all right let's call this meeting to order please rise for the pledge stce for all thank you and welcome everyone could I please get a motion to approve the agenda I'll make a motion to approve the agenda I'll second there's a motion in a second all in favor say I I I no opposed motion carries do we have any Resident comments and questions we don't have any on the docket any Mr Mason no h we have no reports no public hearings could I get a motion on the consent agenda please so move to approve a second Ro Pap say there's a motion and a second all in favor say I I I motion carries we're moving right along Mr Chief Meyer at 8.1 2006 inflatable boat he Dan we got questions good evening good good evening D good evening Chief oh and by the way I've watched a couple of these uh tapes uh on that worldwide web internet thing and we need to speak into our microphones a little bit better okay thank and actually it's him that's the worst anyway sorry Chief all right so as you remember back in February you had an offer on the boat and that's through a liquidation company to try to sell the boat that we were no longer using right now it's in storage up in still water and we had few different bids the one bid that we originally had had that we took and we accepted Council agreed to lower the price down they went through and did their inspection and what we had is a different different lengths we we're calling it 28t actually ends up being at 22t they go they don't go by overall length they go by the length of the hall if you remember that thing has those air tubes that go around it that's the length we went by and so the people are originally buying were looking for the overall Hall length so that's why they pulled their bids out there's been a few other bids along the way and most they've gone through and did some inspections and right now we have a somebody that's still interested we talked to them today and they're still interested in the boat it's a lot less than what we originally were thinking we were going to get for it but it's it's one of them things it's a really it's a unique boat it's something that the military uses Coast Guard so there's not a lot of places where most people would use it on a day-to-day basis so I'm looking for a motion to accept this next bid and move forward anybody have any comments yeah I have a comment or a question question and comment uh so we would Nets a little over $7,600 for this boat correct uh the boat is worth what there's no there's not a market out there where you can find i' found one other boat that's a 2006 that one was listing was around 16 or 18 or whatever but that one the motor's been rebuilt the hall has been redone the tubes have been redone but it didn't have a trailer didn't have a trailer we have a trailer that one was 22 I thought was it 22 maybe it was so here let me and I don't mean are you done with your question no I was just curious uh one of our options is to take the boat back from n Liquidators would we still have to pay them some money if we take it back i' have to talk to them on that because they did store it all winter and heated storage I know there's some wordage in their contract that we'd have to read into that okay all right I'm done okay so in November of 15 I just need to understand the process November of 15 the city council approved to sell the uh in the process 2006 inflatable boat previously used Bo is in at the February 16 we accepted a bid of 16,500 understanding that we had originally said not less than 18,000 correct so they pulled the bid then another bid for 12,000 in February was pulled because it was then listed as from 28 feet down to 22 feet and that was in February and now we're being asked to go from 18,000 down to 7600 and it's June oh by the way yeah but and we owe $850 for storing it I need help with this one the $850 or that were going from I need help the one that you sent us was a 2002 yep um that didn't have a trailer and they're asking 22,000 for it you're asking us to turn around and after going from 18,000 down to 16,000 five then we agreed to the 16,5 then we don't hear anything and then now this is the first I heard that we had a bid for 12,000 in February that was pulled because I didn't know that the bid for 16,5 went away and then now it's June and now we're at 8500 minus since last October it's been in I having a hard time with this process okay well we paid zero dollars for that boat we got that boat from the DNR so no matter what it's in that profit the trailer was donated by one of the firefighters I'm not worried about the profit I'm worried about the process Yep this is at November in 15 2006 we have a value on a boat and we put it out there we go through this whole process now it just boils down to well we got it free we might as well make some money is that how we want to run this well it's either that or we can sit on it and maybe we get less we could put it on a different site somebody can take charge and try to sell it on a different site and we can bring it back what other steps have we taken other than just this one um I don't even know what it is is it a liquidator it's a liquidation that that they sell boats that's if you go on if you go on your tablets right now you Google put in for o boat that's the only boat that comes up is the one that says Carver Minnesota it's the only boat that comes up when you're looking for one that year in model so there's nothing to really compar it to we originally were trying to sell it as a 28f footer and we're going off overall length and that wasn't correct so what you're saying there really not a high demand for this this type of boat no but there's not a high enough demand that we've gone like eight months without doing anything about it I mean I don't I mean I just don't understand why we haven't given I mean Craigslist um put an ad in the paper try to sell it privately I mean we talk about budgeting and we talk about what the firefighters want in terms of hourly wage and all this other stuff and here's an opportunity to make some money and we've gone from 22,000 down to 18 down to 165 down to 12 we didn't know about and we're going willing to settle for 7650 that doesn't make any sense to me the bat does need work it's not perfect so we knew that eight months ago nine months ago back in November October October when we originally listed and we're going by what they recommended there's no there's not a lot of bols out there that they compare it to the other bolts that are out there in the market are military used Coast Guard used so are you saying that instead of going from a 28 foot down to a 22 foot brings it down from 18,000 down to 7650 yeah that's I I don't think you're going to I don't think we're going to get anything more for it we can we can definitely think we're going to get anything more for it but what have you done you've only had it at the Liquidators yeah that's that's what they do that's what their job is and if you if you go on Google and you search for a boat that that is the only boat that comes up right now or a sale that you can't compare it to anything else you go through all kinds of different websites as was able to find that one both to compare it to and that's at $22,000 without a trailer yeah it's all been rebuilt new motor new tubes doesn't have issues at the hall then why did you give it to us as a comparable that's the only thing I could have to compare it to yeah I had asked I had asked what the market value was on that's why that's what you found and that's that's the only thing I could find there's they don't have like the Kelly Blue Book they don't have that for that type of ciz curious if if there might be no you know a way to if it was worth way more than that then I'd want to know that I have a question on the national liquidated the the company itself are they just a listing site is that basically all we're paying for they don't assist with the listing itself they don't do any of that kind of stuff they store it they listed it and stored it so that $850 is what they got for storing for the winter for their listing on the different websites it's on probably three four different websites through their different companies that they own they did they create the listing then themselves did they take all the pictures and everything or did we have to do no we gave them the information okay so they didn't do their own inspection even though it's on their facility and they're do the L from my perspective this is disappointing I mean I I agree with Mike and that it's not just about getting some profit I whether it was free or not it's a resource that the city has and we have to treat it with a lot of respect so you know I'm disappointed to see something that we at one point believed was worth $18,000 now go for under 10 that's a that's a a shame I I don't know if there's something else that we should try at this point if it's worth it if it's if we're better off cutting our losses but I'm disappointed in the way that this has gone down yeah I agree with that but I don't know what what do we do at this point I mean what are you going to use the money for it just goes back into capital for future purchases I'm worried about is we pull it back bring it back we can put it on a different site we we might not get that good of an offer we we listed on the state site with that old Lial truck and the Heavy R old heavy rusy the Mac Truck we I thought we the offer what's that when did we get the offer for 8500 bucks on June 6th June yeah I think is who's it from who's it from yeah the names on the paperwork is whoever they had the listing on there you must be reading from it so so from February until June 6th we just let it sit on this listing in store like nothing happen you didn't wonder what was going on or well we we we had to update some stuff we had to update the length of the boat and that was one of the main issues while why the first two went through why they fell through you're comfortable with this I mean with the process and and you're comfortable with the fact that you have the opportunity that we all agree that this is an $118,000 boat and that's what we should get and at the