. If they want it to be there, and then secondly, whether or not they're going to use it.

I would agree. I think removing the seatbelt requirement is fine. Brent, have we talked with staff at all about our accessibility issues regarding, for example, the bluffs and the summer field, how this is going to work in those situations where it's inaccessible? to downtown from those communities. There's nothing written in this one. No, I know, but I'm asking more generally.

I mean, it was discussed, but there's just not a workaround. I mean, the city can't, based on my conversations with Dave, we can't legislate rules for what would be county roads or 212 for that matter. So there's just not a workaround that I'm aware of.

Okay. Right. You know, I'm comfortable with the way it's written in here that says city streets and, you know, you can cross that at intersections, but you can't be flying down. So I guess for me, that covers the concerns I had about the city streets versus county and state.

Yeah. So, I think what I'm hearing is as is minus the seatbelt requirement, which seems so weird.

Okay.

Yeah. Right. Um, okay. Um, do you guys have what you need from us?

The only other thing that I neglected to include it in here to, to bring up, um, I think the plan was maybe just to mirror the fee for UTV permits. Cause the process is so similar. Is the council okay with that? Cause we'll include a fee schedule update with that ordinance. So we'd want the number. Yeah. It's like, what is it? 80 dollars for 3 years? Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah.

Okay. That's all we need.

Thank you. Any objections to 80 dollars for 3 years. Eric. Same as YouTube.

Okay.

All right rolling right along. See what I did parking regulation discussion. Dave Anderson.

All right. Let me see if I can share my screen. Get this.

I have to get the blessing from Brenda.

Oh, she's thinking about it.

All right.

All right. Let's see how we can do the slideshow here.

All right, so, uh, at the last work session, um, it was brought up during council member requests to discuss, um, commercial vehicle parking in residential areas. I think there were some, um, residents or, or, uh, had raised an issue with trailers and other vehicles. And so, um. Since then I've connected with staff, we've looked at our ordinance language, and we'll talk a little bit about what we have in effect at the moment. And we can look at a couple of examples of what other cities do just to see if there's an appetite to consider any changes to our, our city code. and jump in at any time if you have questions. So the current regulations, there's a few things in the code that talk about truck parking. The first is in our parking section, there's some language about the council has the authority to restrict truck parking for vehicles that have more, I think two or more axles. And you can do that by resolution. And the point is, is if there's any areas where congestion is really bad or other safety issues are coming up with large trucks, semi trucks, commercial vehicles, those kinds of things, you would be able to put in place restrictions. The public works team would sign those areas and then between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. each day. Um, actually, I'm sorry on weekdays, presumably during times when, you know, there's more commercial traffic happening. Those trucks could not park in those areas. Um, I talked to staff about this. There really is nothing in on the books right now in terms of restrictions. So, while you have this ability, it sounds like it hasn't been exercised, or at least to nobody's knowledge. It has been and I don't think. anyone could think of areas that have signage up. So that's in your code. It's more an FYI than anything else, but apparently we don't exercise any of that authority at the moment. There's also a provision that restricts or prohibits long term parking for motor vehicles for more than 48 hours. You probably remember just a couple years ago. We had a discussion about that. So that's relatively recent. That would apply not just to trucks or commercial vehicles, but really to any motor vehicle. There's also a very similar prohibition, which has been on the books for longer than that for campers camper trailers on hitch trailers. Again, it's a 48 consecutive hour restriction. So the idea would be, you can't leave those types of vehicles and or equipment in the case of trailers on city streets for more than 48 consecutive hours, unless you move it at some point. And then I wanted to talk a little bit about home occupations too. And I'm glad Erin Smith is in here just in case she has anything to add. But there is a way for homeowners to do what's called home occupations on their property. We do have some restrictions about how you operate home occupations. But the main thing to consider when it comes to home occupation, it's really for people that are conducting a business on their property. I think you have to get... Quite beyond just parking a work vehicle or a trailer there in the evenings or after hours in order to turn into a home occupation. Um, that's why I have the language in here about, you know, the mere parking of vehicles for business purposes would not by itself. constitute a home occupation. As you probably know, many home occupations really go unknown. They kind of fly under the radar, especially since 2020, when a lot more people started working from home. I think a lot of people conduct businesses out of their home. Home occupations, really, from a land use perspective, it's addressed in our zoning code so that any external land use impacts that are related to that, people coming and going, parking needs, noise, odors, those kinds of things could be curtailed and dealt with. I don't think we're really having that conversation here, but it came up at the work session. And so I wanted to just share that there are provisions in the code about home occupations. And if you do have a bonafide home occupation, you can't increase vehicular traffic flow and parking by more than one additional vehicle at a time. So a lot of people might have a personal training business at their home. That's fine, because if you have somebody coming for a private training lesson, they would have one vehicle and that wouldn't be a problem. So again, I think that's sort of germane for this discussion, but more because we went down that path a bit at the work session. And so I just didn't want to not talk about that tonight. So in terms of provisions, that's really all we have from the standpoint of street parking and commercial vehicles, trucks, trailers, those kinds of things.

