--------- next we have approval of the agenda do we have a motion Mr chair I'd move to approve with one addition of a memorandum of agreement on personnel and finance second all right motion with that change any discussion add that to personel Finance
number eight that's a mo MOA yep all right there no more discussion all in favor against same sign that motion passes we have an agenda next we have consent calendar this is a notice notice to the public all matters listed
are considered routine by the council and will be enacted by one motion there will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the council votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call to
approve second Johnson motion by chzo second by Johnson any discussion Tony please call Ro bans yes chz Johnson yes stun Jagger Erikson yes OD yes and we are underway number six we
have public forum this is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the counil time limits may be imposed so if you are here to speak about something that's already on the agenda that is not what we're opening the public forum for right
now but if it is not on the agenda and you wish to address the council I ask you to to step forward now if you're online and you wish to address the council please please press S3 yep come up Sir just name and address
uh Paul scogan uh 13347 Norway drive back to Minnesota I'm here on another matter but I just thought I would update uh the committee members and the Council on the Water Tower and as of right now uh the windows
are completed they're restored they're in storage right now they will be going up uh sometime later on this spring when the Frost goes out of the ground the windows look absolutely awesome so uh that'll be an one of the last things or
not last things we still got the exterior to do but uh that'll be one of the things that'll be done yet this spring uh we do have a uh business after hours coming up on June 24th that all council members and citizens of brainer
are are requested to attend if they so choose and that'll be at the water tower we're in uh conjunction with Breen and person on that so uh we invite all our members to show up for that any
questions doesn't look like it what color are the windows white okay thank you excellent what's next uh we got to raise about $2 and5 million for the exterior stucco two weeks one
week excellent thank you Mr scogan anyone else wish wish to address the council look like anybody's online I'll ask one more time if anybody is here to address the Council of anything not on the agenda doesn't look like it with that we
will close the public hearing at 7:34 next we have 7A this is Council committee reports safety and Public Works committee chairman Tad Erikson all right thank you Mr President we have four items on our agenda uh first of which is authorize and advertise for
bids for improvement 2501 which is the 2025 chip seal project motion coming out of committee is to bid the chip seal project with the streets listed and discuss once actual bids are received and I so move second motion by Ericson second by
joerger just a yep discussion on this one so there's several streets listed in the packet and uh the motion of course to include those uh projects in the bid the engineers estimate was actually about $10,000 over
uh the budgeted amount which is the reason why the bid is to include all these projects and then discuss once the bids are received um staff's going to communicate to those biders that um you know to have some ad alternates have the roads listed as some add alternates so
when they do come back um there's some some of the streets such as Greenwood Street was listed as potentially kind of being on the bubble so we could add a remove to to stay within budget thank you any more discussion seeing none let's go to a
vote all in favor I I against same sign that motion passes chairman Erikson thank you our second item is authorized advertisements for bids for the low safe routes to school project uh the motion com out of committee is to authorize uh the advertisement of bids for the L safe
Ro of school project motion by Eric that's second by chazak any discussion on that um so we talked about this a little bit at our last meeting uh we this is a state safe routes to school project there's no local match um the grant uh
would be for 475,000 or excuse me 472,000 thank you any more discuss seeing none go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes chairman Erikson all right thank you Mr
uh president our third item is to award proposal for the 2025 downtown plantings motion coming out of committee is to approve the lansburg landscape nursery quote in the amount of$ 1,66 and $53 and I so move second motion
by Arison second by Jagger any discussion on that looks like none let's go to a vote all in favor against same sign that motion passes chairman Erikson all right this is our fourth and final item which is to
award proposal for M Street storm water outfall repair and Engineering Services uh no recommendation coming out of committee there was uh two proposals uh there's a quite a a distinct Delta between the two proposals um safety and
Public Works committee asked staff to kind of go back and uh kind of create a criteria why whereby uh proposers could um kind of present these in such a way that we can comp compare them a little more easily um for some there was
aspects of the job that were outside of the scope of the project and staff's going to come back with some recommendations for us so no recommendation no action coming out of committee for this one thank you Mr Ericson my report uh Mr President yeah Mr ches there was a motion in a
second in committee and it failed on a two to one vote and I I was looking to uh moving forward with the recommendation from staff to go with WSB that is a correct engineering firm right right and these are Professional Services so you're not
required to get rfps to begin with and I understand the concern that was raised it's hard to compare the two of them based on how they show up there's no real format that we set set and in that regard I thought moving forward we could try that option instead of having staff
go back these these proposals have been made public so I was concerned about that so and of course the council can make a motion even though recommendations is not coming out of safety and works so I would move that we move forward with this in staff's
recommendation second motion by chzo second by bevans any more discussion on the motion Mr Johnson I I would like to hear again the reasons why not I mean I understand there's not there's some vagueness on how to interpret it but why would we
vote no on this and send it back Mr jger yeah Mr chair thank you uh I was the person that that raised the questions here and really uh I first asked of Staff why they made the recommendation they made uh and that was hopefully going to answer the question for me but
uh really as the dialogue continued uh my concern is is that the two proposals that were Set Side by Side were just so as as uh Mr ericon mentioned were just so vastly off on the Delta that the question simply was how can we make a determination if we have
no form of comparison so either we are um just going to pick somebody that we want based on criteria other than money which in which case why did we do an RFP to begin with OR we need to clean up the scope of work so that these two can be compared Apples to Apples one had a fairly substantial amount of the scope
of work as an alternate wasn't even included in the bid and the other had it in so very very difficult to decipher these so I was just hoping to have enough information to make the right decision and that was really the what I felt like I was lacking so I just couldn't make a motion I they're both
great firms but both seemingly did have the right information but uh because it was so parsed apart just it was very difficult here for me to to see this so that's that was the reasoning thank you thank you Mr jger Mr bevans thank you Mr chairman I ask a question either of
anybody on spw or staff I staff has recommended the award to WSB I presume but I would like to hear it as part of the record that wsb's proposal will satisfy our engineering needs on this project Mr Yes actually and I'd like to
refer to Jesse he's our city engineer and he received these and as I mentioned before there's when you get projects like this if another firm is really extremely busy they will just bid accordingly and move forward like this I
know with there is one item that one bid on and one did not that was our add alternate thing and the other firm just did not bid on that Jesse do you want to address Mr Dean city
engineer thank you Mr President uh so both of the um both of the engineering firms were given a uh very very specific proposal or request for proposals with a very uh set scope of services as well as a background of the project uh so they were both bidding off of kind of very
similar circumstances of what we were looking for uh from a scope of services the ad alternate that you saw in one proposal versus the other uh was very specifically stated in the request that this may be something that um could be added at a future time but that would be
discussed with the council uh we were not asking for a price on it specifically at this time uh one pro decided to provide a cost for it at this time and one did not obviously we don't necessarily know what the scope of it is so whether or not you want to consider that appropriate to provide a price on something we don't
necessarily know what the price is yet um but looking at just the base of the scope of pro uh scope of work that we were asking for um that's what we were comparing the two against um and that's why we came up with the recommendation of the WSB we felt that was the most
appropriate thank you Mr Dean yes sir so it sounds to me like the w USB proposal was actually more accurate than what we were asking for I just have a couple quick questions uh this is a this is a project that's basically trying to prevent more
erosion is the erosion actually under control right now at least temporarily we actually earlier um this year or last year we actually went out there and we did some modifications to that uh and and we already did do some
modifications within ourselves for so with the spring thaw what is what is the what what what are we looking at as far as a start date for this project and is this going to put it back further where we could be risking more erosion or is that not a factor
Jesse I'm going to refer I'm not sure of the timeline with this we have quite a few projects going on this year you're referring to is if we were to delay the If This Were to be delayed another two weeks would it put it this whole project behind schedule to the
point where we're risking more erosion or not necessarily tough to say we haven't evaluated the area since kind of the spring thaw we don't know if there's been some uh damage to the area since uh the river come back up um River has been pretty low anyway uh so it's really tough to say we have to get back out
there and take a look at it uh if we're able to um I I don't think that two weeks is going to be a detriment U my only caution would be uh to Alderman chzo comments about the proposals already being public uh is highly unlikely that they'd want to change those numbers well at least one of them
would okay thank you Mr Dean yes sir any more discussion on the motion do look like we have any more see none sorry I'll just say with with the additional clarification from the engineer I would be willing to support the motion so thank you for the
the additional conversation and the additional answers so absolutely anything else hearing none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes end of report thank
you chairman Erikson next we have 7B personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson thank you Mr President we have eight items the first of which is the uh revised special assessment policy and the motion is to direct staff to come back to the next PNF me meeting
with a different revised special assessment policy where we treat undeveloped Parcels differently than we treat economic hardship and further to bring back the process of connection fees to
the PNF and ISO move second motion by Johnson second by bevans Mr Johnson so they brought a revised special assessment policy as requested but really all it did was extended interest from 10 years to 30 years on people who are have economic
hardship deferrals and we don't want to put the screws to people who aren't in great economic shape and charge them unnecessary interest so that's not what we are looking for so we're sending it back to staff to come back and bring something something different to us thank you
chairman Johnson any more discussion seeing none let's go to a vote all in favor I I against same sign motion passes chairman Johnson thank you Mr President next up is to approve the library exterior and mechanical repairs proposal
and the motion is to approve the high-tech construction proposal utilizing the scope as described in alternative to above and ISO move second motion by Johnson second by stunich uh Mr Johnson so we budgeted I think
$425,000 or something doing all the scope of work that we budgeted for and what we wanted done came in at 338,000 so good news we're saving money but staff recommended because we're not spending all of the money that was allocated that we should resurface the
least lot on the Maple Street parking lot that's unrelated to the library and we didn't go with that alternative we went with just doing the core work on the library as we had budgeted for in last year's budgeting sessions thank you chairman Johnson do
we have any more discussion can I um yeah Mr chazak was that a full U approval by the committee all three of the members decided to go with the uh just the scope that was originally identified I believe so that Kevin might have been sleeping during that
vote which Kevin yes we did it was unanimous yes anything else um well so you you're leaving out the recommendation to use available funds to leaving that out um was there a
specific reason why you didn't want to include the lot the parking lots should be paid for by the parking lot fund there isn't money in there right now but the parking lot fund has a way to raise money and that's called rent for the least parking spot spaces for the people
who use the parking lots that's what rent is okay thank you I have a question for staff when is the last time that lot was repaved we're not sure on the exact date on that but we can get back to you on that is it
in really rough shape it's on that bubble okay on that bubble sorry go ahead it could use it but it doesn't necessarily need it this year it's on that bubble where you could or could not and with the fund being so low that's why we went
in that direction with that thank you any more discussion Mr B I appreciate the government not spending money that it doesn't need to spend thank you for that mayor anyone else all right seeing more
no more discussion let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes chairman Johnson thank you Mr President and thank you for your comment Mr Mayor it's a great segue into the municipal dispensary license application we've learned that that
March 14th is when municipality's deadline to apply for a license ends we don't know if it ever opens up again ever maybe it will maybe it won't but we know we can apply up until March
14th attached with it is a $2500 application fee so the question for the committee is do we apply and try to lock in getting a license in case that is something we want to move forward with or do we not spend the $2,500 that the government
doesn't necessarily need to spend at the risk of maybe never being given this option again and the motion out of committee is to spend the $2,500 on the application fee and ISO move second motion by Johnson second
by bevans more discussion yeah I explained it too much beforehand sorry about that but it was a split vote out of committee 2: one okay thank you any more questions or discussion Mr can I hear the argument against who was the one
vote care to share would you care to share I just don't believe in him okay understood thank you that's all and I think if we allow that kind of stuff to go on we'll never stop it and then what's going to be next you Mr stunich anything else Mr
jger no no Mr chz thank you moving forward after if we approve the 2500 um what are our upfront costs after that that before we ever get going on this does anybody know Mr Johnson yeah I had some
conversations with Finance director about this last week the application fee is 2500 and then if we get approved there's a license fee of 2500 every year there's an annual licens renewal fee of 5,000 we know those costs a cost we do
