All right. [snorts] Oh, I have to bring up my Never mind. These numbers aren't even right, though. Okay. Is this the >> Did you have problems with your authenticator? >> Are you okay, >> Claudia? Were you able to get on? Are you >> I mean, I can pull my the city notes up and everything, just not my emails. >> Okay. So, we're good. You're good. And Brian, you're almost there. >> Yep. >> You're there. Okay. All right. I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the city um council work session for Minatrista, August 17th, 2026. Uh present this evening are myself, Lisa Whan, the mayor, and council members Kathleen Revkin, Peter Vickery, Claudia Lacy, and Brian Govern. And then staff that's present is uh Paula Bowman, and Gary Peters and Allison Folski, Jasper Krugal, Brian Grim, and uh Craig Squires. We have a number of items. We have the new police department records of management system. Uh we're going to talk about the M mound fire budget, um the ADA assessment update, and then recreation vehicle ordinance. So, I'm going to start with um the chief. Thank you. Uh Madame Mayor, uh council members, I'd like to take a few minutes just to address our records management system or RMS. Our [clears throat] current RMS is old and the user technology is much the same today as when it was introduced. In addition, we want to make the change before the parent company of our RMS uh decides that it's end of life. Uh the PD is part of a multi- agency consortium that operates the same RMS system and in source this saves money and also allows us to share information um because we're all on the same system. Um the group as a whole has identified we need to explore finding a new system which is a very complicated project. The group also identified that we need expert help to help us find this new RMS system so it fits our needs and we also need help on boarding it and with data migration between our current system and the new system. On May 4th, the council approved the PD to enter into a contract with GTEL Advisors to help with the search process. Other members and other cities also joined this endeavor which is basically saving us a lot of money. Um, so this evening, the president of GTEL Advisors, Mr. Jeff Goststein, is here to update council on the process uh trying to find a new RMS. We're still in the very beginning stages of that. Um, but it's not a cheap process either. So, uh, we just wanted to have u Mr. Godstein here to answer any questions and to give a little more background into um, our [clears throat] current system and why we need to change. So, >> thank you, >> Mr. Gast. >> Thank you everybody. Um I'm here to help you uh kind of through the process that your police department as well as about 11 others in Henipin County have been going through uh to evaluate what the next steps are. Um, a lot of this stemmed from an incident about 2 and a half years ago, which some of you may or may not have known, but uh, the records management system that the police department has is a hosted application in the cloud and it went out of service uh, because of a technical glitch um, for almost a week where they were without service and didn't have any access to records at all. Um during that week, um the company couldn't even uh tell us if they actually had the data at all anymore, which if you can imagine losing all of your police records data for 10, 15 years and being gone. um after we finally got that back up and I was involved in the recovery of that process um with the agencies because once it came back online we still had to have recovery efforts um to get everything caught back up that was in the queue for the week of police calls for all of the agencies that are part of the system and it wasn't just your agency the consortium of these 11 agencies it was um a ton of other agencies too. So once we got that up and going uh a short time after that the company had said hey you know what we're going to um end of life this product but you can move to a different product of ours if you want and um the consortium evaluated it that wasn't a good idea but then when nobody switched to the new product the company said I guess we'll keep the product and not end of life it but at the same time they haven't put any development efforts into it and as a result um it's time to look for different options because they're not supporting the existing systems And so even if you didn't want to even if you said I wanted to stay on the existing system, it's going to eventually go end of life at some point as a lot of agencies are starting to exit it because of their announcement previously that we're going to end of life it. So your police department can't be without that system. Um it's a very complicated process because it's not just about lifting and shifting the data. It's about introducing a whole new system with all new business processes, connections to Henipin County, all of the different things that the state that the police department has to connect to. So, it's a very big process in order to do it. And because you're part of part of this consortium, it will be a lot less expensive as a project as a general thought, but it's still going to be an expensive project with a lot of time and effort to get the movement uh where you need it to be in order to make sure that you're futurep proofing your capability to capture police records. And they're obviously very important. State law, you know, dictates how long you have to keep your records and the importance of them. Some of the records are are permanent retention, so you can never get rid of them. things like criminal sexual conduct or homicides, they stick there forever. So, you have to figure out what to do with all of that. So, it's a very complex process, but I'm working with all 11 agencies um helping them evaluate the different options, helping them prepare their budgetary needs to pick some option that's out there and then the next step presumably helping them implement it on an agency by agency basis because there isn't a one sizefits-all for an implementation. every agency is different um in how they implement how they implement things and how their agencies operate. And so our organization has uh helped probably close to 400 agencies around the country uh do this process and um we have a lot of expertise um in Minnesota along with Henipin County to get this done effectively. So, we're here to help you through that process, but um as the chief had mentioned, um it's definitely going to be something that the the council has to prepare for because there is going to be a cost to that. So, with that, I can answer any questions you might all have. >> Thank you. Um so, is Henipin County part of the 11 um >> they already migrated off of this consortium. They were part of it and they actually are still part of it because um this platform still hosts uh their gun permitting and their warrant. Okay. >> modules. >> And then so do you have any estimates as to what it might cost our city? >> I figured you might ask that. So, um, we we looked at three different vendors. Um, and we got budgetary quotes from them. There hasn't been a selection decision or anything like that. Um, but we we did it at a yearly basis and did a three-year cost run based upon their initial cost, training, and implementation. Um on the very very low side, you were looking at about [clears throat] 110 or 120,000 from the least expensive vendor. Um that's not necessarily the one that the group would select, but just to give you an idea. And the most expensive vendor of the three was um for three year that was a three-year roughly cost about 120,000 for the low side and then it was a um about 900,000 on the high side. [snorts] >> Yeah. Oh no. So, uh, so would that be per city then? I'm assuming >> so would each city pay the same amount or would it be different based on our needs? >> So, the needs are the same of all of the agencies. It's based on the licensing costs for the number of squad cars you have and the number of sworn and full-time personnel. So, that's how all of these organizations structure it. But it's it's the same exact system that you will all have, but the configuration of how you configure the system would be different depending on how the agencies are run. >> So why why would we be so there's no um is there any um advantage to having these 11 pick one vendor versus why wouldn't we go out and pick a different vendor for instance. >> So that is the one of the options right? So this consortium has looked at it and we've set up this whole process so that if four people four agencies want to go with one they can do that. If all of them want to go the same they can. Or if they all pick different ones and you have 11 different ones they can. But what you do is you get a quantity discount and the hosting is a lot less expensive the more people you have on one shared system because you can have one set of infrastructure for a set number of people. So let's say for example if they said listen to host the system is $300,000 a year for the 11 agencies, right? Well, if you have half the agencies doing it, it might be only $150,000 for that. If you have all 11 doing the same, you split it 11 ways. And so you do get you get a bulk discount by doing the same thing. And