--------- 7 PM Brainer Council Chambers. We've got three items on our agenda. First of which being to discuss service line reimbursement uh request for 601 South 9th Street and Engineer Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a
followup from the last two meetings. Um staff met with uh the owner and the contractor um received the uh proposed breakdown of the costs as council requested. Uh staff did review those. In the proposal, the
listing attributed to the main was $1,850. Um reviewing the breakout. Uh staff doesn't view the video camera, the city of Brainer permit cost or the 8x4 Y cost as attributed to the main. So staff would adjust that dollar amount down
to,400. Um so staff has gotten a breakdown for the council to consider there. Um the other piece would be uh if council wants to uh revise the general practice for the city uh we would want good clear uh clarity from the council
um because that would have some budgetary impacts as well. to be able to budget accordingly um if there's to be a change in general practice. Uh as of right now, because of the the general nature of the service line replacements
uh being a property owner cost uh just in general uh staff's uh recommendation is that the property owner is responsible for all the costs of the service line replacement. >> All right. Thank you very much and bring it back to the committee here. Uh, any
questions or comments for staff? >> Otherwise, I had a Yeah, go ahead. Well, go ahead. >> I was just a quick question. When I I'll just I'm not making any accusations or anything, but whenever I see a breakdown of costs and I see like Fernos and W's and parts and pieces, they're always
rounded to an even number. And just a dumb as a dumb question, are they are they rounded up? Are they rounded down? Is there labor mixed into them? Do we How do we just go and buy a Fernco and it just magically comes out to $150? >> Does anyone know?
>> My my assumption is that is an estimate based on the cost and the estimate of labor. >> Um because it's just tracking the labor to install the two fern codes down to the minute would be pretty difficult. So my my assumption is that is an estimate of the labor that went into it. >> This is labor only
>> and the cost of materials. >> Well, that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. No, just come tell you where where it came from. >> Exactly. >> Perhap right from the >> right from the horse's mouth. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> So, >> got to come up to the mic.
>> You want to maybe restate the question. >> Uh, well, the question was is how parts and labor always comes out to an even number. Maybe just And I'm not accusing anything, Dave. Just No, that's just Yep. >> how you how you did it. Yeah. >> Yep. So, basically the the parts for the
whole uh repair were $350. Yep. >> And the Fern co came about from the staff, Jesse staff telling me this is what you need to hook on to your the existing main. So, it's the two Fern Co.
They're they're like $32 something a piece and then I threw a an hour of jumping in after them and go get them and and that's where they get to be $150. >> You just round just basically rounded everything. >> I charge 50 bucks. I figured 100 bucks and so >> that's all.
>> That's all. Yeah. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Um yeah. So my comment I guess was you know whatever we decide to do as far as making a recommendation to council on this I guess my my thought is that we our motion our recommendation I want to
I'd like to see it be specific to this issue and not as far as the general policy. I think we should separate the two. Jesse kind of as you uh or as Jesse kind of alluded to there's some budgetary ramifications. I think we I'd
like to see our recommendation be specific to this issue and then we handle a broader policy change afterwards at a different time. Um you know that way it's not you know we're not being reactionary to a specific instance. Um and I think we can let this
you know this situation inform that larger discussion. So just my pre personal preference, personal opinion. I think we should separate those two and just handle this um at its specifically on its face value. >> May I?
>> Oh yes. Didn't see your hand up. Um >> please. >> No problem. Um so I did have a conversation with Mr. Dean and I'm I'm just going to kind of follow up with you if you don't mind. When this type of um
service line is repaired, replaced, if the line, the main, if the main were in perfect shape, it was no less than no more than 5 years old, would the homeowner's contractor
have a have to replace a portion of that main as far as you know, regardless of the shape of the condition of that man. Yes. It's highly likely they would have to replace a small segment of the main. >> A small segment. >> Yep. >> And in this instance, there was a small
segment replaced, right? >> Yeah. You define small. Yeah. They replace roughly eight eightish feet of main. >> Yep. >> So if the if the if the main was in perfect shape, just relatively new, they would maybe have to replace less than
eight feet perhaps, >> give or take. Yeah. >> Okay. That that's that's the that's what I needed to know. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. Um, you know, and I see that staff has a
recommendation that is consistent with their previous recommendation of, you know, not reimbursing. And I think, you know, in conversation I had with Jesse, I think that's entirely appropriate for staff. You know, the current policy is what it is. And so I
think it's consistent and appropriate for staff to have that recommendation. And I think as a committee we can maybe entertain, you know, we obviously we don't have to take that recommendation. We can um we can use this additional information of these these breakdowns to
recommend whatever we want. So um you know and I I guess I I'm leaning towards I I do like this the the staff adjusted amount of the 1400. Um, I'm I'd be comfortable with that. I I think there
is a portion of Maine that was um that was replaced and typically that's on the city side and you know in this instance um I think that's appropriate. So Mr. Chair, >> any comments or questions or even a motion? >> May I? >> Yes, please. What I asked that question
for is uh our engineer told us in virtually every situation like this the matter regardless of the uh quality of the main there's always a portion of main replaced. That being said that's essentially new information for me. I I don't think I
was ever given that quite I mean that answer I was leaning towards if the main is in such bad shape that they had to replace it. That's where my initial thoughts were going on this. the main's in terrible shape. They had to replace a portion of it in order to connect the Y.
Now, now that he's telling us that it really doesn't matter what condition the main is in, they're going to have to replace a portion of it anyway. I I would have to lean towards staff's recommendation on this one. As much as I've looked at this and thought initially it wasn't fair for the property owner to have to pay a portion
of that main but if virtually every instance there is a replacement of that main and that's what our policy has been looking at following staff's recommendation unless somebody wants to make a motion otherwise I guess uh >> thank you any other comments questions
otherwise be looking for a motion one way or the Um I guess you know yeah as you said that that is essentially new information. Um you know I wasn't entirely sure if you know >> I'll move that we follow staff's
recommendation and not reimburse. >> All right. I'll second that for sake of discussion. Is there any motion in a second? Any additional discussion? >> So, I wonder if you can listen to something from the audience discussion.
>> I don't know that we can. There's been a motion in a second. Um, brought it back for any additional discussion. I'm shocked, frankly, at this comment
Jesse made. Where is that data coming from the homeowner would pay? >> Mr. Chair, he if you're going to allow him to speak, he needs to be at the microphone. >> Um, yeah, like I said, there's been a motion and and a second. We're really not able
to enter entertain discussion at this point. Um, I'll bring it to a vote. Um those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. I motion carried. >> Um next steps. This is a recommendation.
It'll go to council. Um at 7:30. Next item. This is a update on trunk highway 210 Lum Park pedestrian bridge and uh city engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a
followup from the October 6th meeting. Council asked for some additional information in regards to the highway 210 um grant and the bridge project. Um so, staff included a handful of information. Uh a couple things I'll just quick highlight. Um one, there
wasn't a very specific deadline or formal deadline. uh staff was uh pretty firmly informed by Mandot staff that uh we needed to make a decision on whether or not we were going to utilize the grant or turn that back to Mandot so they could uh potentially try and find
an another sort or another use for those funds. Uh so that's uh what staff was asking for on the October 6's direction from the council how they would want to do that. uh also that we have to be ready to deliver that project uh by the end of fiscal 2026
um because it's federal funding that's it's a very big lift for staff to be able to turn that around in such a short time frame because most federal jobs it's a 3 to four year project development process. So um it would have been a very heavy lift and we would have
been hardressed with uh working with our consultant to make that delivery time frame. Um, so that's that's why that so to say deadline was at the October 6th meeting. Um, with that said, um,
staff did find out that MDOT was able to find, uh, a candidate to swap the funds out for another additional year. Uh, Todd County had a project as well as Crowing County um, to move that to fiscal year 2027. staff did not was not
told that this was likely even an option. Um but did find out after the October 6th meeting that they found those candidates. Uh however, just to note it is not 100% approved by the ATP3 yet. Uh so there is no guarantee that
those funds would be swapped. Um but just informal understanding I guess at this point with the the funding swap. Um really staff is still looking for direction from the council on how to prioritize that uh bridge project. Uh so
as we see grant solicitations come through, do we still target this as our top priority or do we look at other um potential projects? We have the K Lake State Trail East segment that we need to construct yet. um or
some other different trail projects or other applicable projects for those types of grants or does the 210 Lumpark pedestrian bridge remain at the top priority and continue to um spend our resources that direction with those grant applications? Um, also, um, and
maybe it's kind of inferred, but if the ATP3 does not approve the funding swaps, uh, a lot of the comments were from the council last, uh, meeting on October 6th where, uh, the intention would be to turn those funds back as at this point, we probably don't even have the time to,
uh, execute a project in the time frame if they don't approve the swap. Uh, so we I don't know if we would even be able to feasibly utilize the funds. So, just looking for some direction from the council either way. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Dean, uh, Councilman Chzik,
>> are you abstaining on this one? >> Um, no. I'm going to I I feel like I had I got some information I can share that's, you know, a good weigh in and I think, you know, it doesn't personally benefit me, right, one way or the other.
