Okay, I'll bring the September 22nd, 2025 work meeting to order. First item, council salary discussion. Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council, um, got three items for you this evening. The first is council salary discussion. We um uh I
think the prior council had we've included some notes in here on the prior council. They had a discussion about that and uh there was uh some interest in bringing this back to kind of talk a little bit about it and see if there's direction in moving forward. I know we've included in the budget an increase
um back then. Uh we did not increase it this time but um uh but there would be enough money in the budget if you guys were looking to uh modify the um the salaries. As you can see it um back in
'94 was the last time was changed or 2005 rather uh was changed and um started in '94 and it's been quite a few years since there's been an adjustment to this. I know that there's been some addition of responsibility in terms of
transitioning EDA uh over to council. So, there's more meetings that that folks are attending and uh more time being spent. So, I will leave it at that and um answer any questions if you have any. Otherwise, if um you guys want to have a discussion on this and we can go
from there. >> Would you say the last time it was increased? 2005. >> 2005. Yeah, October 2005 was the last time it was changed. And if it is changed, uh, it would not go into effect until January after the next election. So, next year,
>> January 1st, 27. >> Yep. So, um there are some time there, but it's nevertheless it's good to um I know last time it was discussed there was an election coming up right away. So, we did include it in the budget in the
event that uh that that would have passed. Um and um and we can certainly look at the budget or we can increase it next year to to account for this. Either way is fine.
But it has to go after an election year. >> Why is that? >> Sorry. >> Why? >> State law. >> Why is it after the election? >> It's state law. >> Yeah, >> it's a state law. >> Yeah. So the constituents can have a chance to respond to that if they so wish.
>> Okay. Yeah. I I I think partly also so that if people are in here, they can't just give themselves a raise and immediately get it. I think there's some protection for that. That's why there's that delay.
Yeah. The process like uh if we were to move forward on this, we got to give staff direction to start the new ordinance and that and then we move forward through the process of >> so the current >> making it public and everything.
>> Yeah, the current ordinance is right here in terms of the amounts. Mayor is 525 per month. The council members are 475 per month and um I don't know if it's if you're interested in a dollar amount or if
you're interested in a percentage or if you're interested in a either or plus an escalator. uh we can include that as well because oftentimes um councils find themselves kind of behind the game just because they
haven't addressed it or whatever and other other councils have regularly addressed it. So um I've noticed on some of these cities where they keep the salary and what they've did is did a perdem for extra meetings.
I've noticed that quite a bit on cities around us. >> Well, I'm interested in moving forward with it. I'm thinking though that and I don't know how difficult this was but where it would be automatic with the
negotiations where whatever uh once we get this percentage up once all the negotiations happen the way it goes with the city it would go with the council I mean it's it's not going to affect me because that's going to be years in advance but
>> um I think it should be something more automatic and then if they want to increase the automatic part they could vote to do that themselves. >> Yeah, Mr. mayor and council at the county. We did that specific thing and then um commissioners then could agree
to take it or not take it if they, you know, didn't want to take an increase. They could voice that. And >> yeah, there there are some cities that do take it as as the colas are adjusted each year. >> They adjust it for the council members too, right? >> I think it would be that way
>> with the whole staff. I think that would help all the future council people and >> yeah then it's pretty much set in stone and >> they don't have to have discussions like this.
>> How much are we considering as an increase? >> That's it. Did didn't you just go through that >> what it was >> right there what it currently is but I think council member Mundle's asking how
much are you thinking of increasing or what's the discussion on >> is it >> percentage of increase or amount or >> is it $25 a month or $100 a month some sort of figure of >> Yep. I was thinking like 10%, but it
could be $25, too. >> 10% would be uh 5250 for the mayor and 47.50 for the council members. >> Mhm. >> Which would add to the budget. $960. >> Not a whole lot of math. >> No, I've got it.
