Administration / Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

He was sitting there house villas with water sprinklers like the other ones they have up their way packets are upstairs but it's tomorrow night 6:30 here

um all right everybody Everybody, welcome. Um, that one sec. All right. Welcome everybody to the um first meeting of the 2026 calendar year for the city of Wildwoods Administration and Public Works Committee. Um, I have a little quick message I want to give you, but why don't we start off with our roll call first just to start getting some of these things out of the way. Member Preston, Council Member Mabry here. Council member Nyan. Council member Farmer here. Council member Marshall present. Council member Bockards present. Council member Vanic here. Council member Alps here.

All right. Um with that, why don't we also do the approval of the minutes unless anybody has any questions or concerns. I'll motion. All right. Mr. Mabry motions to support them. Mr. Bckard seconds. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any discussion? Any discussion?

Yes. Absolutely. Excellent. So, under action or or last time, I'm sorry, in the minutes, we referred to sending a letter to the governor requesting um replacement for our district 110, which is Wildwood and part of Clarkson Valley. So, it left this committee as a recommendation to go to the council. And then I understand it never nothing moved from the council. And the idea was, well, that really is not going to matter. But I still think if this committee feels that a letter from the largest constituents in the 110 district, I think we should rethink that. Uh, as it stands, by law, he does not have to do anything, but he made that rule. Uh, and I'm not saying I disagree with it, but they don't just appoint somebody now. They would run. But at this point, we could get a special election, which right now we'll wait for a primary and then a final election in November. So for the entire legislative session, we got

we have nobody. And uh whether we does any good or not, I personally would feel better about it. But I just that was a motion we made last time and in the minutes it said we were going to do that, but I don't think we did. So my only correction of the minutes would be if the group agrees to that I think we should I think we did motion out to do it and then it was there was some conversation that it wasn't really a legally viable thing anyways which is somewhat beside the point. I mean I think it's important that we at the very least voice for our residents that like he didn't have a problem calling us when he was running for governor. It's true. So how much do they come back in session and

Oh they're already back now. Okay. So right now anything that will happen we won't have any any vote for us right well we never did anyway so that was my I don't know we need to change can I ask minutes we didn't do what we said we did in a minute so

so in the original motion and it was based off some research that was done that hey there's a the state statute states that once the governor is notified and the question was more so regarding and not this is not the department is not the disagreeing with sending this letter. I think it would be a good thing to do. But in this case, we were looking at how this letter could notify the governor and then trigger force him. It says do it promptly to put a special election on the board. That said, when we looked into it from the legal aspect, is he has the right even if he did u get this due notice, whether it be from us or from the individual that resigned, uh that could technically go forward at the next general election. And that was what the state statute found. But tonight, uh, and that the motion was conditioned on that having a legal justification. If we're able to do it as a city, then it let's do it. And that was going to be prepared as a resolution. But instead, in lia, we could still prepare a letter protest that states that we are we understand that we do not have that representation at the state for an entire legislative cycle and just make sure that's on the record with the state. Well, I think since we didn't do the first, I think we should do another letter. And and I wasn't trying to tell him what to do. I would just say we're requesting a formal request from the city to the governor that we would like consideration on a special election considering

that we're 80 85% of the district. Yes. So that was my and that was the motion. Yeah. Was to request the go to have a special election for the lost state representative. Jason seconded voice vote was taken affirmative action. So, so do we need to So, it sounds like from a minute standpoint, we did what we were supposed to do. It didn't bounce up. So, now that we have the current minutes, we can just say that we're going to do it for this next meeting. And it would be And since it does, it doesn't have that that legal trigger to it, we can do it if we have another motion tonight to say go ahead, draft the letter, and we could take it to the next council meeting. I'll make the same motion then. All right, Jason. I'll second it.

Jason will second it. All those in favor of redoing our letter, please say I. I I Anyone oppose? Any abstensions? Oh, Mr. Vanic, you're opposed. Okay, Mr. Vanic is opposed. Excellent. Okay. Uh mo meeting minutes pass then. You're everybody's good. Amy, did you get the vote to pass the minutes?

Perfect. Okay. Um that'll bring us to our excuse me, public participation section. Right before we get there though, I do want to just um add something quickly. Um my voice is a little iffy here this evening. from recovering from whatever the most recent plague is that is affecting everyone. Uh but I do want to say as I mentioned at the top of the meeting um this is the first meeting of the year. It is also uh the first of the last four meetings theoretically of this uh grouping of the committee. It is certainly possible with the exception I guess of Mr. Preston who won't be returning to council at all that we could all be back in these seats again. We may none of us may be here. Who knows? That's up to uh the mayor. But uh I did want to say we've tried to do this I think the last year too that you know as we get into these last couple meetings I think the goal my goal here as the chair is to get these items that we have sort of the contextual information on done or things that are feeding off of those so that we don't have to try to get whatever percentage of new people up to speed on these things and we can kind of start fresh. So, um, in this evening's agenda, it is pretty thick with some things that are important and things that we all are understanding of. Um, so you'll just kind of see that refrain as we go through this stuff. That's not to say if something pops up, we can't address it, but we want to try to close out this business before we start a new group because we're just going to start for a new group of people at least in some form. Um, so, Council Member Nyan messaged me, let me know she was going to run late this evening. I do have a quick question. I know we have some guests in the audience. Gentlemen, anybody here to make a public comment or we just here to observe one. All right, why don't we start with that? Um, if you have not made public comment before, uh, it is similar to that in the city council. Just state your name, where you live. Um, try to keep it to five minutes. Um, it's a it's a way for you

to speak and us to listen, not really for us to engage, if that makes sense. Good. After you.

All right. Happy New Year and good evening everybody. Michael Sherman, 17511 Summit View Place, W 6. Appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight. I will be brief. So, I lead a group of bow hunters called certified bow hunters. And I know what you're thinking. This isn't on our agenda tonight. Um, but it will be down the road. So, please pass on our information to them to whoever may be sitting in your seats for the next meeting. Uh, I've had over 10 years experience working with our neighboring cities and property owners to manage deer effectively and we obviously want to help as Wildwood starts to develop their new deer management program. The bow hunters behind me are professionals. Luckily, I'm the only one speaking tonight. Um, but we do come out in groups because we're supportive of each other and we are hoping that this can be a collaborative effort. on the 29th or on the 19th of December, we delivered to this group, hopefully you all seen it, a uh proposed um framework for what Wildwood might consider. That again is based on what a lot of our neighboring cities are doing. So please, if you would take a look at that and then as we move forward again, we would love to be collaborative in that effort so we can find a viable deer management solution for wildlife. All I have this evening, I appreciate the opportunity to to talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you. Your name again? Nichol Sherman. Thank you. S H E R M A S. Okay. Uh gentlemen, anybody else? No.

Okay. Excellent. Um well, before we get into the meeting, as I said, um Council Member Nia message messaged to let me know she was going to be a little bit late. I um relooked at our agenda and I as we have some items that are kind of a little bit more weighty. I thought if we unless there's an objection, perhaps you guys would consider uh reordering this so we can kind of take care of some of the easier stuff before Tracy gets in. Um my suggestion would be we kind of get Rick up here first and we start with the um capital projects update which I imagine will be short and then get into the salt brine and the uh aerial mapping stuff. You need a motion to change the agenda.

Yes. So, basically, we're going to flip public works and admin and then I'll reorder it as we go through. That makes sense. That's my motion. Awesome. Seconded by Mr. Alers. All those in favor of flipping the script here, so to speak, please say I. I.

I. All right. Motion passes. Mr. Brown, let's flip over to you with public works. Let's start with our capital project status update, please. Council members, I prepared an update for you for this month regarding the um capital projects that we're working on that are underway, soon to be constructed. Uh if there's any specific questions about any of those projects, I'd be glad to entertain them at this time. Did add the uh much as we know as far as the the street replacement project. It is being bid right now. Um looked at the subdivisions that we plan to do work in in the memo, if you're curious is whether your subdivision is included, assuming it's a public street. Um, and then the asphalt street project will bid next month. So you should see in February the concrete street project and then following that in March you should see bids hopefully for the asphalt restoring projects.

Right. Any questions or concerns, excuse me, on those projects, Mr. really get close to February one on the uh the shared path on both state roads induced with that project. It's it's a matter of safety for me more than anything else. Uh are we going to beat the February one? Are we going to be right on time or is there a wrinkle?

Um there's no no reason to believe it will be delayed at this point in time. And so the contractors getting their permits pulled and ready to mobilize and expect them to be on site about that time. As the construction manager of records been present accounted for that's the other construction amount is just shy of a million or just a little tiny bit over. um been my conviction that every project that's anywhere near that amount of money needs a a construction manager of records. So are they up and uh ahead of the game?

So Cochran is the uh representative for the city for the construction engineering and yes they they have our confidence and they are um going to be representing us uh as our point of contact daily in the field. Um this is a fally funded project in large part because of the requirements that come with the federal funding. That's what necessitates this necessitates us in large part bringing in a group background. So they are extremely helpful making sure we complete the necessary documentation the daily paperwork uh reporting that's necessary to show VOD that we're doing it correctly and then get reimbured for. They're very uh very much up to speed and uh we've been in communication with them. Thank you, director.

Mr. Marshall, so um Mr. Brown, a question on the old the Valley Road improvements. I know we approved the company to do the acquisition in August. How are they doing?

Well, unfortunately, they have been a little bit delayed because we are still working through MODOT's approvals. Um essentially, MODOT has to approve the preliminary plans which includes all the environmental reviews that go with it. So, uh, we've been finding that the environ, this is not new. It's just been a struggle on pretty much every project to get MODOT's environmental reviews completed and then get the preliminary plan review approved immediately following. So, that has been working through its its process and I believe we're getting very close to getting uh the necessary mod approval. You don't see them coming back now six months later saying it's going to cost more.

I wouldn't expect that. No. Um I don't I don't I don't I mean what happens when we start talking to property owners all bets are off but u no in terms of the appraisals that'll be done um no because that work frankly hasn't started yet. So

thank you. All right. Anybody else? Okay. Moving on. um our [clears throat] salt brine pre- treatment pilot program. [cough] Um council members, this item is essentially a new item to y'all. Um I wanted to bring it to you. This kind of came together over the last 30 days or so. Um well maybe the last two months. Um we met with our snow contractors back in November. It was a essentially a pre-season kickoff meeting with them to make sure we were all on the same page, talk about any changes, things like that, get them ready to start work. And I'm glad we did because we had some storms. But at that meeting, we um threw out the idea. We had kicked around the idea of using salt brine on their streets for a while now. Um and we threw that to our snow contractors at that meeting. After we wrapped the meeting a couple weeks later, um Jacob Hill, who's with T- Hill Construction, um let us know that they're very interested in in performing that work for us. Um and Jacob is um does a really great job for us. He'd done some research on it and had located some secondhand equipment, his um sprayer and tank that he could equip one of his trucks and he'd research the cost of acquiring Brian um purchasing Brian. So they feel very comfortable they could get a truck equipped in short order and um put us in a position where we could start pre-treating loads. Now I think ultimately I guess what we would like to do and what the recommendation to you all tonight is is to to move forward with Till Construction regarding pre-treatment as a trial run this winter. The equipment would all be acquired by Lehill Construction. It wouldn't be city expense. Um, so they to take the risk and he's comfortable doing that. I think it's all told less than 10,000 to

acquire the brine and the equipment at this point. So it's not real pricey to get started with one truck. Um, the thought being we'd start with one truck this winter. um dip our toes into it, see how it goes, um learn, and then essentially report back and maybe by end of winter, we had enough experience where we could consider maybe going into it to a larger degree next winter and make it one of our uh items under our redway maintenance contract bid. Um and so it could be a situation we'd had multiple trucks with multiple contractors doing it, or it could be and we decided it just doesn't work. So try it and get started with one truck and back of my mind I'm hoping that if I build this direction we don't have any more snow events but just kidding.

Mr. Alers Rick Rick are surrounding communities uh or participating in this kind of effort. Yes and no. Um Bowwin's doing it and they've been doing it for a few years and we've met with Bowwin. Dep is doing it um more recently. We've had some discussions with the pair. My understanding is Chesterfield has not started doing it. I don't believe Ellisville has. Um so it's it's not 100% but it's probably closer to 50% maybe. I would venture to say a lot of the bigger ones are doing it. Um, and they are seeing a reduction in salt usage end with this.

Well, I'll be honest, I haven't asked them for specifics. Um, ones that are doing it seem to be continuing to do it, so I'm assuming that they're finding it to be beneficial. Um, MODOT is doing it as well. Um, don't know if St. Louis County is doing it commercial.

So, we have one truck doing it. Do you have a plan as to which roads are the worst that we would go and brine? Because you can't do the whole city. So, you're going to have to pick out which ones and then compare how much salt we did last year versus the ones we live to brine. I think it's a great idea. I just think that part of the challenge you're going to have is where are the worst parts um of the city or where would be the biggest advantage of putting the bronze down.

So, the thought was initially at least so we've got our roads there's two things. one um we do have a need um throughout the winter to treat or salt like bridges primarily and other areas of concern. So um depending on the forecast we'll go out have a contractor run a truck and salt bridges areas that could be uh could [clears throat] that kind of thing. So those areas we could treat for sure with the truck with one truck. Um I think that would work fine. So I think it would be very helpful at the minimum to be able to do that because the the salt brine would be better than putting down rock salt dish. The second thought is we we have taken the time to divide our streets into three tiers and we have essentially the arterial routes and then the arterial and the collector routes and then the local streets. So we'd start with the arterial routes and I don't that's what we haven't figured out exactly is how far we can how many hours it would take to get all the arterial routes done. So that's what we would find at

and I think the [clears throat] other issue would be then the other contractors that are responsible for those roads should be aware that it's been brineed. Yeah. So they don't run out and put salt right on top of. So I think it's a great project but I just think we really need to monitor it to figure out how do you do it with one truck with as many miles of road that we're trying to cover. So again ultimately I think we figure we'd probably need more than one truck. Totally agree.

Yeah. And I don't know if that's two trucks or or four trucks or what, but that that would be kind of the goal to figure out exactly say if [clears throat] we decide we need to be able to do this in four hours, how many trucks? Probably [clears throat] don't need to do all the roads, but we probably would want to do the collectors in the entire rout. Anybody else? So yeah. So statistically like I guess the question is how is this better? Does it is there is there a cost savings on plowing and salting? Is it safer? There has to be statistics somewhere on why people are doing this.

Well, yes. There are studies that will show you that you can save money that it it makes your snow removal more efficient and it also makes the salt essentially work better. So, um you can reduce the amount of salt you use, which equates into direct savings there. [clears throat] But if it makes our removal easier, we spend less hours out there on the road. So we save money there, too.

So I guess the next subsequent question is, is there a way to quantify that? If we say we're going to do it in this area for this year, can we come back next year and say, "Wow, that worked great. We saved this much money. We saved this much time." um that that's going to require me to give a little bit of thought in terms of how I can [clears throat] report it back to you. Um but I will be, you know, if we go through this trial, I guess that would be the goal to show you and demonstrate to you in black and white how much we've saved would be the would be the goal for sure.

Gotcha. Yeah. I mean, and again, if it's if it's a man, this makes the roads way safer. we save this much money, it's a no-brainer. But just to say we're gonna do it because Till wants to do it, it seems

this is something we've looked into. This was brought up a couple years ago. Um, other cities have been employing the technology and there are studies out there that show it can reduce your salt consumption. I think that's probably going to be the best way to operationalize it is how much salt you use. So, we spend $200,000 a year on salt just to salt our roads during depends on the snowstorms we get hit with, but typically you want that stockpile full. Um, and that said, if you're seeing a 20 to 40% reduction in that salt usage and we can monitor that, might be a little bit rougher than getting hours and whatnot. Uh, but I mean, that could result in significant savings over time. So, it's might be trading one for the other, but it also makes it easier to clear the snow from the roads itself to per, you know, the research that's been published out there.

