hold that down until more people arrive. Um, and then the other thing I'd like to do is I want to add um hopefully a brief discussion about possibly a moratorium on data center. So if that's okay, is there a motion to approve the agenda with those changes? And again, I don't know exactly order that move. >> Okay. Thank you. There's a motion and a second and please people in favor signify I motion passes. All right. So first many people we'll start with the um yeah running. Um so this is a regular uh work session for the city of city council July 20th to 26. Uh present this evening are myself. the mayor and next to me we have council members Kathine Ra and govern and we're expecting Claudia Lacy anytime any minute now Peter Vicky is absent this evening we also have staff here with us we have Gary Peters who is our public works director we have Paula Bowman who is our city um assistant administrator Jasmine Krugal our administrator Brian Graham finance director David Evil community development director and then um sitting in for chief squires. We have activity team. So with that, um we're going to start out with our let's start with the water meter reading software update. >> Yes, madame mayor, members of city council. Uh this is essentially to let the group know about a change in some of the softwares that uh our staff use uh to me read the water meters. Um the current system that we have uh let me pull this up real quick. I think it's called FCS. They uh there that is no longer going to be supported um by the end of the year. There's a little grace period to implement into 2027. Um so what we're just timelinewise, we're looking to um potentially have something approved and ready to go for the 2027 budget. There is some slight costs for this that are kind of outlined in this. So we wanted to make sure to get this in front of city council. But um uh really the the software and I kind of took this on from Gary when he was out a little bit. So he he can also chime in on this as well. Um but really the software that we have right now is is is quite old. I think we've had it for at least 10 years talking to staff. Um and and it's not no longer going to be supported. A little background, we have Itron meters. We require Itron software to read those meters. So there's no um it's kind of a propri it is a proprietary software and the the vendor that we have um United Systems and Software is the reseller in the region for that that software. So this is a sole source situation um as far as the the softwares go. But um one thing with this new software is that we will have the capability to do what's called AMI reads. So that's a continuous read system. um it requires a hardware update or upgrade um to some of the or to the meters for that to work. Um the the package and and I thought I gave the quote um to put it in the into the packet, but I I can't go over the quote because there are a lot of numbers and maybe some of them don't math out because they they do give us a deduction on some of these things. But um so there's the option and I want to talk a little bit about that at the end is if you know we do proceed with this uh software update you know we will have 126 of these hertz that allow AMI systems AMI readings um you know we have about what 20 350 water meters you know at what pace if we want to even replace the yurts that we have you know what what do we want to do with that but back to the software um there's some initial fees that that are related to the roll out. Um the implementation basically costs a total of $37,510. The first year of that uh 13,000 is related to the implementation um which includes the uh the cellular fee. The cellular fee is not $6.96 per. Um, so anytime you have an AMI system on the network, it costs that much per year for them to to to transfer that data. Um, there is some training in there built into this quote, $10,000. The the rep said that they put that number in there. We likely won't hit the 10,000 and that's not a guarantee for them. So, it's whatever we decide we need to use for the training is what what would tap into that. Um, and then there's some some fees related to Itron. Um, and that's the Tmetra Advanced is the name of the software. That annual startup fee is $5,250. And then there's an AMI essential uh smart start promo which includes the data. Um, and that's $9,260. Um, and so that's the year one cost to implement. Year two would be that $9,73. And that's assuming we have 126 of these AMIRs. Uh if we get more than that, then that will scale up depending on that data usage kind of outlined in the in the packet. So just kind of to get in front of you, the the idea would be maybe in September, October, we bring forward uh the agreement to proceed with this um with with the group and then we can implement in 2027 when that becomes uh goes out of uh support. So, it's going out 27 because online it says it goes out December 31st, 2020. >> Um, >> yeah. I don't I don't know. I mean, I'm going by what the rep rep is telling us. >> identifying uh excess identify the city or >> so the the the plan that we would have through this to Metro program would be to the city and then the city could then reach out to the individual user. So there's an upgraded more expensive plan that gives a portal to the to the user and uh then they can set up their own alerts and get alerted if they exceed a certain amount of usage per day or something like that. >> For installing these would be access to the inside of subscribers home. So >> yeah, it would be uh to the inside of the home. It's just a plug into the meter and then we replace it. So um >> aren't meters outside? >> No. Uh Yep. Yep. Yeah. So, you'd have to go in there and that's built into