--------- All right, we'll bring the May 12th, 2025 city council work meeting to order. First item on the agenda. Gimple IUP discussion. Mr. Mayor, I'll um I'll have the attorney set this up and then we'll get
into some of the details. Mayor, council members, first agenda item for the work session is the uh Gimple uh interim use uh permit. Tammy Gimple has three interim use permits. City attorney, strike that
city administrator has provided me two. One has to do with the use of two horses resolution number 2019- 55. It's an interim use permit that
allows the applicant to have up to two horses. Um it has five conditions. One of which is that the applicant must comply with the city's farm animals code. Also must expand uh fence pasture
to three acres. Uh the permit does require as a standard with IUPs that the pro that when the property is sold, the interim use permit will immediately expire or if there's non-compliance with the IUP conditions. The property owner also has
30 days to remove approved domestic farm animals upon expiration of the IUP. And that's fairly standard as well as upon expiration. there's a time period uh to essentially bring back into compliance after the expiration of the IUP. 30 days
is fairly standard, but it can be shortened or extended depend depending upon the circumstances. Fifth condition is that the property may be inspected and evaluated annually by city staff and IUPs are customarily evaluated on an as
needed basis. Some of them do require annual uh evaluations and inspections. And the sixth is all conditions unless otherwise specified must be met by February 28th of 2020. The second IUP has to do with
permitting animal contractual services on the property. This is resolution number 2021-74. There are 12 conditions here. I want to underscore that these are interim use permits and as a result unlike
conditional use permits they're personal. They do not run with the property. Five conditions with respect to the use as an animal contractual services uh
site is that it is going to be non-commercial that the boarding of dogs is limited to 10 days at which time any dogs must be moved off site all municipal contracts entered into by the applicant must be
filed with the city of East Bethl even though it's not stated That's a way to ensure that the use meets the interim use permit and also understand what are the contractual terms and obligations that the land owner must fulfill with respect to the use of the
animal contractual services uh IUP. The third I strike that the fourth is that standard permit will immediately expire once the property is sold or if there's non-compliance. Again, number five, as
is very standard with IUPs, is the right to inspect. This one actually goes even further, and that is it's not only the city's designated inspector, but all other personnel under the direction and control of the city. I think it
important to note that the Anoka County uh sheriff's office is under contract with the city of East Bethl in order to undertake all the city's uh necessary and reasonable law enforcement and public safety activities and that that access must be
allowed for inspection purposes upon 12 hours notice to ensure compliance with all applicable conditions. Number six is annual inspection by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. Number seven, kennels for
quarantined dogs must not exceed 15. Housing enclosures for the dogs must be located in enclosed facility. I think number seven is important when you take a look at also the limit with respect to the dogs. So that there's a time period of quarantine
of dogs of 10 days and then there's a limit as far as the overall number seven of 15. Housing enclosures for the dogs must be located in an enclosed facility. All dogs must be confined to the premises. Accumulation of feces must be removed.
And then it goes on as far as other particular keeping the premises in um good sanitary um and and sightly condition. Number 11, city council reserves the right to modify conditions of the IUP at
any time where deemed appropriate. Actually, that's true under any IUP, but it's nice to have it expressly noted here under number 11 nonetheless for the animal contractual services IUP. Number two or strike that 12.
Gratitude farms will be required to request an amendment to the IUP in cases where contractual service obligations exceed the parameters of IUP. Again, that kind of relates back to making sure that the city has on record all the municipal contracts and make sure that
those meable contracts are within the limits of the IUP and provide that oversight as well. So, one of the things that jumped out at me when actually I received these uh two IUPs from the city administrator is actually the
dates. The first IUP with respect to the two farms is 2019 and the second one is 2021. Now it is fairly common for IUPs not to be amended during a you know basically
16 or 14year time period but it is also very common through annual inspections and change circumstances and conditions and things you know change over time within the city or within the site or within the use and so forth for the IUPs
also to to be amended to reflect those changes. Those changes can be either initiated by the property owner themselves because of those change circumstances or also fairly common by the city as they go through inspection
processes and so forth and realize that conditions need to be changed uh tightened up and so forth. Therefore, the first thing that jumped out at me is going, this has been a long time period for these IUPs to essentially not have been changed just
separate and apart from any circumstances that occurred within the last year or so. That being case, I also understand that essentially what has transpired with starting at the beginning of this year and so forth is one of the trigger points for this
particular discussion. And the discussion for the city council is basically really to decide whether they're going to take any actions with respect to the IUP or if they're going to take actions then actually the action today and the limitation for the council
is to direct city staff to place it on the necessary agenda and go through the not the proper notice proceedings with respect to taking action on the IUP. So the decision today is not whether the UPA is going to remain in place or whether it's going to be amended or
whether it's going to be revoked. That is not before the agenda and that is not within the power of this particular body today. The power within this body is to decide whether such action should occur
and then go through the necessary steps. That's why this body is not going to be taking evidence or testimony or those things because that is through a public hearing process. That is where you put
the holder of the IUP on notice that the council is looking at either amending or revoking putting that notice either before the planning commission and the body and this body can decide to send it to the planning commission or have it
directly come before the city council uh for such action. So as I understand what has triggered this particular discussion is a series of events that started on January 26 of
2025 where the In Noa shower noa county sheriff's office responded to a call um in the city in the township of Lynwood and the township of Lynwood does have a contract with Tammy Gimple with respect
to sh uh taking and sheltering animals. one of the municipal contracts that the applicant has or the holder of the IEP has such animals were brought to Miss
Gimple and then in a followup the sheriff's department needed to undertake further investigations with respect to the care and condition of those animals to determine whether there had been abuse of those animals by the original property owner and at least as alleged by the
inoc County Sheriff's Department. Despite despite repeated requests, they were denied entry in order to to undertake the inspection. As a result, according to the Noa County Sheriff's Department, they needed to get a search warrant in
order to do so. as a result of a series of uh steps taken by Miss Gimple with respect to refusing entry onto the property, refusing to provide information upon request in a timely
timely manner or provide all the information upon request. Eventually, the sheriff's department referred it for criminal prosecution. That criminal prosecution resulted in a
summon complaint that was issued on or about March 12th of 2025. And that summons and complaint contains two counts. State of Minnesota versus Tammy Anne
Gimple located at 22359 Batton Street Northeast East Bethl Minnesota 55011. The two counts are one charge
theft take use transfer movable property without consent in violation Minnesota statutes section 609.52.2 to subdivision 1A. It's a gross misdemeanor. Date of the offense is
January 29th of 2025 to February 10th of 2025. Count two, obstruction legal process, lawful execution, legal process in violation of Minnesota statute section 609.50, 50 subdivision
111 misdemeanor offense. Offense date also January 29 of 2025 to February 10, 2025. I want to make it very clear that right now under the as we well know under the United States Constitution as
well as our state constitution, a person person is presumed innocent until found guilty. So these are just charges. These are just allegations and what I have summarized of course in a very summary of fashion is the basis for that. What
is clear is that under the IUP with the city of East Bethl an inspection of her premises to ensure compliance with IUP is one of the conditions.
