--------- Safety and Public Works Committee meeting 7 p.m. Brainard Council Chambers. We've got five items on our agenda. The first of which is the cost share Delwood Drive surface project and presenting we have engineer Dean.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the city of Baxter reached out a couple weeks ago as part of their design for the microsurfacing project on Delwood Drive. uh they requested brainer cost sharing uh on the project which was done previously which comes up to roughly 25%
according to the attached agreement that was uh from back in 2016 when it was originally constructed. Uh the area being surfaced in this segment um our portion is the east half of the north half uh that abuts the city of Briner limits. Uh Baxter has the entire
west half and then Crowing uh as the first assessment district has the south half of the east half. That's not complicated enough. Um the request is estimated to be $19,440 including 8% engineering. Uh staff is
recommending approval of the cost share and that estimated amount of the microsurfacing for double drive. We can answer some questions for you. >> All right. Thank you, Jesse. Are there any questions or comments at this time? >> Um yeah, if I could. >> Yes, please.
>> Um tell me again where Dellwood's at. >> North of Menards. >> Okay. Um and this was initiated in 2016. the cost share. >> So that the cost share agreement that's
in the packet was part of a crow wing project when it was first u winded out and constructed. Um and at that time that was how that cost share was developed. Okay. So they're using that same methodology as part of this microsurfacing project. >> Yep. >> Thank you Jesse. That's how I got.
>> You bet. >> All right. Um and I have no questions either. Um so looking for a motion on this one. >> I'd move to approve staff's recommendation to fall in line with this posture. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, those
in favor say I. I. >> I. Those opposed. Oh, sorry. >> That's good. I'm I'm >> those opposed. Same sign. >> And motion carries. >> I was trying to move move quicker this time. >> Um, all right. So, it brings us to our
second item, uh, Event Street, uh, closure application, Fourth of July, red, white, and boom. and presenting this as well, engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, attached is an event and street closure application for the evening of the 4th of July. Uh the event is being held in coordination with
the parade. Uh the organizer is planning for closure of the 7th and Laurel intersection downtown, um including some music from roughly about 7 till 10:00 p.m. and as well as uh beer and food vendors. uh staff has met with the event organizers and discussed the event in
detail as well as the conditions that are included in the packet. Uh the recommended conditions of approval uh for the event are included in a separate attachment to this item. Uh staff is recommending approval of the event and street closure application with the conditions included in the attachment.
Uh as well as the event or one of the event organizers is here if you have questions for them directly as well. >> All right. Thanks again Jesse. Uh, so bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, discussion. >> I got a question. >> Go ahead, please.
>> Um, you ever done this before anywhere? >> We we uh I I own Lonfest, so I have I've been doing this for 30 years. >> Thanks for coming up. Just for the audience, um, >> Ron Ron Beyonfest. >> I Your answer was >> I have Yes.
>> Okay. Where at? And we had a balloonfest in uh at the baseball field last year. >> Millsville. >> That was the uh two-day event. >> Yeah. Okay. Correct. Yes. >> Memorial Park. >> Yeah. Memorial. >> All right. >> Um yeah, that's about all I got. I was just curious if you had experience. And
do you think that went well for you guys down there at the >> It did. It was really smooth. There was no issues. You know, the only thing that we weren't prepared for is the lighting because we we uh depended on the the field lights, but when you have stage lighting, we couldn't use the field lights. So, this year we were prepared
for it. >> Okay. >> So, on that one, that was only our only issue. >> Thank you, Rod. >> Thank you. >> Just real quick, uh what is the nonprofit that it's benefiting? >> Maybe it said in there, but I didn't see it. >> It's the biker uh group uh retired biker
group. Uh um >> that's okay. >> Vigil and guardians. Thank you. Got it. Thank you, Jesse. >> I wonder who that was. Okay. Yeah, >> that's all. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I don't have a question other than to say, you know, the the Lonfest event. I heard good things about it and um you
know, just looking at I know noise was a concern for the neighbors. I think you took some actions to kind of mitigate that. >> We did. We we uh we just we we didn't go all full-fledged with the sound. we kind of kept it to a bare minimum. Um, so we we didn't we I don't think we had any
issues from anybody. We we handed out tickets >> prior to the event a week before to let people know that we were having the event >> and we told them we talked to them and told them it wouldn't wouldn't go past midnight at least at Winfest. >> And if there were any complaints or I
didn't hear anything about it and so I think that was uh that was good. and um you know just with this event too I know we're trying to bring more um live music more cultural events downtown and so >> um I guess um yeah thank you again no
question but just a comment and I guess >> yeah we you know like I said we want to make we want to give like we want to have a leg jam and that's our goal is to try to be as big um for Lonfest and hopefully the 4th of July when this thing and see how far this can go we're offering our free concert for the 4th of
July so anybody when there's No age limit. There's no tickets. You just spend money downtown and support local businesses, you know. That's what it's all about. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I guess question then for staff too. I you know there's mentioned here all
somewhat of almost coordination with the fireworks and I think we've talked about that too is like you got the parade and then sometimes you feel like we might lose some people because then they go barbecue, you know, go back home and then maybe don't come back out for the fireworks. So, I think this would be a good kind of I don't want to say filler,
but you know, fill that time space, a good gap. So, um I if you can't tell, I support it. So, be looking forward a motion on this item. If there's no further discussion, >> move to approve the event application. Second.
>> All right. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> Those in favor say I. >> I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. >> All right. Thank. And then of course it'll go to council >> momentarily really.
>> Our third item improvement 255 rightway description proposal and engineer Dean. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Attached is a proposal from Bolton Bank to provide a legal description for formalizing a permanent roadway easement uh on Laurel Street as part of the upcoming Southeast Brainard reconstruction project. So this
would be the block between 17th and 18th Street. U staff approached Mr. Higgins at the start and discuss the possibility of formalizing the roadway easement as the current street exists under prescriptive easement. Um this effort would create a defined right ofway for the roadway and the utilities to exist.
Uh so staff has provided the attached exhibit and then also received support from Mr. Higgins and how the area was drawn. Uh so right now we're recommending approval of the $925 proposal for the legal description uh to put together a Laurel Street roadway
easement and can answer questions. Thank you, Jesse. Comments, questions on this item. >> How many blocks will that be? >> This initial one is one, but I would anticipate that we would come back in future projects moving to the west to formalize Laurel Street. It's just
essentially been there and operated as a public street. So, that's why I referenced the prescriptive easement. Uh, this is just our effort to formalize that. um didn't have a question or a chance to ask you this earlier, but um does it impact the other property owners
and were the other property owners? >> I guess >> it does not. Uh the the roadway essentially exists all entirely on Northern Pacific Center property. Um the platting is a little bit of a mess over there. That's why we're asking for them to draw up a a formal legal description
because it it is a complicated description. So, we want them to put that together for us. All right. Thanks. Anything else on this item? >> I move to approve. Second. >> Thank you. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. And that brings us to our fourth item uh construction observation proposal from uh regarding Voyagers Heights development and engineer Dean.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alo attached there's a proposal for construction observation and material testing uh for the planned public facilities that are included with the keepers Voyager Heights plan development. Um the proposal from SC is in the amount of 74,200 u and essentially be funded using the
escro dollars from keepers that's included in the development agreement. So staff is recommending award of the proposal from in the amount of 74,200 as presented. >> Thank you Jesse. Comments or questions on this item? Nope.
>> Um, so may I >> Yes, please. >> Now, I'm not suggesting that staff do this. I'm just asking the question. Could our staff do this? I I don't I'm not suggesting they do, but could our staff do this? >> We don't have the capacity uh with our
existing staff. >> Okay. But you could if you had the capacity. >> Yes, we we would be capable to to do this work uh if we had the capacity. Yes. So it it boils down to not enough personnel, right? Correct. Okay. >> All right. Um and that is a cost then to
the taxpayers to have this oversight. Um >> um how does how does this um >> Yeah. >> Can he um he put his hand up when you said that? Go ahead. >> I just want to clarify that this the funding for this would be funded through keepers. It would not be >> city fund dollars. >> So they're paying for their Okay.
They're paying for this and that's part of the agreement for them to construct what will eventually be public infrastructure. Um that's part of the agreement is they have to fund >> Okay. >> that work. >> That's why I'm asking. Thank you, Jess. Yes, sir. >> Yep. Anything else?
>> No. Thanks. >> Right. Then just be looking for a motion on this item. >> Move to approve. >> Second. Right. >> Sorry. Second. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh just to be clear then the motion to approve the proposal from SC in the amount uh excuse me 74,200 for
the Voyagers Heights project. There's a motion second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed same sign and motion carries. All right. Brings us to our our last item number five direction on active
code enforcement and James. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh so staff is bringing one property before the committee for review and is looking for direction from city councils how to proceed with the case. Uh P41191502 is across the street from Lel Elementary on the east side and uh the property
owner is currently parking a trailer on a vacant lot with a garage. There's no primary structure on the property. Officer parking is prohibited on vacant lots. Uh we did tow numerous vehicles from this property a few years ago. Uh staff has sent a warning letter along with three citations of and have not
heard back from the property owner. Uh so with that staff recommends to tow the vehicle weather dependent. Um certainly this time of year you can get lots of snow um or uh ground thaw. So we would want to minimize damage as much as possible. So we are recommending weather dependent.
>> Got a couple questions. >> Uh thanks James. Go ahead Jeff. >> Um where does a trailer wind up if it's uh removed by the city? So, our towing company is West Brainard Auto and they keep that um within their enclosure >> for how long?
