Okay, let's go ahead and call to order
the uh work session of the East Grand
Fork City Council for Tuesday, June 9th,
2026 at 5:01 p.m. Uh would the city
clerk please call a roll?
>> Mayor Mark
>> here.
>> Council President Brian Larson
>> here.
>> Council Vice President Tim Riael
>> here.
>> Council members Tammy Schumacher
>> here.
>> Ben Pukinsky
>> here.
>> Dale Helms
>> here. Don Keys
>> here.
>> Karen Peterson
>> here.
>> Okay, we have a quorum. Just a reminder
to turn on your microphones.
Uh first, uh discussion topic here today
is um uh renew building inspections
contract with True Cheek. Um Miss Ellis.
>> Yeah. Um after uh WSH had uh removed
themselves from the building
inspections, uh
what's the word I'm looking for? um
contracting for the city. Um we had to
go out and look for a new service or
andor a uh employee to handle our
building inspections. Um at that time it
was difficult to find somebody um or
some type of uh city that was using a
full-time person. Uh people were going
more to like a service contract or uh
professional services. Um, so we went
out, looked at two different, uh, groups
that did building inspections. We had
hired um, True Cheek and we put them on
a 2-year uh, contract uh, with the
possibility that we'd maybe look into a
full-time person. Um, still uh, not sure
um, at this point if that's the
direction we're going to go. Um, I feel
that uh, True Cheek has done uh, really
a good service for the city. They're
very thorough. I think um, they're here
two days a week, but we have two persons
that are here to answer questions.
They're very receptive to contractor
questions. They answer phone calls, uh,
emails, uh, all five days of the week.
Um, so, uh, with that, I'd like to renew
their contract, maybe for a longer term.
Uh, they're hoping to keep their
services at the same cost for the first
three years, and then after that third
year, they do have a reopener in the
contract just in case um, they need to
uh, review what the costs are to the
city uh, if there's an additional cost
that they may need to add. But that does
allow us then to um bring it back to the
council in terms of the contract
renewal. Um so um that's where we're at.
I did include just for your benefit in
terms of building inspections uh yearly
revenue for the last 3 years while
they've been here. Um what we're taking
in versus what the cost is for their
contract. and they're either at this
point we're either making some money and
or uh kind of breaking even on that. So
really uh what we're typically paying
for is um support staff admin those
types of things. Um some of the things
that we are also in fact looking at to
again bring in more revenue is that we
did increase the cost of our permits. Uh
I think it was two years ago. Uh we are
looking at our special permits. So
things like mechanical, plumbing,
um,
uh, driveway aprons, uh, the possibility
of we do different things for cost per
we issue permits based on cost per
square foot, which is based on a 5-year
average of what cost per square foot is
for commercial and industrial buildings
based on the classification. The last
time we did review of that 5-year
average was from 2017 to 2022. So, I
know the costs of materials and things
like that have gone up, so we'd want to
review that again, too, which may make
adjustments to that. Um, the other
possibility that's not related to this,
but, you know, in terms of uh trying to
keep our costs down and our revenues up
is that the fire department has uh
really taken uh uh
into our building inspections process.
They're helping us more with plan
review. They're helping us a lot with uh
inspections and different things that uh
are needed, which has been a great help
to us. And so, um the idea of maybe
looking at some fire inspection and or
uh fire plan review uh fees might also
be an option. But, um that's kind of
where we're at. If anybody has any
questions
in terms of the contract.
>> Okay. Thanks, Nancy. Uh we'll start with
Mr. Helms.
>> Yeah, thank you. I have a couple three.
Uh
first of all,
how much did we pay this company last
year? 25. How much did they earn?
>> Last year we paid them $72,948.
» Okay. Okay.
So,
I I read this contract. I think I read
it pretty thorough. Uh,
I'm not real hip on a 5-year contract. I
still think that I would like to see us
think about having our own full-time
inspector. Uh,
one reason is because he's making
$72,948
and he's part-time. So, just think what
we could have. We could hire a full-time
and then he could do other things
besides that. And then we could get back
in. We talked about inspecting apartment
buildings. You know, we could get back
into all that kind of stuff.
Uh I would still seriously like to see
us look to have our own own inspector.
Um and frankly, uh most everybody knows
that the one we have right now, there's
been some issues with a couple
contractors in town. Uh and
frankly, it doesn't have very good
reputation right now. from what I'm
hearing from contractors. I hear from a
lot of people say they wouldn't even think about building
here right now.
So, I don't really think I want to go
into a five-year contract with them.
Although, I do see on here uh Ron, you
can correct me, but it looks like that
either party can cancel at any time they
want in there. So, does that mean if we
decide to do something internal, we
could
break that? Uh either party can cancel
with 60 days notice.
>> Yeah.
>> So it's
yes your answer is yes. And then if it
was for if it was for cause it would be
15.
>> Thank you.
>> So I got no problem with what he's well
I kind of have a little bit of a problem
what he's been doing but although he's
been doing uh I mean I think he's he's
been by the book you know. So, uh, but
it just seems like there's a lot of
things in there that could have probably
been eliminated, maybe could have been,
uh,
maybe
notified
sooner or maybe a little bit more
groundwork, communication or something
in there to solve some of the problems
that has been going on. So,
that's kind of where I'm at with it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Dale. We'll go to Mayor
Olstead and then Mr. Rioel.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um
myself, I think five years is probably
too long. Um I think three years would
be great. I mean, they want to keep
their fees for three years the same. I
think that's where we need lineup to
contract with also. Um
yes, we know we know there has been some
issues out there. Um, I think at the
same time I would like to direct staff
to take a look at
again what it would cost. I'm assuming
it's going to be about$125 135,000 that
including benefits to have somebody on
staff. So you'd come up with
additionally $50,000.
So you got to figure out where that's
going to come from. Um, but I guess to
get the accurate numbers for because
it's probably been
a couple years since we looked at it.
So,
>> and this is for two people.
There are there are two people employed.
It's Greg and Alec. They're only here
two days a week, but they are available
5 days a week. They do answer phone
calls. They do uh uh answer emails. They
do plan review on their off days. Um
they're here in addition if we need them
to be. So if they know that there's a
big inspection or something like that on
a Monday, they will be here on a Monday.
