--------- It >> is Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. in council chambers. >> Tony, please call the role. >> Beansmen, >> here. >> Chzach, >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Tunic, >> here. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Oay, >> here. >> Bedau, >> here.
>> Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> All right. Next, we're looking for approval of the agenda. I think we have some amendments to the agenda. >> I do have one, Mr. President. Let's see here. It is the attendee, I would like to move up below the presentations before the uh after
the presentations before the council committee reports. It's the uh IUP for bridges of hope. I think it would just be more efficient for the agenda if we get the presentation and then talk about the issue. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, I would move to approve that and I will let you know I have one thing on the uh consent to poll. So,
>> okay. Motion by Chzok. Do we have a second? Second. >> Second by Bevans. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Uh Tony, >> Bevans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes.
>> Oday, >> yes. We have an agenda. Next up, uh, we have the consent calendar. This is a notice to 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. Mr. Chz. >> Yeah, I would like to pull the task manager i.e suspense tracker. And I have one thing to ask about on that. Otherwise, I'd move to approve consent.
>> Second. >> Motion by Chzox, second by Bevans. Any discussion? >> Tony, please call the role. >> Beans. >> I. >> Chzach. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Sunnik. >> Yes. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Erikson. >> Yes. >> OD.
>> Yes. All right. Next up then we have the suspense tracker. Mr. Chzach. >> Yes. On the March 2nd, there was a motion made. It's in the minutes regarding a item Mr. Bevans was speaking to about a letter he received from the mayor of Baxter and that motion carried
on unanimous vote to ask the city of Baxter get get any kind of minutes or the said letter and that is not on there and I've not heard a word about it since. So I would make a motion that we ask staff to include that in the task manager. >> Second Johnson.
>> Motion by Chzok. Second by Johnson. Any discussion on the motion? That's why we're here to take care of these things if it falls through the cracks. That's why we have a task manager. So, >> thank you, Mr. Trezac. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony
>> Evans, >> yes. >> Chzac, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunic, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That motion carries. Next up, we have 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 have a lot of people in here tonight. Might be for this, might not be, but we'll try to keep uh any time limits to about 3 minutes. But if you're here to address the council on anything that's not on the agenda, please come forward now.
And if you're online, press star three. That'll raise your hand. Ask again. If you're here to address the council on anything that's not on the agenda, please come forward now. And looks like we can close the public forum at 7:35.
Next up, number seven, we have presentations. We have a couple presentations tonight. First presentation 7A is the Camp Ripley annual update. Commander Frink, you always bring a crowd every time you're here. The big following.
I'm going to leave uh with the admin the Minnesota National Guard annual report for the city council to proves at their leisure. So, Mr. Mayor, council members, Colonel Troy Finink, garrison commander, Camp Ripley,
Minnesota. A brief update for you. Not a whole lot of changes from the last time we've talked, but uh some. So, if we go to the next slide, please. So our mission statement has not changed at all. Uh we focus on all of the
community relations that we do which is some in some of the subsequent slides as you'll see in terms of our outreach. Next slide. Our leadership uh at the state level, Major General Shawn Mankey uh is still
the agitant general. Uh he did get a new command sergeant- major, new seell and command sergeant major Jason Rost. uh he did replace uh command master chief Lisa Ericson just this last year. Next slide.
Our division headquarters has changed as well. So, uh, Brigadier General Joe Shy, uh, pending promotion to twostar and then his command sergeant major Mark Dempsey and then Camp Ripley's leadership, myself and my new S sergeant
major as of March of this year, uh, Command Sergeant Major Chad Turner. I'm sorry. Next slide. There it is. Next slide, please. So, a little bit of the economic impact that Camp Ripley brings to the area. Uh you can kind of see the
different dollar amounts as it relates to some of those categories. Uh pretty significant amount as it relates to the overall area uh of Morrison County, Crowing County, Cass County. Next slide. Camp Ripley hasn't changed
its location. We're still smack dab right in the middle of the state of Minnesota. Um and again bordering those three counties some of the accomplishments I will just point out uh the bullet or the second bullet on the slide uh camp Ripley in
2025 uh was the second highest used training center across the nation. some of the construction updates. Uh we continue to renovate, modernize, uh facilities ranges uh all across the entire installation.
Uh and then of the of the next slide is really the the the piece where we're pretty uh excited about to get open and that's our museum which is just adjacent uh to Camp Ripley. Um, so that is on
progress and and looking really really nice. If anybody drives by 371, you can kind of see how it's all taking shape. Some of the schedule, this is kind of the meat and potatoes of really the update of when we're training and what we're doing. Um, so April through June
is going to be the loudest, the noisiest uh time uh with all the artillery units coming in. And then July through September will remain noisy uh but just different weapon systems really primarily focused on tank and Bradley gunnery.
Our prescribed burns uh this is an annual thing that we do every year. Uh we are looking to burn about 15,000 acres this year. Um we are well after that already. Uh we're about now 75 8,000 acres burned uh this spring. So
that is good progress for us. And then some of the community outreaches, you can kind of see some of the things that Camp Ripley and their employees do on a regular basis uh and yearly really. So um those are just some
of the some of the examples of what we what we participate in. Next slide. The environmental program. Again, we are very good stewards of our environment. Um these these this whole team uh that is in the environmental
section on camp Ripley win awards year-over-year as you can see in the top right hand corner of the slide. Uh very consistent in what they do environmentally. Next slide. And then the ACUB program. Again, we're just a little over 40,000 acres in the
ACUB program which is now really called the repy program. Uh AUB is just a subset of that program. It's a federal program that basically pays land owners to keep the land the way it is.
Our state partnerships haven't really changed. Uh the only real change here is Homeland Security Emergency Management Team has left Camp Ripley. They used to have a permanent office on Camp Ripley. Uh they are now um I think based out of
Minneapolis if I remember correctly. So, uh, but DNR, State Patrol still have a, uh, stronghold on our emergency management facility on the base. Support to civil authorities. This hasn't really changed. This process is
is pretty consistent. If there's a natural disaster or an event that drives uh support to the civil authorities, that request goes through the sheriff's office uh to the Homeland Security Emergency Management Team to the
governor to get the National Guard to support. And then if anybody knows any families or or members of of veteran families uh that are seeking resources, these are just some of the resources that we have
on the base to support veterans uh and their family members. Next slide. And then the safety brief. Uh we did have uh recently uh a call out for uh the EOD uh out of
Duth uh to a residence in Crowing County uh to acquire a certain piece that probably shouldn't have been uh in that household for in the first place. But at the end of the day, uh war trophies do
happen to uh show up occasionally. Uh but this is really just uh if you if you find it, if you see it uh and it's off of the installation, we ask that you call 911. We're normally contacted also,
but if it is on base, you call uh my DPS or my range operations folks uh on the installation to take care of it. And that is my update for you. Short and sweet. >> Perfect. >> Subject to dialogue or questions.
Perfect. Thank you, Colonel Fink. Does anybody have questions for the Colonel? Mr. >> President, >> Mr. Chazak. >> Yes, I do. Okay. Uh, Colonel, thank you for your service and please extend those thanks to everybody at the as well. >> Um, two questions. Uh,
when you um have a have an event that happened on Saturday, what what does that do for morale when they find that down airman? What does it do to morale? >> How does that how does that help morale at the camp?
>> Well, I'll tell you, we we stay focused on what our current mission sets are. Um, it does obviously affect everybody differently. Uh, but at the end of the day, I think the morale is fairly high at Camp Ripley, uh, in terms of what we're doing every day. Um,
>> Colonel, I didn't make it a didn't mean to make it a political question. It seems like you're addressing it that way. That's okay. But I thank you for your service. And with the 2,000 acres of burn that that happened with the fire, you don't count that as your planned burn, do you? The acres >> that was actually considered a wildfire.
>> Uh it was basically started without actually having um our professionals start it, but our professionals were on the ground during that fire. >> Do you know what caused it? >> Uh it it it could be a number of things
that happen in the impact zones. Um, it's hard it's hard to, you know, specify one specific thing. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Anybody else have questions for the colonel? >> Ericson?
>> No. >> Okay. >> Looks like you're good to go. Thank you. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you for your service. All right, for presentations, next up we have 7B. This is Bridges of Hope.
Welcome, Janna. Just introduce yourself if you would. >> Sure. Yep. Janna Shogun representing Bridges of Hope at 2011 South 6th Street. All right, we got slides up here. Thank you. So, good evening everyone. Uh nearly 5 years ago, this community came together to respond to a crucial need uh
ensuring that our unhoused neighbors had a safe place to sleep on cold winter nights. What began as a response to a specific need is growing into a strong collaborative approach that brings together nonprofits, the faith community, government partners, local law enforcement, and the broader Lakes area community. Along the way, we've all
learned so much together. We've adjusted. We've improved communication and strengthened our approach to work toward improving the lives of individuals facing incredibly difficult circumstances while also considering public safety and the overall community impact. This presentation tonight, I
just want to give it some focus. So, while we've been um doing this that we're in our fifth season, tonight's presentation per your request last year has to do with this particular season which began on September 1st of 2025. Um, as you know, later this evening, um, we'll be asking for your support to remain open beyond this, our fifth
season, and to operate year round. Uh, recognizing the need continues regardless of season. Tonight, we'll share outputs and outcomes from this season along with the strategies and partnerships that made them possible. At this time, I'm going to turn it over to Bill, our shelter manager, to walk through some data from this season.
Uh, good evening. I'm Bill Weir uh representing the bridge on 7th 1926 South 7th Street in Brainard, Minnesota. Uh since we've opened for our fifth season on September 1st of 2025, we've had 168 different individuals stay at
our shelter for a total of 4,435 nights of sleep as of March 31st. The age range of our guests range ranges from 18 all the way to 71. And those who rely on our shelter do so for a variety of reasons and lengths of stay. Some
utilize the shelter for just a night or a handful of nights during a brief little up life upset. Others utilize the shelter on a slightly longer stay to stabilize in a more difficult situation in their lives. Uh the range of stays of the season has been from one night all
the way to 137 nights. And 53% of our guests stayed with us for 30 days or less. 33% stayed with us for one month to three months and 14% stayed for more than three months while facing difficult barriers. >> All right, so next slide, please. Um, so
we're really fortunate to work with this incredibly collaborative community. I want to take a moment to highlight the intentional the work that we've been doing over the pathway the past year excuse me with our pathways project partners who are listed on the screen along with bridges of hope we have sharing bread soup kitchen lighthouse
beginnings and the crowing county housing team um so I'll touch on the work we've been doing and then after that I want to touch on our collaboration with Chief Davis and the Briner Police Department as well uh first I want to recognize and thank these pathways partners um these they've really been at the table with us since
the very beginning and as you guys have even before the shelter even opened. Um, but over the past year specifically as we listened to some of the concerns we've heard about year- round operations, we strengthened and formalized this collaboration and focused on the goals that you'll see on the screen. So, I'll touch on the ongoing coordination with partner
organizations. So, like I said, we've been to, you know, really in this together for almost five years, but we've been really intentional over the last year. Um, the leadership from each of our organizations had been meeting at least monthly, sometimes more often. Uh we've been working to improve our coordination
and align our approaches. Uh we've developed a shared framework for services, a memorandum of understanding, and a unified code of conduct across all of our locations. Uh this, you know, we feel ensures consistency, accountability, and clear expectations for the individuals we serve.
We've also been working on daily transportation and guest support. Lighthouse Beginnings operates our daily shuttle that connects the bridge on 7th, their day center, and then the sharing bread soup kitchen. Uh we've adjusted our guest agreement so that individuals staying at the bridge are expected to
utilize these services and remain engaged during the day unless they're working or have other appropriate arrangements. Within three to five days of arrival, guests are expected to connect with a pathway pathways partner, excuse me, to develop a personalized plan to address housing, employment, mental health,
chemical dependency, and other issues that might be standing in the way of their pathway forward, hence the name of the group. Um, we've also coordinated staffing across our locations, including a shared staff who has a presence at the bridge on 7th and the sharing bread soup kitchen. And we just feel like this
further supports the continuity, reinforces expectations, and strengthens the relationships that we're building with guests who utilize all of our facilities. We are also working on progress monitoring. So to support this work, we've reallocated half of Bill's time, our shelter manager's time to
focus on daytime coordination, communication, and accountability with our partners and our guests. Um we've made significant improvements in tracking outcomes. Um and this is an evolving process, but we're seeing some encouraging results as you'll see on the screen. So, like I said, this partnership, the formality of it is
newer, and the way we've been recording our data is newer. So, since January 1st, um, we've worked with 109 different guests. Six of them have in that time secure deployment. 10 of them have gotten into housing and 11 into treatment. Now, those are just three
areas that we would measure. There are a lot of other ways to measure success, but those are some pretty significant outcomes in a short amount of time for people who have some pretty significant barriers. So, next slide, please. So you'll see the left hand of this slide really just summarizes some of the
um programs and partnerships that we've gone over. The right hand side talks more specifically about our partnership recently that we've worked on aligning our approach with public safety because we know that's very important. U I want to thank Chief Davis for his partnership
in this process. Um we have created a public safety plan. The plan we landed on lays out how the shelter operates and sets clear expectations around staffing, supervision, and training. Uh, it also outlines how we manage behavior and respond to situations. In addition, we are strengthening coordination with law
enforcement through ongoing communication, data review, and check-ins so we can monitor and make adjustments as needed. So, all of this reflects a more coordinated and accountable approach to operating the shelter safely. And it builds on everything we've learned over the past four and a half years. And next, I want
to introduce you to Samantha, who's new to our organization. She's our program director. You know, when we talk about impact, um I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the role that all of the community plays in this. Um the level of time and talent and treasure that people are giving to this project is really
humbling. And while data and partnership partnerships are important, I want to have Samantha come on up and share a story um that really links the work to the real life folks that we're serving. So, All right. As Diana introduced me
already, I'm Samantha Baron. I'm our new program director. I'm going to be closing out our presentation with tonight by taking a moment just to share a story that really kind of I think gets to the heart of our work here at the bridge on 7th. So before coming to the bridge on 7th, Alyssa and her fianceé
Nick were hoping to manage a small motel in Emily when things just fell apart. With no pay, no pay, nowhere to call home, they came to Brinard looking for a fresh start. And upon arriving to Briner, they found a warm bread, warm bed, sorry, kind faces, and help when
they needed it most at the bridge on 7th. Through the bridge on 7th, they were connected to resources, clothing, and transportation that made survival possible during a really cold winter. The caring community they found inspired them to keep going and ultimately
rebuild their lives. And now today they are building a new chapter. Nick now works for us at the bridgen 7th giving back to the same place that once supported him and his fiance. Alyssa is a full-time student at Central Lakes College on the deans list and they have
found stable housing through my neighbor to love coalition and they've recently welcomed a new baby boy into their family. This is just one of the many stories that's come out of the great work we've done here at bridg the bridgen 7th and we're just want to kind of end here with saying you know we're
really grateful for your chance to share our work tonight and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Does anybody on council have questions on the presentation? We are going to move into
the item having to do with the IUP, but unless there's questions, Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Chza. >> I I guess as long as the uh the people are here, I I'd just assume ask my questions now because they are directly
related to the IUP, but um um if that's okay. That's fine. It may not be directly related to the presentation, but um I don't Is is Jana is she? >> She's on her way up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um
you you there? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> So um I appreciate all the responses and everything you gave me. That was helpful uh in the emails and um >> um you know when this thing was going on last year, there was a lot of push back.
We heard a lot of negativity. We we we we were uh I mean nothing short of attacked and uh it's uh difficult um because um I mean if if if I walk out the door of city hall right now and go north, where's the
closest year round shelter or even shelter for every month but the summer >> outside of Brainard? Is that what you're asking? Uh Cast Lake. >> Cast Lake. Okay. >> Is that a year- round shelter there? Uh, I believe so, but I'm not I'm not an expert on their operations. But Cast
Lake in Baiji. Bamiji is year round, too. >> Okay. And then west, you know, where there's one. >> Oh, Alexandria is >> east. >> Oh, I I honestly don't. I mean, >> okay, that's fair enough. I >> northeast Duth or you know, East Duth. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And then St. Cloud would be south pretty much. >> Uh, yeah. South to St. Cloud. What I'm getting at is that that one of the concerns is and I you've heard this before that we now become a centralized area for attracting homeless people. Would you you do you agree with that?
>> I don't know that I agree that that is the primary folks that who we're serving. I might some people come here because there is a shelter that could absolutely happen. >> Okay. And then in the past though you've said our neighbors are surrounding counties.
Well, at at Bridges of Hope, we identify our service area as Crowing County and surrounding communities >> communities, which includes a six, seven. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, um so, you know, we've been called. I've seen the opinion letters.
I've seen uh emails were inhumane, immoral. Did last year when we denied you the use over the summer, did you agree with that sentiment at that time >> that you were inhumane? Yeah. >> Oh, no. That did not ever come from me specifically. I guess I can't take
responsibility for how community members may have approached you all. >> I'm just asking. I'm asking if you agreed with that. >> Absolutely not. No. >> Um >> and then CWC or Crowing County uh uh community services, they had beds available at the hotel near the shelter.
Is that correct? Last summer, >> uh beds were made available for the most vulnerable folks as they identified. But I guess I wouldn't be able to speak to that specifically because it wasn't our decision-making criteria. Um, we did there were some folks who we were most concerned about, you know, from physical
limitations or u medical appointments that needed accessing and that sort of thing. So, Crowing County made the decision to uh allocate some rooms and because our staff had the expertise of I guess supervising an overnight setting,
we had um staff supervising that, but we weren't making the decisions about who was placed. >> Right. >> So, yep. And then the grant money that it comes through the state that was what used to pay your staff though at the >> correct similarly to how we would use that typically during uh our regular
season as it is now because again I'm not an expert on those but they're housing stability funds. So it's not necessarily they don't have to be shelter dollars per se. They're funds to work toward housing stability for a certain vulnerable population. >> Okay. So, but that money from the state
that was I think brought up in uh 2024. Um it was a grant that the county they still is the state still allocating those dollars to Crowing County that then gets shared with uh the shelter. >> Yes. >> Okay. And how much is that? It's every six months, right? Like 180,000 roughly. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So that's a twice a year allocation. Have you been utilizing all of that? >> We have been utilizing. So we utilize on a monthly basis per the beds that we provide. There's a re it's a reimbursement. Yep. >> So, has it all been utilized for most?
>> Uh, it didn't. So, when we are open, you know, we are utilizing our monthly portion for the months we're open. For the summer, we it was split between the hotels and the staffing. >> Okay. >> All right. Um I I just um did when we
passed the outdoor camping ordinance, did you see uh more people coming to the shelter after that ordinance was passed so people can camp outdoors on public property? >> Uh did we see more people coming to us? >> Did you track that at all? >> I guess I it's tough to to How would we
know that that was the correlation? I guess um we we have gotten busier each season. I can say that, but I guess I can't I wouldn't want to try to say what the exact reason was. >> Okay, that's all I have, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Trezach. Does anybody
else have questions? >> Doesn't look like it. >> Thank you, Janet. >> And thank you for all the information. This is miles beyond where we were a year ago. So, we'll leave it at that. But we will move on to the next item.
We've moved 10D to the next item and I believe this is uh community development director James Cran. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so Janice Shogrin has submitted a request on behalf of Bridges of Hope for an interim use permit amendment to operate a
warming shelter for the homeless in the Brainer Lakes area at 1926 South 7th Street. Uh the current interim use permit for the shelter expires on June 30th of 2026. The facility operates between the months of September 1st and April 30th of each year. The applicant is proposing to operate the shelter year
round. A new public safety plan and pathways compliance procedure has been included in the packet for council review. Uh the applicant did work uh with staff to create the pathways compliance procedure after receiving a recommendation u from the planning commission to essentially formalize that. Uh the planning commission
unanimously recommended approval uh with the following conditions. First one, the interimm use permit shall expire on April 30th of 2027. If the Brainer Police Department determines that the facility has been used in a disorderly manner and upon recommendation of the police chief, the interimm use permit shall be brought before city council for
review and consideration for suspending or revoking the permit at the next available city council meeting. And third, uh shelter staff shall provide a report to city council each year prior to September 1st. With that, uh I can answer any questions or or Chief Davis can.
