Council - Regular Meeting

Johnson here. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Any public input?

Consent agenda. If there are any if there are not any changes or additions to consent agenda, do I have a motion to consent? I make the motion to accept second. I actually would like I'd like to consider item for new business just brief discussion if we could uh that would be the setting garage sale. Can we move that to new business or you want to discuss it now consent agendas? Should we move to new business?

We'll move it to new business if that's if that's fair. So I would approve or moving that to modify your motion to approve moving item to new business. Vote for moving Scott second it. Yeah, I'll second it.

Okay. Vote to move uh item F to new business and approve the consent agenda with that provision. We are going to vote on moving item F from the consent agenda to new business and approve the remainder of the consent agenda.

Correct. We have a motion. I think Scott seconding. So if you want to take a roll call or Yep. We're going to vote for a name. So yep. Jeff already motioned and Scott second seconded. Right. So you're requesting my vote. I'm sorry. Yes. Scott, yes. Ashley, yes. Yes. Johnson.

Yes. I have a motion to open the public hearing for the budget amendment number two for fiscal year 26. I'll make a motion to open up the public hearing on a budget amendment number two for fiscal year number six to 20 fiscal year 26 budget at 634.

Second vote. Yes. Yes. Scott Johnson.

Yes. Okay. So, the office did not receive any outside input for the public hearing which is for budget amendment number two which would be for library line item. And as previous previously shared, the library had $13,174.66 remaining from the transferred funds at the end of FY25. Because those were unspent funds, they were inadvertently not put into the line item for the FY26. So I would like to add that amount back to the libraryies line item budget. Any comments?

So the sorry the amount for the amendment then I went ahead and did 14,000 just to round up.

I don't motion close public hearing. I'll second. I'll secondle. Yes. Vast. Yes. Scott, yes. Blake, yes. Johnson, yes.

Staff reports. Does the building inspector wish to make any verbal comment? No, just what's on the report and there's a lot of activity. The church some fores there's stuff coming down the pipe I think for the cities. Would the city engineer like to make any verbal updates? I don't have anything to add. This is important. Answer any questions if there are any. The absence of old business, we will move to new business. Motion consider resolution to 2026 through10 to approve second budget amendment for fiscal year 2020 20 fiscal year 26.

A motion to approve resolution 20 26- 210 to approve the second budget. Second budget amendment for FY26. We'll second both. Yes. Light. Yes. Huer. Yes. Pasi. Yes. Johnson. Yes.

We have a motion to discuss the security cameras at the municipal alip station. and consider resolution 2026 2000 or 208 prioritizing purchasing installations and security cameras that designate a water system for facilities. A motion for discussion on security cameras. I'll second one. Yes, yes, Johnson. Yes, yes, yes.

Okay. Um, so we have resolution 2026 2008. We did secure a quote from Hawkeye Communications, which is the vendor that we currently use for city cameras. Um, I did have him put together the quotes such as that we could phase this type of project if we if we would like. Um, I believe it was council member Bendle had inquired about if there was prioritization that we could still prioritize doing some of the project yet here in fiscal year 26. Um, I did have a discussion also with a public works superintendent and he just wanted to share why his prioritization um would be to prioritize um well number three, the booster station, the north water tower and well two um number one even though the actual equipment was stolen from a lift station which is like the sewage part. The real threat obviously would be to the drinking water if someone were to get in and do something to contaminate the water. Um, and then also the vandalism, unauthorized people coming on location. We do have our new uh water storage tank over here coming up and that could be a target for vandalism and such, which is why we had proposed that we would put the fence around it. Um, so that's kind of why the prioritization was the way that it is here listed. Um, and it was still within budget for fiscal year 26 to do that. Um, what particular uh grouping was the

amount coming out of for keeping within budget? So, it will come out of police public safety. Um, which is where some of our current cameras do come out of public safety. Um, I I feel that's appropriate because it is uh for security reasons that we prioritize that and because we have already had um theft at a lift station that cost the city over $8,000 because actually I think it was 6,000 because our deductible was 5,000. So we did not turn it into insurance. Um so we would be taking it out of public safety.

