Shut that door. Okay, I'll call the order the uh June 22nd, 2026 city council work meeting. Uh two, the agenda number three, I guess we'll go to city
notary. >> Okay, that's me. Um so recently uh I was attending a clerk's training and we had a speaker from the secretary of state's office that and the secretary of state's office is where um notary
publics get their commissions issued. We have four notary publiclix at city hall um as part of our job descriptions. four of us have a notary commission.
Uh during this training that I attended, um there a lot of us, a lot of the other clerks were discussing how everyone has a commission, but there is very very little available in the way of
training for notary commissions. There's no training required before you get your commission. Um, and right now at city hall, we offer notary services to the public. So, they
can bring in their documents for notoriization and we have it on our fee schedule that we charge a dollar for that service. Um we something that we are discovering is some of the documents that are being
brought in for staff to notoriize should not necessarily be notorized by staff. Um there are different notorial acts that we can
uh finalize. We can do acknowledgements. So for like contracts and easements and permit applications, we can do what they call jurits, which is um affidavit, complaint statements. Um we get those on claims or
reimbursement forms. Uh oaths or affirmations without a document. So oaths of office or commission appointments. um we can do verification uh of an oath or affirmation. So again
that's something that comes up with permit applications or license applications, candidate filings during elections. And the last thing that we can do is copy uh copy certification. So uh
certifying that it is a exact copy of what's a document that we have on file. Um, but a lot of the documents that get brought in by the public are wills, powers of attorney documents,
uh, real estate documents such as deeds of trust, grant or warranty deeds, um, affidavit of title. we should not be notorizing those because we have no authority to
notoriize those documents or uh have no no way of verifying that those documents that we are looking at is true and correct. Um, so kind of what what we're left with is we
either create a notary policy specifically for those members of staff that are required to have their notary commissions that addresses what types of documents and what type of acts we uh
will be permitted and different procedures involved with that. or we remove it from the fee schedule and we don't offer it as a public service. But the notaries that we have on staff can still notoriize the city documents. So
the ones that we require in order to do business. So, uh the land use documents that we that would come in to the uh community development department, the documents that we require for say liquor licenses or tobacco licenses, we would
still do the affidavit of candidacy for elections, that sort of stuff. Anything that's required by the city, but just remove that as something that the public can just bring something in. Um,
that's that's kind of the question that we're left with right now. And so we wanted to bring that to council and see where you guys stood on that. if we created a a policy to keep it on the fee
schedule um and create a a a line procedure for how staff should operate with these the various notorial acts that we are allowed to complete. Um that would be something that I would pull together, but we would want to get the
city in attorney involved because there is a liability possibility there. And so before I brought that to the city attorney and incurred any of those charges, I wanted to bring that to you guys first and see which way you wanted to go with it
because if we just if we pull it off the fee schedule and don't offer it as a public service anymore, there's no need to write a policy for it. >> Why do documents that you guys have on hand need to be notorized? because my
thinking is you're the only ones who see these documents. Why do they have to be notorized anyways? >> Some of the documents um they're generated by they're state forms, but we have to have them on file because we're the one we're the issuing authority.
So, we didn't we don't create the forms. We don't you know, we are pulling them in from external organizations. >> So, why do they have to be notorized? If you create the you pulled in the documents from external sources, you create them. Why do they need to be
notorized? >> Depending on the it I mean it depends on the type of document like with licenses or um like in a a license application. Typically, I believe in a liquor license application, we have I think two different documents that have to be
notorized. One of them is just an acknowledgement that the person signing on behalf of this business is who they say they are. So it is just uh a verification. Um and then I believe the other one that
we have to notoriize might be an indemnification agreement. and they're agreeing to indemnify the city for any uh charges that may arise from them operating under their license that we issued to them.
>> Okay. So, if you get out of the notary business for these city, just the city ones I'm talking about right now, um they would have to go to a bank or a lawyer or someplace else for >> those two. >> Yep.
when so that that kind of doesn't make sense that they would have to go if it's a city thing that they would have to go outside of the city to get it notorized, >> right? Which is why I'm not recommending that we get rid of it entirely and just quit doing it alto together.