that, you know, total $400,000 cost. That's to have an outside vendor do that for us at I think about $45 $45 per install. Um, >> the there's an AMR system and an AMI system. Do we have to do the AMI system or can we do the AMR system or we can still do the driveby? >> You still have to do the driveway. We have to put them on the system cuz we've just replaced a bunch of meters >> last year within the last couple few years for 10 to 15 years. So those meters will still be you know in use for the next 10 to 15 years. So we'll still have to do that as we move forward with all the new developments that the new meters will all anything we put in say the leaders the herbs themselves the the readers the transmitters themselves all the opers on but moving forward we'll have to do that >> eventually we'll have to start replacing the other ones with you know what time period they have not specified yet I don't think well they said the end of life the actual cold heart waters we have so I think It'll be a quite a few years. Yeah, that'll be a little >> So, does it cost more to do the AMR and the AMI ones versus just keeping AMRs only? >> Is that what that 105 was instead of the 135? >> Yes. So, the the Yeah. So, the the 100 watt or is the $105 one. The AMI compatible one, I don't know what the watt is if it's one, it's it's $135. So that's the difference in price. Um we don't have to do any conversion if we don't want to. So um it's just something that we could do for maybe some of our uh problematic meters that we have that would be helpful. It comes with the software. It just you have two different dashboards. One's for the AMI, one's for the AMR, but they both read at the same time and send it to um to our utility bill. >> We have to do the software. We do need to do the cloud based reading the data cellular reading on keep it the ones that do the drive by >> and any of the updated meters that were put in any meters now it's just similar I should I keep saying meters I should say with the meters that is all built through the builders there's no upfront class city we would just increase the fee on that as we go but any of the replacement yes there would be a fee for that But we're going to replace them anyways coming in the near future. There's still a bunch that are coming due. We stopped at 2016, I think, or 15, which are cut off at the first time meters. So, we'll have a bunch of meters still coming here in the next couple years that we're going to have to look at replacing probably 3 to four years. We're going to look at replacing those cuz they'll be at their end of life about 15 years of the battery each one. So, we'll still be looking at replacing a handful. I think it's I think we can replace 1600 or 1400 first time quite a >> few last few years going 23 >> eventually we'll be looking at doing >> it I guess it would be nice it was quite a few but it wasn't >> but it was more sequential or whatever >> so with the cloud basis system. What security measures are in place on that to make sure people can't hack in and do things and get to it basically? Who keeps control of that? Who has access? Who's responsible if something doesn't get hacked into what happens with that? >> Yeah. So, as far as who has access to it here, it's really just one person. Um, as far as what their protocols are for cyber security, we can ask them that question on their end for it, but it all lives in the cloud. So there's no software here um or no data that's stored here locally. We have a backup plan if uh the subscribers not replacing >> Yeah. or they don't want the cellular connections. >> Yeah. In previous town I lived in supposed to replace two years seven people were >> Well, they exactly >> Yep. Um there's things that we could look at like a like a you know a manual meter read fee, things like that cities have done for if you don't want that continuous read um hurt. You could do that where you basically send somebody out or keep them on the driveby system. You know, we're going to likely have the driveby system for I don't depends on the pace at which we want to replace them, but probably for at least 12 more years. So it might may they might just be able to not do their meter and let them go with the driveby for as long as we can. >> We only had I think three or four that did not want the change. >> Yeah. >> And we were fairly lucky that way. >> One of them was a allergy or whatever. Two RF so that is one and then two others where we just don't want that in our house. So we have outside actually I think only months we get manual read the other ones we just put the reader out the bird outside the house so it's not inside so that we try to do the most so the three I think we only have one that's already that >> so what is your what do you think you want to all at once. I mean half or over a threeyear period. I mean so we had to do the 37 >> it is. Then um one thing that I could ask is if we just don't want to do any AMI meters, we could just see what the software update I I think I can kind of figure that out from the quote that they gave me. That that would just be probably with training. Um probably around $19,000 just to update the software, not get any of the ZS um not have any data plan to start off with. So that would be the bare minimum. Something like that. We could ask about that as an option. >> Yeah. So considering that we have to raise our water significantly and then have more water for 500,000 versus we just replaced it. Get a chunk in the water meter. So until we get another chunk that needs to be replaced then increase change of the equipment at that point versus since we're doing monthly. So at least we have monthly out versus >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> versus