Um where where what percentage of our public safety budget has been expended so far this year?

I do have that So, as of March 9th, prior to the meeting, the police total extended year to date is $51,040 and our current budgeted is $148,842.

So, we're really safe. Yes. 2026 would be two. Correct. Well three and well two. Uh yes, well three, booster station, north water tower, and well number two. Yes.

Yep. So that we could do yet this year, which does help split up the cost of a project like this. Um we could prioritize more than that if the council decide to do would decide to do so. And I could always bring a another resolution to the table in April that could be yet this fiscal year. Um, with the the quotes good for did they give me the age? I can't remember

usually. Yeah, I think the quote expires March 22nd, but we do have a relationship and we are a current vendor with them, so I'm sure they would extend it if I reached out to him. I would have to ask that. Yes. And I guess I don't know that I've ever seen the footage from these cameras, but in the night time, how how good is the like if there was a night

the night, how good is it? So like that just for example that web station if there was a camera there how clear of an image would it be of a a suspect?

I believe they're pretty clear and I can only go based on what we currently have. So the library, the city hall. Um we do have this lit up. I don't know if you've been on it recently, but I've been on it. Um, and you can I mean, especially since usually, um, if there isn't a light in one of these locations, we would definitely put one there, obviously, because if it's well lit, then it obviously works better for the cameras. But, I mean, they're really good. Uh, I know I think they um, they swivel. Do you know, Ryan? Probably not, but I think they swivel like they're PTZ. Yes. Um,

it's like a three head multi-ensor, so it almost goes into like a full 180 or more. Probably 270° if that's like a three head camera. I know because I installed this. Okay. Yes. So, if you have questions specifically about the cameras, please ask council member Johnson because Are they access? I do not. Are they what? Access cameras. Axis. Uh you know I'm asking a lot of questions. Is it Texas or Amy Viz? Um oh it's Ala video. Yeah.

And that is also nice too because they are um we have mobile devices. So these are the same cameras that the library got outside and inside also so that you can get on in real time. You can put in dates and go back. Um we have had to use it. We've had an incident at the park that we had to look up. Um unfortunately with the theft at um the lift station, we did not have cameras and the cameras that Click Stop had were not working. So um so and they're they're really easy to use in a situation like this. we would then get right now we do not have the public works employees do not necessarily have access to the cameras because they don't really need it. I mean I suppose we do have one for fire over here we could give it but we would also it's very easy to train so we would be able to give access to um the public works employees so they would be able to see that.

Okay. So, is this going to we're going to have to get another quote, you know, for internet access or some type of router out there. So, I believe those are in the quote because he did make contact with USA communication when he did the quote. So, for some of these areas, there is fiber, but we would just need to turn it on. And for the others, um I believe that he was in direct communication with USA Communications. Okay. Well, it just says the bottom pricing assumes that there act there will be active internet connection for because I'm assuming because can monitor these stations real time. Yes. So they should have some internet based.

Okay. There. Yeah. So right now Yes. Because like in some of them we have computers in there that they do water reports, things like that, which is what Ry's talking about. So the Wi-Fi I think is there. Um, we just have to hook it up, connect it out there. There's computers out there. I'm assuming they have When you say out here at the tank, tank. Uh, there will be in the pump station. Yes. And then, um, and then yes, whatever is not there, that's what we would be installing. So, any distance that far, it's it's fiber and then they can do a media converter from fiber to cat 6. Okay.

So, there will be no signal degragation or anything like that. I know I'm I'm nerding out from you are a little bit. That's good. That's good. And I I do know like if we ever have questions and we don't think the quality like some of these cameras I know we can up our megapixels

and we can and if we go with like a flare for where it's got the infrared so you don't necessarily need need lights. So that's that's adjustments that we can look forward to later on. I'm inclined based on where we are sitting in the budget to see if we can extend the quote this quote pri like the number two priority as well and try to do that in fiscal year 26. Are are you recommending adding option number two to this vote?

