Okay, at this time we'll bring the regular council meeting to order for January 12th, 2026. Please rise if you can for the >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. >> Make a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. >> Second. We have a motion, a second. All in favor? >> I public forum. Miss Gimple. Mayor Council Tammy Gimple, 22359 Baton Street Northeast. Um, I'm here today because this is a second letter I've gotten. You guys might not know of the letters. I'm assuming that Matt Look knows of the letters. Nick Schmidz has been sending me. >> Okay. I I have an attorney and I know that you know I have an attorney and I know the city attorney knows I have an attorney so I shouldn't be getting these letters. Um so at this point I'm just going to say the council I mean I'm going to start considering this harassment if you're sending them to me directly. Nick Schmidt should not be sending me anything directly. I have an attorney. Um, so that's that. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor and Councel. The letters are being sent um are code violations um on the Gimple property. She may have an attorney as it relates to her court proceedings in Anoka County. The um city of East Bethl is not in contest right now with Miss Gimple. um nor does her attorney represent her for the city. Um in a situation which say for example the city is suing Miss Kemple, we would be communicating our attorney to her attorney in that particular situation. As it relates to code violations, it is within the right of the city to send you not. Sorry, Matt. No, you're absolutely wrong. Okay. Two different attorneys. >> That's a different attorney. >> I'm sorry. >> I have two attorneys. That is a different attorney with an NOA County and I know you know so stop playing games. >> I don't know how many attorneys you have. No >> no the attorney that came in here and handed you his card that is my attorney for the city of East Bethl and I know you know that. >> So you're just you're playing games and stop. So stop. If you're trying to intimidate me that's not going to happen. It doesn't work. It's not working. I have two attorneys. You can clean it up with him. >> Listen to them. Don't listen to him. I have an attorney. >> Mr. Mayor, there's a process to follow in a civil case as it relates to code violations. Actually, this is a criminal case as it relates to code violations and we will follow that in terms of the uh number of letters that need to go out um and at which point it needs to be turned over to Glammers for criminal prosecution due to failure to comply. We will at least follow our process that's required and every court requires us to do that. And I've asked Matt on this before where we're at with this issue, too. So, they're doing their due diligence on it. So, thank you. Consent agenda. Are there any of these items that we have to pull to fill in the blanks? I think there's D that do not have a recommendation. Right. >> So, um I'll pull item D. Otherwise, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented without item D. >> Second. >> Have a motion. Second. Anything else needed to be pulled? >> I'm going to pull H D and H. We're pulling. Okay. Tim was a >> and a Okay. Okay, we have a motion, a second to the consent agenda as amended following uh AD and H. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. And heard item A. >> All right, Matt. Underneath David Street Maintenance. Anyway, there's a there's a charge in here for $12,000 or $16,000 for striping repair materials. >> Okay. Please tell me we're not trying to stripe anything right now. >> No. Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council, the striping was a part of a contract that we had with uh the striping company. They did not bill us for their work. And so this is the uh catchup to that when they realize that they made that mistake. >> Okay, that's work that's already been completed. Thank you for that. I was worried with that. I would like to uh approve item A. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion, a second on item A. Any further discussion? None being heard. All in favor? I opposed. >> Item D. So item D was uh filled in the blank for uh the city newspaper. So Mr. Mayor and Council, we currently have the Aseni Chicago Star um that we are currently using and uh they are substantially lower than the alternative at this point. Um so my recommendation would be that we continue uh using what has been a successful relationship with them in terms of meeting the requirement of the law and saving a substantial amount of money in doing so. So, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 202601 uh designating Chicago County Star as to continue to be our local newspaper. >> Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> None being heard. All in favor? I >> opposed. Hi. Item H. >> I pulled item H. I just read this and uh I just want to say thanks to Dan Dos. I mean, he's retired and uh he's offered to be on call in case we need him for the fall. So, I just want to tell him that I appreciate what he's doing. Then I'll make a motion to approve item H. Second. >> Have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> Thank you, Dan. That's awesome of you. All right, that being said, all in favor? >> I opposed. Unheard. >> Uh, planning commission PUD concept. that's there. Um this is the PUD concept plan for Cedarwood Estates. Uh this is the manufactured home park. Um the planning commission did review this and the three council members were there but for the those who were not and for the audience I will walk through the slideshow. The area outlined in blue is the uh manufactured home park. Uh the area in this case is where the shared septic is and um again under the my face off there. Um and that is a issue that was uh discussed by the planning commission. We can talk a little more about that. The concept plan uh for Cedarwood Estates formerly known as Village Green Mobile Home Park at 18164 Highway 