City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. All right. Good evening everyone and happy new year. It is January 12th, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. I am Mayor Shelley Carlson. The Morhead City Council welcomes public input on issues listed on the agenda or of general community interest, time and council permitting. Speakers will be limited to three minutes each. If you would like to address the council during the meeting, please fill out a form provided by the city clerk and we will call you up during the citizens to address the council. You'll need to state your name and if you are a Morhead resident. If comments were submitted to the clerk prior to the meeting via email or phone, those comments will be entered into the record. For more information on participation, please visit the council media's page on the city of Morhead website at morheadmn.gov. We the Morhead city council collectively and with gratitude acknowledge the sacred land the city of Morhead is built upon. We acknowledge the people who resided here for generations and recognize that the spirit of the Dakota Ojiway and uh Dakota Ojiway Mati and all indigenous communities permeate this land. Um with that, could we get a roll call, please?

Ryan Nelson here. Nicole Matson, Heather Nisser here. Emily Moore here. Deb White, Lisa Borggan here, Sebastian McDougall here, Chuck Hendrickson, Mayor Shelley Carlson here, and for those who are able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. All right. And city manager Molly, do we have any agenda amendments? There are no amendments to the agenda, mayor.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So move Nissa Meyer. Second. Nelson. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Moving [clears throat] on to recognitions and presentations. Um, I will turn this portion of the agenda over to Miss Lisa Bodie.

Thank you, Mayor Carlson, members of the city council. I'm here with another wonderful donation to the loop. Um, the loop is progressing. Um they'll get a certificate of occupancy I believe in early February and then there'll be work to migrate materials and plan a big party. And um tonight we have the Morehead Viking Land Kiwanas who is a wonderful community supporter um and has supported so many activities and events and facilities um whenever there's a need in Morehead. And so tonight, I just bring them forward and ask you to thank them for their contribution to the loop. [applause] I'm past president.

Okay. All right.

Thank you. Thank you so much to the Quanis for your donation. Um the support is greatly appreciated and it's just really heartwarming to have all these different community groups that are coming together and and uh helping to support this community amenity that's really going to be the heart of our downtown. So thank you so much. Right. Moving on to the approval of the December 8th, 2025 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

So move Borggan. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Do we have any citizens to address the council at this time? Any citizens to address the council? Okay. Moving on to uh mayor and council appointments. Uh do I have a motion to approve the resolution to approve the appointments as listed on the agenda? So moved. Second. Nelson. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Uh, Council Member White, thank you. I'd like to specifically speak on item 8A. That's great.

Yep. There's a motion on the screen. So, [clears throat] go ahead.

Sorry, I have a cold. Uh, I feel like we have this conversation over and over and it never seems to get any better. I'm deeply troubled by Mayor Carlson's request to appoint Council Member Borggan as mayor prom. I take our responsibilities as elected officials very seriously. Now more than ever when we see trust in government eroding, it's imperative that we hold ourselves accountable. Mayor Carl Carlson, for as long as you have served as mayor, you've stated that your choice in selecting mayor prom was based on seniority. You've followed that path every single year that you've served as mayor until suddenly now you've decided to change course and instead of giving the position um to the most senior council member, you've given it you suggesting that it go to a least senior member who just happens to be your very close personal friend and who last month announced that she is considering a run for mayor. Our choices should first and foremost be based on what is best for the people of Morehead and what best serves the council. We are currently more divided as a council than I have ever seen us since I first began serving in 2018. And part of the reason is based on a frustration with the ongoing pattern of cronyism. Whether it is your intention or not, this action undoubtedly gives the appearance that you are attempting to use your authority to put your thumb on the scale of the upcoming mayoral race. It reflects poorly on Morehead and will only further fan the flames of division on our council. I cannot support this recommendation and requests a roll call vote once the discussion has been closed.

Any other discussion? All right. Seeing Oh, I'm sorry. Um, I think Council Member Borggan was Okay, Council Member Borggan,

I I'm quite frankly I'm kind of surprised that Council Member White objects to me being named Mayor Prom. Um, the mayor asked me back in the fall if I would be interested in doing it, and I said if she wanted me to do it, I would do it. I have not announced that I'm going to be running for mayor. U, I am considering it. And frankly, I think it's disingenuous of you to say that I'm not up for the job. So, Council Member Matson,

can I ask what the um kind of the decision-making process was here for making this recommendation? Um, uh, the reason that I chose council member, excuse [clears throat] me, the reason I chose council member Borggan is because I know that she has sufficient time and she has, um, a very lengthy background in presiding over meetings. Um, she's presided over courtrooms, so I know that she would do an excellent job on the very few times that I miss council meetings. And that is really what the mayor prom's role is is to run a meeting uh when the mayor is not available or um present or stand in when I can't make a presentation or read a um resolution or a proclamation at an event. um it doesn't happen frequently and um there really wasn't any more thought than that that went into that process. I just believe that council Morgan Morgan would do a good job and I know she has a time available um while while many of uh the other council members have full-time jobs. Um, it is very rare and usually I will go down uh a huge list when there are different events that come into play or or situations where I've been asked to um represent the city of Morehead and I can't make it. There are a number of council members that I call on to do that. I think almost every single one of the council members um have stepped in for me. Um it's not just the mayor prom that does that. So that was my reasoning. Council member Matson, I do think it is potentially problematic to have I mean we you you haven't announced yet, but that's not saying

