No sign up there. >> What's that? >> Said no sign of her. I text her. Oh, >> you did. Okay. We'll get started without order, I guess. Okay, we'll bring the August 25th, 2025 uh council work meeting to order. Uh Mr. Mayor and councel, thank you for some of you coming at 5:30 and for the confusion at 600. That was an oversight on our part. I think we were copying and pasting the last work session document didn't catch the 5:30. So, sorry about the confusion on that. Um, I we have uh four items to discuss this evening and I'm wondering if we want to wait till Council Member Urkel comes for the item number one as she's kind of been the champion of that. Um, we can certainly go into item two if you'd like. >> That's fine with me. I have a move on the two. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor, council wanted to bring forward um the Gimple IUP enforcement. Uh we have obviously, as you recall, we repealed the animal containment and we repealed the horse IUPs and um if I can get just the correct one here. Um, I had Nick drive by the property and um on Friday and took pictures. He identified seven horses on the property that he could count and um that's just from the from the road and you can see the date on there of the 22nd when the picture was taken. Uh so it just gets to a point now that um there is no IUP for horses. there is a violation of city ordinance now and um and the council in the past, the prior council had had um received phone calls from people that uh the city was prosecuting uh for violations. So essentially our process was if you get a if a neighbor calls in says, you know, you got code violations and the city goes out and determines that there's code violations, we send them a letter. We follow it up with another letter and and we uh have three le letters in total that we send. if there's no response at all um at that point it go it did used to go to the attorney um for prosecution and they would bring that to court and follow through that process. Um the prior council got some phone calls of why you taking me to court etc etc and uh decided that it was more prudent that before it went to court that um that the council be brought to a work session. and the council get the opportunity then to decide what the next uh next step is going to be. Um in this particular case uh 30 days has long long since expired since the uh revocation of the IUP. Uh there has been no movement in terms of removing animals from the property and or communication with the city such as you know we we don't have any place for them right now. We're still actively trying or um it is it is a belief that maybe some of these might be um being boarded for other owners could be the case. We're not sure on that, but at any rate um wanted to bring it to the council for discussion and determination of what next step should be. Um if if the council would wish, we can contact the attorney and start that process rolling. uh which is not a is not a short process that can take up to a year or so to try and find resolution on that. But um but then I would also remind the council that these are very large animals to deal with in terms of removing um and trying to find homes for him. So at any rate, it's a very a difficult situation, but felt it was necessary to bring it forward to start that discussion and and try and find some sort of resolution for it. >> So you're saying the options are either we send her another letter or we start the process with our attorney basically, >> right? >> Um yeah. So, so this the IUP is different than a code violation in terms of um you know there was junk in your yard or whatever and you're now notified and there's a multi-step process for that. An IUP is clearly laid out in terms of upon revocation you get 30 days to to clean up the property. Um and uh and so that's a little bit different in terms of process than than the run-of-the-mill um violation, but um I guess council needs to determine if there's good faith effort uh in trying to meet the ordinance requirements of the ordinance now or if there is kind of the reluctance to to comply. What kind of communication has been sent to Miss Gimple on this? Since the IUP verification, >> there has not been any communication sent. >> So besides us pulling the IUP, she hasn't gotten any letters from the city? >> Nope. >> Oh, I think at the very least that'd be the first step. Okay. To explain what happened at the meeting, say this is a violation. Uh we are open to communicating. We we need to know what your plan is. >> Speaking of which, what are their options at this point? >> What are the Gimple's options? Yeah, I'm not in the horse business myself, but I'm assuming that if they own all these horses, they would need to find places to board them, sell them, um, give them away, you know, I'm not sure it's not cheap, not cheap to own horses, so I'm not sure people are taking them, but uh but uh there may be um there may the people that are able to rescue