[0:00] We'll call this Mountaineer City Council meeting to order for Tuesday, September

[0:05] 8th, 2026.

[0:10] » Roll call vote, please. >> Here,

[0:13] » here. >> Here.

[0:15] » Here. Anderson >> here.

[0:19] Please stand for the pledge. [clears throat]

[0:23] Pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which

[0:30] it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:36] for all.

[0:44] Thank you. We'll go on to cons consent agenda

[0:51] for the minutes of the August 17, 2026 regular meeting, receipts, bills and

[0:57] payroll and communications. I so move we approve the consent agenda

[1:02] for the minutes of the August 17th, 2026 regular meeting, pages 1 through six,

[1:07] including receipts, bills, payroll, and communications.

[1:12] » Support. >> Thank you. Any other discussion?

[1:16] » Yes. I so move to amend the motion to remove the bill from O'Reilly Auto Parts

[1:22] of Virginia in amount of $424 from the consent agenda for separate

[1:28] consideration, please.

[1:34] » We have a motion with no support. We'll go on to the original motion. Roll

[1:43] call vote. >> Prescow.

[1:45] » No. >> Hi.

[1:47] » Yes. >> Maria,

[1:48] » yes. >> Anderson,

[1:49] » yes.

[1:54] Public forum.

[1:58] » That was a perfect timing. >> Yes. [laughter]

[2:00] I said, "Where did she go?" >> I'm retired. I don't have to be

[2:05] [laughter] no idea what time it is.

[2:08] It's 6:30. Is it? Thank you. [laughter]

[2:13] » [snorts] >> I called her and um I if I may, Madam

[2:17] Mayor, I do have a few things to hand out if it's okay to approach.

[2:21] » Yes.

[2:24] » I think I have an exper you might have to share.

[2:30] » So, but I can begin if you don't mind. Um I am Anmarie Lubovich.

[2:34] » Thank you. Um, I am a member of the Monard Bule School Board, but I am not

[2:38] here tonight on that capacity or in that capacity. And I'm not here representing

[2:43] any political party. I am here to talk to you about something you're going to

[2:47] see on your November ballot regarding something called the permanent school

[2:51] fund. So, little bit of Minnesota history.

[2:56] When we became a state in 1858, a provision in the constitution set

[3:02] aside two parcels of land in every township for the benefit of public

[3:06] schools. And the revenue from that land, whether

[3:10] it was mining proceeds, timber sales, land leases, was deposited into

[3:16] something called the permanent school lands trust. Over time, some of the

[3:21] portions of land in the southern part of the state were exchanged and sold for

[3:25] other purposes. So, right now, 92% of the land that is a part of this trust is

[3:31] here in northern Minnesota. And in fact, US Steel Mint is one of the biggest

[3:35] contributors to this fund. The land itself is managed by the Department of

[3:40] Natural Resources. The state board of investment takes that money and invests

[3:45] it and collects interest and dividends and then that money is distributed by

[3:49] the Minnesota Department of Education to every public charter and tribal school

[3:54] in the state of Minnesota. And it's distributed on a per pupil basis. So

[4:00] every kid gets the same amount of money. And in 2025 that was about $68 a

[4:06] student. Obviously, since it's based on enrollment, bigger schools are going to

[4:10] get more money, but the per pupil amount is the same across the state of

[4:15] Minnesota. The fund has grown exponentially because

[4:19] of some excellent decisions by the state board of investment and it's currently

[4:24] estimated that this fund has 2.3 billion with a B dollars in it. So, a

[4:32] couple of years ago, there was a task force that was started that said, is

[4:36] there a way that schools can get a little bit more of this money without

[4:40] depleting the fund? Because the fund has to stay. It is a permanent fund. We

[4:44] can't just zero it out and divide it among everybody. So, some technical

[4:51] accounting language, and I'm a musician. I count to four. So, um, but the task

[4:56] force recommended that 4.5% of the annual distribution of a three-year

[5:03] rolling average market value could be distributed to schools without depleting

[5:08] the fund, without keeping it in perpetuity for future generations. What

[5:14] does that amount to? Well, approximately that amount per pupil could go from 68

[5:18] to $100 across the state of Minnesota.

[5:22] [clears throat] that per that rolling average is

[5:25] considered a best accounting practice and other trust funds that are similar

[5:28] to this trust um use that accounting method. So why the constitutional

[5:34] amendment? Why doesn't the legislature just say let's give this money to the

[5:37] schools? Well, cuz they can't. Okay, in our in our state um the the fund is the

[5:44] method is distribute the distribution method is in the constitution and in

[5:48] Minnesota it's the voters that change the constitution. The legislature cannot

[5:53] do that. What the legislature can do is say, "We think this question should be

[5:58] on the ballot so the people of Minnesota have a right to decide it." So that's

[6:03] what they did. The legislature in this last session by a unanimous vote in the

[6:07] House of Representatives. It was a 43 to 24 vote in the Senate. So there were

[6:12] some senators who didn't um support putting this on the ballot, but it

[6:17] passed with bipartisan support. It might be one of the few things that came out

[6:22] of this last legislative session that had my partisan support.

[6:27] So, what are you going to see on your ballot come November? So, if you look at

[6:32] what I handed out to you, and I heard this morning, you know, where is this

[6:36] going to be? Because a lot of times these things are on the backside after

[6:39] all the people that we don't know we're voting for.

[6:42] » Um, but I did hear this morning that this question will be towards the middle

[6:47] of the ballot. So after your federal and state officers that we vote for this

[6:53] question [clears throat] will be come up and then you'll see your local races for

[6:57] city council and school board and some and county commissioner. Okay. So what

[7:02] is the question? Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to increase the

[7:08] funding going to all school districts from the permanent school fund, which is

[7:13] a fund that supports school districts without raising individual income or

[7:18] property taxes effective July 1st, 2027. And if you look beyond the dotted green

[7:25] line, you can see what each vote means. A yes vote means that come July 1st of

[7:31] 2027, the fund will be changed or the fund

[7:35] won't be changed, the distribution method will be changed to for this

[7:39] increased amount. Schools get this twice a year in March and in September we get

[7:44] two payments. Okay, a no doesn't mean the money is going away. It doesn't mean

[7:50] that schools aren't going to get this money anymore. It just means that the

[7:54] funding mechanism is going to stay the same that it has for oh the last 165

[7:59] years. Okay. But the important information I think is in the green box

[8:04] because lots of times when we don't know what we're voting for we leave blank.

[8:08] Okay. If you leave this blank, if you don't color in either a red oval or a or

[8:14] a a yes oval or a no oval, that counts as a no vote.

[8:19] » [clears throat] >> So, if it's left blank, it's the same as

[8:22] a no vote. So, I'm just here tonight. I'm not trying to tell you how to vote,

[8:27] okay? The civics teacher in me is just trying to give you some information to

[8:31] let you know and to let the public know that this is on the ballot. Please look

[8:35] for it and please answer it one way or the other. So, I think I got that under

[8:42] five minutes and those of you that know me know that's amazing. Um, [snorts] and

[8:47] I would be happy to answer any questions from either the board or if I could even

[8:51] from the public. >> Thank you for coming. Thank you.

[8:55] » Thank you for explaining that. >> Very nice.

[8:58] » There's a lot of misinformation and non-information about this. There's lots

[9:02] of things floating on social media. Um, and so, um, I I still I'm old enough

[9:09] that I like persontoperson stuff. So, I thank you, Madame Mayor, for giving me

[9:14] and the council for giving me an opportunity and and uh thank you.

[9:18] » Thank you, L. >> Thank you.

[9:19] » Thank you.

[9:22] » We'll go on to the city auditor.

[9:36] » Thank you, mayor.

[9:40] like this. [clears throat] Okay. Thank you, Mayor Councel. Um my

[9:46] name is Tom Kelly. Mostly familiar faces if not all I think out there. Um so

[9:53] we're going to go over the 2025 audit. Um

[9:58] for the for the city um you know how I like to go about this. If you have any

[10:04] questions, comments as we go, please hop in, ask. If you want to save them for

[10:08] the end, that's fine, too. Um, I'm going to hit on what I think are important

[10:13] parts. Um, but that doesn't mean we can't chat about other uh items uh in

[10:20] the audit too. So, without further um we will get started. Uh we're going to

[10:27] start on pages 2 through 5. This is where we give our opinion on

[10:33] your financial statements. Um, which is the whole purpose of having an audit.

