City Council regular meeting meeting dated Monday, July 7th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. All rise for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge of 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. Item three on the agenda is a roll call. Could I have roll call taken, please? Ball, present. Jensen, present. Kemp, present. Money,
present. Scott, thank you. Before going any further, I'd like to make a brief introduction of our new city administrator. Ally Pulus has joined us. She started uh last week and has been working with the staff. So, welcome Ally aboard. Happy to have you
here and look forward to working with you. So, happy to be here. Excellent. You're welcome. All right. Moving on to item four, open forum. Is there anybody here that wishes to address the city council in open forum? Yes. Please state your name and your address.
And you have three minutes. Three minutes. Okay. I'll be as quick as I can. Bill, Green Scene Drive, Breezy Point. I'm here representing the Breezy Point Alliance. Uh first of all, Jerry, I want to thank you for filling in so a a overth several months. You did an
awesome job. Thank you. Um I'm not here to speak about the pictures I emailed you folks today concerning the breaking of ordinances down at the disc golf course. I'm here to talk about the management of our tax dollars. And I have three questions. I hope I'm able to ask all three questions and I'd love to
get answers tonight from any of you. Uh first one last about 10 months ago representative from Baker Tilly was here giving their presentation before in my opinion the vote was going to be had to be made that night. Shouldn't have been but it was and Mr. Scott asked a very
important question. He said what is the coupon of these bonds that are going to be issued? If you recall she gave the representative gave a dissertation that would make a used car salesman blush. She didn't she didn't give us a number.
Few weeks after that, they they printed out what they said the interest rates were going the coupons were going to be. I'm sure you've probably seen these sheets. The there were two pieces of it obviously 1.4 million and over three million. And they both had the same exact coupon rates for all the different
variations that they have. I have copies of this if you want to see this. I which I will hand out if you want. Um, turns out that the was voted upon and the bonds were issued and today uh today I've noticed there was a breezy point
bond that has a 5% coupon. The average coupon in these sheets was about 3 and a.5%. Now, a 10-year double A rated Minnesota piece of paper, and I might add, treasuries, government treasuries are double A rated should yield about three
three and a half% at the time. And rates have not changed significantly over the time period that we were talking here. They come up with a 5% coupon that's costed us a million dollars over the 10-year life of that bond. If that's if that's true, especially for the larger
piece, tens of thousands of dollar, hundreds of thousands of dollars if it's just the the smaller piece, and I haven't I can't find any information on the larger piece. How'd this happen? That's question number one. The question two is we have $1 million according to the agenda paperwork tonight, there's $1 million
sitting in the bank that I didn't see an interest rate of what it was earning. Maybe that's just an oversight. There's also 1.2 million in CDs yielding on average about 1%. Several of them yield under 1%. Uh in 2023, I gave Mr. Chansky uh a
symbol for Fidelity money market fund and Fidelity manages a trillion dollars plus that yield 5%. No risk, 5%. Well, obviously they don't want to listen to taxpayers because I didn't see it listed on the agenda sheet, but that's c that decision of having that kind of money
earn basically nothing. cost the city thousand, tens of thousands of dollars of income. And lastly, are we as taxpayers ever going to find out what all these secret meetings are generating as far as what the good folks on Bushman are getting paid for their property? I
think it's when you have all this non-transparent meetings, it creates rumors and people talk, especially when a former administrator is involved. uh in in the financial business that's called inside information. Now, I don't want to accuse
anybody of anything. Maybe there's good explanations for all of this and I would look forward to hearing what they might be, but uh it's either just ignorance or incompetence and I'd like to I'd like some answers. Thank you.
No answers. There will be no comment back to your comments. So, thank you for your information that you provided. Anybody else that wishes to address the council in open forum? Again, I'll ask anybody else that wishes to address the council in open forum.
Should put together a little memo. Hearing none, open forum is closed. Concerns that he moving on to item five. The council can answer them at the next meeting. Public hearing edgewater circle improvement 5A. This is a public hearing on the Edgewater Circle road improvement
and uh I am going to as we proceed have the staff give us a brief overview uh and then we will move forward with the public hearing and I'll cover those pieces. So Jerry please. Okay. The the timing of this improvement street rehabilitation um has been
prompted by Pelican Township. Pelican Township uh is proposing to improve Edgewater Circle. U a portion of Edgewater Drive or Circle is located in the city of Breezy approximately 1/4 or
25% approximately 390 some odd feet uh that the uh that belongs to the city of Breezy Point. Uh the township has approached the city about participating
in the improvement and they are proposing to do that project this summer. Um the city's inventory of uh street inventory it identifies Edgewater Road as a rating of four which means
that it in need of a full depth reclamation which is what is being proposed by Pelican Township. Economies of scale having a consistent roadway throughout and the road rating of four indicated need for the
improvement project. We do not have any record of when Edgewater was last rehabilitated, but we estimated that it was paved in approximately 1978 at the time that annexation was happened and the sewer was extended to service
the Edgewater condominiums. Um that said, uh the city has options. Uh one of the options would be to order the improvement and
assess based on the policy that we have. Uh order the improvement and assess similar to Asawana McKe which was a 50% uh assessment. Order the improvement and assess based
on a professional appraisal of benefit. One option is to decline the improvement and and uh leave it as is. Um I think it's imperative that we look at at this. We're we're looking at a capital
improvement program that's looking at many many other uh roads. Uh this might be the first one that you attack and and try to get rehabbed. Um,
with that I'll turn it over to Okay, any questions? All right. Any questions from the council back to staff before I proceed? Okay. So, I'm going to move forward with this uh public hearing. A couple things. Um,
is the applicant here present this evening? Who actually made the application? The application is not This is basically a public hearing to consider making the improvement. This is a right city. The city is the applicant actually. Okay.
Um there there are some representatives here I believe from Edgewater that have asked to speak. Yep. In their behalf. Okay. Um sounds good. All right. So, I'm going to cover a few ground rules. Hopefully, you picked these up. For those of you that
are here to to uh present as part of the public hearing, we ask that you limit your uh comments to three minutes per speaker. Please list your name and your address when you come forward to speak to the council. Um, and then what I would encourage is that you try to stay
and keep all comments together. So, if somebody's come up and spoken about something that you were going to cover, unless you have something new to add to the conversation, we ask that you please refrain from coming up and commenting further. So again, those are just some simple things that we it helps um um it
helps us make the process go a little smoother in that aspect. Um and we will strictly be hearing your comments at this point. We'll not be addressing any of them until that hearing part has been closed and then potentially then the council can have further discussion. So
all right. So with that, I will now open uh the floor for comments from the public. Again, please come forward, state your name and your address, and again, we'll we'll limit you to three minutes. So, my name is Kathy Parsons and I'm a condo owner at 9212 Edgewater Circle South. Am
I supposed to Okay. Um, and I am also a member of the Edgewater board. I have two other board members here. We were trying not to bring the whole crowd so that we could do this efficiently with you. And we do understand that Minnesota um statutes
empower municipalities to assess properties for improvement based on the benefits received. And those benefits received are about the increased value of our property. And as it's hard to see up there, but what I wanted to address is Edgewater Circle, as it suggests is a
circle. Our driveway into Edgewater, uh, our condo association is by measure 100 ft from the street to the far end of our driveway. That's the part of the uh, circle that we use. We have no reason to
go any further. In fact, probably not a good idea to go further. Our homes up there, they don't need extra traffic. That's the part we use. That's the part that matters to us. We do own the property. Uh it's undeveloped property further up the road. However, it is
undeveloped property and um we have no plans. In fact, uh a year ago at our annual meeting, we were had been approached by an owner up on the hill who said, "We'd like to buy a piece of that property um to put a garage on it."
which caused at our annual meeting robust discussion where we affirmed something we' affirmed in 2013 which is we have no intention of developing or selling that property that the the value to us is that buffer. Um and in fact
when we bought what we call lot nine it is the lot that is on the lake. Much of ours is not the piece that um is relevant here but the piece that's on the lake. We bought that not because we wanted the property, but rather because um with the increased size of boats and
lifts, we actually had to expand um enough space out in the water to be able to to give everybody a slip. So, I am here today to um ask that you consider of the I think I was notified of $21,630
of the cost. What value would that add to our organization? And we would say, I mean, I think there'd be people would say actually the part of that we drive on is actually fine because when we redid our resurfaced our parking lot in
201 about 18, they just resurfaced into that area. Right or wrong, they did. So, it's actually pretty smooth. Understanding, however, that you're facing a bigger question than just that. Um, as we think about value, uh, we would like to to you to consider the
fact that there's no value to us, nor do we want that value. We do not want that property developed now or later. Um, and equally, just so you know, in our bylaws, we can't even rent our places out. That's how important it is is to us that
we keep these just for our our use. Equally, most of the units rarely come back onto the market because they're handed down in the family. And in fact, the most two recent ones we had um first family members, you can inherit it or
there's 30-day right of first refusal for the family members and or owners. So, we and you can as an owner, you can only have two units. So, nobody can take over and start to say now, let's sell it and get some real money. So that is um basically our request is that you
consider that 100 ft which is about 27% of the entire um part that that Breezy Point would be working on. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I did I can I add one thing which is the mailboxes for the people who are up
on the circle are on the the breezy point side. Ours are not, but they are there. And so the people who use that that driveway up, those are the folks who are up on the circle and into the Pelican Township area. Thank you. Thank you.
