Or >> so do we are we still like still recorded >> whatever that thing is called >> Zoom YouTube now live. >> Um, you got to let him know. We got to
get Janine back on. >> So, she's trying to join your team's meeting. >> I think he's on the right hand side. >> Go to the right. Say hello.
>> All right. >> Can you hear us, Janine? >> Now she probably can. >> Can you hear us? >> Hello. >> Hi. Can you hear us? >> No, she's muted. >> Muted. >> Janine, can you hear us now? >> I can hear you, but I can't see you.
>> She's also right next to the mute button. the square to the left of the mi button. Yeah. How about now? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Where were we? >> We're talking about the that we are the
deal right now in this process, >> which I understand the frustration, but as a city of we got the most skin on the game. We got to make sure everybody's helping us. >> Well, and and from the beginning, we were the only one that had an attorney. Nobody else had attorneys. And that's
why we made the decision that we were going to halt our process until the association hired an attorney, which they did. And then it kind of just started over, but not really from there. I mean, I don't I don't see a ton of stuff in here
that needs to be too crazily fixed. I mean, the definition of uppercase versus lower put in there. Pretty simple fix as far as I'm concerned. Uh, the fire service area boundaries under the 6.1 exhibit A. >> Uh, they're working on that. Um, >> they're actually doing that. >> Yeah. So, they're working on that. They
got good county all figured out. Um, the problem is is GIS, which is geographical information system. Uh, good county has a very good GIS program. Waves County is still in the rocks and stone age over there. um they have no idea what they're doing.
So the issue is is there's about 15 houses in Chester Township that they are trying to figure out how to get a GIS map to overlay onto Goodyu County because understandably good county will not overlay Wabasha County. So we're at the point where like we might just take
a aerial photo and just draw a rectangle over it. Yeah. >> Um because there's four farms and however many houses in are in Dchester in Walsh County. >> Working on that then. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean that's pretty much done. 99%.
So >> how often does this get revisited every three years? Is that what we said? >> Are we saying like should be going forward or previously? >> Going forward. >> Uh going forward yes we talk about every three years. Um the one thing is like 7.5 when I talk about the state
demographer um they only come out every 2 years um on estimations and then with property values that's yearly obviously
um so I think we'd either be better off to do every two or four years but um that I guess technically hasn't been discussed. It's not also written into the agreement. >> I guess question 7.5 about the ordinance. We're discussing that a
little bit. Uh since the board may enact an emergency service charge ordinance for such purposes, do we want to reward that? Because we would have to be the ones to put that ordinance. They can't put an ordinance. >> The board can put an ordinance in and then the townships have to follow that ordinance. What we could do is then
adopt that ordinance as our ordinance. So basically and then that would also suffice. So then we would be >> even on what our rate fee schedule would be for fire suppression and good you as to what everyone else would pay so we
can be fair. Um so that's why that or that's why it's talked about putting an ordinance in there. >> That's all going to be discussed to you guys as board when you guys put all that. >> Yeah. And they already have an ordinance. I mean the ordinance right now is $1,000 per hour for fire suppression. They can't bill out for any
ambulance calls because they're not paramedics. >> There's some weird stipulation with that. >> Maybe with car accidents they could. >> Car accidents they could, but it's still the likelihood of getting money has like a 15% chance.
>> Another thing that I didn't like changed was the seven out of 10 versus what we had the 14 out of 20. I have that back. >> So, if you notice where a lot of it says seven out of 10, it's a capital M. meaning again it's the government
entities not 14 out of 20 small M's meaning individuals. >> But here's what I I kind of went over this a little bit today. Uh basically what that would render is the top three people that or top three cities and
townships that invest would be over 56% of the funds could be voted out by just seven people ultimately which I don't like that option to be honest with you. >> Correct. >> I think the 14 out of 20 holds more people accountable and the top three with two people each has six votes alone
which puts a lot more availability on our end. Now, if you add the Goodyu, the Hay Creek Township, Heatherstone, and the Goodyear Township, that adds up to 66% of their budget. But I would absolutely I think see 14
out of 20. I would prefer that. I think that's a safer course when it comes to the larger investors in this >> because otherwise you have just seven people want to randomly show up from these other towns and not the actual two members from each. >> You could have six from ours. It
wouldn't make a difference. >> Yep. I don't disagree. I thought that was something that we talked about at the last >> and I thought that's what we all agreed on >> honestly. So, >> which is Yeah. >> Did that get rejected by their lawyer then or? >> No idea. That was never stated in the
emails. >> And that's the other thing that's frustrating to going back to your notion is there's never a redline document >> that we can see what was changed. We just get a new document every time and we're we would have to pick it apart with a fine tooth comb to figure it out. >> Yeah.