them. I don't know >> what about their options with the city. Do they have an option to reapply for the right amount of horses? >> She does have the option to reapply for an IUP. Um and we would need to follow the same um you know same acreage limitations that we have in the code today. These num these horses here would exceed that number. Uh I think the original calculation for the acreage was two horses for that area uh based on um you know and I'm not not saying that's exactly what it is but that's my recollection. Uh we would need to recalculate that but um but there's so many acres that are needed per horse. I think it's two acres per horse of usable acre. You'll see in the background here where's my a lot of wetland back here. So that would not be usable acreage um because the horses can't go out and feed in that area or you know run in that area. So to to kind of answer Council Member Mundle's question on the letter, I I think she was wellversed in what the requirements of the IUP were. uh we I guess um you know knew that this isn't a question necessarily in terms of disposition at this point. So we we didn't send a letter for for for the fact that we knew she knew what what was required. Uh we can certainly send a letter. Uh but I I guess I would need to know you know do you extend another 30 days? Do you require you know immediate you know removal that see that's that's a question and um and as we're nearing um winter and the ability to store hay and and that sort of thing. I'm sure it gets a little bit more difficult to place these animals uh with somebody that hasn't prepared for them for the for the winter. So, well, we need to open up some sort of communication with her in order to get this resolved. So, it could be a letter saying this is what's going on. Here's your options. You could reapply. If you don't reapply, then the horses have to find new homes. But even if she reapplies, I mean, she's already extended way past 60 days. She We need to start enforcing something here, too. I mean, she inherited some of these horses when uh low Friday the city condemned him for her neglect to the animals and she inherited some of these from that. I know that I don't know how many for sure, but um I I think we definitely got to emphasize some kind of timeline here and moving forward with this because even if she does reapply for an IUP, that ain't a short process either. So, so what kind of timeline would be would we be looking for? two weeks, three weeks. Uh once a letter is issued within two weeks, have a plan of action and communicate that with city hall and failure to have a plan of action in two weeks. There needs to be a timeline on this. We can't just go 30 days again for a letter. >> No, I need to submit a timeline and then uh emphasize next step would be through the attorney. >> Can you send her an email that work? >> Sure. >> Faster. >> We'd probably send a certified letter so they receive it. >> Send her an email first, but then send the letter. So she knows it's coming. All in agreement. Okay. >> Okay. Moving on to number three, I guess. next year. [Laughter] >> You ride that. I'll get my little little one, too. Clown hat. Yeah. Um practice Okay, Mr. Mayor, the next uh Mr. Mayor, council members, the next item uh is a uh fire department apparatus discussion and I wanted to present I know we've spoken with some of you concerning um an opportunity uh that is before us and um kind of having to do with uh our um kind of our dollars kind of set aside for equipment into the future and the some of the changes that are coming to the the industry, shall we Okay. And I wanted to present this to you. And the fire chief put together a wonderful um uh slideshow here for you. So, I'll turn it over to him. >> Uh mayor and members of the council, uh thank you for your time tonight. Uh we're going to be talking about the fire department apparatus. Just a quick overview. Um we'll touch on what the fire department currently has as far as apparatus assets. We're going to talk about best practices, current lead times on apparatus, and then the opportunity that we've uh that we've come across. Uh so just a quick overview, we have three frontline apparatus or three frontline fire engines. Engine 11, 21, and 31. Uh engine 11 being the oldest at a 2003 model. Uh my re research on engine 11 uh showed that it cost approximately $280,000 to purchase in 2003. Um if that if that were to have held true and be adjusted for current dollars today, that would be about $490,000. Uh t today's apparatus are about two times that amount. Um ranging between $750,000 and $1.2 million. Uh lead times are anywhere between 13 months and four years. Uh Pierce out of Appleton, Wisconsin does offer a true stock truck which is pre-built and sitting on their lot. Um it can be available uh from what I understand in approximately 2 to four weeks. These are first come, first serve apparatus. Uh uh the current one they have on their lot is um for sale at $930,000. Um, engine 11 was refurbished in 2019 at a cost of just over $55,000. This included uh lighting upgrades, rust and corrosion repairs, and other various modifications uh to extend its life. In 21, the engine in engine 11 was rebuilt due to a head gasket issue that revealed underlying issues. Uh, this cost was $19,500. Uh currently the apparatus has no specific specific replacement year according to the CIP. Um only stating that it's sometime after 5 years. Engine one is due for replacement in I believe 27. Currently there is a $75,000 price tag set aside for that. Um, Deputy Chief Uden and I have initiated conversations with Rosenbower to explain to explore what this money can achieve for us. Um, engine 21 hasn't had any significant repairs that I was able to find uh like engine 11. Um, and this apparatus also has no scheduled replacement uh year. Engine 31 is unique, and the reason we're not focusing on that one is because it's unique to station three. uh that station is smaller. Therefore, the apparatus has to be customuilt and purpose-built for that station. Currently, um that is also a 2013 from my understanding. We have two tenders or tankers. Those are our large water trucks to help us with uh rural water delivery during a structure fire. We have rescue 11 and 21 uh which were both which are or were both slated for replacement in 2026. Um we can have further discussion on that at a different time unless it wants to be discussed tonight. But I would actually suggest not replacing those two apparatus right now. Um we have some more pressing needs. Um, I would suggest just using them until they about use lived their usefulness or they their repairs amount to too much uh to justify replace or fixing. Uh, the two grass rigs that we have are grass 11 and 21. They're in good shape. Um, they're currently operating as they should and they are on the CIP uh for replacement sometime after 5 years. The various support vehicles that I have up there are the 2020 uh Chevy Tahoe uh which I use as the Chief 1 vehicle, a 20 uh 18 Chevy C uh Colorado which is what deputy chief uh Yunan uses, a Ford interceptor which our officers use as a duty officer program and a 2012 F350 that we use as a utility. Uh the Ford interceptor is a 27 replacement. the Colorado is a 27 or 28 replacement. Uh according to what I've been able to find out, East Bethl's plan uh for apparatus replacement has been 30 years. So 30 years of use and then replacement. So if we look at best practices, um NFPA1 1901 and 11 give us the best practices for fire departments and apparatus replacements. Um, these are not law. These are recommendations. These are best practices as put out by the NFPA. Um, these standards state that no frontline apparatus should be more than 15 years old and no reserve apparatus should be more than 25 years old. Engine 11 is currently 22 years old with not planning for replacement for another eight years. Um OSHA doesn't have any requirements um or language outlining replacement of apparatus just that they have to be meeting the specifications for safe operation. Uh I also reached out to surrounding communities and you can see what their replacement plans um and from my previous experience 20 years has been the norm uh for replacement of apparatus. Um ladders or aerial apparatus um are the one exception. Most communities will push those to 25 years uh due to their limited use and higher price tag. Those are currently sitting somewhere in the 2.2 to$2.5 million price tag. So lead times uh one of the reasons we're talking about this is because of lead times. uh custom apparatus such as those built by Rosenbower um Pierce and uh custom fire are 2.5 to four years out. Um so that means if we're not slated for replacement until 203 uh3 with engine 11 that means we have to put in the order sometime around 2029 or 2030 to get it in that time frame. Um with that um obviously the cost is agreed upon at that time we place the order. Um but there is a threshold for increase in that price that if it exceeds a certain amount per the manufacturer specs the price tag will have to be negotiated again uh to cover those costs. Um CO 19 is what uh really drove these prices increasing to the levels we're seeing now. the supply uh supply chain um issues that we had during that time. Uh we saw those increases go up dramatically. Um I know one uh department that I was on in 2019, an apparatus, an engine was purchased. It was a custom build. Uh that apparatus was at the time very expensive or considered very expensive and it was at $693,000. So in the course of five years, it's almost doubled in price of what an expensive apparatus was at that time. Uh if we look at the stock apparatus or pre-built or spec apparatus, we're looking at two weeks, which is what I mentioned with Pierce. Um and HME, which we'll talk about in a second. They're saying that they can meet production lines in 13 months. Um these are limited options. We don't have we won't go through it