All [Music] right. With it being right at 7 o'clock, call the meeting to order. Join, can you take roll call? Council members Ericson present. Larson here. Miller here. Council member Valento is absent and Mayor Roberts here. If you're able, please stand for the pledge. I allegiance 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. Right. I am looking for a motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. There's a second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Got our agenda item number five, awards, recognitions, and presentations. Uh just want to mention first uh before we get to the the first item there is, uh council member Valento had a a baby boy back on June 2nd. So on behalf of the council and city, uh congratulate her and Luke on that. And so she will be uh absent from a couple meetings here this month, but uh going to be keeping track of her emails and watching meetings. So if you still have a reason to reach out to her, she's more than willing to take those. Next item, uh some of you may be aware that uh Pat Silvich uh the commander of the American Legion had passed away last week. So uh tonight the Force Lake City Council pauses to recognize and honor the life of legacy of Pat Silvich, commander of the Force Lake American Legion. Pat was a respected veteran who served as an Air Force traffic control officer. He was a dedicated community leader and steadfast supporter for all those who served in our for our country. In his role as commander of the American Legion 225, Pat led with a quiet strength, deep compassion, and unwavering commitment to honoring and supporting veterans and their families. As as commander, Pat brought honor to the American Legion at Forest Lake through his unwavering commitment to veterans and their families and the core values of freedom, patriotism, and unity. His leadership, compassion, integrity made a lasting impact not just within the Legion, but across our city. Pat's impact reached far beyond the walls of the Legion. He was a constant presence at local events, parades, and ceremonies, always showing up for Forest Lake, always standing for those who served. He served our youth by always stepping up to volunteer for coach coaching football, basketball, and baseball. The city council extends his heartfelt condolences to Pat's family, his fellow legionnaires, and all who honored who had the honor of knowing him. His contributions to our community will not be forgotten. And we are forever grateful for his life of service. We honor Pat Sullivich with deep respect, lasting gratitude, and I, Blake Roberts, as mayor of Force Lake, hereby declare Friday, June 13, 2025, Commander Pat Silovich day in the city of Forest Lake. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. All right. Next item, open forum. This gives anyone opportunity to come speak uh on any city issue. Please state your name and your address and limit it to three minutes or so. Susan Young. Hi, my name is Susan Young, 9950 199th Street North in Forest Lake. Um, I'd like to address the um the parking issue on Northshore Trail. Um, those of you, several of you are long-standing community members know that parking and noise and stuff at that property as far back as Willowbrook, um, have been issues forever and ever and ever. Amen. Um, the the planning commission saw several iterations for different businesses of that property. Um, and yes, the the property, as stated in your packet, um, has not been completely in accordance with every portion of our of our zoning code and our plan. However, the planning commission worked very hard with the owners to let them know this is what is available on the property through the various owners. this is the parking that is available and were assured at the last iteration that they understood the parking and that they were going to have boat access and snowmobile access that was going to be a a significant part of their business plan. Um the I have several issues with the city providing parking um partially funding. Those include one, um, as a parent, I try not to reward behavior that that was out outside my rules. And when a business is rewarded for having done something that was outside the rules and comes in on the very last day before consequences, um, that concerns me. I have serious concerns about and I brought them to this council a year ago about how does the council choose which businesses they will provide a monetary benefit to whether it's a sale at lower than market rates of property or if it is helping to pave an area on Northshore. Um how does the city decide who we help with dollars taxpayer dollars and who we don't? Um, if that is going to be the policy of the council, I really would like for you all to consider a rubric. How are we going to do that? Finally, that parking plan on that stretch of Northshore Trail, in my experience, is going to be a recipe for disaster. After a long hard day, if I go someplace for an evening, I may not be at 110% when I back onto a busy street. The city is wonderfully going to be paving Northshore Trail. That will increase speeds. Unfortunately, we won't have to slow down for the for the for the potholes. Um that parking is is going to be a huge issue from a safety perspective. And those of you will remember that we used to have trouble with people parking on the other side of the street in the um homeowners yards. If we have designated parking on one side of the street, it's going to encourage more folks to park in those because they say, "Well, it's on that side of the street. We can certainly go on this side of the street." Um, for many reasons, I need to be respectful of time. Um, this is not a good idea. I am strongly not in favor of this. Um, I'm hoping that she will reconsider the staff recommendation. um you buy a business, you don't say, "How can I ask the city to fix my business plan?" Uh and then finally, um if the council decides that the fact that they that the planning commission said, "Yes, you may have a business here with restrictions, but they are still a non-conforming use." The planning commission has for a very long time said as you come forward with something if you are going to reduce the nonconformance of your non-conforming use we'll work with you I would have to talk to the planning commission and say this is probably not a good idea for the future knowing where the position of the council is I I don't want the planning commission to be in that sort of position in the future. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Roxanne Keller. Hello, I'm Roxan Kaylor and I live at 20277 345th Street, Taylor's Falls. Um, I have been at the Arts in the Park for the last five, six years, and I've always been in this one spot that I'm always been at. Well, since he got a new person that's running it now, he has really changed everything up and he has put me in a spot that by the gazebo that I cannot sell my jewelry that I make. I do wire wrapping of natural stones and to be able to talk to all my customers. So, he tried moving me around to different places and it's still not the right location. And the last one he had me put by this big old green box with a cement layer or whatever. And I can't put my canop canopy there and stuff to be able to work on it. I went there last Tuesday and I checked out how he set up everything. Um, in my opinion, it's not the greatest. And so I did on my application request for my same spot as I always have. And so I didn't get it because he rearranged everything. So he I've been on the conversation with him on the phone, everything. And he said that I would have to come to a council meeting to request my $200 back from my application. So that's why I'm here for that. Um so that's where it stands. Okay. Thank you. We can have some conversation after that a little bit on that. Um We could um I would encourage you not to address that issue tonight. I would just push that to the next meeting. Okay. Thanks. Uh Jackie uh K DV is this part of the So Okay. All right. Uh David Swan, we're here to uh represent the Pizza Pub and sorry I wasn't this brought into this last minute stand in for Jerry, but we are requesting some additional parking along the boulevard along the Northshore Trail to accommodate the influx of customers during the busy season. during the summer months. Um he's already made I mean a lot of folks have already parking on the boulevard because of the restricted space that's available in the lot itself. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And and we might have some questions as that comes up of the agenda. So all right. I am looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. So I'll second the motion to approve the consent agenda item 7 A through P. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Consent agenda passes. Our regular agenda item, first one, 2024 audit presentation acceptance. Uh, Jessica. Okay. Great. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for having me this evening. I'm going to be going over a summary of the results of our audit and also the 2024 operating results. Um, and I'm Jackie Nolles with Bergen KDP. The main purpose of our audit is to provide our independent auditors report. In this report, we state management's responsibility which is for the numbers within the f financial statements. And our responsibility as auditors is to express an opinion on those statements based on the results of our test work. This year we're providing an unmodified or a clean opinion. It's the best that we can offer in the same that the city has been receiving. What that does is it provides assurance that the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects the activity that occurred within 2024 and the financial position as of December 31st, 2024. Um we are also required to provide a report on Minnesota legal compliance. Um that's required by the office of the state auditor to test for compliance with certain state statutes applicable to Minnesota cities. And we did not have any findings there. Um and then finally as a result of our test work we did have one internal control finding. It is a repeat finding the lack of segregation of accounting duties due to one person having the ability to handle multiple steps in a transaction process. Uh so with that we'll move on to some of the financial results for the year and we'll start with a look at the general funds budget. Um, for 2024, the council approved a budget calling for almost 12.5 million in revenue and expenditures were authorized at an equal amount. Um, which created a balanced budget. Actual revenues came in at almost $13 million. That's a over budget variance of about $56,000. Expenditures came in at 11.94 million. Um that's a an underbudget variance of about $542,000 and total fund balance increased um just over a million dollars as a result of 2024 activity. Um here's a graph that shows total fund balance over the last five years. So you can see that increase in 2024 in the unassigned portion of fund balance. That's the piece that's available for spending on any purpose. At the end of the year, that was $7,222,000. And that is an important number um because that's the number that's addressed in the city's policy. And that number is equal to 54.7% of the 2025 budgeted expenditures. and that is in compliance with the city's policy to maintain an unassigned fund balance of 50% of the subsequent year's um total budgeted expenditures in the general fund. When we look at revenues for the past five years, we do see some variances and that is primarily due to the amount of intergovernmental revenues coming into the general fund which have varied due to the timing of federal pandemic related funding. In 2024, total revenues increased almost 10% or about 1.1 million over the 2023 amount due to an increase in tax revenues with an increase in the amount levied in the general fund. Intergovernmental revenues were also up about $200,000 with an increase in police training reimbursement grants and then also the local government aid entitlement received by the city. Uh when we look at the allocation of revenues over the last couple of years in these pie charts um just illustrates that as total revenues have increased it has been spread evenly across the various sources. And here we have some more detail on that budget to actual results. And as I mentioned earlier, total revenues were overbudget, about half a million dollars in total. About $200,000 of that variance was in the other category due to conservative budgeting for interest earnings and the change in fair market value of the city's investments. Another $200,000 was in intergovernmental due to conservative budgeting for the police training aid and then the fire relief pension aid which flows through to the relief association. And then finally across licenses and permits and charges for services together those came in over budget about $166,000 primarily due to conservative budgeting for building permits and plan check fees. Moving on to expenditures. In total, expenditures increased about $43,000 from 2023 to 2024. And the majority of that increase was in public safety, which is the largest general fund program. That increased about $329,000 or about 4.7%. Um, and that was due to a number of different things. Um first of all for the police department cost of living in step increases as well as a severance payout. Um fire wages also increased and the state fire pension aid amount that flows through to the relief association increased and then also building inspection consulting services were up. Um, general government expenditures were up almost a quarter of a about a quarter of a million dollars due to an increase in professional services including personnel search and computer support services. And then partially offsetting those increases, we see a decrease in capital outlay. Um, that was $0 in 2024. All of the capital purchases were paid for out of different funds, including the capital equipment fund and the main capital improvement fund. Um here we have some pie charts for expenditures as well. Also illustrating very consistent um spending allocations among the various programs or functions of the city over the last couple of years. And then budget to actual results for expenditures. Um again, expenditures under budget about $542,000 or about 4.3% in total. Um some of the programs with larger variances, public works under budget about $240,000 primarily due to less snowfall than anticipated. Um economic development under budget across wages, legal fees, and other professional services. General government was under budget primarily due to staffing changes resulting in lower salaries and benefits than anticipated. And then one program that was overbudget, public safety overbudget about $120,000 primarily due to building inspection consulting services coming in over budget. And we saw that on the revenue side too with the the building permits and the plan check fees revenues coming in more than budget two. And with that, we'll move on to the water fund. Operating revenues did decrease in 2024 about 5% due to less irrigation during the summer months. And that is in line with what we're seeing at other cities this year. Operating expenses were up about $87,000 across wages and depreciation expense taken on capital assets. This fund did report operating income of about $741,000 in 2024. And in the sewer fund, operating revenues were up about $219,000 with increases in rates and usage. operating expenses were up a similar amount um across wages, repairs and maintenance, depreciation expense, and sewage disposal fees. So, kind of across the board. Operating income in this fund totaled about $655,000 in 2024. And my last graph takes a look at the city's tax capacity levy in rates over the last five years. Um, so the city's total tax capacity has increased each of the last five years with larger increases in 2023 and 2024 as market values have increased. The city's tax levy has increased at a very consistent rate. So we do see some variances in the tax capacity rate over the last five years because of the uneven increases in the total tax capacity and I'm happy to take any questions at this time. Council, any questions? Mr. If I could just have a couple of comments and maybe Jackie could fill us in on a few of these things or or just expand on them a little bit. One of them um there was I think in the revenue um portion you were looking at the increase in revenue and you mentioned the value of our investments. I think that's always a tricky one to understand the marktomarket um aspect of this. I don't know if that changed a few years back. I can't remember if