:30 p.m. in council chambers. --------- >> Tony, please call the role. >> Sternick. >> Jagger. >> Yep. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> here. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> OD, >> 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. So move second.
Motion by Ericson, second by Chesak. Any discussion? Being none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Again, same sign. We have an agenda. Next, we have the consent calendar. This is a notice of public that all matters listed on the 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. >> So move approval of the consent. >> Motion by Chzach. >> Second.
>> Second by Bevans. Discussion. >> Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Chzach. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yeah. >> OD. >> Yes. Moving on. What are we looking at here?
All right. Next, we have the public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the council. Time limits may be imposed. So, if there's anybody here uh that wishes to come up and address the council, we will
open the public forum at 7:32. Please come forward. And if you're online, press star three. Ask again if anybody's here to address the council, please come forward. Well, that was easy. We will close the
public forum at 7:32. Next, we have council committee reports. This is 7A, personnel and finance committee chair Gabe Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. We have five items. The first of which is to review
our grant application policy. And let me pull up the report here. The motion out of committee is to recommend is to move to continue with the current policy as written with another review in 12 months. And I so move. >> Second.
>> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson. >> So if you recall 6 months ago, we changed the policy that if there were timesensitive staff could administratively apply for grants. And you notice here in the packet, there were two grants that they did administratively apply for. Both times
they did come back to the council and let us know that the application was made. We think it's working so far, but we'll just uh review it again in 12 months. >> Mr. Excellent. >> President, >> Mr. Jazz, >> um Gabe, if if we move forward, if I
read that correctly, anytime there's going to be a local share or cost to the city, they we should bring it before us before they apply. Is that correct? Still >> correct. The policy still does want the applications to come to us. what we changed 6 months ago. If there's a time sensitivity of not a regularly scheduled
meeting, they can put in an application and then still inform us that they did. >> Thank you. >> So, the time to accept the grant, if there was a local cost share, if there was a concern with that, would still come before the council in time to reject a a grant. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Excellent. Any more discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Okay. Next up is an update on the public utilities director hiring process. We
held a round of interviews on Thursday. We interviewed one candidate and the motion coming out of committee is to approve the hiring of Paul Sandy as the public utilities director subject to the following. The hire date will be
Tuesday, November 4th. He will be placed on step five of the public util utility director wage grid which is equivalent to $76.80 per hour. In recognition of Sandy's previous service with the city upon his
rehire date, Mr. Sandy will acrew vacation at the rate applicable to employees that have completed six years of service. Thirdly, that Mr. Sandy will be provided a onetime signing bonus in the amount of $10,000 and that$10,000 will be returned to us
if he leaves prior to completing 24 months of service. And finally, to accommodate for a previously scheduled vacation, Mr. Sandy will be credited with 40 hours of vacation leave effective on his hire date, but he will not acrue additional vacation hours
until that point at which he would have normally earned the initial 40 we frontloaded. And I so move >> second >> motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson. >> So, uh, we were we interviewed him on Nick and myself and Chris and Jeff and a couple of public utility commissioners.
I thought the interview went excellent. I think Paul Sandy would be a excellent addition to our public utility department. But these are the four things that uh we negotiated with uh Chris and Jeff Weldon negotiated with Paul to get him on board
with the city. I can answer any questions or Chris could too. >> Thank you. More discussion, >> Mr. President. >> Mr. Chza, >> I just like the council to consider what we were doing 366 days ago tonight. That's all. >> Thank you.
>> I'm considering Jeff. I have no idea. >> All right. See no further questions. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. same sign. That motion carries. Welcome aboard, Mr. Sandy. Next, uh again, Chairman Johnson.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is our agreement for our 2026 health insurance brokerage services. And the motion is to authorize retaining Northrisk Partners as our health insurance broker for 2026 for Better Health Collective in the amount of
$27,000. further to approve the attached 2026 service agreement between the city of Brainard and North Risk Partners and ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson, >> this is the broker we've been using for a while. They've been very beneficial to
the city. You know, it's pointed out here in the agenda item that their negotiations in our uh bidding process for health insurance this year saved us approximately $150,000 in insurance premiums just next year. So, it's it's
well worth the 27,000. >> Thank you. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is to accept the retirement of HR Director
Schubert. And the motion is to accept the resignation of HR director Chris Schubert effective January 24th, 2026 to approve the updated HR director job description as presented and to authorize staff to conduct an internal hiring process to backfill the position
and ISO move. >> Second >> motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Mr. Johnson. >> So Chris has put in her retirement date as of January 23rd. We're going to post internally. I did ask uh Chris and Nick to review the org chart and how the HR
department is currently structured and if that is the uh best way to keep it structured moving forward with one director and one assistant under it. Their answer was yes. They want to continue. They think it's best for the city to continue with that structure. So
we they have no changes to recommend and we'll just go with the status quo. >> Thank you. Chris Schubert, how many years? >> 37 and 3/4. >> That's it, huh? >> Yeah. >> Thank you for everything. I know we got a few months left with you, but thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Any more discussion? >> Going to make it an even 38. >> Yeah. >> All right. There we go. Looks like we have no more discussion, so let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson.
>> Our final item is to enter into a service agreement with UFS for a rate study. The motion is to authorize staff to enter into agreement with UFS as presented to prepare financial plans and rate design studies for the sanitary collection system and storm sewer rates
and ISO move. >> Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Chairman Johnson. >> It is a very very simple math problem that we could do inhouse but staff is pretty uh adamant that they would get better service, better rates for our rateayers and taxpayers if we went out
and hired an outside service to do it. So, I'll trust them in their their assessment. >> Okay. Jagger. >> Yeah. Uh, is the anticipated frequency of the study typically two to three years? That's kind of one that's the last time we did one was a couple years
ago. And that's kind of is that the what we should be anticipating is every two, three years. >> I think it's I think that's best practice is to look at it every few years because as costs go up, we need to be adjusting rates up to pay for everything. >> Understood. Thank you.
>> The last time we adjusted rates was was it just a year ago? >> 23 >> 23 two years ago, but we had we had adjusted those rates a couple times, I believe, in that year, if I remember right. Is that correct? Okay. Either way, it's good to have it right. Any
more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson, >> end of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Moving on to 7B. This is safety and public works committee chairman Tad Ericson.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We've got nine items on our agenda. The first of which is to approve change orders. Uh number two, um which of which there are three parts 2407 L Elementary Safe Routes to School. Motion coming out
of committee is to approve the change order uh numbers one through three for l safe road to school in the amount of 15,787.70 11,000 of which 11,900 of which would come from state aid 3,887.70
the remainder of which would be paid by WSB and I so move >> second motion by Ericson second by Chzach. So there was a lot there. So some clarification. There's three items. Um the first of which is the additional top soil um which was not included in
the original uh bid and agreement. That is the amount the 11,900 of which would be the city's responsibility and would be covered by state aid. The other two having to do with structure modification and for the pedestal for the rapid flashing beacon. Those are the two
smaller amounts equaling the 3800 and some change. And both of those uh WSB said that they would cover because it was their um they took responsibility for that essentially. >> Thank you. More discussion, questions, seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. Our second item is discussion on the 2025 2026 downtown snow removal bid. Uh that's bid singular. Motion coming out of committee is to assign uh
public works parks crews to complete snow removal of downtown and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So, as I said, there was one bid that came in. It was approximately 20% higher than last year's. Um I think as many of
us know that there's, you know, usually only get one bid for this. And um discussion coming out of committee was that you know despite park board having some reservations uh about their ability to get to the ice rinks and maybe perform some of the maintenance on the
equipment during the off season um we felt like this was a good opportunity a good uh good change to assign public works park parks crews to complete the snow removal. >> Thank you. >> Any more discussion, >> Mr. President? >> Yeah, Mr. Chzac. Yeah, we were assured
that the park staff will have the proper equipment and um I uh I'm confident that if they're uh expected to do this, they will do their best. So, I'm looking forward to see how this turns out. I uh know change
is always difficult. So, um I'm going to be a big supporter of our park staff uh managing this properly and uh hopefully getting the other responsibilities taken care of as well. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah, I just want to add also u not to
overstep Mr. Chzok, but uh just to re make sure everyone understands that the park staff will only be getting it into windows. Street staff will be taking it from there. So, uh park staff will not be doing all of the snow removal. That's all. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Donson. >> Yeah, I just have a question on the
finances. Is this special service being even if it's provided by public employees, it's still a special service to the downtown district, are we still going to be billing the tax roles of the property owners for the special service district and that money will just be going to public works instead of a private contractor?
>> Is that part of the discussion, Phyllis? Part of it will the sa there will be a savings and that will be less assessed to downtown businesses. >> There won't be a s it will it will cost more but I just want to make sure that we're still assessing for this special service. The city doesn't go to my house
and remove snow off of my parking lot and driveway before 10:00 in the morning after we're doing that downtown now. It's a special service. They need to be build. Are we going to be billing them for that? >> Mr. President. Yeah. So the the discussion we had, the motion we had did
not address the the method of assessment um just awarding this this bid. I guess I guess my assumption was that that assessment policy stands regardless. >> Yes, it does. >> Whether we're, you know, doing it through an RFP or our own. >> Yes, we'll be doing our time cards. The
number of hours that will be uh tracked downtown will already be recorded and that will be part of the calculation for assessing downtown businesses. >> Thank you. Does that address your question? >> That addresses that question. >> Thank you. >> You have more questions. >> I have more. Yeah. Uh, so I heard that
the city is just the part the parks department parks maintenance crew is just going to put it to the middle of the street. >> Then it's going to sit there until the street guys are done with the emergency snow routes and north south and then they'll go downtown at the end of the
day presumably. >> We were told one to two days, Mr. Johnson. So, we'll have big mounds in the middle of the street for one to two days every time we get a 4 inch plus snowfall. Have we addressed this with downtown property owners or businesses or
anything? >> Sorry. >> Go ahead, Mr. Abber. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, even our normal streets downtown is the next day. Sometimes we'll get there the same day, but it all depends on the the snowfall itself. So, a larger snowfall, even our
Laurel Street here will be the next day that our streets will be coming by and and doing that. The one thing that we've talked about is making sure that into parking lots, into driveways, into alleys that we that we plow that out so people just don't have to jump over that. So, those are type of measures
that will be taking place to ensure traffic flow of of uh cars can continue to go. So, how special of a service is it if they're being treated like Laurel Street in front of city hall? >> Every snowfall will be every sidewalk
will be cleared uh on that whether it's a 2 in, 6 in or so forth. Right? Because right now how it is is uh if it's a three and a half inch snowfall, the businesses have to clear that and then clear that uh to the street and then we'll take it from there. Here the city
staff will take that. and the example on page 17, Max, if you can pull that up on the PowerPoint. So, even with uh we've calculated a good average winter, a 12-in snowfall, um two 8 in snowfalls,
three average 4-in snowfalls, and eight 2-in snowfalls. So, we took the calculations and put that in there so that you could really see what our current practice would be, how much we're going to charge every business with a 50-ft frontage compared to if the
city staff were to do that. Okay. And then one final question semi-related. I know the city doesn't pay the special services. Nor do does the city plow its sidewalks on like seventh street and front street and wherever we have a budding sidewalks.
We'll get shoveled I don't know 3 months later, four months later, wait for the May sun to dry it out. Would the public works the parks guys be doing the sidewalks abuing city streets or city properties? >> Just the downtown. Just the downtown. We
own parking lots downtown that have sidewalks that above them that we do not remove snow from currently. Would they be removing that snow? >> Would we be Yes, Jesse's in. Yes. >> Would we be paying the special service rate then? >> The frontage for the parking lots is
factored into the assessment roles. So that that portion is covered by the uh the parking lot fund the parking fund. So for frontage on the um on the parking lot specifically. >> Okay. Thank you, Jesse. I'm I'm
generally riskaverse. I don't think this is an improvement on the service that we were currently providing downtown. I think since we have a bidder, a known bidder who's done this for years and years, I would really prefer to award the contract to Thomas Backho. So, I'll be a no on this one. Thanks, Mike.
>> Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. I just have more concern with what of this has been communicated to the property owners because if we're going from it used to be that every four inches your your snow was removed for you but now every time it snows it sounds like we're going to be removing
the snow is what I'm hearing now. That's a massive change. And then if we're only removing the snow to the middle of the street and then picking it up later again that's a massive change. I I would if I was a property owner who is paying for this which is what it is. It's a service to those property owners. I
would like to make sure that they're aware that this massive of a change is going to be made. I I don't care which direction we go because again, this is something we do specifically for these property owners, but we do it for these property owners and if we're going to be making a change to it of this drastic of
a level, I I'd like to know what they think about it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ericen. >> So, clarification question of Mike or Jesse. uh pushing the snow to the center in the windross and having it picked up the next day or is there a difference from
what we're proposing in this to what is currently? >> I thought I heard it was no different and now I that it is a difference >> currently if the third party contractor does it they totally remove all the snow downtown. >> Okay. So no windross downtown. >> Correct. If the contractor does that.
