Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, looks like this one's live. All right, please call the meeting February 11th, city council to order. 6:30 roll call. Hubert here. Zaski here. Bend here. Light here. 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 God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We have no public input. Um, we do and I believe Elders is on public input.

Yes. I've got the Venton newspaper here and I see the city of Rebent in the minutes and it said on January 26 you had a meeting start at 6:30. You uh passed uh four resolutions and adjourned at 6:32 in two minutes. can't believe that and I don't know whether anybody else would either. But then over here you have a another meeting that started at 6:33. Why? It's my question. But uh I just don't understand why there's two separate meetings in one day. Is that to help the council members get double pay or what they get paid per meeting?

Chairman, would you would the city administrator answer the question, please?

Yes. So, the two meetings that were scheduled. Um the first meeting was to approve pay apps that were sent for the regular meeting last month and I forgot to add them to the agenda. So the council had reviewed the pay apps, the engineering reviewed the pays and I forgot to put them on the agenda. So then the second meeting we had a regular or excuse me we had a special meeting for budget that was already created and those have to be separate meetings. So, we started the first meeting. The only items that were on that were to approve the payouts that were not added on the previous agenda because I forgot them. And then the work session is the following meeting that started then at 6:33.

I don't get it. I don't see why you don't have just one meeting. So, so by by law your if the city council goes into a work session for open meetings law, it has to be a separate session then that starts as a work session really where they have a so we have can have open discussion unless somebody else would like to chime in. Okay. Bye. I think what what you're saying is it's already a scheduled meeting. And if you had if you had to add something else, it has to be a separate reading. Was both these both these meetings uh posted? Yes, sir. Okay.

They were posted in three locations. They were also posted online. All right. Ahead of time. And the previous meetings were also set during the last meeting and and the public was notified in January of the meetings that were happening. All right. And we certainly have the resolutions that you can take a look at. their payouts for the water storage tank and the projects for the pollinator and Bing Miller. So, two of them were final payouts and the other two were for the water storage tank and pumps.

Did I lose it? Like, you're still here, right? Correct. Yes.

Okay. Okay. uh to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to accept the agenda or is there discussions? I make a motion accept and I'll second. There's a motion to accept the consent agenda. We will vote.

Can I just ask a question? Are we accepting the agenda or approving the consent agenda? Um, consent agenda. Okay. Okay. That's all. I'm good. Thank you. Hubert. Yes. Basking. Yes. Pedro. Yes. Light. Yes. Johnson.

Yes. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing on the general obligation corporate purpose loan agreement? Make a motion to open the public hearing on the proposal to enter into a general obligation corporate purpose loan agreement at 6:35.

I'll second the motion. Second. Motion is made. Second open public hearing for the general obligation for purpose loan agreement at 6:35. Baski. Yes. Yes. Like yes. Johnson. Yes.

Yes. Mother carry is now open. Okay. So, the public hearing this evening is specifically for the proposal to enter into a general obligation corporate purpose loan agreement as defined for the principal amount not to exceed $940,000. Um, the city has only received one email that came to council members from um, Jen Belleu. Um, and those were taken into consideration. They were emailed directly to the council members. So, um, but that is the only information or email comments that the city received. Um my other question is just simply to Mr. Elder. You originally signed the public hearing about this. Did you want to say anything about it or you were finding it about?

Okay. So it it is about the city going into a general obligation corporate purpose loan for $940,000 not to exceed and it is in discussion for the um capital projects that were shared online which would include the 30th Avenue overlay which is um can I don't have that right in front of me. Does somebody have was it 360 that we have the engineer for our main machine? Do you know? I want to say 343. 363. Thank you.

Um, so the estimate from the the uh engineers were estimated the 30th Avenue overlay project from Highway 150 to Deer Run Drive is estimated at 363,000. And then the proposal for the safe route sidewalk um in town would be from Shiloh Vista connecting at Endeavor and through to Ash Avenue and that is proposed at an estimated at $545,000 and of course then the issuance and the fees. Um, again, the issue with the sidewalk, we're going to the plan is to go forward with as much of it as we can, at least on one side. Correct. So, until we get into the approval process and the engineer then puts in more money to it, we'll be sharing exactly what that pathway would be that's being considered. But right now, it's Shiloh connecting at Endeavor on South Street all the way to Ash Avenue.

Where's Shiloh? Shiloh is the newest addition right here. Um the newest street that we have next to Endeavor. And of course, we did talk about this previously about some opportunities for additional funding that the city is going to try and go after. Um, I did receive confirmation, I'm calling it confirmation, um, from the county supervisor supervisors that they are going to commit around 63,000 to the 30th Avenue project. So, um, that was much more than what I initially anticipated.

