City Council - workshop

We're just going to start a little early. Welcome, everyone, to the work session. Kristen?

OK. Roll call.

Find out who's here.

OK. Jarens? I know he's online.

You're pretty quick.

Oh, yay. Oh, I'm in.

OK. Peters?

Here.

Cuddy? Here. Allen?

Here.

Hoyer?

He's running a little late.

OK. Helene? Here.

Here.

Thank you.

All right, quorum is established. Going to get a motion to approve the agenda tonight. Motion made by Peters, seconded by Shetty. All those in any discussion on that? All those in favor of the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. We're on to the agenda. Item A is information on sanitary sewer assessments and cost recoveries.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS AFTERNOON WE HAVE TWO TOPICS TO COVER. THE FIRST ONE IS TO LOOK AT SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENTS AND SOME COST RECOVERIES. OUR CITY ENGINEER JUSTIN PETERSON WILL WALK US THROUGH SOME PAST PRACTICES AND SOME OF WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS AFTERNOON ARE SOME OLD PROCESSES AND OLD PROJECTS going back to the mid 1970s that haven't been appropriately closed out. So we will at the conclusion of this be asking for recommendation on how to deal with some older assessments. Also in the room, we have several staff members, especially Marcy Luno, who has been very involved with the sanitary sewer assessments and cost recoveries. So as we go through this, what we are looking to do is to clean up some of the items from the past and to provide some insight into what we are doing differently today to prevent this from happening. As we get into it feel free to ask the questions. We can have a dialogue back and forth. This isn't intended to be a pure presentation nor are we expecting to take action on anything tonight. This is purely informational for you for action at a future meeting. With that I will turn it over to Justin Peterson.

SOME BACKGROUND ON COST RECOVERIES. THEY'RE ESTABLISHED FOR THE CITY TO INSTALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. IT'S USUALLY TO UPSIZE NEW OR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR CITY GROWTH. THEY CAN ALSO INCLUDE LITERATION UPSIZING DUE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS. AND COST RECOVERIES ARE NOT ASSESSMENTS. little difference between cost of recovery and assessments.

Justin, could you minimize that little box?

I didn't realize that was showing. Thank you. And go back one slide. Yeah, you had moved on to that one, to the next one.

So both cost recoveries and assessments are used to for the city to pay for public infrastructure whether that's roadways, curb and gutters, sanitary, sewer, sidewalks, anything like that. The assessment process is a formalized process guided by South Dakota Code 5 law and it's only for properties within city limits. So cost recoveries would be used for THEY CAN BE USED FOR PROJECTS INSIDE CITY LIMITS, BUT ALSO OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. THE COST RECOVERY, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE SEEN WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS IS WE CAN'T COLLECT COST RECOVERIES UNTIL THEY ARE IN CITY LIMITS, AND SOME OF THESE ARE WELL OVER 25 YEARS OLD. During that time, there's some land over turnover. So sometimes the information isn't passed on to the assessors if properties were bought and sold. And then there's some collection inconsistencies that's happened through the years. Not only has there been land over turnover, but there's staff turnover. There hasn't really been a written policy. And the biggest thing is this information was stored in a paper form. It's going to bring the binder down, but there's a binder that upstairs that Marcy and Ashton went through to look at that. So we reviewed the historical data. We've digitized this paper data so it's now on GIS, and I believe it's public now. So people can view the properties that have cost recoveries. We've identified some potential policy changes in how we go about through OpenGov and permitting. And we've also identified some cost recovery write-offs, some potential write-offs.

Could you give an example of a cost recovery, an example of an assessment for the council?

Well, first thing, the assessment, we do sidewalk assessments. We've brought some of them to council in the past, and those are ADDED TO THE PROPERTY TAXES ONCE EVERYTHING IS APPROVED. IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS. COST RECOVERY, I THINK THE ONE THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH RECENTLY WAS WITH DAKOTA COMMONS. THERE'S A COST RECOVERY FOR A SANITARY SEWER THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED IN THE 80s.

TWO OTHER EXAMPLES. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FACILITY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS UP ON THE NORTHERN northeastern part of the city has a sanitary sewer line running all the way into the city, and that would be an example of a cost recovery as property adjacent to that line is annexed in and developed, that we would then look to the property owners and seek recovery of those past expenses. In terms of assessments, we can look at essentially all of Lake Compesca going back to the mid 1970s, where the lake project had sanitary sewer brought all the way around the lake. And those assessments didn't take place until there's actually connections of the lots onto the sanitary sewer lines. In some cases, there are lots that have never developed. So that assessment has never been made. In other cases, due to the process issues Justin pointed out, there have been properties that have never been assessed over the years. And you'll see the proposal here at the end. We may ask to write off some of those that go back 50 plus years through multiple ownership changes.

So basically in that example with Lake Kampeska, it's the homeowner's responsibility to pay for the sewer line from their property to the trunk line or whatever you want to call it, right? That is correct. Yeah. And I guess just to clarify, so why would we quit trying to recover costs because landowners have changed, et cetera, et cetera? Is it just because of the length of time that's gone by?

It's both, and you'll see it if you want to hold the question until we get to the details, length of time. and the dollar amount of some of these assessments versus the effort to recover it. Some of them are pretty small. Sure.

