[Music] Good evening everyone. The date is August 13th. The time is 6 pm, 2025. And this is the city of Columbus city council meeting. First item on the uh agenda is uh or second item is pledge of allegiance. If everybody would stand up. Thank you. >> 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, liberty and justice for all. What was that? The third item on uh the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. And I'd like to uh change the agenda tonight uh with the council's uh permission to move item B, the consent agenda, over to right before D. So, we'll go through If you all agree. So I'd like to make a motion. I Ron Hannigraph move to approve the agenda. Moving the consent agenda item B after item number C. Do we have to take a vote on this? >> This is Janet. I second. >> Jenny. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. So we'll go on to the first item. A number one. We have our uh Senator Michael Krun here, a strong supporter of uh our city up to give us an update. Thanks for coming tonight, Senator. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, you guys hear me? All right. >> Have to get really close to your mouth. >> Get it closer. How's that? >> Perfect. >> All right. Um, thank you again for uh the invitation uh to come and present a legislative update um to not just the the city council but to the community of Columbus. Um happy to do this every year a little bit later this year. I'm glad we ran into each other at that event >> uh so we could uh make sure we got this on the agenda. So thank you. Um, I um will try to be brief, although that typically doesn't happen. Um, but feel free to interrupt me. It's your meeting obviously, so you can do that, but I welcome being interrupted with questions. Um, if there's a topic that you're interested in, you don't need to wait till the end. So, um, um, it was a crazy year at the legislature. Um, uh, this is my first term. Been there for about two and a half years, so this is my third year. um going to the capitol and um just in the time that I've been there I I was talking with somebody who's been at the capital a long time and he said just so you know your time in the legislature is not normal. um a lot of things that you almost forget about some of the crazy things that happened at the beginning of session by the time you get to the end of session and then so um just to briefly walk you through kind of high level what happened the budget and that sort of thing and then I can get into some specific bills that might be of interest to the city. Uh the the year uh the 2025 session started which by the way is a budget year. So, that is our primary objective when we get there is to uh set a two-year budget uh what's called a bianium. Uh when we got there, um unfortunately, Senator Carrie Dick had passed away prior to session and the special election hadn't happened yet. So, it was a tie in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats. And so we um I'm uh one thing that happened too I guess since the last time I was here I was elected to assistant minority leader. So now I'm in leadership within the Senate Republican caucus. So as part of my job responsibilities were to help negotiate a power sharing agreement um at the beginning of session which uh we were able to do successfully and I was happy to be part of that process. So, we started out the session um with a power sharing um equal committees uh co-chairs um until the special election happened um uh when that restored balance back to the Democrats in the Senate. Now, the House was a completely different story if you remember where they got off to a much more rocky start than the Senate did. Um and there was election contest litigation that resulted in um only the Republicans showing up for the first three weeks or so of session and there was litigation about quorum and all sorts of stuff. But it eventually got ironed out and they eventually ended up in a tie for the entire um session and uh they had their own version of a of a power sharing agreement and uh co-committee chairs and and all that sort of thing. But we got a late start uh because of that uh in the legislature. Fortunately, we did um get a budget passed. It took a special session but there was no uh no government shutdown. So that's the the good news. We fulfilled our basic primary responsibility. Um but there was lots of other uh crazy things that happened during the session and uh there was the the hold over from the the felony charge of one member from last year. Then there was a new felony charge by a member in the Senate uh followed by an immediate resignation followed by a special election and then the the trial for the other one happened. There was a conviction and she resigned. So um and then unfortunately Senator Bruce Anderson passed away after session and so now we're back having two more special elections this fall. Um, so, uh, it's it's been a a crazy year. And then obviously with, um, the political assassination of Representative Hortman and the attempted assassination of Senator John Hoffman, um, this isn't, it isn't normal, uh, right now in the Minnesota legislature. But uh getting to what our purpose um was the budget the total budget um if you recall the last time I was here I talked about how the budget went from 52 billion to 72 billion which is about a 39% increase. A lot of that would have been the surplus the $18 billion surplus uh onetime funding. Um now that budget went from 72 billion and um down to 66.4 four, which is about an 8% decrease. So, some of that was onetime funding not being renewed. Um, so, you know, that that's how that came out. Uh, the bad news is we still have a structural uh budget imbalance in this state. What that means is that um we're our projected annual revenue growth is uh less than our projected annual spending. based on existing programs. So what that means is in simple terms is that we're spending more money than we're taking in. And so um when the budget forecast came out during the session, they were projecting a $6 billion budget deficit in the next bianium. And um because of the the budget uh the 8% decrease and some things that we did this year, that's down to about a $2.2 2 billion budget projected budget deficit going into the next bianium. And so we still have a lot of work to do and there was some hard decisions that had to get made this year um with respect to disability services, nursing homes, and that sort of thing. That that took a pretty substantial cut. But there's more work to be done when we reconvene for the next budget, which won't be next year. that will be um after the elections in 26 when we go in on in January 27 we'll start work on the next budget. So that's kind of high level how that played out. Um so I guess uh the good in that from my perspective and again I'll try not to be partisan. I'll try to keep this um factual as much as I can. Um but but from my perspective the good in that you know we didn't grow government this time. Um, we didn't raise the income tax or the sales tax, which there were plenty of, uh, bills out there that would do that. U, they were talking about putting sales tax on services and that sort of thing. None of those things pass. Um, so that um, that's the good thing. Um, there was going to be a lot of uh, shifts uh, to balance the budget. they were going to do a lot of cost shifts on the counties which would indirectly hurt Columbus. Uh we were able to stop most of those county cost shifts. So I think that was a a good thing. Uh one in particular was um some of the new um sales tax um they increased the sales tax um back in the 23 session um and and some of the money that the counties were going to get for transportation. and they were going to take that and give it to the Met Council and Anoka County fought really hard against that. Um that was a kind of a a backroom deal that where that was being proposed and um fortunately that didn't pass. So that's good. Um I won't get into education, but there was a lot of high profile uh cuts to uh transportation and special education services for non-public schools that didn't pass. So those are some high level good things. some of the the bad I guess 8% uh decrease from the record spending in 24 25 budget it did hit some programs pretty hard nursing homes disability services transportation um but from my perspective unfort you know the none of the state agencies took a cut all of the state agencies either remained unchanged or got more money um so I think if some of those important programs are taking a haircut. I think the state agencies could have as well. Um so the ugly um there was about 4 $4.2 billion in revenue enhancements to balance this budget. Some people will call them a tax increase, but whatever you want to call them. Um they were out there. Um, so like I said, not income tax or sales tax, but um, there's taxes on nursing home facilities which will um, it didn't support um, especially in light of the cuts to the nursing homes. Um, so there's there's other fee increases and that sort of thing um, sprinkled throughout the budget to uh, pass it. So, um, one of the things that it isn't directly related to the city of Columbus, um, but is important to all motans, one of the bills that I spent a lot of my time this year down at the capital was working in a bipartisan manner to establish an office of inspector general to combat all the fraud that you've been hearing about in the news. And um, and it was a really heavy bill. We we met every Tuesday night. uh Senator Gustoson and I and uh we got uh House Democrats, House Republicans involved. We brought staff, nonpartisan staff in to help us. We crafted a good bill, went through 11 committee stops, co-pres co-presented the bill with Senator Gustoson, made a lot of changes, worked with the agencies uh to come up with a good bill that would have established an independent office whose sole job would be to look for and prevent and and fraud and then prosecute obviously fraud where where it happens. Um providers and recipients across all state agencies. So unfortunat we did we get it we did get it through the Senate on a broad bipartisan vote 60 to7. Um we're feeling pretty good about that. Unfortunately it stalled out in the House and it didn't get brought up for a vote. So that's something I'll be uh bringing up again next year. Um you know some of the other things that I was uh not too happy about was kind of the process and the lack of transparency particularly around special session. A lot of the work that was being done that ultimately was passed into law was done behind closed doors without public input. And I think we as a state need to do better. Um, another thing that uh came out of one of those backroom deals was the closure of the Stillwater prison um which I um opposed um because there wasn't a bill. There wasn't any public hearings. became completely out of left field in a backroom deal where okay we're going to close the state's second largest prison which is an old facility but there was no plan in place to um replace those beds or you know a wellthoughtout deliberative plan of where to put those inmates and then there's a they didn't consult with the corrections officers or their union either which I think you really needed to bring the corrections officers and the employees uh at that prison into the conversation if you're going to make a very monumental shift in our public safety. So, we're um we're calling for public hearings um trying to do it kind of the right way after the fact. Uh now, um I always talk about some of my bills that got passed. They're obviously not the ones that make the news a lot of times, but they're important bills. I think I counted at least eight eight of my bills I got passed into law. um some camera requirements in daycarees. Um some educ education for new parents on what to look for um uh for in infants that might have been abused. This stems from a um some instances in Blaine that happened at a child care facility um including Representative West's kids. So, um I was the Senate author that he did all the the heavy lifting, but um was happy to get those two bills across the finish line. Um an agricultural best management practices loan program, which is a a really good program that um that we renew periodically to get more funds in there, broad bipartisan support. uh updates to the business corporations act um which um will hopefully make things a little more easier um for our small businesses. Um uh I the real property partition bill um was the chief author of that that updated uh or partition bill that was put into statute uh in 1905 and this was the first time we've made any changes to it. So that was kind of fun for a real estate lawyer like me to be a part of that. So and some other ones I won't get into, but uh data centers were in the news a lot. Um we repealed the data data center sales tax exemption, but then we made up for it by extending the sunset for sales tax exemption IT and equipment for 35 years. And oversimplifying it, that's probably a push I was hoping we could do better um on data centers. They provide a lot of highpaying jobs. um for for those in the trades, a lot of good um union jobs even uh for electricians and that sort of thing. So, but controversial, kind of a wash, a lot of controversy on that. Uh transportation bill, um like I said, the cost shift to the Met Council was eliminated. That's good. Uh driver fees were increased if you fail to show up for a test. That's super uh a big deal right now. Um so a bus rapid transit study to instead of the blue line uh extension which I favor um the blue line extension is coming. That's a met council initiative and um they've already spent over $250 million and not a single shovel of dirt has been uh has been done in that project. It's just in planning it's going to cost about $3.2 2 billion. And given the Met Council's track record on light rail projects with the Southwest light rail project, you can bet it's going to be north of five billion by the time it's over. And it'll probably be 5 to 10 years delayed in in uh getting it done. And um it's very frustrating because there's a lot of transportation needs right here in Columbus, uh in Ham Lake and Blaine, uh in Lexington, the communities that I represent. And I, you know, we have to go to the legislature and fight tooth and nail uh to get Hornsby Street, for example, funded. Um, which should be funded by the state for a bunch of reasons that you all know I won't get into right now. And it's frustrating when those things don't happen and that you just see the pervasive wasting of money by the Met Council on on on light rail projects that are not going to benefit nearly as many people as um the highway the the critical highway projects that our state is facing right now. So when you're talking about finite dollars, you need to make priorities and you need to get back to basics. What can we do with our public funds that will benefit the most number of people? And that's my focus on representing my constituents. And so if that means holding Met Council accountable and trying to divert those funds to highway projects in my district, that's what I'm going to do. >> Senator, could I could I ask a question? Sure. Can you refresh my memory what the what communities the blue line serves? >> The the proposed Blue Line extension will go from um Target Field and then it'll go through like New Hope and up in eventually into the Brooklyn Park. >> Okay. There's a few communities that I'm missing along the way, but that's generally where it's going to go. It's going to go west and then north up to Brooklyn Park. And um yeah, I I don't I don't favor that. So um so there's that. Another another thing that and I'm a big supporter of law enforcement and we and we desperately needed a new state patrol headquarters and that got funded this year, $97 million. And on the surface that's good. But the problem that that happened is that they use trunk highway funds to pay for this new state patrol headquarters. And why does that matter? Because trunk highway funds are that's a fund that um that that is supposed to be designated for our our highways. Um it's a designated from from the gas tax. And um in this state, we believe that that um that highway funds should come from primarily be funded by the gas tax and that we shouldn't use general fund dollars to fund highway projects, either bonding or the gas tax or some combination or some other things. But, you know, to me, everybody uses the roads and but if you're going to have that be kind of the general attitude on how highways get funded, then you shouldn't raid that fund for anything other than highways. And this is and and I'm glad the state troopers are getting a new headquarters, don't get me wrong, but this could be a slippery slope where we need to say no, you do not invade the trunk highway funds for anything. Those funds are too important with all the critical highway u projects that we have in the state that we should have found a way to get that into the bonding bill and and fund it that way. Um and again, they dipped into the auto parts extension. auto parts sales tax is another uh way that we can get some highway funds that uh we have and now um it's supposed to be used exclusive exclusively for roads and bridges and um they're kind of delaying some of that again and borrowing from it so to speak. So the erosion happens where they're they see these pots of money to fund, you know, things that they shouldn't be funding. And uh I guess the temptation is too great for some to not dip into it. Um they we we there's that uh NLX train to duth that has been discussed uh which obviously I don't support. Uh there was about 170 million in that account. They use some of it to fund get this unemployment insurance for seasonal workers for schools. And so I was a little bit mixed on that because I don't like that. Uh I don't want the NLX train to get funded. And so if we can divert money away from that fund, that's good, but I think that should have gone to highway or other transportation needs rather than to education. So that was a weird thing. And they left $108 million in the NLX. They're trying to keep they're keeping it on life support is what they're doing. Um we wouldn't have had any cuts at all to transportation or any in any of our highway initiatives if we' have used that NLX money for transportation, but it's still sitting there 108 million. So it'll be very interesting in future sessions to see what happens with that 108 million because I don't think a train to Duth is going to get built, nor should it be. um the greenhouse gas emissions policies that were enacted in 23, we tried to scale that back because it's making all of our highway projects more expensive. We were able to nibble around the edges, so to speak, but unfortunately nothing substantive there. Um so uh you know that's kind of the um Hoka County was very concerned um in that um the state dictated how to spend a lot of their transportation dollars from the sales tax to the Rum River pedestrian bridge. We don't want to get in the habit of the state telling the county on how to use those funds. I think that's bad precedent. Anoka County didn't like it but that did get through. So, um, you know, there was some handshake projects in the transportation bill that are not named in the bill, but some highway projects in Lakeville and Maple Grove and a few others. I don't think that's a good practice. Um, it's been done for many years. Um, and make no mistake, if I can get a project for my district done that way, I'll I'll do it. I'll I'll I'll do it however I can, but broadly speaking, that's not a good way to govern, and we should get away from that. And uh if we're going to have earmarks, we should list them in the bill. Um so that's transportation. There's more. I I'll move on. Um the tax bill that I talked about the data center stuff. They there was also an increase to the cannabis tax from 10% to 15% and that's in addition to the the general u state sales tax plus the 1% metro sales tax. So, in the in the end, that'll be now on cannabis a 22.8.75% sales tax on cannabis. So, they're legalizing it, but uh I don't think the black market's going to go away with a tax rate like that. Um so, uh it eliminated the local government cannabis aid out of that sales tax revenue. So, that was unfortunate. Um not not not the right direction on that. Uh, so I'll move from the tax bill to the bonding bill. Um, and uh, this was a bittersweet because objectively speaking, this was a good bonding bill. Um, it was a nuts andbolts bonding bill. It was getting back to basics on on infrastructure, things that should be in the bonding bill. There's no art museums, no performing arts center, no cultural centers like you've seen in the past. just roads, bridges, clean water, public safety infrastructure that benefits all motans. So it was lean kind of nononsense nuts and bolts bonding bill focused on core government, state government functions. So objectively speaking, it was a good bonding bill. It was very small only 700 million only 700 million. Um but there was some talk of having a much larger bonding bill. Um so this uh funded clean drinking water and wastewater projects, lead pipe replacement funding, roads, bridges, dams, asset preservation, uh prevents losing natural matching federal funds on a lot of projects. It'll have thousands of good paying construction jobs. Um but the bittersweet part was there wasn't a lot in it in my district. I voted for it. I supported it because it was a good bill. But uh uh the National Sports Center in Blaine got $5 million, but they're a state agency and it was for uh deferred maintenance, critical deferred maintenance. Uh but other than that, uh they didn't do any ear marks. And so while the Hornsby Street project in Columbus was in the discussions in previous, you know, bills, it wasn't here because we weren't doing any earmarks or legislative directed appropriations, if you want to call them that. Um because the bonding bill was only $700 million, there can be another one next year. Um and that can be up to 1.2 billion. And uh I don't know if that will happen, but it's on the table. But I can tell you if they're going to have a bonding bill next year, very likely going to be earmarks in it. And I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that uh priorities from my district get included in there if we're going to have one. So, um, uh, cannabis law changes. Uh, I don't know if you guys are entertaining any licenses