Council Chambers. Tony, please call the role. >> Chazak >> here. >> Johnson >> here. >> Stunn. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Ericson, >> here. >> Bevans here. >> OD >> here. >> Bedau >> here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Next up, we have approval of the agenda. I think we have some requests for change. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to request 9B,
that's the charter amendment, be moved up as soon as you see fit. >> Okay, Mr. >> We'll move that after consent. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Chzach, >> we move up the uh I believe it's item eight of the Southwest Brainard storm sewer study to the first item and just move everything down after that
>> under safety and public works. >> Works. Correct. >> Okay. And then >> and I do should I just approve the con or ask for the consent change right now? >> You could. >> Okay. I want to just pull the uh April 14th I believe minutes is all and just have a quick uh update on those.
>> Pulling 5B from consent. We'll have that right after consent right before 9B. You >> Mr. Chair move to approve the agenda with the two correct with the two changes. Second. >> Second. >> Motion by Bevans, a second by Chzac.
>> Yeah. >> Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. >> We have an agenda. Next. >> Chair. Move to adopt the consent calendar removing the one requested item.
>> Second. Okay. Motion by Bevans, second by Stunic. I'll just read the the note because I know Johnson likes me to read the note. Notice to 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. Any discussion >> Tony >> Chzac? >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Stun. >> Yes. >> Jagger. >> Yep. >> Erikson. >> Yes.
>> Beans. >> Yes. >> OD. >> Yes. Next up we'll move to 5B. This is the minutes from last meeting I believe. Mr. Chzach, >> there's a special meeting of April 14th and the minutes it notes the regular meeting of the city council. So that should be amended or changed. And then
there's also an item regarding where the Mr. Norwood made a motion. It says the mission. Okay. The original motion was to amend the item in the charter
that the discussion took place where we were going to remove those items. That's what Mr. Johnson and Mr. OD referenced and then actually it was a motion to uh uh just amend those. What happened was there was a a motion and a second and
then that got changed to to just amend and it got changed to amend and recommend. So, there was two things that happened there and it only identifies the one as all-encompassing. So, it should show two. Is that understood? >> I think so. Tony, do you get that?
>> No. No, I don't think so. >> So, here here's what the minutes say right now. >> Moved and seconded by charter commission members Norwood and Lambert. Duly carried to to recommended to recommend
the draft of this to the city council with the following amendments to and then it goes on. Uh that was not the original motion. The original motion was to just amend the charter changes and the questions were asked are you
going to then recommend to the city council and that's when they amended their motion to include recommend to the city council. Original motion was just to amend, not to recommend. And this shows it was both. Does that make sense? >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr.
and I'd move that um those be approved as I identified. >> Second. Motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Next up, we're going to
move into unfinished business number 9B. This is the final reading of ordinance 1601, the charter amendment uh public utilities. And I believe this is uh Nick Broyals. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. President. At the 14th
April joint special meeting, we were just referring to that, the charter commission recommended chapter 5 language changes to the city council. City council then directed staff to draft an ordinance and set a public hearing for today for May. The ordinance includes language which changes as recommended by the charter commission.
So recommended actions for the council is to number one conduct a public hearing, number two motion to conduct a final reading of ordinance 16001 and dispense with the actual reading. Number three motion to adopt the ordinance and four motion to adopt resolution providing for the summary publication of ordinance 16001.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Broyals. So first thing, do we do do we have any questions from council? Start off. Mr. Jezach, >> I just want to make sure that if this gets approved that the language in this charter clearly indicates that on street
projects we have a statute that has to be followed when it comes to this body make setting the assessments and I believe that's correct is it staff? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. and and then will that process take place as it currently does if this
charter changes made? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, that's all I have, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Any more discussion or questions from councel? If not, then we will move into the public hearing. So, it is 7:36. I will
open the public hearing. If you're here to speak on this, if you want to approach the council, please do so now. If you're online, press star three. That'll raise your hand. >> Yep. Yeah. Come on up to the microphone, sir. >> Just name and address first, please. >> Yes, sir.
>> Daniel Ree, I am the exclusive representative of Local 49 and address of St. Cloud, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> So, I appreciate your guys' time. Um, thank you very much. Uh, so as the exclusive representative for, uh, two of the collective bargaining units, um,
we're here to basically get clarification. Um we have sought out a couple times to try to get communication regarding what type of organizational chart or restructure reorganizing and basically how this impacts uh any of the labor union departments utilities uh
streets and sewer um and basically what is the city's uh goal and basically the purpose of this. Um we had asked back in February 9th for any type of uh changes in information and communication. Uh at that point we were told that there was
basically no no discussion to be had that it was fluid. Uh we feel like it's reached a point right now where we would like to be able to try to gain some type of insight. Again um expressing the main concern over what are the impacts to the departments and basically what this
actually is. Um so if you guys could elaborate on that that would be wonderful to be able to just gain some type of insight as to what's happening here. and then like I said where this uh goes uh moving forward between the departments. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yeah, this isn't technically usually a a question and answer session. Did you did you reach out to any of our staff in the last week or two weeks since this came through? >> Is it? Yeah. Okay. Uh in the last week, no. uh when we scheduled the meeting in
February 9th with the city administrator, we had asked at that point and we had requested some of the same similar questions and that when there are developments, we had asked to be able to be communicated with and we haven't been able to gain any type of information and so then with obviously
the movement with the city now, it's why we're here than tonight. So we have requested uh a couple months in advance but not in the last week or two. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. As far as I can tell you, and if you want to chip in, Nick, or anybody else up here wants to,
this is strictly structural changes. Um, moving and and shifting basically management positions and department head positions as well as moving water completely under um the public utilities commission. So as far
as unions go, I don't think any changes will any of these changes should affect any positions and union positions. Am I correct on that? >> And Joe, jump in if you if you have anything to add to this, Joe. But again, the impetus for this was to essentially
it started with combining the sanitary. Uh the organization chart was published at the it was approved at the last city council meeting on April for on April 14th. Um but I think President OD summed it up properly. We wanted to combine all the underground infrastructure under one director. Um we'll have to work through
we know that this is the first step of many to work through some of the other issues that will that will follow this and we'll be working closely with the unions and uh our and working through the collective bargaining agreements. We're entering negotiations this summer. So we'll be working closely with the unions to try to work out any wrinkles
that this uh that this may bring about. >> Yeah. Come on back up. Thank you for the extra additional information. Uh when you when was relating to sanitary so you were first said that this was not going to be you know overlapping any of the unions but
then when you had brought up the sanitary into wastewater. So sanitary is covered underneath streets and sewer which is a local 49 union separate from the water wastewater which is a IBW union. So, if you're combining a job
classification, which is covered underneath of a unit determination and recognition clause of one union, you're now saying that you're taking the one position from one union into another one or are you not doing that? Cuz then you
also brought up negotiations. So, does that mean that you're trying to do that during negotiations or are those completely two separate entities? Again clarification because when you had said that it kind of contradicted because you got one sanitary through a different
department different union to the water wastewater which is a different department different union. So I appreciate the communication and the clarification to make sure that we're understanding that as both departments. Thank you. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Mr. Chz,
>> I believe at our April 14th meeting, the question was asked of our HR coordinator, Britney. Um, if there are any changes with union employees, everything has to be negotiated. I do believe that's what was said and that that's what I was resting on
because at that point what we did, there weren't any changes regarding union employees and none that I have been aware of. So, >> okay. I wanted to say >> Johnson.