And just one last note, we've, through our research, there was one other time that there was a handful of write-offs as well back in 2003. This is the criteria that we kind of looked at. FIRST I'LL NOTICE THERE'S A LITTLE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN EXISTING COST RECOVERIES. AND THEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE AND KIND OF STARTED WITH WHICH ONES ARE 25 YEARS OR OLDER. THE COST RECOVERY'S UNDER $2,500, WHICH THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF THEM. AND THEN THINGS THAT JUST PROBABLY WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED. IT'S EITHER CITY PROPERTY OR DRAINAGE AREAS Maybe there was some that was already brought in the city. So collectively, we found about $129,000 that's likely not going to be able to be collected. And it still is $960,000 worth of cost recoveries available to be collected that we think that we'll be ready when they come in the city. So the next steps with kind of discussion here is like to bring forward a write-offs via resolution. We'd also like to send a letter notifying the properties that have remaining cost recovery balance and kind of file a notice with the registered deeds. This action here will likely cause some questions from those folks, but what we're trying to do is be, TRANSPARENCE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T SURPRISED BY THESE COST RECOVERIES. IN THE PAST, THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN SURPRISED AND PERHAPS A LITTLE UPSET. BUT IT IS GOING TO CAUSE SOME QUESTIONS. WE'VE KIND OF DEVELOPED A POLICY. WE HAVE DEVELOPED A POLICY TO COLLECT REMAINING BALANCES, AND IT'S EITHER COLLECTED AT TIME OF PLAT OR BUILDING PERMIT. and then community development with the planning functions would administer that and update GIS data. Then identify ways to avoid future cost recoveries and what we'd recommend is that sanitary sewer be installed by the developer so that it's part of the lot price and kind of have the city get out of development, kind of the idea. As far as this process, we did look at what other communities are doing as far as cost recoveries. And there are really three different options that other communities are doing. One's a capacity-based fee, and that's to cover future infrastructure improvements, including treatment, lift station upsizing, and pipe upsizing as well. That's a one-time fee. TIME OF CONNECTION TO THE SAN JERSEY SEWER AND EVERY NEW CONNECTION WOULD PAY THAT. THOSE FEES ARE LIKELY OVER $1,000. THERE'S A LITTLE MATH ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT THE IDEA IS WHATEVER SIZE LOT AND SIZE SERVICE LINE KIND OF WOULD TAKE UP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CAPACITY sewer and that's what they're paying for. The other second option is part of a platting fee. It's usually a per acre fee. That again is also likely $1,000 plus per acre. They're kind of big numbers. And then the third option is a front footers assessment. That's an annual fee usually paid through property taxes. And so our They varied from as low as $0.50 per linear foot to I think the highest was like $2.50 per linear foot.

So we flew through a lot of information there pretty quickly. I'd like to take a step back to maybe frame a couple of questions for staff to answer. If we go back to the sheet with the numbers on it. On this sheet, I'll look to our chief financial officer to explain the impact to the city of the proposed action with the write-off of $129,000. Maybe start with what happened when the projects were initially completed, and then secondly, what the impact will be of these write-offs.

So essentially whenever the project was completed at that time is when the expenditure hit the books. So a lot of these are back from the 70s, 80s. So the expense side of things is already done. When we placed these on to the city's books, they were just done as a balance sheet item. So essentially it's a receivable and a deferred revenue. So there was no revenue changes, no cash. It's just sitting out there as a receivable. So at this stage, they've been on the books since the 70s. THAT'S KIND OF THE PROCESS.

ANY WRITE-OFF OF ANY OF THESE AMOUNTS WILL NOT RESULT IN A CASH WRITE-OFF AT ALL. THIS IS BALANCE SHEET ONLY, SO ULTIMATELY IT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON FUND BALANCE OR CASH AT ALL. CAN WE THEN JUMP FORWARD? As we look at how we develop in the future, there are a few options that staff has explored. And if you look at the prior one, please, Justin, one of them here, and we've had quite a bit of debate as we talk about housing in the community and how infrastructure is handled. And we would appreciate some thoughts from the council on how we move forward. Staff's recommendation is that sanitary sewers installed by the developer and included as part of the lot cost. As we know, we hear from developers who tell us all the time that it's expensive to develop here and the lot cost and lot infrastructure is a significant part of the cost of development. So as we look at the various infrastructure that's put in place today, we have storm sewers, sanitary sewer, On the developer, much of the water infrastructure is on the developer with a portion of it on WMU, including a WMU connection fee. All of the electric and all of the gas today is paid for in advance of development by WMU. And so just keep that in mind that although this is our recommendation, We do recognize that it may be less costly to future development for the city to find a method of funding this infrastructure in advance and then recovering as lots are sold or developed. That's a use of city resources to do that. That is something we would need to determine the financial implications of doing that. It may result in some borrowing and perhaps some additional city managed TIFs and risk. So it doesn't come without trade off. Now, the next step that Justin has is to talk about various recovery methods. If we do choose as a city to front end load the cost of development of any of the infrastructure, in this case, it happens to be the sanitary sewer. Justin has proposed a couple of things, or staff has proposed, but Justin has up on the screen. One option is similar to a water meter fee on the sanitary sewer. We could assess a couple thousand dollars for every connection. That would mean that the developer wouldn't be paying for all the infrastructure up front. It would be paid for as lots are sold and connections are made. The downside is we would need a city funding mechanism to pay for that and hold that receivable. as well as some potential future write offs for properties that never developed. Second item is similar. It is a platting fee likely based on the fraction of an acre or a per acre fee. What that would do is it would again place the initial burden on the city to develop the infrastructure and then recover from developers as the property is platted. It's a little more favorable to the city's financials than the connection fee because platting ideally would still be done in batches of lots and not individual lots. And then finally is to establish some sort of pool or fund with a frontage assessment against all properties in the city to fund future infrastructure. There are debates that will take place if we do want to go down this path regarding, first of all, is it only new property in the city that is having newly developed infrastructure? Or would we ask for a front foot assessment across all properties in the city to handle the cost of infrastructure replacement, infrastructure maintenance, as well as new infrastructure going into the ground? And staff does have some preliminary calculations on what those frontage fees would look like as part of the decision here. We would like some feedback as to whether we go to the next step on a frontage assessment of any sort. Any questions on that before I turn it back over to our city engineer?

Do we have any tips that pay for that infrastructure?

We might have one or two remaining out there. Only one. One and it it is Willow Creek.

Okay.

It's talked about at the beginning the difference between cost cost recoveries and assessments. This is This would be an assessment for sidewalk. Just want to have an opportunity to show a couple examples that are likely to be coming up here shortly. This is C Avenue. On your left is the library and on your right is the high school. And so you'd think that it would make a lot of sense to have sidewalk there when kids walk between the two. We've gone through several different iterations on the sidewalk. Ideally, what we'd like to do is put the sidewalk kind of right along the property line, which is this orange line. But and we initially had that we had some meetings with the landowners. And what we noticed is that the setbacks for these homes are very close to the property line. So the sidewalk would be very, very close to these homes.

