Call to order the October 20th regular meeting of the Dayton City Council. Stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Any motion and a second for the agenda? Is there go ahead? >> I make a motion. >> I'll second. Okay. Sarah and Dave, any changes? No changes. Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. Carries 5 to zero. Um on to Whoops. Recap closed me closed session from uh >> I didn't I didn't print it off for you. Did I hear? >> Sorry. >> I thought we recaped it after the meeting. Was it got to be in the next meeting? >> Yeah. >> This the next time you're in open session. >> Yeah. >> Well, we approve. >> I can read it again if you've got it. >> I have it here. >> Oh, do you? >> Oh, is that the whole thing? Is it the whole thing? >> Yep. That sounds great. >> Yeah. And then it's not required to be read out loud. >> I don't think so. >> You just have to give a summary of what you did in close session the next time you're in session. >> Okay. >> Doesn't have to be verbal. If >> you'd like to give a summary, that'd be great. >> You can skim read it if you like. Nothing great. >> Okay. October 14th, uh, date and council closed session pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D03, uh, for labor negotiations. Um during the closed meeting, we consider a labor agreement proposal from the AFLCI. Nope. American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. Um ask me Oh, okay. um and the teamsters. At the conclusion uh of their consideration of the terms of labor agreement proposal from ask me, the city council agreed to the terms of the proposed contract and after the close session, the city approved by vote contract. At the conclusion of the consideration of terms of the labor government proposal from the team sharers, city council directed the city administrator as to how to respond to the proposed terms. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh consent agenda. I need a motion and a second. I'll make the motion. >> Need a second. Scott. Okay. Discussion. Um, so I have a question about the uh the purchasing of the extrication equipment for the fire department. Just about from a budget standpoint like how so is equipment like this not normally part of the fire department budget or I guess I was confused. I was confused about the budgeting aspect of it. So if you could just clarify for me I would appreciate that. >> Mayor Res members of council. Yeah. So, this is part of the capital improvement plan or capital or a CIP. Um, so we're utilizing $11,000 from Blaine Festivals um that we received as a grant. Also using roughly around $7,000 from our public safety dollars that we received a couple years ago. Okay. Um and then the remaining balance I think is about $30,000 is the CIP dollars um that we're using. So, it was in the plan for uh for next year. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then speaking of the Blaine Festival, I was just conf I want to clarify because in here it says the $11,000 donation from Blaine Festivals, but then further in the agenda is $14,000 for a drone. Is that >> That's another donation. >> It's another donation. >> Those are two separate things. >> Yep. So you we previously approved the donation from Blaine Festivals which is allocated for extrication tools to the fire department. >> Okay. Okay. And now this meeting we are approving another donation from plane festivals for $14,000 and that is requested for a drone for the police department. >> Okay. Okay. But those are two separate things. >> Two separate things. Two separate donations. So technically total would be well got we got $5,000 from AEDs as well. That was back in August. Okay. >> So total I think we got us 20 >> be 25 $30,000 total from donations from Blade Festivals. >> And that was after they called us to request that hey we have a bunch of dollars that are available for donations. Okay. What is your request for public safety that are needed as well? Okay. Um, we also did request I don't remember how much was for the pillow >> 26 >> 26,000. So, we did request for parks because that's another area that they can donate to. We requested the jump pillow which was talked about at council. I think it was maybe last year >> earlier this year something like that. Um, which was something that's popular over I can't remember what what country it was really popular. >> Iceland. So, we felt like that was a applicable environment that we could probably utilize it with. Um, but we were not successful in that one. >> In that one. Okay. Okay. But those are two separate things. >> Those are two separate things. >> And then what is the drone? Okay. And then what's the drone? So that So then I'm I'm done with my questions for B. But then two E, which is the drone. What is the drone for for the police department? >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, it's used for missing persons. Okay. um finding suspects um in any situation as far as if we have a hostage situation, serious domestic, we can put up the drone um to see what's going on before an officer approaches. >> So it's like a c basically it's a camera eyes on the ground to get eyes in different places. Okay. Okay. Um Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Can we circle back to B for the extrication equipment? Yeah, >> we had talked about this and we went through the budget like the CIP. Um, and I believe the direction that I understood it to be was that we were going to see if we could get replacement parts. Um, and so in here it says that no or many of the parts and components are no longer available for replacement. Um, can you say more about that? Yeah. So the we previously spoke about uh during the CIP uh budgeting we talked about the replacement need for extrication tools because of the current age. Um reach out to the vendor Homatro and uh they had indicated that the hoses that we have are um outdated. Um they are not um evidently according to uh the sales rep available. Um and so this is the next best thing for us is replacement. >> The pneumatic hoses. >> Yes. Um that's what we got back from the uh Jefferson fire safety. >> So yeah, they don't provide them, but I would imagine anybody that builds pneumatic hoses could >> Yeah. I just went back to the manufacturer received the equipment. >> Did well. >> Was that a Well, >> that's very odd. And Gary, because I talked with a Mike Kramer from Jefferson, have we taking taken these units into them to actually physically let them put their hands on them at all? >> No, we have not. >> He's expressed to me that uh more likely than not, parts are still available and in order to assess what it would cost to repair them, they would have to see the equipment. >> Yeah, we just had the manufacturer out Um, I'm not sure who Mike is. Um, because that's not who I deal with. I dealt with her or sales rep. And they indicated that >> that would be Tim Condan. Did you probably talk to >> Garrett? >> Yeah, Tim Garrett's. >> Yep. >> Um, and that's what the information that was passed on. They were out here a couple weeks ago when we did extrication training. Well, I would think that we'd have some interest in rather than spending I mean rather than spending 30 thou $39,000 on buying new just because we think that the other ones are not repairable. Although we haven't made the effort to try and get them repaired. I would think that if it was me, I would certainly repair them because I'm spending my dollars, not everybody else's. Um, so I would recommend that we uh at least take a look at that before we spend 40,000 bucks. >> If we're going to go this route, we we we we should probably >> pull it. >> Yeah, we probably should have done that during the agenda, but I would need a motion and second to move be out. >> I would make the motion. >> I would second that. >> I would also suggest that we table it for now. Um, >> first we have to move it out though, right? Before we can >> Okay, so I will move be out to >> You want to do a vote? May. >> What's that? Yep. >> Um, okay. I got a motion in second. All those in favor of moving be out. Say I >> I >> I >> I say no. Carries five to zero. So I'll put B just after. >> We'll do it right after. >> Yeah, right after. Okay. So that's B. Um, any other concerns on consent? >> This isn't a concern. I'm just curious why the Blaine Festival wants to give Dayton money. >> Um, so mayor, members of council, Blaine Festival is actually running the pull tabs at Dayton Bar and Grill. >> Okay. >> And so they are the new vendor there. So they have been affiliated with Dayton and they are, you know, being able to put money back into the community, which is fantastic. So >> And they have put far more money back than they taken out. >> Yeah. I don't know the results. Like I said, we when they call us and say, "Hey, we have some money available for donations. Please send in your requests." I send in what we feel. I sent out the department heads. I said, "Give me something we can real, you know, realistically request. We can request 100 grand, but it's likely not going to get funded." So, >> um, and we did a great job. >> No, that just makes that makes sense. I just didn't know what the connection was. >> Good question. Um, any other questions about because I had a few, but go ahead. Anybody else? I do have one for Marty actually about his part-time public works administrative assistant. >> Um, this role seems more um like a more of a like a marketing kind of a position in my opinion. >> I was >> Does that get a bad Does that get a bad rep? The the title matters when you go out for um like your analysis of pay and all of that kind of stuff. So I'm just wondering is this more of like a marketing role than like an administrative assistant or would those duties kind of maybe morph over time to be so allow them to do I'm just I guess I'm wondering could you just speak to that? >> So the uh the reason for for this is we uh Kelsey who we hired as an administrative assistant her role has morphed more into doing the communications aspect of the role. It wasn't part of the job spec at that time but she's taken it on. She does the communicator. She does all the social media. She does the website updates. Um, and so we needed to get somebody to take on the role that she was initially employed for. Um, so it's more of a office admin to help me coordinate u meter deliveries, uh, water inspections, deal with phone calls, make some reports for me, that kind of thing. Oh, >> so Kelsey would >> continuing the the things you listed in the job description and he would hire >> for to affect them. >> And this would give Kelsey u two days a week to totally focus on the communications aspect of the role. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that makes sense. I read that and I thought you were hiring somebody to do the media stuff. >> Yes. And I was like, wait a minute. Okay, >> then it makes sense. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> So I'm long as we're on that one. I I'm just curious what you mean by it's included in the 25 and 26 budget. >> Um so this um this was already budgeted uh for this year um for a late term uh fourth quarter higher and it's included in the budget for 26. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Wasn't hired earlier this year just based on staffing changes and whatnot for duties. So, um, we wanted to make sure that we had had it narrowed down of what that person was actually going to do before we went out and hired that position and had a good quality job description ready to go. So, I >> appreciate that. >> Any other questions? Okay, we got a motion and a second. Um, all those in favor for consent say I. >> I. >> I. Say no. Carries five to zero. Item B. Um, so we can >> go back to that. >> You You just want to table that until we get >> Well, I mean, I think I think there needs to be some homework done there. I mean, before I would spend 40,000 bucks on a piece of equipment, I would at least take it to take it to even this Jefferson fire outfit or a hydraulic company and then have them assess the hoses and uh if there's other parts as far as related to the fire part of it, uh take that to Jefferson and have them tell us how much it costs to fix it or you know to get the whatever parts you need for it. I agree with you, Scott, but I have a question because there's more in this item than just that piece of equipment. So, is it possible for us to modify it and move forward with the other pieces and just hold back on that? I guess it's the third quote in there. >> Yeah. >> Would that be a viable option to move forward? just I don't want to fill everything up because of that, but just so we get some more information about um the cost, I guess, benefits of replacing parts as opposed to the whole equipment. >> I don't know that the other stuff requires our approval. The the vehicle lifting bags, what are those, by the way? >> So, stuff up. >> Yep. They're actual airbags that have the ability to lift, jack a car up or whatever you got to do for somebody. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure Oh, sorry. >> Does it seem like we should have to approve that? But >> you have to any any any expenditure has to be approved by council. And the reason why we put these together is because it's technically one package. We could have done them individually. It's we did it as one package of extrication equipment so that the council knew that we were doing it as one package, not to try to >> So we can't easily break it up right now. >> I mean, we could and we could have done that at staff level, but the idea was to provide information to council so that you could make a decision on all of it at one time. doesn't mean you can't break that out now, but that was staff's direction and my direction was to do it as one package. >> I would like to break it out >> and we don't have we don't have this this lift bags and stuff now currently. Right. >> Uh mayor, members of C council Salonic, we do. Um however, they are past their useful life. Um they haven't been hydro tested in I don't know how long, but the fire service says 10 years. Kind of goes back to the hydraulic hoses on the extrication equipment itself. They're beyond that 10 year life. So if we can get them replaced, when I talked to the sales guy based on the age of the equipment, he said no. But you talk to somebody else, I can reach out to them and figure that out. But airbags are a replacement for one set that we currently have. >> Can I ask a question about the extraction um piece? So do we own one of these? Is that the >> uh Councilman Flashant? We have um one for each station. >> Okay. And the idea with this system is to just to clarify a little bit because I don't think it really describes in there is that we're moving from gas powered to battery powered. Um so that's the ch the change there too. Um which is more advanced technology and the ability to cut boron and and so forth. >> So when you say gas powered, do you mean gasoline or air of some sort? >> Yes, gasoline powered. Um and we're moving to battery powered. That's what the request is. Will if it got delayed or split apart or anything, will that affect the um donation from Blaine Festival? >> No, >> not so we're just going to >> was designated the donation of $11,000 was designated for extrication equipment. Okay. >> I don't necessarily believe that it was based on X piece of equipment. >> Okay. So repair, but repair would also be fine. >> I don't think it would be for repair. Oh, it would have to be extraate for the >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, all right. Where are we going? >> Can we pull these out? >> Can we split them up? I have to make a motion to >> You got to Yeah. Make a motion if you make a motion to do that. Whatever you're looking for. >> How do I designate between which quote do I need to put the quote numbers? >> Uh, nope. Just say whatever because in the packet they're in order. So, just >> two. So, I will make a motion to approve the first two quotes. for extrication equipment and wait on the third to receive a cost comparison of replacement versus brand new >> repair. Repair repair versus brand new. >> So you want to table that third one. >> Correct. >> For more information. >> Correct. >> Y. >> Okay. So for the first two, you're making a motion to >> to approve >> approve those. And then table of third is >> table of third. >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. Any other questions about that? All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed say no. >> That carries five to zero. And then for the third item >> that was tabled. >> We're going to table that. >> Yep. >> Motion is that was in that >> wasn't in my motion. >> Yep. >> Oh, >> that was part of the motion. >> I tried to get it all in one. >> All right. One one good >> call it good. >> All right. Um, open forum. Anybody here for open forum? Anybody online for open forum? Open forum. Done. Staff consultant council updates. Zack. >> Yep. Uh, good evening, Mayor Council. I have one quick one which I already talked to a few of you about, but I wanted to give you guys some homework for the next council meeting that's in front of you. It's related to the animal unit ordinance. Um there is one page that's for our current ordinance and one page for the state um state statute ones. We can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than state statute. So your feedback or my request for you homework-wise is to provide me back what you'd like to see in the ordinance. That way we can take some direction for staff and get you back an ordinance update that you are looking for. Um the last thing I want to do is have staff do it, spend a bunch of time on it and then council just say what in the heck are you thinking because none of us are animal experts. I'm excited. Thank you. >> Have a great day. >> Thank you very much. >> I was excited when I saw that. Oh, >> I just want a coat, Sarah. That's all I want. >> I want one. >> Whatever you'd like to make. So, there you go. Thank you. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Um, I just have a reminder that next Tuesday is a school election which is held by the school. So, the city doesn't really have any partake in it other than we are a joint polling location. So there's some confusion with residents. They may vote in Dayton, but it is a school district-on only election that will take place next Tuesday. >> And you've been telling them just that it where where have you been telling them to go or have you just balled out of it? >> Um, so we just refer them to the school district because I believe they outsourced their election to the county. Um, so the early voting would be at the county. We're just happen to be the combined polling location. So, I have zero information other than on election day they'll be here. >> Um, if someone wasn't sure if they are in because not all three because there's three different school districts in the city. Correct. >> Correct. >> And not all three are four. >> Three. There are three school districts. >> And are all three having an election or only an NOA Henipin? >> I'm only aware of the Anoka Henipin one. >> Okay. So, how if someone didn't know what school district they are in, where should they look that up or how >> um the Secretary of State's website, which is on our website under voting information, you can go and see >> um and it will give you all your information where your precinct is, what district you're in, and what school district you're in. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's all I have. >> Okay. Morning, >> Mayor and Council. I only have a couple of quick updates. Um PSA 21 Park is um progressing. The playground equipment is in. Um we're waiting for some poured in place rubber to be put in to make it handicapped accessible. Uh the irrigation system should be finished in the next week and uh week and a half. Um they are going to be hydro seeding out there with dormant seed um to stabilize the site. Um wellhead treatment plant. Um they're still working on process pipe on the inside of the uh u structure and the electricians are on site now as well. So we're progressing pretty well there. That's all I have. >> Chief, mayors, members of the council don't really official update other than the fact that today is first responders day. So I want to recognize all the firefighters. So thank you for everything that you do as well as our law enforcement partners as EMS and dispatchers. Chief. Good >> evening, mayor, members of the council. Uh, officers participated in two trunker treats over the weekend. One at Dayton Elementary and one at Bigness Foundation. I heard there was a lot of kids and a lot of candy handed out. Unfortunately, we did not win the contest at Dayton Elementary, so we'll try again next year. And, uh, we're continuing to see a rise in theft from vehicles. So, just another reminder to take all your valuables out, lock your vehicle, and keep them in a lighted spot. John. >> Uh, thank you. Regarding the A3 comprehensive plan amendment, we did get a a notice from Met Council and they'll provide a more detailed report in the weekly updates or Friday weekly updates. >> What was on the notice? >> Good, bad. >> Um, more information is >> of course >> no updates. >> Did we actually get the letter, John? >> Yeah. >> Oh, I didn't know. We talked about this morning and I didn't know. Don't we actually get the letter today? Well, this afternoon, >> good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um, I will the only update I have is that um the litigation council uh for the the case from Housing First Minnesota against the city of Dayton and the city of Cochran, Corkran, sorry. Um the city um the city's attorney filed the brief with the Minnesota Court of Appeals yesterday when it was due. So we're still in a kind of a holding pattern, but basically the city is still saying the district court got this final set of issues right. Court of appeals, please affirm the district court. So, we're just waiting the from here the um the plaintiff's attorney um still the plaintiffs still have a chance to file a rebuttal to the city's response to the petition. Um so, that's another 14 days right there. And then after that, whether the court will schedule oral arguments is still kind of unclear. So, um, if you have more more questions, ask them on emails because that's not something that I handle. I'm just kind of giving you the update that it is still out there. We're still waiting. >> So, is this the last last step? It seems like we've been there a couple of times. >> No, I won't I will never say it's the last step. they can appeal forever >> because from here depending on what the court of appeals says they could still pet if they if the outcome isn't what they like with the Minnesota Court of Appeals they can still petition for review from the Minnesota Supreme Court again and then that's a discretionary um act by the Supreme Court whether they accept to the petition for review. So >> and then they can come at the appeal a different route. >> We'll see. >> So >> they're they're nothing if not creative and persistent. It's nothing can appeal forever. >> I got nothing. >> Sarah, >> nothing to offer. >> I have uh one is a followup. We've we've talked I think a couple times about possibly looking at to progressive finding for certain um individuals who are repeat offenders. Um I was wondering if if that is if any progress has been made on that or if that's been kind of on the back burner or where that is. Mhm. Councing. It's been on the back burner. That's fair. Um, however, we did look into the code and ordinance and it does allow us to double the fines if it's some something that the city administrator feels is appropriate basically is what's in the ordinance. >> Um, I'd like to say that I haven't done anything about that, but um that's where it is right now. So, I would say that we're looking into it still, but again, not maybe on the top of our list of things that needs to get done. >> Yeah. And I think, and I know you and I have talked about this, it's not like we have a ton of them. It's just the vast majority of people don't realize they're breaking rules in the first place. As soon as they get a notice that, hey, you shouldn't do this, they fix it. It's just we have a a little tiny group of people who seem to not care and we need to find a solution for that. So, >> our solution is always first to educate before we, you know, enforce the idea. But >> there are still people that still need enforcement. Yes. >> Um, and then my second was just, um, this is just I don't know. Uh, I had gotten an I think several of us had gotten an email from a resident with some questions about um the number of fire engines the city has and I was kind of embarrassed to realize that I don't know the answer to that question. How many fire engines does the city have? >> Counciloman, currently we have two. >> Okay. And so we keep one at each station. I would assume >> that is correct. And currently one is gone. >> Okay. >> One is being repaired from the accident that we had in July. >> Okay. So, we have two, but not technically really right now. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, did um So, then obviously I'm going to go on a limb and they don't have loners. Like when your car gets in an accident, you can get a loner. I'm guessing they don't have loners. So, what are we doing? >> So, what we've done is we've notified our mutual aid partners to let them know that uh we are down one engine. >> Okay. >> Um and that for the city of Rogers, Chief Ferren will be sending um two pieces of apparatus, one from each station. Okay. >> Um, and then we've also let Anoka Champlain know as well. >> Okay. And then do we have a timeline for when our engine gets when we get it back? >> Yeah, it uh it keeps changing unfortunately. Um, we've we've had a radiator that we replaced earlier in the year, we we rebuilt, I should say, that was damaged in this. So, that was about a six week lead time. Um, so that's being replaced. Um, so some of it's kind of that just in time stuff. So, we anticipate hopefully in the next two or 3 weeks that we do get it back. >> Okay. Thank you for that. >> I think Gary, those would be good FYIs for us. >> Sure. >> Because we did have a resident send us all an email saying, "Why does Dayton not have a fire engine?" >> Oh, I Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. it. >> Why Why are the ret the neighbor fire engines coming before we have our own, you know, and this relates back to uh Oldtown? We're a block away and we didn't have a apparently we didn't have an engine there. >> Uh Councilman Sonic, that is correct. We did not >> because it was out getting repaired. >> No, that's not accurate. >> Oh, okay. >> We did not have staff available to respond in in a you know that quickly. So, um, give a little brief brevity. Um, for the last three fires that we've had, um, we've been beaten to all three calls. So, the fire that was in Oldtown to your point, >> um, Rogers was there first. >> Yep. >> What time was that? >> We know that >> it was I think midnight maybe. I'd have to go back and look at something like that. >> That's what I recall, right? >> What day was that? couple month and a half ago. >> Yeah, we that was the first call that we had. >> Um and then the next call was the um >> uh I guess shed fire, lack thereof. Fairly significant size, I'll call it a barn. Um that was on Labor Day weekend. U Maple Grove uh beat us to that call. And then obviously um the mobile home fire, we had one available um firefighter to come to that initially, then two others responded a couple hours later. So a lot of it has to do with not that the firefighters don't want to come, a lot of it has to do with timing, time of day. >> Yeah, we'll get to that. >> That was it for me. >> Okay, I had nothing. Dave. >> Um well, I mentioned this to Zach, so it's my turn to ask about the graphics on the um city vehicles and where we're at with that. And I didn't follow up. So, you're welcome, Chief. I got a text from the chief about when the date was because we asked the date was. I think it's three weeks out right now. Um and that was the last time we had an update for it. Correct. >> Yes. RPM Graphics is scheduled to do that the week of the 10th. >> There you go. >> Thank you. My my apologies for not responding back. That is on me, not on the chief. >> We have a um we know what it'll will what the graphics are though. >> Yes, that is my understanding. Chief, >> we do. >> Yep. >> Can we see that? >> Sure. It'll follow the same graphics that we have on the other is it F350s or whatever they are. >> They're going to look like that, but they are ghost graphics just like some of our neighboring communities or Noah Champlain or Rogers. So, you'll be able to see them during the day or at night? >> You You will or won't. I'm sorry. I didn't catch that. >> You will. >> Okay, perfect. >> Thank you. >> That's all right. >> I have nothing. >> Okay, we are on to council business. Item G, Republic Services presentation. >> Yep. Mayor, members of council, we have Bev from uh Republic Services able to give a presentation for us tonight. If you want to come up to the podium here, you can run through your slides and have at it. >> Thank you so much. >> Let's go right and left on the arrows there. >> I don't see arrows. >> I'm right on the keyboard there. >> On the key. >> There you go. >> Okay. Hi, I'm Beth Matisen. I'm the municipal services manager for Republic Services. We're a proud provider of the recycling services here for Dayton, Minnesota. So, it's been a while since I've been here. I see a few familiar faces and some new ones. So, I wanted to provide you with an update on what's happening in our industry in the world of recycling. It's pretty exciting time. This is just a little bit about ourselves. We've done a bit of rebranding. We've made a lot of strides in the environmental side of our business. And so I've listed listed just our new vision in our promise to you and the residents here. We're going to take just a couple minutes to talk about sustainability and environmental responsibility and after this certainly we can open up for questions. This is a real exciting topic for me. Um plastic circularity. I think we've all seen plastics and what happens with plastics? Are they all ending up in the ocean? Are they being recycled? Um, Republic Services has made some very large investments in circularity with our plastics by opening up polymer centers. We here in the Midwest have our polymer center in Indianapolis. About 80% of our plastics collected in this area are transloaded there. Um, in the past you'd see a plastic water bottle and a lot of those would get downcycled, meaning that they would end up being instead of another plastic bottle, they'd be carpet, textiles, shoes, all sorts of different things. Now through our polymer center and our partnerships with some very large manufacturers, we're be able to recycle those water bottles into re into bottles again six to seven maybe eight times. So this is a really big piece um of some exciting news here. And uh and if you have questions on that later, I'll certainly take those. I think we've all heard a lot about um electrification. Um when it comes to vehicles at Republic Services, we've made a lot of strides here um in this area. A a lot of our trucks are CNG and diesel. Um but we've made a real big commitment to moving towards electrification. um in the municipal space uh in Colorado. Um it just last year, Lewisville, Colorado became the first municipality in Minnesota to go full EV. That was super exciting for for our industry. And in at Republic Services in 2024, we did approximately 24 pilots across the nation. With