>> Or throw it into AI and let them tell us what changed which we shouldn't have to do. >> So, Michael, you've been very um intimately involved in this. >> What are your thoughts? Um
I'm the thing that makes me nervous is there are a couple government entities that are talking that I have heard um are talking about just trying to trying to join someone else. Um there's a couple that
townships that are already split or have been split and now joined back to good you and stuff like that. So it'll be very easy for them to get pick up fire protection from someone else. Um, makes me nervous because that's only going to increase what we
all have to pay. I mean the the biggest issue is is there's only two townships that are two entities I should say that are basically stuck with getting fire expression from the Goodyu truck association. That's good township and the city of Good. Um,
so what makes me nervous is if anyone leaves, it just kind of screws all of us. You know, it's it's kind of like looking at your mortgage and you got four incomes coming in and all of a sudden you got two. That just puts a strain on everyone. So,
um, not to say we got to vote this thing through and disregard the changes we want to have, but we also have to be strategic on, I think, what the changes that we want are. um we can't be looking at it and trying to change a a punky
situation from a a period to a you know um exclamation point type scenario but um at the same time I don't want to approve a document that has faults within it because I agree we're not only protecting us but we're also protecting
every other entity within this document. Um, so I really think, you know, it's a fine line that we have to walk on figuring out if we want to continue to nitpick this or shoot it through. And hopefully in two, three years we can address these things again.
>> And just to add on to Mike, just to add on to what Michael had to say, this has been going on for 10 months. So So I think there's, correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, I think there's some frustration there as well. >> There's a lot of animosity. This started in June of last year.
>> Yeah, there's a lot of animosity towards the city of media, >> right? There's a lot of animosity. Words are being said. Um, so I'll express that concern as well. >> But again, it's like we're the only one
that has an attorney that is doing this, right? >> And has been doing this since the beginning, >> which is also very frustrating. Um, you would think everyone else would be on board with let's protect ourselves and watch our ass type scenario, but
they're they're to some point I can understand the cowboy mentality of them of let's save 20 bucks to get this worked out between ourselves because I think in the nature of good you that's worked for so damn long. Let's just keep
trying to go through it. And the problem is is unfortunately the real world's catching up to, you know, how good you used to run things for all those years in the areas around here. And we can't we just can't do that. >> And I think that's what they're I mean,
like you said, Michael, that that's what they're used to. They're used to >> to the smile and nod and a good old boy handshake. And that's what we've been trying to change over the last three years is >> a handshake and a nod is not sufficient anymore.
you know, it's it's out the door from legalities anymore. We have to make sure that the citizens are covered legality is the way it is. >> And you know, the biggest thing is is uh the original document was written in 19 98
>> by some township, wasn't it? >> No, no, wrote it originally. The very the one we're working to replace. And so, you know, that's part of the thing is it's been so many years since we ever looked at it that a one page front and
back was good enough back in the day and now we need, you know, 12, 15 pages to to cover our ass. And and I think a lot of people are still thinking that, you know, a bar napkin and a and a sounds good signature
is just fine. And in some places, sure, a bar napkin signature sounds great. I don't think it does when you're talking about multi-million dollar contracts like this. >> Yeah. And you you might be able to answer this for me. Do we know who a chair the chairperson of the board association is now?
>> Yes. Chad Ryan. >> Okay. >> I just want to make sure cuz I just see him there and he's the one that signs off on this as well. So I just want to make sure I mean the only two things I really see the issues with on this thing and the major ones is the definition of big and
little. Right. That's a huge one. and get it changed up within the wording to actually match what it's supposed to be. And instead of the seven out of 10, change it to 14 out of 20. I mean, that would cover our bus and the larger investors
in in line. I mean, we just the top three could be voted out and they have 56% stake in that. That's that's huge. >> Correct. And and one on that notion, one big thing that the townships talk about and I agree with it is so before there's
before there's an agreement at the truck association to vote on anything, you bring it up, then you bring it back to your respective government body to vote on it. So let's say we vote to raise the levy the 5% they talked about.
Now, if I go to that meeting with Chris, we've already decided as a council that we're going to vote on it. So, you have to oust yourself to everyone else. And Chris go, I don't want to vote for it, but we already
agreed to it. So, that's where the 10 member vote comes into play. Can it happen? Certainly. Should it happen? No, because five people decided on it, not just yourself. So that's where the 10 member vote comes
into play. And it is a slippery line because in reality, we should only have to have the 10 votes because the entity should pull one way. But so when we open ourselves up to 20, we open ourselves up to possibly
having some people vote against what their government body wanted. >> So I'm just trying to think how would they be able to vote against what their body wanted when that was the agreement prior to them voting this? >> Because if you had four if you had 20
people vote, you now all get to individually vote. me and Chris get to vote instead of our entity voting. >> So that was small. >> Yeah. So that's where you need seven out of 10
instead of 14 out of 20. >> I just I guess I just don't like the idea that >> because in reality no matter what your entity you have 10 entities, you have two votes. >> You're splitting hairs. All you're doing is multiplying it but getting the same
percentage. >> Yeah. But with the 14 out of 20 versus 7 out of 10, somebody's going to have to bring another member. Somebody other township's going to have to have two, not just one. >> Every every community has to.
