[0:12] Okay. At this time, I'll call the uh

[0:14] August 10th, 2026 uh city council work

[0:18] meeting to order. [clears throat]

[0:22] Need somebody to make a motion adopt

[0:24] agenda.

[0:25] » Make a motion to adopt.

[0:27] » Second.

[0:28] » Motion. Second. All in favor?

[0:30] » I

[0:31] » I.

[0:32] » Item three, oppose budget.

[0:35] » Mr. Mayor and Council, we are bringing

[0:37] the budget discussion back this evening.

[0:40] Um, we had brought it prior and there

[0:42] was a desire to bring it back uh to be

[0:45] able to review it a little bit more in

[0:47] depth and uh and to then bring questions

[0:51] back if there were any. And uh and so

[0:53] we're here this evening to answer some

[0:55] of those questions.

[0:56] one of our department heads is going to

[0:58] be running just a little bit late. So,

[1:00] um but anyways, uh just to by way of

[1:03] background, we received inputs from the

[1:05] city council department heads union

[1:07] contract put a budget uh model and book

[1:10] together and that was what was presented

[1:12] to you um the other council evening.

[1:16] Nothing has changed in that uh since

[1:18] that time. But again, just by way of uh

[1:22] kind of a reminder, the um the

[1:25] [clears throat] union contract has a 3%

[1:27] COLA increase for nine union and 13

[1:29] non-UN members, 40 paid on call

[1:32] firefighters per the union contract.

[1:35] There is an increase of two $1,510 per

[1:39] month for the cafeteria contribution for

[1:41] the healthcare benefit and overall

[1:44] salary and benefits uh increased by

[1:46] $21,000

[1:48] over 2026.

[1:50] Um

[1:52] the law enforcement contract uh is a

[1:54] 3.9% increase or $62,000

[1:58] from the prior contract. Uh city

[2:01] assessor is a 1% or a $500 change. city

[2:04] attorney is a 0% change. Metro Inet uh

[2:08] which is the joint powers agreement that

[2:10] we have uh for it work is a $6,000

[2:13] increase and the audit contract is a

[2:17] $2,000 increase. Those kind of just

[2:19] identify some of the um um cost drivers.

[2:24] the equipment replacement fund. We um

[2:26] have increased that by $40,000 to

[2:29] account for um some of the deficiencies

[2:33] that were in that fund, particularly as

[2:35] it related to the fire department. Not a

[2:38] fault of the fire department, but just

[2:40] some of the cost increases we're seeing.

[2:41] We've had to account for that. Uh street

[2:44] capital fund we increase by $50,000

[2:46] every year. The cost of uh asphalt keeps

[2:49] keeps going up. Um and uh so we try and

[2:53] offset that with an increase of 50,000

[2:56] and the park capital fund increases by

[2:58] 10,000 annually as well. You'll see the

[3:00] note in there again. We spoke about this

[3:02] last time. Uh there's a state fire aid

[3:04] contribution of $114,000 and this is an

[3:07] offset with the same revenue amount uh

[3:11] that uh comes through for that. So this

[3:13] is budget neutral, doesn't impact um the

[3:17] proposed levy, which is 5.8% 8% this

[3:20] year. Um I know that um I sat in on some

[3:24] meetings and 5.8

[3:26] uh is on the lower end of increases out

[3:29] there right now. Um not that we're a

[3:31] county, but I think I I just saw Dakota

[3:33] County was 19%

[3:35] increase. So costs are going up

[3:37] significantly. Um

[3:40] you see it when you pull up to the pump,

[3:42] you see it when you pay your electric

[3:44] bill. We see it here as well for the

[3:45] some of those costs. and um and so we

[3:48] try and try and keep it as low as

[3:50] possible and uh keep it as reasonable as

[3:53] possible for the residents. We feel that

[3:55] they're getting a a very good value for

[3:58] what they've gotten in the past and

[3:59] certainly going forward with this

[4:01] proposed budget. So, we stand for any

[4:03] questions if you have any. Um and

[4:06] hopefully we're prepared to answer

[4:08] those.

[4:10] Well, I'm just going to comment. I

[4:13] screded at trying to find something to

[4:16] cut to try to get it under 5% because I

[4:20] think this is the highest increase we've

[4:23] had in years, decades maybe. Um,

[4:28] and with the fire trucks that are so

[4:31] desperately needed and um,

[4:35] I

[4:37] noticed there was nothing in there about

[4:40] a maintenance fund.

[4:42] Am I correct or did I miss it? I was

[4:46] wondering if we could split the addition

[4:51] of the vehicle fund in half and put half

[4:54] of it in it and start a maintenance fund

[4:57] using that.

[4:59] » Yeah. Um Mr. Chair and council members,

[5:02] we we do set aside $50,000 every year

[5:05] for a maintenance. You're talking

[5:06] building maintenance. Yeah. Um, we've

[5:09] identified, remember we did a cost uh

[5:12] analysis

[5:13] » And that that's the fund I'm talking

[5:15] about the cost to cover some of the

[5:17] stuff that our future needs in that

[5:19] because things are deteriorating,

[5:23] » Right? Um, we we touched on this a

[5:26] little bit in the last meeting. Um,

[5:28] there was uh we had them go through a

[5:30] fine tooth comb of how old are your

[5:32] boilers, how is your roof, you know,

[5:34] when when do things need to be replaced?

[5:36] and they came up with a $2.5 million

[5:39] bill. It's significant.

[5:40] » I know.

[5:41] » Um so in combination with that, we had a

[5:45] space need study done. We have, for

[5:47] example, um you know, Nate shop over

[5:50] there. There's very little room to park

[5:52] vehicles and work on vehicles. It it can

[5:54] create a dangerous situation there. We

[5:56] have for the firefighters, we have um um

[6:00] a a decontamination

[6:02] requirement that we need to meet coming

[6:04] up. uh that uh we need to retrofit some

[6:08] of the fire stations to accommodate for

[6:10] that. Um and uh and so we're kind of

[6:15] looking at this whole idea as one. In

[6:17] other words, um the 2.5 million would be

[6:21] part of whatever cost would be needed

[6:23] for these space changes that that would

[6:26] be required. And um and that would be

[6:29] part of a a bond, if you will, to to

[6:33] offset that. You know, um we can set

[6:36] aside $100,000, but $100,000 a year is

[6:40] not really going to make much of a dent

[6:44] um in a $2.5 million, you know, backlog

[6:48] essentially of deferred maintenance. Um

[6:50] so, yes, it is a concern. We have our

[6:52] eye on that ball certainly. Uh we're not

[6:55] neglecting that at all. We're certainly

[6:57] not kicking a can down the road. Uh we

[6:59] have been replacing things as they, for

[7:01] example, the fire stations had a couple

[7:03] of HVAC units go out. We've been

[7:06] replacing those things with the dollars

[7:07] on hand. Um been managing to do that. Um

[7:11] if everything blew up tomorrow, we'd

[7:14] have a major problem. But likely that

[7:17] won't happen. Um, you know, there's when

[7:21] you're when you're dealing with heating,

[7:22] ventilation, air conditioning, they

[7:24] always give you the option of, well, we

[7:26] can fix it, which you might get x amount

[7:28] of time out of it, or you can replace

[7:30] it, and then they give you a price

[7:32] comparison for that. Um, but, uh, you

[7:35] know, you're talking fixtures like sinks

[7:38] and toilets and things. They're not

[7:40] going to break tomorrow necessarily. Uh,

[7:42] but they do have lifespan and they will

[7:44] need to be replaced at some point or

[7:46] another. Um,

[7:49] so yes, we're definitely

[7:51] we're definitely concerned about that uh

[7:54] that storm cloud in the future, you

[7:56] might say, and we're planning for that.

[7:58] So,

[8:02] the equipment um you know, you said you

[8:04] said about splitting it or whatever. The

[8:05] equipment is um few years back the fire

[8:09] department purchased two two engines

[8:11] that were a good deal back then. Very

[8:14] smart financial choice to do back then.

[8:16] Unfortunately, when those two come due

[8:18] for replacement,

[8:20] now you're dealing with today's prices

[8:21] on two of them. So, we've we've

[8:23] staggered that now so that it's not a

[8:26] two unit replacement at the same time.

[8:28] It's one and then one in the future and

[8:30] and kind of getting it on that schedule.

[8:32] And that's really what those dollars are

[8:34] for is um is preparing for those future

[8:38] expenses

[8:39] um in the capital improvement budget

[8:44] » Or the plan the plan which produces the

[8:46] budget for the future.

[8:49] » And when is the um [clears throat]

[8:52] final vote on this budget?

[8:54] » September 14th is the preliminary vote

[8:57] we would take and then

[8:58] » And we have one more meeting for it. So

[9:00] if I come up with something, I can bring

[9:02] that to the attention at the next

[9:04] meeting.

[9:04] » You can always do that. Yep.

[9:06] » Okay. [clears throat]

[9:07] » You can go lower, you can't go higher

[9:09] after after that vote. Yeah.

[9:14] » My question is [clears throat] with the

[9:16] sheriff's budget, has anybody really

[9:19] looked into this on how we could save

[9:21] money with the sheriff? If any

[9:23] negotiations with them at all?

[9:28] This discussion comes up every year in

[9:31] terms of where they're at and what

[9:32] they're proposing. I I know they're not

[9:34] proposing any increase in hours or

[9:36] anything like that,

[9:37] » Right?

[9:37] » Um the

[9:40] you know I I think you that discussion

[9:43] needs to be evaluated with the calls,

[9:47] » The number of calls we're getting, which

[9:48] we seem to be getting an uptick in in

[9:50] some calls. Thankfully, some of the

[9:52] serious ones are are trending down, but

[9:55] um some of the other ones, your your

[9:57] thefts or your, you know, assaults or

[9:59] things like that seem to be trending up

[10:01] and that generates a call and u time and

[10:04] and you know, and then the nexus plays

[10:07] in there as well, which generate has

[10:09] generated a lot of calls in the past.

[10:11] Thankfully with a reduced uh um

[10:14] » Amount of people

[10:15] » Amount of people your calls have been

[10:16] reduced dramatically which which is good

[10:19] » Because that had a a budget impact to us

[10:21] » Right because I got a print out that I

[10:24] want you to look at and you go over it

[10:25] another time but uh I'll sit down with

[10:29] you and go over this with ideas. You

[10:32] don't have to look at it now. We can do

[10:34] it after. Okay.

[10:35] » But uh I mean just for an example I

[10:39] don't know if everybody remembers

[10:41] at when Derek did his report on the

[10:43] budget the last meeting that I didn't

[10:46] catch it right away. Tim Miller actually

[10:48] caught it and we talked about it. But

[10:51] Derek stated that East Bethl buys a new

[10:55] squad car every year.

[10:58] So my thought, well, it wasn't my

[11:01] thought, it was Tim's thought. He said

[11:03] that, okay, at the end of the year, why

[11:07] don't we own that car then? Why don't we

[11:10] if we're buying it, it should come back

[11:13] to us and we can sell that car to

[11:16] somebody else. So, this has been going

[11:18] on for who knows how many years. But

[11:20] it's stuff like that. If you look into

[11:22] it, we can probably change things. So,

[11:27] that's just one example. So, it's just a

[11:29] thought. It's like if we're buying a

[11:31] squad car every year, then we should

[11:32] probably get one back at the end of the

[11:33] year and then we can sell it for

[11:35] whatever somewhere to recoup the money

[11:37] so the have to pay all this stuff, but

[11:41] there's different ways to look at the

[11:43] budget, that part of it, too. You know,

[11:44] there's different things to look at.

[11:46] Just something to go by negotiations on

[11:49] it. So, once you get a chance to read

[11:51] that, get a hold of me, we can talk.

[11:54] » I would I would assume on on that on a

[11:57] vehicle like that, part of it

[11:58] depreciation and then they're getting

[12:00] the cars cheaper, too.

[12:01] » Sure. But the point is we're buying it.

[12:04] » Yeah. No, we back at the end of the

[12:05] year. We could sell it for what we can

[12:07] sell it for. Yeah, my my guess, and it's

[12:10] just a guess at this point, is that they

[12:13] say that a car cost X number of dollars.

[12:16] It probably actually costs more than

[12:18] that, but they're factoring in the

[12:20] amount of money that they would get an

[12:22] auction for that vehicle.

[12:24] » I don't know. Police cars.

[12:25] » Yeah, police cars are kind of hot. You

[12:27] know, people like them. They generally

[12:29] have bigger motors or

[12:31] » They're fast [laughter] and they're

[12:33] wellmaintained

[12:34] » And they're super wellmaintained. Um,

[12:35] exactly.

[12:36] » So they they pull a premium, but it's a

[12:38] val valuable question because without

[12:41] » Hearing directly from them, no, we

[12:43] factor that in. It's only a guess.

[12:44] » Exactly. That's why I just figured we

[12:46] might as well check it and see.

[12:52] » Mike, I got a question on the fire

[12:54] budget here. Um,

[12:57] why is it we're not showing the 2% money

[13:00] from last year? There's no nothing

[13:02] budgeted in there.

[13:04] Why was that blank? And this year we're

[13:06] back to it.

[13:08] [clears throat]

[13:13] » Yeah, for some reason we don't have that

[13:16] even listed in 26.

[13:21] » I'm just going to bring this up so I can

[13:23] find what you're referencing here.

[13:26] » It' be uh 128.

[13:30] Yep.

[13:31] » Yep.

[13:32] » So right there. So, this is where the

[13:33] transition actually hit somewhere in

[13:36] there. And my assumption was because it

[13:38] doesn't actually hit the city's bank

[13:40] account that we wouldn't have to account

[13:41] for it. So, I took it out of your

[13:43] budget. So, that was that whole note

[13:46] then saying at audit time, I actually

[13:48] have to book this in as an expense out

[13:51] and the revenue in.

[13:53] » Right. I agree with that. I was just

[13:55] curious. I didn't see it on the budget

[13:57] sheet.

[13:58] » Yeah. So, it wasn't on there. So, it

[14:00] must not have been brought to my

[14:02] attention, I guess, at that time when

[14:03] the budget went in. So, but when the

[14:05] 2026 is done, when this is actually in

[14:08] there, you'll see a number in there

[14:10] right there.

[14:12] » So, for 26, I must I took it out because

[14:16] again, it never actually does hit the

[14:18] city's books. So,

[14:20] » No, I know that just

[14:23] for documentation.

[14:24] » Yeah. But yeah, when there's when the

[14:27] actuals come in, it'll show right here.

[14:30] So,

[14:30] » Okay.

[14:31] » Yep. And that'll obviously be a variance

[14:33] to the budget, but there'll also be a

[14:35] variance to the budget on top with the

[14:38] revenue. The revenue comes in.

[14:40] » That's why it shows

[14:41] » Yeah. So, the revenue doesn't have

[14:43] anything.

[14:43] » Fire department at 15.5%.

[14:45] » Yeah. Exactly. So, if you take

[14:46] [laughter] if you take that out, if you

[14:48] take out the fire aid, you're back down

[14:50] to 5%. Jeeoff and I that was one we

[14:54] talked about because it looks a little

[14:55] concerning, right? when you have a 15%

[14:57] increase, but it's because we're adding

[14:58] in kind of a non it's kind of an

[15:01] accounting entry at the end of the year.

[15:03] » No, you know, so the fire department

[15:05] budget's actually 5% if you would just

[15:08] kind of take that part out. But yeah, so

[15:10] in 26 we didn't budget for it

[15:13] um on the revenue side or the expense

[15:15] side, but now since we know that we have

[15:18] to do an accounting entry basically put

[15:20] that back in there, we add it back to

[15:22] the budget.

[15:25] » Um I wanted to ask question regarding

[15:28] the sheriff. Um, if the sheriff

[15:33] department

[15:34] has the ability to levy, why do all the

[15:38] cities levy for them?

[15:43] » U, Mr. Mayor and Council, I if I

[15:46] understand your question, I don't

[15:48] believe they have the right to levy.

[15:50] » I believe I'm told they do by the

[15:53] somebody at the county, but um

[15:54] » The county the county board establishes

[15:56] the budget for the sheriff. the sheriff

[15:59] can spend the his budget however he sees

[16:02] fit. Um

[16:06] and um because he's an independently

[16:08] elected official um

[16:11] he does not levy I I you might be

[16:15] referring to the um

[16:18] fire pro not fire protection council

[16:20] it's the um

[16:23] it's it's the other council that um that

[16:27] deals with law enforcement uh JLE

[16:30] JLE can levy because they've gotten Um

[16:34] that's a joint law enforcement council.

[16:37] Uh they've gotten um permission through

[16:39] the state of Minnesota to do that and

[16:41] they do levy for special projects like

[16:44] for example um uh they want to do radios

[16:48] or whatever, replace all the radios,

[16:50] they'll levy for that. And believe it or

[16:52] not, that is significant money. Um

[16:57] so you'll see that on a public safety

[16:59] line on your on your property taxes.