you're not going to announce. And so I do think given the fact that um you know that is a consideration that's a factor in in this I don't doubt that you're perfectly capable of running the meeting. I will say um I have as much council experience as council member Borggan. I also spent three years as chair of planning commission and two or three years as vice chair. So I've sat in that spot many many times and run city meetings. So there's you know I think many of us are qualified for that position. I was not asked if I wanted. I don't know if anyone else was asked, but I do think because that because um I it I just don't think it's um it just doesn't look great to have a mayoral candidate be given that position of of mayor prom and I don't think it's a great idea.

Okay. Any other discussion? Council member Ner. Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm curious. Um, in my five years on council, um, Chuck Hendrickson has served willingly as mayor prom, and I'm curious, um, if there was a situation that changed and he, uh, asked not to serve in that role, and I I don't, uh, want any, uh, private information shared. That is not why I'm seeking it. I'm just curious if um, that discussion was had with council member Hendrickson because of his experience being mayor prom. Yes, I did discuss this with council member Hendrickson. Um, city attorney Shakley, you had your hand raised. [clears throat]

Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the city council. I just wanted to uh take a moment to under the city charter uh kind of set the table. Under the city charter, the appointment of the mayor prom is done by the mayor. The city council does not actually vote on the appointment of the mayor prom. Um and the mayor prom serves at the pleasure of the mayor which means that um the mayor could and if the mayor is not satisfied with the role the prom is playing could replace the prom next month could in theory have eight different proms in one year and the resolution um so just be clear the city council is not voting on the appointment of the mayor prom that is solely a task for the mayor. So thank you. Thank you, city Attorney Shockley. Council member Matson, can I ask then why is it in a resolution that we're voting on?

Uh, I believe it was uh just in if you look at the resolution, it includes it in a warehouse clause. Um, the uh it what it does is it appoints uh does hereby accept. Yeah. So, it's just an aware clause. I didn't actually look at the the resolution, but it you look at the resolution, it's just appointing uh Mayor Carlson to various boards and commissions as noted below. And so that's the actual action the council is taking to appoint Mayor Carlson uh to be on the flood diversion authority, finance committee, uh authority planning committee, Klay County Joint Powers Authority, Red River Dispatch, Board of Appeals and Equalization, Beyond Yellow Ribbon Committee, Legislative Work Group, and the alternate to the Red River Basin community. Um the reference to the mayor prom um I'm not sure why that got into the title. Um but it's just in the warehouse clause. You're not actually taking that on as a task. So

it does say that we that the city council does hereby accept the appointment which implies that we are voting on it. I can appreciate that. Uh but uh charter is pretty clear on it and like I say I didn't have a chance to review this resolution. It's it's very clear that the the charter is very clear that the appointment of the mayor prom is done at the discretion of the mayor. So

okay I would just ask in the future if we could make sure these are correct before we get them because now we've had this discussion that probably didn't need to be had which is unfortunate. Um, Madame Mayor, can I ask you, would you be willing to to um if we if you um appoint uh Council Member Borggan, would you be willing to change the mayor prom if she does announce that she's running for mayor?

You know, at this point in time, we're just going to have uh Council Member Borggan be the mayor prom, and that's what I'm going to do going forward. And I think we're going to just take a roll call vote on the resolution to appoint mayor uh to appoint the mayor appointments to the committees, boards, and commissions. So, um, with that, madam clerk, could we get a roll call, please? May I have my hand up, ma'am? Mayor. Oh, I didn't see that. Council member uh White,

and I I believe council member Nissa Meyer does, too. It's possible for council member Borggan to also turn down the request or to the op the and again now we've learned we don't have any say in this. My point here is not to say that council member Borggan is qualified or not qualified. My point is that in a democratic process we want the citizens to know that their voice is most important and we shouldn't be doing things that have an influence on the election. We shouldn't be using our power to do things that would give an unfair advantage to one person in that election. And so since council member Borggan has said publicly and in the media that she is considering running for mayor, I think it would again this reflects badly on Morehead. If we are giving an advantage to one candidate, I it really does not look good. And if the mayor is not willing to change your mind, I would really respectfully request that council member Borgan um turn down this. We have several other people that are not running for mayor that would be quite capable of filling that in. Council member Hendrickson has done a perfectly fine job. I don't think this looks good for Morehead.

Council member Nismire. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, if I may, um, City Attorney Shockley, uh, I I just wanted to check on the language. Um, so we had two resolutions. One was to do um mayor prom and um the mayor's boards and commissions and the second is to appoint uh council members to our appointments. Is the language difference the whereas versus be it resolved?

That's correct. And so I'm just saying that perhaps um the language following the whereas per council member Matson's request would be different in the future potentially. Um but that is should anybody be at home looking at the packet and being like everything's in bold. I don't get it. I just wanted to provide that context to make sure I understood but others who um may not understand resolutions and those sorts of things that that is the language difference that we are looking at for these particular resolutions.