65. So some background, the park was permitted by the village of East Bethl in 1969. And then in 1987, the city adopted manufactured home standards and manufactured park standards in 1987, which created legal nonconformities in this park, which means the the homes can continue as they are, but they're very limited in their ability to replace homes or expand. Um, this proposal is to allow expansion of the park to the north to add 33 new homes. It expands on two adjacent parcels, one of which has a small apartment uh that would be removed. The idea of a PUD concept is to establish general standards that would apply to both the existing park and the proposed expansion area. This property is guided medium density residential and zoned R2 single family and town home residential. Uh there is another portion in the northwest that's where that shared septic is. That's uh guided light industrial and zoned B3. On the screen is the um survey that was done for the the park. And on the right is sort of a it's not a survey. It's not official, but it lays out the lots within the park. The applicants requesting uh that the council consider a PUD to provide flexibility and lot size, lot width, and setbacks and manufactured home parks in East Bethl are only permitted in the B1 district. So the PUD would uh allow them to reszone to PUD with an underlying R2 zoning district presumably to establish specific standards for this park park that would apply to the 178 approximately existing homes and the 33 new homes. One thing that we spent a lot of time talking about at the planning commission is that the submitt did not clearly address the existing conditions and really focused on only the expansion area. Um the expansion area shows lots for 16 by 76 foot wide homes. Those are single wide homes that are fairly small. Those of you who are familiar with the park know there's a number of double wides in the park today. And that's something that I think as uh people replace their homes, they look to do. Um in this case, the individuals will own the homes but not the land. Um Continental would own the land and lease that back to homeowners. And um it is a number of lots today. So if this were to go forward, staff would recommend that the entire park be platted as a single parcel with unit lots for the individual homes. Right now, we have homes, as you can kind of see on this screen, that cross uh parcel boundaries or cross lot lines, which we typically don't want to have happen. So, you have homes here, for example, that are on this lot and this lot. And generally, the building code doesn't want to see that happening. On the red squares are the new home lots that they are proposing, but again, we don't have a lot of information about what's happening down here. One of the comments uh from the fire department uh that was highlighted at the planning commission was that this road is a dead end and that would either need to loop down and connect or provide a turnaround culde-sac that complies with code requirements. This is the area where that small uh apartment is today. This is the area where the small park is. You can kind of see the playground there. Um, the PUB uh needs to comply with the PUB standards in section 56 of the code and we don't know right now if they do or don't. We simply don't have enough information. Um, and that was the big uh piece of feedback from the planning commission is they did not provide a recommendation primarily because we just don't know enough about what's happening. The separation between buildings is proposed at a 20 foot separation. Uh, our code requires 30 feet. That's significantly more than the fire code or the building code require and is significantly more than several of the other cities we survey. Nevertheless, that is our standard and they're asking for flexibility from that. That is, I think, the most significant issue that the planning commission discussed relative to the setbacks. Um the parking areas are clearly shown for the new lots which would uh provide off streetet parking on each of those lots which is something that does not exist in the existing park for all lots. So that would be helpful. Uh what it doesn't show is how decks and storage sheds could be placed on the new homes in compliance with the PUD. That is a problem that uh we've noted in the existing park is that we have um sheds that don't comply with setbacks. We have um decks or uh ramps that don't comply. And we've we've had people coming in wanting to add ADA ramps that require a variance and that just haven't come forward yet. Um so being able to ensure that if we do create new lots, those lots are designed uh to accommodate those kinds of things that exist today in the park. We also note that there appear to be a number of encroachments in the mind right ofway. Uh not only the street on the east side, but there appear to be homes that are in the rightway. And so if it went forward, they would certainly need MDOT approval and likely encroachment agreements for uh those in encroachments. One of the benefits of the PUB identified by the applicant is a willingness to abandon the shared septic and well and connect to city sewer and water. But they did ask if the city would be willing to do that on a phased approach. Connecting the entire park as a single action item they've indicated would be cost prohibitive. So, they would like to start with connecting the new lots and then uh working with the city to develop a plan that would provide um additional revenue uh for the city, which is why we we would consider that a benefit. Uh if the project did go forward on that north expansion, they would need to provide new storm water ponding and a wetland delineation as well as a minram, which is an assessment of wetlands. The park issue was significant. the planning commission. Uh I was unanimous in stating that uh maintaining a park in this manufactured home park that complied with the chapter 38 requirements of 15% of the park area was critical for them. That