No. Bring it in next month. Yeah. Okay. Since we already have this resolution,

I'm making a motion to approve this resolution and bring forward priority number two next month. I'll second that. Any other discussion? Okay. Put the motion to uh purchase and it's uh authorize a purchase and installation of security cameras under resolution 2026 2020. Vasi, yes.

Johnson, yes. Light, yes. Bento, yes. Yes. So, open discussion on the vacating South East Washington Avenue. Motion to discuss. Motion to discuss vac.

Yeah. Oh, did we vote before to discuss the we're we're voting to discuss good lading southwest south east Washington Avenue. Okay. And then were you going to call a vote or just a motion uh for vacating? Mhm. I wasn't sure because when we did the camera one on two, there was a motion and a second and then we voted to have the discussion and then we voted to approve the purchase and

yes installation under the resolution. Okay. So, we're not calling a vote for the discussion. The discussion I thought that's what we I think that was all. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. I think you just couldn't get there yet. Oh, okay. So, now we've moved on to Washington and Europe if you have the information to

Okay. So, I have I printed an updated um map and I put this on your desk because I think the one that I previously shared. Um, so in this picture, what I want to demonstrate is that this uh alley that's right below where the vacate is, this was going all the way through the alley. So, I had Brian get on the beacon to cut this portion off because we are not vacating any part of this alley here, only this portion up here, which is between the two properties at Southeast Washington Avenue. So, I know that kind of sounds

only what's in green.

Only what's in green, but what I previously shared with you, the picture actually went into the alley a little further than it should have. So, just so we're clear, so we all know this is the discussion area right here. So, we have a we did not first of all, I guess I want to start by saying we did not have a very um clear process for the city of Urbana and what this looks at like for vacating um an alley or a right of way. So, I did reach out to the city of Centerpoint and some other surrounding and so what I shared with you was kind of a draft and it was the draft of a combination of what was used in the previous city for what this process should look like because it was actually pretty in-depth because as you know I included in the packet um the planning zoning commission met and had to have a discussion and then they had to submit a report for their recommendation for the council. Then we had to um contact the two property owners that the right of way impacts which would have been um John Jacobson who is making the request and then Kelly Randall who is the abiding property owner. We then also um received utilities release form. So the first I had was uh Trent Kramer look at the city with the city engineer and the city engineers feedback. Then we did contact USA communications to be clear that there was no utilities there and had them sign off and then Alliant Energy as well. So there is no utilities and that is not maintained by the city. Therefore, John Jacobson is making the request for vacating the right of way. So the other piece that the council needs to discuss this evening would be

what we put in here for how we would come up with the valuation or the fair market value for the piece of property that is highlighted in green which is approximately uh.15 acre and this process and hopefully the mayor could help me with this as I discuss it. But if you get into the beacon, the appropriate way to calculate a fair market value would be the surrounding homes in value of approximately 72,500 with the surrounding area in that location per acre. And the estimated then value for that much of the property would be rounded approximately $11,000. What is issued below here for is a sample which is what um center point uses and that would be the minimum acceptable value. So the minimal acceptable value for center points which is also similar to other cities is that they do not go below 35% of that fair market value. So tonight for discussion purposes, we have the council needs to decide on what that fair market value for this property would be so that we can let the property owner that's interested in uh purchasing that know before we set the date for a public hearing which would follow April 8th which is on the agenda also. Did I get all of that? So we use we use combined home and property value when determining No, just just the land.

Sorry. Yeah. So the land value. Shall I? Yes, please. Okay. I

wish you would have said that like three minutes ago before I started rambling. Um I I talked to Larry Anderson Anderson uh of Benton County and basically going front to back um there's u a decreasing um value like the front front part is a real high value and as you move further back but since this one is fronting the road and then going back then it's basically equal to the the two properties on either side and the properties across the street. uh going from a strictly uh dollar value per uh acre when when you start looking at that. If if you go uh if if you say subdivided back near an alley then then the property value would be a lot lower because it would be just like the lower oneird. But since it was coming from the street side coming back, we could use the the values of adjacent properties. So average of uh Kelly and the um Jacobson and then across the street from them uh there was four four properties in that area that all face the street and use that as an average and then dividing that by the 35% that we is used by u center point comes up with the uh the final minimum uh bid value. Of course, if you have um more than one person interested in it,

you can start bid a bidding war on it and that's a new one. But the council needs to decide whereabouts in that range they wish to set the the value of the property. Did I read somewhere that there's a storm sewer underneath that or is that somewhere else? Somewhere else. So if you look at the map, the storm crack that's running down the alley. Yeah. So that's the alley that will not be that that's what they thought coming. Yep. So there's no there's the

So you're asking us about 35%.