Correct. >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Just one followup. So they're from their special service amount of money that they're now going to be paying. They're just going to be paying for the snow to be removed from their sidewalk. They're not going to be
paying for the windross removal as well. They will be paying for the snow removal. We'll be removing the snow those wind rows the next day. >> But that's not going to be charged to them. >> Not with Jesse. Can you clarify that
one? >> Yes. So 30 some odd years ago uh the the standard snow removal uh was calculated into that original calculation an offset from the uh from the assessment because
that was intended as what the additional special service was minus what the city was already kind of doing for street removal. Uh so that's factored into the um the calculation already is what what's expected normally uh to roll that cost out of it. Um kind of the special
service like Mike mentioned is you got the sidewalk removal which we do not do elsewhere uh as well as the prioritizing of the downtown district uh over other areas that normally receive higher priority. Uh so getting in here and having the snow removed uh prior to
businesses opening. Uh that's a lot of the the special benefit. Um the the positive and negative of this type type of an alternative is you do get snow removal on every snowfall event rather than just the 4 in when we would dispatch the contractor. The detriment
is uh we only have uh the streets crew available after they've cleared out all the streets to do the wind row removal. Um but all the street the general traveled areas and the parking lots and sidewalks would still be clear for those businesses to operate. >> But the wind row would not be charged to
them. that's factored into that calculation. So they are Yes. Correct. >> They are or are not paying for it. >> They are not. >> They're not paying for it. Okay. >> Mr. Johnson, >> one final observation. I don't know if anybody like goes downtown in the
winter, but I do. If you go in the morning after a snow event or during a snow event and the contractor's out there currently working, if you're at like 8 in the morning and they have the wind rows in the middle and they're working, they're moving snow around. With the bumpouts we have on the
corners, which we didn't have 30 years ago, it's a giant pain to try and navigate with those piles of snow in the middle of the road. It's tough to park. It's tough to get out of a parking spot. And even when people are parked, you have the wind row and the lane of traffic is so narrow that full-size
trucks may not even be able to get through it sometimes without kind of off-roading through the wind row. I don't like the idea of windrows sitting in the middle of our core downtown where we have the bumpouts because that already has the traffic calming condensing things that we don't have a
lot of extra space there for snow to just be sitting around for a day or two. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. President >> Ericson. Yep. >> Given the observations about the difficulties of the the windross, is it question for staff, is it possible to
have streets not wait a day or two and get those done immediately? >> That's hard to say. It all depends on the the number of inches of snow that we get. Our streets are critical to get done first and so people can travel.
>> So, it's hard to say right now. >> Sure. No, understood. Just as a point of, you know, consideration is a lot of municipalities remove the windows at night because removing the windows is also highly disruptive to the downtown. You got trucks, equipment, people don't feel like they want to pull in there when there's bulldozers and all that in
there. So, you know, something else maybe to consider is you get the windows out the first day and then that evening or that night, if that's possible, don't know, but we remove the windows after hours in the downtown district. >> All things are possible with double time pay.
>> That's right. Will they just be early on the next day? Gabe, >> it seems like One second, Mr. Chzac. It seems like there's the debate is are we going to keep spending more and more on a contractor to do this service, which we know they do a great job. There
there's no doubt about it. Um or do we try and find a different alternative that we're not charging or assessing this to downtown business owners? We've had business owners come in here and speak against having the service. We've had others come in here and speak for
keeping the service, but it seems to me in this conversation that there might be an opportunity to find a hybrid here where we don't have the opportunity for our employees to go in after they've been plowing all day long to go and remove those wind rows at night. But if you could have a
contractor come in and just remove those wind rows and have that as just their part of the service, that might change this bid completely. So, it's just an idea to throw out there. I think it's maybe a better idea for a hybrid. >> That's a great idea. >> Something to think about >> because I think that's what maybe they
don't like is the sidewalks. >> All right, Mr. Chzot. >> Yes. Um maybe uh staff um maybe Mr. Habac course, you sent out an email responding to I think a question from Chairman Ericson. Um are you able to pull that up? The one
you sent out this afternoon? >> Yes, it's actually on uh Max on page 17 on the handout. That's not it. Okay, it's in the handout. Can you show that? >> It what it does, it gives a breakdown of what we currently pay for for the
property 50 foot property owner pays for these events based on the number of inches and such. Um, can you show that and just look at the difference between what's estimated to be the charge to a property owner with 50 feet uh for the
different events. >> It's up now. >> Okay. Um, so it's about half, I think, roughly for the city staff to do that. >> And I I know a number of people have complained about the cost. I think that's what had me leaning
towards this. And I thought, well, if if this is really a bust, which I I agree with Gabe, that this could be really difficult. I think we all know that. I mean, I I remember when it was 30 years ago, as Jesse indicated, it it got to be
a bit difficult. Um, and we still see the wind row here out in front on uh uh Laurel Street in front of city hall even and that's that's all taken care of by our city staff, right? currently. >> So when you see that wind row out here and it's crossing uh Laurel and Fifth
and all that and I think it uh I don't know doesn't extend east across six but so there are difficulties but if people are looking at what what are they getting for their dollar? Yeah, it's a higher cost with the new 20% addition.
Am I correct there at about the savings or the difference is about half? >> 614 compared to 1130. So >> that's roughly. Okay. >> Anyway, that's what I was looking at too. So I thought, well, we got a a year. If snow falls light this year, we
probably wouldn't even have a real concern. But if it's heavy, it's it's going to be difficult for anybody. So that's why I was agreeable to moving forward the motion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. So looks like we've had a discussion here if if there's any final points
anyone wants to make, but otherwise I think we should move on and at least vote on the motion. >> Roll call, please. >> We will do a roll call. Just to remind you guys, if you're voting yes, you are voting to have staff do this and not award this to a
contractor. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. Yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> no. >> OD, >> yes. >> All right, moving forward. >> All right, thank you very much. Our third item is to approve change order
number two for improvement 1712. This is Wright Street and South 10th reconstruction project. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order number two in the amount of 20,484.30 cents. And I so move >> second
>> motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Mr. Ericson. >> Yeah. So um this project as we we learned from last meeting and some of the discussions prior to that was uh behind schedule. One of the issues that uh caused that was the temporary fire
suppression supply lines. Uh the issue was that in order to meet our own code, the supply lines that the contractor had were too small and so needed to they needed to purchase larger um temporary supply lines and this is the cost for
that. Um the alternative is provided in the packet. The alternative um would be for the city to procure those at roughly um $93,000. And so staff had gone with this alternative of working with the contractor to get um get those supply
lines and get that solution which resulted in this $20,000 484 and 30 cent cost. >> Thank you, Mr. Ericson. More discussion, Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah, this is actually really odd because we will own this material with
this change order. >> Is that correct? >> Part of it. >> Yes, >> part of it. All of it, isn't it? all the material that was not returnable. Correct. >> Yeah, it wasn't returnable. Not returnable material. So, we're paying for that, but we will own it. And that's
correct. Right. >> Correct. >> And so, we will be able to use this or perhaps uh I don't know, go on a auction site and reverse some of our costs. I don't know, but it's very unusual, I think. >> Thank you. >> More discussion.
>> Yeah, just a clarification. Jesse, you said the items in red are the non- returnturnables. Is that correct? >> Accurate. >> I believe that's that's the case. I'd have to confirm that, but I'm pretty sure that was the case is the red ones were the unreturnable materials. >> Yep. >> All right.
>> It's on page 166 just so before there. >> More discussion on this? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our fourth item, uh, approve change order number two for improvement
2113. This is Beach and Oak Ridge reconstruction. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order uh number two in the amount of 14,364 and 58 cents. And I so move >> second >> by Erikson, second by Chzach. Chairman Eric.
>> Yeah. The reason for this one um with again with Beach Street as we learned from our last meeting also being um somewhat behind schedule, we were not able to utilize the initial detour route that we had planned uh through 28th Street and Pine Street. Uh so staff had
to work with the contractor to reroute um a new uh detour utilizing the county roads and and MDOT's roads. And this is the additional cost primarily for the signage. Thank you, Chairman Ericson. More discussion on that.
>> Just a question, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Beans. >> So, so the 1436458 is because the project's behind, correct? No, I thought that's what you just said because it was delayed. We weren't able to use the initial traffic
eroding. >> Yeah, that's that's my understanding. Because we weren't able to use the initial detour that we had assigned, >> we had to select a different detour and there was additional costs for the signs. >> Any idea why we weren't able to?
>> Uh because Pine Street, Beach Street, the connection of Beach and Pine Beach wasn't completed in time. >> So it was because we were So we're having to spend $14,364.58 because contractor couldn't make their deadline. That's what I'm hearing.
Is that correct, Mr. Dean? >> That That's how I stated it. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's how you stated it. Okay. I'm going to vote against this. Mr. Dean, you had your hand up over there. >> I can clarify. So, a big driver of this was the condition of 28th Street. It wasn't necessarily attributed directly to any kind of a delay by the
contractor, but 28th Street is in actually pretty poor condition. Uh it's really come apart uh especially this uh this last year. Uh so, we really didn't want to run Oak Street levels of traffic down. uh not only 28th Street but again through the project back on the Pine. Uh
they were still working in that Pine intersection and we were concerned about the ability for them to put that back together in time for this detour uh to carry that amount of traffic. So it wasn't necessarily attributed to the contractor delay, but uh just the conditions of what that detour would look like by the time that this work had
to occur in Oak Street. Uh which is why we came up with an alternative plan. >> Thank you, Jesse. I just can't fathom what a $14,000 set of signs looks like when we were already purchasing signage for the same amount of detour. >> That's just rent, by the way. We don't own them.
>> Signs, >> correct? >> Those are some really special signs. I I could do without them. I'm going to vote no on this. Anything else? >> I have a question. >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chz.
>> Okay. This doesn't pass, Jesse. what happens. >> The contractor had to install these signs for the work to occur in Oak Street. So, those signs were brought to the site um to accommodate that work. Um for us not to pay the contractor, that would likely lead to a contractor claim
uh for compensation for work completed. Uh and we would go through the claims process from that. >> Mr. Johnson, >> question. Would the contractor have to complete the work before they could claim work completed? the traffic control signage was installed. Uh,
>> right. There's like seven of them on 13th Street. I don't know why. It's two miles away from the project, but I've seen them. So, just work completed for that $14,000. Not that they will ever get the street done. >> Correct. >> Yes. This this is attributed just to the signage installed. So, for the cont the
subcontractor to come to the site, manpower, equipment, uh, and the signage materials themselves. That was what the proposal was for. Thank you. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Against. Same sign. I >> Okay. Call the RO. >> Dagger. >> Yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Bevans, >> no. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> nope. >> OD, >> no. >> Mr. Mayor,
>> I I don't like it at all, but I'm going to vote yes. >> All right, that motion carries >> with the mayor's support. Chairman Ericson. >> All right, thank you, Mr. President. Our fifth item, uh, approve change order number one, improvement 2314, Hawkins
Ronald Joseph Resurfacing. Motion coming out of committee is to approve change order number one in the amount of 27,794.50. And I so move. >> Second. Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson, >> essentially two components to this one.
Uh the first of which is a revision to the water main pipe materials uh for the hydrant replacement. And then the other portion is as we've had in other projects uh due to um this subcontractor being disbarred. uh the general
contractor had to um get a new subcontract and the cost associated with that is the the um the second component of that. >> Okay. Thank you. Any more discussion? Johnson
>> question. Can we put this off two weeks? >> The contractor is really close to u completing the Hawkins portion. Uh if we wanted to wait two weeks, we would have to direct the contractor to hold off on that paving work two weeks. Uh the concern that we have is the weather in two weeks if it would be still conducive
for paving. Uh it's going to be really close. Uh we're already really worried about the other couple projects. Um but we we'll take direction from the council if you want to hold off. But your the estimation is this project will actually be paved before the next meeting or
pavement work will have begun on it. >> Work's already begun on Hawkins. It's >> pavement work. >> The the pavement work we would expect within the next two weeks. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. All right. Thank you. This is our sixth item. Award engineering services proposal for 2026 resurfacing projects. Motion coming out of committee is to
award engineering services to WSB um and associates for the 2026 resurfacing project in the amount not to exceed 95,000 42 excuse 95,420 cents. And I so move >> second. >> Motion by Erikson, second by Chzach.
Chairman Ericson. >> Yeah. So there was uh four uh bids on this. Um both WSBN Associates and Bolton Mink scored very closely. Um the other two were the other the first three were
pretty close. Um the fourth dropped off substantially. Uh the difference between the the the top two um staff when they reviewed these they waited it um cost uh pretty costheavy and that was the
difference between the two. WSB came in uh what was it about 13,000 below um below the second highest bidder. So >> thank you. Any more discussion?
>> Looks like no more discussion. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our seventh item, award engineering service proposal for 2029 Oak Street Reconstruction Project.
