call to order the uh April 8th 2024 regular meeting of the East bethl city council can you please rise and say the Pledge right I pledge allegiance to the United States of America to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all you like to make a motion to adopt the agenda Brian I'll make a motion adopt tonight's agenda second motions made and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda all in favor say I I opposed not heard our first item on the agenda under presentations and public hearings is the 2023 audit presentation by ABDO and we have Mr Mike torski who's our uh Director of Finance and also Deputy City administrator who's uh taking the lead now go ahead Mike um again the 2023 annual finan final report has been prepared audited and is going to be presented here by Brad ftoc from ABDO um with that I'll just hand it over to Brad for his presentation okay great thank you thanks for having us tonight I'm here with Alex he's goingon to be pres presenting some of it as well but I'll start it out um if you want to I'll just tell you when to flip okay uh so the first slide here just tells just what we're going to go through tonight and that is uh I'll talk about our opinion and our responsibility in arriving at that opinion um um go through Alex go through the general fund results other governmental fund results and the Enterprise fund results and then I'll finish it up talking about um um different performance indicators comparing your City to other cities of similar size within the county as well as throughout the city of minota so that gets us into our audit results so when you have an audit performed you are looking for we're issuing an Auditor's opinion on your financial statements that's there's three pages two three pages that you're really paying for in the audit and to arrive that opinion we go through a number of different tests and um through our audit procedures and stuff to arrive at that opinion and make to ensure that what's in the financial statements is accurately um materially presented accurately and in accordance with generally accepted guing principles so we are issuing or we have issued an unmodified or a clean opinion on your financial statements this year so that's opinion you received in the prior years as well it's we believe it's just saying that we believe everything in the financial statements is materially accurate and again in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles um the state auto requires us to go through a series of checklists as well to make sure that you're following specific State statutes that they want us to test as part of our financial statement audit as long as we're out here they want us to test some other things as well so we went through those uh series of checklist we're looking at things like deposits and Investments making sure your deposits are insured make sure if you have Investments that they're in the proper Investments if you're any debt or anything like that to make sure you're following proper um procedures um entering and construction contracts those types of things to make sure you're following different state statutes around that so if there was any compliance issues we'd report those in the this Minnesota compliance letter and we are issuing we we're not reporting any non-compliance with the um what they've asked us to test either so both reports are are clean reports this year so that's good any questions you have a question otherwise I'll have Alex come up but yeah they used to uh have these in a notebook that we could follow a a paper copy yeah do you have one no we don't have any we don't we don't print them anymore we send them out they should be in your packet right I've got it done somewhere but yeah they were sign in in advance of the meeting yeah yeah I can get you a copy y all right then have Alex come up and look at the final results okay all right good evening everyone like Brad said I'll be going through the financial results uh just a little background on me I know this my first time here I've been working on the East Beth audit for the past three years with ABDO and working with Mike through the audit so uh nice to finally be here and meet you guys uh we'll start with the general fund fund balance here um that orange line represents uh the budget amount that increased slightly um through your guys' approval for the uh increase there then that yellow line represents the actual increase in fund balance for 23 you can see that took a pretty big jump uh in 23 compared to the prior years that is uh due to revenues exceeding the budget amounts a big chunk of that being the 515,000 in public safety Aid and then the uh expenses were below budget by about 230,000 which contributed to that fund balance increase a big chunk of that being that unfilled Planning and Zoning position during the year and then that black line at the bottom is um just following your guys' fund balance Poli of 40% um and then if you go on to the next page it compares the actual revenues and expenditures for the year um with the budget and that you can see the those totals there like I mentioned before that Public Safety Aid making up a big chunk of that $953,000 and then that 234,000 below budget expenditure amount and then that transfer at uh that is for the budgeted Capital cost out to other funds so that decreased that fund balance amount from that 1.6 million down to that 1, 143,000 there resulting in that final increase in fund balance that you saw in the chart before uh moving on to the general fund revenues this just breaks out your revenues by type those property taxes increasing pretty consistently that intergovernmental large increase that you see there again that's that Public Safety Aid contributing to that charges for services are pretty steady and then the other revenues increased a little bit more than we've seen in the past that is due to that $1,000 um in revenue from the conduit debt issuance so that is a little different than the prior years showing that increase there and then on the next page or slide is the general fund expenditures by type and this is pretty consistent not too much up or down anywhere pretty consistently increasing in public safety Public Works culture and rck and other mostly we've seen that across the board just due to inflationary expense increases then the capital project fund balances you have them all outlined up top there um and then the fund balance classifications down below um that restricted amount represents uh the Tiff District fund balances all of them that are positive and then the committed portion represents that major fund that Street Capital fund that decreased a little bit this year and then the assigned portion represents um projects that are um outlined above you'll see um the park acquisition Minard Street Park capital and then um everything that is showing a negative fund balance amount above is going to be shown as unassigned we don't show negative fund balances as restricted committed or assigned so that final column there for un assigned represents all those negative amounts regardless of if it's a tiff District or a project fund that's where it ends up and then moving on to special Revenue fund balances those all steadily increase with uh their revenues exceeding their expenses um these are all from revenue sources that are restricted or committed due to levies and the H and Eda fund then the recycling fund is um made up of that County grant money and restricted to be being spent on uh recycling expenditures on to The Debt Service um these are this shows um your total cash and Investments at the end of the year total assets and the amount outstanding and then we have down below that graph showing your future debt payments broken out between principal and interest all of these payments are funded by levies and Debt Service funds so those are already fully funded then moving on to the water fund you can see pretty consistent year-over-year with those receipts exceed in the dispersements and then that resulting Down Below in that increase in um cash and that uh budget that minimum Market balance line that's just based off of 50% of the operating cost for the year so that went up a little bit and kind of follows that pattern of the receipts exceeding the dispersements and then same um type of graphics for the sewer fund um that black portion of that bar you see up above that represents uh the Met Council loan and that's paid out of uh revenue from connection and then again down below you can see that steady increase in cash balance like we saw in the water fund the icer in the past it looks like it's came pretty close to breaking even every year uh with the exception of this year that kind of the way to break that down what we saw is there was some uh Capital expenses and the prior year outstanding at last year so the cash didn't actually leave until 2023 even though it was purchased in 22 and then that resulted in that uh cash decrease for the arena fund as well and because those expenditures were higher that uh minimum Target balance line increased a little bit and then your internal service fund we have cash balances there representing that um just equipment replacement charge to other departments within the city um and then that small portion is for that compensated absences uh liability payments and then the cash and investment balances here this graph shows by fund type so we went through The Debt Service funds the special Revenue funds the capital funds and the internal service funds so that breaks that out based on the cash balances we already looked at it kind of just brings them all together shows you what portion is made up of each fund type um for the most part your general fund holds most of the cash along with your internal service fund and those Enterprise funds are like we saw building cash year-over-year so that increase as well so a pretty steady increase in each fund type uh cash balance and then I will turn it back over to Brad thanks guys thank you so to summarize some of that up to then some of your Capital project funds that are in a deficit right now due to kind of waiting on some of the state AIDS coming in most of your funds are in really good shape I think overall your city's in good shape I think the previous slide really showed that with that increase in cash year after year so um I think you're doing pretty well this the next few charts though will show you kind of how you compare to other cities again of similar size within the county and then um across the state of Minnesota so as far as tax rates uh the class three cities that's state are cities across the state and then the yellow bar on these are the um other cities within the within the county so as far as tax rate you're lower you've been historically lower than um others in the county on average and also others across the state of Minnesota same with the taxes per capita on the right you're just about where others are at the end of 2021 you can see 2022 we would typically have um data for 2022 right now um the states we get all the information from the state after they get done compiling it they haven't issued those reports yet so that's why you see um two years of no data so still comparing to two years prior but um with the taxes per capita you're about where others are in in the county next slide your debt long-term debt per capita so these this is taking a look at the the two outstanding bonds um the outstanding we just divide that by the number of residents you can see you're a little bit higher than the rest of the county in this category as far as outstanding debt but then um throughout the state of Minnesota you're a little bit you're slightly lower there in those categories same thing with your debt service expenditures you can see if you have those two bonds outstanding you've been paying them down you can see that black line is steadily going down as you're paying those bonds off so you're still slightly higher as far as what you're paying out in debt service requirements on an annual basis last two charts your um current expenditures so this takes takes out any debt service requirements takes out any Capital expenditures your you have each year just looking at your current expenditures and how your oper in on just on a day-to-day basis you can see um peer groups are higher in both in the current operating um expenses on a kind of daily basis here so you're um some would say maybe operating more efficiently than others in this category as far as just the kind of DayDay operation type pieces can you do you remember what population number you're using we are in the class three cities which is um population oh so you don't use the estimated population of East bethle use so the comparisons are from the class three cities are I think 10,000 to 20,000 Class 2 cities are 20,000 to 75,000 and then above that's class one cities so use the same range for all three of those yep so well we're comparing your City to is other cities within the 10 to 20,000 population do that makes sense not really what I'm asking is how did you arrive at what the per capita spending is for East bethl what population population we use your population as it's most whatever the latest what's the number 12 12,000 I don't know what is it oh I I don't know that's that's what I was W that I don't know no okay whatever has been published at the latest y latest sensus estimate okay about 12,250 or something something like that yeah okay so yeah that's what we're using and then the capital expenditure capita um that's just this is going to fluctuate from year to year u based on the projects you have going on so in 2021 you had quite a few projects going on some big projects in 2021 and last couple years haven't had quite as many but um that just kind of just kind of sees where you're at and what everybody else is doing across the state so well I appreciate the great job that you folks do for us we we have a lot of faith in Mike and he thinks a lot about you so yeah we we enjoy working with Mike too he does a nice job getting everything ready and it's pretty efficient we can come in and things are prepared and yep he says the same same about you so wonderful that's good I have one question yeah reading through the uh executive governance summary yep you mentioned least receivable what does that refer to what what lease receivable do we have so antenna lease I believe it's antenna lease if I'm not mistaken yeah anten lease antenna lease yeah so I wondered what we were leasing out that's no it's it's leasing space on top of a tower what it is all right yeah so it's a long-term lease that standard State needs to be recorded okay thanks yep any question folks well thank you very much for an excellent report all right thank you Mike thanks for doing your job so well yeah could you um leave him that paper copy with the graphs I look through the report that you guys sent here A bunch of numbers I can get you