Do you do you want 35% or you want 40%? Ba basically the the thought is um is the landlords the city and the transferring it to a land owner improves their lot value. It takes and puts that land on the city tax almost. But if you current current thought is is since it's a you know it has some value and what what value does the city council want to place on it?

Jeff, are you calculating the four properties average? No, no, it wasn't. I think the four property average, isn't it? The 72,500 that that's per acre of the lot under the properties. Yeah. The two just the two across the two and the two across go across the street. So, basically there's four properties. All four, you know, the the ones the ones facing East Maine there. Who who did that calculation? I did. You did it?

Yeah. I used used the uh the county's assessed value for those four lots. Somebody checked the math on that, right? Like somebody I'm not discrediting, but it was peer reviewed, right? We know that's accurate. That's all I'm asking. I'm pretty sure I did, but now maybe not.

I just would hate to commit to an amount without having it peer reviewed and and double check. I guess transparency. Um I guess my only question is if that was city property, who was maintaining it beforehand before this came up? Was the city maintaining that or were the property owners? The the property owners. Well, prior um if you look if you look at here, you you can see that there was a shed on it, but it was it was being mowed by the property owners.

So, I did I took I did do the math of the 10,875 and then the 35% So that's 3,86 range that we have. Talking about the value, the property value. I did not I took the word of the mayor and the auditors or not auditor's office.

Yeah. Ba basically what I did was I I looked up the acreage of of these four lots. Took the assessed lot value which is not necessarily the market value just the assessed lot value and then added them together and divided to come up with the 72,000 per acre.

Sure. I'm I'm not uh I'm not trying to belittle anybody's math skills. I just I always like to make sure that we uh peer review those before we make it to we could we could discuss a percentage. I think that's fair. I don't know that we should agree to a number like a final number, but we could we could have the number re confirmed by you know for the legal process. Uh but the percentage itself I don't know why we couldn't. It seems logical before we made a final we just tonight agreed to a percentage of the final uh calculated value. You know what I mean? Which I assume it mean this but I would hate to like

Okay. So, you're saying like if the range for the council is $3,86 to $11,000. The price should be I I believe somewhere within that range or or maybe I'm not understanding. Basically, just saying we got we got to figure out if we want to be 35% fair market, 40% 45. Gotcha. Exactly. Gotcha. So, no matter what the price is, right, it's coming in at a percent. Gotcha. percentage of the final cup. Correct.

Well, um I could show uh Jennifer what I did and then she could uh you know pull up beacon and do the math too. I don't think we can. I guess my my statement I I don't know if they've done this in the past. I guess this would be my first one to go to. I don't know. Do we have any records of what we've done in the past? Do you have the most recent was not it was it was yeah it was not done this this well so I wouldn't want to go use that as a

yeah I think we did go back and I would not want to use the process because I wasn't sure what the process was that they used and I feel that if we're going to go through a process like this we need to standardize it so that and I understand in the past two years ago three years ago you know maybe somebody got it for x amount of price I understand that but I believe that as we've done a lot of things um but having a standardized process that's the same for anyone that comes in here is how I believe it should be done so um after doing the research I found that this was a more solid process process that like Centerpoint was using. I I think that um this would be how we would move forward. Maybe not go back to see like how it was done unless a previous council member could do that because there was no process necessarily um in writing that I could find. Well, the the also the the numbers for this one would be different than uh let's say you did a turn back on the alley behind it. The the the lot land value in the alley itself would be considerably lower than the property facing the the street. going through the assessor's office methods. So, so the the math the math part of that calculating the value is going to change depending on where where you picking up, you know, where the property is that you're turning back to the or vacating

and adding to a another lot. So tonight we we have to decide that percentage um or are we only setting a date for a public hearing? I believe

