To the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, [clears throat] with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Thank you. All right. First up, we have open forum. Individuals may address the council about any item not contained on the regular agenda. A maximum of 10 minutes is allocated for the forum. If the full 10 minutes is not needed, we will continue with the agenda. If additional time is needed, we will continue the forum following other business on the agenda. The council will take no official action on items discussed at the forum with the exception of referral to staff or commission for future report. We have three people that would like to speak. So, first we have Ana Beck. if you could come to the podium and just share your Oh, okay. [laughter] Well, welcome. >> Now you have to. >> Thanks for coming. [laughter] All right. [laughter] >> All right. Well, then we have next we have Paul Milsagel. Um, do you want to come up here? Same. >> Now, my item is on the agenda, but it's Go ahead. >> Sure. >> Your name, >> address, name and address, please. >> My business address is 21925 Industrial Boulevard in Rogers here. Um, I'm a first-time resident. I just moved here to Rogers in April. Longtime business owner. Um, we are an architectural metal fabricator. We've been in Rogers for 15 years. Um when we heard about the new city council, we worked with Leo Daly and we were the specified um architectural design for the exterior facade and through the bidding process and and everything we were made aware that we weren't the apparent low um for the product and I just wanted to make the council and everybody here aware that the apparent low did not solicit a number from America. facturer. We're not the installing contractor. We supply our numbers to the installing contractors and they are not using the specified product for the building. Um, and I just wanted to make the council and all the individuals aware. Um, we'd like to be part of the project. We're literally 210 of a mile down the road and uh, we've been doing this for well over 40 years and just wanted to bring it to everybody's attention. >> Thank you for sharing. All right. Thank you. All right, next we have Ashi. First time reading from a note so hang in there with me. It had like two three Bible draft in it. >> Share your address first please. >> I am about to Ashiwaba 13475 for Red Fox Road. So this is whichever way you want to take it. It's a venting a closure or whatever it need to be said in public and being recorded after we done. >> Okay. So >> oh it's going to be shorter than that. >> Okay. >> It's three bishes but I'll try to go fast and hang in there with me with the pronunciation. So it says yeah good evening. I'm here speaking on behalf of WW LLC, which is this is the entity about the formal property that the city owned with the address 12901 Main Street about roughly four years ago. We were excited about the purchase and maintaining the vision of improving and revitalizing Main Street and bringing the appropriate tenants to match the vision. We understood at closing that the easements we needed to operate the building had to be negotiated in the future after closing because an additional developer has been involved. But we were okay with that because we trusted the city and we would keep that they would keep their word. And we also had this in writing in multiple emails and in the purchase agreement, but we're not going to talk about that. After two and a half years of negotiation, a three-way agreement and accuring a lot of legal expenses, the developer and the city elected to cut us out of negotiation and fulfill their previous agreed up on terms and conditions and they elected to just leave us hanging dry. The city elected to sell the property so that to the developer and thought that the legal obligation to W&W and the easement that were entitled to would go away after closing. At this point, we had no choice but to sue the city. I'm standing here tonight because the conduct of the leadership and the elected official during the legal procedure was unacceptable. The five elected official elected to hide behind the legal procedure and not ask or seek the appropriate information and stuck what they were being told. You may think that the law suit had costed the taxpayer $1,000 because you triggered the insurance with the League of Minnesota. But if you request from finance to get you all legal fees, you will you will be shocked what you cost the taxpayers on legal fees outside the leagues of Minnesota. Lastly, I can't thank enough Councilman Kevin Julie and ex-Councilman Bruce Greki for getting this resolved. If they had not interjected, this will definitely and found the bigger picture for a resolution outside of court, this would definitely be going to court. So I thank you and I thank Bruce for seeing the bigger picture and mediating that even this matter is over and now we can talk about it or you had truly if you were truly investigated and you wanted to see the true results. I would encourage you to look at the judgment stipulation and what's on it because we received exactly what we've been asking for all along that it's signed by a judge. And lastly, and that will be the last, I feel like its history repeats itself with leadership and the no transparency. You guys acquired the Boyer property off of a lawsuit to make it go away. And tonight you are approving a $50 million project with no public input and relying on a four-year-old CIP. I am I'm understand that I'm saying 50 because I'm adding the real estate value on top of your 465. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ashie. >> Yep. [clears throat] >> All right. We have no presentations tonight, so we'll move on to approve agenda. Council members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The council will not normally take official action and items added to the agenda. Does anyone have anything to add? Does anyone want to make a motion? Move >> to approve the agenda as presented. >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> That motion passes. All right, we'll move on to consent agenda. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests in which at event the item will be removed from consent and placed elsewhere on the agenda. Does anyone have anything to remove today? >> All right to approve the consent agenda. I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> All right, that motion passes. We'll move on to public hearings. We have two tonight. First is 6.1. This is to vacate certain drainage and utility easements and establish new drainage and utility easements. Um, >> Madame Mayor and Council, uh, I'll be presenting this item. So the item before you is vacating a few drainage and utility easements and establishing new easements corresponding to the Asgard development. Uh so a little background on the Asgard development. It's a three-phase development. The first phase was the Broadway Pizza which is currently completed and operational. Uh second phase is Asgard mixeduse building which is the 90unit market rate apartment with ground flooror retail. And then the third phase is future commercial on the site of the former uh Broadway Pizza site, Broadway Pizza building which has since been demolished. Uh this development, the three-phase development was originally approved back in 2022. The plat was recorded with the phase one, so the new Broadway pizza. And at that time, there was defined easement areas that were part of the final plat. Since the approval and through a lot of conversations with Henipin County, there's a turn lane inclusion to add a right turn lane from County Road 144 into the development site. So, right on the property line between the phase 2 and phase three site. So, running essentially right where the insurance building currently sits. You can see the laser pointer kind of going up and [clears throat] down. Uh, and then just for referencing, these sites are zoned and guided as regional mixed use or RC. Um, this is very hard to see on the map, but uh this is an area that would be vacated. So, with the slight changes with the turn lane being included, there's a slight modification to the storm water pipe. Um, so it requires the current storm water easement, drainage and utility easement to be vacated and establish a new one. Um, so I in the red lettering you'll see it defines the lot. So essentially it's between the lots. There's a storm pipe that runs the south and then connects to the storm water pond to the south of the Broadway pizza. The proposed new easement is essentially in the same location, but there's a slightly different angle um that takes out a little bit more of the corner of the future commercial site or phase 3 site. There's also a water main easement as part of the phase 3 site. Probably the best way to show it is this depiction that shows the differences in the storm water pipe. So on the left you'll see the previous alignment. On the right you will see the new alignment of the stormwater pipe and then subsequently why there's a need for a vacation and establishment of new easements. So the recommended actions for tonight since this is a vacation it does require a public hearing. Following the public hearing there is a requested motion on the screen. And with that I can stand for any questions you may have for staff. Looks like standard bookkeeping. Right. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> Right. We have a motion to second. All in favor? >> I >> I All right. Would anyone like to speak to this motion? Would anyone like to speak to this motion? All right. Last time. Anyone like to speak to this motion? Right. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. I'll >> second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I. >> All right, that motion passes. >> Want want to make a motion? >> I'll go ahead and make a motion approve resolution 2026-68. I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> All right, that motion passes. All right, 62. We have another similar request. Building was originally built in the late 90s. building since um on June 9th a expansion or a site plan for the expansion of building which relates to the company growing and kind of space. So with expansion the building will hit approximately this property is also zoned and guided as regional use and with the increased per surface and updated storm water requirements. There are some additional storm water area building. Here's a site plan just to give a addition on the east side of the property. There's an existing storm water pond. Um so other property mostly the amended plans that kind of so the requested vacation would vacate the ement area on the establish a new following. Similar last item future questions. >> No, it's pretty straightforward. All right. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I >> All right, that motion passes. Um, would anyone like to speak to this item? Would anyone like to speak to this item? Uh, would anyone like to speak to this item? >> All right, with that, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> All right, that motion passes. [clears throat] >> Make a motion to approve resolution 2026-69. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I. >> All right, that motion passes. Okay, we're done with public hearings. We'll move on to general business. First item is 7.1 items related to city hall and police department civic campus bid package. Mayor, council members, the item before you is a consideration of a couple items related to the civic campus city project 2202. As a little background, the project uh the proposed site plan includes the construction of a um civic campus uh building of approximately 60,000 square feet. It will house city hall, the council chambers and the police department. Uh city hall would be a one-story building and the police department which also houses it and is would be on the second floor of that building. The floor plan is on the back of the room and on the screen as well. This is the first floor, the um secured garage. The green is the police department. Pink is the shared spaces, which are the council chambers and a training room as well as a fitness center. And city hall is shown in blue. On the second floor is police administration and is shown in yellow. Here's a couple renderings. These are also in your packet. This is looking at the front door of the facility facing uh John Deere Lane. This is looking at the east side of the building which is the council chambers. This is looking at the uh north side of the building um which is the entire facility. You'll see the police on the right hand side and city hall in the middle and the council chambers on the left. And this is a site looking from the parking lot at the police portion of the facility. As you recall, back in January, the city council approved uh an agreement with um Terra Construction to be the city's construction manager at risk. And in February, the city council approved a preliminary plat and site plan for the civic campus. On April 29th or 28th, I'm sorry, the city council approved bid package one and the bidder qualification selection criteria and um authorized solit solicitation of bids. On May 26, the city council accepted the bids for the demolition, the pre-cast panels which locked in the price and the schedule and earthwork and utilities. Well, it also include the uh rammed aggregate peers for the foundation of the building and that was bid package one and that was $2.153 million and that work is underway right now. The building has been demolished and they have been been grading on the site. Um the city council did approve much like they did for bid package one a bidder qualifica qualification selection criteria. Um and Tara proposed the same process for bid package two as they did bid package one. They competitively bid all trades per statute. All biders were required to submit their bid and uh prepare the pass fail checklist. On June 9th, the city council approved bid package 2 and that criteria and authorizes solicitation of bids. And the plan at the time was that bid package 2 would then be incorporated in with bid package one with a new amendment to the guaranteed maximum price uh which would be amendment number two to combine the two bid packages. At the time of bid package one selection. The estimated value of bid package 2 was $34.5 million and bid package 2 included all the remaining scopes of work and those bids were due on July 21st at 400 p.m. At the time of the bidding and the week before the bidding, it was the most active project on the electronic bidding platforms. Uh we had 154 biders submit bids on the 21st. Bids were opened and tabulated in real time. I took credit to Terara Construction. They were able to pull that off in about an hour and 15 minutes and we watched it real time as the low biders populated the bid tabulation. Um, again after over an hour we uh at the time of the uh bid day, the lowest biders on that bid package 2 totaled $32.25 million. Since then, I'll talk about this a little bit more later on, four of the low biders in different p uh different bid categories um withdrew their bids. So, the remaining lowest responsible biders for the bid categories uh the guaranteed maximum price for bid package 2, which now includes bid package one, is 38,957,873. The total estimated project costs including general conditions, insurance, bonds, the uh construction manager at risk fee, contingency, engineering, administration, legal, furnishings, technology, and the utility relocations is now 45,300,000. If you recall back when we had the 75% design estimate back in April, we had a total estimated project cost of $43 million. So, right now we're sitting at $2.3 million over that estimate from April. And I'll go through the things that have contributed to that, the factors that contribute to that. So, first again, uh the four lowest biders and four bid categories, carpentry, doors, glass, and security doors, withdrew their bids, and that resulted in a $700,000 increase um in those bids. Um the acoustic ceiling tile, the um acoustic ceiling for the council chambers that was included in the bid package were not bid on by the lowest bidder. So we're carrying a contingency or allowance of $150,000 to redesign and come up with a new council chambers. Um the bid category for the elevators. The base uh basis of design was the KA elevator um which is the contractor that supplies all of the maintenance services for all of our other elevators. Um that was the basis of the design and the bid and they did not bid on the elevator category. So all the other qualified biders we have to modify the elevator shaft and so we're carrying a $20,000 allowance for that. our bid category for our HVAC um did not include the preferred vendor. So, we're carrying a uh for the controls. So, we're carrying a $40,000 allowance for the preferred vendor. um the bid category for bid package one essentially. Um at the time we had unknown uh earthwork and soil remedi remediation as well as vapor mitigation. So we're carrying a $670,000 allowance for those items. Um the April estimate did not include the response action plan which is the engineering needed to do the um soil remediation. Uh and so we're uh carrying $100,000 for that based on a actual um quote from them that the council did approve previously. Um the estimate back in April did not include costs for the private utility relocations that the council has recently approved. So we have $250,000 in private utility relocations that we're now carrying in the total project cost. The April estimate included $320,000 for technology items. Um we've updated those estimates to current quotes and we're now at $800,000 which was a $480,000 change from the April estimate. The April estimate did not include our internal engineering