Call the role. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> here. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> here. >> Stunn. Jagger, yes. >> OD here. >> Here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Next, we have approval of the agenda. Mr. Chzach, did you have an amendment? >> Um, that's on consent. I do. So, I'll just make it now. I want to pull minutes
and just have a quick um amendment of the minute minutes. So, okay. I will move to approve the agenda as well. >> Second. Motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same
sign. >> We have an agenda. Next, we have the consent calendar. Uh you did remove the minutes so we'll have that next. >> Yep. >> But looking for a motion to >> So move second.
>> Motion by Chzach. Second by Bevans. >> Any discussion? >> Tony, call the roll. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Beans, yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. Next item is the minutes from last
meeting. Mr. Chzach, >> yeah. the one item where uh the motion was to um I I guess I would just ask staff to come back uh in in an email clarifying the minutes for the item with the Crowing County data request. >> It's uh the minutes indicate we're
asking for the 2025 uh um point in time data and we're as actually the we're asking for the data they submitted, the records of when they submitted it and not so much the data itself, but when they submitted it. so we have an idea of when they sent it.
>> Okay, >> that was how my motion read. But that's all I would ask. And then if you could just send us that an email unless that's what we asked for because that's not what the minutes say. So, >> okay. >> I would just move that >> a motion. >> Um,
yeah, I'll move that we just clarify the minutes from that item. >> Second. >> Motion by Chzok, second by Jagger. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor? I >> I >> again same sign. Motion carries. Next up
we have number six. This is public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the council. Time limits may be imposed. Uh usually try to keep it to a few minutes. But if you are here to address the council on anything that's not on the agenda,
please come forward. Just state your name. N name and address first, please. >> My name is Logan Klush. Address is 824 N Street Northeast. Um, I'm here in regards of Gustoson Park. As of January 19th, the petition I started in opposition to the development
of the park had 120 signatures. 64 64% of these individuals live within 15 minutes of the park. That is provided to me based upon what change.org gives me for the radius. Um, the remaining 36%
are individuals whose lives have been impacted or know someone who has been impacted by this park one way or another, whether they still live in the area or not. According to Zillow, also yesterday on January 19th, there were 12 homes for sale, all in northeast
Brainard. Six of these are on the west side of Mil A, the side that Gustiffson Park is on. By developing this park, what are we really gaining? If housing, why couldn't a developer come in and update these
homes that are already for sale since they are already existing homes versus destroying this green space that we value? Um, to me, it comes down to quality over quantity. Is the quality of the neighborhood worth the quantity that
you're going to gain from these extra few houses and extra few tax dollars? Like uh Mr. Nathan said at the last meeting, if mowing is an issue, let me know. I'll happily go over there and mow it. Not a big deal for me. Um
and I encourage you all to think about this from not my generation or my parents' generation and so on, but rather the generation, my my kids, our kids' kids. Think of it of how it can impact them. If it's
impacted 120 people that I've been able to reach online, how many more people has it impacted that have not voiced anything and how many people can it impact with years to come? Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. President. >> Mr. Chzac, >> um that's the only person speaking. I have a question for staff on that. >> Okay. Um we'll see if there's anybody else. There's handful more people. >> Thank you. Yeah, please come forward. Just state your name and address,
please. [laughter] >> My name is Susan Bolio. Um I live at 1324 8th Avenue Northeast. So we're like a block from uh Gustoson Park and um I'm here today with my kiddos. Uh we use the park regularly. We go over there to play
soccer, softball, frisbee, um fly kites. Uh when they have friends over, they we go over to the park and we use it. Um it's a it's a regular place that we go as a family. And in addition um we've been talking with our neighbors, Logan
included. And you know there are very few green spaces left in our community in places where community can gather. And we've been talking about having community gatherings, bringing people together. Um, we're at a time right now in not just our in our town, but in our
nation where we need to be coming together as communities, spending time together, building relationships together. There are very few places like that anymore in Brainer. And so, we really ask you, and I'm hoping one of my kids will be brave enough to come up here and tell you what the park means to
them because we use it a lot. Thank you. >> Thank you, Susan. >> You coming up, bud? >> Come on up. Come here. Can I Is there a way to like >> Just should be able to bend it down. There you go. >> Don't scare him, Kelly. [clears throat] >> Tell them your name.
>> My name is Asher Campben and um me and my dad would play catch there and I would have a lot of f fun. And um I once I um hit like hit it really far and then
it almost hit a house. [laughter] >> Oh man. >> You got to build a taller fence then, huh? [clears throat] >> Anything else, bud say about the park? >> I don't know. >> You still got two and a half minutes.
>> [laughter] >> Do do you want them to keep it a park so that you can keep using it? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You like the park? All right. >> Tell them don't take my park. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Asher, come here. >> Don't take my park. Please. Please.
>> Please don't take my park. [laughter] >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else coming up? >> Yeah. Come on up. Just name and address, please. My name is Lydia Campin and I live on 1324 8th Avenue Northeast. And I just really want to keep that park
because there are other kids that have been like playing there. I remember um like like seeing lots of cars inside of a line, kids wanting to play there, and there's just like what my mom said, there's not that many places that you can like do that. That's a really big
place. And I remember also playing catch with my dad, playing other stuff and it was super super fun. So I do not want that park to go. It's really really fun to play at. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else want to come up? If there's anybody online, press star
three. So that raises your hand, lets us know you want to speak. Think we have anybody on there? >> Just Eric. We'll save him for the end. I'll ask one more time if there's anybody that wants
to come up and approach the council. Look like we don't have anybody. So, we will close the public forum at 7:38. >> Oh. Uh Jeff, did you have something? >> Yeah. Um I I I know it's um I I guess I'd ask the city attorney if there would be a liability issue if we asked
somebody the public to mow the park. If I mean could and then the other question would be can we stop them from just voluntarily going over there and doing that? >> Mr. Langle, do you have an answer? >> Yeah, council. Can you stop them? Sure. You can direct them not to you can
direct anyone is to not maintain city property. Is there a liability issue? Yes, there's liability issue because they're not a city employee. They're not covered by workers comp. They're not covered by your city policies. Uh, are there ways to deal with that through waiverss and so forth? Yeah, I suppose we could figure
something out if the city council is really in favor of that sort of thing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> You bet. All right, that is it for public forum. Next, we have number seven, presentations. If you were just here for public forum, you're welcome to
stay, but if you want to get up and go, that's up to you, too. Uh, number seven is presentations. This 7A is a presentation from the YMCA requesting to fund a community pool at the new Brainer YMCA. I believe we have Shane Riffle.
