[0:01] Okay, let's go ahead and call to order
[0:04] the uh work session of the East Grand
[0:07] Fork City Council for Tuesday, June 9th,
[0:11] 2026 at 5:01 p.m. Uh would the city
[0:14] clerk please call a roll?
[0:16] >> Mayor Mark
[0:18] >> here.
[0:19] >> Council President Brian Larson
[0:21] >> here.
[0:21] >> Council Vice President Tim Riael
[0:23] >> here.
[0:24] >> Council members Tammy Schumacher
[0:25] >> here.
[0:26] >> Ben Pukinsky
[0:27] >> here.
[0:27] >> Dale Helms
[0:28] >> here. Don Keys
[0:30] >> here.
[0:30] >> Karen Peterson
[0:31] >> here.
[0:32] >> Okay, we have a quorum. Just a reminder
[0:34] to turn on your microphones.
[0:36] Uh first, uh discussion topic here today
[0:39] is um uh renew building inspections
[0:43] contract with True Cheek. Um Miss Ellis.
[0:47] >> Yeah. Um after uh WSH had uh removed
[0:51] themselves from the building
[0:53] inspections, uh
[0:56] what's the word I'm looking for? um
[0:59] contracting for the city. Um we had to
[1:02] go out and look for a new service or
[1:05] andor a uh employee to handle our
[1:08] building inspections. Um at that time it
[1:10] was difficult to find somebody um or
[1:14] some type of uh city that was using a
[1:18] full-time person. Uh people were going
[1:20] more to like a service contract or uh
[1:24] professional services. Um, so we went
[1:26] out, looked at two different, uh, groups
[1:30] that did building inspections. We had
[1:32] hired um, True Cheek and we put them on
[1:35] a 2-year uh, contract uh, with the
[1:38] possibility that we'd maybe look into a
[1:40] full-time person. Um, still uh, not sure
[1:45] um, at this point if that's the
[1:47] direction we're going to go. Um, I feel
[1:50] that uh, True Cheek has done uh, really
[1:53] a good service for the city. They're
[1:56] very thorough. I think um, they're here
[2:00] two days a week, but we have two persons
[2:03] that are here to answer questions.
[2:05] They're very receptive to contractor
[2:07] questions. They answer phone calls, uh,
[2:11] emails, uh, all five days of the week.
[2:14] Um, so, uh, with that, I'd like to renew
[2:17] their contract, maybe for a longer term.
[2:20] Uh, they're hoping to keep their
[2:22] services at the same cost for the first
[2:24] three years, and then after that third
[2:27] year, they do have a reopener in the
[2:30] contract just in case um, they need to
[2:33] uh, review what the costs are to the
[2:36] city uh, if there's an additional cost
[2:38] that they may need to add. But that does
[2:40] allow us then to um bring it back to the
[2:42] council in terms of the contract
[2:45] renewal. Um so um that's where we're at.
[2:49] I did include just for your benefit in
[2:52] terms of building inspections uh yearly
[2:55] revenue for the last 3 years while
[2:57] they've been here. Um what we're taking
[3:00] in versus what the cost is for their
[3:02] contract. and they're either at this
[3:04] point we're either making some money and
[3:07] or uh kind of breaking even on that. So
[3:10] really uh what we're typically paying
[3:13] for is um support staff admin those
[3:17] types of things. Um some of the things
[3:19] that we are also in fact looking at to
[3:22] again bring in more revenue is that we
[3:24] did increase the cost of our permits. Uh
[3:27] I think it was two years ago. Uh we are
[3:30] looking at our special permits. So
[3:32] things like mechanical, plumbing,
[3:35] um,
[3:38] uh, driveway aprons, uh, the possibility
[3:41] of we do different things for cost per
[3:44] we issue permits based on cost per
[3:46] square foot, which is based on a 5-year
[3:48] average of what cost per square foot is
[3:50] for commercial and industrial buildings
[3:53] based on the classification. The last
[3:56] time we did review of that 5-year
[3:58] average was from 2017 to 2022. So, I
[4:01] know the costs of materials and things
[4:03] like that have gone up, so we'd want to
[4:05] review that again, too, which may make
[4:07] adjustments to that. Um, the other
[4:11] possibility that's not related to this,
[4:13] but, you know, in terms of uh trying to
[4:16] keep our costs down and our revenues up
[4:18] is that the fire department has uh
[4:21] really taken uh uh
[4:24] into our building inspections process.
[4:27] They're helping us more with plan
[4:28] review. They're helping us a lot with uh
[4:31] inspections and different things that uh
[4:33] are needed, which has been a great help
[4:36] to us. And so, um the idea of maybe
[4:38] looking at some fire inspection and or
[4:42] uh fire plan review uh fees might also
[4:46] be an option. But, um that's kind of
[4:48] where we're at. If anybody has any
[4:50] questions
[4:51] in terms of the contract.
[4:55] >> Okay. Thanks, Nancy. Uh we'll start with
[4:56] Mr. Helms.
[4:57] >> Yeah, thank you. I have a couple three.
[4:59] Uh
[5:01] first of all,
[5:03] how much did we pay this company last
[5:06] year? 25. How much did they earn?
[5:09] >> Last year we paid them $72,948.
[5:15] » Okay. Okay.
[5:18] So,
[5:22] I I read this contract. I think I read
[5:24] it pretty thorough. Uh,
[5:28] I'm not real hip on a 5-year contract. I
[5:30] still think that I would like to see us
[5:33] think about having our own full-time
[5:36] inspector. Uh,
[5:40] one reason is because he's making
[5:42] $72,948
[5:44] and he's part-time. So, just think what
[5:47] we could have. We could hire a full-time
[5:48] and then he could do other things
[5:50] besides that. And then we could get back
[5:53] in. We talked about inspecting apartment
[5:55] buildings. You know, we could get back
[5:57] into all that kind of stuff.
[6:00] Uh I would still seriously like to see
[6:02] us look to have our own own inspector.
[6:06] Um and frankly, uh most everybody knows
[6:10] that the one we have right now, there's
[6:11] been some issues with a couple
[6:12] contractors in town. Uh and
[6:17] frankly, it doesn't have very good
[6:18] reputation right now. from what I'm
[6:20] hearing from contractors. I hear from a
[6:21] lot of people say they wouldn't even think about building
[6:24] here right now.
[6:26] So, I don't really think I want to go
[6:30] into a five-year contract with them.
[6:33] Although, I do see on here uh Ron, you
[6:36] can correct me, but it looks like that
[6:37] either party can cancel at any time they
[6:40] want in there. So, does that mean if we
[6:43] decide to do something internal, we
[6:45] could
[6:47] break that? Uh either party can cancel
[6:50] with 60 days notice.
[6:52] >> Yeah.
[6:53] >> So it's
[6:55] yes your answer is yes. And then if it
[6:57] was for if it was for cause it would be
[7:00] 15.
[7:02] >> Thank you.
[7:04] >> So I got no problem with what he's well
[7:06] I kind of have a little bit of a problem
[7:07] what he's been doing but although he's
[7:09] been doing uh I mean I think he's he's
[7:12] been by the book you know. So, uh, but
[7:19] it just seems like there's a lot of
[7:20] things in there that could have probably
[7:21] been eliminated, maybe could have been,
[7:24] uh,
[7:25] maybe
[7:27] notified
[7:29] sooner or maybe a little bit more
[7:32] groundwork, communication or something
[7:34] in there to solve some of the problems
[7:37] that has been going on. So,
[7:42] that's kind of where I'm at with it.
[7:44] >> Okay. Thank you, Dale. We'll go to Mayor
[7:45] Olstead and then Mr. Rioel.
[7:47] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um
[7:50] myself, I think five years is probably
[7:52] too long. Um I think three years would
[7:55] be great. I mean, they want to keep
[7:58] their fees for three years the same. I
[8:00] think that's where we need lineup to
[8:01] contract with also. Um
[8:04] yes, we know we know there has been some
[8:06] issues out there. Um, I think at the
[8:09] same time I would like to direct staff
[8:12] to take a look at
[8:14] again what it would cost. I'm assuming
[8:16] it's going to be about$125 135,000 that
[8:19] including benefits to have somebody on
[8:21] staff. So you'd come up with
[8:24] additionally $50,000.
[8:26] So you got to figure out where that's
[8:27] going to come from. Um, but I guess to
[8:31] get the accurate numbers for because
[8:33] it's probably been
[8:35] a couple years since we looked at it.
[8:37] So,
[8:40] >> and this is for two people.
[8:43] There are there are two people employed.
[8:45] It's Greg and Alec. They're only here
[8:48] two days a week, but they are available
[8:51] 5 days a week. They do answer phone
[8:53] calls. They do uh uh answer emails. They
[8:57] do plan review on their off days. Um
[8:59] they're here in addition if we need them
[9:02] to be. So if they know that there's a
[9:05] big inspection or something like that on
[9:06] a Monday, they will be here on a Monday.
