We are live. It is July 7th, 7:00 here --------- in council chambers in Brainard. Uh we will call to order our safety and public works meeting for this evening. And uh we're going to start off with introductions. So please, we're going to go around the room. Anyone can start. Mike Hobbycourse,
public works director, city of Brainard. James Crown, community development director, Jesse Eden, city engineer. Anyone else that would like to Oh. All right. Now, of course, I'm Kevin Joerger and my here is Mr. Jeff Chzach. So, we will get started. We have six items
tonight. Our first item uh on uh on our list here is the approval of the final payment request for the Laurel Street Bridge repair project. Mr. Habigor, please. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attached to this item is our final uh payment request for Laurel Street Bridge repair project. This project was completed in
24. However, staff was waiting till spring of 25 for the final turf re uh reestablishment was before we accepted this project. And we had a few dollars in savings in this project. The bid was uh $451,000
and some change and it totaled up to be 147 and some change. So we actually saved a little bit. We had some savings in in a order and then some grout uh didn't satisfy our specifications. So we had a savings in there. So staff is
recommending final payment uh request in the amount of $744.85. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Habor, do I have any questions for staff? Yeah, I just wanted to make Okay, just so I mean I understand the dollars here, but when you say um the financial
impact, it's being that we're under budget, right? It's really not an impact. Correct. Okay. Yep. I if you have nothing, I'll move to approve the I have nothing. Mr. Chzach approve. We have a motion to approve. I will second. Uh no discussion. All those in
favor signify by saying I. I oppose same sign and motion carries. Very good. We will move on to item number two. Um this is the approval of the final pay request for the historic water tower rehabil uh rehabilitation project. This is the phase two portion. Uh again, Mr. Habris,
I understand all these will be uh yours tonight. So I'll be coming back to you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this here, as you indicated, is our the semifinal payment request uh for this amount was uh 43,335.20. And we held off about $12,000. But now
that everything is complete completely done, the only thing remaining to do is the Stuckco, but that's going to be a completely different project. and staff is uh recommending the final approval of the payount request in the amount of
55,92520. It's the two total. The 43,000 was their final pay uh request and the 12,000 is what we were re retaining uh before the project is finalized. And with that, we can take any questions. Understood. Mr. Hagar, do we have any
questions, Mr. Chzach? Yeah, I just wanted to know with this project u I understand the stuckle on the outside is the big the big the big hurdle and then are those stairs still being considered for some sight of uh bead blasting, sand blasting or
anything? Yes, we'll it may be advisable to do a full study on the water tower um as there are some other you know things that we may not be looking at or seeing from the naked eye and it may be uh doable that we look uh for a full study
on that water tower to look get a complete study on really what it needs to be done to make it structurally sound. I mean, we had that before us here a couple years ago and we turned it down, but other than that, I would approve the uh the pay here that's being re recommended.
All right, we have a motion to approve and I will go ahead and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. And that motion carries. We will pay those bills. We will move on to item number three. This
is the uh to approve change order number one uh for the uh improvement 17-12. right uh or right uh 10th reconstruction project, Mr. Havagor, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This here is a change order. This project is totaling
uh $3.8 million and we've noticed some uh traffic uh control issues. So, staff has looked at that with a contractor and they put forth a a good plan to help mediate construction. You never know how flow of traffic is going to be going
with uh with these type of construction projects. And just to make sure that everything is is moving uh smoothly and easy with flow with individuals driving, we just wanted to make some precautions with some uh more uh barricades and
signage on 371 on the business route. The change order is totaling $3,223.31. And uh with that, we can take any questions. Do you have any questions, Mr. Chazok? Uh yeah, on the uh the the trail there, um what kind of
when you say you're going to put more or some sort of uh barrier, how is that going to keep people from walking around it? They could at least now they know that this area is closed. That's right. We've done our due diligence and that's all that we can do.
Okay. Other than that, I just move to approve the amount being recommended for payment. And I will second. Any discussion or uh any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. And we will move on. Number four. This is to approve the plans and
authorize the advertisement for the M Street outfall repair project. Mr. Haborst. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. This project also includes a repair and construction of the M Street fallout by extending the storm pipe from its existing end to near the riverbank. This will prevent further
scouring on that area and to actually uh protect that sanitary uh sewer line that's in that area. And also the council directed us to uh fix the the Bick fence that is that is adjacent to that property. We met with the owner of
Bick and we met them on site and we indicated that this is what we're going to be doing. We also after we got the drawings and um uh the drawings, the engineer drawings, we met with the owner, Mr. Higgins, and he was in favor
of everything. He liked the the design, how it's just going to protect his property moving forward. and staff is recommending approving this plans to authorize uh bids for this M Street fallout project. The engineer cost we're estimating it be about $170,000.
Um but we'll wait to see what that comes to with that. Any questions? Uh Mr. Mr. Chzach, any questions? Is that Jesse's estimate? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't a consultant, but uh other than that, I would move to approve.
Yep. and I will second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Item number five on our list tonight is the uh is to uh the discussion for the approval of the proposal for sanitary sewer lateral
locating service in southeast Brainard. This is our southeast uh Briner reconstruction project down there. Uh Mr. Habigor, I understand you're taking this one also. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So attached to this item is our proposed uh project from um GPS
to perform some sanitary sewer line laterally locating uh the services for this project in southeast Brainard. Unfortunately, this sewer line is a little bit old and a lot of the sewer lines that are coming in there are going vertically straight up and we're not sure of which direction they're going to
be going. So this camera will allow us to locate these lateral uh sewer lines and then when we do we can actually have some better drawings. If we just do exploratory digging with a contractor
it's going to be very costly and um it we think this even though this amount is a $12,000 request we think this is going to save us in in the long hall when we do get our bids. So, this is just again to
locate those service um uh lines uh for the individual homeowners with that. With that, any questions? So, we're recommending approval of this proposal from GP RS with for to locate the sewer lateral locations for the amount of
$12,15. And that any questions? Thank you, Mr. Habigor. Mr. Chzach, any questions? Yeah. Uh just for clarification, you gota I think it contradicts here. You talk about the in the first line there it says summary of issue 2025 reconstruction and then it says
next year. This is for next year, right? Correct. 2026. Sorry about that. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure I I kind of Then what what street or streets is this again? Southeast. Go ahead, Jesse. So that'll be 17th, 18th, and 19th
Street Southeast as well as Maple Norwood. Um potentially Laurel. Um further discussion behalf of the council. Oh, what was the last one? You said the oneway part of Laurel Street. Laurel. Okay, I missed it. I'm sorry.
Okay, that's good to know. Um I don't have anything else. Thank you. And I just had one follow-up question. I think we were that I did ask just a little bit. the 12,105, that's an additional change order item that would that would not be tip. That's not money that would be covered in our contingency. Is that right on on this on
the project or would be part of the Well, this project has not even started. We are I'm just wondering where we were going to pigeon if the money was already set aside or where it would be set aside or just placed into the project. We can place this into the project. It's up to the council if we want to roll
this into like the engineering cost to be assessed. That would be up to the council if you'd want to do that. Okay, understood. You got one other thing. Does this seem like a It seems I hate to It doesn't seem like a lot of money for the for what they're going to give us. Correct.
Is it Have you checked out their qualifications and everything based on this dollar amount? Yeah, we had a couple uh uh firms that submitted their We also were looking at purchasing something like this so that we could um perform this ourselves. As
you know, you're well aware that there's a lot of older sewer lines here and to have this type of device. I Jesse found the actual dollar amount, but uh for right now, it's just $12,000 to get this done and we thought that would be a good fair price.
So, would that be a yes to my question, Jesse? From what we were able to look at, uh it appears that they are a qualified firm. Uh it's tough to say because we have not specifically worked with them in the past. Uh, so I can't say from personal
experience. Um, but from what I'm able to gather, they seem like they're a reputable firm. Well, they there's they're signing to do the work and this is the amount. Okay. And and it should be an easily measurable deliverable. Either we'll have the pictures or we won't. So, okay. I would move to approve then.
Thank you. And I will second that. Uh, do we have any further discussion? All right. Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. And that carries as well. We will move on to our final item. This is number six. This is the selection of the flag display on the city water tower.
This would be for 2026. Uh Mr. Havagoris, walk us through this one. Thank you, Mr. President or Mr. Chair. Yes, the the on the water tower, we have six or three uh flag poles. We would like to fly two American and one PAL, the missing and action flag, and we're
open for discussions, but that is the recommendation coming from staff. Thank you. And um so I asked quite a few questions about this one uh in pre- discussion, but really it's it would be up to us to display whatever flags we wanted up there. Three American flags,
two American flags, one state flag, which state flag, don't know. P don't know one. So whatever. So uh basically we have three polls that are up there. Keep in mind that these polls are not the types of polls that we would u move the flag to half staff and to full
staff, you know, on a daily basis or as calls. These would just be fixed uh stansions up there uh with the colors flying. So the recommendation from staff is uh two American flags and one P MIA flag. So uh
are these flags lighted? There are lights. Yes, there are. Yes. Okay. Um interesting um topic. I don't disagree. Part: 2
Call to order Brainer City Council. It is Monday, July 7th, 2025, uh 7:30 p.m. in council chambers. Tony, please call the role. Johnson, present. Stunic Jagger, yes. Ericson, Bevans, here. Chzach,
here. OD here. Bed here. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. All right. Next, we're looking for approval of the agenda. Mr. Chair, Mr. President, I have a amend amendment to the minutes. Um, I know it's under consent, but I thought I'd do it now to uh take the Lions Club issue
to include the original motion and then the amended motion. Right now, it essentially lists the amended motion. And then I would like to also add an item to the agenda under uh unfinished business. I think it would be for uh data from Crowing County.
Um unfinished business or new business. Which one? Whatever you prefer. It would be old business or unfinished. I guess we've already visited that item before. So, let's put it under unfinished business. We'll make that E9F. All right. Airport levy or which which
one which part of the airport discussion is? Crowing County for data for the uh shelter. Okay. Crowing County. Gotcha. All right. Move to approve as amended. Beavenon. Second. Johnson. Motion by Bevon. Seconded by Johnson. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All in
favor? I I again, same sign. We have an agenda. Next, we have a consent calendar. This is a notice of public that 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. Move to approve Bevans. Second, Johnson. By Bevon, second by Johnson. Any discussion? Tony Johnson, yes. Jagger, yes. Bevans, yes.
Chzac, yes. OD, yes. All right, moving on. Number six, we have public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the the to the attention of the council. Time limits
may be imposed. Uh we'll try to keep it under a few minutes. I don't know if there's anybody here to speak at public forum, but if you are here for that, please come forward. Deli. Hi there. Um, Dolly Mattton, 1730 Graden Avenue and Brainard, Minnesota. And I'm actually here on behalf of the Realtors
Association. Um, some of you participated a couple of summers ago in uh, a housing study that we did called Transforming Neighborhoods, and I appreciate your time and efforts. What we're trying to do now, now that Nick is here, he's got his feet wet, he's been in the been in the running for a while,
we are creating an a housing summit um, on August 6th, and this is a personal invitation. So, I'm going to all of the city councils in Crowing County to invite the city councils, uh, the commissions, uh, EDA members, realtors, lenders, and contractors, um, and others
who play a role in housing. I we're just it's a high level discussion about, um, identifying barriers and brainstorming solutions that could better meet the needs of our residents. And so I would like for you to save your date on your calendar of August 6. It's a Wednesday
from 8:30 a.m. till 12. And we've got some wonderful speakers. I think that will shed some some actually some great ideas and some just thoughtprovoking discussions and that that is my purpose of my invitation for you tonight. Thank you. Where was that?