Can I ask a clarifying question on the first page for the current regulations? It says restrictions apply only on weekdays from six to eight. I don't I don't understand. So you can't track your parks during till eight o'clock at night or I'm just I'm not getting this line.

Yeah, so if the city council were to approve a resolution and say that, you know, X street from this intersection to this intersection is going to be truck restricted parking pursuant to this section, your code, um, the trucks would be unable to park in those areas simply on weekdays between 6 and 8 PM.

So, let's say I had the plumber at my house and he needs to park on the street.

Um, so there is an exception and I think to be honest, from an enforcement standpoint, I don't know what prompted this ordinance when it went into effect. There had to have been a reason at the time. Um, but I don't think from a practical standpoint, staff or law enforcement would ever. Enforce the code against a commercial vehicle that was parked there because they're getting work done at somebody's house. I mean, I, I don't think it would be reasonable nor do I think it would be the intent of the ordinance. My guess is there were probably commercial vehicles or trailers that were parking during long periods of time when they weren't servicing homes in those areas. They were just parking there, whether it be for to be clear day. This is only via console resolution.

And we can't think of a place in town that has the specific rule. So you would have the ability to enact that via resolution. It's not in your rule.

Right.

OK, so because it says current regulations, so we.

Current regulation allows for this, but that's I included the language in that last bullet point.

Not as we're not aware of any.

OK, yeah. OK, gotcha.

And it hasn't been in place for 16 years that I know of.

OK.

It really gives you an ability to snap your fingers and adopt a resolution. rather than adopting an ordinance, which is a little lengthier process, still takes just one council vote. So to me, there's not a huge difference procedurally from adopting a resolution versus an ordinance. But you can, you know, I guess more quickly or summarily adopt a resolution that would say we're going to limit truck parking in this area again.

But the key is it's not on the books right now to enforce.

To enforce any areas, yes. There are no resolutions in place right now that...

that trigger that prohibition okay aaron i know you had the microphone did you have something bad okay just make sure all right thank you

So a few examples, and this came up too during the discussion at the work session that Chanhassen has a provision in their code that says in any R district, you can't park commercial vehicles with more than one axle overnight. I do have an exception in there, right, for construction or work that's in progress, but that's- Can I interrupt?

I'm sorry, I wanted to ask a question. Go ahead. Talking about commercial vehicles, what about a commercial trailer? Does that fall in the same category?

I think that's probably dependent on what Chanhassen's code says. I don't know how they define the word commercial vehicle. I don't know if I saw a definition in there. So maybe they didn't think it through that much, but it could be in there. Aaron's going to take a look while I move through the other ones, if that's okay, Eric. White Bear Lake has a prohibition on parking. Commercial vehicles are really over a certain size 1 ton capacity over 12,000 pounds or commercial trailers. So that would get at that issue that I think Eric was just asking about in residential districts. Unless you're again expeditiously rendering a service to the property. Um, they've had that in place for quite a long time. I don't know how long I'm, I'm their attorney. So I, it's always been something I've seen in their ordinance and it's only come up once or twice from an enforcement standpoint. But, um, I think it's been in place for quite a while and my prayer. Egan has a 9000 pound gross vehicle weight limitation on residential streets and there's this triggered by if you're parked there for more than 6 hours. And Waconia has a, they call them trucks and they define them as one and one and a half ton or larger, which I don't know why that's their definition, but that's what it is. It talks about buses as well and commercial vehicles. And I wouldn't worry about the first prohibition, which talks about their business district, but really their citywide prohibition talks about two hours in any part of the city. So you can't park large commercial vehicles, trucks, buses for more than two hours anywhere in the city.

