At this time, we'll call the May 11th, 2026 council meeting to order. Please rise if you can for the pledge. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation,
indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Make a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. >> Second. >> Got a motion in a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor? >> I uh consent or public form, I guess.
Yeah. >> Miss Wells. Hi, thanks. Sorry, I just ran in here at the last second. U, my name is Mary Wells and I live on Edmar Lane in East Bethl. And, um, first I want to thank you for serving on city council and as mayor. Um, I'm here to speak about the
resolution I believe is in the packet tonight regarding the flag. I think it's on the agenda in the packet. Um, first I understand there's only one state flag being flown currently and that's at the ice arena. I don't know >> that one and the one behind us here.
>> State flag. >> Yep. >> Oh, there is a state flag right there. Okay. So, there's only a couple flags around the city and it's each city's decision to whether or not to even fly the state flag. So, I hear so much about the state flag issue. We all have been
lately obviously. Um, obviously it's become a divi divisive political issue. Um, I believe it's that the Republicans hate the flag, Democrats like the flag. Um, but since this council is supposed to be nonpartisan,
not representing any political party. Um, I just would like you to keep an open mind on this whole issue. But personally, I prefer the new flag for a variety of reasons. The big reason is that I sort of kept up with the process as it went along. I'm one of those weird
people who subscribes to state and local government e-news. So, I get all this news from the state, from the city. All this I read it, you know, and as time permits, I keep up on issues that are really important to me. So I was um I
feel that the process of designing and selecting this flag was explained in detail um to those of us who were who chose to be actively engaged. Um there were several opportunities along the way where the they collected um broad public
citizen input and so many people say they don't know how it came to be but it's it is on each of us I believe to be engaged and pay attention to the issues that are important to us. So, since you are already considering a resolution, I
have a feeling that it'll probably pass um keep to keep flying the old flag and even perhaps ordering more state old state flags for different locations. Um, I ask that if you are going to pass, um, keeping the old flag as keep it as
historic and consider also flying the new flag, um, as a symbol of your nonpartisanship and your open-mindedness. I just feel like right now we need help from all of you, our elected officials, anybody, um, to help us come together as
a community around this issue, around so many issues. there's just so much um divide and I just would hate to see this be another issue that divides us even further. So, thanks again for your time and again for all your work on behalf of the city.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. >> Item 60, consent agenda. >> Make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. >> Second. Have a motion in a second. Anything need
to be pulled? Nothing. Nothing being heard. Uh, all those in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Unheard. Motion passes. Item eight. Item one.
>> Yep. All right. Um, thank you, Mayor Councel. This item is a request for an administrative subdivision at Our Savior's Lutheran Church located at 1 19001 Jackson Street Northeast. You have the map on the screen that shows a
2.65 acre parcel um that they are seeking to remove and create an independent parcel from their larger parcel, which is just to the souththeast of their of their church. The request qualifies administrative
subdivision under city code, does not require new roads, new public infrastructure or something you might see in a in a in a plat or or the like. Uh the request is compatible with both the public institutional zoning district and the city's public future land use
designation. Um the the reason they are seeking this uh subdivision is or uh administrative subdivision is in the northeast corner of this new lot proposed they have what's called a columbarium there and um
their lender as part of their financing for I guess their expansion or renovation is asking that to be removed from their current deed or title. Um I suppose it's an incumbrance that they don't want should they have to foreclose. um or what have you. Um so
this is why they are seeking this. Um certainly the column bar is directly associated with the existing church use. Um and the subdivision would certainly not change the overall institutional character of the property. Um staff
reviewed the survey and finds proposed parcel has adequate frontage, buildable area um and access does not create a flag lot. Admittedly, it's a little awkward, but that parcel that points down is is a football field wide and 700
to, uh, 800 ft deep. So, um, certainly not landlocking anything or creating an unusable parcel elsewhere. Um, so based on the findings in the staff report, staff recommends council approve resolution 2026-23
subject to the conditions noted in the resolution, including any final review of legal descriptions, required easements, if any. Um, there will be a park dedication fee. Oops. As it is creating a new parcel um and
seeking them to record this within 180 days. So it doesn't uh if they need an extension to that certainly we can probably accommodate that just so it it it closes a loop on it. So with that it's kind of the whole
thing. I'll make a motion to approve city council resolution 2026-23 with conditions Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? >> Uh, Eric, with this being an administrative subdivision, um, how many more times could this parcel be subdivided? You know, the ordinance does speak to allowing a a
subdivision one time. However, the ordinance does not speak to that timeline. So, uh, interestingly, this was part of a what I can gather and find in some of the history was part of a similar
subdivision 20 years ago. Um, but I would be more concerned if they came back and tried to create uh a parcel uh that wasn't of size that is still 300 ft
north to south or 300 ft east to west. Um, so if they came in and tried to split this again, being it's a public institutional zone, which has no standards, if you will, they pretty much have to have a really
good reason as to why. >> Okay. So, I'm just looking at uh now you kind of allude to the fact of a flag lot and >> uh the parcel that goes down to the south that sometime in the future I could see that
as being split off and >> you know used for something would would they >> that is zoned actually R2 if I recall correctly. So that would have to be um split from the northern part northern half of it um at some point. But maybe
at that point you might have different rules, different standards. Who knows why they may do that. They also own the parcel to the where the pond is to the west where it says exception. >> So maybe they'd be looking to combine
some land there too. So, >> okay. >> This will have a separate P, right? >> Yes, it would. >> Okay. >> Once done. >> Thanks. Any further discussion? None being heard. All those in favor?