Come on up, Shane. Lift this back up. Thank you for having me. It's um always a pleasure to be here. And I want to open by saying that as a 8-year citizen and resident of the area and business leader um you know you hear about so
many bad things in the world and to be here today to see this process um of government is just really inspiring and you know I'm just really proud to be a part of the YMCA in the community and thank you guys for coming out. It's pretty awesome. Um, and the Y is a part
of the community. And I believe that you all received a packet and I wanted to be in front of you tonight to review that because we are ready to take a few steps forward, I believe. So, just a quick overview of what's in the packet. It details our history as a YMCA and the
community of railroad YMCA. We've been around since 1889. The Y has been around since 18 um 44. So, we have a lot of longevity longevity. It talks about our impact, the meals we provide, the youth that we serve, um the seniors, you know,
just the many benefits of being a Y member. Um as not just a member, but as a a person in the community who has access to the programs and opportunities that we provide. Um and we are here tonight to move forward the process of
partnership with the city of Brainard. I believe that's really important and an important statement that this isn't just a YMCA project um which is here for the kids and families, but it's a project
with um our anchor partners, hospital systems, the city of Brainard, um potentially another municip uh another governmental organization. So, it isn't just us going alone. Um, I'd like to also remind you of the community
benefit. We have done an economic impact study and by partnering with us to get this new YMCA built, we'll have about a $51.9 million economic impact. So, um, beyond that that mission type impact,
it's going to generate business. It's going to help amplify the momentum that we have of of uh, lifting up downtown Brainer. So, here's where we've made progress. We've had a lot of generative meetings with city staff and really honed in on what we would like that ask
to be, and it's $4 million. We've also had several meetings with municipal adviserss and talked about the different funding pathways. Um, we did put out an RFP and had discussions and where we
landed was that the preferred I guess um, municipal advisor would be who you're already working with and that would be Baker Tilly. So, that kind of leads us to our request for tonight would be that just out of transparency
that you're fully aware that it's a $4 million ask um as a partner, one of many partners in this capital stack with the YMCA and that we ask staff to work with Baker Tilly to bring back at a subsequent meeting their proposal for a
a mechanism to fund this project. Um, I think that's what I wonder and and I just wanted to be here to ask see if there were any questions. You know, you've been we've talked about this for quite a while now. Um, I believe it was back in May when I made the first
presentation. Um, I would say that we've had a lot of really generative discussions. Um, but I haven't I don't think you've had the opportunity to ask any questions. So, just wanted to be here tonight to give you that opportunity as well. >> Sure. Well, let's open up to the council. Anybody have questions? Mr.
Jagger. >> Thank you, Mr. Sure. Hi, Shane. Always great to see you. Appreciate everything you do. And uh I just have a couple quick questions on your uh capital stack. You have two columns. Can you describe for me the difference between the left and the right? >> The scope. Um
>> Okay. It's a range. >> Yes, sir. >> Understood. Uh so the so the mun we make up 100% of your municipal asks. We're not going you're not looking to the county. You're not looking to other surrounding communities. According to this, we make up 100% of the municipal ask.
>> Yes. for this project >> need to know. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Mr. Chzach, >> uh, good evening. I heard you say there may be a possibility of another m min government entity or municipality. Did you not?
>> I struggled to describe them correctly. Um, actually who I'm referring to is Sourcewell. Um, we are pardon >> who? >> Sourcewell. >> Sourcewell. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. Part of our plan is to put a family resource center inside the Y. Um
we have three years been working on that and there is um a strategic plan that we've been working on under a project called community bridgemakers and it's under a mental health initiative of that. There's three parts to that. There's social cohesion,
workforce development and mental health and I've been working on that aspect. Um, we've formed a strategic plan and we also hired consultants to build a uh region 5 recommendation on what a family resource center network might
look like. The strategic plan specifically calls for a family resource center inside the YMCA and the consultants in their recommendation that's being presented to the leadership at Sourcewell calls for that same part.
>> Okay. So you also indicated a roughly 50 million economic impact. >> Yes, sir. >> And that impact just would be exclusive to Brainard, right? >> Crowing. >> Brainer Lakes area. Yes. Crowing County. >> And
you haven't got any other government entity other than Sourcewell who's completely like a u nobody on there is actually work for the people elect or anything. So, u um this I got to be honest with you,
transparency. Sure. It seems like Brainard's always carrying the ball for the county for Baxter. We can go on and on for different things that uh so how would you square this this with me here on the council representing exclusively the citizens of Northeast and and
subsequent Brainard that your tax dollars are going to pay for an aquatic center is how you posted this. >> Sure. >> Okay. So I want to I want to get one thing first. What is an aquatic center? And when I hear a a resource center, is
this all part of what you're asking for? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> The aquatic center is the natiatorum. That is the aquatics part of it. This is something that is quite common amongst YMCA's where they partner with a city to build a pool. That's what I didn't mention was the partnership part of it.
um within the jurisdiction of Brainard, we are offering that you know it becomes a city pool that I think what Baker Tilly may come back and say as a recommendation who actually owns it. At a prior job in Boisee, Idaho, uh the
city actually it was one building but it was condoed and the city owned the aquatic center and there was an operating agreement where the YMCA managed it, operated and ran it. So it could look a lot of different ways. I think that's what we would get from the the recommendation from Baker Tilly and
staff. Um, but through that partnership, there's a lot of amenities that would go out to the residents of the Brainer jurisdiction. For instance, instead of having to be a member or pay a day pass for a fraction of that cost, the kids
and families could come in and swim and use it as a pool. Uh we're talking with the the school district to run programs where all third graders would be able to come to the Y uh go through a water safety and instruction program so that
they're safe in and around water. Um and there's probably about three or four other different bullet points that and this isn't an exhaustive list. We could certainly talk about other benefits that would be for uh Brainer jurisdiction residents. Um, and then another part of
your question is we do have a relationship with our neighbors in Baxter. They own Camp Fastic, which we operate and run about 350, actually 369 kids during the summer, about 220 kids a day. They own it and
lease it to us um at no rent. So that's kind of where Baxter supports the YMCA and our efforts for the community as well. And you know, even though it's in Baxter, it doesn't just serve Baxter residents. Children from Brainard come over and and use the um camp as well.
>> And then as far as our bond council, Council Baker Tilly, who would pay their services for this? >> That would be inclusive in their recommendation for funding. >> Um do you um have programs um like where you have like Okay. So, for instance, in
grade school, all the kids had gym class together, and you're out on the playground. A lot of times, the girls are playing with the boys, and that's the mix of boy and girl. But do you have programs over there where you have teams and I I think I've heard you have the te-ball and that type of thing. That's
for the little kids, right? And um do you have other older kids or adult type sports that you uh sponsor as the Y that people sign up for? >> We do adult volleyball. >> Okay. Um but really it's through that teenage is where our sweet spot is with
you sports. Uh adults do come in and play basketball. Um really an emerging population for us as well is is the senior population. Uh we're involved with Brainer for all ages which I think you're all um pretty familiar with I
believe. Um coalition trying to help improve the livability of of specifically just Brainard is our focus area. Um but that is a population that in a new YMCA we do have amenities that are targeted at that teenage and young
adult um those those years that we currently there's just not as much as there should be for >> so is it inter mural most of your uh organized uh events that particip or sports partition partic >> volleyball is is a league >> is
>> basketball is just open play >> is it for men and women combined >> co-ed >> co-ed Okay. Mhm. >> Okay. All of your sports leagues are >> all of our Well, no. Um, traditionally they were co-ed, but what we're finding is that particular ages, girls are a
little bit apprehensive about joining even co-ed. So, we've created girls only, threeon-ree basketball, girls basketball clinics, and likely this um upcoming summer, we're going to create a girls flag football league. >> Would you then let boys participate with
girls in those leagues? Um, I would have to think about that. I >> I don't know. It's a good question. Okay. Well, I got my answer >> if you got to think about it. >> Is that all, Mr. Chzach? >> That's all for now. Yiken,
>> one real quick question about going back to regional partners. You mentioned region five. Is that the region five devel I'm the liazison to the region five development, right? Is that Sourcewell or the region 5 development commission? >> Sourcewell is source is lined up with
the mental health under community bridgemakers. Um but as you know source serves region 5. Region five is aligned with the social cohesion part of that uh community bridgemakers work >> sourceville's geography of >> exactly. Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Ericson questions over here guys. Okay. I think you answered my main question is if if the city of Brainard is going to make a a big donation in uh in this project, what would be the impact for our residents? And if you're already
thinking about some type of discount or or some type of inclusion for for swimming, that's definitely what I was looking for. Um but it is a big ask. So, I I think what you're looking for is not a answer yes or no tonight, but whether or not we want our staff to look into
what that would look like. How would we fund that? And I'm looking at Connie Hillman right now. I'm sure she's got some ideas. If you want to chime in, go for it. >> I think at this point, we would have to bond for any contribution that we would do. And so, we would work with
Bakerility to what type of bond we could issue. >> Okay. All right. And Mr. Chzac. >> Yeah. I have one more question. It's YMCA, Young Men's Christians Association. Christian association. >> It is. >> What do you do that promote Christianity?