Okay, so I'm not the pickup truck knower of things, but like people drive a one ton, right? I hear my friends talk about, yeah, the one ton, but that's a private, like their personal pickup truck.

So... Oh, sorry. This is one and one half ton. So it's got to be a one and a half or greater.

Okay. But then when we're looking up at, there was another white bear, like no motor vehicle over one ton. I guess, I wish Andrew was here to talk more about big trucks unless somebody else is going to talk about big trucks. Aaron and Schmidt might.

One ton weighs like eight or 9,000 pounds. Okay.

A 1 ton is an F3 50. yeah. Okay. That helps me because yes, I know. Okay. I know the 1 50 is still. Okay.

And I don't know, I mean, I think part of the, it could be part of the policy behind this isn't just the congestion issue and the, you know, visual visuals of it, but it's probably to limit wear and tear in your streets too. I think if big trucks are parked on pavement for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong, Aaron, but that's that doesn't help your streets. Um, same reason a lot of cities like to limit the amount of, um, garbage dollars that you have. Right? Some cities, like, just 1, Paul, or some limit licenses, because you don't want, you know, 10 different garbage trucks driving up and down the same street every day. You'd rather have 1 because it.

I would add that details matter, but when a resident will look at this, if they would read commercial truck, I think if they'd see like an F-150 that I'm driving and it said Brent's Landscaping, they would say that's a commercial truck, even though it didn't meet the definition. Yeah. how the council chooses or doesn't choose to do this will matter as far as definitions and what we think the residents or a resident wants to see enforced versus what some of these ordinances say.

Yeah, I just need to be able to visualize some of this. So an F-350, you said, is like the 9,000-pound gross weight. Okay, that clears up all the things I needed.

Mm-hmm.

So, again, we have limited provisions in our code about that. Some cities do regulate the parking of large vehicles, especially on residential streets. But, you know, I will be honest. I think the cities that do probably are in the minority. I know Minneapolis and St. Paul do because they have also very narrow streets and, you know, very more density streets. Um, so maybe there's different policy reasons there that said, you have every right as a council to consider these types of decisions and, um. I'd encourage you to, I guess, ask questions and let us know if there's any direction from here.

Eric go go ahead. I was going to call you 1st anyways. Go ahead.

You know, I'll take some ownership for having this come up in front of in a work session. So the concern and we talked a little bit about running a business out of your home, and I don't think anyone has any issues with people running a business out of their home. It is supporting a commercial business out of your home. And that's where the concern arose that. The issue was there were large commercial trailers and implements designed for heavy-duty landscaping or lawn care that was constantly moving in and out of trailers and driveways at someone's home. And what I recall the discussion was, It is okay to have a great big mower, as big as you want it, to take care of your own yard. No one's saying you can't do that. But if you've got a fleet of mowers to take care of other people's yards, does any of this prevent you from running that operation out in front of your house during the day? And, you know, there's limitations on commercial vehicles, but that's why I asked the question about commercial trailers. And that's where I was going with, do we have anything on the books that... limits you running a business not out of your house, not in support of your own house, but in support of other people's houses out in front of your house. Does that make sense?

Eric, when you say trailers, like, I mean, we obviously know there's open trailers, but when you say like a commercial trailer, like if they were enclosed trailers, what do you mean? Because private people have enclosed trailers for different reasons. So I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Right. I've got an enclosed trailer, and occasionally it's in front of my house when I'm loading something, but that is personal use. I'm not loading heavy city-scaled mowers to go out and mow other people's yards, and I'm not doing that constantly. I'm not trying to limit someone who has... personal use of a personal trailer and having to have it in front of their home to to do that it is operating your commercial business in front of your home by way of having you know an open trailer that's got uh two city-sized mowers going on and off it throughout the day

So to answer the question, I don't think there's any distinction drawn between the purpose of having a trailer parked in front of your house. If that makes sense, there's no language in the existing code that would say you can park a large trailer with a boat in front of your house if it's your own boat and personal use, but you can't park the same size trailer with the same amount of wait on it if it happens to have a lawnmower or two on there because that's what you happen to do during the day is drive or operate a commercial business elsewhere.

