Good evening everyone. I'm going to open up the Columbus City Council meeting tonight, the last one of the year. The date is December 22nd, 2025 and the time is 6:00. First thing we're going to do on the agenda is pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Third thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Anybody have any discussion on the agenda tonight? >> Hearing none. I, Ron Hanigraph, move to adopt the agenda for the December 22nd, 2025 city council meeting. >> Rob, I'll second. >> The motion's been seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for a vote. Jenny. >> Jenny, I. Scott I >> I >> Rob I >> and Ron I we'll go on to item number B the consent agenda. Does anybody have any issues on the four items? >> Uh Mr. Mayor, this is Scott. I just uh spoke with the uh finance director on a uh something that needs to be recoded which I shared with a couple of you. Uh it was the uh planning commission meeting. Uh the person is actually was on the EDA so they're going to change the code on that one on the bills paid. >> Okay. Anything else? Anybody hearing? None. Um I Ron Hanigraph move to approve the consent agenda for December 22nd, 2025 city council meeting. Is there a second? >> Miss Jenny, I second. >> We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I >> Scott, I >> Rob I, >> and Ron I. We'll go on to item number C, presentations and items for council actions. First thing on the agenda is the public forum. Is there anybody out there that'd like to come forth and make a comment to the council? Seeing nobody in the audience, anybody online on Zoom? Nobody's coming forth. We'll close the public forum. We'll go on to item number two. Mccclure Acres preliminary plat 7523 165th Avenue Northeast. We want to give the floor to Ellen or to you, Jack. >> Eleanor is going to take this one for us, Ron. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and uh city council. Uh the planning commission reviewed an application for a preliminary plat uh to create one new lot in the rural residential zoning district along with a variance to request to reduce the required lot width from 220 ft to 165 ft along a portion of the property in order to accommodate an existing um septic system. The planning commission held a public hearing on both applications as a joint um public hearing on December 3rd, 2025, and no public comments were received. The commission uh continued its discussion of the application at its next meeting on December 6 17, 2025. The commission voted 22 on the variance request resulting on uh resulting in a failed motion and a recommendation of denial of that variance. Because the variance was not recommended for approval, the preliminary plat was recommended for approval subject to the following condition. The width of block one lot 2 shall be two 220 ft for the entire lot and a permanent maintenance easement shall be placed over the existing septic system in order to avoid um that lot width reduction variance. Um based on the planning commission's recommendation, the city council should consider the following actions. um denying the variance request to reduce the required lot width from 220 ft to 165 ft consistent with the planning commission's recommendation of denial and extend the review period for the preliminary plat um in order to allow the applicant to resubmit the new designs um with the full 220 foot lot width and with that permanent easement for access to the existing septic system. Um, does anyone have any questions for >> anybody? Ellie, the there was one other option on that. >> Oh, yes. Um because this was not a a solid vote for denial and in instead was a a failed motion. There is also the option of um approving both the variance request and the proposed preliminary plat as is now. >> Okay. Jenny, you want the floor? >> This is Jenny. I can I ask a question to are are you Miss McCclure? Might might I ask a question? Sure. Um, so as I was reviewing, >> why don't we get her up? >> If you'd like to come and take a seat. >> Thank you very much. >> You can state your name. >> Yeah, Gretchen Mccclure. >> Just need to state address or shield. >> No, >> thank you. Um, okay. Hi, Gretchen. Hi. So, uh, as I was reviewing, I know, uh, several of us watched the planning commission and and went through that process with you. Um I know that one of the questions I had was um it's listed on page 17 talking about how the compliance inspection was received confirming that the existing uh system is in is fully compliant. So they did a full inspection of your current system. >> Had the whole thing pumped and a private inspector out to inspect the entire thing and he says it's fully functional. >> Fully functional >> in in compliance with everything. >> Mhm. >> In in compliance. So not there. So based on what that looks like according to your inspector from my understanding that there is a lot of life left to your current septic system based on their initial inspection and what they're seeing. >> Yeah. I guess he can't give me an exact like you have 20 years left but he you know basically said some failed day one and some day fail 50 years. You don't know when. He said I we put them in and sometimes they fail the next day and I know people have had them for 50 plus years. So >> but as of that inspection everything looks good and there's nothing wrong with your system. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That helps me a lot in determining this. Thank you. >> Did you want to make a statement? >> I I snuck up here. I'm her father. Uh Rob Olsen. I'm also an attorney, but as I often say, don't hold that against me. So, uh anyways, uh yeah, it was fully compliant. And I know cuz when we sold our last house about six years ago, we didn't have the adequate separation between the high wa, you know, the the water table and the the system. This came out at 3.6 six feet. So there's three three foot is the required separation. So the idea is it's you know it's as you know this is Wyoming or Columbus a lot of sand and so it it it's a very well functioning system. They've never had a backup in the house. There's no evidence of that. >> So that you know the idea is why would you >> uh you know scrap a system that works and then create a new area with you know more contamination. It just didn't seem to make sense. So, >> Miss Jenny, that goes back to I think my initial um not questioning based on what this looks like, but really understanding that there is a lot of life left versus something that would be potentially replaced within the next few years does a bit alter my personal opinion on this. So, um but thank you. I appreciate your your uh cander and explaining that. Thank you. >> Uh Scott, you had something? >> Yeah, just a question. Uh so again uh uh following what was going on in the planning commission is so you're dividing this up into an 8.67 acre lot and selling off a 5 acre lot, right? Yeah. Okay. And then that >> that um septic system would fall across the property line of that 5 acre lot which was the reason for the variance. >> Yes. It's like the front of the property. The existing septic system is part of kind of what would be that 220 ft at the front of the property and then it goes out and goes back and meets the requirements for the minimum acreage. >> Okay. >> All right. But so that septic system can be relocated on that 8.67 acres, correct? If you sell, there's nothing there's no low land or there's there's room to relocate that. Oh, I've had all the soil borings done and everything. Yeah, for other things if in the event that 20 years from now it fails and I need to move it. Yes, there's lots of places to move it. >> He he they did do the soil borings for the alternate site and if you looked at the preliminary plat, it was indicated there, but >> it's relatively high land there if you looked at the uh profiles, >> topography. Yeah. >> Yeah. And and in fact, you could even locate it behind your house, too. Yes. I think that was mentioned. >> Y >> yeah. Okay. So then my my question is um if you can relocate it I'm a little concerned that this is primarily an economic hardship in nature which wouldn't necessarily qualify for a variance or an easement. I mean an easement would be less appetite for an easement than a than a variance. Um I think everybody agreed on that in the planning commission. So >> um well the idea is that you know when you look at the standards for the variance was it an strictly an economic problem or was it it's also an issue with an environmental uh problem. If you put it, if you just scrap this system, leave it there, now you've got more soil that you're now well contaminating with a subsurface uh sewage system and this this thing could last for another 30 years. So the idea is do you just have waste and and abandon the system or and the I the reason that the u idea of the variance was selected so you didn't have a neighbor that was maybe upset because you were cutting the grass or not cutting the grass on top of the mound system and you know all the attendant problems you have when people have boundary disputes. So the it just the first 75 to 100 ft it just skirts around that septic system and then it goes back to the 220. So it's uh if anybody was at the roadway they'd look at it. It look like it belonged there because there's a tree line that runs across just kind of naturally that was there uh where where it's proposed that she would uh split off the lot. So >> okay. Yeah, I I understand that. But but again, you can relocate it on on that 8.67. You have the ability to do that. Correct. >> Good. Yeah, you could. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Thank you, mayor. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. So, not being at the planning commissioner watching it. Um what what is the uh I mean, maybe we should have done this after the planning commission report maybe in the future because the planning commission reports when we'd kind of get briefed on what happened at the planning commission meeting, right? But um what what's the hardship? I mean, are you trying to split that land off to sell it or are you trying to split it off to build another dwelling there for somebody you know, or what's the reason that you're trying to split the property? >> I'm splitting it off, yes. To in the future sell that parcel of property. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I had never intended to sell that property, but >> Okay. That that helps me. Thank you. >> Yeah. I didn't know if it was like a family member or mom and dad are building a house next to you and you know they could be there their whole life. So I'd like to say that I attended both of the planning commission meetings and listened to it drove to the location looked at it. I looked at 181st from PTOAC to Kettle River and there's like 35 lots on that road. four of which are 40 acre plots. If you take all the rest that are left, the 31, there's not one. There's three that have the same frontage up front. Other than that, the frontages go for an acre lot, they go for less than 60 ft. And it just it's not a rhythmic system. >> Looking at 165 feet, it fit in really perfect. Second thing is I I look at uh what the Met Council is telling us about uh the freeway district about high density and earlier in the year about four or five years ago, Rob might remember it. We started cutting down that five acres. That's where uh St. Claire's came in. >> Yeah. >> We started cutting the lot sizes so we could get more density in. And the third thing I look at is we look at um physical disparities. We got to get our population up. And then the fourth thing I look at is why we I don't I kind of disagree with you even though I respect your remark, Scott, and I respect the planning commission, too. But I I think sometimes the hardship is why if it's not that big a deal, why are we making them spend more money to crush a septic system that's working? And we have so many problems with septic systems in our city that uh that's why I I kind of support the um the varants and the plat uh on this issue because I don't I I think they could just crush this thing out, build another one for 25,000 and there's nothing we could say about it. They'd have the 220 and it'd be going down the road. So I don't know why we were giving this hardship to them and that's why I support uh motion number two there that it says approving both of them. So that's my stance on it. Any other comments or any questions? Uh >> well so Mr. Mayor I have a question then. Is there anything that would not allow this us city council to just grant the variance without having the easement? >> I >> even though the planning commission denied the var didn't deny the variance but it didn't pass. Do we as the city council have the ability to pass the variance rather than the easement? >> We'll talk to the attorney Megan. >> Yeah, I believe so. Yep. Uh Mr. Mayor, council member Wendell, uh yes, the the city council is the final arbiter of whether uh a variance should be granted in this case. Um and the other thing that I would just note for you is that variances are determined on a case-byase basis. >> So making a determination here tonight in support of or of denial of this variance does not mean that you need to follow that precedent for other applications that come before you. >> Thank you. Miss Miss Jenny, I have one more question. Can you clarify uh the date that the house was built for the council and if you were the original builder and homeowner? >> No, the house was built, I believe, in 72. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, I bought the house 9 years ago. >> So, clarifying that you were not the one that decided or built where that went in the first place. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I'm just trying to figure out I got a question for you, too, and you probably wouldn't know. Is this the second septic system in it? >> I believe so. So, you don't have a date on when? >> Well, I know I have a date. It's um it was on the compliance report. Um >> that's right. It was in the '9s. Late 90 >> 98 I believe. >> I believe it was in '90s. Yeah. >> Yeah. It was 98, I believe. I >> So, so at that point, it's a mound system, I would imagine. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Wow. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Miss Jenny, can I request to make a motion? >> Sure. This is Jenny. Uh, I move to approve the McCclure Acres Preliminary Platinum Variance as requested for a lot with reduction for 7523 165th Avenue Northeast as proposed in the staff report for this item. >> Rob, I'll second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Karen? >> No. >> Scott? No. We'll take a vote then. Jenny. >> Jenny. I >> uh Scott, I just would point out that on page 17 of our packet, the variance findings number six, it says the practical difficulty is not created solely by economic considerations. I don't feel we satisfy that one. So my vote is nay on this one. >> Karen, this Karen I. >> Rob I >> and Ron I. The motion passes. >> Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, and and thanks for serving on a city council. I I do in municipal practice and I just my hats off to anybody that does this. I mean, you really are doing a public service because I know you're not getting paid that much. So, okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. We'll go on to item number three. Uh, ordinance amendment 25-0 fun 04 fence regulations. The planning commission has been working on a city ordinance to amendment to improve regulation regarding uh fencing. Ordinance 254 consolidates all of our fencing provisions into a single section of the zoning code and establishes clear consistent standards for materials, height, location, providing greater clarity for both residents and staff. Public hearing on the proposed uh ordinance was held on November 5th, 2025 with no public comments received. The planning commission recommended approval of ordinance 254 to the city council on December 3rd, 2025. The city council then reviewed this ordinance on December 10th, 2025 and tabled it with the following requested changes. Reduce the minimum clearance above grade for solid fences from 4 in to 2 in and to discuss whether um to allow fences directly on property lines or require a minimum setback. No consensus, no consensus was reached on the language for the um possible required setback. As a part of the staff report, you will see two different versions of that section of code. Um one with uh the original language that was recommended by the planning commission, which does not require setbacks, but does require written consent from both property owners for property boundary fences. and the optional change of adding a two-foot required setback um as discussed in the previous city council meeting. Um what staff is looking for now is a final determination on that particular change. >> Anybody have any comments? Yeah, we we kind of went over that twoft back and forth and what did we what did we kind of come up with as a census through that workshop? I >> this is I did we come up with a consensus? I don't know that we did because I think we asked council to look at whether it should be a 5-ft setback or a twoft setback. >> Yeah. >> And that's where we left it. >> Okay. >> I believe. And then at this Jenny, at one point we talked about not having a setback because of lawn issues and lawn maintenance and having a neighbor sign off before they so they would have to show the boundary and both neighbors would agree on what that looked like. That was I think where we kind of stopped. >> Yeah, I remember that for sure. And and mayor, if I could, I just one other thing I want to point out that didn't come up in the uh um previous meeting is as we're looking at our animal ordinance as well, uh a two-foot setback as we look at what a reasonable amount of pasture is in our animal ordinance on somebody that is potentially on, let's say, a 3 acre lot, that 2 foot by linear feet of pastable of pasturable acreage can make the difference for some people and the number of large animals they can keep on that property. Um, so I I think we have to think at a high level about that too. If we make it optional with an agreement from both parties, you're saving a little bit of footage and acorage for people that want to move to Columbus or live in Columbus and want to have animals potentially. >> So this is Rob. You'd be saying not doing the two foot and just like Jenny was talking have agreeance an agreement between the two parties, two neighbors. >> I think if you make it mandatory, you're going to be taking some some acreage away for smaller property. Well, and you brought you brought that point up about that certain weed that could kill livestock or horses or whatever it is. >> Yeah. >> Yep. If it wasn't controlled. >> Yeah. >> This is Karen Scott. So, you're thinking we should have a 5ft setback. >> No, I I don't think we should have a mandatory setback at all. I think it should be an agreement because if if you have an agreed setback or you have an agreed fence on the property line, >> um again, I I don't know if this would impact homeowners or not, but I suspect with some of the smaller properties, particularly in our neighborhood, there are people with horses >> on smaller properties where, you know, losing two feet per linear foot would significantly reduce that pasture, especially if they have low land on the pasture and can't count. To give you an example on that, if you had a typical 5 acre lot, a 5ft set back would result in a reduction of a tenth of an acre. So if you had an acre, you lost a tenth and you wouldn't be able to keep the large grat farm. >> Yeah. So a 3 acre um house, subtract half an acre to an acre for uh a house and a potential shelter. You know, you're down to two acres. That's two large animals in our the way we're looking at our animal ordinance and then you have a two or 5 foot setback you could be down to one and maybe that's what we want but I just think we need to take that into consideration here. >> I got to ask you Megan when you say it has to be agreed upon do we get involved in that? Uh so instead of so just as a reminder of the revisions that are proposed to your ordinance. Uh so this is to allow for fencing to be installed without a survey. Okay. Um if staff has any questions about the property line, they are going to require a survey to be completed. Um so just to sort of as a preliminary statement uh the agreement of the property owners is not really an agreement but it's that they consent to the fence being placed in this location. So I think the practical example would be that uh property owner A pulls up the GIS report from Anoka County and says I'd like to have a fence installed along our property line. Are you okay with that neighbor? Uh otherwise I'd want it, you know, it would be at a two foot or a five foot setback to be determined by this conversation. Um the neighbor would say, "Yes, that sounds good to me. Let's put it on our property line." Then staff would look at it, see if there was any discrepancy based upon, for example, you know, the aerial looked different in terms of how one property is maintained versus another. Um that might indicate to you as staff that uh a survey should be required. If not, if that's not the case, then both property owners sign the consent. It's very standard in terms of how other cities manage this issue. Uh and the fence is installed. At no point in time is the city saying that this is now the property line. It doesn't change the boundaries of the property. It's not a surveyed property line. It is simply saying that this is where the fence is installed based upon what the two property owners agreed to. uh if there is any dispute between those property owners about what is actually one person's property versus another, that is still a civil matter. That will be fully addressed without uh you sort of pointing to uh the city's uh approval of the fence. And and then lastly, um there is there's extensive case law on whether or not a city approval uh gives authority to a property owner. Um it does not. the city retains broad protection from generally what we call a stoppable arguments here that someone is stopped from claiming that this is this is their property because the city signed off on it. Um that is something that's just not supported by the case law in Minnesota. So the city has very limited risk, but we think that this consent concept of saying if you want it on a property line, you uh both property owners sign off on it. They know about it. Then we're just providing notice and an opportunity for a property owner to object. If they object, you require a survey. >> So, and >> that's my long statement on that. >> Yes, Rob. So, in the event then you get that survey, you still don't have to come to an agreement with your neighbor, right? Because door knocking in communities, a lot of people like to be left alone and sometimes they don't even like their neighbor because they had one disagreement, now they won't talk to them the rest of their lives, right? So, they might do something to try and slight them, right? But as long as they have that survey, they could put it right on the property line. >> Correct. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> This is Karen. Um Megan, is there some ramifications as far as the the fence going on the property line as far as when the fence needs repaired and both people on both sides need to repair that fence? >> So, um when the the fence is going to be located on the property line of the applicant, right? And so the applicant who puts up that fence is responsible for maintaining that fence. >> Okay. That means he's allowed to go on their side of the property. >> Correct. You know, and and the other thing that's true here uh is that certainly property owners can make this more complicated, right? They can enter into an agreement where they say you replace it for this 20 years and I'll replace it the next time around. They can do all of those things, but we are really just looking at whether or not um the city is going to require a survey uh for issuing a fencing permit. Miss Jenny, for the sake of consistency, if we do move the route of having a neighbor sign off, can I request that the city would create that document to create consistency for all residents so it wouldn't be them typing up or handwriting a note? That the city would have a document for sign off. Okay. Thank you very much. >> You don't want napkins? >> Seen a lot of things on a hand thing that goes out really fast. So, does this does this open up the door then for setbacks for people building additions too? I mean, >> you had to you have to be able to know where your property line is. You don't have to come to an agreement. As long as you know where your property line was. At least when I put an addition on, I knew where it was. It was state. It's been that way. Had the markers on top of the pegs. I was able to get my property line that way. I didn't have to come to an agreement with my neighbor over it. That's not going to alter that, right? From Okay. >> No. Again, you can always choose to complete a survey. And for a more significant building permit application, we would still require a survey to be completed and final site and building plans submitted. >> Yeah. Cuz I think like a shed or something like that, like uh you know, cost of a survey could be5 $6,000 for a one acre lot. It's a lot of money. So, yeah. So if if you desired, you know, what we would say is that there are setback requirements for uh accessory structures within the city code and those have to be complied with otherwise you would need to go through a variance process. Uh >> right >> and I just didn't want to open the door to further you know other than fences I guess is what I was getting at. So thank you Do we have a kind of consensus here before I I look at it? Uh if I'm right, uh on our there's a because of uh Rob bringing it up, if you have a pole barn and it's going to house animals, you have to be a certain distance from the property side line. Correct. compared to regular structure. >> Correct. Um our for regular accessory buildings, the setback is 20 ft from side lot lines. Um if you are within 30 ft of that side lot line, we do require a survey. Um otherwise, if it is further than 30 ft away from that um lot line, we do not require a survey by ordinance. Um and then for animal structures, um those must be 75 ft from any side law lines. >> I don't know if this fence has anything to do with that, but uh >> so this particular um section of the code would only be in regards to fencing. Um, >> I guess I brought it up because I just don't want to go down the road of a disagreement of a property line and then the setback then be an issue. You know what I'm saying? In the future. I know there's a setback, but >> Yes. >> I I just remember we had one once with an animal structure >> and there was a difference between you can't stick a barn 20ome feet from somebody else's property line. >> I think that was like you were on planning commission there. They put a barn right on the property line, but they didn't hadn't pulled a permit. And then the new new neighbor questioned it. It was a whole deal. >> Yeah. >> Well, we don't want return visitors. So, >> so what uh you like the idea right on the property line or leaving that open? >> Yeah, I I I I do just when we're considering the animal ordinance as well. Now, you know, to be honest with you, if city council decides they want that mandatory twoft setback, you know, I'm not going to oppose it, but I I think it it makes more sense when you consider the other ordinance. They go hand in hand a little bit, right? >> You you could have a situation where you recommend the two-foot setback or the consent agreement between the two property owners, >> right? And there's nothing that says they can't agree on a two two-foot setback. And and I believe the language says the city recommends the two. >> Yeah, that would be the city recommendation, but if you have the consent agreement between the two property owners, then it can be right on the line, whatever they agree to. >> Yeah, that's nice if the two property owners stay there till the rest of their lives, but you get a new one in there. >> It's true. That's why >> I mean, is a two-ft setback going to change anything? I know my neighbor's prop fence starts right on the property line and it goes about six feet into my property at the end. Their string must have been blown in the wind years ago. So, and we don't have a problem. But >> I I just sometimes I look at these I I I I think it's great to have horses, have whatever you want to have. I I just don't know if two feet's going to make a difference as far as feeding them, but because they always reach their heads over the fence anyway. Grass is always greener on the other side, right? For a horse. >> Yeah. And I was talking weed control. >> So, which by the way, I I learned something from Jack. You're the weed control person. >> The Dan Alliance. That's all. >> Okay. >> Jenny, you asked a comment. >> Oh, no. I was just going to This is Jenny. I just going to note that in the event that neighbors wanted to also share that fence line, that would also make that easier versus requiring that setback, they could then potentially share that that one fence that they that adjoined. >> Very good point. >> So for that, we're not like easing the level of difficulty for residents and in cost. >> This is Karen. Um my only suggestion would be to have um Megan or Jack or whoever come back with the form. I'd like to see the form if we decide to go that route. and maybe clarify that and once it is on the property line that the expenses for the fence will then be on the person actually building the fence. >> So, so I foresee this form as being our traditional uh planning application or fence permitting application uh and then with a check mark uh saying you know you know is your is your fence on the property line? Yes. Um if so, neighbor consent, property owner consent is required. Um but just as a reminder, the fence must be built solely on the builder's property, right? So um it's going to be on the property line. It just won't be set back from the property line. So there wouldn't be um under this consent scenario, there would not be shared costs between the two property owners. It would be the applicant's sole cost. >> Yeah. My only concern there is just to make sure that that's clarified so the two people that are signing that document understand that >> that can certainly be clarified in the document. >> Well, does anybody want to make a motion on this or >> this? I can make the motion. this Jenny. Uh I move to approve the amendments to the ordinance uh 25-04 as outlined in the staff report for item C3 of the December 22nd 2025 council agenda with clarifications uh to allow for no setback with adding uh neighbor signoff um to the recommended setback requirements for fences. Is that correct? >> This is Karen. Yeah, this is Karen. I'll second that. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none. Jenny, you want to vote? >> Jenny, I got I >> Rob I >> and Ron I. The motion passes unanimously. We'll go on to item number four. Um, calendar of meetings. Annually, the Columbus City Council sets and approves the meeting calendars for the city council planning commission EDA in the park board. Once approved, the calendar is posted in the Forest Lake Times and on the city building board and city hall. Meeting dates and times are also posted on the city website. Meetings of the Sunrise River WO, Rice and Creek Water Management Districts, Forest Lake Fire Board, and Cable Commission are set by their respective boards of directors. The calendar of meetings is exhibited in attachment one of your packet. Staff request approval of the 2026 meeting calendar for the city council, planning commission, EDA, parks board, and public works advisory board. This this is Scott. This may be a really stupid question about the workshop meetings, but we can cancel those if there's no agenda for a workshop meeting. Correct. Correct. >> I don't have any issues with it. Anybody else? And th those dates correspond to our current dates that we have those out. City council uh second, fourth Wednesdays, work meetings, first Tuesdays, planning commissions, first and third Wednesdays, parks board. what the third Tuesday of every of every other month. The EDA is the third Tuesday every quarter and there have been adjustments made to compensate for any Monday meetings which we don't usually have or any meetings that fall on a holiday would be adjusted for that holiday. And also, you can see on the council meetings, we've adjusted those meetings before Thanksgiving and Christmas to be on a Monday, so they're not the night before those holidays. Any other discussion, questions, anything? Well, I'll make a motion. And I, Ron Hanigraph, move to approve the 2026 calendar of meetings as presented in item C4 of the December 22nd, 2025 city council meeting. >> Scott, I'll second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion, questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I. >> Scott, I Rob, >> Ron, I. Motion passes unanimously. We'll go to item number five, fee schedule. Each year, the city reviews the current fee schedule and considers changes from the following year's change charges for permits, billable services, and rentals and other non- levy cost. The following package is a summary of the recommendation for fee changes for 2026. A reduction of rental fees for the community center, public utilities increase to reflect a charge by the department of health, an increased water meter fee, and connection charges that were increased based on inflation rate for sack, elsack, and wack charges. Council will be requested to consider approval of the proposed 2026 fee schedule with the changes mentioned above and in attachment one of your packet. Uh this is Scott. One question. The community center senior center fees. Um do we have a rental agreement that we agreed on earlier this year? And do these fees match the rental agreement that we >> They do. We did. We had a long discussion on changing this back I believe in the early summer and that's where these fees came from. Thank you Jack and Cheryl. I heard something drop. Any other discussion on this? I just have one little question about in your letter there reduced event rental fees. What did it come down from? >> It's on >> 250. It looks like >> the what? >> It's on the right here. >> I think it's slashed out alongside it. Ron, >> community center rental went from 250 to 50. >> They were substantially higher and we reduce those just to encourage use of the facility. And um currently now the seniors are back in