Um they will adjust schedules. Um so
>> but we didn't we didn't hire two people.
We hired one company and he's got an
assistant that works with him and brings
him along.
>> But they kind of work they go around
together to all these places, you know.
I mean, it's not like one's working the
south end, one's working the north end
type thing. They kind of stick together.
So, to me, uh, two people is that's just
his assistant. It's kind of like
training type thing, you know. So,
I don't think two people in into this
salary,
you know. I don't know if he's charging
if he's charged for both people. $115 an
hour for both people to be at the same
place and doing the same thing.
>> To me, that's kind of double paying.
>> Well, that was to start um so Alec could
get his license. But I think having two
people available means that if Greg is
doing something else, we have an
additional person that can do a separate
inspection andor can be here. Um if we
have one person and they go on vacation,
then no one's getting an inspection.
So,
>> but I think that's part of the problem
we have right now because they're only
part-time.
We're holding up contractors on jobs on
a lot of things because of that
because a lot of stuff isn't getting
addressed quickly like it should be and
it cost contractors a lot of money.
So,
that's the way I look at it. So, I
that's why I I would really like to see
us really talk a little bit more about
the in-house and like mayor said, you
know, maybe we got to come up with some
more money or whatever, but I would I
would still I I still think that we
could probably keep that person busy,
you know, like I say, he could do other
things too then or she or whoever it
might be, you know.
>> Okay. Thanks, D. We'll go to Mr. Rupel.
The mayor alluded to several things I
was going to talk about, but when you
talk about u by the book, if we had our
own, it's going to be buy the book. It's
not going to be because you're a
contractor and you feel it's much
better. No, this is what it says. This
is what you're going to do. So, I look
at it that if we're getting two guys for
the price of one, we're actually doing
pretty good here. We're staying ahead of
the game. we're we're not uh losing
money on this where the other way we're
going to be in the hurt bag 50 grand a
year right off
>> getting them for the price once you just
said both of them are getting charged
they're charging double the money
they're both going out separate now too
they've been going together but they're
like the other one's licensed now so he
can go out alone
so he had them whether you hire one
you're hiring the whole company so I I
agree I think uh this is a pretty good
deal we're getting but yeah three years
No more.
>> Three years is good. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I just have one comment.
>> Yeah. Go ahead, Karen.
>> So, has the market changed in regards to
availability of individuals to hire?
>> No. So, we would still be
possibly
>> continuing. Yep. We're continuing to see
the number of uh full-time building
inspectors in the state of Minnesota
going down.
>> Sure. So, that was part of our
decision-m process is the availability
of individuals.
>> Correct. Correct.
Have you actually seen those numbers to
hurt somebody? Has somebody come up with
those numbers and told you that or or
are we just saying that that's the case
so we don't have to
>> No, it it is the case.
>> At least look and see.
>> Yeah. I mean, if if you look at um uh
what Width was doing, I mean, they
probably had seven to 10 communities. Um
these people uh True Cheek are adding
customers every day. You know, they're
adding cities. So, we know that cities
are are no longer looking for that
full-time person. And part of the reason
is is that it's um
it's just a a pay option. Uh if I can be
a management of a contracting business
and I get, you know, I can do that type
of thing, it pays more than a city job
does.
is something else that we could look at
with this company turnaround times.
>> Is there a turnaround time analysis that
we could do?
>> Yeah, we we can do that
>> and and try to have them make
improvements on that.
>> I don't know that that's realistic, but
is that I mean, this is what the
contractors are saying, but is this
truthful?
>> I've visited with contractors as well.
um we don't have a a rough turnaround
time on our responses to people and what
they need. I think there are um
instances that I don't really think we
need to get into at this meeting, but
there are instances that we could get
into. But need needless to say, I think
our turnaround time is pretty good. I
think our building inspectors are very
thorough. They have an extreme knowledge
of the building code. Um
we uh before this we had a number of
complaints about our you know inspection
services maybe or maybe not um being as
tight with the building code like they
were picking and choosing who had to
follow and who didn't or you know they
were a little more lenient um and they
were a little concerned with that. So,
um, you know, we've had complaints going
in both directions. So, it's hard to
please one or the other group, I guess.
for me, being an enforcement
from day one, um, enforcement isn't a
fun job.
>> People don't like it. Um, they're
unhappy if it's something that they're,
you know, that it's something they do or
don't want. Um, so it's kind of hard to
try to um please everybody when it's an
enforcement job. So I guess um to answer
that question, we can look at turnaround
times. I don't think it's the turnaround
times. I I do believe it's just, you
know, some people don't like the way
enforcement is handled. And um I think
that they're still doing a good job. And
I have no issues with looking into the
numbers for the number of full-time
building inspectors. if you want those
numbers before the next uh you know
before the meeting on Tuesday, we can
provide you what the numbers were 10
years ago versus what they are now. Um
you know those are all things that
they're up to you guys. So from a budget
standpoint, we look at ways to reduce
our costs and you know improve our
revenues. So um this seems to be the
most coste effective way of doing our
building inspections rather than hiring
a full-time person or a person and a
half. So,
» yeah. Thank you, Nancy. And uh Carla,
you handed out this uh spreadsheet here.
Would would one of you mind maybe just
walking through 2025 to
>> help us kind of understand or
I just somebody had requested um numbers
and so I just put together what we had
in our system. So starting back in 2009
on the front page um we actually had an
employee in the building office and they
had one assistant full-time assistant.
So he retired in 2012. So you can see
there 10:30
uh in 2012 he retired then we had
in-depth inspections which is width and
so what I did was um the top part are
the expenses. So we have salaries and
then um professional services is where
the the in-depth or the contractors come
out of and then I did put in there the
revenue and then I just took what the
revenue and expenses were and showed
what um the that the expenses are over
the revenue that goes all the way
across. And then what I did was I took
the personnel expenses. So when we had
our own employee in 2009, our personnel
expenses were 171,000
and then we didn't have we had
professional services which was probably
just somebody coming to do something for
1,200 bucks. So if you go across when we
switch we still have personnel expenses
um for like now we have Nancy is 25% of
her salary goes there and Brenda is at
50%. And so those are the personnel
costs we have now. And then we have the
professional services fees. So if you go
to the second page under 2025, the
balance um was we had $157,000
of expenses and we had uh 59,000 in
revenue. So that we had a loss of
$97,000.