Okay, and that's what I thought we had kind of gotten to the root of in the last discussion is that you couldn't have vehicles or trailers in motion regularly in front of your home to operate a commercial business outside of your home. And I thought that other cities limited that so you didn't have the noise and accompanying things constantly in motion in front of a house in in the furtherance of your commercial businesses elsewhere. That's different than running a business out of your home. That's running a commercial business operation in front of your home for something else. So if we don't have that, if there's no mechanism to regulate that, I guess that's the discussion. And maybe we didn't, you know, I thought that's what we were maybe digging into and finding that we had language that, in fact, was enforceable.

There was some of that addressed when we did the parking ordinance, like, the trailers and things under the 40, like, the 48 hours. That was addressed in there, correct? Is that right? Aaron?

You mean like the RV portion of it?

Well, we had the RV, but I thought it was... You can't have an unhitched trailer parked on the street for more than 48 consecutive hours. 48 hours. Or any vehicle now.

Right, right. But I thought, so that is technically all covered. That part of it is already covered under the previous ordinance.

Correct. What about, I mean, if I remember from our last discussion, Eric, and correct me if I'm wrong, the primary concern with the situation that Eric brought up was not necessarily that a trailer was parked as much as it was the noise, the commotion of that. And I thought...

Blocking the road traffic.

No, it wasn't even blocking the road. It was because he was they were doing maintenance in their driveway of these of this equipment. Am I wrong, Eric?

Well, that's all part of it. Yeah. Right. And so that that goes to can you operate a commercial business like that? That is not out of your home and it's not in support of your home. It's a commercial business with those kind of vehicles in front of your home. Do we allow that? That's different than having a daycare or someone coming in your home for fitness or whatever the case may be. Those are trailers, those are noisy machines going, and we're not talking Your Honda lawnmower, we're talking city-sized landscaping equipment going on and off trailers to support a commercial operation outside the home. Do we allow that?

Yeah, I think we do. And again, I think it boils down to the distinction of what is operating a commercial. You can't operate a commercial business in a residential district. Home occupations are sort of the exception to that, but those are things that have minimal impacts. I don't necessarily think parking a vehicle or a trailer at your house is, quote unquote, operating a commercial endeavor. And I think that's why I was trying to get at some of the concern or issues at that last meeting and asking those questions. You know, are they running the equipment? Are they storing it for long periods of time? Are they creating more than just a mere, you know, it's parked in the street? Because I don't think there's any practical difference between parking that trailer in the street or Joe's plumber who happens to work shift work who wants to park his van in the street during the same periods of time as maybe that vehicle's parked there. So I think that's significant and from a land use standpoint, you'd have to prove that they're actually operating out of the site, which I'm not hearing that that's going on here. I think it's just Maybe people don't like that they're parking their vehicle in the street, even though any other person could park a vehicle for up to 48 hours. And whether it's because of the way it looks or the size, I don't know why that might be, but no, there's nothing in our code that prohibits it. After we had a chance to look at it and I connected with Aaron to talk through home occupations and other things. And that's why I included that language in the slides about home occupations, just because I don't think we, I don't think this is, The mere parking of vehicles is enough to trigger a zoning violation, if that makes sense. So some of the examples I did include on there from other cities, though. I think if the trailers are big enough and impactful enough and you wanted to draw a distinction to try to prohibit them from being on city streets, you could consider that. Right. Again, I. I still don't know exactly what we're talking about here size wise that you're saying city size lawnmowers, which means they're probably used for a commercial endeavor. I'm guessing. Um, but. You could probably park 1 of those on the same size trailer that somebody. You know, keeps up their home for other residential or domestic type uses. I, I. I don't know. So I think it's all interesting and it's good discussion, but there's nothing that would prohibit that right now, Eric, if that makes sense.

It does. I mean, it answers the question whether or not I like it or not. It answers the question. You know, it really comes down to, I don't think anybody probably signs up. You know, we all accept that people run gas-powered equipment to take care of their yard. That's just a fact of life. But to have gas-powered equipment, large, heavy equipment... commercial equipment running throughout the day in furtherance of a commercial operation that is not running out of the house, but just is effectively is because it's constantly there, I get a concern about that. That's not taking care of your own property. It's a commercial business taking care of others, and it's impacting quality of life because I'm hearing those machines and seeing them, and they're in the street regularly. If the parking ordinance for heavy equipment or a trailer is the mechanism and the only mechanism that we have for enforcement, well, that's the answer. If we want to explore something else, that's a council decision. But I think you've answered the question.

