Monroe on the Lake City Council on Sept. 23 approved Resolution 2025-R-28, awarding a bid to A and B Fencing to replace the long-disputed fence at Macmin Park and authorizing the mayor and administrative director to sign the contract under emergency authority.

The vote followed extended public comment from a Springwood Drive resident, Diane (5932 Springwood Drive), who said residents had received conflicting letters in April about whether they would be responsible for replacing the fence and described continuing delays that left park users with a partially removed barrier. Diane told council residents were initially told the fence was a city asset and later that the city would replace it, but she said the project stalled and council rejected funding on Sept. 9.

The issue drew prolonged council discussion about process and timing, including criticism that removal began before a formal appropriation and bid process were complete. Councilwoman Thompson moved to award the bid; Councilman Bittner seconded. Councilwoman Moore and Councilman Gray expressed opposition to aspects of the process; Councilmembers Bittner, Wong and Johnson supported the appropriation. Councilmember Linder recorded an abstention during roll call. The motion was declared passed and the administration was authorized to proceed under an emergency declaration.

Council members and staff discussed procurement timing and communications with residents. Councilwoman Thompson said the project had been “a debacle” since the initial notice and objected to removing the fence before council approval; she said that process and bidding irregularities caused delay and frustration. Councilman Bittner said a prior finance meeting and a committee appropriation had, in his view, permitted teardown to begin. Councilwoman Wong said she was disturbed a second letter announcing removal was sent before bidding closed.

The resolution text as read by the clerk says it awards the bid to A and B Fencing, authorizes the mayor and administrative director to enter an agreement to provide labor and materials for the project, and declares an emergency. The transcript record contains a roll-call sequence that recorded the votes and an abstention; subsequently a council member stated the result as passing. The record shows some inconsistency in how the tally was described during the meeting; the council declared the motion passed.

The council did not, during the meeting, provide a new timeline for installation beyond the contract authorization. Diane asked how much more information council needed; she noted residents had been told the fence presented a safety issue but that replacement remained unresolved. The city previously discussed whether the city service department would do the work or whether the city would hire an outside contractor; the administration presented a plan to hire an outside firm and to use higher‑quality materials with a warranty.

Council members also raised a zoning-detail question raised earlier by a resident about which side of decorative panels must face outward; a council member noted Ordinance 12.42.11(b) requires the decorative side face away from the lot on which a fence is erected and suggested that any reversal would require a variance through planning and zoning.

The resolution text and the motion as recorded in the minutes will be the controlling documents for contract execution and procurement follow‑up. The council did not set a specific completion date during the meeting.

A copy of Resolution 2025-R-28 will be available from the city clerk and the administration for residents seeking schedule or warranty details.