##VIDEO ID:XkUstMIgho4## all right we'll call to order safety and public works it is Monday September 16 2024 7:30 pm and city council chambers look like we have six items tonight first of which is uh downtown snow removal bids 2425 and this is Public Works director Jesse Dean thank you Mr chair so staff did receive two bids for the annual downtown snow removal contract for the 2024 to 2025 winter season Advantage Home Pros and Tom's backo were the two biders uh both bids were essentially equal When comparing the B the base 4 in snowfall uh the bids differ When comparing the price for each additional inch uh Advantage is $39 61 cents less per inch for streets and parking lots while times is $154 less per inch for sidewalks uh by factoring in the additional inch proposals Advantage Home Pros is the lower overall cost proposal uh as Advantage Home Pros has not performed the contract previously staff did verify that Advantage has the equipment necessary per the specifications and can meet the timeline per the requirements uh per Jeff's email this afternoon staff was able to speak with advantage and find that they have 25 field employees during snow season and that they have been performing snow removal for eight years uh based on the lower cost proposal staff is recommending Award of the downtown snow removal contract for the 2024 2025 winter season to Advantage Home Pros thank you chair yeah Jeff um who determines the amount of snowall you're talking about what will fall or based on each storm yeah when we get build who determined if that's an accurate amount they're charging for we use the uh measurement from the DNR National Weather Service or airport correct they're they're run off Noah they're all kind of the same measurement service but we use the the DNR service it's the one that's listed in the specifications though okay don't tell Kevin that because he's supposed to be out there measuring it oh yeah do supposed to measure that we don't want to tell them that we have some other measure I thought we were going to hire Patrick for that okay so they have the same equipment that we're used to having downtown similar what what is the what is the approach there I guess I didn't see a whole lot of detail on the bid itself it was just numbers so I know you did some digging and and found out what their plan was as far as in comparison to what we've done in the past is it very similar the same somewhat different correct so the the specifications just require that the streets be cleared with a motor grader that's capable of scraping pack down uh snow and ice uh I did confirm that they do have a motor grader available to them to perform network uh and that they're able to um blade off the uh other snow off of the sidebox uh so that is uh something that is required in the specifications okay and they have the sidewalk excuse me they have the sidewalk cleaning equipment I think is a broom device or not or is it just a plow the they can either one okay okay make a motion to approve the uh Advantage U uh contract contct bid second Motion in a second any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I I motion passes item number two we have a bridge Inspection Services proposal again this is uh Public Works director Jesse Dean thank you Mr chair so in 2024 the city is required to have our two Bridges inspected uh attached is a proposal from Bolton M to perform the biannual inspections uh they have performed these inspections in the past have done a good job including providing the recommendation uh for the rehab that is currently being performed on The Laurel Street Bridge uh staff's recommending approval of the proposal from Bolton M for bridge Inspection Services in the amount of $22,400 thank you any questions comments concerns move to approve second motion is second any more discussion none go to a vote all in favor I motion passes James I didn't thanks item number three we have a traffic control change at inter the intersection of Fifth Avenue Northeast and D Street Northeast uh Public Works director Jesse Dean go ahead thank you Mr chair so Council requested the staff evaluate the intersection at Fifth Avenue in D Street Northeast based on reported concerns of drivers uh running the stop signs generally in the north south Direction uh staff performed an analysis including visual observation of the intersection uh colle collection of Crash data and citations uh We've included a summary of the findings in the agenda item as well of the attached photos in the of the intersection in the packet uh as mentioned in the agenda item staff was able to observe operations in the intersection over multiple periods uh what was observed was several drivers failing to adhere to the stop signs on Fifth Avenue while a couple egregiously violated the stop sign by traveling likely 15 to 20 M hour through the intersection uh it was clear that the ability to see the stop signs were not an issue as all the vehicles did apply their brakes uh before approaching the intersection and the photos show no visual obstructions uh staff included the guidance from the manual on traffic control devices on when four-way stops should be considered uh one facet that staff was not full able to fully evaluate was tra traffic volumes on D Street having traffic volumes would allow staff to verify that the threshold was not met however during the visual observations it is highly likely that the traffic volumes on D Street do not exceed the 200 vehicles and pedestrians per hour for 8 hours and likely do not exceed this threshold more than one or two hours per day uh based on the evaluation it would be staff's recommendation that the stop signs be removed on the Fifth Avenue Direction at this intersection and can answer additional questions the council may have on this thank you you guys have questions yeah I got a comment Mr chzo um I understand what warrants you know based on your information what warrants a stop sign I I'm very reluctant to say let's remove that and the reason why I the cars