Correct. Council member Nissa Meyer. the the resolution should have just been a resolution to appoint uh the mayor to mayoral appointments, committees, boards, and commissions and should not have included the reference to Mayor Prom. I appreciate that uh example and context. Thank you, Council Member Nelson. And then Council Member White.

Thank you, Mayor. So, I I think that uh um we can move along to uh take our roll call vote here shortly, but really uh being mayor prom uh I don't want to diminish the the importance. We need to have the mayor prom in there for in the absence of the mayor. But I don't know that anybody has ran for the mayor spot and used the mayor prom on their on their resume to get any political um advancement or credit. I I I don't think that is I I think any candidate would run on their uh their background, their resume, their credentials, everything else. So I I don't I don't think this gives anybody an edge. Uh otherwise just uh as a matter of fact um using I mean being a council member probably gives you a better edge than uh any one of us up here would have an edge because of the experience experience knowledge history that kind of thing. So um anyway I I don't think it's um I don't think it gives that kind of a political edge. I don't see anything wrong with it. ready to proceed on council member Borggan's background without question.

Council member White then council member Borggan. Thank you mayor. So the heading uh I just want to clarify because the heading currently and as it would read in the minutes is resolution to approve appointment of mayor prom and mayoral appointments. Uh and so I think as written I would not vote for it. Uh, and I know that that might hold up the mayor's appointments for herself on the others, but I would not want anything on the record that would indicate that I support this resolution. City attorney Shakley,

uh, I could suggest that you would just, uh, make a motion to amend the resolution to strike appointment of Mayor Prom and and then strike the first whereas Okay. Can we make that motion and second and vote on that within the first motion and second? Well, I believe you already have a motion on the table. So, you need a motion to amend. So, you'd be voting on the motion to amend to strike that language.

Correct. Correct. Is there a motion to strike the language as stated by uh city attorney Shockley? I motion to amend based on city attorney Shockley's uh recommendation. Is there a second? Second. Motion in a second to make the amendments to the resolution as stated by the city attorney. Um any discussion on the amendments? Council member Matson.

I just want to clarify because you didn't state it. We are um the I just want to understand that the motion is to to um change the title of the resolution to resolution to approve mayoral appointments to committees, boards and commissions and then strike the first whereas correct correct that was the motion I intended. Thank you. I am not sure if uh uh council member McDougall also agrees and that was what he was seconding. I agreed with uh what attorney Shockley said. All right. So, with that motion [clears throat] and second, um, if we could vote on all those in favor Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Borgan.

Yeah. So, I mean, I think if you understand the Robert's rules of order and the rules of how the city works, the charter says that it's an appointment by the mayor. So, the council does not really have to agree to it. And frankly, I don't think anyone in the city knows or even cares who the mayor prom is because they only show up for the mayor when the mayor is not there. So having this discussion and and with council member White saying that the council is more divided than ever, I think the reason we may be divided is because we have motions like this that pit each other against each other, which which does not have to happen. I just find it to be very petty and I don't understand it. I mean the mayor prom last year I think Chuck Hendrickson maybe did two one or two meetings at most and all you do is chair the meeting. So I am offended by it. I'm not surprised by council member White but I am still offended by it. But that's the way I I guess that's the way things go in this council right now. It's unfortunate. I think we should all be big enough to just do our job and not have petty little fights and try to make little jabs and points. I just think it's it's really not a good use of the city's time. It's not a good use of any of our time. So, with that, I'm done.

Okay. Are we going to vote on the We have City Attorney Shakley. We have to vote on the the amendment motion and second that is on the table. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So, all those in favor of amending the resolution as stated by city attorney Shockley and confirmed by council member Nissa Meyer and council member McDougall. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. So that amendment passes and now we are back to the original motion which would be to approve the mayoral appointments to committees, boards and commissions. I'm tracking correctly. Okay. And there was a request to do a um roll call vote on that. So with that, I just wanted to acknowledge council member White. I'm sorry.

Council member White. Thanks. Again, I just I'm just responding to Council Member Borggan. It's It's really difficult to think that if this is so uncon inconsequential, it would be very easy for you to turn it down. It would just be very easy. There's plenty of other people, plenty of other people with greater seniority, plenty of other people that aren't considering a run for mayor, plenty of other people that aren't the best friend of the mayor, it just looks really bad. And and if you can't see that and you can't see what people in the community in the community are saying about us, it's

I think they're saying that you're very petty, but other than that, I don't think anyone in the community really cares who is the mayor. I care deeply about good government. I will stand up for that every single day. Okay. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Madson, no. Nissmeer, yes. Moore, yes. White, Oregon, yes. McDougall, yes. Nelson,

yes. So, City Attorney Shley, I know that appointments to boards and committees have to has to be unanimous. I'm not sure what to do at this point. if you could please advise that would be helpful because I know that it's important for a lot of these boards and commissions that we have approval since there are meetings coming up with the dispatch center with diversion project with a lot of them and we have to have appointments from the city um and and the solid waste advisory committee and so if you could advise that would be helpful.

