It is 5 30 p.m. On October 7 2025 and I call to order this regular meeting of the Board of Public Works
First on the agenda. We have messages from board members. Are there any messages from the board? None.
All right before we begin I will just say if there is anyone joining us in person when it is your time
to speak we'll ask you to come to the podium for anyone joining the meeting on zoom you can use the
raised hand and
Function or the chat function and we will ask you to unmute and speak at that time So first we will
start with appeals. The first noise appeal is at 519 West Hoosier Court Avenue Hello and Adina from
city legal Can we push this one to and go to the next one? Missouri
Because the officers on their way Sure, okay, so we will pause that and we will go on to the next noise
appeal which is 710 East 1st Street All right Almost Hello, I'm officer high tank with Bloomington Police
Department
Let me just get to the right spot in the packet Could you tell us a little bit about what happened We
have the staff report is there any other information that you can provide Not other than what was already
mentioned. We received a noise complaint for that address and we received three more noise complaints
before we responded to that address for for noise and
We'll go ahead and do questions from the board You said three more complaints all in the same evening
all the same night or is that over the course of time? Correct all the same night. Okay And there's
a document in the packet that has it looks like the complaint log I'm just trying to determine the times
That were called
2253 2256 2302 2303 Okay, can we have the appellant come to the oh, sorry more questions from the board
almost I'm thinking slowly tonight So your your statement is that you personally witnessed
Excessive noise coming from the appellant. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay, and what was the nature
of the noise? I was a loud party people flowing into the street We also got a complaint that there was
possibly firearms and drug use that did not appear to be the case No firearms or drugs, but definitely
noise. Okay, and were there other people cited the same evening at the same address? I don't believe
so. Okay was there something specific about the
the appellants Noise that came to your attention that others were not cited He lives there. We cite
the resident that lives there. That's responsible for the party. Can you say that again? He lived there
He said he lived there and we cited we cite the resident that lives at the address of the complaint.
Okay so just as a matter of course and just for kind of our knowledge do you cite the the leaseholder
essentially or the sublease holder or any resident of the apartment of
It's whoever lives there. So basically anybody that's on a lease there or claims that they're a resident
there. Yes Okay, but again, there was just the noise Complaint filed against the one person right now.
Yes, ma'am Okay now if we can ask The appellant to come if you could please state your name and then
Provide us with your information
Alright, my name is Carter Clay Smith. I'm the resident at 710. This is Anthony Escobedo He's the one
who the complaint was filed to and our appeal was grounded in the fact that this was a private event
for my club I hope I founded a professional development club last year called black in business and
it was for members only but because of Bloomington it's a party school people like to have fun and so
it got out of hand due to getting out of control people were spreading the word without our permission and
They were coming to the residents without our permission the doors were locked so we wouldn't let other
people were not invited in Because of that there were a lot of people out on the streets that we tried
to get to leave I believe I don't know if I remember correctly I believe he said that the officer tried
to get the people leave and they also wouldn't leave you tried to get them leave ourselves before the
complaints came they could also be fair to mention that it should be on the record that all those complaints
that were just mentioned all happened within the span of ten minutes and it was because that there are
these like
These random people who just showed up on our lawn. It was like a surge of people in like a 10 minute
span We couldn't control it. I know there was like so the police came twice the first time they gave
us the ticket We completely understood like we're gonna quiet it down lock the doors did whatever we
could and yet there was still like a surge of people Where I'm kind of confused is that they they told
us noise wasn't an issue like that That was what one of the police officers told me he said They walked
up to the house and it wasn't it wasn't loud like everything was
Noise wise was contained in the house. I thought it was quiet, but it was just it was the people so
I'm confused as to why is it a noise citation wouldn't It's it's these other people that we don't have
control over and to follow up on that We've also done extensive work with our neighbors We've talked
to all of them to make sure that it's okay because we know that we're in their community We don't impose
ourselves and so we want to make sure that everybody says, you know everybody we want to have fun, but
we also don't want to
Ruined other people's day and so we tested the noise. We've talked to all of our neighbors who are like
in close proximity to us We tested it before the party We tested it before the party actually started
the same night of the party and they also all confirmed that the noise was not an issue Halfway are
about 30 ish minutes into the party We texted Jeff who has he has a sensitivity to like hearing issue
that we talked about and so we were like, hey Jeff How's the noise the party starting to pick up? So
we want to make sure like if you should adjust or not
Jeff said everything was fine. It wasn't until the people came, and then specifically a certain, I don't
know who it was, certain group of individuals, they came in a black suburban, and they were blasting
music outside of their car. So the noise wasn't even coming from our residents. It was coming from this
mystery vehicle that decided it was appropriate to pull up in front of our house and just blast music,
just bothering everybody. And so that's really the extent of our appeal, is that we feel like it was