>> Thank you, Mr. Cranick. Does anybody have questions for staff? Mr. Johnson? >> Uh, yeah. Chief, uh, thanks for all the work you put on in on this over the past year. I I know it's been a lot. I know they're a real challenge to work with and get to move
forward even an inch on anything, but how do you feel about this public safety plan as written? And do you think as much as we can get from this group? Do you think it's sufficient for the public safety moving forward? >> Yeah. So, you know, a year ago, I was pretty clear on some of my reservations
and some of my my concerns as far as uh a year- round shelter. And, you know, since that time, we've we've worked really closely. Um I I feel really good about the work we've done to address um some of those concerns that I have. Um
has it alleviated all of my concerns? Not necessarily, but time will tell. But I do feel good about how we have addressed it um and collaborated with them to to the point where um I think it would be reasonable and I would support
a year round one-year IUP. >> Thank you, Chief. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chief. Um Mr. Jagger, >> uh just real quickly, I have a couple questions for Mr. Cranic. Uh ordinance 1521 allows for warming shelters. Is that correct, Mr. Cranic?
>> Uh that's correct. And uh the Bridges of Hope uh in your opinion meets the definition of warming shelters as described in 1521. >> They do meet the criteria. >> Thank you. And Bridges of Hope meets the requirements of ordinance 1521. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. That's all.
>> Mr. Jagger, Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah. When the um I guess this might be for James. Um it's their um policy, I guess policy says when 3 to five days. Um, do you know why they have that
variation of 3 to 5 days? And maybe I could ask the chief to see if he's comfortable with that variation instead of a set number of days. >> So, that may be more of a question um for Jana as creating that document. Um, certainly uh Chief Davis and I were part
of these meetings um that kind of helped create some of these procedures um for that 3 to 5 days, but Jana I know could probably provide an explanation for for that amount of days. And I think I can chime in on this as well. We we met several times, just a
small group and there are individuals that'll show up at the shelter. The the the goal here is to have people working towards a solution. Sometimes people find themselves in a in a situation where they only need 3 to 5 days. They
don't need treatment. They don't need to go seek help for finding a new house. Maybe they already have a plan. Maybe they already have a a plan for a new job that they're about to start. That kind of situation. Uh but pretty quickly when you're when you're in the shelter for more than 3 to 5 days, it seems to me
like that would be reasonable to start getting things on track. Jan. >> Yeah. And I guess it gives us a range. I would agree with what um what you're saying, Mike. And I also think, you know, we might have a day where intake is particularly large. You know, we say we have uh 10 new guests in one day. um
it may not be feasible for our partners who we rely upon to work on these pathways plans. They may not just have the physical capacity to get through 10 new plans in a day, let's say. So, we arrange helps give us some wiggle room to serve people well and not just be
hurrying them through and checking a box. >> And Mr. President, um >> I am if you could James repeat the item related to the police department finding that they have what's the wording? could read that part of the findings
the I forget what the term is there. >> See, it'll take me a second to search here. >> He had just read them earlier. >> The contingencies. >> Yeah, the contingency. >> Yep. So number two would be if the Brainer Police Department determines that the facility has been used in a
disorderly manner and upon recommendation of the police chief, the interimm use permit shall be brought before city council for review and consideration for suspending or revoking the permit at the next available city council meeting. Um that has been in all of their interim use permits that they've uh previously received.
>> Okay. The term disorderly manner, I'm asking about that specifically. Um what would fall under that criteria of being used in a disorderly manner? Would that be the perhaps the the guest uh agreement not being abided by?
>> Um perhaps u Chief Davis can maybe expand on this a little bit as well. Certainly um you know if there's any type of criminal activity or anything like that. Um may be able to to review it, but I don't know if Chief Davis has any comments on on that aspect.
>> Hey, Chief. Yeah, I don't know if we're going to be able to identify strict definitions of what this is, but you know, as the police chief, um you know, continually working with them over the course of the year and observing um you know, calls,
responses there, cooperation, you know, a whole host of whole host of things. And you know if it ever got to the point of any one thing or a multitude of things started to increase our concerns became alarming uh we would you know
bring that to the council for a discussion and share with it what it is and uh inform you to address it how you so fit. >> Okay. One more if I may Mr. President Chief. Um, so Chief, I mentioned uh earlier the uh outdoor camping ordinance
that we passed and the numerous concerns that were raised and many of them hyperbolic statements and uh and I I guess I would ask you um do you remember any of that stuff being said, things that were going to turn uh people
looking for a place to uh place to sleep on public property and turn them into criminals and convicts? You remember any of that? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. So, and do you um can you say uh tell tell us right now was there anybody
that was sleeping outdoor in public property that you're aware of, arrested and convicted for doing that which violated our ordinance that you're aware of? No, we we have experienced and dealt with quite a few violations of the
ordinance, but you know, I'm proud to say and fortunately, we were able to uh work with some of our community partners, make it about resources and addressing the underlying issue. In every and in every instance, we you know, we received voluntary compliance
at some point um regarding our ordinance to where we never issued a citation, imposed a fine, no criminal charges, no arrests. We were able to mitigate all those. >> Okay. And then and and and then also related to that, were you ever able to
find people that needed a place to stay and did were you able to direct them to the shelter bridge on seven? >> Oh, sure. Yeah. and whether it was the shelter or, you know, Crowing County, um, the housing response team, you know, and there's there's multiple, you know,
entities out there working towards the same thing. And, you know, fortunately for us, we were able to really work closely with them and, uh, I guess maybe do a handoff, if you will, at times, and, you know, let them do what they specialize in, and that's housing. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. That's
all I have, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Trezac. Anybody else have questions for staff? Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. Quick question for attorney Langel. It there's a letter in here from what appears to be a law firm. Have you read through that letter at all?
>> I have not seen that letter. >> There's seven pages in here. So, I just want to make sure that everybody has read through that. Um, interesting turn of events that receiving a letter from a lawyer basically requesting that we allow this uh which always has a
connotation. Um, but my comment would be on this. This is an IUP, correct? >> Yes. >> With an IUP, how quickly can an IUP been changed? If the city decides that they no longer want to have this as something that is an ordinance, how quickly can an
IUP be changed? >> Well, if the council finds that there's been a violation of the IUP, that goes right. >> Let's say the whole IEP, though, if the city council said, "We no longer want this at all." How quickly can an IUP be
changed? >> I mean, they don't have the same duration as like a conditional use permit which runs with the land. You have more flexibility with an IEP certainly. I mean, that's why it's an I. It's an interim. >> Um, so you've got options there. You've got you've got the ability to modify it
to >> or or remove it >> or remove it provided any procedural >> uh aspects have been followed. Yes. >> Typically 30 days. Okay. So after 30 days, if the city decided they no longer wanted to have this at all, the city could go through the process of having
the IUP removed. Just in general, IUP from the ordinance. >> I I would want to verify that time period, but generally speaking, that's what you're looking at. Yes. >> Okay. Sounds good to me. >> Is that all, Mr. Mayor? >> That's all for me. >> Thank you, Mayor Bedau. Anybody else
have questions? Anything from Mr. Ericson in outer space. >> Mr. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't I do not have a question of staff, but I do have some comments. Would you entertain those now or prefer I wait? >> Motion.
>> Yeah, let's wait for a motion here. Looks like we're getting pretty close. >> Ready when you are. >> Ready when you are too, Mike. >> Take your pick. >> You guys want to arm wrestle over who gets to make the motion? >> Don't do the other one can second it. >> You're the president, sir. >> You decide. >> I think Mr. Bevans did raise his hand
first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve the interim use permit amendment contingent upon the three conditions listed. >> Motion by Bevans, second by Stunic.
Now discussion on that motion. >> Mr. Johnson, >> you want to speak to it first, Kelly? >> Oh, go ahead. >> Okay. I I was going to make a very similar motion. I was going to have in point two, if the Briner Police Department determines that the facility has been used in a disorderly manner or is not following the public safety plan
as presented upon the recommended police chief, the United use permit shall be brought before the city council. So, I just wanted that one little section added to sub point two where they follow the public safety plan that they presented to us that they say they're going to follow. I just want to hold
them to it. >> I think that's a good idea, Mr. Chair. Friendly amendment. Yes, sir. and then I will support the motion. And I want to say the police chief, John Davis, has done a fantastic job working on this for a year. I want to say uh what Jesse Jones from Lighthouse Beginnings, an
absolute great individual. He's he's pushed for he really wants this. Whether whether I trust Bridges of Hope, which I've given them an opportunity to rebuild some trust, and I feel they've failed. Whether I trust them or not is really irrelevant. Jesse Jones absolutely trusts that with them being
open, Lighthouse Beginnings can help more people and get more people back on the right path in life. And and I think I think as long as we can keep the police chief happy, we can have some public safety components so we don't have people evading their parole officers
hiding out at the shelter. Again, I I think it I think it's worth giving it a one-year shot. >> Thank you. >> Uh first of all, seconders okay with a >> friendly amendment. Okay. Anything to add student? >> I was just going to make sure you got that. >> Any other comments or discussion on the
motion? >> Yeah, Mr. President, >> Mr. Ericson. >> Yeah, I just wanted to comment too. Um, you know, I'm on the the leazison of the planning commission. I made some comments there. I'm going to keep this brief, but I wanted to reiterate a few of the points that I made there. Um, and
I appreciate that Jana referenced a little bit of the history. Um, you know, when this first came before us 5 years ago, it was as a seasonal warming shelter and it was presented as such. Um, and you know, at the time after
their um, initial, I believe it was a conditional use permit when they came back to reapply is when um, it came back as a year round shelter. And it's really at that point when a lot of concerns were raised by the city and frankly from
community members, from neighbors, um, and like Chief Davis said, you know, are my concerns, uh, completely alleviated, mine are not. Um the concerns that I had then and the concerns that I still have are some that have been brought up tonight about you
know one does going see does going year round uh create a permanent culture of dependence and two will this become an attraction for other communities um and for for um at risk individuals to you
know to to come to you to to Brainer to use these services. So those um concerns remain for me. Um looking back, you know, again last year, I think the response um was quite uh indignant
um that the city might even have concerns. And I think we had very legitimate concerns. You know, again, we're hearing from residents, we're hearing from the neighbors. That was then. Fast forward to now. Um I
started my remarks in planning commission by thanking uh Bridges uh thanking Jana and as has been mentioned particularly thanking Chief Davis for the cooperation um and the I think the very productive
conversations that have happened uh since that time. Not least of which for me in particular was acknowledging the legitimate concerns of the city and from the residents and the neighbors in the in the area. You know, I'm I'm a ward
member, so I represent Ward One that this is in my neighborhood and um I think it's important for us as a starting point to be on the same page acknowledging the concerns and I don't think we could have moved forward if that hadn't happened. And so I think um
I just wanted to for the public's sake I wanted to tick through what I see as significant changes from then to now. One the development of the guest agreement. Two the development of bridges safety plan. Three, amending the safety plan based on
the recommendation of the planning commission and working with the police chief Davis and staff particularly to include language from the guest agreement also in including that in the safety plan. So whereby both
the guest and the organization uh bridge on 7th are responsible and held to account for seeing that um that pathways new beginning um partnership is uh is held to
uh number four uh there's been increased uh communic communication and cooperation uh with bridges the bridge on seventh and law enforcement and I think that's a crucial element. Um, a lot has been said
about building trust. I think that's one of the key elements that has built trust. I know for me personally. And then lastly, uh, number five, the development of, uh, the pathway program, um, and the partnership with Lighthouse New Beginnings. So, um, with those those
changes and those safeguards, again, I just want to reiterate the many conversations that I've had with residents in that area. Uh what I've heard most is that, you know, I I think we should be helping people and I share that sentiment, but with conditions. And
that's what I hear most is we want to help people. I think they, you know, we want to be that uh community to have resources for for people in our community, but with conditions and with safeguards. And I think these five things go a long ways. Um and I think this will be uh hopefully a success
going forward, and I I look forward to reviewing it in a in a year. So, uh, Mr. President, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. So, I want to follow up my comments before and and echo Gab's
comments as well. One about Lighthouse Begins. Uh, fantastic. Couldn't speak any higher of the conversations we've had. Chief Davis, you were involved in those conversations and being honest, right? it all the time. We get people come in and they want to talk with uh
loud voices and everybody wants everything to be the end of the world. But when you really start to look at the issue and you really start to be honest about what are the actual things that could happen, what are the issues that could arise and fight through those conversations and have those and live in
that tough space. Uh we had great conversations with them and were able to do that. Uh I want to echo the comments about yourself, Chief Davis. Uh I'm sad that we're losing you because this has been an issue that I have greatly enjoyed your guidance on. Uh would you
say would prior to our camping ban, would you say it was safe to say that the situation had become unstable prior to it? >> Yes, I I would say a lot of aspects of it were alarming. Hence opening the
conversations about said ordinance and moving forward >> and having that tough conversation. Would you say that since doing that the situation has improved? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. I want to say this loud and clear that that's a tough conversation to have. That's a tough
conversation for our police chief to put his name on and have that tough conversation with the public about and I greatly appreciate the effort that you've done with that. Um I do also want to just reiterate that this is something that is an issue that we are going to be
offering services bridges of hope that has a great responsibility attached to it and I will say that I didn't feel that you came in the first time accepting that great responsibility to the community. I think you were taking it on and you were doing a great work,
but that responsibility and that tough conversation to have about the things that could potentially go wrong. I don't think we were there. I do think we're there now. I do think we have started to have that dialogue and and the police chief has been a big huge part of that from a city side point and from anybody
out there that is that is concerned about this. My reason for bringing up the IUP is that we do have safeguards as a city. If this gets to a point where this is out of control and we cannot dial it in, this can be changed and this
is not something that's just granted to people that they can have. This is an ordinance that can very easily be changed. It's not a rugpole. It's not a situation where we're taking this away, but if that happens as a city and as citizens that are concerned, we do have guard rails that allow us to do that and
we can do it pretty quickly. So if that does become the case, that's not a again that's not an attack, but that's just a reality of a situation. If that happens, we do have a strength as a city to protect ourselves if those situations arise. But I will say this, in the two years we've been dealing with this, it
got stressful that first summer. We had to make some tough decisions. I had multiple business owners that were coming to me and saying, "Look, I can't speak on this because I can't put my name out there. It will wreck my business." However, we have a problem. We then addressed that problem. It
created new problems. Right? We have to have a place for people to be that can be safe. We have to come up with solutions. I think we've now worked through that. I think we've come up with good solutions. But at the same time, we have to treat this with the type of respect that it deserves and we have to take on the responsibility of these
services and not just say we're doing a good thing so we can pat ourselves on the back. We have to be doing this with the right mindset and with the right strength in order to make sure that it's correct. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else?
I don't want to have to repeat everything that anybody else said or any of it. I think a lot of the things that I wanted to say have already been said, but I just want to thank everybody that did come together from Lighthouse, from our police department, from our our city hall staff, and and from Bridges of
Hope. I think where we are right now, like I said earlier, we're miles beyond where we were a year ago. uh we had basically a very we we didn't have a whole lot of structure during the day for people that was set up and I think that's what we're working towards. Um a
little bit of a barrier is a good thing sometimes. We're trying to take care of our community and the most most v vulnerable but not every other community besides our own. Sometimes you have to be somewhat selfish in the way you do it. So, I think where we're at right
now, I'm very comfortable with it. And if there's no more discussion, >> then we'll go to a vote. >> Tony, >> Evans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, yes. >> Jagger, yep. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Oday, >> yes.
>> That motion carries. >> Duck quacks. >> And the duck quacks. Uh if you're just here for this item, we'll give you a minute or two to to gather your things. If you want to stay, that's fine, too.
>> Excuse me. >> You're eating a real duck. >> Yeah. >> Who's got bread for the duck? >> A lot of people don't know you turn your phone off. All right, moving on.
>> Fair code violation ended. Now, >> next up, number eight, we have council committee reports. First up, we have safety and public works committee chairman Tad Ericson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. We've got seven items on our agenda. The first of which is construction contract and bid,
North Construction for fire station renovation and presenting this um motion. Oops, I lost my spot here. Just one moment. The motion coming out of committee is to approve the construction contract with Noran Construction and
approve total project cost of $5,994 282.76. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> Yeah. So earlier in February 2026, city
council um approved the design and construction services contract with Witsth and designated Nor Construction as the general contractor. Uh following this approval, uh later in February, Witsth finalized the construction documents enabling Nor
Construction to solicit and secure competitive bids for the station renovation. uh in mid-Marchch, North came up with this um a finalized construction bid. Um and you know, we had uh originally had
an initial rough estimate of 5,500 and um Mr. President, if you would allow I know I believe Chief Holmes is there and they made a presentation. We had to cut them off a little bit uh because we were short on time, but if they're
available for perhaps questions or I would ask that they would be given time to present u their presentation a little bit. >> Well, uh Paul and Chief Holmes, could you give us the short version?
>> Absolutely. Absolutely. Um, just to follow up, uh, the current project cost of 5,994,282.76 just reflects the necessary adjustments to the initial estimate. Um, those decisions are driven on the long-term
usefulness of the station uh and also mitigates any further maintenance uh, expenses. Um just to highlight um you know the the new station will be built for the next 30 to 40 years. Uh we've integrated some important updates such
as uh network infrastructure, rewiring of the uh aging fire alarm system. We've incorporated critical deferred maintenance such as roof replacement, exterior windows, sophets and outdated generator into this project. Uh we
believe addressing these needs now significantly uh more cost effective than managing them as a standalone project uh in the next couple years. Um the project has obviously been impacted by some influ in
inflationary pressures uh including an 8% increase in steel in the first quarter of 2026 a 20 to 30% increase of copper over the last uh six months roughly. Um and just I
want to let you know that I remain committed to um being diligent. Um, I'm actively pursu pursuing further opportunities to offset these costs. Um, I've prepared an application with the state of Minnesota Fire Marshall's
extractor and dryer grant which offers up to $18,000 in funding. Uh, additionally, more ducks flying through. Um, additionally, we're monitoring uh upcoming grants through Sourcewell that
open later in the year. And then also through the utilization of Sourcewell procurement, uh, the city will receive a 1% rebate on the construction costs, which reflects about $52,000. >> Okay. Thank you, Chief. Mr. Sandy,
anything to add to that? >> I can add a little bit to the inflationary pressures. Um, we've been working pretty closely with Keepers Construction right now through the shop drawing process. And right now, um, uh, construction pricing is very, very volatile, especially, uh, for products
that are made, um, with any kind of, uh, um, petroleum products. And so, um, they're requesting that when we get shop drawings sent over that that review turns around in one to two days because that's the all the longer that most contractors can hold their pricing at this moment in time before they see
pretty significant increases. So when we talk about inflationary pressures, it's a very um interesting environment right now across the construction industry. So um those pressures I think are are seen in this uh bid cost. Um and I think you know um there's no real end in sight at
this point as far as that pressure is concerned. So um you know I think um in working with uh Mr. homes through the planning process and Whitth and I think they've done a pretty um standup job trying to uh reduce project costs as
much. >> Could you guys shut the phone off please? It's very distracting. I'm trying to get information here. >> You could just turn it off or turn it on silent. >> I tried to turn the volume off and I thought I had it all wrong way. >> Okay. >> Just please get it shut off somehow. Go
ahead, Paul. I'm just yeah the the inflationary pressures are kind of seen across the industry right now and so it is um I think Widsth and Noran and and Tim they've all done a a really good job of trying to cut project costs as much as possible uh through the process. So um I guess that's really all I have to
say at this time. Is that all? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Did everybody get that? >> I got my limited ducks. >> Okay. All right, >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Chzach,
>> this uh came up during the um committee. Um Chairman Ericson had to um truncate their presentation and unfortunately we were just kind of running short on time and if we look at what goes on sometimes, it doesn't happen often, but
it does happen enough. Um, we got a committee uh that met quarter gave ourselves 45 minutes and I think our first item got moved and we had a little more discussion and probably anticipated but when we got to the presentation I don't know how much they
had left but it didn't seem like they're very far into it and we're running short on time and what I'm getting at is we have our committee level meetings and sometimes these items need to be brought to the full council. It's there's no point in repetition, regurgitation,
redundancy and uh I think we need set our agendas to reflect that. So when we have this type of uh these types of items, it's always better to have it all in front of the entire council, not just a committee. U think of Gordian how that
turned out. Showed in public works for about 30 minutes and then PNF wanted to see it again. So anyway, just a point I can make. Maybe we can look at that in the future. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Mr. Chaz. >> Anybody else have questions?