that the city council recently approved a reduction to 0.5%. So, we're carrying $1845,000 for that. Um, the April estimate included $75,000 for special inspections. And we um got uh two different quotes for that. The low quote was $113,000. So, there was $38,000 more than the April estimate. The April estimate did not include a required third-party peer review of the storm shelter. um as required by code and based on uh recent quotes, we're carrying $20,000 for that. Um we the April estimate didn't include uh quote or costs for internal signage or a visitor management system. So, we're carrying $30,000 for those items based on quotes [clears throat] or based on estimates, I'm sorry. Um, we did not include in the April estimate moving expenses, but expecting to move in January, we included we're now including $200,000 for moving expenses based on um estimates from a previous project. April estimate included $34,000 for whack and sack, but we've since gotten a sack determination from the Met Council and the net change is $119,200 because we're now at $153,200. There's also additional fees based on the increased costs for the construction manager, their contingency, insurance, and bonds, and those fees are proportionately increased. So all those factors account for $3 million of that $2.3 million overage. Want to talk a little bit about a couple bid alternatives. Um, the lowest bidder for the electrical, which includes the lighting, uh, proposed a voluntary alternative deduct of $300,000 for what they termed value valued engineering lighting. We're not quite sure yet what that is. Um, but we'll certainly be looking into that to try to reduce those costs. We did have an alternative to conver convert um in flooror heating in the police garage to radiant heating and that would be a deduct of $55,950 and none of the parties to this project feel that that's a a value uh that should be considered and would not select that alternative. Alternative two was uh lightning protection for the campus facility for $75,000. And all the parties to the design and construction of this facility think that is a value ad and and the proposal before you this evening includes that alternative. So the recommendations before you are on the uh screen. We've got representatives from Tara and Leo A daily here if there are any questions for them and I can certainly stand for questions or go back over any items that you over go back to a couple of those overage items as you go to the engineering One was that four eight actually there technology items. Can you explain what how that's not recognized earlier on the bidding process? Madame Mayor, council members, um the technology items include quite a few things. Um there we had surveillance is included in that. We have card access. Um we have an intrusion alarm, an intercom. At the time of 75% design, we didn't know how many doors were going to be require card access. We didn't know how many cameras we were going to be needing. And as we went through the design process and finalized the design, those numbers kept going up and up and up as we added security to the building. Um, we had an intercom to the s to the um facility. Um, as part of the um technology upgrades, we're also doing network switches. We have a $25,000 allowance for additional computers. What the plan is is as computers are set to expire as a facility is set to go online, new computers will go into the new facility, the ones that are set to expire will be expired. If they're not set to expire, computers will go from the existing facilities to the new facility. Um there's additional um public safety radio is at a higher cost than we had anticipated. Um yeah, so I would just say that there's just more and more than we had anticipated at the 75. >> Okay. So that's what you're getting at is we we knew there was cost associated with all this stuff and there was a contingency or an allowance and this is the delta above what that allowance was. >> Correct. So it's not things that were forgotten or overlooked. They're just things that became known later in the process. >> Correct. Is that true with 100%. >> Yeah. Some of them just seem large and that's what was >> but and it could have been a process of just adding more. We sound like you looked at things to added value. >> Is it common for that? I mean what's the total list? Dorne >> $3 million. >> No, I mean items is [clears throat] there 15 of them or >> Yes. >> Is it common for that many items to be missed when at 75%. >> Uh, madame mayor and council members, I would not say they were missed. They just became known between 75% and 100%. Like for example, special inspections, we knew we had to do them, but now we've got quotes for them, so we we now know what they are. So, almost all of these items um included in your packet was the updated cost estimate. All the items that were in red text are items that were based or in red text are items that were estimates and are just placeholders now because we don't know what they're going to be like the commissioning fees. We just don't know what they're going to be until we send it out for quotes to get commissioning. All the items that were highlighted in that spreadsheet are all quotes, things that we actually know, like the city council approving the engineering fees. If we'd included the standard engineering fees in the 75% design estimate, it would have been over a million dollars. But the city council said, "No, that's probably extraordinary given the size of the project and the fact that we have a construction manager and an architect on this project. Dor, if my math, real rough math was this afternoon when I was looking at it, um, about 5% different than the 75% estimate, give or take, >> correct? >> Yeah, that that's what I was just >> absolutely >> Oh, sure. So, just Doran, two things that jumped out at me tonight. We don't normally respond to public input, and I don't want to suggest that that's what I'm doing