Okay. All right. I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the uh city council work session for September 15th uh for the city of Minatrista. Uh present right now is myself, uh Lisa Whan, the mayor. Council members present are um Brian Govern, Claudia Lacy, Peter Vickery, Kathleen Refkin, and then staff that's present is Paula Bowman, our new city assistant administrator, Gary Peters, director of public uh director of public works, Allison Falsky, our city engineer, Jasper Krugal, our city administrator, Brian Grim, our finance director, David Ael, our community development director, and then our chief of police, uh Craig Squires. With that, we have um a few items on our agenda. A building inspection cooperation agreement, hearts scrabble settlement agreement update, St. Bonafacious fire pension increase request, the drainage issue update, and then a tobacco moratorium ordinance update. We're going to try and get through all of these um in 1 hour or less, maybe an hour and 10 minutes. And um so I'm going to hand it over to Jesser or David. >> Oh, I can take this one. I can chat about it. D David's got a little more experience about when this >> was originally done in 2015. So, um, but what's before you, we're kind of doing a check-in to see if this is something that the city would like us to pursue. Um, really it's a reciprocal agreement with the city of Victoria for building inspection services. So, what that means is that if our team has availability and they need somebody, um, we can then get our team scheduled down in Victoria and vice versa. Um we we started talking about this um I don't know a few months ago internally just because of some of the revenue estimates for next year's building department um with with possibly only around 50 homes uh in Woodland Cove left. So we're we're trying to find ways of um potentially generating a little more revenue. Now this note that in our budget for 2026 we don't have any budget estimates for this because we just don't know. Um but it is an option. Sounds like Victoria has a little bit more going on than us. um potentially um they're not it's not gang busters, but they do have some things that are in the queue like apartments and some more homes obviously uh and things like that. So I think immediately there's more of a need in Victoria for for additional help potentially and then you know these things eb and flow and potentially in the future we might might have something here but really it's uh uh it's timebased. So um let's say one of our inspectors goes down to Victoria. really what the agreement will will cover is our cost to employ that person both um salary and benefits. So we'll come up with a number that'll that's why this agreement needs to be updated because some of the old they're old numbers from 2015 >> and vice versa. So, um, we might end up, you know, if we use Victoria's services, it might cost us more than we actually generate from the permit, but it's just kind of to make both of the cities whole um because our our fee schedules don't necessarily match up one to one. So, a roof permit here might be different than a roof permit in >> um Victoria. So, that we think it's the fairest way. Um, there is also some language in here for plan review. Uh right now there's no plans um to really swap plan review, but in the in the in a time where let's say our building um official is maybe out or their building official is out, we could then have this in this agreement so that either city could do plan review and usually plan review is is one of the items that takes more time and and generates more revenue and things like that. So um it really outlines the ability for us to work together now and into the future. Um, if we do uh proceed with this, it'd be something where we should check in every every year or so and maybe update the agreement terms um if there are significant changes in uh in wages. U so just to check in so it doesn't get outdated too quickly. So, what we're looking um David and I are looking for tonight is just some feedback on on this potential. And if if the city council agrees we should proceed with something like this, um what we'll do is is continue to work with the city of Victoria. Um they also employ Kennedy and Graven as their city attorney. So, we'll be able to share the agreement with one attorney, you know, legal firm, and they'll be able to probably generate something that we both agree to um and then bring it bring it forward to city council before the end of the year and then um have it in place for next year. >> Yeah. Basically, I mean, it shouldn't take much for the attorneys to review since it's probably not going to change a whole lot other than possibly numbers. >> That's what we feel. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. It should be pretty straightforward. Okay. When you say sharing the plan reviews, would that mean say if it's a development and or people might do it for Victoria and vice versa? >> Um, no. So, what that really means is that if there's a building um permit >> that comes in, a building permit, there's a period of time where like the building official reviews the house plans and then marks it up and makes notes and before they start building and approve the plan. So, there's that piece. on a commercial property, there's also some plan review and just make sure making sure that it's compliant with um the building code and and things like that. So, >> it wouldn't be these broad >> It wouldn't be >> Well, that that's done by David and Nick and and our engineers. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. It' just be the like individual think of it as a structure plan review. >> And would we recover the cost of u or people using the cars and all? I mean, the total cost of I'm I'm not sure how that worked in the past, David. Do you know if it was just the hourly rate of the employee? >> The hourly rate. I mean, we factored that in. We'll factor that into our number with, you know, benefit salary and everything. I mean, it's minimal obviously in the grand scheme of things, but um just got to come up with a number that we're comfortable with, uh, you know, that sort of does our we can do our best to cover all of that. >> Oh, good. >> Sounds good to me. >> Okay. Questions? I think it's a good thing and I think um I also like the idea of just updating it every year, you know, so that we don't have to keep going over it every, you know, so it doesn't lapse, I guess, because who knows? They may need it, we may need it. >> Um and this would probably be cheaper than than um hiring an outside um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. then remember when we had to do that a couple of times? So, this would be better. Okay. Okay. Um, >> a lot of nodding. So, you'll see this at a future probably Novemberish. >> Okay. >> Meeting. >> Yep. Sounds good. >> Awesome. >> Good. All right. >> Cooperation. Collaboration. >> Yeah. >> And cooperation. Okay. So, next we have hard scrabble settlement agreement update. >> Who's going to do that one? And I I'll I'll start talking about this one and >> yeah, >> Craig Craig will definitely weigh in. Um and and likely David too. Um so I think as everybody is aware, >> we have a settlement agreement with uh a couple individuals that that sued the city um regarding our code enforcement uh on hard scrabble circle. Um and really it's related to construction parking on that circle. And what the settlement agreement said is that there will well basically you can't if you run if you have a permit pulled with the city you have to park all of your construction vehicles on site or at least try to um generally I think I mean I've through there a lot generally I think that they're they're the there's three permits right now active out there. They seem to be doing a good job. One of them is uh if you remember it's a it's a garage with living quarters on the top that was approved. um they have a very short driveway. We issued them what we called a hardship exception and and basically the people that live in the home have been