Gotcha. Again, I think having it isolated to some area, right, of time and/or space to be able to say we did this here and this is the results we saw rather than just say we're going to do something here and there and hope for the best. Y um just curious, so uh the costs are expected to be less than $10,000. Uh are are we getting is that based on number of miles treated, number of gallons, number of hours? Uh what how do we how's that broken down? But that number is essentially the cost to acquire the equipment. Oh god.

And that included the brine. So it it's relatively cheap to get a truck equip one truck equipped. Doesn't account for the cost to put the driver on the street. So, we'll still be paying the city will paying an hourly fee as we do when we do any snow removal for the driver to be out there with the truck applying the brine. Anybody else? Tracy, I'm coming. Yeah. Um I I have a lot of questions. Just had a glass before he started.

I just had a couple thoughts. I think in general, I think it's a really good concept. I would suggest um obviously I'm not super I don't have the routes memorized or anything but um I would suggest containing this I get the bridges and things I think that's sort of a separate deal but I would contain this strictly to what roads T-Hill plows because then there doesn't have to be communication back and forth we're not doubling things up um from a damage um place I assume that there is I mean if you're putting salt salt on anything, it's going to break whatever down. But is it like does it slow the degradation of the concrete if it's a brine versus rock salt because you're not grinding it in? Does that not really matter?

No, it's not that so much. It just that it treats the road more evenly and disperses it better. Have like a streak down the middle. Okay. Um, so yeah, I mean I I think it's a great idea. I I would say keep it to Tehill. Um, I would pick out a neighborhood or two that we have like the data on and can figure out. I mean last year we had a lot of weird storms so that cost is going to be more but we should be able to average that out and then figure out the savings but general. So you need a motion to proceed I assume. If you don't mind if a motion motion to proceed with the pest program is made by Mr. Bcker. Anybody care to second it? Seconded by Mr. Alers. All those in favor please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Excellent. That motion passes. Um, would it be possible, Rick, for you at the next meeting to kind of bring us back a little bit more of a concrete plan as to what it is you guys are actually where you're going to be doing this and that kind of stuff? I can certainly do that. Yep. Perfect. Okay. Uh, that brings us to citywide digital mapping and aerial imagery project. We're going backwards. Tracy, you weren't here for that. We're shaking it up tonight. No, hang in there. Thank you.

Uh chair, are we are we going backwards in that regard? Are we getting started with the uh city capital improvements and then we jump down to I noticed that we jump down to the the brine? Yeah. So, I'm just kind of trying to because of what we have coming up. I'm just trying to get these ones that shouldn't really take very much. Gotcha. Oh, god. Yeah. So, easy. Good. Yep. So, that brings us to the mapping. Who's got that one? Rick, I assume.

Um, yes. Thank you. Um, council member, committee members, this next item is is a new item for you. And, um, historically, the St. Louis area, we've had a a project to acquire aerial imagery through a company u located in Chesterfield Valley called Surex. Um, essentially what they've done is they've gotten together what they call a consort, GM consortium, say the word. Basically, we get all the interested um governmental agencies in St. Louis County area that would benefit from uh aerial imagery together and try to split the cost in an equitable manner. And um so they've done this a number of times over the years and um they're proposing to do it again this year in 2026. Uh so they have reached out a representative with certex has reached out um regarding the city's participation in the program and uh it's a a nice thing to do. The the the out the the imagery is very helpful to have on hand for staff to use actually to use for projects for permitting reviews things like that. It's also good to have on hand just as archived historic data. um that in the future uh if we have up-to-date aerial imagery imagery dated to 2026, you can go back 10 years later or future and look at it and know situation was. So it has a lot of value from an archival standpoint. In addition, like to get um contours of the citywide uh area on top of the imagery. So that's even another step beyond um and the contours will be one foot contours. It's actually um a level that is suitable for engineering from um so it'll provide uh maybe can provide the basis for some of the work we're

doing potentially with these uh these storm motor bases. At least that's my hope. So this would be the time to do that if we were ever going to do it. and the we asked Serdex to provide us a cost to also get the contours from the project. So effectively the two together are around $14,000 total. Um like what I'd like to do tonight is ask for uh approval of my recommendation to authorize a contract with Certex or Bowman to do the aerial imagery plus the contours and just to give us enough uh flexibility in case the numbers change any I'd like to ask for uh basically 15,250 is a not to exceed amount and that would allow us to acquire the imagery citywide as well as the one foot contours citywide as well. That work would start um relatively soon with the flying because they like to do it in the wintertime, usually February, and then they will follow up with the um actual imagery and the contours later um in the fall. So, with that, I'll um wrap up if there's any specific questions.

Yeah. Um except for the one foot contour thing. Uh I mean the county has GIS, correct? GIS. So we have access to that too. But we have access to that too and we pretty much take that's our base layer that we use within our GIS application. So I get it could be useful for you know the storm water issue. Yeah. But um why do we it seems perhaps a bit redundant with the county for the rest of it? I don't know. You tell me.

Well, again, if we pay the money, we get them we get ownership of them and we can actually allow others to use them. We don't have that ability with the counties. We can we can look at their GIS data, but we it's not ours. Yeah. We don't have the direct ability to work with them like we would if we acquired them. You can't you can't use their information to do what's necessary for what you have to do with

So when we when we buy the images, you can actually load them into other programs. You can load them into CAD programs. You can put them in in the background of any kind of software that you like um because you own them. But with the county, we don't have that ability. So you have more flexibility to utilize them and work with them if you own them. So by paying we own them. Okay. And the one foot contour thing which seems like could be useful but if it comes down to actually designing water retention or something like that they're going to have to send people out or correct. Yeah. If we ever if we were actually

you're still going to send people out and survey a site and this won't be sufficient for that or will it? It depends on what you're doing. Um, for a lot of things, I think it would be um it would be satisfactory. Um, the the level of accuracy they're getting now from the aerial imagery is is much better than it used to be. Uh, in the old days, you would say, "No, it's not satisfied. It doesn't satisfy the accuracy that you need." But this is a 3-inch accuracy essentially and it's good enough that it would be use usable for most engineering purposes. Yeah.

So you you likely still would require to do a little bit of field survey to get elevations where you had critical points that needed very specific elevations, but for general grading it would work just fine. So this is it helps you out with your job. Oh yeah. It's a tool. Is it time savings? Obviously, it's a huge benefit of

having accurate data that you can have at your fingertips to look at when you have issues that need to be reviewed. Permitting is is one of the biggest ones. We can make this available to property owners to utilize for permits. It's one of the issues that comes up is when people are doing projects, we tell them we want an engineered plan and they don't like it because it costs money. Well, hey, we can help you out, folks. We have this imagery. We have this data. You can use it for free. It helps with HOAs, too. That question comes up a lot on what's going on. All right.

Cool question. So, do we know if the engineers or consultants or contractors that we use will accept this information or are they going to come in like sometimes people say, "Well, you have that, but we need to do it ourselves because we're the ones that are standing behind it and we need to make sure that we did it so the information is correct under them." And then if we give it to them, I mean, when they're bidding, I'm assuming they're taking that cost out. Like, if they're not doing it themselves, are they just still saying, "Here's a $10,000 bid." Even though they don't have to do that part. I mean, I'm hoping it would that it would be broken down that like, "Okay, now we're saving this much because you don't have to do that because we're giving it to you."

So, correct. It it would be um an item of work essentially that they would not have to do. Um, so in theory, you would save money. You wouldn't be paying a surveyor to go out and replicate that work you already have in hand. Again, they would have to make the judgment in terms of what they were looking at, what the project entailed, whether they need to do some additional very specific surveying, but typically, and that's that's not unusual, frankly. Um, on larger projects, you'll get your data from aerial photography, photoggramometry, and then you supplement it with field survey. That still could be the case here, but the accuracy is good enough that it's it's suitable for general grading and design. That doesn't mean if you're trying to design a storm water basin, you may need to still have a survey in the field to get specific elevations of a structure. That's that's still going to happen. But by doing this, you're reducing the overall efforts. You're saving money. Yeah. Yeah, the engineer would have to look at the project they're doing, make that determination of if it required supplementing and how much likely they really just depends on the project.

Anybody else? Mr. Marshall. So, because we didn't have this as we did the original budget, is there a way as we go through this that we could keep track so that next year we could say that this 15,000 up to $15,250 saved us $8,000 of labor or we were able to reduce the u bids that we sent out by $3,000 just to some way to categorize even say like speed, you know, does how does it speed up the process because sometimes we get that loop fewer people less money. I mean, I I think that a lot of these things with the technology would be a great way to track it. Not that we shouldn't do it now, but to then look forward and say, "Okay, that saved us 7,000 out of 15,000 we saved in direct labor on staff."

All right. I assume the answer is yes. Um to the degree that you can. I mean, the storm water basin project would be one where I think it could be used right there. Good. All right. I'll make that motion if there's no other question. Mr. Marshall makes a motion to accept. Mr. Ver uh seconds to go with the department [clears throat] recommendation. Uh all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Um that brings us to our Manchester pedestrian crosswalk repairs.

Council members, Farmer, this item was on the agenda last month and um I understood your motion correctly. wanted to come back to you with some options. Um we had a discussion uh that project we had this and a recommendation to go with Meyer Electric Company. They are bidding to replace the rapid rectangular flashing beacons at the three crosswalks on Manchester Road. Um, in specific the concern I think more towards we had two poles located at the three crosswalks that had been struck and I think there was concern about is it make did it make sense to replace those poles. So the one I know that we talked about was the crosswalk near Cherry's Hill Cherry Hills Meadows Drive. Um, that location there the poll in question was in the median And guess what I wanted to point out, we had that island struck again subsequent to your December meeting. So I think in every instance that island has been struck from the west. So it's an eastbound vehicle has struck the island. I don't know that the pole had it been there would have been struck necessarily this time, but nonetheless that island got struck and um some of the signs got knocked over. Now, we have put additional linator posts around the outside of that island to try to make it more visible. I think those were in place at the time of that most recent crash. So, I'm feeling much more comfortable saying I don't believe it makes sense to replace that poll in the median, which I think is what I suggested would be a reasonable thing at the last meeting. I just wasn't totally convinced of it. But I think with this last incident, I just didn't make sense. Now, what I wanted to clarify was when I say we wouldn't replace the one in the median, we would take the light and the signage

and it would move to the outside pole on the left. So, they would essentially still have the two installations per approach. It's just before we had one on the medium pole and on the right. Now, it's going to be on the right and the left side of the road. So, it's just to be clear, it's not Uh we still have a lot of the same signs, lights out there. It's just not in the medium. It's on the outside. Not going away. It's just It's not going away. Um anything else?

Well, the only other thing is the one the one at Shnooks. The thought there was that um we haven't done it yet, but the outside edge line, we can put some flexible delineators with poles that are about 18 inches high with they have flective tape on them. We could mount those along that edge line in advance of the crosswalk to hopefully make it more visible, prove the conspicuity of the location and then I think looking at that location too. So we were going to replace that pole on a new foundation. So the thought would be let's move it further away laterally. Um so I think by moving it away about three to four feet theory it should be less prone to being struck at that location. I don't think we've seen the history there. Um, but regardless, it would make sense and I think we'll have to look at it more carefully for sight distance to make sure there's no issues there. But if we can move it away from the road outside further two to three feet, maybe four feet even, um, in theory, it's going to be less likely to be struck at that location. So, those are the two suggestions um that I had for the other crosswall.

All right, any questions or concerns, Mr. Alers? Well, I thought we talked about maybe beefing up the bases of these things. So, these poles can't stand getting hit by a car, but if they had maybe a a heavy duty base where the pole went into, the car may take more damage than than the pole. Uh, and I didn't know if you were able to look at anything like that cuz, uh, it seems like this pole's going to repeatedly keep getting take it out of the middle of the road. I mean, theoretically, yeah,

I'm still thinking it might be proximity, but Okay, I swerve to miss that. I I'm just I'm just wondering if there was anything, but I kind of referenced that in the memo. So, could we build a foundation, a base that extends up that if it's struck, yes, we could do that, but you're kind of you're kind of going backwards there because you're essentially putting a hazard in the road on the roadside and that's that's really not what we should be doing. The poles are breakaway for a reason. We want them to break away.

You put a hazard out there, you're increasing a liability for the city. If somebody does hit it and they get injured, then you cause that accident. And I think you might have said, are the uh the people that are hitting these polls, are they getting charged for them? So when we Yes, that's that's the hope. When they have a police report, then we have the ability to investigate and um if especially if they have insurance coverage, then we go to the insurance company and we get reimbursement. Typically how the processes work out, we had something recently, wasn't a sign like this, but some damage to itish.

sign. Well, they're solar powered. So, but there's batteries. That's part of the project is we're

Is there not a device that when somebody knocks it over, it could give you a date and time and then you could go back to what the cameras say if the lights and things like that or I mean, it just seems to me that that's a lot of money and nobody wants to take them out and have people have car crashes there with abandoned somewhere some place in the world. Somebody selling something with driving your way the lineers coming up to the crosswalk that you were talking about. Um, are they on the right side coming up through the crosswalk?

So, yeah, perhaps I wasn't very explicit there. That's the Shnooks crosswalk. It's approaching from the westbound traffic. So, yeah, it would be on the right side as your bike is there a bike lane. There is an issue with the bike lane. It'd be on the outside of the bike lane. Yeah. Oh, okay. So, bike lane still has access. Yeah, that's the only question. Anybody else? Anybody care to make a motion? Mr. Bcker, I'll make a motion

to accept the department's recommendation. All right, we have a motion to accept the department's recommendation with this new plan. Anybody care to second? Second by Miss Nan. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Anyone um abstain? Anybody say no? Perfect. That passes. Okay. Uh, last one looks like I think here under public works is our federal funding application for bridge 3-107 on Wild Horse Creek Road. Chair, former committee members, this was in front of you last month. So, it's uh essentially the same recommendation. We did um determine uh in discussion with East West Gateway that bridge 3107 uh which is the structure we'd like to recommend for federal funding is eligible. And so we can submit the uh application with expectation that it will be considered. So tonight we are asking u we are making a recommendation a final recommendation to the committee to move forward with the federal funding application for bridge 3 107 on M Horse Creek Road. Um the numbers that we are looking at uh included in my memorandum essentially the total cost of the bridge structure is $1,120,000. Um, essentially we're going to ask for 80% of our costs to be reimbursed for construction implementation, construction engineering, and right away. So, um, all told, we're requesting $836,800 of the $1,121 $1,121,000. So um we did include three years of inflation at 4% a year I believe in those estimates. We also have a 10% contingency um incorporated into those numbers as well for the construction costs the estimates based on actual design because we do have some design plans in hand. So the numbers should be as solid as they can be at this point in time. So that is the recommendation to you tonight. Like to move forward. If you guys approve the recommendation, we'll

have it on the council agenda as a resolution for approval on Monday night. All right. Just as a question. This is a reminder that this is u currently programmed in the five-year capital. What this would be doing is not necessarily adding a project to the docket. This would be simply going after federal funds to lower the the actual hit on the city's pay. Mr. May just one question. Director The only bogey I see is easement acquisition that oil and a can are projecting based on history and that could go together or is it already a done deal the cost?

So we the actual acquisition I don't have really good numbers on the cost but I we have to get property owner easement u from St. Alvin's properties, which is the owner. Um I guess it's on the west side of the the uh if you're headed to the north, it's on the left or on the west side of the roadway. Um we had made a contact with them originally when we did the design and um my anticipation is that they would be cooperative and they might even donate the easement. Really can't speak for them, but I'm optimistic that that will be one that we should be able to acquire without too much difficulty. basically free lands. It doesn't have any value

just for scale, order, magnitude. Um what's the budget? And everybody wants to see it donated and it looks to me from the picture that on the map that it's going to be an incentive or it's going to be an attribute having a better bridge. Um have we got a budget for easement acquisition 60,000 or I think 50,000 right now in the budget. Yes, that's a nice number. A nice big number.