We had 81,000 in personnel and we had um
72,000 in uh professional services.
So we spent a total of 154,000
between personnel people doing personal
things. So if you look at the bottom
line, so in um I added those together.
So in 2009, we spent $1272,000
in some odd change to pay for our
building inspector and our
administrative assistant. So, if you
look at 2005,
we spent 154,000
to have a contractor do the inspections
and to have our personnel be at the
window, um, be their assistant, you
know, answer calls, give out permits,
>> and the professional services went down
with in-depth inspections as we removed
them from our office.
So we used to have them sitting here uh
three times a week and then we dropped
it to two times a week and then towards
the end it was they weren't in the
office at all. They were only available
by phone and or setting up inspections.
But otherwise in-depth was not
physically in our office the last couple
of years. So that's why the numbers
dropped because they weren't charging us
office hours.
>> Any questions on the spreadsheet? Just a
more of a general question for uh Carla
and Reed. Is it is it common for a
municipality like us to run a negative
on on this type of account for for
inspections? You know, we're losing
100,000 a year here.
>> Well, basically every department does
it. It's kind of like if you looked at
our arenas.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, it's it's a service that we
have to our our our taxpayers.
>> Mhm. You know, if you looked at most all
departments, there isn't any other
revenue generating activity except our
enterprise funds, which is garbage,
waste, water, storm water.
>> Yeah. So, you don't think this is like
an anomaly among other communities like
>> No.
In fact, if you look at I mean I would
if you looked at most cities I would say
if you looked at the 2009 balance and
you looked to what we had at 2025 I
would guess that there the personnel has
gone up
>> okay
>> considerably from then especially if you
had your own employee because you know
the cola itself is probably 3% a year
plus a step. So when we usually look at
personnel it's about 5% or more every
year.
So, actually, when we put the numbers
together, I think Reed and I are both
kind of like, whoa, we're actually doing
really good in this department. If we
looked at other departments and did
this, it probably wouldn't be as good.
» All right. Thank you. Thanks for putting
this together as well.
>> You're welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Go ahead, Reed.
>> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Council President.
Uh, just maybe one last bit to note. I
did do some work on looking at the the
pay for if we brought a full-time
building official in house. And we did
this a couple of years ago and Woods
indicated to us that they were going to
stop offering the service. Um I'll start
with we don't have an official city job
description for a building official, but
um I did reach out a couple of years ago
to neighboring cities that do. Uh
Krookton has its own building official
on city staff. Um, in 2024, the salary
for that official was about $76,000.
So, if you add a couple percent to cola
a year, we're probably looking at an 80
to 82,000 a year um wage for that
employee. That's just wages and then
benefits on top. Of course, um David
Drowning Associates, our human resources
consultant, suggested in 2024, if we
were to bring a building official on, it
would likely fall somewhere in a grade
17 or 18 on our pay scale. um a grade 17
in 2026 is a range of 72,000 to 100,000.
Uh that's just the wages and then um
benefits par health insurance if they're
on a family plan could add up to another
40,000 to that. So just to give it a
ball ballpark of what we'd look at for
wages um lowend 110,000, high-end 140
145,000
uh to bring on one full-time employee to
cover this service.
Okay, Reed, do you have uh feedback that
you need to craft an item for the agenda
for next week's meeting?
>> Yeah, I think hearing what we heard,
we'll move forward with the three-year
extension to the agreement.
>> Um and then there will there we'll do
some additional research on the number
of building officials in the state and
where it was a few years back to
compared to now.
>> Great. Okay. All right. Any further
discussion on this one?
>> All right,
sir.
Uh yeah. Are you looking to speak on the
building inspections item?
>> Yes.
>> Sure. Yeah. Why don't you come up here?
Uh introduce yourself if you would, sir.
>> Um
let us know your thoughts.
>> I'm Roger Scaven. I'm the owner of Grand
Trader Sales in East Grand Forks. Um
we're just going through the building
process right now and Greg is probably
one of the worst people I've ever had to
deal with. um
his communication, what uh
what my architect is telling me who's a
local architect and he does hospitals
and all kinds of stuff.
This Greg is putting us in that category
and you were talking about being uh
rigid to the rule and I have no problem
with that, but he's going above and
beyond.
Before I could get a building permit, he
wanted to know where my fire
extinguishers are going. Before I could
get a building permit, he wanted to know
where my uh my exterior uh handicap
parking is going to be. Before I got my
building permit, he wanted to know what
kind of shelving I'm putting in my
store. Shelving has nothing to do with
the building. And then he wanted to know
when I'm putting on the shelving,
which has nothing to do with a building
permit. He has delayed the process of
our building. I know 3 months.
Trying to deal with him is ridiculous.
He wanted a wall. We gave him the
exterior building, which was an all
steel building. The interior firewall
was all broke down for him by my
architect. Um, but that wasn't good
enough. He wanted to know every single
wall detail, the 2x4 walls, that's going
to be offices and other things like
that.
Uh he he wouldn't do the building permit
until I put in the drinking fountain and
I my plans were already approved by the
state of Minnesota, my plumbing plans
and it they did not require a drinking
fountain. But yet he went above and
beyond and said, "I will not give you
this building permit until you add a
drinking fountain." So my architect
added that. And then East Grand Forks
requires a what is it? A RPZ valve or
whatever. It's a backflow valve for
water.
He wanted that on the plumbing uh
drawings, which is just a it's just a
small
sackflow valve is all it is. So my
plumber told I when I talked to my
plumber, he said, "During this building
process," he goes, "you're going to have
small changes all the time. What you
submitted to the state of Minnesota,
maybe they don't carry that toilet
anymore. Maybe they don't carry that
sink anymore." He goes, "I deal with the
state of Minnesota. I go through and
say, hey, this is a comparable one." He
gets it approved by his person that he
has to deal with, not with Greg.
