##VIDEO ID:Ne9fOXS9Og0## stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all has Council had the opportunity to review the meeting minutes of September 3rd if so I'll ask for a motion make a motion to accept the meeting minutes as presented I'll second motion from Robin second from Rick those in favor May State I I opposed carried any changes to this evening agenda hearing none I'll ask for a motion to approve the set agenda motion to approve the agenda is presented second motion from Rick second from Robin those in favor can State I I opposed carried guest an open Forum anybody here for guest and open Forum seeing no one we're going to move into committee reports Personnel committee Personnel met on 96 uh we discussed the benefit renewal information that budget and finance had reviewed sending it over to personnel and I believe we kicked it back and then the police chief retirement time frame which has been placed on your on your counter for today this is the timeline that we worked in order to recruit interview and then also go into the higher process allowing time for that individual to be backgrounded um complete their exams and then resignation and then a hire he so take a look at that if there's anything that you feel needs to be adjusted probably let Greg know and then we can work work work that but all right Eda Eda uh we had a special meeting at 4:30 today and that was to discuss uh item 8 Alpha on our agenda tonight all right public works as you can see you'll get um a replay of our Public Works meeting this evening we have five issues that were approved from our committee over to council this evening and uh fireboard we also met last night uh we discussed a couple of policies and procedure updates from Red path and then it was just kind of um maintenance as as normal there wasn't really any approvals or any policies nothing so that was about it Police Department police department SL City Hall project update great uh the excavation has been done for footings um and you can see the rebar has been going in for the last couple of days they did poor footings on this side today and I think they'll finish up the remainder of the week will'll be spent getting footings uh poured and and ready for Block work starting next week okay good any other committees that we missed not we're going to move into board committee Ian consultant reports Eda Bond sale for Police Department City Hall project Mr lude uh as the council knows we um scheduled the bond sale for today and uh this is kind of the culmination of the the project um we uh chose to do a lease Revenue Bond and Jessica Green from Northland Securities will be here to talk about in just a minute but I just want to give a little background on the attachments to the resolution because this is a lease Revenue Bond there are some documents that the city approves basically agreements with the Eda uh the first one is a ground lease which gives the Eda an ownership interest in the city hall property um and then the lease Revenue gives responsibility to the city to do the lease hold improvements and manage the building as we as we currently do and the indent indenture of trust um will be the city will handle that for the Eda work with the trustee to uh request dispersements for Bond proceeds to make bond payments and then they will make uh pay the bond holders um so those would um after Jessica gets done and and the resolution will be before you those will be the three documents along with the bond sale that you will approve tonight and so with that I'd invite Jessica to come up mayor council good evening good evening I'm giggling a little bit because the three of you just had to sit through all of this at the Ed meeting um so as Greg just mentioned you have a resolution for your consideration um related to the issuance and sale of $5,760 th000 in public project lease revenue bonds this will be considered series 2024a these are uh bonds that are being issued by The Economic Development Authority assuming that the council is supportive of that um so as council member Hendrickson said um the Eda met at 4:30 this afternoon and they did pass a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of the bonds however those actions are contingent upon the city council taking action affirm affirmatively um stating that they are in support of the project and of the bond sale so um as Greg went over there was a bond sale this morning um the sale went very well we had two bids come in with Piper Sandler out of Minneapolis being the low bidder here um so the sales summary that you have in front of you um provides some of the high level detail for the bond sale um so I'll go through that quickly and then take any questions that the council may have um so proceeds here being used to finance the um renovation and expansion of City Hall and the police department here within City Hall um we have a 15year structure for the bonds and the city will enter into a lease arrangement with the Eda um and to make lease payments to the Eda now you can use any revenues that are available to the city it's our understanding of course that you will um Levy for the payment of um that lease payment to the Eda the trustee will be involved in collecting those dollars from the city and then and making sure that the Eda payments are distributed to the investors of the bonds the method of sale here today is competitive again two bids were received with Piper