What is also clear, at least as alleged by the Ena County Sheriff's Office, is that the NC County Sheriff's Office was prohibited by the holder of these two IUPs from undertaking inspection. At this point, the
disposition of the criminal action so forth uh is still in process and so not sure exactly how it's going to occur. also want to make it very clear that I believe Miss Gample is here and this is not a criminal
proceeding and this is not a proceeding whatsoever. This is discussion by the council as far as whether any steps, if any, are to occur, but that if there should be an opportunity permitted by the mayor for
Miss Gimple to say anything that any statements she says can and may be used against her. Now, I don't have that obligation to provide her those fifth amendment rights, but I think it's very important nonetheless given the fact that there is
these these criminal proceedings to make that very clear. Also make it very clear that when and if the city does undertake any type of civil actions and so forth. That's a different standard. The city has full rights to oversee its
code and ensure compliance with IUP and can take any reasonable action amending it adding an additional conditions and if appropriate and found that there is basis for non-compliance to also
revoke with that I certainly would be open to any questions but I think that I've teed it up at least as as quickly as I can for the council to engage in the discussion as to whether they're going to take no action or whether they're going to refer to staff for
proceedings with respect to what actions would be appropriate based upon the facts in the record. Mayor um Mr. Look, do you got any further information on any violations? Uh Mr. Mayor and Council, again, um just
want to reiterate this. This is a conversation that we're having this evening. I do not want to confuse this with code enforcement, notifications of code enforcement or the process that the city takes to enforce any sort of violations. In terms of code enforcement, these IUPs
are essentially a contract where the um the city approves an interim use permit conditioned on whatever is written. Okay. So, what I want to do is just kind of go through uh these uh two. There's three of them, three IUPs in total. I'll
I'll differentiate between those, but essentially there's the integrity of the of the city, which is at stake right now. We have multiple IUPs that are out there. Um when the city comes in into knowledge of the fact that an IUP applicant may um may be in violation, I
think it's in incumbent upon the city to follow up on that. And that's precisely what we're doing here. and whether or not you want to take that to the next level um is uh is your decision. Um obviously there's a range there's a range of don't do it again to
revocation. Um but just taking the first one here I think the the easiest one is well just by by the older resolution of 2019-55. It's a resolution granting an interim use permit for the keeping of two horses on the property located at 22359 Baton
Street Northeast with the pin number there. Um I drove by that property. Uh I counted eight horses that I could see. Um, so there's um, and again our our code is kind of set up for acreage and
pasture land and the amount of space that the city at one point deemed was necessary for raising of horses and um, and uh, and whatever the case is, the uh, the number was established at two. Uh, there is there are more than two on
that property um, as of the date in which I took that picture. Uh the second uh resolution, resolution 2 20221-74 is a resolution granting an enemy use permit for the operation of an animal contractual service home occupation on property located at the
same address 22359 Paton Street Northeast. And uh the attorney kind of went through the um the conditions set forth in that and I would like you to zero in on um four in particular. Uh the
first is as was alluded to, the city's designated inspector and any other personnel under the direction and control of the city whom the inspector believes necessary must be allowed access for inspection purposes upon 12-hour notice to ensure compliance with all applicable conditions. The sheriff's
office, as I understand, uh made uh it took him 3 days uh to request access to this property. Um, as I was told, the um, the condition of the animals need to be verified so that if prosecution was necessary for the individual in Lynwood,
they would have their reports completed, etc., pictures taken, whatever was necessary to do that. And I, from what I understand, the the woman in in um, uh, Lynwood is uh, did I say East Beth? the woman in Lynwood uh is an elderly woman
and they'll probably take some grace in that, but I think this is part of the uh process that's necessary to determine that the dogs can't be returned to her or whatever the disposition might be of that. Um so eventually it led to a warrant as was indicated. Um, from what
I understand, the sheriff's department arrived on scene uh and uh the dogs were not there, which leads me to uh the um uh condition number nine, which was all dogs must be confined to the premises. Uh I believe the reason for this is
because um Gratitude Farms goes through kennel inspection reports by the Minnesota Department of Health. Um this is one that was conducted on uh December 15, 2023. This is to ensure that the animals are are
going to be properly cared for, have a proper uh uh area clean, etc. uh to take care of them. If the animals are removed and taken to other locations, those other locations are not licensed and there is no guarantee that uh that those
other locations have what it takes to uh to raise to to keep these animals properly. Um and uh I think um you know whether it was the horses or whether it's this uh animal um contractual service home
occupation, you know, if there was any sort of limitations that that the IUP holder felt uh pro prohibited her from doing her work as she needed to do. Um item 12 uh essentially says that she's required to request an amendment to an
IUP. just can't have people uh in a I guess uh um uh decision of their own just go and start changing the conditions of the IUP and operating how they see fit. They need to come back in front of this body to say this is the reason why this doesn't work or this is
the reason why I need to add more conditions or whatever the case is or alleviate conditions so that things can be done. Um, and uh, I would I would um, I would say at the very least under item 11, it says the the city council reserves the right to modify conditions
of the IUP at any time where they deem appropriate. And I would suggest that there's probably some conditions that need to be modified if this IUP is not revoked in the future. So that uh, Mr. Mayor is is the information that I have on this.
Um, and uh, again, if it's something that um, you know, I I believe that uh, 2021-74, while it relates to the court decision, I don't know that it's going to affect the the outcome of that court decision. I think they have what they
need. Um, I don't think this discussion will have bearing on that. Uh but nevertheless, uh I think this discussion is necessary again to preserve the integrity of not only um the other IUPs that are out there and the and the individuals that are following their
IEPs, but also um the integrity of the authority the city has. So we'll stand for questions if you have any. I think at this time, council members, it's time discussions come up.
You have pictures of the horses that you're talking about? I do on my phone. Yes. I can make those available at a public hearing if you'd like. Has has there been any uh letters sent
out uh for notice of any violations on this property? Uh Mr. Mayor and uh Council Member Mundle, uh it is not required uh as a condition that we send letters out for violations. It's incumbent upon the
applicant at that time and the person agreeing to the conditions that they follow the conditions. Um, I did send an email saying that we were going to have this discussion this evening as a courtesy to the uh to the owner of the IUP so that they could be present here and defend themselves or
answer questions if you had questions. But it is not customary that we send out that's why I said in the beginning it's different than code violations. Code violations there's a specific process where you have to send believe it's three letters and follow the process through and uh before you can go to any
sort of uh court proceeding. uh in this particular in you know instance you as the body get to decide if there are violations if they are legitimate and what the outcome should be of that. So what would be the next step? Do we
have to make a motion to bring this up at a future meeting for a hearing or something like that? What's the next step? Mr. Mayor, council member Urkel. The next step would be if there's a consensus the council to bring it to could bring it to the May 28th meeting if you like. Council can prepare a a
case for that. We can have a public hearing. Um photos can be provided at that time. Um and um you know there would be no motion no decisions here this evening in terms of formal motions but uh but a consensus we would would
direct staff to do that. Well, I personally I think we should go to the public hearing. So, and hopefully maybe her court is done. I don't know. But I I would like to hear the whole Whoops. I would like to hear the whole
um story, see the pictures, everything. So, and that's what a public hearing would do. Anybody else? Can we get copies of the
Yep. We'll send those out. Sure. So, excuse me. Moving forward, uh, as Miss Erko would like is not to consent here
or Sure. Okay. Okay. I believe we'll uh put this up for a public hearing at the next meeting. Then for for the record, uh all council members and the mayor uh nodded in the affirmative.
Oh, yeah. Good point. Yeah. In the meantime, if you can provide us with the pictures and IEP and any other material that you have pertain to this and uh if you can find out an update on uh their current court proceedings, that'd be
beneficial as well. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Council. what uh is customary is to provide essentially and assemble a packet of information and the documentation for the basis for the action that would be provided to the
holder of the IUP so that individual knows at least uh record to date what it would be the evidence um for the the city to take action at the same time the city and its own valition as long as a reasonable basis can do anything it really wants with the IUP so the record
would be available not only to the city council but to the holder of the IUP as well. And if there's any additional um documentation that other residents provide and so forth, that should be provided and then in a reasonable fashion would be forwarded on to the holder of the IUP as
well. Okay. All right. With that closed, uh let's move on to item number two, fee schedule review. Um Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, we um generally in January we deal with uh fee schedule uh
changes that occur and um I know that some of you are probably familiar with those reviewing those um reviewing those changes and we we generally as far as fees are concerned we try to um try we we cannot charge more than it
costs us. Generally we're not charging enough. Um and so uh we try and evaluate those fees on an on a annual basis certainly and wanted to just have a discussion here because we're in the process of kind of establishing the budget parameters right now and we want
to get your feedback on what uh some of the some of the uh fees that are out there right now. particularly um we're looking at uh planning and zoning fees um variances, code enforcement fees in
particular. Uh planning fees, I know we've we've had some phone calls recently here as it relates to some of Kendra's work. Um we we generally whether the attorney works on it or um Craig Yokam works on it, our
engineer or now if Kendra works on it, it generates an expense to the city. And so uh these expenses, some of which can be absorbed uh and some uh some we bill back to the applicant. Um in terms of planning and
zoning fees, I know that we charge an escrow escrow of um $300 for example. Um and uh and in some cases the cost for planning and zoning is coming in at $3,000. Okay. So we have
a significant um you know uh cost above and beyond what we're charging uh for some of these applications. Um some cities uh have
have an onstaff planner. We have an onstaff planner, but she's new uh newer and uh and certainly coming up to speed. Uh hence the reason why we have Kendra kind of acting as a backup right now. She is uh rolling into more of a um call
me if you need me and I'll bill you on an hourly type of basis for that. Um, but as as Grace comes up to speed and and more confident in the work she's doing, I think that'll start to um, you know, start to uh, fall off. The some
cities charge for even if they have uh, on staff planner, they charge for the planning costs. So, for example, you come in and you want to reszone your property. Um, you know, nobody's forcing you to resone that property. You want to reszone it. there's a there's a cost to
the city for doing that. And so the decision that you folks get to make then is is it the responsibility of the entire city to absorb this cost of a reszone or does it fall upon the person who wants the reszone and uh and do you want to
capture some of those those fees? That's that's one of the questions um that we have. Uh variances are another situation. You want to put in a a second driveway or um you want to build a a larger than than code allows for uh
secondary structure of some sort. No one's necessarily holding a gun to your head to to build that driveway to do that. But there is a cost associated in making sure that everything's reviewed and everything is comes out properly so that when it's recorded it's it's going to be a night it's going to be a legal
document that'll withstand a you know a process of sale or going through uh uh um any sort of record search or anything like that. Um so that's kind of the question that's here before you today. We have a couple other fees. I know um I
know Carrie has brought up um one of these fees where it takes two I forget the exact situation but it takes two publishings uh with the county at 30 $40 $50 whatever it is a time we only charge for
one you know it's those type of things where um where do we re do we want to re-evaluate this do we want to capture the cost as opposed to spread spreading it out amongst the entire population of East
Bethl. Just want to get your feedback on that. I've t I've taken a few of these phone calls about people who uh pay a fee and then get a bill that's two and three times as much. I think it boils down to a communication process or lack
of not not you know informing someone that this extra work might take some time and some resources from the city. I think the other thing it involves is that when you have someone who's in a position and this is what
their job is and you know and in some people's mind even mine in the beginning I'm thinking this is what they're supposed to be doing here at the city. If someone comes in and asks that question, this is what their wages are for. Um, could you explain a little bit
why that's not exactly what's happening? Why the extra cost is actually there? Uh, Mr. Mayor, uh, Council Member Miller, uh, first of all, let me touch on the first issue. Yes, it was a, um, failure to communicate in the very beginning. We have since um changed a
form to say that this is the escrow, this is the application fee, and there will probably be other fees associated with this. Um I've even asked um Grace to kind of ballpark. We just had a variance come through and that cost that
person X amount. And that could be similar to your case in terms of the the amount of work that's required. Some variances fly through, others required a significant amount of of uh of work from staff. Um to touch on the second issue, uh
there are certain staff functions that um for example, my work here at the city gets absorbed by everybody. Um there are other uh things where um you know you apply for a fire permit or something
like that, you pay a fee on that. There are fees associated with some of the work that um that staff does. It's not out of the or it's in other words, other cities charge these fees. Some do, some don't. Uh and that's the question.