a paper copy I got this onek it's like getting all the answers to the test so with that I'll entertain a motion to uh approve resolution 2024-25 audit I'll make a resolution that we accept the 20 24-31 uh city audit as is motions motions made second and second all in favor say I I I opposed none n thank you guys thank you very much that brings us to item five on the agenda which is the public forum is there a signup sheet on that Podium or that LE turn water bottle there okay we have one person signed up for the public forum and that's Miss Tammy gimple Tammy gimple 22359 baton Street good evening Council evening I um I was looking through the packet tonight and I saw your agenda number um 8.0 G2 for the contractual agreement for service to evaluate the Man Fire management and consultation and I'm wondering excuse me where where are you at on the agenda I'm sorry right here 8.0 G2 oh the Capstone LLC contract approval oh okay so so I I guess what I'm I'm I'm wondering I read through it and stuff I'm wondering why like why was it was it Council that is looking for this who who looked for this who went and and ask for this was it Council was it the fire department what what what's the Genesis of the question well how did this item come to be well different conversations with different people uh the East bethl fire department accounts in 2024 for about $1.1 million budget give or take and uh to my knowledge it's never there's never been anybody a third party outside of the department look at how it uh are we doing everything we're supposed to be doing and are we doing it well when it comes to the east Beal fire department and uh that's based on my conversations with some firefighters on other members of the city council and staff and it just and uh Mr look happened to know this gentleman uh Mr strike from now then who does this for a living as a retired Emergency Management Services got person with I don't know how many years of experience a lot of them and so we have them had him give a presentation in our last work meeting and we said it sounded like a good idea and uh or I guess it was a city council meeting excuse me and uh fire chief Sano agreed that it would be a good idea so so we asked him to make a proposal okay that's as close as I can get from the no that's a it was a good answer so it was the it was because of the budget that is on there now that the council thought let's look through and see what well it's interesting you know we had a huge increase in the Anoka County Sheriff's Department last year it was a like 14% but we only Contract Services from the inoka county sheriff's office it's a county level they they have the management of it with East bethl fire department we actually oversee the operations of that and so if you've been watching the city council we tend to want to we're focused on doing due diligence and to do due diligence requires getting facts about stuff and sometimes it's frustratingly slow like with Nexus or with Capstone not this Capstone Capstone homes and Viking Meadows and we heard plenty about how slow that was but we're just very deliberate and we need facts and uh and when we found out in particular that no one had ever looked at the operations East bethl Fire Department in anybody's memory and I talked to a number of fire firefighters and other people here did too it just seemed like a prudent thing to do would be to get a third party opinion of how we're doing you know and I think that's why Rod Sano agreed that it was a good idea he's our he's our fire chief I'm explaining to the people watching okay excuse me not explaining to me right no so um that I I can appreciate that uhhuh um I guess the fire chief is hired to do he is a manager of the fire department I mean I guess you guys all know that and everything in there that that Jerry strike and Jerry strike also is he's well known also in fire service um obviously if Matt Lick referred him he also is well known in East bethl fire service I would maybe hesitate hesitate to I mean did you look at any other consultation places that would be doing I looked at some online I couldn't find any in Minnesota that I could you know locate online uh and the other ones one was from California the other one was from Oregon and we were talking about30 to $50,000 all in by the time you cover all the expenses and that seemed a little out of line the $10,000 well I mean it would be great if it was $100 but the $10,000 on a 1.1 million budget is0 .9% of the budget to do an out again it's a third party disinterested party you know no vested are you sure about that though well no dog there's a very there's a good old boy club in the fire department and you're I'm sure you're well aware there might be a good old boys club here I don't know and that that does concern me with Jerry strike being the person that is doing this nothing against him but he has been in the fire service he's well known here in East bthl in through NOA County um maybe you pay what you get for you know you get what well do you have someone better to recommend I well I didn't know this was coming up if you honestly want me to look I will get you probably a couple Tomorrow there's there's no way he's the only one there are many people that do cons well all I said was I looked online you know I didn't but again there's there's other I guarantee there's other places I will get them to you whether or not you approve this or not um I guess my issue is that that you hire you hired a fire chief to do everything that they're reviewing here is in the fire chiefs you understand the whole point is to have an independent party look at it as as independent you can get I mean it would be great if we could hire someone from you know way far away you know similar credentials but no knowledge of anybody you know that that would be even more objective I suppose but and who hired the fire chief it was who was on that board Tim Harrington Wanda and what the old Chief right yeah Mark Des Sharm was a jack part of that too Jack too yeah good boy club at gone well that's nobody who's sitting up here though no there's it's not it's not I I appreciate what you're doing I also think if we don't have trust in our fire chief and what's going on there maybe you put it up for application again and then hire someone to come in and actually well the first thing you do is you find out from as independent party as you can find if there is a reason for concern I mean that's at least that's the way I think I don't speak for everybody up here just myself you do well at that hiring someone to um do the interviewing instead of you know hiring from within and in a good old boy's club might have taken care of some of us and it's not that's before any of us well before four four out of five that's before four out of five of us were sitting here exactly but you're here now I now I know and now we're doing due diligence trying to get an independent opinion on how things are going I would look at that independent opinion before you did it then because you might be just throwing away more money granted 10,000 isn't a lot you guys budgeted 8,000 for animal control and 10,000 is really nothing but you might get what you pay for and if you have uh other parties to recommend again whether we go ahead with it or not uh I would be I'll commit to talking to other parties I will do that thank you thank you thanks Tammy whether you signed up or not is anyone else uh interested in participating in the public forum hearing none we'll close the public forum and move on to item six on our agenda the consent agenda make a motion to approve the consent agenda and I would like to pull item d as in dog I'll second then that was going to pull the same one okay I'm going to pull item a just one question oh and item C I had a couple questions it's on the mayor Peterson Park okay any want want to pull Item B too yeah let's just pull the whole thing while we're at it um okay so motion's been made to eviscerate the consent agenda um and do we do we have a second second okay to approve the consent agenda uh as amended which would be basically only approving Item B on the consent agenda all in favor say I I I oppose none heard okay so item a simple question on under bills to pay $2,297 for software licensing for an NOA County Fire Protection Council that strikes me as an extraordinarily High expense for for uh software um and I'm going to assume that it's it's a countywide emergency management system and that it's actually a great bargain but Mr Mayor the public safety data system is extremely expensive yeah that's really what it is isn't it yeah again once again it's handy to have the former chairman of the ano County Board of Commissioners as your city administrator to answer such questions Matt how many times uh do we pay that is that once a year or once twice a year that's a it spending on how often you have to update that software and I'm not sure the exact length of time on that but I have not seen this expense come through before so I'm hoping it's not every year once hopefully but I do know that there were updates to the um public safety data system that uh there was an update for many years before that so um it's it's a costly proposition when you get a look at all the software license lensing expenses the city eats you get you realize the term being nibbled to death by a th000 Ducks where that term comes from because it's it's 10,000 here 5,000 there 20,000 there and pretty soon you're you know eating saltin crackers you know and RAM on noodle you what I will say Mr Mayor in Council is that the prior system everyone had their independent systems yeah and they would input data and then a different you know whether it's fire or police or whomever Sheriff would show up and they'd all have different information and so this gets everybody on the same sheet of music um and um and if it comes to prosecution there's Clarity then in in the in prosecution um however it's doesn't not come without a price T so yep that's a fact okay so I'll move to approve item a of the consent agenda a second motion made and seconded all in favor say I I I opposed none heard before we move on to the next thing I want to thank Mr Tom Lunen is filling in tonight for our normal City attorney Eric Larson who was otherwise uh engaged and we want to thank you for coming here and providing City Attorney Services to us thank you good to be here uh so with that we'll go to item C on the consent agenda which was pulled by uh Mr do ro council member do ro excuse me oh yeah I just had a couple questions um apparently the Minnesota smoke had the original contract last year for the ball fields and now a fast pitch team is doing it City's put a lot of money into that park on the ball fields but what's that going to do for any of the locals that want to use it you know what's the priorities if a lot of families over in Lake Beach or whatever come over on a Sunday have a picnic and want to play ball well what what happens if this club shows up and says well you get out of here we're under contract oh I think the terms would be the same as where it was under the smoke what I don't care who's got it I'm more concerned about the residents that are paying tax money to make maintain the park and fix it up and yes this isn't a freebie but part of the reason for having it is get people outside and playing ball and we have a um item nine in there is right of entrance kind of explains that they have a non-exclusive right to use it uh they can't prevent access to the athletic field by other users um but there's a scheduling process that occurs for that but again this is just a this is just an assumption of the agreement by the new entity um and um just kind of transferring it from one to the other so if we feel the need to tighten it up one way or the other then we can do that yeah that's fine so I just know that in the past there's been issues yeah y so is this any different than uh when the other clubs use the booster Fields over here or anything else I cannot speak to if it's different than that we can certainly get Nate to weigh in on that um I can send an email I was just email to the council members if there's concerns on that yeah because I know the other B clubs use those fields as well I would say the term non-exclusive use says that it's not just theirs yeah all right well that being said I approve C you a motion to approve item C of the consent agenda right sure sure I'll second and second all in favor say I I I opposed none heard okay item D oh Mr Mayor if I can um Nate is watching the the council meeting here this evening and just texted me he said the contract is for weekend uh week night use not no daytime or weekends so from that standpoint it kind of maybe the public would find more use for it on weekends than they would during the weekday perhaps but we try and accommodate in that regard so way to go Nate thank you Nate thank you Nate Nate okay um so item D Brian you pulled that yeah um resolution supporting HF 5189 and SF 5309 uh we haven't talked about these in any meetings be before and whether these come out or not it could be kind of a big big thing for the city so uh I just want to uh address this to the public and um Mr look if you could kind of give us a a little synopsis on this and I know that some residents I've seen I've had questions of if things If This Were to go forward would any residents have to hook up to it I I assume that assumption is no but and maybe too soon to ask that question as this is very very very early in this process but this is a concern that residents have had and had with the previous sewers system that would in so I kind of turn over to you Mr look okay yeah thank you Mr Mayor and Council um house file 5189 is was um a file presented by representative Scott and Senate file 5309 was representative Cal Senator calbar and both of them um the house file and the Senate companion are a $10.5 million ask from the state of Minnesota in their bonding bill it's not bonding want to clarify it's not bonding that the city is taking on it's it's state bonding and essentially what that is is we the Genesis of this was there's the um uh East bethl Elementary and Cedar Creek Elementary that have interest in hooking up to City utilities water and sewer Services we have the trunk main trunk Line Running by on 65 uh however uh there is not a um a water feature or a water tower or wells in the area that could hook up up those Elementary School uh those elementary schools at this point so essentially this is an Ask uh from the state that they've participated in the past for uh clean water scenarios uh and uh infrastructure projects such such as this and uh I don't to the best of my knowledge know if East Bethal has ever asked for bonding bills in the past for projects such as this however you've often heard me refer to as opium or other people's money um and um and the state currently right now has many bills in for very similar projects