Um thank you madame mayor. Yes, you're correct. for appointments for the mayor. It is a unanimous uh vote. Uh just to clarify, this is not this has nothing to do with this resolution as amended. No longer has anything to do with the U mayor prom. Um there are certain boards and committees such as the diversion authority in which by contract and the MCC JPA that the mayor is uh of Morehead, whoever the mayor is uh serves on those committees. And so I don't know if there's any questions I can answer. Um there are some appointments of the mayor that are required under agree previously uh existing agreements and it's this isn't accepting the mayor prom. This is just the mayoral appointments to the standard board. So if we do we go back and continue discussion or if this is a vote then um we wait and come back to the next council meeting and in between those times nobody goes to their meetings.

Um well maybe there is maybe there's a some board on there that should be removed. I I don't know if somebody has I don't I don't want to get in in between council members and the mayor, but maybe there's a a solution that is acceptable to all the council members. Council member Niss Mayor.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, uh attorney uh Shockley, uh based on what you just shared, there are two on this list that are contractually required. Are there any others that you know of? I am asking not to put you on the spot, but in hopes to make a motion.

Um, Council Member Nissa Meyer, I believe that the uh Red River Dispatch Center Authority Board uh may also be a required appointment. Um, I don't I don't recall if the board of equalization requires the mayor to be part of that. I don't I don't think it does. um the legislative work group. I don't believe it does. And then the last one is an alter alternate to the Red River Basin Commission. Thank you, Attorney Shockley. Uh I would like to move to appoint the mayor. Uh and we are just doing the mayor. We're not doing the rest of council. Correct. Okay.

And and I'm the other position would be uh the Metro Flood Diversion Authority Planning Committee.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I would like to apologize to our city clerk in advance. Um, I would like to make a motion to appoint the mayor to contractually required boards and commissions, including Metro Flood Diversion Authority Board, Metro Flood Diversion Authority Planning Committee, Morehead Klay County Joint Powers Authority, and the Red River Regional Dispatch Center Authority Board. I was going to say I I did have a question on the board appeals and equalization because I think by statute doesn't the mayor have to run the meeting or there's something that I know I've always been required to be at that meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that a motion? That did I did I say that it was a motion? I apologize. Oh, okay. Yes, I did. Yes, that was my intent. Sorry. Uh, there's a motion. Is there a second to appoint the mayor to those four? Those four. Yes. Okay. Uh, council member. Oh. Oh, okay. Is there a second? Okay. There. So, there is not a second to that motion. I think we're waiting on the board of equalization.

Oh, right. I think we're waiting. Sure. Right. Sorry to interrupt.

No, no, that's uh good context, Council Member Nelson. I was just going to go ahead with the one, but I would not be opposed to adding that. So, uh, Madame Clerk, if you would add to my original motion the board of appeals and equalization, bringing the total up for mayoral boards and commission appointments to five. Is there a second? There is no second to that motion. Council member White,

I will just say we don't have any say over the mayor prom choice. We do have a say over this. I'm deeply troubled by the mayor's choice and I will not vote on any of the others until a neutral person is selected as mayor POM.

Council member Nelson. So, what I'm hearing, Council Member White, is that you're going to essentially kind of stop city business here. Um, based on that, if the mayor feels that it's more important for her to put Council Member Borggan in this than to carry on city business, then yes, I will. That's too bad. Uh, Council Member Matson,

I feel like this has a pretty easy resolution if we just um if Council Member Borggan, would you be willing to step down as Mayor Prom if you do announce for mayor? Is that a is that a possible compromise solution?

You know what? I think there's lots of solutions. The the fact of the matter is the charter gives the mayor the authority to choose whom he or she wants to choose. And it just seems very infantile that the council members don't want to have someone named Mayor Prom. So therefore, they're going to stop all business of the city and not allow the mayor to be on any committees until the council gets their way. It just seems so infantile to me. I don't understand how we got here. This doesn't this just it's just so surprising to me. And yes, if I have announced for mayor, I will step down as mayor prom just to get this thing on the road.

I don't think I don't think the community gives two shakes about it. To be frank with you,

Council Member Matson, I'm [clears throat] struggling with my red button today. I do want to um I do want to say that um I I have heard from a number of people of citizens of Morehead who are concerned about favoritism and um people getting special treatment. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard that because that's not something they probably would feel comfortable telling you, but I have heard that from a number of people. It is a concern that is out there. People that I don't actually even know have brought it to me. Um, and I can give you some specific examples if you'd like, but I'd rather not embarrass people. Um, so this is a this is an issue that is out there. I have actually talked to people about it. Um, and I I can't speak for Council Member White. I would be more than happy to um, support you, support, you know, moving forward with you as mayor prom if you'll step aside if you do run for mayor. But I I just wanted to correct the record on that that it's it's not um it's not petty or infantile. It's a real concern that a lot of people have brought to me personally. So I will withdraw my request to have uh council member Borggan as mayor prom and I would like to propose that council member Hendrickson be the mayor prom again. I think that this is silly. I think this is ridiculous because he will probably chair one perhaps two meetings in 2026 and most of the time due to his work schedule he's not able to stand in for me and so I go and ask other council members to stand in or if it's a special project that I know that a certain council member would prefer and would enjoy to uh present on behalf of the city I've asked that council member. So again, I think this is ridiculous. Um, but we will make that change to satisfy