I believe that we should do the percentage because um based on the percentage that allows the property owner that would like to purchase the right of way. That way he knows what the value is and what the city is set on that being because we don't want to get in a position where we then set the date for a public hearing. we come to the public hearing and then we have a property owner that says that's more than what I think I want to pay for it and now we're at a public hearing with vacating a property that we can't necessarily

it feels like we should either have a resolution or an ordinance update to to that should be set like it shouldn't be negotiable per vacation so when we have the public hearing in April we will then have the set amount I'll come back with like if you guys get give the percentage in April for the public hearing, we'll approve that that that would be approved after the public hearing. But this way the property owner knows where that percentage lands and what the price will be so that we don't have that happen in a public hearing and then that's a surprise to everyone.

I think I'm just a little concerned about how it's stated in our agenda and I apologize. I didn't catch that. We were setting a percentage today because it says memo, but it doesn't say that we're taking action on a percentage or to Jeff's point, updating a ordinance or having a solution to 90. I just struggle a little bit with setting up that percentage without there being something on the agenda about us making that action. Am I

We could come to a consensus tonight, but I I would just So, it's my Yeah, it's my understanding that you can make a motion for what the percentage would be. So that when we then set the date for the public hearing, then that resolution with that pricing comes exact with the resolution the night of the public hearing. Yeah. I mean, it's it's feasible that someone could vote. We could vote, not the council could vote, not in favor of it being the alley, even though the price has been set. Correct.

Right. I I just don't I don't want it to box us into that whatever percentage we decide tonight is, you know, you understand what I'm saying? I'm not trying to foreshadow anything other than just like whatever percentage we had come to an agreement with. That that in of itself is a single item. And then the vac the public hearing is to vacate the alleyway, right? That's separate for discussion to vacate the sense, but we're we're we're actually looking at two things. Uh yes trying to set the the valuation minimum bid if we want to vacate.

I mean the city the city actually has to you know want to vacate and if that's tonight that's saying we want to vacate is not right. it it's it's you know the two things go are going together right which I don't really like that but but that I guess that's where that's where my my confusion lands that we wouldn't bring forth a resolution to vacate without having discussed

a price of what that percentage would be because between between tonight in making that decision and before a public hearing, we would want to notify the property owner that is making the request because otherwise I'm not sure that we would go through with the public hearing if if we have set the range in a position because right now um we can't go anywhere with the property owner if the council doesn't have a fair market value and we also don't want to go into a public hearing without already knowing the value for the property owner because we wouldn't go through a public hearing to vacate and then not have someone that's purchasing it. And I I'm in total agreement with where you're going here. I I'm just struggling with the fact that we're almost asking to do two separate things, right? like we're trying to make a policy about what our policy going forward is going to be when we vacate these things and we're trying to do it in alignment with this one situation where it feels to me like tonight what we should have done and and again I apologize for not catching this but I almost think we should have had a resolution to set that percentage for what we're going to do now and therefor forward and then come back and set the public hearing for this one situation to be able to give that and then discuss the vacation.

I don't know if I'm understanding you completely, but uh you're not really setting a policy. Let's say you set it at 35% for this particular vacation. That doesn't mean that's the standard going forward. I mean, I know that'll be looked at in the next vacation and the one after that, but the next vacation may be more valuable land that maybe, you know, could be used for a city park or something. Um, and so maybe that would be a higher percent. You're going to look at previous cases, but I don't think you're setting for every vacation it's going to be 35%. Right. Sure. Does that make sense?

Yes, that is makes perfect sense. Thank you. And I'm not saying you should set it 35%. What I'm trying to say is each case is going to be separate. You are going to look at previous cases to say what do we do in this one? But then you also have to consider you comparing apples to apples. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Yeah. You're looking at the alley versus a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Or what is on the other side of that? Is it more city property that would be more valuable to the city? Yeah. It's two joint properties. It's not like the city can really do anything with the alley. It's not much property. But yeah, if the city owns the lot next to it, then yeah, the city can extend make it a lot bigger.

