isible with liberty and justice for all. Make a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. Second. Motion second. All those in favor? I public forum. Um I'll make a quick statement. uh on advice of uh city attorney as a council member I will be abstaining and and stepping down from the dis for the public forum um and on vice of city attorney uh to use my rights as a resident of East Bethl to speak at public forum. I'll be stepping down now. Okay. Once I call your name, you'll be asked to come up here, state your name and address. Please limit your your uh presentations to three minutes. You're here as a group. Please just have one person come up so we get through this tonight. With that said, uh Brian Brian Bazansen, 22337 Quincy Street. Uh, I was appalled at the attack on BDM. All three versions of BDM, the company, senior, and junior that happened at the last meeting. I have been a resident here since 1978. I've been I've been involved with city government from sometime in the early 90s when I started serving on different committees. I've been on every committee the city has, including the horse committee, which no longer exists, and other ones. I have made a commitment to good government, in my opinion, in East Bethl. My comments are written out on yellow paper rather than having them be typed out and submitted from a ghost writer. That's a pun. Some people get it. Manard Lake Estates is the issue. The history in that area goes back long before I was a resident here. I have been told and I believe that the the history will prove correct that the city was proceeding down a development path on it with someone up there. They decided that they didn't the city decided they didn't want to continue down that path. The developer had incurred some costs. They sued. They won. The court ordered the the development to come in for the city to approve the development and the city sold the bonds that that place was financed on. I was present on the council when the city took possession of it because it had gone tax forfeit. So, if we hadn't taken it over, we would be making payments on a piece of property that we wouldn't own, someone else would have the rights to it, etc. It was just a bad deal. I think it h it it was long before Matt was on this on the county board. Uh, Anoka County basically cut us a deal and uh for the back taxes, we got it back. I believe that's what the record will show. I'm sure I'm sure someone can do research on that, but that's the way I recall it. We we had to buy out four to six residents so that we could have their modular homes removed because again, we didn't want the city did not want to be a landlord. And the important thing about this is at the time I'm going to use rough numbers. I've tried to find out exactly how much it is, but as Mr. Look explained earlier today, this evening things were not have not been digitalized. That would be a great investment in my opinion, Matt. Very good. because the way I have been what I have been told and trying to do further research uh you went back to like 2006 is what's been digitalized and anything before that is just paper copies and so I think it's whatever but yeah the city budget at that time was $1 million I thought that was real money back then when I was 40ome years old of that $1 million and that's again a rough number, 20% of it, in other words, $200,000 went to pay the bonds on Manard Lake Estates. There was a there was a building there, the building that is the that is the cause of all of this um halaloo. I believe it was built, and I may be proven wrong, but state statute has that for modular trailer house type communities, they have to have a storm shelter. It was a storm shelter with a BMED exterior. There was an extensive amount of work that was done so far as being able to bring it up to a presentable shape. The other thing was there was a lot of back and forth between BDM and the city of East Bethl. I was not part of that back and forth because I had not filed for a council seat. I had had enough. So, I was a lame duck uh council member. But I believe that contract that is up in the air right now or that is being disputed was written by the city attorney. Obviously it wasn't the present firm, but I do know it was Randall Dean and Goodrich because Jerry Randall was a city attorney and uh I got to sit right next to him. Anyone who casually states they break contracts all the time is either a liar or a fool. Lawyers tell you that you have to have three conditions to have a contract. You have to have a meeting of the minds, an agreement on terms is the meeting of the minds, an exchange of goods or services, and valid consideration has to be exchanged. I did spend one semester at Billy Mitchell. The only thing I paid attention to was contract law. The city administrator has suggested that we revisit this contract. Why would BDM do that after be after being smeared in half truce and funny money accounting? I'd like to see a spreadsheet how your ghost writer came up with those figures. If you did them, Tim, you should have that spreadsheet yourself. You'll be able to produce it. But I, you know, we know who who wrote that. Accounting and misrepresentation of state statute and not citing all of the law has happened. When you read the state statute that pertains to gifts, a father can gift his son even though he's a public official as long as it's not on a voting issue. There are it's very when you read it, it's there. Please try and wrap it up. Pardon, Joe. I mean, please try and wrap it up. Okay. I was a construction superintendent all my life. Essentially, job site lawyers pick and choose from their division of all trades, but all trades are subject to division one. That same thing applies in here that you have to look at the entire body of the contract. What I was referring to was in in a spec book. I hope the city council has not been backed into a corner on this issue and goes to court. If so, I believe the council I believe that the city will lose. I also think that if so if they go to court and they lose, the council members that vote for going to court after they after the city loses have demonstrated extremely poor judgment and due diligence for the city to continue with a social media attack in my mind. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about your ghost writer. Come on now. You know, we know Tim. He's told me he writes the stuff for you. Hasn't wrote a thing for me in two years. Two years. And that's your opinion, which is fine. I don't belong to social media because I think it's a pox on society, right? Okay. Time. You're done. Um I think you ought to I think Yeah. Go ahead and and sue BDM. see what happens. At the very least, you should commit to arbitration beforehand. That's all I have to say. It's Matt Dwire. Uh live on Pulk Street there in the community of this uh situation and topic. uh similarly to him appalled also I don't have yellow I got white paper but but as it states now we are being uh hurried along and it's clear we're not going to get much questions answered so I would request that we put this on an agenda have a specific meeting set aside where everybody can bring that information be as transparent as they're claiming to be and everything can be put in the open. Everybody's here to talk about this and if we get three minutes or to follow the mayor's request, get everybody in the group and have one person talk, we're not going to get anything done. I have very pointed and accurate questions that I want to ask and they would require you guys to look at your resources and information that you have. So, I would request that this be put on an agenda. Unfortunately, move to another day, but let's get this on the books so we can talk about this. Everything I have right here, I can wait. I'll let somebody else come in speak their piece. All right. Thank you. Ram. Good evening, folks. I'm Ram. I live here. I'm a resident of City East Bethl. I ran for city council what two three years ago. Um for me, I got the same issues. the attack, the lies. Where's the transparency? And that's coming from the opponents that ran against me when I ran and you guys are sitting up there now. So, if you guys want to be transparent with all the citizens that are sitting in here and the ones that are watching from home, go ahead, open up the books, give us all an accountant for the money that BDM has paid the city, where it's at, what accounts it's sitting in, where's all the interest at. And I'll second what Matt said to move this on its own agenda for another city council meeting. Thanks. Thank you, Mark. Mayor, council. Um, I'm going to ask the attorney to read what I have here. This is a a heated subject for me and I don't want it to get out of hand. So, I would like him to to present this to you and if if he can and I will stand for questions or uh a followup if uh if we can do that. Mayor, is that acceptable? Yeah. Okay. So, what I have in front of me are two documents handed to me by uh Mark Gimple that he has asked uh to be read as part of the public forum. First document is uh captioned complaint form dated June 9th, 2025. Complaint regarding Matt Look, city administrator. Described complaint is as follows. May 12th work meeting and May 28th city council meeting where Mr. Look didn't provide all the information on our sixhorse IUP. The information he did provide was misleading. The name on the complaint is Mark Gimble, signed by Mr. Gimble and has phone number, email, and address. Second document captioned the same same date complaint regarding Mayor RD Anderson. Um this one actually has a section of city code being violated um filled in. The prior complaint form did not have that particular category filled in. And the section of city code being violated is Robert's rules of order. uh describe complaint. Robert's rules of order ensures meetings are fair, efficient, and orderly, protecting the rights of all members. Mayor Anderson is failing to do that. Again, Mark Gimell has signed it and filled in the rest of the blanks. Those are the two documents that were handed to me to read into the record. Any questions? Um just to follow up there, I I am presenting them to the attorney. Um I the the nor that's not the normal process. I I realize that I are the