quarter. Okay. And and one option that you could keep in your back pocket if you have somebody come to city council and request a you know reduction in their bill or whatever you could say hey if you want we can put one of these s in and we can get you more continuous reading and you know if that becomes an issue but it like you said we won't have three month reads we'll have monthly reads. What would So, let me find out from the vendor what it would cost if we just did a um spot. >> 135 a piece. >> That's it. >> Yeah. >> No installation cost. >> Um no. Well, we if it's just one or two, we could probably coordinate that. It's just the mass quantities are challenging for the staff. >> See if somebody it's a snowbird for instance and they say, "Well, I've gone for this. I didn't, you know, I'd like to see my water usage and I didn't know you could make it." So, meaning that they could do that. >> Yeah. So, it' be 135 plus the 696. Um, it might that might be more because that's probably priced at at a scale. So, if it's just one or you know, so many. >> Okay. I can ask that question. >> Basis, the res part of it too, >> right? That's what I'm saying. It would be the 135 plus 690 whatever it is. And I don't know if it's possible. >> I don't think it is possible. I would recommend highly recommend that you know we look at the irrigation systems out there for the HOA prime examples what happen very very high bill due to starving that they didn't know about >> right >> so this would have alerted them alerted us we could alert them hey you have an issue shut long for the the bill tally up to what they >> just want to contribute so far yeah I think if if we can offer it as an option to people on day or 100%. Then um I think that that would be a good option. >> The the other thing to consider like a little direction on is for new home builds after the software is installed. Do we want to on the new homes have them put the new her on versus the old >> Z? Yeah. Right. >> I think making more sense for all >> Yeah, that's fine. >> So, it's got the the kind of package is just the upgrade for the software, some training, and then what's the cost moving forward for this one off? We want to add add one here, we'll add one there. Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Right. >> And then I'll bring that back sometime probably September or October. Um, so don't have a lot of people here for the committee. So I I'm wondering if they thought it was 5:30. >> But no, I mean that's what was in the email. It's 5:00. Only one person said they couldn't be here. >> Okay. Well, let's do this. Um, let's do a city council paid check in and then then we'll do the comprehensive plan task meeting. Okay. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, members of council, uh, as you can read in the memo, there's a window of time that city council can adjust their pay, and we're in that window of time before, uh, midterm election or an election. Um, and this would be potentially, if there are any changes, implemented in, uh, January 1 of 2027. So, you can see in the data there's um, you know, a group, this is from the League of Minnesota Cities. I did a query between 15,000 and 7500 to kind of find what the averages were. You can kind of if you want pick and choose cities that you want to take out of there, but you kind of see the average for uh the mayor is $681. We're at 500. Um and the average for uh city council members is 508 and we're at 400. So, one thing to note is there is a um and this wasn't very well documented as far as additional benefits in the League of Minnesota Cities, but we do get or this you guys get $50 a month for internet as well. So, if you if you would like to change anything or or change the the pay, that would be an ordinance that we would then um bring forward at a future date. We just need the direction Okay. >> So, here's the thing. Um, well, when I looked at this, I was surprised even some cities that are much smaller than us have even a higher, you know, pay their council board. Um, but I hate to go. So, last time before we made this change, it was like 20 years before we had revisited it. So, I really hate to go more than four or five years. And I think it's been four or five years. But um what I also want to say is it's not just the time that we spend in meetings here or in committees, but it's also the prep time and it's also talking with residents and it's also going to events. But then in addition, it's the sacrifice that we made being gone from our families on evenings and you know not being able to be there for special events at times. So, it's it's that it's all of that combined that I think we should be paid just a little bit more than what we're currently paying when I think of the time that we put in and and the sacrifices that we make. So, that's my pitch. buy it for me when I rant. But here's the thing. I also think maybe that and so we have two people so far that have filed for the two open council. So I also think would there be some incentive for people to file if they got paid a little bit more? I mean >> yes. I don't think so. I think the I think you could double it and I think more people could run. It's a huge commitment. Like Kathleen said, I didn't even know there was any pain whatsoever. Um but on top of that, you have to schedule your life. Like you can't just go on. It's a huge It is. I know. Um 500 bucks a month, you know, it's a token of of I think we should be commenserate with other towns with 10,000 people. I I don't think we have to give more charity than we already do. We're not asking you paid a lot of money, but um I I agree and concert with other towns the size. So when I look at and I'm going to