[Music] want to call to order the city council regular meeting. The time is 6:05. The date is August 27th, 2025. And the first thing in the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> We're going to go on to item number three, adoption of the agenda. Anybody want to make a motion? I, Scott Wendle, move to approve the agenda for the August 27th, 2025 council city council meeting. >> This is Jenny. I second. >> Motion's been seconded. Is there any other discussion? >> Um, so this is Janet. I do have a question for Jack. Um, I had gotten a call today from Ellen and I thought she said we were going to pull item four. Um, Whoops. >> I did talk to Ellen and I've got the motion there is just to table it to the next meeting. So that would be a change to the agenda. >> Or we could just wait till we get there and just make the motion to table it. >> Okay. Whatever you want to do. >> That would be the simplest thing. Okay. Make any changes then. >> All right. >> Any other discussion hearing? None. We'll take a vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> And Ron I. >> Rob. I. >> Rob. I didn't see you out there. Sorry. >> It's all good. Ron. >> I was out of the room I think when you came on. Thank you. Uh we'll go to item B, the consent agenda. Um and I think uh Janet has some >> um so this is Janet. I would uh move to approve consent agenda items uh one and two. And then um I have some changes to the minutes. So I would just pull those out for further discussion. Three and four out for further discussion. >> Should we pull them off until later in the meeting? >> Whenever you want. Okay, we'll pull those three and four off until we get down to item number after item D. This is Scott. I'll second. >> So, we got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded concerning the consent agenda. Any questions? Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. >> Jenny, I, >> Scott, I, >> Janet, I, >> Rob, I, >> and Ron I. We'll go on to item number C, presentations and items for council action. We're going to open up the public forum. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come forth? Usually have a sheet out there that tells you you only have so much time to talk. Uh you may address the council during the public forum. Any person desiring to speak is requested to sign up. Virtual attendees will be requested to give their name and address and oral or orally prior to their presentations. Uh anybody want to come forward? Nobody's there. Uh how about online? Nobody's there. So, we're going to close the public forum and move on to the next item under C, METC resolution 25-10 and 25-11, comprehensive plan amendments, pages 26 through 28. At the August 13, 2025 meeting, the council reviewed and approved two minor comprehensive plan amendments following public hearings and planning commission recommendations. Staff anticipated the Metropolitan Council would accept approved minutes of set approvals. However, we were informed that they would require official resolutions. To satisfy MET council requirements, the formal resolutions are needed to accompany these submissions. The following resolutions are requested for approval. Resolution 2510, approving submission of the Hidden Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and resolution 25-11, approving submission of the Northwest Quad Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Approval of these resolutions will allow the applications to proceed with Met Council review, after which they will return to the city council for final action. In your agenda, there's two separate motions for each of these that we would request that you approve. >> Anybody want to make a motion? >> This is Jenny. I can make the motion. Um I, Jenny, move to approve resolution 25-10 Hidden Park Comprehensive Plan Rezoning amendment to the Metropolitan Council to change the resoning of parcel 15-32-22-23-00008 [Music] from park to rural residential. >> This is Janet. I second. >> We have a motion on the floor. We second it. >> Do we have any other discussion or questions? >> Hearing none. We'll take a vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. Motion passes. Go on to motion number two. Anybody want to make that one? >> This is Scott. I'll make the motion. I Scott. Move to approve resolution 25-11 [Music] Northwest quad comprehensive plan reszoning amendment to the metropolitan council to change the zoning of block 2 lot one from general commercial to mixed use high density >> Jenny I second >> we have a motion on the table it's been seconded any discussion questions hearing none we'll take a vote Jenny >> Jenny I >> Scott I Janet I >> Rob I >> and Ron I the motion passes we'll go to item number three ordinance 14-320 restricted hours for sprinkling municipal water system pages 29-34 >> on August 135 the Columbus City Council conducted a public hearing to amend city ordinance 14-320 this amendment is required to comply with state critical water deficiency declarations s and is a requirement for the city's request for an increase in our DNR water appropriation permit 20009-064 to 50 million gallons per year. Our current allocation under this their current permit is 30 million gallons per year. The additional appropriation request is necessary to accommodate a potential increase in 16 million gallons per year in pumping demand to address the needs of pending and future development. Our current water withdrawal rate is now 24 million gallons per year. As a result of discussions regarding the proposed amendment, council requested format and order revisions to the draft ordinance. The attached redline version of the ordinance reflected in attachment one shows the changes requested by council to bring our ordinance into compliance with the DNR requirements for an increase to our groundwater withdrawal needs. Staff recommends that city council approve amendment of ordinance 14-320 as presented in attachment one of your package. >> You want to make a motion? >> I have a question. Okay. >> Um so Jack, so I went back and looked at what was in our packet um uh for the whatever meeting it was last meeting that we had and we talked about this. So, part of the ordinance um change at that point also included um a governor's declaration. Do we no longer need that in our ordinance? >> It's in the It's in there. It's on the second page. >> Item D. >> Under state declarations of critical water deficiencies. >> Oh my gosh, I didn't read. Oh, sorry. I missed that. I just read the first page and went, "Oh, what happened to the governor's declaration?" Thank you. Then that's good. Thank you. I'll make the motion then. Um, so, uh, I, Janet, u move to approve amended ordinance 14-320, public health, wells, sewer, and utilities as presented in the August 27th, 2025 city council packet item C2, attachment two. >> Jenny, I second. >> We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I. >> Scott, I Janet, I. Rob I >> Ron I motion passes. We'll go on to item number four contract renewal for career enhancement options. Is this the one we want to set off? >> Yes. I had a discussion with Ellen today and we hadn't had time to work over the scope of work under this. So we I would recommend that we table this ordinance and bring it up at our September 10th council meeting with the scope of work identified in that proposed contract amendment. Sounds good to me. >> Uh, this is Scott. I can make the motion to table the discussion until the September what? >> 10th. >> 10th city council meeting. >> This is Janet. I second. >> Got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. We'll take a vote. Jenny. >> Jenny. I. >> Scott. I. >> Janet. I. >> Rob. I. >> And Ron. I. Motion passes. Item number five is constitutional constitution week proclamation pages 40 to 41. Excuse me. >> 2025 marks the 238th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America. Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the president designating September 17th through 23rd as Constitution Week. The Daughters of the American Revolution and Oka Chapter are requesting that city council approve a proclamation by the city of Columbus honoring this important date in the history of our country. The proclamation is 251. is listed in your packet and staff recommends that city council approve this proclamation. >> This is Scott. I'll make the motion to approve proclamation 25501, a proclamation by the city of Columbus designating the week of September 17th to September 23rd, 2025 as Constitution week. >> Miss Jenny, I second. >> Got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, we'll move on to vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. Motion passes. We'll go on to item number six, September 2nd, 2025. Workshop meeting agenda page 42. >> Our council workshop meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025 at 5:30m. The following items are recommended for discussion at this meeting. One would be the Anoka County pole pads discussion and to receive a presentation by ASET and the second item and the longer one would be continuation of the 20 26 budget discussion. Staff recommends that city council set the agenda for the items presented and make additions or deletions to this list as they see fit. >> Okay. I Ron Hanigraph move to approve the agenda for the September 2nd, 2025 city council workshop meeting as presented in items C.6 of the August 27th, 2025 city council meeting agenda and packet. >> There second. >> This is Janet. I second. >> Take any uh we got a motion on the floor. Any discussion? Any questions? >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, real quick question. Um, I know we just said we were going to table the contract renewal for career enhancement. Is that something that we should maybe discuss in the workshop? >> We sure could. >> We We can disc we can add >> That's a good idea. That actually that would be a really good idea since there seems to be a lot of questions about about her. >> There's more I'd like to learn about it. So, >> yeah. No, perfect. I think that's a great idea. >> Okay. >> Should we move that down there into a motion or it's already there? Um, we've accepted this, but I think we've got direction. We can add this. It's not >> Or you can amend your motion just to include that other item. >> Yeah. All right. I'll amend it to include the uh item number four, contract renewal for career enhancement options to be attached to the September 2nd, 2025 city council workshop meeting as presented. >> And it was >> Oh, and I was the one. So I sec I second your amendment. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Wake up. >> Any discussion? Any questions? Hearing none. Jenny. >> Jenny. I >> Hey, mayor. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Sorry, I had my hand up and and I understand it's hard to see. Um a question on the Anoka County elections uh thing. Uh being I wasn't at the meeting today, I don't know how much of of the work we got done today on the on the budget. Um curious if we're going to need that extra time to to get that thing uh finished out or at least close as we're moving closer to the end of September here in the next month. Are we going to need all that extra time or do we need another presence presentation by asset? >> I I think we'll be okay on the budget time. Ron uh Rob, uh I don't anticipate neither one of these to take a prolonged amount of time and that'll still give us more time. a lot of time to the vote to that budget discussion. >> Okay. Is it is that is this preempting the the asset deal, the Anoka County election deal, is that is that preempting us to get something done at the following council meeting? Is that the priority on that? >> I'm not. So, Rob, the um I I'm I'm not sure I'm following your question, but so the ASAT, they are interested. did I mean they've been going around to all the communities again and talk um talking about the pole pads and and their desire to see cities go back to the paper. Um I I'm meeting with them again tomorrow and they requested time at our at they were going to come tonight and then because we're meeting tomorrow they decided that well maybe we should meet first and then they would come and present their um what they wanted to present to us. So they're that that's why they're on the agenda. >> Okay. Okay. So, it's it's something new over and above what they've come to us the last few times about. >> Well, I hope so. I mean, I think I >> I mean, I feel like it's been three times in the last year, you know. >> Well, and I think that um so one of the things that I was just going to um add in my report was that um we had an opportunity to meet with uh NOA County um on this topic. So, part of what I would like to do at at our workshop is to share that information, too. Um, okay. >> And that's part of what I'm going to um, uh, share with them tomorrow is what what the county had said because we really hadn't had that discussion with the county in the past. We've just heard the acid side of it. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. Um, well, thank thank you for the explanation. I was just curious what it was about or if it was another presentation again. So, um, thank you. I'm fine with it. >> Trying to figure out where we at. Did we start the voting? >> No, we have go back. Uh we were we were under the question or questions. Uh it's been first and seconded. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh all right. >> Yep. You bet. >> Any other questions? Discussion hearing. None. Now we'll take a vote on the motion. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> Robson >> and Janet. Thank you for that. >> You're welcome. >> Ron I motion passes. Go on to item number D, city engineers report. Brian, >> good evening, mayor and councel. Brian Bachmeer, consulting city engineer. I have no no formal reports this evening. Just really here to if there is any further discussion on the water uh ordinance and then I did reach out to the DNR on a status update on our appropriation permit. And unfortunately, he didn't get back to me before the meeting. So, as soon as I hear something, I'll certainly let the administrator know. that I stand for any questions. >> Um I have a question for you. Actually, it's for Jack, too. So, um I had met with uh one of our residents, um Dave Rybeck earlier this week, and there was some questions that came up related to some questions he raised that kind of have citywide um impact. And I had passed those on to Jack. And I think you were going to pass one of those off to Brian. >> I haven't done that yet. >> Okay. So, I guess you're off the hook. >> I'll watch for it. >> You'll be getting it. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Welcome. >> I have I have one question, Brian. I left three copies of the signed contracts. Do you get those? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. >> That all you have, Brian? >> Yes. >> Thank you. We have city attorney's report, Megan. >> Good evening, C mayor, members of council. Uh I understand that the city council requested an update on uh the legislative changes to the cannabis law in 2025 that may have an impact on our existing ordinance. Um and so there there were a variety of changes that were made by OCM and were approved by the legis requested by OCM and approved by the legislature. Um so the ones that primarily affect the city are um if the city has its own facility. So, if it were to operate uh its own uh cannabis business, it would also be permitted to sell hemp that was missing from the original law. Um that low potency hemp retailers uh would be uh still permitted to sell without future licensing from the state. Uh now, that is consistent within our ordinance. We do not define low potency hemp versus high potency hemp. defer to the original farm bill that allowed for the THC products to be sold in the state several years ago. Um, so our existing definitions do mirror the underlying authority for Minnesota law. Um, we uh let's see, uh, a number of cities, well, I'll get to the sort of what is going on in the cannabis status and what other cities are doing. Um, but one of the things that you might recall from our conversations uh with our licensing and zoning ordinance um was that there was going to be a two-phase review process where OCM was going to issue a preliminary license and then cities had the authority to um take action based on a preliminary license or refer it back to the state. Um and after sort of working through it with the city planner, we actually elected not to incorporate the recommended language from OCM in our ordinance. Um that required that back and forth. Um so our process is a provider comes in um they have applied for a license or review from the state of Minnesota um and they are looking for a location. We provide them with a zoning letter, but whether or not they're first in time to our limited number of licenses is a risk that they take on. Um, and so what the most recent revision to the law allows is that a city may accept a valid license already issued by OCM or preliminary license approval. And that or is really important there. So there's nothing um within our ordinance that would prohibit us from taking either of those approaches. So if a provider came forward and said that um they received preliminary approval from OCM and they are interested in a space, we could move forward with issuing a CUP as required by the zoning side of our approvals um and issue them a license contingent upon final approval. that would no longer be sort of a violation of the state process. So that's some additional flexibility that the state gave. However, the state law is very specific that that's up to cities to decide. And so this is an operations and a policy question that your staff can manage, but there are no changes that are required to our existing ordinances to accommodate this change. Um and then perhaps the most interesting thing I think that's happening in this space is that we have seen a number of cities elect to prohibit a variety of cannabis businesses. So there are explicit prohibitions in the law that do not give cities authority to restrict retail businesses beyond the 12 uh the population restrictions. So there uh a city is required to issue a minimum of one license for every 12,500 residents. Um and then there's some complicated math that happens between uh whether or not there are enough licenses within a county and whether a city could defer to a county. And in light of that complicated math and some uncertainty there, we elected just to set our licensing numbers um and to set a cap on that that would be consistent with our um with our underlying population, our projected population growth with the Met Council. Now, a number of cities have either elected to prohibit these uses in zoning districts outright or have elected to uh not issue licenses at all, which is sort of part um of the the contemplated structure from the state of Minnesota. Um so very interestingly at least from from my perspective I I hope it's interesting to the council as well uh is that OCM so the office of cannabis management has said that it will not pursue litigation against cities for this type of um adoption of an ordinance that violates state law. they have taken the position that they are an enforcement agency only for the purposes of their lenses as compared to uh between multiple government uh regulators. However, um what is happening instead is that then the applicants are suing the cities and uh the best example I think is Albert Lee had a very long meeting where they elected to deny a lences application and uh and then that lency sued and then they quickly issued two licenses um to the next two applicants. So, that's a sort of preliminary uh umbrella update of the changes to Minnesota law and and sort of how it impacts you and how what I would suggest is that your existing ordinance is is well drafted and and will and has stand has stood the test of these changes. Uh but I am absolutely happy to answer any questions that you might have uh about this. >> Um this so this is Janet. I wasn't quite sure when you talked about the third the two-phase review process um and that we had elected not to include the OCM language in our ordinance that we could either accept state license or or a preliminary license approval and this is more of an operate. Will you just explain that a little bit further because I'm I'm unclear what that means? Yep. So there um in the Minnesota law there was a concept where you would have an applicant put forward their preliminary materials to the state of Minnesota. The state of Minnesota would then vet those materials um or would undertake the process of vetting those materials. Then an applicant can come once the state has received that application and has confirmed that there are no significant red flags. Um so that would be prior criminal convictions, other things that would prohibit someone from receiving a state license. Um at that point in time, they are not a licensed entity under the state of Minnesota. So depending on the type of the business, there are significant caps in terms of the number of licenses that can be issued. Um, so there are there's a pretty long list of people who are waiting to be issued a full license to provide services either across the state or in localities. So during that preliminary licensing process, a uh future cannabis provider is going to go out and search for real estate in which to operate either their farm um their micro business or perhaps their retail shop. At that point in time, they come to the city and they make a request of the city about whether or not it complies with their zoning ordinance. The um the original draft language suggested