>> Our values. Um open. We welcome everybody. Um that sense of uh kindness and you know, I could tell you story after story. just last week um how uh a senior dealing with her husband with cancer, how you know she's just
struggling. Her community of water aerobics, they got together and it was almost like an intervention. Um they bought two weeks worth of meals, gift cards, blankets. Uh and as she was coming outside of her class, she looked over and was kind of, you know,
questioning what's going on. And they just totally surprised her. But it was one of the most, you know, just a really awesome thing for me to be there and watch and be a part of that. Those are the types of communities of people um rallying, lifting each other up in times of need.
>> So, I would say it's the it's the values of Christ um how we live them every day. >> Do you have any programming like you would sponsor like related to a Bible study or anything like that? >> We don't, but I have in the past. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chzac, Mr.
Beaven, >> just a question. It's really more for staff and that's that should at this point it appears the the ask is is to discuss funding options and what what the scenario might look like and I to me that seems like a good idea. My question
is does this need to have a does Baker Tilly charge us money to do that? >> I do believe they only charge us money when we actually issue the debt. This would just be >> Yep. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. >> That is my understanding anyway.
>> Okay. >> All right. I have a motion when you're ready. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Go for it. >> I'd move to direct staff to work with Baker Tilly to find funding options to build a community pool at the new YMCA facility. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Any
discussion on that motion, [clears throat] >> Mr. Jezak? Yeah, I I will support the motion, but as soon as we go out for bonding that our taxpayers got to support this as a private entity, private
I I can't support it. So, I'll go along with this part of it. Actually, I I'll be not supporting this. I think we're making a mistake. We shouldn't be supporting private entities. It's just as much as I think they may be doing a fantastic job on some things, I don't
know what we're doing here sitting there suggesting even moving forward with giving upwards of $4 million of taxpayer money for a aquatic center, a resource center, whatever it might be, when we have a hard time
covering everything we want to do that has nothing to do with supporting a private entity. That's where I'm at. >> Am I permitted to speak anymore? >> Mr. Jagger? >> Yeah, just real quickly. I support the motion here, Gabe. I just wanted to make sure Connie sound said she thinks
there's no cost to do the bonding study. I just want to find out if there is a cost to do the bonding study before we green light to do the bonding study. But I just don't have any idea how much that would be. But uh >> do you have a more detailed answer? >> Are we talking Are we talk how much are we talking if there is?
>> I don't I know that I've contacted them before. They've given me different scenarios and we have not been build for them, but I definitely I could check with them. Um, Mr. Habor just reminded me that the council did approve up to $5,000 in August to be used for an RFP process. We're not going to use that money. Maybe we could use it for this if
there is a charge. >> Okay, that sounds >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay, >> Johnson. >> Yeah, I'll just speak to the motion. You know, I support it. I don't, you know, just kind of as a response to Jeff, but I'm directing it to you, Council President. I don't think this is
necessarily a private entity like like we're giving, you know, Kmart money or anything like that. You know, this is an organization that provides a lot of benefit to our community and they're trying to build for another generation of providing benefits to our community.
And it's us investing in ourselves and our community. And that's how I'd view moving forward with this. I've, you know, I'm a little biased. My kids are YMCA kids. I I was a YMCA basketball and flag football coach for a few years when
my kids were that age. We ended every practice reading scripture and talking about a Bible story that would relate to teamwork and things like that. I think this is a I think it's a great organization that provides a lot to this community and to be able to be part of it and maybe give more families and more
people access to those facilities with a growing facility. It's a lot different than giving money to Target, right? It's not just a private entity. We have a number of other nonprofits who provide services in this community that we've dumped millions of dollars into that have provided no direct benefit of
discounts to the citizens of Brainard. That's what we'd be getting in with this partnership and I I I think it's it's different and I think it's a really good thing. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. >> Anyone else? I think we're good. Um, we do have a motion on the table. So
otherwise I would ask you to to if you had anything to put in, but I think having the motion on the table, we should probably vote on it. So um unless there's any more discussion, I don't see any. So all those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> I.
>> That motion carries. >> Thank you. I do appreciate the feedback. >> Thank you, Mr. Riffle. Um, as aside from that, I didn't want to as part of the motion, but Connie, I would be interested if there's uh any examples of cities and towns our size in Minnesota
that have contributed to other YMCA's, just examples of what those look like if it's easy. All right, that is it for presentations. Moving on to number eight. Number eight, this is uh council committee reports. First up, we have personnel and finance committee chair
Gabe Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. We have three items on our committee agenda tonight. The first of which is to advertise a request for proposal for our SAHA funds. And the motion is to motion for staff to
advertise for proposals for available SAHA funds with a February 20th submitt and ISO move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Mr. Johnson, >> if you remember, we've done this the last couple years. This is the state housing aid funds and we have balance of
74,65 sitting there right now. And it sounds Connie mentioned down in committee that we'll be getting another dispersement early this year. So, we'll just go out for proposal and see if there's any any developers who are looking develop new housing in Brainer who could use a little bit of support.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. More discussion, Mr. Chzi. >> Yeah. Um I I I know um Nick, you got back to me through uh Eric Sharpenter on that question I had. Um I don't know if it's answered because when I read the
document we were provided, it says the and again I don't have it in front of me, but where it talks about a housing trust fund, there's two items there and uh I apologize for not having this in front of me and I'm going off my memory. Is that something we can pull up that document,
>> Mr. Bro? It's in our packet. >> Yeah. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chzach. Yeah, Connie and I actually visited very, it was not long before this meeting started and there was something that was in her mind that she was recalling um, and she she
went back to a meeting in December of 23 and she found I think some reference material. So, my short answer is I don't have a good answer for you right now. Staff is actively working this right now. We found those minutes from December 23. I had a couple questions. I actually sent a question to Jennifer
Bergman because I was looking just for some recollection on her part. So, I understand your questions. We finally found the reference that was the basis for your questions. I don't have an answer for you yet, but I'll have one, I'm sure, within the next 24 hours. We were just doing some staff work right before we came in here.
>> Are we able to pull that document up and go through and see where it talks about the housing trust fund? Because it's there's two items that said you have to like criteria we have to have. >> Is it in the packet? I don't believe it's in the packet. It's on the Department of Revenue website that gives the guidelines. >> The packet I received. >> Okay. >> Mindor Saha eligibility.
>> Yep. Click on that, please. >> You guys have that. >> Didn't do the agenda request, but if you scroll down, it says uses of funds. Keep going right there. So, it says funds from the aid program must be spent on qualifying projects by December 31st and the fourth
year following the year after the aid was received. Funds can also be considered spent if both of the following criteria are met. The county or eligible city demonstrates to the Minnesota housing that the city or county cannot expend the funds on the qualifying project by the deadline due to factors outside the control of the
city or county. And the other bullet point is that funds are transferred to a local housing trust fund. >> That's the part right there. Do we qualify based on that wording? Do we have a local housing trust fund that they're >> That is what we're clarifying whether or
not because the only local uh or the local housing trust fund that we know of is the county's housing trust fund and we do not know if that qualifies as the local housing fund. >> Mr. Chair or not. >> Okay. And that would be why Mr. sharpened here. I I don't think my
question was clear as far as I I wondered how that applied when we actually and of course I I'm my assumption is the county has the housing trust fund, the city of Brainer does it, but unless the HA manages that housing
trust fund, which I don't quite know. That's why I was asking those questions. So that that's the part I don't know if it makes sense to anybody else and I guess you're looking at it. Oh, I think Mr. Johnson's going to try and answer that for you. Okay. >> Yeah. So, this has nothing to do with the housing trust fund. It says if you
don't spend the money on a qualifying project, you can transfer it to a local housing trust fund and maybe our county trust fund counts, maybe it doesn't. We've never had to look into that because when we've gone out to proposals before, we've always received a proposal from Habitat for Humanity where if you
read further down under qualifying projects, financial support to a nonprofit affordable housing provider in their mission to provide safe, dignified, affordable, affordable, and supportive housing. Habitat fits that. That's where the money's gone the last two years. So, it's entirely unrelated
to a housing trust fund. And if they send a proposal and we fund it again this year, that >> that's probably where it would go. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Makes sense. >> I'm fine with it. That's good explanation. I appreciate it. I wasn't I wasn't it wasn't coming to me. So, thank
you. >> Got it now. All right. Uh, any more discussion? See none. Does everybody know the motion? What you're voting for? You want to restate the motion, Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah. The motion is to I got to get back
up >> right on the ceiling. >> There we go. Move to direct staff to advertise for proposals for available SAHA funds with a February 20th submitt deadline. >> All right. [cough] >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion. Uh let's go
to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next one is a city code codification services. The motion out of committee is uh move to authorize staff to enter into an
agreement with ALP for codification services and I so move >> up to 30 grand >> up for up to $30,000 and I so move. Thank you. >> Motion by Johnson. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Second by Bevans. >> Any discussion, Mr. Johnson?