not know if we do move forward of getting into the business is there is an additional Insurance Rider we would need that's similar to drram shop insurance but different but we League of Minnesota cities couldn't give us a price on what that would be if we do move forward into
that line of business I am more questions um go ahead Mr chz being that the uh cannabis is illegal federally and I understood there are some issues with um raising funds or uh sales and then you have uh the the government taxation
the federal end of it does is there a risk involved with the city getting into this type of um business venture if you will with uh federally is illegal I mean I think Eric Sharp Ander would confirmed that and the HUD backed buildings in
brainer uh you know any of us if live in your own home or a a rental unit that the landlord will allow it um you can grow it you can smoke it you can be in your yard but in HUD approved locations here in Brainard you have no right to
have that on your property at all in any form um so I just I want to be careful with with this and I don't want to get into a uh a problem somebody maybe I don't know if Connie can answer the question about the federal issue with the the the Taxation and all that is
that something we should be concerned about anyone from staff want to try to tackle that they're all shaking their head no thank you Mr President um you know certainly I can maybe get some input from Joe as well this is pretty new obviously to the state of Minnesota so
there's no case studies before it so we you know really can't lay into that obviously the state of Minnesota is allowing the municipal uh dispensaries there are issues I know um I've been to some workshops and stuff um how you pay for things with credit card companies and their backing of federal
can be issues how you store the money where it is in Banks those can all be issues um I don't know if Joe has any Minnesota issues with it but nothing's been identified of the nature that has been raised by Mr chak at this point it's
it's too early in the in the game to know the answer to that question there's a lot of unknowns yes okay on the other side of it we're looking at something that we've been told by people that want to propose managing this for us that we could be taking in a million dollars a
year in Revenue by being a part of this we also know that we're required to allow this in our city and we've also open it up for two licenses to start off this is just whether or not we want to to have more say in who gets that
license because there are some questionable practices and how the state is giving those licenses out um a lot of unknowns but the way I see it it's $2,500 to continue to look into it we're not committing to it yet uh it sounds
like a lot of money if we don't do anything with it in the grand scheme I think it's worth still looking into in my opinion any more discussion any more questions yeah Mr chair I'll be voting no kind of for the same reasons the chief we we
have a lot of things going on in the city right now I think we need to take care of before we start venturing into this you know 2500 isn't the the main reason I think it's uh it's just something that U I think we're better off letting the private sector handle it and I find it interesting it's in order to protect the health and safety of the
community by having it on Municipal uh dispensary it's like protect the health and safety of the community and we can sell pot wonderful we can do it better itd I don't like it Mr Mayor yeah I'll just chime in super fast it's it's
interesting to see the people that have chimed in on this locally for and against and and uh I just want to make sure the public is aware that the city of Briner has made no investment into moving towards this other than what this may potentially be this 2500 towards
making sure that it's an available option um I don't know where I stand on it I I'd like to know more about it I'd like to know more about what the options are I think that we are correct with with James and what the lawyer have said the lawyer a lawyer today's lawyer the
lawyer uh I I think there's a lot up in the air U but I do like that we have had local people interested in making these proposals to us so I'd like to see what comes back from the public and see where this goes um the city of Briner I want to make sure that people are aware of
that the city of Brainard is not making a decision on whether or not it wants to be in the marijuana business or not but we are it is our job to make sure that we have all the facts and all the information we get our hands on so I support the uh the small expenditure to make sure that we're making a wise
decision in the future thank you Mr Mayor anyone else yeah the annex would make a great location I don't know if we want to connect it to City Hall if we go that route but why not it smells we're going to use those planners downtown that's not I don't think that's
what we're looking at but anything else of value seeing none last minute here my line of questioning my concern was if we were to pursue this and we were to uh become a state licensed uh dispensary or
partnered with that does that immediately uh put us in violation of federal law similar to what uh Council mzk as know I guess I'd like clarification on that before um before I could vote uh in favor favor of it so I'll be I'll be voting no as well thank
you Mr Ericson anything else seeing none let's go to a vote all in favor I I against same sign roll call please bans yes chesak no Johnson yep
stunich nope Jagger nope Ericson no OD yes that motion fails and we are out of the marijuana business necessarily chairman Johnson thank you Mr President next up is to accept a
resignation of CSO Joshua Joshua Winslow and the motion is to accept Mr Joshua Winslow's resignation effective March 5th and I so move second motion by Johnson second by stunich any more discussion Mr Johnson I guess I forgot to include in the motion it is also
authorizing staff to backfill the position as we always state with csos it's not budgeted by number of employees it's budgeted by number of hours worked and we just have a pool of employees who use that time second or okay with that change yes are you
listening yeah okay just making sure what are you to pick on me or what any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes chairman Johnson all right we have another resignation and the motion
is to accept Mr Travis Donnell's resignation effective February 28th and further to authorize staff to begin the hiring process to backfill the position and ISO move second motion by Johnson second by bevans any more
discussion see none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes chairman Johnson thank you next up is a hiring and the motion is to ratify the hiring of Wyatt priel for Street Maintenance one position effective March 17 2025 and further that
he be placed on step three of the maintenance one wage Grid at $28.20 per hour and ISO moves second motion by Johnson second by stunich any more discussion Mr Johnson yeah this this we had 44 applications for the
position so there's that's nice to have that that we have interest in working for the city uh the the justification for placing him on step three is he's coming from a different street department where he's a few years experience he already has his CDL he's a DOT inspector there's a lot of good
qualities that he already has ready to go and hit the ground running in our street department thank you any more discussion see none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes chairman Johnson thank you
Mr President next up is the fire contract formula for 2026 it's only informational we don't get to vote on anything but uh it's all there if you read it I think the city of brainard's cost is going up
$220,000 next year Connie 17,500 175 next here there it is 17 50519 informational only but of also note I did request not in writing yet Jee I'll send an email but I I did
request that we do bring to the council the formula and the fire service districts and all that sometime this year to look at it hasn't been looked at in over a decade at the council level and just something that should be periodically reviewed I think because we don't make changes at it at this meeting
when it's already been presented it's already been given to the townships so if we do want to make changes we got to look at it some other time maybe a history of it that would be nice y okay and that was informational so number eight that we added is a memorandum of
agreement for lasting pieace in our time with the uh ibw administrative support bargaining unit we met today just a few hours had a good conversation with the union and we agreed to all four
of the positions at the wages that we proposed and from the flan Hood wage grid and we approved this tonight the union has already approved we can move forward and begin the hiring process tomorrow Mr President Mr chz oh I move approval on it did I do that yet you did
not move approval second motion by Johnson second by stunich uh Mr chz could could Mr Johnson repeat was that for last Las in peace in our times yeah I was holding up like uh Neville Chamberlain nice job by it was dramatic
it was for effect and well done nothing of major value once again anyone else questions on this one looks like none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that
motion passes chairman Johnson end of report thank you chairman Johnson moving on to number eight we have unfinished business business 8A is exception of the resignation of Patrick W from the Republic move approval Johnson second
the Public Utilities Commission we have a motion by Johnson second by bevans any discussion oh Mr Bell yeah may I just state that his resignation was simply a license plate from another state falsehoods falsehoods here right
he moved to Florida he moved to Florida but simply a picture of of Florida license plate I come on I want to go on the record saying I do hate him on must have another job for him don't we yeah we yeah what what's going to happen he'll be back in a few months when it warms up and we'll see him in one form
or another Mr President Mr chazi I would like to thank Mr wo for his commitment to the utilities and his uh long service out there and of course his other help he's given us throughout the last couple years with his uh uh interim positions
so Mr chazak motion I to agree any more discussion hearing none let's go to a vote all in favor I I again same sign that motion passes 9B we have a call for applicants
first we'll have the honorable mayor BAU thank you council president the following boards and commissions have applications available the charter commission two terms expiring 2025 two terms expiring 2026 housing Redevelopment Authority one-term
expiring 2027 Library board one-term expiring 2027 Transportation advisory committee two terms expiring 20126 and now officially the Public Utilities Commission one term expiring whenever that
expires any appointments tonight I have no appointments tonight no and I as president have one term on the airport commission that expires 2027 and three terms on on the water tower committee with unknown
expiration dates and I would like to make one appointment tonight for the airport commission and that would be Andrew ship so moved motion by motion by was it chz yeah sorry AER any discussion
Mr chair Mr bevans I will be voting against Mr ship as the representative of the north side I made the egregious mistake of approving Mr ship's approval to the park board two weeks ago
or roughly and received 100% complaints regarding Mr ship on City commissions and his complete ignoring of Northside needs and requests on the park board so I will try and make up and speak against
Mr sh for the airport Commission in that in that he he has been unwilling to represent the citizens of Brainard thank you Mr bevans anything to do with the airport no it has to do with representation okay but nothing
specifically nothing specific to the airport thank you any more discussion look like none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign is that two against all right that motion passes who were the two against uh
stunich and bevans thank you moving on to 8 C this is a consideration of Public Utilities Commission recommendation for Central business district incentive policy uh I believe this is community development director James kic thank you
Mr President so upon passage of ordin 1578 which now allows mixed use development in the commercial Corridor District city council directed staff to obtain a recommendation from the Public Utilities Commission regarding forgiveness of sack and whack charges in the central business district incentive
policy is that ordinance has an effect on the policy Public Utilities Commission discussed this policy at their February 25th meeting and continued to express concerns that the commission should review forgiveness of sack and whack charges the motion coming out of the meeting was that the commission should review all sack and
whack forgiveness if the project valuation exceeds $150,000 that's what we do for permits uh there's options here for city council to consider option one BPU commission shall review all sack and whack charges as stated in their recomend in motion uh
when the project valuation exceeds 150,000 option two is leave the Central Business dist policy as is and all sack and whack charges are forgiven for all projects option three BPU commission shall review and provide a recommendation to council for all projects at a Tob determined dollar
value for forgiveness of sack and whack charges and I can answer any questions thank you Mr kravic and just to clarify this would be asking for a recommendation to come back to council their recommendation wouldn't be final it would still be up to council to make that decision following the recommendation it would be so this would
be Direction um if there are to be changes uh staff would have to bring back a Revis policy thank you does anybody have questions for staff Mr bevans thanks uh Mr chair it actually might be for you being on the Eda I can't remember but this is a fairly
short-lived incentive yes didn't the Eda I don't know if we put a official time stamp on it the the the goal is to get as much of this underway during our Highway Construction have it done before the end of the construction um and I think we're just
planning on revisiting it at that time but I don't know if we have a set date a Sunset date on that uh Mr cranic yes thank you Mr President so it has the same Sunset date that the river to rails um sent of policy had which was 10 years that was passed in 2019 think uh summer of 2019 so at the
conclusion of that policy it was revised Central and business district would have that same deadline so they're roughly you're looking another four years so another year or two after the highway construction should be done y it's
correct okay Mr President Mr chz yeah at the um Utility Commission meeting I um perhaps a little confusion it it's kind of this is kind of a uh an interesting item in many respects but um
I I had a conversation with James and I think my name is in that agenda request that uh I I would propose that U if the the the the recommendation coming out of the Public Utility Commission for the valuation of 150 that kind of covers everything that you're going to see um
uh any kind of project um and and in in talking with James I was thinking maybe something like a u a waiver amount up to a certain amount to where we wouldn't interfere with say something up to a fourplex when you total up to dollars on
a fourplex Lex it would be under that $155,000 amount and that way it wouldn't need to go to for a recommendation and that perhaps wouldn't stall any kind of Permitting process by having to go to the uh uh utilities for their recommendation of course it's a
recommendation I think what it is is just a a form of cooperation a form of courtesy to just let them keep in in in in the loop um um Mike angland the new commission chair also kind of wants to talk about these things if we can some
sometime in the near future um I don't know if that was included in the agenda request I can't remember that but but it was like an option so we wouldn't be looking at virtually everything that comes up and I would that be a fair way to say that James Howe yeah that's correct so I included what the price uh
was for essentially a fourplex um so you know again $150,000 typically would be any type of single family home so every single family home in this area would have to come before review of the Public Utilities Commission City Council so if there were two a 2 be determined value