front to back and be able to say everything that we want on it. But we can off uh get some modifications done uh at the time of order. Uh so HME Hendrickson Mobile Equipment is what HME stands for. It's based in Wyoming, Michigan. Uh they've built a line of apparatus that would be more in line with stock units from other manufacturers with their lead times being that 13 months that we talked about. The cost is approximately $750 to $975,000 and HME does offer up customizations uh to meet some of the specs that we need. We won't be able to change maybe the body compartments and stuff like that, but we can add a front intake and that kind of stuff, which is some of the identified needs of East Bethl Fire Department. Um, all the warranty work is done through emergency apparatus maintenance which is housed in, I believe, Lionyl Lakes if I remember correctly. Uh, they have a contract with them. Uh, Pierce would be another opportunity. Uh, we kind of talked about them already. They're based out of Appleton, Wisconsin. Uh, they do all the warranty work. Uh, two to four uh, week lead time because these are apparatus that are either sitting on their lot or close to sitting on their lots. Um, again, the current one that they have available is $930,000. And, uh, they'd be very limited on what we could add or could request to be added, um, outside of like a cold weather package to have a pump in the heat comp heater in the pump compartment to help with the the, uh, the winters. So, what does that mean? Uh, the CIP has our apparatus planned out to an extent. There's no exact date for replacement, but we do currently have $3 million that according to the CIP is allocated over time for the replacements of engine 11 and 21. Um, with that, if we look at HME's deal, there is almost a twoforone deal available now. Um, which if we pursued this deal, it could potentially save$ 1.2 to$1.4 4 million over the course of the coming years. Um, HME is able to boast these savings because they purchased pre27 emissions engines from Cummings. The 27 emissions were set in place by the previous presidential administration uh, which would require significantly more EPA requirements on diesel engines to include fire apparatus. Um it is my understanding um that those have since been rescended by the current administration. However, Cummings has already invested a significant amount of money and has no intentions of not moving forward with those those requirements. Um what that means is that there's a a significant increase of between $75,000 and $125,000 just based on the EPA requirements for the engines. um HME purchased a large quantity of these pre27 admissions and that's how they're able to save some of these dollars that we're talking about. Um I believe Pierce had a December 2024 cut off for any pre27 builds. Um additionally there is an opportunity for us to sell engine 11 and recoup some of the money. I cannot put an exact price tag on it as we haven't entertained that with uh HME or any other dealership. Um and if we did replace engine 21, I would suggest retaining engine 21 as a reserve in the event that one of our frontline apparatus is involved in um need of serious repairs or is involved in an accident. As we know, the lead times are substantial, which means whatever apparatus is out would be that station would be without an apparatus for however long it takes to replace it. That's what I have. Lot of information, short amount of time. How soon are you looking to move on this to have a answer? Um, I wanted to present this information because I believe it's a a pretty big opportunity for us to save some signific significant money. Um, if we were to go with someone like HME, uh, I believe it was December of this year that they were looking to have some sort of direction on where we were leaning. However, it is a lot of the savings that I'm discussing and that we're discussing right now are linked to those engines that they have pre- purchased. So, should people decide, and I'm not trying to sound like a salesman, but yeah, >> that opportunity to save whatever their increase is going to be on those pre-engines is going to be gone. I think we're still looking at savings overall, but the prices would increase by whatever they have to purchase those other engines for. So, with me presenting this, I'm not asking for an answer tonight, but I am asking for direction on is this something the council would like more information on. Should we start to pursue this? Should we hold off? Um, >> I I think at the very least we need more information where you're uh speaking the is it HME >> HME >> was uh how how do the the options that they since it's a semicost custom what options do they present that uh how do their trucks compare to the our current existing trucks and do we need those options that the HME trucks do not present. >> Uh so HME happened to be in the area and we had them they asked if they could come by with their engine. Uh which is what led to