I'm sorry. It's at the Greater Lakes Association Realtor's office. Okay. and we're over just north of um Menard's. And again, I'll send the invitation so you have all of the details. Okay. You'll send I will send it to uh Yep. City Hall. I have all your emails, so I can also send you
a question, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. What is a heavy appetizer? There is no heavy appetizer. It's morning, so it'll be donuts or fruit. What's your preference? Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else?
Anyone online that wants to question address the council heavy please press star three if you're online and we want to speak. Do we have one there Max or no? Maybe somebody's busy getting a heavy appetizer. Maybe I'll ask one more time if there's
anybody in here that wants to come up. Looks like no. And we will close public forum at 7:34. Uh next we're moving on to number seven presentations. We have our 2024 audit presentation.
Come on up. Moment we've all been waiting for since last year. Uhhuh. This is how many video. Yeah, even better. Perfect. Thank you for having me tonight. Um, obviously wrapped up the audit um bound document fairly large.
Um, should have received all of that prior to the meeting. Um, so we'll go over the PowerPoint like we usually do. Feel free to stop me at any time if there are any questions. Um, so the agenda items here, we'll go over the required communication, um, the
audit results, financial results, and then just a few other discussion, insights, and observations that came from the audit. So our um required communications as I have done in the past our primary responsibility as auditors is to write
an opinion on the fairness of the financial statements presented. We do review internal accounting controls. Obviously you want controls in place and we want to make sure that they are working. Um riskbased audit approach. We don't test every transaction. Um we do some detail level transaction testing.
Then we do some higher comparisons. Current year to prior year, current year to budget. Um if anything looks out of the ordinary, we do additional testing on those areas. Um we do test in detail the federal awards. You did expend over 750,000. So we do test a program there.
Significant accounting policies. Those are going to be outlined in note one. Your new standard for this year because there's got to be one every year. Um Gazsby 101 compensated absences. So it just changes the way that we looked at the comp ABS and then that the way that management now has to assess those. So
that has been flowed through the financial statements for this year. So within the bound document there are u management judgments and accounting estimates. All of those are reasonable and supported. Corrected and uncorrected. So your uncorrected um
beginning that position was understated by about 492,000 for governmental activity, 16,000 for airport. Both of those related to Gazsby 101. Um, so those are short up and going forward you won't have that uncorrected adjustment there.
Mr. President, Mr. Chzac. Yeah. Can I ask you a question specifically about that? I I had a conversation with Connie. She did explain to me that and I and I hope I'm saying this right, Connie, but because of those amounts, it wasn't I apologize,
Connie, if I got this wrong, it wasn't significant enough to go back in and find where those differences are found. We knew where the differences were. just wasn't material enough to restate beginning balances. But that's what it was. Yeah. Okay. When
when does it become material enough to restate? That that's where I got. So at any point um once it gets up above a planning materiality, which we calculate every year based on revenues, um some assets, things like that. It
changes from year to year depending on the activity within the city. management can make that judgment call all the way up to planning materiality. Then at planning materiality, it kicks over to where it has to be restated. So anything lower than that, management can either
decide to restate or pass like we did this year. Okay. So, but it does change from year to year. Appreciate um so we'll keep going. Page five. Uh no disagreements with managements there. No difficulties encountered in performing
the audit. Um everything was ready when we came on site. Page six, audits of group financial statements. Remember we do include the airport, library, HR and then the BPU is now a fund of the city but those are all considered group audits.
Page seven here. So overall city audit results um unmodified so clean or highest level of assurance that us as auditors can give one significant deficiency new from the past segregation of duties. We came in um and just had a
few things that didn't have that final review at the end. Um so just a significant deficiency which is lower than a material weakness doesn't affect anything um for federal awards or anything like that. we've discussed with
Connie. She's going to try and put um a better process in place. Some of those things you just don't think about um as you're prepping for the audit and getting things ready. So then we also tested um the Corona virus state and local fiscal recovery
funds because that was significant money spent this year. Um and one significant deficiency there as well, lack of the final review over annual reports. Um so again Connie will work on having that second review as that um in place as
well. We did test Minnesota compliance about seven areas there no findings noted. Okay. So then Connie will come up for the next part. Okay. So if we look at our general
fund balance, our financial results, the fund balance is approximately $4.3 million of which approximately $3.4 million is unassigned and can be used for operations. The 2024 operation expenditures were 14.5 million. So we're
at 23% of our 20 our unassigned fund balance to 2024 operating expenditures. And this does not meet our goal or policy, which is 35 to 50% as recommended by the state auditor's office. The next slide here we have a comparison
of the general funds revenues to what was budgeted. Um we'll look at the actual to budget a little bit closer and a difference. Um but the big difference is our our license and permits. We were under budgeted by 75,000. This was building permits primarily. We budgeted
230,000 and our actual was 156,000. Internal government we were over budget by 1.5 million. But when you remove the recognition of the ARPA funds of 1.3 million, we're over budget by $241,000
and 41,000 was a pass through. So we had some onetime revenue there as well for grants and aids. Um interest there's a difference of $254,000. When you remove the adjustment for investments to fair market value of 160,000, the actual difference is about
$94,000. If we go to the next slide, which is the comparison, the general fund balances expenditures to budget. The biggest difference is is general government. We're under budget by 133,000. We didn't replace the assistant planner position
as well as turnover and a couple other departments. So, we had some savings in personnel. Um, public works was under budget by 119,000. the biggest issue or the biggest reason is we didn't have snow removal um as we didn't use all of the budget in 2024.
So if we look at the next slide, this is what the audit shows is that we were budgeting for um for expenditures to exceed revenues by 47,000. Actual as the audit shows that the revenues exceeded expenditures by $437,000.
So we have a difference of $484,000. But when we take in some um audit adjustments. So if we go to the next slide, if there are things that we report that we don't budget for. For example, we have to for audit we have to report
funds 217 and 890 and 8.95 are part of the general fund and the fair market value adjustment of 160,000. We won't realize that as we will hold our investments to maturity. And in 2023, if you recall, I missed the transfer to the fire capital. So if we take out those
things that affect the bottom line, we're actually we're revenues exceeded expenditures by $419,229. And again, the biggest difference is is that um was intergovernmental intergovernmental revenues. We had police aid um fire aid is passed through
and interest income. And we had savings in personnel cost and we had less snow removal costs and overall budget savings in fuel and repairs and maintenance budgeted line items. If we go to the next slide, this shows um this is just again stresses the fund
balance and municipalities are looking for that 35 to 50 days um because we don't get our taxes in LGA until July. So basically we use all of our cash on hand plus any cash that we have received in the first six months of operations.
If we go to the next slide, we have total revenues. There's really not a whole lot of changes in the bar graphs from 23 to 24 or really from overall 2020 to 2024. You know, we have investment earnings and then of course we paid the um this is
intergovernmental intergovernmental revenue can depend on what projects we're doing and how much funding we get for those projects as well. The next slide, we're looking at total expenditures. Um, we see the biggest fluctuation in our public works. Again, we didn't have
as much snowfall in 2024. Um, and in the principle, the reason it's so much higher in 21 and 22 was how we reported the utility at that point. We go to the next slide, we have debt service.
We will keep to work on reducing the discrepancy each year. Um, I will say though, we had a lot of prepaid assessments when we issued our 2024A bond and we don't have a February 1st debt payment. So, our debt payment would be normally higher next year because
they actually had principal and interest payment. Um, so we'll just keep working on that um to get it more in line. What's the number there, Connie? You know, we have it's just showing that we have about twice as much cash as what we have for our February 1 payment. twice as much as we need
need to make our February 1st payment. Yes. Yes. And there's no number. It it there's it's less than a million dollars that we paid February 1st and we have just under $2 million in cash. So we're about a million. So twice as much cash on hand than what we had to pay
February 1st for debt payments. Thank you. And again, it's hard to adjust because when we get those prepayments, we don't want to take it all in year one. So, we try to take it over the life of the bond, but we seem to be missing or I seem to be missing that calculation yet.
So, we continue to work on that as we go forward. The next one is the city's total debt. This shows our debt broken out by purpose. Um, again, we just see the special assessment revenue bonds. We issued
special revenue bonds again in 2024. We're seeing pretty much everything else kind of go on a downward slide which is a good thing in my mind. And then the final slide talks about the enterprise funds. So we have three enterprise funds. Those are our our
types of funds that we run as a business. So they have a different reporting methodology than our regular funds. All of them had a positive net change and fund balance. However, this does not reflect any infrastructure improvements. So, if you look at, for
example, the storm sewer fund, we had a positive net change of $102,000. However, we paid over $500,000 in capital expenditures that are not reflected on this statement because of how it's reported. So, you would want to look at the cash flow statement to really see how we are
cash flowing and how they is operating. And remind me again, what are the other two capital they're um enterprise enterprise funds? We have the sanitary sewer, the storm sewer, and the Brainer public utilities. Okay. Thank you. All right, I'll turn back to one of
Mary. Okay, perfect. Just a few more slides to go through. Um so overall just insert insights and observations here. Um we talked about just the one finding on single audit hopefully we'll correct going forward. Um state reporting form
and GFO certificate was submitted to Can I just comment on the significant finding? So we came to the council in December and we said this is how we spent our ARPA funds. Yep. We rearranged it. So, we spent all of it. I filed the report online. No one reviewed that
final report and that's what resulted in the finding. I'm not sure how I could change that because you have to file it online. I will have to print it out before I hit submit and have somebody review it is how I'm going to correct it going forward. Who would normally review that? Could be another accounting staff or
Nick could even review it. Just saying yes, this is what we agreed to. Do we have a list of things that would need to be a a final review like that going forward? We kept track of everything that we found that didn't have that second review and have provided it to Connie
and that's how we got the segregation of duty findings. For example, I prepared the AR sheet. Normally, it's a joint effort between myself and accounts payable. Um, it just we ran out of time. I prepared it. We didn't review it. Um, for example, when we submitted the small cities
development first pay app, Pam reviewed it all before we actually submitted it. So, that's how we're getting rid of the the comments. So, just thought I would share that with you all. Thank you. Y just eliminate human error. That's what we need to look for in that control process. Um, so fund balance reserves,
we talked about general fund. Um, fund balance policy is to have the 35 to 50% of general fund. Right now, you are at 23% there. So just continue to monitor that. Um a few of the other uh funds that we didn't talk about revolving loan
fund did have positive change in fund balance. So you received about 43,000 in those loan payments coming back and then not no um large loans out this year. Debt service fund had restricted fund balance of about 1 96 million there with
expenditures of 932,000. Um Connie hit on it. collection of special assessments. Just not sure when to time those. Um, and those are slated when they do the levy is to collect those every year, right? So, normally you assess those and you collect them
over the certain years. So, right now you'll just hold on to those and make those payments as they come due. Capital projects funds has a signed fund balance about 4.3 million with expenditures of 4.7 this year. Um, approximately 2.2 2
million comes in from transfers in from other funds and taxes and then some of those intergovernmental grants that you apply for for those projects. Um and then you did issue um 1.7 million of your special assessment improvement bonds um which were spent on capital
outlay this year. So that was a brief overview. I didn't know if there were any follow-up questions. Anybody have questions? Doesn't look like it. Okay, perfect. Go if that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
So, we are looking for a motion to from the council to accept the audit results as presented. So, move motion by Chzok. We have a second. Second Johnson. Second by Johnson. Excellent. Any discussion?