until we get to the final stages where agencies are set to deciding what they're going to do, we don't know what the breakout is going to be of those various different factions. Okay. >> What they select >> and then when would this happen? >> It it would probably be I would say um what the group has decided at this point um they want to see a couple things from uh where the vendors are with their implementation of their systems in Minnesota. Um first um and that should happen this year. So that we're going to meet in the first or second quarter of next year to start to figure it out and then subsequently after that then the agencies can figure out you know where to go. The problem is is that if some of the agencies decide to leave at various different times, which inevitably is going to happen, right? Like not everybody can leave at the same exact time. Generally speaking, that ultimately um the cost structure of how you do that when you have to maintain the old system plus the new system that you're going to and kind of have that transition there because if you transition to the new system, timing is kind of important so that you're not holding on to your cost of the old system until we're [clears throat] there. Now the good thing is is that your cost is somewhat uh mitigated because um what we've done is we've started the process and we should be finishing in the next month or so taking your system out of the cloud and putting it at South Lake Minnetonka physically so that you lose a lot of that hosting cost that you would have in the cloud by having it in on premise uh servers. So you don't have a lot of that infrastructure cost because you you invested in that already as a consortium and ultimately um you control the data and you won't lose the data hopefully like you were when it was in the cloud and you had no control over anything. So hopefully that should mitigate some of your holding cost of the system until you switch to the new one. >> Okay. >> You said that u Henipin County has already migrated. Um, don't we want to have the same system that they have? >> Potentially. The problem is is that the system that they went to will not work with agencies under 100 sworn officers. >> So, it's a bit of an issue. And um, >> do you even know if it's a consortium? We went down that path with them and they said yes because um ultimately if they can do one implementation of a 100 officers or 10 implementations for 10 officers the cost and their time to do it isn't there and part of the problem is is even if you wanted to join the Henipin County system which I don't think you can technically the way it is being part of the Henipin County system gets a little bit complicated because you now have zero control over the cost or where they go with things. So if they said, "Hey, you know what? We're going to start charging you a certain number of dollars a year." >> You would control. >> Yeah. Yeah. You you would probably lose that. It doesn't mean that you can't be on the same system, but it would have to be your own instance. So, you know, if if their approach changes um at the beginning of 2027, you will definitely have some options to do that. That's why we're not like making exact uh commitments at this point because we want to see how things kind of play out with a bunch of things. But ultimately, um, you definitely should be putting money away to plan for this because it's not going to be a cheap endeavor, but it's going to be a necessary thing for you to keep your public safety department operable and compliant with all of the rules and regulations that you have to. >> How many systems or vendors are there that offer this? Like, how many I guess how many options are there >> nationwide? I would say there's probably if you were to look at the top players in this industry a total of 10 like really solid vendors and um like I said we varied all the from the lower end to the higher end and I'm not saying that the higher end is better than the lower end but the cost is definitely higher. So I don't want to mistakenly say that hey if you spend a million dollars you get a better system than if you spend $120,000. We have to vet all of the capabilities and specifically the capabilities within Henipin County because when you build a records management system about 60% is standard across all law enforcement and about 20% is standard to a state and then 20% is standard to a location like Henipin County. And so it gets very complicated. And so you want to make sure that anybody you pick has experience with all three of those aspects, which includes Henipin County, which is a very difficult entity to integrate to and work with. And so you don't want to just take somebody who's really solid on the East Coast and think that they can just come to Minnesota and do it. We need to only look at those that are here in Minnesota currently in order to mitigate the risk of a failed implementation, which you don't want. And those are how many >> how many are in like >> in Minnesota there's probably um I would say four. >> Okay. >> And you know the problem is is that in this industry you know you don't have a lot of vendors because there's not a lot of total customers. Like in Minnesota the total customer count is about 370 total. And you've had your system for probably close to 15 or 20 years. So when you think about opportunity and people holding systems for that long, there's not a lot of opportunity for people to really enter the market because there just isn't the huge market like a a copy copy machine company or a printer company that could sell hundreds of thousands in, you know, a G, you know, in Han County alone. >> Okay. But >> so then so budgetary purposes, we'd probably have to budget for 2028 then. Is that what what you're suggesting or thinking? Uh, madame mayor, we we did budget for 27 some dollars just in case we had to at the end of the year sign in to a project so we would have some money for that. But for sure 2028. Yes. >> How much did you allocate for next year? >> 125,000. >> Okay. [laughter] >> I had a question I guess and I've just had some real preliminary uh discussions with the chiefs. So is it I thought you said that people can pick what's best for you know there's 11 12 13 members or something. I guess I was under the assumption that all 11 had to sort of go together and then I could see the the big players being like you know you obviously Plymouth or whoever's got more money to spend you know to them it's like but we do have some independence and autonomy to because I've seen what the range was. I thought I saw some spreadsheet at some point or some quick and the one vendor was way off the chart. I mean, unless they have an unbelievable product or something, it's like, why would we go with them? Not hate [snorts] to be forced to go with them by, >> hey, Plymouth and whoever else says it's great, we want to do it. So, it's good to hear we >> might have a little more control of our budgetary, you know, just from a pure finance standpoint. Yeah. >> Um, versus being forced into some $500,000 option, which, >> you know, a city our size that it's pretty material. So, >> yeah. Yeah. And I I think the key thing is is you can't equate cost to quality of the product. Um that's one thing I've learned in this industry is that a cheaper product can be a better product, but you have to really evaluate to make sure you're getting what you get and ultimately that they're going to succeed in the implementation within Minnesota and within Henipin County. Cuz even if you got the cheapest product that can't accomplish that, then you're in way worse shape and you're going to end up buying it twice cuz you're going to fail this. you're going to have paid out some money and you got to rectify it. So, it's best to figure it out first and that's why they've decided to wait until Q1 of Q or Q2 of next year to kind of come up with a game plan. The the wild card is that if the company that currently owns the product says we're not supporting it anymore and we're going to end of life it at this date in time because they just don't want to support it anymore, you're not in control of that. If that happens, you're one update away from micro a Microsoft update away from your system stopping working. So, you want to get out before you run into a situation where you run into a serious issue and you go back to paper and pencil because you don't have any technical option to fall back on. That would be a bad situation for everybody. >> And then just one other question that I have, but if me maybe you have more. So, how much is is it costing us for your services and what have we paid so far? And what what's the total cost of that? Do we have those numbers? >> Uh, Madame Mayor, members of council, I checked earlier today and uh so far I just saw $600 going to GTEL, but the beauty is because we have all these other departments sharing the cost. This would be incredibly expensive if we did this on our own. Um, so, uh, I think our contract, I believe, is 175 an hour. Um, to >> and it's hourly, I think, is what I read. Yeah. Okay. >> All right, council. Any other questions? >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. It's good to know. Good information to have. Right. >> You're welcome. And we're here to help you through this. It's not fun. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, so next we're going to have um mound fire budget discussion >> and I'm going to have Jasper um start us off. So recent and I'll just really quickly say the reason this is here is because uh recently um we went to the fire thank you >> committee meeting commission meet committee meeting and uh we're somewhat shocked by some of the numbers that they gave us. So [clears throat] we're here to um talk about that. Yes, madame mayor, members of city council. Um, yes, [clears throat] tonight we're we're going to talk a little bit about the Mountfire budget and kind of just some things that have been occurring um with that process and kind of how that's changed from year to year. Uh, I will lead with there's been a lot of employee turnover and change and new new hires in and mounds. So, I think it's probably tied to that a little bit, but um a little bit of the timeline and how this works. Uh generally we get a number from mound as far as budgetary and planning purposes what we plug into the budget. This year that number year to year that they told us was 8%. So what that number is in the budget is is $434,000 for that mound portion. So fast forward uh the beginning of August uh we they're required per our contract to give us an actual budget number September 1st. So, less than a month before they're required to give us a uh budget number, they gave us a kind of a heads up. Hey, we're going to be increasing this admin fee from let's just say $20,000 up to $155,000 with no real like just no justification, just uh hey, this is a courtesy. This is going to be in the budget. Um and preliminarily they gave us some numbers and it looked like we were going to go up about 15% versus 8% is what we were told. Um >> 18.6% increase. >> So that was the original this was like the beginning of Augustish time. Um last week Tuesday you know there was a there's a there was a meeting uh they kind of went through this. I don't think it went very well. There was a lot of questions that that were unanswered. Um, and fast that was about a week and a half ago. About a week ago, we got numbers from bound and the numbers came back at $427,000, which is under what we budgeted, right? It was about 6.29%. So, but they still had this admin fee and they maneuvered some things likely around in the budget, but we don't really have the detail on that either at this point. Um, and then this afternoon we got another number uh from them and it's now 440,000. So a little, you know, 16,000 or so more than what we actually budgeted. So with with a little bit more detail, but not really much detail. So um the the process is is is definitely different than what we're used to. Um I think there's a lot of questions from our group and the others uh in the group, Spring Park and um uh Shorewood a little bit, I would say. Uh, so everybody's got some questions as far as what what this new these new um charges are for. I think the intent of this is to update city council on some of these changes, see if there's something that we want to do. I will note per our contract where we have a window if we would say we want to renegotiate something in our contract. We need to let Mound know by January 3rd, 2027. And that gives us we're we're we're we have a contract through 2027. But what that would mean is we could then talk about some of these things uh in 2027 to potentially enact in 2028 um if there are things that we want to do. So that's kind of in a nutshell. I know uh Council Member Refin and Mayor Whan are part of this too, so they they probably have some input. >> Yeah. Um so what so we're sitting in this meeting and um we have a line item usually of $20,000 is what has been historically um charged to the uh by the to the fire department or for the fire department budget. $20,000. Now all of a sudden they come with $155,000 admin fee. Now, keep in mind that Vicki is their administrative assistant or administrator for the fire department. So, we're sitting there virtually in shock because we're like, "What? This means like a six for us because we're 27% of the budget. We're looking at this saying this is an additional I don't know what that is, but anyhow, X number of dollars." We're like, "That doesn't make any sense. How come it's been 20,000 all these years and now all of a sudden in the 11th hour you're telling us it's going to be increased from 20,000 to 155. And um and I said you do realize that we you know most of us have already put our budgets together based on the preliminary um estimates that you budget numbers that you gave us back in in June and July. And now because they're required by contract to tell us by September 1st what the budget is and what our port portion of that budget is, right? Well, we're 3 weeks away from that after being told n multiple times um what a different number was going to be. So anyhow, we're sitting there saying this this is really bad on your part. I mean this is really bad behavior so to speak because we're now sitting here now we have to raise our our budget more. So the presentation was also very very poor because they just they said well this 155,000 it includes this this this and this and this and this and this and this this it was 20 different things but no numbers attached to each of those items. None. And I mean they even had threw in their LMC membership dues and we're like >> this is what it looked like. >> What does this have to do? >> That was it. >> Hold on. So we're looking at this and we're saying what does LMCD membership dues have to do with the fire department? You know what do what is I mean? So anyhow so that's then when and we expressed our serious concern about this and um we're basically told by the mayor um well you haven't passed your preliminary preliminary budget yet have you? And I said, 'Well, we're poised to do that the first meeting in September based on the numbers you folks provided to us back in July. He says, 'Well, you haven't passed it yet. So, so needless to say, we were upset. Um, and that's when they came back then, last week with new numbers. And basically all they've done is they've taken some things out of other areas but they've kept this this admin fee, right? So that's the thing that I'm concerned about because going forward I mean that's ridiculous. I mean >> and to give everyone an idea like they so they broke it down per department. So finance they want to charge the fire department $61,000. HR they want to charge it $22,000. IT $9,000. administrative, city manager, $34,000, city clerk, $12,000. And keep in mind, they have Vicki full-time doing a lot of this stuff, and communications, like $7,600, but they I I don't know what the communications is. So, they they found $155,000 from their budget to then put on the fire department's budget. And then that's what prompted the questions and the document that you all got here. And this the most concerning thing I think is that they're cutting the fire department's actual budget, the capital outlay. Go. >> So it was $28,000 last year and they're cutting it to $86,000 in what appears to be just to say, well, we're not increasing how much you owe by that much. They're just moving it from one bucket to another, >> which then there's obviously a huge concern of now that money is not there. We're going to have to make it up later. They're changing staffing. They're cutting how much the duty crew, duty officer program, it's going from 55 down to 43,000, but we're supposed to be adding duty crews. So, I'm not sure how they're figuring that out. And there was no detail at all at the meeting. It was >> Yeah. So, [snorts] >> so a couple things um we don't it's a lot of information and a lot of numbers. We're not going to go through all of them. Sorry. Today because but I think so a couple things that we're looking for. One, we wanted to make you aware of of this. And two, I think we want to also let staff know what our next steps are going to be. And I think I would highly recommend I think Kathleen and I are going to say we need to let them know, give them notice before January 3rd, preferably sometime this year, that we want to take a look at the contract and we want to renegotiate the contract. um because um this kind of activity is is not I would say almost unethical. Um I don't want to say they're I would I would say I'd carefully say it's it's not good um business behavior, put it that way. Um [snorts] so I think we should notify them. If you're all in favor of that, um staff will put together a letter and we'll we'll notify them. Probably not. We don't have to do it immediately, but maybe this will come back in October. Do you think? >> Yeah. I mean, I could put together something by September. >> Um, would it help to do it before September 1st? >> We asked for another meeting in August and um >> supposed to get >> They're like not willing to do that and they don't think that there'll be a meeting in September. >> There's supposed to be though because if we have questions on the budget, there's supposed to be a September meeting. So, we'll see. But at the end of the day, they can do whatever they want. >> Brian, >> that was actually going to be my first question is like, are they