[17:01] That's for JLE. But the sheriff himself,

[17:05] he belongs to JLE.

[17:07] He's a member of JLE and pays a a due if

[17:11] you will. Um but

[17:15] he does not levy himself.

[17:17] » Okay. I was just told that and so I

[17:20] thought, well, I'm going to bring that

[17:21] up.

[17:21] » Yeah. If he did levy himself, it would

[17:24] take a lot of pressure off the county

[17:25] commissioners. I know that.

[17:26] » Yeah.

[17:28] » But yeah.

[17:38] I guess my other question would be on

[17:41] the planning and zoning part. Oh,

[17:43] they're at 35% increase.

[17:48] And I see it it's all up in pretty much

[17:50] line item 101.

[17:54] So again, a little a little background

[17:56] that uh community development position

[17:58] has been vacant for x amount of years

[18:02] now and we were slowly funding it um by

[18:05] a percentage like if the the employee

[18:07] was to start in March, we you know we

[18:09] prorrate the salary for 2027. It's in

[18:13] there at 100% of the salary. [snorts]

[18:15] So um you're going to see a big increase

[18:18] now in 2027 for planning and zoning, but

[18:27] Okay.

[18:34] Any other question systems?

[18:40] » I guess you're good, Mike, till the next

[18:42] one.

[18:44] Um just a reminder then we will have the

[18:46] preliminary budget at the September 1st

[18:49] September meeting and then the December

[18:51] meeting the first December meeting you

[18:52] can like Matt had mentioned you can

[18:55] lower the levy at that point but you

[18:57] cannot hire it. So whatever you approve

[19:00] um in September will be the highest you

[19:02] can set it at. So,

[19:04] » Okay.

[19:05] » So, with that, we'll we'll bring this

[19:06] back in September for uh for adoption of

[19:09] the preliminary budget, and we'll also

[19:10] have your um sheriff contract on there

[19:13] as well to get that form.

[19:16] Sounds good.

[19:20] Okay. Item four.

[19:30] Okay, Mr. Mayor and Council, the um um

[19:34] there was kind of some recent calls that

[19:37] folks have been getting from um [snorts]

[19:39] some shooting in neighborhoods and and

[19:42] there was a desire to put the firearm

[19:46] ordinances uh up on, you know, on a work

[19:49] session to kind of see what is legal and

[19:51] what isn't legal. Uh, and I have

[19:55] the um if I can find it.

[19:59] Um,

[20:03] here's

[20:10] our code of conduct.

[20:13] It's under here.

[20:18] Article four of our code identifies

[20:21] firearms, gives a definition meaning a

[20:24] gun that discharges shot or projectile

[20:26] by means of an explosion, gas, or

[20:27] compressed air. Um, and it says

[20:32] specifically addresses prohibited use

[20:34] near buildings. Uh, no person shall use,

[20:36] fire, or discharge a firearm in the city

[20:39] within 500 ft of any dwelling, house, or

[20:41] commercial or industrial building.

[20:43] person, however, may use fire or

[20:45] discharge a firearm within such distance

[20:48] of a dwelling, house or commercial

[20:50] industrial building which is owned by

[20:52] that person or if that person has

[20:54] written consent of the owner of the

[20:56] property um to to use fire or discharge

[21:00] that firearm. Um, so it kind of defines,

[21:05] you know, some of the penalties in here

[21:08] and, uh, but this is really the only

[21:10] part of our code, um, that that

[21:13] addresses the use of the firearm. Now, I

[21:16] think every good neighbor would know

[21:18] that there's a reasonable time to

[21:21] discharge a firearm and there's a not so

[21:23] reasonable time. And um and if you're

[21:26] discharging a firearm on a continual

[21:28] basis, I think at that point it might

[21:32] get into nuisance.

[21:35] And um and if you're discharging a

[21:37] firearm because you don't like your

[21:38] neighbor and you want to you know um

[21:42] create a you know a um you know what's

[21:48] the best way to put it? you want to you

[21:50] want to uh essentially um upset them or

[21:54] try and create a scenario that that

[21:57] they're uncomfortable with. I think at

[21:58] that point it's definitely a nuisance.

[22:01] Um so

[22:03] again, when you when we kind of I think

[22:06] what brought this a lot of this up is

[22:08] the the state changed um south of 95

[22:12] used to be shotgun only. uh they allowed

[22:15] they allow now rifle by decision of the

[22:18] county and my understanding is our

[22:20] county uh is not taking a position on on

[22:24] what can be used and uh and so there's

[22:28] that concern on that side of you know uh

[22:32] how far will a rifle travel versus how

[22:34] far will a shotgun you know slug travel.

[22:38] Uh we know that shot will travel you

[22:41] know 40 50 yards but you know your um

[22:44] your uh your slugs might travel up to

[22:48] two to 300 yards. I mean they're they're

[22:50] highly effective

[22:52] methods of if you're shooting at deer or

[22:54] whatever the case is. Um you know most

[22:57] people are discharging a firearm be a

[23:00] shotgun or a rifle within 50 yards of a

[23:03] deer or something like that. maybe a 100

[23:05] tops, but you're probably running into

[23:08] trees at that point. Um, so I think in

[23:11] this particular instance, the the

[23:14] individual was discharging a rifle and

[23:18] um was discharging it on a repeated

[23:21] basis and and kind of creating a use

[23:26] term firestorm, but a significant issue

[23:29] in his neighborhood. Um, we have

[23:32] families that I've spoken to that, um,

[23:36] don't really want to let their kids out

[23:37] during the day to play when they hear,

[23:40] you know, a firearm going off. Uh, we

[23:42] have a we have a range not too far from

[23:44] here, you often hear shots going off

[23:45] there. Uh, but I guess when it's your

[23:48] next door neighbor, it can be it can be

[23:50] a crack. It can be pretty loud. Um, so

[23:55] I'm we want to bring this forward not

[23:57] suggesting a change to

[24:00] um policy at this point unless you you

[24:03] guys are the policy makers. You get to

[24:05] decide. But um

[24:08] but if um if there's a firearm that's

[24:11] discharged within 500 ft of someone

[24:14] else's dwelling, if a firearm is

[24:17] discharged at somebody,

[24:19] um you know, at that point, it's highly

[24:23] recommended that the sheriff be called

[24:25] and that you know, police report be

[24:27] written and and um and some

[24:30] investigation done because it can get

[24:32] very serious obviously.

[24:35] So, I don't know if

[24:38] anyone wants to comment on it, but

[24:41] wanted to kind of You can see it's just

[24:43] a a short little section.

[24:47] » Yeah, my neighbors shoot target practice

[24:50] all the time. They have 20ome acres.

[24:53] They hunt on their property. It doesn't

[24:55] bother me at all. Um, I'm not for

[24:58] restricting any gunfire because I think

[25:01] it would affect them and hunting hours

[25:06] start really early in the morning for

[25:08] deer hunting and um although they don't

[25:11] go late into the night. Um, I think we

[25:16] just have they'll just have to call the

[25:17] police. you know, maybe if you put

[25:20] something in a noise ordinance where

[25:22] it's um after between midnight and 3:00

[25:26] or 4:00 a.m., you know, cuz that would

[25:29] help with some of the firework

[25:30] complaints that we get to. [laughter]

[25:33] [gasps] Um,

[25:35] but I'm not for restricting any

[25:37] firearms. I think that's

[25:39] unconstitutional

[25:41] all all the way.

[25:49] I don't know that I I'd ever restrict

[25:52] it, but our

[25:54] our ordinance is pretty big. It could

[25:57] use some addressing. I don't see

[26:00] restricting any weapons. It just it's

[26:03] vague and could be,

[26:06] you know, redone a little.

[26:09] One of the challenges, Mr. Mayor and

[26:11] Council, is the penalty, as you'll see

[26:13] here, is a misdemeanor.

[26:15] um a traffic ticket's a misdemeanor. So,

[26:18] it could be a petty misdemeanor, but

[26:19] anyways, it's um

[26:22] not a serious violation, you know, for

[26:25] doing this. And

[26:27] but I I think if you can if if it starts

[26:32] to

[26:34] uh become a nuisance, that's possibly a

[26:37] different scenario.

[26:39] um

[26:41] then it's not done for recreational

[26:43] purposes necessarily. It's done to

[26:46] literally upset your neighbor, you know,

[26:49] scare their kids or whatever the case

[26:50] is. And that's

[26:56] not necessarily a good thing.

[27:04] Yeah. Growing up here, gunfire is

[27:08] something you just kind of always hear

[27:10] at random times.

[27:13] If it gets in the case of nuisance,

[27:15] that's a different situation. But like a

[27:18] lot of people say, they move up here for

[27:19] the country and acorage and

[27:23] everything that comes with it.

[27:26] One of those can be in gunfire.

[27:31] If it's a nuisance, then [sighs]

[27:36] I don't know if we would

[27:39] have to deal with it if it came to that

[27:42] level on a case-byase basis

[27:45] if it was a grievous.

[27:51] » Yeah. One of the challenges with

[27:53] nuisance is the ability to define

[27:55] nuisance.

[27:56] » Yes.

[27:56] » You know, one person's

[27:59] feeling of nuisance is different than

[28:00] another person's. Well, I I think with

[28:03] uh in the case of uh ATVs and dirt

[28:07] bikes, we have something in there that

[28:10] says if it's used continuously for this

[28:12] amount of time,

[28:15] then it could be considered a nuisance.

[28:18] So maybe if we need a little bit of

[28:21] language like that in there, I don't

[28:23] know.

[28:26] I can research nuisance a little bit

[28:28] more to find out

[28:29] » As it relates to

[28:30] » How it might relate.

[28:34] » Of course, seems how we have a gun

[28:37] range, they would probably need to be

[28:40] » Exempted.

[28:41] » Yes.

[28:49] » All right. Anything else on that one?

[28:54] Okay. Moving on to five.

[28:58] » Okay. Um, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, we

[29:00] received a complaint

[29:03] uh from a neighbor that an advisory

[29:08] uh member was

[29:11] saying things or doing things that they

[29:13] felt was inappropriate. We don't

[29:15] necessarily want to take that

[29:18] as fact necessarily, but um um but

[29:22] again, it's

[29:26] We don't have [clears throat] any sort

[29:28] of

[29:30] member code of conduct documents at all

[29:33] that might say this is how we would

[29:34] expect you to to you know conduct

[29:38] yourself if you're appointed to a

[29:40] committee or commission. Um some cities

[29:44] have code of conducts for elected

[29:46] officials. Some cities say well your

[29:49] code of conduct is your election. you

[29:51] know, next time you run, they'll they'll

[29:53] the public will determine code of

[29:55] conduct. Um, so we have a couple of

[29:58] examples in here. If I can pull those

[30:01] up.

[30:03] Um,

[30:07] so I'm going to pull up the other one

[30:08] here first.

[30:10] So in this particular one it's um

[30:14] city of Long Lake goes into

[30:19] you know purpose standards of conduct

[30:22] uh goes into how to conduct a meeting

[30:25] goes into open meeting law conflicts of

[30:27] interest which is valuable gifts and

[30:30] donations can't receive those disclosure

[30:34] disclosure of information I think is is

[30:36] important uh working with the community.

[30:40] Um

[30:42] um and

[30:44] kind of kind of then breaks out advisory

[30:47] board members are not authorized to make

[30:49] positional statements on behalf of the

[30:51] city council and care shall be taken by

[30:53] advisory board advisory members when

[30:55] expressing a position to accurately

[30:57] clarify whether such a position is that

[31:00] of the individual member or of the board

[31:04] on which the member sits. So they try

[31:06] and touch on it, right? Um

[31:10] and um

[31:14] take a good stab at it, I guess, maybe

[31:16] is is a good way to say it. Um try and

[31:18] find a different one here that

[31:21] this is for

[31:24] uh North Oaks code of conduct. They get

[31:26] into the council members, mayor, uh,

[31:29] compliance with the law, conflict of

[31:31] interest, prohibitions, and data

[31:33] practices,

[31:34] uh, standards of conduct. Um, you know,

[31:37] it says councils and commissions are

[31:39] composed of individuals with a wide

[31:41] variety of backgrounds, personalities,

[31:42] values, opinions, and goals. Despite

[31:44] this diversity, all have chosen to serve

[31:46] public office in order to preserve,

[31:48] protect, and enhance the present and the

[31:50] future of the community. In all cases,

[31:53] this common goal should be acknowledged

[31:55] even as the council and commissions may

[31:57] agree to disagree or on contentious

[31:59] issues. Um, so it's,

[32:03] you know, again touching on decorum in

[32:06] public places. Um,

[32:08] um, you know, how to address the mayor

[32:11] or the the person running the meeting

[32:14] and, uh, being punctual. private

[32:16] conversations are are um essentially

[32:20] public conversations in in some cases

[32:22] whether it's hot miked or it's uh you

[32:24] know someone does a data request they

[32:26] can get access to texts or whatever. um

[32:31] uh it's talking about written notes and

[32:33] text messages and so there's a there's a

[32:37] lot in this and this was in your work

[32:39] packet if you've had a chance to review

[32:41] it and um and what I think if I need to

[32:45] summarize it what we want to

[32:47] » We never got this packet part of the

[32:49] packet

[32:50] » No all I got is the agenda

[32:53] » We got the agenda

[32:56] » Okay well I apologize for that I I don't

[32:59] know if it's on the website or not, but

[33:01] we can certainly send this out for

[33:03] future uh discussions. Um but um but

[33:08] essentially

[33:11] kind of getting back to the to

[33:13] complaint, there was a complaint that a

[33:15] a commission member said that, you know,

[33:17] they're going to do this or they're

[33:19] going to do that, that they have the ear

[33:20] of the council to do this or, you know,

[33:23] threaten that.

[33:24] and and that kind of gets into

[33:27] maybe using your position um

[33:30] inappropriately. Um

[33:33] and uh and so this is why we wanted to

[33:36] bring it. Obviously,

[33:38] if if there is a violation of some sort,

[33:41] we can go through a whole process of

[33:43] determining if it's actually true or

[33:44] not. you know, we don't even know if

[33:45] that's true, but um uh there's a due

[33:49] process portion of it that everyone

[33:51] would would be able to defend

[33:53] themselves. No, I didn't or this is why

[33:55] I said it or whatever the case may be.

[33:58] We've had some commission members come

[33:59] up and and bless the council. Okay. Um

[34:04] they are certainly entitled to freedom

[34:06] of speech. However, uh it can bring some

[34:10] level of disrepute upon the board and it

[34:12] can um you know undermine the the the

[34:17] board in in the in the community. Um

[34:20] should that be something that they can

[34:21] do? That's that's the policy question,

[34:23] right? Um

[34:25] or should they one when on a a board or

[34:29] commission be limited to a decorum of

[34:33] some sort that you know respects the the

[34:36] um the council as the ultimate decision

[34:39] makers. They're an advisory board to you

[34:42] in in this particular situation and um

[34:45] and you guys make the ultimate decision.

[34:47] You can choose to go with their advice.

[34:50] You can choose to go a different route.

[34:52] that's totally within the power of the

[34:54] of the board. Um, so this is the this is

[34:58] the discussion. Um, [clears throat]

[35:01] you know, if you guys want us to bring

[35:03] this back as a,

[35:05] you know, look deeper into it or if

[35:08] it's,

[35:10] you know,

[35:13] let people say what they want to and

[35:14] we'll sort it out later.

[35:17] I don't know what the other option is.

[35:18] » Was there a written complaint filled out

[35:20] on this?

[35:22] Um,

[35:24] I will double check if there I believe

[35:25] there was

[35:27] » Because on that I think I remember us

[35:29] talking like last year or whenever it

[35:30] was. When you get a written complaint,

[35:33] us on council should probably get a copy

[35:35] of that so we know what we're talking

[35:36] about because otherwise we don't know.

[35:40] That's important if you can do that.

[35:43] » I will double check make sure.

[35:45] » Thank you. Um the individual I'm

[35:47] referring to some of you know well

[35:51] » Um and uh a lot of it is hour-long

[35:54] conversations.

[35:56] Um so this is why

[36:01] sometimes people want to elaborate you

[36:03] know in in in their conversation.

[36:06] So, we're not necessarily going to say

[36:08] we're going to take it for truth,

[36:10] » But if there's a document that's out

[36:12] there that that we can send to somebody

[36:15] and say, "We're not saying you did.

[36:16] We're not saying you didn't, but just

[36:18] review this for future, you know,

[36:19] reference or whatever the case is." When

[36:21] they get appointed to a commission,

[36:23] here's a document. This is the

[36:25] expectation.