See none. Let's go to a vote. All in favor? I against. Same sign. Motion passes. Thank you guys. Uh moving on, next we have council committee reports. First up we have safety and public works committee. And tonight we have Mr. Jagger.
Yes. All right, Mr. Jagger, take it away. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair O Day and fellow alderman. As a point of note, there were only two members present. So all motions were carried unanimously. Uh we have six items and uh we'll start off with number one here. Uh this was the approval of
the final pay request for the Laurel Street Bridge repair project. uh recommendation coming out uh of committee was to approve and I so move. Second motion by Joerger, second by Chzok Jerger. Uh yeah, this is this $744.85
is is not technically any an additional item. The the project technically came in uh actually under budget. So this is just the final retainage while we were waiting for our uh the the final turf uh to take place or to reestablish uh for this spring. All right.
Um any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All in favor? I against. Same side. Motion passes. All right. Thank you. Uh M. Uh item number two was the approval of the final pay request for the historic water tower rehabilitation uh project. This is the
phase 2 portion of this. Um this is uh our our committee talked through this a little bit. Our recommendation was to approve this and uh I so move. Second. Motion by Jagger, second by Chzach. Uh discussion, Jagger. Yeah, just real quickly, this is a semifinal pay request for the historic
water tower. Uh if you'll remember, uh we had some parts of this that were pulled away, pulled out of this project. The stairs, I believe, were one of those. So, this is the uh 43, 335 plus the 12590. Uh the total uh project, remember, is
251. That's all. Thank you. Any more discussion? Just as a point of discussion for that, this came up that over the weekend. People are asking how much more is left on the water tower. I know it's it's the stucco is and the stairs on the inside
or the stairs done. Um, sure. Yeah, I can jump in. Mr. Water Tower. Yes, Mr. Water Tower. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, so yeah, the the stairs are not done. it the the stuckco is the main concern is as you can continue to look at it. Uh there's been
enough weathering behind it in that it is spiring and uh spidering, excuse me, and uh some chunks are beginning to fall from it. Um just keeping an eye on that, making sure that it's safe is the big issue. That is also the large cost. Um estimates are wildly inaccurate at this
point for what the cost will be for that. Um the stairs from a personal perspective, I'm not even concerned about the stairs. The only people that use the stairs are us as as the city and uh last time I was on there. They were rickety, but uh but as is things in a 100-y old water tower. So I I the main
concern is is the actual stucco itself and then the stairs now that we've sealed up the water tower should be pretty secure for at least the the near future. Phase three is the final phase, right? May I ask a question of the mayor?
You can. I understand rickety, but when you talk about iron that's rusting, is it unsafe? Is it is it deteriorating to a point where somebody's going to break and it's gonna Rickety is one thing? That might be a better question for the engineer. Yeah, I would say probably a better question for the engineer. I I don't
believe so. I don't think we've ever heard from anybody that the stairs are unsafe and what was planned to do with them is sand blast them, recoat them, um just to seal them up. Are you a rickety expert, Jesse? No sir. Uh the general scope was to sand
blast and repaint. That was more of a preservation treatment. Uh there were a couple spots where they were going to do some like patching type repairs for some areas where there was some section loss, but um there was no recommendation that the stairs were unsafe. One mayor's rickety is another mayor's
beautiful and 100% accurately complete stairs. All right. What were we talking about again? I have no idea. Okay, we got a motion on the floor. Do we have any more discussion? Seeing none from the other side of the room. All in favor? I I against. Same sign. Motion passes. Mr. Jagger.
Very good. Thank you. Item number three. This is probably our most robust item here. So, if there's any questions on this, I may forward this off to uh off to Mr. Habigor who's been and Mr. De has been working on this. Uh but this uh item number three is the recommendation of the approval of change order number
one. This is for our uh improvement with the right street 10th uh reconstruction project. Um basically what this is uh and motion coming out of of committee was to approve and I so move. Second. Motion by Jagger. Second by Chzach. Discussion.
Yeah. Thank you. Essentially what uh we've realized as this project has kind of gotten underway is that we were kind of missing some signage. We had some people kind of ducking and weaving and bobbing and making some moves that we really wanted to control. So, uh, this item for $3,200 roughly is to help
bolster up our signage there and kind of, uh, keep people where they're supposed to be. Okay. Very good. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Again, same sign. Motion passes. Very good. Item number four is the uh
the approval for the plans to authorize the advertisement for the M Street out uh this is our outfall repair project. If you'll remember, this is up by the Bick project. uh recommendation coming out of committee was to approve the plans authoring the advertisement uh and
uh for the bids of the M Street uh project and I so move second motion by Jagger second by Chzach. More discussion uh just real briefly you may remember this came before us some time ago. This is uh uh the the repair project for the uh for the water deterioration that was
happening up there. It's my understanding that uh Mr. um Mr. Mr. Higgins has been as in a part of these conversations, has seen the plans and supports the project. That's all. Thank you. More discussion, Mr. President. I think it's 169,000. Was it? I believe it's 169420.
Nice. Okay. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Again, same sign. Motion passes. Mr. Jagger. All right. Uh number five here was I'm
going to get to it is our the approval for the this is the approval for sanitary sewer lateral locating service. This is a service that we cannot selfp perform. The recommendation coming out of committee was to uh approve the proposal from GPS uh for the sewer uh
locating in the amount of 12,000 105 and I saw move second motion by Jagger second by Chzach. Mr. Jerger. Yeah. Real briefly, we have our project coming up. Uh, and it should be noted that this is in 2026, not 2025. Thank you, Mr. Chzach, for pointing that out. Um, basically what this is is this is a
service that we cannot self-perform. We don't have the equipment to do this. Uh, this would uh allow us to hire a company to come in and ahead of the project uh take a look at the risers that are uh extending true due north, which we cannot see with our cameras. So, this is
a specialized service that would allow us to uh get that on get the get that information onto the plans so that we're not doing exploratory digging when we enter this project. So, it's a it's it's an amount of money that we would spend to save money in the exploration phase,
so to speak, of this project. Thank you. More discussion none. All those in favor, please say I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Mr. Jagger. Very good. Thank you. This is our final uh this is our final um item here. We
did not take action on this. We felt uh in special committee that the entire council should weigh in on this. Effectively what this is is uh a question staff is asking what what we should do with the flags on the top of the historic water tower. Uh staff is
essentially seeking direction. We have a lot of different options. We could have uh two American flags up there. We could have three American flags. We could have two American flags. One state flag. We could have two state what whatever that is. Uh staff is looking for the direction of what to do with these flags on top. Keep in mind that we cannot um
move these flags to full staff or half staff easily. They are, you know, they're we put them up in the summertime and they stay. So, uh they are lit, keep in mind, but um staff is hoping that we as a group can give some guidance on what flags we want up there. Uh staff has pitched uh two American flags and
one P flag at this point. Thank you. Does anybody have any input? Mr. Johnson, I like two American flags and one P flag. Excellent. Mr. Beaven, I I would certainly support that. I kind of thought one of the American flags
should be the city of Brainard flag. American flag and the PWA flag. Sure. I like that. I would love a city of Brainard flag. I know we had one or two of them up there last year. The material didn't hold up. If we could get those made out of higher quality material and maybe get a
price on that. But Mr. Jagger, Mr. Mayor Sean, I believe that we had them made. The water tour committee gifted us those flags. The ones that we received were incorrect. We got new ones. Got them reinforced. We got reinforced. Are the new ones better than the old ones? Yeah, they're reinforced.
Well, reinforced much better. Again, one man's rickety is another man's flag. Yeah. So, this is a discussion we're talking about for next year. They stay up once they go up on Memorial weekend or whenever we can get them up there uh until the end of summer when the weather
turns to not is what it's like today. Yep. Um sorry. So just looking at that, I don't want this to be a discussion that we have to return to every single year. I want it to be something where it would be really easy to just keep three American flags
up there that unifies everybody. Uh once you start getting into different flags, you do get into, well, I want my flag up there. I want this flag up there. And I don't want to see that going forward. But looks like Mr. Chzach has it. I got a question. Go ahead.
What flags are currently flying up there? Three American flags. Okay. Uh what are the um what's availability of the city of Brainard flag of the reinforced variety? We have two. I think I got four.
Oh, we have four. How often are those flags needed replacing? Does anybody know? They usually make a season. Okay. I read an article uh Star Tribune about the flag. Maybe some of you saw that where they're talking specifically
about Crowing County and the Minnesota flag and they say they have to be replaced every 90 days. I thought that was kind of I don't know if that's accurate, but I wouldn't know. I'm just telling you what it said. They need to reinforce those. Sounds like a
um but I like the idea of a Brainer flag if we can get them and their quality are good enough to withstand a full year or whatever it is. Otherwise, uh I would go with the American American and the P.
Okay. So, you're you're uh if we can is the Brainard flag and two American flags or one of each? Well, all what Mr. Bevven said okay that same I'll make that motion Mr. Chair I'll second it second motion by Bevans second by John can somebody clarify the motion please
motion would be to have next year have one American flag one P MIA flag and one Brainer city flag perfect work more discussion Mr. Johnson. Yeah. I would, if uh if Kelly's willing, I'd like to clarify the motion saying
that this would be our standard flag arrangement going forward. No need to come back with us and ask again until the the council decides to change it. Perfect. Happily amended. All right. Go. Any more discussion?
Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor, please say I. I. Against. Same sign. And that is all for SPNW, sir. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Moving on to personnel and finance committee chairman Gabe Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. We have six items.
First of which is to approve a renewal of a contract with CLC for our PEG channel operations. And the motion is to approve a three-year contract renewal with Central Lakes College for PEG channel management and staffing of city meetings. And ISO move
second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Mr. Johnson. Pretty much the same three-year contract we're just ending up with. We added uh PUC and H meetings, and we also added a deduction for any any meeting the CLC can't get to and our staff handles, but
it's pretty much the same contract. Okay. More discussion. I have a question, Mr. Chaz. I'm checking in here. Okay. Just uh in in what I got in the packet, and that may be my screen reader. It said this contract will be effective
July 1st, 20 20,25. So there's a that's a typo, I'm sure, obviously, but I just wanted to make sure that's correct. And then it said the ending date 20285. So that's 20,285.
I think it's 2028. So it's correct. It reads correct on ours, but maybe it's reading that's just my Ours says 71 2025 through 6:30 2028, which is a three-year term that starts last week. Okay. So, so where you're reading so
remain in effect until June 30th, 2028. Okay. Okay. So, so I just have an extra number in there. No problem. Just wanted to check. Okay. That's all I got. Thanks. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor? I
I against same sign. Motion passes. Uh Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. Next up, we have a request from the employee wellness committee for the employee appreciation event. And the motion is to close city offices from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on October
2nd for the employee creation appreciation event at the public works building. And I so move. Second. Motion by Johnson. Second by Bevans. Mr. Johnson. You've all been to this event. It's a great time. Sean cooks some amazing barbecue with the help of the entire wellness committee. You will notice
though that the one change this year, they're going to do it October 2nd. So, it'll be a bit little bit later, but it'll be the same two-hour event that we've blocked off the last couple of years. We have indoor facilities there. It'll be heated. And if you don't go, you have to work. And if you if you don't go and you're
scheduled to work that day, you have to work. Yeah, we talked about that. Meat versus work. Heavy appetizers. All right. All kinds of good stuff. Um, is part of this motion that Sean does the barbecue? Oh. Or was that just explain?
I think it's in the All right. Yeah, he agrees. He agrees. He's required. All right. Any more discussion, Mr. President? Mr. Chz. Um, exactly. Uh, I understand all state employees and then council. And who else is invited to this?
