All right.

We'll go ahead and then get started with the Board Public Works meeting for uh Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

We'll start with the roll call.

Chad O'Ronnell.

Kevin Riley.

Joel Piper.

Eileen Micklitz.

All right.

That will move to the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands on a nation under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Anyone in here for public comment?

I don't think so.

Seeing none, I'll move to approval minutes.

Minutes from June 18th are attached to the agenda for your review.

Piper will make a motion to approve.

Kevin Riley, a second.

You have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none to vote.

O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Rayleigh, I.

Piper I.

That's aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

We'll move to item 5A.

5A.

Um I'd ask that you move that down to after the discussion and recommendation items.

There's a change order that would be attached to one of those chain uh partial payments.

Okay, we'll move to item 6A then.

6A.

Uh, this would be the first bid uh we would be reviewing tonight.

That would be for the Luke Avenue Bourne Place and Walton Avenue Street and Utility Improvement Project.

Um we've reviewed the bids and recommend moving forward with a little bid from Musin Brothers in the amount of one million four hundred and eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty-five dollars and fifty cents.

So any questions, Brendan or I try to answer Kevin Riley make a motion to approve.

I'll second it.

All right, any discussion.

Seeing none, let's go out.

Uh O'Donnell Aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper I.

All right.

Motion passes.

We'll move to item six P6B.

Uh, this is a bid we received for the Greenway Terrace Playground Resilient Surface bid.

Uh, we recommend moving forward with the bid from Blue Mills and the amount of 112,800.

Um, and for your references, park is on the north side of town near Rubin Drive, right?

I believe I have a question.

Sure.

Go ahead.

So I know when we first brought this forward had everything in here and it it was too much.

So now we're just getting a resilient surface.

So what happens to the other stuff that's on the bottom then?

Uh we're gonna be working with Park Rec uh to complete that work on the side.

Okay.

Um outside of the bid or outside of the contract.

Okay.

The the prices for that did not come in very favorable either for those items.

So in the future we'll look to do the same thing, um, but uh hopefully bid this earlier in the season so that uh uh there's opportunity or more opportunity for concrete contractors and and such to uh put a price in for that work.

And is is this one part of the like they're gonna put a new playground on it and everything?

Correct.

So is there a time frame on when that playground has to go on?

Um so that the playground will be removed at some point.

Um then there'll be the installation of the base and the concrete band and then a play uh a community build for the uh the playground itself and then reopened.

I'm not sure the exact time frame, Brendan.

Are you aware of that?

Yeah, I know that PRF with the delay in the bidding is going to adjust the time frame of the community bid so build so then it works with the new schedule of the project.

I just Eileen took handled a lot of my questions, I guess, to kind of piggyback off of that.

Is this something that we're expecting to get done yet in 26?

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, yes, absolutely.

Okay, and then is the the other stuff the up the items under the alternate bid is these are items that are required to do the surface, so correct?

Correct.

Yes, and then so we'll have either garage and or PRF staff do this work?

Correct.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

That's the plan to coordinate that.

And then at some point, and we I would just like to know what the cost difference is per square foot from just a solid color versus the mix.

If I remember right, I think those two are pretty, I think they've kind of come into parity, but I just would be curious.

Not for tonight, but maybe Brandon, we can talk offline.

I'm just kind of curious where those are where those numbers are starting to fall.

Yeah, absolutely.

We can we can chat about it.

Thank you.

I have one more question.

So on the bottom part where Park and Rec's gonna do that.

Are they gonna be coming back to us and say, okay, we need X amount of money because we need to purchase this or this or this?

No, it'll come out of their existing budgets.

Okay.

All right.

Any more questions?

With that, uh, we'll take a vote.

O'Donnell.

Oh, we need a motion.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve the bid to bloomals in the amount of 112,800.

I'll second that.

All right.

Now we have a motion and a second.

Take a vote.

O'Donnell I.

Kevin Riley.

Piper I.

Mick Let's A.

All right.

Motion passes.

We'll move to item 6C.

6C.

Uh, this is the Greedy Park irrigation installation project.

Um, as you can see, the bid single bid from always came in higher than the budget, uh, $64,425 compared to $57,500.