was the one thing that they were all agreed was a non-negotiable item for them. Um the uh council may wish to uh provide feedback on that, but that was certainly their uh stand. Again, just as in terms of legal nonconformities, a legal non-conforming use is uh because the park was established prior to the adoption of the ordinance. So, the park itself is a legal non-conforming use. But within that, there are a number of non-conforming structures. Non-conforming because they don't meet the setback requirements. And again, what that means is those structures and this park can continue forever. uh but their ability to maintain the structures is very limited. Um so in summary they are requesting a PUD to allow reduced dimensional standards in the manufactured home park to allow uh an expansion to add 33 no homes but also with the hope that it would bring many if uh if not most of the existing homes into compliance. They would need flexibility from uh lot sizes, parking locations, buffering around the exterior of the site, street width, open space and recreation requirements, phasing of the utility quest uh connections, and perhaps others. We simply don't have enough information about the details at this point. So, the planning commission had a robust discussion but did not make a recommendation. uh that is unusual for them as you know but they uh felt that they really needed more information about the existing conditions. They agreed that 15% uh park space was desired that they wanted more information about the existing well and septic and the plan for abandonment and future connection to the city system. Agreed that the culdeac street connection is needed in the northwest. They had some concerns that only that one housing site is shown and it wouldn't accommodate larger homes. So they wanted to know how that would work both in the new and the old parts. Uh there was some support for more affordable housing and the ability to replace those existing homes with newer models, but again really felt they needed more information on the PUB flexibility requested and the related benefits. And so uh we did prepare uh two resolutions uh one for approval, one for denial. And you certainly have an option to act as the planning commission did and just provide uh feedback to the applicant um on the concept plan as non-binding advisory comments. The applicant's representative is here tonight, Mr. Mayor, and I know that was a repeat for you, but I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Well, I have a couple of questions. Um first, can you repeat what you were saying about you said something about 15% non-negotiable? I didn't understand or hear the first part of that or something. I don't know. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Madame Chair, council member, Mr. Chair, uh the chapter 38 of our code requires 15% of a manufactured home park to be preserved as a private park. And so, uh when they on this concept plan, they are putting the um um new homes in the um existing park and eliminating that existing park in the north. And the planning commission said, "You need to figure out a way to make sure that you're preserving that 15% park area that chapter 38, our manufactured home park, requires." >> Okay, I got it. So, park playground type thing is what you're talking about. Okay. Um, is there a way we can mandate that they have to allow for a number of double wides? because I kind of agree people are going to want are wanting bigger living spaces right now. >> I think that's something that you could um provide feedback to them. I'm not sure um that we could mandate the lot size, but we have a lot of discretion here on a PUD. So, if we felt that they needed to provide that, I know at the planning commission they the applicants rep said they would look into that and provide some options, but I think that's a great question for them tonight. Okay. Um, and then with the do they pay any park fees, park dedication fees, or is that park 15% park part of it? uh because they're uh these are existing lots of record that we're I would be recommending that they combine into one. They would not be subject to park dedication fees. But again, the reason for the 15% park private park requirement is this is a lot of homes in a small area and providing recreation space for those residents I think was important to the council when they established that requirement. So, >> all right. And then um that culde-sac you were talking about is that going to be a mandated thing part of the contract or does mindot do that or who does that? >> If um I'm going to just pull up that image here. So the culdeac that I was talking about in the northwest here uh they have a couple of options. They could either put a culdeac right here or they could figure out a way to connect that road down through. So either option, but they cannot have this long dead end. It could be a hammerhead. There are different ways to provide a a turnaround that complies with the fire code. But that if they proceeded with a development application, yes, that would be a requirement that we would enforce. These are maybe I should back up and just clarify. These are all private streets within the park. So none of these are maintained by the city. Um but they would need to meet our code requirements for private streets. >> Okay. And then for ADA compliance, um, what do they have to do? What do we have to do regarding that? >> Referring to the ramps. I was referring to >> ramps and, um, wheelchairs and, um, ban accessibility because I know a there's a a lot of disabled people like to to choose mobile homes because it works for them. >> Yes. So, some of the homes are able to add a ramp to the entry for wheelchair access um and comply with the setbacks, but not very many. And so, anybody that needs to have that, that's a structure and it does need to meet setback requirements. So, uh uh city administrator look and I have been talking with at least one person who wanted to do that and they