contract contractually they can do whatever they want? >> They can add anything to the budget. Yes. >> And do they provide any kind of accounting back cuz I mean it I think it's fair to, you know, reimburse them if they've have city staff working on this, but I feel like it's reasonable to ask, you know, hey, how many hours do they actually spend doing it if we're paying for them? Exactly. [snorts] I think so. >> So, so they do not currently >> they haven't given us those numbers. >> No, they haven't given numbers and it's never, again, it's never been an issue. It was just a $20,000 line item of administrative fees, which is similar to what St. Bonnie has done. It's just a small chunk that you pay back to the city for, you know, small services that the staff is doing there to print stuff or type up stuff or whatever. So, it's never been an issue until they wanted $135,000 [snorts] more. >> 155 [laughter] total. So you take off the 20 that was already there. >> So here's the thing again. I don't think we would have been quite so shocked if they said act the actual administrative costs are x number and here's why and here's how many hours these people spend specifically for the fire department if it had been laid out in that manner but it wasn't. And so the and then if they had said well because it's such a big number let's just say they are able to substantiate 155,000 a year um then they if they had said look we're going to we're going to ease into it something like that but um that we we couldn't even have that discussion and so that's a bit concerning so we're going to try and have that discussion hint September we'll see um but for now I think we're going to have to um take a look at these numbers and and also then see what our options might be for going forward and we're going to be talking with St. Bonnie um too and uh seeing what options we have there and um yeah >> which was also part of the work session um they haven't set up a meeting with us to move forward with any discussions on them and it's similar we don't have any say on their budget and what they decide to do. [clears throat and cough] So, >> so what and it's been a little we've been trying we've been trying to to get [snorts] a meeting together and it's it's um been um difficult. A lot of it um is because of their mayor having some health issues and hospitalizations and so on. I don't want to go into details, but um so I think um we're we're pushing them and they have a new administrator and and all of that. So, we're um we're trying to uh get a meeting together sooner than later. >> Yeah. And and we do have one on the books to talk about the partnership along with I think five other topics. >> Well, we're not going to talk so much about the partnership. We're going to talk more about when we can get back at the table to talk about the partnership. And we're going to also but there's about five other topics that we need to talk about regarding um our St. Bonnie and miniature stuff. So, so we're going to try and nail them down for for those partnership meetings. Hopefully get a few more under our belt before the end of the year. We'll see. Yeah. And if I may, I have a couple notes here. I just want to confirm um some things. So, just draft a letter requesting that we renegotiate um the the contract and get this to you guys sometime in September, October. Um I'd like to request detail on the new admin charges. You know, I think we've we've kind of done that obviously and I'd like to request I know um Council Member Ruffkin has done some backwards engineering using some other documents that we've gotten from them, but like actual detail from them on any changes in the budget from 26 to 27, you know, with the capital changes, like they should really talk to us about those things. Um >> and and I think if they're going to do admin, like Brian said, >> how many hours are really spent? Yeah. I mean by their city clerk, how many hours does he spend on fire? >> Yeah. >> Related issues. I mean, >> well, no. Um, and the formula that they're using to justify these admin charges is the way I understand it, a GFOA formula that their finance director has used in Minneapolis. Um, that isn't necessarily tied to ours. It's more tied to just I don't even know. I don't I'm not sure if Brian he's kind of the go GFOA guy sort >> of voodoo account. >> Yeah. So so it's not >> it's not very straightforward. >> I prefer Yeah. I'd prefer if there's hours justification but it's really just a the way I understand it is just like a percentage allocation from each of their items that they think are related to the fire and based on the budget number of people just the couple other metrics that they're using to justify it. So, it would be great if it would be tied to like, hey, the clerk is use doing these things and we think it takes, you know, 80 hours a year or whatever it is. Um, but that's not the formula that they're using. So, I'd like more detail on the formula that they're using to to justify these things, too. >> Well, yeah. And you can see in the email that Jesse sent today that was in followup to our questions, it's it's just vague. Like, the city clerk is responsible for administrative services and legislative process oversight. >> What does that mean? >> Yeah. How how does that pertain to the fire department? Like I what's that like an hour a year? I mean there's not a lot of legislative proc oversight related to the fire department. [laughter] It's just vague and it's not >> it's not okay. >> No. >> So we're going to work on it >> some more. But um again we we really don't have any say. And that's two years ago. um we said we wanted to try and work this um partnership out so that we would have a voice and a place at the table and that kind of fell apart when mound and St. Bonnie couldn't figure out the um pension plans. So >> again, we're going to work on that too. And I think to that extent, pending how reviewing the contract goes and if we can even set up meetings, we're going to have to talk about how this is going to play out because if they continue to just do stuff like this, it's not really a partnership. >> No. >> So, I mean, that's and we'll we'll see how the elections go and we'll see. They have two people running for the mayor seat. Um Greg Peterson is one of them, a former fire chief, and then also um Kathy Mcmani >> Minani. So we'll see how that plays out and um yeah, we're going to move forward. Okay. Anything else? Any other directives for staff? If not, okay. So, we will move on to the next item and that is let's see what um ADA assessment update. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, members of city council, uh I wanted to provide an update on this effort to to look for a vendor to do um ADA ADA needs assessment. Uh working with uh city engineer Fowski on on some solutions that WSB could provide. They have a a vendor that they work with, CRBPS, that we met with a couple weeks ago. Um, and and they provided a proposal that I've attached in in in this packet item. Uh, their total cost for for the ADA assessment was uh significantly more than I think the Krauss Anderson one. Uh, you compare the two. Um, so we I'm just looking for guidance on what we want to do in this situation. Um if if Krauss Anderson is somebody that we want to go with, I think there's some opportunity to to to whittle down those costs a little bit too if we're just looking at ADA. Um Krauss Anderson in their proposal has uh ADA with facility needs as well for that $10,215. Um so if it's just strictly an ADA, um there's a there's there's probably a conversation that could get that to be even a little bit lower. I know Carl Sanderson has um offered to come in and and discuss this with the city council if they want to do that as well. Um or we can we can just kind of table, you know, there's some options. We could just table this exercise. Um we do have I will mention we do have a an ADA um checklist that we did in 2018. Staff did this. Um the after talking a little bit with the the building official in and David this morning or this afternoon um you know we could utilize that. The one concerned by the building official is that there's also um Minnesota accessibility laws that we have to incorporate or we should incorporate into any changes which are could be slightly different than ADA um in a more restrictive manner. um he had indicated, you know, something about door width is is is larger in the Minnesota accessibility law versus the ADA. So, there's some nuances there. Um >> but wouldn't the building codes spell that out? >> Uh no. So, it it'd be either related to the um Americans with Disability Act or the Minnesota um accessibility law. >> But the Minnesota Building Code doesn't specify that out. >> It ties it to they tie together. So they reference each thing. So the building code doesn't necessarily say what's accept what what what's required for ADA. Um but it links them. So um there's that consideration. So I'm just looking for direction on what we want to do. If we want to have Carl Sanderson come in or if we want to look for other vendors, um we can we can also do that. I can ping some of my u some of the colleagues around here to see if there's anybody else that they've used um and kind of go from there. How