I think that's a more than enough. Um, but we don't have a, you know, we're not at that point where we have property appraisals or anything like that. So, it it remains to be seen for sure, but it uh for that shared path, shared usage walkway or pathway state road that took an awful awful long time because we had some holdouts, had people protest. We had to get we had to get arbitration boards involved. So, I just wondered how much that's going to throw a wrench in this if at all. We're not anticipating the same grief as we did for project.

It is one property owner. The uh intent with the project this point would be to limit it to that one property owner. That alone will obviously make it much simpler relative to Old State Road because we had I want to say about seven property owners on that project. I don't know the exact number about that. So that alone will make it much simpler. And again, I think that given the location, um, it it should be much much more simple and we do have time because we have the bridge largely designed at this be much better position to get through the rightway acquisition stage I expect on this project.

Manny,

uh, given you said 4% a year for three years, so we're talking 12%. obviously kind of didn't work out last time around with the roundabout at VA. Um unfortunately uh but um I realize that inflation is decreasing [snorts] but based on prior history it you know are you absolutely comfortable with the 4% for three years uh because I just don't want us I don't want us going in low and then having to go oh We should ask for more money as we got I mean we got the state's doing a lot of building. The feds are doing a lot of building. There's I mean there's a lot of pressure out there on construction projects or data centers and you name it, you know. And I'm just I'm a little fearful [laughter] that that that might not be sufficient. We should consider a higher number than 4% just to be safe.

Director, just interrupting, but the way I read it, I I read it as um quote 10% contingency and 4% annual inflation for three years, right? Yeah. Yeah. 4%. Yeah. For three years is 12%. plus

and I think I mean correct me if I'm wrong guys but like one of the real valuable lessons that we've learned with the roundabouts and the J turns and things is to do exactly this and try to get these things planned ahead. I mean, there's going to there there's always the possibility that something goof even goofier than normal will go on, which is what we ran into when the state decided to pave every road imaginable. And so that drove everybody's costs up on our end. But um I I do think that this is a really nice it's it seems to be as good as a way as we can do this at the moment in the most realistic way. I mean, I do think it's important however, you know, I think in agreement with Mr. Vanic on this that you know one of the drawbacks in some cases to going after this funding from the Fed or the state is it does start to alter our timeline on things. And so if that starts to get pushed or drift beyond our normal scope that we're talking about here, we probably want to try to find some kind of a trigger or whatever you want to call it that brings it back to the attention to go, hey, we approved this and we're in it, but this is what it's looking like. Because what at least I I learned through these last things is once we make this application and get it, they don't care if the price changes. It's up to us.

Um there was one time where it was done for Manchester Taylor, I guess. So I would just suggest and I don't know what that I don't know what that time frame is. I mean, I I think if we're approaching year three here and it we're still not doing anything, then we probably need to have some kind of another conversation, I guess. I don't know what it would be, but something. Um, all right. Anybody else or anybody care to make a motion to present this up to the council? Made by Mr. Mabry. Anybody want a second? Second by Mr. Marshall. All those in favor of accepting the department's recommendation on the federal funding block for the Wild Horse Bridge, please say I. I

anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. Uh I just wanted to add in the component and we've accounted for potential fluctuations in the construction market. But I also wanted to just point out that when you do the application for this funding, they're they are looking at that price if whether or not you're going to get approved. So that's just something we have to keep in mind too for any of the projects we want to go for federal funding is it's kind of finding the sweet spot between being realistic with the inflation numbers and the contingency u but also making our application competitive to the other fish the sea I suppose that are out there trying to get funds

at the end of day it is a competitive process so if you ask for more than you really need you may not get it at all so you don't want to be unrealistic you want to be as realistic as you can in your numbers yeah recent history, you know. Well, I would say on Old State Road, we did quite well. It's true. On on the roundabout, on the old state road shared project, we did quite well. So, we have that as well. On on the on the roundabout, on the roundabout, not so. I just

I would also just suggest it might be beneficial like when we're communicating these things out to the residents to kind of say, you know, effectively we're looking at we're looking at accepting federal funding which helps from a monetary sense, but then it also changes like our desired timeline sense so that people aren't under the impression that like as a city we just really want to hang out for four years waiting for this thing to happen. Um, that might not be a bad thing. Okay, I believe that brings us to the end of our public works section, unless there's anything else miscellaneous wise or anything you want to bring up, Rick. Okay, then, uh, without objection, Tracy, because you weren't here, we reconfigured some things. So, now we get to get to the really fun stuff. So, we're going to jump back up to the the admin side of things. Um, and we're going to um start with uh the Wildwood factual record policy. Um Tom, I don't know if you want to start this or you want me to or how you want to do it. Just let me know.

Uh I can let you kick it off, but I I guess I'd kick it off and I'll let you dive into it. But overall, the idea behind the factual record policy that the chair here was was kind enough to to put together. And this is more so a way of having a continuity of what is accepted. say whether it's a truth or it's more of a you know actually a great example is these federal applications for projects that we might have over the course of a four or five year timeline. U what studies may have gone in to apply for that funding whether or not there might be an agreement a supplemental agreement with an organization to fund it. Um those would be, you know, defined as the factual record because that's going to it's really a way to look forward and see what information binds the decisions in the future. Doesn't necessarily the council can always they always have the opportunity to vote no or yes, but more so highlights a way to accept certain figures or facts which could be we applied for that application and we're accepting that as part of the factual record. uh and it would kind of highlight in the future uh if anybody had a question of it of why we were doing it and it kind of a place to reference for certain council members especially if they're new to come in and be able to learn about where we're at with any given project. So it's kind of creating it's an interesting concept. It's kind of creating a timeline that over time will kind of develop and grow in its own thing. It's a little bit different than minutes because minutes you're just reflecting the the outcome whereas the council would be making a a very conscious decision through a consolidated process uh to define what exactly we want on this factual record. So I I know that's a little bit broad.

Yeah. So um one of the things this is kind of one of these pieces that is we've done a few of these other ideas over the year which is kind of a combination of things to solve a wider problem. So, um, for some of us that have been on the council for a while, this kind of conversation comes up a lot. We've had it with a waterfall. We've had it with sound studies. We've had it with fish farms. We've had it with anything imaginable. And usually what winds up happening is um, an item will come to the council or the committee. We will all vote to study whatever. We'll pay a bunch of money to have somebody come out and study it. And they'll go, "Here's the results." And then by the time that study has taken place, a couple of those people are no longer there. And then those people go, "Well, I don't like that study and I don't like that person, so I don't think that's I don't believe it or what whatever it is." And so the uh I went back in my history on the council and the amount of meetings I had to sit through talking about a waterfall and the air content coming off of it and however many studies we had made to figure that out

and who's the expert

and it was wild. It got semi-comical that we have a sound study person named Dr. Thunder and a water study person named Dr. Hammer and it all sort of seemed kind of farical and made up at a certain point. So the idea with this thing is as Tom said not at all to limit uh the opinion of a council member or to like factually alter how they may vote. As council members I strongly believe like it is my job to vote how I think is appropriate um for whatever reason. But it is important when it comes to I think wider debate or communication from the city when we have sometimes heated conversations that people can feel however they want to feel but these are in fact these are the decided upon facts that we are working from. We're all going to come to our own conclusion but we're going to jump off from the same diving board if that makes sense. That's the sort of general idea behind it. I'm happy to answer any questions or talk any further about it, but I went through a whole bunch of different meetings and looked at how this thing just keeps coming back and I would really love it to stop. So, there's that. I'll guarantee you we spent millions of dollars studying the same stuff over and over,

one question I have for I think this is fantastic. The challenge is how are you going to categorize those items? So, for example, we spent a year and a half arguing over the size of a riding arena on private property and where it could be positioned because it was a secondary use, but yet it was for Arabian horses and $100,000, but all of the studies that were done about how do you deal with that? But right now, unless you remember it happening, where do you go to find that? I mean, unfortunately, I guess Joe would be the only other one, but I I just think those are the things where and and we literally I know just in my years, there are some things we've actually had new council come in and we would spend $100,000 studying something that we did six years before.

So, there's no way that this isn't a great idea. Just knowing how and where those categories would be to try to determine the amount of money and time that was put into those projects. I don't know. I don't have an answer for But I just think it'd be fantastic to know.

So the general I thought about that a lot too. The general thought on this and I have another issue where this conversation has come up in a different way where this is a forward thinking idea that can also apply backwards. So the idea would be moving forward as a council we're going to endorse this plan. If Tom and the staff can distill down whatever items are out there on on a specific issue that may and maybe we wait until that issue comes up again and then they can look for it. But like sort of build a repository and then certainly they can bring those items to the council and go hey this was the you know this was the determined factor on the bat study for whatever the thing is over here. This is what we found. everybody like accepting this. Yes. So I think a lot of these things and my hope is I think there might be some times when these become more of a conversation piece but the hope is you know if we are expending time and energy staff time and energy and public funds to go get studies whether you like experts or not if we've vetted these experts and paid the money we should probably quantify what those findings are.

Regardless how you vote it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. just that that is the research that we paid for and we all can either agree or disagree to it. I think that's

and I mean you know selfishly as a council member you know I am I am a usually a very big fan of arguing facts over feelings but there are times when feelings went out and I I think that it is beneficial to the public good and the public understanding for people to say like I you say there's six horses in this ring that could be there and I think it should be eight and it's like well the answer is this and it's like well I don't think I like it but I'm going to keep saying eight and then the guy, whether it's Tom or Joe or Rick or somebody goes, I'm just factually stating the determinative number is this. So, you know, kind of like it's a little silly like when a judge goes, let's pretend we didn't hear you say that,

but it's going to call out those things so that we're we're just communicating the right set of facts as we understand them. That's not to say that something can't come up and we can change those things. I mean, I think the next part of that, and that's something I know Tom has brought up in terms of like the board action review that we put in place, like if somebody has a ve if a council member or whatever has like a real verifiable reason something is not right, by all means, bring that in and go, "Hey, I don't think this is right. This is why. This is what I think needs to be done." And then we can have that conversation instead of just stomping our feet and, you know, slamming doors or whatever it's going to be. Um, Mr. Alers,

um, if this was adopted, make sure I understand it right. Could you give an example of where it would come in play? Just just make some make. Yeah. So, I mean the thing that jumps out to me the most and it's and it's only because I mean I know that this was an impactful thing to the people that were in affected by it, but the amount of time and energy that we and money that we as a council spent on this waterfall situation

where we would have study after study that would say this is the amount of bacteria or whatever it was algae that is coming off of the top of this spray and this number falls below the threshold necessary to do And then somebody would go, I don't think that's true. We should study it again. What if the wind wasn't blowing the right direction? Temperature was wrong. Yeah. The air the air temperature wasn't right. Uh the sun wasn't shining correctly that day. Like whatever it was,

because what was happening at the end of the day, and you know, as I said, I choose to believe that the people affected by that did believe that they were having whatever health situations they thought they were having. But what was effectively happening is we were expending an enormous amount of time and energy and money to have one neighbor turn another neighbor's waterfall off which is not really our job.

And so this in a way would be able to say you can come up with another argument and if you want to try to get somebody else to go out and look at a different thing that's fine but the the amount of blue algae in this waterfall is this on this day. Yes ma'am. So if this if we do this which I think is fantastic and I especially think because new people or just if it was five years ago who can remember all the little details from everything would this be something that would be like if an agenda item comes up say the waterfall comes back would this be attached to the agenda like here's the fact so that everybody could see it ahead of time and review it and

exactly when it was last updated right according to this thing this is the this is the factual number that we have that is the that is the absolute food plan. So whether it's, you know, the waterfalls or fish farm, fish farm was another one that was super exciting and we're outing spirals on a propeller like

um so yeah. So anybody got any other questions, Mr. B? Uh I I have some real misgivings personally about this. Um for numerous reasons, but um it uh where do I [clears throat] start? Um I think I'm concerned about competing studies. You know, I mean, we pick one as a majority

of the council or committee. We pick this study, but there may be another study that disputes study A. And so, we're not to consider I mean, you as a council member can consider whatever you want, but the statement of fact is the committee selected the study and this is the answer. Yeah. so we can bring it up or we can still discuss it as a city council meeting. You're not prevented from discussing it or bringing up other minority opinions or are we are we just going with majority rule here, Mr. Bar?

So, if I understand it correctly, it's the facts we know today. That doesn't mean the facts tomorrow can't change and be brought in. Correct. It's really to your point, Tracy, like here's what we know or here's what we knew then. And it's a kind of a look back or a library of here's everything that's happened. So I kind of agree with what you're saying, but things are going to change over time. It just gives us a opportunity to kind of look back and say, "Yeah, but why can't we do that right now? Why can't we go back and Well, because we don't have any. There's no determining policy. You don't keep those studies. We keep you keep everything. But here's the difference. So why not? Because it doesn't because we have them doesn't mean we're

people don't listen to them. And I would almost say that like it's how I'm kind of looking at it is it's like a fact is a word too, but it's almost like this whatever item it might be, there's an understanding per this this factual record that sits over here that the council has agreed that this has been I hate the word accepted here, but accepted as a truth for the council. We're going to base our decisions off this. Doesn't mean anybody can argue it. They could say, "Hey, that's wrong." And then if a majority of the council agrees, then we change then vote and then we change that factual record, too. It would be like a accepted truth of the council to use as a basis for decisions. But it's at that point in time.

Yeah. At that point in time, it could be ch I mean, that's the thing. It could be changed. Like you could think of it this way, like we do traffic studies and stuff all the time. And so a traffic study might say, "Hey, there's 8,000 cars that drive down this road this day, right? That would then be the stated fact." And then a person could go, well, we've made we've built this many houses or or we've done whatever it is, and so I'm not I'm not sure that that number is correct anymore. I'd like to study that again. Yeah. And then they can bring up the fact that they would like to study it again rather than say there's 15,000 cars that go down that road, which is what winds up happening. And to Tracy's point, and that agenda, that will be referenced and then we know, right? Yep. And then you can go

today, we would just say, well, there's 15,000. Here we go. Okay.

Yeah. So, like to me, if we were to go if this was like on a road issue, let's use like Old State because that's a bit So, if on the next agenda item and we're going to do something on Old State and it goes we did I know this isn't true. We did the last traffic study in 1989 98 then all of us would go understand that was the number in 1998. But we're not starting this conversation until we get new information on this thing because clearly that kind of information isn't right. Whereas, you know, if it's some other, you know, this is the number of whatever something that doesn't ever change. We're we just go with that information as it goes forward. The idea is really and this is kind of how we started the meeting is you know while we are now starting to see term limits and things come in the turnover on the council is becoming greater and so the information transfer portal has to exist. That's not to say that future councils can't change some of this stuff or do whatever but the work that we do on these things because many of these projects take so many years to figure out. we have to be sure that we are at least all starting from the same place. However, we want to go from there is our own individual opinions. Um but I think it's important to say um you know this is a this is a statement of fact that we are accepting based on this amount of money that we have spent because the way our city functions from a consultant basis, we expend an enormous amount of money on these things and if we're not going to listen to any of them, we should probably stop doing that. change it. It's just

that's just my I think the other the other issue that that would change a little bit maybe help

is the fact that when we come in and we do a study that study is used by that particular department then there's new council people come in and they have a different in in idea of what it should be or or whatever and then we immediately make a motion in a meeting to have staff go and do this study And it it takes all the people off the staff to do a study that was done two years before, but nobody stopped that motion to say, "Hey, wait a minute. We just did that." And that's I I I could list 10 or 12 of those projects where why did we do that? Well, because they made a motion and the staff had to turn around, drop everything they're doing to do another study or go contract this or hire this consultant.