>> No. Did we not have a motion? >> No. >> Oh, >> we I don't think Did you guys bring a motion? >> I made Mr. President. >> Yeah. Clarify the motion. make the mo. >> Yeah, I did make the motion coming out of committee um to approve uh the construction contract with North
Construction and approve the total project cost of 5,994 282.76. That that motion was made and I didn't I couldn't hear if we had a second or not. >> Yeah, Jeff Jeff seconded. >> Do you want to speak on that?
>> Questions. I would like to speak to the motion though. Yeah, I I I oppose it uh based on two factors. one, $5,500,000 was not the estimate. That was the budgeted amount for the addition to the fire department. That's what we
budgeted. So going up to $5.99, adding a half a million dollars to the budget that we didn't tax yet, we haven't planned for, and it's just oops, a half a million dollars isn't a small thing to me. one, and two, I don't know if it's
even legal to after we award a contract to a contractor to add a bunch of components to the contract that the other bidder didn't get to bid on. I question the legal legality of that. I honestly don't know, but mainly I it's a
$5.5 million budget, not a $5.5 million starting point. So, I I will be opposed to it. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Anybody else? Mr. >> Yeah, just real quickly, thank you, Mr. D. I raised some questions when this was brought before us as well. And these are more probably global questions than what
we can take on tonight, but really my a couple key questions that I brought were part of this money, which is not at least that I couldn't find was is was defined as deferred maintenance. So my mind went to okay, when were we going to do it and where is that in the budget in
the budget? So, if we were going to fix the roof, where where is it and where are we sliding it from and to? And why is it here now? Maybe there's a perfectly good explanation for that. But I don't like the let's just roll a bunch of deferred maintenance in now cuz the makes sense. Probably does make sense to
do it now. I don't I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is the process of the money sitting there and now it's being shifted around. The other I think key point for me and I did ask and and they were very u willing to provide is kind of what our long-term warranty items are
on this. We've got other pro other buildings that we've bought. These are big purchases. These are shiny objects. Everybody loves them. I love the shiny objects. But even at a very modest number of 2% per year, it will cost us around $160,000 a year to do the maintenance on this building long term.
That's a big number. I don't want us to make a decision in a vacuum not knowing what these shiny objects cost in the long term. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Ericson. Yeah, I wanted to weigh in
um further and you know with my conversation with staff um had the opportunity to to speak at length with Chief Holmes earlier this week and I did not get a chance to speak with with Connie but she did provide me a very
detailed email and um I'm going to say a few other things but I may ask her a question if about that email if she could maybe share that with the rest of the the council. Um, and I'll give her just a little bit of time to maybe pull that up because I'm putting her on the spot. But, you know, I understand that
these are not insignificant dollar amounts. Um, I guess where I'm approaching this as, um, I want to see the fire station renovated. Um, we we run into things with the annex, you're going to run into a lot of these things
with these older buildings when you get in to renovate them. um with I I'll just piggyback on the term shiny objects. I guess when I look at this, I'm seeing a roof replacement. I'm seeing windows. Um
I'm seeing wiring. And um I these are pretty nuts and bolts things. And I much prefer the idea of renovating our existing fire station versus the potential of uh of building a new one uh if and when that time comes.
And so I I'm going to support the motion. Um and there may be some procedural questions about um you know how we go about doing it. But I guess the big picture for me is I want to see the fire station renovated. And um with that said, Con Mr.
President, if I could call on Connie to ask the a question if she could just summarize some of the details about the email that she sent to me uh regarding the impact of uh what the bonding amount might be. >> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Go ahead, M.
>> Thank you, Council President. So, you know, I think we had it in the budget at We did have it in the budget at 5.5 million. I think to speak to our budgeted number that we needed to have a contract with Witsth, this wasn't in the email, but a side note, we need to have a contract with Witsth to get a better
pricing. And so, without that contract in place, which occurred earlier this year, we couldn't really get the estimate either. So, it was kind of a yes, we should have done more work to get it finalized, but if we didn't have the money to get that estimate, how were we supposed to? So, I think there's kind
of like which comes first as far as the budgeted number. Um, we were planning on issuing our bonding about u 5,60,000 because we had some cash on hand to use and so we would need to add in the cost of issuance for the bonding. Um, make a
very short summary. Um, the very rough estimate came in very high. Chief Holmes as well as Woodsth and Noran have really come down in the price. Um and right now the current amount is the 5,994,000 with using some cash and assuming some
cost of issuance and a premium on the debt. We're looking at bonding about 5,76 $654,238. >> Thank you, Connie. My question is always the same. What amount is this changing our levy
as of next year or years going forward? >> I haven't figured that out totally yet. Um um but I can have that for council just looking at what the um pool is on the YMCA pool that that could give us an idea. I think that we'll have a little
bit of revenue offsetting. If council would choose to allocate the rent that the um fire advisory board pays, we could offset some of that levy. So, it would probably be very close to the um pool estimate is what I'm assuming.
>> So, somewhere around 7%. >> We would go out 20 years on this as well. So, it would be around that four to 5% is what I'm estimating off the top of my head. >> Thank you, Connie. Mr. Johnson, >> a followup. The pool request is 4
million. We could get six million for the same debt service. >> I'm saying we could offset it with rent with the rent money that we receive. So we could take off like $100,000 for example. >> Oh, to put that towards the debt service annually. Okay, I understand.
>> Okay, Mr. Chzach, >> um I want to thank Mr. Johnson. I I'm remiss for not thinking of the um actual uh going out for bids and how the opportunity wasn't there for other biders as he as he mentioned. That's
always troubling for me because you that can make a difference. Uh what did it have? We don't know. That's the point. Um, yeah, I I do have a concern and I'm I'm sorry, Connie, but um when we respond to agenda items, it's supposed
to be blank copied. Apparently, Mr. Ericson's email wasn't. I would have appreciated seeing that. Um, and um, so again, I want to see this fire department. We all I think we all agreed
at our off-site uh, council retreat at the library that this was a priority. And now here we sit with questions that probably should have been addressed uh before we get to this point. And uh I'm not so sure how I want to vote because of this. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach, Mr. Mayor.
>> Yeah. So, I'm going to push back a little bit as well, just mainly because if this was any other department, I I love the fire department probably equally to all the other departments. >> But if this is any other department, I would push back on it. If this was parks, if this was streets, I would push back on this. It is a It is a
substantial increase. It's not a small increase. Our our levy, you know what our levy is? This is a substantial increase to our yearly budget. Um, and I would push back on it no matter what it is. I I I see that number and I see that percentage of increase. And
fire department or not, I I would push back on this. So, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chair, Mr. Beaven, >> I got to throw it to throw one in for the chief. I agree with everything that everybody said, but if we don't pass this and we
want to do this stuff tomorrow, it's going to cost you more. So, what do you what are you proven by not passing it? If we're going to do this stuff anyway, it's going to cost us more. You heard Mr. Sandy say about the prices of stuff.
It's going up especially if it come if it has anything to do with overseas or petroleum is expensive and it won't be cheaper tomorrow. I I again I can't agree more with what with what everybody has said with especially with the process but I don't
think we're doing ourselves a favor if we if we decide to to not do or to scrap the project or to put it off six months. I don't think that's a win for the citizens of Brainer. So, I'm gonna support it and be cranky. >> Thank you, Mr. Beavens. I mean, I think
I do have to agree with you, but Mr. Stunic, >> as many people probably know, I spent a few days over there. I put 43 years on in this department, and I agree with Kelly. If we keep kicking the can down and try to bandaid it, it's not going to
work. I'll give you an example. When I was fire chief, I came into work one day and all I could see is legs sticking out of the hood of a truck. I went, "What are you doing?" I'm trying to save the city money. Why? He was duct taping and using copper wire to try to fix
something on the truck. That doesn't happen. If you're going to do it, do it right the first time. And if we don't do it this time, it's going to cost us much more next year or the next year. And we're going to continue to talk about it. Obviously, you know how I'm going to vote. >> I knew before the meeting started.
>> Did it work? >> Everybody's wondering if it worked. >> If it What? >> Did it work? >> No. I took it to where it was supposed to be fixed. Mike, >> going around for two, >> Mr. Ericson. In fact, round two. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to give uh perhaps Attorney Langel or one
of our staff the opportunity to um perhaps answer the question about I think Councilman Johnson brings up a good point about the process and the potential legality um about the the bidding. I know this is a project that is being um is utilizing
that newer Gordian process. Um and I was wondering if perhaps that had to do with or could answer uh some of the questions about the process. So I don't know if it's attorney Langel or or Jesse or who might be able to answer that question,
but could one of you speak to that? >> Somebody have a quick answer from staff on that? >> I can I can try to help. Um, this is not an uncommon process that's been used on some other big projects. I know the landfill had a pretty large project as
well as uh uh I think it was by East Co Lake or something. There's a a couple other bigger projects uh that utilize the similar process. So, it works very similar from not only a project of this scope, but even the ones that we were using with the annex and the library uh just at a different scope and scale. So,
they identify the items that are needed for the project. uh those prices are basically already in the book and then they put that together to come up with the uh contract that's before you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean.
I'm going to agree with um the comments that Mr. Bevans made. I'm thinking about this. Yeah, I wish it would have stayed under 5.5. Um and I agree with Mr. Johnson. Maybe if we did go with a different process, maybe it would have stayed under that. We could have put the limit on that. Maybe we'll learn from
this next time we have something like this. But if you remember about a year ago, we sat down and Chief Holmes, he put a he put a couple different options out there that were being proposed. One was a a fireh hall that
was going to be built on County Road 77 on the other side of Baxter on Brainard's Dime. Uh years ago they were talking about building one closer to 371 and 210 outside of our city limits. With this process right now, we're
keeping it where our where our fire hall is. If somebody else needs a fire hall in a different city or in a different area of the territory, that's a different conversation for other cities to have. But I think by doing it this way, we might be spending a little bit
more than what we had initially budgeted. But they also brought it down from close to seven million down underneath six. And using cash on hand really brought it a lot closer to 5.5 than I would have imagined they would
have with that original $7 million amount. So I'm comfortable going forward as as much as I'm uncomfortable spending amounts of money like this. I wish it was free, but we need to upgrade the fireh hall. And I think it's a a good
investment on this part of the city. >> Mr. Mayor, >> yeah, since we're doing round two, every time that we have an expense that is expensive, someone says, "If we don't do it now, it'll be more expensive tomorrow." Everyone knows that. I I hate when we do that. We do it every single time. And it's always about extreme
amounts of money. So, it's I get it. Yes, if we don't do it today, tomorrow will be more expensive. But that could be said about every single project that the city has. So on this one, again, I love the idea that we're doing the fireh hall where it is, remodeling it, but it
is just such an increase in dollar amount that it's hard for me to swallow without at least saying something. >> Mr. Jagger, >> real quickly, just I don't need an answer now, but maybe is it impossible to just reduce the scope of work to fit within the 550? just find some things we
can live without or 5.5 sorry >> chief homes >> just you know budget value engineer just still do the project still have great stuff but just you know maybe find some things some ways
>> yeah I mean we like uh President OD said we did cut a lot of things and went through the um the bids and certainly vetted them as best we could um based on the need of the department. Um, so I mean there's probably certainly some
areas that we can value engineer and look at more closely, but um, at some point we don't want to not do something and have to do it again in two to five years or three years or five years or whatever it may be.
>> Understood. Thank you, >> Mr. Jagger and Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah. What else we're going around to? I do want to commend the fire department for including everything they need, unlike we had in the public works department was a five-year construction project on one garage. So, I'm glad that's not happening here. I I do know
prices go up every year. That like the mayor said, that's not surprising. But if we don't hold the city accountable, it's up to the council to hold the city accountable. And when we budget 5.5 and they say, "Well, it's 5.9, but if you want it next year, it's going to be
6.4." We can say no, next year it's 5.5. You get less of what you wanted. If we don't hold people accountable, it's a 10% increase every single time, every single department. And I just don't think that I I don't think we should accept that. And to the price of copper and petroleum and all that. I
think Woods has like a 20 or 30% contingency in there. Right, Mike? >> Three. Isn't that three? >> Thank you. Is that all? Chairman Johnson? >> That's all. Okay, Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah. I um
>> I got a question. Um and I'm going to ask Mr. Johnson if you would allow me to, Gabe. If we don't pass this, if will you agree to that question? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. If we don't pass this, what do you propose?
Do I propose getting it within budget? Like Kevin said, is there some value engineering? Is there something we can remove that we don't need for 10 years? Thank you. Look at it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Any more discussion?
>> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony, please call the role. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> no. >> Johnson, >> no. >> Stunn, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> no. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. >> That motion carries and everybody's
next. All right, Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Our second item is non-conservation tax forfeit parcels. The motion coming out of committee is to accept staff's
recommendation. Um there's two items here in the same motion. um to concur with the non-conservation of parcel 41241606 and to disapprove with the classification of non-conservation parcel for 41250756
and I so move >> second motion by Ericson second by Chzach chairman Ericson >> thank you Mr. president. Um the city received a letter from the county uh related to these two parcels that the county has deemed to be
non-conservation and they're going to be put on land sale if uh the city concurs with uh both of them. Um and so we have um taken staff's recommendation to obviously concur with the first one. The second one, um the one that we're not
concurring with, um there is a sanitary sewer main that bisects that parcel, uh effectively limiting the ability for building on the parcel. And um you know, the city has the ability to say no and to hold that if there's a upcoming
public project or a public uh benefit. And uh that's the case with this second parcel. So motion is to concur with one of them and to not concur with the other. >> Thank you, Chairman Eritton. Any discussion? >> Yeah, one, if I may.
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um, we can concur with it at a later time and it can go to public sale at at a later time. Um, but given that um there's this this uh water man with the upcoming public project, um we we'd uh
want to keep that one off the sale. maybe revisit it next year >> perhaps. Okay, >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, this one also just kind of got short, so our dialogue was a little limited here, but my question on the second one was the the water man is a is a sight condition. If the county
wants to sell it, and it has a sight condition that a new buyer has to deal with. It's not like the new buyer can just cut through our sewer line. It's a site condition that it remains there. So, I see no risk in just going ahead and let them trying to sell it with the sewer man in there or create an easement for us to keep the sewer main there and then go ahead and sell it. That was
going to be my question uh or at least my comments on why not just go ahead and sell it with the site conditions as is and let the new buyer deal with it. That's all. >> Mr. Chzac, >> just want clarification and maybe the public would too. We've heard sewer main, water main. What is it?
>> Heard it twice. >> Underground main. >> It's a sewer main. >> Pipes. It's pipes. >> We got pipes. >> It's a sewer main. >> Thank you. Okay. More discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony,
>> Evans, >> no. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stun, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson, >> thank you. This is our third item, proposals for 2026 sanitary CIP lining.
The motion coming out of committee is to award the proposal for sanitary CIP lining to vit in the amount of um the it's going to be 97,565 um and then including the al bid
alternate for a manhole lining and the amount of 14,400 total amount 111,965 and I so moved >> second >> motion by Ericson second by Chzach any more discussion.
Chairman Ericson, >> thank you. Uh just that the proposals were solicited uh earlier this year uh for this lining project. Uh just a reminder, as is noted here, um there was 100,000 was allocated in the capital plan for this work. Um
and um a lot of these properties, particularly in North Brainard, you know, hund over 100-y old properties, if we were to um you know, replace these uh these pipes, it would be highly expensive and nearly physically
impossible. And so the I think the lining represents a a more efficient approach and one that'll uh um u get us farther down the road in preserving the life of our infrastructure. >> Okay. Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Mr.
Johnson, >> thank you. As pointed out, we budgeted $100,000 for this project. We include we were under $100,000, but then we added a build bid alternate for 144. Is it safe to assume that if we if it would the project would go over
$100,000, we wouldn't do the alternate or are we just going to do the alternate? >> Chairman Ericson, I think he's asking you. >> Well, that was one of the options that staff proposed. Um, you know, there are other
um manholes that will need this same treatment. So, we could uh not go with the bid alternate uh go with the the amount just under uh budget the 97,565 um and deal with the future u the manuals at a later time. Um I think and
I think staff thinks that that would be more efficient if we did it together in this. >> Thank you for your answer, Tat. That makes sense. We budgeted 100. I'm seeing 111965. That's 11.96% over the budgeted amount and staff is
recommending we do it now because we'll be saving money because it might be more expensive in the future. I'm on a roll right now. We hold staff accountable to the budget and I'm going to vote no on the 111965. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Mr. Chzach,
>> yeah, that we budgeted for the sewer line sewer lining. This is an add-on and it would save money to do the add-on. That's why we're going over budget to Is that correct, Mr. Dean? >> There's some efficiency gains and uh I
mentioned it in the agenda item that you're accessing the private property essentially twice if you come back at a future time. Um but that's entirely up to the council on how they want to address that. >> And Mr. President, um we have funds available for this, do we not, Mr. Dean?
in our sanitary sewer fund. >> The project was budgeted for $100,000. So that's what we included in here. And then we're going through uh a rate study currently. And this will this annual program will be included in the calculations for that rate study. >> Okay. Did we not last year um increase
the amount for sanitary sewer um from a staff recommendation from 50 to 100,000? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, do we have money in our sanitary sewer fund for this additional 11? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Followup question on that, Mr. >> Chzac. >> Connie, can you tell me the fund balance of the sanitary sewer fund? >> I cannot off the top of my head. I'm sorry. >> Can you tell me within above or below zero? >> I I would be totally guessing at this point. So, sorry.
>> I would guess below. Okay. More discussion. Jagger. No. >> Nope. >> All right. >> Hold on. Miss Mr. >> Yeah. I just want clarification. So, this would be more expensive if we do this later,
>> Mr. President. >> Mr. President, may I Mr. >> Trez? >> Okay. So, we've been talking about sanitary sewer for I mean, that was one thing that I kept bringing up and we are constantly
in the rears for fixing these things and and they they we don't if you want to talk about kicking the can down the road, have we've done that in Brainer for our sanitary sewer lines? Absolutely. And the reason why is because we don't want to spend an
additional 11,000 and change on a manhole, which is part of the sanitary sewer system, to fix it when it's the best time to fix it, because that's what kicking the can down the road is. Now is the best time to do this. So, let's just get it done. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach.
>> Anybody else? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony, >> Bevans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> Stunn, >> yes. Jagger, >> no. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> no. That motion carries.
Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Our fourth item, a proposal is College Drive guard rail repair. The motion coming out of committee is to approve the pro proposal from Ericson Infrastructure in the amount of $15,625
to replace the College Drive Bridge guard rail. And I so move. Second >> motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> Yeah, as you can see, um March 21st, um I actually notified engineer Dean that I
had seen that the guard rail was crashed into. Um and uh he responded quickly along with some officers to bend that guard rail back out of the traffic lane. Um, and as you can see, we went out for bid. Received this bid from Erikson
Infrastructure. I'll add no relation to me. Um, but yeah, that's a another infrastructure repair. >> It wasn't budgeted. >> All right. Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Does safety and public works ever make
money or do we just spend it? >> I resent that. >> We did. >> We tried. >> Mr. President, on our last meeting, we had a >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What was it? >> I'm just I'm just playing with you. Uh Mr. Jagger, >> I just like to comment also if anyone
did see the uh the infrastructure that was or the the bid that was turned in here and you may have read at the bottom that the exclusion the exclusions to this project are but are not limited to grading staking surveying backfill rock drilling, traffic control, winter conditions permitting bonding bond share, and fees. Despite all of those
exclusions in there, staff is has told me no without a doubt that we will not be using any of those exclusions and we can count on this number. That's all. So, we're doing our part. >> Mr. Jagger, uh my question is, is there are we legally bound to fix this? It seems like we didn't we don't know who
hit it, so we can't make an insurance claim against their liability insurance. Is that what's going on here? >> So, in for the incident in general, the driver fled the scene. They were not present when we um discovered it. Uh so we're not able to pursue that. I know I
worked with the officer that showed up to file police report, but uh we don't have anybody that we can charge their insurance to or file a claim against their insurance. Uh as of right now, it's a safety hazard. Uh because if a a car were to strike this, it's not um
it's not meeting the the crash rating that it was designed for. Uh so somebody could get uh severely injured if they were to crash into this guardrail. Uh and that liability would be on the city. If I were to crash into that guardrail before it was bent, there would be a a
big percentage chance that I would get hurt, too. But this brings up another question that I know Mr. Johnson likes to spend money on, and it's called Ballards. If we would have had a big ballard there, >> would have saved so much money. >> We would have saved money because we
would have done it beforehand, >> just like the holiday. >> We do have a bent railing. It's on a one of our more decorative decorative roads. Um, and it is a safety hazard, so it needs to be fixed. Mr. Johnson, >> uh, question, is this coming out of the construction fund?
>> I guess our intention was to use the, uh, streets repair operating fund. >> Okay. And we budget for that each year, >> not for just general repairs. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> Budget line. >> More discussion.
>> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony, please call the RO. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Chazak, >> yes. Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Item number
five is vacant building fee at 224 North Fifth Street. Um, motion coming out of committee is to take no action. I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. >> Mr. President, if I might. Uh so this
property um experienced significant fire damage in 2023. The former property owners sold the property um in 2024. Uh the new buyers, they were informed of the um they bought
the property with the intent to remodel it. And uh the city informed them that we were currently working on an ordinance that would place a $7,000 fee on the property or on properties with significant blight such as this one. They purchased it anyway. Um they've
been staff has been notifying them and working with them um for quite some time. Um, I think the some of the comments in committee were that, you know, they might be interested and willing to work with the um the property
owner to perhaps wave some of the fees, but um, you know, not at this time. And then there's also a deadline. There's another sale coming up. So, they're closing on the property on the 15th of this month. And I don't think there's going to be enough time to u make some
of those changes. So, I'll leave my comments at that if there's questions or other comments from the committee members or questions of staff. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Anybody else have comments or questions? >> So, the motion is to have take no
action. >> Correct. >> Okay, Mr. President. >> Yeah. Is it okay to ask Mr. Krammic the weigh in like he mentioned in our committee what he information he gave us? >> Sure. James, would you mind? Would you
like me to provide a summary or do you have a question? >> Well, regarding the sale and how that affects this the >> I'd like to know if I can chime in. I'd like to know what the pending assessments are right now and how that applies to the the pending sale that's supposed to take place. I believe it
they said the 15th of this month. Correct. >> Yes. So, um the uh representative here did say that it would be the 15th for the closing. Uh the fee was assessed to the property for the 2025 taxes. So
there was a public hearing in October 2024 um for the applicant to potentially um uh go against the nuisance assessments. Uh nobody did speak at that hearing. Uh city council did move forward with the assessment. So it was put on the 2025
taxes. Uh $7,025 plus um some interest that has accured now. And then there's also a pending assessment. So, another letter was sent uh this past year. City council will review that assessment this October uh for the 2027 taxes. So, those
are the current uh assessments that are on the taxes and pending. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Mr. Chz comments? >> Nope. >> Anything from this side of the room? >> This is our process. I don't know where
to go from here. there is a pending sale and it sounds like the new owner is going to acquire these assessments if we take no action. So I don't know how much sense it makes to deal with the current owner
in a timely fashion that won't even affect the sale. Mr. Cranic. >> Yep. So any assessments that are currently on the property do have to be essentially sorted out at closing. So either there's a different negotiated price or somebody has to pay that assessment at the time of closing.
>> Yeah. Currently it's assessments from two years that will be included but not the uh the one from the most recent. >> So so staff could potentially work with a new property owner on the pending assessment with a um contract with the
building department to have it remodeled in a certain amount of time. It's what's already been assessed to the county. That obviously is a a city council decision. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I mention something? >> Um sir, we're not having a public
hearing right now, >> but >> that's unfortunate. >> Okay, Mr. >> Yeah, real quickly. I did just want to say I spoke a little bit at this to to the effect of I understand that there's already there's already penalties that are assessed and it sounds as though the seller needs to pay those. However, I
did say, speaking only for myself, that if a the if the new owner came to us with some version of a development agreement that said that we could get this turned into an inhabitable structure within a reasonable amount of time, I felt like I would be of the opinion that I would be flexible to help
uh with some of those those past assessments. That's I was just making that case that maybe that could be passed on to the new owner. Don't know, but that was going to be that was my opinion, >> right? Yeah. And I agree there's some flexibility there, but if there's a pending sale, that kind of changes
everything. Don't know where to go from here. Mr. Johnson, >> I absolutely agree with Councilman Joerger. And it's happened in the past where assessments weren't handled at closing like it was something slipped through the cracks and the new owner came to us and asked us to forgive it
because they were fixing up the property, had a plan, and we've forgiven them every single time. We we consistently do. We're not trying to make money on assessments. We're trying to get the properties up to code and fixed. So with that, I do support taking
action on our motion to do nothing. >> Any more discussion? >> Seeing none, Tony, please call the role. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chozac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stun, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yep. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That motion carries.
Chairman Ericson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This is our sixth item, proposal for professional services agreement with. A motion coming out of committee is to recommend approval of proposal in an amount not to exceed $40,000. An
authorization to execute a professional services agreement with and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Um just going to note and then I I may um ask um
public utilities director Sandy to weigh in if I might. Uh but we're currently utilizing a combination of both legacy standard details and technical specifications to guide the design and construction of public infrastructure. Um and as Mr. Sandy brought up to the
committee. You know, there's a way to maybe do this where we can hire to standardize uh a lot of these and bring them up to date and up to speed. I know other communities have done this, particularly Baxter. Uh there was um question that was brought up in
committee whether, you know, if we were to move forward with this, would it be proprietary or would it be public uh information? Um and so, Mr. President, if it's all right, I might um ask Mr. S Sandy to elaborate as he did um in committee.
>> Andy, thank you, Mr. President. So, this is an item that I when I got hired with the city back in November, um something that was a priority of mine, and it's a process when I actually worked for that we worked through with the city of Baxter, and that was to basically uh
create a um a document that had all of the city standard details and specifications. And that document can be used for all of our city projects. So it was a a document that was not only a hard copy PDF, but it was also all the CAD AutoCAD design files. It's a
document that we can use as city staff when we're developing public works projects. It can be handed over to consultant engineers when they're designing projects for us and it can be handed to developers um uh as they're moving through the process of developing infrastructure that's going to be turned
over to the city in the future. A good example of where this could have been helpful to have the standardized set of documents is the recent keepers project. Um during the initial phases of that project, we were going through and giving them all of our standard um
details. And a lot of that is just pulling standard cross-sections from old plan sets. Uh grabbing details that haven't had a lot of updates to them in many, many years. um lift station design standards where you're grabbing multiple different specifications from either a
vendor or from a legacy project that was built 20 years ago where it's not consistent across the board on all of our public works projects. What this document is is a full set of public works details. So all the infrastructure that's put in the ground in a
standardized format um and the specifications, the technical specifications on how it gets built. Um what it does for city staff is when we hand that over say to a consultant engineer at the uh onset of a project, we would be able to say here is all of
our standards for this project. Please use them. And if you have questions on project specific things that need changing, then we know um that maybe the standard isn't being followed exactly, but for most if not all cases, the standard detail is going to prevail. Um,
this is something that's pretty standard across the industry for cities to have. Um, a lot of larger communities already have these in place. The city's never really gone through a formal process in compiling all of our details from traffic to uh sanitary sewer, water
mane, all these things that come about in a public works project. Get them in one document that we can hand for example to a developer during project development and say here's all the city standards for you um to help them in that design process. It'll reduce staff time substantially when we're going
through review of these projects. um not only the consultant projects but even developer projects. Um I see it as a huge efficiency for staff. I saw it when I was in the consultant field. Um having a standard set of details is a very nice thing to have if we're um having
consultant projects or developers come into town that are looking for our standards um on a regular basis. So it's something I brought forward um to see uh the BPU commission. Um I brought this for uh forward to them at the March meeting. Um they did approve the use of
15,000 of their water man and lift station funds to fund this project. Um we have a proposal in the agenda request to split this kind of three ways on the city side. It would be the construction fund, the sanitary sewer fund, and the storm water fund. So it kind of covers all three of those uh city um designated
funding sources. So um from a city side about it would be 25,000 that we would like to allocate towards this project. um it is not budgeted for um based on the conversation tonight. Um it's just something that I saw um maybe an efficiency that we can gain across all
of our departments to help standardize all of our uh construction details and specs. So um up for council consideration or questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Any questions from council? >> Uh no questions. One comment. I fully I fully support this and I thank Paul for
uh working on it and bringing it forward. is one of the things he actually mentioned that he wanted to see happen in the city of Brainard in his job interview and and I'm I'm glad to see it happen so soon. So, thank you, Paul. Good job. >> Yeah, I think anything that's going to streamline and make it more efficient
for developers and our staff at the same time, it's going to pay off in the long run. So, I don't know if I don't know if you you have any math ready for us to show us how much money we're going to save by spending this money, but that would be even better. But >> it's SPW. >> What's that? >> This is SPW.
>> Yeah, I know this is SPW. Don't save money here. >> Any more questions, discussion? Seeing none, Tony, call the role. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> OD,
>> yes. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson, >> yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This is our last item in special event application. Um, so this is an item that, um, Mr. Councilman Stunnik brought to my attention. Um, motion coming out
of committee. Oh, I apologize. I didn't have this one up here. This is the one that was added afterwards. The motion coming out of committee is to approve their permit. Um, and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach.
>> Thank you. I apologize. I got out a little ahead of myself there. Um, Councilman Stun brought this to my attention and asked if uh this could be added to the SPW agenda. Um, for years the uh American Legion has um hosted the
sports boosters um on Thursday mornings and several volunteers have uh set cones out uh in front of the American Legion uh to accommodate the veterans who attend. Um, as uh, Councilman Stunick have pointed out, um, many of them are,
um, Purple Heart recipients and, you know, I think technically, um, setting a cones out there, uh, sounds like it might violate the city code and so somebody had said something and, uh, prompted their application for for this. Um, and so I thought it was a worthy
endeavor. um and I wanted to see it on the agenda and uh so we had some discussion on it and ultimately um voted to make that recommendation obviously to approve the the uh the permit. Um Councilman Stunic, I know you spoke at
committee. Did you want to you brought this to my attention, so did you want to uh speak speak to this as well? >> I'm good. I'd say the same thing I said two hours ago. >> Two hours. All right. Any more discussion?
>> Let's go to a vote. Tony, call the role. >> Evans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunick, yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Odate, >> yes. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Uh, end of report. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. >> We made it through safety and public
works. >> But don't worry, we have another committee. >> Yeah, but don't blink. >> Personnel and finance. >> Thank you, Mr. President. And it is 9:15 on April 6th. >> Still April 6th though. >> The motion is a retirement of the
business office supervisor Jana Pernula. And the motion is to accept the retirement of business office supervisor Jana Pernula effective August 7th, 2026 to approve the updated business office supervisor job description as presented and to authorize staff to conduct an
external hiring process to backfill the position. And ISO move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Stunic. Johnson. >> Jana's worked here for 32 years, so we really appreciate all of the service she put in for us. We appreciate that she gave us a early notice on her retirement
for August 7th, so we'll be able to get somebody in place and cross trainin with her for a month or so before she's gone. >> Very good. Any discussion? >> Is this budgeted? >> Yes. >> It's enterprise funds. >> Coney, call the role.
>> Beans, >> yes. >> Jezach, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Dunick, yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is a resolution to amend the DLP investments redevelopment agreement. And the motion
out of committee is a is a motion adopting the attached resolution approving the first amendment to contract for private redevelopment with DLP Investments LLC and ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans Johnson. >> This is this amendment is coming back to
us. We already discussed it as a council and it's something we are interested in. It just widens the the the broad range of businesses that can operate in that formal Royal Tire operation. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. More discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Tony,
call the RO. >> Beans, yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Dunick, yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson, >> thank you, Mr. President. The final item is a request for parks long-term maintenance fund to epoxy some floor
coatings. And the motion is to approve $14,786.60 from the park's long-term maintenance funds for the epoxy floor coatings on the five facilities listed, Memorial Park, Lyman Pide Park, Lions, Kuanas, and JC Park. And I so move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by
Stunnic. Johnson, >> this is something staff identified as something that should be done just to maintain the longevity of the floors and the park board without having the money in their budget has requested to have us transfer money from the park's long-term maintenance funds that we've been setting money aside to for years and I
think it's a very good use of the money. So, we unanimously approved it in committee. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, speaking on behalf of the park board, uh I want to thank you for the consideration on it. Two items. One, it is bathrooms and concessions. concessions and need it in order to operate. Obviously, bathrooms is an
interesting one. Uh we have cement bathroom floors. I don't know if you know this or not, but sometimes things leak onto floors and cement likes to absorb them. So, this is a nice way of keeping our floors fresh and clean and not having a wonderful smell that may acquire. But I will also say because
we're saving money here potentially, we were approached at the beginning of this process by a local business that wanted to specifically the Lyman P white one wanted to sponsor those uh bathroom floors. And so uh I would just like to say that uh I don't know if you see that
or not. That's it's only $1,900 or $1,960, but the potential there to save a little bit money here in the city of Brainard by having a nice sponsor saying, "Hey, look at these floors. They're nice. That's because of me.
>> Thank you, Mayor Bedau. Anybody else? >> Tony, >> Beven, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Dunick, y >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson, >> 9/119, including the minute 45 seconds
the mayor spoke. End of report. >> Very good. Very efficient. Moving on to number nine, unfinished business. First 9A, we have a resignation of Jeremy Powell from the planning commission and declaring vacancy expiring 2027. Looking for a motion.
>> Move to accept with regret. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson. Second by Stunic. Any discussion? See none. Let's go to a vote. Tony >> Evans. >> Yes. >> Chzac. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Stunn. >> Yes. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes.
>> OD. >> Yes. Next up is 9B. This is a call for applicants and first up we have the honorable mayor Bedau. >> Yeah, I'll make this super quick cuz everybody wants to get out of here. So, uh, the following applications are available for, uh, commissions and
charter or commissions and boards in the city. Uh, charter commission, two terms expiring 2029, two terms expiring 2026. Econ economic development authority, one term expiring 2028, one term expiring 2031. My gosh. Library board, one term expiring 2027. and the transportation
advisory committee. One term expiring 2026, one term expiring Oh, two terms expiring 2027. >> As council president, I have one term open on the airport commission expiring 2028, two terms now on the planning commission, one expiring 2027, one
expiring 2028, and two terms open on the water tower committee. Next up, we have 9C. This is the YMCA community pool funding and I believe this one is Connie Hillman. >> Thank you, council president. At the February 17th council meeting meeting,
the council authorized staff to enter into agreement with Baker Tilly to perform a financial analysis for the proposed YMCA community pool. The analysis was to identify bonds that could be issued to fund the pool. The report from Baker Tilly was included in the packet and the city could issue
taxexempt general obligation tax abatement bonds. Miss Chris Hogan from Baker Tilly is online to be able to answer any questions as well. The city will not own or operate the pool. This will be done by the Y and the city residents would be able to use the pool at a discounted fee. Since there is
not a revenue source to offset the annual debt payment, the total amount would be need to be part of the annual debt levy. So included in the packet was an estimated impact to the 2026 levy using various terms for the bonds and assumed interest rate. Um so now I'll turn it over to Chris Hogan. I did miss
a a fee that is associated with issuing these bonds if she would like to address that as well. >> Yeah, thank you Connie. Thank you um chair and members of the council. Um just a quick introduction. Uh Chris Hogan from Baker Tilly. I serve the um
the city as their municipal advisor and like Connie said, we were engaged to provide some analysis on um project um funding analysis for the YMCA pool. Um, as Connie said again that YMCA has
approached the city to provide financing, um, for $4 million. So, uh, the packet that you have, you know, goes over some of the facts that Connie has already outlined. Um, I did consult with the city's bond attorney on some of
this. So, um, the you can issue tax exemp general obligation bonds. They would be uh general obligation tax abatement bonds and um they would be a 501c3 because of the Y. Uh one thing
that I noted in here under C qualified 501c3 is the cost of issuance is limited to 2% of the proceeds of the bonds. So, preliminary estimates, I didn't put numbers in here, but preliminary estimates on a bond issue would likely
um require the city to come up with upfront cost of issuance from anywhere from 18 to 25,000. So, that's estimating at over 2% cost of issuance. Um, and then I just go into the tax
abatement process. Generally, you have to hold a public hearing. You identify tax abatement. you identify properties that you're going to abate to pay the debt service. And um other just some other things to consider, tax abatement bonds do not count towards the city's legal debt
limit. And uh we did just look at any impact that this type of bond issue and this amount would have on the city's S&P rating. And we did not see any pressure or anything that would um impact the city's current S&P rating at a minus.
And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Chris. Does anybody have questions for staff or for Chris Hogan? >> Yeah, I have a I have a question, Chris. I I I read your your document and it says we can use tax abatement bonding, which is nice. That was one of the
questions we had. Another question is what would it cost? Did you do the analysis on what the impacts on the tax rate would be? I'm not seeing that under Baker Tilly letterhead anywhere. >> Um I did not do the tax impact. I did provide uh I did work with Connie to put
together an estimate for a 10 and 15 and 20 year debt service um financing. So, you know, I have that available if you want to know estimated interest cost and um average levy. I have that
information, but I did not do a tax impact which I'm happy to follow up with. >> Yeah. And the tax impact is I I would really have liked to seen the debt service and the the interest and kind of the amortization schedule of it all. I was really expecting that and I I didn't receive that in my packet. So I'm a
little disappointed. >> I will take >> Well, if you have questions, I I do have I I can provide some answers on that and I'm apologize that they weren't in the packet but >> yeah, I guess the first question is what interest rates did you assume assume by
each year? Okay. So, I assumed current rates. So, current market rates um without any padding. I was looking at a 20-year estimate would be uh like 4.15 true interest cost. A 15-year we're looking
at 3.8 true interest cost and a 10ear at 3.4. And those are really pretty accurate. Um, in fact, we had a bond sale just today that was a 20-year general obligation and the same rating of the city and their 20-year
amortization true interest cost was at a little over 4.1. >> Okay. And tax abatement and general obligation tended the same interest rates. >> Um, well, the tax abatement bonds that we're proposing can have the general obligation pledge of the city. So, yes,
we've assumed general obligation versus a revenue. >> Great. Thank you. >> Revenue. That's all I have, Mike. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Anybody else have questions for our staff or for Chris? If not, I did speak with Shane Riffle earlier today. I told him he could come up and and speak to us for a couple
minutes. And Shane, I see you over there if you want to come up. Thank you, Chris, for the information tonight, but uh just stick around if you would. >> Yep. Happy to. >> And Shane, I I know shorter is sweeter tonight >> for sure. Just past my bedtime. Um, Mr.
