Members of the safety and public works --------- committee. We have six items on our agenda. First of which is change order number four from improvement 2313. This is for the trunk highway 371B
Willow Street roundabout project. Who's who's on this one? I Jesse. Go ahead, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, attach is change order number four uh for the round will street uh highway 371 business roundabout project. Uh we had an additional tree removal um that was
quite more substantial than uh what we had had on the uh rest of the job. Um after grading with the sidewalk and some of the driveway right next to it, um we had some concerns about the the tree lasting longterm and the
potential for it to tip. Uh so we decided to have that tree taken down. We coordinated that with the property owner and they were amendable to that. Um, the change order is a cost of $8,55949. Uh, we've also included a breakdown of how that uh change order is um
comprised. Uh, and can answer questions for the council. >> All right. Thanks, Jesse. Any comments or questions? >> Mr. Chzik, >> I I think you mentioned in there u but what fund is this coming out of this
this tree removal? Is it part? It would be instead of our state aid eligible funding, so kind of for like the street construction part. >> How big a tree was that? >> It was uh at least 36 in give or take in diameter. It was a pretty big monster. >> And what kind of tree was that again?
>> I believe it was a silver maple. >> It might have been just a regular maple, but it was a pretty large tree. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> You bet. Uh Councilman Yagger, >> thank you. Um Jesse, did we have any money in our on the original scope of work for protection of this tree
>> that it was identified in the plans as there wasn't any utilities in that area to protect as in place, >> but we didn't have to like build any structures around it. We didn't have to do anything like that. >> No. >> Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> All right. Any other further comments?
>> If not, I guess to approve the change order, Mr. Chair, >> second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Our second item number two is
final pay request uh number two for improvement 2316. And Mr. Mr. Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is the final payment request for the resurfacing project down in South Brainard kind of by the Buffalo Hills neighborhood. Um the final pay request is in the amount of $42,541.50,
50 cents, which would bring the total amount to uh 600 just under 660,000 for the overall project. I did include a breakdown of what the street resurfacing uh portion of that project would be versus the uh water fund portion of work
would be um and can answer questions. >> All right. Thank you, Jesse. Any comments or questions? Uh Councilman Chzac, >> could Jesse, could you just give me u of some of the streets in this project that um refresh my memory? Yeah, Belray, Graden, Ridge, uh, Carol, all were
included in here as well as some other ones. >> Okay. Now, um, is is this are going to be our last change order on this, do you know, or >> Yes, this is the final pay request. This is to approve our final payment and close out the contract with the contractor. >> And then this is the project where the
uh citizen had an issue at the end of his driveway and they went back a couple of time. We got that fixed and there's no more That's the same project, correct? >> That is the same project. We did address that with patching. Yep. >> Okay. And there's no additional costs that we're going to see on that as far as you know,
>> this this is the final. So, we we wrapped up here with this. >> Are there any costs associated with that individual's property to work on that? >> I believe there was some mixing involved to do that work. Yes. >> Okay. Um I think Mr. Bevvens brought up that uh that point. Um
I can't remember how exactly how he phrased it. Uh, but I thought his point was valid about uh having that work to go back when it wasn't done correctly or we didn't get it done right. So, we're paying for the additional work to get it done right on this is what I'm hearing. That how this works.
>> I can't 100% confirm that. I'd have to I'd have to look and see uh the quantity breakdown of the mix on that. So we don't know if uh the additional work for that one individual with the driveway issue is additional charge for that is what you're saying.
>> I believe we approached it with the contractor as a workmanship issue but again I cannot 100% say any certainty. >> Okay. How can we find out if there was additional paid on that because uh I I think that's important. I agreed with Mr. Bevven's point that I don't think we
should be paying if it was a workmanship issue because I don't know anybody that ever pays for workmanship issues. So, um, can we find out about that? >> We'll see what I can do. >> And, um, if we approve this this, uh, do you, um,
uh, I mean, we're we're saying yes to approving any workmanship costs that we're paying for there if there was an issue. So, I would preferably like to wait until we find that out. Mr. Sure. >> I'm wondering Thanks, Jeff. Um I'm wondering if there's some confusion that
the I think Jeff what you're talking about was at the end of that culde-sac, correct? >> That was the I I'm not sure. I think it was a culde-sac, but I know it was a person's driveway and there was an issue with the water not flowing properly. >> And I recall that issue, but on I don't
Jesse, was that included in this one or was it different? because it I know there was a letter about a driveway on Graden as as well. And so I'm just wondering if >> I'm not familiar with a a letter of a driveway on Graden. The one I'm
referring to is the gentleman that came up, Ben Lundine, during the assessment. [clears throat] >> Um, is there a time sensitivity to approving this tonight? >> No, sir. Uh, just when we pay the contractor and close out the contract. >> Okay. I I prefer to hold this over till
we get more information on that one particular uh house that we're there, the property that we're speaking of. >> Um I think that's I Jesse, you said there's no time constraints on it or >> it's just a matter of when we pay the contractor for the final.
>> Okay. I guess I see no issue in Councilman Jerger. Any >> I just had a quick question. If if there were additional cost to to to make this repair, would they they would have shown up on a change order that we would have received, right? We only had the the one change order on this project that was
that was prior to this is just a final draw request. My where I'm going with this is is I think if we would have if they would have spent more money to to make this repair, we it would have revealed itself. It would have manifested itself in a change order, which to my knowledge, we didn't
see. Not not necessarily because we had existing bid items for that work. So we would have been able to work them with the existing pay items rather than uh having to add a new item. >> So we really don't have a mechanism to isolate workmanship out of just that one
area. Then >> I'd have to I'd have to look at the quantities. Never mind. That's all. >> So I I would just move out of committee here that we hold it over to the recommend the council hold it over till we get more information on that particular uh >> Sounds good. Before we do that, Jeff, I
just had another question for Jesse. >> Just on the titling of this, >> it I'm This is a dumb question, but it says final pay request two. >> Is that >> It's the second payment request. We've had one payment to the contractor so far. This is number two. >> Okay. >> Um and this would be the final
>> payment number two. Yep. >> Which is the final. Thank you. >> And then Jeff, that was a motion. >> Yep. Oh, I recommend to hold it over to the we get more information on whether there was a workmanship issue that we're paying for or not. >> Yep. I'll second. >> Thank you. Motion in a second. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Thank you much. Our third item is storm water can't read that. storm water engineering proposals
southwest brainer for CASA 48 study area and um engineer dean. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh based on the direction from council we went out and solicited proposals uh from different engineering firms to provide a storm water engineering study. Uh we were a
little bit more narrow focused in the scope of work uh in this request. Uh so the cost breakdown is um included in the packet. Uh we did receive three proposals. HR Green, SH, and WSB. Um, we were very direct,
we were very isolated to not the entirety of the sewer shed. We really focused on that drainage easement specifically, uh, which is why that cost came down quite a bit. Uh, if you're looking at rerouting that storm water flow to somewhere else, that's where
the, uh, size and scope of that study needs to expand. Uh, but we kept it very specific to this spot right here. Um again, we have a 7030 split with the city and county for costs on the drainage easement uh based on drainage area. So we would approach uh the county
with any costs if the council would like to pursue this further. Um as referenced in previous packets based on all the information that we have, staff uh is not recommending to move that forward. However, we're looking for direction from the council on how to proceed with next steps. Uh I did indicate that our
recommendation if council wants to move forward with one of the three uh our recommendation would be HR green but we would support uh work with either of the three. >> All right. Thank you Jesse. Um, I'll just note too, Councilman Bevans had an
email earlier today about this item um asking if um it's possible to work with the county and I think is it Riker's uh next door to kind of utilize the retaining pond there too. Jesse, I know
you responded to that. So, I just wanted to mention that before we open up for comments or questions. >> You say that was responded to in our email. or what? I missed that. >> I saw Jesse, you responded to that. I think we've got that. >> Yes, sir. Would you like a a quick snapshot of the content of that email?
>> Yeah, that'd be great. Okay. Summarizing. >> Um, so his question referred to the northwest corner of Cass 48 and Industrial Park Road. It's actually right on the other side in Baxter. Um, if we could just pipe onto the the low point there. Um, I just wanted to note
to to Mr. Beaven's uh comment, uh, there is not an existing retaining pond on that property. is just kind of a low point. Um Mr. Volig, he had referenced using that property before. Um we did respond to him indicating that uh there's a lot
that goes into that and it may not even be feasible to pipe into that. Uh where the depth of our existing storm pipe is at that location may be too deep. Uh we would have to potentially do quite a bit of excavation just to get the low point to be low enough to function as a
retention pond. Um, so we may have to do quite a bit of significant grading uh to make that work. Uh, provided that obviously Riker would agree and then we would probably need an agreement with Baxter. Um, I I'll be honest with you, I don't know if we can exercise eminent
domain outside of our jurisdiction. Um, if Riker does not agree to that, um, and then there's some other potential impacts and we would have to evaluate those uh impacts to both Riker property as well as the adjacent streets. and I can't answer with any certainty without
having done a survey and a study of that area if it would be feasible without creating other adverse impacts. Uh so that was I think the the justification behind the email. Um again we'll we'll take whatever direction the coun council
wants to go with it. If they want us to explore that option uh we could definitely explore it. um it was not included in the uh scope of work here be before you with those three proposals. >> Okay. So these proposals wouldn't look into that kind of scenario.
>> It did not in the scope of work. It would be beyond that. >> Okay. All right. Thanks for summarizing that. >> Can I can I just clear something? The email that Kelly Beaven sent you responded to today. Is that what I understand? >> Yes, sir. And copied the council on it.
