the order of the Tuesday, November 25th, meeting Dayton City Council. Stand with the pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. I need a motion and a second for the agenda. I'll >> make a motion. >> Dave, a second. >> Sarah, any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. That carries five to zero. On to consent. I need a motion and a second. >> Make a motion. >> I'll second. Any discussion? >> Say who wants to go first? >> Sure. >> Go ahead. >> Um got a couple of things. Uh item B. I'm I'm curious why. And this was about the um the signal work at uh Holly Lane and the Dayton Parkway interchange. Um there was a there's a change order under item B on page 8 and it because the electrical is not where they thought it was or something. But I'm just curious why that was unanticipated. Uh our designers were of the opinion that there was an adequate point for connection to the electrical to run the system from on the corner on which the cabinet was identified. When the contractor pulled up pulled the permit and Excel showed up on the site, they told them they would not be allowed to connect where we had identified and instead they would have to go across the street to a different connection point. >> Okay. So that was that was on us then essentially. uh just that it wasn't identified. Um >> yeah, >> yeah, it didn't come out until the permitting stage. >> Okay. Um then on page 12, item E, uh there has been says um we're we're we are um being asked to uh lower the letter of credit for uh Brayburn Trails East, third edition. And I'm wondering if 172,000 is holding back enough to complete the work that's outstanding. >> Yeah, we we do do an estimate of the remaining work on there and hold it 125% of that. >> Okay. Because it seemed like a lot sidewalk, trail work, workhorse, and more. >> Yeah, our math actually should be included in the packet as well. >> Okay. Yeah. Um it's estimated at 143,000 of remaining work. So we hold the additional 25% on top of that. >> All right. And then on page uh 17, this is the um part of the planning for uh 2026 Milan overlay. And I'm wondering on Holly Lane, we've got a a piece of it that that goes by um the trucking companies and so on and then it it ends at Maple Grove. And uh is Maple Grove planning to do anything with their section of that road? I mean, it's horrible. >> Not at this time. My understanding is that portion will be upgraded if or when that property between Holly Lane and I 94 is developed. All I've seen to date is concepts and that was maybe even one to two years ago um of some buildings coming in and the city at that time suggested that that road would be upgraded when that project does occur. Obviously it's not going to be that project but a project. >> Yeah, that's kind of how it looks when you drive by. It just seems odd that I mean even though we're talking about doing ours redoing ours, it is in far better condition than the Maple Grove stretch of that road. Yeah, they're letting that one deteriorate. They have it posted as a 4-tonon limit, but because we have King Solutions operating there, we want to keep it in a a adequate condition for their use. >> No, I understand. I And there's nothing we can do if it's their it's their road. It just strikes me as odd that they will let it let it fall apart to that extent. And I know that's not the way the trucks go in and out. So, right, >> it probably doesn't see much more than those residents traffic. Um, that was all I had. >> Anybody else have a hand. All right. Um, all in favor of consent say I. >> I. >> All oppose say no. >> Carious 5 to zero. >> We are on to open forum. Open forum is limited to three minutes. For non-aggenda items, state your name and address. No council action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. Do we have anybody here for open form? My name is Brad Brigamin. I'm currently an active firefighter for the city of Dayton and I'm here today as a representative for the rank and file members of the department to make the following statement. >> Can I get a address for you? >> Uh, you want to go station two or you want my home one? >> Your home one, please. >> Home one, please. >> Okay. Uh, 16108 116th Avenue North, Dayton. Thank you. We recognize that the oversight and budgeting of the Dayton Fire Department is a critical and necessary role for city govern city government. In order for this process to work properly, it must be conducted in a professional and respectful manner. It must be based on data and input from subject matter experts. It cannot be based on hearsay, opinions, or personal feelings. However, recent council meetings and work sessions have seen a steady decline in civility and accuracy when discussing fire department issues. Your firefighters are frustrated and demoralized by the ongoing verbal attacks directed at our chiefs, our firefighters, and our profession. We join the department to serve the and protect the citizens of Dayton. We dedicate significant amounts of time and effort to do so in a professional matter. We have neither the time nor the desire to insert ourselves into the political management of the department. But the current situation is unacceptable. It's harming the department's morale, retention, and recruitment. It harms the reputation of the department, the city government, and the city city of Dayton overall. In response, members within the department drafted a letter citing their concerns. This letter was signed by a majority of the firefighters and has been delivered to the mayor and city council. The goal of the letter is to insist that future council discussions be conducted in a professional and respectful manner. The city made a correct decision hiring a full-time chief and assistant chief to provide leadership and planning to address the city's rapid growth. A fire department that was created to serve a small, largely rural area must now protect a rapidly growing population with increasing in increasing number of houses, a large growing industrial area, and plans for additional multi-story apartment buildings. It's critical for the city to plan, budget, and maintain a department that grows at a rate matching the growth of the city. We are publicly stating that we support our chiefs in their overall vision to evolve the department to meet these growing needs. This doesn't mean that every member of the department agrees with every proposal in any organization. It's rare to get full agreement on anything, but many of the proposals such as the duty crew model, upgrading to battery powered extraction tools, and purchases of vehicles have included significant input from members of the department. Change is difficult for everyone. There will be hard discussions and decisions needed to balance the growing needs of the city with available budgets. But just as we firefighters strive to act in a professional manner, we expect no less from our elected officials. In conclusion, the firefighters are not here to tell the council how to make their decisions or even dictate the outcome. We are here to voice that the current negativity towards the department, its leadership, and our handling of public safety hurts firefighter morale and public perception of those working to keep Dayton safe. We believe the con conversations can and must improve going forward to provide Dayton and its citizens the services that they deserve. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else here for open forum? Keith Grover 113th in Fernbrook. A couple of things I wanted to mention tonight. Um, one of them I know I've talked about several times and that's uh signs for developments. Um, across from where I live at 113th, the city has asked the developer to take down signs that they put up that were oversized and they had too many of them on the property for the development. If you go there today, it looks like a billboard corner. There are there are three development signs for the development that's going on across from from Deans and across from my house. Um I've I've talked to staff about that. Um and I have no reason to believe that they're not following up with that. But in my discussions with them previously, it seems to me frustration on their part because they don't have anything with any teeth in it to make these guys actually follow the rules that you guys have have set out. And I would just encourage you guys to look at what we have and give them some tools so that they can the staff I mean can do their job properly and make sure that these developers actually follow the rules that we have. Uh, the other thing I wanted to bring up tonight is actually not a complaint. It's a thank you because today they put the overhead street light up at at Rush Creek Parkway and in Fernbrook Lane. We've been talking and asking for that, you know, ever since they put that road in there. At least now hopefully, and I haven't driven by it at night yet. I drove by it when they were putting it up today. Hopefully, it'll illuminate that intersection and make that inter intersection a little um more safe than it already is. So, thank you, Marty, whoever was involved. I already talked with Jason about it. Um that's a good thing, right? So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Why am I sounding louder? Is it cranked up a little bit or >> want to hear you? I'm sure some don't. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Ralph Ash. I reside at 18251 South Diamond Lake Court here in Dayton. My name is Ralph. I'm both a resident and a firefighter here for Dayton. Let me start by saying how much I love serving my community and the people who serve alongside me. There's a special bond and camaraderie that we share that I've never experienced elsewhere in my life. This past year, however, has become increasingly discouraging and disappointing on account what we've observed from count council. While there's been much discussion in this chamber and on social media about budgets, far more concerning for us has been the recent behavior and future trajectory of this council. Make no mistake, this is not about hurt feelings from people's words. We see enough deaths, disease, injuries, blood, and bodily fluids to be upset about one's words. It's the fact that this council's past and present behavior paints a picture of we of what we should expect more of going forward if this train remains on this track. It's no secret that here in Minnesota and nationally there's a significant shortage of first responders and few are even willing to consider doing this kind of work in the first place and it doesn't look to be improving no matter how much money is thrown out there to recruit and pay. There's a clear reason why the suicide rates and PTSD rates among first responders are significantly higher than that of the general population. I know I've seen and had to participate in more disturbing events in just the past two and a half years in my whole life combined. It takes significant mental and intestinal fortitude on top of the physical demand to handle some of the graphic, gruesome, and even dangerous scenarios and scenes that we not only encounter, but have the spines to volunteer to do this kind of work in the first place. But this past year, this council has increasingly continued to look down upon us from their bully pulpits, talk down to and about our chief, degrade and diminish the work that we do, and belittle the few who are actually willing to sacrifice both their physical well-being and mental well-being to go into situations they themselves would never go into. And yet, we find that they pepper nearly every discussion about this department with subtle snide remarks, which honestly, it shows us what they really think of first responders. And then they compound it when we hear council members Salonic and Henderson talk about our operations as if they have more knowledge and experience than we do. Our political leaders are voted in with the expectation of integrity, of character, pragmatism, progress, and especially great humility. The kind we're able and even willing to admit and acknowledge your blind spots and apologize when you may have done or said things wrong in an effort to make things right. But we've witness witnessed more far more hubris than we have humility in this past year. And honestly, if I were a new candidate considering joining this department, this council's rhetoric and tone towards this department would cause me to reconsider. Any firefighter resignation has significant impact since it takes several years for a new recruit to achieve any modicum of real competency. It's for this reason I may have taken the resignation of Travis Henderson a bit harder than others may have. Any and every firefighter is hard to replace and he was no exception. He was my primary mentor for some time and he took great care investing his time in training me and I'm forever grateful for that. I was fully in support of his pursuit for transparency and accountability for this department as I still am today. But yes, we all have our blind spots and the optics of what we witnessed this year suggest that he along with his wife on this council. Those pursuits of transparency and accountability have been overshadowed by a personal ax to grind against our chief. In a perfect world, I have them find a way to reconcile, to repair, restore that trust and relationship. And even as crazy as this may sound, reinstate Travis to our department. Not simply because each loss causes significant added strain on the rest of us, but because he was a part of that same bond and camaraderie. And I know that he cares about things being done right. But even more so as a father than a firefighter, I look at what this conveys and con communicates to our community and our kids in regards to how we handle conflict resolution. In closing, we know our chiefs truly care about our well-being, fighting to prepare us and equip us both through staffing for today, but more importantly, proactively for the months and years ahead for this rapidly growing community. But we can't say the same in regards to this council and their current planning and their trajectory. While we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for this community, this past year suggests that they are more willing to compromise and sacrifice the safety and service of this community for the sake of personal pride and vendettas. The consensus of this department does not believe that the Hendersons along with council member Salonic and Mayor Fischer will back off from their attacks against our chief until they ultimately have our chief removed, even if it takes them stonewalling every effort of his in order to frustrate him into resigning. Whether it's pure inability or maybe even will unwillingness for them to separate professional and pragmatic from personal disdain for our chief. This is less concern for me as a firefighter. Even more concerning for me as a resident and a voter, a voter. The same accountability that's requested and required of our department is just as much requested and required for this council. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Anybody online? >> So if we had anyone online that wanted to speak in open forum, if you can use the raise your hand function not see. >> Okay, we will go on to staff consultant council update. Zack, >> I've got a response to uh some of this. >> All right, wait until we get around to you. >> Okay, >> there members of councel, I have nothing. Thank you very much. Happy Thanksgiving to you all and to everyone in the audience as well and anybody who's watching because that's all I got. >> Everything is going smooth, huh? >> This week was a bit busy. So, lots of meetings. Amy, >> um, I just wanted to remind everyone that Holly Dayton is next Thursday. I did send out an email looking for participants. I've heard from very few of you. Um, please reply to that email so we have a head count. >> Oh. Oh, yeah. Do you want to add? I forgot to ask. Can we close city call next week at like 2 o'clock to try to get ready for Holly 8? Does that work for everybody? >> Thursday. >> Yeah. Thursday for Holly Dayton. >> I don't have >> I apologize about that. >> Great. >> Okay, sounds great. Thank you very much. >> You have nothing else? >> I have nothing else. >> Right. >> Uh Mayor Council, just a couple of updates. Uh water wellhead treatment. The pressure vessels are being filled with the green sand this week. This will need to settle before the anthra site media is uh poured on top of that. Electricians are on site and uh I think the door is being installed this week if it hasn't been installed on the front end there. Um HVAC work um is being uh worked on this week as well. Um we're on schedule for uh January startup um and then online shortly after that. It should be an early January thing. Um so that's all going well. Area 21 project is wrapped up for this year. The completion of that is in spring. They've got it all stabilized out there. Um it's just some finishing up work and putting trees in for for next year. Um we just run out of time this year. Um, one thing that, um, we're not going to be doing this year, the Sundowns ice rink, I don't think that we're going to, well, we're not going to put it in because we put significant effort into improving the the grass over there. We're grading, seeding, and and the irrigation install. I want to give uh, the grass some time to establish a healthy root system before we install a rink on top of it. So, we're not going to put one in there this year. >> That's all I have. Marty, can we put it somewhere else? Is there somewhere we can else we could put that? >> Um, I've not had any ideas where else to put it. Um, >> we could have a conversation. >> Yeah, we'll have a conversation. >> That'd be great. Thank you, Marty. >> I think that's just got a half court there over there, isn't it? >> Yeah, it just it's a temporary one that gets put up and taken down. So, I'm just want to figure out if we can move it somewhere else cuz I know that this one back here gets significant use. It's lighted as well, which helps, >> but I know that the one down at Sundance Woods Park does get a significant amount of use. I'm aware of we can figure something. We'll talk >> figure something out. >> Yep. >> Chief, >> good evening. Mayor and members of council have a couple updates. Um, engine 12, uh, December 1st, I think that's next Monday. Um, it'll be out of the city all day. Um, getting a repair. It has a rear axle seal and a speed sensor that needs to replace. So, we're looking at four to $5,000 for that repair. Um, call types. uh the communicator has gone out is my understanding and um I had a little article in there um those call types the reduction in those calls um became active or um the fire department isn't responding to those call types as of last Wednesday. So 1119 if that's correct. So those fall call types um have been removed. >> Chief, >> no update. Thanks. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. case. >> Um, just one thing. Um, the attorney, the litigation attorney for the housing first lawsuit has, uh, sent an email letting us know that oral arguments have been scheduled with the court of appeals. Um, January 14th at 10:40 a.m. it'll be an inerson argument at the judicial center over by the state capital. Um, it's open to the public if anybody wants to attend. Um uh and but those those arguments are posted online after their a recording of them. So it's they have 90 days from then to make their decision which means their decision would have to be done before April 14th 2026. No. >> Are appeals always granted a hearing or is there some sanity that is applied to them like the Supreme Court where they just say no, we're not taking this? >> At the Court of Appeals level, more often than not, yes, they are granted a hearing. Um, at the the the Supreme Court, the state supreme court or the United States Supreme Court have more discretion to reject cases or petitions for review. So, this saga continues and happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Scott. >> All right. Uh, first off, I owe you guys an apology for a comment that I made a while back about cards. Playing cards. It'll get easier if there's four or five of you to play cards. Didn't mean anything detrimental. If we go to a duty crew, you probably have time during the day to play cards because I don't know. I mean, based on what we're looking at, uh, there's going to be about 10, 12 hours a day, five days a week that you're going to have something, whether you're watching TV or making calls or whatever, there might be time to play cards. I didn't mean anything by it. as far as um the letter that was posted on Facebook by somebody in the fire department. Now, whether or not you're all attached to it or not, before the council got this letter, someone posted this letter to to the entire city of Dayton, which in my opinion, I would guess that was done for for public support. I personally thought it was very childish to post that on Facebook before this council got a a copy of it. A recent question about the uh incident uh of the fire that happened at um trailer park. I asked a couple questions about that fire. It was to understand what kind of procedure we go through to do that for that call. Dennis asked if anything was learned out of that. I felt that hopefully we did pick something up from that. The way that was handled because I I think if anybody could go back and look at it, it wasn't handled properly properly. That's what that's my questions were asked to find out the procedure and how we handled that. I ask questions mainly they're related to the budget. uh the comment in the letter in retaliate that this council is retaliating against the fireman. I don't believe anybody on this council has retaliated from any firefighter. I certainly have not. I hope the goal of of this whole group is is to get a functioning fire department that we can all live with and and it serves the public of this city. That's the goal. Um the decision for me, there's also something brought up in the letter that it's a retaliation that we cancelled the ladder truck. It's farthest from the truth in my opinion. Uh if any of you guys looked at the 2028 budget, this city is on the hook for about 30 35 million bucks somewhere in capital improvement expenses. Everybody outside outside of this building plus everybody in this room's got to pay for that somehow. Doesn't mean we're buying it all, but 28 looks ugly. And now with the recent Maple Grove Water deal, that could be another 30 35 million bucks. I'm not sure where all the money is coming from. So, um uh as I uh as I said, there is a uh a plan put forth with staff for the uh duty crew. We'll see where that pencils out and uh hopefully that all all works out for everybody. Um as far as asking questions in reference to extraction tools, and we're talking about that tonight. I asked questions if we took those tools in to see if they could get repaired, and the answer was no. We were told as a council that they could not be repaired. Well, finally we did find out they can be repaired. So, it's a simple question. Before I spend $30, $35,000 of this city's money, I want to know what it's going for and if we've made every effort possible to find a cheaper alternative. That's my job and I will continue to do that with everything any department asks for. That's about all I got to say and for me it's not retaliation. It's dollars and cents. Sure. >> Um I was wondering if we as a council would be interested in reviewing um a homesteading requirement for home extended businesses. This was something I know Zach and I talked about um and it went to planning commission as a discussion. planning commission didn't feel that um it needed to be reviewed, but I feel like um that that because one of with talking with Zach, one of the issues sometimes is determining if a home is actually being used as a home. Um and home setting is a way that we could ensure that it is actually a home first and a business second. So, I would like to at least have that conversation. I'm not saying what the answer would be, but I would like the council to have the opportunity to have that discussion. So, I was wondering if that would be okay to have on a future agenda if other members of the council would be interested in that conversation. >> I'm fine with talking about it, chair. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. That was it for me. >> I have nothing, Dave. >> Um, mostly nothing from me. I mostly >> mostly uh I did receive the letter from the firefighters and I do expect or plan to uh respond in writing. I'm not doing that tonight. That's all I got. >> Stephanie, >> I have a question about um an update from Care Resource Connections. My understanding is that we were going to split half and half between PD and fire and maybe now we're not doing that. I'm not really sure where that um contract is at. And so I would like maybe have them come in. Can they give us an update? I know there's a lot of other things that they offer that we may not be taking full advantage of. And so I think that if we have the ability to give resources to our community, like we should be using that to the best of our ability and so maybe we could have them come in and give an update. >> Yeah. I >> the last I understood was that we were splitting costs just based on where the calls were coming in at, but I'm going to defer to the two chiefs if that's something that they >> mayor, members of council, um Chief Enga and I briefly talked about splitting a small portion of that, but we haven't had any extensive conversations that relates to that. My comment has been uh to administrator doubt is that there isn't a need for the fire department to maintain um the care resource connection because of the reduced calls. We we don't have the connection with those segment of the population. So like for lift assists, pain, ill um those types of calls, that's where we were seeing a lot of our um that's where we're using care resources for for all those types of calls. >> Repeats. >> I'm sorry, mayor. >> Repeats. Yeah, for those particular ones. So, >> and they tended to fall in the I'm trying to understand this. They t the the care resources corrections to those whatever activities that they tended to be on the calls that we moved to the PD. >> That is correct. So, for ill pain, um all what one of those or three or four of those different call types we don't interact with um any longer. So, to me, it didn't make sense to spend $6,000 a year to contract with um Care Resources for that. I did communicate that with care resources. Um and Paul and I have briefly spoke about if that's something that uh his department and his officers are interested in participating. >> I think for me, my question really comes from it would be nice to hear from the data that they've collected to see that like the impact that they've made over the last year. And then again, I'm very analytical and data driven. And so for me to be able to see that and to say, "Yep, you know what? That that checks out like those were the majority of the calls or what percentage of them because we are still responding to fall calls." And so I would think that with an aging population or people that would be using these resources that that may be somewhere we could still um refer them to the police department to then refer. So I don't think that maybe maybe the fire department doesn't pay for part of it, but I do think that there's a value there to understand >> to somebody to you to >> correct. It doesn't really matter who's giving the resource. The the end goal is to give the resource. And so I guess for us to kind of know what we paid that $6,000 for. It would be nice to have kind of a look back of what did we get for that and then maybe make a plan of how we move forward. >> I'm okay with that. >> Yep. Yeah. We can have carers come in. Like I said, the last diode terms that we were splitting cost only because that's who was going to use it. Part was the fire department, part was the police department. Makes sense. >> That was my understanding from the cost. >> Makes complete sense. I just I guess I would, you know, just kind of like to hear from them that recap and make sure that we know what we're doing moving forward and what we're comfortable with. And >> there's only limited council meetings left in the year, so it may be a January item. Just an FYI, but >> try to do our best to get it as fast as possible. >> Sounds good to me. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. And we are on to item K. >> Mayor and members of Council, we have Kelly Grisman here from Through Park District, um who is wants to have a discussion with us about the West Mississippi Regional Trail. You can run it from the podium there. Thank you very much, >> Mayor, fellow council members. Thank you for allowing me to come back to you today. I have uh I think some additional information that you've requested and I'd also like the opportunity to just recap for the good of anyone listening and the broader community uh about Three Rivers Regional Trail Plans in the city of Dayton. So, we have four different or actually five, we have a little typo on the slide, but five different items to discuss today. One, we'll do that quick overview. We'll do a refresher on some of the key questions the council has asked to to date. Uh we'll review different trail options within the community and what the impacts may or may not be on the residents that own the property. Uh we'll look at some current opportunities and then have time for uh additional questions as well as the council to discuss re our requested action and next steps. So this is a slide that you guys have seen several times. The purpose of the West Mississippi River Regional Trail throughout the city of Dayton and beyond is to provide a high quality destination multi-use trail that provides the best user experience reasonably feasible. So, that's for people that are walking, biking, families with strollers, uh, all different uses. It really is not intended to be for your expert bicyclist. certainly they would be welcome to use the trails, but it really is for the everyday person that's looking to get exercise or or get from A to B within your your community. uh for the majority of the corridor in the city of Dayton or excuse me and beyond it's really to it is planned to follow uh Dayton River Road except through the historic area where it'll be on Robin Robinson and Division Street and then there is a focus area between roughly Gooden Park and North Diamond Lake Road where that area has been flagged for opportunity to do a wider trail corridor and this is an area that Three Rivers has been uh interested in acquiring additional land on an opport or or as willing sellers or opportunities present themselves and that is the area the council has been most interested in uh having conversations with three rivers and and trying to make sure that our plans align between the two different agencies. So the broader regional trail is planned to be 20 miles of which six are with within the city of Dayton. And the focus the area that we just talked about from Gooden to Gooden Park to uh North Island Lake Road is about three and a half miles long and then there would be a roadbased route or or the trail that would be within the road right road right away for about 2 and a half miles of that as well. So there's been a couple questions that have been raised by the council. Uh just for the good of the order, this information was also included in your packet, but um I think it's noteworthy to circle back to the community or anyone that might have listened to the previous meeting where these questions were asked. So is Three Rivers going to acquire all of the shoreline in Dayton? Nope. We're really just looking at that small segment of shoreline and that's about 60% of the shoreline within the community. It's 28 of the 45 uh privately held parcels along the river. Will Three Rivers, excuse me, will private property owners have to sell the Three Rivers or will they be forced to sell before they are ready? Nope. As the council knows, we are really moving forward on a willing seller basis only and the council has the responsibility to uh review each one of those acquisitions and decide if it's in support of that or not. What are the local tax implications? When you look at all of the remaining property left, the local tax uh revenue from that is a little less than $40,000 for this year. That the city does not lose that potential or that revenue for every parcel that we acquire. That I'm going to use quotations that loss of tax revenue is not really a loss. it's just displaced to all of the other parcels within that same land use. So, how this works is if we acquire one parcel >> I don't think you need to explain to us how taxes work and the way that's stated is is misleading as well because what we're talking about is raising taxes for everybody else that so that revenue is lost. >> That's that's correct. Thank you for bringing that up. That's the the point that I was going to make is that one parcel may not be part of the tax equation, but whatever that loss is, it is distributed among all of those other parcels within that same tax classification. How is the purchase price of uh the acquire land determined? That is through an appraisal process, just like when the city of Dayton acquires land. Because we're using public dollars, there's a pretty rigorous process that we have to follow and we have to use a certain type of appraiser and it's uh it's reviewed by our general council, our acquisition staff as well as the metropolitan council. In most cases, uh the benefit to the city is that your community would be more walkable. It would have a highly desirable regional trail for people to walk, bike, or roll within the community for either recreation or transportation purposes. And then I wanted to just note that we've we've really been trying hard to coordinate and partner with the city on on several different opportunities over the last couple years. Uh the properties that we've been acquiring, we've been coordinating with your police and your fire department to allow for training and we have not been charging for any of that um opportunity. I in talking to both chiefs, it sounds like the police department put an estimate that was a $4,000 value to their department and every time the fire departments used the site, they have estimated it to be about a $500 value and I I think they've been out there a handful of times as well. Uh we are partnering with the city to look at doing the non-motorized boat launch, some trails and parking adjacent to Gooden Park on the property that Three Rivers owns. That really is a a city vision and we're we've helped secure money to get that going. We're going to provide the land for that opportunity to actually be developed and we will coordinate the design as well as the implementation saving the city of Dayton thousands of dollars um and providing opportunity for your community members to access the river in a way that they currently can't. Uh we recently sold the former Yansy house to the city's EDA. We sold it at a significant discount. They were much better negotiators than Three Rivers were and they were able to sell the house and I think double their money. We also been partnering with Henipin County on stabilizing the ravines on park district property. Um, and I think that's probably had a value of over $500,000 between Henipin County and the park district to get those ravines corrected. And then the city uh utilized some of Three Rivers Parkland at Elm Creek Park Reserve as part of their Pine View Lane project and had a challenging time providing the replacement property that was owed to Three Rivers and Three Rivers took the lead in acquiring the property and making sure that the deed restrictions held by the federal government were fulfilled. Uh so we did work in partnership to resolve that outstanding item as well. So moving forward, there's a couple different options that I just want to go over with the council tonight. And within this assessment, it shows uh different priorities or different level of impacts for the parcels within this focus area. So the first option is the roadbased route. Uh roadbased route uh does not mean the trail would be within the road per se, but within the road right away to the greatest extent possible. So it would be parallel the road. It would still be a multiple multi-use trail. It would still be safe and it would still connect to parks uh as well as the river where there's opportunities to do there to do so. So that is uh the bare minimum accomplishes all of the main goals for the the city. People can still use it for recreation. They can still use it for transportation purposes. It might just be a less desirable experience uh for those not comfortable uh with traffic immediately adjacent to them or a short distance from them. I I believe the council members or some of the council members even pointed out in reviewing a previous acquisition that they might not be comfortable using a trail near the Pearson property uh just given the sight lines of that particular driveway or that area. So this is the roadbase option and what we did is we did an assessment and we categorized things or parcels into really four different pieces. If the parcel is shown in white on the map, it means we are not anticipating any impact or any significant impact to that parcel at all. If it's the light pink, it's a low impact. It might mean that there's some grading on the property. Maybe a small retaining wall or some small easements are foreseen at at this level in the design or or the concept planning. And then on the other extreme, you have the high impact. Uh there's probably going to be a lot of grading. There's probably impacts to the driveway possibly to the house area or there's an existing safety condition even without the the trail being present. And then the middle is the medium impact and that again would be grading some bridges retaining walls possibly some easements. Uh so there are seven low impact parcels, four medium parcels and then five high impact parcels that are shown on the map and we're including the packet. I want to just point out that while the map highlights the whole entire parcel for ease of us being able to read this diagram, uh the easement or the impact area would be significantly smaller and not include the whole parcel. So the next option is the greenway option and this is where it would be a wider independent trail quarter. You're going to be away from the road shoulder. It's just a it's a higher degree of amenity, safety, desiraability, use, etc. Uh we've also found that this option is more desirable for most motorists as you wouldn't have pedestrians and bicyclists in close proximity to the road. And we would be eliminating uh or reducing the number of driveway and road crossings along the corridor for any parcels that are going to be converted to public land. So, this is what the greenway option looks like. Um, and again, this went through an assessment where there's three different impacts or priorities. Let's say the light pink would be parcels that the trail is not proposed to go through them at all. So at the council's discretion, we would not need to proceed acquisition now or at any point in the future unless the the council wanted to see see a clean boundary or have additional public land in that area. So those parcels are located along Dayton River Road just west of Lawndale uh lane and there are three of them. Then there's the median impact potential easement area and there are 14 of them. This is an area where pulling the trail from the roadway increases safety, increases the user experience, natural resource protection, reduces could reduce an easement or other property impacts um in comparison to loading locating the trail right along the road shoulder within the public rightway. And then the high impact potential easements, there are 11 parcels. This would address a safe a significant safety condition or concern. Best utilize land that's already in the public domain. Helps address a construction challenge. Um maybe tied with an upcoming construction project. So from a a timing perspective, this might have a greater