>> Right. I can see why real estate documents because there's so much housing fraud going on right now because you guys don't have the ability to do these title searches and stuff like that and people are losing their homes to
fraud right now. So, um I can see that >> there's a lot of documents, yeah, that come in that you actually have to have a real estate license in order to notoriize that or you have to know, you have to recognize these legal documents
and unless you are an attorney or a parallegal of some sort, you're not going to recognize whether or not that document is complete. Okay. My recommendation is just put out a list of the stuff that you guys are authorized to notoriize and
so the public knows make it widespread, you know, on the front page of the website. And then also we do not do wills and real estate and um legal transactions between, you know, divorce,
marriage, that kind of stuff. >> Yeah, that would be my recommendation. And if and if we do that, that's something where we would have to have the policy in place. >> Right. Right. Create a policy, but also make sure the public is notified, you
know, not to have to page through that big book of stuff to see what will they notoriize, you know. Was there issues that uh spurred this
um conversation at uh where you went? >> Uh the training that I went to, it was a workshop for the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association. Um they just bring in they bring in different training options whenever they can get a
get them. Um and we of all of the other clerks that were there, the ones that I spoke with, none of us had had official training before, um there were other members there that have been notaries for over 20 years and
did not have this information. Um so it was it was uh very well attended and there was a lot of participation in this. Um, but then some of the information that I brought back and talking with the other staff that have their notary commissions, there was
a lot of questions raised. So, it yeah, figured we'd want to bring it up to you guys. >> So, you weren't necessarily notified of >> any issues have have happened. It was more >> like a uh this is how it should be.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. Um, and just to kind of uh give you a little bit more information, on average, uh, so like I said before, we charge $1,
uh, per document. Um, we've, well, we've typically been charging $1 per document. We are supposed to charge $1 per signature. So, if a document has multiple signatures, we are supposed to charge more than a
dollar for that. Um, but on average we make less than $30 a year on this for the last 10 years. Uh, this year we've made a grand total of $4 on notary fees. >> I would say then keep it in house, you
know, and don't even offer the other part. I don't know. Do we have to put on the website just say that we're not really? >> It would be um it would be a resolution to take it off of the fee schedule. So it would require coming back to the next meeting and a resolution to amend the
fee schedule and so then we would have that published afterwards >> especially if you're not notoriizing much >> right >> you know it doesn't pay to even off the service in my opinion >> you know one thing I do like is that when staff goes to training um that they
come back and tell us stuff that they've learned and what some things that are being changed so kind Yeah. >> Yeah. From a liability standpoint, I would say um if we do a policy just on the essentials that
we need for the lottery and that so we have our list intact. I think that'd be sufficient. >> Yeah. Shouldn't be a difficult policy to create. I won't think. I I have a skeleton one kind of pulled together
already, but before I went any further with it, I wanted to double check. So, we Is that something where we would just do I just want >> just city related or >> Yeah,
>> okay. Like I said, I just wanted to get some clarification on that before >> just the necessities that we so we ain't getting ourselves in liable issues. Okay, >> sounds good. >> Thank you.
>> This one must be Matt or >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, I was asked to put this on the, um, work session here for discussion. Wanted to also just kind of give an update on where they're currently at right now. Um, first of all, by way of a CUP, uh, they
are required in order to retain their CUP to have a active license with the state. So, as you know, their license was suspended and um and they were going through a I don't want to say a trial, but basically proving uh you know, right or
wrong what happened in the facility. Um since then, they've been given a temporary license now for six uh individuals that they can serve in that massive facility. Not sure how that's going to work, but um at any rate um if
they ultimately uh you know lose a license that would that would um negate their cup at that point. Um the uh the issue of um trying to find it here.
Age limitation um is 10 to 19 years of age. There was possibly something printed out there that allows up to 21 years of age. Um that would be a violation of the cup. So we're going to follow up on that to ensure that uh the
10 to 19 is um is being you know that all the the requirements of the cup are being followed. Um and um the uh you know we did receive and I sent out to the council a default notification
and essentially what that is is um the bank is required to send a notification to the city that they are in uh default. Not meaning that they didn't pay their bills but that a condition of that loan
agreement is that they have you know, a license with the state as a funding mechanism for their operations. And so when that funding mechanism was put on hold, that triggered a default at that point. Uh I received a letter for from them um I believe I I included in the
packet um that uh that you know they have enough money even pay off the facility if they so wish. uh that they're not going to be defaulting on the payments portion of it, but that they're working with the bank to um
either remove that, you know, component or work out a way that uh that they're no longer in default. I'm not sure that we have any sort of repercussion as far as defaults go of of payments as it relates to their cup portion of it.