>> Um, if I remember right, I believe it's 30 days. Okay. >> And then it can be auctioned off if it's not claimed. >> Okay. Um, and then um do you do you have to cut a lock or anything to tow it? Do you know or? >> No. So, this property is completely open
right now. >> Okay. That's all I got, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Um, just pictured here, I just wanted to point out, so the white house there is not the property, there's the garage that's on this vacant lot, but the white
house that's pictured is separate. >> That's correct. And we are currently citing the garage as directed by council 300 a month because there are um property issues with the the garage. Okay. >> All right. If >> I question to approve staff's
recommendation of the removal of the trailer. >> Second. >> Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. And motion carries. And that brings us to the end of our
agenda. And so we'll adjourn. Part: 2
Council, it is Monday, March 2nd, 2026, 7:30 p.m. in council chambers. >> Tony, please call the role. >> Beans >> here. >> Chzach here. >> Johnson >> here. >> Stunn here. >> Jagger, >> yep. >> Erikson >> here. >> O >> here. The >> here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Next up, number four, we have approval of the agenda.
>> Looking for >> motion to approve. >> Motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Any discussion? >> None. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Number five, we have the consent calendar. This is a notice to
public that all matters listed are considered routine by the council. 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. >> So move >> motion by Sunni.
>> Second by Johnson. >> Mr. Chair, may I just ask a question on this? Who who's writing the public works? >> Who's writing? Yeah, >> the public works. >> Yeah, the update. >> The update. >> Oh, the >> I thought it was good.
>> I thought it was really easy to read. Did you write that? >> Mr. Dean, >> I imagine Jesse did. >> Mostly falls on me, but I have a staff that helps put that together. >> So, the public works department. >> Really easy to read. Thank you.
>> All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a roll call. Tony, >> Bevvens, >> yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Stunn, yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. Next up, number six, we have a 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 here that wants to address the council on something not on the agenda, please come forward. And if you're online and you'd like to
address the council, press star three. That'll raise your hand. I ask again if there's anybody that would like to address the council tonight on something that is not currently on the agenda, please come forward. Nobody online, Max.
All right, with that, we will close the public forum. 7:32 and skipping past number seven, we have no presentations. Moving right on to number eight, Council Committee reports. First up, we have Safety and Public Works Committee Chairman Tad Ericson.
>> All right, thank you, Mr. President. We've got five items on our agenda. The first of which is cost share um with the city of Baxter for Delwood Drive surfacing. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the cost share with the city of Baxter in the estimated amount of $19,440.
And I so move >> second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Mr. Ericson, do you have something to add? >> Question at the end and I do. >> Beans. >> Go ahead. >> I can I can Well, I'm going to vote against this. >> Okay. >> And here's why. I was on the council
when this initially came up and the one part that you can't read because it's not in the ordinance in 2015 is the discussion or the part of the Oops, I'm apologies. The part that's
missing is the part of the agreement where the city of Baxter wrote a letter signed by Mayor Daryl Olsen that I had in my hand agreeing that if we gave our half of Delwood Drive to them, we would agree
to all the stuff that's in the ordinance, but they would also meet with us regarding the property under our public utilities, which is currently in the city of Baxter. then they declined to do that and I don't
think that's right. If you agree to do something as part of a larger agreement, I think you should stand up to what you agreed to. And they agreed to it. The mayor signed it. I had it sitting in my hand sitting in that chair. And then
they declined after the annexation or the or the uh change in agreement on the property on Delawa Drive took effect. And to quote Mr. Chzik, it's always the city of Brainer that shoulders the burden for all the other governments and
all the other people that want something. And we have to, you know, do the good thing. And I don't think I think this time we shouldn't. I think we should make them stand up to their part of the agreement. And if you go back and
listen to the tapes, you can hear it. Uh Tony could probably even find the conversation, but it was agreed to and it was not part of the ordinance and that was a mistake. But now's the time that they should and I think they should do it. I think we should have a discussion about that public utilities
property, how it happened to end up in in Baxter. I don't know. That was before my time. But we asked if nothing else if nothing else to go on the record as to what what we think should be done with that property. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Beavenons. Mr. Ericen. >> Well, and so and I should have described the the item here for the public um uh momentarily and I can do that. So what what it is is for Delwood Drive, there's a cost staff is recommending a cost
share for microsurfacing of the portion of Delwood uh that's in the city of Brainard. So a road treatment uh for the maintenance of that road. Just wanted to kind of clarify the um the agenda item. >> Thank you.
>> So the confusing part that I for me it we didn't budget for this. It's it's a fairly small item when it comes to the grand scheme of things, but this is the kind of discussion that I think Mr. Bevvens is talking about where we can work together a lot better between two
cities. So, going forward, whether this goes through or not, I think we can request that we talk about these types of projects before the budget season so that it doesn't come up like this. Mr. Chzac, >> yes. Um, to Mr. Evans's point, I I I
won't dispute what he says he had in his hand, but it would seem to me um I'd like to consider the council to accept a follow-up motion if after we vote on this, but um if you would allow me after uh we vote on this to make another related motion to what Mr. Beaven was
speaking of. >> Sure. >> Okay. Anyone else? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I against same side. >> I got three against.
Four. Yes. So that motion carries. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzock. >> Yeah. I'd like to see if the council would entertain a motion to um ask the city of Baxter for uh either the letter that Mr. Beaven referenced or minutes to
that effect from their council meetings. And I so move. Motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Discussion. >> Pretty straightforward. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. This is our second item uh event street closure application, Fourth of July, Red, White, and Boom. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the special event street closure application uh for
balloonfest red white and boom with the uh conditions included in the attachment and I so move >> second motion by Ericson second by Chzach. >> Uh so yeah well in the attachment we have the application for the Lonfest um event. It's planned to be held on the 4th of July in coordination with
community actions fourth of July festivities. Um and um yeah, there was a question asked in committee if they've had experience uh performing such an event. They had um they had done the um the event out on Memorial Park um last year
and um yeah, I guess the applicant's here if there's other questions. >> Thank you. Any more questions? >> Mayor. >> Uh Mr. Chzach. Yeah, I don't Well, I think the mayor is trying to keep a lid on this, but I heard a rumor that they were actually going to have the
fireworks go off downtown Brainer, so the people down there could just watch them after the meetings again. So, >> don't start that now. >> You'd like to confirm that? >> You want to say something, Mr. Mayor? >> Well, now I have to speak. So, uh Dave Bedau, executive director, Brainer
Community Action. This is not uh particularly our event. We are doing it in coordination. We are the Fourth of July people. We are running the entire Fourth of July uh Lonfest or in this case the red right red white and boom event uh will be taking um taking place
with our help but as a separate thing. And no, the fireworks will not be blasted off downtown. That sounds really dangerous to me. Um so I just want to uh take that rumor and nip it right in the butt and thank Councilman Chzach for
putting that out into the ether. Oh, the name boom kind of implied. See? So, >> no, that will not be happening. Fireworks will happen in the exact same place. Uh, there will also be other music as well in the 4th of July. >> Thank you. >> Well, to that point though, that you know, the times that they put in here
for 7:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. obviously coordinated so that you know the the music would end and then the group would have a chance to move down to the fireworks. >> Correct. >> Mr. Beans. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And and I apologize, Mr. Community Action. This might be
directed more towards you. In the past, there's been some concern with actually closing that intersection, the the little farmers market that used to be downtown. There was a considerable resistance from businesses to closing that and they
moved it just slightly north up 7th and didn't close the intersection of Laurel and 7th. Same thing with the JC Streetfest. They didn't want to close that. Has has have local businesses been pulled regarding actually closing that intersection?
>> Not to my knowledge. However, uh as someone that spends every Fourth of July in and out of downtown, uh downtown's a pretty much a ghost town on the 4th of July. Most of our our small businesses spend time with their families and opt not to be open. Uh so this I I believe
is a great opportunity for us to try and bring something back down to specifically the restaurants. Um, but if those small businesses choose to be open, uh, there will still be ample parking along the area. And again, as someone that lives downtown on the 4th of July, I can tell you that, uh, there
there's ample space for this to take place. >> Thank you. >> Sounds like an outdoor camping ordinance violation. >> Anybody else have questions? >> All right, seeing none, we have a motion.
>> So, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I I >> against same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. Our third item is improvement 255 Southeast Brainard Reconstruction rightway description proposal. Motion
coming out of committee is to approve the proposal from Bolton and M for legal description services in the amount of $925. And I so move >> second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. So this is a a proposal from Bolton and Mang to provide
additional services uh to provide legal description for the right ofway on Laurel Street. And the amount I mentioned the amount of course as you can see from the uh map there um the entire uh portion of this roadway, this one block segment is on an easement with
the Northern Pacific Center. And so the um the item here would be getting the legal description um cleaned up and um kind of more solidified for what's what's there.
>> Thank you. Any more discussion? >> I guess I have a question of staff too. You know, so there's this one small If I could >> Yeah, go for it. for Jesse though. This is just one block segment, but you had mentioned this potential for the need to do this further down Laurel Street in
this area. Can you kind of expound on that? >> Yes, we have kind of property line issues throughout the entirety of Laurel Street. Um some of the oldest plats in town. Um so it would be something that we would look as we continue these projects moving to the west and and
continuing to do Laurel Street. Uh cleaning up some of those permanent roadway easements. We're doing this one right here because we're working on those designs currently and uh it was very advantageous to have Bolton and make do this at this time. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our fourth item is construction observation and testing uh contract with for Voyagers Heights
development project. The motion coming out of committee is uh to approve the proposal from SE in the total amount of 74,200 for the Voyagers Heights project and I so move >> second motion by Ericson second by Chzach. Ericen anything to add?
