Okay.

Call this meeting in order.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Thank you all for attending this evening.

Will the city clerk please take attendance?

All council members are present, Mr.

Mayor.

City Attorney Vince Jones is available on the conference line.

Thank you.

Action to approve the agenda.

Enter a motion entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Are there any comments about the agenda from the public?

Council have any questions, comments?

Please call the roll.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell.

Aye.

Avery?

Aye.

Dorin.

Aye.

Hager?

Aye.

Neymar.

Aye.

All right.

On to item four, open forum.

In order to provide equal access to all during the open forum and public comment portions of the meeting.

Each individual's offering comments shall not exceed the allotted three minute period.

The podium light turns green to yellow, and when there is one minute remaining, your time for comment is expired when the podium light turns red.

Is there any member of the public who wishes to address city council on an item that is not listed on our agendas this evening?

Okay.

We'll move on.

On the consent agenda, action on the consent agenda.

Are there any items to be removed from the consent agenda?

Seeing none, entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Are there any public comments on the items that we have on our consent agendas this evening?

Council having questions, comments.

Please call the roll.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell?

Aye.

Avery?

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

Neymar.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

All right.

We'll go on to presentations and reports.

And our first one is a special report from a couple Brookings High School young ladies.

Um, Amelia Wendell and Lauren Bortnum.

Hi, my name is Amelia Wendell.

And my name is Lauren Bortnum.

We're both seniors at Brookings High School, and we're here presenting the Brookings High School HOSA chapter.

HOSA stands for Health Occupation Students of America Future Health Professionals.

It's a youth organization that spans across all 50 states and on the international level with seven other countries.

I serve as the reporter of our um of HOSA.

And I serve as the president of our chapter.

So some of you may remember us from last year.

We came doing a similar project, but last year we focused on food insecurity in childhood, and this year we kind of pivoted to hygiene awareness.

So we wanted to give you further insight into our project.

So tonight we created a presentation to kind of give you more of an introduction to childhood hygiene insecurity if you're unfamiliar with the topic.

So childhood hygiene insecurity can be defined as a lack of consistent access to basic personal care items due to economic hardship, which forces families to choose between basic hygiene and other necessities like food.

And we want to remind people that this is not just about a child's physical health, but also their emotional health.

To give you guys some background about how pivotal this could be, um, we're gonna start on the local level.

It's estimated that about one in six children face basic hygiene insecurity in the Brookings County.

And moving up to the state level, it has been found that 20% of South Dakota children live in a household with high housing cost burdens.

And in South Dakota, 45.8% of households that receive SNAP benefits have children.

Now moving to the national level, there are around 20% or one in five U.S.

students facing hygiene insecurity.

This means lacking in the basics like soap, shampoo, deodorant, and clean clothes.

There are also 34% of teachers reporting that students skip school due to hygiene issues.

Following that, there's 80% of teachers who have seen students with body odor or dirty clothes impacted by their peers treatment, meaning that they have bullying issues, changing their emotions and behavior in school.

Okay, now we want to move on to the most common causes on the state and national level.

So this includes economic instability, lack of access, and cost of living.

Starting off with economic instability, families with low income or those experiencing unemployment may struggle to afford hygienic products for their children and themselves.

This is found particularly true for families living below the poverty line.

Next is the lack of access.

Although there are programs designed to help, not all families can access these resources.

Barriers can include lack of awareness, complex application processes, or social stigma associated with receiving assistance.

Lastly, is the cost of living, which can include housing and child care.

When families have to allocate a significant portion of their money to these expenses, there's often very little left over for hygiene products.

Now there are many impacts that these have on children, but we chose just to highlight a few.

This insecurity physically affects children by increasing infections, leading to malnourishment and stunted growth.

It also causes chronic problems such as dental issues and missed school days.

Hygiene insecurity also has a large impact on a student's education.

It can lead to many absences due to illness or shame, less concentration and self-esteem, or an increase in social isolation, all of which can lead to a poor academic performance.

Finally, the third main impact that we chose to highlight is the emotional impact this insecurity may have on a student.

They often experience a deep shame, embarrassment, and low self-esteem, leading to bullying, anxiety, and depression.

Such feelings can greatly hinder an emotional development due to fear of being judged and feeling unclean.

Because of these causes and impacts, we felt that it's very important to combat this within our community, which is why Berkings High School HOSA is very excited to announce a hygiene drive aimed at tackling childhood hygiene insecurity.

This drive is running from February 9th through the 18th, so yesterday until next Wednesday, and you can drop off any hygienic products at the BHS front office.

So let's please come together to ensure every child has access to basic hygienic products.

There are obviously many items, but we just listed a few to give some people ideas, such as basic soap, shampoo, conditioner, toothbrush, and toothpaste.

But we really accept anything that comes pre-packaged and can aim towards a hygiene need.

Do you guys have any questions?

Thank you, ladies.

Do you have any questions?

Council?

Comments?

Great program.

Thank you for doing it.

Councilmember Wendell.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm just wondering if the two of you would get together, so I can take the phone with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, ladies.

All right.

Uh uh SDSU Student Association.

Anna Hunt.

Good evening.

So last time I spoke to you guys, I spoke about House Bill 1133.

I was able to testify on that and house education.

We did have to go over online since President Spear was feeling a little ill that week.

We are very happy to say that it was moved to the 41st day in a 9-6 vote, which effectively killed the bill.

Um our slate for vice president and president has also opened, so that'll be open three times in the next three meetings that we have for students association.

We're really excited to see who's running.

No one has announced yet since the last yesterday was the first day it was opened.

We just are assuming people are waiting until a couple weeks later and everything.

And then Student Promotion Fund Committee will also be meeting this week.

We have our first application of this year.

It's for the AISA's Wachi B event, which is happening March 27th and 28th.

And then Vice President Sierra President Spear and then Vice President of Academic Affairs, Willis and I will be traveling to Pier tomorrow to testify on house education for House Bill 1325, which removes the requirement to live on campus past your freshman year.

And then this week we have the wrestling luncheon happening on Wednesday.

Women's volleyball is hosting UND on Thursday.

And then track indoor invitational is Friday and Saturday, along with women's basketball again playing on Saturday.

End of report.

Thank you, Anna.

Any questions for Anna?

Comments?

The one that went to the 41st day, explain to the public what that was.

Yeah, so House Bill 1133 effectively was constitutional carry on campus.

It removed the requirement for an advanced permit to carry on campus and to carry in residence halls as well.

All right.

Thank you very much, Anna.

All right, so uh ex official report from uh Board of Trustees for Brooklyn Shelf.

Yes.

Um so we overviewed the strategic plan, kind of a check-in on uh that, and it really highlighted just the continued transition through Epic, which is a new software that they've been slowly transitioning through over the past year.

They also talked about uh overviewing the effectiveness of workday, which is another software.