>> Um but >> can I interrupt for a second? So, they're in default on payment. Is there a late fee or anything like that? Or you you just said there's nothing and maybe if there is nothing, we need to establish something.
>> Um, this is the letter that I included from Old National Bank. Uh, they they identify if there's late fees and that that are in here. Um, again, this is not a missed payment default. it's a uh you
know as part of the um loan agreement it's that their funding source is in jeopardy. Um so if they if they can prove to the bank that look we've got an account over here with the dollars in there to pay
this off tomorrow if we if we want. um then perhaps the bank will consider that a um you know security enough collateral security for for the loan and and they can you know kind of dismiss that um
that default notice. But at any rate it's um ongoing um in terms of uh trying to work through their scenario over there. Um they're from what I understand they're a very large entity. They have
quite a few operations around the state and country and um I don't foresee them struggling financially necessarily on this. It was a um I I think we were talking about it uh earlier before the meeting and I think you know when they
introduced boys and girls that created some some conflict there uh that um that I think the state then reacted to and that was kind of the the impetus for this shutting it down. Um, so I don't know if the six individuals now that
they're going to six children that they're going to allow in there are only females again or only males or a combination thereof, but I'm assuming they're taking steps to ensure that they fix that um that
issue that was raised by the state. So um so as far as we know, they're still uh still in operation and still uh you know moving along. I I know their hope is to grow from six to to more obviously and get back to the full um complement
that they're working with in there. Um but that's only going to happen at you know at the rate in which the state allows it to happen. So >> do you know what their maximum is number of kids? >> Uh shoot I
>> 40 >> 40. Yeah, I think that in the high maybe there was 25 in there or something like that, but we don't necessarily get updated on the on the totals either. So, but anyways, wanted to give just that
update on um on where that scenario is at and and um >> can you let us know once you get the information? >> Yep. >> Thank you. Yeah, we'll definitely keep council updated on this. And again, if
it's if they lose their license to operate out of that facility, um then that triggers the cup. Now, uh being revoked. Now, we we didn't revoke the cup because it was temporarily suspended as they're going through their
um kind of dispute resolution or whatever with the state. Uh but um but they've >> you don't know what the findings of the state were that made them >> there were safety concerns. >> Safety
>> safety concerns. Yep. And um and again I think it may have had to do largely with the combination of boys and girls that created some new dynamics as you can imagine that um that generated some
calls you might say. >> Safety has always been an issue for us since day one. >> In meetings they told us what the age group was going to be. So I'm curious to find out, you know, if in fact they've gone above what we've told them. They've
also told us they were putting together a deep u something to deescalate situations and different security training in there. And I'm curious to see if they've actually followed through on that. I mean, it might be something that the
city might request to take a look at the logs, you know, from them, see what kind of calls were made, what kind of response what they did to remedy that. >> Yeah, the sheriff the sheriff has all those all those calls.
>> But you know what I mean? If if they're going against what they say they're going to do and put steps in place to prevent this from happening again. City might have to take a hard look at that. >> So the last time that we had a conversation with them, they kind of
stated, well, they only have certain things they can do. You know, that they're allowed to do. >> They can't lock the they can't have hands-on. They can't do various different measures that might control some of this behavior and um and as a
result they were somewhat blaming their license the lure the state in limiting their you know what they're capable of doing. I don't know if that's true or not or or um or not, but at any rate, it would it would make sense that, you
know, we we had talked about their their license being expanded to a locked facility and, you know, that might have helped contain the, you know, the problems some of them, but uh I don't think the state's allowed that. So, it's
>> that's what they said. They're going to be bringing in different training, >> you know, put in protocol to handle situations like that where they could actually do more restraining and have tougher laws, so to speak. So, I'm
curious to see if they follow through on that because we haven't had a meeting since. >> Right. We're we're due for one. >> Yeah. Because even at on the sheriff's report tonight, there's three calls that they list there that are there. All three of them are domestic assaults on
staff >> from the six You know, I if I can speak freely, Mr. Mayor, I think this is a needed service for troubled kids.