[9:09] Um they will adjust schedules. Um so
[9:13] >> but we didn't we didn't hire two people.
[9:15] We hired one company and he's got an
[9:17] assistant that works with him and brings
[9:19] him along.
[9:20] >> But they kind of work they go around
[9:22] together to all these places, you know.
[9:24] I mean, it's not like one's working the
[9:25] south end, one's working the north end
[9:27] type thing. They kind of stick together.
[9:29] So, to me, uh, two people is that's just
[9:35] his assistant. It's kind of like
[9:36] training type thing, you know. So,
[9:40] I don't think two people in into this
[9:43] salary,
[9:44] you know. I don't know if he's charging
[9:46] if he's charged for both people. $115 an
[9:49] hour for both people to be at the same
[9:51] place and doing the same thing.
[9:53] >> To me, that's kind of double paying.
[9:55] >> Well, that was to start um so Alec could
[9:58] get his license. But I think having two
[10:02] people available means that if Greg is
[10:04] doing something else, we have an
[10:06] additional person that can do a separate
[10:08] inspection andor can be here. Um if we
[10:11] have one person and they go on vacation,
[10:14] then no one's getting an inspection.
[10:17] So,
[10:18] >> but I think that's part of the problem
[10:19] we have right now because they're only
[10:21] part-time.
[10:22] We're holding up contractors on jobs on
[10:24] a lot of things because of that
[10:27] because a lot of stuff isn't getting
[10:29] addressed quickly like it should be and
[10:32] it cost contractors a lot of money.
[10:35] So,
[10:37] that's the way I look at it. So, I
[10:39] that's why I I would really like to see
[10:41] us really talk a little bit more about
[10:44] the in-house and like mayor said, you
[10:47] know, maybe we got to come up with some
[10:48] more money or whatever, but I would I
[10:51] would still I I still think that we
[10:53] could probably keep that person busy,
[10:56] you know, like I say, he could do other
[10:58] things too then or she or whoever it
[11:00] might be, you know.
[11:02] >> Okay. Thanks, D. We'll go to Mr. Rupel.
[11:05] The mayor alluded to several things I
[11:06] was going to talk about, but when you
[11:08] talk about u by the book, if we had our
[11:12] own, it's going to be buy the book. It's
[11:14] not going to be because you're a
[11:15] contractor and you feel it's much
[11:17] better. No, this is what it says. This
[11:20] is what you're going to do. So, I look
[11:22] at it that if we're getting two guys for
[11:24] the price of one, we're actually doing
[11:27] pretty good here. We're staying ahead of
[11:29] the game. we're we're not uh losing
[11:31] money on this where the other way we're
[11:33] going to be in the hurt bag 50 grand a
[11:36] year right off
[11:37] >> getting them for the price once you just
[11:39] said both of them are getting charged
[11:40] they're charging double the money
[11:42] they're both going out separate now too
[11:44] they've been going together but they're
[11:45] like the other one's licensed now so he
[11:48] can go out alone
[11:50] so he had them whether you hire one
[11:52] you're hiring the whole company so I I
[11:55] agree I think uh this is a pretty good
[11:57] deal we're getting but yeah three years
[11:59] No more.
[12:00] >> Three years is good. Yeah.
[12:03] >> Okay.
[12:04] >> I just have one comment.
[12:05] >> Yeah. Go ahead, Karen.
[12:06] >> So, has the market changed in regards to
[12:08] availability of individuals to hire?
[12:10] >> No. So, we would still be
[12:14] possibly
[12:15] >> continuing. Yep. We're continuing to see
[12:17] the number of uh full-time building
[12:19] inspectors in the state of Minnesota
[12:21] going down.
[12:22] >> Sure. So, that was part of our
[12:23] decision-m process is the availability
[12:26] of individuals.
[12:27] >> Correct. Correct.
[12:30] Have you actually seen those numbers to
[12:32] hurt somebody? Has somebody come up with
[12:33] those numbers and told you that or or
[12:35] are we just saying that that's the case
[12:37] so we don't have to
[12:39] >> No, it it is the case.
[12:40] >> At least look and see.
[12:41] >> Yeah. I mean, if if you look at um uh
[12:46] what Width was doing, I mean, they
[12:49] probably had seven to 10 communities. Um
[12:52] these people uh True Cheek are adding
[12:55] customers every day. You know, they're
[12:57] adding cities. So, we know that cities
[12:59] are are no longer looking for that
[13:02] full-time person. And part of the reason
[13:04] is is that it's um
[13:07] it's just a a pay option. Uh if I can be
[13:12] a management of a contracting business
[13:15] and I get, you know, I can do that type
[13:18] of thing, it pays more than a city job
[13:21] does.
[13:24] is something else that we could look at
[13:25] with this company turnaround times.
[13:28] >> Is there a turnaround time analysis that
[13:30] we could do?
[13:32] >> Yeah, we we can do that
[13:33] >> and and try to have them make
[13:35] improvements on that.
[13:37] >> I don't know that that's realistic, but
[13:39] is that I mean, this is what the
[13:41] contractors are saying, but is this
[13:43] truthful?
[13:44] >> I've visited with contractors as well.
[13:48] um we don't have a a rough turnaround
[13:50] time on our responses to people and what
[13:52] they need. I think there are um
[13:56] instances that I don't really think we
[13:58] need to get into at this meeting, but
[14:00] there are instances that we could get
[14:04] into. But need needless to say, I think
[14:06] our turnaround time is pretty good. I
[14:08] think our building inspectors are very
[14:10] thorough. They have an extreme knowledge
[14:12] of the building code. Um
[14:15] we uh before this we had a number of
[14:18] complaints about our you know inspection
[14:21] services maybe or maybe not um being as
[14:26] tight with the building code like they
[14:28] were picking and choosing who had to
[14:30] follow and who didn't or you know they
[14:32] were a little more lenient um and they
[14:35] were a little concerned with that. So,
[14:38] um, you know, we've had complaints going
[14:41] in both directions. So, it's hard to
[14:42] please one or the other group, I guess.
[14:44] for me, being an enforcement
[14:48] from day one, um, enforcement isn't a
[14:51] fun job.
[14:53] >> People don't like it. Um, they're
[14:55] unhappy if it's something that they're,
[14:57] you know, that it's something they do or
[15:00] don't want. Um, so it's kind of hard to
[15:02] try to um please everybody when it's an
[15:07] enforcement job. So I guess um to answer
[15:10] that question, we can look at turnaround
[15:12] times. I don't think it's the turnaround
[15:13] times. I I do believe it's just, you
[15:16] know, some people don't like the way
[15:19] enforcement is handled. And um I think
[15:22] that they're still doing a good job. And
[15:24] I have no issues with looking into the
[15:26] numbers for the number of full-time
[15:28] building inspectors. if you want those
[15:30] numbers before the next uh you know
[15:32] before the meeting on Tuesday, we can
[15:34] provide you what the numbers were 10
[15:36] years ago versus what they are now. Um
[15:39] you know those are all things that
[15:41] they're up to you guys. So from a budget
[15:44] standpoint, we look at ways to reduce
[15:46] our costs and you know improve our
[15:48] revenues. So um this seems to be the
[15:52] most coste effective way of doing our
[15:54] building inspections rather than hiring
[15:56] a full-time person or a person and a
[15:58] half. So,
[16:02] » yeah. Thank you, Nancy. And uh Carla,
[16:04] you handed out this uh spreadsheet here.
[16:06] Would would one of you mind maybe just
[16:08] walking through 2025 to
[16:11] >> help us kind of understand or
[16:19] I just somebody had requested um numbers
[16:22] and so I just put together what we had
[16:24] in our system. So starting back in 2009
[16:27] on the front page um we actually had an
[16:29] employee in the building office and they
[16:31] had one assistant full-time assistant.
[16:34] So he retired in 2012. So you can see
[16:37] there 10:30
[16:40] uh in 2012 he retired then we had
[16:43] in-depth inspections which is width and
[16:45] so what I did was um the top part are
[16:48] the expenses. So we have salaries and
[16:51] then um professional services is where
[16:54] the the in-depth or the contractors come
[16:56] out of and then I did put in there the
[16:59] revenue and then I just took what the
[17:02] revenue and expenses were and showed
[17:04] what um the that the expenses are over
[17:08] the revenue that goes all the way
[17:09] across. And then what I did was I took
[17:11] the personnel expenses. So when we had
[17:14] our own employee in 2009, our personnel
[17:17] expenses were 171,000
[17:19] and then we didn't have we had
[17:22] professional services which was probably
[17:24] just somebody coming to do something for
[17:25] 1,200 bucks. So if you go across when we
[17:28] switch we still have personnel expenses
[17:32] um for like now we have Nancy is 25% of
[17:35] her salary goes there and Brenda is at
[17:37] 50%. And so those are the personnel
[17:40] costs we have now. And then we have the
[17:42] professional services fees. So if you go
[17:45] to the second page under 2025, the
[17:48] balance um was we had $157,000
[17:52] of expenses and we had uh 59,000 in
[17:56] revenue. So that we had a loss of
[17:59] $97,000.