>> Yeah, just that this is a proposal from SC uh coordinating with Bronn Intertect uh to perform construction observation and materials testing um uh and for services on the Voyagers height development. Uh as noted in the uh the
packet there um the the cost of this would come out of that s cash escrow account um that keepers is providing. >> Okay, more questions, discussion. >> Um may I >> Mr. Chzach? >> Yeah, we were informed um afterwards
that um any staff time spent on this will be reimburseable. So if our staff is asked to assist and put time in, we will be reimbursed for that through through the um developer. Is that correct, Mr. Dean? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Seeing no more discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. This is our last item,
direction on active code enforcement. Uh motion coming out of committee is to tow the trailer uh weather dependent and I'm looking at looking for the address here. Um James, can you remind me? I don't see the address at the moment. >> Yes. Uh thank you council member. Uh so
it doesn't have an address but does have a P ID number. It's 41191502. The reason it doesn't have an address, it's a vacant property. Um, it is across the street from LOL on 4th Avenue Northeast on being on the east side of Lel Elementary.
>> And then Max, if you could maybe scroll down to the photo there. So, there's a trailer on a vacant lot. Um, the White House is the neighbors. Um, and then you see the garage there. So, the trailer on a vacant lot that's needs to be moved and the uh property owners received
letters and notice of citation. >> This is a repeat offender, correct? This is something that we've dealt with multiple times in the same lot. >> That's correct. It's been noticed multiple times on the lot. We did have to a couple years ago tow multiple vehicles and trailers off the property.
>> So, it's a salvage yard for this person essentially. Okay. All right. More discussion. See none. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericen. >> End of report.
>> Thank you, Chairman Ericen. Moving on to personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. We have four items on our agenda. The first of which is the designating the statewide affordable housing aid funds. The motion out of committee is to award
Lakes Area Habitat Habitat for Humanity $74,65 in statewide affordable housing aid. And I so move >> second motion by Johnson, second by Stunic. Chairman Johnson, >> we have funded Habitat the last two years with this money and they have done
a incredible job spending it wisely creating single family homes in our community. So want to continue to support that. >> Thank you. 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. >> Thanks. Next one isformational. The friends of the library are looking at potentially renting some annex space from us, but staff is just in discussions with them and we don't have any any numbers or proposals or leases to vote on yet. But it's just kind of an
FYI. If anybody thinks this is an absolutely terrible idea to speak up now otherwise staff will continue doing what they have been. >> Any discussion on that? >> Yep. Mr. Chzac, >> anticipate a fair market rate for the rent. Has that been discussed or is on the table? I would assume,
>> Jeeoff, we haven't discussed it. I would expect that we would charge fair market, right? This is a private entity, separate. It's its own corporation. We shouldn't be having the taxpayers subsidize it in any way. So, I my expectation is that it would, but we have nothing in front of us to vote up
or down on right now. >> There won't be a $4 million ask or anything. >> Maybe. >> Okay. >> We don't know yet. More discussion. All right, Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you. The third item is uh
retirement of the police chief John Davis. And a motion is is to accept with regret the retirement of police chief John Davis effective April 30th, 2026 to approve the updated police chief job description as presented and to authorize staff to conduct an internal
hiring process to backfill the position. And I so move >> and I second with regret. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Stunic. Chairman Johnson, >> this is uh it's sad news. John Davis has been an exceptional police chief for
this city and uh we are all saddened that that he will enter retirement, but he's got grandkids to hang out with and can't fault him for that. And we are we're confident that in an internal hiring process, we will be able to find a new police chief within our current
department without having to go look outside. So, we're we're happy to report on that, too. >> Yeah. Wish we could keep them around forever, but when you got grandkids and you got other stuff you got to take care of, I understand. All right. Uh, we have a motion. Mr. Chzach,
>> do we anticipate the uh internal um search um being completed by the end of April? >> Mr. Bals, >> position filled. >> Yeah. >> Yes. We'll be advertising if the council moves forward with this motion tonight. We'll be advertising right away. And um
we will probably be on the short end of that advertisement what we probably minimally need to post that job for. So we'll move as quickly as we can but absolutely by the end of April for sure. >> Thank you. >> Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Our final item is uh about the Royal Tire TIFF district from 2015
and the motion is to modify the redevelopment agreement for the use of the facility other than an automotive services facility and I so move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans Johnson. So, we created this TIFF district back in 2015
and in the agreement in the language of of the agreement, it said it had to be an automotive services facility. Well, they have Royal Tire, the business has since closed. They have found a tenant who wants to move in, is willing to move
in, has a lease, but they're not in the automotive services industry. So, it's a violation of the contract. We have two options. We could just cancel the contract and get rid of the tiff district or we could keep the tiff district going which
DLP Investments has requested that we do and that's the motion is to keep going with the tiff district but to modify the language to allow their new tenant to operate. >> Thank you. Chairman Johnson, how far into this agreement are we? What year was it made?
>> It was made in 2015. mean it was the quicker of 200 2001 170 Connie >> one it was the quicker of $170,000 being recouped or >> 27 years so far of the $170,000 in
principle the balance is $175,000 in principal so it will likely last 27 years 12 years in >> 11 years in 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. >> End of report. >> All right. Thank you. Moving on to number nine, unfinished business. First up, we have a call for applicants. And first up, we have Mr. Mayor.
>> Well, first up before that, at our last meeting, I nominate made a nomination of an individual uh who put in an application. Their name is Corey J. What came out of my mouth was Corey Johnson. And not only did I nominate
them, you here as the council accepted that nomination. Corey Johnson owns owns Domino and is a very good friend. Love you, Cory Johnson. But I did not mean to say Cory Johnson. I meant to say Cory Jay. Corey Jay has already been sworn in with his oath on the B on the BPU commission. So, we're good to go there.
But I do want to clarify because it was made to me that I don't know how to speak and or use people's names properly. So Corey J was the nomination for BPU and I don't know if we need to correct that here or just correct. >> I'd move to approve that nomination.
>> Appreciate it. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. >> Discussion. >> Yes. If this gets passed, do we have to then resend the motion to approve Corey Johnson? >> Corey Johnson never applied. We should have never appointed Just say he knows show picking people
out of the phone. >> Maybe he wants to be honest. >> He might maybe >> he might be at the next meeting. >> Listen, I'm a I'm a big guy and pizza is my favorite. I was trying to be facitious. I'm sorry. >> Any more discussion? Like real discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Okay. Having accomplished that task, I'm therefore not going to make any nominations tonight and put my tail between my legs. Come back next meeting and try again. So, we have applications available for the following committees
and commissions. Uh, charter commission, two terms expiring 2029, two terms expiring 2026. Economic development authority, one term expiring 2028, one term expiring 2031. Library board, one term expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2030.
