meeting to order 621. Uh Brainer City Council Chambers is safety and public works. Uh we've got six items on our agenda. Uh we're going to move the third item to the last to the end of the agenda. And uh the first item
is uh ordinance section >> 1110. >> Yes. 1110. Connie, are you taking this one? >> I am. >> Excellent. So the cannabis hemp and related business statute is ever changing. For example, we thought a municipality could only register retail businesses, but now a city can take
registration for low potency hemp edible retailers as well as cannabis events. Staff is seeking council's direction on the following items before bringing an ordinance change before the council. There's about five different things and staff's recommendation is kind of go through and get council direction on
each one. So, I think it'd be best if we went through each one and kind of decided and then moved on to the next one if that's okay with >> the committee. >> We got all night. >> Okay. So, the low potency hemp edibles retailers, what we need from city
council is to set an amount for the registration fee. Per statute, it can be up to 50% of the state's fee, which is would be $125. Council could set a lower amount, but it would be staff's recommendation to set the fee at the maximum amount, 50% of the state's fee.
>> Mr. Chair, >> uh, Councilman Chz, >> I would move to follow staff's recommendation on that item. >> If you want to go through it, let's go through it and just because I can't sit here and remember everything she says unless I start reading. If that's okay with you. Is you okay with that, Connie? If we
>> Whatever works good for you guys. I think that would be easier to go through one item, make a decision, >> and then >> I've already read through this. I know what I want to do. Okay, good. Yeah, I'm okay with it. >> Yep. Well, there's your motion. I'll second that. Any any discussion? >> Hearing none, those in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Motion passes. >> And if council, if you want to go through each individual one or you want to make one big sweeping >> I'm thinking probably one sweeping motion. Well, I don't think we can do that. >> I think you can individual motions here. Can we take it? >> Or maybe that you pass you gave staff direction and they'll bring it forward and it was to do X, Y, and Z.
>> Yeah. Should we just do them at one at a time here? You got five of them, six of them. >> Yep. >> I'm okay with doing one at a time. >> So, the other one is hours of operation for on sale. Um, so this would be like a on sale liquor store that also has low potency hemp drinks, for example. Um,
hours of operation for onale. Staff's recommendation would be to set the same hours of operation as on sale liquor, which states that no sale, no on sale sales should be made after 1:00 a.m. >> No. Should what? at 1:00 a.m. should >> no on sale sales shall be made after
1:00 a.m. >> is what you said. Okay. >> Yep. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I would move that we accept staff's recommendation for that one. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And motion passes. Connie.
>> The next section has to deal with the cannabis cannabis events and staff kind of looked at this like a temporary liquor license. What a cannabis event is is we'd have an organizer with one or more vendors to sell products. The Office of Cannabis Management, OCM, is
taking applications and part of the application process is for local approval is required. So, one of the things we need to set is the registration fee. A maximum fee is not listed in the statute. Attorney Langel's recommendation would be to have the fee in line with other fees charged by the
city. Staff's recommendation would be to create a fee for cannabis event and charge $135 a day. This is the current fee for temporary onale liquor license. Again, staff consider these cannabis events to be like a temporary liquor license, but council could definitely set a different fee amount as well,
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um Connie, >> yes. >> That 135 that Joe's recommending, is that the same as staff's recommending? >> That was just staff's recommendation. Joe just said it should be in line with our other fees. And is that in line with our other fees? >> That is $135 is what we have right now
for a temporary liquor license. >> Okay. >> That's how staff base their decision, but council could do something completely different. >> Mr. Jagger, are you engaged here? >> I'm just plugging in, but yes, sir. >> Do you um follow what's you want to do? Do you want to >> We're taking staff's recommendations for
this all five of one by one. >> Yep. I was listening to it on the way here. So Okay. Did you have any questions about the first two? As long as >> I did not. >> Okay. U Mr. Chair, I'd move that we accept staff's recommendation >> and a second.
>> I'll go ahead and second. Yes. >> All right. Motion in a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Of course. Passes. Connie. >> Okay. Then we have on-site consumption. So, the city can prohibit on-site consumption at the events. And so, does
the council want to allow or not allow on-site consumption at these cannabis events? Good question. >> There's no staff recommendation for this one. Sorry, I have no >> thoughts on this one. Anyone?
>> Um, you know, so my thought was you're going through a number of vendors, right? And um, so you go say there's 10 or 15 or 20 vendors and you start doing a sample or you buy something, you start consuming.
It seems like to me if you start allowing that consumption it could lead to some people maybe experiencing this for the first time or that's just my initial thought. Um I I mean I don't know how they normally do these things
at these events. >> I don't think anybody does. >> Yeah. >> Kevin. Yeah. >> Any experience? >> I was going to ask >> He has his hand up. I'm going to let him take a run at this. you had any concerns about the enforcement of, you know, whether they'd be procuring it at the event or elsewhere or
>> Well, first I'd like to give a little context and um mention a few elements within Minnesota state statute that might help um guide some of your thought process. So according to Minnesota state statute, um cannabis event organizer uh
shall ensure that the consumption of cannabis occurs in a specified designated area and that area is not viewable to the public. So I guess it's got to be discreet, not viewable to the
public. within that area. The cannabis event organizer shall not permit also the consumption of alcohol or tobacco and the smoking of cannabis would not be allowed in any place that cigarette
smoking is not allowed. For example, Minnesota Clean Indoor Act prohibits smoking in a restaurant or in a you know on sale liquor establishment. So, you know, they wouldn't be able to there as well. So if it if on-site consumption was allowed by the city per state statute, those are still some parameters
that would need to be followed. >> Okay. Perhaps in whatever we choose, we could >> could I >> cite those minimums, but Jeff? >> Okay. Um, do we even then have to have this based on what you just said or we just follow
the state statute? Is that what you're talking about that? >> Well, yeah. At a minimum, we could, you know, simply just follow state minimums or state statute. But if we want to be more >> I think though we have to say yes or no to allow on-site cannabis per those regulations of the state statute.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Kevin, do we do we have a a general sense of where these where these on-site where exactly they're going to happen? Are we talking downtown area? What what are we talking for proximity? Do we know for sure yet? I do believe it's listed in
the cannabis ordinance where cannabis retailers can be. I don't know if there was it. >> So, we do have zoning regulations on where micro uh businesses could operate, retail establishments could operate um not in residential zones, not in the TN2 district.