Um, as you remember, we did not receive a bid the last time.

Um we received a bid this time, which is good, and we believe the bid is probably fairly accurate here.

There is some difficult work here.

Um, but what we'd recommend is to move forward with the base bid in that amount, but it'd be pending approval of additional funding from the Waxha Community Foundation.

Um, so we wouldn't move forward with the contract unless that uh work was or the uh extra funding was uh made available from the community foundation Kevin Riley will make a mo uh motion to accept the bid.

I'll second it with a question.

So what we're looking for from the Waksha Community Foundation is this additional 87,000.

No, it's uh it's actually uh that difference between the 57 and the 64 uh plus some work for water connection uh for the system, and that's not in this bid, it was actually in the another bid, so uh that needs to be funded as well.

So that's about 20,000 dollars, so uh as bid in the in the Lucanborn project.

Okay.

So and I just have a question for clarification.

So the the uh the city is uh doing the contract, but the funding we're assuming is gonna be coming from the community foundation, which was the not-for-profit set up to fund the Grady Park Memorial.

Correct.

Okay.

So these are yeah, I and I'll so these are for the public that are watching, these are not city tax dollars or levy dollars, these will be right donated dollars that are already in hand.

Correct.

Okay, thank you, gentlemen.

That would be transferred over to cover that additional funding.

All right, any more questions?

That we have a motion and a second, so we'll go ahead and to quote uh O'Donnell I.

Kevin Riley I Piper I.

Make Litz I.

All right, motion passes.

We'll move to item seven A.

Sorry, my page here.

7A.

This is to review and act on uh contract change order amount number one with advanced construction.

Uh, this is for the cell side pump station consolidation project.

Um this is a rather large project that's been going on for uh for some time, and this is kind of wrapping wrapping that project up.

So I'll turn it over to Chris for uh kind of walking us through the items on this.

Um I will mention that uh the result the the net result of the change order is a a net deduct of ninety-two thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars.

So go through the ads on that one.

Um this change order consisted of several items.

Uh the big deduct, uh, so item number one.

Um there are various unused quantities throughout the whole project.

Some of that was coordination and timing with other projects in the area that we primarily in Fox River Parkway, uh, the northern end of it.

We put down a temporary asphalt with the idea that we were coming back the following year with the resurfacing program and tearing that up again.

Um, so we didn't do the full full depth and that one, you know, pavement markings and everything that went along with that.

Um that was the bulk of that item, which was that 231,000 or almost 232,000 um savings there.

Um there was extra work that was requested by the city um right at the beginning, item 1.1 um right at the beginning of the project, uh before any major work really began.

Uh we had a leak at the force main at the West Avenue site.

Uh the contractor had equipment in the area and they were available and did that as a time and material as it you know, we didn't want to sink a lot of money into it.

Um so as a time and material repair for the 4100 um item 1.2.

Um we were crossing Les Paul Parkway at Sunset Drive and replacing a portion of the Milky Way force main uh from the pump station that's further south on Milky Way Road.

Uh there was no real good borings in the area.

The couple that were right in the area that were shown on the plans did not indicate bedrock uh would be a problem.

Fortunately, the contractor when they started excavating and drilling, they ran into bedrock before they even got into under the highway.

Um so the the 42,000, 40 almost 43,000 was for the extra the different equipment they needed to rent and the manpower and time that went with that.

The next item uh 1.3 um when they were working at the higher pump station, it was discovered that we did not include the painting of the basin walls as part of the project.

Um which we've done in other and other projects uh similar to this.

Um unfortunately it came after the fact, and contractor needed to set up scaffolding in the basement, which is about 25 feet deep.

Um prep it, they had scraped all the walls down, prepped them, primed them, two coats of you know, epoxy paint.

Um a lot of that is just material and the scaffolding setup and labor for putting that paint products on.

Um extra gate valve on the force main, which allows us to shut down the force main along the route.

If we ever have issues with that, um so we asked asked the uh contractor to install an extra gate valve on there.

Um goes back to the higher pump station with the painting projects.