end of the day today we have no answer for what we've done for the last eight months and then you're comfortable just walking away and saying well it was free anyway we got 7600 bucks you're comfortable with this I wish comfortable if you're comfortable with this I will vote for this yeah well that's why I'm here I wouldn't put it on the I wouldn't put it on the council packet if I didn't wasn't comfortable with it you I knew my I knew this was going to happen coming here today that there was going to be negativity about it but it's one things you can have it on a different website it it this is a site that shows boats that's the only thing on that site is boats it list and it gives pictures of the stuff that we gave this isn't an effort to sell Dan y this is this is a I mean this is crazy to me if this was my business I would go insane on somebody trying to treat my business like this Dan I think what he's asking you is aren't you disappointed I mean don't do you really believe it's it's only worth this I mean do you really think that that's all we can get for it I mean I think that's really what it comes down to I mean if there's a way that we can do it on the state side as you were suggesting or some other place where we can get more I think it's probably a benefit to the fire department and the city to do that um but we have to believe that you believe that this is the best we can do and if you believe that now this is the best that we can do I don't know how we were believing that it was 18 before that's the Fusion the 18,000 is what they recommend that's what they that what they felt they're the bolt professionals I don't know B Liquidator that's what naal that's what they felt but they there's not the market out there for them compare it to it's a it's a government boat essentially is what it is so all the paper we have it doesn't tell you what the length of the boat is so they were giving you an estimate of value based on them never seeing it and not having the correct information off of pictures off of pictures they're from model Florida well so we came up with a value of 18,000 because this company said it was worth 18,000 however we had the wrong size so it really wasn't worth 18,000 yeah but the comp we don't have any idea what what it is for the comparable ones at 22 without a trailer and but it's got work done I mean to have that go down $15,000 like I said if you're comfortable with the chief this is your deal I I think it's absolutely insane but it's your department well it's yeah it's my department but it's also right now it's city property so you're not giving us any other options you've given us three different options that we were for and you're presenting us with this one and this is you're basically saying you've done everything that you can there's nothing else to do the value is wrong we might as well take this because we got the vat for free unless I go sell it I don't have any other options right now yep I I just looking at what things sell on a state site I okay I don't think we're get anything more for it now so this is listed on boattrader.com that's the site so okay pulling it up right now looking at the one in Carver it's a 2006 OT rib yes yep so we have it listed at 269 on this site would we be better off lowering that price to something else and seeing if we get something higher I mean I that's a little odd it's inconsistent kind of with where we're at I think and the and what they did is they open it up for bid and that that's what we're getting for results back so they they're getting the pricing all all across the range it's like right now we're at an eBay auction essentially that's what it it is we had a minimum on it of 18,000 but right now it's listed at 269 yeah 18,000 wasn't I mean that's as low as we wanted to go we actually wanted the bidding to start there well what do we want to do well this includes a 10% fee yeah it's up to you guys I'm I'm not going to make the motion I'll uh I'll vote for because the chief is behind it but this is not how I would do it I'd go sell it I'd go find a way to get out sell it for what we had for at least an intention of selling it this isn't even 50% matter of fact it's not even 40% we have it listed at 26,000 and we're willing to take 7600 because we got it for free where's that message coming from and what's it sending with people that are talking about water racing get having a $200 water bill they're going crazy we have the ability to we start at 26 and we end up at 7500 well it's been on this site for how many months it's been sitting at a listing yeah I'm just saying if there's some other way to do this why aren't we doing it we because it's from February until now I'm asking if there's some other way to do this why aren't we doing it it's not even is it on Craigslist no it's not on Craigslist okay so it's on a national site where you you Google it you come comes up okay so do we want to look at some other avenues to sell the boat how about our city administrator got any suggestions [Laughter] no I would say as far as the value is anyone's guess because the the car's point about the what's being shown the same that Dan phon um that's what they're listing it for but they could be getting the same bids that we're getting so I don't know enough to to tell you what the value is I can tell you I mentioned it to to Dan as well as the other Chiefs that I'm disappointed in the process that National Liquidators took with with Dan the rest of his team it sounds like from what he described is there's been some poor communication related to what bids were taken and when and how that was communicated with Dan and some of his officers and so um I'm not I'm not pleased with that communication and so there's Parton me that skeptical about if this is a is a fair offer and who that person is that's making that offer and do you need help with that Mr PNE Dave PNE from chasa so I'd say there's an argument to be made where you take it back and you at a minimum you use a different service I I don't think you can use multiple we have a listing with them so we can't do Craigs List and put it out for you know bid through our own means while they still have the listing so it' be either sell it because you think this is the best price and it's um not worth the additional staff time to get any could end up selling it for $5,000 if you put an add in the paper and collect but there's only so many ways that we can sell city property it's obviously not a a throwaway piece so we either could take in bids or go through some type of um bidding site I'm not a aware of any additional means to sell a city property than taking in bids or going through a like a automated or online bidding system well I think for me it's like bri having sorry Mr skull having a piece of equipment that he gets overvalued and then can't sell and then the city turns around and now we want to sell Brian's equipment on behalf of the city I mean it's a Chief's department head I mean like I said I'm I'm I'm at the point where I mean if you're comfortable with this it's your ownership and it's your department um I'm not going to take Brian's equipment and try to sell it on eBay I the way it was explained to me was that the $12,000 bid was never communicated to the fire department at all then it got down to the $8,000 bid which is a big red flag so if they had a bid for 12,000 that wasn't communicated to the department sounds to me like they're trying to buy it themselves and turn on and sell it for a profit that's what I would do so they concern is that this gentleman has been fairly difficult to communicate with according to the Department so who and what their motivations are kind of end de okay well one thing is we don't use this service anymore uh and if if we if we don't want to take it back if we don't want to deal with the extra hassle of trying to sell it I say we just go ahead and sell it for what Dan suggest you is that a motion yes I'll make a motion that we sell the so sorry there's I'm in the middle of a motion the 2006 infl will vote for $88,500 with a net profit of 7650 I'll second all right there's a motion a second other discussion there was a bid that the organization didn't tell you about and our reasoning that we aren't dealing with back to February is that they were hard to deal with well anybody that bids they they they have something in their policies where they're allowed to pull their bids within five days and I still know the answer to why we didn't know about the $12 unless they pulled their bid right away maybe the bid came in on a Thursday afternoon or something or maybe our contact was all town when that bid came in I yeah but if legally somebody makes a bid you have to be made aware of it then you have to be made legally aware that they pulled the bid so you have have an opportunity to have the discussion when did you find out that there was a $112,000 bid that was not made or not P I just found that out a couple weeks ago when when we got this paperwork the same sheet of paper that you're looking at or on your screen what this says is the bid was made on a 28 foot boat which turned out to be a 22 foot so if you make a bid on on something that's pla to be something that isn't I don't think though that that's the biders problem I mean we're talking that if the company isn't letting Dan and the department know that there's bids we've got a huge problem with or the department isn't asking for the information I I mean there's a motion in a second is there any other discussion all those in favor say I I nay all those opposed say nay nay motion carries three to two roll call council member Henry yay council member Monroe yay council member new house nay mayor web nay council member wend All Right Moving on but cross them off the list we're not using them anymore don't plan on selling any bats soon thank you thank you Dan we are now to number 8 to the pedestrian bridge underpass update Mr boam thank you mayor and Council um once again we're going to give you an update and there's just a few discussions that staff had after the last meeting so in going back to the pestan under pass we wanted to just hit on again why the