Others who would wish to add comment to the public hearing at this time, I'll ask again. Is there anybody who wants to address the council in the public comment one more time?
hearing none, I will now call the time for uh public comment closed and um would open it up to the council to discuss what their ideas and thoughts
are about this process. Anybody want to start? Michael, you want to go first? I can start. What it what what what I heard and uh and when and I'm trying to look for uh confirmation here is that um
the the property owners are only utilizing 100 ft of the access and therefore asking for reduction in set assessment. Um however with our current policies we account for all property abuing the the property that or the
roadway that's being improved. And if you have to think about it for any street that um has homes developed along it, it it doesn't equal out to say the first homes pay less, the next homes pay more, the next homes pay more, and the person at the very end of the road pays
the bulk of it because they are the ones who are utilizing it. We've always addressed it by property frontage on what is there. Just because the the driveway is to the the west today doesn't mean that it could be to the east. doesn't mean that the property to
the south could be accessed and that's why we've always held it to how much frontage of the roadway is there that we assess on. Um so that's my mind. Okay. Council member Jensen, do you want to speak?
Uh sure. I think the road needs to be done. Um the time to do these projects, especially when Pelican Township reached out to us, they're doing a full depth reclamation. The road is rated at a four by the city
engineer. It needs to be done and now is the time to do it. To go back and do it cost a lot more money. That being said, we have item 8A on the agenda. I believe that discussion needs to happen first
and then depending on the outcome of that, look at the options that were given for this project. Thank you, Council Member Jensen. Council member Ball. Uh, yeah, I agree with Councilman Jensen. I think it needs to be done.
It's more costefficient to do it with uh Pelican Township um as far as what option we would go with. I think it would be nice if we could be consistent with um whatever we decide going forward. But thank you, Council Member Scott.
Yeah, excuse me. Well, this is certainly a unique situation in the fact that um from a wider community sort of benefit um in terms of road use, it really isn't there. I mean, this is a road that
essentially converts into a township road and goes into the township. So, I guess I would tend to look at it more as in some ways what was already brought up by one of the property owners. um what is in fact the benefit of any
improvement to that road to the unit owners there. Um and I think that becomes a lot more difficult when you look at a road that serves no ongoing property and property owners and residents within the
community of Breezy Point. Uh that said, I I'm not discounting the fact that the road as it serves as a road probably needs to be improved. I think it's more of a question as to um what is the overall
um public benefit or need of the road being improved to the full extent? What would be wrong with uh going in and addressing directly the part that the um unit owners actually
rely on and use. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Scott. Well, I would say that I see both sides and I do I I understand exactly what the property owners have brought to us in regards to, you know, what value does
does it have to them beyond the piece that they use, which is a very small piece. Uh it's very obvious if you drive by there, you can see it. Um at the same time, I look at it from the perspective that the city has a standing policy ordinance in place right now. Um and I
do agree that we have it on the agenda to address And so I I would lean towards us discussing that, figuring out what we're going to do there. And this piece is a timely piece in my mind because it addresses some of the things that I've
seen that I think our ordinance fails to address that that I've kind of talked about in past to council members and to others, administrators as well about maybe we need to be taking a look at that and that's why it's on the agenda so that we can address it to start to
try and see if we can come up with better solutions to some of these these outliers that we have. With that being said, I will state that you'll never get it 100% all the time. You're going to have some of these that just that's the way it falls and that's the way it ends
up. So, I guess where I'm at right now is I think and I'm hearing this is that we take a look at the assessment policy, have some discussions around that, and then be able to come back with some type of a decision based off of that of what we want to do moving forward with this.
Not hearing any disagreement there. So I I I think we have need do we need a motion on that? Can we just do a consensus to move forward with it? Well, I I think there's two things. There's really two issues here. One is
one is the improvement and making the improvement, right? The second is the amount of the assessment that going going forward. Got it. You you certainly could order the improvement to happen, right? And hold an assessment hearing at a
later date once the project is done with that assessment. You've already noticed that it couldn't it isn't going to be more than $21,000, right? But you you've also indicated I'm sorry.
You've also indicated that uh you're going to be looking at the assessment policy. Um that's actually one of the agenda items this evening. I don't know if you're going to come to a consensus yet, but um I think this
discussion has prompted the the necessity to to look at that sooner than you probably would have normally. That said, I think you can can order the improvement to happen. State that there will be an assessment hearing at a later date. The
notification will happen of the assessment hearing and there will be another opportunity to talk about benefit and and prove that benefit. Got it. Perfect. Thank you. That's what I needed. So, I would say then let's
let's let's move forward. I believe the improvement needs to happen. I don't know if there's anybody here sitting here says that we shouldn't improve it at all. I think it needs it. 1978, it's the last time we know of when anything was done to it. Well, do the math. It's a long time. So, I would highly
recommend that we move forward with the improvement with the idea that we do have a a later assessment meeting after we've been able to address our assessment policy as well. Um, so that's that's my thoughts, but it's the pleasure of the council as how they want to move forward. We've heard the recommendation or at least options that
we have from our administrator. So, I would agree with that. I would as well. Yeah. With our engineers coming back with this road already rated as a four, which means it needs to be replaced. Um the economies of scale with Pelican Township already going to do their
portion. It makes no sense for them to stop at at our roadway just to later on decide when we're going to move forward with it and have additional expenses. So, it's got to be done. It makes the most sense to do it now and uh consider the assessment at a later date.
The struggle I'm having at this point is quite frankly that if it hadn't been the township bringing forward their plans to improve the road in the township, this wouldn't have been on the council's radar at all for improvement. And someone can correct me if I'm wrong
on that, but that's my recollection. The focus on edge water and improvement really was brought about by the township approaching the city that hey we're we're making this road improvement. Do you want to join in on it or not?
No, you're correct. Is that incorrect? Again, when I think about the assessment policy, when I think about how the city has tended to approach road improvements and consideration that's gone into it,
uh it hasn't been, you could say, at least from my understanding, a very common practice for the council to make a unilateral decision to move forward and improve roads really irrespective of what the adjoining property owners
um position. position, views, likes or dislikes of what it are. So to me, I feel like this is um sort of the risk here is that this is setting a slightly different precedent that now the council is saying, well, you know what, on on behalf of just
bringing our road up to um a a better standard, um a newer condition, we are going to order it done and we're going to move forward regardless of where the adjoining property owners are at on it. And I I I most certainly don't agree
with that. Well, I think that we would have an assessment meeting later on which then give the property owners an opportunity to speak as well again then. So by moving forward with the project that doesn't necessarily state that they're
stuck with what it's going to be. I think what we're trying to address is that the project move forward with the idea that wherever we land after we have our discussion about the assessment policy, there will be an opportunity for the property owners again within a later
assessment meeting and giving the council even at that time after we've addressed our assessment policy to look at it one more time as well too. So, I guess that's kind of where I see it as is that we're we're allowing the project to move forward, but we're not saying
that at the end of the day that full amount is going to be passed on to the property or owners. I think what I'm what what I'm trying to do also is allow us to be able to keep the process moving forward with the idea that that piece is attached to Pelican Townships and they
are going to do their portion of the road. It makes the most sense economicwise to be able to have our piece done at the same time for that cost. To do that on our own at a later date would be much more exorbitant in cost, I would believe,
rather than having it attached to the project. But that's just kind of my thoughts on it. So So in some ways, we kind of have the the card out in front of the horse a little bit, don't we? I mean, isn't the township's time frame for taking on
these improvements uh I mean a heck of a lot nearer and close in time than having discussions with the council settling on assessment policy modifications and then getting into an assessment hearing? I mean, at that point in time,
isn't it going to be a bit late in the game to be figuring out how much they pay and then the difference between what is assessed to the property owners, who's paying for that? What's the What was the time frame again, Jerry, for the
I believe September. I mean, it's possible to get it all figured out. I'm just a little concerned as to the time needed to really, you know, focus on and and otherwise figure out the assessment.