>> Um so, it's going to be relegated to our commercial districts as well as our downtown districts. >> Okay. We had one of these already in town, did we not? I I don't know if it was called the cannabis event, but yes, there was something something held at CC's bar that where they had the room and had
different vendors. I >> Yeah, >> that's about all I know is that I heard it was going on. >> U Mr. Chair, I would make a motion to allow it. Say yes to that question. >> Right. Thank you. Is there a motion? Is there a second? >> I will second that. And then of course
my motion includes per the statute requirements. >> Second. >> Yep. Yep. >> All right. Motion second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And motion passes. >> Right. The last item is the duration. So
per state statute, a cannabis event cannot last longer than 4 days, but a city can restrict the number of times a temporary canis cannabis event can occur. So staff kind of presented council with three different options. Very restrictive. Allow only one
cannabis event per year. kind of a first come first-s serve basis is what I would think. Um kind of a moderate level would be to don't set the number of events but allow an organizer to have one event per calendar year and any 4-day combination. This is similar to our liquor license
where they can have 12 days of a liquor license. So thinking along those same lines and the last one would be no restrictions. An event cannot last longer than 4 days. An organizer would be allowed to have as many events as approved by the state.
All right. Thank you. Any thoughts, comments, questions? >> Uh, Mr. Chair, if I may. My leaning on this was to to kind of align this with sim with the similarities of liquor use. Uh, I think that's a certainly a place to start. And where I see coming, you know, my angle on on this entire
conversation is is that um we have the opportunity to adjust to this as as time goes on. And we so all of us really don't know what I mean, no one really knows what this is going to look like. We don't know the texture this is going to take in the we just don't know right. So uh want to be uh allowing to uh
something that is different but also want to have control on it. So my leaning would be to uh to to align this very similar to our current liquor use and uh start there and then adjust from there. >> So kind of the moderate >> in the more moderate. Yes. >> Don't limit the number of events but
allow an organizer one event per calendar year in any four-day combination. So someone could have one 4 day whatever. >> I guess I was in more or less in agreement with that. The the one year minimum the very restrictive is I think
too restrictive just in in in the uh um I guess the we have two license or we're required to have the two licenses and so if we just do one we're kind of picking and choosing kind of favorites among them or first come first serve so to speak. Uh so I think the I'm I'm more
or less in the moderate camp as well. >> I ask you a question. >> Yeah. >> So is this limited to just the people who licenses in our in our city? >> You know that is a good question. I don't know because the it um they have to get an event license through the
state. So I think it can be anyone. It's not just the people that are doing retailers in the state is what I would have to say. Yeah. >> So, we can have somebody that doesn't even have a retail location and just goes around the country or state doing these cannabis events. >> So, in that in that case, um based on
what uh Mr. Joerger said, there could be several of these a year. >> It could be. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh James, >> um so Councilman Joerger brought up a good point kind of with zoning. Um and you may want to make a motion on this.
Um, so typically it's probably going to be micro businesses as well as retailers wanting to hold these. Um, would you want to allow them at uh say convention centers? That is a conditional use permit in the TN2 district. Um, so that's something to think about as well. Should there be some type of
restrictions that is only allowed at cannabis businesses? >> Thank you. Um well it was CC's bar cannabis business. >> No. >> So they have an event center. Um but they're they're not like a licensed
cannabis business. >> Right. But we allowed them to have something very similar if not the same as what this is a covering. >> But I think that was more low potency and edibles. >> Okay. >> If I'm >> I don't know the difference. >> I think we were. Neither do I. Jeff >> Chief Davis. >> Yeah. to to clarify, hemp derived THC
products have been legal for quite some time. And my understanding is that's what their their event was was hemp derived THC products versus what's coming the cannabis derived THC products.
>> All right. Thank you. Clears it up. It's >> a different part of the plant, I guess. I don't know. I'm learning so much. So, I I mean it sounds like um the majority here is in favor of kind of
the moderate and um Jeff obviously weigh in if you'd like, but um so maybe sounds like we're kind of narrowing out on the staff's moderate recommendation with maybe adding in um a zoning restriction of Can you maybe restate that because
like you said uh convention centers? >> Yeah. So, right now, if uh potentially if you were to hold it at a convention center, um if there is a convention center in the TN2 district, um they would need a conditional use permit um to have that convention center, but it
probably wouldn't limit to what type of conventions you could hold in there. So could add a provision to our code here that maybe only allows it at uh essentially retail facilities, micro distiller, micro distilleries, that type
of thing. >> Because if it if it's a conditional use permit, it's an allowed use. We're we're just allowed to attach conditions to it, but we're not really allowed to say it can't exist in that in that zone. >> That's that's correct. So we could potentially put something in city codes.
U we could work with our city attorney um to add some type of provision to try to prohibit that TN2 district convention center. >> So you're saying prohibit it at convention centers >> potentially TN2 convention centers
which seems to kind of make sense to me right. This this doesn't seem like a particularly great fit for a traditional neighborhood too with zoning type view. So, I think that's where we're trying to go with this. Did we vote on the first motion? >> No. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> motions.