>> Yeah. But if they vote seven out of 10, you would have to have two at that meeting at all. >> Why? because you're as a member or as the voting members seven out of 10 is just the 10 communities. You don't need the two votes. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So,
>> but then there the assumption is that me and him being the member, we've already voted as one because we've already >> we we have already voted. The member here has voted. We're just >> We are the representatives carrying the vote to the association
>> because there's 10 capital M's >> communities >> to vote. So everybody gets a vote. >> Yes. >> A vote. I guess the question I'm seeing is the top three, right? Everybody gets every community gets one vote, right? >> Yeah. >> If the seven smallest communities are
the 2% 3%, why would they say no? Right. They're not forking out the money. >> Yeah. Now, if the top three say no, the other side say yeah, but you guys are going to 56%. >> Not going to happen. And that's why we have to lobby for your side. >> We've talked about having a tiered
voting system that the top three would get more than one vote, but that didn't fly either. So, >> and I will say like talking about ideas like that also brings in to the association that we are coming in with no skin in the game and getting what all
the reward is what everyone else is paid. >> That $600,000 pumper truck that we bought >> a dime. >> Yeah, >> we don't pay a dime, >> but yet we use it the most. So I guess would they be willing to
change it as they do for all other like processes or it's four four fifths of the excuse me eight out of 10 I mean >> how would you do that? What what two entities would you not have vote? Well, you'd still be able to vote, but eight out of 10 vote just like any other part of the process. Four fifths of the
executive members when it comes to municipality township portions added to association, you have to have so looks like four fifth votes. Eight out of 10 when you break it down. In order to even add another community if you want to, you're going to have to have them vote.
>> Now, we're going back to the big drawing board. I don't think they're going to go for this. >> Same thing with the dissolution. We still need eight out of 10 for the dissolution. You're going too far backwards. They're not going to go for any of this. >> I think that they >> they're going to stick us on a pole and watch us hang.
>> Yeah, we >> because we're also the most to lose and the most to gain by not getting this contract signed. >> They have talked about it that they're they they'll just give the whole association of the city a goodie. We got to buy it. You want to know what that price tag is?
>> About 2.8 million >> with the equipment we have right now. We're going to end up in a situation. >> So basically, >> we're gonna we're gonna >> basically what you're saying is we have to sign this, right? >> Unfortunately, we do. Otherwise, we're going to end up we're going to end up like Yeah. We're going to end up like
Orco. You know what happened to Oronoko? The city of Oronoko will not respond to Oronoko Township. So now Pine Island has to go through the city of Orno to get to Orno Township to respond. So, I guess >> we're going to be calling Redwing or
Zimroda to start serving our own community. And I can tell you we ain't calling Redwing because we don't have that fund. >> I think in good faith we could say in three years we'd like to evaluate how this is going. >> I agree with you. >> Like a schedule, guys. Like we got to
get on a schedule. I think that's a fair ask to evaluate then and hopefully they get a different lawyer by then so that this is a little cleaner. >> But >> well, we're stuck on this for five years. No matter what >> this is. Okay. So, it is a fiveyear
contract. We're stuck after we sign um where does it say that's where it end? It talks about that >> um >> just um dissolution um >> it's under 9.1 >> five years for the execution now.
>> Yep. >> You must be given a minimum of one year notice before the withdrawal. So we have four years for the notice, five for the actual withdrawal. >> But we're not the ones that can withdraw. Where again where would we go? because we're not going to form our own because we don't even have enough money
to do anything in this city because we're broke. For number two, we need to have fire suppression. I don't know about you guys, but I couldn't afford I couldn't afford my house insurance if I didn't have fire suppression. >> Yeah, I understand that. I guess
question is okay let's say the association decides to do good here are all these other communities you know take down that kind of hit with themselves >> no but Featherstone could join Redwing because Featherstone already has Redwing engulf in pretty much the majority of it
>> but in reality everyone else has somewhere to go us and good township have nowhere else to go >> in reality if we didn't be a part of this they could still survive because they have for how many years? This is the first year that good you would be a
part of this >> because before we were just responsible for >> training at 22 and a half% of the maintenance fees which maintenance or u maintenance was pretty averaged about 5 to 7,000 a year. Correct. >> Maintenance and then workers comp
averages about nine. >> Okay. And then um >> whatever you want to call it. >> Yeah. And then um training it's hit or miss. A couple years ago we had four or five guys join. It was an expensive year for
us but then we have dry spells where no one joins for five, eight years, 10 years. So >> So I guess the question would be too we had the previous one was for challenge 20 was it their lawyers or our lawyer decided to remove that back to seven out
of 10? It it went back to the um 14 out of 20 lowercase M's >> versus that's when we talked about it either last meeting or or the meeting before that and there was two meetings ago where they explained it very well
saying well it's seven out of 10 with members with big and that all made sense to everybody. I don't know. I think we got to vote on it to go forward with it and within three years we revisit the contract.