this overall conversation. Um and we put it alongside engine 11 and they were almost identical in length, size, compartment size. Um and that truck that came I believe if I it was 890,000. The only thing we would have to add to that truck would be a a pump compartment heater so that the pump, the water pump doesn't freeze and then a front intake. With our rural applications with narrow driveways, narrow roads, we need to be able to put that drop tank either in the front or the back and we need to be able to draft from it. So, that is something we would have to add. Other than that, we liked how it was set up for what they brought. So the essentially it was a identical >> apple to appos. >> It was very close. Obviously technology has advanced a lot since 2003. Um but what we saw met our needs with the exception of the front intake. Um, one thing that we were going to pursue when we did start to look at replacements of engine 21 or 11 and 21 in appropriate timing was a lower hose bed to address the potential for injury to our firefighters. We would be able to address that. HME does offer a low hose bed um to address that need. Now, uh, which is what we would suggest pursuing should the council see. If you go to a lower hose bed though, that's going to limit to you on your tank space, ain't it? >> This is still 1,000 gallons of water. >> Okay. >> Which is what currently what engine 11 and 21 are to my understanding. >> You say you want to keep engine 21 as a reserve. Where would we house it? >> I hadn't thought that far ahead. I'm I'm just looking for direction on new apparatus prior to >> just because it's a pretty big piece of equipment to house. >> Y >> it is um we would have to look at the logistics of that and what that means. Um I I don't have an answer for that. I'm not >> No, I agree with keeping it as reserve. I mean even that would add to your ISO rating points and everything to have a reserve pumper because that keep us in a within our seven rating for the city. So, which keeps the insurance cost down for the residents. >> I would think maybe even some of our neighboring communities might have storage space in one of their maintenance buildings or something. Just an idea. >> We could definitely look at that and with it not being a frontline apparatus, there would be no water in it. There would be no water in the pump. So even cold storage um as long as it was out of the elements would still work. So we could pursue all those options and see what what fits our our need. >> Yeah. The county just built a nice new building on north side of Lake. So >> I have seen that building. >> I was kind of thinking of that building too. I'm like what is in there? they cuz it went from really tiny to huge and I know they needed some of the space but did they need all of the space you know but I think they were thinking future too so might be something for couple years. My question is um you have you gave us two places that you got quotes from. Are there any other places that you can get quotes from that might even be less, you know, from Wyoming or Utah or Texas? I don't know. >> Uh, we have a meeting set up with Fire Safety USA. Uh, that's next week. So, obviously, I can't include them in this one. We haven't talked to them yet. Um, uh, Rosenbower I still need to reach out to and hear back from. Obviously, they're a stones throw from here. Um, custom fire apparatus, uh, only builds custom fire apparatus, so they they still fall within that longer lead time. Um, and I can continue to see what else is out there. Uh, the one thing is, um, we we want to stay away from the commercial cabs if possible, and at least I would recommend that there's limited space in there that they for our people to get dressed, not dressed, but get their SUVAs on. It's just not as as easy. It's not uh user friendly, let's put it that way, as as these custom cabs that cab over the design like we currently have. Um, and there's there might be some savings, but it's not significant like it used to be. There used to be a $200 to $300,000 difference between a commercial cab, which is your your dump trucks and that kind of stuff. That kind of cab design uh versus a cab over design like we have currently uh with engine 11 and 21. It's that significant difference is no longer there, at least from the current information I have. How much more do we have to put into a machine like this once we get it? Do we have to put more lights on it? Obviously, we're going to put East Bethl on it and so forth. Or does it come that way if we order it? >> It should come with everything except for the loose equipment. >> Okay. >> So, it wouldn't come with the hose or the tools. Um, you know, extrication equipment, all that stuff is considered loose equipment. It should come with everything else set up and ready to go. It should come painted, lettered, all that stuff as we've spec it with that company. Uh, with that said, um, I can verify that that's HME's stance on it and that