City Council - Regular Meeting

for all. I almost said our father.

All right. First thing is to approve the regular agenda. Does anyone have any questions, any additions, any issues with the agenda as presented? If not, I got a motion by Rick Syler. No, second. Second by Maggie Bass to approve the agenda as presented. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes. 5-0. Next on the thing is the consent agenda. Does anyone have any questions at all with any items on the consent agenda? I move approval.

Okay. And I will second it. I got a motion by Bruce Wolf, second by Chuck Nikolai. If there's no other questions or comments, all in favor say I. Any opposition? Okay, passes. 5-0. Next on the agenda, um we kind of changed the title of this. We used to um call public I don't know what it was hearing. Uh it was public invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda.

Okay. Well, right now we're changing it to public forum. So um at this time you can speak on any item even if it's on the agenda or not because obviously some items there is no public hearing part on it but again there will not be any response from the council at that time. Um if something needs to be followed up it will be documented and followed up by uh the appropriate department or uh city administrator. So, at this time, I have two people on the list. Uh, Brian, you're first. Uh, Brian Paulson, 2064 Street Southwest. Um, mayor, members of Council, I appreciate the council's efforts to encourage public input, uh, through the policies like the one adopted last year that you just kind of mentioned. Um that said, I was have observed some inconsistencies in how the public speaking is handled during the meetings, particularly for items on the agenda that don't require a public hearing. Uh the current policy outlines clear rules for participation, including five minute limit and requirements to speak during the public forum for items on the agenda. Uh however, in practice, it seems to be the enforcement varies, which can lead to perceptions of unequal treatment. Uh, for example, at a recent meeting, I submitted a petition that was discussed by the council. Uh, during that discussion, there was some speculation about my motives and specifics about the petition, some of which was inaccurate. Despite this, even after one council member requested that I'd be allowed to clarify, I was not permitted to speak on the matter. At the same meeting, however, another individual was allowed to address council twice to correct the record, something I was trying to do as well. Uh this disparity left me feeling that the community interaction isn't applied equally to all which undermines the spirit of open governments that our policy aims to promote. Additionally, the requirement to address all all my comments, even those uh directly related

to later agenda items like I'm doing right now. Um it can be problematic. Um I've experienced this firsthand when I have requested to speak on a specific item scheduled much later in the meeting. Um I've been directed to do so at the beginning instead. Uh this forces residents to comm uh comment without benefit of hearing the full council discussion first uh which might provide more context. It also uh means we might miss opportunities for timely informed input that can help the council make their decisions. To address these issues, I propose a simple adjustment to our public speaking practices. Allow residents to speak during relevant agenda items when they're being discussed, provided it's not a um even if it's not required public hearing. to uh ensure comments are fresh, targeted, and responsive to the ongoing conversation. For items not on the agenda, we could continue using the dedicated public forum at the start of the meeting. If a large number of people show up for a particular item, chair could exercise discretion to limit speaking time, three minutes, or encourage speakers to um focus unique points, not be repetitive. Um this approach aligns with the policy existing flexibility on time limits and would promote fairness without disrupting the council's ability to conduct business. Um, I think some nearby cities even do this. I believe Montgomery may be kind of run their meeting this way. I believe these changes would foster greater trust and participation from the community, making our meetings more inclusive and effective. Policy already um empowers the chair to maintain order, so incorporating this would not require major overhauls, just consistent application. Uh, thank you for your time and consideration. Um, appreciate it.

Thank you. Next, uh, Brad Wagner. uh you want to do a little during the 10th Avenue project. Yeah, this is um he his is based on the 10th Avenue project. So, I don't know if you want to wait until it's on the agenda or not. So, we do not have a public hearing for that. So, that would be what this item Yeah, you you can do it now and then. All righty. Good evening, council. I am here as a taxpayer of New Prague. Um, can we please have you state your name and your address, please? Sorry. Thank you.

Bradley Wagner, one93rd Street Southeast. Thank you.

Um, again, going to the street improvement project on 10th Avenue. We have we as taxpayers for years have been asking that that road just get ripped up and repaved. this proposal of a traffic circle, median, trees, bumpouts, parking, nobody wants it. Not at all. A traffic circle isn't going to do nothing at that intersection with today's vehicles. They're they're up to 40 by the first curve anyway. So, it's just pointless to spend the money on it. We do realize the crossing situation and I would like to ask that maybe the crosswalk activation flashers like the one down here by the chamber office be installed at 3rd, 7th, and 9th so that people can cross because that gets people's attention when you're driving. The other thing I would ask is the walking path by the PRAA association be ripped up and made a sidewalk. That way it's a sidewalk all the way to third. Then the walking path all the way down to County Road 29. One of the big reasons that nobody wants all this high-end stuff because nobody can afford it. The people in my association, threearters of them are retired or on disability. And the last thing I want to go back next week when we have our meeting is going like, "Yep, this is what the city's going to do. You're going to get slapped with a $2,000 assessment." And they're just going to go, "Holy crap, what?" Most of them can't afford it. when we

put a $12 assessment on them, they just like, "Oh god, how am I gonna pay for this?" And you guys are going to go way over that. And we understand that the road needs improvement. We get it. But let's do the simple way. Rip up the road, pave it, put the flashers in, call it good. that that's all we ask. The other thing that was just kind of burning me since the last meeting couple weeks ago, and I'm going to say this verbatim, was the quote of I don't care. It's city easement. I don't care should never come out of any city employees mouth. Period. there there is just no place for that when we're talking about anything regarding people's properties, easement rights, whatever. That that just just struck a chord in me because this is now multiple times I've heard that we don't need all this major stuff. Like I said, please consider that to just rip up the road and pave it. That's all I ask. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. I have no one else on the list, but if there's anyone out there who would like to address the council, uh you can come forward and uh state your name and address. Okay. It doesn't look like we have any other takers, so I guess we'll move on to item five. There's no public hearings. Uh item six, uh we have engineering projects update. Uh are you going to do anything above what's in the the packet? Uh I figured conversation. Well, that's the next one, right?

Yeah, project updates. I guess next three items are mine. I might as well step up here.

Okay. So, uh yeah, the engineers project updates. I guess I'll ask if there are any questions on that what's been provided in your packet. So, um, just generally, uh, what we're going to be talking about for the next two items, I guess. So, if there isn't, I guess the next item on there for me is in regard to the 10th Avenue Southeast, uh, proposed improvement project. So, um, at the, um, last couple council meetings, we've had a uh, a public hearing. Um, well, first a presentation, the feasibility report. After that time, uh, public hearing was ordered, and that public hearing was held at your second meeting in December. um regarding the project improvements. So, we were looking at that time at um three different u potential improvements to 10th Avenue Southeast. Uh one being a uh more of just a basic mill overlay and put it back to where it is with the exception of a a mini roundabout at Third Street Southeast um RFB um crosswalk improvements um and just a um general mortise surfacing type of improvement. Um, a second option was proposed which was to uh install landscape medians um throughout the length of 10th Avenue um south of Third Street. Um and those medians would be installed at locations that were are otherwise uh essentially the undrivable portion of the roadway, the the hatched areas. Um and then a third option was presented which was to uh convert the roadway into a two-lane configuration um south of Third Street Southeast uh while maintaining the same uh um layout from Third Street Southeast up to up to First Street Southeast. Um at the public hearing, um council did uh uh order the project, but we were at the point of deciding which option to to proceed with. Uh so in your packet today I do have a proposal which is um based on um options two and three assuming that option one is not really um up for

consideration which is essentially putting it back to where it is today. Um option two being the the median and the option three being the two-lane configuration. So Chris, what did how did option one get off that I'm sorry that's that's just my conversations I guess I've had is the option one is being the put it back to where it is. I think as far as I've understood um that's not necessarily the direction we're looking to go at, but

so so I'll say as staff um we'd certainly had the option one and we discussed it, but I know coming from um staff's recommendations as we talked about it, we felt like something had to try to be done to slow vehicles down as they were going fast. And putting it putting it back how it was basically puts allow doesn't really hinder the traffic at all. So, um I guess we could certainly say option one is on the table, but I know between discussions that were had at the council level plus discussions we had internally, it felt like option one while originally on the table wasn't any further. But that it certainly can still be on the table if that is where council wants to go because we didn't make a decision at our last council meeting,

correct? Of which which option. And so I still think option one needs to be in the mix of discussion. um you know and then we also received public comment. Um we all received emails from various individuals with their comments and so I think we need to take that in consideration as well.