road is being closed um once again the the reasons are the depth of the underpass that's 18 ft deep and so in order to put in that depth um you end up affecting a variety of width on existing County Road 11 and to keep traffic going you need to build temporary traffic control or bypass lanes and so also the equipment and maneuverability that uh the equipment used to place uh underpass is the three reasons listed here and we've got on the next slide we've got some of those equipment you can see the crane and the Backle this one actually has two back holes that are using to place where where's the crane Dan um sorry I tried to I learned this from Brent you know he's our our um expert when it comes to our points um yes but let me keep moving um there's another box col you can see the crane in the upper part and the B the back hole on the bottom and this is kind of a historic picture but I kind of like the tint of it and you see the crane so once again you get this crane out there putting that on and that's the depth of it that's the reasons for the closing um we talked about at the last meeting the three week week closing and you just told us that the reasons for the closing was a box col um the equipment used to place the Box Culvert as well as the depth and cost thank you the three-week closure is based on um discussion with contractors and construction staff um after the last meeting staff talked about adding some alternates um because we we know there's been some experiences that um certain people have had where they've seen box covers going quicker so one alternate would be to reduce um the time frame from three weeks to two weeks and Alternate four would be to reduce it to one week um one of the things that was in your packet of information that I wanted to discuss is um we are trying to as we talked at the last meeting kind of keep a a bigger time frame for When contractors can actually start this project because we know they're busy with other construction work this summer so we do anticipate this would be a late summer fall start um one of the things with going to the two week or one week you know some contractors who might be bidding on this project might not have the resources to get it done in one week or two weeks so one way you can deal with that if you still want them bidding is you can say that alternate three and Alternate 4 you you can bid the base bid of the project which is 3 weeks but you wouldn't have to give a bid on Alternate three or alternate four to be considered responsive and I don't know if that why do we have to ask for a bid for three weeks why can't we just ask for a bid for two weeks and say this is what we want the project to take well I think it's based on your budget that you had um so two weeks is more expensive than three weeks correct and one why don't we look at a budget of six weeks then and make it really cheap um I mean I'm just using the same logic this doesn't this is crazy yeah I think it's because six weeks I mean from looking at the schedule it's not gonna you know contractors would start up and then they would I think he's been fous with six weeks let's go back to the one two and three weeks why can't we just put out and say we don't the only bids we want is on a two we process I mean you could do that but based on our discussion earlier this year with the the budget for this project if you do it and say two weeks I mean our professional opinion is you're going to be paying more than some of those estimated amounts that we talked about on this project so that 440,000 D here's my concern is we're talking about all these other projects that these other contractors have when is Carver going to become a priority for these contractors it isn't a priority it boils down to when they can do it my point is is that we're telling them right now that it's more expensive to do it for three weeks and we're putting that out there but we'll give you extra to do it for why don't we just put it out there two weeks and see what is but now we've told them all thaty it should be more so any well I don't maybe contractors are watching our new um our new system here and that could be they look at all the engineers estimates that we put out there and they look at that and they make their bids based on that it's the process if contractor wants to get a I mean you know we hear that statement at times but I think how much more is two weeks versus three weeks I mean I don't have an estimate on that but you'll get a price and and then you'll know what that number I actually I actually want the prices for the alternate three and four so then yeah so we can set it up where to be responsive you have to give a price and and I think it it might affect a few contractors that are looking but I understand that's why I wanted to bring that up a little guy that doesn't have anything going on he's going to bid it at zero right maybe nice all right see if they'll give us a buffer on the boat too it's too late we got rid of two weeks you just sold it too late you just sold it all right could I get a motion to authorize staff to add alternate bid number three and four to the project related to reducing the time frame for closure of casad 11 yes I'll second there's a motion and a second all other discussion at all on this there's a motion and a second all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries we are to number 9.1 Dental development I have a cavity I think just kidding um Miss Nash thank you you're looking at five different applications tonight the first is is a resoning from agricultural to General commercial the second is a variance to permit access directly onto a collector Road your ordinances would prohibit that so they are looking at having a access on the far western side of dalren road that would serve the entire development and asking for permission to allow that to enter onto doin directly we're also looking at the preliminary plat tonight the site plan for the um development of the dental office and the final plat do you have any calms with any of this no um everything is in your packet in terms of Staff review of it the only thing that is different than anything we have done recently anyways is that the developer is requesting that the city consider reimbursing for um certain costs related to the extension of you have typically and routinely reimbursed for oversizing of pipes um they are also looking in this case for over depth of pipes which is basically if they could serve um their development with pipes at a certain depth but if we're asking them to go some incremental amount deeper that we pay for that cost of going incrementally deeper are we asking that they are requesting that no no they're requesting now are we asking them to go deeper than they need to they could yes why are we doing that to serve properties to the West okay and then also they are asking for as you can see they have to go under 11 with the sewer line and they are asking for us to pay for the casing which is a um Cory here I'll let explain the cas all right so yes casing I can't see that my computer's down so you're gonna have to be like pretty specific yeah so so the sewer is on the East Side in order to get the sewer underneath County Road 11 you have to um kind of Jack a pipe or um directional driller pipe underneath the ground and because if there's ever a problem with that pipe in the future you put it within a casing so that if there's ever a leak or something in the city had to dig back down and pull that pipe out you you you aren't having to dig up the whole Road in the future so um great so that's there's a casing pipe that's larger diameter the small 8 inch sanitary sewer pipe is in the middle of that do we have a list of what the reimbursement estimates are I I've seen it I just I can't get my again we don't have an estimate at I haven't seen that's what's going to be my question is do we have ballpark figures of what we're looking at here no we don't well then we'll get to it when we have those numbers and I will add that the casing under 11 is a cost that is not a typical cost for development to bear um well before I agree to something that we're going to pay I want to know what the numbers are and that logical is that logical Mr PNE oh you're not answering me come on up yeah come on up Dave I'm Dave corne Community Asset Development Group and we're and wood worker on the developer and we're uh yeah if you need uh uh anything done on a lathe I do that too um actually this issue of the sewer was not our request that was actually the very first discussion we had with the city they said well when you do this we we want we expect you to uh be responsible for sewer water and utilities but we will extend we the city will extend the utilities to this site because they weren't done back whenever the road was uh uh put in so really wasn't our request we are in the process based on our discussions with the staff what they've asked us to do is to include it in our pricing and bidding for utilities uh we don't have a price uh final price on on what the jacking slash casing uh cost would would be I just don't know uh I think though there was an estimate banded I think the city engineer gave an estimate at one point okay so Dan did you give an estimate at one point yes we we worked on some costs based on the Ironwood and park and ride project when minger construction kind of jacked underneath County Road 11 there and we're not we're not talking just so that we're using the right terminology for me we're not talking about paying for the jacking we're talking about paying for the casing that the line goes in correct okay so what do you have an estimate on the casing that the city would be responsible for so what so we don't have an exact price on just I don't want that's why I said estimate just a ballpark we're going to do it I mean we want this development to go in I just don't want to blindly go yeah it's 800 million I you've seen pocorn work numbers right so the the pricing that we did for staff was the price so it wasn't like pulling out the casing it was the price as if if you were jacking a pipe at 20 feet versus jacking it at 30 ft and so we did