urgency to move forward than a different parcel. Andor we have a willing seller uh currently in the works or that's conveyed an interest in working with Three Rivers. And then there's the hybrid option. And this is not mapped because we don't yet have direction from the council if there's areas where you would like us to stick with the roadbased option or areas where the council might be more open to doing a greenway option. So this is really ultimately the direction I could imagine the two agencies are going in the future. Uh cuz doing this greenway option, it is a pretty ambitious plan and the council has recognized or is given Three Rivers direction that it's not supportive of this, but there are opportunities to still within this maybe pick some segments where it makes sense to do a greenway option and then pick other segments where it makes sense to do the roadway option. So we went through a work session exercise with the council in the spring to try to articulate some of this and the council worked with its parks commission and consultant I believe in early September to also see some how some of these options could play out and at this point we don't have the perfect hybrid option. Uh but it is still an option out there should the council want to go through that exercise of saying you know here's where we would want a roadbased route here's where we want the greenway option as well. So when we look just at the roadbase versus the greenway option there are five parcels that regardless of which option you go with are a high impact or a high priority. They are listed on on the side and they were included in the packet. Uh again, these are all we would anticipate there's going to be a big easement, a significant driveway crossing, maybe the driveway crossing's already unsafe, there's a willing seller, uh there'd be a big retaining wall grading, etc. all of the things that I just discussed of these. One of them uh 13880 Dayton River Road is currently a willing seller and has asked permission from the council to move forward and I believe your next item will discuss that in greater depth. And the other parcel that I wanted to bring up is 17440 and this is on the corner of Lawndale and Dayton River Road. It's my understanding that um that property owner has passed away and the house the the pipes frozen the house over the winter and the house is now in a a state in which it can no longer be lived in and potentially a condemned property. At least that's what staff >> right behind the coral or Yansy property. That's correct. >> Yes, that's right mayor. That's correct. >> Uh so should the council be supportive? That would be another opportunity of the high of the five high priority ones that we could pursue acquisition, but we have we have made no attempts to do so given the council's previous direction for us not to be proactive uh or to seek full acquisitions. >> The pier uh the 13880 property. >> I was kind of confused by you had two versions of the trail there. One was a bridge. >> Oh, yep. It's on this slide. Okay, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you for the tea up. Uh, so as we've talked about the council, it's very hard to tell you exactly where the trail is going to be without knowing what land we have available to use. So this slide looks to kind of articulate that a little bit. The pink color, the the red color, it says full acquisition with a bridge option. So, if we acquire both those two parcels between our property and the city's Cloquet Overlook property, that whole trail would be off the road shoulder. I think each one of those parcels is roughly 5 acres. Um, and you'd probably have, if you acquire both of those parcels, about 2,000 ft off of the road shoulder. And you could, and I can't promise this because we have done no engineering, no soil borings. We haven't looked at this ravine at all, but it could provide an option to do a bridge over the ravine that's within Cloave Park. Or if that br if the bridge is not cost feasible or engineering feasible, you could still route it around the road or around the ravine along the road shoulder in that location. So that's why there's different options. And the gold option would be if the Novak property was not a willing seller, we could still utilize the Pearson property uh 4,000 ft roughly uh and connect a Clover over. >> I thought the safety concern with the Pearson property was running the trail by the road and so we don't know if you you could end up buying that and still not running it across the ravine. >> Right. You That's right. The ravine we don't have design plans for. So, it could either be a bridge or it could come out and touch the road and go around the ravine on the south end of Clo Park. Uh, the safety issue with the Pearson property is an existing safety issue. It has to do with the driveway. There are um blind spots or sight line problems to both the east and the west. There's turning movements into the new residential development to the east. Uh so that condition is existing and certainly would be compounded by adding a trail. We did ask the property owner about doing an easement in the backyard between the house and the bluff line. The property owner was not interested in in pursuing that. >> I think their septic system is back there. >> Their septic system is back there and they they maybe have 30 feet between their patio door and and the bluff line. So, can I have a question, Kelly? Um, so the safety issue is the if the house stays with the driveway, the safety issue for Three Rivers Park, what you've identified is that it's the driveway is an issue going over the like the trail being there and turning into the driveway, not the corner. >> Correct. We can still design a safe trail within the road right away whether we own the Pearson property or not. And that's why we did not come and present this acquisition to the council. The council made it very clear to Three Rivers uh to not bring forward prop property unless we absolutely needed it. And even with these five properties, these are challenges. These are the highest priorities, but you can still build the trail without full acquisition. So, I'm confused about that because all these that the they don't get full control of the property are going to have driveways going across the trail. >> Yep. That's a very standard. >> What's that? >> So, I think for me when I went out there um and walked the property front and back and all of the um I stood at the road where the trail would be. And for me, the bigger issue was thinking if I would be okay walking my 5-year-old down the road cuz the it doesn't look as much of a curve as what it looks like when you're standing there. So, my issue was the curve. Like I understand that the driveway is an issue and the Pearsons are concerned about pulling into their driveway. There is no shoulder so there's no way for them to move over and slow down if they wanted to. So that's definitely an issue. But for me the bigger issue was walking the trail and you know with my squirrely 5-year-old and I'm coming around that corner that looks more sharp when you're actually standing there than it does on this map. >> You're talking about the corner at the ravine. >> Correct. It's at the ravine. But having seen this and I guess knowing that whether the whole property is owned or not, the trail may end up in that exact spot. And that was the spot for me that was an issue. And again, like I'm sympathetic to the fact that for the Pearsons, they are concerned about pulling in their driveway. And and I'm not trying to downplay that concern, but for me, my biggest concern was having the trail that close to the road around that corner where you're watching people whip around it. But if that's going to be what's gonna happen no matter what, then I think maybe my >> my thought process is it's a halfbaked idea. I apologize. This is the first time that I'm like really talking about >> and maybe it's kind of a combination of the three, too. I I I don't know. Um I Yeah, their driveway is not in a good spot as far as the county road goes. No, it it's not in a great spot. But again, for me, the driveway was Yeah, that's an issue, but the bigger issue was that corner. >> I'd feel a lot better if I knew you guys going to put a bridge there. >> I think that I think that's where I'm going without saying it out loud is that if we knew that the bridge was going to happen, and I understand, Kelly, you can't tell me that. We don't know. I'm not saying that you should be able to tell me, but looking at it and saying that the bridge may not happen and it might be on the road anyway, I think it gives me pause. Council member Henderson to further complicate it. This is a county road project scheduled for 2029. >> They have just started sharing their preliminary concepts at the staff level. We have not even had an opportunity to look at it. So all of the assessments we've done are given the current existing conditions and they are going to need right away in different spots depending on the option that they pursue. So where we have said we don't think we need right of way if they utilize their full right of way >> and you do you may >> yeah and and it's my understanding that all their concepts do include a trail component >> but in order for that trail component to work >> given whatever other changes they have within the road corridor. There might be some additional rightaway needs that that we have not yet identified for the Pearson property in the driveway. Uh, and I appreciate and I I know when I talked to Mr. Pearson, he was very appreciative that several of you went out and met with him on site. So, if you can imagine that you're standing at at the driveway and now you put in a trail, you really don't want a car sitting necessarily over that trail or where a sidewalk crossing would be. So now they're going to be say 15 or 20 ft back from that road shoulder and now they won't have any safe visible lines east or west. So that doesn't just become a problem between the Pearson family and potential trail users. But when they're pulling in and out, all the other motorists on the county road are also in a challenging position because they can't see the cars coming in and out. And I can't I don't want to speak for the Pearson family, but what was shared with me is that they already have this problem and the trail is going to make it worse. And the the small place where we would have to go along the ravine where there's already a county road, there are things that we can do if that truly is a a safety problem. Now remember, regardless of the option three rivers in the city go with, we are not talking about a trail within the road like travel lanes or on the shoulder. It's off-road in either option. So you would still probably have a curb if the room allows. You would have a green buffer, you know, a couple feet and then your trail would start. Uh you could also look at doing some type of fence or uh concrete barrier and I mean I think there's lots of different design options. It might be easier to extend the culvert that's there and that gives you more flexibility rather than doing a bridge. I just don't want to promise the city that we're going to do a bridge when we have done absolutely no engineering work to verify whether that's feasible or what the cost may be. >> So, what is the I guess you're losing me on what the urgency is. You're saying the county is just beginning to do their design work. They may or may not need to acquire right away to improve road safety or capacity, whatever they're looking at. Um but but you're plowing ahead with um acquiring properties regardless. >> Yes, thank you for bringing that up. Three like th this is urgent in respect to you have an opportunity. We have a willing seller who would like to sell their property and and use those property rights. You have a county project coming up in 2029. So if the Pearsons sell and they sell to somebody else, we might have a property owner that's not a willing participant and regardless of whether we do a road like a road shoulder in air quotations trail or you do the pink off like greenway option, you're still going to have significant easement needs by the ravine to make the grading work for the trail and that will impact that property. So again, you might have a future property owner that's not a willing participant to provide that easement in which someone has to go through eminent domain and nobody wants to do that. And that driveway condition that's already there only gets worse. So the the urgency is really if the the council wants us to move forward and they recognize those things as high priorities as Three Rivers recognizes them as high priorities. Can I ask a quick question? Um, actually for I don't know if you legal if you know this at the top of your head. Probably not, but my understanding is there was a new statute about eminent domain. Is eminent domain even an option for trails? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, yes, it is um the the statute for uh park districts generally does give them the give their board the the power to acquire property through direct acquisition or through condemnation. Okay, thank you for that clarification. >> If if I may add to that, we are not allowed to use condemnation without council approval and in which case we are hoping the trail gets constructed in partnership with the county's project. So the county would be the the authority exercising that tool. >> So let me just just play this out a little bit differently since we're talking about this property. So it's clear the Pearsons don't want a trail in their front yard. They've made that clear and their solution uh the only solution they've pursued is to talk to you and and want to sell the property. >> I can't speak for the Pearson. >> I'm not ask I'm not asking you to I but I am saying that if they went through the normal process, put up a for sale sign and work with a real sell the house, they would need to disclose that there is a trail coming, right? And who would buy that house then that doesn't want a is is not open to negotiating an easement of some kind. >> I can't speak to whether they have to legally disclose that there's a trail planned along the the corridor or not. That I would defer to a real estate attorney on that. Anybody that's buying property, it is their responsibility to do due diligence and look at the comp plan or any other approved plans. So, I'm I don't want to point a finger. That is out of my expertise. Uh, the Pearsons can sell the property to whoever they want in my opinion or Three Rivers opinion. We're simply here because they've called us and asked us to pursue the opportunity. >> It's right away in front of them. So, it's not even part of the property. Um >> Jason I >> yeah I think the mayor let's go to take I know Jason you guys did some preliminary engineering out there I believe in >> the idea that we were going to build the trail. Do you remember anything that we had for that? >> I guess I'm wondering mayor if the county so there's less right away where that culprit's at and in fact it's only 20 ft from the road I think. Um I guess my question is yeah it's 20 20 ft is what the rightway is from the edge of the road. um if they find that they need more room and that trail has to scoot. I I'm just wondering if you if when you guys looked at it, it it was right around 2019, I think. Um did you conclude that more rightway would be needed there or did you throw up your hands and say it's got to be a bridge? >> Um we expected more right away. We were looking at extending the culbert and putting it next to the road, not building a bridge. But yes, more rightway would be needed through there. >> But even with extra rightway, it seems like there's quite a bank there and now you got a culvert to deal with. I'm just that's my question is is this got to be a bridge regardless. >> Um again, the an extension of the culvert would probably suffice as well. Okay. Um, we did request the Culver be extended farther than it was to leave room for this trail and that was not incorporated into that project, but >> Oh, that was about the same time, wasn't it? >> Um, >> they cleaned it up and >> 2022, >> it was the county project where they came in and did the culverts in preparation for these other projects. >> Yeah, >> guess we kind of drifted into the next. >> So, yeah. So, that's what I was say. Mayor, mayor, council, can we stay on the total trail? I know that we've drifted onto the Pearson property and stayed there, but okay. >> So, kind of te up, I guess, that next conversation. Uh, and and you don't have to take action with my item because my item, I believe, is just really for information and answering questions for the council. Um, we would we would like direction from the council on the Pearson property so that we can move forward with the appraisal if that's the appropriate next step. And then uh also looking for council direction if there is an interest in us pursuing conversations with the bank on the 17740 Dayton River Road corner of Lawndale and I'm going to defer to Zach if you guys would like more information on that. Um, and then just confirm that hearing from the council or from the last meeting, you would like Three Rivers to present the opportunities rather than community members. We we're happy to do that. We were, my apologies, just trying to be respectful of the direction the council had given us previously to not bring forward opportunities. >> You mean as far as them coming forward? Yeah, I did not like that at all because it it it it seems like it should have come from you guys. I think it was the issue of timing for me. Like I wanted to be involved earlier, not at the end after everything is pretty much signed. That's where I was at. >> Um that property on the on the west side there behind uh Yansies. Doesn't that have like a shared easement or a goofy? >> It does not. >> It doesn't. >> No. >> Am I thinking of the property next to it? >> You are. property next to it has an easement over our >> our land so it can access lawn. >> That's correct. >> Oh, that's that one. Okay. >> Uh that property has a pretty big embankment or it's, you know, it's ele the house is elevated from the road shoulders. So be a big retaining wall and then should you want the trail to go down Lawndale to the former Yansy property um in order to meet engineering standards of that trail radi. So, you're most likely going to need a substantial easement and for the retaining wall, the extra construction complications of the retaining wall and the the cost to maintain that. Those are those are Three Rivers costs. Um, that's just why we're flagging it as a high priority and then ease them into Longale to accommodate the trail. >> And so, that property, the house is destroyed. I will defer to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of council, we've had um gentleman passed away in that house and then now it has been um when they when that gentleman passed away, the house froze and the pipes burst and the neighbor called and said that there's water went down the driveway in the middle of December. Not a great option. And then so the whole entire basement was full of water. Then it froze solid as a brick as it got colder last winter. And then >> so the house is a a complete tear down. Um it is owned by the bank currently. um had a conversation with the I don't even know how you want to call it the next of kin and they have no way to get it back from the bank. So the bank owns it outright. Um that's it. And so there's currently no one living there and would like to get that from being a property that is kind of condemnable property to being something that's at least leveled and be able to not have any other issues with it. So or potential issues I should say. It would still be buildable. >> It is still buildable property. Yes. I will say that that corner is not fantastic. I've sat at that corner a couple times and try to take a right out of there or a left and you are on the gas immediately. Um so that would be some significant I would probably say some significant retaining wall work and likely moving of the house if