that go north go right by my residence and many cars are accelerating like you would not believe and they got one block before the next stop sign at E Street and I'm just very concerned if we remove the stop signs that speed it's like that call that stop sign if you will it's not being adhered to a call it a a a visual speed bump we know cars for the most part don't entirely run it they slow down I look at it more as maybe it's effective as a yield sign and I appreciate staff's recommendation based on what's warranted and what isn't but the number of cars I hear cruising by there it it's it's over the top and that's even coming south so I'm just concerned the next stop going south is Washington Street and if there isn't the stop sign there and the next stop sign going north from that Washington Street Corridor which is what four blocks D is four blocks north or three um it's extraordinary and I I'd rather have a stop sign there that people are at least slowing down for than nothing at all so I'd be willing to just say leave it as is it nobody seems to have serious inci or accidents there or crashes so it's my thought um I have a question for um and I'm kind of surprised I haven't thought to ask this at other intersections where we deal with this but there doesn't seem to be any metric based on pedestrian traffic through the intersection is that true Jesse is that like not considered in the where to put stop signs question that's a little bit tougher because we don't necessarily have traffic counters available to us for pedestrians the only way to do that is to set up like a actual video camera to make those counts is there a is that ever factored into the official recommendations at all like not yours I mean like the where these guidelines come from yes it is so in the uh if you look at the minimum volumes on the second criteria uh it does say that the 200 units includes both vehicles and pedestrians uh including bicyclists uh so so that is a combination of all and that's both legs okay so I'm I I think we're going to end up not changing this I appreciate all the work you put into it Jesse I'm I'm not wanting to make changes I that like this right now right now in particular because we're going to have that 210 project it's going to divert a lot of traffic into Northeast and I have only the vaguest handle on what that's actually going to look like while that's under construction and I feel like as somebody who goes through that intersection regularly I don't want you to move my cheese while you're moving all my other cheese if that makes sense and um and I I once it's all done I think we're going to have a different traffic pattern too so I would like to maybe review this honestly I think that after that project is done we're going to have to review a lot of the intersections in Northeast and where the traffic is actually going and maybe I just want to put this on that list to review in four or five years makes sense to me um I just I think about this intersection because I go through it quite a bit and when I think about coming from Washington Street going north it seems like there's always a car parked in front of the stop sign and that's more of a problem that I've noticed and that's not you know that's not the only intersection that's like that but it just seems very frequent um but the other concern I have is changing this are we going to cause even a few accidents in that process where cars are um coming into it thinking it's still four-way even though I know staff would put up some warnings and some extra signals but I think uh I think Miss stanglin has a good idea of maybe re-evaluating this along with some of the other uh intersections once we get done with the 210 project so I'm in agreement with the two of you that we leave it as is for now so I don't think that you need a motion but if you want one I'll make it up to you Mr it's easier with a motion I think then I will move that we leave it as a four-way stop for now okay second motion and a second any more discussion none go to a vote all in favor I motion passes all right next we have item number four uh staff is asking for direction uh regarding signs within the right of way and again this is uh Public Works director Jesse Dean thank you Mr chair so staff is requesting direction from the city council on how to address the growth of yard signs within the public RightWay uh so recently mot put out a public notice that was carried by the dispatch stating that the the requirement that sign signs cannot be placed within the RightWay uh we've seen quite a few signs including political campaign window cleaning gutter replacement reality uh and other signs throughout town uh staff has received a couple instances of complaints this summer uh about advertisements placed within the public right of way uh as we approach the election season we do anticipate more signs and likely more calls about the signs in the right of way uh so staff is just requesting Direction on the council on how to handle all the signs within the right of way uh and active approach would be to put out a notice similar to mindat uh to educate folks that uh first that signs cannot be within the right away and need to be removed if they're not removed City staff would remove them uh we have done this in the past and brought them to City Hall for people to pick them up uh another option would be a passive approach similar to like code violations where we address them on a complaint basis uh staff is concerned that a complaint-based approach can also put the city in a difficult position uh that we could receive complaints from a competing politician or a realer a business uh request that signs be taken down uh by their competing um other realer business uh then the city may appear to the public uh to be removing selective signs uh to keep the character that City staff is impartial to any business or political party uh staff recommends that the city use more of an active approach to address signs in the right of way uh but start with