[36:26] um doesn't have to be ownorous, but at

[36:31] least it can give, especially as it

[36:33] relates to gifts and you can't take

[36:35] gifts. You can't be on the board voting

[36:38] for your own interest, you know, right?

[36:42] » Conflict of interest type of scenario.

[36:43] So being aware of that is somewhat like

[36:47] and I'll and I'll liken this to when you

[36:49] get elected, the League of Minnesota

[36:51] Cities puts on a um uh first time

[36:56] elected deal, dos and don'ts, right? And

[36:59] it's um and it's valuable information

[37:01] because you don't know what you don't

[37:03] know until somebody helps you say, "Nah,

[37:05] you don't want to go down that road.

[37:06] You'll get in trouble for doing that."

[37:08] Um, so this would be something similar

[37:10] because they don't have a dos and don'ts

[37:12] for commission members when they get

[37:14] appointed. It's, you know, get appointed

[37:17] and take the seat and you're off and

[37:18] running. So anyways,

[37:20] » I think it's a good idea to put

[37:22] something in writing because if

[37:24] somebody's saying that they can

[37:25] influence our votes, that's not good

[37:28] because nobody can influence me. I vote

[37:31] my heart

[37:32] and residents. Well, I think I think the

[37:36] commissions do influence you in terms of

[37:38] the you know, they vote a certain way.

[37:40] you look at the meetings or you watch

[37:41] the meeting the meetings on online on

[37:44] the decision like the planning makes you

[37:46] know planning and zoning um they they

[37:49] may influence you may agree with them

[37:51] you may not agree with them but if

[37:53] they're using that by saying

[37:56] you better do what I tell you to do or I

[37:58] I'm going to you know utilize my power

[38:00] to you know to come back against you in

[38:03] a neighborhood rel you know scenario

[38:06] that's not the role and function of that

[38:09] any board that we have here, I guess,

[38:11] you know.

[38:12] » Um, so, and again, that's the claim.

[38:16] We've heard a lot of wild claims, but

[38:19] whether that's true or not,

[38:21] hypothetically, it should never happen,

[38:23] I guess. But

[38:26] I think something just general, maybe a

[38:29] couple pages,

[38:32] » Um, at the most,

[38:32] » But we don't need to get into explicit

[38:36] detail of, um, some of the stuff. Uh

[38:39] because I know when I first got on

[38:41] planning uh many years ago, there wasn't

[38:45] anything there wasn't anything given to

[38:47] me. It said show for next meeting. Sit

[38:49] here. Here's your packet.

[38:51] » Good luck.

[38:52] » Yeah.

[38:53] » Uh so, you know, some education is

[38:56] great. Uh, one thing that can be

[38:59] included is, uh, links to the League of

[39:03] Minnesota C's website for, uh, for

[39:07] particular,

[39:08] um, they have particular packets put

[39:11] together on particular roles, particular

[39:13] information. Um, so that if they want to

[39:17] do further research, they certainly can.

[39:19] Here's the education there. Here is

[39:21] where you can go for a lot of your

[39:23] answers.

[39:28] And I will send these out. Make sure you

[39:30] get them as well so you can review them.

[39:31] » Yeah, send them out and we'll bring this

[39:33] back up at a future work session.

[39:36] » Yeah.

[39:37] » Perfect.

[39:38] » All right.

[39:38] » All right. Moving on to six.

[39:46] that one.

[39:54] Six is an update on code enforcement

[39:55] activity, short-term rentals, large

[39:58] events. And I have Eric with us here

[39:59] this evening to

[40:01] um give us a little more background on

[40:03] one of the cases that he's working on. I

[40:06] believe this is it.

[40:12] short

[40:15] in your uh thank you mayor and council

[40:19] for taking this matter up in your

[40:21] workshop here. Um

[40:23] » Please talk in the mic.

[40:24] » Well, I'm sorry. I got to move over

[40:26] here. Uh again, thank you for uh taking

[40:28] this matter up um in your workshop. Um

[40:32] the city's received several complaints

[40:34] about uh a rental activity occurring at

[40:37] 1 19520 Tri Oak uh Circle and um

[40:44] the the owner of that site um has been

[40:48] uh renting that space out as an VBO.

[40:54] um using it for uh hosting um large

[40:59] groups through that VBO.

[41:01] Um just I'm just showing the pictures.

[41:04] They've hosted wedding events at this

[41:06] site. Um and I just want to share those

[41:11] images with you. There have been a

[41:12] number of complaints from uh the abuing

[41:15] property owners. Um and city has sent

[41:19] two letters to the owner um requesting

[41:22] they cease the operation of renting the

[41:24] property um and ceased using the

[41:27] property as um a commercial venue. Um

[41:32] first notice sent in Mayuh 2026,

[41:36] second notice sent in June and we did

[41:39] actually post a notice on the door on

[41:42] July 16th again asking them to cease the

[41:46] operation.

[41:48] Um, part of our letters also included uh

[41:52] that if you do need to have a rental

[41:54] license in place before you can you can

[41:58] operate uh this type of venue. Not the

[42:01] commercial operation, mind you, but just

[42:03] the the renting it as a VBO type matter.

[42:07] um the applicant or the owner um

[42:11] only submitted um partial return of

[42:14] their application. Um late last week,

[42:19] I'm sorry, early last week, they did

[42:21] provide um set up a time for a final

[42:25] inspection of the site. So, that'll

[42:27] happen, I believe, August 20th and

[42:30] ultimately um potentially back before

[42:33] you for that rental license. However, um

[42:38] we have not gotten to that point. Um

[42:40] they have they have operated

[42:43] um illegally, for lack of a better word.

[42:46] Um our city attorney is here and I I

[42:49] appreciate him coming here and and and

[42:52] sharing. Um but essentially the staff

[42:55] has exhausted um all of its capacity for

[42:58] sending letters, you know, asking um

[43:02] it's really boiled down to uh mayor

[43:04] council um

[43:07] what would you like us to do next? And

[43:10] um our city attorney is here and and

[43:16] I think that's the policy direction we

[43:18] are asking and and the city attorney is

[43:21] is asking for. Um, and with that, Mark,

[43:25] I

[43:26] » Sure convert it over to you.

[43:28] » Sure. Um, so I it's my understanding

[43:30] that, you know, a policy decision like

[43:32] this, whether we're going to charge a

[43:34] citizen of the city with a ordinance

[43:36] violation like this is kind of something

[43:38] that the the the thought is to have a

[43:40] discussion with the council first. I

[43:42] think in the past it may have been that

[43:44] the city would go through its exercises

[43:46] that it has of sending out the

[43:47] correspondence and trying to bring the

[43:49] property owner into compiance. Then if

[43:51] they didn't, just be referred to the

[43:53] prosecutor's office to charge out and

[43:55] then sometimes there's questions about

[43:57] that after the fact. So, this is trying

[43:59] to be or the goal here is to get the

[44:01] direction from the council as a whole

[44:03] because this is not a theft crime. This

[44:05] isn't a DWI. This is someone who isn't

[44:08] complying to the city ordinances. And of

[44:10] course, the goal of the city, well,

[44:12] well, two things I'll comment on. One,

[44:14] you know, the city's going to be

[44:16] complaint oriented. So, the city's

[44:17] responding to complaints on something

[44:19] like this. So, this has been complaints

[44:21] from the neighbors who have complained

[44:22] about these issues that that were just

[44:24] described by Eric. Um, so we're not

[44:27] seeking them out. And then the the goal

[44:29] the the attempts have been made to get

[44:31] the property owner into compliance. Now,

[44:33] and and that is at the end of the day

[44:35] ultimately the goal to have property

[44:37] owners in compliance with the city

[44:38] ordinance, state statutes, and so forth.

[44:41] As Eric just said that there has been

[44:44] this ongoing violation of the city code,

[44:46] which is a crime. It's a misdemeanor to

[44:48] be in violation of the city code,

[44:50] punishable by up to 90 days in jail,

[44:51] $1,000 fine. Both often times the goal

[44:54] of criminal prosecution more so than

[44:56] having somebody spend time in jail

[44:58] usually is to have them come into

[45:00] compliance with the code. So, as as Eric

[45:03] just described, this individual, this

[45:04] property owner has been making slow

[45:07] strides towards coming into compliance.

[45:10] One of those things is by going through

[45:11] our processes to apply for a rental

[45:13] application. Um, she submitted that. I

[45:16] believe she's got to do some allow for

[45:18] some inspections to occur and so forth

[45:20] and then she will potentially be into

[45:22] compliance with regard to having a

[45:24] rental property and as Eric said not to

[45:26] have these events commercial or

[45:28] otherwise happening that's another

[45:29] story. So we're sitting at this point

[45:31] where uh she's close to coming into

[45:34] compliance doing the things we've asked

[45:37] but she's not there yet and of course we

[45:38] have the issue of past violations. Now,

[45:41] what's also unique about this and part

[45:43] of what's happened since in the last

[45:45] month or two here is that as uh the

[45:48] deputy sheriffs have gone out there to

[45:49] respond to the complaints, they've

[45:51] gathered some information to actually

[45:53] prove that in fact the property was

[45:56] being rented by those people that were

[45:58] there who said yes, I rented the

[46:00] property. We did it through the VBO.

[46:02] Because that's of course obviously in

[46:03] order to prove this in the court, you

[46:05] have to have you know the evidence that

[46:08] the person did in fact violate the

[46:09] ordinance and you have that

[46:11] So I guess again from a policy decision

[46:14] it's does the council want the next step

[46:16] would be for us to do a formal complaint

[46:17] and charge the individual and again seek

[46:21] to have them come further into

[46:22] compliance and so forth. So I think

[46:24] that's where we're at.

[46:32] » So Mr. Mayor and council in the prior

[46:34] what you know policy for the city had

[46:36] was when we kind of exhausted all the

[46:39] options we just turned it over to the

[46:41] attorney and the attorney would

[46:43] prosecute and then you would get phone

[46:45] calls and say why is the city suing me

[46:47] and you folks would be like we don't

[46:49] know anything about it. So the policy

[46:51] then changed to

[46:53] once we exhaust all of our options then

[46:55] we bring it to the work session then you

[46:58] decide is this something where we need

[47:01] to take it to that next level and

[47:03] prosecute and if so um you know we had a

[47:07] couple of options whether it's abatement

[47:09] we've talked about or whe what whether

[47:11] it's you know going through the normal

[47:15] prosecution process or or what. Um, so

[47:18] that's why it's here this evening. Um,

[47:21] and um, just as a side note, not to

[47:25] complicate matters here, but um, in the

[47:28] Friday uh, update, I I I identified this

[47:32] property as kind of the, you know,

[47:36] they're going through a rental process,

[47:38] but they're really not renting it the

[47:40] way that our intention of a rental

[47:43] ordinance is. In other words, if you're

[47:45] going to rent your property for 6 months

[47:46] or a year or five years or whatever the

[47:48] case is, this is a weekend type of deal,

[47:50] which would fall into the short-term,

[47:53] you know, type of concept, which is

[47:55] standing by. I mean, completed, you

[47:58] know, we're we're going to bring it uh

[48:00] for um the council to review and and

[48:03] potentially approve. So, we're kind of

[48:08] thinking the best option, at least in

[48:10] terms of clarity for courts, if it gets

[48:13] there, is the rental license is really

[48:16] not applicable in this situation. And if

[48:18] she applies for and gets one, it's still

[48:21] not applicable in this situation. So um

[48:25] one we should probably define a rental

[48:28] license in terms of time that would

[48:30] apply to six months or a year you know

[48:34] short term then is less than six months

[48:37] you know uh type of a time frame or a

[48:39] month or a weekend or however it wants

[48:42] to be defined. And then at that point um

[48:46] uh then you can obviously say that she

[48:49] has neither one

[48:52] but she would need the one that best

[48:55] suited would be best suited and and then

[48:58] the council gets to decide okay do you

[49:01] really want to given the history on this

[49:03] do you want to issue a short-term rental

[49:05] license because your phone's probably

[49:07] going to be ringing off the hook.

[49:09] you know, you you can put guard rails

[49:12] around it. You know, there can only be

[49:15] 2.5 people per room or whatever the deal

[49:18] is. And what happens when there's 10?

[49:21] You know, your phone's ringing off the

[49:23] hook. So, that's kind of the scenario

[49:26] we're in.

[49:27] » One other thing I'll comment on from

[49:29] what I understand um

[49:32] from speaking with the law enforcement

[49:34] is that I believe this particular

[49:37] individual, the propertyy's listed for

[49:38] sale now.

[49:40] which is that that's that's great.

[49:42] They're fine, whatever. Uh so if you

[49:45] have a rental

[49:47] situation, then it goes away because the

[49:49] new buyer has no interest in doing that,

[49:51] then

[49:53] this is part of the prosecution question

[49:55] because then you prosecute someone

[49:56] potentially no longer reser.

[49:59] So

[50:02] » Yeah, that's a waste of money going to

[50:04] prosecute somebody and their house

[50:06] sells. I'm like maybe we should wait and

[50:09] see. I did want to make a comment on

[50:11] this because I

[50:14] was informed that several after the last

[50:17] planning commission meeting where they

[50:19] discussed this um several houses on that

[50:23] or properties were vandalized on Tri

[50:25] Oak.

[50:28] So, I just want to bring that up because

[50:31] I I feel like there was some kind of a

[50:33] vendetta because it happened either the

[50:35] day or the second day after the last

[50:37] planning commission meeting. I'm like,

[50:39] this is not good.

[50:42] » I don't know. We've heard of that.

[50:44] » Yeah. The paint reports,

[50:47] » Mailboxes painted, cars

[50:50] messed up, stuff like that.

[50:53] I think our first process is to get the

[50:56] ordinance changed so that we can put the

[51:00] limit of time, you know, designated

[51:02] basically in the ordinance before we can

[51:05] even attack this short-term rental

[51:07] stuff.

[51:09] » I agree.

[51:10] » Otherwise, we don't have any leverage in

[51:13] court, period.

[51:14] » Yeah. and depending on

[51:17] the timeline of how quickly we get it

[51:21] done and would we be able to use that

[51:25] ordinance on this particular case.

[51:29] some legal questions that we probably

[51:32] have to get into at some point because

[51:33] he can't retroactively go out back

[51:36] grandfather laws etc blah blah blah

[51:39] but that is definitely one issue to look

[51:43] into and if

[51:47] if we want to allow short-term or are we

[51:51] just reacting to the this one problem

[51:54] issue to avoid future problem issues for

[51:58] the short-term rentals.

[52:05] » Most cities, I believe, are using it

[52:08] just because of the influx of so many of

[52:12] these popping up. Now, you go north up

[52:16] the Briner Lakes area, you know, there

[52:18] you got a huge problem up there with

[52:20] this huge problem. I mean, and anywhere

[52:24] you got a big body of water, it's going

[52:27] to come.

[52:30] So, we need to address the ordinance to

[52:33] start with. Period.

[52:34] » Mayor, and council, if I may. Um,

[52:38] so the the planning commission did hold

[52:42] a public hearing on the proposed

[52:43] short-term rental ordinance. Had a

[52:45] number of people um that showed up and

[52:48] spoke in favor of it. Um, I think it was

[52:51] a balanced, well, well wellreceived uh

[52:53] plan. Um, it certainly looks for ways to

[52:59] advocate for people to have a successful

[53:02] uh VRBO, a successful short-term rental.

[53:05] Um, few twists and turns aside, you

[53:07] know, I I would speculate that it'll it

[53:10] will be uh reasonably wellreceived. Um

[53:16] to the council uh administrator look's

[53:19] comments about uh clarifying the current

[53:22] rental ordinance you have. Um yes that's

[53:25] something that is should be done in

[53:27] tandem with this to uh specify that you

[53:31] know basically 30 days or less is

[53:33] shortterm 30 days or more is is the more

[53:36] traditional rental which we all kind of

[53:38] understand. Um however um the case we

[53:43] have now with um this this address um

[53:47] has been in violation for some time. Um

[53:51] and

[53:53] even if you had your short-term rental

[53:55] license in effect, again this is

[53:56] speculation, but even if you had your

[53:58] short-term rental license in today or

[54:01] you had this process in place today, um

[54:04] that property would not be in

[54:06] compliance. So I think what staff is

[54:08] maybe for is

[54:11] how else can we convey to this

[54:13] individual

[54:15] that um you are operating contrary to

[54:18] the current law

[54:20] um and yeah you've submitted some things

[54:22] but you're not there yet and in the

[54:24] meantime uh please cease. So I think

[54:28] maybe that's

[54:29] what we're asking for. I realize that

[54:32] there's cost associated with that. So

[54:34] would you be looking for say a drafted

[54:37] letter by the city attorney addressing

[54:40] that that uh if it comes from the city

[54:42] attorney may have more teeth? I I have

[54:45] no objection to that but it's up to you

[54:47] know you folks and [clears throat]

[54:49] obviously given the direction we're

[54:52] happy to do that. Um sometimes that does

[54:55] help certainly seeing something on

[54:57] letterhead and so forth. We just don't

[54:59] want to like you. It's a valid concern

[55:01] that the council would have is we just

[55:03] don't want it to be letter after letter

[55:04] and why is Berglin charging us all this

[55:07] money for these letters that seem to be

[55:08] going nowhere. So if we do a letter

[55:11] which is perfectly fine. It does make

[55:13] sense because it will indicate and it's

[55:14] true that our next step is to do what we

[55:16] would call a formal complaint and then

[55:18] bring charges in district court and the

[55:19] person individuals will have to come to

[55:21] court. So we just want the council to be

[55:23] aware of that so that it's seen that

[55:25] okay we're taking these steps and this

[55:26] is the next logical step.