>> Are they going to approve three years or is it going to be at year four? >> It's five for five. But the problem is if we decide we don't like it, we lose everything. Basically, >> we're going to lose everything if we don't figure something out. That's the hard part.
>> Bingo. >> So, I guess >> our backs against the wall no matter what. >> Moving forward, I guess let's start with the easiest thing possible, right? Get the definition of the big and put in here and get this thing fixed the way it's supposed to be. That's our biggest
issue, right? Everything's not even correctly. >> If there's no definition in this contract and we took this to court, >> we would lose under that stipulation. I don't think you would because you would be able to have the conversation of it was not defined and it would become a
court case. The problem being is we need to figure something out. We have frustration on both sides. This is not perfect, but our lawyer has reviewed it several times. >> Yes, >> I think I'm hearing it's not perfect, but we have to move with something. I I
guess I understand that part of it, but >> our lawyer our lawyer is the one going to court getting paid by us. Why would he care whether the capital ever little goes to court, right? He's making money >> cuz he also isn't going to want to lose. He's got a fiduciary obligation to do
things in our best interest. >> Well, that's what I mean. Why why can't we get an easy simple definition? >> No. >> Well, I I think in here there's nothing >> there's nothing that states any of that. Well, there's nothing in here like I'm
I'm not seat well the big M's to the little M's. Everything with big M's is you know talks about the seven out of 10 and you know that be that's actually >> they do give a definition right in the first disagreement and that a political subdivision of the
state of Minnesota and they listed above will be as called as members as capital M. It's just the fact that they don't consistently read correctly through the document >> through the Yes. Correct. Right. That's that's the only thing. >> Is that of a deal?
>> It could be, but I don't know that it it's enough to stop us. >> I mean, but Bob pointed it out and then he went down that call it something else road. He didn't think it. I can't speak for him, but my recollection from my notes, he didn't think it. He he was
like, "Okay, it is what it is." again. What do we want to do here? Because I I'm I'm with Michael. I'm I'm concerned that they could pull out. I I don't know. >> We'll make a motion to approve the amendment and resolution joint powers
agreement of the Goodview Community Truck Association version six with the stipulation that we revisit this contract within 3 years. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed.
>> I motion carried. >> Do you want me to have >> All right. Um Next is the emergency operation plan draft.
>> I guess I read through this. It was pretty basic redlinining of the document. Whoever redlined it, thanks for letting us see the red lining. >> Was it you? >> No. >> No. >> I figured it was either one of you or Derek. Okay, good deal.
>> No, that was I appreciated this. >> It's almost like what we want in documents. Um I guess I didn't have anything else on that. >> No, besides it. Um, I did just get an answer from Derek Eric while we were sitting about your
question about using that as our emergency operations and he said I think once a joint powers agreement is signed in in place I would hope that wouldn't be a problem like not using the fire station as our emergency command. >> Said also once signed the city would
part of the group and if any disaster in our area would happen the fire station if operational would be an emergency command center. The only reason it would not be is if that building is destroyed. So he doesn't feel like we need to have it pointed out in the agreement that you
all just said yes to. Um he doesn't think it'll be problem. Okay, >> this was just a lot of updates to um editorial like changes, right? Content wise, I didn't see as much content changing in this plan.
>> Yeah, a lot of it was just the uh updating phone numbers, updating names, um you know, like the county co-op phone numbers and names of council people and businesses that may change and what
>> the court is from the 2010 version basically updated has found a problem. >> Excuse me. >> We got to change you. >> There's a couple phone numbers that aren't right. >> Okay, >> we can change them.
>> The only question I have was for the attachment one traffic control points. We have the emergency housing locations, but there's no actual traffic control points. Do you want to take that out or change it up? I know we have traffic routes, emergency routes.
>> Just could you count on anything on that? I wonder >> what the office of emergency management. >> Yeah, he read through it. They that office gave you to they said yes and that was good
>> and I guess I guess the only thing I agree with you makes sense that we would have one. So maybe let's talk to Derek and then joining Derek and then that office that you were talking about to see if there is one or maybe someone could create one.