Sandler being the low bid um the rating on the bonds here is A1 um now the city's rating is that is outstanding for any of your general obligation bonds is considered able A3 so we're seeing a one notch um difference here for this issuance and that is because it is an annual appropriation as opposed to your general obligation bonds now with the um the rating review they did affirm the city's double A3 rating for any outstanding General obligation Bond so I don't want Council to feel that this is um a downgrade it is simply a reflection of the credit itself that it is annual appropriation as opposed to G General obligation um the city scores very well um against Moody's methodology in fact they share their scorecard with us and you score out at a AAA um the challenge for the city is that you have some concentration here in your tax base and because of the decommissioning activities um the rating agency continues to have some concerns about that um however they are very excited about the development that they're seeing Happening Here in the city and what's expected here in the city so they're taking more of a wait and see approach with um how they are providing a rating to the city so depending upon how those decommissioning activities go forward what the market value ends up looking like in the next couple couple of years we're hopeful that we'll see some some um upward movement but um we'll we'll see how that goes um with that um final maturity here February 1 of40 we have an optional call February 1 of 2032 and then finally um at the bottom there's just a a brief table so we went from a par amount of 5, 970,000 and we're ending with 5,760 th000 reason being for that reduction is that we received premium with the bids that were received today what that means is that investors are looking for a higher coupon or stated interest rate on the bonds and they're willing to give you cash at the time of sale to get there so the city effectively pays less in principal but more in interest over the life of the bonds however we did also see a reduction in the true interest cost cost that we had estimated so going from 4.28% to 3.71 so a pretty nice reduction there what that amounts to in terms of total debt service is about 350 $5,000 um in um a reduction in overall Debt Service over the life of the bonds we have the bid tab on the following page so you can see the bid that came in from Piper Sandler at 3.75 and then um Robert W Beed out of Milwaukee being the cover bid at 3.85% um so about 14 basis points um for the spread of that cover so a little bit larger than we like to see um but um like I said Piper delivered a very nice bid today so um we'll go on to page four the pricing summary is in the middle of that page so here's where we're looking at the actual stated rate on the bonds or the coupon and then comparing that with the yield so this is in the third and the fourth column from the left so the coupon again at 4% that's what investors were looking for today however the yield um to the city starts out at that 2.83% and then um ascending scale here out to 3.85% in 2040 so what you're seeing from the yield perspective is taking that cash into consideration um which is why we look at this on a true interest cost rather than an average coupon basis and then we've got your debt service schedule and finally the last couple of pages here just some um graphs related to um sort of Market Behavior so looking at the Last 5 Years um in terms of that snapshot and then going out um longer term view over 20 years I will um I'll wrap up my comments there but I am happy to take any questions that the counil may have any questions for Jessica otherwise we have a resolution 2481 for consideration m a motion to adopt resolution 2481 approving the ground lease lease agreement indenture of trust continuing disclosure undertaking and sale of bonds second motion from Rick second from Robin any other discussion with none those in favor can State I opposed carried thank you Jessica thank you very much all right Mr listen water truck number two replacement chair helping stool it's kind of bounc down and bounc back up as needed all right good evening mayor and Council a few items for you tonight um first item we have is water truck number two replacement um it's RCA in resolution 2476 uh so the current water truck number two is a 2016 Ford F350 has about 56,000 miles on it per our CIP plan for the the water side it is me met its replacement time frame of eight years uh staff did go out and get quotes for the vehicle replacement which I included in the packet that does include the the chassis the outfitting and then the insallation of a snow plow uh the concept with this is we would uh instead of trading this vehicle in we would move it uh into the Wastewater Fleet as such and then move a truck from there over two streets uh trying to keep the best vehicles we have in our Fleet and then declaring one of our older vehicles that's seeing some issues it's a 2007 Chevy 2500 service truck uh we would ask that that be declared Surplus and we would send that one off to auction uh we did discuss this uh vehicle replacement along with the trades I I know Tracy I tried my best to keep short brief so you could follow as I went so hopefully I did well um with public works and the Public Works committee did approve it to go to council for consideration uh so I outlined the vehicle costs in the RCA uh included the quotes