Motion coming out of committee is to award the proposal for engineering services for the 2029 Oak Street reconstruction project to Width in the amount not to exceed $799,241. I so move >> second by Ericson, second by Chzac.
Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you. So with their proposal um or the the RFP rather that staff put out, they included a component um for a corridor study as uh as we all know Oak is one of the main gateways corridors into the community. So part of
this study would include uh excuse me, part of the services would include that corridor study component. Uh this 800,000 would be for the engineering services. The total project cost um for construction would be uh is
estimated at 3.13.2 and we do I'll just add to uh we have a $1 million grant that would be for the the construction uh component. Um so just overall picture of the project this uh having to do with just the
engineering services would also include that corridor study >> and we've roughly 800,000. >> All right. Thank you. More discussion. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Beaven, >> I'm just thrilled to let you know all of
you, this will be the fourth time Oak Street's been done since I've been on the council. We're in the wrong business. >> Just do an Oak Street. You can make a living. >> Okay. Worked four times in the last 20 years and been good to go. >> Yep.
>> All right. More discussion. See none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you. This is our eighth item. Um, review and request the
reimbursement of cost of sanitary sewer services replacement for 601 South 9th Street. Uh the motion coming out of committee is to direct staff uh to meet with the property owner and uh take a look at the costs for that the
property owner has outlaid for the water main portion um and provide a cost differential for that. And I so move >> second I Ericson second by Chzac. I'll just I'll I'll tee this up and um uh
Councilman Chzik, it sounds like he has a comment as well. Um I think a lot of you heard kind of the the this last meeting and then the comments from the committee. Um the motion really has to do with the property owner provided a dollar amount that they were hoping to
be reimbursed for. Um, some of that I it seems has to do with the service line, the Y connection, and then it does sound like there's a portion of the the city's main line that was replaced. And so I think the gist of the motion is for to
determine the cost that the property owner outlaid for that uh city main portion. >> All right. So, this isn't actually approving any uh cost, >> correct? Directing staff to come back cost more. Okay, Mr. Chzock.
>> Yeah, the the intention here is to have the contractor or property owner who paid him um come back to staff and show them what the cost was for the actual sewer main. Uh Mr. Ericen mentioned water. It is sanitary sewer line, but that is the city's responsibility. The
sanitary sewer line, the main is the city's responsibility. They replaced a portion of that. Not a very big portion, but there was labor involved. And so if we're going to be fair to people, I I just thought it's important that we look at that and determine a
relative cost for that work and the material and maybe make an amendment to uh their bill and we cover that. I would call it a probably a very small portion. Not interested in paying the whole thing because that's their service line. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzock. I I will say that
there's a risk to setting this as precedent because I don't I don't disagree with you that maybe that's the best way to go, but if you open this up to contractors replacing sanitary sewer lines, every time they come up to a main, they're going to reconnect that main and they're going to to replace
part of the main and they know they can charge the rest of that to the city. Maybe they have to come up with an argument, but that's what you're that's what you're opening up to in the future with this, but I'd still like to see what that cost differential is, Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, I appreciate this motion. This is
exactly what I where I was hoping we would go as as a council is figure out what the portion was the main and reimburse the property owner for that. I did catch part of the committee meeting and I guess it is pretty standard practice for the property owner to pay
their contractor to fix that Y joint that looks like it maybe busted in in two different spots. I don't know, maybe it's just dirt over the top. But I think I don't I think maybe setting this precedent isn't a bad idea and perhaps should be a city policy that when somebody is fixing their connection to
the main that they do if it looks like there needs to be two three feet that they do fix it and that the the fund the sewer fund will reimburse them the small amount it cost for the additional work because that would help the entire system as a whole every time and you
wouldn't get the work that you got done in 2008 where they jammed in a PVC pipe and dumped a bag of quick treat on it and called it a job, you know. So, I mean, let's it might be a good idea to just have as a policy going forward, but I'm very interested to see what this comes back as.
>> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. >> Good points. >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Chzach. >> I I I just have to ask u I don't believe this is I'm asking staff, is this a common practice when somebody's replacing their service line to have to
replace a portion of the main Anyone from staff, Jesse? >> It it depends on the situation. Some service lines, they don't even replace the Y connection. They just replace the lateral uh pipe itself. Uh so it it varies between um the service line and
service line if they have to replace the Y connection. But it is very typical that they have to replace a a small portion of the sanitary sewer main to make the connection with the new Y. Um, but it all depends on what's what the service line lateral condition is and where the issue is.
>> Well, I kind of look at this as a cost share then. It's a small amount and that's our responsibility the main. So, >> thank you Johnson. And I think that answer from Jesse reinforce reinforces my point that we may want to just make this as policy citywide because a cost a
property owner looking for cost savings or a contractor trying to keep the job as as least expensive as possible wouldn't go and extend to do that extra 3 ft of work because it's not theirs. They're not required to and save money but may not fix the problem. We should
encourage problems on our sanitary sewer system to be fixed. >> Mr. Beans, >> here's how we do it on the north side. >> Uhoh. >> So, recently I had my water line done.
And on the in the the curb stop, you have to dig down to hook the new line up to the curb stop. So, I have to dig a hole. I have to the property owner. I have to pay for the copper. I have to pay for a guy to pull it from the meter
inside out to the curb stop. At the same time, I have to let the public utilities know that I'm doing this. And they come out and put in a new curb stop. I don't know how much it cost them. Probably 20 minutes. And I got a brand new curb stop cuz they're replacing them at a certain
age as they go. Why don't you just do the same thing here? You know, the guy's doing it. He's going to have the hole there anyway. Have the street and sewer people go out there and replace the Y 20 minutes, half an hour. Mhm. >> I mean, it just I think we're over complicating this.
>> Takes the question out of the scenario for sure. >> Yeah. Just to say, you have to you have to notify the city that you're doing this. You're going to have a hole anyway. We probably have a pile of these wise somewhere. We bought a bunch of pipe that as Mr. Chzik said that we're collecting pipe. So,
>> could we use that? >> Yeah, maybe. I don't know. With enough quickrete, apparently we can do anything. I'm just saying I think we're over complicating this. I don't think we need to get in an argument every time, but I think I presume somebody's going to go out. Somebody went out and looked at this and
approved it. Why didn't they bring a Y with them and go, "Oh, no, no, no. This is a problem waiting to happen. Let's just fix this." I I don't I don't think we need to >> I agree. I agree. >> I don't I think we're over complicating this. It just would seem like as long as
we're there, if it looked like this when it was done >> Yep. >> that would have been the time. And I realize no. Nobody on staff. I'm not pointing the figures on staff. I'm just saying see a policy. If it needs it, let's do it while there's a hole there. >> Okay. Well, I agree. I'm I'm pretty sure
we've gotten to the point where we're not speaking about the motion anymore, but can you clarify that motion again for us, Mr. Ericson, before we go to a vote? >> Thank you. Yeah, the motion was to direct staff uh to work with the property owner to come down come up with
a breakdown of the cost uh that sta that the property owner had outlaid that had to do with the mainline portion only. >> Thank you. >> So no more discussion it looks like. >> Yeah. Not to pay it pay it but just to find out the >> second.
>> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. Again. Same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our last item, this is the 2026 2035 capital improvement plan. And the motion coming out of committee is to approve the um 10-year capital
improvement plan with the additional changes that were made from the discussion of the August 4th meeting, including the addition of annual sanitation sanitary sewer main lining projects at $100,000 per year. Updated Highway 210 Washington
reconstruction 2026 2027 cost estimates. And then the last item, addition of holdover projects in 2025 shown for continued construction 2026. Those are those three listed above. >> Thank you. >> And I so move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Motion by Ericton, second by
Chzach. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> Thank you. End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Moving on to number eight. This is unfinished
business. First, we have a call for applicants. And first up, we have the honorable Mayor Bedell. >> Thank you, President O Day. We have positions available on many boards and commissions. The following are available. Charter Commission, two terms
expiring 2025, two terms expiring 2026. Library, one term expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2028. Transportation Advisory Committee, two terms expiring 2025 and one term expiring 2026. And as of November, we
will also have a position available on my beloved park board as one Paul Sandy will be stepping into a position with the city. So if you are interested in the parks and want to spend most of your Tuesdays with me having a good time, let us know.
>> You don't want to scare people away. That's >> best time you can possibly have on a Tuesday night. >> All right. As council president, I have two terms still open for the water tower committee and that is all. Moving on to we on eight 8B.
This is a resolution awarding the sale of general obligation bonds series 2025A fixing their form and specification uh directing their execution and delivery and providing for their payment. I believe this is finance director Connie Helman.
>> Thank you. Um, Miss Chris Hogan with Baker Tilly is online to present an overview of the city's bond rating as well as a tabulation of the bid results that were received earlier today. >> Good evening. Everyone hear me? Okay, >> we can hear you. >> Perfect. Um, thank you, Mayor, Council
President, and members of the council. Uh, Chris Hogan, director served the city as their municipal advisor. Like Connie said, the city sold bonds earlier today. So I'm here to present the results of the sale result of that sale.
So earlier today, the city sold 300 3,425,000 general obligation bonds series 2025A. Proceeds of those bonds will be used to finance uh the construction of various accessible public improvements, various
improvements to the city's water and store sewer systems and to pay the cost of issuance of the bonds. The overall repayment term of the bonds is 20 years. The accessible improvements and storm sewer systems are going to be repaid
over a 10-year period with the water system improvements paid over 20 years. The bonds will be paid with a combination of general tax levies, special assessments, and net revenues from the city's water and storm sewer funds. And the bonds were set up to have
optional redemption uh February 1, 2035, which is a 10-year optional redemption, meaning that the city can call the bonds at that time. So about a month ago, we were we had an estimated market through interest cost
of 4.14. Uh last week, we always like to do an update based on current market environment. So last week at the end of the week, we were estimating a purchase estimate of 3.75 and actual results today had the lowest
bid of a tick at 3.50. So uh there was three biders. These are the list of three biders. It was Raymond James, Robert Fair, and TWW Financial Products. Uh and their bids, you can see on the right, uh the lowest one at the
3.503 was by Raymond James. And as you can see, the other two, all three bids were very close. So that's a good show of a good competitive fun, >> Mr. President. Uh yeah, Mr. Chzac, what were the other two?
>> Uh, the other two are 3.542048% and 3.587294%. >> Yeah. >> Uh, this is just a snapshot of the the sale pricing. So, this is just show us
how um the bonds priced. This is the 20 years. Um, you can see that the coupons generally were um higher rates than the yield. And what that means is that the bond's overall priced at a premium. That premium it was 290,000 and that is
basically additional bond proceeds. Um the premium is for the coupon is more than the yield and thereby like I said it reduces it generates additional premium or proceeds and in this case we use those premiums. We were able to use premium to apply to reduce the um
bonding amount. So we started with a 3,ion425. We did reduce the bond issue size to 3,275. So part of a market um competitive transaction is that you go through rating process. You get your bonds
rated. Um this S&P we did that rating process with S&P. S&P assigned a rating of double E minus to the bonds. Um there's a number of reasons why you get bonds rated. Um but primarily you do that for it gives me the city's financial strength and ability to repay
the debt terms of an independent third party assessment. Um it supplements investors due diligence. So investors that are interested in bidding they they know um what the bonds are rated and they have access to they get the rating report as well. Uh the stronger the
rating the lower interest cost of the bonds. >> I have a question Mr. President. >> Mr. Johnson has a question. >> Yeah. Is the double A minus rating unchanged from the last time we known for a debt issuance? >> That is correct. It's the same. >> Thank you. >> They kept the same rating. Um just a
couple of highlights or comments from the credit rating report. They noted that uh they had the city has healthy fund balance and liquidity uh conservative management practices. the city they noted the city has experienced
continued market growth market value and population growth. Uh the city has a formal investment and a debt management and a fund balance policies which are all very um good things to have. And they did note that even with plans to
issue additional debt in 2026, the expected cost of that debt will likely remain manageable. Um factors that could lead to an upgrade would be the core metrics. If core metrics were to improve to levels comparable to higher rated peers and
factors that could lead to a downgrade would be financial deterioration, weakening of reserves or debt that would hamper financial flexibility. So given the sale and the outcome, I would recommend that the city council
approved the resolution awarding the 3,275,000 general obligation bonds series 2025A to Raymond James and Associates based on their low bid of 350. >> Happy to take any questions. Second
Chris, does anybody have any questions for Chris? >> Any more questions? Appreciate your presentation, Chris. So, we are >> without any more further questions for you, but we're looking for a motion. >> So, move. >> It was already seconded.
>> I didn't ask for one yet, but is that your motion? >> What she just said? >> And is that your second, Mr. Beaven? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. We have a motion by Chzok, second by Bevans, to accept that recommendation. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I.
>> I. >> Mr. President, >> there's a roll call. >> Oh, go ahead and call the roll then. Tony, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yay. >> Yes. >> All right, moving on. 8C, we have a final reading for proposed ordinance
1592, text amendment for an accessory greenhouse for a cannabis micro business and an IUP amendment and variance request to operate a micro business at a current accessory greenhouse at yesterday's gone. Parcel ID 41241525.