the few people that are on the council that think that this was a favoritism type of thing. So with that, do I have a motion to approve um the resolution for mayor appointments to all the committees, boards, and commissions so that we do not continue to hold up city work and we can get on with the rest of the agenda. So move Nissa Meyer. Council member Madson, [clears throat] so sorry, me and my button tonight. Just want to clarify that the resolution includes the amendment that was made earlier to remove the section about mayor prom. Yes, it does. Thank you. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

And we do have a citizen who wishes to speak on this uh item that we just got done with, Janine um Hansen. I don't know if you wish to continue to speak on this item or not. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, we were in the middle of a discussion and so I can't have a citizen come in the middle of a a motion that we're in process of discussion. We needed to close that out first. So, thank you. Moving on to 12A. will turn this over to city engineer Tom Trobridge. [clears throat] Hello, Mayor and members of council. So, I'm here today to talk to you, give you an update on the status of the 15th Avenue North Bridge replacement study that Fargo is working on and we are involved in that study. So, as I mentioned, uh, this is this is really being led by the city of Fargo. There's a bunch of partners, partner agencies up there, and the city of Morehead is one of those, at least staff has been involved throughout the process. Uh it it's being driven by the city of Fargo had some funding to uh that they were able to use for evaluating this and with the proposed diversion project coming through. This is kind of one of the areas in the city that we're interested in seeing if we can uh make it work better than it does today. And so really what we're talking about is the 15th Avenue Bridge, which it's a relatively young bridge. It was open to traffic in July of 1988.

However, it was a private bridge at the time. And to save cost and impacts on the river, it was actually built very low so that it floods frequently. It it actually flooded within about 6 months of opening. Um, and it's been closed at least 13 times in that time. Sometimes just for a few days, other times for more than a month. And in 2015, that's when the city of Morhead and the city of Fargo took over ownership of the bridge. And since taking over the ownership of the bridge and removing the toll, the bridge has become much more heavily used. So, the traffic counts while it was privately operated ranged from, you know, 1,500 to 3,000 cars a day, something like that. Since the toll has been removed, it's much closer to 10,000 vehicles a day. Um, so and so the intent of this study that the city of Fargo has been leading is to try to provide a a bridge across the Red River at this location that would maintain a continuous yearround connection meeting current design standards and the local transportation goals. So that purpose statement is right out of the environmental document that's been uh prepared for this. The need of it, as I'd mentioned, it's it's a floodprone uh bridge crossing and it so it floods at an elevation of about 28t river stage and it's not commonly understood by the public, but the Red River diversion project kicks in at 37 ft. Therefore, the number of times this bridge closes is unchanged and the length of time is basically unchanged. Also, when the river hits stage 28, which it still will after the diversion, the bridge would

have to close. Another factor in this is it's it was built prior to the enaction of the ADA act which came in 1990. And so, the sidewalk that currently goes across the bridge actually doesn't comply with current standards. And then in addition to that, there's a lot more focus on uh bicycle traffic as well. And with the current traffic flow across the bridge with the number of cars, it doesn't really meet what would be normal design standards for that as well. So the project location, as you can see up on the on the screen, it's shown. And on the Morehead side, we've got a housing subdivision on the south side. And on the north side of 15th Avenue North, it's a open space. It's not park land, but it is land that's owned by the city. The existing bridge, uh, this exhibit shows the 37 ft river stage is the blue line on the top and that is when the diversion would kick in. So, as you can see, both the bridge and the approaches are well below that uh 37 ft stage. And as I'd mentioned, the city of Fargo had a grant through the US DOT for a million half dollars and that was enough for them to uh solicit a proposal from H uh well from multiple firms and then Houston Engineering is the firm that was selected and they are doing the design. That $1.5 million is expected to be enough to carry us all the way through the final design. That's not saying there might not be change orders or you know a scope changes for some reason but the current thought is that it is enough. The work included in that uh with Houston is the

environmental analysis some traffic analysis public outreach geotechnical engineering uh design and plan preparation and getting us a good cost estimate. When we're done with that, the intent then is we need to get the funding to construct the bridge. And so that would be something that we're going to try to solicit grants for. And also when we, you know, once we have those plans, then we'll take the next step to decide, you know, how we proceed to bidding and construction. So the environmental analysis, uh, some of the issues on the Fargo side of the river, they've got parkland that gets impacted and so they have to be careful about that. They've also got some traffic concerns that are quite different than ours because they've had long-term development up close to 12th Avenue corridor. And so that's issues for them. On our side, the main thing we'll have is this bridge would be quite a bit higher than it is today. Okay. So, there's a lot of fill. And the other thing that may come into play as we get further into design is there's been some concerns about speed uh once they get on our side of the river and the visibility. When we had the public input at the church that that was something people commented on was getting out of their parking lot could be challenging because they don't have a a good clear sight line and at the speed the traffic is traveling. There were some concerns about that. So, the proposed alignment, we were actually uh we're proposing to shift the bridge on the on the Morehead side of the river a bit north. That's taking advantage of the space that the city has there and it pulls us away from the private properties that are on the south side. Uh and that's because with all that fill and elevating the bridge, it would be very difficult to build it on its current alignment without getting significantly into the private