there isn't some hidden cost that we haven't discovered yet. >> But I agree. I think we should get more information on this. I mean, we've always said we want to cover all the needs of the fire department be being careful to separate the wants at the same time, but being fiscally responsible, you know, now and moving into the future, if we can save 1.2 to$ 1.4 million as as a city, that that's huge. And that's something we should take very serious and really take a hard look at this because there are going to be opportunities for the city to save money like this. >> And if we have it available, I think we'd be kind of naive not to take a hard look at it and see what we could do. >> Okay. I agree. Especially if we can get two engines for almost the price of one. An opportunity like that does not come along very often and can save the taxpayers a lot of money doing it this way. That's my opinion. >> Whoops. I apologize. I'm going to disconnect. I just want to take notes. What more do you What information would you uh like to see above and beyond what I've already uh presented for you? Well, that could be uh emailed or we can meet with you as needed to and you could give us an overview of the fire trucks. Uh we can ask questions at that time. Um >> Okay. And you said you had another meeting with another supplier. So maybe uh by I think it's a September 22nd meeting, we might have a something of a plan. >> I can bring more information to that meeting. >> Yeah, if >> I just want to make sure I have the answers for the questions that >> Yeah, that's where say we can meet with you separately, repairs, however, and >> okay, >> uh review everything. We can bring our questions to you then. And so hopefully by uh call it September 22nd meeting we might have a plan of action of how we want to proceed that >> yeah updated quotes and updated additional quotes if you have them from additional suppliers and but I have a question you said I missed the first part of what you said and that was about the emissions. What's the difference? It's not going to be diesel, but what is it? What kind of emissions are the new ones going to have from HME? >> They will still be diesel trucks. Um, however, um, in 2027, it was planned that additional emissions requirements would be placed onto diesel engines. And that cost uh would amount to somewhere between 75 and $125,000 just for the emissions updates or requirements as set by the EPA. >> There'll still be diesel engines. >> Oh, so it releases less um smoke diesel smoke and stuff is what you're saying. >> Yeah. >> I'm trying to figure out what the difference is. what, you know, I know there's emissions requirements, but I'm just like, well, what's the difference? >> It's it's different filtering on the exhaust. It's different ways on which the engine runs. It's >> okay. >> Um, efficiency of the engine running. It's a multitude of different things. Um, with Cummings being one of the largest suppliers of big diesel engines, like I said, they have a substantial um, vested interest in that already because they had to meet it within, you know, a certain amount of time. >> And I've heard a very large number. I'm not going to quote it because I haven't seen it, but I've heard a very large number and it's not one they're going to back away from and say, "Well, we're not going to do it." >> I understand. But yeah, so Chief, if we got these before that goes in place in 2027, they wouldn't come back and make us do the same thing to the other, right? We like grandfathered in. >> That's my understanding cuz it it's I mean, we couldn't retrofit engine 11 or 21 to meet those because of the way that >> everything else that's going to be going into them. Um, one of the things that they're redesigning is the tunnel of those cabover designs because of what's required alongside the engine with the additional filters and mufflers and those types of deals. Uh, so when you're talking about starting to redesign the cab >> to fit those, retrofitting would really not be an option. >> Good. >> So, what new technology is in these new vehicles? a lot. >> Well, that that would re that really is going to help our firefighters. >> Um I would have to work on a list of everything that's changed. >> Yeah, you can bring that back. You don't have to >> 23 years. Um there there's a lot HME also offers, according to what I've learned about them, they offer a lot of upgrades as standard. So they use a galvanized frame versus a painted frame, which is an upgrade at the custom designer level. Uh they use um steel stainless bodies instead of aluminum or steel bodies that can corrode or rust. Um and and again that's an upcharge from for other vendors. Um so they've built in a lot of the wants of some of these and just it's just part of their their product. Uh which made them more attractive because you can some of those upgrades are substantially expensive which is what gets I mean that's what gets you to $1.2 million for a fire engine. Do