Now that they're a year into that, just kind of uh had a discussion around the effectiveness of that internally.

And then uh we also discussed the results of an employee engagement survey.

Um it was more an increased uh amount of people that participated in the survey and just discussed around continuation of employee retention and recruitment efforts and community partnerships.

The majority of the meeting was actually a presentation on the ER and the Emily's Hope uh naloxone box.

So with the naloxone box, it's right in front of the ED doors as soon as you walk in.

If you've seen that since November when it opened, they have had 96 boxes uh removed.

They don't know if that has been in use, it's just how many are anonymously taken from that box.

Uh, when asked about if that had any immediate impact on the trends of who is coming in the ER.

Uh overall, they said that it's not a lot of opioid overdoses that come into the ER, so there's not an immediate uh tracking of those trends, but they're keeping an eye out for that.

They noted that the chief complaint continues to be behavioral health issues.

So just a community reminder that there is 988, uh, which is a free lifeline to call if you're experiencing any mental health issues, and 211 will direct you to other resources.

So we just had a discussion around kind of mental health and uh community supports as well.

End of report.

Thanks, Bree.

Anybody have any questions, comments?

All right, councilmember Wendell, you want some time to uh talk about the latest things happening with the merger.

Yes, uh thank you, Mayor.

I have the privilege of representing the city on the new economic development merger organization, uh, which we are working through the branding and naming process right now, so eventually we'll have a name uh to use as we refer to this organization.

Uh you'll all remember that we've gone through a process over the last 18 or so months to merge what was the Brookings Economic Development Corporation, the Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce, uh, visit Brookings and downtown Brookings into one organization.

Those entities are now functioning as one organization since uh January 1st.

Uh and we have an 11-member board that is overseeing uh the operations of the organization, and I serve as the city representative on that board.

Just a couple of notes to keep folks updated.

Um, all of the existing staff of what were four separate organizations are now co-located in the sixth street building that had uh housed the Chamber of Commerce and Visit Brookings.

Uh that is not the long-term plan.

That building does not necessarily accommodate the needs of all of the staff that will be housed there, but for the time being, that is where those folks are all uh housed together.

We had heard from staff, and we really believed that it would be uh an advantage to have all of them together uh under one roof to continue uh that synergy of the new organization.

So they're housed in that sixth street location, and we'll be providing public updates as we sort of uh determine a new uh long-term location for the organization.

We also are going through a search process right now for a new president and CEO of the organization.

We had three uh candidates uh visit the community last week and meet with a number of stakeholder groups, including the existing board, uh a number of staff groups, and then a group of stakeholders.

Uh and so those three final candidates were here on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and we're moving through the process of narrowing that group down to uh the successful candidate uh that we hope will be our next president and CEO.

Um but we had a phenomenal response to the search process.

We're able to narrow that large candidate pool to a smaller group that we did virtual interviews with, and then that group of three finalists that we invited to the community last week.

So I'm hoping we'll have news report very soon with a name attached as our new president CEO.

I noted a moment ago that we're moving through the branding and renaming process now, and that was the third item I hope to update you all on.

So that's the update I have tonight.

All right, thanks, Nick.

Any other questions, comments?

Wayne.

Nick, I I know that we're using a name for the organization now, aren't we?

Is that the Brookings area or regional uh growth alliance?

But that's a placeholding term.

Okay, because I got an envelope the other day and had that on it.

The name we're using right now is the Brookings Regional Growth Alliance.

Sort of working through the branding process right now.

That's a very literal description of what the groups do, and that might end up being the long-term game uh name as we brand.

Um of the things I'll note about branding that was sort of complicated was um maybe the brand equity that we believe is still there for visit Brookings and let's say downtown Brookings.

So it's not as though we want to quit using the visit Brookings name.

I think in particular for those um outside of the community, there's still a lot of value in visit Brookings, and so this would be about renaming the sort of umbrella organization, but you may still see some references from visit Brookings or downtown Brookings because those names and logos I do think still have value and certainly describe the those pillars of the organization.

So the reference you might hear publicly right now is the Brookings Regional Growth Alliance as we move through the branding process.

That might be what we land on, but uh that hasn't been fully developed yet.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

All right, we'll move on to uh contracts and change orders.

Item 7A, action on resolution 26-018, a resolution authorizing change order number one for 2025-04 STI 20th Street South Shared Use Path.

Charlie Richter, our city engineer will present this item.

Uh good evening, council.

As your city engineer, I'm here tonight requesting approval of resolution 26018 for a change order to the 2025 O Force STI 20th Street South Shared Use Project.

This project was for the installation of a shared use path on the south side of 20th Street South from Main Avenue to Branch Creek.

The requested change order is for supplemental paving and embankment stabilization at the southeast corner of 20th Street South and Medary.

Additional gravel placement to adequately cover the installed storm sewer and additional concrete work surrounding the storm sewer inlets installed in the boulevard across from uh the gas station.

The change order totals 81,180.48 cents, which equates to approximately a 17% increase to Timmins construction's original contract of 461,337 and 17 cents.

The adjusted overall contract amount of four five hundred forty-two thousand five hundred seventeen dollars and eleven cents is within budget.

Public works recommends the change order for Timmins construction to be approved.

Thanks, Charlie.

Entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Any public comment on this item.

Council have any questions, comments?

Councilmember Specker.

Charlie, I have a question on these bids when they go out.

Was that included in the original bid or like why this additional work?

Well, you have the bike path, right?

Or the that shared use path.

Wasn't it known at the time the bids went in that it would have to go through that?

I know what area you're talking about.

It needed a lot of building up, but wouldn't that have been part of the bid itself?

Uh it what occurred is that um a lot of that work was included in the bid.

Uh as we went to pave it, um, and uh the paper was actually driving on the that gravel section, the embankment started to slough off.

There wasn't a suitable material underneath the gravel to handle that weight.

So what we needed to do was further in stabilization of that embankment, which included the riprap that you saw there, um, some uh concrete uh well, some rock um blocks that we used to help stabilize that embankment, which cost additional funds.

Okay, and then there was some additional paving required because of that.

Okay, so it was just more above and beyond what was in the original bid.

Absolutely, yes.

Thanks.

Um any other comments, questions?

Please call the roll.

Wendell.

Ivory Doran.

Aye, Hager, aye.

Nemeyer, aye, Specker, aye.

Tilton Byrne, aye.

All right, we have no first readings this evening.

Second readings and public hearings.

Public hearing in action on resolution 26-015, a resolution authorizing city manager to enter into a 10-year on-sale liquor operating agreement with Myrtle Properties LLC.

DBA Max Eastside Grill, owner Al Curtainbach.

Bonnie, would you like to present this item?

Mayor and Council members, Al Cartenbach, Murdo Properties has applied to transfer the existing liquor operating agreement for 631 32nd Avenue.

You will know this location as the former Whiskey Creek Woodfire Grill location, which was managed by Brookings State Company.