Yeah, if I could jump in the... It feels like it's a home occupation question from my perspective.

Could be. I mean, I'm still not sure I was going to... Can I jump in?

Yeah, I'm treating this like a work session, so we're... We're in a work session. Okay. My...

I can't tell Erica, maybe you know more about the concern. I wasn't sure if it was parking related. Now maybe they're running the equipment, but I'm confused why they'd be running the equipment if those machines are operated when they're out servicing other properties. I still would like to know more about, because there are MPCA noise standards, which is a whole can of worms that we may or may not even want to start down the path of. you know, you generally are limited in terms of how much noise you can generate on your property based on what type of property you live in and what type of property your neighbors live on. But I'm curious about that noise component and what that means and how often the equipment's running and why it's running. Because that could change things. It's just, I'm still, I feel like I'm,

uh needing to learn more about the actual behaviors and activities to be able to answer your questions understood uh i don't know what else to communicate um without sounding like i'm repeating myself if you've got you know a big stand and Andrew, I think you're there, whatever they're called, you know, the big mowers that you stand behind and, you know, like do a golf course or do lots of yards with. If you're running that in front of a home to service it or gas it and move it between trailers, you know... That happens because somebody is there to mow your lawn, fine. But if it happens as a normal course of practice throughout the day, because you have a lawn care business elsewhere, but you're doing all of it in front of your home and you're maintaining the equipment at your home, yeah, it's pressing on the neighbors. It sounds like we don't have anything that says you can't run commercial lawn care business and do all those operations in front of your home it sounds like other cities do limit that probably because of the nature of the noise that it creates or the you know the number of trailers and vehicles and things like that sundry equipment that's sitting outside So we don't. We have a parking ordinance, and that's the enforcement mechanism. I thought I had heard you say in the last discussion that you could not run a commercial business and do operations of that commercial business in front of your home. That's not a home business. That's a commercial business that you happen to be taking care of. In the, you know, out in the street in front of your house on a daily basis. So, I guess I misheard that we, we don't have anything around that.

I don't think you, I don't think you must heard that. Um, but I guess the. Again, I think it, it boils down to whether the business is being operated out of the home. or not, and I think that's a very blurry line and a hard one when it comes to a small landscaping company who happens to park vehicles at their house. And I appreciate the fact about turning the equipment on and moving it from trailer to trailer. I don't think I had heard that, and if I didn't and you said it, forgive me. because i was under the impression that we're just talking about the mere existence of these trailers and the fact that they're parked there either constantly or you know repeatedly over time when they're not out servicing their their customers um but we can i mean i can talk to to aaron and try to decide whether this is close enough to a commercial endeavor, that would be a problem under the zoning code. Because we are talking about two totally different sections of your code. Parking is a police power that just relates to what people can and can't do when it comes to parking on your streets. How you want to keep people safe, how you want to keep the streets safe, those kinds of things. Your zoning code and things that regulate land use, commercial, residential, other uses on property, is a totally separate section of the ordinance. And It's, I think, legally distinct because there are such things as legal nonconformities. If they've been doing it, you can't change your zoning code and say you have to stop doing it because they had already established that use. And so I think, you know, we're getting into the weeds a bit, but If there is a concern that they're crossing that line from residential into commercial, then staff can look at that and try to gather information. And, you know, if we were to do any enforcement, we'd want to be pretty sure that we had facts established and photos and evidence and other things that would say you're violating our zoning code. And here's why. And that's why I'm pressing on the issue of exactly what's going on and trying to get to those facts, because I think it's extremely important from an enforcement side of things, and we'd want to explore that from that side.

Yeah, I understand. And I appreciate that. And, you know, again, this is in no way am I trying to limit is the goal to limit someone's care of their own home or limit a home business that we allow. It's where do we draw a line from operating your commercial business in front of your home where it starts impacting your neighbors? And I think that's what what drove my concern and bringing it up. Um, you know, if, uh, if it happened once in a while, no one probably takes notice, but if it's, if it's a business and you're doing it daily and these things are happening on a regular cadence, well, you know, then is it crossing a line? Are you trying to run your commercial operation from your home? Um, Okay, well, I guess it'll have to be some further discussion and investigation into what constitutes what's going on so you can make a better informed decision if it crosses some kind of line.