there and we've had two rentals of the facility since then. So before that I don't think we had any rentals of it. So I don't think it's been an overwhelming use but at least we do have the seniors back in there and they're using it. Of course we did wave the fees for them. We do have the right to wave the fees for any organization that's part of the city or uh has done work for the city. So, uh, I think those are more than appropriate for what it costs to run it. We got to have the heat and the lights on anyway. So, that's a good use for it. >> Got to pay for them generators, too. >> And that's something we need to bring up and discuss here very soon. >> This is Karen. Um, Jack, do you think it'd be possible to have some language somewhere regarding DEX? I mean, as far as how that fee is assessed or is it based on just in case somebody would come to our website so they would know how a deck would be assessed? >> All all those fees for the most part were developed based on what it cost to perform those services. The ones that we mentioned what the raises were are something we did consult with our city engineer about about those minimal raises on those. The rental fees are uh you can you can do it in a number of ways on what the costs are. We're just trying to minimize that so people will use that facility and uh it's the minimum cost of what it's going to take. We're figuring some of that stuff. We have staff here anyway. We're not charging staff time for doing anything. It's basically to cover utility charges. >> Thank you. >> Any other discussion? Anybody want to make a motion? >> This is Scott. I can move to approve the 2026 fee schedule as presented in item C.5 of the December 22nd, 2025 city council meeting. >> Rob, I'll second. >> Got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I, >> Scott, I, >> Rob I, >> and Ron I. The motion passes unanimously. We'll go on to item number six, compensation for appointed citizen members of commissions, committees, authorities, and boards. Uh last year, this was brought up for discussion to equalize the payments for those people that serve on commissions, committees, authorities, and boards. have them equal to what the city council's uh payment for meetings outside the normal duties of council are. And that would be to raise those fees from $20 to $40. Uh so we're requesting that that be the motion for approval for tonight is to increase fees for people who serve on the planning commission, EDA, parks board, public works advisory board in the EDA to have an increase in their fees from $20 to $40 a meeting. Does that include also uh the guy in the sunrise or what? >> Yeah, this the sunrise the the watershed organizations. Correct. >> We have a citizen on now. >> Correct. >> So I I this came up this was a question um on the forest lake cable commission if the atlarge member currently is not receiving reimbursement by the city. Um >> that would be included in this >> this would be included in this from so moving forward we would reimburse force. That's correct. >> Commission. >> Okay. He'll be happy to hear that. >> Jack, is it possible to put language in there as far as what committees specifically are getting going to be going to get paid? >> Yes. And I I think it's mentioned in there is uh I I don't have that right up in front of me, but I think it does specifically say the planning commission, the EDA, the parks board, the Sunrise River, and the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Forest Lake Cable Commission. And there was one other I can't remember what it was, but those are the ones that would get paid. >> Public works. >> Yeah, the public works advisory board. And I think the public works advisory board in the past has refused to accept payment. Is that correct, Jim? >> That is correct. >> Yeah, I'm I'm strongly in favor of this. I feel like uh some of those planning commission meetings, depending on what it is, if it's something on the freeway, it could go three, four hours. There could be two of those. And uh yeah, I 20 bucks doesn't seem sufficient to me. So everybody understands this was brought up at the other council meeting before everybody came on and somehow it we I don't know if it was at a workshop or whatever but it was agreed upon raising it from 20 to 40 only because I number of the people have said why is the council members time more important than the volunteers out there. So so it's it's been through the council a couple times. me. >> Yeah. Yeah, I remember it. So, >> we just haven't written it down or made a motion. >> Can't find any formal action taken on on this item since like 2021. We've looked through minutes and >> Oh, really? Yeah. It wasn't all that long ago either, was it? >> Well, I think it was starting to transition between when Jack was coming on, Elizabeth was leaving. We didn't have Aaron and things were going because I was on the council and I sat over where Jenny was and I I made the comment >> and I think we had a couple vacancies on commissions too because we were like what can we do to kind of incentivize this and >> Right. So this is going to formalize it. That's correct. It'll be consistent throughout. It'll be $40 for all volunteer services on these commissions, committees, boards, authorities, and extra city council meetings. Does this affect um people on the planning commission as far as those what are those 199 or whatever >> or 1099? >> 1099. >> Um generally they don't even make enough to >> make it. >> Yep. >> So what what is it? $600. >> So if they make all the meetings they'll be over that >> then they would >> Yeah. It's like nine something. >> Yeah. You'd have to be at the a plan commission member would have to attend what 12 13 15 meetings to meet that threshold. >> Okay. >> So this Jenny one clarification from that specific to the planning commission if they were to go on site to sometimes they'll do site surveys before they go. Does I just want to clarify if that would be counted toward that or if that is not. >> It is not. >> Okay. Thank you. It's just the meeting the attended regular and special meeting >> everything that would be on our city calendar only. Thank you very much. >> Well, any other discussion hearing? None. I'll make the motion. Iron Anagramraph uh make a motion to approve the increase in the stipen for appointed citizen members serving on commissions, committees, boards, and authorities from $20 to $40 per attended regular and special meetings commencing January 1, 2026. Miss Jenn. >> Oh, okay. >> M Jenny, I second. I >> think we all three went Florida. >> So, we got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Any questions? Hearing none. We'll take a vote to Jenny. >> Jenny I. >> Scott. I >> Rob I >> and Ron I. The motion passes unanimously. We'll go on to item number seven, January work meeting agenda. The council workshop meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 6, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. The following items are recommended for discussion. Item one, which is in your packet, will be struck. The Inu County Highway Department has requested some additional time and indicated they will probably want to meet with us at our March meeting to go over the finals on the camp 3 route, the detour plan. So, what we're proposing to do is have a discussion on the reimbursement policy for extra meetings for the city council. I know there's always a lot of questions as what's eligible and what's not. We'd like to propose some clarification for you to look at and see what you think about that. We also want to do uh discuss the planning commission public hearing policy. We discussed this briefly uh I believe at the last work meeting as to the waiting period between public hearings and actions before city council. There's some of that that could probably be adjusted and reduce some of that waiting time. And the other item is to discuss the personnel committee policy and reorganization of the personnel committee for going into 2026. >> I just got one question, Jack. this uh we've had this in noa county highway department camp 3 detour on a lot of our meetings. Haven't we settled that? I thought we settled that last meeting. Well, we we did approve that detour plan and we sent that to them to let them know that we are in agreement with it, but I think they want to work out the final details. I think we talked about a traffic plan and things like that. So, I think that's some of the things they're going to discuss and hopefully it should be put to bed after the next meeting. >> They just want to make sure that you're comfortable with their plan. >> Okay. >> So, and if you if you have any questions or comments, everybody's on the same page at at that point. >> Okay. >> Understand that. Anybody have any discussion on this the agenda? >> Yeah. Well, on that, are they coming to do another presentation then or just like a Zoom update with any changes? Okay. >> But basically what they'll come here with is here's here's our >> traffic plan, >> stop lights, >> four-way stops, what whatever it might be at that point. >> Yeah, there was a lot of things thrown out there. >> So, they're they're doing some research. They're going to try to figure out what's best and then they're going to present that to you to make sure that you're comfortable with it. >> Great. Thank you. >> This is Karen. Um Jack, just a question in regarding the city council reimbursement for extra meetings. Would that apply to the EDA as well if they have like Columbus or anything like that where they would get paid for that extra meeting? >> It could it could it could be that. That's a question. Uh generally those have been looked at as maybe from the EDA standpoint as uh ceremonial type meetings, but we could include that discussion of whether that would be an eligible expense. >> Yeah, it would be nice to have it just clarified for all the commissions. Yeah, I think in the past council was preimbured for it. >> Yeah, we we the council was I don't know if the EDA was. >> So >> I think that's like what we talked about Ron was trying to make it fair. So because it was kind of like oh the council like we make a million dollars, right? But the council gets this why don't we? Right. And so we just kind of like why don't they? >> Yeah. If we're going to be consistent in it that would be the thing to do. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, this is Scott. If I could follow up on that, we talk about cere ceremonial meetings that wouldn't qualify like going to an open house or uh something like that. >> Yeah, like a flag raising ceremony. I know that u uh they had one there at the Blaine Brothers two years ago. And that's optional. You don't have to go to that. Same way with ribbon cutings and things like that. But we just want to make sure there may be some that we might want to include on that list. We just want it to be clarifications cuz I know I've had questions from everybody. Does this qualify? Does that qualify? We just want to make it so, hey, it's much simpler. There'll always be some questions, but this will make that process simpler for you to determine what's eligible and what isn't. >> So, would it be fair to say sponsored event for the working? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Excellent point. >> Perfect. >> Awesome. >> We'll get it done. No, I cancel that. Eric, you can go home now. You've done your job tonight. You don't want to come. >> Good way to keep it moving. >> Yes, sir. >> I do. >> Any uh I won't say there's any other discussion? >> No, I don't. >> Okay. Uh >> I can make the motion then. >> Okay. >> Uh this is Scott. I approve the agenda for the January 2026 work meeting as presented in item C.7 of the December 22nd, 2025 city council meeting. >> This is Karen. I'll second. >> All right. So, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a vote, but we'll start with Rob this time. >> Oh, Rob. I >> Karen I. >> Scott I. >> Jenny I. >> And Ron and I. It's really odd how you wait for these timing, right? >> I was so I was already here. >> Got to catch you off guard. Uh we'll go to consultants item D, consultants, liaison, and staff reports. Brian, city engineer may council Brian Bachmire, consulting city engineer. I have no formal reports this evening. I can share that we will have the Notre Dame uh boring report and recommendation at the next council meeting on January 14th. Uh we did get some preliminary information today, but the final report uh we should receive by the end of this week and we'll kind of pull that together and get it ready for the next council meeting. With that, I'd stand for any questions the council may have. >> Rob. >> Yeah. Through the mayor. Uh Brian, curious on uh the port the Forest Lake portion uh North North Horns be there. Yes. >> Um they were supposed to have searchcharged that already. Is it cuz it froze up so quick they didn't get that done? They had a back they had a uh a dozer in there and now it's gone. Is that >> That is correct. They suspended the work until the spring because of the early frost. >> Okay. So, is that going to push that's going to push that project? Right. Quite a few months now. >> Okay. >> Pleasure Bank. >> Okay. Thank you. >> How how far back will that push it? And don't they leave that stuff on there for what 6 months or through it for us? >> I thought there was at least a 3-month period where they wanted to searchcharge it. I don't know if Jim you heard anything different, but I thought they needed at least 3 months of search charge on that to compress the material. So >> yeah, when I built that bridge up there just north of the Clear Lake, we had it on for 6 months. That was a ton of ton of sand. >> And and from what I understand too, that search charge is mainly off the side of the road surface. >> That doesn't mean that they may or may not start doing some work anyways and then tie it all together. But I don't I don't really know what their >> construction plan is at the moment. >> I know me and Jack were at the meeting and the mayor of uh Forest Cycle was a little upset that they couldn't get in there early enough to cross level. >> Yeah. So >> bad road. >> Any other com? Nothing else. Brian, >> thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. Uh city attorney's report. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, I have two items for council consideration this evening. Um, the first item is a proposed amendment to the American Tower lease. Uh, so the city uh owns the land underneath the cell tower and currently has a lease with American Tower. um American Tower approached the city and offered a $5,000 uh lease amendment fee in exchange uh for a right of first refusal. Um in the event that a third party uh offered uh to uh to essentially purchase the tower. Um this is as as American Tower shared with your staff. Um this is based upon consolidation of a number of other uh towers in the area um by competitor groups. Um, and so that's the the underlying purpose. There's a couple benefits here. Uh, number one, there's an immediate cash benefit city of that $5,000 amendment fee. Uh, it establishes a process for uh, handling future offers from competing lease purchasers. So, if you did get an offer, uh, we would know that it would be, um, the period of time to give a right of first refusal, uh, that American Tower could come in and make an equivalent offer, um, and purchase the the the tower from you. Um, potential drawbacks to this, of course, it's the opposite of that very factor, right? Is it eliminates potential competition of of um, selling to the essentially the highest bidder. Um and also you know essentially American Tower is doing this um for the purpose of of limiting that competition of occupying the field. Um at the same time you do not have regular office to purchase your cell tower. So uh there there's some limited risk there. Um so staff is really seeking some council direction on uh whether you desire to prop pursue this proposed amendment. Uh and happy to answer any questions that uh you may have here. I got a question. It's 45 days. Is that what they're requesting? 45. >> So, they're requesting a 45day period um to uh to to match that offer. Um we think that uh we certainly could come back with a shorter term and we would recommend between 15 and 30 days. I think we could probably resolve it within the 30 days and that would be more consistent with the overall market. This is Karen. Um, just for my knowledge is where is our cell tower at? >> In the park. >> Okay. >> At the tennis court, sir. >> Okay. >> And how long is the lease that we have currently? Do we know? >> It expires like in 2050. It's a long one. It was like 5 10 year terms. >> Okay. >> When it was signed. Well, I I I like the idea of getting to $5,000. Uh but I think the 45 days is we can knock it down to 30 days or 15 or or whatever. Or we can hold an auction right on park. I don't know those things sell that those spots. >> We get inquiries probably three to four times a year from these carriers want to buy that land lease. And generally, and I think you've gone through this analysis before several years ago, that they'll offer us like300 or $400,000 for the lease. But then when you run the numbers based on what rental we're getting over the period of time of the lease, it's not a good deal for us to sell the lease. So this way if there's another if we get one of these in and we want to sell it what it's saying that American Tower has the right of first refusal to match or equal that offer. >> I I got a question. I I don't this is totally different but the one over there by Running Aces that real tall one that was on Peterson's land there. Does a city get anything out of that? >> No. I mean, when somebody resigns a lease, we don't get >> the only way we get it if it's on our property. >> That's it. >> And that's why a lot of cities actually in by ordinance require that the first location considered for cell towers be on public property. >> This is running aces then have to pull a permit for that cell tower to put that cell tower on their property. >> They would have had to pull some type of permit. I don't know when that was put up. It could have been put up in probably sometime in between 2009 or 10 between now. >> We just we just recently approved one. Um you weren't on council yet, but we just approved one for Verizon uh extender tower in their parking lot. >> Yeah, that that that was one of the 33-footers. So, uh those are the sight to sight the uh the Wi-Fi cell towers. So, uh, but yeah, most if a a lot of places do require that the first option for location of a cell tower be on public property that's within x number of feet of whatever major highway there is and uh then then it goes on. If you can't find it on public property, has to be on business or light industrial property, >> most likely under an interim use or conditional use of some sort. >> We should have >> cover went up in 1983. So ET was trying to phone home when >> the one over by Peterson. >> He was trying to phone home. >> Yeah, I remember. So that went up first. Then this one came up second cuz I was on the planning commission when this one the late 90s. >> Yeah. >> Or whatever. But uh can we put that down on a agenda to maybe put that into ours? So they have to approach us first the city. >> If it's on private property, I don't think we can. And we we can do we can change theirs by ordinance. >> That's what I'm talking about. >> Yeah. To require that the first attempt to locate it should be on public property. >> Any new ones coming in. >> Yeah. >> I think maybe we should do that. >> I agree. >> Just generate income, >> right? >> Well, and protect where we're where they're going. >> Well, you know, and then two, they're they're fairly good income generators. This one out here only has one carrier on it. We had talked with them earlier last year about u raising some fees on it. U they had offered the same thing we were talking about is buying the lease and we told them we weren't interested in that but we would we want them to continue that but we wanted we proposed a increase in the rental rate. I think the rental rate we're getting for this one is lower than what other communities are receiving and to change a few terms in the lease agreement, but they weren't willing to discuss that. So, uh, adding that as a change in the ordinance to require that the first site location attempts be on public property is a good idea. And the other thing is too, you know, we will be one of these days there will be a water tower here. Depending on where the location of that tower winds up being and what it is in relation to existing service towers, that could be another place where those antennas could be located and that could be a source of significant revenue for the city. So my I was going to say this is Karen. My concern as a resident is I you know I'm not real nuts about them being by kids or in a residential area just from the health effects of them. So and and and most of them are prohibited or not approved for use in residential areas. You could say this one over here is in it's next to a residential area, but it's on public property. Across the street is public property, but to the north and behind that is residential. So, uh, there's that distinction to be made, too. But, uh, it's always good to have that in there. If we can get that on our property, then sell those ground leases and we can receive significant rental income. >> So, you got it on our paperwork here. Motion to be determined. So, we can put this off or we could do it tonight. >> Well, what what what we talked about before is we might want to add this to our work meeting. we can get a little bit more discussion on it there and then go ahead if we want to take any action on it do it on the 14th. >> Okay. Sound good? >> Yeah. >> Are there comments? Let's go. >> Well, I I do have one more not to drag it out. So is American Tower able to then by signing this agreement would they be able to subleasase it to other cell phone providers or does that additional cell phone provider have to come before us to be able to put their >> I think if they add they have to come to us >> okay >> we can double check that out but I think before they can add I think their lease is specific to their own use for AT&T. >> Sure. Sure. So if they add another carrier, they have to come to us for a license and that way we could get whatever negotiations we can for a rental for that other side on that tower. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other discussion on cell towers? Well, then we'll take Megan and go on to St. Clair. >> You want to make a motion to table that one for >> till the 14th or >> Yeah, >> somebody's got to make a motion. a motion >> to the work >> to the workshop. So, um the motion would be to uh to add the American cell tower lease amendment uh to your workshop agenda for January 6th. >> Okay. Yeah. This is Scott. I can make a motion to add the uh American Tower lease to the January what's the date? Sixth >> sixth workshop meeting. Jenny, I second. >> I got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I. >> Scott, I >> Rob I Ron I. >> Secondly, um we're seeking similar action on this item. Uh so the St. Clear Lakes development uh was approved for access to Howard Lake uh across a city outlot um for canoe access and um during the construction of that project uh there was a natural surface trail and walking canoe launch that was approved. Um over that over the time and and since construction it's become very difficult to access that area. uh and the permitted canoe access underneath the DNR settlement agreement uh for associated with that development um is is simply impractical. So the homeowners asked uh the city to reach out to the DNR um to see if perhaps an amendment to that settlement agreement would be permitted to allow the installation of a wooden dock. Uh the DNR has agreed to that. Um and we have a final agreement um that we will ask to put on your uh workshop item for review and discussion um that uh essentially amends the settlement agreement with the DNR. The other item that we will add to this package is a license agreement for the homeowners to access that wooden dock that's across the city outlot. We'll have that ready for your review at the time of your workshop meeting. Um, but this agreement is very much uh consistent with the uh recommendation that the city council made for us to enter into these settlement negotiations with the DNR uh and to provide this amendment uh so that the homeowners could more fully utilize their lake access. >> So again with that one I wanted Megan to present it from the legal standpoint and they did check with DNR to make sure that the sign off on this was complete and had been done. But I think um I would recommend this be tabled and discussed again in more detail in our workshop. If we want to take any action on it, we can do that on the meeting of January the 14th. >> Sounds good. So we don't have to make a motion. We're just going to table it. >> Correct. >> We have to make a motion to table it. And >> Okay. I Ron make a motion to table the St. declare a proposal for the uh canoe access till our workshop on January 6. >> Scott, I'll second. >> We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Jenny >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> I. >> Rob I. >> And Ron I. We'll go on to item number three, the mayor and city council report. Jenny, do you have anything? >> Uh, this is Jenny. I don't have any um meeting reports. The only update I had was from residents uh saying that the public works did a great job salting. So, they noticed that uh the roads weren't as icy with this last storm. So, good job to you. We got some positive feedback from residents for public works. >> That's it. >> Thank you, Scott. >> Uh yeah, thank you, Mayor. uh Force Lake Cable Commission met last Thursday. Uh topics of that meeting were the uh budget and the fact that Columbus has taken over the um uh book work for Forest Lake Cable Commission and uh both Jill and Paul uh gushed about working with our staff, you know, Jack. Uh so uh it was really kind of nice to see um how much they appreciated the work the city did for them. Uh and then we had our Christmas party. So that's all I have. >> Okay. >> I have nothing. Mr. >> Ryer, >> uh like Jenny said, I also got many phone calls. I reached out to Jim and said, uh thanks on the last couple storms. It seems he's got some negatives, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. So, thank you. >> We're not fast enough, >> which we'll talk about in a little while. >> And I will say they canceled school one day and it was very frustrating because the roads were wet and they canceled school and they typically blame Columbus, but it wasn't us this time. It was a another part of the district. So, yeah. Thank you. And uh the only thing I have to say is we did uh I don't have it on the agenda tonight, but me and Jack attended the fire board meeting on December 18th and uh try and make this quick. We had three engines through the fire department that were going to be sold this summer that sat out front here. Uh they got rid of two of them and uh they have one that the question was whether to stick a $50,000 engine into it and get more money for it than they were offered $20,000 for it. So if they stuck a new engine into it, the um garage uh appraisal report said they could get up to 135,000 to 155,000. So, it was voted on and uh we passed it. So, and what's nice about it, it's going to be put in by Blaine Brothers right in our city. So, the 50,000 going back over there. So, hopefully we can uh make some money on that truck and cut down our cost. Anything else, Jack, that we >> One one thing, you know, you wonder why these vehicles are selling at such a high price. It has explained to us that, you know, some of the lead time on these trucks when you order them is at least two years. Sometimes these smaller cities and places have a breakdown and can't replace it. They can't wait that long for an order. So, they're looking for used equipment. And also too, there's many localities that when you go to up order some types of fire equipment like a ladder truck is a million dollar. So, if you got something used to sell, you probably get three or $400,000 out of it. So there is a big market for used fire equipment and it's selling at a very high price and by investing this $50,000 in which will will all be paid from by Forest Lake out of their account. Then when sold they get 80% of the funds we get 20 which is our normal ratio for splitting those funds up. So we could go from getting essentially about $4,000 from the vehicle to about 15,000 doing this. And there's another point they brought out too is kind of interesting that yellow fire trucks don't go as fast as red ones that they're less desirable just because red's red. I don't know. That's fire departments for you. Uh anyway, that's all I had. And uh we on the next thing here I think >> EDA go to EDA report. >> This is Jenny. U Mr. Mayor, did you want to introduce our guest or did you want me to? >> We we should have uh Erin because he can pronounce her name a lot. >> Kiona, right? Is that Yes. No. Yes. We have We have Kona. Kona's with us. He is um potentially going to be voted on tonight to be our new EDA member. Um so at our last meeting we discussed Columbus and our potential date for next our next Columbus meeting would be in April. And then uh Kiona as well as one other individual who is potentially going to um apply for the uh vacant seat um were gave very good feedback about um ways in which we can reach out to our local businesses um and we're um had a lot of input. So we appreciated that. So, uh, Kona Pro Cop, uh, lives in Columbus. So, if everybody wants to maybe take a minute and say hi to her after the meeting, um, that would be what we are requesting would be, um, to, uh, approve her tonight. So, Mr. Mayor, do you have anything else to add? And did you want to make a motion? >> Well, just so we talk about Columbus, we tentatively put the date at April 23rd. It's a Thursday, 400 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. It'll be at running aces. This is just genative, but I think uh if I'm right, Erin, weren't you going to talk to Ronnie? >> Confirmed. >> It's confirmed. So, it's booked. Uh other than that, I'd just like to say that uh our new applicant out here uh has a strong history in uh marketing and uh it's just an ideal fit for the EDA. So, we're happy to have her drop in and apply. Thank you. Before we consider that vote, I'd like to just go over a couple things. Uh Ka Pro was interviewed on December the 11th for a vacancy on the Economic Development Authority. This vacancy was created because we reorganized the EDA and added extra citizen member. So, this appointment would be for a six-year term. Uh Ms. Procop has a wide variety of business marketing promotion experience and is a recommendation of the interview panel to appoint Mrs. Pro to the EDA for a six-year term to expire on December 31st, 2031. >> Thank you, Jeff. >> And with that, I would >> You want to make the motion or you want me to? >> You can go ahead and do it. >> Okay. Uh, Iron Hanigraph moved to approve the appointment of Kiona Pro Croop to the City of Columbus Economic Development Authority for a six-year term to expire December 31st, 2031. >> Is Jenny I second. >> Any other discussion, questions? Take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I. >> Scott, I Rob, >> and Ron Ia, I apologize if I I'll get this down right. >> You're perfect. >> Oh, well, great. It's the first time that's happened since >> since I did the dishes for my wife. >> We're excited to have We're excited to have you. Thank you very much for applying and for wanting to be a part of the city. >> Yeah, it's it's it's nice to have you. I I think you'll be a big asset for us. >> Yeah, welcome. Sorry, Ron got me the the dishes. Never done them right myself. >> Okay. Uh item number five, the planning commission report and citizens members reappointments. And I'll hand this over to Scott. >> I'll take the planning commission uh report from the last meeting last Wednesday. Uh uh as we already found out, we there was a discussion in a vote on um the um division of the property. Uh so I don't need to rehash that. uh at the public forum uh Mayor Hannigraph stepped up and did uh extend um his appreciation for the planning commissioners. I thought that was very nice, mayor, that you uh took the opportunity to do that. Uh there was a public hearing on Brown Beagle. Um I'm not going to get too involved into that, but there was an amended cup to extend the timeline over at the Brown Beagle. Uh if you recall the previous um cup had a three phases. The first phase two buildings on that property were supposed to have been completed by December 31st of 2024. Um that did not happen. They just finished the second building um recently. Uh phase two is to have three additional buildings on December 31st of 2025 for a total of five. Uh that deadline's coming up in in a couple weeks. Uh they are obviously not going to be able to make that deadline. And then uh phase three has another two additional buildings for December 31st of 2026. So which will be very difficult for them to do. The planning commission did update the conditional use permit to phase one completion date of 1231 2025 which now will be done finished. it already is phase 2 on June 30th, 2027 and phase 3 December 31st, 2028. So, we're giving them two additional years uh to finish out that project. Um there was also discussion uh uh whether we add cannabis language related to those businesses in on that property. Um you know, can we restrict uh cannabis related businesses on the property? Um, and and what can a conditional use permit language can can go into that? So, >> I got a question real quick here, Jack. Can planning commission make that motion to extend that or does it have to go through the council? >> Has to go through the council. >> So, we're going to later have this come up to us. >> We'll have it on the 14th of January. >> Okay. And I believe that has to go back to the planning commission, does it not? First, >> it can go back to the planning commission. I believe their first meeting is the 8th of January, >> right? And then it'll come to us. >> This, excuse me, the 7th and it will go back to the planning commission on the 7th. >> Okay. >> This is Karen. I just have a question. Um, when a CP is extended, do we get any fees for this from for the city for that if it's extended? Do we make any additional money if it's extended? >> Not unless there's extra costs for them for legal engineering expenses that come out of their escrow. Okay. Uh, would you like to I'll make this motion. I Ron Hannah. We got to talk to Kim Schnell and Andy Eman is how do you pronounce that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Did you want to handle this one, Jeff? >> You want me to go over the >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. On December the 11th, 2025, Carrie F, and I do have this misspelled. should be CA1R R Y like Carrie Grant was interviewed for a vacancy on the planning commission. This vacancy was created by the resignation of Susan Botch. It is a recommendation of the interview panel to appoint Mr. Fost to the planning commission to fill the seat vacated by Susan Botch for the term to expire on December 31st, 2027. And as a second part of that motion, on February 12th, 2025, Kim Snell was appointed to fill a vacancy on the planning commission, which will expire on December 31st, 2025. 