right now on that, but it was a lot of changes. If you, if you are, um, don't take my legislative update. Con consult with your lawyer uh on all the requirements because there's there's things in there relating to retail licensing, event approvals, building and zoning compliance, delivery endorsements, event sampling, licensing applications, background checks, expungement provisions, all of these things that the cities are going to have to navigate through. But high level, the state is dictating and mandating on local units of government how they do this. they're giving you almost no discretion, very little discretion. And so, um, I fought for more local control. Um, but that is not the public policy that the people, um, that wanted, uh, cannabis legalized wanted. They wanted state mandates because they didn't trust cities to implement them if they were to be given any discretion. So, um that's something you're going to want to um stay on top of. Um [Music] there's so many other things. I I think I've been talking long enough. I I can talk about lots of other bills. Um any questions that you have. Um, I'll just say in closing that, um, it was a mixed bag this session. Um, I'm disappointed that we couldn't get more local projects funded. Um, but dollars were really tight this year, but um, next year uh, we'll be back at it right again. and um depending on what your needs are, we'll have to meet again um before session and come up with a a game plan on how to get some of those key priorities for uh Columbus funded. So, with that, I'll take any questions. Uh talk about any bills that I didn't touch on or or whatever you want to talk about. >> Uh Senator, I got a quick one. Uh so we go down there and testify for the uh bonding bill or our Hornsby Street. Do we have to return down there or will they remember that issue? >> It's a good question and I didn't I should have mentioned that we did get a hearing on on the Hornsby Street project and we got a hearing um on fiscal disparities. Um we've had hearings this one on that you're referring to on Hornsby Street. So how that works is um because this is was the first year of a bianium that bill will still be valid or in play next year. >> So um we don't need to introduce a new bill. We wouldn't necessarily have to have a new hearing. Whether we want to uh put in a request for a new hearing will depend on some discussions that I will have with the committee chairs to see what they want. If they're like, "Yeah, if you want it funded, we want to have a hearing." Then we'll have another hearing. If they're like, "No, if you've already have had a hearing, you don't need to have another hearing," then there would be no reason to have you guys come down to St. Paul again. So, we'll have to play that one by ear. >> So, they uh so new funding could come in then, right? I mean, new people could come up and request new cities, so they add to the list, right? >> So, yeah, that's true. So the our bill is still operative going into next year, but we can introduce new bills, too. So if something were to happen with Hornsby Street and you find funding for it from some other means, we could come up with a new priority project and submit a new bill, get a hearing and be in play for the bonding bill uh next year. >> Well, thank I I want to thank you again for getting us that hearing and uh for both I think the transportation and the bonding and whatever that was. So I think we made a dent a little. >> It was wellreceived and I would say if there would have been earmarks in the bonding bill, Hornsby Street almost certainly would have been in it. Um but the way it played out, no ear marks. No Hornsby Street. But we'll hopefully rectify that next year. And I I should add too there was I talked a lot about sports betting in both of my previous legislative updates. Nothing really on sports betting. It was introduced. There was some committee there committee hearing or two uh but it didn't go anywhere. So that's good news for Columbus. No news is good news on that. Um and so until uh the bills or the political climate changes so that uh running aces can be treated fairly along with the tribal casinos um no news is good news on on that front. >> Sounds great. >> You have anything Jenny Scott? No. >> Um, I have a quick question, maybe not so quick. Um, so when you talk about the overall budget, um, what I haven't been able to get my head wrapped around, but maybe nobody has, is what the impact on the federal level is going to have on the state's budget picture. Can you speak to that? >> Yeah, that's a good question and I I do have that in my notes and I was thinking somebody would ask that. It's kind of a big thing and I felt like I was rambling too long so I didn't go into it. But yeah, there's um the what do they they call it? The the big beautiful the big beautiful bill. >> I call it something else but >> federal level um you know I think some of the some of the components in that are um things that people favor quite a bit and make a lot of common sense. But uh and I won't get into the to the to the partisan things um but it could um have an impact on state and county budgets. And so um we were talking about SNAP um and Medicaid primarily are the two big issues that we need to look look at. Um the governor was contemplating perhaps uh doing a special session this fall uh to deal with that. It sounds like he's not going to do that. Um if there's any immediate a lot of these effective dates in this bill are pushed out so far that there's really no reason to have a special session in my view. And we do have a we still do have a fund balance um if if it were needed. Um but um the effective dates are pushed out quite a ways. So um it it does get pretty complicated and I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I am, you know, a a a master on on a lot of these issues or what's going to happen. Um but SNAP is um currently it's 100% federally funded. Um now up to 15% funded by the states based on an error rate calculation. Um and so that that is good in theory. We don't want states making errors that are costing money and this would incentivize the states to not make those errors. So this is a good provision in theory. The problem, the concern is that building out the infrastructure to catch those errors is going to cost money that isn't budgeted for. And so the counties are very worried about that being an unfunded mandate on them that could increase property taxes. And if there's one thing that um when I go around all over my district that you know is nearly universal is that property taxes are too high. And so we have to be really sensitive about these cost shifts to counties and these unfunded mandates to counties um because that could result in higher property taxes. same with school districts as well and cities for that matter. Um, so if there's ever anything the state is doing that is causing, you know, underfunded mandates, underfunded mandates, you know, that those are things that you bring me into the loop and I can advocate against those because those do could result in property tax increases and we need to be really careful about that. The other thing, um, uh, Medicaid, uh, work requirements are being added and that again is a good thing that a lot of people support and, um, you know, we should be requiring, um, working requirements for certain people that are capable of of work in order to be eligible for Medicaid. I support that. Um, but again, the counties are in charge of verification. Um, and now eligibility assessments will be every 6 months rather than every year. Um, so that's another added cost. Um, you know, will the counties have to hire more people to do this work? You know, these are these are things that we can probably address at the state level and I and I think we will and I look forward to being part of those conversations. So, it's it's a it's a concern that we need to keep our eye on, but there's also a lot of good things in in the bill as well that I won't get into right now, but um yeah, need to be cognizant of those issues and make sure that they don't result property tax increases. That'll be my focus. Um my second question has to do with um the it didn't pass but there was some interest in the state um mandating uh zoning decisions for the city. So you can imagine how we would feel about that. So what's your prediction on that front? Yeah, I don't have to guess how Columbus and Ham Lake are going to feel about those things in my district. And and uh uh that's a very controversial set of legislation, but it's interesting because it has bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. It's not so much the party you're in, which is how most of the things down there shake out. Mhm. >> Um uh the to be fair um the reason that the legislators are introducing and there's three different bills by the way. There's um but they all kind of get to the same thing which is housing right now is more unaffordable than it's ever been. And a lot of our young people um are are finding it increasingly difficult to to buy a house and live the American dream. And so what can we do about uh to make housing more affordable other than your kind of subsidized housing or rent controls, things that have been proven that are not effective. Um, and so that's the the you know, and some people think that unnecessary or overly restrictive zoning ordinances and not just zoning ordinances, but building requirements in in in the name of beautifification or whatever artificially keeps uh home prices high. And so they're trying to get at that, but but the problem with that is it guts local control. it guts communities abilities to ability to kind of shape their community in a way that makes sense for them. And so I'm very sensitive to that. And so um you know I I'm assuming um all four of my cities um oppose it. Um and most city councils do oppose it. Um and so from my perspective, I would uh I don't favor these specific pieces of legislation. Um, I think we need to have more local control, but I also don't think it's acceptable to just sit and do nothing uh about the housing prices. And so, um, you know, I look forward to being part of the conversation to try to find a a middle a middle way that doesn't take away city's um, zoning rights and their their ability to kind of govern the city and shape the city the way they want while still trying to do some things to get housing prices under control. >> Thanks, Bob. Yep. >> Nothing. Mr. Mayor, thank you for being here, Senator. >> Thank you for having me. >> Oh, I have one other comment that I that I wanted to share with you. So, we were we had our night to unite um gathering last week and I was and mayor was at one um one uh house and the Lakners, Tom and Mary Lackner, who you will remember, wanted to make sure that I knew how helpful you were um in their um neverending quest to subdivide their land and how you really like stepped up to the plate and set up a meeting with the DNR to help them wade through the um I don't remember if it was exotic species or endangered species, plant species where they wanted to put a driveway. So, you saved the day for them. Thank you very much. They had nothing but good things to say and they wanted to make sure that uh their things got back to you. So, >> appreciate the kind words. It was a pleasure to to help the Lakers and uh they were in a bit of a predicament and the DNR was not treating them fairly. So, I'm thankful that the DNR um agreed to meet and was reasonable and that we were able to come to a resolution that will allow them to do something that any property owner should be able to do. So, um, and while pro protecting the environment, there's there's ways to protect the environment in some of these rare plants, um, while still being practical and reasonable in giving property owners some options that, um, that are affordable. >> Yeah. >> And so, um, that wasn't happening in that case. So, I'm glad we got it to a place, um, where everybody came out a winner on that. And so I'm happy that >> I'm happy that I was happy to help them. And that that kind of goes to um to all of your residents here in Columbus to you can reach out to me. And I know I say this every time, but a lot of people don't realize they oh but do it if you have a state issue or even if it's some other issue. I may not be able to help you, but I can maybe help you get pointed to the right people who can help you. Um, and if it's with a state agency like it was in that case, I'm happy to to assess the situation and see what I can do to help. >> Great. Thank you. >> Well, thank you. I really appreciate you coming here tonight, Senator. And dittos with what Janet said. I think we got enough buttercups. I don't know what that tree was, >> but we had a buttercup tree, didn't we? >> Butternut. >> Butternut. We we we had a butternut that we had to do some mitigation for for a road. >> A long time. Go on. >> Did you know you have to do DNA DNA analysis to make sure that it truly is? >> I had no idea. >> You told me that last time. >> Yeah. >> I'll have to maybe introduce a bill or something about DNA analysis for trees. I don't know. Never thought I'd be in saying that. Wasn't on my bingo card, but uh >> predict these things. >> Yeah. Yeah. Happy to help. Thank you for inviting me. I'm sure I forgot something. Um, >> well, we know we know how to find you. >> Yeah. And that's the other thing. We'll stay and for the and for your residents um uh I I feel like we have a good partnership here. I look forward to working with the the the newer members um to just keep those lines of communication open um see if I can be of assistance um to the city of Columbus where issues arise and and um as you're learning, some issues take longer than others to resolve, but we have to be persistent and that's kind of the name of the game. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Well, thank you. Thank you very much for coming. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. We're going to go down to item C, presentations and items for council action. Number one is the public forum. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to uh confront statement or anything to the city council for open forum? Seeing no one, we'll go online. Anybody online want to talk on open forum? Hearing none, we're going to close the open form and go to item number two under C. It's public hearing ordinance 14-320, restricted hours for sprinkling. You want to explain that, Jack? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As part of the city's most recent water supply plan submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, we are required to update our critical water deficiency ordinance, specifically chapter 14-320 restricted hours for sprinkling, and that should align with the current DR DNR model ordinance language and conservation practices. The attached redline version of the ordinance in your packet reflects the necessary changes to bring your ordinance into compliance with the DNR requirements and ensure consistency with the best practices for water conservation. Amendment of ordinance 14-320 is exhibited in attachment 2 is required for approval to increase our DNR water appropriation permit from permit 2009-0641 from 30 million gallons per year to 50 million gallons per year. This increase is necessary to accommodate a potential increase in the 16 million gallons per year in pumping demand that we expect and experience in the next few years. Our current with withdrawal rate is 24 million gallons. So, this is going to be a critical need to ensure that we continue to have growth in the community and be able to supply them with water. Uh, at this time, staff recommends opening a public hearing on this matter. And at the conclusion of the public hearing and there being no issues of concern, consider approving the amendment to ordinance 14-320 as presented in attachment two of this report. So the u if we're opening a public hearing, does Aaron read the published? Does he have to read the published? Uh >> no, he doesn't. >> No, >> he doesn't. >> No, you just have to approve the use of it at um at the end of the the process, but you don't have to read it. >> Yeah. Okay. Do we have to open it up for the public though? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do we have any questions among the council? >> We need to open the public hearing first. >> First. Okay. I'll open a public hearing to the public if anybody has any statements on this ordinance adjustment for 14-320. Want to come up to the microphone to give testimony? Nobody in the audience is coming forth. How about online? Anybody online hearing? None. We're going to close the public hearing. Any uh discussion from the council? Any questions? Attorney's got one. >> Mr. Mayor and Council, I just have a few uh cleanup items that I can give to the administrator. Um and uh they're non-substantive, so I I don't think there'll be any problem. I won't read them unless you'd like me to. It's really numbering, so it matches our uh system within the city code. >> Anybody have any issues with that? >> No, I don't. But I do have a question on this. So, is this for just public utilities or is it for private wells as well? >> Public utilities are a service only. It does not affect private reflect a private well. >> Correct. >> So, this is Janet. Then I think we need to change some wording in here to reflect that because it does not. It it it makes it look like it's everybody >> says public health and wells. So, to me, wells, just like you're saying, Janet, that's what prompted the question is wells could be any well. >> And it would probably be good to get that clarification. The wells issue is what stated in our ordinance is the title of it. Again though, it does not apply to this, but it wouldn't hurt to add that clarification. >> And I don't know if your changes, you might want to read your changes cuz I had some on the ordinance, too. Is that what yours are? So, we might have the same. So, you go first. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, just as a matter of usage, I believe throughout the city code, we capitalize city to refer to the city of Columbus. Um, in the next paragraph down from a locally, I I've stricken locally because that's the only place that we can act uh the city can act. So I I'm not sure what locally is modifying. So I just struck it. Uh and in the in uh section B um following B then we wouldn't use letters, we would use numbers 1, two, three, four, and five. That's the formatting in our code. Again, I struck locally again in the next paragraph. On the next page, I u just I think it was a typo. I changed the comma after D to a period. And um in three, I just uh put a space between three and the word failure. Um there's a little bit of formatting that can be fixed there as well. >> I didn't have any of those, so mine are different. >> Okay. Can I can I angle? Okay. So like you Bill that second paragraph what that start that started with locally I felt like that paragraph belonged after section B going down ABCDE because then because you're talking in the first paragraph about the governor um making a declaring a critical water deficiency but then after after section B and with the with the numbers then you're talking locally about being able to do that. So, it seemed to me that it it made it made it confusing to me that we were talking about a statewide mandate, then a local, then a city council action, then a local. Again, I I would organize that differently. So, it made better sense. And I think that um some of the the language that we use in some of these sections where it says um for instance, in section B where it says the mayor shall take such action as is reasonably practical to inform the general public. Well, gosh, if we're if we're passing something that says you can't do this, and if you do, we're going to have restrictions. We better be more specific about how we're going to let the public know. So, I would use language more in line with, you know, like we do with our public hearings. Like, we would put it in all the places and notify the public in the same way that we notify a public hearing because because this is this is something that it's not just letting them know. letting them know that if they don't abide by it, there are there are repercussions. So, I feel like sticking it up on our board out here isn't good enough. Um, and then and so there's several sections where it uses that kind of language and I think then one section that says that it, you know, that we would post it in a way that we normally do for in public places. So, I just would tighten that up and and and um be consistent in all of the different places. Um and then I think uh one question that I had is where it says that um spraying of of pave services except were necessary for public health and safety. So, if we have a business that has dust mitigation as a condition, are they are they able to do that under this council action or do do they I'm just curious like how broad that that that goes for whoever wants to answer it. >> Which which section? So I'm in and BB um so this is you know the governor governor makes a declaration and then we're supposed to enforce these things. One of them says ban washing or spraying of paved surfaces except when necessary for public health and safety. So if you have, you know, equipment share that decides that they're going to use water to keep their dust down, that's their dust mitigation plan, are they no longer able to do that under this declaration or any of the other, you know, running aces or any of the other places that use water trucks to keep their the dust down? >> I I'll I'll defer to I'll let you know my opinion and let Bill correct me if I'm wrong, but that would be addressing issues of public health or safety. That would not be a non critical wa use of water in my opinion. >> It would not be a non. So I'm here that's two negatives I'm not following >> it would it would in other words it says in this that the governor has the um power to restrict the um prioritize the essential water use and protect the community's water supply and prohibit the non-critical use of water which like car washing or sprinkling of of of lawns. So if it's a dust requirement issue to me that's an essential use of water. >> Okay. >> And I'll let Billine on. >> I think that's correct. >> Okay. And then um so and and I think as we talked about um whether or not this applies only to properties that are on utilities. It would seem that