I'm an MDOT employee, but >> that's fine. I was just fine fine with me. I was just um So when you said we have to um if you if I may. >> Yes, please. >> Mr. Dean, when you said by the end by
end of 2026 we have to what what was the term you used? We have to have what done by the end of 2026 if we are going to use this 1.3 million. >> We essentially have to be able to be ready to deliver the project. >> When you say deliver, um we've accepted
this grant. Correct. And and that being said, if we don't turn it back, we're responsible for that local share. And if we can't deliver it um with all the other costs, that'll be on us unless we get other funding, right? >> So, if we can't deliver by the deadline,
the funds actually go back to the feds. And uh I've been told that Mandot would be incredibly >> disheartened to see that happen uh because that causes a big problem for the state in general. >> Okay. Um, so they really don't want to see the funds get moved back to the
feds. They'd rather rather see that get used within the state. >> But the way to deliver the project that we sit here tonight, we unless we want to ask our taxpayers to pay for a vast majority of this, we have to find other means of over $4 million essentially
along with this 1.3 we have. Right. >> That is correct. >> Okay. That's Thank you. Um that that's uh that's where I'm leaning to uh staff's recommendation I think it is or direction give them direction to uh return it now so we we're not
essentially uh mixing up their their plans what they do with this money and throwing chaos into their program I guess would be maybe putting words in Mr. Dean's mouth. >> Thank you Councilman Chzi. Jesse you had your hand up. >> Can I just get further clarification? is
the motion in the event that they cannot uh swap funds >> in 2027. >> You say that again >> is the well essentially the motion if there is a motion uh if the event they cannot swap the funds to fiscal year 2027
to turn the funds back or would we continue to hold on to it if they can? >> Yeah. So basically two scenarios here. one if because as it stands now mind staff has found a way to make it work has talked to other communities to swap
funds within years they have to get approval from the ATP in order to do that so there's basically two scenarios here one they either don't get that approval from ATP or they do and so I guess your comment there Jeff
>> it's not accurate >> what I just said is not >> well so if was we've the motion that council took last well whenever we did that a couple meetings ago
>> was to retain the funds. >> So nothing's changed other than mindot staff has found a way to make that work for us within an additional year extension. >> Okay. >> Is that most likely yeah with potential
ATP approval. So um >> guarantee, >> Councilman Jagger. So, that puts us at, sorry, >> that puts us at risk if we continue to move forward and we, you know, can't deliver on the the project that we're we
have these funds, we have to deliver it. Sorry, go ahead. >> I'm still s I'm still seeing reading what I believe to be as a time frame gap. If we're saying that a typical time frame for these projects is 3 to four years, this is only buying us another year and we still have no absolutely no starting point at this point. I'm not sure that the year does anything other
than just make it even worse for us to give giving the money back an additional year from now. So from my position here is and I you know I want to be respectful of the city council and the mayor and I I believe that we can have this still as a priority. To me this
this money is does not necessarily mean if we give the money back that that still isn't a priority for us. It just means that at this time we're not able to execute fully the process to get from where we are now all the way through the project. So, um I guess where I'm at is
my position is the same as it was last time this came up two weeks ago. So, that's where I'm at. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any additional comments? >> If I could just so I get this clear. >> Um to Mr. Jagger's point. Um,
if we say uh we'll we'll just hang on to it and if we got bonding and we had enough bonding along with this to cover it, it's like bingo, we could deliver on it by the end of next year, right? >> Uh the end of next year would be a challenge by the the deadline of fiscal
2027 if we have that deadline uh is a little bit more doable. Uh it's still going to be a pretty heavy lift still >> and that that 2027 is contingent on this what is it called? the >> area transportation partnership ATP >> ATP being allowing us to do it. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So, that's the risk. Okay. I don't like these risks. >> All right. Everyone have a It sounds like everyone's got a pretty clear understanding of the situation and the timelines. Anyone want to take a stab at a motion?
Well, my mo I'll make a motion to uh to take the same position that we had the last time that this came up and that is for us to uh return the funds. >> Second. >> All right. Motion and a second. Motion to return the funds. Um any further
discussion hearing? None. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. Our third item, approve MDOT grant application for um
Cailluna Lakes State Trail East segment and engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, kind of a little bit of a followup to that last item. Um so, the DNR has a regional trail grant program. Uh staff is potentially pitching to the council if
you want to apply for that program. uh the Cayuna Lake State Trail east segment which would be uh essentially where we ended the northern Pacific Center segment uh at the eastern edge of that property uh and then continue east to connect to the 28th Street uh trail. Uh
we do have a 60% plan estimate. Uh we're we're roughly at about 1.8 million. Um the maximum grant amount is 300,000. So that would still put us uh on the hook for the remaining 1.5. Um,
so staff is just looking if the council wants to apply for this grant uh towards that project. Uh, just recommending the authorization. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Is there a local match? >> Yes, it's a 7525, but our 1.5 million in
is going to far cover that. >> Did that answer your question? >> All right. Any questions, comments? >> Um, yep. I'll just make a comment here. This um my feeling on this is this is the exact same scenario that played out in the in with the conversation before.
So um I fully support having an appetite to expand to improve to connect to all of those types of things. What I do not support which I see over and over and over again is a myopic decision to chase a grant with absolutely no plan on how
to bring the project to full fruition. So, uh, I just am not a fan of spending staff time, effort, and and and everything that goes into applying for grants when we really have no really no wellthoughtout plan on how to to to get it all the way across the
finish line. So, uh, we have an opportunity here to not repeat what we did with the pedestrian bridge that just came before us here. So, my basic uh opinion is on this, while I think that the trail is important and I'd love to see it happen. I even pitched it, took time out of my day to to pitch this, uh
believe that it's important, I just don't think that uh chasing a grant that only is covering a small portion of this and asking for something miraculous to happen to cover the rest is is a way to attack something you want to do. So, that's where I'm at.
>> I have another question if I could. >> Yes, please. Is there um if if we did proceed with asking for this or trying to get this grant of 300,000, what's the uh time frame we have to use it? >> Well, it's the the two-year budget
bianium for the state. So, pretty much within two years. >> Mhm. And is there uh the trail has to go over the the railroad bridge. Is that correct? The highway over the railroad. >> No, this segment would go through the wetland uh that's east of the Northern Pacific Center.
>> Oh. connect then to 28th Street where there's an existing trail and then that trail ultimately goes over but that's already in place. >> Okay, thank I see. Got it. Thanks. >> Yeah, this just gets from the NP center to 28th Street. >> But uh just on one more note, I agree
with Mr. Joerger entirely. >> Okay, very good. >> So, I did have one quick question. Uh I saw a contingency of 30% on this. That strikes me as a little a little high or a little bit of an anomaly on some of these that I've seen for uh pre-construction estimates. Uh any any
thought on that, Mr. Dean, of where that number came from? Why it's such a maybe this isn't maybe it's actually the right number. I just I'm not used to seeing a 30% contingency. >> It it is up there. Uh however, it is a 60% plan estimate. That's probably why
they have such a high uh contingency in it. Okay. >> Uh just because of the high variability, especially from a budgetary standpoint, you don't want to budget too low. >> Um so as the plans would develop, that number would get refined and that contingency would come down. >> Yeah. And that my thought was is it seems like a fairly simple project.