have those estimates I don't have it right in front of me but it was in this range of um like 40 to 50,000 for the casing alone well that was the J difference in jacking between a 20 foot depth and a 30 foot depth so at that point in time when we did that so what you're talking no so we we didn't what I'm trying to say is we didn't do an estimate just on the casing pipe itself we did on jacking an 8 in pipe at 20 ft deep versus jacking an 8 in pipe at 30t Deep okay so that's one of the things that they're asking for then we've got the other thing of the casing so we know 40 to 50 for the increased depth right and some of the over depth through the through the site so that was kind of a total so that one is just for that but we still have to kind of have an idea on the casing is that the only other one it was over depth and oversiz and in were those the two that you said Cindy correct and then there is also an extra extension of the utilities to the north side of dalren road that staff is requesting that they um price out as part of their development that the city could at their option extend that the city could extend at our option correct because we don't need them to put utilities to the north side of and then the city would pay for that right okay so Dan did you have estimates on those other two items or no yeah the the last item was just more of a discussion with public services and myself so it wasn't putting an estimate together but we we anticipated it's in this 25 to 30,000 to extend to extend those utilities on the North side as Cindy was just saying Okay so we've got the 80,000 overd depth and oversizing we've got the extend the utilities on the North side but we're still missing that cas casement piece correct a ballpark figure on the casement yeah the I mean the casing pipe itself what what staff had discussed it's actually putting in the casing and the sand so I would say the ballpark figure is is included in that first number0 to but some it's probably some number I mean I'm comfortable that material Cas cost some um if I can add to it the way we've worded the condition within the resolution we' worded it such that the which resolution um the final plat resolution 136 yes um we've worded it in such a way that they have to provide an engineer's estimate for review by the city to verify that the costs requested for reimbursement are reasonable at the sole determination of the city and then the amount determined by the city to be eligible for reimbursement would be included in the developers agreement so and that's pretty typical that Dan isn't reviewing costs on say the oversizing of the pipes until after you've approved the final PL so if it came in at 120 we don't have to move forward with reimbursing that we can say that is excessive and not reasonable if based on Dan's judgment and costs that they've experienced in other projects if what is being provided looks unreasonable maybe they have increased the the cost of the pipes to some amount that doesn't um is not compar what Dan has been seeing on projects then he would make that recommendation and say that he only believes that a certain lesser amount would be eligible I'd like to ask a question I mean we have just south of this site we have a fire station in Public Works building why are we going under 11 can't we come from the firehouse that's way farther so that that line wasn't um sized for um for for in this area so the line we're using to supply Water and Sewer is coming up 6th Street so the water is on the west side and so the water is an easier connection the sewer is on the east side and yeah this the the line that was extended for the um fire station Public Works facility wasn't sized as an 8 inch diameter to handle it makes sense we got to get water and sewer over there anyway and I want this development to start get going so I'm comfortable with that is anybody not comfortable with that anything else you'd like to add Miss Nash um only that Adam holder is here this evening too if he'd like to you want to get going we'd like we'd like you to get going and here's the deal the administrative law judge made their motion made her motion and um we're willing to move forward so got one question about the Varian is it common to do this type of variance in this kind of situation we feel that it meets the findings of fact for variance um there is no other way with this property having being a corner lot or Corner parcel accessible and only a budding onto two collector roads for it to gain access until and unless a different um like Frontage backage kind of road is constructed which if you look at the conditions that were included that is also a concern of Carver County they reserve the right to restrict access to this development I.E change the full access of the driveway into do doen Road into a limited access such as a right in WR out kind of access at their discretion so it's kind of like a temporary variance because once that parts once that property fully develops we'll get the kind of entrance you're supposed to well and it may not be that property fully developing it could properties to the west and then bringing something around there could be other options right but we're not going to end up with with a bunch of development there and still have an entrance onto a collector Road that's not a street and not a driveway entrance this this variance is being granted specifically for the dental office and at such time as any additional development on what's being shown as Outlaw B is considered it would go back through the development process again Harver County would be looking at traffic counts we would be looking at that as well and reviewing it incrementally so what you're saying is there's no cart launch correct okay this is are we done I yeah I'm going to make a motion to adopt resolution 12616 approving the resoning from agricultural to General commercial I'll second there's a motion in a second uh is there any other discussion on this motion all in favor say I I I any opposed motion carries and I'll make a motion to adopt resolution number 12716 approving a variance to permit a driveway to enter directly onto a collector Street a second there is a motion and a second any other discussion all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries I'll also make a motion to adopt resolution number 128-3 approving a preliminary plat for the Carver dental office a second here's a motion and a second any other discussion all in favor say I I opposed motion carries I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 12916 approving the site plan I'll second there's a motion in a second any other discussion all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 13-16 approving the final plat for Carver dental office I'll second there's a motion and a second any other discussion all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries there you go we're glad to have you in town yes I'm glad you bought Cindy's house me too yeah welcome we want to try to be part of the solution doesn't mean it's going to be easy but we want to help moving on to 9.2 2017 Street and utility improvements Mr boam thank you mayor and Council as you can see on the screen in front of you the council reviewed the Third Street Bridge Project back in March of this year and some of the items that were discussed related to Third Street was the current poor condition of the Third Street Bridge um in order to get in line for men that funding for bridge replacement you need to have approved plans that are prepared and then sitting there for um for Grant fun funding or Bond funding and finally removal or replacement of that bridge triggers the section 106 requirements which are triggered through the core of engineers and shiple for and require in the past you've had to do a bridge Improvement study based on you know the Main Street bridge and the four Street Bridge Replacements oops so after that March meeting Council directed staff to do a survey with the public on the Third Street bridge and what they felt was needed um in general it was reconstruct or not and I think the city got very few responses we also talked about it on that April 13th design work session where we walked through the project with the public and there is various mixed feedback that we received at that time and so since then um staff has identified the following options for Council consideration option one is to remove and replace the bridge with and replace it with a bridge that looks like the ones on Maine and Fourth Street and here's a picture of the Fourth Street Bridge um some of the pros of that is that it maintains vehicle access IT addresses the poor Bridge condition that currently exists on Third Street um you have some past experience with the core and shipo and how to go through the approval process for replacing an existing um bridge in the historic district and a portion of the bridge work is eligible for State funding the cons of this option is that it is the most expensive kind of project cost option there are funding timelines that are uncertain with the mindat approvals um it still will require a core and shiple permit and approval you will still have to continue to shut down the bridge and flood events and there are some I mean with these type of bridges that that the stone is painted and the parit wall is painted so there is some maintenance cost with with any any type of Bridge Project before you go on can I ask you some questions can you go back sure um how much did we end up how much was our share of the four Street bridge and we did get State bonding help for that correct so what was our share on that so your share was in the I think less than $200,000 range for construction costs you have to pay to um remove the bridge and you have to some of the the parit wall stuff that was on the other side there's some City cost there and I think the the lighting they did end up paying for but there was some questions on on that so around the 200ish mark and that was inclusive of our feasibility study and all of that or no um that was probably construction cost so they don't pay for the engineering costs associated with the