Thanks. Yeah, I apologize. I wasn't mean to speak for council when I made that uh made that comment. So um in the proposal I do have in front of you here today um uh this is oriented towards option two and three. I will say option one which is u more or less some overlay improvement with the the RR sorry the RFB is the mini roundabout type of improvements um would be very similar in scope of work to option three which is more or less restriping the roadway with the bumpout. So as far as proposal I have in front of you today option one option three should be about the same scope of work um for for a point of what what we have in in our uh in our proposal. So

So option one does not include the mini roundabout. Option one does all three options do include a mini roundabout. I'm looking at the feasibility report. Yeah, option I believe we've got that in all three options there. Unless there's something I'm missing here, but the costs are included for that for that improvement for all three options that were presented. I don't I'm sorry. I don't see one in option one. It just talks about the um the flashing beacons at Fifth, 9th, and 12th Street. um uh 14 foot wide center lane. Um and I'm not seeing anything about a mini roundabout and option one.

Okay. Uh the report the the figures in the back of the report may be better to refer to I guess as far as showing what's what's anticipated with with the proposed project. So um from our our point and what's included in the um in the uh the LRIP the local road improvement program um grant submitt is also inclusion of that roundabout um at Third Street Southeast. So um for the purpose of what I have in my proposal, I I would expect I do include that roundabout um design within our proposal, I guess. So, for all three options, if council did not elect to go through the roundabout, um there would be a reduced fee for on our side, which I could um could could uh provide. So,

could you cl clarify something for me? um it it came up before and I think in some of the letters or or public comment also um uh regarding parking and I guess I was surprised by that because um maybe you can answer for me is there anything in each any of the alternatives that we're doing that would that on the one alternative we're creating the availab ility of a parking if we so choose to have it, but we're not making any accommodations to create the parking. It's not costing us anymore. Correct.

Less is it? It's not a cost factor in the sense it's just going to be available space if we choose to allow parking on it. Yeah. So, so the the the roadway existing is 44t from curb face to curb face. um that would allow for uh with parking to have a a 12-oot drive lane and a 10-ft parking lane in either direction. As far as um as far as what the city would need to do to create that parking, it' just be a white stripe along the side of Right. So, we're not making it wider or making any uh cost changes to accommodate to create the parking. There's no cost involved in it at all and we can choose not to allow parking as we do now. Is that correct? So

yeah, if if you just that's I think there's some confusion based on some of the emails I'm reading like it's a waste of money for the parking lot. It's not costing us anything to we could just call it a shoulder. Yeah, we could just make a wider shoulder. And in that regard then if we were to do that can I understand the drive uh width is 12 ft on that alternative but and that's to slow down traffic I think is the reason.

So uh as far as the the lane widths those are dictated by um state statute. So we do have u a requirement to have a minimum lane width for the traffic um that is experienced on the roadway. So on the on a road like this, it could be as narrow as 11 feet, could be as wide as 14 feet. Um in the um with the with the one of the goals of the project being to reduce traffic speeds, widening the traffic lane, driving lane would be um kind of the opposite direction where we want to go. So anything wider than 12 feet would potentially, you know, make it look like a faster roadway. So

right, that's what I was going to ask. Is there a a diminishing value or returns if we make it 13 ft or is it safer or I mean obviously we'd have sections with a pretty wide shoulder that way. But yeah,

yeah, and the existing roadway does have I believe it's a 14oot lane in either direction, but you do have to include the curb width things that kind of narrow it down when you don't have when you're not driving closer to the curb. Um it might uh um might make it feel wider. So I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily go any wider than 12 feet. um it might be might even be an advantage to marking it at 11 ft and making the road feel even narrower than it is. So it can it be one of those things that as far as our design process goes, we' kind of figure out the best route to take, but it can go as as narrow as 11. Um but probably as wide as 14, but 12 is kind of the recommended width, I guess I'll put it that way. Um and anything narrower than that would still meet requirements, but might assist with some of our traffic calming. So, if you had a 12-oot driving lane and a 10-ft shoulder, does that uh create any awkwardness or any would people cheat or they

wrong curves? I mean, there's always that c that possibility that some of those turns would be um kind of cut through, I guess. But, um I mean the the minimum parking lane is 8 feet. If we were if we were building this road today, it would not be 44 foot wide. um it'd be likely 38 feet, which is kind of 38, maybe 40 feet, but 38 feet has been if we had parking on each side, if you said we don't need parking at all, it'd be even narrower than that. Maybe 32 foot roadway. Um as a state aid route, we do have to um hit certain requirements um as well. So, um that's kind of a bigger conversation since we're not reconstructing the roadway as far as what that might actually end up looking like. But if we were doing this project from scratch, it wouldn't be a 44 foot roadway for sure,

right? As far as the parking need, it might be looking at if there was a parking need, it probably looking at either bumpouts or one side only or something to that effect. Um I will note if this road was if you went if you proceed with option three, which is a two-lane configuration plus shoulder parking on the sides, um it would if you decided to not allow parking, it would be a lot of signs, a lot more um I guess maintenance stuff in the future potentially. So, you'd have to mark the roadway no parking. You'd have to pass an ordinance that would um mark it as no parking. That goes with state aid. There's submittals and all that kind of stuff. I thought we didn't allow parking there now.

You don't allow parking there now, but that's because it's a threelane configuration. If you switch to the two lane with a drive lane each side and get rid of that middle center turn lane, um then that's where the parking option becomes um comes up. That's only option three that would allow parking because that's the um two drive lanes and then two parking lanes. So option three does not have a turn lane in it. Correct. Yeah. Except for the far south end. Um as you approach the county road, that turn lane would have to be retained. Um there's a there's no left turn lanes in option three.

Uh only at uh Cassad 29 on the far south end the county road. Um 12th Street south I think it would be or Tulski. So the far south end would still retain that threelane configuration. There's just no way to to kind of go away from that. So it' go from a two-lane and then split off at the end. So you'd still keep that left turn lane that's there now. So just the south block where there's really um aren't any fronting houses. I'm kind of surprised that by changing it, we'd have to put no parking signs where we don't have to now.

I mean, I suppose the idea with that, Bruce, is where we don't have to now, there's no space to park on the sides. Like if if you parked you you're right in kind of the middle of the drive aisle right now, but if you get rid of the center turn lane and move all the driving to the middle now with space on the side, I feel like even if you didn't stripe it, people not many, but some random person might assume they can park there because there's just all that space. Is there ongoing costs? I mean, to maintain the signs, you have to replace them every so many years. I guess that'd be question

very minimal. There's so many post signs already out there that you would added to those. So yes, you are looking at we say roughly three signs per block of no parking um you know for roughly 12 blocks and those signs usually will last anywhere from 7 to 10 years. I think you mentioned something else besides the no parking signs. What other consequence would that be if we did that?