Um, I don't know that it's a entity that fits well in a community our size. you know, if you have deeper pockets and the larger, you know, budget, you might be able to weather some of this a little bit more than than the direct
relationship that we have with the sheriff's department that based on their calls, we see an increase in budget, you know, and it's it can be substantial. So, um, and and again, I we had this frank conversation with them that had they disclosed
the challenges that we would ultimately end up seeing, it probably would have never been approved. So, um, be that as it may, uh, we're trying to work with them the best we can and limit the calls that are unnecessary
while still responding to the calls that are necessary and serious and And that's that's where the the challenge comes in trying to balance that keeping cost down. So
ongoing ongoing issue. >> All right. Thank you for the update, Eric. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um screen. Um this uh issue or potential policy, you
know, question stems from a couple things um related to administrative subdivisions and one comments I think from council member Mandel and council and council member asking about um look back periods on administrative lot
splits. you know what what uh what does the city have in place and how does it impact we've had recent ask if recall from the Lutheran church we had requests from uh the the Buddhist temple asking hey we want these these lot amendments
and um so I'll just touch base on that one first so when they when when they come in and we we look at our code and that's what's on your screen and I did hand it out uh to at your at your spot. Um uh we have the original a simple lot
split can only be done once. If at a later date someone wishes to further subdivide either lot, they will need to meet all the requirements of chapter 66 essentially a platting. Um and so where I think some of the challenges we have
is understanding um that it can only be done once. Um certainly it's clear and plain, but one of the challenges we have is we don't know the history of every parcel and how did they come to be. Um was there a lot
split in administrative lots split in 1972 as an example. It's almost impossible for staff to really be able to fret it down that information. Um, obviously we're not a title policy company or um, can we
request a potential applicant for that, too? Well, you're going to need to go do a deep title search and prove to the city that this has never occurred. Um, and so that can become challenging as time goes on.
Um but on the flip side, the one of the reasons for the limitations is so nobody's doing serial lot splits. So nobody's coming in and and just doing one slot split after another so as to somehow avoid the city's subdivision process or to create um parcels that
otherwise should have been platted. Um, in in either case, the creation of a lot, whether it's by your current policy or something else, they still have to meet the requirements of what a lot is in terms of its size or its frontage, what have you. Um, but the question just
becomes is can it only be done once really plausible for us to implement I guess as at staff or even you folks to interpret in a deeper sense. Um, so your pack includes a bunch of what other some
other cities do. Um some cities don't allow any kind of um minor or administrative loss, but I believe that was Columbus. Cities like um Oak Park Heights where I used to work, we had a five-year look back period, and I believe Blaine had a
five-year look back to period 2. And some cities just do allow don't have any look back period at all or don't have any limitations on it. So it and those are just the five or six I looked at. I'm sure there's some other examples,
but um to me what I think might be compelling for you folks to consider is to have uh identify a five-year um look back period. Um it's simple to identify.
There's some local history um that people will remember. we with that lot. We did that, you know, three and a half, four years ago. Um files are probably still reasonably fresh. Um there's still a neighbor to call. There's somebody But what happened
in, you know, 27 years ago there, it's almost impossible to really tell. Um, and then on a five-year timeline that that will likely styy anybody trying to circumvent um a subdivision process or a platting
process. Um, if they're really willing to wait five years to just get that next lot, well, okay, they win. But, uh, I think that's that's the genesis of why five years might be compelling. Anyway, so that's kind of the long and short of
it. just on the screen and in front of your deis that you see at the deis is um the original stated and then a concept. Oops, I'm sorry. Um and certainly this is just sample language. This is certainly nothing
final. Obviously, you're just beginning to touch base on this is um the property or any resulting lot shall not have been part of a simple lot split subdivision within the last five years. Um so what's important there is the the
parent parcel cannot be cannot do it again and the resulting lot or child parcel cannot do it again for five years. So it really puts the hold on on um those parties from trying to do
another subdivision. Um if somebody really wants to do it, we we suggested maybe some language that um they would need to meet the requirements of chapter 66, which again is your planning. So that's kind of the early take on it all
and be curious what what you folks think about it. >> Well, personally, I think five years is too short. I would go a minimum of 15 years. Um, and I also think that it should be a
minimum of 10 acres that gets split because I don't think if somebody has five acres that they should be able to split it to two and a half acres because I'm presuming knowing what East Bethl has been, it has been split multiple times probably
because this was all farmland or um other land out here um farmland or um I can't think of the word but uh agricultural of type kind of some type.