Nobody brings up Nobody brings up that it was just done two years ago. See, I that's what city staff is for, I thought, you know. Well, it is, but you have to let them tell you that. We We've We've had councils and mayors who wouldn't even listen to that. What if the staff changes? This should be beneficial to you as well, right? Yeah. It should function all over the place. It's like a library of

it's a library. It's a reference reference point. So, everyone's at least because the thing is if you're looking even if let's just picture it as like this book, you know, it's a factual baseline and you know, someone has a question. Well, the council accepted this as a fact, you know, back in 2025. Um, and the number was X. And an individual goes, well, I don't I don't think it's X. Well, okay. And they get somehow gets on the agenda. At that point, you can say, hey, I disagree with this number because I think it's just wrong or I think it should be higher. And well, that we just did that study a year ago and the staff would advise. That's where insert staff's recommendation. It's only been a year. Maybe u this thing should be kind of put on ice. to kind of push the information out, if you will, versus kind of letting the discussion guide itself. Uh, but overall, I think it would be helpful just in day-to-day. Uh,

there are things that will change constantly. Yeah. But, but at the same time, you'll know that the state controls that stuff. So, before we go spending more money, find out, you know, who who's going to control it. And we I just think that we really this would be a really great step forward to be You're never going to catch it all. No. But yeah, I mean

I think it'd be interesting. I think a lot about we spent we also spent a lot of money doing like a sound study out here and when we did the study we came back with the results the results seem to universally make sense to everybody and then the recommendation from the consultant was you know the best course of action that you can take as a city is to not just keep but try to extend these bio berm soundwalls like the trees and whatever going up there to to cut down on roads and um you know there was a discussion about well the people that live in Bright Leaf are being impacted by the sound we should put a sound wall in and do that and number one that's disregarding the first part of the study number two the highway was here before the people were so that was and so instead of that making like to me those are kind of like logical steps where it's just like I get If sure if it was free and we could do it great but we spent all this money and we spent all this time this is what we said how about we leave the trees in it I think it will help because there is I mean I even know for myself and you know Ed you have are and have been here longer than I have and have served in a different role at mayor but in almost every council that I've served on even ones that maybe did not really see eye to eye on a lot of stuff it's kind of difficult sometimes to like say I you know I want want this person to get the information they need. So, I'm going to accept this argument that isn't real just so that we can move on to other things. And this, I think, can kind of help give a tool that says, hey, you know, maybe we'll do another study, but you know, this study's two years old and most of us think it's okay. Um, that's the but the main goal, as Tom said, is just to have a repository of like factual stuff. Yes, sir.

Yeah. So yeah, it concerns me a little bit that a vote of 9 to seven establishes back um you know with seven people voting against what number doesn't concern you? Yeah, but just what's that? What number doesn't concern? Well, I'm just saying that a simple majority accepting fact at one point in time uh it just it bothers me that you know somebody not showing up for a meeting um changes the outcome. But that's always going to happen.

That's always going to happen. But do we want that in stone going forward? That's but you're saying it's not in stone but I I I hesitate. Well, I guess my question would be if what if the number was 15 to1 is that you give it's it would lend more credence to the decision I would but not to the one person it wouldn't. No no and the minority in our form of government their opinion should be respected. I've been to one or two no voters on a lot of stuff. I mean, you don't have to vote, but I mean, you have a right to represent your war city. Absolutely. I just think that's part of what you know what your role is. Yeah. I hesitate to bring everybody doesn't do that. I agree.

Yeah. I hesitate to bring this up because it's recent history and a lot of lot of uh very strong feelings about it. But the drone issue, how do you perceive perceive if we had had this in place, this [clears throat] policy place? Right. Going up to this last question about should we do the drone survey? How do you see this affecting that discussion or that outcome?

Well, I think they're kind of they're a little bit of two different things. So the first thing would be leading up to the study the the question is the question that was asked is or I guess the statement that was made was people felt that there was a different number of deer than what the scientific study was saying ostensively.

Sure. So if we have a statement of fact that says you know the position of the city because this is the data that we have paid for and the process that we've had accepted is this is the number of deer it is it falls within this range you are free to have whatever opinion you want to have on it but the stated fact from the city is this that then would instill allow somebody to go well I have some concerns and I think that we should do uh I don't like the methodology that you know it's not just like I don't I have a concern I think that number is incorrect. Here is my method to fix it. It would be let's get a drone study going. Okay. You make that motion at the meeting. That [clears throat] me that motion either passes or fails like as it normally would. What the motion then becomes in terms of this is this is not a new it it is technically in that case I guess a new deer count but it is to validate or invalidate the number that was the original number and so as that played out Tom help me out. What did that study do for us?

It validated it was within the range. It locked that number in. So now we have a double validation on it and then we get to go okay so we had a number. We all said this is the number. We had a concern. We vetted that number. That number held up a second time. Now, as a council, we're going to say in theory, I guess this appears to be the number. And now that statement of fact becomes we can argue about whatever elements of this we want, but the number of deer is what the number of deer is.

Yeah. Another thing on that same topic is that what that speaking of the range what that can truly do for this specific instance is that you did the extra study then came in and showed that it was at let's just say in this case it was 42 and the other study showed there was a range between I think it was about 34 to uh all the way up to about 90. The council's then accepting that range if it's validated. But then the other side of it is that the council would be then accepting also that what is the floor which it would be the more important piece there is what is the number that the minimum that it could be and now you've got two different data sources with the range showing that your minimums this I think it was 34 and then the other one is now showing the conservative the most conservative was 42

the council can decide which of those two they would like to decide on as the base okay so uh my concern is that this policy passes that It it's an enormous fire hydrant of cold water on the minority. This is the facts. Facts are these are the facts. Okay.

And whether they're 97151, however came out on the vote, it is the fact and it it quells it silences to some point the minority opinion and that concerns me. And uh uh there was something else I was wanting to say here. The um I'll think of it later. It doesn't preclude the minority from being heard though, right? So like I guess that's my people are going to be hesitant.

What disputed to to be concerned to bring because for me personally if you don't you don't mind. Uh good.

Yeah. the um the uh survey, you know, confirmed what we thought, but but it did bring out some interesting things for me that I was unaware of. And I think just just that alone for me was totally worthwhile and that was the non-participation certain land owners and certain homeowners associations and the process and how [clears throat] the deer are con, you know, concentrated in these areas, but yet wild buffalo wanted to go into areas that were previously cold and take out more deer, which just didn't seem like to me at the time. That why are we calling from an already thinned herd when we should be a when we really want to go into those dark purple areas and thin thin in there, but we can't get in there. So it's a huge to me it was it was

to me that's eye opening to me to me though that's two different things because what you're saying is the sec the study the the argument that is being made originally is this information is incorrect. Sure. What you are saying if I'm hearing this correctly is that information was not was not in fact incorrect. You just now have a different interpretation of how that information needs to be utilized. Yeah. So it was worthwhile the state but it doesn't change it that that while I appreciate I mean and I'm not putting I'm not at all putting this on you. I'm just using this as an example. Sure. Well I appreciate that that is helpful for you to get that information. Oh yeah.

And I voted to get do the drone study. I don't think it should cost the city 10 grand to you for you to figure out that the numbers were right in the first place. But or how you want to use them. but had brought out other points that were useful, I think, for people within the council to come to the [clears throat] decisions that they made. Right. Well, see, part of that though is, and this is where I think it's so important, is this isn't new to the city. We've been dealing with this for 28 years. That's right.

And we know that people have a right for their own property. We know that anybody can hunt in Wildwood on three acres. So, I mean, some of the basic things have never changed, but the perception is, oh, you don't allow this, you don't allow that. It's not our land. It's the homeowner's land. So, when they won't sign for somebody to do it, that is nothing the city can do, and the city's not going to go in and change anything. But how effectively are we going to reach our goals if we can't What I would say though, because let's try to keep it to the just the basic numbers. So, what I would say with this in this case, Jim, is like for you, rather, and I'm not saying that you did this, but I'm just saying rather than a council member go, I don't I think these numbers aren't right.

Right. I know, but I'm just saying that that has happened more times than I can count. And so, that's not right. Okay.

What this answers is this is the number we're going with. If you if now the question would be, hey, I have thought that are deer evenly I'm just keeping using the deer thing. deer evenly placed throughout these areas because we're using averages and this average range is this thing or there are some places where there might be no deer and some places where there might be whatever was the high number like 150 deer or something. Okay, so that to me is not a question of is this amount of deer incorrect. It is I don't understand as a council member how these deer are do like does somebody move does a deer go from your front yard to my front yard? No, but very few people are deer experts. So maybe so the idea is not to think of this genuinely not to think of it as hey I have I have some questions about these numbers. is just to say, I get that you're saying that there are 42 deer here and we started there, but does that mean there are 42 deer everywhere or does that mean all of the deer live here, which nobody can go to anyways because this specific homeowner won't let anybody in?

Sure. Um, so I that's the way I'm looking at this is it's not it's really not at all designed to quell the minority or different opinions or anything else. It's just to say let's make sure everybody's asking the right question because a lot of times the default question is just well I don't think that number is right so I'm not going to believe but you could trend it over the years you know as to what works doesn't work and that kind of stuff. So I just think having it someplace and I don't think it'll ever change the votes. I mean I think people will vote the way they want to vote and what their constituents want them to vote for. But when it comes to how we're spending staff time and how we're trying to chase things, then I think that becomes a big big waste of money for for the city.

All right. So, we've talked a lot. Anybody else have any questions, concerns, or care to make a motion to proceed forward? I'll make the motion if I could just ask one question after I make the motion to move that forward. Sure. How long will it take to get something started like that? I mean, I guess we could start going forward. going forward it should be immediately and then I think I think going backwards my general suggestion would be to sort of triage it where like if we have something coming up then you know the staff can try to go backwards and go this is the information that we have um and if that happens to be like a very easy thing to do and they can just or if the staff's cleaning out a drawer for a project happened 10 years ago yep put it where it should be and then Yep. Exactly. So I make the motion to move forward.

Second it. Can I make one more comment? Sure. Um, I really look at it as a such a tool because when you're new on council and you guys aren't haven't been around that long, start to talk about like, hey, what do we think? And you know, who can remember these facts and figures and the history of it and how many years and it's just like a research library for people to not not necessarily listen to people, not that they're trying to, you know, make up anything on whatever the issue is. But this way it's just like there it is in black and white and it's not an opinion of someone else. You're not being swayed by someone either way on any issue. Yeah. It just is. It just is. There it is. And then you decide. Then you go from there and figure out.

And years ago before we had all of our electronic communications, a new person would come on council and welcome. Here's a foot and a half paper for you to read about this vote that we're going to have on to on Monday night. So, it it was massive trying to make sure that nobody was ever expected to make a vote on something that they didn't have all the same information on or just abstain, you know. All right. So, Mr. Marshall makes the motion. Miss Nan seconds it. You're good. All right. All those in favor of moving this forward, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Mr. Vanic. Any abstensions? Okay. That we will add one little item.

Yes, sir. Uh thank you, chair. I just wanted to add that it is uh the searchable and identifiable like library that is something we're going to have to do some some digging on. Right now we have our um our our iCloud that we have all of our information stored on digitally but we are going to have to kind of explore a way if we want to have a true searchable kind of master hive mind if you will. I think that's a goal over time. I would say right now it's like if somebody has a question and they ask you guys like I think it's probably pretty easy for you to get whatever the last traffic study on Thunderhead Canyon was. Okay. So that you know what I mean? Yeah. Or you know what is what is the uh you know what was the deer count? Yeah. Okay. It would this

and then and then so the idea would be my my thought would be as we go through the process like whatever our next study thing is that we wind up doing as part of accepting the study like we do we want to accept the factual record. We are accepting it well it is if you if you are accepting this study you are accepting it into the factual record. Okay that makes sense. The minutes right? Yes. Y and even though it's, you know, that study is for information, there still is an action there because you're accepting that as as we paid for it. It's the proof we're

we have to do that all the time. Anyway, so then, so that's those one of those things, Jim, I would say like when it comes whenever that study comes back, if there's somebody that has like legit concerns about it, that's when you say, I I am not accepting this study. And I mean, you Supreme Court for like whatever reason he was signing an opinion.

Yeah. But it's just like so so the odds are that you know that could wind up being an you know 8 to 7 or whatever it is and that's fine but like it's still this is until this changes this is the statement of fact from the city kind of a thing. Um all right so excellent. Okay that brings us to uh the procurement integrity and role separation policy. Um, you want to take this one for a little bit so I can my voice just

Okay. So, this is also an item uh we had recently reviewed our our and updated the city's purchasing policy, but uh the idea behind the is more so of a a way to help ensure transparency and overall the integrity of the city's procurement process, especially for more high-profile and larger that are being made. So something that, you know, maybe has federal funds tied to it. Uh maybe something that, you know, we're spending a good deal of taxpayer funds. Uh just adopting some supplemental rules that would go along with it. Uh we do have this does not at all would not at all nullify any of the city's current purchasing rules or policies. The way we did break it out, we currently have RFPs, RFUS, um, and then bidding for and they each one is different on how you grade those proposals. But what this is really doing is more so identifying better process for who's actually bidding on the project itself and how they interact with both elected officials uh, and staff in general. I mean there are uh you know individuals that express interest in doing something but until the RFP goes out that's when usually the iron curtain comes down if you will and you know strict adherence to the RFP guidance and the document and the purchasing rules that kicks into place. Um, and then if you're preparing to be an active bidder, uh, what this hopefully can do is, you know, help really clearly identify the rules for anybody that would be looking to possibly bid on a project with the city. And if they are wanting to do that, then they would have to just ensure that they are not trying to sway a vote or an opinion in one way or another for their p specific contract or hey, you should put a bid out there. So it's it's kind of defining the difference between you know self-promotion and uh just general

advocacy for an issue.

So so this kind of came up although it didn't come out of here. We had that kind of weird situation with the S and cabin where like we got a bid and we accepted the bid and then we had to reject the bid and then do a different bid and a different thing came in because there was some complaint and blurring of some lines. And so what this in theory should do is to give us as elected officials, but specifically you know Tom and his staff the tools to very clearly lay out for somebody, hey this is kind of the point in time where we can you can do this but not so much this. So it's a little bit like the idea would be like what we have where you know as residents of the city we get to speak with about whatever we want but as elected officials we don't. So it helps to define for a person like hey you can you can say this however you want to say it until this kind of line in the sand has been crossed and then by doing that you're kind of contaminating the backside of this thing. So what what we don't want to have is what happened with the cabin, which is everybody does all this work and accepts all this thing and then it's out the door all of a sudden and we get to go all over again. Um so it is a it is a kind of it is a sequence of events where this should hopefully make this process more clear and and give people a better and more under a better understanding when they're coming to the city with possible business arrangements. Yeah. And I think uh you know just going back to that cabinet item I mean it was this would help more so govern you know in that instance there was we we bid the project followed the process to a te u but then when it got to the committee there a vendor did come in and they they wanted to speak on the item and public comment opens that door. I mean you have to allow anybody to speak. Uh but then

you know them proposing the information on it it made the the whole process somewhat nullified. So we did end up cancelling and rejecting all bids and then rebidding the project. But uh to try to avoid those types of instances in the future, this would better identify who can talk about that spec. It wouldn't necessarily mean that person can't come and speak about, you know, another thing that's going on in the city. If you're coming to speak on, you know, the procurement process and the bid process we just had, you can't come public comment and say, "Except my bid because X, Y, and Z, and I'll I'll do X, Y, and Z for you." That that would be considered forbid in this case. Doesn't necessarily restrict them from saying whatever. But it could give the council a better tool to identify, oh, this person has been an advocate for that issue in the past, at least 12 months preceding,

right? Um, so Anybody any questions or concerns or care to make a motion? A motion. All right. Uh, you want to motion to push the policy forward? I assume what's written here? Yeah. All right. Purpose, let me read it for you. Motion to recommend adoption of the procurement integrity and RO separation policy by the full council. So motion to move it up, I guess, to next week or whatever. All right. Made by Mr. Mabry. Anybody care? Second. Second by Mr. Alers. Any discussion, questions, concerns? I guess my question is how many folks have read chapter 145 of the city code? I imagine not very many.