>> You got it down. I've got it. Yeah. So, it's only basically 0.00189% of the budget to be specific. >> I think so. >> It's fine. >> So, Mr. Man, council a 10% increase for
adjustment and then following cola >> for follow for the subsequent years. >> Makes sense. >> Okay. What we can do then is we'll bring this uh back as a um change to the um
ordinances then and uh incorporate that in there with the necessary legal ease. Um, and then you guys will have another chance to take a look at it and vote on it and um and go from there. >> Thank you.
>> That work? >> Yeah, that'll work. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> A lot of people realize that we have so many meetings that we do. That's the whole thing. We've got council and we're liaison to a bunch of different committees now. EDA is on top of that. >> Work sessions. >> I mean, we work sessions.
>> Can you speak into your mic? I'm sorry. I cannot hear you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I think that's why some cities have went to that pdium. They it they kind of disguise it a little. It's for the extra meetings,
>> right? Okay. Item two. Okay. Item two, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, is the I'm just going to go up here so the title is correct. animal containment city service. I wanted to bring this forward to the
council so we could have a discussion about um kind of where we currently stand right now. The um animal humane society did send us a letter saying that they are kind of getting out of this business in terms of offering service to
the cities. Um, they did put in this line right here that says, "While we won't be offering impound services, we will continue to accept strays found by members of the public, offer appointments for owned animals and provide lowcost veterary care for the community and partner with law
enforcement to handle handle animal cruelty cases at no charge to the municipality. So, um, so essentially what what happens today is, um, law enforcement is contacted, we see a loose dog or whatever the case is.
Officers pick it up and then bring it to whoever we've contracted with in the past uh to um to impound these animals, provide these services. Um what the officer and we spoke about this at the last staff meeting as well. What
the officers can do is say you know instruct the individual who found this dog or animal to take it to the animal humane society um in which they say they'll continue to accept strays. um city of East Bethl doesn't have too many
every month um that that uh we had although I think some of the larger more costly ones that we were dealing with were the dog bites and whether they had vaccines uh rabies vaccine and keeping them in there for 10 days and they could
only be in a separate cage cost significant for those particular um instances. Um but at any rate um you know you you get into the the question now is does the city
provide this service and of course we're in the service industry right the city is in the service industry and um and you have to make that policy decision then of what services do you want to provide um do you plow snow when it's a half an
inch or 2 in you know I mean those are the type of policy questions you make and this is one as as well. So, um I wanted to bring this to council just to have an open discussion about your feelings on on whether we should be pursuing other um entities. There are
other individuals that provide this service. Uh one is up in Iani and one is uh further out. Um but um you know there's a cost associated with that. Obviously if they have to drive to
pick up animals or meet officers or something like that it's going to be a a cost to the city to do that. So wanted to just have a um wanted to just have a discussion on that. Matt, have you heard from what other
cities are looking at doing? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, yes. I got a call from um Ham Lake to see what they were doing. Um, and I believe a lot of them are going with um the individual up in Iani right now. City of Rapids, City of
Ramsey are utilizing the city of Anoka. They built an $8 million facility and um and they're providing services to neighboring cities. Um so um that's that's kind of where that's
at. Well, we have the option of not having it and having people themselves bring strays down. Uh we have the option of finding out what other
animal control services are out there. Uh, as a little bit of a history lesson, before East Bethl did have an animal control service, uh, there was a kennel at the public works building
>> that, uh, deputy would pick up a dog and bring it there and staff would have to come in and take care of it. If it was on a weekend, staff would have to come in and do a daily visit or two. Sure.
