--------- At this point, I just feel that it should you should maybe amend it to say as long as they have a permit to carry >> and it is not in sight of public >> in those words. >> Sure. >> And I would I would say that not saying
that they can't or have to, >> but if they but if they have a permit to carry because you know damn well that's what they're going it's going to be a permit to carry a firearm. It's not a knife. Mhm. >> I mean, I I don't know too many people that don't have a pocketk knife in their pocket. I'll be honest with you. So,
technically that's a weapon also. So, I just think that maybe that should be amended to say if they have a permit to carry it can be on a premises just as long as it's out of sight of public. >> State statute already requires a permit to carry in public. So, putting that in policy is kind of unnecessary. The only
thing is if you wanted to specify concealed versus open carry, >> if you read it, it says it has to be out in their vehicle. It's not in the city hall. I'm saying if you have a permit to carry and you bring a firearm in the
city, it needs to be concealed. So you cannot see it in the public is all I'm saying is to verify that words. So could we just strike the the last I don't know it's not a complete sentence but where it says if required and said firearm is secured blah blah blah. So we would just
keep employees legally in possession of firearm or which for which the employee holds a valid permit and then just strike the rest. >> Yes. If but according to council member Pearson we don't even need to do that because under the law that's already covered.
>> Well I think just for clarification. So >> for the employee in case they don't know. Okay. >> And for the general public, >> I think that if I'm understanding what you're trying to get at, I think that if you look at the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, what would
be the second sentence that says this includes employees with valid permits to carry that they're not allowed to have them. I think that if you say that this does not include employees with valid permits to carry.
So then if they have the a valid permit to carry, they are permitted if that is what the direction is that you're going. >> Can you take this over? Because you did the research. >> If they don't have a permit to carry, they're prohibited from carrying in the under state statutes. So
the only the only thing would be like to clarify if you don't want them carrying open and be like if you are carrying a firearm it has to be concealed. >> Sure. >> Makes sense. We don't want anybody to feel threatened any residents or any other employees. And >> as far as the permitting language and
all that that's already state statute which preempts us. So >> sure. I don't think we should disallow um technically if you have if you have a a firearm on your hip and your shirt comes up over it now it's not a concealed carry. So what if someone's sitting at
their desk and it slips and then another employee is wanting retribution on them and they call about not concealing. >> This is why I just want revocation. >> Right. >> Makes sense. So I make a motion to revoke the portion of possession or use
of a dangerous weapon from the personnel policy. >> All of it. >> All of it. >> Second amendment. Second amendment. >> We can't we can't revote. I don't think it would be smart for us to get rid of. So what would you be modifying exactly on that? It couldn't be the whole thing
because right here it says police officers. police officers >> just to give them a carve out which they don't need if we don't have a policy prohibiting them from having firearms. >> I see. >> Plus, we do have a motion on the floor and a second. >> Yeah. Sorry.
>> Who is the motion on that? >> I was >> How was the second? >> Motion from council member Peterson, second from council member Heman. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? I >> I I just I just think it's if as long as you have a permit to carry, it does not
state on this building, no firearms allowed. If you have a permit to carry, you should be allowed to carry it in here. Texas, one of the most easiest going states on firearms. You cannot have open carry. They see
even the even if it looks like a butt of a gun, you will be detained. I'm just telling you, I just don't want people coming in here and then somebody says, "Well, I got my permit to carry and got their tongue hanging over their sleeve." >> You got residents, Matt. You not going to please everybody.