Mayor, council members, thank you for having me back again. Um, I've had, you know, a little bit of time to review these numbers and I think what I mainly want to say is this is a big number and I get that. Um, but this is also big for the city of Brainard. Um, I think
listening to what people have said in the comments, you know, I I think I talked to Tad at one point um about, you know, some other funding that the c that the city puts to nonprofits and I think this is just a little bit different. Um, you know, we work with the parks and
recreation board and we provide sports and, you know, we do a lot of work in the parks. The way I see this is the city is getting a brand new park for all of the residents and it's going to be something that's brand new. It's an investment.
It's going to be on the corner of Six and Oak right there with the Brainer City logo on it. It's a generational investment that, you know, the the two times that I've bumped here before, I've talked about the mission impact, but this is also an investment in the city
and the business. This is going to spur business development. Um, it's going to help us just revitalize and make Brainer even better. So, I I'm fumbling at my words. I'm just so passionate about this. Um,
I hope that you truly consider this as an investment. And do you have any questions? I I I know that I've sent emails out with um different bits of information on how you can look at this. So, please any questions? I
>> Anybody from council have questions? >> Several. >> Okay, Mr. Chzac. >> Yeah, nice to see you, Shane. >> You too, Mr. Chzac. Um I I you've heard me speak before on this and um I um
I really struggle with this especially based on some of our conversation here earlier about over budgets and that and one thing about parks uh Shane is uh I think it was either 23 or 24 this council had a lot of compliment for our park board
highly complimentary of the work they've done the amount of uh infrastruure structure and um progress they made on the existing parks. But one thing we said, we want to see you keep what we have and stop putting more money to improving and developing them. And you
came you came just now and said this is just like another park. And I thought, "Oh my gosh, just what we asked the park board not to do." And you're coming forward with a $4 million request to essentially give us another park. And um
I got to ask you first off, how do you propose to give residents a discount? >> Could happen a number of different ways. Um I've referenced that there are a number of similar projects across the country. Uh my closest reference would
be the city of Boisee, Idaho, where residents in a specifically uh defined geographic area have a pool pass fee which is significantly lower than someone outside of that residence area would pay to come inside the Y. Um I
also propose that they would have discounts in program fees and also a discount to any joining fees that may be incurred to um anyone outside of the area. Um, I'm also open to other suggestions. >> What do they do to show residency?
>> Uh, address. >> Well, you know, there's more addresses, I believe, with a Briner, Minnesota address that are not in the city limits of Brainard than are in the city limits of, >> right? I believe a detail that we could probably work out on a map of some nature that staff use when they're
applying that. >> Okay. And that that was troubling for me because I this happened a long time ago when we developed our local ops and sales tax and businesses outside of the city limits of Brainard to get in charge for their local ops and sales tax and it it just didn't work good but you got to figure it out. So I would hope that
would happen anyway. Um, so um, we we have a project and I don't know if anybody on this council has seen the scope of this project. And I and and I think we would we would never as a city
move forward on a project without knowing more about it than just saying $4 million to do a aquatic center. Can you tell me the size of this pool that you're proposing? Right now it's a six lane 25 yard pool
with a about a 20 by 40. Um I don't have the plans in front of me. Um but yes, we do have schematic designs for the aquatic center. >> Do you can you tell me some of the other amenities associated with aquatic center? Do you have
>> There's a splash uh amenity. It's a zero depth pool. warm water in the about I believe it's like 20 foot by 40 foot kind of a therapy type pool. Um and then we're also looking at putting a uh sauna
in the in the aquatic area. >> Hot tub. >> No hot tub. >> Diving board, diving platform. >> No, sir. >> None of that. Okay. Um >> so whirl pools are >> Yeah, >> they're difficult to maintain. >> So are pools. Um,
>> well, not as difficult as uh whirlpool or hot tub. >> They're they're all expensive. Anyway, um, so these are, you know, some of my concerns I I I look at um, you know, I I I struggle. I go, we have a fitness center or two in the city
limits of Brainer and we're going to be asking those people to pay their tax dollars for something that essentially is competitive with them. That that bothers me. Uh, I just had a couple of questions here. Um,
>> do you have firm commitments right now on this uh 30 to 34 million that you're looking for? >> No, nothing. >> I've have a $7 million ask that's just been submitted to Sourcewell. Um we are, as I mentioned last time, there were um
new markets tax credits and we were written into about six different applications and we have a fundraising committee that is um working on the the remaining parts of the funding stack. Um yeah, I I I think that there are a lot
of details as as you referenced and I would support taking the time to work through those details. I I think I was to be honest I was surprised. I I didn't I I'm not familiar with this process. I
run a YMCA. I I don't know the process on what a council would use to to make a big decision like this. As as I mentioned, I get I get the scale of this. I looked at this number, but when I broke it down and I think about the kids in our
community and the families in our community, really as as those numbers show, it's $4 to $6 a month. And if those families come in and swim, they're going to be saving that money either through the joining fee if they join or if they come in and swim. So I I think,
not I think I just I just know that the community loves the YMCA and we get behind this. >> Yeah. I I I love the Y too, but I also have to look out for my taxpayers. >> I get you. I understand. >> And so are you. >> Can we take the time to work through more of the details? Is that an option? >> What features are you going to be uh
exploring to develop at this new new line? Are you going to have handball raetball courts? >> Uh the schematic design right now, it's a twole structure. Um we are going to have intergenerational space. We're going to have we're going to expand on
daycare. We plan on putting >> raet ball, handball, uh anything like that. Right. >> Not raetball, not handball, but there will be space for pickle ball. >> Pickle ball. >> Um court space um for youth sports, pickle ball, basketball. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh indoor walking track. We're looking at
>> um the specific to the source request, um we're going to allocate space to uh offer uh uh community resource center functions working with partners. Um, I know you referenced Lighthouse Beginnings, um, and they are one of our
potential partners to work out of that space. Um, also, you know, traditional, it's what YMCA is known for. Um, fitness classes, chronic disease management classes, uh, national diabetes prevention program, cancer survivorship programs,
um, like I said, the daycare center, uh, drop off child watch. Um, I do have our board chair, Warren Larson, over there. What am I missing, Warren? Anything? >> Well, if I could, um I u I mean, would
you agree that most or not all 501c3s are good? They have good intentions and do good work here in the Brainard area. >> As far as you know, >> that is the intent of awarding a 501c3 is that you do work that benefits the community. Yes.
>> Okay. And um and so I I got to reference what Mr. Ericson said the last time this came up at our council meeting, he he talked about not wanting to be in a position to pick the winners and losers when it comes to supporting 501c3s. And I agree with that wholeheartedly. And it
was amazing to me at the time he was saying it. I had heard that before and I was trying to think about when and where it was. And here was my colleague sitting next to me, Kevin Jerger, when we sat on the charter commission talking about the arburetum. He said those exact words. I thought Mr. Ericson was
plagiarizing him. Not that I'm accusing him of that. It's just I I like that's where I heard it before. And uh it it's it's amazing how um I the 52 51 whatever million dollar economic
impact coming coming to us from the uh University of Minnesota Extension over what period of time is that? >> I off hand I couldn't tell you. It's it's yeah I don't I would have to look into the report.
>> So we see that number over and over again but you don't know over what period of time. It's certainly you're not expecting that to be in the first place. >> So there's direct indirect and induced benefits. Um there is job creation is supporting ongoing jobs. It's the initial construction which is
short-term. um all of the labor and materials that go into that construction, but it's also what they're incorporating, I believe, through their term induced is the business development. Um when you have a facility like that, more people are going to come into town and through uh I think it's
Placer AI and and uh tools like that, you can see that people when they do come in, they spend money. They go out, they shop, they eat um and and they spend money. So that I believe is what they call induced and that would be ongoing.
>> Okay. I I I guess somebody put together some numbers said you're going to see a $52 million impact in economic development and all that and they don't you don't know how many years it is. That bothers me. And then we see the >> Well, I believe I just answered somewhat of that. >> Well, you don't you really don't. Um the
21 I think it is you say is related to construction and other uh increase in uh perhaps employee and that type of thing. So, you had two different figures there. Um, you also you're seeking out um letters of support from businesses that
uh I I know you had sent out one here on Wednesday. That was a little short notice I would say to get something on in front of us and uh you had a what how many templates did you send out? Would you say? >> Um typically was something that you send
out talking points that they can use to structure. Um but the intent is that they're formally submitting their support for the project. >> Yeah, we did get I think three four of them and uh I noticed three of those were from for sure Baxter businesses and
uh again we're talking about Brainer taxpayers supporting this. I is is uh Anderson Brothers are they within the city limits of Brainard still? Does anybody know that? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah, they're okay. So that was one that was in the city limits of Brainard. So when I look at those letters, Shane, it's like, okay, I got to just put your
letter head, put your name, fill in the blanks, cut out this, boom, send it out. That's how hard it is. And you've given them templates. It's like, do they really support this or is this something they're doing in favor? You know, I I I don't know. It's just disingenuous. Uh, okay. Another question I have, this
came up at the last meeting. You have not. Well, first of all, do you have a policy on tr uh transgenders using the opposite sex in the showers, in the locker rooms, in the bathrooms, in the in the programs? Do you have any policy on that? The way
>> what I we follow, we adhere to Minnesota statute. >> What statute is that? >> The human rights act of 1993. >> And what does it say in there? uh paraphrasing that transgenders
um are legally provided access to public space including locker rooms and other such areas that it noted um based on the identity of their the the gender that they identify with. I can tell you that
in eight years here, this is, you know, we've had one instance where this has been brought up and the person who was inquiring used uh a mixed dressing room uh private and one of the features of the new YMCA is that we're not going to
have um all of the changing and shower areas are going to be private. So, it really becomes a non-issue. >> All of your changing and locker rooms are going to be private. >> They will be. >> Okay. So it becomes a non-issue. So what about the programming then when we have
a a boy that wants to participate with girls? You said you didn't know. Are you have you made a decision on that yet? Are you going to follow the you're going to follow the non-existent statute as you call it and go with the human rights act that is not supported other than by the Minnesota State High School League and our attorney general. It is not a
law. >> As the YMCA CEO, we are legally obliged to follow. >> Do you know that as a Christian organization you can exempt yourself from that? We're the Young Men's Christian Association. Yes. No, I am not aware of that. If there are >> Would you be willing to do that, Shane?
Exempt yourself from that so-called statute that human or human rights act. >> Mr. President, this is so far >> we're talking about $4 million here, Gabe. And I have the floor. Thank you. >> What would you do, Shane? Would you would you follow Would you try
>> I'm not going to answer that question, Mr. Chzock? Would you follow would you follow the Human Rights Act or as you interpret it or would you want to exempt yourself from that? >> I can tell you there's a lot of people in this city. If we gave you $4 million and you were not pushing back on that,
I'd be hung from the trees. >> I'm not going to answer that question, Mr. Chzach. >> I didn't think you would, Shane. That's all. That's an answer. Thank you, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. >> I believe Gabe had his hand up first. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Joerger. I mean the questions
regarding this issue made a lot of sense and I I think this is one of those rare situations where the government the speed of government may have worked faster than the speed of the private sector like all of the funding sources aren't lined up. We don't need to be the first ones on the board. We're not quite
certain exactly what the discounts and how the payback to the citizens who are paying their taxes are what it's going to look like. So I think I don't think an up or down vote because this is I have huge sticker shock on this. This is expensive. This is a lot of money. But if we can clearly identify what the
building is going to look like, what the benefits to the citizens of Brainard are going to be and what possible cost sharing or anything related to this construction project and this financing. I I would like to further explore that and not necessarily make a decision
tonight. It will be it will be hard to get there with the cheapest option being a 4.15% tax increase. It will be hard to get there, but I would like to explore what we can do working together, Shane. And I think we
I don't think we take action and we and we move forward working with the YMCA on what it looks like. And I move and I move such >> second. >> Okay. Motion by Johnson and second by Stunnick. I I know Mr. Jagger, do you have >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, I don't know if you noticed, um, Shane, but one of the
options was conduit debt. Um, how does that land on you? Just quick off the cuff. Does that is that a help? Is that something that is a leverage point? I mean, is it it >> at face value it didn't seem like it
would help right now. Um, >> understood. You're trying to move the lever from one side to another. Understood. So, I guess >> we need and want a partner of this nature, what I've been calling an anchor partner. Um, like I said, we've been in Brainer since
1889. We're committed to this community and this is the point where the community and you as representatives of the community can help do something that's big that's going to make the lives of kids and families better. And then there's this other benefit. It is going
to make business better in the community. I don't think the University of Minnesota, I'm pretty sure they have a pretty high reputation and I stand by that study. Um, I hope that we can take the time to further explore this. I
the why looking into the future without this project. We're in a building that was developed and built in 1967. And the problem, Mr. Chzock that you're addressing is today's problem, you know, that pertains to a building that was
built, you know, 60 years ago. Um, the new building, it's moot. It's It's not even going to be a problem. >> All right. >> Thank you, Jane. >> I'll speak to the motion. The motion's on the table, right? >> Let's try to keep everything to the motion.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, I really I support this project. I sticker shock on the number, but I do think it's worth exploring and moving forward. Shane is not coming to us tonight saying I need an up or down yes or no. It was put on the agenda by
somebody saying up or down yes or no. But that that's not necessarily what we need to do and I don't think we should. I think we should take a step back and continue working with Shane on this. >> Motion, >> Mr. Beans, >> I support the motion. I'd love to know more. I'm actually kind of excited about
participating in a project like this, but I would like to know more. I haven't heard and Mr. Johnson just alluded to this. Is there a timing? So, I think somebody even brought up a referendum last meeting, but as far as the construction, we have a goal.
>> There's somewhat time sensitivity with the new market tax credits. The applications were from this last funding cycle. So it's end of this year, early into next year that we would need a significant amount
of the funding pledged, not necessarily in hand or, you know, but secured enough that we could go find um, you know, financing through a bank or banks. >> Got it. So we have a little time. >> Yes, >> Mr. President. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor and then and then may
>> Yeah. I just want Did we get clarification on referendum at all on what the time frame would be for that? Does anyone know if we were to put this to referendum? >> I do believe it's May or June that we'd have to have the question drafted >> of May, beginning of June.
>> Let's get that answered. >> Yeah. Yeah, we should probably know that. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Ericson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Two things. First, can I apologize. Can I have someone clarify the motion? The motion is to not make a decision tonight and continue working with the
YMCA to hash out the details of what this would look like. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And then, Mr. President, I did have a couple comments and I obviously we'll keep them brief, but um I guess I just wanted to say I I spent the earlier part of this meeting meeting getting beat up over
recommending guard rail repairs and cost overruns to sanitary sewer lining and cost overruns to fire stations. and I just have a hard time um you know justifying you know with the types of infrastructure and maintenance needs um
that we're foreseeing and that we are seeing um and I thank uh Mr. riffle. Shane and I Shane, thanks for reaching out to me um earlier in the week and I know we got a motion on the table here, but we had a really nice conversation and I was able to share with him my
thoughts um on the the project and the proposal um many of which I've shared before. So, I will for sake of brevity I will omit that. Um but I'm glad to hear others talking about the um the potential for the reperum. I'm curious
to hear the answer about the timeliness of that as well. I did mention to Shane that that's something I'd be open and interested in exploring. So, um I I've stated some of my reasons um and I'm going to a vote uh against the motion um
as I have in in the past on on the the bonding thing as well. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ericson. Um I'm going to support the motion. I I'm interested to see other creative ways that we can help the Y. I want to see the project happen.
I agree. It's sticker shock. It's It's expensive. Um especially in a year when we're going to rebuild the fireh hall. It's it's two very expensive issues going on at once. But I think if we continue down this road, at least
talking about getting creative. I don't know if we get to the same number in the end or in kind types of things that the city can provide, but I think it's worth continuing the discussion at least for now and and moving forward on that. So, >> Mr. President, I one quick thing,
>> Mr. Chzock. >> Yeah, I I don't understand the term sticker shock. It's never the the number is $4 million. That has not changed. What did you expect? >> I'm talking about the increase, the 6.66, 4.94, 4.15. Those are all the
numbers that we don't want to see right now before we get to the other things that we don't even choose. >> I guess that's my point. It's the increase of the percentage of our levy. Is that what you're referring to? >> Correct. >> Yeah. And then what did you expect again? Well, that's $4 million. We got
to pay for it. We're going to come in here with some sort of discount. Anyway, that's all I got. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. >> Mr. Chair, the Y pay property tax. >> No. >> No. Thank you.
>> Tony, please call the role. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> no. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunnik, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> no. >> Od, >> yes. Motion carries. Next up, we have uh Thank you, Shane. Next up, we have 9D.
This is an annexation discussion for Riverside Drive. And I believe this is Mr. Cranic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so at the March 2nd city council meeting, city council approved the joint resolution by a 4 to3 vote to designate an area for orderly annexation. Uh the county board
considered the joint resolution at the March 24th county board meeting. The board allowed public testimony and motion to not approve the joint resolution. The county board unanimously approved that motion. Uh staff are bringing back consideration of annexation to the city council. City council may consider the following
options. Uh, option one, motion to direct staff to work with the city attorney on a contested annexation. Option two, motion to direct staff to amend the orderly annexation agreement with the following annexation eligibility. Property owner initiated annexation. Each separately defined parcel within
the OA shall become eligible for annexation by property owner petition if the parcel abuts the city's municipal boundary line. This method would be used to annex properties that would like to connect to municipal utilities. It would be optional to connect or not connect for the property owners. Um the other
one would be city initiated annexation. At any time the city may initiate annexation of a parcel or parcels within the OA that are connected to public utilities to find to mean sanitary sewer or water. Uh so with that uh the third option would be take no action
essentially ending the process at this time. Uh staff does recommend option two as it will be an easier process for properties that wish to connect or are connected to municipal utilities to annex into the city. Uh with an orderly annexation agreement in place, the city uh without it um the city essentially
would have to annex uh each property owner with an orderly annexation agreement with the county. Um with the orderly annexation agreement in play, city council could simply pass a resolution to annex the properties into the city. Uh before a decision, I'll turn it over to Jesse. We just wanted to
highlight one item that came up multiple times both with the uh public meeting testimonies as well as the one-on-one discussions with staff and property owners. Uh was the concern on the amount of the connection charges as is currently. Uh so something the council could consider to revisit if you so
choose would be uh looking at this amount and reviewing a potential revised orderly annexation agreement uh to provide some clarity to those property owners that have been requesting the detail. That's all I have to add. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Anybody have questions for staff?