And the Transportation Advisory Committee, one term expiring 2026, two terms expiring 2027. And as council president, I have one term on the airport commission open expiring 2028, one on the planning commission expiring 2028, and one and
two terms on the water tower committee. Next up 9B, we have a resolution for the orderly annexation agreement. Um, I'll hand this over to James Cran at Community Development. Take it away, James. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so city council held a public hearing at the
February 17th city council meeting and considered an orderly annexation agreement designating area for orderly annexation for properties adjacent to and near Riverside Drive. Uh, city council heard public testimony and delayed a decision on the agreement and directed staff to provide additional
information. Again, the joint resolution uh with the county before the city council tonight establishes an orderly annexation area. It does not annex properties into the city of Brainard. Uh based on the criteria of the agreement, area one would be subject to annexation by city council resolution. Area two,
which is Ashman Road, could not be annexed until there is a proposed utility extension project uh down that road, which would most likely be in the distant future. However, it would allow staff uh to begin planning. Uh some of the notes that I had prepared, uh the zoning is not established in this
agreement. It would be established upon resolution to annex properties into the city. Uh staff did perform kind of an initial review of this area and properties uh would most likely be zoned garden living for consistency of adjacent properties. Uh staff did attach uh the zoning district regulations for
garden living to the agenda item. Uh staff has uh also completed a draft version of our Shorland overlay district update which was required by the DNR. Uh it has been submitted to the DNR for review. uh will need final approval from them as well as city council. Uh staff did use Crowing County as a model
ordinance uh in creating uh the proposed ordinance. So not much would change for the shoreland district regulations for these properties. Uh staff was made made aware that uh we do need to update our Mississippi headarters regulations which is another overlay district along the Mississippi River as they have not as it
has not been updated for 20 years. Uh this proposed annexation area in area one specifically along the Mississippi River would be subject to those regulations. Uh staff will be working on a draft that would update uh uh the Mississippi headarters overlay district
for the minimum requirements as required um by that board. Uh the county must also adhere to these requirements. So there not much there would not be much change for these property owners. Uh staff does not recommend actually annexing these properties and by resolution until completion of the update as properties would have a
moratorium from issuing building permits until we meet those minimum requirements. Uh properties in the city limits are subject to the Minnesota building code and building permits would uh be required different from the county. Uh staff did provide estimates on building permits. Permits are required um again
from the county as well, but they do not perform building inspections. Uh while permit fees uh and also the cost of permits would most likely be higher, uh building inspections uh staff did note are a benefit to property owners when selling the home as title companies or
new owners uh do ask for inspection reports. And with that, I'll turn it over to Connie uh to discuss tax implication as well as property values. So finance answered the questions of how would annexation affect the assessment value or the tax value of the property
and the impact on property taxes. The assessment value on the tax value of the property would not be affected from annex annexation. The county assessor's office values the property for both the city of Briner and the first assessment district. Property property would be
placed in one of the city's nine residential neighborhoods rather than one of the six first assessment residential neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are adjusted annually based on the sales that occur in the neighborhoods from the period of October through September prior to the valuation
date. In speaking with the county, sometimes the adjustments are the same. Sometimes first assessment might be higher than the city neighborhood or vice versa. The impact of of annexation on the property taxes. For comparison purposes, staff used the 2026 total tax
rates and assumed other factors would stay the same. Using the 2026 tax rates, it is estimated that the property taxes would about double for the property being in the city. The example that was used was a um the example that was included in the memo was for a
residential homestead with an assessed market value of 440,000 excluding the portion of the t of the school referendum tax that would be the same for either jurisdiction. The total taxes paid, which would be the local jurisdiction, the county, school, and
other taxes, would have been $2,192 for unorganized and $4,293 in the city for a difference of about $2,100. >> And now I'll turn it over to Paul. >> Yeah. So, sta staff did go and we did
talk to an appraisal uh company for gu uh guidance regarding u market impacts uh to properties. um based on their experience as a licensed appraiser, they have not observed property values decrease as a result of connecting to municipal utilities, while the level of
value um can increase um varying on a lot of factors um such as the aging condition of the existing well and septic system. They indicated that connection to city utilities gener generally improves the market value and marketability of properties. The only
scenario where they could see it being limited is if a home homeowner recently invested in a new well and septic system. But even in that scenario, um they had a very uh very high likelihood that there would be a modest increase in
property value by connecting to municipal utilities because of the service life and reliability um of those municipal systems. um that valuation I mean that's ultimately very property specific and dependent uh when it comes
to that but in general terms a home connected to city water and sewer would be expected to command a higher sale price than those compared uh comparatively served by well and septic system assuming all the other factors remain equal. Um I'll probably kick it over to Jesse
to talk a little bit about um financial impact to property owners related to connection and some of the other items in the memo at this time. >> Thank you, Paul. So, we re reiterated a lot of the items that were in the previous memo talking about the connection charge uh sack and whack and
the uh required city excavation permit. Uh the connection charge is a fee that's set by the council that can be uh changed if the council so wishes to something other than what it is currently. Uh we included a couple different options for the council to consider. Um as of right now it's
roughly 17,000 and change. Um and then that would be under the perview of the council to set to um something that would give or staff direction uh moving forward. Uh we highlighted some of the considerations in the special assessment policy for potential for expansion and
extension of utilities. Uh and how the policy is currently written. Uh again, that is a policy that the council can uh defer from if they so wish. So that's entirely up to the council how they want to assess pro uh properties for uh different infrastructure improvement
projects. Um, and then we also included a few different uh bullet points in regards to um improvements that not only are like capital improvements during construction, but also improvements from uh uh public works um services standpoint if uh some of these streets
are brought within the city perview. Um similar to what we do with other city streets, uh snow removal, uh pothole patch and crack filling, um storm water drainage repairs and maintenance. Uh so there's a lot of different pieces that uh public works is involved with uh in
regards to any of our streets that we take on. Uh but with that, we can definitely answer any questions that the council has uh in regards to any of the different sections depending on what your uh your question is. >> All right. Thank you guys. So if anyone on council has questions for staff, now
is the time. >> Jezak. >> Yeah. uh regarding the um lift stations and um uh it's been in in
I've been told that these properties that will require a lift station will also have to under state building code be required to have a redundant backup pump and or a battery or a power supply.
if the power fails. And um can somebody confirm if that is indeed part of our building code, at least the state building code that we're I believe obliged to follow? Anyone on staff? >> Thank you, Mr. Chz. Like, I'm not aware of anything in the building code that
controls uh individual grinder stations like would be installed on a private property like this. Uh most of the individual grinder station packages that you would purchase from a supplier come with a pre-fabricated fiberglass basin,
one individual pump in the bottom of that grinder station, and typically it's one power source to that uh that grinder station. And so I I'm not aware of any um requirements in the building code that would trump that. Um,
a good example is, you know, the city of East Skull Lake has hundreds of these systems and they have, um, we actually reached out to them and we were looking at the cost to install um, an individual grinder station or lift station for a single property. Um, their package comes
from a local supplier, WW Getch. They're pretty standard, prepackaged, manufactured grinder stations. They come with one pump. You have an electrician hook up the power supply. if that power line gets cut, usually there's um they'll know it before the the lift
station overflows. Um there's usually an alarm system that comes along with that. So um I'm not aware of anything in the code that would that would make that a problem. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then as far as
the um the requirements for lift stations and that um if there were annex annex properties that that um have that need to to do that. I know there was a mention that we could potentially do
something on the city side and um help out properties. I I don't know if it'd be individualized, but in regards in regards to the u the lift stations that some of these properties may be required to are we um is is that
determined by us as a city then if that's something we have to make sure is done properly. Is there inspection of that by the city? I would assume based on our building code or building official being involved that >> I'm not so sure I understand your
question, Mr. Ch. if they're required to put in a lift station and there I would assume that our building official would be inspecting all that. >> Yeah, it would be a requirement of the plumbing code I believe. So it would be a part of the building plan. >> Okay, that's all I have for now. Mr. Chairman or Mr. President,
>> Mr. Chznak, does anybody else have questions for staff? >> One quick question. James, if if this were to go through, which this is this would be step one of many before any annexation would even come to the table,
would the annexations be parcel by parcel or would it have to be the entire area one or area two at that time? >> So, that would be up to city council direction. Um, area one would be subject
because they're all either next to current municipal utilities or island properties, but city council could provide direction how they see fit to to staff. So, if there were specific parcels that didn't quite fit the same mold as far as what their costs might
be, we could save that annexation for a later date at that time. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. One other if nobody's I got one more. >> I don't see any any anybody else raising their hand. Go ahead, Mr. Chzach. And >> as far as people uh eligible to perform
the work of u whether it's the property owner side of this of the uh hookup um can anybody licensed in the state of Minnesota do this work as long as they pay the fee to operate in Brainard? >> Yeah, Mr. President.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so to do the install of these private systems, you would have to have an SSTS bond and then be licensed by the city. >> And do you is that an additional charge for a lot of contractors that might be able to do this?
>> It's it's so it's a $50 um registration fee um to essentially have a contractor's registration in order to do that. Um and then they're required by the state to hold that $25,000 bond as well. So it's not a a high cost to do that. We ensure that obviously that they
have that bond and it's active with the state of Minnesota and then we um review their insurance to make sure it's meeting the criteria as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, if there are no further questions up here,
two weeks ago we had the public hearing. Uh we've heard from a lot of you guys. We've had a lot of emails as well. Um but at this time, we need to make a decision. But it's up to everybody up here if somebody wants to take a shot at
a motion. >> Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mo move to approve the attached resolution, the orderly annexation agreement as presented. And I so move. >> Motion by Johnson.
Looking for a second. >> Second. Second by Ericson. Any discussion on the motion? Johnson, go ahead. Yeah, I mean I you know we already went through this. I already stated why we need an agreement last time and we still have to have an
agreement. Otherwise, if we just say no, we're never going to have an agreement and never plan for the future. We refuse because people showed up to the council meeting. What we are saying is that red area there, any one of those properties has the right to hook up to our water
system, our sewer system, and put whatever the heck they want in it without any oversight or ability to control it in the city of Brainard. We have to find a solution. If this isn't the perfect agreement, which it's not, go ahead and propose what we need to
change to make it more palatable. But we have to plan for the future. We can't just not plan because 20 people showed up to a council meeting. It's utterly ridiculous. So, I think we should pass it as is or with any changes anybody may propose.
>> Chairman Johnson Ericson, >> I just wanted to say, you know, two weeks ago I I expressed desire to kind of hold off. I thought people brought up some really good questions and uh give staff time to um address some of those questions. I I I just want to commend
staff on uh their patience and your um you know your expertise and your um ability to to prepare this and answer those questions. I I know several people who are even opposed to it had had commented and uh expressed the same. So um thank you and an excellent job
putting this together. And then to I think to tag on to what uh Councilman Johnson said, I had watched the county meeting and I um you know a lot of these uh unincorporated areas exist obviously throughout the state. Um and I thought somebody brought up at the meeting that
you know this is a very unique area and uh it's a it's a one of the most highly developed uh areas that's unincorporated without a township. um I believe they said in the state and I I just think that um you know it's uh as Councilman Johnson said it's due diligence on the
part of the city um to move forward and I you know I wanted to give extra time for folks questions to be answered and uh to work through some of those and I think we did that and I think staff's done an excellent job preparing this and putting this together. Chairman, anyone else?