that we would allow for review but no final approval of the license until a full license was issued. Um and that we would essentially you could you cities could take two paths. they could either elect to hold that person's spot in line with the preliminary approval or they could elect to seek final approval at the time um that the overall state license was issued. So the path that we took was we will always issue a zoning letter to someone to determine whether or not they could operate their potential business um within the districts that it's permitted within the city. uh but that we would not hold a licensing space for them until they received final approval. Um the state law now allows cities to take either of those paths. So if you wished to approve a license for a provider based upon the preliminary state review, you could or you can wait until their final license has been run through the state system and they are a licensed entity and then undertake their zoning and licensing approvals. So we we have enough flexibility in our language that we could do either. But if we wanted to be explicit about requiring the the full license, we would have to make a change to that. Is that right? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. If we wanted to be explicit about that, we would. >> Okay. Um and then I know that, you know, there were when we when we created the ordinance, we had some other proposed changes that we sort of put on the back burner and said, "Let's just wait to see what else we have to change." So, I don't know, Jack, this might be especially for Jenny and um Scott who weren't here when we were talking about this. Maybe updating the new council members with some of the discussion and pros and cons and where we landed on some of this. So, if there's other things that we want to um address or the or the things that were sort of on our are we'll table this until we see how this all plays out um whether or not we want to bring it back and and make some amendments or not. So I I'll just say it was part of the planning commission and part of those joint meetings. >> Yeah, >> I get it. >> Y >> I understand it. But um it this would go before the planning commission then right on on the ordinance change potentially. So, uh, an ordinance change with regards to your zoning ordinance would go before the planning commission, uh, as compared to your licensing ordinance, which is the licensing ordinance is where there was a sort of question if we were going to have a two-phaseed review process. And sort of as I talked it through, I can I think I can provide some more clarity. One of the initial drafts that the planning commission and the council saw had us running full zoning approvals at both phases. and we said, you know, that just doesn't make a lot of practical sense and it's going to be expensive for the applicant and then if they don't get their full license, why are we running a full zoning approval for a temporary site >> that, you know, may not come to fruition. So that it made more sense not to require this sort of two-phase process, but just to say that at the time that they're uh licensed that they can um apply for their f full zoning approval. So any changes to the licensing side of the ordinance will just come to council. uh any changes to the uh zoning ordinance will go before both the planning commission and the council. Um one of the areas of initial litigation has been around uh two different areas. Um first in the zoning context some of the acreage requirements that cities have required. An example is um for a small grower business that is five approximately 5,000 square ft. The city of Cottage Grove requires a 40 acre parcel which um essentially means that it's unavailable for development or would not be economically feasible because you wouldn't buy this very large property um only to have a very small portion of it dedicated to to cannabis growing. Um so that has been an area of litigation that is just at the district court at this point in time. The other area of litigation in this space on the licensing side has been things like hours of operation. Um the council and the planning commission took these types of risk into account when drafting its ordinance and try to adopt a sort of a reasonable approach to ensuring that there was plenty there were plenty of spacing requirements for agricultural businesses in particular just based upon the lot sizes in Columbus. it could make it very um uh desirable for for growing spaces and how did you manage that? How do you manage the risk and how do you ensure that you have um you know our performance standards related to growing businesses have some significant security requirements and it's great to have significant security requirements but perhaps not so great if you're living right next to it and there's large light shining down on an open field. Um, so we tried to be really thoughtful and come up with um I think the feedback from the planning commission and the council was very thoughtful I should say uh in in trying to balance that and and mitigate against some of like the natural risk that you could see a really significant expansion of cannabis businesses within within your agricultural areas and within your rural residential. Um, and so I, you know, some of those nuances have led to litigation in other cities. Um, and and your ordinance does not have, um, those particular risks in it at this point in time. But certainly, you know, as these sites continue to open up, you may want to look back at the ordinance and see if there are um you know, uh impacts that we didn't anticipate in drafting this u and adding additional performance standards just like you might do, uh for any of your new uses. And then my other question is that, you know, as I've read some of the um coverage on these cities that are are just saying no, um even though it's in violation of of state law, um some of the reasons that I'm hearing is because they're getting applications that are coming from out of state and their intent was to make space for the local mom and pop shops and to have this be a a um uh an opportunity for for local businesses or local entrepreneurs. And my understanding, and I'm just asking you if I'm understanding this correctly, is that the state could not restrict um these to only instate um they couldn't say if you're out of state, you can't you can't locate here. Can a city I know the state can, but can a city restrict that? My initial instinct is no. um because it raises sort of some natural equal protection issues. >> Um however, you know, one of the things that has been a policy miss in all of this is that uh the state intended these meo businesses in particular to be really homegrown businesses and um those are those are the businesses that have actually been most heavily restricted by zoning rules. So they are not encouraging so that the the the zoning that cities have adopted have actually encouraged larger uh national groups to come in as compared to local groups um because of the sort of licensing categorization. Um and I so I think that you know that's one of those things that that we could look at uh and provide some data on. the OCM has a lot of information on its website in terms of you know who are the preliminary applicants um and who have been licensed thus far and and you know I think one of the ways to do this um in a way that would be um that would not run a foul of sort of those constitutional projections would be um to think about some policy standards um that we could reasonably implement as part of our licensing ordinance um that would encourage the type of um you know sort of encourage local businesses, the mom and pop style retail stores uh and then of course you could utilize your ADA powers for that as well. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So I mean I think I I personally think it's worth looking at the ordinance again and and kind of reopening the discussion based on the fact that now there's some experience and some things that are coming out that maybe weren't anticipated. And I remember one of the um points of conversation was that I think um some folks thought that this would be revenue generating for the city, but it appears that that is not the case. This is not revenue generating. Um so whether that changes people's um you know desire to have these businesses or not, I I mean I think it's just worth opening up the conversation again. Yes, the the pro the original uh statute allowed for profit sharing between the state and the counties and then within the counties to cities um at a at a quite measly amount but it was still something um and the most recent revisions have removed those financial benefits. Um now certainly your licensing process and the fees associated with your licensing process should account for staff time um but would not be any revenue over and above what it costs um staff to to operate the licensing program. Um the one one further update on this is one of the things I think we talked fairly heavily about in the context of uh the ordinance adoption and licensing was labeling of materials. Um, and there has been a good labeling change at the state level that um, now if a if a canned beverage is 10 milligrams of THC, it's not 5 milligrams of THC labeled on the outside and then two servings in the nutrition information on the back. Um, because I think people had some surprises in their original in their early consumption. Uh, so now it is labeled for the maximum amount of THC that exists within the the beverage. So at least there's that. Now they just need to do that with calories. Yeah, >> cuz whoever looks at serving size, right? >> Yeah, I know. >> Well, thank you for that update. I was curious. >> Is that all you have? >> That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. >> Go on. Item number uh three, the mayor and city council's report. Jenny, do you have anything to report? >> Um, yes. Mr. Mayor, would you like to cover the EDA when it comes your time or would you like me to? >> Well, you can. >> Okay. Um, the EDA met on August 21st. Um, as we alluded to before, Tanya from the um from Anoka County uh discussed HA. So, we covered that a little bit already. Um, the EDA is looking for a new fifth member. So, I know that um Aaron and Jack are talking about potentially posting that. Um, so that is one uh change there. uh Fall Fest. I believe everybody received um an um item C8 that was resolved we believe before uh the meeting. So um just know that we had some questions about potentially doing um a a road closure/detour on Saturday of FallFest here at city hall. Uh that has changed and we are going to um work with an NOA County just to have better signage and I think um we talked about that with Jim as well potentially having public works put some blinking signage on either side um on Kettle River to slow traffic down um because that was one of the major concerns from the sheriff's office. So I think we worked through that. So there will be no detour. Um and then the third uh update I had was Creek had their meeting August 25th. um only one Columbus related issue uh came to Northern Natural Gas had um a permit that was due to something that happened in July with on a residential property. Uh and so that um is being resolved and uh worked through with Creek as well right now. So um I those are my updates. >> Thank you, Jennifer Scott. >> Uh I have no report. >> Janet, >> um just a couple really quick things. Uh I think I mentioned one of these um in response to council member Bush's question. So on the 14th of August um we met with an NOA County to just talk about elections in general. Um some of the information that we'd received or heard in the past about um the use of poll pads um asked for some information from the county. It was actually really quite helpful and I think um you know the opportunity to share that with you at the council at the workshop will be will be nice and I think also with with ASET I suspect anything we learn there is not going to change their mind about this but um we hadn't we hadn't had the opportunity to hear the county's side of it so now we have and then the other thing is on the 18th um of August uh Jack and Cheryl and myself attended a countywide finance meeting. So, they have these every year. Um, and there was a really good presentation about um, you know, property taxes within the county and things like that, which I know Jack intends to to send out to everybody. Um, but it was it was a good kind of overview of how things flow down from from the um, from the county to us. And you know, I went there because I would, you know, always interested in hearing more about the fiscal disparities. But, um, I think if if we could send out that that, um, excuse me, that PowerPoint presentation, Jack, I mean, if there's any any specific questions, we could maybe handle that in the workshop as well. >> I'll have that ready for the next meeting. >> Yeah. Thanks. That's it. >> Bob, you got anything tonight? >> Uh, no report, mayor. Thank you. >> Thank you. And uh I have no report except for I was just the next item is EDA report. >> Sorry, I missed that. Um so um covering we covered the ED. The only thing I forgot to mention about the EDA was that we decided to table the fall Columbus event. So that was the added uh note there because um potentially trying to do some rework with Columbus. Uh and we didn't feel we had quite enough time with the restructuring and went through all of that process to have that fall event. So, I don't know if we want to maybe have a bit of a discussion on that. >> Well, I I another thing we set up earlier another meeting instead of going to December, what was it? October >> 14th. >> We have an October 14th meeting as well >> where we're going to discuss the the deal. And I think um as far as when it comes to EDA report, I think we'll have to switch back and forth. We're so used to having everybody there >> that we just thought everybody was there and we don't usually say have one. So, we'll work that out between us. So, we'll go on to the uh number item number five is the park board report. And uh the only thing I can say is that we just signed the U contract for the U tennis court if I'm correct. >> That's correct. And we have a pre-constru construction conference scheduled for Wednesday at 8:30 to go over the final details with the contractor so he can get started. And the park boards came up with a recommended color for the painting