>> I did not get that. Can you double check and see the I was included? Is there any way to do that? >> I will forward it to you right now just to make sure. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we've got we've had this Mr. Bulgus come before us. We've kind of addressed this brought
this up a couple different times. Um staff was directed to, you know, kind of seek solutions and come back to council and um the the action that staff took here was to kind of find these three uh
proposals or go for these three proposals. And you know, I guess you know, my thoughts are I'm you know, I talking to staff, I was asking if there was some maybe potential grants or working with the growing soil water conservation
district to see if there'd be a way to if we did move forward with this to maybe offset the cost if this was something they would be interested in. Um the response was that we I guess we don't know. You don't want to respond for them, but maybe they may or may not be interested. Um, I know they did partner with us on the gully remediation
and so it might be another another opportunity to to do some work there, but um, other comments or or questions from the committee on this one? I um, Mr. Bulligan and his neighbors have been
waiting for more than 25 years and um I would just like to um I mean I'm glad we got the three offer RFPs that are in similar cost. Um
I think if I'm understanding Mr. Dean correctly, what the engineering services could do is look into the issue of perhaps um moving forward in a manner as Mr. Beaven suggested
which I know back in the day when there was work going on I think Mr. Bullock had hoped that our city or county would uh connect with that uh project as they were doing it but that never happened. So, um, moving forward, I thought, um,
if we're going to help, um, people with their issues that have been going on for decades, we could, uh, look at recommending that, uh, we go out one of these engineering firms to try and, uh, remedy the issues over there.
>> So, thank you. So you said that he and his neighbors too and I that's I hadn't heard that the neighbors is that [clears throat] because that could change the the conversation if there's you know just more than one resident that this is affecting if it's kind of the neighborhood that you know
>> perhaps makes it a little bit more justifiable. I hadn't heard that there was other neighbors. if you >> Yeah, he I think before us uh the one time he said he's got at least two maybe three neighbors uh I think to the I'm not sure if it'd be to the east of him that are having issues as well with the
uh the uh easement storm water easement but that would be up to him to he said they were kind of leaning on him to carry the ball on this for them. That's what I heard him say. Anyway, >> Jesse, uh, question about the recommendation or I don't know if it was
included in your recommendation, but you had talked about HR green even though it was not the lowest bid perhaps being I don't know if preferred is the right word, but can you kind of touch on that why that might be? >> Yes, sir. Uh, I just think that there's going to be some efficiencies with HR
Green as they did the original hydraulic study um in some of the storm water studies and did some the modeling in a lot of different areas, but this was one of them that was included. Uh, so there's going to be some efficiencies that they don't have to recreate that model. Um, so they're going to be able
to put more of that time into things like the actual report itself and some of the findings through there where some of the other two are going to have to uh put together a little bit of that information on the front end uh and spend a little bit more time on the front end and less on the back end if that makes sense.
>> Yep. Absolutely. >> When did when did Green do this? >> I want to say it was 2021 if I remember correctly. >> Okay. >> I guess yeah, Councilman, >> please go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt. >> Oh, no problem. I was just going to kind
of just um summarize. So, I don't know if you want to go, but >> I can if you'd like. Yeah, >> go ahead and wrap it up. Um so, [clears throat] um I'll just kind of going to share where I'm at on this. I I just I sympathize with and and I absolutely
100% Mr. Mr. Bolig's motivation in this and I and I understand the history. I I I I think I have a pretty good sense with this. I've been to the site. I've visited the site. I've visit I've met and visited with the county engineer. I've met with our own engineer to try to get make sure I have a a pretty good understanding of this. And where I'm at
on this one is I just will not support spending any money on this. And and really I'm going to tell you why and where that comes up where that falls apart for me. Somebody somewhere went to the county and said, "We want to develop a piece of land here to build houses on." The county said, "Yes, you can do that, but
this is a storm water area. we need a we need a sizable easement here because we have a huge amount of water that comes in there. That developer said, "Yep, works for me. We'll go ahead and move forward with it." An an easement was established by the county to protect their position or their exposure on
water coming into this property. So then you you fast forward through time and and I can absolutely understand why Mr. Bullig would like to have this removed. However, where it breaks down for me is I don't see anywhere along the path
where the onus switched over to either the city or the county to have that removed easements. We have thousand if not hundreds of thousands of easements that exist on parcels inside this city. They are there for a reason and that is
to protect the exposure of of county and city. Now, with that being said, if an engineer or a lawyer at the county can will will tell Mr. Bullig or will will say, "Look, we would have removed this had it not been for the city of Brainer
doing what they did without permission or in the cover of night or or or some version of malfeasants that then swings the pendulum pendulum of responsibility to us. I just don't see that. I think what happened here is an easement was
created to protect knowing that there was going to be water here for a very very long time and if it wasn't it was going to be removed at a huge cost and for that reason the easement is still there. I understand why he wants it there. I just don't see how it became our responsibility at the city or the county to remove it and for that reason
I just won't support spending any money on this. Sorry. >> No, no problem. Thank you very much. Um, so I was going to kind of say my thinking is has changed on this one from when I first heard Mr. Booligg, um, I was kind of the same mind where I didn't
see the city's culpability, um, if that's even the right word. Um, but, you know, after talking with with staff at length and Mr. Bleg and some folks from the county, um, you know, I was I was actually in the same situation. I was
thinking about that, you know, there's an easement in place. Um, but, you know, hearing Mr. Bull talk about his, you know, how it's a was intended to be a temporary easement. Um, and I think also, um, engineer Dean talked about,
you know, we do have two engineers on staff, but they're not hydraulic engineers. And city staff, this has gone back 20 years. I think staff has done a great job. um past staff has done a great job, but that all has gotten us to
this point. And so I I guess I'd be comfortable moving forward with a study to try to, you know, remedy this situation or find out what could be done or, you know, put put a bow on this one and hopefully put it to rest. So, um I've kind of come through the the full
range on this one myself and um I guess I'm I'm comfortable moving forward with with one of these proposals to find out more information and um hopefully remedy this situation. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> I would move that we uh go with the um
is it HR green you've got suggesting prioritize? Was that correct, Jesse? If the council wants to award a contract, that's our recommendation would be HR Green. >> I would go with HR Green for their RFP here moving forward to city council recommendation.
>> All right, motion and I I'll second that one. So, a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed? >> I um motion carries and um thank you
very much. Our fourth item, I'm operating mouseless here, so bear with me. Our fourth item, South Brainer Sanitary uh sewer study phase two and
engineer Dean. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a followup from a previous item uh early fall uh in advance of the keepers development. Uh we discussed that we needed to get some sanitary uh sewer
modeling done in the neighborhood. Uh not only to u provide them guidance of what we could provide from a utility standpoint uh specifically the sanitary sewer um but we do have several other areas that are um very developable and
folks have reached out to us about their viability. Uh so this is kind of the second phase of that first phase uh where we want to expand the modeling to the rest of that south branded area kind of mostly everything south of Graden uh
south of uh roughly Bane Park includes all the industrial park uh which would encompass all of these areas that have have had developers ask about and um starting to be discussed in more further detail. Uh so staff got a proposal from
SE uh for the phase two of this and it would be at cost of $20,171. Uh and that is staff's recommendation. >> All right. Thanks, Jesse. Any comments or questions on this item? >> Um yeah, so it's identical essentially
the same work that we approved here a few several months ago. >> Yes, just a larger >> larger scope, >> larger scope, larger area. Uh and this will provide us actually even a little bit more uh teeth to understand okay if somebody proposes one part of uh one
part of use we can plug that into model and make sure that we have the capacity for that. If we don't we can then evaluate what do we need to do to be able to accommodate that use. Um the first phase was very direct because we had a a pretty refined scope of work so we just
modeled it off of that. Uh this is a little bit more comprehensive. >> Now this model is all on computer screen >> essentially. Yeah. >> Okay. And then the city retains that. >> Yep. Uh SE will assist us as needed too. Uh they do um the same thing for BPU for
the water system. Um they run different scenarios through that water model for them. >> Thank you. >> Jesse, the phase one of this that we did, I forget the exact dollar amount, but it was less than this but similar. >> I believe it was in the realm of about 15,000 if I remember correctly. And
given that this phase two is a larger area and you had previously kind of shared this with me, but can you talk about the why that is? Phase two is larger but it's kind of disproportionately not as >> Yeah. So the the biggest part is there's a lift to create the model itself. Uh
which they've been able to do quite a bit with that first phase. Uh so that lift is not as much in the second phase because we have a lot of that already created. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Can you say a lift, Jesse? What What exactly is a lift?
>> Uh, staff time. Not our staff time, but their staff time. >> Okay. Thank you. Y >> I would move to approve this if unless you had something together. >> No, sir. >> Okay. I would move to approve this. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor
signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Our fifth item is a resolution requesting advanced municipal state aid funds and engineer Dean. >> Thank you sir. Uh attached is a
resolution that requests advanced uh municipal state aid funds for the 2026 projects as well as some of the previous years that were not dispersed. Um every year that we requested advanced funding for future years allocations uh we have to adopt a resolution that uh lays out
that amount and u projects. Uh so staff is recommending that council uh adopts the attached resolution that requests advance municipal state aid funds u for those projects. I can answer questions. >> All right. Thanks Jesse. Any questions?
>> U Councilman Jagger first and then you >> Yeah. Uh just real quick I just had a question on process where it says where we were talking about 25% of the funds is allocated to maintenance. Is that a requirement or is that our own doing? >> That is our choice. There's there's a
range that you can do. 25% is the maximum that we can ask for maintenance. We can ask for less. >> Okay. I was going to see if we could ask for more. >> Uh the construction account is the one that we're in advance of. >> That's all. Thank you, >> Councilman Chzach.