>> Okay. >> No motion on this one yet. >> Just so I clarify this. So, I I if James TN2 um just so I know, would that cover NP center? No. That >> So, the NP center is part of a convention center. So, again, we'd have
to try to figure out how we would look at that code to potentially allow it at a convention center like that. but perhaps not in in in the TN2 district. Um certainly um deriving this for potent if I if I have an understanding right
more of the um THC portion of the the edibles or or consumable products rather than the hemp derived products. So again trying to trying to keep it out of the TN2 district.
>> Agreed. So can you craft a motion Mr. Jagger to accommodate what James is indicating. It might be a good idea to do it. >> Well, yeah, I'm going to give it a try. It sounded like it it's not necessarily a motion, but it sounds like staff would like the time to kind of work on this a little bit and dig into what is the
right fit for this. I think you you got I think you got an idea of what we're going with. >> Yep. And we could work with the city attorney if we get some general um feedback from council, work with the city attorney to keep it out of TN2 district convention centers. I think we could try to to come up with some lang for that. And should that direction
should come from full counsel or or us? >> Mr. Full counsel. >> I agree. So, >> but we still have to address this item Conniey's on. >> That's the one I thought we didn't vote on. >> The moderate you're looking at, you know, so that one hasn't been voted on. >> That's the one I was talking about yet. >> Okay.
>> And I think so the the council's direction is to do the moderate. Don't set a number of events, but allow an organizer to have one event per calendar year in any four-day combination. and also to prohibit events in um convention
centers in T12 district >> TN2 >> TN2 >> TNT >> and would you do that James with that or is that you got to come back with that then >> I believe there'll be a um a way to do that whether it has to go through the planning commission or not um we'll figure that out and be able to provide
information at the next council meeting >> okay go you want >> Nope go for it I'll move to follow what Connie just stated there's That's what I was going to say. Thank you. Yes, I'll second that. Thank you, Connie. >> Thank you. >> All right. Motion second. Any further discussion? >> I guess I'm a little confused because if
that's the motion, that's going to go to council and if approved there, we wouldn't have time to bring it back to planning commission to find out further information. >> I think with all of this stuff, we need to vet it through legal and to make sure that we can, you know, do what we're doing. I mean, Joe did look at the
agenda request, but just to craft the language to get this all in there, it it might be a little bit yet. >> Mr. Chair, I'll amend my motion to uh include that all the last several motions we made on this item were all all uh contingent on the vetting by our
city attorney. So, that that's included in this last motion. >> I think that's excellent. >> Yeah. Secondary Yeah. secondary access. Yeah. >> Right. And then so James, you have a comment. And I do believe that there's a a good chance we could include this in the city code rather than the zoning code. There are other sections in the
city code that reference um zoning districts um our animal ordinance does. So I think there's a a good opportunity where it might not have to go into the zoning code. >> Yes. Thank you. And I got to believe that as this is as all of this is beginning to circulate through our state, there's got to be other municipalities that are crafting the
similar language. So >> not as fine as we are though. >> Let's let's vote on it then. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. And those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. All right. Thank you, Connie, and
others. Uh, brings us, of course, to our second item, approved cost share for Country Manor and, um, public works director Habigor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item is coming back to the council for review after the July 21st meeting. At that time, there was a request from
Country Manor to assist with the cost of the change order to extend utilities, making them connecting with the water main and sewer. The original request was thinking to be at $56,000. After the job is work is completed, the
amount now is only $44,850. Country Manor in good faith is absorbing the 6% overhead. So now our total request is only $42,311. This uh item was before the utility commission and they voted on the third
bullet. Split costs 50/50 between BPU and the city and allow for BPU their uh allowance what they put into the project. So essentially it would be city funds $26,155.50. BPU would be $16,155.50.
And with that, staff is recommending that motion also. And just as a clarifying note, the non uh the city portion will be coming from uh the general fund. >> Okay, >> with that, any questions? >> Thank you. Um Councilman Chzik,
>> um why doesn't this come from our sanitary sewer line fund? >> The sanitary sewer line fund is pretty low as it is and we are hoping I think there's no money in it. Okay. >> Okay. I get it >> right.
>> I just wanted Okay. >> And Countryman is here also if they have any specific questions. Um I just Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. And if would you have anything to add or so? >> Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I'm in a I'm going to share the same sentiment with that staff uh with with staff's recommendation that we should be covering the cost of this. I I do believe that there's a larger conversation here or conversation that goes out beyond this um in the point
that many cities have a hold harmless form or some version of a document that requires um investors, builders, you know, architects, engineers to sign that document. if they are going to use
the city's documents to form to create uh plans to to then create bids off of. So, uh I know that those exist. I know that one was not in place with this one. I'm not saying there should have been. I'm not Monday quarterbacking here, but I am saying it is something that maybe we should look at in that if we're going
to in good faith let vendors use our documents, the documents that we have, if there's an in if there's something incorrect on them, it seems to me that should not be on us. um if there's a risk in especially items underground. So uh but with that I will uh make a motion that this please
>> mind if I ch um so I don't know if you all saw the email that I sent to engineer dean um is is Jesse here? >> No, >> he's not. He's not. Okay. Is he going to be at the council? >> No, >> he's not. >> He's on vacation. >> Okay. All right. U maybe you can answer
this, Mike. Um he said that I asked him why how did we determine that the lines were not where they were supposed to be according to the I didn't ask according to the uh as bills but that's effectively what I asked him maybe I did
ask okay so he said one second did you all see this >> I did >> okay very short answer Okay. I thought I I must have went by it here. Can you You don't have it there. >> Actually, I could. Sorry. >> You know, well, I just from remembering
this job. So, staff went out there. We We surveyed We surveyed that. We found that they were short. Um and then now after digging, they were short. They weren't quite as short as we thought. >> Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. After digging,
>> you didn't do any digging yet and found out they were short. Okay. >> Correct. We went out there first to do survey work. We can we can do survey work and we can locate where the lines are. >> Okay. >> With no digging. >> And what he said, so I'm just trying to
establish something here. >> This was found as a contract contractor was nearing commencement. This was found as a contractor was nearing construction commencing. Right.