[55:30] I I I don't think I have an issue with

[55:32] uh approving one letter to address and

[55:37] if

[55:38] we can reconvene on what happens

[55:43] after that in a month or so. We'll see

[55:47] what happens.

[55:47] » See what kind of response we get back.

[55:49] So,

[55:50] » Eric, have we passed the 30-day

[55:52] threshold

[55:54] » For I'm sorry, mayor, for

[55:56] » For her application. Every complete

[55:59] complete application

[56:00] » Her her complete application um so,

[56:05] okay, uh I believe she completed her

[56:08] paperwork application on or around July

[56:11] 28th, you pick a number. Um she then had

[56:16] to advise the city and coordinate with

[56:21] um Nick Schmidz, the building official,

[56:23] to get an inspection. That is now

[56:25] scheduled for the 20th.

[56:28] Um and then once Dick would write his

[56:31] report, presumably we'd package that up

[56:33] and bring that to you for final

[56:35] approval. Um, but in the meantime,

[56:38] again, that's still probably not that's

[56:41] still even in a best case scenario,

[56:43] probably a month away.

[56:46] » Nick's going to bring the fire marshal

[56:47] with them, too, right?

[56:48] » Yes.

[56:49] » Okay.

[56:49] » I mean, again, it's a

[56:53] not a complete uh, you know, this is a

[56:57] health, safety, welfare, you know, fire

[56:59] safety versus a, you know, a commercial

[57:01] inspection type thing. We do have a

[57:03] pretty good checklist and and certainly

[57:05] the building officials been through

[57:07] those many times. Um but even in the

[57:09] best case scenario, it's a month away

[57:11] and um

[57:15] I think I believe the city attorney

[57:17] haven't we already sent her one letter

[57:18] from

[57:19] » We we sent her one letter indicating

[57:20] that she needed to get the application

[57:22] in

[57:23] » And then she and she complied with that

[57:25] which is positive. Um so that's where it

[57:29] sits.

[57:31] So what is the one thing we can do that

[57:34] has teeth? It would I mean from where I

[57:37] sit as a as a attorney prosecute

[57:39] attorney is to if the correspondence has

[57:43] been exhausted would be to do what we

[57:45] call as I said earlier a formal

[57:47] complaint lays out what the charges are

[57:49] and usually makes sense in a ordinance

[57:51] violation situation to do that because

[57:53] it's not as I said earlier just a simple

[57:55] theft or a DWI and I know those are not

[57:58] simple but in any event you need a

[57:59] little more explanation of what's going

[58:01] on citations to the code and so forth

[58:02] and then what that really does is it

[58:04] forces an individual ual to come to

[58:06] court in order to respond to and that's

[58:09] where you have to deal with the issues

[58:11] in court. Well, that uh brings people

[58:13] out of the comfort of their own home

[58:15] into the courtroom. If they don't show

[58:16] up or they ignore that, then we have the

[58:18] the ability to seek a warrant because

[58:20] they didn't come to court um and those

[58:23] kinds of steps. So, that's the teeth.

[58:26] And of course, at the end of the day,

[58:27] the ultimate threat and purpose of that

[58:29] is if someone doesn't comply with the

[58:31] ordinance and um are convicted of the

[58:34] offense and they could potentially be

[58:36] fined financially or face jail time.

[58:42] » So the question is, do we have enough

[58:45] form [clears throat] of formal

[58:46] complaint? I I I I indicated earlier

[58:49] that with um the uh law enforcement

[58:52] going out there and gathering the

[58:53] information, another thing to keep in

[58:54] mind, but [snorts] gathering the

[58:55] information of those individuals that

[58:56] they spoke to that were actually renting

[58:58] at the property and identifying them. I

[59:01] think I I believe so. Yes,

[59:05] » Let's do it.

[59:06] » I would say that's move forward with the

[59:08] formal complaint

[59:11] » Consensus.

[59:13] If they the house sells,

[59:16] is everything dropped then or do you

[59:18] continue because the crime was

[59:21] committed? So,

[59:22] » So we as the prosecuting authority

[59:25] always have the decision- making in that

[59:28] regard and um and we can certainly talk

[59:30] about this as larger conversation, but

[59:32] uh if if the house sold um then that

[59:37] person is no longer going to be a

[59:39] concern of violating the ordinance, at

[59:41] least as to that, that that may be a

[59:44] cause to decide to dismiss the charges

[59:47] if that made the most sense or something

[59:49] along those lines. Often times with

[59:51] ordinance violations, if people come

[59:52] into compliance, like I said, that's the

[59:55] goal. That may result in the charges

[59:56] being dismissed because they've come

[59:58] into compliance and we're no longer

[1:00:00] receiving complaints. But if the So I

[1:00:04] can't say that definitively, but we have

[1:00:06] that ability to do that. Yes.

[1:00:07] » Okay. We got to cut this off. Uh

[1:00:10] [clears throat] we've given staff

[1:00:11] direction

[1:00:13] and we'll move forward with that. Okay.

[1:00:16] » Okay.

[1:00:17] » All right. At this time, I'll close the

[1:00:18] morning meeting. on my quick recess.

[1:00:22] » Yep.

[1:00:23] » All right, let him in.

[1:03:14] They're

[1:03:25] good.

[1:04:31] right there.

[1:04:46] » Okay. Okay. At this time, I'll call the

[1:04:48] uh

[1:04:50] the uh August 10th, 2026 regular council

[1:04:53] meeting to order.

[1:04:56] » Please rise if you can for the pledge

[1:05:01] to the flag of the United States of

[1:05:03] America and to the republic for it

[1:05:06] stands nation.

[1:05:16] Okay, I'm going to make a quick

[1:05:17] statement here.

[1:05:21] Um,

[1:05:26] there are mo moments in public service

[1:05:28] when words feel too small for the weight

[1:05:31] of our hearts.

[1:05:33] Today is one of those moments. We gather

[1:05:36] not to debate policy or pass ordinances

[1:05:39] but to honor the life of colleagues

[1:05:43] friends and who have left us too soon.

[1:05:47] I ask you for a pause with me for a

[1:05:50] moment of silence to remember the voices

[1:05:52] in this chamber, the laughter in the

[1:05:55] hallways, their unwaving commitment to

[1:05:58] the people we serve. For Tim Miller,

[1:06:01] please hold pause.

[1:06:13] Thank you.

[1:06:16] » I'll make a motion to adopt today's

[1:06:18] agenda.

[1:06:18] » Second.

[1:06:20] » Have a motion and a second. All in

[1:06:21] favor? I

[1:06:31] » Presentation

[1:06:33] recognition and pinning ceremony of

[1:06:35] firefighter

[1:06:45] mayor, members of the council, citizens

[1:06:48] of East Bethl, thank you for being here.

[1:06:51] Uh thank you for allowing us this

[1:06:53] opportunity also to recognize two

[1:06:55] firefighters that are being pinned and

[1:06:57] graduating from probationary firefighter

[1:06:59] to uh to firefighter.

[1:07:04] Uh today we recognize

[1:07:06] uh Peter Boyham and Brandon Alfred for

[1:07:10] completing the rigorous 12-month

[1:07:12] probationary period. They have proven

[1:07:14] their skills, their grit, and their

[1:07:16] dedication to the city of East Bethl.

[1:07:19] Each of these uh two gentlemen in front

[1:07:21] of you completed over 140 hours of

[1:07:25] classroom and hands-on training uh in

[1:07:28] the fire academy as well as 40 hours of

[1:07:31] EMR or more for EMT training. Countless

[1:07:35] hours of studying and participating in

[1:07:40] study groups to pass the necessary

[1:07:42] tests. The city of East Bethl Fire

[1:07:44] Department also has a probationary book

[1:07:47] that we require of these candidates and

[1:07:50] it teaches them the way that East Bethl

[1:07:52] Fire Department operates and how we use

[1:07:55] our equipment and how we serve the

[1:07:57] public.

[1:07:58] I would like to congratulate you guys on

[1:08:00] completing that and being here.

[1:08:08] Good evening members of the council. Uh

[1:08:10] just a couple quick words um kind of to

[1:08:13] go over what we're doing here tonight.

[1:08:15] In a few moments, a family member or a

[1:08:17] mentor will step forward to pin a badge

[1:08:19] over your heart. To the casual observer,

[1:08:22] this is a polished piece of metal, a

[1:08:24] part of a uniform, but to those who wear

[1:08:26] it and the community we serve, it's a

[1:08:28] sacred symbol of lifealtering

[1:08:30] commitment. The badge is shaped like a

[1:08:32] shield for a reason. Historically, the

[1:08:34] shield was a warrior's primary tool of

[1:08:36] protection used to stand between a

[1:08:38] threat and those who cannot defend

[1:08:40] themselves. When you pin this badge on

[1:08:42] today, you are telling the citizens of

[1:08:44] East Bethl that you are now their

[1:08:46] shield.

[1:08:48] This badge carries three distinct

[1:08:49] weight. Three distinct weights. The

[1:08:52] weight of the past. You are wearing the

[1:08:54] reputation of every firefighter who has

[1:08:55] come before you in this department.

[1:08:57] Their sacrifices, their sweat, and their

[1:09:00] integrity are polished into that metal.

[1:09:02] do nothing to tarnish it. The way to the

[1:09:05] present. This badge identifies you as a

[1:09:07] professional. When you step off the rig

[1:09:10] at a scene, people will look to this

[1:09:11] badge for hope. It tells them that the

[1:09:13] help they prayed for has arrived.

[1:09:16] The weight of the future. By accepting

[1:09:18] this badge, you promise to be a guardian

[1:09:20] of the fire services traditions and a

[1:09:22] student of its future. You are now part

[1:09:24] of a lineage that never sleeps.

[1:09:27] As your family pins this badge today,

[1:09:29] remember that it is pinned over your

[1:09:31] heart because that is where the true

[1:09:32] strength of a firefighter lies. It is

[1:09:34] not in the gear or the trucks. It is the

[1:09:36] courage and the character of the person

[1:09:38] wearing that shield.

[1:09:40] Uh at this point, we'll have you guys

[1:09:42] stand at attention.

[1:09:45] And we'll have your family uh come

[1:09:47] forward and pin your badges on your

[1:09:49] chest.

[1:10:18] » [applause]

[1:10:27] [applause]

[1:10:29] » Now the oath of office

[1:10:40] » I will citizens

[1:10:43] » And firefighters

[1:10:47] » With honor and integity

[1:10:48] » With honor and

[1:10:50] » That I will in all respects

[1:10:52] » I

[1:10:53] All respects

[1:10:58] of the United States

[1:11:01] United States of Minnesota.

[1:11:24] » [applause]

[1:11:33] [applause]

[1:11:35] » I am going to take this moment um we

[1:11:37] have a full house tonight. If I can and

[1:11:41] this is no disrespect any citizens. I

[1:11:43] would like to invite all the East Bethl

[1:11:45] firefighters that came here to celebrate

[1:11:48] these gentlemen if we could just for a

[1:11:50] second.

[1:11:51] » Come on in. [applause]

[1:12:02] [applause]

[1:12:12] » [applause]

[1:12:22] » And I know that we have a significant

[1:12:24] amount of family here. I would also like

[1:12:26] to thank them for sharing uh Peter and

[1:12:29] Brandon with us and allowing them to

[1:12:31] serve the community as we go forward.

[1:12:34] Thank you. [applause]

[1:12:42] [applause]

[1:13:01] All right. Moving on to the public

[1:13:05] forum. I would want to remind you when

[1:13:07] you come up to the mic, speak your uh

[1:13:10] name, address,

[1:13:12] and uh

[1:13:14] remind yourself that you have three

[1:13:16] minutes basically to speak so we can get

[1:13:19] through everybody.

[1:13:21] At that time, I'll entertain. And I

[1:13:24] think it's

[1:13:25] it's hard to read the writing, but

[1:13:27] should I make two well

[1:13:31] » Stowall?

[1:13:31] » Stwell.

[1:13:34] [clears throat]

[1:13:39] » I'm Channing Stoall. I live over on uh

[1:13:43] 227th Lane just off East Bethl. Um I've

[1:13:47] been before this board several times uh

[1:13:50] in my capacity. I've last four years

[1:13:53] I've served on the Anoka count county

[1:13:57] election integrity team and really

[1:14:00] tonight I'm more just a mailman uh

[1:14:03] distributing some details on the issue

[1:14:06] of uh marks of certification on our

[1:14:11] election equipment.

[1:14:13] Um I don't want to debate it. The real

[1:14:16] details are in the last four pages

[1:14:19] starting on 13. Uh I just wanted to

[1:14:23] circulate this document for you.

[1:14:26] Uh it was uh highlighted in Liz Collins

[1:14:30] more recent documentary

[1:14:33] uh Minnesota Mau. Um it happens that in

[1:14:38] April of 2027,

[1:14:40] I'm sorry, 2020,

[1:14:43] um the

[1:14:46] both the EAC, the election

[1:14:49] uh acceptance commission, uh notified

[1:14:53] ESS, the manufacturer of our equipment,

[1:14:57] uh that the equipment did not meet

[1:15:01] federal standards and that the marks of

[1:15:05] certification. The little stickers on

[1:15:08] the machines had to be removed and they

[1:15:12] were removed in April of 2027

[1:15:15] and to our understanding they've never

[1:15:18] been replaced. Now, there's a lot of

[1:15:20] issues involved with it and I don't want

[1:15:22] to discuss them right now, but I did

[1:15:24] want to deliver this information to you.

[1:15:27] I think there will be more discussion to

[1:15:29] come over the next several months and I

[1:15:32] wanted you to be informed as to uh the

[1:15:35] details on the situation. I'll be glad

[1:15:37] to answer other questions now or later.

[1:15:40] But uh that my main point is just to

[1:15:43] inform you and present you with some

[1:15:45] details because I know it will be uh

[1:15:48] discussed a lot more in the press.

[1:15:52] Any questions?

[1:15:54] » How do we fix it?

[1:15:56] How do we fix it? How do we make them

[1:15:58] back into compliance?

[1:16:00] » How [clears throat] do we

[1:16:02] » Making them back into compliance?

[1:16:05] » Um, we're looking at that right now. Um

[1:16:08] it's there's a lot of legal details and

[1:16:11] um I've we've got one member who spent

[1:16:14] over 1,200 hours looking into and

[1:16:17] researching this uh backwards and

[1:16:20] forwards and uh we're in discussions

[1:16:22] with the county and the secretary of

[1:16:25] state now. Um

[1:16:28] and there's no resolution yet.

[1:16:31] » Thank you.

[1:16:33] » Thank you. You're welcome,

[1:16:36] » Mr. Lewis.

[1:16:38] » I know, but I'll take her.

[1:16:43] » Okay, [clears throat]

[1:16:49] » Mayor, council members, I'm Stacy

[1:16:53] Miller. I reside at 214437

[1:16:56] Street. I stand before you tonight to

[1:16:59] formally express my desire to be

[1:17:01] appointed to Phil Council Councilman

[1:17:03] Timothy Miller. My husband Tim Tim

[1:17:07] Miller cared deeply about the community

[1:17:09] and took his responsibility as a

[1:17:11] councilman very seriously. He poured his

[1:17:14] heart, his time, his energy into serving

[1:17:16] this community. I had the privilege and

[1:17:19] the honor of standing side by side with

[1:17:22] him through every meeting and community

[1:17:24] event. Because of this, I understand the

[1:17:27] immense responsibility of the office,

[1:17:30] the challenges our city, our city faces,

[1:17:32] and the visions he had for the future.

[1:17:36] His passing has been a tremendous loss

[1:17:38] to our family and to this city.

[1:17:50] I am asking to replace him, but no one

[1:17:54] could ever replace him. But I would be

[1:17:57] honored to be considered for an

[1:17:59] appointment to fill the remainder of his

[1:18:01] term. My goal is my goal in stepping

[1:18:04] forward is not only to honor his memory,

[1:18:07] but to ensure the continuity

[1:18:09] [clears throat] for the residents we we

[1:18:11] serve together. I am already I am

[1:18:14] [clears throat] ready to step into the

[1:18:15] role immediately with zero learning

[1:18:17] curve to continue the vital work he

[1:18:20] started and a strong dedicated voice for

[1:18:24] our neighbors.