that staff obtained uh the total cost for the vehicle uh minus that trade in value be$ 72 9283 we did budget $70,000 in the water CIP for this replacement uh so it's a little bit more than what we have budgeted but it does uh fit within our cash policy for our water CIP fund so what I'm looking for tonight would be a motion in a second approving resolution 2476 uh for water truck number two replacement as outlined in the RCA for a price not to exceed 72 9283 and I will stand for for any questions so you acquired the tradein value just said what would it be worth if we traded it and that's what you're using for yeah we took it to a dealership and asked them you know what would this be worth to you they they wanted to buy it that day we brought it in so uh it was it was still good value of that vehicle uh so we're going to take that money out of both the domestic industrial Ops and then some of the street operations to cover that cost put those back into those funds and then keep that vehicle inhouse it still has low mileage it's still in really good shape the 2007 Chevy is not quite as in good shape it's got some issues so it's a good time for that one to go away and it's a good opportunity to do that so yep I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2476 approving the replacement of water truck number two as outlined in the RCA for a price not to exceed $ 72,982 no second out motion from Robin second from Rick any other discussion hearing none those in favor can State I opposed carried thank you water tower number three valve replacement Mr listen all right so RCA and resolution 2477 for the replacement of a 16-inch valve on water tower number three um there are a couple of lines that connect the lower portion or the lower I mean Water Tower 3 is essentially two water towers in one so we've got the lower column and the upper bowl so there's piping that connects the two so we can move water from one side to the other uh the 16-inch valve that would be one of the isolation valves uh started leaking while we found it when we were uh trying to isolate it last fall we did some took some steps to try to see if we could operate it run some water back through it see if we could get it to stop leaking it just never did um so we're looking to replace that valve um the reason we want to see it replaced is that we do take that lower portion offline in the fall as water usage decreases when people quit or stop watering their lawn for the season then we can take that offline we don't have to keep it filled because otherwise we'd be worried about stagnant water and not enough use and keep that moving so um of course if that valve doesn't isolate water then the water can leak back in and then we have problems um our concern would be potential for freezing which one could damage uh the pipes or the valves and that kind of thing and or if it was frozen but pipes weren't damaged but we need to use the tower the L portion for an emergency the pipe's Frozen it's quite a process to try to get that thought out so uh the best bet would be to replace the valve now so we have that in working condition moving forward um this valve replacement we did discuss it with uh Public Works committee and they approved bringing it to council for consideration obviously it wasn't planned in my operation budget or the CIP uh just something that came up um part of that is because we would expect a valve like this to last 30 to 45 years roughly so we're not quite there 20 two we're getting there but not quite there yet um we did get two quotes for the uh replacement work um one local contractor and one that was in town working on a project um due to the cost of the total replacement we were looking to use uh CIP water CIP funds to pay for the repair I did include in your packet kind of a picture from the plan set so you can kind of see which valve we're looking to replace I did include an overhead and two in case anybody forgot where Water Tower 3 was just in case so put that in there for reference uh with that what I'd be looking for tonight would be a motion and a second to approve resolution 2477 for the replacement of that water valve in Tower number three has outlined the RCA and for a price not to exceed 27162 and with that I can stand for any questions so I was thinking about this a little bit with um because just to take it out of the CIP I mean I I know it's not a budgeted thing and I don't know how I don't know how you would um because I would assume this would have came in with the original wat this would have been just part of the original cost it's not something you normally would break out and say okay this gets a separate CIP item we don't do every valve in the city nope um I just thinking of a way to account for it a instead of just taking it out of the I don't like just taking it out of the CIP I guess without uh without something being there MH um I guess my plan going forward is I could include this one in the CIP that way we'd have a way to kind of spread that cost over the lifespan and then we would be collecting through our rates to pay for that now we don't do that for every other valve in the city but these valves are a little bit different their valve isn't 35,000 bucks either but yep yep so I know when we in public works Mike did ask well would we just pay for it out of operations and I we we could I guess but I it it wasn't planned for there either so that will make that line