staff went to locate and marked the ends of the lines for the contractor for construction reference. So I asked them how it was determined to let the contractor know that these aren't where
they're supposed to be. And of course when they found out that they're not where they're supposed to be, then there's an additional cost. So I understand all that. My question is why did you go out and do this? Why did you go out and check Just part of the we want to locate those
lines where they are and find where they're at. >> Okay. Just so what I'm getting at here is if in the future I I see a way we can prevent this from happening again. >> Okay. >> We just simply go out and check before
we give any contractor or developer our asbuilts. Would that be a fair statement? >> Yes. If we had the staff power to do that, that would be 100% useful. >> Well, we had we had the staff power to do it at this time before they started
construction, commencing construction. So, I I just this whole thing really chaps my height. Okay? And and I still feel that had we given them these correct numbers, guess what? We wouldn't see any cost here on our
our side and and they would have moved forward. It's not enough to stop the project. I think our developers would agree. I'm not angry at the developers. If I'm them, I'm going to come to the city and say, "Hey, I'm going to do the same thing." But when we don't know where our our our utilities are, and for
whatever reason, because we just felt uh whimsical that we should go out and check these just to make sure and then we apparently found they're not according to the asbuilts that we gave to the developer, i.e. the contractor. Uh we could have done this better based on this answer I got from engineer Dean.
um before we give these as builts, we need to check them. That's how simple it seems to me. And if somebody disagrees, I'd like that explained why that would be the not not best practice moving forward. That's all I have to say on this, Mr. Chair. >> Very good.
>> I'd like to hear any uh if anybody disagrees with my assessment, I'm all ears because I'm no expert. I'm just a real simple guy looking at things real basic like. And if I'm wrong, I want to be told why. I I can take this a little if I if I may, Mr. Chzot.
So, I think what is is important to the context of this conversation is the time frame of kind of how construction works. In many cases, when a project is in its infancy, the developer is investing substantial amounts of money into design
work and drawings, but does not have the assurance that the project is actually going to take flight. So in most cases there will be enough work done to uh to determine whether or not a project is viable but they won't we wouldn't they wouldn't necessarily pay an engineer to
get out of their you know to go out to the site and confirm undergrounds utilities overheads e you know all of those the minutiae of those final details they will trust that that documentation they're working on is right and then move forward and from the
city's perspective I I I I can only assume that the cost to validate every single document that we have as an asbuilt to an actual existing condition within our entire city would be an astronomical feat. So generally how
cities do this is once a project becomes or begins to take flight and looks like it is going to enter a state of viability then we will send our guys out to say okay let's start digging into this just a little bit more to try to fine-tune and get a little better idea of what's happening. And I believe that's what happened here. I don't
really think anybody did anything wrong. Um I think it's just kind of the natural sequence of events other than I will say that I believe that we need something as a city to cover ourselves when a developer is using our documents to
create money values for a project. That's where I think the breakdown happened and that's what to me needs to be uh kind of looked at. That's just that's just my angle too. >> Did did I imply somebody did something wrong here? >> Uh the city. Yes, you implied that the city should have uh looked at the
undergrounds before the project took flight. That's the way I took it. >> I want I want to just make sure I you understand me. I'm saying that I think we found a way to correct the error and error means something by somebody did something wrong. The error is the as belts are not where they're supposed to be. That's nobody's fault sitting in the
room or city staff. That's nobody's fault. This is a as belts are how many years ago? We can't, you know, if we can't rely on those, then this is going to happen. It seems to me what they did here was they determined the locations are not at where the asbuilts are. So hey we if they would have started
digging and then they oh they're not where it would have cost more because now they dug how many feet wrong in the wrong direction now they got to dig again. That's why I see what we did here was perfect to solve a pro potential problem in the future. I get what you're saying but you're talking about every
single asbel. I'm talking about one street two lines. That's all they're connecting to. There's not a hundred different lines we're connecting to. There's two lines. So, how hard would it have been just it just is hindsight to go out do what we did, make sure it's
according to the asbuilts before we ever give them because what you're saying is absolutely true. But they didn't go out to a developer and say, "Here, bid on this until they got all the things ready anyways." like you're saying, they got they had to go through all this stuff before they ever
go to a contractor and say, "Here's what we got from the city. This is where the asbuilts are. Give us a bid according to that." And that's what they got, right, >> Jeff? I I think I'm going to try to move the conversation along if you wanted a response on that. But I think I think you both bring up really good points
about how we can mitigate. >> But again, I want to know where am I wrong in suggesting that we do this in the future. Can I because I wanted to I wanted to weigh in on on just that both of your comments. So I think there's a >> a way to address that with documentation
as Councilman Jagger is saying and then perhaps Jeff on a project of this size absolutely. Can we get out there and check verify our ASUS before we give those out particularly on a project of this size?