Uh I don't want to say say consequence if you did elect to make it a no parking area if it appears to be a parking area say but you're not going to allow parking. you'd have to uh include a resolution with our state's middle. The state aid will require that when they review the plans. So, if you said we're not going to allow parking on this road, but we're going to switch it to a fourlane or two-lane configuration still, um there would have to be a resolution that does not allow parking to occur on this roadway. So, some that council would have to pass with the submitt. And I don't want to get too crazy about this, but some of the comments um uh regarded dis dissatisfaction with bumpouts. So, I don't want to get too goofy about this, but could you have no parking by the bumpouts to gain better visuals and in just those areas?

Yeah. Yeah. And so, um, curb bumpouts are proposed, uh, with option three only, and that's again with the two-lane configuration. Um, there would be a portion of the roadway that would not include parking on either side of those bumpouts. Oh, so there would be no parking already. Yeah. In the bumpout itself, uh, there would be no parking. Um, we are looking at um there's there certain things we can do to kind of uh either say encourage vehicles not to park there, which is to extend the taper lengths so that there's it's a narrower area. So, if it's where where it's less than 10 ft, um you have to imagine we we're going to do a bump out. We would do a bump out um to remove that parking area um with the um crosswalks and we'd probably have a length of, you know, might be

50 ft in each side of the intersection where there wouldn't be any parking allowed. A lot of people in town have a negative um thought about it because of Main Street. And I agree that there's terrible visuals in some of the corners. Would it be better than those distances? Then

it's while there are bumpouts on in both types of uh I don't want to necessarily compare high the main street to 10th street in in all 10th Avenue in all all respects. I mean uh um Main Street does get a lot more traffic. It does have a lot more condensed area to a lot more parking. Um, if you look at 10th Avenue Southeast, the site site lines would be certainly better than it would be for um the area downtown. So, as far as uh how it would would work, I mean, the bumpouts themselves be similar as far as how they're constructed. Um, but there's certainly could be some things we can do to keep vehicles further away or anything else that might hindrance the the uh the view of uh pedestrians trying to cross the roadway or or uh vehicles trying to make a turn. Um the RFBs that are also proposed with the project would also enhance the crosswalks. So as far as visibility for res for pedestrians um the bumpouts combined with the um RFBS should enhance that visibility quite a bit. And um with a person trying to cross the road, if they're already five or six feet essentially into the roadway, their their visibility might be a little bit better. Um, so the bumpouts would also allow a little more room for people to see before they make the crossing.

Okay. Thank you. So that would be the reason that that we'd still need the bumpouts even if we're going to go no parking would be that the pedestrian crossings would have their their bump out. Yeah. And they they are kind of two separate issues as far as um the no parking is is a decision to make after making probably the decision regarding the lane configuration. It's just that nobody's going to park there. I mean, and I can see the residents point. Um, we're going to go redo this road. They don't like the roundabout, but that's unfortunate. I got a feeling. I hate to jump in, but Yeah, please do.

I really hate to say it, but we really got to get past the no parking thing or this parking thing. It's not designed for parking. I always tell people Columbus Avenue North, we did this project in 2019 from um you know the apartment buildings at Fourth Street um all the way to the school. That's you can park on that whole street all the way down. You barely ever see any vehicles parked there. It is a shoulder is not parking area. We're not Option three is not designed like hey let's do a two-lane with shoulders to get parking. That's not the purpose of uh um option number three. So in my mind, the parking thing, again, in my opinion, the parking thing is not even anything we consider. That wasn't part of the design of option three. That was literally to get the traffic closer, to get bumpouts in so pedestrians have easier access to cross. That's why option three has what people keep on calling a parking lane, but it should be called a shoulder,

right? But I think there's some people have picked up on that and said, don't why are we spending money for parking? Yep. And all I'm saying is, and I agree, we don't we're not spending any extra money on it. That's why I wanted to clarify. Yep.

Isn't the real point of narrowing the lanes and putting bumpouts is really for parking? Um, and I'm not for the parking, but it the parking adds to the slowing down because you you do lose some of that visual as you're driving down the let's use Main Street as an example. But to all of our points that I think that we know there isn't going to be anything parking there because there's a swamp on one side that I don't know who's going to go visit that. And the other side, even if you're visiting those homeowners, the back of the house faces the street. It's not the front. I think most people are going to drive around to the front of the house, but um I mean, you're missing that whole component. So I I don't see a bumpout slowing down that traffic. can and maybe as you approach Fifth Street or something, it does.

Um, and I live in the neighborhood, but that's just too much of a straightaway without the cars there parking like you have on Main Street. I think that really adds to the bumpouts and what slows people down. I still this is a big wide street that even if there's a shoulder and just a line, conceptually when they're driving, they think they can. It's it's more of a just a thought process that I can go faster because I don't have to worry about somebody running into walking between two cars where I couldn't see them.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Sean. And and what I would would kind of comment there, the primary purpose of the bumpouts is enhancing pedestrian crossing safety. So, the bumpouts um that are proposed is is mostly to reduce that crossing from 44 feet down to 32 feet, make the crosswalk more visible. um an additional effect of that is is a traffic calming, but it's not going to be taking 38 miles an hour necessarily down to 32 miles an hour or something like that. It will have an effect, but um I I do believe that the greatest impact those bumpouts is really enhancing the crosswalk safety. Um we aren't proposing those at all intersections. We're only proposing those where we expect to have those crosswalks installed um that where where they where they will fit. So, um I just wanted to note that the primary purpose is really the the improve pedestrian safety. Okay.

And I do believe they would have some effect for reducing traffic speeds. Um you'd have to do a full traffic study and all that to figure out what that actually would be, which we have not um you know performed for this project. But um it's uh it's it is a I'll I'll say an accepted method of traffic calming is is is to use some of bumpouts. Um

and another perfect example on the bumpouts, Main Street's not the only area we put a bump out. We added bumpouts on in 2019 by Falcon School uh working with the school at the time um the crossing at Heritage in Columbus. So, another example of working with the school and doing all these studies showed getting the tra the pedestrian traffic out past what we're going to call the shoulder, not parking lane, but the shoulder is more better visibility and then you can have signage out farther for all traffic. So, it's really again like Chris said, that is 100% bumpouts are 100% for pedestrians to cross, make it safer for pedestrians across the street. And I I like the idea of the shoulder um because where those fences are and I don't know if we've had anyone take them out this year at all, but in past Yep.

you know, it was because people were driving right next to the curb and there was no leeway. As soon as they started going, they went right over those the the curbs. If there was a shoulder, at least they would have some time to do some reaction, maybe slow down their car before they went flying over that, especially on that one curve fifth street. Yeah.

Yeah. Go ahead. And I know that uh um I'm not specifically here to to address comments from from uh people um that have been in the public forum, but I will note the the assessment value in the report is the same for all three options be the same if there was no roundabout or anything else. So the proposed assessment is independent of the improvement prop that the city proceeds

including the vegetation in the median. We are we don't have anything any costs in there for um that would affect property owners or assessments um that are due to the improvements whether it's a landscape island uh RFBs and many roundabouts. The assessment that's proposed in there is the uh mill and overlay rate that was um I guess most recently used on the 2024 project at um Sunset. We had that one block of of uh roadway way did some water man installation. and we had used a mill overlay assessment for that for that portion of roadway. So it's the same we're basing it on rates that have been established the same as on a full reconstruction if we do a 32 foot road or a 38 foot road um the assessment uh is the same for all. So just just noting that as far as how that affect the the public or

yeah that changes that changes that changes some of the comments that are in the uh conversations that are being held. I'm I wish I would have known that. probably my bad. My feeling is I still vote for option two. The vegetation too much. Uh it needs uh it'd be a nice enhancement to that particular area on a very important street. I like that option myself. Um it doesn't sound like when I explained it to the residents, they liked it. I think if once they saw it, I like that idea, too. It looks a lot nicer.

I'm around town all every day and many cities do it and it looks fantastic and we're behind the eightball on that. And it's really not that much more uh when you look at the um the costs. No, and the only the only added cost would be the constant maintenance of maintenance. The maintenance would be Yes. I do think that's a material number and I think the cost is significant when you look at over time. It's um it's a reoccurring expense that is u never goes away. So it's not like the cost of the tree is is cheap.

Maintaining the landscaping over time is expensive and um but we're doing it for the pops. We're doing it for the ball fields and whatever else. I mean, there's going to be there's going to be trees and plants and stuff there. Grass is going to have to be mowed. I mean, I just I I get it. There is going to be added cost to it. It's still it's an amenity that I I think this that part of town could really use and it's no different than what how we wanted to dress up

Main Street with adding some vegetation and some rod iron and whatever else. So, and that's still a work in progress and coming in nice more and more nice every year. But I favor number three um four basically because of that reason. I think the maintenance is material and we don't have any cost numbers for actual trees in the plan. Correct.

Um so and let alone trying to maintain them. Um and that maintenance cost I think is material and it is the most expensive of the alternatives. So from a cost point standpoint, I think that's the reason I would favor number three. U that's one of the reasons I would favor number three.

And Bruce, I'm with you on that as well. I would not opt for option number two just because of the ongoing cost and the the initial cost is considerably higher. Um, I was kind of torn between option one and option three just because I do like the turn lane in option one. Um, I think that helps with the flow of traffic instead of having to have cars get backed up if they're trying to turn in, you know, into the H high- you know um or other left turns. Um, but I also are there going to be turn lanes in front of the commercial buildings there? No, I'm sorry. the uh the portion from Third Street to Highway 19. It'll be back to its existing condition. So, that'll still have turn lanes.

Yeah, that'll still have turn lanes. It'll be turn lanes from Third Street to the north. So, it's just after the roundabout, then you're going to lose your turn lanes until you get to 29 and then it'll be back. Oh, it's south. South. Okay. It just wasn't in Yep. the ride up. It's really fifth, 9th, and Tulski. You're losing them. Okay, good. All right. Well, then I'm I'm fine with option three. And I also agree with option three. I the only reason I don't like option two is the cars are right next to the curbs again, which means there's the safety factor to me of people going too fast, there's no I guess no buffer, right?

You're right there. And if you're going too fast and someone's walking on that cross or on that sidewalk and they bump over that curb, you know, safety happens. That's my concern. I understand the cosmetic John would look nice, but I'm looking more for the safety part of it that farther you can get them people driving away from the curbs, less happens, there will be less safety issue, right? And I think city staff also mentioned that if they have to do maintenance on the road, you know, that would option two would prohibit um having an open lane in, you know, space to park a city truck and that sort of thing.

So Chris, are you talking when you say the uh at certain intersections you have what RFBs or whatever? Yeah, I believe they're fifth, 9th, and 12th would be enhanced crosswalks. So that's what are those the flashing lights? Correct. Yeah. So the push button flashing lights. Gotcha. Yeah. And so those similar to first street. Okay. I'm going to go with option three myself. So you're saying which streets? Third fifth, 9th, and 12th be included for the new RFBs. Um third street would be enhanced with the uh with the mini roundabout. So okay. Um that would uh essentially be our pedestrian crossing improvement at that intersection.

Okay. I'm going to go with option three simply because it's most like what the residents have asked for. I like I like I like the beautifification of it too, but um it's okay. you know that the cost to the residence is what so I guess Chris do you have anything more to add to your deal on this or do you wish us to make a motion and move forward on it?

So if uh I do have the proposal in front of you this is to allow us to start design on the project. Um this is set up with um three different tasks. So task 2.1 being final design and uh preparation of bidding documents. Um 2.2 two is uh I'd call additional design services related to option two. So if you did pursue option two, we need a complete survey and do a more in-depth design to fit those landscape medians. Um and then uh uh uh task then the next task is our just our bidding task. So, um I would ask that if uh um a motion be made to choose which option you proceed with um and then uh if uh uh afterward be consideration of our proposal um for for file design.

Okay. Okay. So, the first action would be choosing the option. So, I'll make a motion to choose option three. Okay. Okay, I got a motion by Maggie Bass. I'll make a second on that. Um, any other questions or comments? Okay, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay, passes 5 Z. Next, uh, we have to do uh approve the estimate, right? The feasibility study,

correct? Yes. So, that'd be the proposal I have in front of you. So uh within this proposal I have um design and preparation of bidding documents along with bidding of the project um as uh council has elected to go with option three um that would include tasks uh 2.1 which is in the amount of $73,600 for f final design um and also task three which is bidding services. So um it'd be for those those two tasks would be what we proceed with. Um this is um so much other projects we've gone through design on uh preparation of the full bidding documents specifications public bidding of the project. Uh we do have um this project uh set for final design up through March of this year. Um afterwards MAF stated um review and uh consideration of plans for bid uh at the April 6 meeting. Those dates are based on um the project proceeding with uh local and um typical state aid funding. Um if uh LRIP grant funding is successful um that will affect the schedule as the project would uh then proceed into a um requiring a traffic study for the for the mini roundabout. So, um, that is something that you won't know until first week of April most likely as far as whether or not this that's successful.

So, the proposed fees we're looking at is the 73,600. Um, plus the 6,300 for bidding of the property. Okay. So, um, $79,900 would be okay. Our total. Just wanted to clarify that. I'll make a motion to approve uh the proposed fees of 73,600 plus the 6,300 for bidding services. Matt, have you reviewed this? Have you? I did. You okay with it?

Yep. So, um it's a completely different project than past years. So, it's really hard, you know, to base it off of uh past year's projects when you have all the utility work we have. Um but I think I've said it every year. I usually have a dollar figure before he sends it off to me where it should land and it pretty much landed almost towards the lower end of it. So I don't should don't take that Chris. Don't Yeah. Um, but next year it's going to be on the very high end. So make sure you guys know that. But no, I did review it. I thought you you played with your wheel again, didn't you? I'll second the motion. Okay, I got a second. Any other comments, questions? All in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposition? Passes 5-0. Now, the section C, it says citizens and comments. just to let the public know that relates to some emails that we got uh that were put into the packet because some emails were sent just to me and not the council and uh I don't like to send anything email where there's more than one council member on there because someone could excuse that we're doing business uh which because we'd have a quorum of people if I sent it to reply all or forward to all. So, that's the reason why it says uh citizen comments uh on here. It just relates to emails that uh I may have gotten directly without the other council members uh getting copied. So, I just wanted to clarify that because it was on the agenda. Okay. Next, Alton Avenue feasibility study or proposal, excuse me. Um Dan, do you want to