And

That's not ideal. So we took a look at another option where we put it adjacent to the roadway. The big concern there was a couple concerns there. One is in the wintertime when snow is plowed, that's where the snow ends up. It's on the sidewalk. So then someone's got to clean that off. And the other thing is when kids walk in, it's not ideal for them to walk in adjacent to the roadway as well. Although this is a local street, so vehicles shouldn't be driving fast, but. But we're kind of trying to middle of the road approach, which is what you see on the screen and. This is about 4 feet away from the curb gutter allows some distance for the away from the road for kids to walk as well as. Some snow storage. But you see some of the red lines on here, red symbols on here. There's a handful of trees that end up having to be cut down. There's some landscaping on this one, a couple decorative light poles, and there's a couple, I think there's one fire hydrant here on the corner. I show this because we go through a lot of different iterations to try to come up with a plan that makes sense.

So I asked City Engineer Peterson to walk through the sidewalk. This is a real example that we are addressing right now. And so we've met with property owners in this particular area. As we all look at sidewalks, I think the public purpose of walkable communities with sidewalks is something that's real easy to say we support and we are behind and we want to do that. In established neighborhoods, we address, we deal with some of the same issues at every one of the projects. And so as we start to look at this one, which seems pretty simple, we want a method for children to go from the Boys and Girls Club to the public library without walking down the middle of streets, which is what they do today. So it might seem simple. Well, we can order that a sidewalk be put in. We can order that that sidewalk be assessed to the property owners, in some cases over 10 years. Seems like a simple decision, right? Well, it is until you get into the details. And most assuredly, as we've seen in the last two sidewalk projects, we would have a council chamber packed with people if we did that tomorrow without real good answers. So even if we get the public comfortable with a sidewalk that doesn't diminish their property by cutting down their trees or forcing them to move their landscaping, we still have the hurdle of, the argument that I've been at this property for 30 years. Why do I have to pay for a sidewalk now? So we end up with nobody wants to pay for it, and we've got very difficult designs to work through. One thing I believe staff has opened their eyes and minds to is that one policy on sidewalks or one guideline on sidewalks is not going to fit all. all of the areas of the community as we try to infill with sidewalks. So in this case we would look at a design that minimizes the disruption to the property owners around trees and landscaping. We may want to look at sidewalks on only one side of the street, in which case then the argument is who pays for it. Both sides of the street or only one or. Do you believe as a council we should be looking at a mechanism to assess the cost of sidewalks more broadly across the city and use that pool to place the sidewalks versus individual homeowners? Several arguments against that. We've got many neighborhoods where, hey, I had to pay for my sidewalk, you should have to pay for yours too. And that's something where we don't have the answers. We don't anticipate that we will have the answers tonight, but it's something we would like you as council members to put some thought into because it is a community problem that we will continue to encounter and one that I think our citizens deserve an answer to rather than fighting every single sidewalk.

I got one more example. 10th Avenue North Sidewalk was brought up a couple council meetings ago. I took a few pictures out there, just kind of, we don't have this one designed yet, but just kind of show some of the conflicts that you're aware of at this time. This is on the north side of the sidewalk looking east. This is Dollar General's to the left of this first picture here. Maybe you can't tell, maybe you can, but that ditch is fairly steep there. So there's... There might be some fill there. Or, again, might have to move it closer to the road, which that 10th Avenue has a lot more traffic than C Avenue does, so that's a concern. This is on the other side of the road. Looking east on the south side, again, there's a steep ditch on that side as well. Went to the other end on the north side, looking west. It's on the right. That's that berm there. That's about three foot tall there. Then the light poles. Then this is actually a drainageway channel. And you see the drainage up there. So if we put a sidewalk up on the hill, it's going to be way up there. If we put it down below, it's going to be flooded during rain events. And then the last picture over here is on the south side looking west and we're dealing with trees. Can't see if there's a fire hydrant in the way as well. There's parking at the gardens and driveways and entrances. There's a lot of conflicts along this route in a culvert as well.

I have a question for you.

Yes, sir.

So on the road that goes by the cowboy past the cemetery to the roundabout, I can't, is it 14? Yeah. That one has an extra lane on the side of the road, not a sidewalk. That is, at one point, I think it actually had two sides. And then we reduced that. Now it's just got one side. When Councilman Hoyer brought this up, that's what I was envisioning. It wasn't necessarily a sidewalk. It was a shoulder. Because having ran down this road, I kind of thought the same thing, which is that's a lot of dirt work to build up a sidewalk.

There are concerns with 14th Avenue as well. We currently are under discussions on redesigning 14th Avenue. Potentially taking out the center turn lane and replacing it with strategically placed left-hand turn lanes, which would then allow us to widen the amount of space adjacent to the roadway for a path. We are uncomfortable with the narrow width that we have today. So that is under consideration. So we'd have to look at the trade-offs of widening 10th Avenue to do the same versus some separation. Any questions or additional feedback on assessment or cost recovery? I know it's not clear. We're not making recommendations today. We are asking for some thoughts. You can share thoughts with us over time. But we do want you guys to know as we pay attention to citizen concerns and some of the challenges we've had in the community, we take that seriously. We want to look for future looking solutions to prevent some of the issues we've had in the past, as well as trying to get development and progress in the city to be less controversial as we move forward.

With sidewalks, I think it's going to be a case-by-case basis in existing neighborhoods. I'm more concerned at this point regarding what we can do to help facilitate development and housing in areas of Watertown, which would mean what is the best proposal regarding sewer, stormwater, and lowering the lot cost for housing. So what I would ask is perhaps, I mean, look at it from the point of view of the developer and the potential homeowner, what's the most expensive option for them? And then we try to avoid that.

So the next part of this discussion, Mayor, those are great points. And generally, I would say the most expensive option for the homeowner is what we are doing today. So we do have opportunities to make this better.

All of them carry with them some funding magic that we need to do.

That's what we go to work to do every day. Go ahead, Councilman.

Well, I was just going to ask if there's, is it possible, so we don't currently have an ordinance for sidewalks. And I'm thinking about for new property. Are we being consistent relative to that with new property as it comes in? So we're doing the same thing for everybody? Not really. Sort of.

And with a couple of caveats. we are very quick to utilize the waiver of right to protest on developments where we will say, yes, ordinance says you should have a sidewalk, but we realize your neighbor doesn't have a sidewalk yet. So sign this waiver of right to protest. And then at some point as the neighborhood continues to develop, we will come and ask you to put in a sidewalk. One of the issues we have with that is despite the fact that it's a recordable document, People don't know about it, they forget about it. They're going to call their politician as soon as we ask them to put the sidewalk in and it becomes a battle. It'd be much easier to put that sidewalk in at the initial project. But we recognize that the waiver of right to protest does have some applicability. I would argue that we use it too much.