just at like this project and so from a um uh public to public type of project in other words City being public school being public the school has a um has well and and septic right now from what I understand by the uh by the uh administrator there the uh um the septic system is going to need replacement at some point so there is a kind of a a pending cost there that they don't necessarily want to invest in that if there's going to be city sewer and water available uh so this is an ask from the state we'll be certainly uh able to testify down there mayor yourself and anyone else who wants to testify can testify on these things um and essentially tell the story tell the story of of close proximity to uh you know decommission landfill and the benefits uh of of this sort of project so basically what this is is just a resolution supporting these so we can present that to the uh Committees of jurisdiction it would be the capital investment committee or the bonding committee uh that uh that the city is 100% behind this so so and again very very early if it if it was awarded at all but if it does get awarded and things move forward is there any cost to the city any cost to the residents for this yeah thank you for that question uh we we checked with our engineer to try and get a the best possible estimate on this so I do not believe that there's any difference in cost short of finding some sort of unsuitable soils or something but uh essentially it would cover a water tower a water treatment facility the piping uh to get it to the schools and um and it should cover the entire cost if their estimate is accurate yes okay so no cost hopefully no cost yes that's that's the goal I mean I it's it's hard to take an estimate and say this is going to be Rock Solid when a bid comes in at that point but um but I would feel very comfortable in saying this would be the the goal is to have no cost the goal is to have no cost this would definitely be the Lion Share if not all of it yes okay Bob you had some questions questions and statements I guess I have a little bias because I was around when the sewer water came in and I was one that voted no against it um again residents were told don't worry if you don't hook up you don't pay it's not going to be any cost to the city um put us in 70 million in the hole with everything and eventually met Council said they gave us a break but whatever um I just don't well my first question is do the city engineer look at those papers or that folder that I dropped off that shows the forest main has all the specs what it's slated to hold I mean it would be kind of a shame to say we're going to run it in the force M and then have it be too small Mr ronning who at the time was on the council um he's really good with the numbers on this whole thing so you kind of know what I'm talking about right Tom but anyway to to think that for 10.5 million that they're going to put this in the ground and and you know hey I'm for schools I'm for Education I'm for kids however um we're still paying one heck of a bill on the last sewer water project that wasn't going to cost anybody money and to put this stuff once you'll see administrator had a saying he said once the camels got his nose Under the Tent the rest comes after and once you get into this and start on this road you don't just stop and turn around because the momentum is going so fast and so hard and then you I don't really care if people don't like me for my opinion on this or not I really don't because with what we went through for 13 years and we're still going through it to do this I think that it's something and like I gotta agree with Brian kind of stole my thunder it's we haven't had a work meeting or any real discussion with a lot of facts and figures and unless somebody can put it in writing that it's not going to cost us money I I can honestly say I won't go for it I I I I need a whole lot more information and some of this could be time sensitive you know I mean our legislature they work so much and then they go home and enjoy thems and hopefully they pick it up again next fall um Mr look yes if this was award to us and we say no we don't want it is there any cost to give it back to turn it down no the state wouldn't let the bonds at that point for that amount or they would reduce the the leting of bonds by that amount if we chose not to move forward the one thing I will say um is we had a discussion with the engineer in the staff meetings on Tuesday uh concerning this that was the main question that came up can the Force main handle additional hookups and the response was indeed it can uh there is capacity in there so um there is there is documents that he's come up with uh kind of putting together estimates on it and and we're I'm having to trust that that is an accurate estimate on the amount um but uh but it is I will also say it is being built with additional capacity to it uh such that um as you'll recall in Prior discussions at the corner of Simson 65 we're kind of talking about a commercial industrial park area this would also feed that Park area with water and sewer service so um to the north of that what we have is a park that is couple acre maybe Lots um and this would be much smaller more dense um commercial industrial which brings in jobs to the community and everything else but those those type of entities require city sewer and water services so it's kind of building an anticipation of that as well with the state's dollars well did the city engineer did he discuss how much trouble we had with the wells that were put in down in the sewer water district or how many times we had to bore around to try and find uh between the magany and rust what else was it radium radium and I mean we've got two Wells down there now we use one one's sitting there but yeah I don't I mean help me out with something will just from where I'm sitting looking at this the fundamental difference is that when the the city and and one of the reasons we wanted Bob on the city council when the changes happened last year was because he was the one person out of five people who voted against this the the city sewer and water project which did indebt the city greatly um $1 13.7 million as of the end of 23 202 3 is what the residents of East bethl have paid for that thus far $1 13.7 million and those numbers were from Mike jorski who was here earlier um and we've got a long way to go yet before it's paid up but it but where from where I'm sitting the if they had gone for out for a state type of bonding uh and and get money from the state using OPM other people's money that was exactly what they didn't do they put all the debt onto the residents of East bethl General obligation bonds yeah General obligation Bonds on the presidents of East bethl and general obligation means we don't care if we have to take your house and sell it they're going to be paid well they also tried bad bonds build America bonds and that didn't work out so good either so but am am I missing something something here because that I see is the fundamental difference of the approach we're talking about here versus what was done before and for me it's as different as conduit bonding for Nexus as opposed to what they did in 2011 10 2010 actually they left the bonds follow 2010 after the election well with the outlay what it cost for that 3/4 of a Mile Square down on 22 and 65 for what it cost to do that I don't see how they for 10 and a half million I don't see how they can do the one on Sims 65 and feed the schools and do the lift stations and there's a lot more to it then muts the eye but I do I think we need to really take a look I do trust Craig Yokum as an engineer as as a city engineer I do and I and he was around back then and he's still there and and I'm I'm mean if he gave the estimates and I trust Matt too that you laid things out clearly um so it may be surprising but it's like that Capstone traffic study I was shocked that they came up with the conclusions that it's not going to have an effect I was dumbfounded and but I talked to the the CEO of the company and she assured me she had personally gone through all the numbers and she's a license a civil engineer with a lot of experience and I what grounds do I have to doubt her well Craig yokam wasn't involved in Bolton and M was with the engineering of that project no c y came on after after the fact really CU he was he's been he didn't design the sil water we fired Bolton and M you fired them or hired them no we fired them oh was when we took the office was Bolton make the the city engineer yes I believe they were just hankin and Anderson was was doing City engineering a long time I thought it was but anyway we this is something that we we we definitely but I was asking a question am I confused about it or do I understand it correctly that there is a fundamental difference between the way it was approached before and the way we're talking about doing it now the OPM issue other people's money issue I'll bite my tongue on this one Mr Mayor okay if I can say we we did look at the price of what a water tower will be what a water treatment plant will be how much the piping will be lift stations and all that's been taken into account on this yeah um so there's City owned land on the uh east side of 65 uh by the post office that it's kind of been identified as a possible location for this which would save costs in doing it um so a lot of thought has gone into it Nate's work very closely with Craig on this and and myself on trying to come up with a a solid figure that we can yeah I do have confidence in all the people involved including Nate yeah Aaron in the ordinances it does it say anything about uh manitary hookups that's a state statute 429 if a sewer water goes by your business or residence you can be forced to hook up you can be that was beat into us by Mark verling who was the attorney at the time uh section 7423 looks like the title is mandatory connection to City systems uh it shall be unlawful for any person to install or for any real property to be connected to a private Waterworks system intended to provide water for human consumption or for any person to install or for any real property to be connected to a private sanitary sewer system except in cases where the City Waterworks or sanitary system is not available to a property the city administrator shall refer all questions of availability to the city engineer the city engineer shall make a recommendation if either of the city water or sanitary sewer systems is available to a premises whether requesting or requiring installation or connection service availability shall be presumptively demonstrated by written notice to connection provided to the property owner if the city confirming the availability of Municipal Water Andor sanitary sewer systems adjacent to the property's address so that sounds to me as like it's mandatory if it's available well it sounds to me like that's as that's if a resident is asking to hook up um state law and you we lost four businesses down on sewer water district because of that because of the Mantra don't worry if you don't hook up you don't pay once it was put in they couldn't afford it and they got ran out of town even though some took advantage of a low interest interest Loan program some couldn't do that the city engineer shall make a recommendation if either of the city waterw or sanitary systems is available to a premises either requesting and or requiring installation or connection I guess we could we could ask for a legal opinion on whether that requires it or not well no whether the city does I mean this this is a state statute and it was beat in our heads because we had threats of lawsuits and it kept coming up well 429 says that this is the state says if it comes by you're going to hook up if they want you to unless you're in a charter City Charter cities have different different scenarios on that but I mean the focus on this tonight I think is looking forward if we want to expand a commercial industrial sector of the city and it needs city sewer Services if you want to connect the school district and it needs SE city sewer and water services you will as a city pay by the estimate $10.5 million to make that happen the issue here is there's two bills that have been dropped where if funded the state pays that instead of us at some point in the future so um yes uh things happened in the past and there's a $15 million outstanding bill this is 10.5 it doesn't swap the difference however in the future at least you're not going to be eating another 10.5 million on top of the 50 you're already paying right and that was the question I had when you take a look at it and try and understand exactly what this bill says it's basically telling our residents that we're going to be you know supporting this Bond or this this water tower and program they shouldn't have to pay a dime period right that makes it much easier to swallow as you can understand fully knowing that in the near future we might need a facility exactly like that that they might be able to pay for the state now and that City would our city would not have to inquire that bill two or three or four years down the road correct okay I want to make sure I understand that well as long as you know the build it and they will come I've seen it too much well this is I guess that's stuck in my head yeah this is this is primarily for the school at this point we don't have any businesses that are hooking up or anything I mean that's all um perspective possibilities in the future that may or may not happen this is strictly for the school we have a um uh School letter here from uh the k y Ken Anderson the superintendent saying that they are very supportive of these bills and desperately want to hook up I think that they understand that there's uh you know replacement cost to their existing system that they would rather not bear um given the problems some of the challenges they've seen with with that system so so it exceeds the 10.5 who's who's fiscally responsible for that us if it exceeds the 10.5 your options are you can decide not to take the money or B you can go to the school district and say we need some contribution from you so in other words sorry folks but we got to raise another Levy or like you said you say we're not going to do it the if the bids come in too high you can decide to punt okay let let's call the question have two two sides of the discussion right and we're and we're we're going on and on and so let's call the question it's the item is to to approve or deny the resolution 20 24-32 supporting house file 5189 and Senate file 5309 we'll make a res resolution make a motion make a motion to support host file 5189 and Senate file 5309 motion has been made anybody seconding second motion is made and seconded to approve resolution 202 24-32 all those in favor say I I you got any discussion here folks Oh I thought we already had that no I was going to suggest we table get get more