parking on the road. Um which I think is fine anyway because I'm thinking about it like it's probably um they're not contractors so they can park on the road if they want. They live there. But so so we we went through the process of that and reviewing it and having a letter. Um, but the other ones, you know, from time to time, uh, based on some photos we've received, uh, there are people that have been parking on the road, uh, when we do see them, and say we, because I've I've been trying to get out there probably three or four times a week, and I know that the cso and and the police have been patrolling, but um, for a frame of reference, you know, we're only out there for about a five minute period of time in any given point of the day. and somebody could pull in there right after we leave and then park and then we don't see it. And um the individual that that has the you know been issuing the complaints and the photos and things like that um doesn't really want to call us um for whatever reason when when people are parking there which which they feel are illegally based on the settlement agreement. So um there's been some correspondence as of late. there's been some I don't know insinuations that maybe they'll sue us again um because we're not enforcing the settlement agreement. So, we're trying to find a resolution because it's just the biggest problem is the enforcement piece because we're not out there 24/7. If we don't get calls when there are people parking what may be illegally based on this agreement, >> um we're not able to go out there and respond and make contact. The other issue that feedback that we've gotten from the police department is only uh part of the circle we placed no parking signs on kind of adjacent to like the bigger project that's occurring right next to this individual's house just to kind of get the point across. No parking. Um they're temporary signs. The idea is that they would be pulled once the project's over. Um but what they've contractors have done is they parked in areas of the circle that aren't signed. So when the police make contact with them >> makes sense because they might not know. Yes. I mean >> they're follow. So it's it's kind of it's it's difficult. So from a police enforcement standpoint, they can't issue a ticket if there's not a sign. >> So one of the ideas was, hey, let's sign the whole thing. I know that was brought up um initially. We didn't want to do that. Um but the individual, you know, we pitched that to this individual. Uh they said they don't want that. So, um, trying to generate some solutions, talking with the police chief and and this individual and a little bit with with Lisa, um, one of the ideas was to, um, we'd have to pass an ordinance for this, but, uh, have Hard Scrabble Circle be parking by permit only. Put a sign at the entrance because Hard Scrabble Circle, there's only one way in, one way out. have a sign there um basically saying no parking by permit only uh except by permit only year round and then have you know the day laborers or anybody other than the construction folks get a permit from the police department a parking permit maybe it's an annual parking permit or something like that to be determined and then if somebody's parking on the road without a permit then they could be issued a ticket um that's one solution uh administrative atively running a per we already run permits for exceptions for no parking areas and the police have a process for that. So that that's something that we could do. I don't know how many different landscaping companies or people park on the that will want to park on the circle and maybe it'll be too much of a hassle and park on the in inside on the private property. I don't we don't know. Um but that would allow the police officers uh to go out there and issue tickets. Now, this individual that's been coming us pictures complaining about this um said the expectation was that the building department would be enforcing this. So, >> but they can't. >> Yeah. And I just want to make sure that that we we talk about that a little bit because we only have really two people on the in the building department and I mean generally they're scheduled out at least a week or two. >> They can't write tickets >> and they can't write tickets. >> That's what I was saying. You can't write tickets. >> I know. And the expectation is that instead of a ticket that that they just give a a stop work order to which puts us probably in a problematic situation because >> can't do that either. So >> legally. So um really I think we have to rely on the police to enforce it. Try to find a mechanism that allows them to enforce it because >> we could stripe the whole side of the street with the yellow line so they can't park there. >> Yeah. Um we could look at that >> sol yellow line along the whole thing. Um, but what we're really trying to because we did agree to the settlement agreement. We have to figure out a way to enforce it. I think we are enforcing it. I mean, the expectation shouldn't be that we're out there more than once or twice a day. >> I was going to say, what would the legal, if you will, expectation be? Like if we are out there once a day or even twice a day, um, is that sufficient? I mean in a court if you it were to go to court we could say well >> you know but I think signing it um will also help. So maybe even if you put it at the beginning of hard scrabble and then maybe several other signs maybe one on I don't know either end of the circle just to say no parking and I I think the permit thing is the only way you can do it. Yeah. I mean, if we want to issue tickets, right, because that's the biggest thing that they the police run into is they get into a situation, make contact, they can't issue a ticket. If somebody says, "I'm not moving because why why do I have to?" There's the police will say, "All right, well, thank you." And they'll just move on because they can't really do anything, >> right? >> Um, so we need to have some mechanism that allows some enforcement mechanism to take place. So, permit would allow that. Um, it's You know, it's a challenging situation because I think to your question, is it enough to patrol it once or twice a day? Well, that's probably more than we do on the average street in >> Do they Is this part of the police's route that they would do it anyway if this wasn't going on? >> Yeah. Um, madame mayor, member of the council, um, we're definitely giving special attention to hard scrabble because of the decree and, uh, you know, we're checking the area that is marked and we would certainly issue tickets there, but there's been good compliance where it's been marked, no parking. It's just the rest of Hard Scravel, you know, all we can do is nicely ask to please move. Um, but for us to issue a ticket, there's either got to be a city ordinance or a state statute that would you we got to put something on the citation, right? Uh, to give us legal authority to to issue it. So, um, yeah, that that's that's kind of where we're at. We're and and we have been logging some of our activity out there, but it becomes difficult doing it what we would call an ICR or report every time we go down hard scrabble is pretty timeconuming. Yeah. Um, but we have been doing it as of late just with more of this talk that there might be some kind of litigation. Um, but we we do check it on a pretty frequent basis and and um try to get folks to move and follow it. >> What would you prefer? A permit or just more signs that say no parking kind of like on Lotus where they're every like eight feet or whatever they are. Well, I think we we'd have to do both because even if we issued a permit, if we didn't have a legal mechanism to give them a citation, then it's kind of an exercise of futility anyway because the permit we're giving them a permit to park where they could legally park. So, we would have to have some kind of signage and an ordinance to basically say you can park there. Um, the other thing that makes it a little more confusing too with the current contract, uh, or I'm sorry, with