any switch her or anything otherwise I'd take a motion to approve that so Mo I'll second Rick made the motion Magie seconded it all in favor say I I I oppose motion carries the next item on the cons on the agenda is the consent agenda um any questions concerns on that I do um under the sanitary sewer there are some entries for Robert half which I know is an employment agency um and two of the items are for placement and the other two I don't know if those are wages that are being paid I just want to understand what that money is being spent it's a I know the utility um billing clerk yes so our um Utility Billing clerk um our new individual just started last week so we still have the temp placement in and she'll be here for a little bit so part of the services I was trying to find that line on here part of the services are that and then the other portion is for the Fulfillment utilizing the um placement agency for a permanent hire so so for the permanent hire we're going through Robert Half to bring candidates forward correct we did yes is that something that we usually do for this for this particular position uh the utility commission um due to the uh struggles and the potential unique nature of it um we we actually kind of floated both when we first hired the position a few months ago um we interviewed candidates both applied on their own and through Robert Half we only owed Robert Half any money candidate at that time the person that we replaced them with was kind of on our own at that point and so we owed Robert Half no money um that placement didn't work work out quite as well as we had hoped um this time around the candidate that we end up placing in there was a Robert Half candidate and so we owe them obviously a fee for using that um correct me if I'm wrong Robin if for some reason this candidate doesn't work out Robert Half is basically guaranteed the replacement correct yes so we still pay the fee but they'll find us a new placement for no additional cost okay all right it's just something I don't recall scene before I just wanted to understand the process so thank you any other questions on the consent agenda um hearing none I would take a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved I'll second um any other questions or discussion hearing none all in favor say I I opposed motion carries all right the public is invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda speakers are limited to five minutes I don't see anybody in the audience um so so with that we'll move on to the city Engineers project update and then then just go into when I'll keep going all right uh thanks for having me again here tonight um I do have my Engineers update in front of you I guess I'll leave if there are any questions before moving into my next two items uh the agenda's the updates basically just some minor things on the current project primarily and then um if there aren't any questions I'm going stra how much longer are they going to be on Lexington I think they should be done with utilities within about the next week week and I think end of next week we should done with utilities and that should be um and then once the utilities are done they can get straight into digging out the rest of the road and moving into Sixth Street okay so um it's going to be another month to work on lexton before they're paved and at that point so U hopefully the weather holds out correct me if I'm wrong at this point they are kind of in a are we pass any deadlines on Lexington so on lexton Avenue no so the the project has a a milestone date and then substantial completion date and final completion dates the Milestone date is basically the point they remove the pavement and start their work and they have nine weeks to bring this street up to uh gravel make it passible for residents and 11 weeks to bring it paved and substantially complete we are not substantially complete on Lindale Avenue yet because they still have portions of sidewalk and some they haven't planted grass or anything on there so at this point we have notified them that liquidated damages are in effect um because of the work on Lindale um these are not cumulative so we would not have liquidated damages on multiple streets necessarily all the one same time um so until they finish uh Lindale Avenue I think we're about six or seven weeks now I think actually past the point they should have been substantially complete with a uh with an extension already granted so the Street's passible for residents certainly close to complete on Lindale um that's kind of what they need to finish first um but if they do hit a point where uh that is complete and they are now behind on First Street Southeast um or Third Street probably the ones that' be more likely to to go into liquidated damages first since they started those before um Lexington um then that $850 a day may continue for the rest of the project even how much is it 850 bucks a day so it's about half the cost to have somebody out there watching them for a full day so the assumptions that um there' be somebody out there doing the work for on our h on our behalf watching the construction happen um if they go past uh I want say the last Saturday in October then liquidated damages would go up to I think around $1,500 a day so that'd be not reaching the contract requirements for completion um so they still say they'll meet that date um if weather holds off like it has been last couple weeks and and in the current forecast then they certainly can do that um but uh there's a ways to go un L Avenue is getting close as far as utility work work goes with six Street Northeast still hanging out there and that's got some deep utility so hoping for the best I think they can do it but just uh they need to get it moving so okay thank you go ahead okay I'll kind of roll right into my next item on the agenda which is on the 2025 project um so uh in your package should be the feasibility