>> Yeah, just simple one basically. I know we have the emergency evacuation routes. We just don't have an actual traffic control points which not a big deal. I guess that's depending on where the emergency is too when we respond. We will do everything
we can on scene. It might be up to the deputies on scene to reaffor. >> Yeah. It might even be something that we could go in here and just reorder that says currently shared. Yeah. >> Determine the traffic points or res on
scene commander will take charge. >> Right. Yeah. something pretty simple, >> which I think in in any in any jurisdiction or any u community that's >> a no-brainer anyway. I don't necessarily know if that has to be in here, but
>> yeah. Or just take that wording out of simple >> word play basically. Either take it out, add whatever you want, but just change it up a little bit. Otherwise, I didn't really see anything besides what you're saying for me. That was
>> I just >> And I think um you can Lori, I think it's safe to say like if you notice if we have number changes, whatever. You can I don't know if we want to change our versioning around, but you can also just bring it to meetings, I guess, whenever
they change. I don't know if you have to have it approved for editorial, I guess, is what I'm trying to determine, but um I suppose to make it official, you bring it to the next meeting anyways >> with the change. >> Yeah, we just really needed to get it up. >> For sure. >> 16 years is long enough. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. You just basically put a revision of 6.5 page that says this is what changed under that. >> Yeah. >> And they present or give you a clean version with noted in the email what changed. >> And I didn't know if like where it has natural gas under here for the contact
numbers. Wasn't it supposed to be good gas since that this number in here is actually Kyle? >> What page are you on? >> Um 28. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> Because it was just like good county was
the good county co-op, but this is natural gas. Does it should it? >> What are your thoughts on saying good? >> That's what I thought. >> Huh? >> 28. 28. >> Oh, for natural gas and good gas.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Because it's I mean natural gas we all know natural gas around here is good gas. But to somebody not knowing that would be like well who's the natural gas? Who is it? It's >> good gas.
page 28 >> just something minor things that I don't think will really hold it up but you know corrections from here and there like I don't know what the phone numbers were that Jason was talking about but you know minor things I think it looks really really good so far so
we'll clean that up get the numbers and present it as a final and know in the email she sends what was changed. >> Thank you. >> You good there? >> All right. Uh that's new business.
The wonderful bolts test requests. Um first is the temporary on sale liquor license. You submitted that through the state already. >> After this it goes
So this is the same as last year, correct? >> David, >> correct. So this is for the goody JC's for Vesfest. We're requesting approval for a temporary liquor license for the street dance. Uh no change. Excuse me.
No changes from previous as far as setup serving uh every aspect I guess is bump or the same >> security is the same too. >> Correct. We did get a hold of our previous uh security company and we plan to go forward with them.
>> Do we have anybody I know I've said this before anybody under the age of 18 >> around alcohol >> not serving? I mean the street dance is open to all ages. So I mean on your guys's side of it where people under the
age of 18 serving it or anybody under the age of 21 serving it. >> Correct. So the goody JC's you have to be 18 or older to in order to even be a member. So we don't have any non-members uh working. It's either a JC's member or it's somebody from the state
organization usually. >> Okay. >> So there should be nobody under 18. And then we do >> what I what I would what I would like this is just what I would like to see is over the years um I know it's all about having fun but anybody under the age of
21 try not to be around the alcohol because they're more prone to drinking it and that becomes a problem in several years past of people that are just barely out of high school and they're wasted. Um,
so that's my only concern as it has been for the last several years is um, you know, going up to the beer tent to get a drink and kid just graduated and just absolutely obliterated. So, um, I know you guys do
your best and I talked to the president last year and he said that he would control it and I think he did a very, very good job in it. So, just something to keep in mind. I know you guys do. I think it's something that's on top of our mind every year and we do the best we can. >> Nobody's perfect.
>> No, I don't. But I last year was was very well I you know just something to keep in mind moving forward. I think the security um I spoke to a uh a county representative and they really enjoyed
the security last year. So I do too. I hope they do a good job like they did last year and um excited. >> Any questions? >> You got anything, Janine? >> No. >> All right.
>> All right. Uh we need a motion to approve the temporary on sale liquor license for both. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carried. There you go. get your liquor license. Um, next up is
the resolution 26-04 approving the good JC's two-day raffle request. That's you, Lil Johnny. Can you guys see me above the podium? >> Yeah, we're going to try something new this year. As long as you guys approve
it to have a raffle inside the concert Friday and Saturday night, it'll be a 50/50 and we'll announce the winner before the main event both nights. >> You don't have to be president.
>> So, you're doing like an official good job. >> Yeah. Thank you guys. >> I guess the question is, is it 26-04? What are we going to do? Is the 26-05? >> Yeah, the agenda has resolution 26-04
and 26-04. One for JC's and one for the rail riders being the same resolution. >> My resolution here says 26-5 >> with this one. Okay. I just want to make sure the right
change anything up. Oh, mine says 26-04. >> That's the one. >> There you go. >> No, I got it. I'm just on the other side. Sorry. >> I know. I have it here. Okay, I'll make a motion we accept
resolution 2605. Right. >> Yes. >> And I'll I'll second that motion. >> All in favor? >> Motion carried. >> All right. Yeah, it's in here. I just didn't see it on the >> Yeah, I know.