Would you agree? Maybe Jeff, maybe not on every to to Councilman Jagger's point, maybe not on every project, but a a project of a substantial size. >> I think maybe that would be warranted, I guess. Is that
>> I guess it would depend on the project. I would agree with that. Depending on the project, >> and and again, what what how old are the records? All that stuff. That's part of it, too. And >> these records are many years old. So, that's kind of where I was going with this. and and they are and it's not a,
you know, a one-off. I mean, things like this come up quite a bit. You don't know until you get get in the ground. But again, in in light of moving this along, I think what both of you are talking about future action. And so, to bring it back to this this motion, um, you know,
the we've got a a recommendation or I guess not a recommendation, but BPU took action and uh we have some options ahead of us as far as how we want to handle this. Um, I will speak in favor of >> We haven't had a motion.
>> The but my just given my opinion on the options before us. Um, I like that the one that staff's recommending the 50/50 and minus the 5,000 or that thereabouts that BPU has already contributed. I wanted to give them a allowance or
recognition on that uh coming out of their 50%. So, is there any further discussion on the motion or the >> We haven't had a motion. >> Thank you, Jeff. I misspoke on that. Um, but is there any further discussion or a
motion to that effect? >> Yeah. Um, Mike, tell us the recommendation by public utility commission again. >> Split the cost 50/50 with BPU's portion. what they allowed for the project to be subtracted and the city would be
responsible for $26,155.50. BPU would be 16,155.50. >> That would be my motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. Motion passes. All right. Thanks
everyone. Our third item. At the beginning of the meeting, I was said we'd table this one to not table it, but put it to the end of the agenda, but now that we're all here, I think we should move forward with it. So, um I don't know if I was going to abstain on this one. And so, I never use the gavl, but I
was going to pass the gavl on this, but I'm a MIDOT employee and this is has a has to do with mindot funding. So, >> is it me? It's him. >> Either one. I I'll pass it I'll I'll pass it on to you, Jeff. Oh, go ahead, Kevin.
>> Okay, very good. Um, I'll be shooting in the uh just from the hip here, guys. Um, but uh this is the direction on the requested upcoming infrastructure grant solicitations. That's correct. >> Uh, excuse me. >> They've got they can >> Yep. Very good. Yes. Uh, so I'm going to
have um it sounds like Jesse's not here, so Mike, would you please kick this off for us? Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. staff is requesting coun council direction on how to approach the upcoming infrastructure grant solicitation season. Each year there are several grants opportunities that
roughly open in October. Staff has utilized council's direction in the past uh for the proposed pedestrian bridge and associated trail segment. The city was awarded 1.33 million grant uh funds. Unfortunately, the deadline has arrived
where staff requires direction on the project as these funds will expire mid 26. MDOT is requiring an answer on the deliverability of the project. Knowing that funding through the state bonding bill is is a potential but not a
guarantee, does the council wish to move the project to construction with only 1.3 million already received? and then does the council want to continue apply for other grants? Um the other note with this is that the
mayor and staff have met with uh other agencies uh the state agency. We're meeting with them on on Wednesday and also uh we've also met with another committee regarding our main three projects and those three projects are the wastewater treatment plant, the
trail segment from Northern Pacific Center to Lump or just before Lumpark and then the bridge carrying from that end point over to 210 over to Lumpark. So, there's a lot of movement on there.
And the current $1.3 million, it's not indicated in here, but just as another reference point, does have a matching component to it. It's 25%. Um, I sent out an email regarding that and which is roughly, you know, I have the dollar amount there. Um, so none of these
grants really are just free money. There's always some type of catch with that, whether it be inind or matching funds. And there's no guarantee that these grants that we're going to be applying for will help uh offset that
matching portion. Some do, some do not. So, we're really just looking for direction to keep this project moving forward or if we want to give back those that uh 1.3 and then keep the project moving forward, we can easily do that.
But we're getting to that, you know, halfway point where we need to do something. With that, I can take any questions. I have a lot of notes um here, so I can We've had a lot of meetings on this project. >> You have any uh questions, Jeff?
>> Um where do you see us? Um if we say um we'll just let this kind of go by the wayside, this 1.3 million. We're still looking at potential bonding. Correct. That's what right talking about. And um we don't know how much bonding we could get. It could be
cover the entire amount that we're short or it could be a very a portion of it. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um and we're looking at 25% of 1.3. So we're looking at uh 3 >> 330,000. >> Okay. Um so again, this goes back to
these bells and whistles we always love in a city. Um you know, uh I I'm I'm really struggling with the pedestrian bridge. It was already, I think, in the in the works when I got on board here. and uh we've been talking about a long time. I think it'd be a fantastic um
facility. I think it'd be absolutely wonderful, but as soon as we have to start levying tax dollars or paying back interest on bonds that are going to come from taxpayers, I just struggle with this stuff. It's like where where do we ever say no? And that's kind of where
I'm at. Uh I I'm I mean I I've looked at other things we've done and it's always uh we we want everything but can't pay for anything. It just seems like uh uh it it's grant money is great, you know.
Um who's going to maintain and repair it? Well, that's possibly the DNR if whoever got it built. So I struggle with this one, Mr. Jagger. So that's where I'm at. I'd certainly listen to anything. >> Yes. Thank you, Jeeoff. And I'll uh just
summarize and say I I share your sentiment. Um Grantis is a real thing. It leads cities uh down a path of uh of not being able to maintain that which they were that which they built that was outside of their reach, outside of their
scope of what their city could bear. And this the the other side of this is I just fundamentally don't believe in once you've been given money that that a city should scramble to try to find a way to spend that money. If it just isn't a natural fit to what the original impetus was of what
the what we were trying to do then the money should just be given back. That's just fundamental belief for me. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the pedestrian bridge isn't critical or important or would be a nice asset to the city, but uh at this point uh and I did serve uh with with Mr. Mayor Bedau
in presenting this. Um it sounds like there's a lot of other needs in this city uh that if we are going to be self-funding portions of these grants, there's there's a lot of other pressing needs obviously in this city. So, while I think the bridge is important and I'd
love to see it happen, uh the timing just does not seem right for me on this 1.33 million. So, that's where I'm at as well. >> That being said, Mr. Jagger, I'll make a motion to go to council. >> Very good. I'll second >> that. We we we just um I don't know the proper wording here, but I I'm going
willing to move forward beyond this uh DNR request uh to uh use this 1.3 million. Is that would that cover our kind of turning that away? >> Yes. Okay. And then that my staff memo has a lot of good nuggets in there too, Tad, if you want to review that.