We're just plowing through some wetland. So it seems like there wouldn't be a lot of contingency. But uh Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> Okay. You bet. >> All right. And I tend to agree. You know, if if we get these grants and we're unable to find the additional funds, we're on the hook to deliver
these projects. It's uh quite the quite the risk. So I would be in agreement. But is there a motion to the effect of is there entertaining a motion? >> I'll make a motion uh to direct staff to
not apply for the Minnesota DNR grant for the Cayuna Lakes Trail at this time. East segment project. >> And I don't think we need a motion, but I'll second it anyway. >> That's okay. All right. Thank you. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing
none. Those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> A direction, I guess. >> All right. That brings us to the end of the meeting. We're adjourned. Next. Part: 2
Eight couples there that I had never met before. >> All right, we will call to order. This is Brainer City Council. Yeah. >> November 3rd, 2025 in C council chambers. Tony, please call the role. >> Stunn Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> here.
>> O, >> here. >> Bedau, >> please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God. indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. >> Next, we're looking for approval of the agenda. >> So move. >> Motion by Chzach. Second. >> Second by Bevans. Any discussion? See? >> None. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. We
have an agenda number five. This is a consent calendar notice to public. All matters listed are considered routine by the council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the council votes on the motion to be
adopted by roll call. I'm looking for a motion. >> Move to adopt. >> Second, Johnson. >> Motion by Bevon. Second. Johnson. Any discussion? >> Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes.
>> Odicate, >> yes. Moving to number six. This is the public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the council. Time limits may be imposed. So, if there's anybody in here that would like to address the council on something not
on the agenda, please do so now. Might as well open the public forum. 7:31. Again, if you want to address the council, please come forward now. If you're online, press star three. asking one more time, please address,
please come forward if you'd like to address the council. We have none. Closing the public forum at 7:32. Next up, number seven, we have council committee reports. First up, we have personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. We have eight items on the agenda tonight. The first of which is discussion. Nope, that's the last of which. The first of which is an approval of a memorandum of agreement with the Brainer Public Utilities Managers and Supervisors Association
Union. The motion is to approve the attached memorandum of agreement with the public utilities department managers and supervisors association to clarify benefits for union supervisors as presented in ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by
Bevans Johnson. >> This was just a bit of a small oversight or whatnot. When we signed the agreement with that group, we everything uh goes back to the employee policy manual. Our employee policy manual doesn't reference
unionized supervisors. It only references non-union supervisors. Now that we have a group of union supervisors, which is clarified via an MOA that you still fall under the same benefits as a non-UN supervisor. >> Okay.
More discussion on that? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Again, same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you. Next up is another MOA. This one is with the IUE street and parks divisions regarding the new Minnesota
paid family leave law. And the motion is to approve the paid family leave MOA with the IUE street and parks divisions as presented. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. This is as as we had
been planning the whole time. This is a 5050 split on the withholding from the employer and the employee and that's what the these two bargaining units have agreed to. >> Thank you. Any more discussion on that? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Okay. Next up is a promotion. The motion is to approve the promotion of Britney Cummit to the HR director position effective January 26 26 at step
one of the HR director wage grid and further to authorize staff to begin the hiring process to backfill the HR assistant position and I so move. >> We have a motion by Johnson second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. >> So we posted internally Britney Cummit
applied is qualified. We are offering her the job. she will come in on step one and now we need to replace her as the HR assistant. So we will begin that process and we expect that employee to be onboarded sometime in early to mid January.
>> Excellent. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up, we have a retirement and the motion is to accept the retirement of Kimberly
Markwart effective December 5th, 2025 and further to authorize staff to backfill the police records management technician position and ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans, Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you. Miss Kimberly Markort has been with us how long, Chief Davis?
>> 19 years. >> 19 years she's been working for the police department. So, she will be missed. It's a lot of uh experience and knowledge going out the door, but hopefully we'll find somebody competent to replace her. >> Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you, Kimberly Markwart, for your service. Chairman Johnson. >> All right. Next up is a team holiday settlement agreement. And the motion is to approve the attached settlement agreement with the team's union
representing the police sergeants and lieutenant addressing the payment for the 2025 Junth holiday and I so move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. Yeah, there was with the arbitration hearing and award
and the timing of of it all, it worked out where we had a couple employees who use uh vacation time, personal time, I forget what the exact term is, of their floating holiday instead of the Junth holiday on Junth. So, we're going back and reimbursing the guys who used their
floating holiday for Junth for 2025. And going forward, is it the same? They have that option or >> Mr. Chair, according to the arbitrator, by January 1st of each year, the representatives or the union members will need to decide and actually
formally notify us if they're going to use their floater or want two floaters or get paid for Junth. That was in the arbitration award. >> Okay. I just assume some some police officers have to be on duty that day, so they they must have that option. They they get paid time and half or
double time if they are required to work on a holiday. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Any more discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Okay. Next up is our employee policy
manual. I think this is over half the pages of your packet this week. The motion is to approve the updated employee policy manual as presented. And I so move. >> Second. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. >> So, this encompasses a number of
changes. Uh, you know, a lot of it just to get in compliance with any change legislative changes that were made down at the state capital this year and a few changes as recommended from department heads as well. >> Anything breaking or specific you want?
>> Nothing that I found all that interesting. >> Okay. You read it all? >> Yes, Kazak. >> Um, yes. I have a question for staff. If I kind of could I get an estimate of the amount of time staff spent on adding and removing all these different elements
regarding this particular piece of legislation if you have a ballpark figure hour wise maybe >> days between staff and then also had our city attorney's firm reviewing it as well. So >> so numerous days. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is some deferred assessments.
And the motion out of committee is to approve the applications for deferment of assessments payable 2025 wh payable in 2026 for applicant PIDs 411-91220 41300682
41250875 and 412586 and further to direct staff to come back with a an amended resolution. ution for a qualification and I so move >> second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans, Chairman Johnson.
>> So these are all re repeat applications that were approved last year. There's nothing new. We haven't amended the resolution in a few years. So we are going to potentially make some changes to it. We'll have staff bring it to us. One of the qualifying
numbers is the value of the house you live in. And last time we amended it, I think we set it at 173,000 and change, which at that time was about the median home value in the city of Brainard, but we're going to probably adjust it based on how values have changed over the last
four years or potentially change it to just say the median home value. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> Mr. Um, have there been any people that have applied and do in part because of their home value is
not perhaps accurate, they've not been allowed to um get the deferment. >> I've got that I asked that question in committee, Jeff, and the answer I received was people have called and inquired
>> and then when given the breakdown, they don't submit an application. So, >> so we don't know. So, we don't know for sure if somebody would have qualified based on the home value >> amount, but >> if we adjust that going forward, they it should be more right size. >> Thank you, Mr.
>> Johnson. Anything else, Mr. Chzach? >> No. >> Anyone else have discussion, questions? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Again, same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Our eighth and
final item on the agenda is a library Minnesota Department of Education grant. And the motion is to authorize staff to enter into necessary agreements to administer the grant and further to direct city administrator to
send a memo to all commissions reminding them of the grant policy. And I so move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. So last year the library board put the city of
Brainard's name on a grant for $422,000 and they got it. So great, good for them. They're going to make some great changes over at the library. But our name was on a half a million dollar grant and nobody at the city even knew that. So that that's why we have that policy. We need to remind all the commissions there is a policy. Please
follow the policy. You can't just put the city's name down on any random grant you want money for. But we are accepting this and we wish the library luck that they're their new layout. >> Thank you chairman for that
clarification. Any more discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Chairman Johnson. >> End of report. >> Thank you. Moving on to 7B. This is safety and public works committee
chairman Tad Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We've got three items on our agenda. The first of which is discussion of service line reimbursement requests for 601 South 9th. Motion coming out of committee is that the city does not participate in any of the costs for the
replacement including the cost of the main. And I so move >> second motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericen. >> So you may recall this came before us at our last meeting. uh staff was directed to um come back with a breakdown of the
cost of the replacement that was for the main sanitary main. Um, as you can see in the packet, the total cost of the service line replacement was 10,250 and the initial breakdown, uh, staff gave a couple options here. 1,850
and then there was an adjusted amount, um, for just the main portion of 1,400. Um, and in discussion in committee, uh, staff had noted that, you know, it is typical for a certain portion of the main to be replaced in a situation such
as this. And so um the the committee felt that it would be appropriate um since that is um it would be normal for the main to be replaced in a situation such as this that the city would not participate in that in that cost.