Um when they cleaned and prepped the walls, they discovered a couple of areas of deteriorated concrete that needed to be addressed, um, which required some removal on that and patching material, and that was a TM for that 45 almost 4500 there.

Um also higher drive.

Um it was a newer roof on the building, so we did not look at the roof when that during the design phase.

Um we got out there, the soffit and fascia around the building was pretty beat up.

Um, some of it I would almost would say would be kind of vandalism from kids trying or people trying to climb up there and get on the roof, um, which created voids and gaps in the the covering.

Um so we ended up replacing that um to improve the the weatherproofing on there, and also it was pretty beat up and just time for replacement.

That was the 40 so era the $6,000 there extra.

Um next one 1.7 at both West Avenue and the Fox Point stations, just the actual sizing of the equipment and some of the valves and stuff in there created a code code conflict with the main electrical disconnect switch.

So we ended up having to move that from the inside of the building to the outside.

Um so that's where that 4700 and 25 cents comes from or 25 dollars comes from.

Um was changing those out to stainless steel to be more corrosion resistant being outside, and then also the the effort to move them from inside to outside.

Um the northern portion 1.8 Fox River Parkway storm inlet replacement.

We did we had repair work.

We did not have an inlet, actual full replacement on there.

Uh one of the inlets they came across was in pretty bad shape all the way down to the bottom, and it was easier to easier and more cost effective to remove the the whole structure and replace it and reconnect all the piping, uh, which accounted for that $8,644.

Um and then West Avenue.

There was some revisions to the planned retaining wall out there.

Uh there was an extension and then on part of it, and then also replaced uh some of the existing wall that was near the stormwater station that was starting to fall over that was not included in the original plans, and that came to the $18,000.

So as Alex mentioned, the total net change order for this is really a deductive $92,720 and 43 cents.

So just to clarify, we saved some money on the first one, and then the money that we saved we were able to use to complete these other things that we need to get done.

That is correct.

Okay.

So in the overall contract, we're we're still at $90,000 under the original contract.

Okay.

Yeah, and that's to the total contract on this uh project is $13.6 million dollars.

So uh came in over overall really well for us to complete and is this the end of it?

I mean, uh or there is there gonna be any more change orders after this?

This is complete than after this.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve the change order as presented.

I'll second.

All right, any further discussion.

That will take a vote.

O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley I Piper I make Litz I.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move to item 7B.

7B and uh the next several items here are either stormwater management practice maintenance agreements or developers agreements.

So go through those here.

Uh you've seen these many times before, they're just different locations.

Uh the first one is a stormwater management uh maintenance agreement between the city and Carroll University for their property located at uh 245 North Barstow Street.

Kevin Riley will make a motion to approve Piper will second.

And this is this for the business school development.

Correct.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Thank you.

All right, any discussion.

That will take a vote.

O'Donnell I.

Kevin Rayleigh I.

Piper I.

Mick Litz I.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move to uh item 7C.

7C.

This is a uh stormwater main management uh practice maintenance agreement with the city and Ineo Walkershaw gas engines uh for their property located at 1101 West St.

Paul Avenue.

We have an expansion going on there.

Piper I'll make a motion to approve and with a second of a question.

Kevin Rayleigh will second.

So with the I guess Alex, what are they are they gonna put a pond in or are they I mean given the proximity to the river?

I'm just curious.

I believe the majority of it is uh sumps and things like that.

Right.

Because correct, there's not a lot of room there for putting a stormwater pond in, correct?

It's either underground or it's like storm sewer catch basins and things like that.

All right.

And then the addition that's this is gonna go off the back side of the building, correct?

Kind of along the closer to the river.

The south ish side.

South Walkershaw, South Ish side of the river.

Yeah, downstream side, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any further discussion?

That will take a vote.

O'Donnell Aye.

Kevin Riley, I think.

Piper Its I.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move to item 7D.

7D.

This is uh review and possibly act on the developers agreement with the city of Wakshaw and uh the skyline walkershire LLC for phase two of the skyline subdivision.

This is an area located north of Summit, west of uh 318.

And developer is here, I believe.

So questions, but Piper will make a motion to approve.

Kevin Riley the second.

Okay, any discussion.

That will take a vote.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper I.