the current settlement is, um, you know, you can have yard maintenance folks there or routine maintenance folks. So, that becomes even more of a challenge for us because it's like, okay, are you a contractor or are you here to fix the dryer, you know, and so it it gets messy. Um, if it's up to, you know, obviously up to you guys. It's just I'm more here to say if we wanted to do an enforcement route and then we'd have to have it no parking. >> Yeah. >> And and I think just to be clear, I think we could get by with one sign on the entrance going in and then maybe I don't know if we need one or two in the middle, you know, just various areas. But I don't think it's >> in order to enforce it, we don't need, you know, a sign visible at every other sign because I think that's the the you should always be able to see it no matter where you're at. there should be a no parking sign visible and that'd be on both sides of the road. Um that's what I would call like that that'd be the definition of sign pollution. You know, that's a lot of signs. Um if you're familiar with that term, but I think we could get by with minimal signs in order to enforce as long as our ordinance has that outline for that that area. >> We have minimal signs now and they're just parking elsewhere and he's the resident is still unhappy. >> Well, they're they're parking in areas that are not signed. No parking. So, there's the only area, if you're familiar with the circle, the southside is where um like Jimmy Jam's house was and rebuilt. And then in that same area is where this other kind of two-year probably construction projects happening. On the south side of the circle is where the signs are right now. On the north side, um they're not there. So, people could park there. Um contractors could park there and the police couldn't issue a ticket or wouldn't be able to. >> And again, the other residents upset about >> Well, Um, >> anyone else complaining this one resident? >> Yeah. Yes. So, on the on the lawsuit, there were two individuals named that live on the on the circle. We've only really heard from one of them. Um, you know, the the one with the the the the resident with the uh garage with the living quarters on the top that we recently approved. I've talked to them um and they don't seem to have an issue, but I haven't talked to all of the people on the circle either. If we would do a change of parking designation on the circle, we'd have to send out some letters to all the residents and let them know. That might stir up stir them up a little bit and say, "Hey, why are you doing this?" I don't know. Um >> but but really, we've only been dealing with one or two residents. >> So, Jasper, I I would think the vast majority of residents on House Gravel don't want this. Don't want to have to get permits. >> I don't know. because they'd be parking in their driveway, >> right? But let's say they have a graduation party, like how would that then they'd have to call and get a permit, right? >> They'd have to get like a special event permit or something like that or at least let the police know. >> It just seems >> And how much longer is this construction going on? >> Problem is, but the problem is that they can't park. No m I mean, if if they have a special event and they have a graduation, a birthday party, whatever, they they can't park there. So, if we say that they can by permit, all the all they'd have to do is maybe we'll have to figure it out, but call the police department, say we're going to have this special event, such and such a date during these times, and our people are going to be parking on the road and then I mean, and then that would solve that issue. Do we have to pay to get a permit? >> Uh, no. That's it's free. >> Yeah. So, all this work because one guy doesn't want and I live on the next road. I drive down Hars Gravel twice a week and I was stunned at all the no parking signs. I mean, it was like we're making a big point. There were so many no parking signs. So, the temporary ones. >> Yeah. And some of the the contractors that are building the the one house, I think is it Stone Gate? >> Stonegate. Um, they put up their own signs to help just managing their contractors and I think that's worked pretty well. >> Or is it Stone Wood? Um, but I think um, council member Governs generally last and it's 18 to 24 months to build their house. So, it's a lot longer than like a Woodland Cove house. Um, >> but again, it's like we I I guess we agreed to this situation. May Did we involve everyone at Heartsravel when we came up with this? seems like this. This is not Ferndale doesn't do this. >> Tonka Bay does. >> Well, they have a they have a um citywide ordinance that >> Tonka Bay is much thinner. Much >> Oh, no. I know. I'm >> much narrower and they don't there's houses on both sides on Tonka Bay. Tanka Beach. Are you talking Beach? Beach. >> There's giant houses on both sides. So if they didn't do it for them um and they don't have to you know I've been to I just was at a big event there that was a week long and they had parking on both sides all so we are doing much to do for one guy that has nothing else to do. Sorry. >> Um >> well the lawsuit too the meat of it was that fire apparatus couldn't get in there. >> That was the claim originally and remember um just a little history there was a I think the police chief at the time Mr. falls. He's not here, but you know, said there wasn't a problem. The resident said there was a problem. You know, we have to rely I've said this publicly like we I need to rely on my my police chief and my public works director to say, "Hey, can we get our stuff through?" And and um you know, if we can't get it through, you know, the it was stated you can just go around because it's a circle. It add a little bit of time, you know, to do that if you need to. But generally speaking, you can get through 99% of the time. Even when that bigger project, those m those two bigger projects were going on. There was a lot of activity as you can imagine, but um and everybody was gen like I'd say really receptive to moving if the police made contact with them. They're trying to get out of the way and move on as quickly as they can. But um >> well, I was thinking that if we if in the opinion if we get the opinion of the, you know, fire department that they can get through, wouldn't that put us in substantial compliance? >> Brian, no, that's not the issue right now. The issue is we had made this agreement agreed to the settlement thing. Okay. And so the issue is how do we uh we want to make sure that we are abiding by the settlement agreement. That's that's the issue. Whether fire trucks can get through or not is is really not the issue. It's are we abiding by the settlement agreement. And that's what I think we need to answer is um are we abiding by it by having um one sign at the beginning and driving through the neighborhood once a week, once a day. I mean that that would be the question, you know, how are we how could we prove to the courts that yes, we are doing everything that we can to abide by this agreement. Well, looking at the settlement terms, I it doesn't specifically call for any I mean, it it has things that are calling out, but it it seems like that if the original com if the issues that were in the original complaint are mitigated by our current what we're currently doing, then that should be enough. >> But they're not. That's what that's what >> in whose opinion though? >> By one person. >> Well, right. I'm just saying though if he's saying that that and that police is saying they can't issue tickets because there is no signage for it. >> Well, there is signage and they're not parking where the signs are. So, the people I mean like in the agreement it says temporary no parking sign shall be installed in the areas of congestion which we did and no one is parking there. They're moving and parking elsewhere on the street which unfortunately this resident still doesn't like. So the question becomes, is making this a permit only parking street going to make him happy? Because these