Mr.

Kirtenbach wishes to do business as Max Eastsight Grill at this location.

City Council approval of this would requharize the city manager to enter into a 10-year operating agreement with Al and with a required five-year midterm renewal.

If approved, all the required paperwork would be sent to the State Department of Revenue for final review and issuance.

Mr.

Kirtenbach is here this evening.

If you have any questions for him, staff does recommend approval.

Thank you, Bonnie.

Entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Open to public hearing on this item.

Is there any public comment?

This is your free advertising opportunity, Al.

Well, I think all of you are familiar with the fact that I've been a proponent for East Bookings for since 72.

And uh and we're making progress there now.

And I just didn't want that to slow up, and the previous owner of that restaurant was retiring and selling.

And so uh I thought somebody should step up, maybe somebody local and try to keep keep building on the on the east side.

So that's uh I won't be the sole owner for a long time, as you can see.

But uh we had to move kind of quickly because the previous owner wanted to close before the end of the year, so we closed on December 31.

Uh and uh so this is kind of a little bit of an interim situation, but it's coming along well.

We've got uh doing a little remodeling.

Uh I'm I'll probably be coming back before you here in another month or two.

Uh I have an idea for plaza concept out there where the hotel is and where those two empty lots are.

And if I can get those other owners to pull together, maybe we can have a little very small shopping area, but at least something so as citizens are leaving all these, they may have a reason to stop someplace else.

All right.

But I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Al comments?

All right.

Thank you, Al.

Is there any other public comments on this item?

Call the public hearing closed.

Does council have any questions, comments?

It's just good that we got another restaurant coming back up.

So I appreciate that, Al.

Thank you very much.

Uh please call the roll.

Ivery.

Hi.

Doran.

Hi.

Hager.

Aye.

Neemeyer.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Bird.

Hi.

Wendell.

Aye.

All right.

On the item 9B, public hearing in action on ordinance 26 003, an ordinance amending chapter 70, solid waste of the code of ordinances of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.

Charlie Kuhn, our Solid Waste Landfill Manager will present this item.

Uh good evening, Mayor, City Council members, uh Charlie Kuhn with Public Works.

Item 9.b is the second reading of ordinance 263 that prop that proposes the prohibition of e-waste and lithium battery disposal at the Brookings Regional Landfill.

Currently, there are no e-waste regulations within the state of South Dakota, but there are several municipalities throughout the state that have implemented their own recycling programs and several states that ban e-waste from landfills altogether.

So why recycle this stream?

E-waste is estimated to make up approximately 2.7% of all landfill waste.

So here in Brookings, we receive in the neighborhood of 60,000 tons of waste per year.

That means we are landfilling approximately 1,600 tons of e-waste every year.

If we recycle this material, uh it saves on airspace, extends the life of the landfill, helps to keep hazardous materials out of the waste stream.

The number one cause of landfill fires for the past several years is electronics and lithium batteries in the waste stream.

Keeping these items out of the landfilled waste stream helps to mitigate the future fires.

Number four, sustainability.

Part of the EPA, around 98% of components in the e-waste is recyclable.

Um our operations plan, we're gonna have a designated area uh within the landfill kind of facility for collection.

Uh the tipping fee will be set uh for 100% cost recovery at a dollar twenty-five a pound.

Um and these materials will be going to a recycling electronics recycling company out of uh Lincoln, Nebraska.

Um, and then this final slide just shows the most common um what's gonna be accepted, what won't be accepted, with the most common items being TVs, computers, and monitors.

Uh we intend to launch this program in April in conjunction with the spring bulky item pickup to promote the new service.

Staff intends we're gonna be we're gonna begin a marketing campaign kind of later this month through the month of March, all through April, um, with a one week free kind of amnesty event for residents during the spring bulky pickup week.

Um, a few other important notes for residential cart customers with this ordinance change.

E-waste will be excluded from the bulky item pickup.

However, residents will be able to dispose of their e-waste at the landfill for free during that uh one-week amnesty event.

Uh e-waste will not be allowed in residential carts.

If our collection drivers see the electronics, uh they'll place a tag, they won't collect it, and I'll just state that this uh these items can be brought to the landfill for a fee.

Um yeah, so that concludes our presentation.

I stand for any questions.

Thank you, Charlie.

Um entertain a motion to approve.

So moved, second act then move and second is open the public hearing on this.

Is there any public hearing or public comments, questions?

Council any questions, comments?

Please call the roll.

Doran, aye, Hager, aye, Neemeyer, aye, Specker, aye.

Tilton Byrne, aye, Wendell, aye, Avery.

Aye.

All right, item 9C, public hearing and action on ordinance 26-004, an ordinance to change the zoning within the city of Brookings.

Lot one of Clark 2nd edition from an ag Cultural A district to an industrial I1 light district.

Mike Struck, our community development director will present this item.

Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council.

Uh, the ordinance before you tonight is a rezoning for uh piece of property on the east side of the community uh east at 34th Avenue.

It's an approximately 51 acre um parcel there that the owners are seeking to rezone it from an egg zoning to uh light industrial I-1 zoning district.

This is consistent with our comprehensive plan or future land use map, then identifying this area for future business park light industrial area.

Uh this does come to you with a nine to zero recommendation from the planning commission for approval and the development review team supports the request.

And I'd stand for any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mike.

Entertain a motion to approve.

Moved open public hearing on this item.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Please state your name and your address, sir, or who you're representing.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Council.

Uh, my name is Justin Booker with Banner Associates representing the development group.

Um, again, I would just stand for any questions as well.

All right.

Any other public comments, questions?

Council have any questions, comments on this item.

All right, please call the roll.

Hager, aye.

Near aye, Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell?

Aye.

Avery?

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Okay.

On to item 9D, public hearing and action on ordinance 26-005.

An ordinance to change the zoning within the city of Brookings.

Block one of Mills third edition, excluding H1 and H2 from a residential R3A apartments slash mobile homes slash manufactured housing district to a business B2 district.

Mike Struck will also present this item.

Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council.

Uh, the ordinance before you tonight is a rezone uh for uh 3.1 acre parcel uh on the map over there.

It's highlighted in the yellow area.

It's uh real near to the on-ramp of the new interchange there.

Um it's proposed to be rezoned from a residence R3A to a business B2A district.

This is consistent with our future land use map that identified this area for as an urban high intensity area.

It does come to you with a unanimous recommendation from the planning commission.

Uh the development review team supports the request, and I'd stand for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mike.

Entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Councilmember Specker, you have a comment or a question.

I just have uh kind of a question, maybe a comment.

You said B2A.

Is this it's it's going from an R3A to a B2?

Okay, not a B2B.

No, a B just B2.

More of a commercial district.

Very similar to what you see along Sixth Street.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments on this item?

Please call the roll.

Nemeyer.

Aye.

Specker, aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell.

Aye.