bridge okay so there there would be those costs we maybe spent three just rough numbers we maybe spent 300,000 out of pocket for that bridge okay question number two you said that in a flood event then if we reconstructed removed and replaced with a bridge like the four Street Bridge we would still have to close it during a flood event correct why is there an option that we would have that would make it so we wouldn't have to close it in a flood event is there some type of bridge that could go there that would prevent that you would you you could do some type of flood wall or temporary flood wall that you could put up but because of the elevation of the bridge itself you and to match into the existing areas adjacent to it you can't raise it up high enough to avoid doing some type of filling or flood wall on the top right like sand correct which is what we have to do still on Main Street if we have a flood event correct on that new bridge yeah it doesn't take care of any of the flooding problems right I'm just wondering if there's another if there's something else we should if we're going to replace it is there something else we should be considering that may make it so that we don't have to do that that's a lot of weight on a bridge too okay keep going option two is remove and replace with a box CT type Bridge the pros of this this is kind of a picture you saw earlier tonight with the Box covert there's no labels no labels of cranes and back holes is that a back hole Yeah um but this option it maintains vehicle access it also addresses the poor Bridge condition it's less expensive than option one option one had those you know decorative head walls that were trying to match percentage wise how much less expensive than option one about um I would say percentage wise it's maybe like 60% of the costs associated with option so it's 40% cheaper yes so even if we were to get State funding looks like here just a portion is eligible so would it be less than 300 out of pocket if we could do something like this in theory I would yeah it's it would be less than that and once again yeah the pros is a portion is eligible for State funding the cons are that you haven't seen option number three but it's more expensive than option three there is still this funding timeline um associated with more expensive than something you haven't seen but just trust me correct still requires core and shipo approvals um You' have to continue with a box cover type Bridge you would have to still do your bridge shutdowns and flood events and there's I guess a con there is still maintenance costs associated with um a box cover type Bridge would we have a hard time getting shipo approval to remove the historic bridge and replace it with a box covert there yes there yes they might suggest building over like they did on the and the one thing that's a little different with the um with I mean if we went back with the Third Street bridge is if you remember on your Fourth Street and Main Street Bridge you had that stone that was saved and reused in different places this one when you look on the North side and the south side you don't see that stone but until you go through that process with them you more than likely they try to there might be some Stone underneath the concrete that's covered up that they would say a um so option three is remove and construct a levy across the Third Street Bridge or Third Street itself um so here I'm taking a picture of you know our our newly Rock channeled Spring Creek behind City Hall and if you kind of visualize that that just continued across the Third Street area and you kind of would the pros of that would be it's less expensive than option one and two so this is our option three much less expensive well I would say from a overall project cost quite a bit less expensive and and one of the things we mentioned in here is we haven't put together costs on these and that could be some direction that the council wants us to put dollar amounts and City costs versus bonding costs on all these options we can certainly bring that back for the next meeting um IT addresses poor Bridge construction because you would be removing the bridge with this option it eliminates the issue of you know that you you wouldn't have to fill the the third street during a flood event because you'd have your Levy going all the way across it the cons that we listed were it eliminates vehicle and pedestrian access um once you take away a bridge and you don't use any Bridge funding to replace it and if someday later in the future you said hey we don't like this we want to a bridge back in can't get Bridge from me you can't get Bridge you because you're removing the existing bridge and digging into Spring Creek you'll still require a core and shiple approval for this option and because if you put the levy across Third Street Third Street is kind of the low point in the road so there is drainage that comes to that so you would have to come up with some type of storm sewer gate type um system to bring that water back down to Spring and then finally option four is the option where you actually close the bridge to traffic and make repairs to the existing Bridge um some of the pros of this option is that you could um you could leave Third Street open and have more of a plaza type use um we we don't anticipate any shipo process for um because you're not removing the bridge the historic bridge in the area it is still eligible for some State funding because you're making repairs to an existing bridge and the the rating of the bridge allows it to receive either funding for replacement or repairs um it is anticipated to be less overall project costs in option number one where you're putting the head walls and the pipe underneath the cons is that it that option does eliminate the vehicle access you still would have pedestrian access it may still require a core permit but not to the extent that we you have to go through with the section 106 um you you would have to continue the bridge shut down in flood events like you do now on Third Street and the cost for repairing Third Street bridge is something that it's it's unknown at this time we'd have to have our Structural Engineers come in and look at the cracks and one of the things that was helpful in getting chipo to agree to replace the other Bridges is that you don't have like plans of these historic Bridges and when they were built to say okay here's the kind of footings that they were put in back in 1900 or 1890 whenever these Bridges were built so there is some unknowns and so that's something that um you could do some fixes but over time there still might be some issues that occur in the future so that's considered a con besides all this discussion on the Third Street Bridge the council did meet with residents um certain council members were able to make that meeting on April 13th and also the staff reviewed things on May 19th and just looking through the overall Street alley and utility improvements um those are all listed on the figure drawing to the right um almost all the streets have Street and utility improvements there is some streetscape improvements that are proposed on Broadway um the timing for these Street and utility improvements are somewhat dependent on if you're going to include the Third Street bridge in this um with all the other improvements and right now just based on the fact that the the state legislature didn't approve some Bond funding the the funding part of bridge bonds are are unknown and so we can definitely see this project lingering to 2018 if we're going to try to get bridge bond funding so the the action that staff were looking at tonight was to talk with the Council on these preferred or these different Bridge options and see if there's ones that is preferred and if there's more information that might be needed for can I add an option sure I I don't want to spend money on this bridge we have three Bridges going through um a middle of downtown in a one block area um what I would like to what I'm proposing is that we baller it off because we still need the parking down to that bridge we still need the uh pathway so that you can park on the other side of the bridge and walk across to our downtown businesses I'm proposing that we balled off both sides of that bridge so that people cannot drive down um we just I mean you can put in a Ballard for next to nothing and I say that we actually do something in the sense of and again these are up for discussion but a pathway going down the middle whether it's paved whether it's uh rocked tiled some kind of pathway we can even just plant grass or we could do a community garden right along there and have that be an attractive part of downtown while providing access to downtown businesses and continuing the parking we would lose that squeaking chair is going to be the death of me um we can um I totally forgot where I was that's really kind of option four isn't it I mean just to cut off traffic on the bridge Al together keep the bridge there make some basic repairs there that that don't you think I mean it's that that option number three or option number four up there is saying that you repair the bridge and then don't allow traffic and what extent do you repair it I mean the the number that he put on there was um essentially less than option one which is the most expensive option okay why would we why would we need to replace the bridge if we don't have traffic on it or why would we need to repair it if we don't have traffic on it right I think you could we could have our structural engineer look at it and say Here's the repairs with just right if you aren't having that loading from traffic I think there's just some some amount of repair just because it's you know the I can't use the pointer on that but you know the head the head walls of the concrete are like cracked and falling down and some sidewalk repairs there might be minimal um repairs in some of the joints where it just seems like if you don't do something even without traffic That Could Fall eventually so I think there are some minimal repairs you need but not to the extent well the minimal repairs that you put up there you can