>> Yeah. And I would just add I was the one who asked that question at the meeting that we're we haven't or the council is unaware hasn't identified any changes that are going to take place in our union structures. I I recognize the 49ers
concerns that they are the wastewater collection workers, but now the public utility commission will be making decisions on the on the replacement and timelines of that. And I understand that can be confusion, but we we know that if we are trying to make any changes with
personnel or organizational structure or or unions at all, we have to negotiate that. And we're not trying to ramrod or force anything without going to the negotiating table with any bargaining unit that's being affected. We're just not at that point right now and it hasn't been identified as anything
necessary at this time. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. There's anybody else that wants to approach council at this time, please do so now. And again, if you're online, press star three.
ask one more time if there's anybody that wants to come up please do so. Now >> I would just like to add one thing is that we would like to be able to if at any point uh we would like to be able to maintain that working relationship with city council and the department heads
that if you guys want to be able to have any of those types of discussions or if you have questions obviously you don't know what you don't know you don't know what we don't know but if there is a point where you would like those communications both IBW and mobile
49 both readily available to be able to sit down and actually we would prefer in the near future to be able to sit down possibly even before negotiations to be able to better understand everything. It's clear obviously that's why we're here is because there are changes. There
are growing concerns and obviously we don't know what we don't know and at that point we would like to be able to have a professional sit down with everybody to be able to go over those impactful statements the efficiencies and basically what your guys' end goals
and deadlines are. So then that way when we get to that next step of implementing any type of matters, we basically have that knowledge and that education beforehand and I think that that would be uh efficient on both the city and on
>> that's more than fair. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any more anybody else that wants to come up and address the council? Doesn't look like we have anybody else. So I will close the public hearing. It
is 7:44. Next up we are looking for a motion to conduct the final reading of ordinance 16001. Dispense with the actual reading. >> So move. >> Motion by Bevans, second by Stunic. Any discussion?
This is just a note that the motion to dispense with the actual reading must be unanimous. Uh Tony, do we need to call a role on this? Okay, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Next, we're looking for a motion to
adopt ordinance 16001. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Bevans. Second by Chzach. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none. Tony, >> please call the role. >> Chzach, >> yes. >> Johnson, yes. >> Stun, yes. >> Jagger, yes. >> Erikson, yes.
>> Beans, yes. >> OD, >> yes. That ordinance carries. Next, we're just looking for a motion to adop adopt the resolution providing for the summary publication of ordinance 16001. >> So move Beaven. >> Second
>> by Bevans, second by Chzach. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Mr. President, >> that's a resolution. I almost made it through this one. >> Chzac, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> yes. >> Stun, yes. >> Jagger,
>> yes. Erikson, >> yes. >> Evans, >> yes. >> OD, >> yes. That resolution carries. All right, we're going to backtrack in this agenda and let's go back to where we're supposed to be.
And this is number six. This is public forum. So, this is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the council. Time limits may be imposed. It is 7:46 and I will now open the public forum.
So, if you'd like to address the council on anything not on the agenda, please come forward and do so. Now, if you're online, press star three. That'll raise your hand. Ask one more time. If you'd like to address the council on anything not on
the agenda, please do so now. We will close the public forum at 7:46. We do not have any presentations tonight. Next up, we have number eight. This is council committee reports, personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. We have three
items on our agenda tonight. The first is a request from the Friends of the Brainer Public Library to use the annex space. And the motion out of committee was to direct staff to
put together the numbers. >> Yeah. Put together an agreement. >> Put together an agreement and focus on the numbers of what it would cost the city if that space were being used for storage and book drop off. And I so move. >> Second. Motion by Johnson. Second by
Bevans. More discussion. Mr. Johnson. So, this isn't approving an agreement or they're not moving in tomorrow, but it's it's the next step. What would an agreement look like? What kind of changes with a little bit of use in that building would there be on utilities, garbage, anything like that?
Any costs that would go on the taxpayers that we might want to put into an agreement that the friends offset or that we go into with eyes wide open knowing that we're taxing the citizens and giving that away for free. But, we'll just they'll come back with an agreement and the numbers for us.
Thank you. More discussion on it. >> So, Mr. Mr. Chzac, >> so you're just looking at like utility costs and that type of electric heat, all that. >> Electric heat, cooling, garbage would be the main utilities. >> Okay. >> But yeah, but any costs that staff can
come up or think of. I mean, there's going to be unforeseen things all the time. But >> Jagger. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps Gabe. Uh, and would this be are we thinking monthtomonth type situation? So, if uh somebody does come along that uh wants to wants to get in there other
than these guys, do we have the ability? We have exit strategy, I guess, is what I'm asking about. >> That's a good question. We didn't get into that detail. I would I would prefer to go monthtomonth. The the space isn't uh perfect for them to do their book sales. So, they're still looking for
their book sale to be in a different space. Okay. >> And they don't have that. So, maybe when they find a sales space, that's also going to be their storage. We don't know what the future holds. I imagine it would be a short-term month-to-month type agreement. >> Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Joerger. Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is an MOA with the IBEW Public Utility Union setting wages for the water wastewater operator. And the
motion is to approve the attached MOA with IBW local number 31 Brainer Public Utilities Union setting the 2026 wages for the water wastewater position. Further to authorize staff to begin the hiring process for water wastewater operation position and ISO movement
motion by Johnson, second by Stunic. Chairman Johnson. >> So this is why I thought the union was here. This this is what we start we acted on a while ago to merge the water and wastewater positions together and we've got that done. And here's the we have the job description. Let's go out
and post for for hiring now. >> Okay. Any more discussion? Jaggger, >> just real quick question. It was it's this is this was uh this position was supposed to be in our 2026 budget. Do we know when that went retroactive? Was it assumed that it went in a certain month
or >> I don't know if we It would be in the BPU budget. Be a Jeff question. >> That's all. >> Paul, no. >> Yeah, it was planned for the full year. So, >> okay. That was my question as a >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. >> Perfect. Thank you.
>> More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Again, same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you. Our third item is a leave of absence. And the motion is to approve a personal leave of absence as requested
for meter tech locator David Nelson that will begin on June 8th, 2026 and end on August 28th, 2026. And I will move. >> Second. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Johnson. >> So, he uh David is currently a metertech locator. He's a longtime employee, meaning he has worked here longer than
Britney, >> but he he's trying to just expand his his knowledge and and career path and career opportunities, go down to alignment school for a few months, and then come back up. And we think it's a good thing for him, and it could potentially work out being a good thing for the city in the future.