>> I >> I opposed. Item two, resolution 2026-24. >> Thank Thank you again, Mayor and Councel. Um, let me just get a get a map you can actually make sense of here.
I'm sure. Okay. Um, this item is also for administrative subdivision and lot line adjustment request for the property located at 200063 University Avenue Extension Northwest.
proposal will transfer approximately 2.32 acres from to the existing home site which is the blue um increasing it to 7.33 acres with remaining parcel in yellow not in the
green um at 18.07 acres. Um the the reason the applicant is seeking this is uh for an accessory structure size. Your code has a index of of
or limitation of your accessory structure size based on total acreage. So this would allow him a slightly bigger uh accessory structure. Um no additional lots are being created. No increase in density is proposed and
no public infrastructure or other improvements are required. Um the the request is compatible with the rural residential zoning district and the r excuse me and the rural residential future land use designation.
Both resulting parcels remain large rural residential parcels exceeding the applicable lot area and frontage requirements. preserves a rural density character intended for the area. Again, it's essentially a reconfiguration of his parcels um and not creating any new
lots and meeting the city's subdivision standards. So, u based on those findings, staff report u staff recommend approval of resolution 20264 subject to conditions noted in the resolution.
Make a motion to approve council resolution 2026-24 subject to the conditions set forth in in the resolution. >> We have a motion. We have a second. >> Second.
>> Have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Uh, Eric, I'm looking at this. It's like we got two different owners. >> Yeah, the the >> one comes up the big plot area there
that they're trying to go on there with the green here comes in as a Andover resident >> where the initial plot comes in as a East Bethl resident. Um, you know, so I did look at the uh tax ID uh identification
um and they are both Paulo Fenucci. >> Yeah. >> Um uh you know I don't know where he might have uh he recorded the property or when it was sold. Maybe he had a different address for tax purposes. I don't know.
Um, all I can comment on is that the uh ownership is in the same name. And I believe if I remember the the the the transaction history, it was from his I'm not going to say I can't say it was his parents, but it was a similar last
name. >> All right. Any further discussion, all in favor? I >> opposed. None heard. Uh item three, resolution 2026-25.
>> All right. Thank you again. Um mayor and council, uh in your packet, there's a resolution that authorizes city to apply to the metropolitan council planning assistance grant program for funding associated with your upcoming 2025
comprehensive plan update. Um, Bethl's eligible for a non-competitive base grant of up to $40,000 to assist in comprehensive planning costs. Tonight's request is limited to the authorization to apply for the base grant and execute related
grant documents when they become available. Um, as we know, under statute, city is required to complete its next comprehensive plan by December 31st, 2028. Grant funds can be used for staff time, consultant services, public engagement,
and other planning related activities necessary to to get that job done. There are some additional incentive grants that may be available. Um, that's not something we're seeking at this time. We try to find out what those may be more
about as the process unfolds. Um, but potentially up to another five or possibly, if I recall, $10,000. Um, but I I would bring those back to you if you if if we thought those were possible. Um, so, uh, based on the
information presented, staff recommends approval of resolution 2026-25. >> Make a motion that we pass resolution 2026-25. Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? None being heard. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Item four, concept plan. >> Mr. Mayor, I'm going to handle this one. Um, and
let me just get this screen over. This computer likes to create issues. Okay, Mr. Mayor, uh before you here this evening is the very blurry.