That's the question as to um if if it doesn't cost very much to apply for an for a variance, you might have a lot more applications for variances. And then if you have so many variances and so many applications, pretty soon you're short staffed to the extent that you
need to add another full-time employee to handle these continual requests that are coming through. So it has somewhat of a you know your ripple effects in a pond in terms of to the applicant it's just a you know it's fill out this
paperwork the process involved behind the scenes of trying to make sure that that comes before the planning comes you know you pay your planning commission members you you advertise uh appropriately for it you have to um you have to then uh register it with a county cost associated with that if
legal's involved if there's if they're ve various different things. It it can be, you know, cheap to what you're seeing some of those expenses that are out there like the Blanco project uh that's coming through has a has had a significant amount of back and forth.
Um so the question then is is it incumbent upon the applicant to pay that or does the city get the pleasure of absorbing it? So can I ask a question? Can could it be
itemized so that my thinking is every fee is a tax from the government. It's a tax and I am anti- probably the most anti-ax person up here. But that being said, I if we could make it just for
instance, whoever is doing development, they because their stuff is huge, but what's on private properties. Now, I reszoning, I wouldn't mind having a reasoning, letting those people, resident or developer, whoever,
um, pay whatever that cost comes up. But for it being on somebody's personal property, if they want to build a pole barn or a a barn barin barninium, I can't it's not
coming out right. But uh then I say no, absolutely not. It is the city. Their taxes are paying this whole city anyways. So that's that's where I I stand. I think that developers and um
some bigger projects like resoning uh but I would like to see it itemized and you know where the council can say yes yes yes no no no you know that kind of thing. Mr. Mayor and council members it's always itemized. Um you may not see it
as itemized but everything is broken out in terms of what um what category it's going to be build as for from an accounting standpoint. I meant the fees. The fees itemized. Yep. All the fees are itemized. So that if the city is paying for it, what budget is that coming out
of? You know, is it coming out of the legal fund? Is it coming out of, you know, um wherever I mean there's there's a myriad of different accounts that we have to track these things. Um so that can certainly be provided. Uh there and
and this is precisely the discussion. It's like in this situation, uh, it's fine if you're, but perhaps in a barnaminium situation, you want 20 foot walls, which aren't standard, and it's going to require going through this extensive process. Um, whereas if you're
told upfront, "Yeah, we can work you through this process. That's not a problem. It's going to cost you potentially $3,000 to do that." Then the customer can make a decision. you know, do they really need the 20 foot walls or do they think it's a simple process to get done?
Um, I agree with what Suzanne saying. Our residents for their own personal property like a $300 charge to do it is fine, but if it's just normal things, you know what I mean? Versus developers
and stuff like that where there's a lot more entailed with it, different story. We can't be raising prices on our residents. I feel the same way. It's like we're already paying staff. Our taxes are covering
that. Staff is paid to do that job. So, we shouldn't be charging over and above. That's how I look at it. Different story when we got businesses or developers or some huge projects. That's what I got.
Well, I I think it's important that our residents know exactly what they're paying for, period. Um, if we charge $300 to put a pole bar on to overlook the, you know, the the plans for a pole barn on a private residence, how does it get up to
1,200? I mean, they they've got to know exactly what they're paying for. And correct me if I'm wrong, are we starting to build back developers now? We didn't do that in the past, did we? Yeah. So, we started doing that. So, that that's going to help. Well, there but I mean we shouldn't have to do that with with the
residents though. That's that's I agree with Jim on that one, you know. Yeah. There are there are two types of um developers. There's the shall we say a professional developer like Capstone which is aware of all the costs associated. They don't have an issue
with it. And then there's the private developer that got into, you know, development of some land that they own, but they really don't know, you know, how to develop this and and they don't prepare things. I mean, the the additional work required by the city is
essentially doing the work that they would have to do, uh, but they're not providing it because they don't know how to do that. Um or you have uh a situation where somebody wants to put in a pole barn. Um you know they they get plans drawn up. It's too close to the property line or it's over a septic
system or it's over a bunch bunch of areas which a lot of that can be caught in plan review certainly. Now that's what your application fee is going to pay for is a plan review and and that sort of thing. These are additional the additional charges um that come
up. They come up. We see them more often than not. But as long as long as they're aware of it, you know, I'm okay with something like that. I'm not okay with blindly charging people or sending them a bill that wait a minute, I gave you this amount of money and now it's
doubled or triple that. I mean, that that's that's not okay. Hey, if we can fix that, that that's a big hurdle. You know, that's a big step in the right direction, you know, that communication process. But, uh, we're not in a we're not in a situation of giving money away
either. I mean, it's our job to make sure that that dollar here is spent right to the bottom line. So, we're not going over or under. We want to be as precise as possible. Are we that far off on some of these fees? Because I I've I've heard before that
some cities charge a lot for a polebard for example. I mean in the thousands right off the you know bat. I think Ramsey's one of them. They charge a lot of money for that and we charge a quarter compared to what they do. Right. You know u Mr. Mayor and council members, I
I think I think with kind of the turnover in that department, we've had now the opportunity to look at these things a little closer and what was always kind of done in the past um hasn't really kept hasn't really been increased over time. Number one, uh but
number two, when you start looking at the actual costs of it and what you're charging, you start scratching your head wondering why are we charging this because it's not even close to the cost, you know? Um, and that's why I think it should precipitate a discussion
um, as to how do we handle that? It's a, you know, it's a serious liability to the city um, that we can continue doing it the way we've always done it or we can revisit it and try and determine what's more equitable uh, for the
residents. as you know, um there's always uh you know, we levy x amount of dollars and there's always more things to do than the dollars available. And so if dollars are going to being sucked up in a certain area as opposed to um you
know being used on things that need to be used on, uh then you're faced with a difficult decision of raising taxes at some point. No good deed goes unpunished. So before we contracted with land form, did we have these costs that
uh I think the last five or six people have complained about because uh in my time on council and working with the city, I've never had heard of those costs being issued. So are these
costs just being developed because of contracting with landform? Yeah, be Mr. Mayor and council members. Before contracting with Landform, we build out contractual services that whe again whether it's engineering or illegal or whatever the case is. That
was the the way the city did it. You know, we if there was a contractual service that something required, they were responsible for that cost. Uh if it exceeded the escrow, the city ate it. Okay. Um I would say in the majority we
did not bill for uh Aeron's time at that point. Um and if we had a planner on staff we wouldn't have build for that either. Um but because we went to a we're required to go to a contractual at that point do we bill for
contractual? This is contractual now. Uh, and I think that's where it kind of got sideways is is uh finance always build for contractual. And so these these bills went out and I think there was two or three complainers justifiably that came in and said um uh wait what's going on here
type of thing. So you know one of them I know you guys one or two I know you you said no city said he's going to absorb that. Um but then that that got us to the point of again drafting the the paperwork to say additional language on there so that you know buyer beware so
to speak you know that there are costs associated in doing this. Um that was not council direction necessarily. Uh that's why we're bringing it through here to try and get that council direction. We can certainly strike that from the form uh or we can follow through on it. I I think having it on
the form is okay. Uh just for better communication with the client, but uh in the same respect, uh I don't think that uh a resident should have to pay extra for something that happened as a as a
result internally at city hall. So we uh lost our our director in that department. That was unfortunate. The residents should not have to bear the additional cost of of that. That's something that uh falls on the shoulders
of the city that so those additional costs I don't believe they should incur them. Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, we have a unique situation in that we've hired
now a planner. Mhm. And we still have the contractual costs. Um so again it's um yeah I I don't believe that cont those contractual costs should fall on the residents as long as we're pursuing
a the planner which we now have and another director so that when we can get a director hired that we will no longer have those contractual costs. I know all the calls I've gotten came
after we kind of backtracked on the uh grazing land escrow deal. There was a couple of them come in right away and wanted theirs back. And uh I think like Tim and everybody else
has said here that uh we got to be upfront with our schedule. It's got to be there in plain black and white, you know, so people are aware the consequences how it's going to go about and then they can question it. Why is
this and that? And then we have to deal with them. But I think that it's got to be in black and white right away so they know what they're getting into. So let me let me clarify. Council member Mundo, you said it shouldn't fall on the residents
personal res. You're talking the applicant. The applicant applicant. So, is that different than the mayor's position? I don't believe so. I don't think so. I I think we're all in one way or another in agreement up here
that those additional costs that a a resident application should not garner those additional costs that having to go because we went with a contractual land
form that those residents that are applying should not bear those extra unexpected costs. Now that we have updated our forms that you say buyer beware,
um those should cover the additional cost though, those forms. Well, if it's any really unusual cost, maybe. But I I think we all are in agreement that it should go back to how it