not on us, but on residents. And especially since we didn't invite them,
Completely just like word of mouth that these other people invited these people it was a private event
for my members and his members and I feel like Really the noise complaint came from that black suburban
that was blasting the music Because that's the only possible source of the noise besides the people
chattering which isn't enough to get a noise complaint So that's pretty much the extent of our appeal
Can I ask which of you resides in the apartment or is on the lease? I was the one who spoke to the police
officers. Yeah Let's start with I just have a follow-up question. Can the officer come back and just
speak to the issue of the the one officer said there wasn't a
Enough noise something you said something about noise and it doesn't necessarily match what was in the
call log Sorry, I didn't hear the first part of what you said. Can you repeat that for me? You said
that One of the officers said that there wasn't noise There was two other Officers there at the scene
and he specifically told me that it was like yeah noise isn't the issue. It's because of these people
So that's why I'm just confused as to why it
Is a noise citation when the police officer told me it wasn't the noise. So is that referring to the
same? Call I wonder or is that are we considering this if I was if they're saying that I was there that
would be the same call I only responded to that residents once When I arrived I did hear loud amplified
noise coming from the residents not a car outside Okay, thank you Questions from the board
Some questions for me and this I think is directed at staff Is there a are there statutory Findings
or is there a burden of proof that we need to find in order to approve something like this? From City
of Bloomington legal department
Casamanian so under fourteen point oh nine oh three oh noises prohibited It's Any unreasonable noise
shall mean sound sound that is volume frequency or pattern that prevents disrupts injures or endangers
the health safety welfare prosperity comfort comfort or repose of reasonable persons of ordinary
sensitivities, so
I would ask that you look to that statute fourteen point oh nine zero three zero and the Bloomington
municipal code You get two attorneys here today one more thing I'd like to add is in fourteen point
oh nine oh three OB it's unlawful for any person to cause or make any unreasonable noise or to allow
any unreasonable noise to be caused or made in
Or on any real or personal property occupied or controlled by the person So I think the residents said
it was their house. They did have an event that drew people to it Maybe more people than they wanted
But they failed to control the environment It resulted in noise that the officer said she heard coming
from the house and she issued a ticket I think the finding that the board can make is based on those
facts. We do have the owners here admitted they had an event and
Caused a crowd to come for whatever reason whether it was social media or I don't know how the people
knew about it, but they were there acknowledged by the owners and The officer said I heard noise when
I was coming up to the house And so I think it was a failure to control the environment that resulted
in the unreasonable noise I think that's the finding that the board can make if if you so wanted before
you go so, you know, I I come from the board from a
Planning and zoning and BZ background was very specific findings yet But yeah, what I'm hearing you
say is that we're simply weighing the facts and whether the facts of the testimony Correspond to our
understanding and reading of the city statute. Yes, right. So obviously to support a code violation
there have to be facts to support it and The officer has said she personally heard
Noise coming from the house loud enough that it was it was in her professional opinion unreasonable
noise we did get verification from the occupants of the home that they also knew there was noise now
it was they said outside of The residents but it was I think per the code on their property and it was
it was it wasn't they weren't able to control it so
It's a violation to allow any unreasonable noise to be caused or made in or on real or personal property
occupied or controlled by that person and so As long as you have that finding in the record those facts
in the record It would support this if should it get appealed to the next level and one sorry one final
question This is the first one of these I've seen since I've been on the board
Recourse for the appellants if we were to deny the appeal could make an appeal to circuit court and
then we would Again why this has been put in the record why the officer was here was to say I had personal
knowledge of this, you know The comment about the other officer what he said Is here say he's not here
to testify it We don't know whether in fact that officer said that or not not saying that the occupants
aren't telling the truth We just don't have actual proof of that and so if they chose to
Appeal to the circuit court and then we would we would prosecute that at that level and then see what
the trial court did One additional question and then we'll give you a chance to come back up I'm sorry
the appellants mentioned a black suburban with a lot of noise emanating from it And I just want to confirm
that you said when you heard noise you identified it is coming out of the house Not the street in front
of the house. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I
Give you another chance to speak I'd like to follow up first on the facts that were mentioned for speaking
about the facts I don't know if the officer can testify to this as well But the majority of the people
were not on our property but on the sidewalk and under my understanding I'm pretty sure that's public
property and not under us One inability to control and like manage the people it was not under us We
we control the people that we had under our supervision
These other people are not under our supervision. They were not inside our property. And we kicked them
off our property onto the street. That's where this whole debacle happened. Also, speaking towards even
the rule of recognition, I feel like the whole point of this is to kind of like, the purpose of that
tort is to make sure that the entity or the people who are actually causing the noise are held liable.