Gimples uh in question here with this IUP are have very much mistrust in the city and this council at this point. Um, I just wanted that on record to have that documented so it it doesn't get lost or misplaced along the line. Um, Mr. Gample, that's part of the record. Thank you. I uh I have great concerns on Mr. look and the information that he is providing counsel. It's misleading information if and we're we're kind of at odds with m Mr. Look at this point. Um and we're our opinion is that he he's not doing his job to the best of his ability. He's not providing the council with accurate information on the subjects at hand. And I I feel great great concern about that. If the council was presented with the information at his access, this IUP issue should go away. there there should be no disputing it. We we have an IUP for six horses still today and he is not providing this council with proof that it does not exist. We have provided council with proof it exists. And yet your ruling was to pull that IUP from us. that is is very disheartening to a resident and a business owner in this city. It's it's heartbreaking to we we voted you guys into this position to look out for my rights, my my well-being and yours. We're we're paying Mr. look a lot of money to give to give you the right information to to do your jobs correctly. And he's not doing that. He's he's withholding information from us, the residents, to prove our case to you guys. And it it like I said, it is it's disheartening at at the very least. It's and as far as the with with the mayor, there's there's rules and there's I have rights as a as a resident to to be part of a a controlled meeting. That meeting of the 28th was no less than a fiasco. And I I would actually like to s to thank council member Mundle for trying to bring some order back to that meeting. No, no one any one of you and and if if I if I'm not mistaken, the the Robert rules of of order, they there's there's a procedure and a place for all that. No, any of you could step in at any time and try to stop that chaos. And if if if we do not have common knowledge of those rules, and I I if I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but the the city attorney is kind of the go-to person for questions as far as those Robert's rules of am I right or long. Mayor, this is a public form. Okay. If I I would I would suggest the council to to go over those the the rules that the city is supposed to be run by. And if if any of you can say that that night was run by those rules, I I will will have issue with that. and I think you will not argue with me. Um, so to wrap it up, I I thank you for your time and uh we we will we will be heard from more in in the future here. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Hi guys. Well, I didn't get the invite for all of these guys, but um hopefully I'll break up the kind of mood here for a second. First, Sarah Mclofflin, 1148 231st Lane, Northeast East Bethl. I want to first thank you. Actually, surprise, guys. Here we go. I'm going to thank the council members here to have this public forum because without this I know that my situation with my neighbor would have never been taken care of. Um I want to thank the Anoka County Sheriff's Department for continuously monitoring our neighborhood and taking removing the people that uh were staying there and trespassing. Now uh they are actively removing them. So, thank you very much for that. Uh, a big shout out to the fire department. Um, because without them, this situation would have never been taken care of. And my number one person to thank is Jerry. I know he's not here. I was super sad that I didn't get to see him at the last meeting, but 100% this situation would have never been handled if Jerry was not in the meeting and did not hear me. Um, I unfortunately or fortunately for the public, um, kind of agree with Mr. Gimple that was just up here. Um, I do feel that this council, um, the council members here could have taken swifter action and did not do the due diligence that they should have been doing when this situation was brought to them February 2024 from the sheriff's department. Um, I sat in the police report that you guys were CCD. old and new on that about city ordin ordinances not being followed at that house. Um and then coming to my fellow neighbors coming back in September and then me again in April. I sure wish moving forward that you guys know how to handle situations like this to keep our community safe, what actions to take sooner, and not allowing this to get out of hand as this did next to my house in our wonderful neighborhood that we live in. So, I do truly mean it when I thank you for having this public forum. I do hope to see change within this council and hopefully moving forward we will have swifter actions with accurate information being handed to you. Thank you. Thank you very well. Good evening. I'm here to talk about the uh BDM situation, the meet the May 28th meeting as well. Um I was completely appalled. I listened to the meeting online and I was shocked at the attack that was um made that night. Um I disagree with a lot of the findings and a few things that I'm going to point out because it sounds like there's a lot of people that I mean obviously a lot of people have spoken already, but there's probably more behind me. But a couple of things that um I wanted to touch on really quick here is that the investigation that you did was really only one-sided. And a couple of the facts that you brought up about the the violations, I think is the way you termed it. Um failure to pay deed taxes, deliberate concealment of true gift values. Um completely not true. If you would look at the department of revenue um website and look at the description about gift property gifting um this $165 that they paid in deax is absolutely the fee. That's the amount that you pay when a property is gifted to an individual. So there was no concealment there. That was the way I see recorded deeds in my job all the time. And I see that $165 coming across all the time and that's very very common. Um you can look at Minnesota statute 287.21. It dictates the deed tax be paid on deeds presented for recording. It talks about in the cases where there's no consideration, which is no dollars changing hands and a pure gift and the minimum deed taxes paid. Um at one point somebody indicated that the investigation found that the lot was worth 40 to 50,000 upon transfer. Even if that was a fact, um the deed tax would have only been about $132 to $140 on that. So, I mean, the whole thing about them owing hundreds of thousands and a huge taxpayer thing was just insane to me. One other major thing I'll touch on, um, insinuation that Mundle Jr. continues to pay property tax on $3,000 is completely not true. The lots are valued and taxed exactly the same, um, as other lots in the neighborhood, and you could find this on the Anoka County property lookup information. I actually think he's paying too much in taxes because right now they're not homesteaded and he would qualify for the homestead status because they're adjacent to his homestead property. So, he's paying taxes on that lot higher than in my opinion what he should be paying. Um, lastly, I'm going to touch on the another violation that was brought up, avoiding commercial property taxes until this year. That was actually an oversight of your previous property assessor. um it's up to the assessor to identify when there's um commercial business going on in an exempt property. Many people do not know that exempt properties may have to pay taxes if there's a use outside of exempt uses being done there. So to me that was no blame on the bundles. And I will say the taxes that are being um applied there now because the commercial use was identified is $625 a year. I have no idea how you could get to hundreds of thousands of dollars with that figure. We all know taxes have gone up a lot in 20 years. So I got to believe 20 years ago the taxes were maybe 200 bucks. I don't know. It's a very very small amount. Um I guess I'd love to see this topic come up again in the future. happy to talk about these things. Um, I do have concerns if this council wants to go to court. As the first speaker said, it's going to cost this city a lot of money. I'm pretty sure the legal fees in the last couple years with what the new people have brought to the lawyer tons and tons of hours from what I could see just from watching meetings. And I would just hate to see this go to court and have an outcome where we pay a ton in legal fees. And the outcome is exactly what um administrator looks suggested at the 28th meeting which is come to some kind of compromise. Thank you. Good evening. Um, my name is Mark Fors. I live at 12 144 Moral Road. Um, we're actually on the agenda for variance request, but I just wanted to kind of speak my u mind um on this one. Um, it's not out of anger. I just want to make sure kind of clear as to what our situation is. So, we received a letter on 425 of uh 2025 sitting house was not in compiance with the setback which was a shock to us since we've been filling out all the paperwork required paper getting permits and approval in fact um we actually got our yeah got the certificate of compliance last November so everything was okay we submitted all the paperwork everything else um so I know we're up for a after the fact variance approval um but should that be denied the um and and we were required to bring the home into variance obviously would have to get torn down. The slab would have to be moved. Septics have to be re relocated. Um uh we would have to find a place to live while continuing to pay our current mortgage. Um you know just back of the envelope calculations looked at about a million dollars which we don't have the money for. Um and um and this is all because of a clerical error um by the u the city building department. So um any rate, I just wanted to make sure that you were kind of and then of course we're kind of up in the air as we're trying to work on finishing up the landscape and all these kinds of things like okay, can we actually call this our home and get on with our life and finish out retirement years. So um just wanted to let you know that um We're hoping for a good outcome. Um, and I