[10:38] And >> [snorts]

[10:38] » uh these three four pages can be summed up nicely with the second paragraph on

[10:43] page two where we say that in our opinion based on our audit and the

[10:48] report of other auditors for the H. The accompanying financial statements

[10:53] referred to above present fairly in all material respects to respect the

[10:57] financial position of the city of Rome as of December 31st, 2025. Um so this is

[11:04] what we call clean opinion in the audit world. this is the opinion you're

[11:08] looking for. The books are fairly stated, the audit report is useful to

[11:12] the reader, uh so on. So that's the same opinion that we've given for years and

[11:18] years. Um and that's what you're looking for there.

[11:22] So the next section, which we're not going to stop at, but

[11:27] I'll explain what it is. Pages 6 through 14, management discussion and analysis.

[11:33] That's sort of a narrative uh that walks through

[11:36] uh with more verbiage than us accountants like to use typically uh

[11:41] what happened through the year in a financial uh aspect or respect. Okay.

[11:45] Page six. Page six. What's that number mean? Page six.

[11:49] » Uh which which number on page six? >> The big number.

[11:53] » There's a few of them on there

[11:58] » where it says fund balance decrease. >> Oh, okay.

[12:02] [clears throat] um governmental fund balances decreased 1

[12:07] million and change. Is that what you're looking at?

[12:09] » Okay. >> Um so we'll get to that when we get into

[12:12] the financials. >> Okay.

[12:13] » Um but but yes, that there was a notable decrease in fund balance and cash for

[12:19] the year. Yep. >> Um so I don't have anything else to stop

[12:23] and talk about in that section. What what numbers did you say? 6 through uh

[12:28] pages 6 through 14. Okay. What about uh our enterprise funds? When are you going

[12:34] to take and cover that? >> So that'll come that's coming after

[12:38] that'll come after the uh governmental fun. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

[12:45] » Any questions or comments on management's discussion and analysis?

[12:52] Okay. Then we go to the actual financial statements which start on page 15. pages

[12:59] 15 through 17. These are the governmentwide financial statements.

[13:02] They're not how the city keeps its books in the in the civic systems as a man

[13:07] knows very well. Um, so I don't usually stop and talk about this too much, but

[13:12] go ahead. Yeah. >> Okay. Could you just for everybody here

[13:16] explain what I call the black ink in our enterprise funds and the red ink in our

[13:20] enterprise funds? Could you >> sure point that out?

[13:23] » I think what you're referring to the >> profit loss.

[13:27] » Yes. the terminology of if you're in the black you had a profitable year or

[13:32] positive balances if you had are in the red you had a

[13:35] » so could you just say what they are there

[13:38] » uh we'll get to that >> again we'll get to the enterprise funds

[13:43] um >> okay

[13:43] » yeah shortly here >> okay thank you

[13:45] » yes of course so governmentwide you have items um such as fixed assets and

[13:50] long-term debt recorded here and that's where that's presented that is not

[13:54] presented in your governmental funds Um that's why we have this governmentwide

[13:59] to kind of uh it's a full acrruel version of the financial statements but

[14:04] again it's not how the books are kept for governmental funds on and when you

[14:08] get your monthly reports it's not uh how it's how it's viewed when they're ran.

[14:14] So we're going to go to page 18 which is the start of the governmental

[14:19] funds the balance sheet. Um this is where your general fund, debt service

[14:25] fund, capital projects fund, and your um charitable gambling special revenue fund

[14:31] are are um presented. Um [snorts] again, I'll just hit the highlights for

[14:37] financials here for what I think they are. Um cash and cash equivalents and

[14:42] investments at the very top. Uh those saw a 22% decrease from the end of 24 to

[14:48] 25. um about 756,000. Um

[14:55] to go along with that, um we'll get to the spending and how we got there in a

[15:00] couple pages, but um that was a significant decrease. Primarily, there

[15:05] were significant capital projects that were spent on both in 24 and 25. Um but

[15:11] that's that's the main driver for that decrease in cash in 2025.

[15:15] Um, I also like to call to your attention on under the general fund

[15:20] column the due from other funds. Um, 2.4 million. So that's the fifth number down

[15:27] under assets on the general fund. So that represents cash that

[15:34] the general fund has borrowed just for just for 1231 for financial statement

[15:40] presentation purposes to funds with negative cash because you can't present

[15:44] negative cash in the audit report. Um so really the general funds cash balance is

[15:50] that much higher than what you're seeing at the top of the page. Does that make

[15:53] sense or enough sense? Okay. [laughter] Um that is an increase that due from

[15:59] other funds is an increase uh from the prior year of about 200,000.

[16:04] Um so liabilities uh not much to talk about

[16:10] there besides the city projects capital projects fund. I'd like to point out the

[16:15] due to other funds line item there. That is a fund with negative cash in the

[16:20] amount of the 621,000. Um, and instead of showing negative

[16:24] cash, you show zero cash at the very top because you can't show negative cash.

[16:29] You show liability uh instead. And again, that is just for paper purposes.

[16:35] Just on December 31st, if Amanda was to run a report as of January 2nd, we'll

[16:42] say, uh, you would see the cash uh increase in general fund by that 2.4 4

[16:49] million due from other funds and the cash decrease from the 0 to the -621 in

[16:56] the capital projects fund purely for financial statement presentation

[17:01] purposes but still feel like I should mention

[17:07] um any questions on the balance sheet okay we'll flip to [clears throat] page

[17:13] 20 the statement of revenues expenditures

[17:17] and changes in fund balances still with uh governmental funds. Um

[17:22] [clears throat] so we'll go over revenues and expenditures primarily um

[17:26] [music] with some other information as well here. Um so your heavy hitters for

[17:30] revenues, intergovernmental funds the same as they typically are. Property

[17:35] taxes and intergovernmental revenues, property taxes were virtually unchanged

[17:39] from the prior year. Um both right at about 1.5 million exactly. Um the

[17:46] intergovernmental revenues those would be your LGA your tax aids uh any

[17:53] governmental grants that are coming through um those were also very similar

[17:58] prior year uh general fund went down a little bit from

[18:03] 2.6 million to 2.57 uh but overall in governmental funds you

[18:09] showed 2.86 million in intergovernmental revenues that's versus 2.8 8 rounded

[18:15] from the year before. So very steady here. Um overall revenues in the general

[18:22] fund were 4.5 million in 2024 versus 4.4 million in 2025.

[18:29] And overall in the governmental funds total revenues were 4.76 million in

[18:35] 2024. That's versus 4.77 [clears throat] 4.78 in 2025. So again, virtually uh

[18:44] unchanged. Um expenditures I mentioned capital

[18:48] projects have been really busy the last couple years. Um

[18:53] if you look under the cap city projects, capital projects one smack in the middle

[18:57] of these columns. If you go to the very bottom of expenditures, that middle

[19:02] section, you'll see capital outlay on the far left, streets and culture and

[19:07] wreck. Following that, um you'll see 1.2 2 million a capital outlay for streets.

[19:13] That's not just for streets, but public works in general. So, some of your

[19:16] bigger items there were improvements for the new school building right over here.

[19:20] Um, other streets and alley improvements and city garage drainage, for example.

[19:25] Tim and Al, do I have that stuff right? Okay. Um, so that was an increase. There

[19:31] was about 880 grand in total capital outlay in that fund prior year. That did

[19:36] increase obviously um to north of 1.2 million in 25 [clears throat]

[19:41] um general fund total expenditures

[19:45] increased as well from 3.97 million to 4.3 million rounded again.

[19:53] Um [clears throat] as a result of of those

[19:58] as well as transfers the annual transfer from general fund to capital projects

[20:02] fund to help fund some of those projects. Um the result was a decrease

[20:06] in general fund fund balance of 476,000 and a decrease in the capital projects

[20:12] fund of 573,000. Now those decreases correlate with that

[20:16] change in cash that I mentioned on the prior page. Um where we're talking fund

[20:21] balance but that kind of goes hand in hand with cash very very often. Um again

[20:27] the the busyiness with the capital projects is the main driver in the

[20:32] decrease in the fund balance in cash there.

[20:35] So um any questions on governmental funds.

[20:42] Okay. Um we'll skip to page 22 then. Skip the page now is where we're at. The

[20:49] uh proprietary funds, enterprise funds, business type funds. They go by all

[20:55] three names. Um, these should be self-sufficient, run like a business.