[18:01] We had 81,000 in personnel and we had um
[18:06] 72,000 in uh professional services.
[18:10] So we spent a total of 154,000
[18:14] between personnel people doing personal
[18:19] things. So if you look at the bottom
[18:21] line, so in um I added those together.
[18:24] So in 2009, we spent $1272,000
[18:29] in some odd change to pay for our
[18:33] building inspector and our
[18:35] administrative assistant. So, if you
[18:37] look at 2005,
[18:39] we spent 154,000
[18:42] to have a contractor do the inspections
[18:46] and to have our personnel be at the
[18:48] window, um, be their assistant, you
[18:51] know, answer calls, give out permits,
[18:54] >> and the professional services went down
[18:56] with in-depth inspections as we removed
[18:58] them from our office.
[19:01] So we used to have them sitting here uh
[19:04] three times a week and then we dropped
[19:06] it to two times a week and then towards
[19:08] the end it was they weren't in the
[19:10] office at all. They were only available
[19:12] by phone and or setting up inspections.
[19:15] But otherwise in-depth was not
[19:16] physically in our office the last couple
[19:19] of years. So that's why the numbers
[19:21] dropped because they weren't charging us
[19:23] office hours.
[19:25] >> Any questions on the spreadsheet? Just a
[19:27] more of a general question for uh Carla
[19:30] and Reed. Is it is it common for a
[19:32] municipality like us to run a negative
[19:34] on on this type of account for for
[19:37] inspections? You know, we're losing
[19:38] 100,000 a year here.
[19:39] >> Well, basically every department does
[19:41] it. It's kind of like if you looked at
[19:42] our arenas.
[19:43] >> Yeah.
[19:44] >> You know, it's it's a service that we
[19:46] have to our our our taxpayers.
[19:48] >> Mhm. You know, if you looked at most all
[19:50] departments, there isn't any other
[19:53] revenue generating activity except our
[19:57] enterprise funds, which is garbage,
[19:59] waste, water, storm water.
[20:00] >> Yeah. So, you don't think this is like
[20:02] an anomaly among other communities like
[20:05] >> No.
[20:06] In fact, if you look at I mean I would
[20:08] if you looked at most cities I would say
[20:10] if you looked at the 2009 balance and
[20:14] you looked to what we had at 2025 I
[20:16] would guess that there the personnel has
[20:18] gone up
[20:19] >> okay
[20:19] >> considerably from then especially if you
[20:22] had your own employee because you know
[20:24] the cola itself is probably 3% a year
[20:27] plus a step. So when we usually look at
[20:29] personnel it's about 5% or more every
[20:32] year.
[20:34] So, actually, when we put the numbers
[20:36] together, I think Reed and I are both
[20:37] kind of like, whoa, we're actually doing
[20:39] really good in this department. If we
[20:40] looked at other departments and did
[20:42] this, it probably wouldn't be as good.
[20:46] » All right. Thank you. Thanks for putting
[20:48] this together as well.
[20:49] >> You're welcome.
[20:49] >> Thank you.
[20:50] >> Okay.
[20:52] Go ahead, Reed.
[20:53] >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Council President.
[20:55] Uh, just maybe one last bit to note. I
[20:58] did do some work on looking at the the
[21:01] pay for if we brought a full-time
[21:03] building official in house. And we did
[21:05] this a couple of years ago and Woods
[21:06] indicated to us that they were going to
[21:08] stop offering the service. Um I'll start
[21:11] with we don't have an official city job
[21:13] description for a building official, but
[21:15] um I did reach out a couple of years ago
[21:17] to neighboring cities that do. Uh
[21:19] Krookton has its own building official
[21:21] on city staff. Um, in 2024, the salary
[21:25] for that official was about $76,000.
[21:28] So, if you add a couple percent to cola
[21:31] a year, we're probably looking at an 80
[21:33] to 82,000 a year um wage for that
[21:36] employee. That's just wages and then
[21:38] benefits on top. Of course, um David
[21:41] Drowning Associates, our human resources
[21:43] consultant, suggested in 2024, if we
[21:46] were to bring a building official on, it
[21:48] would likely fall somewhere in a grade
[21:49] 17 or 18 on our pay scale. um a grade 17
[21:53] in 2026 is a range of 72,000 to 100,000.
[21:57] Uh that's just the wages and then um
[22:01] benefits par health insurance if they're
[22:03] on a family plan could add up to another
[22:05] 40,000 to that. So just to give it a
[22:08] ball ballpark of what we'd look at for
[22:10] wages um lowend 110,000, high-end 140
[22:15] 145,000
[22:17] uh to bring on one full-time employee to
[22:19] cover this service.
[22:23] Okay, Reed, do you have uh feedback that
[22:25] you need to craft an item for the agenda
[22:27] for next week's meeting?
[22:30] >> Yeah, I think hearing what we heard,
[22:31] we'll move forward with the three-year
[22:33] extension to the agreement.
[22:35] >> Um and then there will there we'll do
[22:38] some additional research on the number
[22:39] of building officials in the state and
[22:41] where it was a few years back to
[22:42] compared to now.
[22:43] >> Great. Okay. All right. Any further
[22:46] discussion on this one?
[22:48] >> All right,
[22:50] sir.
[22:51] Uh yeah. Are you looking to speak on the
[22:54] building inspections item?
[22:55] >> Yes.
[22:55] >> Sure. Yeah. Why don't you come up here?
[22:57] Uh introduce yourself if you would, sir.
[22:59] >> Um
[23:01] let us know your thoughts.
[23:04] >> I'm Roger Scaven. I'm the owner of Grand
[23:06] Trader Sales in East Grand Forks. Um
[23:09] we're just going through the building
[23:11] process right now and Greg is probably
[23:15] one of the worst people I've ever had to
[23:18] deal with. um
[23:21] his communication, what uh
[23:25] what my architect is telling me who's a
[23:28] local architect and he does hospitals
[23:30] and all kinds of stuff.
[23:33] This Greg is putting us in that category
[23:36] and you were talking about being uh
[23:40] rigid to the rule and I have no problem
[23:42] with that, but he's going above and
[23:44] beyond.
[23:46] Before I could get a building permit, he
[23:48] wanted to know where my fire
[23:49] extinguishers are going. Before I could
[23:52] get a building permit, he wanted to know
[23:54] where my uh my exterior uh handicap
[23:59] parking is going to be. Before I got my
[24:02] building permit, he wanted to know what
[24:04] kind of shelving I'm putting in my
[24:05] store. Shelving has nothing to do with
[24:08] the building. And then he wanted to know
[24:10] when I'm putting on the shelving,
[24:13] which has nothing to do with a building
[24:15] permit. He has delayed the process of
[24:18] our building. I know 3 months.
[24:22] Trying to deal with him is ridiculous.
[24:26] He wanted a wall. We gave him the
[24:28] exterior building, which was an all
[24:29] steel building. The interior firewall
[24:32] was all broke down for him by my
[24:33] architect. Um, but that wasn't good
[24:36] enough. He wanted to know every single
[24:38] wall detail, the 2x4 walls, that's going
[24:42] to be offices and other things like
[24:44] that.
[24:45] Uh he he wouldn't do the building permit
[24:49] until I put in the drinking fountain and
[24:54] I my plans were already approved by the
[24:56] state of Minnesota, my plumbing plans
[24:59] and it they did not require a drinking
[25:01] fountain. But yet he went above and
[25:04] beyond and said, "I will not give you
[25:06] this building permit until you add a
[25:08] drinking fountain." So my architect
[25:11] added that. And then East Grand Forks
[25:13] requires a what is it? A RPZ valve or
[25:17] whatever. It's a backflow valve for
[25:19] water.
[25:21] He wanted that on the plumbing uh
[25:24] drawings, which is just a it's just a
[25:28] small
[25:29] sackflow valve is all it is. So my
[25:33] plumber told I when I talked to my
[25:34] plumber, he said, "During this building
[25:37] process," he goes, "you're going to have
[25:38] small changes all the time. What you
[25:40] submitted to the state of Minnesota,
[25:42] maybe they don't carry that toilet
[25:44] anymore. Maybe they don't carry that
[25:46] sink anymore." He goes, "I deal with the
[25:48] state of Minnesota. I go through and
[25:50] say, hey, this is a comparable one." He
[25:53] gets it approved by his person that he
[25:55] has to deal with, not with Greg.