>> I I don't support it. I'm not going to support I supported it to get it up here with a recommendation. I I just haven't had anybody explain to me in terms I can understand where the problem is that requires spending up to 50 or even $30,000 on the codification.
So, I'm just generally a no. But the motion we're bringing out of committee is to support spending up to 30 on this process. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Beans, >> I would recommend having Mr. Kanick explain that part. Okay. Mr. Cranic, you want to take a shot at that? Or
>> somebody on staff? I guess I Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I can begin with it and Nick can elaborate if there's anything that I missed. Um, current city code um does have still cross references to old code. Um, there may be state statutes that are
outdated there as well. Um, most municipalities do use more of an online platform, which is what we're proposing here. Um, so it would be consistent with other municipalities when developers are are looking into it. um you know certainly um right now like our zoning code um if isn't referenced well it's in
a different spot um so so there are certainly some in inconsistencies from other municipalities and what you typically see with the city code so codifying would rectify um some of those issues >> thank you James Mr. Bro, you want to add anything? >> I think that's a good synopsis. Um,
again, this just this is going to this is going to bring forth inconsistencies within the document. It's going to highlight inconsistencies between our code if it's referencing state statute. It's going to uh track all those state statutes that are now obsolete and adjust our code necessarily. And then as
the city council passes future ordinances, we just send them the ordinance, they update the code. There's certain options out there where you can hover over definitions and you can see definitions. Um, I think this is just a a a giant leap forward in professionalizing our code. It's going
to be uh housed um on the computer where people can reference it. They can access it. Um I I'm fully supportive, but uh it's certainly up to the council. >> Thank you, Mr. [clears throat] Broyals. Mr. Chzach, >> based on what I heard Nick just say, um they better make this puppy accessible
for screen readers because I think hovering is a very difficult thing. And I I mean people forget that I'm not the only person in the world that's going to look at this with a screen reader. So >> make sure it's ADA accessible because um
it's just a requirement. So >> Mr. Bros, >> when we did meet with uh American Legal Publishing ALOP, we had a meeting with them and we asked if it was ADA accessible and their answer was yes. And then they sense it was follow-up email, which I can't I can't recite that email
verbatim, but I did ask a question if it was ADA compatible, and they said it was it was uh Connie, did you hear anything differently? That's what I heard. So, okay. Um, but again, people I I've run across this before where they say it's
compatible. Um, but that may not be for all uh mediums or maybe it's a large print or something to that effect. So, just to check that if you could make sure. >> Yep. >> All right. The the way I'm looking at
it, I guess we we had $50,000 budgeted this year to do this and it was something that we already spoke about. Um, if it makes it easier for developers to come in and do their research and trying to get something going in our city, then I'm all for it. Um, obviously
we don't want to spend any money on on just rewriting rules, but if it makes it more clear, I think that's a benefit for everybody. >> Mr. Krabbit, did you have another comment? >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just wanted to um kind of elaborate on the definitions if there's any concerns. So,
the definitions would still be all in city code and and easily accessible. Um, the hovering option would just be a tool for staff to be able to not have to go back and reference those. um you'd be able to to hover over that, but it still would be in city code with those definitions.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any more discussion? >> Okay. Uh again, could you restate the motion, Mr. Johnson? >> I'm already on the next item again. >> Okay. >> Can you scroll there for me? I just read it. Move to authorize staff to enter
into agreement with ALP for codification services. >> All right. at limited to $30,000. >> 30,000. Okay. >> Just >> we're saving money. >> Yeah. >> There's more. No further discussion. >> Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign.
>> Oops. I'm actually against. >> Swishing your vote. >> Yeah. No. >> That motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> All right. Let's see if we can get this last one done. >> Yep. [laughter] >> All right. Franchise fees discussion. And the motion out of committee is to
direct staff to continue further development for a franchise fee structure along the lines in the presentation which include engagement with electrical and natural gas utilities on next steps. And I so move >> second >> motion by Johnson, second by Bevans.
Chairman Johnson. >> And again, it was a split that uh Kelly made the motion and and I just seconded voted so he would have a recommendation to discuss here at the full council. I oppose on two counts. One, we are
working on our payment in lie of taxes rate with the public utility commission right now. And I'd hate to add in a another fee on top of that fee and muddy the waters that we're talking about two things at once and should probably talk
about one thing at once, but secondly and overall bigger, I'm generally don't like franchise fees. So, I will be voting no if I remember this time. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I and I spoke in favor of this which I will hear. Um
uh regarding the our public utilities commission and the pilot program. I I think the if we are going to consider franchise fees, I think it'd be best to let them know now. I think it's part of the bigger discussion as to where we go
with rates and how they contribute to the city of Brainard in lie of taxes. Uh, but as far as franchise fees in general, I just I've spoke in favor of them all the time. I I I always liken this to the city of Minnetonka. The city of Minnetonka
uh when they assess a project, they assess the entire city, every single property owner. Now, they do property owners, not utility billings, but the thought process is everybody benefits, everybody pays. It makes it much easier
to budget for the smaller amount on a monthly basis than it is to get hit with the big assessments. Um the other thing is it eliminates the argument of well I benefit and you don't or you benefit and I don't. It puts a
lot of lawyers out of business. And um and so and the other thing is this doesn't enact franchise fees. It just asked staff to put together a model of how would it look and bring it back to us. I I I like that. I'd like to see how
it would work. My question in in um in committee was how do you how do you how do you justify a large use a large utility user in my house? Do they and there is a
strategy on how other communities do this and I'd like to see how they do it. I wouldn't like to make a decision on franchises without first seeing a model of how it could work could work for the city of Brainer. >> Right. I agree. I think there's a lot of detail that we still need to learn
before we make an informed decision on whether we're going to go with franchise fees or not, but I don't want to close the door on it until I know whether I'm a yes or no because I I do probably sit on the fence on this one. I can see the the good and the bad that might come with it. But Mr. Trezach, you have
something? >> Yes. Thank you. I I'm I'm I'm okay. So, utility commission, they don't assess anybody for a project. The water is uh
a cost that city picks up if I'm not mistaken. And uh I I I'm I'm trying to understand your your your comment, Mr. Beaven. Um, why is it important for the utility commission to know about this when I mean I I get the
process how it works. Everybody pays a fee based on their electric or or whatever service they're getting, whatever whatever gas or electric. And so I and I part of me likes that idea to have, you know, now everybody's contributing to prop property
assessments for like street improvements. So that that that seems to be a more actual fair way of doing it. um when so many people don't pay and uh but I don't I don't understand the connection if you you could entertain me on that the connection between public
utilities on this particular um franchise >> just as strictly Mr. Chzik as a as a matter of full disclosure. I'd hate to have him go through the whole process of a rate study and our request of building
the pilot program from three to four to 5% without knowing that we're also considering franchise fees. It's just a matter of full disclosure. Let them know now that we're I as a matter of fact the presentation from staff should come back to all of us including the public
utilities commission. But I just didn't want to keep them out of the loop now and then tell them, "Oh, thanks. Now that you've worked out the pilot question, remember they only approved the first year, the the first
the 3%." I I would just assume have them know everything as we know it. >> Okay, fair enough. >> That that's all. >> Okay. >> And they're our utility. >> So you're you're not going to do this without letting Excel Energy know. I I just thought there was something more to it that I didn't Okay.
