Good evening mostlyformational um and to just give kind of give uh the okay to just continue on the path we're we're doing now.

program begins January 1st, 2026. U legislators set aside $670 million to fund this program.

I would recommend using that third party provider.

my thought is I I agree with the private third party plan. I think for the reasons you stated plus the decrease. I I guess I didn't even see that. Maybe that was in the pack and I just missed it. I mean, that's a nice benefit that when we kind of revamped the whole benefit package, it's actually going to be a savings to the city with more coverage really than what the employees were having before.

I think letting them use a supplemental u income is actually a benefit to the city. You know, one, the employer doesn't employee doesn't lose income, which doesn't put them in a difficult position and they can focus on getting better or getting their loved one better.

really the issue before the council is big picture is what does the council want to do with the building and I came up with six options.

They evaluated the old fire station and basically said, I'm sorry, the old city hall, and they basically said that there were $1,000 of urgent issues, 862,000 of short-term issues, a little bit over 80,000 midterm and 38,000 long-term issues. And that 420,000 of the short-term issues are related to the exterior envelope.

I would strongly support option two, demolish the building, expand the parking, an additional 30 plus parking stalls would improve city hall's ability to host meetings, conferences, elections, alternative parking location during snow removal, public parking during events in the area near Kakoro, National Out, tree lighting, Fourth of July parade, the 101 anniversary celebration, existing parking, or the existing asphalt on the old city hall parking lot is failing.

I'm more in favor of not demolishing it. And I guess four, five, and six all seem like kind of the options I'd prefer.

Well, maybe what we need to get a better understanding is what are the parking needs? If we truly have parking needs here at city hall that that we have to meet, you know, today and going to the future, I'm not opposed to going along with a parking lot there.

Open burning is are are basically larger fires um piled debris, piled brush. This isn't recreational fires. We're not talking about the backyard 3x3 bonfire.

I think the discussion that we want to have is as the city grows, we really want to make sure that we're continuing to set the stage appropriately with being safe about open burning. And that goes from the perspective of, you know, are they doing it appropriately within the means of the permit itself and following the rules that we've set forth, but also are they being a good neighbor?

maybe areas that are considered residential, the newer village or the old village, some of the newer neighborhoods, things of that nature. Um, kind of reduces the likelihood of us having those nuisance calls, but then still gives people the opportunity that have the space to do it to do it.

We would want to kind of sunset this or or set this ordinance change to happen. I if we moved and said we're gonna we'll come to you in a couple months with an updated ordinance. I I wouldn't ask to have this take effect until like January of 27.