I believe this is dire uh community development director James Cranvic. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so Steve Zalinsky has submitted a request for a zoning text amendment to allow for a cannabis micro business to operate an accessory greenhouse in the Town Center zoning district. Uh micro businesses
with retail endorsements are allowed in the Town Center zoning district. Currently, green houses in this district can only be used in as an accessory to a restaurant or floral shop. Uh with this change, it would also be allowed in other commercial zoning districts. Uh to note, only two micro businesses have
received pre-registration approval from the city code uh as as city code only allows for two. Uh this would not be allowed in residential districts as micro businesses are not allowed in residential districts. Uh the applicant has also applied for an amendment to his existing interim use permit as cannabis
growth uh would be considered a greater use of the property and is subject to city council approval. Uh in addition, the applicant has also applied for a variance from the fence site requirements as commercial districts um are currently allowed to have a maximum height of 8 foot of an 8ft fence. Uh the office of cannabis management requires a
10-ft fence uh for security purposes. The applicant is proposing a 10ft chain link fence. Uh, city council should not make one sweeping motion for all the requests. Uh, the recommendation from the planning commission is as follows and in the order that council should consider each request. Number one, to
conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1592 and dispense with the actual reading. Note, a vote to dispense with the actual reading of the ordinance must be unanimous. Number two, to approve proposed ordinance 1592. Number three would be approval of the interim use permit with the following conditions. No outdoor storage. Indoor
storage shall be limited to material incidental to the operation of the greenhouse. Cannabis products must be grown indoors. Should the establishment seize operations, the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days. The interim use permit amendment is approved for a period of 3 years upon approval by city
council. And number four would be approval of the variance request as presented. And I can answer any questions. >> Chairman Johnson. >> Yeah, just question on the variance. Is the uh planning commission going to amend our zoning code to add that 10-ft fence? So, it's no longer a required
variance since it's a state law. >> At this time, they have not directed staff to do that, but it is something that if city council would like, uh certainly something that staff could could work on. >> Wink wink, Tad. >> Yeah, if we had a liaison. I don't see it coming up very often in the future,
but if it does, we can revisit it. >> Yeah. >> Any more questions for staff? Chzach? >> Yeah, Mr. Cranic. Um on the interim use permit, is this something um I I had got a number of calls uh people concerned um
that there can be um a lot of strong odor that could affect neighboring properties. And I believe you sent us an email. It's in our packet. Um I think you're recommending if we were to address that, we could go to a two-year
interim use permit instead of a three. And then uh is this something that in your opinion would you think it appropriate to put conditions on the odor to a certain extent? Um if I know it's hard to gauge and all that, but
would you be recommending something to that effect to us before we approve the IUP to add it add it as a condition? >> So certainly city council could reduce um the term limit for the interimm use permit from 3 to two years if there's concerns. Um, city council may also add, as I indicated in the email, a condition
to the IEP that odors cannot be detected by a person with a normal sense of smell at the exterior of the facility or at adjoining use or property. Um, that was from um another municipal code that wasn't actually added as a condition. Um, it would add a layer of protection
to surrounding businesses and residents. Um, however, applying this condition if the city believes the property in violation may be difficult as there's not really a scientific measurement involved with this. Um so it may be added but uh certainly may be difficult to interpret or you discern um what that
looks like. And with that I can answer any other questions. >> So if um if we had nothing there's nothing we could do. If we had something we could then have u uh staff or even council just go and uh
get a indication on their own of what may be uh offensive or not and gauge it from there. Could that >> That's correct. So, a discussion could at least be had at that point. >> Okay. All right. And then if we wanted to change that, uh, we do that at the time that comes
up. >> Yes, that could be added at the time of consideration of the interimm use permit. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Any more questions for staff? >> Mr. Mayor, >> correct me if I'm wrong, though. If it's an interimm use permit, we can remove the interm.
>> That's correct. interimm use permits can be removed or stricken from the code and then they would cease operation. >> So if we had any of those problems, we could just go through that process at that point. >> That's correct. >> All right. It is very difficult to
measure smells. I don't know if Disney has come up with that yet. >> They had a smell smeller. >> Oh, they like to create smells. But can they with a normal person's nose detect >> the smell of cannabis plants? I don't know >> which one of our city staff has the most
normal sense of smell. Do we have that person? >> I don't even think we've measured that yet, >> but it is something to consider when we moving forward and and having this for the first time. >> You know, it's something to pay attention to. >> I'm sure there are ways to evate that
smell, but we'll find out as we go here. Um but we're looking for first we're looking for a motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1592 and dispense with the actual reading. >> So move >> second
>> motion by Chzach second by Johnson discussion seeing none let's go to a vote all those in favor say I. I >> against same sign. That motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to
approve proposed ordinance 1592. So, >> move by Chzach. >> Second. Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, Tony, call the role. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes.
>> OD, >> yes. >> Next, we are looking for approval of the interim use permit with the following conditions. No outdoor storage. Indoor storage shall be limited to material incidental to the operation of the
greenhouse or of a greenhouse and cannabis products must be grown indoors. Also we have should be established should the establishment cease operations the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days. And also we have the interimm use permit
amendment is approved for a period of three years upon approval of the city council and approval of the variance request as presented. >> Do the varian separate >> do the variance separate number four. >> So I'd move the interim use permit with
the stated conditions. >> Motion by Johnson. Looking for a second. I'll second. >> Okay. Second by Jagger. >> I'm interested to hear the discussion. >> Yeah. Any discussion, Mr. Jagger?
>> I do. I just had one discussion. I really was hoping to maybe do this before the motion, but um it was about the uh I just want to make sure the establish se the establishment ceases operations. It my thinking is it could go back to a normal greenhouse. to go back to. So, I'm not sure that I'm on
board with ex I want someone to clarify that the greenhouse must be removed within 60 days. Does that mean the uh cannabis greenhouse can we go back to growing tomatoes? Uh just that's all that was my question there. >> This must have been something that came up in planning and zoning.
>> It did not, but you could further um clarify that should cannabis establishment sees operations. Um so, there could be a further clarification in there. >> That's all. Sorry. >> Okay. Yeah, it is confusing if that's not the intent of it. >> Yeah, Mr. President, I I'd like to amend
my motion and remove D since the greenhouse is an allowable use as an accessory structure to a restaurant that he could go back to growing or continue to grow vegetables and whatnot for the restaurant. So, I' I'd like to move amend my motion to approve the interim
use permit with all of the stated conditions except for D. >> And I will second the amended motion. >> Okay. Friendly amendment. All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, do we need a roll call? >> I would recommend it. >> Maybe.
>> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Again, same sign. That motion carries. >> Next, we're just looking for approval of the variance request as presented. >> Somebody have a motion on that >> motion by was it Chza? Second Johnson.
>> Second by Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. >> All right. That takes care of that item. Moving on to 8D. This is a consideration
for a resolution for a future land use map amendment and final reading proposed ordinance 1593 reszoning the CN2 contemporary neighborhood 2 or GC general commercial to allow for an office building at 3424 Oak Street and I believe this is James Cranvic again.
>> Thank you Mr. President. So Joel Jacobson on behalf of Jake Excavating has applied for a reszoning and a future land use map amendment from contemporary neighborhood 2zoning district to general commercial zoning district to allow for the construction of an office retail building on vacant property at 3424 Oak
Street. Uh the applicant wishes to meet clients at the property for Jake Jacobson excavating. If approved, the business could not operate as a contractor office with bulk materials um and equipment without uh a conditional use permit. The applicant has indic uh included drawings for the proposed
project so city council has an idea of the proposed use for the site. However, as this is a resoning and does not lock the project into the property like a conditional use permit does, uh office retail is a permitted use in the GC district. As directed by council, staff
did include a table that shows the difference in uses between um CN2, TN2 as well as general commercial. So with that, the recommendation is as follows. Approve the attached resolution amending the future land use map designating the parcel from medium high density to commercial. Number two would be conduct
the final reading of proposed ordinance 1593 and dispense with the actual reading. And number three would be to approve the proposed ordinance 1593 and I can answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Kravik. Does anybody have questions for James or staff?
There are no questions. We are looking for the first of those three action items. So move >> second motion. Motion by bunch of people up here. Second by Bevans. >> I think it was Ericson. Second by
Beavenon. So any discussion on this part of the motion, this part of this item. Seeing none. Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Beans. >> Yes. >> Chesc. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yep. >> Odicate. >> Yes.
Next, we're looking for a motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1593 and dispense with the actual reading. >> So move. >> Second, Jagger. >> By Ericson, second by Joerger. Discussion. >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those
in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to approve the proposed ordinance 1593. >> Move to approve. Second, Johnson. >> Motion by Ericson. Second by Johnson. Any discussion?
>> Tony, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Evans, >> yes. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> ODC, >> yes. All right, moving on to 8F or 8E. Final reading of proposed ordinance 1594, the
sign ordinance. James Kravik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so staff provided a summary of the ordinance at the last meeting and can answer any questions of city council. Uh the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance 1594 and with that staff recommends to conduct the final reading
of proposed ordinance 1594 and dispense with the actual reading. Number two would be to approve proposed ordinance 1594. >> Thank you James. Any questions for James? >> No questions. >> Approve. >> Motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1594 and dispense
with the actual reading. Is that what he said? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Chzach. Second by Ericson. Discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Thank you. Moving on to uh next
item is or next recommended action. Approval of proposed ordinance 1594. Do we have a motion? >> I'll move Johnson. >> Motion by Johnson. >> Second. >> Second by Chzach. >> Any discussion? >> Tony.
>> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Evans. Yes. >> Chzac. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. >> That motion carries as well. We're on a roll now. Moving on to proposed ordinance 1595
amending section 320 for administrative citations. Again, James Krampic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, so council directed staff to add junk and debris to the list that would allow for administrative abatement as well as as well as an expedited abatement for repeat offenders. So with that, staff
recommends to first hold a public hearing. Number two, to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1595 and dispense with the actual reading, and then finally approve proposed ordinance 1595. And I can answer any questions. Thank you, James. Anybody have questions for James?
Seeing none, we're going to hold a public hearing on proposed ordinance 1595 and it is 8:42. I will open the public hearing. If there's anybody here to speak on this proposed ordinance, please do so now.
Come forward to the microphone. And if you're online, you'd like to address us on this, press star three. Ask again if if anybody would like to address the council on this, please come forward. And if you're online, please press star three.
Not seeing anyone. Max. Nobody. >> Just Eric. >> Just Eric. Hey, Eric. >> All right. >> With that, we will close the public hearing at 8:43. Next, we're looking to uh conduct the
final reading of proposed ordinance 1595 and dispense with the actual reading. >> So move. >> Motion by Ericson. >> Second, Jagger. >> Second by Jagger. Reminder that this has to be unanimous
to dispense the reading. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to approve the proposed ordinance 1595. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Jagger.
Any discuss discussion? >> Tony. >> Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Evans. >> Yes. >> Chzac. Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. That ordinance is passed. Next, we're moving on to 8 G. This is
providing direction to um to the contested nuisance assessments. And this is again James Cranvic. Take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, at the last meeting, city council adopted a resolution with the full nuisance assessment amount and staff indicated that additional information would be provided at the next meeting for the
three properties disputing their assessments. First one was 523 Grove Street uh which had some property maintenance issues that have been corrected. Uh paint was the specific issue with that property. Uh staff noticed some other minor issues in which violations have been sent uh after
review of the property before the the packet went out. Uh 1718 Pine Street originally corrected their junk and debris issue, but has since added junk and debris and is currently not compliant. Letters were also sent for that. And then 1420 Quinn Street uh received the $7,000 vacant registry fee.