Chris, could you handle that better? Tony might be able to handle it. The only other people are the public utilities commissioners is who we've invited in the past. Okay. Could we include um commissions? Yeah, that's what she said. Just the the public utility commission is the one commission we've invited in
this. Is there any reason why we don't invite the other members of our other committees? Sean's grill size. Yeah. Could we include those in the email? If you look at the numbers, how many of them are there? I mean, yep. Nick says we can put them on there. It's a good gesture. Let's start that. Yeah, you can
accommodate that, Sean, if we invite another 50 people. Yes, sir. Yep. Yeah. Okay, you're Let's invite all commit. Let's invite all commissions this year. All right. Any more discussion on that? All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign.
That motion. I just have to make a note here, Mr. President. I've served on committees for decades. Never been invited. Now that I get on the council, I'm inviting these people who've never been invited. Looking out for the little guy. Yes. Justice finally served. All right, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. President, next up we have anou allowing IBEDW employees to work at the hydro facility. And the motion is to approve the attached revised allowing IBEDW employees to work at the hydro facility through December 31st, 2027. And I so
move second. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans Johnson. We had approved a previous one. There was some discussion with IBW. Some minor changes were made. It has been approved by IBEDW. It has been approved by the steel workers. So, if we get our signatures on it tonight, we're set to
operate the hydrodam for three more years with IBW staff. Excellent. More discussion. Anyone? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Mr. Johnson. Okay. Here's an update regarding Minnesota paid family and medical leave
and ancillary benefits. And the motion is to accept the paid family and medical leave private plan and short-term disability proposals for Metife for benefits to be effective January 1st, 2026. And ISO move. Second. Motion by Johnson. Second by
Bevans. Johnson. If you remember, we went out with with an RFP when we uh learned that it's possible that a private provider may be able to provide a better rate than the state of Minnesota. The state of Minnesota's expected rate is currently
0.88. 88%. Metife came back with a total premium rate of.79%. So that should save the the city and the H combined around $13,000 in premium a year if we go with the Metife option.
Very good. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Johnson. Thank you. Next up is a RFP for long-term disability insurance. And the motion is to authorize staff and
integrity benefits to conduct an RFP process for long-term dis disability insurance based on our current policy and with an alternative plan design as proposed in ISO move. Second motion by Johnson, second by Bevans Johnson. Yeah, the alternative plan would be
instead of a six-month policy, it' be a three-month policy. It looks like that's the direction everything is moving in now with the the new laws with family leave and everything. So, we would get both options, but ultimately uh we're required by state law to do this. So, I
encourage a yes vote. Good point. Okay, more discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Johnson. Okay. And our final item was a discussion regarding roles and responsibilities of the city council and
the public utilities commission. We talked for about a half hour downstairs. We don't have a motion. We had a lot of agreement on what Kelly and I agree to, but that's two of us. We were missing Kevin. The rest of the council is up here and we didn't get
halfway done with all of the comments in a half hour. So, we thought it was best to call a uh council workshop so we can sit down and kind of talk to each other in less formal setting meeting to try and answer all these questions and decide where we want to go with this.
And I think we should do it as soon as possible. But Chris is gone. all of next week. So, my motion is to set a council workshop date on a date that works for all of us. And I so move. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Any discussion?
I have a question, Mr. Chzach. Um, can we put this out for additional comments for I I know one commissioner did not get the notice and I believe it was just an oversight. So, um it it was
Marco Day and uh I know the email was sent just got inadvertently included or not included and um if we've received comments from all of uh three council members, I would appreciate it to hear
from everybody else and only two uh public utility commission members. So, if we're going to set a date here out in the future, I don't see any reason why we can't ask the other people to if they still want to um submit something if they I have no problem with that,
Mr. Chair. Yeah, Mr. Beans. I'm pretty sure there's nothing prohibiting council members or public utility members from speaking their mind on any subject ever, including right now. Right now. Including right now. That's why I'm bringing this up because they um it was a deadline here. It was a
like a week. Yeah, we had three weeks in between meetings. So, yeah, there was a deadline for this specific item today. But if we're moving forward with a workshop, I would be open to hearing any input from council members that have anything to add, any
commissioners that have anything to add. Um, if anyone wants to email that to uh Nick Broyals, we can put it in a packet for that meeting. Hopefully, we can have a few days to look that over first. Um, but do we want to set a date tonight? We
should probably vote on the motion first, but we could do it all at once if we want to set a date right now. We're just missing a couple council members. When When's Chris not here? Next week. Next week. Okay. Okay. Let's just have that done um on a poll
then. Can we do that? I was wondering. Yeah, you guys aren't doing anything on Monday nights anyway, right? Six o'clock. Connie might be getting ready for the fair. I I'd amend the motion to uh if I could to uh do it on the 28th of July at 6
o'clock. Yep. I accept that. Motion amended. Any more discussion? Second. Are okay with it? Yep. Uh Johnson, should should we invite the commission? Yeah. Yeah, we can invite the commission. Sure. And and are we going to have staff
uh send out another invitation to provide the comments to all commission members and remind council that didn't do it? Yep. Nick will do that. All right. More discussion. Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Again, same sign.
That motion passes. All right. Uh Johnson, end of report. Thank you very much. Moving on. This is number nine, unfinished business. 9A. We have a resignation uh Blake Higgins from the planning commission looking for a
motion to accept that resignation. I move to accept with regret and to declare vacancy on that commission. Same. All right. Uh motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. More discussion. Thank you Blake for uh
putting in the effort. Um we didn't get a reason why, but sometimes it just doesn't work out due to scheduling or whatever. So, um, let's have a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion passes.
Next, we have 9B. This is a call for applicants. First, we have the honorable mayor Bedau. Yes. Before our call for applicants, I do have one nomination of Drston Grecula for the housing red development authority. Move approval. Second.
All right. Motion by Johnson, second by Chzach. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Welcome aboard, Mr. Grasula. Grasula. Excuse me. Apologize.
All right. You're still up. Uh, yes. We have the following positions available for the following commissions. The Charter Commission, two terms expiring 2025. Two terms expiring 2026. Housing Redevelopment Authority, we no longer have. The Library Board, one term
expiring 2027. Public Utilities Commission, one term expiring 2028. And the Transportation Advisory Committee, two terms expiring 2025, one term expiring 2026. All right. And as council president, I have two terms open on the water tower committee, and we just declared a
vacancy on the planning commission. I do not know the expiration on that term. Um, next we have 9C. This is a final reading of proposed ordinance 1586 for code enforcement. I believe this is Mr. Cranic. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, the city currently administers code
enforcement on a complaint driven basis. Uh, this proposed ordinance allows for active code enforcement along major thorough affairs around city parks and on the way to inspections, building rental inspections administered by our department. Uh, if approved, staff would not hire an intern to administer code
enforcement or drive up and down every street and alley as done in previous years. Uh so with that, staff recommends to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1586 and dispense with the actual reading, hold a public hearing, and approve proposed ordinance 1586.
With that, I can answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kravick. Does anybody have questions for James? Doesn't look like it. So, we are just looking for a motion to conduct the final reading of proposed ordinance 1586 and dispense with the actual reading. So, move second
by Chzach, second by Jagger. As a reminder, this has to be unanimous to not have an actual reading. So, um, Tony, please call the RO. Johnson, yes. Jagger, yep. Beans, yep. Chzox, yes.
OD, yes. That is the final reading. Now, we're just looking to hold the public hearing. So, I will open the public hearing. It is 8:16. If there's anybody here to speak on this, please come forward.
If there's anyone online that wants to speak on this, please press star three. Seeing none, we'll ask one more time. If anyone wants to come forward, please do so. And we will close the public hearing at 8:16.
Motion to approve ordinance 1586. By Joerger, second by Chzach. Any discussion? Seeing none, uh Tony, call the RO. Johnson. Yes. Joerger. Yes. Evans. Yes. Chzach. Yes. OD.
Yes, we have an ordinance. Uh 9D, we have a public hearing and adoption of and adopt resolution for Williams Street right ofway vacation. Again, uh is this M Mr. Haborst? Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Attached
to this request is a petition to vacate a portion of William Street right of way on Northwest Brainard. The map uh proposed this rightway vacation is attached. The petition was received by the council on June 2nd and the meeting
was declared sufficient and a public hearing was called for tonight's meeting. Staff is recommending holding this public meeting here and to hear testimony for or against the proposed vacation as submitted. Staff is also recommending adoption of the attach
resolution in which vacates the segment of William Street right away while reserving utility easements. With that, take any questions. Anybody have questions for Mr. Havagurst? Look like we don't. So, let's go ahead and open that public hearing. It is
8:18. If there's anybody here to give testimony for or against the prop proposed vacation, please come forward. And I'll just ask you to please state your name and address before you start. My name is Mary Hmed. Uh my address is
202 Northwest 6th Street in Brainard. It's the property currently showed on the screen there. Um we purchased that property in 1988 and um in 1996 92 we built a building and um then we
built another building. We had a upholstery business and commercial rental in the first building. Uh we were there a lot so we built another building and the city was gracious enough to let us um live there. And I do want to say thanks for the previous council members
that have helped us over the years and the current ones. So we built a second building. So when we did surveys all along, Woodsth was the main person we worked with. Um and at the second building where was a
point where we were possibly going to move and investigated the thought of separating the buildings. There's four lots on block 26. Um, in the midst of that, we found out that back building was over the line a
little bit. So, we came to the city. Um, worked with you guys for a few months and they did vacate some of the property cuz the railroad pulled out in that process. So, the first vacate we had was
14 ft and that was in 2002 and thought it was solved. So then we we had tenants um the commercial tenants. It was a lot of
young families. So we had the commercial there to support our income come and offer space for other um businesses. The Brinks uh Granite City rented one of the double garages in that last second building. They outgrew the space. wanted
to stay. So, we built another garage for them with an overhead door and a three stall and did due diligence again with Seth did it. We had good people involved in the building. It was um inspected a number of times. We got it approved, got
the permit approved, and they did give us certificate of occupancy. Currently, I'm listing the property. They want to move on, spend time with my family and grandkids. During this process, we found out that the back
garage is over the line. So, what happened? There was a 14T and a 40 vacate. They got over overlapped. So, I I um approached a different surveyor just to get a new set of eyes on it. And his assumption was that those two
vacates were overlapped and only was 40 ft. um the 40 feet included that 14 feet um was a little like taken back because you know we did the best we could. We've always taken pride and tried to do the
right thing with our property and um so that's what I'm dealing with now. I listed my property. I have a really good buyer, good people. I think they'll keep maintain the property well and um keep it going like we intended and offer
rentals to other businesses. So that's why I'm proposing um talking with the surveyor Jim Kramer. He's proposed uh 461 square ft. It looks like 58 by 119 by 58
off the back there to um solve the problem with the garage. Um, so that's my situation and it's been a an asset to the community, I think. You know, it's in a good area. It's right on
the It's a good location for the other businesses. It's right on the line of Baxter and Brainer and it's it's serving a good purpose. So, I'm just hoping you guys can help me out with that and see what you can any solutions that you have. I'd appreciate. Thank you.
This is going to maybe this is a better question for staff, but this is going to solve that issue if it does pass. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak for or against
or anyone online? Please press star three. Look like no one online. No one in here. All right. We will close the public hearing. It is 8:23. Um
staff's opinion is that we we will never be using this chunk of land for a street like it was originally platted. There's no room for it anyway. It solves the issue. Does anybody have a motion? I have a question. Okay. So, I heard it it solves the
problem, but I thought when we vacated streets like half of it goes in one direction, half goes the other direction. At this one, we're proposing it all to go to the northerly property. Otherwise, I'm asking staff a question. Thank you,
though. In in general, yes, it's a a 50/50 split. Um, in this instance, the trail right away is what borders on the south. So, uh, the entirety would be recommended to go to the north. Thank you.