Yeah, let me give a a little bit of an overview here. um kind of has a quite a history on it. So I have almost a two-page memo in the uh packet here, but um give the council a little background. Back in 2004 2005, which um initially predated my initials starting with the city, uh the city uh county uh Scott County specifically and um Helena Township had entered into a memorandum of understanding for Alton Avenue, which is currently a Gratville Road. um over on the east side of town um basically directly north of the Coburn's development and uh Ka Witz buildings right on the corner of that intersection and the whole idea of that study at the time the county uh was going through the comp plan amendment uh at their level the city was doing a comp plan amendment at the local level and this is really a a exercise to determine alternate north south routes through the county. So you had trunk highway 21 obviously going to Jordan. You had um trunk highway 13 heading up to uh Prior Lake and generally Shakipi uh once you hit Marshall Road. But uh the county is looking for another major north south roadway and uh the county road 15 alignment basically which connects from uh Mary'stown road uh kind of by the h high- up in shock via 169 was identified as kind of another alternative north south uh route through the county. Um ultimately we ended up doing a similar study with Lassour County that uh continued that down to um the city of Montgomery basically along county road 144. So that's a little bit of the background why um this has been identified as as a uh important roadway uh for alternative travel from the highway system. But um this memorandum of understanding outlined uh actions

that the city uh the county and the township would take to ensure that it was built um to a county road standard. Again providing for that u major traffic uh artery between um Shaki and New Prague on the sky county side. Um so it's been over 20 years since that um memorandum of understanding was entered into. The full copies in the packet here for you to review. Um uh it was about a year after the Scott County one was done that we entered into a very similar almost verbatim agreement uh going south of Main Street uh for the Lu County side. Um, basically within a year after that uh, memorandum of understanding for each county was entered into, mindot came in with the reconstruction of Main Street uh, basically from the strip mall, 7th Avenue over to um, right in front of the uh, car dealerships actually uh, with a new configuration and included a roundabout at Alton Avenue and Chalupsky which were not considered um, when we did the uh,US with both the counties. So, right off the bat, uh, within one year, theUS had a new, um, kind of wrinkle in, um, the study, um, kind of thrown out the window because it was identified to be a major intersection with a signalization and then the state went and put in the roundabout. So, right off the bat, we had that to contend with. And then we had an application for the new pray common development with Coborns, strip mall, and all the other development happening out on that side. Eastland development as well for uh residential. So, uh we actually entered into uh some amendments uh to that agreement with Lassour County back in 0708 um to put in um temporary access. We obviously have another roundabout that was added at third. So, just kind of changed the flavor of that whole study on the south side of of Main Street. Obviously, fast forward about uh 18

years here since uh Coburn's been in. doesn't seem like that long, but how far away we are from that initially being developed. Um, but we haven't really had any development pressure on Alton Avenue north of of Main Street. And um, when I wrote the memo, I didn't have the application, but I did receive last week an application for uh, petition for annexation for be the northeast quadrant of uh, Alton Avenue and Main Street. There's a 8 and a half acre parcel there currently owned by uh, Mayo Clinic. Um they have a purchase agreement with a uh company called Java Companies uh to turn that into a uh retail development with uh two we'll just say fast casual uh restaurants with drive-throughs and then a roughly 17,000 square foot retail um uh anchor. Uh what those exactly are at this point we don't know. Literally just got the application last week. Um, so that and then another potential uh concept which I can't uh because we don't have an application yet can't get into the details of that but a uh likely uh town home type development um directly north of the Kwit property uh kind of along Alton all the way up to um 7th a or seventh street excuse me on the north end there that would kind of close uh the remainder of that open land uh for residential development. So both those um developments kind of uh flanking Alton Avenue. We had talked with the county, I think it was March, myself, Matt, and um Josh probably in March of last year um to indicate to the county that we felt development pressure was moving forward on Alton. And it was always meant to be that that road would get built out as we had development pressure. And we just getting a lot more phone calls and different things coming forward. I think we've talked about the need to do um you know a sanitary sewer pipe under Alton Avenue as well. So that was kind of the timing. Uh last March we

we met with the county and said okay well if we get a development pressure we'll move forward with uh probably an update of of the old study being you know 20 uh one years old at the time now would be 22 years old at the time. So that leads us to the proposal from UC who had done the initial study back in the ' 0405 era for actually both uh sections of the corridor between Lasser County and Scott County uh really to look at what's changed in the area and this is maybe where I can turn it over to Chris and I know Chris wouldn't be the lead traffic engineer on it but he can provide a little more background on what this study would update and basically inform us on um what what are the access uh parameters that we should be looking at that's changed over over the last 20 years and why this is important to the county and the city um to look at potential changes to that.

Yeah. So within our proposal we do have um kind of a refinement of of previous work but also getting into more um more into like a preliminary design way design of Alton Avenue. So taking conceptual to uh one more one more step. So that would include a uh a traffic analysis of the intersecting roads um and updates to maybe some of the developments that um are known or expected to occur along the roadway. Um we would have uh delineation of uh wetlands in the area. This is just a desktop delineation, not necessarily going out and doing the field work. Um but that would also be included with our services. And then uh the bulk of the work be towards the um towards that preliminary design. So, uh, more refined geometrics determining, uh, road widths and, um, intersection controls and, um, and working with both Scott County and the city of New Prague as far as access, which is, uh, certainly a a hot item for for the county as they look at this roadway. Um, it would include, um, sanitary sewer, water, storm, sewer, um, preliminary alignments. So, a lot of the stuff you'd see in our feasibility reports on a reconstruction project would be reflected um in this type of a study um along with the the cost estimates um and uh funding review for the for the proposed improvements. So, um this would be uh led by Chad Jorgensson who's in our our traffic group. um has completed this type of work um uh multiple times before. Um and uh would be yeah primarily a traffic oriented type of uh um review with uh our our local staff taking on the sanitary sewer um utility type of stuff here. So uh um this uh um also does include yeah the ice study in too. I forgot to mention that one specifically. So, um, as far as, um, the schedule in this project, uh, we do have kind of a, uh, I want to say a push, but I guess there's kind of a push to get moving

along with it. Um, from as far as what what Ken mentioned with some of the, um, some pending developments or or kind of a, uh, in front of us with um with our proposal, we'd expect to have this report done around March. Um, meeting with Scott County as soon as next week. We've already got one scheduled. If if council does elect to proceed with proceed with this proposal, uh this would uh not be a final design type of document, but be just kind of providing a better road map as far as where things will go. And then as as um areas develop out, we have a better idea of how it all needs to kind of fit together. It would be nice to see a map and um um some of your conceptual ideas um would have been nice to see before we even had to look at this. So I my my response to that at this point would be basically um I did put the uh attachment or the exhibit uh for the current alignment which is attachment A in the packet. Um so basically what what we're looking at is um with the retail development and kind of how things have changed over the past 20 years. Access is very important uh for ease of you know getting in and out of a development. Mindot's really ratcheted down on uh more so than they ever have on limiting access to Trunk Highway 19. So, Alton Avenue is kind of the critical uh point here for access. Um general thought that I've relayed to the county um in meetings we've had and the developers noted as well that we need to at least consider some interim options for as we did next to Coborns. There's kind of a median if you've noticed on Alton Avenue that provides full access at different points. Um that is a uh negotiated um temporary access that median can be closed. That's part of the agreement that we have with with the sewer county. Should traffic uh increase to a point that there's dangerous conditions and other things that warrant it. We can close those

medians. Obviously have the roundabout at 30 and kind of circle back around and still have good access there. So those are the things that our agreement with Scott County Rhino just don't consider. And it's important for not only Oh, there we go. Have that up there. um not only for the the commercial development on the east side, but the remainder of the land uh whether it be east uh of the commercial development or on the west side of Alton uh that ties back into our grid network there on Chalupski and or not really Chalupki but fourth I should say. Um to make sure that we have appropriate emergency access in and out. You don't want to direct everybody to you know the lone existing road. You want to make sure you have um alternative places for all the vehicles to to get into and out of development and uh make sure they're safe and and practical for for everybody. So um

the roads where the mediums are, is that ours or is that is that our grade or is that like a contactor grade where they just quickly threw them in or do they got to be all redone? Say that again, Rick. the where those mediums are. Is that is that um a contractor um type of plan put down together or you know the contractor roads and they're not up to our standards and I'm just wondering do we got to change the standards of the roads and everything around there then I guess that would be come out of probably the traffic analysis that would be done. That's what we we need to know that are they still is it still a valid what we had done or are do we need to look at changing that?