I know. I still struggle with that because it's an extremely subjective every time it can be very subjective. Your land value dictates that like what you recoup based on the percentage you you see fit, right? So the land value in that part of town equals this or whatever it is 11,000 but if it's next to a part I don't know I could I could see your argument but I see the other way too. It's like you you establishing the land value based on what you know what the professionals have set it at and then recoup whatever amount we fit as far as if you wanted to sell it. But the land value in this particular instance with just this particular right of way and this is the only this is the only one that we are discussing and it's not becoming a policy for anything. The land value of this particular rightway isn't going to change between tonight and April 8th. So, we're really we're we're solely I mean I guess I don't know I'm missing something like we're only setting the value of this particular one tonight which is the only one that's being requested. So if we're saying that it that value is at 11,000 the minimum 35% of that 3806 for this particular right ofway we should be somewhere within this range so that we can do that before April 8th. So whatever that percentage would be, all of that can be refigured for this particular resolution that would accompany the public hearing on April 8th. So I'm I must be like missing something like I'm just missing something. I I think the the issue and there's not really an issue. The question is we've establish I mean

everything's been requested. We've already done all the work. We've established what the land value is. And the minimum is 35%. You're asking the council or the council's being asked to say, is that what you want to charge? And yes or no, and if not, what do you want to charge for us to make a decision on what we would? I haven't heard any anybody pitch anything other than the proposed 35%. And I haven't heard an argument why it should be more or less. No one. So all I'm saying is if we make a decision on that percentage tonight, it should be based with object objected object. So you can't just say 35 sounds great for this one and then next week we get another request and we're like 65 sounds pretty good.

I see. You know what I mean? Like we we should have some level of basis for what we're deciding, not just pulling a number out of thin air and approving it. So technically, you know, if if you um the the 35% came from an adjacent city city. Exactly. So, and so that's where the 35 comes from. And I see where you're going because you're you're basically saying if we do this, you're kind of establishing you're setting you're the next person's going to blow you. But I think that that's where all of this comes into this particular property.

The city does not maintain it. The city does not have utilities there. So the value of this property, the only piece that that does add value to the property is the conversation I believe the mayor had with Benton County and that this particular rideway abuts or is right off the street which adds value to that. But however, if somebody three weeks from now wants to vacate an alley that is in a different space, that I think goes back to what um Shane was saying and that you can use precedents. However, each one becomes its own incident because it all goes through planning and zoning with that recommendation. But, you know, this particular one doesn't have a property, you know, with the park right next to it. So I believe that in the conversation that we are having if I look at it as a range if I'm looking at this 3800 on this side and 11,000 here through the conversation which is not my decision to make based on the conversation that the mayor has said based on the conversation that the city engineer has said my little radar would be closer to the 3800. more than the 11,000 in this particular incident incident because it doesn't hold necessarily the value to the city that maybe one on Wood Street right next to a vacant lot may hold a little more value to it. And again, I apologize. I tried to get this out well in advance and it's a very new process for me too because I haven't done it. Um, but I also wanted to be fair to the property owner who has been patient with the city to try and like put something in place

in motion to get this rolling. And that is why I kind of ask the question about who's been m maintaining it because that because then we kind of have to kind of figure they've spent time managing the property, keeping it bowed, not overgrowth. It's it's kind of a fickle spot. I I I see where you're going with it and I I see what you're trying to get to because if we set a certain percentage is If you're setting it as 35% is the minimum, let's just say that's that's the lowest we're going to go. It's not saying that we have property,

but it's still not saying that we have to sell it at 35%. It's just that would give the person, hey, it's 35%'s the cheapest, then I can make an offer on it. I think it just can't go below that 35%.