report for the 2025 Street utility Improvement project um this was originally ordered I think about believe back in May here May 6th uh and then amended uh a few weeks back when we added in some additional work to the project um so the project area includes uh Lincoln Avenue and persing avenues from Main Street to Fifth Street uh First Street from Columbus to persing and then Second Street um from Columbus Avenue North to Lindale Avenue North that's for sidewalk improvements only um in this report too we do also have uh uh fist Street um Northeast with some sidewalk improvements for about a block and a half um and uh we also have some alley improvements that been added to it so uh then to the total project cost is estimated at 6,678 th000 uh this is a larger project than we've been completing the last couple of years um big part of this is just a long segments of Street lots of houses on there with driveways and services that need to be replaced um so uh the six six $ 6,678 th000 includes construction costs 10% contingency uh 20% project related cost um we are using cost estimates from this recent more most recent bid uh using about the average bid price rounding up just a little bit so overall there's probably 10 to 15% of contingency really built into this estimate so um certainly a larger project but uh um that's kind of where the costs are coming from uh we do have that split into multiple sources uh one of those sources including um mindat state aid so there are some State portions of this project on persing Avenue North um then we also have an active Transportation Grant and that's for sidewalk improvements on 12th Street Southeast or 12th Avenue Southeast um and that uh um is pretty much 100% paid for on the construction cost from the grant uh the city just be responsible for the engineering costs and anything related to that portion of it so that was a grant that the city received on uh this last spring and uh we thought it'd be best to include at the bigger project to to reduce those uh engineering costs and those other Associated costs yes Chris um the general Levy um estimate for funding how does that percentage of the total compar with the last few years with with the years in the past is it uh is it bigger percentage uh I couldn't quite tell you for sure on that one I don't have that comparison um as far as the project goes uh when we calculate the the general Levy cost it's after taking out all the utility costs taking out the minda costs and taking out the um yeah I guess basically utility costs and assessments I'm sorry and anything that's left over goes into that General Levy cost um because this one does have a larger state aid portion on this project from a percentage of the project I would expect the general Levy be slightly less as percentage um for that reason I would would have thought so also um I wondered about the the area I'm not sure if it's much cost involved in the area that uh by the utility building all that if that's factored in there or it is so the the cost for the improvements in the alley around the utility utility building specifically all the payment Improvement costs are at 100% of the construction cost um in the water utility portion of this funding breakdown so there are actually some payment Improvement costs that are going to the public utility to pay for um and then they are also paying part of the assessment so anything outside of the alley uh around that building is 100% of the construction cost is being put into their their Ledger I guess so is the alleys being assessed or is that under the city General Levy uh only the commercial properties on the Alley are being assessed so so the city's bearing the Brun to that Improvement then anything at residential side correct okay yeah yeah it could be less it just it's a big number correct yes yeah it is and we we looked at an improvement that uh is you know there are some maybe lesser improvements that could have been considered we're looking at Improvement to replace the gravel pave the pave the area put in some drainage improvements to make it better um that could potentially be scaled back into just a you know remove four inches of gravel and repave it um this is a little bit longer lasting type of improvement though I just looked it up last year was 8 million to the general Levy roughly in this the we're looking at 1.3 million to the general Levy what was the total project last year uh 4 million roughly that was construction I think 4.1 million construction project is closer $5 million this is significantly less than actually to the general level yeah thank you and so if if if council's okay with the report I do have a resolution in your packet to uh accept the report and to order the public hearing which is currently scheduled for September 3rd at 6: p.m. uh just be your next council meeting um that'd be the earliest it could be if it uh is approved we'd uh um we've already sent our advertisement to the paper we just authorize them to go ahead and publish that on Thursday so we can meet all the the requirements for for advertising that and Chris for information sake um where where are we timeline wise like are we right on with a normal year are we a little ahead we about six weeks ahead of the normal schedule so the last project I brought to you in mid October for the same uh for the public hearing I should say um so this would be about six weeks ahead of the previous project um because of the size of this project and the involvement of mindat on both the state aid Street persing Avenue and also on the active Transportation Grant want make sure we don't lose any time at the back end for reviews and authorization to bid the project um so this is going to be yeah six weeks ahead of normal um just because of the size of this project Okay and like the the assessments they're just estimates right now I mean close estimates so I I believe the way we've done it in