how extensive was that 2018 report that staff did? >> It I think it's a well I just looked at it today. It's a checklist that basically goes through all the different areas um of the city of just city hall and it it says you know you have this thing that you need to look at and and you know I I threw it into an an AI and just had it look at it and it developed a project list that you could kind of pull from the checklist. Um the one concern again of the building official is that it may not be 100% comprehensive with the Minnesota um accessibility. So there's there's that piece. Um you know it is 8 years old. I don't know if there's been any changes. I'm not that familiar with ADA, but if there have been any changes, those wouldn't be included in that either. So um but at the end of the day too, the the Carl Anderson proposal, what they would the final product that you would get is here are the things you need to do. here's the the project priority, like here's the number one priority thing you should work on. And then um they would then assign some sort of planning cost and then we would be able to then put that into a a capital improvement plan, you know, 10 or you know over over a period of time, right? Um I would think that would go a long way um as far as if there were was a claim of some sort here. Um, I will mention and and Paula brought this up today. There there was somebody not at our polling location but at another polling location that fell in the parking lot and broke their hip. Not necessarily ADA comp, you know, issues, but there's all kinds of folks with different, you know, [clears throat] abilities um that are using our facilities for voting. So, it's it's something that to consider. Um, >> but we don't have to bring up um, so for instance, I think we use the Baptist church for one of our polling places. We're not responsible to bring them up to ADA compliance. I mean, no. >> Okay. Same with any other polling place that's not >> it's a school district. >> School district is the other one. Um, so then another question, what's driving this? Are we required to do this? I mean, >> so it's it's I'd say it's a um an effort of risk management u right now. So I I think this has been talked about I think since 2015 is the way I understand it is there's been something in the capital improvement plan for ADA improvements because I think it was identified then 2018 effort was to kind of develop a checklist to see what we would need to do. The idea is do we want to actually start planning and doing some projects for this? when you say um liability issues. So if we have a plan and we have a plan to implement the plan um and we don't have to do it all at once, does that um lower our liability then or our risk or what does it do for us? I guess >> yeah, I think it it helps us. It doesn't eliminate it, right? Because if somebody gets injured here, they're likely going to the suicide of a couple different things. Um, the League of Minnesota Cities would represent us in that case. >> Uh, so it it would be it'd be beneficial to have something in place. The checklist helps. I think that was kind of a the the driver of the checklist the way I understand it um to kind of get some sort of survey done. Um, but we have this number in the in the CIP. We don't really know if it's correct or not. So um, we don't necessarily have to do anything. Uh, but if it's something that we want to do, we can. Okay. >> Like to say if I could um for the primary election, Henipin County, well, excuse me, Secretary of State's office did send out um m um let me read this. I'm reading this from the state. Um it is Minnesota Disability Law. They had people go out to different polling places to make sure is ADA accessible. So for elections for general, we weren't on this list. I don't know how these places are picked. Um but it could be a possibility of people coming to polling places to make sure we are in compliance. Just another level of >> yeah information. >> But then and then what happens? >> Even if we're not what happens >> then what happens? >> It it doesn't say it just you know there I would assume this is a very short email from the from Henipin County but um it's part of the help America vote act. I don't know what happens if your polling place is not in compliance. >> Okay. cuz our buildings are grandfathered in. So we don't have to change anything until we start construction and [clears throat] then you have to do it. So, I mean, >> well, that's what I'm saying is if we can do it pe little one one thing at a time, you know, um maybe it's door a door or whatever. Um rather than a whole building, you know, um so then yeah. So, and there's are there grants available if you have a plan? >> There are grants available through the Secretary of State's office. Um, we looked earlier this year. There wasn't anything available for 2026. Um, as funding is available, you know, it happens. Um, we can look every year. They It's It's replenished yearly. So, we'll we'll stay on top of that, too, for for polling place. Correct. >> We can definitely do that. >> Um, I know in the past if they have been found of issues, >> they let you know and you just have to get a plan like you talked about to to fix them. >> Okay. you know, we know there's budget and other issues to work on, but >> Right. Okay. Um, and then the 10,000, like let's just say we did the $10,000 one, is that in the budget for this year? >> Um, not really. Um, I don't think that that that it was. I think if if there is a a driver to maybe go with Carl Sanderson, I think maybe I have a conversation with them first to see if we can parse it back just the ADA unless there it didn't seem like there was a desire to do facility. This Krauss Anderson proposal was from before we had that init that conversation just to get kind of a baseline number. So if we want to do something that's just ADA, I could I could get another proposal from them and and and bring it back to the group. Um so it might be might be less than that. I don't know if it's >> well they had also included you know like uh the police garage and then the public works garage and stuff like that and I don't know that we need that. >> Yeah, I think it's pretty much ADA compliant. >> Yeah, it's the it's the unknown. It so I don't think there's much difference if they do all of them. They said it's going to be one day to be out here to do the ADA stuff. >> So, >> and then it's once they capture the data, take photos and things like that, then they can do it. I'm I'm more interested in access to city hall and and our polling and our polling place over there to make sure that we're ADA compliant eventually. It doesn't it's not going to happen overnight, but so that people with disabilities can come and vote. I mean, >> make it easier. Council, >> do we know why this other proposal was so much higher? >> Yeah. [laughter] Alson. >> Um, I appreciate the question. So, uh, we don't have WSV doesn't have ADA specialists on staff and so I reached out to our asset management group who connected me with with this firm. Um, I I I don't know specifically. I didn't go side by side. I think you've got a good proposal from Krauss Anderson. Um, but I I I don't know why they're so much I don't know if they have a higher rate or um if they think that some of these tasks would take them longer and perhaps Carol Sanderson is a little more efficient in in getting that done. Those would be my top two [laughter] top two reasons and there may be that they were had more stuff included too. I don't know. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think if if the if the proposals were a little more similar in price, I think that would be an opportunity to meet with them again and and try to pair down that scope. But there is such a gap between the two of them that >> um I think it was it was smart to to bring it back to council for direction. >> Does anyone use this other firm? I'm not or the CR VFBs. Has anyone use them for much of this? I mean they're they're quite a bit more expensive like it's been pointed out. So I'm like they're almost pricing themselves out of any doing any work, I guess, but they don't want to [laughter] do it. >> They're too busy or something or they don't even care. I mean, it's >> crazy, I guess. >> Yeah, it's certainly work that they that that they do. I personally haven't had any experience with them. Um I I mean I could I don't know if any of my colleagues have either. It's it's kind of one of those nuance things that that doesn't quite come up as often as, you know, a street contractor. I can tell you that one pretty easily. Um, but this contractor I I don't have any experience with. >> They had given us some examples of other cities that they've worked with. Um, so I we haven't I haven't called those cities up yet just because it uh probably isn't worth the time to see if they did a good job or not because of the they're kind of priced themselves out, but they did indicate when we had our our webinar that they they do this work for cities in Minnesota. So, somebody's obviously paid them for this. >> Okay. council. >> Yeah, I think we should go ahead with it. And I like the idea of kind of chipping away at at these projects. It seems like we shouldn't have been