>> Yeah, if I could. Um so, we're doing this every year and I think Mr. Johnson gave me a wonderful explanation last year why this is beneficial to get this uh state aid. Um but we're going to bond let's see how does the bonding work on this. Could you
explain that so I fully understand? So for the right and tenth reconstruction project we are recommending um to bond that one with state aid bonds uh which the principal and interest would come out of your future allocations based on your bond schedule. Um the issue with
that is if we were to lump some request to that project um we would not be able to get funded for that full amount of advance because there is a statutory cap and how much we can advance. Uh which is there's a formula but uh ours is essentially $4 million. uh we would not
be able to advance beyond that $4 million. And thus why we can't fully uh request all of the right and tenth reconstruction project, which is why staff is recommending the bonding to stretch those dollars over time. Um we can fund that a little bit uh better and
come out of the advanced status uh a little bit earlier, one or two years earlier. Um we could do it in bits and portions. I mean there's obviously handful of different other options too but um that is our recommendation with that one specifically.
>> Okay. So we're using state aid money to pay back bonds. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yep. >> Okay. And then so what's the usual term on these?
>> Roughly about 10 years is usually what we bond for a lot of our projects. >> And I think Mike got back to me. I think you said right now the interest is right about 3 and a2%. >> It it depends on when you sell it. Last fall when we sold bonds it was three and a half. So it depends on what the market will be when we sell the next set of bonds.
>> So that could effectively be over 10 years that could be um $350,000 of state aid money we're paying back in interest >> roughly. Yep. >> Wow. [clears throat] Yeah. And that and that's um >> or not maybe not quite that much. It would be >> Yeah. It would dwindle down because of
the Yep. I'm just using 35,000 over the course of each year. So, >> y >> um but interest is interest and that's I'm just gonna that's the part about all this stuff we always borrow and we're paying back so much more in interest that um I how do how do we get ahead of
this? How do we get ahead of it to uh to not have to bond against it? I'm working on on my end on a very poignant plan with our state dollars to not be in the advanced status moving forward. I [snorts] I agree with Gab's
points. Uh he makes valid points about why you advance funds. Um we also want to make sure that we're responsible that we can uh do the things that we need to do when we want to do them. We don't want to be tied down with uh the state requirements on that. Well, it's more of
a philosophical um discussion we're having here, but I appreciate it. Thank you. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Otherwise, I'd be looking to entertain a motion. [cough] [clears throat] >> I'll move to approve staff's
recommendation here. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. And motion carries. Our last item, sixth item, discussion on
downtown snow removal process and public works director Havagor. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that with uh several snowfalls this season, staff has prepared an update on the downtown snow removal. In the past, the parks crews work hours 7 to 3:30 with
their main function with ice rank maintenance. Now, with downtown snow removal as a top priority, and when snowfall occurs, staff will start about 3:00 a.m. and then work until the snow is removed from the sidewalks, piled or wind rode to be removed the next day.
The attached time card example shows a normal workday with overtime for downtown snow removal. The usual uh crews working hours are, as I said, was from 7 to 3:30 with a halfhour lunch. Overtime is coded to the morning hours because snow removal is a cause of the
overtime. After the parks crews complete downtown snow removal, they will move on to their normal winter duties which uh comprise of ice rinks, uh pleasure ranks, crosswalks, sidewalks, parking lot, trails, and roundabouts. Regarding the assessment, the downtown property
owners will be assessed for the snow removal of the snow on the sidewalks. The city of Brainard is an owner about 16% and the private property frontage is about 84%. The streets are only assessed if the snow is removed before 9:00 a.m. on the same day of the snow event.
Previously, with a contractor completing snow removal, the city would take about 47% of the snow removal cost to the streets and alleys based on the calculations done to determine the amount of that the city would normally be performed under snow removal
procedures. The other 53% of this street and alley snow removal is then assessed to the downtown o uh business owners and the city is also an owner of that uh with the alleys and parking lots. As a result of the new direction of the downtown owners should see a reduction
in the assessed cost for snow removal as only the sidewalks will be assessed because the streets department will be typically removing the snow after 9:00 a.m. In this in the spring staff will complete a report to analyze a snow removal process. uh from the downtown
special district uh with our staff cost. This report will compare the third party contractor cost from previous years and also with the city cost from this year. It will also include time and equipment overtime and a final assessment to the
special service district. The report will also include feedback from downtown businesses based on the level of service that they've received. And with that contain any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mike. Were there any comments or questions?
>> Quick one, please. >> Councilman Yag. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Habor, I think, um, I just want to be make sure I'm really clear on one part here. So, it's kind of come up in a little bit of our dialogue and the last couple times we've been talking about this that these figures were roughly the figures that
when when this this entire idea was kind of pitched of us doing this, these figures are kind of were kind of pre-thought out to be about the figures that we thought that the downtown district would see for assessment. Meaning that the overtime was not an not
an oversight and is now getting tacked on after. But this this kind of fits the original math of which we were kind of told when we first started this. Is that right? Would you say? Okay. >> And also just to piggyback, we even because their contract was in, you know, discussion. Yep.
>> We figured it at one and a half time overtime and also double time. >> The contract is only at one and a half time. Okay. >> Not the double time, but we just can we figured that for double time just in case to make sure our numbers were going to be correct. >> Yep. Gotcha. And just real quickly, um,
what method will we be using to reach out to all the downtown people to get feedback? Is it going to be door knocking? Is it going to be an email? Is it what what is the system we're going to use to get the feedback? >> We do both. We also are we email those individuals. Also, the monthly uh
lunchons that we have, I've already been to one of those, announced it, had some good feedback, and get I wouldn't say daily feedback when we get to Snow Falls, but just received several uh emails and and compliments uh from business owners. >> Yeah, and I can attest to that. I'll just quickly say I have some couple
properties down and it's been awesome. I mean, it's been super duper good. So, that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. So the question uh that I had just to I guess confirm what I heard is that the
downtown property owners will receive less of an assessment just for the sidewalks but not be assessed for the city portion. The wind rowing will happen. So the same service happens except the wind rows are picked up day two. >> Correct. And then the city, the way I'm
looking at this is the city then of course loses some revenue through that assessment, the loss of that street assessment, but overall we're netting a savings from what we've previously done with the contract. Is that all >> correct? It's it's not the assessment
will be staying the same. It's just normally when we have a contractor do it, the bill is much higher. our bill from the our city staff will be much lower and that's why there's going to be a savings to the business owners and also to us but there's going to be a huge savings to the actual business
owners that will be assessed. >> Okay. Very good. >> Thank thank you. Yeah. Council >> on the back side of that. U Mr. have course. Has there been any uh concern raised regarding the um uh parks employees? Um has there been any issue
with them not being able to fulfill whatever obligations they may have um for removal of snow in other places? Has that been going okay too? Then >> it's been going okay. There has been a slight, you know, um decrease of their service to the pleasure ranks and those
type of things. So yes, just to be straightforward, yes, those have been and we've issued a little bit of overtime for that first assessment or the first foundation of those ice rinks to get established. That's a little heavy lift and we had [clears throat] to
get jumped on that. So we did issue a little bit of overtime for that also, but that won't be assessed downtown. That's just our normal overtime in our city budget. >> Okay. It's been pretty snowy. Um Mr. Chair. >> Yes.
>> Um I think if we're wrapped up with this item, we did have one more I think and then I just have a question going back to the um >> state aid for Jesse. >> Thank you. I had one other um >> okay >> comment too staff. You had talked about there was maybe some minor issues with
the windross crossing some intersections and things and that's kind of been addressed. >> Um I heard something about that. Any of you elaborate on that? Correct. Just the public to hear that. That's good. >> Yeah. So, I heard a few of those, too, where it's like, well, the wind row I would have turned where I normally do, but the wind row was there and
>> Right. And the windross downtown were completely done before the next shopping day happened. So, Maria with downtown and and uh all of the business owners, we made sure that that was done before the businesses opened up. There was a
couple wind row issues on other streets uh just because of the amount of snowfall that we had, but we did rectify that the next day when we had those complaints. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. And yes, Councilman Chz. >> Yeah. Uh Jesse, do you know um if we have bonded on state aid money or if we
are currently under some um bond already? >> Not currently. No. >> Okay. And then if we bonded, it's not within your recollection of when we may have done that. >> I don't have that recollection. I don't think we have, but I could not ask.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have on that. >> Thank you. And yes, I apologize. We had one other item here. Number seven, uh direction on active code enforcement and uh community development director Kanic, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so staff is bringing one property before the
committee for review, 624th Avenue Northeast. Uh the issue is a trailer and vehicle parked in the front yard on an unimproved surface. Uh they have received the warning letter as well as three citations. They have removed the boat that's in the first picture, but have not complied with the other vehicles or the trailer and have not
contacted staff. Uh just as kind of a reminder, we do send a final 10-day warning letter uh stating council action after the meeting. Uh so with that, staff recommends moving to obtain a search warrant to tow the trailer and vehicle at 624th Avenue Northeast. And I can answer any questions.
>> All right. Thanks, James. Any comments or questions on this one? >> If I could, would please. >> When you talk about a search warrant, um, is is there a need for a search or is that just kind of a technical term to say, uh, how does that work? >> That allows us to go onto the property
to abate the vehicle. Without the warrant, we can't do that. >> Okay. Um, if the trailer's locked or anything, does that give us permission then to uh break a lock off or anything that >> in that instance? I would probably contact our attorney. Um, you know, we
we have had that issue with gates before. Um, we'd found a solution that day, but uh, that's something I'd talk to our attorney about. >> Any questions or comments? Further questions, I should say. Hearing none, I'd look for a entertain a
motion on this item. >> I'll make a motion to move forward with the search warrant. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion in a second. Any further discussion hearing? None. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. And motion carries. And that brings the safety and
public works committee to a close. So, thank you very much. Part: 2
Council, it is Monday, January 5th, 2026, 7:30 p.m. >> Tony, please call the role. >> Erikson >> here. >> Bevven >> here. >> Chzach here. >> Johnson here. >> Stunner. >> Yes. >> OD here. >> Here. >> Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Next up, we have approval of the agenda.