item a little out of whack um if we paid for it that way so that in my mind it was I know we have funds available in the CP and it's kind of an unplanned and fairly expensive repair so that was the direction I was thinking what about just doing it as a onetime entry next year not something that we would keep forward going but at least if it's covered for next year there's a a line for it sure at least they have accountability for those funds yeah I don't like just taking out of there I guess yeah so make sure it's listed in the capap for the as a 2025 project we'll do it now obviously but then okay um that way there's still a a line it would it would um yeah we would have we have St have that comfort in the CP budget still yet for this year but Lori I'll work with you on that one y you can do that yeah then I won't I won't put it in there as a plan for each year through replacement then yep okay okay then I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2477 approving the replacement of water tower number three valve by Ruck Excavating uh for a price not to exceed 27162 second motion from Robin second from Rick any other discussion hearing none those in favor can say I I opposed carried the 212 acre well exploration Mr listen all right so um I an RCA and then resolution 2478 uh regarding additional well exploration on the 212 Acre Site uh so towards the end of last year we did conduct well exploration on this site we did identify one potential Well site trout did put in a test well did test pumping and we did collect a sample of the water and analyzed it for what the parameters were uh just a reminder of the samples came back and the test pumping kind of showed that this well that we currently have still in place uh had low very low irons similar to what we have in our other existing City Wells uh they estimated gallons per minute out of that well could be 400 or more um and had very accept acceptable nitrate rates very similar to what we have in I think the test was 4.4 milligrams per liter so very similar to our existing Wells uh below the 10 that is the MCL defined by Department of Health um our goal here would be condition conduct additional well exploration really to see if this site has any more potential uh when we talked with trout and asked them to set up kind of a drilling plan if we did more where do you what would you want to concentrate um there kind of idea was to focus more on the Southeast side or South Southwest side along the river um that's where the one test well still is located so there were potential there and then they did propose two spots kind of up Norther more North on the property uh which would kind of finish a line across the entire property so we'd get a good look at kind of a crosssection of that piece and then and some Focus down on the area where we did find one good site um we with well seven and eight after we did the pilot study and coming to the realization that we can't use them without treatment being added we still need additional sources of water one for our existing you know with our with our water study that we completed we'd be good in our current space till about 2030 so and if our city starts to grow more than what was projected in that then we would have to meet that growth and then we also know we have things going on across the street potentially so there might be needs that we need to meet and so we need to continue to look for water um so this would be a good opportunity because it is our property um so we could do this we could see what we would find that site and would kind of give us uh a direction as to what might be the next step for our water supply system uh so I did include the quote in here for what trout I was looking at doing I did include their their plan so you kind of see the spot they're looking at uh drilling on um we did work with Finance to see where we would have funds for this uh Finance did confirm that we have approximately $3,700 of funds in the water CIP from past well exploration planning that we didn't spend so there's some money available there that we did not spend up to this point um the number that we would look to ask for in uh this resolution is uh price not to to see $60,000 the goal being we wouldn't actually want to spend up to that number um if we do the drilling nothing really looks good we wouldn't do any additional test holes we wouldn't do any test pumping any Water Analysis but if we did find two or three spots that look good we would have funds available to do the test well do the test pumping take a water sample get with analysises and see you know so we can kind of really tell if there's another couple of sites there or if it's we've kind of yep we've looked in the site as kind of we got one spot and that's really what we got so that's the the goal with doing this additional testing as Phil would probably say there's maybe other things that we could talk about at some point but we can't right now so um so with that said what I'd be looking for tonight would be um motion a second to approve resolution 2478 approving the additional well exploration on the city owned 212 ACR site uh as outlined in the RCA and for a price not to exceed exceed $60,000 and with that I will stand for any questions when we have a an area to find if we say we're going to do say the southwest corner or whatever I mean how um how specific does I mean I know you'll get VAR answers you walk around the