you know I would take out like Alexandria and and a few that are more in that $12,000 12,000 population. So yeah, I think we could raise it a little bit. So that's my suggestion and I would say um if you raise it 100 bucks a month we're going to be close then we'll be averaging for council 500 and for me 600. Well I mean I mean that's that's unless you want to go higher than four years you know it's been four years. Yeah. Um, so I think $100 is fine. Just good, you know. Um, >> do you have other suggestions? >> I mean, if the rest of the year you're completely against it, I'll I'll sign with the majority. Anybody listening is point out that the hate heroes don't kill all after the next election. >> All right. Okay. So you'll bring that that ordinance. >> So So just to let me be clear, mayor 600, council members 500. >> All right. That'll be our month. Okay. Um so let's uh looks like we're not going to get our um people here for the um task force. We do have two ladies here. Um thank you for coming. Um so uh David maybe I could just have you quickly give us an overview of what the commitment for this committee would be. >> Yeah thank you madame mayor and members of council. So once every 10 years as you know we update our comprehensive plan. Um the next uh update uh due date would be the end of 2028. So what we'd be looking to do here um is put putting together a task force. As you know, pointed out in your packet, we have three a total of three parks and planning commissioners that have volunteered to be on this uh task force already. Uh we put out an advertisement uh in the newspaper and on social media for any other uh residents at large, if you will, that would be interested in helping out with this uh this task force. Um the goal here would be to start the fall of this year. Um, and what what we're looking for from a commitment standpoint would be once a month generally for about an hour. Uh, what we try to do is do it an hour prior to our monthly planning commission meeting. Um, so for uh approximately an hour each month starting this fall and all through next year or until we we get the the plan done. Sometimes it can take a little bit longer, but uh generally speaking, we're we're looking at about a a year and a half to maybe a little bit more is what we'd be looking to do. There may be a few additional meetings involved with that. Some public open houses that they're welcome to attend. There would be uh required to attend, but uh certainly would be helpful if they're available to attend those types of things. and then possibly also uh a planning commission meeting or maybe even a city council meeting here and there depending upon which direction the the steering committee goes or the discussion goes. Um that has happened historically when we've done things like this before. So generally speaking like I said pretty straightforward once a month for for an hour or so is what we'd be looking looking at doing for around a year and a half or so. >> Okay. Thank you. So we have two um other women that um apply Molini and Ala. Is that how you pronounce it? >> Okay. And then um we have Missy Greener. Okay. So all I'm going to do I'm not going to put you through a whole bunch of steps. Um but is this something that you think you can um commit to monthly meetings? uh we kind of would expect you to participate at least 75 to 80 person be present for other meetings. Is that something you can do? >> Yeah. Is it a is it a certain week or day of the week of the like week of the month that would be before this? >> It'll always be um so our planning commission always meets on the fourth Monday of each month. So it' be the fourth Monday of each month and they meet around 6 o' 7 o'clock >> 6:30 they meet. So we'd be looking around at 5:00. Similar start time probably is what we looking to do is above 5:00. >> Yeah. Totally. >> Yeah. And they don't meet in December. >> Yeah. >> And usually we don't may not meet and there may be a couple more times where we don't need um maybe because some more research has to be done or whatever. So, and during the summer months there may be July for instance where we don't leave but um generally once a month the fourth Monday. So, okay, any other questions with all of our applicants here? So, hopefully they'll say the same. Um and we'll get started and you'll be getting some notice from from David for that. I think we'll bring this back at a regular meeting under consent. No, it's under business tonight. >> Okay. And we'll just bring it back in. So, I'm pretty sure you will be invited. You're welcome to stay. Um, but you don't have to if you don't want to. Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Nice meeting you. So, um, next we're going to talk about the ATB ordinance discussion. I'll hand that over to Jasper first. >> Yes. Um, madame mayor, members of city council, this was requested by council member Lacy to to bring on to the work session and uh was affirmed by the city council. Uh, you can see in the packet the language that was developed, I believe in 2022 uh for the current operation of recreational vehicles on private property uh section in the code. Um, essentially this was driven by I think complaints. This was a little prior to my arrival here in Minitrista, but it was a complaint based item that there was a a desire from members of the public to uh develop an ordinance that was a little bit more restrictive. Um, and in here you can kind of see the the basic terms. Um, no operation uh between 9:00 p.m. and 8 a.m. Uh, no more than two consecutive hours of operation. Um, may only be operated on a parcel 3 acres or larger. um can only have three total recreational vehicles operated at one time on a parcel. And then this