Part of the reason that I asked the question is because of what happens within Dakota Commons. So Dakota Commons has pathways behind houses. So there are no sidewalks in Dakota Commons until you get down to where I live. And I have a sidewalk that I was assessed for and had to put in. My sister did as well. It goes nowhere. And, you know, my argument was, I have a path right behind my house. I also have a sidewalk that is partly on my property and partly not on my property that I most of the time maintain in terms of keeping it free of snow and so forth that connects with that path. And so my argument was, why is it okay to have a path behind those houses and in lieu of a sidewalk, but it wasn't okay for me to do that. And what going forward is that going to look like? Because right now they're extending Lewis and Clark are working on doing that to open up the additional lots within Dakota, that section of Dakota Commons. And so are we now going to have sidewalks on one side, not on the other? I mean, because there are pathways behind those

houses right now to make a couple of comments that I'll ask staff if they know some of the details. Councilman Allen and I have looked at his sidewalk before and it doesn't make sense that he has a sidewalk. There is a planned unit development. Designed to have the trail system in lieu of sidewalks. Having said that, I'm sure your sister truly appreciates the ability to come and see you without walking across your lawn, but. Any comments on what went on in that particular part of Dakota Commons? And this is the far eastern portion.

Yeah, so that was actually discussed heavily with the Planning Commission when the concept plan was recently updated, which I think was in 2020, 2021, time flies. And the reason for that is because like now, like where your properties are at, is getting into more of the conventional type development, not so much the PUD with the direct access to the trails that Dakota Commons put in. Now we have the city trail system behind your properties as well, but it is common that you would have sidewalk adjacent to the street. So they wanted to get back to more conventional development type. planning commission and then council adopted it. And it was in the development agreement. And it was also discussed with the park board, I believe. So there were a lot of discussions.

The park board wouldn't have any authority to do anything like that.

Well, they have park dedication authority. So they get to discuss like what, every time that a segment of a development is phased in, then that you have to dedicate 5% of that land for park dedication or whatever would equate to that. If that would be cash in lieu or like a trail system. So that's where they come in to that, having that authority.

So understanding that correctly, the reason why the advisory board on parks had an opinion on this is they had to make the decision whether they wanted a park or a trail. And because they elected not to have a trail system, then we fell back on the ordinance and said, Mr. Allen, you need a sidewalk. Okay.

Yeah.

So there is going to be a park.

No, Dakota commons just did the green space. Um, that is where the trail system is behind the houses in the cul-de-sac areas more so. Um, And then with new developments, we do require sidewalk go in per the development agreements. And then just, and this is going back kind of to the waiver of rights protest discussion is that is then for the older areas that are say redeveloping, there are not sidewalks within a block. We do get that pushback from community members where it doesn't, makes sense to have a sidewalk to nowhere. Unless we were going to do, I would say at least an assessment for the entire block. And that's where I think it is important to look at that as we go forward with some of these critical areas and then just altogether trying to get the pedestrian connectivity with the sidewalk system.

I was just going to toss out. I mean, Reid and I were both on during that time and in that discussion because it was a system we advocated that made sense at the time to have sidewalks in just because he kept seeing kids out in the street basically um and yeah it's just we're not consistent that's always been kind of the problem going forward with our modern developments we've been sticking pretty good to make sure sidewalks go in and just staying consistent with that the pud aspect is where the trail system came in to dakota commons when they first started and we were a little more open-minded to not having a sidewalk in front just allowing the trail to be there and then working with that But yes, with your line directly, if I remember correctly, because it is kind of a straight line, more of a conventional neighborhood, we did advocate that, hey, it'd be great to have some sidewalks there so that there's walkability and people aren't going out in the streets for a walk.

Yeah, it's water under the bridge, you know, but that's why I asked the question about do we have a policy going forward so that new developments are consistently applied and assessed? Because it seems to me that If the mayor is correct and we're basically going to do a case by case study for any sidewalk projects that go into existing neighborhoods, I would at least advocate for some consistency going forward. And I can tell you just from living there, people do not use the sidewalks behind the houses. They walk in the street. And they do it all the time. And there's kids, there's a lot of kids in my neighborhood, and they're always out in the street doing stuff that kids do, which I don't think that a sidewalk would necessarily prevent that. I mean, it's just a neighborhood full of a lot of young kids right now, and you got to be careful when you go through it. So I don't think there's a solution to that. But just going forward, even in a PUD situation like that, I'd think long and hard about allowing that to happen because it just doesn't work very well. Some people use it. That's great. But a lot of people don't use it. They walk in the street because they walk out of their house and they walk down the street or they cross and talk to their neighbors or do all the things that we do in neighborhoods in our communities. I completely agree.

Yeah. Well, and to tie back into that a little bit, you know, I kind of have some concerns with, like, the C Avenue sidewalk that's going in. Great that we would think about adding sidewalk there. But if we're targeting the Boys and Girls Club, they're going to take the shortest route they can take. People are inherently efficient. I'll say efficient instead of lazy. And so they're going to take the shortest path. And so, like, 3rd Avenue having sidewalk, key, important. the central one having it too. And then Arrow Ave, you know, I think does have sidewalk within it. It's a tough neighborhood, but it is a good example of like a period in our development where we said like, curb and gutter, optional. Sidewalk, optional. And so now we deal with it on the backside. But I would say in that scenario, if we're targeting those kids specifically, it's going to be whatever is the shortest path. But it will make it challenging going

From what we understand, the shortest path that they are using today is down the center of C Avenue. So that's why we think the sidewalk on C is the right answer.

Sure.

Councilman Schutte.

Yeah, I don't want to drag this on too long, but a question on the assessment part, the frontage. Is this the same assessment that was floated idea a few years ago? It would help with infrastructure was mentioned, like for doing roads. So we're talking sidewalking as an example. Yes. But it would use it for roads, use it for whatever it may be. So we might be on the same page today with what we feel like we want to use it for. But then again, five, six, eight years from now, another council, another whatever, they could all of a sudden use it for, you know, where we want to use it, let's say we want to use it for sidewalk. Let's say we agree that's a good thing, or at least a percentage of it now. Well, I could change with change management here. Change of counsel and there's no way I think I've talked with finance department. There's no way to. Have it in writing. Here's what it's for and I think that's what's happening when we adopt policies. They get good intentions now, but then they get used for something else later and so just how we navigate through that.