>> Um and then back over on page three, I think the city council needs to be involved. I believe that what this was saying is that it would come to the city council
and then this the zoning administrator would have the approval to approve all of the chapter 66 and um other administrative rules and regulations
that that they have to comply with. So the the initial split has to be approved by the council, the planning commission, the council. Um it it has to be done the way it's been done and the zoning administrator is for to make sure
everything's in being complied with. So, I think the wording could be updated a little bit, but um to say after the council's approval, the zoning administrator, blah blah blah. So, I don't know what the rest of the
council that's my opinion on everything. Um the rest of the council can put their two cents in and we can discuss. >> May I respond just to >> Yeah. >> reflect on that. Um, you know, one to that other issue in your ordinance.
Again, this we brought this again to your attention as we're dealing with this piece of your uh ordinances. Let's let's clean this up. um whether it should be before the city council um to reach a final decision under part
E and that first sentence as shown on the screen or should it be the zoning administrator may approve the administrative subdivision. Those two sentences conflict or conflict um when one reads
them you know as you try to apply them as as a as a staff person. So um again in your packet I wrote about a lot of cities do have um this is just an administrative approval a ministerial
approval where some cities um just allow that if they're meeting all the requirements of that of those new proposed lots and the process where some cities do as you mentioned um council member Urkel that they do take it back
to the city council in some process but in this case, we just have a disconnect in in process. Um, one thing to keep in mind is if an applicant shows up with a proposed lot split, let's just say that it's
compliant with everything, um, the lot sizes, the history, whatever. In in in most likely scenarios, city really can't deny it. Um it's it's a it's a function that you're required to approve if
they're meeting it's not a subjective test. It's it's um something that okay they're meeting the lot size. Uh they're meeting the historical requirements. They're they're paying the park dedication fee. >> You'd have to have a finding of fact in
order to turn it down. >> In effect, yes. And so thus it becomes really is is it become an administrative approval? Um but for some reasonable cause, the city is going to say no. And then you have in your ordinance a
decision appeal process, which is what the intent of that was. Um, which would thenly go to the city administrator and back to the city council. I I don't know if there's a it's just different. Not one's better than the other. Um, but if
it does come to the council, your hands are kind of tied anyway. You have to approve it. um just like staff would have to approve it if it remained an administrative approval, but some cities want the council to review it and
that's just fine too. So, >> and the reason I am saying it needs to go to council is because council's elected, the staff are not. And for instance, I have somebody across my
swamp that has 22 acres. If he came in for a lot split, everybody down that street is going to go up in arms and say, "Oh, they're building. Why are they building? I thought you were going to stop development." Blah, blah, blah blah blah. I'm going to be held accountable
by those residents. And that's enough residents to get me elected or not elected, you know. So, the same goes with that area that um off of uh 68 there, that southern end of
where Elivage is. Uh if we had voted for that, the all those residents were going to be up in arms. I mean, we saw that. >> So, we're accountable. You guys are not really that accountable.