people will still get permits and then they will still be allowed to move there. So I mean, if I'm tearing down this huge house and know I'm going to have 20 contractors there, I'm going to get a permit for him to do it. >> So is is he still going to be unhappy? Well, I I if if I may, I think I think the idea would be that if they're part of the construction project, like the construction team, whatever it is, they wouldn't get a permit. Um unless there was unless there was a hardship, which is what we would do pending the property, which is what we've done for the latest one. Like, >> and again, the construction project that's going on now would be grandfathered in because it's already started and going for the most part. And and it's really I mean the only issue we've had with that one right next to door to his house is there was a tree truck that had to park on the road. I think that's the only only thing that I noticed. Um on the other side on the north side of the circle there's another two projects going on. The one that I talked about and then another one that has plenty of space on site to park. >> What if the sign said no construction parking on the road? I mean what if the sign said no construction parking? I I think we'd still need a permit because how do you differentiate what's construction parking and what's landscaping, you know, day labor stuff. Like that's the hard thing to that's really makes it really hard to enforce because in order to do that, you need to make contact with that vehicle that's parked there. They may or may not be near their vehicle. you know, do do the does the cso or police officer go investigate, walk around, drive up driveway, see see if they can locate this person like how much time do you want us to allocate to that exercise where permits >> the question >> if they don't have a permit, you know, you could put something, you know, initially educate something on the windshield or try to make contact or something um where they know to get a permit if they're going to park there. And if you know they do an ICR and they know this car was here last week and they didn't have a permit, they don't have a permit this week and then they get a ticket. >> Craig, what what would you recommend? I mean, I don't know. I mean, >> well, it madame member council's it's a difficult situation. I mean, I can say we could get emergency vehicles through. Um, I haven't personally seen where we haven't been able to. Um I don't have a large window here of ICRs but you know probably have about 20 in front of us here and a lot of them are no violations observed. Um so you know I don't know if legal counsel might have an opinion on this just because I I'm not not a civil attorney so I'm not sure what the parameters are about us having possible litigation. Um, but at this time, I mean, we can we can definitely get through there. It's just the only thing that I can articulate is for us to issue a citation, we'd have to have an ordinance. But >> can can we just put more temporary no parking, you know, like mound does for Spirit of Lakes, like the temporary no parking things, and just load the street with those while the construction projects are going on and then take them away when it's done and then is that enough to take it if they park where those signs are? >> Yes. If if we put up temporary no parking signs, it's just generally 24 hours, you know, so we can't just put a sign, but yeah, I mean, we could put up temporary signs. >> How long they're out though, right? Like there's no >> because in theory once the once one of the projects is done, all the construction traffic will be gone and then it'll just be normal residents with normal landscaping and no. So instead of the unfortunate thing, I I get what you're saying, but the unfortunate thing is on hard scrabble, there's there's numerous projects going on that are going to take years and then there's more projects on the horizon um coming. So that's the other thing, >> right? But until they come >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we should put up the no parking signs cross parks travel and then that's going to become, you know, then the neighborhood's going to have to decide at some point, you know, if it's just this one individual and to your point, if the other individuals are like, hey, you know, we don't want this, then they can maybe, you know, kind of come to the >> back to the drawing board then. >> Well, but we don't we've got this guardian knot that we have to slice through. So, I think that that would maybe create a a environment where then the other neighbors could have to speak up and and if it really concerns them, then maybe they can negotiate with their neighbor. >> So, I think I think that's a that's a solution that I think will work. Um when we say temporary signs, I think what maybe people are envisioning are just these maybe um >> stick >> stick signs but >> I'm thinking of signs. >> Okay. Because of the because of the extent of these projects being multiple years like I think we need to put signs that we have out there too. >> And I'll just note that's costs money. Um >> Gary probably knows the number and it and our staff time to put it up. So, and we're talking I don't >> I just want to make sure you guys >> How much is a parking fine? >> No parking sign with post is $71.14 >> for the sign. Oh, she was asking how much is a ticket. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. I thought you said sign. Sorry. >> You know, Craig, >> I off the top of my head, I don't I don't quote me, but it's around 75. >> Oh, it covers the sign. >> Well, no. I mean, of that 75, how much do we get? We >> are you sure a no parking viol are you sure $75 for a no parking violation increase the cost? >> It's around that for for a petty. >> We can't. >> No, it's set by the county. >> Can we complain to our county commissioner that we'd like to be able to charge >> set by state statute as to how much we can >> So I guess I want to be So if we do the signage, it'll be um you know like what did you say Gary for the price? 70 $75 or $70 per sign >> plus our time to put them in. And we're talking about if we're going to sign the whole thing because that's what we'd have to do to limit parking. We're probably talking >> I don't know a sign every 50 feet. Allison and I had a conversation about Well, this is the thing that if all the all of the other residents don't like it, then they're going to come in and complain and we're going to go everyone else on your street doesn't want this. Well, maybe we could just maybe we could send something out to the residents. They'll give us some feedback >> like almost a city like a town hall for Hearts Scravel because >> Well, that's not going to excuse performance of the settlement agreement. >> No, I know. >> Even if the if everybody does >> everybody could not like it, but we still have to abide by the settlement agreement. >> That's what I'm the the the the person who brought the settlement agreement to us would have to withdraw >> would have to agree. So I if the council would give staff some direction. Another idea I was thinking is if myself and Craig and Jasper could sit down with this individual here at city hall and say this is becoming a nightmare to enforce and it's just very difficult. What if there's just no parking all along his side of the road? Um forget about the other side. um if we could just eliminate the parking around on that side. >> Aren't we doing that? >> That's what we currently are doing. >> But now we might have the parking on the north side, >> right? And so that's why I'm saying but I'm that I'm saying it's very very it's becoming huge problem for everybody not just the city but also residents. Can we somehow renegotiate the settlement agreement to include the area on this on the south side? I would say no because then you're admitting that you have a problem enforcing the settlement. We >> But we do. But we do. >> But but he doesn't need to know that per se because if it came to it later, we could say we are fully enforcing it to our