$3. Okay. At 6 o'clock, I'll call the meeting to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Um, the next item up on the agenda is the approval of the regular agenda. Does anybody have any corrections, additions, or want to switch anything around? Otherwise, I take a motion to approve it. So moved. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Rick made the second. Um, any discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. The next item up is the consent agenda. Any questions on that? Otherwise, I take a motion to approve. Move to approve. Rick made the motion. Is there a second? Second. And Bruce made the second. Um all any other discussion. Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. The next item up in the agenda is recognizing retirees. And tonight we're going to recognize um Frank Bez who retired from the um utilities commission. Um he worked in the water or he was a water operator. um retired actually January 7th of 2025, but uh we have a resolution for him. So um this is resolution number 25-4-07-01 recognizing Frank Bez whereas Frank Bez has faithfully served the city of New and the New Utilities Commission in the position of water operator for the city of New Prague from August 2nd, 2000 to January 7th. um 2025. Whereas he has always effectively, conscientiously, and professionally represented the city of New Prague and the New Prague Utilities Commission in a distinguished fashion. And whereas his efforts have been largely responsible for the excellent reputation, growth, and overall well-being of the city of New Prague and the New Prague Utilities Commission. And whereas all the citizens of the city of New Prague have been the beneficiary of his efforts, talents, and abilities for the past 24 years. Now therefore, be it resolved by the city council of New Prague, Minnesota, that this community and city council express and record their esteem and high appreciation of this character, dedication or of his character, dedication, and contributions which have earned him the respect and friendship of all who have been who have had the pleasure of working with him. And be it further resolved that the city council extend best wishes to Frank for many years of good health and happiness in his retirement. Adopted by the city council on this uh of the city of New on the seventh day of April 2025. So congratulations Frank. come on [Applause] up. So, Patrick's going to take up Congratulations. Thank you. You know, I knew I was a little boy when the city. Congratulations. [Applause] Okay, the next item on the agenda is city engineer projects update. Is there anything that Okay, go ahead, Matt. Give me one second. Just pulling it up. Uh so the project update um for the 2025 project as you could see in that uh northeast corner uh last week Michaelels moved in and started doing some gas underground work. Uh they should be doing main work all of this week and next week and depending on the weather move over to services. Um so the meer the contractor for this this year's street project uh was in town today putting temporary water out. Uh they'll have temporary water done today uh tomorrow and uh they'll look at reclaiming Lincoln between Maine and Second Street uh towards the end of the week and then start underground next week. So um nice early start with a nice weather uh even though they were planning on starting last week but uh still beginning of April is a good start for this year's project and uh hopefully good weather better weather there than last year. Uh I'll move on to the testing unless you guys have some questions. I'll move on to the material testing. No, I don't. Go ahead. Uh, so we are looking for Chosen Valley testing to get approved to do uh all the testing on this year's street project. Uh, Chosen Valley did the soil borings in the fall of uh 2024 for this project. Um, they're the ones that have done the project the last three years. Uh, we've had good luck with them. Uh, their quote for material testing, if you maybe notice, it's about $10,000 higher than last year. Um the main reasons for that is one we're doing three more blocks than last year and we're also doing an additional uh six blocks of sidewalk strictly sidewalk that's on Second Avenue Southeast and Fifth Street. So uh the material testing for the concrete is the big reason why it's um about $10,000 more. So looking for approval for Chosen Valley to do the testing. So the total is 41370. That's an estimate because it Yes. Yes. It's an estimate on how uh how many cores they do on the concrete and stuff like that, but they're usually pretty close to that dollar figure. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Otherwise, I entertain a motion to approve Chosen Valley testing. So moved. Uh Sean made the motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Maybe he seconds it. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. What else do you have there, Matt? Not mine. There we go. Okay. Um I'll take the next one. Rebecca Curts with Ellers. And the resolution um for reimbursement is tied with financing for the um calling for the sale of the bonds, which we'll do in a second here. But really adopting this resolution preserves the city's ability to make sure that you are able to reimburse yourself for all expenses that may occur prior to having those bond proceeds in place. Um, and so the dollar amount that's in there is higher than what um probably needs to be, but you can think of it as kind of that insurance policy to make sure that any of those preliminary costs um can be fully reimbured through the bonds as as planned. Okay. I make a motion to approve resolution 25-04-07-2. Okay. There's been a motion by Bruce. Is there a second? I'll second. Maggie seconds it. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. I. Motion carries. Okay. Pre-sale report. All right. So, that's going to be me again. And I believe in your council packets, um, you have a report that looks kind of like this that summarizes the details for your, um, street and utility project this year. So, the item before you is to call for the sale of 5,35,000 of general obligation bonds. Um, it is the series 2025B because we're going to talk about the police station, which was the A issue. Um, again, this follows up to really finance the street and utility projects for 2025. Um, it also includes $105,000 in equipment certificates for um equipment related to the golf course. But with the street and utility project, it is just under $5 million for um total street and utility. The street portion is just under $4 million. For that portion, debt service would be paid from special assessments to the benefiting properties and then the balance through a tax levy. Um the water portion is um $525,000. These numbers include not only the project cost but also related cost of issuance for for that purpose. Um debt service for the water portion would be paid through the utility revenues from the water fund. Um similar for the storm portion which is 415,000 with debt service being paid from utility revenues from the storm fund. Um the sanitary sewer portion is not going to be bonded for. Um cash will be used to pay that portion of the project. Um, and then as I mentioned, there is um just over $100,000 for equipment related to the golf course, and that um debt service would be paid through a tax levy. Um, with this bonds are being issued um per the improvement statute, which means that um a minimum of 20% is being assessed to benefiting property owners for the street and utility project. And then also under the equipment certificate statute for the 105,000 for the golf piece golf course piece of it. Um bonds are being issued for a term of 15 years that for the um for the entire issue the equipment piece will be amvertised over four years but the street and utility will be am or over five years but the street and utility piece will be amvertised over 15 years. and that ties with the way the assessment revenue um is projected to come in per the assessment proceedings that were held. Um principal will be due in the years through 2041. Um interest does begin in February of 2026. Um so there will be an interest payment in February 2026 which we have capitalized. um bonds would be callable on February 1st of 2035 or any date thereafter. And that date was chosen. Um it's pretty standard with what we're seeing right now in the bond market for a call date without um needing to pay a premium. If we called them prior to 2035, there likely would be a premium in the interest rate. So we've we've tied that with where we would not be impacted by a higher interest rate. Um, with that, the city does have an double A rating with standard and pores. Um, as you've done in your past issues, we are recommending having this rated and so um, we do have a call scheduled with staff and standard and pores and would be bringing that forward um, after we do have the rating, but selling these with um, the S&P rating. Um, with that, just a couple other things um to be aware of since I this is the first bond sale you've worked through with Ellers. Um, I think we've talked about this before, but we do continually um regularly monitor all of your outstanding debt and um at this point we don't have anything to bring forward for potential refunding or um prepayment, but we do continue to do that, will continue to do that. And so at any point um even if it isn't tied with a pending bond issue, we'll bring that forward to staff if we do find some opportunities for you on that. Um with this, there is a resolution that's been p um prepared by Kennedy and Graven, your bond um council or bond attorney, if you choose to move forward that would call for the sale of this bond. Um that would really kick off the process. you would then go forward and um I would be back here on May 5th with results from the sale um that you can consider for awarding it. Um with that I'm happy to answer any questions. I have a question on our rating. When do we find that information out? After immediately up after your call or is there it's um we are looking at um having the rating call around I believe the date is um April 17th plus or minus. Um it usually then takes about a week to 10 days before um we get typically before we get the result. Um their process is they have the call with us. They then complete their analysis. They take it to a committee and after they go through their committee process is when um we receive the rating in the report and then we're locked in on that for that $5 million. um with the rating you then that you're you're when they once they publish that report that rating becomes um public and is out there and can't be um changed or the rating is out there. Um the actual sale gets locked in. I mean you can change that up to about 3 days before um the sale without having significant impacts. Um, if you you mean like the time and date of the sale? Yeah, the time and date of the sale. Well, and Okay. No, I get it. And I should probably let everybody know what I'm thinking. I We have $5 million in bonds here. We're looking at uh 10 million plus dollar bonds for the police station. Yes. Further down, we have another $20 million in bonds that we get reimbursed for, but it still goes against our debt levy. So, we're literally looking at like $35 million worth of just tonight if we approve everything. Um, what would that do to our double A standing? Oh, okay. So, I'm thinking a little great. I Okay, I understand for the street project, but you know, it's compounding all these other issues on top of it. Nope. I understand where your question is going. um for the the police and the street project. Um both of those are um general obligation bonds backed with additional revenues. And so um with those they will likely I I can never guarantee anything but I would um anticipate that your rating would be maintained with the um double A rating. Um, it while I I don't want to say it is not a significant amount of debt because I recognize the impact it has for for residents from a rating agency standpoint, um, we do not believe that that is going to be a concern. It's been in your your plan. It's um, been discussed over time. um you're a regular issuer for your street projects. And so the rating agencies are familiar with with that rhythm of um those two issues for the um utility portion or utility project in 2026 that I will say likely and I should back up one more step. Um while the city maintains its double A rating, they actually rate individual issues. So um we say you have a double A rating, but they look at what they will do is rate the 2020 um 5A and the 2025b bonds and reaffirm the the rating on all of your other debt. And so it would be typical for the utility project in 2026 to likely have um like a double A minus rating. That is what what we could say one step down from your rating as a general obligation. Um backed with also also other um revenue sources. And that is really a pretty standard process through both of the rating agencies or all three of them that when you do bonds that are pure revenue bonds, they're rated one one step down. So I wouldn't be surprised by that just because of the type of bond that we are looking at for um the utility piece. Now, with that said, if you did another street project in 2026, that likely would maintain the double A rating. Rebecca, could you explain revenue bond just for people? Yes. General obligations. Absolutely. So, um, with these these bonds for the street and then also that we'll talk about on the police station, they are general obligation bonds, which means that when you issue and sell those bonds, you are pledging your the term is your full faith and credit and regardless of what happens, you will levy taxes to make sure that those bonds are being paid. Now, we recognize that um with this street project, there also are some utility revenues that are going to come into play to pay that debt service. But basically, you're making that promise that you will levy taxes to pay off a general obligation bond for the utility project um in 26 that would be issued or that we are discussing issuing as a revenue bond. that is pledging purely the revenue from the project to pay the debt service. So that does not necessarily um and this would be something we can you know continue to discuss but at this point in time it does not necessarily have that full faith and credit pledge that if revenue is not sufficient you would levy taxes for the shortfall. And so that is the reason why many times we find revenue bonds being rated h um one step lower than a general obligation bond is there could be more risk with it. So, if if the utility bond is one step below, um you're saying that it won't affect anything moving on in 2027 or 2028 if we need a new addition to the water treatment plant or whatever it might be. So, I I will I will say I I can never promise anything. Um but if we look at history on how um they have looked at other communities and large debt projects um at this point in time I my opinion is that I would not be concerned about that and I would not see a rating change due to you continuing to do um regular projects or maint larger maintenance projects that need to be done to to maintain your infrastructure. Sure. So, what the one step below, what how would that change the interest rate on this? Um, $5 million street project if we're paying 3.5% and we go one step lower on because of the debt load that we're carrying, right? What would that do to those? Well, and again, um that one step would be more not necessarily related to the debt load that you have, but more related to the type of bond that that utility bond would be because again, um we are proposing it be a revenue bond versus pledging to levy taxes regardless. Okay. I just want to make sure and and so with that um it I I would say it might be about a percent higher in interest rate but not necessarily tied because of the rating just because that type of bond has a little more risk to it if you don't have the general obligation pledge. Okay. Thank That's a really long answer for me saying I'm not sure. Um I don't I don't have concerns with you continuing to do projects like you have been doing to main maintain infrastructure um keep public capital project or keep public facilities and capital projects maintained and seeing any um decrease in your in your rating. If you have a plan and you know are working that plan, that has a lot of value in the rating agency's eyes. So when the call happens, it's Robin, Josh, and you on the call. Yes. Okay. Yep. Typically. Okay. on on this bond issue, how much is really going to be um cur fund would take take a burden of how much of the five million is really reflected for the general fund. Um we are get to my right page here. There's a lot of other aspects to it and of course this is backed a lot of it's backed by assessment dollars too and that affects how the rating companies look at it and and if it's consistent with previous issues and things like that and the strength of your tax capacity that all enters into it. So, so when we're looking at our responsibility for paying it from the general fund, it's a percentage of the total we are estimating and again um this is using current rates plus 50 basis points or half a percent. So, we have estimated um an interest cost of 2 or 4.2. We'll see what that is. We've tried to be conservative um with that. But under those assumptions, the levy piece um when the golf course equipment is outstanding is about 247,000 and then it drops to about 222,000 [Music] um after the the equipment piece has been advertised. That's the amount of the general fund. That is that is um the annual principal and interest payment from your levy from the general fund. From the general fund. Yes. Yes. And we'll talk about the utility bond later, but there's a lot different many more different aspects to it, especially since we are relying a lot on the um the agreement, the promise to pay from Southern Minnesota Municipal Association. So that's a big factor in what's their credit um rating rating and how what's the value of them backstopping the issue and that's important. So, it's a revenue issue totally indifferent than as far as supported by the tax dollars, right? I just was worried about the Yeah. the the total of everything that we are technically responsible for if Simple folds up. I'm not saying they would, but I mean, if they were, they're going to come after. We're totally responsible for, but I just don't want to confuse Yeah. I substantial taxpayer dollars supporting the utility issue. They are, but not in the way you might be thinking of it. No, I through revenue, not through property tax. So, I knew that. I was just looking at the total and what else is on the horizon and if moving forward, how is this going to affect me not this year or even next year, but in 27, 28, 29? And I just want to make sure that we have a good handle on right that I agree. Okay. So, any other questions? Otherwise, there's a resolution there um providing issuance of sale and general obligation bond series 2025B. Does somebody want to offer that? I make a motion to approve the resolution number 25-04-07-3. Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of general obligation bond series 2025B in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $5,35,000. Is there a second? I'll second it. Um, any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? I Motion carries. Okay. Uh at this time, the public is invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to five minutes. If you want to speak, just come up to the podium, state your name and address, and go from there. Does anybody want to speak? Going once, going twice. Okay. Next item up for I was going to say next item up for bid. I watch too much prices, right? I guess um the BRZ event venue um public hearing. So, um do you want to start it out before I does anybody have anything to talk about before I do the public hearing? Uh no, I didn't don't really I guess have anything to add. This is uh has to do with uh issuing a liquor license for um the bras. So, okay. So, if council doesn't have anything, I will open the public hearing. Does anybody want to address the the um council in regards to the issuance of an on sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license at the BRZ event venue at 212 West Main Street? Does anybody want to address the council? Going once, going twice, gone. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing on the BRZ event venue. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Um there's been a motion second by Sean. Um all in favor say I. I oppose. Motion carries. So I don't see. So are we going to do a resolution here or uh so or does it come up next meeting? It does not come up next meeting. So this is basically the application for it. Um we haven't traditionally done resolutions for these. Okay. Um so it's just a simple motion. Correct. Okay. So, I'll offer a motion to approve the approval of the issuance of the on sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license. Second. So, there's been a motion by me, seconded by Bruce. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. The next one is uh can somebody help me? Lafetti Lefhat Royale at 408 West Main Street. approval of the issuance of a consumption and display liquor license. Um I did not have anything to add, Mr. Okay. So, I'm gonna open the public hearing. Does anybody want to address um Lefit Royale as far as the liquor license during the public hearing? Going once, going twice. Is this address the same as the depot? Yeah. Thank you. That's what it is. Yeah. Okay. Um, so with that, um, I would take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Maggie made a motion, seconded by Bruce. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Um, so with that, I would take a motion to approve the issuance of the consumption and display look. So moved. Second. Rick made the motion. Bruce seconded it. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. All right. Next item up is the pre-sale report on the police station capital improvement plan. Hi. Hi. Hi again. And um again I have a second uh pre-sale report that I believe is in your packet. Um we have taken the information and discussion from the last work session and incorporated that into um what we are bringing forward today to call for the sale of bonds for the police facility. Um the action is to call for the sale of 10,430,000 of general obligation capital improvement plan bonds um series 2025A. Um, again, this is for the construction of the new um, police station. A couple things I want to note about this issue is that we have um, structured into this to use $380,000 in cash from the building fund to um, help write down the cost and also eliminate the need for capitalized interest and reduce than a portion of the bond amount. Um in addition we adjusted the project costs um and further reduced the overall issuance by reducing the contingency in the project. Um as you may recall we discussed that there was about $390,000 that could be available for a contingency versus bonding for that. So, those two adjustments have been made um as we structured the proposed $10,43,000. Um this bond would be issued under the capital improvement plan authority um as we approved the plan at a meeting about a month or so ago. Um, with that, I do want to just note that I think we had some dated numbers in the capital improvement plan for um your your annual debt service um that cannot exceed the 0.16% of the estimated market value. Um, we have updated that number now that we have 25 market values available and that maximum debt service number is um 1.68 million. But as you look farther into the packet, um you would see that we are estimating debt service to be closer to 700,000. So we are well within our our statutory um limit for that. Um these bonds do count against the debt net debt limit for the city or that 3% of the estimated market value. um with this proposed issue. Again, an updated number is that you would still have about 20 million available in debt limit um after this issue is completed. And to just further um clarify that debt limit or the numbers that count against the debt limit are bonds that are paid solely by um property taxes and do not include assessments or utilities. So, so your street project um does not count against that debt limit. The $100,000 for the golf course does count against it. Um again, we talked about this a little bit um a few minutes ago, but the bonds would be general obligations um of the city where you pledge your full faith and taxing power with debt service being paid by tax levy. Another um change we made based on the discussion last time was that we have structured the bonds to have a 30-year term. Um principal will be due beginning in 27 and um they would mature in 2055. Um interest is due every six months beginning in February 1st of 2026. Um and again that n that would be the cash coming into the project would help pay that first interest payment. Um, with that, similar to what we discussed on the previous issue, we would go through the rating process that actually will take place. It will be the same rating call for both bond issues because of timing. Um, and so with that, um, assuming that you do want to move forward, there is a resolution, um, when you're ready to consider it. again drafted by your bond attorney Kennedy and Graven. Um we would look at I do have my date here. Look at having the rating call again with staff and myself on April 16th. Um a official statement would be distributed April 24th and then um we'd be back here on May 5th with results um from the sale that day with funds being available May 22 May 22nd. um if you choose to move forward and I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions of the council for Rebecca. Does somebody want to offer that as a that resolution? Well, I want to make a statement here. Oh, go ahead. Um this is our chance right here to and I hope you guys thought about it. I hope people have reached out to you and talked to you. I don't think it's I don't think the people of New Prague are on the side of this. I'm not sure it's needed at this time. I know the station is not ideal. I've said it many times. Um but when you look at it, there's two people, the two record technicians up front, aren't actually in that back office. You got a chief and a detective that are in offices already and two patrol officers on on any given time that are should be out patrolling. So really to utilize a brand new $12 million or 11 million almost $11 million building um for for 12 police officers where most of the time they're except maybe for a few minutes when they're in between shifts um is not um a good use of of our tax dollars. I drove by the Bell Plane one today. It's a tin shed. They don't have problems recruiting. and they don't have they don't have problems with parking out back. They don't have 18 stalls that uh inside the facility. Um and it looks like it's 50 60 years old and I think a lot of you have seen it on Main Street. So um given the right now and the markets and everything else, I don't know if that's if this is the right time for it. Um, I'll acknowledge that, yep, two years from now, that could be a million dollars more, could be a million dollars less if uh uh the tariffs and whatnot are going on right now uh come into play and we are in some type of recession and people are bidding more aggressively. Uh so, I just want you guys to think about it. I I've said my my piece enough. I'm voting no for it. Uh just because I don't think this is the right time. I would have liked to seen us tie in. We've talked about a new government center, city center, uh city hall. Maybe we could have tied that in. Um this came out of really quick. There wasn't long-term planning. Just seemed like it popped up out of the agenda. And even though we threw out and we wanted to slow it down, it never really got slowed down. We'd had a special meeting last last Monday uh to go over it and of course it wasn't um it wasn't public. I people could have showed up but it wasn't a regular scheduled meeting and I just don't like that whole process. It just seems um aggressive and uh and moved way faster than I've seen almost everything in my 15 years of being on this council move at at the government pace. And it used to drive me nuts that things move so slowly, but this thing is moved really fast. So anyways, anybody else want to make any statements? Well, I feel I feel I need to make a comment because I just I I can't I I can't see the comments that were being made there consistent with what I see the history has been. Um I think we probably started this in 2021 um when the facility needs assessment was talked about and then we did the facility needs uh process. this was the number one need that was determined for the city. Um and then working through that process when we talked about the police um facility, this has been going on for almost three years. So there isn't any way that I could that I would say that this has been rushed. If anything, there's been criticisms documented in the newspaper and elsewhere that we moved too slow on it. So, I I'm really I have a different memory than a lot of that. I could have and I'm not saying I couldn't have forgot it, but I don't I remember doing the need study. I don't remember this urgency um because we did do some upgrades back in 2016 or whatever year it was. 15. So, I I guess I just want to say I think the process was uh diligent. We did our due diligence. It was thorough. It's been talked about many times through many different meetings. And I haven't had obviously there's people that are u concerned about the tax implications like we have been all the way through this process and no one's excited about the idea of raising a levy. But as far as the need and the issues that we talked about and why we're doing it and the need that we've established that was established by the uh person that did the work for us, I think that's been laid out and talked about uh a number of times through a number of processes through a number of meetings and a number of workshops um that included many different people throughout the the last few years. So I see the process been very very good and of course when we talk about the amount of money that's being spent you have to kind of cringe sometimes about that but that is I feel what the cost of this is as far as the timing there's all sorts of concerns about what's going on in the economy now in the last week or last few days as we've talked about at the previous meeting we're benefiting unusually usually or ironically by that by the bid we received and the money we've already put into it. So, we're at a point now where not doing it is probably financially much worse than than going ahead and doing it just because the the substantially good bid we received, the fact that we got a lot of biders um because the economic situation we're in and the money that we already put towards the project in cash. So, if we stop or don't do it, then obviously we're losing that money. But the the terms I mean, the market's doing all sorts of things out there, but this isn't necessarily a bad market to be issuing bonds right now. It's actually, ironically, maybe a favorable market because of what's happening with the interest rates out there. So, um, I definitely would support proceeding with it. Um, not because I enjoy doing a $10 million bond and paying the taxes on it, but I feel it's the right thing to do and it's in the best interest of the city to do it. I agree everything he said and um I got a lot of positive response on it from the neighborhood and even on Saturday I got a lot of compliments. So, I I I I'll agree with Bruce on that one. Nobody was concerned with my And just so it's on the record here and on TV, um at Monday's meeting, which was just recorded, um uh audio with just audio. Um, I had brought up a a master electrician who looked at the plans, a 20-year plus uh guy in the business who thought there was a lot of overkill in it. We asked the architect um a number of times if they could skinny it down and come up with something a little bit more reasonable. And that dollar figure never really changed uh a whole lot. and uh it's been consistently well over $10 million. So, um that electrician looked at it and thought that he could have saved like a third of the money if we didn't do everything as elaborate as it was. Um and I asked him, "What do you think the electrical part of that bid was?" And he'd said, "It's probably 10%." So, it's a million dollars. And if he could save a third, that's 330,000. And if we could do that with the HVAC and we could do that with the stonework and we could do that with uh the the building stuff by being um a little bit more due diligent. Um I believe that there could have been significant savings and we probably could have got down to the seven or 8 million. Um, you know, I had a lot of people in the uh uh in the city that have mentioned that how could Chart build the building they built a number of years ago for $2 million and we're building a something half the size that 12. Um, so it's just seemed like there was a lot of overkill. So I made my building it for 12. We asked a question. I I you know I what do we do with that information that you provided? What can we do with it? We can go through all nine contractors and ask all 15 subcontractors and have 15 subcontractors times nine giving us, oh, I would have done this. You could have done that. That's what a public bidding process is all about. They've had that opportunity to to be involved in the bidding process. As we talked about last time, that doesn't stop us from wanting to get value added during the building process and change it if we can find ways to save money. That was the answer. But to provide um secondhand comments as a public in institution, we just can't we can't do anything with that information is my opinion. And I disagree. It's no different than if we were building a home and we decided I don't I can't afford these type of windows. I have to have these windows. I can't putting in an extra window upstairs in my master bedroom because I'm at my limit. This is what I've been approved for. I think there's we don't need we could have brought this along and we could have I think said no to that to the 12 or 13 million. Yeah, came in at 105, whatever it is, 104. But, um, that was the that was the recommendation off him, off of the the architect. And it seems like when they use tax dollars, everything's more expensive anyways, but then they can just go ahead and put in all the top things. And then we learned that indeed they get paid a percentage of the overall bill. So, they're right there. my dander gets up because that basically means that the more that project is, the more money his firm makes. So, I just think there could have been some more. And I think if the council would have been a little bit more aggressive with it that we could have perhaps actually forced a $8 million building that might have come in at 65 like this one did. Well, we had all sorts of opportunities to be involved and we were involved and we did make comments. So, we did I did ask questions about this. This is a Chevy, a Buick or a Cadillac and what are we going to build? But we had opportunities all the way through as we're presented plats and drawings and what type of uh value was going to be put in the building to make comments about no, we don't want to spend that much here or there or the other thing and comments were made in the process. So all that process occurred and all those opportunities were there. But after the fact to say that we should have done this or the other thing when the opportunities were there and if you wanted to do it, you had the opportunity. I did voice that. Yes, you did. Every meeting I was at, I voiced my concern about this. I just never felt like I had the other four feeling the same way. And that's your right. I'm not that's you guys get to do that. Um, but I just think I just wanted to make my last appeal here because this is what it's going to be right here. Well, I just want to make sure there were changes made based on our comments and reductions were involved in it. So, it's not like we just accepted Card Blanch Card Blanch there. But, Bruce, there really wasn't. I mean, it was minuscule the the change that came about. Um, and I want to say just off the top of my head, it was like $400,000 on a $14 million building. Well, the most substantial change was not having a standalone facility separately. That was the first discussion in the facility needs and it was toned down starting from there. If you remember, there was multiple there different options to start with and this is what we ended up. So, we're saving money because we're building on land the city already owns. We're adding it to an existing facility. Um and we trimmed back the size of the garage if you remember. So we but we provide for the ability to add on to garage to save money. So there was things done and um different issues um changed. So, okay. I'm going to offer resolution 25-04-07-04 providing for the issuance and sale of general obligation capital improvement bonds series 2025A. Is there a second? I'll second. Maggie seconds it. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? I. Motion carries. Thank you everybody. Next item up is rail car repair by Cypress Rail in New Pragmill. I Kenny or Ken, are you gonna Yeah, I'll take that one. I do have a PowerPoint that I'll put up on the overhead. All right. All right. So, we'll provide a little background information on the intermuse permit for the rail car repair proposed by um Cypress Rail and New Mill LLC. And this will be at 1002nd Avenue Southwest in the currently zoned light industrial zoning district. Um as we've talked about this property on a number of different approvals in the past. Um can I talk? No, just let him go. He started a lot of time. Huh? We'll say a whole lot of time. Let me talk first. We're just This is our process. So, sorry, Bill. Um, so we have regidued the property to downtown flex in the comp plan that was adopted by the council last fall. Um, the downtown flex category has not been fully uh developed, but would be likely very similar to the B1, downtown central business district with other uses similar to what you see in the downtown uh from service to retail to restaurants, that type of thing, versus the current zoning as industrial um with the mill and u manufacturing, that type of thing. Um, so we had a couple of different meetings that we reviewed the intermuse permit request. uh February 26th, um staff recommended not uh to approve that intermuse permit. Um it was tabled at that point. Um the planning commission asked staff to incorporate into an updated um continued report to include uh conditions including limiting the interm permit to a 5-year time period. um hours of operation being limited, um adding landscaping, adding fencing, uh that type of thing to uh look at a possible approval. Those were reviewed at the March 26 planning commission meeting, and ultimately the planning commission at that point did recommend approval with kind of a two-phase approach uh with those conditions. Phase one would provide an 18-month time period for um some aesthetic improvements to that north northeast corner of the property um to match a rendering which we'll show in a minute here. Um that would include um establishing seed and um top soil on top of gravel uh providing landscaping trees uh fencing and then removing of some outuildings that are on that north end of the building including a gas uh meter room. Uh phase two would in in in time provide for where they would add necessary parking to be paved as the interior of the building is built out with uses that may or may not need as much parking um as other uses. So we don't want to say put in 50 parking spaces if they're not maybe needed for a particular use. So that was what was part of that recommendation from the the planning commission. that's reflected in a resolution for approval included in um your packet tonight for consideration. Um just give a background information again. Here's a copy of our uh brand new future land use east plan showing that as downtown flex. Um a couple of things to note here. Um showing that they plan to use that uh area that has over uh hanging canopy at this point. Um and the rail spurs and they want to u fence that in. And we have a a rendering and some other drawings here I have showing in a minute. Um we obviously had public comment um or public staff um comment and as well as a couple other comments during both of the planning commission meetings. Um there were concerns uh from the public on noise and other um issues that were related. Um at the original public hearing, one of the residents was concerned about rail car movement um that type of thing. And then um some similar concerns were uh relayed at the uh March 26th meeting uh by one resident as well. Um ultimately uh again the planning staff does not recommend approval of the condition or the interim use permit um and we maintain that the original drafted um denial and findings should carry forward but the planning commission did uh bring forth the um recommendation. Um, and I do want to note again the staff's appeal to you would be that we do not believe that it fits with the downtown flex uh future land use designation that the brand new comp plan came up with and it just wouldn't fit well for the development of the downtown area. Um, there's just some more noise uh information in there. We do believe that activities from the railc car repair would uh be very likely um over and above the MPCA uh noise limits for 50% or 10% of the hour. And mainly that would be due to the um businesses on the north side of Main Street and some apartments that are located there above the uh first floor of particularly the rusty spoke. And then um generally our nuisance code for anything that reasonably maintains um or annoys or injures or uh endangers the public's health, safety, morals or comfort of any considerable members of the public. So that was our main concern from staff. Uh the rendering on the left is really what was the basis of the planning commission saying that they they liked the look of that and wanted to make sure that within that phase one that uh the landscaping and the fencing around um the rail uh spur that kind of extends north of the building would be fully fenced in and screened with the uh other aesthetic improvements including removing those outuildings. This rendering shows the parking lot being fully paved um as if parking is fully needed. But uh they indicated that they don't have definitive users within the north end of the existing um oldest portion of the mill, the a mill. And the planning commission added a condition that uh the paving um would just need to be done when it's needed per the zoning and then it could just be grass and um seated over until that point. And that's what that vegetative plan on the left basically indicates that it would just be um graded and seated with the uh boulevard trees being added uh for the interim phase. Um just a couple other existing pictures of it look what it looks like out there today. Nothing uh really new from anybody that's been by there um before. Um really aside on the back would be largely hidden from the public other than um uh Chief Renda's landscaping business to the south and a little bit from Second Street um Southwest rightway there. Um and again, although staff from recommended denial, the planning commission did recommend approval of the intermuse permit with the findings and conditions uh contained in the resolution that's in the packet u or the meeting here tonight. Um, so with that, I think I'll just leave up this particular um, slide. If you have any questions of staff and obviously um, Bill representing New Mill LLC, uh, sounds like you would like to make a comment as well. Does council have any questions for staff? Otherwise, Bill, come on up. Just state your name and address. Bill Gibson, and I'm part of the mill. Mhm. Um anyway, I I want to thank each of you for the support of this project. I I've met with each of you and I I feel that tonight would be a positive vote for New Prague. Uh it's very clear that you all have a passionate about the town's future. So, but we're not going to cross the finish line. Um we started this in November. Um we had a concept meeting um canled in December. Uh that pushed it back. We also had a tabled um meeting where where um they were looking for conditions because of the delays and the uncertainty of the business flex. The co our customer has chosen to look other places uh for a plan B and he found one um in Mano. So um unfortunately I got the call uh the day after the last planning commission meeting and uh so we don't have a customer anymore. So I believe that new lost big on that day and I lost even bigger. Um, this this ensures that the silos and rails are not going to make any noise. Ensures that there's not going to be any sound, any smells. Um, we're not going to have a new business. We're not going to have new jobs. We're not going to increase the tax base. Um, it's just gone. It's a forever thing gone. And and now we have a silos and and rails that are going to be forever on our skyline that will be empty. Um, there's no one person to blame. Um the process the rules are not friendly to this proc to this property. So that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. B. So with that said, are you withdrawing then this or I mean or he doesn't have a customer or do we I guess without a formal withdrawal the act the item is still in front of the city council for decision. I think he just withdrew it. You don't get more formal than him saying, "I don't want this no more." So, yeah, I I would like to confirm with our attorney, but I think this time if we need to revisit and properly close it out, we can, but I let's table it to properly close it out. So, I'll make a motion to table this. Second. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. The next item is the width and proposed bot line setback. Yes, related to the uh mill property. Once again, uh we did have a request from New Mill LLC for a uh variance for minimum lot size and um lot setbacks to existing buildings so that they could accommodate a uh lot split of the property. And we'll run through that here quickly. Um, so what they're looking to do is really separate the south portion of the building that contains the uh loading docks, the firing range, and it's basically the newer part of the building. um that would allow them to separate that off, potentially sell it in the future, but in the short term, they indicated at the planning commission meeting, it allows them to um change some things around on their insurance to kind of show that portion of the building complete full um fully leased up and move on from that and continue to um build out the rest of the site and continue with renovations. So, um, because they're proposing to basically draw a line right down the middle of the building between the old Amill and that, uh, we'll call it the newer addition, the warehouse portion of the building. U,, we had to have zero lot line setbacks for, uh, the north property line between, uh, building wall to building wall. And then for maximum land coverage on that newly created lot on that um, south portion um, to be 63% of the building um, coverage. Normally we have 40% limit but that's under the I1 light industrial. Again this whole site has been uh moving towards the business flex or downtown black flex designation which would likely have a um no maximum building coverage like every other building in uh downtown. Um and then the other thing to note was that the minimum lot width um for setbacks they're looking at to be reduced to um 76 ft uh versus the ordinance requirement as well. And that was basically some right away off the gravel Second Avenue just by the fact that they wanted to keep some um frontage uh for the uh larger portion of the lot that also abuts Main Street. And it'll make more sense in a minute here when I put up the drawing how this all plays out. Uh but really in a nutshell what it comes down to is if it was in the business flex zoning or downtown flex zoning we wouldn't have needed the variances or the um uh for setbacks or coverage. So um this is over on the overhead here. You can take a look uh the really hard to see the blue versus the red line but again just splitting off that uh portion of the building. Um the majority of it would still uh be the portion of the site that has not um fully u been redeveloped at this point. Um but again could be sold off to uh a different party at some point. Uh but they were not indicating that they were doing that at this point. Um just some other pictures. We've seen these million times. um 2FIC um is getting close to finishing up there as a kind of an anchor tenant on that south portion there. Um ultimately staff and the planning commission do recommend approval of the variances to allow that uh lot split to occur. So that I'll just put the over uh head uh site map up for everybody. Any questions of the council? Bill, do you want to speak to this one or not? Okay, pretty straightforward. Okay. All right. I'll uh offer resolution number 25-04-07-06 variance V2 2025 lot line setbacks. Is there a second? Second. Rick makes a second. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. The authorization of issuance of the for the generation. Sorry again, Bill. Go ahead there, Mr. Mayor and Council. On behalf of the New Peg Utilities Commission, I'm going to present the resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds and acknowledgement of bids and improving authorization process and the connection and planning construction of the electrical generation plant or the power system for the new utilities commission project. Um I I've mentioned it a few times to in different occasions, but Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Association SPA News Wholesale Power Supplier informed utility members over the past year of changes needed to to meet capacity requirements. These changes align with the growing demands and support the capacity limitations of wind and solar resources that will be mandated by the state of Minnesota to meet the 100% carbon-f free mandate. Simpa and its members will need to build dispatchable generation. In other words, generation net can be called upon with near 100% reliability to provide short-term capacity when renewable resources are not available. Simpa has offered me its members the opportunity to expand their generation capacity under a 20-year capacity agreement that will pay members for new generation assets. This opportunity aligns with New Prague utilities need for additional generation to be used when there are regional transmission outages and to support operations of the distribution system. Currently, New Prague has 17.5 megawws of local generation and a peak system load of approximately 18 megawws. The planned addition of 11.3 megawws with an estimated cost of 18 to 20 million will serve the needs of New Prague for the foreseeable future and be funded through a 20-year capacity contract that is being offered by our wholesale power supplier, Simpa. Just a few comments I'll make and then I'll stand for questions and we can also go through some of the um information I've shared in the packet. The primary reason for this resolution is to ensure that the council is is um fully informed of the utilities commission to commission's decision to move forward with this project and that the council supports the required bonding that will be needed to that will need to take place in 2026. You may be wondering why we are asking for approval now when we won't be going through the bonding process or approval of a bond sale until 2026. The commission had to go out for bids on this engine package to get true costs to see if the project was feasible and to place equipment orders do due to there being nearly a 2 and 1/2 year lead time on projects of this magnitude. The commission and legal council um Kennedy and Graven wanted the council to be aware of future bonding requirements for this project and have approval on record. Construction of the building portion of the project will not start until midyear 2026. Therefore, bonding will not be required likely until sometime early in 2026. NPU plans to use cash reserves to get the project started. Some of the benefits of this project will be that new Prague needs to build additional generation if it wants to continue to cover the entire city load in times of transmission outages. Staff and the commission have been considering generation additions prior to this option being available to us. This 20-year capacity contract with revenues of 1,425,000 a year will be used to make the bond payments. And after 20 years and the bonds are paid for, the utility stands to have revenues of approximately $1.3 million a year on a plant that I would estimate has a life of at least 40 years. I've attached some kind of some supporting documents along with the resolution that I'm willing to go over with with with you andor I have commission member Nikolai here with us. Rebecca's here to answer any questions if if need be and also Bruce Wolf. I think the thing we should really look at um is obviously what's is important in regards to the financing and that's on your page 137 and truly we just did some um some estimates here of of what projected costs will be. We've we do know