grandfathered in and we should be proactive. >> So have Kra Anderson do the whole city complex or just the two locations? >> I think just the two locations. Why do we need them to do an analysis of the police department garage and and an analysis of our of our public works garage? I mean, it's a parking spot basically. >> Yeah. I don't know. But yeah, I'm just the two buildings. >> This is about as easy liable to come into, >> right? >> Yeah. This is about as easy as it gets. >> Yeah. >> To vote >> and to come into this building. It doesn't get much easier than this. >> Um my sister-in-law is incapacitated, bedridden. I was able to come here easily, get the forms, vote for her. So, someone is really that hard. it re it's really that hard for them to vote. Someone can help them vote. I I mean I I don't know. >> Well, you don't know. I mean, we don't >> Do you don't know all of the different scenario problem here? >> Well, it I mean, we we have to plan for it. I mean, we can't just I mean, we can keep kicking the can down the road, but we have to plan for it. So, I mean, >> and well, I like what Peter said, chipping away, >> right? We're not going to do it all at once. We're, you know, list of what we need to do. >> Making it as Yeah. compliant as possible for the voting because that's probably when most of the public's going to come here >> and right and probably this chamber is probably important too for people coming and but beyond that the public's not in the building >> right but we could I mean eventually we could have an employee that is um physically handicapped and might need so >> use the restroom with that at this >> yeah right [laughter] so anyhow but I we're not going to do it all at once. It's going to But I think um if we have a plan and then we at least then if that will mitigate our risk factor a little bit that might be helpful cuz if you say well we do have a plan and we started implementing it we put in a new door something like that whatever then it's like hey we can't do everything all at once but we're working towards it. So um I I think it's a good thing and we can decide how much we have to spend. So like Paula said, if there's um um grants available, then we can use do that too, which we're going to try and do. >> Yeah. So maybe what the next step would be have Krauss Anderson come in, but also check with your colleagues to see who they have used and kind of what their price point was. If if their price point is the 33,000, forget it. don't even let's not waste our time, you know, but if they have done one that's 5,000 or 6,000 or 10,000, maybe then we can we can look at that. >> Yeah, I'll have to go I I basically did a survey of a lot of the cities around us. So, I'll have to go a little bit outside of our region, but most I'd say most of them, all of them that I talked to used that did facilities studies um use Krauss Anderson because I think they're the price is right usually. Um, and they have a I mean, I think they have a streamlined process. They have a >> table that they plug everything into where they store the data and it, you know, it's it's pretty pretty streamlined, I think. So, that's why they can probably charge a little quite a bit less. Oh. Um, so did you did you want to just narrow this down the scope to just ADA >> is or do you want to do cuz because the Krauss Anderson is ADA and facility needs? >> No, I think we just do ADA. >> So, I'll get a proposal just for just for ADA. Um, and I'll talk to them about, you know, if they're out here and if it's any more money to do like the just give the police department a look. Um, or do you want it to be just city hall no matter what? >> Well, it would be the police department and city hall. Okay. >> Right. >> And then I >> But not the garage, >> not the not the not the public works facility out there. I don't know if what Gary if you got any input on I I don't know who uses that if the public's ever in there or if you're I don't know. Um >> the old building will never pass. So >> yeah, >> that's for sure. So >> Sure. Okay. So just the two the two kind of >> point this whole building, you know, and then the police department. Yeah. >> Yeah. I can I can ask them to scale that back um to just ADA for the two facilities >> because the facility needs study we were going to do maybe next year or a couple years from now when when our um debt for this for for the uh police department falls off then we can start thinking before right before it falls off we can start thinking about new fac what other facilities we're going to need. >> Yep. Yeah. I have that as 2028 kind of revisiting that in 2028. So >> um Okay. And then did you want Carl Sanderson to come and and engage city council in a discussion or did you want me just to kind of work on this and bring the proposal back and kind of get the get the get the project rolling or how would you want to approach this? >> The latter just have them come out and do it and give us the results. >> Okay. I'll likely have to bring the contract back to a regular meeting to get that executed, but other than that then we'll get going. Um, and I'm guessing that if we scale it back, >> I don't know if it'll come down, you know, >> I don't know what percentage, but I I can assume it'll come down from what the number is in the packet. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, then you'll just bring the contract back. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> All right. Sounds good. And next then we have the ATV ordinance. >> All right. Give me one second here. I'm going to get this move on to the other topic. Um so the ATV or we'll call it recreational vehicle ordinance is something we've discussed at a previous city council meeting. Um we're bringing it back to kind of talk about um the one term and and affirming that term with the dimminimous use and then also discuss a potential um language change related to the distance. Um, one of the, you know, kind of talking point distance changes is to change it from 300 feet from the, uh, property line to 200 feet from the, uh, primary structure. So that, uh, in the case in the example that was brought up at the last, uh, work session, that would allow for that um, resident that's maybe having some some difficulties operating a recreational vehicle on their property because of a of a neighbor um, maybe not not really wanting it. that would open up the majority of the of the property to being able to use those recreational vehicles. Um, that's one case in point. Um, as as we kind of indicated, there aren't many complaints that the police are getting. Uh, I will acknowledge the and I think Craig will will affirm the distance piece is is somewhat hard to enforce. Um, they'll do their best to to do so. Um, but you know, anytime you have an arbitrary distance, it's really hard to get that exactly. um >> you know, exact. So, those are the two language changes. Uh we're looking for input on that. If there if we get to a point where we get direction to to bring something forward, we would bring forward an ordinance on September 9th to change this part of the city code. Um and it would be enacted um as soon as it's published in the paper. So, with that, I'll entertain any uh any questions. Craig's also here for enforcement questions as well. Um, [clears throat] I think it's too hard to implement anything from the primary structure. So, whatever is decided should be from the lot line. Like I I mean, what if the house is at an angle? Are you doing it from this part of the house or this part of the house or just how the property is? I I don't >> any part I mean any point of the house. >> I think that's getting too specific and it's just it's just the house. I mean, I I think these people have a right to use a ATV or UTV on their property and to go from the lot line. You were not at the last meeting when you when we pulled this up and um >> it's not saying the lot line. >> I know. Then you'd have to make it very small. So two >> No, we're saying 200 ft from a residential home, >> right? Yeah. But Kathleen was saying that's too difficult and she wants to go back to the lot line which then makes it very difficult and we really have to make that a small amount. >> So the issue here is really not the ATV or the UTV, it's the noise and the right >> being disrespectful. It's not really the feet. >> So [laughter] because some of these things are silent as you know I mentioned earlier you can get electric ones that make no sound. So, it's really about a s about sound and being respectful. And so, I mean, I don't know. I think what we came up with in our last meeting is very um doable and fair and um with Brian's suggestion, people on much smaller lots can at least legally, you know, with under the the the rules of the city get on their UTV, get down to their boat or wherever they need to get to shed a barn and or not a barn, but you know, they can at least use it to make their life easier. So, I think we spent a lot of time nailing this out and I really like what we've accomplished. >> I have a question though. So, um it says proposed language, recreational vehicles may not be operated within 200 ft of the primary structure of any neighboring parcel. But then it says property owners may operate a recreational vehicle