EV, the challenge has always been the technology of the batteries. How is this going to work in the real hot climates and the real cold climates? Some of the climates that are just kind of in the middle have done really well. Um but the technology is moving faster than what we thought it would and so we will be bringing um electric vehicles to Eden Prairie in 2026. We are building out the infrastructure and that should be complete in 2026. and we'll we'll do do some testing with uh residential trucks. So, the next time I see you all, I'll be able to give you an update on that. But, um really exciting times. Recycling contamination update. I had to put together this slide. This is such great news. I know it's a lot on one slide, but um we every year we do um a composition analysis for the city of Dayton. What that means is we will take one of our recycling trucks. Um it's servicing only Dayton. It will go to our recycling center. It will tip on a special floor and then with a front loader with a loader we will take a big huge scoop about 250 pounds of that put it in an area where it's manually sorted because we want we want to see what's in what are people recycling in Dayton. And so you can see here back in 2023 um we were struggling a bit in that during that sort we had 28% of all of our recycling material in that test day was actually trash that was being put in to um into the recycling bins. And then so a lot of education was done. and city staff was all over it and did a great job and we were able to reduce that to 16%. And then this last sort that we did here in 2025, 9%. That is less than our recycling centers overall average for the year of of uh 2024. So really great job with the residents. you're a growing city and to see that number continue to tick down um year overyear is is one of the best stories we have across the Twin Cities. So really great job. Um >> why what drove that cuz >> education >> but >> I I think it's education awareness. I know we've participated in some events um educating residents. Residents will reach out to us directly. Our the county has a great website about dos and don'ts. U the city here does a great job of educating and our site. Also, we've got free downloadable um education pieces for our schools, for homeschoolers, and it's really been a group effort. And I think a lot of folks that have moved into Dayton also, um I've seen a lot of younger families moving in and they've been recycling and their children are learning how to recycle in school. And so this is a great news a great new story and so um we're thrilled to see it and I'm excited for next year's sort. >> So I have a question related to that. >> At what point um is that is a load considered too contaminated and so it just goes to the landfill? Well, when our material, our load comes in, it it's tipped on a floor and then it starts going, you know, it it's it's it it goes on a belt and it starts the sorting process. There isn't necessarily a load that's fully rejected. Um, it's sorted at our plant. And so we may have some days where we have more contamination that is sorted out and then transloaded to a landfill. Um but where we see the most amount of contamination um where we might um where a driver might call in and say this recycling dumpster is so full of trash. I don't I think it needs to be picked up as trash. That's generally in apartment buildings. Um and so not so much in the single family to forplex residential homes. >> So you do some pre- sorting then to get rid of >> there's a lot of sorting. In fact, at our recycling center, we do a number of tours. So, if ever you you and the rest of the counselors and mayor staff would like to tour, I'd love to take you through. It's the sorting process is very interesting. We have um we've really expanded our number of robots and um we've got there could be a shot of air blowing paper to sort out this way. There are Eddie magnets that are picking up the cans and and pushing them down another belt. It's really quite a process. Although there's a lot of technology involved, we still have hand sorders there as well that work for us full-time. >> But it it is um it's really interesting to see and to see how quickly we process material. We can't we can't close our plant without taking all of the material for the day through. There is really no place to sort it. And so everything that comes in that day is sorted and processed that day. >> Okay. So you do that process before then you that you transfer it to >> right it's bundled you know it's bailed different products it's bailed and then it's transloaded to the buyer. >> Um it's trans the trash that is sorted out is transferred then to the landfill. the plastics transloaded to the polymer center. Each place has a home to go to and we're fortunate that um at our headquarters we actually have an entire department that sees that we have strong contracts with buyers. So, we're not sitting on material. I think we probably saw during the pandemic, you probably read some articles where, oh gosh, there was really good recycling, not in the Twin Cities here, but in other parts of the country where it was sitting outside and um weather destroyed a lot of the cardboard and paper products um because it wasn't getting moved or there wasn't a buyer. Um we we've not experienced that here. >> Okay. One thing that's always been a headscratcher for me is what is the problem with pizza boxes. >> Right. >> Yeah. Well, it is the food waste. It is the oil on the pizza. Now, I will tell you if your top is dry on that pizza box, rip it off and you can put that in your recycle bin. But that dirty, messy piece, >> it's the grease that you don't >> It's the grease. Yeah. the milk to your stool. >> That has to go in the organics bin. >> Yeah. >> Or if you don't have one, that would be in the trash. And I know that Amy set up, what was it 2, three years ago, you set up a dumpster for your residents >> for um for that those products. Um >> yeah, the here's another piece about pizz boxes. You know, I spent a fair amount of time at a recycling center. You would be surprised how many arrive at our tipping floor with pizza still in it. >> That's cuz it's cold and dry. >> Yeah, it's really pretty gross. I mean, we see diapers, dirty diapers, dirty pet pads, all sort of things. Um, and it is confusing for some some residents because on a diaper box it might say this is recyclable material. That's the >> well that's the box. >> So you know I that's where education is so important um because it can be very cons very confusing for all of us including residents especially when it comes to packaging packaging material. >> Okay. So when in doubt, ask. Um staff knows how to reach us when they have questions and occasionally they reach out because we get a few head scratchers now and then. But we can also if we have a sample of some some kind of oddball material, we can take that over to our recycling and say, "What do you think, guys? Can we do this?" And then, you know, we certainly respond as quickly as possible. So, we try to stick to the the basics and when in doubt, please throw it out. >> So, our last comment, and I know this is kind of a smart Alec thing, but I can't. That's what I do. Um, >> okay. >> So, I assume then when the fleet is converted to electric, then the fuel search charge on the bill will go away. >> Oh, that was >> Well, being that the the trucks cost twice as much, I'm not sure. But when we, you know, when we get to that point, I mean, everything, as you know, as a business person, everything has a proforma and a price in a negotiation. >> Was hydrogen ever looked at? >> You know, that's a great question. I I asked that recently, not of corporate, but I read an article about hydrogen and I said, is this something we might be looking at in the future? Um, I don't have that answer yet, >> but um, but I'm with you. I'm I'm very interested in that. >> My understanding was because it releases water vapor, doesn't it? And that makes icy roads like in a free like in California, they don't care. But here, you're basically all winter long icing the roads for the people behind you. >> It's to me it's a question. >> I don't know that that's but that's what I've heard. >> Milling versus ice on the road. I'll take the >> And I think as time goes on, I I do think that we'll start seeing in hearing of more opportunities to become more efficient. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And more environmental. >> All right. Well, thank you. >> I think there's more. >> There's a little bit more. >> Sorry. >> So, the last space of exciting news is is um organics recycling. We talked about that with pizza boxes. So, I won't spend a lot of time on it. I just want to make sure that I brief all of you on what's happening in this space because that's made most of the news, right? And organics recycling, what is it? Largely, it is food waste. And I know Henipin County on their site and and um they've and other sites has said that a quarter to a third of all of our trash material is organics recycling. It can be recycled made into some good compost. And so Henipin County does have a mandate. I'm sure you're all aware of it. And um and we have rolled out a number of curbside programs. Um, our latest was in Champlain and I live there and also Maple Grove, Plymouth, uh, Brooklyn Park rolled out a curbside program. So, across Henipin County there are most of the cities, all cities 10,000 and above have rolled out these programs. So, it's been a pretty exciting space and residents um are very interested and they've been enrolling in numbers that I guess I didn't expect. Um but it is really refreshing to see. It's been very successful. Those carts are generally um the 30gallon cart, the small cart. So, you basically have a little tub in your kitchen if you wish. collect those food scraps in a compostable bag that then goes into the cart. And um why do cities um provide organics recycling at the curb? Largely, it's it's because we want to divert more of the trash to recycling and um really reduce the tonnage that goes into landfills into our burner. And so and I've listed some benefits for you. I don't need to go through all of those, but if you have any questions on organics, I certainly would um entertain those. How do you get started? When the time comes, when your city is large enough, you're probably getting close to that 10,000 mark by now. Um when we negotiated our recycling contract, the organics recycling was included in that. So know that as part of that RFP process and that contract, we have everything listed there. When you all decide that this is the time, then we'll sit down with staff, create a plan, a rollout plan, come back and report that to you and give you progress updates. So any questions about anything? >> I thought Yeah. And this is probably for a later time, but I looking at the slides, I was thinking maybe we were closer to to rolling this out than perhaps we are at at this point. Um, but I I guess I've got some questions about how the how the billing would work and we can save those for another time. >> Yeah, we've had very limited conversation on this so far. Um, but when that time comes, certainly we'll sit down with staff and and um get you everything you need. >> I know that we've got the drop off site now. We >> Yes, >> we use that when in my family. And I'll just my observation is it's probably not very heavily used. And maybe I'm just getting there at the wrong time, but there's always a lot of room in that in that container. Um, >> and residents also can take their their recycling, their organics recycling over to Brooklyn transfer station. So, some may be using that also. >> That's possible. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Yeah. There you go. >> Make your own compost with it. Yeah. There's lots of, you know, that shouldn't be the indicator of the level of recycling that's happening with that. But >> what we've seen is far greater participation with a curbside program versus a drop off program. You are correct. I'm sure. And I'll just say this because it was such a great idea that Amy Benting had when we first started doing this was to take those little bags and throw them in the freezer. >> Yes. >> And it uh that works great for, you know, you run out of freezer space after a while, but then you're making it one trip a week instead of every other day cuz it's in the summer months. Oh, yes. I can appreciate that. We have a spot in the freezer for that. >> Yeah. >> Good. Any other questions? Well, good. If something if you something should come to mind, reach out to staff. Um, we're in contact often. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. On to item H. an hour before you got here. >> Oh, >> fire away. We should be we should have all the information. So, mayor members call, there was some several questions asked of me for different things. I was not able to get that out to you in slides. I apologize about that. I worked with the chief on today and I think it was a little bit yesterday to get those slides prepared for you. So, they are in here tonight. They were not sent out to you last night because I didn't have them when I sent out at 7 o'clock last night. Um we have go through questions and fire chief. Thank you very much. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. Um tonight, uh we're going to talk about the staffing model for 5-year plan that I put together. I know Councilman Fishant is been looking this looking for this for some time um in that capacity. So we will start Whoops. Right here. So phase one, as you saw, there might be a little bit of discrepancy as far as data because I ran new data um today as it relates to calls and everything as of today. So um we'll get to that here in a minute, but phase one uh worked with the department to come up with um something that we could do to mitigate some calls overnight. So that's our medical teams from 1000 p.m. to uh 04 a.m. in the morning. give them an opportunity to get ready and go to work. Um, basically how this is going to work is we will utilize our duty crew tone. I'm currently working with um, Henipin County Dispatch right now to get additional tones for us um, so that we can have a station one, station two, and a duty crew tone. Currently only have our all call to tone current. Um so with the establishment of medical teams basically um we'll have two firefighters from each station that will be signing up for their shift. Um with that being said um with those four um because of right now we don't have the ability to geographically activate station one versus station two. Um the duty crew tone will be activated those that are want to listen to it. any firefighter can listen to it, but I'm assuming the majority of them will not want to. Um, they'll listen to the duty crew tone. Um, between the four firefighters that are standing by, they will determine who's closest to the call, if it's station one or station two. Um, additionally, those four firefighters would also respond together as from both stations if it's something fire related at that time. >> Would those um duty crew members are on this medical team? Would they be on site or at home? >> They would be at home. Councilman Fish. Um, continuing with uh this is a little bit Councilman Vishant is kind of what you'd ask for. It is difficult to read it up here um based on this, but I'll get to something that's more pertinent here in the next slide. Basically, this is the incident count by hour of day and day of week. Um, so obviously Sunday through Saturday is on the left. Um total sum is on the right and then the hours of the day. Some are across the top. Um Councilman Henderson really I'm blind. >> No, it's fine. The next one will actually help. >> Okay. >> This is just more information and we can send this to you or Zach. >> I'm happy to be I'm also like my contacts are dry so I'm like it's just >> Yeah, it's difficult to read. We'll send this out. >> Thank you. So to kind of higher level a little bit, Councilman Fishant had asked the question of if we take our current um or the proposed model and put it into play. This is kind of that slide. So when you look at this slide, it talks about proposed staffing model where we're looking at the different shifts are at the top. So dayshift is primarily from it is from 700 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Um the duty crew that's proposed is from 1,800 or 6 p.m. till 1000 p.m. medical teams as we discussed are from 22 to 0400 and then there's a period of time from 0400 to 0700 where there isn't any responses um if you will that were were scheduled if you will. So if you look at the um red calls, this is all actual data from today. So this is 540 calls. Um if you you probably can't read maybe the bottom um but on the bottom in yellow it says calls in red would be all calls. 185 or 34.2% of the 540 calls there would be no station coverage. So they would be responding um from home like we do today. But calls in white or 355 calls or 65.8% of calls would have coverage. Um so that is a little bit of kind of that previous slide but done where you can actually see it a little bit better. >> Thank you. >> We can come back to this in a little bit. So phase two implementing that duty crew from 18 to 2200 maintain overnight medical teams. Um, we hire one full-time firefighter to assist with coverage. The reason for that, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have, um, the reason for the additional firefighters to maintain what we've worked with the fire department on and the firefighters to maintain 20 hours a month of response during duty curve and or all calls and training. That firefighter helps with that. Also, it helps with daytime response because right now um about 60ish% are from 64% I believe are from 0700 to 1,800 in the in the afternoon or in the evening um in that capacity. >> Would that full-time person be required to work weekends and like have a Monday Tuesday off and work like a Wednesday through Sunday? >> So, currently we haven't necessarily established their working hours. Um, so that is flexible. My initial rotation with that was Monday through Friday from 10 to 6, but again that's up for discussion. >> I was just up the previous slide. It was the Sunday and Saturday. >> The only >> Well, no, they're not not during the day. >> Monday, Sunday. So, >> so if I can hit on Councilman Batt and Aston's question. So, as you can see in this slide and um 51 calls on Sunday and 50 calls on Saturday. Yeah. Significant amount of calls. >> Yeah. Monday and Tuesday are your lowest during the day. That's why I was wondering. So, they can still have a two-day weekend is just shifting it to Monday and Tuesday when you have less calls that they're available to be on the weekends when you have more calls. >> Yep. The only problem with that is is working with firefighters. They didn't want to work Saturdays and Sundays outside of their regular job. >> Well, this is for the full-time person. I'm saying >> this is for the one full-time person. >> Yeah. >> But I can't have one full-time person work by themselves. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. I have a question about this because it says dayshift is 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Right. >> Mhm. >> We don't currently those aren't our like your like Okay. Backing up. If your duty crew doesn't start till 6:00 right now, we're not staffing the station until 6:00. >> Correct. >> Correct. So then I'm guessing or I'm question is why on here is the day shift considered till six because the first phase only adds in >> 6 to 10. >> Correct. So >> this is this is just showing you the coverage for the most part. So this is when Kevin and I are here >> from 7 to 5ish. >> Well, okay. Yes, but not Monday through Friday. First of all, second of all, the five to six is a pretty large gap of calls. And so with the model when I worked it out this way, 5 to 6 is still open. So who covers that? Unless you're changing your working hours to be here Monday through Friday until 6 o'clock, both of you. >> So we're going to have to make some adjustments in that capacity. But the reality is is that that's why when we originally provided this um we had requested two full-time firefighters to work in conjunction with our um duty crew model that was going to also help with the day shift on Saturday and Sunday. So, the rotation originally was is that the full-time firefighters would work into the weekends, have a schedule that it's confusing, but they would have like a Saturday, Sunday off, and then they would work whatever, and then we had other firefighters or paid on call folks that would fill in those gaps with them on weekends. Those like 9 to 7 on Saturday and Sunday. >> So, in this model that you're presenting today, that would be an all call time, correct? would be the five to six and then Friday. >> I guess I I guess >> I'm just trying to make sure that that gap between would be covered. >> Is that all call back on our paid on call to cover that? >> No, we need to make sure that uh with full-time staff and then that's the idea of trying to work with one full-time firefighter original understanding or original thought process would be 10 to six. So, we've got one and then one of us is here with that person working in that capacity to try to cover those hours. And then duty crew starts in at 6 because that gives firefighters the ability to come and start um get home from work and come to the >> I feel like I'm not I'm not understanding. >> I think there's I think yeah there's a little I think the information is there. just trying to connect the dots is so right now it shows dayshift means 7 to 6:00 p.m. And that would be with a proposed full-time person working 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and then having chief one or chief 2 work that time frame with them whether that's 6:00 p.m. one day or they're not here till 9:00 or whatever it is. So that we'd have coverage from 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. until we got duty crew modeling changing their work. >> So changing their working hours. >> Correct. But then it goes back to Sarah's question. you're still going to have one person in the station. And so the reason why we're not doing weekends, what I'm understanding, for that full-time person is because they would be there alone and you need two people to really do amount of work. >> We have to adjust. >> So that's what but what I'm saying is even if you have someone not come in until 10:00 or 9:00, someone is going to have to be here at 7:00 by themselves. >> I was going to say you have the same because I'm trying to wrap my head around how that works. If we can't do it on the weekend, >> how does it work during the week? >> My my question would be and and Jerry highlighted on this. You don't need the fulltime. What we need to cover. Our biggest problem is daytime shifts. >> Is it? >> So that's what we're being told. >> I mean, that's the numbers on the screen. >> The the 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. is our biggest problem. >> Correct. That's the numbers that you see on the left under the 7 to 6. So, why can we not >> do duty crew? >> The only the only thing I really got out of this 5-year plan that I that I like >> is your part-time firefighters. You can fill in with part-time guys during the day >> potentially >> like Maple Grove does where they open up their duty shifts and you sign up for them. >> Yeah, >> they have full-time, but they have a duty shift that you sign up for. >> Yes. >> How however you break it out. How Yeah, however you want to skin the cat there. Um, I do have another question. Sorry if you want to answer. >> No, I just wanted to to clarify. So, yes, we can we can have daytime duty care. That's not a big deal. As you see in further phases that we'll talk about is that there is daytime duty care. The only question that I have that's not answered is can we get the day currently within house we maybe have Zach and I talked about this the other day. Maybe I know one for sure, but maybe two or three that are able to. We don't have the daytime staff to fill it with our current members, >> but you might have to go outside the city to get that. >> And if you do, so be it, >> right? And that's not a big deal. Um, but I can't guarantee it because the challenge that we have is this is the paid on call model, volunteer, whatever you want to say, used to be the foundation for full-time staff. So, meaning they would funnel from here, they would possibly stay here, and then they would go and get a full-time job. What we're starting to see now within the fire service, and I use Burnsville as the example. Burnsville is currently recruiting firefighters that may have fire one, fire two, and ENT, and then they're bringing them on to hire them as paramedics. So now we're starting to go after the same pool of candidates where before they would come to us. And so what I'm trying to go out and advertise as my one of my quest requests for tonight is is advertise for eight. Um I'm not sure and they're very well. I just don't know that answer. It's an unknown. I mean, as Jerry talked about, there's a lot of firefighters that are interested in doing, you know, 6 hours here and then going to West Metro or wherever they want to do in that capacity. If we can fill it that way, >> that's great. Um, sustainable be sustainable for a period of time. I don't know that the duration of that over time um because full-time departments are starting to have a difficulty getting full-time firefighters. They rob from one to the other. True. I have one more question before we move on. >> Sure. >> Um, your overnight response teams, it's all medical teams. >> I just Yeah, >> that's to that's fine. Same thing. Um, >> can I ask what new information we have since the last work session we had? Because the last work session we had, um, the consensus was that overnight medical teams don't work. They've never worked. They didn't work when Paul was a chief. They didn't work before you were here. They didn't work like it wasn't sustainable. So, I guess I'm wondering what other information have we gathered? Um is that just the firefighters willingness have with just a new proposal? Like I'm just I'm wondering what is different now than when we met in what was it June? May >> May June something like >> something like that. I guess I'm just wondering like what's different now? I'm I'm I'm for it. Like >> the teams worked when I was a fire family. like I like them overnight, but I just I'm wondering what's different. >> The the biggest discussion that um that I had with firefighters is, you know, they didn't have any interest in it if it covered on weekends. So, as you can see, if you look at the medical teams, we're working Sunday night 2204 until Friday morning at 04 and not doing Friday night into Saturday morning or Saturday night into Sunday morning. >> Did we do Friday? I don't think we we didn't do Friday before. >> I'm not sure. >> I just I'm trying to think that was a while ago trying to think back. Um >> but in my discussion with them um they were willing to um go this direction. >> Okay. >> In that capacity. >> I think it's I mean I'm all for the overnight. Um that makes sense to me. I think I've been a proponent for that for a while. I just wanted to make sure that we had um more data or we had had more conversations. Yep. Y. >> So, just making sure I'm covering all my bases. >> Sure. >> So, I appreciate that. >> Um, we hit on this. >> So, duty crew, firefighter, captain cost. Uh, council member Fashant had asked for a um cost if you will. >> So, duty crew um firefighter um plus the full-time captain. Um you have for the duty cure you have 74,880 um the employer Medicare fraction of that parah that we've talked about 13,000 a total annual cost on that is 89,219 um >> oh it should have been fire it should say it should say captain I took the previous the future slide you'll see >> okay >> I tried to make make it work >> move some slides around >> I move some slide around so sorry >> firefighters So the >> go ahead. >> I'm confused. >> This is this is 26 is what's in the current budget for 2026. This is the numbers and I wanted to make sure it was consistent. So the council saw it. The second number should not the second category should not say fire marshall. I took a pre a future slide and tried to recreate it back to this one for 26 numbers and I forgot to change fire marshall to captain. As you can see, captain's on top and then captain's in the second line. I forgot to change captain. So the first the duty crew firefighter should be the full-time fire captain. >> Duty crew firefighter is the duty crew established from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. which was discussed in the >> future proposed staffing model for 2026. >> That's within the current budget right now. >> These numbers are not in the uh the packet at all. They are not because these were requested after the packet went out and then I >> didn't ask them until Monday morning which then chief and I went through a numerous things and one of these was this. >> So we can get a copy of that. >> I'm happy to send it out to you. Yep. I just did not get it. >> So this says nothing about the two full-time that were in the budget. >> There is not two full-time in the budget. >> There was >> that was um in 2025. There was two in halfway through the year. >> And they're baked in for 26, right? >> Sure. They were >> they are two full-time people in the middle of the year. So this is part of the thing we talked about how many how many meetings ago it was but in this is the how it's hard to look at what's actually happening and what's the budget shows the delta >> because it changes every single year it changes for what the budget is to what actually happened >> but but there are two slots there were dollars allocated half a year 2025 and then for whole year 2026 >> and not spent so they're still there >> for in 2025 there are two full-time members halfway point through the year that are in this current year 2025 budget. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And that's still there. That money is still there. >> Money is in the budget. >> It's in the budget. It's in the baseline. >> It is in the budget for 25. Yes. >> That's the confusing >> for still in the jar. >> Yes. But that was at $17 an hour for firefighters, which is what you're seeing the difference between >> whatever. Whatever that number was. >> Full time was at 30. Yes. But the regular firefighters at 17. Yes. >> Okay. Okay, I think I'm a little thick though cuz I am still a little bit I am so sorry that that duty crew that's all that's all duty crew or that is >> that is from six to 10 >> how many people bodies >> that's two >> that number is 89 right >> each or >> yep 89 >> two >> two crew firefighters >> that's probably about right because I've got 78 without without the uh >> the other stuff >> okay >> so it's Pretty close. >> Yep. Yep. >> And then the second one should not say fire marshall. I apologize. It should say captain. That's what the top line says and I forgot to update it. >> But that's the cost for the captain that's currently on the bud on the packet for tonight for for posting and that's what's also talked about >> I think >> during the discussion of the fire subcommittee from the council with the >> firefighters. That's what was talked about. 