I would suggest the same way we navigate through the use of property tax. Right. So we've got property tax that we use to fund the general fund today. We could use that for a variety of purposes and we make choices between using our scarce resources to fund police and fire or park and rec and across all those different uses today, councils make decisions. And I think we'd have to look at our councils exercising that same judgment in the future for what to do with the assessment. I don't think that there is a, A absolute rigid way for one Council to bind the future Council. I do understand the concern.

So yeah, follow up with that would be, you know, let's say we have a $3 million budget for roads this year. Let's just use that number and we say we're going to use this and put, let's say 2 million towards extra more road repair sidewalk percentage for sidewalk percentage for roads. 5 years from now we're back to $3 million for roads. and now we're just adding more assessment and we're not getting more down the road, pardon the pun, on the, you know, because now we're just taking from Peter to pay Paul and move that money somewhere else. So again, just, but again, how do you navigate through that? It's going to be an issue. There's no way to cement it, if you will, but I guess that's just where I'm thinking on it.

So the one thing that I think the council would have the opportunity as if the front footage assessment was a way that we went. Essentially, council taking action to restrict those funds for a specific use is probably the most control that you could have. So as, like you said, it would go into Fund 212, say, but if there was a concern that it was getting used for park systems, right? But if council put a restriction on it for it can only be used for this, then that would be a tracking mechanism that finance would then keep track of. This is that assessment, front footage assessment that comes in. Here's what it was used for, and that would just be detailed.

What I foresee it becoming is, and I'm not saying it's just the way it is, but when we look at budgets and how things are getting tighter with sales tax, whatever it may be, I can see what happening is maybe at first we put a little more into the budget for roads and sidewalks, but at some point, not too near future, it goes back. We don't get this tight. So it's still going to end up going to parks and rec just in a different way. Cause I'm now we're going to lower that budget back to 3 million. And now that 2 million that now we're going to put that over to where it's maybe neat. And maybe, maybe that's a way to better fund the city. I just think we're fooling ourselves. We think we're going to up our increase our side, our road repairs and sidewalks potentially.

I'm not, I'm not saying I'm against it.

I'm just,

thinking through the process. I would just say I think it is a legitimate concern. I think even on a state level, we've seen taxes get collected and then we don't see them come back the way they were intended. And so if we go that route, I do think we need to make sure we have a pretty solid framework if it's going to happen. You know, things are tight for everybody right now. And so the idea of adding any form of assessment is a challenge already. And so just making sure There are guardrails on it. We show that stewardship. Again, I'm not sure how you do it other than restricting the funds, but even there, I mean, that can be undone, I feel like. So do you trust that people will do the right thing, or is there another way to do it?

Since we are in a work session, the dialogue's a little more informal. I'll foreshadow a discussion. I do what I have at budget time, and As you might remember, the legislature this past session passed what was called the caps bill, which is a special temporary 1% seals tax that a municipality can assess. Depending upon how the use of that fund is defined, it's still new and we're still figuring it out, but we could potentially look at ways to lower the debt service obligation of the city which would then free up the traditional second penny sales tax that we have to provide a more stable and reliable funding mechanism into roads and drainage. Good.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead. We talked about the frontage assessment. I know in the past impermeable surface assessments have come up before. Is that correct, Randy? Basically did square footage on CONCRETE.

THAT WAS THE, I THINK THAT WAS THE STORM WATER USE BE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

SO IT'S SEPARATE THAN FRONT FOOTAGE. I JUST MENTIONED IT SINCE WE'RE DISCUSSING FUNDING MECHANISMS.

JUST TO NOTE SOMETHING, I DO NOT LIKE THE WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PROTEST. CAUSES A LOT OF PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.

CAUSES A LOT OF PROTESTS. YEAH.

Well, and I would just say on that, it's kind of an easy button for today, Ted, and then tomorrow, Ted can deal with it. Yeah. That's what it turns into. That's a How I Met Your Mother reference for those. I'm glad you clarified that. You're welcome. It was a what reference?

How I Met Your Mother.

Popular stick-up.

Oh, I've watched every episode. Yeah. Tomorrow, Ted.

Future Ted.

Okay.

So, transitioning...

We will now hear from Community Development Manager Hanton to talk about a couple of changes in the codes that are applied within the city. And this again is an opportunity to look at how we adopt codes and how that impacts the cost of development and the cost of living in the community. We are going to have a recommendation for you as we go through this and we look at one of the code recommendations that we will be bringing forward to a council meeting perhaps as soon as July 6th to adopt the 2024 International Residential Building Code. And we're going to recommend that we take exception to a portion of that that's not clearly defined yet and will add considerable cost. And so we'll make that recommendation as we go. Also, at the end, we might spend a little time talking about a topic I brought up at the last council meeting regarding some past inconsistencies with how we handled fire protection and fire hydrants, depending upon who developers were in the various eras of development that we put infrastructure in. just for awareness for you as well. So with that, I'll turn it over to our community development manager.

Thank you, Manager Steger. So this is a little presentation working together with my staff, Reed Peterson, building official, and then Alyssa Holling, the permit technician, and Ashton Cook, the planner, and then along with Adam Bloom, fire marshal. We have been going through now that the legislator has approved and the state will be adopting the 2024 edition of the International Building Code and Residential Code. And this is the 2024 edition, even though it is 2026. So there was a delay in that for its adoption last year,

Which? You need to share the screen. It's not being shared.

Oh, OK.

I think when you changed the presentation, it went away. It's good now.