that property were to be acquired by somebody else. The house would have to be leveled in but likely moved away from the roadway just because of the location of near it. It's not a great location. >> So, how does that work? If I mean, if banks got it now, you're going to looks to me like you're definitely going to need easement. >> They will for sure need easement and likely a large retaining wall because it is a it is not a great corner. >> Yeah. No, I I that that one is kind of like crossing Pine View to the south going to the south. >> Yes. >> Um do you would you work with the bank first? I mean, let's let's say you weren't going to purchase property. you'd work with the bank to get that easement. >> We wouldn't be pursuing an easement until we had a construction project lined up because we wouldn't know the extent of what we would need until we had design done. Um, and since this is so far on the western part of the corner, we don't we really been focusing and see the first phase to get to the west side of LC Stevens or possibly Vixsburg. >> Okay. Why Why would you not pursue an easement, but you'd want to buy it? Uh we certainly could do that. I'm just asking. >> It's it's uh what we have found is when someone is ready to sell and we ask to do an easement, they do not want to further encumber the property which may prohibit >> what they can get for the the sale or how the property could be used. Well, that's why I'm wondering why you wouldn't do an easement as soon as you could with the bank because the bank's going to want to >> because I I don't believe Well, I can't speak for the bank, but it would be my understanding they probably would not want to further encumber that property so that they couldn't sell it. >> Okay. So, just some general feedback. Um the the greenway option is a non-starter for me. Um that's just I will not say yes to that. Um I basically the ones where you've indicated that the house will in fact be impacted by the trail. So the 17 and there was a small typo typo. It's 7 well here it's right 17440. Um and 16630 those those yes um the other ones I would need a really strong argument for why it can't be done. And kind of like Stephanie, if it's going to wind up on the road anyway, then then I then I'm then I'm a no. Um, so but the the greenway is just I'm I will never vote yes for the greenway. And other than these five that you've indicated, I'm going to say no to anything else as a guarantee. And these are, like I said, those first two I would I get um the other three are may and everything else on that on that list is a no for me. That's where I'm at. >> This list >> well um so this so this list of these five 17440 and 16630 I Yes. I mean they're they're they're the house particularly 16630 the house is practically on the road. like I don't know how on earth you're going to get a trail there. Um and the one that we talked about that's condemned the house like that. So I get those. The other three >> I could be argued one way or the other. I think there's valid arguments on both sides. And so I could I'm not a solid no, but I'm not a absolute yes. Um but outside of these five, I'm a no for anything else. Like period, end of story. >> Yeah, I think that's where I'm at. Well, I'll I'll speak. I think everybody knows where I'm at on all of this anyway. But um you know, the greenway option, I think we've been pretty consistent in saying we're not interested in that, but we you bring it back every meeting and uh I don't know, you know, if you're expecting some magic to happen there, but uh it's not common. So, I think we'd be more productive talking about an option that that can be acceptable to both parties. Um, I think that I appreciate that you've narrowed the list down. Um, I'm not sure that all of these are as strong an argument as as you want us to think they are when you say safety, but don't support it with anything that, you know, that doesn't doesn't automatically fly with me. Um, I'll leave alone some of the other um enhancement that's been done with some of the benefits, but I think we can I think we can talk about um some of these and I think that, you know, more homework needs to be done to convince us that those properties are needed because I'm I'm in favor of the road option with the least amount of impact to the current homeowners as possible. you. >> Anybody else? >> I think I said most of the smart >> Sarah summed them up. >> I'm waiting for Steph. >> Oh, yeah. And I was just saying that um I think Sarah summed up a lot of the things that I was kind of thinking and um again while I am generally very much for like land owner rights and this is your property and if you want to sell it or do whatever it is you want to with it within reason. Um I'm generally supportive of that. Um, my main concern, you know, looking at these properties, like spot on. I understand where you're coming from. Um, you know, again, Sarah pretty much summed up a lot of what I was feeling. And again, like specifically, I know we're not talking about the Pearson property yet. Um, but the that corner was really I mean, I obviously understanding that the driveway pulling in and out is an issue. I pulled in and out and it was not great. Like fully understand that. Um, but for me again that corner was a bigger issue and if there's a probable chance that the trail will end up there anyway. I mean this is a 5 acre that's a 5acre piece that's a very large chunk of property. Um, and I guess we can talk more about that at the next item if we want to. Um, but again um, yeah, that's kind of where I stand. But I also wanted to say thank you cuz Kelly, you've been here a bunch of times and this is really helpful to have it actually mapped out and the properties mapped out. Um, so I really appreciate that. >> I don't have any issue with the 17440. Um, I also feel like I mean I was out at the uh Pearsons and and I don't see the um the dangerous sightelines myself. I mean, I drove I I understand where they're coming from. As you get older, you move a little slower and that's where they're coming from. Uh they just don't I I found it simple to just drive out on the road and get going. Uh, now could that be different at 3:30 or 4:00? Yeah. I mean, maybe you got to wait another minute. Um, and I believe a right in on that driveway could be could handle a lot of that issue. There's enough there's enough ground for that. Um, plus the the roadway there is probably about 60 ft 50 to 60 ft wide. So, to me, the county could kind of give a little and make it work. No matter what, the uh trail is going to go on the road. Unless you get the house, then you're going to put it in the back and and and tear that house down. I personally would just assume have it sold to somebody to keep it on the tax row. That's me personally because I don't see the desperate need to actually have have to have it. So, that's where I am. And we still have four years before anything's going to happen. There's no real rush to get it done. >> That's it. Yep. >> Anything else for Parker? Kelly >> comments from the mayor? >> No. >> No. I think everything's kind of been covered. I think the only issue at this point is actually, you know what? I I do have a couple questions. The 16630. Is it police >> is the problem? The house is too close to the road. One one uh 16630. >> There's a shed. I believe that's what they close to that roadway. >> Yeah. >> And and the house is very close with a steep I think there's a steep bank in front of that house for the It's just off technically the rightway >> on right in front of there. >> Oh, I was thinking Yeah. This is Jordan's. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yep. Yes, >> I can go through some notes we have on the property if helpful. >> There's there's significant issues besides just the house. I mean, >> that's Yeah. Okay. >> And that's why it's all >> the reason when I looked at it, I thought it was um >> I don't know how you're going to do that without acquiring it. >> Get past the house then the trail is >> Well, this >> kind of already exists. But the house is the problem. >> Yeah, the house is the problem. And >> and there's a ruby. It's right up on the hill. Yeah. >> Um >> Yeah, you would need a substantial retaining wall to make it work. >> Yeah. Okay. And then >> you're going to need it. >> There's a reason why it's on the list. >> Yeah. >> And that one I totally get. >> 16430. Sorry, I thought I tracked these guys. Um yeah, the property at 16430. Um is that also um >> related to a ravine that's on the property? >> We have uh our notes grading and or retaining wall and potential easement. It's likely to accommodate the trail due to slope. There is no road shoulder and there's already a guardrail there due to the safety concerns of the road. the house and landscaping is close to the road and is in anticipated to be impacted by by the trail where the house can could remain, but it the trail gets pretty close. Um driveway is probably not going to be impacted. >> It has this >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm I f in the same boat. The the one um by Lawndale. Um I I get that one. Um it sounds like it's that's the only way to Well, >> Dennis, can you clarify what you mean by you get that one? Can you say Can you say >> Well, it sounds like it it sounds like we're what I heard was we're okay with that one or at least a few of us are okay with that one. >> The full acquisition or the >> I don't know how you fix that um >> without having it. >> Yeah. Without having it because the house is shot. So if we're concerned say about low lowpriced homes that's not going to get a low priced home. Um, however, >> could still get a home. >> It will still get a home. Yeah. But I don't know how you run a trail. I don't know how you run a trail by that without a lot more easement. >> Um, >> but are they current willing seller right now? >> The bank. >> We don't know. we would just if the council was supportive, we would extend a phone call to the bank and >> go from there. >> So, I guess that's kind of why I was asking like are are you telling Threeverse Park District that we would be okay if they approached the bank and they came back and said they wanted to buy it? Like are we not like there? I I guess I'm just wondering like what you mean by we're okay with that one. >> Well, just trying to make sure we're getting clear direction here. Maybe we should just go right down those five >> and see where each one of us is at. >> Um >> I think it's premature to look at a lot of these. We talked about um potential realignment of the intersection at Lndale. The county doesn't have a timeline that they're willing to >> actually I forgot about that >> that they're willing to support or show us or talk to us about yet because they're doing it in phases. I think that one's too far out to make a decision on. >> No, I forgot about that. They >> Yeah. So may the reason why I separated this out in two different items. I want a discussion on the entire trail. a separate item and then we could talk about the only one that at least city staff is understanding that needs to be a present discussion because there's a present project. Everyone needs times to design things. Everyone needs time to do stuff. We can't wait four years and then do that because they need time to design. There needs times to be things have to be discussed and and understood. So really it boils down to okay those five properties are the ones that I'm hearing from discussion of these ones are the ones that even we're remotely looking at a possibility from council. Yeah. And I'm not not saying that's a for sure yes or for sure no. I'm just that's even a possibility. And the only one that we really need direction on tonight is the first one which is 13880 Dayton Road only because we have a willing seller who has come approached the council. It's been tabled at a previous meeting. >> You were waiting for more information from previous park district. We got that information for you. Um I think there was good discussion on that overall item and so I would ask that we just move on from the discussion because I think I got clear direction from the council at least at this point. Yep. >> And then that specific item or that specific property, the one we talk about. >> That seems reasonable. >> Yep. >> So my first question is how much would it cost to figure out if you can put the bridge in because that like that seems to be at least for Stephanie and I like the the thing. >> Yeah. Mayor Ros, what we could do is if that's something that we even want to try to figure out is we could work with your participants and see if you guys want to do some soil borings back there or whatever on a potential area. The problem is I don't know where you want to put the bridge. Could it move forward? Could it move backward? I don't know. Um because depending on where you put the trail at on the Pearson property, depending if that's a full acquisition or not, the bridge could move. Um, I believe city staff would be in full support with being a bridge versus close to the roadway because I agree that that roadway is very tight right there. And it's people get whipping around that corner. It's pretty bad. And I'd probably be guilty about it as much as everybody else is. But, um, yeah, I don't know if I'd feel fantastically safe having a bunch of walkers or rollers or whoever running that close to the roadway at that corner specifically. But I know we did work with the county when they did the project. I think it was in 2022 when they did the ravine work. Um, and I know Jason and I had conversations about with the county to extend that as far as possible, and they basically said, "No, we're not doing that." So, um, we got a few more trees, but that's about it. >> Well, the bridge can definitely be put anywhere there. >> Yeah. The only question is if we do soil borings, if we spend the money in soil borings, you're now going to try to pick a spot as best you can cuz likely it's going to come up with poor soils as we all know. >> What? >> No. >> Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. They got trail. They got bridges going through cattails. >> Mhm. It's true. Yeah, >> you can put a bridge over anything. It just cost money. >> I'll just note on there that the ravine narrows up quite a bit as you go closer to the river. So, >> um it is it it's probably just guessing off measurements on their plans. Maybe a 60oot span if you move it further north towards the river or it's maybe even double that if you try to do it closer to the road. >> Is there any risk that the soils could be so bad that a bridge couldn't go in there? >> Uh well, you could do it. It' just be the cost. if you can do a spread footing versus piloting or other accommodations, but I I expect it can be accomplished. It's just >> could cost more. >> Go ahead. I think I'm playing where you >> maybe not. I have a little more of a direct question and I don't mean for it to be as direct as it's going to be. So, please forgive me, Kelly. Um, I want to check the temperature of uh Three Rivers Park District on how gung-ho are we about this bridge. So for you, if it's like, yeah, I mean, it would be all right. And I'm not asking you to say it's you can't tell me it's definitely going to go in or it's not, but is it something that the Rivers Park District is like it energized about and like this would be really cool. We really want to do this. And if it's just, oh my god, like not feasible, then that would be the reason why we wouldn't. Or is it, hey, it was just an option on a plan and it looks cool and and I'm not going to fault you for that. But I guess if that's what you're Okay, I'll stop talking. >> That's a very fair question. Uh, our goal is to have the trail away from the road, the greatest, highest desirable trail user experience. uh like the city, we still have tax we still use taxpayer dollars. So, we have to be fiscally responsible. So, it it ultimately will come down to is this become a $3 million bridge or is this a $300,000 bridge? And I don't have the expertise >> to answer that today. I don't >> I don't want to put Jason on the spot either, but >> there's so many variables in it. I don't try to make a call >> and and I'm not asking for a definite. Obviously, I know you're not going to be able to give me one and everything does come down to >> I think if if it's a reasonable cost, then that's going to be our our preference and that's what we've done in the past. >> If the cost is millions of dollars and there's another option that's still safe >> and >> we owe it to the community members to evaluate that. >> If they would say yes, we're definitely putting a bridge, >> I'm guessing you'd be okay with this. >> I think I would be to be honest. I would be okay with >> and I think I would be too but I don't know how we get there. >> No, we don't play in like again it's comes down to the cost and and feasibility and I completely respect that and >> but if if that trail ends up going >> on the road I'm going to be >> then it's then the whole >> you're it >> you're essentially preserving the opportunity, >> right? >> And and I'm not here to advocate one way or the other. we have a a seller that's willing. I'm doing my due diligence to bring it forward to the council to consider it. And if the council says no, then we have that. The Pearsons probably will sell to somebody else and we're pretty much probably locked in at a road solution at that point. And I get that's not reasonable or anyone's desire, but that's that's essentially what is on the table today is preserving the opportunity for for the bridge and then also guaranteeing that you'd have the thousand ft off road for the remainder of the property. I've got Stephan Sherson. He's a landscape architect on our team and if he's up here, I mean he has Go for it. >> Not much, but uh may be council. Now, thank you. Uh, I just wanted to point out too that if if bridge is deemed to not be financially uh, feasible or or physically feasible, uh, extending the covert, even though the county said no at this point, that was probably just because it's maybe out of scope for the project, but extending the culvert uh, from from the from the highway would give us more space to bring the trail further from the road and create a safer condition. So, even if a bridge isn't possible, and as Kelly mentioned, that is our preference if it's, you know, if it makes sense. Um there are options on the next to the road to make the road uh trail next to the road going around the ravine a safer condition as well. >> Can I ask an ignorant question? Meaning like I just don't have the knowledge is not my area. When you say extending the covert, how can you give me a distance? Like how far like do you mean when you say extend the cover? Like are we talking a couple feet? Are we talking 10 feet? Like what does that mean? Like what I guess what did we ask for? We >> for reference at LC Stevens we were going to do a bridge. >> Yeah. Just >> and we ended up looking at it and doing the culbert extension was >> want to say it was about 80 ft. >> Yeah. I think it's 70 70. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So potentially >> this one wouldn't have to be extended as far I expect. >> And so you still could extend the covert and move that trail farther from the road. That still puts the Pearson property in play because you need to get to that >> to the extent to the Exactly. So you are some type of easement and you don't design trails like Exactly. You're not going to hook them, right? >> 90 or 100 foot sweeping curves because they're designed for people >> to be able to bike safely on them >> and Okay. No, that those the larger radius is is part of our uh regional trail design standards. Um it's for safety. You know, there's they're designed to have a certain speed just like you design highways for speed. There's trails are designed for uh 20 mph uh uh uh bike traffic um and for visibility. Um, so that that kind of comes into play with the other property uh on Lawndale as well too to get uh if we were to access uh the former Yansy property, we need also a 100 foot radius curve um kind of cutting the corner there of that property to get into the Bondale property. So for the Pearson property, the farther you want the trail from the road, the more that you have impacted or the more easement you need from the Pearson property. >> I think what you're seeing on the map here uh with the curves kind of around the um around the ravine are probably pretty close to 100 ft to give you a visual. >> That's very helpful. Thank you. So many members of council question is good. >> Do you >> have we moved on to the next topic? >> Yes. Yes, we have moved on to item L. Hopefully I think we just kind of slid into item L. >> Thank you so much. Y >> not you. >> Sorry Mike Kelly. Yep. Yep. Or do you want me to stand? >> Nope. You can stand there more questions. >> Does anybody else have any comment about this? All right. >> Is it about item L >> or is it about item K? >> K. >> Okay. >> The trail stop. >> I just wanted a What's the address? >> The Pearson place. >> You So there's about that. That's the item we're on. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Um, so I just wanted to bring up the opinion too if the if the trail goes in along the road, that's going to open up a lot of visibility. You can see here like the trees and and and if that ravine is extended, that's going to open up a lot of visibility. So part of it was like not being able to get out of their driveway and see that. And the other thing is this trail goes miles and miles. Everybody has to drive over that trail to get out of their driveway. So, the fact of saying that they have to stay way back because they can't get out of their driveway. I feel like that's really not a very good supportive reason as to why they would have to acquire this property. And then just another thought is, is it possible? I don't know visually where the house is and stuff. Is it possible that we could split the property and acquire some of it next to the ravine to take the trail closer without selling the entire property to three rivers? It's just a couple of huts. And then can I get your name and address? Name and address. >> Uh my name is Heidi Reszitech. My address is 1 16840 Dayton River Road. >> Thank you. >> Can I get you to spell your last name cuz I'm going to screw it on here and >> R Z E S Z U T E K. >> Just like I would love to spell that and compare to the >> naturally the Z's are silent. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Uh, Crystal Fashion, 16860 Dayton River Road in Dayton. Um, I sent a letter to the council. Uh, I hope you read it. I tried to provide some uh reasonable um arguments as to why this just doesn't make sense to me as a homeowner on Dayton River Road. Um this is going to continue on and on and on. Every property that you say yes to, another one is going to become high priority. Um you know what they want? They want the greenway. When you go to that map on the greenway, it goes right through my house. That's what they want. That is the endgame here. The reason that they're not going to build this trail on the road is because they want to hold out until you all either condemn our homes or they get us all to fall like a house of cards and and all of us fold. That is the endgame here. So, let's let's be clear and honest about that. That greenway option has come back again and again and again and that's what they want. That's why you're not getting any clear information about putting this on the roadway. Um, nobody's talking about Henipin County. Why couldn't the road be looked at to be moved? Why can't the road be looked at to be realigned? Or that they're already talking in Hipin County for this road realignment to to take down some of the height on some of these um these hills and other things. There's so many options here, but they don't want to talk about any of them because they want all of our houses and they want you to eventually condemn them all. This is 28 homes in Dayton. They've already gotten 13 or 14. They're affordable homes. Are you really going to do this to to condemn all of this river property? Dayton has been platted. It was platted in 1870. Okay? Or 1855, excuse me, 170 years ago. Now you're going to sell this to the park. You're going to give away all of this land forever and ever. It just doesn't make any sense. Every argument that comes up is going to sound like a good one. We have to be done at some point with this. Please, please. There's no urgency to sell this house. There's no urgency to sell any of them. There's certainly no urgency to look at the five that they've identified. One of those is our good friend and neighbor who has been here fighting this the whole time. Are we just going to condemn their home? I, you know, you don't want to do that. We don't want that to happen. Let's let's just stop. Let's be real about this and let's not have this come up again and again. Thank you for all the attention you have put on this. I appreciate your deep thoughts on all this. Please think of us when you're thinking of these decisions. Please, please don't let our our houses be condemned. That's where this is going. That's what they want. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> You just couldn't stay away. >> You're making up for the other half, aren't you? >> Yeah. >> I don't need to make up for anybody. Keith Grover 113 in Fernbrook. The the homeowners in this area um to me really hit the heart of this whole thing. You know, to to be able to work your whole life and save up enough money to buy a beautiful piece of property along the Mississippi River that's there's no more they're not making any more of it. It's it is what it is. And to have, you know, big brother basically coming in with their thumb on you, even though that's not what they're saying. We all know that's what's going on. I mean, if it's not the park, it's the county. If it's not the county, it's the state. Um, I just have a real problem with us giving up any more any more uh tax income, for lack for a better word, from the city of Dayton. And I talked about this here a while back. I mean, I looked at the Henipa County map and tried to get a rough estimate of what what uh Three Rivers Park owns in the city of Dayton. To me, I came up with over 2,300 acres. That's a huge chunk. That's that's almost 14.5% of our available land in the city that Three Rivers already owns. And every time I turn around, they're buying another chunk. I don't like what's happening with these these folks along the river. That really bothers me that they're put in this position to have to defend the right to have their own property and to to maintain their own property. They're beautiful pieces of property. Heck, when I was a kid, I always wanted to live on the river. My parents could never afford to buy property on the river and neither could I, you know. So, I I I really envy them be being on those pieces of property. I just found out in this research that I did, and I know I've told you guys this before, but Three Rivers bought 20ome acres over on French Lake on the south end of French Lake. There's another 20 acres that we're not getting any tax dollars. The county says they paid like $650,000 for this 20 acres that for most of the time for me growing up as a child was a swamp. You couldn't even run cattle in there because it was too wet. Somehow somebody in their infinite wisdom allowed someone else to buy the property and fill it in, which you can't you can't do that nowadays. It used to be a swamp. That whole property that's that was there that they bought used to be nothing but a swamp. It was basically worthless property. You can't build anything on it. There's no bottom to it. It's lake bottom. They filled it in. It was it was uh owned by a a gun club. It was a shooting range. So that whole area down there is going to have thousands of pounds of lead shot down there from people going out there and practicing for years at this shooting range. That was the property that was owned and that Three Rivers just bought on French Lake. Now I don't know what the heck they're going to do with it. sure probably would have been a good place for us to have a park right on the on the lake, but I just have a real problem with us giving up more of our tax base. You know, you talk about all the things that we got coming forward in the next few years that we need to pay for here and you can only go to the well so many times. People are are getting hit hard out here with taxes now. You the magical solution was, well, let's bring business in. Let's bring more homes in. It'll lower our tax burden. It has done none of that. All it causes is us to have more services, be able to plow more roads, fix more roads, fix more water and sewer. It's to me it's like a cat chasing its tail. I just am just not in favor of us giving up any more any more uh property that we can't collect property tax on. That's just where I'm at. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? All right. So, >> so I was looking at the amount of easement that's already there on that stretch and it looks like it's 125 ft from from the far from cuz the road's going to get redone. The road itself can move, right? That's the whole point is the road's not necessarily going to stay exactly where the road is today. Um, >> possibly. I mean poss and but I'm just saying like that's but that's part of the point of doing the project now is the entire road is being looked at. So um it could potentially the road itself could shift. Um and I've I've always from the beginning had a hard time giving up. I appreciate a homeowner's right to sell their land. We're not saying they can't sell their land. That's never been the statement. And the thing with selling it to the park versus anyone else if we sold it, so say Starbucks bought it, they can't just go and put a Starbucks up like they can't change the underlining zoning of a property. But when we sell it to the park, suddenly it's no longer ours. We can never change our minds. We can never get it back. We have no control. Like we give up literally, we're literally giving it away at that point and it is no longer ours. any other sale to anyone else, it is still ultimately within the city's control. Um, and so no one's saying they can't sell it. We're saying that we don't want it. We don't want to give up more of our city. Um, and I hadn't I hadn't actually thought about it from the perspective of the entire road is going to be redone and there is more than enough space there for the road and a trail without, you know, the the question of that corner gets a little tricky, but I'm actually I'm I'm I'm waffling. I'm going to be honest. Yeah, Council Vaness, I one thing that we don't know and we will know more maybe in the future is what Henipin Countyy's plan is for that roadway. I don't know if it's going to turn into a three-lane all the way and then you have turn lanes on both sides. Now, you don't have enough space of rideway currently, whether that's from the city of Dayton or Henipin County to put a trail. >> I'm not trying to say that I know cuz I don't. I just want to make sure that we have all the information in front of us that we can perspect all day long. There's currently 125 ft of right of way there. Most certainly. Um, that should be enough if Henipin County keeps the rail road as it sits today. But if they do any sort of expansion at all, which I don't know if they're going to or not, we'll know hopefully more. I'm looking at Jason because he should know more with the county than I do. >> I thought they did see. >> Yeah, they released the their draft study on Thursday. I'm trying to scramble through it in hundreds of pages. It looks like it's going to remain a two-lane section up there. At least for this project, >> they were looking at possibly adding turn lines, right? in some >> there will be turn lanes at intersections, but it looks like the >> if if that's the case, then yeah, then you have more confidence than I had before when I said the statement because I don't know any more than you guys do for information. So, >> I just want to make sure all the information is present and before we're saying we assume this is going to happen because we don't know. >> We don't know. >> Okay. Any more discussion? One other comment I'll I'll make is that um you know we are if this property is sold to Three Rivers, we are creating another island for the property next to them. They're now now have Three Rivers Park property on both sides of it. We've seen this happen before where where one goes then another and now that now that homeowner is in an on an island and has has the same issue that that my neighbor just a couple houses away has where he's surrounded by park property and how long can you hold out and I I I think that everybody should be aware that we're creating that problem yet again by the sale of this property. >> What are you asking? have already said where >> you know >> that to me there's no big there's no urgency I mean they got four years to sell it yet. >> Yeah. >> Three and a half anyway. >> We are in item L. Correct. I just want to make sure cuz we went back and forth a couple times. >> We kind of want to make sure we just want to make sure. >> So I'm going to make a motion to deny this. >> So I got we got to take it out of it was tabled. Um, okay. >> Yep. So, you have to take a motion to unten. >> No. Then then just dies. >> He would ask for a motion three times. If he doesn't get a motion for approval, then >> it's always like a weird >> and not knowing what we need to do. >> So, I'll make a motion to unt >> untest item. >> Um, okay. Dave and Stephanie. Okay. So now I am asking for a motion to >> So we need to have a vote. >> Huh? >> Vote for >> all those in favor of untabling. >> I >> I All those opposed to untabling. >> Thank you. >> All right. Five to zero. Um All right. So now we would need a motion to >> approve 79 2025 and I'll ask for a motion again and I'll ask for a motion one more time. You okay? No motion. >> Thank you. Okay. And item Mway. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. Um, we've been talking about $30 an hour for firefighters for probably the last 18 months or so. Um, Zach and I sat down um again and um had a further discussion. Um so the change that um Zach proposed um to me and I brought it back to the firefighters was instead of $30 well $30 an hour and that's always been on the table um to have the ability for the firefighters to bring in years of service um as for the step and pay grade system. Um, one thing I will say on this slide that is incorrect. If you look at current planned, uh, there is no, it's $30 an hour for firefighters and officers. It's not $32. Um, for there isn't a current increase. It's flat $30 regardless of what that was. So, Zach, can I >> I apologize. I I put that one on there. >> Um, so that's currently what's proposed. roughly about $292,490 roughly is what we anticipate and it's kind of a swag depending upon calls. Um the potential change would reduce the budget a little bit. Um about 20 $32,000 or somewhere in that neighborhood. So pay is based on years of service starting at 2514. um pay based on years of service uh on average if you take um or I'm sorry 26.90 is for officers and if we looked at the average I think it was like 2640 or something to that effect. Um when we look at this supports firefighter retention, provides predictability for long-term wage growth. Um encourages member to build long-term careers with the department. Um advances firefighter skills, stronger capability and duter workforce. So the ability to bring in other uh firefighters from other uh areas if they already reside within the city, obviously offering those opportunities to them. Um, and with that being said, um, the max that we would offer and what we've typically done according to Zach in the past is we've never hired above grade or step three >> four. >> Step four, >> step four. >> Um, so we probably look around that middle of the road and I'll get to that on the next slide here. Um, creates that structured pathway for officer roles. So the one thing that we don't have on here um is that um, officers are going to be placed on step and grade two. So step and grade one is our current uh standard forum part-time staff throughout the entire city. Um we'd move them up so between grades at 7%. So be 7% increase giving that promotional value to those that are interested in pursuing leadership opportunities. So this gives an idea of what you've seen in the packet. Um annual step increases. Again step one um it's 2514. Um there's a little bit more information in the packet that talks about probationary steps. Um they start off at $15 an hour. Upon earning EMT, they go up $2 an hour to $17 an hour. Um once they earn fire one, fire two, and hazmat, it moves up to $19 an hour. Um and then upon completing fire apparat operator, they'd be at $20 an hour. So typically that process roughly takes the firefighter about 18 months. um that so once they were here in front of you for being badged um they would receive that $25.14 an hour. That's when that clock would start for uh year one. Um the other thing that you may see in here is we talking about holiday compensation. Um the one thing that is not in here um so we put in here um one and a half times for um it's not in the presentation up in front of us but um New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day would be paid at the rate of time and a half um for those uh duty crew shifts. The other thing that we need to take in account that Zach and I haven't talked about but we'll have to figure it out is that if we did have an all call that day, those firefighters be compensated at that same rate of time and a half um for coming back. So we have to put that into the budget somehow if we're going to move forward with a time and a half rate. The other option that was given to firefighters on three of the holidays, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day, um they could reside in their home uh with their family on those particular days. Um and receive um if it's $30 an hour that we go with or whatever their hourly wages based upon their years of service. Um or if they wanted to, they could go to the station or reside at the station during those days and they would get their time and a half. Um this was brought to the the department. We had 23 people um in the department um vote if you will. Um 18 are looking for seven grade and five we're looking for $30 now. I stand for any questions. I have just a couple clarifications. So there are uh looks like five steps during beginning with probation and then at the various achievement levels EMT and firefighter one and and so on. Does that all happen in the first year? Then >> council member fac yeah it's roughly so the uh academy starts in September by the middle of January they are at EMT fire one fire two and hazmat takes roughly between the middle of January till roughly the end of May or the first week in June. We try to give them a couple a little bit off if they choose to um for FAO. Often they want to get it done. So maybe they do it starting in August, September of that same year. Then there that's usually about 40 hours of class. So it would be roughly all within roughly about a year time. >> Okay? Because that's where your step one starts. And that's what I was trying to make the connection to is that >> they get through these other five steps in the in the first year and then they're at they're at step one at that point. >> Yep. So there is a little bit of a time lapse between when they're done with fire apparatus operator. It's roughly about 6 months. We have them they have a probationary book that they complete with any of the firefighters or officers within the organization. It's about a six-month time frame. So they're getting familiar through fire one, fire two, and EMT. We've given them the basic foundation for um their skills. Now we're going to teach them where the equipment is on the apparatus, how Dayton does it and so forth. So that's roughly the next six months. So typically if we start in September, March is when you typically will find them in front of you for badge pinning or swearing in. And that's when that 18 month has been