I think you should put that link in there in in the going out to the council just so that they understand it is very basic, but I just proved the point. Most people have never looked at it. So all of the ethical parts about what we're supposed to do and you know some of the other stuff with council people you can speak for yourself but you don't speak for the city. So I mean there's a lot of basic stuff I just think we have a tendency not to remind ourselves and get caught up in but I think it's a good example in two or three of these where it does refers to 145 but many people haven't never looked past. So we can do that call. Anything else? All right. All those in favor of pressing this forward to the council please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, next up. Oh gosh, I lost where we're at. Um, next up is the C admin contractor bid. Oh, no, it's right. That's right. [clears throat] It's PIO. Back back up. Yeah, procurement integrity. No, that's that's right. Procurement integrity and RO separation policy. Oh, no, no, we just did that. We just did that. We're at procurement integrity override. Procurement integrity override. I'm sorry. The cold is starting to rain on me. I apologize. Um, D under admin.

Yeah, I'm evaluation. Um, Tom, you want me to give a heads up on this one or you want to do that one?

I can off when necessary. Uh this is kind of tied with the the other policy of the role separation but a little different um in the sense that it's still we're dealing with the procurement process and more so the purchasing uh policy. Uh and luckily I we did just do a review of the purchasing policy. So this is some that's somewhat recent. Uh that said, the PIO specifically goes in and if an issue, it really is more so calling an issue if it's of significant importance. It's a contentious issue. We have an open house on something before we vote on it and ton of people show up and it's obviously getting a lot of u attention, let's just say, and there's a lot of eyes on it, then uh the city administrator, myself in this instance, would be able to kind of stamp that situation like, hey, we're about to go through a procurement process for doing X, Y, or Z that's getting a lot of attention. think we should take special special conditions when going through the actual purchasing pro process for that specific thing. So it would potentially involve um using thirdparty evaluators using a department that may not be associated with that project or run point on it. Maybe you know you get an evaluation submitted from the parks department when it's public works department only if it's absolutely necessary. The other one is establishing you know in those cases if there's a firewall between potential uh potential biders and the individuals that would be accepting u which would be the city in this case and then really I mean the big one is this is somewhat included in our current RFP documents but it would make it exhaustive and straightforward of disclosing if you're if you're a propos if you're about to submit a proposal to the city u and this has been inacted for that specific RFP process. You would need to affirm that, hey, I have advocated for something very similar to

this in the past. Just it's a disclosure and disclosing that I am tied to this, but that said, still want to bid on it. Doesn't necessarily mean you can't bid, just more so for straightforwardness and having it directly included when the council does go to do the review. Um, they're able to see that information clearly and make it as concise as possible so everyone can have that in front of them at the actual meeting. I kind of think of it a little bit like um like a lobbyist disclosure like you know hey I I was I said that I helped on this thing and now I'm going to bid on it you know like we again it kind of goes a little bit back to the cabin issue where where that

sort of occurred. So the idea is to try to [clears throat] insulate that as much as possible and just get as much information in front of the council as we've talked about is you know because somebody might not be here in two years when some bid is put out and they aren't going to have any idea. Um so it's just defining those specific things and and giving Tom and the staff uh the ability to go we probably want to put a little bit more of a finer point on this. Um I we had a little bit of this conversation. You probably will call this Tracy with the like with the trash company. Like there was some it's always stuff like that usually with the big things. So So having some real clear lines on what is actually good information to have for that is important I would say. Um sorry Tom I kind of cut you off. Anything else? Um, no, that's really more so just like a good one would be like the trash uh bidding process. I mean, that is a thing that affects the entire city. Obviously, it did have huge ramifications for the city and this would be calling that out ahead of time. That might even be just a standing item that would get the extra attention, but it's more so just an acknowledgement, if you will. And there will be there's a couple small supplementary things that you can add in to make that review a little bit more transparent and and uh, you know, just more forwardlooking. But that said, it doesn't necess it doesn't necessarily change like our RP document. It's more so just calling out being extra careful. That's the best way I could say it is that you're going in and going with fine tooth comb when instances need to be when it needs to be done because whether you've got a whole room of residents that are very much in favor or opposition, maybe it's half and half, something that you just want to make sure you treat with delicacy. Um there's a couple ideas on how to do that whether it be through public meetings or Q&A sessions for them or um doing actual rebid meetings. We do those quite often for our larger projects. Um

and then also just establishing the firewall the kind of communication firewall between proposers and the individual making the decision and also the evaluators which is typically the staff or consultant. All right. Anybody have any questions, concerns or care to make a motion? Did have a question? Yes, sir. a dollar amount that it'd be beneficial to assign a dollar amount to it. I mean, you don't want to be doing this for thousand dollars. I No, no. I mean, be able to say what that gap is that would I would own this. I mean, just to keep things kind Maybe what we do is we tie that to that kind of growing number or the that the CA can just put on his own. I mean, they're going to bring small things back, but I just added to this that's kind of less of a concern than the bigger stuff

to say up to the city administrator's cap or something. Does does not have to go through this process or would not be that makes sense because that way you don't nickel and dime yourself on you'll spend more time trying to track it than it is to that makes sense to me that is current just a reminder everybody that is currently 20,000 we changed that recently uh but that said it it we also included a provision that says that that will be adjusted based off the CPIU on January 1 which actually will be published soon that number this it'll be 20,000 this full year but then next January when we have the first full year of CPIU worked in that number will be adjusted automatically and we could even come back with the

and I wouldn't put the dollar amount there. I would just refer to the cap administrator. That way you're not changing it. I you can put the footnote down that the way we're going to do that is based on the the increase on a regular basis. But I wouldn't put a dollar amount specifically in there because then you're going to have to go back and update that ordinance on a regular basis. Just use the reference as to what the capus wrote down. It would be easier. Yeah. I mean I only I mean I'm I agree but I'm just asking since you like that's your thing Tom like is there a as the city administrator is there a different threshold that you feel like would be more appropriate? Yeah. I mean, I think uh typically that this automatically gets implemented or still has

what? No, like if like like I'm [clears throat] just trying to I'm thinking like if we were going to redo the cameras or whatever in here and let's say it was going to be $6,000.

Is there a reason or like a p a pattern that you can see that you would go, hey, you know, we this thing needs to apply maybe less on maybe it's less on a dollar amount and more on a subject or something like that. I think that having that uh that ability is important because you just never know what's going to happen with with anything come up. I mean, we could have an individual, you know, there could be a resident that happened, it's a Wildwood resident, but they own a company and they're, hey, we want you to do this thing and it we have something that might be you might be solicit uh going out to bids for something similar and that I agree. I think having discretion for subject matter would be important.

So, could we do you think it could we could put in there um the limit your the CA's spending limit y but also offer the CA discretion to apply it otherwise. Yeah, I would I mean I I think that's some of the gray area that are things that we don't usually think through and then we get back saying well do we or don't we? Right. I So I mean I just think that we need to know how you want to use it and I I understand what you're saying by different ones but I could give you the names of people that oh you need sound barriers and I happen to sell those. So I mean part of that is is it a dollar amount or or do we still go through our standard procurement stuff

uh that that we would and then so then anything uh above your limit has to do this otherwise it becomes a discretionary yeah just apply it if it's city administrator yeah I think if we if we want to put that for I mean I don't think that's bad thing if we wanted to have this uh applied I mean a lot of this stuff is pretty pretty uh forward and we have a lot of this in our uh RFP documents currently, you know, just kind of going through some of the just bullet points here. I mean, so the staff would have to be doing the same thing for things that they didn't run by you initially.

Yeah, I mean depend it depends on the instance. If it was if it's if we're going to say it's for it has the discretion. I guess the big difference here is is there the discretion still there or anything over that 20 cap or the cap that automatically goes through this process. If it's if it's that then there may be some additional steps added. But I would just try to explain it here so that you don't end up getting into an argument with all the council members about who's managing the staff and then what those dollar it'll happen, you know, and I mean we've seen it happen before. So just some way to clarify what the intent is um or if we need to do more time thinking about it. I don't know. I just

I mean to me the idea this is kind of one of those things where it's not an ordinance. It's just going to be a procedure. The idea is not to pro like if somebody the idea is not to preclude anyone from being able to do anything. It's just to make a declarative fact about that. Yeah. So I think to it makes sense to me that you could just say hey you know globally speaking anything over any contract over the city administrator's threshold we have to have a statement of basically yes or no on on these kinds of things. And then you know I would say I would be comfortable saying you know the city administrator can say hey on this thing I think although it fall it falls under the threshold I would like to have this.

Yeah. Um or I would think it would also enable any council member at some point to go I great let's do the bids but I'm I have a concern I would like to just have these this done and because I don't really think it's a big like it doesn't unless I'm misunderstanding the process and how it would play out I don't know that it's like an enormous chore to to do that to go you know hey I came like you know somebody could in theory not that you've have done this, but we had our hot dog conversation ahead and you I don't care. I could be fired. You could be fired. Um, good with that.

You know, but it's the kind of thing where like somebody might go, "Hey, I would just like I just like the record to show that Mr. Marshall does work for the Lions and he is cooking the hot dogs and [clears throat] he's just giving them away. Nothing."

Yeah. And I would define that working a little bit better because you probably wouldn't want to eat anything I did. So, um, I just think that and I I understand that. I'm saying that these are so important, but sometimes we get so hung up in we think we all have it laid out and we just don't stop to think about the practicality and how it's going to be operating. So, I don't have a problem with it. I just think trying to explain to people both vendors and staff team, what do you want them to do? And and I know it will pair right in with the procurement side. Um I just we have examples of where it became a knockdown dragout argument over something. So

right well maybe then what we I mean we can I guess we don't have to push it forward tonight. We can bring it back with a little bit deeper thing or we could bring it back if if as a committee we generally like the concept we can bring the deeper level back because it's going to have to have that full level thing. Anyways, part part of this thing that is going on which I we've mentioned in the past is we're trying to get to a place where um we're working on an item and parks and planning is working on an item and this kind of is one of those things that you know applies to everybody. So theoretically we could pass something out of this and if it doesn't if that if this part doesn't appear in the full council meeting because it's not quite there that's okay. It can then go to parks and planning and they can hammer some of those things out. They might have a different perspective on that stuff. Um yeah, I don't it's not an ordinance. I mean, we're not all we're doing here is putting procedure together. So, I'm fine with that. I just I just think as you try to do it with all those different departments, we need to be able to explain it. I agree a little bit. You may have to explain that Monday night if somebody asked the question.

I would I would say maybe we do just set it aside just for not set it aside, but have it redised on u the next at the next committee meeting. Possibly pass it over to Planning and Parks too if that's what the committee desires. But to really go back and just maybe deeper bank the intent, the full intent um how it would be operationalized by each department. But let me ask you this question. Theoretically, if this thing were enacted globally tonight, what would you do with it? Would you be comfortable in your role being able to wield this tool or would you be like, I don't know what I'm doing with that yet?

Yeah. I mean, yes, because at the end of the day, the current this current policy has that discretionary piece. So, it would be more so me kind of keeping an eye or like you had mentioned, if a council member is at, you know, we're about to go out to bid for something, a council member says, "Hey, I just think we need to pay extra attention to this. I or don't I want to look at this extra?" All right. Well, that's that would you take that input and there's enough folks that are saying that then we would apply it. I think I mean the main keys here uh and we do a lot of this already. I mean at the end of the day the strict adherence to the published scoring criteria that's we always publish that with our RFP documents. Um the one difference is we did and maybe this is where we can get into the more details. Um when we updated our purchasing policy before we didn't have it defined the difference between an RFP and RFB u and a request u uh for qualifications. that was a little strange just because when we were going out to uh when we get quotes from engineering firms to to do consulting work uh that process wasn't as clearly defined and it almost treated it as like it was a bid which is a totally different process even under state statute. So that was really good that we updated it. What this what we're we're kind of piggybacking on and where this becomes important we already use standard scoring criterias depending on what it is thing that we're looking at. Usually for bids, it's going to be price and overall experience. But looking at the overall experience is something we always put at the top of what we're grading on. U I think the the more important thing though is and when this is needed is requiring disclosure if you've been advocating for individual causes that are similar to what we're bidding on if it's associated with it. So you you could personally benefit uh from a policy decision that was made in tandem to this. and also the firewall that also is already established per the charter. Once a bid is out and published, u proposal people that a vendor like the person that signs the bid should not be contacting council members directly uh to lobby for their

to approve their their proposal over another. Uh they can usually contact one associated individual with the department which is assigned in that that RFP document. Uh, sometimes it's myself, sometimes it's Rick if it's a public works item, sometimes it's Brendan. Um, if it depending on what we're bidding on. Uh, that those things are already kind of happening. What this would do is just be more of an acknowledgement that hey, we're going to go through an extra special uh procurement process here. Just putting a little bit more a light on it. All right. So, Mr. Marshall, you still want to make the motion to push it forward or you want to change it or what would you like?

I'm fine moving forward. I just think that we have to realize that it's very hard for people to understand what you're going to try to do because when you get down to uh the whole thing with the firewall, an elected official doesn't know to tell you not nothing and you pick you don't know who it is you're caught talking to. But that burden should be on the vendor, but also there ought to be some accountability with the elected official to understand I hear what you're saying, but you know, I'm not the decision maker here. I'm one of 16. Yeah.

And I think that the kind of stuff I think really struggles for new council people to understand what role you play or as you said, Jim, the minority doesn't have their it's all there. It's just how do you want it to be implied. So I I think it's a good step forward and I I but I think it's got to be one where you're going have to get into the other departments as well. Uh, one of the questions I would have then is when we start talking like the with different because we use so many consultants, we have to be really guilty of oursel using the same consultants over and over and then we see a bid price come in over or way off. We just jump back around say well we've used them forever. Well, that's that's exactly you know we have a rel we let the relationship drive our our better business sense in some cases. I know the qualifications all work, but for the few people that we're dealing with vendor wise, there's they all meet those qualifications or they wouldn't be in business most generally. I'm fine with making a motion that we move it forward without council. I just think you're going to have to do a better job of explaining it to the council.

You got it. All right. Motion made by Mr. Marshall, [clears throat] second by Mr. Bcker. All those in favor of pressing this forward to the council meeting, please say I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right, that one will move forward. And unless I'm misunderstanding the agenda here, I believe that brings us to our last item of the evening, which is the review of boards and commissions, I think. Yep, that's excellent. The one we've all been waiting for. How about that? Yeah.