>> I This is >> That's why I said it needs to be concealed. That's why I stated that. >> But then the criteria is if you carry on the small of your back and you're going to grab something, >> I'm not going to argue with it, Nick. You're not You're missing my point what I'm saying. You want an argument, I'm not going to give it to you. I gave you
my reasons. This this is a personnel policy. It has nothing to do with the public. >> I it still is a perception to the public. I don't care what you say or do. It is going to be a perception to the public. >> Okay. >> And I I only oppose it because I think
we should have the lawyer look at it or something before we just make a decision or have maybe even wait until the next meeting. But uh Jeff, how did you vote on that? I'm going to vote uh no because I think we should have a little more thought into how we're going to word it
because there is that perception if somebody is in here with openly. >> Okay. >> I'm all about having what I am too. I'm 100% behind that. But I'm perception is carries a lot more weight than any of you think. >> Okay. >> Well, perception is you hate the second
amendment. >> So you could sit there. I could say I can make an argument on some things you do in this council chamber that I don't agree with and I don't say anything about it and as far as I'm concerned it it affects me 100%. But I'm not that's
not an argument I'm willing to give to anybody but I'm just telling you. >> Okay. >> So the motion the motion failed uh 32 >> we will open it back up to discussion. So keep >> Okay. Here here's what I'll make a motion. I motion that we postpone this
or table it, whatever word you want me to use until we can have the attorney look it over to make sure it's worded correctly. >> What words? >> Well, I can I just clarify for one minute. So, the reason why we're having this discussion started because of what
had happened as a result of a discussion at a park board and police presence. So is the reason that we are looking to resend and I know that revoke was used but I think the correct terminology would be resend that part of the personnel policy is it to make staff and
the public feel safe um because I think that the problem that we may incur with that is it is not staff's job to feel that they're obligated um to bring their concealing carry to work for their own or their workers protection. So just
making sure are we is that the reason or is it because first amendment rights and we want to make sure or second amendment we want to make sure that people are able to um bring if they want I think of what we're trying >> yes >> they have their choice and I've talked to staff members about this before and I
know a few staff members have their own sort of um weapon strategy if something were to happen because they weren't comfortable carrying it work and I didn't realize they couldn't nobody ever brought it up so I didn't realize that they couldn't so I think people should have the choice obviously nobody's
obligated to they're not security. I think it's just >> No, not at all. >> And I know there's some members of staff that do have a conceal and carry and maybe they would carry, maybe they wouldn't. >> So, >> it's not my desire to compel people to take actions that they're not comfortable with when it comes to their own protection, but I do not feel
comfortable prohibiting people from protecting themselves if they feel compelled to. >> Exactly. >> Agree. So, can't we find some wording right now that would work or that would satisfy a
passable vote? >> Did we get a second on that motion? Mayor, could Lendine made a motion, but I didn't hear if there was. >> I don't think we got a second yet. >> What did you say, Steve? I said I' I said I would like to postpone or table
this until we can have further review on the wording through either through the attorney or some legal legal wording because you have to have it right. >> Yeah, >> that was my motion. >> I agree. >> Would you like to second that? >> I'll second it.
>> All right. There's a motion from Council Member Lundine, second from Council Member Homegrren. All in favor of that say I. I. Any opposed? Hey, >> motion carries 41. Uh, so that has passed. We could um do we want to sort
of maybe just make our changes, suggested changes now and then just send it to the attorney so he doesn't have to spend as much time on it trying to decipher what we want. Is that something that you guys would want to do? So, I know we had mentioned uh just having where it says if you look at um
the first paragraph there, the last sentence, it currently says this includes employees with valid permits to carry firearms. Um Miss Wood has suggested it says this does not include employees with valid permits to carry firearms. Um and then the other change
was that I suggested was in item A. Um just basically keeping only the first part of that sentence, employees legally in possession of a firearm for which the employee holds a valid permit. Uh the rest I think is is still fair to have in there personally, but that's just my two
cents. >> Or would you just like to send it out how it is to the attorney and have him guess at what we want? >> How much of this personnel policy is has ever been looked at by an attorney? I I remember a lot of it being
um be well before I was a council member and attending council meetings, I seen a lot of these personnel issues come up and and watched council draw this and I don't ever remember having an attorney involved in any of it. >> The attorney reviews always um when we
us we typically send the personnel policy to city council for possible inclusion of statute changes, policy recommendations by staff once a year. We actually did not do that. Usually it comes in December. We didn't do it in 2024 as we were waiting for the state to
tie up the whole ESST and there's been changes. We did we did approve some of the ESTs ESST changes but with paid medical leave staff was waiting to get all of those changes together bundled. It's just dragging on with exactly the rules that we are to follow. But typically it's reviewed once per year by
city council as a whole document as well. It goes to the attorney for those changes. So most of the time in the past, council and staff would come up with the wording and then you're saying the attorneys would look it over before it was put in
policy in in personnel policy handbook. Okay. >> All right, then. >> But this one was drafted I will say that this section was drafted long before I was here. So I'm not I I would not be able to speak on this specific section if that was reviewed by the attorney or
not. So, let's move it on to council whole and decide what we're going to strike and then give the wording to the attorney >> or we could discuss it right now and then give the wording that we recommend to the attorney to have them look over.