[25:58] After the meeting we had right in this
[26:00] room month and a half ago, uh we got the
[26:05] building permit. Nancy gave us the
[26:07] building permit and we had
[26:09] uh green flag to go on it. Greg stopped
[26:12] the whole project again on his own and
[26:16] he wanted the state of Minnesota to
[26:18] approve the drawings with the RPZ valve
[26:22] and the drinking fountain.
[26:25] I had to pay another $1,550 to the state
[26:27] of Minnesota for them to review these
[26:29] plans again, which should have never
[26:32] been done. Why? It's small enough little
[26:37] things that
[26:39] my plumber could have taken care of it.
[26:41] And I told that to Greg and I tried
[26:42] explaining that to Greg. He went, he
[26:45] said, "Nope, got to go through the state
[26:47] again. That means if there's a toilet
[26:50] that no longer can be purchased because
[26:53] the bid was a six months ago or nine
[26:57] months ago.
[26:59] I mean, I'm supposed to submit a whole
[27:01] new process, engineer drawings showing
[27:05] that different toilet.
[27:07] That isn't right. That isn't how it
[27:08] works. He's going above and beyond. He's
[27:12] making it that much more difficult to do
[27:14] the building. If I had an option to redo
[27:18] it, I'd be building in Grand Forks. Just
[27:20] so that you know, I would not build
[27:22] again in this town. He is hurting our
[27:25] city for growth. I was born and raised
[27:27] in this town. I believe in this town. I
[27:30] have my business in this town, and I I
[27:34] can promote it, but I can't with him.
[27:38] He's definitely a negative feedback on
[27:40] our town. I understand the concept on
[27:44] his pay. I think it's great. Nothing
[27:47] wrong with that. Problem is is his
[27:51] negativity towards the city. My
[27:54] architect, it's EAPC. They're a large
[27:57] company. They said they have never seen
[27:59] anything like this before in this type
[28:01] of building. Only in hospitals and
[28:03] schools have they ever seen this kind of
[28:06] workup. Uh my builder, same thing. He's
[28:10] never seen it. Uh, we're having all
[28:13] these delays and he's it's all because
[28:16] of him. He put a stop build on our
[28:18] property without even notifying me,
[28:20] without even getting a hold of me. I
[28:22] mean, he's doing things so wrong.
[28:26] The cost might be cheaper, but he's got
[28:28] an issue.
[28:30] And if there's someone else to hire, I
[28:32] would say hire someone else. I don't
[28:34] mind going by the book. I'm trying to go
[28:36] by the book, but he's going above and
[28:38] beyond.
[28:40] And That's my opinion.
[28:43] >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scouting.
[28:47] >> Okay. All right. I think that brings us
[28:50] to the conclusion on that item. Uh and
[28:52] just a reminder, uh we'll be addressing
[28:54] this item next week as well. So, uh not
[28:56] the end of the discussion. Uh we'll go
[28:58] to item number two here. Uh discussion
[29:01] on ebikes, motorized bikes, e-
[29:04] motorcycles, and motorized foot
[29:06] scooters. Uh for this one, we'll turn
[29:08] over to Mr. Hutton.
[29:09] >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. President, council
[29:11] members. Um, so after our work session
[29:14] discussion two weeks ago on this item,
[29:17] um, we had, I think, a lot of good
[29:18] discussion and and feedback from the
[29:20] council. Sorry, I'm trying to scroll to
[29:22] this item here. Um, we did take a number
[29:25] of calls, uh, from residents in the
[29:28] community. Um, and and if you read the
[29:30] local newspapers, you saw the Grand
[29:32] Forks Herald wrote a an editorial piece
[29:34] as well. Um, it it seems as though we
[29:36] unintentionally created some confusion.
[29:38] I believe it was unintentional confusion
[29:41] created specific to the pedal assisted
[29:44] ebikes or electric motor assisted ebikes
[29:48] um that maybe took away from our
[29:51] discussion that we were looking to
[29:53] prohibit the use of those within our
[29:55] greenway system. Um so I thought we'd
[29:57] bring it back to the discussion just to
[29:59] clarify that point. Um the
[30:03] uh the ebike that is pedal assisted
[30:06] electric motor assisted pedal bike um in
[30:09] Minnesota state law is classified as a
[30:12] bicycle just as a non-motorized pedal
[30:15] bicycle and it is legal to be used in
[30:18] any setting that a regular bicycle is
[30:21] legal to be used. Um and we don't intend
[30:24] on in updating and bringing out changes
[30:26] to our ordinance. We don't intend on
[30:28] doing anything to change that fact. Um
[30:32] the real differentiation we're trying to
[30:35] make clear and understand have everyone
[30:37] understand is that um we have seen an
[30:40] increase in use of motorized bikes that
[30:43] do not have pedals um or motorized dirt
[30:46] bikes or motorcycle type of vehicles.
[30:50] Um, and while those are not currently in
[30:53] our greenway ordinance clearly defined
[30:55] what they are, um, Minnesota state law,
[30:59] uh, recognizes those as motorized
[31:02] vehicles. And a motorized vehicle is not
[31:05] legal to be used on our greenway trails.
[31:08] Um, that would be whether it's a
[31:10] four-wheeler ATV or a six-wheeler UTV, a
[31:13] dirt bike, whether it be gas powered or
[31:15] electric motor powered. um in those
[31:18] settings if they're not pedal assisted,
[31:19] they are motorized vehicles and they're
[31:21] not not allowed to be used in the
[31:22] greenway. So, just want to make sure we
[31:24] have a kind of a clear differentiation
[31:26] of those. Um, I expect in still the next
[31:29] couple weeks we'll bring forward some
[31:31] changes to our greenway ordinance to be
[31:34] adopted that will better clarify or
[31:36] define what a motorized
[31:39] bike or a motorized uh electric
[31:42] motorized dirt bike is um and how it's
[31:45] classified as a motorized vehicle. Um,
[31:48] but it's not to try to create a pro
[31:50] prohibit use of the pedal assisted ebike
[31:54] on our greenway trails. So, any
[31:58] questions on that? Happy to try to
[31:59] answer. Uh, I should add Chief Headland
[32:02] uh and the folks in the police
[32:04] department did go through and and wrote
[32:06] a a nice narrative and some frequently
[32:08] asked questions uh that were added to
[32:10] the city's website and posted on social
[32:12] media last week and and I think those do
[32:15] a nice job of kind of talking about each
[32:17] different classification of bicycle or
[32:20] motorized vehicle and what is and isn't
[32:22] allowed. Um, and those can be a resource
[32:24] going forward, but just happy to answer
[32:26] and hopefully that clarifies the
[32:28] discussion from a couple weeks ago.
[32:30] >> All right, thanks Reed. Any uh questions
[32:33] or comments on this item?
[32:36] Reed, were you able to kind of
[32:38] understand like where was the point of
[32:39] confusion? Was it just kind of in in the
[32:42] discussion of all the different types of
[32:43] bikes? One was misinterpreted as being
[32:46] something else?
[32:47] >> Yeah. Well, I think there's two things.
[32:48] My my impression of it from talking to a
[32:50] few folks has been there's two been two
[32:52] things that confused it is one um on the information we put out there's a
[32:58] classification of a motorized bike
[33:02] um that's the name of it but if you look
[33:04] at the picture that's included on our
[33:06] website now and maybe in the packet here
[33:07] let me try scroll scroll so this is a
[33:10] motorized bike this has pedals on you
[33:12] can see the chain and the pedals um in
[33:15] ebike if you scroll to this next photo,
[33:18] a motorized bike. This looks like a
[33:20] bicycle, but there are no pedals on
[33:22] this. And so there's kind of two
[33:24] different things. There's a motorized e
[33:26] or an ebicycle that has the pedal
[33:28] assist, or there's this motorized bike
[33:30] that for all intents looks like a
[33:32] bicycle, but it doesn't have pedals on
[33:34] it. And it's that's only an electric
[33:36] motor. I think that's one element that
[33:39] caused confusion to people is is what is
[33:41] legal and what isn't. And I think the best clear delineation to make there
[33:45] is if it has pedals and you can pedal it
[33:48] to ride, it's a bicycle. If it doesn't
[33:50] have pedals and it's powered by a motor,
[33:53] gas or electric, it's a motorized
[33:55] vehicle and is not allowed. Um, that's
[33:58] part one. The other part is in our
[34:00] greenway ordinance there was discussion
[34:02] on our current ordinance talks about the
[34:05] electric pedal assist bike having a
[34:09] maximum motor capacity of 1,000 kow
[34:13] and Minnesota statute has since been
[34:15] updated to limit it to a maximum of 750
[34:18] kow and we talked about updating our
[34:22] ordinance to match Minnesota statute and
[34:24] I think a lot of discussion two weeks
[34:26] ago was centered around that piece about
[34:27] that 700 versus the thousand. I think
[34:30] some people heard all of that discussion
[34:32] and interpreted it to mean that we were
[34:34] going to make a class of the pedal
[34:36] assisted bike prohibited. It's not the
[34:40] case. It's we're we just need to align
[34:41] our ordinance to be equal to Minnesota
[34:44] statute. Great. That's helpful. Thank
[34:47] you. Okay. Any questions on this topic?