[21:00] Um, you want to see a a profit or break even with them. Um, we also saw we also

[21:07] saw cash decrease here in the enterprise funds. Um, about 48% cash decrease

[21:14] 475,000 from 2024 to 2025. Um, capital asset additions here also attributed to

[21:22] that. um as well as operating losses. So, there was utility improvements at

[21:28] the new school building as well um and other utility upgrades. Do I have that

[21:32] right too, guys? Um during 2025, that attributes to that cash decrease there.

[21:38] So, um continuing on down the page, it's really

[21:45] small type here, [clears throat] current liabilities

[21:50] due to other funds. I mentioned that with the governmental funds that there

[21:54] was the due front where the general fund is giving its cash for one evening to

[21:59] funds with negative cash. Um electric and water have had negative cash for

[22:04] some years now and they are are two that borrow some of that money on New Year's

[22:10] Eve from the general fund um for financial statement presentation

[22:14] purposes. um electric that was in the to the tune of 942,000

[22:21] and water to the tune of just south of uh 1.3 million. Um those are relatively

[22:28] similar to prior year in 2024 electric that number was 1 million and water was

[22:34] 1.22 million. So overall pretty close to the same amount. Um

[22:41] non-current liabilities oped that is that is a large liability that's

[22:47] on your financial statements um has been for many years now um since the gaze 75

[22:54] came out with I don't remember how many years ago that was quite a while ago now

[22:57] um but that was 4.55 million at the end of 25 versus 4.7 million it improved

[23:04] somewhat uh at the end of 24 and again that is uh uh that is an estimate of

[23:11] what you are to pay retiree health insurance wise

[23:16] until um there is no longer a liability or retirees to pay for that health

[23:21] insurance who are eligible for that. Um that [clears throat] obviously puts a

[23:26] dent in your financial health and your enterprise funds here. Um to the very

[23:31] bottom total net position um overall unrestricted is this is for all

[23:38] of your enterprise funds 5.3 million negative um very similar prior year it

[23:43] was 5.33 million negative. So if you look at that oped liability

[23:49] or 4.55 million not to try to get too nerdy with the numbers here but that

[23:54] that is 86% of your negative net position. So again, that is on your

[23:59] balance sheet a huge driver of of the negative

[24:04] um equity.

[24:08] And that's about as deep as I'm going to get into that. So does anybody have any

[24:12] questions or comments? >> You're going to go to page 23?

[24:15] » Yep. Yep. We'll go there. >> So page 23, um sticking with the

[24:20] enterprise funds, this is the uh revenues, the income statement, if you

[24:25] will, in the corporate world. uh your revenues and expenses. Um revenues were

[24:31] relatively flat compared to prior year across the

[24:35] board. Electric did see an increase from 3.31 million to just about 3.4 million.

[24:42] Um water was within a,000 bucks of the prior year for revenue. Wastewater also

[24:49] within a,000 bucks. And and when we're talking 350 360,

[24:54] 500,000, that's pretty much spot on the same amount of revenue. Um, and refues

[25:00] did increase about 9 grand from 600 to 69,000.

[25:04] Um, overall revenues went up from just north of 5 million to 5.18 million in

[25:10] that press funds. Um operating expenses as goes typically with uh volume in in

[25:20] uh in electric utility enterprise fund. Operating expenses went up as well as to

[25:25] go with the revenue. They they went up a little bit more though. Um 3 million at

[25:29] the end of 2024 versus 3.3 in 2025. Um, and then there were slight decrease or

[25:36] slight increases, excuse me, across the board for water, wastewater, and refues.

[25:40] As far as expenses go, uh, in total enterprise funds expenses, operating

[25:47] expenses, excuse me, in 24 were 4.99 million. That's versus 5.44 in 2025.

[25:55] Um, electric utility fund had operating income of 81,000.

[26:01] Uh water treatment fund had a loss of 142,000. Wastewater had a loss of 28,000

[26:07] and refugees had a profit of 5700. Um overall

[26:11] » and Mountain Manor >> Mountain Manor had a small profit of

[26:15] 5,000 as well. Yep. Um overall totals uh last year due to a

[26:22] large uh operating income in electric fund uh you saw $69,000 in total

[26:28] operating income for all across the funds whereas this year you have

[26:32] $258,000 loss across the funds in total. Um

[26:38] okay uh continuing on down at the bottom

[26:43] change in that position. I shouldn't say down at the bottom, but five numbers up.

[26:47] Uh, this includes um nonoperating items as well. Up top,

[26:53] we were just talking about operating uh electric

[26:57] uh to use the black and red uh verbiage came out uh positive in the black

[27:03] 122,000. Water fund uh came out uh positive 238,000.

[27:10] Wastewater was negative 28,000. refugees positive 12,000 and Mount Manor was

[27:16] positive 85,000. So that was the end result of of all

[27:21] activity in enterprise funds during the year.

[27:24] Um again those losses did contribute to um the the cash decrease as well as the

[27:33] capital project spending.

[27:37] Any questions, comments otherwise? Okay, we'll keep going. Mayor,

[27:44] [clears throat] >> yes.

[27:45] » I have a question, Tom. Um, so the numbers on this page are different than

[27:51] the numbers reflected on page 16. I was just wondering, you know, they're

[27:55] slightly off. Is there a reason to for that?

[27:58] » See, 16 is the governmentwide. So 16

[28:04] is a little more summarized um as far as

[28:11] enterprise funds go. So you have all expenses

[28:17] um in in that in in that expense column on the

[28:22] far left of page 16. Is that what you're looking at in particular? Um even the

[28:26] charges for service for the business type activities

[28:31] » are off as well. >> Sure. So that probably has to do with

[28:35] that miscellaneous income which are just small dollars. Um

[28:41] » okay in the middle of page 23.

[28:45] Um I'd have to look into that to get real specific for

[28:51] you. But I'm looking at like the water fund. And on page 23, we got 356 243

[28:58] 117 bucks in miscellaneous income. And that would bring us to the 356 360.

[29:05] So, so that's with the less detail. You're more apt to have those items that

[29:11] don't have a home on page 16 where they do have a home in the more detailed

[29:16] section um to cause some of those numbers to be off by smaller amounts.

[29:21] » Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, of course.

[29:28] » Okay. Any other questions on enterprise funds?

[29:34] Okay. the largest section of the audit, which I don't have any plans to stop it

[29:38] in unless there's questions. Notes of the financials, pages 26 through 52. Um,

[29:44] this goes into some of your accounting policies, talked about OPED, like I

[29:50] mentioned, net pension liability, what makes up uh cash and cash equivalents,

[29:55] um, fixed assets, capital assets, all sorts of good fun detail in there, um,

[30:01] that I will skip over in case there's any questions. We'll go to page 63.

[30:07] Um, this is the general fund budget to actual. I like to stop here and just uh

[30:13] take a take a minute at this area. Um total revenues for the general fund. Um

[30:20] almost spot on to what was budgeted. Uh the first two columns on the left are

[30:25] budget original versus final. If there was an amendment you for the budget, you

[30:29] see that here. Those numbers would be different. Um

[30:33] actual you brought in 14 grand less than what was budgeted. Well, you're talking

[30:38] 4.4 million. That's a pretty small variance from an audit perspective. So,

[30:42] pretty much spot on with the revenues. Um, expenditures

[30:47] did you did spend over budget in 2025 on expenditures and those were primarily in

[30:53] the public safety streets and culture and recck area. In fact, in uh general

[30:58] government, you had a positive variance there. So, total expenditures um

[31:02] overspent compared to budget by about 449,000.

[31:07] those variances come out to be a $463,000

[31:11] negative variance for the year. Um, so just something to keep in mind, you

[31:15] know, it's budget season for your local government's favorite time of year. Um,

[31:21] any questions on the budget term? >> Okay. On the very bottom of page 63,

[31:26] that fund balance of December 31st, what does that mean generally? So

[31:33] generally speaking, um fund balance is essentially assets

[31:39] minus liabilities. So >> it's what we have left over after the

[31:43] whole year went by. >> Yeah.

[31:45] » Simplistically way to look at it. Yep. >> Okay. That's left over, not docu. It's

[31:50] not put towards something else. It's just there,

[31:53] » right? It's all of your assets. So your cash, receivables,

[31:56] » okay, >> inventory if you had,

[31:59] » it's all positive >> less. Correct.

[32:01] » But it's not dedicated to anything. >> Not necessarily.

[32:04] » Not there yet. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Yep. Of course.