it's always been something that has been shown on audits, but um I I don't I know it's proper accounting. They're doing their job correctly. I don't like it because it it shows something that's not a won't be in 99.9% of the cases won't ever be a realized revenue or a realized loss in some years. So this is where we have to show the actual value of the stocks we own, the mutual funds that we're invested in, even though we would never cash never the strong term, but very very rarely would we cash those out and actually take that gain or loss because that's not what we're investing for. We're investing for a longer term, right? And so the audit needs to show that as a revenue, but it's not a what I would call a probably not using a proper term a realized revenue, right? It's not actually money quote unquote in the bank. Does that make sense? Am I characterizing that properly? Yeah. So government entities are required to record investments at their fair market value. So there may be an unrealized gain as we saw in 2024. Some years we see an unrealized loss. Um, even though it is the city's intention to hold those to maturity. Does that make sense? You buy a million dollar CD, call it, you intend to hold that through the life of it and then cash it out when you're done. It'll be a zero some gain except for the interest you made. And we're properly reporting the interest. We're always doing everything properly here, but um the interest makes sense to see that coming in as revenue, right? But the gain in the los value. I try to try to ignore that. Do do you know what that number off the top of your head was? I don't off the top of my head. Um so then um another thing to note was that you know there was an increase we were quote unquote over budget on building inspections. Of course there was an offset as Jackie mentioned uh in revenue. So again, we always one thing government audits are a little tricky to see sometimes is that we separately report revenues from expenditures. We don't always look at the net right on top of each other. So you have to kind of match those two up and see. So there's a reason we were over budget and that's because we had more revenue. We just have more work in front of us, right? So um obviously that expenditure might look a little different if we were fully staffed in that department. you wouldn't necessarily staff up. Might have some overtime and that kind of stuff, but it wouldn't be quite as extreme as we saw this last go around here. Um the the water fund, if you could go there, Jackie, um I think it's always interesting to see, you know, um as she mentioned it, we didn't sell as much water last year because people didn't use as much water because it was a not as dry a year as it was before. And um I always want to point out to people that um you notice that the operating expenses didn't really um go down even though we use a lot less water. And that's because the cost of a gallon of water by itself, the intrinsic cost of it is very very little compared to what we sell for sell it for. But that's because the majority of our cost are Dave's folks, right? Running around checking hydrants, flushing hydrants, the water system up and running, maning the water plants and all that kind of stuff. And that work does not really increase or decrease based on how much water we sell. We pump a million gallons, 10 million gallons, it's roughly the same amount of work to run that system. So even though we sell more or less, the work doesn't go up or down. So I know that sometimes people look at that operating income in those years, we're we're over budgeting here. We should overcharging. We should really dial that down. I assure you that this is reasonable because you win some and you lose some in in the in the overall scheme of things. You look at a 10 or 20 year trend line and say how are we doing? Um and the other thing I wanted to point out about the water and then we can cross over to sewer as well is that that operating income is a bit of a misnomer because we don't have capital funds in the water and sewer like we do in the general fund that hide those um ups and downs of expenditures on infrastructure and so we have to have an income to build our fund balance so that we can afford those larger projects. Um in the general fund we we don't want to as often you know see that fund balance grow as as much as we do here because we have a capital fund designated for those big expenditures. So we're not like saving up for something in the general fund as often as we are here in the water and sewer funds. Those are my commentary. Anything come out of that for you? Nope. No, nothing to add. Thanks for pointing those those items out, Mark. Any other questions? Just a follow-up question, Mark, on the water and inter and sewer funds. Those operating incomes, are they in alignment with what we budgeted then as we look to continue to invest in infrastructure? Yeah, I I I again it's, you know, could you really say we're, you know, plus or minus 50,000 on where we should be? It's a little tougher to say because it is more of a long game. But yes, that I think those those are healthy operating incomes that can um are in line with our capital fund. Okay. Our capital plan, I should say. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. interested in making a a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the 2024 audit presentation as presented. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Great. Thanks for your work and also Jessica and Kim, thank you for your work on as well. 8B consultant uh consulting contract classification and comprehension comprehensive study. Mark, Mr. Mayor and Council, um I think folks are aware that we've been talking about for quite some time um completing a classification compensation study for our staff. Um it's been about a decade or so. It's about the right interval where we want to kind of recheck ourselves towards the market um in regard to our our wages and our how we classify our employees. So um In general, what most governmental agencies do is they sort of score each job. Um, give it a point value based on the sort of responsibilities of the job, the education and experience required for it. Um, the technical nature of the job, the sort of the difficulties of that. Um, and then weight all those jobs in terms of um their score against each other and then against the market. And one of the reasons we do this because of the pay equity act here in Minnesota which requires us to report in on that and make sure that we're paying um jobs which are heavily u trending towards one gender or another to making sure that those are paid equitably across those genders. Um the u the scoring of these jobs helps us kind of level that playing field and make sure that we're when we forced to compare apples to oranges, we can compare, you know, on a different level. We're comparing fruit by the end of this thing, right? So, um it can be difficult comparing those items because they're they're not necessarily alike in exactly what they do. So, this is again just our chance to recapture our u classifications of our jobs and the compensation afforded to those and and check those against the market and make sure that we're within where we want to be with the market. So the end result of this will be um some recommendations and I want to stress that those are just that they're recommendations. Um there's nothing sort of binding about this. You don't have to follow any of the recommendations. I would certainly hope we take a look at them and make our own decisions. But um what we're going to be doing is taking those and then sort of looking at okay let's say we're we the overall we're 5% lower than the market. We'll have a a question before us is do we want to be in the middle of the market? We want to be some cities might choose to be at the 60th percentile of the market. Some people might choose to be at the 40th percentile. We're we choose a range. We want to be within this and that. Um, so this is up to you. Uh, the the report will give us that range and that feeling of where we're at and then we'll make those decisions going forward in terms of how to implement this. There'll be a a phased approach to this as well since our contracts aren't all up at the same time. We have some union contracts will be up at