2025 originally, that should be 2024. Miss Snell has requested reappointment to the planning commission. is recommended that Miss Snell be reported to the planning commission for a three-year term to expire on December 31st, 2028. In July 2025, Andy >> Heinen >> Heinen was appointed to fill a vacancy on the planning commission which will expire on December 31st, 2025. Mr. Heinen has requested reappointment to the planning commission. It is recommended that Mr. Mr. Hinden be reappointed to the planning commission for a three-year term to expire on December 31st, 2028. >> This is Scott. Do we need two separate motions for the appointment and then one for the reappoint or are we doing it all in one motion? >> We can do we can do it all. It's all written up to do it in one motion. >> Okay. >> I don't see Carrie F in the motion here, but >> Well, we'll make that a separate motion then. Okay. Well, this is Scott. I'll make a motion then to um uh appoint Carrie Fost to the vacancy on the planning commission. >> Is Jenny. I second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? How long is his going for? Again, >> his term will expire on December 31st, 2027. He'll be filling out the remainder of Susan's term, which she was on there for a year. So, his will be a two-year term. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Jenny, >> Jenny, I >> Scott I. >> Rob, >> and Ron I pass this unanimously. >> This is Scott. I'll take this the other motion, too. This one I can read, so I'll get it right. I move to approve the reappoints of Kim Snell and Andy Heinen to three-year terms on the City of Columbus Planning Commission with those terms to expire on December 31st, 2028. >> This is Karen. I'll second it. >> We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion, questions? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. Rob, >> Rob, I >> Scott I. >> Jenny, I >> and Ron I. Passes unanimously. We got to keep Aaron awake over there. Yeah, messed it up a little. >> Drink that Coke. >> Okay, the next thing is item number six, public works report and equipment purchase request. Mr. Mayor and Council, uh we've had some discussion tonight about snowplowing. Um, a few years ago we kind of talked about this and which probably Rob and may be the only ones here, but we've talked about snow pushers um to go on the front of our loader years ago. The last couple of years we haven't had any snow, so I wasn't willing to move forward with that uh discussion, but this year it appears that we are going to get some snow. Um, so I went out and procured some bids from two vendors to look at a snow p uh snow pusher. I don't know. Did you put the pictures of that in the in the agenda? >> No. >> Oh, okay. Oh, perfect. >> Oh, nice. >> So, if anybody doesn't know what a snow pusher is, um, it gives you the ability to, um, scoop snow. um this this particular snow pusher or the two that I bid two separate two different models or brands but um they have wings on the side so you can you can scoop forward or backwards and if you extend them out sideways to make a regular blade it'll go out to 22 ft wide. So, what the intent of this is is to um clear intersections and culde-sacs and ultimately try to improve the time that it takes us to open up the city. So, some of the complaints that I've heard this year is how come, you know, it finished snowing 6 hours ago. How come my road's not plowed yet? And the and I go into Lino Lakes and their roads are plowed. Well, I did a little bit of leg work and Lino Lakes has six plow trucks, two loaders, and 18 people. Columbus has two plow trucks, a loader, and a pickup, and four people. So, you know, we're they they obviously have a, you know, more roads to plow, but you know, we're spread out 48 square miles in Columbus, and, you know, we have a lot of a lot of lane miles to plow. So, you know, we look for different ways to try to get this done in a in a quicker amount of time. And, you know, as a general rule of thumb, it's generally buying more equipment. So, that's kind of what I'm looking to do here. If the council is willing, um, my recommendation would be to, and I can't read this. Um, my recommendation would be to purchase, um, the Snow Wolf, as I'm calling it 1222. That means it's 12t wide. If you extend the wings, it's 22 ft wide. Um that is a directional plow as well. Um my my recommendation is to purchase that um for this year or for 2026. So I would potentially order it this week, but um they would do the install and the and the billing after the first of the year. >> This is Scott. Jim, what do we use to plow out the front of the fire department and city hall and the parks parking lots? Do we I saw him using the pickup. I thought >> we use a pickup and or the loader. So, we have we have a couple we have some options, right? We have a 2009 Chevy truck that has an 8ft plow on it. Um, you feel like you're in a culde-sac or in front of city hall for hours on end because it just you're not taking any material and moving it. Um the truck that you see is the 2020 Ford F550 and that has a 10T6 plow on there. Um that thing you can move a lot of snow with. Um the loader which is generally what I drive that has a 12T just a straight plow on it. You can't V it. You can angle it but every pass that you take you know you're running snow off of both sides. So you're making multiple passes no matter where you're going with it. and it's just not efficient. So, like I said, you know, Brady, as a general rule, um Brady and myself are running pickups and/or loaders and Tim and Bill run plow trucks and we switch that up periodically, but that's generally how it goes >> because of just efficiency purposes. >> But the snow wolf would cut down the amount of time it takes to be plowing out some of the parking lots significant. >> We are going to be way more effective with that than the way we're doing it currently today. >> Are we on overtime when we're plowing at times or is it straight are we just >> sometimes I you know if if you're plowing on a weekend >> Yeah. >> Um yes, but if we plow during the week, you know, potentially we start at 2:00 in the morning or whatever, we we work our hours and then we go home. So, you know, if we start at 2:00 in the morning, we're not working till 3:00 in the afternoon. You know what I mean? We do we do our work and we go home. So it it it all depends on where it lays or how many times we how many events we have in a week or something like that. So sometimes yes, sometimes no. >> So potentially we saving a little bit of money and more efficient. >> Yeah, you're you're definitely going to be more efficient and effective for sure. >> And and generally Scott on a snowy winter, major snow events happen on the weekend of Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, and every weekend >> and generally every Christmas. But >> knock on wood, not looking like it this year. >> It goes >> or Thanksgiving if it's, you know, that >> you got something to say there. Uh >> yeah, it's just uh this is part of your budget that you've already set forth anyhow, right? So it's nothing outside of what you've already budgeted. >> Nothing outside of the realm of what we >> so it's been planned for. I >> I got a question for you, Jim. Uh two questions. Number one is >> on the second page of your thing, it says for it gives a price including insulation. What does it mean by installation and mounting it on your >> If you look at this plow, um there's a lot of hydraulics on there. So, you have to there's extra controls that they need to add. >> So, this isn't going to be a yearly deal where they have to install it again. >> Oh, no. No. Basically, it's the it's the electrical portion of the plow that you have to add because there's so many functions on there. So every you know you you run hydraulics to the plow and then generally they have electric actuators that divert hydraulics to different different um cylinders. So that that portion of it gets attached to the loader and then it just stays there. So then you know next time we go to hook it up you just drive into it, hook up a couple hydraulic hoses and electrical pin and you just go. My second question I have is is this just going to be in this area? Are we just going to do this area in the park area or is this thing going on long trips south? >> I I So when we plow generally we have what we call the north route and the south route. I generally plow the south route and Tim plows the south route and the dump truck. We do we go out on the road. So, we will plow here and you know every culde-sac or deadend road or intersection um could be in Lake or it could be on Pine Street. >> I only bring that up because then we'll be putting more hours on this front end loader, won't we? >> You will. >> Yeah. >> But but we've accounted for that as well. So, I mean, you you you look at the amount of hours that we run equipment, we think that we use them a lot, but when you look at say Forest Lake Contracting that buys the same loader, if they kept theirs as many years as we have, they would have thousands of hours on there. We might have 3,000. So, I I mean, we we put hardly hardly any use on a piece of equipment like that. I mean, it seems like it would be a lot, but it's really not. >> So, this equipment is this uh your front end loader is what loads salt onto the other trucks? Yes. So, you got to unhook and hook or >> you'll be able to So, we do that now, right? So, those there's a plow on there. It takes me probably less than 5 minutes to switch. Oh, >> okay. >> So, I mean, it's it's literally two hydraulic hoses and, you know, an electric switch to take the plow off that I currently use. This one here will be two hydraulic hoses and the electric plug that you screw in. Um, couple minutes. >> Thanks, Mayor. Uh, is this in relation to the ones they would use like like an interstate removal would use at a Walmart or a Menard's similar, right? But it just attaches right to the bucket. You don't have to pull the bucket off to attach the bucket off. >> Oh, you do have to take it off. Okay. >> Um, and and again, I flip a switch, the bucket off. Yeah, sure. It's >> five. >> Good enough. >> This is Karen. I have a question, Jim. Um, so are you looking at Ziggler or are you looking at John Deere? >> Ziggler. >> Okay. And do you know what kind of warranty they provide? >> I believe they're a one-year warranty on workmanship or whatever. You blow s there. Some of that equipment is a little hard because, you know, you go out and you start banging into frozen snow blank snow banks and you blow out hydraulic cylinders, they may or may not warranty that. Or if I hit a curb and I bend it, I mean, there's there's the difference between workmanship and poor use, right? So on workmanship, generally most of that stuff is one year. >> Does Ziggler