And I feel like it'd be almost unjust to find us liable if we're not the parties responsible for the noise.
Also One of the attorneys mentioned something about Like the source of the noise and who is responsible
for it and I feel like that's a key key thing that we should harp on and how that The source of the
noise we will continue to state that
As it's our fact of the matter that the noise was not coming from our house We did multiple checks to
make sure our noise would not be above like any limit any limit that would disturb bother the peace
prevent anybody from sleeping There's a family next to us the guy who has the the ear problem next to
us We did our due diligence to make sure would not bother them during the party unless the door was
open at the time I'm sure that's why it was loud because once the door opens
the music is able to transcend a lot farther. But once the doors are closed, we've tested multiple times.
We tested it after the appeal and after we got the citation. Everybody that we've talked to, all four
of our neighbors, the ones at seven, I don't know, but the Jeff, Anka, they're all professors, River
and Rowan, all these people, they all attested to us and said that the noise wasn't a problem. Actually,
one of our neighbors made a joke and said, did we still throw the party? Because they didn't even hear
the noise. I understand that maybe hearsay, but going back to the facts of the matter,
It was under our control and what was on our control was kept underneath the legal limit What wasn't
outside of our control we kicked them off the property So it was no longer our responsibility and what
they chose to do on public property I feel like has nothing to do with us and last going back to the
intention of the ordinance in the first place is to hold those accountable liable and our engagement
in the fact
We have done our best to hold ourselves liable beyond that and I feel like it would just be unfair to
blame Stuff that is outside of our circumstances when we did our due diligence. We control the situation.
We got the people off our property To still say it's our fault. But that's what I would say and the
key facts are we kicked them off our property We did our due diligence and the noise is only loud the
doors open So, of course the officer would say the noise is loud, but that's that's what we would say
Thank you Any other questions from the board Any questions from the public or on zoom All right hearing
none do we have a motion I
I'll move that the board of public works deny the appeal from the noise violation at 710 East first
streets with the finding that's the appellants My phrase that Margie do I need a specific finding or
is the the
in the record enough So there's case law that says boards and commissions speak through their minutes
I think that I Will give you the language of the code then again though if you'd like to think about
your motion again unreasonable noise means sound that is a volume frequency or pattern that
Sort of disrupts the the repose of reasonable persons and I can tell you that I wrote this noise ordinance
back in the day and Reasonableness standard is required. So it's because it's the courts have said it's
hard to Sometimes hard to define but everybody knows it when they see it, you know, you kind of know
what's reasonable What's unreasonable noise that you can hear outside of a house from outside of houses,
you know considered unreasonable so
Was the one that you mentioned earlier about? Allowing yeah, yeah, and that's subsection B except as
otherwise Provided it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or make any unreasonable noise or To
allow any unreasonable noise to be caused or made in Or on any real or personal property occupied or
controlled by that person. So allowing the unreasonable noise That
Their property or property that they control. I will just again reiterate that the officer said she
heard the noise coming from the house Okay, so let me let me rephrase this I moved that the board denied
the noise appeal at 710 East first Street finding that the appellants Did allow for unreasonable noise
to be caused or made and
or on their real estate And I will second with a motion a second I will call the roll This is a motion
to deny the noise appeal Roach I Korone I Motion passes to deny the appeal at 710 East 1st Street Thank
you both for coming
Automatically provide information about appealing if desired Okay All right, so now we will move on
to the other noise appeal which is 519 West Hoosier Court Avenue and
This one we have looks like just the officer. I'm sorry. The officer is here. Okay Can you tell us your
version of what happened please or connecting to the staff report So on the night of the noise call
it appended for approximately 27 minutes or more before we went to respond to it by time we respond
I believe I'll have my notes in front of me, but it's like 43 minutes before we arrived and
Parked roughly 50 to 100 yards away could hear the music for my vehicle approached the apartment. There
was three people standing outside My approach to the apartment I asked who lived there you still hear
the noise from inside the apartment doors and windows were all closed Young lady said that she lived
there. I informed her why I was there for noise ordinance everything else violation and complaint When
I did such she asked if I could give her a warning I said no and
At this point in time, I believe, I don't know the exact time it was, but it was after midnight. And
being the distance where I was while I parked, I could still hear it from my vehicle and while I exited
the vehicle, I went and requested her ID and issued her a noise ordinance. I explained to her what the
ordinance was, how to appeal the ordinance, and the steps she needed to go through. Thank you. Questions
from the board? Is the appellant here with us?