>> No, it's just a matter of >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> Uh M Mr. Mayor. >> Oh, you hit one of my boiling points. I will continue to say this every time that these come up. Franchise fees are ridiculous. They are
simply taxation without representation. I'm looking at it right here. Under the comments and input were as follows from the government affairs committee meeting. Isn't it just a tax? Call it what it is. Yes, it is just a tax. Call it what it is. Why not just go with a higher levy for the exact reason that
you cannot hold us responsible when we do it. That's exactly what this is. Why not spread it all out? Why not make it less of a burden at one point? It's because it's easy for us to then hide the money. That's what it is. Taxation without representation. I will fall on this sword every single time. take a
look into why these things were created in the first place and then take look at how they created laws to create a pass through supposed to be the corporations and whatn not paying for these but they create pass through laws in order to make you the citizens pay for stuff that is improvements that should be paid for
by the corporations as Jeff said earlier why is the government paying individual corporations money well it's a great example of why and this is one of the things that I am very staunchly opposed to because when we raise your taxes you should be able to come sit in these chairs, look us in the eyes and tell us,
"You're raising my taxes. You're raising them too much." In this case, it's just a fee, guys. It's just a fee. That's all it is. It's not a tax. It's just a fee. Staunchly opposed. Will continue to oppose every single time these come up. Thank you. Thank you for the hot take. That's the hottest mayoral take we've
had in a while. >> It's my burning point. >> I can tell. Anyone else? Have any input? Okay. If not, then we're going to go to a vote. So, if you're voting yes, you're voting in favor of of getting some
information back on these fan franchise fees. Uh if you're voting no, then you're voting to stop anything uh as far as looking forward into this. So, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. >> I
>> That would be three against a three. >> Okay, >> maybe. >> Oh, man. You know what I am? That is a no. [laughter] >> Saw that one coming. Motion fails. >> I feel blindsided.
>> Chairman Johnson. >> End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Moving on. Next is 8B. We have Safety and Public Works Committee Chairman Tad Ericson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. We've got four items on our agenda. The first of which is cooperative construction agreement with Trunk Highway 210 Washington Street
reconstruction project. Motion coming out of committee is to approve the attached cooperative construction agreement for the trunk highway 210 Washington Street reconstruction project and I so move. >> Second >> motion by Ericson, second by Chzac. >> Uh attached is I'm not going to say it
again the agreement uh between the city and Mindot for the upcoming trunk highway 210 Washington Street uh reconstruction project. Um staff and attorneys have reviewed and commented on the proposed agreement. Uh came to committee. Uh we discussed it. Uh staff
provided valuable information and we're recommending the approval of the agreement. Uh obviously this is the reconstruction project for 210 upcoming year 2027. >> All right. Thank you chairman. Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah Mr. President. I asked in committee
to go through this line by line and they refused [clears throat] and I'm still disappointed about that. So anyway, that's all I got. >> Just glad you're not asking now. >> Any more discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same
sign. >> Resolution. >> Oh, it's a resolution. [laughter] How many more of these we got? Okay, Tony, go ahead. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Beans, >> yes. >> Chzac, yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Odic, >> yes.
That resolution carries. And I don't >> I do not see a resolution. >> Doesn't say anywhere in the title. Yeah, that's tough. >> She got me on that one. You did that on purpose, Tony. >> I see what you're doing. >> All right. Uh, Chairman Ericson, go ahead. >> All right. Our second item related is
construction observation proposal for trunk highway 210 Washington Street reconstruction project. Motion coming out of committee is to award the construction observation contract for trunk highway 210 Washington Street reconstruction project to in the amount of 268,000
and I so move >> motion by Ericson >> second >> second by Chzach chairman Ericson >> so as part of the agreement um city is going to be responsible for some of the water wastewater and so staff solicited proposals for construction observation
basically inspection for the water main and sanitary sewer portions of the upcoming project. Uh the two proposals received were in the packet and motion as was stated was for the SC1 in that dollar amount 268,000. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. More
discussion from anyone, Mr. Johnson. >> I'm really happy to see that 268 was against essentially 276. So they were really quote really close and that's that's got to honestly be what it costs. So I like to see that. >> Very good. More discussion.
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Is this one a resolution, Tony? All right. Just making sure. All those in favor say I. I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our third item is a final pay request for improvement 2408, M Street
Outfall. Motion come motion coming out of committee is to pay the the final request for improvement 2408 in the amount of $18,170.95 and I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson. Second by Chzach chairman Ericson. >> Uh you'll recall this came before us
several times. This is the M Street outfall repair. Um there was a swale that was causing some water and outfall and um we we fixed the problem by extending the pipe beyond the swale and um repaired some fence and
the swale as well. This is the final payment. >> All right. Thank you. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. Our last item, uh there is no motion. This
is a discussion item uh for the pool of pooling of engineering services letter of interest. Um so staff is requesting uh that council review and discuss um not only the safety of public works committee but also council to uh review
and discuss uh this proposal that would uh provide there's 15 different categories where we could pull engineering services to provide uh bids. What this would do is it would really streamline uh for staff uh for each of these uh proposals. They've got a uh
request for proposals. These engineering firms put together these detailed proposals. Um a lot of staff time goes into reviewing them. Um of course, as they should. Um I would ask Mr. President, if I could turn it over to Mr. Sandy to kind of give a little bit of the background that he gave to the
committee. U we we didn't have a motion, so we wanted to give uh Mr. Sandy the opportunity to kind of share what he shared with us with the full council. >> Okay, Mr. Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and Chair Ericson. Um so historically the city has
for any types of professional services uh related to our public works projects we've when the council has um allowed us to go and uh solicit services we've typically created an RFP document which requests the services from consultants
and gone out to um either a selected call it pool of consultants or to to all consultants in general and ask them to provide proposals for services um for that specific project. Um, what this pool structure does is, you know, as
going back to how we currently do things, we ask in every one of these proposals for consultants qualifications, their work experience, what types of projects have they done? This is really streamlining that portion of the RFP
process and putting more of the city in the driver's seat as far as having contracts, master services agreements already in place with our poolled consultants to make procurement timelines um much uh more streamlined, less burdensome from staff. We've gone
through the qualifications process and scored consultants based on their project experience, their qualifications, their personnel on the front end. They get more or less pre-qualified into a pool structure in one of these 15 categories or multiple of these 15 categories that they are
interested in p pursuing. And then when we are soliciting for services, staff is just tasked with coming up with a basic task order that says here is the scope of work we would like the consultant to perform. Um, here are the assumptions we
would like you to make as far as how many working days on a contract or what the schedule is. Um, here, uh, we have your standard rate schedule locked in on an annual basis. And so, every year that the consultant is in the pool, they're required to send us their annual rate
schedule, and that is a negotiated um, uh, item every time it comes before us. Um, some of the comments that I got from uh, SPW is that the five-year timeline was maybe a little bit too much. Um, and so some of the recommendations that came from SPW were to drop that down to a
two-year pool timeline and to also limit the amount that city staff can go to the pool for either a direct selection or um in in most cases like a mini RFP or a task order that multiple consultants within that pool category would be able
to um throw their price on. Um once the pool is set up, the efficiency comes in. staff has set the expectations. They set the scope of work, the schedule, the assumptions that they are to make. And then 99% of the time, you can make the determination for the contract solely
based on price. And so that's where the streamline comes in. All of your master services contracts are in place. Then you're just executing task orders after this. Um the other thing SPW recommended is maybe we put a cap on um where and
when we use the pool. So, it was mentioned, I think, $300,000 that anything under $300,000 we would go to the pool. I wanted to get Jesse's take on that to see where our city reconstruction resurfacing projects of recent have come in when we've um went
out for professional services because that is the category that I think is probably the most burdensome with releasing RFPs and it's 99% of the time the same consultants that are responding to these RFPs. Um, so I think we want to
try to find what that balance point is um and set that that limit um to whatever it is 350 400 so that if something's over that like an Oak Street project that you guys I think the contract was around 850 that would be a
full-blown like solicitation to all consultants. But this pool, I think just for those smaller pretty standard city contracts that we enter into on a regular basis, this would streamline that process substantially for staff and for the consultant industry. I think it
also has the opportunity to um you know, if we post this on the League of Minnesota Cities website, we're going to be able to expand our consultant reach quite a bit because these are the types of services that consultants that are outside the Brainer area are going to have interest in getting into the pool
and being sent these task orders when when stuff comes up for the city. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Uh Mr. Dean, did you have something you wanted to add to that? I know he was asking you in a roundabout way. Yeah, I can just add to the the comment. So, I'll use the
upcoming Southeast Brainer reconstruction project as a kind of a data point. Uh that proposal came in at about $430,000 for that project. Uh and staff did quite a bit of the heavy lift at the start with some of the surveying work. Um so, if you were to consult all
of it out, including the initial survey work, uh it would come in probably a little bit higher than that. So, um, my thought is if you wanted to capture kind of our standard reconstruction projects, you'd be looking closer to like a half million. >> Okay, Mr. Dean. Thank you. >> Could I just ask a You said 1,230,000.