Okay. Eric, you can't see me, but she's very much here. I'm here in my experience. I like, we all know that we're talking about probably the same situation. And in my experience, it's been specific to parking. So anytime that there's been an alleged violation, we've had Josh go out. And check it out and each time he's come back and said. There's not a code violation. I don't know enough about landscaping or this person specifically, but I can't think of a situation that they're coming back to a residential street to gas up a commercial mower several times a day. If that is fact, I'd be interested in learning more about it and getting some time, some proof, some videos, some photos of it happening, just so we're not... I don't want it to be a parking issue that we were not able to solve that is now a noise issue that we're trying to solve in a different way. But it needs to be something that is enforceable and that they are violating. And I just, I don't want it to be a parking issue that's solved by saying these people are too loud.

Understood, and we do have a parking and I also want to go back to the fact that we do have a parking ordinance that. If there's a violation residents that have a concern. whether they feel it's maybe uncomfortable. We have an ordinance that they can execute by calling the sheriff and having a parking ordinance enforced. So, yeah, I wanted to discuss commercial businesses in front of someone's home, but I also want to reiterate that there is something, a recent change that we've made, that if someone is in violation of that parking code, the methodology is to invoke the sheriff's department for enforcement. It has to come from the resident. That's not something the city enforces. It's the sheriff's department. So just reiterating what we have on the books.

And I think, Eric, you and I have talked about this, just the two of us, but I'm concerned that this is a neighbor dispute that's just kind of snowballing. This is the same folks who kind of led us to start thinking about our parking limitations and the ordinance that we put into place about a year and a half ago. Now that's not good enough, and so we've gotten emails about gas cans and hoses, and there's nothing that we could do about that. And now it's these lawnmowers that are constantly there. I've probably either driven, walked, or ridden my bike through that area half a dozen times since we last met, including at – 10 after five this evening before heading down here. And there was one unhitched trailer that I think might be what they're talking about. And half a dozen other vehicles, including an Xcel Energy truck that was clearly there for, I assume, business purposes, unless there's an Xcel Energy employee that lives there. I just, I'm worried about taking this too much further Because we've already invested a tremendous amount of discussion and staff time on this when it's just coming from 1 individual. I'm worried that the ripple effects in our community, the individual who I use as a plumber. It works out of their home the. Individual that I use for my HVAC, while they don't live in Carver, they also work out of their home. I just I worry about clamping down on this one and the unintended consequences of coming out as being anything but pro-business. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right? Where like there's an issue with this one. And while we might be oiling the squeaky wheel, I'm really worried that it's going to impact unintentionally a number of other home-based businesses in our community. I'm not seeing the need to continue with this. I don't know if anybody else has any other thoughts.

I see both sides, but I want to be very careful because I feel like there's a really fine line between saying this is okay to have for your business in your house, but this one isn't. And I think that's a tricky line for us to hop back and forth across. Yeah. I know that we're trying to keep a little bit of anonymity here about some of these complaints coming in. So it's a little bit, it feels a little bit vague too about what's happening now. A little bit more information has come. So I know where maybe a little bit more about where it's coming from, but also I don't want to get into the neighbor dispute either. I haven't visually with my eyes seen what is happening in this particular house, street, area. I would be more inclined to look at something where we're looking at size. You know, like I'm looking at White Bear Lakes here where they're talking about gross vehicle weights and things like that. I would be more interested, I think, in looking at things like that for who and what is being parked on the street than I...

These are one-time trucks.

These are not anything that would... But if we do this, that's not going to scratch this itch. Sure, and I understand that. But when I'm just saying, when we're looking at these kind of things right now, the only thing I can sort of see myself going, yeah, we should maybe look at, and I'm not even... that's not even a big rah-rah that we need to go after would be like a gross vehicle weight or something like that but if we if it's coming from I don't want to get in between the Hatfield and McCoy's either because that gets really sticky and I don't think that's our job either I personally am not interested in looking at this the way that we're kind of

seeing these parking ordinances where you're limiting the size of the vehicles um for the reason that mayor johnson said i we have a lot of people in this city who do really important work out of their homes and they have work vehicles and you start saying you know a one and a half ton or larger, you're butting up against some of these work vehicles. And I don't want to see these people not be able to have their livelihoods and continue their businesses because of an ordinance like this. But that's my opinion.