Wonder if it's loading. Um before you hear this evening is the uh withdrawal of concept plan by um Capstone. Typically these are handled administratively. However, I wanted to bring this forward to the council uh to seek your approval on this. And I just
wanted to give a a little history on this kind of the reason why we're here. And I cannot tell you why it's not coming in. Wow. Hold on a second. Let's just pull it over. I've got it if you want.
>> You got it on. Yes. >> Okay. Sorry for the delay. Uh reason why we're here. Um Capstone wanted to present this as a concept plan or an idea. Um and they wanted to bring this before uh the
residents, particularly those in close proximity uh to the area. They invited the neighbors in to get uh questions answered, that sort of thing. Uh then they actually brought it to the open house um uh town hall meeting. Uh had a
board there in case there are questions that were generated and then it went to the planning commission. It was at the planning commission that was determined that it was uh premature maybe at this point and uh was denied by the planning commission on the basis of that. Um by
way of history, Capstone has an option on this property to purchase this. Um some of the uh suggestions that came in were larger lots well and septic. Capstone has reiterated that they do not do larger lots well or septic. And uh
and essentially if this were to sell to a different developer, a different developer could be landlocked uh which would result in um uh you know probably a reduction in price to the seller or a loss of value.
Um another topic that kind of came up was that of the muciline. use line was an invented concept by the mech council to prevent um sprawl. And the reason why they they weren't fans of sprawl uh is because
within the mucus line is the main sewer line that goes down to Pig's Eye. And if it sprawls to the north or east or west or wherever, they would have to extend that main sewer line at a tremendous cost to them. And they want to prevent that from happening. Uh so they wanted a
development to kind of be confined within the mucus line. Um East Bethl also has a mucus line, but we are self-contained in in the sense of we have our own self-contained sewer uh plant here uh that processes uh waste
and trucks the solids out. Actually pumps the water, treated water back up to the north and reintroduces it to a wetland. uh that allows the wetland to do what wetlands do best. They they filter it back into the aquifer, which
is actually becoming the um best management practice out there today. But nevertheless, Musa here is a a kind of a fictitious line that's that's placed and doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing because it doesn't deal with sprawl in the sense of what Musa was
originally designed for. Um, and so that that less that doesn't necessarily impact us as much. We actually brought this up to Met Council and and they were very supportive. As you know, the the the system over there is not operating anywhere near capacity
or even efficiently. And they're looking for uh more flow rate to come through there, more hookups, and uh and as a result, that would accomplish that on their part. So, they're very supportive of this. But nevertheless, um it was u determined that maybe it was best for uh
Capstone to withdraw this concept plan application and uh and they wanted me to to be clear for folks that they would be bringing this back at some point in the future when it wasn't premature in the future and uh and try to exercise that
purchase that option to purchase on that property, the 30 acres um in question So, just wanted to give that quick little rundown on this. And um and so staff recommendation is accept the withdrawal of the concept plan from
Capstone Homes for Viking Meadows South proposal. We have no action on that, right? Just a motion to accept. >> Make a motion to accept. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? >> None being heard. All in favor? >> I opposed. Item 8G, Minnesota flag. >> Bear with me one second. Let me try and get this pulled back up here. We can
relaunch this. Challenge that we have is that if you scroll too fast, it doesn't like to populate. So, we will try and get there. Okay. Okay, Mr. Mayor, uh before you this evening is considered adopting a
resolution regarding flying the Minnesota flag for the city of East Bethl. On April 27th, council addressed the issue of retaining the 1983 Minnesota state flag instead of transitioning to the new flag design adopted in 2024. Council directed staff to prepare a formal resolution to
display the old flag on municipal property. I wanted to include in here that state statute does not require cities to fly the state flag and municipalities may choose which version if any to display. Um I had a
pull that up. We'll see if we're successful doing that. Um during the Olympics there was uh a flag that was flown. I believe it was the top left one here. Historical flags. No, it wasn't that
one. It's one of these. And um and I know a lot of people kind of commented on that, but essentially for US flags, any of these historical flags can be flown and are and are authorized to be flown. You don't have to fly this particular one here, which is the latest
adopted flag. Um but uh similarly, I would assume that uh that um the state flag would should probably fall within that same category of um goodness sakes computer within the same
category of you know flying whichever flag you would choose because both were adopted at one point or another and were official flags from Minnesota state. So before you this evening is a resolution to consider preference of displaying of