All right. Uh, so tonight and we have the worksheet attached. I wanted to give a general update here, but about the we did do look at the amount of time spent on each meeting and we found it more of an average. uh we're looking to plug those in, but we found that each individual meeting if it's one of the meetings like this and obviously I don't think we're going to be making changes to the administration public works committee but a meeting that needs you know usually someone to run tech take minutes and then do a pres presentation um and then also agenda prep etc can range between anywhere and you include also the time of the meeting itself and add that multiply by the number of staff. uh this range because these numbers are going to sound high up front but it could range anywhere between 16 to about 28 hours of staff time for any individual given meeting. So that spans from you know an HPC me a historic preservation commission meeting up to a city council meeting with city council being uh the longest meeting to prepare for and work on um and also having the most individuals in uh involved in the process of preparing the agenda. So that said, uh what's been provided tonight and I know it doesn't have the hours on there. We were adding that in for each as we had went back just so you know kind of the process of identifying staff time required. Uh discussions were had with all the individuals identified in this document and how much time they were putting together if it was something that's just maybe taking the minutes or posting. It was also asked how long it take to usually post the agenda online or maybe find the vestible itself. uh we went back and used a six-month average on YouTube uh for the time stamp that we had for um for each meeting like so this meeting you know when it gets published you can see that it was whatever two hours and 15 minutes long we went back to June's meetings and just took that and did the math on it from six months out uh we added that and then if you had four people that always attend that meeting you would multiply that out by four and that accounts just for the meeting itself and then for the

staff preparation time that is where it's a little bit more of an estimate. I just want to be clear about that. But depending on um who's working on what, it was a discussion oneonone of how long does it typically take for you to prepare, you know, the reports and corresponding documentation for the meeting, including the preparation of the minutes. U and a lot of the times to get clarification on motions, we do have to go back and watch those meetings again. So then you can actually double up on the on the amount of time it takes to to record the actual fact the the record. Uh so that said tonight we've also included for all the active current uh some are closed. I know we had landscaping group on here but it was a recent committee that we wanted to still include as a as a reference point. Uh we've got all the basis here for why it was established, how it's currently in use, where the uh individuals uh how how what's the function of the actual the committee itself and then also the duration of the terms which typically are guided by our charter. Uh and then also any other kind of superficial uh superficial items which if you look at some of these like the watershed erosion task force uh that specific group wasn't necessarily created by an ordinance or created by city code. It was created by a motion and a memorandum that was adopted by the council which doesn't mean it was necessarily a bad thing and that can still be done. Uh but you you can see kind of the variability of some of these things versus some that are concrete like the committee established by code uh amount of frequencies the meetings need established by code as well. Uh you can kind of tell some are made for specific purposes and the others are were laid as the foundation. I guess the question is and the department's done a lot of research on this and can answer this if if there are any changes. We didn't want to necessarily get into the process of making changes to committees and advisory boards without getting input

first. But if you have questions today about hey uh I want to change the frequency of this meeting or I want to change the you know the change who makes up that how many people are on that group or what is there is you know I know architecture view has actual architects on it some instances we can use consultants now because we made that change we can tell you what needs to be changed in the code if anything u so tonight we wanted to prepare this and send it out I know it's kind of building off what we had last month to really get initial feedback if there from this if there's any changes we want to make having that in the back of the mind where it is for each of these meetings about 16 to 28 hours that is spent on execution and agenda prep.

Okay. A couple things with what you said. So tonight, if if I any council member wants to make a suggestion to eliminate something, combine something, that's what we're looking for, right?

Yep. If you want to make any changes, I can I my plan tonight was going to take notes on each anything that is mentioned here and then work that in and bring that. And I would strongly suggest that you give your input on this too because you know like better than some of us that maybe this is totally a waste of time or maybe it should be done twice a year instead of every month. I I think we would all respect that feedback too. I think to that in that vein is there any redundancy in some of this stuff which I don't know if there is or isn't because I don't know because I'm not involved in all it but you guys are and should tell us hey

here's an opportunity for things to be combined or that there are things that make sense to be combined. Yeah. And how about this? We can kind of flip the inverse here and identify some some functions of the city government that would almost be impossible to eliminate or really change the structure. You got to have it a month. Once a month, tier one and tier two.

Yep. Yep. So tier one, you know, you can't, you know, nuts and bolts. You really can't do much about it even if you change the code. Uh the city to function has to have Oh, we're not counting municipal court, but I'll add it in there. Uh we have our court, you know, twice a month, then once a month, twice a month, then once a month. And the main ones are city council, our planning and zoning commission, our board of adjustment. Those three, there's not really a negotiation. Uh board of ethics. It's an as needed, but you know, some of these you just you have to have them. Uh because well, every other city has it and also state statute typically, you know, makes you have a planning and zoning commission. Then you also if you have zoning in your city or county, then you have to have an board of adjustment to be able to create you got to be able to approve variances in some instances. So if you don't have that, uh you can't have zoning. So it's kind of a you know, we have the zoning in place. We have the land use code. So since we have that, we don't really get out of having the planning and zoning and board of adjustment. The other side of it uh with council, I mean obviously that that speaks for itself. What would be the purpose if not? Um

I mean what's more important than that, right? Yeah. Exact Yeah. Well, that's exactly right. But at the end of the day, that one really can't really get rid of that. So other than that, we have the different committees um which you know do speak on they're made up of council and honestly from staff's perspective I think they're radically important especially um you know this committee here. Can I offer just a basic suggestion because I I think like what I hear you I think what you're about to say what I'm you know you have your council meeting admin parks admin public works parks and planning P&Z and board of adjustment. Yep. Those are tier one levels that are the holy grail off completely.

Um, and in my [clears throat] humble opinion, those are all meetings that probably do and should require 16 to 28 hours of various prep work and everything else because not to diminish anything that any of the other committees are doing, but those are genuinely the the ones that are functioning the city and pushing forward. Y is that fair to say? That's got to help. Okay. So, let's not worry about any of those because they're not going right

anywhere. So, that takes us to everything else. And I would also suggest that, you know, I think one of the reasons we were looking at this is because the makeup of those committees is sometimes getting harder to fill or we might not have a quorum or whatever. So the, you know, that's not to say that I don't think whatever meeting was planned and and worked on for 28 hours wasn't important, but it's even more important to know that we spent 28 hours of staff time working on this and then didn't have a meeting or nothing came out of this meeting or, you know, over the course of six months, we had one item, you know, probably with the exception of Celebrate Wildwood because it's specific to that. Um, but I would I would maybe ask that that way. Well, and that that I mean speaking of which, I mean, one we did have to make a modification to because we just couldn't fill it was the architecture review board. I mean that is that is one that I think is I mean at the end of the day its mission is fundamentally important because we do have a unique architectural guide and I think Miss Nyion could speak.

Is that something that could be combined with board of adjustment because I know when we talk about things in architectural review board it's like okay we vote or give our opinion and then it [clears throat] goes on to the board of adjustment. There would need to be some code changes for sure if we were but there's a lot of overlap by but those we can change those are codes that we can do that I was gonna say

they don't have to be done like the charter you got to get it out there to get it on the ballot. Yeah. So anything that goes in there says it's code that those things we can change. The other ones are either required through the constitution or through the state laws and the mandates. And then we have our charter and then we have other things that we could change as much as we want. I'd like to throw a comment out here and I'd also like to add I told you so. The whole idea of term limits I'm totally against that. I think you should have to set out, you know, for two years. I'm good with that. The problem I have with it is every one of those committees when we first set them up, and I was there for most of that, you had to come up with a one year for one person, one year for two person, and then you say, "We need a three-year term or four years." So several hundred years ago, we did a massive study on even the terms of a council member because when you come in and you don't know what you're doing, it takes you a year to two years to even understand how it works. So the ideal time to serve was three years. Now we could never get that to agree. But I guess my question to the staff would be on all of these uh where we went in and then let me go back and explain it. When we were working because I was on the charter review, when we were working on term limits, the idea was we would have term limits on elected officials, there was never any intent on doing it for assigning people to boards and commissions. that was snuck in the very last minute and everybody, oh yeah, we have to do this, we have to do that. And what that did is, and again, I tried to get Jim to understand, a mayor has 104 [clears throat] people to assign to commissions and boards in a 4-year period, but to come back and say term limits, you can't do this or you can't do that. And then the idiotic part is we take them off of that commission and we move them over to another commission,

there's that. It just doesn't make sense. I would think if we wanted to change the charter, first of all, take these committees, look at a three-year term, you could serve two, and then from that point on, go back and and the term limits could stay in there, but do change these to three-year terms. So, somebody could serve six years on planning and zoning. Somebody could, you know, could spend six board of whatever it is instead of having some four, some two, some five, you know, some some different ones like that. that would make a lot of that simpler and and not have to do but a lot of the write up which is great because I could remember those meetings were how are we going to get that you we added two people to architectural review board we took out the requirement they had to be certified architects and then it was an engineer so I mean all of the ways we worked around trying to get local people interested in it and then you got somebody in there and then nobody wanted to say well I'm not going to reassign you right

so then we said well I'm we're going to put term limits in and take you That's kind of silly. There's no disgrace in saying, you know, thank you, Joe, for three years, Cliff, we're going to ask you to take that role. And so, so often we build these rules around stuff because somebody didn't want to to make a hard decision in order to do that. So, I would think that we could look at what the right number is.

We can control that for any of those committees and say, "It's a three-year term. You can serve two terms." only get the mayor has to reappoint you and the council has to confirm it for that second three-year term. And that would clean up a lot of that different part, but then on uh that would that would allow you to leave the charter the way it is on two terms. Uh but that we wouldn't have some people on a two-year thing, some a threeear, some a four-year term in order to do it. So to me that we could do that without having to change the charter. you would just be going in and changing. If I were changing the charter, I would just keep it with elected officials.

Well, I think maybe what we look at then is kind of a mult like all of it. So, I think that's a good idea. I think generally revisiting the term limit issue just because I'm not sure it was explained as well as it could have been at the time, but it wasn't particularly clear if based on my recollection on it. And then it was done based on the opinion of what the attorney thought not what the committee said council approved

and as we have learned with a number of things. You know with decisions like that there are unintended consequences. So you know we are running into that right now. Um you know we have seats that nobody we have seats on the council that nobody runs against. We have boards that people don't want to get onto. I know that, you know, I'm sure like all of you, I've offered suggested people and they will go to a couple meetings and then be like, "We don't do anything at this meeting. I can't go anymore. What's the point?" And so I think especially knowing the you know the length of time that this takes to set these meetings up and then in the in some ways like the unintended damage we do by putting a person onto a committee or board that isn't doing very much or is meeting weirdly or whatever it is and then that kind of like kills their motivation to do this moving forward. I mean it's not like we've got a huge back deep bench of people looking to sign up for any of these committees. I mean, I think I asked Colleen and I think we had I think at the end of the year it was 42 people had applied, sent in the form, and 60% or something were people that were like, "You should go do this." Not like, "Gee, I'd really just like to help the city." So, getting getting people interested in, you know, certainly the most exciting two hours we've all ever spent tonight doing this is is hard. Um, well, I think we have to go back and look at some of the stuff. The reason we had it in the beginning is we didn't know what it was going to take to do things. And I I kind of look at board of public safety as just a classic example. I sat on that as the mayor. I set it on the but back then we were going to negotiate our contracts with the police. Then we quickly realized 20 years ago, we're not professional negotiators. And just because the so-called marshall was going to contract it, that was not the kind of contract we

needed. But we continued then and all the different marshals that we had as a city marshal was would say, "Well, you know, you need to understand when you come in here, we're here to listen to your concerns. We don't make any decisions. We only make a recommendation to the council and then it's whatever the council wants to do." So, uh, and then you you actually kind of read the definition of it. I just think that's one I'm not really sure we need a board now. I I do believe it is in the position of a marshall which I don't believe has term limits. It's to the pleasure of the mayor.

Um but I also think in that particular situation that the any of the agreements with the police or anything like that should come back through this committee. Typically they do like Yeah. But I mean, why have another meeting to sit there and have that input and then come to this committee, the same thing, and then go on to the to the next one. So, I'm just saying that's where I don't know how I mean, Rick spends a lot of time getting that stuff all together. Now, I believe there's a lot more we should do with the police budgets, right?

But that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get a fair shot at it with the board of public safety because they're not looking at the cost. They're just there to nod and help where I think you get it in and look at the cost, the number of calls, how many people we're using. But again, that's not an easy one to do because it is part of the charter and the position of the marshall is appointed by the mayor and it's a compensated position. Could but what could we then does it make sense to say as just keeping with public safety to say the city does just like the ethics board we do have a board of public safety and should the department head or somebody go we need to have this conversation great they can call a meeting to do that and people are appointed and don't I mean but then it kind of takes away from the fact that historically where subdivisions wanted stop signs put in and all that kind of stuff that their only venue right

was to come to a council meeting and we say, "Well, you need to go to the board of public safety." Now, that was back when people went to meetings. Now, you sit there and [clears throat] there's nobody there uh in order. I'm sure a lot of people watch it, but that was the purview. And I mean, honestly, we would fill the rooms up with people when it came to reducing speed limits in subdivisions and that kind of stuff, but we've gone so far in 20ome years. That's just not a thing that we're dealing with like we we did. And I mean, maybe Rick might remember. I mean, I can remember sitting there for two or three hours going over that stuff. used to then we tried to work a lot closer with the fire departments but in this particular case it's totally a different jurisdiction we don't have much overlay there so I I just it's just another one that I question what has come out of the board of public safety maybe maybe the question Rick I don't know if you'll know this off the top of your head but um I think maybe in line with council member Vanic's position earlier like how frequently do you is something brought to the board of public safety and the answer comes back as no, you know, like you you you typically would go to the board and go this is the recommendation or I'm you know we think we should do this and then they would come back and be like no I don't think we want to do that because when I was on it I can tell you I think it was zero times. It happens, but it's not I mean maybe one out of 10 times. It's not

It's not a lot, right? It's not a lot. I mean, generally way I usually approach it is to put a recommendation towards the board and it's usually a traffic organ change or something of that effect that I get involved. Um, and honestly, most of them are pretty simple. You know, we have over the years had a lot of speeding complaints. That's an easy one that gets that's the outlet a lot of times is to take it to board public safety if we can't get people happy otherwise. But I guess maybe now they just get on next door. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, my guess my question is though, like maybe a better question is not to say all of the items that you don't bring to public safety are super critical and important, but

like how many items do you think that you would bring to public safety that are like legitimately like we really need to have like this group of people dive in and dissect this thing and then present a recommendation backwards or I guess upwards, whatever you want to call it. I think that's the idea though is that um there are issues that involve a police um and the traffic ordinance those are enforced by the police of course so it's kind of put in police that it should be in front of the marshall and that that entity I think it makes sense

or also the the so the police captain of precinct and then the we do have a representative Metro west I think that there's definitely some value in that that you have them on that board to be able to ask directly from them questions uh about hey we're you know and a lot of it is you know they're supposed to be looking at uh you know what they're actually supposed to look at development too and say hey how wide should these streets be does it mean I mean a lot of that though you keep cutting you off Jason too no you're good

I mean to me like a lot of those types of things and this isn't a criticism of anyone individually but like a lot of that stuff is generally driven I think by like a chair of the committee or a member that has an enormous amount of knowledge on that specific subject. So like I think that you're still on it, right Ed? Right now? So you know I think you and I are the last two people that have been on it. And when I was on it, I kind of just felt like I just here to supervise and help steer a little bit. Um, that's not to say I don't think there's value to it, but I didn't see a lot of those kinds of like more not not necessarily push back, but like real like real definitive things saying, "Hey, the roads need to be this wide. I don't even know why we keep you keep bringing these questions to us. Why do you keep bringing them to us?" We always say the same thing. I mean, I think to the biggest the biggest um item I can think of that's come out of public safety a long time was the the gates and the obstructions thing. And um you know that has certainly caused a lot of conversation. I think that was a good decision, but at the end of the day that was our decision anyways. So

again, they can't make a decision, right? So all they can do is refer it on to the council and we're doing I I just know that when we, you know, again, 25 years ago, every meeting we had stop signs here, public streets here. We've grown through that. All the new subdivisions when we go in, we're doing it the right way. So, I mean, that evolution of of being in 30 years of doing that kind of stuff. I just question, you know, maybe there there's a reason there to do it differently. And then are they going to, you know, how the people that are asked to serve? And I think we've got a really good people on there. But unfortunately, I think I've been more of the no vote on there than than anyone else because I just think those are things that they're going to vote for because Rick's recommending it. I don't know that that's going to come through the council that same way. So I I just think it's another one of those where you look at it and say maybe we've outgrown needing that position uh or do it a different way. I don't know. Just two cents worth.