[snorts] Is that >> 430? >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. >> I guess I would ask I would refer to SPW. I I heard part of your conversation. I like the recommendations as far as limiting to two years. I liked
visiting that idea to cap it, but is this conversation falling in line with those numbers that you guys were thinking? Mr. Ericen, I know you had your hand up. >> It's a little higher than what was suggested, but I think, you know, I I'm open to taking Jesse's recommendation.
He's most familiar with with the types of numbers of contracts that are coming in. So, um, >> Jagger. >> Yeah, I I would agree. I just drew out the $300,000 number in comparison to some other, you know, some other times that we've done this uh service agreement with some other, you
know, with some other entities. So, uh, now knowing that a lot of our projects that we're trying to capture with this, you know, the threshold is maybe a little better balanced at 500, then that would be my thinking. But what I definitely want to see a cap so we don't
just default no matter what it is. So, >> okay. >> Um, yeah, and I somehow I can't find it here, but Paul, could you elaborate on that if it's all right with the chair um or the president the timeline you're going to be taking this to park board PU and then it'll come back you're going to be asking them for discussion just like
you are with us tonight [clears throat] and then it'll come back to us of course. >> Yeah, because this pool structure has the the intent would be to apply this across all public works type functions in the city. Um, we would bring PUC at their next meeting into this discussion.
Uh, take any recommendations or feedback from them. Similarly, the park board at their meeting on the 27th. Um, similar conversation with them and then bring the final RFP back to the city council for final approval to let it out on the street um, in early February.
>> Okay. >> Johnson. Yeah, I definitely support having a threshold and support the idea of the threshold being in the right spot to capture the projects we're doing this for. I think this sounds like a great idea and really efficient. One question I have on the uh to getting into the
pool, what if we're in a five-year term or two-year term, how does a new can a new engineering firm just jump in mid pool and how would they know how to do that? >> Typically, if you can go multiple ways with this. I've seen cities do more of an informal pool where you can more or
less ask your way and submit your qualifications as if you were outside of the solicitation period. If the city really wanted to stick to the formal pool structure, we would ask that when consultants get this RFP that they respond in the timeline that's requested in the RFP. And I think the shorter
timeline of two years just helps that because we're not having the pool for a five-year term and you're locked out until that 5 years expires. So 2031 in this example. Um I think um that would help that situation where 99% of the
consultants are going to jump all over this um and say we want to be in Brainard's pool and so let's submit our qualifications for category 7 9 11 14 and make sure we put our best shot at getting in there this first time because then they'll start receiving hopefully
solicitations for projects and then they you get hired to do something. So that's the only way you gain experience with the city, know the city's standard details and specifications. I think the one of the huge benefits to a pool is you have consistent consultants working on your projects and
they get to learn city staff, the city's system for reviewing plans, approving plans, the city specifications, the city's details. That all is just inherent knowledge that you gain with experience. And it gets away from consultants that want to get their foot
in the door. And they will assume a whole bunch of stuff on a proposal and try to beat everyone to the bottom just to get their foot in the door. And then they're in front of the council multiple times with fee amendments because they're saying, "We assumed it was only going to be 30 days of construction.
It's gone 60." >> That's how people race to the bottom um of trying to get. And if we're driving that process rather than the consultants and saying you will assume this amount of time for construction, you will assume this many reviews of your plans
at 30, 60, 90, 100, then you're everyone's playing from the same playing field. >> Okay. Yeah. So, knowing that, I appreciate the explanation. I would definitely support like a two-year term over a five or 10 year term because if you're going five years or longer, it's >> it's almost acting as a gatekeeper from
startup or smaller companies to get an opportunity to do work. So I I I love this idea and I but I think the shorter term just so it is rolling over and people have that opportunity to submit their qualifications on a regular basis. >> Yeah. And there's uh also verbiage in
the RFP that states that >> we have the opportunity if you're doing a really good job in this category and we've seen successful projects with you. >> You don't necessarily have to submit your qualifications for the next pool term. >> You your experience speaks for yourself,
right? Um new consultants would have the opportunity if we open the solicitation to say, "Hey, we want to be a part of this category now." or if someone is non-performance, we have the ability to say, "Hey, you've had a couple projects go south on you. We're taking you out of
this pool category because of that." >> Thank you, >> Mr. Trezac. >> Yeah, Mr. [clears throat] President, it sounds like Mr. Sandy has had an awful lot of experience in the private engineering consulting services field. >> It really does. >> I appreciate that input
>> very much. >> Almost an expert. Um, I >> laugh because one of my old co-workers is sitting in the crowd over here. [laughter] >> I don't know if we're looking >> who sneered instantly. >> So, this it sounds like this is going to still go to Park Board Public Utilities.
It'll come back here for with it with a more detailed recommendation. I don't think we really need a motion. I think general consensus >> seems like we have some consensus up here. So, um, look forward to seeing this again in another month or so. Uh
first meeting in February. It'll come back. >> All right. Uh Chairman Ericson, >> end of report. Thanks. >> Thank you. All right. Moving on to number nine. This is unfinished business. First up, 9A is a call for applicants. >> Oh, we have the mayor.