>> So moved, Mr. President. >> Motion by Chzox, second by Bevans. Any discussion? >> See none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. We have an agenda. Next up, we have the consent calendar. This is a notice public that all matters listed are
considered routine by the council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the council votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. Jazz. >> Mr. President, I'd like to uh um move to
approve the consent with the um removal of the allboard MN Railroad item to be discussed immediately following approval and consent. >> Second. All right. Motion by Bevans. Second
by Bevans with that amendment. Any discussion? Tony >> Erikson? >> Yes. >> Beven? Yes. >> Jezak? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Jagger? >> Yep. >> OD? >> Yes. That motion carries. So, next up we
have that item. This is a resolution to support uh all aboard Minnesota Railway for a route from Fargo to the Twin Cities. Uh, Chzach. >> Yeah, Mr. President. Um, I
this is all brand new. I don't see anybody as far as any state legislators signing on to this yet or anything. I would like to see if the council would uh consider holding this off unless there's some time sensitivity that I'm not aware of. Um maybe Mr. Broyals or
somebody could let us know if that's the case, but I would be much more comfortable knowing more about this. I see the document we got is broken up and it looks like there's numerous pages and we have only a few and I'm it just seems like we got highlights of the full
document. So if if it uh if it would uh I I could make the motion now to do that if if unless there's somebody >> did you want did you want [snorts] staff to answer any question? >> Yeah, if that's okay if >> Mr. Broyals, do you want want to try and touch on that? >> Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chzach. I am not aware
of any time constraints. council certainly can pull this and we can get more information. My understanding this is very similar to a resolution that was passed in 2021 just voicing support um for this project but we can I'm not aware of any time constraints. We can
certainly get more information whatever you would like and we will present that to the council. >> Did you accept a motion Mr. President? >> Yes. Just u I'll just move to uh hold off on this bring it back at the first meeting in February. Second. >> Bring more information back on us.
>> Okay, we have a motion by Chzach, second by Ericson. Any discussion? See none. Uh, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Bet. Moving on. Number six. This is 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. Looks like we may have a few people here to speak tonight. So, let's try to keep it to a few minutes if you can, but right now I will open the public forum. It is 7:33
p.m. And if you are here for something that is not on the agenda, please come forward. >> Just name and address first, please. >> My name is Logan Clish. Address is 824 N Street Northeast. Um, I am here to voice
my concerns about the development or proposed development of Gustoson Park. My concern with that being is that park is heavily used during the summer, not only the past couple years by the Y, but also by local kids who reside in nearby
homes within walking distance. Um, it's often used by children that are not in organized sports with schools and whatnot. Um, I know I have neighbors myself where they go over and practice preseason softball and baseball over there before
the season starts. Um, my concern is that losing that would be detrimental to the children. I understand that there are two other parks in relatively close proximity. However, I feel like losing that asset just for a few houses
probably may not be worth it and I would like to look for other options. And that's all I've got for you guys. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. All right. There's anybody else that
would like to come up and speak? >> Welcome. >> Name and address first, please. >> My name is PJ Larson. I live at 91611th Avenue Northeast, right at Garfield School. I can hear the playground from our yard. Um, I am disabled. Uh, the
elevator is out tonight, so I have a family member that can't come up these stairs. Um, but we can walk to Gustoen. It's the closest park to our home, Lum and um, Memorial. I would have to drive and I don't drive unless I have to. And
I drove here tonight to tell you that uh, this park is used parks and wreck. There's hundreds of people that come to watch their children play te-ball. I used to coach. Um they play soccer there. There's dogs walking through the park, people learning fro. Um I see the
need for housing in Brainer. Obviously, we need that. I don't know that it needs to go in the place of a park. Thank you for hearing me. >> Thank you. If anybody else wants to come up, come on up. Just name and address first, please. Name is Nathan Seir, 1305 10th
Avenue Northeast. Um, voicing the concern about Gustoson Park. Um, the past couple years it's been used um by the Y for various sports whether it be T-ball, softball, football, flag football. Um,
my my kids, they use that park when there's not things that are going on there. Um, yes, there are two other parks that are within walking distance. However, this this field, I don't even like calling it a park because it's not really a park. It's just fields. Um, you
know, some of the nice things about having that right there. I live right my house is right next to that. Um, I have a 16-year-old son. Last year for his birthday, we ordered a flag football kit off of Amazon. We had the family come over. We grilled in the backyard. We
went over to the field and we played flag football with the entire family. Now, if that were to be developed, it we would lose access to that, lose access to be able to go out into that safe spot there and still be within the comfort
of, you know, our relative home location. Um, there are other areas that are in relative [snorts] uh proximity that could be developed. Um, I had talked to Mr. Ericson. Um, there's a spot uh what
is it? two blocks north of me, I think it is. Um that is actually a wooded lot. It is actually um tax forfeited. So I'm wondering you know why are we choosing this this particular area to be
developed when it is being used it is being utilized instead of going you know a couple blocks that are just minutes away and developing what is an empty you know wooded land. Um, I
understand that we would lose the trees and everything that are there, but if it's tax forfeited land, why can't we utilize that instead of the Gustiffson field, as I like to call it, instead of a park? Um, you know, the maintenance
that's there, it's minimal. The cost for the lawnmowing that's there, you know, if it comes down to it, I'd be happy to mow it. Um, I I'm I'm right there. You know, if it if it comes down to it, that's I'd be willing to do it if
we if that means that we can keep it. >> We have a motion. I'm just [laughter] >> uh that's all I got. >> Thank you, Nate. Appreciate it. >> Anybody else out there want to come up and speak about anything that's not on the agenda tonight?
Come on up, sir. Just name and address, please. >> Chris, 912 Oak Street. Um, I was up here last time. I wanted to come back. I did my some research. I'm sorry. I was able to email Gabe so he can give you guys copies.
I found out that it's just not 20 people that have been assaulted, including myself being in that situation. And also, I have a major health issue. Like I said, uh one of them that I just found out recent from my doctor was my hearing is starting to
go and my um other medical issues are going. Um the reason why I'm coming back to say about the assault part is if we don't have and I just looked up on the statues, we don't have a statute for
landlords or anyone that gets assaulted in our housing. development. Um, and I and I do think we should get something like that started. Maybe we all get together and talk about it and and write it up and then send it up, however we do
it, but it needs to come into a lot. And I appreciate Gabe agreeing and maybe some of you agreeing. I know Jeff has agreed a couple things on that part, but we need to get this going. We need a new law for this part now because I'm the
walking person involved with it. Showing you guys that I'm not going to let anyone else out there in the community get assaulted and then law enforcement ignored the fact about the suspect lying to them. So, if we can try to come up with a solution for this year so they
can carry on for other um young children. There's been teenagers assaulted to recently within our state in U crowing and I don't know how to say it but their names are not to be talked about because
parents said to it but they agree and I have counted of 150 people agree to what I said to you guys and wants to see crowing to come in action. Thank you. >> Thank you sir.
Sir, have you have you spoke with Mr. Cranic at all? >> Raise your hand. >> Good looking one over there. [laughter] >> Yum. >> He He's the guy to talk to about uh [snorts] all the rental housing statutes and different provisions we have in the
city. If you want to reach out to city hall tomorrow, he's the guy to talk to right there to get that started. >> Yep. But I was told to come to see the council and to see who all agrees and then he can he and I can proceed. >> Yep. Thank you. >> All right. If anybody else is here that
wants to come up and speak on anything that's not on the agenda, please do so now. Or if you're online and you would like to do so, please please press star three >> this time. Ask one more time. If anybody wants to
come up, please do so. Now, with that, we will close the public forum at 7:42. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzach, >> is there any way [clears throat] we can give um the people here that are concerned about Gusen Park an update as to where we're at. I did see something
on our suspense tracker, if you will, um regarding a I think we got the uh >> some information back on that if possible. Mr. Do you have an update on it or >> James? >> James, go ahead. >> Yep. So, it'll be at the next park board meeting to receive a formal
recommendation. We've put together a memo. I know me and Mike are working on that right now. So, I kind of expect that at the end of the month at the next park board meeting and then it'd be at the following council meeting um regarding Gustin Park. >> Okay. So, likely >> beginning of February. >> Beginning of February be back at
council. >> Okay. >> And we got responses back for survey costs. Is that correct? >> We did get Yep, we did get cost on that. So, park board and and council will be aware of that. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. All right. Next up, we have presentations. That's number seven. I
don't think we have any presentations tonight. So, moving right on to number eight. This is Council Committee reports. First up, we have personnel and finance committee chair Gabe Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. We have three items on our agenda tonight. The first
of which is a misdemeanor prosecution joint services agreement with the cities of Baxter and Nisah. And the motion is to approve the attached joint services agreement to accompany the misdemeanor prosecution agreement. And I so move >> second.
>> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson. >> The agreement hasn't changed from what we've used in in years past. It's a three-year rolling average of the number of hours the prosecutors spend on each community is paid for by that. So, if you look 26 to 25, the share for
Brainard actually went down a couple thousand dollars. And last time we asked about the court fine revenue. Connie added that to the memo this time so you can see how much our court fine revenue is offsetting the Brainard's share of
the cost of the agreement. >> All right. Thank you. Any more discussion on the motion? Mr. Chzach, >> how do we increase our court fine revenue? >> Hire more cops. [laughter] >> I have no idea, Jeff. >> Is that a good enough answer for you, Jeff?
>> Always is. >> All right. 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. >> Mr. President, next up is a position recommendation. A water/wastewater
operator. And the motion is to approve the attached water wastewater operator job description and further to authorize staff to negotiate the wage with the IBEDW union. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson. Second by Bevans.