was before we start contracting with landform. Is there any disagreement with that? No. When it comes to the residents personal, there shouldn't be an extra fee over that. Correct. Businesses,
different story developers, big even splitting lots and stuff like that. If there's a major like say that that one we just did with three lots, that's a different story because there's a lot more into that. Correct. Personal residence shouldn't be penalized in my
opinion for any of that. Correct. That's how I feel. Okay. any developer, small, medium, large, they they can pay additional fees, whatever build per cost, per line item,
but residents, $300, that's it. That's enough. They pay property taxes. Most of these developers don't. Yeah, I know. It's I've got another person calling me too right now who wants to do a simple
lot split. What did you say? wants to do a simple lot split, but they butt up to state county land and a suspana forest, which instead of just a simple lot split, it pushed our
code pushes it into a PUD where they got to do a planned unit development and it's going to cost them lots more money. I mean, you know, Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, in a situation like that, it's probably going to cost the city a lot more money.
Yeah. So, and that's precisely the discussion, right? I mean, do we do we pass that cost on or it's development or do we absorb it? It's going to cost us in the long run eventually anyway because we're going to have to update some of these codes because they're
ancient. I think one of the hang-ups that uh the people that I've talked to so far has been, well, if they're not working on this up there, what are they working on? Aren't they paid to work on this during
their hours that they're here? You know, it we're making it kind of seem like this is all after hours stuff that we're billing out when we actually are paying someone to be here and do this job. Yeah. So, if I can just kind of explain
it again, there's an application fee. The application fee will cover um kind of the planer review or cover inspection to go out and and inspect the property, that sort of thing. That's what plan uh the the application field cover. Escrow is an amount that is paid that gets
reimbursed if not used. Okay? Um escrow can be used for all of these things we're talking about here. The problem is the escrow is $300. And um if we have um the attorney fee in
there, I I forget what your fee is, but that might give us two hours of work. That's more than 300. I was going to say I'm thrown the attorney under the bus. Not one just because he's present. Yeah. Less than an hour. Less than an
hour. There we go. Um, so let's say it's a highly involved topic that needs I mean needs to be heavily researched. Boom. You're up to 1,200 bucks pretty easy. Sheep grazing.
That got pretty expensive. Yeah. So, um, you know, you look at everyone's time in terms of coming before planning, coming before council, uh, notice noticing in the newspaper,
you know, everything goes with it and 300 goes away. Then the applicant comes in angry because they thought they'd get their escrow back. So, this is the challenge that we're dealing with, but we can um we can try and draft something up
here kind of based on the conversation here. Bring it back and we can So, what you're talking about now though, Matt, is like a developer situation, aren't you? Where there's more involved. It's not just a resident that wants to build a pole building or something like that, right? We don't
need an attorney to get involved with something like that. I mean, what would a pole building, you know what I mean? Something trying to think of it, a situation where an attorney might be needed on that. Certainly, there's engineering that's
required, you know, you know, if they're putting in a drain field or what what's a, you know, review of the the drain field, suitable soils, etc., etc. All of that $300 is gone in a just a whisper done. I understand that. Um, you ain't
putting a drain field in in a pole building, though. I don't know. I'm I'm just I'm coming up with hypothetical do on a swamp. I'm coming up with hypotheticals. But um I'm just talking common sense easy for the residents. You know what I mean? I know if there's a different situation completely. I
understand. You know, a lot of times say nine out of 10 there probably ain't the problem is is that the applicant comes in, they pay their fees, they start their process, etc., etc. pretty soon it grows into something
large, right? That's where the cost is associated after the fact. Before it grows into something large, they should be made aware of that, right? Just because we should know enough to be just to start the process, but then if they come up with something different, it's
like, well, I just got to let you know we got to get into this. That's why we're we're trying to we're trying this thisformational um portion of it by saying, "By the way, just so you're aware, this lot split or whatever the hypothetical is um has cost
up to $3,000 or whatever the amount is, you know, just be aware of that and you can be responsible for that, right? because of that thought too with escrow money. I mean that's you're talking a bigger event versus a resident getting a permit for a whole building. I I'll give
you for example um we had the uh gentleman that was building his house there kind of across the wet land. They had they had kind of encroached on wetland. We had to inform them you can't encroach on wetland. Um and uh and uh
the attorneys got involved. I mean that was a massive undertaking. What what was the reason for that? Well, you had kind of a homeowner that was, you know, weekend warrior, however you want to say it, trying to save money. I get it. Everyone wants to uh try and do it
themselves. The problem is some of these things are so complex that the reason why you pay a lot of money to developers is because there's a lot of time involved. And if the if the the individual doesn't know how to process that and and get the
necessary ducks in a row, kind of falls on the city then because we can't approve or unnecessary delay it without trying to get those ducks in a row and that's where the cost is associated. No, I understand. So anyways, well I don't believe we're going to get
into topic three. No, we can bring that to the next one. Mr. Mayor, so I'll entertain an adjournment of the motion journ. Second. A motion second. All those in favor? I meeting's closed. Part: 2
Okay, we'll bring the uh May 12th, 2025 city council meeting to order. Please stand for the algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Make a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. Second. We have a motion and and a second to adopt agenda. All those in favor? I I Motion
passes. Um presentations uh for a one. Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, uh, as indicated here, prior council, uh, had an interest in transitioning the EDA membership over to elected
officials, similar to the way that we operate our HR um, in the city here. And after reviewing the the legality of doing so, the city attorney advised it would be uh, you know, there were certain things that needed to happen. uh the terms of the individuals needed to
expire and uh and once they are expired, you can appoint um you can appoint council members to those seats if you so wish. We've had um this before the city council before. We've noticed it properly and uh it, as you'll recall,
it's because it's a change um to a founding document like this, it required a longer notice period than the normal notice period. So, so we did notice for the proper amount of time and staff uh recommends two possibilities. Either continuing the past practice uh by
renewing the incumbents uh to the open positions or modifying the current membership of two council members and five members of the public by appointing council members to the vacant EDA authority seats. The net result will be modifying a seven member authority to a
five member authority once all the terms have expired and council members have been appointed. Um, if approved, the current membership will consist of four council members. There's currently two on there now. And three members of the public until such time as the public
members terms expire, at which point as indicated, the council members can be appointed to fill those vacancies. So, you have before you um the resolutions uh founding documents um and um you can review those if you'd
like and uh the decision is before you this evening. Do we need to reopen the public hearing before we take any action? Yes, you do need to reopen the public hearing and see if there's anyone that
uh wishes to speak and then you may close the public hearing. But it's the mayor that uh has that authority. Okay. At this time, we'll reopen the public hearing on the
uh uh resolution 2025-20. Thank you. Good evening. Um well, I guess can you I'm sorry. Can you introduce yourself? Oh, sorry. Uh my name is Karen Krepus. I live on Gopher Drive. So, I have some questions and
concerns on this. I admit I've not really been following this council of the last year or so, but I have been looking at the last meeting notes and I came to the work meeting because I was really interested in what the discussion was going to be on the business advisory
council because its role is so completely different from an EDA and its capacity, its functions and its cost. So I guess my first question is I'm just trying to understand is it the intention of this council with this resolution
that you are attempting to completely phase out public members from the EDA and have it be run solely by council members and I don't know if you can answer that question in this public forum. Um and if that is the case then I am concerned
because this is a function that does require a variety of opinions. Not that there's not a variety of opinions sitting with the individuals in front of me here, but East Bethl is a community that has a lot of needs and in terms of our
businesses, there's so much discussion about growth, where it's going to be and whatnot, but there's a lot of things that an EDA council can do. And in reading the notes, I did see comment, and correct me, I might be wrong, but Miss Urkel stated that she'd been on the
EDA and felt like it didn't do anything. Well, I'm looking at all of you wondering what will you do different from the EDA council. So, if it is to be that the EDA council will be abolished and there's no public members, I'm looking at this group in front of me and
I'm not so sure I have confidence in how you lead forward in that. And that's why I was so concerned about the business advisory council because I was just googling some information. I have a lot of questions and concerns on that because it is such a completely different function. I'm not going to
bother to read anything on it, but I just wanted to make that um clear. And again, we keep hearing that the city over and over wants the residents to be involved. And the EDA is a good way to get residents involved. And nowhere in this discussion that I saw has there
been any communication with their businesses, uh the chamber of commerce, what kind of input do they have? Uh what kind of feedback do they have? Are they part of this conversation? I don't know. So, I just wanted to address those concerns. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing session. Discussion for council. Well, I'll just state that I'm still
against not having uh resident members on the EDA. I believe it should stay as it is. Any further discussions? Matt, do we know why um East Bethl originally had a five member made up of
the council when it started its EDA. Correct. I think it was like in 2011 or something and we switched to a seven member I believe I read in 2018 or something like that.