state flags at city facilities. Well, right now, like I say, we we only really the only one we're really flying that ain't standing like the one behind us is uh at the ice arena. I mean, we have no state flags on any of our other polls in
the city. I mean, so are we going to start flying one? Is that the intent here or >> just just the option? >> Yeah, I feel that the city should be
able to make their own choice on what flags they want to fly. And like I say, I know the only one at the ice arena seen is the older flag. And I've had a lot of residents call me and say, "You're not going to fly that new one, are you?" And I just said,
"It's not up to me. We all got to vote on it." But there was a lot of negativity about it. And so that's why I brought it up. And it's I don't know if residents know that it's cost us a lot of money to do this. Originally, there
was 13 voting members that that cost was $35,000. change the flag. But since then, and it's a going on cost constantly, I believe they're up to almost $4
million because they've had to change flags everywhere, uniforms, and vehicle decals. So, I mean, a lot of people to me that's a lot of money that's spent on this flag. And that's our money is how I
look at it. And it's an ongoing cost. And they say they even know when that will end. So that's my info on that. I'd like to address a concern that a five member council should not speak for
every resident, especially in an issue like the state flag. I understand that concern and in one sense it's absolutely correct. Uh, no council can represent every individual opinion on every matter. In a community
as diverse as East Bethl, like ours is, residents are always going to hold different views. Some will prefer the new flag, some are going to prefer the original flag. That difference of opinion is actually normal within a healthy city. But that is exactly why we
have a council sitting here. The purpose of this body is not to act as a mirror of every single preference in town. Our purpose is to deliberate publicly, hear our residents and weigh the issues
carefully and then make a decision that reflects on the interest of this city as a whole. Representation does not mean necessarily unanimous agreement. It means responsible judgment on behalf of the community. This discussion is not about whether any
one resident is entitled to her opinion. She absolutely is. Okay? Every resident is entitled to support the flag they prefer just as every resident is entitled to disagree. But a city building displays a public symbol and a
public symbols are chosen by public officials through a public process. The decision is not made by one person's politics, one person's taste, or one person's social media post. It is made through the authority entrusted in
councils like this in other cities and ours. I want to be clear that this issue should not be reduced to labels like left or right or conservative or woke because once we start talking that way, we stop talking about the actual question that is before us. The real
question is simple. What symbol represents East Bethl and the state of Minnesota on municipal property. For many of us, the original flag does that better. The flag people recognize the flag is tied to the state's history. The
flag has been a part of the public landscape for far longer than any new design. And I think that matters because government symbols should provide continuity. They should give residents a sense of stability and something they're familiar with. They should reflect in what the
public already knows and identifies with. A new flag may have its supporters, and that's absolutely fine. But a municipal building is not required to adopt every new symbol because it exists. Cities are allowed to exercise
judgment and choose what that's what best fits their community's identity. I believe flying the original flag is a reasonable, respectful, and lawful choice for East Bethl. It not only honors our state's history, it avoids
unnecessary division. It reflects what many residents still see as a true and familiar symbol of Minnesota. And it shows that our city values continuity and local discretion rather than automatically following every imposed change from above. That is why I'm for
this. Need a motion. If you're going to go forward with it, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution on the flag 2026-26. I'm going to second it. >> A motion, a second. Any further
discussion? >> Had a couple comments on the resolution. Uh, last paragraph. No. Therefore, uh there is one typo uh third sentence known as the 83 flag shall be designated
as the representative flag state flag for the city for the city of East Bethle. There's can make that change. >> One change there. And continuing on with that and that all city owned properties
shall probably display. Um I'd like to offer the suggestion of changing shall to may. Uh having shall in there implies that on any city-owned properties where flags
are displayed that the city flag shall be flown on that property. Uh, putting May in there gives the option to just fly it at the ice arena like we are already doing. If Council Mono, if you want to make a
um friendly amendment to the motion. >> Okay. >> Pass that and then >> Oh, do we need do that for the table or just the one? Yeah, if you want to just >> Okay, I'll make a friendly amendment to
the motion uh to correct the typo of for the city and change the word shall to may. >> I'll second that. >> All right. To the friendly amendment. Uh we've got a
motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I opposed unheard. Motion passes. Item two. >> And then you want to take a final vote on the resolution. >> Okay.
Any further discussion on final vote? None being heard. All those in favor? >> I opposed. None hurt. Item G2. Okay. A second.