[32:09] » Okay. We'll go on to page 90 then um where we have schedule, findings, and

[32:15] responses. And this is where you're going to 90.

[32:21] » Yep. Uh we don't have to all go there but on

[32:25] page 70 uh 9 and 80 this is for parks and wreck our

[32:31] west two campground lost in 2025 over 41,000.

[32:36] So for parks and wreck something to think about.

[32:40] West two campground lost 41,000 plus dollars for 2025.

[32:46] Thank you. Okay. Okay. um to page 90. Then

[32:51] this is where we have the audit findings.

[32:57] There were [clears throat] excuse me three findings this year. There were

[33:02] four last year. Um the bank wreck finding got cleaned up which was great.

[33:06] Great job by the office on that. Um that was really nice to see. Um so we have

[33:12] the two standard segregation of duties and financial reporting process and then

[33:17] we have the third one's a repeat as well on claim property which I imagine will

[33:22] get will get better. It was a task to get the bank wreck cleaned up. Um so

[33:28] some of these older items is why property. I'll get into that in a minute

[33:32] here. Getting ahead of myself. Um okay so the first finding segregation of

[33:37] duties that um again very standard for local governments you have a small

[33:43] office it's not saying that you're not doing a good job with the staffing that

[33:46] you have it's just from an audit perspective we'd of course like to see

[33:50] duties be segregated more well you're limited when you have um a small office

[33:55] it's not saying you're not doing a good job what you have again um but we're

[33:59] just doing our due diligence to communicate that with management and

[34:04] governance by having that in our audit. Um, similarly with lack of control over

[34:09] financial reporting process, part of what we do is put the audit

[34:16] report together for you. Right? These are your financials, your notes of the

[34:21] financial statements. Um, but because we do this on a regular basis, it makes

[34:28] sense for us to to put this together and stay up on the gases and all that stuff.

[34:33] Um, rather than doing it in house. Again, very standard for local

[34:37] governments to do it this way, but we still have to communicate that there's a

[34:41] finding as such. Again, just doing our due diligence and uh explaining that to

[34:46] you. Um the third [clears throat] finding young claim property um state

[34:51] statutes dictate how long outstanding checks or dispersements um can be I

[34:58] guess for lack of a better term hanging out there. Um payroll is one year and

[35:03] accounts payable checks are 3 years. Um there were some items that were older

[35:08] than that for accounts payable. Uh I believe it was um yes more than 3 years

[35:14] old. We recommend uh you send those to unplanned property at the state. Then um

[35:20] that's that's the process they typically take when someone a vendor doesn't cash

[35:24] their check um and you get to that period of time. So

[35:28] » why is that a thing that we're supposed to do? Do we get a refund from the state

[35:33] somehow or it's just something that we have to do to do?

[35:36] » No, you just it's just a statutory regulation and we have to do it

[35:40] essentially if the check got lost or is missing. It's it's the pay ease

[35:46] responsibility then to go on unclaimed property see oh does does uh

[35:51] » okay >> do do they have any items out there that

[35:54] they have not cashed or claimed that that's how they can procure

[35:58] » okay it's for other people down the line >> thank you

[36:02] » yeah so um any questions on the findings

[36:07] before we get to the management letter if um management

[36:15] two management points. These are not so not true findings, but we still feel

[36:20] like it's noteworthy to put any communicate to uh governance and

[36:25] management these items. Um first one we kind of talked about already enterprise

[36:31] fund health um water and wastewater fund had operating losses. There's also the

[36:37] negative cash and do two other funds in electric and water. Um,

[36:44] you don't want those to grow, right? You don't want to have operating losses

[36:48] consistently. So, it's just something that we're recommending. Keep an eye on

[36:50] it. Uh, you know, put something together if you can to to try to negate those

[36:56] losses and turn the health of those funds around. Um and the second one um

[37:02] when we were doing analytical review of um I believe this was a water water

[37:08] consumption calculation had a formula error um which makes it difficult

[37:12] obviously to do analytical review when we uh have a have a skewed uh skewed

[37:19] data to to go by. You know obviously consumption goes up we expect revenue to

[37:22] go up right um that was hard to do with with the data that was given to us. So

[37:29] um those are the only few management points. Um those are you know much fewer

[37:35] than what they have been in prior years. So I would say that especially getting

[37:38] that bank crash finding cleaned up. Um that was that was a huge step um in in

[37:44] in you know cleaning things up as far as

[37:48] like audit items that could be per se. So noteworthy.

[37:55] That's what I have. further questions or comments, sir.

[38:00] » Okay. I'm going to so move, unless somebody has questions, I'm going to so

[38:04] move to accept the 2022 Mount Iron City audit as presented and staff will

[38:10] implement all recommended changes. Now, I know that's under new business C, but

[38:15] long as he's here, he can hear how we say, then he can go home and rest.

[38:24] So, I made a motion to accept our 2025 audit and staff will implement the

[38:30] recommended changes. All support.

[38:36] » Any other discussion?

[38:41] » Roll call vote. >> Yes.

[38:45] » Hi. >> Yes.

[38:47] » Anderson. >> Yes.

[38:50] » Okay. Thanks everybody. >> Thank you.

[39:03] » Committee and staff reports. I have nothing formal. I've just been

[39:09] watching all the action going on by the workers

[39:13] trying to get ahead of things for the seasons to come.

[39:20] city administrator report.

[39:25] » Uh yeah, madame mayor. Um as you can see in the report, the uh main server for

[39:30] the city is coming to end of life and uh they've quoted out a new main server uh

[39:36] to be installed and we're recommending uh to go with BC3, our IT consultant to

[39:42] uh install this server.

[39:47] Do I have a motion

[39:52] for the server replacement quote? I'll move we approve the VC3's

[39:58] um quote for my three- ring punches right on that

[40:03] number. 28,000 >> 741.

[40:08] » Is that right? Okay. >> All support.

[40:16] Any other discussion?

[40:21] » Roll call vote, please. >> Yes.

[40:25] » Hi. >> Yes.

[40:27] » Yes. >> Yes. [clears throat]

[40:30] That passes. Director of public works report, please.

[40:36] » Good evening, Madame Mayor, counselors. Um, I had one item, uh, we would act on.

[40:42] Um um part of when we do these electrical

[40:46] projects, we've learned through uh CO and and the supply chain stuff that we

[40:52] try to gather up all the hardware and and items that we need to do a project.

[40:58] So right now we currently um have applied for a permit to directionally

[41:03] drill underneath Highway 169. We did try to do that last year. um we keep you

[41:08] know a certain amount of inventory of um conductor uh wire on hand. It's you know

[41:14] expensive and it all depends on when it's you know how what what thing what

[41:20] things are going on out there and how available it is. Um right now we went

[41:24] from CO to u to um um what are we what are they doing in data

[41:31] centers? Yeah, data centers have created a shortage of a lot of electrical

[41:36] distribution systems. So, um in order to do this crossing, this is a crossing

[41:41] that we weren't able to do because of the rocks. We're looking at proposing um

[41:46] that was just between the um the Comfort in Hotel and and uh just slightly to the

[41:51] east of the city hall. Uh we ran into Rock Ridge's reason why we call it Rock

[41:56] Ridge and couldn't get through. [clears throat]

[41:58] So, we're going to directionally drill across from somewhere by Fair View

[42:02] Clinic to L&M. And this will allow us to eliminate the overhead crossings along

[42:09] um what would be the Mud Lake Road area and the one over here just slightly east

[42:13] of this of the city hall. Those are at the end of life. Um they're also kind of

[42:19] risky because there's a median there's a pole right in the median of the highway.

[42:23] One of them has been hit in the past. um that just kind of shows a vulnerability

[42:28] to our system. So, I'd uh ask for um and I since have gotten another quote on

[42:33] some availability and it was in the $37,000 range, but I'd ask for your

[42:38] approval to purchase from Irvy um this three rolls of wire for $35,94.

[42:47] I so move we approve purchasing the Okconite wire for the electrical

[42:53] department's highway 169 modernization project in the amount of $35,94.

[43:00] » Thank you. Do I have >> support?

[43:02] » Thank you. Any other discussion?

[43:07] Seeing no other discussion, roll call vote, please.

[43:10] » Yes. Hi. >> Yes.

[43:13] » Yes. >> Yes.