need to come in and ask for a variance and you know that's an expensive time consuming process. So, >> you know, if there was a way to modify that through the PUD, that would be something that I think the applicant uh would be interested in and perhaps the council would as well. >> Okay. And now, does this area have to comply with our new sidewalk kind of rules that we're we have recently added in the last year or two? Um well certainly as part of a PUD we can discuss a lot of things with the applicant but these are existing streets. They're not other than the the couple on the north there. Um so we wouldn't typically um add streets to add sidewalks to existing streets. But certainly that's I think a point of discussion at least to mark the streets as accessible paths to the park or something. Certainly something to ask the applicant. I think she's referring to the park and trail dedication fees. >> Oh, I'm sorry. The fees. No, again, uh trail fees and park fees are not due for this. >> What would be due if this did proceed and connect would be um sewer and water connection charges. Uh but but again, because it's uh not being uh subdivided, there would be no park dedication fees. >> Okay. Okay. And then if we approve this, do all these things get discussed later or should we table it and wait for them to agree or disagree or whatever? >> Yeah, >> that's my question. >> Yeah, great question. This is uh the op the first step in a long process. And so one of the things you could do tonight, one option would be to provide feedback to the applicant and and option three was deny the request. based on the finding that you just don't have enough information, but here's the things we would want to see before you come back. And then they would have the choice to come back with either a revised concept plan or uh the next step, and I think I laid this out in the staff report, would be to come in for a reasonzoning and a PUD and a plat to combine the parcels. >> So, we can provide informal comment only tonight. I don't believe that we have to table it. >> No, you certainly could table it, but I think um the applicant is what they said at the planning commission is they're looking for feedback to determine whether this is something that the council is open to before they spend a lot of money on coming up with a plan and those details because it is expensive to do a survey and complete all that information. and they want to know uh are you open as to this idea? Um and again, I don't want to speak for them. They're here, but uh you could table it. You also could provide feedback and then take action to deny through uh adopt and the denial resolution. Um simply provide the feedback and not take any formal action uh are two of your options. >> Okay. Well, I would definitely want to see um some of those lots be double wide for sure. A little bit bigger lots, maybe a few less home total homes. So, would we have to reszone this then, right? Go from R2 to B1. >> Correct. And then as part of that, you're actually reszoning to PUD, but the PUD needs to be consistent with the underlying zoning. >> Okay. And then as far as the sizes of the lots and everything, we may have to change the code amendment, the chapter 38, the way it reads now. >> You do not. And and again, that's because the PUD, sorry, I keep the PUD is a is a contracted zoning district. So that's a new unique zoning district that you're creating. So you don't have to change 38 um to allow this park to proceed. Change you you could say that you want to change 38. That would affect this park and the other park. But you absolutely can leave 38 as it is and adopt a PUD with special standards for this park through that PUD process. >> Okay. So the concept plan you they want is for the new part and the old part. >> Yeah. Uh yes. I think they were focused on the new part, but I think it's important that it be for the whole park. I have issues with that because if we're allowing them these sizes in the new part of the concept, then they can address that in the old part and they're going to improve their density a lot more with more trailers. Uh well, I I maybe I should I think uh what I was recommending was that they formalize what exists in the existing park because I think like I said, we've got lots that are are homes that are over lot lines today and I think we want to clean some of this stuff up. Not that I'm suggesting that double wides be eliminated for these single wides. Is that So there may be different standard. >> I just don't want to give them a free check free check just to run wild and put in their all their new dimensions into the old part. >> Okay, understood. Yeah, >> because I I could see that happening. >> You absolutely would have the ability to have a uh set of standards for the new homes and a different set of standards for the existing homes. And then as far as uh the timing of the sewer, where would they even connect to? I mean, the closest connection for them is $1,320 ft away. And at an estimated cost of 350 bucks a foot. That's $462,000 it would cost them to connect. And they'd have to cross 40 acres. of somebody else's land. >> Yes, they would have a lot of work to do to do that. I do not have the answer to that. I don't know if the applicant has given that uh detailed thought, but that would be their responsibility to do. Uh I think the recommendation could be that the support uh exists only if there's a connection to the city sewer and water and then it's up to them to figure out how to make that happen. >> Um on that back street I noticed that it's 8 ft narrower than the other two streets. Is there a reasoning for that or is it just because of they ain't got any more room there? >> Um the back street on the on the west? >> Yep. The northwest. It's only 32 foot wide compared to the other two streets that the other street they're putting in is 40. >> This one uh 30 Well 32 I think is our standard. Let me look. >> I don't know. They have different sides, but the standard