about half of what the costs are are for the engine package that that has been firmed up and actually those orders have been placed. The rest of it will be the building and the mechanical and electrical for this project. Um we just made an estimate of of 19,653,000 and um we used an interest rate of uh 4.27%. You can see the the rates or the mortgage and not mortgage but the bond payments and um how that turns out there on that schedule. Again, I want to make reference to when we do get to it pays nearly 100% of the needed revenues to pay the bond payments. And in 2048, again, when the bonds are paid off, um it would yield a revenue to the city of New Prague of approximately 1.3 million. Um New Prague is part of probably um I'm going to think in five communities that are looking at doing this. Um, Simpa has to build generation assets no matter what. Um, if New Prague doesn't build it, it's going to get built somewhere else guaranteed. And, uh, our wholesale rates are going to reflect that no matter what. So my recommendation to the commission has always been why not have it here in New Prague where we can use utilize that asset to back up our generation fleet that we currently have and continue to offer New Prague the ability to carry loads in times of storms or transmission outages so that really our residents for the most part are never without power. Um kind of just ideal timing how it's turned out. Um, New Prague is kind of outgrown our generation assets that we have now um due to growth and um I feel that this will really kind of lead New Craig into the future as far as having an asset that's uh going to have continued value for for New Craig, not not only for backup energy assistance, but in future revenue. Um, I also included just a a time a schedule in there, an estimated schedule. Um, actually I'm kind of happy to uh to report that some of these schedules we last week, in fact, we got to move them around a little bit. We found out that engines are trending a little bit ahead of schedule, as much as a quarter ahead. Um, I included just a a rough plant layout of what the a plant could look like. This one that the picture of this plant is actually in St. Peter. And then our uh our building layout will be on land that the utilities currently owns uh over by the west substation close to the fire department, that area over there. Um it fits nicely on that property there on on the front uh adjacent to Sixth Street. And um will it'll kind of cover up the existing building that's there now. Um ties nicely into what we need for future distribution out of that facility over there with the growth in the industrial park. And so that um we're going to make some improvements at that at the same time, but I would stand for any other questions that the council may have at this time. Does anybody have any questions? Yeah, Jerry, you could you go with um For the most part, it's all going to be paid back anyway, correct? Yep. Yeah. Um and what's also nice about it is um currently Simpa staffs our our current plant with four full-time employees that is under contract arrangement with Simpa that will continue and um they have definitely said that we they have no issue with the the that those employees working in this power plant as well even though this this will be an asset of new Prags um they feel it's important as overall benefit to to the association and Um, I actually got to as as being a board member of Simpa, I got to be on the on the contract writing community committee for writing the power sales contract for the for this asset. And um, they we've pretty much got to write in there as to make the members whole is really was the goal of goal of doing it. Um we know that th these assets need to be paid for by the membership and we feel that having the assets in the member communities has a lot of value and um therefore the contracts are written so that new PRA benefits and so does so does the association and um they've done this for actually 20 years. We're now going into the second round of 20 years. St. Peter, Preston, Princeton, Lichfield are now going into their second 20-year term and having those contracts renewed. So, we know it's a viable source going into the future. Um, a plant like this will not run very much. I'll be surprised if it runs more than say 20 to 40 hours a year. Um, in fact, our plant last year being called for contingency use only ran 12 hours. But in essence, it really doesn't matter. it needs to be there for capacity for the grid as a whole. Um, the last thing we want to have happen in the Midwest is what kind of happened to Texas a few years ago. This are the asurances that are being put in by our grid area through MYSO to secure that that will not happen to us. Um especially with all of the solar and wind assets going into the going into the grid right now, it's assets like this that are really going to make the base load sustainable. So I feel it's an ideal timing and an ideal project for new Craig. And and Bruce, I think you had mentioned a while ago that the base load has to be at a certain percentage. Correct. Um, so mysel is the footprint that all of of the utilities here in the Midwest all the way from Ontario down to down to Texas not including Texas. We have to put generation assets into that into that footprint is equal 120 to your point 110% over what our capacity draw is going to be. So all of a utilities got to contribute either by purchasing an asset or owning their own asset and putting it into that to that grid for everybody to use. So having the local generation asset is is ideal. Um there was some scare a couple weeks ago when the tariff started with Canada that electrical scare, you know, there's going to be price hikes. Well, no, that's not not going to contribute to our our inputs and outputs because we have generation assets that are into the into the Mso district. So, therefore, we're not susceptible to outside price gouging. So, it it really firms that up when you can have assets, we call them iron on the ground, um when you can have those assets locally or at least in the district to protect from price gouging or price changes going into the future. Uh yeah, Dwayne, I heard you touch on this on K. Yes. And who is this gentleman? You got to come up, Jerry, and you got to state your name and address. Yeah. I'm sorry. Okay. Not not as limber as I used to be. Jerry Manard. Okay. How you doing, sir? Supposed to come up here and talk, huh? Yeah. State your name address. Um uh this morning on Kchek, I heard you uh bring up the subject um of uh what we're talking about here with the generators. Um, and the question in my mind would be, excuse me, um, uh, the question would be, um, you know, we live next to that generating plant forever. Okay. And, and we're glad we have it. Um, the real question is in an emergency, um, power outage, we're hooked up with Simpa. Uh, can we count on that? uh 100% that if there's a power outage that that's going to kick in and satisfy all our needs. Um because um uh the subject came up here a few years ago and everything was cool. But now, you know, we're expanding and hooking up with another facility uh coming in here and um and we kind of like some assurance um that we can count on uh the power in the event of a outage. Um otherwise uh we would be putting in more um uh sub little stations uh of our own to you know u what do they call these you know a power generating next to your house. There's a name for it. I can't think of it. Um but uh so so the jackpot question is um in Okay, so this is all operational for backup and so then there's u an outage. Uh can we count on it or uh we're hooked up with other facilities? is uh are we going to be committed to deliver our power out of town or something or I'll address he just he just addressed that that this this is going to be for the city that's going to be for us okay he addressed that yes we do put energy online but okay city's the priority so okay okay okay so it's great that we can count on that you know that that's great that's great uh so that was my question uh cresendo the subject did come up a few years ago also. Mhm. And um and now that we're expanding um it's good to know that uh we come first in other words, right? Oh yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Jerry, what's your address? So where do you live at? We could have for the record. Uh well um our address is 213 First Street Southeast. We're we're adjacent to the original power plant there. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jerry. Okay, Bruce, just to clarify, um the um our we have the relationship with Simpa, but our generation can be used as backup in case there's transmission that we can't get it. And what's kind of nice about our community, we have a lot of redundancy as far as being able to do that. We we can basically um survive on oursel as an island, not have to worry about the connection with Simpa if we had to. Correct. This additional generation provides the more of an assurance that we can do all of that today as ourself and then not only do that but then u hopefully take care of some of the growth of the community into the future. It's hard to say how much future growth we're building with this because the demand for energy is projected to be very high growth in the next few years and into the future with data centers and whatnot. So, it's hard to say how much future capacity we're really building here, but that's the other benefit to new Prague is that if we had to, we we can take care of growth and then actually provide electricity on our own without Simpa if we had to. Correct. So, we talk about outages and I'm familiar with that being on different providers in the past, but we don't have because of the way we're set up. We have pretty good service. I would say lack of outages especially compared to a lot of other providers. Um cor is just going to give us more redundancy. Two two locations in town is ideal so that if there's distribution issues we can feed it from either side. Um even operationally it gives us a lot of flexibility on on our system how how we maintain new crate. Bruce are you going to need Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Bruce, are you going to require other additional employees then with two facilities? No, there we don't intend to have to have any more employees. Okay. At one what point would you see that? And would Simpa pick up the cost of that? I'm sure I'm sure that it would either be the cost of the employee or an addition to the contract, Sean. Okay. In regards to how we did that, but I would say that would probably be the the next build after this one that would require more. Thank you. And you do have the ability to sell electricity to the surrounding communities. Yeah. And that's that's done through our wholesale provider. They're they're the ones that would request us to provide that energy into them and in turn they supply all the fuel and everything to do that. So New Craig is not um beholden to having to produce that energy should it be called on. Um that is that is a wholesale contract. Okay. All right. Does somebody want to offer the mo? Let's see here. Yeah, there's two resolutions. We'll take them. I think Josh Josh to each one separately. Correct. Yeah. So, I'll offer a motion to approve resolution 2540707 authorizing the issuance of bonds, acknowledgement of bids, and approving authorization process in connection with the planning and construction of the electrical gener generating plant. this power supply system for the new Prague utilities commission project. Okay. Is there and Sean seconds it made the motion. Any other questions or discussions? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. I'll also make a motion to approve resolution 255040708 declaring the official intent of the city of New Prague to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of the tax exempt bonds or other obligations and establishing procedures for additional declarations of official intent. Is there a second? Second. Rick makes a second. Any other questions? Hearing none, all in favor say I. I. I opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. Thank you. If you'll excuse me a moment. Do you Okay, Bruce. What do the other cities make now? Like Lichfield that's already been online 20 years. Do you know I mean you said in 20 years I mean we'll start producing revenue with to to the figure 1.3 million. Those contracts were renewed at current rates. They have it in fiveyear increments. Okay. And then um the new contract now it is negotiable between the the provider being Simpa and the city of New Pra to negotiate new contracts should that rate be should be higher than than what we're currently at. Okay. So you always have the ability to open it. We do. Um we've noticed that O andM costs have have went up over the last few years considerably and so um they opened up that con made that contract available to be renegotiated so that the cities could be made whole. Nice. Yeah. Do you know what that dollar figure is though for Lichfield or Princeton? One of those that are already They vary compared to what what their input costs were. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. I'm just going to kind of wait till maybe comes back. Yeah. Take a five minute reset. Yeah, we can take a fivem minute recess. We'll do that. Put it on the record as that. So, okay. Mitch, can you put on the uh screen uh not the agenda but the video camera feed, please? Next item up on the agenda is the scale regional training facility discussion. Uh yes, Mr. Mayor, city council. Um we've been talking about this for a few meetings now. Uh basically that uh the scale RTF is kind of at a crossroads with aging facilities. um and uh scale itself as an organization uh did perform some studies to kind of get a look at what uh current costs are for the facility and what future costs could be. Um over the last meetings or last few meetings kind of the consensus of the council seems to have been that there does seem to be some benefit to being a member of the RTF. Um but while that benefit does exist, it's at a certain point it becomes cost prohibitive to be a member. um and either the option of using that RTF facility as a non-member or using other facilities um becomes a more viable option than being a member itself. So, um with a potential new police station in New Craig being built as well as the fire department's ability to do extensive in-house training, um there are certainly options for public safety training outside of just the RTF. So, I guess I have drafted a resolution in your packet um that would kind of reflect these conversations. The resolution would declare the intent of the city of New Prague to participate as long as the city's costs remain at or below $15,000 per year um by the year 2030 with a reasonable expectation that there will be small increases um over time. It also declares that the outdoor shooting range is the most important amenity for the city of New Prague and that the city would expect that it would remain usable um for it to continue its member operations. And I guess I'm certainly a stand for questions. Um or we can look at possibly amending this resolution if the city council took something else from our conversations over the last few meetings. Does this include um Steve using the fire tower? Yes. Yes. If you remember right, there were certainly options. Um I know our fire department in particular and I Steve can certainly talk to this if I um say it wrong. uh as a non-member, it actually benefits our fire department more because they're able to be reimbursed for costs, right? Um from the state while being a member, they're not we're not able to get reimbursed for membership costs. So, um a lot of the a lot of the benefit that the city of New Prague would see out of this, especially going into the future, would be that outdoor uh shooting range where we could pull vehicles in and do scenarios from from the outside that we may not necessarily have that ability in other ways. plus just the ability to um book and I guess use the rest of the facilities on a little bit shorter shorter term notice though as yeah go ahead that was going to be my question about the shooting range in particular um you know what would be the benefits and if we're talking about a scenario about pulling cars in which I certainly understand the benefit of that does it weigh weigh against the cost for that particular scenario. Um, I don't know what other uses that shooting range may have. If it's more long range or uh if the in the indoor range here that's being built could be used. if um another facility known in Prior Lake could be used for long range and short range um that's target practice that's I understand um the the car isn't the only thing um I guess as a user of this range over many years um uh we can move around in it when you're in a shooting range like here or in Prairie Lake you're They're just in a lane. Static. Okay. They're just in a lane. So, you can't take on scenarios like we pretend that there's a hostage at the courthouse and you know we take barriers and move in and take out the Okay. take out the That's very helpful. So, so we're a to me we're a regular shooting range is just um precise shooting and Yeah. It's more to qualify for your whatever. Yeah. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Does somebody want to offer that motion of 25? I'll offer it. I'll offer 25-04-07-01 scale regional training facility discussion or or this this uh resolution to cap it at 15 grand. What are we paying now, Josh? Uh about 8,300. Okay. And so if you remember right, I believe it was a little over 11,000 is what they assume the cost would be assuming no changes were made um by 2030 with all current members participating. Okay. Um assuming any members drop out then obviously that number just to maintain the facility will go up from 11,000 per year. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Sean seconds it. Um any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I I opposed. Motion carries. The next item is the city administrator purchasing and contracting authority. Uh yes, we talked about this a little bit last time. Um uh long story short, section 6.04 of the uh charter calls out that annually the city shall set limits that the city administrator um is able to uh make purchasing purchases and contracts without first coming to the city council. Um, speaking with city attorney Scott Riggs, this is pretty uh common language that a lot of cities used. And he provided the example of Farbo uh which sets the spending limits at 25,000 on purchases and contracts uh discussed through the budget and CIP process and $10,000 on all other purchases. And I did put those in here. A big question that came out of the last discussion was whether this included the mayor since the mayor is a signer on all contracts. Um, speaking with the city, uh, speaking with Scott Riggs, he did mention that, um, he felt in his opinion that the mayor, while not specifically called out in this, uh, was also included. Um, and this is how he has dealt with all of his other cities that also require, um, city administrators and mayors. Um, and the mayor is more included just on the fact that at the bottom of that 6.04 that the mayor would also sign on behalf, but that there would be no policy needed um, for the mayor to have that authority to sign. So, um, he he did not feel that changes, uh, in the language for the policy were necessary for the mayor. So, I can certainly stand for any more questions or if you guys want to see, uh, different limits or anything like that. Um, as I said last time, the general idea would be that first meeting of the year when we kind of go through um, general city business that uh, annually this would be brought back for review. So, I had a question. I think is the fourth one, two, three, the third paragraph and then on the fourth. But the third paragraph, um, I'm always impressed how attorneys can that's got to be a 50word sentence. But uh uh when we get into this word jumble all the way through to that third line not to exceed 25,000 and or capital improvement plan and 10,000 otherwise and then except when necessary. I'm confused at what that actually means. So we have 25,000 for items including the budget and the capital improvement plan. and 10,000 otherwise. Okay. I I I think I understand 10,000 being anything that's not in the budget and not in the capital improvement plan. And then then we have another negative except for what what is except when? So that except for and it does happen occasionally. Um many times we end up having to eat it. We so in the state of Minnesota uh it is required that public entities are provided at least 30 days to pay a bill. um that way they can get through the public process and the city council and or town boards can pay those bills. Um and there have been many I think we had some I got here certainly in my last job as well um they were just eating those late fees when someone would say you have to pay within seven days the city would just pay the late fee. Well got a lot of those corrected. Problem is the ones when you start dealing with national companies that you say hey we're in the state of Minnesota we don't have to pay your $12 late fee. they say we don't care like take take us to court over this type of situation. We're not from Minnesota. We're from Washington. You have to pay our fee. So the accept here that I read this would be a hey we have a a bill of some sort that they're tacking on a late fee um and it would be a city city council is not for two weeks but we have to pay this in the next 10 days so we we pay it not to get the late fee. That would be how I'd read that. So is that is the assumption being that we have some kind of credit card bill that's more than $10,000 then because this only applies when it's more than$10,000. Is that correct? Because otherwise the 10,000 I say generally I mean on our credit card we've never had a problem because we pay it every two weeks. I guess the question doesn't the $10,000 cover almost every credit card bill and issue you have? I would assume unless there's something rather large we put on the credit card. So why would we have that last sentence which gives you authority for it reads to me to be more than 10,000? You know what I mean? I I certainly understand your question. So it almost gives you the authority to approve a credit card bill for $11,000 if it was going to be late. I could see how you could read Yes. I like I I could see how you could read that. Maybe that's what we want. I don't know. But I can I can say we've never run into that situation with necessarily with a credit card bill at this point. But those charges would still be broken down by the individual department that Correct. Correct. So we'll still see that. Correct. Yeah. So what this does is it would mean that um if I was buying a few office chairs because community development's broke in half, we pick those up. Um under the old system, it would be we'd come to you guys and say, "Hey, the community development department needs three chairs because they broke last week. Can we get those ordered?" under this system, it would be, hey, let's get those ordered. And then they'd still come to you guys for that. You'd see that final bill pay approval. And so city council would still see all purchases that would go through. It just would um take off that pre-authorization for certain purchases. So, we're still talking about you putting an asterk or something on those situation where it occurs. Correct. Yes. And the understanding is that you're going to do this um not a a regular basis or I mean no the idea is certainly not to do this on a regular basis. For me it would be doing it when the chairs break and we got to get some chairs before the next city council meeting or something like that. it would and yes I would my intention would be to uh make those known whether it's a small asterct on the things so you can see where I use that particular power in the given year and for what for and then the sec the next paragraph it talks about the resolution shall remain in effect until such time authority is granted change by resolution I I interpreted the charter to say it has to be done every year we can't let it continue it indefinitely I thought it's and it says up here on top at least annually. Yes. The very first paragraph does that and it's not consistent with the first paragraph. Yeah. It well consistent with the city charter but it talks about the city charter up on top the 6.04 04 and then the so yeah and I think we can certainly establish at least annually but it's kind of muddies it up it it kind of restates it again. So I I think yeah I mean as Robin made a point there is that to change anything in here necessarily probably have to be done by resolution but it would certainly be reviewed annually. I think that this particular paragraph could be if for some reason we don't review it until the second meeting in January, it kind of covers that this basically remains in effect until it's reviewed again. That sort of thing. I do know that Scott said he has some communities that don't review it annually. They basically just hang out and only review it if they feel like they need to make a change to it. But our city charter indicates annually. Correct. Right. Yeah. So my understanding of how we have to do it would be that that we would it goes away. Yeah. I mean I So it's not in perpetuity. It it Yeah, we have to address it annually. Have to do a resolution. If you don't do a resolution, it goes away. I suppose. Yeah, I could see that. This whole thing would go away if you didn't do it any Yeah. So I think what they're saying, Rick, is if for some reason it didn't get brought back every year, they I forget to bring it back then that power is gone is gone until it's brought back right so that would be just part of the organizational meeting at the beginning of the year when we do all our correct keeping but you're right it does that second Tuesday contradict itself [Laughter] well I think that's just a good practice this anyway. So new council members are involved in it and understand it and it's talked about because it is an audit issue. It's really done for audit purpose or you know risk management tool really. Yeah. So how do we address that sentence then or talking about the the fourth paragraph, right? Yeah. I think if you guys wanted to eliminate that fourth paragraph, I would say and so just basically you could move the resolution amended with removing that paragraph. I would say we keep part of the paragraph that's consistent with the authority of the New Prague city charter section 6.04 04 period and the rest of it goes away because that way we have the authority to address it annually or it has to be addressed annually. Well, and and if you read it, you know, the whereases up on top are kind of laying out the groundwork. Yes. And then so be it resolved is actually three through three, four and five are actually the resolution laying it out. Yes. So it could stay the same. That's the way I read it. Josh, could you tell give me an example of a situation where you needed the 25,000 but you didn't have it and it somehow prevented uh or slowed the process down. Um I don't know if it necessarily slowed the process down. We actually this process came up uh just a couple months ago here when we bought a new vehicle for community development. I think it ended up costing us what 21 20 21 after or before the trade. Yeah. Before the trade. Um I think we found the car and we were two weeks away from the city council meeting. I mean it we found it here in town and luckily they were they were good enough to hold it for us and whatnot. But that to me would be kind of the situation of hey we found the vehicle. We've been talking about it all throughout the budget season. the money's been sitting there. We found the vehicle. Can we make the move on it? Because I suppose them as a car dealer could all say, "Ah, like we have someone that'll buy it right now so we can turn this over and keep it going." And so, um, that was a situation where it it could have come into play and luckily it didn't. But, um, like I said, they don't they don't happen tremendously often. But it would still have to be approved in the like. Yes. Correct. Yeah. So we would basically just kind of the the go under contract and start that whole process. Correct. Actually double approval. Yeah. And then you guys would see it. Okay. Because let's say it would be purchased then the next council meeting we're going to be approving it. We're going to be approving that purchase tables. Yeah. Yep. But it's already been purchased. Yeah. Because you have the ability to do that. Correct. Well, I'm just thinking like right here, if I was looking down here. So, you got the compensation study RFP. What happens if there was a a green study that you wanted to jump in that was 20,000 and you thought, "Oh, this is good for the city." And you go and sign it, then maybe that runs contrary to what the Yep. didn't want to spend the $20,000. Yeah. So, so that one in partic like that one, let's just use it. If there was a green study that we f I found yesterday or we'll say tomorrow. Um because that is was not included in the budget or CIP that would not fall under the authority of the 25. It would fall under the authority of the 10. Okay. And then so that authority of the 10 let's say I found one for n 9500. Um, my job as the runner, I guess, of the administration organization who made that call is I would have to speak to my boss as to why I made that call against what seemed to be the leanings of the city council. I mean, it would be me answering to you guys as a um someone who answers to the board basically of why I felt that was necessary without getting prior approval. Okay. But you could be getting approval by calling us. Correct. Yeah. So, I mean, I could also wait two weeks and come and talk to you guys and you say yes or no on it. I guess I don't have a problem with raising it to 25,000. You mean doing the 10 and 25? Well, I think the 10 we're locked in on, aren't we, right now? No. No. This there is currently nothing in place. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Yeah. Yep. There's it it's been in the city charter now I think since 2014, but there's been nothing um from my understanding previous administrator never brought anything forward to put a formal policy in place. Okay. Yeah. So, want me to make a motion? Yeah, you go ahead. Absolutely. Well, is there any other questions? No, I'll ask that again anyway. So, but anybody else have any other questions of the race? I'd take a motion. Just for clarification, was there going to be any changing to that second res uh resolve? I I think stating that consistency with 6.04, if that is the question, I do believe that um the first whereas clause just establishes that 6.04 is and so the cleanest thing to do would probably just to be remove scratch that um fourth paragraph. Is that maybe is that okay? Because I thought you had some You want to keep a line or two in there? No, she Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's right. No, no. I'm I'm okay with scratching the fourth paragraph because we are actually stating it in the very first whereas. Okay. Then I will go ahead and uh make a motion that we approve um resolution 25-03-17-04 giving uh the city administrator purchasing and contracting authority um not to exceed 25,000 on items included in the approved budget. Uh and 10,000 otherwise except when necessary to pay monthly utility and credit card bills as amended. as amended with the removal of uh paragraph 4. Is there a second? I'll second. Maggie seconds it. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. The next item we're into general business. Pops committee request. Uh yes. So as just hang on a second. I was just going to mention that um as as I mentioned in the past I'm an officer of the forward new crate foundation which this matter is involves that uh foundation um a few months ago I think I Josh and I talked and he conversed with the city attorney and at some point in time all city council members have the same issue when we're involved in in the city and getting involved in an agreement or uh contract um that creates um a specific conflict. Uh so at this time I'm kind of getting at that area where I feel there's a conflict and I think the attorney agrees with that. So I won't be involved in any of the discussion or the decision- making involving this issue. Thank you. Okay. Now go ahead. Uh yes. So, um, as the city council is aware, we've kind of been, uh, going back and forth with the POPS committee on building a potential outdoor performance stage somewhere here in town. Uh, this does go quite a ways back. Um, and so I will lean on Ken if I get general time frames wrong. Um, but, uh, we've been I know the outdoor performance stage, uh, committee has been working on this for well over a year at this point. um back in they originally did a study, they had come up um kind of with uh three locations that they were interested in per se. Uh Memorial Park, uh Sliding Hill Skate Park, and then what we are coining as city center. I think we could haggle on names on that. We do staff all the time. Um, but uh ultimately uh city council uh voted that if they were going to uh and I believe I do not believe the vote was unanimous, but if they were going to allow the facility to be built that they would like it to be built over here in the vacant lot known as city center. So at that time we did have a uh we were working with a few members of that POPS committee kind of a what does it look like over there? I know Ken has a number had a number of soil studies from previously. Um, and while they weren't very specific to that exact location, there were certainly bores within those facil those studies that fell within the range of where this facility would go. So, we've been working through this process and I tried to make it clear with the POPS committee representatives that should there ever actually be a request of the city, please do not assume that that request is just going to be taken up by the city like we need formal requests to make sure that um we're all on the same page. And so, they did bring forward this request. They did end up having a soil study done specifically on the location over at city center that this large facility would be. And through that um study it was determined that in fact there are great soils for ducks, terrible soils for buildings um kind of on this spot. Uh specifically I believe it is um after a was about 10 ft of fillish. Does that sound right? Um there's 10 feet of what is best described non-scientifically as muck. Uh kind of where the ducks used to hang out. So, uh, there are multiple solutions that they could possibly work through. Um, and until they actually pick a solution, they won't know the formal cost of what that end result will be. Um, kind of the kind of the two leading driving solutions would be to dig out the area and put down good soil to be um, build on. um would uh again it could be 20 feet down, it could be 30 feet down um till you really get a good spot. And the other solution, I guess, would be to um essentially drill large peers into the ground at which this would sit on. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Ken. I believe Mil Pond actually sits on peers, correct? Yeah, the uh Philips Square or Philip Square. Um so, yeah, but they got all that leaking in the basement, don't they? I don't think that's even working. So any anyway, those are the kind of the two solutions. Um, and I say we say potentially in the memo because they're not 100% sure what it'll cost if they start drilling that pier. Um, they got to drill it until it hits a certain pressure point and then they say, "Okay, that thing's in there solid. Is that 20 feet, 30 feet? Hopefully not 40 feet." Um, you don't really know until you start drilling. Uh, and the same kind of goes with the fill. You don't really know until you start digging into it how deep ultimately you are going to have to go. So at this is something that POPS has said that while we were aware that there were terrible soils here um we certainly didn't know the extent to the terrible soils and so their request is for assistance with um making these I'll I'll call them soil corre corrections for the building whether they dig them out or the peers because um while they are funding this, they did not calculate in the full possible extent for what these improvements could be. Um as staff, we certainly went back and forth on this um as as to whether the city should be um open or willing to help pay for any or all of these improvements. Pops has told us that um they are certainly willing to donate the facility but feel that um this land because the city donated it is certainly more up the city's avenue. How um giving it to them in a manner that uh is buildable for a facility. Um, I know as they looked at these facilities, I I believe uh while there was certainly uh differences of opinion across the committee, um I believe the recommendation coming out of their particular study was that they would have preferred Memorial Park and or Sliding Hill Skate Park is what their study stated. Um but ultimately the city council chose this site and so um I think their hope is that if the city council would like it here that they would like a little assistance then on making sure the site is actually buildable. Um I I I will say at this point it'd be nice if Bruce could speak because I know that he sits on the committee and could help kind of reflect some of those but um I I don't I don't want I wanted to certainly honor that him keeping that distance so that we don't have that conflict. May I ask a question? So the soil borings were they done specifically in the area that the facility may be built or were they done throughout the whole property? So the the ones that the pops committee did uh I believe the city actually kind of marked out the boundaries of where this the the soil samples should go. So, we kind of said, "Okay, through our um small area plan, we we would like the facility placed right here. This is where you should get your soil from." I I do I think along the general lines, it is in a lower spot on city center. I think the general consensus is even without having the borings that the farther north you go, the better the soils get because you're just not sitting in the low spot where the ducks hung out, right? So would it make sense to move the site on the city center property to something that is more advantageous to building? You would have to go Maggie nearly to right up along second uh street northwest to really get in that area. And even there at a point you get low enough you're hitting not so great um soils anyway. Okay. um not that muck and pete, but you're getting like wet clay and other things that you you're probably going to have to do something. Probably not to the extent of the particular area where they're looking at the building. It's all not great. And in general, soils in New Prague are not great, right? Anywhere, right? Um just kind of what we have. But um yeah, I I don't know how that would how that would really save money with all the other inputs that have already been put into Yeah, I just didn't know if it was, you know, you know, random soil borings or if it was concentrated in a particular area. So, the other soil borings we had, um going back to the year 2000 before we ever owned the property, um the soil geotechnical work, they had uh planned to do eight borings at that time. They only did two because that was when um some senior high-rise initially was getting potentially looked at there and it was determined that after the second boring that it was unsuitable for that type of a large building without significant corrections and it was really for Philip Square quite frankly. Okay. Um which ended up going over there needing them anyway. But um the one done in 2011 I believe by Braun uh who's the same firm that did it for um the most recent um bindings um they had done them sporadically throughout and um it was anywhere from you know 10 feet of muck to uh down to below 30 feet that they found muck and it did wild wildly vary um throughout the area. So yeah, until they specifically went below the areas we knew it was bad, but even on those two from one end of the building to the other, not great. But they are different even in that 40 ft. Yes, Rick. First of all, they're not ducks, they're geese. Um, well, there could have been a duck hanging out there. Would it be in our favor or in our interest to take a look at a different site for the pops? I mean, I think we certainly could um without having soil borings at the other sites. It's entirely possible those are better, worse, the same. We don't know. Correct, Ken? I would be really worried about Sliding Hill. Yes. Being the fact that that whole Sliding Hill area was created from street construction work. If I'm And there's wetlands there, too. In the wetlands that are near there, pond, whatever. They have places in Memorial Park, correct? I will say the one thing, Rick, if we do change now, um I would likely see the POPS committee saying, "Hey, it's where the city wants to go. Maybe we want to ch we we can change, but there's likely going to be added costs for them for maybe having to redesign the facility. Would the city be willing to help us out with that redesign since we've now had to design two facilities? Yeah, but that might be cheaper than prepping that soil. Might be, but it's an unknown that you're introducing back into the equation. No, I know now I question because I always thought that on the end of it over there, we could put a like a Philips square two because that funding mechanism worked out so well. I mean, and it's entirely possible. I think we as a city would want to do more due diligence on that stuff up there, but we do know, as Ken stated, it's not as bad, but there is still potential for poor soils. You mean Yes. And elevation issues. Yeah. You're certainly not putting an 18story high-rise over there. Maybe one or two stories, but again, without soils in the analysis, we wouldn't know that either. Well, how much, you know, you got to look at how much soil's got to be brought in to change the elevations, too. And right over in that area, I mean, when you went to do Philip Square, you had um um high water content. Um same with Praa. Yeah. And I should note too um they were hitting water um I don't know if it was on these two, but um they were hitting water on some of the other borings randomly around the entire site as well. Um even if you moved it. So those pylon footings they're probably going to have to go down too. Yeah. Actually this one too they noted um water was not observed in bo boring number two. Um and then they did hit water and bore number or boring number one at 7 and 1/2 ft. So again that was 40 feet away. You just don't you don't know. The Earth's crust is n about on average 19 miles deep. I think we'll don't have to go that deep, but so what's the recommendation of Steph? So at this point within and this is one I've certainly wrestled with. I think the recommendation would be to deny the request. And I don't know if it would be to deny the entire request or if we promise up to a point. The thing that I struggle with um is that we do have a piece of city property over here that um we are providing at no cost. And while certainly we don't charge for other parks, I think generally there is a cost with almost any park that is built generally parks that are built. If Ken andage Great Development decides to build some houses and we as a park from want a park from them, they must take some of those buildable lots out of their development to then build a park creating a cost for that land that they have purchased. The city also has committed feasibility um study numbers as well as a small area plan to try to put into that exactly where we would want this facility. Um, and then ultimately trying to accommodate the other stuff on the site. And then as I as mentioned in the memo, we ultimately as a city would be looking at accepting and maintaining this particular facility in perpetuity, creating a financial cost right there. I think the big struggle I came with this though is that um the city council has recommended this site that we would want the certain facility if it was going to get built. Um, and I think there is some aspect of if we're going to select the site, would it should we provide a site that's more buildable or just a site that's prettier? Um, I know initially there was always talk of, well, what could we do with that over there? I do think as we've worked through this whole process, I've come to the realization that while economic development across that entire twob block region would be great, the middle of it is probably not ripe for much more than grass storm ponds andor minor we'll call pocket park facilities near the downtown. So there's the request from the foundation was I believe to cover the entirety costs of making that soil corrections andor whatever corrections need to be made and recommending denial. Like I said, I don't know if I can recommend denial for the entirety. I I I can recommend denial for the entirety of the cost to bring that up to par. I could certainly get on board with a lesser amount um than that. Um but I would say at this point I don't know where that money would come from. Is this going to be considered park property? I think that becomes another question. Um generally facilities such as this are found in parks and if we do a larger buildout a small park could be built here that kind of serves this neighborhood because we don't have one. I mean, I guess we do have uh I'm blanking on over there on the corner of 21 Phillips Park. Phillips Park. We It's kind of a small walkway park, but this would be a larger piece of grass, per se. Could we bring this in front of the park board and the potential of using parkboard funds? I believe it would be eligible. Um and I know we talked about that at park board. I know Chair Barton from the park board was apprehensive about that. Uh we have roughly I think it was 140 150 I don't know if Robin could pull it up quickly but I think in that ballpark of like 150 in our park equipment fund that certainly would would in my mind be uh under the legal authority to use that dedicated money for that. Now does that necessarily mean that the park board's going to all agree that that was the case but ultimately their recommending body and the council holds the pur strings on that. Um, so that's my take on it. I think it would be worth a discussion with the park board um because ultimately the recommendation to use that piece of property um and then send it to council for approval came from the park board. Um so if there is some funds it might not be 100% but you know something that they would be willing to give then um we could bring that forth to the council. So, if that's the direction the council wants to go, um I guess would the city council like me to see? I mean, it would be one of those things if we're looking and we're moving stuff around and seeing what's available here or there, that if the park board has park funds that they want to put in a certain percentage. Does the city council want me to look in in that short term while we wait to see if there's numbers that I can find from a city council perspective to try to make up that gap or is that not something the city council wants me to spend time doing? My opinion is that whatever the park board may or may not approve that that's what we bring forth to city council and we don't necessarily add to that from other city funds. Would you agree? Yeah, I totally agree. With that said, Maggie, I think I talked at the last park board meeting I attended um that I have in my mind in parks mind some future goals for some other parks that we talked about maybe bringing to the 2026 park uh budget about maybe having the park board see if they'd be interested in funding some of these other projects. Um so maybe I'll work with Ken at that time. So we have it all laid out on the table like hey is this where we want this money to go or some of these ideas that I have I guess uh maybe that would be better fitted for that fund. So I just want to put that out there. I think that would probably be the appropriate time to do that instead of a couple months from now. Yeah. Yeah. we get a big picture. That would be great. I think to add on that that's part of the park plan that we're working on um that we've been talking about doing the survey at the park board um to make sure that we have that working plan to know, okay, we've got x number of money and here's money coming in. Can we get everything accomplished that we want to? right now because the comp plan ran its full life cycle and we kind of ran out of projects as it were. Um I think that the the timing is maybe a little ahead of that but obviously that is a source of money that could be used for that. Okay. I just want to make that clear that it is statutoily money that we can use for that. Okay. Makes sense. Okay. So, I guess at this point I I would recommend if that's kind of the direction that the council wants to go that um you guys basically make a motion to send this request back to the park board. Okay. Do you want to do that? Yeah, I'll do that. I will make a motion to send the request for the POPS land improvement funds request back to the park board to discuss uh the potential for funding based on the overall big picture of other projects that potentially could come uh under the park board venue. Second. Okay. There's been a motion by Maggie, seconded by Rick. Any other discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. He he he abstained before. I think we can just assume that he's continuing to abstain through the item. Okay. He's abstained. Okay. I got one more thing to ask about this. Um why do we have a front end loader going up and down that after we just did all that? We didn't didn't do perk test and stuff, but there's a front end loader working that that property today. It's not you. I have no idea what you're talking about. So, I don't think the either loaders left the shop today. Well, there was there was a very large front end loader, probably one of the biggest ones um over there moving some stuff around and working the grading on the road. I can look into that. Yeah, you might want to bring Tim with you. Okay. Um I don't think shoot him. ARPA probably that guy in the corner. ARPA funding. Uh yes, I know. Um it's been it was brought up I think a couple meetings ago just kind of a hey where did we land with the ARPA spending? Um as I'd mentioned at that time um under uh federal regulations for the ARPA spending we had to have the totality of it spent and accounted for um by the end of 2024. Um, and so the general summary that I included in the packet that is very slowly loading for me, so I can't see it um does include uh kind of the revenues that we brought in um on a year-by-year basis and then the year-by-year basis of the spending. As you can see, most of our spending was in 23 and 24. And then on page two, it broke down how that spending was allocated. As we discussed kind of throughout the process, that spending was directed um tried to be directed towards uh spending that would not create um tales as Robin likes to call them or reoccurring expenses over the years um on stuff that we had not already planned spending on. So, I certainly stand for any questions, but this is just kind of a summary that we have shared with the auditors and we'll keep on file at this point should the federal government ever ask us to report on how that money was spent. Okay. Does anybody have any questions in regards to that? Otherwise, we'll move on to the next item, item C. Uh, yes. part of our visioning for 2023 uh or not 2023 2025 whatever the year is um was to do a compensation plan that uh if approved would take effect in 2026 and so this would be the RFP in your packet um that includes what we'd be looking for that we would send out to advertise for that I know that it was um expressed kind of during the fall during the budgeting season that the City Council wanted to make sure that it had a um say in the process um especially through comparables and whatnot. And so I tried to include in the scope of work um the expectations that the uh consultant if selected um would certainly be working with the council um throughout the process and not just at the very end when it comes to the various decisions that need to be made there. I I will say there will probably certainly be things happening in the background unless um if we if we include the council on every single little meeting, it will take a long time um to the point of things take long times. But I um we'll certainly try to make sure that the larger decisions are brought back to the city council so that direction can be given um to ensure that you guys have a say in this whole process. What kind of little things are you talking about? I mean, in a meeting. I mean, we have the scope here in the proposal. Yep. So, I'm I'm just kind of curious why there'd be little meetings that you guys Well, I mean, so I think about the various studies that I've ever ever been a part of, we're meeting with consultants on an almost weekly basis kind of of um I know as you look through this particular process, it might come down to a uh hey, we want to interview the employees just to see exactly what they're doing through their jobs. um