Uh the fee was for an unfinished house project lasting several years with significant junk and debris and blight in the yard. Uh the exterior project is nearing completion and staff no longer considers the property to have significant blight. Uh staff did note that a couch is in the rear yard which a
letter was also sent for that. Uh so after reviewing the memo and additional documents, city council may consider the following for each property. remove the nuisance assessment total, uphold the nuisance assessment total, or modify slashred reduce the nuisance assessment total, and I can answer any questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Kravik. Anybody have questions for James? >> What? Yeah, one question, Mr. Johnson. >> It wasn't clear to me. What are you recommending? >> Uh staff did not provide a specific recommendation for each one of them. >> Provide an update on where the >> an update on each one of them. Um
certainly uh staff would provide a recommendation if if something was made an error um or if something was promised to the resident that the that uh the fees would be uh waved upon completion. Uh that did not occur for any of the three properties. >> They've all still have the same problems
that or similar problems. They have not fixed all of the problems. >> Yeah. Staff staff didn't make any promises that that fees would be waved, nor did um any of them were made an error. >> And it sounds like all three are still a problem in the city. And I I'm favorable to keeping the
assessment total. >> Second. >> Uh Mr. Chzock, >> was there a motion? >> No. >> Oh, okay. >> Just a second. But go ahead, Mr. Chz. >> Help us out, Mr. Chz. >> Okay. I just had a question on the third one with the $7,000 what's that what's that called again? The um
>> uh vacant registry fee. >> And um is that uh they can get that reimbured though, correct? by going through the >> at this time. Um, it would not be if it were to be assessed to the property. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. President. >> Yeah, Mr. Johnson. >> I just want to say just to remind you,
Jeeoff, 1420 Quint is the one that's been under construction for in excess of 12 years and hasn't had anybody living in it. Hasn't completed any projects. I'm surprised you could see the couch in the backyard given all of the other junk that's laying there. So, I it is a vacant house and we do have a vacant house registry
and it deserves to be on it. Thank you. Any more comments? If anyone wants to take a shot at a motion, >> I'll make a motion to uh uphold the nuisance assessment total. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Jagger, second by
Bevans. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Moving on to 8H. This is a continuence of public hearing and consideration of assessments for
improvements 2316. Uh again, uh this is actually city engineer Jesse Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, at the last meeting on October 6th, uh there is one uh proposed assessment that was pulled from the assessment role uh at request of the council uh for any
contest contestations for the proposed assessment on the South Brainer resurfacing project. Uh we did not receive any further contestations uh in that time. Um Mr. Lundine's property is the one that is uh contesting his
assessment. Uh the council did hear from him at the public hearing at the last meeting and staff did include uh the documentation that was provided to the council in the packet. Um staff did review this and we are um we did try to
address a lot of the drainage issues with the project. A lot of it was related to some of the issues with the catch basins in that area. Um, we further uh looked into this with the the small water, the small amount of standing water uh right nearby his
property um to see what further could be done because we are um sensitive to the concerns that he does have in regards to that little spot there. Uh while it does have grade and it can drain to the catch basins, uh we did review that with both Bolton Mink and Knife River and they are
performing a cut out and patch uh of that area right there in front of his property. They did remove it today. Uh they're planning to get that paved back in tomorrow. Uh so we are addressing that area of of concern for him specifically on that one spot. Uh that was indicated in some of the slides
there. Uh with that, uh staff is recommending holding the holdover public hearing for the assessment uh from the October 6th meeting. Uh at the conclusion of that, staff is recommending ad adoption of the attached resolution uh that adopts the assessment
for that specific property uh P 41350550 and I can answer questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean. Mr. Johnson, >> thank you, Mr. President. So, I I'm glad to hear that we are trying to, you know, re put some
pavement down to fix the drainage issue that clearly existed before and still exists. But I'm under the impression that the contractors out there in the project tried to address the drainage issue. They had a little bit of a lip or something to try to send and it didn't
work the first time. How can we be so confident that it's going to work this time with the new patch? So, the first two uh this it's essentially an infrared where they heat up the pavement and try and reroll it to
try and smoothing out the the imperfection. Uh so they they did that twice and that's the remainder of kind of what you saw there was that little strip of uh standing water here. We're not going to try that in infrared. We're actually just going to cut and replace
>> and just have a bigger slope. >> You're right. We we verified that with Balden Mink that there's enough grade to go from where we cut out uh to the the curb and gutter. So there shouldn't be a a concern there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> More questions?
>> Yeah, >> Mr. Chzac, >> is there an additional cost to the contractor >> for that work? >> Uh that'll be something that we're going to um warrant as a city because we are directing the contractor to address that. >> Thank you.
All right, more questions. Uh, Mr. Mayor, >> more of a comment. I just want to say that this is a good example of if you have an issue with these projects that are occurring, let us know and hopefully we can work something out to get it fixed. So, this is a great example of something that clearly needed to be fixed and we were able to take care of
it. That can't always be the case, but in most instances when something like this arises, just come forward with it so we can at least have that conversation. >> We'll see when it rains next time. Oh, I would also like to add >> proof. >> Yeah, once we get through it, I I have a
comment afterwards as well. >> Yep. >> Uh Mr. Jagger, do you have something? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> See nothing more. We will uh open and hold the hold over public hearing that was adjourned from October 6th, 2025
meeting. So, we'll open that now. It's 8:51. If you're here for that public hearing for that project improvement 2316, please come forward. Or if you are online, press star three.
Not you, Eric. I mean, you can, I guess. Anyone here want to come forward for this project? Please do. So, looks like nobody. So, we'll close the public hearing at 8:52. Next, we're
looking for a motion to adopt the attached resolution after conclusion of this public hearing. Adopting the assessment for P 413550. >> So, move Jagger. >> Motion by Jagger. >> Johnson.
>> Second by Johnson. Any discussion on that motion? >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Beaven, >> I'm going to vote against it. I just don't have the same faith. I'm sorry. I mean, we did it that everybody knew ahead of time this was a problem. He had pictures from before.
It's $2574.20 that we're going to saddle the guy with to not fix the problem that he has to have fixed before the project was even started. I I just think it should I mean, if we could if we could get it done and be sure, but I don't think it's
fair to him. I I think the mayor might be incorrect on this one. I don't think this worked on his behalf. I mean, I I'm just not I don't have the faith, especially when he showed it to us twice beforehand. I'm I'm sure the contractor
wants it to be done so they can get paid. But to pull this now, I I think is the right thing to do. So, I'm going to vote against this. Okay. >> I I think the rest of it should be certified, but
>> So, you'd rather have the 2574? >> I'd rather have it in the customer's pocket. >> Okay. >> Right now, because I mean, imagine buying a car and being asked to pay for it, but you can't have it. But maybe you can have it in two weeks. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you can have it in two weeks,
but we're not going to have it until the next time it rains and we can see. You're going to end up with the same situation that you got with those people out in uh southwest Brainard with the County Road 48 draining into their property.
You know, Danny Bolleg and those people, you can have the exact same thing here. The potential is it's easier for us to not to to shoulder the burden. It was our project. He he didn't come asking for it. >> Yeah, I see your argument.
more discussions. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chz, >> uh to Mr. Bevven's point, if we were to vote this down and uh I think I think if I could, Kelly, you're waiting. You want to just wait and see how it turns out?
Is that what you're suggesting? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I I mean, I think we can find a way an agree come to an agreement with the property owner if it works. I I don't think, you know, I don't know how you would legally do that. You'd ask him to
pay for it. >> My assumption is that property owner would be right back in here if it doesn't work. >> Mine, too. >> But with >> But it could be a year down the road. >> And here he is. You know, I mean, he did everything he
could do to tell you that the problem he had didn't work. didn't the fix that we off that we're asking him to pay for didn't work. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. President, >> yeah, Mr. Ch, if >> I could ask staff, um I maybe I'm not
following the process here, but the motion is to approve the assessment on this individual's property with the expectation that the problem is going to be fixed. If we don't approve it,
um, can we bring this back if once we learn that at least initially it seems to be fixed? >> Mr. Langel, do you have an answer to that? >> Yeah, Mayor Councel, so he's reserved the right to appeal by filing his
objection. If you pass this tonight, then you're you're essentially overriding his objection and and approving the um the assessment. So, at that point, if for whatever reason the street repair doesn't work, could you
settle with him on the objection or if he if he appeals it further? Yes, you could do that. >> Thank you. If this didn't pass, would we just be essentially holding another continuence of the public hearing and then hearing this one more time?
>> You could continue this again if if >> another two weeks will provide evidence. >> You could keep going for a year. Another three years. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Jagger, >> I just want just where I'm at on this. To me, the assessment and the repair are kind of not related. If you're you're
getting he's going to get assessed for fixing for the street repairs like everyone does in this city. We pay for assessments for the fact that it we've got an an issue that needs fixed either needs fixed and we need to fix it or or keep trying to fix it or eventually get to a point of where it is fixed. I think
that never goes away to me. The two are kind of not related. I think he can come back and say, "Hey, look guys still didn't fix this." In which case, we send the street guys out there and we just keep going until we eventually get it fixed. But still, I don't I'm not sure that I see us in a place where, okay, we're just going to let people just
leverage money till we get things fixed to where they think it should be. I just that seems weird to me. To me, you pay for something and then if you're it is not working, you go back, you get it fixed. That's where I'm at. >> Yeah, it is a tough one. Um Johnson, go
ahead. >> Yeah, I seconded the motion, but I think I think Kelly has me convinced, especially after Joe spoke, like I don't want to override his objection. I I I fully agree with his objection and I think his objection is related to directly to the assessment because we
assess budding property owners and legally we can't assess more than the value added to the property. And when we're draining water and creating a big pool in front of his property, we're not adding any value. He shouldn't have to pay $2,500 unless we fix the problem of
the water pooling that he let us know of ahead of time. you like the perfect citizen did everything right like Kelly said and here we are. We're working on it. I'm hopeful we get it fixed, but we haven't yet gotten it fixed. So, I I'm with Kelly. I think I'd want to keep
413505 out until it's fixed and then address it at that time. >> Okay. There's one one of two ways to go about it. We either we we either approve it or or we we fix it. we find out if it's
fixed or not later and he comes back to us. >> Mr. Dean, did you have a comment? >> I just wanted to add to the timeline from the attorney. So, the waiting for the next meeting, it it does add a little bit of complication because after the assessment or the assessment is
ratified, that starts a 30-day prepayment clock uh for the property owner to prepay that assessment uh without interest before it goes to the county. and the county has a deadline of December 1st uh to us to get those um put on the tax rules. Uh so this is kind
of that that last meeting to start that 30-day clock before that deadline. Um but we'll we'll take our uh direction from the council. I mean, we can continue to address this until it is corrected if that's the case from the council or continue to hold this out. It's just that's the complication with a 30-day payment clock.
>> I think the big thing is that it gets fixed. I think that's we're all in agreement on that up here. Making sure that that gets fixed. Mr. Chzac. >> Yeah. Uh, currently the contractor is working on this. Uh, there comes a point in time where that won't be the case, right? If it's not fixed correctly or do
we just keep having them go back to try to fix it? Because I think Mr. Jagger mentioned city staff just keeps going back and city street. Is that a is that a is that pose a problem here with who's actually doing the work? Right now, >> we would go back to the contractor to
repair this. at this point. Uh obviously the I'll call them rehab treatments of the infrared did not solve the issue which is why we're doing the cut and patch which is a little bit more obviously invasive. Uh if this doesn't solve the issue that we would go back to the contractor to correct it. >> So I mean if it's u April we can do
that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mayor, >> just as a followup to my comment that since Kelly uh so rudely said that you know I have too much faith in this getting done. My follow-up comment was going to be that I would like to see
this come back to us so that we have some kind of reassurance that this has been done correctly and we're not just leaving this um citizen out on their own to fend for themselves that we're keeping an eye on this because I agree with you uh chairman or excuse me,
President OD that the goal is to get this fixed. So, let's get it done. Let's get it corrected and whatever process we take in order to do that, I I honestly don't care. Just get it done. That's my biggest concern. as fast as possible. >> Yes. >> Anyone else?
It's time to take a vote on this. >> Um Tony, >> can we clarify the motion? Sorry. Um >> yeah, clarify the motion. Who whose motion was this? >> Evans, >> it was my it was my motion to to to move forward with the uh
>> You went with the recommendation? >> Yes. >> So, you're recommending this is a motion to adopt the attached resolution. At this point, I'm going to rescend my motion if I if I'm able to do that. >> Mr. >> I'm convinced. You got I'm convinced and if I'm going to er any direction, I'm going to heir on the side of a citizen.
So, all the hubhub works, I'm I'm convinced. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Beaven, >> I move to adopt the attached resolution uh setting aside the assessment for P 4135.
>> Second by Bevon, second by Johnson. on the new motion. Any discussion? Oh, good. Except for you. Okay. Attorney Langel. >> So, just for clarification, setting aside meaning hold the hearing. You
going to uh table >> leaving off? >> Leaving off the assessment motion to deal with that, >> but not including leaving off not assessing Okay.
>> Okay. It's pretty clear. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> This is a resolution. No. Come on, Johnson. An hour and a half into this. Don't start messing with me now. It's my birthday. >> Just adopt the attachment.
>> I'm going to move next that we make a statue to Mayor Bedau because I treated him so poorly. Yeah. >> So, it was a resolution. Go ahead, Tony. Yes. >> Jagger. >> Ericson. >> Yes. >> Bevven. >> Yes.
>> Chzach. >> Yes. Johnson. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. >> That carries. Mr. Beavenons. >> I have a second motion. I move that staff work with the property owner at uh 41350550 as to how to h as to how to handle the
257420 equitably handle after the repairs are successful. >> Second >> motion by Bevon, second by Johnson. Is that clear to everybody? Any discussion on it? It's >> not clear to you. >> I was going to say it looks like what >> Mr. Langel
I think given that we're at the hearing stage for that property, I would it would be best if adding to that motion that we would continue to hold over the hearing until the next council meeting. >> Add to that motion. That's fine. >> I have no problem. Okay.
>> Friendly amendment. Second is okay. >> All right. >> Um question, >> Mr. Chzach, >> how does it determine when the U fix is successful? Who determines that? It sounds like a discussion between staff and the citizen.