[43:16] » Madame Mayor, if I may just add a few things. Um I I think we started saying

[43:20] it last time. There'll be crews are going to be really busy until snow

[43:24] falls. Um today we hauled road salt sand for for our streets. Um we'll be hauling

[43:30] that for the next couple days. Um we are going to be do you'll see our crews out

[43:35] flushing sewers. We do this annually. um will be out um excuse me, flushing

[43:41] hydrants and flushing sewer uh jetting sewers. Um um we are having some some

[43:48] issues with one of our wells. So, we're doing some work up at one of the older

[43:52] wells. Um there'll be some stuff that to talk about in the future with those. Um

[43:57] the engineering, we'll be talking about a little bit later at the wastewater

[44:01] treatment plant that's ongoing. Um, we have some slip lining that's happening,

[44:05] some um um these electrical projects. We have four electrical projects that I'm

[44:11] hoping to finish up before winter. So, we'll be busy.

[44:17] » Thank you. >> Okay, I got a thing here. I'm going to

[44:19] try to do something. Um, comment first. The three most accidentrone The three

[44:26] most accidentrone intersections in Mount Iron are the following. one US 169 and

[44:33] Emerald Avenue and Rockidge Drive. The second one, US 169 and Enterprise Drive

[44:39] North and County number 7. And the third one is County number seven and Unity

[44:45] Drive. So, I know that you're not going to like to hear this, but I so move that

[44:51] the following straight ahead traffic arrow be painted by September 18, 2026.

[44:59] [snorts] Unity Drive eastbound from County number seven, which is a lane on

[45:03] the south side of Unity Drive. And the second straight ahead arrow, Unity Drive

[45:09] westbound from county number seven, which is the lane on the north side of

[45:14] Unity Drive. But right now, that gas company has that corner all tore up. So

[45:20] the westbound arrow might take a little longer. You'll have to go down there.

[45:25] What the blank are they doing? They tore up by sidewalk. punch a little bit up

[45:29] the street to do some gas line work there. So, I still made the motion. So,

[45:35] I'll try to do it by September 18th if possible.

[45:39] » We have a motion.

[45:43] » Not seeing any support. >> Okay,

[45:46] » we'll go on to the library director special events

[45:50] coordinator report, please. >> Good evening, Mayor Anderson Council.

[45:54] Um, yes, it was a very busy summer um, here at Southare Public Library, but

[45:59] we're moving into the fall and it's not slowing down. Um,

[46:04] we secured a grant this past um, winter for the Mary C. Murphy Library

[46:10] Construction Grant to replace and um, update the steps at the front of of the

[46:16] library. Um, I was informed this past week that the Virginia Area Community

[46:21] Foundation has donated $5,000 to that um to that fund as well. And just with a

[46:26] little bit of um [snorts] work just resubmitted some portions of the grant

[46:32] to the ILR for the remainder through the culture and tourism um fund. So, we hope

[46:37] to have all the dollars for that project moving forward. I'll just wait and cross

[46:42] my fingers on the triple R. But, uh, I am very happy that that project is

[46:48] coming forward. And if you take a swing by the library, uh, the steps are

[46:51] needing a little needing some work. >> And it's an iconic landmark in downtown

[46:56] Mountain Iron. There isn't a ton of things happening in downtown, and we

[46:59] like to remain a a destination for people. We just had some folks stop in

[47:04] off the Msabi trail tonight seeking out not only the um uh Carnegie libraries in

[47:10] the area but also to use our restrooms and water. So we are the best space that

[47:14] people stop and visit. So it was nice to hear th those words back and um yeah

[47:20] programming is picking will pick right back up for the fall for our fall

[47:24] programming. So, um, if anyone has any questions, um, that's

[47:28] » Oh, when is did they ever decide when the meritage committee is going to meet

[47:31] again? >> They will be meeting October.

[47:36] » October. >> Yeah. Let me just find out. Let me

[47:39] double check so I don't say the wrong date. October 7th at 5:00. And that will

[47:44] be at the Mount Iron Senior Center. >> Okay. 5:00 senior center. Thank you.

[47:49] » Say October 7th. >> Okay. Thank you.

[47:51] » Yep. >> Thank you.

[47:54] You're welcome. >> You will go on to our [laughter]

[47:57] » That's a

[48:00] report to say. [laughter]

[48:07] [clears throat]

[48:10] » So, a quick update. Uh the Mount Iron Alley project, we did a walkthrough with

[48:14] Msabi Batuminous last week to create a punch list. It's nearly complete. and

[48:18] they kind of indicated that the items remaining, which was turf establishment

[48:23] and uh a repair, we're going to be taken care of this fall. So, we should see

[48:27] that closed out here in the next month. And then we're currently working to

[48:32] schedule a pre-construction meeting with the slip lining company um init

[48:37] uh probably occur before the next council meeting if that dates uh work

[48:43] with everyone involved in that. That's all I have.

[48:47] » Thank you. >> Okay. I have a a couple of things here

[48:50] for for you engineer. Besides all the other problems we have with the mineral

[48:55] avenue alley project, we have this mud lom maybe grass around the alley cache

[49:02] basins. Waterbased erosion will probably plug up the storm sewer piping. So, the

[49:08] opinion of not only me but some other people, there should be asphalt around

[49:12] all the alley catch basins so you don't have all that junk going in there. So,

[49:19] put that on your list of maybe what else to do. Second, I so move for the public

[49:25] record. It has been visually observed not only by me but other people that

[49:30] many of the residential properties on the east side of Mineral Avenue on the

[49:35] west side of the new paved alley have backyards that are below the level of

[49:40] the alley which may hinder the flow of heavy rain and snow melt water to the

[49:45] east out of those residential backyards. You can really if you go look you can

[49:51] see. So, I want that as the public record, please.

[49:57] » We have a motion. Any support?

[50:03] Hearing no support, we'll go on. Thank you.

[50:09] We'll go to the sheriff's department report, please.

[50:12] » Madame Mayor, counselors, nothing for me.

[50:17] » Thank you.

[50:20] We'll go on to economic development authority. We have a

[50:26] comprehensive plan update.

[50:33] [clears throat]

[50:37] » We need a motion.

[50:41] » Yeah, I can speak to this, Madame Mayor. Um, so our last comprehensive plan was

[50:46] is over 10 years old. So the EDA requested RFPs for updated comprehensive

[50:53] plan. Five were received um reviewed by the EDA and it was recommended that we

[50:59] um move forward uh with MSA.

[51:07] » So we have >> I'll make a motion to

[51:10] » yes >> approve

[51:12] » the comprehensive plan update with MSA. Do we have support?

[51:18] » I support that. >> Oh, just to let people know, the cost of

[51:22] that potentially is uh $65,500.

[51:28] Put this back on. I support it, but so people know, uh the cost is not to

[51:33] exceed $65,500 for the comprehensive plan. Any

[51:41] other discussion >> with the other plans that were uh

[51:45] submitted? How did the their uh estimates compared to what MSA's

[51:52] cost is?

[52:00] Um so theirs was 655. Um future IQ was 100,000.

[52:08] Um, [clears throat] IMEG was about 90,000.

[52:13] S AE HR was 765 and Bolton and Mink was 24659.

[52:21] Uh, we had lots of discussion at the EDA and it was voted 4:1 to move forward

[52:28] with MSA.

[52:32] had such a difference in uh estimate. Was there a discrepancy in what they

[52:40] were uh estimating? Uh we just thought that you know having an a firm like MSA,

[52:47] you know, not not unknown to Mountain Iron since

[52:51] they're working with the wastewater treatment plant. um and their proposal

[52:56] um had a little bit more community outreach and and uh like public forums

[53:02] than what Bolton and Mink had in their um quote.

[53:07] So that's why it was recommended to move forward.

[53:13] » Any other discussion? >> Maybe a question for uh our city

[53:17] engineer. Would uh Bolton and Mink have uh charged extra for public outreach on

[53:25] any of [snorts] that stuff within their estimate?

[53:29] » Mayor, if I may. >> Yes, please.

[53:31] » Yeah, there would be additional cost that it be on the proposal um to do it

[53:36] some additional outreach in that proposal. Um, I think as kind of

[53:40] indicated there, there could be some add-on services if or expanded scope and

[53:46] service if if needed or requested.

[53:54] » Any other discussion? Roll call vote.

[54:00] » Yes. >> Hi.

[54:02] » No. >> No.

[54:06] » No.

[54:11] Well, then who is going to do our comprehensive plan? Does that go back to

[54:15] the EDA again?

[54:23] » I would so move that we go with uh the Bolton Mink firm to do that

[54:28] comprehensive plan >> and I would support that. and any

[54:32] allocart that we would even need to add on. I can't imagine it would come up to

[54:37] $65,000.