So similar to the last the last appeal just want to make sure I understand your testimony correctly
you personally witnessed Excessive noise coming from this address. Yes, okay April could we hear from
the appellant, please?
Hi. So my name is Surya Tejamodkuri and I'm a graduate student here at IU. This is my first time dealing
with any kind of citation, so I really appreciate the chance to explain what happened. So on the night
of the incident of September 14, 2025, we had a small gathering at our house that involves roughly around
eight to nine people. It was a birthday party. I was not the host of the gathering. I live in that house.
I live in that house very separately, not so involved with my roommate.
And because it was the birthday party of my roommate, I was just invited to the party. I had no control.
I didn't organize any of the event. The actual host name was Lokesh Reddy Elluri. And in the packet
submitted with me as additional information, he has provided a signed statement accepting full responsibility
for the noise that night. So let me, I just want to clear some facts mentioned by the officer.
So when the officer came, there were three people outside standing. It was me, my friend, and my another
friend who was a female. So I want to mention that my female friend never talked to the officer. He
always talked to me. And he did not issue the citation to a she. He issued the citation on my name.
So I'm a male. So the citation was issued against my name. I was the only person talking to the officer.
I was honestly nervous about that situation. And since I had my ID back on my phone, I didn't want to
escalate this issue. So I handed it over when he asked, I was just cooperating with him. So that is
the reason I believe the ticket ended up being issued in my name, just because I was the first person
he interacted with. Not because I was the one hosting the party, not because I was the one managing
the party or not because I had any control over the party. I had no authority over the music or the
number of guests. I was just cooperating with the officer trying not to escalate this issue.
I respectfully agree with all the rules of City of Bloomington and the community rules and also understand
my responsibilities as being the resident so I have attached other supporting documentations as well
with my appeal so I respectfully ask the board to consider this information as I was not the responsible
party. Thank you very much. I want to clear that
I was the one who talked to the officer. Officer didn't have any conversation or any kind of wording
with any female that was present outside the house. I was just outside talking to my friend. Okay,
thank you. Questions from the board? So questions for the appellant. Just to confirm, you are one of
the leaseholders at 519 West Hoosier Court.
And the person that you say is Responsible that took the responsibility. Are they also a leaseholder
at that address? Yes, they are okay, and were they Were they in attendance were they there physically
at the location at that time? Yeah, they were there physically at that location that time Okay, thank
you Thank you is the other person
Who's the leaseholder, the one you're referring to who did not speak with the officer, the female? No,
she did not speak with the female. She did not speak with the officer. The female did not have
any conversation with the officer. But the female is the other leaseholder. No, she is not a leaseholder.
She was just an invited guest. Questions for the officer? Sorry.
Don't remember your name. How many citations were issued that night? Residents, just one. Okay, and
is it typically your practice that when you find someone who resides at the location, who holds the
lease, who's the property owner,
You issue the citation to that person or do you try to track down the person who's ultimately responsible?
Residents are responsible what happens there? Okay. Thank you I'm trying to frame my question. I don't
know if it's for legal but if there's two parties who live in
residents that are both leaseholders and one Is responsible but indoors and one is not responsible but
outdoors and the officer talks to the person outdoors Who claims not to be responsible for the noise,
but the noise is happening indoors with the other resident I Would appreciate a little feedback maybe
Margie rice city legal. I think it goes back to the control issue. So You know think about who what
when we're why and how it's a party there is loud noise The you know leaseholder is in control of the
property can ask people to leave can ask them to stop whether or not They invited the people over it
is their house. They are paying right there they have control over it and if they choose not to stop the noise
and it gets out of control and the officer has to be called. It's really an objective standard. Um,
if, if, you know, if there was noise, it was heard by an officer. So, you know, there's complaints and
they come and they hear the noise and the person who's in charge of that space, whether or not they're
participating in the activities allows the noise to continue. That's there's culpability. And so I think
that the owner, if you know, my apartment, my house, I can say, Hey,
You know what you need to leave. It's this may not be my birthday party I may not be invited but it
is my house and and you know, you need to leave because this is It's out of control. And so I think
that's it's a really a control issue Does that answer your question or does it not answer your question?