education and Outreach first so folks can uh move their signs appropriately first thank you Mr chair yeah Mr chesak Jesse this happened oh I don't know if it was eight years ago or it was a while ago and um as much as it pains me to say this um staff did not use very good discretion when removing signs and what I mean by that is there were signs clearly clearly on the homeowner side of the sidewalk which is where they have to be right sir yeah and an individual told me that whoever was from streets or whatever came along he was standing there when they grabbed the sign on the proper home the house side of the sidewalk and he said why are you taking that it's got to be picked up they got to all be picked up up he said but it's on the right spot we still got to take it so if if if our staff that's picking this up understands the parameters I I guess I would be in favor of this but I'm cautious because sometimes things happen beyond your control or anyone else's control I I'm I don't know who the actual people were but they were from the city and it happened on two different instances that I had firsthand or people standing right there and one watched outside their window um and so I'm concerned about that as long as our staff knows what's the appropriate place and what isn't I wouldn't object to what you're s recommending but is if I get reassurance that that's going to be handled properly because there's two sides of every story I understand that but when I have a friend telling me that the sign in question was on their side of the sidewalk once it's gone it's gone you know they can't they got to go whoever the candidate is has to go pick it up then so is that all Jeff thank you Jeff stingl I think it was some time back when Paul Sandy was still sitting over there and Mike maybe you can help me with when it was but we simplified the rules about where they could because it was very I mean yes it was right of way but it was different width and different streets I see Jesse nodding at me and um like I think at one point I looked at mine and they'd have to be in my backyard in my house um so I think we simplified it so it can be explained in a easier way to not just staff but yes staff but also to our constituents who are and I don't have any out yet so go and pull them all [Laughter] today thank you so when I think about this I think about the fact we have a election season here that's going to be over in under two months it's a very temporary issue that we're dealing with um if this wasn't a state statute I would push to remove any regulation on signs having to do with politics especially because if you don't like the particular sign you can just look somewhere else anywhere else um but I think Common Sense approach to this would just be if it if somebody's putting signs in our Parks if somebody's putting signs in our boulevards or um anywhere that's not private property that's public property those signs should just get picked up immediately if it's a political sign or any other organization that hasn't you know cleared that with our staff or councel but I don't I don't want to send our staff out patrolling the streets and measuring distances with where signs are at I think we're we're complaint-based for everything else so I think we should remain complaint based for this issue as well I realize that that has some risk involved I guess and and interpreting receiving complaints more on one side than the other side but I think our staff can use their judgment on when that's happening and uh just go with the common sense approach going going forward Mr Chaz I forgot your memo did it say that currently if somebody calls in and complains about a sign being in the wrong place you guys I forgot I know it's I thought it was mentioned in there can you remind me what's said in that memo was that discussed in your memo Jesse right now that's when somebody does complain then we go out and address it right now okay that's all I have uh I would just I guess be in favor of sticking to that as Mike described motion to that I don't know I think I think we have to do it actively if we're going to do it but I I tell you what you make the motion I'll second it and then I'll vote against it Jeff okay I'll move that we just keep things status quo with the uh being a complaint driven to uh have staff address the complaint when it's called in or emailed in second motion a second second any more discussion nothing all right hearing none go to a vote all in favor I all against same sign no motion passes you didn't give the same sign I'm sorry count try it again all right item number five we have a um consideration for past citations for uh one2 15th Street Southeast for Mr Mike Degan um we'll have uh community development director James cranic introduce this one and then if you guys have questions or we have questions for Mr kranck we'll do that and then we'll have Mr Degan come up and um give his side sounds good thank you Mr chair uh so Mike Degan was a property owner of 10002 15 Street Southeast in 2023 which was also a licensed rental uh the property did have multiple violations of junk and debris uh predominantly in the rear yard the property also had violations for parking on an unimproved surface in the front yard it was a camper uh Mr Degan was in contact with our department regarding the issues and was attempting to evict the tenants at the time uh the department did agree to wave the citations for junk and debris if the property issues were corrected uh Jason our cold enforcement uh officer was unaware of the citations in the front yard parking that was the um delegated to our assistant planner at the time Dylan Edwards uh so uh those citations were assessed to the property while the junk and debris were voided uh staff would have recommended waving the citations at the assessment hearing had Mr Degan made the request uh Mr Degan We Believe paid 700 or $770 to the county if waved the council would have to reimburse Mr Degan and I can answer any questions thank you you