Fireworks. >> Excuse me. >> Excuse me, mayor. Just want to be sure that we're approving the entire application from the books fest event also, not just those two. >> Okay, that's what I was >> I didn't know if we wanted to do it all as one motion or individual. So since
you did an individual, we probably should approve the entire test request >> including the road. >> Uh so I we get a motion to approve the whole entire bulkest organizational
weekend from the fireworks to the uh road map closure. Um please >> Yeah. liquor, police, all of it. Then one thing for posting
signed on street Thursday responsible close at noon or you guys put that up be >> in the contract. >> We did you guys want to help it'd be all right. We wouldn't turn it away
signed. You guys take care of >> I'll make a motion for it. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I just want to say >> I read it. >> The specific line in the request that that was just approved was that we asked
the city public works bring barricades and close the intersection down at noon. >> Saturday for the track to hold that. You guys are going to do that. >> Correct. And we'll pick the signs up on Monday. >> The parade and whatever.
>> The only question I have parade routed to leave it. >> Yep. Um what was there? I don't have the map in front of me. >> It goes all the way down to 4th Avenue. The issue is if you cut it one block
before to not go through the intersection at Broadway, >> then it goes over by the police department or not the police department, the fire department. And they're already set up for the >> waterfight. So, you'd have to go a block
before that. >> And that's Third Street. >> I forget what it was, but So, we ended up saying is it's not the route anyway. I mean, I get everyone's going to travel through it because they're going back to the beginning. >> They could take a left to go through the waterway, >> but the but the instruction, we'll make
it clear to everybody, is that that's not the route. It ends basically here at the corner of City Hall and that they should be following traffic laws as they are going back to the to the start. That intersection is an open intersection and an oncoming traffic. They shouldn't just be going
back through as a continuous parade. Okay, >> we'll try and make it clear, but that that is was our ask anyway to the city is to keep the route in this. >> I didn't know if you had any feedback from her because we had gotten some feedback on >> we we never did actually. The only feedback I had gotten was from the city.
>> That's fine. >> And I don't >> we'll just have to probably have somebody watching traffic. You guys, >> that's fine. Give me a whistle and one of them colorful batons. >> All right. Uh, so we're good on that
one. Um, ordinance 203, the regulating n Essential water usage. >> Wait, did we get >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. >> We're all out of here.
>> I have to put this in my other really screwed up. >> Yeah. Can I screwed up? >> We'll talk about resolution 26-04 approving Belchchester raffle request. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you for doing that. >> Don't even know what we're >> just jumping everywhere. >> Um, all right. Now, or >> do you guys have any other questions on that stuff?
>> We're a little late to ask question. Uh ordinance 203 regulating non-essential water usage upon critical water deficiency as authorized by Minnesota statute 103G 291 sub one and two
pretty simple I think if they're saying hey cut water this is just us saying we'll help enforce cutting water right >> which I will say with uh Minnesota's hydrarology the likelihood that we will have to regulate non-essential water
usage is quite low. >> Yeah, >> this is a housekeeping thing. If you read the public works report, it was supposed to be done in 2019. >> You would just have to approve it >> for your granting. >> No, this is to get money for that service line replacement.
>> Yeah, >> make a motion approve ordinance 23. >> Do we have a fine thing already set up for stuff like this? Do we know? >> We don't have a fee schedule for Okay, >> you don't have to. This is like Michael pretty much explained it. Yeah, the odds
of us ever having to do it here would be >> we're not California. I mean, that's basically the best. >> I know. I just You never know what somebody might ask that question. So, I just want to make sure. >> I guess you could never say never. >> We'll shut the water off. There's our >> Now we're covered. >> Yeah. >> Because of the ordinance, >> we're covered.
>> Yeah. Just as >> we'll shut the water tower down and give you half the pressure up the top. >> I can do that real easy. >> I thought it was great. I don't know what >> like where's my water? >> I'll make I'll make a motion of it. >> I'll second.
>> All in favor? >> I first. Okay. >> Oh, okay. >> It's all good. >> All right. Um, any updates from committee?
Um, the only thing I have is the we talked about it last time with the Goodyu gas and their what do you call it? Jason e- readers. >> Um, they're electronic readers kind of like what we have for the water. Um, they approved that and put in an order
for it. However, it was originally was it like six weeks back, eight weeks and then now it's like 20 to 24 weeks back. So, they upped their um quantity. Instead of ordering 200 um
heads for the the gas meters, they're ordering 300. Um they're going to start with the larger farms first and then go to homes that have fences and dogs and such and then they'll start doing everybody else's because the end of the
day the the houses with dogs and fences cause a bigger problem for the gas commission to get in the backyard when you've got three four feet of snow. So, um, very good moving forward and I think it'll be good. A lot less time,
less work, uh, work comp issues that may come about. So, yeah, that's what we got from the gas commission. >> You did read the public works reported. Don't you have or something you use back up? >> That's all I was going to ask if you
read through it. >> I I was too busy to get it in until Monday because we've had some issues. >> Can um can you order a hydraulic ram for the bed of the F1 350? >> F150.