>> I am just as passionate about these commissions as I am about franchise fees. Uh the following boards of commissions have positions. >> Well, passionate is it was a very specific word. Uh the f the following boards and commissions have positions
available on them. Charter commission, two terms expiring 2029, two terms expiring 2026. Economic de development authority, one term expiring 2028, one term expiring 2031. Library board, one term expiring 2027. Park board, one board expiring
2029. Public Utilities, one term expiring 2028, one term expiring 2030. and the transportation advisory committee. One term expiring 2026 and two terms expiring uh 2027. >> And as council president, I have one opening with one term for the airport
commission expiring 2028, one term open on the planning commission expiring 2028, and two open spots on the water tower committee. Next up, we have 9B. This is a call for a public [snorts] hearing in order for the orderly annexation along Riverside Drive. I
believe this is Mr. Cranic. Take it away. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so, city council directed staff to work with Croman County staff to draft an orderly annexation agreement for Riverside Drive. Uh the proposed agreement uh included in the packet has been reviewed by city uh and county staff as well as
the city and county attorneys. Uh the attached joint resolution needs both city and county approval in order to execute the proposed agreement. If executed, the pro proposed agreement does not immediately annex properties into the city of Brainard, but it does designate an annexation area, which is
an exhibit to the agreement. [snorts] Any property in the annexation area is then subject to the agreement. Uh, if approved, staff would bring a subsequent resolution in the next few months for city council to consider annexing properties that are adjacent to existing municipal utilities and properties that
are surrounded by the city of Brainard, which would be considered island properties in the agreement. Uh this would uh be a city resolution that would only need city council approval if the orderly annexation agreement is already in place. Uh Ashman Road would not be
immediately annexed into the city of Brainard and may take several years to initiate an annexation. Uh if annexation is initiated for Ashman Road, uh the city would be required to provide utilities to those properties within two years. So again, it may take several years, but designating Ashman Road in
the orderly annexation area does give the city the ability to begin planning for utilities. Also to note, we do have a shared maintenance agreement currently with uh the county for um Ashman Road, which pertains to light maintenance as well as plowing. A published notice uh
to designate an area is required. However, a public hearing is not required for an orderly annexation agreement. Uh staff does recommend that a public hearing should be conducted at the February 17th city council meeting along with consideration of the joint resolution. Just want to note staff mistakenly listed February 16th in the
agenda. U but it is President's Day. And with that I can answer any questions. Thank you Mr. Cranic. Does anybody have questions for Mr. Cranic? Look like we have any questions right now. I guess just if you could quickly
explain how this isn't forced annexation because that's illegal. If if I were on Riverside Drive, I'm not annexed into the city, but I'm considering it or say my septic is running its course and it's
time to either replace it or connect to the city. How does this agreement ultimately affect that person? So if this agreement is in place by the city and county, um staff would then have to bring a resolution to annex those properties. So we would recommend
essentially doing that annexation for properties that are adjacent to municipal utilities as well as those island properties to clean things up. What it doesn't do is force a connection. Um so that the connection um would only be subsequent if they fail to do their septic inspections or if their
septic is actually failing. So it if city council would approve a future resolution, properties would then be annexed as part of the agreement, but they could delay actually connecting to the utilities and until their septic fails. >> Okay. So this is essentially an agreement between the city and the
county that will go to a judge to make a final decision if we both agree on this. Is that is that the way this goes? >> So that's correct. If if both of would agree to it, a judge would um take a look at it. there are provisions in this agreement that um state that essentially the city and county is are good with the
map. So, it's a little bit limited on on what they can do with with that judgment. They're just making sure that that everything's in place for that agreement. Um and then the judge would then also review at a at a later date if city council approves a resolution to annex these properties, they would review that resolution, I believe um
hold their own hearing on that. Um making sure that that resolution meets all the requirements of their orderly annexation agreement. Okay. Thank you. Still no further questions, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, I just want clarification on this.
The county is on board with this. They're kind of leading the way on this. >> Um, county staff. Um, it hasn't been presented to the board yet. Um, but we have been working very closely with county staff. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Yeah, Mr. Chz.
>> Do you have any idea when it will be be presented to the county board? So, I have had conversations with Chris Pence over there. I believe it would probably be after the meeting um that we'd have here just to so they'd be able to hear potentially public comment as
well as the city's um I guess stance on the orderly annexation agreement. So, that was my understanding be at a a meeting probably just after the city's consideration. >> Thank you. >> All right. So staff is looking for a motion to call
for that public hearing at the second meeting in February. Would that be the 17th then? >> And that would be the 17th because Monday's President's Day. >> So I'll move Johnson. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson. Second by Chzach. Any discussion on the motion?
>> None. Let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. All right. Moving on. Number 10 is new business. Looks like we have none tonight. So, moving on to 11 is staff reports. Tony Gage, >> nothing. [snorts]
>> Jesse Dean, >> Chief Davis, >> nothing, sir. Thank you. >> Sean Strong, >> Chief Holmes, >> report. Thank you. >> Max Hannon, >> come on, Max. >> Johnny Helman, >> nothing to report. >> Okay. Mike Abgorst, >> nothing to report. Thank you. >> Man, we're going quick tonight. James,
>> thank you, Mr. President. I got a couple items. >> James, a [laughter] boy. And a boy. So, speaking of annexation, staff did want to make council aware that Chris Dunmier's annexation request was denied by a Minnesota judge due to the fact that he was adjacent to our municipal utilities. Uh staff had originally
contacted the municipal boundary line adjustment and indicated that Dunyer's property was connected to our utilities. Uh the office indicated that the proximity of municipal utilities has never been an issue in the past as long as the property um is that they are petitioning. So for instance, city of
Brainard, it's our own utilities there. Um the judge did have um a different interpretation of state statute and denied the petition. Uh so with that, uh staff is working uh with Oaklan Township as well as uh Mr. Dunmeer on an orderly
annexation agreement, which was the uh judge's recommendation to to proceed with the potential annexation. Uh, also Minnesota Central Dermatology has submitted their $10,000 escrow and application for public finance to purchase the industrial park properties at a dollar per acre. Um, they would wanted to note that they're very excited
for the potential project and the EDA will be reviewing the PDA at a upcoming meeting. That's everything. >> Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Attorney Langel, >> I just want to say since this is the last time I'll probably see Chris that it was a pleasure working with you all
these years. I really enjoyed that and I wish you the best in your retirement. Nothing further. >> Thank you, Mr. Langel. We're going to come back to you, Chris. [laughter] >> Paul Sandy, >> uh we do have a public utilities commission meeting coming up next week,
Tuesday. Some of the highlights from that agenda are we have um Bolton Mink working on a proposal for us for a new water treatment plant sighting and a location for a new uh well. Um, we do have uh some recommendations for
oversizing and extension of uh water main and sanitary sewer infrastructure for the Voyager Heights project that the commission will be reviewing. Um, we'll be reviewing the pool engineering services RFP with the commission. Um, as a part of our comprehensive policy
review, we do have two policies. Um, they're historical policies. are going through a few updates uh format um wise and a few updates um that we've been working through as staff and so the commission will continually be seeing some of our policies come before them
and get them into a standard format. Um, we have a couple of other things on the agenda and that includes um, given the success of our dam uh, tour video that's posted on BPU's website, we're starting to do the same things for our water
treatment plant and our wastewater treatment plant. And so we will be hopefully uh, the commission will be approving um, getting some video services to have our residents tour our water treatment facility much like we had full tours of the dam. um it had
over I think 24,000 views um for our dam video and so um it's a great way for the public to be able to enter those facilities and uh see how they get their water and how their waste water is treated. So um that'll be on the next commission agenda also, but there's a
multitude of other items and I would welcome the the city council to uh take a peek at the agenda and um ask any questions you have of staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Eric Sharpeter. >> Nothing to report.
>> All right, Mr. Broyals. >> Well, Joe cracked the ice, but I just wanted to say a couple couple comments. So, with with sadness and joy, um, I would like to recognize Chris Schubert for 37 years of service to the city of Brainard. I mean, that's remarkable. I did 20 years in the military. I thought
that was a long time, but I can't hold a candle to 37 years. So, I've been here for two years. Chris has been a blessing to me as all the directors have been and I just wish her, you know, sorrow because she's going to be gone, but joy because she's entering the next season of life. So, I just wish you all of
God's blessings and uh thank you for your service. And that's all I wanted to say. And the charter commission meeting tomorrow at 4:30. Excellent. Okay, now we can go back to Chris. Chris Schubert, your final meeting.