two sticks or whatever but I mean does it does it have like um re and know the reason I'm asking this question is um you know with Jacob's work that you know the um his department is doing for what we're going to do with that land um what I wouldn't want to see is you know especially when we talk about by the what maybe think of when we said by the river you potentially those could be higher higher dollar homes we wouldn't want to give up one of those for a well spot if it's something we could move in advance MH I guess so what um how ex how movable are these like within how many feet rough uh I mean your well is going to be where well is but we can always move the water from the well to a well house that's further away so you'd have a raw water line carrying it so there you could still utilize that you know riverfront property in the way that would allow for those nicer homes than that and you can you can get all kinds of different covers for a well itself so we would still need to maintain you know access for staff to get there to inspect it and do that kind of thing but you can put a cover on it that would make it blend into I don't know if we've got the Mirror covers like some of those new fancy uh hunting things yet where you kind of reflect what you see but uh they've they've you know like well 7 and8 got kind of the stainless steel cabinets over them I wouldn't suggest that there but I mean you could have something that looks very similar to the houses in the area so it' kind of blend into the surroundings so we don't need to have a wellhouse right next to it you'd see basically you know the pipe with the well head on the top and that would be all you'd have to have right there if it was along the river and then we could move it from the well to a wellhouse that's situated further away yeah I just would hate to see us give up an entire lot if it was something we could have moved or something I would think we could position somehow where you could get an access along an edge and get to it if you need to and then go back out and do you recall on that mapping like where these exploration were they up against the river they're pretty yeah they're pretty close uh I can we spent a lot of time at Public Works discussing this topic and looking at kind of the last the last page so they've got I know people at home can't see that but essentially there was two uh holes kind towards the upper part of that property they would look to do one on either side just to kind of finish that cut across and then they were kind of focusing along the tree line kind of along where the river runs on that property and which is also kind of directly across the river from where we have well three on the golf course so um that kind of help yeah I just wanted them to understand like it wasn't right up against the river yep but yeah I mean the nice thing is if we do this now and we do identify those spaces and it does help Jacob and Engineering as they work through that process to you know yeah utilize the space as best we can for both needs m y that' probably be an easement or something that we would carve into that land anyway so yeah I know we've talked with Park and wck about you know there Trails is always something you want to expand on you perhaps could have a natural Trail along the river which maybe that well would sit in that proximity so it's kind of separated from a residential property so yeah if if something was found this does give that us that opportunity to kind of be in front of where it's placed and where everything is rather than there's a house there but there's a well of 5T from it n it's kind of tough now so or your Park you know prob what a park over there may be spot put yeah you'd have an opportunity to that too good question all right so I'll make a motion then some yep all right make a motion to approve resolution uh 2478 allow staff to hire trout Wells to complete additional well expolation on the uh City owned 212 acre sites not to exceed 60,000 second motion from Rick second from Robin any other discussion hearing none those in favor can State I I opposed carried thank you the domestic building Mr listen five minute break no yeah uh so next item we have is the domestic Raz building makeup air unit replace M uh so that's I repaired the RCA in resolution 2480 for your consideration so the makeup air unit is the heating unit on our domestic Raz building I did include a picture in the RCA just so you can kind of help you remember kind of where it's situated on at the Wastewater facility um we expect service life for this kind of unit at 15 years we're on year 16 uh it's original from 2008 uh we did have it schedule for replacement on the 2024 domestic Wastewater CIP uh we did have get two quotes back for the replacement which I included in the packet uh we did discuss this replacement uh with the public works committee and the committee did approve it to come to council for consideration um it's pretty straightforward it's kind of reached the end of its life it it it didn't run all last winter uh we didn't spend money on repairs because some of the repairs sound like they were going to be pretty costly and we thought well you know it's going to be hopefully replaced next year let's let her ride and we did keep a door open and use a different heater so it's probably not the exact thing to do but it worked for the winter so and we had a mild winter so that helped uh if we had