I Think so I think so. Thank you. Yeah, it's a little bit of you know being at the wrong place at the
wrong time and if you allow the
The noise to continue and don't stop it then you know, you can be liable for that Yeah, I'm just concerned
that one resident was outside the house. The complaint was about the noise inside the house The resident
ticketed was outside the house not inside the house with the noise sure, but
The officer is hearing the noise approaching the house. Certainly that person can hear the noise I don't
think I did not hear the person say they didn't hear the noise or there wasn't a party going on They
chose not to stop it. I don't know why they chose not to stop it It resulted in a ticket if this appellant
believes that the other Person was more responsible. They can always get reimbursed, you know for the
ticket from that person but sometimes choosing to allow noise to continue when you had the opportunity
to stop it and
Happening and it bothers the neighbors such that the police get called, you know, it's it's a lesson
learning how to control your environment Okay, thank you very much other questions from the board no
questions from the public on this item Okay, so is there a motion I
Move that the Board of Public Works deny the noise appeal at 519 West Hoosier Court Avenue finding that
the appellant Did unlawfully allow unreasonable noise to be made in property that they control And I
second with the motion in the second I will call the roll Roach. Hi Karan I
Motion passes to deny the appeal And with that we will move along to petitions and remonstrances Are
there any comments or questions actually comments about any item that is not on tonight's agenda? Anyone
in person in council chambers or online if you would use the chat function or raise your hand and
Moving along to the consent agenda Tonight's consent agenda is very long. So bear with me for a moment
on the consent agenda. We have minutes from July 1st 2025 minutes from the special meeting on July 14th
2025 resolution 2025-070 mobile vendor blooming tie-on wheels resolution 2025-073 holiday market
resolution 2025-076 Polish American Heritage Month celebration resolution 2025-077 Bloomington Book
Festival public improvement acceptance for 1503 West Arlington Road subdivision public improvement bond
reduction for the Ralston Drive subdivision memorandum of understanding between the Board of Public
Works and Bloomington Transit for the West Second Street project and
Change orders two and three for the long view greenway project contract with ENB paving LLC for the
downtown paving project contract with acu brine LLC for salt brine machine maintenance service agreement
with groomer construction for planter box repair at the southeast corner of Kirkwood in Washington outdoor
lighting service agreement with Duke at West Smith Avenue between South Fairview Street and South Jackson Street
outdoor lighting service agreement with Duke at North oris drive between West 11th Street and North
Monroe Street outdoor lighting service agreement with Duke at various locations from West Smith Avenue
to West 17th Street and South Euclid Avenue to South Roger Street contract with ENB paving LLC for the
Union Street raised crosswalk and payroll Are there any items that need to be removed from the consent
agenda this evening? I
Any comments from the board on the consent agenda? Any comments from the public from the consent agenda
this evening? Again, if you are on Zoom, feel free to use the raise hand function or chat. All right,
seeing none, is there a motion? I move approval of the Board of Public Works consent agenda for the
meeting of October 7th, 2025. And I second. With the motion and a second, I will call the roll. Roach? Aye.
I motion passes Next we will move along to new business and the first order of our item under new business
is the proposed lighting plan and encroachments for the Bloomington Convention Center Engineering I
will be bringing you the rest of the agenda tonight
So first up we have a preliminary approval for encroachments into the right-of-way for the new Convention
Center This is for three street lights that will replace the Cobra headlights that were removed To provide
adequate street lighting in that section of East 3rd Street They just wanted approval that we will accept
these encroachments into the right-of-way before they go through the process of installing them and
Thank you questions from the board. Okay. Let me let me make sure I understand So there will be another
encroachment agreement for there will be an encroachment agreement This is just you're just giving them
a verbal approval that we will accept the encroachment agreement later on Why couldn't we just approve
the encroachment agreement now? Because we don't want to do a formal encroachment agreement until it
is actually in place. Oh Okay
So that way we know that it is built the way we want it to be built Okay, and these are going to be
privately owned and paid privately owned and maintained Yes, or they will be maintained and paid for
by the Convention Center All right. Thank you Questions from the public on this item All right, is there
a motion I move
preliminary approval of The proposed lighting encroachment agreement for the Bloomington Convention
Center And I second with the motion the second I will call the roll Roach. I Korone I motion passes
Next item is road closure and noise permit for night work for the Baxter Village subdivision So this
is a request for a road closure on East Moores Pike between Smith Road and 446
For back the Baxter Village subdivision for them to complete their tap into the water main So that they
can provide water to the future subdivision This request includes night work, which will be done on
October 14th and October 20th The rest of the work will be done during the day To this is to limit the
impacts on this very well traveled road
I know that in the work session you had asked that the notification go out to the neighbors we have
required that and told them that the permit will not be issued until we receive confirmation that the
Neighbors have been notified Thank you very much for that much appreciated other questions. All right
questions from the public I
Either in person you can approach the podium or on zoom Okay, seeing none is there a motion I move approval.