Yeah. And there's probably a difference here too when when I when I know kind of preliminary design in there. It's not necessarily getting into detail putting together a full construction set kind of having that type of a document. Uh they more or less providing a um a layout with some preliminary alignments profiles um of where we expect things to go. So I assume the alignment itself is something we'd be able to nail down pretty well. Profiles are going to be based on uh what we call LAR information. So this is satellite obtained information that's readily available. Um it's not including a proposal, but I did mention to Ken that we can also do a drone fly over and get elevation data that way um as an extra service for a little bit more refinement. But um the the purpose of this is just to kind of define how these you know the roadway alignment. We we're talking about 10th Avenue Southeast already here as far as the lane configuration. It' be probably a similar conversation regarding this area, how that would look like if there are medians or if there's a turn lane or a parking or all those kinds of things be would be kind of u part of this part of the study. So, um it'd be a little bit more than just kind of showing A to B kind of like the the layout shows here. But

would it also determine the width?

Yes. Yeah. So we we'd have we'd have WS and all that included with the geometric layouts. Um and then the north end um which doesn't really show here be kind of the far north end coming into Highway 15 as far as how that'll look like. Um you know the rest of Highway 15's been um turned over to the city. You know maybe at some point that west leg becomes a city leg. That's all kind of maybe part of that conversation that would go into there. But um this is uh um going to look at the entire stretch there. So it does whether or not it looks exactly like that. It probably won't necessarily look exactly like that by the time it gets into the next leg, next um phase. Um but uh yeah, that'd be kind of the purpose of this study is to figure out what this looks like in more detail. So the other thing I wanted to point out as well is so the overall proposal from SE is 85,850. Uh the county has already approved uh to pay for 50% of the study at 42,925 uh back in 2004 2005. It was cost shared between uh both entities as well. But the other major thing we want to accomplish with um an updatedou with the uh county and I shouldn't forget about the township but ultimately they don't have a monetary role in it but um is that we are looking at um with the county's new cost participation program being reflected in that MOU. Right now we're expected to pay roughly 83% of the cost of that road. The county's uh cost participation program is almost flipped the other way around. So, we want to get that incorporated in the new study as well. Ultimately, everything that's a local cost would be assessed back to the developers and adjoining property owners. So, there's really not a cost to the general taxpayer uh in the end. It would be assessed if it was a public project, which it likely will be uh to get this built, but we just want to make sure that the county's taking their appropriate share for a future county road and that we're not overpaying based on an old agreement. So that's kind of the other major part of

that. So once completed, it would be a county road. That is the goal. Once it connects up to the current alignment, as you can see on the overhead there, the current alignment of uh 15 as it comes into town kind of by the wastewater treatment plant, right? But um that would become the county road 15 route to um state highway uh 19. But it's anticipated the whole project would be done as one project, right? Not necessarily. that that the other thing we'll we'll kind of look at is at at what point does that need to be completed? As I said, the current arrangement is that it was developmentdriven, right?

I don't know. Maybe the county will want to push to just have that done and and uh just get it done and move on. We I can't answer that question right now because we just don't have the study completed. Is isn't there or is there a a reason or an advantage that we would at least want it to go up to the northern residences with our uh infrastructure and stuff? Yes. I mean that's entirely possible that we already have maintenance issues on the road. I think we do we pay Lanburg Township we pay them for maintenance on that road already. So Helena or Helena, sorry. Yeah, you might have. So yeah, Matt, thanks. work with that this

so we haven't had any uh we haven't any inkling from the county saying yeah we're going to do this all one shot it it it would it's still at this point perou it is development driven from the city getting development proposals so I I think a combination of the study and a potential reddrafting or amendment of theou would kind of drive the timing all in all well then then it sounds like to me what you're saying is this road and won't be improved any further than the drainage in ditch is that I we can't answer that question at this point. I that would be really disappointing if if we

and and that may be a likely outcome that just hey we got to have this connect up and you know the county might say in order to get that uh portion completed and get it to the highway that the new agreement just kind of pushes the issue and then we have you know unfortunately or fortunately however you want to look at it um you know deferred or pending assessments out there as development happens then you pick those properties up um as development occurs But well, I guess that's a that's a I wouldn't want to say fight u a negotiation that we have to enter into next, but Yep.

If we create a lot of traffic by additional retail and development stuff and we have them driving on pavement and then gravel, it just doesn't seem like a very good planning. Yeah. And yeah, there could there could need to be barricades put up for a portion of Walton, which is obviously going to upset portions on the northern end. Seventh Street residential people on on your will be at your door. But I Yeah, I think that's certainly a conversation that we will need to have as we dig into this. Yep. They're just going to assess your house for it. That's at you're paying for the whole thing.

Me? But in the end, the conceptual attachment of the the county roads, especially on the north side, I I imagine for some of the people haven't been here in 2004, they might see this and say, "Oh my god."

I Yeah, I would say a lot of that information has gotten forgotten. Um, obviously, you know, you guys were not on the council at that point. Um, I just happened to I've been here long enough that I was just at the tail end of this study getting wrapped up, but I think a lot of the information, a lot of the county staff had forgotten about this agreement, but it's still of record and uh, one staff member was still with the county that uh, was involved in it. Um, so yeah, it's just kind of getting it updated and back in the fresh in everybody's mind and um, the county does have the study included in their transportation improvement program for the study for 2026. So, right, that's why they're paying half.

Well, it's just good to inform our residents that the how that gets done, the conceptual and things is really going to be driven by the county more than the city. And um we're not going to be the tail wagon the Yeah. And I think, you know, we want to make sure our interests are met in providing local access to maintain a business viability certainly along Highway 19 because without that we don't have you know viable commercial land and that's what our comp plan calls for and then obviously just make sure that uh residential development can occur and have safe access uh in the remainder of that adjoining lands going right through

and you mentioned Helina Township so they won't have. They were in the previous agreement, but they don't need to be in this agreement. The only thing that they're um required to do per the agreement is to endeavor to not um hinder access to the development. So, let's say there's a a vacant property out there right now. And I I'm just making up a scenario that somebody maybe they wanted to widen a driveway or something like that. They're not allowed to uh do anything that would further complicate the expansion of the road in the future. that might cost the county or the city more money in the future. So, it might be h you can't have that extra driveway or no, you can't widen that driveway right now. It just seems kind of funny that they own the they own the road and they're not going to be a part of the agreement.

They'll be a part of the study and they'll be a part of the new agreement. It just they have limited financial involvement in that always. It's how it has been in the past. And again, we can look at addressing that with them. I have talked with the township clerk about, you know, this coming in front of here tonight. So, they'll be involved, but ultimately, you know, as it annexes and develops, it won't be township land anymore and it won't be a township road. Well, we always have the beaver card. Yeah. Yes, we do have that is a major issue. Ongoing white beavers

ongoing issue. helpful. Any other questions, input? Okay. If not, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the our portion of the 85,000 whatever I think it's 42,000 42 925 925 um to pay to half of the feasibility study on the Alton Avenue expansion. Second. I got a second by Rick Syler. Any other comments, questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Thank you, Chris.

All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night. Thank you. Drive safely. Slow down. Number nine. Make it back there, Patrick. Number nine, there's no ordinances for introduction. Number 10, there's no ordinances for adoption. So, number 11, resolutions. We get to start our annual fund that we have to um do every year uh to appoint city depositories and u things like that. So, Josh, do you want to take

I I I can certainly take it. Um I I don't have much to explain. The city uses um various depositories for its uh funds throughout the year. um whether as checking or investment funds that are regulated by the state of Minnesota. Um but as such we uh must also formally every year um designate those depositories so that citizens know where that money is being kept. So um I guess I would recommend uh approving resolution 26010602 um to officially list our depositories for 2026. I'll make the motion to um pass the resolution 26-01-06-02 appointing official city uh depositories.