that clarification could be made under what's now BA. you know, you would just say in the in the areas of the city serviced by public utilities and then that way it's really clear that people who have private wells aren't under that mandate. If that if that's really true that it's only on public utilities, >> well, the city cannot regulate private wells. That's an issue of the DNR. We have no jurisdiction over that. >> Well, this is the state declaring a critical water deficiency. So I don't know if that's different. >> I I don't know. >> So we should probably get that fig because I think we should be clear in this ordinance whether or not in the case of this governor declaring it whether or not that means everybody or only those on public utilities. >> Be an awful hard thing for us to re to enforce if it was everybody. But >> yeah and and again I think that's the intent. We will check that out to make sure that's the case. But we would have no ability to do any enforcement on public wells or private systems. Public public wells, yes, because that's what what supplies our water, but private systems would be not included in this emergency declaration and we can get a a statement to back that up. >> So, does this need to come back to us because there's some open-ended questions here or I mean >> I know there's a timing issue, right? You're trying to get a water appropriation permit, >> correct? Yeah, that's part of it. We wanted to make sure this doesn't impede getting the water appropriation permit. >> It looks like we were supposed to do this in 2019. So, I'm thinking it's not quite as timesensitive as what you're saying. >> Well, the reason it's timesensitive is we're applying for the permit to increase our withdrawal permit from the DNR. The other thing is the ordinance was meant to be in compliance with the state plan. So that's where the timing issue is. And what is that timing issue, Brian? >> So just let me interact. >> It was supposed to be done in 2019 when we did our last water appropriation increase and that got missed. Yes. >> So now it's a bit more timesensitive now. >> Yes. >> Unfortunately, they didn't for us that they didn't look back at it >> and say, "How come you didn't do that?" But >> now they know we didn't. So, I think now we need to do our due diligence and make it right. >> So, what's our deadline? >> Well, we did apply for the appropriation permit amendment and it will be issued as soon as it practically can. I think tomorrow is the end of the review period. So, anytime after tomorrow, the they may be able to issue the permit, but there'll probably be a condition on there that is subject to the appropriation of the water declaration. I guess my question is if you have if one of the conditions is we have to have an ordinance. I think we better get the wording right. That's so and I think there's some questions about what the wording should be. So that's why I'm bringing it up. >> It's up to the council. I mean you're passing this ordinance. So if you think that it needs to be cleaned up as a council, then then that should be done. Brian, do you think it just notification to the DNR that this has been considered by council, there needs to be some amendments and clean up of some language in it and we can have this back to them in two weeks would be appropriate for their permit review and issuance. >> I certainly can submit that message. Yes, >> sounds good to me. >> I'm going to make one other note. So, um, regarding the distinction between wells and and municipal water. So in several places it refers or a couple places it refers to municipal water. I think if we just use that term throughout consistently then that denotes the water that's provided through the city. >> Right. >> I think that's a term of art also in the permitting world. It's municipal water. >> Y >> this is Jenny. Can I ask that municipal water be just added to the title under section 14-320 so if residents are reviewing this they don't get confused? >> Yeah, I think that's good. >> Would you repeat that please? >> Uh this is Jenny. I asked uh that the words municipal water be added to the title for restricted hours for sprinkling under section 14-320. the title um municipal water be added so that uh residents are not confused if they do have wells so they don't have to read through the entire document. So it could be excuse me this is Janet. So it could be something like restricted hours for sprinkling using mun municipal water. I mean, if we know that that's truly what this is referring, I think that's still an open question. >> Well, I think that I think that definitely is the the intent because it's tied to our water appropriation permit, which is for municipal water. >> Okay. All right. Good. >> That part, I think, is relatively clear. >> Okay. >> So, we're going to hold this over till next council meeting >> and we can make those changes and bring it back. Then >> do we have to close out the public hearing then or >> I think you did what I mean we closed it but we don't have to bring it up again. >> No no these are changes that are not substitive but important. >> Okay Mr. Mayor I have just one quick question relatively minor under be forbidden of washing vehicles or mobile equipment and then it gives some other language in there. Does that include commercial car washes and truck washes? >> Yes. Okay. It was going to be my question is how is this going to affect that new mother truck wash? If if this is put into place, will they be shut down? >> Yes. >> There's an exception for public health, safety, and welfare. So, obviously, if the vehicles get so dirty that they're putting mud on the road, >> I think I think there I think you could you could thread a needle there, you know. So the the facilities that are on the freeway um you know that are washing big vehicles that go on the highways you know >> per say because of bug splatter or whatever may be. >> Well yeah and if you can't see through the windshield or if you're drawing you know dropping mud on the the highways I think that's what the exception is for. That's how I read it. >> I just want to make sure they were covered. So >> yeah. >> Thank you. Do uh councelor, do we need to add any more specific language to that so there is no question about the interpretation or are we good? >> I I think we're good. This is I'm I'm assuming that these ABCDE can't come right from the model >> that the state wants to see. So I I wouldn't want to change that too much because the state wants to see these prohibitions in writing. That's how I'm reading it. Thanks. We finished with that topic, Bill. Nothing. Nothing else. >> I'm I'm good. >> Okay. We'll go on to item number three, the tennis court project bids. >> Yes. We've had this discussion at a council meeting before, a park board meeting, but the results of these discussions was there was some more information that was requested. One of these was a survey. and survey was conducted and the park bard heard public discussion on the tennis court project and discussed those comments along with the bid options at the July 15, 2025 meeting. The park board was informed that there was a survey in progress to gauge the interest in the use of the facility and overlay options for tennis and pickle ball use. The park board delayed a project and option recommendations until those survey results were available for their review. The survey results were completed on July 30th, 2025 under exhibit in attachment three of your packet. The park board discussed the survey results at a special meeting on August 4th, 2025 and voted to recommend that city council approve layout plan alternate two, alternate bid one in the Molton Mink base bid and alternate plan. The vote of the recommendation is 4 to one. The city had 45 days to award or reject project bids and opened this bid on June 17, 2025. The contractor agreed to extend the offer deadline to August 31st to allow the time needed to evaluate the survey information and other discussion on the possibility of expanding the scope of the proposal for a future project. Should the construction contract be approved for Goodmanson Construction, the project could be substantially completed by October 2025. As stated in the previous reports, the park capital fund has $79,316 remaining in this account. However, the cost for the project, while under the city engineers estimate of $126,000 for alternate bid number one, created a deficit of $47,184 for the project funding. Should council consider approving this project, this deficit gap could be transferred from the city general fund to cover this difference. As has been previously discussed, city council could use the proceeds from the sale of a publicly owned property that has a potential value exceeding this amount to reimburse the general fund for the transfer. Should the sale of this property not occur or fall short of the amount needed for the transfer reimbursement, the city city could also consider the use of park dedication fees that could be generated from the sale of a city property adjacent to and north of Caribou Coffee for a market rate project for reimbursement of use of general funds transferred to the tennis court project or use the transfer from the general funds to the park's capital funds as an investment in park infrastructure with no obligation for repayment. In the case presented above, the use of city general funds, either temporarily or permanent, will be required to provide the gap funding for this project. Other funding sources to supplement a general fund transfer could include $30,000 of unspent monies allocated in the 2025 budget for the city hall generator purpose. The park board recommends that city council city council approval of layout plan alternate two alternate bid one is present in the Bolton mink base bid and alternate plan and the 20 of the 126,500 from Goodman's construction and the sources of funds required to cover the deficit gap between the project bid and the current park capital funds available for this work. So before you, you have a motion that recommends approval of the bid using the current park capital funds, $48,000 to cover the deficit gap that would be essentially reimbursed from an interfund loan from either the sale of a city-owned property that's under consideration or park dedication fees generated in the sale of another potential city parcel. a lot of talking just so the council knows that uh there's some items that weren't really decided on and this also was adding a fence in between the two pickle courts which is going to increase that 40 what was it 47,000 >> yeah I I I would just add that we do that as a change order if that's the wish to include that. Uh and then we can figure out what the cost is and do an additional transfer with whatever that cost was which would be nominal compared to where we are with the deficit gap now and then just do that transfer at that time of that additional amount. The re the reason I asked is I did get a letter from um the project manager from Bolton Mink for this project and said the contractor is getting very nervous and is about ready to back out of his bid extension offer. So whatever we do, we need to make that tonight. We can figure out the other change order addition of that separation fence uh once this is awarded. I have one other question maybe for maybe you Jack or or Jim does this uh tennis courts and all that come in different colors. So did they offer us different colors or you >> they they do offer different colors. We've just always used I think it's green and I don't know white and yellow or something over there. But >> I think it's red >> like Lynwood Lynwood has some maroon color. I mean, I I don't know that we specified a color when we did it. We just said that we're going to paint it. So, I mean, if somebody has a color scheme they want, I'm >> Well, we got two members in the >> I don't know that I don't know that that matters at this point. So, cost is the cost. >> That's what I figured. I don't know. We got two park board members, the chairman, Brad, Steve. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Um, we didn't talk about the color and it was my assumption that we'd probably go with that two-tone green. Right now, it's a green and then a different shade of green that outlines the court. So, um, if there's someone wants a different color and it's not a cost driver, that's that would be, you know, that would be fine by the board. I think Stephen, I think the the the real driver here is to get the thing to a a place where it's a good, safe, playable surface because if you walk that court, there's some really big cracks in it. And um we talked about repairing it and Jim has talked to contractors and they said they can repair it, but they can't guarantee it's going to last more than a year or two when those cracks are going to come back. Um, as far as the fence in between the two pickle ball courts, actually we talked about that at the meeting and um, as we walked out, even Jim, we talked about, you know, if that becomes an issue, maybe putting a a netting in between at the um, at a lower cost. I think the reason we stayed away from that fence is we're, you know, we're concerned about cost in general. And um you know we we opted for two pickle ball courts and a tennis court for a couple of reasons. One mainly is from public input um from the survey. The other was it's not a significant cost driver between the format of two tennis courts and two pickle ball courts and a tennis court. So, I don't think a like a 6ft fence in between the pickle ball uh things would be a huge cost driver, but it's certainly going to be a few thousand. So, um anyway, we're here tonight to see if you have any questions and um you know, looking for your support on this. >> Uh is when it comes to color, I noticed that the new ones are blue. Okay. All right. I I don't know if it's a time thing, a generation thing, or what, but you look at them, the new courts to make it look newer. Maybe that's an option. I don't know. It's That's what I look at. I I notice Belts Park, you look at Hugo, they're all blue. Fenway is blue. And I don't know if they just got away from the green or >> or Sheron Williams had a good sale on it. I'm not sure. Um, I I think, you know, that's something that you could kick back to us and we could talk about. That's probably something that can come in later in the process. I mean, it's, you know, that's the last thing they do, right? And we're going to have a meeting before that. Um, I would guess if you want to do look at different colors, we have to look at different costs then. I don't have a clue. >> I I would think we would want to know the contractor as soon as possible on the colors because they'll probably have to do some ordering of materials and we all know there can be issues with that in today's current market for procurement of those paints and sealants. >> Yeah. And you know to delay this over color would would not I you know I wouldn't want to do that obviously. Um so >> green we're locked in at green. That's where my head's at. But if if if we want to look at a different color and it's blue, you know, as long as it doesn't cost more, it doesn't delay it. >> I don't know how it could cost more. I mean, whatever. They put it in the asphalt when it comes in, right? I mean, it's not out there with a brush painting it color. >> It's painted. >> It is. >> Yeah. It's painted. >> Squeegeeed on actually. Yeah. >> Oh. >> So, I wonder, this is Janet. I wonder if the blue is because if people are color blind, it's usually a red green color blindness. So if you use a different color, they'll be able to distinguish it better. Just curious whether that might be the reason of the switch for the color. >> I I I don't I think it's a trend. >> It might be a trend. >> I think it is more too because the lines that mark the court are in white. So, it really is not going to matter what color it is to somebody that's colorblind as long as the striping and the layout of the pickle ball court and the tennis court is done in a material color that's different so they can distinguish between that. >> And again, from a parkboard perspective, the assumption we had was it was going to stay the same. >> You got a comment? Yeah, I guess if we were to change it, uh, if there was no cost factor, possibly making it maroon to kind of fit with the school trend of maroon and gold, >> that's an o option. Yeah, >> but I'm fine with green. I just want to see it get fixed and >> that's get used. >> And you know what? Um, >> well, we got the uh dugouts coming in, too. They might be maroon on top. >> It's kind of where I was going with the softball association using it. Yeah, >> you know, >> well, that's another issue that color. >> Mr. Mayor, according to our friend Google, >> um, >> we're looking at >> blue is often associated with calmness and focus, which can be beneficials to players players while playing the game. >> It offers a good visual separation from the common yellow and white pickle ball colors to ensure that players can follow the ball's trajectory. Yeah, I see that blue is offering a a high contrast um against the yellow ball and the green green being a non-traditional grass court >> like Wimbledon. >> Wimbledon. >> Yeah. >> Well, I like to be calm, so whatever. I guess the main issue is where we get the money from, right, Jack? >> That That's correct. And again, if we do this, it would be the approval of the project, but also conditioned on the transfer of the remaining balance of approximately $48,000 to cover that and how we're going to reimburse it. And the two two recommendations here or the one recommendation would be to reimburse it from the sale of the city property that's the hidden park property or from the park dedication fees which will be generated from the sale of another parcel whichever comes first. >> Any discussion on that? I I think it's we got it's like uh Brad and Steve say out there. We got to get it done. So, where we get the money as long as we pay it back and sounds like uh park funds to go to park funds. So, I'm all for that. Any other questions? >> Well, I think you got one written up. I'll make a motion. I uh move to approve the tennis court improvement project for alternate bid isn't it two? >> No, it's alternate bid one. >> Bid one. Oh, the bid in the amount of >> plan two bid one. Yeah, I'll start over then. I move to approve the tennis court improvement project for alternate bid one in the amount of $126,500 and interf loan in the amount of $48,000 to cover the funding gap between the bid costs and the funds available in the park capital funds for this project. Furthermore, the inter fund loan will be reimbursed from the sale of proceeds of hidden park property or park properties generated from the sale of city parcel 24-32-22-11-000011. Period. >> This is Jenny. I second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion, comments, questions? Having none, Jenny, you want to vote? >> I'm sorry, this is Jenny. I have one question. What do we decide about the paint color? I wanted to clarify. Do we need to do we need to have a confirmation on that? >> We'll let the park board do that. >> Okay. >> Can Well, you know, and what we what we need to do is I need to contact Mr. Pomemeroy with Bolton Mink tomorrow and tell him we approve the authorization of the bid. So, if we're going to do that, we need to decide on a color as soon as possible. I think the contractor, the sooner he knows that, the better off we're going to be. >> Jack, is that something we could do without having a special meeting? Can we do that via uh email? >> If you want to send me a recommendation on the color, go right ahead. >> I I I'll make a recommendation on the blue. Any How about the parkboard? That's on you. That's good. It's on blue. Oh, >> we might have to change the trash can. >> Oh, maybe I take that back. I I I think is the best baby. >> Don't you say? >> Wow. >> Now it's a >> You're the wrong one to make this recommendation. Get >> Well, what's your opinion on? >> I really don't care. I think you should let the parkour decide. >> The one thing about maroon is all these courts are two-tone. So you've got the the playing surface the inbounds is is a shade and the out- of- bounds is a different shade. I don't know how you do that with maroon. >> I guess you I don't >> gold >> maroon and gold >> or at least the lines are gold. >> Is it calming? >> It is if you go to forest lake >> or Columbus. >> We want to make that subject to the being cost neutral so that >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So >> throw in the stipulation that it's no added cost to move from green to an alternate color. >> But you need to know by tomorrow. Is that what you're saying, Jack? >> I wouldn't say we have to know by tomorrow, but I think we should be able to provide that to the contractor within a week. >> Can we can we just turf this back to the park board and let them decide what color they want it to be? >> That's what I would say. >> Give us something to do. I agree. Yeah. >> Yeah. You all did the heavy lifting on this. >> Yeah. >> All right. We'll um I'll send out an email to the group and Jack I'll be talking to you. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. >> So, we have three to choose from. It sounds like green, blue, or >> Yeah. The traditional, the blue, and the forest lake colors. >> The cal the calming blue. >> The calming blue. >> Yes. >> That answer your question? >> Yes, it did. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Having none, we'll take a vote. >> Jenny, I Janet I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. So, the motion passes unanimously. So, it's up to >> I would like to say thank you. >> Um, we've been trying to work on some of these things for uh quite a while and um it's good to get a a nice win. And I will make um just this statement too that probably next year we'll be coming back and talking about replacing a playground set that's really deteriorating quite quickly. And unfortunately, the company went out of business and we can't fix it. And that's going to be a big ticket item that's probably going to be outside of our current funding levels as well. So, um, but we're taking the win for 2025. And we're getting a maybe we should do a multicolored one. Tennis courts and pickle ball court. We'll come back with something one of the three colors. And again, thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Brad, Steve. >> Yeah. I just want to say thanks for your dedication to the park board, too. Both of you >> and for really doing the work to survey the public. and you did a lot of work to get input and I appreciate that too. Thank you. >> Well, we've had a good year. We're going to get some dugouts and we're going to tennis court. So, >> that's good. >> All good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll go on to item number four, the planning commission report and approval request, >> Rob. >> Yeah. Uh so, it was a a real quick meeting uh last week. Uh uh ran through it pretty quick. Um talk about the Hidden Park amendment. uh to the comp plan. Uh all commissioners voted in favor I of that. Uh the Northwest Quad Comp plan amendment. Um again all unanimous voting I. Um, and then, uh, the other kind of thing that Eleanor brought up, uh, was there some conversation around residents wanted higher fences and almost fences as high as, uh, what sounded to be like sound wall uh, along along higher traveled areas um, as well as arterial artiller roads. Um, they're looking for taller fences. Um, so it was a thing that was brought up and it was more for just uh something to think on uh in their spare time. Am I correct, Jack, on that one? We really took no action on it. >> That's correct. >> Um, like I said, fairly quick meeting. I believe everyone was here uh from the council. Uh, and they voted all I to end the meeting. So, questions at all? >> No, I think we're all there. >> We're here. So yeah. >> So you want to make a motion on item A or >> Can I just ask one question? It has nothing to do with your report, but on um page 41 of the memo um on the top uh where it says the city of Columbus purchased Northwest Quad I35 in 2018. I'm pretty sure it wasn't 2018. Was it 2008 that we purchased that land? >> It was earlier than 18 for sure. >> So I get the date right in the memo. That's all I'm asking. I know it's not 2018. >> Now, you would be correct and it would have been several years prior to that. >> Probably 08. >> That's what I'm thinking. I think it might just be a typo and it should have been 08, but double check. That's all. >> Okay. Uh so I Rob Bush move to approve uh to submit the Hidden Park Con comprehensive plan resoning amendment to the Metropolitan Council to change the resoning of parcel 15-32-22-23-00008 from park to rural residential. >> This is Janet. I second. >> We have a motion. It's been seconded. Any other discussion, questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Janet, >> Jenny, I, >> Scott, I, >> Janet, I, >> Rob I, >> and Ron I. It passes unanimously. >> You want to say B. Rob or? >> Yeah. Uh so motion I Rob Bush uh move to submit the Northwest Quad comprehensive plan for reszoning amendment to the Metropolitan Council to change of the zoning of block 2- lot one from general commercial to mixeduse high density. >> So this is Janet I second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any questions? Any comments? Hearing none. We'll take a vote. Janney. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rab I. and Ron I passes unanimously. We'll go on to item number five, personnel committee report and repro approval request. City administrator review policy and procedure and merit pay plan and city administrators goals. >> Say that three times fast. Um so uh I'm going to direct you to page 51 in your packet. There is a memo from the um personnel committee that outlines um our discussion from our octo October August 4th uh workshop. So there were two um pieces to this. One was taking a look at the um policy and procedure that we had uh written up and approved for the performance review um of our city administrator in the appointment of a merit pay plan. And then the second one is related to the annual goals that uh the council would be uh creating for the city administrator. So the two sections are highlighted in yellow. And so let's just look at the first the first uh section first, which is the policy and procedure. Um I I bullet pointed all of the points of discussion. I don't need to read that um for you. You guys had this in your packet. Um and then as an attachment starting on page 54 is the policy and procedure with those suggested changes in it. So, I'm happy to take any questions that you might have um or or hopefully no no other changes, but uh errors that you might find. And otherwise, we would uh be entertaining a motion to approve this revised um policy and procedure. [Music] >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I I don't have any questions. I just wanted to reiterate uh my concerns about this from the um uh previous workshop meeting. Um my concerns are that uh I know this uh appears to have worked well at the University of Minnesota, perhaps some private industry. I have some concerns that this might be unnecessary and burdensome for a city to the size of a NOA or a Columbus. Um, I think there were some concerns I expressed too about the goals and that the goals might imply that goals are not necessarily always met. Um, you know, there's 32 teams in the NFL all have the goal to win the Super Bowl and 31 of those teams are not going to achieve that goal. Um, I was given an example of of goal number one here being necessary. um because a a previous city administrator failed to execute a government function of getting people connected to um the utility services and I suggested that that's not a goal that that is an expectation that the city administrator leads the team to execute that government function and if the city leader fails to do that I believe it is the job of this this uh uh council to hold that leader accountable um for fail failure to execute a government function. Uh and that can be done internally and and not with uh this this process. I mean this is a well-ritten very lengthy process and council member Hegeland I can't thank you enough for putting the time and effort into this. Um, but I think the end result is cost. And when we're trying to figure out the cost of this at the meeting, I think the best we could do is come up with an invoice for $10,000 and try and have our finance department figure out what part of that invoice was the true cost of this. We didn't know at that time. Um and as a result I think this is frankly is an unnecessary cost of of tax ma payers money for something that u may be unnecessary and that we can handle internally um without consultants. >> So I'm curious how you propose to do this. I mean what we did and I think we talked about this last time is we created a policy and procedure in where where none existed prior. So are you I'm I'm trying to understand what your objection is to is your objection to doing an annual review of the of the city administrator like are you in not in favor of doing that? >> No. I I think I clearly stated that I think it's unnecessary and and this particular process is unnecessary and burdensome that we could make it much simpler and do it internally without paying a consultant to come in and >> so and just I just want to make sure you're understanding. So we we did talk about this last time too. Um first I did go back to um Ellen and asked her to look at her invoice and tell me how much of the 10,000 or whatever it was was for this project. She said about 6,500. So that's that's your cost because the rest of it was us unpaid staff or volunteers. Um so you have to have a policy or a procedure to do something like this because that's what makes sure that you're doing it consistently from year to year to year. And we talked about that. We had um Megan weigh in on that at our last at our at our last uh discussion of this. So I'm just I mean I'm not saying it has to be this. I'm asking you to tell me like what part of this don't you like? What feels that so burdensome? Because the burdensome part of it was creating it. That isn't going to have to be done next year. Now it's written. We just follow this process and the things that that the council discussed at the workshop which is don't do the 360 review just survey the council and the staff. That also eliminates I think some of of what um you you know you felt was was uh unnecessary. Um and I agree with you. I mean, the reason we did the 360 is because we were in a state of transition and we wanted to we wanted to get everybody's input because this was Jack's first year. Having gotten glowing reviews from everybody we talked to, I think we found we all agreed it was probably unnecessary to do this again next year. And maybe in year three, but every year we can decide what stakeholders we want feedback from. And so you're not tied to doing it exactly like we did it this year. And the whole purpose of us having this conversation is because the the um process that we developed >> said that after we do do the annual evaluation, we'll give the council a chance to say how you know how what' you think of it and what do you want to do differently. So I'm not opposed to doing it differently, but I'm not hearing any suggestions for what you want different. >> Okay. So to to answer your question, I think we discussed trimming up this 6 and a half page policy and procedure, making it a little more efficient and easier to administrate and having that discussion. So give me some examples because what we what we also said was combining the merit pay procedure which has to be a separate process has to be discussed in an open meeting versus a closed meeting for the for the performance review. So, we had those as two separate um processes and what I heard was that we would like to have those all in one because you think of them in one in one sort of uh as one process but they have to be done differently because state ma state statute mandates that you have to have the discussion about the pay in an open meeting whereas you can have the discussion on the performance in a closed meeting. So, so I again I I I'm happy to to um change this however you want me to, but all I'm hearing is that you don't like it, but you're not telling me what how you would change it to to make it less um in your words, burdensome. >> Well, I don't think that's the purpose of of of this meeting right now is to go and and make changes. I think we're voting on whether we're going to approve it or not. And then the time to make the changes would be if it's not approved to go back and make those changes. Am I not correct? >> Well, that's one way to look at it. I just think it's easier for the rest of the council to understand whether or not what you're concerned about is a concern. But if you don't if you're not able to elic, you know, u communicate that, then it's then it just comes across as you just don't like it. I think it comes across that I don't like spending $6,500 on it. >> And you won't next year. So that's done. I mean, if you don't have if just like just like starting, you know, our cannabis ordinance, we had nothing on the books for cannabis, right? It costs a lot of money to do that cannabis ordinance because you're doing it from scratch. Updates to a current ordinance don't cost as much money. So, this isn't going to cost you $6,500 next year. In fact, there shouldn't be anything that that Ellen would end up doing other than doing the staff uh interviews, getting the staff feedback, the things that we can't as council members participate in. So, it's not going to be 6,500. I don't know what it'll be if it'll be a thousand. I don't know. I don't know how long it takes, you know, she meets individually with people or how long it takes her to put together the written report that then you get um when you meet to do the performance evaluation. >> Yeah. Well, >> you can certainly you can certainly put a limit on that if that's a if the concern is the money. You can certainly say I don't want to spend more than pick a number on this process next year. >> So I I think you just mentioned something that's my concern. We don't know how much it's going to be next year. And I believe that this process is not worth a dollar. If we spend a dollar on it, it's unnecessary that we can develop a process that we handle in-house without paying a consultant. >> Let me interrupt here. The way I don't know where you're coming from on this either, Scott. I we paid a consultant to help us write it and get to this point. Now we don't have to pay a consultant before next next year, two years down the road. So I was getting the opinion that you just didn't like the evaluations part of it and setting goals and stuff like that. You don't think that we should do that part of this process? Again, we just you just said that we're going to have to pay a consultant some money to do this process next year. That it won't be 6,000, but we're still paying a consultant to do this process. >> And if I'm right, if I'm right, we don't have to pay the consultant anything next year, do we? >> Well, we don't have to pay her to help put together a a policy and procedure because we have that. But part of what we we have in here is that you're going to get feedback from the council and you're going to get feedback from from staff. Because of open meeting law, you can't all tell me what you think about Jack's, you know, performance. It has to go to somebody else. So, it's either going to go to a city attorney or it's going to go to our paid consultant. And I can tell you the city attorneys make more money than than our HR consultant does. Those are your two choices. Unless there's some other choice I'm not thinking about. Unless you want to say, "Forget it. We're not going to do we're not going to do any sort of survey and and collection of that information up front." Um, and the same is true with with the staff. Although, you know, we're not breaking open meeting law. There's a there's a power structure. You don't want the council who officially has hiring and firing authority over staff asking staff what they think of their boss. I mean, it really should go to a third party that's neutral in the whole process. So again, in in most cities, at least that I did research on, it's your city administrator or it's your HR person. So those are your two choices, and you're going to pay either one of them. >> Yeah, >> this is Jenny. Can I ask a question? Yeah. >> Um relating to uh what Scott noted, um clarifying with Ellen, will she be doing interviews with each staff member annually as a part of this review or will it just be the collection of the written surveys that she'll be doing? because I know this year she went very ind depth with with each staff member. >> I think what she did was she let them decide whether or not they wanted to just hand in there or if they wanted to talk to her about it. And most wanted to talk to her about it. So I I think you know again as council if if you're concerned about cost you can certainly say you know it's going to be it's going to be a written survey. Staff does a written survey. they send it to the to the uh HR person and there's no com conversation. She just tallies it up. I don't think you're going to get as good of information that way. But you certainly have the power to do that if you want to keep costs down. This is Jenny. I think it just becomes a bit subjective in in terms of it can get a little carried away. Not not to say you got carried away, but in in general all of a sudden it can open a can of worms into larger discussions which can be healthy. but also can all of a sudden be very costly. And so I understand what you're saying in in terms of so with Ellen with the $6,500, you noted that $6,500 was specific to the collection of data. >> No, it was it was the whole thing. So I mean again, we had nothing. We had nothing. There had never been a a review of a city administrator in this city as far as I could tell ever. So there was no policy and procedure that said here's how you do it or here's how you decide how you're going to compensate that that that uh city administrator. And so we had the employment agreement that that Jack was hired under which said if you do an annual review, it requires it, right? And it says that if you do an annual review, he is is uh he can he can be eligible for a merit increase. and if he's not going to get a merit increase, he's still eligible for the cost of living increase that everybody gets, but the council decides that. So, there were some things that were um part of his employment contract that mandate that we do this performance review. I think it's really um a big mistake for a city, and I don't care how big they are, um to do things like that and not have a written policy and procedure. So, and I think the attorneys would agree with that. I would certainly agree with that statement and it's up to the council how expansive that is and what's in it. >> Yes. And and so to answer two questions here. Number one, an annual review does not have to be this particular format. And my objection to it is this format is very detailed and it is costly any way you look at it. The second thing is is you know I if our leader is not executing a government function that's our responsibility isn't it to address that and not make it a a a goal for an annual review if if they're not connecting water services isn't that an expectation that they they're commit they're doing a a a function that they're expected to do It's not a performance issue. It's it's a they're not doing their job. >> Well, I think I think the I think the reality is that every city administrator has way more on their plate than they can possibly get done. And so, it's up to the council to to help them prioritize what those tasks are. That's what these goals do. And so, so what we were trying to accomplish in setting these goals was to say, let's pick some goals for Jack that he can make a priority and set some, you know, very um explicit curbs and gutters around there so he knows like in, you know, what we're really expecting him to deliver, what we're when in what time frame we're expecting him to to deliver that. So that he knows that this is the council's priorities in terms of getting stuff done. doesn't mean that he doesn't have anything else to do the rest of the year. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have other important things to do the rest of the year. But when it comes to, you know, what what we tried to do and I think, you know, we got feedback from everybody on this, not just the council, but we got feedback from, you know, the staff and from the business owners and the residents and stuff. People had different ideas. That was that kind of color-coded sheet that you saw. And then we just clustered them into into like um uh topics so that you didn't have 25 different you know things to look at. So and then what I did is is I put those like topics in front of you and we agreed maybe four to four to one I don't remember but you know the majority agreed that those were the goals that we wanted to go go with. I just made them into smart goals so that it was really clear what the you know the what the uh how specific it was, what the deliverable was, what the time frame was, etc. Um so um I don't know what else to say. >> No, I I I appreciate your feedback and your explanation, but it it doesn't change my mind. You know, I I still think the the process is more than what we we need to do. I the annual review I I think this is more than what we we need to do. So >> can I ask you a question then? Do you think we should do an annual review? >> Well, I think we have to do an annual review. I'm not saying we don't do an annual review, but I'm saying this particular process of doing an annual review is is more than it needs to be to accomplish the annual review. >> Okay. and and in I'm even willing to meet halfway and say can we trim this up can we simplify this process that you've already worked on so it's not necessarily going to a consultant and so that it it's not as lengthy and time consuming >> so I'm just >> I mean are we getting a bang for our buck out of this process >> this is Jenny can I clarify either way uh any feedback we would offer could not be collected ffected by any one of us. It would have to go to either a consultant or to our city attorney, I believe. Is that correct? >> So either way, there there would be some cost associated with it unless your objective would be to have discussion in closed meeting only and and take away any kind of survey or anything like that. So I guess that that would be the question. Do what do you have an idea of what you would want that to look like? >> No, I don't at this point. And you know, I I know that it's it's several pages long, but the several pages is really just to make it very clear for whoever is, you know, spearheading this, whether it's the council, the personnel committee and a city attorney, whatever. Just basically, you know, set the date, do this next, do this next, do this next. I I I'm as I go through here, I mean, if we agree that getting feedback in in a sort of a a confidential format, which is what the surveys were meant to accomplish, and then collating that in a way that the council could have that information in advance of them discussing their performance would be something that everybody would like. There really isn't anything else about this process. There isn't really anything else to this process. It just describes how how we're going to gather that information, who's going to gather it, how it's going to be presented to the council, when the council can talk about the performance, when they can talk about the the merit increase. Um, so it it's a lot of words when you go through it, but when you read it, it's not there's not that much to it. >> This is Jenny. to reduce cost. I I would agree that in year two, which would be 2026, I would agree that we could potentially um do a paper survey only and not personal interviews, which would reduce the amount of hours that would um go to an HR consultant. Um but that would be just a means to reduce some of the hours in a in a cost cutting manner. I mean, the other way to do it is to just set uh set a dollar amount for how much you want to spend on it. I mean, I think if you talk to the staff how they feel about that, they would not agree with you. They would say that they would want to have the ability to to in some in some cases they preferred the ability to verbally transfer their impressions rather than write it down. They felt safer doing that or maybe it was just easier. I don't know. So, so I mean that's certainly something we can do, but it might not be interpreted positively by staff and you certainly can accomplish. I mean, like I said, you can you can put a dollar a value on how much