Evans, >> I'm going to vote against the ordinance. And it's not because I think it's the best thing for the citizens or the city of Brainard. I think if you have an opportunity and
you're on a waterfront to hook up and mitigate or minimize the environmental in impact of sanitary sewer, you have an obl and it's available. You have an obligation to do that. If you're in the
yellow up there, that's really not part of this discussion. That's not available now. But if you're in the red um and you didn't know this was coming, then you weren't paying attention in 2003 when we talked about this and you were
going to have to do it. I think when you're I think that I think the ordinance is fantastic and I think you're right. I just think there's it's go it's going the wrong way. Here's why. I think when your sewer fails,
you're obligated or I'm sorry, when your septic fails, you're obligated and should in good conscience hook up to the available sewer. I believe the the the onus falls on the county to encourage that. These people are county
residents. The other thing is we told them when we put the pro when we sold our soul to get this project done and told them we would not forcibly annex them because we wanted to take advantage of the fact that the county was putting
building a new road and that was the time to put this sewer project in. Um I mean we knew then that the sewer was going to be available. we were going to have this funny red section and we agreed to that
to get the project done. That being said, if you own property in there and you have a sewer that fails and you don't understand the obligation that you have to the environment, I I'm going to be in disagreement with
you. But this is us on the outside of those people trying to get them to come in. And I really think the onus goes on the county to say your sewer fail, your septic fails, you have available sewer, hook up now. And that's where it should
be going, not with this. So I'm going to vote against it for all those reasons. Um, thank you. >> Understood. I think from my perspective that I I don't see the county doing that. I don't I don't I don't think that I see a
whole lot of people choosing to hook up over replacing a septic. I think replacing a septic every 10 to 15 years becomes more expensive than hooking up to the city in the long run. Um but when
it comes down to it, the people that live in this area are represented by the county until they annex in. We don't technically represent anybody in that in that zone. We represent everybody else that's outside that zone that lives
along that corridor. And until everybody is on the same page and paying for the next reconstruction of that road, which is going to come up at some point, if we're not if if we're representing the people in the city in the right way, I think we
pass this ordinance. This res this resolution doesn't annex anybody. Mr. Johnson pointed that out. It next goes to the county and they can have their discussion. They can send it back to us. They can approve it as well. Then it goes to a judge and then it sits
until we can figure everything out. So this is this is a slow process. This is just step one of a very long process. I'm comfortable with it. I think it allows for us to plan. I think it allows for everybody else to plan and kind of see what's coming. But it's this is not a overreaching
grab right now. This is just part of future planning. So with that, if anybody has any more comments, Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzac, >> yeah, I I can't imagine anybody up here is comfortable doing this if they're in favor of this. Even if they're not in
favor of it, it it's not an easy decision. Um, we asked staff to get together uh close to a year ago with the county staff and um I said at the last meeting that uh this is what this is what we all should have seen coming that people are going to object to this. I I
think every one of us knew that was coming. We should have um I remember in 03 when this was discussed at length over and over there was a lot of time spent on this and a lot of a lot of things going on. um not a not an easy choice back then just to put in the
infrastructure and that was all paid for um eventually and it's it still creates revenue as it sits there today. Um the environmental issues are sound. Uh Mr. Beaven hinted at those for sure with the
failure of a septic. The county does not inspect or require inspections of their septic systems. Um, and that again going back to what happened back then, how it moved forward. I don't think that was the best way to
go about this. We have to be responsible and do what I I I guess what I would say to kick the can down the road from this point is just putting this burden on another council on another day somewhere. If it's a year or two or 10 or 20, it's going to happen. And as we
try to take our jobs responsibly, I don't want to be in the shoes of any of the people out there that are affected by this eventually. It's it's a um it's one of those u I call it the beast of burden as making a decision when you're elected. None of us take it lightly and
I I appreciate everybody's position on this whether in favor of it or not. I know it's not easy for anybody. That's all I have. >> Mr. Chzac. Anyone else? Seeing no more discussion. Tony, call the roll. >> Beans, >> no.
>> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Strenick, >> no. >> Jagger, >> no. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That resolution carries. All right,
moving on to 9C, comprehensive plan update and review proposals. I think this is Mr. Cranic. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so the last update to the comprehensive plan was in 2019. Uh staff proposed
reviewing the entire comprehensive plan at a high level to ensure consistency of our zoning code uh with the primary objective of increasing the threshold at which a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet is required. An updated comprehensive plan uh will be bene beneficial for developers when
proposing a project and will ensure the city has land use, transportation and utility services planning in place for potential development projects. Uh this will also streamline the process for developers and ensure that our infrastructure and the environment can support new development in a proposed
area without needing the EAW. Uh in addition, an enhanced implementation plan will ensure the city is meeting the goals and action items listed in the comprehensive plan. Uh just wanted to note that the update will not meet all the requirements of the EQB chair, but would bring the city closer to achieving
this goal. Uh the planning commission recommended Swanson Hazcamp. The scoring metrics were provided in the agenda item. Uh so with that staff recommend a motion to accept a proposal of Senson Hascamp Consulting to complete the comprehensive plan amendment as presented. Uh if approved we'd bring an
agreement back to a subsequent uh city council meeting. >> Thank you Mr. Kick. Anybody have questions? If there are none we're looking for a motion. Looking for a motion to accept the proposal from Swanson Hascamp Consulting
to complete the comprehensive plan amendment as presented. >> So move second >> by Ericson, second by Joerger. >> Beans. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be voting against this motion. I understand the need to update the comprehensive plan,
but just based on past performance, I can't support Swanson Hascamp. We begged them year after year, meeting after meeting to put a number on the value of the annex. Only when we threatened
not to renew their contract did they finally after 10 years come up with a number. I just we asked them 10 years ago. I was on the EDA for 12 years. We asked them to put together a proposal on
developing underdeveloped properties on the corridors in the city of Brainard. So far, 10 years later, we've gotten nothing. Yet, we continue to pay them year after year to represent us in economic development. I just I I would
pick either of the other two rather than Swanson as Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Beans. Anybody else have comments? >> Oh, Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting no as well for two reasons. I I
do understand the need to update the comprehensive plan. I do not think we need to update a 5-year-old comprehensive plan. If we are updating a comprehensive comprehensive plan after it's been in effect for five years, it's a bad plan.
>> It's not very comprehensive at all. Who helped us do that? Swanson Hascamp Consulting. Well, why are we going to let somebody make a incomplete plan, come back and tell us, "Hey, if you give us another $30,000, we'll do what we didn't do for you last time." I I just
can't don't buy it. So, I'm going to be voting no. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Chaz, >> I value historical record and people speaking to that effect on the council. It really gives me a lot of incentive on how to vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Ericson, >> I'll just add to when this was uh brought before the planning commission, um I'm going to support the motion, but we did have a scoring and uh some discussion on that and um I I guess I share some of the sentiment there, but I'm going to support the motion uh in
keeping with the planning commission's recommendation. >> Thank you. Anybody else? I'll say I'm going to I'm going to support the motion. I I understand where everybody's coming from, but you have
somebody that has a lot of history with the comprehensive plan with all of our zoning code that we went through and redid. There's just a lot of knowledge about the city. Um this the comprehensive plan in my head, it's just a comprehensive plan about
what we want or what we generally think about a lot of things. A lot of it doesn't come true. So I It's beyond me why we're we're doing it this early again as well, but it sounds like it's something that we planned for this year. So, I'm going to
support the motion. Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. My question is how long is this comprehensive plan going to last? Will this be more comprehensive? >> Mr. Kick. >> Yeah. So, um certainly taking a broad overview of it um to ensure that it's
still kind of meeting our objectives is important. um creating that higher threshold I think would also be very beneficial to developers in the city and and that's the approach that I guess I'm taking from that is is the increased threshold that um that we'd have um as
well as um starting to implement some of our sanitary plans, transportation plans to ensure when a developer comes in here um we're ready for that and and we can even move quicker than what we've done in the past. Okay, >> that helps. Thanks, Mr. Kravic. Anybody
else? >> Roll call, please. >> Tony, >> Evans, >> no. >> Chzac, >> no. >> Johnson, >> no. >> Stunick, >> no. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That motion does that motion fails.
Uh, four to three. If anybody wants to try another motion. >> Mr. Sure. May I ask a question of either either our representative or leaison or or Mr. Cranbeck? >> Yeah, whoever. >> Who was the second choice?
>> Was it dollars and cents of the planning commission? >> Yeah, right there. >> Yeah, I'm going to have to defer to Jame. >> They're virtually identical money if >> I'm not mistaken. >> Bolton. >> I wish there was one that had a Brainer address.
>> I'm dead serious. Is that a motion? >> So there's the vote. Bolton and Mink was second. M >> M Mr. Chair, I would motion to budget $27,993 and hire Bolton and Mink and hopefully they can do a better job.
>> Second motion by Bevon, second by Ericson. >> Discussion. >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. >> Question was to budget. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. to expend expand to to hire. >> Okay,
>> the contract. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzik. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, >> I I I would appreciate any comment from our engineers, but uh it seems like Bolton and Make them on uh for our water at the public
utilities and they seem to be doing a good job. Matter of fact, they've been to almost every meeting. I'm surprised they're not here tonight, but uh I I from what I can tell, it appears staff has not given me any indication that they're not doing a good job.
>> Yeah, I would say that both the firms WSB and Bolton Mink would certainly have the expertise and knowledge. I mean, working specifically for WSP in the past, I know their planning group well. I know the Bolton Mink planners well. They all have the expertise and ability to perform the services
and they have local offices >> in Baxter. >> In Baxter, >> that's twice you brought that city up tonight. >> Kind of bothers me a little bit, Mr. Chair. Sorry. I just like I like to hire local people if we >> I'm with you, Mr. Ericson.
