Mr. Dieken moved and Mr. Mettler seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 27, 2025 as written. The motion carried unanimously.

Presentation of Citizen Life Saving Award to Trent Talle.

Motion approving renewal of Consumption and Display (Bottleclub) Permit for Mankato Curling Club, 600 Hope Street. 

Motion cancelling February 10, 2025 as the date of public hearing for consideration of Minnesota Investment Fund applications.

Resolution adopting negotiated changes to the 2025-2026 LELS (Police Officer) Labor Agreement.

Resolution accepting the Pay Equity Implementation Report.

Resolutions supporting Job Creation Fund (JCF) applications to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development on behalf of Rolls-Royce Solutions America Inc.

Resolution accepting the Airport Architectural and Engineering Services Proposal for the Air Traffic Control Tower.

Resolution amending Right-of-way Obstruction Permit Fees.

Set February 24, 2025, as the date of public hearing for a Certificate of Design Compliance for a new structure located in the Highway Gateway Overlay District and a variance to reduce the front yard building setback on the Madison Avenue side of the property from 15 feet to 0.92 feet. The subject property is described as the north half of Lot 9, and Lot 10, Auditors Plat 27 (830 North Broad Street etc.); by request of Habib Sadaka.

Set February 24, 2025, as the date of public hearing to temporarily establish the HRA and order notice published of enabling resolution.

Mayor Massad indicated that the item was a continued Project Feasibility Hearing (from January 13, 2025) for Capital Improvement Project; 11120 Woodshire Drive. Mr. Arntz commented on the process and logistics as there was not a super majority of the Council present.
 
Mr. Keel reported that on January 13, 2025, the Council held a public hearing on Capital Improvement Project 11120 Woodshire Drive that ended up being continued until February 10, 2025. He indicated that during the hearing regarding the project, a representative of the Twin Valley Council Boy Scouts spoke regarding their concerns about the proposed project and asked that they be removed from the preliminary assessment roll; no other property owners spoke at the public hearing. He touched on the concerns raised by the Twin Vally Council and stated that staff reviewed the items raised and noted that the roadway adjacent to the property is in poor condition (Pavement Condition Index = 27) and requires reconstruction. He mentioned that the existing pavement, constructed in 1956, exhibits severe alligator, block and edge cracking, and several large areas have been patched, including a large 200-foot-long patch along the property. He added that the project also includes significant sanitary sewer, water and stormwater improvements and the costs of these improvements will be funded through their respective utility funds and will not be assessed to adjoining properties.
 
Mr. Keel reviewed the process for special assessments, which included two public hearings, with the first one being near the beginning of the process, which was the Project Feasibility Hearing (where this project is currently). He explained that at the hearing, the Council considered the preliminary information contained in the project’s feasibility report, including a preliminary assessment roll. He noted that the preliminary assessment roll was prepared following the city’s long-established Assessment Policy that sets out a standardized procedure for different property types and situations and is intended to treat similar properties similarly.
 
Ms. Arntz indicated that in Mankato, the second hearing (Assessment Hearing) is typically held a year after construction, and in preparation for the hearing, a final assessment roll is prepared, shared with property owners and presented to the Council for consideration. She explained that the preparation of this assessment roll includes a more individualized review of the proposed assessments. She stated that in cases where the city is aware of potential disagreements or where certain property types or conditions exist that differ from commonly found assessment situations, an appraiser is used to review the proposed assessments. She commented that based on the additional appraisal information, staff may recommend changes to the preliminary assessment roll to address the issue of benefit for Council consideration at the Assessment Hearing. She mentioned that staff will engage an appraiser to review proposed assessments for the Twin Valley Council property before the 2026 Assessment Hearing should the Council decide to proceed with this project.

Mr. McLaughlin asked about the reduction in the roadway width. Mr. Keel replied that it was more of an environmental concern and would help eliminate the runoff.
 
Mr. McLaughlin inquired about the condition of the sidewalk. Mr. Keel responded that upgrades are also needed to be ADA compliant.
 
Mr. Dieken stated that he had concerns about the upper portion of the roadway reduction in the street width as he felt that there would be inadequate space for parking along the road. Mr. Keel noted that the neighborhood has very low traffic volume and mentioned street width requirements and how it would be adequate.
 
Ms. Arntz wondered if the request was for a change to the city’s street standards policy. Mr. Dieken asked about the difference in cost for a 32-foot street versus a 36-foot-width street as he felt the additional material would be the main difference.
 
Ms. Arntz commented on the benefits of the reduction and the impact on storm water management going forward.
 
Mr. Keel explained how street widths have changed throughout the years. Mr. Mettler commented on the potential effects of slowing traffic by decreasing the street width.
 
Mayor Massad opened the public hearing.

Chris Sandquist, 403 South Broad Street, stated that they still questioned whether they need to be included in the project, especially in how the work mainly affects the properties on the upper portion of the roadway. He stated that the question still becomes “what is the benefit”. He noted the photos provided and the deterioration of the curb along the street. He indicated that he had someone who is familiar with street deterioration review the photos and how it was indicated that the curb damage was mainly from snow plowing. He mentioned how the project mainly affects the upper portion of the roadway and asked that the property be removed from the assessment rolls.
 
Mayor Massad closed the public hearing.
 
Ms. Arntz indicated that since there were not enough members to vote, the item would need to come back before the Council.