Correct. I think that Jennifer's point, the way I I look at it is, you know, what is the value to the city? Is it a buildable lot? If it was just to stay by itself, you know, if the city was vacated itself and keep the property and then sell it for building or something like that, you know, then maybe you're looking closer to the 100%. is if you could turn around and sell it for the lot to a developer, build a home, buy a home, then they may be willing to spend, you know, that $11,000. But if it's a narrow strip that's, you know, to council member Johnson's point that the adjacent property owners are already maintaining, there's not a lot of additional value for the city, then maybe it's closer to that 35%. or if it's adjacent to a property the city already has like a vacated lot that the city has has acquired then maybe it's got more value that's where I would kind of start your basis on it um you know so if you're looking at just an alley that's really the only value is being added to the property adjacent to it and then the value for the city is that impacting the the tax it doesn't say okay let's do it at 35 but you know in this situation maybe you closer to the lower end versus higher end

because then that's the other we can look at our the tax threshold when the city will be recouping some of the taxes. Yeah, I don't I'm not I'm not opposed to any opposed to this process. We have a draft policy that we're about to set a benchmark in that draft policy. would have been ideally we would have adopted a policy or you know we're just not even in reference to policy

right so it's it's just a little in my my mind backwards so I understand the point of what we're trying to accomplish to make it you know work for everyone or not work but um allow people enough information to make an informed decision so or you know prospective buyers So, so that that draft came from Centerpoint or was it that was there?

The main part of it came from Centerpoint and then the rest of it is things that I've added in just based on the conversations that I've had with um the city engineer uh contacting the utilities, things like that that I felt that we needed to add in a little bit. that yes, this would be a draft that really started from 7 point. I mean, I think in this situation, I'm fine going with the more than 35%, but I I think we need to obviously have some discussion about that policy in a separate meeting. Well, because we don't have one yet,

but we referenced it in a memo to us. So I feel that we have two things that we could do. Um, if you are not comfortable with the draft, which um, to me the draft provided more in a short amount of time than what the city was making previous decisions on when they vacated alleys and right ofways in the past. So, if you would like, I we would maybe bring forth the draft policy at the next meeting, which then would delay the next items in the process if the council feels more comfortable with having an official policy before making a decision. Well, I know I'm one that has had maybe a little bit more of an issue with this, but I I just got done saying that I'm fine moving forward with the 35%. I I think that's more than reasonably in fair, but we really up until the memo didn't have any discussion about this. I would have liked in the future to have the meeting and have these discussions so that we're not delaying it or put into this type of situation where we're put on the spot. And I know that you gave it to us in advance, but there's going to be times where we're not all up to date and that's why we have these meetings. So that's where I was coming from.

Yeah. No, I I totally agree because this process came forward and I had absolutely no idea really where to start. So, I mean, I'm fine with that, too. We can take a look at bringing the policy forward or if Yeah, I think I'd like before we do any more of these to have a policy and I don't think it needs to be locked in at a 35. I think it to Shane's point, we can put something in there about, you know, what flex is. It's just this situation. I think it was tough because it was mentioned this draft policy. I don't know what that is and I don't know where it came from and I didn't necessarily have a ton of time to prep for that. I know you gave it to us in advance, but I have not had a chance to look at it. So,

yeah. No, I'm I'm I agree. Maybe we could put like a something in there that there's a threshold for property percentage so we're not finite to a certain number. So are we sticking with the 35 and we don't have a resolution. So this is just a motion to have a 35% on this situation

in this one situation. If the the council would like to make a motion to use 35 of the 35% of the assessed lot value of the surrounding properties. Yeah, I'll make a motion to use the 35% of the average of the four assessed land value properties around surrounding the area for this situation.

Second vote. Baski yes. Yuber, yes. Bendle, yes. Light, yes. Johnson, yes. Okay. 35%. Do I have a motion to set a date?

I will make a motion to set the public hearing for April. Is it in the resolution? It says where? That's what I'm Oh, it says April 8th. April 8th. Okay. April 8th at 6:30 p.m. So, it just says set date at the March 11th. Got it.

Before April, do we have a second? I'll second vote for setting the hearing on for April 8th for the vacation of the rightway on East Washington. Yes. Light. Yes. Huber. Yes.