I mean, just having an appraisal done, which I'm guessing we'd probably want to have happen at some point, is going to take probably close to a couple of weeks to a month potentially. Well, it's up to the council what what what does the council want to do? If if
we want to move forward to the project, it's going to require a motion. So, that's something's got to happen with regards to some kind of an action. We we can't we can't really just leave it sitting out there. Otherwise, we can bring it back again in August if you want to do that, too. But that doesn't
solve anything. Well, I think irregardless if I mean Pelican Township did speed up the process. I mean, they have their portion. The street CIP would have addressed it as well. It would have had
to be in concert with Pelican Township. I mean, the costwise, the savings is there. Um, I understand where the residents are coming from. I mean, I I get it. Um, assessment policies are not easy. Um, ours definitely needs to be looked
at. That's why it's on the agenda. Um, and I think we need to move forward with the uh project. Do you want to make a motion to that? I'll make a motion to move forward with the Edgewater Circle Road improvement
and have a subsequent assessment hearing. Okay. So, I have a motion from council member Jensen to move forward with Edgewater Circle Road improvement project uh with um an addition of an uh assessment meeting to take place before
uh the final decision is made as to the cost and how that will be uh addressed to the the owners of the property. Do I have a second? A second. I have a second from Council Member Ball. Do I have further discussion clarification on that? Yep.
Um, option three was to order improvement assessed based on professional appraisal benefit. Can we also add in that this be gone through that process of the appraisal? That would have to be a change in the ordinance. Correct.
So technically we couldn't until the ordinance was changed. Next topic. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? I would just say the road is listed as a four on the road CIP. So it is on the list and it would have gotten brought up
at some point. Any other discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. The motion carries.
All right. Moving on to item six, consent agenda. Consent agenda 6A. uh minutes to city council meeting June 2nd 2025 6B claims totaling 707,6827
that include e checkeks 3915e to 3939E and checks 14335 to 14043 6 resolution approving administrator as signatory 6 pavilion request bike around
Innesota and 6E Crowing County's Municipality Regions 5 Development Commission nomination. Having read to the consent agenda, is there any discussion from the council? Hearing none. Can I have a motion to
approve the consent agenda? So move. I have a a motion from council member Rooney. Do I have a second? Second. Second from council member Jen Jensen. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed.
Abstensions. Motion carries. Moving on to item seven in the agenda. Sanitary sewer extension 7A. Consider bids received July 3rd, 2025. Award bid to lowest responsible bidder. Would you care to give us an update on that, please? I can take that one. Thank you, mayor.
Oh, okay. Go ahead. Yep. I can take it. Yep. Go ahead. Um, Breezy Point advertised the bid for the sanitary sewer extension and bids were opened on July 3rd, 2025. The lowest responsible bid received was $159,211.97.
Woods engineering estimate was $160,000, $418,000.50. Details of the bid were received and sent to the council via email on Thursday after received. Um, and so staff recommends we award the contract
to Larsson Excavating Contractors of Holdingford, Minnesota. Thank you, Ally. Do you have any comments from Woods? Nothing more to add, unless you have any questions. I think we're pretty straightforward.
So, all right, sounds good. Um, so we're looking for a motion. As you all know, this is the sanitary sewer extension that we're doing up to uh the corner up there where the new Ace Hardware store is going to be going. And that's where that that's what this is coming from.
So, do I have a motion to approve the bid as submitted? I'll make a motion to award the sewer extension project of Larsson Excavating Holding Forward, Minnesota in the amount of $159,211.97.
I have a motion from uh Council Member Scott. Do I have a second to that motion? Second. Okay, I have a second from Council Member Jensen. Is there any further discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
Opposed. Extensions. Motion carries. Moving on. Agenda item number eight, special assessment policy discussion 8A, city assessment policy information and comparisons. Staff.
Um, I guess I I did prepare a a short memo based on uh some of the research I've done with some of the surrounding communities. Um, there there are many many variations of
assessments and special assessments and how people do that. Um, special assessments are charged on properties for a particular improvement that benefit the property owner. Cities have traditionally used special assessments to finance all or portions of public
improvements. The attached is the current uh city of Breezy Point special assessment policy uh for that is utilized to fund or help fund public improvements. This policy
has been in effect since 2019. Uh the recent uh completion of the road CIP plan has prompted future debate on the role that special assessments may play in the funding of future improvement projects.
Most cities have policies which address the methods used to determine special assessments. Uh the following is an overview of special assessment policies neighboring cities. Breezy Point uh for reconstruction and
overlays. Local roads less than 15 years in age, 50% city, 50% property owners. Local roads greater than 15 years, 100% property owners. That is our current policy today.
Uh, Peekquot Lakes Reconstruction is assessed to the benefited properties at an amount corresponding to the benefit determined by the city council with input of a city appraiser. Um, new projects
are 100% benefited property owners, which would be the adjacent properties. Uh, Jenkins reconstructions and overlays 100% benefited properties. Upgrade of existing gravel to concrete
or pavement 100% of budding property owners. New construction 100% of budding property owners. Cross lake uh cost assess based on a benefit received benefit opinion provided by a an appraiser.
Reconstruction batuminous assess based on appraiser. gravel to pavement is basically 100% uh abuing property owners and new construction is 100% uh abuing property owners. This one does not have
an assessment policy and they just deal with uh on a case-byase basis. I do have other communities that I can certainly uh provide other information about, but um this was
basically the the folks that are closest to us um that have similar type communities. Thank you for that. So, I'll start this off. One of the things that I've talked about for a long
time is the idea that our assessment policy in my mind when I think about it so our current policy says 100% basically new it's less than 15 years or over 15 years it's 100%. So 115 years is
50%. And we assess that directly to the taxpayers that live along what about that road. Okay. We have some roads within our our city that don't fall under that and we know those ranchet I could I'm not going to list them all but Dove Ranchet few Bushman's one of them.
We have some of those that are collector roads that we don't have that policy in place. Um and that city then takes on the responsibility for keeping those up and and paying for them. Um and I guess I've long thought that is there a better
solution? Do we have a better way of doing this? Because here's my thinking. So we have collector roads. Everybody uses those. City pays for them. Okay? The other roads are not just used by the taxpayers that live on those roads. There are other people that access and
use those roads all the time. I mean, I I can use mine. I mean, there's lots of people that don't live on Shady, which is not paved at this point, but they use the road. They travel from point A to point B to get there. And so you're asking the citizens of the community to
pay for a road that they while they utilize it. And I understand the valuation part. I get it. Supposed to add value to your home, so on and so forth. Tax value, that kind of thing. I get that point. But I look at it from a bigger picture of saying, how do we look
at it to maybe be more equitable across communitywide that look? And I think about it from the perspective of our community is a community that is used by a lot of people that don't live here. They come here, they utilize the roads,
so but they're not full-time residents and things of that nature. So, I'm just I'm thinking about different ways that we can look at it. Um I think it needs to be addressed. Uh, and I think there's been some things in other parts of the state where some communities have been
challenged by their assessment policies by people who have said, "Wait a minute, we don't think it adds the valuation to our property to the degree that you're saying it does and have proven that as a point and have put that have put that
community in a situation that way." So, I just think we need to think about it at the end of the day. if we end up where we started, then that's where it is. I think there's a better solution there for us to look at how we can pay for our roads. Um, we have a CIP that's
sitting out there right now. We know that there's there's a lot of funds that are going to have to be put forth to do that. So, how do we look at this? And that that's kind of this piece as well. So that's just kind of an opening thought or thinking process of of kind
of where maybe we need to be thinking about or you know but I I definitely am interested to hear what the council has to say. So whoever wants to discuss go by all means. Well, I would tend to agree um as the
assessment policy currently is is framed that there needs to be some modifications considered and some refinement in certain areas as to truly what is intended. But I think part of what you're getting at, or at least what I thought I was hearing you speaking to,
is the difference between really 100% of an assessment of the actual cost of the improvement uh different than 100% of what an appraiser would determine to be the benefits of the adjoining property
owner. I think most probably know that you're likely not going to be able to assess 100% of the actual cost because typically the cost involved with the road improvement on a local road is going to be greater than the benefit to the adjoining property owner. So I think
that that's some of the reason I suspect as to why a lot of the surrounding communities have as a part of their consideration. It's based upon an appraised value of benefit. So, I just
uh I think that is a pretty key point that has to be decided on is what are we actually talking about being assessed? No, I I don't disagree with that. Go ahead, Council Member. Just a question. Uh based on both of your conversations, in my mind, there's
three types of road improvements. There's minimum maintenance to gravel, right? There's gravel to pavement, right? And there's pavement to pavement. Are you talking about all three classifications or are we looking at more pavement to pavement? I'd say gravel to pavement, pavement to pavement. Okay.