you want to spend on this. I don't know how many hours it takes it took her to do the feedback with the staff. Um I don't know maybe you guys know she was she was up here when she did it a day. So maybe six hours, seven hours. So the so clarifying and confirming the $6,500 was the total. What would be included as a part of this specific performance review policy was a small fraction of that $6,500? the the the vast majority of the that was spending time coming up with the questions, looking at what other cities did, getting the attorney's um approval of the process that we were putting together, looking at what the League of Minnesota cities did. I mean, I did a lot of that, she did a lot of that. We talked about it in the in um not when Jack was present, but with with Aaron or with Jack or with Ron as part of the personnel committee. Um, so it was a combination of the research that it took to put this together and then the the discussion amongst either the attorneys and the and the rest of the personnel committee, the crafting of the tools that we used to survey and then she, you know, she reached out to the residents and the business owners and talked to most of them in person. Um, and then again compiling all that information in the report. She was at our meeting to to be there. I mean, she doesn't have to be there if you don't want her there. I mean, there's lots of places that you can look at and say, you know, it'd be nice to have her there, but we don't want to pay for it. And so, then you take that out. You know, for every hour that you cut off, it's whatever $165 less off the bill. So, you know, you you come up with a dollar value that says, you know, you don't have to do that tonight, but before you start this process next year, you can say like we don't want to spend more than $2,000, and that's what the the budget is. >> You're shaking your head down. >> No, this is Jenny. No, I I agree. So ultimately I I do somewhat agree with having a dollar value associated with that just because it can get carried away or all of a sudden somebody could be joining several meetings and it just gets very costly. So to your credit I do agree with that and we don't have to decide that tonight. We can vote on the policy and then in the future is what I'm understanding at a dollar value if we feel comfortable with that. Is that correct? >> I I think that's correct. We can we can do it. It's not costing us anything to approve this thing. It's just doing the function itself. >> And it's not I mean, you're you're doing the review of the policy and procedures so that we don't have to do this next year. It's done. They just pull this off the shelf and we can start. Oh, yeah. That's >> You don't want You don't want to start over next year and do this all again. >> Yeah. >> No, no. I there's been a lot of time put in on this thing and I it's easy to take it apart, you know, or whatever, but we have to have something like you were saying a minute ago. We three of us can't get together and say, "Well, what do you think of this?" You have to have that. You have to have Bill or somebody out there that's not connected do the evaluate. >> Yes. And again, I know in the last meeting, I thanked you and thank you again for all the work you do on this. I I appreciate it and I felt that this year's review process did go very well. >> So, if there aren't any specific changes to this, then I would just um move that we approve the revised um city administrative performance review policy and procedure and merit pay plan which have been now combined. And then I will talk about bud uh goals. That's my that's my motion and I'm sticking to it. Are you going to make two motions? >> No, I'm going to make two motions. That's my first one >> because they're two different things. >> Do I need a second? Is Jenny. I second. >> Thank you. >> All right. We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion on this or questions? Hearing none. We'll take a vote. >> Jenny I. >> Scott. Nay. >> Janet I. >> Rob. Nay. >> Ron I. >> All right. I wait. I want to help me understand the nay, Rob, please. >> I I think I talked about it and and Scott kind of both of us went back and forth in that um in the workshop, right? And that that this goals being used against Jack for what his pay increase could be. I do agree with Scott on that. >> We're not we're not talking about the goals though right now. We were just talking about the written procedure. >> Well, we're leading up to the goals and this is part of that. So, if I was to approve this and and approve the goals, it's kind of counterproductive, right? >> The goals will be a separate motion. So, you can say no to the goals if you don't like them, but this is just about the the procedure. >> My votes my vote. >> Okay. I just wanted to understand it. >> Yep. >> All right. So, it pass. >> The motion passes three to two and uh Scott and Rob voted nay on it. >> All right. So then the second part of this is the goals and I already talked about how we came up with them um that they were you know brought input from a number of people. They were condensed down and then made into smart goals and they start on page 52 of our packet and go on to 53. There are six of them. Um, in our LA in our workshop, Jack had a opportunity to weigh in whether he felt that these were doable and and um I guess reasonable goals. And if I'm quoting you correctly, I believe you said you did. So, that was one concern that was um that was brought up. these do align with the council's um priorities at least as we've talked about them and it's not meant to say this this is all that Jack has to do and it's also built into this is a quarterly update by Jack so we certainly have the ability to um you know modify the goals as things come up or don't come up or if other higher priority things come up. So, you know, to your to your point, Scott, about, you know, the the city water and sewer and that should have been done. I mean, there's that's a really great example of had we had a process where that was a goal and there was a report back to the council in a timely manner, it wouldn't have slipped through the cracks. And you know there some of the delay was purposeful delay because when things came due they were you know we were in the midst of a recession and I think there was a a conscious decision made by the council at that time to um put the put the end date out there or to extend the end date out there and then it it it just didn't get it just didn't get the attention that it needed to. So the the whole purpose of having these goals defined like this and then having the quarterly report is to do exactly what you said which is stay on top of it and make sure they get done. And if you know if there's reasons reasonable reasons why it can't get done help Jack overcome those obstacles. [Music] >> Any discussion? >> This is Jenny. I do have a request of change um in terms of the discussion around not smart goals but the goals in general that we um going to the bottom of 51. It notes state the city administrator's goals as smart goals. I would like to change or modify that to state the city administrator's overseeing of city goals as smart goals because I don't want them to be personally linked to the city administrator. They are overseeing our city's goals. So I'd like that language change in general. Um I'm just I'm I'm struck. So you're on page 51. >> Bottom of 51 last bullet point. >> So all this all those bullet points were were summarizing the discussion from our August 6 which is what I think we said. So just making sure that we clarify that they are overseeing the city's goals because I I feel that it's a bit convoluted in terms of are they his goals or not just Jack's but in general a city administrator's goals or are they the city's goals and I I want to just ensure that we're clarifying that. >> Okay. So I I this is might be some there's some confusion about that. So, these are both this is Jack's goals as a city administrator to get this done. Does he have to do every single step of this? No. I mean, he won't be able to do he's going to have to lean on engineers, other staff, the city attorney, you know, but it's his job to get it done and to keep us appraised at where he is in the process of however we've defined this. If Jack had personal goals, like if he had a goal that said, "Hey, I want to learn how to do Zoom better," that would be a personal goal, not a city goal, right? We decided not to go there on personal goals. We we decided that we wanted to stick to goals that were in line with the city's priorities, which is how we came up with these. So, when we say that there's Jack's goals, what we mean is he's the one that's being held accountable for them. and he's the one that will report back to us on the on the um progress. >> Mrs. Jenny, I think the city administrator is held to a higher standard there at a high level. And so, while I do appreciate a city administrator having personal goals, I feel it's important and I as I sat in and worked with our city administrator, I understand how we feel about goals and we didn't go there, but a future city council may not understand how we are doing this. And I feel that it's important that the city administrator oversee our city's goals. So while they may have personal goals, I feel that this specifically and what their merit pay is based on should be city goals. >> So but you're what you're asking to amend is my personnel committee report. Is that right? I just want to ensure that any clarification and any wording within any documents that we are um actually going to approve ensure that any of that would be related to city goals. So help just pick out some part where you feel like that isn't clear so I can I can understand this better. So I like I said I can go through I it's based this what I'm looking at specifically and what I noted was specifically based on your report on pages 51 and 52. So I just want to clarify any language going back to I know that the document's fairly long. So I again I can go back and review this to find any other specific places but because it was noted in the personnel committee report I took that as to be a part of this as well. So again it it discussed the city administrator's goals as a part of this entire process. So I just want to ensure that we're clarifying what that looks like. >> Well I'm thinking that what you're suggesting should be a amendment to the policy and procedure. Um, but I'm not I I'm not finding the specific area that um where it alludes that it might be personal goals. So, I would need for you to make your next amendment to understand because you haven't made the second amendment which is relating to goals. Is that what we're understanding? >> The second >> Oh, I'm sorry, not the second the second motion. >> Yeah, I haven't made I haven't made it yet. What I would make is is approving what's um written on page 52 and 53 which is what we already approved at our or or agreed to I should say at the workshop just turned from those general topics to smart goals. So I'm um I mean I certainly can add to the report. The report isn't anything that we have to approve though. I mean, it's just me regurgitating back what we talked about at the at the um workshop and what I did with those recommendations. So, this is Jenny. The reason I held off on noting it was because you noted that you were splitting this into two portions and the second would be relating to goals. So, I just wanted to ensure that your second motion, again, I don't know what that's going to look like because you were splitting it into two pieces. So potentially it may be included in that. >> Okay. >> So Jenny on 52 there the personnel committee city administrator 2025 May 31 2026 goals recommendation. I look at that as being the city. >> Correct. And I just want to clarify that because right now, yes, we may agree, but in in our meetings that we held outside of this with our city administrator, we also discussed personal goals. And so I want to clarify that really what we're focusing on are city goals. >> Is it is it not clear by looking at the goals that are written down that those are city goals? I mean, for me it is, but I mean the goals as they are written 1 through six here, I think that would be if you read them, I don't know how you could ever think of them as being personal goals. >> This is Jenny, but earlier you noted that we didn't go there in terms of personal goals, but that potentially would have been something a city administrator could do. >> Jack can always have personal goals. >> I just want to ensure that that's not included in this in this structure and scaffolding. >> Mr. Mayor and Council, >> can you help me? Maybe you can. >> Can I take a stance? >> Yes, please do. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I think it'd be as simple perhaps as simple as an additional bullet right above uh state to city administrator goals as smart goals. You know, something like to be clear, the city administrator's goals are intended to implement the city's goals, something to that effect. So, it's clear that the goal of the city administrator established annually are intended to implement the city's overall goals or something to that effect. >> Yeah. And and what I'm trying to find is I thought that was actually in the procedure that they align with the city's goals >> and that and I'm trying to find it and and I'm failing miserably at that because I think that then that protects what you're worried about. Um >> and this Jenny, I'm not worried about it with our specific council. I'm saying if we're creating this document for the future, I just want that clarification. >> Thank you, Bill. >> I'm just going to write it out and see if we can >> solve that point. Purpose of establishing annual goals for the city administrator is to ensure >> I mean alignment with the city city's priorities or the city's goals. >> Sure. The timely implementation of city goals, something like that. timely and effective, whatever, something of that nature. >> Thank you. >> And and I I just uh put it above the last point. State the city administrator's goals as smart goals. >> Okay. So So I I'm thinking to to accomplish what Jenny's looking for is I just incorporate that into the motion because what she's looking at is just a memo, which is not going to be part of my motion and is not being approved. It's just my memo helping the council guide through this process and the documents. >> But your your memo your memo is a committee report, right? >> Yep. >> And so that's a subset of the council. The committee report is a recommendation to the council. Yep. >> And so the council is modifying your recommendation as its official action. >> So is that is that a third motion? >> Uh I don't think so. You're adopting your motion that you you split these motions and you are recommending goals as presented in the packet and and the council is is suggesting a a slight modification of that recommendation. >> All right. So, help me with the wording of the of the motion then. That's what I'm struggling with. >> Sure. Um the motion would be to approve the goals and recommendations as presented in the packet as uh further amended by the council. And so that you the council would have to agree to this and it's just to add a bullet on page 51. The purpose of establishing annual goals for the city administrator is to ensure the timely and effective implementation of city goals. So it's just kind of clarifying what the purpose is. >> Okay. So I will make that motion. This is Jenny. I second that motion. Okay. [Music] [Music] Got it. >> We got a first and a second. A motion and a second. >> You need take a vote. >> Take a vote unless there's more discussion. >> I missed that one. >> I wondered about that. >> I'm sitting there thinking I thought you were going to make all this adjustment. No, he just said it. >> I saw you writing it down, so I thought maybe you're pausing right now, too. I wasn't. >> Okay. So, we have a a motion that's been seconded. And uh any discussion? Any questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny. >> Jenny. I >> Scott I. >> Janet. I >> Rob. Ron I. >> All right, we're done. >> The motion passes 4 to1. I just like to add something here that all these goals that we're talking about, Jack's talked about for the last two years or whatever. So, it always comes up. We talked about nobody wanted to talk about the water tower or any of that issue, but and the deal with this the water hookups. Elizabeth put a hold on it. The council's put holds on it. So, whatever. We'll go on to the uh item number six, EDA council member appointment. Jack, you want to read that or I'll be glad to at the July 9th, 2025 city council meeting resolution number 25-09 enabling resolution establishing an economic development authority under Minnesota statute section 469 909 to 469 91081 was approved. That resolution allows the change from the current seven member authority which consisted of the entire city council and two citizen member to a five member authority composed of two city council and three citizen members. For existing bylaws, the mayor is a designated member of the authority. As a result of the restructuring of the authority board, one more council member will need to be recommended for appointment by the mayor subject to approval of city council. That appointment will be offered tonight at this meeting. The appointment is annual and the term will expire on December 31st, 2025. In addition, and with the change the composition of the EDA, there is an open citizen member vacancy that will remain to be filled. The two existing citizen members will remain on the authority board. Their terms expire in 2029 and 2030, respectively. Staff will seek direction from the EDA for solicitations of application for the open city member seat at the August 21st, 2025 EDA meeting. Staff request that Mayor Hannah Graph recommend an appointment of the member of the city council to the EDA for city council approval. The term for this seat is an annual appointment and will expire on December 31st, 2025. Can I ask one question? Is that in the bylaws that uh the appointments only for one year? >> It is for a council member just and we do these annual you can you can put it in there differently but most places do this as an annual appointment. >> Okay. All right. Well, uh just let the report know that I uh I did pick a council member and it's Jenny Latton. And the reason, one reason I picked for her was she's going to be here for another three and a half years. And I think that the EDA needs someone stable going through the process. Even though I'll be here for next year, you never know when elections come up. But if she's going to be here three and more years, I hope that she stays on the board and we get some consistency going. So, I uh uh Mayor Hannigraph move to approve the appointment of Jenny uh Latin to the city of Columbus Economic Development Authority for the term to expire December 30th 1, 2025. >> So, this is Janet. I second. >> We have a motion on floor. It's been seconded. Any discussion? Any questions? Having none, we'll go to a vote. Jenny, >> does Jenny vote on that? >> Yeah, Jenny votes. You you can vote. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Ron I >> Janet I >> Rob I >> I'm glad voted no. >> So if I'm right Jack or uh Bill so when we set out duties next year as we always do who's going to be on what board is this have to be voted in again? >> Yes. >> Every Okay. Is it a group deal we vote in? If someone said, >> "Well, and you you will be automatically on the board for the bylaws unless those bylaws are amended to change that. If they are and the mayor is not on there, then there will be two appointments to be made." >> Well, could the mayor appoint them? >> Uh those the way generally that's done, appointments to commissions and liaison and committees, assignments are made by the mayor and approved by the city council. Okay. >> Thank you. As we noted earlier, we had changed the agenda tonight. So, we're going to go to uh the consent agenda. And um that's item B. And I gathered there's some >> changes or >> so I can do this. So, so this is Janet. Um so, I move to approve the consent agenda removing items three and four for further discussion. So it' be uh including uh approving items one and two. >> Are we going to talk about the three and four afterwards? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the motion that Janet made is to approve items one and two. >> Second. Rob >> and Rob second it. We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any discussion? Having none, we'll take a vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> Ron I. Now we'll go on to item number three. >> No. So we know we should talk about the two things that I removed if that's okay. >> Yes. I understood that that was why you're removing them. Yeah. >> So they are removed but they're not off the agenda. >> Right. So and and it's because there's edits to them. So can't do that as part of the consent agenda. You have to pull them off and discuss them. And it's more than just I think more than just my edits. So, and what we what we had decided on our minutes the process was that they go out we give edits back to um Aaron and then he gives us uh redact not redacted um revision marks on our edits and if there's more edits to be made we do it as part of this process so that everybody hears it at the same time so at the end of this meeting we have minutes that we can post. >> Okay. So, um the first set of minutes on um April 23rd. So, we've talked about these before and this is more of a question um for Aaron than it is a request or a change. And that is I think we talked about how we wanted the minutes to follow the agenda. And the specific example that I gave when we talked about this was that I gave a planning commission report and I gave a personnel committee report but that report is under the cons uh consultant leaison and staff reports. I went back and looked at the agenda to make sure that I wasn't misremembering that those were actual items on the agenda and they were. So I would I'm fine with how this is written. Well, I'm not fine. I think it's too short but I'm not going to I'm not going to lay on my sword over that. I'm fine with the the text. I just would like to have this follow the format of the um agenda for that day. So, you can make those changes. I don't think you have to bring it back to us. Just pull out these two things and put them under the the headings that were consistent with the agenda. >> I would agree with that if it's not substitive. It's just moving >> it is >> and and providing headings. >> That's all it is. So that's >> you have something >> for April 23rd. >> Yeah. >> Um this is Jenny. The only question I had was line 89. Uh the total estimated cost for the city hall generator bid is noting at 28239. And I don't believe that that was correct. Was it >> I I didn't hear what you said. >> The the total generator cost is noted here on line 89 still at 28,239. And we only approved one of the we only >> take a stab and say it was 14,000. So I just want line 89 corrected. >> I think this is the the the cost of the two combined. This was the cost of the recommended package, isn't it? Yeah. So >> two like $14,641 or some number like that, but I'll look it up here. >> I just want to clarify that that is just isn't noted here. So they don't have both noted. So I either note both or clarify that. Well, and I think that, you know, that was part of what we discussed with these is that they were pretty sparse. They didn't give a lot of background in terms of the of the motion. So, there's nothing in this section that talks about the fact that the staff recommended bid was two and it cost 28,239 and after discussion it was whittleled down to one for a cost of 14. That's not in there anymore. >> I believe this was the second meeting when this was actually discussed. This was the approval. All of that discussion happened at the previous meeting which should be in another set of minutes or a subsequent set of minutes. One of them was >> Oh, you know, you're right because this is where we we delayed the decision. I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. So then I think this is right because this was the cost of the estimate that was being recommended. >> Then we came back the following minute with the 14,000 or the >> much more lengthy discussion. >> You're right. Thank you for reminding us. So I think the only change >> Well, there might be other changes. Yeah. Pat, you have changes? >> Not to that one. >> Pardon? >> Not to that one. >> Not to this. So the April ones complete. >> So yes. So then I would move to approve the April 23rd uh minutes as written with the change that under um D consultant leaison and staff reports council member Hagglin's report that that bullet point comes out and gets put under the respective agenda items of planning commission report and personnel committee report which was on the agenda. >> Scott, I second. Got a motion on the floor. Seconded. Any discussion, questions? None. Jenny. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Ron I. >> Ron I. Passes unanimously. Next one. May 28th, 2025. >> You want to go first, Scott? >> Nope. >> Okay. Um, >> go ahead. >> So, my um I have a few uh not a few, I have several changes. So, on page one, I'm um looking at line um 33 that starts the motion. I think part of the motion was also approving the supplemental bill list as distributed, but that's not in the motion. So, it's the language was in our our you know, we always get our recommended languages. So, I think that it should also include that the supplemental bill list was approved on page two. um line 48. So just in general, this discussion um or this presentation by those two residents, it's flipping be between tenses or it's flipping between first person and second person. So I'm just saying let's let's just pick one and stick to it. So you've got um him talking it's being presented as um the way I would amend this is on line 48 instead of saying while visiting we saw which is first person it was they saw because the rest of this refers to it in that tense. So you change we to they in line 49 you would change us to them. you would change we to they again in line 49. And on line 50, you would change our to their. And on line 61, you would change our to their. And on line 62, you would change we to they so that it's all in the same um person. Um on line 79 it says the city emphasized that rent um is meant I think it you it just is missing council city council because several of us brought that up in that discussion um on page three of 14 um on line 101 it and should be in in attachment one not and attachment one and Line 102 turn should be term. So that's those are just I don't know maybe we didn't it didn't sound in the in the video right. Um on line 110 Susan Bosch's last name is spelled incorrectly. Her last name is spelled B A U T C H. On page four um I have no changes. on page five. Um, the sentence in line 187 didn't it didn't quite make sense. It looked like there was a word missing. So, I would suggest it says in addition to three to five other trucks arriving randomly to pick up equipment. So, you would insert arriving before randomly. On page six, um there's a on line 214, there's a missing 'the' in front of option than the previous tenant. Um on line on page seven on line 261, there's a there's a parenthesis. There's not another parenthesis before it. So, I think you just take that parenthesis out because there's not a an earlier parenthesis putting anything in there. Um, on page eight, there are no changes. On page nine, there are no changes. On page 10, there are no changes. On page 11, line 409, I think it should be um an an A in front of AIOT was using an AI bot to record the transcript. Um, on page 12 of 14, there are several here. Um on line 440 there's a capital T for thank should be a small lowercase T. On line 4 um 47 102232 is formatted like a date. It should be 10-22-32. On line 448 Marshon is spelled wrong. It's M A R S H A N Lake. On line 454, we should add to uh Nick's last name, Nick Thompson. So, it's T O M C like cat, Z like zebra, I K. Um on 455, a period should be after also attended, cross out as well as and then it starts with city attorney Griffith attended via Zoom. [Music] On line 462, um we never acted formally um or were given any direction. So were and given. Um on line 463, I'm suggesting you put a a period after direction, cross out and and then add he originally thought they could just come up with a policy. I watched the video by the way. So that's where this is coming from because I didn't think the question I was asking is do you need direction in order to um send people to collection if they don't pay their their uh kennel and impound fees. And we actually did come up with an answer to that, but it's not in here. So that's what I'm trying to get at here. So, so line 463 should read, "He originally thought that they could come up with a policy to state that this is um this is the procedure we're going to use for an unpaid bill for a reclaimed animal if the animal doesn't pay the charge, but stated that the direction is clear enough and it will be recorded in the minutes and a policy isn't necessary. The city will forward unpaid kennels and pickup charges to collections." That's what you said in the video. So that's what I want in here so that it's really clear that council gave direction in that regard. And then my question to Bill is is that true we don't need a policy or do we need a policy that actually says that? >> I don't have the minutes in front of me. So um if somebody can hand those to me. >> So I'm on page 12 and the question is we have we have animal control that picks up dogs. They brings it, you know, straight dogs, they bring it to an impound facility. If the people want it back, they have to pay, they should be paying the impound fee. They the impound facility isn't set up to do that. So, it ends up getting charged back to the city and then we have to recoup it. >> We hadn't been recouping it. We talked about that. It was it wasn't made clear to staff that that's that we wanted staff to take it to the next level if they weren't able to get um the resident to pay for it in under normal circumstances. And Cheryl had asked if we wanted that done that we that we put you know that we make give direction to staff in that way. That's what I was doing in this and that's what was shown on the video but it didn't get in the minutes that way. >> Okay. So my question is I my edits I think gets it in the minutes the way it should be. But what Jack was saying originally was that he was going to come up with a policy to state that this is the procedure at the meeting. He says that we we we don't need the policy because your direction is clear enough. And my question is if we're going to send residents to collection, do we need a policy? >> You need an ordinance? >> Okay. So >> that that's a legal legislative matter and that a policy would not be good enough to >> so >> carry the weight of >> so we need to do that because direction isn't good enough then >> yeah but it wouldn't be in the minutes because it wasn't discussed >> right right but but as long as we're talking about they wanted clarity >> I would like to see it in an ordinance so help me know where this is supposed to go >> okay so so did you you don't have to worry about the ordinance piece I was just asking that question >> you want added tell me where that needs to I think I just did. So on I'm I'm looking at pay on line 463. There's a period after direction. >> Yep. >> Cross out the and. >> He originally is inserted. >> Yep. >> The rest of the sentence stands as it was. >> Okay. >> Now we're on length 464. Leave that sentence the way that it is, but instead of the period, cross out the period and add but he but stated, meaning he stated, the direction is clear enough. It will be recorded in the minutes and a policy isn't necessary. The city will forward unpaid kennels and pickup charges to collections. That's what was said in the minute. That's what was said it on the video. I'll find it in the video from tonight's meeting. >> Yep. >> I can't write that fast. >> I can give you I can give this to you. >> I'll find it in the video. We got it. >> And then on page 13, um on on line 511, oops, I take that back. On line 477, park board should be capitalized. On line 511, the period um after the period on the 90,000, it looks like there's just a half a sentence there. So, I'm thinking it should say the council discussed options for calcium chloride because it's just a half a sentence. Um, on page 14, line 521, it's DDA, not DD, not DA. And also in line 523, it's DDA, not line, not just DA. And that's the end of my edits. >> This is Scott. Just a question for you. >> So yes, >> on when we're talking like line 4748, that whole conversation there, since you watched the video, were some of those quotes, it looks like some of these sentences were um kind of giving an overview of what says and then we're doing quotes. So >> well, and and I think what I >> we're quoting them. >> My edits takes that out and just puts them all in the second person. So, so, >> so, but >> I don't think these I don't think he meant to have I mean, he can speak to it. I don't think you meant to have these as quotes. I think you were just flipping back and forth between >> I didn't do this set. >> Okay. Well, then >> done by our recording. >> Okay. So, she was flipping back and forth between referring to it in the first person, referring to it in the second person. >> Right. >> So, I just made it all second person. >> Okay. >> Because I didn't want to worry about what the specifics were that they said. It doesn't >> where you put the quotes. I I didn't want to worry about where we put quotes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Anybody else have any >> Can we spell council right on the top of the first page >> line two >> in the title? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> And this is Jenny. Can we also add the time is 6 p.m. >> Where at? >> In the title. If you go to April 23rd, we know April 23rd, 2025, 6 PM. We don't know the time on the uh 528 minutes. >> It does state that you Okay. Yep. No problem. >> I'm sorry. In the I'm just title specific. I'm just trying to keep them uniform. >> Yep. >> So, I had a couple uh so as it relates to uh line 45, it they go in and out, but it goes from Rob to Robert. I don't know if we want to keep that consistent on 45. So, previous lines above was Rob and I believe it was the Austerberg's. >> Mhm. >> And then on 45 it goes to Robert. So, change that to Rob. Um, and then also um 469 uh or starts at 468, but the resident states they had tried to address the issue on their own, but there was no positive outcome. Bush passed on the situation to the code compliance officer, Lassard. Uh that should say that I passed on the code compliant officer's uh contact and the resident reached out to them, not myself. I did not reach out to Sean in that regard. It was a resident and there was resolution. >> That's all I have. Thank you. Anything else on the minutes? >> Somebody's just got to make a motion to approve all those. >> I will. >> So, >> talk about 525. >> You have one, too? >> No. >> Oh, >> trying to get this thing going. >> So, I would I would move to approve the minutes of 52825 um with the corrections that were submitted by the council tonight. >> Scott, I second. >> We have a motion and seconded. Any discussion? Any questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. >> Jenny, Jenny, I >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rabbi, >> Ron, I passes unanimously. We'll go on to item number D, consultant liaison, a staff report. City engineer. Brian. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Brian Bachmire, consulting city engineer. >> Can you pull your mic up a little bit? Thank you. I was just going to report that yesterday Mindot did conduct a webinar on the 2025 local road improvement program process. So I attended that and got all the information. So understand that the solicitation will be starting in September and and be uh due by December. I'll make the decision in March, the announcements in March, and then u the selected cities then will have the opportunity to enter into the agreements to proceed with their project. So, um certainly we're getting ready for that, preparing the information that'll be needed for the administrator to uh work on the application. With that, I'd stand for any questions the council may have. >> We don't have any. Thank you, Brian. >> Welcome. Uh, next one is city attorney. Bill, >> no report this evening. >> Thank you. The mayor and city council report number three. Jenny, do you have a report? >> Uh, this is Jenny Concrete at a watershed meeting on Monday, uh, 8:11. The meeting went about 10 minutes, so nothing to report there. Uh, tomorrow night, Thursday at 6:30, there's a Fall Fest volunteer meeting for anybody interested in volunteering. That'll be in our community senior/ senior center. And that is all I have to report. >> Thank you. Scott, do you have anything? >> Uh, no report tonight. [Music] >> Janet? >> No, I don't have a report, but I do have a question for Bill. So, all of of what we heard from um Senator Krin on the changes to the cannabis, does that mean that we have to update our ordinances? >> Uh, they >> ordinance. I don't know when you prepared them. Uh quite possibly. Uh Megan has been uh primarily providing that council. So I can ask her that question. >> Okay, that'd be I think I mean I know that we had some leftover changes but we weren't going to address those until there was another reason and it sounded like a lot of things changed on the state level and I just don't know how that flows down to what we have in our ordinance. Yeah, I think the changes largely were to the rules at the state, but yes, they could also impact um uh the local ordinances. So, I'll make a note to ask her. >> Yeah, it sounded like they were pushing a lot of things down to the local people. So, that's why I'm a little worried that maybe ours aren't adequate now. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Y >> uh just uh want to say thank you to the residents that had uh had their uh national night out events. Um, I only attended the one. I know others were able to make it to the rest, but um, and and the Lions starting something at the at the park. It sounds like they're going to try and continue it, make it bigger next year. Um, so that's that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh, I'm going to go right on to number four, the park board. Uh we kind of talked about the park board tonight already about the tennis courts and I think that meeting we had on the 31st was mainly the tennis court issues and I think I discussed the last meeting what we did before ordered four more garbage cans uh etc. So I think I I brought that out but I do want to talk tonight we did have a fire board meeting on July 31st and uh just some discussions on it. Uh uh there these are four things that it may not make a lot of sense to people but ladder number one replacement they're going to move that back uh to 2038 right Jack and it's more or less for a budget restrictions that forest lake has and then they explained uh Al explained that the 2026 rescue one replacement will be getting looked at with the possibility of being a one-tonon F550 versus a custom fire truck to cut the cost down so it's not as big of a unit. And then uh the third thing they discuss is a full-time deputy chief position and that cost is 160,000 a year a guesstimate and we we'd end up paying 20% of it. Uh then they brought up uh discussed uh Al spending $30,000 to modify the seats on engine one and engine two because of the room in the back seats. These two units were purchased and the seats in the back weren't properly put in where the firemen get in the back seat and they can't put their equipment on because they don't have no leg room. So it's kind of a deal. this money is going to come out of the uh public safety money. So, it won't be on the budget on that part there. Also, uh during this meeting uh when Al was talking uh I think we're getting a good dollar for a buck over there when he talked and I wish I had some quotes from him. I don't know if you remember any of them, Jack, but there was some cities that pay thousands of dollars more than we pay for our services. They do have a very efficient model of running that fire department. It's very cost effective and it delivers essentially the same amount of service compared to other departments that have higher uh turnover rates and their volunteer firefighters. And uh I agree with Ron that uh we're getting a very good value. I believe from participating with Forest Lake in this joint fire service endeavor. >> Yep. So that's uh all I have. Yeah, it's I think it's very run very efficiently and I think the members have to be there 25% of the calls. Uh he said if I'm right, Jack, that a volunteer fireman spends about uh 10 weeks a year at that fire hall somehow. So, >> we got some nice uh public service coming out at last uh thing on the item is the city administrator's report. And >> before we do that, I would like to recommend that uh we allow the city attorney and the city engineer the option to excuse themselves on this. This could be 30 minutes or it could be an hour and a half. So, >> thank you. >> Appreciate it very much. >> Was there a ball game on? It's just an early morning meeting. >> It might even still be late out there. We're just getting dark. >> Oh, yeah. >> Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Bill. You gonna stay Jim or I >> I do have a couple things, Mr. Mayor. Um Jim Winningstead, public works director in in the meetings that I attend with Anoka County talking about the projects that are happening or going to happen in the city of Columbus, the county road 23 and Kettle River roundabout project. They are asking me to ask the city council what their thought process is on using um camp 3 road from PTOIC to 23 as their detour while we do that project and I told them that I'd bring it forward. It makes a lot of sense to do it that way. It allows them to close that portion of 23 and get that construction done in a more timely manner than it would if they tried to keep it open. So, that's that's their request. Um, and I'm looking for some feedback. >> I think I it sounds logical to me. I mean, I see their point, but are they going to they close off uh 155th, right? As part of that project, 155th will be closed. Um, >> but is that part is that part of the detour? Are they going to leave 155th open as a part of the detour? >> No. >> No. So, that'll be closed, too. >> That'll be So, so the way the project is being designed and the location of the roundabout, they're going to start pulling all of that out. So, you know, some portions of 23 north and south of where the roundabout will be, Kettle River will be pulled out between 155th and Camp 3. >> Mhm. And this just allows them to, you know, construct that um in a more timely manner by being able to close, you know, County 23 basically and and Kettle River. And you know, some portions may be open for periods of time, but basically that's the stretch. And we all know how people operate. you know, you kind of get the third, third, and third program. A third of people avoid um a third of people follow the post a detour and a third of people find the quickest route. And the quickest route is going to be camp 3. So, I I'm I'm saying that there's going to be a chunk of traffic that's going to go that way anyways. And we can kind of use that same thought process is the state has 97 closed and their posted detour is not Hornsby Street to 145th the Lions to whatever Forest Lake is and around. Um but that's where the vast majority of traffic is going. So, you know, I think they're going to go that way anyways. But this the council saying yes, we can use that as the detour allows the the project to potentially be done in a quicker manner. I >> I do have one question. So people uh coming from an eastbound on 23, they can turn on the cut over there at camp 3 and then cut over. >> So So if you're coming from the freeway going westbound, >> yep. You're going to take camp 3 um cross over Kettle River and go to PTOAC and then go around down PTOAC south. >> So there's going to be a line going north you're going to take PTOAC up to um camp 3 and then go north on Kettle River or over to the freeway. So that that's kind of the cut across. Otherwise, their detour is going to be Broadway. And then we're going to end up with a certain amount of traffic that's going to take Camp 3, a certain amount of traffic that'll take 165th. I'm sure there'll be some that are going to try to scoot across 162nd or every other road along the way. People are going to try to find a quicker way to go rather than drive all the way to Broadway. I see a lot of trucks though