here are the the 10 questions we're going to ask them. That'd be something staff would look administration would look through and say, "Yeah, I think these questions seem to make sense." Personally, that feels like a decision that would bog down a city council meeting if we're breaking into even what the 10 interview questions are that we're asking each city employee through the process, but I if that's something the city council wants to see, we can certainly work through that. But at some point too um going through decisions like that feels like the job that we are hired for to work through that process as you guys then direct um the larger process from above if that makes sense. Right. But it still is it has the feel that the person doing the study is working for you guys and not us. And I guess you can certainly you're the ones that benefit. Yeah. You can certainly sit in on every single meeting if you'd like Sean. I'm just saying the process may take a while then um because I know your time is just as valuable and we are getting paid to help kind of administer the general policies and directions of the city. I guess I don't mind if you had to put a list of 10 questions in front of us, but I don't even know why we'd question it if we have this professional that we just awarded this contract to. I don't really see what if they want to ask these 10 questions why they have to sit down with you to determine what those 10 questions. I'm not saying that that's what it is. I know that was just an example, but that's what I'm saying is but yeah, I mean I know when we went through the comp plan, we met with them on a weekly basis if not more. Um they're doing the same thing with the zoning code now. Um when we were going through the facility study, uh I know it seemed like on a weekly basis they were meeting as they wanted to walk through city facilities, um get documents from us for different various things. And so through this process, meetings happen on a consistent basis. Um, and there is a there is a point at which I feel that it is our job after hearing direct from the council to take that and kind of make that happen and then bring the decisions back to the council to make. Is this going to be just the lowest bid or the lowest fee that we're going to approve or generally through this process that I've always done with these? Many times we do end up selecting the lowest one, but it is a kind of reviewing of what they are proposing. And it could be a the lowest bid comes in, but they're saying it's going to take them 26 weeks and for $2,000 extra dollars the proposal is 12 weeks and they're going to give us this, this, and this versus this, this, and this. And so, um, while many times the lowest bid does get taken, I have seen that they don't get taken if there's justifications as to why you are not taking the lowest bid because it's RFP. Correct. It's not a bid. So, no, but do what you then again though city staff who this benefits is the one that's hiring the firm. We are not that's where we are not hiring the firm like we will go through the interview process and then present you guys with the materials of what we had and this is why this is our recommendation. But ultimately, city council would be making that decision. And I've sat on interview processes and there's no I mean, anybody can sit on them to listen to their sticktick. Right. Well, and I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a uh a city council person that uh or a rotating city council person that doesn't sit on Yeah. interview boards. Um I know that Lansdale does. do they when they hire for city staff there's a council and the mayor there they don't have to have a quorum but and I will say even for interviewing staff when we've gone department level we have had generally a city council member sit on that department head level um staff meeting or interviews so even the smaller city where I come from had a personnel committee and had one person with the council on it thank you that's what I personel committ was trying to get out Wait, that's a different discussion. Yeah. So, coming back to this, this would just be the RFP to collect those um proposals for moving forward with this. We did write in here that um I know we tried to collect examples from other cities around us and many of those timelines just seemed long to us. Admittedly, I've never actually been through a formal count study myself. So, but we did say that we would like some sort of results so that we can use that in our decision-m process throughout 2026 should we choose to. Um, maybe you wouldn't get the final comp study uh by September, but some sort of results that you could use if the city council wished to kind of work some of that if it did into the 26 budget. One of the things I'm I was hoping to get uh out of this or get more knowledge about is is when we we're asking for a scope of work that includes review of the philosophy, policy and system which is really the city council's responsibility to as part of the monitoring oversight and development of policy. So to me it would help be helpful if we had one of the initial meetings being with the city council and hopefully that this firm would be able to review with us what our philosophy is, what we think about it and really a better understanding for me anyway is what do other cities do and what are there other options we have and do we have to do certain things? Um, my first time around when I first came on the council is when we did it last and I didn't have a lot of experience in the public sector what this was all about and it seemed like we had to do the stuff they recommended. I didn't realize till the end of it that those some of that stuff was our choice of the amounts and things like that and what part of the process is compliance with state and federal regulations and what part of it is that's that's our policy or that's our procedure that's how we do it. So I would gain some benefit out of the initial meeting uh being with city council to review the overall scope philosophy and policy and what are our options. What are other count cities doing? Are we an outliner with 11 steps or or I know other ones have five and other ones do a I see I I know of other cities that do things differently and I just like they have a better understanding of what the options are and why do one city does does it this way and their number system is different and and part of that. So that's one of the things I guess I would like to see. The other questions I have on this include um a job job evaluation system. I didn't realize realize we have a concern with our our current method. Do we have a concern with and I don't know if we necessarily have a concern with our current method, but I'm always open to hearing if we could be doing something better. and it may they may look at ours and say, "I I think you guys are certainly doing just fine here." I could also see if for some reason they came back and the city council decided to move to a a different system of how we scale and step employees into something different, we may need a different evaluation system that um more closely addresses that. And so I know it's been mentioned here and uh I know they used to, I don't know if they still do. Scott County does it a little bit different in terms of how they do steps and whatnot, but yeah, it's pay for performance. Yeah. So, I mean, if we did a pay for performance, we would likely need to rehash our current evaluation system. Not that we don't try to track performance and set goals and that sort of thing, but when you're attaching someone's very specific pay to are you getting a 2% increase or a 2.5% increase, if that's how that system works, I'm not sure how it is. I I would just want to make sure that our system would be able to hold up under that particular scrutiny if that makes sense. And I'm just trying to understand looking at the RFP or RF whatever when you say recommend a job evaluation system seems to me that we're not happy with what we got. Would you recommend a different one for us versus what I'm hearing you say is what do you think of ours? Yeah. Kind of thing. And would we get a better bid if we if we just had what do you think Lori versus recommend one? And and maybe admittedly when we put this together like we did pull language from a lot of different scopes trying to find stuff that hey yeah this seems like it would fit in here and whatnot. And so um and I don't have enough experience with this to know if if that affects the bidding. Are they thinking oh there's more more work here than I thought so we better bid it this way? Yeah. You know, they're asking us to look at the whole thing. That's that's going to be bid differently than um we've done this before, guys. We want to do it again. What do you want to bid for it? Yeah. Our last one was done. Good questions. Um yeah, but then you get into a broken, right? I I'm It brought a smile to my face when I read this project background. And I'm not sure who came up with that, but um New Minnesota is a safe community, friendly people. That was your very own Robin Pickle. That was very cute. Um I think the next sentence I think we're wanting to say located on the border of Scott Leur. Maybe located on the board. It says, "Yeah, we we we can well that's we'll well put a board out there." Border. Yes. But we're picking on your typos now. So, what do you want here? Do you want approval for to to go ahead with the RFP just to see Correct. Yeah. That you guys are generally good with what you see here as we move forward. Um, and I guess the next step then would be uh once we get to that point of having them all collected, moving from there. Um, and if the city council would like a rep certainly to sit in on the interview process, yeah, we can certainly do that. But this first step is just getting that RFP out. Um, the last question I have is I I know that you have an the completion u proposal for changes to 2026 budget and I'm not necessarily opposed to saying that we're not going to do changes for the 2026 budget but I'm not sure if we have to limit or constrict ourselves to that. So my only thought with that was if the city council if there's any changes and the city council decides they want to make changes those come in March. Suddenly we have potentially unbudgeted changes or I guess we just sit on those changes until 2027. And so, um, that that's why I put that 26 budget in there, that if changes would be made, it'd be nice to have them so we can incorporate them in the 26 budget in some fashion. And that's where I mentioned maybe we don't have the study fully completed by the time that happens, but we have some sort of preliminary findings that, hey, we see this potential change coming forward. While we can't give you an exact ABC, we know that it might cost roughly this if this is the direction you want to move. Well, I guess a couple things. I I I don't want the process to be hurried and I don't want to run into findings in October. Mhm. you know, if we get them in August or end of July because you guys start working on the budgets already in July and August and then you first get it to us in August or se September, you know, I I don't Well, and I guess admittedly some of this this comes to to the point of um conversation we're having earlier about the speed of government and part of me wants to light a little fire so they don't just sit on it and oh, we got time. This is going to be a eight-month project when it could be a four-month project, too. So, we can certainly change that project completion, I guess, if you guys want to change the wording in there. Um, but yeah, our our thoughts were we wanted to keep the process moving and not just sit on it for the sake of sitting on it. Then then they have no idea how our budget or they may or may not know what our budget is. Then maybe why don't you just put a hard date on it instead of say budget? Well, and that's what and yeah, it's because I didn't know I think getting something in September is different than getting it in November when you're trying to work it into the budget cycle. But getting preliminary findings in September are if it like I don't I I don't I wouldn't see us getting a final findings in September. That just feels like it could be too fast. Maybe it's not. That'd be too fast. September 1st. Well, I say too fast until that they say, "Well, there's no way we could even complete this, so I'm not going to like I can't get done by September." I don't know. Now, having never done this process, but maybe they could do preliminary findings. And so, like, I hate to put that drop dead deadline in there because even when we've gone through other processes, the comp plan says it'll take nine months, it ends up taking 18. Facility study, I think their original deadline on us was like 15 weeks, and that drug out for quite a while. So, so when they ask you when when what does it mean timely manner to incorporate in the 2026 budget, what day is that? What what's your answer? Right. And I I I think we I could honestly say we don't we don't know exactly what that means, but hopefully some sort of preliminary and maybe maybe we put in there preliminary findings by September so that we can incorporate that incorporate that in there um should the city council want to move in that direction. I I mean, if you get finance in September, I think it's too late because then we won't even see them until earliest midsepptember. Yep. So, I mean, I will say we are actually probably going to start working internally on the budget within the next few weeks. Like, it just feels like we put it down and we're already picking it back up again. Um, and but there, if you remember right, there are certainly a lot of assumptions that we build into that first couple meetings. Like I think we assumed that health insurance would go up this much or dental insurance that this would be there and then numbers are adjusted accordingly. And so again having been the first first time kind of through this process officially myself not knowing what timelines look like we were trying to shoot for something here. But if the city council is comfortable with potentially not getting findings until March of 26 and then trying to figure out where we go from there like maybe that's that's what we do. But I know that's That's kind of what I was trying to avoid is getting our findings in early March and then having to adjust for something that was not budgeted for unless we're going to hold the findings because I believe the last one, if I remember right, was wrapped up in March and I don't know if that was budgeted for in the 2021 budget or if the city just kind of ate it that year and adjusted accordingly in 22. That I don't know. I don't know. But and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but when we went through the process that time, there was a spirited discussion over months. Mhm. It was. Yeah. It just didn't It's not something that I don't think's going to Okay. Yeah, we can certainly I just We can certainly move that project completion farther out to make sure that because I agree like if we're going to do this, let's do it right and take the time to do it. um something needs to be relevant. So yeah, I mean we can certainly play with that. Is this including and I appreciate you mentioning um I think you said something about benefits. Is this including comparative survey including benefits and things? Uh I believe I had that in there. The intent was to have that in there to include benefits. Um to make sure that people are the job descriptions people are doing are actually jobs they're doing. Um while I think most people are close, I want to make sure that turns out Robin Pickle isn't actually providing janitorial services for us when that's not in not in her job. No, I'm sorry. I I meant So no health insurance. Yeah. So when you say benefits, my intention was to have benefits and I'll certainly read through it again. I thought thought we had something. full compensation. It is a true full compensation front to back, not just dollar amount. Okay. And then I think we're asking them to do a survey again like it was last time. Um, if we have a meeting with city coun in the beginning, I would like to have that as part of our discussion, what kind of comp cities are we choosing? I I would fully agree. Um, just so that everybody's on the same page because I know that a lot of times they may try to select comparable cities and yeah, Worthington, Minnesota's comparable in size, but do we really want to compare ourselves to Worthington, Minnesota? So, um, no, I would agree like that and that is certainly a conversation I'd want the city council in on so that way we have that discussion out right away and we kind of know the basis that all of this is taking place on just in our relation to some of the larger suburbs and Minneapolis and St. Paul. I mean, we're very close. So, what does that look like versus, you know, Fairmont, Minnesota in, you know, Yeah. say we're not we're not necessarily competing with Baiji Minnesota for employees. So should we compare ourselves? Okay. So does somebody want want to offer a motion to have staff go out for RFPs on the compensation study? We will, I guess, from what I've heard, if we want to move forward with this, amending it, kind of reworking that uh project completion language to make sure it's we've got some more time to make sure it's done correctly. And I will run through it real quick to make sure that that uh benefit language is in there for full compensation um before it gets sent out. Are those the two changes that council seems to want to make to this? At this point, do we want to wait and to to see those changes before we make a motion to approve or not? I don't have any I I trust him to make those changes. Okay, I'm fine. All right. Yeah, I'm fine. And we All right. I'll make a motion to approve the um compensation study RFP based on discussion tonight of the uh amendments to the RFP. Is there a second? Second. Bruce seconds it. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Request to expand golfboard membership. Uh yes. Golf board president reached out to me a couple months ago. um kind of floating this idea and I said um basically along the idea of I know they had talked about and I think we included it in their bylaws of um having up to two non-members or two non-city residents be members um if approved by the city council um if they were members of the golf board and various other stuff very similar to our EDA allowing two non-citizens on the EDA if the city council felt that they had a strong business presence or would be um a um asset to that board. Along those lines, I know that the golf board, they like their current makeup and they don't necessarily want to reduce or have anyone off of their current makeup to include those up to two additional members. So, that's part of this request. The other part of this request is especially over the last few months, they've struggled to have a quorum. um they did not have a quorum for their January meeting and they did not have a quorum for their February meeting. They were able to have a quorum for the March meeting. Um and kind of what they've stated by having those extra two extra members, they would hope that they would be able to have enough members to actually pull a consistent quorum. Along those lines, I did kind of express to board president that I don't know if I'd be recommending approval on this. Sometimes it feels like you're adding to add and that's not necessarily getting you the benefits you think you're going to have. Um, but I certainly said if this is the board's wishes that they should pass out a resolution and I would bring it to the city council then um for their discussion. And so that is what uh the email in here included was the resolution that they passed um requesting an increase um by two for their board. So to what end? Just so they get a quorum or they get different input. I mean what I I mean I think I think it's it's kind of a combination of both of them. So they think by adding more people they're going to get a quorum. I I I mean these people are should be committed to the board and they should be showing up for their meetings, you know, and if you're just going to throw more people at it, adding more people means you have to have more people show up. Yeah, certainly. So, I feel the same way does and then my vote will be normal. Doesn't make sense to me. Me neither. They're not they're not stating a reason. They're just wanting to throw people at it, I guess. Well, well, and like I said, the other reason being that they like their current makeup of who's on it, and they would also like the ability to add those two that we discussed. But if they like their current makeup, why aren't those people showing up? How can they like it if they don't show up to meet? Yeah, the discussion should be maybe that it's on the wrong day or the wrong time, you know, the wrong week or Yeah. Can we put it on a different Right. Absolutely. Before just adding people, you know, I I guess I look at Ken knows if he has a quorum typically for planning. You have to call and verify. Okay. But you do do you do that and um Yeah. I don't know what you do, but um you know I think Bruce Bruce I was I I most of my commissioners just let me know ahead of time. Yeah. I don't we're just Yeah. Well, even in your minutes, you only had three the last meeting you had. Yeah, there's only three of you there and that's that's enough. But yeah, I've never had to cancel a meeting because of not having a quorum. But yeah, normally I think it's just with respect to the members that to call to call. Yeah, absolutely. How long has that golf course been there? 150 years. No, maybe 125 under the city's purview directly because it used to be run as uh not under the city. I probably say 20 years 25 years under the city's purview. Yeah. I was on the golf board when we brought it into the city. They didn't have direct control over it. Oh. when the charter got changed. Yeah. Yeah. So, we've only had a board sitting on there for the last No, it's been our own board. Yeah. So, I guess at this point since they've made a this this request that the city council, I guess, have a motion um one way or the other to respond to the request. Sure. I make a motion to um deny the request to add board members. Second. Ay made a motion, seconded by Rick. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. So I just want to make sure I'm clear on that then. So when we uh changed it to allow non-residents, we didn't change them the number. Correct. That state at seven. It would just be come the process in May where we kind of go through that interview process. If there are non-residents or members of the golf club that would like to apply, they can and they'd be vetted like anybody else. There can just be no more than two of those at any given time on the golf board. That way, the city always has majority control. Right. I think we've had a couple go around since that change has been made. And I don't I think we've had two round. Yes. And we've had no applications at this point. No applications from non-residents. Correct. Okay. All right. The final item on the agenda before we do miscellaneous is update on backyard chickens. Yeah. So, I'll just give you a real brief update on that. Uh, the planning commission did discuss kind of a concept um information review at the meeting on March 26th. We had u provide a background on the discussion back in 2016 when the council moved to ultimately ban um farm animals outright in any fashion. Um, the planning commission back in 2016 actually did make a recommendation to the council and had drafted an ordinance that would have allowed them. Uh but the council did not approve that. So we just went over pros and cons. Um um we had uh did open a public hearing. Uh we had one resident, Mr. Pollson, that's in the audience here today uh provide um some comment on that. Um ultimately a motion was suggested by the planning commission and it failed on a 2 to2 vote. Um, and that would have been to hold a public hearing at the April planning commission meeting with a draft ordinance, but it didn't pass. So, um, based on that vote, staff was not planning to continue to work on the matter unless the council feels otherwise you can direct things back to the planning commission. So, before we put any more effort into it, I wanted to give you an update and kind of get the feeling from the the council what, if anything, should we do with the topic of backyard chickens? What was the largest sort or the most the biggest concern I should say of the planning commission? Um I would say even among those that uh the one of the planning commission members that made the motion to hold the hearing was I'm not necessarily in favor but I'd like to hear what the public has to say. And I think the other two and Sean I don't want to speak for you but um it was I think generally didn't feel that they were appropriate in town. Well, that might I I haven't heard from very many people. I've gotten a few emails uh in in favor for it. I haven't heard of anyone opposed to it. I've even asked people uh you know, when I'm out walking and you know, what do you think about it? And um I haven't gotten many negative comments. I personally would like to get more public input. um you know this it seems like a small issue but it's I think an emotional more of an emotional issue for a lot of people of you know I want my kids to experience this or I want to be able to have fresh eggs or whatever the case may be. So I would like to hear from a broader pers perspective of of opinions rather than you know saying this is how I personally feel about it. Um, so that's where I stand. I would like to hear more from the public. I've certainly heard from more people than you have, I think, uh, that are against it. Um, the, uh, reason is is that it's, uh, there's a smell attributed to it. There are feathers that get released and float in the air. And if you are 20 ft away from your neighbor's chicken coupe and you're trying to be on your deck and you're holding a birthday party, the last thing you want to do is get the waft of a chicken coupe andor feathers flying or hay flying or whatever might be there. Now granted, you can still end up getting a cottonwood tree thing that you can't do anything about, but um those were just some of the examples that were brought up to me. My feeling is is that we were missing somebody at the planning commission the planning committee and I won't speak specifically for that person but my guess is having known him and um him uh um some of the other past votes that he has uh done that it would have failed 3 to2 if he would have been there at the meeting. Um I'm not against hearing from the general public. I think I've heard from many. Um, but if we were to hold a public hearing, even the two that voted, it's going to be the four people that want to that will be here that want chickens. Nobody's going to take a night out of their their night to fight chickens in town. They're just not. We don't know that. We don't know that. Well, no, I'm fine with the public hearing. And then that's the reason for the public hearing is to let the public express their opinion. I totally and we can go from there. It I don't think it would take a lot of effort for it to for us to to at least listen um before we make a decision because we're giving them the opportunity if they're for or against. If you don't show up, I'm sorry your opinion doesn't get heard. And then based on what we hear, that's what we make our decision. How we make our decision. Do you want that done at the planning commission meeting or do you want that done here at council? I would prefer council. So I guess of note, I believe there is an automatic planning of public hearing built into the process at planning commission because it requires a change in the zoning orders. We do have to have one at planning commission. You definitely could have one added at council as well. Yeah. Well, maybe you could come to the planning. would come to the planning. Yeah, exactly. She could be in the audience. Happy to. Oh, okay. Um Yeah, because um if you want to hear him, I you you should be granted that, but I got the same response from Randy that Sean got. So, yeah, let's hear from I got I got mixed emails also. Yeah. Y So, okay. Well, let's just let I think I'm just think we just let it play out a little bit. Okay. So, I guess the consensus of the council is that we continue the process. Correct? Yeah. Good. Okay. Okay. All right. We're exhausted everything and I'm exhausted. So, I'm going to go around the horn. Rick, I apologize to everybody about this phone. I figured out how to shut it off, but it figured out how to how to turn itself on just like it did when you did it. It turns on. Turns right back on. I think they made a movie about this. They got they got to they got to synchronize that with the watch on Tuesday morning. Okay, I'll fix it. I'm so sorry. No, no problem. Bruce, um, can you mention this before or Maggie? The park board doing this park plan survey and I'm just trying to understand a little more background on that because I'm confused as to we did a recreational study and we did the comp plan work which included the park Yeah. So why is this again the comp plan is you know that 50,000 foot level. The uh facility study we did was specific to facilities. This is really to just get some more specific information from the public and then that will help the park board and ultimately the council plan out like a CIP for projects. What are the outcomes you want getting at the survey? Really to look at each park and what are the proposed improvements that we should be working towards. If is that a picnic shelter at Siding Hill skate park? Is that uh addition to the skate park? Is that adding a splash pad in a park? We we've worked through our old plan to basically to completion and we kind of need to re and or replacing equipment. Yes. And replacing equipment as well. Okay. Which we have in a CIP, but we want to put that back together. That might be a priority. Yep. So we know what we're working towards. Is this going to be done throughout the whole community or? Yeah, we'll put out a community survey. Yep. But we're doing it internally. It's not like a We're not really creating new information. It's just gathering input and then the park board will help slot that in and obviously submit that to the council for ultimate. So, is it going to be sent with a billing statement or or how does someone get engaged with the survey? Yeah. Uh utility billing, par social media. Okay. We'll do any number of ways to get that out there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I got. I don't have anything. Sean, no. Maggie Josh. Oh, I got a list. I'll go fast though. Um, see, no one got that joke. Come on. Uh, so just as a heads up, just so that Patrick knows. Um, and as a reminder to you guys, we'll be having a special meeting on uh, uh, April 21st at 5:00 p.m. Um, Yellow Tree Apartments, who was here last fall, wants to sit down and just have a um, discussion in a less formal setting with no decisions on the table um, kind of about their potential future and if it makes sense here or not. Um, two, uh, an update came today from the mosquito district. I figured I'd pass that on. Uh, I don't live in Scott County, so I've never really participated. They used to pick up tires if for some reason somebody has tires in New Prague they're trying to get rid of. They're not going to do that this year. Um, they are instead setting up drop off points uh at certain dates, but you should call the district for times and locations for those. Uh thirdly, uh the Scott County Housing Trust Fund um was established back in 2023 with allocations from the state. Um from what I understand is basically the state is wants to give money to affordable housing, but wants to leave how that affordable housing is dealt with to at the county level. And so Scott County through ordinance has created a um basically a trust fund and then a community advisory committee that would recommend to the county board ultimately how those funds would be spent. Um they did they are reaching out to all of the cities to see if uh there is a council member from each of the cities that would like to sit on that board um to kind of direct how those funds will be spent across the county. uh they said that it would meet um statutoily at least annually and any more as needed. Um but uh don't need an answer directly at this moment but if any one of you would like to certainly sit on that board um they would like they would love a member of this new break city council to sit on that board. Do you know how much is in the fund? I do not know. Scott County is it a meaningful number or material number? I I truly do not know have that answer. I learned about this today. come up with that answer and then that way we we'll know because um Okay. Yeah, I I'll send that out to you. Yes. Um uh just as a heads up, I know that Dwayne and Rick currently have cell phones. I know Sean asked for one. We are working on it. Um, if Maggie or Bruce would like a city specific cell phone for answering emails, taking calls, putting a public number out that um, people can reach you on, let me know. Uh, and then, uh, lastly, I think I believe we mentioned it briefly at EDA here a couple months ago as we've been trying to work through it over the number of years. Um, the city of New Prague has accumulated uh small cities development program funding. And here, right before the end of the year, the state reached out to us and said, "Hey, you guys have $580,000 in small city development program funds that can be used for a very specific purpose. Either you need to come up with a plan of how you're going to use these or give these back." So, we reached out and said, "We need to talk to the EDA." And she said, "Okay, great. Take however much time you need." So over the course of the last five months now, we've been trying to figure out how exactly we can use these funds. Um we are closer. I really it's HUD we're working through and HUD has been non-responsive for about four months now. So um did you say four years now? Four months. Four years now. Four months. Oh. Um so there there is $580,918 in there. We are trying to work through with uh deed how exactly that money can be spent. Um, we'll likely be talking to the EDA since most of that money originated with the EDA. Um, but there may be some requests that come to you guys in the near future. Some things that have come up of things like public infrastructure and so, um, if we wanted to dig a pond over in the city center lot, that sounded like it would qualify. Ken can correct me if I'm wrong. Um, if we wanted to do soil corrections, it may or may not. So, we'll have to ask on that one. But um just to get let you guys know that that money is there, but it does have a very specific use and at some point if we don't use it, the state's going to want their money back. So we will work with both the EDA and let you guys know and see if we can advance projects the city would have wanted to do anyway. Um and somehow figure out how to fit those into the scope of that program. So that is all I got. Thank you, Robin. I thought he was kidding about the list, but all right. I just have one thing. Um, we will be sending the um, final audit drafts to each of you before the council presentation on the 21st. So, just watch your email for those. We'll review them um, and then send them off to you guys. Um, I anticipate this week sometime. So, there should be ample time to review. Okay. Nothing. Bruce. Nothing. Okay. I take a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Wow. Wow.