>> Well, but we are accountable to you and the city staff would not be allowed to approve it administratively, >> but we wouldn't know. >> Well, >> you know, that's the thing. All this stuff would happens and we don't even know about it half the time. Well, that
that that the process of of communication is a different issue, but it if you folks want it to come before the council, which is great. It's just we need to clean up that language. >> I agree. The language needs to be cleaned up >> and that's the whole story here. We're
not one or the other, but um yeah, so that's the that's all I can offer. >> Rest you guys chime in. I I think >> made some excellent points. >> I think one of the one of the topics he's bringing up is that of redundancy
that if you know if council has to approve it anyways because they've met all the requirements then it's really just a exercise of futility coming before the council to approve something you have to approve anyways. That's why it's more maybe
judicious you might say to approve it administratively fasttrack it because we hear you know the speed of government is glacial you know it moves too slow we need you know faster movement or whatever the case is and um that's that's one of the concepts
to consider. Um but but again then if if administratively we say no you don't meet it you know then they can appeal it and come before the council and say I I still would like an exception because I want to build this or that or split or
do whatever they want to do. I I fully understand the point of having it administratively. Uh but just in this scenario, bringing in from council keeps us informed of what's going on and if it's if there's
no reason to turn down, it should just be a footnote on a council agenda and it should go smooth. And sometimes we catch things that you guys don't. Whether it's environmental, whether it's engineers, whether it's something, you
know. So as second set of eyes or five extra set of eyes, never hurt. >> We can put it in a consent agenda. We could do whatever, make it a case, whatever works. But >> yeah. >> Um, and it can always be pulled from a consent agenda for further discussion, too. That's, you know,
>> consent agenda would be just fine. I agree with what Suzanne says too because I mean we don't know what goes on a lot and we need to because if there's something that isn't right the residents
are calling us and it's like well how stupid do we look if we don't know you know what I mean and we need to know that's the part I agree with that for sure so I think it's a consensus just clean the language to have it go before
council >> to the to the points of of um council member Smith's comments. If it's a sensitive matter, we try and make sure the council's updated on those topics in a Friday update or bring it to
a work session or whatever, so that we're we're keeping everyone if it's a run-of-the-mill type of approval, you know, um I don't know, outdoor party or whatever the case is that that meets the requirements without having to come to council. At that point, we don't
necessarily, you know, belabor council time to administratively approve things. That's a little bit of a, you know, you got to kind of get a feel for which ones are important, which ones aren't, obviously. But, um, but that's not to say that
people won't react negatively to to anything, you know, and then then they elevate that to the council and it becomes a >> dangerous dog scenario. >> Yeah. Where they say city staff denied this and why does this got to go before
city council? Well, you know, so there's we're all kind of in the same boat in some strange way, right? >> We're all pulling on the same team, though. That's that's what >> that's what I mean, though. Even like when you said the the dog thing, which is true. I didn't know squad about it until after that. I mean, I feel the
minute you guys know, especially something like that that just send us an email say, "Hey, someone's uh not too happy over there with a dog attack and everybody." >> Sure. just so we know, you know, because I know that you guys got a lot of stuff on your plate, too. But yeah, because
even the simplest things that the staff may may find simple is serious, you know, to a resident. And if it's serious to a resident, they're going to give us a call. >> Absolutely. >> So, does that make sense? And yeah, we'll clean that up and just I think
we'll talking with Mr. Look and other staff. There's a few other cleanups we'll bring before you and that's certainly one of them. And um but back to if you would indulge the conversation a little bit further. Again, we suggested maybe five years is
interesting. Council member Urkel has talked about 10 or 15. You know, whatever you think is the preference, but again, what we're trying to remember is accomplish two things. prelude people trying to deviate from a true
platting or subdivision process, but also try to preserve some history with, well, what did we do? And five years might be too short, but maybe 15's too long. I mean, I don't know. >> I'm fine with five or 10.
>> I think 10 would be good in my opinion because after that, you probably lose all the stuff anyway. Computer. >> Yeah, we're doing computer on everything now. Speaking of which, how is that coming? I mean, is that going to be something that if we go 10 years, the city's going to be capable of having on >> I think so. 10 years. 10 years is
certainly a window that we can reasonably look back at. Um, >> hopefully we're scanning everything now so that uh >> it'll be more accessible. >> I mean, 10 years ago was 2016, right? And
a lot of that was digital. And um folks might remember what happened we did 10 years ago. What did we do in 1983? I don't remember. And um also aer photography is is much better too. Um
and it's surprising what we all use that for on a lot of occasions. What was that building there? What you know? And the county data will even tell us more recent information about ownership changes. Um, so we can do some some
easier searches with more recent data. >> 10 years sound good. >> You okay, Suzanne, with 10 years? >> Not really, but you guys out vote me. >> I think I think 10's apple. 15's a little out there. I mean, we
don't even keep our city documents. How many years before you really some we have to keep forever, but usually seven something like that. >> I just know I went to an Oka County for something and they had some information like on that street sign that I when I
was on council last time which was eight 10 years ago, >> right? >> Um they had information from when it was put up. So it's out there.