cutting down turning on camp 3 that want to go let's say the North Pine and they're coming through the freeway. >> Mhm. >> They'll have to cut right across. There'll be a lot of traffic at that intersection, won't there? >> I don't I I didn't hear cuz I had some interruptions in my office, but I thought they said that there's somewhere between 5 and 7,000 cars a day that go that way. That seemed like a really light number. So, I think I got that wrong. Um, I can ask that question, but I mean, they're going to, barring the fact that we close it, they're going to go that way anyways. >> I was thinking what you were what you were asking was that they would close camp 3 between Kettle River and 23. >> That will be closed. >> So, that's not part of the detour. >> I understand. So, they're going to build the roundabout. >> Yeah. No, I I know what I know what the project is. I'm just saying, are they going to leave that section of Camp Three between uh Lake Drive and Kettle River open as part of the detour? >> Yes. >> Okay. Cuz I worry about I mean there is going to be a lot of traffic that's going to go across there and that's a bad intersection. That's the whole reason we're doing it. >> Sorry. So, some of the things that they're looking at doing is potentially changing the dynamics of the intersection. Meaning, um maybe because Kettle River is going to be closed south of Camp 3. That maybe Kettle River, people going south on Kettle River, that's the stop sign. And then Camp 3 is the through. So that they're looking at some some things which I mean we're ultimately a year and a half away, right? >> But knowing that they can use that as a detour um aids in the planning in how things are constructed. So if that's not a detour, then maybe they have to keep a lane open on Lake Drive. So then they're building a half a roundabout and then directing traffic to the other side of the roundabout and then constructing the other side. Things become more complicated. So it's just a it's a quicker manner and a route that more than likely a chunk of the traffic is going to take anyways. >> Yeah. So the question is are we going to use camp 3 as the detour route or are we going to use Broadway? >> That's the question. >> That's the question. And if we use Broadway, most people are going to use camp 3 anyway. They're not going to follow the detour route. It >> like I said, if you use the third, third, and third method. Yeah. >> I mean, it may be it may be more, it may be less, but that's kind of that's kind of the talk that everybody throws out. Third avoid, third are going to find other routes, and a third are going to use the detour route. So, it you just kind of, you know, you're kind of bouncing around, but that's kind of the gist of it. What's a guesstimate on how long it'll take to shut this down to do it? >> Month, two months, >> two months. >> And and to your point, Mr. Mayor, that's going to put commercial traffic on Camp 3 Road where normally they wouldn't. >> It's going to put more commercial traffic on there. Yes. >> So, this is Jenny. There are two residents that live on that little stretch that have driveways. I know the Lynn's driveway just recently moved to that. The miles are on that already. I think it would be good practice to go and have a conversation with them about this because adding all it already has such high volume and there especially the miles or home is so close to the road. no matter no matter what we do, uh there's always going to be that public reach reach out, you know what I mean? So, a as a as part of our discussions today, we talked about things like that. You know, people are going to have to be aware that this is going to be the detour. So, they're going to have to send out, you know, flyers and saying, "Hey, this is going to be the detour. It's going to show potentially any um road changes, meaning stop signs, or you know, maybe the stop signs, like I said, on camp 3 go away and then the stop sign is on Kettle River. We we don't know all of those details yet. You know, we're still hypothetically a year and a half away from starting, but it just aids in the in the decision making and how in how we're going to do the project. >> Yeah, this is Scott. Jim, my my thought goes back to what happened on Lake Drive in Lionel recently too with Pine Street and that fiasco down there. Um my personal opinion is that we use the county roads which can handle the additional um public safety concern with the uh commercial vehicles. That be the official route. There really isn't much we can do. I don't think if they're going to not take the detour route and take camp 3. Um, but I think for public safety reasons, we want to try and make that detour on the larger county roads. >> Go ahead. >> Well, one of the things that the county did when that was going on on Lake Drive is they put up barriers that said local traffic only or something. I mean, I granted there were plenty that didn't pay any attention to that. The other thing they could do is they could close off that section that miles. I mean just close it off and that's going to keep people from I mean it will force people to use the at least in one direction force them to use the Broadway. >> So some of the other things that we have to consider is the public safety side as you said police and fire. >> So if if we start closing off some roads prematurely to to divert traffic >> then it takes longer for you know emergency services to get to where they need to get to as well. So, that's obviously some of the things that we talk about, but I mean I mean we just so arbitrarily we don't want to try to stop traffic from using a road, >> but it's going to be closed off anyway. That's my point. I mean, >> at some point, yes, >> it's going to be closed off anyway. So, I'm just thinking that maybe that's a way to protect those residents and it kind of forces the traffic up on the county roads as you said. Um, at least in one direction. Um, >> Howard Lake Drive will be the next place. >> So, I don't know. I mean, I I feel I would I would be more comfortable saying, "Yeah, go ahead and use it if I knew what kind of traffic control they were going to have at Kettle River and CAM 3." Because I think the way it is now um with a lot more traffic trying to scoot across there, even though there's only there's only um traffic coming from the north end, it's the traffic from the north end that's so hard to see. So if they're trying to scoot across there to get to PTOAC and you got more traffic coming down the north end, I just worry that we're setting up even a more dangerous intersection. But if they have ways to mitigate that, it'd be easier to go with that. They're >> I mean there'll be there'll be signage all up and down Kettle River. You know what I mean? >> So So this is Robin. I'm just going to jump in. I don't like the fact of it that we use camp 3 as now what do we got it marked at? 30 or 40 miles an hour. These people are going to be in a hurry. they're going to be driving even faster down that road. We already have the people at Camp 3 that are very unhappy with us on what we're doing on closing that road and they're going to expect that we close that road before we do the project so that that traffic doesn't go their way. Right. So I would say Lake No, but you push them up to Broadway and that's the detour and put it in the county's court and put it on their cost because it's their project. is something they want to do so they can use their roads for the detour. That's my take on it. >> Or get more information about what they're going to do for traffic control at that intersection. >> At this point, we don't know, but it's it's all part of the I think what I think what our thought process is to get your feel for it. And what I'm hearing is a hard no. >> That's to going to that's going to change all sorts of dynamics. So they're not going to invest a bunch of time trying to figure things out if if our intention is not to. Then it's then the then the time and effort isn't well spent doing doing that doing that um type of effort and work. >> Yeah. And actually this this came up at the at the park the other night. This this was the main topic of conversation on what we're doing with that. people on Willow Met were concerned 155th. Uh there was individuals from camp 3 that are on the lines. It it was like the major conversation piece. Jack jumped in and answered some questions on that as well as PTOAC and truck traffic and speed. There's Yeah. So my so so we've had some conversations internally citywide. Once this project is done, I will more than likely come to whomever the city council is at that point and probably ask if we can do a no truck route on camp 3 then. And we have numerous ones around. So that is just going to kind of change anybody trying to skirt through some of those some of those changes. Um, and and we could I'm just going to throw this out there cuz we're we're having discussion. We could say no truck traffic on um camp 3 and that and that diverts a certain amount of of the traffic. You know what I mean? Truck traffic has to go a different route and car traffic can use that as the detour. you're you're going to have to coordinate that with the sheriff's department because even even when they were doing Lake Drive and they were they had the barrier signs on um East Rondo and crossways, there were semis and everything else going down there and it took Matt parking his butt down there for several hours a day every day to kind of start curbing some of that. >> Yep. Oh, no. I agree wholeheartedly. It's all about enforcement. All of it. >> Yeah. So no matter what we do, we can we can say no, right? We want them to use Broadway. They can post that as Broadway. We are still going to have a certain amount of people that are going to drive through there. >> Yeah. And so, you know, if you're going to close off a local street, Camp Three Road, whether there's a detour or not, that's just going to divert traffic onto other local roads. And you talk about the no truck traffic with Howard Lake and and I know Jack and I have had long conversations about this right now. There's a and and full disclosure I live on Howard Lake. There's a lot of really upset people on Howard Lake because of that 97 detour. There are regular semi trucks going up and down that road even though it's posted no truck. >> I'm living off that. I can >> and and I asked you too just look at the end of Howard Lake at um at Kettle River at that's becoming washboard now. >> That was part that was part of my review process with the engineer today before this meeting. >> Right. So, you know, I I think the best we can do is is have the county make the detour. And I don't know if we can control every city street where people are going to >> take shortcuts and and and rightfully so. I mean, you know, we we've worked with the state and we have, you know, we have signage up there that say no through traffic and, you know, people go through there and, you know, we've worked with Forest Lake and Forest Lake was uh the police department was was pulling over a certain amount of people for some period of time to try to figure out where they live to try to enforce the note through traffic. So, I mean, we tried all sorts of things, right? But >> yeah, >> there's still seven, you know, >> a crazy number of cars going down that way every day. 1,500, 2,000 cars a day where, you know, before it was 150, 200. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, a a huge difference. So, >> yeah. And and and again, good luck getting traffic enforcement out of Noa County before, too. >> You could probably hire it, you know, hire a deputy sit down there. But I know that when semis come down Howard at Lake Drive, when they see the sign, they're already committed kind of. They're already >> they're right there, you know. >> And I and I did some leg work with Forest Lake and the state and neither one of them were willing to allow me to put those signs closer to the bridge. Um, and I and I've asked again periodically and you're you're right. I mean, once they're there, they're there. Where are they going to turn around? So, >> is there Is there a way to designate that on whatever GPS system the truckers typically use? I don't know if it's Google or if it's some proprietary thing that truckers can only get on, but it seems like, you know, the ones that are that are local here would know better. But the ones that aren't, if if they're using some sort of navigation system, if there's a way for them, you know, just like your your navigation system will tell you if there's a cop ahead or something like that, if it gives them, but sometimes you have to call and and you know, like >> I don't know how that works. I've never >> Well, I know like for Google, you have to call them like if you're on a new street or, you know, something like that. I just didn't know if there I don't know what truckers use when they when they're not familiar with the >> Jim where I can tell you where would you want to put that sign >> um >> by Everton >> before Everton >> I'm not really certain what the force lake roads are but just as you just as you're coming over the bridge they need to be in an area where a truck is able to turn and not be committed at that point >> and yeah and I There's really not a great place there either, right? So, >> oh, I but I think Everton, if you do it on the bridge before Everton, which is where all the Knife River trucks go now, >> right? >> Most of the time. >> Sometimes at 3:00 in the morning, they don't, but that's where they're turning now. Yeah, >> that would be the ideal place because you get west of Everton, right, Mayor, and now you've got nothing but residential places. >> Well, they could turn at that res they could turn at Forest Lake because there's no sign there, is there? There's probably not, but I >> I know that whip went up real quick. >> That's not my intention is to to screw up somebody else's community either. You know what I mean? So that's it's it's just a tough it's a tough spot for us to try to post. And you know, again, I reach out every year and say, "Hey, what's the likelihood we can do this?" And they really don't have a whole lot of appetite for it. So I just need to wait for somebody to leave and somebody new to come in and then work them over. Yeah, we can talk to the mayor over there. >> I It's more the state, >> is it? >> Yeah. >> And and council member Hegel to answer your question. Yeah. Uh truckers do have specific trucker GPS's, but that's not on local typically on local street weight restrictions. It's more on height clearances. And even that's not accurate. A trucker's GPS will route you down a truck route, an actual truck route in Minneapolis under the um Broadway Bridge, which isn't high enough, and it's actually a >> truck route. So, that's not accurate. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> there's your answer. >> I'm gathering it's a hard no. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, the last thing that I have is Lin Carver Quinn reached out and you and I have had uh Jennifer and I have had conversations about Davey's Tree Service. >> I've reached out to them twice and and Aaron actually has once as well. I've not heard anything back from them. So, I I don't I don't know how hard you want me to work at that, but I'm not >> What are you reaching out for them? I >> at some point somewhere along the line they said that they were going that they would be willing to donate a tree and plant it at Fall Fest. >> Oh, okay. >> And I need to replace a tree in the park. So, I'm trying to reach out to say, "Hey, will you just replace the one that we that we need to replace?" >> Who are you reaching out to there? >> Somebody named Andrea. The name that I got. It's >> the contact that Lynn provided us that she's had contact with in her efforts to um solicit um >> I think that yes, that specific person I think does their community relations, community involvement things and they potentially wanted to do like some tree saplings for kids at Belf. So they were talking about donating a tree. So I can follow up on that. I just I personally I'm trying to avoid any kind of like donations or soliciting anything from them myself, but I can follow up with her or >> I I will reach out again tomorrow, but but at this point I mean there's been three attempts and and we've not heard anything. So, >> you know, maybe she's out this week. Could be all sorts of reasons why, but nevertheless, >> you know, I I talked to them when they were at Expo and there were two people there. One was a person that we interfaced with and one was somebody else who gave me their card. It might be the same person you're talking to, but I'll look at the card and see. You said her name is Andrea. Is that right? >> I think that's what it is. >> All right. I'll look at my card cuz because she was the person that that wanted to be contacted, if there was anything citywide that we wanted them probably is the same person, but maybe it's someone different and maybe it's someone that might be responsive. So, I'll dig through my cards and send it to you and if it's someone different, you can try that one, too. >> Yeah. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Now it's Jack. >> Thank you. At their last meeting, our work meeting, we went over the first uh review of the city general fund budget. You had some questions. We've gone and made some corrections on those. Wish to go over those with you and bring you up to speed on where we are. >> Jack, I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Yeah, I don't know. My ears are tired or something. And I can just hear this guy like, >> "Is this any better?" >> Yeah, a little better. >> Uh, again, at their last meeting, we've been over the first review of the general fund budget. Uh, you all had some questions on that in different categories. We went and made some corrections review and have some answers for you on those categories. Uh, we're also in the process now of developing the capital improvements plan. uh that's going to be necessary to set what transfers we make for equipment capital budget amounts in some of these categories we have. Uh we're also making some progress too on IT services request and a budget figure for that. Uh we probably were trying to get a meeting set up with Metro Inet. what we originally thought was a $100,000 cost now appears to be $57,000 plus there'll be about $14,000 though worth of equipment changes mostly in change over to new telephones. So, uh going with that one first under general government under the first two categories of under the categories of computer support and software and also under contract services. Those figures are not final yet. Uh we hope to have a Zoom meeting set up with Metro Inet here within the next week or 10 days. We have another meeting that we're going to set up with Paul Nelson, the gentleman that came and gave us some quotes earlier back last summer. And we're also going to contact another firm in Whitebear that does services, IT services for the city of Cambridge. Once we get those, we'll have a better idea of what our budget is and then we'll send out RFPs, but we will be able to develop a hard number here. Even if we don't have the service contracted by the time the preliminary budget set, we'll have a a placeholder number that we can use. So again, those two figures there are still in flux. But moving on down to the administrative expenses under workers compensation, we've been notified that our workers comp rate is going to be reduced significantly from last year. That'll go across the board to everything in this budget. Mark Rimlard is working on getting us those final numbers. He doesn't have them yet, but that'll be a place where we can do some some significant reductions in some of those categories. While they're somewhat low, they're they'll be inaccurate across several of these fund accounts in all the budget going forward. We've also gone and evaluated the cost of our planning consultant services and think we can drop that down by $4,000 from 16,000 to 12,000. >> Which line are you on? I'm sorry. Uh that would be under administrative services planner professional. >> What's the number? That'll make it easier for me to find. >> Okay, got it. Yep. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Got it. Yep. >> So that's Dean. >> That's correct. That's Dean. So going through there weren't any questions on the public works portion of this at this time. Uh the one item that I really want to talk about here is under the um parks 150 fund which is the maintenance work. That's the one we discussed about maybe just moving it back totally to under public works. Uh we have a budget category in there for the hiring of seasonal employees for next year to assist with the mowing. Uh while we've gotten everything Nothing's >> Thank you. I was just going to say what page are you on? >> All right. Got it. >> I'm I'm I'm always excited to talk about the budget, so I'll slow down a little bit. So, uh, we're looking at, uh, proposing to hire seasonal employee or seasonal employees next year. There's 21,000 in that category. Uh, but also if you go down to under contract services and lawn care, that's 3170 and 3175. Uh some of that money will be transferred over into our equipment replacement fund for the mower and some of it can be used to offset some of the additional public works costs that are going into mowing. Uh the one thing we mentioned before and I think I've had some individual discussions with everybody is we just need to put all that under public works. that doesn't really need to be a parks board issue. Uh they should be more concerned and focus on the visions for the parks capital and the parks land fund. So we think we can take some uh some of that $185 and $19,000 and come up with some reductions in that and still meet a rather cost. One request from the parks board was to put a porta potty in the parks for wintertime use for the walkers. We've added that in there at a cost of $900. The other thing we need to talk about too, and this goes back to some of those city goals and things, and we'd like to discuss a little bit more too about having a bigger transfer from the city to the parks. Uh this would be under park capital fund 403. Currently, the city allocates $2,700. uh the other sources for park funds projects, parks capital maintenance and uh the the parkland dedication is the cell phone revenue that we get which is about 21,700 I believe which is split up between those two other capital categories. Aside from that, we depend upon park dedication fees for park sources for revenue and a small amount of permit fees that totaled last year $8,000. All in all, those aren't adequate funds to sustain the park to keep it up just as it is. So, we need to start looking for more sources for that. uh probably won't be in this year's budget, but I just want to bring it up that we will be we will be proposing some other alternative sources. Another alternative source we'll have is when we get this park master plan finished, that will be one of the essential things that will enable us to be more competitive when we apply for grant funds. Keep in mind, too, that grant funds, the ones that we're probably going to be most eligible for, will require a 50% grant. So, we're also going to need some money to in some cases to have that capital to match those grant funds when we apply for those projects. If you'll turn to the water fund which is on page 9 of 10. Uh, as we said before, we had allocated a certain portion of that to wages for the permit coordinator for their work that they do in the building. And we're also still looking for ways we can transfer some public works personnel to that as far as making that cash flow. We talked about maybe trying to fund 50% of it. Uh that's something that we're is somewhat challenging now with the amount of revenue we're taking in. Currently, we're covering all of our operations cost. We're not and a small amount of our depreciation costs. Uh adding that much is going to be something we'll have a final on the next meeting to see if we can cash flow by increasing a larger transfer of salaries to the water and the sewer account. Uh the EDA fund on the um last page of the budget is something we'll bring up to the EDA at their next meeting next Thursday. Go over some of those costs. Currently, we have a proposal to include $19,000 of staff salaries under EDA based on our ability to tap into the tourism board tax. I had a discussion with Bill and he said that would be an eligible cost. We'll have to do a few things before 2026 to make that eligible. We'll have to establish a tourism board and we'll also have to do some resolutions to establish procedures and policies on how that would work. But it does look like the potential for using $19,000 of that for admin cost is a is a reality. So that's been incorporated in this proposal and it's been taken off staff salaries on the other side under administrative costs. So those are the things that we're still working on. We hope to have you a more outlined cost and some of these final at the next council meeting. This will be a subject also for our September 2nd work meeting. Does anybody have any questions on any of the items we've just reviewed or anything in these line items on these account funds? This is Scott. Can you help me and just understand the the FICA and the PRA the 7.5% of 12.5% is that the city's contribution and the employers in >> cont. That's the city's contribution >> and then the 12.5 is the employer's contribution. >> Okay. Oh, isn't the 12.5 the percent of their wages that you're assigning to that fund? >> Yes. Yeah. 12 >> five that you're taking the 7.5% of that. >> Yep. I got I understand. Yes. >> So, Jack, when um when do you think you'll have an answer on the county HA question? We'll probably get most of that done at our EDA meeting and Tanya West is going to be there and I'll give you an update on that. Uh we got the most recent account balance report. We currently have $688,000 in that account. That's accounting for the 2025 levy contribution that they did. And just to bring everybody up to speed, we recently found out that uh we the county does a separate levy for Columbus for the county HR program. uh they can levy up to it sounds minuscule but it's a little less than 210,000 of a percent but that's based on multiplying that by what the taxable market value is in the city which is over a billion dollar. So under those numbers the amount levied for 2025 was probably somewhere around $180,000. Now the county keeps 15% of that for admin fees plus they have that money in their coffers that they sit the news and draw interest on. Uh the other thing is in accessing those funds is that we have to apply for use of our own monies. They have to meet certain program criterias. There's an eight-step process for the application and getting those funds for approval for use. We also have a city HRA fund that we levy for. Uh that levy is about twothirds of what the county's rate is. Uh currently it's $120,000 for 2020 this year for 20 2025. So one of the questions that we need to ask ourselves and answer is do we want to have two HA levies? Uh if we do away with one of them, that's anywhere from $120 to $180,000 a year that wouldn't be assessed to our county residents depending on which one we choose. The local one we have is based out of the EDA. We have an EDA with HA powers. So we can do housing projects, redevelopment projects along with economic development project. there's more leniency and latitude in the use of those funds as there is with the county fund. The one thing I haven't got an answer for yet is do we have an opt out provision with the county? I don't think we do. I'm hoping that I find out I'm wrong. Uh I gave u Janet and Ron an example of a previous city that wanted out of that. they had to sue the county to get out of it. Uh so there has been some precedent set on that. U most of the larger cities in the county are not part of that county HR. Uh I think there's eight or nine cities that are participants in it. Columbus being one of them. So we've been being assessed and we have actually spent money from that account. The only thing that I could find out that was done in 2010 when we requested $85,000 for HA use for some of the Northwest Quad project. Uh that was done for some feasibility studies. So we're going to hopefully have an answer to that by next Thursday and then we can decide which direction we want to go. We will still want to do two H levies or just do one. I don't see any reason to do two and we just have to pick which one or consider which one we'd like to eliminate if we want to reduce that burden is a tax burden on our residents. >> So there's restrictions with the county and there's no restrictions with the cities. >> Well, there there there's some restrictions with the city, but they're not as detailed as they are with the county. The county HRA funds are probably going to be stricter in terms that whatever we do, we're going to have to justify it's going to stimulate some housing growth, redevelopment, or correction of blighted areas. And uh just as an example, let's say that we're going to apply for this local road improvements grant for Hornsby Street, which we'll be, as Brian indicated, submitting. I want to get it in there as soon as it rolls out in September or October. Let's say we're not awarded that. Uh we could potentially use that county money, HR money for that road project. And I think we can make a good case on that because it's going to enhance the opportunities and the attractiveness of that site we own. This was the Apollo Hareno apartment site, the one we're having some discussions now with another developer because if that's in, it completes that trail segment. Uh the developer we've talked to thinks that's a very important part of that location because it connects to some recreational opportunities up on Clear Lake. there's going to be some places there for fishing and turnouts that's going to make that apartment site more more attractive to them and provide some opportunities for residents that live there. So, uh I think we can make the cases for that, but in some places it we may not be able to make the case that it's going to stimulate housing if it's just going to be for economic development purposes. Now, if we were able to get out of the county's program, the money we have in that account though would go back to the city of Columbus. Yeah. >> Even though it's all in a pool, they have it designated and broken out and accounted for internally for individual accounts for the member cities. So, you know, with that and and with our own current HA account, the current balance in there is $240,000. That does not account for any levy that we would put on that for next year. One of the other things we might consider doing too is let's say that we get out of the county program, we might want to consider doing a separate individual levy for the H for the EDA, which we could roll into also with whatever we're doing with the HR levy now. And it could be just the same thing. And we currently have it broken out. We need it broken out for accounting purposes, but it might be better just to separate it out itself. It's kind of uncommon for cities to include that in their general budget levy, but it's something we can have further discussion on. >> Are we going to have any extra meetings? I feel like time is ticking away. We haven't really done much work on this budget. I mean much real work. It's really hard to get this the night that you want to discuss it and expect any real discussion on it. >> We we will make that determination next week. We may have to have a couple special meetings. We do have until September the 30th to get this into the county. So >> I I knowing when when it's due to the county. I'm just saying that, you know, so far we've had what, two discussions on it, but you're getting you're getting us the information the night that we're supposed to be reviewing it and then we don't have we don't really talk about it in between. So, I'm just >> I'm just a little nervous, that's all. >> Well, I think that we'll be able if we need to call special meetings, we'll do that. and we want to get this H thing straightened out and we can make sure we're not going to be deficient on our dates for submission and anything you want to discuss on this. Uh we'll make sure we have the appropriate number of meetings to have in-depth discussion on anything that we want to go over. So, does anybody have any questions? It's >> always nice to put numbers in the end. Kind of makes you go to sleep. >> That's reassuring, Rod. >> I don't have any questions. Anybody else have any questions? And and the the other thing too, what Ron mentioned earlier about the fireboard meeting, the big ticket item that they had on their budget, the ladder truck was scheduled for 2031. We had all of our capital budget stuff set up to meet that because that was going to be a $3.2 million purchase with our share being somewhere around $600,000. So if that's moved back to 2038, there's things that we will adjust in that though to account for it which will lower our requirement for the set aside for our capital assets. The one one other thing too I'd like to ask a question on. We briefly discussed it last time in on page the first page under administrative expenses under ordinance and comp plan. We talked about setting aside some money for the future 2050 comp plan that we'll have to start work on in 2028, which sounds like a long way away, but it's not that far away and it's something that's going to cost we're going to probably start the ticket at $50 to $60,000. So, do we want to start setting some money aside for some of that so we don't have to bear all the burden when we start that process in three years? As far as I know, we were setting money aside. So, Cheryl, do you know how much is in that fund? Is there anything in that fund? I mean, I remember talking about this at least a couple of We were setting money aside and then was it 2023 when a lot of the ordinances were revised? I know that was a big project. We actually overspent. Um, if you look at the dispersements for the comp ordinance amendments, if you go down and you're on page one and it's 14,100 3530. So, oh, that's not >> 2022 maybe. >> So, in 2022, we were a little over budget. Where did I pull that number? You know, Janet, I don't want to say. I'm going to run those numbers and I'll have those for you. >> Yeah, that would be helpful. I mean, I know that the practice was putting money aside, you know, each of the 10 years prior to the to when the thing was due so that we weren't like trying to come up with $100,000 at the end of the day. >> Yes. >> But I just, you know, the part that's hard about a lot of this is that you don't know what any kind of carry forward is. So when you start talking about how much to put aside that, you know, for something like that, that makes a difference. If we had adequate or close to adequate funds there, I wouldn't I wouldn't want to put a lot of money aside, but obviously I also don't want to pay this big, you know, this big amount out when the work starts to happen. So So that's why it's hard to just look at the expense side of things. It's it's and I know that that's harder for you, but sometimes knowing if there's, you know, knowing what the carry forward is in these in these funds would really be helpful. So, if you look at your sheets, um I know 2021 on those are all actual correct numbers for the um actual dispersements. So if you look at the ordinance comp plan dispersements for 2021, it was 14,759.80 >> and then if you see we budgeted 20,000, so we would have, you know, like $5,500 left there, >> but but I don't know what the carry forward is prior to 2021. I mean, so >> and I >> and and >> we're going to make a best guess. Um because I do not I know >> you hired me on in 2022 and we did a lot of work to clean uh all of this up. Um I could spend the next year going back digging, digging, digging, you know, looking at all of the paper. Um, I can tell you with certainty if we I'm not a best guess girl, but this is the best I'm going to get for you. Um, there's just not enough hours in the day, and even then, I don't know how accurate we would be. There was a lot of um corrections. There was a lot of moving um expenses around. So if we just go from 2021 forward, we look at what we budgeted, we look at what we actually expended, that's going to be what our carry forward is. That's the best I can do for you, Janet. >> So there's no way for you to go into Ban and pull up these funds, which should all have if there's cash in there. There should be you should be able to see how much cash is in there. >> I can pull up our fund balance in fund 100. So you can't drill down to this level. Is that what you're telling me? No, you cannot. Oh, that is so stupid. >> Well, our basic accounting principles is fund accounting, right? And so most of the time they're concerned with what do we have in our general fund? What do we have in our special funds? maybe a long time ago. Um, when the accounting system was set up, I think Emmy was still here. Maybe that would have been an option. How our fund accounting is set up. We do not drill down to detail to get carry forward. It rolls up to our fund balances because that's what we're required to monitor. >> So, you could tell us what the fund balance is in fund 100. >> Yes. not and not anything less not even like fund 4110 or 41 right >> I can go back and um I believe we are fairly accurate now so when I tell you in fund 100 um you know generally we're not going to have a carry forward that many years because our expenses they go up they go down um so I feel fairly confident that's why I went through and I updated this whole worksheet with 21 22 23 24 actuals um so that we have uh good accurate numbers so you can see where there's fluctuations you can see you know where our expenses are you know basically flat they remain the same throughout all of the years and then I did the revenue and expenditure year-to-ate report uh through June um and I can resend that out. We can uh make copies of that again uh to give you um a really uh a firm foundation so you can see where we are halfway through the year uh for 2025. I was trying to provide the most information that I could so that you can make accurate decisions. Um the other thing that we we I will have my laptop up and running next time. I can run reports if you want me to. we can dig in. Um, and if you want to schedule a special budget report, then maybe or a budget session, maybe we should do that. We can spend four or five hours and really dig into everything if you want to. Um, whatever you need, but these sheets, um, I've gone through them. All of the numbers are accurate. Um, I've reviewed them a couple of times. Uh, the comp plan, how those were rolled together. Janet, I will dig in to that detail. I will pull those apart for you. Um it was dependent upon um if it was planning commission, if it was a city ordinance. Um so there could be variances and how those were actually coded for expending, but I will dig through and I will get you an audit detail report for next time for the comp ordinance plan expenses. Well, I I mean, if if what you're saying is true that you can go back to the 2021 as actual and these budgeted amounts are right, >> then there should be about $47,000 of cash still in there. >> Yes. >> So, I mean, if it's as simple as doing that, I mean, and I know that these look like a spreadsheet, but maybe they're not really spreadsheets that you can just insert a column and do that math for all of this all going across. But if that was an ability to do that, you could just add a column that said estimated carry forward and that would give us the information for each of these um approximately what if any cash is in there. So then it would be a lot easier to determine how much we should put in. And if you're feeling like that's a little too dicey because I can't I mean but that's that's always been the struggle with doing this is that you know >> I can give estimated um I'll I'll I'll update this and I'll try and if I fail miserably I'll let you all know >> but if it's easy to just do that one calculation to kind of give us a ballpark figure that I think that'd be immensely helpful. Mhm. >> And you know, assuming that's correct and there's $47,000 in there. If we wanted to set aside $100,000 for that, then what we have here is a pretty accurate figure. You need to do approximately a little less than 20,000 a year because it's only three years away. So we just have to come up with what we want to set aside and then we could reflect and change that figure that's there in this column. Now >> well and I think the other question is do you want to do it like we've done it in the past which is bringing in a specialized planner to walk us through the process or do you want to try to I mean that cost a lot of money to do that. >> It it it does and in some cases though it depends on what your workload is. Uh I think this is one case where there's going to have to be some consulting services engaged in this. You know, hopefully by 2028 we'll have some more internal capacities to do some of that work ourselves, but I think we're going to have to count on probably just just a rough guess. You know, having half of it maybe done by consulting work at least the big half some of the data gathering stuff that they have act more access to information we do. So, we'll just have to see where we are at that point. >> Well, if you if you're having heart attacks about what we're spending on the HR consultant, you'll really have heart attacks when you see what this is going to cost. >> I get it. Yeah. No, I I get it. I mean, I I as we sit here and go through this, I'm trying to ballpark those that math in my head as we're talking. I mean, certainly if you add up, you know, cell C1 minus cell C6 equals this. Yeah. It's that simple. Okay, I get it. It's helpful. >> Thank you for putting this all together again and sticking it out until whatever time it is, 9:30. >> We the the the next iteration of this that we have will be much more detailed than what we have here. we'll be able to hopefully get all those other numbers assembled and uh it'll be a much clearer picture. It's coming together fairly well. There's some things, like I said, some things have been late getting in, especially on the fireboard was a little late. The insurance stuff is normally not due in September. We're pushing them to give us some numbers. So hopefully we'll have all those assembled and ready to go and roll it out for uh much more detailed and getting close to finished report the next time we have this discussion. And I would actually prefer it if we could schedule a workshop dedicated to budget and if we could start at like 5:30, 6:00 um and we could just dedicate our evening to that. Um that would be great. >> And it's actually really helpful if you can if you can throw your questions out there up front so we have time to think about them, you know, and I think um I think it'll be a lot more efficient. I especially after, you know, an allnighter like we're having tonight. It's hard to even think about this in any sort of >> Yep. >> Okay. Ready to move on? >> We got a plan. Item number E and announcements and reminders. Noa County Sheriff's Office scam prevention workshop. Safeguard your savings. East Bethl Our Savior Lutheran Church at 19001 Jackson Street Northeast. Thursday, August 14th, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. and Wednesday, August 20th, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. No registration is required. Planning Commission meeting August 20th, 2025 at 6 p.m. EDA meeting August 21st, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. City Council meeting August 27th, 2025 at 6 p.m. I would like to add one comment to that, especially on that first notification of that workshop that the sheriff's office is going to have. We got an email today, a request to do a wire transfer of $49,000. >> And uh Cheryl came to me and says, "What's this for?" And I said, "I don't know what you're talking about." She says, "What's the email you sent to me?" And so we got back and looked at it and nope, it's a scam. So this is in three times in three weeks we've been associated with some of this stuff. So everybody really needs to keep their guard up and look at things. It's like the email that somebody sent that came from you that they wanted to call. So the scamming business must be good because they're very active out there now. >> Yeah. It seems like there's an uptick in fishing emails lately. Yeah. >> Well, good call not to pay it. Yeah. >> I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. Scott second. >> We got a motion on floor. Any discussion? Hearing none. Take a vote. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> Janet I. >> Rob I. >> Ron I. Meetings closed at 9:29 p.m. [Music]