um that could be different then so yeah in other words that 150,000 was a recommendation out of the Utility Commission meeting and U I just thought as an option let's look at a valued amount of the waiver which would exceed a fourplex so anything like over a
fourplex theyd look at and say um you know like it also keeps them in the loop too as much as we like to say we can do that all the time that you know it does Sometimes some you know things get a little um oh a little U uh mixed up from
time to time you know people it's we I think we're doing a good job of doing better but uh um another item here is the codes are included in the packet for the whack and Sack and uh if you look there there are some definite um uh we we need to have an understanding of how
those are applied so uh we we uh want to make sure that uh sack that can be used for certain things that maybe has Mis been misunderstood in the you know in the past that we talked about and I would encourage everybody to read those codes I think in the first paragraph of
each one you can see that uh there's uh there are times the the sack and whack it's not just for uh there there aren't the limitations that we may have been uh told before and and how we can and can't use them so um it's a it's a pretty easy
to understand so I just wanted to make sure those were in there so everybody can take a look at that I would encourage you to read that so we all can have the same understanding of how those are applied that's uh pretty much all I have but otherwise uh if there isn't a um if there isn't an appetite for the
recommendation for from the Public Utilities Commission I I would uh I would think that value the total value of the sack and whack if it exceeds that fourplex amount of that 15 ref $115,000
I I would be willing to uh move forward with that if there isn't an appetite for the first option that was given thank you Mr chesak anyone else Mr bevans uh thank you Mr chair if Mr chesak was interested making a motion and picking
an exact dollar figure rather than a range I'd be willing to Second it Mr Mr chair or Mr President I would move that we do a a total value of sack and whack exceeding of 15,000 or more than would be recom go gone before the Utility
Commission to uh give a recommendation back to the council second motion by chzo second by bevans any discussion on the motion myself I don't see a problem with any of this I uh I think it's always good to have good communication from our
BPU commission and um this way we can catch anything that we might not have thought of I my only concern would be slow down a project uh BPU committee do they meet still once a month last Tuesday in a month okay so that would be
a concern but most of these projects as we know take a lot longer than that anyway to get under to get going uh Mr Johnson do you have comments yeah I'll be voting no I just think it adds bureaucratic red tape I think there's a way we could improve communication by you know including uh building permits
have been applied for or sack and wack fees in the Public Utility Commission packet so it's gets in front of them and if they start seeing that there's there's a problem happening then they can come to us but I just I don't see why we would send a city fee over to a
commission to review that has to come back to the council that we've already set a policy to wave the fee that now we're going to receive a recommendation to maybe wave it maybe not when we already have a policy that is waved I so I I don't see the sense in it and also
it's it's a city fee it's not a public utility fee I would think it absolutely ridiculous if somebody on the city council thought that the Public Utility Commission needs to send every electric bill to us for approval in our input before they send it out to somebody it's
just it's a fee it's a charge to a user let the city have their fees let the commission have their fees so I'll be voting no thank you Mr Johnson anyone else have comments seeing none let's go to a vote
all in favor I I against same sign I we do a roll call please bans um no chz yes Johnson no stunich no Jagger no Ericson yes OD yes that motion fails so unless president yeah Mr
Johnson I would move to go with sorry I scrolled down reading option two and just leave the policy as is second motion by Johnson second by bevans any discussion see
any Mr President I'm going to vote no um just to be consistent with my you know I think it would be good to get um the recommendation from BPU um I think as was mentioned earlier I think just additional input is is always well worth it so thank you Mr
BAU go here sure I was just going to say I I don't dislike councilman Johnson's approach of sending these to the BPU commission they can have in their packet they can review them and if we get to a point where it's become a problem we can revisit this again it's just a four it's
just four years more of this project thank you Mr Johnson yeah and a reason to support leaving it as is because we have the policy the policy is published on the website somebody calls Paul scogan at Hightech he says if you're going to build a house here the policy says you're back and whack is
free Paul scogan tells his client that but then the client has to go to BPU and beg for it to be free and BPU may say they don't like it and then the council may go against the policy it just it makes things more complicated than they need to be in a small town I have a question for you would you like to amend
your motion to include sending anything that's been approved by us in this policy to the BPU commission packets I would add that sure that's more in line with what you're suggesting because in the long
run if they keep looking at those like you're saying they might catch something that we weren't catch if they catch that it's getting out of hand that we totally Miss still gets us to the point what where we would like okay so motion amended can we just reinstate the motion said we added stuff just so we know for
sure yeah so the motion is option to leave the central business district policy as is and all sack and whack charges are forgiven for all projects in the district and further to include and Public Utility Commission packets all forgiven sack and whack fee
charges agreed I was the second or any more discussion discussion with the addition with the clarification I would support okay any more like none all in favor I I against same sign that motion
passes all right moving on we have tonight's big item just like everybody's here for this one uh this is 9A we have a consideration of the preliminary plat
request for St Francis Church 411 North 10th Street so the way this one will go um first we'll have Mr cranic introduce and run down this item uh if anyone on Council after that has questions for
staff or Mr cranic uh that would be the time afterwards um I've spoke with some of you in the audience prior to the meeting father Gary I know you would like to speak I would like to have father Gary come up and and speak for a
few minutes whatever you'd like um just as a representative of St Francis there already was a a public hearing at the planning zoning uh we've received a lot of letters um some mostly in support from parishioners um we' we've received
some letters um opposing if if you've sent a letter following M Mr Gary father Gary um if you've already sent a letter and you don't have anything new to add
um i' I'd suggest we we keep it to anything that's new if you're going to come up to the microphone just to keep this a little shorter um I trust the council has gone over all of these letters and we're very aware of where
people are standing ing um after that we'll have discussion as Council but I would also suggest that as Council whether this goes through uh whether it doesn't go through uh we have some recommendations for uh St Francis to
come back and keep going in the direction that they would like to go um or maybe it all goes through we we'll find out um I do want to say congratulations to St Francis to getting to this point it's exciting to see that you guys are becoming this successful um
it's good for our city it's good for you guys it's good for the community as a whole but we just have to make sure we do it right so let's have that discussion right now so I'll send it over to Mr cranic if you want to introduce this one yes thank you Mr President uh so the purpose of this preliminary plat request is to
consolidate 14 Parcels into three lots one each for the uh church school and rectory the preliminary plat also proposes the street vacation of North 99th Street between ivy Street and Juniper Street and the demolition of three single family homes to construct one large rectory uh the property is
located in the traditional neighborhood one tn1 District the applicant will also request a rezoning to Public semi-public District at a future meeting the sole matter before council tonight is the preliminary plat which Planning Commission recommended approval with the
stated conditions in the agenda uh the preliminary plat uh will not work without the proposed Street vacation so the vacation should be discussed and considered as part of the preliminary plat request tonight also the PSP district is listed in the preliminary plat based on what the setbacks are um
and there's some other conditions whether it's PSP or tn1 so it's not up for consideration tonight but General comments to the applicant can be made and would be helpful uh moving forward in the process uh the PSP District just of note uh would permit the demolition of the three homes for one rectory by
permitted right it would also allow future additions to the school and church without a conditional use permit if the property remain T in1 District it would still allow for all proposed uses but would need three conditional use permits U one of one of which to make the plat work um and and then as well as
all future additions would also require cups to the church or the school uh so the application is quite different depending on which zoning District uh the applicant's applying for uh in the event the street is vacated the fire department will require the street to remain open until two Interior homes are
demolished also BPU would require all service lines not to be used in the future would be capped at the main line and with that I'll turn it over to Jesse regarding the street vacation Jesse Dean city engineer thank you Mr President uh so like James mentioned uh One requirement
for the preliminary plaid is that the vacation be part of that um so that's that block of North nth between Juniper and Ivy uh so we've received the petition from the church but it was not in time for this packet so we've included the memo that lays out uh several uh considerations for review of
that street vacation uh as the sole owner of all the parcels adjacent to the street the block of street is essentially intended to service the petitioner uh the main concern as laid out in the memo would be the loss of the on street parking uh as on street parking is typically intended to serve the adjacent properties uh the request
for vacation by the petitioner could be considered a land use issue uh if no replacement of on street parking is provided the loss of these stalls can cause issue with visitors to the church and school uh utilizing some of the other adjacent streets that could cause some conflict with the neighboring properties uh so council could request
some requirements to account for that uh however there is no specifics in the plan at this time of how the loss of the on street parking stalls would be addressed uh so staff's recommendation is um that uh the council approved the vacation uh as part of the preliminary process however uh Council can play some
consideration on how the petitioner is going to address this issue when reviewing the preliminary PL thank you Mr Dean does anyone have questions for staff Mr Johnson yeah I've got a question for uh either the Public Works director or city engineer our
Charter is silent on Street vacations but so it kind of Falls generally falls back to the statutory language and really you need to look for a public benefit to vacate a street but Jesse can you come explain to me the public benefit of eliminating that street
eliminating that parking eliminating the access of the public in general to to go there and turning it over to a private entity where the public benefit of that is Mr Dean yes sir so I can listed a few of those items in the uh attached memo that
the uh intent of a local street is really to service the adjacent properties uh it's really to provide access for those adjacent properties uh it's not necessarily as a through street but we also reviewed it as a through street because it does connect to some other ones um so with that uh based on
who's uh owning the adjacent properties um we felt that there wasn't enough public benefit um that would justify um the vacation from this petitions that's where the recommendation came from this so you can't find a public benefit
of vacating it so we should vacate it I'm sorry what is the public benefit of vacating it based on the review of the the petition the adjacent property they are the ones that are receiving the
public benefit of the adjacent local Street um and because they're the ones that are receiving the benefit of the street that's where our recommendation is the where the the benefit of it is so it's not a public benefit it's a neighboring property benefit is how you correct okay thank
you anything else Mr Johnson no that's that's good anyone else have questions for staff uh Mr chaza um yeah um so at the uh pnz meeting uh the
public hearing um there was a lot of discussion of the vacation of the street and the plans plural of what they might do with it if it's vacated they were hesitant to uh move
forward of my understanding until they knew if they're going to get the street vacated and I have a little trouble with that so I guess in and the question would be maybe for James is can the council say uh we want to see
something more definitive before we agree to vacate the street and if that would be uh something we can do is there an option here to either table it or to is there an extension allowance or is there
something that we could do to say if if a majority of the council were to say uh yeah we're okay with vacating the street as long as we have a more definitive idea what you're going to do what would be beneficial for the
petitioner in the sense that we don't approve it tonight but we want them to come back with more definitive plans can you help me with that yeah so so there's really a few options here um First Option um would be obviously to deny ask them to reapply and come back with the
the stuff that uh city council is looking for uh second option would be to potentially table it uh preliminary plats do have 120 days versus the normal 60 days for review um want to make sure that's consistent with what our City attorney believes as well and he's
shaking his head yes um so you know we would have to consider at at a future meeting and have a timeline for that um and then third option again there's multiple conditions in here contingent upon rezoning contingent upon Street vacation so an approval tonight would
not um would not buying the city council to that street vacation uh they would then come back and and uh be able to possibly present uh a plan for the property so multitude of options here Mr cranic anything more Mr chesak
um well I guess just so I'm clear so approval tonight as long as we put the conditions in it with with the approval we could have them come back and not give up this vacation not vacate the street tonight by approving this tonight if we had conditions in there exactly
yep all right as long as the conditions are in there thank you mayor BR walk me through what the point of that would be though because if we if we want more information and we don't know what that information is walk me through why we would hold off or why we would make the
decision to then have them come back with those things that we don't know that we want so again um if the city council's um concerned about the street vacation as presented Ed um certainly the applicant should hear that tonight um if city council would want to see what
they're going to do with that that's where city council may want to they would have the opportunity either table it or um have them bring it back at a future meeting I think that answered what I was asking thank
you more questions of Staff if we don't have any more questions of Staff father Gary would you like to approach thank you Mr President um and thank you Council for allowing me to
speak I'm very proud of our people and all the hard work that's gotten us to this point um and all the support behind it uh i' also like to thank the city staff who's been very helpful uh in a kind of nuanced uh complicated process