Micklet's aye.

Okay, motion passes will move to item 7E.

7E.

This is uh stormwater management practice maintenance agreement between the city of Walks and Balinski homes for the waypoint villas development.

Uh this is over off of River Road and Rapids Trail and the southwest side of town.

So any questions I'll try to answer.

Piper will make a motion to approve, and I have a question with the second.

Kevin Rayleigh will second.

I know since gentlemen from the developers here, I'm just curious how many units is this?

24.

24.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, these are the side by side.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Any further discussion?

That will take a vote.

Uh O'Donnell, I.

Kevin Riley, I.

Piper I.

Okay.

Motion passed.

We'll move to item 7F.

Uh this is a review and possibly act on the stormwater management practice maintenance agreement between the city and pro health care for the development at the Meadowbrook Road site.

Uh so this is also uh West of 318 north of uh summit.

Um in that general area.

Piper will make a motion to approve.

Kevin Riley will second.

Any discussion?

That would take go out.

O'Donnell I.

Kevin Riley, I piper I.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move to item 7G.

This is another one that same area there.

This is a stormwater management practice maintenance agreement for uh between the city of Waksha and the Carroll O Smart Survivors Trust.

Um etc.

Uh for the country crest lane development.

So country crest lane will extend Summit Avenue or Summit uh just west of Torhorst.

So it's for that area southwest of that uh pro healthcare uh project we just approved went through Kevin Riley I'll make a motion to approve Piper will second okay.

Any discussion uh O'Donnell I Kevin Rayleigh I Piper I think that's a motion passes, then we'll move to 7H.

7H1 here.

Well, this is the developers agreement, sorry.

I was like this is the same one, but no, this is the developer's agreement between the city of Oxhaw and Smart Realty for the country crest lane development in that same area as the stormwater management agreement, which is approved was Piper will make a motion to approve.

Kevin Rayleigh, seconds, any discussion that will take a vote.

Aye.

Kevin Rayleigh I.

Piper I.

Picklet's aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

We'll move to item eight A.

You we could do eight A.

Yeah, that's fine.

We'll do 8A.

Um the we just have to remember to go back to payments.

Oh, yeah.

So um, so 8A, this is to review and possibly act on uh some one-time sewer credits.

Uh these requests came from uh Madeline Noak at 101 Woodlark Court and uh Badismere uh from Jersey Circle.

Uh these items, uh the first one was for Madeline Noak 101 Woodlark for a one-time request for watering trees.

Uh so let's make note of that that this is a watering trees with a silver hose.

And then the other one at Jersey Circle is also for watering trees.

Um this is a one-time sewer credit request that they've made.

Um the department is gonna recommend moving to deny these requests, uh, specifically because it's spelled out in the ordinance.

Uh it's very specific to uh the landscaping must be just is basically restoration of grass.

It doesn't focus in or even mention the placement of trees and establishing trees.

It's very specific to the square footage of grass restoration or installation of new grass.

Um so we're recommending that.

Um it's up to the board to decide if you'd want to move forward with uh requests for watering trees.

Uh we can confirm that if they were indeed watering trees, the water didn't go into the sewer, uh, which is kind of one of those ideas we look at, but uh the reason why we're kind of required to recommend no is because of the um how specific it is in our ordinance referencing back to the definition of landscaping and the definition of landscaping in our ordinances specific to a square footage of grass and uh either replacement of that grass or installation of like a new lawn.

So we haven't received a request up until this point for watering of anything besides grass.

So were these were these folks notified of that when they put their request in, or are they gonna get we told them that we were gonna deny it, but it's up to you potentially for uh they're given the language in the ordinance.

Um so it's you know I I wouldn't say they're looking one way or the other.

It's really up to you guys as to how you want to approach these.

So I I mean I I would agree with Alex.

I don't I don't recall in my time on the board where we've been requested to sub for reimbursement to water for trees.

For planting of trees, that has yeah, that hasn't happened.

So I don't have the ordinance in front of me, so I'm gonna lean on you guys that you're we're confident that the verbiage is very specific to the restoration of grass.

It says, well, you can read part of it here.