>> Okay, it's fixed until the water pools. >> Good enough. >> No more discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. Same sign. >> Motion carries. >> Moving on to new business
9A. We are revisiting potential organizational changes with appropriate charter language. I believe this is administrator Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. At the 7th April council meeting, a motion passed to cease and desist discussions of utility services to be included in the
public works department being amended with a charter change. Um staff feels that we we potentially have an opportunity for some potential organizational changes that we would like to discuss with the charter commission and if they see fit to bring
before the city council. So staff is basically asking for some reprieve from that seven April motion um to explore some creative and innovative ideas as we look at some potential organizational changes. So the recommended motion from staff would be to move to allow staff to
discuss potential organizational changes with both the charter commission and the city council. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzac, >> I would move to resend the motion from April 7 to cease and desist all discussion of moving public utility services to public works.
>> Motion by Chzach, second by was it Beans? >> Yep. >> Any discussion on that motion? >> Uh yes. Um >> Mr. Chzach, >> it it it's the same thing as Mr. Broyals is asking for. >> Yep. >> They're free to do as they wish with that motion.
>> Yep. That was the motion kind of putting a halt to those discussions. All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> I. >> Motion still carries.
Moving on to 9B. This is a resolution um to receive a fe feasibility report and call for a public hearing on improvement 25005, Southeast Brainer Reconstruction Project. And I believe this is uh Jesse
Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so few meetings ago, we had the council adopt a resolution that ordered the feasibility report. Um we've prepared that feasibility report with uh kind of a follow-up from theformational meeting that we held with residents on August
19th here at city hall to kind of go over the uh scope of work including the discussion topics that were brought up with the council in regard to some of the new sidewalk, the paving of Laurel Street uh and the like. Um, so some of those comments in the at least the
general sentiment was included in that feasibility report for council review. Uh, at this point, staff is recommending adoption of the attached resolution that receives the feasibility report as presented and then calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvement uh, proposed to be held on November 17th at
the council meeting at 7:30. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody have questions? Doesn't look like it. We're just looking for a motion. Motion to recommend adopting the resolution receive the attached feasibility report and calling
for a public hearing on the proposed improvement to be held November 17th, 2025, 7:30 p.m. So >> move Johnson. >> Second by Johnson. Second. Bevans. Any discussion? >> Tony Jagger. >> Yes. >> Ericson. >> Yes.
>> Bevans. >> Yes. Chesac. >> Yes. >> Johnson. Yep. >> OD. >> Yes. That motion carries. All right, moving on to staff reports. Tony Gage, you got something, right? >> Not yet. >> Still not anything yet. Okay, Chief Davis,
>> just like to invite all trick-or-treaters to stop by the Briner Police Department Halloween evening from 3:30 to 6. Say hi and uh get a little candy. >> Thank you, Max Hannon, CLC. >> Happy birthday. >> Oh, thank you.
>> Oh, make a statue for you as well. finance quick over there. Mike Abigor, the only thing that I have is that the annex um proposal for remodel and improvement will be on the next council agenda. >> Thank you. >> Thank you
>> again, James Kraick. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, from the last uh planning commission meeting, the commission uh did review the Shorland ordinance and directed staff to work with the DNR on a few corrections. Uh staff will be meeting with DNR to discuss those changes and the uh commission is planning on holding a public hearing in December. Uh also the
planning commission has begun discussions on an update to the comprehensive plan. A major goal will be to increase the threshold for a mandatory EAW. Uh one major component is evaluating the implementation of the comprehensive plan and that is all. >> Thank you Mr. Kravick. Joe Langel
>> nothing here. Thank you >> Chris Schubert. >> Jesse Dean. >> Thank you Mr. President. So, we've talked a handful of product project updates. There's like just a couple more I want to highlight. Uh the M Street outfall up by the uh Evergreen Cemetery is progressing. We're running in uh into
some rather unexpected surprises out there, but uh we are still moving forward and trying to get that wrapped up here over the next couple weeks. And then the roundabout uh is moving forward very quickly. Uh they're wrapping up a lot of stuff uh this week. Uh we had a
little bit of delay in some of the signage that we need to have installed for safety purposes. So it's going to wait a little bit longer to get that opened up. Uh but we're very hopeful that things should be open at that roundabout before Halloween. Uh that's kind of what they're shooting for is Halloween, but it may even be a day or
two sooner than that. Uh so things like the trunk or treat at uh the Lutheran church there should be able to progress without any kind of hindrance with that. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean for that disappointing thing that you just told us about at the end.
>> Eric Sharpender, H. >> Yes, Mr. President. Do have one update tonight. Uh wanted to let the council know that we were successful in uh our application for a deed small cities grant for 600,000 to be used for the streetscape project on the Washington
street reconstruction for next year, which is really good news. Uh thanks to, you know, a couple of my staff for getting that um grant put through and this will help offset the city's portion of the cost for some of that streetscape uh improvements that will happen for the
next two years. So wanted to let the council know about that and we're we're very excited to be able to to help with that project. >> Thanks, Eric. Thanks for the great news. Administrator Broyals, >> three things. First, congratulations, Paul Sandy. He's going to be a great addition to the team. Second, um
received some kind words from folks as we were out in New Mexico and we dealt with some medical things with my mother. She is doing well. Um her situation gave me more time with our one-year-old grandson. So, it was bittersweet, but we're glad to be back
home. Last thing is the MA conference. If if just as just by by a by a reminder that's the international city and county managers association the annual conference is in Florida. I will be flying out Friday. I will be returning
next Wednesday. Um so I'll be down for it was in Pittsburgh last year going to be in Florida this year. So looking forward to that. >> Where in Florida? >> Tampa Bay >> right in the middle of hurricane season. >> Yeah. >> Good luck. >> That's a fun airport. >> Thank you, Administrator Broyals. Next we have the honorable Mayor Bedau.
>> Oh, I have four items. I know that's more than three, but it is four. Uh, first of all, I want to I don't know if you guys are paying attention during that bonding thing, but I really appreciated when the bonding lady said that if our bond rating was better, our bond rating would be better. I really appreciated that part of it. That was
good insight. Uh, secondary momentous occasion tonight, folks. Momentous occasion. The mayor voted tonight. Put it on the Put it in the paper. Make sure that everyone's aware. I had something to do tonight. It was amazing. Uh, also the downtown spooktacular will be
happening this Saturday 11 to 1. So, I don't know if you've ever participated in that, but a lot of kids getting down there getting some candy. Again, 11 to1 downtown. Uh, please participate in that if you got small children. I know that all the businesses down there love having them. So, uh, and then just
lastly, just a quick note. I you you may have noticed that tonight, uh, Council Member Stunic is not with us. um he is having some health issues and uh I I was asked to just uh quickly say to everyone uh please keep him in your prayers and
uh he's going to be gone for a little bit from us but he's going to be back. So uh just be thinking about Councilman Sunnik and uh we look forward to his return. End of report. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Let's move on to Mr. Chzot.
>> Thank you President ODay. Um, one thing I um just wanted to wish a belated happy birthday to one of our cornerstone cornerstone pillars of our community. Um, five days belated and uh, not many of you historians will know, but she
actually was able to set the cornerstone of this building, Mary Cop, 93 years old on the 15th of October. God bless her. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzai. Mr. Bevans, >> thank you. I uh got a chance to run down
to the firehouse open house last week or two weeks ago and what a hoot that is. If you have not gone, I mean it's not just for kids, although kids can go, you know, I mean, they really put on a good open house at our fire department. So,
thank you to everybody. They had a helicopter there. I mean, it was cool. I didn't want to leave. >> Did you get a helmet? You know, I I had an opportunity to get a helmet, but I passed because I figured I'm beyond help. >> Did they put you in the dog suit? >> No.
>> No. >> I don't fit. >> It's a little dog suit. >> Jagger. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Airport ticker. Uh D. Uh so, a couple things. Our new airport, uh our new ARF employee started
and we welcome him aboard, Patrick Nelson. He got we got to get him a little bit of fire training. we're going to uh get him up to speed, but uh had the good pleasure of meeting him today. Seems like a great guy and we welcome him aboard. Uh unfortunately uh he's being brought aboard because we are losing a longtime employee by the name
of Jim Wolf out there who's been with us for a very long time and we are taking some time on October 27th at 1:00 to show some appreciation for his uh years of great service out there. He's just been uh you know a pillar of the airport out there and we sure hate to see him
go. Uh I'll quick update on our new director. We uh are d we are open for uh receiving applications for our director and that uh will remain open until the 24th and I will say we've had a highly fruitful turnout already. Uh we've
received at least 20 applications. Uh many of those are highly highly qualified people to take over the directoral role. So, uh, the airport commission certainly has is going to have, uh, their hands full with trying to select this new person. I'd like to thank Mr. Planser for his help with that
and and our intent is to, uh, make an announcement or or offer that job at the December meeting for the airport commission. So, we've going to do some interviewing process throughout November, but hopefully at the December meeting, we'll be making a recommendation there. Um, so good good
great news there. government shutdown has a potential delay on the EAS announcement regarding our uh you know our pending uh service provider for EAS. We're still hoping for an early November announcement uh with our EAS provider out there. And just a couple other
couple uh little fun tidbits. The EAA who meets out there uh that's the uh experimental aircraft association. Believe it or not, there's a lot of experimental air aircraft over our heads every single day. about 10% of the aircraft in the in the sky are experimental. But anyways, there's a
group of guys they're EAA and or a group of people and they meet every uh first Saturday every u month out there. And last month they did a they basically a flyer they they invite kids, anybody who wants to come and they take them for flights. They get a bunch of pilots and they took 59 kids for flights around
Brainard to try to introduce those uh ch kids into the role of aviation. So, huge thanks to those uh pilots and for those guys for putting that on, all the kids that showed up, it was awesome. Youth flight, that was our youth fly. And EAA is also has something else uh that's really exciting that you're going to
want to get out to the airport to see. They have been restoring a 1933 Longster. This is a four-cylinder airplane uh which we will be hanging in the foyer in the rafters uh in in the uh near future and it's going to be a really cool addition to the airport. It's going to be fun to see. So, we're
partnering with Me and Hunt. partnering with high-tech out there. Mr. Planser has been so generous as to help with uh there's cost associated with this as you might imagine. And uh yeah, get out and check it out. It's named the Etna G after the first female flight instructor uh in the United States. So, it's a kind
of a cool thing. And that is your ticker on the air. Yep. D on the airport uh report. >> I get 10 bucks for that. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. If I were to dress up as a kid and go out to the airport, would they put me in a
experimental aircraft and fly me around? >> Well, actually uh and I stand standing invitation. Anybody that would like to go out to the airport and get a tour of the facility, the uh the equipment and do what I did last year, which is get a ride in a snow plow while they're plowing out there. You got to kind of coordinate that with the event
obviously, but uh the our airport is your airport. So, come on out, have a look, see what we do out there every single day. and we love to have people. And just as a little hint, this is a little spoiler, but we are looking at potentially a pretty big deal in the spring, which will be some version of an open house, flyin, car show, food, kids,
all kinds of jazz in the in coming up in in uh in the spring. And so >> Mr. Oay already know he dresses like a kid. >> How do you know, Jeff? >> Words around town. >> So your so your answer is yes. >> Yes. Okay, >> we invite anyone out to come on up. Yep.
>> Mr. Jagger. Chairman Johnson. >> Oh, Max already stole my thunder. I was going to wish you a happy birthday, but I was also going to offer city administrator Broyals the opportunity since it is Mike's birthday today here at a city council meeting. >> If you would like to sing him Happy
Birthday, a solo rendition of Happy Birthday. >> Here's your birthday song. It's not too long. Hey, >> I would yield my time to you. >> Don't do it. Don't do it. It's a trick. >> It'll pass. Well, I'll try next time we have a birthday. >> Jim used to do it all the time. And by all the time, I mean all the time.
>> Is not here >> for a cup of coffee. >> Nothing further. Thank you. >> All right. And let it be known that I do not make a big deal out of my birthday. I just wanted Mr. Johnson to stop picking on me and I use it as an excuse. Otherwise, nobody would have known.
>> It was my birthday last meeting. Did you hear it one single time? No, you did not. I've heard nothing but your birthday tonight. >> Nobody was picking on you. >> I just threw out the idea of making you a statue. Quit your whining. >> All right, I have nothing further to add tonight. Thank you everybody for putting
up with us again. Uh we will see you in a couple weeks. We're looking for a motion to >> pick >> by Bevans. >> Second by Johnson. All in favor say I. I against same sign. We are journ to 160.
Mhm. Take Part: 2
And it's six o'clock. And I'll call to order the planning commission. Roll call. >> Gorum >> here. >> Grasula >> here. >> Peterson >> here. >> Powell. >> Ericson >> here. >> Norwood >> here.
