[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.

City Council 06 09 2026

Transcript