of the court with a blue perimeter outside and a green interior. So >> the other way around, right? Blue inside. >> The blue outside. I'll double check that to make sure though. >> Most of them are blue inside with the green on the outside. Hopefully that went that way. I also did anybody uh idea when those garbage cans did they order them? The garbage cans I think were ordered, weren't they, Jim? They're Yeah. >> Where did you hide them? >> Can't answer that. But >> did they go out today? >> No, they've been out for two weeks. >> I have not seen them out there. >> No, >> not >> Oh, maybe somebody took them. >> I I'll have I'll I'll ask where I I'll ask where they put them. I I don't know where they put them, though. >> Oh, >> I know we got four. So, there's four new garbage cans somewhere in this 20 acres. >> They're they're not in the usual spots that they were in the past at the corners of the fields. Yeah. >> Well, my guys sometimes have a mind of their own, so I I don't know where they're at, but I will find out. >> Yeah, there'll be like that gnome out there that keeps moving, >> keeps moving around. >> And I I help in that movement, too. >> Right on. >> And that's about it. Right on the park board. Nothing much else going on. We'll go to item number six, the personnel committee report. Janet. >> Um, so this will be quick to We've been working on wrapping up the wage study and I I can say that we are really completely done um with our end of it. There will be um an opportunity to talk about that at our um October workshop. Did I get that right, Jack? Yeah. Um, and it so you'll get the fullblown all of the the details and stuff. We've had several meetings with some staff members. We'll we'll wrap up those meetings so that they know what the answer is to their questions. Um, and I don't know, it'll be nice to have that have that thing all wrapped up with a bow and ready to go. >> That's nice to hear. >> Yes. You know that cuz you were there yesterday. Um otherwise um the only other thing the personnel committee you know we continue to work on the handbook. Actually Erin's been doing all the heavy lifting on that. We just are weighing in with our um comments and then uh a few months back we relooked at an org chart and um the org chart for the city and that is going to be implemented. I believe the the um org chart will be discussed with the staff. Is it tomorrow, Jack? >> Yes. >> And then you guys will get a copy of what what that looks like. >> That's all I have right now. >> Is that all? >> Yep. >> Item number seven, the public works report. Jim, >> uh Mr. Mayor and Council, Jim Winningstead, public works director. I received our new utility truck last week. It is sitting out in the parking lot if anybody wants to take a look at it. Um we had um Aspen, the company that did the I'll call it the body on it, came out today and walked through all of the features and how everything works and and now we're trained and we're just working on some decals for the side and it will be in service. So, probably at the next council meeting, I will be asking for um a surplus vehicle so we can sell the other utility truck 2014. So, we'll send that one out to auction and you know, hopefully hopefully we get good money for it and that money will go back into the equipment fund. That's all I have. Mr. Mayor, are >> you guys going to practice with that thing and put the banners up in the park? >> We are. >> Great. I hope you don't hide them like the garbage can. >> We're going to have to go out and go look for those things. >> We are. >> Okay. >> They're over at this ball field. All four of them. >> I was going to ask Jim if I could drive the truck. >> Yeah. >> Do you give rides in up and down? >> No. No, we are not insured for rides. But the day you install banners. >> Yeah. >> Give him a ride. >> Maybe we just have to put his name on the insurance. >> Okay, that's it. Huh, Jim? >> Yes. >> Item number eight, city administrator's report. Jack, >> I have three items here. Number one is we've discussed the property sale of Hidden Park. One of the things we need to proceed before we actually do the final advertisement for sale is we need an appraisal on the property. So, I'm requesting that city council authorize me to engage an appraiser for an appraisal report on the Hidden Park property. Once we receive that, we can decide the process we're going to use, which I'm assuming initially will be sealed bids to the surrounding property owners, but at least we'll have a value. The reason we asked for this is that property is in a neighborhood that has very similar characteristics between lot sizes and homes. This property is a little different because it has a little bit of a flood plane issue in the back. So, this would give us a fair value of what the propertyy's worth. So, with that, I would ask you to give me the permission to authorize an appraisal be done on this property so we can get this started. >> Um, this is Scott. Jack, can you remind me what we were going to spend on the appraisal? I know it was >> it's approximately $1,200. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh then this is Scott. I'll move to authorize city administrator to engage an appraiser to prepare an appraisal report for the hidden property. >> This is Ron. >> Rob. I'll second. >> Okay. We'll give it to Rob. >> We got a motion. It's been seconded. Any other discussions or questions? Abby none will take a vote. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> Ron I. >> Motion passes. >> The other item that I have requesting or needing a motion is we've had some discussions with a company that's interested in possibly purchasing the property adjacent to and just north of Caribou for an apartment development project. And I would like to request council to remove approve the submitt of us submitting them a letter of intent for the purpose of initiating their preparation of a purchase agreement for the property. >> This Jenny I can make the motion unless anyone has questions. This uh I Jenny move to approve the submitt of a letter of intent to MWF properties for the purpose of initiating the preparation of a purchase agreement for this property. >> Mr. Scott, I'll second. >> Got a motion on the floor. It's been second. Any other discussion, questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. The motion passes. And I just have one other item in our real estate department division is that the uh we had some discussions with the residents of St. Clair Lakes. Uh they expressed a potential interest in maybe buying an outlook property that would best serve them or that would serve us. But I've been informed that at this time they're withdrawing their consideration of that because the assessments would be made for the purchase of that over all their residents, but there would only be eight properties that benefit from it. So there's not overall support for them within their organization to proceed with that. That could change in the future, though. >> So what happened to their initial clearing out that area to go back there? We haven't looked. Oh, okay. >> So, this is Jenny. I have a question. We I think at one point you mentioned there are some over there are some trees or something that potentially