Avery.

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

All right.

Item 10.

Other business.

Item 10A, action on resolution 26-007.

A resolution authorizing the city manager is designee to execute a termination agreement with Henry Carlson Construction LC and directing staff to issue a request for proposals for construction manager at risk.

John Thompson, our public works director, will present this item.

Good evening, Mayor.

City Council members, John Thompson with Public Works.

Item 10A is a resolution authorizing city manager or is designed to execute a termination agreement with Henry Carlson LLC.

And directing staff to request for issue a request for proposals for construction manager at risk services for the design and construction of a new fire facility and a new police facility to be located on separate parcels of land.

Staff is bringing this recommendation forward because of the existing construction manager at risk contract was executed in April of 2022, at that time when the city was evaluating options for either either renovating the existing combined public safety facility or replacing it with a new combined public safety facility.

Since then, over the past four years, the city has evaluated more than 20 different sites within the city of Brookings and has ultimately determined that separate fire and police facilities best meet the city's long-term needs.

As a result, the scope of the project is materially changed from what was contemplated in the original RFP.

This recommendation is not a reflection of the quality or performance of services provided by Henry Carlson Construction, but is solely based on the change in project product scope.

If approved this evening, the city manager will execute a termination agreement with Henry Carlson, which includes a payment of $10,000 for evaluation and advisory services already provided over the course of the project.

Staff will then continue with your council's direction from 2022 regarding CMARs, the CMR process, and uh issue an RFP out later this week in order to move this project forward without any unnecessary delays.

As a reminder, uh a few benefits from back in 2022 that I listened to uh during the council's discussion on the CMR process.

A couple of the reasons and benefits why the council determined to go with the CMAR was number one, the CMR process allows the owner a lot of control over the design phase versus the design build process.

And then number two, more and more importantly, I believe, is the CMR process includes it in a uh guaranteed maximum price, which provides strong cost predictability early in the process because we have both the architects, the owners are up, and the construction manager at risk involved early on in the process.

In addition, our architects and owners are up are still on board and they they've got four years of experience during this process.

They know all the history.

Um that concludes SAF's presentation.

I stand for any type of questions.

Thank you, John.

Entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Please come forward, state your name and address, sir, who you represent.

Good evening, City Council, Mayor, City staff.

Thank you for allowing me to talk on this topic.

My name is Randy Hanson.

I'm a resident of Brookings, and I own a company, Mills Construction in Brookings.

I am not here this evening to talk about the termination agreement.

I am here to hopefully encourage you to consider using a design bid build approach, or we would call it public bid delivery method in lieu of the CMR delivery method for the proposed city fire facility only.

So I've got a prepared statement to stay within my three minutes.

Here we go.

It's already started.

Okay.

The question is which of the two contract delivery methods gets the city the best value and most transparency for the project.

We're talking about the fire facility now.

I attended the open house at the fire facility in August 29th, and it was very clear that the staff and volunteers know what they want, know what they need.

And the design is pretty far along.

I that was confirmed today when I talked to JLG architects, and they said the schematic design is done, and that design development drawings are in the works already.

Knowing those two things, you really lose a lot of the value of the CMR process by not bringing them on about at the same time you bring on the architects.

If you cannot bring them on early, then really you've lost a lot of that benefit.

Another consideration is that it's not a complicated project.

The city owns the land.

The design is fairly simple, and the CMR process just adds layer of complexity and cost in the form of CMR fees that are not needed.

Given this specific situation, public bid looks like the stronger path.

Here's why.

Should drive costs down meaningfully.

That competitive pressure is one of the most valuable things you have going for you right now.

How do I know about current mark and conditions?

Well, I'm in the business.

There were seven general contractors for that.

28 bids for six phases of subcontract work, 13 bidders just for the electrical alone, and it wasn't a large complex complex project.

Madison Family Dental, we had 80 subcontract bidders, and that was about six months ago.

I could go on and on, but I'm running out of time.

So bottom line, you gain significant cost savings and transparency through public bid while giving up almost nothing since the design collaboration, CMR's key benefits isn't needed at this stage.

Questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was maybe just going to note that I think this is a good conversation.

I wonder if we should continue it under item 10B as we think about the is the next item for the actual procedures for a CMR and what would be included in that request.

John, I think you might be the best to answer this one.

Item 10A is for the termination of the agreement, which Nick is recommending.

Uh maybe council take action on, and then the next item is for amending the resolution, which maybe uh addresses Randy's concerns.

Would that be correct?

The the second item is a amendment to the resolution that defined the uh construction manager at risk procedures as required by the state.

It basically item 10B will basically eliminate the language of a combined public safety facility into expressly a fire and police station on separate parcels of land.

So it's just your procedure your uh construction manager at risk construction manager at risk procedures.

Sorry.

Okay.

So I don't know that answered the question.

So to answer Nick's uh council member Nick Wendell's question, Nick is asking to answer Randy's question.

Is it appropriate to have that discussion now with the termination of the agreement or to have it when they amend the resolution on item 10 B.

I apologize.

I'm on the same page now.

So it would be more appropriate now because during this agree the this agenda item, I'm also asking for direction to staff to go out and resolicit for uh CMAR services.

Okay, sorry.

I just didn't want to take an action here that we may be in conflict with next.

All right, so then let's move on to is there any other public comment on this item?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh all right.

Questions, comments from council.

Councilmember Duran.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was just wondering uh with that comment brought up if you could kind of talk through why your thought process to choosing to go to with a CMAR process.

Maybe uh for clarification, you're talking just specifically the fire department or for in general.

Okay, maybe I should clarify because there uh was your comment about the fire department and the fire hall only.

Fire hall only.

Okay.

So maybe let's just focus on that for a minute.

Okay, there we go.

So yeah, just uh wondering kind of your thought process through the CMAR position for it, the fire hall.

So my uh staff's belief right now is we're following council's 2022 direction on that.

Uh even though it's separated projects right now, we would still only be working with a the current architect and ownership and one construction company.

If we were to go bid it out separately now, then I'd have a fire station contract separate with a separate uh contractor, and then still on the C CMR for the police station.

And these two will run simultaneously at some point in time, they're gonna tie together.

Uh so it kind of looks at uh staffing resources too.

Is probably another reason why we're looking at those two.

If that makes sense to you.

Councilmember Avery.

John, um Mr.

Hanson did make some good points there when it with his presentation.

And the one was that the there's a really uh you know a a lot of people out there looking for work now that were before now with this process, will we get the benefit of that too?

I mean is the I mean that those bidders are still gonna bid through the construction manner manager at risk and we'll get competitive pricing or yes, as long as we do not delay the project any further.

We I we hope that we the market is still favorable by June, July is when fire station will go out to bid by the timeline.

Uh if we continue to delay, then yeah, we may miss that opportunity.

Um but going forward right now, we hope to have a construction manager uh on board by March 24th is is our hope.