>> So, yeah, I seconded the motion. Um, I just wanted to weigh in, too. I was you know a planning commission did review these all three applications and all three of the applications were very good. Um I had made comments to that effect um for both WSB and Bolton and M
myself at the planning commission and um as you see Swanson and Hascamp did come out come out as the recommendation from the planning commission but uh from my seat you know I think the the other two were very good applications as well and as you can see from the price points
they were all very competitive. Um, and so I'm going to vote in favor of the current motion. And I wanted to also just ask a point of order perhaps of staff. This we're are we reverse this is a separate motion. So we're not reversing the planning commission's recommendation, I
think. Or do we have to have that super majority to do that? That came up at a a previous when we reversed the planning commission recommendation. Am I out of order, >> Mr. Kravik? >> I do not believe so. Um, this is a recommendation by the planning commission. They're recommending body,
so it is ultimately up to city council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Is that all, Mr. Ericson? >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I will support the motion as well. I think we'll do a a roll call vote. It if
anybody has a last comment. Doesn't look like it. Tony. >> Bevven. >> Yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> Stunn. >> Yes. >> Uh, Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. OD. >> Yes, that motion carries. Next up, we have 9D. This is a
resolution uh for business subsidy for the dermatology clinic. And again, this is James Kravik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so, the purpose of this agenda item is for city council to adopt the attached resolution which approves the subsidy granted by the EDA to the developer as provided
pursuant to the business subsidy agreement. Uh summary includes the following. developer will determine if the option property uh will be improved within 5 years of the certificate of occupancy. Uh they must operate the facility for 5 years. 21 full-time staff must be maintained with the creation of
one full-time job. Uh staff uh included the purchase and development agreement in the agenda. I do want to note uh that we did receive the final uh appraisal report today and the total land value will need to be slightly adjusted from 231,725
to 230,000. Uh the amended PDA should go out uh to EDA members tomorrow for their review um after our attorney reviews it. Uh so with that, staff recommends a motion to the approve the attached resolution as presented and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Kravik. Anybody have
questions? >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Beaven >> move to adopt the attached resolution. >> Second. >> Motion by Bevans, second by Stunic. Any discussion on the motion? >> Tony >> Bevans. >> Yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. Johnson,
>> yes. >> Junick, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That resolution carries. That is it for unfinished business. Moving on to new business. 10A, a conditional use permit for dermatology clinic 1410 and
1424 TC Drive. Mr. Cranic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Central Minnesota Dermatology has requested a CUP to exceed the parking lot maximum size at 1410 and 1424 TC Drive uh to allow for the construction of the dermatology clinic. Uh, buildings with
multiple levels are allowed to apply for a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum. Uh, the applicant did speak at the planning commission uh, meeting and talked about the need for additional off street parking uh, kind of spaces per provider. Uh, planning commission considered this request at their meeting at February 18th and unanimously
recommended approval. Uh so with that, staff recommends a motion to approve the conditional use permit for 65 street parking spaces at 1410 and 1424 TC Drive for the construction of the dermatology clinic as presented. >> Thank you, Mr. Krabik. Anybody have questions for James? Mr.
Chzai, >> thank you. Um was there any discussion about uh if and when the uh the building uh there's something developed in the third site um for parking and how that might affect what's being proposed right now?
So the third uh site is an option property. Um certainly they could potentially utilize some of the parking that has been implemented there, but would probably still need some off- streetet parking um for that property as well. Uh obviously we don't have a final plan or or final look of what that would
would be. So um we'd have to determine at that time the the appropriate needs for that site. >> Right now it'll just be all speculation then. >> Right now it's just speculation. >> Thank you. That's all I got. Thanks, Mr. Chzac. Move to approve. Yes. Move to approve
the conditional use permit for 65 off streetet parking spaces at 1410 and 1424 TC drive for the construction of a dermatology clinic as presented. >> Second Johnson. >> Motion by Beavenon, second by Johnson, third by Stunnic.
Any discussion on that motion? >> Mr. Mayor? >> Yeah, I just want to say I love this project. I think it's great. City's very happy to have it. Uh it's a lot of parking. Hope that means that there's going to be a lot of business. Uh do want to remind this is an industrial park. So when it comes later on and something smelly or something's loud or
something something, just remember this is an industrial park. So we love having it. We love having you guys do it. We're super excited for this project. >> 65 parking spots is a lot of skin. >> A lot of skin to check out. >> Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Uh yeah, this is a voice vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Next up, we have a it's 10B. This is a variance, a setback from existing
structures at 2602 11th Street Southeast. James, take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh Kathy Thompson on behalf of Superior Fuel Company has applied for a variance at 2602 South 11 Street to reduce the setback requirements for existing storage buildings to subdivide the
property. Uh the future use is intended to be for mini storage. Uh the general industrial district requires a minimum of a 30ft rear yard setback and a 40ft front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard setback of 13 ft and a reduced front yard setback of 24 feet for the existing
storage buildings to allow for the subdivision of the property. A practical difficulty is due to the fact that these are existing buildings and an existing fuel storage tank requires a 50-foot property line setback per fire code requirements. Planning commission considered this request at their meeting
on February 18th and unanimously recommended approval. So with that, staff recommends a motion to approve the variance request for the reduced setbacks for the existing structures as presented in order to subdivide the property. And I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Krabik. Anybody have questions?
>> They're getting tired up here. No questions. If not, we're looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the variance request for reduced setbacks of uh for the existing structures as presented uh on order to subdivide this property. And I move Jagger. Motion by
Jagger, second by Chzach. Any discussion on that motion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same side. Motion carries. >> All right. Moving on to 10 C. This is a
resolution improvement 25-06 2026 resurfacing project. Receiving a feasibility report and calling for PH >> public hearing. Is that >> public hearing? >> Okay.
All these acronyms. Um, go ahead, Mr. Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, attached is the feasibility report for improvement 256, which includes the uh all the streets that are planned for resurfacing in 2026. Uh, those streets include Graden, Spruce, Hillrest, U,
Pine Street, Delmare, and South 11 in the industrial park. Uh so included in the feasibility report, we did have two options for the council to provide some direction to the staff. Uh in regards to uh first would be the potential to add some adjacent angle parking stalls on the north side of JC's park uh adjacent
to the south side of Pine Street. This was to uh explore the potential to add some parking stalls uh for during like baseball tournaments in the park. Um as the cost is estimated to be over $40,000 to add that angle parking. uh we only
net an additional two stalls. Uh staff is recommending not pursuing this option further into design. Um second, there are two options for resurfacing on Delmare Drive and Circle. Uh staff has laid out the two options in the agenda item. Uh based on our uh special assessment policy, the assessment to
property owners would be different depending on if an overlay is planned versus a pavement removal or milling and resurfacing was proposed. So based on the information in the report, staff is recommending removal of the entire 2-in section and replacement, thus assessing the cost at 50% between the city and the
adjacent property owners. Um so with that, staff has two recommended op uh actions for the council. Uh first would be adopting the resolution that receives the attached feasibility report and then calls for the public hearing on the proposed improvement to be held on the
council meeting on April 6th. Uh and then secondarily um providing direction to staff on the two alternatives. Uh staff's recommendation is no inclusion of the additional Pine Street angled parking stalls. And the second would be Delmare Drive and Delmare Nerd Circle to
be resurfaced removing fully and replacing the payment section. Um and further we have staff from WSB who is uh instrumental preparing the report for the council. Uh they are here and can answer questions for the council as needed. >> Thank you Mr. Dean. Anybody have
questions, Mr. Chzach? >> Yeah. Um, I guess I'm wondering about the street and the storm water runoff and the culvert system. Is that all in um uh the way it was designed to be? I've heard
some information that I don't know if it's Delmare, but it's there's some areas out there that don't have the proper drainage with underground culverts and that. Is that something we're going to look at in this project if it's necessary? >> There are two segments of the uh project
that have rural sections. They do not have current curb and gutter. Uh I think you might be referencing Sugarberry uh which does have areas where there's lacking of driveway pipe and in different areas where they have that issue. That is not part of this project.
>> Okay. So there's there's no um storm water runoff or or culvert need for anything under Delmare is what you're saying? I don't hear. >> Nothing that I am aware of, sir. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had. Thank you, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Chazak. Mr. Johnson,
>> how how what are the dimensions of a parking spot? >> So, it can vary. Generally a parallel parking spot would be 8 by 20 give or take um the angle. >> So we could fit 10 on the street currently at 20 ft a piece. We have 200
f feet. We take that 200 f feet and we put diagonal parking and we only get 12 cars in that 200 feet. How wide are those parking stalls? >> They they do take up quite a bit of linear space um when you angle them out. Um WSB staff was able to
>> eight feet wide divided by 200 or 200 divided by eight. I'm looking at a lot more than 12. >> WSB staff was able to draft that >> 20. >> So I I think we should include I think the it's only 12 spots instead of what's
the current 10 is not honest. And that I find disheartening that staff wants to not include that and then present information that just doesn't make sense mathematically, but I'll definitely hear WSB out.
>> Mr. Dean, is there a rendering of that design or No, >> if you go to page 422, it does show uh the layout of those stalls within the area um on the north side of the park. >> Would that require handicap in there, too? It would not.
>> Okay. Okay. So, there's still there's still spots outside of those diagonal parking stalls. Does that is that included in your total count? >> No, that 200 f feet is for the 10 stalls, the 207 and change.
>> Okay. Does that make any more or less sense, Mr. Johnson, you seen 169 ft. I divide that by eight, I'm getting 20. >> It's just math. >> You're not going. >> No, I'm saying the 169 is what we have
linear. The 207 is the back and we lose the 207 goes down to 169. >> A dimension at an angle is longer than straight across. So when you turn them into trapezoids, the the the dimensions longer.