don't know if I'm speaking out of term by talking about an agenda item, but um, so any questions? I don't. All right. Thank you, Ryan. Senior. If you want to fight, I'm going to give you one. all the lies and that came from you guys. I am here to say you want to fight, come and get me. I have never done anything wrong. Your proposals to do this stuff is ridiculous. You say, "Well, you have to pay rent for the building." When I paid for that property, that was the payment I gave to occupy that building. Anything else is BS? I want to address Matt. Look, when he read 1.4 for C or E out of my contract. He read the whole paragraph except for the very last line. Why was that line intentionally left out? That line says any such deposit will be offset against the $2,000 accounts to be collected at the time building permits are issued. That means that if you come to me and ask me for money, you're going to offset by $2,000. I gave the city $25,000 before already. I have seen no reduction. Now you're saying I owe $118,000. Well, if I gave that to you, you just have to give it back to me according to my contract. So, what kind of are you people up to? Why couldn't Matt read that last line to the general public? It's unbelievable what's going on in this city. Absolutely unbelievable. And for one thing, I'm not blaming Sue. I think Sue will stand up. She's not going to follow you people. You're ridiculous. Just a couple of bullies. Go ahead. Come after me. We'll see what happens. The slander that you have, it's just unbelievable. Thank you, police. Hi. Um, I'm Larry Bley. I live in the city of East Bethl, 2256 229th Avenue, Northeast East. Um, I'm here in uh about the Mundle situation. Um, as far as uh BDM goes, I am a uh subcontractor to work on their homes. I have for the better part of 20 years. Um, BDM is a company that you want in your city. And this sounds like a political and personal attack on Bryant Jr. because he doesn't conform to your uh ideals of this uh city council. Uh he's in opposition of some of your ideas and we need that. We don't we can't everybody think the same. You got to have somebody that opposes. Um, but BDM uh goes above and beyond on their houses. Uh, they don't use they don't cut corners when it comes to their material and their workmanship. If you want to talk crap, look at the stuff that you're building now on Highway 65. Compare the two. The doors, the trim, the cabinets, everything. Those are just going to be lowinccome projects down the road. Um there's uh great quality to uh what BDM is doing with their homes and I'm proud to be working on them. Um like I say, it it appears to be an attack. Um, I did read something about exceptions to which you um purposely omitted from your um charade from the 28th was that there are exceptions and one of those exceptions is ban uh irregardless of being on the council or an elected official. So that's what I got. Thank you, Marcus Carlson. I'm Marcia Carson at um51 Maple Road and I'm here to talk about the variance on the house behind me. Now, this house didn't need a variance because that house could have been attached to the garage and would not have infringed on anybody's setbacks. I got some You guys can look at these if you want. There's some pictures on there. Um, this house has got a a roof overhang of of about three and a half ft. Um, I figured this out by there was a bump out on the house and that distance from the fence and then the house difference from the fence and subtract the two and then there still more overhang. I'm thinking looks like 3 and 1/2 ft. So that has to be included in the house area when you're looking at where this should be set on the property. So as far as I can tell they're 19 and 1/2 ft into a 25 ft set back. Um you know that's 5 1/2 ft from the from the um fence that they put up which part of that is on my property too. And there and it's plugged up on the bottom. There's no be no um groundwater moving back and forth and it's a solid panel fence. So they have to put that fence up about 4 in off the ground in order to have the ground water otherwise my septic can or septic field on the other side of that is never going to even dry out. So that would, you know, make it fail eventually if if there was, you know, because there's that plastic fence on both sides of the property with the subject in the middle. Anyhow, the house is way too close to the fence. You can stand there and touch. It's supposed to be 25 ft. That's it. It was no accident. They just decided that's where they wanted it and they're going to put it there. and nobody tried to tried to even look at the set at the setbacks. And I don't think that um several people from the county and the and the surveyor and the builder and owner all could not know what the subject what the setbacks were on that that there 25 ft. I tried to get this information and um tried to get it from Aaron Berg and he was real reluctant to tell me anything and then he went and he got the copy of the survey and he gave it to me like that's going to answer my question. I walked away looking at it trying to figure out what he's trying to say because I know he said that some of the setbacks have been um decreased and or not the setbacks the um you know the margin Yeah, the setbacks. So, anyhow, I'm trying to figure out what's going on. And then I write him a letter and I don't get any response from the letter. And then then I had Nick um and Nick Smith come out and he brought me because I had called and asked for a survey that had the setbacks marked on it. And he brought me one without the mark on there and he said, "Oh, they're right here. That's 10 feet." I said, "That's not the setback. That's maybe where they're trying to put the house, but that's not a setback. The setback was 25 ft. We did come into the city council meeting on September 23rd and Aaron was here at that meeting and he he was talking about setbacks and I I said, "Wait a minute. Can you repeat this, please, just so I'm sure I got this right? You know, you're talking about the setbacks on this beach area." and he said, "Yes, a 25- foot setback." And he said, "We talked about this before and we're going to have to talk about it again." Which we never did wind up talking about it, but I did talk to the the ladies that are taking that place now. Anyhow, none of this is being done right. This, you know, as far as I'm concerned that the person that built this house, they are the ones that caused this problem. And that that makes them not qualifying for the variance. You know, if somebody goes and they you put something right where they tell you not to put it, that's against the ordinances. And you know, I didn't do anything. I don't deserve to have this house lurking at me. And if you look in those pictures, you'll see that if you look out my um sliding glass door, all you see is there's house. That's all you see. There used to be nice trees in there. They took they took out a whole bunch of nice trees. Now, in that picture that shows the setback or the the survey that has a little blue house that I put next to the garage, you can see they wouldn't have had to taken out those trees. I know the one by the well had to be be taken out. They didn't need to destroy the place. You know, every every bit of living anything is scrubbed off of that piece of property except for one tree. And I don't appreciate it. We keep putting trees in and and I like to, you know, we like the greenery and the, you know, that natural feel out here. We don't like windows looking in on our at the house. hadn't been moved down that far, they maybe wouldn't be looking in our windows, but they are. There's twotory house just staring right down on our deck and our private space was in the back and in our windows and we don't feel like we have any privacy. And you know, I tried to get this straightened out last July. Nobody straightened it out. Now we're talking about it. And so I don't know what your answer is going to be to this, but But when somebody's going to put a house in and they've already got two variances on a garage and putting a house in, wouldn't you think that they would look to see if there was variances that they had to take into consideration? Um, you know, I just don't don't think anybody did anything. And nobody is paying attention to the rules around here. And if we if you're not going to go by the rules, then then we need to just get rid of the rules. Just not have them because otherwise I'm expecting to them to be going by this. I'm expecting them to try to get compliance out of people that are trying to do something wrong. Instead, they're dragging their feet. They're denying me the information to make my decision on what I'm going to ask for and how we're going to handle this. And then somebody else comes out and they lie about it. And um and then ignore my letter. I you know, how are you going to get anything done like that? And and they're still building over there. And now we're getting a nice deck built on back in that back area still. And and it's not right. Didn't have to happen. It had plenty of space to put the house. The house could have actually been even separated and put next to the garage and they could have put the um septic in the back. But um I I think it would have been perfect to add it on to the garage and it wouldn't go into any setback at all. Not even for the septic system. It would still be 10 Well, there would be actually about 18 ft between the septic tanks and that um that house and he only have to have 10 ft clearance on the tanks, not on the drain field. So, you know, I can't see that there's anything wrong with that plan. So I, you know, I just don't and and I did see something on the computer, but what are you going to do when you've already built the house and we're talking about a setback or a variance and they said you have to treat it like it hasn't happened yet, like you haven't built it yet. And that's the way I'm looking at it. So So anyhow, thank you. And why don't you keep that those papers there? Ma'am, it's part of the record. Okay. Thank you, Gail Stone. Hi, I'm Gail from 194 a neighbor of Marsha Carlson Carson rather. Um, all I can say is that as the neighbor, I'm just shocked. I, if what Marca says is true, now she's been complaining about