guys have any questions for James have we figured out a way so this doesn't happen again with one person doing one thing and somebody else doing something else and then not right now we don't have you know you know we don't have an assistant planner right now you know if we do we may maybe we would have to address that but Jason is the one handling all the code violations at this time so for now we're good Mr chair Mr cha so as I understand it the property owner was notified and did not make the hearing and no communication as to his uh desire to have these waved at the yeah so the letter was sent out uh we verified that put that into the um agenda packet here and and maybe a question for Mr Degan on on you know why he didn't attend or if he didn't receive the letter but it was verified that it was sent out so that's the process we have though right now that is the process we have okay to your point I guess um okay any more questions guys otherwise we'll have Mr Degan if you want to tell your side of the story uh come on up to the microphone here make sure that the little green light is on and then just name and address before you start where I where I reside or the address of the property whatever address Michael Degan um 10002 Southeast 15th Street Brainard um I am a landlord here in Brainard of course um thank you very much for taking time for my consideration as um as James spoke um this particular issue was one of those uh evictions that took a considerable amount of time because there was a lot of children in the house and so the court was allowed a little bit extra time for them to get out our hands were tied on what we could do and what we couldn't do and things and then uh we finally got the eviction in place I um went to the county to get the RIT of recovery and the the county was um backed up a couple weeks so it it took me another two weeks to get the RIT of recovery to get them out of there um when they were um when the RIT was put into place and they were removed from the property that property was cleaned up and uh was cleaned up within 30 hours the entire property was cleaned up and all that and uh everything was it was all good I understand um your question regarding I did so I did receive the notification in the mail that there was going to be but on the hand I talked to um Jason when I I thought that he was handling all of them in that department when he said don't worry you got in there you took care of it I know your hands were tied you know and but I didn't know that somebody else was taking care of this particular VI these three violations so it's my air I understand that you have a system in place and I'm just asking that you know this is a pretty heavy duty for something that was kind of out of my control and I did I I probably dropped the ball that when I did receive the notice but I just assume that Jason cuz I've been a landlord here in brainer for 30 years and he's always Tak you know as long as he's been here he takes care of all of them so I guess I did not understand that it was at a different department so I apologize for that and I I'm just coming here saying that $717 and 10 I realized that there was a cost to the city now of going through the paperwork and all that I'm willing to pay your costs if you you know the costs of going through to the county I'll pay those you know but I just don't think that I think the other is a little bit of a um something that was kind of out of my hands and my hands re tied and I understand you guys have your policies in place and I I appreciate all of them and that the guys at the city have worked with me immensely on all the things but this is the first one that I was kind of like in all my years of being a landlord that hey I'm not really okay with this this is kind of you know this is kind of a you know we try to take care of people you know and I did the right thing by allowing them more time you know I worked at the court system until they could somehow find a home so any other questions I guess I'm sorry questions we're good okay thank you very much thank you very much all right so yeah the concern is however much I might agree with Mr Degan if we start going back on violations or any citations that are already paid into the county even though I might agree 100% with Mr Degan then what happens in two weeks do we get somebody asking for forgiveness on something from two years ago or three years ago do we randomly get these come up all the time that's that's the main concern I have um but I'm kind of on the fence so like to hear what you guys think I I guess oh go ahead I I hear what you're saying but I I think it is not reasonable to expect that the average person is going to know the difference between one kind of citation and another I think this is a pretty specific you know knew that I was getting these way thought that included all of them situation um I think this is pretty special in that way um so I guess Jeff you want to say anything or should I make a motion um I I I liked his willingness to uh pay a portion of it in a sense that we have administrative charges and such um um I understand Mike's concern of and yours to uh go back U and there is this distinct difference as Tiffany mentioned so um I um I'll wait for your motion um actually I have a question first do we have any idea what the like administrative what's what's the base thing here so we do when they're not paid um apply a $25 administrative fee to each one of them um and then there's probably that extra $10 of of Interest so the $600 is actually the citation amount and then it would have been an extra well it would have been I guess an extra $75 on administrative fees and then the interest that's applied okay I will make a motion that we can we can split the baby on this right what's that I we can make it the dollar amount anything we want on okay Joe's not here to make faces so I miss I miss those you should it's worth the price of admission sometimes okay I will make a motion that we reimburse uh Mr Dean $675 