Um, and then we'd still be able to move forward with both of them.

And if we if the timeline is accurate and we're out to bid by June, July for the fire, we should be still favorable, or hoping.

Councilmember Tilton Byrne.

Um I have two questions.

Uh one is um if we were to move forward with the CMAR approach uh for both facilities, would their timelines be tied together?

And what I mean by that is would we have to wait to break ground on one facility until the other one is ready to go as well?

If we were to continue with the CMAR, if we're gonna continue with the CMAR, the only thing that we need for the fire to go forward right now is authority, and that'll be coming in um the 20th, the next meeting this month.

Um so we should be able to move them both together simultaneously.

So any delays if there were, hopefully not.

But if there were any delays, like say on the police facility location, that would not necessarily delay the fire location?

That's correct.

Okay.

My other question is um if we went with the CMAR approach, uh could you um share a little bit of insight into what our local uh um companies might be able to do?

Are they able to participate in that or does the CMAR kind of take over and bring in whoever they want to work with?

Yeah, the construction manager at risk will still bid it out, just it'll be a public bid.

It'll just he they will be the contractor, the the uh primary contractor on the on the job.

But local companies will be bidding on that, correct.

Thank you.

John, just for just for clarity, can you explain what CMR is?

What I I know what it is, construction manager at risk, but can you give a little bit of a synopsis of what construction manager at risk versus say low bidder contractor versus construction manager agent?

Give a little bit of a background so the public understands the decisions we're making here.

Uh well the construction manager at risk, what a lot of um municipalities will choose a construction construction manager at risk process, primarily because of the complexity or or the size of the projects that they're building.

Um you have with this process, you will contract an owner's representative to be kind of the middleman getting us through this process.

Architects will be a separate contract, and then you'll have a construction manager at risk contract.

That construction manager at risk, he that company is involved early on in the stages, so they're working with the architects and the owners of up to ensure that our costs remain at budget or lower than budget.

It just gives better transport um transparency on cost because it's open estimating system, so you'll you'll understand what the cost can be up front early on.

If you go with just a design build, you do lose some of your uh control over what the design of the project is.

Um it can be faster at times, um, but it's generally four simpler projects.

Uh Randy is correct on that.

It's the fire station is not that complex of a project now that's separated out.

Um and if the council so chooses, we can go either way.

Um I just it just takes more staff resources on that.

I guess that's one thing that I'd like John to clarify.

Um John and I spoke about this uh at quite length, and one of the things John's always willing to do is step up and take on work, more and more work.

Um by going CMR, uh it's less work for our internal staff.

Uh our internal staff don't do this every day, but it's not rocket science.

It does take effort and skill, uh, but it takes time and energy.

Um can you help us understand or help council understand uh how much more workload this would be if you went the traditional design bid build process versus CMR for you and your staff?

Well, then you you would be internally we would be doing all the bidding, uh, we'd be doing all the um conversations back and forth with the general contractor on it, and we'd be approving all the bids uh approving all the work that's been done all the way through the stages.

So you're basically living this like a project manager on the CMAR, they'll have their own project manager, and they're the ones living that versus staff internally leaving it.

And that can that can consume a lot of a lot of your day, uh, mostly if there's any issues with the with the build.

But again, like I told Paul is if if that's council's decision and what they want to move forward, we can too.

Councilmember Wendell.

Thank you, Mayor.

As I think back to 2022, uh and the decision decision to go with the CMAR project with what we thought would be a combined project, obviously made good sense.

Would have we engaged a CMAR for the scale of just the fire department project if we knew it was going to be a standalone project at the time.

Would have we recommended the use of a CMAR versus design bid build?

Would you have done that back in 2020?

If we knew we were just doing a fire station, that scale of project would we typically have engaged a CMAR for that scale of project.

That I I that I don't have an answer to.

I don't know what council would have done back then.

Staff would have probably still recommended a construction manager at risk project.

Yes.

So if a project came up tomorrow that was kind of that size and scale and complexity, we likely would still be considering a CMAR.

Is that what we're saying?

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

Councilmember Hager.

So one of the arguments we heard was just about the cost savings that could be a result of not going with the CMAR process.

Do you have any idea what that could potentially look like?

I'm just kind of thinking about the fact that obviously we do have a gap between the amount of money saved for the police department and what it's actually gonna cost, and how we knew that the fire department was coming in rather good.

So it would just kind of be nice to know exactly what are we maybe looking at in terms of the difference between the CMAR and a different bidding process.

Well, the construction manager at risk has a percentage of the overall project, so that percentage of the overall project, uh, a part of that percentage would go away, but some of it would still say stay in there.

So if we have if say we come up with 2.24 million dollars on our total budget on this, and uh construction manager at risk is five percent of the construction.

Um we could save a couple percent percents on that, but that'd be about it.

Um I don't when I can't really tell you the exact number, but you would have some cost savings there.

Yeah, I know you're kind of getting put on the spot.

Yeah.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

I think both processes.

I've I've dealt in construction for over 35 years.

I had both processes are good.

Um, you know, I'd obviously, you know, uh low bidder uh direction would would cut, you know, big cost savings, but uh it would cost us taking a lot of your time up and a lot of other other people on our staff, and I get that part.

Um so how we how are we doing the vote on this?

Because if we if we decide to separate this, what does this look like, Bonnie?

A motion to amend to separate the two projects and vote individually, we would have to come back with a replacement resolution.

Would we do that on this item or the next item?

If I if I could so we had two recommendations on this item that was to termination, right?

I think we're we're good on that, and then the direction to staff.

You just would not make the motion to direct staff to do this construction manager at risk solicitation.

All right.

So we've already did the motion on this.

So how do we go from here?

Councilmember Tilton Byrne.

Um the motion on the table is simply to terminate the existing agreement, correct?

It does not give any guidance on how we move forward.

So the the recommended actions on this is to number one terminate the agreement and two direct staff to issue an R uh a request for proposal for construction manager at risk services.

So the current motion on the table does both of those things.

I don't remember what the motion exactly stated, but I don't have the motion pulled up in front of me at the moment.

Yeah, the just as a clarification item B in the resolution that's attached articulates both a police and fire facility as part of the RFP.

Yeah, so it's so if I'm understanding the way it's written in the packet correctly, the motion that's currently on the table would just terminate the existing agreement.

Go ahead, Bonnie.

Are you ready to tell us something, Bonnie?

Yes, so in looking and reviewing the resolution, you could amend the resolution just to approve item to remove item B and item B with city staff are directed to proceed with the issuance of a new RFP for CMAR services related to the construction of a police and fire facility.

The rest of the resolution pertains to the termination of the agreement with Henry Carlson.

So all we would need is an amendment to the resolution to remove item B and you can approve the resolution the remainder of the resolution as it stands.

All right.

So I'm going to ask, do we have an amendment to do that?

I would like to make that amendment.