standard. You don't want to admit that. No, we can't enforce it because if he does sue again, you want be like we are enforcing it to the best of our abilities. >> And I think we are. I think we're enforcing it to what our expectations are. His expectations are just a little bit high or much higher than ours. But he's not the president at heart travel point. >> No, but we do have this settlement agreement, >> but but I mean it's at some How do we get all of the other people involved at Harris Travel? Because they might all look at them and go, "We don't want this." >> They there's probably people that don't want it. >> I know there's people that don't want it, >> but that's not the issue right now. The issue is we have to talk to the resident with this that has the settlement agreement and say what are your expectations or your expectations are too high. We're enforcing it to the best of our ability, right? Um if if that isn't good enough for you. Um then let's amend the settlement agreement to include your side of the street. That's that's the only other option. Um, unless we put no parking signs all over and and then nobody can can park. And >> can we can we send a letter out to every Heart Scrabble Point resident stating this person has the settlement agreement with why >> we can share that we could share the settlement agreement that's public. >> Yeah, it's public and and >> say we have the settlement agreement. The name's on there. >> He wants to park in front of your house. I don't care. >> I think that we should let everyone at Heartsville know and then invite them all in to talk to us. >> Well, thank you. >> Guess who I have to I know they don't want a bunch of signs down their beautiful wooded road and then don't want this guys everyone. It's just this is crazy. >> Yeah. >> Put the signs and then if no one complains then nobody cares about the signs and then Craig's guys can enforce it. And if everybody starts complaining, then you meet with them and be like, "We put the signs up. All of your neighbors are mad. We're enforcing the no parking." So, >> we're buying 20 signs. >> That's a lot of money. 20 signs is a lot. >> It's going to be more than 20 signs. >> Yeah. >> It'll probably be closer to a because you got to do both sides of the road. >> This is This is ugly, too. I >> I don't know. We'd have to We'd have to put a put some do some measurements and look at it, but I'm guessing Yeah. between 50 and 100 >> immediately in his vicinity. Yeah. >> Has the city attorney weighed in on the sufficiency of our response, like what their opinion is to whether the our response is sufficient to meet this? >> So, I've talked to Sarah about this. And um the position is he could sue us. >> Let him >> again for however he wants. Oh, there's Sarah. >> Hi, Sarah. >> Hi, Sarah. Let me um Hold on one second. Let me um make sure I got the volume on. She just popped up right as we said her name. That's good. >> Yep. I'm >> Sarah, can you hear us? Yep, I hear you. I hear you. >> All right. >> Laughing at us. Uh >> oh. >> Sorry, >> I didn't follow the mayor's first rule of meeting. Um, give me a second. All right, so Sarah's there. Sarah, I don't know if you can weigh in or not on this. >> Um, a little bit. I mean, I think I mean I think we're doing everything we we can do with respect to the the settlement agreement. Um it sounds like people are coming in and um doing their they have to do like an on-site parking plan for their construction vehicles when they're doing a big project and then if they can't park everything on site they have to demonstrate undue hardship and if you know that's the case then they do get to park off site. Um I know that's happened in one instance it sounds like and it sounds like this individual doesn't have a a problem with that. Um, as far as um I think we've had issues with people that are doing work on site that is not like a big project or maybe it is part of a big project and then they're parking on the street. And I think that's the problem he's having with this. And you know, we can't really, as the chief was saying, enforce anything because it's it's a settlement agreement. It's not an ordinance. So, if we want to kick these people off the street, then, you know, we have to be able to have a no parking area and then we can say they're in violation of that. Um, otherwise, they can they can park there. So, that's that's kind of the issue with the between the settlement agreement and the people that are kind of I guess they're in kind of an in between space because they're, you know, they're not parking on site even though they should be and then they're parking on the street even though they shouldn't be. and you know, we can't really do much about that without um having the the no parking zone. And I think that's what he'll argue is say, well, you know, I want those people off the street. And I think that's what he did say with respect to the the tree truck. You know, that they shouldn't be on the street, and it's kind of a gray area, I guess. So, I guess he could bring us back to court if we don't do something to try to figure out how to enforce that. Um because I think there is something in the settlement agreement I was reading that would allow Yeah. I mean it does say that the conditions don't apply to routine home or yard maintenance and repair vehicles and then homeowner events such as graduation parties, weddings or similar circumstances. So I guess I don't know. I would put the tree truck under that exception. But it sounds like he's not he doesn't think that's the case. So Sarah, actually then because of this settlement, what if we had an ordinance that says no construction parking um on hard scrabble and then the police could enforce it and if they go out and they see a um lawnmowing company, they can assume maybe it's not construction, but um if they see um I don't know, some big rig with a back hole on it, they can assume that's construction and then they could tell them to move or sight them. I mean, isn't that maybe what we could do? >> Uh, Madame Mayor, I think the issue is what is construction because obviously this tree truck became an issue. I mean, I guess I wouldn't say that's construction. That's kind of more yard maintenance to me. I know I see them in my neighborhood, you know, and they, you know, there's yard maintenance. Somebody's getting a tree taken down. It's not a big construction. I mean, it's a big vehicle, but it's not a construction vehicle. And I think that's a problem you're going to have is people are going to be arguing, well, that's not my tree truck was not construction, >> so it could park there. You know, >> then some debate about that. >> Yeah. But couldn't the ordinance state specifically what kind of vehicles are exempt from the parking ban? So, you could say lawnmowing companies, tree trimming companies. I mean, you could could you list them? That'd be a long list. >> I suppose you could, but that would be a >> I don't think of anything everything. >> So So, if I may, the issue with the tree truck was that I think it was known that that truck was part of just the the construction site. So, they were taking down trees on the home next door. >> Um, they just couldn't get the truck into the property and they needed to, you know, park it off site off the property. So, I think the issue isn't that it was a tree truck or not. I think what he's saying is that it's it was part of the project that was going on next door to his house, >> which all these things are really hard for us to know because we we don't we don't monitor what's going in and out and who's doing what on a property. We're just kind of there on a small snapshot of time. So, you know, if we see a tree truck, I think we would go to where maybe maybe Claudia was going is that or you know, Sarah was going um that it's temporary and they're just doing some work there that day. Um but you know, how are we supposed to know that it's on that site for that project? You know, that's the that's the other challenging thing. >> Um I think so like from an enforcement