[54:40] [clears throat]

[54:45] » So, do you want to make a motion? >> I just

[54:51] she supported. [clears throat] [snorts]

[54:59] » Any other discussion?

[55:04] All in favor? >> I

[55:06] » I >> I.

[55:08] » Any opposed? >> No.

[55:11] » We should No, we should go along with the initial recommendation of our

[55:16] economic development authority.

[55:22] The last motion passes to go with Bolton and Mink.

[55:30] And we'll go on to parks and wreck board.

[55:39] I can take that one too, Madame Mayor. Um, so we for this is for the South W

[55:45] complex bids. Um, Bolton and Mink had worked with the the lowest bid uh, which

[55:51] was about a half a million over our budget. They did some value engineering.

[55:55] Um, however, it totally changed the the scope of what the initial plan was for

[56:01] the building. So, it was recommended to reject all bids and rebid it um, with

[56:07] the batuminous separate and the building separate.

[56:13] Al. So, I'll make that motion to reject all South Grove rec complex bids.

[56:21] » I'll support it.

[56:29] » Any other discussion? >> Yes. Another comment that I've made in

[56:33] the past. Uh

[56:37] I have stated this several times. Do not do what was planned. tearing down the

[56:42] present two buildings for the cost of $30,000. Constructing a brand new

[56:46] building for over $850,000. A simple thing would be to take the

[56:52] present two buildings and move them to the south to make the area for the

[56:56] parking lot bigger. Then you could remodel those two buildings for way less

[57:01] than $850,000. And in the meantime, you can save multi-

[57:07] thousands and thousands of dollars of public money. So, I'm going to vote to

[57:16] reject what was done so far. >> Motion.

[57:19] » Can you repeat the motion, please? >> You just say that it was to reject all

[57:23] Southgrow Recreation Complex bids. >> Thank you.

[57:30] We have a motion. Do we have support for >> I think I support.

[57:38] » Yeah.

[57:41] » And we'll have a roll call vote, please.

[57:45] » Missy, >> yes.

[57:47] » Hi. >> Yes.

[57:50] » Peterson. >> Yes.

[57:56] » Any leison on reports?

[58:05] We'll go on to new business. [cough]

[58:09] [clears throat] Seeing we don't have any unfinished

[58:11] listed. Um,

[58:16] we have an interim financing for wastewater treatment plant upgrades

[58:22] pages 15 through 18

[58:30] with a resolution number

[58:41] pages 15 through Isn't this resolution the one that goes

[58:46] with it? 20 resolution numbers 23-26

[58:55] which is an authorization for the issuance sale and delivery of a 31

[59:03] of a 1,612,000 temporary general obligation sewer

[59:08] revenue bond series. Do we have a motion?

[59:14] » Also move we adopt resolution number 2326.

[59:18] That's authorizing the issuance, [clears throat] sale, and delivery of

[59:22] 1.6212

[59:26] million temporary general obligation sewer revenue bonds series 2026A.

[59:33] » All support. >> Any other discussion?

[59:37] » Yes. Uh, so we and the public who's watching knows how is all this bonding

[59:43] money in hopefully going to be paid back. Somebody has to pay it somehow.

[59:52] » Thank you.

[59:57] » Madame Mayor, members of the council, I'm Shannon Sweeney with David

[1:00:00] Associates here on behalf of Minnesota Row Waters Funding Program. Uh the

[1:00:04] city's made application for temporary financing for wastewater treatment

[1:00:08] project to fund engineering costs to get through the bidding process. The state

[1:00:13] of Minnesota through its public facilities authority will ultimately

[1:00:16] fund the project most likely on wastewater treatment will be a

[1:00:20] combination of grants and loans. Uh they do not advance or award those grants and

[1:00:26] loans until the project is essentially designed and certified. And so we have

[1:00:31] you have to incur significant costs in order to get through that process in

[1:00:35] order to essentially obtain and close on the state funding. That is the mechanism

[1:00:41] that would be provided in the long-term financing for the project. Now the state

[1:00:46] will say that they're not have [clears throat] made no

[1:00:50] guarantee regarding the availability or timing of their funding, but we have a

[1:00:54] project that's on their list. It's scored well enough that it should be in

[1:00:58] a fundable range. And at [snorts] the end of the day, we had to ask their

[1:01:01] permission to proceed with this temporary financing, which they gave us

[1:01:04] this permission to do. And so, uh, we have to rely on their process in this

[1:01:09] instance in order to, uh, work our way through that until we get the funding

[1:01:14] commitment necessary to pay for the project. So, this is temporary financing

[1:01:19] over a three-year term. Uh, it's our expectation that your long-term

[1:01:23] financing will be in place and the lender's expectation. If something goes

[1:01:27] wrong, [snorts] you can renew that for an additional three-year term if you

[1:01:31] needed to. The interest cost associated with this is eligible for program

[1:01:35] funding. So, uh, we borrow the interim interest payments as part of this

[1:01:40] funding package to cover those interest payments. So, we're not coming out of

[1:01:44] pocket uh during this design term, and ultimately our hope is to have this paid

[1:01:50] off within that three-year period. We're happy to answer any more questions.

[1:01:55] » Thank you.

[1:02:07] So we have a motion with support that any other discussion.

[1:02:15] Roll call vote. >> Yes. Hi,

[1:02:18] » Dan. >> Yes.

[1:02:20] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:02:24] » That passes. And we have a

[1:02:32] an engineering agreement with MSA wastewater treatment plant upgrades,

[1:02:38] pages 19 through 25.

[1:02:45] Do we have a motion?

[1:02:50] Please tell me to do if you want to go for mayor. Yes,

[1:02:55] please say this is basically the agreement to continue the design

[1:03:00] services. We've completed preliminary design and now starting at final design

[1:03:06] and as Mr. Sween you mentioned is to get to that point where the project is

[1:03:11] certified so we can get on the piece of funding list and uh move continue to

[1:03:16] move forward with the project. >> Thank you.

[1:03:23] » So do we have a motion for this engineering agreement?

[1:03:30] This will move we approve the engineering agreement with MSA for the

[1:03:35] wastewater treatment plant upgrade >> in the amount of

[1:03:43] » $1,383,100.

[1:03:47] Did I get that correct, Tom? >> Yep.

[1:03:50] [snorts] >> Support for discussion.

[1:03:54] » Support by Brad for discussion. Discussion. Yeah, Tom, I just was

[1:04:01] curious. So, you're the contract amount is the 13831,

[1:04:06] but on the go uh bond that we just approved, it shows engineering and

[1:04:11] design is 1.439. I was just wondering why there were there was it's off a

[1:04:16] little bit there. >> Yeah, I think that that probably

[1:04:18] includes the facility plan cost

[1:04:23] on onto the total. >> Oh, on to the geo total.

[1:04:28] » Yep. Okay.

[1:04:34] [clears throat] >> I believe that's that's probably where

[1:04:36] it's at. I haven't crunched the numbers exactly, but um so part of it is is it's

[1:04:41] already the was it 167 for the pre-engineering

[1:04:46] as for preliminary engineering is done. The additional work is proposed at

[1:04:51] 1.216, but this is a funding package for the whole mechanism of everything that

[1:04:57] we've gone through. There's been steps here that we've we've um we've already

[1:05:02] uh paid for and everything that this bonding will take care of.

[1:05:06] » Okay. Thank you. >> For example, the um boring and different

[1:05:10] there's been [clears throat] different items that we've already approved. So,

[1:05:13] » okay. Thanks. >> Okay. This another standard question.

[1:05:17] How is this big amount of money 1,383,000

[1:05:21] plus dollars going to be paid for? Hopefully,

[1:05:25] » uh as Mr. Sweeney explained is once we get to the point where we finalized the

[1:05:30] state funding, um part of that will be grant money, part of it will be a loan.

[1:05:35] So, >> it'll all be rolled into that state

[1:05:38] funding. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:05:42] » We have a motion

[1:05:49] and support. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. discuss.

[1:05:55] » Oh yeah. Oh, >> do you have some discussion?

[1:05:58] » Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> I

[1:06:03] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:06:05] » Yes. >> Oh, I voted yes, too, just in case it

[1:06:08] was missed.

[1:06:12] » Okay.

[1:06:17] » The audit acceptance properly.