>> Nothing to report. Oh no. [laughter] >> And that's good from HR, though. >> The buildup of 37 years. >> Checked out. >> She cleared her desk before she left. It's good. It's good. >> All right, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. Uh, first of all, Chris, I
want to say thank you. We'll have more opportunity on Friday to to talk with you with our staff and whatnot, but just thanks uh more than anything. Uh, thank you for being the person that continually reminded me that I have to fill out my documents for health
insurance at some time within the the year. [laughter] So, I just want to say thank you to that for putting up with my nonsense on a regular basis. So, uh, secondly, uh, Eric, I know we keep asking you, but can I get an update on 805 Laurel Street?
>> Yes. So the developer is still entertaining the development. Uh they do not have the funding for that gap that they have needed to to find from the funding that
they did not get from housing. Uh no further developments as far as timelines have been discussed with me. I do try to touch base with them every month to every two months. uh they are still committed to having a development at that site. They
have invested a lot of money into that. Certainly, there's been some grant dollars that have been utilized there as well, but everything that they have continued to tell me is that they do see a development in the future. I just do not have a timeline. >> Okay. Can you clarify for me because
there was some some movement from is it the housing trust or with some dollars that were uh potentially reallocated or could you clarify that just so people are aware? >> Yeah, so the Crowing County HR who
oversees the Crowing County Housing Trust Fund did approve a loan for them back in 2025. Uh sorry 20 yep it was in 2025 since there has not been any movement in
there as far as a start date that uh H board did resend that loan approval and so that is no longer active. I did speak with the developer about that. They were aware of that. Uh they understood that because that start date has not come to
fruition yet that those funds would be rescended. they are still allowed to reapply for those funds or for any certain funding from the housing trust fund. It wasn't a denial due to the project. It was a denial or a recision
due to the timeline. >> Sure. >> If that makes sense. >> Okay. So, the reason why I ask you is because we I recently got tagged in a Facebook post by people. People out in the community are are interested to see what's going on. This is a project that has been
>> in the works for five years, I'd say, maybe more. I mean, it it feels like my entirety of of my uh time on the council. It's a it's a location that I think is vital to Brainard and its development is super important. And so, I at this point, I I just want to say to
the citizens of Brainard, I no longer support this project. Um I think this is a a key location in our city, and I'd like to see somebody else take a crack at it. It saddens me that that uh you know some dollars, grant dollars were used to remove a building. Hopefully
that creates a better situation in which we can get something built, but at this point I I just want to make it clear to the public that I no longer support this project. I'd like to see someone else take a crack at this and get something done. So, end of report. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the update. Uh Mr. Sharpier, moving on
to council member reports. Let's start with Mr. Chzar. >> Thank you, Mr. President. um like to thank Chief Davis for uh sending out some uh very uh professional um suggestions to a local um property
management and uh talking about trespassing controlled entries and stuff like that. It really helped a lot, I do believe. And uh Chris, thank you for all the patience you've had with me [laughter] and uh it was always fun fighting with you
>> and I do appreciate all the help you've given me. So, um I I'll and also the um meeting tomorrow with the charter commission and utility commission. I'll be going to that and next Tuesday for the utility commission. Um that that is
um um really starting to boom with everything going on. I think Mr. Sandy would agree and uh of course the other staff involved. So, I would like to say that be careful out there. There's a lot of ice on the streets. So, uh, be careful.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Let's go to Mr. Jagger. >> Oh, thank you very much. I wasn't expecting that. Uh, so real quick, [laughter] real quickly here, I will just, uh, give you the, uh, airport update. Um, as you see, Mr. Planer is not here and our new director is not here. Nothing is wrong. Everything is
okay. We just, uh, the last month, we had some obstacles. We had some, uh, airport commission members that had some concerns with the employment agreement with our new director. So, we kind of went back to the board, but everyone's happy. We've kind of gotten through those. And, uh, it's my belief that the airport commission will be adopting the
new employment agreement for our new director, Jennifer Roach, on Monday evening. Special meeting has been called so we can get her going. And, um, super anxious to get her in front of you all, introduce everybody and and get her acclimated to her new surroundings out there. And, as I'm sure you all remember and just mention again, our morning
flights are back. So, morning flights are coming back. Uh thanks to the hard work of all the people involved, this was no small task to get this done. But uh we are getting our early morning flights back at uh at our airport. I believe that begins March 8th. Don't quote me on that, but I believe it's March 8th. Um so uh that will lead me
into uh I'd like to thank Chris for her help uh with this new employee contract. So, um, probably maybe one of the last things you worked on here, but I won't be here on Friday, but I did just want to say thank you for everything that you've done in the in the one or 17 times that I was called into your office for conduct or whatever it may be. You
were always very kind and uh in and and very very easygoing and generous with uh with my behavior. So, I really appreciate that and I wish you the best. Absolutely 100%. So, that's all. >> Mr. President, may I ask Mr. Joerger a question about the airport? The flight? >> Sure. Sure. So, is that this is the larger plane
that seats uh what 80 90 pounds? >> This should be our 50. Don't quote me on that, but I believe that we're and we don't know that for 100% sure, but that'll either be our CRJ uh that'll be our 50 seater or 70 seater. >> Staying overnight in Brainard or is it flying in from outside? >> That should be staying overnight the night before and then leaving the
morning uh leaving early morning. So, we we anticipate that our early morning flight will be leaving between the 620 to 640 range, which should allow everybody to make their connections uh at MSP and then uh same uh late night returning flight. So, fantastic.
>> Back to our old original uh kind of our old original itinerary out there. >> Okay. All right. Let's go over to Mr. Bevans. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Schart, it's been a long time. I'm going to miss you.
Go have some fun. You can still [snorts] come to these things. You know, [laughter] Thursday, two days from now, 8 to 9 at the center is the Briner North Side Neighborhood Association meeting. It does include donuts.
Tomorrow night, Wednesday night, 4:30 right here is the Charter Commission meeting. And then at 5:30 tomorrow night, it's the library board meeting. So, lots of excitement and robust conversation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Beans. Chairman Ericton.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, also tomorrow night, planning commission meeting uh 6 pm here and then the following evening, Thursday, region 5 development commission. Chris, congratulations and thank you very much for all the assistance and help uh you provided me over the years. Thank you
very much. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson, Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Chris, there's two words I wrote down. They've already been used multiple times, but I want to thank you for all your kindness and especially the patience you've had with me for the last 12 years. And I really
thank you for your professionalism and dedicating so much so many years of your life to helping this city. And I and I really appreciate it. And I wish you well in retirement. And I hope you have a lot of fun with your grandkids and your cows. Get to work on the farm now.
[laughter] >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. >> I want to reiterate that. I know Chris, I think I've been around here for 5 years. I can't imagine what 37 years feels like, but you made a huge impact in this city. So, thank you for all that work that you've done. Thank you for
keeping us all in line, making sure, just like the mayor said, we have our paperwork in on time or way too way too late. >> But you you told me the other day you're going to be working on a ranch from now on. So, I mean, maybe not quite as fun
as being in here, but hopefully you're wearing a cowboy hat, cowboy boots, maybe a long duster. >> What's it like to work here longer than some of these guys have been alive? >> Not quite. >> Well, almost. >> Not quite. We're close, though.
>> But thank you for everything, Chris. I think we should uh probably adjourn to your retirement gathering Friday just in case we have four councilmen there. So looking for that motion to adjurnn to >> so move Johnson on Friday at one correct
motion by Johnson second by Bevans. All those in favor say it's here. >> Council chambers. >> All those in favor say I. I. Again same sign. We arejourned.