Johnson. >> So we have an opening in the as a wastewater operator in the uh in the wastewater division naturally. And when the management team over at the public utility was talking about where we're at and and looking forward, they thought
maybe it'd be best if we instead of having a water operator and a wastewater operator, we have one job description that is a waster that is water and wastewater operator that has all of the certifications to work in either plant. And that's the direction they uh recommended going in. The public utility
commission has voted in that favor and that's the recommendation coming out of committee tonight. All right, sounds great, >> Mr. President. >> Mr. Chz, >> yeah, I did ask this question at the utility commission meeting and I asked about as far as industry uh as far as their industry goes, are they seeing
this type of position and it is becoming more prevalent that there's a combo type uh thing going on here and that was that was directly from Aquaman, Charlie Gammon. So, >> excellent. Makes sense to me. >> Yeah. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Okay. Our last item is a memorandum of agreement on the Minnesota paid family medical leave for our IBEW groups. And the motion is to approve the PFML
memorandums of agreement with the IBEW public utility and administrative service unions as presented. And I so move. >> Second. Motion by Johnson. Second by Bevans. Johnson. These memorandums uh follow what is already city policy and what we're already doing with our other
bargaining units. This just gets it written that it's understood the employer is paying half, the employee is paying half. >> Okay, more discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> End of report.
>> Thank you. All right. Moving on to 8B. This is safety and public works committee chairman Tad Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We have seven items on our agenda. The first of which is change order number four, improvement 2313. This is the trunk highway 371B and Willow
roundabout. Motion coming out of committee is to uh recommend approving the change order. The total amount of $8,55949 and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzac.
>> Merrick. So this uh change order is in regards to uh tree removal uh on Willow Street that came about was not included in the original scope. The cost that I mentioned uh would be state aid eligible. >> All right. Thank you. More discussion.
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> So we the motion coming out of committee. The next item here, sorry, is final uh pay request number two for improvement 2316.
The motion coming out of committee is to hold this one over. Um there was a question that came up in committee. Um motion came up to uh uh hold this over until the next uh meeting. And I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson, second by Chzach.
Chairman Ericson. So, uh, what came up, uh, was the a gentleman addressed the council about, um, his driveway in the apron, um, at the end of a culde-sac and staff had done some work and and remedied that situation. And the
question that came up was, was were the costs associated with that fix included in this amount? Since the committee meeting, we did get an answer to that. Um, so while we didn't have a recommendation coming out of committee, we did get an answer to the question. So, I don't know if you would entertain
a motion or a discussion to >> whichever you'd like. You have the floor. >> If you want to try a motion, you can. >> Can I ask the staff a question then to to kind of clarify the the cost and then um I would
maybe amend the motion to and before Jesse, Jeff, you had brought up this question. I guess since it was your question in committee, did you wanna >> Well, let's hear Jesse's answer and then you can have a chance to respond. >> So, we'll just highlight the message
that was sent to the council. Uh, so [clears throat] the cost of that P patch is included in that total amount. It was roughly about $900. Um, the contractor did try to do some remedying work with some infrareds um to try and smoothing that out. The issue is the curbs in that
area are very flat. Uh so for them to provide positive drainage would have been very difficult anyways without fully reconstructing that culde-sac and that was quite a bit more than uh our anticipated scope of work comp considering what we were trying to do with the resurfacing. Uh so we did have
them do the uh patch. The patch also has pretty minimal grade right now uh just because the curb doesn't have much. So uh it is draining um but long term at some point when we rebuild it we would want to provide better drainage throughout that whole area. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. So,
Jesse, sorry to so the the amount um in the final pay request number two here is 42,54150 and those costs are included in that dollar amount. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. >> And then, Mr. President, then a question to Mr. Chzek. Does that answer your
question that you you brought up in committee? >> Um yeah, and I if I could the u the reason I brought this up because Mr. Bevans made a very good point when this uh uh we were talking I I can't remember specifically but he asked the question about
when we um when we did this and the property owner came in and told us there's a problem and the contractor was aware of the problem and we went back and tried to fix it I think two or three times and now it looks like we're giving the contractor for workmanship $900 to
do something that I think and following what Mr. Beans had indicated that's where it opened my eyes to this is uh I don't think for workmanship we should be paying anything more because they were aware of the problem and uh should have got it done right the first time. That's that's why I would be opposed to paying
this full amount based on what I'm hearing if I got that correct. >> All right, Mr. President, then uh sorry for the confusion then. That was a question that came up in committee. We didn't have that that answer. So, we didn't have a motion coming out a recommendation, but I would amend my my
motion then uh to approve the final pay request um in the amount of 42,541.50. And that's so move, >> Mr. Chair. And I he he can't amend a motion that doesn't exist. He has to just make a motion.
>> You didn't make a motion earlier. >> You said you amended a motion. I'd like to hear the initial motion. >> Yeah. So, the motion was to hold this over until the next meeting. So then now with that information I could just go ahead with the >> okay >> approving it. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. Motion by Ericson and second by Johnson. Any discussion on that motion? >> Yeah. >> This is just on the amendment. >> We're just talking about the amendment to the motion. So changing it from holding off to paying it. >> No, it doesn't change it. It adds it. >> It's [clears throat] an amendment.
>> Let's just make it as complicated as possible. >> I think this is the most complicated. >> The motion is to to pay. Yeah, that's what I thought. The request. Okay, Mr. Chzock, do you have something to say? >> I I I think if we're including the additional money we paid the contractor
for workmanship, that isn't right. I know it's not a lot of money, but it's a principal if issue here. If workmanship is faulty, that's on the contractor. That's standard across any contracting any contractor you're going to find. the the owners or
property owners in this case should not be paying for a uh uh a poor workmanship issue and I don't care if it's $90 or $9,000. This in this case it's apparently $900. So if we remove that amount from this uh I'd be happy with it
but that is in the motion. Okay, >> Mr. Beavens, >> I have a question and it might be for staff but may maybe Tad could answer this. My understanding is on this project it was primarily or specifically just a millon overlay. And part of the
issue with the drainage is the height of the curb which was not done with this project. And we did the best, it's my understanding we did the best we could. The contractor did the best they could using the existing curb. And what our
engineer just said is pro a a better fix would be when the curb is redone >> when there's a rebuild in the >> when there's a total rebuild including new curb then then we can fix the problem more permanently.
And if I I'm if I'm mistaken now would be the time. But if if I'm if I'm correct I support the motion. >> Okay. If I >> Mr. Dean, do you have something to add? >> Councilman Beans, you you're correct on that. Um, there was some other issues with the catch basins on the end of the
culde-sac. They were offset that was holding back a lot of water. We did address that with the project because we knew of that drainage issue. Um, but to your point, the flat curbs are something that was kind of out of the scope and scale of what we were trying to do. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean.
>> Thank you. Any more discussion? All right. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Against. Same sign. >> I. >> That motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. Our third item is
storm water engineering proposals Southwest Brainard. A motion coming out of committee is to award the proposal to HR Green in the amount of $33,510. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So this is in uh we've been addressed uh
by the property owner uh Mr. Bleg about the um drainage that's coming onto his property uh per the easement that we kind of share with Kwing County on the corner there of Cass 48. Um we've been addressed on this many times, gone back
and forth. This has been an issue that's um been a long-standing issue and come before multiple of our city engineers and um we had some discussion in council or committee and um
my thoughts were that you know we've had our our great past staff, our great current staff look at this and that's got us to this point. And um in talking with our our engineers, they are not they are engineers of course, but they're not hydraulic engineers. And um
I think that moving forward with a study to kind of take a look at what's possible, what can be done, and hopefully we can put a pin in this and remedy this situation. >> Okay. Any more discussion on that? Mr. Beans.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did write a email to this to the SPNW couple of SPNW [clears throat] members and staff and I'm 100% in favor of moving forward to try and remedy this problem that's been existing for a long
time that appears to have been created somewhat with our agreement. I am a little concerned about the $33,510 with I mean I stood on this on this
the complaintant's property and it doesn't appear that we that the engineering is needed. I see the water draining into one hole on a Brainer taxpayers's property and on
the across the street I see another hole with no no houses. It doesn't appear and I our engineer could not refute this that that we should at least do a little bit more investigation. If we put the
outflow on the other side of the street, we might solve the problem. And I could do that for a buck. I can see where the thing drains and I can see the hole. It's called a um what do they call those things where they uh
>> Yeah, like a culvert. Right. Exactly. They go under the road and they drain the water into the >> lower >> pond. And I would really like to hold off on this for like two weeks and have our engineer go out and see what I saw
and talk to the city of Baxter and talk to the property owner uh of the and Crowing County, right? Because this is really a Crowing County issue as well to some degree. Arguably, it it runs down 48. And I almost think this can be
solved a lot simpler if we hold off on the green to pay HR green $33,510 and get the people that we already pay. No, I mean maybe there is hydraologic engineering involved, but it sure seems
to be a water diversion issue. We're pouring it on one side of the street, put it on the other side. So, I'm going to vote against this as much in as I am in favor of solving the problem. I'd like to hold off on this for two weeks and get more information from our
engineer. I don't know if I'm sure Tad shared the memo I sent with you to with you, Mr. Chair. So, >> yep, we all have that uh email in front of us. >> I mean, and and and you can see the elevations look like they would work, >> right? So, I'm I'm going to I'm in
agreement with Mr. Beaven. I think if we can find a simpler solution instead of going through one of these studies, every time we go through one of these studies, it feels like we're just throwing money away, but we want to know as much information as we can. But if we can if we can find something simpler to
do like this before we have to go and do something like that, then I'm always for it. The problem I see with this is that if I'm reading this right, you want to go across Highland Scenic, Mr. Bevvens. >> Not correct, sir. I want to I want to
cut off the storms who are north of Highland Scenic and run it along the north of Highland Scenic. Now, I don't want to enter into Highland Scenic and just you're going to open up half of
Casaw 48 and then the the U storm water retention pond that's already naturally there is right there. >> Okay. >> And I believe Highland Scenic drains into it. Now, okay, if you go look at the pipes, you can see them all, >> you know.