>> So, strike what you're you're thinking of striking. We could give the section to the city attorney and say that the direction of council is to allow people with a conceal and carry permit to bring that to the workplace or have
it within city hall or whatever it be all facilities I imagine not just city hall you're thinking any city facility and then he could come up with the wording >> you think he he'd be okay with that it's not >> I mean I don't want to speak for him but I think so I mean I think that gives a clear direction here's what we have
here's where we want to get to what legally is the best way. >> Fastest way I think do it. It's going to probably take him 10 minutes to do it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Sounds good. That was the motion. So, >> so I will um reach out to the attorney with that and then hopefully I'll get an
answer by and bring back a revision to the personnel policy draft um for the next council meeting. >> Okay, that sounds good. >> All right, so that was the last business item. Uh we will move on to the consent agenda. And I would just like to give a
huge shout out to I stand together um for fundraising for the event. Uh they they're fundraised $16,200 which basically covers all of the city's explicit costs for the event this year. Um so that's great. I think that was kind of the goal and I commend them for
doing the hard work it takes to do that. I'm super excited that, you know, there's no explicit cost for the city this year and we can still hold the event for the public and I I'm very hopeful that it'll be awesome and uh very um I guess appreciative for that group. Any other questions in the
consent agenda? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve from Council Member Lundine, second from Council Member Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries 5-0. The consent agenda is approved. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Motion to adjurnn from council
member Lundine, second from council member Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 5-0. We are adjourned >> and we will go into EDA >> immediately or at a time.
>> Take five. >> Thanks for hanging in there. Part: 2
Guess we're a little early. >> All right, it is 6 p.m. We'll call this city council meeting to order. 7 p.m., sorry. We'll call this city council meeting to order. If we could all rise for the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Doing roll call. All voting members are present. Uh oh, we do have an o oath of office today as well. So, Mr. Mayor Luke Merrell, please
repeat after me. I >> I >> Your name. >> I Luke Merrill. >> Do solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States. >> Do solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States. >> The Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. to discharge faithfully the
duties of mayor of the city of Isanti, Minnesota. >> and to discharge faithfully the duties of mayor of the city of Icanti, Minnesota. >> to the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. >> To the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Uh we'll open up for public comment. If there's any public comment tonight, you're more than welcome to come forward and just state your name and address for the record. Hearing none, we will close the public comment. Next, we'll move on to adopting the agenda. Uh I did have a couple
changes uh that I'd like to propose. Uh one would be to add uh business item L7 LMC discussion and then um I believe you guys had wanted to add an L8 for uh fireboard
joint powers agreement discussion. >> No, not tonight. >> Not tonight. Okay. >> No. Were there any other additions or changes? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I think that um, Council Member Peterson would like to discuss um, an item within the personnel policy
should we be able to find it. So, if we could add that to L8 um, and if we are able to bring that forward this evening, we will do so. >> All right. Anybody have any objections or further changes to that? >> Motion approved with the changes.
>> Second. Motion to approve by council member Lundine, second by council member Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed. Uh motion carries. So the agenda is approved. Uh next we will move on to approval of city council meeting minutes. August 19th, 2025 city council budget work
session meeting minutes. Any question? >> Motion to approve all three. >> Second. >> All right. Motion to approve from council member Lundine. Second from council member Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries 5-0. All the minutes are approved. Uh, announcements.
Committee of the whole meeting, Tuesday, September 16th, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, September 16th, 2025 at 6 p.m. City Council meeting Tuesday, September 16th, 2025 at 7 p.m. And park and rec board meeting Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025 at
6 p.m. Uh, council committee reports. >> I have two at it. >> So, went to the Chamber of Commerce meeting and they celebrated their 10th birthday. uh it was at the standing county history center. So they gave a spiel about it being available for
events and talking about the uh the historic building near there and then a bunch of people obviously gave their presentations for new businesses which there was quite a few and events going on and they also attended the uh fire district board meeting for George in
Georgiastead. I mean, um, there was a lot of discussion about the joint powers agreement and there was some other stuff that was brought up. I made a push for some transparency. I asked that the meetings be recorded or streamed and there was only one other person that was
receptive to that idea. They weren't really uh interested in having that stuff be they said they didn't have the ability through personnel or through uh they didn't have the physical means to do that which doesn't make sense to me.