information didn't we call the question proceed procedurally speaking there was no motion on the table so there was no question that was called the motion has now been made um so now under procedure there should be discussion unless if the question were to be called now then it would go back to the motion that is on the table so there at the time that at the time that the mayor called called the question there was no question to call there was no motion that had been made now we do have a question we have a motion so if the question were called now it would go immediately to the vote because we have a motion but when when the mayor had called the question there was no motion so there was no question so I'll call the question all those in favor say I I I opposed no the record show that was council member do ro voting in the negative okay so that completes the consent agenda had long last uh item number seven new business commission Association and task force reports first with the Planning Commission it's already up thank you Mr Mayor members of the council might I catch you by surprise there I was waiting for Matt to get this up so we can get moving on February 28th or excuse me February 12th 2024 uh commissioner planning commissioner Joe Ryder res submitted a resignation to members of the city council which created an open position on the Planning Commission City staff advertised the opening and and received two letters of Interest or rums the letters of Interest were attached or are attached for your review um the Planning Commission conducted interviews of both candidates at its March 26 2024 meeting at the conclusion of the interviews the commission voted to recommend the appointment of Elden Holmes for a to fill the partial term expiring January 31st of 2026 the city council uh should review the applicant's attached letters of interest and resume consider the planning commission's recommendation and consider appointing a candidate to fill the Planning Commission vacancy um does anybody want to make a motion regarding who to who to uh appoint to the Planning Commission or to accept or reject the planning commission's uh recommendation however you would like to put it I'm Mo to put Diana Sanger on motions made to appoint Diana Sanger to the Planning Commission second motion has been seconded any discussion the reason for uh my thought is to put her on I was at the Planning Commission meeting and I listened to the interviews and in my opinion Diana is very qualified for this position plus I feel that we need new people on our Planning Commission and uh just to change things up and move forward in a better Direction than we have been that's my opinion okay any other thoughts discussion well if not then I'll call the question all those in favor of appointing Diana Sanger to the planning Commissioner of East Planning Commission of East bethl say I I I opposed I let the record show that Mr mundle council member mundle voted in the negative iup item number two item number 7 A2 iup inter interim use permit commercial kennel 625 221st AV Northeast Andrew benck Mr Berg you're on the hot plate again thank you Mr Mayor um Mr benck uh has requested that his uh application be withdrawn however the packet was already published uh so I'm presenting you with the request to withdraw his application at this point you can hear it if you want to or we can withdraw it uh at his request I move to uh accept his pulling his application a second motion has been made and seconded to accept Mr Ben's withdrawal of his application um I don't know a better way to say it than that so that's what I said uh all in favor say I I I opposed none heard I I do just want to say I want to thank Mr benck for trying to follow his passion I think in different circumstances it would have been fantastic but his intent is to request an ordinance change by the way so you'll you'll hear from him again okay that's good and he's got intuitiveness too which is useful all right item three variant setbacks 8 18440 3r Street Northeast Aon again thank you again Mr Mayor just the man of the hour here that's right uh this is a variance request uh for um a reduction in the front uh setback as well as the rear yard setback at 18443 Street Northeast the city received an application for a variance on this property which is located in a rural residential zoning District of the Bear Hollow subdivision the property owner requested a variance for the placement of a detach accessory structure closer to the front line than the principal building and a reduction of the rear yard setback from 25 ft to 18 ft uh our zoning code states that no accessory building or detached private garage shall be located nearer the front line than the principal building except when the lot is 3 acres or greater and the existing building is located a minimum of 200 ft from the lot line the accessory building or detached garage may be located closer to the front line than the principal building if those apply this property is 2.02 Acres with the primary structure set back approximately 95 ft from the front front lot line this request does not meet the criteria set forth to allow for placement of the accessory structure closer to the road so a variance is required Additionally the property is irregular shaped uh it backs the Oak Grove City boundary line on the west it has two ponds or Wetlands on the south as well as a septic tank and a drain field and the is located just north of the principal dwelling making uh the placement of a proposed detach accessory structure behind the front Foundation line of the principal dwelling impractical the consideration of a variance requires the Planning Commission and the city council consider the three Factor test for practical difficulty the first Factor test is a test of reasonableness which means the landowner would likely use the property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance in this case uh accessor structures detach accessory structures are permitted as an accessory use in the rural residential zoning District the second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the land owner the uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of a piece of property that is to the land and not the personal characteristics preferred by the land owner in this case the property is irregular shaped due to the city's West boundary and the curve of Third Street Northeast as I mentioned there are two ponds or Wetlands on the south side of the property the septic tanks in drainfield are located to the south of the principal dwelling and the well is located just to the north of the principal dwelling the third factor is that a variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood this factor is used to consider whether the resulting structure would be out of scale out of place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding areas in this case seven of the 30 Parcels in the be Hollow uh subdivision have detached accessory structures three of those seven are nearer the front line than the primary structure uh the property also abuts 160 acres of land owned by the Minnesota DNR for Forest land so there will be no Westerly neighbors um at the Planning Commission meeting March 26 2023 a public was hearing was held and no one spoke except for the applicant at the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion the Planning Commission made a formal recommendation to the city council to approve the variant SP by a five to zero vote the city council should review the request consider the planning commission's formal recommendation and consider approving the variance request for the placement of a detached accessory structure nearer the front line than the principal dwelling and a reduction of the standard rear yard setback from 25 to 18 ft with conditions presented in resolution 20 24-27 thank you [Music] Aaron I have a question question for you yes I watched that Planning Commission meeting and my question is if you don't mind I'll just read it is it prudent to assume the DNR will be okay with a setback tighter than it normally would be uh when we didn't actually hear back from them so my conversation I did send a formal letter uh for a variance request to the Minnesota DNR I did have communication with uh a c a planner from the Minnesota DNR I submitted all of the application materials along with all the information you heard tonight she indicated to me that if they had an issue with it that I would hear hear back from her or someone at the DNR by the Planning Commission meeting which was on Tuesday I talked to her the Friday before we heard nothing and I've had no followup since then from the com you're comfortable with it I'm assuming that she's following her word and that if there was an issue she would have reached out to one of us okay just thought I'd ask yep on the other thing uh was we we got to move to bring it up I just I'm asking him a question yeah I know but to discuss it we have we have to make a motion in second and bring it up for discussion and then even though I'm asking a question and followup to his presentation well I guess I don't know I'm not a parliamentarian I'll do whatever you guys say sure it's it's really appre question and obviously this being my first meeting I don't know how you guys have done it some cities will do the discussion and then bring the motion you guys have done that on some of those consent items if normally the generally speaking the practice is to do the motion and then have the discussion but there's custom and usage if if it's you guys had done it a little less formally you can continue to do that there's not a there the rules would say motion second and have the discussion okay but your past practices contr Trump the standard rules of procedure I don't know that we have a real practice we can then I would recommend then I would recommend having a motion on the table and having the discussion then when the motion is generally our practice is to have a motion yeah I'll I'll I'll just go with whatever you guys want so do we have a motion I'll make a motion toate that's appropriate you would make the motion but and Bri you seconding uh what's your bring up the well the motion would be to approve the variance the Vari accessory structure variance for accessory structure in Bear Hollow do we have a resolution number or something 202 24-27 202 24-27 that's interesting at the bottom of the page it shows 2023 d27 yep that's my error oh the next page has your resolution with the proper number on it there we go Okay so we've got a motion I'll second made and seconded to approve resolution number 2024 granting 2024 d27 granting a variance for the placement of a structure Etc now if I could ask you one other question absolutely what are the driveway plans referred to in that resolution yeah if you'll uh look at the screen I've brought up the applicant site plan uh as you can see here is the existing house here's the existing driveway and a second driveway is okay and that in a rural residential we permit second driveways okay this actually all came about when the applicant came in to apply for his second driveway and discovered that his proposed building isn't going to meet the standards either so that okay he withdrew his application for a driveway applied for the variance so we're doing the chicken and egg scenario here yep yep okay thank you very much that's all the questions I have well it kind of answers my question on the second driveway I I looked that one up so tried to get educated before I showed up here I was over by the property today and I took a look at it and uh that indeed is the only place that a guy could put a detached accessory building and what I've seen over there that it won't interfere with anything I think it's a good choice it's my opinion okay well we have a motion made and seconded any further discussion if if not all those in favor of approving resolution 2024 d27 say I I I opposed none heard next item on the agenda item 7 A4 variance second driveway 29 910 you Canon Street Northeast once again we're graced with the presence of Mr Berg you're gonna get a healthy dose of me tonight I could say something about a little bit goes a long way but far be it for me to do such a thing I've reduced my staff reports as much as possible to get the necessary information to you all right we appreciate you on February 22nd 2024 the city of East bethl received a variance application from Scott flion the property owner at 20910 banon Street for the construction of a second driveway SL access to his parcel off of Buchanan Street Northeast in 2021 Mr flion was permitted to construct a detached accessory structure on his property due to the placement of the primary residence on the north side of the parcel and its proximity to the side Lot line Mr flion constructed the detached accessory structure south of the primary residence the layout of the homes the layout of the home placed the garage on the north side of the house away from the new detached accessory structure this orientation places the driveway the existing driveway nearly 75 ft away from the newly constructed detached accessory structure adding to the existing driveway to get to the detached accessory structure could take up a majority of the front yard uh a driveway that provides direct access to the second garage detached accessories structure could look better than an extension that runs parallel to the city rideway through the front yard on March 19th of 20121 when Mr flion applied for his detached accessory structure permit he indicated that there would be no second driveway uh our city code section 10 General development regulations subdivision 15 states that properties in the R1 and the R2 and the Lake District are allowed one access from the street this property is located ated in an R1 district there are two other Parcels in the Hidden Haven Country Club Estates that appear to have second driveways a historical review of the gis aerial data provided information that one of them did exist prior to 2008 when the ordinance revision occurred the consideration of a variance requires the the consideration of a variance requires the consideration of the three PR three Factor test of practical difficulty easy for me to say in this case it could be argued that the Practical difficulties can be partially met therefore alternative findings of fact have been included for your consideration the first Factor uh is a test of reasonableness which means that the landowner would likely use the property in a practical way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance it does not mean that the land cannot be put to use in any reasonable way whatsoever without the variance in this case the property owners requesting a second driveway to access a detached accessory structure is a reason able request as adequate Ingress and egress are necessary for the structure intended to store vehicles and other personal items or alternatively the denial of the variance to place a second driveway on the property does not deny the landowner of reasonable use of the property as a detached accessory structure and subsequent access are not a requirement of development standards of a primary residence the second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the land owner the uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of a piece of property that is to the land and not the personal characteristics or preferences of the land owner in this case the primary residence was constructed on the north side of the lot the layout of the Home Place the garage on the north side of the house away from the detached accessory structure the primary driveway is located 75 ft from the newly constructed detached accessory structure or alternatively an Al internet access exists by way of connecting the approved existing driveway to the new detached accessory structure the third factor is that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood this factor is used to consider whether the resulting structure would be AOS scale AO place or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area in this case as I said there are two other properties in the subdivision that have second driveways a driveway that provides direct access to the second garage could look better than an extension that runs parallel to the city rideway through the front yard or alternatively the property is located in an R1 zoning district with smaller lot minimums decreasing the distance between driveways and of the 61 properties in the subdivision one has a second driveway that existed prior to the zoning prohib prohibition on March 26 2024 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application information there were multiple neighbors who spoke in both opposition and support of the request concerns range from property values precedent potential business usage extra vehicles and a deterrent for future home buyers supporting neighbor support from three neighbors were voiced and the applicant presented a document with 24 additional signatures in support by a 3 to2 vote the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request for the placement of a second driveway at 20910 Buchanan Street the city C should review the request consider the planning commission's formal recommendation and approve or deny the variance requests for the second driveway as presented in resolution 2024 28a or 2024 28b does anyone want to move either resolution before we get into a discussion make a motion to approve resolution 2024 28 a I believe it would be to Grant the variance second motions made and seconded do we have discussion yeah I got a couple concerns um on one hand I mean I look at at it it makes sense to extend the driveway or to finish it because it doesn't but on the other hand it's not a situation that's topographical it's not there's a river running through it there's not natural land whatever and what I'm a little concerned about is people going and putting their houses and then down the road say well we'll just get a variance when in the initial planning maybe that should have been taken into consideration that this is what we're going to do because we we've been we've been kind of doing this granting these variances and as it's going along at some point we're going to say no and some well wait a minute you just did for the crying out loud how many Varian is because they decided to put their building in after the fact and now I'm trying to do something and you're telling me no I mean the Planning Commission was a three to2 vote so that tells you it wasn't unanimous after a lot of discussion too lot of discussion and then the other side of me well it does make sense to finish the driveway and make it look right I mean when you're talking perious non perious surface in meeting those standards and you don't want it to look messed up so yeah that's a tough one yeah this was one of the ones that uh we drove over by and took a good look at uh gan's got a very nice house unfortunately for him and how it was set up garages on the wrong side look at the neighbors you can clearly see what what could be now to to put a a driveway through the middle of someone's yard uh that's kind of tough I drove by it the first time I went there I didn't notice it I thought it was another house set back in there it's not like there's junk anywhere or anything like that it it's it's just a very sharp looking house with a sharp looking garage next to it with a giant concrete pad you can see where he's been driving well isn't that the one if if I'm if I'm thinking the same one where he had a driveway in and the city made him take it out and put grass in and it was obvious he was driving back and forth on the grass and so that's why he decided he wanted to finish that driveway out is that the same same guy sounds very familiar I have no idea I was that the last it was that the last Planning Commission you remember Jim I don't remember hearing that they made him tear it out no you're you're thinking right no I didn't you're you're right but I think in this case we actually stopped construction on this driveway it was it was obvious was going to put down class five or something it was obvious to the building official who was out there that was being formed up to be poured all the way to the street um I delivered the stop work order to stop at at least to at the property line at this point uh to make sure that we were in compliance with the zoning code um and so then the contractor backed up the forms and Port what you see here on the on the uh screen now our ordinance um when we issue permits for detached accessory structures there is limited to zero language in there which uh we request how many trips are going to be used per month if this is just simply for snowmobile storage and a boat to take out every other weekend it may not destroy the vegetation and become a hight trffic use as you may see here I think there's planks and dirt where grass should be um so just because we approve a detached accessory structure there's no uh indication as to how frequently it will be used um there is a question on the application as I have in the packet to request that you know is there an intended driveway um the applicant in this case said no uh if the applicant would have said yes that would have triggered us to review this from the zoning perspective and say uhuh uh second driveways are not allowed in the R1 zoning District you may want to reconsider that before you build your detached accessory structure so could that be could that be done a little differently at the at the community development level or the building permit level potentially um that doesn't reel this one in from 2021 so if I could ask a couple of questions what is to the that's to the north right of the driveway the primary driveway yes the white looks like crushed stone no on the on the property just to the north of the black top right here driveway this is also cement that's cement it's been poured cement in addition to the driveway the the addition to the primary driveway the existing first driveway huh yeah does he have a patio off that side of his house there I uh I don't know that for a fact there is another um accessory building here on the north side of the property I don't know if this is for easier access or maybe they needed additional parking but you you can see the edges look uneven yeah well it's it's graphically split that way let me pull up the areal as opposed to the newer driveway clean lines well to make it look look right I mean he might as well I don't have a laser but if you kind of look between where the cement pad that's a that's a heck of a pad coming on the front of his garage if you look between the pad and the street that's better it's dirt so I mean yeah that's that's much Clear yeah I think uh when the county uh has these Aerials done there from probably 1,500 to 2,000 ft above and then we get pixelated data back so it's not perfectly clean but okay go down to where the building is now then well I have to switch years uh or the driveway it doesn't exist in that it didn't exist in that one I just know that 2020 is the cleanest data we have the cleanest Vision but that answers a question I because it look like a bunch of crush Stone CU The Irregular edges but anyway like the apron of the garage continued well that my next question is was there a permit for that driveway apron and driveway this the first the one that stops 15 20 ft no there was not there wasn't that would have been included in the application packet or it would have been when when was that put in when when the detached accessory structure was being built or finalized without a permit then in in some cases when we when we accept a building permit for a structure it's that's why we ask for the drive is there going to be a driveway well this is different than what maybe it's my memory that's different but I thought at the Planning Commission meeting it was the intent was to put down class five or whatever you want to call it a gravel a per you know a porous driveway so to speak and instead because that wasn't okay with the city this showed up but that's what my question was well like Bob is saying it looks odd without the extension to the street you know to have a apron and driveway and then it's dirt but where did they driveway come from to begin with that was the question I had when I looked at all I can answer Mr Mayor is when I was out there and my knowledge of concrete this was being framed for a driveway when we we requested the stop work order be done but there was no permit to do a driveway not a permit for a driveway was the concrete there the truck was not there yet it was being formed but it was formed yeah yeah yeah well you guys can you know do whatever you want to do um I like to be obliging what I don't like is you know you know the old saying it's easier to ask forgiveness than it's to ask for permission and that's an old one and see it all the time see it out where I live that was an insinuation that was made at the Planning Commission meeting was why didn't you apply for the driveway permit at the time was it because you planned on doing it but you didn't think that the city would go ahead and do it yeah but you you're not inside the guy's head you don't know what he's going to do I think a garage is a good indication what's that a garage door on that building is a good indication what he's going to do with it you know all right like I mentioned we don't ask how many trips a week is it going to be a daily use is it going to be just for weekend boat storage is it like we don't that's not a required question to answer yeah you have to assume it's going to be access accessible but also accessory use which doesn't mean daily use no but according to to our zoning a crushed rock what do you call it class five or whatever you want to call it driveway would been acceptable either right it would not because he's on an improved street so he would have to improve the surface uh to match or be superior to what the right of way has well so it's either we he's concrete or stays dirt if it stays dirt he going to be more of a hazard because he's going to be drive if he drives through it in the rain it's going to be mud right so then he puts mud on the street so this is also as a result of pending a pending code enforcement case so there is neighborhood does that me I'm sorry there there neighborhood complaints about the second driveway so elaborate if you would so uh we've had a a neighbor in the neighborhood call in and and uh Lodge a formal complaint that the applicant is in violation of the code because second driveways are not permitted um and that the continued use is making this a driveway it's compacting the soil it's uh not vegetation it doesn't meet the zoning standard so then our response is we investigate the complaint send a letter to the homeowner if it's substantiated and then as a result we received a call from the applicant or or in this case the homeowner who then now requested what is what are my options option A is we remove it you don't do daily use you put in a driveway across your front yard for the extension or you request a variance to the dri to the zoning code standard of a driveway Aon are there other driveway code violations in that neighborhood as I said in my staff report you can see that there are two driveways two properties with second driveways one of which predates this one predates 2008 and that's why it's allowed to remain gravel otherwise it should have been uh paved if it were uh to the standard after 2008 there is a existing driveway up here similar to the scenario that the applicant is dealing with this is not grass however it's not paved either so it's just getting regular use uh and and it's getting compacted and there's no vegetation um and then uh down the street I know from the applicant's property we have a driveway width standard of 24 ft and a couple of these driveways are likely beyond the standard of 24 ft it's a real hodge podge huh it is and I was curious are there covenants and you know in these neighborhoods like adjacent to a golf course and stuff like that are there covenants in the neighborhood itself that are even more restrictive than Oran Ironically in the Hidden Haven uh neighborhood there are like you have to wear khaki pants 30 30-year covenants actually which I think came around in 2007 um one of the covenants uh although it doesn't specifically address driveways IT addresses the number of detached accessory structures that a property is allowed to have and in the Covenant it only allows for one and that was a concern of someone who called in prior to the public hearing was that this property already had a detached accessory structure why did the city permit a second one to be constructed when that's a violation of the Covenant however city code doesn't take into consideration covenants because covenants are private agreements between the developer and the land owner or the homeowner so we do not enforce covenants we enforce city code and by the amount of property here and the size of the previous detached accessory structure this property would be allowed to have what it has today by city code for covenants to be enforced it's a civil issue that's correct cor mhm and there are many pages of the covenants for this Hidden Haven um really it's it's very lengthy so Erin you said that you had a phone call a complaint about this do they come in and fill out a Complaint Form yes the the complaintant back in 2001 when this was being constructed uh is the same complaintant that's called us numerous times and then after Council requested a change to the formal process he was willing to fill out a formal complaint and did so did you say 2001 yeah when the construction of this was happening so then the applicant remedied it by planting grass and then as the continued use happened it became more apparent to the neighborhood that this was being used daily um and then lodged another complaint well I think we beat this thing to death V oh come on take another couple swipes at it any further discussion yeah what point does common sense kick in Define your terms common sense being able to think rationally it's not black and white be able to reason things out you know what I mean and so where does that land you on this particular issue I guess I'm I'm for it it to stay like that is I mean you're either going to be tracking mud out the street maybe create a safety problem along with not looking very good it's unfortunate it couldn't be caught before that but it's the way it goes you so so Council if I can without a solution uh without a variance Andor the requirement of the driveway being extended across the front yard eventually this will end up with citations and litigation because it's in violation of our city code well why why go down that road we got enough problems well with a formal complaint that's our our response so we need to rectify that in some form whether that is let the applicant know that he's not going to be allowed a second driveway and has to come up with a solution or B we Grant a variance to the code to allow for the second driveway to take care of the complaint side of things completely up to you and Mr Mayor and counil if I may I just also would advise that in looking at the variants um while the other factors will be relevant it really is that practical difficulty test in the findings because if the decision of the council whether it's approval or denial were to be challenged in in the court that's a standard that they're going to look at so the the discussion that you're having is relevant certainly to the factors but in making the determination just ensure that we're making them based on those three CR criteria under practical difficulties so it can hold up to scrutiny because those are the standards and they're high level so the other stuff that you're discussing about certainly can be relevant to it um but those are the standards that are going to be the most important if any decision again approval or denial were to be challenged in the court which is why I wrote the alternative answers to the first version so that there is a finding of fact in either direction because there may be support for partial in both cases so if you choose to approve the variance there is a finding of fact that could support it and if you choose to deny there is a finding of fact that would support a denial doesn't that just throw a monkey wrench in the gears you're welcome thanks for the clarity um have is is uh I want to say your name correctly Scot flion flion are you here do you want to maybe visit with us for a minute have you uh talked to the opposing neighbor he's actually a snowbird he's in Arizona okay so you guys don't know each other in particular part if I remember right part of his complaint was he's worried about me parking more cars in the driveway that was an additional issue additional concern I don't have any cars in the driveway any my driveways right now there's not a car in sight they're all in the garage at night and a little extra concrete pad brought up before that was put on before I put the garage up and was there to park another car there yeah cuz driveway dropped off like about 3 ft on that edge had to build it up and we just put a pad there right the city says you can't park on the unfinished surface right right and then part of the deal when when I did get about this concrete path here I was framing up just to put class F down figing that would be okay they said no it has to be grass so I put grass down and I started driving over it three times a week four times a week and that's where I got the complaints from start turn the mud over time so and then my other choice is going right through my front yard 12T wide path cut my yard and a half what's that going to look like not too good no but uh you know I may vote in opposition to this and it's nothing personal but I I just have a real sense that it's uh ask forgiveness kind of situation if it weren't for that other pad I asked about I wondered about that that's why I wondered about it and if that was done without a permit put all that concrete down uh it's like it suggests to me like I at that point I think he had to have a permit for a driveway the driveway is there I'm just add with to I'm not driving down the street I'm still I mean the concrete piece to the north of your Blacktop driveway yeah but 2 I add my drive I know I know and all these things have a great explanation I know I know how life works you know but uh anyway that was that's why I don't like encouraging this kind of stuff because I see it all the time uh and you know the old saying another one is ignorance of the law is no excuse you know kind of thing and I also I'm a Libertarian so I don't like a heavy-handed government so I'm really I'm really in the crosshairs on this one so anyway I just wanted to ask you overall for the view from the city people driving by looking at P going all way to the street compared to a p going yeah I mean again you get to Mr D roa's point of common sense or practical you know it's which looks better two ruts going to a driveway or a finished driveway I think we'd all agree finished driveway looks better but it's also kind of rewarding the you know the way it was done so anywh who thank you anybody have any other questions for Scott okay thank you thank you all right uh any further discussion if not I'll call the question all those who want to support what Mr mundle referred to correctly as resolution number 2024 d28a uh GR granting a variance for the placement of a second driveway on the property located at 20 910 Buchanan Street Northeast say I I I and all those opposed say nay nay that was Mr Lewis who said nay again we don't all have to agree on everything guys a point that's lost on on some folks apparently uh okay item 7 A5 interim use permit Amendment for 1311 229 Northeast Aon have we warn you out yet not yet you got a couple more all right Mr Mayor members of the council B&T Trucking is an Over The Road Trucking Company that's been in business for over 20 years operating in East bethl for Plus 8 uh on May 10th 2021 an iup was issued by resolution 2021-22 allow the continued operation of the business to be in compliance with the new zoning code over the past eight years the property remains neat in orderly non-c complacency has not been an issue a street view uh photo of the property is attached for your review uh as with any uh Long Haul operation or the transportation Transportation Vehicles accumulate miles and become more cost it becomes more cost effective to replace those Vehicles than to continue to repair the owners intend to sell the used fleet vehicles and replace them with new trucks and trailers as needed Minnesota State Statute 16827 requires Motor Vehicle Dealer license be obtained by anyone engaging in the direct sale or lease of more than five vehicles within a 12-month period new or used a motor vehicle dealer license from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety requires City Zoning verification B&T Trucking is located I won't give you the address you already said that but it is Zone light industrial section 48 of the light industrial code identifies Motor Vehicle sales as a prohibited use uh section four applications and procedures amendments holders of cups or iups may request proposed amendments to the permit at any time following the procedures for a new permit set forth in this chapter no significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the permitted use shall be undertaken without approval of those amendments by the city council the city shall determine what constitutes a significant change significant changes include but are limited to hours of operation number of employees expansion of structures or premises or operational modifications resulting in increased external activities and traffic and the like the Planning Commission May recommend and the city council May approve significant changes or modifications of a cup or an iup including the application of additional or revised conditions B&T Trucking is requesting an amendment of the conditions of their iup to permit sales or transfer of vehicles in order to continue business operations the existing iup conditions uh from the original iup are included uh for your um review I would point out that no more than 15 trucks or trailers may be stored on the property at any given time on March 26 2024 the Planning Commission held a public hearing where no one spoke after reviewing the information and discussion the Planning Commission by a 5 to0 vote formally recommended denial to the city council for an amendment to the iup to permit limited automobile sales at 1311 229th Avenue Northeast a property Zone light industrial the city council should review the request consider the planning commission's formal recommendation and approve or deny an iup amendment as presented in resolution 2024 29a or 2024 29b if the request is approved staff do requested that the iup agreement be amended to limit automobile sales to fleeton Vehicles owned by the business as identified in resolution 2024 d29 a the am an amendment agreement shall be fully executed no later than May 1 if approved thank you Aon anybody want to move what the heck I'll make a motion that we approve resolution 2024-25 B denying an interim use permit Amendment for B&T Trucking located at Etc a second we have a motion and a second discussion um erron by denying this this doesn't uh that can't mean they can't post ads on like Facebook Marketplace or anything else they just can't sell like a car lot as you as you guys know we are um complaint-based code enforcement so if for some reason hypothetically uh someone were to complain today the fact that there's a for sale sign and there's vehicles for sale out in front of the business right now we would take code enforcement action mhm um should they choose to not put the display sign out take pictures and put it up electronically and no one complains then there's no code enforcement action to be to be had um so a lot of that is although electronic sales off of that lot could potentially by def definition be automobile sales um if there's no complaint we're not going to take any action as I said now is that what the vehicle inside defense or outside I think it's any if you look at the if you look at the existing conditions in the original iup that was granted in 2021 um property must remain neat and orderly and trucks and trailers must be screened from the public right away okay so right all the trucks aren't being screened seeing there they are not being screened that's correct they are in violation of the iup conditions by one attempting to sell vehicles we don't know if they've actually sold any and two those are not screened is there anybody here from B&T Trucking we have not received any formal complaint however so we don't we would not take action we have other things to do Thanh drive around and create Code Enforcement cases if there was no complaint why are we talking about it because B&T Trucking cannot sell more than five vehicles because they have to get City's permission to get a to get a deer license from the Department the zoning code says they can't so for me to say in a formal letter to the Department of Public Safety that the sale of vehicles is allowed in this zoning District I can't do that because that would not be what our code says but who brought this up they did he brought he brought so he wanted to change it himself correct cuz he he wants to sell yes yeah he brought it to me okay and there's too easy a work around and it's exactly as you explained and as I said at the Planning Commission meeting um there are also Fleet uh vehicle sales companies where he could take his entire inventory and dispose of it and then purchase but he would be paying a commission and probably potentially losing out on some Revenue but there are alternatives yeah any other discussion so the motion's to deny right okay no further discussion all those in favor say I I opposed none heard so we approved resolution 2024-25 B denying the interim use permit you want a sip of water or something Aon I got some coffee we we'll keep moving forward here all right our next item is 7A 6 conditional use permit for 1281 187th AV Northeast designing Earth Contracting although this looks nothing like uh it does today this is the location um there's been some Chang there has been some significant changes which is a great addition to our city yeah designing Earth Contracting Incorporated an East Beth company is in the finishing stages of their 1900 foot facility I think he's actually probably moved in uh located at 1282 187th Lane Northeast the applicant is requesting to expand the previously approved exterior storage yard to include a 40 by 80 or 3,200 ft prefabricated PVC fabric hoop frame detached accessory structure for General storage the property is Zone light industrial which permits construction trade service by conditional use permit the code also requires that exterior storage be regulated by conditional use permit which you have approved the detached accessory structure ordinance states that all accessory buildings and or structures over 200 ft in size require a building permit prior to construction andless specifically exempt under the ordinance the architectural design ordinance uh states that detached accessories structure over 200 square F feet shall comply with the following code they should incorporate a finished design and color scheme that coordinates and is compatible with the color and design of the principal structure they shall have a minimum of 12in overhang and Corner trim elements and they shall include two architectural features on sides directly to or visible from the public RightWay such as Windows Doors material IAL color variation sopit Gable Dormer and or decorative lighting section 144 also states that all accessory structures greater than 200 sare ft must comply with the following regulations a roof pitch shall be less than the minimum required from the international building code and shall not be the focal point of the property accessory structures shall be in similar design and building materials as the principal building pole building shall remain the match the design the principal structure as practical as possible the main portion of Designing designing Earth facility is on a 4 acre parcel with an adjacent 2 acre parcel according to size regulations a 4 acre parcel would allow for a 2700 ft accessory structure if combined a total of 6 acre parcel would allow for a 3,240 ft accessory structure on March 26 20124 the Planning Commission held a public hearing which there was no public comment after review of the application material and hearing from the applicant the Planning Commission voted by a 5 recommendation of approval of the conditional use permit Amendment with the condition that the conditional use permit Amendment be Revisited in 5 years from the date of approval the city council should review the request consider the planning commission's formal recommendation and approve or deny this conditional use permit Amendment as presented in 202 24-30 or 202 24-30 B additional Ally an amended cup agreement must be fully executed by the owner if approved make a motion to approve the conditional use permit Amendment with the condition that the conditional use permit Amendment be Revisited in three years from the date of approval years is there a second you're changing it from 5e to three year correct mhm so is there a second going going gone on the V so that one died for lack of a second I'll make a motion to approve the five-year approval on the uh 202 24-30 a okay just as a point of clarification here and you got them in reversed order this time so the first one's the denial and the second one's the approving and neither of them say A or B on them so yep that's what happens when I'm doing work on multiple days and my brain gets moving too fast if you want to just approve appr or approve denial I'll get the appropriate uh resolution you want what do you want it to be a approve it it doesn't matter just vote to approve or deny approve I'll I'll get the right one in place all right so a motion's been made to approve resolution number 202 24-30 which will approve the conditional use permit Amendment for a design mining Earth second uh we have a motion and a second now a discussion um couple things I looked at I found kind of hot I think Jim noticed it was they already have the frame [Music] up was that in M reader anticipating we're going to pass it or this uh oh that was the their frame that you show me oh much like the driveway scenario that we we visited here a little bit ago um a stop workor order was issued to this um land owner to to cease uh the construction um prior to permit approval and I mean they're pretty classy business but what's going to my concern is seeing what that canopy is made of what's that going to look like in a year year and a half when it's out torn and flapping because they're pretty spendy to replace the applicant in the Planning Commission meeting um provided information to the Planning Commission that they have a 5 to seveny year life expectancy from the manufacturer um that's where you got the fiveyear number added to the resolution out of the Planning Commission so that in five years when this comes in to be Revisited and if this is a tattered uh item flapping away in the yard there we have some leverage to get it repaired well we have leverage prior to that don't we I mean we do the place it s it probably out of California or somewhere where the weather's nice this is Minnesota things I've got one of these up in my son-in-law's place and I tell you over the winter time between the cold and then the summer and the heat that material just doesn't the distributor I found is in Ham Lake but that was part of my reasoning for the threee I could always be reapproved every 3 years and the fact that on a corner lot and highly visible if if it were the council's wishes to add to the uh uh motion that um if this building were to be in a state of disrepair that could be a violation of the condition and could trigger the possibility of us bringing the applicant back in to uh ask for either a the uh conditional use permit to be amended again to remove the building uh or or a repair that would be a smart P Legal Services how do we do that without we sending I mean we already did the vote it would just simply be an amendment to the resolutions on the table so right now the resolution is a resolution for approval um with the conditions that director Burke had written in there so was just a standard recommendation right it would be a motion to amend the resolution add that as a condition be debate and then we'd vote on the motion if it were to approve then we vote on the resolution as as amended all right well I move to make a motion to have it added as an amendment of you know what you're wording better than me I'm not gonna I I would I would classify it as what would be termed a state of disrepair all right yeah if if it becomes a state of disrepair because it is even though they say it's not visible you can't can't see it from the road I mean you can see it from bu Canon you can see it which is interesting because the screening they've got on the North side is a fence but if you look through it you can see all the equipment yeah you know okay so right now we're so you made a motion am second that and it's been seconded so do we vote on that first so there there have couple question so there can be dis right now the the question on the table table is the amendment and only the amendment so the discussion should relate to the amendment okay and then you'll vote approve or deny the amendment and then you'll go back to discuss the underlying um cup motion okay any any further discussion on the amendment if not those in favor of the amendment as stated by m council member do ro and Community Development director Mr Berg say I posed none heard uh just a couple of questions this now we're back to now we're back to back to the motion and so the discussion is on the motion as amended so it's back to the discussion on theot on the motion yep yep so you don't have to do anything else so now we're back into the discussion on the underly okay can I ask a couple of questions then all right if I can find my place in my notes uh this is a pretty large L structure what's the height uh it's it 13 feet Jesse 13 yeah I think really on a 40 foot width I believe that's what I saw in the specs I don't have I know the unless I'm mistaken the 14 14 ft is the limit right in sidewall height that's correct this technically doesn't have any sidewalls I know I used to have a greenhouse that's a one do have overh so I mean this is kind of open to you guys as a as an amendment to the exterior storage as a temporary sort of fix I know the applicant stated also in the Planning Commission meeting that uh if you look on the property itself he does have the three lots that have been combined if you look at the aerial there is another site uh sort of prepped over here for a future building and at that point the temporary storage would go away and the items would be moved into the building so this is a this is a band it's an interim yeah yep but I just had the question about the height and then the only other question again is looking at what what the uh what you looking at your discussion about the architectural requirements uh is it going to be an enhanced flap on the end of it or gu it will not meet the code for any of the okay detached accessory structure standards but that that's why we're here for an amendment very I've done that ear in my life with a with a greenhouse and it was a very effective way to get a lot of dry storage so I'm H it is it's a smart way to do it actually um any further discussion or questions or what have you okay if not all those in favor of approving resolution number 20 24-30 call it a as amended as amended to approve a conditional use permit Amendment for the placement of a temporary detach accessory structure for Designing Earth say I I I opposed none heard now you can take a nap [Music] Baron down yes um okay I don't I'm not aware of anything for Economic Development Authority or Park commission so we're on to departmental reports and Mr look you're you're up yes thank you Mr Mayor and Council um there was a request to schedule a spring town hall meeting we wanted to look for a date that didn't conflict with other municipal or school district meetings and uh we came up with the available dates that you see there which would be Tuesday April 16th April 18th April 25th April 17th April 24th or April 30th if there is a date that um perhaps works for everyone's schedule we can we can advertise that date for the town hall meeting I would make the suggestion of it being the 24th 25th or 30th so that we get some time to advertise okay that doesn't work for me I'll be out of town yeah my first choice would have been the 25th and my second was the 24th well I can move that around how about April 30th you going to be back in town yes Tuesday's ain't good for me no about you Mr Smith what works for Tim not the 24th 25th or 24 the 18th yeah 24th 25th that would work just want the council to know you're going to have to answer all the Planning and Zoning questions because the day this was published I took every one of those days off say what no problem no problem we can handle it so the 18th work should is there consensus on the 18th work for everybody else what's that 18th no that's Tuesday Thursday Thursday that's Thursday th th Thursday oh I'm looking at 16 yeah that's fine that's next week right two weeks from Thursday is that is that right no it's next we next Thursday a week from Thursday then then we don't have the two weeks notice we need to public the publication notice though is that a 10day I believe it's a 10day notice yeah generally it's going to be a 10day for the publication so if you can get it out tomorrow the newspaper publishes on Friday the 12th uh that would push your 10day notice out to the week of the 22nd yeah I'm I'm going to propose April 25th that's I know Tim's not going to be here and I know you want your fair share of abuse but sometimes you got to miss out yeah so 25th 25th to man first week in man like the second secondary me second man doesn't bother me on a Thursday I'd like to be there I didn't ask for that day off Jim but I will tomorrow that's okay late if you're not there you'll be dismissed we can we can uh check and we can check and see if there's any conflict with any other meetings on the second I'd make it contingent on that what if there's a motion on the second contingent no motion has been made yet make a motion for the town hall meeting for May 2nd second long as it doesn't conflict with anything else correct May 2nd that's the day right okay all those in favor say I discussion sorry is there any further discuss I I just got one question um and the portion that will be in the council chambers that will be broadcast right yeah okay okay that sounds good oh is that what we decided or no I I I misspoke probably yeah Mr Mayor that was uh undecided as of yet in terms of uh you know what shape that might take it could take a shape of um everything happening in a senior center yeah we have time too it could take the shape of what happened last year in ter or last time in terms of uh Senior Center then coming in here and uh and televising and it could take the shape of not televising yeah that uh just uh just so I'm on the record I'm not going through what I went through last November again if I see a coordinated uh a coordinated group of self-serving people hijacking our meeting I'm shutting it down and I just want to be on the record I'm not doing that again that uh strained my patience to its absolute end well it doesn't do the city any good no it's just people serving their own agenda that's all it is corre and I'm I'm not going to tolerate it I'm not and if people don't like it well I'll take the blame correct sorry Kevin correct me if I'm wrong but uh the last town hall meeting there there was an episode where uh it cost this city a considerable amount of money when somebody put in a data request and never picked it up is that is that true that is correct cost all of us a bunch of time it cost a city staff time and they didn't have the decency to come and even look at it and uh boy that was that was the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned so anyway we have our date proposed date of May 2nd and we can decide on the format and location and all that stuff that we go we got at least three weeks so I don't see anything on either of the city calendars published calendars currently on the website that has a conflict with May 2nd good well that's good good a motion next item on the agenda oh we haven't oh that's right that was our discussion wasn't it okay I'll call the question all those in favor of what we discussed May 2nd i i i i opposed none heard okay the other issue is what uh Miss gimple referred to earlier in the public forum and that's the Capstone LLC contract so Mr Mayor we had uh Mr strike come in and um kind of uh give us a presentation on uh some of the work that he does and some of his background and expertise uh that may this action may change based on the public comment that was uh received here uh this evening however this is a contractional agreement for services to evaluate fire management and consultation uh the contract is attached there you'll see that the the um the contractor is insured and and um is very knowledgeable in the work he does I would I would hesitate to you know I guess there was a claim that he was a good old boy or something of that nature I would hesitate to to go down that road just simply for the fact that one he's not able here to to defend himself number one but secondly I would say that he is a professional in the sense that he's been hired on numerous venues to do this type of work um and we have done our do due diligence with your help looking at other work products that he's put out for other cities right so I'm I'm fully I mean I have no vested interest in the work he does or anything else he's neither do we um but uh I would say he's fully competent to do this analysis and give us the information give you the information you're looking for uh to ensure that uh um that the fire service is being operated properly and to qualify as your due diligence and um if you would like to look at other opportunities um we can certainly go down that road um we may ultimately come out with the same outcome or who knows so well it isn't a live contract until we sign it so um I move we go ahead with Capstone okay and and this I know it's confusing for the folks watching this is not Capstone homes who are going to be building the development on Viking Meadows golf course this is Capstone LLC uh so it's a different thing but it is confusing um so you made the motion do we have a second second okay motions made and seconded all those in favor say I discuss I discussion okay now there I got out of line now discussion because I'm the one who has questions maybe you guys do too I don't know I got a question under B compensation item one um States the city agrees to pay the contractor 10,000 I thought in our work meeting that we had it it was stated up to 10,000 right so should that L yeah so now we're agreeing on a a price of 10,000 or not to that's away or not or not approving it whichever yeah okay well it was up to 10,000 so Mr Mayor in the initial discussions uh Mr strike gave us an estimate of 5,000 to 10,000 uh we did meet with a council member who kind of you know talked through some things and um and I think based on that Mr Tri said well it's probably closer to 10,000 at that point for the work that's going to need to be done so trusting that based on his knowledge whatever is going to be involved to answer the questions we need to answer going through uh um surveys and everything else that that are going to be done um that the time invested will justify the expense [Music] MH okay you you have more because I'm I've got to ask something too well I just wanted to clarify that because last information we provided was up to yeah good thing you got it okay as there just a couple items I have is I have one request one amend amendment to this and that is that I would like optional Services which is both point B number one review the city's emergency plan I would like that moved into the primary service part as item 12 it doesn't if there's any I just want him to review the emergency response plan you if there's work to be done on it then that's optional but I think that I think that should be included in the primary service I think it's integral to it so that's my one request isn't that when was the last time that was done I don't know I don't know if it's ever been done when I was still mayor God that's been a long time and the only other thing I have to say about this is that just above the signature lines it says city of EST bethl I caught that as well Mr East bethl yeah we correct that but otherwise we would have changed if we could have but we were using his form so yeah I mean it's just a typo it's nothing known in the world as an um scrier error error yeah scrier error okay whatever you guys say um but if but it I would so I'll just go ahead and well we got a motion we got a second so it it would be the revised motion do we have to revise it by another vote so Mr Mayor members of council with this one your approving entry into the contract that's been provided if your request is that we're going to amend the contract it's not it's a little bit confused it's not going to be an amendment to the motion itself um you're going to if there's consensus with the council to amend the contract um then administrator look would bring it to him and say Council will has approved the contract with this amendment subject and if for some reason uh Capstone says no it will come back to you um or if they say it's going to be more money it will come back to you so you're approving it with that one Amendment if they're good with it that we got a contract assuming the rest of council is in agreement with the mayor but yeah yeah if Mr Mayor if I could say be their optional Services is somewhat allart so if we choose to identify those items under B that we want to include as well there may be some Financial ramification I'll do my best to see if he can includ that I I have every faith in you man uh but um but I think that you can you can approve a primary service and any B optional service that you want here this evening so well I I I don't want to approve it I want it included in the primary service that's all right so I don't know how to I'm supposed to I understood what you said but I don't know how I'm supposed to restate it so I would say Mr Mayor I would say the motion would be the primary service with um optional service one included okay do we want to get a price on that well if it's not as I propos which is it's included in the 10 10K then it comes back to us like okay yeah I I think the actual Amendment would be optional service one be added as a primary service so then it would be under the same contract price yeah and if if it ends up costing more you know you could we don't want to do it here um but you know there's a potential we could say you know a little bit of buffer but as of now it's a $110,000 contract and you're asking for that optional service to be included as a primary which would fall under that amount it wouldn't be additional and if it's going to be additional you would have to approve the additional expenditure because it' be a new contract yeah because it does State at additional cost or Mr Mayor the additional amount could be covered under Professional Services we can approve that from an administrative level so we can be don't tell don't tell Jerry that we can be in communication with you if that's if that's how it lands but I will I will do my best to maybe maybe I should handle this I don't know look no you you know what I'm getting it I just I think it's really part and parcel of the basic stuff well I think it is though important that we know how which way it's going so that our city administrator knows what so there's kind of two ways that you can look at it one it's already an additional service that you guys can get we don't know what it would cost or if it would cost additional um but so basically approving the contract as is or if you're looking to amend the contract we need there needs to be clarity as to what document the city council is authorizing entry into so that down the road we don't run into a confusion where there's additional Services paid for and Council may have thought that should have been a part of the um flat $110,000 yeah correct me if I'm wrong again but it it seems to me to approve the contract as amended correct if way is what we're talking about if council is inclined if a majority of council is inclin to agree that that Amendment they want that in the additional Services understanding that it may delay the process there there may become you know the $10 that may no longer be the price it may be additional cost based on the services that are now going to be provided but if if the rest of council agrees that they want that amendment in place if that moves up then it would be yes approve the contract as amended all right with that is our motion am I am I on track I think we need I think we need consensus or you can you know make a formal motion to amend but I think we need consensus from the other council members are you guys all right with that Amendment yeah that's fine I just want to make sure of the cost okay is that's that's suffice to come out 15,000 well then we just won't sign it well yeah but if if if we say 10 and he's going through and going through and going through so by the way I'm not I'm not saying he would right but I don't know the guy I just know open-ended deals if somebody told me look I'll give you between five and 10 I'm going to think oh 10,000 okay right Mr Mayor perhaps the cleanest way to do this would just be to motion the primary service and then we'll set up another contract with them if need be for the emergency plan if he if he wants to charge us for it well isn't that doesn't gety plan something that the fire chief supposed to do we're required to have one yes I thought Mark Des Sharm did it last time yeah he did that was discussed uh my first term I believe my my intent is to have the review of the Emergency Services plan included in the primary Services that's my intent with the amendment I proposed so so if I were a council member in another Council and this were presented to me I would um because there are there has already been a motion and a second to approve the contract during discussion Mr Mayor you recommended an amendment you could make a motion to amend to include the emergency response as a primary in an amount not to exceed $110,000 and then vote on the amendment vote on the original motion and kick it back to Jerry and if Jerry says I can't do that for 10 it will be 15 you'll see another contract for 15 yeah that sounds like a good plan wait that makes sense I'm not a member of your Council but if I were on another Council in another city you are on another counil and you're fooling anybody it's correct so if we're looking at this as a contract um an offer has been made to the city you're looking to modify that offer by adding additional Services he will have an opportunity to either reject or deny that so we're just making basically a counter offer and if he agrees with it then we'll enter into it all right okay so we vote on the amendment first correct all right so there's there's a motion I've made a motion to amend the contract to include the review of the Emergen City's emergency plan dang it I don't have the thing right in front of me uh the review of the city's emergency response plan which in as in the original form of the contract was included as an optional service I want it included as the 12th point in the primary service in other words included under the $110,000 compensation okay any further discussion about that you need a second you'll need a second y second any further discussion about that no okay all those in favor of the amendment say I I I opposed unheard so back to the original motion to approve the contract as amended we have a a motion and a second for that already correct so any further discussion hearing none all those all those in favor of that say I I opposed none heard that concludes that matter I reckon clear as much you bet it's easy for you to say that's how we like it and the uh next live are there any Council reports before we go to the close session topic yeah I got a couple questions um heard of through the Great Vine that the golf course was going to be open another year yeah I heard that too and that Capstone was looking at maybe starting at the end of 2024 any that is all unconfirmed information uh I can tell you that I have seen an email to former members of uh the golf course to renew their membership for one more year because they are going to be open uh Capstone is still in the process of doing their environmental as well as uh working with the county on right of way and all of those items the anticipation is you may see a final plat in the end of May but they still have a lot of work to do well yeah they had couple punch lists didn't they state city it doesn't appear to me in the tax record that Capstone has finalized the purchase but there is some delay when that is all fin fined and then the county gets it recorded so I can't verify that that's the case but what I see in County records is it's not finalized yet so where the heck did I I don't even know where I saw that well the the email that went out to all members would likely alert people in the community that the golf course will be open again another year so that was somewhere in Facebook Facebook world any other Council reports I had a Sunrise River wmo meeting uh had some good news that uh we had some shorline revision grants uh approved and approved for next year I believe I think they're both uh a $100,000 grants to help improve uh uh multiple shorelines in the on the lakes in the sunrise River and uh Sunrise also more than likely ACD found another potential source for grants that uh we are investigating right now it's looking good that uh we could possibly have a brand new Grant source so be looking more into that and see what comes of it good thank you for the update yep and I saw that menot put out a statement that road construction will be starting on 65 year coming up I think this week for br did put put out something too yeah so that I live over in Lake Mr Mayor and Council I did uh meet with Sheila copy on this and um they will be coming in here probably in the next meeting to give a presentation on some of the work that's going to be done right now believe it's utilities that they're working on the ditch that they're starting on um but uh there will be some Lane reductions and um so we want to make sure that they're in here to answer any and all questions as it relates to Fire and EMS and all that sort of stuff so okay y thank you Matt so that brings us to item 9 C which is a closed session yep thank you Mr Mayor members of council um at this time we're going to recommend that the city council go into a closed session um relating to property located at 19141 East Front Boulevard Northeast um the recommendation is for a closed session pursuing to the attorney client privilege uh Minnesota statute section 13d .05 subdivision 3B um to discuss some potential and threaten litigation rela to that property um so since this meeting will be a closed session pursuant to the attorney client privilege uh with confidential information being discussed pursuant to Minnesota statute the closed session meeting will not be recorded um the attendees in the closed session will be all members of the council that were present at this April 8th city council meeting uh as well as City administrator Matt look community development director Aaron Berg and City attorney uh Tom lunan um after the close session we'll come back into regular session recap if any action is taken within the closed session um and then adjourn the formal council meeting so at this time I would recommend and entertain a motion to go into Clos session um in accordance with the statutory Authority I move to go into Clos session second anybody want to Second it or you want me to second okay all in favor of moving into Clos session say I what about discussion oh yeah does anyone need a five minute recess before we take the yes please may want to include that in your motion that we're going to get there at 9:35 potty break at 9 I might need one myself we come back in here afterwards yep you want to vote on that next door yeah but faor you want to vote on the motion did we I don't think so we need you to recess before we go into Clos session so y so you need to vote on it let's just document it as a recess prior to the motion and then we had a motion to go into close session there you go it's procedural I think we'll [Music] be we'll just it's muted and then we can cancel it if we need to hello all right um we are now back in Open Session we've just exited the closed session which we entered into pursuant to attorney client privilege uh present were all members of the city council as well as City administrator Matt look community development director Aaron Berg and City attorney Tom Lunen um in the closed session the city discussed the potential um and threats of litigation relating to property at 1 19141 East Front Boulevard Northeast um and there was no formal action taken in the meeting so with that I'll turn it back over to you we are now back in Open Session Mr Mayor okay um I guess I like I wasn't paying close enough uh pursuing to pursuing to discussions within the Open Session um I believe while no formal action was taken in the closed session I believe it is the desire of the action or the desire of the city council to take a motion um to rec consider y so we'll need to have someone entertain that motion um and if council is inclined to approve it uh with that being said I make a motion for reconsideration of resolution 2319 at the next council meeting on the 22nd on 22nd of April second thank you Bob thank you gentlemen discuss any further discussion of the matter not all those in favor say I I I opposed none heard make motion Jour second second motion made and seconded to adjourn all in favor say I I opposed none heard