>> Very good. More discussion, Chzac? >> Uh yeah. Now, do we contribute anything to this education? >> We do not. It's an unpaid leave of absence and all the schooling and everything is paid for by the employee. >> Okay. I mean, there So, we don't offer
an incentive for somebody then to come back to us and say, "I'm looking for a job and is there an opening that we could fill it that way?" It's not part of the process here or anything. >> I think it's just granting him the leave of absence. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> More discussion.
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Chairman Johnson. >> End of report. >> Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Next up, we have 8B. This is SAFET safety and public works committee chairman Tad Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. We
have eight items on our agenda. Uh given the amendment to the agenda, our eighth item has become our first. So, this is going to be Southwest Brainer storm water study. The motion coming out of committee is to deny options 1 A, 1B, and option two and take no action and I
so move. >> Second. Motion by Erikson, second by Chzach. Ericson. >> Yeah. add a little bit more. And then um so per the action at the February 2nd council meeting uh staff awarded a proposal to HR Green to prepare a storm
water study in the southwest Brainard area specifically in relation to the drainage easement that's adjacent to Anbec Street and Highland Highland Scenic Avenue. Uh so attached is a report and then Mr. president. Also, Connor from HR Green uh was present at
our committee and gave a presentation and I would ask uh the opportunity to have him uh um share that as well with the council. Um and of course if there's any questions for staff. >> Okay. Is this a roughly 10 10 minute 15 minutes? Not
even. >> Yeah. What do you think you can It was a >> Okay. Yeah. Give us the high points, Connor. >> Yeah. Come on up if you want to. >> Yeah. You guys had to meet at six o'clock tonight. I know it's taking a while. >> Don't remind us, G. >> Not yet.
>> All right. Thanks everybody. Um, I'll try and keep this a little bit quicker than the last round. Um, my name is Connor Dunman. I'm a water resources engineer with HR Green, uh, from St. Paul. Um, here to talk about a study we did on the very western side of your
city, uh, next to Cass 48 and Anbec. Um, there we go. Quick agenda. Well, I'll rush through this. Um, just an overview of a background for everybody. Uh, and I want to acknowledge that I am not an expert on this. Uh, and people in this
room are are more aware of of some of this stuff. So, give me some some grace with this here. Uh approximately in 1991, the county, Crowing County, uh assigned this discharge point, this low point in uh boxed in this blue here in this backyard. Um
assign an easement for it uh for storm water runoff from Cass 48. Um and in 2001, additional street runoff was directed to this low point uh from Kora. Um, the original intention was for this
low point and this easement, sorry, to be uh to be temporary uh with the the rights reverting back to the owners once a more permanent solution to the runoff uh was identified. Um and that leads to recent times. Um
staff uh city staff and county staff discussed uh this easement and the county essentially indicates no desire to revert this easement back to the property owners. Uh they don't want to really participate financially in any modifications to the existing drainage
patterns. Um, so that led to the city wanting to maybe understand more exactly what's going on there with the ponding. Uh, that's when HR Green got involved. Um, we gained a better understanding of what
goes on today and then, uh, two possibilities for reducing flood risk on adjacent structures. Uh, today's existing conditions. Uh this blue shape here represents the drainage area. It's about 65 acres, mostly
residential, a little bit of undeveloped land that drains to this low point. Uh discharging through a 36-in pipe uh off of Cassad 48. Uh this this figure kind of gives you a lay of the land. Uh green is low, red is
high. Um, you can see that one garage structure is located inside of the existing easement. Um, and then there's a few houses kind of bordering the green, yellow, orange areas that are also maybe susceptible to to flood
impacts. Um, these call outs here for each of these four structures are the lowest adjacent grade. I'll give you a little bit of a definition for that in a second. Um these are unofficial uh elevations at which if water were to
rise up to this level, you would probably consider these structures impacted by flooding. Okay. Uh this figure you're looking at here um represents kind of our understanding of the 100-year storm event if it were to occur uh today. Um
you can see there's three structures impacted uh two homes and and the garage inside of the easement. Um some some interesting thoughts uh summary would be uh we expect the garage to be impacted first and hardest by about a foot during
the 100red-year storm. Um and in fact it's probably impacted more frequently. Maybe every once every 20 years is probably a good estimate for how frequently it might be impacted. Um another thing to note is we expect the extents of ponding to exceed the limits
of that drainage easement. Uh so it that's kind of how I understand it today. If we were going to be intentionally improving this low point with a with a a real life managed storm water basin um we have to follow like
design criteria from the city and from the state. Um, the highlights are city regulations require 3 ft of freeboard, 3 ft of vertical separation between the 100red-year storm event and the lowest adjacent grade, which would be that
garage. Um, and then it also restricts side slopes of the basin to be a three horizontal to one vertical uh side slope. Um, and then on top of that, the state of Minnesota has their own requirements for infiltration basins,
uh, aka basins that don't discharge out, just sink into the water just sinks into the ground. Um, you can only pond up to 6 and 1/2 ft deep maximum. Um, and they have rules about how fast you
can how fast the water is allowed to sink into the ground and other minor things that maybe don't matter. uh just cover that. All right. Uh here's uh first option that we looked at was what can we do inside this drainage easement uh to maximize the storage
volume available to us for rain uh for runoff to discharge there. Uh we graded a basin at 3:1 side slopes. Uh we dug it down a couple feet. Uh and the previous figure there were three
structures that were highlighted in red shown they were impacted. Now we see no structures are impacted by the 100red-year storm event. So that's a success. Um unfortunately restricting the grading to the drainage easement itself breaks some city and state rules about
infiltration basins. The water ponds too deep like 9 ft deep I think. And then um we do not meet the freeboard requirements. And so I took it upon myself to say, boy, we're we're actually kind of close here. And oh, sorry. And one one other
thing I want to mention, we're also still even if we were just to grade inside of this uh drain ement, we're still the ponding is still exceeding the boundaries of that drainage easement under option 1A. Um what can we do about it? What's what's Oh, I just I just wanted just a little bit more. Um,
option 1B. What if we expanded our grading area into that parcel directly to the south? Um, dug it down. This one is a little bit more room to work with here. A little bit more room for the water to spread out. And we meet all the
design requirements. We do not exceed 6 and 1/2 ft of depth. And we meet our freeboard requirement. Okay. Second option that we looked into um
what happens if we redirect this runoff rather than east into the strange easement. What if we go west um into Baxter? Um skipping ahead here, you can see on
this figure the the pond is massive. There's going to be a lot of impacts, but we can do it. It's it's feasible. It's constructable. um it doesn't impact any structures. Unfortunately, the pond has to be so large because the topography in that
location is such that the combination of the topography and then that structure that you can see with the big driveway uh just in the corner sort of is uh is very low set into the into the existing topography. So, we had to dig real deep.