so allow me to speak to the overall vision of what we're trying to do and then hopefully maybe address some of the concerns that you might have uh there's uh we've been at this for like three years now uh it involves kind of three kind of pieces the church the rectory and the
school the church is uh we're thriving we bring in around a thousand people every weekend hundreds of people during the week we've been here 150 years and invested a lot in the Brainard Community um recently and recent memory we've invested Millions into uh brainer into
this location and creating it uh to be a Social Hub and attraction the rectory um is the priest residence um it's currently undiz for the number of priests we have and we expect to be getting more uh joining us
uh soon even in the next couple months we're sensitive to the local housing situation we've analyzed every possible use of the current houses through Renovations additions remodeling um we've we've discussed moving the houses Habitat for Humanity options um we've
pursued a lot of different Avenues but we found that the most prudent path forward is a simple rebuild of one house in the place of the current ones the school is also very successful um it's a huge draw for the area uh I
know multiple families in Ward 2 that have specifically moved to the neighborhood for the school um currently we are totally full we are planning hopefully for an addition soon uh ideally even in a high school uh
grades uh the obvious location for that addition would be just north of the gym um in the lot which would displace the current ball field and so the idea would be that that ball field could uh be moved over to the north half of the uh
current 9th Street safety is also a very top priority obviously we've recently tripled the amount of times that the kids go back and forth uh between the church and the school and so there's a lot of activity back and forth with regard to some of the concerns um one
concern I've heard is a question of a master plan what is our definite plan for the use of the street um the definite plan would be to offer outdoor site amenities including playgrounds uh Green
Space and walkways to facilitate pedestrian traffic um regardless of the future High School build or not the plan is uh a semi-public green space we have no plans to build uh where the current street is located uh in Conformity with
our utility uh easement that would take place uh uh vacating the street would also as mentioned facilitate our planning process so we know what exactly we're working with another question has been what is the public benefit um
currently on the site we have a basketball court a playground uh all that is open and accessible and very often used by the public the street vacation would allow for additional safe space uh for
pedestrians our kids uh to uh roam play and use that space the way we see it is it would be an improvement upon a current city asset uh from asphalt to more usable space that would be and is
uh already regularly used used by our people this would be more usable and uh by more people as is evidenced from the numerous letters and support from the public themselves that you received uh there's also been a question of whether we're motivated by uh parking and uh
vehicular traffic I think this is uh pretty obvious that that is not the case since vacating the street would result in a net loss of parking for the church and the school um our goal is uh not to have increase parking lots although if
we could recoup some by possibly extending that school parking lot by a row um that would be at most but so we would either have at most the same amount of parking um that we have currently or less but definitely with
more green space our intent is to have an expansive beautiful publicly accessible pedestrian walkway that is the the goal of the the Avenue um as uh the uh city engineer had
mentioned it's currently uh purpose main purpose is for the adjacent properties all of which we own in closing uh St Francis thank God is a growing Community we are arguably
the most vibrant social public Hub in the neighborhood our proposal is a definite plan to further the mission of the church and the school and to provide a safe space for our kids to play and for public pedestrian use the plan uh is Thoroughly vetted by
our local community we've presented it at the business after hours event that we hosted earlier we've presented at local neighborhood groups uh to our own parishioners and we've received overwhelming letters and support as have you we've also received the unanimous recommendation from the Planning
Commission to approve and the recommendation from the city staff to approve and so we kindly request the city council to vote and approve our proposal thank you thank you Father Gary if there's anyone in the audience
that wishes to come up and add something that hasn't already been address through our letters or anything in our packet please do so now name and address please I'm Ed Shaw
521 North 9th Street Brainard and I am one of the nebor neighbors of the church and they are a good neighbor my kids and I were in the basketball court last night I've almost all of my 30 years I've been in brand I've lived in the 500 block of North N Street Church has
always been a neighbor I appreciate what they're doing and their presence there I do have some concerns about the plan though and I do have an interest in the neighborhood I live in the 500 block in North ninth my wife and I own a duplex and Triplex three other houses in that block so we we have an interest in that
area and I share some of the concerns in the council that the plan does not have a lot of specifics set out of we haven't really seen a schematic of where exactly where will there be parking lots where will there be new structures what will happen what does semi-public mean is it
public or not there's a lot of details that need to be worked out and there are ordinances that are pretty strict about creation of additional parking lot Lots demolishing houses creating parking lots we've seen what's happened by the hospital that's a problem and if we allow a
demolition of houses creation of parking here then if the hospital comes around looking to take another block we'll have to allow it there too so I would ask the council vote no not because I don't want the church to expand and to grow I want that to happen but we need more
specifics here this could set a dangerous precedent and certainly demolishing three very usable stru is very concerning too when we have a severe housing crisis in this city thank you thank you Mr sha is there anyone else in the audience
that wants to come up looks like not okay thank you guys um now for the council um it's time for us to discuss and decide where we want to go moving forward uh Mr Jagger yes thank you uh I
would it be possible I have just a couple questions for the applicant if that's possible father Gary if you want to come up and answer Mr Jagger's questions I might invite up Erica as well who's uh helping coordinate the project thank you very much have you introduce yourself to
please Erica markusen with architect at wiseth 7804 Industrial Park Road Baxter Minnesota thank you thank you uh Mr strong could you pull up image uh page number 148 please um very impressive rendering here so my
my question is uh and I'm just looking at this rendering here we can all see it it's beautiful we got the stained glass we have a uh a the the stone facade that's on the front the stucco torso above the broad nice beautiful overhangs this fantastic rendering could you now
switch to page number 153 for me please okay so this is included in the documentation also and now you will see a a vastly different structure here uh in uh the submitt so uh you will now notice we have clabbered siding or horizontal siding board and batten up
above um artistic renderings are an incredibly powerful tool they're incredibly powerful because they're highly persuasive so my my question here is is what is the driving why are both of these in the documentation and can you just clear up why I see such a
difference in the proposed architectural elevations and renderings between these two pages and how they both got in there together thank you certainly um the elevations and the plans were um something that we provided to the city staff when we first started the initial
conversations of this project to figure out where what process would be the appropriate um steps to proceed with and since then um because there was a continuation of design happening during that time we've been talking with the staff over I don't know um probably four
or five months and during that time there was further development on the exterior renderings and so what you see on the rendering is actually reflecting what the design is currently very good so the parts of the packet are not accurate to what the
scope of work is the interior the exterior elevations that you see there are not accurate gotcha okay thank you uh just one more quick follow-up question um going back to what I heard earlier I heard uh all good things right
U the the vibrancy of of the church the uh it's a thriving Community the expansion we're talking high school and staff and all that exciting stuff but I also uh did hear you say that your your hope your long-term hope would be to add or to double the parking that is on the uh southeasterly corner of the church
that's roughly 15 spots is it is it your estimation that adding just 15 more spots will support all of this future growth High School staff um I think it's about 15 spots there um one more row uh is is would it be fair to say that that
is what your long-term vision is is that 15 more spots is all that's going to be required for this uh no what I was referring to was the school lot um that would expand maybe another row into the current Street yep uh so the church parking lot would remain untouched
understood but what I'm getting at here is the you're citing the addition of 15 more spots would would uh would fulfill your long-term parking needs for all of this growth that we're talking about I'll finish that um so the intent is
while we would expand some of the parking adjacent to the school we would continue to utilize the parking lot that is to the east of the church um that's on the Southeast corner and then there's also a parking lot south of the church and that too would be utilized for um
the additional staff that would be needed to staff the growth of the school okay understood thank you uh M uh that's all Mr chair I'm uh ready with a motion and if it's Fields a second I will be happy to follow up with um uh my findings of fact Mr
chair thank you if if you're ready for a motion we can always have a motion and have more discussion after the motion yep very good uh so my motion will be to deny the preliminary plat as presented and uh that the present uh the property remain uh subject property remain as a t
in1 district and ISO move we have a motion by Mr Jagger do we have a second ask one more time do we have a second that motion fails for lack of
second do we have more discussion Mr bevans no I was going to throw an alternative motion out okay that we approve the preliminary plat with the three uh findings of fact or conditions motion by bans second
second by Erikson any discussion um please read the conditions Mr chak is as uh requesting that we have the conditions read yes so the first condition is
approval of the vacation of North 9th Street between Ivy and Juniper Street approval of the rezoning of all Parcels to Public semi-public District approval of the development agreement with the city of Brainard thank you okay Mr
Johnson I will support this motion I think this is a real exciting project I absolutely support the the rectory that they want to get built I'm absolutely not sold on the vacation of 9th Street but that's to come before us at a later time so I'll supports preliminary plat
to keep moving but if 9th Street is going to be used to turn public parking into private parking it's a tough sell it's a tough to tell me that that is a public benefit no matter how many times the city engineer says it so I support this motion to continue moving forward I
do not support the vacation of Ninth Street which will come before us I need to see clearer better plans of what would be done with that public street thank you Mr Johnson any more discussion Mr Ericson thank you so I I
plan to support the motion um I think this is a very reasonable a very thoughtful proposal and um had a little bit of added benefit of having seen this at the Planning Commission and having some discussion with staff um the you
know regarding the kind of the public purpose of vacation of of North 9th or a portion of North 9th you know I think that um certainly the safety concerns brought up by the The Proposal um and you know often times we hear about
higher speeds uh in and amongst our neighborhoods particularly around Elementary School I think that um is one um public purpose and certainly you know this will um be some ofat a traffic calming um element for those
neighborhoods for those streets um you know like I said they've been working with City staff for for many months um we've had community development director review it um Public Works director BPU reviewed it Fire Chiefs reviewed it um that their Rec
their um you know recommendations came before Planning Commission and we heard the applicant Planning Commission of course reviewed it and made that recommendation so um for many of those reasons and more I I plan to support thank you thank you Mr
Ericson Mr President Mr chesak I just want a clarification just so I'm sure um by this motion maybe I can ask Mr kranck um is the street vacated or not the street is not
vacated there's a condition upon um the preliminary plat that it is contingent upon the street vacation which is a formal process thank you appreciate thank you Mr cranic that was one of my questions too but mayor BAU go ahead yeah I hate that you said safety I
I hate that you said safety cuz now you got now you got me like down my my rabbit hole so you guys are coming into like a weird thing for me cuz I fully support what you're doing 100% but vacating in the street is something that I've spoke countless times against on
street parking versus flat surface parking is like that's my bread and butter that is the thing that I complain about more often than anything and I have said many cases here in the city we've argued for it with the school district we've argued for it with private businesses that's the hardest
part for me for this the rectory I love it and actually you had me nervous there Kevin for a little bit B those renderings because I I think the rendering looks fantastic and so I was a little nervous about making sure that we're what we're seeing is not smoking mirors I am a little nervous I i' like
to see what's going to happen I like to see where where is this going and I and I don't necessarily mean just what is the plan for right now I think Kevin you've alluded to it I think maybe Gabe you've alluded to it as well where are we going with this it's easier for us to make decisions when we have a
better idea of where we're going and right now it it's very hard for me to look at something and say we're going to take 26 to 28 spaces off the street and then we're going to make them flat surface parking I've spoken against that countless times so I got to be careful
with that uh but having said that the growth of this is good for for the community the growth of the church is good for the community the growth of the school is good for the community um and I'd like to see where this can go but I I if I'm going to be consistent with
myself I have to continue to speak in favor for on street parking which is what I've continued to say on a regular basis so the vacating in the street is tough for me very tough especially because I don't know if you notic or not I live on that street so you're taking away my street what are we doing
here but I I I'd like to see where where you're going I want to see more information from you I really do but I I have to say that the rectory at least I I I like what we're doing with that I like the look of it I like where the possibilities are with that so
thank you mayor Bell anyone else I will just say I was very excited to hear this this was coming up I I I am excited for these projects to start um I want to help you guys get the most out
of whatever it is that you want to do but I do have my my reservations about the street being vacated as well one being when I went to the Planning and Zoning packet was it last week or two weeks ago I think it was last week um