>> Mr. Johnson, you have a motion. >> I'd move to direct staff to amend the ordin orderly annexation agreement with the following annex annexation eligibility. Property owner initiated blah blah blah. City initiated annexation. Exactly what option two is
in our packet. So move >> motion by Johnson, second by Chzach. Discussion Johnson. I mean ultimately this is how I saw that original agreement working is that we wouldn't be annexing until people were hooking up or wanted to hook up. So I this this is doing that. So I
think it's a perfectly fine agreement. I think I think we I think if we go back to the county and explain to them our needs that we do have people outside of the city limits. We have multiple hooked up to our water and sewer system right now and we don't allow that. We those people need to get in the city. I think
the county board would have some understanding of our problems there. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I I'm going to have to agree. I I do think this is the time and we've we've mentioned this before and it's and it's
written in the memo that the 17,287,000 might as well be $17 million. If it were me, I wouldn't want to pay it either. So, I understand that's what's part of what's keeping people back wanting to be hooked up. I think the the time for
having that conversation is is after that first proposal didn't pass through the county. We tried 4 to three. It came here and it was 5 nothing there against. So, now we have to change something in
my mind. I know there's people that have had to pay more in the past. So, it's not fair and life isn't fair. But I think that is something that we need to address eventually. We don't have to do it on this motion. I support the motion going forward. Everybody can still choose not
to annex. Everybody can choose not to hook up. But when it comes down to the decision of wanting to hook up, that's the time you think it's pretty fair. So, I'll support the motion. If anybody has more discussion,
raise your hand. Mr. Chz question. How does this change and and I'm in favor of it, but how does this change what currently exists today? If that could just be clarified the way the way we have things I I I get this maybe I'm confused with the um somebody
petitioning to be next. What's the difference? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Um so currently uh if you are next to municipal utilities, it is a tougher statutory process to annex rather than um under a different subdivision. takes considerably longer. Um, county can
potentially oppose it. Uh, when we went through this with Dunmers, a municipal judge had recommended orderly annexation process for each individual property owner, which would have to be done in this instance. Um, if we don't have an orderly annexation agreement for the entire area.
>> Thank you. >> So, it really streamlines everything for both our staff and for the person annexing. >> That's very good. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a few comments. Um, you know, as I've fielded calls and responded to
emails, you know, I've I've kind of explained my position and, you know, I supported this uh previously and I just shared with folks that, you know, I think from a city perspective, you know, we've obviously got a patchwork of those in city, out of city, and I think from a
city and administrative standpoint, it makes sense. And as a representative of Brainer, I, you know, was acting in the city's interest in supporting that. Um, and you know, obviously talking with staff, uh, hearing the, um, from the
residents in the unincorporated area, you know, and watching the county meetings, it's it's clear that, you know, I think I'm not necessarily in favor of supporting either of the options at this point. Um, I think that, you know, and the folks that I have talked to, even in, you know, in my own
neighborhood in South Brainard, um, and residents of Brainard, I think, you know, they're kind of the opinion of, you know, let these folks well enough alone. Um, so I I don't I guess I don't have an appetite at this point of pursuing this further.
So, I'm going to not support the motion. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Anybody else? Seeing no more discussion. Tony, please call the role. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, >> no. >> Jagger,
>> no. >> Erikson, >> no. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. 43. >> I think it failed. >> Carried. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> All right. That does it for unfinished
business. Moving on. Number 10, new business. 10A. We have a public hearing resolution for 2026 through 2030 capital improvement plan. I believe this would be Connie. >> Yes. Thank you. Um >> we want to give
>> So staff has been working on the spring bond issue. >> Hang on a second. Connie, you could just give these people minute or a minute or two to to clear out. >> We're sprinting to the bathroom. >> I already did. >> Going to cruise right through all this stuff. losing.
>> Okay, >> we'll take a threem minute break. >> Sorry about that, Connie. We We just lost half our council for a couple minutes, so we'll take a a few minutes of a break here. Reconvene at >> 10:03. >> Double.
>> Are we on still? It's almost 11:00 where I'm at. I don't know what you guys are complaining about. >> Huh? >> I don't quack. >> Are you talking about this tonight? the
>> resurfacing. >> Yes, I believe that's the next one. >> Okay. >> Which one we on? >> Okay. session. I've been I've been contact >> got a headache >> from tonight.
>> I just think I need more water. In fact, I want to go get a walk. >> My office. But you you'll never see me without one. basketball. >> Yeah. >> Other than that, I really don't care. My feel is better. I look better.
>> Well, thank you. And I almost thought I had I almost thought I had peaked. >> It was a little toasty. >> Oh boy. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. I didn't think they'd go quite >> He shared his discount structure with me and I don't I don't think there's any
payback there. Like it has to be it has to be more. Y has to give the city more to make up for that over over the course of a generation. Well, >> or the other argument is it's worth it. >> And if you don't think that
>> Well, I think it's I think it's worth it. I need four. >> I would too. >> But I don't think you have four. >> I don't know. >> Who do you think the other two are? >> Jeff.
>> Correct. So who are it's got to be Jerger and or >> So now you know you know how to fix this if you want it to go down fine. >> The hard thing is is it does cost
>> but if we don't do it now it's a little >> Yeah. But you don't ever have to do it. You made it 150 years without. >> We're going to get started again. >> At 10:03, >> whatever it cost me a month. >> What day is it?
>> Is it Tuesday? >> Still the same day. Stunic. >> Um I believe we were on Connie Hillman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Breaking this down for us. >> Okay. So, um staff has been working on the spring bond issue and as part of the debt issue, the plan is for the city to issue CIP bonds for the fire station
remodel. As part of the statutory requirements to issue CIP bonds, the council will need to hold a public hearing for the capital improvement plan. Miss Chris Hogan from Baker Tilly is online to be able to answer um any questions regarding the issuance of CIP bonds in the process.
Um the dollar amount will actually be set at a subsequent meeting for the bonds, but we do need a supermajority vote. So we need a 52 vote in order to issue CIP bonds. Um so at that um if Chris Hogan is available online and then
the recommended action is to hold the public hearing regarding the proposed capital improvement plan and the issuance of CIP bonds. >> Thank you Connie. So next step >> if there's any questions regarding the process otherwise we need to have the public hearing.
>> Okay. Anybody have questions? >> See none. We will now open the public hearing. It is 10:04. So if you're here to speak on the county 26 through 2030 capital improvement plan, including those bonds,
please come forward. If you're online, press star three. Anybody on there? Max, I'll ask again. If you want to approach the council on this, please do so. No. >> Is that on the street improve or
>> it's the whole capital improvement plan. There's there's a following. Um >> it's a different item. >> It's a dead issuance. Different item. >> Yep. There's a different item. >> So, it looks like nobody. So, we'll close the public hearing at 10:04 still. Next, we are looking for
a motion to consider the adoption of the attached resolution adopting the capital improvement plan and providing preliminary approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds there under >> a quick question. >> Yeah, go ahead Johnson.
>> Mr. President, is there a timeline on when this needs to be approved? Connie, >> the timeline that we're on right now is to hold the public hearing because it starts the 30-day referendum period. So, we have to hold the public hearing and adopt the CIP plan. You don't necessarily have to adopt the resolution.
>> So, you need to hold the public >> the resolution to issue the debt can wait hold off. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, but we do need a motion to adopt the the uh capital improvement plan. >> So, we could have two separate motions or we could have one motion.
>> Correct. It's up to the motioner. >> Still waiting for a motion. >> Motion to approve the capital improvement plan. >> I'll second that. Motion by Chzach. Second by Bevvens. Just on the capital improvement plan. >> Correct. Uh Johnson.
>> Yeah, you could have done it in both motions. I'm a no. This this would cautify me approving the plan to overspend on the fire department when we already made a motion in this exact meeting to go back to the drawing board and see if we can't get cost back down under that 5.5 and the bond issuance
back down to 5.2. So I just can't support it in good faith because I don't support it. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Anybody else? Seeing no more discussion. Tony, please call the role.
>> Beans, >> yes. >> Chazak, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> Sternick, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> no. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That motion carries. Next, we are shot, Mr. Chair. Yeah. >> To uh
>> prove the issuance of the general obligation bonds there under. >> Yep. >> So, just to clarify, you're not setting the amount tonight. The amount can be set at a subsequent meeting. >> Okay, we will set that amount in the next 30 days.
>> Okay, that clear. Any discussion? See none. Let's go to a vote. Tony, call the roll. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunn, yes. >> Jagger, >> no. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD,
>> yes. That motion carries. Baby steps. I believe that was 61. >> Okay. All right. Next up is 10B. This is a public hearing and resolution ordering improvement and ordering preparation of
plans for 2026 resurfacing projects. This one is our city engineer Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be quick. Uh so for the 2026 resurfacing projects, a public hearing was called and noticed. Uh further an informational meeting was held a couple weeks ago uh
on March 26th to answer questions from residents. So at this time staff is recommending holding the improvement hearing to hear testimony from residents and then further to adopt the attached resolution that orders the improvement and orders preparation of the plans. Uh staff as well as WSB staff is available
to answer questions from the council. >> Thank you Jesse. >> First off, does anybody have questions for staff? Doesn't look like it. >> So, it's 10:08. We will open the public hearing for these improvements.
>> 2026 resurfacing projects. >> May I ask this? >> We're in the public hearing. >> Um, come on up, sir. >> Well, I'm at >> Just introduce yourself, name, and address first, please. >> Uh, Robert Morris. I'm at 416 Fairfield
Lane. >> That's the town homes. Fairfield Town Homes. Right. >> Uh we were only wondering uh when it would take place because we're looking into if you've ever seen Fairfield Lane
get that re resurfaced or whatever. So we want to do it after you complete >> Oh sure. >> Spruce drive. >> Yep. So typically public hearing is just whether or not you're for or against the project. But that's a pretty simple question. Mr. Dean, if you want to answer that.
>> We are planning for some time during this construction season, but until we award the project and get a schedule from the contractor, we can't nail down specifics. >> And then you'll send out a letter saying >> that is >> when it'll happen. >> Yeah. Folks will get coordinated with
>> Spruce Drive or Great End. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> City engineer Dean is uh is your point of contact for the detailed answers on your questions about the project. >> Okay. Thank you. Are you happy you got to sit through the rest of the meeting for that? >> Yeah,
>> we're here every two weeks. >> You just won my vote for the most patient guy on the planet. On the planet. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anybody else? >> I'm the president of the town home. So, >> yeah, I made you do it. >> Come on up.
>> If I could just stand, I'd appreciate it. >> Oh, I get I would have to get get you to the microphone. >> No, no, get up there. No, I'm I I just wanted to be able to stand. I >> Yeah, that's fine, sir. >> Just name and address first, please. >> Okay. My name is uh Steve Johnson, and
the address in question is 2601 South 11th. Now, to explain where that's at, if you go down to WW Thompson, you take a left towards Pepsi, you'll be taking your very first right just past the
swamp. and what they're looking at and and they're calling it an improvement when in fact they're talking about gutter driveways and to resurface the road when in fact uh that's not the
case. There's not a piece of 11th Street goes uh south, makes a little jog and then goes down to the highway department or the city department. And the problem with the road is this. The road was
built on a swamp, okay? And they want to resurface it. Understandable. It could use it. And the reason being is the city uses that road for its graders, its front end loaders, its dump trucks,
and everything else in the world. And if you were to look on a given day, who uses that street? It's the city, not the people, the residents of the street of which there's four of us. Uh, it's me, uh, Superior Fuels that just moved in
next to Ameras and then you got the rug people next to it. And down on the other end, you have I think it's like Medivan or something like that. So any rate, the city for a while there actually was, if you would first take a
right, they were dumping the snow from when they do city cleanup. And on a street like that that is on top of a swamp. I don't care what time of year it is. You've ridden a snowmobile across a swamp in the middle of the winter and it's soft. Any rate, so they're dumping
snow and then they got a front end loader. The north side of the street is all tore to hell, so to speak. and the rest of the street is all beat to submission. Now they're coming in saying that they would like to charge me $21,000
to resurface my section when in fact those are the guys that have tore the street up. And I would say, "Okay, fine. From now on, don't use that street because it's not able to handle what the
city is beating the crap out of it." Any rate, I guess what I'm trying to say in the long and the short of it, I want to see as time goes on, and this is going to be a little bit, but I want to see uh either uh something taken off of this
bill because it's not right. And that's all I got because it's atrocious that I would have to buy the city a new road when they actually in a sense have wrecked it. And I know a lot of the guys and I wave at him every day that work
for the city and we're friends and stuff. But as you know the one guy I was talking to a couple years ago I asked him I said how do you feel on that front end loader? Do you feel it porpus when it's going down the road? Yeah it does doesn't it? I said well yeah because the
street is not able to handle what the city is putting it through. So the street is who has destroyed that street? Not us. Cuz we go there once a day and then we leave you know. So that's all I got. Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> Can I ask him a question? >> Yeah.
>> Mike. >> Yeah, that's fine. Shazar, >> thanks for your permission. Um, >> is that your home? >> No, no, it's a shop. >> Okay. >> That I have and I have my son. >> Yep. >> He runs a little business out of there. That's it. >> Yeah, I kind of figured. I wanted to
make sure though. Yeah. And um can somebody tell me the length of this 11th street portion that he's on south of the uh what is it the county road there city that goes east west over Pepsi 371. >> What's the length
>> and what is the street rated at by the way for >> excuse me what's this what's >> what's the length of that from the >> Jeeoff this is a public hearing right now. >> Understand? I'm just asking a question. >> About a half mile. >> What's that? >> Not quite a half mile. Okay. Not. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, yeah, just to keep it from a debate. >> Thanks for your time. >> Thank you. Anybody else here to address the council? >> I don't have a lot of questions, but I'm Bob Palmer on 1919 Birch Drive. >> 1919 Birch. You said Bob Palmer.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Please, uh, if you could get close to the mic. Thank you. >> I'll try to. I'm I'm basically blind, so. Okay. Okay. Well, anyhow, uh are they going from on Graden all the
way from uh out on sixth clear over to Woodrest? Is that the whole grad that's getting done? >> No. >> Um Jesse, city engineer Jesse Dean right there, he can he can talk to you about
the details of what's getting done on grade. It's not the entire thing I can tell you that, but he'll tell you exactly. Okay. What's >> and I I guess I am in favor of you know spruce. I mean that's a bad road. >> Sure. >> So >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Now, are the numbers set for the letter
we got? >> Uh >> it's a construction estimate. >> It's correct. Preliminary >> because I think it was 2333 or something is what they >> Mr. Dean can answer a lot of those questions for you. If you want to either talk to him after the meeting or tomorrow morning,
>> I can call him. Y big deal. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else in here to address us on these projects? Or if you're online, press star three. Anybody on there, Max?
>> Just tad. All right. >> There should be. >> Looks like nobody else. So, it is 10:16. We'll close the public hearing. No. >> Next, we're looking for a motion to adopt the attached resolution which orders the improvement and preparation of the plans.
>> Second. Motion by move. Second. >> Got a motion by Chzok, second by Bevans. And it looks like uh Erikson is in support. Any more discussion? >> No discussion. Tony, please call the RO. >> Beans, yes.
>> Chzac, Johnson, yes. Steick, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Resolution carries. Moving on to 10 C. This is a conditional use permit amendment for the dermat dermatology clinic 1410 and 1424 TC Drive. Uh, this
is James Cranley. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so River Birch Investments has requested an amendment to the original CUP for additional off- streetet parking spaces as there was a miscommunication that the approved CUP allowed the applicant to exceed the maximum number of off street parking spaces without restrictions. Uh,
at the time of the original CUP application, the applicant had not yet finalized their site/ivil plans for the dermatology building. Upon further review and calculations, the applicant would like to increase the amount of off- streetet parking to 90 total spaces to allow for staff and patient parking.
Planning Commission considered this request at their meeting on March 18th and recommended approval as presented with a 4 to1 vote and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Kra. Any questions for Mr. Kravic? >> Thank you. Then we are looking for a
motion. >> So move Well, move to approve the cup amendment that allows for 90 off streetet parking spaces at 1410 and 1424 TC Drive, Briner. I second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Chzuk. Anybody want to discuss it? We're all
okay. All good. Tony, call the role. >> Beven, >> yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunick, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> Odic, >> he's off. >> Yes. Ericson went to sleep.
>> I'll go wake him up. >> All right, that motion carries. Uh, moving on to 10E. skipping over 10D that we already covered. So 10E, we got a conditional use permit uh exceeding maximum lot size at 10 1017 Bluff
Avenue. >> Mr. Cranic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so the applicant is proposing the consolidation of three lots into one parcel on Bluff Avenue to allow for the construction of a single family home. The three lots will total 11,88 ft and the maximum allowed in the
traditional neighborhood 1 zoning district is 11,250 ft. A cup can be requested to exceed this number. Uh Bluff Avenue had vacated right-of-way portions many years ago that resulted in increased lot sizes in this area. I do want to note that the
three lots could not be legally adjusted to make two lots. Planning commission consider this request at their meeting on March 18th and unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Anybody have questions? >> Real quickly, Mr. Cranic, the picture that's in the packet that's showing it
appears as though there's one parcel ID number on the highlighted lot. That's the three lots we're talking about. >> When you look at the survey, um, it actually shows three. >> That's all I need. Thank you. >> Yeah, I looked at the same thing. It was a little confusing. I thought there was it was including two. >> The other two with homes. Yeah.
>> Nope. We're good. >> Anybody else have questions? >> I'm good. Sorry. >> Looks like no more questions. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Motion by Bevans, second by Stunic. Any discussion on that motion? >> Got the phone. >> Tony. All the roll.
>> Bevans. >> Yes. >> TZAC. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Stunn. >> Yes. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Next up, we have a >> variance non-conforming sideyard setback
at 1513 Pennsylvania Avenue. >> Again, this is Mr. Cranic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, the applicant has submitted a variance request to construct a 14x 26 accessory structure to replace an existing 10TX 20 accessory structure at 1513 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Property is located in a contemporary neighborhood to zoning district and the sideyard setback of the existing structure is 2 ft from the property line. Um, this applicant is looking to expand the size of it. So, that's the variance request. Uh, minimum sideyard setback in the CN2 zoning
district is 5T. Um the applicant is requesting to maintain that existing two-foot setback. Uh planning commission considered this request at their meeting on March 18th and unanimously recommended approval of the variance with a condition of installation of gutters to direct water away from the
neighboring property owner. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kravick. Does anybody have questions for staff? Jagger. >> Real quickly, Mr. Kravick, did the conversation come up? Is this how much is he lifting is intending to lift this site roughly? I can't remember that exact number, but right now the water
slopes down to the garage, so he actually gets water in his garage. >> Understood. So my question, this sits right on the property line. So did did you guys talk about >> the uh the water runoff that's going to be right into the next door neighbor's yard >> is gutters. >> So with the two setback um and the and
the eve overhang that wouldn't be, you know, probably considerable amount. Certainly the roof runoff um from the structure um could be considerable amount. Right now there's not gutters. Um, so I guess in my opinion, this would most likely be probably an improvement um with the the the water runoff from the roof. >> And we didn't hear anything from the
next door neighbor. Is that right? >> No, he's he did contact the next uh next door neighbor to make him aware of it and and he had indicated he didn't have any issues and nobody showed up to the public hearing. >> Thank you. That's all, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Could we curb the discussion down at that end, please?
>> Okay. Point of order. Thank you. Anything to add, Mr. Chzi? >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Cranic, I could have swore that they talked about any condition with gutters address exactly what Mr. >> Yep. So I did put that as the recommendation.
>> Okay. So that's part of that will be gutters will be required. >> It it is. Yeah. Staff's recommendation here which is plan. >> I saw the gutter part. That wasn't what I was talking but I'm satisfied. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any more questions for staff? Looks like we don't have any.
Looking for a motion. So move to approve. >> Okay. Motion by Bevon, second by Chzach. Discussion on the motion. >> Tony, call the role. >> Bevven, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stunic, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes.
>> OD, >> yes. Motion >> carries. >> Moving on to 10G. This is a policy uh for facility use. And this is Nick Broyal, city administrator. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Uh to my knowledge, the city has not had a public facility use policy up to this point.