you have a do you have a spec sheet on the the engine yet? >> I don't have it on the low hose bed, but I do have it on the one that they brought to us that we looked at. >> Yeah, I I think that'd be beneficial if you could email that to everybody. >> I can do that. One of the technological upgrades that they have is uh the pump panel area, which is usually filled with gauges and levers and all these kind of deals. Um it's Uh there they have a new system called a SAM uh SAM system and it's essentially an iPad that runs the pump. It's all electric valves on the inside. Um instead of the pump taking up an entire panel area, it takes up this much area. Um it's very user intuitive and they're able to put it on both sides of the truck. So it can actually take our apparatus operators and take them out of the roadway and put them on the passenger or the officer side of the truck versus only the driver's side. Uh these these are some of the things that that they're doing um as far as technological advances. >> Okay, everybody good? Okay, we'll move back to uh number one. Thank you, Chief. Thanks, Chief. >> Thank you for your time, >> Mr. Mayor and Council. I wanted to just bring this uh item number one back for discussion, which is a senior center liquor license. I was able to speak with council member Urkel at the um um senior city staff lunchon a little bit on this. And I wanted to just bring it back. One of the um we had established kind of a a cost to to change the ordinances uh which we currently have to accommodate liquor essentially in parks because that's what this would essentially change to. Um and kind of a kind of determined a rough cost of maybe around $3,000 to get this uh get this uh effectively changed. And so one of the questions we have and this is just a quick item uh is cost um and who bears the cost and do we want the seniors to bear that cost to change this or do we want to absorb that at the city level? Um either one is fine with us. Uh but we just we just need direction on that and um in a discussion with that. >> How much of a cost is it? >> Roughly $3,000. would uh we will be able just to split the cost. We can >> if it's something that's benefiting the seniors and it's also in a way benefiting the city just split the cost and we can do whatever you'd like whatever consensus is. >> I know that seniors have been very accustomed to the city doing anything they ask for them for no cost. So, um, when I did say that the city was considering having us pay, they were like, they were pretty flabbergasted. So, that's my input to that. They quit charging for the meals over there, so they're their budget is slowly declining. I don't even know if they have $3,000 in their account right now. >> And Mr. Mayor, councel, there's flexibility in that. Certainly, it doesn't need to be paid all at once or whatever the case is. If you decide to do that, it can be stretched over a year or two years or whatever would be u responsible. Um I I think in the past a lot of what they've requested is, you know, facility maintenance and things like that, cleaning up, making it look nice. Uh this is more of um maybe a profit center a little bit would generate some profit, but that's again it's totally up to you guys what you want to do. And >> is this a onetime cost? >> Yeah, this would be a onetime cost. >> So not per year. >> No, no, no. Once the ordinance has changed, there would, you know, right now if they wanted to have an event over there with um with a vendor coming in to sell liquor, it would have to be a oneoff permit just like they did in Booster Park for the festival. Um we wouldn't be able to facilitate that for them if they're doing weddings or anniversaries or whatever would require that over there on on any given weekend. it just wouldn't fit the schedule to be able to authorize a permit for every single one. Uh which is kind of the reason for this ask. Um and uh but then it would require going through all the city code that prohibits any of this activity uh in parks and um and kind of tighten it down around uh senior center operations and that sort of thing and and uh make sure that everything is clear so that when there needs to be enforcement outside of other parks or whatever, you know, people don't say, "Well, they allow it, you know, here." I mean, it has to be well written and it's going to take some legal work. It's going to take um some uh planning, zoning work uh to get this through and make sure it's done uh to the extent that it will be clear for everyone, you know, moving forward. Probably mostly legal work, I would say, would probably generate that three. >> So, the seniors would be the ones requiring whatever vendor they bring in to have the drama, insurance, and everything. >> That is uh Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, that is the direction we're recommending right now is that they would need a uh food license vendor. Um and there are two in the city right now. There's u Route 65 