>> It's 14 feet across the the diagonal front of the stall. It looks like >> Oh, so you're doing 14 foot stalls. >> 10 foot stall. See the angled >> Yeah. >> difference there. >> Yeah, >> that's four feet. >> All right. I'm still not buying it. >> All right.
Any more? Mr. Jagger, >> I just had a quick question. I wanted to make sure I understand. This is on page 406. These are the these are the Delmare improvements and there was a bid alt in there. Uh so the the first version is the 78,000
and then the uh the alternate is 119. Is that an additional 119 to the 78 or is it a new total of 119? >> It's a new total of 119. >> Okay. So it's only a Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. And I see we have somebody
that has approached the the stand is from Are you from WSB? >> Correct. Yeah, my name's >> Are you just here to answer questions or do you have something that you wanted to >> just here to answer questions? >> Okay. >> What's your name? >> My name is Ethan Yuso. I'm with WSB project manager. Um >> and Baxter
>> and Baxter. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. I just want to say that the park board absolutely 100% supports the diagonal parking at on Pine Street. Actually, last year we had a couple tournaments that we've kind of told them, hang tight. We're going to figure that out. Um, since the parking lot inside JC's has been removed. One of the
big things we've pushed is removing of parking lots, making on street parking. This is a great option to do it. We did it at Bane and it looks fantastic. Uh, it's just a way of getting people closer to the park, but then expanding the park so that the park is actually a park and not a parking lot. And so, the park
board 100% supports that. And um as far as I know, would love to see that continue. >> Thank you. >> Can I >> Yeah, Mr. Ch. >> So So you're talking about I mean I I understand Gab's concern about the math.
>> Well, the math makes sense now, Jeff. I apologize. I was told they were 8t wide. They're they're 14.14 feet wide. So that changes the math. So it makes the math makes sense now that they're not 8 feet wide. They're 14 feet wide. >> Okay. So, but we would only gain two
parking spots for $40,000 if we redo that parking area is what I'm hearing staff say. Is that correct? >> That was the estimate that we've put together in the feasibility report. >> That seems like a lot of money to enhance the lot or the parking area by
two vehicles. I I >> just that doesn't make sense to me to do that. >> It might be for that kind of money. I noticed that it's a 45 degree uh angled diagonal parking. Sometimes we see 65
and that would probably save a little bit of space. Am I off on that? This steeper the angle, you can gain more space. So, if you were to go the full 90, that would be about as many stalls. Uh it's just a matter of you're now backing the vehicles out into a
traffic lane differently. So we can definitely do a handful of different options. This is typical to what we have for adjacent on street parking uh such as this would be 45 degree angle but we can definitely go a different route if the council wishes.
>> I don't need to sell. >> Anybody else have questions? Mr. J. Just one thing I did want to point out that as as a consideration for angled parking is a lot of people do feel that it is safer because you don't have driver and passenger opening car doors towards d into traffic. So don't know if that
carries any weight but that is one good argument for why we like parallel parking around especially places with kids parks those types of areas. That's all. >> Thank you Mr. Joerger. All right, there's no more questions. We are
looking for a motion. Do you have a question? >> I just a comment. I mean, I think I like the diagonal parking. I wish it wasn't 45 grand. >> Mhm. >> More. That's, you know, I mean, if even though it would only be two stalls,
I think it'd be worth it for all the safety reasons that Mr. Jagger just brought up. I think it'd be worthwhile to do it if it wasn't so expensive for the little bit of difference. Agreed. >> You still have the same amount of curb.
So, >> so the good thing is about this whole thing is that we can discuss it even after we get the first motion done. So, we can we can look for that first motion and then we can go back to the discussion on parking if that's what you guys want to do because it sounds like that's the main focus.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the adoption of the resolution receiving the attached feasibility report and calling for the public hearing on the proposed improvement to be held April 6th at 7:30. >> Second. >> Motion by Bevon, second by Chzot. Any discussion on that motion?
That one's not quite as interesting as the parking. That's okay. Seeing no discussion, Tony, call the role. >> Beans, yes. >> Chzac, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Junick, yes. >> Jagger, yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. OD. >> Yes, that resolution carries. Next up, we're
actually looking for a motion to direct staff on those two alternative options. One is the recommendation to not include an additional Pine Street angled parking stall or stalls. And the second is the Delmare Drive and
Circle to be resurfaced removing removing and replacing the pavement section. So, let's discuss that. Mr. Johnson, >> can I just throw a motion out that we can discuss? >> Yeah, if you want to throw a motion out there. I >> I'd move to uh include both the Pine
Street Parts and uh Delmare Drive >> and Circle to be resurfaced. Nice. So, move. >> Second. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson, >> I uh I think the Pine Street angled parking stalls are really important for the safety of the park users. I think
for the visitors who come in for the baseball tournaments every weekend in June and July, it's a better visual of this is where I park. These are annual parking spots. Here's the park. Park there instead of in people's driveways and all over the place. I I think it's
important to include those even at the cost of $50,000. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Beans, >> I agree with everything Mr. Johnson said, except for I think our staff has an obligation to go back to our contractor and
work these numbers a little bit and report back in two weeks. >> I was going to ask if this is we're going to see this again in a future project in in a final design. >> Yeah, the project isn't designed fully yet. Uh this is just the initial
feasibility estimate. Um just to give council um something to chew on for direction to staff. Uh with direction from council to staff, we'll work with WSB to draw up a final design and a more refined estimate. >> Okay.
Excellent. Any more discussion, Mr. Mayor? >> Yeah, you're finding out what I have been harping on forever. Parking is expensive. Parking lots are about $250 to $300,000 a piece and we have a lot of them and it continues to be an issue for
the city. But that's the case. Parking is expensive. People, we have yet to convince people that they don't have to park their cars. We have yet to do it as a city. So, I would just continue to say, "Yeah, I don't like that parking is expensive." But here we are in 2026 and
people drive cars. >> What if you want to get out of your car? Okay, listen. I am a person that says get out of your car. >> Just ghost ride. >> Get out of it. But good luck. >> It's expensive all around. >> Agreed. >> All right. >> Just clarification on the motion. Um
that this is to u this is to include the additional funds for the diagonal. Is that correct? >> It is to uh include the additional Pine Street angled parking stalls. It doesn't necessarily say the funds, but that design will come back. >> And Okay. Okay. And then we're just
doing the staff's recommendation on uh the Delmare and Circle. Is that on the motion? >> Yes. Okay. And then just to reassure the mayor, I've quit driving my car years ago. So >> parked it and I appreciate that. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Any more discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you, sir. All right, that does it for 10 C. Moving on to 10D. U this is a a
charter direct special meeting with the charter commission. Nick Broyals, go ahead. Take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh I will try to be very brief. Uh in the agenda item, I just gave a little bit of a history there which you're all aware of. Um the last paragraph under the summary of issues is at the joint meeting on 19
February February 19th. The charter commission did vote out of their body unanimously to forward a draft charter for consideration by the city council. So attached in this agenda item are three things is the current charter as it sits today. A modified redline
version which we've gotten some pretty positive feedback on at least the format not necessarily content but the format. And then number three, a clean version reflecting incorporated comments from the charter commission, the public utilities commission. So my goal in this agenda item tonight is not necessarily
to discuss the comments, but we're asking council to direct staff to schedule a joint special meeting with the city council and the charter commission. And and I would work with President OD and chairman Ship to find a meeting that's agreeable to both and we
can get noticed in time, but we'll do it as quickly as we can. I'd be happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Broyals. Does anybody have questions? Mr. Chzac. >> Um, Nick, I um could we have just taken the recommendation from the charter commission at the last meeting and move forward with seeing that the council
wanted to vote on this, >> but they're >> that is absolutely within the purview of the council. If if if you guys have reviewed their the draft and you want to vote on it tonight, you certainly have that that privilege. >> Okay. I I I I was a little surprised to
see it done this way. I didn't I I expected to actually to see this on our agenda to uh see if the council had wanted to entertain them voting on this, but um I I'm not it's not a criticism of what you're suggesting here. I just was kind of surprised to see it going this way.
Anything else, Mr. Chzac? >> No. Okay. Anybody else have questions? Does anybody interested in having a joint meeting with the charter commission? Am I interested? >> I'm willing. >> You're willing. Okay. >> Negative.
>> Stunic. >> Negative. >> Is not in support. Okay. >> He wants to talk about spraying for mosquitoes. Don't pay any attention to him. >> Measuring snow. Maybe >> measuring snow with the gnome. >> I'm going to do one more time. >> We can have we can have that meeting
anytime within now, the next well the next few weeks or next month or whatever. or we can have that recommendation come back to us at the next meeting and we can vote on it and give a recommendation back to the charter commission on anything into the
future. It's it's up to us up here. So, >> I would suggest as early as a week from tonight, the odd Monday. >> I I will be 2,000 miles away. >> That's up to you guys if you guys want to do Oh, >> is that is that uh spring break?
>> Spring break. How about the fourth Monday? Stun says no. >> What's that? >> Stunn says no. >> Yeah, but he said no to everything. >> I don't know what these guys are thinking over here. Um, but >> I saw lots ahead. >> Let's Let's just have a motion on
whether or not we want to have that meeting. How about that? >> Mr. President, I move that we have a joint meeting with the charter commission on the 23rd. >> Can we leave the date open for now? >> Sure. >> Okay. You want to have a motion? >> Second motion. Joint meeting motion by
Chzox, second by Bevans. >> Limit the number of options. Tony >> Tony maybe. Yeah, reach out and and do something. >> We'll coordinate >> a doodle poll. >> Little poll. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> You changed your mind. >> That motion car. >> I promised him a stool he could set up. >> Pure pressure. >> All right. That does it for new business. Moving on to staff reports.