So I I think we should get a regret request for proposals, see what else is out there. Um uh
and uh whatever other information we can get uh so we can make an informed decision on this. Um Mr. Look, did you have you been in communication with the Humane Society as far as giving like giving them phone
call or talking with them? >> I have not, Mr. Mayor and Council contacted the Humane Society. I've just gone off of their letter. >> Okay. >> I think they've sent it to multiple municipalities. So, >> okay. We might want to confirm >> that the the sentence that you or the
paragraph that you you referred to to make sure that double check that what we are thinking that they will do that they will actually do. So we have this our contract through December 31st 2025 with them
>> coming up coming up fast. >> So I have a question. You said it was going to there would be an expense to the city. The city would require the dog owner to reimburse it,
right? That would be a requirement or not. >> Uh, generally not unless it's a dog bite scenario or a rabies impounding scenario. At that point, you could we, you know, the Humane Society was holding the animal to release the animal. The
owner would have to pay that bill. In some cases they did not um in some cases uh the you know the owner would surrender the animal uh or just not show up and at that point uh we got numerous calls to try and determine what what do
you want to do with this animal right because the costs keep going up. Um so it's um there is a cost to the city there there always has been a cost to the city. Uh we get a monthly invoice from the Humane
Society for for services rendered. Um yeah, it's it's maybe part and parcel with living in the country. I I think a lot of people, you know, kind of let their dogs run run run around a bit. And and I'm picking on dogs because it seems like that's I know
we just had a a pig most recently here. Um I'm sure there's cats and other animals, too, but um versus cows, goats, seen them all. >> Yeah. So, but I I think most of the time we see dogs kind of running at large and
and people call on those and and um and there was a certain risk. I mean, if the city provides this service, um I'll give you an example. In the city of Ramsey, there was a the city provided the service. Uh a lady called that there
was a loose dog. officer showed up, didn't have a restraining device in his in his squad car, so he had to go back to the police station and get the restraining device. And in the meantime, the lady let her child play with the dog who proceeded to bite the child.
Um, the dog bit the child um and uh she sued the city. She sued the city. So, um, the ultim the outcome of that was a settlement through the League of Minnesota Cities. They're they're good
at settlements. Um, and, uh, and I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000. I did not vote for that. Uh, I felt that it was uh, making cities a soft target for for foolishness. And, um, the rest of the people did vote
for it. So, that did pass. So if you provide this service you have liability. If you put in parks you have liability. There are you know there are certain things that when you engage in in that you will assume liability with that. So
that's that's the ultimate question. I mean based on the number we have um this may could could feasibly not be a service provided by the city um but rather you know informing the public that if you see a loose dog take it to you know
after council member Mumble Mundle's suggestion to um you know to uh to verify that that one sentence in the letter um that if that's the case that take it to the humane society and they'll they'll be able to handle strays.
Um, can we go back to what uh Suzanne said a second ago? We were talking about the city gets built from the humane society for these things. But when you pick up the dog, you have to pay the humane
society. So, does that offset anywhere or do we automatically have to pay a certain amount every time a dog from this city goes to their facility? I I'd have to look at the invoices again specifically for what billings occur, but yes, um my understanding is we get
build for that service per animal. There's a rate and fee. Um I can pull up that contract, but have to do some digging to get that. I can forward that to you all. Um the issue is is getting that money from
the owners. You know, that's where the battle somewhat starts. you don't have uh you know a house or property that you could you know levy that against in their taxes. It's it's if they're not going to pay, city's going to have to eat it.
I'd be curious to see what the bill looks like because if if they're charging to get the dog back and I want my dog back, I'm paying it. >> I I can't see why they would charge the city for that then. Just curious contract quick. >> Yeah, I do believe we always paid
whoever our animal control was. We always paid. There was always something in the um bills list for the animal. >> Why we never build back when the humane society bills back, you know, to get your animal. Yeah, I >> that was included in what they were
collecting. I don't I don't know. >> I agree. >> See if I can pull this up here. If this is the right one. Here's the animal humane society impounding. Come on. Just running through it here quickly.