Oh Do you have a question on this particular item sir? All right, if you could approach the podium and
state your name, please I
My name is Joseph Bradley Davis. And my question is, could you please reiterate what the potential negative
impacts of going ahead and approving this decision might be so that the general public will more fully
understand what this immediate vote might
Resolved in thank you Thank you very much I will ask staff just to reiterate what's on the staff report
about this item, please So this is a petition or a request for a road closure of East Moores Pike between
Smith Road and 446 that does involve some night work this is to
Tap into the city's water main to provide water service for the future Baxter Village subdivision, which
is a 19 or an 18 lot single-family subdivision that is going in in this area The work is structured
to have to date to overnight work periods that is to limit the
Closures during the MCC SC days so that while school is in session. There is no detour Because the detour
for this this particular work is up to 3rd Street So that is the reason for the night permit There are
our minimal there's only really two houses that are right adjacent to this subdivision
They will be notified as well as the neighborhood to the the neighborhoods to the north The work is
going to be done over fall break to limit impacts to MCC SC Thank you very much so I would just encourage
the The contractor to do more than just notify those two homeowners that they have told them that the
We will not actually issue the permit until we receive a copy of the notification that was sent to them
And usually what we've been doing is we have been asking them to send those out via email And include
engineering in the email that is sent to the adjacent property owners. It'd probably nice to go and
knock on the door
Pardon probably nice to go knock on the door and have face-to-face conversations, but yes, we have we
can't prove that but we can correct email correct, but yeah to Paraphrase the request of the the public
the impact to the public here is temporary inconvenience During construction. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mm-hmm
All right. Is there a motion on this item? Yes, I move approval of the road closure and noise permit
for night work for the Baxter Village subdivision And I second with the motion a second. I will call
the roll Roach. Hi Caron. I motion passes The next item is sidewalk closure for building associates
at Winston Thomas fire training center This is a request for a pedestrian diversion and closure of the
west sidewalk along South Walnut Street as part of the Winston Thomas
Fire training and logistics station project at 3812 South Walnut Street This is a one to two day closure
that will be required to tie in the existing sidewalk to the new sidewalk Once the pedestrian diversion
is in place the existing sidewalk will be removed to facilitate the utility work The traffic control
will be in place from October 13th through December 25th. So that's the diversion that will be in place
Pedestrian access will be maintained via the new sidewalk section Thank you very much questions from
the board Are there questions from the public anything on zoom Okay Seeing none is there a motion? I
move approval the sidewalk closure for building associates at
Winston Thomas Fire Training Center on South Walnut Street and I second With a motion a second. I will
call the roll Roach. Hi Caron. I motion passes Next we will move along to staff reports and other business
We have a staff report from engineering We in 2024 did an MOU with Monroe County Regarding the Monroe
County Karst Farm Greenway Project connector where we transferred
Parts of the city's right-of-way to the county to allow them to build out infrastructure That project
has completed so we will be taking back our right-of-way on Liberty Drive and Constitution Avenue And
this is just to update the board. We've gone out. We've inspected everything it meets city required
city codes and specifications And it will just now be back under city control
The mo you has has ended and we just wanted to update the board So just just clarifying We didn't transfer
the right-of-way we transfer the maintenance responsibility for the correct. Yes It was always city
right-of-way. We just transferred the responsibility for the maintenance and the ability for them to
construct in our right-of-way great and the reason why they were constructing in our right-of-way was
because the MPO
granted the Funding to the county correct for the project as a whole Including parts in the city limits
and parts out of the city limits. Yes. Okay. Thank you Thank you Next we have approval of claims any
questions from the board about claims questions from the public about claims All right, seeing none
is there a motion I
Move approval of the claims for the meeting of October 7th 2025 and the amount of 1 million seven hundred
seventy three thousand five hundred and sixty one dollars and 78 cents I Second with a motion in a second.
I will call the roll Roach. I Crone I motion passes With that we come to the end of it our agenda and
I will call adjournment. I