After the meeting we had right in this
room month and a half ago, uh we got the
building permit. Nancy gave us the
building permit and we had
uh green flag to go on it. Greg stopped
the whole project again on his own and
he wanted the state of Minnesota to
approve the drawings with the RPZ valve
and the drinking fountain.
I had to pay another $1,550 to the state
of Minnesota for them to review these
plans again, which should have never
been done. Why? It's small enough little
things that
my plumber could have taken care of it.
And I told that to Greg and I tried
explaining that to Greg. He went, he
said, "Nope, got to go through the state
again. That means if there's a toilet
that no longer can be purchased because
the bid was a six months ago or nine
months ago.
I mean, I'm supposed to submit a whole
new process, engineer drawings showing
that different toilet.
That isn't right. That isn't how it
works. He's going above and beyond. He's
making it that much more difficult to do
the building. If I had an option to redo
it, I'd be building in Grand Forks. Just
so that you know, I would not build
again in this town. He is hurting our
city for growth. I was born and raised
in this town. I believe in this town. I
have my business in this town, and I I
can promote it, but I can't with him.
He's definitely a negative feedback on
our town. I understand the concept on
his pay. I think it's great. Nothing
wrong with that. Problem is is his
negativity towards the city. My
architect, it's EAPC. They're a large
company. They said they have never seen
anything like this before in this type
of building. Only in hospitals and
schools have they ever seen this kind of
workup. Uh my builder, same thing. He's
never seen it. Uh, we're having all
these delays and he's it's all because
of him. He put a stop build on our
property without even notifying me,
without even getting a hold of me. I
mean, he's doing things so wrong.
The cost might be cheaper, but he's got
an issue.
And if there's someone else to hire, I
would say hire someone else. I don't
mind going by the book. I'm trying to go
by the book, but he's going above and
beyond.
And That's my opinion.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scouting.
>> Okay. All right. I think that brings us
to the conclusion on that item. Uh and
just a reminder, uh we'll be addressing
this item next week as well. So, uh not
the end of the discussion. Uh we'll go
to item number two here. Uh discussion
on ebikes, motorized bikes, e-
motorcycles, and motorized foot
scooters. Uh for this one, we'll turn
over to Mr. Hutton.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. President, council
members. Um, so after our work session
discussion two weeks ago on this item,
um, we had, I think, a lot of good
discussion and and feedback from the
council. Sorry, I'm trying to scroll to
this item here. Um, we did take a number
of calls, uh, from residents in the
community. Um, and and if you read the
local newspapers, you saw the Grand
Forks Herald wrote a an editorial piece
as well. Um, it it seems as though we
unintentionally created some confusion.
I believe it was unintentional confusion
created specific to the pedal assisted
ebikes or electric motor assisted ebikes
um that maybe took away from our
discussion that we were looking to
prohibit the use of those within our
greenway system. Um so I thought we'd
bring it back to the discussion just to
clarify that point. Um the
uh the ebike that is pedal assisted
electric motor assisted pedal bike um in
Minnesota state law is classified as a
bicycle just as a non-motorized pedal
bicycle and it is legal to be used in
any setting that a regular bicycle is
legal to be used. Um and we don't intend
on in updating and bringing out changes
to our ordinance. We don't intend on
doing anything to change that fact. Um
the real differentiation we're trying to
make clear and understand have everyone
understand is that um we have seen an
increase in use of motorized bikes that
do not have pedals um or motorized dirt
bikes or motorcycle type of vehicles.
Um, and while those are not currently in
our greenway ordinance clearly defined
what they are, um, Minnesota state law,
uh, recognizes those as motorized
vehicles. And a motorized vehicle is not
legal to be used on our greenway trails.
Um, that would be whether it's a
four-wheeler ATV or a six-wheeler UTV, a
dirt bike, whether it be gas powered or
electric motor powered. um in those
settings if they're not pedal assisted,
they are motorized vehicles and they're
not not allowed to be used in the
greenway. So, just want to make sure we
have a kind of a clear differentiation
of those. Um, I expect in still the next
couple weeks we'll bring forward some
changes to our greenway ordinance to be
adopted that will better clarify or
define what a motorized
bike or a motorized uh electric
motorized dirt bike is um and how it's
classified as a motorized vehicle. Um,
but it's not to try to create a pro
prohibit use of the pedal assisted ebike
on our greenway trails. So, any
questions on that? Happy to try to
answer. Uh, I should add Chief Headland
uh and the folks in the police
department did go through and and wrote
a a nice narrative and some frequently
asked questions uh that were added to
the city's website and posted on social
media last week and and I think those do
a nice job of kind of talking about each
different classification of bicycle or
motorized vehicle and what is and isn't
allowed. Um, and those can be a resource
going forward, but just happy to answer
and hopefully that clarifies the
discussion from a couple weeks ago.
>> All right, thanks Reed. Any uh questions
or comments on this item?
Reed, were you able to kind of
understand like where was the point of
confusion? Was it just kind of in in the
discussion of all the different types of
bikes? One was misinterpreted as being
something else?
>> Yeah. Well, I think there's two things.
My my impression of it from talking to a
few folks has been there's two been two
things that confused it is one um on the information we put out there's a
classification of a motorized bike
um that's the name of it but if you look
at the picture that's included on our
website now and maybe in the packet here
let me try scroll scroll so this is a
motorized bike this has pedals on you
can see the chain and the pedals um in
ebike if you scroll to this next photo,
a motorized bike. This looks like a
bicycle, but there are no pedals on
this. And so there's kind of two
different things. There's a motorized e
or an ebicycle that has the pedal
assist, or there's this motorized bike
that for all intents looks like a
bicycle, but it doesn't have pedals on
it. And it's that's only an electric
motor. I think that's one element that
caused confusion to people is is what is
legal and what isn't. And I think the best clear delineation to make there
is if it has pedals and you can pedal it
to ride, it's a bicycle. If it doesn't
have pedals and it's powered by a motor,
gas or electric, it's a motorized
vehicle and is not allowed. Um, that's
part one. The other part is in our
greenway ordinance there was discussion
on our current ordinance talks about the
electric pedal assist bike having a
maximum motor capacity of 1,000 kow
and Minnesota statute has since been
updated to limit it to a maximum of 750
kow and we talked about updating our
ordinance to match Minnesota statute and
I think a lot of discussion two weeks
ago was centered around that piece about
that 700 versus the thousand. I think
some people heard all of that discussion
and interpreted it to mean that we were
going to make a class of the pedal
assisted bike prohibited. It's not the
case. It's we're we just need to align
our ordinance to be equal to Minnesota
statute. Great. That's helpful. Thank
you. Okay. Any questions on this topic?