Is there a second to that amendment?

Second.

All right.

Any other discussion?

Comments.

So currently we are just voting on the amendment.

We are voting on the amendment now.

Please call the roll.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell.

Aye.

Avery.

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

Neemier?

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

All right.

Now we go back to the original motion with that being removed.

Is there any other discussion or comments on this?

Please call the roll.

Oh, Tilton Byrne.

No.

Uh the question I was going to ask is: are there any local companies that do CMAR work or do we largely have to look at companies outside of kind of the Brookings area for that type of agreement?

We have uh companies within Brookings and regionally than Sioux Falls locally, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Councilmember Specker.

So I just want to make sure I have this clear in my mind.

Essentially, what you're talking about is someone that's going to be doing oversight.

And the CMAR would be someone the city contracts to do that.

If you don't have that person, then city staff will be the ones providing oversight.

Oversight and all the internal work, yes.

Approving work and and approving changes.

Councilmember Tilton Byrne.

And to further clarify now with the amendment on the motion, we are just voting to terminate the existing agreement.

Correct.

Any other comments, questions?

Councilmember Wendell.

Thank you, Mayor.

I hesitate to ask this, but I want to just clarify.

Okay, so we vote on the amended version, which just uh terminates the existing agreement.

Item B is still hanging out there, which would allow us to direct city staff to proceed with an RFP.

But potentially just for the police facility.

Are we in a position where we would make that decision tonight?

Are we just pausing on proceeding at all until we've done more discovery on what the RFP would include?

And I guess I'll just say the reason I'm asking that question is I don't want to lose weeks in this process.

If we're going to vote to approve one that includes both facilities, I prefer we just take that action.

It is Bonnie, what if we instead of can we split item the one section we obviously just voted an amendment on it?

Is there a way we can split that so that we can separate the fire department and the police department as far as deciding to give give them direction?

Yes, you could just amend item B to remove either the police or the fire and leave whichever one remaining.

You want to do that, Holly?

That sound better?

Because I don't want to delay this any more.

I think that would wait until we get to item B.

Is that right?

I mean we would make that motion with item B.

We have to still vote on item A.

Is that correct?

We should still vote on the motion.

Voting on the termination of the agreement, and then on the next one we can vote to separate two.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So let's leave it at as is.

Uh call the rule.

Wendell.

Aye.

Avery.

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager?

Aye.

Neyer.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Okay.

On to item 10 B, action on resolution 26-017, a resolution amending the adopted procedures related to construction manager at risk projects.

John Thompson will present this item.

Thank you, Mayor, for the introduction.

Item 10 B is directly tied to the change of scope mentioned in item 10A.

Uh staff is recommending the approval of the resolution amending the procedures for the construction manager at risk projects.

Uh which were initially adopted in December 2021.

The proposed amendment updates project scope language from the renovation or replacement of a Berkings Police Department building to the construction of a new Berkings Police Department building, a downtown fire station, and future projects expressly authorized by the resolution by resolution of the city council.

A red line versions in your packet from 2021.

As a reminder, state law requires that the city council approve procedures related to a construction manager risk process by resolution in order for the city to utilize this delivery method.

That concludes staff's presentation on this one.

All right.

So entertain a motion to approve.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve, but only with the police facility included.

Okay.

Is there a second to that?

Second.

It's been motion move second to just include the police department.

John, do you have a question to that?

Can I can I clarify that?

I think we can leave police and fire in there.

We don't have to do them both.

They're both authorized if this council wants to do them.

If your direction is only to do police, that's all we're gonna do.

I was actually going to ask a clarifying question on that.

That is kind of along those lines.

Uh as you read it, it said or future projects that are affirmative.

So if we left that language in there along with the police facility, we could essentially vote at a later time to add on the fire department, correct?

Yes, I just we just have to come back and have another agenda.

Okay.

All right, is there any public comment on this item?

I figured you'd be coming up here, Randy.

Come on up, buddy.

Resolution, I get three more minutes.

I do thank you once again.

Do I have to introduce myself again?

No.

What's that?

I don't have to introduce myself again.

Go ahead.

Randy Hanson.

Mills Construction and a resident of Brookings.

I just wanted to say a few more clarifying comments as you consider this.

And that is if we look to SDSU, which is right here, and ask them, take some time, ask them why are they getting away from CMR on non-complicated projects that are smaller?

That will guide you.

And also talk to your own architect.

JLG and the engineers, they're saying the same thing.

If you don't want to hold up the fire station, go forward with the design process as it stands.

They know what you need.

It's a simple project.

Get the design done, go out, take advantage of this market, and you will save a lot of money.

As far as city staff usage of a design bid build project, the architects and engineers have to be involved in that process.

You're already paying them for that.

So it makes a lot of sense to split these out, stay on track with the fire, work your CMR for the police, which is more complicated, much larger.

They're on board right up front.

The design is almost done in the fire hall.

You're not gaining anything.

That's what I have.

All right.

Thank you, Randy.

Any other public comments on this item?

Council having questions, comments.

I I got one ticket for John to clarify.

John, if you will.

I just wanted to clarify Randy's comment.

The CMR process will not slow down the fire department development, correct?

No, it will not.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any comments, questions?

Are we all good?

Councilmember Specker.

It seems like we ought to vote on whether we want CMAR for both before we separate them out.

Shouldn't we?

I'm kind of confused on procedurally what we're actually accomplishing with this particular item.

Like how will staff actually act based on what we vote on?

So Bonnie, what was the motion?

The motion was the motion was to approve this resolution with only the police department facility listed, not the fire department.

So if you approve this, the way I understand it, and now it asked staff to clarify, then we'd only move forward with the police department CMR, which gives us clear direction we're going bid for the fire station.

That's the way I see it.

Yes.

Councilmember Tilton Burns.

Just to clarify, we would also then be able to add on the fire department given the language of additional items added on by resolution.

At a future date, yes, you could however I need to explain something as we go out for the RFP.

If if I'm gonna go out to RFP for the police station right now, that's the way the RFP is going to be written.

It's not going to include the fire.

So at a later date, if council changes their mind, so let's go out with let's keep CMR.

I will have to re-establish that.

And that's in all that time is gonna continue to delay both projects.

So right now our intent was to tomorrow um go out with it RFP for both for construction manager at risk projects for both projects.

Um now we'll we will revise that.

We probably will not go out tomorrow, um, but we'll go out soon like this week, and we're just with the PD.

And um fire at this point in time, I have no direction, so we will be paused.

Yeah, and then to clarify that that timeline.

If council were to approve both projects with CMAR, you plan on going out to bid, having those bids back as soon as and any evaluation done as soon as March 10th and getting that on uh the second meeting in March.

Correct.

If there's question about whether you go CMAR with police, fire, what have you, how that changes, it could delay the fire department by that change delay because you'd have to come back to future meeting for that discussion.