>> Oh, on the memo you sent today, right? >> Yep. >> The packet about moving forward, right? >> Um, just that memo that I sent today. >> Oh, in the information related to my question, right? >> Okay. I haven't I honestly didn't get that till just now. So, can you give me
a minute to whip through that? >> Absolutely. Do you see some potential there to add to a council? Uh, >> no. It just provides a little bit more depth what we have already done. >> Okay. Hold on. >> To Councilman Joerger's, we've already met with multiple individuals and moving
forward. So, >> okay. Okay, I got it. Yeah. Anyway, I just saw the related costs associated where we're at now and uh that's all I asked about. So, >> Okay. >> All right. So, that would be my motion. >> All right. And then I will second that
motion. And we have one uh we have one person who will not be voting here. So it's you and I. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Post. Same sign. Very good. We'll move on. I'll hand the gavvel back. >> All right. This brings us then to our
our fourth item update on response to Bolig complaint. And who's it says submitted by Jesse but perhaps Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The council received a testimony from Dennis Aoleleg regarding his uh storm water concern at
his property and staff has included several documents for council to review. There is also some back uh ground background information on this. Uh back in 1987, Bullig was provided permission to install a garage on the drainage easement under the condition that the
county would not be held liable for damage uh due to the drainage on that property. And staff members also with multiple engineers and with the county have met with Mr. Bolig regarding that.
And now staff's recommendation is that uh it's our opinion that the garage was installed under the understanding that the drainage easement was reserved for drainage and that any damages within that easement are waved when he built that garage. Staff discussed this matter
with city attorney and are in the same opinion as the staff and that the county nor the city are responsible for any liability with the drainage. staff is recommending that the city does not initiate a project to divert or excavate at the property. With that, we can take
any questions. And I know Mr. Bullig is here. >> Yes. >> And if he could, if you want uh you could ask him any questions also. >> Sure. Let me ask uh if there's any questions of staff first and then we do have um a bit of time to we can um take
comments, but any questions of staff? Hearing none, Mr. Oh, go ahead. So, James, um, the motion was to get together with Mr. Bolig. It doesn't appear that was done. Is that correct? >> We from our notes, we have met with Mr.
Bolig. Um, I have not. Um, but uh, multiple engineers have. >> I met with him on site as well, Mr. Chzach. >> Okay. The motion was for staff to get together with Mr. Bolig, >> right? >> Get information. Okay. >> And Jesse has reached out >> done. No, Jesse has reached out with him
and talked with him. I'm not sure if he physically met him at his property, but I know Jesse discussed this project with uh Mr. Bolick. >> I was told he hadn't. >> I was copied on the email com uh >> was talking though.
>> Um Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm not sure if Jesse did >> Well, if you're not sure, then please don't say it. >> That's why I'm indicating I'm not sure. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments of staff? Um, Mr. Bullig, please if you would.
>> That was >> and if just formality of name and address. >> Danny Bullick, 1001 Anc Street. >> Thank you. >> I've been working with this issue since I built my house. Okay.
when I built my house that easement was on the property. Uh I was with conversation with Jeff and I got to thank Jeff because I had after the meeting on August 18th I heard nothing back from the city. So after about a
month couple week or so ago I contacted Jeff and said what's going on? Jess motion was for me to sit down with city staff not including the person uh the public works committee uh a committee
with staff go through what the city has as far as in their files what the county has what they have in our their files and what I have my motion or the talk that I had the other day had nothing to do with my garage nothing that's not the
issue the issue is here that the city of Brain er is utilizing uh an easement for storm water storm water uh discharge in my property with no proper authorization. There was no I
have an easement with this uh Crowing County, not the city of Brainer. It's Crowing County uh for the number of years until they tapped into that line in
I can give you the exact date. 2019 uh no it wasn't 2019 excuse me August 1st of 01 is when I called Jeff. So when southwest Brainer >> this that would be Jeff HI of former city. >> Yes. Jeff Holl third.
>> So Southwest Brainard had no sanitary or no storm sewer. The whole Southwest Brainer from Southwest 6 West uh nothing. They did do Southwest 5th and sixth and they put a main drain line in
uh to a holding pond that's across the street from the college. I think everybody knows where that is. when we when we had street improvements done on Anbeck Street, it was brought to Jeff's attention and he told us at that time,
you know, uh we have city water and sewer uh put in front of our street, but no sewer, no storm sewer. And uh uh discussion was uh what's going to happen down the road? What do we got to do to get this easement? because it's right on
the plat signed off by the city and the county. And this is some of the information I was going to share. I have a copy of the easement, copy of the plat. It's right on the plat. It's a temporary easement. It's
not permanent. It was never made to be a permanent easement. M >> Mr. Bolic, you mind that? >> Oh, no, please. >> Okay. Um, you know, I I got to I'm We heard a lot of what you said at our last public forum and I and I and I know this is not easy for you. Okay.