I think we'd almost have to take one one at a time and Right. But I'm thinking about it from that perspective when I talk. So to clarify for you as I think about it in my mind, it's a gravel to pavement situation or a pavement to payment situation. Yes, they're separate. So
they have to be looked at, but those were the two that was where I was thinking. You mean reconstruction? rec pavement the yeah reconstruction right pavement so like what what we just talked about here with the idea of of the edgewater piece
that's a reconstruction can I ask you Mr. Scott what was your mindset when we're talking about was it more the reconstruction or were you also thinking about the gravel to pavement or undecided yet? Well, to me, I think it comes down to a
couple of things. You need to determine upon and get clear on uh which I think the city has done the classification type of the roads in the community such as collector, local, so forth and so on. Once we get really clear on that, then it's to consider within those
classifications the current level of improvement. In other words, what's the improvement that's going to be needed going forward? And then kind of based on that stepping back a little bit into how do we see being a fair and
reasonable approach in terms of assessment. I think most know that on a collector road the community uh at large is is going to contribute towards and and pay for those costs. Um, so I just think the more we can get clear on the the road
classifications we're considering being assessed for improvement and then the improvement type itself is kind of I guess overall where my thinking was. Okay. Thank you. Other comments? You know, I think I mean they're good
points for Council Member Rooney and Council Member Scott and yourself, Mayor Rogenamp. What I look at is the city is on the hook for $16.1 million in road improvements at 15 years. That's with engineering fees. We have one way to pay
for them, the levy. So if you look at these improvements, okay, assessments, if we keep them, we need those to budget, correct? I mean, we have to know what is the city's responsibility.
We don't have the luxury of a local option sales tax. No, we don't. Crowing County does. So that's off the table. Um, so we have one way to pay for them, taxes. So how do you equitably without making
the levy double digit increases pay for the streets? Obviously, I don't think we're a 15-year plan is even realistic at the 1.1 1.1 million if we go with the street CIP at a 15-year
plan. So, if we don't have assessments of to some degree, how do you pay for it? Right. And to your point, I don't disagree with that at all. I think we need to have an assessment.
Where I'm looking at is what level of assessment does that need to be and and so right now as it's stated now we have the 100 and the 50. You know 50 less of 15 it's 100 if it's you know 15 or more are new. So
excuse me with that being said I know that surrounding communities have the 100 and 100 but for the and that's what I was hearing and those are the notes I took. Most of them are new new construction or you know it's 100%. So I'm just thinking and that's kind of
where some of my thoughts were coming from too. Are there ways that we can look at this and is there more of an equitable split that we can do with the citizens that that help them but it's still it's still helping us too I guess is where
I'm looking at. And and does it become more where we're looking at specific pieces? Council member Scott said something about appraisals, but also is there specific? We have our roads categorized, but do we take is there another level there? Is there something
else that we consider? I don't know. I mean, at the end of the day, I think we have to look at it and decide something. I just I'm not that's why we're having the discussion. What does it look like? What do we do? Is it correct? Does it or is it something where
new construction and uh gravel the pavement 100% stays in place and they're assess that but we change something with regards to when we replace it. Maybe it's not the 50%, maybe it's less. Maybe it's not maybe you know I don't know
that's you know or is it 75% to the property owner is it you know I mean percentages are percentages. We can change that if we want to. Then I would say that while our surrounding communities have 100% that doesn't mean that we have to and we have one
community that has none. So, uh, they just have some. They just don't post what it is. They just take it case by case. So, you know, and I and I know we're looking at surrounding communities, but I'd be willing to bet if we started pushing outward across our boundaries and looking there are other small
communities in the state that probably maybe have some differences. I don't know, maybe that would benefit us to hear what those are to kind of feel maybe are there some other creative ideas out there that have been developed by small communities. I feel like it would. I just I kind of
agree with Councilman Scott that it's right now it seems to me that there's you have to kind of go through all the different stages to look at, you know, we have different categories. Is there categories that have developed that are not on there or that should be
removed that were on there? Um I tend to think Breezy is a unique city and so I think the categories make sense to me. I know that's would be different opinion there, but um I I it would be nice if there were other cities that had similar types of
collector roads where we could see if they if they have a similar idea or a different way of going about that. Um you know, it's was discussed about, you know, how much it benefits the property owner. Like that would be something that
would be interesting to look at as far as do we move to something like that. And I don't know what those numbers end up looking like, right? like is are there examples out there of you know what is that more than 50% then typically is it less than 50%
is it you know what how does that turn out for residents cuz I I just don't know and the one thing about the local roads greater than 15 years you know I don't know that I don't understand I guess the difference between the less than 15
years and more than 15 years for from that perspective Because who's driving the change then? If it's the city and it's our fault it wasn't improved within that 15 years then does it make sense to assess the property when it was 100%. Um
I just had a question there. I don't know the answer to it but just a thought and and I and others may be able to correct me. I believe 15 is kind of that standard out there that says time of like length of replacement or usually within 15 years. I'm not sure on that.
Is that what it is? No. Yes. There's an engineer back there that probably can answer that question better than I've heard that before. It's like 15 years, but I could be wrong. There's a lot of variables. Um, depends on your maintenance. Got it. You chip seal regularly and have regular
maintenance. You're going to get a lot more life out of that. I mean, typically it was put in by a developer and it was shitty. Okay. Who approved it? Okay. The city. Good. Thank you. So, how do we want to proceed, council? Thoughts, ideas? Council member I
haven't heard much from you. You've been you've had a few things, but do you have other thoughts or comments that you want to add? Um, Mr. Scott brought up the the the question of are we talking about cost versus the appraisal? And um my question would kind of send back to um what we're
talking about before when it goes from pavement to pavement. How does and I don't know if anybody can answer this. How does that appraisal look? Because it already has pavement versus new pavement. It's it's a before and after appraisal. Okay.
Before today and in the value added after. I should also tell you that the statute on on uh special assessments says that the assessment can't be more than the value that's added to the property.
Um typically councils make that determination. um but they are subject to criticism and arbitrary decisions by doing that
without having some background. Um I can tell you that in my former life we did a lot of rehabs um and started out with an appraisal
on a on a on each lot. Not every lot, but we'd take a a project and we'd pull out one or two uh of the lots with the homes on them and do an appraisal and that appraisal determine what the
assessment would be. Uh it's probably the fairest way to do that, do those things. It's the most defendable way to do it. Um it it also allows you if you have a similar project the following
year um they did minimal appraisals the following year and you use the last year's appraisal plus an inflation factor and it that helped you in the budgeting process also
in figuring out what your next project would would cost and and how to fund that. So I I do believe there's a real benefit into doing the appraisals as part of the the process.
So could an assessment policy be written that they that a landowner would pay the up to 100% of the appraisal difference and then the city pays the rest? Well, whatever assuming you're well, let's
let's assume you have 10 parcels on on a on a street and that street is costing you $1,000. So, and each parcel, so if you divided that up e equally, it would be like $100 a parcel. If the appraisal came back and
said the before value is X and the uh after value is U say $75, you would assess the 75 and you and the city would be responsible for the 25.
And that's an oversimplification, but it uh you use the appraisal to determine the assessment. The remaining anything that isn't covered by the assessment then becomes an obligation to the city totally the general fund.
If I may. Yes. No, I was actually you you Oh, I was actually going to ask you next. So, you're on my list. Yeah. We did this in Minitrista on our most recent project and I think from a city risk management standpoint and transparency.
I agree with Jerry that a benefit appraisal is the best way to go about it. The problem with the way you're doing it is you're likely assessing more than the benefit or you could um owner um and then if there was an
eventual goal to just levy all of the street improvements you could benefit for, you know, 10 years, lower it by 5% each year until it gets down or 10% to zero and then it's all tax levy. I don't know if that's the goal, but the goal of an
assessment policy is to assess the benefit to the owner and an appraiser helps you do that in my opinion. Yeah. No, thank you. I appreciate that input, Ally. With with that type of policy, if if
implemented, how does one budget for that? What do you mean? Just looking in the future for, you know, a 15-year road plan. If we if we considered a um you know whatever the appraisal comes back at that's 100% on the property owner the rest on the city
does that fluctuate by road by Typically it's going to fluctuate by road based on the appraisal um assuming you have two roads that are the same I think you can project based on inflation
what that value is going to be but it it's a tool that you use to to budget for the following projects. And you start off with with a number and you can carry that forward from year to year
if you so choose. Um or you can do an appraisal on every one of them before you even get into the budget process. If I may, you could have, you know, a $10,000 assessment for every reconstruction and then times that by the number of
properties if that's what the appraisal says. That's what you budgeted for, then take that off of the total project cost is how we did it. I'm not sure if it's could be different, but it's kind of by type of project is what I've experienced.