street is 40 feet in chapter 38. Um, I'm not sure why they're showing a smaller street. >> And they're actually showing the curve onto that back street. They're actually into the other owner's lot there into their easement >> right here. >> Yep. And I know you talked, we talked about the sewer and everything and phasing in the rest of it. When phasing that in, where do we come into where we're replacing the old pipes that are in the old additions at our cost? I mean that's a that's a question that we got to look at down the line >> right? >> So to me there's a lot of questions that we need answers on moving forward. Yeah, I I definitely agree with that. The planning com commission did a great job reviewing this and brought up a lot of good points and yes, there's a lot of questions that needs answers to uh the park space that is an important feature. Um, one of the things that I'd be looking at is a defined survey on the established park uh with irons in the grounds at lock corners. So all that can be clearly defined. um and possibly have uh a max mobile home size for each lot that uh I believe in the past where we had some issues with uh trying to get a couple homes in there that the somewhere along the line that there's some miscommunication whether it was city's the city side or the other side that caused some issues. So, if we could have that cleared up so that that doesn't happen in the future. And another question that I have, I think I know the answer, but uh this PUB if approved at one point, does that just cover this parcel of the trailer park and not the parcel that the wastewater treatment system is on? >> I don't know that we know that yet. I think that would be something that we that the applicant and the city could talk about. Um >> Okay. Be because that leads to the second question that if the if the trailer park is hooked up, the treatment system is abandoned and there's a lot of hoops that you have jump through to redevelop that property. But would that property at some point be available to expand this park onto that one even though it's uh not a connected parcel? >> I think that's a great question that the the city engineer doesn't have the answers to and I certainly don't. But I think it's an important question is what happens to that parcel and what is the abandonment process? I'm not that familiar with it. So, that would be something we'd need to work through as well. And the applicant would need to tell us what that plan is. There's a part in this that I read that these individual lots would be owned by the people who bought the trailers. But earlier in this presentation, you had put in that they would not own the land, just the trailer. Uh, I I think you might have read something in the applicant's narrative that said that and then I clarified that that was a mistake according to them in their narrative and that the plan is that the park owns the land and the homeowners own the home. >> That's huge. Thank you. Any further discussion? >> I'm thinking is like what do we need to I know there's a lot of unanswered things here. If we should make a list and give it to the applicant on concerns that we have and they can read it and see what they can correct or what we can correct, whatever we can do to work with it. Kendra, do I believe you kind of have that list of unanswered? >> Well, in the staff report, I put the planning commission's uh concerns, but yes, I think we have just a draft um couple of draft resolutions in there. One for uh denial and one for approval. And on either one, you could modify that to say these are the things that would have to be addressed before we could consider approving this. Um, >> there are several points in your write up that you you identify that uh these questions need to be answered. >> Right on the bottom of page 43. Um, I had some specific items that came up that I thought the council might want to provide feedback on. You brought up a couple more tonight >> and throughout your write up you had. >> Yes. So, if you felt like that covered everything in the staff report, in the conversation tonight, the applicants rep is here. You could, I think, reference that in your action, whether it was um to approve or deny the concept plan. I think my recommendation is if you want to take action would be uh to to um reference that uh staff report. And the other things that came up tonight, I think um in talking with the city attorney before the meeting, in light of the number of outstanding issues, I think uh if we want to take formal action rather than just providing feedback, I think we would recommend the resolution denying the planned use development concept and then providing feedback about the issues that would need to be able to address be addressed to get council support. So, I do have another question and that's regarding the older part of the park and the older homes. Some of them are in pretty bad condition. I mean, they're looking like in a year or two or if we get a strong wind, they're going to blow over. So, there was something I read about them not being able to be replaced because of the what what is their resolution then? >> Uh then they have >> I lose my home because of a storm and I can't rebuild. >> Correct. Um so with a legal not you've got a and I won't be able to find it quickly probably on the screen. There's a couple vacant lots up here, and I I suspect that might be what's happening. So, when you have a legal non-conforming structure, which is what those houses are, because they're not meeting the setback requirements, you can only replace it with something uh if it's damaged, you can replace it with something in exactly the same footprint. But if you take it out, like if it falls apart, that's not damaged. But if you take it out and want to replace it, you can only replace it in compliance with the setbacks. The minute you remove that home, you've lost your non-conforming status. So then the new home would need to meet the setbacks in chapter 38. >> And it's