Wouldn't that be theirs anyway? Um, it's actually a split ownership and mayor maybe you can help you with that but it's been shared over the years and west is ownership of the county, east when we started the development is ownership of the city and over the years we have been splitting the cost to chip seal that which is why um we went to the county a couple weeks ago uh and I requested ed that we get money and dollars committed from the county. Actually, it was more than a couple weeks ago. Um, and I just got that back. They tabled it once and then I think it was yesterday's meeting. What is today? Monday's meeting. It was Monday's meeting that they confirmed that they are going to commit 63,000 to the city. Did I capture everything?

Okay. I just I want to clarify that deer run we're going to the second instance of deer run. Yes. Thank you. Beyond

so that there's actually four entrances for residents for Urbana. Um which is why Urbana was initiating this and not the county. Um and that's actually if you round it up almost 20% now of our population with over I think 255 residents maybe right out in that area. Um, I only know that figure off the top of my head from the state trails grant that we submitted that was going to go from that development here into town. So, which is a good chunk of residents. One other question on the underwriter discount. Why does that look like it's a fee, not a discount? Maybe. Am I saying that wrong? I think that it is a fee, but it's a discount because we are a municipality, I believe, is how that's explained because municipalities get a reduced rate, I believe.

Oh, that is the that number has the discount. Yes, I believe that is correct. from your I would actually have to probably contact Maggie again about that. But she briefly discussed that I think um possibly when the mayor and I were having a conversation with her and I remember her saying that we do get a discounted rate and I believe the municipalities that is the lower isn't it a discount. It doesn't make sense because it says total without underwriter disc is 215 but we're adding it back in on the balance it looks like maybe it's a terminology

I think it's backwards in my head discount to me means you don't pay that but or you reduce your overall by that but it looks as though it's I will because it has the 2920 29,20 Yeah, I can reach out to her about it. It's a little confusing.

Isn't there something I don't know if this is applies to that question, but when the city borrows money, can't you buy down the rate? That may be something different, but it may be with that. It is something like that. Discounted rate, but you have to pay it. Yes, it is something like that. However, I personally do not feel comfortable asking that right at the responding to that confidently without double-checking with Maggie, but thank you. I I just I feel a little caught off by the question. So, I would definitely have to follow up with her. I would agree. I don't feel confident. Yeah. I just I don't I I know what your question is, so I'll follow up with her.

Um Yeah, it's just clarifying. Should have stapled my little packet together that you had. Okay, there it is. No, I got it. It's just not stable together. And you're asking specifically the underwriter. Okay. Yep. I'll ask her about that.

Is there any other public input during the public input stage? Do I have a motion to close the public input? Make a motion to close the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. I'll second 6:44. Is that what you said? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Vaski. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Yuber. Yes. Bend. Yes.

Light. Yes. Staff reports. Public works director is a written update. None from the sheriff's office. Building inspector. None from our city clerk. City engineer. Do you have anything to add to your I do not, but you want to answer any questions if there are any. I saw them on either seating today.

Oh yes. Yeah. So basically part of the MPDS permit whenever you have disturbed acre you're supposed to get stabilized within two weeks but obviously with winter weather snow that's considered stabilized. Well snow melt we've had here in the last five days or so reach out to him and said get somebody out here. Oh, thank you. You're gone on pretty quick. Move on to old business. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And thanks for coming.

Thank you, Sh. Do I have a motion to consider the two options that the council has for moving forward on the 305 Wood Street municipal infraction? A motion to a motion to consider options on five Wood Street. I'll second.

Yes. Pas. Yes. Yes. Light. Yes. Johnson.

Yes. city administrator will just go into the options we have and okay so I have been trying to work a little bit here behind the scenes as you guys know old business with Wood Street West um I am proposing that we have two options we have uh I've been working with legal And option one, so we're all clear, option one is to accept the deed for 305 Wood Street in lie of the enforcement of the infraction infraction. This would entail the um property owner deeds the property to the city. the city would halt the municipal infraction process and the city pursues trying to find it says here demolition funding, but I'm going to actually take out the word demolition because I'm finding within the three grants that the city is reviewing and researching this this is actually phases that things like this happen in. So you can get grant fund phasing for um the testing and the abatement process because as you know we have a pile of rubbage that has gone from the top to the bottom and the property owner has walked away. So um we already have gone through the nuisance abatement process. Part of that process was that we've already had a structural engineer that came in last year in April and deemed this to be a life safety concern. also deem this um as uh needing to be addressed. So that's option one. And that would also entail then that if the city has the deed to the property, then the