a cold winter that might have been different uh so with that what I'd be looking for tonight would be a motion a second to approve resolution 2480 approving that domestic Raz make a pair replacement by McDow uh for a price not to exceed 32760 uh which was the base bid for the replacement uh plus the cost to integrate it with the HVAC control system uh one note is that our City attorney did reach out and have some concerns related to some of the language in mcdow's kind of bid packet so if Council does approve it tonight then we would work with the city attorney and look for their review and approval prior to authorizing mcdal to start that process so and with that I will stand for any questions make motion to approve resolution 2480 approving the domestic Raz building makeup area unit replacement by McDow for a price not to exceed 32760 second that motion from Robin second from Rick any other discussion hearing none those in favor can State I I opposed carried thank you wastewater treatment facility storage building HVAC plans and spec approval Mr listen all right final item for you guys for me tonight uh this is resolution 2479 um so in 2017 it's easy for me to say uh city council did approve the decommissioning and disposal of the nessel pasteurization unit or the RDP process uh so it was a biosolids process um following that staff uh started using this building because it was a nice building it was empty so um we started using that building for storage of vehicles and equipment and then also for a workshop uh the mammoth unit that is the main heating unit on that building is original from 994 um so we had it due for replacement on the uh CIP shared between the industrial and the domestic uh in 2024 um because of that change in that use of that space uh we did work with HR green uh to complete an HVAC feasibility study for the space and determine what needed to be done to uh bring the space up to the current code given its current usage HR green following uh that feasibility study and work with staff did prepare plans and specifications which were included in the packet tonight um for this upgrade and the this step in the process we did discuss with Public Works committee um Public Works committee was fine moving it to council for consideration um a note if we if we're given approval tonight to go out for bid uh there would be no budgetary impact at this time obviously we're just taking the bid or taking the plans in specs out for bid we'd get bid backs and then we'd have to assess those and bring it back to council for final approval of the project at that time um I did include uh information in there so you could see it as far as what was needing to be done and what I'd be looking for tonight would be a motion and second to approve resolution 2479 that'd be a resolution accepting plans and specifications for the wastewater treatment facility storage building HVAC upgrade and authorizing staff to put the project out forbid with that I will stand for any questions so I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2479 um uh accepting the plans and specs for the wastewater treatment Cent storage building HVAC upgrade and authorizing staff to put the project off bid second motion from Rick second from Robin any other discussion hearing none those in favor May State i i i opposed carried thank you very much job well done thanks administrator and staff reports a call for a public hearing to consider the proposed vacate of Pine Street Southeast Mr Sanders thank you mayor Chris you're doing a great job you want to do this one too um so before you tonight we have a call for public hearing for Pine Street Mr ramaker is here as well so the ramaker family partnership and then hoe Zimmer so uh Grant and hoe have both petitioned to have the street vacated whenever a street or any sort of easement we've had a few of those vacations this year just as a reminder for the public and for the council whenever you do this any abdy land owners of that street have to sign a petition to vacate it in this case both Mr Zimmer and Mr Adam moer have signed the petition it's included in your packet we've checked this just for some background the reason for this would be for r development purposes of the bills um superet site there and we've attached a concept we asked Mr Adam mocker if it was okay to share this and it is so the public kind of understands what the goal would be behind the site from a conceptual standpoint a lot of what's occurring is really related to setbacks and then turning radiuses so what the proposed uh plan for this would make it much safer there would be turning race is much better a buffer against the street it's a be a good Redevelopment opportunity for this side and for adjacent properties as well from a safety standpoint which we'll talk a little more at the public hearing but from a safety standpoint it also makes some sense there's not a ton of people that use that road currently we've checked with the engineer as well and um again from a Redevelopment safety and uh standpoint it would be a good good opportunity so with that uh we're calling for a public hearing on this uh to be held at the 1st of October city council meeting and that would be at 5:00 p.m. to consider the propos vacation of Pine Street and with that I will stand for oh one thing before I do that there are some utilities under this road those do need to be maintained just based on uh Beck's Pub