Um, moving on quickly. Here's a summary table um that kind of summarizes everything in in one handy dandy table hopefully. Um, part of my job I was hoping would be to
supply you guys with the information and not necessarily make a recommendation because I don't think that there's a clear answer. Uh, except I would probably not recommend option two. The cost is exorbitant. the impacts to the environment are high. You're going to have to deal with a lot of paperwork
when you discharge your water into Baxter. I think there's going to be a lot of regulations to follow. Um water >> that's a that's the quick version. >> Thank you. >> So I got
>> I could just I wanted to add can you go right back to that table for just a moment? Um so as the motion suggested um you know option one uh does not meet the design criteria. Option two wasn't fully mentioned here but the um we don't know
we you know property acquisition for that that parcel is a huge unknown. Um although prop 1B does meet the design criteria and then option two as was stated is um has its own issues with with cost of course but um so given that
um was kind of what the committee discussed was about taking no action. My comments were that we could take any one of these or more opt um actions in the future. Um but since none of these were um I guess suitable according to the committee we wanted to make uh take no
action. So uh but yeah 1B again meets the design criteria but huge questions about property acquisition. Um and then additionally we did have Mr. Bolague was present and spoke um and he he had shared that you know um from his perspective kind of reiterate some of
the things points that he had made previously. >> Okay. Thank you. Chairman Ericson. >> Mr. Beaven. >> May I ask a question of Connor? >> Absolutely. Connor, can you go back one more to the picture of the topography? Uh there >> this
>> did uh you see where that it says Highland Scenic? >> Yes. >> It appears standing on that corner that there's a huge depression just to the west in Baxter from where it says Highland Scenic.
that would you would lose 100 feet of pipe, but I don't see an option that goes into that already existing drainage pond. How come? That seems to be the obvious choice.
>> Um, we we did talk about this uh me and Paul and Jesse. Um, the you still have to do something with the water to the south. You can't just kind of leave it alone. Um but but you're right, we we considered that um the way
the topography worked, the way the grading worked uh wasn't wasn't really appealing to us when we started digging into the numbers. Also, the property owner was reached out to and presented significant uh push back. So we kind of
shied away from it. >> I can add some more to that, Mr. Beavenons. So the depth of the storm sewer pipe in Cass 48, you have to consider how deep that pipe is. We looked at the asbuilt plans of the storm sewer in Casaw 48. To intercept that
storm sewer, you're basically at the grade of that low point on the Riker property. So you would have to excavate a significant amount of material to get below that pipe to have the storage volume um needed. So I mean the impacts
we think would be very similar to what you see in option two just moved to the Riker parcel because you need to excavate at at a minimum probably six to six and 1/2 ft and get the required detention volume and infiltration area
to support that 100red-year event. We didn't look at the lowest adjacent grade of their building on their parcel, but we have a sneaking suspicion it'll be relatively the same as what you see in option two because of the depth of that existing storm sewer and having to
intercept it in County Road 48. >> And there's a mistake on this slide. I apologize. This is not the Riker parcel that I put the pond on. That that first bullet is a mistake that the Riker is on the north side. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
Evans, does that answer your question? >> Yeah, I mean it does. It doesn't look that way, but I understand the storm is >> it's that deep. It's >> hard to It's hard to visualize depth. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to see what's underground, >> right? And you can't see the Riker
building from there. And if that's already below, grade, but it's already an existing >> retention pond. I might disagree with Connor. I don't think there's any catch basins south of that point. So I don't
know that you're actually getting any water from south that point anyway. So but if you if it's the same cost or a similar cost that it's six one half
dozen of the other >> president >> Mr. Erikson. >> Uh to that point too, another question for Connor. You had mentioned in committee that by crossing over then we're also subject to Baxter's um design criteria. Can you just touch on that really briefly? And that might be
germanine to Mr. Beavenon's question as well. >> So I don't I wouldn't say that the Baxter design criteria necessarily is too big of a hurdle. It's pretty similar to Brainard's. Um, I think that the the the paperwork hurdles required to just
intentionally cross the boundaries um pose its own issues. I know that an initial uh a reach out to Trevor at Baxter. Um, he brought up a a laundry list of items that we would have to go through, including like contaminated
soils testing and and some other things that maybe kind of shied us away in general from wanting to deal with crossing the boundary. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson Johnson. >> I have a qu I don't know who can answer it, but don't we share an employee with
Baxter for storm water? Yes, we do. 50/50 roughly and we have two different sets of standards in Brainer back. Are we working towards making his job his or her job easier and having similar standards in each town?
>> Mr. Sandy, >> I would say they have different standards because they have a lot different development type in Baxter. They their retention basins a lot of them are sized to 100year storm water events and they they deal a lot with more with higher groundwater and freeze up conditions. They've ran into some
problems with um having ponds frozen over during the winter months and then getting a large rain event and flooding out a lot of their frontage roads which has caused them to change their storm water standards to be more stringent. And um we certainly haven't seen that problem over here. Our development is a
lot different than Baxters. We're a lot more confined. Um we have a lot more of infill development rather than brand new commercial development happening. And so I think it's behooves us to keep our storm water standards not to the same level as Baxter in a lot of ways because
number one our development types are so different. Two is you know we're we're all mostly focusing on infill right now. There's not a lot happening that's expansive in nature. >> Okay. So the differences make sense at least you're telling me? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you >> Mr. Johnson.
Any more discussion or questions for Connor at this point? Thank you Connor. So, did you already put the motion out? >> Yeah, the motion. You want me to restate it? >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Motion that was made out of committee was to deny options 1 A, 1 B, and option
two, and to take no action. >> Okay, there was a motion by Ericson, second by Chzac. >> Yes, sir. >> So, any discussion on that specific motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign.
>> I. That motion carries 61. >> All right, Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Our next item is to solicit proposals 2026 large patching project. Motion coming out of committee is to authorize staff to solicit proposals for the large
patching project as presented. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Mr. Ericen. >> Yeah. As you can see on the screen, staff prepared a list uh of areas to address with this year's large patching projects. Um South 8th, Andrew Street,
Norwood, Bluff, and Grove. And uh just wanted to mention one thing for Andrew Street there. Um, you know, the this is just patching obviously surface, but with this um and maybe staff can expand if there's questions, but there's some uh built into this proposal is some
additional gravel of some of the the base layer for Andrew Street for a short segment. Um, and that uh coming in the dollar amount is 55,525. That is ever so slightly over what we'd identified in the capital plan.
>> And that does include the gravel infill. >> Correct. Okay. Y >> thank you chairman. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chair Mikson.
>> All right. Thank you. Our next item uh final pay request for improvement 2407 the low safe routes to school um project. And uh motion coming out of committee is to approve the final pay estimate for the lu safe road to school project in the amount of 51,427.38.