is uh one I think that we're going to probably talk about is recreational vehicles may not be operated within 300 ft of the property line of any parcel without the permission of the residents of the parcel unless they are being used uh conducting agricultural operations. And then um they must be um equipped with a a muffler system. So, uh, those are the basic terms. Um, and I'll I'll leave it to city council to talk about if they would like to to change it. We do have a Pat who's been, um, quite involved with some of these ATV complaints over the years, so he's good insight for wisdom. >> Well, let me let me just kind of um explain because I don't think any of you here. So, we had two we had two property owners. Um, one here, one year of course, you know, very young person. And one property owner had multiple children, a lot of children, multiple ATVs, and they created this dirt, this path or this trail, and they would ride their dirt at um and get all right on the side, you know, and they were very challenging to try and um >> Yeah. So, anyhow, so what we So, this is the result with that. We try to give the property owner on one side a little bit of recruiting from the dust and the noise and it so having said that um I understand that the new property owners I think the new property owners that are next and now in this similar situation are a little nicer um to maybe I'm not sure anyhow um what I might suggest and this might be a real simple solution is that we say not 300 ft from the property line but 300 ft from any dwelling unit. In other words, from the house. And I had Jasper um this is just a thought. I had Jasper look at it and the one house on this side is about 200 ft from the property line and so they would only have to be 100 ft from the property line. So that would really give them a lot more wiggle room on the other side and you know it would be the same. They would have to be 300 ft 300 people in front of the house. >> So well couldn't they just ask the neighbor? >> No. >> Can I go through this? I mean you could Yes, you could ask the neighbor. Can I just give you a little bit more information about Madame Mayor was discussing? May I? >> Thank you. So, let's say it might help with what you were going to ask. Let's talk about property A, B, and C. Property A is one acre and it's a strip. It looks like a racetrack that goes from a road down to the lake. Property B is the new property own. property C were the people that were tormented by their which is like a two-stroke four-stroke motorbike that these kids rode up and down this. So I completely understand why they had someations >> reservations and because it was horrible. Um, but Madameir, if I may, this the reason why I'm passionate about this is because my lot, for example, is 150 ft wide. We use an ATV just about every day in the summer to take our coolers down to our boat. I talk to our neighbors, they've never heard it once, and 30 ft from their sliding glass windows. because I'm respectful. I use it for 10 minutes, >> right? >> Um I don't think this is an issue of two stroke, four stroke, dirt bikes. I think it's an it's we've got something on the books that is is being violated every single day by multiple people all around the classroom and it's not enforced. So, we have a we have a an ordinance that is not enforced. I think the after 9:00 a.m. is wonderful. before 8 8 a.m. is wonderful. Three at one time, that's a lot. Um, two hours consecutively, that's a lot. Um, we could keep all those, but 300 ft is going to eliminate the majority of homes on the lake that they can get, for instance, your neighbors, for instance, they're not complaining. >> I don't think they'll have to ask my neighbor. >> So, the reason you say they're not being enforced, it's a complaint based system. So, if no one's complaining, that means your neighbors don't care. So, if your neighbor started complaining, then we would enforce the ordinance. >> This was brought to my attention because neighbor C is standing on a property line filming the new young family that are just trying to take their 2-year-old and their baby down the boat. >> Well, what are they driving? >> They're I've seen it. It's a It's the same thing I have. It's a razor. It It's modified. It has, you know, you can modify a razor for anywhere between $150 and $300. Reduces the sum by 85%. Um, this is something used by everyone. >> Has anyone complained? Have you guys gotten complaints about this this property? >> They're filming this down. >> Well, I understand have they recorded a complaint? >> Okay, >> hold on. So, but Kanye, my concern is we can't change this to. So, the only way you could do it is you could change it somehow to say in the developed area, this is the ordinance. In the rural area, this is the ordinance or you do one ordinance that's citywide. And that's what we were trying. We were basically addressing it because of the rural areas. And we've never gotten complaints. I don't think of ATVs in the developed areas. I mean, >> but I would say >> hold on, hold on just a minute. >> There's no complaints. So, we should remove the 300 foot. >> No, I don't think so. >> Yeah. >> As far as the distance, the only I can think of off the top of my head. >> Yeah. What you guys? >> I mean, it's >> So now, so I will be violating city ordinance every time I want my ATV going down to my dock. Well, that's what's so absurd because I can give you 50 people that do this every single weekend, >> right? But they're neighbors. So, >> but it's an ordinance saying we can't do it. >> But, but by the fact that they're not complaining, you have the basically saying we don't care or it's okay. Now, if you were going down to your doc 100 times for 2 hours, let's just