Um so it says for special circumstances such as a swimming filling a swimming pool or establishing new landscaping as defined in Watergoshaw Municipal Code 13.1, uh, which defines new landscaping as vegetation installed at a one time of a construction of a new house, um, or which alters more than one quarter of the area of an existing yard, or which alters an area of three thousand square feet of an existing yard.

Were these were these trees part of a new house?

No, these are existing.

Okay.

I guess they might have they they might have had me a little bit if it was establishing trees in a new in new construction because you kind of have to do that.

Vegetation landscaping, but if you're saying that these are existing properties that they're they put so these are existing homes, they planted trees, watered these trees, and are asking for a credit because they watered the trees.

And it has nothing to do with the establishment of a lawn.

Correct.

A new lawn.

So, like I said in the definition there, installed at the time of construction of a new house, multifamily or industrial or commercial building, or which alters more than a quarter of the area of the existing yard.

So existing yards, installation of existing grass and redoing grass, which alters an area of greater than 3,000 square feet.

That's what the definition says.

Okay.

All right.

So neither one of these, Chris, were new.

They were existing lawns and they replaced or they added trees and a very you know localized area that and watered those trees directly for 52,000 gallons on a tree.

That is what you know.

I I think their landscapers told them they need to water them X number of hours per day, or their warranties are void.

So that's what they do.

And then they get a note okay notification from the water utility, you know, at the next meter reading that they've got a huge increase, and you know, so they'd look, you know, they they call and you know the water utility and they'd talk and the water utility sends them back to us, sort of thing.

So all right.

This I'll this is Piper.

I'll make a motion to deny the one-time credit for Madeline Nowak and the other gentleman, correct?

And Jersey Circle 201 Jersey Circle.

Mr.

Uh Bun Amisadar Lo Lagugu.

Lulugu.

Sorry, sir, um, at Jersey Circle.

So I'll make a motion to deny both the both of these one-time credits.

I'll second it with one question.

Sure.

Um, why does why does this come in front of public works?

Why does this not go in front of the water utility?

This is re giving them a sewer credit.

So they're paying their water bill, they don't get a credit on the water.

Okay.

That was used and consumed.

This is a request for a one-time credit for treat, like treating the water.

So the Board of Public Works oversees the the wastewater operations at the city.

Okay.

So that's why.

We have a motion or seconds.

We'll go ahead and take a vote.

Uh O'Donnell, I.

Kevin Rayleigh, I.

Piper I.

All right.

Motion passes.

We'll move to item 8.

ETE B, sorry.

Um, this is additional uh one-time sewer credit requests.

This entails um one from Timothy Ryan at 101 Fleet Foot Drive, one from Beth Schultz at 3827 Retcer Court, one from Ruth Ann White, 2200 Summit Avenue, and one from Deborah Crawford 17 1707 White Deer Trail.

Um these two of these involve establishing a new lawn, so that falls right in line with uh with meeting the ordinance and Chris verified it's meets the either new lawn installation or uh the square foot area.

Uh but also if there's two of that it involve a leaking faucet.

Um as you know, we seem to have a lot of leaking faucets.

Um the board has recommended both for and against those.

Um so we've what we're recommending is approving the two for the establishing of the new lawn and then denying the leaking faucet.

We believe that uh the leaking hose bivs, we have no right approved whether that how or that did occur or not occur, other than the higher water usage, and uh it was recommended to us that uh that's basically negligence and it uh shouldn't be refunded.

So I guess it's up to uh the board to decide on those two as well.

But uh we'd recommend no on the uh the two for the leaking faucet and yes on the establishing a new lawn.

I have a question.

Yes, of course.

So this uh Beth Schultz on Rutzer Court.

This is for June, July, August, September, October, and November of 2024.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes, that is.

Um the I have to go back in my notes real quick.

Um I have a feeling it's one of those where the neighbors Retzer court is a newer area.

Um I think we have a couple other requests that have come in over time, and as neighbors talk, she was made aware that there's a process you can get refunded.

Um so that's where that is.

We do require a full year worth of usage to compare.

So there it can be a delay just based on you know new construction.

It's gonna be at least a year before we even look at processing a credit for them to figure out what that additional usage is.

Um, but I think it's one of those the requests came in um fairly recently.

Um this was in 2024 that they were establishing the new.

They established the lawn in 24 and I will which it was six six months for establishing the lawn.

We look at typically we look at a full growing season.

Because if they put in sod or seed, you know, depending on how hot or you know, dry that summer can be, it can take time to establish a lawn.

Um you're also looking at the high usage where it's compared to the lower the other months, if that makes sense.

So June, July, August are high, or even September and October are high from their normal usage.

There isn't a ton of normal usage on this one because it's a newer house in 2024, but there were two other Yeah, the request came in late late, late in March of 26.

So we do like I was telling you before, we'd we do our best to estimate the extra usage, and that's what we recommend.

Um we have no no way of verifying that it was watered every single day, or if they had a a leaky faucet, we don't have any idea of knowing.

We just we can look at their months of high water usage and and then go off what they tell us.

And if they have a new lawn, you can tell that.

So then that was my other question for the last one then on white deer trail.

So we had one in 2024 that had six months for six hundred and sixty-eight dollars that they're requesting, and then you have one for 2025, and that one is only two months, and that one's a thousand dollars.

And uh so I don't know, is it because it's based on the size of the lawn then or how much they watered their lawn?

Yeah, yeah, it comes into how much they watered their lawn.

I think sorry about that.

They may have looked at the you know their watering bill and said we're not gonna water our grass anymore.

It seems to be growing fine.

Um I don't remember actually 2025, if I recall last summer was a pretty decent year for for lawn establishment.

It was a pretty cool and you know, wet year as far as rain.

They may not needed uh water as much in those later months and decided not, you know, it didn't show up as a huge spike or anything.

But but it's all based on it's all based on what you you're looking at the usage, and then you're deciding this would be would would be the appropriate reimbursement.

Correct.

Not what they're asking for necessarily.

Correct.

Correct.

They have they have really no normally with new lawns they I I asked for a start date and start looking, you know, for the full year, and then you can kind of see where they dwindle off and you get into normal domestic usage sort of thing.

That's what you're wondering.

102,000 gallons or two months.

Yep.

So they really soaked their yard.

Or were they doing trees then as well?

We don't know.

We don't know.

They might have been, but you know, it's they probably throw sprinklers out there, and that's what they do.

I mean, a lot of them they the landscapers will come in and they will set up the sprinklers on a timer so the homeowners aren't even aware of what they're using right away until the water utility comes in and says, hey, you've used a lot of water over you know the last billing period.

So there's a there's typically a delay from when they start watering when the water utility notifies them, and you're into the second billing cycle at that point already.

So you end up with at least two months on any given incident, because they really can't pinpoint is it this month or that month, when did they stop?

I guess my question, Alex, is I've I've and I could be mistaken, but I thought we've issued credits for broken hoses in the past.

We 100% have, yes.

It was I think the last one or the previous one, and maybe you weren't here, but then one would one was recently denied.

So you're correct.

We have issued them and we haven't issued them.

So I think we've aired more on the side of issuing them than denying them.

Correct.

I think I think the one that you denied was one that was extremely a lot of water.

So I guess what's the what's the what would be the premise to deny these then?

If you get if you'd like to approve them, that's completely okay with us.

We're not gonna be able to do that.

I mean, I think that I mean from my standpoint, that's why we've always made it very clear to homeowners that this is a one-time, it's kind of a one-time deal.

And we didn't treat the water.

So I mean, I'll see where the rest of the board feels, but um I just I think based upon my experience, we've approved more of these one-time credits for people that have had a broke a leaky hose bib or left a hose on, even though you know it's an accident or whatever.

I'll make a motion to approve all of these as presented, airing on the side that in my experience we've we've approved more of the leaky hoses than we've denied.

And it's a one-time credit, and we didn't treat the water.

So that would be my that's my motion.

That's that's correct.

Alwyn Piper, it is definitely we've approved more than denied I'll second.

All right, the motion and a second, any discussion?

Um discussion.

Yeah, I do have a a point I'd like to make.

How would we go about getting the ordinance reviewed so that we can clean this up, tighten it, and make it more uh clear we what the intent is and what the limits are, maybe put some parameters on who pays for when uh uh uh like a developer builds it.

We've been finding situations where part of the time the developers are looking for the credit and then it and then uh or sometimes the new homeowner gets it.

I I would just like to see this ordinance cleaned up so that we could have clear parameters on what we what we're gonna accept, deny, and where the criteria sort in the last revision of chapter 29, there was some revisions to this part of the chapter.

Remember what that was specifically, Chris.

We had recommended we had recommended, I think I would have to go back to the discussion on this part of that chapter 29, but that's how we would do it.

We would if there's typically we look at the ordinance of when there's multiple things to revisit.

Um if you guys want us to the group here wants us to revisit that ordinance and uh make recommendations on how to adjust this.

Uh we're completely open to that.

I think the I think Kevin, the mechanism would be under item 10 communication and referrals.

Okay.

And I think we as a board, it's been a long time since we've done something like this, but we we as a board could make a referral to ONL to have them review that section, section 29.

Okay, I will bring that point up at that time then.

Okay.

And if you have a recommendation in that referral on what you'd kind of like to see, that would help us as well.

That would be the advice I give all my fellow council members too, is that if you make a referral, have some ideas around what you'd like to see.

Okay.

So it doesn't have to be this time, but in the future, 100% we're open to it.

All right.

Any further discussion?

That we'll take a vote.

O'Donnell, I Kevin Riley, I piper I think what's saying.

Okay.

Motion passes.

So we'll jump back up to approval of payments.

Right.

So there are 11 payments for this round of payments.

I do want to point out one item on uh one of the final payments.

That's to always contractors.

Um it lists the original amount of the contract or uh uh but uh we have left accidentally left off the amended amount of the contract on that sheet there.

So uh the the amended contract value is two hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars.

So if you're looking at our total payment on there, um we're not going over the contract without amending the contract.

So we had just mistakenly left off the amended dollar amount on that partial payment.

So this uh Piper, I'll make a motion to approve payments as presented with the second I have a question.

Kevin Riley, seconds the transit center boiler replacement.

Was that is part of that covered by the feds?

Being that it's so is that an 8020 was that an 8020 C20 split and then the 20 percent is covered by the special funds, the Christian funds and the the ARPA funds and all of that stuff.

So zero cost to the city.

Zero cost of the city.

So I I'll just reiterate that for the group.

So 80% of that 52 is covered by the federal government because it's related to a transit building, and the 20% city share was covered by COVID dollars that this transit our transit authority received as part of COVID.

So zero zero to the average taxpayer.

100% all right, thank you.

All right, that I guess we can take a vote.

Uh Kevin Riley, I Piper I.

Take that.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move to item nine.

Uh just for report, I would just uh mention that uh to the board that uh an invite was sent out to the council uh for uh touring the clean water plant.

Uh that's open to the Board of Public Works as well.

Um that would be uh on July 21st at 4 30 before the next council meeting.

So if you're interested, let me know and uh show up there at 4 30 for a tour of the clean water plant.

Um and then on our July 23rd uh Board of Public Works and Transit meeting.

Uh we're planning to hold that at transit.

Um what day is that?

The 23rd.

So that same week.

All sorts of fun that week.

23rd of July.

Yes, yes.

So 23rd of July public works meeting at transit.

And transit.

Yeah, bus wash should be completed.

You know you want to see the bus watch.

I absolutely 100% fascinating.

Um, and then we're also gonna Brian will give a little presentation and explanation on uh bus sizes and why we do what we do down there.

So I'd like to give you a tour of the buses and then show you the bus wash.

So exciting times coming up in July here.

Um that's all I have for report.

Okay.

Uh move to item 10.

Uh communications.

We've got the library revolving door replacement rebid project out again.

Um, and then if there's any referrals, let us know.

Uh Kevin Riley would like to make a motion for a referral to ONL and or the council to review the sewer credits uh ordinance specifically to help uh tighten it up and redefine it so that we know who's entitled to the credits, what the rationale is, and maybe some parameters and limits to how it can be used.

Sounds good.

Nope.

Nope.

All right.

All right, that we are uh adjourned.