looking through it I'm looking to see okay what what are we going to do with the street what are we going to do with the street and I couldn't find it so for me not knowing exactly what's going to happen with the street makes me second guess what's going on if there's a group that I'm going to trust to do something beautiful and enhance the neighborhood
it would be you guys in that area for sure but I think Mr sha alluded to it there's there's a a big friendly neighbor across the neighborhood that is probably going to follow you um if we get this street vacated and if we do it without really knowing what's going to
be there that makes me very nervous um I didn't know until tonight that this wasn't officially vacating the street until a later date but I do hate to put you guys in a position to go forward with this and then we don't vacate the
street and then we have to come back and start all over again so coming into this it was my vision for you guys to move forward it seems like what is is ready to go is this rectory and really all you would
need for that to move forward is a cup and we would be knocking down one house replacing it with a bigger more beautiful house uh for your priests and I don't think there would be any opposition to that uh the other two houses that are there could could remain
until you guys move into expanding the church we have another meeting looks great we move forward on that um I would feel more comfortable moving forward if this master plan was set forth in front of us and we could look at it and just
know for sure that you guys are making something great and I know you are but I want to see it I think that's just respons responsible governance right there um but knowing we have uh more to go again I hate to put
you guys through another meeting or two meetings or whatever this might take and then have to start over but it looks like that's the motion we have on the table because I don't want that for you guys I'm going to vote against that um I would like to see a more stepwise
direction for you guys so we can continue to move forward instead of taking one step forward and two steps back and beginning the whole process again I hope that makes sense to you guys because I do support everything that you guys are trying to do I see kind of the future of what you guys see
with the school and the church it's going to continue to expand because you guys are all great um I'm not a parishioner at St Francis but I've been to all kinds of funerals and weddings there and it's always awesome I love being in there um and that beauty
expanding out into the rest of the neighborhood is something that would benefit everybody around here so um that being said if if anybody else has anything to say on this before we vote I would request a roll call a roll
call vote okay any other advice to uh the organization of St Francis Mi Mr President Mr chazak I I would Echo most everything you said because I I indicated earlier I I think it's our responsibility to know what's going to
go so if we we need to see it before I can approve it and uh no pun intended but need to know what's going to be there and uh I be in in in League with Mr Mr uh chair Mr President OD day to uh vote
no for that reason I support everything you're doing otherwise thank you thank you Mr chazak Mr Johnson yeah I too agree with with the council president on that where maybe it would be easier to stop you've heard some feedback of what
we want maybe you get there and come back and ask I'm still going to vote Yes even though I have reservations about some of the specifics optimistic that they can get that done in time for coming for those future things and if they don't it
would be unfortunate to be two steps forward one step back because I absolutely agree that the rectory is a slam dunk we wouldn't deny that at all I would even support tearing down all three of the houses and putting up the rectory on the one block and deal with the street vacation later when we're
looking at a school expansion or something I think that would be the right the best way to go but what you have requested is this I'm I'm going to vote Yes with the caveat that I don't support moving forward with all three of the conditions replacing on the yes
thank you Mr Johnson Mr Erics uh I'm I'm going to support um I'm the Lea under of the Planning Commission so I'm going to carry forward that recommendation uh from the Planning Commission and um share some of the concerns um hopefully we see more more information going
forward about the street vacation but I plan to support thank Mr Eric Bo two anything no sir I made the motion
okay no hearing no other comments let's go to a vote Tony please call the rooll bans yes chesak no Johnson yes stunich yes Jagger no Ericson yes OD no
that motion passes 4 to three look forward to seeing you guys at the next step uh we'll make it as smooth as we can going forward thank you guys um I know most of you in the audience are here for this if if you guys want to stay you're more than welcome to if not
then we'll give you guys a minute to clear a cover for you tough one yeah just [Music] all right unic left too oh I thought he was
just here for the St Francis part too he's heard a tinle give him another minute no that's okay all right let's move on we have uh next new business we have 9B this is a first reading proposed
ordinance 1581 considering rezoning and Zoning text Amendment for Paradigm Auto 310 West Laurel Street and this is uh community development director James kraning thank you Mr President Al Schmidt has submitted a request to rezone the
property at 310 West Laurel Street to Makers and employment zoning district and for a zoning uh text amendment to allow for the operation or expanded operation of U-Haul vehicle rental business in the makers and employment District uh the property is currently in violation as U-Haul trucks are illegally
parked stored on an unimproved surface in addition there are too many U-Haul rental units at the property uh what's currently allowed in the Town Center District and what they had previously been allowed uh was seven spaces based on the zoning code uh Council gave the applicant 90 days to work with staff to
submitted applications so this is that process carried forth uh I believe it was in in 2024 uh so the applicant has proposed Paving a large portion of the new and existing parking lot with asphalt to accommodate the U-Hauls uh the proposed
text Amendment and rezoning would allow the applicant to have more than seven U-Hauls pave the parking area and then would not require fence screening which is also required um per our ordinance for outdoor storage and Rental um rezoning and text amendments are both
ordinance changes so staff recommends to conduct the first reading of proposed ordinance 1581 and dispense with the actual reading note a vote to dispense with with the actual reading of the ordinance must be unanimous thank you Mr kranck does anyone on Council have questions for staff Mr chair Mr B I have
a procedural question okay I do not support this but I don't want to read the ordinance is there a way I can vote no well what we've done in the past is if there isn't a unanimous vote we have to
we have a you're free to make a motion following um and in in past situations we've had motions to not have the reading that have passed uh one was the entire zoning code
if I remember right um Mr langel we could just have an initial vote to foro the reading of the of the ordinance it would be better to have that vote beforehand what's that it would be best to have
that vote yeah you can start with that and then have a separate vote on the actual passing of the ordance okay that answer your question okay absolutely i' I'd like to make a motion if you'll give me an opportunity does anybody else want to
say anything before we have a motion okay Mr bevans I'd like to forgo this reading okay I'll second that's a motion and motion by Bavon second by Johnson any discussion heing none go to a vote all
in favor I against same sign that motion passes now does anybody else have questions for staff regarding this bu okay oh Mr chair I apologize M I was
talking Kevin was bothering me yeah it happens which one I understand this this property has been in VI VI ation of our zoning code for how long Mr kic for numerous years at this point now we've gone through three planners yeah
so there's been um issues and then Corrections issues and then Corrections um I believe without looking at everything in detail right now this is kind of the third corrective action where where Something's Happened then it's been having been later corrected or
potentially I'm sorry sorry it's been corrected these U-Hauls are violation of our ordinance this one hasn't I would say the two previous ones were by city council so they were in violation brought an application city council um to deal with the issue so they were in
violation on um I believe opening the auto repair shop and then I believe it was the detailing shop before that but I do know they had to come back for reasoning for the auto repair shop Mr chair I'd like to make a
subsequent motion I've got a question oh yep when questions are done okay Mr Johnson I've got a question so they've add two other longstanding issues that have been resolved have either of them been resolved by them taking action to fix something or have they just been
going to rechange all of the zoning and ordinances regarding their property so the rezoning I believe is what allowed them to then operate as an auto repair business if I remember right so they'd have to come and ask for that
rezoning request so I and I believe it was after the city or a complaint was called about the business that then they came forward with it so they didn't do anything except asked to be rezoned what was the next issue so after that one it is the the
U-Haul issue I believe even from the auto repair there is request to pave the parking lot um when you go back into the um all the writings from Mr osgard and from the past uh then the latest one was the U-Haul business staff received a complaint on that um and that's when
staff kind of looked through the history of the property and realized that seven U-Haul spaces were all that were to be allowed on the property okay and it was to be paved and screened I believe and it was to be paved and screened correct right and it's not paved it's not screened but now they found a whole new
zoning District they want to be in because then they don't need to pave or screen they would be required to pave as presented um they would not be required to screen so much like a a used auto site would not be required to screen but they would be required to pave so you
say there's nothing adjacent that's in the makers employment zoning District it's next to the railroad and then you don't mention what what is to the west of it um I believe maybe in the findings were on there but to the it is surrounded mainly by Town Center
District and that's what it currently is and that's what it currently is own it's currently Town Center it's surrounded by Town Center so that's the U-Hauls that's the repair shop and then even to the west of that I believe is a PR Professional Service building right some insurance and chiropract that's
correct okay so we're going to move we're going to shoehorn in a new different un zoning District that nothing around it is zoned the same just to make it easier for them to comply with the screening or the lack of screening but the paving requirement
that they've had for 10 years that has yet to be resolved I believe the term is spot zoning sir spot Zone we're going to spot Zone it thank you yeah certainly could be issues with spot zoning um I believe when city council looked at this originally they did see Town Center
around all of it um when the applicants first came here and and had wanted that Town Center District uh to remain in that spot uh from a staff perspective um i' probably have concerns about uh allowing a U-Haul or rental business in
the Town Center District so in staff's opinion doesn't it wouldn't wouldn't work in that district and that's makers and employment is near it but again it is not adjacent but it was what two a little over two years ago we rezoned everything and we called This Town Center District and they came and said
we don't want town center and we said no you're Town Center now staff is saying uh well since they're not fixing anything we better just change the zoning District yeah thank you so at at that time I did make the argument that um the
Town Center District uh really had the same advantage of the general commercial District that they were asking for so there's really no difference between it and that it would just become a spot Zone at this point um what they're asking here in my opinion Town Center District wouldn't really work for um
what they're looking to do here because from staff perspective um I wouldn't want to see that around or in any other Town District area within the city so originally again um staff did not see difference between General and Commercial and Town Center District
there is a difference in makers employment okay okay and then one final question Mr President right now currently as the law allows they can have seven U-Haul trucks how many trucks are parked in their yard right now it's definitely more than that it's more than
seven so they haven't even writed that to come in and ask for the change that's kind of with our interim use permits with the short-term rentals like if you're operating illegally we're not going to give you a license and this kind of falls into that category of you're not following the rules we're not
going to just change the rules for you right yep certainly understand your perspective yeah be similar thank you Mr President Mr Johnson Mr Ericson just two comments I was going to also bring up that when we did the zoning ordinance change in 2022 and we made lots of Chang
to Zone a lot of different zones this was one of them that was appealed at that time there was a lot of discussion about that whether that town center was the the right zone for that I argued that it was not um at that time um I still feel that same way uh my second
point is if you look at the Town Center Zone it's kind of that River to rails Corridor lot of you know obviously Town Center then there's this kind of small node that crosses the river and includes this area so I my argument is I don't think that this small neighborhood area
or the small commercial node is Town Center it's south of uh 210 it's south of the railroad tracks um there's very mixed use area there there is some you know kind of Comm commercial areas they're directly west and kitty corner
there's a heavier residential area and then of course there's the railroad tracks and then I would argue too that you know one of the greatest natural geographic elements in the world separates this property from our actual
Town Center so I don't think Town Center is the right zone for this and I think that's evidenced by all the continuing problems that we've had with this so instead of I I think you know I support the staff's recommendation and or the recommendation coming out of the Planning Commission that we could we
could solve this by making that and perhaps other areas not Town Center anything uh west of the Mississippi I don't think is Town Center I I don't think that town center is the correct zone for that area um so for that reason I was going to support
the planning commission's recommendation Ericson anyone else I'm just ready with a motion okay if we don't have any further questions or comments go ahead Mr bevans thank you Mr
chair I move forward I move forward to direct staff to enforce the zoning code and to whatever it is second motion by beans and second by Johnson to enforce the zoning code I will speak to this
motion Mr Ericson is incorrect the problem is not the zoning we have had abusive and beratement from this property owner for over a decade there's been three planners that have tried to get these
people to follow the code the last time we were here we suggested that they move the U-Haul business and we would even help them to find new property in the industrial park
I believe you made the motion Mr chair I probably did I think you did Mr cranc has there been anything moved forward on moving the U-Haul business and swapping property City I did speak with the applicant about that that did not seem
like a a realistic uh opportunity for them thank you Mr Johnson is correct this has been a problem and and and we've denied the zoning request multiple times in including the last time
unanimously and it's because it doesn't fit here I'm sorry had they followed the rules from the GetGo we wouldn't have this problem had they followed the rules any of the times that our planners had gone there we wouldn't be having