say, they might complain. But if you're going once or twice a day, nobody's going to care. >> So you're saying it's too difficult just to remove that one detail because then what do you do for the people out in the rural area whose kids want to run around a track for for who knows how long with three ATVs for two or three hours at a time close to their neighbor's property? What do you do about them? Well, that's a nuisance. That's a nuisance. I mean, it's not you're you're you're keeping. >> But what you want to do is you want to change an ordinance. >> No, they want to change one aspect of >> for one property. >> No, for all the people only and around here they use their ATVs to get around the properties. >> But there haven't been any complaints. So, >> okay. Then I'm going to go get chickens and hope there is no complaint. I mean, I want to follow the rule again. We amended that ordinance that I'm under discussion. The the thing again and I said this before is we are a complaint based system and if no one is complaining then we don't do anything about it. I don't think we should change this for that reason especially >> for the reason that it's constantly violated and we're not enforcing it. But but the thing that's brought this up is this one this one family that bought the property now from the other family that was an issue. So this is what's triggered your interest in changing this? >> No. What's triggered my interest is I use an ATV every day to go down the dock and I didn't realize this and I don't want to be a council member that shouldn't be getting putting our coolers on the ATV and bringing our kids down to the dock. I'm violating it. I am there if there's no complaints. Um, >> but then we can change the ordinance and we can say in the developed areas if you use an ATV to go from your house down to your dock, you can do that. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Then you're not violating. >> So then as well to the situation with the Swanson, they can use their AT because that's what they're doing. They're taking their children down to their dock. And so here's the problem. So now if you say in the developed areas, this is what you can do. But then we have all of the people in the rural areas that like to run around their tracks, they create, you know, trails and tracks that they use and sometimes it's three kids, sometimes it's two, sometimes it's one for multiple hours. So how many complaints have you received like that in the last I don't know three years, one year? And that's we zero complaints. That'll be zero. >> So we got zero. >> All right. Well, here's the thing. We changed it and since then we haven't got any complaints. Well, I I think this is absurd and and anytime someone gets a complaint about something in ordinance ordinance, we can come back and say we don't enforce that ordinance, so don't worry about it. Um um if you would like to change our policy that would be a whole another member discussion. Our policy right now is we enforce our ordinances on a complaint basis. So if that if you would like us to enforce our ordinances differently, we can do that. Um but that would have to be a council decision. And and the other thing is um if people out there by whail tail if they want some relief from this ordinance that's what I'm saying is we can say okay you just have to be you're going to be driving around and driving around whether but but you have to understand you have to understand that there's other people in the community that would not just drive down. What if we just add a line that says recreational recreational vehicles may be operated within your property for purposes of going back and forth to your dog? >> We can just uh say it's dimminimous use of few minutes or less. It's not >> violate this list. >> Cuz that way then if you are just going back and forth to your dog, then I would fall under that. You're really concerned more about the people better. >> But I don't understand how you can't see that police officer Jasper. We we don't get any complaints about this. But you didn't have the books. >> Well, that's because before we had this in the books, we got complaints. >> Well, in person. No. No. Okay. Before you guys were here, we had other complaints, too. I mean, this this isn't a oneoff. We had other complaints elsewhere in the city as well. And I don't I mean, it's probably I know it's been more than 10 years, but we've had other complaints on Game Farm and on um out there probably two or three um properties where people just round and round and round. So, it's not just one property. And because since we created this, they haven't had complaints. And the other thing is I don't want our police to have to deal with these kind of complaints. I think Ryan's um offer is fabulous. I think that's a great idea that you can use it for whatever you want to say, 15 minutes or whatever to drive down to your dock. It puts takes you off the hook. It takes all of the people that drive their ATVs down to the dock off the hook. It takes I mean it it just seems like that would be the best solution then. >> Yes. >> So I don't know that we can argue that that wouldn't be a good solution. >> Well, it's better than nothing. Okay, there you go. >> I think it's absurd. Everyone's telling you this isn't an issue. We're keeping it This has been a trrista. ATVs are part of our life out here unless you live in Cove um on a lot of the sides of my sons, you know. I mean, no golf carts are a problem. We want to add golf carts to the ban those from the entire neighborhood. I would love that. >> Maybe you should do that. Right. We already talked about the golf cards and we kind of that that ship has killed us. So, um if Staten could kind