>> Okay, >> Mr. Ericen had his hand up first and then we'll go to Mr. Chz. >> Well, just uh Mr. Beavens, I just wanted to answer that, too. Yeah, the the your email was printed out here, but I did specifically call it out and share it with committee and we we discussed that. So,
>> Mr. Chz, >> yeah, to Mr. Beaven, did you see the response from Engineer Dean to your >> I did. >> Okay. And then u u I guess uh Mr. President if uh um this is kind of a tricky one for me
because I voted in favor of this in committee but I certainly understand the arguments uh that Mr. Bez is making and I would um actually motion to t uh to table this motion until the second meeting in February to give staff time
to do what uh uh what is being asked for by Mr. Bevans to take another look at it before we pay for engineering. >> Okay. So, your motion, I >> think. So, we had a motion coming out of committee. I would be happy. I've already amended one motion tonight. I
could I'd be happy to amend that motion. >> Friendly amendment would be easier if you'd like to do that. >> If if there's going to be a friendly amendment, I wouldn't motion the table. I just went motion it to hold over the item, not the not to table the motion.
Right. Well, there's been a motion made. >> There is a motion >> on the table and I would happily amend that. >> What would your amendment? >> So to to table it to the >> Hold it over. >> Hold it over. Thank you. >> Second is okay, Mr. Chzach. >> I'm not the seconder.
>> You weren't the second. >> I guess I was. I s I seconded the first motion, not the amendment. So, >> but you're okay with a friendly amendment to table. Okay. >> Any discussion, Mr. Johnson? Uh [clears throat]
yeah, is a question. Is is this amended motion holding it off for two meetings and directing staff to >> We can have another motion. >> Go look. Yeah, cuz I don't want to just put it off for two meetings and come back in the exact same position we're in
right now. >> Let's just get this one voted on and then if you guys want to make a motion or if anybody else wants to make another motion, we can do that. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. >> Just so I'm clear. >> Yep. >> We're holding off on this until second
meeting in February is how I understand that. >> If we vote yes. >> Okay. >> All right. >> More discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Do we have another motion? Mr. Beaven, do you want to try
one on this? No. I'm happy with what we're doing. As long as staff comes back with answers to really it was Mr. engineer dean that had the questions about drainage and that sort of stuff as well as agreements with Crowing County City of Baxter and the property owner.
But we now have two weeks for them and I I believe it was >> second. >> Yeah. To do all that stuff. If it needs to be a separate motion, I so move. >> Okay. >> To do all that stuff. >> Okay. Motion for staff to look into >> Yeah. those >> Yeah. If it can't be done, it can't be
done. But >> can't be done. It can't be done. But we have a motion and a second. Is that fairly clear to everybody? Okay, Mr. Bedau. >> Yeah, in an effort to slow Gab's hasty second down, I just want to use a couple more words in everybody's air time. So, but I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Oh, thanks for that input. >> That's why you have the funny font. >> All right, any more discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. All right, where are we at? >> We're about halfway through.
>> Yeah. Chairman Ericson, go ahead. Our this is our fourth item. South Brainard sanitary sewer study phase two. A motion coming out of committee is to approve the proposal from sanitary sewer modeling in South Brainard in the amount of 20,171. And I so move second.
>> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So this will be a followup to uh the South Brainard the first sewer study that we did um that was completed earlier this fall. U we received summary of that. Um the findings there's been a lot of uh development proposals in South
Brainer and uh this would just be this second phase would be a larger geography that it would cover. It would include the industrial park and um pretty much everything south of Graden roughly speaking. >> Okay.
>> More discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Our fifth item is a resolution requesting advanced municipal state aid.
Um the motion coming out of committee is to adopt the attached resolution requesting advanced municipal state aid construction funds. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So typ typically we we're allocated uh
1.1 million in state aid funds. uh 25% of the funds are allocated to maintenance. Um this leaves approximately 800,000 towards uh state aid construction and um we oftentimes go go through our state annual state aid
allocation and we need to uh we can uh request uh those funds in advance and of course we need um resolution in order to request those funds early. >> Okay, more discussion. Johnson,
>> I would just like to go on the record to restate my position that we should always be advancing as many state aid dollars as we possibly can. >> Thank you, >> Mr. President. >> And I um I appreciate that for Mr. Johnson because I uh he schooled me I think the last time this came up last
year. And uh my question is though, when we talk about bonding against state aid money and we're paying back insurance, I'm sorry, interest. Um that's that's troublesome for me. I I would hope it's troublesome for every one of us that we're we're paying on money uh interest on money that we
otherwise shouldn't be paying interest on and that I mean I don't know philosophically how Mr. Johnson I again I'm not I'm not disagreeing with your initial premise sir but uh when we start bonding against the state aid but to pay it back with state aid doesn't that kind
of put us in a in the rears for uh the value we're getting from that money? >> I I agree with that assessment. Yeah, we're losing a percentage of it for sure. >> So, um I I think the indication I got was like close to three and a half% or thereabouts. And and I if I could I
could ask finance director Hillman a question, Mr. President? >> Yeah, go for it. >> Yeah. Uh Connie, are we currently under any um bond we're paying back regarding state aid u using state aid money to pay it back or have we done that in the past? >> No, we have not borrowed. We talked last year about issuing state aid bonds to
pay for some of the construction as a way that we would take our state aid allocation then and pay for those bonds. But as far as I know, we have not bonded for our state aid. For example, this year when we bonded for the projects, we took the projects less what we're going to get for state aid and then that's the amount that we bonded. Does that answer
your question? >> Uh yeah. So we haven't done it before, but we're looking to do it uh for the first time. >> Not necessarily. We talked about it this year, but we didn't end up needing to do it, so we didn't do it. >> Okay. I guess in the memo, I it appears that we were moving forward in that
direction. Did I misunderstand that or >> did I read that in our >> I could try, Mike >> Johnson. Go ahead. >> It it mentions the bonding, Jeff, because they pulled the right and 10th Street project out because we may do the state aid bonding with that project. So, we're not advancing for it. So, we may
do a state aid bond, but that's not this resolution. >> Okay. Yeah, I understand it's not the resolution, but it's still getting the money in advance. So, anyway, thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Anybody else?
Seeing no more discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor? Oh, Tony, go ahead. This is the resolution. Uh, >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Evans, yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Jagger, yes. >> OD, >> yes. That resolution carries. Chairman Ericson.
>> All right. Our sixth item is discussion on downtown snow removal process. Uh no action uh on this item. It's just a discussion item. Staff [clears throat] wanted to give us an update. Um as we all know, as many in the audience know, we've uh moved from using a contractor
for the downtown snow removal to uh having our our parks and street crews handle all of that. and uh staff has an attached time sheet um that kind of shows how uh if there is uh overtime associated for the parks workers how
that's being allocated and we had a really good discussion in in committee um but no no action coming out of coming out of committee just a discussion item >> thank you I think this is answering some of the questions that got brought up uh at the last meeting three weeks ago
>> in indeed and then I should add to staff is working on a they will be putting together a formal report for the end of the snow season. >> Okay. Excellent. Any more discussion over here? Over there? >> Yeah, Mr. President. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I
did ask about the um >> work [clears throat] parks employees do uh that because of snow removal in downtown that they may not be able to get to as they would otherwise had they not been removing snow. And there has been some overtime for initial I think probably flooding. I would presume was
that and they maybe not had the time to do that but uh there has been a little overtime paid that would and my question would be then that that's just their regular overtime not charged to downtown correct >> on those items >> that's correct >> yes correct >> okay so there was that and then I
understand according to Mr. Jagger here. They're doing a great job. Would that be a fair assessment of what you said? >> That'd be uh incredibly fair. That would align with my thinking. Yes. >> Apparently, it's coming at a lower cost to our property owners and to our city for staff to do it. And is that a fair assessment of what you said, Mr. Abor?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's some other information that was >> So far so good. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you. >> Very good. >> All right. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. This is our last item. Item seven, direction on active code enforcement. And uh the motion coming out of committee is to uh direct staff
to obtain a search warrant to tow uh a trailer and a vehicle at 624th Avenue Northeast and ISO move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Ericson. >> Uh so this property has received uh the appropriate number of citations and letters uh to remove the trailer and
vehicle um and have not I believe the trailer had been removed, but the vehicle or was it the other way around? boat trailer has been removed, but there's still one other trailer and a vehicle that remains. >> Thank you. >> All right. And as you can see from the photos, it's support the motion.
>> All right. [clears throat] Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Moving on
to number nine. This is unfinished business. We have just a call for applicants for unfinished business tonight. So 9A, first up we have Mayor Bedau. But before we get to call for applicants, we have nominations to give you for positions.
Uh do you want them all in one or do you want them broken down by committees? How would you like that? >> Whatever's easier for you. >> Well, they're all it's the same amount of words. So, uh, let's just let's try it and see if you can handle it. So,
nominations for the library board, Brenda Dit, John Matson, and Mary Cop. For the park board, John Mickelson, and for the HR, Michael Duvall and Wayne Ericson. >> Move approval. >> Second.
>> Motion by Johnson, second by Chzach. Any discussion on those appointments? >> Have a question. >> Mr. Chzach, >> are these all renewed appointments or are there new ones in there? I >> believe there's a new one. >> There is for sure a new one. Um I believe >> park. >> Just the park board.
>> And the name >> uh John Mickelson. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, more discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Now, this is the call for applicants. I I hope I got these right.