the placement of this house before it was built, during, and after. And it just seems like people in a are turning a deaf ear. what she's got to say and what apparently are specs. It's a 20 25 foot set and this house is built like what is it? six feet from the L line or from the fence from their living room for the furthest part in their living room sitting looking out their 8 foot wide sliding glass door. This is encompasses the entire thing and more. It it um it doesn't fit in the neighborhood. There are no other twostory homes close to this area. It's out of place. It doesn't belong there. It looks like a driving movie theater. When you're going down the street, if you didn't know any better, you'd look you'd like, what is this great expanse of white white board out here? Looks like a drive-in movie will be there. And I just support Mara in her efforts to have this removed. It's ridiculous. That's all I can say. Brian Jr. Good evening, council residents. It's uh been a while since I've spoken at one of these. Uh my name is Brian Mundle, 24159 Pier Street. I'll try to get through this quick. Uh Mr. Miller brought up and stated I was involved with questionable property transactions concerning the two lots beside my house my father gifted me. This is my personal property. I can address this. Let's start off with property transfer. Minnesota State Statute 471.895. Certain gifts by interested persons prohibited. Uh subdivision three exceptions B. The prohibitions in this se section do not apply if the gift is given by B to by an interested person who is a member of the family of the recipant unless the gift is given on behalf of someone who is not a member of that family. The League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota City's elected officials and council structure and role page 10 and 11 state stated it this way. There are few limited exceptions to the gift law. For example, the following types of gifts are permitted under the gift law. Gifts between family members unless the gift is given on behalf of someone who is not a member of that family. Explain the gift is given on behalf of someone who's not a member of the family. Uh to give an example what that means. If a John Doe had given the property to my father so he could then gift it to me. This not this did not happen as you can see from the NOA County property transfer history that is available by to anyone on the NOA County website. My father gifted me these two lots that that were his assets and that is allowable by state statute. Now to the quick claim deed. On the deed, it states the total consideration for this transfer of property is 3,000 or less. We we need to know the state's definition of consideration as it applies to the statement that's found in Minnesota statutes 287.20 definitions subdivision 2 consideration. A consideration means generally the total monetary value that is given in return for conveyance of real property in the state. So, what was the purchase property for said property? Essentially, what you paid for it. To rephrase the statement on the deed, the purchase price for this transfer of property is $3,000 or less. It has nothing to do with the valuation of the property. So, what was the purchase price for this property? I already stated as a gift, which is law by state statute. So, there was no purchase price. So, that establishes why the county put the label $3,000 or less on the deed. But the county needs to collect deed tax. How did they come to $165? Let's look at state statute 287.21, imposition of tax. Determination of tax. Subdivision one, determination of tax. A a tax is imposed on each deed or instrument by which any real property to the state is granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed. The tax applies to the net consideration that says a tax needs to be paid and we have the word consideration again which is the purchase price. Continuing B, the tax is determined in the following manner. two, when there's no consideration or when the consideration is $3,000 or less, the tax is $1.65. So, if there's no purchase price, the tax due is $1.65. That explains why the county only charged $1.65 on how the county calculated it by state statute. It has nothing to do with the value of the property. Now, who is responsible for this tax deed? Let's look at state statute 287.24. 204 persons liable subdivision 1 general rule any person who grants assigns transfers or conveys any real property by a deed or instrument subject to the tax imposition imposed by section 287.21 imposition that's the imposition of the tax the determination of tax shall be liable for such tax. My father is the one that transferred the deed via quick claim deed. If he is the one that transferred the property, he is the one responsible for paying that tax, not me. To make the claim that I undervalued my property, so I would avoid paying the deed tax or property taxes is completely false because by state statute, I am not the one paying the deed. I have nothing to do with the deed. The seller pays the deed. All this is established and allowed by state statue. State statues that apply to everyone in the state and city. There's nothing questionable about it. Mr. Miller stated that the lots I own were undervalued. The de deed tax of $1.65 has no relation to the property values or tax values according to the state statute. On the quick claim deed, it even states certificate of real estate value not required. The real estate value has nothing to do with transferring these properties or calculating the deed tax. To claim that I undervalued my property, that that undervalue would show up on my property tax statements that the county sends out. I have all that going back to 2017. It clearly shows the the value of my property and it if it was undervalued, it would not line up with other lots in the area. There's another lot in Whisper Aspen 24317 Poke that was sold to another party. My property taxes match that perfectly. My property evaluations match that. Mr. Miller know should know that the only way I could attempt to undervalue my property is to appeal at the yearly board of appeal and equalization meeting in April and would have to be approved by that board. Mr. Miller has presided over three of them. Mr. Miller had to have known that's the only way I could undervalue my property, not by a quick claim deed. Yet, he claimed otherwise. I don't know what sort of investigation you did that you couldn't find any of these statues or if you chose to ignore them, but this should raise some red flags for residents to ask questions about. This is nothing but a smear campaign. If anyone in the audience or anybody watching has questions, I'll be around after the meeting. Come down, ask me them. I'll talk to anyone that's interested in the truth of these matters. You I'll end it there. Thank you for the time. Open 60 consent agenda. I will make a motion to adopt the consent agenda. I'd like to pull item E, F, and G, I think. What was C? Yeah, I want to pull C. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Have a motion, a second. All those in favor of the amended consent agenda. Oh, which ones are being pulled? E, F, and G, C, C, C, E, F, and G. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Motion to uh approve the consent agenda as amended. I I mean all in favor I I Okay. Yeah. I'd like to get that changed. Uh I need what I said verbatim, please. Which clearly shows u that it was my job to bring out what we found. And what we found for a variety of things and you all have your opinion on what was said. Uh respect that and I 100% agree with having this put on uh an agenda for more topic because I would like to I would like to bring the bills that the city has paid up there. I would like to show that the taxpayers have worked out their own tax dollars. Um, I would like to make that a point and go through that. Um, and that's pretty much where I'd like to leave it right now with that. But I definitely would like that uh table till we get it right. And uh I have no problem bringing any of the information that was used to compile this. Um and we'll see uh who was paying what bills up there. Motion to table. I'd like to make a motion to table uh see until um it comes back verbatim. Second. Second. All those in favor? I I number E. E is a rec uh resignation of um Katherine from the Economic Development Authority. And I just want to thank Katherine so much for serving and it was so great getting to know her. um the little bit that I did, she had good ideas and um great comments at all of those meetings and I appreciate her service. And did anybody else have anything on E. With that, I'll make a motion to approve item E on the consent agenda. Second motion in a second. All in favor? I F. And F is declaring a vacancy and appointing a new EDA commissioner. And I'm just going to make a motion to approve that because I I'm having a brain block on why I went what I wanted to say about it. So I'll make a motion to approve item F on the consent agenda. Motion second. Second. Motion a second. All those in favor I G and G is appointment of planning commission candidates. And I am just wondering um were there any other applicants other than the two that the planning commission it was just those two. Um, I'm I I would like to see in the future their um applications and resumes and stuff come before the council because um I don't know anything about them and I'd like to see who they've selected. With that, I will make a motion to approve item G on the consent agenda. One second. Have a motion and a second for item G. All those in favor? I discussion discuss anymore discussion. Okay. We uh we've talked about under planning commission reducing the seven members to five. So EDA no it's planning also pay attention. So then uh that's we've talked about that before too. So when did we talk about it? I don't know where you were. What what council meeting did we talk about it? I don't know what meeting it was, but we were talking about that already at one time. So, I was at the planning meeting and uh Christina Pegnac showed up and she did her interview. She did a great job. Elden was a no-show. I don't know why he wasn't there. But for me to uh to approve Christina, I have no problem with that. But I'd like on record that if we decide that we're going to reduce it to five members that her term would end at that time. And al also I'd like to say that uh I don't know if we can make a motion or whatever, but uh I'd say no to Alvin. So, I don't know how we want to do that. There's already a motion made and seconded. So, we need to change it. Then I'll withdraw my motion. I'll make a motion to approve Christina Pegnneck as one of the planning commissioners. And in my motion, I deny Elden as the second choice. Do you have reasoning? We have plenty of reasoning actually, but uh that's my opinion right now. And uh for like I say, I don't want on record also if we decide to go to five that her her commission would end before it's final. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, perhaps the attorney can weigh in on this. I think once the appointment is made, they have a term that unless they resign would need to be completed if they were switched from 7 to 5. That is true, but you can also, this body has the ability to appoint for a lesser term than the customary term. So you could do it that way. Can you put a stipu stipulation in there where it says uh upon modification of the members of the planning commission quantity, excuse my bad grammar there, but um this would terminate this position early. Can you put a clause in there like that? Yes. What I believe I heard council member Smith say is that the term would be the lesser of either the standard term or um the reduction of the commission from 7 to five. So that way if the reduction did not occur until the initial term the standard term had occurred then obviously the individual would fill out that full term. If the reduction from 7 to 5 occurred before, then that individual would have a obviously that shorter term period. Did I understand you correctly, council? Part of it. Yeah. But I think I'm going to withdraw my motion. I'm going to make it easier so it's it's a lot not confusing. I'll make a motion to approve Christina Pegnack onto the planning commission. Second motion and a second further discussion. Well, I just would like to see their resumeumés and um and the application and I'll go back and watch the interview from the planning commission because I haven't had a chance to watch that because I I need to um base my own opinion on this. Um, but for right now, I agree and he can reapply or we can bring up bring him up again at at future meeting. I can change my motion again if you'd like. Would you just like to table this until you have more time to research and get the information that we need that way there would be easier? That probably would be the best motion out there right now. Okay, I'll withdraw my motion. I'll make a new motion to table this planning commission appointments. You would table it till the next uh city council meeting. Yes. Perfect. So that's a motion. We need a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? 70 planning item one. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. This is a request for site plan conditional use permit and four variances for exterior storage on a property at 21476 Johnson Street. Uh the application from Dan Mc McConnell is for DND to operate an uh their business out of the existing building. They've purchased the property and would like to expand to the north of the building uh for exterior storage and equipment. Um the property on the screen is zone B3 highway commercial. And um you could see on the screen uh the property is on the has the office on the south side of the property and the north side is where they'd like the exterior storage. Oh, there's the screen. Okay, so that's good. You can go to the next one. I was like trying to read the slide behind me. Um so the site plan is required because they're changing the site to add exterior storage. The conditional use permit is for exterior storage accessory to the principal use on site. And then there are four variances. Uh to allow storage in the front yard, to allow exterior storage more than two times the square footage of the principal building, to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard, and to allow a chain link fence where the ordinance all requires the screening fence be either masonry block or wood. Um, next slide. The planning commission held a public hearing on May 27th and uh other than the applicant there was no one present to speak. The planning commission did recommend approval of variances 1, three and four. They did not forward an applica uh recommendation on variance number two. Uh there was a significant amount of discussion on that. Uh and um uh staff the planning commission felt that variance wasn't needed. Staff uh does not believe it's not needed. uh we've consulted with uh the city attorney. The variance is needed for the proposal submitted by the applicant. Next slide. So again, this image just is in your packet. It shows you uh how limited the uh rear yard would be if uh they complied with the code. Um the storage area is the darker area on the north side. Next slide. And um we did talk about at the planning commission perhaps moving the fence line to align with the curb line uh that red line there which would pull it back a little bit from the street. Planning commission did not recommend a change. Uh next slide. So we have prepared a resolution approving the site plan conditional use permit and all four variances which I believe was the intent of the planning commission. Although to be clear they did not forward a recommendation on number two. you uh have the option to approve the draft resolution as forwarded or make modifications to one or more of the variance requests. Uh with that, Mr. Mayor, council members, happy to answer any questions. Would make a motion to approve the draft version as presented. Move forward. Resolution. This resolution, the number on it is not completed. It's 2025-XX. Can you tell me what that exact number is supposed to be? The previous resolution was 32. Would it be 33? I believe it's 33 unless it's already currently used. Trying to get to that here. So to restate it, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 2025- XXX as to be determined at a future time, possibly 33. Uh but it to specify it is a resolution approving. Okay, it looks to be resolution 33 from the mayor's copy. So, a resolution approving a site plan and granting a conditional use permit and granting four variances from the zoning ordinance for exterior storage on a property located at 21476 Johnson Street Northeast, pin 08 33 23 34005 to be exact. Second. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I I want to pass. Sweet. Item two. Yes. Item two is a concept plan review for a subdivision north of 217th Avenue Northeast. Subdivision was applied for by Tom Carile of Sherico Construction. It is for a three lot subdivision called Cliff's Anderson Acres. It is on the north side of 217th Avenue Northeast. To the east is Lynwood Township. To the west is rural residential land and to the north is the Gordy Mickelson Wildlife Management Area. The property is zoned and guided rural residential. It is within the significant natural environmental area overlay. It is 19.44 44 acres and each proposed lot in this three lot subdivision is approximately 6.5 acres. The applicant is requesting feedback on the concept plan before applying for a reasonzoning PUD preliminary plan and preliminary plat. Um due to the fact that this uh parcel is in that significant natural environmental overlay, a PUD is required as part of the development standards um outlined in that section of our code. Um the draft resolution does note that this concept plan review would not only be a subdivision concept plan review but would also be a concept plan review for that PUD plan. Um the city's discretion in approving or denying a concept plan is based on whe whether the proposed subdivision meets the development standards outlined in the code and the comprehensive plan. Staff has found that the proposed subdivision complies with the development standards such as pertaining to lot size and setbacks established within within the city code and does not increase the overall average density of the rural residential district beyond what is allowed in the comprehensive plan. Though the lots in this subdivision do not meet the one ac or one unit per 10 acres standard established in our comp plan. um the overall density, which is what the language of our comp plan has, um is below that one one unit per 10 acres. And this is something that city staff will continue to uh evaluate as subdivision applications come in in the future. This is a quick view at the sketch plan that was submitted as part of the application materials. As you can see, there are three lots. They're about equal in size and they are north of 217th Avenue. The planning commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing at the May 27th meeting. A neighboring property owner spoke in support of the subdivision request. The applicant and his surveyor were also present at the meeting uh to answer questions from the planning commission. The planning commission voted 50-0 to recommend approval of the subdivision in PUB concept plan. Uh the recommendation from the planning commission was to move to adopt the draft resolution approving the subdivision and PUD concept plan for Cliff Sanderson acres. Uh the council can also modify the draft resolution as you see fit and I'm happy to answer any questions. So, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 2025-34. Resolution approving the concept plan of Cliff Cliff's Anderson Acres for property legal legally described as it's a very long description that's stated in the resolution. I'll second motion and a second. Any discussion? Uh Grace, there's some discussion about uh the one in 10 ratio. Where did we end up with that? Yes. After the planning commission meeting, staff met with our city attorney to go over the language of the comprehensive plan and look at uh the subdivision request here. Um, we found that it seems the city has been interpreting um during past sub subdivision requests that that one and 10 standard applied to the rural residential district as a whole, not just each individual subdivision. So, due to the the precedence that was set