the end of 2025 and we'll want to make sure that we um have this information in front of us as we negotiate those contracts and some council direction based on that. Um the other contracts we may um you know choose to wait until those are expiring and then work this into the negotiation for the next contract. So, um there'll be an ability to phase it in so that if there is a major movement in one direction or another, we have an opportunity to phase that in that doesn't come as a shock to our budget or a shock to our employees. Um beyond that, I just want to thank a newly formed um labor management committee that we formed with a cross-section of the folks employed here um from the various unions and non-UN positions and we got together and we tasked that committee with reviewing um six proposals uh out of the 13 that we received and uh they came up with some scoring of those proposals, gave that recommendation to myself and Jolene and we conferred and checked some references, called the project managers, did our due diligence and came up with the recommendation for hire McGrath. So, any questions on that? I'd be happy to answer. Quick question. The pay equity act, how often does that act require us to do this sort of work? We're um required to report in every three years. Um this particular type of report isn't quote unquote required. Um most cities, I will say, use a third at some point. I would say it's customary. It's not 10 years isn't a rule. I don't believe anywhere. It's I would just say it's customary about every 10 years. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. I I think as as the job market is gets more and more competitive, it's it's just good to have this and um it's money well spent so that we could be fair with our with our, you know, employees and and know where we stand with everyone else. So with that, is anyone willing to make a motion? Make a motion to authorize execution of a a contract for the classification and compensation study with McGrath Human Resources Group. cost not to exceed $20,000. Right. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. 8C uh 8241 Northshore Trail On Street Parking. Abby, thank you. Um, in 2007, the city of Forest Lake granted a conditional use permit and variance request for the um, expansion of existing non-conforming structure at 8241 Northshore Trail. Um even though at the time the city council determined that this would bring the property into a more conforming status, I think arguably um since the reconstruction of that site, there's been problems related to um the neighborhood and parking in the area. I wasn't here, so I don't know that exactly, but I've heard that from many different people. In late 2003, Pizza Pub began operations utilizing that cur that historic conditional use permit. And um not immediately, but fairly soon after we started receiving complaints about the on street parking parking in the boulevard. When we did receive these and they came in through the zoning our kind of planning zoning offices, according to the use permit and their variance approvals and the code, there's no zoning code violations. In essence, we had the general public parking along a shoulder. Um, so there was kind of little we could do. We did post no parking signs. We said, "Hey, please don't do that." But we also were in the middle last year of um I guess through 24 of spinning up a new code enforcement program. So again when complaints started coming in in 2025 kind of came to the same conclusion that there really wasn't code violations related to the use of the property. Um however, this spring the landowner did um change the status of the boulevard by laying down some aggregate material that did trigger a number of city code violations. Um it did trigger the zoning code violations, but also storm water parking, some of those things. So, we did provide notice to the landowner that there were violations of the code. And even though it was on the deadline date, um the landowner did reach out to us to start discussing compliance. After the meeting internally, staff started to talk about what are some options through here that could be a potential consideration of the city to help reduce some of the public nuisance, public safety concerns in the area. Included in your packet um were two designs that were pro uh developed by the city engineering department. I can pull them up. I don't I only have the the JPEG images that are in your staff report. So I'll kind of zoom in on them. But the first scenario kind of officially potentially or is the current configuration of how people are kind of parking out on Northshore right now be 12 parking spaces at a cost of $31,000 that um would essentially be able to mimic what's there but potentially on an improved parking service. The other alternative that we uh just explored is whether or not we could get off streetet on street, excuse me, um parallel parking in this area. And our engineering department was able to determine that we can get those spaces in and that would be at a tune of $20,000. I'll come back to these. I just want to use staff report for reference. Um, so with this scenario, we've discussed the alternatives, reached out to the landowner, asked them of their interest in rectifying the code violations, public safety concerns. Um the land owner did indicate they're interested in working with the city if the city is favorable to putting in um improved parking adjacent to their property and uh has asked if the city is favorable to this. The city would consider a 50/50 cost share. Um he further asked for the ability to assess his portion onto his taxes over a time period. So, there's really a few things the council kind of needs to consider in a request of this nature. Um, the first is whether or not the city council is interested in doing a change order request to the Northshore Trail roadway parking project or roadway project. Um, we this would be the opportunity an opportunity if we wanted to pave parking along Northshore Trail in this location. Um, now would could be a very reasonable time to put that in given the fact that the Northshore Trail project is occurring. Um, if you're willing to entertain that change order request to add in on street parking, you should discuss the landowner's request to pay for half those costs. So I do note in my staff report while argument could be made that the on street parking would be of a benefit to the private land owner staff could argue that we have had public nuisance problems here for a long time now for the short few short history the public's been parking in this area and likely we're just spitting those parking problems elsewhere if we didn't consider Um then if the council is favorable to an amendment to the Northshore Trail project, doesn't matter at least at the moment of who will be paying for it, but the uh preferred design of the on street parking. I noticed a note in my staff report, the current angled parking presents a significant public safety concern. vehicles backing out onto Northshore as well as vehicles having to kind of edge out in around them on the driveways is very concerning. Um though uh we don't have um records to indicate if there have been vehicular incidences. It doesn't sound like there have been. I did request a report with PD and didn't get it in time before the meeting. Um it sounds like there's a lot of near misses. Um the other thing is if that angled parking is installed in order to get those vehicles off the fog line, that parking would have to be almost right up to the existing curb line of the parking lot. So kind of straddling over the p private property and that really presents a drainage issue through there because we wouldn't be accommodate for the drainage for this new parking um in that kind of buffer area. Um, if we looked at the parallel parking, um, the vehicles could be well off the fog line, thereby helping increase kind of some of those sight lines coming out of the driveways. Uh, it could also accommodate for drainage in the area. And then lastly, if you're favorable to a change order and if you can determine if there's a design, we do need to discuss ongoing maintenance obligations for the on- street parking in this area. It would become public parking. Um, but staff has would really encourage the council to consider an agreement