Okay. All right. Thank you, Reed, for
that clarification. Very helpful.
Uh with that, we'll move on to item
number three. Uh request to declare
vehicles and surplus property as surplus
property for the purpose of selling them
at an auction. Uh Corporal Rue,
thank you. Yeah, we have two vehicles
that have cleared the court process um
from criminal forfeite cases. One being
a 2003 Yamaha Roadstar motorcycle. Uh
the second being a 2015 Buick Encore. Uh
so we'd be looking to have those
declared surplus to be uh sold on our
auction.
>> All right. Thank you. Any questions for
Corporal Rue?
>> This just a couple you're adding to what
you're doing right now?
>> Yeah, so we're we're starting to do the
auctions a little bit differently. In
the past there's been large scale
auctions. We'll probably do that each
spring as vehicles kind of build up over
the winter, but going forward we're just
going to once they clear the process
we'll declare them and sell them sooner
because they're a depreciating asset. It
doesn't make sense to sit on them. So,
there are two that have recently cleared
and so they're not in alignment with the
ones we have on right now.
>> Okay. And then one other question. I
noticed on the website or
actually it's under the email that you
sent out. Uh now they got some pressure
washers and a sprayer stuff on there. Is
that all part of the city stuff too?
That's
>> Yep. So that's Reed could maybe speak on
that, but that's surplus from the city
that was added to this auction.
>> Okay.
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank I just want to make sure it
was local stuff and not because
sometimes that.gov gets a lot of out
ofstate stuff and things like that. So I
want to know
>> yeah that at our council meeting last
week there were a number of parks
related items couple of vehicles a
trailer and and pressure washers that
were added.
>> Um those were declared surplus last week
so we're added to the auction. I will
though um on that note there is one
vehicle listed on the auction currently
um that is a parks pickup. It's a 1997
Chevy Silverado that got missed on
declared surplus. So I Mr. Rue and I
spoke uh the auction closes after the next council meeting. So we're going
to leave it posted. Um but it'll be on
the agenda next week for approval to
declare surplus so that it can be sold.
Um and it's uh no longer used in our
parks fleet.
>> Okay. Thanks, guys.
All right, let's move on to our next
item here. Um, MMPA and WAPA renewable
energy credit sales agreement. Uh, Mr.
Hutton and then Mr. Miklseth, if you'll
join us as well.
>> All right. Thank you, council members.
I'll I'll kind of start summarize this
and then Keith, if there's anything
you'd like to add, please jump in. Um
the uh city has an agreement city
through the water and light department
has an agreement with WAPA western area
power authority um for renewable energy
credits that are available annually. Um
over history of the last number of years
uh the water and light department has
worked with local companies on the
ability to have water and light donate
those wrecks uh to a company that needed
renewable energy options. um something
is some work some has changed in policy
and how they can be distributed and
there became an opportunity for water
and light to look to sell them rather
than donate them. Uh and in the process
of Mr. Mikkelsth working through that um
received an offer from Minnesota
Municipal Power Authority which we're a
member of MMPA uh to enter into a
15-year agreement for the sale of these
wrecks at $3 per wreck. Um, Water and
Light reviewed the sales agreement at
their meeting last week and approved it.
Um, Keith has been so gracious and
thinking about this with the city and
Water and Light. Uh, the the basis of
the original agreement with WA um that
authorizes the Rex as part of our
purchase of power through WAPA is is
lined up with the city directly um
rather than directly to water and light.
And so Keith has suggested that the city
re receive the revenue from the sale of
these wrecks over the life of this
15-year agreement um with the idea that
we create a special revenue fund in the
city to receive these funds on an annual
basis um and take the funds um with an
intent on using them for we're terming
it economic development infrastructure
fund but essentially to look at um
improvements or extensions or additions
to our um private or public publicly
owned infrastructure, roads, utility
systems, potential property acquisition
for future economic development, things
of that nature. Um, specifically when
you think about uh the recently acquired
Simplot property or the industrial park
and the need for improvements to the
public infrastructure there, um, we feel
it could be a good source of seed money
with a nice long-term agreement in place
um, to apply for those efforts um, and
in turn hopefully spur um, new business
growth and development which is going to
create uh, new or added customers for
water and light.
>> That's great. Thank you, Reed. Um Keith,
as you start, um would you mind giving
us a little bit of background on WAPA
and why why they have renewable energy
credits just to kind of
>> WAPA is Western
Area Power Administration and it's hydro
power from South Dakota, Nebraska in
that area. And so we have a a set amount
of power that we've been receiving from
them for quite some time. And uh
originally WAPA did not
they didn't allow us to do any of these
things and then just like Reed had
stated they recently now allowed us to
first we could just s do it voluntarily
and so then Crystal we gave them to
Crystal they were one of our largest
customers our largest customer and then
after that then they said we could we
could now sell them. So he explained it
pretty well. And so the
um we MMPA administers it for us. They
it's called the M emits account. So they
were already putting they were managing
that for us. WA would each year you get
an aotment and then uh those rerecks go
into that emrets and then from there
then we sell them. We had MMPA even bid
them out and so we went through that
process once and the price that uh MMPA
is offering us is pretty good price and
like Reed said if we can lock it in
because we don't know what's going to
happen down the road. It may come where
they extend out these requirements and
let let the state the state says you
have longer to become renewable and then
those credit the number may go down. But
this was a way to lock in $3
million over 15 years. And so I guess
that's that's why we're here. But as far
as WA WAPA, they're we've been we've
been working with them for a long time.
We have a contract that runs till 2050.