the past at least since I've been here is you you guys kind of set a base assessment rate on Main Street correct and we've kind of built off of that um I say built off of that in that if construction costs went up 5% we generally raise but I think the last couple years we've held our assessment rates pretty spot on have 2022 2023 and 2024 projects all have the same assessment rates on the um on all the pro all the improvements um this one we are proposing a 5% increase we proposed that now two years in a row and not have to actually proceed with that um so if bids do come in better um we would would not necessar have to follow that 5% so this should be considered the top end as far as assessments U no one's assessment should be above what's shown in here as far as the assessment amounts in there they're I mean that we did go through the process figuring out what unit will be used for each one you know number of sewer Services water services and streets so those are probably going to be pretty much right on um as far as that goes so the only thing I can change here would be the unit price so the the cost per per service or per per uh Street assessment so it looks like it's 15 grand 157 for a lot and then a half A lot's like 10 grand yeah if they had a sewer and a water service and then a and then a street assessment uh we are we are not assessing for sidewalk on Second Street or on Fifth Street so those are just um part of general which I believe is how we've done in the past right just whether there's a sidewalk in front of your house or not does not change your assessment amount correct yes yep so those those are considered more of a city Improvement to add that sidewalk in okay all right I'd make a motion to approve resolution 24- 8-19-1 2025 Street utility Improvement project receiving a report in calling hearing on Improvement I'll second okay there's been a motion by Bruce seconded by Maggie um any other questions or discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I oppose motion carries and then I think you got the next item up also chis I do I don't know Kendy want to introduce this one potentially yeah just to give a quick introduction um if you remember at the last council meeting we had a quick uh update from MSA regarding the um estimated cost for grading in the pond work at city center and uh talked to Chris about actually put putting together a proposal to put this out to bid and um Chris and I talked and um basically broke out the pond work from this we could potentially get the grading done yet this fall so that is proposal you see in front of you here for $177,000 in a not to exceed amount where we could actually get uh that package back in front of you for approval to put out uh for proposals by the uh September I think it was September 16th meeting uh which is a pretty quick turnaround but um I know pops is looking at wanting to get in the ground early in the spring and potentially we could have this done and ready to do that at this point I think the other thing to point out we don't have it in the memo obviously because this Chris Melo but um Josh correct me if I'm wrong but I believe arpa funds could be used to pay for the engineering cost of this $177,000 um proposal here tonight that that is correct if you remember right we had about those roughly $446,000 if I remember right um of available arpa and the council decided um let's just hold off on that and see if there's something else that comes up here before the end of the year since we do have to have those funds spent or allocated to be spent by the end of the year um and so my recommendation would be if we go forward and have these plans drafted up that we would use those arpa funds to go towards these plans um and then whether we do the grading this fall or we decide to do it next spring we'll have the plans ready to go at that point okay so what I do have in front of you is a proposal for not to exceed amount of $177,000 this would to allow construction to occur this fall uh we can talk about specifics as far as how that might work out um at a later time but uh um might notice I did kind of note there's a higher cost percentage of construction because a lot of the fixed costs and they do doing a contract and quoting a something in there it doesn't really matter if it's a $80,000 project or 200,000 well not 200 $175,000 project I guess for for soliciting quotes So this would not be to do a formal bidding process maybe just let contractors send them documentation and then they can provide a quote so slightly different process but uh it does allow us to have a simpler contract and and reduce some things down versus doing the full full bidding process and yeah accelerate things quite a bit to try to get the work done this fall cool any questions I take a motion to approve uh the agreement actually I'll offer that second is that exhibit A1 is that what we're I think the supplemental letter of agreement so I do have an agreement in there and then ex the exhibit that attaches to it just goes through our our hourly not to ex hourly fees work supplemental letter agreement yes okay so I made the motion seconded by Rick um any other questions or discussion hearing none all in favor say I opposed motion carries all right thank you all right thanks everybody thanks Chris all right the next item up for what's that notna hang um is this the second or first reading first reading tonight okay I'll let you yes so I'll give you a little background on the Planning Commission over the past couple of meeting has been looking at um what would be needed to uh properly process a addition to the fire station for a new police station um I'd actually spoke with Scott rigs a couple months ago um to see if zoning in the uh i1 District which the fire station is located if we needed to do anything for land use um Scott um offered his opinion and I I do agree with him that even though back in uh 2008 