And I so move >> second. >> Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> Yes, we've we've talked about this project uh at length. Obviously, it's just the final payer pay amount. Um this was a a safe routes to school grant funded project. Um there was a few
change orders within this project. one of which was covered by WSB. Um but again the final amount here 51,42738 >> and this puts us over the original budget by say on here
>> 17,593. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. We have a motion. Any discussion to that motion? Uh yeah, I would just add to and um again this was a safe routes to school grant funded and then typically
there's a local match with that and my understanding is our uh state aid funds can would can be used for covering that. So it's essentially how this project could I could I get some clarification on staff on that s >> there's no match on this but we are capped on the amount in included in the
safe routes agreement. So, >> so we were given a grant and then the >> the remaining funds above and beyond what was in that agreement would be paid through like your stated eligible funding. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a
vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our next item, change order number four. This is for improvement 1712. The motion coming out of committee is to approve the change order number four as presented uh for right street
10th reconstruction project and I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson second by Chzach chairman Ericson. So, you'll recall that um last year when with we were working on this project and carried over into this year, the soils on uh in this part
of town are very clay and uh so we had our own material that we had um made available to the contractor to bring in to replace some of those clay soils. As you can see the breakdown there, we would be bringing in 5,000 uh of our
own. Um, and then uh they would be bringing in 2,000 of theirs. And you can see the the essentially the assumed savings is that we're using our own materials at a lower rate than what they would be bringing them in. So essentially the alternative if if we
don't go this route would be to have all 7,000 brought in at that 32 uh unit price of $32.27. So cost savings is by using our own material save on some of the transportation costs. So, we're being
sold our own dirt. That's what it looks like. >> Again, the >> But it's more the It's more the transportation of our own dirt is what we're paying for. Okay. >> Yeah. >> We're buying our own dirt. >> We're buying the gas to move our own dirt. >> Yeah. Okay. Any more discussion, Mr.
Johnson? >> Uh, this is $210,667 for some dirt. >> For lots of dirt. >> All right. That's I think that's too expensive for dirt. >> Mr. Beavens,
>> I I did the contractor not know there was >> I I did have a conversation. >> I know there's clay down there and I haven't dug in it. >> Yep. I know there's local contractors that bid on this knowing what the types of soil are in that area. And this
contractor took a risk >> and bid in an area that they're not used to working in. That was my initial thought. I did have a conversation with Mr. Sandy. it. Sandy, if you want to go ahead and explain what you explained to me, feel free to. >> Yeah. So, um, before, you know, a lot of
times on projects like this where we know the soils are bad, we would authorize a geotechnical investigation to look into the soils and provide recommendations for um, how we improve the pavement section with either subcutting, fabric, clean sand, that kind of thing. Um, we did not do a
geotechnical report for this project. My gut intuition is if if geotechnical work would have gotten done for this, we would have been paying for a subcut probably on this entire roadway to begin with. Um it's just coming a little later in the uh project here that uh these
soils are in unsuitable enough to where they warrant removal and replacement with good soil just to give us a better final product at the end of the day. They could spend all summer trying to dry this material and put it back in the trench. I don't think that benefits anyone, the
residents that live there. The final product is going to be inferior. Um, if we I feel if we don't move forward with the replacement of those materials, this project could has a potential to drag on for a very long time trying to get that to stabilize. >> Sorry, I have one more question. I see
it getting other people's dirt. It cost $327 a cubic yard. Do we know how much it would have cost if we would have bought the dirt the year the project was supposed to be done? >> Mr. Dean, >> I don't know if I could speculate on
what a bid price would have been. I know that when they proposed this dollar amount, uh staff reviewed this and felt that it was fair and equitable to the city and that's why our recommendation is to the council that uh to approve it as as shown. Do >> do we know what we paid for dirt last
year on the projects? We >> I think I think we settled on Beach Street with the same type of issue. Correct. >> Correct. It's a little bit different because even the unit um the unit price is a little bit different. So in here they proposed a dollar per ton um because that's essentially what they
track with those tickets uh on the loader scale. Uh what was included in the bid was a dollar per cubic yard. So I mean there's conversions there, but I' I'd have to pull it up to figure it out. But these numbers here are very close to uh what the dollar per cubic yard was in
last year's pro or last year's work. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> Mr. Chz, >> when you say 5,000 and 2,000, is that square or cubic yards? Then >> cubic yards. >> That's an estimate on the cubic yards. >> Yards. Okay, that's Thank you. I just
wanted to make sure I understood that. That's all I got. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. >> Anybody else? Just a comment, Mr. Chair. I I I'm going to vote in favor of it reluctantly because I think we kind of have to. I
think this this whole right project sucks and the fact that it's a year behind the fact that we've gone over on the water piping, we've gone over on the project, we've gone now we're going nearly a
quarter million dollars on the dirt. it uh this thing has been an exercise in how not to how not to be efficient. So hopefully we can we can improve >> and I got to believe we can improve. >> And not only that, but it also
makes the the local contractors who knew what the soil was going to be like and added that into their bid. It kind of screwed them. So, I hope we can do our our homework before we put these bids out going forward and just learn from
this. But I agree. I I don't want to vote yes on this change order, but I think we have to. It has to be paid. >> More discussion. >> Yeah. One other comment or question really for staff. I know it came up in committee. The We're bringing on our own
dirt for this. Obviously, we understand that. what's going to happen to the the the unsuitable soils and is there some potential to kind of >> you know utilize that >> sell it to Baxter. >> Yeah, >> that is something that we've been
exploring is if we were to potentially rent a crusher, get some other material. We could uh turn it into like a a dirty class 5 that could be used in like alleyways and stuff like that. So, it's the potential to reuse that material as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any more
discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. This next item, uh, fiscal year 2027 2029 professional engineering
and architecture services pool. This is the on call roster. The motion coming out of committee is to um approve uh direct staff to approve the fiscal year 2027 2029 professional engineering architecture services pool and authorize staff to
enter into a master services agreement with the consultant uh within the approved pool upon preparation and final review of the master service contract by the city attorney and I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson second by Chzach chairman Ericen. >> Yeah. So the proposals um it came in I
think there was over 33 or there was 33 proposals were submitted. Um we had uh we had seen this previously there was 15 service categories that were identified. Staff went through our very robust uh scoring process. You can see if you scroll down just a little bit there there's the categories. Uh the scoring
areas they had the relevant experience team members reference references approach to quality assurance um and quality control and then unique qualifications. they had different waitings ascribed to those areas. Um so you can see from these categories um