impossible on those lot sizes. Correct. >> Yeah. So I can see the need for this. >> So what's the resolution for something like that? I mean, I don't just keep the lots empty. Well, I mean today that is either you keep it empty or you come back and ask for a variance. And my understanding is a couple years ago there were a couple variances that were requested in front of the council. Um uh so those are the two options that you have. Either leave it empty and as a land owner I'm sure they don't want that or ask for a variance. Um and you know the city council has a lot of discretion in approving a variance. So that's an ideal scenario. So >> So the easy maybe not so easy, but the fix to correct all of those issues is having a PUB because then if something does happen, they it's no longer legal not conforming. They can make those improvements to the trailers replacing and they don't have a variance for each one. >> Got it. So, >> and we don't know enough about the existing conditions, but if you look, there are Whoops. There are some homes that appear that there probably is 20 feet between the homes, but not 30. So, if they change the setback to 20 feet between homes, you have an extra 10 feet to play with. That might allow people to replace homes. But again, I don't know because I don't have a survey for that part of the site. Um, and but you can see a number of homes have been replaced with double wide homes or at least larger homes in the park. So, >> that's the challenge. You want to be able to have people have safe homes >> that don't fall down around their ears or something as you suggest. Uh, but still meet the um, you know, the health safety issues that are addressed by setbacks. >> You know, just driving through there, there seems to be a lot more than just a couple lots empty. I mean, there must have been I think 10 or 12. I >> Yeah, I just can't see very good on this screen, but I think there's a couple of them up here. There's a couple up here. It's hard to My eyes aren't that good even with my specs on, but there are a number of vacant lots. >> And the plan for that is they can't put them in because they can't put houses that they can buy. >> That's my guess, but I don't know that. So we would have to have the applicant provide more information about that. So here's some general uh interest in getting more information. Um but I think um Council Member Smith's idea of you know providing specific things beyond you know what's in the staff report is a good idea for the applicant to take back. >> Well, yeah, because my feeling is I want to work with them definitely because I mean it can help our city as well bring in tax dollars and the people that are buying and living there are spending money in our city. So, I mean, if we can come to a a decent PUD that works, I have no issues with that. But it looks like we have a lot to figure out to make it work. >> So, I'm going to make a motion to uh for resolution number 20264. um denying this until he can come they can come back with um answers to our questions because I really do want to see this grow. I I was sad to see those um homes sitting there on the corner for months and I'm like well we need to approve this but after I see all this the issues um it needs to these issues need to get fixed. So, I'm I'm looking forward to approving it in the future, but I'd like answers to our questions. >> I'll second that. >> A motion to second. Any further discussion? >> Just for clarification. We're just going to modify that those last two lines of the now therefore to say that. Is that correct? >> No. Therefore, be it resolved, denies the concept until temporarily or >> I would say the denies the concept. This is what I heard you say. Denies the compl concept plan. The applicant may modify the plans to address the standards in the staff report and answer the questions raised by councel. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Any further discussion? So it it kind of sounds like I one of the points that that pin one was uh direction of council. It kind of sounds like council is willing to work if they want to move forward. >> Definitely. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure they had that feedback. Yeah. The owner called me this afternoon, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Definitely. We want to try to make it work for sure. >> So, >> get the questions answered. All right. Any further discussion? >> None being heard. All in favor? >> I opposed. Unheard. Thank you. >> Item 8G. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, um, as the first meeting of 2026, uh, we have an organizational requirement, uh, as it relates to the assignments of city council persons to commissions, committees, authorities, WOs, and other public advisory boards as liaison or members, uh, recommended by yourself, the mayor, and confirmed by councel. And so you'll see the list here of um the various different uh commissions, committees, authorities, and um you'll have in the next page here kind of what it was in 2025 and what it's recommended for in 2026. Any of this can be changed. Um but um if council's agreeable with these changes, uh we'd need a motion and approval on that. Make a motion to approve recommendations for 2026 commission committee proposed assignments. >> Second. >> We have a motion second. Any further discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Unheard. Okay. Staff report. Mr. from here. Just a couple of updates. Um wanted to just say that uh 2026 is kind of starting off here with a bit of a bang. Um I'm going to list a couple of items that we're going to be focusing on this year. The first is um the Prime newsletter. We're shooting for a goal for the first newsletter to be in a new format and uh currently working with Prime Advertising to get that done. It's a little bit of a process to get that done. Um, and also, um, just a note on if you have articles you want to go into this newsletter, please, uh, get those to Carrie and