>> I will note that was just one member of the board that kind of said that and directed that conversation. There wasn't a formal vote on that. >> One was receptive to the idea but everyone else was either silent or against. But as far as the Oh, that's not for
now. But yeah, you attended as well, so you saw some of what was going on and some of the issues. >> Yeah. Yeah, it was uh interesting. That was a like 4hour meeting. There was a lot discussed and I think there's some good positive changes coming. Uh I do think it would be nice if they did some
video or live streaming of their stuff just for public record. That would be nice for everybody to be able to watch it. Um I won't be able to attend all the time. It's kind of one of those things where I could go when I can. Um, but if they were to do it online, I could watch it anytime. Anybody could watch it anytime. So, I I would hope that they will do that or consider doing that, but
that's just my two cents on that. >> Yeah, I' I've tried. I'm glad you guys tried. um having prior commitments and not being able to attend the fire district meeting, it would have been very nice to be able to see a recording
or at least listen to a recording of the meeting so I could hear everything that was discussed because it sounds like a lot was discussed and um yeah, it's a shame that the board members won't step
forward and say, "Yeah, let's make these meetings public." like it's for their own benefit and and I don't get it for transparency and to use an excuse of oh we'll take time or we'll take money that's not an excuse not an excuse to
have transparency at all. In fact, it's money well spent and it's money well spent for the members of that board to be able to go back and reference past meetings. But >> idea I had my head I don't know if it's ever been discussed or not but they talked about not having the ability to
record in stream meetings. I know that we allow the city the council chambers to be used when they're not in use. Would they be able to meet here and that way we can help them with that burden? >> That's a good idea. >> Yeah. I >> I think is that a possibility, Miss Wood?
>> Could you state that again, please? >> Would we be able to have offer the fire district to use the council chambers so that way they can do recording and streaming since this the schedule doesn't interfere with our schedule? Um that's something that could be discussed and I would think that could
be approved by council. Right now we have a policy that states that meetings can take place in here for the um good to the public uh during work hours because otherwise staff needs to be here. So the policy would need to be looked into. Yeah, that would be great
because what happens at a lot of these um meetings is there's not a lot of seating because the fire district pays their volunteers to attend the meetings and they take up so much seating that the public doesn't have room to sit. I've had that complaint by more than one
person. They the reason they don't attend it because attend them is because seating is so sparse at most of the firehouses. So that would alleviate one of the problems with those meetings, but that's >> I also advocated for making the agenda known beforehand, publishing that and
there wasn't much. >> That would that would be nice. They're their own thing over there. It's it's it is what it is. >> Yeah, >> I can I'm only one voice. Um
parking. Anything else? >> That's it for mine. park and wreck. We had a discussion with uh Dave who came up and looked at the skate park. Um apologize for that whole meeting not getting recorded. It looked like it
stopped about halfway through. Um I like his plans. I think it'll be at the next meeting. Um I thought it would be on this agenda. I asked Stephanie to try to get it on this agenda. Uh she was going to talk to Nick about some um limits that we have to be able to
authorize um a project like this. Did Did she talk to you? Did you do you have any feedback for council for that? >> What was the first part that you discussed? I kind of came in halfway through. >> Okay. >> The BM the BMX or the not the BMX, the
skate park. Okay. >> Yeah. What is the maximum that council can authorize without going out to bid? Because we have gone out to bid a few times when we haven't received any responses. >> Yeah. So, we can do a project without
with quote under 50,000 and then in between 50 and 250,000 is that bid process. >> Okay. >> Discussed. So yeah, me and Stephanie are kind of working through that skate park stuff and seeing if we're able to get another bid or quote or trying to make
sure we check the boxes on that stuff. So yeah, we've had those discussions and we'll bring it back to council hopefully at the next meeting. So yeah, I'd like then to hopefully get this on the next city council meeting and you can look at his designs and the price range was up
there a little higher than expected to get everything that he was you know showed us and was putting forward which I really like the design and it was a complete redesign of the whole skate park. So all the equipment that's in the
skate park right now would be moved and reconfigured. Um I guess that will we can make a decision but he he was at like about somewhere around 150ish to do to for a total redesign and new equipment and a new
equipment looked like most of it would be in concrete. So the life expectancy of it would be 25 to 50 years and he didn't see any reason why we wouldn't be on the higher end of that because we
have a really good solid pad there. Um, so I'd like to bring him forward to that meeting, too. So, let's Can we get that on the next council, the whole next council meeting? And then it sounds like
Dave will come up here, give you guys a presentation, have you look at it? I mean, we don't have to do the $150,000 design he had. We There is other options to bring that closer to 100. I don't think we're going to get it under 100, though.