Perfect. Sorry about that. So currently we are utilizing the 2018 code. The city has. Just it's been our pattern to adopt every other code cycle and that is largely I mean just because a lot of the times every three years things aren't changing substantially and then so you know every sixth year that we we adopt a new code. So that's why now we are. we are looking at the 2024 code now that it is available to adopt since the state has. So in the large reason for the adoption other than it's just been our pattern and to stay current with, you know, as things change with technology, building practices, safety precautions, that is why to stay current as well and so that we are up to date there. But then another large thing is the ISO, or the Insurance Services Office. We have a survey done every year, and then we do our verification visit every third year. Okay, so we had one done in 2025, and that was what made this very pertinent that we adopt a newer code addition because if we did not we would be retrograded to a class 9 and so the scoring is from 1 to 9 or 1 to 10 and with 1 being the best so we were previously at a class 6 and we are looking to be a class 5 after this last survey but if we did not adopt the new code, we would be retrograded all the way to a nine, which is bad for insurance policies. So for the entire community, premiums could be increased for homeowner's business and city's insurance as well. And then deductibles could increase and worst case coverage can be dropped. So that is why we are looking, and as Manager Steger mentioned there, that We plan to bring this forward for first reading July 6th, second reading July 20th. So really altogether very minimal changes from the 2018 to the 2024 addition. All of us as staff have went through it line by line. What we had amended or modified previously in the 2018 cycle. So every municipality has the ability to modify the code and we do that through amendments in the ordinance. So building code is in Title 5 of ordinance and fire code is Title 10. So there's, yeah, like I said, not a lot of significant changes. So we are looking at the 2024 International Building Code and As far as the state, and this was part of the delay as well, they had a task force assembled by the Board of Technical Professions to do a cost impact study prior to the legislator adopting the 2024 building code at this last session that will now become effective July 1st. The cost impact was determined to be minimal. So that was obviously a large thing. I think, you know, nationally and just as a state, a major focus has been affordable housing. So it's important to be able to understand what these codes do as far as impacting the cost to build or just the cost of construction. So that was an important thing for the state. And that's what was not done last year. So then they... they did not adopt the codes. And then for the RIVC for Watertown, he added an exemption that has to Section 1104.4 for multi multi-story buildings, allowing occupancies to have the same amenities on the first floor that are provided on the second floor. And that's for ADA accessibility. And then without requiring a lift or elevator. So When it's, we've had a couple new projects that we've noticed this on and think that it's reasonable and still is meeting accessibility requirements. And then the IRC is the one, did I already go through? Oh, I already went through the IFC, sorry, Adam. So the 2024 International Fire Code. Again, minimal changes. The main things that you'll see when it comes forward for the ordinance amendment is putting information from the IFC in ordinance and then adding chapters to Title 10 as well, just to have all the information in one place in the ordinance. And Now for the 2024 International Residential Code, again, minor things except for the ground snow load increase in the climatic and geographic design criteria in the 2024 code versus the 2018, which I'll get into in a couple later slides here. But then if you guys recall, Senate Bill 3 that was adopted in the 2026 legislative session that only affected Watertown's ability to require permits for windows or doors when they're being replaced for like in size and owner occupied structures. Reed was a part of those discussions when that was going forward because originally the bill included that you could not require permits for roofing. which would have been impactful to the community. So that was not passed.

So we don't have to make any modifications regarding that.

And this is, it's a pretty minor deal for the windows and doors, replacing those. The reason why we did permit them in the first place was just to make sure that they're installed correctly and that they're not leaking. So really a very easy inspection, but now we cannot require that. because the state eliminated that. And again, a task force through the Board of Technical Professions did go through the cost analysis here. I do think that there could have been more focus on the ground snow load increase and Reid just was out at the South Dakota Building Officials Conference and had a lot of discussions there. of how other communities are handling this. And I think that everyone's kind of in the same place, but also maybe going separate directions, but I'll explain where we've landed with it. And Reid can probably provide more background on that too, if you guys are curious. So the 2018 code had a 50 pounds per square foot for the snow load. And that really impacts rafter sizes. And then in the 2024 code, they're now suggesting 64.4 pounds per square foot. So increasing 14.4 pounds per square foot for, and that really, as far as the rafter size, I think that it actually makes it increase to two by tens, but that's where Reed can get into those details. But we are thinking as far as locally that we'd like to stay at the 50 because we have not seen homes collapse because of snow load. And we have been at 50 at least since 2018, but I imagine further back as well. And again, because of our local initiatives for affordable housing. So not trying to add cost increase to that. Here are some examples and we did reach out to trust manufacturers and they actually don't even have their software updated to design to the 64.4 increase. So we have not gotten an estimate back. And again, it's hard to, I mean, every roof is so different and what the cost impact would be, but we just know that the increase obviously is going to add an increase to cost. So for example, if a truss, rafters, all of the installation equipment is approximately $12 a square foot for a building footprint for the roof. If we're looking at a thousand square foot home at the 50 PSF, that's cost $12,000. And at, but at the 64.4, you'd be 14,100. So like anywhere. And then when you look at a 2,500 square foot house, you are looking at a difference of about $5,000 of cost. So we're anywhere between 2000 and 5,000 and increased costs, which in the grand scheme of a project is probably is minimal, but still, if we have not seen buildings collapse because of the, current code, we want to at least have a little more information. And that's something that Reid is working with the building official in Sioux Falls and is going to participate. They're going to have a work session with an engineering firm. And then it's always something that we can look at locally and amend it at a later time. But just without that better information, that's that's the main. Change that we find could be detrimental.

Question on that. Is that OK now or later? So is that pertaining to? Is it snow load? Is that first question? Is it referring to snow load or is it wind damage? What's the what's the it's it's snow snow snow load is but currently right now we're at a 50 pound ground snow load is the number that they figure for that calculation uh but it would be increasing to 64.4 in the residential code and it's it does it does throw a kind of revenge in it so what about pitch is it what about the pitch of the rip 312 10 you know 612 what what about that doesn't that doesn't matter the pitch of the roof not necessarily i mean in terms of

This, like this calculation doesn't, your rafter company would have a designer, it would have an engineer who would design it based off of the pitch of the roof to that number.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

So you'd have a geographic design criteria that would fit this region, and that's the number that they would plug into their equation, and that's how they would design the rafters.

I've seen some newer houses that are having what looks like almost a 2-12 pitch. I mean, it's pretty flat roof. But they must have, the joists must be. wrappers must be designed for that weight. Okay. That doesn't change. Okay. I got, thank you.

Yeah. And obviously too, the more complex, like if you're just doing a simple cable roof, you know, you're, it's not as much cost increase, you know, that's just the simple one, but yeah, as roofs are getting more and more complex, that would add to, to that cost as well. So here's just a chart there that shows the price differences from, and this one actually, we had 57 because we tossed around going, meeting in the middle, but even that, you know, the fact that we would be adding costs when we have not experienced roofs collapsing.