properties. And I would like to stress again that that's at least it's not parkland. It's just space that the city acquired years back. So the proposed bridge, it's a little hard to see in this, but that blue line from the previous one that was well over the bridge is now underneath the beams. So in order to have the bridge so that it's above the 37 ft stage and not impact the river, the the beams on the bridge which are substantial thick because this is a large bridge. So that puts the top of the bridge is actually about 18 feet higher than the current bridges. So that's kind of a hard number to wrap your head around. If you're just looking at it, it's hard to even visualize it. So to facilitate that, and it's still there. I noticed it yesterday when I drove over the bridge, but if you're coming eastbound into Morhead, as you approach the bridge, still on the Fargo side, the last light pole right before you get onto the bridge, there's a pink ribbon that's tied on it, that would be the top of the future bridge. So that if you get a chance, you should do that. It's it's kind of eye opening to see how much higher up that would be. So, as I'd mentioned, we're in the environmental process and it's it's uh close to being finished on that and we're anticipating that we would get what's called a categorical exclusion, which would author, you know, say that it's acceptable to build the bridge as proposed. And this schedule is uh it's pretty close to up to date on it. But in September is when we had some prior public engagement and the primary comments we got out of that. There was definitely some confusion on the public

about why we were doing it. They really thought the diversion was going to take care of of the bridge flooding. And I think so that's that's probably a challenge we'll have as we continue is the the public doesn't really understand that yet. Uh and then really probably the other two significant comments were no special assessments. I think everybody agrees that we don't want to do that. And the other one really was do we need to do it now because the bridge it's still only you know 37 years old. It could last a long time. And so then the question is, is it worth the money to to change it now? And those those really were the primary public input comments that we had up to date. Uh there will be additional public input opportunity. There's one more as we get to the final design. That would be uh planned and that's a to be determined. We don't know exactly when that'll be, but the intent really is is is probably by this fall we'd be able to have that. So the project as as planned currently would have an estimate of 27 to $30 million somewhere in that range. And again, as I'd mentioned before, there's no funding that's been secured for this yet. As we proceed, we anticipate that the cities would jointly apply for some federal funding to help construct the bridge. So the next steps really uh for the council and what kind of drove this presentation is we did want to have an agreement in place that talked about how we would proceed through this design process to share costs if they become necessary since nothing has been budgeted. If we do get a request from Fargo to start doing something we would

have to come to the council and get that approval as a budget adjustment anyway. So, you're not just giving me a blank check for that at this time, but what we would like to have is the framework in place that allows us to uh talk to the city of Fargo about any potential costs. And so, realistically, it would be whatever it takes to finish design and start the process of uh seeking federal funding. At future meetings, we'll have to come. There will be decisions to be made. Do we try to proceed with this project? how do we do it? And there would likely be some specific design things on our side of the river to decide what we would want to do with 15th Avenue North uh to address some of the traffic concerns that we might have. So that's what I have for presentation. Do you have any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Trobridge. Any questions of uh city attorney or city engineer council member Nameer?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. uh to uh assistant engineer Trobridge, sorry. Um [snorts] I want to appreciate the um directing of community members to go look at that pink ribbon um because 18 feet is like two stories and that is huge and I'm thinking about not only residents but the businesses and even the city property there and I know we've got room to grow and space but UFA that's that's big. So, I appreciate that real life exploration of how high this will be, but also um the timeline and knowing that some of us who are at this table might be at the the starting point, but there will be others here in our place when it finishes and there's lots of details to sort of keep in mind and so keeping that cost sharing um at the forefront. Right. I knew that I had high hopes you were going to mention specials uh because that is of of the utmost concern of of the majority of our residents, right? When we do improvements that impact our whole community and in this case, right, our metro area, there there are people who drive from all the wards, my guess is to go to Fargo potentially for work or school or a variety of things. And so I just wanted to appreciate um your planning and contributions, but also bringing back what has been learned thus far in the process so residents um can start that understanding of what the diversion can and can't do uh in this situation. And um I look forward to getting more updates in the future. Thank you,