with the private land owner for their at least wintertime maintenance. Our plow trucks have to go through there. They're going to get the lane of travel, but they're not going to get that parking area. And so, they would have to turn around somewhere. Ideally, we don't want these our vehicle our infrastructure turning around in a private parking lot, but it's just going to delay the snow removal services on on Northshore. So, generally speaking, staff's favorable to the city's consideration of this. Um, it's not common for the city to consider adding on street parking for private benefit, but there would be public benefits for the installation of this on street parking in this area if it was privately maintained parallel parking. So, my recommendation is to discuss this. Um, if you're favorable, and that's an if, then there is a motion in there to authorize staff to do the things necessary for the council to formally approve the on street parking in this area. Much of this would have to be back brought back before you, agreements, change orders, those sorts of things. Um, but my first and foremost recommendation is discuss this matter. Let's see where where you're thinking about it. Uh, and you already saw on your open forum uh, signup list, uh, David Swan is here and he's accompanied by Aaron Raar. Uh, they're both from Pizza Pub if you have questions of them or if you have questions of me. So, great. Thank you, council. Any questions uh, at this point? Well, I guess several. um if we don't move forward with change order request and what's the intention to bring it back to turf? Yeah, the land owner would need to restore it back to turf. So what would the probability be that the time as soon as that facad's firmed up that won't be parking on it again? That is I mean that is the risk that we do end up running is that the issue would just be reoccurring and happen again. Um it really does come down to a parking enforcement matter uh through here. And so if the council would not be favorable to improving this for parking um then I think we need some good clear direction about the enforcement of parking through this area. It was posted no parking before. So yeah, what's with the the the parallel parking design? What's to stop people from angle parking anyway? Would there be curbing gutters so that it would be kind of pretty hard to angle park in there? There would not be curb and gutter in the area. Um, it would be probably striped and signed. Um, they also would have to visibly park off of asphalt over that kind of asphalted line. Mark, is there any, if we were to go forward with this, is there any wershed district things we need to be thinking about? We believe we can stay underneath the threshold for wershed issues. Okay. I would just echo the um the idea that if it's restored to turf whe whether it's restored to turf or it's made parallel um we need to clarify u it's not already clear that parking is not allowed if it's turf parking is not allowed in a diagonal direction if it's parallel right and just we need to begin enforcement of that you know I don't think we can it's not a great scenario I think as you're alluding to that to go back to turf and continue to allow this lazy fair not sure if there's a code violation or not you know should we enforce I think we just need to be clear that says no parking we're not going to allow parking Abby what's the concern future for future land owners our concern on our part for future land owners if the landowner is willing to take on the cleaning of the snow how do we convey that then into the covenants or whatever So that the next land owner knows it's it's on them to clean that out. We would record that against the property, you know, so then future property owners, heirs, successors, signs, all that would be responsible for that. Can't always be guaranteed that people, you know, have a full title search and but that would be conveyed the minute we find that it's not being maintained. question concerned with public utilities and all that other stuff that lies underneath there as far as parking on that maintenance and things like that concern. Is there is there public utilities that underneath that area that we're aware of? their utilities going across the parking lot through gas and power. Okay. So, um would you like to add anything to this? Uh Dave or Aaron? speaking for able. Ma'am, excuse me. Could you step up to the podium just so that we can get a clear record of what you're saying? Thank you so much. No, I was just saying when it comes to um the removal of like the snow and stuff like that um We as the company, the land owner will take um like do that for you guys in recognition of that. Okay. And you're in diff you're willing to do either the I mean you're I assume your first request would be the par or the diagonal or the diagonal and then well diagonal but if we can come down to the parallel a little bit parallel too. Okay. Y council member Miller Erin I have a question for you if you don't mind. Um, can you tell me where do all the employees park currently? Um, in that area where the asphalt was put or the where the turf used to be. That's where employees park. But um or like in the um parking lot they'll park too. So how many employees do you have at any given time? Um during the weekdays we have um during the day anywhere from like 3 to 4. um nighttime is like six to 10 and then when you get to the weekends I mean we have up to like 20 to 30 employees. So that would potentially be 20 to 30 spots that are being taken by your employees. Yes, correct. Is there any place else your employees can park besides in your parking lot? No, we haven't um decided on anything like that or anything. Um, what made you decide to pave or I'm sorry to put down the class 5 rock in that area currently that doesn't allow for that? I can't answer that one. Was that your decision? It was not my decision. Was that It was a landowner's decision. Okay. So, the person who owns the land and the building that you lease from. Okay. First of all, I'd like to say two other things. Uh, I do really enjoy Pizza Pub and Pizza Prime over in Blaine. They're all really good. And the one in Forest Lake, so and I I think you own a number of them. So, but it definitely is a real issue there for parking. You know, the previous owner uh Aqua when they owned it, they used to have a shuttle service and they would have people park over at the boat launch uh in the parking lot over there and they would shuttle people back and forth. Have you considered something like that to alleviate some of your parking problems? Um, we have not. No. having some sort of a maybe a valet service. I mean, it's been talked about, but we haven't like put it into effect or anything like that. During the week, do you find you have major issues with the parking or mainly weekends? Mainly like Thursday through Sunday. Have you considered talking to any of the homeowners across the street or around the corner from there to see if you could pick up a piece of land from them or or some some area from them that you could have maybe additional parking? I have not. Would you consider that? I would. Okay. So, I think first couple questions here. Well, actually, I have a question. Complaints continue. Were they right when it first opened there was more? When I drive by there initially, there just seemed like there was just a lot more of an issue. When I drive by there, even during a weekend, doesn't seem like there's a lot of parking on the street. So, has that complaint been about the same or I'd say the um the complaints are generated from a frequent few and those complaints are coming up just consistently when there may be issues. They've subsided in the last month or so since they knew that we were kind of working through these conversations about exploring alternative options. Um I think there's been a number of residents that have stopped because they don't necessarily think their complaints are, you know, isn't changing the circumstance in any way. Okay. So, we have a couple things here. First, I guess the first question is, are we interested in doing the change order at all? That would be our first question. Um and if there's a consensus at all or thoughts I am uh just from the standpoint that I mean it's a thriving local business that we want to I think