go back to it uh go back to the next one behind that sure that one option three I to talk about that when we get to it all right I'm I totally lost where I was okay option three um would mean getting rid of the bridge and just having the levy run through there but would there be some sort of way to cross over the levy at on Third Street pedest pedestrian wise is that planned for this not not in this option as disc cut here right through Third Street and no that's not that's not a good option I mean why couldn't there be some pedestrian bridge no we could we could look at it it's at least as um I think it was based on staff's kind of review of the discussions we had at the from the survey and the discussions that we got from that Resident design meeting that the pedestrian bridge um feedback that people had said is well if we're going to build a bridge why don't we just build a bridge where we can get vehicles and pedestrial yes but a pedestrian bridge doesn't couldn't possibly cost anywhere near what a bridge that handles automobiles or it could be built for a lot cheaper what's I I just he's going to tell you they're expensive that's what I think that's all well I I don't see cutting off pedestrian bridge is L the western part of Third Street from downtown with the levy and not having some way for those people without going a block or two out of their way to get downtown so a pedestrian bridge right is less expensive than that option one type Bridge it it does get closer to a box cover type Crossing but it's definitely um why could why couldn't we just put a bridge on the trail that's quite a bit bigger than what would be needed here yeah I me I don't know what that cost a lot yeah but if I remember was about a little over $100,000 no no it was way more than that for for the one that was put across Spring Creek that yeah I think that was like 250 or 300,000 wasn't it right I I think in the upper in the upper 100s to low 200s you could spend on a pedestrian I mean it's a much longer length than we would need for a pedestrian bridge to go across the levy if we did option three option would be because if we did option three with the pedestrian bridge removing the bridge that's there now and adding a pedestrian bridge would not allow us Bridge bonding funds correct or would it I the removal isn't covered so the removal but that's a very small cost and the overall Bridge cost okay so pedestrian bridge be covered I think the pedest I do think that some amount of the pedestrian bridge would be covered we'd have to double check with mindat and and and I apologize when we were coming up with these options um a week or week and a half ago we knew okay we had to get this together and we didn't have time to put all the costs together but we can certainly I mean what I hear tonight from your discussion is some of these costs would be helpful as you try to make a final preferred option well and from the option three standpoint I know we've had some discussions with uh the Army Corps about levies and Levy studies so I would assume that that somehow fits into that yes no I mean is this something that then we should be holding off on and seeing having some discussions with them on including that in in some sort of I think they're they feedb back um to the city on some other parts of Levy improvements like as it Rel relates to some of our storm water lift stations and they they just encourage us to keep moving with repairs and and other work that you're planning to do um and she's talking about the levy study that the Army Corp is I mean would this be part of the overall Levy study the $500,000 if we're building a whole new section of Levy would it be smart to do that without having that Army Core Levy study in place yeah I mean what the core is going to say on um this wouldn't qualify for a certified Levy what we have right now so they would say you're going to have to put a flood wall type structure in or you build a big lift station kind of right south of Main Street where you shut off the flow of the river during a flood event and just pump all the water that comes down Spring Creek and then then you could leave things like we have here because they said you know then they would consider Spring Creek not part of the levy system anymore because you have this big lift station South of Main Street that okay that's not an option what can you tell me what it would cost to put in ballards and some grass that would that would be um this in your next what you bring back to us if you could tell me what it cost to put in ballards and some Stone some grass piggy backing on that with with Mike's idea Stone yeah um it would still be a uh eligible then for future money from this from shipo correct wouldn't be from shipo shipo tells us if we can or do anything right if you left your Bridge right like it is now and did something as um mayor Webb was discussing right you could still approach mindat and the core and sh on doing something more extensive in the future mayor council is there I think one thing that might help the decision- making process if you think of a bridge study is only needed if you want to build a new like fully pedestrian or not pedestrian but vehicular Bridge the other options options two three and four Etc if you think of that like your the rest of your feasibility study specific speically to like the streetcape along Broadway we can more or less play around in the sandbox with different options and show you different cost scenarios stantech Dan and his team can do that so that's one choice to do that part of the feasibility study for 15,000 the other choice is the $155,000 for the bridge study and that's only if you really want to do option one you say we want to rebuild Third Street in the same way that we built the Fourth Street bridge and the Main Street bridge if you don't want to do that then all the the discussion that you're having about options and uh features can happen within the 15,000 for just the regular project feasibility study is that correct Dan well the the um some some type of bridge study would be needed with um whenever whenever you're removing that existing Bridge they would so if you did option three here where you removed it and built something across or if you did option two with a box called and you're removing you're you're going to have to do some some type of studies but I think what Brent is anytime you build a new bridge across you need a bridge study or remove the existing historic Bridge or the historic structure in the historic district you're going to have to do some type of study and it might not be the the study that we had to do as Brent mentioned for the new bridges on Fourth Street and Main Street but it's there's going to be some effort that they're going to ask you to to justify to be able to remove that historic structure well it sounds to me like then maybe we need more numbers on op maybe we need a work session on this yeah this is too much for us to decide tonight I think would we need a study if it was ballards grass and stone okay I I think the confusing the feasibility study gets you those numbers that's what he's asking for you to authorize them to do the work to get you the numbers well there's a full-blown feasibility study and then there's uh approximate numbers for option three option two I mean because I don't know what option one a new bridge is compared to option three remove and construct Levy across Third Street I'm trying to figure out the difference in pricing there right without spending $15,000 to do that part of it it's kind of what it's say and that we can do you know we can bring that back to to the work session at the ne next meeting with those you know costs they're not feasibility costs but at least costs associated with the options you talked about tonight as well as the one that um the mayor has brought up option like 4 a yeah but right as as um the city administrator had mentioned um proceeding with the feasibility study that looks at kind of the overall project um and just if for some reason we pick an option on the Third Street Bridge that's not going to require this larger Bridge study or the core or or shiple approvals to keep things moving to do this project in 2017 that motion of proceeding with the feasibility study and the resolution would be um good action to talk about tonight which was kind know one of my last few slides here um so I think what we were talking about that motion one if we stay away from that motion but concentrate on motion two that would be helpful in the overall project schedule that we provided in the back of your report for Council memo okay I'll make a motion to approve resolution 12216 authorizing city engineer to prepare a feasibility report on the 2017 Street and utility improvements for an amount not to exceed $15,000 second there's a motion and a second any other discussion on a motion to approve a feasibility study on our Third Street Bridge so Dan just to be really clear that is not for feasibility on the bridge that's for the entire project that we're talking about everything that's up here correct correct okay oh got it okay so it will include numbers on these options and the project as a whole right so we'll I mean the feasibility report will be the more detailed study but I think what we're hearing from your discussion tonight is coming back with some of these other numbers at your next meeting which we'll do is that included in the $15,000 part of the feasibility study I would say yes because it's it's not going to be the final you say is what we have to go by oh yeah all right there is a motion to approve resolution 12216 not to exceed 15,000 and a second any other discussion all in favor say I I I any oppose thanks Dan sorry about being so motion carries all right no it was a heavy a lot of stuff and options and pros and cons yeah can I make one suggestion it would have been nice to have had that PowerPoint in our packet I mean even if you can't get it done until a little bit before the meeting we could just get it before the meeting I would like to moving on to nine no go ahead Brent I just I wouldn't mind Dan just go running through with the