Council Member Borggan. So my question originally was going to be if they got if Fargo got 1.5 million and that should cover it, why do we have to have this cost sharing? But I read it and I get it. But it seems to me that there should be a cap on it because we're kind of agreeing that we're going to share cost, but we don't know what that could be,

right? And again, any cost per the agreement, they'd still have to talk to us and ask about it and get our concurrence on it. And as staff, you know, what we would try to do is first, so like I if we're getting into design and something is driving the cost to go up, one of the questions would be, well, okay, is it something that's specific to because Fargo's been looking very hard at what they're doing with their intersections on their side. Is it really just their issue? In which case, they'd pay at all. Is it something where we decided, well, you know what, we really want to spend more time looking at an intersection over here. It's legitimate then that we're driving that cost up and we'd have a cost share. Anything that would be proposed, we would bring to the council to authorize us on it. But we just we needed that framework for, you know, just in case the scope changes uh beyond what we were expecting. And part of what drove it is some of the environmental requirements as we're reviewing it were much stricter on our side. And so as they were going through it, you know, we're thinking we've adjusted and and we're going to keep things on the budget, but there's a little bit of concern when they were getting into that is if we have to do this this way, we might get over the budget. So how do we want to address it? And and again, I think we've got it. So, right now we're still on track, but that made us ask the question, well, we need to have a framework in place that that helps us guide us if there's any changes later.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. Tom, I actually have a few questions. I'll just take one at a time. Um, the bridge you said was built in 1988. It's in um relatively good condition. And so how long do you expect a bridge like this? What's the life expectancy? Is it going to is it got 10 years, 50 years? What is generally what are we looking at? Yeah, at least 50 um you know 50 50 more years of life.

Sorry. At least 50 years of basic life. So you'd expect at least another 13. Realistically, it's in good condition. And uh as a good example, the Center Avenue Bridge is, you know, that's about 90 years old now. So having a bridge be there for 100 years is, you know, not unexpected. You know, if we maintain it properly, continue maintaining it, it should last and provide us many more years. Okay. And then the next question is let's [clears throat] say everything goes through and the decision is to build the new bridge as talked about in the in the plans. Um the I'm assuming there would there there probably between now and then there would probably be studies or information about what that would do the traffic flow because we know the traffic flow increased after the toll went off and then with the new bridge and being higher if that would be somehow attract more traffic. I I mean I mean can you speak to that? That might be kind of uh

you might not be able to but if you can

talk about that. Yeah, I would say so they they've done some traffic analysis and we're not expecting it to draw more traffic at least on a daily basis. On an annual basis it would get a bit more because it wouldn't be closed. Um it would probably get more bike and pedestrian traffic because we would be clearly enhancing those facilities. Otherwise, usually what's going to drive the increase in traffic is going to be more uh development around it and and we're not proposing to add lanes across the bridge for width for that. So, it's it's anticipated that with proper access control, the the vehicles that go across the bridge now would still be well serviced by it. And we're not expecting to provide more lanes and we're not expecting to have an increase in traffic. Okay. And then I think my last question and you'll certainly be able to correct me. Um, so the best I can explain this is if you go to that bridge right now and uh you walk right over the top of the Red River in the middle of the Red River and you look straight down uh you look towards Fargo, the distance to the edge of the bridge is less than probably if you go to the Morehead there's more Morehead side of the bridge. Is that fair to say if you're on top of the river? And with and and the reason I say that is when we get to the point of construction, if we get to that point, we're not at that tonight. We're just at the that design phase, we have to decide or we have to figure out where the cost sharing is on that on the actual construction project then, right? Is that a 50/50 deal? If we have 70% of the bridge on the on the Minnesota land, does that become 70% ours? And I mean, I know there's going

to be grant applications and funding, but uh I'm just kind of looking out right now. I think that, you know, their square footage is less than the Minnesota side. So, I I'm I don't know if you could speak to that, but if you can get do your best.

Yeah. the so when we get to the point of dealing with construction, we would do a construction agreement at that time. The ones we've had in the past, we've staff between Fargo and Morhead, we don't look at it as, oh, it's this percent is on your side versus our side. Bridge is a bridge. It's so you really it's it's 50/50. The parts where you would sometimes have additional costs would be if there's aesthetic treatments you want on your site. So if there's something that's specific to what's on your side of on the land part side. So if you do some things specific that way, but it's usually things that are above and beyond what's just needed for the bridge itself. And so like even if there's more walls on one side, that's really part of the bridge because the walls aren't necessarily the city's benefit. It's the bridge. So I I would expect it to mostly be a 50/50 scenario.

So only if we wanted pretty things like plantings or a great Morehead sign or something like that, right? or if the bike path to tie it in. On our side, we wanted it to be 12 ft wide and on their side, it's only eight. You know, they would likely have some more cost because as building the project, they're probably going to have to redo their parking lot in Jack Williams or something. So, there would be that's more of that's not the bridge, that's site work around it. And so, that might be a case where they would have that cost. So, thank you.

Council member White. Thank you, Mayor Tom. I just have one question kind of a out of left field. The there's the conversations about the Heartland Trail and it would come in on 15th Avenue and now we are looking at connecting with the old Homestead Trail so that it could now have the um trail head in downtown Morehead. And I don't know if you can answer this tonight or not, but do you think by shifting that the bridge a little bit to the north, would that potentially give some more land accessible land that could be used for a wider bike ped that could then get us over to um the old homestead over by the Burquist cabin? I know that we'd have to wrap around along the river, but any and could that be something that could, you know, that we are thinking about as we uh as we move ahead with this with that potential land?