So I'm going to say this and then I got to go. But how many of these committees are driven by the calendar, not by action? Meaning they feel like they need to meet because kind of what you guys are saying, right? So I think maybe a blanket of hey, you're on this committee and if there's action to be taken, right, let's meet. But guess what? you're in charge, Joe. And if next week you say we don't need to meet, okay, I've got other things I can do, right? So, I think some of this is driven by a mentality of I'm on this committee. We meet every other Wednesday or whatever. And so, I got to be there and then I'm going to be there and nothing's going to happen. But I was there.

Yeah. And to your point, I mean, I I did actually do that with watershed um where I was like, we don't have anything to talk about. We're not doing this. But I do think also there is a drive that we give people when we appoint them to the committees and then they get elected to a chair that they feel like they have to do something because they don't actually know. You could you can say we don't have anything to talk about and that's okay. The these should be quarterly or they should be whatever. I was on the board of ethics, right? And we met I think twice in one year. How ethical we were. That is when Wildwood was ethical. I'm kidding. Mr. Albert,

uh I can jump around a little here. Being in my second year of the council, I think something that I've heard, two things I've heard repeatedly, how long it takes to get comfortable in these positions and the amount of problems it causes every year to turn over the half the uh council a lot of times. So, is is the answer to look at three-year terms for the council? Yes, it probably is, but I think that's a that's probably a charter. All right. I said is the answer to make the council positions three years um charter charter that's there's there's actually a really big study uh up some somewhere up there about that

ideally because you'd have to make that same ad and the thoughts process where the other challenge you have is you get somebody on for two years and they don't like it and then they leave but they don't resign you can't fill that seat till they resign. So there's a whole bunch of those type of issues being able to to do that. And I'm just saying that there's a whole there's a big number too of people that only serve two years never do it again because it's so fun. Well, it just seems like fundamentally your term creates a lot of problems. You barely know what you're doing by the time two years. It just maybe not. That's maybe it's different per person. Have an election every year staggered.

Are we gonna go down? Well, my thought was I we can I think the suggestion that you know we aren't on these committees and don't really know what they all I mean we're on some of them but I would really like to hear Tom if you guys have a thing and again I'm going to [clears throat] say this disclaimer because I know that of course we as a council and you as a city staff feel this way like we genuinely are thankful and appreciative of everybody that volunteers for these things. Everybody does good and valuable work for the city. But the reality is a lot of these things don't function the way that in my opinion a lot of these things don't function the way that they're supposed to. So, I would love it if somebody on the staff would either validate or not validate that. [clears throat] And maybe let me yeah

finish. I I would just say watershed erosion slam dump that should be put in admin PW. Get rid of that, you know, put it put it in here. And I also now I've been on this economic development committee this year. There there's there's no there's no need to have a I don't think that committee is viable either. You know, I think you could put that in the parks planning as well on a 2015. There are a lot of his voters, but EDC

I really think I I mean it's a pretty lean me. It's a menu. I'm sorry. It's a pretty lean I'm hungry. No, no, it's a pretty uh lean agenda. I think that could be rolled into planning and also you know. Well, and there's to me there's times where, you know, like out of that you're I agree lean, but like we did talk a lot about the sign stuff. We did talk a lot about some of those other things. When those issues come up, there's nothing that says, "Hey, we need to get a couple people in here that are going to meet at different sub meeting, you know, whatever subcommittee." Yeah.

Rather than, you know, because Jason is correct when the calendar is driving it, whether you guys think the meeting needs to happen or not, it's happening. And now you're spending 16 to 28 hours doing nothing. I mean you're doing stuff but for no reason. So

yeah and the thing is I mean with like just for example one there's a way to look at this too is that when we're making these changes we do since these individuals are volunteering their time. That's where we we don't want to necessarily be rude to the individuals that are participating because we want them to keep coming back and then we're I will say from the staff's perspective having people show up council's not as big of a problem but with committees and commission our master plan group we had multiple times where we didn't have a quorum um and we you know we got to get that master plan done but there was I think four instances where uh quorum was not met last year that's a challenge but you try that with 25 people and you any of these where we add people like historic, you got too many people on there to get a form.

That's that. Well, there's that, but there's also this goes back to what is driving the meeting because people are going to show up if they feel like they're either being listened to or valued or what? Totally agree, Mr. Becker. Another question from a cost standpoint, does time drive anything? Meaning, so like if you said a meeting was four hours or is it 30 minutes? like uh could you could like the time of the the length of the the length of the meeting because right there's four of you guys here. Yeah, that that's I assume everybody's being paid to be here. Yep. So my question is some of these meetings could both frequency and time of meeting help dictate some of what we're talking about?

Yeah, I would Yes. But I would also say that some folks too, just as a note, uh time is money. Yes. But some are salaried that are on these meetings too. So most are salary, right? But that's but whether it cost us more money or not, it's cost time. Yeah, that's correct. It's your time. Somebody's paying for. So, yes, back to my whole point on frequency of meetings, not allowing the calendar to drive what we do. Should we put both frequency of meeting limits and time limits on the meetings? Yeah. I think in most cases, my understanding when I run a meeting, it's we start at this time, we end at this time, everybody knows the agenda, and it's very succinct, right? We're going to talk about this and okay, we're moving on. Yeah. It's supposed to be everybody good. Moving on.

We do that for the master plan because there's so many people. We set it at that should be in every meeting we do in the city. I mean, it could be fog because it starts at 6:30. It ends at 8:30. Period. There's no negotiation. We started later because we you're forgetting about public participation participation, you know. Well, but but there's a thing. What is the thing? Like at 10 o'clock or something, you make a motion to go in. Last couple meetings it was an hour. And again, I I again, hear me when I say there's tier one and there's tier two. Tier one is very different than tier two. And we've allowed the people in tier 2 to do whatever they're doing. Yep. And hell, half the people here don't even know. We can't even articulate what they're doing. Yeah. I I mean I I But they're meeting.

Yeah. I I will say, Tom, I at our last one at our last watershed meeting, I made it very clear. You and I involved for tier. Let's just get that clear. I appreciated everybody's time. our job was done and I think yeah with that specific instance with the with the watershed erosion task force committee I think that we have got to the nexus where now [laughter] council committee and then council so so in in so what are your guys if any what are your recommendations to say you know look these meetings should go or this meeting should meet once every

quarter Is there a chance that the that we can I want to make sure that our director of uh of planning and parks can can maybe be there for that meeting when we're going through these just the watershed erosion task force. Here's what I would suggest. We have the director of public works here and you this is going to go to Mike. He's going to have that conversation there and then we'll have the conversation together. So I I hear what you're saying, but I I love Mr. Funage a lot. He loves meetings and he loves all this stuff a lot and so I'm going to go out on a limb and say his recommendation is we should not change a single thing. Possibly add more. Yeah. Is there more meetings that we could have more for one?

I'd like a tier three. Well, first of all though, one of the reasons of not having the meetings on a structured time period is we have fought for the whole incorporation that we would not have public meetings during the afternoon so that the residents can actually attend the meetings. We have more people here than you think. But all I'm saying is that's part of who we were. And I mean [clears throat] that was a whole fight over the incorporation was the county would have their counties like meeting 3 in the afternoon and we promised we would never do it until 7 o'clock. Well then we change it. Well now we have to do it at 6:30 and we said we do it twice a month and and so now suddenly we've come up with well we only have to do it one time or do it that. So I mean a lot of that is the residents who whether you think they have an issue or not but it's kind of like the board of public safety. If you tell them that's what they're supposed to do, you can't just cancel the days and the nights. getting people to volunteer on boards and commissions and then keep bouncing the days what day you're meeting, what night you're meeting. There's several I have other commitments. I can't do those nights. So, I think that's where you run into a challenge. You get somebody to volunteer.

That's fair. They said I go to church on Wednesday night. I can't do that. So, I mean, there's all types of that. Those are some of the juggling that, you know, I it's easy to sit here and say we should undo some of this stuff, but on the other hand, there's a reason it's the way it is. I mean, not saying it's not screwed up. Does it make more sense as we're moving through this process that we have I mean unless you think you can do this tonight Tom I don't know like similar to what we did with the capital budget where it's like you know this is Joe's recommendation this is Rick's recommendation you take these recommendations you make the recommendation and then we take that under adisement and decide whatever we want to decide this recommendation is to be inclusive not only of does it get eliminated but also include does really are we trying to do anything it can be change the term

I I would that in general I feel like that is correct. We all of these things were set up for a good reason at some point. There is very real question in my mind whether those reasons are still necessary necessary in the way that we have them. Like we we have made changes to the number of council meetings that we made and you know Ed and I might feel differently. I'd like to bring that back up again. though we might feel differently on that. But the truth is when we made those changes, we didn't really alter any of the other things up or downstream. And so we still function one way while doing something else which is

but we've also come with it's very hard to work with because we have a meeting once a month takes three months to get used to. Something got turned down in two weeks they could come back right and we'd said well you know if you don't like this you you have 30 days now we don't have a meeting for six weeks. So some of the stuff I'm not saying it's right or wrong but and I would check I would I love to know because I've heard different versions of this staff time by having one meeting you got to create all kinds of preparation for the meeting where when you were having the two meetings you were always working stuff through the first meeting go through the first meeting come back to the second meeting so to me or at least what I've seen and again a lot more technology now we're not typing and listening to tapes but part of that is the fact that are we really that much more fit can you come in and be gone in two hours twice a month or are you going to come and do four hours or come in and do in two hours and then nobody understands what they voted on and I mean I think that's a lot of stuff we never get unless you attend all the different meetings you don't get a good explanation on it

and then you come back and question later how'd that happen so let's try I'm we're going to talk about that I promise that's on on the docket coming but when it comes to these boards and commissions because it is getting late do do any of you have a specific question on a specific board or commission or whatever that you just can say right now like I think we probably don't need to do this or do we want to get that back from the staff yeah watershed and okay um I'd like to hear their opinion on that too I mean not I disagree

no but if you have an opinion I mean you know you know a lot of it well you said combine ing those two. Well, I mean, I was just throwing is there something that we don't meet religiously every month because we don't always have things on the agenda.

I think in general it makes sense to me to suggest to the staff to to try to make this meeting thing as efficient as it can be. And because we have time and we have people and like you know we have to do the master plan currently a certain way it is clear everything I've heard about those meetings this time around is those meetings have been exceedingly difficult and whether that's a function of the group or whatever I don't know that's what I know. So, I know that to the point that some of the people I suggested to put on it are like, "Don't ever suggest me to be put on anything ever again."

And this is the second time I've had that happen with different people by that committee by that commission

by a different commission. But, but it's a refrain I'm getting even from people that are on things like, you know, um for a long time on watershed, for example, we had members that were would come in and be like, "Why aren't we actually doing anything? Like, we're talking about all why we aren't doing anything. Do something. Do something." Now, we're doing something. And so when I said, "Hey, I think December like we've met twice in the last year. We've done all the leg work was great, but like we're the mission of that is done. We've selected our program. We're moving forward. That thing should be folded up and put to bed. We should be thankful and grateful for all the people that served on that. And this committee should then pick whoever whatever committee should pick up whatever is necessary to move that forward. There has to be other examples of those things. Um because like you know I think Cliff's right I cycled the agendas for EDC 80% of the meetings the the agenda was recycled. So

I did it one year and we we didn't do anything. I mean I just I I that's but initially when we started this several years ago we we we used to have five committees and we came to two and then they said oh we have to have the economic development. Well that wasn't an overwhelming vote. that was more of a really close to a tie. It might have even been a tie to to actually because we technically as much as that's nice to help the the businesses. We really don't have anything to offer. Yeah. We don't do anything.

And so, you know, at that particular time, is that really driving our business to do it? And it does require council members. So, the first couple years you didn't have eight people on there. You had people who were interested. So, there were only like five council members who were on it the first two years or three years, something like that. Then they said, "Oh, we're going to make it a standing committee." We used to have eight standing or five. And so, I mean, we've gone through this a lot. Uh, but I think times change. I mean, I not just because you're sitting here, Tom. I mean this sincerely. I think the best thing the economic development committee has done since it was formed was find you to be the the chair or whatever, director of economic development. Because outside of that, like, you know, we've had for different reasons, we've had a turn in that position. we're just not like and and so now

I will speak to that. I can speak to that the economic development component. Not saying that speaking with the businesses. I mean that's everyone everyone that's been in that position has enjoyed that component of it going like helping organize you know being a participant doing our forums. uh but the you know active like reachouts and trying to get the scoop from each individual business on what's going on that that role being it split both the individuals I would say were fitted towards comms and the econ portion and that's where they should I mean in my opinion from a city standpoint that's where we should be investing our money. I would agree that it should be a comm's position because we don't we don't develop any economy. We don't want to.

Yeah. The biggest thing is I would I would just break it down to the the actual budget of the economic the economic development portion of the administration. Are you still trying to hire that position as uh not as the as a hybrid? Yeah, that's how that's more your assistant. I thought we kind of that was kind of the idea and honestly I would be interested in feedback because the comm's role I would agree with that sentiment that the comm's portion and that person would still serve as like a a hand for any economical related items especially you know if someone was requesting like some type of incentive review or something like that that person's going to play a role but

overall I mean just the day-to-day tasks of keeping the website updated keeping the social media inundated doing the doing the gazette which now I know we're doing once a year which is makes it a little different That's a pretty intensive process along with okay

kind of the the real thing is pulling the getting the scoop. I I like to say that but getting the details from each individual director but not even just a director but getting the fine details even from some of the super just supervisors that are on our team that are below the director level. So it's it is a task to go around and rally up all the information which that person typically does a great job at doing because their their role is facilitating that community. Yeah. But how much of that is actually like I would say I think Jason brought up a good point like how many of those instances or how many of these boards or commissions are just creating more work inadvertently that is then not necessarily paid off or you know is is creating a scenario where you know the SNL cabin popped in my head because that has been talked about for every year that I had been on this committee [clears throat] and every time it it seemed to go away, it came back again for something else. It was like a project that couldn't die now.

Still laying over in Gayy's yard. It's laying in that pile underneath a tarp and all of it. But yeah, whatever's remaining. So, but I I am I do think because I know especially early on in my council life, I didn't really have an appreciation of if I make this request, it requires this amount of effort from this many people. So, if I'm a citizen sitting somewhere and I go, "Hey, you know what would be great is if we figured out how many wild flowersowers we have in the city." And everybody on the committee is like, "That's a great idea. Can we do that?" And then Joe, because he's an awesome guy, is going to be like, "Yeah, we could do that. How are we going to do that? We're going to hire somebody to go count every flower and it's going to take 19 years.

There in lies the challenge with the master plan review. You got eight people who don't even know how the city works, right? All coming in. Four of them think we need to have a new swimming pool. Yeah. I mean, as you start that whole over and over because they don't really understand, you don't have revenues to do that and that's their purpose. But I mean, this is the third time that we've so gone through the same. So each change we would want to make would have to be brought to the city council to vote on, right? Yep. So I I I really think we need to decide on that next month so it can be voted on before the end of the calendar year, right? Yeah. So we can reset that the 2026 calendar year. Not calendar year. Yeah. The council year.