[1:18:26] I know this is a significant decision

[1:18:28] for our council and I ask your trust,

[1:18:31] your vote to allow me to serve the

[1:18:33] community and its capacity. Thank you.

[1:18:45] might as well come up. Kevin,

[1:18:51] » Mayor, council members, city

[1:18:54] administrator look, community

[1:18:56] development director Johnson, and

[1:18:59] attorney Burgl and you folks.

[1:19:04] Over the course of the past few years, I

[1:19:07] became a good friend of Tim Mullers. We

[1:19:10] started working together on the city

[1:19:12] council, but then it evolved into

[1:19:14] something more

[1:19:16] we both like to play pool, so we tried

[1:19:18] to have a pool match every week in the

[1:19:21] middle of which we would quit and

[1:19:24] take a break so he have a cigarette

[1:19:27] [laughter]

[1:19:28] and so Stacy could play cribage with us

[1:19:31] and that's how we became close friends.

[1:19:34] Um, I'm aware that uh, well, first of

[1:19:37] all, Stacy's too modest to say this, but

[1:19:40] she's probably the smartest person in

[1:19:42] this room. She's extremely intelligent,

[1:19:46] and what she everything she said is true

[1:19:48] as far as how they worked as a team on

[1:19:51] preparation for city council meetings on

[1:19:54] all that. I've never known a tighter

[1:19:56] couple.

[1:19:58] I've been married to my wife, my lovely

[1:20:00] wife, for over 44 years, and we're not

[1:20:03] as tight as they are. So, I mean, it's

[1:20:05] it was remarkable. Best friends and

[1:20:08] counselors and all that.

[1:20:10] What we're what Stacy just asked you to

[1:20:12] do is customarily

[1:20:15] granted just on the face of it. It's

[1:20:18] considered the right thing to do.

[1:20:22] Uh,

[1:20:26] excuse me. I'm having my own moment.

[1:20:29] Uh, there's things that are right and

[1:20:32] things that are prudent. As she said,

[1:20:35] she doesn't have a learning curve. She

[1:20:37] can step right in. Uh,

[1:20:41] it's talking about finishing a fourmonth

[1:20:43] plus term,

[1:20:45] not running again or anything else. So

[1:20:49] on the basis of custom on the basis of

[1:20:54] the right thing to do on the basis of

[1:20:57] humanity

[1:21:00] you need to grant her request. Thank

[1:21:02] you.

[1:21:05] Thank you, Kevin.

[1:21:08] Uh,

[1:21:10] Hermanson.

[1:21:18] Good evening, uh, mayor and council

[1:21:20] members. We are Aaron and Michelle

[1:21:22] Hermanson.

[1:21:23] We are here tonight in support of the

[1:21:26] flex building, um, and the conditional

[1:21:29] use permit for a house of worship um,

[1:21:31] being renovation church to occupy that

[1:21:34] building.

[1:21:36] Uh we've been residents of East Bethl

[1:21:38] for nine years. Uh we love East Bethl.

[1:21:41] Uh we have raised expanded our family in

[1:21:43] East Bethl and it's been a blessing. Um

[1:21:46] but for the duration of those nine

[1:21:47] years, we've also been commuting to

[1:21:49] Blaine to go to church. And what we

[1:21:52] found at Renovation Church is something

[1:21:54] that it sounds like this room needs and

[1:21:56] that's hope um community connections and

[1:21:59] really deep Yeah. connections and joy.

[1:22:01] And so it would be such a privilege to

[1:22:04] not commute 20 minutes and to have a

[1:22:06] house worship here in our city.

[1:22:11] » Yeah. Uh Michelle and I know um the

[1:22:13] value firsthand what uh this church and

[1:22:16] the impact the church has done in our in

[1:22:17] our lives or many lives and our famil

[1:22:19] family's lives. Um that we just love to

[1:22:21] bring that uh sense of community and joy

[1:22:23] to East Bethle. So, thank you for your

[1:22:26] time and your um

[1:22:30] consideration.

[1:22:31] » All right. Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:22:34] » Uh Gabriel Gabriel

[1:22:38] » Hansen.

[1:22:39] » Hi there.

[1:22:41] » Gabriel Hansen, 4434 217th Avenue

[1:22:43] Northeast. Um some of you may remember

[1:22:46] me from my time on the planning

[1:22:47] commission several years ago. Um this

[1:22:49] may seem out of context. I'm also here

[1:22:51] in regards to the uh conditional use

[1:22:54] permit for Renovation Church. Um that

[1:22:57] being said, I mean, as we say the pledge

[1:22:58] of allegiance, you know, one nation

[1:23:00] under God and God we trust. Um I don't

[1:23:02] believe it's ever out of place. Um as uh

[1:23:07] they had just spoken about, um

[1:23:11] renovation church in Blaine was

[1:23:13] something that me and my wife had been

[1:23:14] looking for for a long time. um gone

[1:23:18] around since we were married looking at

[1:23:19] different churches, never feeling

[1:23:21] anywhere that felt like church. It felt

[1:23:24] like a building. You go in, you you

[1:23:25] worship, you listen to a message, you

[1:23:27] leave, and that's it. It's like a um a

[1:23:30] product you buy. But then uh we started

[1:23:32] to attend renovation. They they are so

[1:23:35] focused and intentional about community

[1:23:37] and building relationships amongst the

[1:23:40] church, not just being a building that

[1:23:41] you come to to worship and to uh do your

[1:23:45] you know good deeds. Um it is it is

[1:23:48] truly what a church should look like.

[1:23:50] And I believe um you know as we look

[1:23:53] around a room full of people, some who

[1:23:55] are grieving, Stacy, my condolences to

[1:23:57] you. Um we need this. We need a place

[1:24:01] that focuses not just on getting people

[1:24:04] in to a building, but on sending them

[1:24:06] out and creating the community here in

[1:24:07] East Bethl that we strive for, that

[1:24:10] you're working here for, but I believe

[1:24:12] that only a church like renovation can

[1:24:15] help build. Thank you.

[1:24:17] » Thank you.

[1:24:20] Consent agenda.

[1:24:23] » I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:24:25] consent agenda. And I'd like to pull

[1:24:28] item G, please.

[1:24:31] » G.

[1:24:31] » Yes.

[1:24:34] » Anything else needed to be pulled?

[1:24:38] Somebody second it. Second. Have a

[1:24:41] motion and a second. Uh, all those in

[1:24:44] favor of the amended consent agenda?

[1:24:47] » I I opposed.

[1:24:49] » Item G.

[1:24:50] » Item G. I it's for the wells um

[1:24:55] the backup generators for wells one and

[1:24:57] two. Can you tell me where wells one and

[1:24:59] two are?

[1:25:09] » Good evening mayor and council. Uh wells

[1:25:10] one and two service the northern portion

[1:25:13] of the city. So 241st and 65 area

[1:25:16] whispering Aspen up in that part of the

[1:25:18] city. So, because if they were

[1:25:21] [clears throat]

[1:25:22] down here off of Viking, I would say,

[1:25:25] shouldn't the developer of Viking um

[1:25:28] preserve and capstone and Elivage

[1:25:30] contribute to the final monies that need

[1:25:34] to be used? Um so, why wouldn't the

[1:25:38] developers

[1:25:40] and the residents

[1:25:42] pay for that? Why would the rest of the

[1:25:44] city have to pay for

[1:25:47] out of like I have a well and a septic

[1:25:51] if mine goes out I can't come to the

[1:25:53] city and say hey all taxpayers come and

[1:25:56] help me pay give me $20,000 to refill my

[1:25:59] well redo my well redo my septic. So why

[1:26:04] can't the people just up there pay or

[1:26:06] the developer up there or whoever? Why

[1:26:09] is it going to be this $27,000 left um

[1:26:15] be put on the all of the taxpayers?

[1:26:17] » So, wells three and four had generators

[1:26:19] put in with that project initially. So,

[1:26:21] those those have backup generation

[1:26:23] already. Uh this portion will be

[1:26:25] financed through these three grants that

[1:26:27] we applied for and were awarded. The

[1:26:29] rest of the money will come from our

[1:26:30] enterprise fund which is not general

[1:26:32] fund money. It's not the taxpayers of

[1:26:33] East Bethl. It's only the water users.

[1:26:36] So it's it's an enterprise fund that's

[1:26:37] paid for by

[1:26:38] » So it is only the water. Okay. Perfect.

[1:26:41] Thank you.

[1:26:41] » The whole city on water, not not the uh

[1:26:43] not people on sepic.

[1:26:45] » Got it. All right. Thank you. Just

[1:26:47] because people were worried about hey,

[1:26:48] why am I paying for that? Okay. Thank

[1:26:51] you. With that, I'll approve item G of

[1:26:54] I'll make a motion to approve item G of

[1:26:56] the consent agenda.

[1:26:57] » Second. Have a [clears throat] motion.

[1:26:59] Second. Any further discussion?

[1:27:02] » None being heard. All those in favor?

[1:27:04] » I. Motion passes.

[1:27:08] Seven. Uh, new new business. Planning

[1:27:11] Commission.

[1:27:14] » All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[1:27:16] Again, if I move away from the mic, just

[1:27:20] yell at me again. I got to drift away.

[1:27:22] Right. Um,

[1:27:25] so tonight we have four items uh or

[1:27:27] three items related to uh an an entity

[1:27:31] known as final approach. I'll go through

[1:27:34] them as as as reasonably quickly as I as

[1:27:36] I can, but they all are intertwined and

[1:27:41] um just preface all of this by saying um

[1:27:45] the text amendment is the first piece of

[1:27:47] this uh request from final approach. And

[1:27:51] if that's something that's generally

[1:27:52] positive to you, then the the next step

[1:27:56] of the um preliminary plat

[1:27:59] um their site plan and a conditional use

[1:28:02] permit um would would then be in order.

[1:28:05] Um and then thirdly would be the the

[1:28:08] aforementioned um place of worship

[1:28:11] within that flex building. So I'll just

[1:28:14] go through these um certainly are

[1:28:16] independent actions um but that's the

[1:28:18] the basis of all of them. So they they

[1:28:20] do go in order. Um

[1:28:24] so I mentioned uh final approach is

[1:28:26] requesting a zoning text amendment to

[1:28:28] section 47

[1:28:30] of your highway commercial B3 zoning

[1:28:33] district which is appendix A of your

[1:28:35] code. Uh the proposed amendment would

[1:28:37] add business flex buildings as a

[1:28:39] conditional use uh within the B3 highway

[1:28:42] commercial district subject to tenant

[1:28:44] use limitations, prohibited uses, and

[1:28:46] the definition of a business flex

[1:28:48] building. So, um, this is the specific

[1:28:52] language you see on your screen.

[1:28:53] Certainly, this was in your packet. Um,

[1:28:55] but what they're looking to build is a

[1:28:58] multi-tenant building that would that

[1:29:00] would be able to house um permitted uh

[1:29:04] uses in your industrial zone and

[1:29:08] permitted uses in your B3 district as

[1:29:10] well as uh conditional uses in your

[1:29:13] industrial zone and conditional uses in

[1:29:15] your um B3 district. So the goal

[1:29:19] fundamentally is for employmentbased

[1:29:22] um investment and operations there.

[1:29:25] However, following more to a formbbased

[1:29:28] zoning where it's more important

[1:29:30] shouldn't say more important but it's

[1:29:31] important about how the building looks

[1:29:33] on the exterior. How does it fit into

[1:29:35] that neighborhood? Um and does it cause

[1:29:39] and and would it cause anything

[1:29:41] incompatible with noise, odors, um

[1:29:44] outside storage? So that's that's the

[1:29:46] the basis of what a flex building

[1:29:49] essentially uh is trying to accomplish.

[1:29:51] Um again that's just the language of it.

[1:29:54] Um but let's just see what the the in

[1:29:57] this case the applicant is um proposing

[1:29:59] a building and this is what that flex

[1:30:02] building would essentially look like.

[1:30:04] It's a 21,000 square foot building with

[1:30:07] potentially four four uh

[1:30:12] distinct entrances. But how they con

[1:30:14] configured the building internally um

[1:30:17] would probably be up to further

[1:30:20] discussion by the applicant and the

[1:30:22] tenants they could receive. Um so that's

[1:30:25] that is what a flex building is is

[1:30:28] generally all about. Um your current

[1:30:30] code does not have that capacity uh now.

[1:30:34] So that is why they're asking for that

[1:30:35] to be added. In effect, it's allowing

[1:30:38] the industrial zone within your B3

[1:30:41] district only in this building. And on

[1:30:44] the screen, you have um where that

[1:30:46] zoning is. Again, that's B3

[1:30:50] um

[1:30:52] as shown. Um

[1:30:55] that neighborhood already is a

[1:30:56] multi-dimensional

[1:30:59] or multi- different uses of of space.

[1:31:02] Again, the the proposed uses here um for

[1:31:06] that building and and how that text

[1:31:08] amendment would offer that, but you do

[1:31:10] have industrial uses nearby. You have a

[1:31:13] mixed use with the apartment complex and

[1:31:15] the remaining are are commercial. Um

[1:31:19] none of these operators in this

[1:31:21] district, even in the industrial zone,

[1:31:23] are heavy manufacturers, so to speak. I

[1:31:27] mean, these are all essentially light

[1:31:28] industrial and largely compatible um and

[1:31:32] how they function. Um the the same area

[1:31:37] is also zone I'm sorry from your land

[1:31:39] use planning um mixed use. So it's

[1:31:42] looking to find a a balance between

[1:31:45] commercial industrial potentially even

[1:31:50] different kinds of of commercial space.

[1:31:53] Um so that that's your your comp plan

[1:31:56] zoning. Um but a text amendment is

[1:31:59] important to understand also applies in

[1:32:02] not just in one space. It applies at all

[1:32:05] your B3 districts. Um and in in your

[1:32:08] city in in East Bethl um you have this

[1:32:11] area largely south of Viking, south of

[1:32:14] by the holiday or the Circle K and the

[1:32:16] Quick Trip. Um you have this space um

[1:32:20] further north um near Minnesota farms

[1:32:24] and then and then the land um I believe

[1:32:27] this is Sims on this scale. Um so you

[1:32:29] have a smattering of these parcels um

[1:32:32] across the city but in terms of um

[1:32:35] they're all within your commercial

[1:32:36] corridor which you have identified as

[1:32:38] roughly within a thousand feet 1500 feet

[1:32:41] of your 36 of your 65 corridor. Um,

[1:32:46] so that's that's kind of the the basis

[1:32:48] of that. Um,

[1:32:55] planning commission held a public

[1:32:56] hearing on July 28th, reviewed the

[1:32:58] proposed amendment, considered staff

[1:33:00] reports and exhibits, certainly received

[1:33:02] public testimony, and ultimately adopted

[1:33:04] a resolution of support which is in your

[1:33:06] packet PC

[1:33:08] uh 26-11 recommending approval.

[1:33:13] Um the amendment I just to reiterate a

[1:33:16] little bit the amendment would um

[1:33:18] maintain a conditional use permit for a

[1:33:22] building such as this. So a multi-tenant

[1:33:25] building could not just show up and a

[1:33:28] developer could not just show up and

[1:33:29] propose a building like this. You would

[1:33:31] still have a site plan review and the

[1:33:33] building itself operates and can only be

[1:33:36] placed by a conditional use permit. Um

[1:33:40] so you would always have another way to

[1:33:42] review you uh the applicant um before

[1:33:45] they could build a structure like this

[1:33:48] or how the site plan works or their

[1:33:50] potential tenant mix. Um the second

[1:33:53] piece of that is when a building were to

[1:33:56] go in, some of the applicants, as you'll

[1:33:59] hear tonight, must then receive an

[1:34:02] additional conditional use permit. In

[1:34:04] this case, a place of worship um under

[1:34:07] your B3 code. So, in a lot of ways, this

[1:34:10] does offer a lot of flexibility to the

[1:34:12] land owner um in your B3 district.

[1:34:16] However, I think it provides the city

[1:34:18] with a pretty um pretty strong capacity

[1:34:23] to review each each site on a case-byase

[1:34:27] basis. Again, with the goal of

[1:34:28] preventing noise, incompatibility,

[1:34:32] um and and um other things that may

[1:34:35] affect the neighborhood. Last thing I'd

[1:34:38] add is your B3 district um can already

[1:34:43] enable or permit um uses that may well

[1:34:46] exceed a neighborhood impact such

[1:34:48] compared to a building like this for

[1:34:50] example um a holiday a quick trip which

[1:34:54] is a B3 district certainly has a lot of

[1:34:57] traffic certainly has a lot of light

[1:34:59] certainly has a lot of noise whereas

[1:35:01] this flex building is intended to um be

[1:35:05] more employmentbased

[1:35:07] um and and not have that uh high

[1:35:10] commercial capacity. Um so again, the

[1:35:14] planning commission did make a

[1:35:15] recommendation for it. Uh certainly

[1:35:17] staff also believes that the proposed

[1:35:20] amendment is reasonable and provides a

[1:35:22] controlled zoning pathway for modern

[1:35:24] commercial employment oriented building.

[1:35:27] Um

[1:35:29] the amendment preserves a B3 zoning

[1:35:31] framework, maintains city review

[1:35:33] authority um throughout the process and

[1:35:36] includes limitations to prevent

[1:35:38] incompatible uses. Um so ultimately

[1:35:42] staff would also recommend um approval

[1:35:45] and in your packet there is um city

[1:35:48] ordinance and this is again done by

[1:35:49] ordinance um

[1:35:53] city ordinance

[1:35:55] 2026-02.

[1:35:58] Um and that language as I shown is

[1:36:00] embedded in this. The rest is you know a

[1:36:02] lot of legal ease. no offense our city

[1:36:04] attorney. But uh one thing I did want to

[1:36:08] note in this resolution is section four

[1:36:11] um is that this ordinance like all

[1:36:13] ordinances would ultimately have to be

[1:36:14] published for it to come into effect. We

[1:36:16] would withhold the publishing until um

[1:36:19] the related development um would uh

[1:36:23] potentially

[1:36:25] be fully approved which we'll talk about

[1:36:27] next. the development agreement signed

[1:36:30] the plat done um and once all those

[1:36:33] securityers are in place uh these would

[1:36:36] then be published. So, some a lot of

[1:36:39] cities do um approve a

[1:36:44] a development with a resoning, but if

[1:36:46] the resoning uh doesn't go through or

[1:36:49] isn't or isn't triggered um or I'm

[1:36:52] sorry, they'll approve a project with a

[1:36:54] building, a development um with a

[1:36:56] resoning, but if they don't do the

[1:36:58] development, the resoning doesn't

[1:37:00] doesn't uh go into effect. So, one

[1:37:02] begets the other. So, with that, that's

[1:37:04] a lot. Um, and that is our

[1:37:07] recommendation to you all to adopt

[1:37:09] ordinance 2026-02.

[1:37:13] » I have a suggestion. Can we take off the

[1:37:16] cannabis stuff off the list and if it

[1:37:19] means even if it means changing an or

[1:37:22] ordinance to limit the city of East

[1:37:24] Bethl to one cannabis place because we

[1:37:27] already have that. We don't need

[1:37:28] anymore.

[1:37:30] Um, and I've certainly deferred to the

[1:37:32] city attorney about how that could be.

[1:37:35] Um, I do know that the cannabis elements

[1:37:39] um and the limitations would be carried

[1:37:41] through to this building. This building

[1:37:42] would not

[1:37:44] be granted anything additional other

[1:37:47] than is already propo already limited by

[1:37:50] statute. Um,

[1:37:51] » Because cannabis is on its first list

[1:37:54] that says it's approved and I'm like no,

[1:37:56] » It is it is an approved. it is approved

[1:37:58] in

[1:38:00] in your B3 district.

[1:38:05] So So I think what he's saying is that

[1:38:07] that that that this type of building

[1:38:10] could still have in it uses that already

[1:38:13] are already approved for that type of

[1:38:15] dis in that district. It doesn't mean

[1:38:16] that there going to be any more and the

[1:38:18] the number of cannabis retail operations

[1:38:21] and so forth is limited by the uh state

[1:38:24] statute to by population. So that this

[1:38:26] won't change that or add additional

[1:38:29] cannabis businesses,

[1:38:31] » But that is already a permitted use

[1:38:32] within D3.

[1:38:33] » But can we prevent any cannabis

[1:38:37] » In these buildings

[1:38:37] » Uses in those buildings? Can we can we

[1:38:41] create an ordinance that says we can

[1:38:43] only have one in the city and which we

[1:38:45] kind of already have? Uh can we um

[1:38:49] » We have an ordinance that says we can

[1:38:50] have two.

[1:38:52] » Yeah. Uh I believe one of the conditions

[1:38:54] is a th00and foot radius. Uh is would

[1:38:59] this flex building be within the

[1:39:01] thousand foot radius? It remember the

[1:39:04] the flex building

[1:39:07] ordinance

[1:39:08] um if adopted would apply at all your B3

[1:39:12] districts. So when an applicant would

[1:39:13] come in you could do that

[1:39:17] radius at that time. um if this were in

[1:39:22] effect and they built their building at

[1:39:24] a in a in a oper and I'm certainly

[1:39:27] deferring anyone here. So, and they they

[1:39:29] they came in and and wanted to go into

[1:39:32] one of these shops or one of these

[1:39:33] spaces. Um at that point, we'd have to

[1:39:36] do the analysis and say where are they

[1:39:38] and where are the current ones and is

[1:39:40] there a license available if I'm not

[1:39:43] mistaken.

[1:39:44] But if a church were in there, a

[1:39:46] cannabis place wouldn't be allowed,

[1:39:48] right?

[1:39:49] » I whatever the statute or the ordinance

[1:39:51] would preclude it, right?

[1:39:52] » You know,

[1:39:54] geographication.

[1:39:58] So, if if the council wanted to um

[1:40:03] suggest a further amendment to the

[1:40:06] prohibited uses,

[1:40:08] » Um

[1:40:10] » I don't know how I if the council wanted

[1:40:12] to to further limit the uses of a flex

[1:40:15] building because this is the first time

[1:40:17] a flex building is going to be approved.

[1:40:19] If you wanted to, you know, manage it

[1:40:21] down to that, you you could do that. So

[1:40:24] you could [clears throat] say flex

[1:40:25] building is approved. But since it's a

[1:40:28] new thing, despite the fact that having

[1:40:32] met all the other regulations and all

[1:40:33] the other ordinances, a cannabis retail

[1:40:37] establishment could be in that B3 zone.

[1:40:40] You can say it can't be in a B in a flex

[1:40:42] building in B3 zone.

[1:40:43] » Let's do that.

[1:40:45] » It cannot be in a flex building.

[1:40:48] So, it would be we'd have to tweak the

[1:40:50] language on this a little bit, but if

[1:40:51] that's what the council wants, that can

[1:40:53] be done.

[1:40:53] » I mean, that's my my opinion. It's up to

[1:40:56] you guys, but my opinion is stop as much

[1:40:59] of that as I can out here.

[1:41:02] » I agree with what you're saying for sure

[1:41:04] on that with the flex buildings. I got a

[1:41:07] question too with the flex buildings.

[1:41:08] Now, are they do we have a distance that

[1:41:11] they're going to be off the main highway

[1:41:13] like a half a mile or whatever it is?

[1:41:15] » No, there's only So it would only be

[1:41:18] applicable in your B3 district. Um so

[1:41:22] which which in your B3 district most of

[1:41:24] these are um within that within that

[1:41:28] range.

[1:41:29] » The range.

[1:41:29] » Yeah.

[1:41:30] » Because I know a lot of them are, you

[1:41:31] know, concrete buildings and stuff like

[1:41:33] that where this is a steel frame

[1:41:36] building.

[1:41:37] And I'm just wondering, my opinion is

[1:41:40] that if uh we mix them in with these

[1:41:44] other buildings that are businesses

[1:41:46] [clears throat] that have spent millions

[1:41:48] of dollars building these buildings, how

[1:41:51] is that going to look to them or the

[1:41:55] residents?

[1:41:57] You know what I mean? It's like they're

[1:41:58] a nice looking building, the flex

[1:41:59] buildings. But

[1:42:01] » Well, this is one design um from this

[1:42:03] applicant uh for example. Um and in in

[1:42:08] reviewing it, they're in compliance with

[1:42:10] your city's um architectural standards.

[1:42:14] » Okay.

[1:42:15] » Um your your architectural standards

[1:42:17] don't stipulate concrete tip up

[1:42:19] building. It stipulates.

[1:42:20] » So the front elevation would be

[1:42:23] » The the top one and that would face 65.

[1:42:26] » Right. Okay.

[1:42:27] » So the sides could be steel. Well, the

[1:42:31] the applicant

[1:42:32] » Well the that is I mean certainly the

[1:42:34] applicant is is present and they could

[1:42:36] talk about the the materials but they're

[1:42:39] they are uh

[1:42:42] they they did bring

[1:42:45] um material samples to the planning

[1:42:48] commission and I believe they found

[1:42:50] those to be quite favorable. Um those

[1:42:54] are wood composite and uh the structural

[1:42:57] steel side um the gray areas were

[1:43:02] textured. It's not the traditional maybe

[1:43:05] that we all might know a pole building

[1:43:07] to be your

[1:43:08] » I mean that's came a long ways.

[1:43:09] » Yeah. I don't think that's again I'm not

[1:43:12] an architect. I mean that's a flavor

[1:43:14] thing, right? But I I think it it it

[1:43:17] certainly met the the intent of your the

[1:43:19] amount of glazing, the glass, the the

[1:43:22] eyebrows, the overhangs. Certainly it it

[1:43:26] it it's an attractive looking building.

[1:43:29] » Um but your code does not stipulate

[1:43:33] concrete.

[1:43:33] » Okay.

[1:43:36] » That's all I got.

[1:43:41] » Um for the sake of and to to council

[1:43:44] member 's comment and maybe what you

[1:43:46] folks might desire. Um there is a there

[1:43:50] is a time and question at least in terms

[1:43:52] of working with this applicant. Um uh

[1:43:58] if there was an amendment to the

[1:43:59] prohibited uses

[1:44:01] um under in your ordinance

[1:44:17] where it says prohibited uses. Um,

[1:44:22] I think we'd have to words smmith that a

[1:44:23] little bit, but would you be comfortable

[1:44:25] with passing in this ordinance with

[1:44:30] allowing staff to fill in that blank

[1:44:32] basically prohibiting uh cannabis

[1:44:35] related businesses?

[1:44:36] » Yes. Yes. In fact, if it's resolution

[1:44:39] 202637,

[1:44:41] I was going to say that with the

[1:44:42] condition that

[1:44:44] » That cannabis use be prohibited.

[1:44:47] » Would this uh Mr. Bergland, is that okay

[1:44:50] from your standpoint if we do that or

[1:44:52] » Yes. Okay.

[1:44:54] » We would try to keep it simple and and

[1:44:56] straightforward. Um but if if you're

[1:44:59] comfortable with that, then what we have

[1:45:01] before you would be ordinance 2026-02

[1:45:05] um with uh that change relating to

[1:45:08] prohibiting cannabis related businesses.

[1:45:14] » So I have to say ordinance 202602

[1:45:18] » 2026-2.

[1:45:23] » Oh, okay. All right. Right. I'll make a

[1:45:25] motion to approve ordinance 2026-02

[1:45:28] with the condition that staff modifies

[1:45:32] prohibited use to include cannabis I

[1:45:36] businesses.

[1:45:39] » Second. Have a motion and second. Any

[1:45:42] further discussion?

[1:45:45] » None being heard. All those in favor?

[1:45:48] Motion passes.

[1:46:16] your next one there, Eric.

[1:46:18] » Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor. I was waiting for

[1:46:20] you. Uh, yes. Uh, thank you again. Um,

[1:46:24] again, I talked about a lot of these

[1:46:26] things are interlacing, so I I'll I'll

[1:46:28] spare you all. the the planning

[1:46:30] commission uh three-hour marathon, but

[1:46:32] you'll see see some some similar maps.

[1:46:35] Um again, uh final approach development

[1:46:39] um have requested review of a

[1:46:41] preliminary plat final plat and

[1:46:43] conditional use permanent site plan

[1:46:45] review for um their plat entitled final

[1:46:49] approach east bethl edition located

[1:46:53] uh east of Ulysi Street, west of Highway

[1:46:55] 65. The proposal ultimately includes

[1:46:58] approximately 21,600 foot multi-tenant

[1:47:01] business flex building. Now again,

[1:47:03] you've approved the the

[1:47:06] philosophy of the text amendment. Um

[1:47:08] together parking, loading areas,

[1:47:10] internal circulation, water, sewer

[1:47:12] extensions, grading, storm water

[1:47:14] facilities, etc. Again, the property is

[1:47:17] zone B3 um have a commercial mixeduse

[1:47:21] under the comprehensive plan and located

[1:47:23] within the city's um metropolitan urban

[1:47:26] service area. Planning commission did

[1:47:28] review this application

[1:47:30] um uh the submitted plans, reports,

[1:47:33] engineering exhibits, public testimony.

[1:47:35] It's July 28th meeting and recommended

[1:47:39] adoption of the proposed plan um in

[1:47:42] their resolution PC26-12.

[1:47:46] Um and this is the uh proposed site. You

[1:47:51] see the um the building that I showed

[1:47:54] the elevations of would sit in in in

[1:47:57] this location just east of Ulissi

[1:47:59] Street. The developer would be required

[1:48:01] to extend Ulissi Street down here um

[1:48:04] south of the two apartment complexes. Um

[1:48:09] an appropriate culdeac. There are util

[1:48:12] water and sewer utilities that would

[1:48:13] have to be extended south from uh

[1:48:17] Ulisses and 185th. These would be their

[1:48:21] expense. Um the site uh has adequate

[1:48:26] parking. Um they have adequate storm

[1:48:29] water facilities located south of the

[1:48:32] parking lot. There's also some uh storm

[1:48:35] water facilities uh just adjacent to the

[1:48:38] culde-sac. Um city engineers reviewed

[1:48:41] these uh the submission from a plat

[1:48:44] appropriateness and um and ability to

[1:48:47] achieve all the city's rules. Um

[1:48:49] certainly there'll always be some tweaks

[1:48:50] and adjustments, but um found that to be

[1:48:53] favorable. Um from a traffic impact

[1:48:56] standpoint, the applicant did bring a

[1:48:58] traffic analysis um it was reviewed by

[1:49:01] by the city and there were no

[1:49:02] anticipated level of service impacts um

[1:49:05] at 183rd

[1:49:08] um by um Holiday and its interface with

[1:49:11] Highway 65. Um

[1:49:15] the remaining sites to the west will

[1:49:18] remain in an outlot. A um certainly the

[1:49:21] developer uh has uh uh thoughts to um do

[1:49:27] some building uh in the high ground or

[1:49:29] the non-wetland areas potentially here

[1:49:32] and then over on the western side of the

[1:49:35] site. Um most of outlot A is encumbered

[1:49:38] by wetlands. There is a a county

[1:49:41] drainage ditch that lies to the south.

[1:49:44] Um u but as far as the site conditions

[1:49:47] go, the the primary goal is this upper

[1:49:50] right hand corner um is uh

[1:49:55] positive. Um

[1:49:58] ultimately if this were approved

[1:50:01] um preparation and development agreement

[1:50:03] addressing the extension of utilities

[1:50:05] from Ulysi Street, water and sewer

[1:50:07] extensions, drainage and storm water um

[1:50:10] elements would have to be dealt with.

[1:50:11] financial securities, inspection costs,

[1:50:13] what have you. Um, we would bring that

[1:50:16] development agreement back to you for

[1:50:18] final approval once that were uh

[1:50:20] ultimately negotiated and and set up.

[1:50:22] But again, all of those costs largely

[1:50:24] remain with the developer. Um,

[1:50:28] uh, the the parking

[1:50:30] uh, let's see if I too many of the same

[1:50:33] maps. I'm sorry. Uh, see if I can zoom

[1:50:37] in here.

[1:50:55] We talked about the CUP um and their

[1:50:59] building and what they may or may not

[1:51:00] use and no cannabis operations. Um but

[1:51:04] there they did uh have adequate parking.

[1:51:07] of 194 stalls is on the field. Um and

[1:51:12] that can be probably reduced to some

[1:51:14] extent to based on um any any final

[1:51:17] design. We want to make sure there is

[1:51:19] traffic circulation for um fire trucks.

[1:51:22] The fire chief has reviewed this and I

[1:51:24] believe they've come into agreement with

[1:51:26] the engineer on the turning radiuses. Um

[1:51:31] uh their final landscaping, lighting,

[1:51:34] signage, trash screening, and rooftop

[1:51:36] equipment screening and building

[1:51:37] elevations all are in compliance with

[1:51:39] the city's uh requirements, full cutoff

[1:51:42] lighting, uh landscaping, what have you.

[1:51:45] Um the applicant did accommodate um some

[1:51:50] endangered plants in this area here. So

[1:51:53] they did shift some of these things to

[1:51:55] the west um for the storm water. So, and

[1:51:59] there will need to be an easement

[1:52:02] provided to the city from this property

[1:52:04] owner, which uh will be the applicant's

[1:52:07] uh responsibility to secure um because

[1:52:10] this curve just nicks this corner a

[1:52:13] little bit. Um but I believe they've

[1:52:15] addressed that and but ultimately

[1:52:17] that'll be need to be conveyed to the

[1:52:18] city an appropriate roadway easement. Um

[1:52:27] the city the the resolution ultimately

[1:52:29] if you consider that would require

[1:52:31] additional traffic analysis or

[1:52:33] corrective improvements if future

[1:52:35] tenants or operational changes created

[1:52:38] congestion queuing or unsafe unsafe uh

[1:52:41] turning movements or emergency access

[1:52:44] problems. Um and any future building

[1:52:47] expansion or you know meaningful changes

[1:52:49] there would have to come back to the

[1:52:52] city potentially for site plan review or

[1:52:54] an amended uh conditional use permit. Um

[1:52:57] the site does show a a place for

[1:53:00] potential future expansion. At this

[1:53:02] point there'll just be uh sod or grass

[1:53:05] um some landscaping uh what have you but

[1:53:08] something to I think that's in their

[1:53:09] vision. Um,

[1:53:12] so I mentioned the planning commission

[1:53:14] did uh approve this uh

[1:53:18] uh preliminary plat and final plat um

[1:53:22] and uh the site plan and the conditional

[1:53:25] use permit for that flex building. Um

[1:53:29] staff I think also has uh support of

[1:53:33] this for their preliminary plat final

[1:53:35] plat. It provides an acceptable

[1:53:37] subdivision framework that the proposed

[1:53:39] business flex building can easily

[1:53:41] satisfy uh the requirements of the

[1:53:44] conditional use permit standards and the

[1:53:46] site provides adequate physical

[1:53:48] framework for development. So, if you uh

[1:53:51] think this is of of value or if you have

[1:53:54] certainly have questions, um uh staff

[1:53:58] would recommend adoption of resolution

[1:54:00] 2026-37

[1:54:03] um approving the preliminary plat final

[1:54:06] plat conditional use permit and site

[1:54:08] plan substitute the findings and

[1:54:10] conditions contained in that resolution.

[1:54:13] So,

[1:54:14] » Okay. My question is, [clears throat]

[1:54:17] » Is the traffic going to be coming down

[1:54:19] from Jackson or to from Viking? Where

[1:54:23] where are they going to turn in to get

[1:54:25] into there? Are they they're not coming

[1:54:26] off at 65 to get in there? Right.

[1:54:29] » Uh, council member Urkl, no, they don't

[1:54:31] have any permits from Mandot. I suspect

[1:54:34] they'd love to have them, but it's

[1:54:36] probably highly unlikely that Bindat

[1:54:38] would grant um an access, but they're

[1:54:41] going to largely come in from 187th by

[1:54:44] the Holiday or Circle K, whatever

[1:54:46] they're now. Um and then south on Ulyses

[1:54:49] down to the Culdeac.

[1:54:51] » Okay.

[1:54:53] Do they have access to Viking, too? I

[1:54:56] mean, can they come off of Viking up

[1:54:58] there too somewhere or is it just going

[1:55:00] to be 187?

[1:55:01] » It's 100. It's Well, I think they can

[1:55:04] connect.

[1:55:05] » Yes, there's access for biking.

[1:55:07] » I can't see it very good from here,

[1:55:10] » But I would argue most of it's going to

[1:55:11] come from Highway 65.

[1:55:13] » You can goes north, curves to the west,

[1:55:17] turns into 189th, and you can either

[1:55:20] access Jackson right from there or turn

[1:55:24] to the north and go up to Viking.

[1:55:26] » Yeah, they're definitely going to need a

[1:55:28] traffic analysis because if there's

[1:55:30] going to be con

[1:55:32] considerable more traffic that because

[1:55:34] that's where the theater is, that's

[1:55:36] where Holiday is

[1:55:38] and then a lot more traffic. They might

[1:55:40] need to extend that turn lane or

[1:55:44] something. Um yes, mayor and council,

[1:55:46] they they did provide a traffic

[1:55:48] analysis. Um and their level the city

[1:55:51] operates on a level of service uh

[1:55:53] capacity basically looking to not

[1:55:56] trigger a level of service um

[1:56:01] level D A being the best and E or

[1:56:05] something worse than that uh being and

[1:56:08] that really relates to queuing time. Um

[1:56:11] and and that queuing time is not effect

[1:56:13] anticipated to be affected at at the

[1:56:16] closest point of connection to uh the

[1:56:19] state trunk highway. But there is a

[1:56:21] caveat in the resolution that says

[1:56:22] should things or conditions change that

[1:56:24] we can justifiably attribute to their

[1:56:27] uses that you would have the ability to

[1:56:30] go back and and address that. Um, which

[1:56:34] maybe goes back to my earlier point of

[1:56:36] or the earlier analysis that if

[1:56:39] I don't know if if it's a McDonald's

[1:56:42] here, um, I'm not saying it would go in

[1:56:44] or anything like that, but that would

[1:56:46] that would be far more traffic demand.

[1:56:49] That would be a permitted use, um, than

[1:56:52] this proposed use. Um, yes, they would

[1:56:57] probably have some improvements to make

[1:56:58] at 65, but in terms of it's uh traffic

[1:57:02] down Ulisses and at 81 185th or noise or

[1:57:05] light, it's probably a far more passive

[1:57:08] use.

[1:57:09] » Not that I'm just thinking of Sundays

[1:57:11] with all the

[1:57:13] » Traffic coming south and then the church

[1:57:16] on Sundays and I'm like the holiday gets

[1:57:19] busy on Sundays. Well, we'll talk about

[1:57:21] that potentially at the next

[1:57:23] [clears throat] uh phase of this uh

[1:57:24] conversation. Yeah, you make a good

[1:57:26] point.

[1:57:27] » Okay.

[1:57:29] » I got a question too like Okay, you were

[1:57:31] saying the roads might have to be

[1:57:32] extended the sewer and water also. Is

[1:57:36] the developer paying for that?

[1:57:37] » Yes, that is all at the expense of the

[1:57:39] developer.

[1:57:40] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:57:45] » Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry.

[1:57:47] Make a motion to approve resolution

[1:57:50] 2026-37

[1:57:52] approving the plinary plat final plaque

[1:57:54] conditional use permit and site plan

[1:57:57] review subject to the findings and

[1:57:58] conditions contained in the proposed

[1:58:01] city council resolution.

[1:58:03] » Second

[1:58:04] » Motion a second. Any further discussion?

[1:58:08] None being heard. All those in favor?

[1:58:11] » I opposed. Unheard.

[1:58:14] Item three.

[1:58:20] » So, Council Member Urkel, if I don't

[1:58:21] touch on church traffic, you know, you

[1:58:23] let me know.

[1:58:33] Again, the same same uh sites and and

[1:58:37] conditions we've talked about before.

[1:58:39] Um, final approach development has

[1:58:40] requested a conditional use permit to

[1:58:42] allow renovation church to occupy um

[1:58:45] approximately 15,000 square feet of this

[1:58:48] proposed 21,600 ft² business flex

[1:58:51] building. The main assembly area um is

[1:58:55] anticipated to accommodate up to 400

[1:58:57] seats. Again, the property is zone B3

[1:59:01] where a place of worship is allowed by

[1:59:03] conditional use permit. Um that site is

[1:59:06] again guided mixed use under the

[1:59:07] comprehensive plan.

[1:59:09] Planning commission held a public

[1:59:12] hearing and found the application to be

[1:59:15] favorable and adopted uh their

[1:59:17] resolution PC26-13

[1:59:20] recommending approval of this proposal

[1:59:22] subject to subject to conditions. Um

[1:59:26] let's see.

[1:59:29] zoom in on this one because it's just

[1:59:32] the easiest.

[1:59:39] The principal issues uh in this case of

[1:59:41] a of a place of worship in this building

[1:59:43] are parking, traffic circulation,

[1:59:45] emergency access, and compatibility with

[1:59:47] other buildings, tenants or certainly

[1:59:49] the area. The city requires one parking

[1:59:52] space for every three seats of a of a

[1:59:54] place of worship. Thus, a 400 seat uh

[1:59:58] assembly area requires 134 parking

[2:00:00] spaces.

[2:00:02] The applicant certainly has enough

[2:00:04] parking capacity at the site at 195

[2:00:07] spaces. However, at least when we were

[2:00:08] reviewing this plan originally, 34

[2:00:11] spaces were shown um in the uh truck

[2:00:14] maneuvering area um which are uh just to

[2:00:17] the west of the these drive-in doors and

[2:00:20] the loading dock. the applicant has made

[2:00:23] some adjustments um uh to get rid of

[2:00:26] those directly. And the applicant uh or

[2:00:30] the the the renovation church would be

[2:00:32] the tenant would be required to if they

[2:00:35] needed to put in some temporary uh

[2:00:38] parking banding or or signage there if

[2:00:42] they wanted to use those sites. Um but

[2:00:45] it would not be permanently striped um

[2:00:48] so as to make sure that other tenants at

[2:00:52] this building could could use that. Um

[2:00:55] renovation church is proposing to use

[2:00:58] you know three quarters of the building.

[2:00:59] So how they all fit together will be the

[2:01:01] responsibility of the applicant. Again,

[2:01:04] the city's goal is a quality building,

[2:01:06] quality neighbor, um, and uh, how they

[2:01:10] interrelate uh, through the streets, and

[2:01:13] it's the owner's responsibility to make

[2:01:16] sure they all get along and work

[2:01:18] together, which I'm sure is always so

[2:01:19] easy.

[2:01:22] So anyway, um

[2:01:28] the proposed conditions in your in your

[2:01:30] resolution construction on of the entire

[2:01:33] business flex building. So they couldn't

[2:01:35] parse out a different section of the

[2:01:37] building or couldn't only build part of

[2:01:38] the building. They would have to build

[2:01:40] the entire complete building. um

[2:01:44] approval of final floor plans, uh

[2:01:47] occupant load calculations, parking

[2:01:49] calculations, fire lane delineations um

[2:01:51] would all have to be again reverified

[2:01:53] prior to the issuance of a building

[2:01:56] permit. Um this drawing does show um the

[2:02:02] the firetruck turning movements um and

[2:02:06] and the fire chief and the applicants

[2:02:08] engineer has sorted those things out

[2:02:10] appropriately. But we'll we will verify.

[2:02:13] Um the coordination of the church and

[2:02:15] tenant operations or parking and loading

[2:02:17] conflicts do not occur is important.

[2:02:20] Implementation of any additional traffic

[2:02:22] control measures required by the city

[2:02:24] including licensed law enforcement

[2:02:26] traffic control at the applicant's

[2:02:29] uh expense. Um, and what I mean by that

[2:02:32] is on a Sunday,

[2:02:34] um, if you do have a lot of traffic,

[2:02:38] um, that

[2:02:41] if they they the church or the owner or

[2:02:44] the the applicant, um, is trying to do

[2:02:47] some kind of site traffic management

[2:02:50] with an individual out there with cones

[2:02:52] or flags, they would not be allowed to

[2:02:54] do that in the public right away. if

[2:02:55] they want to do that in their in their

[2:02:58] parking lot, I I guess we have no

[2:02:59] objection to it. Um, but the part that

[2:03:02] would be outside of that and in the

[2:03:04] public right away if it were needed, um,

[2:03:08] they would have to engage with the

[2:03:09] sheriff's office and and pay for that

[2:03:11] independently.

[2:03:14] Um, compliance with all building, fire

[2:03:17] accessibility, utility, and occupancy

[2:03:19] requirements. Again, that's part of the

[2:03:21] building construction process. We don't

[2:03:23] know the final layouts inside the

[2:03:25] building yet. Um but that will relate to

[2:03:28] total occupancy. Um and the building

[2:03:31] official will sort that out. Um and

[2:03:34] ultimately city would review any

[2:03:36] separate outdoor event requests,

[2:03:38] temporary promotional signs or material

[2:03:40] changes to seating, parking, circulation

[2:03:43] or any operations. Um so um ultimately

[2:03:48] the planning commission again supported

[2:03:49] the proposal um in terms of its

[2:03:52] compatibility with the uh

[2:03:56] adjacent uses. Um you have a robust

[2:04:01] very busy area there but with the church

[2:04:06] um like most churches they operate on

[2:04:08] Sunday. So many of these sites won't be

[2:04:12] operating full capacity at that time. So

[2:04:14] you'll have a you'll have a a probably

[2:04:17] less of an impact on a Sunday versus

[2:04:19] like on a Tuesday morning for example.

[2:04:22] Um the applicant uh and their tenant

[2:04:25] renovation church does not expect to

[2:04:28] have significant uh daytime uses during

[2:04:31] the week. Maybe they'll have some

[2:04:33] classes or or or the like. Um maybe some

[2:04:37] minor office presence, but they're not

[2:04:39] proposing any major operations or or

[2:04:42] services during the week. Um they're

[2:04:45] proposing two services on Sunday if I

[2:04:47] remember 9 or 10:30 or maybe it was 10

[2:04:49] or 11:30 I forget. It is in the report.

[2:04:52] Um

[2:04:54] so again the the they should fit in

[2:04:57] nicely to the building. They should fit

[2:04:59] in nicely to the area and uh staff would

[2:05:04] mirror the recommendation of the

[2:05:06] planning commission to approve

[2:05:09] resolution number 2026-38.

[2:05:14] Stand for any questions.

[2:05:15] » Make a resolution to Make a motion to

[2:05:18] approve resolution number 2026-38

[2:05:22] approving the conditional use permit

[2:05:25] subject to the findings and conditions

[2:05:27] contained in the resolution.

[2:05:29] » Second.

[2:05:30] » Motion a second. Any further discussion?

[2:05:34] None being heard. All those in favor?

[2:05:36] » I opposed.

[2:05:39] » Passes item four. All right.

[2:05:49] Okay. Mayor and Council, I forget when

[2:05:52] we uh when we chatted about this. Um

[2:05:56] maybe it was a month and a half ago, two

[2:05:59] months ago where um the city council

[2:06:03] would potentially consider some

[2:06:05] amendments to your to your minor

[2:06:07] subdivision or administrative

[2:06:09] subdivision rules. And if you recall, it

[2:06:13] was about a simple lot split.

[2:06:16] And um your current ordinance uh

[2:06:21] basically prohibits a a simple lot split

[2:06:24] uh if it happens once, but um there is

[2:06:27] no look back period. If you did it once

[2:06:29] in 1942 or 1987

[2:06:33] um then you couldn't do a simple lot

[2:06:35] split again. The challenge with that is

[2:06:37] we as staff and probably many owners

[2:06:41] don't have a deep history of that. And

[2:06:44] um so if they do have some lot splits

[2:06:47] they'd like to take care of, we've

[2:06:50] talked about doing a 10-year look back.

[2:06:52] 10 years being the thought that there's

[2:06:55] enough local local knowledge or history,

[2:06:58] county data might be up to speed about

[2:07:01] property trans property ownership

[2:07:03] changes um and that we can have a

[2:07:07] legitimate conversation about did it

[2:07:09] occur recently. The concern, however, is

[2:07:11] does it does it circumvent the

[2:07:13] subdivision ordinance um and uh so the

[2:07:18] planning commission talked about it and

[2:07:19] they did support the language shown on

[2:07:21] the screen and it's in your packet to

[2:07:23] allow a 10-year look back period. Um it

[2:07:26] does not um

[2:07:29] change the requirements of the lot size.

[2:07:31] It does not change requirements of the

[2:07:33] land use. It does not change um lot size

[2:07:38] requirements or frontage requirements um

[2:07:41] or wetland requirements. Really, all it

[2:07:44] does is give somebody a one-time ability

[2:07:47] to split their lot.

[2:07:49] If they wanted to do it before the end

[2:07:52] of the 10-year period, well, then they

[2:07:54] could go through a traditional

[2:07:55] subdivision process under chapter 66.

[2:07:58] Certainly, it's more expensive. Um but

[2:08:00] really that's that's what you're what

[2:08:03] you're what you're dealing doing in this

[2:08:05] case. Second half of their conversation

[2:08:09] um that you recall and you folks had was

[2:08:12] um cleaning up the and cleaning up the

[2:08:15] language that that sought to um or had a

[2:08:19] conflict in

[2:08:21] who gets to make the approval of the of

[2:08:24] the of the sub whom who subdivision.

[2:08:28] Um in this case uh the planning

[2:08:31] commission uh took this language up um

[2:08:34] where it's responsibility of staff to

[2:08:37] provide a staff report to make a

[2:08:39] recommendation to you but ultimately the

[2:08:41] decision falls and lies with the

[2:08:43] council. So that is the clarification

[2:08:46] that we've done. Um, and so

[2:08:51] those are the two things

[2:08:55] » I have a question on lot splits and I

[2:08:59] didn't see it in here but that doesn't

[2:09:01] mean I may not have missed it.

[2:09:04] Is there

[2:09:06] any size limitations? I mean, I think

[2:09:09] it's for rural it's got to be two acres.

[2:09:12] But if you have

[2:09:15] 50 acres,

[2:09:17] can you split off a two

[2:09:22] if you split off and do a two acre? Um,

[2:09:25] do you have to wait 10 years to do

[2:09:27] another two acre or

[2:09:29] » Yes, ma'am.

[2:09:29] » On that 50 acres.

[2:09:31] » Correct.

[2:09:31] » Yeah. I mean, if they have 50 acres,

[2:09:35] could you make it so it has to be

[2:09:38] a minimum of a tenth of the size of

[2:09:42] their lot. I mean, I know this isn't

[2:09:44] something that's in an ordinance right

[2:09:46] now, but it's just something that's been

[2:09:48] going through my mind because I'm not

[2:09:50] liking to see all these little lots and

[2:09:53] then how is it a developer can come in

[2:09:56] and

[2:09:58] split up a lot a property into all these

[2:10:01] different things and but a person can

[2:10:04] only split it once.

[2:10:06] » [laughter]

[2:10:06] » I got you, Mayor Council. I think I'll

[2:10:09] take a stab at it, but I'll defer to the

[2:10:11] city attorney. But um in in our in this

[2:10:14] case, um

[2:10:21] if somebody has a 50 acre parcel and

[2:10:24] they wanted to split off two acres, you

[2:10:27] know, for it doesn't matter reason why,

[2:10:29] but let's just say it's for their child

[2:10:31] um or or their family, they they could

[2:10:34] do that. and that this is what the minor

[2:10:36] subdivision would facilitate. Um but

[2:10:39] once they do that, they can't do it

[2:10:41] again. Um need not on that remaining 48

[2:10:46] acre parcel.

[2:10:48] Um you they could go through a

[2:10:50] subdivision process under chapter 66,

[2:10:54] which gets to maybe your second point of

[2:10:56] well what could a how can these

[2:10:58] developers do that? They're just

[2:10:59] basically platting it um at that point.

[2:11:02] And you're and this simple lot split

[2:11:05] really wouldn't apply.

[2:11:06] » So I'll I'll just add to that. So So the

[2:11:08] concept of the simple lot split is to be

[2:11:10] a faster, less expensive opport uh

[2:11:13] alternative for an individual homeowner

[2:11:15] to do exactly what he just described,

[2:11:17] splitting off a lot so their son or

[2:11:19] daughter can build a home and they just

[2:11:21] that's all they want to do is split one

[2:11:22] lot. a developer who's going to plat the

[2:11:25] property. That's a much longer, more

[2:11:27] complicated, expensive process. And

[2:11:30] they're doing that for a reason because

[2:11:31] they're going to sell those lots. And so

[2:11:33] that's why they're developing many lots

[2:11:34] all at once. So this is the concept of a

[2:11:37] simple lot split is so that an

[2:11:40] individual property owner can do this,

[2:11:42] split their property without having to

[2:11:43] go through that same cost and expense.

[2:11:45] And I'll just add to that they can't

[2:11:47] they can't do it now with this

[2:11:48] modification. They wouldn't be able to

[2:11:50] do a second simple lot split for at

[2:11:53] least 10 years, but then after

[2:11:55] » I know it used to be forever. So,

[2:11:57] » Right. Right. That's that's the major

[2:11:58] change.

[2:11:59] » Yeah. So, if a property owner 50 acres

[2:12:03] splits it in half, son or daughter gets

[2:12:06] the other half. The son or daughter

[2:12:07] can't split, right?

[2:12:08] » 10 years. They got to wait.

[2:12:10] » Okay. Got it. Okay. Great.

[2:12:13] » I think right. I'm kidding.

[2:12:16] [laughter]

[2:12:18] » [clears throat]

[2:12:20] » I'll make a motion approving ordinance

[2:12:23] number 2026-03

[2:12:27] amending the administrative subdivision

[2:12:29] regulations by establishing a 10-year

[2:12:32] look back period for admin

[2:12:34] administrative simple lot splits

[2:12:38] clarifying the review responsibilities

[2:12:40] of the zoning administrator and

[2:12:42] identifying the city council as the

[2:12:44] final approving authority.

[2:12:47] I'll second that.

[2:12:49] » A motion and a second. Any further

[2:12:51] discussion?

[2:12:53] None being heard. All those in favor?

[2:12:55] » I opposed. Unheard. Motion passes.

[2:13:01] See the administrator. [clears throat]

[2:13:05] Uh Mr. Mayor and Council

[2:13:11] » Before you here this evening is uh

[2:13:12] resolution number 2026-41

[2:13:16] of the declaration of a vacancy of a

[2:13:18] city council seat [clears throat] and

[2:13:19] consideration of appointment to that

[2:13:21] seat. I just like to say Stacy on behalf

[2:13:24] of the city staff our deepest

[2:13:25] condolences to you and your family. Our

[2:13:28] thoughts and prayers are with you.

[2:13:31] Um,

[2:13:33] so in a situation such as this, uh, the

[2:13:36] council should pass a resolution,

[2:13:38] resolution number 2026-41,

[2:13:41] declaring a a vacant seat. And the goal

[2:13:44] should be to fill that seat um, as soon

[2:13:47] as possible. And there are many

[2:13:51] different options for uh, filling that

[2:13:53] seat, some of which I'm sure you'll be

[2:13:55] discussing here this evening. uh the

[2:13:58] council may appoint any individual who

[2:14:00] is eligible bear with me

[2:14:03] eligible uh for election to that office.

[2:14:06] Generally to be eligible a person must

[2:14:08] be a US citizen a resident of the city

[2:14:10] and at least 21 years old. The council

[2:14:12] is not obligated to appoint any

[2:14:14] candidate previously defeated in an

[2:14:16] election for the office. Matter of fact,

[2:14:18] Minnesota law is is somewhat silent on

[2:14:21] the appointment process and thus the

[2:14:23] city council can decide how it will go

[2:14:25] about determining

[2:14:27] persons uh the correct persons to

[2:14:29] appoint. Um the appointment should be

[2:14:33] noted is a temporary basis appointment

[2:14:36] and would need to be filled with an a

[2:14:38] permanent election in the future. And we

[2:14:42] have this was not a special election. it

[2:14:45] would not trigger a special election

[2:14:46] because we have elections coming up here

[2:14:49] in November. So, um we uh have a couple

[2:14:54] of different options for appointment.

[2:14:57] You can literally appoint anyone you

[2:14:59] want. You can um wait to appoint someone

[2:15:04] uh once an election happens um so that

[2:15:07] if they won the election rather than

[2:15:09] taking office January 1, they can take

[2:15:11] office immediately. Um you can Um

[2:15:16] u essentially the important thing here

[2:15:19] is twofold. To declare the vacancy, but

[2:15:21] then secondly to have a discussion as

[2:15:23] far as what you would like to do for an

[2:15:25] appointment process.

[2:15:32] Well, I don't think we should wait till

[2:15:34] November [clears throat] to find out who

[2:15:36] the biggest vote getter is because that

[2:15:38] leaves that seat vacant much too long. I

[2:15:42] think uh I haven't heard anybody else

[2:15:45] with interest in filling the seat other

[2:15:47] than Miss Mrs. Miller. I so I think we

[2:15:50] should give this uh some serious

[2:15:52] consideration. She knows a lot of

[2:15:54] people. She uh she has been to almost

[2:15:58] every social public event that council

[2:16:01] has been to. Um, I know she's going

[2:16:04] through a a difficult experience right

[2:16:06] now, but she she is demonstrating

[2:16:09] strength and professionalism and

[2:16:11] dedication and commitment to our

[2:16:13] community already and to residents

[2:16:15] already. She's got u a unique

[2:16:18] understanding of the responsibilities.

[2:16:20] She knows the issues. So, she's coming

[2:16:22] in familiar. She doesn't have to

[2:16:24] research. She doesn't have to go to

[2:16:26] training. Um

[2:16:32] Tim Miller cared deeply about this

[2:16:34] community. He he cared about the

[2:16:37] residents more than uh anybody that's

[2:16:40] been up here that I could see. He

[2:16:42] researched and um I believe Mrs. Miller

[2:16:46] should be considered not just because he

[2:16:48] she is his wife, but because of who she

[2:16:50] is, what she brings to the table. I know

[2:16:53] they didn't agree on everything, which

[2:16:55] also makes her a great um candidate for

[2:16:58] this. She understands the community. She

[2:17:01] understands the importance of the job,

[2:17:03] the residents, working with others,

[2:17:06] thoughtful decisions. She's a business

[2:17:08] owner. Um and I think this position

[2:17:12] deserves somebody who will show up,

[2:17:14] listen, work hard, and put the community

[2:17:15] first. And I believe Miss Miller has

[2:17:18] that those qualities. And

[2:17:23] I don't think it should really be about

[2:17:26] her being his wife. I think it should be

[2:17:29] because she is capable, committed,

[2:17:32] brilliant, and willing to serve.

[2:17:42] » Okay, we got a resolved uh resolution we

[2:17:44] got to vote on first.

[2:17:47] » Oh,

[2:17:50] whoops. I'll make a motion to declare a

[2:17:53] vacancy resolution 2026-41.

[2:17:57] » Second.

[2:17:59] » Okay, we got a motion second. Any

[2:18:01] further discussion?

[2:18:02] » Yeah, I'd like to say something. It's

[2:18:03] like

[2:18:05] Tim Miller.

[2:18:07] I consider him a great friend. I've only

[2:18:10] known him for like three and a half

[2:18:12] years, but the guy, he had a heart of

[2:18:16] gold. He cared about the residents of

[2:18:19] this city. cared about the businesses.

[2:18:22] The guy was just me and him hit it off

[2:18:25] really well. We met with a lot of

[2:18:27] residents together. We worked out a lot

[2:18:30] of issues and he was dedicated to this

[2:18:33] city big time. Fantastic guy. I mean,

[2:18:37] it's just it's hard for me to even sit

[2:18:40] here and he's not here because he just

[2:18:44] had a big influence on my heart big

[2:18:46] time.

[2:18:48] So definitely at the public forum

[2:18:51] tonight hearing from Stacy and from

[2:18:54] Kevin. I agree with what Suzanne says

[2:18:57] too. I believe we could appoint Stacy to

[2:19:01] fill Tim's seat until the end of his

[2:19:04] term and I believe she'd do a fantastic

[2:19:07] job. She's a smart gal and she can be a

[2:19:11] bully. So can I. But she's fantastic.

[2:19:15] So, I'm hoping the council would

[2:19:17] consider this because

[2:19:21] Tim was a great guy and he left us way

[2:19:24] too soon.

[2:19:26] Thank you.

[2:19:29] » Any further discussion?

[2:19:32] I have a motion and a second. All those

[2:19:33] in favor?

[2:19:34] » I opposed. None heard.

[2:19:39] » Thank you.

[2:19:42] Now, we need a I want to make a motion

[2:19:44] now to fill the vacancy

[2:19:48] and appoint Stacy Miller to Tim Miller's

[2:19:52] seat for the rest of his term.

[2:19:54] » Second.

[2:19:56] » We have a motion and a second.

[2:20:00] Any further discussion?

[2:20:05] Well,

[2:20:06] uh, this puts me in a terrible position

[2:20:09] no matter what happens here tonight.

[2:20:12] Either way, I lose.

[2:20:16] So, being by state statue, if it turns

[2:20:19] out to be a tie, I got to put the

[2:20:22] deciding vote.

[2:20:24] So, with all due respect to Stacy and

[2:20:28] family and that, I will not follow

[2:20:31] through with that motion. So that motion

[2:20:33] fails.

[2:20:36] » Sad. It's really sad.

[2:20:40] » Yeah. So

[2:20:41] » Awful.

[2:20:42] » I'm making a motion.

[2:20:43] » Really sad

[2:20:44] » To uh

[2:20:45] » Well, point of order, Mr. Mayor. That

[2:20:48] motion was made and so a vote actually

[2:20:50] does have to made on that motion.

[2:20:53] » All those in favor?

[2:20:55] » I

[2:20:56] » Opposed. Hi.

[2:20:59] » So, with that said, I'm going to make a

[2:21:01] motion for uh put Dino

[2:21:05] Perfetti in

[2:21:07] » To that council seat.

[2:21:11] » U

[2:21:15] motion and a second. All in favor?

[2:21:18] » I opposed. Hi.

[2:21:20] » Hi.

[2:21:22] » Uh, with me being the pointer

[2:21:25] appointment guy here, I'm going to

[2:21:27] appoint uh Dino Facetti

[2:21:30] » As to fill that vacancy till the end of

[2:21:32] the year.

[2:21:37] » Staff report.

[2:21:38] » Mr. Mayor, if we can, we'll do an oath

[2:21:40] of office. Then

[2:21:42] » You want to do it now or later?

[2:21:44] » We should do it now. Okay, do it now.

[2:21:48] » Mr. Pervetti, do you want to stand up

[2:21:49] here and raise your right hand?

[2:21:55] » Pervetti

[2:21:57] » Do hereby solemnly swearby

[2:22:00] swear

[2:22:00] » That I support the Constitution of the

[2:22:02] United States.

[2:22:03] » I support the Constitution of the United

[2:22:04] States

[2:22:05] » The Constitution of the State of

[2:22:06] Minnesota.

[2:22:08] » I will faithfully,

[2:22:11] » Justly, and impartially

[2:22:15] » Discharge the duties of council member

[2:22:19] for the city of East County,

[2:22:22] » County,

[2:22:25] » City of East County,

[2:22:28] » State of Minnesota,

[2:22:30] » To the best of my knowledge and ability.

[2:22:37] » Thank you, Dino. [applause]

[2:22:43] Okay, moving forward. staff report.

[2:22:48] » Uh Mr. Mayor, uh in the interest of the

[2:22:50] time this evening, I just have one note

[2:22:52] and that would be that tomorrow is the

[2:22:54] primary election for everybody. So if

[2:22:56] you haven't voted yet, some have voted

[2:22:58] early. Uh we've had some people coming

[2:23:01] in and a steady flow. But if you haven't

[2:23:03] voted yet, tomorrow's an important vote.

[2:23:05] So please do make time. We'll be set up

[2:23:08] in the senior center over here. We'll

[2:23:10] process people through um quickly and

[2:23:13] efficiently. And please do set that time

[2:23:16] aside. Signs will be out identifying

[2:23:18] polling locations. And uh it's your

[2:23:21] civic duty.

[2:23:23] » It's at the fire station. And where

[2:23:25] else?

[2:23:27] » Um

[2:23:29] our saviors.

[2:23:31] » Our saviors. Okay.

[2:23:34] » Okay. Council reports.

[2:23:37] Uh I rode around with the fire chief for

[2:23:40] a night to unite on uh last Thursday and

[2:23:44] uh we had four different parties on the

[2:23:47] south side of the city and they were

[2:23:49] absolutely wonderful. A lot of great

[2:23:51] people that invited us in and thanked us

[2:23:54] for being there. So uh it it's it's a

[2:23:57] really great way to get out and meet the

[2:24:00] residents. I always look forward to

[2:24:02] [snorts]

[2:24:03] to uh 198.

[2:24:06] That's all I have.

[2:24:08] » I did the seniors night to unite. I was

[2:24:11] um grateful for those who came and a

[2:24:14] little disappointed in the commission

[2:24:16] members that did not come. But other

[2:24:19] than that, the city staff, the um other

[2:24:23] people who came, I totally we totally

[2:24:25] appreciate it. We had good food and it

[2:24:27] was very interesting.

[2:24:31] I know. I'd like to apologize for not

[2:24:33] being there because I did plan on being

[2:24:35] there, but my appointments took a lot

[2:24:37] longer than I expected. I wanted to make

[2:24:39] it there though. That's all I got.

[2:24:43] » Yeah, I attended the senior one and I

[2:24:47] made eight of the 12. It was hard to

[2:24:50] make all 12, but

[2:24:52] » Spent about five minutes at each one.

[2:24:54] It's a lot of distance, a lot of miles,

[2:24:56] but it it it was a fun time enjoying the

[2:24:58] people and getting their inputs and

[2:25:01] everything and thanking them for doing

[2:25:03] it. It's it's a great time meeting all

[2:25:06] these people that put these together

[2:25:08] every year. So, with that, I'll

[2:25:10] entertain a motion to adjurnn.

[2:25:12] » Make motion tojourn.

[2:25:13] » Second.

[2:25:14] » Second. All those in favor?

[2:25:16] » I I

City Council WM & City Council MTG 081026

Transcript