when that initially was uh approved for the fire station under the guise of it being an essential service our definition for essential Services currently is really about utilities isn't really for fire police that type of other public use so Planet commission ended up um having staff do further research to determine what other cities were doing for U the land use category that includes public and quasi public such as the post office type use in um their zoning ordinances and what we came up with was a very common definition that cities are using which is determined to be a public buildings definition and then um additionally uh I'll get into the other part about essential Services structures in a second here but uh in a nutshell what the Planning Commission uh determined after their public hearing at the July 24th meeting was to move forward with um having the council consider the zoning ordinance definition uh to be added for public buildings that would include um anything from fire stations police stations post offices City Halls under that category of a uh public building and it really doesn't matter if the public entity owns it it's if they are you utilizing the building uh for a public um type operation um as the Planning Commission went through all the categories of the zoning ordinance to determine where they should be permitted Andor conditional uh they basically determine that it should be a conditional use in every District except for the uh i1 light industrial district uh which is out in the industrial park and then also the B3 Highway commercial zoning District which is uh the corridor along trunk Highway 21 and 13 over on the west side of town kind of from Dairy Queen on up past the fire station and and chart over there um the other topic that came up during that time was um essential Services which uh again are typically um utility related but also include buildings um were permitted in every District the Planning Commission indicated some uneasiness with having um certain um essential service structures uh if you think of probably the most visible one that's out there is the water booster station off 10th Avenue um and uh making sure that uh those buildings don't pop up in a residential area and look ugly whether it be from City utility or from you know Centerpoint or comcast or whatever it might be because we do have some buildings out there that are not the most attractive um so the thought that the Planning Commission had was to make uh those also conditional uses in the same districts that public buildings would be again with the exception of the i1 light industrial and the B3 District so uh basically any building that's public or U essential Services structure are now um under this ordinance would be conditional uses in all but that industrial and B3 district U over on that west side of tone so that is essentially what they have brought forth to have the council consider for a first reading tonight okay so basically we would have control if a we station was needed corre residential areas it couldn't just be a pole shed type building it have to be maybe a hous looking type like Savage has they got house correct yes exact exactly yeah that's going to be a very common provision that cities have put in place so that there isn't just a sore thumb looking building uh in an NST residential neighborhood or even in the downtown area for that matter yeah yeah quick question for you the um the date on um the the staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the required public hearing on July 24th and then the council will take it up on August 5th oh where do yes do you want to change that date or is where are you reading that Rick right at the top of the ordinance 351 where you got all that stuff highlighted right below that page two like page one of the 102 yep yeah we'll take care of that thanks Rick good catch all right so any questions otherwise I'd take a motion for a first reading on this um ordinance so Move Motion by Rick is there a second second Bruce made a second any other questions or discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I opposed motion carries thank you thank you all right the next item up on the agenda is what is it General business 12 yeah I know but this got this must have been to me uploaded backwards because the memo should have been ahead of the so so I mean ordinance it just if you uh are you in the HTML version where you click on each one as it comes through no I'm in the other one but it then it oh was it oh it must have been the public hearing or whatever information okay yep so the next item up on the agenda is the city administrator review summary um I enclosed the memo um if you had a chance to read it and but uh basically um it's my recommendation after this review I propose that we move Josh from Step six of grade 19 which which is 155 272 effec of August 30th 2024 I also propose that we move the annual review process to January so that it better aligns with the city's calendar this would mean that the next review from today would actually take place on January 2026 but I just kind of highlighted what we talked about on last meeting and then I do know that Bruce met with Josh also yeah if I yep could make a comment I apologize for not having I didn't realize that the personal review is going to take place when i' would be gone so I I apologize for not having my review available for that but I did meet with Josh last week um I'm I have a sense of maybe what the discussion took place and therefore what the recommendation is about I don't support it um for maybe a couple reasons I do think that certainly there was uh performance merits uh an increase but to jump uh to jump two steps uh I didn't see that in in my uh review um certainly a lot of things were completed according and met expectations but I I didn't see the Merit that would justify jump two steps um and secondly I I do feel that