The trail is stateowned. Does anybody know? Hang on. The attorney's got some questions. Yeah, correct. Please. The DNR owns and operates the state there. All right. I'd move to approve staff's
recommendations. Second, motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Um, Mr. Langel, just a quick comment. That's state property. So the rule that uh council member was talking about in terms of
half going each direction is true. And so if they wanted if to to get title to that whole thing, they would typically have to get that title from the state since that's Paul Bunny and Trail property. They want all of it. So she would still have another step to
go through after this. Correct. Okay. But and that's not a city problem. That's it's nothing that you can do about it because you don't have control over that that rule. So, it's you can vacate it. It makes sense to vacate it, but half of that is
going to go to uh the trail property. Okay. Thank you, Joe. That's what I thought. All right. Well, we still have a motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Mr. Chair.
Yeah. Oh, is this a resolution? Well, Johnson, go ahead. Johnson, yes. Jagger, yes. Evans, yes. OD, yes, that resolution passes. Um, let's see. We have
that is it for that one. So, um, if ma'am, if you have questions for staff, please just reach out tomorrow. I think we've done our part here. So, good luck. All right, moving on to 9E.
This is a public hearing and a resolution for the alley vacation for block 164 in the town of Briner. Uh again, cavors. Thank you, Mr. President. Attached to this request is is a petition to vacate the plat alley within block 164 in the
original town of Brainard. A map of the proposed alley is is attached for everyone. The alley is the north and south alley located between blocks Holly and Groove Street and Seventh Street and 8th Street.
The alley does not show on the GIS mapping, but however has never been officially vacated per the records. So staff is recommending holding a public hearing to hear public testimony for or against the proposed vacation as submitted. Staff is also recommends the
of the attached resolution in which vacates the alley while preserving utility easements. With that, we can take any questions. All right. Anybody have questions for Mr. Habor? Yeah, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just want to clear this is an alley. It runs north and south between seventh
and eighth. The north end is on Grove and the south end is on Ivy or Holly, I'm sorry. If north end is on Holly and the south end is on Grove. Is that correct? North end is Grove. South end is Holland. Okay. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Yep. Anyone else? All right. Look like we don't have any more. So, let's let's go ahead and have this public hearing. Uh open it up. It's 8:27. If anybody has any testimony for or against this proposed vacation, please come forward.
Look like we don't have anybody in here, but if we have anybody online, please press star three. I'll ask one more time if there's anybody that wants to give their testimony, please come forward and we will close that public hearing at
8:28. Next, we're just looking for a motion to adopt the attached resolution which vacates vacates the alley while reserving utility easements. Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. Okay, go for it.
How does it that the GIS map makes an alleyway disappear when there's no documentation that the alleyway doesn't exist? I couldn't answer why the county did not have that on the GIS map. U as indicated
I I threw the easement in there that we acquired about 15 years ago for that uh replacement project. Yeah. Uh so it's possible that staff even back you know 15 years ago that this was not shown on the GIS map. So they may have seen this as vacated at that time too. So we
wanted to retain the easement but as far as we could find we could not find the resolution where um this was officially vacated. So we wanted to kind of clean that up at the request of the petitioner. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? No more questions.
Tony looking for a motion still. I'd move approval. Second. Johnson. Motion by Johnson. Second by Bevans. Any discussion? Go ahead, Tony. Johnson. Yep. Jagger. Yep. Beven. Yes. Chzach. Yes. OD.
Yes. That passes. Now we have an additional item. U Mr. Chzach. This is 9F for the uh Crowing County data request. You want to take this one? Yeah. Um
the data um I think the council should find out about is dispersements um that coincide with the um grant money the county is um providing to um
shelter. And uh we did not get anything for May. And I think it may have had to been because the request was made on June 2nd, the dispersements would not been approved. Um or June 3rd, I forget. Yeah. Because
of the county board meeting having to approve those would have been the following week. So, I would like to um I guess I would just make a motion that staff make another data request for any dispersements regarding the same grant
for the months of May and June. And I ask that this be made at the end of the week. And then also uh so the county board meets uh tomorrow. And then also the uh for any any money
dispersed to the um uh bridge on 7th or any other businesses related to this grant funding and I so move. We have a motion by Chzach. Do we have a
second? Second. Second. Jagger's second was louder. We have a motion by whispered. Chzach and second by Jagger. Any discussion? Any more discussion? Chzach.
Yeah, I just think we should know. Okay. Okay. Excellent. All right. Um, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. Again, same sign. That motion carries. Moving on to number 10. This is new business 10A.
We have a approval of reortionment of assessment and call for a public hearing for Beaver Dam Road. Is this uh Mr. Cranic? Uh Jesse Dean. It's going to be city engineer Jesse. Okay, Mr. Dean. Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. President. So, I did my uh best to explain a complicated situation in the agenda item. Uh so several years ago when we did the Beaver Dam utility extension project, we placed a deferred assessment on that uh larger
uh Lind roughly 40 acre parcel. Uh after that time, a portion of that parcel was sold to the Jidlinskies uh in the kind of northeast corner if you can see it in the map. Um, when that happened, the county reassigned the parcel ID number, the
legacy parcel ID number, the number that was had the deferred assessment attached to it was actually assigned to the smaller parcel and they assigned a new number to the larger one. So, this kind of put a little bit of a snafu and put the deferred assessment essentially on
the wrong parcel. Um, didn't come to our attention until a an assessment search was done on the larger parcel. Uh so this became kind of known to us. Uh so fast forwarding to now kind of trying to look clean this up. Um looked into the
history of that. The house kind of predated the project. Uh so we essentially reran the scenario using the methodology um that was used to calculate the original assessments back um at that time uh to come up with the
recommendation of what the reortionment reortionment uh would be for the Lind property uh and did include that in here. Uh so staff is looking for um direction with a recommendation for the council um to
reaportion the assessment uh according to how the council agenda is kind of written uh and then call for a public hearing on this matter at the August 4th council meeting and I can answer some more questions. Like I said it's a complicated matter. Thank you. Um yep
I have a question of staff Mr. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you. Um in Mr. Habagor's email, he states that the smaller Jedlinsky parcel would not have been impacted or assessed originally in the project
because it has no frontage on the project. I presume is why he does not state why. He mentions that. And my question was, why are we assessing any of it now if it was I mean, if it wouldn't have been
assessed in the first place, it seems like the whole assessment, the $16,000 plus interest should go on the larger parcel because that's the only parcel that was impacted by the by the road project.
And any portion of that assessment that the seller thought Mr. Jed Lensky should pay should have been taken care of at the time that he purchased it because that's when special assessments are paid. We've
run into this in the past where we never required people to pay their assessments ever strangely enough but now we do which is good. My point is I don't think Mr. Janiski should pay anything. He wasn't on the prop. He
wasn't on the assessment role to begin with as as part of the project. And if I can clarify, u Mr. President, um the recommendation is not to reaportion any of the assessment to the
Jedlinsky property. Um the the entirety would be re reortioned to the Lind property um with the recalculated amounts um based on the methodology. Uh you're just reducing the one by $3,000 plus
correct using the adjusted acres. Got it. You're not you're not putting 3,000 onto Jed Lensky. Thank you. Not not in the recommendation. No. You bet. All right. That clears that up. Any other discussion or questions? So, we're looking for opening a a public
hearing on this one first. Is that what staff's recommendation is? Set a schedule on the fourth. Scheduled on the 4th. Looking for action from the council. If you're approving of going forward with this reortionment to call for a public
hearing on the matter on the fourth move. Second. Motion by Bevans, second by Chzach. Any other discussion? Mr. Johnson? I just I'm looking at this GIS map and I see that the GIS has Country Manor Way included on it already. So, that's
exciting to see. Oh, yeah. That's a four-lane highway. Okay. Any more discussion on the motion we have on the table here? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign.
That one carries. 10B. We have a discussion of the orderly annexation of Riverside Drive. Uh looks like James and Jesse are both listed on here. Who wants to take that one? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I'll take it first and then turn it over to engineer Dean. Uh municipalities by
joint resolution with the county may designate an unincorporated area in which there is no organized township government as in need of orderly annexation. This would then go to a Minnesota judge for a public hearing and consideration. Uh the area in question along Riverside Drive is in unorganized
first assessment territory. The Crowing County Board serves as the township board. Uh staff has had preliminary discussions with county staff regarding the annexation of this area due to the availability of municipal utilities. Uh before consideration, uh staff was
directed to bring items to council uh concerning connection charges as well as the rural service district. Uh, city council decided that all future properties annexed into the city of Brainard will be taxed at the general uh, city tax rate and will not be eligible for the rural service tax
district rate. In addition, city council decided that deferred connection fees along Riverside Drive must be paid in full, including acred interest. And I'll turn it over to Jesse. Thank you, James, and u council. So staff kind of selected the area that's
highlighted in the map um based on where essentially most of the availability to the uh existing utility is. We essentially extended the utility along the Riverside Drive corridor essentially up to the Shady Hills Trail up in the
north part of the u the map. There are a couple spots where we don't currently have utility services. Uh for example, the extension of Ashman Road to the dead end. Um but to avoid any kind of island spots of uh areas where uh would
essentially get isolated uh we did include them in the recommendation of the area. Uh so this kind of cleans up most of the corridor in an area that we could essentially serve pretty easily with utilities. Uh so that's how staff came up with the recommendation for the area. Um
and then there are just a few streets. Uh some of these streets have already been included in a shared maintenance agreement with the county. So some of these we're already doing some uh routine maintenance on right now. Um for instance like Ashman Road we're doing routine maintenance on right now even
though it is a uh county maintained street. Um should this be annexed into the city, it is likely they become city streets at that point. uh officially uh we have started to get some of the records from the county on a lot of these streets so that way we do have those records uh and can evaluate them
and roll them into our um city street network if need be and can answer further questions on that. Thank you. Does anyone have questions? Mr. Beans. Yeah, Jesse, before moving forward with uh Go ahead. What' you say? You both had your hand up. I said Bevvens, but go ahead.
Oh, sorry. Before moving forward with annexation, would we we'll get the information on the street age and quality or whatever, would we take in that immediate expense of any streets that need to be redone and work that into an annexation
agreement or or we would we just be going in knowing that there's a $200,000 project next year and that just is what it is. Depending on uh so there's not very many of the streets that we would be taking on. Ashman's probably the biggest one
and it's in pretty generally good condition right now. Uh depending on what you're looking for and what the the county would be agreeable to. Uh I couldn't answer that question. Um I would say they're in generally good shape. Like Car Drive for instance would be one that we would take over the
rightway of. It's mostly gravel. Okay. Pathway. I'm just concerned about taking on a lot of liabilities if if all the roads are in bad condition. I have no idea what they are, but that was they are not in poor condition. Okay. They're not important. Correct.