Council. Yeah. I mean I don't know. It shouldn't be hard for you for you to do that, right? to do to do with well I think I think it's similar to the capital here's what I mean it's similar to the what we do with the capital budget it is it is painful and difficult but necessary sometimes you just got to be the guy that's like you know hey I think we need to change EDC and then if there are just like that if there are pe if there are nine people on the council that feel differently you made your you we asked you for a solution you gave it we choose to accept it or not we can do that we'll assign tier one for you can't touch uh which you guys obviously can't but right

something that the staff would recommend not touching and then for tier two we'll have just a little breakdown of hey you know here's what here's what we could and and I would suggest outside for any tier one designation outside of the ones we named tonight there needs to be a why I've got for you said tier one or two so we have council admin PW parks and planning and zoning planning and zoning board of adjustment right anything that anybody suggests should be tier [clears throat] one should be a tier one outside of those personally I want to know why we can do that that's that's the better way to do it

on on the ones that to question I think the economic that's a perfect one but architectural review board as you said on that but we've narrowed that down in a couple year was the last here one recommendation to eliminate it. Yeah. I don't know what happened. Well, then it were the the original city founders came in made a big issue and everybody council oh we can't eliminate that. I don't understand why if we needed an architecture to somebody to come in and do it. You hire a consultant to do that. But the amount of time and trying to find people to serve on the board that aren't really architects or who just minimally are have an engineering degree, that's just a whole waste of time.

So I would say some of these things that we did tonight should help that because the statement, you know, a statement of fact on that issue specifically is we are having a difficult time finding people to fill that role. That was said and it was kind of like well too bad, try harder. And then that was taken from that set of councils and figured that out. Um, but that goes along with the idea that we weren't looking at this as like a global all these boards and commissions. Somebody made it it felt like we were picking on that thing and we're effectively not. We're just

and we did go in because we could not get a quorum. We [clears throat] went in and expended expanded to seven members to try to get alternates to come in to do that. But that was 20 years ago. all inclusive playground funding group. Yep. Yeah. So, I mean, isn't it done? No, Vicki's on it. I don't think they've even met. They've met a couple times, but Okay. But like to like, you know, we have to do it differently because it's a city. But in that specific example, like she is an actual expert on doing that. Yeah. I don't know why we just don't go go do that. What are we waiting for? We're waiting, you know, for these guys to get done. Why

you could I mean could be part of parks you know she's on the parks committee you understand what you're saying he's on the parks committee here you know take the lead on doing the punish I get I get the punch though

good meeting hold on we're going to make motion or somebody might when um in the future when we would do this Thomas whenever we say the municipal code what when the date was that that was changed yeah we can do that I mean it's just to me it's just like looking at economic development I know about when that happened I know what you're talking about we can include that we out because it was a lot of words I know but the date or the year or something would tell you that's never always been there that's do you want the initially adopted date or do you want that revised Yeah. What's it what's current now with what the decision were? It'll have in there if it's a section of a full section of code, it'll have that initial date of adoption and then it'll have the revised most revised date. Do you want the most revised date?

Well, we had it originally and it would those all of those five subcommittees had like five people on. So, but then we just we we moved that over and put it into I thought it went into planning too, but then when it came back, you know, 10 years ago or so, it came back to be an equal board with the other two standing committees. And that reason we got rid of the five was people couldn't make the meetings. So, you just didn't have enough people to show up.

That Yeah, that happened in 2016. I Yeah, we can come back. I already put the motion together. I think the motion would just be identify and distinguish between the current listed boards, commissions, committees, which ones are tier ones, which are absolutely essential, no changes are recommended, and then tier two, which would need to be uh describe why it needs to be kept at the same level. I have a I have an idea. I'm going to read it to you guys. It's a little bit lengthy, but the concept would be I'm going to email it to Amy and it's just going to be if you like what this is, the motion would be to accept this recommendation. Does that make sense?

Okay. So, if anything raises a red flag, just put your hand up so you remember it's a little bit long. [clears throat] Okay. The core intent of this motion is to reduce unnecessary staff burden, focus volunteer energy where it creates real value, clarify which bodies are essential, advisory and discretionary, and ensures and ensure boards exist because they are needed, not just historic. That's the general gist. This will be broken into three specific tiers. Tier one are essential, charter or statutoily required boards, the the ones that we have already spoken about. Um tier two are operationally valuable advisory with clear return on investment. Um they are not legally required but provide clear measurable benefit blah blah blah. Uh tier three is discretionary legacy or limited impact boards or commissions. These are historical in nature have overlapping missions produce very limited actionable output consume a disproportionate amount of staff or volunteer time relative to the overall benefit. Um

are interrupting RR are replicants or duplicates of other tier three Yep. organizations.

Um the motion should direct staff to assess each board and commission and you guys have already done a lot of this already among uh with the following criteria. A legal basis, chartermandated, state statute, ordinance created, no longer legally necessary. Core function, staff resource load, volunteer time, burden, outcome and impact, overlap or redundancy, optimizing opportunities. Requested from the staff would be a complete inventory of all city boards, commissions, and committees tier classified into one, two, or three for each body. Written justification for each tier assignment outside of the five that we've already selected. Estimated annual staff time per body, which you guys have already done. Recommendations which may include retain asis, modify, scope or cadence, consolidate, sunset or dissolve, convert to ad hoc taskbased structure. The motion is I move to direct city staff to conduct a comprehensive review of all city boards, commissions, and committees and to categories categorize each into tier one, two, or three based on legal necessity, governance value, and resource impact. This review shall evaluate each body's legal basis, function, staff, and volunteer requirement, overlap with other bodies, and demonstrated impact on city decision-making. Staff is directed to provide council with a complete inventory of all boards, commissions, and committees, a recommended tier designation for each with written justification, an estimate of annual staff time devoted to each body, and recommendation for optimization, including consolidation, modification, or sunsetting where appropriate. The purpose of this review is to ensure the city governs governance structures are aligned with current operational needs, respect resident staff time, and responsibly steward public resources while maintaining required and high value civic participation. A report with findings and recommendations shall be presented to the council within a reasonable time frame. So I guess

or back to us to council because we don't I mean we've made our staff at it. Yeah, I I'd like to really have us consider the staff could do this is the length of the terms four year, two year. So, we've got that whole combination and if we're going to come back and say we want to leave the term limits in because of the charter and I think all of those boards and commissions should like be a threeyear. So maybe a legal can ask John if we legally can do that. I know you can. I mean I would make that recommendation too. We set that up. I just think that I know how we got to where we were because when you started a new one, you need a one year, two year, three, but if they're a four-year assignment, so shift all of them to a three-year term

either. I I think three is better than four because you get people who can't don't want to do it that long. But I don't have the if if we do that, let's say we do that, which we probably won't, but let's say we do that next week. Does that start new people? when you put new people on. So if somebody has already been on a board, they are just on it until they term out or they get like they could have two three-year terms.

If Joe were to reup somebody that's on if the mayor were to reup somebody that's on a board, they would now have two three-year terms or they would their their term limit the requirement of two terms was done in April of 2018. Yes. If you identified a term though that would that say that person had like a month left on their term, even if you did that change and you had the the two three year terms, if that person's coming out their second term, they can't they can't go again for that committee, I would say. Right. Well, under the current code, they can't either. It's just that some of them are when you get a new person on that becomes their

put them on a new so so when you go to hire when you as the mayor asking somebody to serve, you'd say, well, that would be a three-year commitment. They meet on a Tuesday night, once a month, a third week. Would that is that something I mean I never asked anybody until I told him what night and how much time it was going to take and then what exactly you do. I mean we had a city treasurer one time who was told he never had to come to come to city hall and he got treasure has to come to city hall. Yeah. Um we didn't really have a So I like that. I just that would help and and maybe maybe it should be four but I think three three kind of makes sense. Uh, we kind and the reason we kind of got it that way is to get enough people to keep a quorum

or or or does it make s I mean I'm trying to think of this because the mayor's got a four-year term. So, do you almost want those two because what you probably don't want to have is a a mayor who is going to be a one-term mayor and they have a four-year term and then they're going to appoint everybody to serve a three-year term. Well, you'd only be appointing the people that would be true, but it would only be for 25% of the people, they'd have a chance to appoint them a second time. Yeah.

If you put somebody new on, you were the mayor for three years, then come that fourth year, but you also as a mayor don't have to reassign that person. And just because they're on there, they don't that they still have to do the whole appointment process. I think that's another one of the and I know that's more of a Colleen challenge, but I used to always get a monthly sheet out to all of the council members to say, "These openings are coming up in the next three months. Do you know somebody when you were not knocking on doors that really wanted to do this? And then bring those names in, you know, and then you had their recommendation. It wasn't the mayor picking the people. The mayor makes the recommendation and the council confirms.

All right. So, we have this very lengthy motion which I'm happy to email you and we will add in there the uh the caveat about the term limits. If does anybody else have any other changes or care to make that motion feel comfortable with it? Maybe you'll make it. Miss N will second it. Uh, all those in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? All right. I will get it to Amy and I'll also get it to you, Tom. So, you guys actually because I think you've actually done like 80% of this stuff already. Hey, this is really good. Now, you just came up with that just like that. No, [laughter] a little bit. It's not exactly that. Huh. Okay.

So, that brings us to uh miscellaneous items. Does anybody have any miscellaneous items? Yes, ma'am. Um, could I just request that under topics for inclusion on future agendas that we put something in there about looking at the bow hunting thing because it's going to come to us eventually. What? We are going to look at it. I know. But I when I'm looking on topics for inclusion on future agendas, it's not listed there. And I just thought we should put it there so that when people are looking at these agendas, they know that we are going to talk about it because I've heard about that. They were here before you were. Yeah. Oh, they're here tonight. They left when you weren't going to be here.

I think they said specifically Tracy's not here. That's all I needed to know. Okay. Sorry, I didn't realize. Um Okay. Um anybody anybody have any other Yes, sir. I'd like to add to some items on our agenda. Okay. But I don't know whether it's appropriate where I should get the form and fill the form out. That's how we do it. But this may be a lot easier than that. Okay. Yeah. Discuss it. Sure. Chapter one reporting. Yes. I know that we're doing a ton of tracking

and I'd like to see that get reported back either quarterly or whatever that this is how much that we're recording. This is how much we're charging back and this is we receive the money so that we don't sit there and look at the bills and estimates and not know whether did we ever get reimbursed for the legal fees associated with we are so I I can give the report but I can confirm this. We've been paid out the issuance fee 2625 that has been recorded. Uh the entirety of the chapter 100 legal piece was actually separated out as its own kind of contract if you will and that was paid out with the city attorney's firm that did make their got their amount and then also uh to our bond council as well. So it it's all been

that's fine. I just think that because of of the controversy the whole thing we need to make that part of a quarterly report or whatever that we are doing all these things that we agreed to that's a lot of money it's the that's out there and there's a lot of people out there who don't think we should have done that so I just think keep them happy um the charter max so so the maximum money under the charter I believe in 2026 is 4 million6 six or 0.5 on I do believe we also ought to be reporting back on any of those projects the parks uh the village green as to where are we dollar amount and I I heard a rumor well the cabin the log cabin doesn't count yeah it does it counts in there so I just think those are the type of thing they sneak up on us but if we go into the new year reporting this stuff on a regular basis even if we do it once quarterly we don't have to wait till the end of the year to do so

well and some of that So, um I think Tom, are you going to do your the new report thing? Your new report this week? Are you gonna uh yeah, I'm gonna try. Well, I'm probably gonna have to send two reports because

what what we have been Tom and I have been having conversations about his um enhancing his report that he sends out to us and then also doing a different thing with the larger agenda so that people like so if an item as an example if an item like the SM cabin were to come up where we have added in there like it affects this ward and it costs this much money out of this part of the budget. It would also say it is tied to this project and would add X amount leaving whatever. So, we're trying to make it a much more decision ready thing. Perfect. I just don't want I didn't want to slip off. Yeah. Um effective on no tax on overtime for any hourly employees.

Have we adapted that into our payroll system? Yes, we are. Good. And when's the trash contract come up? You talked about that. 2027 is the last actual year but the date is August 1st at point8. Yeah. So the the plan my general concept on this was um again I don't know where people are going to shake out. We may wind up in other places assuming the general collective comes back in the general way that it has then that is one of the first conversations we're going to start having for the new group. A neighbor asked me today. Yeah. How long do the charter meetings keep going? Master plan.

Yeah, master plan until it's done. So, right now, given that we didn't have a quorum on a couple of those meetings, it has put us back a little bit, but we're almost through the we're to the fifth element out of the seven and once they're we're we have it on the calendar until June, but we wanted to have it done. The idea was till February. So, you can't add anything now. Yeah, we can't. Well, we can add I mean Yeah, they put more meetings in trying to get I mean talking about the term limits, you know, council. It has nothing to do with the master plan. No, that's a different thing. The charter will be done. It'd be in 2000. All right. Quick admin question. Uh replacements for iPads coming [clears throat]

soon. I'm entering my seventh year. Yeah. We're buying new They're not iPads though. We're giving everybody specifically we're getting people Androids because iPads and Apple is a closed system and it's very difficult. Sticking with tablets.

We're going with tablets and Android on Android base. So we can have a I can have a password management software. So I if if someone doesn't we have this issue where we have a lot of iPads that are just dead because the individual that had it did not sign out of it through their iCloud. And if you have that iCloud signed in that means [snorts] you can't download any apps. You can't hook up your mail app. It it creates a ton of issues for setting up the iPad with a new user. Um and typically that's it kills the iPad in general. And then we've reached out to individuals in the past that hey could we could you come in and put this password in we've gotten silenced or told that no we're not

so a month three months six months I would say give us give me about a month or so it'll be soon anything else maybe wait hold on can I two months not not not that it's a problem like ordering them and I already have an idea of what we're going to order but does it benefit the council to have those issued when the new council comes in. I mean, I guess if we know who's going to definitely be here and we could easily make that and give those assignments, but if someone's on the way out new, they don't need a new one. I if that's acceptable, then we can do it within a month for folks that are going to be here.

Mr. Lee, yeah, I I turned my evil eye machine in many months ago. Um, it's that's the devil in those things. Um, so I'll take the Android. Yeah, everyone will be stand. Thank you. [clears throat]

All right. Anything else? All right. Before we get to uh a German, I did have one thing. Um we are for sure going to talk next month about um the small crime spree that has occurred. Um one of the things that um Tom and I have had some conversations about and I'm just going to say it again now. So we've [clears throat] obviously addressed some of these issues with the apartment complex and have not been super well received. let's just say. Um, but I do think it's important that we make sure that we as a city are doing everything we can. So, the street lights that are between 100 and Village Plaza Valley Drive along Westland Farms. So, that would be all of the street lights that wrap around bank of Houston, which I believe I'm pretty sure are ours, do not function and have not functioned for several years. So, I don't care why they don't function, but they need to start functioning or I need to have a reason very clearly why they are not. Um, we also have that same situation, I believe, still here in Town Center with a couple lights, some of them from Taylor Road coming in. They seem to be out and then some of them on the roundabout. Um, you know, we need to do everything we can to make sure that our public spaces are safe at night and everything else. We got a lot of kids and animals and some other things going on. So, I know it's kind of a drag to beat up Amaran or whatever. Um, but we just need we need to make sure as a city we're doing everything we need to do with our infrastructure, even though some of our complex friends are perhaps not as enthusiastic about doing what they did.

I don't know. I do know that the lights down on Generation Drive, they were all on during the daytime. And so I mean I just think that's another one where we know that we need to go back sure there just to do I don't know if that way now I mentioned it to somebody that was [clears throat] this is not on the agenda so let's yeah so we'll just get that figured out yeah so all right so with that anybody excuse me care to make a motion to by n you got to pass out second by Mr. non debatable. All in favor, please say I. Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? We won't see Mr. Alers at the house. You were blocking him for me.

All right. Thank you everybody for coming out. We'll see you next. Thanks. You took another Well, she's in California, so I've always thought you still got two hours to call her. Well, her birthday was technically yesterday, so we're good. I always don't I don't like my back. So, I'm not going to kill it. Wonder what that was. He said to move and move on. Yeah. Come on. Yeah. So, that one that first guy was with that other bow hunting group. Yeah. Right. He's the one that didn't stay very long. So, I was only about 15 minutes late. He he made it three just he said that it would really he