>> Thank you chairman. More discussion Mr. Chzi. Yeah, I was under the understanding that the need to replace a portion of the main is because of the poor condition of the main. But our engineer has reassured us that even
if the main were virtually new and in perfect condition, there would still need to be a portion replaced when this occurs. So that's what I'm essentially changing my opinion of any reimbursement on this way. We came out of committee that way to a certain extent anyway.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chzac, more discussion. Mr. Ericson, >> uh, just I had, you know, spoken in favor of, uh, going with adjusted cost um, for the city to participate to the tune of 1,400. Um, I did vote against, uh, the motion in committee, and I would
do so here as well. >> Thank you, Johnson. >> Yeah, I'll be voting against the motion, too. I think if the citizens are repairing city stuff, the city should pay for its own stuff. I don't care about common practice of governments
taking advantage of their citizens in other communities. So maybe we should too. I don't buy it. I think we should have a policy like the one Kelly brought up last meeting where if somebody's doing a sewer line connection work, we should have one of our sewer guys there to fix anything that needs to be fixed
on our side instead of just ignoring it assuming they have to pay everything and we'll never even have a conversation with them because we are better than them. They are the peasants. They must pay for everything because we said so and we thought somebody else does that elsewhere too. I don't buy it. I think
we should participate in the cost of our own repairs on our own stuff. So, I'm gonna vote no. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. >> Mr. President, yeah, just a a further comment uh from discussion. Um it was brought up, you know, as discussion
brought up, you know, may perhaps revising the the city's policy on this. Um while we discussed this item, we we noted that we wanted to handle this item specifically and not address the overall policy and save that for another time
and just keep those two items separate. Address this specifically and not the policy in general. So just wanted to add that um addition from the discussion we had. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you. That just begs the question because I heard the motion. I thought I
heard the motion and it didn't say anything about directing staff to come back with policies or anything like that or work on what we should be doing to keep our system in more proactive repairs. The motion I heard was just pay nothing. We owe them nothing. They're peasants.
>> I don't think that was part of the motion but >> that's what it sounded like to me. >> Right. I think the motion, in my opinion, I think you guys got the motion right. Um, I've been thinking about this one and I I feel for this individual that had to pay this to replace their service line, but there was nothing
wrong with our main. If there was something wrong with our main, I would be 100% in agreement. But if we're replacing perfectly good water man or they if they have to in order to replace their own line that had something wrong with it, had a poor poor u fix earlier
10 years before or there's roots growing in their line. That is their responsibility. that is part of owning property in in the city in any city. So, I do understand where you're coming from, Mr. Johnson, but I'm going to vote
yes on this motion. Erikson, did you have something to add? >> Uh, just uh in agreement with the first part of what um how Mr. Johnson um characterized the motion. Uh it had nothing to do with the the policy. It just had to do with this specifically.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. I got Mr. Mayor here first. >> Yep. I'm just clarification. There was or was not something wrong with the main. >> Jesse, >> no. The main was flowing just fine. >> The main was fine. There was no issues with the main.
>> Yeah, there's old joints and stuff like that, but the main was flowing. >> The backup was not >> had recently been checked and jetted, cleaned out. It was flowing just fine as far as I can tell. >> Mr. Chzach.
>> Yeah. On this point. Exactly. Um, so as I stated, according to our engineer, if if that man had been put in a week before and it was brand new, the property owner would still have to remove a portion of that main and
replace it to do this work. That that's why I changed my opinion on this because if if we're gonna I think that I think it's been fully explained. I I I would lean towards Mr. Johnson's opinion on this had this was
across the board every single time. But if we're going to this is where I'm I'm prepared to make a a motion addressing the policy which we didn't do in committee. That's our fault. But I think that's a good plan to do that after we
vote this up or down. So thank you Mr. Beaven. >> Just a clarification Mr. Chair from engineer and I fully trust our engineer on this. It doesn't look fine. It looks like there's goop put around the joints.
And I'm not a I'm not a plumber or a sewer guy, but that's that's okay. I take it. I I'm just trying to confirm that the purple part is good in this picture. This is prior to being replaced.
>> This is prior being to being replaced. though the the backups he was experiencing was in his Y connection that that part that headed off to the right. The main is the kind of the the north south piece. The the main was flowing. >> But Mr. Chair, there could be other
things wrong with the Y besides the initial problem of the backup, such as it looks like it's been leaking at the joints. That's my question is is it possible that main wasn't the cause of the backup but still would have been
best replaced at the time that the whole my point is there's a hole in the ground. It would make sense if there's something wrong with this main to do it now even if it had nothing to do with the initial problem of the backup. And
my question is to clarify there was nothing wrong with this main not having anything to do with the backup but at all. >> That's 100%. >> Mr. Dean, you have an answer for that? >> Yeah, the the main is old. It does have some cracking there and it does have
some issues at the joint, but we were not having any issues with the main at that time. >> It's old, but what I'm hearing it was not in disrepair. It was fully functional. >> It was fulling. Yep. >> Okay, Mr. Joerger, >> I was going to say and remember I think
a critical part of this conversation is remember that only this residence was experiencing issues. So the main continues on down to how many further houses which implies to me also that is the main older? Yes. Should it have been
you know if you got the if you got the hole open do you fix it up at that time? Yes. But I think where what swayed my opinion also similar to Mr. Chzok is is that every time somebody digs open and can and and works around our main, they're going to have to replace a certain segment of that. I really don't
want this coming back to us every single time of this one kind of had some roots that were kind of in the main, kind of in ours and that. I think just as a general policy, when you dig up, you hooked our main, you got to replace that section, move on. That's where I'm at. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. in agreement with
that. I think when our staff does come in and inspect these upon these repairs, we have to trust our staff in that inspection. So, if we hear this that that it's functional and it didn't really necessarily need to be replaced,
who are we to judge by a picture right here that it's any different? I don't want to be stuck with a bill every single time somebody has something go wrong on their own service line. I think we all have a responsibility to
keep our own service lines clean. It's part of the deal. >> Any more discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Yep. So, if you are voting yes on this, you are voting to not have the city chip
in for any of this repair. If you're voting no, basically, you're in disagreement with that. So, Tony, can you please call the role? >> Yes. Erikson, >> no. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> OD, >> yes.
>> That motion carries. >> Three. >> No. 33. >> 43. >> No, it was 43. >> 42. >> 42. >> 42. >> Gotcha. I should have counted. >> That happened last day. >> Mr. President, >> counting these. Yes, Mr. Chz. >> I was planning on making a motion, but after hearing the >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Discussion. I'm not interested in changing any or addressing somebody else's. >> Okay. You you do want to make a motion, Mr. >> No, I'm not going to. Okay. I have to. >> Mr. Chair, I understand at least I think I understand Mr. Chzock's dilemma
because I might have brought it up two weeks ago, but I I sure hope we do go out to look at it since there is a hole in the ground. Now, I realize that's just a visual inspection, but we also have historical data, but it would make
sense. >> Mhm. So I think I think in the case of my water man my water shut off valve that was strictly a timing thing it was one of the older versions and so as long as the hose in the ground
public utilities chose to replace it even though it worked well actually we don't know if it worked no they never shut the water off to my house in 35 years so maybe it didn't work >> but does that make sense to at least go out and look >> it does >> and it appears that we did in this case.
>> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> All right. And if they would have found something different, I think we would be hearing a different recommendation. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Our second item is an update on the Trunk Highway 210 Alum Park pedestrian bridge.