this conversation the truth be told the problem has been us now we're not enforcing our own rules and they're taking advantage of it and it's not right and it's really not right for the other
15,364 citizens that do follow the rules so they brought in the U-Haul business after the auto repair by the way they never asked anybody they ever filled out any applications or they would have and they certainly knew when did Mr OS Garden's first
letter go out 10 years ago they certainly knew that thank you Mr thank you Mr Bev that was going to be my question when this U-Haul business did start was it in compliance when this U-Haul business moved to this location was was it in compliance has it ever been in
compliance I am unsure of that since I've been here um reading uh the statements from Mr Oscar and I don't believe so it seems like there's always been more than seven U-Hauls but again I can't speak from when it originally started I will say that if not this just
feels like just like what Mr beevans was saying they've spent 10 years just telling us no and now we're just making it okay so it sets an example for whoever else wants to do that whatever whatever you want to do in whatever Zone you want just start the business and
we'll we'll call you every once in a while and tell you not to but you know in the end we'll just change the zone and I'm not saying that that's what you're trying to do Mr kic I know you've gone through hell and back with this just this one this one spot this one
this one issue in this one plot but I don't think it sends the right message to just have us comply to what they want to do it doesn't make sense um I I respect what Mr Erikson's
point of view is but it's not the way that it was gone about does anybody else have any anything to say Mr chzo yes uh Mr President I I'd like to thank Mr bevans and Mr Johnson uh reminds me of a um debate pretty much we had here on an
issue regarding the offense in Northeast Brainard and I appreciate their their input it it brings us brings me right down to earth on that and I'll be supporting Mr Bev's motion thank you Mr chesak Mr President Mr
wanted to respond too and thank you Mr bans for the additional clarification and history on that um I I agree we can't have you know exceptional rules for certain properties and things like that I will support the motion however
not withstanding I do still think that that is Town Center is incorrect zoning and that was the point that I was making um regardless of the specific uh specific issue but um with the additional clarification of uh the problems that we've had I will support
the motion thank you Mr Ericson I will uh reiterate that the offer is still on the table we made to do a land swap we never got a formal answer on that you you just told us an answer now Mr cranic I've I've heard that from you but we've
never had a formal answer to that offer to the council in a email form or any any other form that I can remember um so if this does get denied it's not taking his business away it's it's enforcing our ordinances it's enforcing enforcing
our our zoning code but he still has an opportunity to somehow do a land swap with us and have this business where it belongs in my opinion Mr President Mr chz to what you're saying though does that delay the enforcement of the code
according the motion no okay no but I would like to uh have that motion clarified because uh the motion is is saying let's have our staff enforce the code was was the end of the motion but specifically they are their job is to
enforce the code so your your your motion is to have them do their job so if we would like to be more specific to that plot of land that might be helpful for staff no I just wanted to to enforce the code okay that is I mean I don't
know what a zoning code enforcement is we've got an attorney and he works for a company with a bunch of attorneys and we've got a community development director and a public works director and an engineer I'm sure there must be some consequences to zoning
violations I right I would presume I I and I don't think it's pertinent to any one person I think it's imperative that we enforce the code Citywide it just happens this is the one
that's infor front of us now and this happens to be an egregious violation over a long period of time which just emphasizes the fact that part of the problem is we have not given that instruction please enforce
The Zing code thank you Mr bevans uh Mr langle thank thank you so the motion is to enforce z c certainly there's a process for doing that we can we can do that if the motion is approved or even if it's not but the request tonight is
to reone the property so we will need a separate motion on that request we did that's not what I heard all I heard was a motion to enforce the code no the first motion was to not hold the first reading we passed unanimously Mr
langle if to forgo the reading not we it was a separate motion then is needed to deny the rezoning direct staff to issue findings consistent with the discussion of the council we'll do with that okay we can have resoning and the
text Amendment correct okay we can have another motion after this but does anybody have any more comments before we vote is that um um I guess procedurally is that the way you want to do this so that's okay that's fine by me yep
okay hearing no more comments all in favor I I against same sign that motion passes we have a follow-up motion Mr Johnson yeah I would move that we deny the rezoning until such a time when they are
in compliance with our planning and zoning rules and I so Mo second motion by Johnson second I heard over here by jger or tazok can I get a clarification on the motion uh funny it was opening up that that they could apply again when they're in compliance not that we
approve after they in I don't think that's necessary to have that as part of then I'll restate to deny the resoning request than all right okay motion amended and by second does anybody have any questions comments concerns on that
motion hearing none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes moving on to 9C this is consideration of a conditional use permit and variance for the site Properties LLC 324 fth Street South
again this is community development director James cranic thank you Mr President so the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to add two additional residential apartment units on the second floor for a total of three units while maintaining the existing commercial space on the first floor uh
also a variance request from the landscape requirements in the the Town Center District for trees and shrubs uh the applicant is proposing uh the addition of one two-bedroom and one three-bedroom unit both units meet the size requirements of the zoning code AS noted in the findings the applicant has
ample parking um for the increased usage of the site uh considering the variance request the general Landscaping Improvement standard states that four shrubs shall be planted per dwelling unit so again adding um to that would require the eight shrubs variances may be granted when the applicant for the
variances establish there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance so again the building has existed on the property for a number of years uh and there's also a zero foot setback that is not conducive for landscaping enhancements so with that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the conditional use permit and variance request for 324 Fifth Street South as presented thank you Mr cranic anybody have questions for Mr cranic Mr Johnson do you know what kind of condition that parking lot is in I do not thank
you anyone else does anybody have a motion if we don't have any discussion Mr President I'd move to approve motion by Erikson second by was that jager or chz jazak chesak jazak
okay we have a motion in a second any discussion on that looks like none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that one passes moving on to
9e No 9 D we only could hope we'll just we'll go to 9d okay this a preliminary and final clat for three Pete LLC 15770 Delwood Drive I believe this is again uh
Mr kic yes thank you Mr President uh so the purpose of this request is to create a common interest Community conditional use permit to construct a mini sell storage facility was issued 221 of 23 the applicant began site workk in 2023 and the building perm was issued in 73 of 24 uh building one is located in
North End in this process of construction uh the applicant was required to update structural plans to include firewalls between the units to allow additional or potentially allow additional uses in other other than Mini Storage uh the cic plat will allow each unit to be sold to individual Property
Owners really staff looked at that this uh and one of the um criteria for the plats is how is it consistent with Comprehensive plan Economic Development Goal three help local businesses grow and attract new businesses policy two attract new business best suited for the community's assets increasing local
employment options and building the city's tax base number three encourage entrepreneurs to start their own businesses uh in staff's opinion the proposed project allows new businesses and entrepreneurs to start small in their privately owned space small businesses in this proposed common
interest development are far better for the city's tax tax base and economic interest than Simply Storage units again all potential future uses will be reviewed by staff prior to operation if there's anything that would require a conditional use permit would come before city council Planning Commission uh
considered this request and recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat as presented with no conditions thank you Mr kic anyone have questions to staff yeah I'm just curious that dimension of this uh first structure
what the approximate height width length um so that was included the applicant is here um to potentially answer some of those questions I I think each individual unit was around 700 to 900 sare ft in size that's all I need it
okay that's all I need thank you thank you Mr shazak Mr Johnson thank you do we know if this property is in the rural Service District or the urban service District I am not sure I would like that to be included in future findings and facts please certainly do that thank you thank you Mr
Johnson anybody else have a question M mayor BAU not a question just an observation I just want to say it's the first time I'm seeing that this is three Pete as in Pete the name Pete I'm going to tip my cap towards that one nice work that's all against it okay great
value um Mr President I got a motion to Mr Ericson move to approve the preliminary and final plat for 15770 Delwood drive as presented second motion by Erics and second by chzo do we have any more
discussion hearing none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that motion passes all right moving on we are on 9e this is adopting a resolution
approving plans and authorizing bidding for improvement 1712 right and 10th Street reconstruction project this is uh Public Works director Cav course thank you Mr President this is a reconstruction project on wri street and with Southeast 10th Street in the
industrial park of South Brainard and this project will be including uh curban gutter water M and storm Basin with uh obviously asphalt uh uh repavement with this and with that I can take any
questions this is actually sorry this is the four-step of the five-step process so we'll we're just asking that we go out to bid um then we'll be bringing those bids back to you thank you Mr abigor anybody have questions on this seeing none we're looking for a
motion to adopt the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisements for bids for improvement 1712 so move second by chzo second by bevans any discussion seeing none this is a
resolution Tony please call the roll bans yes chz yes Johnson yeah stunich yes Jagger yep Ericson yes OD yes that one passes moving on to 9f priorities for federal House
Appropriations uh this was something brought by myself to administrator BRS um but I'll let administrator bro start off and then we'll have a discussion thank you Mr President uh Congressman stabber office is seeking local community projects for FY 26 the
tentative deadline for the this is March 14th attached to this agenda item are the the uh funding requests the instructions essentially for fy2 the rules for 26 haven't been released yet but they are anticipated they'll be quite similar to 25 um so as
I've had discussions with President OD um I think we are suggesting well I'll just go through these number one in list of priorities would be $5 million for our water treatment project that would be an 8020 split as we as we've talked with uh Congress stabber staffers the
second item number two the 9.9 million for the six turbines um and please correct me Mr President if I if I misstate but I think that uh president oday had a conversation with Congressman stabber staffer and the some of the results from that were Dam projects are
not eligible to their knowledge um so this turbine project would probably come off this list however uh the BPU commission I believe is working with some State funding uh vehicles goals and that process is underway so I think the BPU commission is pursuing State funding
for these turbines um third one is the pedestrian bridge that's $6 million and that is a 910 split as we've talked to Congressman stopper office it just really depends on where he's looking to find this money and then the the last item there's a biosolids project it's
not really for FY 26 it probably more likely 27 but um this is something that we'll have to just have conversations with the City of Baxter there are some differences because of our populations were're over 10,000 so if we look for funding for that project it would it
would fall under the EPA Baxter being a town under $10,000 if they um are the financial agent for that funding and that would be an egg brand and the split would be 7525 versus 8020 so again probably not for FY 26 but for FY 27 we'd have to have some
conversations with the City of Baxter so I think what uh and I'll I'll turn it over to the Mr president here in just a moment but I think what we're looking for is maybe priorities would be instead of three we would have two $5 million for the water stre project and $6 million for the pedestrian bridge did
you have anything to add Mr President to that no I just wanted to bring this uh to the attention of the council to make sure that we have actual motion um this is something stab's office is allowed to or he's able to submit 15 projects a
year they want to get 100% of those projects uh passed through the Appropriations Committee he wants to have high quality or or high priority uh projects and water projects particularly
have been successful um that's why this one came up first we've already got 5 million towards our water treatment project uh right after that the the price tag shot up from 5 million to 10 million um so just getting
the rest of that through this would be a a huge deal for our water facilities um with that I'm not 100% sure if that 5 million would count towards our 8020 split but I think there's a possibility that it would uh the hydro facility
hopefully that works out in another way the PED Bridge that's something that we have a lot of eyes on right now trying to get through that with a lot of different grant funding opportunities but I wanted to make sure that we were all aware of this uh moving forward Mr stabber is always looking for these and
I think we should every year take a look at this and submit some of these projects and see if they work out if anybody has questions Mr chesak yeah on the first item there're the five million for the water treatment is that
specific to the uh Reclamation Water Reclamation maybe Mr Evans Mr Evans I think it is uh yes the the 5 million was specifically for the Reclamation project yeah yep that would be the one yeah that's what we're talking thank
you anybody else have any questions otherwise if you think of another project that is coming up that's got a hefty price tag that water tower the water tower well water just tell them there's still water in it just fill it with water and it might work Mr
Johnson uh I have a motion if you're ready yeah looks like okay so I would move to prioritize $5 million for our Water Reclamation treatment project or motion to ask for 5 million for the water treatment project first priority second priority $6 million for The
Pedestrian brid Crossing at L Park 210 and KY Lakes Trail and ISO move second yep okay we have a motion by Johnson second by chazak Mr Johnson thank you council president for bringing this forward and and City administrator and for having the conversations with