So, this should be the right counts. But, uh the following committees have openings. uh terms expire on 1231 of the said year. Airport commission one term expiring 2028. Charter commission two terms expiring 2029 two terms expiring 2026. Economic development authority one
term expiring 2028 one term expiring 2031. Housing redevelopment authority we are good to go. Apologize. Library board two terms expiring 2031. Park board one term expiring 2029. Public utilities commission one term expiring 2028 and
one term expire expiring 2030. And then transportation advisory committee, one term expiring 2026 and two terms expiring 2027. So still a lot of stuff out there. >> All right. Thank you, Mayor Bedau. And as council president, I have one term open on planning commission expiring
2028, two terms open on the water tower committee, and I believe uh the airport commission is listed under the mayor. >> I know that I appointed somebody last time, so just just making sure. >> So there should be one more term open for the airport commission. Mr.
President, >> Mr. Chza, >> that is incorrect. The uh >> Is there one for each of us? >> I'm sorry. I apologize. It was council president. Yes. I was thinking >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> It's okay, Jeff. We'll let that one slide. >> I appreciate your your
>> No more mistakes tonight. Okay. >> I'm not I'm trying real hard. [laughter] Okay. Next up, we have 10. Number 10. This is new business. 10A is a preliminary plat and planned unit development amendment for Voyager Heights. James Cranic, take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Keepers
has submitted applications for a preliminary plat amendment and development stage PUD amendment for the proposed 176 unit apartment complex. Uh, the developer amended the plan to move the storm water infiltration pond outside of the Disma um, which was indicated in the findings of facts. Uh,
it has reduced the number of units to 176. Uh, staff did send an email ahead of the meeting with an attached area for the tree removal plan. Uh, that was submitted by keepers today. Uh the west side of the property is an outlawed as depicted on the preliminary plat which would need city council approval prior
to construction of any structures. Uh the property would need to be platted. Uh planning commission asked also for clarification on the lighting plan. Uh developer has made a few minor changes that will be submitted uh upon the final documents for the final PUD at the January planning commission meeting. And
with that, the planning commission recommends moving to approve the prelim preliminary plat and PUD development stage plan amendment as presented. And I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Kravik. Does anybody have questions for James Johnson?
>> Yeah, when I saw the we shall consider a trail. Sha shall is my favorite government word because it means you know they have to do it. But when you shall consider something, it means you don't have to do anything. Sort of think about it. But have you looked at the
plan of where a trail would fit into our existing system from this parcel or this property? Does it make sense to add it get a trail out there? It'll make sense when we have that many units of housing, but >> certainly we've looked at that from a staff perspective that you know certainly that number of units a trail would make sense to connect to our tire
trail system as well as the park up there. Um but we'd have to do some studies, some future studies to see what the best route may be. Um does it go down Crest View? Does it go down um Greenwood Street? So, there's some things we'd have to figure out and I'm sure we'd have to get some type of committee or planning committee together to to start discussing that.
>> Okay. Well, then we shall consider it. >> Well, we do have a planning and zoning committee. >> Just a thought, Ericson. >> I asked that same question, the clarification on shall consider and I um I think it's and I actually I think a
trail would be very nice down there, but it's something we shall consider. So, >> we shall. >> Anyone else? We shall vote on this. I hope >> we shall go to a vote. All right. If there's no more discussion, all those in favor say I.
>> Oh, let's get a motion first. Huh? We're looking for a motion to approve the preliminary plat and PUD development stage plan amendment as presented. >> So move. >> Second. >> Chaz. Second by Johnson. >> Now, do we have any discussion? >> Looks like we don't. Let's go to a vote.
All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Next up we have 10B. This is a request for proposal for a comp comprehensive plan update and I believe again this is Mr. Krabby. >> Thank you Mr. President. Uh the city has
budget budgeted $28,000 for the comp comprehensive plan update. Uh staff are looking for a consultant to provide a high level review of our uh current comprehensive plan certainly comparing to our zoning code that was implemented after. Uh in addition uh the one of the primary purposes of reviewing our plan
will be helping guide the city on missing components or what we may be missing um that makes our city ineligible for a higher comp plan standard for an increased threshold in which an EAW must be conducted. Um pre preliminarily or I guess primar primarily that's uh centered around the
amount of residential development that can occur prior to a mandatory EAW. Um so and also with that the consultant will set up an implementation plan with tracking describing public programs, fiscal devices and other actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan. Um right now I do
know our comprehensive plan is lacking that. Uh so with that the planning commission has reviewed the RFP language over two meetings and recommend moving to approve the attached RFP for consulting services to amend the comprehensive plan and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Kravik. Mr. Johnson had an
estimated cost to this. >> So, we do have a budgeted for 28. Um, there are things that I left out. Certainly, we're not going to be um redoing the entire um comprehensive plan like we did the previous time. That was in the 60 to $80,000 range, I believe.
Um staff is also looking to take on um reviewing the future land use map as well to help save costs. Um, you know, being that this is is just an overall review to it as well as recommendations on on what we can do to move ourselves
towards the um higher threshold, I believe that that will come in okay on this, but uh we'll have to get the the consulting services contracts back in in order to see that. >> Question. No, but he doesn't have the answer and that's okay. >> It's okay.
Uh Mr. Bau. Yeah, I like I love seeing the word mandatory um especially around environmental uh so who who's making the mandatory environmental >> so it's it's state statute >> state okay I just want to bring that up again once again the wonderful word
mandatory coming from the state >> it's a mandate >> always >> Mr. Chzach >> yeah Mr. Cranvic. Um when you say moving to a higher threshold um and what is the benefit once we achieve that higher
threshold? >> So certainly it speeds the process up for the city. Um we do have multiple departments that that review projects as they come in. Um and then having um kind of that review process laid out in our comprehensive plan, making sure we're checking all the boxes when a project
comes in um gives us that higher threshold. So certainly um speed with which a a development project could happen for a developer as well as costs for the developer um to to implement a project are are helpful to have that higher threshold. >> So conversely without that higher
threshold were costing the developers more >> time and money correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Transversely I guess. >> Yeah. Anyone else have questions? I >> made another mistake. If there are none,
we're looking for a motion to approve the attendance RFP for consulting services to amend the comprehensive plan. Motion by Bevon, second by Chzach. Any discussion on the motion, Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah, generally I would oppose it, but I'll wait and see what the costs are and then oppose it at that meeting. I mean,
I hate to sound like the old guy always, but we just we just did the comprehensive. >> Yeah, that's that's where I'm at, too. If if it's something that we really need, then we'll see. We'll see. >> We'll wait and see how they come back. I'm with you, Johnson. >> Anyone else? >> Seeing no more discussion, let's go to a
vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Moving on to 10 C. This is a conditional use permit amendment for St. Francis Rectory. Again, Mr. [snorts] Kramvik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh St. Francis Catholic Church has submitted a request
for a conditional use permit amendment to add one additional garage to a church rectory that is currently under construction. After the original approval, it is my understanding that a third priest asked to permanently reside at the rectory. Uh places of worship and related buildings are permitted in the PSP district. Uh residential uses in the
PSP district uh are allowed by conditional use. According to the findings, the proposed shall be sight sighted, orientated, and landscaped to produce a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and other properties. Uh this was kind of the main consideration of the planning commission. uh planning
commission considered this request at the at their December 17th meeting and noted that the proposed third garage stall covered the windows on the north side of the rectory that added character along the street. Uh so with that, the planning commission recommended moving to approve the CUP amendment with the
condition that a window is added to the second story on the northeast side of the rectory and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, James. Anybody have questions? Johnson? >> Yeah, about the window. What's what's going to be inside of that
window? Like, did you ask the developer if they if it's feasible to throw a window on the northeast side or is that a bedroom closet or or a bathroom that needs a little privacy? I mean, what's going to be inside the building? >> Mr. President.
>> Yes. So, uh, Commissioner Duval brought up that very question about, uh, where we're proposing to put that that window. and it is a bedroom and the developer was there answered that question and said that that would be no problem to put the window. >> Okay. >> Um where they specified and and I I
agreed with the or I liked how Commissioner Duval posed that question and brought up this issue with the added garage here. It does cover a a window. It just that was a a nice aesthetic obviously a functional element as well and by moving it we simply u fix that
situation. So >> thank you. I'm glad to hear it works out for the floor plan as well. >> That conversation was had >> Jagger. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh yeah, this is just a question for James. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the submittal here correctly. If you go
to page, at least in my packets on four, uh page 421. Uh this shows the site plan. So I understand that the hatched area is the proposed addition. But what does one of two things is also happening here that does not appear to be represented?
One is that the vehicle that will be accessing the third garage will either be driving across the grass or are we just not are we just not seeing the 40 foot wide parking I mean driveway. >> So yeah. So they must not have um added
that extra driveway space to it. They wouldn't be able to drive across the grass. >> Okay. So can we speak to whether or not the new driveway is going to be a full 40 foot wide driveway facing the neighbors across Ivy or is it going to be narrowed and wasted down uh billowed out? uh to that new addition. Do we know
that >> on the final plans that would be submitted for that that addition on there? Um we do have a restriction on how wide that can be. So that's in our city code. >> And is the width is the width restriction the egress as it meets the road or is it as it meets the building?
>> As it meets the right of way. >> That's my understanding also. >> Yep. >> That's all. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Anyone else? >> All right. If if there's no more questions, looking for a motion to approve the cup
amendment with the condition that a window is added to the second story of the northeast side of the record. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson. Second by Bevans. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I.