Does it matter what the rafter material is? So steel rafters, uh, And I don't, I mean, I've seen some houses being built with steel rafters now. I really don't know what the comparison is between steel and wood currently. Is steel significantly more expensive, less expensive, about the same? Do you know? It probably depends on who your wholesaler is or where you're getting that from.

I'm sure that that could be. It's hard to say one way or another.

It depends on what you're getting as a price or how many units you're going to plan on doing or what you're getting as a wholesale number. I was just curious about where that was at. But so, Brandy, essentially what you're saying is that if we adopted the code wholesale, the belief is that it has a minimal impact. But what you're telling us is that in this particular instance with this number, It's not really a minimal impact. I mean, that's a fairly, I mean, just the numbers that you've shared there, that doesn't seem insignificant to me in terms of cost. And so it makes sense to me to stick with 50 as long as it doesn't, you know, if we don't adopt the building code as a whole, does that impact insurance and those things? It doesn't. So then I would see there's really no reason to race to get to 64.4 if we haven't had roofs collapse because, you know, we've had winters when there's been a lot of snow. And if that's not collapsing roofs, then I think we're probably reasonably safe. I don't think we would, that there'd be an argument that we're somehow endangering people for failing to adopt that code. And it sounds like you're going to be talking to others about how they're going to handle it too, right?

Throughout the state, you know, I guess last week I was at the building official summer meeting and brought this topic up to discuss. And throughout the state, there's a lot of municipalities that are, I guess, playing it slow. They don't want to, they're waiting to see what other people are doing. So there's a handful of people that are in the same boat that we are where due to I should say that the adoption of the 2024 code was in session in the 2025, but this task force was not assembled. They didn't do a cost analysis on it, so it was deferred to the last day. So I came back up in this session that was approved. So there's multiple municipalities such as us that are in the same boat where for ISO purposes were required to update if we don't want to retrograde. But there's of those of those municipalities of the ones that I talked to two of them are going to stick with what is in the code for the ASC hazard tool for their new snow load and Sioux Falls is going to put together a panel of structural engineers and determine what's right for them locally and. As far as for us, I would think that it would make sense that we would stay where we're at for now because this is relatively new. and we haven't had collapses and then maybe look into it further. I don't think that rushing into that is necessarily the path that's right.

Can we just require less installation so it snow melts quicker?

Yeah, just to conclude the presentation then so we can have more discussion. We also, another thing that we are adding to ordinance is to delay the effective date, being that it's coming into effect July 1. We'll adopt July 20th. We're in construction season right now, so we are going to allow that the 2018 code be used for this season so that somebody's not in the middle of their design of their project, and then they have to get it updated for the code change. So

That would be kind of fun though. You know, you know you need 12 more rafters, right?

Yeah, so that's a that is also going to be a part of the amendment coming forward to Council. So with that, are there any questions?

I just wanted to touch back on the section I was talking about the first floor and second floor amenities. Can you just flush that out a little bit more? Um, I want to make sure I have my head around that.

Yeah. I'll let Reed take that. He's raising his hand, ready to go on.

So in 11, uh, 1104 is the accessibility chapter of the code. Um, and I kind of looked to Sioux Falls a little bit on this. They have a local amendment to theirs where it basically within that code, it'll state that it, like, unless you're under 3000 square foot per that floor, um, you don't have to require the accessibility to the second level. We've run into it a couple of times where people have had a second level that's over that. But the thought process behind the amendment would be that in a situation where you would have more than that, as long as you provide all the same amenities upstairs, like a break room or bathrooms or any of those things that you were planning on putting on second level that need to be accessible, you'd have to have them on first floor to not have to have a chair hoist or an elevator. And part of that reasoning is that if somebody is in a situation where they need that facility or that service, it would be better to have them on first floor than on second floor and rely on that service to get them down in an emergency situation, so long as all those amenities are applied to first floor.

Makes a lot of sense.

Okay.

Okay. Did you want to have a discussion on fire hydrants?

Sure. I know it was a hot topic, so if you guys have questions on it or want to know how we determine it, I can go through that whole process for you.

Here's a bit of the history, and this is This is really the result of the community developing under different standards and different leadership over decades. And standards have been inconsistently applied. And we run into situations where with fire hydrant spacing, hydrants may not be available in areas of the city that had the hydrants put in 30 or 40 years ago. And so when somebody comes in today for a building permit, they find out and they get a surprise that they may have to spend 25 or $30,000 to put in a fire hydrant to be close enough to their proposed building to meet the fire codes. In some cases, we have people that look to us and say, city, why did you let this happen? In other cases, we have people that that just look at it and say, okay, this is going to be a cost of developing my property. And we've got people all in between. So this is more for awareness for this group. I'm sure you will hear about some. And ultimately the question is, do you want us to do something as a city if we can find money to address situations where hydrants were perhaps not close enough on certain lots? That's up to you. We are more than willing to look and listen to your feedback and go try to solve the problem. But before you can do that, I think you need just a little bit of the history and background. So with that, I'll let Fire Marshal Blum fill us in on where we need hydrants and why.

So right now, it sure seems like the biggest issue we have is with the existing developments. The newer developments, WMU, uses the AWWA and the 10 state standards, which basically says for a commercial district, they put out fire hydrant every 300 feet. For residential, they go every 500. So with that being said, the newer developments, it's not really an issue. When it becomes an issue for newer development, it depends on the buyer of the lot. If let's say I buy a lot, I'm putting a Walmart there. obviously that's going to take more of a water supply than a general business. So that's where the extra hydrants on their lot may come into play, but typically the newer developments, the 300-500, it's not an issue other than offset for building size. The issue we run into is the existing developments that have been there and there's been a vacant lot. Somebody buys it and puts it in. Well, they're why hydrants were installed the way they were. I can't answer that, but the codes we have now is what we try and apply. And like I said, I look at the site plan and I go by your building type, building construction, and then I get a fire flow from that. And then it talks, we go into Appendix C, which tells us where our hydrant placements are, and that gives us our distances. And a lot of times it just doesn't match up with where they're placed.

Do you want to give an example? of a business that's built in an existing commercial development that had that put in a fire engine?