All right, Mr. Beavens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Another question for engineer. Does So, if I'm if I'm reading this correctly, this would require those odd parcels that are technically within the
boundaries of the city of Brainard that are no but are not in the city of Brainard to forcibly enex. Am I reading that correctly? Is that what an orderly annexation agreement is? Yes. Orderly annexation um would be a
joint resolution with the county. Um but essentially, yes. Then there'd be required to um to annex if joint resolutions pass as well as passed by the um Minnesota judge. Okay. And then my second question, Mr. chair also of staff is doesn't this
violate what I believe to be a agreement we had when we put the sewer and water in and the county did the road to not forcibly annex any of those people ever. So I'll I'll begin that. I'm not aware
of an agreement. Jesse may be able to look something up. Um I do I did include the policy from I think it was 2003 that talked about um after 3 years if your sewer hasn't failed these county properties would then be required to hook up and then essentially u be
annexed in the city of Brainard. So that was included. Um I I I don't know if there's any other agreement on record. What you just stated is if their sewer fails. This agreement doesn't say that,
does it? Actually, so I actually believe if if their sewer fails, um, they'd be required within one year. Otherwise, it was a three-year connection. Correct. It's not an agreement. It's part of our city code. If they're annexed into the city limits, our city code takes over.
It's a portion of the sewer code that's it's called compelling connection. So, there they can own and operate their septic system until it no longer meets uh meets standards and fails. then they're required to connect into the
city system at that time. I'm hearing a contradiction. On one hand, if their sewer fails, on the other hand, they're forcibly annexed regardless of whether their sewer is Oh, I'm sorry. Regardless of whether their septic system is still acceptable, which
one is it? Are we are we forcibly annexing them all or only those whose sewer whose septic systems have failed? So the way the old policy worked is would force annexation through a septic
failure or a number of years which we cannot do um if they're not part of our city code we cannot you know essentially enact something like that. So that policy was essentially null and void. So the only way to get them onto services would be to annex them by orderly
annexation regardless of whether their septic system has failed. That's correct. Okay. So, I have a recollection that we told these people when we did this, and I I'm pretty sure I might even be able
to find it for you, that we would not forcibly annex these people regard unless their septic system failed at from that perspective, I would absolutely want to hold a public hearing, but secondly, vote against this
ordinance. So, fiddle That's it. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chzar, yes. I think of my questions for Attorney Langel, if I could. Um, so if this Joe, if the city sets policy as
being discussed here, does that policy bind a future council from changing it or going against it? No, it doesn't. The policy doesn't bind the council. Policies can be changed by the council anytime you want. The same with any kind of agreement that may have
been made 20 years ago. Agreement with whom? Pardon me. What kind of agreement with with whom? Such is being discussed here. What they say that the council took action. They had an agreement with the property owners on Riverside or Beaver Dam. Um, no, we're talking about Riverside, I'm
sorry. Um, and uh what so whatever whatever was agreed upon through council action such as this uh as Mr. Beans is indicating does that agreement formally uh bind a future city council?
That would depend on the terms and conditions of the agreement. And I don't have that in front of me. Okay. Yeah. And and we don't know if there is an agreement is I think Mr. B. Yeah. I apologize Mr. Chzik. It was 22 years ago. So it just seems that I
recall this and I'm I certainly could be incorrect. It was a long time ago. All I'm suggesting is that we hold off with an orderly annexation. Well, first of all, I don't know that the council since I've been on it has ever done a forced annexation. It's kind
of been against what we've done. But second, it seems like there was a specific agreement that we would not forcibly annex these people to try and get the project done.
We were trying not to have a battle with all the property owners that were at the time not part of the city of Brandon. So I think the confusion is in the change that the state made to the law because we promised or the council you were on
in 2003 seems to maybe have promised something like that that we would not go through a forced annexation and it was still legal to go through the process of forcing an annexation at that time. Now they just changed the name to orderly annexation, but it's it's more of an
agreement between the two entities, which would be Crowing County and the city of Brainard. And then we would send that off to a judge down at the state level and they would judge whether or not we were forcibly annexing them. So we could go through this entire process and then the judge could just say,
"Nope, sorry guys, you can't do that." But I'm not disagreeing with you. Yeah, it it it does it does make sense to to try it because of the infrastructure that we have uh because of our watershed, because of those septics right along the river. It's not a not a great idea. Same
with along the lake on Gilbert. Um not disagreeing with any of that. Yeah. So I I lean I lean towards going through with it. I think it's inevitable. We have an island of unannexed land that's
completely surrounded by city property. We we I can think of one other area maybe we have that in town. Um I don't think it's good for development. I don't think it's good for when we assess projects like when we have to redo this street or any of the utilities or
electrical or anything. It just makes things work smoother. U Mr. Chzach I guess I think another question for staff if I could. um if if the council proceeds forward to this approving this tonight, when does the county board when is this put in front of them?
So, first uh city staff would work with county staff on drafting a joint resolution along with our our city attorney. So, it would be a a to be determined type thing. So, certainly we want some type of agreement between staff that we're moving in the right direction and then we'd bring it to city council and our and and the county
board. Okay. All right. So, for tonight, we're looking for a recommendation. You're the staff's recommendation is to initiate the orderly annexation process for the
portion of Riverside Drive as depicted in the proposed annexation map. So, we're looking for a motion for that. So, move by Chzach, second. Any discussion?
Yeah, Mr. President, Mr. Chzach, you know, the the thing here is our infrastructure. We all know it costs a lot of money and uh I've never been been a real big advocate for this type of annexation,
but when we've invested this kind of money in the infrastructure and it's sitting there and so so few property owners are contributing to the cost and it's not it it it it carries over into every part of our infrastructure. this
revenue that the city will receive once the property owners are paying into it on a monthly basis. I if if we don't collect what we need to collect, we get behind the eight aball way too much and we've done it way too
long. We need to start doing the responsible thing as a city. And that's why I think we're doing here tonight if we pass this as difficult as it may be. Agreed. Thank you, Mr. Jezach. Anyone else?
Seeing no more discussion, all those in favor, please say I. I. I. Against. Same sign. That motion carries. Moving on. Attendee. We have a consideration of fire escrow
for 614 Front Street. Again, uh this is James Krabbit. Parking setback. Parking setback. Did I miss one? Oh, I did. All right, we'll get that one next. Let's go back to 10 C. Consideration of variance request to allow a reduced
parking setback for 525 Washington Street. James Cranic. Thank you, Mr. President. High-tech construction on behalf of Jake Brandt State Farm Agency has submitted a variance request to allow for a rear parking lot with a zero foot setback uh to the alley at 525 Washington Street.
Currently, non-residential uses must maintain a 3-foot rear yard setback. The elimination of on street parking along Washington Street due to the reconstruction project is a contributing factor for this request uh which was not caused by the land owner. Most properties located in the commercial
corridor district have zero foot setbacks to the rear property line for their driveways and parking lots. So this request would be consistent with the surrounding properties. Uh the planning commission considered this request and held a public hearing at their meeting on June 18th and unanimously recommended approval.
Thank you, Mr. Kravick. Anybody have questions for James? Seeing none, we're looking for a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Motion by Chzach, second by Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to
a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. That carries. Moving on to 10D. Now we have the consideration of fire escrow for 16 or 614 Front Street. again, James Cranic. Thank you, Mr. President. So, a fire
occurred at 614 Front Street on June 4th, 2025. 614 Front Street is a mixeduse building containing three commercial tenants uh with secondf flooror apartments. The city of Brainard is allowed to hold a 25% escrow from the final insurance payout of fire damaged
structures. Uh Mr. Puringer has begun to remove debris from the fire and has applied for an interior demolition permit. At this time, Mr. Peringer intends to remodel the structure but will need final architectural and structural drawings to do so. Uh specifically related to the roof. Uh if
a property owner does not demolish or re remodel a fire damaged building, city will be responsible for the demolition of the structure and incurred costs will be assessed to the property. Uh Mr. Puringer is requesting that the city wave the right to hold the fire escrow
as funds will be needed to repair uh and rem and and remodel the structure. Um certainly things are moving in the right direction for that. Uh staff typically makes determinations regarding the fire escrow based on severity of damage. Staff does not hold fire escrow typically for interior smoke damage uh
but does typically hold it if there are structural issues. Uh staff is seeking direction from city council regarding the fire escrow for this property due to the size of the building, uh the cost that would be associated with removal as well as the importance to the building to downtown. Uh Mr. Peringer has
included a letter for city council to consider and I can answer any questions. Thank you, James. I have a quick question. Uh I want to do whatever we can to save the building. It's a big part of downtown. Um but I want to make sure we're at the right step in the process. It doesn't seem to me like we
have a 100% certain check mark there from the engineers that say this this structure is safe and savable. Is that has that come across yet? So, um initial conversations it does seem like the structure is you know
potentially savable, but really at what cost? Um so that's kind of the the you know final determining factor. There's no building permit issued right now for the repairs for the roof. Um the facade of the building still has to be evaluated. Um certainly things are moving in the right direction and our conversations have been moving in the
right direction but yes it is an unknown right now and the difficulty is if the city request the the fire escrow and we receive that money it can only be released on certain conditions. So that's where um Mr. Per is kind of preemptively asking um city council to potentially wave that fire escrow.
Okay. Mr. Shazak, what's the need to do this now and not wait until we see more um say uh more more of
Mr. Peringer's in investment into the U repair. And so again, our our building official did um some research on this and there are only certain instances once the city of Brainard um receives those fees. So right now the insurance adjuster is
going through the building seeing what the value is worth based on the fire damage and then once that payout happens if we haven't requested those funds to be held we wouldn't receive them. If we do request that we'd hold them then we receive those funds and really the way to return that is either the structure
is remodeled and is receive the certificate of occupancy or it's been demolished. So only after the project is done one way or another fixed or demolished. if we've received those funds. Okay. And how long does it take to receive those funds? I mean, I've never
even heard of this type of fund before. So, I'm just learning this. You voted for it. I voted for it. So, so again, if we receive those funds, um it's just probably anticipate within the next month the insurance payout
would happen. Um so, if we receive those, we would have to then wait until um something's either been remodeled with the building or removed. Um, again, we're probably anticipating those insurance um, payouts to be done in the next month here. Okay. So, my that's where I'm trying to
figure out if there's like this sweet spot. You know, two weeks from now, do we know more about the building and and what they're proposing to do and then we forego those funds? Would it make more sense then or would it make more sense today because we're so confident that
that's going to happen? You know, I guess it's up to the council, but Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Yeah, Mike, same question. I just need a a clearer answer for me. Looking at reading Dave's letter here.
He said he hired the engineering company and they will be complete with their drawings within about two weeks. Can we put this off for two weeks and see what his engineers come back with and then have make a more informed decision then?
We most likely would be able to um I don't have a 100% certainty with where they are at with the the payouts. We could certainly speak to the insurance adjuster and where they're at with that. Um most likely we could wait for another two weeks. We could request the funds as
an option. Um if if all of a sudden it gets paid out and we are going to receive them and then but if that doesn't happen, I can still bring it back to council in the next meeting. So, say we try to steal this insurance, these insurance proceeds and we get them
and you said there's only certain circumstances in which we could release them back to the building owner is redeveloping rebuilding the building. One of those circumstances in which we could when our building official looked into it, it it seemed like it was by state
statute that only when there's a certificate occupancy and the building has been fully remodeled that those funds would be returned. So it would be after the whole renovation process. So he'd be going to a lender or taking out his own money to do it instead of insurance pros. That's correct. Okay. After reading this letter, I mean
it sounds like Dave is going to working on rebuilding this building. And I' I've been around 11 years. He's been around a lot longer, but he I haven't found him to be dishonest in any way whatsoever. So I think if he's going to be rebuilding this building, that's that's what he's going to do. That's all I
have. Thank you, Mr. Chzach. Um, is if if we move forward with um acquiring these funds, is there any way we could help Mr. Per out with some something like u a revolving loan um and help him on the
back side where we hold this money and we in turn um provide him some low uh interest uh help to help him in the meantime. Are you aware of any funds? You know, there's something we could look into.