may be an issue in the future and this was originally donated property by the builder. Is that correct? >> Correct. So maybe that's something we should look at because the cost to the city may >> it's at some point it could and you know one of the things that we may talk about is maybe even depending on how we want to approach it is gifting that property. Uh we have no need for it and it could result in some additional cost to us in the future. So there may be other ways to address this issue. >> Is that it yet? >> That's it. >> Thank you. We'll go to item we're going to go back to item B on the consent agenda. We'll go to item three, the approval of June 11th, 2025 city council minute minutes pages 1 through 12. Any adjustments or that? I think Janet had some. >> I do, but I don't have to go first if anybody else has them. Jenny, I submitted mine via email, so everything >> Oh, but we didn't get So, we didn't get a a copy with revision marks, so we don't know what yours are. Are they Are they already made in here? >> Erin, do you know is this a revised copy or is this the original? >> The one I have is not a revised copy. >> And I >> I bet you >> I don't think it got revised in time to get in our packet because I called Lori. Okay. >> For for which which meeting? >> This is for June 11th. >> June 11th. >> That one should be revised already. >> Okay. >> So I I >> You don't know where our correction? >> No. >> Yeah. >> So I mean the whole purpose was that we would get a revised version so we could all see the changes. Um but I guess it doesn't matter. If we got them in here then they're there and if I don't like them I can bring it up. So if you're sure that they're in there then that's good. So, as soon as they come in, I made those corrections. I don't think they were >> uh of any substance that's going to change anything. I think it was one was um maybe had to do with some time and maybe a name spelling and >> it was nothing of of anything that that's going to change. >> And we're talking June 11th, right? >> June 11th. >> Can we please spell council? >> Yeah, that was one of them. Council is spelled wrong again. CO U and CL on the top. Um, um, so then I'm looking at line 12. I think I had written down that Grant's last name is spelled D U C H O C. And I think that was based on what was showing up on the screen. Um, I also had a note in my notes that there was a Paul Birds that was present. B I R D S A L L. Um, and then on page two, um, I would just add I'm on line, sorry, line 60, gathering at the Columbus City Park. So, it's clear that that's when the nightite was on page three. Um, there in line 80 and line 96, Coats is spelled wrong. C O A T. That's And then in line 107, you still got Grant Duchek. um it's name with a question mark and you have that on and page four as well. So you if I'm correct in how you spell it, you could go do a change all revise all. Um page five on line 181 oats is spelled wrong there again. Um and on uh page 8, line 294, um Bowser is capital, these are all capitals, capital BSWR, not Bowser as in the dog. And if you wanted to, you could put in parenthesis that it's the Board of Water and Soil Resources. On page nine, my name is spelled wrong again on line 313. So you can correct that. you know how to spell it. And on line on page 10 on line 336 um Mark Goldberg from DDA, not DA. Um on line, um 340, you have council member stated. I think you mean council member Hegeland stated. Um, so you'd add Hegeland after council member on line um 343. Uh, I would I would amend that sentence to read council member added that there are some positions in the plan. So in the plan is what's added where presently there is not a person but and then you would add the city would expect to hire for that position in the future. Period. Then it's this ensures there is already a job description. So that would be the edit. Um further down in line 364 you have Ellen Hendrickk's name spelled wrong. H E N R I C Hs is how you spell her last name. On line 11 or I'm sorry, page 11 on line 375. Um I it should read council member Hegeland confirmed not inquired and then Hendricks is spelled wrong again. Um there instead of could send it would be sent out the feedback email and then to council crossing out as to and then an oop would not violate. So the whole thing would read, "Council member Hegeland confirmed if the attorney or Hendrickx sent out the feedback email to council, it would not violate the open meeting law." On um line 384, um I would add updates after planning commission. Han provided the planning commission updates on recent projects. And I um page 12 there's nothing. Usually there's something that says that who submitted or who wrote the and there isn't anything there. >> Yeah, these are not mine. So, >> okay. So, who wrote them? >> I I'll have to find out if it was between uh our recording secretary and our city clerk or our assistant city clerk or what, but I'm not sure who wrote these. >> So, those are my edits. >> Anybody else have any of the edits? We'll go on to item number four. >> Oh, I can I can do the motion to approve them with those edits if >> Well, don't we want Oh, you >> you want to do them both in one motion or do you want to take them independent? >> I'll do them independent just in case anybody has any issues with my next one. Okay. >> So, then this is Janet. Um I would move to approve the um minutes of June 11th, 2025 um as written in our in our um packet with the edits um presented during this council meeting. This Jenny a second. >> Got a motion on the table. It's been seconded. Any discussion? Any questions? >> Hearing none. We'll take a vote. Jenny. >> Jenny. I. >> Scott. I. >> Janet. I >> Uh oh. Where's >> Where' Rob go? >> Hold on. He's trying to get back in. Sorry. how long he's been gone. Sorry. >> Either way, uh we'll skip his vote and vote on that. Ron, I motion uh passes. >> So, he's back on if you want to see if he wants to vote. >> Oh, Rob, you back on. Did you hear any of that? >> Yeah. I My phone went dead on me. >> Okay. And Ron says I. So, the motion passes. Go on to item number four, approval of the August 13th, 2025 city council minutes pages 13 through 25. >> Jenny, did you have something? >> Yep. So, I also submitted this one by email. So, I'm going to go back and look at those because I know one of the changes I had on this was um that Michael Kern was not noted as being in attendance, but um did present. So, I think that was one of the changes I had. I'll look through though and kind of try to find my others. Scott, you have anything? >> Not on this one. >> I have a lot. So, I have a lot. >> Okay. >> Um, so starts on page what's easiest for you, 14 or two of 13? >> Uh, line number is easiest for me. >> Okay. So, I'm on page two of 13, line 54. Um, the cannabis ad sales tax because it's the sales tax that increased. Um, on page three of 13, >> do that one again. I'm sorry. >> Oh, add sales after cannabis in in between tax. >> Okay. >> Um, on line three of 13, I'm sorry, page three of 13, line 91, there should be a a either a semicolon or a a comma after pumping demand or it gets to be a pretty confusing sentence. Um, on page four of 13, um, line 150, add previously. So, the c the Columbus City Council previously