I'm not anti-chick. She's had chickens. Other friends, my grandfather's had chickens. They're fine. It's when it impedes the peace of your neighbors. Whether it's a rooster that's crowing non-stop or a teenage boy next to you, next to your house decides he's going to crank the radio all day long. Those parents are at work. or a barking dog or you know somebody has their race car going at the 2 in the morning or anything that impedes the enjoyment of you enjoying the peace and quiet out that's the problem I'm dealing with.

I have, you know, the different um an NOA County rules about chickens where, you know, Centerville is allowed to have um uh up to four hens. She has 19. She's right on my property. No set back. Um, other counties have asked for uh uh permission or or like the neighbor like a permit like neighbors uh okay to have them. She can move them way back on her fence line, but no, she has it right cooped up right on my back fence line and I can't plant a tree. I can't build a fence. All I'm doing is listening to this noise.

If we rely on one system say tornado sirens um uh for weather alerts. Um only people who are outside and only people that can hear them um will be alerted. Um if the system fails, there's no redundancy to it. So the reason why county agencies like county and others have built in now with new technology, cell phone, things like that, um the the you have a redundancy between the between the tornado sirens and the cell phones if you have them.

I just want to put it out there that um this is my opinion. Um the fact that I get a weather notification uh emergency weather notification on my phone before I ever hear any sirens and I think silence from my house, I would consider silence to be the redundancy. And you know, with the costs continuing to go up. Originally when when um this was brought to us last year in 20 early 2025, we were talking about maybe $30,000 and that's continued to go up and now we're being asked to add another $10,000 in contingency.

It comes back to public safety and what is the you know if we lost a resident because we didn't have it. Now you can look back and say hey we haven't met a lot of tornadoes but all it takes is one and that's the balance is it's risk versus dollars and public safety what makes sense and How much risk is a person willing to take? But if it did come through and if you look at Twin Lakes and they can happen in a short period of time and if you're on the beach it could be really bad.

if if you are looking at assessing any portion of the project cost to the residents along the road ride ofway you have to do a feasibility study it's a statutory requirement there's no question You have to do a feasibility report.

The bid that we got from Omen's was 156,900. That's just a black top bit. The bottom that they got down on there is all extra work for getting the road in shape. Paul, my husband, is willing to do all the dirt work on that road at our expense. So that's about $80ome,000 that we will be doing for work and they come in and black top over the work that we did.

no the city council is not obligated to to undertake this road improvement project as requested even if it had 100% of the property owners requesting it you're the city is still not bound to undertake this project with regard to the how you aortion any cost sharing the city council is not obligated ated to share any cost.

the only provision that I found applicable to the situation with these chickens was a a a provision in your nuisance ordinance section uh of V, noise ordinate, noise violations. And it said basically summarizing it says for for per noise violation for purposes of this section if it's a violation of Minnesota's rules chapter 7030 which incorporates it by reference it's it's considered a nuisance. the and the pro all of the other provisions in your ordinance that deal with sort of noise violations all relate back to dogs and and it's the chapter is in is titled dogs. So this is the only generic uh going under your nuisance ordinance which is typically this would be it's something that uh causes annoyance and so in this case it you know barking, baying, crying, howling are generally things that are considered a nuisance under your ordinance that would consider a noise violation.

What we probably do is add a new section to your nuisance ordinance and then carry it over that same sort of language. bark, ba, cry, howl, or make other noise repeatedly over a five minute period of time with a 30 second or less laps of time between each animal noise during that five minute period. We need some sort of objective standard and usually most communities use five minutes and and and we need something like that.

I I I'm sitting here thinking and again you know somebody has a loud radio. Do you ban radios? No. Somebody comes in and they have a like let's say I take my muffler off my car and I park it on my border and I just rev it up nonstop. It's almost like these people have no conscience of anybody around them but themselves. So I'm kind of thinking, you know, there's a reason why other cities in an open county have prohibited roosters because they can be annoying and they just said you can't have them.

where we sit in project costs and donations. Um we were [snorts] as much as we we tried to get people we were very um fortunate to have businesses and individuals donating but it was a big mountain to climb. So in conversation with myself and um we had a I had a conversation um that how are we going to get the dollar amount down?

Original thought, we're going to have three five 5 in poles, two new, one existing. Um, by taking out the two poles, that also decreases um our concrete costs because along the base of each pole, we are going to have decorative blocks um to set them off and to hold the electric the lights. And those were bid at $2,500 a piece. So, I took two of those out. So, that went down5 5,000. We can also look to maybe scrunch the square footage of it a little bit too. That would help bring that cost down.

Then, Mr. Mayor, I request that you announce that the city council will be going into a closed session pursuant to 13D.05, subdivision 3B, in the matter of to discuss with the city attorney the ongoing litigation in the matter of Jill D. Gustson and Daniel E. Gustiffson versus the city of now then.