as a city support anyway we can within reason um you know short of you know police patrol being out there on the regular I suspect that should we not do something to motivate people to move in a right safer direction we'll end up back right back here where we've been. Um so my um my interest is in exploring that change order change order and in the favor of the parallel parking. Mr. Mayor, council members, um I'm not interested in exploring that option. Personally, um I think we would be adding to a existing problem that's not ever going to get better unless they do something completely different. And that's why I mentioned maybe there's an option with talking to some of the land owners are there. I if the city was going to contribute to a business, I don't know if that's the right path to go down either in terms of funding some of their their challenges. They knew what the challenges were when they when they got in there, but I would rather see the city spend money to help them build a safer strip of parking maybe somewhere else across the road or something or down anywhere else other than right there. think Northshore is such a terribly unsafe road to begin with in my opinion and just even when I saw those horizontal backing parking spots um I was like there's going to be an accident out here now I don't know if there has been but I would swear there's going to be because you when you're backing out especially with cars on each side of you can't see either way and it it's just a terrible nightmare now the parallel parking I could see where that would be okay but it's only six spots I don't think that's helping with the problem. I think there's a lot of things they can do. They mentioned they have employees that park there. Employees could park somewhere else. They could work out something with their employees to park somewhere else. Maybe they go p park over in the DNR lot. Or maybe we work out something and and park elsewhere. That could free up 10 10 spots a night, six spots a night, especially on the weekends, 20 spots potentially. I know it's hard because you got to have your employees. So, I'm not trying to say to be mean. Um, but I think it's a real personally I think it's a real safety issue there. Um, and I don't I don't think we should um, Miss Young said it earlier, I don't think we should reward bad behavior on planning when we were on planning. I mean, this has been an issue for a long time and and we never allowed it in the past. We tried to always stay away from it, but that's just my thought. So, so you're opposed regard um cost share or not? You're opposed regardless. Um and design regardless. I don't like the design, but I don't think it should be a cost share thing either. Personally, if I could, Council Member Miller, um if if it was parallel parking and no city cost share, would that be something you would be amenable to? Again, it isn't necessarily the the cost share. I think there there are times when we should cost share. It is more of a safety thing for me. I don't think six extra spots is going to get them anything other than what we have now. Still a problem with parking on the street in my opinion. I'd have to agree with Council Member Miller on that. Um, and I don't I think there's plenty of parking there at the time. And if they would utilize the parking within the lot also beforehand. Um, I just don't think it's a good idea to have cars parked out there on the rightway. I'm a strong believer in that as well. I mean, have we had like the engineers or anyone look at I mean, is there any way that parking lot can be redesigned? There's just not space. I looked at that 12 ways to Sunday. It just It's maximized. It's maxed out there. Um I I think we even I think there's even a variance to the parking lot setback, Abby. Is that correct? Already to allow for the parking lot to be as big as it is. Yes. That we allowed the parking lot to be closer to the rightway to be able to accommodate kind of the two lanes on the two traffic adjacent to the roadway. Pull up. while she's doing that. Just a couple of comments. I appreciate the two council members opposition. Um I do understand your position. I I think while the six spots certainly won't solve the problem, I think it's a step in the right direction. Um I do think the safety concerns are real. Um there are is no safe way to park on along the road. I do think um the parallel spots would be reasonably safe. I think diagonal is a a non-starter for me. Um I know Ryan, our our city engineer as well had some serious concerns with that and our public safety folks as well. Um you know, Chief Peterson was not favorable to that idea either. Um, so I I I think um couple of things also is that I don't know that we um want to have an arrangement where we're relying on the DNR lot as a a backup either. I think that's um something we haven't discussed with them and um not sure if that's that's technically probably not a probably not allowed. Yeah. Uh DNR has the purpose for that lot. and it's not for pizza parking. Um I I do think certainly you make valid points uh council Miller about the um need for the landowner to look elsewhere to solve their problem and and get creative with you know shuttle solutions or whatever like that. I think we should I think the two things can be mutually exclusive. I think the city could um construct this parking and request, you know, I think what what you're doing here is if you were to construct the six parallel spots um and you know, we can talk funding later whether you fun any of it or not. You could also then say with this we're going to become much more strict in enforcing parking rules. So, you should make sure that you get that straightened out because we're not going to we're going to be ticketing people who park along the road where it's zone no parking and we're not going to be um you know lenient about that. So, I think there's a yes and probability here. I think I think you can do this and also um not reward bad behavior so to speak. Um that you can get get a little stricter with parking to make sure that the parking that's done is done as safely as possible. One of the things that Ryan and I looked at with the parallel spots is that normally a parallel parking spot is 8t wide. Usually you end up with a two foot gutter pan as well. So you have a 10 foot from fog line to curb. Um in this case we're not going to have curb necessarily. Uh but what we'd like to do is make that a little bit wider than the 8 foot minimum. Say uh more like 12 feet so that you have a bit of a an area there to maneuver. It won't be you you'll still need to someone coming eastbound will still have to or southbound, however you want to think of it, would still need to maneuver around someone parking, but would have a little bit of wiggle room. Um so there is some of that buffer between fog line and the person actually parking. Um there is enough room there um to accommodate that so that we're not right up on the fog line with the parked cars so that when you swing your door out you're not into the fog line, right? If that makes any sense. So again, appreciate both of your opinions and not trying to be argumentative about it in any way, shape or form, but I think I see an opportunity to to make the situation better and be in a very strong position to draw a line in the sand and say this is it. can't tolerate illegal parking. Abby, could you go back to that greater view of the area? So, is there street parking allowed on Inman and 224? That's what I was going to ask. It's not posted or anything, is it? Inman. Yeah. On Inman, it's no parking and it's quite a ways up on 224. There's no parking. So, it's quite quite a distance to walk to the pub. I was thinking the pizza pub needs to get a really cool golf cart to go pick up there. So that's not it's not posted no parking. It's posted no parking. Yeah. I would assume that is over avoid the overflow from the the r the launch. Yeah. And it's my understanding that the previous like the Aqua group they did pursue uh private property for parking and they they found nothing in the area. I I think they were using some up off of 224th that which is now developed. There was an open field there that that that area is developed and so they were using my understanding they were using that. So um I you know so my thought on this is is pretty similar to Mark's. I think you know we've got kind of a bad situation here. We've got a major road project coming through there. It's the opportunity for the city to fix this and make it better than it is. It's not going to be perfect. I would also advocate for them to to continue to look for some of those off-site parking situations, especially on busy weekends, holiday weekends. Um, I I think doing the parallel is a much safer. Um, and so I I'm I'm I'm in favor of that. The the cost share part I'm I'm indifferent at this point. I I don't know. Is that a decision you need tonight? Preferably. I mean, I think it's going to help inform the decision of the owner. Yeah. You know, How many parking spaces do you have in your lot, sir? 66. 66. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Um, Mr. Mayor, council members, um, and Mark, um, do we on the north side of the road, how how much is city easement or city uh, owned property there? Yeah, as you can see on the image that's on the screen, the black line would be the the right of way line. Um, so yeah, the one Aby's pointing to there. Yep. Um, So, I don't know if you're going down the direction of could we put any more parallel parking on that side or or um No, I was thinking could we move the road a little bit? Sure. Could what if if we're redoing the road and and now I'm starting to think, you know, can we adjust the road slightly? Uh obviously, if these people are being, you know, I guess uncooperative trying to help us solve a problem, we have the right to to to do that. Maybe we move the road a little bit that way and put more of a a safe lane in there uh where those cars are going to be parked uh and give us more room. Is that option? Ryan's not here. We can move the road. No problem. Well, yeah. No, I I I I that was absolutely an option I I considered. Uh, council member, I I um there are myriad complications with that, not none the least of which is u watershed rules about whether or not we're doing a reclaim project or a reconstruction project. And the minute we start looking at something as a reconstruction, in other words, removing a road, realigning it, um we may end up triggering some rules there that will be cost prohibitive. Um I think what you're saying um I think what I was describing before how far away this parallel is going to be from the fog line is you may end up um once it's drawn up and or constructed you may feel like oh yeah look at that it is quite a ways off that fog line because remember we're going to narrow these lanes a little bit. So, we're going to have a um the road itself all along will have a 4 foot shoulder already, right? And so, if we can kind of tack an 8 foot lane on on that 4ft shoulder um and you've got that 4t of room to swing into a spot, I think it will be um a little less frightening and and unsafe as you might initially think. And you know, as you're thinking about when you parallel park in a area, you're always it's awkward, right? You're in the middle of that lane. You better make sure that you put your blinker on before you hit stop because the person behind you has to understand that you're going to try to pull in there. Um, remember the the speed limit here, I believe, is 35 miles an hour. So, even though I know a lot of people have, you know, expressed that anecdotally they see people drive a lot faster than that, it is it is the speed limit there. It's fairly low and akin to speed limits that you would normally see in a downtown area. 30 miles hour, right? So, it is similar to the downtown situation. Um, you know, the other point I would make about just there's been some comment about we want to help a a business. Um, the idea of on street parking in a business district, if we were talking about downtown or any sort of business district, we wouldn't talk about it in those terms of like, oh, we're helping a business, right? You think of it as in terms of helping the business district. This business happens to be on an island um out there by itself. And in some regard, you know, I feel like perhaps resistance to helping them is a bit punitive for them being by themselves as opposed to being part of another business district, right? And I don't mean that necessarily that we should finance this, but that we would oppose them paying for additional parking on our street. Um, feels like would we oppose that in the downtown? If a couple of businesses got together and said, "Hey, we can use some more on street parking here. We're willing to pay for that." Would we oppose that in the downtown? Probably not, right? Um, so yeah. So I So if it was like downtown, we would have nice wide 4 foot or six foot shoulders uh where people can park, you know. Uh and so I I wouldn't be opposed to that. I mean, if we were building this road and we were putting the nice wide shoulders on like we have on part of Northshore Trail up on the u you know, more of the west side where there was parking, ample parking, I think that would be fine. That way you could park on both sides of the road if if you wanted to or you could have it on one side. Um, and I I would think I think residents would like that too because they have guests come over, they could park cars in front of their house out on the out on the road, but we don't have that anywhere on this road. So, I mean, I'm I'm struggling with the fact that we'll just have it in this one spot. And that was one of the reasons why I think when we talked about redoing Northshore Trail, we talked about adding that that lane along the road, whether it be for bike travel or whether it be for parking or what have you. Um, I wouldn't be opposed to parallel like I said, but I don't think six spots gives you much. Dedicated to employee parking only or and is there an option? I mean, it is a, you know, 30 mph speed limit road, but could we put a stop sign before you get the pizza pub and a stop sign before you get to Pizza Pub from from the other direction for safety? Council member Miller, I I get in and out of my car in front of SNAP almost every morning. They'll tell you that traffic's coming by all of 30, if not more, for sure. They move over for me. You know, they I'm not the only one, right? There's usually half dozen cars there. And so people aren't oblivious, you know, even in the dark. I mean, it's not going to be pitch black out there. I just I don't I don't think that tra that road well it's well traveled. I mean how often is it you know both cars coming at the same time can't move over you know we've as Mark alluded we you know we kind of narrow the lanes and create some bigger shoulders and then we're going to have another pretty significant parking space. So I mean there'll truly be as I understand it off the road. Um, I guess personally I wouldn't have any concern of getting out of my getting out of my car and my kids work out there. I would about them getting out of the car there. You know, don't get me wrong, I love the restaurant and I'm so thankful the business is here. I'm more concerned about safety than anything. And like I said, six cars is is fine, but I so I I so when I thinking about early on when it first opened, I don't think they were using that parking. And I did recall seeing cars parked on the side of the roads on the side of the road all the time. You we don't do anything here. It goes back to to grass. We we are stringent on on parking. That's even though it's just six. That's six more cars that going to find parking somewhere else in a neighborhood that's going to be upsetting to to those neighbors. So it's it's almost like you're it's not perfect, but we're helping the situation. We've got this project coming through. It's substantially not a lot of dollars. It just makes sense to do this and do it now um and and not make it go back to where it was and we have more of a parking issue. This helps the parking issue. I understand it's just six. Again, suggest to try to find other properties around where they could do some type of a valet or or a shuttle type system on those bigger weekends, but it just seems like it's the right time and we're actually creating a better, more safe environment than what's currently there. Any other thoughts? And so with that then um I would and I don't know about the funding part. I don't know. But uh I would make a motion and move to authorize staff to do all the things necessary the city council to formally approve on on street parking adjacent to 8241 Northshore Trail. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? The motion is Could you repeat the motion, please, Mr. Mayor? As as it's recommended on the staff report. Uh, so it's to authorize staff to do all things necessary to uh formally approve on street parking adjacent to 8241 Northshore Trail. So the part on the the cost share thing maybe that's you know we we had a discussion at EDA level today about helping with parking lots and different things. Maybe that's a a question that's kicked back to the EDA to discuss if they want to be part of a cost share situation in this. But um as far as council level I think this is the right time to move forward this project. So, are you saying that if we approve the motion, the parking is going to be there, or are they coming back to us again for final approval? Who's that? Uh, the staff the cash share um an amendment to the Northshore Trail would need to a plan change would need to come back before you and any further agreements for cost share. Mr. Mayor, if I may, there's a motion on the table. We need a second before further discussion. I seconded that. You did. Okay. Sorry. We're in discussion. I thought Okay. Um, you know, I I again indifferent on the at this point on the cost share piece. Is there ability to kick that to the EDA to make that to be part of that? I would certainly think so. But I think to council member Miller's question, kind of this motion, what it does is direct staff, if I'm understanding correctly, to actually build out the change order. Yeah, we would be moving forward with building out the change order plans that would come back before us that would come back before you for approval. Um, ideally in this time period, I'd also reach back out to the landowner, um, letting them know this conversation and the conversations we've just had regarding things like kosher the land owner is willing to pay for them. We in in its entirety, we'd be bringing back for you all in one kind of nice little package that change order, an agreement with them for the payment and then some sort of agreement for the long-term maintenance and then all the documents that bind that to the property. Um maybe not all at once, but we try to get everything scooped up together for you to con formally consider. Mhm. But your motion tonight would be giving us the go-ahhead to get it all put together as close to guy done as possible. And I'm sorry, one more discussion point. Is that regarding um one sketch or the other or either one in in the in the parallel form? In the parallel form. Okay. I think that that should probably take an amended motion. Um would be my recommendation just to state that to clarify that. Okay. So, I'll amend the motion to move to authorize staff to do all things necessary for the city council to formally approve on street parking Jason to 8241 Northshore Trail in a parallel plan. I'll second the friendly amendment. All right, we have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I opposed. opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. All right, we are done the regular agenda, so we'll go on to uh staff updates. Jolene, no updates this evening. Abby, um I just have a couple. Um uh Mayor Roberts did mention that the EDA met tonight. Um, they did make modifications to their commercial incent improvement incentive program, which it's currently a 10% reimburseable program up to 25 or up to $5,000. Their new program would allow for reimbursements of up to 25 to 50% of a project's cost up to $10,000 depending on the size of the project. So, I think that that's definitely something that is going to be very beneficial for our business community. And then also wanted to provide an update that um earlier this year we were in uh close session with the EDA and the council talking about favorable land sale terms related to Headarters 123. The council and EDA were advised that we had a single user that was interested in purchasing Headarters 123, but they have since pulled out of that negotiation. So we will be moving forward with uh council EDA kind of as we discussed and directed to kind of start exploring headquarters 123 for multiple users. So we'll be working on something to kind of bring back formally to the ED and the council. We do also have planning commission on Wednesday night this week. Great. Thank you. Dave, you have anything tonight? A bunch of stuff. Perfect. Uh Broadway Avenue, they just finished diamond griding the all the lanes. So they should be painting that in the next And then that should be back open up to traffic. So within the next few days that should be back open two lanes both directions. Uh the local street project they're right now working in W's Edge the Itaska Avenue area. Um getting close to being putting on the first lift there. And then um they will be working on Northshore Trail. They haven't already started it to start milling phase one starting from 97 working to the north or to the west whatever way you want to look from there. 97. I'm sure everybody's uh heard from that. Um we've been doing a lot of things. Uh Mandot's been pretty gracious of adding additional signs. City of Columbus, I'd like to thank them as well too. Today we um calcium chlorideed the gravel road loop on Fenway and Elmrest and 190th and they volunteered to do all of our city streets too with the river tie roller. So um they helped out with that. Mindot sprayed it and public works and forest lake and Columbus kind of tag teamamed that and got that done. Um there's a bunch of people that are trying to find cutthroughs. Um Mot's putting up a bunch of signage. I went and talked to a police officer today. There was a type three barricade that said road clos at three traffic with a squad car there and he had he had 15 people in the matter of a half an hour that went past him, hit the dead end and came back. So I I know we're going to keep getting complaints, but I don't know what else, you know, more we can do to to avoid this rate. It's it's we're I think we're doing as much as we can. Even the private road 217th and Fenway on the north side, they've additional signage. So, um I think people are going to try to find their ways, but it's it's just going to be a headache. And unfortunately, I don't I don't know what you know, you can't close the road off because you have people living down those streets. So, um I guess just It's not for a lack of effort by everyone involved to try to get people to take the detours and take, you know, the approved routes, but you know, it's it's going to be a struggle and it's going to be all this year and next year, too. So, it's just going to be a going to be what we're going to deal with and forward on the complaints and and Mindot, like I said, has been really helpful on adding signage. Wherever we say, can you add more, they've been adding it. So, um it's it's been helpful. Well, I appreciate all that coordination and to Mindot and especially the city of Columbus for getting involved that that's that's very neighborly of them. So, yep. Mark, just a couple updates. We did interview um some finance director candidates and we're going to be following up with um some of those folks. We may ask back for a second interview. Reached out to council member Ericson to give us a hand with those um those second interviews. We also received word from the city of Hugo that they're offering their finance director to come and sit on the interview panel as well. So hopefully we can um you know narrow that candidate pool down and and see if we have a viable candidate there for us. Um and then um just wanted everyone to give an update that u Dave and I have been working with our architects um and builder on the public works building u plans and have some information for that at the next city council meeting for review. by the council and kind of to wrap up that first stage of the project and look at the next steps. That's all I have. Great. Council member Miller. Uh nothing for me tonight. Thanks. Council member Erikson. Nothing tonight. Council member Larson. Uh nothing this evening. Thank you. I don't have anything else. Uh thank you everyone for a great meeting and with no other business coming forward, the meeting's adjourned. [Music]