Okay. It was before 2018 was it? I don't see it. I would venture guess 2012 because I remember coming to EDA
meetings before I was really involved and there were resident members on the EDA. So, Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, the bylaws on 2013 identify seven voting members in 2013. So at least it was 2013 that we switched to
seven. Could be, if I'm reading the bylaws correctly, if there weren't changes prior to that, May 20th, 2013, it would have been um mayor council members uh August 17th of 2011 to be exact.
Okay. Is that when we switched or is that We have five. That's when you switched to seven, I believe. Yeah, because the enabling resolution was adopted on July 16th of
2008. Enabling resolution uh formed the EDA. So, the East Bethl EDA was formed um after July 16th of 2008. It was a five member
board. It was then amended on August 17 of 2011. And Mr. Mayor and Council Member Miller, you're asking why it was amended. Yeah. Why did we change? Could be any number of reasons why. sometimes uh having additional members
is um is due to the fact that it's hard to get a quorum at times. Could be as simple as that. Um but it's tough to say without really scouring back through the meeting
minutes uh in 2013 to see, you know, what the discussion was if it was documented well. My also understanding is that haven't the cities around us, at least that's what I've heard, um, switched back to council,
I heard Oak Grove did and I heard Ham Lake also did. Mr. Mayor and council, I have not researched that. I'll make the motion to modify the current members of the
um EDA by appointing council members to the vacant EDA authority seats resulting in modifying a seven member authority to a five member authority. Second, mayor, council member, uh, if I
could suggest that you just actually move to approve resolution 2025-20, amending the enabling EDA resolution. What was the number? 2025-20. I'll make a motion to approve resolution
2025-20 enabling the EDA. Second. Well, motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I opposed. I motion passes three to two.
Uh moving on to 42 approve resolution re resolution 2025-21. Uh I guess at this time we'll open the public hearing on that one. This one actually does not require a
public hearing. Okay. So this is just basically filling two vacant spots. So at this point, the mayor has to name the two council members. Well, the mayor would appoint, but
that's this council then that approves the appointment. So, if the mayor would like to appoint uh if the mayor wants to open up to discussion as to how he should appoint, that is also another way of doing so. Well, I guess at this time I just open up for discussion who wants to be in
them two positions between the three that are left. I guess I'd volunteer if no one's speaking up. I've had extensive experience being on the EDA. It's I can jump right in on anything
with it. It'll be fine. Volunteers, too. Jim, you good with that? Yep. Okay. With Mr. Mundo and uh Tim here, Mr. Miller and uh You'll
need a motion then. We'll need a motion on that. I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 2025-21 uh adding uh Mr. Mundle and Mr. Miller to the EDA me as EDA members.
Second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. None heard. Motion passes. Public forum. Uh let's see here. Thank you, sir. Tammy, mayor, council, Tammy Gimple,
Baton Street. Um, I'm not sure if I can talk about I know you guys wanted it for the next meeting and I know Sue wanted to hear the the story. And trust me, I can't wait till I can tell the story, but the court dates not till the end of
Jail. So, I'm not sure how much I can even speak on that part of that. I just want to make it clear that these are two separate matters and they should be deemed as such. So the the court criminal matter is totally different
from this IUP and the city is uh can proceed forward and then Miss Gimple has to decide how she's going to address that and the and I cannot advise her on that nor can this council. Okay. I'm hearing that but at the same
time it's being brought up about the sheriff's department and my IUP. So, as much as they are absolutely separate, they're being pulled together. So, they're different proceedings, but they uh they're operating under the same
circumstances. Okay. will to the council. I I would respectfully ask that it get pushed till at least after my court date so I can completely defend myself because I'm not going to be able
to do that with you're not going to get all the facts if I can't do that and you don't have all the facts. I have no problem with that. I mean, we need facts to everything, especially when we're talking about IUP. It's
important that we do have all the facts for it. So, I have no problem with delaying it until after. I agree. Can we move it to the first meeting in July? Mr. Mayor and Council, is that we need a motion for both? As long as there's
general consensus to that, there doesn't need to be a motion. It's just an instruction to staff. So, so there's there's two different IUPs we're talking about here. There's the animal containment contractual uh IUP and then the hor's IUP.
I'd say both of them just give her the chance, right? I agree. Well, in typical court procedures, we ain't really guaranteed that this would be end in
June either. Right. So, we could be going out on a big limb here. Well, I think you're just doing this out of kind of a general respect, but at the
same time, at additionally, I can see where the patience of the council and wanting to come to a decision with respect to its own IUP might take precedent over how the criminal calendar
works and also who is causing the delay in that particular criminal action. So, um I I I hear what the mayor is saying. Um well, uh since the uh animal IEP is
not reliant upon the uh the court proceedings, we could handle that just to get that one off the books, have that issue be done, and then pick up the other IUP.
as it comes, I guess. So, Mr. Mayor and council member, if I'm understanding correctly, is it the consensus of the council to address the two horse IUP on May on the May
28th and then the secondary IUP, the home occupation permit. Um after the first court date, we'd revisit it after the first court date.
And what if the court date the first court date is postponed? Then we'll deal with the first meeting in July. Yeah. Okay. First meeting in July. Does everyone that's consensus? I'm fine with that. We're all good with
that. I'm good. Everybody's good with that. We'll move forward if that been up. Appreciate it. Thank you. Sarah Mclofflin. Happy Monday. Sarah Mclofflin, 231st Lane. I am back just to discuss my
neighbor again. I haven't seen any um kind of changes. Um, I know we have continued to say it's taken time. I know that the fire department stated that they were going to move forward with
going in and checking on their ordinances if it's safe to live. What is the dwelling look like? I have not seen any presence of the fire department. So, at my third meeting now here, council
members, I am asking you what you are doing to help this situation. I've pulled up many ordinances that I found myself that I feel and you guys can have not told me that none of these
ordinances couldn't be enacted on these neighbors, but I'm just wondering why you're not doing anything. Um, it looks like you were first alerted of multiple safety violations at
the house February 16th of 2024 in a incident case report from the deputies that had visited the place. So, we are now coming on a year and 3
months since you guys had first been alerted of any safety violations within that residence and we do not have anything, not even a search of the property. It is my understanding that
you as city council members can start an abatement process. You also can um hold on, I lost my place here. You can also enact a like administrative
um warrant to search the property, but that has not been done. There is a trailer that's still there that would give you full capability to go into that. It is illegally parked there. It was parked there when the
owner left. I'm I can't say I'm 100% positive, but I'm pretty positive someone lives in it because they often have a fire right outside the door like they're camping. Now, I couldn't quickly I have not been
able to find any ordinances of anybody living in a mobile unit on a property in East Bethl, but I would assume that there is something somewhere.