approved the tennis court resurfacing is how it would read. Um, on page five of 13, line 176, um, brought, it's just missing the T, so Mayor Hanigraph brought up that offense, so it's just a typo. on page 182. Um, not page 182, line 182. Um, addressed address should be addressed as in past tense. On page, uh gosh, line 183, um, adding that the net into the recommendations as if, as it should be added before wood, as it would add to the cost, and they wanted to avoid that. Period. And then in line 184 it would start with they stated that they would not want to delay the project over color. Line 186, um I would add funding in front of the gap or in between the gap and on line 187 um it says uh reimbured by either the sale of city-owned property um and I would put in parenthesis um i.e. Hidden Park so that they know what city-owned property we were referring to. on page six of 13. Um there's some this this part got a little messed up. So this is complicated, but it's important because it was written incorrectly. So on line 209, the first of the amendments is the hidden park comprehensive plan amendment and and then and then I would change reszoning application to zoning amendment sorry zoning ordinance amendment 25-03 and let me know when you're ready to move on because I know this is a lot. Go ahead. >> Okay. Which proposes red re redesating a small city park to the rural residential to allow for um the sale of property. Then add this sentence. This ordinance amendment 25-03 is contingent on Metropolitan Council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for the hidden park property, which is pretty much the same sentence you have down below, but that is that sentence is wrong. So you can just pretty much copy what you have below up there because that's the right ordinance amendment for the hidden park 253. Then moving down to 221 then we're talking about the ordinance 20 um uh 254 not 03. So in line 221, the second of the amendment discussed was the change of land use designation of a 5.3 acre city-owned parcel in the freeway district from general commercial to mixeduse um high density to accommodate potential residential development and associate um residential development period. In line 222, amendment 25- It's not 03, it's 04 um is contingent on Metropolitan Council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for the And it's not hidden park property. It's a city-owned property. >> Got it. That's it. >> I'll I'll look at the video for that. >> I'll give you this. I I will give you this. I mean, it's just there were two different there were two different ordinances that were approved. Um, and 24 or sorry, 253 was for the hidden park and 254 was for the um city-owned land. And that got just got mixed up in this. That's all. And I just was trying to use consistent language of both of them so that it made sense. So now I'm on to um page 7 to 13, line 245, review was spelled wrong. R E V I E W, not R. Um on line uh 251, actually I just want to ask a question before I get into all of these. This was a this was a lot of discussion. I don't know if we want all this discussion in this. I don't care if we do or we don't, but if we do, I want it to be right. So, I'm just going to ask my other council members, how much of this do you want in your minutes? >> And I think that was probably your challenge, too, is what what do you want me to cut? >> What and how much and where. Yeah. >> I mean, if you want it all in there, then I'll go through and make because I went back and listened to the video and compared so that I if you wanted to leave it in there, it would be right. Can this is Jenny. Can we table this set of minutes so we can review and and potentially come back to the next meeting with that because if we're going to talk about what we're going to cut that I think that's a a bigger discussion because that will have to go through paragraph by paragraph. >> I it doesn't matter to me. I mean I I >> and I'm happy to do that but I also just like I'm a bit methodical in the way that I at least like to go through and and have a little bit of time to potentially reflect what that would look like. >> I don't know if there was anything that you need to have these approved for. Um, that was the the original rush was to get those to the Met Council, but now that we have resolutions, we don't have them. >> The original rush is now gone. >> Okay. Well, what I mean, what I can do, too, is I can give you a copy of this and if that makes it easier for everybody to to look at it and decide whether or not these, you know, these edits are okay or you want to cut it out. But it gets to be kind of messy in that area just because there was a lot of discussion and I just don't know how much we really want to add to it. >> This is Jenny. I know that I had some edits that I don't know that are at least in this copy and they probably were edited and corrected, but I would have to go back to my laptop and and do my checking on that. So I know that I at least want to confirm some of that as well. So I would request table. So then I would I would move to table the approval of um the August 13, 2025 city council minutes to our next meeting >> and then are we going to submit your edits? >> I will >> and then redistribute. >> I I I I'm certainly happy to send them to you and you can do revision marks and then you guys can look at them and see what you >> and redistribute. >> Yeah. And then >> and maybe Jenny you can do the same thing if they aren't reflected. >> Perfectly good. >> So we have a motion on the floor. >> I'll this is Scott. I'll second. >> Motion's been seconded. Any other discussion, questions on this? >> Tell if Rob had his hand up or not. >> All right. Having no discussion or no questions, we'll call for a vote to table this until when? >> The next council meeting. >> Next council meeting. Uh Jenny was >> Jenny I. >> Scott I >> Janet I >> Rob I. So we're done with the consent agenda. We'll go to item number E. Announcements and reminders. City Hall will be closed on Monday, September 1st, 2025 and observance for the Labor Day holidays. City Council work meeting September 2nd, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting September 3rd, 2025 at 6 p.m. City Council meeting September 10th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. And Pomptoacic Street Reconstruction Project September 25th, 2025, 5 to 7 p.m. And I gather that be in the community, >> correct? >> In a community center. Uh, one other point here to uh, Rob, we don't know yet, but the fire board meeting is cancelled for Thursday. That's what we think anyway. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> you'll let us know if it's back. I >> I'll double check on that tomorrow, but Al told me yesterday that Forest Lake hadn't discussed their part of it, so there wasn't any point having the meeting >> unless we had some issues with our side. So I will double check to be sure. >> Thank you. >> Anything else on hearing? Nothing. Anyone want to call for an adjournment? >> Miss Jenny, I make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second it. Ron. Any other discussion? No questions. Take a vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> I. Meeting is closed at 7 15. [Music]