Generally, our revolving loans are only $25,000, and I'm assuming that the proceeds would be more than $25,000. I mean, it's something we could look into. Um, it's not something we've done in the past, but we could look into it in more detail. I'm not sure exactly.
Yeah. And we probably don't have the time. This is about 177,000. So, I can see where Mr. Peringer is coming from. It does. It's It's just the risk mitigation that comes across my mind. Worst case scenario, we get stuck
with a building. Mr. Perer skips town and we never see him again and and we're stuck with this building. But he also owns how however many other buildings downtown. I don't think he's going to do that. So, I think it's it's probably a safer bet than that.
But, if you guys are comfortable with it, then somebody can make a motion. Or we can wait for two weeks from now. You can make a motion for that, too. Do we have a motion? Oh, go ahead. I'll make a motion to uh wave the fire
escrow. Second, Johnson. Motion by Jagger, second by Johnson. Kelly, did you have something or No, I'll support the motion. All right. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I.
Against. Same sign. That motion carries. All right. Moving on to 10E. We have a first reading for proposed ordinance 1588 to amend section 515-3 allowed uses appendix A, table of uses to allow office business in the general
industrial district. James Krabbitic. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh so Central Minnesota Dermatology, an existing local dermatology business is interested in constructing a new dermatology clinic in the industrial park and have provided a letter of intent. Uh office business and medical clinics are currently not
allowed in the general industrial zoning district, but was in the previous code. Uh the planning commission considered the proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended approval at their June 18th meeting. Uh so with that, staff recommends to conduct the first reading of proposed ordinance 1588 and dispense with the actual reading.
All right. Thank you. So, looking for a motion. So, moved. Okay. Motion by Johnson, second by Bevans. Any discussion? I got a question. Mr. Chzac, is this kind of like spot zoning? No, it would be continuing the same
zone, but we would just be allowing uh business, what is it? Business and what? Industrial. Medical. Business and med medical clinics in industrial zones anywhere in the city. Okay. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I would just like to say like to Jeff's point there. It's quite the
opposite. It's allowing it pretty much anywhere within it, but I do want to just continually say, and I will say this every time along this process, that the industrial zone is loud, smelly, and noisy, you know, and just I want to make sure everybody's aware of that. I fully support this 100%. But if you're going
to take on that, just remember it's an industrial park. Does industrial things. Is there noise in the industrial park? This is the quietest street. That one. Not Not currently. Not currently. Any more discussion? All right.
I hope not. Uh, seeing none, let's go. Well, this is a first reading. Tony, do I need to call the RO? No. All right. This is a voice vote. All right. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Against. Same sign.
That motion passes. Excellent. Moving on. 10F. We have uh first reading of proposed ordinance 1589 to amend section 515-4-11 fence standards. James Cranic. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh corner lot
property owners consistently have issues with the construction of backyard privacy fences. The fence often bisects property, splitting the backyard in half. A couple pictures have been included um in the package showing what the current ordinance is as well as what it would look like if the proposed ordinance passes. Uh the proposed
language is for corner properties in the re if the rear yard audley a fence up to six and one half feet high may be erected from a line extended from the rear corner of the principal building to the side corner lot line and then along the side corner lot line to the rear lot line. Uh the planning commission
considered the proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended approval at the June 18th meeting. Uh so with that staff's recommendation is to conduct the first reading of proposed ordinance 1589 and dispense with the actual reading. Thank you, James. Anyone have questions?
If not, we're looking for a motion. I'll make a motion. Second, what? Um I I'll I'll finish. I'll I'll make a motion to conduct the first reading of ordin ordinance 1589 and dispense with the actual rating. Motion by Joerger, second by Johnson. Uh
Mr. Chzac. Yeah. I just wanted to say to anybody out there who has issues with fences or perhaps anything else to contact Mr. Johnson, we saw a property owner have the same problem and they didn't follow
the rules and paid a heavy fine and I appreciate what Gabe did here and he got this rolling for a constituent and I think it's the right thing and I'll support it. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, I just want to thank uh Jeff for his support. Thanks James for the hard
work he's put in on this and uh thank the planning and zoning commission for uh seeing that this is a this is a good amendment to the zoning code. So, thank you. All right. Anyone else? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I.
I. Against. Same sign. That motion carries. Uh 10G. Next, we have a first reading for proposed ordinance 1590, annexation of Dunyers. And again, this is James Kravic. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh,
Christopher Dunmier has submitted a petition for annexation of parcel 81160517, which includes Dun Meyer's Bar and Grill. Uh, the public hearing has been set by city council for July 21st. Um, at that meeting, uh, Oakland Township has reached out to the city staff and
has not voiced any concerns at this time. This was discussed at their township board. Uh, so with that, staff recommends to conduct the first reading of proposed ordinance 1590 and dispense with the actual reading. All right. Anybody have questions for James? Otherwise, we're looking for that motion. So moved.
Second. Motion by Chzach, second by Bevans. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. Moving on to 10H.
We have a resolution to award a bid for the improvement 2313 trunk highway 371B and Willow Street roundabout project. Uh this is Mike Abigorst. Thank you, Mr. Mr. President, bids for this project were open Thursday, June
26th. Attached to this request are the bids and the resolution accepting those results for this project 371 Willow Street roundabout project. The improvements also include reconfiguration of the intersection of Highway 371 and and Willow Street into a
roundabout and reconstruction of Willow Street from 6 to 7th Street. As a reminder, this is a grant-f funed project. It's a 9010 match. So part of the uh street costs were eligible for uh the grant, other stuff was not. And uh
staff is recommending adopting this attached resolution in which it accepts the bids and awards a contract to landware construction in the total contract amount of 1,ion1,41274785 and authorized proper signatures and the agreement attached.
Thank you, Mr. Haborst. Anybody have questions? Yep. Mr. Johnson, thank you. Uh, love seeing uh it come in 10% under engineers estimate. So, we have the $750,000 grant and we have
some uh enterprise funds, water manes, and sanatory sewer. How much is coming out of the construction fund or the or just levy dollars for this project? Jesse, can you get specifics with that? The intent is all of our local match
funds that are not associated with the utilities would be municipal state aid. Okay. Do we know how much municipal state aid we intend to be using on this project? Uh roughly about uh 200,000 250,000.
Okay. Thank you. All right. More questions. If we don't have any more questions, we're looking for that motion uh to adopt the attached resolution in which accepts the bids and awards the
contractor Landware Construction Inc. in the total contract amount of 1,412,747.85 and authorized proper signatures on the agreement documents. So, we have a motion by Chzach. Second, second by Bevans. Any discussion
on the motion? Just wondering if anybody wants to talk about the street lights that we didn't do. Um, Mr. Chzach is wondering if anybody wants to talk about the street lights. Are you talking about stop lights? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because we bring it up every
single time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, would have been a much cheaper and done years ago. Here. Here. Johnson and Bedau both wanted to. Anyone else? No. Okay. Uh, looks like we have a resolution.
If there's no more discussion, Tony Johnson, yes. Jagger, yes. Beans, yes. Chza, yes. OD, yes. That resolution carries. Moving on to 10 I. We have a resolution supporting the Crowing County Sheriff's Office
agreement. Uh, this was submitted by Chzach. Presenter is listed as Nick Broyals. Thank you, Mr. President. I can kick this off and then Councilman Chzach, if you have anything to add, please. Uh we would love to hear your words on this, but um the Crowing County Sheriff's
Department uh Crowing County via their sheriff's department passed uh an enforcement agreement. Um basically expressing their support of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement that was in March of 2025.
Um we did not get in the packet. I apologize for that. I sent that out to all the council members today. Hope you had a chance to take a look at that. Basically, the attached resolution is echoing those same sentiments in support of our cooperation with the immigrations and customs enforcement. Staff's
recommendation would be to adopt the attached resolution. Councilman Chzock, did you have anything to add to add to that? Yeah, I would just ask that u the resolution if passed be read by Mayor Bedau and that we also if passed send a copy to the sheriff's office and then
also the county board. Right. The mayor the mayor is dyslexic and reading is about as fun to him as having nails on chalkboard, but I will graciously accept. All right, I move to approve. Second.
Motion by Chzach, second by Johnson. Any discussion? Johnson. I'm glad to see the county did this. I think I think we should respect all the laws in this country and they should all be enforced and if we don't like them, we should get them changed instead of not enforcing them. Agreed.
other discussion. Um, this was brought to me by a citizen and um, he helped me draft it and I'm very proud to do it. Citizen to be named at a later date. Yes.
Okay. Any more discussion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. Uh, this is a resolution. Tony Johnson, yes. Jerger, yep. Beans, yzach, yes. OD, yes. That resolution carries. And now moving on to
read it. Oh, you want it right now? All right, I'll get out my best uh reading eyes here. Resolution is support of the Crowing County Sheriff Office Agreement. Whereas we on the council are public servants
and understand the hard choices that sometimes must be taken in times that are quite difficult and even deci divisive. Excuse me. We are convinced it is important for governing entities to support each other and acknowledge that we have good, solid people in offices in
Crowing County. The sheriff's office right now is certainly an example we can all be proud of and be sure that such decisions being made by them are sincerely coming from allegiance to
their oaths and made in their studied assessment of the best interests and needed security of the citizens of Crowing County and the safety of all its inhabitants. Be it resolved that the city of the city, excuse me, be it
resolved the Briner City Council hereby fully resolves to endorse the enforcement agreement Sheriff Clang and his office entered into with Immigration and Customs Enforcement this past March. Thank you. You're here.
All right, we'll move on to the final new business item, I believe, and that is uh discussion on airport funding. This was submitted by Councilman Johnson, and again, Nick Broyals is a presenter. Go ahead, Nick.
Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I can kick us off and Councilman Johnson, if you have any words, please jump in. Um, basically, obviously, we're in budget season. What what staff is looking for is just direction from council to work with county staff. I've had informal coffee with Debbie Ericson and we
started talking about the airport and what we're going to what that might look like in fiscal year 2026. So, I would like to start working with county staff with Neil Planser, the interim airport director, and perhaps the electeds from both boards, Councilman Joerger and
Commissioner Barrows, um to come up with a proposal for uh budget year 2026 for the airport. So, we're just looking for direction from the council for staff to start those conversations. Johnson. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President.
This was brought to me by a citizen to be named later and reminded me that last year we asked the county to have a discussion about the uh city and county's levy responsibilities for the airport and we never received a written response that I've seen. There's a lot
of updates on conversations that people are having not publicly and nor writing it down. I just thought since they said we were too late last year, maybe we should just ask them earlier this year if they're willing to have a conversation and maybe get a a written response of some sort. So, I
mean, my motion would be to request that the uh Crowing County have a discussion with the city of Brainard on the uh funding and the future funding of our joint venture, the Brainard Lakes Airport. And I so move. Second. Motion by Johnson, second by
Chzach. Uh discussion. Oh, go ahead. I'll let Mr. Johnson go because my question is actually of him. Okay. Yeah. I just this we've been talking about this for years and there's so little documented anything. There's a
lot of verbal updates. There's no there there's no history to uncover when we try to figure out where this conversation has gone in the last like three four years we've been talking about it because it's all conversations between you know
Debbie and Nick or or Kevin and somebody and it's I would like to have a paper trail of things written down on paper of where we're going and I think that should just be part of the public discussion we're having about this public entity that we jointly own as a
public entity with another public entity. I think I I think we should have more public agreed discussion on this. That's why I bring this motion. Kelly, I 100% support the motion, which did I second it? I don't even remember. But anyway, I wanted to see that you
mentioned that the county board has responded that we were too late. And I hadn't seen that. I had heard it, but I never saw it. So maybe that's the point of the motion. unless you can provide the documentation that you just stated.