council what he's planning to present at the next meeting to make sure that you get everything you're looking for sure so at the um the review what I wrote down for actions is at the next meeting we'll be bringing back um that at the next city council meeting or work session either one which you prefer so we'll be bringing back those numbers related to option one through four as well as some discussion related to option 4A where it's just very minimal work and giving you not feasibility report numbers but um rough opinions of probable cost I would suggest the council meeting because you can't take any action at a work session okay out standing anything else on that 9.3 Mr Harris Council uh manager form of government good evening Council the city has been considering for several months now the possibility of going to the voters at the general election this fall with a proposal to switch the city from a plan a to a plan B city um I will give a brief run through of what's involved in the process and consistent with direction that the council gave to me last month including in your packet tonight for your consideration and comment and possible adoption is a resolution placing uh the adoption of the plan B form of government on the general election ballot in November um Carver is presently a statutory city um also sometimes known as a Class A city um a statutory city is form that you have run for many years there's four councils and a mayor the council appoints the clerk treasur Council appoints the commission members biggest issue Council appoints the Personnel the city council has all the administrative Authority in addition to the legislative Authority and that's really what we're talking about mostly when we look at going to plan B and the council May appoint a city administrator which of course the council has done um if you go to a plan B City nothing changes on the council um the big changes are the council appoints a manager the manager may but need not be uh the current city administrator I'm not suggesting anything different here but that's that's usually what happen the um and I want to point out because this is a council initiative this is not a staff initiative this is something the council has um has been talking about and thinking about for quite a while this isn't coming um from Mr mer or from City staff um but here are the big changes if the council does this and appoints a manager the council continues to have its legislative and policymaking roles but the administrative roles are carried out by the city manager um the biggest one is Personnel doesn't come back to the council anymore city manager hires fires assigns duties is responsible for administering the Personnel um of the city now the manager is of course accountable to the city but it is the manager's job to run the city the manager has control over all the Departments or the divisions of the city one of the primary reason cities look at going to plan B particularly as they get larger and get more complicated is to have the city manager be in charge of running all of the city departments rather than having the Departments coming up to the city council and rather than having Personnel matters coming up to the city council um there are some different some things that I think are attractive in a plan B City the manager is responsible for enforcing the statutes relating to city and city code ordinances and resolutions what that means is as I won't say this is politically accurate because of course your constituents will still have concerns and they're still going to express them to you and you're still going to listen to them but in a plan B City it's the city manager that makes the decision about whether it's a nuisance or not whether the city's going to take action um the manager can be assigned additional roles and duties by the council um the biggest one is the council doesn't get to direct staff anymore the council directs the manager but the council doesn't direct the staff that report to the manager um and that's one of the biggest changes as a city goes to plan B in my experience as I've seen cities Do It um it can be a much more efficient way to operate but there's a bit of a transition for the council when that occurs and candidly a bit of transition for the staff who are who might be more used to having a direct access to the council um in a plan B City statutorily the council assumes Park responsibility but they can have an advisory Park border commission I don't anticipate that that would be substantively different than how you're handling it now um in a plan B City the manager is the purchasing agent for all purchases and contracts that don't exceed $20,000 unless a lower limit is established by the city that means miscellaneous purchases under that amount won't require Council approval they'll certainly be submitted to the council as part of the regular Financial packet at least that's always been my experience in plan p cities um the manager prepares the budget but the council still the approving Authority statute's technically different on how budget is handled in a plan B City practically I doubt that the budgeting process would be much different um there are limitations in the in the plan B City statute as to what a council can do to increase amounts um fixed in the budget resolution or more appropriately reduce amounts appropriated once technically in a plan B City Once the budget is set it's the manager's job to run the budget enforce it and allocate it not the council's um the manager has to specify for each contract the city from fund from which the payment is made that's more ministerial um some things you need to know and it's important for the public to know um a city administrator is typically a contractual employee but there's a process in it and where a city administrator can be removed it's a little different for a manager after a manager has served for one year um before the council could remove a manager um if the manager requests the city has to provide written charges as to what the basis is for the removal and there has to be a public hearing before the council um pending that uh the council May suspend the manager with or without pay I just want to make sure the council's aware there are more procedural safeguards in terms of the process that would have to be followed in removing a city manager as opposed to perhaps terminating a city administrator um adoption of Plan B it can happen one of it can get before you one of two ways um like many things it can get before you because you decide it's appropriate that it be before you or can get before you because you can get a petition brought forth signed by a certain percentage of the voters in this case it's Council initiative it's the council that's been considering this for quite a few months now and evaluating this so it's your action um if you wish to move forward with this um there is a very specific format of a ballot question that has to be called for um in your Council packet is a resolution um because that's what I was directed to do second meeting last month was to come back to you at this meeting with a resolution with the specific ballot question which is statutory um and the ballot question on the PowerPoint is in the resolution before you which is shall optional Plan B providing for the council manager form of government be adopted for the government of the city um that's the question that would go on the ballot it would go on if the council approves the resolution it would go on the ballot at the general election um then the there just you need to know that if the you adopt the resolution goes to the general election ballot and the ballot question passes the plan B form of government is implemented and it has to remain in effect for three years after three years if the council or the public decide they don't like it you can kind of go through the reverse process and you go back to the voters and ask them to abandon it um um one other one other practical question if the ballot question passes um the city is then a plan B City practically the plan b gets implemented at the point in time the city hires the city manager or appoints the current more likely appoints the current city administrator as the city manager um but statutorily it becomes effective um upon the passage of the ballot question there are certifications that to be filed with the secretary of state and the county auditor that are pretty perfunctory but I'm here to answer any questions if the council does wish to proceed there's an appropriate resolution uh in your Council packet that you could adopt and then the ballot question uh will be on the November general election counc anyone have any questions I have a question going okay um okay so basically what this boils down to in a nutshell is if we go to a plan B City our city manager would be would be responsible for all Personnel issues right correct except his position yeah except his position right so if we didn't go to plan B couldn't we just make the city administrator responsible for all Personnel issues um you can't statutorily do that unfortunately if you're going to you can't make policy that says I'm just curious I would say no of course you would well thank you I'm assum I'm assuming a long-winded explanation that W I'm assuming if we had a Personnel issue that came trial or something let's say somebody filed a suit because they didn't like the way they were terminated then the city Council would be responsible not the city administrator even if we had kind of dictated that he had that responsibility well if there is a I want to make sure I'm this is going back to C Cindy's question right but we could tell Brent he has the responsibility for uh Personnel issues but the reality is the law would say we are responsible correct okay sorry I made it more complicated than it should have been that was the only question I had but we have then one year from when we appoint somebody let's say Brent to be city manager so we can get rid of him easily well once I want to be very cities typically have a contract with their City administrator that has some Provisions dealing with termination