>> Yeah. 1350. >> Big one. >> Um All right. So, I do have a question. The photos just your nice rags. >> Yeah. Aren't they nice? Thought I'd throw them out there. >> I didn't know I had to start taking photos with all these good things.
>> That's what came out of that line on Friday. >> That's just Have you toured it yet? >> Two trash cans full. >> Where are the Where are the needles? >> Well, they were in there, I'm sure. In the gloves that were wrapped up in there.
>> You should go. >> That's okay. Okay. I have a husband. He can do that. >> Trust me, there's worse out there. >> No, I'm good. >> Are we looking out for like the uh plow truck or new truck? Are we looking at
other places besides just that location? >> I'm going to try to keep watching that one before I start looking out because you know what you're getting. >> And I guess like some background what cuz I can't remember. Yeah, I don't think you were on council yet when we first started looking at this fall, right? It was November. We went and
looked at one that was a sister to this one, but it was at a dealership >> and then we did some research and found out there's going to be another one that it doesn't have to go through the process of middle band. >> So that's why we were supposed to get it in the fall and they didn't get their
new one. So they kept it updated me which was ironic. Said they're probably going to get rid of it now in the next week or so depending on the weather. >> So we're top of the list to get this thing. >> Well, it's going to have to go on an auction. >> You'll go on deals, right? Go deals. Yeah. So >> So basically like the dealership bought
it off of go deals for like4,000 then truck selling it for like 95 after they threw some rattle container on it. >> Yeah. >> So >> that's why I I I get that part. Yeah. >> Are we looking at other like auction areas? >> I look all the time. >> Okay. >> I'll just check and I'm pretty for me.
>> Oh yeah. >> He's only >> Yeah. You said >> this isn't the time of year to find those also. >> So maybe >> maybe
um administrator comments. >> Um can I just make a comment? Do we I think I've seen it before, but did we ever say anything like please don't use the flushable wipes? >> It's in the news. I just happened to put it in the newsletter for April. before last Friday, but I do
occasionally stick it in and I just put it in. >> Okay, >> it was in last year. >> It says flushable. >> There you go. >> I mean, technically anything's flushable as long as it goes down the drain. Yeah, >> it's flushable. >> Trust me. >> Sorry, you council comments. Anybody got
anything? >> Um, I guess I know we got the season coming up for weather again. Uh, trailer park shelter. I know we've been working on that with those guys are trying to see what we can do. Um, I know I'm trying to look into some other ways myself and how we can try to work with with these guys. I know there's been
some statues and stuff that do certain plans whether they submitted them or not. They have to have them posted for their members or for their residents. Um, I'm just thinking we can looking into that for you guys. I mean, that's a huge thing. When tornado comes, they have nowhere to go. The road is not
readily available in a tornado situation. >> I just want to try to look out for those res I think it used to be basement. >> So, and that might be well can't because that basement now is apartments, right?
>> Yeah. So, >> this is a tricky one because we we've exhausted hours trying to find Yeah. Remember this was >> they fit in the water tower. Face the water tower. >> What do you mean? You look at any tornado. >> Yeah. >> What's standard?
>> Yeah. >> Water tower and the water plant. >> I'm just wonder if there's other routes we can go like community development. Um looking at block grants, FEMA, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, some other ways that we might be able to maybe at least niche them that way or to at least
say these are other assistance ways you can possibly fund to get something that would cost less for you. I mean, it doesn't hurt much on my part. I'll do a little research here and there, but I'm just trying to look out for the residents that are over there. That's a lot of people that are
>> in that situation. >> So, you've done some research, you said. >> I've looked up some stuff today under the office of the revisor of statutes for Minnesota statute uh 327.20 rules under six. Uh you know, of course, you have the 19 I think it was 1988, I
believe it is, right? anything prior to that. But there are certain things in that statute that require them to have uh uh let's see resident safe place distance shelter determined that a safe place
shelter reasonable distance of park a copy of municipal approval and the plan shall be submitted by the park order to the department of health. The park owner shall provide each resident with a copy of approved shelter or evacuation plans provided. Do we know if these residents have an evacuation plan provided that?
>> They got provided one two years ago through text with the former park manager. They were sent, I believe, a letter and a text saying that their evacuation plan is to go to Zroa.