Um, we that has created a couple of instances where we've had some issues. So, the purpose of this policy, it's a three-page policy. I won't I'll just hit a couple highlights and then I'll try to answer any questions you have. But, we we identified in the purpose that city facilities exist primarily to support and conduct official city business and
activities that further the city's governmental functions, services, and strategic objectives. You know, another uh pillar of this is to minimize any risk or liability or operational disruption to the city as we consider how we utilize our our public facilities. Um there's a few
definitions, but the policy statement that we are proposing is that the city of Briner facilities are not open for general public use. U they should be limited for official city operations and functions and any governmental partners and inter agency collaboration. Um item four is just some prioritizing some of
those things. um application and approval process. This does I think it's of note and I don't want to be uh uh misleading in any way but uh the this this policy would suggest that the city administrator would have administrative authority as a final authority to
approve deny or or any conditions for any use of public facilities. Um the city may impose reasonable conditions on use limit frequency duration or scope of use. And then there's some revocation, termination, couple bullets there. Um I mean I'm happy to answer any questions, but we've
had some instances where um um entities that are not affiliated with city business are using some facilities and it's it has just created some issues. So we're trying to clean that up. So this is clearly more restrictive than what we've done in the past, but I think it's in an effort to kind of take the oxygen
out of some of the challenges or disagreements that we've had in the past. I'd be happy to answer any questions and this has been vetted through our city attorney. >> Thank you, Mr. Broyals. Mr. Mayor. Oh, Johnson. >> I don't have any questions, but I I wholly disagree with it. It's that phys
city facilities are to be used in a manner that advances public purposes, preserves the ability for city operations, minimizes risk, and maintains neutrality and compliance applicable law. I don't think that's the reason that we have facilities. That's not the reason we build parks. It's not the reason we have a meeting room at the
police department. We we build things for the community, for the public. These are public owned buildings, not city staff owned buildings. I don't think we should just put one person in city hall at charge of determining who gets to use the buildings or not because they're city staff's clubouses. I I don't I don't I
see that there's a purpose for a policy. I've long asked for a policy on city facilities and city equipment, but this isn't at all what I would have wanted when I asked for it. I I I think if the Rotary wants to meet in the pavilion at Rotary Park, I think they ought to be
able to just show up and meet there. >> Yeah, agreed. I I I see the point for this whole policy because obviously there's a liability that can come up, maybe has come up, but there's one way
to do it is just not allow anybody to use the facilities. Another way to do it is allow everyone to use it whenever they want or find something somewhere in between to regulate it. Uh Nick and I talked about this last week and it came up like, well, what about the
library? So, there's a lot of stuff that goes on in the library. Do we want to be the ones that have to say yes or no to a quilting class that they want to do next week? Maybe we don't have a meeting in time, you know, things like that. I
think a lot of that stuff can be handled administratively. And I don't think this includes the parks, does it? This doesn't include park. >> Doesn't exclude the parks, >> right? Maybe we need to maybe we need to fine-tune the whole policy and and bring it back to have it more a little bit more specific about what the this
pertains to. I'd have to read through it again to to know what to change. But >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah. Just real quickly, this just seems way too complicated to me. It just it feels like a a lot of governance here. Uh at the airport, we have a conference room. Anyone can call up, reserve it. If
it's open, you can use it. You create damage, you're liable for it. Period. It's you know, you sign up for it. It's it's that simple. Um I don't don't want us to get down the slippery path of yes, you can use it, but the only if only if he says so and just way too much. I simplify it, keep it open. Until there's
a problem, let's not try to fix it. That's all. Thank you, >> Mr. Chzat. >> Yeah. Uh you accept a motion? Uh, is anybody else planning to speak on this? No. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. >> I would move that we uh uh do exactly what you suggested, Mr. OD, to bring it
back with kind of a reward it should make it more acceptable. I think I'm agreeing with what Gabe was talking about what uh Mr. Gagger said. So, >> okay, that's my motion. >> Get that, Tony?
>> Okay. Do we have a second? Second >> motion by Chzach, second by Johnson. >> Discussion on that motion. >> Yeah, I'm I'm just agreeing with what I everything I heard. It needs to be re uh revisited.
>> Just one more caveat. I want to make sure this passes legal first. Want want legal to weigh in on whatever comes back. So, >> absolutely. Mr. Langel. >> Oh, you're just you're just asking when it does come back, Mr. Jagger, or right now? Give >> uh I'm I'm saying for why why bring something back that doesn't pass legal.
>> Okay. >> Craft the language. Have Joe look at it. >> Got this man some time. >> Okay. >> I think Mr. Lang was nodding his head in approvement is what I thought. But >> anybody else down here? All good. Tony >> Bevans.
>> Yes. >> Chzac, yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Stunnik, yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Motion carries. That does it for new business. Moving on to number 11, staff reports. Tony Gage, >> nothing. >> Chief Holmes,
>> nothing. >> Chief Davis, >> nothing. Thank you. >> All right. Sean Strong, >> nothing. >> Max, we The dispatch is hiding back there now. >> Okay.
>> Connie Helman, >> nothing to add. >> Jesse Dean, I'm going to try and be brief. Uh last week the Oak Street PMT uh the pro for the project uh Matt discussed some goals and uh kind of some of the desired objectives out of the project. Uh we'll continue to work on
that process throughout the next couple months and as well as crafting what the initial stakeholder and public engagement uh meetings and outreach are going to look like. Um further the highway 210 we had two public open houses over at Crowing County Land
Services. MDOT held that um just to answer questions about upcoming construction and detours. Uh a lot of that detail is on the mind website. We do have that in our engineering page. We have links to all those um so people can find that information whenever they need
to. They can sign up for email alerts, all those bits and pieces. Uh you I did include it in my report. There is some uh work that is occurring out there. It's really related to the private utilities getting kind of out of the way of the construction project. Um come midappril you'll see a lot of things
start to ramp up with the prime contractor on the project starting to get prepped ready to go for kind of that May 1st. So >> thank you engineer Dean James Graham. >> Thank you Mr. President. So just want to update on the upcoming planning commission meeting on the 15th. So there'll be a workshop at 5:00 to uh
before the actual meeting uh to kick off the comprehensive plan update. Uh then there's an application for a variance for a gym um driveway just a block over um for potential new cons uh remodel on that building. Uh and then we're continuing to work on the Shorland ordinance. I think we're getting very
close on it. So um I believe planning commission will be reviewing a final document. >> Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Mr. Langel, >> nothing here. Thank you. >> Britney comment. >> Nothing to add. >> Paul Sandy, >> uh we have upcoming facility tours this week. Many of you signed up for those
tours. Um, I think we'll adjourn to those tonight. But April 9th, uh, at 12:00 for the wastewater treatment facility, April 10th for the water treatment facility at noon, and April 16th for the hydro dam at noon. Um, otherwise, the uh, utility commission
had a pretty long meeting uh, here on March 31st. Uh, welcome all the council members to watch that meeting. There was a lot of business that was uh, handled during that meeting. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. >> Mr. Sharper, are you out there? No, he's not on. >> Not on tonight. Okay,
>> Mr. Broyals. >> No, sir. >> No, nothing to add. >> Nothing to add. >> All right, then on to the honorable mayor Bedau. This has been the longest meeting in the history of meetings and I thank anyone that has survived it. Uh, if you need counseling, we can help you
find some counseling on how to >> deal with the pressures of I am trying to make it longer. Uh, no. I think it was I thought there was a lot of good business here at the city and although sometimes it takes a really long time to get there, I appreciate all the heavy lifting that our staff has done even though sometimes we got to put the thumb
on you about uh budgets and whatnot. So, I really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chzach. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody as well for the robust discussion. And I'm telling you, I am getting really fed up with the discussion going on when people are talking. Can we just curb it? It's
tiring. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Mr. Stunning, >> I would just like to say have an open mind about changing the meeting till 6 or 6:30. It's going to be 11:00 before we get out of here. That's ridiculous.
Change a meeting to 6:00 and 6:30. Try it for 3 months. See what people think. I would just say have an open mind to that. >> Thank you, Mr. Stunic. Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Uh just one bit of uh very tragic sad news. Uh Mr. Daryl Palmer, who is our airport uh
commission chair, uh tragically lost his youngest son last Wednesday. So on behalf of the airport, city council, city of Brainard, we would like to extend our uh deepest sympathies to uh Mr. Mr. Palmer and his family at this time. That's all.
>> Thank you, Mr. Jagger, Mr. Beavens. >> Nothing to add. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. after over three hours of continuous use, my brainard issued laptop nearly combusted. So, I apologize for losing it
there for a minute and um I bet a half an hour of it can be attributed to the roll call vote. So, thank you for your patience. So, >> thank you, Chairman Ericson. >> Chairman Johnson, >> thank you. I hope everybody had a happy Easter.
Michigan 6963. >> Hope you weren't recording it. the heck. >> And I wish Artemis 2 god speed on their Steinfeld Seinfeld. I knew it was going to happen. >> Thank you for ruining everyone's night, Mr. Johnson. >> Uh I have nothing to add, but we are
looking for a motion to adjourn to uh close session per Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 2B for preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the council's authority. So move motion by Stunic.
Second. Second by Bevans. Uh Tony. >> Bevans. >> Yes. >> Shazak. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Stun. Yep. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. >> You don't have to go.
>> Uh let's just as quickly as we can if we could just do this in a couple minutes. >> Ham's great. I don't know who's all supposed to be in the Part: 2
at 6:45. Um, I'll just wait for a hand gesture, I guess. Max, are we ready to go? Um, okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. So, 6:45 p.m. Brainer Council Chambers uh safety
and public works committee meeting. Um, just two items before we get started. Obviously, I'm joining virtually and we've got this tested out, but so far so good. Um, if I should for some reason lose connection, I would hand the gavvel to Councilman Jagger to chair the
remainder of the meeting. And then secondly, we had one change to our agenda. Uh, the seven items on our agenda, we wanted to move item number six to the top of the list. Um, public utilities director Sandy is taking that item. He has another item that he needs
to go to personnel and safety for. And so we wanted to go ahead and move that. And with that said, we'll go ahead and start our meeting with our seven items. The first of which is the professional services agreement with SE for the
development of city standard details and specifications and public utility worker uh excuse me, public utilities director Sandy. >> Thank you, uh, Chair Ericson. Um, so this is an item that I've been working with city engineer Jesse Dean on um, since I came to the city back in
November. Um, the city right now utilizes kind of a combination of um, standard details that we've used for a very long time um, even back to my tenure and before my tenure. And um, a conglomeration of technical
specifications that really guide the design of all of our public infrastructure projects. And this includes um the city-led projects that we do in house um consultant projects that we consult out and also private uh development projects um that are ultim
ultimately dedicated to the city. Um this item is before the uh committee tonight to um hopefully uh get a standard set of details and specifications created that will guide all of our infrastructure projects
moving forward into the future. um as kind of a a brief history. So um in my previous role as a consultant engineer over in um we had worked with the city of Baxter to develop um a full set of city standard details and
specifications for the city of Baxter. Um really these uh details and specifications provide a uniform basis for all of our design across um all the public works fun functions um not only from a city side but a consultant side
and for a developer projects. Um they they really need an in-depth review as it relates to regulatory standards and um industry best practices. Um they'll really streamline our plan review processes. Um a good example of um
something that this could have been very beneficial for was our recent um workings with keepers on the Voyager Heights projects. We had to send them multiple um example files, I'll call it, of our of our previous details and specifications. It was really in a um
I'll call it a hodgepodge of documents um consisting of details, specifications, and things that we've used on previous projects. and those have to get modified pretty extensively to kind of match the site conditions. And is what we're looking for here is to
basically get a a booklet of all of our city standard details that are included in our construction plans. And with that, um, the specifications that guide how the work is completed, um, what standards are referenced and, um, really
helping city staff to keep a uniform basis across all of our different public works functions, both from a city process, a consultant process, and a developer process. So, given SDH's um workings with the city of Baxter, our
neighboring community, um, we thought this might be a good time. Um we've gotten authorization from the city of Baxter to utilize their standard details and specifications as a starting point for our process. Um would really be um working with uh Jesse and I through a
process of red lines and updating what the city of Baxter has completed um to create a brainer set of standard details and specifications um for use on all of our projects. Um the total uh
professional services fee that SC has estimated um is $40,000. That's broken out about 50/50 across the details and the specifications. So the details are actually like the CAD drawings of specific public works elements. The specifications are the
word documents that go into the project manual that specify um how work is to be done and constructed um pursuant to um applicable guidelines. Um so we we've proposed kind of a breakdown um of how
this this project would kind of come to fruition if approved by the city council. Um at the BPU commission meeting on March 31st, the commission did approve the use of water uh distribution enterprise funds and um BPU
uh lift station force main enterprise funds for a portion of this cost and that's about $15,000. We're proposing that um the additional $25,000 be split up to $10,000 out of the city construction fund 401. Uh
10,000 out of the city sanitary sewer collection enterprise fund and 5,000 from the city's storm water enterprise fund. And that's just a breakdown of how um how many details we anticipate coming from each of those funds, how often
they'll be utilized um and trying to um accurately uh spread that cost over those funds um uh to how the work gets done. And so that that's our proposal in front of you tonight. Um this was not a
budgeted item in the city's budget uh for 2026. Again, when I came on in November, I saw this as an opportunity to bring forward um to see what the council's and commission's reaction was to this. I find it um that it would be a extremely beneficial um process to go
through with city staff and on the BPU side to ensure all of our standards and specifications are aligned. And I think it'll just make projects moving forward that much more seamless whether they're a city-led project, a consultant project, or a developer project. So that's the proposal in front of you
tonight. Um we would recommend that um we enter into the agreement with SE uh for the FE not to exceed a 40,000 um with the splits to those funds as I uh had indicated previously. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Um I imagine we'll have some comments on
this one. I see a hand up already. Um comments of the committee. Councilman Jagger, please. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sandy, perhaps I just have a couple quick questions. I'm not really looking for real lengthy answers here. I know we got a lot to get to. Baxter did their standards and specs. Do you know when that was? >> It was last year.
>> Do you know how much that cost? >> Um I believe I mean they didn't have a full track amount, but it was north of this number I would call it. And so we do see some cost savings by using theirs. >> Okay. And how long is one of these one of these uh how long is the creation of these standards and specs good for? Do
how long how long how long will it last? >> We discussed this briefly um at a staff level. We see this as like a debriefing opportunity at the end of each construction season where we would go through and update those details to things that went well or went wrong in the previous season and we would be able to do that ourselves. >> We could we could self-perform that. Y
>> Okay, got it. Um my only other question is is this seems like to me like something that other cities would have already done. If this is truly like a standardization and a specification creation, I find it hard to believe that we're the first that we need to self-perform this, self-create
that. So, educate me as to why there isn't one out there that we can buy from somebody that can be 99% or 85 90% applicable and we can patch up the areas that are missing. >> That's certainly in the cards. Um, we foresee this as there's a lot of
standards and things that get referenced in our specifications and it's a lot of backing um standards. Um, you know, the city Baxter did just go through this and they have authorized our use of that. Um, SE is the holder of those files right now. Um, we could talk to the city
of Baxter to see if they would just give those to us. Um, but I think there is enough process. I mean, this is probably a six-month process um, working directly with SE. Three months for the specifications, three months for the details. Um, and there's going to be a lot of red lines that come along with
it. And so, it's really, um, addressing our red lines as they get them back and backing. >> That's all. Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> You bet. Thank you, Councilman Chzik. You have comments? >> Thank you, Mr. Ericson. Um, is uh this proprietary?
>> Proprietary as in >> se what they've done the work? >> No, I mean I think they're own the the work is owned by the city of Baxter. I think you know um given our relationship with them at the wastewater plant and some of the stuff we've been working on them with um you know over the previous
years there's more willingness to share this information back and forth. I think there's going to be a lengthy process to update what we don't do everything the same as the city of Baxter does. And I think that's that's why this fee is here. That's why we would select SE and and staff's opinion to do this work is
because they've already been through this process with them and there's a lot of updates to how Brainer does things. >> Okay. Backter. >> You indicated at the uh public utility meeting that this is a public document that Baxter has. Is that correct?
>> I would say it's a public document. I don't know if like the CAD files and the internal workings of the actual details are a public document. >> Oh yeah. Okay. Those typically are have a level of proprietary proprietariness
proprietary. So I do believe that's correct if I'm not mistaken. Um that because that's what I'm getting at. I I I I I struggle kind of like trying to recreate the wheel when it's just been created and it seems like uh generally speaking this is a an excess it's kind
of like okay suppose we go hire SC we do this work and then uh 6 months down the road somebody another city uh you know Buffalo Minnesota says hey let me see that city of Brainard and then they take it and have no qualms about taking what Baxter done and
we've done and paid money for that that's the problem I have. Can I be reassured that if we pay se we're just not throwing money at this because of uh what Baxter did and we want to be good neighbors? That's kind of what I sense here. I don't I mean I I I really this
is one I really struggle with. I I can see the value in it. I'm not questioning that. I just have a problem with we have a neighbor whether it's next door or 20 miles or 100 miles away that they have something that's been created.
To Mr. Jagger's point, I do believe. So, tell me, how can I be comfortable knowing this money is well spent other than the red lines and everything you just mentioned? I mean, is that worth $40,000 to us as a city? >> I think from staff's perspective, it
definitely is. I think it standardizes um all of our construction projects across public works. um you know in the consultant world which I came from that's a what a lot of consultants do is we're we're taking work that we've previously performed for other cities
and making updates to it there that that's a lot of so for example there was cities that I was working for that were asking for city standard details and specifications we would start at a template from another community and use that as the guide the playbook for
creating this city's details and so that happens quite often in in the consultant industry. We're continually improving things and making things for our clients. So, I would say that you know it happens behind the scenes I would say either way whether
>> well what let me ask you what kind of staff time do you estimate our city staff will be putting into this once we work with what what's your estimation? Um, I believe we have probably, well, it's a six-month timeline in the proposal. So, I would say there's
probably, you know, there's four-week review periods between each meeting with SE to go over red lines. Um, and so, you know, I can estimate in that four-week period, Jesse and I might have 10 hours to 12 hours a piece into this. You know, we were talking about it a little bit
today where we think we could probably eat up $40,000 in staff time doing this ourselves pretty quickly. Um, and that's not to say that Jesse and I certainly aren't um, experts in all of these fields, the environmental, the storm water regulatory standards, all of that.
You know, we're engineers, but we're certainly not uh, we don't cover the full gamut of um, engineering practice that public works projects involve. Okay. >> Thank you. I'm I'm good, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um I
have no questions other than you know maybe um to Councilman Chza given the question that you asked I guess are you satisfied with that answer or um otherwise I'd be looking for a motion an option would be to hold this over and I
guess maybe it's a question for Sandy u Mr. Sandy, how timesensitive is this? Um, would this if the count if the committee wanted to hold this over for another meeting to get some additional answers, would that be a detriment on your end? >> I don't believe so. It's not really
timesensitive. We were hoping that this stuff was kind of in place for next year's construction projects, which development will kind of start taking place here in the next few months. And so, um, as we develop these, if they're approved by the council, and we can certainly, you know, um, go back and
budget for them for 2027, too. So, there's certainly, you know, this isn't, we've gotten by, um, without this for a long time. There's just a lot of value that I've seen on the private side and city's having this where the city staff can just hand over a document >> um, to the consultants that are leading
a project and they know what the city's standards are, right? >> Thank you very much. And I I do see the value in it. Um as has been noted and I think there would be some efficiencies for our staff and cost savings therein. And so I'm comfortable moving forward. I'm not suggesting we hold it over, but
if I just wanted to establish that that is an option if we have if we wanted to. But with that said, I'd be looking for a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move we accept staff's recommendation on this. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion and I believe I heard a second. >> Second, Jagger.