[1:06:21] » I know, but it's on here. Yeah, twice. >> They want it twice. [laughter]

[1:06:29] Um, our next is removal of board commission

[1:06:34] member page 26.

[1:06:42] » I would [clears throat] so move that we uh remove Mr. Steve Georgie from the

[1:06:46] planning and zoning commission and the econ economic development authority

[1:06:50] board. I will support that.

[1:06:55] » Thank you. [clears throat] Any other discussion?

[1:06:57] » Okay. First, oh, you had your light on first.

[1:06:59] » No, you did. Go. >> Oh, I did. First of all, who put this

[1:07:03] item on tonight's city council meeting agenda? It's there, but it doesn't say

[1:07:08] who put it on. Does anybody want to say who put it on tonight's agenda?

[1:07:15] Nobody. Okay. >> So, I'm going to put

[1:07:20] no one. No one put it on, but it's there. Okay.

[1:07:24] Second, Steve Georgie has an excellent public service background. He was part

[1:07:30] of RAMPS for how long? And he has connections throughout our count down in

[1:07:36] the state [clears throat] legislature. He's got it. He's got it. And so, in my

[1:07:42] opinion, he should with all that background he has that he can use to

[1:07:46] help our community. He should be involved with Mount Nir city government

[1:07:51] as long as he wants to, [snorts] as long as he wants to. In my opinion, he should

[1:07:57] be part of whatever board and commission he wants to be.

[1:08:01] We need his what's in his head and what's in his heart, too.

[1:08:09] » And Madam Mayor, yeah, I had the same question. I emailed Mr. Weno on Friday

[1:08:13] asking who had put this on the agenda. Um, and I hadn't gotten a response.

[1:08:19] » So, no one put it on the agenda, but it's there.

[1:08:22] » And then, you know, more background and reasoning why, you know, we want to

[1:08:25] remove the chair of the planning and zoning and the chair of the EDA.

[1:08:30] » I can just go with a few of the things of the um really the slanderous remarks

[1:08:35] and stuff that Steve has made wanting to in front of people in our meetings and

[1:08:40] stuff that I want to fire this um city administrator. He's not doing his job.

[1:08:45] He has gone after after the staff, the workers

[1:08:50] and everyone here. It's just terrible behavior screaming at people and not I

[1:08:56] don't think it's behavior conducive of something we want in unity in on our

[1:09:01] boards. >> Um so I can speak to the EDA side being

[1:09:06] on the the EDA. I I don't know if there's any reasoning from planning and

[1:09:10] zoning moving this forward, but um Steve had never said, you know, fire Craig.

[1:09:16] » He did too. >> He what he said and this was during a

[1:09:19] discussion in regards to a motion that the EDA made last August in South Forest

[1:09:25] Grove, you know, where somebody reached out wanting to purchase lot 8 and half

[1:09:32] of nine. Uh we directed Craig to reach out to lot 10 to see if they would be

[1:09:37] interested in half of nine and you know it turns out that that didn't happen. So

[1:09:45] [clears throat] it's it was more Steve holding Craig accountable asking him for

[1:09:49] questions. Well, why did we sell lot nine and half of eight opposed to 8 and

[1:09:55] half of nine, you know, and then reaching out to the adjacent property

[1:09:59] owners um to purchase that other sliver other half. And when asked about that,

[1:10:06] you know, why did why did we sell this instead of that? It was I don't know.

[1:10:11] And then the next meeting it was, oh, the attorney transposed the numbers. And

[1:10:17] so, um, you know, during that those discussions between Steve and Craig, um,

[1:10:23] you know, Steve did say, "Well, maybe we need a new EDA director." And Craig

[1:10:27] said, "Maybe maybe you do." Um, so that's the EDA side of things. Steve has

[1:10:34] not raised his voice or anything like that. Um,

[1:10:37] » were you at these meetings and he's screaming about Brian Lindsay, the worst

[1:10:41] city attorney ever. Were you here when this was going on?

[1:10:44] » I was there, too. And I have to agree what he's saying.

[1:10:48] » Yeah. >> Cuz you're the other one yelling about

[1:10:50] it. >> And we've got the EDA members here as

[1:10:52] well as Steve if we if they have any discussion during open discussion as

[1:10:58] well. >> Well, that's fine. I understand. You're

[1:11:00] very talented in what you do, but the way you go after people is unacceptable.

[1:11:05] Unacceptable. >> Oh, and I've never been gone after

[1:11:09] [clears throat] here. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, I serve on both planning and

[1:11:15] zoning and I have to say Steve has done a wonderful job on both committees and

[1:11:21] um maybe maybe not uh accepted by some, but I think I think the way he handles

[1:11:28] things and his knowledge is more than what our city needs.

[1:11:33] » So, we're going to ignore the conduct of what goes on here.

[1:11:38] There's more to there's more to a a committee chair than conduct.

[1:11:46] I think it should be like a whole package deal that you can conduct

[1:11:50] yourself in a acceptable manner because we're all adults instead of screaming at

[1:11:55] people. And I've seen it. I've seen what you've done. I've been sitting here

[1:11:59] during the meetings. >> And if it's if it's just intimidation

[1:12:03] that you're trying to go after, I don't know. But I'm I don't want to be

[1:12:07] pressured to make any kind of decision. So I I don't I guess I just do not agree

[1:12:13] with how you do business. >> Has a conversation ever [clears throat]

[1:12:17] had happened outside of this with Steve? >> Pardon me.

[1:12:22] » Has a conversation ever taken place about the quorum that we're talking

[1:12:26] about with Steve outside of right now? [clears throat]

[1:12:29] » Yes.

[1:12:33] It has not been addressed in the EDA. [clears throat]

[1:12:36] It didn't come up. No one spoke that as a reservation when we elect them chair.

[1:12:44] That was the time and place to do it. And we as EA members are saying we're

[1:12:48] not seeing that. >> Okay. The last meeting

[1:12:51] » individual saying I'm seeing this, but the rest of the council members are not

[1:12:57] of that committee.

[1:13:00] It might be a personal issue, not a chairman issue.

[1:13:05] » The last meeting, I can [clears throat] tell you I should have opened my mouth

[1:13:08] with the way things were going. And I emailed Craig and told him, "I apologize

[1:13:13] for not standing up." When everyone, I think, just sat here with their mouth

[1:13:17] open like, "Wow, I can't believe you're talking like that." I was embarrassed.

[1:13:22] That should never have happened. regardless whether I go outside and talk

[1:13:26] to somebody and now I'm outside talking to two other people and now we got a

[1:13:30] quorum and you're in trouble. I will say from my perspective in the

[1:13:34] meeting I was [cough] [clears throat] glad the way Steve was

[1:13:38] talking about his response to it because I felt the opposite. I felt Craig was

[1:13:41] not giving any sort of response holding up to his duty on the board in his role

[1:13:46] getting paid from the city. I didn't feel like he was even involved in the

[1:13:50] conversation and it escalated to them having a conversation about is Craig

[1:13:55] suited to do his job there. So, I felt like it was appropriate based off of my

[1:14:00] interpretation of Craig's nonresponse and wasn't him Steve attacking him with

[1:14:07] the original comments that it was. It was the nonresponse of we just need a

[1:14:11] response. And what if in during this whole discussion that there was some

[1:14:16] kind of mixup and we do not know how it happened. So we're still going to attack

[1:14:21] the city administrator. >> Sorry, I thought that was the question

[1:14:24] that we were asking during the meeting was Craig, do you have a response? Do

[1:14:28] you know how this happened? Should it be approved by us?

[1:14:32] And I heard multiple times, I don't know. Not sure. Didn't really seem too

[1:14:38] involved in the conversation. and then eventually said we as the board approved

[1:14:42] it when we didn't >> we we did approve to split that piece of

[1:14:47] property >> not the one that got

[1:14:48] » the one so that's where the discrepancy is there was a some kind of mixup and do

[1:14:54] we know I don't know >> the point

[1:14:59] that was the point of the conversation that was

[1:15:01] » and if he doesn't know he doesn't know I don't know if you're going to try to

[1:15:05] have him make something up I don't know >> he was given the he was given the

[1:15:11] responsibility to contact the people and talk to them

[1:15:15] and came back and told us that the people next door would buy the property

[1:15:20] and the and the property got switched. Instead of it being 18, all of 18 and

[1:15:26] half of 19, it got switched to all of 19 and half of 18. So the people

[1:15:34] that were in the house next door that wanted to buy that other half, they were

[1:15:39] pushed out. >> I'm aware. And the problem is we don't

[1:15:43] understand how it happened. >> Talk to us.

[1:15:45] » I understand. I was here for all those meetings. But if we don't know how it

[1:15:49] happened, it's still attacking somebody like that isn't going to get you

[1:15:52] anywhere. >> No, I don't. And and as far as um

[1:15:57] [clears throat] planning and zoning, I'll speak for them. believe not had any

[1:16:01] problem at all at planning and zoning with how the uh meetings are run or how

[1:16:08] Steve does. He does a wonderful job as far as I'm concerned.

[1:16:15] The issue I have with a planning and zoning is we can sit through a half a

[1:16:20] meeting and Mr. Georgie does nothing but complain about Brian Lindsay, the lack

[1:16:26] of followup, the lack of whatever he's expecting of them, plus the lack of

[1:16:35] participation by the city administrator and you know that they spend half the

[1:16:41] meeting and there is nothing but complaints.

[1:16:44] » But don't you think those complaints are warranted after 2 years of waiting for a

[1:16:48] response? I think so. if they're warranted, but it's the

[1:16:54] reaction that you're getting to [clears throat] get to those that's a

[1:17:00] little bit uncalled for.

[1:17:06] » Just so you know, I've had two personal meetings along with Brad with Mr.

[1:17:11] Lindsay and I think he understands the

[1:17:14] frustration of this committee that is trying to enforce your city building

[1:17:22] codes and it's been 3 years [clears throat] for a perpetual violator

[1:17:28] out in the Wolf area and the city council has not supported

[1:17:34] the planning and zoning. When I got on the planning and zoning, I expressed to

[1:17:39] them, I'm not going to come here and just waste time,

[1:17:44] [cough] if there are issues that need to be addressed, we bring [clears throat]

[1:17:47] them back to the city council because our liaison obviously doesn't want to.

[1:17:53] And there's nothing wrong with holding you as elected officials accountable.

[1:17:59] That's what we're going to do. And the committee agrees. They're very, very

[1:18:04] tired of the lack of enforcement. I came to the planning and zoning. You

[1:18:10] didn't have a short-term rental policy. You have one now. Guess who put it

[1:18:16] together? Me and the committee because we knew we

[1:18:21] could get it done in a timely manner. And you've got an illegal operation

[1:18:25] going on in downtown Montre. How many years? 3 years. What's the city doing

[1:18:31] about it? nothing. I came to the city council with Mr.

[1:18:36] Lindseay present. I said, "If you send communications to the violators, I'd

[1:18:42] appreciate a copy." Absolutely. He agreed. Did I get him? No. When we met

[1:18:49] with him in his office with Brad, Brad said, "What would you like to see

[1:18:53] accomplished?" I'd like to see him walk in here with a folder that says City of

[1:18:58] Mount Iron and give me copies of the correspondence he's alleged to have

[1:19:02] sent. Blank tablet he came in with. When he

[1:19:09] stated he had sent correspondence, I said, "Well, I've seen nothing." You

[1:19:13] think he would tell his secretary to go get the file? Hasn't happened.

[1:19:20] We're paying for these services. What services is my question.

[1:19:24] So now we brought him back to the planning and zoning and had a

[1:19:27] conversation about increasing the enforcement stepping up the fines

[1:19:32] because they are perpetual violations and you know now we've worked up again

[1:19:39] committee asked me to do something so I presented and on the 14th we'll

[1:19:44] [clears throat] be discussing a new accelerated enforcement schedule and fe

[1:19:50] that's what we should be doing if there is no enforcement if there is no follow

[1:19:55] through by the city council. Then you don't need a committee.

[1:20:01] There's just anarchy out there. Build what you want. Put up what you want. Do

[1:20:05] what you want. Have at it. I don't think that's the right way to

[1:20:10] run the city. I was on planning and zoning for over 10

[1:20:14] years under a previous administration. I got appointed by the mayor two years

[1:20:21] ago. I think we've been doing pretty good job of trying to pick up the pieces

[1:20:27] and get things moving in the right direction.

[1:20:31] When I ask the city administrator, the director of the EDA a direct question

[1:20:36] about a sale and I get an I don't know. Not acceptable.

[1:20:43] Not acceptable. Shouldn't be acceptable for anybody

[1:20:47] here. That's the individual hired by the city of Mount Iron to handle those

[1:20:54] transactions.

[1:20:57] He's got to know what's going on. If he doesn't, who does?

[1:21:03] Nobody else is responsible. I've never yelled at anybody. I've never

[1:21:08] screamed. I've never slandered. I'll tell Mr. Lindsay. He knows that I'm

[1:21:15] very upset because of his lack of action.

[1:21:22] But [clears throat] no, you hire. You don't want me that

[1:21:31] Steve George. Some of the stuff you said about our attorney, I've had issues.

[1:21:36] Other people have issues. What he tells us how to assess people, what to do,

[1:21:41] what not to do. And there's roughly five steps. He tells us to do one and five.

[1:21:46] You don't have to do 2 three and four. There's state statutes out there that

[1:21:50] tell him us how to assess 1 2 3 4 5. He don't care. So some of us some of us sit

[1:21:58] here and go along with him. The last time we had to appoint him, I voted no.

[1:22:03] When it's time to do it again, I'll still be here. I voted no. We don't get

[1:22:07] the correct stuff. We had an attorney quite a few years ago by the name of

[1:22:11] Paul. He just said it the way it was supposed to be, but he worked

[1:22:16] [clears throat] for the Trenty firm and the Trenty firm didn't like how he did

[1:22:19] that. I'm not going to mention the last name. I think you know who I'm talking

[1:22:23] about. Paul said, "I can't work for a big firm like this." He left. So,

[1:22:30] [clears throat] so you're right. >> It is not right to be disrespectful.

[1:22:39] We are running a city, not just the council, but everybody that's on every

[1:22:44] one of the com commissioner commissions and

[1:22:49] committees that are put together.

[1:22:53] We want Mount Naern to survive and thrive.

[1:22:58] We don't want people to feel rejected and told that our city isn't holding

[1:23:05] together because you're attacking an attorney.

[1:23:12] Same as m Mr. Roscosski attacking an attorney. Attacking our staff

[1:23:20] when you don't even have a full story or facts. And that's what has transpired.

[1:23:30] There's no need to demean anybody,

[1:23:35] especially in public,

[1:23:41] and there's a route about doing things.

[1:23:47] » Thank you. As far as our present attorney, that

[1:23:51] attorney is the attorney for the city of Virginia. Why do they have big ads out

[1:23:57] there looking for potentially another firm, another attorney?

[1:24:08] » You can't speak for another city. >> They're in what's happening.

[1:24:13] » They're advertising. Why? They can advertise whenever they want.

[1:24:20] That doesn't mean you have obligation to be speaking to somebody that way.

[1:24:26] » I I do have to say one thing. Steve and I, we worked together for a long time.

[1:24:33] We've known each other for a long time. The last few

[1:24:39] year or so, you you've just surprised me. You've

[1:24:43] you've changed. You've gotten

[1:24:49] I don't know what you want to call it. Uh

[1:24:57] uh defensive. And I I just can't see that in somebody

[1:25:04] working for the city and being defensive like that. And it's I I hate to even

[1:25:10] have to say that after having worked with you for so long.

[1:25:25] We have a motion with support. We've had discussion. Any other discussion?

[1:25:34] Roll call vote. N O no

[1:25:40] » no >> yes

[1:25:43] » yes >> yes

[1:25:53] » sorry

[1:25:56] good luck

[1:26:02] » we have communications on pages 27 Seven.

[1:26:07] » Was somebody going to read them off? Otherwise, I'll read them off. The

[1:26:10] communications just so people know what is what.

[1:26:15] » 20 pages 27 to 34. >> Yep. Okay.

[1:26:20] Page 27. A thank you from Essentia Health. Pages 28 29. A big thank you

[1:26:27] from the MIB class of 2026. Pages 3031. Tri City Bioolids 2027

[1:26:35] budget page 3233. Bioolids garbage 2027 budget page 34. R

[1:26:45] R O CC 2027 budget.

[1:27:02] Do >> you have a motion to

[1:27:04] » motion to adjurnn? [clears throat]

[1:27:09] » Support.

[1:27:14] All in favor? I I >> Any opposed?

[1:27:21] 5 Z.

[1:27:25] » This Mount Mayor City Council meeting is adjourned.

Mountain Iron City Council | September 8th, 2026

Transcript