Um, I don't see a need for the city to spend more time on it. Um. It is a hard 1 because they don't want to make just a general. You know, a resolution and, like, here's, you know, some. Ways that we can some teeth in it ways that things we can measure and enforce. It makes me think too, though, like, within our city, we have such a variety of neighborhoods. And like, sometimes you just need to do your research and be like, well, this might not be the neighborhood for me if I like, you know, and then whatever it is, fill it in, you know, or maybe, you know, it is a neighborhood if you'd like to do this and just neighbors just need to talk to each other. I don't want the city every time to spend a lot of resources and do what might fit for that one street. We need stuff that fits for every neighborhood. So I don't want to spend any more time on this.

You said it without saying it, but we have a number of communities that are association-based where you can't have your kids' toys out in the front yard, and your holiday lights have to be down by January 15th. They're very regimented. I do not live in an association. For better or for worse, it's for some people, and it wasn't any of the houses that we looked at when we moved here. I see what you're saying because I also struggle with I don't know that I want to see a semi-truck. Parked in front in any of our neighborhoods and not because I don't like the look of it, but because that's a lot of weight on our streets. And when it's a 100 degrees out and as hot as it's been for the last 3 weeks, that's not doing great things for our streets. Um. And so I, but I also like, don't see a need to open that can of worms right now, because that feels like a completely separate issue than kind of what we're talking about right now. So, as I'm counting, Laura said not to proceed. I said not to proceed. Not sure that I'm not to proceed. Okay.

And I don't. I am not to proceed because I can't find the fine line. I can't land on it.

So Eric, respectfully, yep, go ahead.

Yep, so let me close this out then for anyone watching as well. This is city council working, right? This is why we have work sessions to discuss things like this before it ever gets to city council. So, you know, we've talked through it. I think we fall back, and if there's an issue that a parking ordinance already addresses, we utilize and enforce that. And in no way do I want to have the city of Carver become its own HOA. That is not the goal here. So... I'm satisfied. We, we, we've talked about it and that's where we landed it. That's why we have work sessions.

Yeah. So, yeah. Thank you.

Yeah.

It's a really good point to make Eric. Like, this is the rolling up our sleeves. This is the, like, really talking about it. And sometimes it's moving things forward and sometimes it's not. And here we are. So thank you all for that discussion. Appreciate it. Okay. Up next, we've got the city manager's report.

I have nothing, but I asked Aaron Schmidt if he could present a construction update to the city council.