Similar similar projects. Um, also that it it's helpful for the resident to know that last year it was $2,500. This year it's going to be 27.50 or something like that. That that allows them to get
prepared and it shows consistency amongst all the residents around the community that it's going to happen. It's just a matter of when you get into that that circle. Yeah. in administr was that just
reconstruction we did a big reconstruction and that's when they did implemented this because our assessment policy was similar and it was you know $5 million road project so they did the benefit appraisal for the hold up reclamation I think it was 10
grand and then they'll use that again but you know they'll add 3% to their this year's reconstruction project to you know a similar projects have similar benefit to the property owner. If it was a mill and overlay, that's different. Or, you know, reclamation, that's
different. And to me, it seems like that's um pieces of what needs to be or should be clarified in the assessment policies. Again, what is the nature of improvement that's intended to be assessed, right? because it really does get to quite a
big difference between if it's already batuminous and you're just simply going through and and doing an overlay, that's one thing. But if you're going in for other utility reasons or needs um and doing a full reconstruct and that gets into quite a
different cost, right? And in some way I think, you know, given the effort that's already been done, you know, through the streets improvement plan and identifying uh and maybe that work was done even prior to the um information on road
conditions that has been recently provided. Somehow it seems to me like we should factor in um in some way, you know, how the condition rating of roads lends itself to the
timing of improvements. Uh I I know some of the city's approach right now has been on on gravel roads largely being um you know improved at the request of property owners. And I'm
not saying that that maybe shouldn't continue to be the case, but um it might go to more of the batuminous the current paved roads if if we've got roads identified, you know, based on certain conditions. I don't know. It just seems to me like that should be included in
the assessment policy in some way as a trigger of when the improvement happens. I don't know. Um, and then again, maybe maybe as we talk about it more and work through it, maybe it doesn't have a place in it.
I think I think you kind of raised an interesting point that kind of came my my mind is is perhaps instead of trying to look at the full assessment policy which was there's a lot to to look at there maybe we focus on pavement to pavement on that assessment policy first
because I think there is a bigger advantage from gravel to pavement which we can leave what we we have as you know it's generated by 70 70% petition it's still 100% leave that as is for now, right? Address what we're looking at for
payment to payment reconstruction and address that portion of it. Get that narrowed down because if you we could go back and forth on what we like about that portion of this portion. I think if we focused on that portion alone and look at what we could apply cuz
that's where the larger portion of the the CIP the CIP that's what I was going to say wasn't looking at gravel roads. The CIP is paved road. It's all our paved roads that we have currently in the city. Correct. That is correct. So, it's not even looking at any of our others. So, that's a good point. I like that
from that perspective of that we focus just on that piece of it right now. That doesn't mean that we don't want to address that. It just means maybe if we take it a piece at a time, it looks it's a little less undaunting. Well, and we can start start off with that capital improvement plan, see how
the first couple years look. And Right. And again, I mean, you know, I I was one of them in the 2015. Um, our road got assessed for for from gravel to pavement. Um, and so I think if we just focus on the
reconstruction portion of it, well, I would like I think it's a good idea to start with that because that's the issue at hand, but I don't want to just leave the rest at as is without saying like it's good to go for like the next two years and then something comes up with with a new construction. So I I
think it's timely now to look at all of it just like many of the ordinances so we can start with you know reconstruction. Yeah because if we have the ordinance open that's the time to do the changes rather than have to come back to it and reopen it again and do it all over. So
that makes sense. But maybe that's the first step is to address that piece to see if we can get some language drawn up that can be put in front of us that might, you know, take a look at something different. Jerry,
I I believe that the current policy is a policy. It is not an ordinance. It's policy. It's just a policy that's been passed by the by the council. It is not Thank you for Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So, it's a policy, not an ordinance. Okay.
But I still think the point stands whether it's we look at one piece at a time. We I think we need to address it all while we're in there and make something out of it. And and we may find that we leave what we have in there where it's at, but having a discussion
about to determine what that is might be prudent since we're there. So, so I'm kind of hearing that maybe we should direct staff to put some language together for us uh regarding the pavement to payment. Let's start with
that piece. Uh and do we want to address it from the perspective of appraisal then? That's kind of what I'm hearing is that we would I think that makes the most sense. I agree with that. Yep. Those will cost money as well. So, it might be beneficial to see how much that
would cost the appraisal itself. Um, I'm not sure if you're familiar with what I I did check with Cross Lake and their last appraisal on a project was $1,800. Okay. So, yeah, I mean, maybe look at So,
probably then add another piece to that, and that is to take a look at the cost just so we start to have an idea what that looks like out there, too. Um, but I think if I'm kind of hearing everybody, that's probably where we want to start and look at it from a propraal
perspective. What's that look like? How do we want to do that? Um, and then maybe bring some language back to us and let us take a look at it and and we can kind of take the the next step from there. What does the council think about that? They comfortable with that or would they rather see other things
added? I think at this point I'm comfortable with that approach. Okay. I don't want to bite off more than one can chew. We need to focus on I agree the paved roads and uh well they seem to be our top priority
right now. That's not to mean that we're not going to have to address all the others, but that's another discussion. So any other comments or thoughts? Okay. Well, I guess my only other thought kind of gets back to if we're going to focus on currently uh paved
roads, then I mean, is there some value in identifying what the primary nature of improvement would be, right? I mean, we're either talking about an overlay likely or or the road really needing to be
reconstructed, right? I I don't know that there's maybe there are there I think that approaches to improvements beyond that. I think the CIP based on the rating of the roads determines what needs to
happen. Um so there are some that are are they're talking about overlays, but I think the majority of the ones that uh are the highest rated are need the full depth reclamation at this point.
So um a four would be recommended to be a full depth reclamation and a five would be a full reconstruct. Uh one was basically a future overlay. Got it. And I would throw in also some of the roads that probably have just overlay on
them. Um portions of them would need to be reconstructed because portions are settling like culdeacs or For whatever reason, that little portion is more, but the rest of the project will be over.
All right. Well, I think we have some direction to get you started anyway. Uh to put some language together around that uh and then bring it back to us and let's take a look at it and we'll we'll readress it at the next meeting then. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you everybody
for your input. All right, moving on. Let's see. Gotta get my agenda back up here. All right, number nine. Uh, transportation planning study cost share agreement 9A. Professional services and cost share agreement for transportation planning
study. Right ahead, Ally. Yes. Uh, thank you, mayor. Before you tonight is the proposed professional services cost share agreement for the transportation study initiated by Eagleville Elementary School in Crowing County. The study will address traffic
and congestion issues affect affecting the area. An RFP will be issued and a study is expected to be completed by January 2026. The breezy point share of the cost is not to exceed $5,000. Keep in mind that this is just for the study that's being completed. I can update the
council early 2026 as the study is received. So tonight we're just looking for approval of the professional services agreement is drafted in your packet. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion?
Does does anybody have any questions? Um I've been attending the meetings. Um I agree uh the city needs to participate in this um for the study. Um there will be as part of the study they're going to
look at alternatives you know besides a roundabout um the decision will be made on who to select uh based off the uh RFP
on the 21st of this month. Um so we need we should um participate. Um, I think parents know that it can, you know, traffic over the years it's gotten worse. The pandemic um kind of exacerbated the problem. Um,
open enrollment, there's more parents traffic and then look at it um in January with depending on the results. and and I've been aware of it as well and I've asked Steve to or council member Jensen to sit in on those meetings for us to kind of keep us
surprised what's going on and a part of the process but being involved. Peekquat's involved, we're involved um and then as well as the county and then the school district. So, um I think you know what we're doing to move forward at least sits us at the table. We're
involved. So, I'm I think that's where we need to go and find out what they're going to come up with uh at the once it comes out and the study is put together. So, so do I have a motion to approve this? I'll make a motion to approve the uh traffic study plan.
So, I have a motion from council member uh Jensen to approve the professional services cost share agreement for the transportation planning study for Conor 11 near Eagle View. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second from Council Member Any further
discussion? Just to clarify, this is a study that's being looked at being done in 2026. It'll start when the school year and then end in January 2026. There's also parking lot, the internal
traffic flow that's going to be looked at for the school itself. the uh part of the referendum they have money budgeted uh to redo the parking lot and they're just looking at you know traffic flow where are the buses you know where are
parents picking up also as part of it yeah no promises that they'll make any changes to the road based on the study but it makes sense to participate I think uh any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I
I I opposed. Extensions. The motion carries. All right. Moving on to item 10 on the agenda. Police vehicle purchase 10A 2026 Chevy Tahoe.
Chief Sandell. Yes. So, this is requesting permission or approval to place an order for 26 towel. And to answer some questions, why would we do that in July? there's been high demand and low volume turnout. So,
if we wait, uh, we likely will not get a squad car next year. So, all this does is it gives us a spot in line for the build. So, we're not locked in. We can cancel the order. We don't have to take delivery of the vehicle. So, even though
it's before budget and we have our money established for our squad car, we can back out if, for instance, you did not want to purchase a squad car next year. The cost that was uh mentioned in the memo is for a complete build, equipment,
graphics, everything complete. Hopefully, it's estimated a little high because once again, we don't have the current number uh for the cost of a of a 26 Tahoe. Um so, this simply gets us on the list so we can guarantee a spot and
hopefully get a squad car in 26. So, our current squad that we have on order has not arrived yet. We're still waiting and we have always gotten in early like this just to try to beat the rush and actually get a vehicle. Okay. Are there any questions or
um what what's our current status on the squads we currently have? We have the one that's coming, right? So So that's going to be a 25 when we eventually get it. Is that what it is? Okay. And what are our other ones at this point? So I guess to better explain, we buy one
vehicle per year. Mh. Um, and it's we have that vehicle for six years. Okay, that used to be the case. Now with the hire of Marshall, we are now switching to a seven-year rotation, which means we'll have a squad car for seven years before it's replaced.