Okay. Mr. Mayor, um before you hear this evening is a um opportunity for a property acquisition. Um, in the in a prior EDA meeting, we had uh discussed the corner of uh 1347 Sims, corner of
Sims and uh 65 for acquiring that property and kind of talking about some of the other properties that are available. Um, at that point there was a discussion about an existing property uh does not have a street address, but here's the pin number. um that is
essentially two properties to the west of the one that we acquired. It was originally uh listed for $265,000. I received a call from the listing agent and we had a very good conversation in
which um um it was expressed to me that uh that they would be willing to sell that property for $175,000. Um I'm bring that before you this evening uh for your consideration. Um, as you know, this area is kind of slated
for change and um, some of that change, we've tried to identify a location where, um, a water treatment facility could potentially go in a water tower. Uh, this is for the purpose of hooking the two elementary schools up to city
sewer and water service. And, uh, this property could be used for that for that, uh, project. uh as opposed to we I think council member Mono you were opposed to the 1347 being a water tower on the corner of 65
there and I I would agree with you on that. Um but this one's a little bit off off the beaten path on Sims that might be a better prospect for that. Uh and um if it isn't we can certainly find some other property too. Um,
originally we were thinking of going under Highway 65 because we own land right next to the post office. Uh, there's some significant cost in in drilling those those pipes underneath the highway that it might make make better sense. I mean cost in the in terms of millions of dollars. Uh, could
be last I saw was a couple million dollar ad to do that. Um, as opposed to purchasing a property like this for 175,000 would allow us to essentially use that property. um in uh in lie of going underneath the
highway if that was the ultimate decision to do so. Uh but before you this evening is just a um um a few a few different documents. There's a appraisal proposal. This is um Guggenberger
Services uh does a appraisal for $1,000. Very reasonable um to validate that 175,000 is worth it. The environmental site assessment uh proposal is here as well. That's $2,500 to do that property. Uh that's to determine if there was
anything dumped on the property that uh that shouldn't have been or if there's contaminated soils. And then the third item here is the intent to purchase agreement that uh um Jacob softly drafted for us and uh basically kind of
lays out um you know intent to purchase if everything kind of falls in line. um and uh and passes muster, if you will. Um actually, I'm sorry, the intent to purchase was put on your desk here because we received that over the
weekend uh because the quick turnaround on that. So, um that is at your desk. At any rate, mayor, before you this evening is uh essentially um the the important port portion of it is the
intent to purchase um and um and time is of the essence if you want to proceed with that. >> Intent uh purchase is not legal binding, right? >> No, I maybe maybe our attorney can
comment on that. >> Mr. Mayor, councel, Mr. L, the uh this particular letter of intent is not binding. So, what exactly are we intending to use this property for?
Good question. Um, this is the property right here and that we're that we're looking at. Uh, this is the one 1347 Sims that we purchased. This is the right here on Johnson Street. Um, couple of options. Um, we can use this for a
possible future fire station. We could use it for water treatment, uh, water tower. Um, we probably couldn't do all three of them on that same location. Um, but then essentially it it's as you can
see that much closer to the to the schools as well. if you're hooking up water, any distance uh that you're looking at there, the the further away, the more costly it is. So, this actually will help reduce some of that cost to try and get the schools hooked up to
city sewer and water services. Um it could be used for economic development. Um when city sewer and water comes through this area um this land here will be what's proposed for the industrial park will be you know probably a lot
more expensive than it is today as will the parcel we purchased as will this property here. So it's it's essentially right now with a conditional use permit a used car lot could go in there. Um the uh would the
city want that? You know, um controlling and owning the property, you can help to um place something in there that you would like to place there. And and as far as city services go, it would be an ideal location that would then also allow this area up
in here to hook up to city and water. What's the update on that pro process in terms of uh what we have going down at the state for funding? >> Uh so Mr. Mayor and councel uh as far as an update on that we uh were successful in getting the three well in uh being
included in the bill uh for the Emmer's earmark shall we say high priority project and um and we've not received those dollars. We've not been notified that that bill has passed, but um we're fairly confident that will pass. My
thinking was with the with that passing that'll help to encourage the state to support the remainder of the ask, which is 6.5 million. Uh we were 10.5 originally, less 3 million, 6.5. That doesn't that's not right. 7.5.