I I would say that's just unrelated to the bridge itself. I don't know that it makes a difference either way. So, yeah, that that's kind of a separate issue. Something to think about though. Any other questions of uh city engineer? And if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the agreement. Move to approve. Second, Misa Meyer. Motion and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right. On to mayor and council reports. Are there any council members who have reports from boards or committees? Council member Nisser.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I would like to report um that we had a wonderful presentation from Brady Mertz, the um accounting firm that was set up for the Morehead public housing um agency's audit for the last year and um that went out uh without a hitch. It was very uh positive or I think the the comment is like unremarkable, but that's good. And so um it was an excellent audit. For those who are interested in joining the Caslay Food Commission, our uh location has changed. Uh we are now meeting at Metrocog every other month. And the meeting is this Wednesday um at 10:30 at uh Metrocog, which is just across the first um Avenue Bridge. And we would love to have you join us for some great discussions on our food systems locally. Uh the last uh item I have is the um SWAC uh solid waste advisory committee. We have moved that meeting to the last uh Thursday of the month. Typically we meet the fourth Thursday. [clears throat] Uh we are now meeting on uh Thursday, January 29th [cough] and that is at 8 a.m. And as always residents are encouraged to join us and that is held at the resource recovery center. And so we would love to have some folks join us and visit with us about trash and recycling. That is all.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Nisser. Council member White.

Mayor, uh, first I wanted to remind uh my fellow council members to register for the intergovernmental retreat. We had our last planning meeting last week. Uh, as a reminder, the theme this year is working together on future growth and development. It'll be January 30th at the law enforcement center and um I know Terry can get you registered. And then uh we also had our um EDA meeting this week uh or last week and the one of the really the main focus was on um the transition from Derek La Point who has been doing phenomenal work with us to um Matt Lys. So, I just wanted to take this opportunity also to thank Derek for his outstanding work for the city of Morehead. Um, glad that he's not leaving the area, but um I mentioned this in the meeting that I just, you know, we are in such a um an exciting time for Morehead and some of that is a lot of that is because of the good leadership that we have and people who are willing to think outside the box and um really work at moving us in a new path. and Derek was a an essential part of that. And so it'll be a real loss, but I'm happy that we have Matt Lysath coming on. Um we just approved that contract tonight for a one-year um to continue that collaboration with Downtown Morehead, Inc. Thank you.

Right. Any other council members have reports from boards or committees? Council member Borggan. I don't have a committee, but I just want to give a shout out to the mayor, to Matt Lysathth, to our communications department for the state of the city. Myself and council member Moore attended it with a bunch of other people from Morehead. And I have to say we were really proud of Morehead that day. We had the be I think we had the best presentation. We have the so many things going on and I think the representation that we had there was really awesome. So, thanks to everyone.

Right. other council members with boards or committees. Okay. Um for myself since our last uh council meeting, which was almost a month ago, um there's been at least four meetings that I've had with the diversion project, two board meetings, a finance meeting, and the Morhead Clay County joint powers agreement. Um, as with the new year, every year, um, the years that, uh, there is a chair on the North Dakota side of the flood or of the flood diversion board, the vice chair has to be somebody from Minnesota. Um, Klay County Commissioner Campbell and I have rotated being the vice chair. So, this year I am also the vice chair of the Metro Flood Diversion Authority Board. Um, so that was approved at the annual meeting. Um and really the other big thing was um as council member Borgan stated was the um the chamber state of the cities event um which I I concur that the handout that was provided to the 700 attendees. It was a soldout event. So, for the 700 people that attended, they got a phenomenal handout that was um put together by our communications staff and talked about that the city of Morhead this year, it's going to be a blue ribbon year with all of the ribbon cutings happening um with five very substantial projects going on um within the city. So, um it was a wonderful event. Um we got to talk about the city and the great things that are happening. Um and then myself along with the other mayors also meet with the chamber leadership group afterwards which is a a group of about 40 individuals um and we talked to them for about 45 minutes. So it was a it was a fun day. So with that the other thing um that I do need to read is um the summary of the performance conversation with city manager Dan Mully

and the city council of the city of Morhead Minnesota. Uh the city council of the city of Morhead, Minnesota met on December 8th, 2025 and had a performance conversation with city manager Dan Molly. During this performance conversation, the city council evaluated Mr. Molly in the following specific areas. um elected body relationships, organizational community relations, fiscal performance, intergovernmental, agency and association relationships, communication, personnel, and goals and target achievement. The city council determined that Mr. Molly's performance in the above described areas range from ranged from exceeds expectations to exceptional. The city council then reviewed Mr. Molly's overall performance as city manager and determined that he was exceeding expectations for the position of city manager. Mr. Molly then provided input and feedback regarding his position. So, um, we have already approved on the consent agenda the new contract with city manager Molly and, um, we are grateful for your continued service to the city of Morehead and to the phenomenal leadership that, um, you portray within the city and I'm just grateful for all you do. So, thank you. And with that, I have nothing further. So, turning it over to you, city manager Molly.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members. grateful to serve with this team too. So, and there is no update on this end. Right. Um and with that, we do not have an executive session or any new business. So, it is 6:36 and we are adjourned.