Okay. Um, and thinking off the top of my head, I think our oldest squad is an 18 that we're getting rid of. So 19, I guess, is where we began. Okay. We have two 2020s because we did not get a squad car in 2019.
Okay. And that was we had some issues with availability with Ford. Okay. All right. And it's it looks like you're making the switch to Chevy. Correct. Part of that there's two reasons. Uh part of which was we we didn't get a vehicle from Ford and then they shut down production for a year. So
you weren't going to get a police explorer for a year. and our paramedics with the addition of our um our Lucas devices and all the equipment they haul, our explorers were getting very small for all the equipment and gear they have. Okay,
so the larger full-size Tahoe works much better. Okay, that's good. Other question from the council? Um, I would like to see administrator Pulfus and the finance committee have a
chance to get together and at least look at budgets, at least a preliminary before we move forward this with this. I think this year's budget is going to be tight and I think it would be nice. I
would feel more comfortable if the administrator and the finance committee had a chance to look at this. Okay. Other comments. I wouldn't ordinarily disagree, Steve, but um we're likely looking at roughly a
month out from now before we're able to meet. Just another month behind where we would ideally like to be with um hopefully getting a new police squad. And um from my understanding, this is
uh a vehicle equipment investment that's already part of the levy and incorporated into funds that are set aside to cover this cost. So, I guess I um I see more of a need to
move forward than I do any I guess benefit in what level of change might come from discussions with the finance committee. I would agree with Councilman Scott. It is a part of our capital improvement
plan. Okay. And as I said before, if for some reason down the road we didn't want to proceed with it, this this just allocates us a spot. It doesn't commit us to it. We can back out if we choose.
Okay. And knowing the past we've we've frequently every year have ordered at least one squad. Um the seven-year replacement plan um and again with us being able to back out, I don't see us a need to hold back at this point. Um,
obviously we're coming up to budget season. We're gonna be going through that whole process, but um, a new squad is has always been something on on that budget allocation and I think it's a good for the community. And again, we can always back out if if we decide to
change our mind on where that budget allocation is going to. Council member Ball, do you have any comments that you'd like to make? Yeah, I think I already mentioned after Brad uh spoke, but yes, I agree with Councilman Scott. I think it makes sense to move forward at this point. Um, as been stated that it can be cancelled,
okay, if we change our mind. Thank you. I I didn't hear you, so I apologize for that. Yeah, I mean, I get the piece with the budget and we are going to be going through that and looking at it. The fact that we can back out, I guess, gives me a little bit of a
the ability to say, "Okay, let's let's go get it get it on the list and if if some some reason in the budgeting process there's a change made or something, we can go back and and you know, say, hey, we're not going to take it now." So, um I guess I would lean
towards moving forward with getting it on the list. What's the I'm just curious. What's the timeline to back out? Do they have a timeline? you I can't say definitively, but generally they don't even start building
them until pretty late in the year. You know, Decemberish, whatever. So, I would expect that we could back out all the way into late into the year. Yeah. Okay, sounds good. Yeah, I'm I was just thinking along the timelines regarding the budget process and when we'll have to have that set. So, we
probably would have we'd still be in that window. It sounds like we should be through the process in that time frame. Okay. All right. All right. So, we've had some thoughts. Is there a motion? Is Does anybody want to make a motion to move forward with this?
I'll make a motion to approve getting on the list for a 2026 Chevy Tahoe. Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Moroni to allow the police chief to go ahead and get us on the list for this 2026 Chevy Tahoe. Um, do I have a second? Second.
I have a second from Council Member Scott. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Extensions. The motion carries. All
right. Thank you, Chief. All right. Item 11, City Street parking 11A, Dove Street information. Who's up on this one? Administer Pulus or or Mr. Bonesack?
I see this over here. So, she's acquiesing to you. I this is a reaction to a um an an email that uh the council members
uh received based on uh some res concerned residents along Dub Street. um expressing concern about a semi tractor that occasionally parks on the side of
the road and and it obstructs the view andor the uh traffic lanes. Um we anticipated that there would have been somebody here to address that this evening. That's the only reason it's an agenda item.
Okay. I believe that uh the police department has gone through this and and is uh correct me if I'm wrong, Brian, but I think I think you're satisfactory that if there is a problem and they get
called that we can do something about it, but right now it hasn't really caused concern. Correct. So, I think total we've received between four and six complaints and I have not witnessed this vehicle
parked there, but our officers have and he's parking off the roadway as much as he can and the officers have stated that it is not a traffic hazard, is not posing any risk. Um, and we can't prohibit the parking of it without an
ordinance as the League of Minnesota City states. Yep. He, you know, I I feel I spoke with the daughter of the driver. I could not reach the driver. She indicated that he's coming in late at night, has no other transportation to get there. Goes to bed, get up, gets up the next day,
takes a shower, and leaves. Um, I did inform her of our 48 hour rule we have in this city that you can't have something parked for over 48 hours in one one spot. And she said if he's there for any period of time, they take it to the movie theater in Jenkins. So, um I
know the complaintant had mentioned had been there for several days. I'm not aware of that. They're claiming this has not occurred. So, um you know, he's he's obviously working and trying to make a living and I understand that sometimes
that can potentially happen. Okay. Do we know where I mean some kind of idea on Dove as to where it's being parked? Yes, it's over by the campgrounds um by the high lines. And I don't know if it's on top or below
the little hump there, but Councilman Jensen would know because he Yeah, Chief Sandell and I went out and looked at it. Um and again, it was on the agenda under the assumption that the uh group email, the concerned Dove
Street residents, uh wanted an opportunity to speak on it. Um it is it'd be on the towards the top of the hill just down from the camp campground. Um Chief Sandell, they're going to
enforce the ordinance that we have in place that you can't park longer than 48 hours. Um if the residents chose not to show up, it can't be too big of an issue. Um, the one thing that did come
out with Officer Larch, the driver of the trucks, at least his license is not a Breezy Point address. Um, cuz I had brought up the question, if he is a Breezy Point address, hasn't, and lives
here, why can't he leave a car? It was offered to him to park at the overflow for the public access as well. Um, but I haven't heard anything else. There's been no emails. Chief Sandell hasn't had
any further issues. So, I think it's a done deal. Any other comments or input from the council before we move on? I would just state that I I would leave it to our police department. That's how we have them. We have policies in place.
It's their job to carry those out and enforce them. I understand that that our citizens at time will have concern about certain things, but it sounds like it's been investigated. It's been looked at. It's something that they monitor. I'm sure the officers that are out on patrol, they probably when they get down
into that area, they check and look. So, I I guess I feel comfortable with the fact that we've we've got it addressed. And I and if not, and they want to bring it back to our attention, well, that'll leave up to them. I I guess it would have been nice to have them here, but evidently, as you said, they didn't feel the importance to be here. So, all
right, we'll move on then. Um, item 12, Shoreview Lane erosion and instability 12A, Shore View Lane erosion concerns. Is it is Joe, are you going to address that for us or is it going to be
We'll start out. It's Councilman Chans. Yeah. Um, this issue started four years ago. Um there was a healthy shoreline on shore
view um just before you head out to the point ATVs and ATVs with trailers um basically destroyed 6 ft by about 4 1/2 ft about 3
foot down of shoreline. Um, I think, you know, it was a good recommendation that the council um ask that the DNR and soil and water be involved. Um,
I have talked to Jake Free multiple times over the last year on non city business um on shoreline issues. uh blowing leaves into the lake, um cutting out bogs and letting them float around
the bay. Um this issue also ties into the rip wrap work that was done last fall that the reason being is the DNR
to approve the permit wanted the growth live growth stakes put in. uh rip wrap alone will not hold the shoreline. You need vegetation. Um since that was permitted and based
off when we get back to the damaged shore, I asked the hydraologist, how are these stakes going to survive if the area isn't blocked off? Because if you go down there now,
currently there's areas that are 20 plus feet where all the vegetation that was planted is gone from ATV traffic, you know, snowmobile, and that's in smaller areas all the way down the road.
And he did not mention the part about blocking off areas until after I pressed the fact. It's how do you expect this to work? Mhm. So, he is going to follow up and since
it is permitted and they mandated that the city do this that what are you going to do? I mean, at the end of the day, that's always been access where the rip wrap is for ice fisherman. Mhm.