All right, good evening mayor council, um, construction update for the 2026 street project. Um. The, the contractors primarily been working on installing the new storm sewer on the South end of the project that was due to the. Curb line shifting to accommodate the do 6 foot wide 2 minutes walk that will be installed as part of the project. So there was a number of storm sewer structures that had to be. Relocated as part of that, that process is finishing up right now. They have 1 structure to install yet near 5th street. But that structure is not arriving on site until probably Friday. So there's going to be a little bit of downtime this week where the utility contractor. Will not be doing any work on the site, which should help with some of the concerns about access getting through. The area on the South end of the project that area was very confined when the utility work was happening. So that was primarily. The issue of what was going on with with the access was that pipe work was very difficult to put in and leave leave the corridor open. So it was in effect blocked off some of the things that we've done this week. Valley paving was out today again. They re graded the road with a greater to help smooth out some of the bumps. We added. Local detour signage to basically every entrance to each side street along Mount hope. So, Debbie lane, Skyview lane, foreigner and tower. We basically put as vehicles are traveling out to Mount hope, there'll be a sign that say, like, detour with the arrow. And what we have is the arrow is pointing to the north. So that's kind of the main. way we want traffic to flow through the project right now. And that will continue as we progress through the next stages, which will include the curb and gutter installation for the trail shift by Lyons Park to Fifth Street. So we're expecting that work to happen starting at the end of this week is the contractor schedule. So probably Friday and Monday is when the curb and gutter work will be happening on the south end of the project. And so we really want to encourage the people to go north as much as possible because that's kind of least restrictive right now. The road is wider up there. If you recall, we're narrowing that piece of the road down where the trail is to 24 feet. So that corridor is going to be really tight when there's a lot of work happening. So, um. It's it's difficult. Um, I'm not trying to sugarcoat, you know, the access has not been great, but we're doing what we can to accommodate as much as possible. Um, the mail delivery was another issue that we've heard from a number of people. Um, so today the contractor. They really worked on cleaning up access to all the mailboxes because in talking to the post office. The, the delivery, the mail delivery folks will not actually get out of the vehicle. So they have to be able to actually drive up to the mailbox and place the mail in the mailbox. They will not step out of the vehicle. So, if so, we, what we tried to do today is have the contractor get everything cleaned up. So you could literally drive, like, right next to the mailbox. And then deliver the mail, so hopefully. That'll be improved after today as well. We talked about potentially doing temporary cluster mailboxes for the south end of the project. The issue with that, we could still do that and we're looking into it, but it takes actually a little bit of time to get that set up. We're thinking it's going to be probably 4 or 5 days to get it implemented just with. The postmaster process that it takes to actually get that route adjustment done based on the conversations that we've had with the post office to date. So. With that being said, we think it might just be worth getting through this week. And then after the curb and gutter is done, that's kind of like the last really big. Like, impactful thing where the that South half of the project will be pretty congested because when the curb machine and the concrete trucks are in there, it'll be pretty tight again. So. Again, it's we're not completely out of the woods yet here. It's going to be busy for a while yet, but. Just a little bit of a look ahead to the schedule. So, as I mentioned by the end of the week, we're hoping to get the curb and gutter contractor in there and then they can pour the curb. And then starting next week, the. The roadway crew is going to be back in to actually start taking off the excess reclaim material to get our height. Down again, so we can get ready to pave the road. So the contractors indicated that. The week of August 17 is when he's expecting that they'll be ready to get in there. For the 1st, lift of asphalt to go back on the road. So we got a couple of weeks yet where it's going to be a lot of promotion and a lot of activity going on. But. If we can get through the week of August 17th and get the base course lift of asphalt down, then I think people are going to start becoming a lot more comfortable again with the situation.

So, we want to just talk about this mail thing really quick here, because I know we're almost out of time. So, and Brent, so I received a. Complaint last at the end of last week, so some of our residents along here. have been unable to get their mail for a week and a half to two weeks because of this because they they won't deliver unless they can reach the mailbox then it gets sent back to Chanhassen so Carver residents are having to drive to Chanhassen to go and get their mail which i don't think should not be an expectation that we have for our residents. I have to drive all the way to Chan to the post office there to pick up their mail. So whatever the solution is, I really think the solution should be fixed by the end of this week because people are having enough to deal with there to now not be able to get their mail after weeks of time is ridiculous. I mean, people get important documents that they need and the expectation drives that.

Yeah, and like I said, we're not closing off the idea of the temp cluster mailbox on the south end. We're going to continue to lean into that and try to figure out if we can make it work in a short amount of time like you requested. So if we can do that, we definitely will continue to go down that path. If it's going to be a two-week ordeal to get this set up, then... Then make sure the other one has been just pulled the trigger on one of them.

Make one of them work, whatever it is. Thank you.

So you mentioned they're going to pull off the excess reclaimed material. I don't remember there ever being with any of our other road projects as much like that the reclaimed material was left there on the roadway. Is this a different way of doing things?

No, typically they, they grind it up and then they just leave it in place. They'll like roll it. So it's, you know, a smooth surface and then they'll pull, pull it off later when they're getting ready to prep the pavement. Okay. So, and in this case they're planning to use a milling machine, like you see on like roadway projects and they're going to basically run a milling machine and load it right into the back of a truck. So they're going to have kind of like a moving train.

going down the road okay but paving the week of the 18th or the 17th that's so that's what they've indicated yes fantastic okay i know we're at time are you going to be at the regular meeting because i have a couple more things that came in over the weekend so i i don't want to miss it but i also want everyone to get their break so yeah it works okay okay okay

Um, great. Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn motion by Conrad. I'll 2nd, 2nd, by Pascoe. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, yeah, sure. Do. Go ahead.

Yep. Council member.

Hi.

Hi.

Council members there. Hi. Council member. Hi, Mary Johnson.

I motion carries. Thank you.