these are the all the all of the consultants that qualified or were scored in each of those categories. Um I think what is it three in each some of them have four and I think one has five. That category 12 if you scroll down has more. Um
and again the motion coming out of committee is to approve staff to move forward with this pool of consultants. Okay, >> Chairman Ericson. >> Yep. I'm sorry. Thanks for the note here. This had come up previously when this came up. Um, this is two years. Um,
so I I asked the question, does this preclude other potential contractors from being involved with city work? This is for two years and then after those two years, we'd revisit this, do another solicitation process. And the dollar amount is capped at 500,000. So if
there's projects over 500,000, it would be a a solicitation as we do. >> Thank you, Johnson. >> Yeah. So Tad kind of just answered my question there, but it looks like it's three years, 27 through 29. >> Yeah, that might have been a mistake. It
it references two years in the RFP. Um, so I think we meant 27 to 28. So year 27 and year 28. >> Okay. Let's say I don't run for reelection and start my own uh like traffic study business and I want to get
in on your roster next February. >> You would be solicit you could go after the roster in when the roster expires. >> So it's locked in it's locked in for two years. That's why we went with two years shorter term is so it is it is rolling. So, I mean, we would, you know, as long
as everyone in the current roster is performing, we would solicit for additions to the pool, if we wanted to bring in additional firms into these categories. >> Um, or if we have a non-performing consultant or something that needs to drop out of one of these categories, every two years, we would open it back
up for the opportunity. As long as everyone is doing a good job and and and doing good work for the city, um, we have the opportunity just to renew this as is, too. >> Okay. I'm a big proponent of opening it up as often as possible as as as new businesses are. I don't think the
government should be gatekeeping small businesses, new other businesses out. So, I like the two-year term. I I I still love the idea of having this pool. So, this this is all good, >> right? The two-year makes it so that we don't have to go through the process of forming the pool every year. So, I think
two years is a pretty good compromise for that. Uh Mr. Chzach and then Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I I did ask about um their initial RFP. Uh they specifically pointed out they do not want fee schedules. They asked for those
after they scale. They got a a ratings finished and then they um they came back with the fee schedule later to then kind of determine where those should fall based on their fees. And they did tell me, staff told me that some some of the
respondents gave their fee schedule when they were told not to. And if I'm not mistaken, you said those were >> 86. >> Yep. >> Okay. Which I was happy to hear. If you can't follow instructions, we don't want you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah, I was just going to follow up and just mention that we had a really,
really robust turnout. So, this played out exactly like we would certainly hope. 33 respondents, Mr. Is that right? 31 or 33 respondents. So, um, and it was a lot of staff time to review these and score these 33 respondents. So, I think the two years, I guess, from from my
position is about right. Do this once a year would be a lot. Um, so would be worth it. >> Um, I I believe the original proposal was five years as if I remember right. So, by cutting it back to two years and just 500 grand, I think we're in the right balance on this. So, that's my >> maybe we find after the first two years
that three years is where where to be. Who knows? We'll we'll figure that out in a couple more years. He's making it 10 years. >> Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson.
>> All right. Our next item is construction program manager proposal, Bolton and Mink. And uh the motion coming out of committee is to uh recommend approval of a professional services agreement with Bolton and Mink um for 2026 program
management services as outlined above. uh in the estimated hourly amount of $61,500. And I so move >> second >> motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So with the resignation of um Mr. Dean
and his imminent departure um approaching 2026 construction season. Staff recommends retaining a consultant um a program manager to provide construction administration um and project coordination um to support the city's capital
improvement program. um it's estimated um that that dollar amount and I certainly could come in underneath that amount, but again this would just provide um you know additional staff services, consultant services I should say in uh the absence of uh Mr. Dean.
>> Thank you. And what did you say that amount was? >> 61,000 and some change. 61,500. >> This would be for the entirety of the the street work season. 4 months at 15 hours per week. And it looks like Mr.
Sandy's got >> Yeah, I was just going to say that that 61,500 is using the $25 an hour rate that's in the proposal at an estimated amount of 15 hours a week for 16 weeks uh to kind of get us through the busy part of the season and the potential
onboarding of a new city engineer. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. Gabe, you'd only have to work 15 hours a week. That's going to be my new business if I can get in on it. Government's gatekeeping everybody out. >> Mr. Johnson, do you have something to add? >> Yeah, the just a finance question and I
don't want to hear a thing about fund 401. It's my least favorite fund, but how much money do we expect we're not going to be expending on the gap of having of from the time Jesse leaves until we have a city engineer on boarded? >> I did not look into that. We've been
saving money with the public works director position being vacant and now Jesse's position has >> Oh, yeah. I didn't I forgot we had a public works director. >> Yeah, >> we're going to don't think we need that position anymore. >> Then we're probably going to have maybe two to three months of vacant
>> 15 hours a week. >> Yep. So, >> so >> and this will be the public in the fall. >> So, with the public works absence and the city engineer, we the $61,000 it is made up for and more probably. Yeah, and we'll work with the consultant on this, Mr. Johnson. But, um, our plan is to
have them code their, uh, invoices to projects that they're working on. Um, so we ensure that those fees are going to the projects that they're assisting us with on. And it'll be like an on call service. So, if I get >> there'll be busy weeks and there'll be lighter weeks. And so, um, if the need
is there, um, I'll use that discretion. But if it's not, then >> good. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Anything else, Mr. Johnson? >> Nope. >> Anybody else? >> Seeing no more discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I.
>> Against. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Chairman Ericson. >> All right. Our next item is professional surveying and design services proposal. Also, Bolton and Mink. This is for Laurel Street between 13th Street Southeast and 17th Street Southeast. Uh
the motion coming out of committee is to approve a professional services agreement with Bolton and M. uh to complete future corridor planning, boundary survey, and right-of-way legal description services for Laurel Street uh between 13th Street and 17th Street Southeast in the amount not to exceed
$7,300 and I so move. >> Second >> by Erikson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericen. >> Yeah. So, as u part of our 2026 uh Southeast Brainer reconstruction project, um staff's coordinating with property owners. Uh initially it was
just between 17th Street and uh 18th Street. Uh reviewing the proposed uh legal description there. Um the entirety of that l that segment of Laurel is built on a prescriptive easement with uh the NP center and um in talking with the
property owners there um they wanted to you know essentially if we're going to take care of that one block and get that um uh legal description cleaned up, why not do it for the um the entire segment there from 13th Street to 17th Street um
at the same time. >> Okay. Thank you, chairman. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Again, same sign. That motion carries. Chairman Ericson.