[34:52] Okay. All right. Thank you, Reed, for
[34:53] that clarification. Very helpful.
[34:56] Uh with that, we'll move on to item
[34:58] number three. Uh request to declare
[35:00] vehicles and surplus property as surplus
[35:03] property for the purpose of selling them
[35:05] at an auction. Uh Corporal Rue,
[35:09] thank you. Yeah, we have two vehicles
[35:10] that have cleared the court process um
[35:12] from criminal forfeite cases. One being
[35:15] a 2003 Yamaha Roadstar motorcycle. Uh
[35:19] the second being a 2015 Buick Encore. Uh
[35:22] so we'd be looking to have those
[35:23] declared surplus to be uh sold on our
[35:26] auction.
[35:27] >> All right. Thank you. Any questions for
[35:29] Corporal Rue?
[35:30] >> This just a couple you're adding to what
[35:31] you're doing right now?
[35:32] >> Yeah, so we're we're starting to do the
[35:34] auctions a little bit differently. In
[35:35] the past there's been large scale
[35:37] auctions. We'll probably do that each
[35:38] spring as vehicles kind of build up over
[35:40] the winter, but going forward we're just
[35:42] going to once they clear the process
[35:44] we'll declare them and sell them sooner
[35:45] because they're a depreciating asset. It
[35:47] doesn't make sense to sit on them. So,
[35:48] there are two that have recently cleared
[35:50] and so they're not in alignment with the
[35:52] ones we have on right now.
[35:53] >> Okay. And then one other question. I
[35:54] noticed on the website or
[35:58] actually it's under the email that you
[36:01] sent out. Uh now they got some pressure
[36:03] washers and a sprayer stuff on there. Is
[36:05] that all part of the city stuff too?
[36:07] That's
[36:07] >> Yep. So that's Reed could maybe speak on
[36:09] that, but that's surplus from the city
[36:11] that was added to this auction.
[36:12] >> Okay.
[36:12] >> Correct. Yeah.
[36:13] >> Okay. Thank I just want to make sure it
[36:15] was local stuff and not because
[36:17] sometimes that.gov gets a lot of out
[36:20] ofstate stuff and things like that. So I
[36:22] want to know
[36:22] >> yeah that at our council meeting last
[36:24] week there were a number of parks
[36:26] related items couple of vehicles a
[36:28] trailer and and pressure washers that
[36:29] were added.
[36:30] >> Um those were declared surplus last week
[36:33] so we're added to the auction. I will
[36:34] though um on that note there is one
[36:37] vehicle listed on the auction currently
[36:41] um that is a parks pickup. It's a 1997
[36:44] Chevy Silverado that got missed on
[36:47] declared surplus. So I Mr. Rue and I
[36:50] spoke uh the auction closes after the next council meeting. So we're going
[36:55] to leave it posted. Um but it'll be on
[36:58] the agenda next week for approval to
[37:00] declare surplus so that it can be sold.
[37:02] Um and it's uh no longer used in our
[37:05] parks fleet.
[37:08] >> Okay. Thanks, guys.
[37:12] All right, let's move on to our next
[37:14] item here. Um, MMPA and WAPA renewable
[37:18] energy credit sales agreement. Uh, Mr.
[37:21] Hutton and then Mr. Miklseth, if you'll
[37:23] join us as well.
[37:26] >> All right. Thank you, council members.
[37:28] I'll I'll kind of start summarize this
[37:30] and then Keith, if there's anything
[37:31] you'd like to add, please jump in. Um
[37:33] the uh city has an agreement city
[37:36] through the water and light department
[37:37] has an agreement with WAPA western area
[37:39] power authority um for renewable energy
[37:43] credits that are available annually. Um
[37:45] over history of the last number of years
[37:48] uh the water and light department has
[37:49] worked with local companies on the
[37:52] ability to have water and light donate
[37:54] those wrecks uh to a company that needed
[37:57] renewable energy options. um something
[38:01] is some work some has changed in policy
[38:03] and how they can be distributed and
[38:05] there became an opportunity for water
[38:07] and light to look to sell them rather
[38:09] than donate them. Uh and in the process
[38:12] of Mr. Mikkelsth working through that um
[38:15] received an offer from Minnesota
[38:17] Municipal Power Authority which we're a
[38:19] member of MMPA uh to enter into a
[38:23] 15-year agreement for the sale of these
[38:26] wrecks at $3 per wreck. Um, Water and
[38:29] Light reviewed the sales agreement at
[38:31] their meeting last week and approved it.
[38:33] Um, Keith has been so gracious and
[38:36] thinking about this with the city and
[38:37] Water and Light. Uh, the the basis of
[38:40] the original agreement with WA um that
[38:44] authorizes the Rex as part of our
[38:46] purchase of power through WAPA is is
[38:49] lined up with the city directly um
[38:53] rather than directly to water and light.
[38:55] And so Keith has suggested that the city
[38:58] re receive the revenue from the sale of
[39:01] these wrecks over the life of this
[39:03] 15-year agreement um with the idea that
[39:06] we create a special revenue fund in the
[39:08] city to receive these funds on an annual
[39:11] basis um and take the funds um with an
[39:15] intent on using them for we're terming
[39:18] it economic development infrastructure
[39:21] fund but essentially to look at um
[39:24] improvements or extensions or additions
[39:27] to our um private or public publicly
[39:31] owned infrastructure, roads, utility
[39:34] systems, potential property acquisition
[39:36] for future economic development, things
[39:38] of that nature. Um, specifically when
[39:41] you think about uh the recently acquired
[39:43] Simplot property or the industrial park
[39:46] and the need for improvements to the
[39:47] public infrastructure there, um, we feel
[39:50] it could be a good source of seed money
[39:52] with a nice long-term agreement in place
[39:54] um, to apply for those efforts um, and
[39:58] in turn hopefully spur um, new business
[40:01] growth and development which is going to
[40:02] create uh, new or added customers for
[40:05] water and light.
[40:07] >> That's great. Thank you, Reed. Um Keith,
[40:10] as you start, um would you mind giving
[40:12] us a little bit of background on WAPA
[40:14] and why why they have renewable energy
[40:16] credits just to kind of
[40:18] >> WAPA is Western
[40:20] Area Power Administration and it's hydro
[40:23] power from South Dakota, Nebraska in
[40:26] that area. And so we have a a set amount
[40:30] of power that we've been receiving from
[40:32] them for quite some time. And uh
[40:35] originally WAPA did not
[40:38] they didn't allow us to do any of these
[40:40] things and then just like Reed had
[40:42] stated they recently now allowed us to
[40:44] first we could just s do it voluntarily
[40:47] and so then Crystal we gave them to
[40:48] Crystal they were one of our largest
[40:51] customers our largest customer and then
[40:53] after that then they said we could we
[40:56] could now sell them. So he explained it
[40:59] pretty well. And so the
[41:01] um we MMPA administers it for us. They
[41:05] it's called the M emits account. So they
[41:09] were already putting they were managing
[41:11] that for us. WA would each year you get
[41:14] an aotment and then uh those rerecks go
[41:17] into that emrets and then from there
[41:21] then we sell them. We had MMPA even bid
[41:24] them out and so we went through that
[41:26] process once and the price that uh MMPA
[41:30] is offering us is pretty good price and
[41:32] like Reed said if we can lock it in
[41:34] because we don't know what's going to
[41:35] happen down the road. It may come where
[41:37] they extend out these requirements and
[41:39] let let the state the state says you
[41:41] have longer to become renewable and then
[41:44] those credit the number may go down. But
[41:46] this was a way to lock in $3
[41:50] million over 15 years. And so I guess
[41:54] that's that's why we're here. But as far
[41:56] as WA WAPA, they're we've been we've
[41:59] been working with them for a long time.
[42:01] We have a contract that runs till 2050.
[42:04] I believe it's 2050.
[42:07] >> Go ahead, Tim.
[42:08] >> These wrecks can uh fluctuate too,
[42:11] right, Keith? One year they were like 32
[42:13] 33,000. Now it's not that they fluctuate
[42:16] but not not that much. It was it's
[42:18] 65,824.
[42:21] This year I think back in 23 there were
[42:23] like 71,000
[42:25] because we we do get an aotment and I
[42:27] don't they fluctuate a little bit but
[42:28] not a lot. So anywhere from 68 to 71. So
[42:32] it'll be pretty steady. But uh yeah, and
[42:36] then the process if if you once you sign
[42:39] the document because we've already
[42:41] signed off, they could have a check to
[42:43] us and for 2025 here in about a week and
[42:46] so you you'll get you'd get a couple
[42:48] hundred,000 right away and then process
[42:51] they usually give us the Rex again come
[42:52] March and so so within a year you could
[42:55] probably have 400,000
[42:57] or so to to use for infrastructure.