I I did share it with Nick. It didn't make it to the packet. It was not uh written down in a public document provided to the public. It was in a Brainer Daily Dispatch article where the board chair last year was quoted in the newspaper as saying they requested too late.
You believe everything you read? Everything I read, the Dispatch is an honorable organization as long as they're not talking about some issues. All right. like airport funding specific. All right. Any more discussion, Mr. Chzach?
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um yeah, to Mr. Beaven's point, um um it w um it's now the county board chair last year wasn't, but he was quoted. I believe it. So reporters are good about that. They don't put things
in quotes unless it's actually said. So, um we were late. we need to the the offer was said essentially that uh if I'm not mistaken that it's kind of like it they need to come to us that means we need to go to them that's what they were asking for at least uh the county board
chair at that time said that so or currently said that at that time so um that's where I'm at in favor of this so we need to get the ball rolling if they need to be asked sooner I think it's better we do it now than wait any longer thank you Mr. Chzac Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I just could say that I I I
support all discussions between us and the county on whatever issues that we can try to uh resolve. And I I agree with the motion in that we do the public's business. We should do it in the public and just make sure that we have documentation of it so that we can reference things because even tonight, Kelly referenced something 22 years ago.
You know, that's a quarter of a century ago, but we need that documentation of things. So, thank you. I'm just going to passively agree with everything everybody said. Anything else have anything to add? I'll add it in my report at the end, but I'll I'll speak to this just a little
bit uh in the airport report. Good. If there's no more discussion, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same sign. Motion carries. That is it for new business. Moving on
to staff reports. Tony, chief. It's another double chief. Other chief. All right, Max. Anything Connie? Mr. Abigar. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. We have a regrand opening on Sunday, July 13th at
400 p.m. at Lump Park. We just want to celebrate all the new construction project is all complete and we just want to celebrate that. So, we're inviting everyone to attend. What was the date? Uh July 13th. July 13th at 4 p.m. 4 p.m.
All right. Thank you, James Cran. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one item. I just wanted to update city council that staff have completed the preliminary draft of the development agreement in conjunction working with the city attorney uh for the St. Francis uh project. St. Francis currently reviewing the language and uh the
agreement will most likely be considered at the next city council meeting. Thank you, Mr. Lang. Chris Schubert, Jesse Dean, I know we have the interim airport director.
That'd be me. Neil, is it Neil? All right, I'll meet you afterwards. Administrator Broyals, nothing to add. All right, Mr. Mayor. Oh, holy Hannah. Buckle up, folks. I know it's getting late. Just a couple of items. Uh, we here in the city of
Brainard love to celebrate the 4th of July, and we just did so. And uh I as the mayor had the privilege of being uh at multiple events uh that included the city staff and I just want to thank them individually. Park arts in the park went
fantastic. So park staff, some street staff as well. Thank you uh for all your hard work there. I will say I have been in Gregory Park a lot the last five years and it is it is the nicest it has
been in half a decade. I can clearly say that it it is beautiful right now. And Boulders the Boulders safe. I want to thank Kevin Jagger specifically specifically for the Boulders and the uh the managing of traffic through there. If we could still get our garbage staff
to maybe not drive the same path all all the time. That would be a step. But it looks beautiful and I want you to please share that. Fourth of July, uh, police, fire, streets, county staff, and the school district staff as well. Uh,
fantastic job as always. A big shout out to our police and fire. Um, we had to shoot the fireworks off 10 or 15 minutes early this year and it was the right decision and that's a hard decision. I fight decisions like that because I'm a firm believer on we said 10:15, we go
10:15 sharp. But uh we got to keep people safe and uh that was a tough decision to make and it was the right decision. And then once everyone cleared there was there was a police officer doing their final sweep and as we're coming back aroundpour torrential downpour but everybody was
able to get out of there and home safe and it was a fantastic show. So thank you to everyone involved in that as well. And then uh a request if I may. So, uh, as a person that spends a lot of time preparing for the 4th of July, I
take a mandatory twoe vacation, uh, after the 4th of July. But in the last handful of years, I've taken on a project. The last couple have been at Mills Stadium and where we did some sand blasting or blasting of paint and then repainting and fixing of fences and
whatnot. I would like to request from the city. I have a little bit of extra time on my hands. I'm not a guy that likes to sit around and do nothing. There is a fence on College Drive that I don't know if you guys know of it, but it is uh green poles and then wire in
between it. The poles could use a little work with some paint. And I would like to request of the city the um the ability to go paint those poles in the median. In the median, you have you have to wear a helmet and a vest.
I wear a helmet every day of my life anyways. Have you seen the I got to protect lot of hair. Got to protect this head and also this hair. But uh no cost to the city other than just um maybe a cone or something. But I got the rest of the equipment and
we can we can work on the paint color and whatnot. It should be the paint color we have for everything. So if you guys are okay of with that in the next couple weeks, I'd like to just set out maybe take two days and paint those. I'm in favor of it. Great. Second. Unless that's
stepping on shot. But one guy out there in the middle of college drive. We'll get some traffic control for you. As long as it's not a big to-do. I just don't want it to be a big to-do. Trucks with lights on. Okay. I got orange vest. Listen, I got the most high viz shirts you've ever seen in your life.
We know. So, you ain't got to worry about that. You're going to see 70s are over. Be hard. It's going to be hard to miss me. They're so bright. I can see them. Do we Do you need a motion for that? I don't think so. just I just don't want to go do it without John. Don't arrest him as a vandal. He's trying to fix the pool.
I'm painting the poles blue. Are they gonna be blue? I got actually I think I might have a serious question for our attorney. Is there a liability issue there? Always with the mayor. Is there is there a liability issue if a
member of the city council paints polls? Is that what your question is? Painting polls in the median between College Drive. um that you'd otherwise see a street department or somebody doing perhaps. Well, we could have him sign a waiver of all liability, I suppose. I I will sign
a waiver for everything I do. I probably should walk up the stairs here. I Yeah, I saw you walk up the hill on the 4th of July in the rain. Probably should have signed a waiver before that one, too. Almost died. Almost died. Uh and and just lastly, super fast, I want to thank Tony for running Mike's meeting every time. So,
just appreciate that greatly. I want to thank Tony for doing that, too. Thanks, Tony. All right. Thank god that's over. Um, Mr. Beans, I just want to uh let you know that the library construction is underway and I
think the windows are all sealed and they're the library board met recently and they're all excited about that and excited to get the air conditioning working and the ventilation system working and I believe all the work outside is done on the handicapped accessibility on the north side of the
building. So things are happening. Uh also at the ARB, if I didn't mention the designation to make that a regional park is uh done and approved. And what this means is that I mean it means a lot of
things, but what it really means is access to state money. So that's a great thing. Uh the bike park will have a soft opening on the 12th of July. That's 5 days from now, uh from noon to 5:00 that includes a fundraiser for the bike park. So, lots of exciting things happening in
the city of Brainard. Thank you. Brainard and Baxter. Well, that Yeah, that sounds like a fun weekend. 12th, go over and check out the new bike track. 13th, go over to Lump Park and jump in. Not Lumpark, the R. No, that the next day, the next day is a
grand opening. Okay. Grand reopening. Got it. Kazak. Uh, absolutely. Big news. Um, we got new staff here. Adam Forstrom, everybody know him? He's in the transit department. Quote it in our paper.
This move is a big one. Anybody know what I'm talking about? We're launching an app for our transit and it's going to help people schedule their bus on their smartphone. You're going to be able to see where that bus is when you're waiting. You're going to be able to do it after hours. Big, big stuff here.
This is a new uh uh uh it'll help dispatchers. you can call in and dispatch a bus tonight for a bus tomorrow. Um it'll do uh what do you call the optimization where instead of the dispatcher having to say u re u
schedule a bus to pick up in between a ride it will automatically do it. This is a this is huge compared to what we were doing with route match which is antiquated and I'm really excited about this. I won't be able to use it myself, but I can still call in. And I think you all should try this sometime. Just uh
see how it works on your smartphones. Those of you smart, this is this is a big thing. It really is. And I'm glad I'm glad our dispatch did a story on this. Thank you, Mr. Trezach. Uh let's go to Mr. Jagger. Yeah, just real quickly. I know we're getting on here um with the airport
report. I uh just so happened that the two narratives kind of crossed paths uh tonight uh as this was being asked for uh by uh you guys. The works were already kind of in motion out there at the airport. And I will also fully acknowledge that conversations between
the airport commission liaison director what in the past have been cryptic at best and that's something that uh I personally would like to take on as an initiative to to fix and repair moving forward. I'll be perfectly honest, the last two months of my life have been
highly taken over by finding that amazing human being right there sitting in our gallery. And I'm hoping that the next two months him, Mr. plans and myself. Uh, in fact, I know the next two months we will be dedicating a huge amount of time to better understanding
the mechanics of the airport, what it will take to run it, and quite frankly, helping the city council as well as the county understand the dynamics of what that ownership means, what the obligations are, and how we can all work
together towards a wellspoken, open um path in for the future for all of us. So, I I fully agree with you that that has been not healthy in the past and um it's going to take the city council as well as the county uh to sit down with
open ears and understand this. And my hope is is that between myself, Mr. Planer, and some other members of our commission, we can uh paint a much clearer p picture moving forward. So, uh expect that uh to come be coming back to you. We July is our uh month. We have at
least three meetings scheduled already for budget talks at the airport so we can be prepared to present it to the full commission at the first meeting in August. That will allow us to bring it back to you guys uh throughout the month of August. So, uh and that's happening on the county side as well. So, uh we're
in the works right now and I I would just want to call out a couple people that have been instrumental helping this that process so far and in the future. That's Mr. Planser, Jessica, members of the commission, Mr. Barrows, u and Mr. Palmer. So, uh, we got a lot of work to
do out there and, uh, we'll be getting back to you guys with with great information. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Keep it up. Very good. Uh, Chairman Johnson, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Joerger. I'm always relieved to hear you be confident about something. It's easy to be confident.
Uh, Fourth of July and Arts in the Park were fantastic this year. Thank you, Brandon Community Action. They did a fantastic job. The day after the 4th, we had movies in the park. Thank you to Community Action. Thank you to the uh to the uh parks board and the parks
department. We watched Goonies, which is 1985 PG. And I will say like one of the first scenes of the movie, a certain part of the male anatomy gets knocked off of a statue. And the mayor's 8-year-old
older his eight-year-old son didn't stop laughing about it for an hour and a half. said it was I asked them what their favorite part the small ones was when they found the treasure. The other one said when the kid said it's his mom's favorite part. Unbelievable. Thank you. 80s movie length also
fantastic time. I look forward to the next movie in the park. It was a great venue for it and a fun time for the whole family. Thank you. I just want to add in that thank you a big thank you to staff all these big big events that we have for
the 4th of July. Um, I know police and fire are heavily involved, streets crews are involved, parks crews are involved. Uh, and and this guy right here, we give him a hard time, but he he does a lot of work and it's a very stressful stressful time for pretty much just the one month
of the year that he has to work. But yeah, yeah, very good job. Everything turned out great. You did it all in the nick of time right before the storm came. Uh hopefully we can repeat again next year. Um with that uh we are going into a
closed session here. So looking for a motion to get into to adjourn to the closed labor negotiation strategy session pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.03 subdivision 1B to prepare for ne
negotiations with the Brainer public utilities managers and supervisors. So moved students union motion Johnson second chzach all those in favor say I. I against same sign. Okay.