Does the sheriff's department charge us for that too? >> For picking them up like that? >> Um, we have a contract with the sheriff's office >> included. Yeah. >> So, standard hold fee for stray and
abandoned animals of 236 per K9. Feeline is 54. 650 for stray and abandoned animals with a legally mandated hold or quarantine. This is where it gets expensive. this part here. One one
animal that was in there was in the neighborhood of $2,000. And I know the individual who owned it just they did not have that money to pay. So they tried to work out something
administrative processing fee, disposal fee. So they do charge us however they break it out. At any rate, um I would assume I would assume that if we go out for request for
quote that um everyone is familiar with the same sort of language, same sort of costs and um the only difference would be if they have to travel certain, you know, mileage to get there. On average, how many
animals is it a year? Do you got a estimate? >> Um, we don't know how many get dropped off there by people, but I think from our um I'm taking a wild guess here, but um I
think from our law enforcement, I think it was a couple a month. Couple of months, so 24 a year. But obviously that's that's a shot in the dark because some months could be a lot more than others. Drawing off the memory of one time I saw
there were two and I don't think there was significantly more than that. So, ideally, we'd like everyone to keep their animals, you know, fenced or um on leash or, you know, in their yard,
but um but sometimes uh sometimes they like to run, >> especially during storms. >> Can I get a copy of that? >> Yep. I just had a second text to we're not on YouTube. It's not There's no picture.
>> Let me run up real quick. Mr. Mayor and Council, we are recording for YouTube right now, but unfortunately we're not not able to go live for some reason. So, we will have that um available at a later time. We have our one of our
staff members coming in for the actual council meeting. So, not the work session. My apologies. I do have another question. You said Anoka has a Anoka County has a $8 million facility for um
animal control. Is it strictly for or is it >> city of Anoka? this. Oh, it's just a city. >> Where is this building? I've never heard of it. It's >> I believe um it is over by um
the fire station, police and fire station they have there on Harrison, >> kind of on the north side of the government facility. >> Yep. >> North of Jackson. >> Interesting. I'll have to get this too. So, what I'm hearing is uh we want to
check on that one sentence and check if there's any possibilities of any other >> an RFP. Yes, >> RFPs out there for this moving forward. >> Okay, say that's the first step.
>> Everybody agreed on it. All right, let's move on. Okay, go to item three, the park and trail fees discussion. Yeah, Mr. Mayor uh and council, the park and trail fee discussion was brought up and we wanted to bring this with
specifics back. I um I had um uh Nate kind of put together his uh information back in March 14th of 2023. This discussion was had on park and trail fees. Um and it was established there was kind of two ways of doing it. Either
a flat fee or a percentage of property. and it was decided that a flat fee was going to be the way uh it would be done and um and so that's kind of what's what's gone forward. There was um the discussion then is should we increase
fees? Uh are the fees enough? Um and uh currently right now we have a $2,000 park dedication fee for new lot single family home developments and a $1,500 unit fee for new developments with multif family homes. Um
and um and we we kind of compared it to other communities that were out there. Um this is some of them here and what they're currently at. 2500 per lot for Ham Lake. Kilk Groves 2,300
uh is 1,500. St. Francis is 2,300. Andover is 4806. So as you get a little closer to the uh cities there, it it um southern side of an Oak County gets a lot more expensive. But the the part
that you may want to consider is there's two aspects to this. Obviously, you want to encourage development. You don't want to discourage it with with increased fees, but you do want to cover your costs. Um the second part of it is is the popularity of trails these days and
um and trails are a um you know can be a very costly item to maintain. Um they they get broken up with tree roots. They have uh the freeze and thaw issues just like roadways do. They're generally
asphalt, which means that you need to replace them at some point, and it's costly. If you don't own a trail machine, which some cities do, um, to try and combat those costs, then it's it's rather expensive to call in a
contractor to redo those those trails for you. Um, but that was that that's a second part of this discussion. And I wanted to so initially there was a park fee discussion, but I wanted to put in the trail fee there as well because that
might be an area where if you're looking to kind of try and offset some of the known expenses that that come about and try and build up um a fund so that you can connect some of these developments that are happening to existing trails. I
know there's a master trail plan. Um, but it's difficult to accomplish a trail plan without funding for that trail plan. Some communities have a master trail plan and then as development comes they say you need to include this trail in
your uh in your plan there to connect from here to there or whatever the case is. um we don't necessarily have that but um but that may be an area where uh you want to you know focus if if you feel that 2000
is is competitive um you may want to focus on um on looking at uh um on uh looking at possibly a trail fee. But at any rate, um
this was kind of the discussion back then and um and I guess the discussion here is is this adequate for now or should we look at revisiting that? If we look at revisiting this, these fees are are adopted every year in January. So, um we
would we would be able to make those changes then coming at the beginning of the year. Well, I personally want to look at it because I look at the park budget every time they it comes out and I keep
thinking why don't we have money to I mean why to do more things earlier you know we're booked out of things that we want 5 10 years from now and we don't have the money to do the things that we want we would like to do. We have a
great set of parks, but they are declining quickly. They get vandalized and things need to be replaced and for safety situations and just for additional things. And the the trails I would love to see more trails out here.