[43:01] >> Great. Thank you, Mayor Olstead.
[43:03] >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, with this
[43:06] fund being sent up, so make clear that
[43:09] we are going to lay out within that so
[43:12] we don't have to go back 15, 20 years
[43:14] and go, okay, what do they mean we're
[43:16] doing with this, but also at the same
[43:18] time allow future councils to say, okay,
[43:22] we may change this with through a
[43:25] process. Um but
[43:28] to lay it out to make sure that we
[43:30] understand everybody understands it when
[43:31] they come off the street and read it
[43:33] that these are being used for this this
[43:35] and this or this has to be laid out
[43:38] because if it's not
[43:40] people can go well doesn't say that here
[43:42] we can use it for this you know so and
[43:46] if we're if we're looking at using it
[43:47] for
[43:49] economic development within
[43:52] infrastructure for the city
[43:55] uh helping out
[43:57] it with the discretion of the city
[43:59] council of where that money goes to. So
[44:02] the city council has a final say on it
[44:04] and don't listen to any recommendations.
[44:07] But
[44:09] that's my opinion.
[44:12] >> Okay, Mr. Helps.
[44:14] >> Yeah, I'd like clarification. Uh these
[44:16] wrecks you're talking about, are these
[44:18] distributed free?
[44:20] >> Yep.
[44:22] Okay. So it's like a gift. I mean you
[44:25] don't we didn't pay for them by
[44:27] belonging to the swapper or whatever
[44:31] >> or did we?
[44:33] >> No, we we buy the power from them and so
[44:36] >> this is one it's it's a megawatt hour is
[44:39] one wreck.
[44:40] >> Okay. And so we buy that amount of power
[44:43] from them. And so this renewable energy,
[44:46] it started, as you know, years back when
[44:49] they wanted wanted to get uh citizens to
[44:52] start using more renew renewables. And
[44:54] then these renewable credits, they came
[44:57] about about I don't know 15 20 years
[44:59] ago. And so yeah, we didn't pay anything
[45:02] specifically for the Rex.
[45:04] >> Okay. That's all I need now.
[45:06] >> People um customers, businesses.
[45:12] So, let's say if the grocery store,
[45:14] there's people they people that go do
[45:16] business with them, they like they like
[45:18] renewable energy. And so, so the
[45:21] customers tell entities that we want you
[45:24] to have renewable power. And so
[45:26] renewable energy credits is a way for um
[45:31] there is value to that because people
[45:33] that don't have enough renewable energy
[45:35] credits or if don't produce enough
[45:38] renewable energy, they can buy these
[45:40] credits to say that they're 100%
[45:42] renewable or 50% renewable and then that
[45:45] helps helps their business in return.
[45:47] And that's kind of the philosophy around
[45:49] renewable energy credits.
[45:53] Okay, go ahead, Reed.
[45:55] >> Yeah, thank you, Council President, if I
[45:57] may. Um, to Mayor Olstead's point and
[45:59] just kind of talk through the mechanics
[46:00] of that. Um, we will on the council
[46:04] agenda next week, we'll have the
[46:05] agreement that Water and Light approved
[46:07] last week for your approval and then we
[46:09] would have a resolution that lays out
[46:12] the definition of how this fund will be
[46:15] created and the parameters in which it
[46:17] can be used. I would base it off of some
[46:19] of the bullet points here that I
[46:20] included in this RCA. So, if there is
[46:23] any added scope that you'd like to see,
[46:25] I guess that discussion would be better
[46:27] had sooner than later so we know what to
[46:29] draft for next week. Um, and then in the
[46:32] mechanics of it on the accounting side,
[46:34] you know, we talked we've talked a lot
[46:36] recently about the 401 fund, right? this fund is going to get a number like
[46:40] that in our accounting system that would
[46:42] be included in the audit and there'd be
[46:44] an audit trail annually of what the
[46:46] revenues and expenses have been from it
[46:48] um and a name and so the name of it
[46:50] would be something along the lines of
[46:52] economic development infrastructure
[46:54] fund. Carla not notified me last week I
[46:57] might have a character limit on how many
[47:00] characters we can put in our accounting
[47:02] system but we'll something of that
[47:04] nature we'll we'll have it named so that
[47:06] it can be tracked properly.
[47:10] >> Great. So, so one one one
[47:13] other thing to mention is every time we
[47:15] sit in a utility meeting, we have
[47:17] discussions and people come in and they
[47:19] start talking about uh doing something
[47:21] or adding people in our entities to our
[47:25] industrial park. They always come up
[47:26] with utilities aren't expanded out into
[47:28] those areas, etc. you know, and so we we
[47:32] kind of hit a dead end and that was one
[47:34] of the main reasons why the commission
[47:35] and and I and others thought that it'd
[47:38] be good to go towards the industrial
[47:40] park because where are we going to
[47:41] create the most tax base the quickest?
[47:45] It's an industrial park. So that's kind
[47:47] of how this started.
[47:50] >> That's thankful. Thank you. Uh Mr.
[47:52] Helms, you had a comment.
[47:53] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um Reed, does
[47:56] this have to be voted on next week?
[48:00] Cuz that's like giving us a resolution
[48:02] to read, then we got to decide that
[48:03] night. It's not coming in front of a
[48:05] work session. So, don't give you any
[48:07] time if you want to change or do
[48:08] anything. So, we're kind of back to
[48:10] that. You know, Ben and I have both
[48:12] asked you uh to bring things to a work
[48:14] session first so we can at least see it
[48:17] before we know what we're voting on that
[48:18] night. So,
[48:20] >> yeah. Good. No, it's a great question.
[48:22] Um, I maybe look across to Keith. This
[48:25] the agreement that was approved by by
[48:27] Water and Light. No real time
[48:29] sensitivity to that. My reaction would
[48:32] be if you'd like to see the resolution
[48:34] in its drafted form, that could come to
[48:35] a work session in a couple of weeks and then we'd be into the first meeting
[48:40] in July before that was approved.
[48:43] >> Yeah. I don't it can wait. I mean, it's
[48:46] pretty strict.
[48:47] >> I mean, I'd like to see it happen. I
[48:48] don't know about anybody else, but I'd
[48:50] like to be able to look at it before
[48:51] >> the I mean, not saying anything's going
[48:53] to be wrong or I want to change
[48:55] anything, but I still like to see what
[48:56] I'm voting
[48:57] >> or as I'm thinking out loud, maybe the
[48:58] other approach would be to get the
[49:00] agreement signed is we'd have on the
[49:02] agenda next week approving the agreement
[49:05] and then at the following work session
[49:08] have the resolution that designates
[49:10] where these funds will go upon receipt
[49:13] and and ratify a resolution that speaks
[49:15] specifically to the creation of the the
[49:18] investment fund.
[49:19] >> I like that idea. At least get going.
[49:22] You have your money and then you can
[49:23] decide how you want to
[49:25] >> just to clarify. Forgive me. Are both of
[49:29] you gone next in two weeks?
[49:32] >> I will be gone the work session of the
[49:35] 23rd. Yes.
[49:36] >> Well, that's and you're gone, too. So, I
[49:38] mean,
[49:38] >> yeah.
[49:39] >> Do we want Reed here and Brian here to
[49:42] discuss the resolution? That's all I'm
[49:44] point. Yeah, fair point.
[49:48] >> I was just going to say it' be my
[49:49] recommendation to go ahead and sell the
[49:51] racks because that's what we want to do.
[49:54] >> And then after the fact, after the fact,
[49:57] we can put together or have a resolution
[49:59] put together and you can take a little
[50:02] bit more time instead of, you know, to develop your policy and to make sure
[50:07] that it's in inclusive. Um,
[50:13] that'd be just my recommendation.
[50:15] >> Yeah. I just like to see it getting
[50:16] written up as the mayor suggested, kind
[50:19] of what he was looking for, you know,
[50:21] cuz if we do it next week, it might not
[50:23] be what he's after.
[50:25] >> So, you're looking at the 14th of July
[50:27] then is next work session.
[50:30] >> All right.
[50:30] >> Yes.
[50:31] >> Yeah.
[50:32] >> Okay. Go ahead. I I was just going to
[50:34] say if we get if you approve just
[50:36] accepting the money, we can put a fund
[50:39] put the money in the fund and the
[50:41] resolution will just explain what you
[50:42] want to spend the money on, but we can
[50:44] deposit the money into a fund
[50:47] >> for the fund so that we get the money
[50:49] and it's accounted for.
[50:51] >> Yeah.