based on just the history of the things that have been done that to extend the Personnel policy or to extend the review and to uh really to make an exception to our Personnel policy to do that is probably not The Prudent thing to do based on what's occurred in the last year so those those are the reasons that I probably just for my comments and I sent you a copy of my review and I went through that with Josh so that is what it is um so I'll leave it leave it at that but U that's my two cents okay right so um second did you make the motion then no I didn't make any motion okay so you can if you want I'll make the motion to um um Soo to approve my recommendation to approve your recommendation correct okay is there a second I'll second it um I just have a question on the motion then is the motion to to show that um cost of living increases will be in effect then in the inim time period in January and I don't believe so it was just um so I guess the idea would be um if if it's holding out at that is the current point at where step six grade 19 currently sits and so if if if the graph moves due to cost of living increase I guess the assumption would be that um my pay would stick with whatever step it's currently on yes that that was my intent so if it's on step six and and cola of um tonight's the cola and the budget where it's currently sitting right now is 2.8% if Cola moves that whole graph 2.8% then mine would stay on step six and move with that 2.8% or whatever that Cola would go it would not move it would oh yeah so basically I I take from this recommendation that it is sitting on step six and so if step six of grade 19 moves that it would move with it okay so in January we're proposing in our budget 2.8 it would increase two by 2.8% in January generally yeah I I say generally because the math comes out real wonky that okay depending on where you're it's around 2.8 okay so you're going to go a year almost a year and three months or so for your next evaluation under this recommendation under this recommendation yes year and five months and that and that that was my point that that well it is whatever so there's been a motion to approve the recommendation in a second any other discussion or questions all in favor say I I I opposed opposed I opposed all right so question point of order then does that mean there is no step increase for the coming year no because that motion at this point failed due to lack of having a majority yep so we're going to have to I would make a motion to approve a step uh the step an increase to step five okay there's been a motion in that is there a second I'll second okay um there's been a motion by ruce second by Magie any questions hearing none all in favor say I I I opposed name okay um oppose motion carries so three to one okay yeah okay all right so with that we've exhausted this agenda so I would ask to for adjournment oh wait I'm sorry we got to do discussion items so I'll go around the horn Matt the only thing I have is Scott Warner or Wastewater superintendent let me know last week that he took a new position um so he'll be leaving uh first week of November um he's been at the city for 14 years and he is the was a superintendent when the plant the new plant opened up so um that plant is 104 in Minnesota and will be extremely hard to he will be extremely hard to replace that's all I got okay yeah I saw the ad in the paper Tim Ken Robin um we did publish the RFQ for municipal financial advisor Services uh responses or proposals are due back by 3 pm September 24th um we did reach out to firms as well letting them know that it was out there uh Lauren Fulk or Laurel Fulk uh our new Utility Billing specialist started last Tuesday August 13th um so we're looking forward to having her as part of the team and we have started the interview process for the administrative assistant okay Josh uh all that I have is just U I'm sure you've all heard by now but just as an official update as to who filed uh Dwayne is the only one who filed for mayor and then we had three people file for the two open Council seats um Bruce wolf uh Sean Ryan and then Dan Meyer Who currently serves on the Planning Commission okay that's what I've got Magie I don't have anything this evening I don't have anything Bruce just to make the comment I had the opportunity to someone asked me for directions to the dog park um today and it was really kind of cute I tried to give directions but they weren't that familiar with how to get there so I actually drove there and showed her um and uh she was just exatic about it and it worked out well and um I think it's really put together well and I'm sure you got some ideas from how to design it but the the little pin in the front there I'm assuming that's for dogs to kind of assimilate with other dogs before you let them loose correct yeah double gate so they can't just run out while you unleash them and all that uh this uh G was a little elderly and I can say that because she was older than me but she uh the door is not the typical latch that I see so you kind of had to instructor on how to do that but uh I I thought it's a wonderful uh addition and she was very pleased with it um that's all I got kind of a piggyback on that was there kind of a separate Committee of the park board that worked on that or was that totally the park board um there were some citizens that got together to talk about the design of the park one of them is a parkboard member yes and then um ideas were brought back to the the park board and I think Park Board provided some funding as well yeah no i' that's all I've seen is good reviews on Facebook and stuff so it's good so thank you to the park board and to that committee okay nothing all right I take a motion to adjourn this meeting don't move is there a second second all in favor say I I opposed motion carries all right so does somebody have to run for those packets uh yes they're currently sitting on