I believe it's 2050.
>> Go ahead, Tim.
>> These wrecks can uh fluctuate too,
right, Keith? One year they were like 32
33,000. Now it's not that they fluctuate
but not not that much. It was it's
65,824.
This year I think back in 23 there were
like 71,000
because we we do get an aotment and I
don't they fluctuate a little bit but
not a lot. So anywhere from 68 to 71. So
it'll be pretty steady. But uh yeah, and
then the process if if you once you sign
the document because we've already
signed off, they could have a check to
us and for 2025 here in about a week and
so you you'll get you'd get a couple
hundred,000 right away and then process
they usually give us the Rex again come
March and so so within a year you could
probably have 400,000
or so to to use for infrastructure.
>> Great. Thank you, Mayor Olstead.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. So, with this
fund being sent up, so make clear that
we are going to lay out within that so
we don't have to go back 15, 20 years
and go, okay, what do they mean we're
doing with this, but also at the same
time allow future councils to say, okay,
we may change this with through a
process. Um but
to lay it out to make sure that we
understand everybody understands it when
they come off the street and read it
that these are being used for this this
and this or this has to be laid out
because if it's not
people can go well doesn't say that here
we can use it for this you know so and
if we're if we're looking at using it
for
economic development within
infrastructure for the city
uh helping out
it with the discretion of the city
council of where that money goes to. So
the city council has a final say on it
and don't listen to any recommendations.
But
that's my opinion.
>> Okay, Mr. Helps.
>> Yeah, I'd like clarification. Uh these
wrecks you're talking about, are these
distributed free?
>> Yep.
Okay. So it's like a gift. I mean you
don't we didn't pay for them by
belonging to the swapper or whatever
>> or did we?
>> No, we we buy the power from them and so
>> this is one it's it's a megawatt hour is
one wreck.
>> Okay. And so we buy that amount of power
from them. And so this renewable energy,
it started, as you know, years back when
they wanted wanted to get uh citizens to
start using more renew renewables. And
then these renewable credits, they came
about about I don't know 15 20 years
ago. And so yeah, we didn't pay anything
specifically for the Rex.
>> Okay. That's all I need now.
>> People um customers, businesses.
So, let's say if the grocery store,
there's people they people that go do
business with them, they like they like
renewable energy. And so, so the
customers tell entities that we want you
to have renewable power. And so
renewable energy credits is a way for um
there is value to that because people
that don't have enough renewable energy
credits or if don't produce enough
renewable energy, they can buy these
credits to say that they're 100%
renewable or 50% renewable and then that
helps helps their business in return.
And that's kind of the philosophy around
renewable energy credits.
Okay, go ahead, Reed.
>> Yeah, thank you, Council President, if I
may. Um, to Mayor Olstead's point and
just kind of talk through the mechanics
of that. Um, we will on the council
agenda next week, we'll have the
agreement that Water and Light approved
last week for your approval and then we
would have a resolution that lays out
the definition of how this fund will be
created and the parameters in which it
can be used. I would base it off of some
of the bullet points here that I
included in this RCA. So, if there is
any added scope that you'd like to see,
I guess that discussion would be better
had sooner than later so we know what to
draft for next week. Um, and then in the
mechanics of it on the accounting side,
you know, we talked we've talked a lot
recently about the 401 fund, right? this fund is going to get a number like
that in our accounting system that would
be included in the audit and there'd be
an audit trail annually of what the
revenues and expenses have been from it
um and a name and so the name of it
would be something along the lines of
economic development infrastructure
fund. Carla not notified me last week I
might have a character limit on how many
characters we can put in our accounting
system but we'll something of that
nature we'll we'll have it named so that
it can be tracked properly.
>> Great. So, so one one one
other thing to mention is every time we
sit in a utility meeting, we have
discussions and people come in and they
start talking about uh doing something
or adding people in our entities to our
industrial park. They always come up
with utilities aren't expanded out into
those areas, etc. you know, and so we we
kind of hit a dead end and that was one
of the main reasons why the commission
and and I and others thought that it'd
be good to go towards the industrial
park because where are we going to
create the most tax base the quickest?
It's an industrial park. So that's kind
of how this started.
>> That's thankful. Thank you. Uh Mr.
Helms, you had a comment.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um Reed, does
this have to be voted on next week?
Cuz that's like giving us a resolution
to read, then we got to decide that
night. It's not coming in front of a
work session. So, don't give you any
time if you want to change or do
anything. So, we're kind of back to
that. You know, Ben and I have both
asked you uh to bring things to a work
session first so we can at least see it
before we know what we're voting on that
night. So,
>> yeah. Good. No, it's a great question.
Um, I maybe look across to Keith. This
the agreement that was approved by by
Water and Light. No real time
sensitivity to that. My reaction would
be if you'd like to see the resolution
in its drafted form, that could come to
a work session in a couple of weeks and then we'd be into the first meeting
in July before that was approved.
>> Yeah. I don't it can wait. I mean, it's
pretty strict.
>> I mean, I'd like to see it happen. I
don't know about anybody else, but I'd
like to be able to look at it before
>> the I mean, not saying anything's going
to be wrong or I want to change
anything, but I still like to see what
I'm voting
>> or as I'm thinking out loud, maybe the
other approach would be to get the
agreement signed is we'd have on the
agenda next week approving the agreement
and then at the following work session
have the resolution that designates
where these funds will go upon receipt
and and ratify a resolution that speaks
specifically to the creation of the the
investment fund.
>> I like that idea. At least get going.
You have your money and then you can
decide how you want to
>> just to clarify. Forgive me. Are both of
you gone next in two weeks?
>> I will be gone the work session of the
23rd. Yes.
>> Well, that's and you're gone, too. So, I
mean,
>> yeah.
>> Do we want Reed here and Brian here to
discuss the resolution? That's all I'm
point. Yeah, fair point.
>> I was just going to say it' be my
recommendation to go ahead and sell the
racks because that's what we want to do.
>> And then after the fact, after the fact,
we can put together or have a resolution
put together and you can take a little
bit more time instead of, you know, to develop your policy and to make sure
that it's in inclusive. Um,
that'd be just my recommendation.