side, minimal cost to the city allows us to enforce this would be the single sign or maybe three signs and then have them do permits. Um, I just worry, you know, we we put out 75 no parking signs. People are going to lose it >> and then we just spent, you know, three day three days putting them in and then we got to spend another three days taking them out. >> And then the agreement does specifically say that people can park there if it's for an event or if it's uh for, you know, personal cars or whatever. So maybe the sign needs we have one or two signs that say for construction parking on the road you need a permit and whether it's it's a lawnmowing company or it's a tree trimming company they come to the city they get a permit or the homeowner can get a permit and issue it to their their workers that that come regularly. I mean I don't know what else you can do. Well, the the cheapest thing and the quickest attention you can get of the neighborhood would be to propose an ordinance and send them a notice. All you got to do is come up with a notice, send it, and then you'll have your council chambers full of people. You don't have to put signs in. >> Mhm. >> Which we need to do for the sign up anyway. >> Okay. Well, then let's do that and see what happens. >> Why don't you say that I have all Well, so I I mean I guess I didn't think of that. So would the ordinance live in a section of code that would require the the notice being sent out? >> Who cares? Let's send the notice. >> I know. I mean, just do that. >> I mean, we we can >> the notice. >> I mean, we can we can definitely do that just as a courtesy, but yeah, it didn't occur to me that we can just we'd have to send the notice. I thought it would be >> Well, if you're if you're going to do an ordinance, you'd want to do that anyway. At least let them know on their street that they're >> That would make sense. So >> yeah, >> is that the direction is start there first? >> Yes. >> When we when we have the public meeting for the ordinance, I would like to have options to present. So because I don't want them coming and then saying we don't we want parking because that might not be an option. We want to make it clear what the options are. In other words, signs all over saying no parking for anybody or parking by permit. So, I want to I want to have those options available. >> The notice can say too that we're we're proposing this ordinance based on a settlement agreement, you know. Yeah. Such such we're not just not making this up as you go along. >> I think that would be a good idea, too. Yeah. Yeah. And we're looking at various different options. Um so, please, um we're looking for public input. We'll need to draft the ordinance to have some sort of language, but just know that you can change the ordinance on the fly based on what the people okay kind of give you feedback on. If it's and if and if they don't want it, then you don't pass it. But at the end of the day, we still need to abide by the settlement agreement, >> which we are is to the best of our ability, which if I remember correctly when our lawyer was here, he said, "I wouldn't do anything above and beyond how you enforce your normal ordinances and rules and parking." So, I mean, we're meeting the settlement. Not to this guy's standard, but well, you know, we can't pay to just have a cop sitting on the street and ticket everyone. He doesn't want parking somewhere. >> Okay. So, I think we have a plan. I'm going to move it on because we have 15 minutes or a little more to go through the other three items and I want to get through those. So, I think you guys have Thank you, David, too, for that idea. So, >> so working together. There you go. All right. Next, we have uh the St. Bonnie fire pension increase request. >> Um yeah. Um Madame Mayor, members of city council, >> let's just say that's fine. >> So this is you you've likely seen this in the past about this time of year. Um based on the fund performance of the St. Bonnie Fire Department. They're requesting an increase of their pension from 6350 per year of service to 7,100 dollars. Um if they would move to that, their fund would be 112% funded. So the recommendation is to is to let St. Bonnie know that we are supportive of this uh because it the the fund balance uh of their pension fund will support it. >> Why would we overfund that >> just the market? >> It's it's based on the market performance. So there's um inputs from St. Bonnie which include the you know us uh Watertown Township, Lake Township. They go into a fund. the market exceeds the amount of money that's getting withdrawn then it'll go up in the the fund performance we'll be at 112% or you know 120% something like that and generally the fire relief pension or fire relief association will request pension increase based on that fund performance so if it slows down they won't request as much but generally they want to be a little bit above 100% funded >> right >> get that but that seems counter to I mean if if they're doing really well then we wouldn't need to fund as much. >> So I don't we don't need to fund it. So what they're asking is >> access raising the yearly payout. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're not funding. >> They're putting more money in. They're just >> Okay. >> We're we're approving them to give the firefighters more when they retire. >> Well, and in a sense, we are going to pay a little more. I mean, but not but we're not funding the re >> we'll be paying more based on the payout. >> And it's always good to have a little wiggle room, too. So even if if it was just 100% if there was a bad year then it'd be less. So it's always good to have a little wiggle room. >> Okay. Sure. That makes >> perfect. Rather than getting $6,300 a year now they'll get 71 >> which >> and their pensions are paid out in a lump sum. They're not monthly. It's one check when you retire. Here's your money. Go away. >> Okay. And how does that u play out then with this potential? Uh >> we're gonna talk about tomorrow for two hours. I mean, this is this in line with >> Well, is it >> They're both aware of it. They've had an actuary look at it and we're going to discuss all that tomorrow. So, >> we'll come back with all of the good news. >> So, should we really talking about this today? >> Well, we have we have to get back to St. Bonnie about this. >> So, they need to know and then >> right >> it'll go from there. >> Yeah. And and so I would say this is kind of separate from the the joint venture that we're talking about. And yes, the um the pension funds from St. Bonnie and Mound are big a big issue and we're going to be talking about that on Tuesday to see how big of an issue and how it could be resolved and then we'll come back and let you know. But this this wouldn't we shouldn't we should still give them a raise. >> Yeah. And the difference between the Mound pension payout and the St. Bonnie one isn't the issue. The fact that Mound pays out monthly still is what's proving to be the issue. So the current the difference between the 6300 and the 7100 or whatever it is between mound and the 6100 that mound pays and the 7100 that's that's not a problem. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions otherwise but good good questions and we'll come back with more information. >> Um so we'll approve that. Um is that on our consent? >> It it isn't but it'll be on the next >> on the next in October. I just want and I I was going to ask I mean I don't know if we'll run out of time but the tobacco moratorum um if we could move that up ahead. >> We'll do that. Yep. >> Sorry Alison. I think we'll be fine. I think I think I think the tobacco moratorium will be a pretty um quick conversation and that is on business side too. So >> and that is on our um if we agree to this I think that is on our consent agenda. >> It's on the regular it's on a business item on the regular. >> Um any questions on that? So I can So our code needs to be updated for our tobac our tobacco or are we going Are you still doing the >> No, no, we're doing the tobacco thing and I think we have gotten nods. Go ahead. We'll put them on. >> Yeah, do the >> you'll hear this on at the >> Ryan. Any questions? >> Nope. At the regular meeting at the b on business. So >> Alison's up for the drainage. >> Well, mine's quick, too. Mayor and council, um we wanted to bring uh back a summary of where we're at with the miscellaneous drainage items that uh council directed us to do. Um based on the priorities, the first one we were looking at was um in the vicinity of 905 Bayside Lane. Um staff's been in contact with the um owners of the property where there's an existing storm sewer. We got some more information on that which is great. Um storm sewer is out of easement. Uh so we are working with those property owners to get additional easement in that area. Uh the other thing we discovered when we were out there is that the existing pipe does not go to the property line. Um, so that's why I wanted to bring this back to council just um because originally we were looking at this as a zerocost solution um because the the storm sewer is not on the property line. Um we would need to go and install um a new uh inlet structure uh where the existing pipe uh takes a turn um from east west to north south and then put in a small uh put in a stick of pipe to get that storm sewer to the property line property line and then install a storm structure there. So we're we're thinking this might be in the neighborhood of uh $15,000 to do that work. Um, so we wanted to bring it back to council so that council um can ask any questions, provide staff any other direction um as necessary. But if if council's on board with this um I'm hoping to get out to the property tomorrow because um uh to get some more elevation information um on the one property um it's just been there's a lot of moving parts to this unfortunately. So, uh, we're hoping to come to resolution with that and then if council's comfortable with staff moving forward in this direction, we would go ahead and get quotes. Um, and then because it would be, um, we're estimating it to be over $10,000, we would be coming back to council for approval for any, um, uh, any expenditure to do the work. Uh, is there any questions with regards to that? I I didn't want to go over it too fast, but um fast enough that we can keep uh council on schedule here this evening. >> I just have a question. So item four where it says the downstream storm sewer if there's capacity to redirect blah blah blah. What does that mean? Correct. In layman's direction. >> Thank you. Um, so the there's existing storm sewer there and so we don't know if the pipes are big enough to handle any of the additional drainage that we would be taking to it. Um, sump pump drainage I'm not really concerned about. That's not that doesn't usually come into the pipe till after the storm. It's that overland um any overland drainage that would come into that pipe system that isn't going there now. we so that's the due diligence um that we're going through um with the existing um network there. So and as it drains to the lake so we don't have all the information but we're we've got um good information on the existing drainage network in Jennings Cove. Um and then we're we're going to just kind of take a look at the 10,000 foot level at the system that goes down to the lake. >> This will come out of the storm water fund. Yeah. >> Would there be legal costs too of getting the easements and writing all that? >> And what about engineering? >> Um, so there are some engineering costs with this. Um, I think we're in the neighborhood of going off memory here. I think we're somewhere around $1,500 so far in engineering fees of, you know, visiting the site, getting the information, that sort of thing. um legal fees um because we would be we would be getting the easement at zero cost. Um that's that's good news there. Um so we've been moving along through there. I think the city attorney's office might have um a couple hours into the easement um agreement. Um and then we've got um the surveyor to go and get the easement description probably a couple hours there. So there are some additional cost soft costs but I haven't gone and put pencil to paper because >> So maybe around 20 grand for everything. >> Yeah. And and and I was I was focusing more on the construction cost because that would be the the trigger as far as what we would be bringing back to council for authorization under contractual law. Um but yes, certainly there's more right engineering and and legal costs associated with it. Okay, council, are we good with them pursuing this? >> Yeah. >> Yep. Great. >> Okay. All right. Um and madame mayor and council, the other two items um included in the packet, Minneapolis Avenue, um at two locations, uh doing some work through there. Um I believe this is all information that we shared at the last time. Um, moving forward, we haven't we don't have an exhibit put together for this um because uh I've been putting priority on the Bayside Lane drainage. Um but with many with respect to Minneapolis Avenue, the the fire lane um council direction was to go and see if there would be a cost share opportunity with the watershed district. So, we did reach out to the the um watershed district and they indicated that uh when the initial project was completed in 2011, uh the agreement states that the city's responsible for maintenance um so they would not be willing to participate. >> Um but it actually says we're responsible for maintenance for 5 years. >> 70 ft of rip wrap is $100,000. Yeah, you can get it cheaper. Where were you when I was putting in rip wrap? [Music] >> That that that's that's so expensive. >> Seems expensive. >> And I guess if we're going off the agreement, why wasn't it kept up better since 2011? >> Well, the so the with regards to the fire lane um and and I I don't know all the ins and outs. I haven't I wasn't here at that time. So, um I I apologize. I'm not deep into the details on that, but from what I can tell, there was there wasn't any um that was there was no material put down in the end in the end of that drainage way. So, what was done upstream wasn't done at this location. And so, this is um we're looking to to mitigate that erosion that's taken place by extending um by extending that that project or you know, the work that was done previously. waterershed's okay with that. >> Well, we would have to go through the waterershed. >> That's why they didn't do it. They didn't want let us do it. >> The wershed didn't want that. >> So, if they didn't want us to do it then and now they want us to do it, then they should have to help pay for us to do that. >> So, um this So, wait, let let me ask what what would did they say we couldn't do? >> Well, the extend the rip wrap all the way down to the lake. I think that's what you're talking about, right? Um what we were looking is to put in um like a a rockpool. So like you would you would um on figure 4 you're talking? >> Yes. >> Lane on Minneapolis Avenue. Okay. >> And so there was um the idea was to put make a like a a pool. So you would you would put in a a um a a a dyke or or some something of the sort. A ditch check is what the word I'm looking for. So that you would have the water pull upstream um and then slowly dissipate down or slowly drain down the fire lane um to remove some of the the erosive force of the water going through there. >> You're going to put it Yeah. >> Mhm. >> is a check. >> That's dam check dam. Thank you. Um so that's what we were looking to do. Um, and again, because we haven't prioritized this, I haven't gone through all of the components. Of course, I did send this to the wershed district saying we've received a complaint. This is what we're looking to do. Um, so if if if this wasn't a permitted activity back in 2011 when the project was initially done, we can certainly have those conversations. We're just >> What else can be done? I mean, because of the steep slope, there's really nothing else you can do except put check dams in there, and that's going to slow down the erosion, which is then going to slow down