>> Thank you. Any further discussion? Uh, hearing none, we'll take it to a vote. We because I'm virtual, we do have to do a a roll call. Is there a staff who could do a roll call, please? >> Jesse. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson,
>> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carried. And brings us to our next agenda item, which is construction contract and bid. Uh, Norson construction for fire station renovation. And for this one, I think we have Fire
Chief Holmes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh with me tonight, uh is uh Mike England from WSAF, Scott Whitmore, and Scott Pakula from Noron. Uh before you tonight, uh for your consideration is the
established cost for the fire station renovation and a construction contract with Noron Construction. The fire station renovation project has transitioned from the design phase to the final finalized project price or
cost. A year ago, a conceptual design with preliminary cost estimate was presented to the city council during a workshop at the public library. This project came out of the workshop as a council priority. This year at the
February 2nd council meeting, uh, city council approved a design and construction services contract with Woods and designated Northine Construction as the general contractor. Following this approval, Woods finalized the construction documents on February
27th, 2026, enabling North Construction to solic solicit and secure competitive bids for the fire station renovation. uh to provide a little bit more detail on the progress, I'll turn it over to Mike England, who will walk us through the
background and the steps that brought us to this point. >> Thank you, Chief Holmes. Uh Mike England, uh architect at Woods. So, what we've been doing over the past year is um is we've been working alongside with
a lot of local contractors and subcontractors that have knowledge and expertise of the building. And in doing that, we've capitalized on their expertise and knowledge and we've really dug into the building. It is a a remodel and addition. And so, um, it's been a a
great process to where we've been able to really dig into things, find out a lot of the detail. In doing so, we've been able to, uh, really zero in on a definitive scope associated with this project, which is a bit of a messy remodel. And so we've
worked with local subcontractors such as um Holden Electric, Pikes Plumbing, and Thelen and Heating and Roofing. So they've worked on the building in the past, have an intimate knowledge. So that's really helped us out as a design firm to again have our construction documents and specifications reflect uh
all of that uh digging into the details of the building. with getting Orson on uh the team as well, we've been able to do some selective demolition and really dig into uh the physical structure itself and think about the uh the construction process itself, the phasing.
Um we have had even a meeting where we took a look at the the low voltage needs which included uh uh vendors such as Midwest Securities, All State Communications uh and others that again have that intimate knowledge of the building. And
so we were able to look at some of the low voltage infrastructure and uh look at how we could best equip this building for a lot of years to come. Uh so again, our construction documents and the final price did include uh all of that due diligence again working alongside some
of those local subcontractors, vendors that have worked with the city of Brainard on this building in particular. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mike. Um as of mid-March then Noran has a finalized bid has finalized
the bid process using the Gordian EZ IQC process. Uh the total project cost for the station renovation is 5,994,282.76. Uh this figure is comprehensive and inclusive of all fees, permits, and the
previously approved design and construction service contract with Woods. The final price includes um like I mentioned Woods contract and a 3% contingency on the project.
The current total price uh reflects the necessity to adjust from the initial $5,500 estimate. This increases driven by a strategic decision to enhance the long-term usefulness of the station and
mitigate future maintenance expenses to ensure the facility meets the operational needs for the next 30 to 40 years. We have integrated important updates such as expanding the network infrastructure for all office and work areas and rewiring an aging fire alarm
system. We have incorporated critical deferred maintenance items such as roof replacement, exterior windows, sophets, and an outdated generator into this project. Add addressing these needs now is significantly more cost-effective
than manage them as a standalone project in the next two to three years. This project has also been impacted by recent inflationary pressure on construction materials, including an 8% increase on steel during the first quarter of 2026
and an 20 to 30% increase of copper prices over the last 6 months. um to go over the impacts of the market volatility. Scott Whitmer from Noron will provide some more.
>> Hey, I'm gonna jump in. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Uh Chief Holmes, um I'm going to just suggest I know we we've got we're fairly short on time and I hate to cut you off, but I want to just bring it back to the committee and they I'm sure they'll have questions and if
they have questions about that, maybe that time we can bring the um the other gentleman up. Sure. >> Um, and just a procedural when this goes to council, um, you know, I think we'll have an opportunity at that time to make, you know, I'll kind of tee this
up, but then, um, I'll ask the council president if you can come back up and kind of share additional details if if if deemed necessary. But I apologize just in the interest of time, I want to keep moving along and I'm sure there'll be discussion and questions and they might just end up coming back up. So,
>> Sure. Absolutely. Um, >> all right. Thank you very much. With that said, um, committee members, do you have comments or questions? I know I have just a few. >> Go ahead, Jeff. >> Uh, I'll defer to you for now, Mr. Chair. >> Okay.
>> Yes, Councilman Jagger. >> Thank you. I'll try to be quick. A couple quick questions here. Um, uh, there is, at least I didn't see one in the packet, a breakdown of where that roughly where that 500 grand is at. How specifically how much of that is deferred maintenance?
Do you have that? I don't have that definitively broken out, but we can provide that for. >> Will we get it at some point? >> Yeah, you can get it. >> That'd be great. So, the I guess the question that I have is is if the of the 500 grand, I would feel a lot better about it if it was all inflationary. But the when I heard that there's deferred maintenance going on here, my question
is where was that deferred maintenance? Who who knew about the deferred maintenance and when were we going to take care of it? >> So, a lot like I mentioned for instance the roof replacement. Okay. Um during the process we learned that that's at
end of age right now. So instead of doing a third or twothirds of the roof during this project and then in two or three years doing the remainder, we just incorporated that all into that. >> Understood. So So the other the other
roof was on a CIP somewhere. It was scheduled to be replaced at some it was somewhere in our future on a document. It's not on a document because we've been working on this for >> since 2018 project. >> Understood. So I guess uh and just real
quickly maybe um the representative from Noran just real if you could just and I'm don't mean to put you on the spot. If you know this great if you don't say you can get back to me. Can you just breeze through real quickly what your uh construction uh warranties are? Total construction structural manpower just
your normal warranty blanket. >> Yeah. Yeah, I can I don't have the full breakout with me, but we can definitely get that to you. >> No problem. That's all. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um and again, no disrespect, gentlemen, but I just wanted to I knew they'd have
questions probably remain to the what you were you were going to say. Um I had a conversation with Chief Holmes. He was able to describe this in great detail to me. Um staff had a really nice um breakdown of this in the packet. Um, additionally, I did not have a chance to
reach out to Connie, but she sent an email. Um, and I I appear she may have stepped out. Is she available? >> She did. >> Okay, no problem. I may ask her for a question or two at main main agenda. So,
um, any other comments or questions for these, uh, gentlemen on this item? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. I I just want to point out um what you're asking them to do right now. I appreciate because um and and this is
no disrespect to anybody, but this is our committee level and sometimes I just see this as just a waste of time and it doesn't mean your presentation. It's just that this should be done in front of the full council. I think to Mr. Ericson's point, why are we doing presentations like this in front of the
committee when it needs to be in front of the full council? And I know we got a big agenda tonight and I'm not saying we should hold this off. I'm just saying that sometimes these committee meetings are just a complete waste of time because the information you guys are
giving us is very valuable and it needs to be before the whole council. That's not on the people presenting. That's not on us here per se. It's not on administration. But I think we need to look at what we can do to maximize our efficiency at these meetings. That's all I got, Mr. Chair.
All right. Thank you very much. And yeah, I'll just again reiterate that, you know, this is a big agenda that we have, but this is also a big item and I agree it it it deserves time on main agenda and I think we'll we'll we'll try to give it that. But with that said, I'd
be entertaining a motion on this item um from the committee. >> I'll make a motion to approve the construction contract with North Construction to approve the total project cost of 5994282.76. And I so move. >> Thank you. And I already heard a second motion in a second. Any further
discussion? >> All right. Hearing none. Um, call for a roll call and a vote, please. >> Chzok. >> Yes. >> Jagger. >> Yep. >> Ericson. >> Thanks, guys. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And hopefully we'll have an opportunity to hear more at the
main council. >> All right. This brings us to our next item which is the review classification for non-conservation tax forfeit parcels and engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Be pretty quick. Uh council, that's two parcels before you that Crowing County is looking to
classify as non-conservation uh which needs to be done before they can be put on their uh tax forfeit land sale. So, we have two parcels. One's on First Avenue Northeast, the other one's on 11th Street Southeast. Uh the first one on First Avenue Northeast, staff would recommend agreement with the
non-conservation status. The second parcel, however, on 11th Street Southeast, staff would recommend to disapprove for the classification until a future date uh due to the presence of a sanitary main that crosses the parcel. We would want to keep this uh keep it kept from sale at this time. Uh so we're
right now we're planning for a future project and a goal is to have this main addressed. Uh but right now recommendations for each parcel are included in the packet for consideration. >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you very much. Um Councilman Chzik, just before I I turn it over to
you, uh I've got a comment, I guess, procedurally, do we really need a motion to disprove or disapprove um or could we just do a motion to approve the one and and by nature of not approving the one? So, the way the the language is worded
in the letter from the county, uh, they're they're going to need direction from the council that specifically says they object. >> Thank you. Councilman Chazik, you had a question. >> I got a motion, Mr. Chair. >> Please. >> A motion to approve staff's
recommendation on both of these. >> Very good. Motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> I have one quick question just as a point of discussion. Could we not sell the second parcel with an easement protecting our main
>> or could we not lease the second parcel with an easement protecting our main? >> Currently, right now, the way that the main is laid out. Uh it would make the the site relatively unbuildable. Uh so there's not a lot of value to the land with that easement over it. Yes, we
could, but um the county could just hold this one out until a future time as well. >> Thank you. That's all. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, hearing no further discussion, please call the role. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes.
>> Ericson, >> yes. >> All right, that motion carries. Brings us to our next item, which is a proposal 2026 sanitary CIP lining and engineer Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, proposals we received from three
lining vendors for the 2026 sanitary lining project. Those proposals are attached for your review. Uh based on the proposals, VIT was the low proposal with a total of 97,565. Uh further the bid alternate that was included in the project for lining of one of the sanitary manholes is listed
at 14,400. Uh there is advantage to lining the manhole at this time while the contractors accessing through a private lot rather than coming back through at another time. However, the cost is not fully budgeted. uh to include this manhole, the total project cost would be $111,965
about $12,000 of which would be over the $100,000 that we had. Um staff would recommend awarding the lining project and then further to authorize the alternate for the manhole lining in the amount of 14,400 totaling 111,965.
>> Thank you, Jesse. Uh committee comments or questions? All right. Hearing none, entertain a motion on this item. >> Motion to approve staff's recommendation, Mr. Chair, on both of these to include the additional manhole as well. >> Second, Jagger.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? And hearing none, please call the RO. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. Thank you. That motion carries. uh brings us to our next item uh proposal
for College Drive guardrail repair and engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, due to uh damage from a driver, one guardrail adjacent to College uh Drive Bridge requires repair and replacement. Uh we solicited proposals from multiple vendors only receiving one response. Uh cost for this work is proposed to be
$15,625. Uh staff's recommending approval of the proposal from Ericson Infrastructure in that amount. >> All right. Thank you very much. Are there committee questions or comments on this item? Councilman Jagger, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real quickly, Mr.
Dean, uh, on this proposal, there is a gob of exclusions on there. Have you actually laid it eyes on this? And are do you, uh, feel that we're going to be subject to any of those exclusions and they're also mentioned as not limited to? >> Uh, yes. No, I did see the exclusions. I
feel comfortable with that. If we need to provide some additional traffic control, our public works can help assist with that. >> Very good. That's all. Thank you. Ready for a motion, Mr. Chair? >> Yes, I am. Thank you. >> Motion to approve staff's recommendation. >> Second, Jagger. >> All right. Motion and a second. Any
discussion? Uh, just I just want to mention given the last name, no relation to me. Um, other than that, please call the role. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. And that motion carries. brings us
to our next item which is vacant building fee for 224 North Fifth Street and um community development director Cranic. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so the property located at 224 Fifth Street North experienced significant fire damage on
514 of 2023. The former property owners sold the property to Lucille France on 410 of 2024. Miss France bought the property with the intent to remodel the structure. Uh, prior to the purchase, staff met with a representative from Miss France. Uh, city staff made um them
aware that city council is considering an ordinance that would place a $7,000 fee on properties with significant blight. Uh, Miss France did not reach out to me directly before purchase, and I did not have her contact information. Uh, city council passed ordinance 15 uh69 on July 1st of 2024, which created
a $7,000 yearly uh fee for vacant buildings with significant exterior blight, which this property met that criteria. A community development department sent the vacant building registry letter and fee to Miss France on 729 of 2024. After receiving the letter, Miss Frans met with the building
official and community development director and staff explained the parameters that must be in place for removal of the $7,000 fee. A contract was never executed and a contractor was not hired to fix the issue. A letter was sent to Miss Frans on September 17th of 2024 that indicated the proposed $7,000
assessment free and the date of the public hearing to dispute the assessment charges. Uh staff did not receive a letter from Miss F France and no one spoke at the public hearing regarding the proposed assessment. The amount was assessed to the 2025 taxes. Uh staff did uh send an additional violation letter
on 107 of 2025 with an additional $7,000 fee which is a pending assessment. Uh so with that staff did provide options um for the safety and public works and city council to consider. Um, there also may be a representative um, in the audience and I believe Miss Frans may be online
as well and I'll turn it over to the committee. >> All right, thank you James for that summary. >> Um, I'll just ask if there's any committee comments or questions of staff >> and I see we have a few people that may want to speak. We'll
>> turn to you in just a moment. >> All right, hearing no comments or questions from the committee. Um, I do see we have some folks in the audience who'd like to speak. If you would please state your name and address and then we'll limit you to just like three minutes is our practice and uh somebody
in the room maybe just help me with the timing on that if we could, but please introduce yourselves and let the committee know your thoughts. >> Uh, hello, good evening. My name is Brenda Frell and this is Sean Frell. I am Lucy Fran's daughter and I am here on behalf of her. uh she is in North
Carolina dealing with some health issues. Uh I believe the situation uh that there has been a lot of confusion in regards to this. Uh when she purchased the property, there were no fees assessed at that time and that was
in April of 2024. And then the fees were assessed, which the fire was on Mother's Day of 2023. So, it already had been a year and no fees were assessed to that current owner
at that time. Uh, we did not realize that there would be potentially these fees being assessed. And I don't I don't believe my mom knew that um >> she didn't
>> that this was going to be assessed. She did understand the parameters that we were trying to get a contractor. We diligently had I don't even know how many different contractors um different companies come out and look
at you know all of the different assets or or all of the different components of getting this house. Her goal was to redo this home and make it beautiful again. Uh the situation was mostly the cost of the roof. Nobody, and I mean nobody,
wanted to touch the roof. They couldn't do the roof because of all the different peaks and whatever um that were to keep it the way that it was. So, she diligently tried to do that.
>> I'd just like to add that through this whole process, like Brenda said, numerous contractors have looked at the house. She's had the asbestous removed. She's had electricity restored to the out building. Um, a lot of outside work
has been done. Five tandem loads of stuff has been removed from the backyard. A big trees, a big point of this is the house is now sold. It closes the 15th of April. She bought it, as Brenda said, not even quite two years
ago. It'll be two years the 9th. Three more days. So, she's being assessed $21,000. We're looking for some help. >> She would like to sell the home. The pe the purchasers of the home >> uh from what we understand are two
brothers and their son and they are in construction and their intent is to restore this home to make it beautiful again. So >> all right, >> we're here on >> very much. All right.
>> Um the committee and and council later may have further questions if you're able to stay around. >> Um >> I know the committee had further questions and comments or may may have questions, but um >> Okay. >> Open it back up to the committee, please. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh yeah, just uh I would I would like to just speak real quickly on this. This is just me personally, my opinion on this, but um it would be my position that if if we could enter into some version of an agreement with this new a purchase development agreement with this new
owner that it would get developed into a into a dwelling unit within a certain amount of time. I for one personally would be open to uh working on the on the past fees, but that's just me personally. It would need to go in front of everyone else. I would not necessarily support just waving this and then hoping that it gets built by the
next party. So that's where I'm at. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all. >> Thank you. You bet. Thank you very much. Uh, any further comments of the committee? >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I think I could pretty much safely echo what Mr. Ager just said. >> All right. Very good. Would one of you
uh be willing or able to craft a motion to such effect? >> Uh, yes. I'd like to make a motion that at this time we take no action. However, I'd like to direct staff, if city council sees fit, to uh work Go ahead, Mr. Cranic. So just just before that I did want to u make a comment on that
that um assessments are usually due at the time of a closing. So that would have to be taken on by that property owner. I So I just wanted to make you aware of that. >> He wrenching the project right out of the gate. >> I'll make a motion to take no action at this time.
>> Second. >> Thank you. Motion. Is there a second? >> Second. All right. Thank you. Motion. I second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Um, take it to a vote. Please call the role. >> Chzach, >> yes.
>> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. Thank you. That motion carries. And this brings us to our last uh our final item, which is the permit for um street vacation for I believe it was the the American Legion. This was added um late
and so I think I don't know who's going to take this one. If it was Mr. Mr. Cranick or Mr. Dean, >> I can introduce this. Um, Alderman uh Stunnk asked for an item to be added to the agenda. Uh, this was a an event
application u per the American Legion to allocate four stalls once a week in front of their building for angled stalls. um once a week for a sports booster lunch event and just reserve them for uh Legion members. Uh and I'll
I'll turn it over to Alderman Stunic if you'd like to make further comment on the item. >> Okay. Uh anybody aware of Brainard Sports Boosters? Okay. Everybody knows Briner Sports Boosters. Been around forever. The
former attorney Glenn Gudson actually invented it years and years ago. And a lot of these people know Glenn Gustoson. What happened is every Thursday through the course of the school year from noon until 1, they have their meeting slashlunchon. All the students come from the high school along with some of the
parents and coaches. And every week we honor a different sports team. Well, what happens is there's so many people because we get 40 to 50 people, there's no parking spots for our local veterans to come to the Legion. So, they've been sometimes they don't they don't come.
Well, the club is designed for the Legion and the veterans. So, what we're asking for, and we've actually been doing it, somebody reported us. We're asking to block off four spots in front of the Legion front door so our local veterans, some are Purple Heart veterans, can come to the Legion and do
their thing every Thursday. And that's all we're asking. At the end of the school year, it goes away. And it's only an hour a day. We put out the cones up about 11:30 and by 11 12:30, quarter to 1, the cones are gone. So, that's what the Legion is asking for. I represent the Legion because I'm a good member there and I've been a member of there
for 52 years. So that's what we're asking. Mr. Chair, >> yes. Thank Well, thank you, Councilman Stunic and Councilman Chzik. >> Yeah. Do we have a anybody uh legal attorney or chief in here? >> Yes, we do. >> I just got a question. Would this be
allowed under any kind of a parking or street uh ordinances to have this blocked off for that time? Mr. Sunnix requesting for the Legion. >> I can speak to that. Um, Alderman Machz, uh, there's nothing that says you cannot
reserve that for private entity. Just understand that, uh, we do get those types of requests on a regular basis. So, this has to be this has to come from the council. >> Motion to approve the recom this uh, the application. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion in a second. Any further discussion?
Um, I'll just mention that uh, Councilman Stunic brought this to my attention and asked that it be put on the agenda and um, I thought it was a worthy endeavor and wholeheartedly agreed. So happy to hear the motion and happy to support. Um, with that said, please call the role. >> Chzach,
>> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. And of course, motion passes. And that is the end of our committee meeting. We'll call it to an end. >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh, yes, sir. Uh the people that were here for the uh house on the uh
assessment uh do they know that this will come up again >> at the >> Thanks. Uh community development director Cran, could you just kind of relay next steps to those folks? >> Yep. So the safety and publics works committee um decided to take no action this time. So it no matter what it was
going to take a full city council vote. Um so recommend staying around for that in case they do have any questions. City council meets or starts at uh 7:30 here. >> Sure. Thank you >> the Legion.