>> And pledge of allegiance to the flag of the fors. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And then regarding item four, approval
of the agenda, I would recommend for a motion to change exchange seven and eight. Item seven and eight. Basically putting new business ahead of unfinished business. I'd make that motion with the with that
change. >> Second. >> All right. And I'll before any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor? I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And
on to approval of the agenda. Or wait, does that count as approval of the agenda? Just to clarify. Okay, it does. Public forum. Sorry, clarifying. Looking for a motion to approve the minutes from July 16th.
>> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Uh, I'll go with second with Gorum. And all those in favor? I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. Item six, public forum.
At 601, I'll open the public forum for the Brainer Planning Commission. And if anybody would like to come forward to speak at this time for the public forum for items that are not on the agenda and
a second call for anybody wanting to speak and Max, anyone online? All right. And I'll close the public forum at 602. And moving on to 8A, new business.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Alan and Nancy Albertson have submitted a variance request for the construction of a 12T by 18 ft garden shed in the front yard. This property is located in the Garden Living Zoning District and is a riparian lot located along the Mississippi River.
Uh detached accessory structures are required to be placed behind the principal structure in the Garden Living District. Uh the property owners are currently in the process of constructing a new single family home along the Mississippi River on this property. According to section 530.09 of the city code, structures are required to be
placed 150 ft from the ordinary high water line of the Mississippi River. The principal structure is located 150 ft from the Mississippi River, which is consistent with most riparian construction projects. Uh the location of the house and the Mississippi Mississippi River do not allow for the placement of the accessory structure in
the rear yard as depicted in the site plan. Uh the construction of this accessory structure will not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed materials will be consistent with the primary structure. Um also there's vacant lots um next to
it um to the be to the west of it. Uh, other thing to note that other properties along this section of the Mississippi River do not have rear yard accessory structures as depicted in the Crowing County GIS map. It did appear one of them may have an accessory structure located essentially in the front yard um as the applicants are
proposing. Uh, the practical difficulties um related to the location of the Mississippi River and shoreland requirements are not due to economic considerations. And with that, uh, staff recommends approval of this variance request as proposed. And I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff,
Mr. Chair? >> Yes. >> Is there any possibility it could be on the side lot or is the side lots impossible to be on the sides of the house? Is that possible? >> Looking at some of the setbacks there, I think there'd be difficulty locating on the on the side of the the structure there. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. >> Just looking at the map, it looks like this is at the end of the road. Um, >> yep, that's correct. So, it's it's um located, I guess, to the extents of where your typical um building structures could be for primary structures. So, it's not any closer than
what a primary house could be. Um so, yeah, not really any closer than than what that front yard setback is, but then would be in technically in the front yard. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions of staff? Otherwise, I'll
uh open the public hearing for garden shed in the front yard for P41020669. And if the applicant would like to come forward and speak uh to the application, you can do at this time. Or if anybody else would like to speak in favor or
against the the item. Hello all, my name is Scott Ransom. I live two doors down from the new house the Albertsons are building. I support their variance. >> Uh just real quick for the record, your we caught your name, last name, and
address. >> 714 Mississippi Drive. >> Awesome. >> Any questions? All right. Thank you. >> And second call. Oh, all right.
Good evening. Good evening. >> I'm uh Alan Albertson, the applicant, and my wife Nancy sitting in the back row. Uh we appreciate the consideration. It would certainly certainly make things easier uh to put those things, keep
everything undercover, and and I the the the garden shed will be will be built with matching exterior to match the house. So can guarantee you that uh it won't be something that looks out of place. >> Any questions of the applicant?
>> All right, seeing none. Thank you. >> You bet. >> And one more call for anyone wanting to speak to the variance application for 722 Mississippi Drive.
And seeing none, I'll close the public hearing for variance request of 722 Mississippi Drive at 606 and bring it back to the commission table. Any questions at all? Otherwise, seeking
a motion for approval or denial of the request. >> I'll make a motion for approval as as stated. >> All right. >> Second. Any further discussion at all? All right. Uh all those in favor I
>> I >> and oppose same sign and motion carries. And next steps. >> Yes. So, as the planning commission is a recommending body, this will go to the next city council meeting which will be on September 2nd, Tuesday at 7:30
because Monday is a holiday and um so you can look forward to that meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. If you guys want, you can sneak out. >> Um and on to the next item 8B.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so Courtney and Joseph Douglas have submitted a variance request to expand on a nonconformity to allow for the construction of a vertical addition to their house. Foundation of the home is currently 4T 10 in from the fence line.
The TN1 district requires a 5-ft minimum sideyard setback. Uh the fence line does is not official, but in the absence of property pins can reasonably be used to establish the fact that the house is located on the property. Uh as this is a vertical addition, staff is not
requiring a survey of the property or property pins, but is requiring the applicant to apply for a variance. Uh as proposed, the roof line is changing and a gable is being added to the north side of the property. Uh with that variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Um certainly this home is historic and was constructed uh prior to current setback requirements prior to the current zoning code. Uh the proposed materials and design are consistent with the surrounding structures and will not negatively impact the historical uh characteristics
of the home and the neighborhood. Um what's proposed to be added to the second level will actually enhance um the characters of the the home and provide another design element as required by code. Um also there are no economic considerations with this variance request. Uh so with that staff
is recommending approval of this variance request as proposed and I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff? All right. And hearing no questions, I'll open the public hearing for 703 North 7th Street,
P4124727. And if the applicant wants to speak uh as to the the request uh and just your name and address. >> Yeah. Good evening everyone. So, my name is Joe Douglas. I reside at 703 North 7th Street. Um, thank you for the
consideration for uh for this addition to our home. We lived in the Gregory Park area for since 2016. Raising a young family of four young children. We love the home. We love that the turn of the century area. My children all go to LOL Elementary School, one of the best schools in the area. So, we're looking forward to, you know, have getting
approval to um, you know, add some additional space and additional bedroom for our four kids. So, thank you for the consideration. >> Any questions of applicant? All right. >> Yeah. Well, you answered the question, but that was going to be one of my questions was what um you said it's a bedroom, so we're adding a unit, a
housing unit essentially to the >> Yeah, right now the the existing roof or attic is unfinished. It's unfinished space. Um and the roof needs to be replaced anyway. And so, um in doing so, um when the house was built and that roof was built to turn the century, that
existing roof is not really to code. So, we wanted to turn it into a finished space. There will be a finished, um bedroom up in that in that third level. Correct. Right. Yep. Thank you. >> Any other questions? All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wanting to speak to the
variance request? Anyone online? And third time just for All right. And I'll close the public hearing at 6:11 for uh the variance request at 703 North
7th. and bring it back to the commission table looking for a motion for or discussion. >> Just one I guess quick question of James. Um in the in your recommendation
you you say the property pins are I guess technically unknown. I think that's pretty common up in that that older neighborhood. Um, and given that, you know, I I guess, you know, we we don't even know if it is that it's a matter of inches we're talking. And so given we don't really technically know
where the pins are, I would be in favor of of approving this. Just wanted to >> and I'll just I'll just add to that. Um, if this were to be a potential expansion towards that property line, staff would have then required a survey um with property pins, which can be a little bit more lengthy in these historic
neighborhoods to try to figure out where the exact property line is. Um, but being this is a vertical addition, this was staff's recommendation. >> Great. Thanks. >> All right. Any other questions of staff? Otherwise, seeking a motion for approval or denial.
>> Mr. Chair, I would move to approve. >> Second. >> I am going to give it to to Dave. Um, sorry, Ted. And any further discussion from the
commission? All right. And all those in favor? >> I I >> and oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And next steps. >> So this will be heard at the September 2nd city council meeting in the council chambers here at 7:30 for approval or
denial of the variance request. >> All right. And Mr. Douglas, if you don't want to stick around for the lengthy boring stuff, you don't have to. >> If you want to, >> um, Awesome. >> We do have an open seat on the commission.
>> We do. Sam, >> evening, gentlemen. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. And moving on to item 7A. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a continuation of the review of the sign ordinance. Uh so from the last meeting
staff did take a look at a few other provisions in here along with the direction from the planning commission to look into lighting and reaching out to a sign company. Um so a few of the other things that staff um kind of viewed in here as potential changes and recommended changes would be to remove
the requirement that only two signs can be placed on the facade of the building. Um and the requirement that signs display the primary name of the business only. Um there's just a lot of examples. Um, if you look at Walgreens or Cub Food where you have to indicate pharmacy or or some other things where um, just
requiring two signs are going to be a challenge for for some businesses. Um, and you know, with that there still would be the requirement that signs can only take up 15% of the facade. Um, so they could have more than uh, as proposed more than two signs, but they could still only take up 15% of that
facade. Um, also adding three-dimensional signs to approved window signage in addition to vinyl and paint. Um, this could be, you know, potential tubing for like open signs, um, or, you know, stating closed or something like that, but then would still prohibit, uh, you know,
essentially paper signs from from being put into windows. Um, also adding the provision that every sign shall be constructed in a professional manner and shall not cause blight or negative impact. Um, certainly a gray area there, but, uh, you know, something that I believe was the in the spirit of what
the EDA is asking is to to kind of improve our signage standards. Um, also kind of the the one that was directed from the planning commission on, the lighting. Um, staff is recommending just because there's so many things to this at this time, um, removing the lighting requirements from the proposed ordinance. Um, just leaving in the pro,
uh, provision that's currently in there that it is not so bright to distract um, oncoming um, vehicles or drivers. um staff did reach out to a lighting company and determined or a sign company and determined that uh Kelvin's aren't really used for consideration for signs.
Um rather knits are what's used. Um also looked into um what dark skies uh which was what we use for the lighting ordinance what their recommendations were. Um and the their recommendations really revolved around uh digital billboards. Um the sign company did
indicate too that that seems to be kind of one of the big things that a lot of communities will at times um try to regulate uh especially trying to dim it down. Uh it does have to be brighter during the daytime to be able to see it but then also dim it down at night. Um, so if the commission would like to add a
lighting component from staff, I one of the municipalities that I did um, research had a provision in there that said signs using an LED uh, light emmitting diode source shall not exceed a luminescence level of 500 candela per square meter, which is nits, uh, between
sunset and sunrise and shall not exceed that level of 5,000 per square meter uh, between sunrise and sunset. Um, with that I can answer any questions. >> Any questions of staff? Yes, Mr. Ericson. >> Uh, James, do we have the ability or
capability to measure >> these metrics? >> So, the the fifth one that you see in there, that would be the difficult one. Um, not exceeding the.3 ft candles um from the sign there. We would not have the capabilities um to measure something
like this. Uh, the ordinance or the provision that I had just explained there is something that could be done kind of on the front end. Um, when you're looking at these digital billboards, usually they are they're not cheap units. And, um, same with any type of lighting fixture, um, they have
things that if, you know, if things aren't being activated or they have motion sensors, um, it can kick down in lighting and then and then move up. I think this is probably a requirement that, you know, ahead of it could easily be added to to any type of a digital billboard. Um, so it's not something
staff would have to go out and measure afterwards. You know, obviously it may be difficult. um you know in hindsight to see that uh you know what are what is that light standard after it's installed but at least we'd have this requirement ahead of time they'd be aware that
they'd have to follow this >> thank you that's helpful >> any other question Mr. Peterson. >> Yeah. Uh James, I have a couple of questions. One is with that lighting at the night, I would like to see that a little bit less. Some of those signs are a little bit bright out there, but every
time a permit is pulled, like put up a new sign or change sign, they need a permit to change a sign. >> Not to change a graphic. So, if it were to be um you know, an existing sign. Uh, one example, I think, um, Rosalinis on
Mill had just changed the graphic on there. That doesn't require a sign permit. If you were to put up a, you know, a new pole sign or any type of new signs along the wall, we're making sure um, not only from a zoning perspective, but also that it's meeting uh, building code as well, that it's being affixed to
the structure properly and that there's proper anchoring um, if it's a if it's a pole sign. So, >> but nothing new. If it goes to a a lighted sign, per se, or anything like that. >> If they were adding lighting to it, they'd probably have to pull an electrical permit on something like
that. But perhaps maybe not a building permit. >> I'm just thinking that might be one way to look at this lighting situation. So, if they switch from, you know, cardboard sign to a digital, and I'm not saying a $500 permit, a $25 permit that they have
to come in, then they can show what knits they have or whatever on it. And we're just going to say yes, that's probably fine because you you rely on the professionals at that point. >> That's correct. That's that's the typical, you know, that's what we're looking at when we're when we're reviewing um lighting for parking lots
as well. We give them this requirement. We're make sure we're making sure that they meet the specifications. Um, you know, it's hard to try to measure something afterwards. Certainly, if something's extremely bright, you know, we may question question that, but uh, >> we do that on the front end on on the
design of the the light or this in this instance be the sign. >> Okay. And then the other followup with that, you said 15% of their facade can be signed, but that does that include like a freestanding sign? >> That does not. That would just be the wall sign.