Motion coming out of committee is for um council to direct staff to return the funds, the carbon reduction uh program funds for the bridge to MDOT. And I so move. Second >> motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So again, this was before us uh
previously. Um and uh believe the vote from council was that we retain these funds. Discussion coming out of committee. Um there's a MDOT staff had found a way that we could ex get a year
another year extension for these funds. um they do need to bring that to their area transportation partnership for approval. So, as of now, it's not technic we don't technically have that year extension. Um staff's opinion that, you know, there's some internal
deadlines that we would need to meet um in in order to deliver the project. If the ATP does not approve that year extension for us that really puts the city at a in a really precarious position, by accepting the funds and not
getting that year extension, we would be responsible for the entire cost of this project. and we currently don't have additional funds lined up. And so the the motion coming out of committee was to return the funds. Um so we would I
wouldn't be on the hook to deliver this project um in a year if the ATP voted not to approve that motion by Ericson. >> We have >> Yeah, I already had the motion. That was just
>> further. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah, I think I second it. >> Okay. >> I think this is more information than we had on the last one when we discussed this. I I think you guys got this one right as well. Um, this doesn't necessarily say that this is not a
priority. This is still a very high priority and we have Representative Heindman, Senator Heindman fighting for some bonding for these projects, uh, especially this one. So, we don't want to take away from that, but it seems to me like this particular amount of
funding could be allocated somewhere else and that could almost be looked at as us doing a favor and in in the future maybe make us more eligible for grants that could help with this project. We're not going to be able to use this in time. So, it does make
sense to forego this in my opinion. Mr. Beans, >> Mr. Chair, I agree with everything you just said. I just for as a reminder for the general public uh watching, what was the total value of this bridge?
>> One 1.33 was what we're returning. But >> around about six >> about $6 million. And I just wanted to make sure that was clear. >> Yep. And as it gets pushed down each year, >> we know those funds that price doesn't
go down. No, there's not a sale on bridges. >> Nope, not right now. >> I don't know. I've asked if streets get cheaper. We don't know. >> The fog go on pedestrian versus >> Mr. Jagger. >> No. Uh probably not relevant now, but I did want to just point out for context
for the rest that uh in the at the last time this came before us, Mr. Ericen was an abstension. He uh chose to weigh in on this time. Just I don't know if that matters for everyone, just so everyone has the context of how it came before us. So, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I just want to say that although this project itself
is very expensive, I think there are alternatives that we could be looking at as well. So, I think that that is one thing that we should be doing if this is going to continue to be a barrier in which the price is just unrealistic uh that we continue to look for alternatives that could include other crossings in other areas.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Discussion, Mr. Chzach, >> I'm just glad we don't have to deal with Highway 210 and 371. >> That's the intersection. >> That's tomorrow. We have a lot of highway 210 to deal with in the next couple years. >> 371, >> correct? Not not that portion.
>> Uh Johnson. >> Yeah, I'm a no. I had a bunch of questions last time. I've had zero of them answered. I see nothing in writing from the state on what our deadlines are for any of these processes or anything. I just I'm still just in the dark on what reality is here. So, obviously going to vote no on turning it back
until unless I were to feel comfortable with the timelines on it that I'm not. Thank you. Anyone else? No more discussion. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> against. Same sign.
>> I. >> Motion carries. >> Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you. This is our last item. Our third item is approval of the mind DN or excuse me the Minnesota DNR grant application for Coona Lakes State Trail Segment East. A motion coming out
of committee is to not authorize staff to apply for the Minnesota DNR grant for Cailluna Lake State Trail East segment. And I so move >> second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach, Chairman Erikson. >> Yeah, the discussion coming out of committee mostly revolved around a very
similar conversation to the last item we had. You know, we've, you know, this grant amount would be about 300,000. Uh the total project amount being 1.8 million. A similar deadline uh would be consistent with the the state's bienium
and uh that would leave us with approximately one and a half million of um additional funds that we would need to find and we didn't feel like we wanted to put ourselves in that similar position. Thank you. So I have a question on this for Mr.
Dean maybe. Um this and this is from probably before you were with the city of Brainard, but we did a study that you might have seen studying the crossing of this wetland and you said the planning stage of this is at about 60% for that section. Is
that correct? So with that whole study that was done, is there more studying left to do? I mean what is what is the rest of this planning? The 40% that's left. >> Yeah. So more plan development will need to happen. Uh from my understanding,
there's probably going to be some more soil borings that would need to be taken to get a a more thorough look at what uh is going on in the U planned trail alignment. U so there is a little bit more preliminary engineering work to do as those plans do develop. U but it
should be a pretty easy development from the the 60% to the 90 to 100. >> Okay. So, it's not like some of those studies have expired and something new has to happen. >> No, the conditions really haven't changed out there since that study was done. Um, it's pretty stable out there
other than it being a wetland. >> Cuz my idea for something like this for a grant would be to use this money to to maybe finish the planning stages, but I don't like the part that says 7525 for really any of this.
So, anytime we have that grant match makes me nervous. So I I do have to agree with the motion. Any more discussion from any anyone? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Moving on to number eight. This is unfinished business. 8A. First, we have a exception for the resignation of Paul Sandy from the EDA and the park board. both
expiring in 2028 and declare those vacancies on both boards. >> So moved with excitement. >> Second >> motion by Johnson, second by Chzach. >> Any discussion on that? I will just say that uh the last meeting
we motioned to hire Mr. Sandy back and that is the reason for his resignation. Uh you can't be on our boards if you're a full-time employee of the city, but we welcome him back. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go
to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Next up, we have 8B. This is a call for applicants. And first up, we have the honorable mayor BU. >> Wow. Thank you. I guess uh before we do,
I have one recommendation uh for one Shirley Jagger for the library board. >> So moved. >> Second. Motion by Chzok, second by Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Welcome,
Shirley Jagger. All right, we have the following boards of commissions with openings available. Charter Commission, two terms expiring 2025, two terms expiring 2026. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2028. Transportation Advisory Committee,
two terms expiring 2025, one term expiring 2026. We also have the EDA and the Park Board, as we just said previously. >> All right. And as council president, I have two terms on the water tower committee, and those are open-ended
terms if you're interested. Next up, we have 8C. This is approval of an updated solar development agreement at Rotary Park. And presenter I have listed is Mr. Habigor. Thank you, Mr. President. The contractor had to include a full amount for the bond of the
project, and BPU will be absorbing that additional cost of $1,720. The utility commission and the park board have both approved this uh amendment to the agreement, and staff is recommending approval of this updated solar development agreement at Rotary
Park. And with that, can take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Hagars. Could you just give us a quick 30 second detail of what this is? So when we when you first approved this, the contractor only was going to approve our uh bond the project
at 50%. Any projects that I would be comfortable with needs to be approved at they need to bond it at full amount. They're they were just trying to save some cost and um they were trying to absorb the city to has some liability on
our part and u we after discussion with staff we wanted them to f uh fund this at the full amount. >> Thank you. But this the solar project itself it's a small solar project that is powering lights >> right just at the the pavilion at Rotary
Park. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we're looking for a motion to recommend approval of the updated solar development agreement at Rotary Park. >> So, move >> motion by Chzach. >> Second. >> Second by Bevans. Any discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. All right. Moving on to 8D. This is a continuence of a public hearing and consideration for assessments for
improvements 2316. And we have uh Jesse Dean, city engineer. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, at the last meeting, the council elected to hold open the uh public hearing to allow for the patching uh nearby the uh
Londinine property uh P41350550. Uh staff did include a photo in the packet uh showing the patch uh essentially the day following the rain event that we had on Tuesday. So kind of showing how that kind of graded out and
is no longer holding water in that area. Um so with that staff is recommending holding the public hearing that was adjourned from the October 20th meeting and then further to recommend adoption of the attached resolution uh that adopts the assessment for that P. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean. Does anyone have
questions? Mr. Bevven. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm I apologize. I was outside a lot Friday night. >> Ate too much candy. >> Ate too much candy. I certainly support staff's recommendations. My only question is being that we had to do this
project in front of this house twice, did it cost us any extra, >> Mr. Dean or Mr. Havagarst? >> So, generally we require workmanship issues to be delivered by the contractor. So, um, I need to follow up
with Bolton Mink, uh, on what those discussions have been. >> I can't answer yet. In other words, >> I can't answer that question 100%. >> A comment, Mr. Chair, since the customer or the homeowner knew and the homeowner said that the contractor knew and we
were told that the city knew, I would hope that it didn't cost us any extra to do it right the second time or actually the third time. Right. >> Thank you. >> Agreed. Thank you. Any more discussion? >> Mr. Beaven's dress of Chewbacca on Halloween.