exactly, but um the public input related to action that's proposed for tonight. I guess I understood the the um suggestion to be that a material supplier um the the type of material that was specked is not being provided by the low bidder of that material. So I wonder about that. I wonder if you can comment on that or if that's something that Terra handled that hasn't come to you. And then the other thing I heard you say was that there were a couple of low bids that I think you were talking about postoping were withdrawn which is of course not typical. Um and there's limits on the ability to do that. So I just wonder if that has been vetted by Tara andor by you. >> Yeah mary council members I will certainly allow Tara to respond to both the uh speaker and the withdrawal of bids. Um but just as a reminder to the council under the construction manager at risk the contracts between the subcontractors and Tara are their contracts. Our contract is with Tara. >> Good microphone. So um Ana Beck senior project manager from Terara Construction and then >> Jake Dimemer I'll be the project manager of Terra Construction. >> So um I guess we'll just address with regards to the metal panel. So there's always a basis design architects and we do actually have Anna with Leo a daily here. So basis of design is what they use to actually design the project. Beyond that there's approved other manufacturers. So the basis of design is what they draw the drawings off of what they lay out the specs. So just to note that actually there were other approved manufacturers for the metal panel. When we get bids in that low bidder, we don't know who their subs are. they're just committed to that number. Um, we haven't written contracts to anybody yet because we have to obviously go through this process of approval, they are held to what'sever in those contract documents. So, as long as they don't withdraw their bid, which when we vet, so when all these 150 biders come in, when we get a low number because we are the CM this, so we're giving you a GMP, right? It's a guaranteed maximum price. So, we got to make sure that this is a qualified bidder and their their bid is real. So, we start asking them questions and what ended up happening is they found out that they missed big ticket items. We did come across somebody that missed something, but they said, "Nope, we're good with our number." So, they literally ate, you know, tens of thousands of dollars and that's up to them, but they are within their rights to be able to pull that bid at that bidding time until we write a contract with them. Um, what were the other items? I think there was another question. >> No, I think those are the two that that jumped out at me. Just to your last point just to confirm that is a distinction when you as a construction manager at risk >> because we take >> we receive bids there quite limited ability post opening >> you handle that separately >> and then once we basically execute the the GMP we assume that risk so if if we find out that one of our low biders we're the ones negotiating that and we're the ones taking that out of our contingency that's not an owner issue. That's the difference between a CM as an agent versus CM at risk. Do you guys have any other >> Okay, thank you. >> What other questions do we have? Uh what we had a couple items at the back end, Dorne, that were um al alternatives. I just wanted to comment on them, I guess. Um yeah, we're certainly going to explore the 330,000. Um I agree with 01. I think the in flooror heating is the way to go. Um and yeah, you've got good input on the lightning protection. I guess I agree with everything you got there. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Dorwin, it's said that something's been agreed upon. Is that if it pertain to the police department, that's Chief Wills and his staff. I mean, who who who are the ones that weigh in on if something's an added value or not? Madame Mayor, council members, certainly the contractor. Yeah. the architect, for example, on the lightning protection, the cont the architect did a risk benefit calculation that's used, a typical calculation that said, "Yeah, it's probably a good idea to use it on this facility. It's got a lot of technology in this building. You probably want to protect it." Um, I think I can speak for the chief and and I think the fire chief would agree that the inf flooror heating is much better than the radiant heating in keeping the building warm and keeping it clean >> and keep keeping the floor dry. >> Mhm. Yep. Yeah. I guess my question was just ensuring that staff had opportunities to weigh in on this. Sounds like it did. a time period that we have to pay this tremendous bill. Anybody know that? >> Director Bruska knows that. >> Madame Mayor and Council, >> we got 18 months interest free financing. The question is how long do we have to pay this off? So the funding sources for this project include some facilities capital reserve which were savings that we had on hand. Um the council has had discussions and designated unrestricted funds notably tower and billboard leases um to be put towards this project. not only the current balance on hand but future revenues as well. And then furthermore, we have um allocated our underserved municipalities distribution that we receive annually towards helping to pay this off. So whatever we are financing with a capital improvement bond will be paid back over a period of 20 years. The current bond run is showing an interest rate of slightly over 4% with a 50 basis points cushion. So 0.5% cushion. >> So it's going to take us 20 years to pay this off then. >> Correct. 