our congressman's staff I really think this the $5 million for the Water Project is really exciting and prioritizing that I think is important because we've already received $5 million from the state we only have till 2027 end of 2027 to have an executed
contract or that money disappears and we're starting back at Ground Zero you know we were told this was the priority at BPU a few years ago so we prioritized it we got it funded and now it's at the bottom of the list not a priority but I think it's important since it's already
half paid for with State money if we can get Federal money to pay for the other half it's it's it's a no-brainer so I really like this prioritization thank you Mr President Mr chz yeah the the water re Reclamation is uh my my limited knowledge is uh we
flush the water back through the filter that takes out your magines and iron in in order to get filters clean but what happens is now that water just goes back into the river and there's millions of gallons so what this Reclamation will do is when we flush we re reclaim it and
then filter it again and get it goes into our our use so it's a wonderful thing that we don't do now so this will be a huge Improvement and we pump the water we're essentially pumping it to run it back out to the river so by flushing it so I hope I got that right Mr Evans close
enough oh that's close enough Layman's away maybe all right any more questions discussion hear none let's go to a vote all in favor I I against same sign that motion passes as far as the third
priority is concerned um that would be a 9010 split it's it's something that we can look at going forward uh Jesse I know you've kind of taken the lead on that one is that something that you've come across already as far as looking for funds for
the PED Bridge Okay uh we can always come back and well we we can't because we have until the 14th so if we want to add another one if you guys wanted to apply for both they're going to sift through these and maybe this one won't make it maybe it
would but we can we can apply for both or we can leave it as is and just apply for the one that's up to you guys well my motion was to prioritize water treatment plant but also do the pet Bridge oh okay okay I misunderstood sorry I don't understand everything it's the resolution yeah no
it's not all right don't confuse me let's move on good idea 9g we have authorization for council member bevans to attend the croing County Board on behalf of the Northland Arboretum uh again this is City administrator Nick
BRS yes we just received a request a few weeks back from the executive director at the Arboretum it was sent to both Brainard and bter they were looking for representation to attend the County Commission meeting on the 11th to advocate for the regional treatment
designation of the Arboretum um I thought as the liais on to the Arboretum um I thought council member bevans would be the appropriate person to attend that meeting I'd be happy to answer any questions if I can I'd be willing to support this if Mr
bevans could show us his membership card to the arum I can good I can't right now I didn't bring it with me but I have one Mr bevans uh I think we want to just make sure that we do support what they're doing could could you fill us in on what
they are doing absolutely if you recall uh not that long ago this body authorized a letter of support for the reason Regional designation for the arum the reason it's going to the County Board is our arum does not qualify for
as a regional designate the county has to own a certain percentage of which they already do own almost enough but not quite enough so what's going to happen on the 11th what could happen The Proposal is is that
another and I apologize I I I don't have the acreage with me but a certain number of AC will be sold back to the county thereby giving them ownership in enough of the arum that they can be the regional designate not the Northland
arum and then the Northland arum will will lease that property back from the county we actually already the arum already does that on but just not quite enough to qualify for regional designation what then happens is they call that opens up the door for a ton
more funding as a regional designated Park excellent yeah it is a good deal this is exactly the kind of thing that we actually directed them to start doing and it sounds like that that's what they're doing so moving forward I think our contract with the arum goes through
2026 correct I I believe so and they did mention Mr chair that even though the city our sister city our partner in citizenship The Great and Wonderful Baxter is providing for for the for the
summer of 2026 um at the Arbor Day event police support so even though they're not able to provide the same finances that we can uh they are working to equalize the
amount that they do contribute in kind and the other thing is they're building a bike park which is going to be absolutely fantastic and I'll explain more as we get into that it's part of it is supposed to open uh on that Arbor Day but the city of backer is providing
construction equipment and operators at no charge thank you I mean they're they're they're trying yeah they definitely are I've noticed the change since um this new executive director has taken over he's been very ambitious with looking for fundraising opportunity so
this is great all right uh looking for a motion to authorize council member bevans to attend croing County Commission meeting on March 11th to support the ARB seeking gmr PTC Regional designation move second motion by stunich second by Johnson any discussion
maybe later hearing none let's go to a vote all in favor I against same sign that one passes moving on to staff reports as we always do we're going to start with Tony Gage still I thought
Chief nothing okay technology director Sean strong nothing Connie Finance uh Mike abigor nothing to report thank you James cranck thank you Mr President just quick here there's an upcoming Eda meeting this Thursday at 7:30 the Eda will be recapping the 2024
Eda activities discussing the quarterly consultant goals as well as setting the April Workshop agenda wanted to also let uh um city council know that we began our tours of child care facilities certainly want to hear what uh some of the issues they have maybe with expansion in there and then maybe what
the city can do to to help out with that so we just visited last Friday with a couple members of the Eda um a couple Child Care Facilities thank Mr kic attorney langel nothing from me thank you Chris Schubert Chris Evans well
uncharacteristic for me I do have something tonight excellent uh just a couple project updates and a notice of a meeting so I'll begin with project updates uh basically uh we are in process of having two projects added to
the project priority list for Minnesota Pollution Control agency and their clean water revolving funds and in particular that is for the 2026 2027 main lift station
rebuild and for the preliminary start in 2728 for a 20-year wastewater treatment plant Capital Improvement plan and plant upgrade and and in conjunction with the 20-year Capital Improvement plan and
plant upgrade on the 13th at 5:30 p.m. at BPU there will be a joint Wastewater management board meeting for that body thank you Mr Evans Eric
sharpener nothing this evening Mr President all right we can hear you good though excellent administrator BRS thank you Mr President I just want to recognize and thank Patrick wau for his service to the city of Brainard and his mentorship
professionally for me uh he will be missed thank you uh mayor's report The Honorable mayor bedau he went to Florida he didn't pass away Sean Sean queue up Tom Petty ladies and gentlemen tonight is
officially the city of brainard's Last Dance With Mary Jane oh Jee James you can retire your name badge as the weed guy we're moving on folks we made that decision we're moving on uh I just want to say super fast it
follow up on the Arboretum uh I was there with my kids and my fiance on Sunday little chilly still here in Minnesota but uh I if you haven't been in there they got some cool stuff going on in there and my kids
really enjoyed making mud pies uh at their little natural playground that they got there I do want to say to the Arboretum I apologize my uh membership has expired and I have not paid you so I owe you some money for me and my family coming through there but you'll my
checks in the mail I promise and then lastly yeah yeah careful terminated himself well as we've said before that's backer so no jurisdiction no jurisdiction uh it's Thursday lastly just want to say that uh Saturday March
15th is one St Patrick's Day Nick boals is leaving us so he's not going to be able to be in the parade this year but James going to be in there Mike going to be in there going to be a lot of fun uh but also leading up to it the week of ladies and Ladies and Gentlemen The
Medallion Hunt is on this year's prize $500 Cold Hard Cash so in the next week or so Medallion will be hidden and there will be Clues to be had I know all yeah we'll get a picture of it this time so people know
what it looks like so yeah you should have some stipulation that they must contact you within 5 hours of finding it yes we will do that as well please let us know if you find it also firefighters calm down calm down firefighters this year you guys were hot on the trail but yet came up cold so uh just let
everybody know so we've got Saturday March 15th a parade at 1: p.m. but festivities start the whole week week and it'll be a lot of fun here in the city of Brainard end report thank you Mr Mayor moving on to council member reports can we start with Mr chzo
tonight y I have to ask the mayor though first of all about a some sort of audible Medallion so blind people can participate beeping I don't know if it works that way we might have to have two five bucks is enough for me have to have two different ones I don't need 500 um
anyway um a little bit on the U Utility Commission meeting on the 25th uh to Mr uh Evans is uh uh about the new uh an improved wastewater treatment facility that is a heck of a
report to check out I think uh that can be provided I think Mr Habor indicated that he may be sending that out if you haven't already um it's easily found if you ask for it it's a uh it's a lot of money folks it's anywhere from $60 to100 million so this is a big huge project
and uh I uh I I just to give uh Bolton make that a fabulous report but couple of things from that meeting we had um climate Vision leasees starting that's a radar equipment uh that's new uh covers different area than what than what the general weather radar covers and it
would be beneficial I believe to Fire and Police I think uh folks over there would agree with that um for early warnings that sometimes you won't get what the current system from the National Weather Service and then uh we also had that uh wonderful presentation
if you care to get it on um YouTube for the meeting um I was actually sitting right here during that meeting for the first time ever for Utility Commission meeting so this is a fabulous uh new thing that we started I'm really glad that the council approved that recommendation to the public
utilities uh meetings and um we had a couple of other things that are happening and um uh uh just check here here there's a there's a new service they're going to put out for uh notifying people of emergencies and
that'll be coming up and U again this wa water wastewater treatment uh Wastewater management board um that's something that uh coming up on the 13th you said right um you know I wouldn't I would I would encourage us to uh adjourn to that
tonight because um Mike and I go to that right we're on that okay and um uh there may be some there may be a commission uh Utility Commission Quorum there and I think they're going to have a notice I I would encourage whoever is putting that
out to just say there may be a quorum of either a city council of Baxter and and brainer down the Utility Commission to have it covered because there's going to be a lot of information shared at this regarding this and we have to get it going and I I was encouraged by Mr
Higgins the new member of pushing this and getting in a motion and passing it that we get going on it right away so that's all I got thank you very much thank you Mr chazak we'll jump over to councilman stunich absolutely nothing absolutely nothing absolutely
okay uh Mr Jagger nothing sir thank you okay Mr bevans thank you Mr chair as you heard of course the ARB met last week and lots of exciting stuff going out to the ARB if you've got kids or like to bike or like to go out on the trails the
ARB is the place to be and they're starting up early because the weather has been on our side so great job Trevor and all that's being done at the ARB uh Library board you heard a little bit about a lot of exciting things happening at the library roof's getting fixed some
doors are getting fixed um and I also went to the downtown business social last Wednesday so at um well it's still sayage on Laurel but it's going to change names pretty soon so lots of exciting and as the mayor mentioned boy you got to give a second shout out to
what's happening in downtown on the 15th if you're not there I mean you're missing out thank you thank you Mr bevans uh chairman Erikson uh nothing tonight chairman Johnson couple things uh arbitration ruling is that public so
I think you all s hit your inboxes the arbitrator has ruled on our arbitration with the ibw 31 Public Utilities group as far as length of contract wages non-discrimination sided with the city's positions we had
the more logical rational position that made sense for the contract so we're moving forward with our flarity and Hood wages Citywide so that was really good to see we didn't get a favorable ruling on juneth so now that bargaining unit is up 13 paid holidays when we try to keep
everybody else at 12 so might have to buy that away in the future but overall just a fantastic ruling really appreciative of Joe's Law Firm an and Tim were absolute great helps you know another shout to shout out to Patrick wau and Nick and Chris and there so many
people worked on this over the couple of years I couldn't be happier with how this ruling turned out so it's just it's good for the city it's good for the city long term and then I know this was on the agenda tonight but also this memorandum of agreement we got tonight where we can move forward and get to
hiring these positions for the technology department is really big because the ibw union was the one that held up three BPU positions for like two years last time we tried getting Ana this time we got it done in just an afternoon and again Tim from Joe's Law
Firm was there and was a great help to the city so just all things are happy in the uh labor relation world today thank you Mr Johnson I don't have much to add I just want to say thank you to those who attended tonight um it's
it's always nice when we have something controversial come up maybe it's controversial maybe it's not but there's different opinions on something like that and everybody just kind of stays friendly and calm um that was refreshing it's not always that way a lot of times
you have a lot of snickering and and uh negative attitudes maybe people looking at you like they want to kill you I did not feel that way tonight well just wait till you till the Facebook post up moving forward um uh these decisions
aren't always easy we're just always looking for the best p path forward we don't always agree on those things but we're going to keep on working on it and um just move forward um with that let's adjourn looking for a motion to adjourn to a close session pursuant to Minnesota
statutes 13d point5 subdivision 3A to conduct City administrator bro's 2024 performance review looks like we have a motion by who us don't hear bavans second by stunich yep all right uh all in favor
again same sign yeah I got to go all right let's give it uh the workshop Part: 2
we'll get this kicked off it's the safety and Public Works committee meeting 7M Brainard council chambers we have four items on our agenda first of which is authorized advertisements for bid I just lost my screen I'm doing an
update authorized uh advertisements for bid Improvement project 2501 2025 chip seal project and Public Works director Habor thank you Mr President yes this is you can see on that list there's quite a few streets that are going to be getting this chip
seal and it we typically do this you know two to three years after the uh pavement uh is cured and then we go back over there and just reeal it for future you know longevity and yeah we want to