64. >> There might be a slide at the end that >> there is a slide at the end that adds it all up. >> We'll add it all up, >> but you can add it if you want. >> Um, so yes, this is duty cure firefighter and full-time fire captain. Just to clarify, >> phase three. >> Tell me why why do you need that captain? >> I I don't understand why we need that captain because Jerry said we don't need fulltime. We already have full-time. We have full-time, but we need to also figure out some means to have daytime staff. >> So, that's where part time comes in. >> Well, that's a hit. Yep. >> You're here part time or during the day. >> Yep. Um, but I guess the question is, and Zach has brought this up, Councilman Salonic, is what do you want my data consistent right now? I mean, I can run Kevin and I can both run all calls. >> No, that's where your part-time guys come in, >> right? Right. >> I mean, we already know based on what happened here the other day that you two were not available when that bell rang. >> Correct. >> So now, if the part-time guy is there, he can go on the call. I mean, he's going to be here. He's not going to be at a meeting or he's not going to be at an inspection. >> Yep. >> Um, we still >> What we need to do in that situation, though, and and I guess I'm not a fire guy, so I don't know why, but you guys have a radio in the car with you, I'm assuming. Mhm. >> So when Kevin went to that call, somewhere along the line between he went and you went, somebody should have said, "Hey, I've I've got my truck. We need a we need a an engine here." Because that didn't happen. >> No, it did not. And the reality is is I can't take resources out of the station. Understanding or the belief is that firefighters are going to come and get on that truck. >> But he was already there. >> He was We were both not here. I was told you were here. >> I was out training with Phoenix and then Kevin was over at Heinand's doing an inspection. >> But the reality is is one person in an engine is not going to solve my problem at that case. We need to have a lot of organization from a leadership perspective to get organized how staff um like fire. >> Okay. As far as what happened there, did you not see any lessons learned? Because you had three people sitting there without an engine. Tell me in what world that makes sense. But so I guess, mayor, what is your point? >> The point the point that I would see there, you're all training the dog. He's on an inspection. So neither one of you are are able to jump in that rig. Y >> he's not here. You were here or somewhere in the area here. >> Yep. >> To me, what could have happened is is once you decided to go, you could have said, "Kevin, I'll bring a I'll bring an engine." >> Hoping hoping and or you know hoping that more firefighters are going to come behind you. >> They could have they could have brought the tanker. >> Well, the one firefighter brought the tanker. See, the thing that I struggle with, honestly, mayor and members of council, >> is >> you guys struggle with understanding the fire service yet, and I'm trying to explain it to you, but you don't like what I'm trying to explain to you. >> Well, >> I don't think it's that we don't like what you're trying to say. >> You could pick a better time of the day rather than 8 or 9:00 in the morning to go train the dog. That's >> Well, Councilman Salonic, what difference is if I'm at training the dog or if I'm going in a meeting? Well, When the bell rings, whether it's Doug or the meeting, you got to go. >> Well, and we did. We both responded >> with your trucks. >> Okay, mayor, help me understand what I'm going to do with one person. >> You didn't have one person. You had two people. >> You would have had two there. >> And you brought a tanker that's gravity fed that you can't pump water off of. If one of you had showed up with a truck, you could have pulled a line and protected other structures. And you're right, I'm not a fire person, but I've had enough people reach out to me about this to ask me what in the hell are we doing that I'm questioning what in the hell that we're doing in that call in particular. And I'm not going to beat you up. I don't want to talk about that. But I think what Scott, you're getting at is >> our me correctly using well and backing up even backing up below that. And I think and correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm getting you wrong, you let me know. Yeah. >> What I'm hearing you say underneath everything is >> one, what is the problem statement? Is the problem statement that we need boots on the ground and people in the truck >> during the day? That's it. >> That's the problem statement. So, what I'm hearing you say is is we have resources available, but are we adequately using those resources, >> adequately using the personnel that we have, or are we not? And if we're not, do we have the right resources in the right places at the right time? >> Correct. 100%. >> Okay. So, I think your question is is we've got two people. When we moved from a part-time chief to a full-time chief, the understanding was is that we were getting a fire marshal, not an inspector, a fire marshal to help with take away things from Metro West. That was the whole point was to move in that direction which we cannot. >> The second thing we believe we were getting was people to respond during the day. Y >> and then the ask came we need more than one person. So now we need another full-time person to come in and help with those daytime calls. And so again, I think the problem statement here is and what I'm hearing you say and what I'm also questioning now is do we have the correct resources to solve the actual problem statement or are we just spinning our wheels here and are we just adding more full-time fire captain duty crew this and that when really are we solving the problem? >> Seems like the goal line is just moving. So, >> so mayor, members of council, what do you know about Mino and two in two out? >> I didn't say go in. >> I didn't say in. I said protect surrounding before Rogers chief got there or when he got there and we waited. I don't want to debate it. I don't want to get into this whole thing. I've had enough people >> to talk through and I I don't want to I don't want to go there. The question is is are we solving the problem statement or are we not? And I don't know that we've allocated our resources in the correct places to do that cuz I'm not talking about performance. I'm not talking about how anybody performs right now. I'm saying do our resources solve the need that we have or do they not? >> I I understand that there's going to be days where you're at a me an actual meeting or something and you can't go to the call. I get that. But on this particular instance, all that would have had to happen is Kevin, you're on scene. I'll bring the engine. You by the time you get there, you have two people there. That's my point. >> I'm not going to argue with you. >> Yeah, whatever. It doesn't really matter because >> I think where we need to get to, >> you know, I guess, you know, everybody up here is frustrated to different degrees, >> but you know, we've been talking about this for more than two years, and I think it's it's so easy for us to go sideways on on things, individual calls. you know, there should be I assume that's a part of the process that there's an afteraction on on these kind of events and you look at what went right and what went wrong and you and you try to improve from there. Um, but okay, first I'm going to say thank you for putting together a five-year plan. I don't know that I I can endorse all of this, but I now we've got something in front of us to work with, right? And that's that's what I've been asking for. And and so we've got something and the and the you know the follow- on questions for me which you know I started with are we putting with this model are we putting the resources where the demand is and you've done some work there. It's a little hard for me to um you know kind of see that from this distance and I takes me a while to kind of analyze stuff but um you know it's it's addressing the question. know whether this is the final solution or not. I think what we have to get to is what's the model that we're willing to support so that it can get implemented and I don't think it's going to be right out of the box. Now we in business people do all different flavors of these performance improvements kind of things. you know, PDCA, I think, is one everybody you you plan, you do, you check, you act, right? Which accepts right out of the box that it's probably not going to be perfect when you implement it. And so you you do it, you you make a plan, you do it, and then you look back and you say, is the plan working? Where is it not working? And then you adjust. Um, I think that's where we have to be with this. I don't think that any of us um you know and certainly Stephanie's got the most insight into a lot of how this works operationally. None of the rest of us really do. We have our opinions. We you know we we see what we don't like. And even um it was Jerry that was here earlier. I'm sorry I'm continue to be awful with names. Um you know he even said that there isn't a model we can pull. Everybody does it a little different and I think that's unfortunate but maybe you know that's the reality and we've got to get to something we can endorse so we can we can move on. I think you know we're frustrated you're frustrated. I know when we met with the firefighters they're frustrated. It's like what are you waiting for? We need to do you know we need to move on here. We need to get something going. And I'm really hoping that, you know, I don't think we're going to get to the plan that we can all endorse tonight, but if we can get a framework of how to move forward, that would be real progress. And that's what I'd like us to try to accomplish while while we're doing this. I was a little um I'm not sure if he really answered that question, but um I am a little concerned about, you know, if we're going to adjust call volume, that's going to be a significant impact and it just seems odd to be moving pieces around. I mean, some of this might make sense to implement uh in parallel. Um but I he you know he also mentioned a number of times um you know that that uh you know one of the one of the problems that that firefighters face is is having a real purpose to to what they're doing. And I got to believe constant canceled in routes, constant, what did he call them? Tattoo bleeding >> scabs. I I got to believe that doesn't do well when somebody's getting a call at 3:00 in the morning >> and they're wondering, hm, is this going to be another >> Anyway, my bottom line is I really think we need to make that call adjustment um at a minimum. >> Is that part of implementing these medical teams? So this is this is another frustration. I didn't see that even mentioned in this thing. So that that was a concern of mine. >> So the mayor, members of council, the uh profile of the 5-year plan does include um the four um green on the top, which is roughly 101 calls, eight and a half calls a month reduction. Like the last three calls that we've had, I think we've had a pain in two ills or vice versa, whatever it may be. um illness and pain um are the top ones that uh we that I put supported for response non-urgent as I sent out a couple weeks ago. Um we can start with those. The one thing that I did state I believe in my email to Zach or however that got sent off is that um just because those calls come in that way again we've talked about this at the past that it may not be what it is. >> Yep. Um, and then North can call us out, PD can call us out and so forth. >> Um, >> can I have we all reviewed the medical call type that we received in that >> weekly update? Okay. Well, um, then that's not going to help us. >> Well, >> because that would be what I would think would be the first step would be and I would >> move to anything that is a four or less >> um that we put that back on um on north essentially. And I understand that it puts it also on our officers and if we can quantify that and how much more stress or strain or calls that puts with them. And >> I'm not Yeah. And I'm not um I guess ignorant to the fact that you're not the calls aren't just going away, right? Like they are put on other areas and other departments and other things, but I really feel like those again are not ours to hold up for. we are providing the value and again like looking at the value for their time and pedag goes off like you said at 3 o'clock in the morning like you want to go to a call and know that you're doing good you're making a difference um and so I guess that would be if I was going to look at this 5-year plan that would be my first step because in total that's 122 calls so far this year which is a huge chunk um >> Gary were you saying that it is included in when I put together the um the five-year plan, I took that into consideration of what I had sent out. So, those top ones roughly that 102 um is calculated in the one thing that's just as a reminder as we continue to grow, so does our calls. So, we'll remove these calls, >> but other calls will replace them, you know, especially as we get more apartments or whatever the case may be. >> Sure. Calls are always going to grow. I I guess what I'm confused then about is when I see like you're talking about uh reduction of stress index from seven to whatever >> when we looked at that last at the last work session it was seven. >> So betting sorry >> and and when we looked at the when we looked at when I looked at the the call volume if it went down say 40% that knocked it down significantly. So, I don't know if you have included that in here cuz you have the seven. >> Yeah, I'm looking for my uh sheet. >> Well, it it's it's a minor point. I just I it looked to me like you hadn't accounted for that. So, that's that's that was my concern. >> Sure. And definitely I can go back and look at that math again without a doubt as far as that. It's really just number of call, you know, call volume versus that reduction. So that's really what that's just representing as a >> well and I guess to that point I ran the data. I spent the better part of my day this afternoon looking at this reduction and what the effects would be to the different um if we did a duty crew like what would the effect to the hours that that duty crew would cover? What's the effect to the paid on call? And the majority I think it's 60 my eyes are blurry. 69% of them are paid on call are responding to these and severity four and under the paid on call um firefighters are the ones that are responding to those calls. So my question is is if we moved in this direction would we not reduce that stress index even if we didn't and again I'm not against the duty crew. >> Sure you would. But we would because the 70 or 69% of them are born on the backs of the paid on call firefighters. Most of them on the weekend to be honest. Those are huge days. Um what did I say the >> huge days for the the >> forri the lower priority calls. I mean I have on here that it is a 49% reduction. So, I guess what I'm saying is is before we go and we hire more staff to add more resources to a problem that I still would like to look at how we're allocating those resources. But before we go and we add a bunch more people that we reduce that call volume because it will reduce substantially. And I have a graph in my hundred papers of what the oh what the trajectory looks like and Zach will work with me and we'll send this out cuz again I find finished this and ran out the door. Um but I think those are the metrics that matter to me, right? Like that's the metrics that matters is what are we actually taking off the backs of the people that are doing the work. And I understand the duty crew gives you um predictability and I'm not against the duty crew by any means, >> right? But I think that's where you start is implementing the medical teams because again a huge chunk of these are also within that time you reduce not reduce that's a gets a bad rap. We shift >> those lower show up to those calls. It's not like you call 911 and no one's going to come. >> SOMEONE'S GOING TO SHOW UP. >> SOMEONE'S GOING TO show up. We're putting it on those that exactly. And so that what I think would be my one to twoyear plan. I'm not anywhere near hiring a fire captain. >> No, me neither. >> I think again we have issues with how we're allocating our resources now. I don't want to add more resources to that mix. Um I would like to spend some more time in the data and looking at that stuff and I would love to take anyone along for the ride that wants to come. Um but I don't think that I don't think we're here wherever that paper is here. You don't have a number that 69% that you're talking >> that obviously is going to >> I can see you >> for me it's about numbers. >> Yep. 100%. I'm a data girl. I get it. >> Um for me we can 100% cover from I've got from 8 a.m. till 10 p.m. I mean there's another hour there that could be put in there. I guess >> um in my world that costs 165,360 bucks plus benefits. whatever benefits are there. Your 69% is going to take some of that money off the backs of the paid on calls. So, that number is going to drop some. >> Mhm. >> And it'll also go up for all calls. I mean, there's going to be some swapping back and forth. >> It's not going to be perfect. >> No. I like like I said, I think our biggest thing is we got to we got to pick up some part-time guys for the day shift for that from that 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. till 6:00 p.m. That's that's our biggest concern right here. >> But I do seven calls. >> But I'll push back on you, Scott, and say I don't know that it is. >> Well, maybe it's not. Maybe maybe the 69% makes a huge difference. >> I again, like having gotten the data, not to anyone's I found an issue in the data and I asked it to be rerun. So, I did not receive the data again until much later in the day. So, it was unfortunate that I haven't had the time to double check cuz it's never perfect and have Zach look at it and then share what I have found to get better insight, but I'm not ready and I appreciate, okay, how do I say this? I appreciate the five-year plan. I appreciate the work that went into it, but I'm not ready to pull the trigger on this. I could give a two-year or a tentative That's what I wanted. >> We need something, right? >> So, does the fact that the the data data needs to be looked at more completely or in a different in a different way um prevent us from moving ahead with launching the medical teams? No. >> Cuz that's the Tony Council. >> Absolutely not. So everybody is okay with >> the overnight response team >> implementing that which is a you know is a significant change. >> Yeah. >> And I feel you know we're going in the right direction >> the the types of medical calls that we're responding to. So if we're taking calls off the list, the the bleeding tattoo thing, >> whatever category that falls into, does that then is that information that the dispatchers have that we no longer call Dayton for this type of call? >> Councilman Fishant. Yeah. So I requested the duty crew and then through that process basically we set up what calls we are going to respond to. >> Okay. So, somebody calls 911 and whatever this minor medical problem is that we've determined, we are not very effective at or it's however you want to describe that. We're not going to we're not going to go to those calls because we don't add value would be the way I would say it. >> That's exactly right. >> Um then >> the only way you would add value is if all of a sudden Paul's people decide, hey, we need some more help. That's the only way you do it. >> The the other >> they could be repaged though, correct? Yes, >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, no matter what, the police department's going to go unless they're on a call. Correct. >> Um it's your determination as if you want the police department to page out fire if we're unavailable. If not, then you're just letting North go. And I know Maple Grove has switched over to a lot of their um police department is um just letting ambulance and I believe fire now handle a lot of the smaller medicals. >> So you just let North Co is what you're saying >> here. If you can't go the first response would be to show up correct for police >> if we're available. if you're available and then if not someone is coming. Someone will come. I think that's the main thing. Someone's going to show up when you call 911. Like I don't want any of our residents to think that someone's not going to show up. Someone will show up as a metaphor. >> Um I would just like to jump in with where I'm at with all of this. Um I I 100% reduce the call volume for these non-urgent the one twos and threes. Um >> are you one, two, three or one? I'm I'm up to four. I'm for sure one, two, three, four. I think I think it would be fair to say let's start one, two, three, and then we can reassess. As Dave pointed out, we're not going to get it right out of the box. So, let's try one, two, three, see how that goes. Right? That would be my take. But I haven't seen your data. So, if you have further data, I can four is whatever. But I think reducing calls, I'm there. Absolutely. Medical teams overnight, let's do that ASAP. I'm there right now. Evening duty crew, I'm ready for that right now. I don't see any reason not to do an evening duty crew as soon as that's like as soon as everyone can do that. I'm I'm there with all of those things. I'm there right now today with all those things. And this hasn't come up and I hate to throw another wrench in. I'm also like where are we at with the $30 per hour? Did that happen? >> That was that was the next thing. >> Yeah. Like I'm okay with that right now. Let's do that today. Like I'm down with all of these things. Where I'm a little stuck is do we need a full-time person and if so, when and where? Or is it a part-time? Like that's where I'm not ready today to say yes or no. >> Captain, is that what you're saying? >> Like full-time captain, whether it's part-time, you know, like that that I'm not ready today to say yes to. But I think I think sometimes what's been happening is that we're kind of caught on these decisions like these other bigger ones, and it's preventing us from making very easy. We're all on the same page for a lot of things. >> Yeah. Can we just do those things and can we like get some progress on some of those things and like get them out and rolling and then we can continue arguing all day long about some of other But like we have been preventing some good things happening because we're busy arguing about this other thing way over there and I'm really quite frankly sick of that. So I would like to make a motion if I can that we can just all go forward with reducing calls. Let's start one through three for now. um doing the medical teams and doing an evening duty crew. Can we like get that today and the $30 an hour and then come back to these you're not there >> because we don't know the impact, right? Like we don't know the financial >> and the thing is is you know >> if we reduce calls my guess is you're going to see more responses. You're going to see more firefighters respond because for many reasons they're not getting called as often. But why would that why don't why can't we do the medical teams and the evening duty crew? >> Why would that be a bad thing? >> Um I >> with the reduction you may not have enough calls to warrant having a duty crew. >> I don't know. My initial analysis says for >> but I mean >> 22 calls as of now I don't think it's >> okay >> 20 for the whole year until today >> 22 total calls in that six like I don't think it but again I want time to go back through >> are we okay with reduced call volume and overnight medical teams >> I'm okay with that but I am one through four >> at least >> I I'd have to look but >> I I think cuz five is fall >> lots of things happen there. We also have the community risk reduction to help with mitigating some of that or >> y >> um and then because that can be a lot of things. And then broken bone >> is also a five. I I mean >> painful but stable. I >> Yeah, that one's >> It's tough cuz if it's a compound one versus >> Well, and it's tough. My son broke his femur. he was 2 years old and we called in the helicopter. Like it is hard and so like I'm fine leaving fives on there. Five seems like a great spot to say, "Yep, we're going to go with that." Four and under seem like if we're needed, page us back out. We'll be there. But I feel like it's enough of a reduction that I mean I don't want to throw too many numbers out but even if we net we didn't get a single other call from one to four our call volume the the trajectory drops off the face of the earth like that reduction it's 122 calls from right now we've gone on 5 >> 40 >> 402 of the 540 calls is a lot of calls. That's how many calls that if we looked back, if we did a whatif scenario and we had not showed up or we had shifted who responded or we had value. If we had done that this year of the 540 calls that we've been paged out to, we wouldn't have gone to 122 of them. That's a huge number. That's a huge reduction. And again, the analysis I've done so far shows that a lot of that is on the weekend and our paid on call is responding on the weekend. >> So, so when I've looked at and we've seen some of these numbers that that the chief had put up at one of the last meetings, >> when I'm looking at these call volumes by other cities other than Rogers per capita, they're almost half. So, that tells me that that even list is probably fatter than what they typically see. So, it'd be nice to know what other cities do. Were we able to get that? >> I do. Um I can give you this hand out. >> Oh, that would be great. >> Yeah, I did request that from the chief and >> No. This is a No. >> Yep. >> Um >> it just be nice to see what you know what they >> all of that conversation. The only thing that I'm not satisfied with there is >> is that we run into our I think our biggest problem is we don't have gay people. And do we or I've got mixed feelings because on the meeting that we had with the firefighters, some said yes, we can cover our dayshift. Some said no, we can't. So, I don't know. I don't know what we got. >> Is that again a resource um discussion? We have resources. Are we adequately using our resources? And are they the correct resources at the right times? So is that a whole another conversation of this is the what are how we are using what we have and is that how we want to trying to be very careful >> I guess to me to me if we cut just mythically if you cut the cost of 69% of the onpaid on call there's some money there for some part-time what what what we need to avoid in my opinion Mhm. >> is there are going to be days where he's not training the dog and he's going to be at an actual meeting or he's going to be out of town. That's going to happen. >> Mhm. >> Sure. >> There's Kevin is one guy. >> Yep. >> And it may happen that we don't get another paid on call guy that call that comes. But if so if we have a guy here then we have two at least two and hopefully one or two show up. So to me, you could take some of them res for the resources from the paid on call savings and pick up one or two or three guys during the week. >> Um I'd like to so I try to keep the council on track a little bit of this is a five-year plan and we're focused really heavily on 2026 which I think is mostly L&M for the items and approvals is L&M for the two items that we're looking at or talking about and discussing. That's heavily focused on what 26 is and will likely be part of the budget discussion and item J as well. So, I want to be somewhat focused on keeping the five-year plan in in our focus here of like trying to get somewhat towards the five-year plan or giving direction to the chief so that he's able to do a five-year plan and get this back to us because it's something that the council wants to see. They want to see a 5-year plan and we and right now we're stuck on year one of year five and we can't get off year one. So, I want to >> but I I don't call it 25. That's already on the plan. It's on the plan. But I look at 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 for my 5 year plan. >> How do you determine that? >> I'm not okay with a 5year plan. >> And that's fine. I just need we just need direction given to the chief so he can bring it back so that either you can deny it, give us direction so that we know what we're doing so that the chief and I can work together to say, "Here's what we need to get to because we're spending on year one. I get we're not going to get to year five. I understand that. But where are we moving here? >> I'm not getting to any more full-time until we try this deal." And that's the and that's I'm going to use your your deal is item M hiring some mer mercenary firefighters whatever they're called of part- timerrs to fill in the gaps of those duty crew times or whatnot and we can establish if we want to do duty crew at 6 to 10 which is something that the firefighters when I met with them and we met with them they said we want to do 6 to 10 whether that the data shows it or not is is irregardless I think at this point when we met with the firefighters that's what they requested and asked for um that forewent another evening night for them for not doing maintenance which is something that they mentioned that they would like to have a Thursday night back. So then they have to work Tuesday two Thursday nights. Um which was something that they noted. So I want to make sure that's known too cuz I think we sometimes forget about we've met with the firefighters as a committee. Scott or Council Salana, Council Fashions and myself met with them and they were on board with this stuff. But that doesn't mean that you know that's what we have to do. It's just we need to take their consideration into into perspective here. So I know we're not going to do a 5-year plan. I'd like to get some direction made so that we can bring this back to you so we can get something accomplished with direction and then we can uh bring it back because again I know we're not going to get to a number that's totally fine with me but direction is great and then we can go yep bring it back or table it or deny it or something and we can >> we're beating a dead horse. So >> I'm going to say one more thing and then I'm going to be quiet. I understand and I appreciate all the effort that's gone in on both sides to say like hey this will work for us. this is what we want to do. And I'm I I hear that and like I'm not um I'm not new to the pager going off at 2:00 in the morning. Like I lived it for 10 years. My husband left the effing radio on Penipin County 24/7 in my kitchen. Like it's terribly quiet right now. Um but I again very sympathetic. I'm with like I hear you. I get the struggle but I can't in good conscience make a decision that I am looking at the data that doesn't support and that doesn't mean that I don't support the department and it doesn't mean that I don't hear the struggles but with the call reduction I at this point cannot support putting a 6 to 10 duty crew looking at the data of what that call reduction would do to the number of calls we have in that time frame. Doesn't mean that we couldn't shift it. I would be more than willing to look at that. But I am not today ready to say 6 to 10 is the duty crew hours just by looking at what that reduction will take away from that time. I don't think we know enough to pull the trigger on something that'll be really really hard to unwind in six months if we're like, "Hey, we've got people sitting at the station and we haven't had a call in a couple days or we've had one call." >> Is there a reason why if we start the duty crew from 6:00 to 10 and it proves that's not the time we need it. We can't change the duty crew to a different time of day where it is needed. Like >> there's a little bit of whiplash. >> You you can undo anything. You can you can re-evaluate anything, but I >> it's a very unpredictable schedule to get used to in the first place, >> which I don't know if you ever really fully get used to it, but then to say, okay, you're not going to respond to the pager at these, you're just going to come to the duty crew and then you're going to maybe get a call once or twice, I think overnight. My numbers are a little different, whatever. But anyway, then to flip back to you're going to listen for the pager. It's like a whiplash. That's like going from nights to days to second shift back to night. Like it's it's not that smooth, first of all. And second of all, if we the financial implications for the city of that, if we're saying we're going to schedule, we know what this budget's going to be. If we go back to just listening to the pager, I mean, I would think it would go down, but there's no predictability in that. >> So, right now, to Zach's point, like, and to just also, we have other we have a lot to talk about yet. Um, >> can we all agree on reducing calls and I'll I'll do one through four. I prefer one through three, but I can get behind one through four if that moves us forward. >> Um, the overnight medical teams and like doing that today. Can we say yes to that today? And then can we say that we would like to table this until you have a chance to look at that data better to see if six to 10 like what a reduction in those particular calls would do to see where perhaps the best timing for duty crew might be. Um maybe like um is is is that something we could all say yes to and move forward and then this could be tabled until we get you get a chance to look at that data more and then we can bring it back up next time and have this fun three-hour conversation again. >> I want to get a little farther than that. >> Okay. I'm okay with getting farther than that too. I just don't I would like to make progress. >> Yeah. I mean this is not our first three-hour conversation. >> It is not. And we've not >> made any progress >> done anything about the daytime calls. >> And so I in my mind I'm not I'm not there with the full-time captain and it doesn't sound like anybody is but we need resources during the day because we don't have them. the paid on call folks are not available for the most part and we've got administrative stuff that like it or not pulls them away from being available um during during the time that we need that coverage. I would I could see us moving ahead with the hiring of the of the part-time, you know, in in the hospitals we called them traveling nurses, right? And this is essentially the same kind of thing. People that are interested in Poland shifts and other places and um I think that's a viable path to get us some daytime coverage. You know, is that is are we going to be able to get enough people to fill all those shifts? That's an unknown, but we don't know until we try. Right. >> What? >> And I don't know. So, and don't don't you know if that isn't getting us where we want to be, then we loop back and talk about the another full-time position and we can argue about whether that's a firefighter or, you know, or some leadership role, but it's the, >> you know, it's it's the bodies on the truck. you know, not to minimize the value of everybody, but it's I mean, if you can't pull a truck out until you've got at least two people, then we got to have at least two people, >> right? >> I agree. >> So, can we do the medical team, do the the the call reduction piece on what type of responses we're going to do and move ahead with hiring the the part-time >> whether it's whether it's two or eight or whatever. I don't know the number in there. Mhm. >> The the only question I have around that for you, Chief, is the way it's written, it sounds like we're um we're excluding people that live in Dayton from >> That's the way it sounds like. >> And I'm wondering why that would be or is that correct? >> No, we're we're not excluding people. The the the difference is that we're hiring every year I budget for four new people like have no experience. So if they lived in Dayton and they wanted to be on the duty crew, by all means that that's wasn't the idea. >> Okay. So, I think that needs to be a little cleaner in that language because it sounds like it says you can't >> cuz it said it said outside the city. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It was just trying to articulate that we're going to hire from not >> we can still hire within. There's probably there might be someone at the Champlain. >> Yeah. You might have a Brooklyn Park guy that has three days off and he wants to do something for $5. >> So, you're suggesting that this be a daytime duty crew. >> The part-time people? >> The parttime people. Part people. >> Yes. Right. >> So, you're moving >> that would be the midday duty crew. So that's >> so 2027 you're moving up >> because the eight are evening >> that are in the packet today. The eight are those are the evening people and so you're moving 2027 the midday duty crew up. >> Yeah I see >> in le of the captain position. I see the partition >> people first and foremost covering day shifts if there's >> if there you know if there's >> the ability to expand >> that makes sense >> that and fill in these these gaps in the evening um where we don't have paid on call availability or the weekend that seems to be problematic because of the call volume and >> the lack of any full-time people on site. Is that is that viable for you to to do the to do that hiring and to advertise it for for daytime shifts? >> Yeah, we can advertise. I guess the one thing that I was going to mention as just a couple things. Um myself and Chief Astro worked with the firefighters. Some of them are represented in the room tonight. But the one thing that we have to realize is that what they discussed with Councilman Fish, Councilman Salanic is what they're looking for. So I just bring that up because they might not be agreeable to whatever that we're going to get to and that's fine. I'm just bringing it up as a point of from their perspective. Also, the relief association, I don't know how this impacts budget dollars. >> Yeah, I wrote that down. So >> So we have to work through that. Um because the relief and the $30 an hour I believe don't go together. Zach can confirm that >> you have so many dollars per month. >> Yeah, they're loosely tied together because if you don't make enough money per month once then you aren't eligible for payroll which means you have to have a retirement or we forfeit those dollars from the state. So I'll have to I'll have to do some more research on that because the money from the state can't go to pay hourly rate. It has to go to retirement. it can't go to, you know, that that's what the money from the 2% money or whatever they call it, the insurance money. We would just, and I don't know how this works because I've never had it happen before, is that it's been less. So, like, we get the same thing for police, too, but because the retirement for the police is much more than the number we get, it it just washes in and that's what it pays for and it's a portion of it. But if the dollar amount for the firefighters doesn't ex right if they don't make $425 one time then they aren't eligible for parah and then that means we can't contribute parah after they make 425 then they can so to make sure there's enough hours available for them at 30 bucks an hour which again is that >> as long as the math work I don't I don't care I just want to make sure that the council is aware of you know if we're going to have that money be forfeited I would make sure the council's aware of it if that's it's going to be the case. >> I don't think it will, but again, I I haven't run the new numbers. I don't know like if we reduce it by 25%, does that make a huge factor into the call? I don't know. So, >> make all the math. >> Thing that I want to mention too is we do have a challenge or not challenge but bring it up for discuss or not even discussion more information is that Seagull is going to go live with their department here 27 I believe. >> Yep. Mhm. >> So station one, 50% of that department, 50% of that station lives in AT. So if they chose to, they could leave the city of Dayton and go serve their own community. So I'm trying to look big picture at that as well, just and I just bring it up for information for C. >> So yeah, so for Councilman Fashion's point is he'd like to take the part-time, which is item M, and again, we'll get to item M at that point, but would be to forego the captain position in this 26 budget to cover the datetime response is my understanding. Is that correct? And that would cover in, you know, the captain was planned for 10 to 6:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. That's 8 hour shift. It would be covered by two mercenary firefighters in that opinion in that process. That's my understanding. Is that am I incorrect or is that correct? >> No, that's what I'm trying to get to is that I mean that we can't have nobody showing up at a fire, right? And we've had that happen. So we I think that's a high priority for us to do something about. What about the evening >> to the call to the crew? >> Well, I there >> I am okay with moving ahead with implementing the duty crew. I understand that when we understand or are able to see the the data better that those might not be the right hours and >> that's you know that's that's the adjust part of the the process. We got to start with something. If it's not covering our need fully, then we then we have to flex to to make to optimize it, I guess, is what I'm trying to roll to. And the other pieces that go with this because they're not insignificant. We've talked about we've budgeted the 30 bucks an hour part, right, already in this year and didn't implement it because we can't get past this discussion. >> Yep. is that we move with that and with that doesn't the parah piece then tag along with >> para parah would hook into that pretty good >> yes like I said as long as they have enough hours in a month to hit 425 one time then they're eligible for parah >> and then we just have enough so part of it is that we have to have the relief dissolve >> it has to >> has to dissolve first because they are >> and I'm going to I'm going to use a term that you don't normally use what that is it's first right of refusal like they get the first right to the money first even though that's not really correct term, but in in quotes and then the rest goes to the city and normally all of it passes. >> And what happens if I mean if the call volume drops, if this duty crew step, we're going to have a lot of firefighters that >> still make a lot of hours. >> And that's what that's part of my comment is that if let's say that, for example, what you said, mayor, is true, and we don't have enough calls and the 30 bucks an hour doesn't get you to 425 one time, >> we then forego the retirement dollars from the state at the end of the year. If I only paid, I don't know, 80 grand out in retirement dollars, but I got 140 from the state, I have to we have to give a check back of 60 grand to the state and say, we didn't pay retirement for firefighters of that money. Here you go. Here's the money back >> because it's has to be for retirement, which is why it goes right to the relief right now. It's just a pass through. Like it's just 100% here you go. >> Yeah. >> But just I always want to make sure the council's aware of that if that's the decision to make, which because that's part of the duty crew is that you don't have those set hours, right? So you don't have that set amount of time for um that you're paying the firefighters to be here. And so that goes into that par question though. Go ahead. >> This the firefighters get to sign up basically for the duty crew. Correct. >> Correct. >> Well, you could do any model. Yeah, you could do any. You could say pick first. >> I'm just saying that. >> Okay. So maybe I'm not understanding but if they need to reach Okay. So, what's the dollar amount per month or is it per year? >> We have to meet it. From my understanding with Paris, it's $425 one time. And I don't know, and this is what I asked them is do they have to then meet it 455 one time a month >> and then I don't know if they have to remake it again within a year or or what the time frame is like. If they make it once, then they're eligible. Then all of their payments go in afterwards, but then they don't get to go into PAR until they make 425 one time. So they could work six months without making $425 in a month and not give a single cent to PAR. They'd keep it all. And then at that's when they hit the six months, that's when their par time would start. >> Well, because my my my where I'm going with this is if if we can get that figured out, then when you sign up for duty duty crew, you would know that at least one month you maybe have to sign up for more. >> Yep. >> In a given month so that you hit your target for the year. >> Yeah. >> And then we're fine. >> Yep. >> Yeah. They switched it from being an X amount per year >> a few years ago to being X amount per month which is $425. >> But like if we know this in advance then when when you're looking at when we send out the here's the duty crew times you got to sign up then >> if you know this then one month you just put yourself on a lot for a given month and now we're fine. Right. >> Be up to the firefighter got time. >> Well that's what I'm saying but like we we know this in advance. How can this? And then maybe if we're like not meeting it with the evening, maybe we add a weekend duty crew so that the person who needs to get enough hours to guarantee this can like sign up for like a lot of hours on a weekend. But like you just know you need one month. That's going to be kind of I don't want to say brutal, but like one month is going to be kind of stacked for you. >> It's 20 hours a for the month. That's what we plan. >> And that's what I want to say, mayor, members of council, is that when we worked with the fire department and the firefighters is we stuck with 20 hours. a month. >> So, a month. So, that is six hours of uh six to eight hours of training. >> Um and then your duty participation of two shifts. >> Um and then maybe three or four all calls. So, we're looking at 20 hours a month. So, that's really what we've been working with with them. Um, so the eight that I have or the eight that I'm requesting future in the council agenda may or may not be the right cost or the right amount because it depends upon participation here. The other thing that comes into play is what Jerry had talked about is we have some significant turnout gear costs that are coming this way as well to around $5,000 a set. I've depleted our turnout gear on the shelf because it legitimately expires after 10 years instead of it sitting there. Does no good for that. So, we are going to be in a need to maybe ask for additional funds from from the the council, you know, and maybe that comes into however these numbers play out, but it's about $5,000 a set. Um, so I just throw that out there as well. >> So, but in each one of those, what did you call them? Mercenary. >> Mercenary is the term >> and the duty. Oh, the duty crew already have this but or they may not actually if they come from out of >> correct if they're when we hire them we need to provide their >> we would provide all that. >> Correct. >> And it's five grand a pop >> and that's just for cotton pants. >> So the idea of hem and velcro patches that doesn't really work that way. >> No, it does not because another agency is not going to want their turnout gear to come here and we >> it's not going to travel, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And the size is what it is. Like you may get somebody that is 5 foot and 100 pounds and you may get somebody who's 66. Like the gear is not >> it has to fit correctly. >> I just wanted to clarify a question that I misunderstood maybe >> if someone signs up for a duty crew time. >> Are they and there obviously if there's a call you go to call but if there's no call are they not then doing the maintenance and the other things? >> No they still be okay. Okay. So, so that I did because I just wanted to clarify that. But, um, >> I just I think I understand why we need to be cautious of the whole parah making sure we don't lose that money, but like I feel like there's a really easy solution to that and we know it in advance and it should not be hard to just make sure everyone signs up for enough hours in the year to like >> are there any so I know we've we've talked about this before, but I'm what I'm hearing is hardly anybody loses their relief organization. Are we missing something? Why are we unique there? >> Um that is a request from the department >> I know >> based on that B from my understanding it's based on the fact they don't have any time that they don't feel they have time to run the relief and run their regular calls and still have family. That's my understanding. Okay. >> But I think it'd be best to talk to the firefighters who are in the relief of why they would want that to be gone. It also takes you forever to be fully vested and most people don't stick around long enough to be fully vested. Moving a pair of vested hair is going to be better for them anyway. It cuts it in half. >> It's transferable. So if you have a relief and you go to a different you don't >> No, the only the only thing I'm getting at is is are we missing something? Why is not everybody doing this? >> Um well well I'll tell you sometimes there the relief is a lot of money per per year. So like for Maple Maple Grove for example is like $15,000 a year you you earn we're 3250 >> although their funding is >> their funding is $15,000 a year par can't even come close to touching that after >> as long as we out the risks and >> the one thing that uh maybe it's a concern maybe it's not maybe I just got to be okay with it can you occupy two firefighters for 18 hours a day with maintenance that's a lot of time >> well there's some other things that need that can be done I mean without a doubt We need to do some training. We need to They can do some prepping for, you know, there's lots of things that can be done in that capacity. I'll be honest, this is an insurance policy. >> That's basically Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, really, it's an insurance policy. It's It's no different than >> Okay. So, can we uh >> So, I think I have I don't know if I had a motion technically, but I think I have direction. The 5-year plan needs to come back. I think that's needs to be tabled. So, I think we should have a motion on that somehow. >> Tabled. Then I think we have direction and hopefully chief and I can work through it together and we'll come back with something and I don't know if it'll get >> Are we >> sold it again or not? I'm not sure. But um >> so for now I'll motion that we table the five-year plan but we still want pieces of this don't we? >> Yeah, >> this needs to come back. That's why I say don't deny it because we need to table this thing to come back for and that's the direction I was. >> It seems like we have agreement on >> and that's what I was going to say. So, I would be tableabling this and then I would ask to do a motion on what what you'd like to have. >> Are we encompassing hiring the part-time firefighters too because I have a an amendment to >> that's on item M. >> I know. But is it not are we not putting that in this motion? It will be its own separate or will it be part of this? >> It should be part of its own motion. Okay. >> That's that but it needs to be known. >> I just have a clarification to an addition I guess. >> So, can I make a motion to table the approval of the five-year staffing plan? Okay, >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Um, any any more discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor of tableabling say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. It is officially tabled. Can I make a motion to request that the fire department reduce call volume on a Can I Can I start making individual motions here on some of these components? >> Well, we're going to get to some of this and uh >> Well, yeah, but the call volumes in the medical teams is in. So, >> I'd like to make a motion to request that the police or the fire department um reduce call volume by not, how do I want to say this? by not immediately responding to calls that are one through four with the understanding that they may be called out if it turns out that the call was not as expected. Um and also just and and that people will show up. It's just not going to be the fire department as the very first person on scene. Um I'm just going to make that as a standalone motion so that we can maybe just vote on it and get that forward. Is that cool with everybody? And >> the severity ranking is done by the chief and that will be sent out. It was sent out last week's weekly update and I don't know how you want to disseminate that information chief to your firefighters but >> provide that same data or whatever. >> Yeah, mayor, members of council, I can put that out. The one thing I just want to clarify is that >> I don't know the time frame for this legitimately cuz it's out of my control. It's with dispatch and when they can get that done. >> I just want to greenlight it so we can move it forward. >> Doesn't have to happen tomorrow. >> Sure. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mayor and members of the council for transparity. Transparency. Can you read the call types from 1 to four? >> Yep. >> I can if you'd like. >> Okay. >> Um, allergic, excuse me, allergic reaction mild. Um, that's a I'm sorry, that's a one. >> Lift assist one. down unknown problem is a two medical alarm two pain three illness three and just for for everyone's uh listening um we ran 38 calls of illness in 2025 let me go back nine in 2024 pain calls non-traumatic we ran eight in 2024 this year we've run 33 medical alarm 2024 we ran 1 2025 we ran seven down on no problem. We have not run either of those call types in 2425. Um lift assist we ran eight in 2024. 2025 we've run 18. Allergic reaction um we've run three in 2024. This year we've run six. And then moving on to class four if you will or severity four. Dizzy, faint, you ran five in 24. In 2025, he ran 20. And mental health behavior, which is a four. Um, typically law enforcement does deal with that. We haven't run either of those. Zero calls in 2425. >> And again, with the understanding that if if the you could be still called out, it's just you're not going to be the first ones to respond. >> That is correct. >> So that's my motion for that one. And to further clarify, you call 911 with one of those types of calls, police still come, ambulance is dispatched. >> That is correct. Um, the one thing like you said, sometimes the depending on how the information is disseminated from the caller to the dispatcher, we have that variable. So, it could be whatever in that case ends up being something else. So, yes, that is correct. >> It's not going to be perfect. We recognize >> correct. >> Okay, that's my motion. Second. Second. >> Okay. Any more discussion on that? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> That carries 520 to zero. >> Mayor, members, council, if I may, really quick, I do want to provide a clarification on the information that you receive from an OKA Champlain. So, the calls that you see from Anoka Champlain, um, they don't specifically run medicals per se. That's a piece of paper that we >> hand it out just >> um the they run CPR and then because they are running a duty crew law enforcement for the most part as you can see all the calls that they've run it might not be exact number if I recall from the sheet but um basically the information received from the assistant chief is that says I know that it doesn't give you the call type number but it gives you an idea of what we went to last year for medicals the only one that we get toned out for automatically is not breathing. Most others are by police request. So that's just giving understanding of that information in front of >> Thank you. Then my second motion is to implement the overnight or to launch the overnight medical teams at both stations. First >> is that something we're all well I'm making that motion. I guess first motion was tableabling the five-year plan. Second motion is the >> reducing cost. >> Reducing cost. His third motion is to launch the overnight medical teams at both stations. >> And we again, we understand it won't happen tomorrow. You just time >> it'll be 10 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. >> to 4 a.m., right? >> Yeah. >> Yes, that is correct. >> I'll second that. >> Did you say second, Scott? >> No, you can give it to Steph. Okay. Doesn't matter. >> I should do something productive tonight. >> Uh, okay. Any more discussion on that? All those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say no. >> That carries five to zero. >> Did we come to consensus on starting the evening duty crew? I think Scott three of us did. >> Yeah, >> Scott and I and David are on board with that, >> which is item M, correct? >> No, no, that's the evening duty crew. It's not It's not its own item. >> Too many items. >> M is for specifically the part. >> Sorry. M is specifically for the mercenary firefighters only. Yeah. Hiring eight of them or up to eight of them for specifically part-time to help out and supplement the duty crew. Whether that's >> that is also either one. >> Yeah, I think that would be during the day or at evening depending on if we have coverage. Correct. >> That is correct. That would assist current firefighters in filling those gaps in the evening and or during the day if uh that's what council would like. Could I >> could I make a a somewhat vagger motion to start implementing a duty crew model and not necessarily pin you down to an evening duty crew model and then based on what as you actually roll this out cuz once you actually start it it might turn out that you that like the hours have to shift a little bit or you might have people whatever. Can I just say >> that's possible because you could have somebody who's on this current >> department that wants to work 10 a.m. to 2 pm and if you said uh 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. that means that that would be worth the limited of the current people in the department and that yeah I I understand what you're saying. So, I would like to make a motion to to say go ahead and launch a duty crew model and however that winds up panning out once you hit, you know, because you don't really know until you start it. >> Okay. >> Is that something we can all be on board with? >> The one thing that Gary's going to correct me if I'm wrong, Gary, at at some point you may have five guys that want Tuesday and nobody signs up for Wednesday. You're going to have to make that call and Tom Dicker Harry is going to have to sign up for when you're gonna have to sign them up. >> Yeah. >> And they're going to have to work it out themselves. >> So, we've had brief discussions with um the fire department and trying to figure out what's the best way to schedule. >> And so, what I found in my previous place of employment for duty crew is it's easier for us to schedule them. >> Yep. >> Once they they're scheduled, it goes out to them and then it's like 52 card pickup. they then will trade amongst themselves as long as the shift is covered >> because I don't have the ability to >> call dispatch and tell them hey from 2 to 6 we don't have a duty crew they're just going to pay it's duty crew tones once it's put into the cab system. >> Yeah. >> So that's why like that's the reason why I don't want to pin you down because once you get out and whatever like but is that are we okay with that? >> I'm good. >> Okay. That's okay. You have your vote. >> Yeah. I mean I >> I'm not okay. I >> are you okay? >> More or less. I just I'm not quite clear on the the hours piece of it. So, we're not saying any hours. We're just saying >> launch a duty crew. >> Yes. >> Figure it out. >> Yeah. >> And then to and we'll reevaluate >> 10 or something. >> Well, I I I just want to ask a question too that goes with that cuz and maybe you can help me with this. I just want to clarify. So, there's if we go in the direction of duty or whatever those hours happen to be, is there dollars in the budget to accomplish that? >> Um, >> he's going to have to run. >> I'll have to run numbers, but there should be if we're not hiring that full-time person, there should be enough dollars in order to cover the duty crew. >> Okay. So, I mean, at the current wage or at the 30 >> I would run it at the $30 an hour because that's the from my understanding that's what I'm making sure that's the thing that matters. >> That's my understanding. Us doing this piece then triggers the 30 bucks an hour and the parah. >> Yeah. Well, technically the $30 an hour would happen once the relief would technically be dissolved because that's where we're trying to offset >> dollar. Same thing as >> it'll take them a few months or something. >> It would take up to six months because there's some timing in there where they have to wait >> and that's Yeah. And there's going to be time when So, we'll try to do our best to try to get $30 an hour ASAP. That's the int I know that I understand that's the intention of the council and that's my intention and and the chief's intention is to get them $30 an hour ASAP as long as we can afford in the budget. So I just got to I want to make sure I run some different scenarios and I'll happily provide those to the council so you can see my math and so I can be double checked because again I make errors to it as like everybody else. Yeah, you're going to have to kind of adjust the pit on call savings and whatever whatever >> it's gonna Yeah, like I said, and then I will send it out to council and the chief as well, so they can you guys can double triple check my math to make sure that I'm not missing something or that we >> and if there's a serious budget issue, one of the options is to narrow how many hours are covered by the duty crew. >> Yep. I guess that's >> you know what I mean? Like so if we're running into budget issues, that doesn't mean the duty crew model can't start the process. We might just have to say, well, instead of all of these hours, we're going to just have to do these hours for the budget for the time being. >> The mayor, members of council, the only thing that I want to qual quantify with that is is that >> then I have the unknown >> and it's all >> the stub toe for 12 people to show up. you know, in theory of just not >> we wouldn't have this up to >> anyone. So, >> I think the general idea is to run the duty crew to um in L of the full-time person, which would be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. That's my understanding because the full time would have been 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. >> 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. with the duty crew intention. So, that the intention would be a 10 to 10 duty crew roughly. >> Whatever works. >> We'll have to figure that out if that works. That's my understanding. And part of why I think I would like to move forward with this sooner rather than later is it also tells us where our own people can cover. So if we do need to hire part- timerrs, we know when and where we need those part-timers because we may have people within our own department right now who are okay shifting a little earlier in the day or whatever. So that's the other reason why I'm I I am okay and in favor of starting the start of the studio crew model sooner rather than later. >> Again, it's not it will not be invented tomorrow. >> Well, no. And I recognize that none of these things are going to like start on start on Wednesday. I recognize all that. >> Yeah. Clear as mud, so I'll second it. >> Okay, that's my motion and my second. >> Can you second? >> Yep. >> Okay. Any more discussion on that? >> Just going to say I'm voting no, but not cuz I'm not supportive. >> Yeah, I think we need to let things settle on first, but >> that's totally fine. >> Okay, any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I was supposed to say no. >> No. >> No. Passes 3 to two. >> You could have also abstained. >> I don't need to abstain. It's not a conflict of interest. >> Okay. >> No, I'm just saying if you didn't want like if you aren't you were saying that you're not not supportive. >> I just wanted to make it known that it's not because I don't hear the needs cuz I've >> I've lived the life. >> Um I just think that we have a resource issue in general that this only exacerbates. That's >> my opinion and that's all right. >> Well, we'll come back in a year and then you can tell me how wrong. >> I'm out. >> Okay, >> I'm done with my thing. >> Um, actually, I don't I don't know that it's factual, but one of the counselors, the chaplain said they actually seen a reduction in cost when they went to crew, but they have a lot more response. >> They'd have 10 people show up. Yeah. >> And now they only have whatever they needed. So, >> okay. So that's >> Are you done? >> I'm done. >> That's item H >> because the other ones were going to come up in the other thing. They have their own thing. >> Um that was item H. Oh jeez. And then we got this guy. You know what? Uh if anybody's not opposed to it, I would like a 3minut break. I'm fine with that. >> Okay, we're going to recess. Recess for three minutes. You brought a whole mom. >> This is my one thing. >> Chris. Oh, Chris, are you ready? >> You're good. >> Oh, good. >> Okay. item. >> I have to click on the warp. >> Just click one for the mouse. >> Oh, bro. >> Now I can just get a little harder now. Not too. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. Um >> the item before you here tonight is the uh first phase discussion uh for the new LC Stevens master plan that was approved at the last council meeting. Um in packet there's revised um designs with uh u uh more general uh annotations of uh the amenities that are in there. Um we've taken any descriptors out of there and there's no pricing on this or phasing at all. Um so after the last meeting um staff were asked to come back um and discuss what we want to do for phase one um and figure out what that is and timelines and getting um getting pricing and moving this on to the next stage. So what I'm looking for from council is some guidance um on this. Um so um there are some uh information in there about the surveys. Um I did do a slideshow with some additional survey information just to help guide uh decision making. Um I don't know if you guys have seen these um this slideshow. Um I don't particularly want to read everything in there but um a lot of the usage um for the current is uh um walking and jogging, nature observation, community events and river access um and picnicking. Um and some of the desired improvements that were came through the uh um online survey survey was uh restroom facilities were a big big ticket I um water play features and a pavilion and again some native landscaping and nature walk type of stuff. Um, some of the ideas that were put forward was more Mississippi River access, improved spaces for community events, um, improved parking and pedestrian connections, sun chains around gathering areas and park building with with rentable spaces and bathrooms again. Um, so those were all were incorporated into the initial concept. Um the the concepts were then shown at a pop-up event at LC Stevens Park and more information was uh gathered at that. Um people uh the park access people like to bike or walk to the park and the tunnel access was was used often. So it's obviously been used by the River Hills neighborhood um extensively. Parking um car show like the parking on the grass. Um there are preferences for breaking up the park and not into smaller areas, not having it all centralized. Um uh that's there uh amphithe for additional seating there, better utilization of space. That's kind of a broad uh descriptor. Um river access in interest in expanding access, but concerns about safety. There was some talk about fencing and stuff like that. uh playground equipment there. There was uh interest in unique opportunities um some other than you would find in a regular neighborhood park. Uh park identity interesting seeing Stevens as a unique destination park. Um interesting reflecting the history of the park and the greater area. Elements that should not compete with nearby parks, you know, big trails, big events center, that kind of thing. Um interest in keeping the park natural. Again, the natural theme is coming through uh with play features incorporate throughout. Um and then there was they had a visual preference board out there where you they had photographs and you stuck a sticker on there. Um and there were different air uh areas identified. The top four areas with water amenities which was splash pad got a lot of uh stickers on it and a fishing pier. playground equipment, ADA accessibility um was uh a big uh feature and na nature playground again uh park features the pavilion and restroom facilities and a more defined amphas there trails and walkability um support for additional trails. Um so that that's the the actual visual board that they showed. I don't know if that gives you some kind of an idea. Um, and then these are the re uh revised um uh things from uh MSA um just identifying the areas. Um and the uh more generic um descriptors of of the amenities that are there. Um so and then there's the the blown up things. I think we've seen all these before and again with the generic um aspect to uh the amenities. So from that information um I'm looking for you guys to give me some direction on what we want to look at for phase one. Um what is important to you guys um I would like to have some information about what timeline we're looking at um to do this. Um normally it's a design one year and a build the next year. So, um, this is going to be designed from scratch. Again, there's nothing that we've got in place already to do this. Um, so that's what I'm looking tonight from you guys. >> I'll go first. >> Uh, couple questions first, I guess. I definitely want to see something on the amphitheater end. Yep. >> I don't want sales. I want a solid structure >> of of that caliber. something like that. >> And I'd like to get that ordered before the snowflies because it's 4 months to get it. >> So, >> and I'd like it up by next May first. >> Wasn't there kind of an agreement that that area needed to be bigger or not? >> That's the problem. >> I I I thought that we felt that that cement area currently for the stage isn't big enough. >> I think I think it needs work. Yes, >> I think in the plan that's on the screen now that area was over doubled in size. So that would mean >> I don't know that it needs to be doubled, but currently right now it's about 30 by 20. >> U which I mean that expedition band fit on there just fine. I mean I don't know how much bigger of a band you're going to get. They have seven people in their van. Uh, I do think it needs to be adjusted because it's slanted coming into there and there's no area for any kind of a dance floor. That's got to be fixed >> in front of it. >> In front of it. Um, and to me, the simplest way to fix that is is to raise the whole concrete pad up, which you're going to you're going to dump I don't know how many yards of concrete on top of that. M >> so I don't whether or not a couple people look at what you can do and to me that's the biggest thing that needs to happen right away. But my opinion on a splash pad and a playground is if you if we go down that avenue now we're talking probably enough money to where we got a bond for it. I think I mean we can't spend a million and a half bucks, right? >> We have a million and a half you could spend. >> Oh you do? Okay. Uh, and the number one requested item was bathrooms. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's the number one. So, to me, all of a sudden, if you do that, you might as well do those three or four things right up front and bond for the thing one time and get it done. >> But we can't just bond. >> Why can't you >> of our park facilities? >> You need a referendum to back. >> You need a referendum. >> Refer. >> I don't have a problem with that. Uh time does >> time timing >> which would be next year be a referendum. So if you plan for something and then the referendum doesn't pass now you >> well maybe maybe you just do this for now and you get your splash pad bathrooms and >> just so that we don't spend hours on this right >> um it'd be nice to kind of get an idea of some of the bigger ticket items there I shouldn't say dollar wise but things that people >> you know you mentioned the bathrooms the bathrooms to me are number one >> bathrooms are number one to me >> on my list >> and that okay so bathrooms and let's clarify what we mean Do we mean flushable toilets? Do we mean like forestry toilets where they're just a big hole and we just suck them out? Or is this like >> port flushable water bathrooms? >> Flushable water bathrooms with sewer. >> But if you're doing that, then you might as well do the whole thing. >> Not the FWS, >> the pavilion. >> The building, >> the farmhouse inspired pavilion and restroom. So, I there's a lot of and you guys rarely see this. There's a lot of parks that have clean bathrooms, but they're not >> flushable. I question even the Mississippi Crossing has got a lot of portaotties there. I mean, >> for events, >> I think you would still want that. I guess my question on the type of bathroom is >> how sorry >> how significant is it to bring sewer to that site? >> It's going to be uh it's got to come from over river hills um and get down to the site. So it' be a significant investment in there and water as well. hundreds of thousands of dollars or >> um yeah be hundreds of I think I think MSA gave a hard >> Jason's calculating >> of 350 for that I think >> I have >> Jason what's the cost to run sewer and water roughly per foot cost or something like that >> I just use like a 100 bucks a foot for either if you're not disturbing too much on the surface >> okay so it's a 100 bucks a foot and I we'd have to figure out where the end of the sewer and the water pipe is but if you did that we could run a simple calc and give you here's cost and again this is very high level so it's >> right >> probably way out >> well I guess that's the you know >> um >> what matters to me on this is that >> MSA spend half the budget >> MSA water services they have 200,000 and sanitary they have 200,000 >> that's what MS go >> I would just like a permanent bathroom structure with a changing table because where do you change a baby in a portaotty Yeah. >> Um, >> so I mean, if this is geared towards families coming in, like >> you need to make it easy for them to stay. And I mean, I've changed a baby on my lap, change a baby on a blanket in the back of a car. But if I could just do it all at one time, you know, you're toting a baby and little children, it would just be nice to have a changing table. >> Now, with the bathroom, do you put a building up also? So that's my question is I appreciate that bathroom is priority, but I also don't want to spend money and then try and spend more money and redo what we've already done. Like that was the whole point of the master plan was to like this is where the bathrooms are going. So if you're going to do it, do it right now. They did have two different bathroom locations. >> And so one option is one of the locations was more of a like forestry bath. I don't know how like >> you can call it. >> Yeah. >> Everyone knows what I think. >> Yes. And so perhaps that's what goes in first because that was only ever going to be that that is more affordable. That doesn't actually need the same level of whatever. And then we save the bigger, better, more awesome bathroom for when we do the bigger, better, more awesome building, which will need to have a referendum, which may or may not ever happen. So, I guess I'm down with the bathroom, but I think then we should do the little If we're going to start with like a smaller budget, then we do the little forestry bathroom that's kind of off to the side. It's not in the best location, though. But I think it's stupid to put in bathrooms where we know bigger, better bathrooms are coming hopefully someday in the future. >> Does that make sense? >> So, like that one was I think the best. That was on the west side of that. >> Yes, >> but that was their forestry bathroom. >> It's on the west. >> So, I just want to get the context right and I apologize. I wasn't there for the hour and a half discussion that you guys had the last time. I did listen to it. >> I'm sorry. >> Um, so it seems inevitable that we've got a bond >> to to build this thing out, right? This is our signature park and it doesn't sound like there's any way that we can reasonably expect that our park dedication funds are going to float the boat on this thing. Nope. >> So that's that's the money. So what we're talking about now is a first phase because I don't know what phase we're actually on of this plan that we can do with money in hand. >> Mhm. >> Is that what we're trying to get to? Well, I mean, I'd go either way. I mean, depending on what kind of a building you build, I mean, if you're going to bond for it, build an adequate building, spend 5 million bucks. >> We're pushing it out a year before we can do anything. >> And if you I think if you put a bond referendum on now with what we have there now, it's going to die. >> So, >> I think that's what going to be possible no matter what number we >> get there. And that's up to the community. You know, we can but we need to be able to put a plan in front in front of them so they know what they're buying. >> And if they're not buying, they're not buying. >> I mean, I don't think they'll support the $20 million plan, but we don't either. So, >> no. So, this is this would be the next phase. And this would be park dedication dollars primarily that we're >> talking about. So, I'm all on board with doing something with the amphitheater, the band, you know, a permanent kind of cover um to improve that situation. And I think the bathrooms were a high priority for everybody. And I would prefer piped plumbing, but if that's a if that's a ridiculous cost, you know, maybe splitting them like Sarah was kind of suggesting that one of them is more the permanent type, the other one is more the forest toilet, something better than the Boundary Waters P toilets. um that that that that could be we could get real bathrooms of one form or another and maybe it's maybe it's split. I I'd like to see cost on that, but I I'd be happy with one of each. >> We're not talking about the the big hole in the ground where you suck it out, are we? >> There is. >> They all are. >> Huh. >> If you don't have sewer there, you that's what you're doing. That's the only way it leaves. >> Yeah. >> And if they're if they're correctly then you them >> they can be done really well though. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I've never seen a state park bathroom. >> They all stink >> when you go in. >> Right. >> And you can hold your breath for a minute and deal with odor control on. >> Is there a dollar amount that council's willing to go through and say we don't want to spend more than x number of dollars on this stuff? Like if we put in a bathroom and it works for flushing toilets and it's going to cost us 200 grand total to run water and sewer. Is that good for the council? >> What did you I I feel like there's this 32 vote going to have here. It's not going to go anywhere. So >> uh what do we what is currently what do we have in parks that we could that's available? >> Sound like >> he just said a million and a half. >> You can probably get a million and a half to $2 million out of >> park fund right now. That's existing funds or funds that will come over the next year or >> existing funds that are here today. >> Okay. >> And I don't >> already already pre-spent on other park >> and we don't have another park in the pipeline right now. >> Pipeline. That's why I could tell you it's million and a half to $2 million. >> The well that's there now, Marty, that won't handle bathroom. >> Sorry, the >> the well that's there now that will not handle a bathroom. >> No. >> Why would it not? >> Well, it's running the irrigation system. It's not a very big pump and I don't know what size the bathroom's going to be. Um, and you'd also have, if you're going to do water there, are you talking about having sewer there? >> Yeah, that's the issue. Water is easy. I think there's a pump there. >> Well, there's a well there. I don't know. Yeah, >> but it's sewer. >> Great. You're >> Yeah, >> you can just put a tank in the ground and pump that. >> Well, that's >> that's what we're saying. >> That's what we're saying. It's a tank that sits underneath it >> and there's a ventilation system that actually flows air. There are those of us who live without being hooked up to city sewer and somehow we're surviving and I don't have to hold my breath every time I use my >> bathroom. No, I'm talking You're not I'm talking about the state park bathrooms that don't have water. They're just a hole in the ground. >> Yeah, but like there's a middle ground, I think, is our point. Like there are options that are not fully sewarded but are still not >> these these buildings flow air and they're >> fairly smell free the ones that I've been >> but we are talking about water having them having sinks handwashing >> facility. Yeah, >> even if we don't have the sewer the sewer >> you got to have sewer. >> How do you have a sink without a >> Cuz the water's got to go somewhere. >> Yep. >> It goes in the same tank you're >> Yeah. I mean if somebody leaves it running you well I suppose you could >> the pushy >> put in timer ones. I don't know is that I don't know if that's if that's something you can do then that's fine. >> So my opinion on back >> you can do you could >> I think what I would be okay with is a picking some items that we think are high priorities in terms of timeline. Yeah. >> And max budget 1.5 one and a half million. >> 2 million. >> I'm just saying like but that that would be the cap. That's the ceiling. I wouldn't even go as high as 2 million. I would say my absolute ceiling is 1.5 to even like >> have a conversation. >> Um >> and then the things that I would want to know are they doable for me is the bathrooms but not in the permanent nice location. So, there was two other locations where they had bathrooms as babies. One was to the far west, basically, and one is to the far east. Um, neither of them are super ideal, but again, it's not a waste of my money in my mind, so I'd be okay with either. Um, >> obviously, we long-term need to get sewer and water there long term. That is the long-term goal. So, if we can do that and get that covered in the 1.5 million um and then have that initial bathroom be sewer and water, great. But like that would be a question mark I would have. Um also thinking about what we might get other people to pay for. No one wants to put their name on your toilet. Toilets brought to you by, you know, whatever. They want to put their number on the theater or like the big building, right? So, like also thinking about what we probably need to like pay for ourselves. this zoo in water. Um, so that's where I'm at. As far as I got to be honest, I don't really care about the amphitheater and I didn't get big vibes that that was important to people. I think the playground like than the splash pad seemed more higher rated from what this resident said. Bathrooms was obviously number one. Um, so I personally would put a splash pad thing above the amphitheater in my mind, but um, I'm not going to use either, so I don't have strong feelings. >> Well, I'm I I think the splash pad thing is a massive variable because it seems like, you know, our original estimates were one and a4 million or something. And Scott, you're thinking it's closer to >> I say you can get it done for half a million bucks, but >> but is that the same size? Is that >> No, obviously not. There's no >> just like the one in St. Michael. That's That's all we need. It doesn't have to be bigger than that. >> That's a The one in St. Michael is probably three times the size. >> And do they staff that? How does that work? Is it staff? >> They have a concession thing there, but they don't staff it. >> Like a lifeguard than Andrews either. >> No, >> Andrew. So, it's it's just running. >> Andrews has concession. >> It's a concession trailer. I mean, >> there's no staffing. >> There's not it's not staffed. I'm just But those are the top two requests from residents, restroom facilities and a water play feature. So in my mind, that's what the residents want most. So that's what we should do. >> You know what's kind of weird is as I recall on the the the survey that we did, this was this scored very low, >> the water park. >> No, I I could pull that. >> No, I >> I was looking at it too, but >> it was like number four or five. >> I mean, right here it's number two. That's why >> here it is. >> But I thought on that resident survey it was >> splash pad scored just above Banshell >> 71% support >> and in this >> this is the Morris Lerman. >> Oh it is broader broader survey. >> I wonder what I was thinking about that. So that's it just under just over the band shell or just under >> just over the band shell. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Band shelf for concerts was 66% and splash pad was 71%. >> Okay. >> Now, we're not addressing the additional snowmobile trails at all in this. >> No, we're not. >> I know. I'm sorry. >> That did hit 72%. >> They have all of I don't want >> I don't want us to move away from the splash pad either. And I don't know >> if we can do it in this phase, great. If we can't, then then it goes to the the bigger package. But I don't want us to forget about it. I think this is our future park and I think we should have it there. >> But to me, by the time you put the splash pad in and the playground in >> now, you're talking a million bucks for the two of those. >> U and that's going to bring enough people that that bathroom you're talking about is probably not adequate. And I feel like the the the band shell or the amphitheater kind of thing is we're more fixing it than creating something new that it >> you know the concept was right but the >> what we have is not particularly >> concept wasn't right >> people make it work but >> what do you uh what are you getting at or I'm confused about what you're getting at with the bantul >> that we should move ahead with improving that >> fixing I was surprised that it wasn't even in here. >> No. What? >> The MSA. >> It is. >> No, the the When you say band shell, are you talking about a cover? >> A cover. >> Cover. >> Yeah. >> Are there sales? >> They put a sale in there. >> They put the sales on the >> No, it's on the It's on the >> Is it What was What was the little Oh, I know what it was. Yes, cuz we had already talked about sales. Yes. >> Yeah, that's what it was. That's >> They weren't there for that conversation. Neither was I. >> They got beat up for >> I had no problem with sales. >> Yeah. So I think they heard you sales don't block right >> that and >> that's the problem. >> I don't think we need a brand show. >> So we got we got three things, right? >> Fix that. >> Explore the an affordable water feature within our million and a half budget and get some bathrooms. >> I think we're out of money. >> Yeah, I think you're think the band shell thing is Well, let's just do some rough ball numbers. I think 300 grand you're going to get that done. >> The band shell? >> Yep. That's with all the concrete work and everything >> and the engineering to make sure and the fact that we're right by the river. >> The building is already engineered. >> The DNA is the DNA. The DNR probably will have some thoughts on some of this. >> Um >> I don't know that we have >> I think that we're, you know, if we're going to be um improving that exist and I think we got per permits, okay, for that um because it's not a a structure that's going to inhibit the water moving. So is that's the major concern there. >> Okay. I would be concerned about making it the right size at this stage rather than doing something small, putting a structure over it and then having to come back and then you take the structure out and then make the bigger >> the third time. >> I'd love to go look at it with you. >> Yeah, let's fix it wise. >> Uh I don't know what this bathroom that you're talking about. What kind of money are you going to put in that? I haven't I'm sure you're talking brick again. Brick's always more money. >> I don't have any. >> What else would you build it out of? Huh? What else would you build it out of? Wood. >> Yeah, whatever. Everybody else would. >> Not many people build stuff out of brick. Government. >> I'm just trying to figure out if we can get other monies cuz um as I've mentioned to the council before, we've we've tried to get other monies from fed from FEMA to try to get um storm shelters here, which would then be done by brick and then we can get FEMA dollars for that. I have some echoing. >> Yeah, I think >> I mean, are you going to get the thing done for 300 grand? I don't. But you won't because of the the bathroom. >> Yeah. >> Oh, you mean >> the future thing? >> No, the the temporary one that you want to put up. >> We're not putting sewer and water to it, are we? Holy smokes. We just blew our budget. >> I thought somebody said we said look at it and see what the cost would be. >> We're just investigating this. It cost us $0 to look at it. So, I guess it's >> paying a half a million bucks on a splash pad. I mean, it's going to cost that 500. I think you can get it done for that. >> So, Rogers just put one in too. They should have numbers. >> When did St. Michael put theirs? About six, seven, six years ago. >> I thought it was like a four, but I couldn't. >> That's probably the other thing I don't know is what does it cost to maintain the dam thing. >> Yeah. I I heard they're expensive, but I don't know the exact cost of that that um I mean there's a lot of chlorination stuff that goes with that and a lot of maintenance on that. >> It's a pool. It's going to have a lot of maintenance. I mean that's okay with that that close to the river. >> That's another question. I not sure the level of chlorination that you would use in there is going to be a problem and it will be contained pretty well within the system. >> Yeah, it's going to recycle. >> Okay. Like spring water like that's what I'm >> So all of a sudden you're talking a million and a half right there just for those three things probably. >> I think what I'd like to do is get all your your interest here and then get some hard numbers and and figure out what that looks like. >> Three things I've heard so far. Bathrooms, splash pad, something with the amphitheater. That's what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> cover for the amphitheater and or sizing in or both. >> If you're going to do that, I'd like to get a playground in there right away, too. But, I mean, you're talking another half a million bucks on that. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's start with what you >> got those three things. >> Let's start looking at those three things cuz I think there's a lot of options there. And I think that, you know, if you're looking at bathrooms, we may as well look at what the actual cost of getting sewer and water there is as well. So, we got a real good number on it >> cuz we're going to need that eventually. >> And water and sewer would come out of a different budget. So you're aware it doesn't that's not going to come out of the park fund that's going to come out of the water fund and the sewer fund related to the overall system. So >> just so you're aware was Three Rivers Park talking about helping us out with bathrooms here and they and they will be a partner if we if we put it specifically put one on Clover Overlook Park. They would probably fund that one likely because that's on their Mississippi regional trail. I would assume they'd look at this one as well too. Yeah, >> but I don't know if we'll do both. But I'm happy to ask. >> Yeah. Um there we'll do that. We're starting to look for funding, grant funding opportunities as well. So, I got a meet with MSA about a bunch of those. They've identified about five or six different opportunities that, you know, I don't know what they're all for yet, but we will keep pursuing that. And I think if we got a live project that helps us get in some dollars. >> Um, and the other thing that we'd have to consider here is we're going to need some help to get all the drawings and everything like this done. Yeah. you know, so I'll be looking at using MSA to, you know, do all our bidding documentation and stuff like that. Is this going to be another deal where it's a big super company doing the bids or are we going to be able to break this into pieces that >> I think what we would look at >> uh >> we could do either or to be honest. It's more work for Marty's team and Marty itself to do GC on some work to make sure that if we do it by pieces but >> save money but again it's >> the value of time for Marty and what you want him to be doing again is depending on what you want him to be doing. Basically, that means I will be the general contractor for the whole project. Correct. A lot of local guys on concrete. >> Well, but I think it's also worth saying that just because a big firm is being the general contractor does not mean they themselves are not hiring local people to do the work. >> Correct. >> That doesn't like >> and then they're scraping. >> Generally, they don't. >> I mean, but yeah, >> sometimes they do. Well, >> they don't. They're using their guy. >> Okay. So, um, but I would Oh, I don't know how many of you guys drive into Rogers and have seen their beautiful and I that's cuz it's not beautiful. It's giant and ugly. >> Yeah. But the Health Partners and uh the True Stone Center. >> Yeah. >> And the Health Partners is that ugly. >> Oh, that's what I'm saying. I was being >> Even my daughter said that's kind of ugly. >> It's very ugly. But they went out and got those people to help pay for it. >> Yes. So, I would also like talking about selling advertising. >> Well, I mean, just not on, like I said, they're not going to want to pay for the bathrooms, but for, you know, for maybe your maybe your band shell, maybe the bigger structure. >> We'll look at both sample and Rogers cuz they both have agreements with other branding. >> How did they do that? >> I mean, yeah, they do it better than anything else. But we want to make sure we have a policy in place and so we know cuz we've never had this facility before, so we want to make sure it's fair and how many deers and whatever else. >> Yeah. But I Roger screwed up once and that's why they did it the right way the second time and so they learn from their mistakes. I'd rather learn from Rogers. >> Let's learn from Yes. I like that. But I think we need to be thinking about that as well for this because there's no way we're going to get the amazing park with our own money. >> Oh, for sure. I think that that was discussed as well, you know. Yeah, we're getting some bigger companies coming into town now. So, that gives us an opportunity and we've never had something like this to pitch to. >> Grayco could put their >> their colors and >> they can Grayco could Yeah. So, but I would like to pursue that, but I do think we need to get ahead of that so we're ready to go when we're there. >> Yeah, we'll do some research in next few months. We'll have >> not build anything as ugly as that Rogers thing. >> That is Yeah, >> I don't have control in the color. >> Thing about it is an ice. >> Sorry, Rogers, if you're listening. >> What about >> parking? Do we have enough if we put in this this water feature and we >> No, you don't. That's going to be another three, four, 500 grand. >> Well, >> for sure. 100%. >> So, at least the and that that's my question is do we put this stuff in first before we >> we put in some some more parking? >> I don't know. Would you care to up your budget from 1.5 million to 2 million? >> Well, this is where we're at. And that's where I feel like if we if we put it at 1.5 and you guys come back and you're like, "We did it and we can get it for 1.7." It's like, "Okay, well, that's doable." But I'm afraid if we say two, then it's going to come back and be like, "Oh, 2.2." And then we're going to like I don't know. That's why I said 1.5 as my cap. But >> I'm okay with the 1.5 cap. I just asking >> put in the car. >> Yeah. Look at what the parking cost is showing on the screen for the 32 stores there. Um >> there. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. And that's I guess that's >> very harshly built up the whole thing. >> Yeah. >> And it would be where the splash pad is and that like number nine is that reused building. But that might be where the bathrooms wind up being. So like basically we could just >> at least in the short term a lot of kids playing that thing right now. So >> but like that would actually all also make sense for where all the work is happening. And so >> so the parking is We'll look into it. >> Yeah. Cost a dollar a month to shoot that road over a little bit. >> Expand expand that road. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Because it sounds like there's no parking there. >> Correct. There's some parking. >> There's some parking. And we also don't know like it's not fully built out. It might be most of the people who are walking here. Like I don't know how many people are going to drive to this thing at this stage, but if it's most of the people in the neighborhood across the street, they don't need to park there. They're going to probably walk over. >> You put a splash bed in. You'll get them coming from >> Okay. They're going to come from the whole >> that will draw. >> Okay. >> So, it's more more or less this area here that we're looking at and the band shell as well. >> Seems like Yeah. >> Yep. That's what I got. >> And we would Are we looking at bathrooms at just this area, right? >> That's our understand. >> That's kind of where everybody's going to be. So, we can put that there and maybe still use the satellites if we got an event at the other side. >> Yeah. You use one of them uh speed bins for the bathroom. dig a big hole in there. >> If you're like that idea, if you're having a splash pad, you got to have water, right? >> You're not running that off the irrigation pump. >> Oh, yeah. That's going to be >> because we're bringing So, you got to bring water to the site. >> Yeah. >> I mean, just across the street in our brand new brick water treatment center. >> I know. There's water to the park. >> Oh, we can just take as well. >> Yeah. >> Let's pop out of the river. It'll be fine. You can pump it in. Just don't pump it out. That'll get you in trouble. Um are are you Yeah. How you would need to run water to this, >> but there are recirculation things that will run from a pump here. Um I'm not sure how that works, but that would be something that would >> I know. It's just that you got to somehow >> you need water to have evaporation. >> And maybe that's maybe that's another well there, a smaller well or whatever. I don't know because the existing well's quite a ways away from there are >> I don't think >> plus you got to get it over that bridge and you got freezing you got to somehow clear it in the way >> yeah I don't >> if we can look another pump run another well what's another well 15 grand >> uh for a small well >> I would say somewhere 15 20 grand something like that >> seems like >> we can guy's going to be out there for eight hours sitting there watching the hose Okay. >> All right. >> Right. >> I guess it'll just be part of the >> I think I've got what I need for this and I'll I'll get that started and bring something back in a few weeks here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks, guys. >> A few weeks. >> Aggressive. >> He's ready to go. >> On to item J. >> Uhoh. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. Bud discussion. Let's have it. um how the 2026 budget looks today. I provided all this information to you guys in your packet. So, this isn't anything new. Um this is what the budget looks like today that we've approved so far and that was in September was the last time we had a discussion on it. Um that does include one full-time police officer, some sort of change in the fire staffing model, which we discussed tonight, and I'll have to run new numbers again, so I won't know those a little later. Um but this would be the max obviously, and then an additional 200 additional $200,000 towards a future letter truck purchase. This is in addition to the $100,000 allocated in 2025. Otherwise, it is status quo essentially. There's costs related to union contracts and utility increases and you name it, an increase. Um, if it increased in your personal budget, it increase in the city budget at least two times. Um, so preliminary levy was supposed to be set at 35.394. The preliminary levy came back my number slightly off from what the county gave me. I'm at 36.051. They're at 36.044. I'm not going to split hairs. Um, that's roughly a cost of $36 a home for the year. Um, and I know the mayor doesn't like it, but it's $3 a month, even though you don't like it broke down that far. $36 for the year. Um, again, what happened? Fiscal disparities. I hate fiscal disparities. I sent a such a nasty email to this county that they probably hate me. Um, >> why isn't that just a form? >> And it's not the county necessarily. It's from It's essentially when it was set up when Met Council was set up in 1971. >> So, it's Met Council's fault. So, it's we blame the council. Let's >> blame that council. >> So, I sent a nasty email to the county cuz they gave me the numbers and it probably wasn't right and I apologized to him the next day, but it was not fun. Um, but essentially last year we had a reduction in our net capacity or should say that we were a net giver of $800,000 of our tax capacity. This year we're at $1.8 million. So, an additional million dollars went into the bucket. Thank you very much. Um, and we get nothing back for that. At least I feel like that. Um, I did point out to them that Minneapolis somehow miraculously had no change at all and it drives me absolutely crazy that they can lose $10 million of tax capacity and yet still have gain >> distribution back. I don't get it how their net number never changes. It just >> again that's that's me >> down there. >> Whatever. So I did provide and look at what other count like what other cities are doing. I did get proposed tax rate numbers um from the county for 2026. Um I know this is really small and I apologize. I did send it out hopefully I think this was in the was this in the PowerPoint or no did I add this? >> I think I might add this today cuz I got the 2026 proposed rates from the county today and I was asking for them yesterday but I can try my best to scoot it in. But >> so essentially what I did was looked at what happened in 25 and what are the proposed for 26. Almost every community around us went up in tax rate. The only one that didn't was handover. That one went down. Otherwise, we are the lowest increase in tax rate, which I think is something we should be proud of and not something we should be like, oh my gosh, we only went up a little bit, but something we should be proud of. That's the something that the council wanted to do was keep the tax rate the same. You essentially did that compared to other communities a lot. Um, so we are now the one of the lower ones. We're pushing towards Independence and towards Maple Grove. Um, when I started here, our difference in tax rate from Maple Grove was probably like 30%. Um, that was in 21. We are now within five 6% of of Maple Grove for their tax rate. I don't know if that's something again to be proud of or not because Maple Grove is >> 18 times the money that we get. But >> is that AIO in the middle there? >> AIO's in the middle. They went up another 10%. >> Um poor AIO. >> Um the biggest one that >> they only got, you know, >> biggest change that they had was um biggest mover is Corkran. They went up over seven or just under 7% in tax rate from 25 to 26 proposed. In summary, um I know it's tough in the intent of the councils to keep the tax rate the same. Um and a small increase is like I said something that we should be proud of and not so much concerned about, but I think for $36 a year, I think staff and residents would be understanding that we're hiring a new full-time police officer just in the fire department staff model, which might change the number slightly, just so you're aware. Um and then be also be able to save towards a approved purchase in the future is something that would be um something that we should be proud of and not so much concerned about. Uh most the tax base increase was 75% new tax base and 25% existing tax base increase. Um I think it was like one 2.3 million 2.2 million of total increase in tax capacity and 1.7 something million came from uh new stuff. So $534,000 house $36 a year. That's less than my mortgage increased from my insurance cost. And I think that's about everyone in this room insurance cost went up per month based on that. So, I think it's something to keep in consideration of how much we operate here as a city and how much we really try our best to monitor costs as best we can. But if the reduction is likely is wanted by the council, it's $159,000 in the levy to reduce it. Um, and we just ask that city staff has some sort of ability to give you suggestions before you start cutting things unless there's something the council has a, you know, steadfast like we need to cut this number. So, that's all all our request is that that's the direction. My direction as the administrator and finance director, I would be more than comfortable sitting in front of residents saying you have $36 a year next year. You get another officer, you're getting a fire staff metal change, you're getting savings towards a new ladder truck that >> so I think >> it's already approved. So >> I'll call it discretionary piece in this is the contribution toward the fire truck. >> Yeah, I'll go back to the this one here where the the three things are listed. So the the additional 100,000 that we were but to >> so we we have an additional $200,000 in this year's levy which is in addition to the 100,000. So if we were to go >> we've already sort of banked the >> hundred's grand it's banked it's in there and then now you have another 200. So total of 300 would go towards the ladder truck. So we'd have a total of 400. And I feel like the intent with doing that was that we had >> um a well certainly a much bigger increase in tax capacity last year and also a a bigger difference between dollar-wise between um new construction and you know an existing home value going up that that drove that number. So, it made sense to me last year and I think I was the one that pushed it. It doesn't make sense to me now because we had a much smaller increase in our tax capacity growth and we're going to have to bond um the balance of that truck anyway. And we'll I think probably have another discussion about that. But that's where we are today. I would promote that we take that money out and leave the rest of the budget as is. >> Would you take all 200 or just the 159 that we're short by? >> Well, the 159. >> How does that change our savings plan moving forward? >> Significantly. >> Because we are I think Sarah had said it before that and maybe you had just agreed or I don't remember how the conversation went. So, correct me if I'm dreamt this, but that we there's no way we're going to save enough money to not have to bond for it, right? Like, and it was an outrageous savings plan that we knew we were never going to be able to. >> It was impossible from the get-go. >> Yep. Not unless we would have got 600 in there. >> What do you mean? >> What? >> When we first started it, >> Yeah. There was a talk of putting a bunch of money towards to begin with to put the bank up right away. When we first talked about that, >> when we first talked about it, >> right? Yes. Was to start the bank off really high and then just leave it in there and then it basically just >> earns interest. >> Yeah. Well, it would be 600 every year. So, 600 600 600. Now you have 2.4. Now you >> When do we take that letter truck again? >> 28. >> 28 >> roughly. >> We don't have a lot of time. >> 28. >> Okay. So, we're going to >> we're gonna have to bond for >> bond for the rest of it or pull it, right? Like that's the other option. And we got >> massive plans >> with that too, but soon. So, >> well, yeah, cuz what's the date that we have to decide that, right? Because I remember back to the budget session last time when part of the contract was that we had no financial liability if we pulled out at a certain point. >> I understand that's different now, though. >> What do you mean? >> Yeah, the contract. The contract states that if you pull out of the contract, we have to find another buyer for it at the same price that we purchased it for or there is a penalty on it. And our thoughts are there's no way we're not going to be able to sell it to somebody else. So that's why we were confident with the help of I think it was McQueen that was helping us with that. Right. >> Yeah. So McQueen was like, "Yeah, we should be able to find another home for that thing." Cuz right now, if you got that same ladder truck today, it's 20% more, 18% more, somewhere in there. I don't know what the number is, but >> um >> yeah, >> I'm confused. That was not my understanding of the >> We talked about this after we approved the ladder truck purchase. We was it this year? >> I feel like it was this year of last year. >> Was it end of last year? >> So that would have been before >> June of last year. I'm sorry. >> We had an hour of conversation about it just recently >> about the contract. This is the first time hearing that there's any sort of >> contract with the ladder truck. I think I sent it out on a weekly update >> and we had a conversation with it in the council meeting in 2025. >> It started from um an email from council member van asking a question. >> Yeah. >> And then I think it got forwarded to everybody. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> what our obligations would be if we chose not to purchase the ladder truck. >> What is your penalty? >> Can you Yeah. Can you remind me what that is? >> 10%. >> 10% after certain dates which I think we're at the 10% number now. Um, but again, that's if we if that's in lie if we can't find anybody. I mean, if the intent of the council is to not move forward with that purchase, I we'd have to I mean, I'm not just going to say, "Oh, yeah, here's $250,000. Here you go." Or whatever the number is in that stuff. >> But >> I don't think that that's smart use of city funds. So, >> no, but I guess >> 50. >> Yeah. >> I guess we need to go back and watch that council meeting again because >> What's your council meeting? Well, before I was on the council. >> No, no, no. Before I got when it was originally agreed upon because I remember when I read >> I think that's what it was really talked about because we had pretty confident information from McQueen that we'd able to find another person. So, I'm not disagreeing with your aspect. I agree with you that it was said as yeah, we'd have no problem >> no cost. I'm going to go back and watch it cuz I think I maybe missed the mark completely on that because it was my understanding that I didn't know well it was my understanding that there were not those stipulations attached to it. My understanding was is that they would have somebody down the line and that if we didn't take it they would have somebody to take it and so there was no financial >> repercussions of us putting money down knowing that we may or not may not actually purchase it in the future. and we didn't put any money down >> or save nobody save any money towards it. So that way I guess my whole thing is is my understanding of that conversation cuz I was here. >> Mhm. >> And as I campaigned was that there was no financial obligation or no financial risk to us. And I believe it was Matt Tro sitting here that said that and reiterated it and then put the motion forward. >> Yep. And that was the only reason I was >> and that's what I'm saying and that's what I believe was the only reason it passed was because of that. So I guess like >> this is all news to me. And so I guess I'm just trying to understand like where I misunderstood. >> So you're saying it was explained in an email. >> Well, I had asked in an email cuz I wasn't for these meetings. I said, "What's the consequence if we don't take the ladder truck?" >> And I think that was the Well, actually there are like this was the details of that contract. I sent that out to the council in a weekly update and I included the details in the weekly update 25 weekly update. The aerial purchase agreement was attached to that within >> I have an explanation in there too of like here's what that is. I don't have I don't have any concerns about it. >> I remember that. >> Yeah. I I don't have any concerns with having us have any financial obligation if that's the council. I still think we should purchase it but again >> that's not my decision. That's your guys's. >> You said it was 8:15. >> Yes. weekly update >> because it came after a council I think it was in a council meeting council vaness asked a question about how does it have to do with the budget or whatever I think >> I don't have a weekly update from you on 8:15 >> I do >> I remember it cuz I came in and talked to you and I said what's this >> I have a follow I I guess maybe I need to go back and find that but >> I can forward it to you >> that would be amazing cuz I literally do not have a weekly update from that week. I have an email just to me, but I don't have a And maybe >> you BCC. >> Well, IC VCC the council, so >> Okay. Okay. >> But there is So there is this, you know, and it may not be a big risk, but it is there. >> I Yeah, if the council Yeah. I the council's direction is to not move forward with letter truck. I don't think there's going to be an issue with finding another home for it. That's my understanding. And but again, I still think we should purchase a lot of truck because we'll need it whether we need it now or whenever we'll need it. So that's just >> you get to see >> I don't get I don't get a I don't get a vote. This is the wonderful thing. I can provide the information and then you guys get to make a vote. >> So as it relates to tonight, I'm suggesting that we don't >> park the 159. >> Yep. >> That we had intended to use toward that. I think it's a, you know, another real discussion about the need for the ladder truck or not or when >> and I don't think we need to do that tonight. >> Correct. >> But we need to fix the budget tonight. And so that's my suggestion is we >> take that 159 out and leave our rest of it as is. >> I I'm fine with that, too. >> I have a question though. So that money can be allocated to anything. >> Yep. What money >> that the $200,000 for that could be put towards anything. It's just money that we're putting. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, my thing is before we go slashing stuff off, should we figure out what the new model for the fire department looks like. So, >> that'll be a change. Yeah. >> So, that will be a change as well and then decide from there. >> Well, that 100's still sitting in there. >> I understand that. But if we're going to buy this thing, >> by what thing? >> The ladder truck. Well, >> and we're allocating $200,000 this year towards it. And David is saying that, hey, to keep everything the same, we should take money from that. Correct. Yeah. >> And then use it. And I'm saying, what happens if the fire department um the new model comes out and we need >> we would have taken some of that money and allocate, you know what I mean? Like if we would have shuffled it anyway. >> Is there a >> maybe we don't have to take quite as much as what you're getting at? >> Yeah. or should we pause on that, see how much we might need to take and then come back and decide we're going to pull money. >> So, we got till December. >> We don't have to decide this now. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to get good direction because I would rather have it done sooner than later cuz I think >> Yeah. You just want it buttoned up and we can open it up in November or December if we say, "Hey, there's going to be >> a short >> some money to be moved around." But >> I don't like to undo things that I do the first time. So, that's kind of where my thought was. >> Yeah. But then you leave it open and I >> But there's things that change. I mean, this fiscal disparities thing was not >> who know >> in the plan. We thought we had a >> I >> an estimate of a number and it turned out to be >> my number next year better be right or I'm going to lose my mind cuz I put a gigantic number next year. >> I don't want to get us too far off, but there has to be somebody that we can yell at about the timing of this stuff. I mean, we're legally required to establish a levy, >> right, by the end of September. and then we don't get absolutely essential information until after that. How can that be? >> October 1st. >> There's no about that. >> Um I don't know. So I'll use other communities that I've talked to. If you're not in Hannipan County, you don't get your tax capacity number until after you set the preliminary levy. So think about that. So like if you're in Right County, I hear this often in Right County. >> So it could be an example. >> It's it could be worse, but it could be better because we shouldn't be doing this. Okay. So, >> so >> I'm okay with >> so the the direction in general from what I understand from customer fashion point and Mayor Fischer and Council Salonic is that you you'd rather see the tax rate stay the exact same. >> Yeah. >> Then put any other money towards anything else. It doesn't mean it has to be the letter. It could be saving for a future land purchase. It could be used for hiring an HR manager. We talk about it could be used for anything else. The council would rather see the money cut from the budget than I would >> than used for any other purpose. >> I just want to make sure that's clear too because we could reallocate the money anywhere we want to. We could shift the >> dollars anywhere. >> That's where I'm at. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Two. >> Sounds like you have three. >> Okay. So, that's what will be the plan. Like I said, if it's less than that, so the goal from my understanding is unless I hear something different from between now and end of November, it'll be keep the tax rate the same, whatever that number is, and then take it just the numbers or whatever we can and then put as much money towards the letter as we can for the difference. That's what I'm hear. >> Yes, >> I'm good with that. >> Tax rate the same. Got it. Wonderful. >> Check. I don't need any motions or anything. We're good to go. >> Okay, that was easy. What's the next one? Did that speed us up a little bit? >> What? >> No, we're still 2 hours behind. >> I'm trying to run us through here. Okay. Tax for properties. Uh, good evening, Mayor Council. We got tax for your parcels. I need direction on what you'd like to do. >> I did provide this on a weekly update. I think at least once, maybe twice. Uh, and I don't have clear direction from the council based on my responses from weekly updates. So, I need to know how you'd like to handle this one. We'll handle the hardest one first because this is going to be the fun one. How would the council like to handle the tax for parcel at P 311202230010? Who should pay for it? Who should own it? EDA or city? >> So, we know I I thought we we talked about something in the past where we would let the EDA have it. I don't know if that's changed. Maybe that's changed. >> They don't have enough money. So, we know we would have to >> we got to bridge it. >> We have to bridge that gap. >> Now, are anybody not okay with giving it to the ADA? I guess my question is what's the plan, right? Like is the plan like what why I don't think anyone the city or the EDA should be in the business of making money for the sake of making money. Like if we have a goal for that like we want to do this or we have a vision >> then I'm I'm all for it. Like if there's a plan or a vision or a goal >> I'm fine with that. But to to do something for the sole purpose of making money for the sole purpose of making money, I'm not okay with that. >> I agree and I I completely agree with that too. So does have a plan is to >> Yeah. >> Yes. The Yes. It's to be marketed to a developer. >> We want to dictate EDA slash city. >> Well, you're on the EDA. >> Yes. And so is Scott. Okay. and we want to we want to have some um real say in what gets developed on that property and we do by owning it. >> Okay. >> And that's whether we I mean I don't want to lose money on it and I don't think that there's any way that we would priority number one is not making money on this stuff. >> Okay. you know, the the the one house that just got done. I mean, that was a quick flip and do nothing and make money. Okay, fine. >> Well, and that was in my mind to save a nice house from getting torn down for no reason. >> Part of the larger >> travesty that's happening along the river road, but yes, >> we'll get to that later. But >> the this property it's really I mean more about >> driving what what happens in in that >> part of the city and especially because it's property near the interchange and >> has some desiraability. We're not going to be stuck with it for 10 years. We're not going to >> Yeah. I think that um you know I think sometimes the EDA gets a little bit excited about the prospect of profits on things and that's for me that's misguided. That's not our role. >> Yeah. >> Um it's okay if we do. It's not >> if it happens fine. >> Primary purpose is not that. >> This is to get the the property available so it can be marketed and we can have some say over what kind of development goes on there. Okay. >> Get it on the tax. >> So, an EDA does have a plan for this property. >> Well, that's the plan as far as it goes. Who's it going to We have to own it before we can market it. And >> the plan is to market it. >> Yeah. >> I'm hearing a majority of the council say EDA. >> I say EDA. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Because at some point EDA then we don't have to fund them with taxpayer money. >> Yes. Yes. I got two yeses, three yeses. Okay. >> Is there a benefit to the city owning it as opposed to the EDA? >> I think it's the other way around. >> Yeah. So, >> well, because the EDA can choose who they sell it to and >> the EDA can choose who they sell it to. That's based uh in state statute. The city would have to go to highest and best offer or whatever. >> And the EDA can say we want to put up a public auction. I think that's what the answer, >> right? Yeah. We want to sell it to this company because we want it. >> Even if they're not willing to pay us as >> Amy's shaking her head. What's up? Um I don't there's there's no requirement that it would have to go to public auction. Um if the city were to retain ownership of it um the city could retain it for a public purpose, you know, for a city use. >> Yeah. But if we were to sell it >> or if you were or you can sell it >> and it could be does it not have to go to highest and best user or whatever? >> No. I mean, you would want to have, you know, fair market value for it unless you're going to write down the cost of it, you know, or the value of it to stimulate economic development just the way an EDA would do or could do if it chose to. Um, you know, but there's there's no public auction requirement that I'm aware of. >> Yeah, that was my understanding. So, if EDA gets it, then then we got a bridge. >> How how you paying for it? So, EDA going to drain their funds. you done with your question? Didn't seem like >> Sorry. >> I just Yeah. >> I mean, that's what the E >> that's what that's their function. >> Yeah, that's their function. >> Um >> I just I'm wondering why not like why we're asking the question because that's not really what I mean. But um yeah, I just don't know if there was more to Okay, so maybe that's what I didn't know there was if there was more to the question as far as like EDA or city if there was a benefit or we were if it were I was supposed to be picking up on something that I'm not picking up on because I guess why wouldn't it just be the EDAs? Does that make sense? Like I'm talking in circles. >> Well, the So the EDA does have some benefits. I'm just I'm not sure what those >> they can be selective on who they sell it to. >> Yeah, but Amy just said so could we. Right. >> Typically >> we do have no there's no restrictions on that when the agreement is made. There are no restrictions. >> Although that is the function of the EDA, right? Like it's their function for economic development and they have that H >> h you know what I was going for, >> right? I mean typically you know an EDA has you know has on has some expertise in you know the functions of of how to market it to you know stimulate economic development in that area. Um, so it's just and then there are other um tools that an EDA has that that the city doesn't necessarily have um when it comes to writing down value when they're exercising their rights their their authority as an HR. >> Okay. >> So >> So yeah. Okay. >> So I'm hearing VA how are we paying for it? I'm going to drain everything out of the ED. What's >> They got about five, right? >> 500,000, >> which means they're going to need >> 250 to 300. >> We're not talking about Yeah, I Yeah, I'd leave them with 100 in their account or whatever that works out. >> It's going to have to be something because they're going to spend more than we put in the budget for >> for next year. >> Well, actually, they just got a a hit from the other one, too. >> That's true. That's true. >> They got enough. I mean, >> yeah, >> that that'll make them flush. So what was the price? What's the number then? >> 750. >> 772,000 was the final cost. >> No, that's the number. >> 750 plus there's acquisition fee of 3%. >> Well, we give them 250. They got to use 500. And what do they have left from? >> No, that's going to run it right 300. I don't >> better be three. >> It's a >> Do we have 300? Okay. >> Yeah, you can take it from somebody. >> Well, I'm sorry. >> Make my best fund or you guys want to give me direction of that? We have a tent that's dead. >> Flip a coin. >> Flip a coin. >> They get mad that they want to buy new equipment. >> I'll just buy people out of vehicles instead of seeing if we can maybe fix it ourselves. But we got $300,000 we can just throw at this. >> No, but it's coming back. >> It's coming back. >> Okay. >> To the EDA. And what's their plan to do with it? >> Back to the >> It's like a loan. It's like a year fun loan. >> Okay. It is >> just the money we >> lent correct them and anything above that >> is we're charging interest. >> That's that I'm I'm on board. I mean this is all the question. How do you pay for it? >> In the event that we end up >> to the in the green, let's just say or the positive. >> Yeah. >> Who retains that money then? If the EDA owns it, the EDA would retain it. If the city owned it, the city would retain it. >> So maybe that's the difference there. I don't know. >> That is some difference. Yes, >> it is. But again, that's what our ED is. >> That's what they're there for. >> I'm not saying they're not. I'm just make working through the numbers >> and then at some point they don't come to the to to the levy to to nick that some more, you know? I mean, that's the idea of just to get them. >> So, I'm hearing I'm hearing EDA's owning it. $300,000 we're going to give them to cover their >> in Okay. What the interest number is. And I I really >> I I'm not I'm not saying there has to be. I'm asking the question cuz I've heard I'm hearing interest is from >> I just think >> I've said it before, but >> I thought it was like 5 grand. >> Really? You were going to worry about that? >> What's that? >> We're getting it back. >> When? >> When? >> Well, substantial amount of time. >> They say it's a year. >> Just kind of questions from now. >> Well, then it's 25 grand. >> It's five grand a year until they pay us back. How about that? >> All right. Go ahead and try. >> Okay. So, 300 grand from the city out of some magic fund that Zach finds. Love it. >> I love it. We don't have a money tree, so I'll find out of a fund. >> No, we have a temp fee. >> And then how much interest if we're doing it? >> A temp tree. >> What do you want to check? >> Five grand a year. Whatever it >> exactly. >> Right now, we are averaging 3 >> four 3.5. >> So, we're going to lose that money if we take if we don't. Whatever we lose by it not being in there for however long that is. >> So you just say 4%. >> Okay. >> Yep. 4%. >> Sure. If we're going to nickel and dime everybody. >> 4%. >> Sounds good. >> And I have a direction. Thank you very much. >> Do we need to vote or anything or that was it? >> What's up, John? >> We got a question. What do you want to see here? >> I thought that was the EDA job. >> That's the EDA's direction. >> We don't need to even think about that. >> That's that was not given to the EDA. >> Is that not their purpose? It is their purpose. >> Sounds good. Okay. Next tax parcel. Here we go. Here we go. Stephanie's direction. How you going to handle this? >> I want to take over all the committees and I mean >> No, no. I I'm not saying that I'm not You're not right. >> That's John's direction of the EDA. He can design what he wants there. Wonderful. All right. >> What do you want at this parcel? This tax for parcel is now owned by us. Who do you want to own it? >> Can we just sell? >> We know. We now own it, huh? >> We own it. >> They just gave it to us. >> They just gave it to us. Yeah, >> we own it. >> Congratulations. >> Who do you want to own? >> Does the EDA have a plan? Yeah, there's a plan. I'm not I know there's a plan. >> Yep. >> I know nothing. I see nothing. >> This falls under I It probably doesn't matter, right? This is more of an H. >> It doesn't. >> Probably. >> It's I I have no problem with them dealing with this cuz I don't want to deal with it. >> Oh, I mean, if they have a plan, I'm okay with it. But the plan can't just be to make money. >> We We I think we've covered that. >> Well, we got >> I know on the other one, and you guys said, "No, there's a plan for this one." >> Okay. No, I I know on this one too. >> To me to me what what the edict should be to them is highest and best. >> And if that means >> that this person gets it that they don't put it up for highest bid, but this person gets it because they're going to do wonders with the thing. To me, that's the solution. But >> okay, >> I just don't want to be >> We went through this with the >> No. And ultimately, we do have a say in this because when there is a real proposal, it goes to planning commission. It goes through all the normal steps. True. We're not bypassing any any of the normal stuff. So, we do see it. >> Not necessarily. No. >> Yeah. Didn't I think with their new bylaws, aren't they >> You'd see it, but it would be after the transfer of the property into the >> Yeah, it would already be done because of their new bylaws, right? Like, didn't that all get rewritten to allow them to do that without us? >> Okay. I'm just I'll just say it cuz I >> no >> kind of know what the is in the ballpark here. It's going to require a zoning change. EDA does not do zoning changes. >> That's true. >> Oh, that's true. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, like I said, it would just happen after retain ownership with change hands. It would that zoning change would happen after that. >> Okay. So, EDA >> EDA, >> if there's a plan, fine. >> Okay. EDA sounds good. Thank you. >> And the plan can't be to make money. That can't be the plan. Well, it's going to be dear. >> See, and that I have a problem. >> Well, we got it from >> We got it from zero. >> Well, okay. Yes, but like >> but the plan isn't to get the money. The plan is to do something wonderful, great for dating with it. And in the end, if you end up being in the positive, you're in the positive. That's not the goal. >> Rich is making money. >> I don't think so. I think >> we're going to table this. >> N. Oh, okay. We just made buuku. >> Plant some more trees. >> Have we established how we're going to handle this? Don't you don't approve a denial. >> I see this gets >> every time we get this thing. So >> can we just I'll ask for a motion. We won't get one or we might get one. >> Yeah. >> But then we need a second. Yep. >> Then we need a >> So is that where we're at? >> Right. >> Ask legal. >> That's the deal. Are we on this L? Right. Are we on L? I'm on the right item. L. >> So, I don't know how like um Amy, how do you handle when from previous discussion, we know this item is not is not going to go forward. Correct. >> Do you just >> let it fall on vacant ears? Is it something where we have to ask for a motion for denial? Is this where we I don't know how officially you're supposed to do this when Robert with Robert? >> If there's no motion, it dies. Yep. It dies. >> Correct. If there's no motion or if or if >> So, how long do we have to sit here and seriously? >> I will ask for a motion. And >> if there's no motion, it's it dies. If it's dead, >> um look, it does say in rapid fill is exactly that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Something. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> All right. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? I don't remember but it's three. >> It's three. >> Okay. >> So there are no motions. So >> dead next. >> It's dead until it comes up again. >> I've been at many meets these parliamentarians. >> Okay. >> Council approval for I don't know if we have anything. No we don't. Um discussed already earlier but this is the part-time mercenary firefighters we talked about and this is up to eight as in if we get eight available. Can I ask two questions and I swear to God that they will be short and to the point and not counter to >> okay >> this item >> um the action says to hire eight part-time firefighters who reside outside the city of Dayton. >> Can I say who may I just they don't >> maybe that's where it came from >> who may reside outside the city of Dayton because they can be in they can be out. I just wanted to make sure we >> Yeah. When we go to advertise, we're not going to say that. >> It's not going to say >> to what your point is >> if you're in the city, we don't want you. >> Correct. >> I think so. But, you know, for the documentation, just wanted to make sure we covered everyone and included our people, too. And the only other thing I have is um FAO. Are we not requiring that they have fire? >> They will if they we we can put that in there because they do get that through us. So, that would be an accurate statement if I didn't put that in there. Yes. >> No, I just I was going through and I'm like the only thing that I can see that's missing in the minimum qualifications is FAO and I would think that you would want them to be able to operate the apparatuses. >> Correct. What we might have to do like we do with our internal candidates for like officer positions whatever they might have to be given and when I write the job description we can say you know within one year. >> Okay. That's totally I just wanted to make sure that it was addressed because that's the only thing I saw that was missing. >> Sure. >> And that's it. My question was I more for clarity. We did for a while have two people in part-time positions doing things that were are are are any of these part-time people going to be doing any of the duties that those other part-time people have been doing? So, Council Van Aston, I've said in the past if the fire department, if we have staff that's here, um, and we can assist other departments with things, I'm happy to do that. So, for instance, like I still have to go out and and take some pictures of the park, Dayton Park, for some uh stuff John and I are working on as it relates to that. I mean, there's other things that can be done. So if you know community development or has stuff that can be done, yes, we can do other things as well >> because I I mean I guess basically I don't want to be paying someone when there's not a call who's just sitting around doing nothing. Like I want them doing stuff. >> So I appreciate that. I go back and I just want to reaffirm >> the fire department is an insurance policy. So if you look at full-time, part-time, paid on call that are staffed in the station, >> if you walk in the station, sometimes you'll find them sitting in a recliner watching TV. you know. >> So, this I just want to be clear on that that you know um but yeah, I mean if we have stuff to do, we have stuff to do. >> Well, and because you did have two part-time people who were actively doing things, >> correct? You're talking about admin work. >> Yeah. Like those kind of things. And so I was wondering if these if some of these part-time people would also be doing what those or were those one-time tasks that don't need to be done anymore? >> No, there's there's plenty of tasks that can be done within the organization. Okay. >> Um it depends if they have the skill set. Okay. >> In that capacity. One thing that has to be, I guess, when you look at other organizations doing a duty crew, if they're here for 4, 6, 8, 10, whatever it is, they're not busy every second of the day. >> Yeah. Okay. And I would like to make it very clear that it's for anyone not just outside of the city because um at least twice now um if not more than that we've gone back to look at documentation that does not really accurately reflect the full conversation that was had. And so both like members of the like residents and council members walked away thinking one thing and the documentation doesn't have all those details in because it's actually written like to look at >> in the minutes that you're talking about >> um like the official or like things like when you're looking back 15 years like what like motions like what did we agree to like I'll take you know the like or they're vague you know what I mean? cuz I just want to make sure like >> I want to make crystal clear that I know we all know that in this room today what we mean but I want to make sure that looking back no one has any confusion on that. So that's more of a that's more of an after the fact >> paperwork included in the motion. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And I think that's what we're not always careful about when we make changes to make sure that that motion is very accurately updated to reflect our change in our conversation. Especially now that our minutes are done by AI. >> Yeah, stupid. >> Very clear of what your motion is because it picks up every word depending on how much we change the slider on it. So >> it's a ton of money. So if you're >> I know it doesn't mean to like it. >> I know. Need a motion. Second. I'll make the motion to approve recruiting to hire these part-time positions with the clarification that Dayton residents who are qualified are eligible. second. >> I'm in favor I I am in favor of this. Uh the question that I have of Gary would when you come up with the hours that you want the shifts that you want to cover and you conclude that you only need six, is that good or do you want or is it hard fast that you're hiring? >> No. So, Councilman Salonic, it was up to to clarify. Um, I don't know if we'll get >> permission for eight, >> but permission up to eight because I don't know kind of what was discussed earlier far as logistics of shifts. Um, and then I don't know how many people are available necessarily for the shifts that we currently have already on the department. >> I mean, you got to get a schedule together. I get that. Yep. >> All right. I'm gonna trust you that you're gonna not have three guys on on Tuesday because you want to go do something. >> No. So, my commitment to Councilman Slonic is is that we have, like I said, we'd have two people. >> Two people. >> Two people. But I'm just clarifying that we would hire up to eight. Could be four, could be two, could be one, whatever the case may be. >> I'll second. >> Okay. I need uh more discussion. Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> No. Passes three to two. And again, my concern is is that we're making a big change and we're still making we're doing other things. So, >> I agree. >> Item N, payment of claims. >> Payment of claims. Council, we have payment claims in front of you. We get questions every week. Go. >> I didn't see anything. >> I just have a question for clarity. Um, let me find what page it is. What is BCA? >> Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. >> Okay, thank you. >> Normally, I can figure out I just couldn't figure that one out. >> So, I think you get um Chief, you already answered this, but there was an item on page 58 for engine 21 repair. Is that the one that is out currently? Uh, Councilman Fishad, yes, that one is is out. Um, but that was part of um we had to rebuild some valves on the back of the truck. So, that's the rebuilding of those valves. >> So, that was a separate repair that's being done. >> That is correct. Yes, that's part of our annual maintenance that was done. >> Same engine. And we're still several weeks out on getting that back is what? >> That is correct. >> That's all I had, >> Stephanie? >> No, I have nothing. >> Okay. Uh, I need a motion, a second for item O or item sorry item uh and >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. All those oppose say no. Item is unanimous to zero. Item O. And the council come for approval of resolution 78 2025 to support the legislature funding of a tier one study. What this is and what this isn't just for the council to clarify what this is and what this isn't. What this resolution is is it's a request to assign funding from the state legislature. Assigns funding from the state legislature to MINDOT to conduct a tier one EIS study. and that would explicit bids complete a tier one as tier one EIS study on the proposed river crossing location. Tier one study includes alternative options for that assessment of the current conditions of the proposed location, a no build alternative, environmental impacts and public and other agency involvement. Um name most of them. It also establishes a baseline and framework for a more in-depth tier 2 study if necessary. This also shows support for proactive planning for river crossing at the proposed location. What this isn't for clarification is it's not building the bridge or the river crossing across the Mississippi. It's not assigning taxpayer dollars from Dayton to complete this study. It's not guaranteeing future road improvements through Dayton if assigned by Mandot. It's not going to give us a date that the river crossing is going to be built in. It's not going to be tearing down houses or approving property acquisitions for future roadways. And this is not guaranteeing that the legislature will assign any funding to us at all. We want them to, but it's not a guarantee. The reason for this support that we want to give to the legislature is we want to make sure that the proposed river location, crossing, whatever you want to call it, is actually the proper and correct location. We did a study in 2019 that was done by Mindot that identified four or five different locations. This one was assigned as the best one. my concern and um after meeting with the other um communities involved following our May conversation with the mayor and I and a bunch of um senators and um house representative and county people is that we want to make sure this is the proper location and that it's not infeasible to do. So my biggest concern is we've been planning on some sort of location for the river crossing for 50 years. Proof is in the pudding. This is a 1972 Dayton comprehensive plan picture that has a proposed bridge going from and over the Mississippi River in 1972. That's 53 years ago. We've been planning for some sort of bridge in this in this area. This bridge is technically located directly over River Hills development through Clover overlook Park. This was supposed to connect um what was 610 or the future northtown corridor cross town as you see as a bunch of squiggly lines to this roadway whatever it was and that's at that time Fernbrook which is supposed to connect over to Sunfish Lake Boulevard in Ramsey. >> Um >> that didn't happen. >> That did not happen. >> I think that cross was 610. >> Um yeah I mean the crossone was 610. I'm pretty sure. Yep. And so what this is important to do is that I don't know if there's a bald eagle's nest on the side of the Mississippi River. I have no idea if loons nest on the other side of of the other side of the Mississippi. I have no idea if there's some endangered owl that lives on the side. I have no idea. >> And if that's the case, this bridge ain't going there. It's not happening. This is an endangered species area. The bridge is not going there. It will be protected by all environmental impacts that are there. And so if we're going to plan for a 50-year bridge or river crossing, whatever you want to call it, I want to make sure that we're planning for the right location. And this would assign dollars from the state legislature that would basically do that work for us to verify that this is the right location >> as as part of that that study that was in >> 2019. Did they do one of these? Nope. >> That time? >> Nope. That's a cost >> cuz they spent a lot of money on those. >> 1 2 million. >> Yeah, it was significant and they never did one. >> They did not. The cost of this study is about $5 million. It takes two and a half years at a minimum. >> Five billion bucks. >> Wow. Cool. >> The last number we got from Minda for the river crossing is over a billion dollars. So, >> right. >> Which is why if we're going to like it has to be in the right spot. Um, >> and we have to plan for this. >> That's just it. We need to figure out where our roads are going to go and >> for 30 years. >> Yes. And and so for the record, I'm opposed to the bridge. That being said, it's going to happen and I have come to recognize and have come to terms with this and I think our city needs to be in the driver's seat on the bridge and I think this study keeps like that's the step to be in the driver's seat on this. >> This resolution puts us in the driver's seat. You have to be careful with that because that >> being in the driver's seat is often an excuse to >> be okay with something, >> right? >> And I will tell you that from experience. The same discussion happened in 2006. And that was the answer. Well, you want to be behind the bulldozer instead of in front. Yeah, really. >> They're gonna >> I would rather know that supposed to go in the location we're planning for than um build all of our roads and go all complete like >> build all the roads to this spot and we go now we're going to t one AI study in 15 years and then it's not going to happen. So >> if that study occurs, how long is it valid for? Or is it a >> it never Well, it >> it would if there is a significant amount of time I believe done before anything happens on that area, then you'd have to do a tier 2 study. Well, we >> and that's going to happen. So, there'll be a tier two study done before you the tier one study basically gives a here's what we have for major things and then tier 2 study does even more than that. But that's another 5 million bucks I think or something like that. So, >> okay. So, if if if nothing happens, >> nobody will see any difference if we complete this tier one study or if we don't, no one's going to see any difference. >> But if something doesn't happen for for 20 years, does is this still valid? It likely is, but >> Okay, that's what I'm wondering. >> Well, because it's high level. It's not looking at like, >> but you'll have to, you know, you'll have to do a tier two study then eventually or some point at some point to figure out, okay, >> it's government money. We're not going to spend a nickel. >> Um, >> I don't think it ever goes away. And that this is this is MDOT's direction for us based on our conversation with MDOT is here's what we need to do first as a >> and I also want to make sure that the CIS doesn't bind us to anything >> anything period. It does not guarantee any future road improvements or guarantee that we're building a river crossing across Mississippi. This does not guarantee >> until it does, >> but it doesn't. This study does not do anything. >> I know, but the funding is my concern. I'm not worried about the study. I'm worried about the funding if the state says, "Well, you know what? >> That's my concern. I don't want to see this. I I agree that I think if you step back at some point it makes sense to have a bridge >> close to where you know I don't want to see that go for 20 plus years and the residents don't want to see that for 20 plus years. >> If we started tomorrow it's minimum 25 years at an absolute minimum and that's if we had all the funding ready to go today >> which we don't clarify. >> We do not have a billion dollars to just for the record. It's going to be state money federal money. >> Okay. >> So, I understand the scope of this. I I'm going to say I'm going to support it because it's the logical next step to establish is this a feasible site or not. >> I'm no fan of us getting a bridge, but I also understand that it's going to come sometime. And what I also want to say is that while this is outside of this support for this study, the the idea that a bridge would ever get built and not the dateton parkway connecting for from there to highway 94 is complete foolishness. >> Yeah, >> it solves nothing. >> Um, that is correct. And likely in this tier one study and I don't know all the details of it because I've been told these are the high level things I got told about. I believe they do some traffic analysis that if this were to be built and there was to your point no other roadway to take the traffic, what would it do to the other road? It's only going to make it worse, right? It's only turn and goes through cross or Champlain and make a light for an hour to make it turn on. >> You got it. So that's I think that's part like I said I think that's part of the tier one as study if it gets funded is that they do some sort of traffic analysis that you have to have something other than what you have to do. There was an analysis done back then >> in 2019. Yep. And it very clearly >> it was not super super in-depth. I think it's more in depth with the tier one study but I don't. >> Yeah. >> But yes, that is correct. Appreciate that. >> Needed that connection. It it would not have survived the connection. And even with the connection, it was it assumed I think also a >> I want to say a 55 mph road >> which I would I would be opposed to that with every ounce of my body. >> Do you remember that Jason? Did it >> I don't remember the speed of that. >> I don't think >> I thought I thought there was that >> I would guess it's somewhere again just based on our parkway design that we have near the interchange now and such. I would presume it's going to be somewhere between a 45 and >> that's what we plan on. I'm just saying what they were planning on. They were planning on shooting it right down this. >> But if it's a parkway with the extended, you know, >> road, it's not. >> That does nothing for Dayton. >> If it's the parkway type design, it naturally slows down traffic because it's not a freeway type feel like 169 would be. >> Yeah. >> Well, it's also not just a fly over to get from Ramsay to the highway. >> So, I'm looking for that bulldozer if necessary. >> Well, you'll get to see it. I won't. >> I need I need a motion in a second. Make a motion. >> Thank you. >> Really >> grudgingly. >> Thank you. You're not supporting the bridge with >> I'm not supporting the bridge. I'm supporting the study. >> Need a second. >> I'm just fingers crossed. >> Find some turtles. >> That's what I'm saying. I hope there's some turtles that are there. >> Stephanie, sorry. >> Stephanie, thank you. >> Some blame turtles. We can walk. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those oppos say no. Thank you. I really appreciate the support >> support. I better not hear about you doing the rams meetings and stuff. >> That's what I do every time I walk. >> All right. Item P 11 and 13th sewer >> community mayor and council. You've seen this project in front of you a couple times before. >> Uh sewer was extended in this area back in 2010 to territorial road. It was further extended up just south and east of the end of 113th Avenue. This project would continue that extension up to the what's referred to as the DDL property where API had recently submitted an application for development. So just graphically here the dark green line is the existing sewer. The yellow area is the additional land yet to be developed or redeveloped that will contribute to this line um as indicated by the label WN. The red circle is the segment we're talking about with this project. So just the quick background on it. Preliminary design was authorized back in April. This allowed us to identify the preferred alignment along with the easement needs that would be required for the construction and operation of the line. The final design was authorized in August that included the preparation of plans and specifications for bidding. Those plans are now prepared and complete. The permit process is still underway. We're waiting out the clock on the DNR permit, but others the other permits are secured. Uh so we expect those soon and we are working through the easements. We have about half of them signed agreements. We have some of them verbally approved and the others were we're still in communications with them to finalize those. But um we're we're looking to be awfully close on those as well. Uh with the final design, we did adjust the construction estimate a little bit. As you can see, it went up slightly about $14,000. Um the easements are coming in much lower than we anticipated. Part of that is due to we realized there was actually a an easement underlying part of the area we were acquiring um which didn't allow the rights for the pipe. However, the additional rights granted with this easement didn't cause as much burden. So in other words, they were already restricted on the property. Now they're slightly more restricted instead of none versus more. So, we were able to get those for a a lower price on a lot of those. So, we do expect the project to come in less than what we had anticipated originally. >> Can we get the engineering to come in less? >> It might. We're we're tracking under so we can we can revisit that uh and just schedule on it. Um if plans are authorized tonight and or uh bidding authorized tonight, uh we would open bids on the 18th, bring those bids back to you the second meeting in November. Uh the intent would be to allow construction as early as December. Um we're expecting that the colder temperatures and frozen conditions would be beneficial. So construction will probably take some place December, January, maybe into February. and then restoration and and cleanup would follow be the following spring with close out in the uh probably midsummer. So with that the recommendation would be to approve plans as prepared, authorize the contractor bids and then we will obviously continue to work on acquiring the remaining easements to allow the work. >> Motion and second. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Any more discussion? >> Two quick Scott. >> Sorry to slow it down. I two quick questions. We're looking at funding this through the sewer fund. What is Do you know what the balance is on the sewer fund? Do we have the ability to to pay this with money have? >> Yes. >> So, our fund is healthy. >> Did we Okay. Was this in the works in the in the >> 113th sewer extension? Was it in the works you're talking about? >> Has it been in the sewer fund for a while? I know we've been talking >> long-term plan off and on, I think, since I've been here. >> It is. And >> and we had it in different segments, so it wasn't it wasn't necessarily clear how it was, but we had we had items or components of this and an additional lateral to serve the properties along 113, >> right? They were in there as separate items. This is just taking a part of the item. So, it's broken down a little bit different, but they've been accounted for. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Current balance of the sewer fund is 4.8 million. >> Okay. >> Good. Um, and then my other question was I I know we had seen a a concept plan around the DDL property that there was fair amount of push back on and and got pulled back for revision. Has that moved forward at all? Um I think they did resubmit um with some adjustments to accommodate that most of the push back was because of a roadway extending along the southerntherly portion of the property. I think they did come back with another >> um version that just kind of narrowed up the building if you will to fit that in there. But I don't even know if that was officially submitted. >> They're not moving forward. >> Oh. >> Oh, okay. that >> I saw the initial end. >> They're working on it or they have said this is not going to work for us. >> Um if I I think they would say if the city is willing to pay for part of the road, they would move forward. >> So it's not moving forward. >> It's not moving forward. >> Okay. Um I mean it >> makes us feel a little less urgent. I thought we had talked about some tip for that, but I guess we're off track. Thought there was some discussion for some >> I think >> because I think we did talk around that. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If if and when this will ever be done with the developer, if the developer did this project, we would be giving them credits back for it. So essentially, we're just kind of pre paying for that and then getting full credits back at some point. >> No, I I guess my interest in is not so much on who's paying for it. It's is that you know, is there an imminent need for it? And it's well this will be done before any project happens there is what it sounds like. So >> that is correct. >> Okay that's all I have. >> Okay. Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> What does it say? No. >> You made the motion. >> Huh? He said I guess and I'm like you made the motion. >> Well, we only been talking about this thing for a couple about a year and a half. I think item beated for a whole year. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. Approval of resolution 79, 20225, support of the purchase by the park district for the property owned by Dan and Debbie Pearson. Don't remember the address on top of my head somewhere on River Road. Can't remember the address, but um this does not guarantee a sale of Three Rivers Park District, but does allow Three Rivers to negotiate with the homeowner. They've not done any work on this property um beyond taking the original phone call. The responsor cannot be in attendance though. Kelly is dealing with a family emergency so she's not here. She did she would be normally be here. Um I would like to say before we get in well I am >> same questions >> appreciative that we got our we got brought into this at this stage instead of after a purchase agreement is signed and everything else is done and then they come to us and ask hey how do you feel about it? So, I just wanted to say I'm really grateful that we have changed the order of that and that we are now involved in having this conversation prior to purchase agreements being signed. >> I have to totally disagree. >> Really? >> Yes. What the park did was they used Pearson's to convince us and our agreement was that Three Rivers had to convince us, >> okay, >> to buy a property. What they're doing is leverage. >> Okay. >> Now, I I I've come to a conclusion. time. Go ahead. >> Well, I mean, I spoke with Dan and Debbie and they told me that they reached out to Three Rivers. That >> No. >> Well, >> that's not how it happened. >> That's always the story. >> And it was suggested from staff that they contact Three Rivers to buy the property. >> Say what? >> Say more. What? >> What? >> That's how >> from me. >> From you. >> They might have called me and said, "Hey, we're looking to sell cuz we're having a trail go through here." I said, "If you want to, you can call three parts if you like." >> I'm not >> or you can sell it. >> I'm not overly hung up on on how the deal happened because at some point Three Rivers is going to find a property for sale. They're going to come. My concern was is that they need to come to us and convince us why they need property X. >> Okay? >> And they didn't do that. They had the property owner >> come to us. come to us and I'm it's almost to the point where I I almost think we need a policy on this that just says look I don't know how we do this but that it says you know we another government government entity doesn't get to buy a property unless they can show that they really need it. Um I I just didn't like the way it was handled. Although that said, I of all of them, I think this one makes more sense. I'll say that. >> Well, I mean, the trail can go right on the It can. >> It's just that >> they don't want it there. I mean, they don't want >> the front or the backyard, Scott. >> I don't I don't think you guys want it there. >> I don't Well, that's what I was going to say. I know you went out there right before. Oh, I was like Scott went out there right before I went out there. >> Um, and I'm been out there before. I am concerned about that corner. It doesn't look as much of a corner in this picture. >> Yeah, corner, >> but where the trail the easement is and where the trail would go makes me really uncomfortable having people on the trail that close to Dayton River Road where you can't see around there. People are whipping through there. >> Well, cuz it's a climb is a hill. >> Yeah. And you can't see. And so where the trail there was a picture. >> Yeah, I did not bring the picture. I apologize. I gave the council. >> Yep. the console up and I saw that one. You got that? >> Um, which showed where the trail would go and it makes me really uncomfortable to think of people walking on that corner down the trail in the front. >> I don't see I don't see any problem with it. I mean, I I pulled out there and the cars are coming. When you decide you got to go, you got to go. >> No, I know. But you're going to walk your beautiful granddaughters right next to the road there. Doesn't that make you nervous? >> You're going to be 10 ft off of it. >> Not enough. Gonna be more than 10 feet, but not enough. >> There's going to be places on this trail that's going to be 10 feet off the It's going to be right on the road. It's going to happen. >> No, I understand that, but you can't see. >> That makes me nervous. I didn't see any problem. >> And even Three Rivers, I guess you talked to them said it was a problem, too. Correct. >> Well, they don't want it. >> Their proposes that they're going to put a bridge there because they think it's not safe for us for their users to take a big U out and back in. So they'd rather put a bridge in over that >> for safety reason. >> For safety reasons. Yeah. >> Doesn't mean that if they won't do it. I mean if it comes >> everything comes down to dollars. No different than Jerry said earlier tonight. Everything comes down to dollars. So >> doesn't work. But that's not enough. That's unfair for park district. So >> I don't know. I don't love the idea of this large of a chunk of land. >> Five and a half acres. >> It's big. It's beautiful. Um, but having walked the property, even if they wanted it to go behind, that's not an option. It would be an option >> against their house. >> And in the front, because of that curve, that again does not look as drastic in this photo. Um, >> I am torn, I'll say. But I understand. And for safety reasons, I feel >> like I'm more of a yes than a no. >> Like you're what? >> I'm more of a yes than a no. >> Well, they they want to sell the property. I mean, it's their property and I guess to me, if it's my property, I can do what I want with it. >> So, >> that's me. >> But what's different here, >> is that it changes >> the underlying deal. It's not a new owner of that home. It's a completely different use and the city no longer has any say over that property. >> I understand that. That's why it surprises me that they would sell it to Three Rivers without offering it. Somebody's somebody would buy that property. >> It's an easy route out. Three Rivers is making this the easiest path for people to go. >> He and Three Rivers is probably not giving you true market. They're probably adding 50 candle or 100. They're they're I know what the owner is concerned about is is that he thinks the trail is gonna >> harm the property value. I don't I don't I don't know that I buy that, but I >> Yeah. And that trail plan existed >> six or more years before these people bought that house. So them not knowing there was the possibility of a trail coming is not on us, it's on them. And I'm sorry that that happened. But that information was readily available when they bought that house. >> That was not the stance going back to to you, Dennis, that I had. I was our conversation centered around safety and their concerned >> um and I stood >> the driveway. >> I stood where the trail would be. And I can confidently say that um that is not an area that I would walk with my children >> if it was along the road there. >> And I would say that maybe that's fair, but isn't that for Three Rivers to come to us and tell us it's infeasible to put a trail next to the road there? >> This is my point. >> Yes. I would have liked to hear from them. >> That's what That's what we've been trying to drive them to. That's true. That's true. is what's the trail plan and what property do you have to have to make this thing happen? >> Where is it? >> And it's not all of it. >> Yeah. >> Right. And they're they haven't I don't know. This just keeps coming up and I'm going to say I mean I will say I have less heartburn over this one than some of the other ones that we've approved. I I'm done approving anything and I've said that before. >> Um but I'm going to say these three things. I know I sound like a broker in record, but I'm opposed to this and any other sale. I'm opposed to losing 33 existing homes in Dayton for a bike trail that can be done with minor easements. It's a bike trail. I'm opposed to Dayton losing all control over this important part of our city forever. And I'm also opposed to anyone spending $25 million plus for three miles of bike trail. I think that's absurd. I know it's we everybody says, "Well, it's not our money. It doesn't matter. >> It's $25 million." >> That's what they're proposing. >> H >> that's what it's going to cost them to buy all the property that they want. >> Okay. >> I think that's a ridiculous use of public funds. Anna, so those are my those are my three reasons they have been all along and I'm still there. I also don't feel like there's any hardship here with this one. >> That that house is entirely sellable on um open market. >> Y >> you can't watch the news for 15 minutes without hearing from Chris Lindall and three other people that want to buy your house tomorrow with nothing >> with you doing nothing. You leave them the keys and you drive away. >> Yeah. >> Right. I mean, so the the notion that this is is somehow not sellable is is absurd to me. Nobody has shown me anything different than that. >> What about the safety aspects for I mean >> then that's on Three Rivers to come back and they show us the plan for the damn trail and say we can't make this work. It's unsafe. You can't get across this ravine. >> Yeah. I'm not talking about >> because we are supporting the building of the trail. Then show us where it's in feasible to put it for safety or other reasons. >> And and you know I'm in. I want the bike trail. But this is just buying anything that comes comes through the door. >> Yeah. You're not going to see a plan and they're just going to keep on buying. That's >> they don't want to show us a plan, right? You know, there we've gotten the we don't want to show a plan because then we'll lose our our leverage in buying houses from people because they'll know we're buying. Everybody knows they're buying, >> right? That's, you know, that's nonsense to me. But past that, they're just, you know, they're just buying as much land as they can. And at some point they're going to somebody's going to call a stop to it and then they're going to show us a plan and they're going to build the road when Hannipan County rebuilds the road and they won't say that because they don't want to. They want to get as much land out of this as they possibly can and we're just going along with it. So that's all I have to say. >> So I wasn't concerned about the safety of the trail. And Stephanie is I I my concern is having I mean their driveway right there >> has always I' I've thought then an accident wouldn't happen. I'm I don't know that but I mean having a driveway there and maybe you know that's a poor excuse. I I I don't know. I I just think not having that driveway is a an overall benefit. I I don't like Three Rivers buying up the land. Um but this one I'm I'm I'm leaning towards a yes, but only because of that. Um I I don't >> can cannot that and this is maybe a >> burns me that we don't we get nothing out of this. Every property that they buy >> we do get Yeah, we >> we don't get >> we do get something. It's very small, but we do get something. >> What? We get three years worth of taxes for our portion of the taxes for this property in L up front. Again, it's small, >> not nothing. Virtually nothing. >> Hey, I'm just giving you the fact that it's not nothing. >> That's the amount of extra credit I offer my students. It doesn't do anything, but it makes them feel better. >> We just talked about a couple thousand on something else, and I just want to make sure it's not nothing. >> Um, we already own, right? If I'm remembering correctly, we already the easement's already >> there. It's going there no matter >> it's right away. >> The trail is imminent >> right away. Excuse me. I don't know if there's a difference. >> I should say I shouldn't say no matter what cuz Parker still has to pay for putting the trail in, but the trail is going in. >> We don't need to go or >> no, >> no one would need to go to Dan and Debbie and say, "Hey, we want to purchase. It's already owned the park for the trail." >> Yes. So, it is going whether they >> Yep. >> It's not as if it's a property where they could say, "Nope, I'm not going to sell that to you." And then the trail just dies there and then they flip it on the other side of the road, which I already asked about and then head it down. Like, it's there. >> The trail goes in the backyard if they sell it. It goes in the front yard if they don't. >> Correct. Goes through the middle. But yeah, I know what you mean. Um, comes off the road. They sell it. Yeah. Right in the middle. I also did go out and safety is because as Stephanie said that this picture does not show the nature of this curb and I think partly because there's a hill as well >> and the thought of and this is the thought of okay so you're going to go to turn into your driveway most people are going to expect you to just turn into your driveway but if you're about to turn your driveway and then there's people on the trail you have to come to a complete stop >> in the lane in the lane because it's not like there's a turn lane there and the people are coming down running around a hill >> or shoulder shoulders like this. >> And I do think that from a safety perspective, the location of the driveway, the location of the driveway with is dangerous period. You add a trail on top of it, I do think there is a genuine safety concern here. That being said, it should not have been I do I didn't think of your point um Dennis and you're 100% right. It should not have been on the property owners to convince us that that was a safety concern. It should have been Three Rivers sitting here explaining to us why this is a safety concern. >> Well, what what I think it was was Three Rivers told them they got to contact the council. >> Yeah. >> Three Rivers told them that they they had to convince us. >> So then where did those graphics come from that you put in the council packet >> update >> in the update? Excuse me. If Three River, okay, now I'm just kind of maybe being a jerk, but if Three Rivers Park knew that it was enough of an issue to put together options of where the trail would go, they should have. They knew before maybe Dan and Debbie even knew that it was going to be as big of an issue as it is. >> I got the information from John who meets with Park District on a quarterly basis just to touch base on what's happening. What's >> Are you Are you wondering why they didn't come to us? >> Because I guess where I'm getting to is if they had that If they knew that it was an issue, >> then why didn't they say something? >> Or did they or did we just not? >> They know it's a better lever if you like property owner to do it. >> We got I got that as soon as I got that information. I had it on that same weekly update. So that was the same week I got that information. >> And that was after they came in. >> That was the week after you met with them on Friday, I believe. John and Jason, you met with them on Friday, the quarterly update that you have with them. That's when they shared that picture or whatever with both properties. Um, and I do want to provide information to the council that's not on this support, but I did provide the information back to the other homeowner that it's not supported. So, um, they're going to do what they want with that property, but just an FYI. Has nothing to do with this property, but just the other one. So, you have a full circle clarification. >> So, where are we? >> So, I'm looking for >> Well, >> what is the park going to give us for this >> deadly? >> Sorry. Three years with the taxes. You'll get three years worth of Yeah, probably. I mean, again, it's we probably get third, no, maybe two grand worth of taxes a year on this property. I don't know the exact number. >> Will you build us the fishing pier? LC Stevens. >> I think the bigger issue is is we lose control of that piece forever. Large >> and that's I I understand. >> And they already own a huge chunk of our city. I mean, at the rate they're going, there's not going to be a Dayton. It'll just be one giant park. with a bridge and like a 55 mile car road. >> Now we're talking won't let them put a road through. >> No, they won't. So they'll kill the bridge. Excellent. You know what? >> So do you like the now or do you not? >> It's a love hate, I think. >> It's a love. It is a love hate relationship. >> Sorry. >> Beautiful parts. >> Look at all >> I don't know. >> So at some point we're going to have to move the lever. I'm like 51% yes only because of the AP. >> I agree. >> I'm That's exactly what I I'm a 51% yes. >> Yeah, >> but barely just I kind of hate it. >> Supremely irks me though the way they did it. And >> I almost want to be very well. >> Okay. I almost wanted to say I'm never saying yes to anymore, but like >> we just did that. the case. I we just did that and here we are saying yes to another one and we said and I and it is a case by case but it should be Three Rivers making the argument. It should not be the property owners convincing us >> and I can provide that feedback to park district again. >> Well, I'm like I said I almost think we need to be very clear and that to me is a some sort of policy document >> kind of was last time last time we approved the two >> I said I'll go along with this but this is the end of it. >> This is the end of it. >> Now all of a sudden >> we got another one. went out there and listened to the >> violin. >> But but each each one is going to be unique for us to look at. I I >> Right. But it's it still ought to be based on need. >> Yes. >> Do we need this property? And that's on three rivers to come and tell us that we can't build this trail unless we have this property. We can't make an easement work. >> Can we tell Three Rivers comes back? say we're not have through 10 years. >> I you know I I say that for me even that I'm going to vote no. I think there's should be any doubt about that. But >> the, you know, it's not a no, not ever for me on this because if they show us that this is a problem and the only way to solve it is to own that property, then I'm listening and I would I'd be willing to revisit these things as they come up. But they have not done that. They are appear to be completely unwilling to do that. And because I don't think it serves their overall goal of of owning this whole stretch. >> Yeah. >> And so, you know, I I think the the honest is on them. And if we keep saying we're not going to approve anymore and we keep approving it, then what's you know, they're going to ignore us anyway. It's just >> like telling a kid you can't >> they're going to make their noise and they're going to say yes. >> Technically, that's not true because the other one that came in, we told no and that they're not going to move forward with it. So, >> I don't >> tech that's not true. I think we have agreed in the past that in recent past that if there's a property that needs it needs to be there, we'd say yes. Um again, Jordan's property, >> there's no way that that that trail I don't know how you ever have that gets into another. Um, that's >> they could they could do a drive-thru window and some stuff as >> So, let's I'll use your example, mayor, just could just to be, you know, devil's advocate on our side of things. If if they came in and did the same thing with Jordan that they're doing with this one and said told him to come in and talk Jerry Jordan to come in and talk to the council and he didn't say anything about it, the council would be okay with it because we know already that it's a bad property. That's not going to work. So, I think I just want to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples that we're trying to look at things. Now Dan came in and said this is not going to work. We agree after we visit the property and a couple council members and now we're like no it's not great because there was part come in and tell us which it a valid statement. I don't disagree but if we're okay with Jerry Jordan's property for the same exact reason because we know it's not going to work. Is that make it better or worse? And again not trying to >> be rude. It's just being devil's advocate of those >> that one is is kind of obvious. This one I I think if there w if to me if that driveway wasn't wasn't a problem I I'd be a solid no >> sure >> the driveway can be fixed though. I mean you can fix that. There's 60 ft of black top there and they got yellow lines all over the thing. They can get rid of the yellow lines and put some white cones like they do on uh 121 there where they took out the right turn lanes. >> Yeah. Yeah. So now we're forcing a homeowner to extend their driveway because we don't want to >> the park's going to do it, not pay the park pay for it. >> Well, I don't think you're forcing them to do anything. There would be a modification that they would do to make >> it more livable for them, right? >> I'm just saying it sounds like you move the driveway and it makes it way easier. Now we're saying that you have to move your driveway. >> No, the park doesn't have the rightway. >> No, >> the rightway's there. >> We own the easement technically. We own the easement. >> Wait, easement or rightway? Cuz I >> Well, it's right away, right? >> But yeah, >> the park owns the rightway. >> No, we own it. >> Yeah. >> Which we have We would have to give the park district the e easement to what to put the trailer. >> So, you're saying that we wouldn't give them the easement unless they move the drive? >> Are you Well, that would Are you saying you want to kill the whole trail? >> No, no, no. I I want I want a date on when that trail is going to be built. >> 2029. This part is part of >> maybe they won't tell us when it's going to be done. >> 2029. >> I I will bet you a dollar because I don't bet dollars often and the staff can verify. I don't bet dollars often >> from >> I will bet you a dollar that they have that built that trail built when that reconstruction happens on that road. >> Yep. But from Champlain all the way to >> by 2029 they will have from Champlain to LC Stevens at a minimum done. I don't know if they'll go past Elsie Stevens because it needs to connect to it somewhere, not dump. >> Well, in that case, then the counties got to get together. They can design the whole thing >> and tell us how they can fit it in. >> You didn't take my bet for a dollar, though, Scott. >> I bet when I'm a confident man. So, go ahead. >> What happens if I'm not here? >> I don't know. The dollar goes. >> So, Scott, are you a no >> or are you a yes? >> I want to see a plan from Three Rivers. I'll see. Well, or we could table and say we want >> a plan for three. >> We want >> We want to know why. >> Well, we already know. >> You saw the plan, right? >> We saw the plan. >> We saw the plan for this piece. >> Yeah. >> For this property. Yeah. And there was two plans for if they got the Novak property, which is the south one below this one or not. >> That was on that. That was on that. >> I can't believe they can't fit it in. >> They can. They can. >> It's just not physically safe. >> I say fit it in and make it safe. And that's the part I don't know if they can fit it in the front yard and make it safe with a house and a driveway in that location. I don't know that they can. >> Okay. So, >> but I'd like them to tell me that. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So, is that what we're doing? We're going to wait for >> and Kellya. Poor >> Kelly. >> Or do you guys want to say yes? I mean, how many yeses is there? >> There's no solid yes. There's not a single solid yes. We have three fence sitters. >> So, >> that are 51 49, but yeah, side with the 49%. >> This feels like some >> So, it seems like it's 4951 if I >> as I'm saying let's have three rivers pay a engineer to design a safe trail >> right in front of that property. Did did does does it make sense that we put a policy together for this or is that overkill? Is that >> we can put a policy together. That's what the council would like to have happen. >> Okay. But at least then three rivers can >> clear cut. >> It's very clear that they need to come to us. >> So do you have it specific for other governmental agencies or do you want it to be >> any government body okay >> but who else is going to do that? I don't know if you want to name the I don't know if you want to name the policy park district >> purchasing policy or something >> that way >> I like the other governmental does it need to be a policy or can we just have a conversation with them and say like >> except this is what our expectations are it's going to be easier for us to to tell residents look if if you're >> if you're getting you know an offer from Three Rivers We They have to come to us and make the case. >> Well, cuz and the reality is also like it is this is 5 acres on the Mississippi. >> Yep. It's juicy land. >> Yeah. There could very well be another buyer who would gladly buy it and have no issue extending the driveway to put the driveway in a spot that makes more sense >> and they got four years before it's going to happen. >> Yeah. Or won't mind that the trails there like or doesn't find it an issue at all. This is not a hard to sell piece of property. >> I agree. >> Well, you guys are 2 hours and 15 minutes overdue. Make a decision. >> Well, where are you? Me? >> I'll table I'll table it for now. >> You'll table it. >> Sure. >> But if we voted on it, >> where would you be? >> Where would you be? >> I'm going to say no for now because I want I want somebody to tell me that the trail can't be safe if it's there. >> So, is it better to table it to find that out or to vote it down and then have to have it come back? >> Can I come back? >> Even if you vote it down, it's not it's not happening for four years. So, they can still stay there for four years and four years from now, they'll get more money from Three Rivers anyway. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah. Dan called me again today and said he wants to still stay in Dayton. So I don't think it's his idea to move out of Dayton. But I mean his idea is to try to get, you know, and established before he's ex age. I think that's what his, you know, what his information from me was that he doesn't want to move in four years. He wants to move now so he's able to move and then still be able to enjoy what he has for others basically. >> Yep. >> Um and so like I said, I I get that council's aspect. I understand. I think a resident has asked a request from the council. I think from their perspective is maybe they want to see that property as a park and no they >> no or maybe they don't I didn't get that >> maybe they want to live that >> I didn't talk to him and I had his property so >> it's the safety it's the every issue that and that was that it was it was the driveway even if there was no trail that driveway is not in a great spot period end of story um a trail or no trail that driveway is in a terrible spot and then adding a trail just adds adds a whole layer of complication to the situation. >> The driveway has been in an okay spot for the last how many years they've been there. >> Well, because they didn't used to have this much traffic. The sheer quantity of traffic and the speed at which they're driving like >> it doesn't change that much in 5 years. So that's how long they've been there. >> I was like I didn't get the impression they had been there for 20 years. That was >> okay. What do we got? Where we at? >> Since 2017. >> Yeah. So we've been there eight years. Okay, I'm going to call for a motion. >> Now we can want to table it and make that motion. But I'll make a motion to table it. Just going to drag it out a little longer. >> You love drag things out. >> We'll beat this up again for another half an hour. >> Except for Kelly will be in front of you and you can beat up her. You're getting sassy. >> I'll just tell her again. Kelly, I wanted I want a diagram. Tell me what you're going to do. >> So, right now we have a motion to table. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> So, can I clarify what the tableing is for? What would you like to bring back so that I know what I can provide you for the motions? >> Three rivers. >> Three rivers. And I don't know. >> He's going to explain why they >> I want somebody to tell me they can build a safe trail there. >> Three rivers on a platter. Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, what we've been asking for all along is a design for the trail. >> Yeah. The whole trail. >> And the fees and tell us where the where the roadblocks are. >> Yeah. >> That they need act to buy actual property instead of an easement. >> Why can't the trail go where the easement is? That's the question. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So, you need a design. You're looking for a design for the entire trail for this parcel to be able to sell. >> No. Wait. that that's more detailed than what we've or what Three Rivers has provided >> which I yeah we can request it. I just want to provide it. >> Where's the list of properties that they feel like they cannot do do with an easement? We don't have that and they don't want to provide it. >> That is correct. >> Mhm. >> I mean >> that's what that's what we want right there. >> Yeah. Why will the easement not work for this one? >> There is an easement. Why isn't it not enough? >> What is Dan just doesn't want it there? >> Pass that through his part. >> Okay. So, we got a motion and second on tableabling this until Three Rivers gives us their spiel. >> Yep. That's what I got. >> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> All right. All those opposed say no. Question the table. It goes 5 to zero. All right. And with that, we're in close session. We will go to the close session. And do I have something to read here or can I just read the >> item right in front of R30? >> Read R and S. >> Can we stay in close session for both R and S? We have to do come back. >> You have to come back. >> See who makes up these rules. >> Robert. >> Robert. Robert's dead. Those are two separate rules. >> This is not Robert. >> This is Steve. >> Okay. So, need more >> Yes. >> So, in between R and S, we have to come back. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And then we have to kind of summarize what R what you said in R. >> Then we would >> and then go back into close for S and then come back out of S. Summarize what we did in S. And then officially close the meeting. >> This is so fun. >> So, let me read this. Uh motion to close the meeting pursuant to MN Statute 13D uh 03 for labor negotiation. >> And then I need a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Sarah. >> Sure. >> And the first >> Well, no. >> That would be me, right? Since I announced it or does it kind of Yeah, that's good enough. And okay, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> All right, we will go into close session. This is an open session. >> Okay. >> Okay. Motion to close the meeting pursu Oh, we get the echo now. Um pursuant Minnesota statute 13 DO5 subdivision 3C3. A closed session shall be conducted to develop or consider offers or counter offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property located at P 09-120-22-43-0041. So I need a second. >> Second. >> Um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> Motion carries 5 to zero. So we are in close session. We're back in open session and if there are no objections, we will be adjourned. >> Okay. Good night. >> We're journed.