>> Again, same sign. >> I. >> Motion carries. Moving on to 10D. This is a data request for Crowing County point in time and presenters. This is council member Jeff Chzach. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, um we u
did ask uh for this data uh last year, well about six, [snorts] seven months ago and um I think um there's a couple of things I think we should know. first of all the dispersements made beyond what we asked
for last time for the rest of the year from that point on and also um there there seems to be a little confusion I think with this whole um point in time data um I would like to uh ask Crowing County being that apparently they said
that it's not their data but they apparently gave us a location to find it however I would like to know when they submitted it to whom whomever and it is that they submitted it to and we can ask for that data. So that's why I brought this up so we can get clarity on when
this information was submitted last year so we'll have an idea when it may be submitted this year and furthermore to get the dispersements paid. Um and I can I ask a couple of questions related to this perhaps from um um maybe uh maybe
community development director or police chief. Uh >> you have the floor, >> Davis. How about I maybe I could start with our police chief. Um being that a lot of issues surrounded this uh um homeless shelter and the point in time data and the kind of the catalyst behind
that was our outdoor camping ordinance and all the concerns about arresting homeless people. Chief, this is completely I have not discussed this with anybody. I have a feeling though what the answer is going to be. Do can you tell us if anybody homeless um has
been arrested and put in jail and fined for that issue of being homeless that you know of in the last say six eight months? Is that something off the cuff you can help us with? We have deputy chief running. >> Deputy chief. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. Yeah. Um to my knowledge, no,
there has not been any >> Okay. >> anybody arrested or cited. >> Okay. Appreciate that. And then um also the the issue of we did not have the shelter allowed them to be functioning through the summer months last year. However, if somebody could answer this,
does anybody know I believe there was a hotel or is a hotel or was in use through through the summer for grant money coming from the state allocated through the county to bridge on 7th to have uh beds available for homeless people at the hotel. Is that correct? Does anybody know the answer to that?
>> Mr. Cranic, thank you. I believe that was the case. >> So there were beds available so that that even though bridge on 7th the doors weren't open there but there were beds available for homeless people that they were staffing that the home bridge on seven staff was
working to help those people. >> I'm not sure about staffing. I do know that there was some rooms potentially available. I'd have to get more information on on that other question, I guess. >> But there were there were there were beds available and that's that's a part of the story that we never see. We never
see that. There was a beds available last summer for homeless people in this town, but we're led to believe that that didn't happen because of our restriction we put on them, the bridge on seven being open. So, I'm kind of doing this for a couple of reasons. One, to get
data from the county and also to clear the air as to what's really going on. Um, point in time data. There was an article in our newspaper that said something to the effect of uh it had gone up from 2020 to 2024 January 2024
187%. However, the 25 January 25 one year ago was not provided. I'll show you the email exchange I have with dispatch staff on that and apparently wasn't available just a few weeks ago when the story was written about what's coming up
here at the end of this month. So, if I could, I'd make a motion, Mr. president to ask the county make a request from the city of Briner to Crowing County Community Service or wherever it is department that uh we ask for the data that they provided on point in time data from January 2025
when show us the records of when that was provided to wherever it is they send it and then furthermore to get uh data associated with dispersements they made from the state grant money that they give uh out to either the hotel and or the uh bridge on 7th. That's my motion. Motion by T.
>> Second, Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Any discussion on the motion? >> Johnson. >> I would just like to have Joe work on this. This is just a formal data request. We're just asking a unit of government to give us public data. Last time it didn't work out so well. This
time, I hope we can just get the data released to us. So, thank you >> for you, Joe. >> Yep. >> Okay, >> Mr. Brell. Yeah, just to clarify, I I support this in that I think it is in our best interest to have as much information as we can possibly have on any issue, but especially this one when
when it's such an emotional issue, we should make sure we have as much data as we can. And obviously, this is going to be something that's going to be coming up again. So, let's make sure we get that information and get uh prepared when that conversation starts. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
>> Seeing no more discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. [clears throat] That motion carries. All right, that it does it for new business. Moving on to staff reports. We'll start with Tony Gage. >> Chief Holmes.
>> Deputy Chief Rundy. >> Jesse Dean, I see you back there. >> All right. It anything from you, Sean Strong? >> Yeah, I'll just mention you might have seen an article about the cable channel rebroadcasting county and school
district meetings. I asked them if they'd like to have that done for free and we're probably going to get it started tomorrow. Um, zero cost to the city and z almost no effort from the college staff. Couple clicks, three minutes maybe. Um, so that should be getting started tomorrow, I hope.
>> Very good. Thanks for getting that started, Sean. And thank you for your efforts, Max. Anything to add on that? >> All right, moving on to Connie Helman, finance Mike Cabagor, public works. The only thing to add from my report is next week uh Great River may be doing some
burns at Rotary Park on Wednesday and Thursday. >> Thank you. >> What are they burning? >> They're the sage brush. Uh that is that we entered an agreement with them and we're getting state aid to remove that. >> Buckthornne and >> right >> whatever else is in there. Okay, very
good. >> James Kravik, >> nothing to add. >> All right, Joe Lang, thank you. >> Chris Schubert, >> nothing to add. >> One more meeting. All right. [laughter] >> Anything from our public work or public utilities? Danny, >> just say happy new year.
>> All right. Happy New Year to you as well. >> And we have Mr. Sharper up in outer space from the H >> this evening, Mr. President. >> Nothing tonight. >> Nothing. >> Thanks, Eric. Administrator Royals.
Well, I got to break the streak very quickly, though. Charter Commission meeting on January 21st. Uh, I also reached out to the League of Minnesota Cities. We have $50,000 budgeted for cotification of our code. Reached out to the league. They got me in contact with their representatives from ALP, American
Legal Publishing. They're kind of the I would say they're the kind of the gold standard for codification. Joe could chime in on that if you wanted to, but that's I have a lot of experience with ALP and they put out a good product. So staff is just doing some a little bit of homework internally. We're going to set up a meeting with ALP hopefully next
week to ask some specific questions, but I just want to give the council um a heads up that we'll be getting something before the council hopefully the next month or two with a recommendation for codification. >> What's ALP, Nick? >> American Legal Publishing. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Administrator
Broyals. Next up, we have the Honorable Mayor Bedau. >> That sounds like the boringest newsletter/magazine of all time. [laughter] Uh no update other than just a quick update on uh Councilman Stunnick. Uh he called me again today and uh he's just had a couple more setbacks. He's got um
some health issues we're dealing with and uh we're kind of getting to the the part of the road where we we got to figure some things out. So uh he just wanted to share his thoughts with everybody and and his love and and again keep him in your prayers. Couple little
hiccups we're trying to get through and then he should hopefully be back with us. So, but I know, you know, as a council member, when you're not here, people want to know what's going on. And he just wanted to share with everybody that he's just he's trying to get himself right and uh he should be back with us soon. So,
>> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moving on to council member reports. Let's start with Mr. Beaven. >> Nothing to add. >> All right. Uh Chairman Johnson, >> I hope everybody had a very merry Christmas and uh hope their new year is
is going better than Maduros's. >> [laughter] >> But uh on the charter commission, I attended the last charter commission meeting. I highly recommend everybody on the council look at what staff is proposing for our brand new charter compared to what we have as an existing charter that we literally just rewrote a
couple years ago and just with a keen eye take a look at it. Know what is going to be proposed to us. Know what you are going to be voting on and changing because the charter is kind of a big deal. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah. I um wanted to extend uh best
wishes and prayers to Chief Stunic. Uh I uh hope uh we can all find a place in our hearts for hoping the chief gets back here real soon. And uh just want to again wish everybody a very happy new year. I'm looking forward to what's coming next. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Mr. Jagger.
>> Yeah, thank you. A very light uh airport ticker as our meeting is coming up on Thursday. So, at our next meeting, I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about, but as of for tonight, pretty quiet. Did want to mention just uh a shout out to Mr. Planser. You'll notice he's missing here. He's been a little under the weather here for uh better part of week,
maybe 10 days. So, we're kind of pulling pulling for Mr. Planer to uh get back on his feet and uh pulling for him there. Also, I just wanted to uh mention, I don't know, the weather has, as everyone has probably seen, has been a sincere nuisance when it comes to streets, street uh snow removal and all that, but
and uh if you did notice that a lot of our uh snow fell on weekends and evenings over the holiday, and I just want to uh mention my appreciation to the staff that was out uh not just working the streets, moving the snow once, but over and over and over again
through the holiday break. uh did a great job and um highly criticized work, but uh just wanted to mention my appreciation to uh the people. I see this parking lot has vehicles in it almost every weekend, week nights, Sundays, all the time. So, thank you to staff. That's all.
>> Jagger, [snorts] Chairman Ericson. >> Uh nothing to report. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. I want to echo the sent sentiments about uh Council Member Stunich. I talked to him today as well. He was in good spirits. He's just more frustrated that he can't be here. He he
wants to be here. I told him the chair is going to be sitting there for him. It's just he's more frustrated than anything that uh he's not better as fast as he wants to be, but he will make it back here. So, um on a separate note, uh
we lost somebody uh in the city over Christmas on Christmas Day. It was just happens to be one of my old teachers, one of my favorite teachers, uh Mr. Divine David Divine um read his obituary today and he
left the world in a way that was pretty unique and that he's still teaching from from the grave. He was brave enough to be a person that was frustrated when he would read obituaries and not know what the cause of death was. And he wanted to
make sure that everybody knew what his cause of death was. and he suffered from alcoholism that he wasn't willing to get help for. And everybody knew him as as a fun guy to be around. Anybody that knows him wanted to be around him, just a fun
person. But sometimes you just don't know what's going on behind closed doors or even in front of open doors. But the the message was maybe because he is able to put this and his family is able to
put this in his obituary, maybe somebody out there will have the the guts to actually reach out and do what he didn't do and get some help. So that's the message left by my favorite English teacher from high school, Mr. David Divine. So we'll leave it at that for
tonight. Um, good first meeting of the year. We'll see you guys in a couple weeks. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Moved. >> Second by Stunic. >> Motion by Johnson. Second by Bevon Stunic. >> All those in favor say I. I. Again. Same
sign. Motion carries. >> You're on top of it, aren't you?