city has the right to um apply for grant funding. Meaning the city has to be the one that owns the property in order for the city to get the grant funding for all of these phases. in these phases through which could be hopefully multiple grants start with a grant that we could get at the DNR level to cover how um the testing comes back and if there's asbestous things like that as you know these types of things have to be carefully removed from a building and all this process and that could be the first funding that the city would go for which is the derelict building grant and um that is due here at the end of February. So I am behind the scenes working with lots of people from the DNR to the ECOG to um the attorneys to everything to make sure that we follow this process since we haven't done it before. Option two is to proceed with a municipal infraction. So the attorneys as you all know previously are already involved in this. Um we've followed all the way through the nuisance abatement process. We're to the point now where the city would need to decide um if we move forward to prosecute this infraction. So let's just say the initial estimate it that came back from the first quote that we received is $60,000. The city moves forward with a municipal infraction and we could be in the courts for up to two years. we could spend thousands and thousands of dollars in this municipal infraction process which takes us to the property owner purchased the building for7,000. So you as you can see he has no interest in um putting forth the dollars to do this because he's had lots of time just in the time that I've been here. So for this structure,

if we move forward with the municipal infraction, the city basically would pay the cost of the building to come down in whatever capacity that looks like. Then we can assess the property owner so that that goes back to his taxes, which may or may not ever actually come back to the city. So, um, and that of course would then halt any opportunities that the city would have to go for a grant to try and basically the end goal is bring down what's dangerous and what's a rubble, whether it's asbestous, whatever it is, to get this back on the tax role. Meaning there are then multiple grants that could come later in the phase that could bring in partners that would work with the city to get the structure built back up into a business facade. Uh could be however that works. And then that's a different phase of grant funding that cities, especially small cities can get. Um and again the end result with the municipal infraction is that our dollars would go toward legal and then we're still in the end stuck with the building that has to come down. And my consideration is simply with all the research that I've done, it makes sense for the city in my opinion to move forward with option one because in the end the city gets stuck with it anyway, whether he deeds the property to us, whether we take the property through the municipal infraction and we pay thousands of dollars in legal. um when those thousands of dollars could actually be used toward moving the project forward as match from the city and then if the city has to ultimately in the end pay $60,000 30,000 can be that inind match that the city does and we're moving forward in

within hopefully two three years we could have this back on our taxual and I believe that that would be the ultimate goal is to finally get a building that's been abanded abandoned and dilapitated for over 30 years and help revitalize that downtown and get somebody in there. Um, Jennifer, if we choose option one, are we are we didn't ask you if there was a resolution? Are we are we making decision without a resolution on it or what's the

That's a great question. That was the same question the mayor had. At this time, what legal would like is for us to make a motion about which option the city council agrees on so that they can go back and negotiate that deed or the next step and negotiating that deed then is what comes back then it would be an acceptance of the deed. So it would be a separate motion then. So that's what legal wants is present option one, present option two, have the council agree on their option. I let legal know immediately which option you choose and then they move forward with the negotiation or the infraction and we come back with the resolution from legal. And there is testing, just so you know that

we we do have some testing happening. We did the old rubber boots on and did that. But we're going to have test results here hopefully by Thursday, Friday this week. Oh, yeah. Yes. Yeah, it was yesterday. Yesterday. So, any other questions as to the options at the end or clarification? I know more about this stuff than I thought I would in a very short amount of time. So, welcome to Crash Course. Crash Course is what I've been taking. Yes,

I have no questions. I would make a motion to approve option one. Okay. So motion by basking a second by Scott by Huber and can you tell me your option again? Option one. Okay. Ask yes. Huber. Yes. BMA. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Light. Yes.

New business. Mayor appoints parks and playground council leaison. Council person light will be the council leaison. Do I have a motion to approve? I don't sir I don't think that you need to have a motion because you are appointee. Is that right? Uh but it has to be approved by council doesn't it? This is a lia. This is this is listed in the mayor duties to appoint a leazison or is this just a informal? It

it is a I believe an informal liaison role where the parks department will have a direct connection to a council member that's not city administration but it's not listed in the code of ordinances that says mayor appoints a leazison. Yes, it is actually. Oh, it is in there. Okay. Yes. And that's why we are going through it. That's why I didn't think that we had to have the council approval, but I could. Well, I've I've never done this before. There are several that say with mayor appoints with council approve. I just don't remember. So, it can't hurt. Let's cover our basis. You're right. Thank you. Sorry, ma'am.

I'll second. Vote to approve the appointment of council person like to the council leaison of the parks and playground board. Hubert. Yes. Bend. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Baski. Yes. Sorry. Light you don't get. I I I understand that. I believe that's it, right? Nope. One more. It's on.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to consider resolution 2026 197 for the purpose of providing levy for the taxes to general obligation bonds. I'll make a motion to consider resolution 2026 197 on the general obligation loan. And I'll second

yes. Johnson, yes. Light, yes. Bend, yes. Hubert, yes. Do I hear a motion? Make a motion to journ.

All those in favor? I I meeting is Thank you. appreciate what those events