fails for here a second so a motion fails for lack a second yeah Mr chz I make a motion we um pay Mr Degan $500 I'll second that motion in a second um any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor hi hi hi motion passes all right next item we have final item for the night for safety and Public Works we have uh consideration of past citations and abatements for 1113 Rosewood Street Mr Dave Braverman we've heard from this individual I think a couple times in the past um and again I'll have uh Mr kic go ahead and introduce this one thank you Mr chair and just wanted to let Mr Dean know as well that the city council will be ful voting on it this is kind of a recommendation to city council um so and that'll be kind of the case with with Mr braverman's as well so um with this property Mr Braverman reached out to the safety and Public Works committee members and ask for consideration of waving the nuisance assessments against his property at 1113 Rosewood Street he stated in past meetings that he was not able to address the property issues because of his ex- partner's order of protection against him uh staff did verify this with documentation from the court so this is a true statement uh staff did visit Mr bra's property in late August and witnessed him cleaning and maintaining the yard and house the property is now cleaned uh staff has attached a summary file that displays Mr braverman's outstanding special assessment charges with the county as well as pending assessments for this year and have provided options for the safety and Public Works committee to consider uh the city has paid a private contractor $2,575 to address the private property issues essentially abating the property um so with that I can answer any questions and Mr braen is here as well thank you Mr kraic do you guys have any questions for James before we have Mr rman did you all get the email from James uh regarding my question uh yes don't know if I did he put the difference between the U what's the terminology you want um well I got it and I read it and then I okay it separated split off my separated the the the amount if we were to go to I think recommendation or option number two okay so I I got the pending citation charges 1,100 okay so that's that's outside of the um 2500 for the uh what were those charges called those are the actual abatements paid to a contractor okay the abatement totals were how much without the administrative costs the abatement totals were $2,575 okay all right uh Mr braveman do you wish to speak on this one okay just name and address before you start David Braverman 1113 Rosewood Street brard um kind I I'll just kind of remind you of what happened obviously uh James here has read the the court order um you know I wasn't I wasn't there I wasn't allowed to be there uh I couldn't uh take care of the problem myself um and in a perfect world my send her the bill for it um it's a little bit much for me to pay even you know with just getting rid of a certain amount um but I mean I appreciate your time here I'm kind of nervous all of a sudden um currently I'm waiting on a dumpster 30- yard dumpster because there's a lot of garbage in the garage and the whole basement a mess and but I made sure that I took care of the the yard before I took care of anything else like I gave my word it's looking pretty good over there so far and got things to do but between now when spring comes around them it'll get done I just can't afford this on my my bill you know single father and got all these bills to pay you know and I can't uh I can't work any harder than I have been I've had one day off in the last year I'm sorry last two years so something pretty consider with this thank you thank you with this situation obviously very unique situation um this when when somebody regains control of the home and cleans it up that's exactly what we want and and I don't think the city ever has issue with with uh forgiving some of those citations like that the problem is with the abatement that's the that's something that the taxpayers had to pay for um even though you couldn't do it there could have been other ways to hire someone else maybe um I don't know if there's a way for us to spread out uh the cost of that in a different way or does it all have to go into one year uh in one year taxes for Mr Braverman could be a question for Joe or Connie um it was already certified to the county as an assessment so I'm not sure if it could be redone and say like a 10-year assessment sure okay Mike yeah Mr CH the um outside of what James put in the agenda request of the $2500 which is a he he gave us this email which says the outstanding assessment char charges with the county are 2,800 3,8 [Music] 61.53% 75 um but those are added with the $100 worth of administrative charges so that is on the table to be potentially waved as well we paid somebody to take yep the 2575 is the hard cost okay um ah I feel like I need to spreadsheet to sort all this do you want to make a go of it Jeff um I you know I think Mr bravman has acted in very good faith he told us what he was going to do when he had the chance he's done that I I we paid a hard cost of the number James has described of 25 26 whatever with Administration um I would be willing to move that we relieve him of the two items of the 300 um 300 I'm thought sorry 2,800 plus the 26193 yes so we got 36153 161 isn't it no just 61 okay I having a little trouble here okay 3,000 thank you that's okay and I'm sorry did you the charges as well the what the pending yes that that that's why I wanted to include the pending charges as well so it' be uh 4,100 61 so the motion is to forgive all citations aside from abatement charges correct since abatements are hard cost yes correct that's the way I wanted to say it thank you Mike all right appreciate your help I'll second it all right Motion in a second any more discussion none go to a vote all in favor I I motion passes and we can adjourn to the council meeting thank you very much yeah you bet and I would say