I I don't want to be frustrated. I don't But I am frustrated. I'm also frustrated because I feel that you as council members are pushing it off to other organizations to take care of the problem when it's an East Bethl City
problem right now. If any of these people were living next to you, I would imagine that it would be handled swiftly and not a year and four months in to when the first time that the sheriff's department informed you of
these issues. So, I have not had any updates. I've given my information to the fire department. I see the police officers in our neighborhood still, which is great. However, there is no action from you
guys. Mr. Mayor, council members, um I would say that there is plenty of action that's going on right now, some of which is sensitive and we're not going to disclose over the over the TV land right now. Um, so I would ask you to be patient, allow the process to play out
and um, and that's all we can say at this point. Mr. Look, I feel like that's an out and this is very unfair that you guys have not given any results and this is on you as council members. They have
they have arrested multiple people over there. They've issued citations. One of the challenges, Mr. mayor and council members is that the owner allowed access to two people on this property who then allowed access to other people. And so the eviction process becomes very
complicated at that point. And this individual was incarcerated, had to wait to get out of jail before they could try and deal with it. And they're walking through the process allowed by law. We are following law on this. We cannot as council
members or administrator or city staff beat down the door and and haul everyone away. Sorry. It cannot happen that way. So, are you saying you cannot enact the blight division 3 section 26 through 62
policy that cleans up? Are you saying that you are not able to enact any of these things that are in your guys's council, whatever they're called? I don't even codes. Yeah. Like, are you
saying that you can't do this? Because this clearly states you can. Codes codes can be enacted, but it ain't going to be the next day process. It's it's it's strung out. Yep. I understand. But have you even went through the process of
filing for a warrant, an administrative warrant to get on the property? I think in the future here, a short future, you'll be happy. I sure hope so because this is not even just a reflection on our neighborhood,
but it's also a reflection on this council. And it's just unfortunate because there are a lot of things that a layman person such as myself is reading in your ordinances that are not being acted on. And if it is a rental property,
where's the rental license? Where was the inspection? I never said rental license or a rental property. Okay. Well, if they're a renter, then that's what gives them rights to be there. I never said rental and it is not a rental.
Well, say Sarah, upon leaving tonight, could you grab my card? I would like to talk to you more about this, but I'm not going to talk like this in front tonight, but if you could, I'd really like to help you. Okay. Thank you.
Karen, did you have anything else on uh public forum? No. Okay. Moving on to consent agenda. Make a motion to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Have a motion. A second. And I'd like to pull item G, please. G as in goat. Yes. Anything else need to be pulled? Mayor, council members, um I noticed that there were
some errors in B, D, and E. So, they're really quick, but I if if you could pull them so that I could uh know what they are. It's B minutes, April 24th, uh 2025 town
meeting minutes. April 28th, 2025 city council. Oh, I'm sorry. That that C, April 28th. That does need to be pulled. Uh, it's the April 28th, 2025 city council meeting. April 28th,
2025 LBAe meeting. Basically, they have me attending and I didn't attend those. So, um, so I I I need to make it very clear. I didn't attend in one case. Uh it was attorney Softly who attended and I want
to make that clear for the record as well. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of uh what we have left.
I I those opposed none heard. So go to B I guess first. Thank you, mayor, council members. This is the draft minutes for the East Bethl town hall meeting of April 24th,
2025. Uh, it has Eric Larson, city attorney, present at that town hall meeting. I was not present at that town hall meeting. Um, as a result, I didn't review the rest of the minutes as well, but so I would ask that that be struck
that I was that I attended the town hall meeting. Otherwise, I have no other changes to that to those minutes. Make a motion to approve item B striking the city attorney from attendance. Second.
I have a motion in a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. None heard. Item C. This is the draft minutes for the East Bethl City Council meeting of April 28th, 2025.
It has uh Eric Larson, city attorney, and then Pren Christina Benson closed. Prenn present um last minute I was not able to attend and Jacob Softley, that's S A U L E Y
attended as my substitute. So it should revised that be Jacob Softley was the city attorney in attendance and uh Prince Christina Benson should also be deleted. No other changes.
Make a motion to approve item C, the changes recommended by the city attorney. Second. Motion second. Any further discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? I opposed. None heard. Item D. Thank you,
Mayor. This is the draft minutes for the local board of appeals and equalization of April 28th, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. City attorney uh rarely attends the local board of appeals and
equalization. Um I certainly was not uh here in East Bethl on April 28th and I verified that Mr. Softley also did not uh attend the local board of appeals and equalization. Therefore ask that Eric
Larson, Kama City Attorney, be stricken as one of the individuals present. No other changes. Make a motion to approve item E with the recommendation of the city attorney. Second. Motion second. Uh any
discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? I I opposed. None heard. Item G. Item G is uh the completion of probationary period of our building permit technician,
Misty, I can't pronounce her last name. Uh I want to welcome her, but I also wanted to ask if um performance reviews are being done and it's being checked off that she completed all the standards
that were are required and then it goes to all employees. our performance reviews being done on everybody now because they hadn't been in the past and that's a concern of mine. Mr. Mayor and council members, um,
concerning Misty, uh, she has not had a performance review, although we monitor performance on a daily basis. Uh, she's been doing a tremendous job of coming up to speed uh, and helping people at the window and and processing through the permits. So, um, I have not had any
issues at all with the work she's been doing. Uh, as far as the other staff's performance reviews, it's something I'm looking into because you're right, it has not been done in the past. So, currently, we have not done performance reviews yet. Okay. Thank you. With that, I will make a motion to approve item G
of the consent agenda. Second. Have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None heard. Motion passes. Um, item 8
A1. Oops. Bear with me. Okay, Mr. Mayor and council members, uh, Grace was going to be here this evening to present and she is, um, not feeling well, so I said I would cover cover this for her. Essentially, what you have before you is a resolution uh
opting into Anoka County's urban county program cooperative agreement. And this is as it relates to community development block grants and home investment partnership program funding. Essentially, the federal government uh uh provides X amount of funding. It's
different every year uh for um for the years or whatever that it covers. And um and this is CDBG funding. And I'll just give you kind of um a little example. There's different categories uh for this funding, but this is funding we can apply for in these categories. Uh
there's property development. This can be used for neighborhood revitalization, removing removal of urban blight, including acquisition, sale, and demolition. Uh it can also be used for historic preservation efforts. Uh next category is housing activities. Housing
activities can uh uh if successful in in applying for those dollars can be used to rehabilitate homes and rental properties. For example, lead paint abatement, asbestous remediation uh are examples of projects that you can use those dollars for. They offer also offer
home ownership assistance programs and um and relocation assistance. And then the third category is public facilities and services. public facilities, our community centers, special needs facilities, or for example, improving accessibility for physically disabled
um community residents. And um in addition, uh public services are categories of those are job training programs, employee employment services, substance abuse treatment programs, child care services, crime prevention, and other uh services that are eligible
eligible for those funds. And typically what happens is the cities will apply for in one of these categories or all three of the categories projects that they have and then they are scored and uh and the county gets to decide how those dollars are going to be
distributed on an annual basis. So this is just again just an agreement where we opt into it. Uh I'm not sure historically if we've ever received dollars from this before, but um say for example the senior center wants a van to go out and pick up people. I've seen
those type of applications come through uh when I was on the county uh board. So, um there's no cost to the city for this, but it essentially is uh just opting into this cooperative agreement and um and if projects are applicable in
the future, we can apply for them and benefit the community. So, I have a question. Usually when you opt into something it there's hidden requirements or
rules, you know, well, if you're opting in, you opted in, so now you have to do this. You opted in, so now you have to accept um whatever that the city of East Bethl might not want to accept in our city because we have some standards
here. um standards that are not being met and we don't want to get more of those kind of standards in our community. So I want to before I accept anything because we're not urban and when I saw the word urban
I'm like uhuh uhuh not nothing urban coming here as far as I can as where my votes going to be. So how can we guarantee that there's no um fine print? Let's put it that way. Mr. Mayor and council members, there is fine print. Uh
if you accept dollars, uh if you accept dollars, you have to go through reporting exactly what the federal government requires. Um and uh but if you don't accept funding, if you don't apply, you don't have any of that
uh red tape that you have to follow through on. So, at the point in which we have a project that might qualify for these dollars, we can certainly um speak with uh the county and determine what sort of hoops would we have to jump through being that we're a small
community, small staff uh to be able to meet the requirements of the federal government at that point. So, that's that's an option for you. Just because you opt in doesn't commit you to anything. That's good to know. So, hypothetical situation, we uh we
apply to get a van to bring people to town halls and stuff like that. Is there any chance there would be a fine print that would be totally unrelated? Or the van is the van is the