One that just came through council, we'll say Jesse Keough. He just came through on 14th Ave, corner of 14th and 14th. Jesse Keough bought a lot. It came through and it required a hydrant due to spacing because there was a hydrant on one corner and then the next one was 900 feet away and our spacing we needed at every 400 feet for that type of business. So that's the one that got him was for spacing was because they were too far apart.

I saw some people on 212 the other day. It might have been over by the Thorsons car wash or maybe it was over by Perkins or whatever. Anyway, there were a bunch of city employees staring at a fire hydrant. And it looked to me like they had some intent. I don't know what they were doing, but.

I can't answer that one. So another one that just recently, Butler Cat on the frontage road by Titan.

Sure.

They actually added two extra hydrants and they put one further into the lot because of where their building placement was going to be.

So wouldn't it impact their insurance rates if they didn't do that? I mean, and really, if I have a business and you tell me, well, chances are, you know, it could burn to the ground and we wouldn't be able to put the fire out because we don't have fire. I'd say, I guess I'll put in a hydrant. I mean, I get it that if it's $25,000 or $30,000 to do that, that's not insignificant, but I still would prefer to have you'd be able to put out the fire in my business than to have it burned to the ground. I don't know, or to pay higher insurance rates or maybe not even be able to get insurance. I suppose that's a possibility too.

One thing that can also push a distance from a hydrant is a sprinkler system. It really changes the distance because it takes your, and the amount of hydrants. If you take your fire flow, let's say you needed 5,000 gallons a minute, for your fire flow. If you install a NFE 13 sprinkler system, you're allowed to take 25% of that 5,000. And that's what your fire flow is now down to. And it'll actually put your distance to 600 feet versus 400. So a sprinkler system can change a lot with hydrant and hydrant placement. It's just now you're offsetting your costs trying to figure out which one is more beneficial. Councilman, where was we?

Oh, I just can toss out some of the concern that some of the businesses are having with it is that they won't be the only ones utilizing that hydrant. And so they feel like they should cost share. Is that kind of the idea? Or the city should put it? Well, and that's, I don't get to dictate who gets I just the logic issue that I'm just trying to define the problem.

That is, that's really the issue, is then that person puts it in and it might meet somebody else's requirements, like next door, and then they had to pay for it, and then the other person, yeah. So that really is.

That is exactly the argument. The argument is, city, you should have required this to have been put in years ago. In some cases, the city has been the developer or the... the few cases, even the seller of the land. And so the argument then becomes city, why didn't you do it? And by the way, city, you should have done it. You should have known where I was going to build my building. And now someone else can use my hydrants. So that's further argument that you should do it. But from a practical standpoint, this is just like sidewalks. We need, if you have, any inclination to want to do that, then we need to find a funding mechanism to do it.

City Manager Steiger, I just want to be clear, too, that Farm Marshall Bloom has been very black and white with every developer and contractor when it comes to this. He shares the information, shares the code, shares the analytics of the costs, and tries to do his very best to make it work. And I'm with Councilman Allen, you know, that if you're probably going to want to put the infrastructure in to protect your building from the ISO standpoint and the insurance process. So we'll continue to watch these, each one, you know, identify each one separately. And if it comes to a situation where you're going to come to council or something, bring it to you guys.

Just wondering when these developments were first created and the first hydrants, you know, were put in there, were they spaced according to what the coder requirement was at that time?

And that I can't really answer because I do know we've had to, or developments have, I shouldn't say developments, businesses have had to put one in and they're like, well, I didn't have to do it in 2007. Well, then you go back to 2007 code and it was required then. It just wasn't done.

Sure.

So I don't know if it was who it falls back to. I just consider what we have now is, This is what I go by. Sure.

Yeah, I was just kind of curious if there would be any grandfather clause as far as if you bought and owned prior to if there was code or distance change, rule changes.

So the grandfather clause, so per the IFC, it's any new portion. So let's say you own the business and now you're going to expand. Well, now as soon as you start building that grandfather clause, away because now the fire code comes into play with your new construction. OK, so then that's where we kind of fall on is. This is what we're going by, so we follow the 2018 code and this is what's required.

I just like to compliment Fire Marshal Bloom and building official Peterson. They don't make these very simple decisions. Each one of them requires hours of study and they're going out of their way to find ways to allow the properties to be developed in a thoughtful, safe way. And so it's often underappreciated the effort that they go in to try to get to a yes on a project. I'd also say that as people look at projects and development in the community, everybody is always afraid of sprinkler systems and fire protection. But I think what we find is many cases the cost of doing it the right way in the beginning usually pays off for the development long term. And we have many people that try to argue buildings that they resisted and fought the life safety measures and then want to keep fighting as time goes on as they remodel the buildings And at some point you just have to say, well. The cost of doing this the right way. Really was the right thing to do, and that's often overlooked. So if you guys can help deliver that message, that'd be helpful.

I just add to that. I mean, you see that in some of our older buildings in town where they've been owner modified for years and years and years and not doing the right thing and your building becomes a gut job in six years. And so you hurt your investment long term instead of just getting it right the first time, and then you can hand it off for a much larger sum of money. So that code enforcement is no small task, but it does in the long term save us a lot of headache.

Adam is making me put a sprinkler system in our ministry building. When I go upstairs, I'll get to do the same. Once we get the basement, not the main floor.

used to keep people from running into your build.

I'm just going to change the sign to no access.

Any other questions on these topics?

We appreciate the time and hopefully you found this educational. No real decisions coming out of tonight other than the snow load rating, which I believe we'll bring forward in a week. I think this is great context, especially as we head into the budget season shortly.

So just to clarify, the first issue, the sewer assessments and all that, cost recoveries, there's no timeline like there is for this one that we're going to see something July 6th and the 20th.

You might see the write-off on July 6th of the legacy items. And we can even share the detail of those if you want to look at specific properties and amounts. But I think you'll see that in July. Thank you.

If you guys have any questions that pop up in the meantime, I would encourage you to get all the names, especially the ones regarding building code. I'd be happy to discuss anything you want to talk about. Thank you.

If you have any questions about fire code planning, hold this up.

And finance.

Finance, yeah.

Sidewalks Councilman Allen is the expert. All right, anyone here from the public want to tell us how we're doing?

All right, we don't have any reason to go into executive session. Can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. Moved by Councilman Allen, seconded by Councilman Moorman. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries.