Okay. At this time, I'll call the August 11, 2025 uh council meeting to order. Please rise for the allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all. Make motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion. Second. All those in favor? >> I opposed. None heard. Um consent agenda. I don't see anybody for any public forum tonight. Make a motion to pre approve the consent agenda as presented. Have a motion. We get a second. >> Second. And I'd like to pull item F, please. >> Any others being pulled? Approve the consent agenda as amended. All those in favor? >> I. >> Item F. >> Item F is a approval of a posting a request for a proposal of a facility needs study. I'd like more information on that. What exactly are they are are is a city thinking of for a facility needs and and why can't our staff do this? So, those are my two questions. >> Uh so, Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, um the facility needs is uh basically a professional that would come in would identify the age of the facility, age of the roof, age of bathrooms, age of everything. Um and they all have kind of a uh end of life at some point, whatever that time frame is, and they identify that. Uh then they kind of uh determine okay this is based on population growth where you might want to go for a fire stations or for public works facilities or you know you name it. Um again it's a study that um that doesn't commit the city to anything but it's somewhat of a road map that helps the city identify possible future needs. Um, and if if it's the direction the council wants to go, then you can start with Mike and start preparing for those future needs uh from a financial standpoint so that 10 years from now you don't have zero dollars in the bank to start paying for maybe a new fire station or something like that. We have a we have a you know possible need for a new fire station, but this would kind of identify maybe what year that would fall into based on population growth and calls and that sort of thing. So they take into account a lot of criteria that quite honestly staff would not be necessarily competent maybe to come up with that information. Um it's not that we can't come up with something. I just don't know that we would trust what we would come up with versus what they would come up with uh from a professional perspective. Well, I just don't think it's feasible or necessary to pay somebody to do something like this because in my mind, okay, I think we do need a new fire station. I think we do need a new maintenance facility. Um, so I think we need those things, but I don't think we can pay for them right now because we don't have that money set aside. So, why wouldn't we just start setting aside money for it now? because instead of paying somebody some money, some of that money that we could put in that pot instead of, you know what I was saying? >> First of all, let me clarify. This is just to go out for an RFP to get an understanding of what a study might cost. And at that point, you guys can decide if you want to you might be a step ahead of where we're we're trying to get to. So once this RFP comes back, you can decide that's too expensive. We don't want to do that or that seems reasonable. You know, we would like to go ahead with that. That's a decision you can make later. But it will also kind of say, okay, this is kind of the size of a public works facility you might need. Right now, we wouldn't know. We we'd be shooting in the dark. You know, do you double the one you have? Do you you know, it's tough to say based on need, but they have experience kind of working with other communities and other facilities and things like that and make those recommendations. Again, it's it's only on paper at this point. It's not committing anybody to anything. And this isn't committing us to anything financially. It's just uh getting an idea of what the scope, you know, our cost for that scope of work would be. >> Okay. Thank you. With that, I'll make a motion to approve item F and the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. But we have further discussion. What facilities are we looking at? >> Well, um Mr. Mayor and Council, I think, uh as mentioned, we'd be looking at fire station. We'd be looking at public works. Um they would identify, you know, city hall potentially. They would be um you know uh they'd be looking at the age of the community center. Would that need replacement at some point down the road? You know, all the you know, I don't know that we would have any other facilities besides that. But the most important part is you get an understanding of where your current facilities are, how much longer that building is going to last at public works, when you'd be need to replace something like that. Um, and that gives you the ability to to to plan out, you know, years in advance for something like that. >> So, Go ahead. Uh, so I can get this straight. So, the points that Susan made, we're not paying for anything at all yet. We're getting quotes to do this. >> This is just authorizing to go out for an RFP. >> Mhm. >> But in order to authorize it, we kind of need to know exactly what it's going to cost us. Correct. So, we'd have control over that before anything is done, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to be >> So, an RFP comes back, you get to decide >> this looks good. we want to do this or we don't want to do this, you know. >> So, depending on what the cost is. I don't I mean, it could come in at $5,000. It could come in at $25,000. >> Okay. >> You know, >> shouldn't uh the community center up at Whispering be included in this being we're already repairing generators up there and who knows what we'll be ending up doing with the water with the water system up there. >> Yeah. It's going to include all of our facilities. Okay. And then future need which could be anything at that point. I mean that's blue sky >> verify it was covering everything. I mean >> I got a question too is do we have anybody that maintains our buildings and looks at different things because preventative maintenance can go a long ways if we're paying attention to what's going on with our buildings. >> Yeah. So Mr. Mayor and Council uh Nate is kind of in charge of that. So if we have any sort of issues with uh with our facilities we call him. he has um you know our our public works guys are skilled in some of this work and some other areas they're not. For example, we replaced an uh HVAC system on the roof here. They weren't able to repair that or knew how to repair it. Uh we called in a professional uh group and they they determined that, you know, here's a cost to repair it. Here's a cost for new and it just made sense to do new. Um and um but for you know simple fixes and things like that um you know cocking joints or or whatever is needed >> the need. >> Yeah. They do that type of work. So we do save a substantial amount of money doing that. Yeah. Is it our staff that's going to identify these areas that need to be looked at or is it, >> you know, I I think that um if you vote for a um a study like this, they'll contact staff. They'll interview staff. They'll try and determine, okay, what what you know, what are your feelings on this, too? Um they'll kind of take the whole everything into account. They'll walk the facilities. Um, you know, they'll take into account the the years they were built. You know, everything has a lifespan to it. So, when were the roofs replaced last? You know, when when should they be anticipated to replaced? You know, that sort of thing. So, it's um it's just really a um a road map that uh kind of as of this point in time gives us information going forward, which is can be valuable. kind of like a comprehensive plan of the buildings, >> right? Facilities. Yep. >> Pretty much. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Unheard. Item 8G. >> I'll be abstained from this item. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council, on July 28th, we brought forward uh the BDM lease agreement. Um and it was an oversight on my part that I that um I did not send that document to uh the uh the principal. Um and so we brought it back to this meeting. Now uh I received a phone call, I'm sorry, a text rather at uh 3:45 I think it was um 3:25 saying that changes are needed. When the changes have been completed, the document will be sent to the city of East Bethl, Brian Mundle, manager of Firebird Land LLC. Uh, so we did send this information off to Brian Mundle Senior and um and he received that and um as far as the changes are concerned uh there was um there was council member Miller and Coun um and yourself, Mr. mayor who were part of that discussion. Uh and perhaps either one of you can speak to the content of um of that discussion that we had. Uh but essentially, you know, we walked away with, you know, BDM paying $300 monthly for the share of electricity, internet, water, sewer, and other expenses that would fall into the category of common area maintenance, as well as a placement of the business sign. Um both parties would consider the road improvement deficiency would be satisfied through the application of interest that was generated off the original 1.7 million purchase price in addition to the installments made by the development developer rather and interest generated off the $2,000 payments permit issue issued. The um city agrees to not pursue past taxes that should have been paid on the portion of city property that was used for commercial purposes. and the city agrees to the amount of $6,000 sack fee and $500 whack fee as defined by the contract. The contract just kind of settling well I'll read the last one here. Bedium will then vacate the property in three years from the signing of the agreement or renegotiate a suitable agreement with the city. Um going back to the sack and whack uh when this contract was put together in 2004 uh the city uh did both sack and whack at that time and since that contract then the city got involved with the mech council uh put in the mech council system and the city right now as of today uh does not have any sack responsibilities right I mean that um we do charge for that uh but it goes through um you know as far as the mech council side of sack hookup we just pass along what their cost is on that um the city charges generally 3,000 the mech council was at 3,000 kind of where that 6,000 came from today the mech council is $ 3250 I think it is or 33 some um we don't control that price if they came tomorrow and said it's $5,000 we don't control that we have to pass that on this contract never took that into account. So, it was never revised to change the city from Sackenwack to now Met Council Sack and Whack and we pass on that that amount. Um, so by way of this contract, the way it reads, um, it said that each, you know, parcel would pay 6,000 in sack and 500 in DWAC and away you go. And um and so according to the contract, I you know, we felt it was probably necessary that uh while some of those numbers were all over the board in the past, if you pull up a history of it, that uh we should probably go back to what this contract is because that's the essence of this this conversation we're having is we have a contract, we need to follow the contract. Uh whatever is written, whatever isn't written uh needs to be followed. And so, um, essentially, uh, I I don't know what changes, uh, is, you know, again, we received it as at 3:45 today. We we don't have a list of what these additional changes need to be. Uh, but fundamentally, it's um I'm not sure off these five or six what what else we didn't, you know, put on here or should have put on here. I believe that was all that we agreed to on the handshake agreement. uh following that meeting. So um >> so I got a question. I guess I wasn't involved with the negotiation on that part. I know Mr. Miller and our mayor was there and yourself. So the way I understood it that at the end of the meeting it seemed like it was an agreement. I mean when I read this thing the first time I was mad as hell. I mean it's like $300 a month. Come on. 21 years of not paying nothing and then a measly little 300. That's my opinion. But at that meeting that you guys had, wasn't there an agreement at the end that you actually shook hands, >> Mr. Mayor? Did you do that? >> We had a verbal agreement. >> You didn't shake hands >> to move forward and with the draft and everything and get all parties to sign off so that we can present it. >> Okay. But I mean, did you shake hands on it? No, it was just a verbal agreement. >> Mr. Miller, did you guys did you shake hands? >> I shook hands. >> You did? Okay, Matt. >> We did. I >> put this behind us and move on and so forth. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> So now all of a sudden now there's going to be more changes. >> In my opinion, what I see with this whole thing is that we're being played. That's my opinion. And it's like if you have an agreement, handshake to me years ago used to mean something. Obviously, it must not now, but it's like we're being played and stuff is being stretched out. I mean, the first of August is here, no payment, of course. And now with this, no payment. And now we're supposed to wait for some other changes. which I've read this thing three four times which I don't agree with majority of it but in order to get it done get it done but now it's going to stretch on again so my personal feeling is we're being played on this whole thing and it's just like when I brought up at the uh April 28th meeting after I found out that city administrator Mundle Senior, Mundle Jr. had a meeting on all this. And I remember at the 28th of April meeting, I asked Mundle Jr. what position was he in for the residents or for the business? And I got no answer. Seeing in my opinion, seeing what's going on right now personally is not for the residents of East Beth. This shouldn't be >> Jim. I abstained. You asked me a question when I abstained. I'm still abstaining. >> You always chirp in though at your convenience. >> No, you asked me a question while I was abstaining. I said, "I'm abstaining." >> How many times have you abstained and then opened your mouth again? >> Have I voted on anything while I abstained? >> Yes. Yes, you have. >> No. >> Yes, you have. >> Present it. >> Present it. I'll look up the dates. No problem. Because you've done it. >> So, like I was saying, this, in my opinion, we're being misled big time. It's costed the residents of East Bethl hundreds of thousands of dollars the way this has been handled. So, I don't agree with none of this. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to make a motion to evict BDM Construction Firebird Land LLC out of our city- owned building and be done with this. >> We have a motion or a second. >> Before I second something like this, I'd like to say something if I could, Jim. We went in with good faith to negotiate. I don't know how many times, but this last one was two and a half hours. We went in to try and get this city's tax dollars and protect the city's tax residents, taxpaying residents from covering these bills. Was it the amount we wanted? No. It was negotiated to the point where we agreed that this would cover the basics, what was needed. So we were not in violation of any statutes for using taxpayers dollars. I am extremely disappointed right now that this is being done to the city. I I thought we had turned the corner with this and I agree with Jim right now. This this seems to be a game. It seems to be a game that keeps being played out at our expense. Um, it's it's unacceptable. It's unacceptable for the city to do business like this and keep being put in a position where we have no control over somebody in our own building for God's sake. Okay? This is our city's building. This is our city's tax dollars. No matter how you look at it, when the bills come for that building, portion of that being used has been used by a private business. We thought we had an end to this. Two weeks ago, we were told nobody saw the paperwork, even though it's it's posted on a Friday. Uh it's been out there for two more weeks, and a couple hours before tonight's meeting, we don't have an agreement. I like to say if if they don't sign this thing, we have no choice. And I will agree, Jim. We have no choice. If they don't if if they don't sign it as it was, because this is the way it was. This is this was the deal. So, I'm going to second Jim's motion based on the actions of of what happened today because we cannot be held as a city like this any longer. We tried to do the right thing. We tried to make it fair. $300 to cover the expenses for any developmental company is so fair it's not even funny. and and to just keep dinking around with us and say we have to change this or change that. We need to stay in charge. We need to become in charge and we need to take charge of our taxpayers dollars and we can't we can't do this anymore. So, I'm going to second that motion. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I'd like to bring up the point that the letter of intent that we sent uh Mr. Mundle which went out to him via email on the 29th right in that letter it states 20 days. If you go 20 days from the 29th that's a week from today that he has the right to um respond. And this is our legal letter that was sent to him. >> I didn't know that. >> Yes, it says right there. It's right in the deal. 20 days. >> So, >> why do we not have a copy of this legal letter? >> Oh, how do you have a copy of it and the rest of the council doesn't We have no >> This letter is right your deal. You >> receive it? Well, >> I didn't see it in mine. >> Yes. It's on page 37. >> Tonight's agenda. >> Yep. page 377. It's a second to the last paragraph on page 38 actually. Yeah. Keep going. right there. >> Did not see that. So, we have 10 more days. >> Actually, if you go from the 29th when she when he received it via email after our discussion at the meeting that night that he hadn't received it, he has till the 18th legal or binding I would say. Where's the sun date on this? until July 25th or July 28th. >> It's documented on the 25th, but we brought up at the meeting that night, the 28th, and he hadn't received it yet. So, Mr. Look, staff sent out uh to him on the 29th, the next day, I believe. Right, Matt? >> I did. And Mr. Mayor and Council. Um I think you know part of the confusion was the July 25th via email communication that's on there. Um evidently wires got crossed. Uh it did not go out uh on the 25th. So we did send on the 29th and the 20 days is correct. However, given the um the message I got this morning or I'm sorry, this afternoon at 3:25, uh this won't even be accurate anymore given whatever changes are proposed. >> No, I agree. And that I'm just saying that >> so even after 20 days given whatever changes they have they can't agree to this because they they don't agree with some for some reason based on a change they want to make. >> Yeah. But a non-binding agreement is an agreement between both parties and once it drafted both parties need to sign it too. Right. I'm just trying to keep us legal here. Mr. Mayor and Council, obviously if if this was agreeable to uh Mr. Mundle Senior 20 days, he can sign anywhere in between there. And this council meeting today would have been appropriate for that. that's why we had it on the agenda. We don't have another council meeting within that 20-day window. Um, so we would have approved it past the 20 days, but from from a calendar standpoint, but uh regardless, it's um it sounds like based on their position, it will be a forced expiration and then a reissue, which will mean more legal, more cost involved um in reddrafting whatever. I I'm assuming he's working with his attorney on this. That's that's my assumption. >> I would assume he would. I would if I was. >> Right. And then and then whatever they come back to us with, we'll have our attorney review to make sure that it's within our best interest. >> I know. >> And it may go back and forth three or four iterations before we land on what we ultimately handshook on that day. The way I look at it is that you got your text message at 3:25 today basically saying this is not what he's agreeing to >> to some degree, >> right? Whatever. >> So, I mean the changes or whatever. This has been drafted with the agreement between you guys's meeting and him, but now he's not agreeing. So, I mean the 20 days that's never going to change because he's already saying no to what you have. Well, it could be. He's still in agreement. It's just in some of the verbiage that's in what we've written back to him. I don't know. >> Right. But he says there's going to be some changes. So, he's not in agreement with what's written here. >> Mr. Attorney, how do we adjust this? >> Yeah. >> So, we're not just going back and forth a 100 times and this fades away like it always does. >> Yeah. >> Okay. This needs to come to a conclusion. Okay. And it it's if we're waiting till the last hour to get notes like this, there's got to be some seriousness now. Okay, we mean business as a city, and I understand he wants a a contract that he's in control of and writing again. Okay, when you agree to something, how are we not okay? How are we finding ourselves behind an eightball constantly with this when when we shouldn't be when we have a a verbal agreement and a handshake? How do we make a motion that says, "Listen, this has got to end." This going back and forth. I mean, when we agree on something, we agree on something and and let's do it. I mean, I I'm tired of sitting up here and talking about this. I'm tired of bothering you and just the residents have got to be getting sick of this, but this keeps coming up year after year after year, and we never have a resolution to it. Now, we finally have a resolution. It's not the greatest, but it's something that covers the taxpayers. Okay? It means we're not the taxpayers are not paying anymore for this. And now here, another month goes by. All right? What can we say to say, listen, this has got to be done or else? I mean, we don't want to play this game anymore. I mean, I I don't want to play this. I don't think the city wants to play this, and I certainly don't want to use anybody's money anymore. So, how do we come to this conclusion? How do we end this? >> Well, if I may, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Miller, councel, um, you know, at this point, the LOI is part of a negotiation process and it's clear that we're still in that process. It might be breaking down. Um, you know, as we've discussed, there's still more time for BDM to respond with whatever their changes are. It doesn't get to the point of your question. You know, ultimately we're stuck uh maneuvering with the agreement that currently exists that everyone agrees is poorly drafted and is uh ambiguous about some terms and no one is really quite sure about where either party stands if the chips were to fall on the floor. Um that said, you know, I think the city has taken the right steps to negotiate a solution here. Uh as you've discussed, as Mr. Mayor, you know, articulated, we don't really know what the objections are at this point from BDM. They could be superficial. could be terms of phrase or or language. Um, but the changes could be material, too. We we don't know. And um I think that at least I have heard your message loud and clear and anyone listening has heard it loud and clear that you don't want to be playing games about this anymore and you're seeking finality. And in any negotiation, at some point the negotiating stops. Um that's maybe the best answer I can give you on on where does this go? What do we do about it? because right now there is an operative agreement and we're working under it as best as we all understand and can and we're seeking to revise it and resolve it. >> Mr. Mayor, Council, and um City Attorney Softly, would would it be advantageous to in the motion that's currently on the table and second, it would be advantageous to have a friendly amendment that says is if this isn't resolved by the 19th, it goes into effect, the eviction I believe 18th is a 20 days. 20 days 18. I want to get this as resolved as much as anybody else, too. >> It's it's >> I'm glad you caught that though, mayor. I didn't see that. >> Yeah, it I you know, it b it doesn't benefit the city at all until we get this result. So, I just want to make sure we're doing it by just cause >> not getting hung out here. >> So, >> Mr. Mayor, councel, Mr. Look to your to your question. Um, you know, the city can take the eviction action if if that's what it wants to do. We put deadlines in agreements for a couple reasons. One is to to pressure towards an agreement, but the second is also to make sure that agreements end so that if they are forgotten about or just dropped off the table, they just go away and we don't have to worry about it being effective. So, there's kind of a double purpose there. Um, enforcing the termination language and springing an eviction action on the tail end of that. um is a clear signal to the other party about what you are intending to do and the steps you're going to take. Um so can I add to my motion then that the deadline's August 18th, 2025 that this needs to be signed or we're going forward with the eviction. >> You certainly can make that amendment. Um, practically speaking, the question is what if they come back with a change that is different? What does that do to your ultimatum? Um, we would have to come back and and discuss that at the next meeting as to what to do with it. Um, so so it's not that there is um >> or we can call a special meeting. >> You can always call a special meeting >> because we need to get this done. I agree with what Tim says too. Just keep stretching on and stretching on. >> Hey, Mr. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Smith, I would make it the 19th since it goes through the 18th, so there's no question as to I had the 18th or whatever to still decide if you want to say that. >> Yeah, we need resolution. We had a deal. Now we don't have a deal. Um I'm okay with that. You know, I didn't see that either in there either. >> Thank you, mayor. But >> we need to do this properly for the city. We need to give everyone enough time obviously. >> But I'm disappointed that this is coming through at the last minute just before a meeting when they had more than opportunity that ahead of time that this could have been taken off the agenda totally. >> Right. I agree. >> I agree. So then I guess I'll add to my motion there's a deadline of August 19th, 2025 that this needs to be signed by both parties or we start the eviction process. Is that all right to do it that way? Jacob, Mr. Mayor, councel, I am not here to advise on policy and what direction you take with with how you choose to act, but that would be um a power that you have. You certainly can make that motion. You could second it. You can adopt it and we will carry it forward. >> We certainly don't want to put the city in any type of, you know, more legal issues than it already has, but we need to be smart about it also. So I mean under your advice I mean this is something we can do >> and um I think we should >> if goes back and forth it' be another month and then another month after that like you're saying one change can come back that's two weeks we don't like the change it's another two weeks there's another 300 there's another 300 there's another 300 I mean this stuff adds up and it's you you take 21 years it adds up. This is a long time to be doing this, you know, and we're not we're not going to run away from this one. This one we're fighting for the city and we're fighting for what's right for the city tax dollars here. So, we have to have some sort of deadlines on what we're going on, especially when we have, you know, deals that have been agreed upon. And I don't see any language in this that has changed from the original deal that we we discussed. That's the problem I'm having right now. I'm I'm disappointed with this. I mean, I think it's a phenomenal deal. Not one for the city, but it covers what needed to be covered to get our us from violating any statutes with our our city's tax dollars. And like Jim said, did this I feel like I'm being played. I feel stupid right now, okay? Because I thought this was done. I was happy. I'm done. Uh we don't have to deal with it in the future. We had an end date to this contract and we had the bills covered up there. Now we're back to square one, but this time it's going to have a certain amount of days on it. Right. So, how's this motion look? Then we're going to make a motion to >> So, he made a motion to amend and you need to amend yourself. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay, we got a second motion to amend a second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I will oppose it because I just don't I think we should be still sitting down, but >> Motion passes. >> Abstain. Um, staff reports. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I got a couple of council updates here. Um, I got good news and I got bad news. So, let me start with the bad first and, uh, then we'll go into the good. The bad news is we, uh, had made a decision to bring an intern on board to help with the digitizing of, uh, files from 100 years ago. and to to present mostly to present and uh unfortunately their intern had an emergency out of the country and was unable to start and I just received an uh message from him this morning saying that uh he would not be able to complete this internship. So speaking of square one, we're back to square one on that. Uh we're going to try and find uh another intern possibly and staff also has decided we're going to get together and try and figure out okay can some of us work some of the day to try and start this process and and figure out how we can um start getting it underway and then better determine what the need is going to be. Um, I think that's the big challenge right now is starting this process and then once it gets started we can kind of move, you know, at a reasonable pace where, you know, if things slow down during the winter, we'll have a little extra time, maybe we can start working on more of it. Um, the second bad item is Simson 65, the 1347 property. Uh, we ended up losing that deal. It required, you'll you'll recall at the last council meeting, there was a call for an appraisal on the property. Uh the appraisal company uh uh told me that it would take at least four weeks to complete an appraisal on this. The seller was not in agreement with that. The seller decided that they were pulling out and didn't weren't going to sell to the city anymore. And I said, 'Well, I find it difficult to believe that anyone wouldn't have an appraisal on this. Um, and if appraisal takes four weeks, it'll take four weeks for us or anybody else. So, I said the city would still be potentially interested in this uh if the seller isn't able to find another buyer um and uh to keep us in mind. So, um, we were able to put an end to, uh, the work order for the appraisal, the title commitment, and the survey. We have some legal money into it, but we can, uh, we can utilize that, um, on this property if it comes back around or potentially other properties. So, to the good news, um, had an administrator meeting uh, that the county puts on and various different cities come to that meeting. we kind of talk through some of the challenges that we're looking at and it's really a a good opportunity to learn what some cities are doing to handle whatever challenges they're working on. Um the topic got to the issue of levy. Uh and the county is going to hopefully be rolling at a 9.9% levy increase this year, just short of double digits. um and other communities uh shared their um estimated levy increase and we are by far the lowest. So, uh kudos to everyone on this board for for keeping um keeping a tight eye on the budget and for department heads for keeping expenses down and uh and so we are so far leading the pack on that and I think that's just uh an evidence of good governance um to keep that budget in line. Uh the last thing I wanted to share um is the uh we got a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities saying that Senator Calbar who is a resident of East Bethl uh represents the city and state legislature has been selected as a League of Minnesota cities legislator of distinction for 2025. The distinction is because of uh league staff and member city officials appreciate his accessibility and uh his consultation with them on legislation impacting cities. Specifically, the league appreciates him consistently being available to their staff to better understand complex zoning and land use issues. as a member of the state and local government committee. Uh he was intrinsically understood where a legislative proposal was not workable or viable for local governments and worked closely with the league staff on key city issues. League staff appreciates Senator Bar's work on behalf of cities and looks forward to working with them in the future on issues impacting local units of government. As you know, there was some legislation going through last year that essentially would take away planning and zoning rights for cities and uh and we've been watching that legislation very closely calling various different legislators and uh Senator Calbar was in the middle of that and so as well as Representative Peggy Scott. So, uh, we thank them for their hard work on that and representing the community and, um, and of course they've been instrumental in helping us in the bonding requests, although there wasn't a whole lot of bonding that that went through last year, but we'll continue to work with them and always good to see our legislators getting recognized for their hard work. Uh, and we want to congratulate Senator Bar on this uh, legislator of distinction for 2025. And aside from that, that concludes my comments unless there are any questions. >> No questions. >> I have a question not related if I could. >> Sure. >> Uh we often ask for minutes to be tabled to be fixed. >> We're not paying twice for that, are we? >> No. So, um, for those, uh, minutes that are essentially word verbatim minutes, staff, myself or someone else will go through, watch the the video then and and kind of type that up, include it, redline it, um, and include it in the next uh, minutes so that you can you can review that, make sure it's what you want, and then adopt it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> but in a way, we're still being doubled because it's taking you away from something else. >> That is true. So that part is true, but we're not paying an outside entity additional money. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Council reports. >> So my thought is too with the minutes part. I had talked to you about that before, Matt, and you said something about Civic Plus. What is that that's going to help with minutes or what? >> So Civic Plus is the modules. As we're going through this uh website update, uh these are we have our website through Civic Plus and they have these additional modules we can buy. Um, one of them, as I understand, I've not seen it in action yet, uh, might be a word verbatim type of a type of a module that will, you know, essentially anyone that speaks a word in a microphone, it'll type it out. We'd probably have to go back and say, you know, Council Member Smith said this, you know, and kind of kind of make those additions so that it's clear, not just a run-on type of deal. Um, so that may be an option going in the future where uh the city can essentially have the information they need, make some minor modifications, and then provide our own minutes. >> Because I know to me it's important when you read the minutes, there's so many things if you read it and it's different because we're part of it. So we can recall what the meeting is. a year, not even a year, a couple months down the road, somebody looks at it, they read it and they're going, "The hell are they talking about?" That's how I look at it because it's like it's even in like the last minutes, there's a couple spots in there where it says a resident said, "Well, if it's a resident, why don't we have their name in there?" Because above it and below it, there's a name, but there's two of them that say a resident set. >> You know what I mean? So, it's I don't know. It's important to me because it's if anything ever becomes of it, you're going to look at it and if something happens to the tape where you can't listen to it, you're kind of screwed on the deal. So, that's why I'm kind of wondering about the Civic Plus thing. The verbatim thing would be fantastic. >> Yeah. So, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, this council has made the decision not to pay for verbatim, which is significantly more than kind of the summarized version that we get now. Um, we can always pay for verbatim or and when Civic Plus comes in, perhaps we'll have the verbatim if it works out in that capacity. Um, but that's a that's just a policy decision how much you want to spend on. >> No, I don't want us to pay for that. That's why I'm talking when you're talking about the Civic Plus. If there's a program that we could purchase, >> right, >> one time and it does all that, that'd be great because then we wouldn't have to deal with it because it's important to me anyways when I read them. >> Sure. That's all I got. >> I have something. Um, I attended the local government officials meeting on July 30th and they went over it was mostly about recycling programs and East Bethl does was kind of recognized for doing a really good job. The only thing we are missing is organics recycling and um they are talking about they did talk about grants being available for cities and schools for um improving recycling programs. So I thought I think the city could consider doing organics. I know Andover Ham Lake does fly uh recycling um organic recycling and um they did they did create a new position in Anoka County for waste prevention and reuse. So that's was kind of interesting. Um, one of the good things they said is, um, our the metro area, the SE county metro does 59% of recycling, uh, 42% for the state and the nation is at 32%. So, our area is really good. I also wanted to ask about Anoka County voted on um election control. Can you um elaborate on what that means for us? What what their vote meant? Uh Mr. Mayor Council, if it's a vote I'm thinking of, it was a storage of the um u the iPads that were used for checking people in. just a storage agreement. Uh some communities voted against that, but it wasn't the use of iPads. That's where the confusion came from. So, I think that's the the resolution you're probably referring to. >> Okay. Because everybody was telling me that they voted to take election control away from cities and put it into counties. And I'm like, what does that mean? And I I didn't really totally understand what that was all about. >> We can dig into it. Uh election control, you say? >> Yes, >> we can dig into it and find out if they took some other I think it has to do with poll books. >> Yeah, >> I think that was the hot topic that was being addressed. >> So, and then my final thing is I'm going to talk a little bit about the seniors. Um we're still researching trying to get bingo going over there. Um, we do still have an issue with the water over there because we like to serve water and we put them in in pictures and it's yellow and nobody really wants it. It looks like lemonade. I'm like, huh, I'm not drinking that. Um, and we do have a craft and vendor sale um scheduled for October 25th. That's the last Saturday in October. So, if there anybody out there who wants to be a vendor, you can contact me. I will sign you up. Um, flyers and postings will be coming out shortly. That's all I have. Anyone else? >> Yeah, we got a big meeting tomorrow with parks and recreation going over a lot of the budget stuff for not only this year and next year. So, that'll be a fun meeting. Well, I made it out to five different night out parties last week. Uh, want to thank the residents that hosted those and and uh freely invited us. Uh, I'd like to thank the fire department for allowing me to ride along with them. Uh, and Wednesday we have a booster day meeting 6:30 booster meeting >> at 6:30 here at city hall. >> That's all I got. Um, I also went out and made it to five of the parties and uh, one of them had the sheriff from the county there, Brad. It was pretty nice to see him and uh, but it's hard to make all the parties in in three hours. So, I was able to make five and it it was fun. It was a good time. >> That's all I have. >> Make a motion to journ. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I