Yes, and you're gonna have to rewrite the RFP, correct?

Uh yes.

It would add weeks, a month, maybe, just depending on on what council wants to do.

Yeah.

And if there was a second bidder for the CMAR, we may have a different construction manager for PD versus the fire at that point in time.

It would make it a little bit more complicated, complex.

Yeah, and I'd like to apologize in advance for making this so complicated.

Councilmember Wendell.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I don't want to oversimplify the direction we're giving.

But in my mind, if we're approving item 10 B removing the fire facility language, I am casting that vote, assuming that we're giving the direction and that we're moving the design bid build process for the fire facility.

If that's not what the intention is, or that's not the direction we're giving, and we want to explore using CMR for fire further.

I'm not sure what we're accomplishing.

Councilmember Specker.

So if it goes to CMAR, then that manager puts out bids so that we will still get the advantage of a lot of supply being out there and people coming in with low bids, that's still gonna happen with a construction manager approach.

Yes, it's just we're paying for that construction manager, but we're paying for that construction manager instead of paying possibly overtime or additional staff costs.

Potentially for the oversight of it.

Or or buying the the loss of them able to do other parts of their their jobs is taken away from the production that they're doing on regular basis because this is added to their to their work schedule.

Okay.

So I guess I do we have any more discussion on this.

How do we want to approach this?

Councilmember Councilmember Tilton Byrne.

Um so a little bit of insight into why my motion was to remove the the fire facility.

I think as we're talking through this tonight, it does seem like we are pretty far on the design element of the fire facility.

Um and while I understand that that would uh add on additional staff responsibility to the process to not have it be part of the C CMAR approach, uh it sounds like there would also be a cost, an additional cost associated with that.

I'd I'd like for us to be able to evaluate a little more the cost of that staff time versus the cost of a CMAR approach uh leading that fire facility, knowing that a lot of the design is done already.

Um, and also just really trying to perhaps take into consideration any use of local contractors, um whether or not you either approach has a greater weight to that, I don't know.

Um, but those are the things that are sort of driving my approach to think that maybe removing the fire facility from the CMR approach might be in our best interest.

Um, but open to other thoughts as well.

Okay.

All right.

Any other comments, questions?

Councilmember Duran?

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm just trying to talk out loud a little bit here too, because uh one of my concerns is that was brought up that it delays potentially the project, and so I'm just trying to think through in the moment of if we it if we're not going to have CMAR because it could potentially be cost savings.

Um because we re we want to reevaluate the employee time and overtime and and capacity and the CMAR, but then if we come back in a few weeks and it turns out it's not really that much cost savings, or it's actually opposite, and we should do CMAR.

I I am concerned that that is inherently adding on cost to this project of just delaying the discussion.

So I'm just I'm trying to think through that in in my mind.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it it makes sense to go the CMAR position because we're operating on so many assumptions.

I completely hear the the comments that you have about the cost savings and I I validate that.

I'm I think my just my only concern is that if we're delaying this, um it's not going to be cost savings, if that makes sense.

And if it's wrong, please correct me.

It's unknown, it's unknown on that.

Uh because it will say if the direction I is go up for an RFP just for police, and then if that changes over the next couple council meetings, then that'll be a separate RFP with that separate line timeline too, pushing that back out.

Okay.

So you said police, but you mean fire.

I'm sorry, fire.

I'm sorry, yes.

Okay.

Councilmember Hager.

So is it possible for us to vote to go if we want to the CMAR route for police, but then do the bid build process for the fire department tonight?

Let me ask a question of the city clerk.

Could sit city council amend the motion to do a design build for the the fire.

If they approve that they go back to the original motion, which would then just give direction for the police CMAR.

Is that an option?

And if so, how would they do that?

I think is what you're asking.

They would need to do just what you said.

They can bring forth a second motion and take a vote on that, and then we need to circle back to Tilton Burns motion so that one is not left hanging.

All right.

Councilmember Hager.

Can we just remind everybody what councilwoman count Tilton Burns motion was again?

Certainly.

Councilmember Tilden Burns motion was to excuse me and look at the right item.

Was to approve the resolution with only the police department facility listed, removing the fire facility.

All right.

So would we combine this in here to add verbiage that the fire department would be then a design bid build?

In this in this well, I I'd make a clarification on that.

The fire department as is would not be a design bid build.

It'd be just a public bid because the design is gonna be addicted designs already through the process, it would be a public bid.

Okay.

So would that be a friendly addition, Bonnie?

Then friendly amendment?

You can certainly do that as a friendly amendment upon council member Tilton Byrne and Councilmember Wendell's approval.

All right.

Is that I would propose that amendment, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So everybody understand what we're doing now.

Councilmember Avery, do you have a question?

Yeah, I just want to make make sure that when we leave here tonight, John has knows what he's supposed to do.

Because I'm not sure I know what he's supposed to do right now.

If I if I could hopefully make it see if my clarity is right.

So number one, we are terminating the the uh current construction manager at risk agreement.

Number two, your direction to staff, which would be nice if we would do that amendment in 10a.

Your direction to staff would be to solicit a request for proposal for the police station and public bid for the fire department.

That's the way I'm understanding.

John, um they already voted on 10 A.

I know.

Uh we're on 10 B.

And so I think for clarification, council did a friendly amendment.

If the amendment passes, then we go out for bid for the fire department.

Okay.

They then vote on the the original motion.

If that passes, we then do CMAR for the police department only.

If the friendly amendment fails, then we go back to the original, and that would be guidance for me if you pass the original motion to do both as CMAR.

Would that be correct, Bonnie?

That is correct.

All right.

If the amendment fails, it wouldn't it wouldn't go to CMAR for both, because the original motion does not include both, correct?

Correct, because your original motion was amending.

But it includes other projects.

So unless council gives me further direction.

So your best direction if you don't want to go CMAR for the fire would be to do the bid for the fire in your friendly amendment.

That would be clearest for council or for staff.

Yeah.

All right.

So do we have any uh any more discussion on the amendment?

Please call the roll.

And please please state the amendment again to make sure that we're all voting on what we're voting on.

Certainly.

We know the the motion was to approve the resolution removing the police department facility.

Excuse me, leaving in the police department facility removing the fire facility with a friendly amendment clarifying that the city staff will follow a bid process for the fire department facility and a CMAR process for the police department facility.

All right.

And right now, since it's a friendly amendment, do we vote on that or are we now just voting on the entirety of the motion, including everything you just said?

We will vote on this as a motion and then we will come back to the original resolution as amended.

So we have two votes to take.

They have not.

They should have a public comment if there is some.

All right.

So is there any public comment on the amendment?

Council have any questions, comments.

Thank you all for bearing with us.

Have you been following this whole thing?

I sure have.

I sure have.

Where are we at with this with you?

Are you okay?

Are you good with this?

Yes, I think you have it sorted out.

All right.

Please call the roll.