>> So, we met with Earl. >> Is it Earl? >> Marco. >> Marco. >> Worked with him a lot, too. And I I and we might have to call him back in here because um the communication is not very well. I
just emailed him about an issue again. Call him, text him, email, email, nothing. Almost got to drive to Texas and find him. >> Was this recently? >> Yeah, like a week ago. >> He was on vacation last week. >> Oh, did was he? >> He's on a cruise. >> Yeah. Well, so we ain't going to hear from him for weeks. >> He should be back, I think, next.
>> No, not early. I'm talking about the trailer. Yeah. No, no, no. Sorry. >> The trailer home. No, no, no. >> She keeps putting tags on people. That's good investigation. >> I was like, how'd you do it? >> No. The guy from Texas won't respond to me now anymore. Nothing.
>> I'm just looking under seven here under that same statue. A manufactured home park with 10 or more manufactured homes licensed prior to March 1st, 1988. Shall provide a safe place of shelter for park res. evacuation of park residents to a safe place of shelter within a
reasonable distance of the park for use by park residents in time for severe weather. >> It's some road I would consider as a reasonable >> I don't remember the whole thing. It was >> Yeah, they determined it. >> They determined they sent it out.
>> The park manager at that time it changes quite >> wait the park manager wasn't it the dude from Chicago? >> Yeah, he resigned. I only had one that worked about a month and >> that was it. Nobody got nothing for two years. >> No, no, >> no. I don't think I've ever had one guy
living around here. >> And we spoke to one the most recent one. >> We got a conference call and I call >> and now he won't respond to anything. >> So new calls. I guess here's another thing. It says the shelter evacuation plan must be approved by the municipality by March 1st, 1989.
>> Do we have that approved? >> They never did anything. So technically they don't even have a statue. They're not even following the statue at this point. >> No, it's it is literally a nightmare situation. >> I think you're going to have to literally going to have to get probably
our attorney involved in this one again too with working. I mean, you and I have been down this every year. >> Yes, we have. >> Every year in the spring, it's a horrible situation. I would not pursue attorney until we have a more
length conversation. >> I would prefer you keep the attorney out and I'd prefer to kind of steer these guys towards some of the statutes and regulations required. And >> you did that already, Eric. >> So, >> but we don't know if that same guy's in >> No, he's he's a new guy now. So, we
we're going to have to try to get him to come. >> The problem is is like how >> Well, we would have to have it on file. If we don't have it on file, it means it was never submitted. I've never seen that. >> Neither have I. >> What's the likelihood we would even have
it on file? >> Slim to none. >> I was going to say you should go through the old >> if you want to start seeing how things work. Yeah, >> I was looking through some of the stuff. I mean, >> it's not lying alone. And yeah, >> it's again when I joke about a bar
napkin as a signature contract, I'm not joking. Um, I think to to be fair to you, Eric, I think we need to try to reach out to him again. I I have to >> reach out to him on an issue >> and then maybe bring it up at the work meeting
because this is going to take >> I I don't I don't think this is going to be an overnight thing. I I truly don't think that, but I think we definitely need to start pushing it more than we we ever have. I mean, >> let's put it on the agenda for next
meeting. for the next work meeting. The work one. >> Yeah. >> Right. That is the next meeting, right? >> It's a work. >> Okay. That's what I thought. I was like crazy. >> You're your concerns are valid. >> We've been trying. >> I don't I'm not saying that all of you
guys are trying to say maybe we can try. >> Yeah, we did it. We did it. >> We have we have more eyes now. Again, we have some fresher views. Maybe we have some other avenues we can go down with, but not only just statues, but with the department of health or some other places that we maybe bring this up to
even the state's attorney's office. Something that you push over the limit of what they requirements are and then they have to follow these requirements, not just say I live in Chicago, I don't care. Drive to New York for all I care to evacuate the 20s. >> That's not a problem. Yeah,
>> I think they own like 75 or 80 golds, multiple ones in Minnesota. So, this this this fight for them, they love it. >> Well, I'm sure they do, but I mean, I would rather work with them than against them if we possibly can. I mean, this that last route possible.
>> I guess one question I would have multiple in the state, >> be curious to see what the rest of the entities that, you know, engulf them. >> Thank you. It might be as innocent as saying, "Hey, can you provide us with your shelter plan for your
>> dealer?" Well, >> I have it on my email. >> I'll I'll bring that to the next meeting. >> Yeah, >> I'm right. >> Four people ago tried to say, "No, you guys need to do it." And so that's how
this started. July 201. >> They wanted us to pay, too. >> Yeah. >> Well, they they were going to have us pay pay it to us. >> All right. Anybody else got anything? Council
>> I got nothing. Public comment. Not a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you guys. >> Bye guys. Johnny
was >> the one that was at the >> I know >> I'm like crap as soon as I heard that. >> Is they okay >> back to work or no? See, we did >> Oh, you