on private property that is dimminimous in nature meaning cumulative operation of less than 15 minutes with any 60 minute period. But where does it talk about the 2hour restriction and how does that then? So in other words, somebody could operate 15 minutes and then next hour operate another 15 minutes and then next the smaller lots like my lot. >> But it doesn't say that >> it it's for technically if I may it is technically for all lots. The the part about the two no more than two hours of cont continuous usage is is letter B in the code. If you go down a little bit you can kind of see it's in there. These are kind of just bullet points that kind of outline the the the rules of the ordinance per se. Um adding that uh G would wouldn't supersede anything else. That would just be that would be, you know, one of the things that is allowed. So >> 2 hours would still be there. Technically, if you would go, you know, anytime between um 8 a.m. and 900 p.m., if you did 15 minutes every hour in that period of time, you would technically exceed the 2 hours of continuous use within that day. Um, so there's there's some >> that's going to be really difficult. So maybe like what Claudia is saying is maybe then this property owner that new language should just say for smaller parcels or something. >> I called Jasper specifically about I'm like wait a minute, you know, I don't understand the two hours and then the 15 minutes. >> I know. I don't either. >> Um the 15 minutes is so you can use it regularly throughout your day to accomplish tasks, >> right? No, I get that. But and I thought that the 2 hours was just for the larger parcels. >> It didn't apply to the smaller parcels. >> So we can differentiate >> you mow your lawn for 2 hours. I mean and louder than ATV. >> So but what I'm saying is all I'm asking is so number G should it be that for smaller parcels like yours? Yes. Okay. You can still use yours, but it's a 15 minutes within 60 15 minutes use within 60 minutes within an hour. >> We could attach like a 1 acre it parcels smaller than 1 acre to G. >> No problems with this. It's just, >> you know, if we wanted to >> I'm just it's it's confusing. That's that's all I'm saying. >> [laughter] >> I'm fine with you. >> Then just get rid of the 15 minutes and let us all use it for 2 hours. >> Because I mean, if I mow my lawn, it's going to be 2 hours. >> That's not a recreational vehicle. >> Yes, it's a UTV. >> No, it's not a utility vehicle. >> It's defined. I uh plow my driveway with a UTV and you know I replaced a guy that came at 5:00 in the morning and it was much more offensive >> up and down you know and had a beeper you know every time he backed up >> and and my neighbors are are closed so these parcels are are long and thin. Um, so I would be in violation if I spent, you know, more than 15 minutes, which I'm not that good. So, [laughter] it is going to take more than 15 minutes to uh clear my lawn and then I or my uh driveway and then I'd be in violation of this ordinance. >> So, maybe we don't need that 15 minutes. >> I agree. Because here's the thing. If if if you go with E and it says you can um you have to operate 200 f feet from any primary structure except then you're in trouble because I don't thing we we just say [clears throat] >> well then it's it's too close to my driveway would go within 200 >> feet an hour with the de with the smaller lots. I it's we're no one wants to be a bad neighbor and this hasn't been a problem. All you have to do is ask chief. It's not been a problem. >> This is an old issue from one instance a couple years ago. So, we're over governing the people of this great city of Minatrista. [gasps] We just want to plow our driveways and mow our lawns and but we have to have so but here's the issue. There have been in in the past more than this one instance. Okay? in the past there has been. And so what we're trying to do is also preempt, if you will, potential problems in the future. And so it's it's not the plowing of your driveway or going down to the taking an ATV and driving down to your dock. It's those that's not the issue and that's not the problem. It's when uh a family uses an ATV continually and goes round and round and round and round. absolutely agree that that's not acceptable. >> Yeah. And so that's why we're saying it has to be 200 ft from a neighboring property with a 2hour window that um minimum maximum. Now maybe maybe then we need to say for other purposes such as plowing your driveway or going down to your dock that you get an exemption. Maybe that's what it has to say. >> Can I ask our resident a question? >> Sure. Come on up, Connor. >> Can you tell us is two hours enough for you to do what you need to do with your kids? Is that acceptable? 200 f feet. You you've looked at your property line and are you happy with that? >> I mean, it's better than what it is right now. Um but yeah, are you talking from an existing structure then with the new proposed? Um, yeah. I mean, it's it's not, like I said, I'm not trying to just >> And you usually are you around all day. I just want to take my kid on four-wheel ride for, you know, 15 minutes or 45 minutes or whatever and then go up to bed or >> or an hour and 59 minutes. >> Yeah. [laughter] Not and not have to deal with the neighbors getting upset. It's not like I said, my lawn mower is louder than my four-wheeler. Um, takes me two and a half hours to mow my lawn. So, you know, it I just don't really understand the the noise part. If a lawn mower is making this more noise for 2 and 1 half hours, most of my neighbors, >> it's not just for you. I have to I'm going to stop you right there because this isn't just for you. This is for citywide. And yes, you mow your lawn for 2 hours, but you do it maybe once a week or once every 10 days. However, the person next door, they might be using their ATVs every single day for two hours or more. So that's we we can't make a an we can't make a law just for you. We have to make a law that's reasonable so you can do what you want. Your neighbor has their privacy and their their quiet time as well. That's what we're trying to work out. So that's what I think we're we're almost there. I think we have the 200 ft from a from a um >> structure >> a structure 2hour continuous use. It's this other part. Thank you. You can sit down. Um the other part that I'm just wondering how this fits in for let's say in smaller lots they want to drive down to their they should be able to do that. Peter needs to plow. He should be able to do that. >> Can we say 30 30 minutes? >> I I said this before >> at the last council meeting because this wasn't talked about the August 3rd one, correct? So we're going back to the July one. >> Yes. >> Okay. So I said it before this is complaint driven. So, if your neighbor isn't calling to complain that you're plowing your yard, it's not an issue. If your neighbor's not calling to say they're taking their ATV down to the docks, it's not an issue. It's to make a ordinance that applies to everyone. >> Yeah. >> And until if you have that one neighbor that's complaining every single time you go on it, that is an issue, >> right? Or if if they complain that he's plowing his driveway. >> Yeah. You know, then >> I'll just hire the guy back. >> I [laughter] mean, go ahead. >> Sorry. Point of order about the plowing and uh and lawnmowers. The state statute that defines recreational motor vehicle uh says any self-propelled vehicle used for recreational purposes. >> So plowing is not >> plowing and lawn mowing. Mowing. There you go. Okay. >> Very much and mowing your lawn. Okay. So then how do we address then the um driving down [clears throat] to your dock real quick and back like what Claudia wants to do >> transportation. >> Um >> well I think >> it's fine. >> I think just maybe saying that the 15minute thing works for >> smaller lots. >> Smaller lots. >> Can we add that? >> Lots under a certain size under what? Four acres. >> Two acres I don't know. >> Yeah. >> One acre. >> I mean four acres is not a small lot. One acre. [laughter] My my lots under one acre like that's not Yeah. lots under one acre. >> You know, 1500 Lake Minnetonka homes are >> it. It can be whatever you tell tell us to put in there. >> I think one I I just you know >> that's fine. I think we can >> Well, I think it's a great solution. >> And if and here's the thing. If we get a lot of complaints, >> yeah, we'll >> we'll have to relook at this. Well, but again, we haven't with the exception of this case, we haven't had any complaints on this since we put it in, >> right? >> But it's destroying their life because the one neighbor stands out there with the >> It's not destroying their life. >> It is. >> Well, they can't. You missed it. >> I was here. Why did you say I missed it? >> Hold on. Hold on, guys. >> Hold on. Hold on. The issue is that we found out that there are lots that have 10 acres, but they're narrower and they can't meet the 300 foot um from each side. So, let's just say you have 600 ft. Well, you you don't have you can't or you have 500 ft, you can't be 300 ft from both property lines, right? >> So, that's why we're saying and and the issue isn't being next to the property line. the issue is being um next to houses. And so that's why we're saying if we do 