actually uses that sanitary line and some of the other so those utilities would need to be there we can't just cap them off and leave them in place so we would retain easement um and Mr ader and Mr Zimmer are both aware of that so so what happens to each uh property um is you would have the city and you know everybody's properties come up to here does everybody do we have addition additional adjustments where you go over and then just put an easement on or how does how does that work where you mean where the property ends up hitting the road so if you notice on the North side if you look at the exhibit that Second Street entrance I think remains where it is with Pine Street correct sh and you know sounds sounds like there may be opport very close yeah so even if it shifts slightly from where it currently is the RightWay for Second Street would remain the same width so even if the entrance to that shifts it's okay there first street is going to end up being mostly where it is with a few shifts on an approach so the approaches don't necessarily need to change those will just change within the right of way they would pull the permits needed from uh Public Works to do those approaches but the road itself the properties themselves don't change size it's just you pull a RightWay permit to to build this Essence into the city now in this case though if you notice Mr ader is proposing making this site bigger um and that's again the vacation so when you vacate that street the property interests actually go back split in half between each property owner we did check this with legal so half of the road would go to Mr ramacher halfway go to Mr Zimmer there are some agreements we understand that are in place between the parties to kind of figure out land sale of those pieces and swaps between the two so that would all get flushed out between the parties um privately but if it's vacated half of the road goes One Way half of it goes the other is there any uh who who tears up the street or I'm sure you don't want to leave a street run right through your property there who um who tears that up well and I think that'd be part of the site development that Mr racher would would do because it's going to be all of it um I think it's pretty much all the whole property and then with as far as the easements too it's um checked with Randy Saar to be 45 foot easement total which again but the the one side that's really key is the one that's adjacent to the building and um Mr adamor understands there'd probably be an encroachment agreement because there'd be a slight overlap in that of the easement we don't anticipate it being an issue but just so we have the width should anything occur to get into that easement so that would have to be retained as part of the vacation and we did check on that to you and you can retain that with legal did you you can vac the street while still retaining easement underneath does that answer your question okay the redesign or the Redevelopment looks amazing um I think it'll really clean up the safety issues at that site as well it' be really nice we agree yeah yeah it' be nice to have it as an actual street it's always kind of the the street with the 150 foot entrance do I go or do you go who's going yeah well they I know um Mr Adam marer has worked with the county pretty extensively too on a lot of this just in lining that approach up with Bank Street would also help tremendously I also greatly appreciate that the ROM markers are wanting to make this Improvement to our city so thank you this is going to be beautiful I think like you said to the turn radius um still keeping that I know that was um like with the previous owners I know they had a lot of that was a lot of which I'm assuming applies to you too you're the customer based a lot of a lot of people like that particular that exact spot because they could you know you come in the truck in a trailer you get that it's easy to get in there where it's not easy to get into most other places in the area so that's um so still respecting that with here that's so yeah the vote tonight would be just to call for the public hearing and then at the October 1st meeting we would hold that hearing to on the vacation okay I'll make the motion to adopt resolution 2482 declaring sufficiency of petition and setting a public hearing to be held on October 1st at approximately 5:00 p.m. to consider the proposed vacation of Pine Street Southeast Second motion from Robin second from Rick any other discussion hearing none those in favor can stay I I I opposed carried thank you thank you consent agenda Mr lude uh mayor Bertram city council members only two items for approval on consent agenda first one is the revised hiring and termination report and the second one is pay application number two to Apex Construction Group in the amount of $217,100 for the 20 Four City Hall Police Department renovation project and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have make a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented second motion from Robin second from Rick those in favor May State I I opposed carried payment of the bills motion pay the bills second motion from Rick second from Robin those in favor may stay die I opposed carried does council have anything else for the betterment of Becker I'll ask for a motion to adjourn so moved second motion from Robin second from Rick those in favor May State I I I we are adjourned at 5:41