and benefits of the termination the city managers get similar Protections in in theirs what I'm highlighting is there's a statutory difference in how you handle them which a city administrator can't demand a technically written charges in a public hearing before a termination whereas a city manager can I've candly in my experience I've never actually seen that happen when it gets to that situation where where a council wants to terminate a city manager but I'm just pointing out that there's statutorily the right to have that happen I'll make a motion to adopt resolution uh 24-16 calling for placing on the general election ballot for the election to be held on November 8th 2016 a question for the consider for consideration by the voters of the city of Carver as to the adoption of Plan B form of government for the city of Carver I'll second there's a motion and a second any other discussion at this point all those in favor say I I any opposed motion carries um we are now to my favorite part of the evening where we uh we get updated and we get schooled by Body by Jake speak to us brother all right well I'm here uh T who are you what's your name my name is Jake Hartman and I am the administrative intern for the city of Carver thank you J and I'm here to request the approval of resolution 123-116 which will authorize staff to submit a Grant application to the Carver County CDA Community growth partnership incentive grant program um and kind of the purpose of this program is to assist cities with Redevelopment plans um to help maximize the potential economic value of underutilized areas so the particular grant that we're um applying for is a maximum amount of $7,500 and that money would be used for the Redevelopment of 926 Street West um the former My Pillow Factory you can see a picture up on the um PowerPoint um and the money would specifically go to help with um addressing potential environmental issues with the property and with the development of a proposed Redevelopment plan now there is a minimum leverage rate of one to one with this grant so every dollar that is rewarded will have to be matched um and we've attached with you a copy of a draft of the actual application along with the resolution that we're requesting um to be reviewed outstanding effort I like it anybody uh have any questions for Jake beg get a motion to approve resolution 12316 submitting a Grant application to the CDA Community growth partnership incentive grant program so moved a second oh sorry Jim there's a motion and a second any other discussion I have a question actually for Cindy Nash um we had talked about an RFP potentially coming out for this property for the Redevelopment of this property is this work that you're planning to have done before or that we should be having done before that RFP is issued no not necessarily they can go on at the same time so what is our time frame on that RFP you will see it at your next meeting okay any other questions discussion there a motion and a second all in favor say I I any opposed motion carries thank you Jake we are to city council Communications 10.1 Edith an award for property Excellence it's my understanding that we are looking for applications yes oh you're Jake welcome back my brother speak to us yep so like you said we're once again looking for nominations for the Edith an award for property Excellence um and the award is meant to recognize citizens who go and be above and beyond to maintain their properties so if you'd like to nominate a property you can visit city hall or uh the city's website to get a nomination form and we're accepting them until July 29th so I just want to encourage everyone if you have any neighbors or friends um that you feel like have outstanding properties stop by and fill out a form so the nomination is for properties within the city limits of Carver that have a wildly greatly maintained yard or the neighbors really appreciate what they do in the neighborhood and applications are due by July 29th yes outstanding is it anyone anywhere in the city or is it just in histor anywhere in the city theor all properties it sounds like a little bit all right thanks Jake um we are to community space visioning who's got that Mr mer thank you mayor and Council so just a a brief update I've been working with Cindy McClary from Leo daily um putting together a work plan uh for the visioning process but part of that the main part of it frankly is developing two separate groups to go along on a visioning kind of concept planning process and so separated into two groups one Community leaders and you can see that we've tried to identify Community leaders from our various organizations and also some businesses churches Etc and then also a more kind of internal Group which is made up of the mayor and councel um we want to get an administrative staff employee as well as two volunteers from each of our uh volunteer commissions so each of these groups would be following identical tracks um leading to kind of one uh consensus um we're looking at potentially the first meeting being on July 11th for the community leaders but still trying to nail down the final details with Cindy from Leo daily the second piece to that um one of the things that we wanted to try to do is get uh both the council and the community leaders group um some information some broad-based information from residents and um one of the things I think that at least staff has struggled with asking the right question as far as you know what residents want and sometimes we ask them the a very direct question like where should it be so one of the things that we're going to try to do over the next several weeks before the first group meets is ask what three characteristics are the most important to a resident for a community space or building and so that could be anything from parking that could be using an existing building that could be downtown that could be close to 212 and so instead of focusing on um building do you like this exact location um or do you like this Schoolhouse or do you like The Village Hall what do you like or what's important to you about you know is cost important is proximity to other businesses um proximity to a park um so trying to make it a little bit more abstract so we could collect this data then give it to both of the groups and they'll have their own opinions on it but um because this is such an important issue I thought it'd be good to collect this data to let each of the groups do with it as they wish I think it's a great idea I think it's a great idea too but I wouldn't ask it like that I think this might seem nitpicky but I think it should say what are the three most important things to you in a community space building characteristics could you know get misleading for people how did you say that phrase I said what are the three most important things to you in a community space building sure a little simpler yeah yeah just make it a little simpler maybe they don't agree that all you got Mr mer all right let's um move on to Madam mam Monro anything you uh got city council Communications uh I had a I was uh at the Planning Commission meeting last Thursday where all we did was talk about that new dental office actually that's not true we talked about the downtown plan um and also got a couple people for the community space task force uh we had an HPC meeting on Tuesday and and we talked about doors and gutters and uh I would be concerned about one of the on the gutters on the sidewalk on Fourth Street but other than that that meeting went quite well um all of you missed the good canoe trip yesterday River was a little high but still pass and I was impressed because there were two two families camping in Riverside Park our plans to put camp sites in in fact one had a fairly good size trailer that's all I have thank you uh the Parks Commission met up at Park last Monday and uh we had a black dedication um the work that was done with the roofs for the for the yeah for the dugouts and then we walked around the park and looked at space and potential ideas for expanding some youth Fields um and we had an eagle scout come and one of his Eagle Scout projects he'd like to build some benches or something along those lines so we have Brian working with him as far as some ideas with that that's it R I really don't have anything uh Carver County leaders meeting is coming up soon Mr Merck you have anything you'd like to add I have uh three things uh first um I'd like to congratulate uh Brent Merck on being named to the director the board of directors for the league of Minnesota City you're here yep well done Brentley um second of all kind of the caveat to that uh we Brent and I and Vicky s ziden attended uh the league of Minnesota City's tlg conference and um I got a ton out of it it was extremely beneficial I think that some of the things will be in in able to enable in what we're doing on a daily basis as well as big picture thinking um but to the caveat rolls into I was approached by a number of individuals from throughout the state that work um at the top levels of the league of Minnesota cities including daveid unach the director um of the league um all had fantastic things to say about Brent Merck so the um Brent Merck show continues um but everybody it it it what I really appreciate it is we're really getting um our name out there in terms of uh having recognition as well as having excellent people I mean we had a very good showing from the southwest uh area Lori hokin as well as Chelsea Peterson both highly involved in what is going on at a state level and it's really good to see the involvement from our administrators in this in this area uh let's see here great things to say and um Brian skoke if there's any possibility um for The Rocker if we could change this chair or it or something um because there was almost um something going um does anybody have anything else they'd like to add we should compliment Brian for the fine job freezing yeah outstanding I uh I I actually am not ill today although he is he is ill could i h get a motion to adjourn so moved second motion to adjourn and a second all in favor say I I motion carries thank you God