>> Tony Gage, what do you got for us tonight? >> All right, Chief Holmes, >> nothing extra. Thank you. >> Deputy Chief Brundy, >> nothing. >> Max Hannon, anything? >> Teresa Burke? >> No. >> Connie Helman. >> Jesse Dean? >> Nothing to what's in the report.
>> Oh, James Kramer, you always got something. >> I have something. Thank you, Mr. President. >> You can always rely on James for something. >> So, just wanted to mention that we do have a busy EDA schedule. um coming for this Thursday at 7:30 a.m. Uh the items included in the agenda um are the PDA
and conveyance of the property for the dermatology clinic, an agreement with the chamber for the Washington Street mitigation plan, uh Central Minnesota Housing Partnership is revisiting a proposal for residential development on the right street extension, and then approval of an agreement with Bladec to
administer the facade and sign grant program. >> Excellent. Thank you, James. >> Britney, comment, >> nothing to report. Oh, Paul Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, pursuant to our last meeting, um council authorized staff to apply for $10
million uh for Congressman Stubbers's community funding uh request for the wastewater treatment facility phase 1 bioolids project. That application did get submitted today. Um I'm going to be trying to work with Mayor Bedau and um President OD to try to get a meeting
with Mr. Stabber uh to come and visit the facility or meet him wherever he's at. Um it's a part of this process. Um I've been working with the uh the commission heard this last time, but we're going to try to set up some tours of the wastewater treatment facility or
other facilities. Um so I'll be kind of working on uh sending out a doodle poll to council members that may be interested in that. Um if it comes down to where we have a quorum, we might have to notice that. But, um, look for something from me here in the near future to tour. Um, I'm thinking I'm
going to do this in three parts. One for the wastewater treatment facility, one for the water treatment plant, and one for the hydro dam. And so, um, that'll be open to council members, commission members, and some staff that haven't been able to tour those facilities yet, uh, in their time here. So, look out for
something from me, uh, moving forward in the next couple weeks. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Eric Sharpener, you out there? Nothing to add, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Eric. Joel Angel, anything from you tonight? >> Nothing here. Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir. Administrator Broyals. >> No, sir. >> Nothing to add. All right. Uh, let's listen to the mayor talk for a little while. >> Come on, take the wind out of my sales. I'll tell you what, folks. We learned today that March is feisty. Council is
feisty tonight, and I like that. I like a little feist in my council. Uh, we're coming up on St. Patrick's Day. Just remember that uh right here in the beautiful town of Briner, Minnesota, we love to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Saturday, September 14th, parade at 1:00 p.m. There will also be the wonderful
treasure hunt as we said last time. So, uh participate in that, but there's a parade as well, and I will not be there. As I said, I will be in Florida with my son watching some baseball. Um but I would like to find someone on this council here to represent me. So, I'm
doing this in front of the public because we do the public's business in the public's eye. And I'm putting it out to you guys right up right up here right now to let all the public know that I have asked you, one of you, to step in for me and ride a wonderful float in our wonderful St. Patrick's Day parade. >> Any takers?
>> Do we get the >> Gabe raised his hand? >> I would love to. Unfortunately, I will be out of town that day. >> Okay. >> Do we get the scepter and the crown and everything? the cape. >> Sadly, the scepter and the crown cannot be passed from me to you because I am
the supreme leader and you are a lowly council member. So, I can't do that. But you can wear a sash. I will make one for you and you can also wave to the the wonderful public. You don't have to answer now. You guys can answer me later. But I do want to just let people know if you are watching the St.
Patrick's Day parade and you don't see one of these people in one of those vehicles, they do not like to party. So, I just want you to know that. End of report. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Always a pleasure.
>> Uh, let's start with Mr. Stunic. >> Oh, I've got stuff. >> I'm >> I don't know. >> Give me a break. I don't know how close we read the paper, all of us, but a 100 years ago today, they punched a road in from the west side of Laurel Street Bridge all the way to Aaron's Hill. It
was called East River Road or River Scenic Road, which is now Riverside Drive, which seemed appropriate with our audience tonight. So, just thought I'd let you know that >> 100 years later, >> years ago, >> I was almost there. >> End of report.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Chzach, >> boy, the surprises. Um the um council voted to deny the u ro Rotarian club to put in the um small solar project down there at their park. And uh they have
moved forward with that under the uh the agreement that we first approved where they would pay for the uh cost of repairs, maintenance and then disposal. So they are apparently underway with that and they accepted our first uh um
item on that that we it came back to us and the new version had were we were going to the utility commission was going to be responsible for that. So that is being done and also the public utility commission did approve that the water service lines be included in the
project on the Joseph Street and the u what's the other street? the alley over there in South Briner. So, uh, they they've included water service line replacements for the property owners over there. So, I was really glad they did that, but that's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Mr. Bevans.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. A sure sign of spring in Ward 2. No, there was no sightings of bunnies, but there were yellow loaders from our street department scraping six and 8 ft of ice
off the top of the storm drains. A sure sign of spring. It's coming. So, as you know, most of Ward 2 goes underwater because the storm sewers were done about the time that Stunnix Road was putting
in with a drain pipe with a drain every >> I think I'd get a hold of your council representative and have a discussion. >> I'm thrilled with the sure sign of spring. The other thing is with the EDA meeting coming up, I sure hope we get an update on the 400year-old block metrics
project. End of report. >> Thank you, Mr. Beaven. So, we might want to check with public utilities on that one, too, though. >> Well, I I'd like to know what's happened since we're now on phase nine. >> That's a good question.
>> Wherever we're up to, I' I'd like to know. I think the deadline was a year or two ago for him to do something. A >> little overdue. >> Thank you, Mr. Beans. Moving on to Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just uh real quickly before I get to the airport ticker, I would like to say uh extend my
appreciation to Mr. Davis. Uh wish him absolutely the best in his retirement. Um he was class act and always represented us u very well with the city. We uh so we we have big shoes to fill with our with our incoming uh person. So, uh, and now I will jump to
the airport and I would like to, uh, first introduce you guys all to, uh, Mrs. Jennifer Roach. Come on up if you would please. This is our new airport manager. We are very, very lucky to have her. I did ask her, uh, to come tonight just to so we could all put a face with
the name here and uh, very much appreciate her coming out. Um, and if you'd like to say a few words, I'll certainly give you the give you the floor here for a sec, but just before that, I did want to say that uh, we had a lot of positive energy coming back. back. If you remember, we were talking about an open house that was going to
happen at the airport uh in May. Um and we we basically outgrew our what we thought we could pull off this year. So, we are uh the airport commission did make the determination to slide this to a different date. Airport staff is going to get back to us on a date that's better that gives us a little bit more
time to prepare. This is going to be a sizable event and um we want to make sure that we succeed and uh our time frame was quickly dwindling for the energy that we were getting back that people wanted to see with all the happenings going on out there. So, and don't forget our morning flights are back beginning next week. So, uh you'll
have those to to look forward to. And now I will uh turn if you'd like to say a few words Jennifer uh please. >> Welcome Jennifer. >> Sure Mr. Mayor, Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, uh councel, thank you so much uh for letting me introduce myself real quick. I'm not Brainard local. I'm Little Falls local, 40 minutes down the
road. Um, actually grew up in Piers, uh, and, uh, after college decided to head off to the Army for a few years. Uh, spent 20 years active duty, flying Blackhawks, uh, you could say around the world. Couple tours to Afghanistan and back. Um, I am just excited to be here.
It's been great to be back in Little Falls the last two and a half years. And I think I finally landed in the right spot here at the Brainard Airport. Uh, I look forward to bringing aviation uh continuing what's what's been born there, but continuing to improve uh both
commercial and general aviation for our community and all it brings to the Brainard Lakes area. So, thank you. And uh I want to say thanks for all the support we get from the city of Brainard, from the staff that supports our uh tiny organization out there. It's great. And of course, we couldn't do it
without uh the city, the county, and the staff here. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Do you commute with a helicopter then? >> I I wish if the city wants to support that, I'd be all for it. Thank you. >> Wait a minute. >> Nice meeting you, Jennifer. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> All right. Let's go to Chairman Johnson. >> Okay. I most of my stuff was covered was EDA related. Uh I would love to ride in the float for you, Dave. Sorry, I cannot. I really would like to tour the wastewater treatment facility. I've been
on the council. This is my 12th year. I've never been over there or inside the building. So, that would be cool. I toured the dam once in that building. It's awesome. That was amazing. >> And that's all I have to report. >> Thank you for that, Chairman Johnson. Chairman Ericson. >> Uh, nothing further. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, I don't have
much to add. I I won't be able to attend the the EDA meeting. Um, but I think you guys got it under control. Um, I I share those regrets with Davis, but we still we still have two months with him. So, If you got anything you any crimes you
want to commit and get under his skin, go ahead and do it. But you might go to jail. He's he's still around. It's >> feisty. It's March. >> Thanks for letting me know since your dad doesn't let let me know when he's gone. >> You're welcome. I don't know. I don't know what that had to do with it, but thank you, Stunic, for that report.
>> You said you're going to be 2,000 miles away. >> Well, okay. >> Pick up the phone, please. >> All right. We're looking for a motion to adjourn to the close session pursuant to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 3A to conduct conduct city
administrator broles 2025 performance review. >> So move motion by Ericson second by Chzach. >> All those in favor say I. I against same sign. We are journed.