[50:52] >> Okay,
[50:54] >> great.
[50:55] >> That's a workable plan to do that.
[50:57] >> Good discussion. Appreciate that. Okay.
[50:59] Any other thoughts or comments on the
[51:01] MMPA uh renewable energy credits?
[51:05] Okay, seeing none, uh we'll move on to
[51:07] item number five then. Uh approving the
[51:09] year end transfers for budget year 2025.
[51:13] Miss Anderson.
[51:14] >> Uh thank you, President and Councel. Uh
[51:16] I put together the list of that
[51:18] transfers that were done. Um this is for
[51:20] the audit. Um we are uh closing up on
[51:23] our audit. We're just working on the
[51:25] financial statement. Um, so on here I
[51:29] put on there what was budgeted. I kind
[51:31] of explained a little bit in the RCA. So
[51:33] if we actually just go to the list,
[51:34] might be easiest. So the first one is
[51:37] the EDA transfer. We budget for that.
[51:40] And what that is, that's the um
[51:42] administrative account. So that's where
[51:45] um our EDA director and assistant come
[51:49] out of and their expenses. And then we
[51:51] just transfer that every year to what
[51:53] they spent. So, we budget 179 and odd
[51:56] change and we and we they actually spent
[51:59] 171. Um, same thing with the next one.
[52:01] We budget for our tax abatement program.
[52:05] Um, we budget 65,000. We actually spent
[52:08] $45,000.
[52:10] Cemetery, we budgeted 32,000. We
[52:12] actually moved 6,334.
[52:16] Um, that depends on our lot sales. I'll
[52:19] call them barium sales and expenses in
[52:22] the cemetery, but we do get that to a
[52:25] zero every year. Um, next one we have
[52:28] are the 17th Avenue sidewalk. We um had
[52:31] a few expenses this year even though it
[52:33] was completed last year. Um, and so we
[52:36] did move $8,686
[52:40] into the project fund, which is the $415
[52:42] fund, and that was taken out of our
[52:45] general fund, uh, capital projects fund,
[52:48] which we budget 35,000 in every year.
[52:52] Um, in the past, we have approved that
[52:56] we put so much in for street
[52:57] maintenance, which is like 280,000 every
[53:00] year, and then it goes up probably
[53:02] 10,000 a year. and that money was not
[53:05] all spent for the street improvements.
[53:08] So what we have done is that we've moved
[53:10] that budget into the capital project.
[53:14] Um so there is no actual money exchange
[53:16] is just the budget. Um and we stay
[53:18] within our budget and so we moved uh
[53:21] $140,000
[53:24] that wasn't spent. So we use that money
[53:26] to fund a lot of these projects as we go
[53:29] down the list here. Um that has helped
[53:32] because in the past if we didn't have
[53:34] that money that would come out of the
[53:36] 209 fund which is our street ma street
[53:38] state aid street maintenance fund and
[53:41] right uh as of 2024 that was in the hole
[53:44] and we get a allocation about 90,000
[53:47] every year. So this really was actually
[53:50] a good thing that happened this year
[53:51] because then we um can grow that 209
[53:54] fund for other projects in the future.
[53:57] So um St. Routes school there was a
[54:00] little bit left over um there was it
[54:03] actually wasn't a per se project as an
[54:07] infrastructure but we do have state
[54:09] route to schools projects where it's
[54:12] professionals people coming to the
[54:14] schools Nancy works with that program um
[54:17] transit budget we budget 100,283
[54:20] and we did transfer that um actually the
[54:24] federal government wants to have more
[54:27] money in that than what's in there, but
[54:29] we do budget to what we expect to spend
[54:31] and so we move that. Um if there was a
[54:34] shortage, the general fund always backs
[54:37] it. Um debt service, we um actually had
[54:41] a a bond deficit in um our fund 539,
[54:46] which is our last project for the
[54:48] streets. Um so we had um the city had
[54:53] the streets project in 2015, 16 and 17.
[54:56] We did it over 3 years and then we
[54:58] actually got a bond for it after it was
[55:01] completed and uh many people paid off
[55:04] their small specials that they had and
[55:07] so in when we do the bond we uh
[55:11] anticipate what we'll collect in
[55:12] interest to cover the payments and such
[55:15] and um we're actually short we don't
[55:17] have that and so um fund 527 was
[55:21] actually a 1995 1995 refunding bond
[55:26] and they had have cash in that. And so
[55:29] instead of looking at the general fund
[55:31] to fund this, we can take within our own
[55:33] bond funds and uh that have cash and
[55:36] that have been completed. They're all
[55:38] paid off. And so we did that for 104,000
[55:42] um debt service for the 2017 bond, which
[55:46] is the same fund 539. We budgeted 120 to
[55:49] cover that. Um then we have Lefay Park.
[55:52] We had just a little bit left um for
[55:54] some expenses that came through after
[55:56] year end um in 2025. Even though the
[55:59] project was completed, most of was
[56:02] completed in 2024, but we did know that there would be a few more expenses.
[56:07] So, uh fixed assets for the Lefay Park
[56:10] were done in 2025 and they were broken
[56:13] down by the actual assets. So, they're
[56:15] broken down by the dock and the
[56:17] sidewalks and uh the street. um land is
[56:22] not in our fixed asset. It's it's in our
[56:24] fixed asset group, but there's no
[56:25] depreciation on it. Um next one is uh
[56:28] the sidewalk multi-use connection which
[56:31] is over by the library. There was still
[56:33] a little bit of money to um cover that.
[56:36] So that came out of that general fund,
[56:37] capital project fund. on the quiet zone.
[56:41] Um there was actually um a few expenses
[56:44] on that and so we actually covered those
[56:48] with that cap general capital fund
[56:50] again. Uh sickly benefit fund, we
[56:53] budgeted 75,000
[56:55] and so that was moved out of our general
[56:56] fund budget. And just so you're all
[56:59] aware of the cash balance in that fund
[57:02] um is 705 is 67600,000
[57:08] and the sick leave acral is 830,000. So
[57:12] there still is a little bit of a break
[57:16] that we're short 154,000 but we only
[57:20] have to have enough in that fund as if
[57:24] we were going to close tomorrow. So, we
[57:27] know that's not going to happen. We're
[57:28] not paying everybody off in sick leave.
[57:30] So, we are fine at where we are for that
[57:32] balance, but that's why we budget every
[57:35] year to cover those payoffs for
[57:38] retirements, resinations, and such. Um,
[57:41] we get next we get to the civic center
[57:43] sales tax budget project. We actually
[57:46] had some leftover sales tax money from
[57:50] well actually that we started collecting
[57:52] in July and so we did move that money
[57:54] that we had collected up to that point
[57:57] um of $340,000
[58:00] and then that left like a balance of
[58:02] $700. So we took what we could and
[58:04] without taking all the cash. Um then we
[58:07] get to the civic center sales tax
[58:09] project. We did get a Mighty Ducks grant
[58:12] for 250,000
[58:14] which requires a match on it. Um when we were we were told we had to have a
[58:20] match into our resolution to accept it.
[58:24] We put down the building maintenance
[58:25] fund or the general fund. Um and what we
[58:29] always have been doing is that we've
[58:30] been budgeting in case we get grants of
[58:34] 50,000 uh match. So we move 2024 we in
[58:40] 2025 we did the 50,000 and in 2026 we
[58:44] don't have anticipate another grant so
[58:46] we will take the 50,000 to cover that
[58:47] mighty ducks grant so we don't have to
[58:49] use sales tax dollars for the match even
[58:52] though they have explained to us that we
[58:54] can do that we just assume not do that
[58:57] because we know it's going to be very
[58:59] tight to get the thing the project done
[59:01] with what we want done with the sales
[59:03] tax dollars. So, um that's why we're
[59:05] using that matching dollars in the
[59:07] general fund. Uh cemetery improvements.
[59:10] Uh there was uh the colarium we did they
[59:13] did with some sidewalk work. Um this we
[59:15] actually budgeted for this a couple
[59:17] years because it wasn't always
[59:18] completed. And uh that those come out of
[59:21] the perpetual fund to do those
[59:24] improvements. And the perpetual fund is
[59:27] um like an offshoot of the cemetery
[59:30] where when we sell a lot or colarium 40%
[59:34] of that collected goes into the
[59:37] perpetual fund to keep the cemetery
[59:40] going perpetually.
[59:42] That's why it's called the perpetual
[59:43] fund. Um next we have the um EDA
[59:47] discretionary fund uh restricted
[59:50] discretionary fund.
[59:51] >> Question.
[59:51] >> Yes. We don't see that on our on our
[59:54] packet here.
[59:55] >> Yeah. The last one we have here is that
[59:56] civic center at at 50.
[59:59] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:00:01] >> So, it can get covered and p pasted cuz
[1:00:04] I had sent it to Renee and somehow it
[1:00:06] must have knocked out on the next page.
[1:00:09] >> Well, you will have it on on
[1:00:12] >> I'm just No, no, thank you. We'll we'll
[1:00:14] fix it, but it'll be on the resolution
[1:00:15] on um
[1:00:17] >> for Tuesday.
[1:00:18] >> So,
[1:00:18] >> please continue.
[1:00:19] >> Okay. So, um, cemetery improvements,
[1:00:22] sorry that they're not on there. And
[1:00:24] then there's actually just three more.
[1:00:26] Um, and then and so anyway, the EDA
[1:00:28] restricted discretionary fund. So, in
[1:00:30] 2024,
[1:00:32] the EDA looked at what they accumulate
[1:00:35] for interest in their funds. Uh, so like
[1:00:38] in the myth loan, the ARP loans. So,
[1:00:40] when we get a loan to a business, we
[1:00:43] actually collect interest on their
[1:00:46] payments and we also collect interest on
[1:00:48] their fund. So it was decided that you
[1:00:51] know the fund is getting so large and
[1:00:53] there's so many restrictions in those
[1:00:54] funds that it would be better for us to
[1:00:57] use the interest that we would give
[1:00:59] those funds and start our own
[1:01:01] discretionary loan funds so that we
[1:01:03] could give out smaller loans to
[1:01:05] businesses um smaller business that just
[1:01:07] maybe need a grant of $10,000 or
[1:01:10] something. And so when we did that, we
[1:01:12] had put it into one fund and then uh
[1:01:15] Maggie did some research and the money
[1:01:18] coming from the myth loan needs to be a
[1:01:21] little more restricted. So we actually
[1:01:23] have two funds. So this was done
[1:01:26] actually in the beginning of the year to
[1:01:28] split the myth amount out of the
[1:01:31] discretionary loan which was interest
[1:01:34] 2024 and put that into the EDA
[1:01:37] restricted discretionary fund. So in
[1:01:39] 2025, um the interest occurs just like
[1:01:43] it's supposed to now and going to those
[1:01:44] funds, but they're not a transfer.
[1:01:46] They're interest on to what their cash
[1:01:49] balance is. Questions on that? Um and
[1:01:53] then the last one, um we haven't always
[1:01:55] put it on our transfers because it's
[1:01:57] kind of to us it's not really a
[1:01:59] transfer. It's just always been that we
[1:02:01] get a check. So water and light um have funded our building maintenance
[1:02:06] fund. Um we started at 250 and then now
[1:02:10] it's up to 400. They write us a check
[1:02:12] first check in January to fund into the
[1:02:15] 425 fund which is our building
[1:02:17] maintenance. And so it the outers say
[1:02:20] technically it's a transfer because
[1:02:22] water light and the city are are one
[1:02:25] entity even though they have to write us
[1:02:27] a check. So those two are missing. They
[1:02:29] will be on the resolution for Tuesday.
[1:02:32] >> Okay.
[1:02:33] >> Questions on anything?
[1:02:34] >> Thanks Carla. No, whatever you said, I'm
[1:02:36] good.
[1:02:37] >> Yeah.
[1:02:38] >> Well, I don't I don't want you to do
[1:02:39] that. I mean, if there's questions, I
[1:02:41] want you to ask questions.
[1:02:42] >> Dale's been quiet on us.
[1:02:44] >> Well, thank you, Dale.
[1:02:46] >> All right. Any questions for Carla?
[1:02:48] >> I see none. Thank you.
[1:02:49] >> Thank you.
[1:02:50] >> Yes. Okay. Uh, that brings us, I
[1:02:52] believe, right to the end of our agenda
[1:02:54] here for the work session. Uh, so we'd
[1:02:56] be looking for a motion to adjourn.
[1:02:58] >> Moved by Pakuinsky.
[1:03:01] >> Second.
[1:03:01] by Helms. All in favor say I. I
[1:03:05] oppose. Same sign. Okay. Motion passes.
[1:03:07] Uh work session is closed. And then if
[1:03:10] everyone will stick around here, we have
[1:03:12] a special meeting.
[1:03:16] And uh Reed, I let me know when you're
[1:03:19] ready. We can
[1:03:21] >> go right for it. Okay. Let's uh let's do
[1:03:24] it. Let's uh call to order the special
[1:03:26] meeting
[1:03:28] of the city of East Grand Forks for
[1:03:30] Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 at 6:04 p.m. Uh
[1:03:35] would the city clerk please call roll?
[1:03:38] >> Mayor Mark Olstead
[1:03:40] >> here.
[1:03:40] >> Brian L or Council President Brian
[1:03:43] Larson
[1:03:43] >> here.
[1:03:44] >> Council Vice President Tim Riael
[1:03:46] >> here.
[1:03:46] >> Council member Tammy Schumacher
[1:03:48] >> here.
[1:03:48] >> Ben Pukinsky
[1:03:49] >> here.
[1:03:50] >> Dale Helms
[1:03:51] >> here.
[1:03:51] >> Don Kism
[1:03:52] >> here. Karen Peterson
[1:03:54] >> here.
[1:03:55] >> Okay, we have a quorum. Uh, first item
[1:03:58] and only item uh for today here is uh
[1:04:00] consider approving resolution number
[1:04:03] 26-06-53.
[1:04:07] Uh, cannabis retail registration
[1:04:10] preapproval to Red Iris LLC located at
[1:04:14] 302 and 304 Demurs Avenue.
[1:04:19] >> Okay, we have a motion by Peterson. Is
[1:04:21] there a second?
[1:04:22] by Riael.
[1:04:25] Any question or discussion
[1:04:27] or Reed? Any any uh updates for the or
[1:04:30] not updates but comments for the
[1:04:32] council?
[1:04:33] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um no real
[1:04:36] change from what we discussed last week
[1:04:37] at the work session. Just maybe to the
[1:04:39] point on the resolution and Mr. Mr.
[1:04:41] Gston, I'll ask you to expand if there's
[1:04:43] anything you want to add, but we did uh
[1:04:46] try to draft the resolution um that lays
[1:04:49] out the history of the work that's been
[1:04:50] completed so far and what we learned
[1:04:52] from Red Iris and Chicago Atlantic over
[1:04:54] the last couple of weeks in the now
[1:04:56] therefore be it resolved portion of it.
[1:04:59] Um at the bottom uh to maybe some of the
[1:05:02] comments that council member Helms that
[1:05:04] you made reg requesting a timeline. Um,
[1:05:08] we kind of ended on Ron and I talked
[1:05:10] about it ended on that we didn't um,
[1:05:12] have a great uh, measuring parameter for
[1:05:16] how to put a timeline on it. Um, because
[1:05:18] there's so many outside entities that
[1:05:20] have control. Um, the Office of Cannabis
[1:05:23] Management on licensing and and a
[1:05:26] contractor to build the the
[1:05:28] improvements. Um, so Mr. Golstead
[1:05:31] suggested adding these last couple
[1:05:32] sentences here the that this extension
[1:05:36] may be revoked for failure to promptly
[1:05:37] acquire the property or to make
[1:05:39] substantial and timely progress
[1:05:41] renovating the building. Um so that at
[1:05:43] least we can have some level of of
[1:05:46] enforcement to the companies involved in
[1:05:49] this transaction to that they can show
[1:05:52] us
[1:05:54] uh progress towards acquisition and
[1:05:56] improvements. And then we know as we've
[1:05:58] learned with the others that when you
[1:05:59] get into the the licensing aspect for
[1:06:02] the office of cannabis management that
[1:06:04] sort of has a timeline of its own above
[1:06:06] and beyond the renovations. Um but this
[1:06:08] does have some some control parameters
[1:06:12] on our part that will require them to
[1:06:15] stay timely and keep us updated on their
[1:06:17] progress.
[1:06:18] >> Great. Thank you, Reed. Okay. Any final
[1:06:21] comments or questions? Seeing none, um
[1:06:24] roll call, please.
[1:06:28] Gazmi,
[1:06:31] >> yes.
[1:06:32] >> Peterson,
[1:06:33] >> yes.
[1:06:34] >> Larson,
[1:06:34] >> yes.
[1:06:35] >> Shoe marker,
[1:06:36] >> yes.
[1:06:36] >> Pakinsky,
[1:06:37] >> yes.
[1:06:38] >> Riael,
[1:06:38] >> yes.
[1:06:39] >> Elms,
[1:06:39] >> yes.
[1:06:40] >> Okay, motion passes. Uh, that's the end
[1:06:42] of the agenda for the special meeting. I
[1:06:44] would be looking for a motion to
[1:06:45] adjurnn. Oh.
[1:06:46] >> Moved by Puck Shivinsky. Second by
[1:06:49] Riapel. All in favor say I. I. Oppose.
[1:06:51] Same sign. Meeting is closed. Thank you
[1:06:53] everyone.