the stuff, sediment going into the lake, which of course is what MCWD wants. So, I don't understand why they would say no. I mean, >> I misinterpreted. I thought you were trying to put rip wrap all the way down to the lake. There was check dams there before. >> Okay. >> So, we got a grant from the watershed district, if you remember. So that's why the five-year maintenance was um you know we we're giving you this money but you're in charge you know any the seating and keeping the debris out and all that sort of stuff. They didn't want anything to do with that. So it was it was it was a grant that we got. >> Okay. I remember it's before my time too, but I was informed that there was a lot of um this was that project was done more for bank erosion on the sides and they bundled sticks together and >> you know they took bundles of sticks and actually you know put them in the sides and plantings and stuff like that to help the erosion. There was something new they were trying. That's the way I was understanding it that it was that was more for the erosion on the sides going in. It was um >> is that for so is that for figure number four or figure number five? >> The same thing you're looking at the channel at the end but it's where they did this was more upstream of this where the bank is higher >> towards the Amont house there on um 51 I can't read but that the next one to the east there because it was starting to erode away. That's was my understanding and that's why they did this bundle sticks and you know I I talked to um Mike Pollock our former water operator. He was part of that project and it was a lot of work bundling sticks you know and basically putting rods through them holding them into the banks and that's what they did through there to help the erosion on the work. It didn't work there. Yeah, >> it worked on the side, but I mean, you're still, you know, they didn't really do nothing at the end there to to slow that, you know, >> Exactly. >> slow the water down there. So, >> Right. Yep. So, th this section the section where we're seeing the erosion, those those bundles and the and the ditch checks or the um weren't weren't installed. And so, we're just looking to put one more ditch check in there um similar to what was done upstream. >> Okay. It's confusing. I'm sorry. The pictures are confusing. So, I'm sorry. So, wouldn't the best course be to check with the watershed district that they want us to do this? >> Yeah, >> we certainly can. Um, and and that would be part of the process of doing this. Um, we're just we're not there yet. I just wanted to bring back, you know, an update for council to let you know where we're at. We haven't put anything out for quotes yet or permitting um just because of the amount of work we've been putting into the Bayside component. Um, but that certainly would be part of the next steps for this um, Minneapolis SAB area. >> Okay. >> Well, I think council, I mean, I think we should continue to work on this and come back and let us know what MCWD says and then find out um, if you can refine the numbers a little bit better, including um, engineering costs and all of that. In this one, there wouldn't be any legal costs. >> Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. would just be engineering and then construction estimated construction costs and if um MCWD will allow it. So >> So does the council want to see updated numbers before we request quotes or would council want to see updated numbers after we've quoted the project? So you would see actual construction costs and then because the what we were anticipating for for this work is we wouldn't be preparing a full plan and specifications that council would be approving. It would just be an exhibit with a description of the work to be done. Okay, >> that's fine. >> That's fine. Just make sure we know what MCWD says. >> Correct. >> It looks like it would be a really difficult uh place to get equipment in. >> Yep. >> So, estimates could be a lot higher or quotes be a lot higher than an estimate. >> Yeah, that's a that's a good point. We're trying to incorporate that into some of the cost and that's why we're seeing, you know, the estimated cost for for Minneapolis have uh fire lane is because to get equipment materials down in there to do the work, we're we're taking what we think is a pretty good educated guess, but we don't know. Um so again without pro because we're not going to the extent of preparing full plans and specifications we're at I think the council and city is at a a a more nimble u is a little more nimble in this because you you haven't done you don't have that investment of you know soft cost of of time to put into uh preparing those plans and specifications. So we could we would be able to get quotes for the work and then council would have actual quotes for the construction costs um and before considering award. So I think that might be a a better picture awarded to council versus what we're putting forward as estimates. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So you'll come back with some quotes. Okay. Um and then fairly quickly here, the the last item was um with regards to the southeast um portion of county roads 101 or sorry 151 and 110. Um the council direction given was to take a look at addressing the INI influent infiltration into the storm sewer. Um that goes between 810 uh County Road 110 and 555 >> extra five in there. Uh county road 151. Um and so we did reach out to um again Hen County Asset Management. Um, we did uh put in a request to have this um to have them include this for funding. Uh we don't have a response yet. They're indicating um December is when they would be evaluating funding requests uh within the county. So, um you know, again, the initial the initial ask was a no and we've asked again and won't hear till December. um INI uh what we're estimating for uh to fix the INI in this area is 82,000. Um how about also um so we'll wait till December. Okay. Um but how about also Met Council? Do they give us any money for INI reduction? >> Yeah, we can apply for that, but a lot of the times those are funds that are >> you you get penalized for not doing it and then they just give you your money back when you do projects. We can apply for it. We've been lucky that we do not get a penalty for that. So, >> right. >> But we can apply and see what they say. >> See what they say. See, we've been really good. So, why don't we get some money? >> And I >> I'll have to take a look at that because I know communities that are currently under the Met Council and INI program. I believe they're going to, you know, re-up in December. So, it's along the same >> time frame that we would be hearing from Henipin County. So, if I'm hearing council's direction um on on this item three, we would be putting a hold on this until December until we can find out about cost share opportunities. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um that concludes all of our items on our agenda and if you would like a little break, we can be adjourned. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Brian beat you to it. >> Brian Govern. Thank you. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes 50 and we will reconvene at 6:30. >> Great questions. All right. I think there's food back there. >> So, where where did you go now? Where was your traffic? >> Um Oh, we just kind of went across from we went to Brussels. >> Oh. Oh, this was your Europe trip. I have >> Oh, okay. power of the rest of the neighborhood to tell this >> it's the same. >> I'm confused. So they're going to be able to sell >> other drinks other than their wine at the dollar like this will be I think our own they've just been able to sell their >> Wall Street 1.5 million anybody repair system up beside me. I can't remember. I thought, you know, >> anything like he show owes us money or take away his hobby or something, right? >> I mean, there's nothing otherwise. >> A reputable judge. What would the damages be? Hey, here's a dollar. You know, this is your, you know what I mean? It's some ridiculous