What should be done is it should be roped off. Leave an area for access so that you can establish vegetation and keep otherwise public works is going to be fixing it at some point. I mean rip
wrap is just rollers for the ice. You can't stop it. But vegetation holds it together. Mhm. The west side has vegetation. Granted, the bay ice pressure isn't as much. Um,
and then Joe, like say he got the email from Jake Free, the hydraologist. I was with Joe and listened in when Soil and Water came out. Now, soil and water made it clear they
do not enforce anything. They are there to provide recommendations on how to restore their resource a shoreline and they're they're he was a very nice guy. So of the proposals that he proposed
you have to block it off to allow if vegetation one of those is selected you have to give it time to grow or it's not going to do anything. It's a waste of time. Mhm. That being said, there is a road there.
Mhm. And that's why I brought it up to Joe. The part that he refers that is a ramp is not a ramp to keep the shoreline from eroding away up to the road. They dumped
at least a yard and a half of gravel. Mhm. And that was just to hold the shoreline together. On the south end, you can jump up and down in the it's it's like a bog. It's
eroding away. Now over the weekend, you have wakeboats. You have jet skis. Just pulling away from the dock will erode the shoreline. And then at some point if the city chooses to do
nothing then you're going to be dealing with a road with a lake right next to it. So the question is what you know what option do you want to do if any and based off the you know the
recommendations I would choose where is his option one to stabilize that area let it put in the willows just like they did for the
shoreline. There's still going to be access and that's really the issue. Um the DNR, they won't make a stance one way or another.
Well, and I understand why. Yeah, exactly. I think the road at the statement on the water piece and they've got it in there and I knew that one, too. So, what do you mean by stance? Well, if you talk to them, they're
they do not want to commit to saying, "No, block this or do that." I think the DNR does an excellent job with one hand tied behind their back. It's the politics that takes over. Just
like when leaves were blown into the lake this spring, there was 2 ft of black muck of decomposing leaves on the shoreline that or the whole west side
all along the shoreline. That was from somebody blowing leaves in, not just one house. They cannot enforce that. They provide you with a pamphlet on why you shouldn't
do it, listing reasons. I mean, there it's political, plain and simple. But is is the case law they mentioned saying that you have to leave it open for access? Okay. Just just so we're clear. Yes. the Minnesota case law is you need
to leave because of the road which which we talked about last month but along the bordering of the water and you see that there's lots of other places even in this area where you have lakes that butt right up to the road surface and people are allowed to access the road there or access the lake because of
that rule. Yeah. So that's what we have in place there. but doing something to stabilize the shoreline in some way or some form which I think Steve's talking about option one I think it's staking of uh red or if I heard right which does grow very
prolifically and at one time history lesson for you Steve probably back before you were there that whole shoreline down along there in front of your place that all was redir all along that whole edge line that was all red zir on the west side not the
east side, but the west side. So, it's it's known to do what it's designed to do very well. And as it disappears, people first thing they do, oh, we got to get rid of that grub it all out. Well, I got to have a nice open view. And then you got all the other issues that come with it. So, there's something to be said about having some
vegetation. I mean, the key is, you know, the lake access is there on the rip wrap. That is about as gentle of a slope that you can get, but you have to con the DNR condones controlling it for a growth
season. So that being said, it's fall, you know, through the following fall. I mean, you have to give things time to grow. Um, so that's it's interesting on the history lesson. Was it truly a road or was it made bigger?
Now, the road was always there. It was always there. Always there. Back in the day it was gravel. Okay. Yep. And yes, over the time that's eroded quite a bit on that east side tremendously. We've had to do all that work, but at one time there was that all the way along there, too. But that just came from years of erosion. Yeah.
Just wave action and ice action. And I mean that's because that's such a narrow peninsula that runs out there. So yeah. So even more longer history lesson is we used to pass ducks across there way back in the day. way back in the day. But
anyway, so okay. So, council, um, we're kind of looking at some options here. Give some direction to to staff, I think, as to what we want to do. Uh, we hear council member Jensen's, uh, thoughts about proposal one. Is there any other comments, suggestions, ideas,
thoughts? Now's the time. So, just looking for clarification. This issue has come up based upon a complaint that was made the soil and water related to
the improvements that were made to Lake View. No. Well, it's two it's two-part. the DNR to approve the project, it had to include the live stakes and
vegetation because what they found is the rip wrap. They didn't even want to approve all the rip wrap that was done. They ended up doing that with the live stakes going in
which will hold the shoreline together because at the end of the day the rock is in water and the ground obviously is wet with the expansion and contraction. You're not going to stop the ice, but they're finding I mean it it dispels the
for years everybody thought you had to have the biggest boulders that you could find and that was the answer for shoreline. What they're finding out now is if you look at the state uses that granite quite a bit for their drainage ponds
along road because the granite is flat on three sides and interlocks. But to supplement to hold shorelines together, they want the vegetation as well. And actually the city used to mow both sides
to the ground years ago and then it stopped and that's when the vegetation started to grow. So the staking a part of the erosion control requirements associated with that road
improvement were not done or they they were done but they never the DNR it took quite a lengthy conversation to get to the point when I kept asking
how does it grow if you're going to have ATV and snowmobile traffic. They said in other areas, there was one specifically on Round Lake that he mentioned that they blocked it off for a growing
season, made signs that it said it was part of a shoreline restoration. Still made sure there was access to give vegetation time to grow. Any other input from the council
or direction? Is everybody comfortable with option one and directing staff to do that? So option one doesn't talk about blocking anything off. Is that what we're intending to do? It was what the DNR hydraologist said because my point was if if you just keep
planting vegetation and you know that it's it's a traffic area, how does it grow? I mean, yeah, it can't. You do it for a growing season and make signs that state this is part
of a shoreline restoration project. Is that our intent though I guess is what I'm asking with solution. You need it needs to be stated. I'm just curious because it's not in it's not in their option which was what they recommended too was number one but for soil and water at least and but it's
not doesn't say like block it off. So I just want to be clear that that's what we want. soil and water. All they get involved in is recommendations for vegetation. Uh Jake Free, the DNR hydraologist,
he's the one that said that's what they've done before because it has to grow and they realize that. Um and I think it's project by project. If you're doing a highway and a drainage pond next to the road, you're not going to have any traffic. You know,
it's unique to lakes. Thanks. Well, in an option one, it also identifies two different types of vegetation that could be used. Correct. The willows is what
they planted. Um, basically both types of vegetations, council member Scott, are used all the way down on the rip project. I know in talking to uh Joe Zeren,
they've, you know, the willows and the dog woods. the dog woods um grow quick, will hold the shoreline together. I guess that would be to me something that grows quick. If you're only going to be able to close something down for a limited time frame, you want something
to take root. All right, council. Where are we at? Let's move forward. What do we What we want to do is option one, are we okay with that? Do we want to direct staff to do that? Uh, with the idea that they would go ahead and replant stakes and then it
would be blocked. I would think that's kind of what council member Jensen is recommending us to do to limit the access there in that area so that that vegetation has a chance to take root and gain gain some footing there rather than not having it blocked off and then it
just gets flattened again. So any thoughts more are we good with that? Everybody comfortable with that to direct staff to move forward with that? I guess I'm not sure that I am. Um this is the first growing season since the
improvements uh that stretcher road has been done, right? I remember the time. Yeah, it started last November. And if you if you go down and look the areas that were crossed, there is nothing growing.
It's there is no vegetation. And that's multiple points across the road. Unfortunately, if the DNR would have conveyed that, then there could have been a plan to provide the access in a controlled spot
so that the rest of the vegetation can take hold. So at that point if nothing was done the next year it could be this is the crossing of choice the stakes are still small enough that they will be
destroyed as well. So that's why the DNR has said in the past that they rope off an area, there's still an access, but if you don't allow the vegetation to grow in situations like that, nothing's going to change.
So the idea is that we would leave an access opening there so that they could access the lake, but also have the area blocked off so that the stakes could have a chance to grow and establish themselves. and that on the with the rip wrap. That's the obvious choice because it's a gentle slope. You're not going to
destroy shoreline. That should be the access. Let the other vegetation grow and then decide what you do with the opening that's left for the rip wrap area and restore the shoreline that's uh
eroding away. Do we need a motion? Well, I guess I'm I'm more of a visual person. I'm trying to imagine that whole stretch of shore view. Are we talking about roping off the entire shore view without the ex with the exception of a small axis?