we'll make sure that they're included in there. Um, >> do you have a deadline? >> Uh, we we do have a deadline and I can shoot it to you. I don't have it right off the >> January 20th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I will confirm that. If it's different, I'll let you know. Otherwise, we'll go with January 20th. Uh, additionally, we'll be working with Civics Plus uh with um not only the website uh upgrade that we have coming, but then also the modules uh that were approved in the budget. Specifically, um we're going to start off with the building department modules and uh modules for um code enforcement and permitting and licensing. We're trying to streamline that department because we've we've had some turnover in that department. We want to make sure we can get some modules that kind of help everybody facilitate moving away from the manual process to more of an automated process. Um, adopting those manual modules rather will be um I would say no pain no gain. Uh, it's going to it's going to be a challenge for folks, but we're hoping that in the end it's going to be a a great transition. Additionally, we'll have um potentially new people coming in um in that department and we'll be focusing on training and bringing them up to speed. Um we'll be closing on a property here uh in on the 27th and uh and then decisions as to what that property should be. Uh that'll be a a work session topic that we'll be handling. But um this is kind of a a new step maybe at least since my tenure here for the city. um in terms of acquiring a property and redeveloping that property and and marketing that to um to a new potential user that would bring uh goods or services to the community. Um we have uh um just general busyness every single day that we're doing as well and we're trying to uh make sure that with our small team we're able to manage that. I know that um that Nate, for example, has ordered a significant amount of salt as you've all witnessed the lovely weather that we have out there at times. I think it snowed every single day or just about. Um but nevertheless, we're trying to keep uh accidents at a minimum and uh we're going through a fair amount of salt this year. We've got um we've got contracts for that, so we're in good shape there. Uh but it's uh it's taken a toll certainly on our public works guys and thank you for approving the part-time uh plow driver. I I chatted with him uh and uh see he seems very happy and optimistic and seems like it'll be a good good fit for the city. Um so we appreciate that. But nevertheless, it's uh shaping up to be a good year and we're we're going to embrace all these these uh changes and and try and ensure that not only improves the image of the city, but it also improves um the work that we do on a daily basis and helps to manage that work uh workflow and uh and um handle the uh not only internal customers but our external customers, the residents of East Bethl uh to the best of our ability. So, aside from that, unless there's questions, I'll conclude my report. >> Council reports. >> I got uh one thing. We had our first meeting of the Sunrise River WMO last week with uh some interesting news. I've talked before about ditch 20 wetland restoration. That is where uh we'd be The project creates a settling area uh in the drainage ditch. So, it kind of opens up a pond that water can be directed into. It allows that water to settle out with the phosphates and any other contaminants that they can settle out before going into Typo Lake, which then feeds Martin Lake, which then feeds I think Island Lake, then which feeds it just has a chain effect. And so currently that project is underway as you can see with the heavy equipment that they have moving around. Uh we do expect more drone footage to come in during the course of the project. Uh the other project that we had been looking at is ditch 13. Uh that is identified as the black star that you see there on the map. Uh that is that project is a similar design as a settling area. Uh, one of the big questions that we are discussing is how to get funding for that as would we have to go to potentially uh several different funding sources. Uh I am happy to announce that uh through Bowser's multi-purpose drainage grants uh we were awarded $241,000 >> nice >> grant to complete that project on ditch 13. So if everything goes to plan next winter once freeze up happens again that project will be completed as well and that will help the water quality through typo and all the lakes through the chain. So that is my big news. Otherwise, we have a booster meeting on Wednesday night. And as always, if anyone wants to get involved and help with booster day in any way, shape, and form, they are always welcome to attend the meetings. That's it. Okay. I have some things. Um, I've gotten a couple of calls and there's this letter that's going around um signed by around a hundred mayors uh insisting that there's accountability regarding the state's financing. And I think I'd like to make a motion that this council supports that initiative. So with that, I am making a motion that the city of East Bethl supports the initiative of these uh other cities uh demanding that the state be financially accountable. Can we do that? >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Miller, I I think first we'd need to know um what exactly we're talking about. If there's material that's been shared with council already, great. I haven't seen it, so I'm not really sure what it is that you'd be approving. Uh two, we'd need to amend the agenda just to add that to the agenda and then we can take the vote. But uh of course the council can you know sign on to any statements it chooses uh if it wants to do that. >> I'm sure this is pointed at me because I haven't signed a letter but the reasons for not signing it are basically the letter is twofold. I agree 100% with the fraud part of it and everything. The second part of it the mandated mandates are not true. Do we see any mandates