during previous subdivision requests, that is the interpretation that we are moving forward with the staff. Uh, Mr. Larson, please correct me if there's anything else there. It that sounds like the right answer. So, what does that mean? Mayor, council member, I appreciate the affirmation there. Um, and if I could weigh in, and I'm sorry to cut you off, council member. Um, but I also want to just underscore that approval of this concept plan and the resolution uh doesn't bind the city uh to the plan, does not bind the city to the subdivision. What it is is it's just signaling uh to the developer that the overall concept meets with the kind of general consensus of the council so that way they can have some assurance that uh their continued investment which would then start to be somewhat significant and so forth. Uh hopefully we'll actually have a return on the investment. So what is the one in 10 thing? Uh I'm confused. Grace, do you want to explain it? Yes. So our comprehensive plan um establishes a density standard for each of our land use categories. In the rural residential category, uh that density standard is one unit per 10 acres. Um there are different standards for different land use categories, but it's one and 10 there. Our city code on the other hand does say that the the standard for rural residential the standard density is one unit for 2.5 acres. So there's a difference there um which is something that city staff will be reviewing as we revise the code going forward. Um but that was a point of confusion which we clarified with the city attorney. Yeah, because I was a little concerned when I was reading that that they were all around around two acres, two acre lots, and I thought, well, I thought we were supposed to have 2.5 acre lots in this um area. And so that was going to be my question. And and the my other question is the park fees. They're not going to put in a park. But did we increase our park fees or what are our park fees now? It's $2,000 a lot. 2,000 a lot because weren't we supposed to be increasing those? Actually, didn't we decrease them a little bit the last discussion? I don't recall that we have. Okay. No, it's it was 2004 or five years ago when I was on council before I and I think that needs to be a discussion in the future. Okay. Any further discussion? Motion second. All in favor? I pass. Item three. This is a variance request for three different variances for property at 138 Laurel Road Northeast. These variances are for a singlecar garage, impervious surface coverage, and metal siding. This property is located at 138 Laurel Road Northeast. It's zoned Lake Residential and guided Lake. Uh, as you can see in that image, Lake is to the north of this property. It is within the Shoreland Overlay District due to its proximity to the lake. It's 2.7 acres. It is a through lot, so there are 60.5 ft of frontage to the west and another 60.5 ft of frontage to the east. As you can see, it's kind of Sshaped. Uh, the applicant is proposing to build a single family home on the property. The variance requests there are three of them are first to allow a 12x 34 ft singlecar garage. City code requires that garages be 24x 24 ft. So this is a significant uh reduction in the width of the garage but it is uh there is significant depth to this garage beyond what's required by the code. The second variance is to allow imperous surface coverage of 27.6% 6% of the lot area. Uh, currently within the Shorland Overlay District, impervious surface is limited to 2.5 25% of the lot area. So, this is a 2.6% overage. The third variance is to allow metal siding on a proposed residential structure. City code requires that the exterior walls of a single family residence be similar in appearance to normal wood, vinyl siding, or masonry. Uh included in the packet was an image or several images of the siding that the applicant is proposing to use. It is called true log siding and is it is um made to look like wooden siding. Um because this is three separate variances, I do want to emphasize that approval of one variance does not require the approval of another variance and staff has repi supplied findings of fact for each of the variances approval and denial. Um, the variances are held to a standard uh called the practical difficulties test. I'm sure you've heard this before. Uh, the first standard that a variance must be held to is that the request is reasonable. Uh, that the property owner is looking to use their land in a way that makes sense. Um, the second standard is that the request is due to unique circumstances on the property that are not caused by the land owner. So this is often something to do with the land such as the slope of the land, a significant tree, the location of a septic system, something like that. And the third is that the variance, if approved, will not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. On the screen is a survey of the land. There is an existing garage and there is also to the east um an existing uh shed and then also connected to that shed is a canopy overhang uh which is contributing to some of the imperous surface on that property. Um and you can also see the proposed cabin and the garage on that survey. Planning commission commission reviewed this request at the May 27th meeting. Uh the applicant's do daughter spoke on his behalf and nobody else was present to speak on this request. The planning commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of all three variances. Two of the commissioners found that the metal siding variance did not meet the uniqueness test required for granting a variance and another commissioner found that the impervious surface variance did not meet the uniqueness standard required. Uh due to the or from the recommendation of the planning commission, uh they recommend that city council moves to adopt the draft resolution approving the three variances for 138 Laurel Road Northeast. Uh the council can modify the draft resolution to to deny some or all of the variances. Additionally, an alternative draft resolution for the denial of these variances has been included. Happy to answer any questions. motion. I will make a motion to approve resolution 2025-35, a resolution granting variances from section uh 227 subdivision V for impervious surface coverage and from uh for all this at at located at 138 Laurel Road, pin number 36-33-23-12-0142. to um described in the packet. Second motion and a second discussion hearing none. All those in favor I motion pass. Item four. This next item is for two variances, one for a rear yard setback and another for impervious surface coverage at 144 Laurel Road Northeast. This property or this variance was applied for uh by Mark Fors who lives at 144 Laurel Road Northeast. The property is zoned Lake Residential and guided Lake. Uh, Lake again is seen to the north on this image. The property is within the Shoreland Overlay District due to its proximity to the lake. The property is 22 acres. Uh, this is a bit of a unique variance. It's an after the-act variance as um, this applicant was issued a building permit for the structure, his single family home on this site in April of 2024 and a uh, certificate of occupancy was issued towards the end of 2024 for this home. Um, this was brought to the attention of city staff um, in March of this year. Um, and has been something that we have been working with the property owner to address since. Um, this was the result of a clerical error. Uh, we all hope to avoid those, but unfortunately this did occur. And the reason this is before you today is because um without a variance, the homeowner is not granted the same protections as someone who had built with a variance or as a structure that is a legal non-conforming use would be granted. So if this homeowner goes to sell his home or his home gets significantly damaged and he needs to apply for a building permit to repair it, um there would be issues with that. He would not be able to repair his home. He may encounter issues when selling or refinancing. So that's why this is before you today. The requested variances are first a variance to allow a rear yard setback of 9.3 ft. City code requires a rear yard setback of 25 ft within the zoning district. So this is a reduction of 15.7 ft of that rear yard setback. The second variance is to allow an imperous surface coverage of 25.09% of the lot area. Again, in this zoning district, the limit on impervious surface is 25%. So, this is a 0.09% overage. Uh, when staff did the math, we found that this is 9 ft. So, nine extra feet of imperous surface on this lot. Uh, again, approval of one of these variances does not require the approval of the other. And findings of fact have been provided for approval and denial of each of these variances in the packet. Similar to the last variance, there are those three standards uh that must be met as practical difficulties in order to grant this variance. The first is that the request is reasonable. The second is that it is due to unique circumstances and the third is that it does not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. Um as you can see on the right side of the screen, this is the asbuilt for the property. So there is the home. uh there is an existing garage to the north of it and then the septic system is to the west of it and then the well is at the north. So that is what is going on on that land right now. Um oops there we go. Planning commission held a public hearing on May 27th to review this variance request. One neighbor spoke in opposition of the request. The planning commission did vote 50-0 to recommend approval of both variances. On the recommendation of the planning commission, uh, the city council can move to adopt the draft resolution approving the two variances for 144 L Road Northeast. The council can also modify the draft resolutions and an alternative draft resolution for denial has been included in the packet as well. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know you weren't here, but do you know how they got a certificate of occupancy? Now, my history with the city is we built a huge um shed and every step of the way we had to have somebody come. We had to stake it out. Then they to get approval to pour the cement. We had to um pour the cement. They had to come and I mean every step somebody had to come. How did they miss all of this? I don't understand. And I can't I can't see the homeowner being punished for something that the city really screwed up on. Mr. Mayor and council members, that's a mystery to us as well. So, we don't have a real good answer for you on that. Well, do we have the names of the people who went there? Did we go ask them what happened with this? Did steps get missed? I mean, there's there needs to be some accountability. Understood. Thank you. Further discussion. All those in favor? I I pass. Was there a motion on that last one? I'm trying to recall. Did you make a motion or did you go right to discussion. I don't know. I'll make a Yeah, I was going to say I was think it's just redo it. I'll make a motion uh approving resolution number 2025-36 um granting variances from section 51-7 subdivision B for the coverage of 25.09% 09% on property located at 144 Laurel Drive, pin number 36-33-23-12-0064. Need a second. Hey, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Five. This item is a final plat approval for the final plat of Hidden Prairie. This final plat application was filed by TH Construction of Anoka uh for a subdivision off of East Bethl Boulevard. That would be 17 buildable lots. The lot as it is currently is or the two lots as they are currently are currently 44 acres approximately. The surrounding properties are guided and zoned rural residential as is the property in question here. This is a quick view at the plat. Uh there are 17 buildable lots. To the um east is East Bethl Boulevard. This application first went through the city council as a concept plan on August 14th of 2023. Then in February of 2024, the city council approved the preliminary plat for Hidden Prairie. Uh the preliminary plat was approved with several conditions that needed to be satisfied prior to the submission of the final plat for approval. Um the city has been working with the applicants since that preliminary plat approval to resolve those conditions. On April 23rd, 2025, the city received a final plat application and supporting materials for Hidden Prairie. When reviewing a final plat, the city council's discretion is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the city's subdivision and zoning ordinance. If it meets those standards, the city must approve the plat. Staff has found that the final plat request does meet the standards such as for minimum lot size, rightway, and density established within the code and matches the preliminary plat previously approved by the city. The conditions noted in the preliminary plat have been addressed by the developer. These conditions include comments made by Anoka Countyy's highway department, the city engineer, and a grading agreement that was required with a neighboring land owner. A development agreement has not yet been drafted, but will be drafted for execution by the city and developer prior to the final plat recording with Anoka County. The recommendation is to move to adopt the draft resolution approving the final plat for Hidden Prairie. I'm happy to answer any questions. We have a motion. Make a motion and adopt the resolution approving the final plat for Hidden Prairie, a subdivision located at PI 22 333 23 33005 and 22 33 23 34006 that resolution number being 2025-37. Seven second motion second. Any further discussion? I'm being heard. All those in favor? I motion passes. Item 8G. Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, City of East Bethl has nine full-time employees, eight public works maintenance technicians, and one building inspector that are represented by Minnesota Public Employees Association, MPA. And they currently had a labor agreement that's going to be um expiring here on December 31st, 25. And on the February 10th council meeting, uh, city council instructed myself to begin contract negotiations with MPA for labor agreement for a term of January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2028. And um, I did that. We met with them on April 22nd, a series of meetings and uh went into our close session on the last meeting and met with our uh personnel committee as well and um and came out with a contract that they voted to approve that you'll see attached here. And the red lines in this uh contract are the changes uh that are being proposed. Uh what I will say is that we were fortunate to have a long-term contract, a three-year contract on the prior agreement. Uh what was unique about that was the beginning of the contract, inflation was reasonable. Middle of the contract, inflation shot through the roof and tail end of the contract, where we at where we're at today is back to reasonable again. uh a lot of our neighboring uh communities and cities uh maybe weren't so lucky to have um long-term contracts and negotiated some of their contracts in the middle or during the height of the inflation. And so when I did an analysis on just the neighboring cities to us, the Oak Groves, the Hamlakes, the St. Francis. Um, asked them, "What do you pay for these jobs? These specific jobs." And our jobs are a little bit different. For example, um, a public works employee here that has a water license is different than a public works employee at Oak Grove because they don't have city sewer and water over there. So, um there's a little bit of difference there, but what we found primarily was we're about 10% lower um in salaries. Uh what does that mean? Well, um essentially if you are a skilled employee, and we have a lot of them, and I want to say first off that, um of the nine employees that we're speaking of, and really all of our employees, we're a small team and uh we're a good team. We wear a lot of hats and uh and we get the job done and so um so losing people is a is a challenge and we've had about a 20ome% turnover in the last uh year and a half um which sounds like a huge number but when you're a small team that really can represent two or three people essentially and what happens then is uh we are faced with not only the same workload but then training in a new and trying to get them up to speed and there's challenges associated with that. So part of our goal here is to um and I think everyone is dealing with this right now in terms of workforce it's uh attraction and retention plain and simple uh to retrain is costly uh or to rather train is costly and then if they once become trained they move on to another community some other community reaps the benefits of that training. So, what you'll see in this contract here is um less than was requested uh by the union. They came in with some uh pretty pretty aggressive demands and we were able to talk them down on that. But um the I want to kind of preface this by saying that um on average, if you look back through the increases that have been given to employees, it's been 3% on average every single year. And um and what we're proposing is 8% this year and 3% for the new next two years after that. Um if you take eight from or three rather from eight, it's really a 5% wage correction. 5% has me a little concerned um that um that you still have a 5% delta essentially with your neighboring communities if they give uh you know a um a reasonable raise on their own which fully anticipate that they will on account of the fact that um workforce is what it is right now. It's a challenge all the way around. So, um, what we're trying to do is combine, um, a little bit of wage correction with, um, with, uh, with this union contract and retain our people. And, uh, and I will say that, um, public works is probably one of the first areas where you'll get phone calls. Took out my mailbox, didn't plow my culde-sac, you know, um, you get all the calls, right? Um, and really we don't get a lot of calls from these folks because they do a tremendous job. Uh, when it comes to the water system that we have, uh, that's the quickest way to get into the paper if, uh, if they mess that up and we haven't been in the paper on that, so uh, knock on wood, that's great. Um, so, uh, they have they have a lot on their plate. We brought on the ice arena uh, as well. And um and that is we're getting nothing but glowing remarks from the um from the hockey associations is the way it's being run right now. And uh and so by and large I can say that um that we have excellent people working for us. And I um and I think that um given everything involved, I think this is a responsible contract. Stand for questions. I appreciate the work everybody did on it. I think our employees are absolutely deserving of this because I know we can be short staffed with the growing community that we have. Do we need a motion on this or is this ready for a motion? Yep. So, I'll make a motion to approve the labor agreement between East City of East Bethl and Minnesota Public Employee Associations uh effective January 1, 2026 through December 31st, 2028. Second motion and a second. Further discussion being all those in favor? I heard motion passes. Staff report. Uh Mr. Mayor, I just want to give you a couple of updates here. We um in the last council meeting, we talked about or the last EDA meeting rather, we talked about the property of 1347 Sims Road, 1.8 acres on the corner of Sims and Highway 65. Um, we have a signed letter of intent to purchase and we currently have uh Mr. Lararsson working on a draft um purchase agreement and we're going through our due diligence at this point of phase one possible phase two uh and selecting um kind of all the um necessary work to be done on that property to make sure that we're protected. had a contact with the county, specifically the county, uh because and looked at setbacks from Mandot as well, and the mayor, you wanted me to check in on that. Um what I will tell you about the county is they like to hold their cards pretty close and uh and depending on the project that goes in depends on their answer. Uh, so, um, so far, you know, you know, I know Joe pretty well and I'll work him pretty hard if he tries to come up with some trouble for us. But Joe McFersonson, but um uh I believe given some of the u uh work that we're going to be doing here in terms of uh water plants and and uh water towers and connecting the school that this will become a property that would be um instrumental