>> Yes, he still has it on. >> Sorry. >> Four out of five doctors approve camels. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or at least they used to. >> All right. If we don't have any more discussion on the item, we will uh go back and hold the public hearing or
reopen the public hearing that was adjourned on October 20th, 2025 in our meeting. So, I'll open that now. If you're here to speak on this project, please do so now. Or if you're online and you want to speak on this project, press star three.
I'll ask one more time. If you're online, press star three. Or if you're in here and you want to speak on this, please come forward. With that, we will close the public hearing. Now, we're just looking for a motion to adopt the attached resolution after
conclusion of this public hearing. Adopting the assessment for P 41350550. >> So, move second by Chzox, second by Bevans. Any discussion on that motion? >> Real quick, um is the property owner um
satisfied? >> Must be not been public hearing. So, all right. Very good. More discussion. Seeing none, Tony, call the role. >> Jagger, yes. >> Ericson, yes. >> Evans, yes. >> Chzac, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes.
>> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. And that does it for unfinished business. Moving on to number nine. This is new business 9A is consideration of a hazardous structure at 319 North 9th Street. And this is community development director James Kravik.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so 319 North 9 Street sustained significant fire damage and has a large opening in the roof. Uh the property owner is no longer in contact with the city. Uh so with that staff recommends the city council adopt the attached resolution which orders the owner to demolish the
unsafe structure or commence such repairs as are necessary to rectify the unsafe conditions on the property as identified by the building official in exhibit one to this resolution. And I can answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Cranic. Mr. Beans. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I a question for
staff if I may. Is this dwelling or residents eligible for the $7,000 a year unsafe structure forever rule? >> So the vacant uh dwelling um registry fee they have been this has been applied
twice to this property as well. >> And they've paid it. >> They have not paid it. It's been assessed to towards the taxes. >> Okay. Thank you. Would this be Mr. Mr. Chair, would this be normal procedure after two years of non-payment
>> to then move forward under this? >> Certainly after two years there were um he did begin discussions with the city trying to repair the structure. Um reached out to us after the first um fee for the $7,000 vacant dwelling, but since has had no contact with the city um and and then also since our our
department has also developed a better procedure to handle with some of these fire structured buildings. So I would anticipate in the future this moving faster. One last question, Mr. Chair. If presuming this property owner chooses not to do anything and to ignore the
city, would we is it possible we could encumber ourselves financially and have to take it down ourselves? And what happens to the $14,000? In other words, are we creating a larger liability on
the tax role by doing this? And and I'm not saying we shouldn't because this house is unsafe. Yeah, Mr. Langel. >> Yeah, mayor and council. So, we're following the statutory hazardous structure process here. So, as soon as this order goes out, he's got a chance to respond to it. If he doesn't respond
to it as expected and it goes into default, the judge will issue an order allowing this this city to demolish the structure. That entire cost is then assessed against the property. Um, and as often happens in these cases, in my experience, they end up not getting paid
and eventually get into tax forfeit. So, >> does that answer your question, Mr. Mr. >> Unfortunately, it's what I expected. >> Yeah. Yeah. You asked a lot of questions that I was thinking too, especially the the procedure of how long this takes because I remember this fire. What was this? Four or five years ago, three
years ago, >> two while ago. >> Mr. Chza, >> what what time frame does he have to respond before we we can take action? >> I'd have to look up the statute. It's not very long. It's >> 90 days. >> I'm not even sure if it's even that
long. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We'll It has We'll have to serve him first with that order just like he would a civil lawsuit. >> Uh and then it goes from there. >> It's still >> So worst case scenario, the assessments and the demolition get assessed to this
property and there's somewhere around $30,000 assessed to this property. If somebody wanted to buy that property and build there, we would end up likely forgiving those assessments to get that to happen. Say if Habitat wanted it or if somebody just wanted to
build a speck home there. >> Well, ideally, if if somebody buys the property, then you're going to get paid back at the closing >> ideally. Ideally, but we have had that come up before where people ask for those to be forgiven and sometimes they do.
>> Anyone else have questions? I think we're still looking for a recommendation to approve the attached resolution. So move >> second. >> Motion Bevvens second. Chzach, any discussion on that motion, Mr. Mayor? >> Yeah, I drive by this house every single
day and I ask James on a regular basis, what the heck's going on with this house that's been burnt down and is sitting there without a roof for two years. And uh I I dislike the idea that we have to tear down structures, but this is a building that is burnt out. It is a structure that needs to come down and
basically it's just been sitting there as blight and I I hate to say it, but it's time for it to come down. So I fully support. Thank you. >> Any more discussion from council? >> Tony >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Erikson,
>> yes. >> Evans, yes. >> Chzox, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That resolution carries. Moving on to 9B. This is a first reading for proposed ordinance 1597 amending city code section 1110,
cannabis, hemp, and related business. And this is for Connie Hillman, finance director. >> Correct. Thank you. So, on the October 6 council meeting, council provided direction to staff regarding options for on-site sales, low potency hemp edible retailers, and cannabis events. The
proposed resolution uh the proposed ordinance is to incorporate the direction given. The only thing different than directed by council after legal review had to do with the duration of a cannabis event. Council's direction was to allow an organizer one event per calendar year in any 4-day combination.
The current draft ordinance limits a cannabis event of one per organizer in a calendar year, but cannot last longer than four consecutive days. Also, as directed by council, cannabis events would not be allowed to be held in a residential district, which includes the TN2 districts.
Also, as mentioned at the council meeting, the state statute for cannabis is ever evolving. Some of the definitions have already changed from when the ordinance was originally adopted in 24. Therefore, staff is proposing to remove all definitions from the current ordinance and refer to state statute. The proposed ordinance does not
require a public hearing. Therefore, if the council would like a public hearing, a motion to hold it at the November 17th council meeting should be made. So, the recommended motion is to conduct the first reading of proposed ordinance 1597 and dispense with the actual reading. And the second one is discussion of and
setting a public hearing at the November 17th meeting if applicable. >> Thank you, Connie. Does anybody have questions for Connie or staff? >> Doesn't look like it. Move to conduct the first reading. >> Second. >> And to dispense with the actual reading.
>> Yeah, let's do it. >> Okay. >> Motion by Bevans, second by Chazak. >> If Stun was here, he'd want to read it. >> Yeah, he would. >> He can read it at home, though. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any discussion on that?
See none. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. And next, we want to set a public hearing for the proposed ordinance on November 17, 2025. >> So moved.
>> Motion by Chzach. >> Second by B. Johnson. >> Evans Johnson. >> Yes. Something like that. >> It's a good team. >> All right. Uh we'll call it we'll call this one for Johnson in the minutes. Any
discussion on that? Does that work for everybody? Looks like it. All those in favor say I. >> I. I again same sign. There we go. Moving on to 9C. Our final item of the night. This is a discussion of a community pool with the YMCA. And again,
we have finance director Connie Helman. >> The YMCA has approached staff with the desire to partner with the city for a community pool. Staff is seeking council's direction for staff to work with the Y to determine the amount of the wise request of the city for an aquatic center. The recommended action is to direct staff to work with the wide
to determines the wide request of the city for an aquatic center. >> Thank you, Connie. Does anybody have questions? Mr. Johnson, >> how does this differ from the last time we made that motion? >> We have money last time. >> Last time we authorized $5,000 to the Y
to explore the funding options. Now, yeah, that is a good question. How is this different specifically? >> So, I think there was a little confusion on what that was. um we will not need to spend the $5,000 because we will bring it back to council. And if we want to go ahead and we need a bond for the aquatic
center, we would use our own um municipal adviser and we wouldn't need to pay the $5,000 for the wise municipal adviser. >> Okay, Mr. Johnson, does that answer your question? >> Absolutely not, but I'm supportive. >> Okay, >> Mr. President,
>> Mr. Chza, >> can you identify what staff that would be working on this? And is there any kind of like idea what amount of time they might need to have with our staff? >> Any idea?