20 years for capital improvement debt is very common in city government. So included, madame mayor and council, within the packet is a funding source breakdown which has some rounded numbers in it, but we would be looking to bond for just under $40 million. dollar. >> Correct. [clears throat and cough] >> And that number might change as we go. No, we got to this point over many. >> That's why right our guaranteed maximum price. >> Yeah. >> That you can 20 years to >> now. Jim, you've been in most of these meetings. We've been talking about this for a long time. >> Yeah. It's It sucks being 2026, Jim. Maybe neither of them. >> I don't know. Right. >> No, you're right. It's uh 20 years to pay off a project that we should have done 20 years ago. >> Yep. >> We did it 20 years ago. It only be with the cost. >> Correct. >> Well, just like I tell my wife, hindsight is 2020. Hope she's not listening tonight. >> We've been pushing this off for a long time. Yeah, that's the cost of kicking things down the road. >> Yep. It's been a long pathway to get here. I think since I've been on council five years ago, we've been talking about this. It was in the capital improvement plan for many years ahead of that. I know there's been part of our downtown study. Um, I truly believe it's a a an asset to the downtown area as well. There's uh there's a lot of ancillary reasons I think benefits to what we've been trying to do downtown area. Um, I know it's a big cost, but I appreciate the patience. You know, I mean, we've put a lot of time into this. We had a plan a while back to expand some of our existing buildings that were going to run out on us. shoot, we'd be close to being full in those things already. So, while it's a tough pill to swallow, it seems necessary and I think it's sets the city up well for our future and um it's kind of what we've needed. I think we've done a great job over the years squeezing out everything we could with the buildings and resources we have, but it's just it's time to uh move on to the next thing. and we're here and yeah, the costs have gone up tremendously, but any longer of a wait, I think we're going to see them go up more. So, appreciate everyone's work on this staff level and um >> I support this. >> I think it's going to be in the newsletter. Yeah. >> Right. Okay. I mean, I'd like a good comprehensive article because this is the really major expense for >> Yep. >> Ter Rogers. >> Yep. >> There's a considerable amount of detail in the packet today and I think you've been part of many conversations that we've had on this. Yep. Right. >> We have these meetings every month. Second and fourth Tuesday. You know that. [laughter] >> So the full packet is available to every resident of this city to review. But yes, I encourage an article. >> Yep. I agree. >> Well, we touched on it in past newsletter, right? multiple. >> Yeah. So, I mean it's not a secret >> newsletter website. >> Yep. >> Hanging on the fence. >> Oh, by the way, >> the projects. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, um I don't know if there's nothing else. [clears throat] I'll go ahead and move to accept bids for bid package number two, including the alternate number two for lightning protection for 75,000. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. [snorts] All right, that motion passes. >> And then Jim can blame me because I'll make both of these motions. I'll move to approve the guaranteed maximum price amendment number two for bid package number one to include bid package number two. >> Second. >> All right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> oppose. All right. That motion passes. >> All right. One more item. We have uh 7.2 two items related to park maintenance to MEO position. >> Madame Mayor, council members, if you recall earlier this year, we had a retirement in our park maintenance of our park maintenance supervisor and that resulted in some cascading positions moving up and created a vacancy. So back in April um through May, a part of May, we went through a process to hire a park maintenance uh backfill. Um through that process, we ended up hiring a current um seasonal employee, Spencer Majaras, but also through that process, we had another really, really good candidate. um that person had applied for the position at least three previous occasions and on this occasion he was the number two candidate and what we're seeking to do is we have in the FMP and we spoke about it earlier during the budget discussions uh a position in 2027 of park maintenance medium equipment operator. I'm seeking uh approval to move that position up to a mid-year hire this year. Um it's again it's really kind of filling half of a position, but we're hoping to fill that with the second candidate from the last candidate process. That candidate is Eric Kolas. He um has a CDL. He has a sport certificate. He's done landscaping, irrigation. Uh he operates a skid steel, skid steer, zero turn mowers, weed whips, backpack blowers, and he can plow. Um he also does baseball and softball field preparation as a member of the St. Michael Albertville men's softball league and as the St. Michael's um youth baseball board and fundraising. Um, so we're looking to fill that position midyear this year. It would have negligible impact on the budget because it is a midyear and because Spencer Majaras was hired at a quite a bit lower uh grade level than the person he backfilled. So, we're simply seeking to fill that position now and make a conditional offer to Eric Kohas um condition upon a background check and Negative drug test. >> All right. What do you think? Questions? Anyone? >> No, it's no that cascading effect of the retirement and moving all the pieces. So, I'll go ahead and move to approve the filling of the program 2027 park maintenance 2 medium equipment operator position in 2026. >> I'll second that. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I >> All right, that motion passes. And I'll make a motion to approve the hiring of Eric Kohus to the position of park maintenance to MEO. >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> All right, that motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, we have no other business. Correspondence and reports are online and we are adjourned. Thank you.