I'll second. Okay, I got a motion by Rick Siler, second by Maggie Bass. Any other questions or comments? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay, passes 5-0. Ken, I assume you're going to take this variance.

I do. And I have a quick PowerPoint. If Mitch, if you could pull that up. Yes, we have an item from the planning commission meeting on December 17th. Um, this is V9 2025 for a side deck setback variance at 114 Fourth Street Southwest. The applicant is KA Wit uh Construction who we have a representative in the back of the room here on behalf of homeowner Julene Kern. Uh so again they are requesting a variance uh for a side uh setback variance for a deck uh at 114 or 114th Street Southwest. Uh typical ordinance requirement for a sideyard setback is a 7 foot setback in the RL84 district where this is located. They are requesting that this side deck be allowed up to 5T of the property line. So a twoft variance is what we're looking for here tonight. And that would allow a deck uh to be uh at five foot by seven or eight foot wide, excuse me. So five by eight deck on the side of the house. The house was built uh 10 ft from that property line. And uh we did ask uh Kit and the homeowner to look at if there was any way that the deck could be put anywhere else on the home. Limiting factors being a driveway on the west side of the property. Um and then the rear of the home. uh just the internal um configuration of the home did not uh allow that to be done without major uh reconfiguration and and internal reconstruction. So uh and it was really developed with the home and we'll see pictures here in a minute that the um side uh deck was really intended to be there all along. Uh even though uh they are requesting the variance to have it a little larger than what the uh ordinance would allow at the current setback. Uh we did have uh public works and utility uh staff take a look at the request. They didn't have any concerns with utilities or any other uh related uh

matters. Uh ultimately the planning commission did recommend approval on a 3 to zero vote at their meeting on December uh 27th. Uh again, this is kind of an older neighborhood. Um the plat was actually from the late 1800s in the Cavish edition. Uh you can see in the overhead here, most of the homes do not meet the front. uh or side setback in a number of situations. So happens that this home does meet those, but it uh uh in order to have a deck uh they are seeking the variance on that east side of the home. There's a little better drawing here just showing you that deck up to that 5- foot instead of the 7 foot uh ordinance requirement for that 5 by8 deck. It's certainly not large. And uh there's some more real world photos. You can see the um kind of the dual door there for the ledger board for that deck already had been in place from um many years ago when the home was built. And this is an approximation obviously the red line being the lot line. The light blue line being where they want the deck to go and the dark blue line being where the current uh limitation for the uh setback would be today. U just some other views of the area. You see older homes um meeting a number of uh different situations and nonconformities not meeting setbacks to front side and uh other yards. So kind of a eclectic uh neighborhood that we would typically see in u this part of town. So ultimately staff and the planning commission do recommend approval um with the resolution that's in the packet allowing that twoft uh reduction in the setback to 5T for the 5 by8 deck.

Was there any comments from the neighbor to the east? No, we did notify actually within uh 350 ft. We did not have any uh comments at the public hearing other than from uh the applicant and homeowner. So, so there never has been a deck there, even though there's a header. I do not believe. I don't know if you have any other comment on that. No, no, no. It was one of the She said it was a house built by the high school like 20ome years ago and that's just always been there below the door.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2610603 approving a variance to allow reduction of the setback um for the deck. Second. Okay. I got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Rick Syler. Any other questions, concerns? All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5 Z. Thank you. Right. Next. Is this an annual thing, Josh, that we need to approve on this?

Yes, we had discussed back in March um the city administrator purchasing contracting authority um just coming back for an annual review with the other various items. Um and so I placed it back in your packet without any changes from last year. Um, as a reminder, the this would basically give the city administrator the authority to um spend up to $10,000 on uh budgeted items or $25,000 on non-budgeted items um should the need arise and then obviously report that to the city council of what was done. To this point, it's been approved. It hasn't been a needed item, but um like I said, we we mentioned that we bring it back annually for review. So, this is something you'll see every January.

Sounds good. I just my first time on this one. Oh, yes. This would have been preu BC we say before Chuck. I'll make the motion to approve a resolution 26-01-06-4 approving city administrative purchasing and contracting authority. Second. Okay. Okay, I got a motion by Rick Siler, seconded by Bruce Wolf. Any other questions or comments? Um, bear with me here just a moment. Okay.

Um, I I have a little issue with the contracts entering into a contract. The dollar amounts I don't have a problem with. Um, and just because based on the the laser fish contract and some changes that I thought needed to be made, um, I just need some assurances that, uh, any contracts, um, at least get reviewed by our city attorney, you know. Um,

so yeah, so the contracts and all this language ended up coming from the city attorney on what he'd seen with other cities. um vast majority of contracts are there's no need to rush like I I certainly view this as a um for whatever reason we need to get this out the door now um and it certainly involves more with the budgeted items and whatnot that we may see otherwise. So, I mean I if you would like to work something into res the resolution for contracts like I I don't know why that would be a problem because like I said generally you're you guys are going to see 99.999% of them anyway because it's not a rush deal that I would need to get them before you guys see them. But I I don't know why that would be a problem if that's something the city council

Well, I I think the the wording might be um anytime you buy something that's a contract there. It's a verbal contract. Or if it's an invoice and you're buying it and you're paying for it, it's a written one. The invoice dictates it. So, it's a contract. So, you can you could be signing contracts for $1,000 or whatever. So, if you want to reduce what contract means or spell it out, that's what you'd have to do. Oh, so I I will say this, and this actually just sprung in my head as you were talking. Um, according to city charter, any formal contracts like we're thinking of with Laser Fish do actually need to be signed off by myself and the mayor at the same time. It's technically if only one of us signs the contract, it's not a valid contract. Um, okay. So,

so the charter doesn't spell out what contract means or I would have to go back and look at it. I haven't looked to see. But yeah, because that's something Scott and I have talked about before when usually when someone is a contract, even for like laser fish, we have to go in and insert a second line in there because they never have a second Oh, signatory. Signatory for You can change it now if you want to.

Yeah. I don't know. Right now I don't have the the words to amend the Well, that's something maybe we can bring up. Also look at that at the charter commission since you also serve on that. Um and we'll probably be having one of those soon because we need to get some stuff. Yep. So, I'd imagine here in the next month or two, we'll have that meeting. Yeah. To kind of follow up on our last meeting. So, if there's some discrepancy you can bring up, we can always amend this. Okay. Okay. Who made the motion? Bruce, you did. I don't Rick. And you seconded, Bruce. I don't know if there was a second. I think I did. Yes. Yeah, I think seconded if I didn't. I did. Yeah.

Okay. So, I had a motion by Rick, seconded by Bruce Wolf, Rick Ser, and Bruce Wolf. All if there's no other comments or questions, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Okay. Next, general business uh 26 26 appointments. Um, I did uh contact or did talk to everyone on the council uh regarding their commission and board representations as stated uh in the memo and they're all willing to serve on the same boards and commissions. So, I guess I'm going to make a motion um or I guess that's my uh my mayoral appointments. So, if I can get a motion and a second to approve those, we can go forward. I'll make a motion to approve the mayoral appointments to boards and commissions.

Yeah, I got Maggie Bass. I made the motion. Uh Sean Ryan did a second to approve the mayoral appointments to boards and commissions. If there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Next, city council vice president. Currently, we have Bruce Wolf who serves at that function. I will say I know you guys are going to ask who's next since you do every single year. Uh the order would be Rick would be next. Uh going backwards obviously Bruce Wolf is right now. Um Maggie was last year in 24. Sean was in 23. Rick was in 22. Really? Sean Maggie. Bruce Rick.