just recommending that you approve this it's a little under 200,000 going out to bid that we can authoriz uh advertisement for this project at that I can take any questions all right right thank you uh questions for staff Jeff
yeah on Greenwood would you recommend leaving that out for cost savings because it's is it a little further out of the main scope of the project or what's the reason for that that you're there's a recommendation in there to maybe do that as an option leave it out leave it out it's always an option but
then you jeopardize the aspect of if because we don't do this with just one Street in mind we like to do multitude of those so we could leave it out but I cuz I know it's it might be a little bit in the peral uh of that's that's why though
that would be the okay I was going to follow up with that why is that one on the you know kind of on the bubble um versus any any of the other ones just it's on the periel okay of it and but yet we just want to do we want to add that in there because it's
it's an I forget the number of years Jesse has a breakdown of each Street with the number of years that it is I forget the that's fine life cycle ofer yes thank you uh Mr Habor please um my question is if we put these out to
bid are we obligated to uh take or are we obligated to do all of the work with whatever that vendor is or can we remove scope work after the bids are received that I'm not sure of that question to be so going with this is is that the what we've had budgeted at the
185 to what uh uh construction cont at 194 that's a pretty close number so my leaning would be to just go ahead and bid this out with all of these and then make a decision on the scope of work after we have that information back but I don't want to get us into a place of where we are obligated to the bidder to
take the entire scope of work and without uh uh deductible or without the ability to deduct so at the very least I'd like to see some of those as bid Alternatives as bid alts right so we could remove those from scope work to get close to our bidg number if we want and is there that's a great idea to do
you know bid alternates and on that would we want to do that one to councilman jz's point I think so I would probably defer to staff as to there was seems to be some reason why Greenwood was so to speak on the bubble but uh if we are going to do some bid alts uh the
whole point of that is to get us closer into a number that is workable with our uh budget this year great and I know um Jesse he will be here at the the main meeting and we could have him run down that okay list for that
okay any other comments questions otherwise be looking for a motion to proceed with I move to approve with uh whatever bid Alternatives that would uh make sense as far as um having the
option to uh reduce the uh cost into our budget um what we've uh to fall within line of our budget if if need be I'll second all right great motion second discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I those opposed same sign motion
carries brings us to our second item uh authorized advertisement for bid for L safe routes to school and correct me if I'm wrong but uh yes Public Works director abigor yes thank you Mr President this one here is a state fund uh project so this is all
state funds with this uh Improvement which is really nice and as um councilman uh Ericson to your point earlier with with the email um regarding all the different projects that we have with this grant funding this is obviously one of those and yeah
we're moving forward with this this one here we've uh added some electrical outlets in the middle of that conduit and are that at median and yeah we're asking for um approval for this project that we can go and advertise uh for our
bids with that and the the layout there is on the maps and and it just is a good design for another school it really will enhance that that school area there at that time I can take any questions right thank you questions
comments move yes moved approve that's been recommended motion to approve I'll second and a second any discussion right all in favor say I I I oppos same sign hearing none uh motion
carries bringing us to our third item award proposal 2025 downtown plantings and Public Works director Habor yes thank you Mr President this one we only received uh so this is our sorry this is our uh downtown um uh
development with just the planting of all the flowers and and um and those flower pots downtown and we only received one bid from lansburg uh they've a solid company here in the Val in Brer Lakes area and um yeah we are
looking forward and the Downtown Development is also really uh looking forward to this too they really value this uh this amenity in in the downtown area so with that i' take any questions all right thank you questions
comments uh just real quickly uh Mr abigor was the the difference in the price if feeling from I was I was reading through the documents I was haven't Tred figuring this out but is it mostly Staffing cost that is the added cost or is there a difference in the work that they're doing this year or a
combination of both it's thank you yes it is a combination of both and that total dollar amount that $199,000 um well actually for this year $21,000 it's a it's it's for everything our staff person during the summertime to water that to weed out all of that
it's um it's everything that is included with the downtown uh project are they in charge of cleaning up Christmas cookies no that be for our mayor in the pack I mean you identify the the increase is you know just over
175% increase over last year and councilman Jagger's points kind of the pinpointing the reason for that is kind of both Staffing and materials but in the right up here I didn't and you explained this to me once but I didn't fully understand the how the seasonal
temporary how were we going to try to not necessarily offset but we budgeted for the 21,000 their bid came in below that amount but higher than their previous one right um can you I guess explain how the seasonal worker you're kind of using that to almost offset that
we had to with our hourly staff across the board from our uh hockey rank attendance to everyone we had to bump their hourly rage up to be competitive with the surrounding market and we are bumping all of our hourlies up so that
we can at least attract some good workers in the area last year we didn't have any for streets uh Parks had a few downtown had one um but we want to be we want to make sure that we get some good staff so we had to be more competitive with our our wage and um
they bumped that up to I think it's $20 an hour that we the range is $8 to $20 so we have that option to go up to 20 if they have that experience we could so by bumping that up you're simply saying we budgeted for more correct and this Falls within what we budget right by all right
well thank you and comments questions otherwise a motion be in order I'll make a motion to approve second all right motion and a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I those opposed same sign
and of course motion carries all right our fourth and final item award proposal M Street outfall engineering and Community Development uh or excuse me Public Works director Hors thank you Mr President this here is our
we already have an um existing um drain a storm drain down there but it's washing out and we need to get it a little bit closer to the actual River and so this project is going to um complete that so our drain it is washing
out into another property and we want to prevent that from the any other further erosion and we just want to do our due diligence with this property and uh extend that storm drain down a little bit closer to the river we're also working with DNR they have a Mississippi
River um Coalition we're working with them to make sure that we are in compliant and so we just want to be good stewards of the river and um make this project uh more conducive to that erosion down there by the by the
river okay thank you any questions comments Jagger Mr abigor um your staff recommendation is award this to WSB uh for 297 can you tell me the basic criteria of why you're asking uh WSB to be the
recipient I believe they I haven't looked at all the bids um but so no I cannot answer that question directly so uh I will not be able to support a motion for this tonight and I'm going to kind of just kind of real
briefly overview why okay when the two rfps when the two rfps are received if you simply lay them side by side and compare them one against the other it's all 100% smok and mirrors there's no possible way that I could evaluate both of these rfps side by side and make a
determination on money or scope of services and to me there's just way too much ambiguity it would be my recommendation that in the future we provide when we're going out for rfps just a basic um divisional breakdown or a task list and
then ask those recipients to to fill in box so that we can easily align these side by side I'll just give you a couple quick examples okay uh one of them turned in permitting for $2,700 and another turned it in for I believe roughly 5,000 uh one of them included the fence work in their RFP the other
did not um so it's that kind of subjectivity and that kind of uh discrepancy between the two that really leads me where I would feel like I would be making a decision on this with vastly incomplete information so um I would feel much better about this as if we
could go back without disseminating the numbers to each other and ask them to just kind ofak break it down in some type of a format where we can compare the two against each other in an Apples to Apples a more analogous scenario uh something as simple is the permitting
should be a fixed cost so to have one almost double the other is a bit of a head scratcher to me and for that reason I just could not support uh moving forward with either one of these right now I'm not saying either it's bad or but uh just incomplete compl information on this that's all Mr chair yes um to Mr
jager's uh um thought that we wouldn't disseminate the numbers they have already been made public understood yeah they're in the packet correct so um but I I think I I like what you're saying as far as uh doing something more uniform in a way of getting rpce back is that
what you're conern yeah um well again my concern is here is that we've got one one of the uh one of the one of the entities turned back in a doent that says that the fence uh excuse me uh the the fence replacement and restoration would be agreed upon if approved by
cancel as Council and that's listed as an additional scope of work um and again I tried to lay these side by side and compar them across because there's a big number in the difference or big difference in the numbers in the Delta between the two and anytime I see that I'm like oh my goodness something is
wrong with the scope so I just don't have the tools here but to your point Mr chzo U absolutely my uh my mistake these numbers are out there in public so I'm not sure if maybe staff can help us try to to have them expand upon their numbers without changing them but get
them in a way that we could look at them I think um maybe get a response or something that but I think I I agree with that that senent you know we had talked about you know kind of the aside from whichever is selected that you know fence repair would would be a necessary
item one has it one one doesn't and the question I was going to ask is kind of along the same lines about the Delta between these two you know bids being so significant but um you know I think you know we could always go out for for bid
um at this point so I but I'll let you respond I kind of jumped in before you got a chance to respond I know other agencies with their engineering they will just use a ABC list so if there's an ABC list uh a gets selected a now
goes down to the D category then the next project B uh our engineer would get the next project there's really no bidding on that um and but that's how other municipalities do work when it comes to
engineering and uh it's just a way to spread the work around and get that I know Bolton and mink is is ex they have a lot of projects on their on their hand and when you get projects when you have a large load you'll say sure I'll do it but it's going to cost cuz I have to
have staff time now it's double time and that's why their bid will go up so a lot most of the time that's the reasoning with that I know the fence was in there Jess and I have talked about that um that is uh you know it's hard for us to work on another uh parcel of property
and that's why uh we left that as an ad alternate and U um the other engineer fir firm was just not um comfortable you know indicating that if it's not within our scope but yeah to your point 100% we
need to have very specific scope guidelines and uh I can definitely tighten that up great yes councilman chz yeah um these are Professional Services we're not even required to go off for proposals but um I I mean I think back
um uh prior to this committee we uh we I think directed uh Jesse or our staff to do that I don't know if it was across the board every time we need these but um it was good to look at a couple of options and uh based on the fact that we move forward with this and we have these
are public I'm going to move that we take the recommended uh proposal um from uh was it was it w WSB WSB WSB and then uh maybe we can talk have a short discussion at the council level and give more Direction on what we want to see so
everybody's online with it that sound like an option for everybody I would move to do that I don't think Mr Jer is going to Second it yeah I'm going to I'll second it U for discussion purposes and um so Motion in a second any
discussion and I guess I would add to I guess is this something that you know again we don't have to go for bids for these but we did and now both those bids have come in they're now public gu do we have any you know well it's really not a bid it's a proposal
it's it's a there is a difference in a sense but it's I'm one of the same technically but it's a professional service we're not required if it's under a certain dollar amount I correct correct so even if this passes and it goes to council and then um we do go for
a new proposal that you know for any liability I guess additional liability on that I guess a question for the attorney I I I don't know if you'd want to go new at this point but uh I guess I'd be in favor of going forward with this recommendation and then in the
future work on having a uh to Mr Jagger's point the more uh uniform um put whatever out we want to get more proposal back on I think it like some sort of form I think you were talking about I any other comments I think I'm
actually going to vote no I think on this and I think it's just a cleaner simpler way um to have staff um there's another motion but we can uh have staff take another look at it and I think it'd just be cleaner if we went went about that so any other comments questions if
not there's a motion in a second oh uh yeah I could just from a staff you know perspective I will bring forth a couple options you know a scoping diagram if you will with multiple you know this is the format we just fill in let's vote on this and then we can because we don't
know if it'll pass or not so um all in favor say I those opposed no sign no um motion fails um so I guess yeah we just you know I'll put forth some some
recommendations and I'll bring it to the the spw with and that way we we just sort of fill in the blank and now we have a a template if you will and we just fill in the blank that way every contractors getting the exact same thing and to respond in the same manner
because a lot of times they'll use their own format but we'd like uh councilman joerger's point you like to lay these up side side by side right so definitely thank yeah sorry no go ahead and really the what I'm driving at here is is if there is a reason why we are picking one
over another if it is money and both of these have invested time into making this proposal and then they see these proposals well we we owe it to both of them to make sure that they were turning these in on the exact same on or very close similar scope of work otherwise
it's just not simply simply not fair it appears right now that WSB is a better value for the money but because there's so much these I'm not even positive that's the case actually uh so that's where I was going with this not meaning to make a bunch of extra work just uh if I am
going to be one of the people that says we should move forward here I want to make sure that uh both entities got a fair shake at it compare Apple to Apple so to speak all right with that that brings us to the end of our agenda motion toour yeah so moved oh sorry make that
MO I usually motion adjourn all right well 719 we'll call the meeting adjourned all right