>> So, you're going through a lot of documents here. I I I trust what you're telling us. >> I have a real concern here, Chairman Ericson. We motion's very specific to have staff work with Mr. Bullig, not send an email, not talk over the phone,
get together with Mr. Bullig. and that was not done. As far as I'm concerned, I would reiterate my motion and just have him try again to get it right. Sit down, look at everything he's got. I wanted to sit in on it. The motion uh was
recommended, I believe, by Chairman OD or President OD to just go forward with moving getting it together with staff. That never happened. Why are we sitting here until Mr. Boolick meets with staff? I don't care to hear another word from
anyone until I know that they have sat down, reviewed his documents because it's easy for our city staff to say, "Well, hey, here's a resolution in 1987." Jeff Holith was not even our engineer in 1987. Did you know that
>> he started in 1989, if I'm not mistaken? >> Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm looking at this going, we got a resolution that so that he signed back in 1987 and our city attorneys looked at it. I I'm frankly fed up. I'm just fed up. And I I'm sorry, m Mr. Bulock. If you want
to continue, I'll by all means go right ahead. But if I'm if I have my way right now, I would just get this over with. Send the same motion back to staff and see if they can get it right. >> That's all I'm I'm sick of it, Mr. Ericson. >> Y Thanks. >> I've seen this way too many times. I've
watched this stuff for way too many years and I'm fed up. >> Thank you, Jeff. >> Yes. >> And and thank you, Mr. Bully. I have I have one one question if staff could research the problem because I've had uh I've got letters from the county
attorney or the uh county engineer Tim Bray uh and Dwayne Blank uh who was the city or the county engineer prior to that. >> There is no authorization for the city of Briner to use the county storm
county's easement to discharge storm water. There is none. It doesn't exist. And that's my whole contention. That water should not be placed in my backyard. >> And I think I mean I I concur with Jeff. I think it's we we're going back several engineers. There's a lot of
documentation. So I think let's have you let's re you know I don't know what the motion will end up being but I agree we should reiterate >> uh that previous motion. Um and just to not to reiterate Jeff, but if if you're comfortable, you know, I don't want you have to go through all this again here
at this this uh committee meeting. Um, so >> if I could recommend one one thing with whoever whatever you have in this committee, I would encourage you to invite Timber A from the county. >> Well, just county engineer. They're the ones that actually hold the easement.
>> Chairman Ericson. Um, I think Mr. Bullig is confused on one thing. We talked about having a committee. I recommend it myself and I believe Mr. Johnson. That was not the motion. So I think that's where you might have a little confusion, Mr. Bullig. That there was no committee to be assigned. It was for staff to work
with you. That means in my my unprofessional judgment that means get together with you and share your documents so they see everything you have. I think that was part of our discussion as a matter of fact. So when that doesn't happen and then we get a last minute call Mr. Bullock, put
something together, boom, boom, boom. Uh and and it just gets really tiring. I I thought we took care of this to get it done. I had to notify staff that this hadn't been done yet. I get up. Uh I'll just I won't even go on. I I just >> Yeah, I think not to cut you off either,
but I think we we we hear you. We understand you. We're hearing your concern and I think um we can we can direct staff to make another >> And I'll tell you what, Mr. Bolague, if our motion passes to move back with staff and you give me a call, I'll meet with you and staff. If they won't don't want to be another council member,
that's fine. I'll meet with >> You want me to initiate the uh the call or or >> No, we'll have to initiate the call. >> We'll make sure staff gets a hold of you if our motion passes. >> Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee then and then um >> and there will be no need for me to
attend the council meeting. >> Correct. So, we'll you'll hear the action we take here, but we'll bring it back to to the committee. >> You won't be able to speak at the council meeting anyway. So, probably. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we've got a uh this is just information only, but I guess
how do how do we want to handle this? The the motion is still valid, I guess, that that was that was made. >> Yes, it is. And and that's >> so we could either I guess supposed to recommend to the council to continue on with the original motion from whatever meeting that was back in
>> 818 >> August. Yeah. >> Motion. Is there a second? I will I will second it. So a motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. I. >> Those opposed same sign. Motion carried. >> Thank you. >> Action staff will bring to council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Need a motion to adjurnn. >> Actually, we've got a couple other items here. Number five, construction update.
Mr. Mr. Habigor is going to confer there and get some information. >> That's right. >> Two more items. Construction update and then direction on active code enforcement. So, >> Mr. Habor, when you have a minute, we'll go ahead with the >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a summary,
staff met with the council president and SPW chair and F uh PFF chair on September 2nd and to brief them on the right 10th Street reconstruction project. The project is behind uh schedule, causing the city to hold the
work on 10th Street until 26. On September 4th, staff met with council and Landware and discussed the concerns and Landwware indicated that they would accelerate the schedule. City engineer has provided a detailed memo which is attached and indicating the next steps
moving forward. There are a few change orders that are requested from uh Landware. staff are are reviewing those and we are just checking the validity of those and to see at what level they are heling holding us responsible if any.
We're also working with the city council or the city attorney to talk about how valid these uh change orders are and we will be getting those to the council after we are totally vetted through those. So on a high level on 10th street
uh the scope is you know main water storm sewer and gutter asphalt construction date was 519 completion was supposed to be 103 we're about two months behind um on right street it the
first lift was paved from 6th street to 10th street and now a look ahead the 10th to 13th street the underground should be completed up by the 17th curve and gutter and first lift of the pavement hopefully by the end of the
season. And then 10th Street we are suspending until 26. And now Beach Street, the main things there is just looking ahead the south section of beach street. Well, first Beach Street itself, all the soils were
organic in material, so we had to remove them. And that's just uh we had a huge pile at uh our pit. So, we decided to trade soil. We are uh and we just didn't have the time to turn that existing soil
to make it compactable. So, we decided to trade soil with them. And so, the north section uh was already, excuse me, the south section was already uh uh completed and we're looking at doing
curbon gutter uh by the 10th of October here. And then the north section, the curb and gutter should be completed on the 13th to the 15th. And hopefully the paving, the first lift anyway, um on October 17th.