But so you're saying after 10 years somebody if somebody has 20 acres and they split to 10 acres after 10 years they can split it down to five acres. >> Uh well for only for the threshold of the time. Whatever the other remaining
rules are they still have to comply with. So, if they're not meeting the lot size requirement, they're not meeting the frontage requirement, they're they're creating a setback violation, um that just enables them to potentially apply for that parameter. They still
have to meet every other test. >> Do you know what the sizes the stipulation on the sizes are? If somebody wants to split, is it 10 acres or is there a five acre? >> It will vary by zoning district, >> right? Well, yeah. And I guess I'm
thinking more of the rural residential. >> I think rural residential is is 2 and a half acre. Two and a half acre >> that can be split, >> right? But remember that that that minimum size >> minimum loss size, but that minimum loss also has to have so much frontage on a road too.
>> So >> you got to have I believe 300 feet on the road. >> Yep. and and then they also have to it can't then there's wetland and there's drainage utilities that might also encumber that land. So it's they have to meet all of those tests. Um and if they
don't meet the 10-year test then they have to go through the traditional platting process. It just makes one split slightly easier I think. But they still have to meet all those tests. All good.
>> Thank you all. >> Y item six. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh wanted to just bring this item forward, see what you guys want to do. The current city currently has about 30ome boxes that need to that need shredding right
now. And typically what happens is we call in a shredder truck. They pull in, we bring the boxes out, and they shred them on site. Um there's a cost to do that and sometimes they bill for hours, sometimes they bill for um the uh
volume. Okay. So either way they can build on that. What we're proposing here is to um uh essentially do a city sponsored shredding event on booster day that will allow people to bring in their
important documents and shred. And by involving the public, we can potentially use score funds through the county to pay for the shredding of the of everything. Um so um we do not have an estimate yet on what that would be
because we don't know if it's depending on the demand how many people will be here how many hours versus how much volume. Uh but at any rate um it would give it would give folks u an opportunity to get rid of some of those files that they may have that
you know they don't need or want or want to destroy. And it's a safe way of doing that. Um our our 30 boxes are are um ballots of some sort of prior elections
that weren't filled out and the state requires us to destroy those. So um but at any rate wanted to see if you guys were agreeable to that we would have uh we could announce it to the public. we put on the website, we could advertise that, hey, on this day, you can come
here and um and shred your papers and um that would be a benefit the city can provide you with the score dollars. And what we have to do with score dollars, by the way, is we have to meet minimum tonnage requirements for the county to receive those dollars. So, this would go
towards that tonnage as well. If the people took their shredding somewhere else or did it at home or whatever the case, burn barrel or whatever the case is, it would not go towards the tonnage uh requirements. So, there's some
benefits to doing this. There's some cost to do it as well. So, >> would there be a outfit available on a Saturday? >> An outfit by Saturday? >> No. No. And would an outfit be able to do it, perform the service on a Saturday
since it's not a traditional Wednesday? >> We would require that as as conditional for them coming through. Yeah. >> Okay. >> They're planning on doing it on booster day. Yeah. >> I have like 10 boxes. So, I'm excited. >> I It's a great idea. I think
>> And is it going to be here all day? >> People collect stuff because you don't know. you don't want to throw it in the garbage, you know, and people could essentially get numbers or whatever the case is, account numbers, stuff like that. So, it's um it's a useful thing.
>> Yeah. >> What was the question? I'm sorry I interrupt you. >> Is it going to be all day on booster days like morning to afternoon or just in the morning or do you know? Uh we're we're going to get some estimates from them on what the costs would be and
depending on what that estimate is would kind of help us shape the window maybe till noon or something like that, you know, 8 to noon or something like that. Um and um we would get ours done and they could essentially bring theirs and
get theirs done at the same time. So >> well, the fact that the city can have it done, the residents can benefit by bringing theirs in and we can use it pays for it. >> Sounds like a win win-win deal. >> Definitely. >> Sounds good to me. >> Y >> All right, we'll uh we'll schedule that.
We'll get it rolling and um if the estimates are out of this world, then maybe we'll rethink it, but uh I don't think it's going to be that that costly. So, all right, that's all we have. >> Sounds good.
>> Make a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion a second to adjurnn. All in favor? All right.