and there's Smokies. Um and um and they would need to contract with them. There would have to be, according to state law, there would have to be food sold at the same time as liquor. And um so those requirements would need to be met in order to authorize this. and uh and we can all that will be spelled out obviously. Um but um >> I I do have a question regarding that because I know there are vendors that have only liquor licenses and go to places and only sell liquor. Um and food is usually there but it's not from the person who has a liquor license. So, how is that state law pertaining that it has to be a food liquor place and not just a liquor place? I >> I don't know. >> I'm not sure about the example that you used of just liquor. >> Well, there are >> it probably attained to back when the fire department used to have dances. The lions always carried the insurance and all they did was sell the beer. They didn't sell any food, anything else, >> right? Well, and there are other there are companies that have just liquor licenses and get hired for private events just to sell liquor at these private events. So, how is it a state law that I'm just not under I I think I need to see this state law because how can some places have o hire only an only liquor salesperson and yet we're required to have a liquor food person company. So, I I just that that just kind of it just seems like it there's some something missing there. Well, we can certainly pull that up and get that information. >> Yeah, Carrie is our foremost expert on all things liquor. No, all the permitting and and licensing and that sort of thing. She knows that. So she she will be able to uh provide that background that's needed. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll have to bring that back then. Let's uh move on to the last one here. 40. >> Okay. Mr. Mayor and Council, I received a phone call from um from our senator, Senator Calbar, and um and he was he got a call from a resident that purchased uh the >> across the street >> right in here. >> That one. Yeah, >> I think that's 33983 Johnson Street Northeast. I believe it's this property here. >> Yep, that's it. >> And um the individual wanted to put a pole barn in. I'm assuming probably in this space here. Uh and called in to get the spec actually called uh to determine if that was possible. And based on acreage requirements, it is possible and um based on permit or based on zoning, it isn't possible. Uh this area here is zone light uh industrial and you'll see it's part of a neighborhood. It was pro probably light industrial up here and that's probably what carried through. Um but the way it currently stands is these are zone light industrial. We do not allow uh pole barns and light industrial. So the topic was then brought to me or actually Senator Bar called and said, you know, what can we do about this? And and certainly the um the uh the homeowner can come and file to have his property reszone. There's a cost to do that. Uh or alternatively, the city could initiate a resoning on this. And if we did that, this would then become residential, probably more fitting. I don't see this area transitioning over to an light industrial anytime soon. Um, but uh in the event that the city were to initiate this, we could bring this through the process. the city would absorb the cost on this and then ultimately um allow the uh the homeowner now to to apply for the permits and and things necessary to put up a pole barn for in this area. Uh you'll see there's other pole barns here, so it's consistent with the neighborhood, but just kind of getting caught in the zoning trap a little bit here. So, wanted to bring this before the council for discussion to see if um one you want to consider resoning, two if you want to uh consider the city running that application through uh for this neighbor and quite possibly the other neighbors too that you know if they ever wanted to put a pole bar in, they they'd run up against the same thing as well. >> I think it's common sense to do that. That's seems like a mistake. Yeah, I agree. It should be residential. >> So, there's a consensus of the the council that the city should initiate this and absorb the cost in doing that. Okay. I will direct Grace then and um Kendra to begin that process. We'll run through planning and zoning. We'll we'll um submit uh comp plan uh adjustments. I we don't foresee any problems really with mech council on this. They're typically not um you know, they're more concerned about residential than they are about uh commercial properties for density reasons, but um we'll run that through and um and get that underway and I'll advise the senator and the land owner that that should be coming through here in the next month or so and uh when the timing allows and we'll uh get that process. So, all right. Well, Mr. Mayor, I think that brings us to the end, >> all right, >> of our work session. >> I'll close the work session. August 25th 25 work session.