van. Would they say, "Oh, you have to go to Minneapolis and bring people out here." or you know something off the wall. No. Uh Mr. Mayor and council members, I've never seen anything like that in any of these applications. Most of it has to do with reporting. The federal government wants to ensure that
if you in this hypothetical situation were use the funds to buy a van that you in fact bought a van and that the van isn't being used for a, you know, party van. It's actually being used for the express purpose that you indicated on your application. Okay. Okay. Well, I like the idea of
trying to apply for grants. I think grants and other programs that are funded, but you're saying you keep saying federal. None of this is coming from state. This is totally federal. Is that what you're saying? CDBG are or federal dollars? Yep. It's all tax
dollars. It's all tax federal better than I do the state right now. Mayor, council members, I'm very familiar with the CDBG and the home programs. I've been involved in development for 30 years and I've seen these particular monies used in various
forms and so forth and the city administrator is correct. Uh, council member, your your your question I think is right on target and very apt. When and if the city should see an opportunity through an Oka County to
maybe secure these funds and make an application, that's one thing. But then even once you've been awarded, you can always say, you know what, maybe we don't want these requirements. But at least then you'll know what those requirements are for that particular use and make that really kind of informed
decision. doesn't really match. And a lot of times what you can also do is then flow those requirements down to maybe others um because sometimes you're using them to facilitate, you know, residents or developers and and you can
flow it down to them. So I I agree uh for what it's worth, I think it makes sense to opt in because you are not obligating yourself at this time. You're just giving yourself an opportunity. Thank you. That brought me up another
question. So, we opt in and can the city just do a grant or will the city that grant request have to go through council for approval or will you be will the city be able to just start requesting
grants? you know, and I mean, I wanted to make sure that there's it's just not city staff being able to apply for grants without council knowing about it and then committing us to something that we didn't want to be committed to. Oh,
ultimately, we'd have to approve the grant. Correct. The the staff could not commit us to something that we do not approve. That is correct. Matter of fact, actually, uh I have not seen any of these programs where
actually uh you have to provide a city council resolution before they'll even award. Um I I don't know 100% but I can off my recollection every single one of these
they require city council resolution plus you're a statutory city so you would need to do that anyway. staff does not have authority to bind themselves to a federal grant agreement. Thanks. All
right. Well, very good question. So, anybody else have any questions? Just me, huh? All right. With that, I'll make a motion to approve resolation resolution
2025-26 opting into Anoka County's urban county program. Second. Have a motion and second. Any further discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? I
opposed. Heard. Motion passes. Item 8E, public works. Good evening, mayor and council members. I have two uh capital improvement plans to present to you tonight. Uh item 8.1
or 8.0 E1 is the 2026 to 2030 parks capital improvement plan. The parks commission prepares an annual capital improvement plan which updates needs and costs of proposed projects, evaluates priorities, and establishes funding for these works for the coming year and for each of the subsequent
years for a 5-year period. This plan is presented to city council for their approval and used in the preparation of the 2026 budget. Attached is the 2026 to 2030 parks capital improvement plan developed from discussions at the March 11th and the April 8th park commission meetings. Approval of the plan only
commits the city for projects identified in 2026. Projects beyond 2026 are for planning purposes and will be re-evaluated annually for funding priorit prioritization during the capital improvement needs assessment and planning process.
Uh the budget includes a general fund transfer of $120,000 for parks capital improvement projects for 2026 and it is a $10,000 increase over the 2025 budget to adjust for inflation and is subject to city council approval. It is
anticipated that the park's dedication fees from developers will provide an additional $33,000 to the parks acquisition and development fund for 2026, mainly from the Vikings uh Viking Meadows development. And the park commission voted unanimously to recommend this plan
to the city council for their approval. I'll run through the projects real quick and then we can entertain a uh motion and take any comments and questions at that time if that works. So, attachment one, the first page is the parks acquisition and development fund. Um, for
2026, we have $200,000 budgeted for the Viking Meadows development. They have a total of $373,000 that they've dedicated to the city. We're going to be getting that money in phases. So, the next two years for 2026 and 2027,
um, that'll kind of be going towards developing that park and that in that development. I should also say too, the park acquisition development fund is funded solely from park dedication fees. There's no uh general fund transfer money in this in this budget itself. And this money has to be used for park
projects. Um we have a kind of a long-standing item in 2028 looking at ball field lights for booster west, but the price tag is rather high. So, um that's going to depend on development and needs, but that's kind of a placeholder in there for 2028. uh that's kind of needed for the town
hall team would like those and some of the older uh youth need to play longer games that go into the evening and they need lights for those games. So for 2029 and 2030, we don't have anything planned yet. Um it's kind of kind of a long ways out to see where we're at, but we'll address, you know, adjust that from year
to year. On the next page is the park capital fund. This is the fund that's funded from the general fund transfer. And as I noted, it's a $10,000 increase from last year, and it includes a $10,000 increase going forward. And it's a continuation of what was approved last
year. It was a kind of a $10,000 increase to keep up with inflation. Uh for 2026, they want to put a zip line in Booster West. Um this would be adjacent to the existing playground structure. It's been requested by a lot of uh youth kids and stuff, and some other cities
have them, and they're huge. They're like one of the biggest draws for the parks. Uh the other thing we get a lot of requests for are pickle ball courts. Our tennis courts are uh in rough shape. The last time we had them resurfaced, the company basically told us that uh they're not going to come back and do it
again because they're beyond repair. They need to be redone. So u we've got four planned for a couple planned for West and probably have to tear out their tennis court at some point, too. And then just some small items. We had a a youth come in. I think they contacted
the mayor about some volleyball courts out in Booster Park. They added that to the uh plan after the last meeting. And then moving forward, um we have some placeholders there, more pickle ball courts, and some of these are in outside parks. Some of our neighborhood parks
we've had requests for. Um and kind of that's kind of the big items. We got a couple parking lot repairs for Booster East and Booster West in 2028 and 2029 or 2030. And then they want to do a big development in Bondi Park, which is a large open area park that we have that
doesn't have a lot of uh use right now. It's kind of underutilized. So, and that pretty much sums up the the two plans. Um, I guess I'll entertain a motion at this time and take any comments or questions. I'd like to make a motion that we
approve this 2026 2030 parks. A second. I have a motion in a second. Any further discussion or questions? I'm just curious, Nate, that uh zipline you're talking about, is that a big liability
to the city? Uh we have to get insurance. No, they're we're covered with our insurance, it's it's only a couple feet off the ground. Okay. And uh just a all covered wood chips. We have a couple fixed rail ones that we put in
May Peterson Park last summer and uh the kids love it. the neighborhood loves it. So, this one's a little bit longer. It's on a cable. Um Ramsey, Blaine, a bunch of cities have them in place already and they're they're big draw. So, they're at like a six foot height or something where it's got a little handle is it's not even really that I don't think it's
that high off the ground. It's has a a rope that you kind of sit on. It's got a little bit of a ramp and you kind of build it on a little bit of a slope just enough that you can get down the other side. If you ever get a chance, you want to take a look at one. uh the big park on Lexington and Blaine with the red barn. They have one there that it's
usually a line of kids getting ready to get on that thing. So, thanks. Yep. Any others? Motion and a second on the uh 2026 20 30 parks capital plan. All those
in favor? I I opposed. None heard. Motion passes. Um We have a motion on the roads capital improvement. He hasn't did that yet. Item 8.0 E2. This is the roads capital improvement plan. It's kind of the same
setup here where we're only approving plan projects for 2026. I should say too, all these projects will come before the council again when they actually come up for the project to be completed. So, you'll have another chance to uh um vote yes or no on it. Um, I've attached
the uh roads capital improvement plan and a project location map. The uh first page is the municipal state aid fund. This is the money that we get from the state. It's it's money that we received back that we've paid in for all of our gas tax and things like that, road tax.
This is the city's portion. In 2025, we received $757,936. And that money can only be used for state aid roads. So, these are major connector roads. Um, I think a lot of people are familiar with which which roads these are. We're starting off 2026
with a $394,000 deficit um because of some past projects we advance funded. We can advance fund up to three years. So, a lot of times we run this negative to pay for projects when we need them and they're a lot cheaper to get them done right away because every year we wait,
everything seems to go up in price. For 2020s, uh the only project we have in 2026 is we're committed to a turn lane on Viking Boulevard at Sand Hill Parkway. We're going to leave that in there for budgeting purposes. Um kind of been working with the county and looking at different ideas on whether or not
that project has to be taken taken on or there's a different improvement for Viking, but for right now that's our budgeted amount and that brings that balance pretty much down to zero. 2027, uh we're looking at doing a mill and overlay of Pulk Jackson. This
was the road that goes by the elementary schools and then the Klondike portion of that that goes out to Highway 65. new pavement in those areas. In 2028, Brierwood Avenue, uh, same thing there, just an overlay, mill and overlay. And then in 29 and 2030, we don't have
anything planned. We kind of build that balance back up. Um, we could start looking at there's a I know there's some talk of service roads, developerdriven projects, or we could always try and save up some money to do gravel Klondike Drive with some of this money, too.