So yeah, going backwards if you guys continue to rotate like you had in the past uh Rick would be next in line. Do you want it? Yeah. He ran a spirited campaign in 22. And I make a motion to uh appoint Rick as the council vice president for 2026. Second. I got a motion by Bruce Wolf, second by Sean Ryan to appoint Rick Syler as the city council vice president. If there's no other comments, questions, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Abstain.

Abstained. Okay. So 40 Z with an abstence from Councilman Syler. Next is legal the legal beagles. Right.

Uh yes. I did include the uh proposed hourly rate for uh Scott Riggs and Kennedy and Graven in your packet. Um, looking at it, the hourly rate is proposed to go up $8 an hour. Um, for general work at which is about 3.92%. Um, up about a little over 4% uh for litigation, uh, general projects, real estate, telecom matters, that sort of thing. And then up four a little over four and a half% um to $300 for reimburseable developer pass through matters. And so, um, assuming the city council is all right with that, I would recommend approval of Canadian Graven as the city's legal council in 26.

Okay. I guess I'll make a motion to approve uh Canadian Graven as our legal counsel, our city attorney. I guess I'll second. Got a second by Maggie Bass. There's any other questions, concerns? If not, all in favor say I. I. Okay. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Next is consulting professionals.

Uh yes, the city uses SE uh specifically Chris Kenutton um as our city engineer um and consulting for engineering services. Um and uh we kind of went through an interview process back in 2022 with three engineering firms and the city chose to stay with at that time. Um and then in 2024, the city kind of went through the same process with our financial adviser and um fell on Ellers's public financial services. So I guess staff would recommend proceeding with both um as city engineer and Ellers as our financial adviserss. So move.

Okay. I got motion by Rick Siler. I'll second. Second by Maggie Bass to appoint uh SE as a city engineer and Ellers as our city financial advisor. If there's no other questions or comments, all in favor say I.

I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5. Next we have uh approving the chiefs and officers. Now, I did, if you did note in your memo, that um Steve Reno was chief and he was uh at a two-year term. So, his his really isn't up for uh approval, but um the other assistants, and I assume these are all voted in by the firemen themselves.

So, so technically um he he is up per se in terms of us appointing him. Okay. It's just within the department they they internally vote every two years on it. So um we are we are still appointing him as chief but yes these are voted on at the last meeting of every year um for the coming year and uh this is who they are recommending appointing as officers for 2026. Okay. I guess I'll make a motion to approve the uh fire department uh chief and officers for 2026. I'll second. Got a second by Maggie Bass. If there's no other comments or concerns, all in favor say I.

I. Any opposition. Okay. Passes 5-0. Next, Patrick, you got to do something song and dance for the New Times, don't you? We have a lot of heavy competition this year. We did sift through many applicants. Ultimately, the city is uh staff is recommending to designate the New Craig Times um as our official newspaper and invite Patrick back again for another year. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve uh the New York Times as the official newspaper for the city. Okay. Got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Sean Ryan.

If there's no other questions or concerns, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Passes 5-0. Next, the public speaking um policy.

Yeah. At the last meeting, the council had a real short discussion at the very end about the speaking policy. And so I brought it back um just so you all could kind of read through it. Um I guess as I read through it um as mentioned at the beginning um did change the wording on the agenda to public forum. Um hoping that it explains a little bit better to the public that they are certainly in invited to speak on something on the agenda especially if it does not have a public hearing. Um, but otherwise after kind of reading through the policy, I don't have any recommended changes, but I guess if there's something the council would maybe like to see different in there, um, take a look at it.

I think we made some advancements today with the new listing of the public form. Um although I was a little disheartened to not if I had a question I think it that the instructions were that the council could not engage any additional uh questions or or looking for any responses. Um, and there might be an opportunity to that as somebody's speaking I might hear something that I want further elaboration on or clarification on or whatever else that should be

and it should be but and I think we made a good step today but I think Chuck said during that in the address you do not get to engage anybody on the council and it's not just me personally any one of you might have had it questions or maybe three of us have questions. questions. Yeah. But when he did that, I think that that's um so that the if there is somebody sitting there, they don't directly look at Bruce Wolf and say, "Bruce, anybody that's bald is not going to be on the council any longer." Rick, that's you, too. There you go.

Well, I just think as as we're trying to get this out and there's a time limit, and there's certainly uh the mayor runs the meeting. he can stop it at any time uh if he so feels, but um there could be an out there an a time or two that I might want to ask questions of whomever is speaking. So I I just you always have that opportunity after the meeting or at different time. I I guess well if we're looking for some type of answer, somebody's bringing up some type of whether it's a grievance or just a suggestion or whatever else. I don't know why we can't if they're speaking at the podium why one of us can't raise their hand and get clarification or ask another question or

I think clarification is a good idea that we you're or someone here can ask for clarific or we can ask for clarification of something that's been said but I don't like to go down that slippery slope where we're all a sudden talking about an issue that's not on the agenda that we're not prepared to research and that's happened early on I remember where we're we're starting having a 20-minut conversation with somebody that's you know that that's the other side of it is clarification I'm I support that idea if we don't because there's times I'm thinking did I hear that right or is what do you mean by that but once you get further than that

sure and I understand with that why that was put in place just for the simple fact that you're right we had several instances where it went way longer than five minutes um and our meeting was getting bogged down. I I'm not looking for that. I think that's where the mayor will control the meeting and at five minutes just leave it with, okay, we've heard you. You got a chance to address the council. We need to do some more research on this and then direct staff appropriately and or say we'll bring it back in a couple weeks or a month or whatever. Put it on the agenda. We'll put it on the agenda. Okay. I just want to be able to engage the speaker and I think the way you initially had said it was

that and I guess I I can change my verbiage you know when we get to that public forum is that you know um you know it council has the right to obviously for clarification make sure they understand what the issue is but we're not going to go down that like you said that slippery slope but yeah I say I would certainly caution against any sort of hint that we might be providing getting an answer, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Usually, whether it's council or staff, allowing us some time to do some background research um does provide a better outcome. But I I I don't think I don't think the current policy would disallow if you wanted some clarification on something. Okay. That that was said

and then we can still hold it to the five minutes. Yeah. Yeah. I think that'd be fine. Okay. Thank you. I'll make sure a note of that. All right. You don't need no action. It's been discussed. What's that? It doesn't need no action. It's been discussed. No, don't we have to You wanted to approve it again? I don't No, I don't. No, this wasn't here for approval. This guy just brought the policy back if you saw you wanted to make changes to it.

Okay. All right. Item 13. Um, boards and commission attendance minutes. Nothing else. Yeah. So, I guess just for your edification, Chuck, since this is also BC, um last couple years we've been kind of keeping track of the attendance. Um this last year wasn't a real problem. There was a few years ago where um I believe it was one of our boards had a number of meetings that they weren't able to get a quorum for. Um this is really justformational wise, so that way as if you guys have any questions or as appointments come up in May, um you have that information before you.

No, it's good information. And so I'll double check to see who has to go to the principal's office next. Uh, okay. So, uh, we'll go around the table here. Uh, Rick, do you have anything else to address under the miscellaneous? No. Okay. I did, but I forgot it a long time ago. Maggie? No, sir. Sean? Nope. Anyone on the the table there? Gosh. Mitch, you good? Patrick, you happy now that you're official again? Brian, any other comments? All right, I don't have any. So, I guess I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn. Um, second.

Second by Rick Ser for adjournment. All in favor say I. I. All right, everyone. Thank you for coming and, uh, happy new year. Thanks. Hey, um Pat, I have that same thing going, but and it includes watering and the nose