Uh but again, we can't afford it. The trail that was on I don't remember was it Baton or one of those streets up there. I called it the trail to nowhere because it made no sense that there was a a trail going from that road and not the road that had Booster Park on it
where people would actually probably use it. It made no sense. But um I would love to see more trails. I would love to see us be able to do more for with our parks. Add more um add a fitness trail.
Add this. Add that. uh add some of these permanent uh bag tosses and um horseshoes and just different things that people would bring more not the little kids but the
middleer middle-aged kids could participate in and enjoy the art parks more. So yeah, I think I think it needs to be increased so that we can um and I don't I mean it went from a drastic it
was 6,000 to 2,000 4,500 to 2,000. Why even the decrease except they were trying to bring in more development and I honestly would rather if they want to develop out here then they need to provide community services for us.
That's the way I look at it. I'm done. >> No, I I agree with you, Susan. The most frustrating thing of being uh the liaison to the parks committee is that we've got a very very good and dedicated team there that doesn't have the funding
that a lot of cities around us do have and and they've done wonderful wonderful wonderful job with our parks with what they have to work with. But we just don't have anything to really work with. I mean, when we're talking $50,000 for, you know, new swing sets and playground
equipment because our other stuff is falling apart. I mean, this stuff adds up and it adds up fast. >> Parks are expensive. >> Mhm. And I'd love to see connected trails. I mean, we've got some of the most beautiful scenery around here to
connect this stuff would be great. And uh one it comes from the development and at $2,000 it's it's really not enough when it comes to putting in trails. I mean Baton was going to be a ton of money. The one they
were thinking about working on even some of the smaller ones. We've got a ton of property in this city that we saved that connects a lot of this stuff. If you look up, you know, our property identification stuff that we could use
when that was probably planned to use it. It's just funding. And I know we lost some funding at one point. I don't know if it was to the sewer or or whatever years ago, but if there was a way we could increase
and bring in revenue, I think everybody in the city would enjoy it. It's just finding out. I know there's a lot of grants available and so forth, but that's usually after the fact where you have to have a plan and they cover 50% of this and 50% of that. But
you have to have the 50% to put up too, >> right? >> And I think developers can definitely afford it. When I look at what they're putting in, they can afford it. So when Capstone down on the golf course, they are done with all their
trails and that we inherit them, the maintenance and everything. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Do we shovel those in the winter? >> Oh, that would be a Nate question. I'm not sure what the priority is on that. I know they get that question for you
>> in the winter >> cuz those are some big trails down there. One's 8 foot and one's 10 foot asphalt. So, Mr. Mayor and Council, that's I think I'm hearing well at least a couple of you in agreement uh for looking at an
increase. The question would be how much and um and do you want to add the trail portion for consideration? >> I like the trail portion. >> I definitely like the trail portion and
I think it should go up to at least 4,000 >> on the park dedication. >> Yep. That's >> it went from 6,000 to two. I think it should go at least back to four.
Put it in the middle and see how that works. And then if we need it to go back to six, we can do that another year. >> Yeah, I think we lowered it because of the surrounding communities and what they were charging. >> Does that include the trail then or no?
the 4,000. No, that I think the trail could be separate. >> Okay. >> Because you know what? I think if it's a lot split or something like that, I don't think we would want to do a trail for that. It would just have to be for a development.