You would have to. I mean, at the end of the day, if you don't let that vegetation grow, the only way you can do it and if you if you go down there, there's a huge spot that's probably 20 ft with virtually no vegetation.
to get the rest of it to grow and take root, you block that off, still having the access so that it can grow. Now, the DNR may ask the city to restake some of those other areas that also were used
for access cuz it's multiple points instead of one. It's just whatever somebody chose to use. It It may be a good idea. I'm just having a hard time visualizing it. And if if we could ask staff to like show us like on a map next meeting of where
we're talking about. My my first question is when we talk about roping off a section, isn't there standards of what kind of fencing or you know if a car were to go off, you know, what does it hit? You know, there's guard rails, you know, on the highway. Is what can we put to
prevent, you know, and lessen the impact if a car went off the road? who's liable at that point. There's there's some considerations DNR stated was rope. Yeah, I would think you wouldn't put anything like somebody could build off there if they
really wanted off an area is what we're looking at. So basically, you'd probably put up a set of stakes and you'd have rope that runs from one part to the next part and leaving one opening area in that rip wrap where people would have access to the lake. the rest of it would be roped off during the growing season to allow
the stakes to to kind of take root and grow up. So, there's other areas along there besides the rip wrap area right now that have been the the vegetation growth has been defeated because people drove across there all last winter accessing it on the lake. So that's kind of where Council Member Jensen is saying
if we could do something along those lines, we might give that that growth an opportunity to take root, get get established, and then be able to take. So the roping is not a permanent thing. It's a temporary thing to allow that planting to establish itself, to
take root, so that it it's it's got some growth in it so that people don't run it over and flatten it out again. No. So that that's that's what that's where we're at. But I I mean I'm it's up to the council what they want to do. I
mean, you know, with their idea about what they think is is the right move in the right direction. We just need to direct staff what you think we should do or not do. So I, you know, from my perspective, vegetation along there is a benefit. Okay. It's going to help cut down the erosion, which you have a lot
of there because of the just the whole fact that that road is where it is and it's so narrow and wave actions, whatever, ice action. Um, we we can't stop the access because they're allowed to have access there, but we're trying to do something temporarily to help
promote the growth, which will then establish. How big are the stakes, Joe? Are they How tall are the stakes, Joe, when you put them in? They vary. Okay. You you I mean the ones we saw were maybe a foot, but you could get bigger stakes,
right? No, I'm just I'm asking from that question just as far as in my mind thinking growth and what they're going to get in a season and what they're going to look like at the end of that season when you open things up. So that's the only reason I ask. So again, there's options before the council. Council member Jensen has recommended an
option. Is that the option that the council wants to move to have staff move forward with or do we need to come back and talk about it some more at the next meeting? I think it makes sense to move forward. It's the cheapest option. It helps maintain the RIP wrap which if we don't maintain it, it's going to cost us more
in the future. So, okay. I just All right. I think it makes sense to move forward. It's temporary solution. People don't have to abide by it. I mean, it's if it's a roped off, they could still go through it. Well, hence that's why the DNR said they place
signs. Yeah. Just Exactly. And people understand, okay, it's part of a restoration. All right. I don't I don't think we need to have a motion per se. I think we can direct staff to go ahead and move forward with option one if everybody's comfortable with
that. And so the plan is that city staff does the work itself as far as a cost standpoint or are we hiring that out or I think we could do the work. Um I based
on the time frame projections and what they gave us, I mean less than half a day. Um probably we could fit it in, you know, sometime in before August, I would expect. I'd have to dig into it,
see how available they the stakes are. Stakes are mostly the other items on there are I could get them tomorrow pretty much. If it's any help, gains were where the original ones came from, which surprised me.
Any other comments? All right. So, staff, you have some direction. Option one. Okay. Um, I'd like to have an update on that at the next meeting as to where we're at and how it's going. Yep. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Moving on. Uh, item 13, city hall high-tech payment. 13A, city hall renovation hightech pay application number nine. Any comments around that from staff? None. Just this is uh pay application number
nine for $470,17428. Uh just uh an update. Yes, we had originally in uh intended to be moving this week. um that has since been pushed back by
um some equipment that hasn't come yet. Uh the most of the the uh furniture has been installed. The carpeting's down, the the lights all work, and and it's it's ready
for most of the move. We really didn't want to move in without everything being done. Makes sense. So, we're waiting for some some uh toilet accessories. We're waiting for um the protective
glass on the counter. Uh there's a few punch list items that have to happen. Uh it looks like the glass will be coming sometime next week. So, we're projecting that we're going to be moving the week
of the 20th. Okay. Um, it's it's really it it's got to the point where it's really looking like it's an office and it uh I think you're going to be very proud to see what it what it's what it is.
I suggest anybody that's got time stop in and we'll certainly take anybody through it and with the members of the audience also. We're we're happy to to show it off quite frankly. Yeah. Which I'm sure we'll have
something official when the time comes and have everybody come and view it from the public. So, we'll plan on doing that as well. But yes, I agree. If somebody wants to go check it out ahead time, stop by. I think it would would be helpful for us if you if you had some ideas of what you want to do for say a ribbon cutting or
something like that. If you have some ideas, it would be helpful for the staff to to know. Okay. What those are. Sure. Um, great. I've got some. I'll pass them along. When When do we think the council chambers will be ready? I think that's probably
October. October now. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm trying to be conservative about that. Yep. Right. Hope it's understand. Okay. Good. Well, I'll follow up with Administrator Pulfus and we can discuss some things, too. But yeah, everybody else, you got any ideas, share them with
her because I definitely want to make sure we do something. So, that's the plan. Um, all right. So, thank you for the update. Appreciate that. Um, so we have in front of us high-tech payment application number nine. Do I have a
motion from the council to approve it? So, moved. I have a motion from council member Ball. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from council member Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify
by saying I. I. Opposed. All right. Abstensions. The motion carries. All right. Item 14 on the agenda. Shore View Lane repair Gladen Construction final payment. A Shore View Lane Ice Damage Repair. Final payment.
Uh this final payment $17,764. Okay. So that finishes out this can what we were just talking about. Yeah, we're just rehashing the number 12. Uh, wait a second, Nick. Yes, Nick, go ahead. You want me to stand? Yes, please
use the mic. Just one comment on that. Um, I think we missed a month a couple months back on these pay apps and I did send over the final pay app. I believe the one that's in this packet is pay 2. So, this would
have been one that we wanted to have on in the packet last month. Okay. The final pay app was roughly $6,000, I want to say, to release the retainage that we held from the contractor. Okay. Um, it's in the city's hands right now.
Okay. So, so in other words, what you're saying is we have one more payment after this that we'll have to take care of. Yep. Okay. I just wanted that to be clear because this this payout says pay up number two, but the agenda item said final payout. So, okay. All right. Thank you, Nick.
Yep. So, basically, we'll have one more small one coming, it sounds like, at the end for about 6,000 or something. We'll have that on the next one. Okay. So, we have the Shore View Lane repair for the amount that's listed as
payment number payment number two. who it sounds like uh for this um damage repair. Do I have a motion to approve this? I make a motion. I have a motion from Council Member Scott. Do I have a second? I'll second.
I have a second from Council Member Jensen. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Number 15, city updates. Butterfly
released July 19th at 11:00 am and 15A department information. I have one thing. Um the we have there's an organization out here called the government finance officers association and that's a
professional organization for finance officers in the US and Canada. Um they the finance officers has a certification program and a scholarship program and I'm proud to say that Janette Rust has
received a scholarship to participate in that in that uh program. I'm also proud to say that I worked with Janette Rust. Yes. Excellent. Congratulations, Janette. Congratulations. Very proud of that. That's awesome. And by the way, I did a little background on that. There's only two of those
scholarships given out in the state and she got one of them. So, congrats. Thank you. We appreciate that work and effort on your part to go ahead and do that. So, outstanding. Thank you. You're welcome. This thing I'll be happy anymore.
Anyway, all right. So, let's talk butterfly release a little bit. July 19th, 11:00 a.m. Okay. I think the deadline get the days right. I think the deadline for getting in um the sheet was
today. Okay. But you can they're going to have up to 300. Is that right? Butterflies. Yep. So, there'll be butterflies available for you if you're coming to the butterfly release. We encourage all of you to come and attend. Uh my wife and I will be there attending. I know Council Member Jensen will be there. I
know he attends as well. Um and uh you know the cemetery committee works really hard every year uh to make that place look beautiful and they'll be there in attendance as well. So we're looking forward to that. Hopefully the weather cooperates. Um but I encourage everybody to come out attend. It's a great time.
It's a great event. It's a really neat thing uh to do. Um and so if you have somebody that you want to remember or do in honor of, you get a butterfly and release it. It's it's an amazing thing to watch all the butterflies released and fly up into the air and uh that's a
pretty neat thing and you're doing a great thing for pollinating plants, wild things. Monarch butterflies are huge pollinators. So again, I encourage everybody if you can make it, please come out. If you need more information, check the city's website or call down to
the uh city offices and and Deb and others will be able to give you the information you need if you're looking for some stuff like that. So, um, definitely encourage everybody to come out for that on the 19th at 11:00. So, um, any other department information at this time? No. All right. All right. So
hearing none, I move to item 16, which is I'm now going to suspend this regular session and I will