So, on the next page is the street capital fund. This is funded from the general fund. Um we do receive an additional $252,000 from the state of Minnesota. That's in a way earmarked for this
portion. Um so in reality, the only general fund money that's coming from the taxpayers for East Bethl is right around $400,000 in 2026. Um, for 2026, we're looking at doing Cedarbrook neighborhood, which is, uh,
if you look on the last page, it's the item in blue in kind of the southwest corner of the state or, excuse me, in the city. Um, one neighborhood there. And then, uh, Sunset Drive is a project that we're doing with in conjunction
with Lynwood. We've each, uh, set aside $300,000 for that project. Lynwood isn't on pace for that project, too. So, we'd like to keep that in that location on our plan. 2027, a couple more neighborhoods. London 225th, Pineer
Crest Estates, 224th and 225th. These are the neighborhoods kind of right behind city hall here. They're in yellow on the map. In uh 2028, Quincy, Carlile, and Rainree additions. They're in magenta on our map. Um all these projects in
reality could be done right now. Uh we're asking for a $50,000 increase each year to help build this up a little bit. We've kind of gotten behind on some of this. So for 2026, we're asking for 650. 2027, we're asking for 700. 2028, 750,
and so on down the line. And then a couple more in 29, 2030 are uh developments that are in need of overlays as well. So that pretty much runs through our five-year project list. So, we're just improving 2026 though,
right? For the budgeting, planning purposes for levy and everything like that. Correct. Yep. And then the project will come back to the council when it's time to bid and we get get the amount and stuff too. So, so we'll need a motion. Make a motion to approve the 2026 to
2030 roads capital improvement plan. Second. Have a motion. Second, any further discussion? I have a question. Um, you mentioned the Viking and Sandill turn lane. Is the turn lane on Sand Hill that they're going to install or on
Viking? Because if it's on Viking, doesn't the county have to pay for that? It was part of the agreement. Uh, when when a city puts in a road, they have to build the turn lanes. The county requires that. So they wanted us to do it right away when they built Sand Hill Parkway in, but we were able to push it
off 5 years because of uh the cost was so high and there wasn't a lot of traffic at the time. But we have to build a left turn lane if you're heading west on Viking, a left turn lane to turn onto San Parkway. It's expensive because it's all concrete in there and it's going to require moving another whole
lane over and it's getting really close to those houses there, too. We've done some of the rightway acquisition already. Um Craig our engineers done some of the design work for it. So yeah, we are required as part of that agreement at the time when that
went in. I tell you this city makes agreements that don't help this city and I think this one was the county that uh was their requirement. We would have preferred not to I got it but
that's all I got. Any more discussion? None being heard. All those in favor? I opposed. Unheard. Motion passes. Thank you, Nate. Thank you. 8G.
Mr. Mr. Mayor, we have uh before you here today an approval for those that plan on attending the League of Minnesota City's annual conference be held in Duth this year uh June 25th through the 27th. And uh conference includes general sessions, innovative
workshops, networking opportunities, and one-on-one conversations with vendors um that prove to be beneficial uh for those that'll be attending. You'll see some of the cost on there. If you're if you've attended before, it's $425. If you are a first-time attendee, it's 2.75. Hotel
rooms are 149 a night with the conference rate. And there's some estimates in there for meals and mileage and that sort of thing. So, I wanted to bring this before the council uh to review the attachments that were on here. And so far, we have
um council member Urkl, Council Member Mundle, Council Member Smith that are planning to attend and myself. No, I'll be honest. Yeah, I'll put So, we need a motion first.
Uh, since you're not going, why don't you make a motion already? Okay, I'll make a motion to approve this. Second. Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor I I opposed. Unheard. Motion passes. Try to
get my screen on the last page. Um staff report the PDF. Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of items to talk about here. Um wanted to draw attention to the striped parking lots out there. I know that um uh Nate did mention that, but we got a really good deal on parking lot
striping. So again, it's kind of a a necessary thing uh as we kind of beat it up through the winter and that, but it's uh kind of brings everything up to current standards and makes it look nice. So you'll notice that's out there. Um we have I have tomorrow a meeting
with the uh union to to discuss uh the information that we talked about at the finance committee. And my hope is that on May 28th, the next council meeting, that we'll be able to bring um uh the proposal forward for adoption on the council. And then I just want to also uh
touch base uh last council member, we had an individual come concerning roosters. Um they had been in here a couple times that, you know, concerned over their neighbor and and some of those uh some of the issues that they're dealing with. We've gone out there twice
and we have yet to hear a rooster. Um, so it's very difficult to enforce any sort of code enforcement if uh especially if if it relates to nuisance when you can't actually identify it. So I'm not sure
um if some roosters lost their lives or if they I'm not sure what happened there. Uh after the last um time he came through, I did go out there one evening myself and sat at two different places for about 15 20 minutes
each and I could hear roosters. Um wasn't very loud, but I suspect that's because I was sitting on a roadway and not in somebody's backyard. And if the roosters are being kept in the backyard, sound doesn't travel. But I did hear
them. They do exist exist out there. Uh as to how much of a nuisance they are that uh is a personal thing, I guess. Yeah, we've had three visits in total out there and have yet another
one. So, you got lucky hearing them, I guess. But they're only allowed one, right? Is that correct? The code I believe allows one per acreage per limited, you know, you have a restriction on the amount of acreage you can have a rooster on. Um the challenge
with that of course is that you can have 10 acres and if the rooster is if you're on the property line, the rooster is outside your window. It doesn't matter how many acres you have, you know. So this is somewhat the challenge that you know I think every municipality in Minnesota has dealt with when it comes
to chickens. this concept of roosters and um and East Belta would not be the first to struggle with it. So, but aside from that, that's all I have unless there's further questions. Any questions for
Matt? Heard uh let's move on to council reports. Yeah, I got uh one here. First, I want to thank the council for approving our new fire chief on a successful background and a reference
check. And myself and the mayor attended a meeting that they had like meet the chief and uh I feel it went very well. He's a younger guy and he's he just seems like he's wide open to all the rest of firefighters which is great.
He's willing to learn is what he told us too because he doesn't know at all on how our station operates or whatever. And I believe that it's a very good positive that he will be for the city of East Bethl for our residents and for the
firefighters. So, thank you. Anybody else? Nate. Nate, are we still on tomorrow for the tours of all the parks? That's what the parks commission will be doing tomorrow. Be touring all the parks. Uh Wednesday we have a booster day meeting
uh 6:30 right here. If anybody would like to come and attend watch, uh we are looking for volunteers to volunteer for on the day of booster day. Could be just an hour or as much time as you want to
volunteer for. Uh if you are interested in volunteering, you can go to the booster day website and they have a submission form there where you can submit your information. That's all I have. Okay. Um
I attended a city officials meet quarterly meeting. It was a interesting meeting. They had DOT there and they talked about 65 and a lot of what's going on there. Um, I strongly recommend public officials go and meet uh other
public officials from other towns and hear what's going on through the noa county. They the county commissioners put it on. It's uh very informative. Um I today I had a airport planning meeting and
um there the next meeting is June 11th and it is open to the public for people who want to attend. It's online for people who want to attend. You can go to the Anoka County Blaine airport and uh
or Mac I can't think of the word mnams.com and um link into it. Um but we worked on the agenda for the next meeting mostly and
who the speakers are going to be. And um one of the things that's really exciting coming to NOA is electric aircraft. So and we'll be the first in it's going to go to the Noki the Anoka Blaine airport
and we'll be the first and only one in the state. And June 28th, you know, they have this EA program down there where young kids can uh explore flying and flying careers and any career outside of
the airport, you can have a career in there. Well, on June 28th, they're having a pancake breakfast and um the the EA is putting it on and um I strongly recommend especially homeschoolers to take your kids down
there. And um that's all for that one. the seniors uh meet every third Thursday and we are still looking for the city to bring forth a a modified ordinance allowing
alcohol over there. Um I know we have an ordinance that says no alcohol on any city property. However, the other two community centers are city property and do serve alcohol. So, we are taking charge of the all the
legal stuff. We just need the city council to approve it and which would mean an ordinance change. So, and that's all I have. All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion to adjourn. Second. Have a motion in a second. All
in favor? I I opposed. Meetings closed.