>> Yeah. I just like to see it getting
written up as the mayor suggested, kind
of what he was looking for, you know,
cuz if we do it next week, it might not
be what he's after.
>> So, you're looking at the 14th of July
then is next work session.
>> All right.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Go ahead. I I was just going to
say if we get if you approve just
accepting the money, we can put a fund
put the money in the fund and the
resolution will just explain what you
want to spend the money on, but we can
deposit the money into a fund
>> for the fund so that we get the money
and it's accounted for.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay,
>> great.
>> That's a workable plan to do that.
>> Good discussion. Appreciate that. Okay.
Any other thoughts or comments on the
MMPA uh renewable energy credits?
Okay, seeing none, uh we'll move on to
item number five then. Uh approving the
year end transfers for budget year 2025.
Miss Anderson.
>> Uh thank you, President and Councel. Uh
I put together the list of that
transfers that were done. Um this is for
the audit. Um we are uh closing up on
our audit. We're just working on the
financial statement. Um, so on here I
put on there what was budgeted. I kind
of explained a little bit in the RCA. So
if we actually just go to the list,
might be easiest. So the first one is
the EDA transfer. We budget for that.
And what that is, that's the um
administrative account. So that's where
um our EDA director and assistant come
out of and their expenses. And then we
just transfer that every year to what
they spent. So, we budget 179 and odd
change and we and we they actually spent
171. Um, same thing with the next one.
We budget for our tax abatement program.
Um, we budget 65,000. We actually spent
$45,000.
Cemetery, we budgeted 32,000. We
actually moved 6,334.
Um, that depends on our lot sales. I'll
call them barium sales and expenses in
the cemetery, but we do get that to a
zero every year. Um, next one we have
are the 17th Avenue sidewalk. We um had
a few expenses this year even though it
was completed last year. Um, and so we
did move $8,686
into the project fund, which is the $415
fund, and that was taken out of our
general fund, uh, capital projects fund,
which we budget 35,000 in every year.
Um, in the past, we have approved that
we put so much in for street
maintenance, which is like 280,000 every
year, and then it goes up probably
10,000 a year. and that money was not
all spent for the street improvements.
So what we have done is that we've moved
that budget into the capital project.
Um so there is no actual money exchange
is just the budget. Um and we stay
within our budget and so we moved uh
$140,000
that wasn't spent. So we use that money
to fund a lot of these projects as we go
down the list here. Um that has helped
because in the past if we didn't have
that money that would come out of the
209 fund which is our street ma street
state aid street maintenance fund and
right uh as of 2024 that was in the hole
and we get a allocation about 90,000
every year. So this really was actually
a good thing that happened this year
because then we um can grow that 209
fund for other projects in the future.
So um St. Routes school there was a
little bit left over um there was it
actually wasn't a per se project as an
infrastructure but we do have state
route to schools projects where it's
professionals people coming to the
schools Nancy works with that program um
transit budget we budget 100,283
and we did transfer that um actually the
federal government wants to have more
money in that than what's in there, but
we do budget to what we expect to spend
and so we move that. Um if there was a
shortage, the general fund always backs
it. Um debt service, we um actually had
a a bond deficit in um our fund 539,
which is our last project for the
streets. Um so we had um the city had
the streets project in 2015, 16 and 17.
We did it over 3 years and then we
actually got a bond for it after it was
completed and uh many people paid off
their small specials that they had and
so in when we do the bond we uh
anticipate what we'll collect in
interest to cover the payments and such
and um we're actually short we don't
have that and so um fund 527 was
actually a 1995 1995 refunding bond
and they had have cash in that. And so
instead of looking at the general fund
to fund this, we can take within our own
bond funds and uh that have cash and
that have been completed. They're all
paid off. And so we did that for 104,000
um debt service for the 2017 bond, which
is the same fund 539. We budgeted 120 to
cover that. Um then we have Lefay Park.
We had just a little bit left um for
some expenses that came through after
year end um in 2025. Even though the
project was completed, most of was
completed in 2024, but we did know that there would be a few more expenses.
So, uh fixed assets for the Lefay Park
were done in 2025 and they were broken
down by the actual assets. So, they're
broken down by the dock and the
sidewalks and uh the street. um land is
not in our fixed asset. It's it's in our
fixed asset group, but there's no
depreciation on it. Um next one is uh
the sidewalk multi-use connection which
is over by the library. There was still
a little bit of money to um cover that.
So that came out of that general fund,
capital project fund. on the quiet zone.
Um there was actually um a few expenses
on that and so we actually covered those
with that cap general capital fund
again. Uh sickly benefit fund, we
budgeted 75,000
and so that was moved out of our general
fund budget. And just so you're all
aware of the cash balance in that fund
um is 705 is 67600,000
and the sick leave acral is 830,000. So
there still is a little bit of a break
that we're short 154,000 but we only
have to have enough in that fund as if
we were going to close tomorrow. So, we
know that's not going to happen. We're
not paying everybody off in sick leave.
So, we are fine at where we are for that
balance, but that's why we budget every
year to cover those payoffs for
retirements, resinations, and such. Um,
we get next we get to the civic center
sales tax budget project. We actually
had some leftover sales tax money from
well actually that we started collecting
in July and so we did move that money
that we had collected up to that point
um of $340,000
and then that left like a balance of
$700. So we took what we could and
without taking all the cash. Um then we
get to the civic center sales tax
project. We did get a Mighty Ducks grant
for 250,000
which requires a match on it. Um when we were we were told we had to have a
match into our resolution to accept it.
We put down the building maintenance
fund or the general fund. Um and what we
always have been doing is that we've
been budgeting in case we get grants of
50,000 uh match. So we move 2024 we in
2025 we did the 50,000 and in 2026 we
don't have anticipate another grant so
we will take the 50,000 to cover that
mighty ducks grant so we don't have to
use sales tax dollars for the match even
though they have explained to us that we
can do that we just assume not do that
because we know it's going to be very
tight to get the thing the project done
with what we want done with the sales
tax dollars. So, um that's why we're
using that matching dollars in the
general fund. Uh cemetery improvements.