>> I think for lot splits, we do charge park dedication. >> Yeah. >> Yep. But we wouldn't need to do trail for them. >> Okay. >> So, what's a number you'd like to start with on a trail?
>> I have no idea. I'm sorry. I don't I know they're expensive, but um [Music] well, for instance, if it were the
capstone, give them the option of putting it in or charging them about what it would cost. >> Take a look at page 11. That has some sample. >> Oh, thank you. Maybe a thousand per unit.
>> What is that? A 4x4 section. A unit. How big >> per per unit per >> per property? >> Per property. Yeah. >> But what are they getting for that? It's just a flat.
>> Just cash. Yep. >> Go into a trail account and use that for replacement or >> new trails or whatever. >> What's that? When a new business comes in, they pay
park dedication or not? >> Yeah, the new business pays uh uh let me see recreational ph public use and 2,000 per acre park dedication fee for commercial light industrial developments.
Yeah, that should be four. >> So, you want to do 4,000 and 1,000? >> Mhm. >> We're going to kick this down to parks, right? Uh, we would we would include parks in this discussion. Yes.
>> Yeah. I'd like to hear what their opinion is, too. >> I'll have Nate do an agenda item on that. Okay. Any further discussion on that one? So you're talking trails here. Does that
I see in some of this that includes either or trail or sidewalk or how we cuz I see a lot of this on page 12 there. They're talking about
sidewalk trail regulations. So, are they considering sidewalks trails? >> I think you can use them as trails, >> right? >> If that's the way you would want to have that done. I mean, you can certainly
require sidewalks by code and charge a trail fee as well. I mean, it's however you whatever the policy needs to be, >> right? Because even though you have a sidewalk, you may still want to go on a trail walk, you know, and if you're looking at a user pays type of concept,
you know, whoever moves into those developments will be utilizing all the amenities. It's not unreasonable. Sidewalks on both sides of the street of trail may be required to be substituted for a sidewalk in areas in which the trail is part of the city's
comprehensive trail plan system. So there are some exceptions. When it says no requirements on Culdeac, does that mean those streets don't have they don't need a trail or a sidewalk? >> Evidently, not according to our code right now
because they're kind of a dead end. Now, if you have a trail going through two homes, you know, going out and connecting to another trail, that would be something you could negotiate with that developer. But if that development had a say it was
a block instead of a culde-sac that would have a sidewalk all the way around. But if you have a culde-sac at the end of a long street all those houses they don't get a sidewalk or a trail because it's considered a culde-sac.
>> Right. I think one interpretation could be along the street it would be required on one side but as soon as you hit the culde-sac that just on the culdeac would not have it
>> might depend on the length of the culde-sac. Some culde-sacs are terribly long but >> I know the street to them is terribly long. Culdeac better not be terribly long. >> No. No. The street to it. Yeah, straight to it.
I think one of the benefits of sidewalks of course is to get people out of the way of traffic moving and culde-sacs generally don't have the same amount of traffic that you know regular roadways do. Um,
I can't remember where it is, but there is a culdeac that ends and it at the very end it goes into a trail to a park. Does anybody remember where that is off the top of your head? I can't remember where it is. I know, but there's no
parking signs on the culdeac and I just thought, well, this is not too bright. >> Yeah, I know. I can't remember where it is, but I'm thinking where do I park if I want to go for a walk in >> at home? >> Way too far for that. But it wasn't
close to my house. >> The back side of the fireman's one in Bethl. >> Is it So this is for all of the developers in our city, right Matt? >> This would be for all the developers
with developments after it's adopted. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> But right now, everyone supposed to pay this for 2,000 that it is right now. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> So they would be grandfathered in.
existing developers. >> Okay. >> So, we got some numbers and >> Yep. thoughts and bring it back to the park. See what their thoughts are and see what direction we want to go with this.
>> Okay. >> I All right. Let's do that then. Any other items? >> No other items for this evening on a work session? >> All right. At this time, I'll close the work zone.