completed and at that point is when that 2514 would start through year one. If that makes sense. it it still seems like there's some overlap between that timing and and step one. Um >> I don't remember what the steps were. So it's 15 17 >> 15 20 25 >> 20 and then they would get $20 an hour until they get pinned which is could be 6 months could be 8 months could be you know longer than that depending on how well they're doing with their book it sounds like. And then and then they would move at the time of pinning then they would go to 2514. That would then be their step date. And then every year after that that's when they would get their next step. >> They can get pinned for say 18 months. >> Then they do not they do not receive 2514 until they get pinned which could be 18 months after. >> So they don't move to step one. >> They do not move in step. >> That's the part I was not able to. >> It says one year service. Yeah. Oh yeah, it's a little different with the fire department because it says years of service, but the steps are actually when you actually go to step one and then you'd get every year after that then you'd get another step depending on how you know if you meet the requirements of the department or whatever that may be. >> I hate steps, but I'm not sure how else you do this. >> I I don't either, but I mean I >> I like this a lot better than the flat rate that says everybody's worth the same amount on day one, which we know is not really the case. Um the other and I think you you spoke to this chief that um the the time and a half on on holidays that has not yet been factored into the overall budget number >> and I don't expect that to be an a big impact but I I just want to clarify that it's not there yet. >> Correct. Yeah, that's Zach and I have been working on that and basically we're going to try to accommodate that within our current budget. um you know, as we hopefully we don't have an all call or a structure fire that day, but you know, if we do, we do. >> Um we don't we don't have a trace on that, but um yeah, so we're trying to work it into that budget. Even with a little bit of that cost savings, that's where some of it could come from as well. >> Did you list all federal holidays? >> No. >> No, >> we did not do all federal holidays. And I don't >> we have to >> um for pay time and a half. >> Yeah. I don't technically believe so because it's a paid on call, but we can confirm that. I can confirm with HR. >> Yeah, that I I don't believe we need to, but >> I think we do >> because we don't need to at all. So, you're just proposing >> correct. It's Yeah, we don't have to technically pay them overtime. It's not a set scheduled time. It's not you have to be here today. >> However, however, we are looking at doing a duty crew model next year and so then it would be more of a now you have time that's scheduled there. So, I don't know. We'd have to work through that process if that's something that council is okay with. I guess I don't know if it's okay with doing or required to do. I guess that might be something that we have to talk about. So >> when the onsite versus at home comes into play, >> correct? And that's one thing that I think that was really good from the department and from the chief is bringing it up is that you could be at home and still get your pay and still be with your family too if that's needed to. >> But your uncle >> But your uncle >> on real call. >> You're on real call like actually medical team type call or whatever that might Are you getting paid for every hour that you're at home or only >> just for the duty crew time frame? >> No, right. So, it would be >> this is your shift. You're being paid for all of those hours while you're at home. Correct. >> So, would that not speak to your point of that it is not a paid on call then because they're different. >> That's what I'm saying. >> So, that it may trigger >> it may trigger the whole holiday federal pay that we have today on every federal holiday because you're now required them time versus now currently it's paid on call. You don't know if you're going to have a call or not. it might not work at all >> and you show up and get paid for that. >> You got it. >> So, I will do some research on that to figure out if it's every federal holiday we have to do or not. And if it's the case, then I will follow back up with council so that you're aware if that's something the council wants to do. >> Would that be nice to know the liabilities? >> Yeah. Yep. >> But as far as the pay structure, the flat 30 versus step, I I'm with David. I prefer this. I think it acknowledges that not everyone is someone who's just started is obviously not the same as someone who's been there for five years and that should be acknowledged. So I like I like this the holidays have to get figured out because we obviously want to follow laws. >> I have a question I couldn't hear. What uh >> so you cannot go from step one to step five in one year? >> No. No, >> no. >> Okay. >> Just in council, >> you're talking to a from from a guy that for 30 years I was a meat cutter and whether you're a one-year meat cutter, a one-mon meat cutter, or a 30-year meat cutter, you get the same money as everybody. So, for me, it's >> and that's what we currently have is the system currently >> and and planned is the same thing. >> Yep. >> I don't think that's uncommon in um union situations, at least ones that I'm familiar with. Correct. >> Um but the this the step piece is more common in what we've seen in city contracts. >> Yeah. >> In government in general. >> That's cuz they set it up that way. >> Right. Right. And um but I've I guess my only point was that I've seen it seen that both ways and it's not uncommon in unions for non-union position which these are there's more flexibility for merit >> based. Oh, I get that part of it. There is no merit here. And that's >> there is none. It's it's an automatic step. And >> and that's what I was thinking about. I mean that, you know, when you have when you're in >> like where I'm at, it's it's 100% merit. You you But I don't know how you do that here. Um >> you can't. So yeah, mayor council, there have been other communities that do merit pay. It is a much more complicated system um that you can do merit pay, but you have to have a range still. So you start with a Z I'm going to call it a zero and 100%. And then you work whatever that range is and then that person will receive a merit pay based on that. The problem and issues that communities run into or or should say maybe challenges is that you end up with how much do you budget every year for those increases in merits because if everybody in your department's doing fantastic, you only have so much budget to use, you can't give everybody a 10% raise. Sure. >> Um so then you end up with okay, who's getting what raise and whatnot. Um, and it it is possible. Unions don't like that nearly as much because then it's not consistent. Um, I was successful in one community that I worked with to get married paying involved with >> through a union. >> It took the act of God, but we got it. >> Yeah. >> I have a question because this is my first goound with this step >> system. Um, when you're looking at the officer like lieutenant and captains and it says like three years of service, do you does that mean three years of service as a captain or a lieutenant or does that mean in your role or >> Councilman Henderson? Good question. Um, so for instance, let's use a couple of the firefighters that are currently here that are officers. Um, we are going to have two different pay rates per se. So for them, so one has been here for uh longer than seven years. So they are going to start at step eight or seven, whatever the seven step seven um in that capacity. The other person that's been here for two years or three years, whatever it is, they would start at step three. So you could fundamentally have, and Zach and I talked about this, you could have a a firefighter that's making more than an officer just based upon them kind of where they started and whatnot. So, it's to your question, it's not specific, at least for our current folks that we've hired. Um, I will say that probably is going to come into play once we start to look within the community if there's folks as well as outside um for members that are wishing to join the duty program. >> Yeah, I think that was exactly what I was trying like what I was thinking is you could have a firefighter making more than >> That is correct. >> Your captain or your lieutenant. >> That's correct. So I guess that makes it like thinking of what's the incentive of taking on more responsibility if >> but a seven-year firefighter versus a seven-year like but that individual right if I've been here 7 years if I'm a firefighter I'm at 3181 but if I'm an officer I'm at 3404. So >> like for that individual making the decision they would make more if they move into the office regardless. So, and that's ultimately the goal is that if you take on those additional responsibilities, you should get a bump up in pay. Um, >> right. But I guess like my other maybe question and it might just be different now. We've never had a one-year firefighter be a lieutenant or a captain historically. So like, >> oh, >> you know what I mean? So like I I don't know that the other steps are like >> here we got to get used to >> I don't think it's a you I don't think it's a spoken thing where I mean we just my affiliation with the department was you had to have 5 years on the Dayton department in order to be an officer but that is not the case now and so I guess I'm just wondering what is our requirements and in will there be a world where we would have a lieutenant or a captain that is a has one year of service that would be you just got off of probate And you're going to now >> Yeah. So >> the group I guess I'm just wondering like what what is our >> Yeah. So currently we used to have five years for um lieutenant and captain. >> We have dropped that to three years of service. Okay. Um so to your point yeah they would probably be more like at that step three um in that capacity. >> Yeah. Otherwise, so the one thing that's different, Council Member Henderson, is one thing slightly different about this new system we're looking at is we are looking at hiring mercenary firefighters as well. I don't know if that could change things or not. I'm not sure on the officer side of things. I don't know how that all works, but you could have somebody who has tons of experience in another community coming in looking to possibly I don't know if that works for first firefighters to be officers. Not sure on how that all works, but they could have three years of service or 5 years of service or 15 years of service in another community coming into the city of Dayton. they might go to an officer. >> So these years of service on here are with the Dayton Fire Department or all together. >> So currently what we have in front of you is based on the years of service for Dayton because we don't know what that looks like >> um for hiring external firefighters currently. So, okay. >> So, so that it's it's an important distinction because as we are hiring eight potentially firefighters from other communities, there's the possibility that they could all come in at a step well so we won't hire above a grade four historically have not hired four years a step four step >> a step four. Sorry, excuse me. So, that would be four years of service. So, >> but that's service here. >> Nope. So they could So let's say they came in with a bunch of years of service from other community. We might say, "Okay, you're at step four." >> But let's say they >> it was just dating service. >> They might come in at a step four now, but their years of service here would only be one. So if they're looking at moving into an officer role, they might only come in at step three or something, whatever the I don't know what the steps are official maybe like that. I think that would be really helpful for me to understand. So, if we have a firefighter who, let's say, has 10 years on another department and they're looking to come here and fill one of those eight positions as our mercenaries is what we're calling them. >> Are you saying then that they would come in at a they have 10 years of service? Are we going to say that, oh, no, you're at a step one because you don't have any years of service on our department, or are they at a step four because we don't bring anyone in above a step four? or are they at a step seven because that's seven years. That's our max. >> Go ahead. Let's see what Go ahead. >> Uh, Councilman Henderson. So, the idea would be is we were going to rec we want to recognize recognize their years of service with another organization. No different than I think we do with other staff throughout the community that are here. >> So, we would bring them in at no more than 2910. If you look at the officer pay structure, that's step three. If they were coming in as an officer, >> how about if they're just coming in as a regular firefighter? >> As a regular firefighter. Um, >> then it would be 2828. >> Yeah, we would be back over at 282. >> That would be the max >> 2719. Sorry. >> The idea for us would be to try to hire them at as little as possible. Obviously, we're going to >> as part of the process is a >> So, it wouldn't really matter. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, I'm trying to rational through and I apologize. halfbaked thought. But what would be really the incentive then for someone who had, you know, a a long career in the fire service to come in and be making the same dollar amount as a four-year firefighter when they could potentially have 15 years or let's say they have 14 years, which is double what our top step is, >> but they're making four steps or three steps below that. We want them to be here for a long time. It's a longevity thing, too. That's why we typically the same thing when we, you know, I'll use Chief Henderson when we hired him. He was at step four when we hired Chief Henderson. He's got 20 some years of experience. We didn't hire him at step seven because the idea is to try to keep people longterm and try to keep them longevity wise to have them here and keeping them retention. So if you say you're at step seven now they have now now let's for example let's play a role where we have no increases and it's no salary adjustments because we're going through some sort of housing recession and we have no increase. So now you don't have an increase. Well at least if they're at step four they have at least an increase that they're getting every year to continue to be here throughout the process. Um that's just historically how >> somebody coming in is maxed out at step three for officers and step four. >> Yeah. Correct. >> That's the bottom line. >> Yep. Yeah. I said it depends on whether they're coming in as an officer or not. I don't anticipate them coming in officer, but again, we're starting to change models and thoughts and processes here. So, I'm trying to establish a little more of a procedure than we have had maybe previously where it's just here's a fly, here you go. >> And that's why it came up as a conversation >> and it's still better than cuz right now if we don't approve this, everyone comes in at $30 whether they have one year experience, zero years of experience, or 20 years of experience. So, I still like >> this is a better option. might not be perfect. There might be some kinks to work out. Um but it's still in my mind better than a flat 30. Um and I particularly particularly for that probationary like let's be real that your very first hour out you don't have the same level of training after you finish that period. So like absolutely there should be a pay differential there. Um but I I think this is still better. It might not be perfect, but I think it's still better than a flat 30. So I'm okay with this. Um, and maybe like the holidays need to get figured out and maybe um, but I also like yeah, you not unusual that when you hire someone that they don't come in at the tippy top. Like that's not that's as you said how we do everyone else. So So I'm I'm okay with that. I don't I don't have an issue with that. And if we run into the issue that you can't find anyone, then we can always revisit this, right? Like if it turns out no one's willing to come here for this pay, >> I don't think that's going to be an issue if you look at what >> No, which is we're we're >> Well, yeah. But then to the point of then then we're fine, right? So then like what's I guess then my question is what's then what's the then what's the hold up? I guess >> there isn't a hold up. I I just was trying to better understand. >> Yeah, that's fine. Oh yeah. Okay. So like that was I guess where I was coming from is this is my first goaround with this step system and I just wanted to make sure that I understood because in here it doesn't specifically talk about you know where >> caps nope >> nope they're like and where people would come in and that that >> so there's some details that could be >> helpful literally just trying to fill in um the own like gaps that I had um >> and just to advocate for step methods merit merit systems are really prone to discrimination particularly against women and people of color. So I mean they are so >> also these are prone to promoting people that don't have >> there. But my point is there's no perfect method. There's there are pros and cons to both options and I will speak since we heard some pro some cons to the step method I wanted to give some cons to the merit method. >> So neither method is perfect. There is no perfect method, but I'm I like this and I think it's a good >> Anybody else have any more questions? >> The one thing I'm going to say, >> I just hate the seven I mean they're going to end up getting 7% a year. That's it's it's going to happen. >> What? >> And I hate that >> the salary adjustments. >> So the salary adjustments will >> will happen as well. That that was noted in there as well. I want to make sure that was clear too that they're in line with other union contracts and we typically take all this >> I just think it's crazy that we spent $459,000 on wage increases for 2026 big year. >> Hold on a second. >> I think it's crazy >> they're not guaranteed. >> They're not guaranteed. >> No, they're not. No, they're not. >> So you're kidding yourself. >> Their salary adjustments are potential, >> right? >> As with the council that are not. They're not. I think that's underneath the talking. >> It is. I you just you're the the words and the the words were not >> so it is not guaranteed to have a salary adjustment every single year like I mentioned housing recession maybe there's something with the union contract maybe the council says no we're not doing a adjustment that's fine but at least they have some sort of step if they're going to have something they have along the way but >> I had one other question and um you know in the packet it starts talks about starting this in 2026 and I thought I had heard earlier that we had, you know, some kind of dependency on when the parath thing could come in to play. So, is that still the case here? >> It's still the case. >> So, what >> I think anticipated chief around March 1st is our anticipated time frame. >> We're looking to we wanted to get this out and then um because I needed a a rate to advertise at outside of uh the community. So wanted to bring this forward and then we're anticipating we're hopeful that by March 1st we can have duty crew operation >> and once duty crew becomes operational that will be the time frame when this pay rate will become effective because that gives us enough time to make sure that we're paying the people appropriately and have enough time with the dissolution of the fire relief. >> Sure. And are are we then prohibited from implementing this until the due duty crew comes into >> based on dollars we have in the budget and based on how much dollars we have available from the state. Yes. >> Okay. So they they need to play together and I guess that just needs to be clear to everybody that the implementation is has to >> the implementation is on the change of the retirement. >> That is correct and the firefighters are aware of that. that the fire department is aware of that that we need to all play together in order to make everybody move forward here as we have to desolutionize the fire relief that opens up the payroll money for the retirement to be able to utilize from the state. There is um a little additional dollar so we can pay both at the same time. What I mean is that every single month we have to pay a percentage towards the um relief because that's what they're earned is by month. So we have additional dollars in the retirement to pay for both for I think it's a two-month period that the chief and I went through. If I said, "Okay, we could pay for two months worth of retirement in both PAR and the relief before we can dissolutionize." That's why that it works on March 1st. The anticipations were done by May 31st with the May 30th. May 31st doesn't exist, I don't think. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> That's what I needed to get on the same page. Yeah. >> Yep. Good question. >> Okay. I think we're there. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. Carries five to zero. Item N. Good evening, mayor, members of council. Um this um is uh extrication equipment that was tabled I think on October 28th. Um as it says there. Um so Councilman Salonic had uh reached out to Jefferson Fire Safety and had inquired about um you know can the hoses be replaced? Um what does that look like? Um so I had um not Tyler but Tyler is the president of Jefferson Fire and Safety. um one of his employees came out, took a look at the equipment um and indicated that there is possibly up to 5 years of where that pump is still will be available. Um but they can't guarantee that. So I want to clarify a statement that councilman Swanic stated earlier in the council meeting that yes, they can be repaired. Um however, there's not a guarantee with that. So, um, we can pursue whatever avenue council would like to pursue. Um, I will give you, um, my thought, and that's if we're going to spend $11,200 or 28% of the cost of a new piece of equipment. To me, it doesn't make sense. Um, we are trying to remove the um, extrication hoses because now the hoses are contained within the unit itself. It's all one unit. It's not, you know, power pump and hoses and then our cutters. This, um, I probably should have done a better job of putting pictures to probably depict what I'm trying to talk about. Um, it's just all one unit. So, it's battery operated. Um, the hoses and everything are contained within this one device. So, it's a cutter. It cuts. It's all contained. Same with a a spreader and or um rams to help with that. So, by us going that route, we don't have to worry about hoses any longer. Moving forward, if we wanted to replace the current equipment with like equipment, um, in the packet, I did put that not to confuse anyone because I know it confused Zach a little bit. Um there is a quote for the same exact equipment that we have today uh more or less um for $44,60921 um which is about $4,000 $5,000 increase over the battery powered equipment that was proposed. Um, the other thing that I like to bring up is that um, I appreciate the fact that all the council members are um, conscious of budget um, for us, but the one thing I think that often sometimes gets forgotten is that this isn't my personal stuff that I'm using at home. I need this when I need it and it needs to work. So if I'm on an extrication scene and I blow a hose or the the unit no longer works that potentially could have an impact on the outcome of that extrication scene. So it's emergency equipment. Um so I'm not for me from my perspective is want to make it so it's operational 365 days a year 24 hours a day. >> First I need a motion to uh take it on table. A motion to unt it. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those oppos say no. Okay. >> I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Um so in um the item it says eight hoses. Is that for both units? Cuz we have two units, right? We have one on each correctly. So it's for both units. >> Correct. Yes. Um, and then if the item doesn't move forward, which it's not at all, like I'm not saying that's where I stand. I just again just clarifying that um if the item doesn't move forward, we need to purchase all eight. Correct. >> Uh, Council Henderson, that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um, if it does move forward, this is outfitting one truck, right? >> That is correct. >> And then next, is it next next year has the second one? Do we still need to purchase hoses to bridge that gap or do we have four that are working in working condition where we would get to next year? >> We would get to next year. Um, one unit is older than the other unit. >> Okay. >> Um, the one on engine 12, I believe, is the older unit and that's the one we're looking to replace. Okay. >> With the battery powered equipment. >> Okay. Um, how long do you think the second unit would last? Are we talking about next year to replace that one or would that go another 2, three years possibly? >> That is in the CIP for next year. >> Okay. >> Um we do have like we said we do need to replace um the hoses. Um the power unit is a little bit newer than the one that we're talking to replace as well, just to clarify. >> Okay. >> Do you know what year we bought the one we're trying to replace? I believe my understanding it according to them it said I think it's somewhere between 10 and 15. >> Okay. And then the newer unit is >> I think 10. >> Okay. >> Uh so the >> yeah could be 10 >> Kevin would a better historical value. >> Yeah. Mayor members of council. So the unit on engine 12 currently is 15 years old. That's our older unit. That's the unit that the power source the hydraulic motor on that that one parts are going to be obsolete soon like we talked with Jefferson. The second unit which is on engine 21 right now currently that one is just hit 10 year 10 years in October last month. Uh that unit the compressor for that unit same hoses same tools but the compressor is a newer updated motor. Uh parts are still available for that unit. So, is that maybe and I'm not trying to speculate, but is that why we're asking for one right now? Because this is the one that is most critical for us to replace. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> we're looking to replace the unit on engine 12 said, which is the 15 10 years past its prime at this point. >> And they operate similar, right? They're very similar um technologies as far as like firefighter using that >> between the cordless and the No, >> the two you have now. >> Two we have now. Yes. Very, very similar. Is there a um concern and maybe that's a strong word, but is there a concern that if we have ones that operate differently that it would cause a problem as far as making sure that how do I say this? Like a lot of this job is move quickly, grab it, go like it's muscle memory. Is there a concern that if there are different units that that would cause an issue or would it be okay to replace one with a newer technology? And then >> are are you implying you'd like to buy two? Then >> I listen, I'm following every Kevin. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying no. I'm just asking. >> Also, keep this in mind as a as a a benefit of this, right? So, we're switching from a hydraulic unit that uh obviously we got a picture we can show you, but when we're getting off the truck, we're grabbing four hoses, three tools, possibly four tools, and the compressor, right? We're carrying all that to the scene. >> You know, with the point of going to the duty crew, we're going to have two on, right? If we get a call for PI accident with injury, with entrapment, and we're going to be doing extrication, instead of two people trying to grab, you know, eight different tools, they're grabbing two tools, right? We're speeding up that process. we're having a quicker education. Um, so but yes, you know, we we train on our tools. They get used we get they get checked every month during truck checks. Uh, so everybody should be familiar with it. >> So you don't see an issue if >> I don't >> Okay, that's helpful. >> So, and really it's it's a matter of hitting the on button and the tool operates the same as the other ones. >> Okay. >> That it's the same trigger, it's the same toggle. Uh, very similar. >> The difference isn't getting from the truck to the vehicle in question. And that's where the difference falls once you're at the vehicle. >> Yep. And at that time, once you're at the scene and you're working, you're relying on a gas motor and a hydraulic motor to run those tools >> instead of the battery. >> Instead of the battery, right? There there can be errors with gas. You know, we can have motor problems. We can have electrical problems, hydraulic issues, broken lines. Uh these hydraulic lines are not just your common going to um Harbor Freight and getting hydraulic lines. These are specially made by uh Hamatro with specialty ends that are patented. >> Are there uh with these new units um are there any wear items? I mean clearly it's going to have a big hunk of battery in it. >> Uh so the battery the excuse me the battery actually wraps around the tool. So it's kind of in almost like a C-shape where it clicks onto the tool. >> Okay. Uh the handle itself is made out of a poly material that is flexible. So as the tool was to crimp down and go against the vehicle, it's not going to break the handle. Uh really the only item that could potentially break in it that would need replacement would be on the cutters. So it's actually two very sharp tips that come together and actually either cuts the metal or snaps the metal. Those tips depend on where you're cutting, how you're cutting, you could snap a tip, but that's minor repair cost. >> Good. >> I did. >> Okay. I tried. >> Any other questions? >> Um, can I have a comment? >> Good. >> First of all, thank you. That was extremely helpful. Second of all, um, this is not meant to be a negative. It's meant to be like a praise kind of a thing. So, please take it that way. This is really helpful. like having it actually laid out is very helpful for me in lie of um just like the highlevel hey this is what it is this is what it costs like actually seeing this for me personally is very helpful to be able to reason through all of this so that's meant to be appraised and very helpful um okay that's my comment >> okay >> I have one question Gary um a bigger need. I'll go that way with it. It was expressed to me from a fast past fireman that maybe instead of this and buying new, the difference should be spent on gear. Do we need gear, too? >> We So, currently, uh we've discussed this in the past or even recently with um hiring duty care people. We have one set of turnup gear for everyone. Roughly about $5,000 just for your coat and your pants. That does include helmet, gloves, hood, boots. Um we have about $50,000 left this year to to spend on turnout gear. We're waiting for this process for approving of the step and grade pay system and moving forward that duty crew model is we the problem that we get into is there's a shelf life for turnup coats and pants. It's 10 years. So my philosophy is I don't want a bunch of extra stuff sitting around because then it's just we're spending money that we don't need. Um we have brought to the organization um a secondary um set of turnout gear. It's designed to um fight car fires, conduct extrication, and do wildfire, but it's not designed for interior firefighting. So, for roughly that same $5,000, we're able to go with a one manufacturer that made the recommendation. Um, so that they would have a primary set and a secondary set, if you will, but one of the sets would only be good for interior firefighting. So, that's the route we plan to go so that they have two sets, if you will. Um, but to the question of, do we need turnout gear? Yeah, we're going to need turnout gear, but I want to be judicious in how we spend that because when I arrived here, um, everyone was getting new turnout gear. So, if a brand new probationary firefighter became off probation, we would spend four or $5,000 and getting turnout gear for that person. And then if they left in two months or three months or whatever, then we had this perishable item that would hang up over at station one. So, I've been trying to whittle that down, if you will, to where we are today. Our turnout gear is sent out annually um for cleaning and inspection and repair. I think last year we spent about $7,000 on that. This year will be a little bit less than that. So, that's prolonging the current turnup period that we have. So, that's the direction that we're trying to go. Some of that, and maybe not all, some of that could be handed if I'm 5'9, 510, another 510 9 510 guy could possibly use that toen. Not >> Oh, yeah. Sure. The problem that we get into is >> not It's not like John's gear is history once he's gone. >> No. No. And that's what we've done. >> John John. I mean John in general. >> Yeah. No, that's what we >> John Kudson's might be because of how tiny >> because Yeah. He's only about this big round. >> Yeah. I was a joke. Sorry. >> And that's what we've done since I've been here is we've taken that turnout gear when somebody comes off of probation or before again on the department. Hey, what gear fits you? Um to the best of our ability. If it's too long, okay, then we have to look at something else. We do have the ability to do some modification to the turnout gear for like hemming and whatnot, but not mass. You know, if it's a 54 coat and I need a 42 coat, we're kind of limited in that capacity. I just want to clarify because I want to make sure that I understand. So the the option is 40,000. I know it's 39,336, but we'll just go with 40,000. So 40,000 for one new battery powered extraction equipment. And if we do that, we don't have to replace any of the hoses on the second one. >> Uh that is correct. Right now, our hoses, we can maintain those for a little while longer on the second one. >> Okay. >> And the obviously the benefit is we get rid of the hoses cuz it's all contained into one unit. >> Yeah. I just I'm just I just want to wrap my head up next year though. >> So, I was going to chief, >> could we utilize the if we were to get the newer piece of equipment? Could you utilize some of the hoses you have on the current piece of equipment to use on that other machine if they were to like have a backup? >> Like as a back I mean back. Yeah, we can we can do that. We can extend the life of that a little while longer. We just put it in the CIP in that capacity. But one thing I will throw out that we didn't talk about is that types of steel within cars and the strength of cars have changed. >> Yeah. >> Our current extrication equipment. >> Um I think it was in >> was in the packet somewhere. >> The packet talks about a foot or pound force. Um we're looking at 28,000 of pound force that we have now and it bumps up to 312. So you know Fords have a lot of boron in them. we're trying to cut and whatnot. That's just one example of what we're trying to overcome as well with new technology. >> I just wanted to clarify for the budget cuz so basically it's 40,000 now and then 40,000 next year. So a total of 80,000. >> I think councelor Van I think what we could do is we could look at if this is something that we could prolong it. Maybe it's another year we can push it out for maybe another year we could push it out for and try to >> 28 the terrible 28. >> Well the idea is to not to keep pushing out but then it ends up keep pushing out too far and then you end up with everything in the same year. So, I mean, >> yeah. Okay. >> Don't I hear you? >> It's just cuz then it cuz it said we'd replace all eight for 11,200. So, that's why I just wanted to clarify that. >> Yeah. We have about what? There's four for each. Uh >> Okay. Okay. >> Four for each. Okay. >> So, the only home is we keep reserve. >> Yeah. Unless we have >> Yeah. Worst case scenario, like it broke and we have to go out tomorrow and it's not going to get in here for Yeah. Okay. Um sorry, I swore. I hope that was okay. That's a third >> tonight. >> No, >> we were off record. >> We were off record for the fbomb earlier tonight. Um, but that's okay. So, okay. >> Okay. >> Are we Go ahead. >> Well, I can do this after after this. I'll make a motion to approve. Um, and then I have a comment that I want to make around. >> I'll second. >> I wanted to. >> All right. No discussion. >> Hesitated. >> I thought you were second. be quick here. >> I know. I'm sorry. I've seconded a lot tonight. >> All right. Um, so what I wanted to say is I would in this assuming approval, which maybe is too much, but um, if this were approved, I would still encourage you to go ahead and fix the existing equipment as backup. I think that it is repairable is our understanding and um and that uh you know things break as we know with the with the fire trucks I guess more more often um but things break and I think having those as as a backup even if they immediately become less desirable I think that's a good thing and the other comment I wanted to make around around this is that you know in my in my history the organization I came from we used an organization, Gallup, everybody knows the name, um, to do our employee engagement surveys. And the main main reason I'm bringing that one up is one that has always rung true with me is they have a standardized list of of questions um that that every organization gets. They call it the Q12. You actually ask 13 questions. The the uh organization itself gets to gets one, right? The other 12 are standardized. No matter what company it is, what industry it is, they're all there. They're all the same. Question number one is that gets asked of employees on this annual survey is, do I have the tools and equipment I need to do my job? That's always been a high priority for me because in my mind, that's the easy one, right? you you give people the tools they need. Whether that's computers, whether it's extrication equipment, whether you know it's ladders, hoses, turnout gear, all of that. That's the tools and equipment that these men and women use on their job. And I think that it's only right for us to support them having the best equipment available for them to do their job. And I can see with everything else going to battery technology, you know, why not this too? The plumbers have been using this, you know, things like this unit with this, right? >> Cool. >> It's not an Apple product. It actually came with everything you need. >> So that's that's my comment. I know we have a variety of challenges with, you know, with the fire department at this time, but this is one that that uh we shouldn't be hesitating on and and that's my opinion on that. >> Okay. Got a motion and second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. All those opposed say no. >> Go, I guess. >> Huh? >> I'll go. >> You can abstain. I'll go I >> um >> and I'll have a separate conversation later. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Later tomorrow or the next day. >> Oh, okay. Okay. On to item O claims. >> Um motion and a second. >> Close. Just hold. >> I make the motion. Sarah, >> what? >> Need a second. >> Um, >> oh, need a second. >> Here. We're on. We haven't We haven't got to discussion yet. >> Well, Marty's not here. Did you find out? >> Tell me. >> We haven't We have to >> I second. Second. >> All right. Now, let's discuss it. >> Payment of claims. Go ahead. >> Page uh 77. JP Morgan 6000. What services? >> Great question. and Council Salonic, appreciate the question. Um, so I was able to look into this what the $6,000 um, service is is related to the DNR. So we have a DNR license that we need to get for the 113th Avenue trunk sewer extension and that's what the cost is for the DNR permit is $6,000. So we paid for that with the credit card to try to get some more cash back as much as we can. So >> that's what it is. So one point that that I've heard about and we need to be better >> permit >> permit >> to the payment of claims that would help. >> Yes. So one me one comment that I heard from council versic which we need to do better as staff including myself is to be better at explanations on the payment of claims for explaining what they are versus operating supplies professional services just explaining what it is versus >> you just have to explain it here. I don't really care when you explain it. >> I think it's primarily with the credit card stuff. >> Yep. It's primarily with the credit card stuff cuz that's just how it works. And um we will do better with that. So I appreciate the comments and information. >> Were you worried he was getting stock tips or something or what? What >> stock certificates? >> No tips. >> Professional certific Yeah, stock tips. That's what go. >> That's the only one I got. Dave, the other three got answered earlier today. >> Yeah, I've seen a couple of this and one. Um, the only other one that I that I'll bring up tonight is was on page 92 and it's a $522 for volunteer fire department benefit renewal. Mayor members shot. Um that is for so the Minnesota Fire Department Association offers the fire department an opportunity to spend $10 per paid on call member or part-time member or $125 for um full-time for myself or Chief Astro um to provide um a supplemental benefit if we were to be hurt on the job. So, they pay um I don't recall what the daily rate of pay is, but if somebody is out on um a work comp issue, um it isn't it augments that work comp um policy for a very insignificant amount of money. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, one comment on that one is that it should not say security on the comment. It should say secretary. So, just one comment. We had to correct that on the check. I have >> today, right? >> Are you were you done? >> Yeah. Okay, go ahead. >> So on page 67, we vision production, there was a drone used twice. Um, so vision production drone 202 parks improvements for 2,700 and drone for 202 construction 4,800. >> Yep. >> What is I just want more information. >> Yep. Conor Vaness. So that is um Chris, our AV guy. He does um drone pictures for us and he'll take us progress pictures for us so we can have a progress of what the park looks like or project looks like over the time frame. Um and then he'll put together a bunch of pictures and and videos for us if we can. Um and part of those processes is that he just does it throughout the year as the as the project goes along. And then as the project gets along, we have kind of progress photos we can share with >> I think this one was an added one for the new website. Actually, we requested some updated photos. >> Okay. Because it just seemed like a big number, but that was quite a few products this year for us throughout the year and they started in like February all the way through the end of the year and he just charged us one time for the invoice. So, >> okay. Um, and then on page 71, uh, fitness for duty eval 2500. Is that standard? I >> Yes. >> Okay. It's um, >> well, council van that was related to the um item from the last council meeting. >> Okay. Is that >> that's the price to do a fitness for duty test? >> Okay. >> Assessment test. >> And just so you're aware we'll be doing that again. >> Okay. So that I guess that was my question. And then is that required by our by like our policy? Is that a like who decides who needs to have a fitness for duty done? I guess how does that work? >> We don't always do that either. >> That's what I mean. I guess that's my question. This is the first time it's popped up. >> Councelor Van Aston and mayor members of council. I think it's something that we need to look at our procedures and processes for overall to make sure that we're um having that more consistency. We will work with ABDO to make sure that that process and procedure gets updated. Um also something that we're going to work on through this process with having HR kind of on boarded is what can we do more consistently and more processoriented versus just doing it on a one-off basis. That's how we've always operated as Dayton is just doing one-off basises and >> your one-off is once a year >> typically and it's not because we don't want to do things more consistently. just we don't have the resources to put together the process and procedures to make it work. So, it's a great question to figure out how this came up along those lines last time how we could possibly be asked to terminate somebody and yet we can get no information. >> That's correct. >> Um that's a massive hole and I I don't know. >> Oh, >> I defer to the attorney whenever that happens. So, >> yeah. So that okay, thank you for clarifying that and I hopefully we can get a little bit um get that like you said >> in a policy. It is a work in progress. >> We do need a policy because it's happened before and we don't do the uh >> Yeah, it just needs to be consistent. We need to know what when, whatever. But that I'll leave that to HR. That's not our job. Um the next one is just one of my things because anytime it happens on my credit card, I get suspicious and not just I get worried that something happened to my card, right? But there's three $8 charges for deposit for FDIC hotel. Were those and they're all on the same date. So I just want to like what happened there, I guess. >> Yep. So they uh it's deposit for four or three different rooms, whatever the >> Okay. Oh, and only an $8 deposit for hotel for a room. >> They they charge a a room and if your credit card >> Oh, god. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Like I said, anytime my credit card has like three bing bing bing, I always get worried that like whatever. So that's that's what always catches my eye. Um >> I asked about the 4,000 today and I got the answer. >> Okay. >> Uh my next one was on page 90. Um Cypress Cove wet trap. Where did that go? Where is that? Oh, for 9,350. What the heck is a what what is what is the wet trap and why is it almost $10,000? >> Um well it's a great question for Marty who's not here. Um I I believe this is related to so it's based on the coding. I believe it's related to the um project that's that we did over on 144 North Diamond Lake Road and I cannot remember the road that goes into Ion Gardens. We revamped and did some irrigation on the lefth hand side there on an outlot. Okay. And I think one of the things that we needed to do was whatever the wet trap is to get the irrigation to work in that area, we must have had to do something related to it because Peterson Companies is the companies that was using that we were using for that irrigation um work to get done. >> So it's probably related to that. >> It is related to that irrigation project. I don't know what a wet trap is, but we can follow up. >> It was just expensive. >> That's the thing that catches my eye when they're high. >> Repeated or high. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Or eight. >> Yeah. Yeah. It just seemed like And like three bam bam bam and I was like, wait, what? Okay. I do have one um which I got an answer to today, but I I don't I don't know. Um on page 79 there is a $33714 charge for the Northwest Suburban Fire Academy polos. Um I think that where my um I guess I have two questions when it comes to this. not about the charges themselves, but I think one is is we are floating the bill for other communities to reimburse us for those polos. And um I don't know how well that sits with me. And then I think the second thing is is should we be purchasing them at all? Because again, the academy is not a business that is associated, it's not a business at all, but it's not associated really with the city of Dayton. and our taxpayer money doesn't support the academy. And so, um, it's just an agreement with other communities to go through the same college for training. And so, for me, I don't feel like that's an expense that the city of Dayton should be footing. Um, and again, like I think our portion, Zach, you said, comes down to like $75 of that, something like that. But again, like when you go through the college, when you're buying materials for your courses, that's either bought by the individual and reimburse through their employer or it's bought directly through the college or whoever's providing it. And so again, like it not being a business that is a Dayton, a city of Dayton business, I don't feel like that's something that we should be um floating for other communities to reimburse us for. And I understand again that we have contract or not contract to the city to like hey we're going to buy this you take care of that. Um but I have not seen any such contract and it's actually not even a business and so I guess how >> would you have a contract it would be with the college? >> It's not I don't know necessarily if it's a contract. I think it's just more of a verbal agreement like hey you buy this we'll buy this you we'll pay you back for this one. I I'll defer to the chief because I don't know all the communities that are involved. I know it's Rogers and Austin and a couple oio and a couple others. >> Mayor, members of council, the it's a consortium, so it's whatever community is interested in sending their firefighters to the Northwest Suburban Fire Academy, they may do so. Um the agreement amongst the consortium of fire chiefs, myself, Chief Ferren, uh AIO, Chief Berg, and um Brooklyn Center, whoever is interested, we sit down, we take a look at what things do we need to cover um collectively as a group and then those get built out. So my statement or my question is to council is if we have another community that covers like in this case we sit down, we talk about um we have the graduation ceremony that we've had the last couple years over at 21st Century Bank Event Center in Rogers. There's been food purchased by the city of Rogers. So I just need clarification that you don't want them to purchase any food on our behalf and they bill us. because that's the same thing that we're doing with everything else. So, at the end of the day, there's stuff that they float for us and there's stuff that we float for them. So, we collectively put this together as a group and sit down and talk about it. So, that's my question to Council Member Henderson. I don't I think that where my question comes in is that the North Suburban Fire Academy is not a Dayton business and that yes, we may train through the college, but the academy itself isn't a registered business and it's not a business that Dayton, to my knowledge, we have agreed that we would be funding or floating money for other communities for. And so I guess for me, I would rather know and have Roger say, "Hey, this is what it costs and then for that to come through as graduation expenses instead of I just feel like it muddies the waters." And I feel like that's the hard part for me is I I want to be able to track back all of the money that we're spending cuz in here it says, "Oh, we bought $337 worth of polos and maybe eventually we'll be reimbursed." But again, it's really hard to track it if it's not specifically laid out. So, I would rather see a bill from Rogers to say, "Here is your portion of graduation and for us to pay that amount knowing, "Yep, this is for graduation. This is for this." Um, >> that's what we do currently. So, they give us a bill for our portion, no differently than we provide a bill for them, for our their portion of the polos. >> It's the same process. Yeah, I think CEO Henderson's point um Chief and I I hear your point is that you'd rather have them float the bill and then have just pay the bill. You have no problem with whatever the polos. If we got a bill for $75 or whatever for the polos, that's just our portion. That seems to be reasonable to you, >> right? I think should be paying for the polos and then we as the city should be buying them from the academy. But because the academy is made up of >> it's just a bunch of >> a bunch of cities which again like is not a business we've been affiliated with other than us the chief's just saying we're part of this. I feel like again it muddies the waters and I would rather have Northwest Suburban Fire Academy on its own purchase this money instead of using taxpayer money to float those expenses. Whether it's for the um the ceremony, whether it's for cookies at a at the college, like those aren't things that I feel like we should be floating with taxpayer money for a business that isn't an affiliated business with the city. So, for me, again, it goes back to should we be buying these at all? Um, and should we be should the city be paying for all of that upfront? Um, and I guess that's my question. >> I follow what you're saying. I mean, yeah, it would certainly take out any uh question if it was built differently. >> Yeah. and councors, we can do that differently. The struggle that and I've talked with Chief Hendrickson at length of this because I'm trying to figure out or understand this whole thing because it is a little confusing for people that aren't involved that includes myself um is that the Northwest Fire Suburban is technically just a consortium of cities that all run together. There's not like a separate bank account. There's not a separate business. It's not like we've paid Northwest Suburban Fire Academy for anything ever. um we pay the college to run the process for us related to the um I think it's a schooling or whatever. I don't know if you want to call it that exact thing, but um essentially we pay the college and the tenant technical college once a year. Last year was $2,200 for I don't know what it is this year. Maybe it's the same amount um per person that goes through the training process. But the Northwest Fire Academy is technically nothing more than just a bunch of cities together. It's not like it's a business. It's not like we're sending them money. They don't suburban fire academy doesn't get a check back from the college for anything. I can't. So the other thing that I had presented to the chief is is this something that we could look at the tech college and say you guys run the whole thing. Instead of paying $2,200 per person, we pay you I don't know $2,500. We get reimbured $2,200 from the state, but then they keep 300 bucks and then they use that for polos and whatever else. Is that easier and simpler? The one thing I don't know is we have to work with Henipin Tech to figure out if that's what they'd be even willing to do. I don't know that answer because technically they're not Northwest Suburban Fire Academy either. They're Henip Technical College. So, >> it's a bit that's why it's so it's muddy and seems it seems odd because it's you use these these names and I >> I had to sit there with the chief and understand what it means but I think I explained it pretty accurately would expect. But >> yeah, at the end of the day the poles are a requirement to ride with north. So, we're utilizing those. So we're not necessarily as cuz they're still in school in that capacity. And the rest of it is just stuff that I believe that we should do for our graduates of the academy. You know, we're going to have a graduation and provide some food for them. It's pretty simple in that capacity. It's not associated with a business. I'll be clear. It's not associated with a business that I own. How about I put it that way? Um, so we just need to regular course of business. >> I don't have any problem with the anything for a for a graduation for a for firefighters. I don't have an issue with that. You mentioned polos. That to me that talks sweatshirts. >> That's what's on the payment of claims is the purchase of the polos. Mhm. >> And I don't have a problem with the ceremony. I don't have a problem with I'm not saying I have a problem with even the this purchase. Well, no, that's not true. It's not about the polo. I think for me it's that it there's a muddy line here. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. What was >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I just I heard you say something. I just want to make sure I caught it. Um the line is muddy for me and um I don't believe that that is the use for us to use taxpayer money to float for other communities when again we haven't to my knowledge ever said yep we're Dayton's going to be affiliated with this academy this is what we're doing other than the chiefs getting together and deciding that and so for me I don't feel right to approve a purchase or this particular purchase. I would much rather the college bill us directly and I don't mind paying for it that way, but then at least it's a clear line of where it's going and what it's for. Um, and so in the future, if this came through from the tech college or they've tacked it on to the um the tuition, then so be it. That's fine with me. But I'm just not okay with this. And also my question would be as far as like savings goes is if we have a requirement to have some sort of identification on north that isn't our like the specific departments could we do a pin instead that says traininey could they all wear a black shirt like there's other ways to do it that don't have a logo for a business or a entity or a whatever that isn't affiliated with an actual city or our So, council and mayor or mayor and members of council, I want to ask a clarifying question. >> Do you want the city of Dayton to participate in the Northwest Suburban Fire Academy? >> I don't think we can I don't I can't say because I don't know anything about it. I mean, >> I can't answer that because I'm fuzzy on how the whole thing works and so I don't know if I have no clue. >> I don't know if I have a problem with it or or not because I don't understand how it works. So I >> So I'm happy to sit down with council members to explain that. Obviously we can't have more than three, >> but I'm happy to sit down and explain. >> I think it's something that we can do at even a council meeting, too. I was going to say we can do it at a council meeting, too. It won't be in December. We'll let you know that it's not going to be December 9th. Um but maybe it's in January or February just to explain how it works because it it it took me a little bit just to understand how that >> process works because it seems I don't know. It seems odd and I told the chief the same thing this morning is that or the yesterday or whenever I asked him the question was just trying to understand it because it the person who's not involved with it at all it seems very odd and >> I know >> yeah exactly so I think it's something that we should you know hear the point council member Henderson I get it I think you know we can change some things moving forward how we do that process um but I think it's again maybe it's just an educational item of how this whole thing works as a total because we've been part of other consortiums before whether that's with um previous chiefs or before and and I don't think anybody even asked a question or new. So it's not like we're you know this isn't this isn't anything new that we're doing here. It's just >> I think council's hungry for >> just trying to understand so you know >> and I get that. So >> at a future meeting we'll learn more about it. Yep. >> And then your question. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Dennis, I have a question procedural wise. Um, we've approved the or we've put a motion out for the payment of claims in a second. >> Yep. >> Because I am uncomfortable with this sticky situation. >> Vote against it. >> I could I have to vote no to everything then since the motion's already on the table. >> It's a motion for the payment of claims. We can't >> Okay. I I don't know. This is the first time. So, I just wanted to make sure that I know what I need to do cuz I'm trying to stay out of the grain. So, thank you. >> Any other questions? All right. Uh, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> No. >> That will carry. Four to one. And we are off to close session. Uh so uh motion to close the meeting pursuant to MN statute 13B.03 for labor negotiations. Second >> second who first you >> me. All those in favor say I. >> I post say no to zero. We are now in close session. >> Can we take a We are back in open session then. Um if there objections will be adjourned. >> What were we supposed to say?