repair them if they get broke? If if we break it and it's not in warranty, we will we generally repair it in in house. Okay. >> Unless it's something that we can't handle. Okay. >> Then then you'll take it in. But I mean, Ziggler would definitely do it. But >> Okay. And then I just have Cheryl, I have one question for you. Do we do do we depreciate that expense? >> We would depreciate this asset. Yes. >> How long? >> Um I believe is it 15 years? >> I think they're 10. >> 10. >> Okay. Thank you. Does Jenny have one sooner than that though? >> No. >> No. I mean, we would keep it that long. >> I just have one question. Oh, no. You're fine. No, sorry. Um, so this is Jenny. Um, how difficult is it having the front end loader on our county roads? I mean, I know it doesn't move as fast. Do you ever have issues with having it on the county roads? Okay. >> I I mean, you know, if you pay much attention around here, there's equipment that rolls around here all the time. So, so you look at this time of year, contractors will be out and about with front-end loaders or, you know, I see force contracting driving around here quite quite regularly. So, no, I I mean, I don't drive generally in the driving lane unless I'm making a turn. Um, generally we're on the shoulders, but there's, you know, like you pull out of here and go start going down Kettle River. I mean, I'm turning off on roads to plow pretty steady. So, I mean, it's it's uh probably the longest drive that you have is, you know, coming back off of Crossways Ferman to here. You know what I mean? Cuz then at that point, I'm done and you're just, you know, dead heading back. But there's there's so much to plow and there's so many people around and I think most people know what you're doing as well. So, there there's some gracious people out there. And I would venture to guess you're well lit up and signed >> for being on the road where some of those private contractors are not as visible. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We got lights and flashers and things going everywhere. >> So, one final question. What are you going to do with the old plow then for the front end loader? >> We'll sell it. >> Sell it. There's a market for those things. >> Yeah. >> Paint it fire engine red. I heard >> Yeah. Don't be that way. >> Yeah. Can you get that flower in red instead of yellow? Maybe. Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion. I, Ron Hanigraph, move to approve the purchase of a Snow Wolf 12/22 Snow Pusher at a total installed cost of $31,583 from Ziggler Cal Caterpillar. >> Scott, I'll second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion, questions? Having none, we'll start with Rob. Rob I >> Scott I >> Jenny I >> and Ron I the motion passes unanimously. We'll go to item number seven city administrators report. >> The city is statutoily required to participate in watershed management organizations or districts to review develop and approve water management plans and budgets for their respective drainage basin areas. The city belongs to the Sunrise River Water Management Organization and appoints a council person and a citizen member to the water management organization. Council member of Janet Hegelan was the city council liaison to the Sunrise River WO and Tim Melkure is a citizen member for Columbus. Miss Hegler's seat has been vacant since October 16, 2025 and Mr. Melkure's term expires on December 31st, 2025. is recommended that Mr. Melor be reappointed for another annual term and a city council member be appointed to fill Miss Hegeland's position. The Sunrise River WO meets bimonthly and includes members from Lynwood, East Bethl, and Ham Lake. In addition to the Sunrise River WO, the city of Columbus belongs to the and Rice Creek water management districts. The reason we're asking for this appointment tonight is the Sunrise River has their first meeting on January 6 prior to our work meeting and our regular council meeting and it would be good to have an appointment on this. So, we will have representation at the meeting. In addition, Miss Hegel was the treasurer of the Sunrise River WO, but that they'll select their officers at that initial meeting on January the 8th. So, uh at this time, I would like to recommend that we reappoint Mr. Melure. I've had a conversation with him and he said he would like to be reappointed again and to designate or appoint a council member is our liaison to the Sunrise River WO. >> So what do you want to do first? Uh approve uh >> Well, we we we can just do them both simultaneously, but if you So we know Mr. Milk wants to serve. He's been on there for several years and we just need to designate which council member you want to appoint to serve on that watershed district. >> Is there any We'll start down to anybody want to jump to the the uh occasion and take this one or >> I will. >> You will. We Anybody else want to fight Karen for it? >> One let I forgot one thing. I left out. These meetings are at the East Bethl City Hall. >> Sorry, >> I'll make them up. >> I didn't hear Jack. What did you say, Jack? >> These meetings are not held here. They're held at the East Bethl City Hall. >> Okay. >> And they meet six times a year. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. >> Big shoes to fill. >> Okay. So, uh, let me see this one. Okay. I, Ron Hanigraph, move to approve the appointment of Karen Fleming as the city council member to the Sunrise River Water Management Organization and Tim Melor as the citizen member for terms to expire on December 31st, 2026. >> Yeah, these are just oneear terms. They're they're done annually. >> Rob second. >> Okay, Rob second motion. Any discussion? Any questions? Hearing none, we'll start with Jenny. Jenny I, >> Scott I, >> Jar, >> I, >> Rob I, >> and Ron I. >> Passes unanimously. >> Jack, >> on December 10th, 2025, two candidates were interviewed for the vacant accounting assistant position. There were 40 applicants for the position and four candidates were selected for interviews. However, on the day of the interviews, two of the applicants not notified the city that they had accepted other job officers and would not interview for our position. Miss Christina Randall was interviewed and is recommended as a candidate for and has the rec qualifications for this position. Her resume and letter of recommendation were sent to council under separate cover for your review. It is recommended by the interview panel that city council approve the hire of Christina Randall at step two of the 2026 pay plan for this position. The start date for her employment, if approved, would be January 12th, 2026. >> Any questions on this? Did you all read the resume? I think you emailed them, didn't you? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah, we did get a lot of She's from Gilbert. >> Yeah. >> Minnesota. work for the bank up there. It looked like >> u I'll make motion Iron Hanigraph move to approve the hire of Christina Randall for the position of accounting assistant at step two of the 2026 pay plan $28.61 an hour with a start date of January 12th 2026. >> Scott, I'll second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other discussion hearing? None. We'll start with Jenny. Jenny I, >> Scott, I >> Rob I >> and Ryan I. It passes unanimously. >> We've been requested to submit our preference for our local board of appeal and equalization meeting dates. These are always held in April of each year to provide an opportunity for our citizens to come and uh ask any questions or request that their valuation of their property be reconsidered. Uh the dates we have are from April 20th through May the 8th. So I would like to ask city council to request meeting dates of April 20th is our first choice and an alternate date to be Thursday, April 28, 2026 for the local board of appeal and equalization meeting that will be held at the Columbus City Hall for the purposes of citizens to question, get answers to or appeal their tax valuations. And these notices will be sent out on this meeting date when your final property taxes go out in March. >> Miss Jenny, I have one clarification. Um, looking at 2026 on my calendar, April 20th looks like a Monday. >> It is. >> Okay. You had Tuesday. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> So, confirming it would be Monday. April 20th. >> It is a Monday. >> And then the date of April 28th is a Tuesday and not a Thursday. Is that correct? I was saying it was a Thursday, but if it's Tuesday, >> the the 28th, so that would be Thursday, April 30th. >> If we want to do it on We don't normally have we don't have a meeting on the that Tuesday. So that Tuesday the th Thursday or Tuesday, either one would be fine. So let's just let's just keep it on the 28th. >> Tuesday. >> Tuesday. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I must have been looking at the Chinese New Year calendar. >> Any other questions on this? >> Hearing none, I'll make the motion. I Ron Hagraph move to approve the first date of choice for the local board of appeals and equalization meeting as Tuesday or is that Monday? >> Monday. Monday, April 20th, 2026. And the alternative date to be Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. Did I get that right? >> You did. >> Jenny, I second. >> We got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Any other comments, questions? Hearing none, we'll take Rob. You want to vote? >> Rob, I >> Scott I. >> Jenny, I >> and Ron I. The motion passes unanimously. Go on to item number E, announcements and reminders. City Hall will be closed on December 24th and 25th of 2025 and January 1 of 2025. City Council work meeting January 6, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting January 7th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Sunrise River W January 8th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. East Bethl City Hall and City Council meeting January 14th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. Anybody want to make a motion for adjournment? >> This does Jenny have one question before we adjourn. Do we need to plan for who is quarter one of the planning commission because we won't have a meeting? >> Good, good point >> before then. >> Well, we just have to select. It'll be one of you. Who wants to do the first quarter? That's the question. >> I can volunteer. >> Should we go through it right now or >> should we figure the other ones out at next meeting then? Just give time to look at schedule. Yeah, I guess it don't matter. >> Let's wait till the next meeting. Well, if we wait till the our next meeting is not till January the 14th, which is a week after the planning comm. >> Well, I'm saying set the first quarter set the first quarter with Jenny and at maybe the next meeting we set the other three >> divide it up between the rest of want to make a motion for that just reporter one. Is that what you're want? >> Yeah, I move that Jenny B planning commission, this is Rob. I move that uh Jenny be planning commission liaison for the first quarter of the year uh with the other uh quarters to be decided at a uh further uh city council meeting in the future. >> Scott, I'll second. Got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Take a vote. Jenny. >> Jenny I. >> Scott I. >> J I. >> Rob I >> and Ron I passes unanimously. Now where are we? Oh, we're asking for adjournment. Anybody want to say >> this is Karen? I'll make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. >> We're going to Anybody want to second it? >> Second. Rob, >> we'll take a vote. Rob. >> Rob. I >> Scott I. >> Jenny I. >> And Ron. I meeting's closed at 7:45. >> We had a