Now, the last project, the roundabout project is going really well. I'm just going to jump right down to the last bullet. Just a look ahead. The first lift pavement should be done 10:10. Final payment should be done 10:17 striping on the 21st and it should be
opened on the 24th. If any of these projects are not completed by the completion uh deadline, staff will be preparing options for city council to make an informed decisions of the next step. Uh city staff has also uh been informing
the city attorney on the details of each project. And at this time we're just uh bringing this information forward and uh the big uh concern like I indicated is just Beach Street and right and we are those are moving forward really
well. Um but I can take any questions that you have at this time. >> Thank you Mike. Any questions or comments from the committee? >> I have a question. >> So when we approve these projects Mr. have course um that's a council decision to move forward, hire the contractor,
yada yada yada. >> Correct. >> Um so now when we're amending the terms um that's done by staff. Is that usually how these are done? Is there any go ahead >> with the change orders if it's going to hold up the project like our trading the
soil that decision we needed Jesse and I needed to make that decision at that day at that time to move the project forward. If we needed to wait two more weeks, it would have just been the thing is is that though that dirt needed to be it was confirmed by our soil technician
that those soils were >> more specific, Mr. >> Okay. >> 10th Street, you said you're going to wait till next year, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Is that something the council needs to approve because we have to answer to the people that are associated with this project, right? >> Yes. The council will be meeting after
the construction seating to decide what we want to do regarding the 10th Street project. We've already decided. You said >> you just gave a report saying you're going to wait till the spring. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, where does the council fit into making that decision? >> We were just if that was a meeting that
was held with the president of the council with SP. >> Where does the council fit into making that decision? Mr. >> Let me just indicate the process that we did. So, >> when does the council make that decision? It will be it will be brought forth to the council
>> when the when the project is completed for the season and we'll see how far they get. >> Okay. You said we're waiting till next year for 10th Street. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Who made that decision? >> Council president, SPW chair and staff
with >> Did the council vote on that, Mr. Havoc? >> No. >> So there was no decision made. >> Uh it was just a meeting. No, there was no decision made correct the council. >> There was no decision. No. >> Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Mike. Um, thanks for the update and as you said, no action on this one. Um, >> correct. >> Giving an update on these projects, the ones that are behind um the the and to try to bring this together too because I
mean, you're absolutely right. I mean, we do need council action on this. We've had discussion about direction moving forward given the delays. Um I think that's going to come it's going to come up further and there'll be more to come on this.
>> Mr. Ericen, I heard a decision was already made. >> I understand and I I think um >> I don't understand. >> Well, I understand what you're saying that that what you heard, what we all heard, but I'm saying there's going to be more to come. It's going to come before us despite what was what was
said. So it it's going to come back to council for a vote. It has to. So, we're in agreement on that. >> Correct. And we'll have to discuss whether we terminate the contract, suspend the contract. There's going to be multiple options on that decision.
>> What what decision >> regarding holding that project till 10th Street? How do we move the contract forward? >> Yeah. So, we should do that in public, Mr. Hab, of course. I don't know who your boss is, but maybe you should relay that message to him. That's how we do our work, Mr. Ericson.
>> Thank you. I I'm really really getting tired of this. I don't know if you guys can tell that or not, but I am not going to put up with this. I'm sorry. I'm tired of it. >> Oh, very good. I think you you raise a >> Yeah, I appreciate that.
>> A valid point and, you know, perhaps Mike, you know, might be safe to say it's more of a recommendation at this point. Would you agree? >> Yes. because we can't do any we have to do something with a contract and we can't do anything with that until the season is done.
>> All right. Anything else on construction update? >> Yeah, I disagree. We can do something on that before the season is done. That's we have that's why we have deadlines. I What is we You better choose your words better, Mr. Habac course. I I'm
just tired of this. Can we just forget it? Let's go forward on the next item. Oh jeez. >> All right. Thank you. And there will be more to come. Uh certainly. So our last and uh our final item, uh number six, direction on active code enforcement. Uh
community development director Kamic. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so staff are bringing two properties before the committee for review. Staff are looking for direction from council as how to proceed with the cases. Uh the first property is 507 1st Avenue Northeast is for junk and debris as well as unlicensed vehicles. Uh this property
has had consistent issues throughout the years. Uh we have not had to abate this property yet. Um but they have received a number of citations in the past. Uh staff recommends towing the vehicles and abatement of the property for the junk and debris. That's the first one. Uh
second one is 616 4th Avenue Northeast. An individual bought a vacant lot and is living in a parked RV. The RV is not connected to city utility services which is a matter of public health. There are some other violations such as parking um in the lawn as well as some outdoor
storage issues. Those are not matters of public health. So staff did not bring those immediately to to city council before the 100, 2000, and $300 citations. Uh staff is re uh staff and the police department have received complaints from the neighborhood. So with that, staff recommends a $300 citation every 10 days and to proceed
with legal action with their city attorney. And I can answer any questions. >> Thank you, James. Any questions or comments for James? Mr. Chair, I have a motion when you're ready. >> Ready. >> I would move uh that we uh accept both the staff's recommendations on both of these properties.
>> Second. >> Very good. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. I. I. And those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. >> All right. Thank you everyone. We'll call the meeting to a close. Thank you.