200 ft from a primary structure. Now, here's the thing. For instance, you have a primary structure here. Well, and your lot line goes like this. Well, that means you can be next to your property line here, but maybe you just have to divert a little bit just to get that 200 ft, right? So it's not the whole whole lot that you know you don't have to be 200 feet in the whole way just 200 feet away from from the from the primary structure. And so I think I think this is a compromise. I know we wanted to 300. Now the only other thing I would consider is if you wanted to do 300 ft from a primary structure but that gets pretty >> pretty big. >> You'd still have to have more than a six. I mean, >> no, you wouldn't because like I said, if if your structure is here and your property line is here, you you might have to go like that. >> But if it's wetlands, >> you can't drive on it. >> No. >> 200 ft from a property building is close. I I took a tape measure in my backyard and that's two houses down from mine. So, my backyard and my neighbor's full backyard, 200 feet, is now about a third of the way into the next house over. That's close. That's really close to someone's house. I mean, if you're the unfortunate person who has your house on the property line, that is really close, >> but they'd have to be 200 feet away. >> But 200 feet from a house is not that far away. >> Well, it's probably about me. >> Well, then then if someone has a complaint with someone using it, they should move to a much bigger property and go out in the woods by themselves. >> Someone has a complaint with this, they move to a much bigger property. >> Let's not argue for Hold on. Hold on. Brian, any um recommendations or suggestions or where are you at? >> Uh yeah, I'll be honest. I don't have I don't feel like I've got a horse in this uh [laughter] this race, >> but you have to vote eventually. >> I do. I do. I honestly I'm uh I'm willing to acquies to the wisdom of the rest of the council. Um [laughter] enforcement useless. >> I say that because it's um again just because we are complaint-based enforcement and if we're not getting complaints then you know putting too fine a point on it. if you know we do get a complaint then you know we could address the circumstances of that but yeah it just just feels like >> I mean it's I think it's a noise thing like >> I was saying you know that's really what it comes down to is it could be 200 feet and if nobody's upset about it then great but you know if it's 400 feet and somebody's upset because it's going on and on and on um that's where the problem comes in. So maybe it's more an ordinance like like the dogs barking, you know, where you have a certain >> well amount of time. >> Yeah. But then so in this particular case, this gentleman wants to abide by the ordinance or by the law. Okay. >> But he can't. >> Correct. >> Because and his neighbors aren't going to allow him to to do to go on the prop close to the property line. So that's kind of what we're dealing with here. Um, and then there's, I'm sure, other cases. So, that's why I'm saying maybe 200 ft is is not enough. Maybe we do 250. Um, it's not like he has to be 50 ft in the whole way. It just has to be a little I'm just asking what can we agree on? Madame Mayor, he can't do 250 because his lot is 600 ft. It's only 50 ft into his lot and not the whole way. >> How far is this house from the property line? And and it's not about the property line. Going 200 >> feet. Didn't we figure this out? Go, Jasper. Going >> 200 feet from the property line is like right up to where he can't go any further over. >> We're plotting. We're not saying that >> 210 ft. >> I think I can get it exactly 200. >> Okay. So, in theory, he can go another 40t over. Correct. um for 200 >> for that house is 210 ft from the property line. >> Y >> I guarantee you if he does his four-wheeler on that property line, they're going to be in here complaining. We're going to be back to where we were two or three years ago when we did this originally. >> How far over is usable property for the four-wheel four-wheeling on that side? Like how how far over is that area? Does it go five feet, 10 feet, 30 feet? Like how big of a path do you have, >> Connor? >> How far are you from the property line where you >> with the exit with the original ordinance right now? >> No. Like, can you make that bigger, Jasper? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, I can see where you have like trees and how big is that area that's flattened there? >> That? >> Yeah. Where you're riding your four-wheeler? that was there when we bought it. But from the property line to the edge of the trees is uh camera depends on where it is, but it's anywhere from like 7 ft to like 12 ft of like trees there and then yeah, wherever that path is, obviously it changes as you go. Um, so I guess I don't fully understand the why you're resilient on that parks portion, I guess. But >> I I think I know what you're asking. I think he can pretty much go to the property line right now. >> Going to irritate these people to no end. The 200 ft gets into their property line and that's going to make them mad. >> And that's that's why I'm saying you do 230 or you do 240. Um, >> can you do the math on this, Jasper, and see if he can get down to the lake with that number >> from the house? From the house. >> I mean, this is right from the house. >> I thought we were within 5 ft. And >> by the way, all of the surrounding neighbors don't have any problems whatsoever. It's just one neighbor and they were traumatized from their past experience. So, so they're holding the Swanson's hostage. >> So, what is what are you what is that? That's 300 ft. cannot. >> This is 250. >> Can't drive there either. >> Okay. And then >> that would that would take out this kind of portion of the >> Yeah. >> So, we came up with he only has about 5 ft. If you do the 200 ft and Kathleen, you're under the impression that he just wants to ride on a track and bother these people. He doesn't. He's got a baby and a 2-year-old. So, if it's 2 10 20 ft, then he's right on his basically right there. But he can't see there's trees there. He can't >> Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah, >> you're going to you're not going to be riding into the trees, >> right? >> So, let's just do that >> and see [snorts] how it works. >> I mean, [clears throat] you know, >> okay, >> I I I think that'll work >> the way it is. I mean, there they don't want them to complain. >> I know that. I know that. And they also And I know they also want to be legal, you know. So if we say 220, they can that looks like the the trail is that's about 220. >> Is it 220, Jasper? Can he make it? >> I mean, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it it looks pretty close to to that. >> He doesn't have to change the trail. He can >> go from here. >> There you go. Um the problem, the whole the whole issue with whether it's 200 or 220 or 300 is being able to determine that distance. It's going to be really, really hard. And so what we're doing is we're saying to the one neighbor, hey, we did it the best we could, the furthest away from your house. And we're saying to the to Connor, hey, you will be legal if it's 220. >> I think 220 is weird and arbitrary and it sounds like you were saying, Madame Mayor, this is for everybody. >> I and I'll say it again, they don't want to [clears throat] aggravate these neighbors. that I'm >> they don't want them out there with cameras and videotapes, but 200 is a normal square number. I'm quite >> 300. >> I mean, everything's a normal square with 300. >> But again, we have to make something that applies to more than just this one case. >> This is the one complaint that we've got this year, >> guys. We're not going to keep going over over this. The only thing I was suggesting is the 220 as a as a how do you say I it'll work. It'll work for here and it'll be 20 more feet anywhere else in the city. So it seems like that should work. That's that's that's why I'm saying that. [snorts] Um hopefully I can get four three votes for that. >> Well, Brian, are you voting? I think that is a very reasonable compromise. >> I guess that's all I and >> would you vote for that? Okay. So then we have we we can get it passed. I'm afraid otherwise it might not go. So all right. So 2 hours 220 from any um primary structure gives Connor the ability to use his current trail. It also gives people in other areas a little reprieve from the 300 foot mark from a um property line. And um hopefully this will work. >> Thank you. >> And the dimminimous >> and the dimminimus. We'll do the dimminimous thing. So >> for 1 acre or less. >> For 1 acre or less. Yes. >> Perfect. >> All right. Everybody happy? Compromise. >> Compromise. [clears throat] >> Compromised. >> We did. We did good. All right. So that'll come back probably um September, the first meeting in September. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. With that, we're we can then be adjourned for about a 10-minute break. So you guys have to eat fast. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you. Second. Brian seconded that. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. We'll be back in 11 minutes. 12 minutes. Can you eat fast? [laughter] 14.