of write in a small little keeping G >> G saying or small or just one off or whatever, however you want to word it, they can come up with some that'll kind of fix that. And then if the neighboring property still wants to do more than that one trip down to the dock or two trips, whatever it is, um then they can come back and we can look at maybe 300 ft from the house. So um so let's let's try that for now and then we'll come see what what happens. >> That sounds good. Just to confirm the threshold is 15 minutes. >> Do you get to come back to your house? >> No. Yeah. >> Okay. >> If you go from your house down to your dock, it's what, 200 ft? That's going to take you one minute. Okay. But then you go out and then you come back. Let's take our next minute. >> You got 13 more to go. >> And even if even if you forgot something and had to go back 30 minutes just absurd, make it 30 minutes. Do we get 30 minutes? >> 20. How's We're going to do 20 minutes. There we go. >> How about 20 minutes in a 1 hour period? So if you I think in your in your case, you drive down to the dock, >> go out for 3 hours, then you can come back. >> Okay. >> Well, then you have to do 15 minutes and a 1 hour period. >> Is that 15 minutes in a 1 hour period? Done. That's it. All right. I think it's a good compromise. All right. Um, then we have facility needs and fast updates. Real quick, um, since we're going to run out of time, um, I want to just quickly talk about data center a moratorum on data centers. Is there, um, appetite for that? I think it would be really, really good. We don't have any applications in right now, but um, I I also know that there's a lot of people out there that are very concerned about this. And um I think it would be good because and it would give us a chance to um kind of create some ordinances restricting size and location and things like that. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So can you bring back a um on August 3rd a resolution to put a moratorum on data center I think it data center applications or >> Yeah. No >> that's pretty common that >> Yeah. >> A lot of cities have passed. That's why I'm bringing it up. Okay, now we'll move on to facility needs assessment update. >> All right, I just given myself a note here that I didn't finish, so I'll do it here in a little bit. But, um, so the facility needs assessment, this is, uh, tied to the strategic planning session we had in in February and done a little research to see what other communities have done in our area regarding um, a project like this. And um it turned out that uh Krauss Anderson, who I'm not recommending, we move forward with. It's just a baseline to see how much something like this would cost because I've uh never done one before. Um uh provided some information. So I kind of have a cost number in my in my mind. Um and so do you and you kind of have a proposal from them that you could look at. But really, I'm I'm looking at what what are the next steps? What are the expectations from city council as far as proceeding with this? Um, I know I've had some questions from from council members on this as far as scope and scale and things of that nature. So, like that kind of pinned down as well if we do proceed. Uh, this is something depending on cost um, uh, that we could either probably not really work into the budget in 2026, but maybe kick off in 2027. So, um, I don't know. There's quite a bit of information in here and for time sake, you know, we're kind of just looking for direction as far as what you guys want to do as a group. So, one of the things I mentioned to staff is I think we can eliminate the police department um facility study because it was just built around 9. It's not even 20 years old. Um it shouldn't really need to be revisited at this time. Um and then I also thought, you know, we can narrow down the scope of of the city hall because again, we're not going to be doing we have enough space right now. It might have to be re reconfigured or something, but I don't think we need to spend money on designing or figuring out what we need for city hall. What we do need to do is from public works. However, having said that, we don't need to or I think what we should do is plan on if we're going to do anything waiting uh wait until we could start like in 2030 or maybe 31 because then the police department bond falls off. So then we could replace it with the public works bond. So that's but we could start in 27 kind of looking at it thinking what we might want to do getting some cost estimates and then then we could also start levying certain of a little bit every year for for the facilities. Not not a lot but if we're going to have to um raise the levy for a bond let's say by 100,000 maybe then for a couple years we raise the levy by 50,000 or something. So then by the time we have to see that bond, let's say, you know, then we already we're already there with that money. We still have to bond for it. But I think if we kind of narrow that scope down, it'll cost less and then because I don't want to do a whole police station, city hall, public works. That's just not I don't think necessary right now. >> No. And if we're going to looking at doing any major changes not until 2030, I would say we just need to do anything till like 2028 then we do them too because I mean if we do it next year by 2030 all the estimates and everything are going to be useless. And maybe um what Brian can do is you could um show us timelines in terms of payments and things. And then when the a new bond would come online, would it be in 32 or would it be um the same as 31? >> It just matters how we how we structure it when we you know when we need the money for the you know any construction or major