This is the vote on the amendment with the friendly amendment.

Avery.

Hi.

Clarifying.

Doran.

Uh we had a clarifying question first.

What's that?

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Yeah, yeah.

Probably will not clarify anything.

I apologize.

So what we're amending is the resolution that outlines procedures for using CMAR product, right?

So we're amending that to reference the fire facility that we're doing a bid process on within this document.

That is ultimately a procedure laying out the CMAR process.

I'm just not sure where that language would fit in this document.

I guess I understand your question, yeah.

Um but I'm trying to figure out the cleanest way to get you there.

No to where you where you want to.

And if it fits in this document somehow, if it becomes section, I'm just not as I look at the actual document, I'm not sure what where our amendment would fit in it.

Because the document is for CMAR, clarifying that you're going to use CMAR for both processes.

So maybe it's understood that the CMAR will only be used for the police and not for the fire.

And by doing so, we know that uh to go bid for the fire, if that makes it clear.

Right, because wouldn't that be our default process?

Yeah.

Are we good?

Vince, could you help us a little bit on this?

Go ahead, Vince.

Go ahead, Vince.

I was just gonna say that I agree with that explanation.

All right.

Councilmember Specker.

So just to clarify, we're actually doing this on 26007, right?

26-017.

It says 007.

007 was item A.

So 007 Part B is that city staff are directed to proceed with an issuance of a new RFP for a CIMAR services related to the construction of a police and fire facility.

So that resolution was amended and approved as amended, removing item BIR.

Okay.

Yep.

Got it.

Right.

Go ahead.

I'll just make a follow-up comment.

I mean, I'm I'm comfortable taking the action.

I just as I read the document, I was having questions about where the direction to staff to go through the public bid process for the fire facility fits in this procedures document that we're amending.

If it fits in, say section two, then I'm comfortable with that.

I just I wasn't sure we were all clear that what we were amending was a procedures document that maybe because isn't this document more about CMAR use in general?

Not just for even these two projects.

We're just talking about it in that context.

Correct.

Maybe John can come up and help clarify.

This resolution is brought forward any time we do a CMA pro CMAR project to outline our authority to do a CMAR project.

So therefore, intuitively we brought it forward, thinking we're gonna do CMR for both.

So we're trying to do is achieve somehow what project you want to do the CMR with, and which one you'd rather do bid with.

And so maybe the cleanest is if you want to withdraw it all and go back to the original, just not and just do the police facility.

That is could clarify that we're doing just the fire is as bid if that's what you want to do, do if that if you don't believe it should fit within the resolution.

It would be a hard fit within this resolution.

Staff can come back within on the next next council meeting just specifically for direction on the fire.

We can get we can we already know your direction.

I can have the architects, they're already moving forward with where we're already going on it.

Just won't have an RFP for fire.

It'll only be police or CMR.

Is there somewhere in resolutions, ordinances wherever where the bid build process is the default where we could just put that into this document?

Or call that out.

This is this is this is expressly designed for procedures on statutory requirements for procedures on CMAR.

That's what this resolution is.

As far as uh Lisa's question on where is this the authority for design bid builder just uh like the reason we have the CMR resolution is because we don't usually use those.

Correct.

So is the bid build process the typical procedure?

The public public process is already there.

We wouldn't need to amend anything on that.

It's just be direction to staff.

Okay and that's all the agenda item would say clarifying direction to staff be maybe even on consent that uh city council clarifies uh direction of staff is to go for a public bid process on fire.

So um I think we all know where we want to be at the end of all this, it's just a matter of how we get there.

Now Bonnie just suggested that maybe we go ahead and do this motion based on the idea that we're just gonna do a semi CMR process for the police station, but then go back and revisit the last item that we were on and amend it differently there.

Correct.

We can go back and reintroduce 10A as amended.

So I think that's probably the best route.

So if we do that, then we probably should if that's our intent is to go back to the previous item that we had business on, then we should um fail the amendment and then vote on right, correct?

With the idea that we're only doing it going forward with this one just for the police station.

So we will vote on this amendment, but if we want to go back and revisit the other one, we should vote no.

Okay.

Please call the roll.

Avery.

No.

Doran, no.

Hager?

No.

Neymar.

No.

Specker?

No.

Tilton Burn?

No.

Wendell.

No.

All right.

Do we want any more discussion on the original motion?

I hate to say just to clarify because we've already said that so many times already tonight.

But the idea right now is the motion we are going to vote on is just for the police station only to go ahead and proceed in the process of a CML CMNR.

AR.

Please call the roll.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

Neemaier.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell?

Aye.

Avery.

Aye.

All right.

Month.

Now the next process is how do we go back to the previous item?

Do we have to make a motion to revisit that item?

We do.

We need a move.

I will make that motion to revisit the previous item to adjust our votes.

Second.

Is there any other discussion on this item?

Council, or I should say.

Is there any public discussion or comments, questions?

All right.

So please call the roll.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

Neymar.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell?

Aye.

Avery.

Aye.

So Bonnie kind of explained to us what we need to do on this one to clarify that we want the fire department to be on a bid process.

Well where we're working on, right?

Right.

So now this was a revisit of the resolution 20-007.

Voting on it in its original intent.

So now we need a motion to amend section B.

Do you have your resolutions in front of you?

So this would be to amend Section B to leave one and remove the other.

That needs to be stated in your motion.

I would make a motion to amend item B to keep in the police facility.

And instead direct staff to do the bid process for the fire facility.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Good.

All right.

Is there any public comment on this on it on this motion?

Council have any comments, questions.

Soon as you vote.

All right.

Please call the roll.

Hager.

Aye.

Neymar.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne?

Aye.

Wendell?

Aye.

Avery?

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Are we done then with business?

Bonnie?

We need one final motion on the resolution as amended.

Because we as amended.

All right.

All right.

So let's go on that roll.

Let's call the roll on that.

And now this is the approval of resolution 20-007 as amended.

Neyer.

Aye.

Specker.

Aye.

Tilton Byrne.

Aye.

Wendell.

Aye.

Avery?

Aye.

Doran.

Aye.

Hager.

Aye.

Okay.

Um we are not having a study session next week.

And so we'll move on to the February 24 meeting.

Uh we have a first reading on sidewalk sales and parklets.

I had to get clarification as what a parklet was.

It's like uh they had at Wooden Legs last summer where we took out some parking spaces.

And so we had kind of a uh practice run there, and and uh staff is clarified a little bit more, so we've got more of a definitive ordinance.

Um currently we have no second readings, and uh there are some recognition of employees for years of service, and Heidi Gullickson is going to give us a presentation on subsidy requests, and then there also will be the state of the city addressed by the mayor.

It's a little bit different program this time, so I hope everybody appreciates that and enjoys it.

So that will be on the 24th.

Is there any other items that the council would like to bring forward at this time for future discussion?

All right, entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned.