Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Monday, September 8th, 2025 West Fargo City Commission meeting.

We'd call the meeting to order.

I'd ask that you please join the Commission in a pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

And to the Republican which is one nation under Godissible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Could you please call a roll?

Commissioner Jorgensen.

Present.

Commissioner Sundell here.

Commissioner Dartis.

Here.

Commissioner Olson.

Here.

Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Let the record show all our commissioners are present.

First order of business is to approve the order of the agenda.

It has been distributed and in front of you.

Motion to approve.

Mr.

Jorgensen moves to approve zero second.

Second.

Commissioner Zondell seconds.

I have a motion and a second to approve the order agenda as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Next order of business is to approve the minutes of August 18th, 2025.

Again, they have been distributed.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Olsen moves to approve their second.

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of August 18, 2025 as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Item F is building permits.

Again, it has been distributed and in your packet.

Move the approved.

Commissioner Zondal moves to approve.

Second.

Commissioner Olson second uh seconds it.

I have a motion on the second to approve the building permits as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Commissioner?

I need to recuse myself from voting on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jorgensen.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Let the record show that was a 4-0 vote.

Consent agenda.

We have items A through E.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Anderson moves to approve the consent agenda.

Items A through E.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Jorgensen seconds.

I have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

We now move into the regular agenda.

First order of business is public comment.

At the present time, we have we had one person signed up for public comment.

The gentleman, please come forward, use this microphone, please.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening.

Or just related to item 10 on the agenda.

Why is the city being sued regarding a street project?

Regardless of this litigation, West Fargo CAP continues to call out this project number 2290 as an ill-advised experiment that will likely cost more with low quality results.

Not following the North Dakota DOT Bridge and Street construction permits that the city demands private companies follow.

Not following quality controls and private companies, which issured no mistakes are made regarding compaction, fitness, subservice preparation, etc.

Using improper equipment, including contractors and all trusts.

Failure to properly clean the streets after they were milled.

And failure to complete the street overlay within the required three-day period following the milling work.

Besides the above, commissioners should also question staff about why was there so much effort, including a rebid to obtain asphalt from Minnesota?

With so many city staff work on this project, what other work they should have been doing has been ignored.

How will they be productive the rest of the year?

Will staff now ask more new extensively limit for this type of work?

Why do no other North Dakota cities undertake such a large projects?

And why are two of the largest contracting associations in North Dakota taking issue that less far as practices?

Common sense should tell you that using government staff for this work is not economically feasible.

This does not save on taxpayers.

Thank you, China.

Again, we had one person sign up for public comment.

We move on.

You have to sign you have to sign up before it doesn't say anything on this on this notice of budget hearings that sent out via U.S.

mail from your city assessment plus argument.

Had I known to sign up, I would have.

Second two.

That's what we're moving to.

We're moving to that.

We're moving that next.

Great.

Thank you.

Again, we are moving an item two for public hearings.

The first public hearing is on A25-17.

Cheyenne second edition, a request for zone rezoning from R2 to P.

Aaron Nelson, the director of planning and zoning, will be presenting.

Good evening and welcome.

Good afternoon, President Dartis and Commissioners.

So item two is an application to rezone the South Elementary School property from R2 to P, which R2 is our multi-dwelling residential district, and P is our public facilities district.

The specific request to action tonight is to hold a public hearing and to approve the first reading of the rezoning ordinance.

It's the reason that the P District exists in the first place.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff.

Any questions from Mr.

Nelson?

Commissioner?

All right, thank you.

At this time we gab a lot of the regular agenda, and we now are in a public hearing with regard to A twenty-five-seventeen Cheyenne second edition, a request for rezoning from R2 to P public facilities.

Is there any that would not like to speak in favor of this rezoning?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this rezoning?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this rezoning?

Hearing none.

Is there anyone that would like to speak against the rezoning of A25-Shyventeen Cheyenne 2nd edition?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this rezoning?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this rezoning?

Hearing none, the public hearing is closed.

We're back in the regular agenda.

Again, Commissioners, the task before us this evening, and this is the first reading.

How would you like to proceed?

Commissioner Olson moves to approve uh A twenty-five-sevented Cheyenne second edition.

Request for rezoning for R2 to P.

Second.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Anderson second.

So I have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Item 2B is a public hearing on the 2026 preliminary budget.

Duskin Scott City Administrator will be presenting.

Good evening, Commissioner President Artis and Commissioners.

So on August 4th, the Commission approved the preliminary budget.

This is a hearing for objections or protests on the preliminary budget.

The state requires us to hold this hearing between September 7th and October 7th.

So I know recognize that some time has passed since approving the preliminary budget, but um that's that's what we're here to do tonight.

So with that, I would turn it over to the commission for any questions that I can answer.

Any questions for Mr.

Scott?

Thank you.

I'll leave it to you.

At this time, again, we gabble out of the regular agenda.

We go into public hearings.

The 2026 preliminary budget.

Please come forward.

Use this microphone, please.

I'm just uh one comment.

I think it's been interesting to watch the city staff going through the same type of budget process that companies go through.

Well, you can't just raise your prices to your customers without losing customers.

Governments don't have that danger of losing customers.

We're stuck here with our houses.

And so if they have this artificial ceiling facing them, puts them under the same pressure that all the private industry in the area has to face all the time.

I think it's probably an excellent learning experience for them.

And uh we've seen it seems like they put together a good budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the 2026 preliminary budget?

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the 2026 preliminary budget?

I don't know.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of it?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of it?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of it?

Public hearing is closed.

Um is this an actionable item, Mr.

Scott?

I would assume uh thank you, Commissioner President.

Uh no, this is not an actionable item.

You're just uh hold the hearing and receive any objections or protests on the preliminary budget.

All right.

With that, we move on to item number three.

Um item number three is the review of the 2026 final budget.

Mr.

Scott.

Well, thank you again, Christian President Artis and Commissioners.

Well, it's my uh absolute pleasure to bring forward our first draft of the final budget.

Um we are well ahead of schedule, so uh that gives us some time now to get this information out to the public.

Um a couple things to highlight.

One, uh a little bit of a different format this year.

We are uh put putting all of the departmental itemized budgets in an appendix at the back end, keeping the all the departmental uh narratives with uh total dollar amounts in the front end.

So um I hope the uh public appreciates this this format.

Uh we think it is very user-friendly and uh excited that we are adding our priorities goals for 2026 and adding some context uh to the uh budgetary items.

So this is uploaded on our website, it is available.

Uh as you would recall, we are planning to bring the final budget forward on September 22nd, where uh it's possible the commission could approve it then.

Uh if not, if we're not ready, the October 6th meeting would be our last meeting before we uh need to approve it and return the final budget to the county uh to stay in accordance with state law.

So I don't really have uh a lot of other information to share with you.

I will say that uh since the preliminary budget was approved on August 4th, there have been no changes to the departmental expenses.

Uh really the only change that you would find in the numbers would be a reduction in our forestry revenue.

It reduced from about 870,000 down to 800,000.

So uh that's really the only monetary change since our preliminary budget approval.

Um there are also precipitated that change, Mr.

Scott.

Uh just uh uh I think after the utility rates were approved, there was uh an adjustment made to reflect those new rates.

So more of a correction uh that took place.

Again, this is just a review and inviting the public to uh look at this online and the like.

Again, we're not taking any action on the budget this evening that'll come forward uh at a later date.

So have anything else for us?

Oh, that's all I have.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

We move on to item number four.

Item number four is 825-19 galvanizers edition, a request for a final plot approval.

We're going to call on Aaron Nelson, our director of planning and zoning for this topic.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

So item four is a request for final plat approval, including the associated public dedication agreement.

This request comes to you with a recommendation for approval from the planning and zoning commission.

So let's pull up the aerial photo here.

The uh subject property includes about 12 acres of land located between 7th and 12th Avenues, northwest or excuse me, northeast, uh just west of the Fargo landfill.

The uh City of Fargo currently owns the subject property along with an unplated remainder of land uh immediately to the west and is in the process of subdividing uh several tracts of land uh for the purpose of selling the property off to uh to other individuals and and entities.

Um the land is currently within the M Heavy Industrial Zoning District, and the proposed subdivision platishes one 12-acre lot, which they intend to sell to Galvanizers Inc., which is the uh landowner immediately to the south of the subject property.

Uh additionally, the subdivision also includes right-of-way dedication for the extension of 12th Street northeast on the northwest uh portion of the plat here.

However, there are no plans to construct any infrastructure within the right-of-way uh at this time.

The uh subdivision includes um public dedication in the form of fee in lieu of land dedication, uh, as there is no need for parks or other public facilities within the subdivision.

The details of that um fee in lieu of uh land dedication are included in an agreement within the uh subdivision packet as well.

So uh in closing, uh staff has received no comments regarding the proposed subdivision plat, and overall staff finds the proposed plat to be consistent with city ordinances and the uh comprehensive plan and is recommending approval.

Uh again, the requested action tonight is to approve the final uh plat of galvanizers edition along with the associated associated public dedication agreement.

Uh so with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Staff.

Questions, Mr.

Nelson?

Commissioner Olson.

So in the uh screen that you've got up there right now, that dotted line dissecting block one.

Is that a potential yeah that right there?

Is that a potential road street?

I believe that's actually a an existing pipeline easily.

Oh, pipeline.

Okay.

Yep.

That's already there.

All right.

Thank you.

So does your department have any additional oversight if we approve this plotting of what the land use might be for the future?

So the the property is currently within the M Heavy Industrial Zoning District, and so once the subdivision is approved, the owner would be allowed to you know construct or use the property for anything that's currently allowed within the heavy industrial zoning district.

Can you give me some examples?

What's allowed in an industrial?

So our M heavy industrial district is the most intensive of our zoning districts, and so the heavy industrial, so manufacturing, production, um, that sort of thing.

Uh galvanizers inc, again, is the property owner to the south.

They do um galvanizing of metals, I believe, is what they uh specialize in, and so I believe that's the intended use is uh of the property is for um expansion of their facility their current facilities on 7th Avenue.

Very good.

Thank you.

Anyone else have any questions?

Mr.

Jorgensen moves to approve 825-19 galvanizers edition or request for a final plot approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve A25-19.

Galvanizers addition.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor.

Please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Item number five is the Park Service uh contract.

We call on Sarah Goservick, Director of Human Resources.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Today I am here to present the human resources and payroll service agreement between the City of West Fargo and the West Fargo Park District.

This agreement is the result of a thoughtful collaboration and at its core is about our community and fiscal responsibility.

To do this, what it does is it allows the park district to remain on our benefit program, shielding them from a steep increase in prices for benefits should they have to go and seek out their own plans.

As we all know, ultimately those costs, if they were to be incurred, would be passed along to the park district employees, the families, and the kids that participate in their activities, as well as to our taxpayers through their mail increases that would be needed in order to cover the cost of those benefits on their own.

For the city, there would be efficiencies gained.

This would allow us to reassign some of the excessive workload that the HR generalists are currently experiencing, allowing them to be freed up to you know provide that personal service that our employees deserve.

It would also allow for them to focus on a higher level of strategic work as we go in trying to finish up some of these projects, such as our time in attendance and our lexical policy implementation.

So in summary, uh the agreement delivers taxpayer savings, employee stability and operational efficiency, and I respectfully ask for your approval on this agreement.

Thank you.

Questions from the commissioners?

Okay.

Please.

I will obviously refuse myself from this vote.

Commissioner Zundal is recusing yourself as a member of the park district.

Commissioners, I move we approve.

Mr.

Wilson moves to approve the park district service contract as presented.

It's in your packet, it's online.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

So I have a motion and a second to accept the park district service contract as presented.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

We move on to item number seven.

Item number seven is an improvement district number 2265, 9th Street and 7th Avenue Northeast Reconstruction.

Oh, did I?

I my apologies.

I jumped one of the.

We want to get to that biking's game.

My apologies to the item number six is to accept a bid withdrawal and award a contract to Manning Mechanical.

We call on Mr.

Matt Anvick, Director of Public Works.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, Commissioner President, Commissioners.

Bringing you back Project 9061, the expansion of phase two, which is the public works and sanitation expansion.

As we were doing the contracts, you know, from uh the one that was approved on August 4th at the commission meeting, uh, it was noticed uh by our mechanical contractor, Peterson Sheet Metal, uh, that they had a misinterpreted base bid E and the partial cost and had an error.

And with that, they withdrew their bid.

Um with that error, Madame Canical would be the lowest bidder at 2,345,000, uh, which is 505,000 higher than what was previously approved.

Uh but had they Peterson Sheep Medal not made that error, this would have been the low bid the entire time.

Uh just a little awkward having to come back and ask for approval later.

Um but the but with the budget and this new um higher fee.

The combined total for phase two bids comes up to nine million eight hundred and fifty-five thousand five hundred and eighteen dollars.

Uh it's still quite a bit lower than uh the phase two construction estimate of 11,960,510.

And then with the total revised uh phase two costs with your all the FF and E uh contingency fees materials is 11,717, uh 789, uh, which is still quite a bit lower than the original estimate was uh a little over 13 million.

Uh since the last meeting, we have been approved for $8.5 million in uh loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and 2.7 million dollars uh loan from the drinking fund, drinking water state revolving fund.

So the total SRF loan funding that we're approved for is 11.2 million.

Uh the remaining will come out of the capital improvement sales tax and you know, and over the water reserve funds.

Um there's been no changes in the approved rate schedule and then future being we originally approved for about 8 million coming out of the CIP and now we're down to under 4.

Um and then future being we originally approved for about 8 million coming out of the CIP and now we're down to under 4.

Uh that'll leave um more money in there for future infrastructure needs.

So this brings us the total cost of the whole the entire project, phase one and two.

Uh now the total is 14,820,497.

Uh that is well below our original um estimated total that we brought before you uh originally at 15 million about 15 million nine hundred thousand.

Uh so tonight I ask you to uh approve the withdrawal of Peterson Sheet Metals bids and award the mechanical contract uh phase two to manic mechanical uh in the amount of two million three hundred and forty three million three hundred and forty-five thousand dollars.

I think I said that right.

Mr.

Andrick, thank you.

Uh questions, commissioners?

Commissioner Jorgens.

Yeah, I've been involved in a lot of bids, you know, million dollar bids and stuff.

I think YHR failed us.

They didn't do a pre-bid award meeting to make sure that the bid met the specs.

So I don't know if we need to set a policy that pick a dollar amount and before they just award the bids, make sure that the company that is bidding it is dotted the I's and the T's.

We wouldn't be in this position.

I'm not blaming you, Matt, at all.

I'm just saying we hired a an engineer to do this for us, and they failed.

Yeah.

They didn't contact Peterson Sheetman actually twice and told them to review their bid and make sure they were good with it.

Uh they said they were good and came back, and it was until they got their contract, so they were just continually reading around or those pre-bid um award meetings are very, very detailed.

I mean, they take several I've sat in on them and they start to finish the every line item is concerned.

Yeah, it's definitely a lesson for the future to make sure that we have everything done.

But yeah, it was once we thought we had and asked them twice.

We thought everything was good on their end.

Right, but that's meaning the face-to-face meeting.

If we can try to figure out a policy for that moving forward, just to make sure we're not in this position again, please.

Yep.

I couldn't agree more with you, Commissioner.

I've sat down on many of these myself in a previous life, and uh they are critically important, making sure that uh the end user is protected.

And uh and I I am aware that we did contact the uh this uh bidder twice, and they stated two different times specifically to us that their bid was right until they actually received the contract and they had not put the numbers in the right places.

So this is a really unfortunate situation to be in.

Obviously, there's a bidder's bond.

Uh, there has been some discussions about whether or not the city is entitled to that bidder's bond.

And normally when you go after a bidder's bond, you're going to spend as much of the legal fees as that three or four percent to get that the bidder's bond back.

So I want the public to be registered and the rest of the commissioners here that this dialogue has taken place in detail as to what was best for the city.

And the conclusion is the presentation this evening.

So with that commissioners, it's an actionable item.

Move the approved.

Commissioner Zundell moves to accept the bid withdrawal and award the contract to Manning Mechanical for the expansion of public works.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

I have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number seven.

See, I'm back on track now, Commissioner Olson.

Improvement district number 2265, 9th Street and 7th Avenue Northeast Reconstruction.

We're going to call on Dan Hanson, the senior director of community development for this presentation.

The presentation is to approve both an engineers report and plans and specifications and direct an ad for bids and approved resolution of necessity.

Mr.

Hanson.

Thank you, Commissioner.

President Dartis and Commissioners.

Basically, next summer.

The intent is to reconstruct 9th Avenue, 9th Street Northeast from Main Avenue up to 12th Avenue, and also 7th Avenue Northeast from 9th Street Northeast East into Fargo.

This is a project that will be bid out by the North Dakota DOT as uh with their funding.

They would be the the entity entering into the contract with the contractor.

And so uh they would actually be the ones that would be doing the advertising for bids uh for the project, opening bids, and eventually we would come forth with a recommendation for the DOT to uh award those bids.

So tonight uh what we need to do is approve the plans and specifications that have been prepared uh through a consultant uh so that way they can uh get that uh advertised and approve the ad for bids as well.

And then also as a resolution and necessity resolution of necessity, as most of this project is surface improvements, meaning uh multi-use path, uh roadways, uh storm sewer features like that.

So uh that will uh trigger us to send out letters to the improvement district that was previously created and create uh situation where we will be back here on October 20th for uh hearing of protest uh for that project.

Um we were uh all the financials have been updated in this based off of the final feasibility study.

Overall, the project cost is uh estimated to be $32,583,000 of that cost.

Fargo uh will be uh is committed to paying for $4,575,000 of the remaining estimated about $28 million of uh we have secured uh just over $18 million of grant money to be put towards the project, leaving a remainder of $9,823,000.

Uh that would be our local cost share, and based off of our current assessment policy shown in the 2024 CIP, we would be assessing 70 percent of these costs uh local uh more on a regional basis uh for this project, and that will leave the City of West Fargo's cost of 2,950,000 roughly uh that we would be paying via capital improvement sales tax.

And uh with that I would entertain any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Hanson.

Um where the assessments will be spread over?

Uh yep, that was previously uh approved when we created the improvement district.

I'm well aware of that.

I just wanted you to state it to the public that uh that is online on this project and that can be viewed.

Any other questions for Mr.

Hanson?

I move the approval.

Commissioner Zundau moves to approve improvement district twenty-two sixty-five, ninth street and seventh Avenue Northeast Reconstruction.

Is there a second?

Second, Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

I have a motion and a second to approve to uh accept the improvement district twenty-two sixty-five ninth street and seventh avenue northeast reconstruction to approve both an engineers report and plans and specifications and direct and ad for bids and approve a resolution of necessity.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number eight is a project number 2284, the 2026 uh uh HSIP intersections, turn lane realignments.

Again, we call on Dan Hanson, Senior Director of Community Development for this presentation.

It's to direct and approve an engineers report, direct and approve plans and specifications, and to direct an advertisement for bids by the North Dakota DOT.

Mr.

Hamson.

Uh thank you, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

Uh, this again is another project that has been in front of you in the past.

Uh basically uh next summer the intent is that we're going to reconstruct uh three intersections to align left turning lanes, uh providing better visibility to the traveling public, and that also enables us to use a flashing yellow left turn arrow at those intersections to improve uh the the traffic level of service of traffic for those intersections.

Uh the intersections are are listed and shown in the packet.

And uh again, uh we've talked about this in the past as well, but we were able to secure uh an HSIP uh grant that will cover 90 percent of the construction costs of the project, and it's expected to be bid out again uh by the uh DOT in January of 26 and constructed in the summer of 2026.

And with that, I would entertain questions.

Questions from Mr.

Hansen?

Commissioner Jorgensen.

I just like to thank you for all your hard work securing all these grants.

It goes a long way for the taxpayers.

We need them.

Absolutely.

We'll be approved.

Direct and approved the engineers report, direct and approved plans and specifications and direct and an advertisement for bids.

I'll second it.

Oh Commissioner Anderson seconds.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion.

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number nine is a second reading to create an enact and ordinance of chapter two dash oh six.

You call on Katie Schmidt, City Attorney for the City of West Fargo.

And the purpose of this discussion is to approve an ordinance two point oh six.

Thank you, Commissioner President and Commissioners.

I am available for any questions.

We have a motion to approve the second reading to create an enact and ordinance, chapter two six.

Is there a second?

Seven.

I have a commit Commissioner Jorgenson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed motion carried.

Thank you.

Item number ten is a closed executive session pursuant to North Dakota Century Code forty-four dash O four dash nineteen.

Uh and forty-four oh four nineteen point two for an attorney consultation regarding the matter of associated general contractors of North Dakota and the American Concrete Payment Association.

North Dakota Chapter Inc.

versus the City of West Fargo.

Case number O nine dash two oh two five dash C V dash O two three one zero.

At this time we will uh uh gabble out.

We are adjourned from the regular agenda, and we will be in a closed executive session.

We will be returning.

We are adjourned.

We reconvene the Monday, September eighth, West Fargo City Commission meeting.

We are now on item number eleven.

Item number eleven is the city administrators report, Mr.

Scott.

Well, thank you again, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

Just a few updates for you.

Uh first, our twenty twenty-four audit.

I'm told that I Bailey is finishing up their draft this week.

Uh they will no doubt be here on September twenty second to present their their reports.

Umce we get the draft, I can uh share that with you ahead of the meeting so that you have time to to see what uh what their findings are.

Next, uh our finance director Willie has been hard at work preparing an RFP for a new ERP system.

It's our new finance software.

Uh, we are hopeful that we can bring a draft forward either at the September twenty-second meeting or the October sixth meeting to get authorization to advertise that request for proposals.

That will certainly be a large endeavor.

Um but uh we're excited to get going on that.

It is long overdue to to upgrade our finance systems.

Any questions on those first two?

Hey, finally, uh just a reminder that we do have a special meeting scheduled for next week on Monday.

If you recall this is uh the month we're gonna meet three times in a row, so September fifteenth is a special meeting regarding uh special assessment districts that the special assessment commission uh recently uh approved and moved forwarded on to the uh city commission.

So uh that evening you will hear any appeals from those that are in the district uh and review those assessments, either finally approve them or schedule another meeting uh to take action further.

So uh with that, I would stand for any questions.

Any questions for Mr.

Scott?

Commissioner, thank you.

Thank you.

Unless any of you have an individual correspondence.

Dan, would you step to the microphone?

It goes on and on for a long time, and I gave it to Mr.

Scott this evening.

Thank you, Commissioner President Dartis.

This is something I was going to bring up under the uh non-agenda items is that we did receive word from FEMA that they have accepted our basement exception, allowing us to construct basements in the floodplain following our uh basic design guides and and things like that.

Um the other thing that I was gonna mention is that we had two consultants that helped us with this and they were instrumental in getting this approved.

It's very important to us.

We have always been able to do these basements uh and to be able to continue it on.

There are a lot of communities that are in the FEMA program, and very few have this basement exception, and we were very happy to get it.

Uh more engineering is one of those consultants, and KLJ Engineering was the other consultant that helped us uh get to the finish line with this.

So uh hats off to them for the assistance that they gave the city.

It was instrumental in getting this approval.

Thank you, Mr.

Hanson.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do any of you have any non-agenda items?

Commissioner Olson.

Um our the project that uh Mr.

Hansen brought up before about the realignment of the um intersections prompted me to think about uh uh veterans boulevard between um interstate and 32nd Avenue where the northbound lanes have right turn lanes and the southbound lanes do not.

And even traveling on it this afternoon at three o'clock, there were two lanes of traffic just backed up for blocks and blocks.

So is there anything on our radar to construct right turn lanes at any anytime soon?

I don't know if that's on our CIP coming up.

I don't have a copy of it, but just I travel that road a lot more than I did before, and it's just one of those things that causes traffic congestion.

I could say that's something that we can look into, but it is not currently on the CIP.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other non agenda items you'd like to bring forward?

Does any department have it anything that you'd like to bring forward at this time?

Commissioner Anderson.

Move to adjourn.

Commissioner Olson.

Second.

We stand adjourned.