upgrades and then usually it comes online you know a lot of times the next year. So if we'd start doing some improvements in 2030 it would be 2031 or 31 for 32 or whatever. And here's the other thing. I think right now it's what 349,000 payment for the police department. And so let's just say in 28 or we could do it in 27 because then we have some estimates. And so then let's say the bond payment is 500,000 versus 350 that goes off. We can start living maybe a 100,000 for a couple of years. So then we'll ratchet it up to the five or 550. >> Start doing that without even doing that. I mean, we can just start ratcheting up without having the um section and all that the scope done. I mean, we know we're going to need it. So, >> we can do that without necessarily getting the scope done, so you know, because I think it's going to be more than 350 because I think that bond was only like four or 5,000. 5 million. Uh I think it was yeah about five million because I think we had some other funding sources but yeah it was yeah six million project 5 million. >> Yeah because it was like a million for the public works and then it was 4 and a.5 million for the uh police department and then we had like a million or something. So I think it was around 5 million >> that's so and then would be substantially more so we're the higher. >> Yeah. So I mean we can just start ratcheting up that way in 22. So that's yeah 28 and then we just go closer to what we actually want to start >> tell like leving some dollars set aside for this project. It won't be a debt debt levy yet, but it debt levy >> because for instance, so we're we're levying 350 right now for the police department knowing that we're going to probably having to increase that. And rather than having to increase it all at once, we can then like in 28 levy an additional 50,000. Just setting that aside. And then so now we're levying 450, right? Or 400. And then the following year another 50. So now we're levying 450. It might just be the semantics of until you issue the debt, it's not a debt levy, but it's allocated towards >> Yeah, basically it's just I understand what you're what we'd be doing, but yeah, more% increase just for that >> trying to ramp up and Yeah. versus having >> versus a half a percent or >> Well, that would be a good strategy. >> Okay. Anyhow, so we're looking at 2028 maybe. The one thing, if I may, the one thing I will bring up, and I know some staff have brought it up, and I know we've talked about it in the past, is the ADA stuff. Um, okay. At city hall, >> we're grandfathered in until we start construction on something, right? Like >> potentially or until there's a claim or somebody gets injured at our facility. >> So, why don't we why don't we do this? Why don't we ask our engineer um I know data architects and things like that what would it cost for them just to do the facilities um ADA compliant um report for this for this building >> already know I mean the doors the bathrooms the walkway like that's those are the big things right >> council chambers the front desk area >> you know >> yeah technically need the access to the city ballard parks here front doors and the bathrooms will have do sets of bathrooms for since we have public works bathrooms and regular so two sets of bathrooms to do so >> so maybe what you're do yeah but bring back or maybe somebody can put together that list and then also with some estimates and then maybe we can start um chewing off some of it. Do you have to do it all at once? >> I mean, you could do like >> I think as long as we have a plan, that goes a long ways. Um so >> So maybe we do that. >> Okay, we would likely need I mean we'll likely need to bring in somebody to help with prices and things like that. So it's um >> and then the the big the big ticket items are the bathrooms, obviously, >> the front desk area, >> that's a big ticket item, and then here this is a big ticket item. So those are the kind of three core areas that >> um you know and we would be forced to do something if somebody would run for city council that needed accessibility. Yeah. So >> well that's yeah that's even if it's in three segments you know something in 28 something in 29 something 30 >> test area is that just because the window so high? Yeah. >> And then maybe bring back some numbers. I know bathrooms are expensive. >> Um >> yeah. So >> So I think I think the steps are just you know phasing in what what the scope is. Okay. >> Exactly. And then from there we can kind of throw some numbers. So it'll be a little while but >> yeah we can start with that. >> It sounds like it probably be a 20 28 and beyond, right? Yes, I guess what I we're already looking at 10 12% right now without all that. So I think we'll have to look at 28. >> But at least now we can figure out how much and then yeah what needs to be done. Okay. Um I think we're good. >> Hey George. >> Yeah. >> Are you here for the for the committee um task? >> I can do both. I'm here. If you want to listen to my spiel, if you want me to >> you, we're we're already um basically going to appoint you. So, that's not an issue. And if you want to wait around till 6:30 uh for the um regular meeting, um your item u may be discussed. So, then you could discuss it at that. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, do you want to hang around for half an hour or so? >> Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. All right. Um, is there a motion to adjourn our work session? >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Gver. All those in favor signify. And I say that we're kind of laughing because I said I won't call you Peter. You're sitting in his seat. All right. All right. With that, we can be a journ until 6:30.