>> You know, I I I really don't know. I know that they're getting their funding. They're still their funding and their cost for the project is still in the planning phases. So until they have those planning phase or the numbers more secure, I don't think there's a lot of staff time that it would take in my
opinion. Once we get the numbers and we come back to council and council says, "Yes, we're interested in this ask. How do we do this?" Then it's going to be more staff time working with our municipal advisor to figure out how we're going to fund the pool. >> Thank you, >> KZAC.
Mr. Broy, just want to add a couple things. There have been a couple meetings with Connie, Mike, and myself, and Shane over at the Y. Um, it's been um not intrusive at all. Where I expect this is going to go, the Y is going, the bulk of this work is going to fall on
the Y to develop this capital stack. And I presume at some point in the future, we'll bring something back to the council where the Y is saying we're the the the total cost of this project is X million and we're getting this much from Assa and this much from whoever the other partners are. the countyy's going
to partner, if the school board's gonna, if the school district's going to partner, if Baxter is going to partner, but at some point, um, there will be a request probably back to the city that, hey city, we're looking for this much from you and then we could discuss how that could be funded with our municipal adviser if that's what the council
wants. >> Thank you, Mr. Broyals. And the way I kind of read into this as well is not necessarily looking for the why to come back to us with a number of how much they're asking for taxpayer funds or anything like that, but in in general
just support for the project. I know they have a lot of other community partners that are supporting this project and having the city backing them I think means a lot as well. Mr. Johnson, do you have more? >> Yeah, just one. I'd like a a date of
when the council authorized the $5,000 and have staff work with the Y. I'd like to go back and review that motion. So, if you could get me the date of when we did that, I' I'd appreciate it. >> Just to compare. >> Just to compare. I think we're doing the exact same thing and I don't know why. >> Okay.
Anybody else? >> Right. We didn't have a motion yet, right? >> Oh. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'll move I'll move to direct staff to work with the Y to determine the W's request of the city for an aquatic center. >> A second still by Bevans, second by
Johnson. Any more discussion on that motion? Done. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. All right, that does it for our business
tonight. Moving on to staff reports. We'll always start with Tony Gage. What? Come on. >> All right. Chief Holmes, >> Chief Davis, >> nothing to add. >> Max Hannon, >> Connie Helman, >> nothing to add. >> Oh, >> Mike Abigor,
>> nothing to add. Thank you. >> James Cranic, >> thank you, Mr. President. >> So, I just wanted to update the uh council. It'll be a busy next planning commission meeting on the 19th. Uh, the commission will be reviewing three IUP uh, renewals for short-term rentals, a
draft RFP for the comp plan update, a request by Brainer Animal Hospital to relocate and build a new facility on Oak Street, and then the keeper development final plat. And then, uh, Eric Sharpier, the H will provide an update on the infrastructure
grant that was included, the um, essentially we didn't receive the funding. He'll provide an update on that. >> Thank you, Mr. Kravik. Mr. Langel, >> nothing here. Thank you, >> Chris Schubert. >> Nothing to add. >> Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, the roundabout is open if you haven't seen it already. Um, and the upcoming week is
going to be very, very busy on our two reconstructions. They have a lot of work to do uh just within the next week to get things buttoned up before winter. So, it's going to be fast and furious over there. And then Hawkins did receive its uh new paved surface over there on
uh on Hawkins Drive today. Uh, so that's all wrapped up for outside of some tidying up. >> Did you say base surface? >> The the it's finished surface. >> Okay. Excellent. I think I drove by there yesterday and it was dirt. So, very good. Uh, Eric sharpened here.
>> Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Uh, as James mentioned uh and was in your packet tonight, we were informed uh on the 23rd of October that we were not a recipient for the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure Grant that we had uh helped and the city applied for for
that outlot ENF project in Brainer Oaks. Um 48 applicants uh 21 of those applicants were afforded some funding. uh state had about 8 million available and and applications were at about 17 uh
a little over 17 million. So very unfortunate that we didn't get funded for that. Uh James uh myself and some other city and H staff met with the developer today just to uh kind of plot our our course for next steps on that development. We do still believe it will
be uh happening for 18 twin homes, maybe a couple of more um depending on a redesign and uh we're looking to still close some gap uh for the funding there, but uh H and city staff will be discussing that with the developer and
uh hoping for a spring start for that. So, while we didn't get funded for that, we are James and I are going to speak with Minnesota Housing tomorrow uh just to understand why we were not successful. Uh so hopefully in upcoming uh requests we can be more successful. That is all I have.
>> Mr. President. >> Yeah. Mr. >> Can I ask him a question? >> Yeah, go for it. >> Um yes, Eric, um can you tell me the dollar amount again that u we were looking for from this funding >> 250? Just skipped it. >> Y Councilman Chzach, we were requesting
$170,000. >> Okay. So, $170,000 essentially for the infrastructure and they're going to have 18 >> homes. Uh, that's correct. >> Nine twin homes. >> Correct.
>> And we couldn't get 170,000 for 18. It seems like the the ratio there is extremely advantageous for us. It just surprises the dickens out of me. We can't get $170,000
out of 8 million available to get 18 homes. I I is there any way um with with the uh state the group that's responsible for allocating this money? Is is there can we ask our legislators to put put some sort of
request in to find out what do we need to do? I mean, it wasn't like we're asking that's that's a small that's a small amount for the overall project. I I thought that would be something they'd lean on more favorably, but apparently that isn't how they determine their I'm
giving you a lot of stuff here, but can you weigh in on that at all? >> So, Councilman Chzach, again, Mr. Kramvic and I will be talking with Minnesota Housing tomorrow, kind of like an exit meeting on why we may not have been chosen or why we didn't point high
enough for that. So, hoping to get some of those answers for uh staff by tomorrow and then, you know, we certainly can report back to council. I I I do agree that we were pretty well leveraged on this and and we're optimistic that we could get some funding. You know, the problem being
everybody wanted funding or not everybody but a lot of people wanted funding. uh 48 applicants, 21 got funding. Um as I reviewed the communities that did get funding, uh there wasn't anything that jumped out to me other than the fact that maybe we
were a large enough community where uh we may have lost points for that. Uh we'll try to get that drawn out from from the state if we can and uh we'll hopefully uh be more successful in the future. >> That's that's just barely over $10,000
per unit. That's crazy. >> Under >> under 10,000. So, uh, thank you for that update, Eric. And not to make you feel like you're an interrogation chamber, but uh, to piggyback on that question, I believe last year, the big
project downtown at 805 Laurel Street was denied from the same pool. Correct. >> Uh, different different program that was for the workforce housing development program. We also did apply for the outlawed ENF project for that as well and and we were not successful for
either of those. >> Okay. I was just going to ask for an update on that. So, they're still working towards funding but didn't receive any this year. uh for 805. Yes, I have a follow-up meeting with them actually on Thursday of this week um to
hopefully just continue that conversation on what their next steps, what their next logical steps are to get the development moving forward for 805. It is still something that they are very much committed to. As I've reported back to council previously, they do have a
good amount of money invested in the property and do own that outright. Uh it is a timing issue at the moment. obviously to find some more resources to to get that to the start line. >> Thank you. I look forward to hearing more in the future. And looks like Mr. Mayor has a question.
>> Yeah, just one quick followup. Can you remind me what funding was used to tear that building down? >> I believe and Mr. Mr. Cranic might be able to to put his finger on the exact wording of of that, but that was the the
funding that had been utilized through deed, I do believe James Main Street development. >> The main street development funding was used to tear down the building. >> Not all of it, I don't. Oh, perfect. Okay. Thank you. That that does enough.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sharper. Next up, we have administrator Broyals. >> Just a couple things. Paul Sandy is beginning tomorrow, so we are happy to have him rejoin the team and charter commission meeting late afternoon on Wednesday. >> Thank you, Mr. Broyals. Next up, we have
the honorable mayor. >> Oh, wonderful, folks. Well, we learned a couple things tonight. We learned that green energy is expensive. We also learned that if a cannabis event is is happening, it may not last for longer than four consecutive days. So, for all
of you out there having cannabis events, hard stop at 4 days. Can't go longer than that. Uh, and and just on a positive note, uh, as the liaison to the park board, >> our last meeting took forever. Longest meeting in the history of meetings. I
don't know what's going on over there. We got to quicken the pace a little bit. Little little bit of uh, slowness at the park department. But three different groups sat in front of that park board and made pitches for partnering with the
amount of people that are interested in being in our parks, doing things in our parks and partnering with this city has greatly increased and it is very good to see. I you >> No, one of them was water skiing. Gabe, >> turn your microphone on if you're going
to speak, please. So, so the people at home can hear it. One of them was water skiing and we love water skiing. But I will I'll just say this. It it it's a testament to the concept and the philosophy of butts and seats. If we are going to have these parks and they're going to cost as much money as they do,
we should continue to have a policy that says we want to see people using them and it is working because they are coming and they are sitting in on these extremely long meetings for an opportunity to be in our parks and I just want to thank them for doing so. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, moving on to
council member reports. Let's start with Mr. Chzat. >> Yeah, those park board meetings are long even without a mayor's report. Uh couple of things. The public utilities met last Tuesday and uh some
very I think uh very interesting uh discussion about a couple of items. One was the electro electric vehicle charging station. a gentleman from Tanner Motors came in and that is a very if you're not really sure how that all works and the cost when you
have a level three charger it can be extremely expensive to start charging with the cost of electric is enormous. So that's something you might want to check out. And also we talked about water leakage from the curb stop to the house before it gets to
the ma meter. they can tell there's water leaking and they want to figure out a policy of how to get the property owner to fix that because that is their responsibility as Mr. Beaven has alluded to. Um so that's a that's a lot a lot of
uh water essentially 10% of our water is through leakage and flushing and that type of thing. Approximately 30 million gallons a year which is a lot. Uh we also talked about the pilot which I would encourage everybody to listen to and uh I see that the utilities did get
a um they'll be present at the com charter commission meeting on Wednesday. Um also I uh been meeting with Mr. Bullig on two occasions now with uh staff. First was uh our administrator uh public works director and Jesse Dean. Um
they came back today and uh Mr. Habacor and Mr. Dean. We had a nice discussion with Mr. Bullig and I believe Jesse will be coming back. Um I just got a quick question. Did he get back to you and ask that that not be brought back until December or later?
Could you uh he's out of town for the whole month. Is that something if you're going to bring it back you could wait till then? Perhaps >> that's up to the council when they want to see it back. >> I'm sorry. >> That would be up to the council. That That's fine. Um, so you need direction to come back at a later date.
>> If the council's okay with it, then we can come back at a later date. >> So, I would just ask the council that perhaps I make a motion that for Mr. Bullig's um uh the recommendation from staff to come back be held off until sometime December or later.
>> Did we have a a previous date stated for that to come back? >> No. Oh, >> if it's an open-ended data, it sounds like >> Well, are you a >> motion if you want, but >> Well, I I guess you're planning on coming back in the next meeting. >> That was my understanding was the motion
was after we met with uh Mr. Bolig was going to come to that next meeting. So, if the council's okay with waiting until December when he's back in town, I'm okay with that. >> I don't think there's any rush. It's been >> Yeah. >> quite a few years of that discussion. >> If you wouldn't mind, that's all he he mentioned it to me. So, and then um I I
was disappointed because uh at our meeting where we uh directed staff uh to do the downtown street plowing, I asked a very specific question if we have all the equipment we need. And I was told yes, we do. And then I find out that
there's a request to perhaps get more equipment to do that job at the last park board meeting. So, I don't know how that happens, but it's it's frustrating to go from one meeting to another and the answers are different. So that's all I have, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Mr. Beaven.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I did talk to uh Chief Stunic a couple days ago. He's doing well, wishes everyone well, expects to be back as soon as possible, and said while he's gone, if we want to go to midnight, he's okay with that.
Um the charter commission is meeting on Wednesday at 4:30 where we will discuss the one item which previously could not be discussed. So that should be exciting. Uh number four, the project management team met for highway 210. The
project starts next year and goes for two years. And if you like red concrete, you're going to like our project >> and astroturf. >> And astroturf. It's going to be beautiful. Um, today I went to the uh long-term longtime Brainer businesswoman
Nyla Patrick's funeral. I was very sad. She was a business owner since I've been in town for at least 35 years. I met her daughter Aaron. Aaron gave the eulogy and here's how she started the eulogy.
My mother Nyla was a difficult person. Obviously, she knows Nyla as much or better than all of us. And uh finally, today is uh my wife Sue's birthday, so I want to wish her a
happy birthday. And we did 1,738 pieces of candy. >> Excellent. >> End of report. We did it. We tried to keep up with the Jaggers. >> Thank you, Mr. Bevven. Moving on to Mr. Joerger D. >> Airport ticker time. All right. Uh this
week's airport ticker is uh we have a commission meeting coming up this Thursday. So I'll have some more information following that of course as we will be uh perusing the applications received by all of our applicants for the new director position. Uh we are hanging the longster in the foyer tomorrow. So if anybody wants to get out
there, I believe uh dispatch has been notified and uh hopefully that'll be a big happening out there as that guy will be hanging from the rafters hopefully uh early in the day tomorrow. Uh we had a visit by Congressman St. I'd like to thank him for coming out, checking in on how our airport is uh functioning with the shutdown. It does have some impact
which I will uh just briefly touch upon. Um it's mostly affecting our uh Soy and North Point uh out uh out there at the airport in that parts and pieces that go in and on airplanes have to be approved by the FAA before they can be sold,
moved, and so forth. So, uh, unfortunately, we've got some disruption with one of our with really one of our key tenants out there at, uh, with with North Point and Soy out there. So, unfortunately, that is got a little bit of impact. The good news is virtually no impact to GA or to our daily flights
that'll be in and out of there. We're we're holding our own out there and for the indefinite future. Looks like we're going to be okay. So, good news there. Uh, and I'll follow up uh at our next meeting with u the findings from this Thursday's uh, coming uh, me uh, meeting. Good news. Uh I just wanted to
point out Halloween is a pretty epic happening uh in North Brainard. Of course, we we do a little spread out there. We had a brrawy turnout. Uh this was our biggest year. It was a weekend Friday, obviously. So, uh we saw two uh 2,250 kids over there on Bluff and uh we
saw 2,250 costumes. I did want to point out we we generally will will kind of pick the best costume that shows up. And this year, first of all, it has to be homemade. If you're if it's a storebought, you're out. Instantly out. The best home the best homemade costume this year was three young ladies who
came up. One young the first young lady was an iceberg. The second young lady was the first half of the Titanic with lights, full lighting, rigging, railing, and the third lady was the second half of the Titanic. It was awesome. So, congratulations to those three girls who came up with the best uh the best
costume out of almost 200 kids. Uh, and my final bit of good news. This, uh, marks uh, 16 years that the New York Yankees have not won a World Series. And that's all. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Let's move on to Chairman Johnson. >> I've got nothing.
>> Nothing to add tonight. All right. Chairman Ericson. >> Nothing further. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you all. Uh, I was able to swing over to North Briner for uh, trick-or-treating for the first time in I don't know, five or six years. My daughter's getting she she reached the double digits this year. So, we want to
make sure we get over there because as she says when we get out of the car, she says, "It's like you're in a movie." And it really is. It's you you picture any of those trick-or- treat movies or anything for Halloween and you walk around North Brainer or Gregory Park on Halloween, it is like a real life movie.
So, thank you guys all for participating in that. I was wondering what the numbers would look like. We'll see if Mr. Bevvens can catch up to Mr. Joerger next year. >> Kind of pathetic. >> Oh jeez. >> Kind of pathetic. throwing words. So, Mayor Bedau is calling you out. I guess
you got to do more. >> I You know what? My my mute button isn't working. >> Okay. >> All right. But, uh, >> unfortunately, >> other than that, great to see the roundabout open. I'm able to get to and from work,
my normal time again. So, that's excellent. Looking forward to the rest of those roads being opened and finished as soon as possible in the spring. But uh here comes winter. So thank you all for your participation tonight. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So move.
>> Motion by Evans. Second. Second by Chzach. All those in favor say I. I. >> We are adjourned. >> I mean 17.