Uh there was uh the colarium we did they
did with some sidewalk work. Um this we
actually budgeted for this a couple
years because it wasn't always
completed. And uh that those come out of
the perpetual fund to do those
improvements. And the perpetual fund is
um like an offshoot of the cemetery
where when we sell a lot or colarium 40%
of that collected goes into the
perpetual fund to keep the cemetery
going perpetually.
That's why it's called the perpetual
fund. Um next we have the um EDA
discretionary fund uh restricted
discretionary fund.
>> Question.
>> Yes. We don't see that on our on our
packet here.
>> Yeah. The last one we have here is that
civic center at at 50.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> So, it can get covered and p pasted cuz
I had sent it to Renee and somehow it
must have knocked out on the next page.
>> Well, you will have it on on
>> I'm just No, no, thank you. We'll we'll
fix it, but it'll be on the resolution
on um
>> for Tuesday.
>> So,
>> please continue.
>> Okay. So, um, cemetery improvements,
sorry that they're not on there. And
then there's actually just three more.
Um, and then and so anyway, the EDA
restricted discretionary fund. So, in
2024,
the EDA looked at what they accumulate
for interest in their funds. Uh, so like
in the myth loan, the ARP loans. So,
when we get a loan to a business, we
actually collect interest on their
payments and we also collect interest on
their fund. So it was decided that you
know the fund is getting so large and
there's so many restrictions in those
funds that it would be better for us to
use the interest that we would give
those funds and start our own
discretionary loan funds so that we
could give out smaller loans to
businesses um smaller business that just
maybe need a grant of $10,000 or
something. And so when we did that, we
had put it into one fund and then uh
Maggie did some research and the money
coming from the myth loan needs to be a
little more restricted. So we actually
have two funds. So this was done
actually in the beginning of the year to
split the myth amount out of the
discretionary loan which was interest
2024 and put that into the EDA
restricted discretionary fund. So in
2025, um the interest occurs just like
it's supposed to now and going to those
funds, but they're not a transfer.
They're interest on to what their cash
balance is. Questions on that? Um and
then the last one, um we haven't always
put it on our transfers because it's
kind of to us it's not really a
transfer. It's just always been that we
get a check. So water and light um have funded our building maintenance
fund. Um we started at 250 and then now
it's up to 400. They write us a check
first check in January to fund into the
425 fund which is our building
maintenance. And so it the outers say
technically it's a transfer because
water light and the city are are one
entity even though they have to write us
a check. So those two are missing. They
will be on the resolution for Tuesday.
>> Okay.
>> Questions on anything?
>> Thanks Carla. No, whatever you said, I'm
good.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I don't I don't want you to do
that. I mean, if there's questions, I
want you to ask questions.
>> Dale's been quiet on us.
>> Well, thank you, Dale.
>> All right. Any questions for Carla?
>> I see none. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes. Okay. Uh, that brings us, I
believe, right to the end of our agenda
here for the work session. Uh, so we'd
be looking for a motion to adjourn.
>> Moved by Pakuinsky.
>> Second.
by Helms. All in favor say I. I
oppose. Same sign. Okay. Motion passes.
Uh work session is closed. And then if
everyone will stick around here, we have
a special meeting.
And uh Reed, I let me know when you're
ready. We can
>> go right for it. Okay. Let's uh let's do
it. Let's uh call to order the special
meeting
of the city of East Grand Forks for
Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 at 6:04 p.m. Uh
would the city clerk please call roll?
>> Mayor Mark Olstead
>> here.
>> Brian L or Council President Brian
Larson
>> here.
>> Council Vice President Tim Riael
>> here.
>> Council member Tammy Schumacher
>> here.
>> Ben Pukinsky
>> here.
>> Dale Helms
>> here.
>> Don Kism
>> here. Karen Peterson
>> here.
>> Okay, we have a quorum. Uh, first item
and only item uh for today here is uh
consider approving resolution number
26-06-53.
Uh, cannabis retail registration
preapproval to Red Iris LLC located at
302 and 304 Demurs Avenue.
>> Okay, we have a motion by Peterson. Is
there a second?
by Riael.
Any question or discussion
or Reed? Any any uh updates for the or
not updates but comments for the
council?
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um no real
change from what we discussed last week
at the work session. Just maybe to the
point on the resolution and Mr. Mr.
Gston, I'll ask you to expand if there's
anything you want to add, but we did uh
try to draft the resolution um that lays
out the history of the work that's been
completed so far and what we learned
from Red Iris and Chicago Atlantic over
the last couple of weeks in the now
therefore be it resolved portion of it.
Um at the bottom uh to maybe some of the
comments that council member Helms that
you made reg requesting a timeline. Um,
we kind of ended on Ron and I talked
about it ended on that we didn't um,
have a great uh, measuring parameter for
how to put a timeline on it. Um, because
there's so many outside entities that
have control. Um, the Office of Cannabis
Management on licensing and and a
contractor to build the the
improvements. Um, so Mr. Golstead
suggested adding these last couple
sentences here the that this extension
may be revoked for failure to promptly
acquire the property or to make
substantial and timely progress
renovating the building. Um so that at
least we can have some level of of
enforcement to the companies involved in
this transaction to that they can show
us
uh progress towards acquisition and
improvements. And then we know as we've
learned with the others that when you
get into the the licensing aspect for
the office of cannabis management that
sort of has a timeline of its own above
and beyond the renovations. Um but this
does have some some control parameters
on our part that will require them to
stay timely and keep us updated on their
progress.
>> Great. Thank you, Reed. Okay. Any final
comments or questions? Seeing none, um
roll call, please.
Gazmi,
>> yes.
>> Peterson,
>> yes.
>> Larson,
>> yes.
>> Shoe marker,
>> yes.
>> Pakinsky,
>> yes.
>> Riael,
>> yes.
>> Elms,
>> yes.
>> Okay, motion passes. Uh, that's the end
of the agenda for the special meeting. I
would be looking for a motion to
adjurnn. Oh.
>> Moved by Puck Shivinsky. Second by
Riapel. All in favor say I. I. Oppose.
Same sign. Meeting is closed. Thank you
everyone.