>> All right. This is going to be our last item. Uh discussion on small cell wireless facility permit. The motion coming out of committee is a three-parter. uh motion to direct staff to approve the current permit request from Verizon with the exception form uh
the current policy. Two, direct staff to revise and provide draft of the city's small wireless facility design and review guideline policy. And then three, direct staff to prepare an ordinance revising city code section 800 that indicates the requirement for small cell
wireless facilities to be in compliance with the policy by reference. And I so move. >> Second. Motion by Ericson, second by Chzach. Chairman Ericson. >> So, yeah, staff received a request from Verizon uh to place a small cell wireless facility on a light pole uh
South Fourth Street. Uh uh it's just south of Quinn Street. Um the design was provided to not comply with the city's small wireless facility design and review guidelines. Um there's a existing poll there. Um and I guess can you talk
a little bit about your discussion with um was it Trent at BPU about >> Mr. Sandy? >> Yeah, thank you uh Mr. Chair. So um this facility went in back in like 2015 2016. At that time the city did not have any design guidance for these small cell uh
facilities that go on these poles. are basically um to put it uh simply, they're facilities that help expand the wireless network at high volume areas like the high school and the college. And so they're expanding the 5G network in these areas, allowing for more people
to use them. Um at that time when they brought that, so they they didn't have we didn't have any design standards at the time. Verizon bought a pole. I think it was $25,000 for this pole. It's a concrete pole that resists the sheer weight of this facility on top. um
they're now renting it back from us. So that we we own the pole at BPU now. Uh they're renting that pole from us and their proposal is to replace the pole and the facility and it's basically going to look the same as the old one. Um they are just basically at the point
where they are not recognizing our city policy because it's not in city code anywhere that they have to abide by city policy. Um that's kind of the gist of it from what I understand. >> Can you explain that again? We We do own the pole now or we don't own the pole.
>> They bought the pole. We now own the pole and they rent the pole from us. >> They bought it. >> Gave it to us. Rent it from us. >> Yeah. So, they're tapping into our electrical grid on this pole. >> Mhm. Y >> Okay. So, >> and it has our light on it. >> We could just not accept their rent
money if we really didn't want it there. And the public utilities commission could decide whether or not we keep it up. Well, see, I think there might be some guidance in statute that we have to look into that allows these facilities, much like uh fiber and gas utilities to be located in the public rightway. And
unless the city has a very good reason not to allow them in the public right away, um then we have to just say we have to be careful and look this over with Joe because there's statutory language that happened in that same timeline that this first one went up 2016 cities, League of Minnesota cities
was looking into this and coming up with these policies so that we had some control over how many how they look and where where they're putting them. um because they're kind of ugly and they're on top of light poles and they >> cause cancer. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. They they microwave your brain if you ask some people, but I'm not really sure. I'm not a nuclear physicist or electrophysicist. Uh Mr. Chzac. >> Yeah. I I I I know where the corner of Quinc and South Sixth are. I know where the corner of Quinc and South Fifth are.
I don't know where the corner or the intersection of South Fourth and Quint are. Can somebody just >> I was thinking about that myself. It must be on ISD 181 property >> or the high school. >> Typo. >> Yeah, College Drive in South Fourth. It's right by the high school. >> The typo.
>> Okay. >> It's College Drive. Okay. Yep. >> Not >> right. As you come down the hill on College Drive. >> It's Quinc >> by that first roundabout. I assume >> Quint, not South. >> It's on the way to the first round. >> Is it South Fourth? >> It's just south of Quint. >> Just south >> on College Drive.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> By the roundabout. >> It's by the street. There's really not a South Fourth Street. >> We have a motion. >> Yeah, we do. Mr. Ericson. >> Yeah. So, I was going to reiterate the motion here as as it's it's to approve as presented here. So, if you could just scroll up, you'll see it there. But it's
to uh approve the the permit, direct staff to revise our policy, and then uh direct staff to prepare an ordinance. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Uh looks like the mayor want wants to chime in on this one. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask Joe real quick, is that a state or a federal law?
Because I remember it happening. It happened just a few years ago. >> Yeah, mayor. I believe it's federal. They have federal protections. >> Yeah. >> For small cell wireless facilities. >> Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you. >> And railroaded by cell towers.
>> Yep. >> Mr. Beans. >> I'm voting against the motion. I think the Verizon wireless company is criminal and I don't care where they put their posts as long as they're in Baxter. >> Okay. You changed my mind. Why?
>> Anyone else? >> Seeing no further discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> Against. Same sign. >> I. >> I. >> All right. 5 to2. That motion carries. >> Chairman Ericson. >> Uh, end of report. >> Was it five? >> Thank you, Chairman Ericson. Moving on
to unfinished business 9A. We have a call for applicants. And first up, we have the honorable Mayor Bedau. >> All right. Now I see why you had to come here at six o'clock to get started early. My gosh, I almost fell asleep three times. Uh, call for applicants.
The following commissions and boards have uh, seats available. You can find them on our website or by calling city hall. You could probably ask for Tony. She'll probably help you out. Uh, the charter commission, two terms expiring 2029, two terms expiring 2026. Economic Development Authority, one term expiring
2028, one term expiring 2031. Library Board, one term expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2026. Transportation Advisory Committee, two terms expiring 2027. And that's it. >> As council president, I have
uh one term on the airport commission expiring 2028, one term on the planning commission expiring 2028, and two open terms on the water tower committee. And that does it for unfinished business. So moving on to new business 10A. This is the first reading of ordinance6002,
an ordinance amending section 705, the water system. Mr. Broyals, is that you? >> Oh, Mr. Sandy, go ahead and take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, um, the agenda crest kind of speaks for itself. U, we've been working on this for a few years now. Uh, the public utilities commission directed staff to undertake a
full repeal and replacement of section 705. I've attached the original section 705, which is literally two paragraphs. Um this new section 705 just is um taking a look at multiple what other cities have in their water system
ordinance and it has uh regulations uh requirements for properties that are seeking water service um our standards for connections responsibilities for maintenance. Uh it references a lot of our operational policies that we've been working through at the utility. Um
there's provisions for uh backflow prevention, uh cross connection requirements, standards for construction, basically an all-encompassing ordinance uh that we've worked through um as staff with the commission and uh sent that through Joe for legal review. Um and this is what
the commission approved um after a couple of meetings of looking at it. I will note that there's a question and answer memo. Uh the commission reviewed this at one meeting. Um wanted a couple of weeks to review this and provide questions to staff. Uh staff provided
all the questions the commission had and then there's a a subsequent staff response under each of those items. Um but staff is looking for comments. Otherwise, tonight we are looking for the council to hold the first reading of proposed ordinance and dispense with the
actual reading. >> Thank you, Mr. Sandy. Anybody have questions for Mr. Sandy? Doesn't look like we have any. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move to conduct the first reading of ordinance602 and dispense with the actual reading.
>> Motion by Bevans, second by Johnson. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. >> That motion carries. That will do it for our business
tonight. I can find what paper we're on. Let's move on to staff reports. >> Tony Gage, >> Chief Holmes, report >> Chief Runy, welcome to the table. >> Thank you.
>> The previous chief chief really loved that table. How's crime this week in your first week at as chief? >> It's been a little interesting. >> Okay. >> The first the first weekend has been uh Yeah, a little interesting, but >> all downhill from here. >> Okay. Yeah, you've pretty much solved all of them. Yes.
>> Okay. Excellent. Thanks, Chief. >> Max Henon, anything at CLC going on? >> Nothing. >> Anything at the dispatch, Teresa? >> Connie Hillman? >> Nothing yet. >> Jesse Dean, your last meeting, you decided to show up. >> Good to see you.
>> Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to tell the council that I I really appreciate the opportunity to serve the community. I I'll miss it, but thank you very much. >> Well, thank you for doing it. It's It's been enjoyable. You've been a good neighbor, too. So, thanks for everything, Jesse. We wish you the best. >> Why he's leaving?
>> It's probably why he's leaving. Yeah, sorry about that, Jesse. >> James Cranvic. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, just a couple items here. Um, the orderly annexation for Riverside Drive wasn't quite ready for this meeting. I believe I probably answered the last question that the county had today. Um, so I do
expect the city council to review a draft uh resolution at the next meeting and then potentially carry that on to formally adopting the resolution. And then city council will also be seeing another orderly annexation agreement at the next meeting. A couple small parcels that's in Long Lake Township. They don't
want to create another voting district uh with no residents. Um so they've asked us to take on the two properties and uh city council would most likely be voting on that resolution at the next meeting. >> Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Mr. Langel here. >> Britney coming. >> Nothing to add
>> still. Okay. Paul Sandy, >> I have nothing to add. >> All right. and Mr. Sharpeer in the flesh. Uh >> oh, >> he's got something ruined it. >> Better be good news. >> It's got to go quick, right? Um just wanted to kind of prep the council, let
you guys know that we're working on a um housing project over off of Right Street, working on putting together a purchase and development agreement through the EDA. So, those that are on the EDA have heard this before. We are working with city staff. We are working with a consultant from the EDA to try to put together uh a purchase and
development agreement for about 5 and a half acres over off the east side of Right Street uh to bring in front of council, bring in front of the planning commission, bring in front of the EDA, bring in front of our board. So, nothing formalized tonight, but wanted to get it on your radar so you know that that is hopefully coming. Would be a multif
family development utilizing uh housing tax credits potentially with tax increment financing uh as far as an ask as well. Uh, and you should be seeing that here within the next couple of months. Uh, James is guiding us on the proper procedure for that. Again, just wanted to give that to the council for
information only so you know that that is coming down the pipeline. >> Thank you. >> What happened to Mr. Sharp and Tear's voice? >> That's how it sounds live. >> It's a >> That's a three-year-old with lots of gunk. >> Oh, wow. >> I was going to say that's exactly how he
sounds online. It just sounded normal to me. Thanks, Eric. Mr. Mr. Royals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Just want to say thank you to Jesse Dean. Um he's going to warmer climates. Jesse, you'll be missed. Thank you for your service to the city of Briner. I appreciate you and
good luck to you. Um just want to thank the council for the ordinance to amend the charter tonight. Just a reminder that needs to soak for 90 days before it goes active per statute. And um we have some good comments, I think, from some of our union representation tonight. We
do have five of our units have their contracts expire at the end of the year. So Britain and I will be getting together and we'll be coming up with uh with our attorneys coming up with some strategies as we enter into negotiations this summer. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Broyals. Next up, we have
the honorable Mayor Bedau. >> Well, I hate hearing that we're back in negotiations again. Not that I don't want to be in negotiations again, but we're always in negotiations. So, I want to tell all of our uh unions that we greatly appreciate you and uh we would
love to have this be a smooth process that goes much quicker than it usually does because you guys are great. We want you to be here and you uh are supported. So, other than that, I know you're not going to believe this, but nothing to report. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Moving
on to council member reports. Mr. Chzac. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I have a very important thing. I'm surprised our mayor didn't mention. I understand from some very happy people, some don't even live in Brainard. I heard this on Saturday. There are some new beautiful pine trees
planted at Memorial Park along the high along the Mill Avenue there. And they tell me those things are wonderful looking. They're nice shaped trees. They fit in real well there. So kudos to the park board. I'm sure they were responsible for that. And uh that's all
I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzai. Mr. Stunic, >> I actually have something. Today is National Firefighter Day. So, thank you all the firefighters, >> including our own,
>> past and present. >> Thank you, Studic. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Uh, airport meeting coming up on Thursday. Uh, welcome to attend if you want. Otherwise, I'll give you a report after. That's all I got. >> Thank you, Mr. Joerger. Mr. Beaven, uh, just a goodbye to Jesse Dean. Thank you
for your service. And how far till the election season starts, Connie? And we get start getting complaints about signs where they're not supposed to be. >> We took a proactive Facebook post on it today. >> What's that? >> End of May. We'll be
>> last day of May is the first day of of >> It's a It's sometime in May is when we have a meeting next week to learn all about it. But I do believe the date is the end of May. >> June 2nd, last day of filing. What's the first day? >> Two weeks before that. >> Before that,
>> May 19th. >> That's it. >> Thank you, Mr. Beaven. >> Get ready to celebrate. >> Here it comes. Chairman Ericson. >> Well, speaking of celebrating, I'm looking forward to the Friday movie in the park. That also, Mayor, I said the last time.
>> Well, you did. You did. Yeah. So, thanks for the park board. Thanks for the parks department. Uh, looking forward to that. It's going to be a great time. And then a warm welcome to Chief uh Rundy and then of course Jesse. Uh thanks for your time with the city. Um not only going to lose a a great engineer, but also as was
mentioned a neighbor as well. So um my wife and kids said they're going to miss seeing you on Halloween as the king. So always great costume. So >> thank you, Chairman Ericen. Chairman Johnson. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, a couple things. Uh Jesse, thanks for all the
hard work you've put in for the city over the years you've been here. you know, good luck down in Texas. I don't know much about Texas, but I've heard don't mess with it. Just take it easy. >> I've heard that. >> And then, uh, >> well, you cannot become a Dallas Stars
fan. You can, you can cheer for the Cowboys. Dallas Stars are awfully me >> or the Astros. >> Uh, then I will say Anthony Edwards is back tonight for the Timberwolves, but that's only the second most gutsiest performance of the day.
Chief Stunick here is not feeling well. He knew we had to get a charter vote done. He showed up. He He gutted it out and he made it through the whole darn meeting. So, hats off to Chief Stunic. >> Thanks, Chief. And thank you, Chairman Johnson.
Uh, yeah, I'll make it short. I wanted to welcome our new chief. Hope things are going well. I know they will be. Uh, and Jesse Dean, again, thank you for everything. I hope I wish nothing but the the best for you down in Texas and and everything's bigger down there, so
it's it's only going to be more work, but you'll look back fondly on these days, I'm sure. Um, with that being said, uh, I also want to congratulate Chairman Ericson on another addition to the family. So,
>> what is that, 14? >> Congrats to you and family. You got a whole basketball team now. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. um continuing the idea of celebrating. So yeah, my wife uh gave birth to our fifth uh this past Saturday. So very Odessa Marie. So
>> awesome. >> Definitely outnumbered me and my son. So >> wasn't this past Saturday. >> Good. >> All right. With that being said, we're just looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So move second. >> Motion by Steen, second by Bevans. All those in favor say I. I. Against same sign.