in our budget system that affected us? >> I haven't seen I didn't read the second part, I guess, because I only >> Well, the letter's right here. >> Good. >> That you know, it was sent out by the mayor's association to all the mayors asking for support of signing with a deadline of 121925. I received at least over a hundred emails on it. You know, most of it per pressure and that I agree, like I say, I agree with the m the message statewide budget decisions and finding the massive fraud, but the mandates that they talk about that are on us. Most cities that people aren't signing it are because it it hasn't affected their budgets. So, um, like you said, there was n as at the end of the signing, there was 98 mayors, which only tallied 11.5% of the mayors in the state. Only four out of 21 in the county signed it. So it's, you know, and then they obviously didn't get the support they wanted because they extended the deadline to the 28th and then they extended the deadline to the 22nd. And as of last Tuesday, they only had 241 signatures, which is 28% of the mayors, and only seven of the 21 cities in county have signed it. I mean, I I've had four residents email me on it, and I've responded to them. I said, I'm more than happy to go with numbers down to the capital and support it. the letter is going to land on his desk, collect dust, and nothing probably will happen. You go with numbers down to the capital, you're going to get more because then you got the legislators to send everybody down there. So that that's why I haven't signed, you know, and there was a lot of push. They're supposed to have a press conference set up by the end of last week. It didn't happen and I'm assuming because the mayor stepped back from running or the governor I mean stepped back from running. So now it's kind of went silent. But like I say, I've read every email that's come to me on it and there's good both ways. But as far as them saying the mandates affected our city budgets is a false statement. In the future they might have. Who knows? But as far as our budget last year, I never seen any mandates that affected our budget. So that's my standpoint on it, I guess. >> Okay. So either motion fails that how it should go. >> Mr. Mayor, council member. Yeah. If no one seconds the motion, it will fail. >> Just do a motion fails, mayor. >> Okay, that motion fails. All right, with that said, um I've gotten a lot of um messages and calls regarding the not having a acco regarding dogs. And my feelings and opinions on this is the government shouldn't be in the business of animal control anyway. I feel like dogs are an owner's responsibility. They're responsible for their dog. I don't feel like taxpayer A that does not own dogs should have to pay for taxpayer B who does own dogs. The city is never fully reimburseed for the cost of that's gets involved in the animal control situation. So I'm agreeing with the city's stance right now that we continue to not have a animal control officer. That's my opinion and that's uh I know it's not popular with some of the residents and I'm sorry you feel that way but that is where I stand. I don't know where anybody else stands but I agree with our city's policy on this. Okay, that said that there's a chili cookoff coming this Thursday at the senior center. So if you like chili and you like to judge chilis, come on by um around 10:30 Thursday morning. Um, the other thing I wanted to bring up is I feel like the staff, um, Mr. Look or the our attorney should give us a monthly legal report because I hear about legal stuff going on in the cities and I know nothing about it. They ask me questions. I'm like, I didn't even know we were being sued. I didn't know we were suing somebody. I I don't know where this stands. That's I thought it was all resolved. It was a year ago. That kind of stuff is coming up. So, um I would like a monthly or bimonthly report regarding all the legal standing of our residents of this being sued le if it's at the League of Minnesota cities, if it's at the courthouse still, if it's state, if it's whatever it is. So, and that's all I have. 100% agree with that. At least once a month. >> I do too because otherwise people bring it up to you and you you look at them like I don't know nothing about it. >> Makes us look pretty >> good for us at all. >> Mr. Mayor and Council, with regards to losses, generally I cover those on the Friday updates. Um, and as it relates to code enforcement type of issues, the council's taken the position that we don't pursue anyone until the council approves that. So, when I say pursue, I mean we've gone through the steps of sending the letters trying to get compliance. We've we've sent out citations. In most cases, I would say almost all of them, they're never paid. It gets to a point of now what? And that's where it comes back to the council to say that property X, Y, and Z is not complying. Do we want to take this to the next level and have the attorneys pursue it through court? Um >> I think that's our problem though is that we're waiting such a gap. >> We have to, >> you know, somewhere in between there. We just got to be notified that, hey, this is going on with this property before it gets to that final point. >> Okay? Because like Susan said, we're getting some information or calls from people. It's here and we're not getting information till it's here. You know, it's halfway in between there. So, just would like to know what's happening. >> So, we'll need to differentiate between legal and code enforcement, then we can give you an update on code enforcement, >> right? >> Yeah. And then if it's a legal issue or something and we need to go into close session to be briefed, I'm all for that, you know. >> Right. Okay. any other. >> All right. I hope for a very good year working with everybody up here and moving forward for the good decision for our city and residents. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> I have a motion and second. All in favor? I I >> Thank you.