in uh in that work in that area. And um and you know, we've talked about fire stations. I don't know, maybe that'd be a a good spot for it. um could be a good retail spot as well. But at any rate, just want to give you an update on that that the letter of intent to purchase is kind of your lowest agreement maybe and it gets more serious going out here. But we'll definitely keep you uh updated on those purchase agreements as they become available. Uh and the other thing is on uh June 25th through the 27th, the League of Minnesota Cities has their annual conference in Duth. Some of you are registered for that. Just wanted to remind you of that. And um it's a good opportunity to learn the latest the latest rules that apply to cities and uh and they generally try and um um provide some specificity to those those rules and uh it's a valuable opportunity to network with other uh elected officials as well and uh ask uh vendors and that some of the things I know we talked today about some of the um computer upgrades and that sort of thing we might be looking at. every vendor known to man will be there that uh that that offers that. So, it'll be a good opportunity to kind of chat through that and understand some of those challenges. So, at any rate, that's all I have for an update unless there are questions. Council reports. Matt, I got a question for you tonight. Uh Mark Gimple says that he's basically given us more information on the Do we have anything on that. I mean, he made it sound like they have proof that their IUP is still good for six horses. Um, well, I think there was a lot of lot of statements made this evening. Um, I um I understand his frustration. I I definitely understand his frustration. Um, a lot of his statements were pretty serious, but I think I will have maybe the attorney respond to this question because we've all of this and I want everyone to have confidence in knowing that um that this issue has been vetted by our attorneys. We've talked this through. It isn't a flippant decision. Uh we're not withholding information. None of the claims made are true. Um and uh but that being said, I do understand his frustration. So, mayor, council members, um, with respect to gimples and the IUP, with respect to horses, there was an initial IUP that was issued for six horses. Um, then the gimples ceased to use uh their particular property for horses regardless even if they had ceased to use, they came back. And as for an IUP for two horses, once they did that for the same subject matter, the same use and so forth, that second IUP um basically cancels out the prior one. But even if that prior one had been in full legal force in effect, um but it had ceased. It was no longer in legal force in effect. So it was canceled one of two ways or both ways. Um the and just to underscore this, you can't just be stacking your IUPs and saying, "Okay, I asked for six horses, now I asked for two and I get another two and start adding them up." No, no, no. You How many horses are you going to have on your property? Well, they asked for two. Um I I believe the Gimples if if they were still here regardless if they're not I did look at you know the minutes for last council ma meeting you revoked but you also provided them an opportunity to resubmit an IUP so that way uh this governing body could actually look at the current situation and determine what is the appropriate number of horses and the conditions if any. I want to underscore this is an interim use permit. It is not permanent. It is interim. And there are interim as far as interim means that there is a defined length of time. It is not permanent. It's interim and their interim conditions. The gimples seem to be operating that somehow there's some permanency there. Regardless, the Gimples will have an opportunity to resubmit and for this body to determine what would be a an appropriate IUP for horses on their property. If if I can clarify too, I Mr. Gimple had indicated that he's at odds with me. Um I am not at odds with the Gimples at all. And I don't mean to make light of this, but I really have no horse in this race at all. Um, my position on the matter is we have conditions and IUPs. We extend those IUPs and with agreement on those conditions and those conditions must be followed. And if they're not followed, there's a process for trying to get that change. You come back before the governing body and say, you know, I need more or I need this or I need that. There's a process and it must be followed. uh and we cannot have people deciding I don't like my conditions. I'm going to go about my you know doing whatever I want and I think at that point um we have to address it and and we did. So thanks for clarifying that because I mean he said he has information but I wanted to make sure that we have all of ours. Thank you. Makes sense. and and the gimples will have an opportunity to resubmit and provide any and all information uh they believe is appropriate. So I just wanted to I had a few residents call and leave some messages and I never got back to them and I just want to make a public apology because I have been out of town in town out of town in it's just been really hectic traveling last couple of weeks. So, I will get back to these residents as soon as um things get a little organized in my life. Um I do want to bring up the park fees again. And I also because right now I think $2,000 is crazy. You can't fix a park for $2,000 anymore. Um but I also think that we don't have enough parks. I think some of our parks are too far apart. So, if we're getting a park down off of East Bethl Boulevard and they have to drive to Booster or to the little area I live in, that park or um up to Menard's or Lake or someplace else, and they can't put their child in a stroller and walk to a park, I think if if they're living on a suburban type street, because if they have to walk on Durant Street or East Beth Boulevard or something like that. That's not safe for any child, any dog, any anything. So I think we I don't think I know we have a lot of parks, but if we're getting so many more developments, we need some more parks. This fees in lie of park is is not right. So I think we need to talk about that. I also um need some direction and if we want to change if I want to change the ordinance on fencing or um acreage new development acorage I'd like direction on where we have to go with that. If you want me to look at an ordinance and say okay I think it should say this or if you guys want our planning people to come with forward with ideas. I'd like that because I feel like I want to do this. I ran on doing this, but I don't know where to go for that. So, I need some direction on that. So, and that's all I've got. Uh, Mr. Mayor and council members. Um, with regards to changing ordinances, if you want to let us know kind of what your goals are and ideas, bring it to a work session. We'll put it on the agenda. We can talk through it. We can um work with Kendra or or Grace in terms of uh, you know, seeing what the current ordinance is, what sort of changes would be needed. Then it's got to go through the planning and zoning, public process, and everything else. And um, takes a little while. Well, the bard minimum I know council member Miller is still upset about, but that's coming. It's absolutely coming. Um, but it does take a little time. So, um, it's not a snap your fingers and it's done type of thing. And, uh, but we can certainly get it addressed, get a consensus in a work session and move on from there. So, thank you. I want to talk for a brief second tonight. Uh what was presented in a work meeting a couple weeks ago was fact. Since 2004, the city has been covering all the extra bills involved in this business. The city has been. It's our job to bring this to the public attention. It was brought to the public attention that this business in a residential unit or district was operating underneath the city's dollars for paying electric, water, gas, everything. Okay, that is a fact. I am never going to agree with city tax dollars being spent in any way, shape, or form. Maybe in a short-term or temporary agreement, but for two decades, we're talking money out of our residents pockets. Now, people might be appalled and say that's an attack. I'm sorry you don't agree with me when it comes to your tax dollars being spent on certain items. Um, in real estate, consideration refers to the value exchanged between the parties in a transaction making the contract legally binding. It is the price paid for property or the promise to perform certain actions in exchange for that property. That could draw a red flag when your dad owns a development company and you're on city council. That's a definition. It may or may not Let me talk, please. I've let everyone talk tonight. Okay, it's important to know where your tax dollars are actually going. Half the city or more than half did not know that their money was being spent in this way. It wasn't fair and it's never going to be fair when that happens to a city. You challenged me to come get you. I never challenge you, senior, but I will make a challenge to you. I challenge you to pay the bills that your business inquires. Nothing more, nothing less. That's it. I don't know how this happened, why it happened, but we're not putting it underneath the table here. We're not afraid to bring it out in the open. And that's what we've done. I mean, I think 100% we should have this on the agenda. We'll bring the extra bills numbers. We'll bring the other numbers. your commercial taxes, that's your business. I'm not even going to get into that. That's just was brought up. But I think the city and county and schools got screwed because of it. There's a lot of things you've done here that were brought to the attention in my opinion need to be discussed and that's what I said. They need to be discussed and hopefully we will. We'll get a resolution to this and be done with it once and for all. But to have city tax dollars being spent to pay your electric bill or any other bill for that matter is wrong. I don't there's nothing you can explain to me why tax dollars need to pay for the bills in your business. That's all I have. Any other discussion? Make a motion to journ motion. Second. All those in favor? I thank