>> Can that be any size imaginable or >> so? Freestanding signs. Um there's a couple zoning districts here that we've proposed. Um currently I believe it's the commercial corridor district as well as a general commercial are allowed um a 100 square foot pylon sign um and if
they have um say they're that's 100 say it's 100 foot frontage or a 50ft frontage they're allowed that. If it go if they say say they have 150 uh foot frontage, they're allowed 150 square foot um essentially pylon sign up to up
to 300 square ft. And then if they have additional, they're allowed more, you know, more signs, 300 foot signs, but they can't really exceed that signage maximum without a variance request. So that's how that works. In in this proposed ordinance, we're I guess I'm also proposing that the general industrial district would also be
allowed to have those same types of requirements. So like Caterpillar who they have acreages out there wouldn't couldn't put a 40,000 square foot sign >> could not >> I actually have a question if you're >> Yeah. >> Um regarding that if so the variance
request for a a zone or um if it's not included currently within the listed zones if a business were looking to do that. How how laborous how
much of a impact financial impact would we be looking at it? It's are we talking thousands of dollars, hundreds of dollars kind of a situation if >> if they wanted to have a larger pylon sign? >> Yeah, if they wanted to add a pylon sign. I I'm thinking cuz is makers and employers in the listed ones currently?
>> That would that's not as proposed. Um that's those are typically smaller properties than what our general industrial district properties are. So, as currently proposed, that part's left out. They're still allowed to have that 100 ft sign, um, but not larger. Uh, certainly variance requests could be
used for a large property. Um, I know one of the, um, sign variance requests that we had from a few years ago is because it was, uh, the right-of-way distance on, uh, business 371 was further away than typical property. So, perhaps they need a larger sign if, um,
they have a larger setback from rightaways. um or if the property is very large, you know, that might be a unique circumstance where a variance could be considered >> and it's usually not cost prohibitive is more the point that I'm trying to make sure that >> Yep. It's just going through that variance process.
>> Process. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Uh into a different portion of a question I have of staff. um for our lighting requirements that we do have. Um how does the lighting requirements
that we currently have within uh chapter 515 end up for uh impacting our signage and property for outdoor lighting specifically. >> So, um our current ordinance just talks
about brightness cannot be so distracting to oncoming drivers. Um there has been a few signs that I've had to, you know, that they've been close to the right ofway. I do give them that kind of warning that uh you do have to be careful with that. Um you know,
certainly there hasn't been major issues with that. I know there's the picture of the Holiday gas station that was provided. Um you know, if we were to get complaints on that, you know, may have to be addressed in those situations. Um other signs that have been placed closer right away that I have warned them, um
seem to not be an issue. And when there is problems with those or if there is problems how how does uh staff end up going about enforcing or measuring or finding the metrics as so
that way it is not subjective >> currently it would be somewhat subjective the way the wording is. >> Okay. And then uh within city code for billboards uh section 415
there is illuminated signs and flashing signs that are listed there. Um it does this create duplicity or duality within uh some of those things. I don't see digital boards being listed when I go
through that as of yet. It it does not the one the I guess the provision that staff had indicated would actually add um some specific specifications to it currently does not talk about it talks about flashing signs and such but does not have a certain nit level um that
they'd have to adhere to. >> Would that recommendation be specifically for that section 415 billboards? >> Staff would look staff would look to see, you know, the the best place to to position something like that. But the recommendation um from staff if a provision were to be added be
specifically recommended for digital billboards. >> Any other questions of staff at this time? Yeah, just well I think I know the answer to this but you know if we take action on this recommend it council approves it then this will be the new
ordinance and it will apply for new construction and anytime there's a change or how do you how do we handle any kind of retroactive that would be through a >> I'd have to talk to the city attorney for kind of the more temporary signs um some of the banner signs that are
currently up um certainly if you change ordinances And there's certain other standards for like property maintenance and property maintenance and such. Um you have to adhere to that when when the ordinance is passed. Um it would for sure obviously tackle new signs. Um you know
any type of you know there is a provision in here um signs that are currently where the business is no longer in operation. I think it would apply to that for sure. um whether you' be able to remove um current banner signs, I'd have to look into that a
little bit more. Um certainly it would apply to new signs. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Is anyone prepared with a motion as of yet? >> More more just >> or more questions? >> Well, actually for us more than anything
with that with the lighted billboards or the the digital ones. I mean, is is that an idea that people like or not like? I mean, I don't know. To keep, you know, to keep the That's what I There's a couple of them out there that are pretty darn bright. Um,
you know, that's the one thing I would say, you know, the ones that are there now, I don't know if you do anything about it, but anything that's new or changed, even if they're taking a billboard, I I'm just throwing it out there what the consensus is.
I think it's reasonable to consider. I don't know what the specific number or metric is, but um think about it from a highway or roadway safety standpoint and >> not just an even well two things. First, a safety and then of course just simply
an aesthetic community. >> I get distracted easily, so I'm looking off to the side all the time. >> And I know we've talked about this and you're specifically talking about billboards, but just the electronic side. I mean, there are some that are just obscenely bright
>> and they're shining right at homes >> right >> all night long flashing switching things >> yeah billboards business signs whatever I don't have a problem with it just that you know later at night they seem sometimes can be pretty darn bright >> Mr. Sure. >> Yes.
>> We take provision number two that we have sitting there. The intensity of the sign lighting shall not exceed that necessary to illuminate to make legible a sign. Can we put that apply that to billboards? >> Can I So it gives you an there. So there's a mechanism there. It's a vague mechanism, but could we put a mechanism
on on billboards? >> Well, James had they you had numbers from from other communities that >> Yeah. So I can explain that a little bit more. So number two could be added, you know, kind of to what our current lighting ordinance is just to strengthen it a little bit
more and that could apply to all signs. Um, you know, certainly some of the other provisions I'm um a little weary of of how it would affect u future signage. The one that that I had explained earlier that talks about the 500 nits um at night and then I think it
was 5,000 during the day. Um that was taken from another municipality and you know when reviewing I added the table on there from dark skies. It's not um to the levels of what they had potentially recommended in there. Um it's a little bit higher than that. Um I think they
were had 174 200 levels at night. So um I think this would be a good starting point is 500 at night and and see what that looks like and then potentially you know it could be lowered in the future if if needed. Um, but at least this would add some type of provisions in there, but maybe not be so restrictive
that uh um right off the bat to to really affect um potential signage in the city. >> Uh Max, if you'll scroll just a little bit up to page seven of 38. Uh under staff's proposed changes, staff was recommending the following changes
from the last meeting. And some of those do include um the removal of the um additional lighting requirements, though they are uh included a little bit further below. Um, some of the concept
within that for me personally is the expediting of the lion share of the design elements for this ordinance. Um, and as to address some of those lighting concerns and items, facilitate those
either through future changes to this proposed before or after we have implemented the line share of it and or changes to other ordinances and zoning codes um such as billboards and outdoor lighting as to how they address that
specific issue. Um the there is a little there is pressure as to uh work this through and get it in place. Um and some of that has to do with the construction project of uh uh
Washington Street 210 that is coming up and EDA potential grant funds that might be uh utilized for some of those businesses to be able to do that. And right now without a strong or qualitative ordinance in place
um it's very loosey goosey and so I >> yeah not a that's unofficial term um but trying to get the line share of the design standards and make sure that we get things in place in a timely manner
for the sake of that and then address the lighting portion so that way it's not going to end up getting hindered by the conversation of lighting and how we want to facilitate and enforce that. That's
so the proposed changes of the number four is I I would like to talk more about lighting, but I don't want I personally don't necessarily want to try to tackle that in this specific ordinance at this time. I would like to
remove the lighting the additional lighting requirements at this time, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, I >> I'm okay with that if we place it on the agenda for further discussion. We just don't kick the can down the road. We put it on our on our itinerary. >> I strongly agree.
>> All right. >> So, just as it says in number four, is it? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. that is and if it needs to be included in the the potential motion, I I don't see any issue with that. If it needs to be a
separate motion uh that we can add so that way we're adding that to the agenda, that is more than amendable. But the staff's recommendations as far as the potential changes, those are some of the ones that I I want to make sure
that we do discuss and nail down so that way we have a a pretty solid uh draft for public hearing potentially at the September if I understand staff.
>> Yeah. So staff is recommending um uh really directing directing staff to any changes um that I've presented here tonight um to be brought to the next meeting for a public hearing. So, with um including number four,
meaning pushing off lighting to a specified date, >> um and I'm fine with that, too. But, um the discussion we had about billboards and lighting that we had essentially, and I'm not saying we're being redundant because I think we can have a larger
discussion, essentially there would be any any of those things we discussed would not be included in this motion. It would be discussed later. >> Later. >> Okay. >> Otherwise, seeking a motion for
future discussion and or a vote. >> We just we had a pretty wide ranging discussion. So, I I'll make the motion. I'm happy to, but I don't want to make make sure I'm missing anything. But you know, I would make the motion to recommend the following changes from the last meeting, which would include
staff's recommendations one, two, and three. Well, sorry. Make the motion to include staff's recommendations one through four. Was there anything else that we discussed that I'm would be missing? The the major thing was the the lighting
portions of that. So, the we did talk about one, two, and three. Four is the one that I'm highlighting as as per the conversation that we were having about lighting of signs and that's
I am I'm hearing the consensus of the planning commission and four is a de is a is putting off the conversation of lighting to a later date. >> Okay.
So, as it's stated here, it's changing the ordinance. So, we would remove we Okay, the motion would be to take staff's recommendation one through three and then have the lighting discussion at a later date, which I don't think we need to add the new motion, but >> it it would be following with staff's recommendation. It was just
>> that's really what four is saying. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It would be following along with the recommend of all of staff's recommendation, all four items. But >> yes, >> and I'll just clarify all four of these recommendations are already in the
proposed ordinance. Um, so you could just recommend the proposed ordinance to move forward with public hearing at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to point out that these are changes the staff has made from the last meeting. >> Okay. >> Max was here for 4:30 >> and I made things so confusing.
>> No. And thank you for clarifying. I I guess um I'll restate the motion then. take staff's recommendation include one through four and to schedule a public hearing for the next planning commission meeting. >> I will second that.
>> And motion by Erikson, second by Gorum. Any further discussion? Uh seeing none, all those in favor? I >> I oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. I got to go way back up to the agenda
because I think we're at item nine. I I'm pretty sure we're at item nine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, yeah, I just wanted to update um the other ordinance that we're currently working on um as directed um by the Minnesota DNR. We do need to update our Shorland ordinance um based on some of our zoning
code changes from a few years ago as well as hasn't been updated I think 20 plus years. Um, so staff has completed um that draft ordinance and has sent it for a preliminary review from the Minnesota DNR. Um, as well as our city attorney to make sure that we're um
meeting state statute requirements. Uh, I did refer um quite significantly to Crowing County Shorland ordinance that was um updated I think within the last probably 5 to 10 years um and has been was strongly recommended as well from the Minnesota DNR that is a good
ordinance. Um there's some obviously it's county property versus municipality so there are some differences that we have to consider um just based on our types of zoning districts. Um so staff made some adjustments there but again that'll be brought uh most likely at the next meeting for kind of an initial
review from the planning commission and then we'd probably bring it back one more time um for review uh to the DNR as well. So, just wanted to update um that's what we're working on next. And then probably the October meeting um we'll bring the itinerary back to kind of figure out what we're working on next. Um staff is going to start working
on um probably an RFP um for the planning commission to review for updating the comprehensive plan and uh that's something that we have in the budget for this year. So, that's something we'll be working on as well and uh and we'll go from there. >> Any questions of staff? I have just one
question. Um on the subject of uh cannabis dispensaries, what have there been applications coming in? Has anybody applied for the uh for the license? Where are we with >> There is. So we did we have allowed two registrations uh with inner city that um are applicable to either um straight
retail um cannabis dispensaries uh macro businesses uh with a retail endorsement and micro businesses with retail endorsement. the micro businesses were the ones that were released first from the state. Um so we have had two applications for that that meet the requirements. Um they're not within um
300 ft of a specific area. Um so there's no conditional use permit requirement at this time for them. Um but we have fulfilled our two registrations at this time. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions of staff?
So I might have one. I do have one. So, um September, we do have a public we'll likely have a public hearing for uh the signed ordinance. October likely we'll have a public hearing for the Shorland district or Shorland
>> or or one more review session for it depending on comments from the DNR or comments from the planning commission. >> Either way, we'll have it completed by the end of year. >> That's correct. >> Okay. and then also working on itinerary including the lighting portion of signs.
Um on to commission member reports. I'll start down at the left. >> Nothing further. Thanks. >> All right. >> I have nothing. >> And Commissioner Gor a quick question to James. Uh do we have any applicants for the open uh spot on the planning
commission? Has anybody stepped forward? Is anybody talking about it? >> I don't believe so. I've not been made aware. >> Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Peterson, >> I have nothing. >> And I don't have anything other than
recruit. Um, seeking a motion for item 11, adjournment. >> So, move. >> I finally snuck one in here. >> You got it. I'll second it. >> And all those in favor? >> I.
>> All right. >> What if I oppose that one? Everybody's just mad at me