Um and um and that's already been reduced at the state level. according to our senator uh that is uh we're on the top of the list. So again, depending on what bonding bill passes, if it passes or if
there's a lot of infighting, which I'm sure we can anticipate, um we we don't know how that'll shake out, but um but we're we're in better standing, I think, today than we were before. with the purchase of this property for that
amount. You're saying I can see where it's going to cut off a couple million for starters. Would that lower what we're asking then at the state? Wouldn't that help us? >> So the it could potentially the um the
original estimates are are just that estimates. >> Okay. We will not know what the total price is until such time as we get the bids in and we understand um you know where we are in terms of the actual cost to do the work. So I would
hesitate to to come down off that 10.5. I know the 10.5 was established um approximately three years ago. So it doesn't account for construction inflation either. But it would be drastically cheaper
instead of coming across from the other side of the freeway though, right? >> Yeah. Again, we were coming from over here and trying to come underneath the highway and then running all the way down underneath the highway. I think it was ballparked around a $2 million
uh cost to do that. Um avoiding that would be would be good. Now, that doesn't mean we may not be going over at some point because you've got a lot of houses over here that could potentially hook up in the future, but at least as
it relates to getting this the schools hooked up at the least amount of cost possible, um we can focus on this side of the highway first and and cross other bridges later. Barring that doesn't happen,
that location for a future fire department fits what we were looking at >> for that side of the city also, right? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, as far as putting a water tower on it, I
don't think that'd be appropriate location for it. It should I could see a fire department and if water and sewer comes into this area, it should be a commercial piece
because it's right on SIMS. But if it there's going to be a water tower, I'd rather have it see it set off the SIMS a little bit. So I that may require purchasing other
property. >> Yeah, those are future discussions. >> Yeah, I I can see. Is it a good deal? Yes. Is it the right spot for a water tower?
I I don't think it is. Much like other cities, they have the water tower block off a major road or something not right where everybody's going to see it all the time. I mean, despite it water tower being very tall,
but at least they cast shadows. Yeah. >> Right now, we're Mr. Mayor and Councelor, we're looking at a willing seller scenario. Um there's not any other property in this area short of this which they've indicated a very high cost for
but um nothing else in this proximity up here that it's currently for sale. >> The price is definitely right. >> Do we have the money in the ADA for that? uh we would have the money in um in the
general fund to be able to afford this. And I'm currently, just so the council knows, I'm currently working with a developer on the Taylor Street property uh that's interested in purchasing that. Um we, you know, I doubt that we'll have
that lined up before the purchase of a property such as this, but we would in the future be able to repay those dollars with that. I guess we're looking for somebody to entertain a motion to move forward with the initial process
being non-legal binding. I mean, I see value in it. So, I'll make a motion to move forward on it. I'll second that. Have a motion, a second. Any further discussion?
None being heard. All those in favor? I opposed. None heard. uh staff report. >> Mr. Mayor, just uh I was going to give a staff report on Capstone, but we included that this evening in um in the
uh community development portion. Also want to just touch on the fact that um uh the uh new attorney will be starting June 1st. They will be meeting with us here in the next um on the 14th. We have some meetings lined up. Um I do not
believe council member Mundle or council member Urkl um have been notified of that yet. So this is new news to you. But anyways, on the 14th um Mr. Berglin is available for meetings if you want to meet to talk about any city issues um to
bring them up to speed. And um but I do want to notify so on June uh June 8th is our first meeting which uh typically the first uh the first of the month doesn't land on a Tuesday which where meetings
are always the second uh Tuesday uh and fourth Tuesday. So um Mr. Berglin will be out of the country um on June 8th. He will have representation here. I'm assuming Scott will probably Scott Bunner will probably be covering for him, but uh he's going
to be in Europe at that time and notified me of such. So, um but aside from that, um everything should go over smoothly. So, unless there's any questions,
uh can you send that over email? >> I will send that out now. Thank you. Council reports. >> I'd like to make a big shout out to the fire department auxiliary. On Sunday, May 3rd, I volunteered with
them to do the uh roadside cleanup. Uh did the section of Sims to 221st. And this was a new section. They switched it up from the previous section. And I don't think this section
have been done for a while because there uh there's quite a lot of trash. So I make a big shout out to fire department auxiliary and the the volunteers that showed up there. >> Anybody else? Tim,
>> we had a meeting at Sunrise. Uh I mean Rum River Wershed Association. Um went over their annual report. Uh June 1st, we've got a big night over there. We're going to uh tour what
what's been going on at Lake George and um the efforts of restoration on the shorelines over there. So that ought to be interesting. U so entertain a motion to adjurnn. Take motion journ.
>> Second motion second. All in favor?