Um, that's all I got. >> If he's Excuse me, Council Member Heman, if he's not able to make it to the next meeting, uh, should we push it to the following cow given his availability? >> Sure. >> If Okay, we'll see if he can attend the 16th though. >> That works. >> It would be nice if we could put it on
uh cow either way and then we could look at the plans and discuss too and maybe look back at the the video. I did watch the park video that was available. Is the other half saved to the servers? Did Facebook just quit or what happened with the other half of the video? I'm not You weren't here, so I'm not sure if you know. >> 30 mark.
>> I'm not sure. I'm not aware, but I can definitely check with um the city clerk tomorrow. >> Okay. >> It dropped off into the 30-day mark. >> Remember, Facebook's not retaining videos beyond 30 days. So, that video hit 31 and disappeared. >> No, it's just last week. This is the
last week last week's parkour meeting. It cut out about halfway through. >> Okay. >> It just cut out. Okay. So, we'll add it either way, but we'll start. Okay. >> To cow, >> was there any update on the security concerns or
>> Oh, so I talked to the staff members that were involved in that and they didn't have any security concerns at all. Um, and the reason that I pushed to
have PD here is because I didn't have the whole story and we didn't get the whole story. And no, there was no need for PD to be here. In fact, she felt bad that that was even going to happen. Um,
so yeah, there'll be no need for PD at any meetings after last meeting. And that was a miscommunication between staff and council >> or staff and staff that was related. >> It was mis Yeah. between staff and staff
and then staff and council because we didn't get the full story. I'm just being frank. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Any other council committee reports? >> I went to the school board meeting a
couple weeks ago. Uh it was relatively uneventful. Uh, I did have another meeting with the superintendent and the finance or not the superintendent, the finance director and the community um outreach director. Uh, myself and Todd Christensen were there to get more information on the referendum. Uh, I did get some more information on that and I
will probably come forward with uh quite a bit more information to present to council or to the public I guess um at a future meeting. Any other council committee reports? All right, then we will move on to uh business item L1, resolution, and
consider approving an interim use permit for a tattoo parlor at 303 Credit Union Drive Northeast Sweet 5. Miss Wood, good evening, mayor and council. So, we have Idle Hands Tattoo has submitted an application for an interim use permit to continue the operation of the tattoo shop at 303 Credit Union Drive
Northeast, Sweet 5. The previous interim use permit for this business had expired in July. The plan commission had held a public hearing on August 19th and it is recommended that we approve their request. They have submitted all documentation necessary. >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> Motion to approve by council member Lundine. Second by council member Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. 5-0. And I would just like to say it's a great tattoo studio. Uh I haven't heard any complaints about it. So uh I we appreciate you and our community. Thank
you for coming in again. Uh so that was approved 5-0. Uh next we'll move on to L2 resolution to consider approving the special event permit for the Main Street fall extravaganza. >> Uh mayor and council Christy Patrick representing Pretty Little Signs and Amy Rockstead of Rockstead and Co. Relics
and wares has submitted a special event permit for the Main Street fall extravaganza to happen on Saturday, September 28th from 10 a.m. to 4 pm. The event scope includes that they'll have a some food trucks um at least one food truck in designated areas on the spots of Main Street and other vendors will be
set up along the sidewalks. Main Street access uh will stay open to through traffic. Uh they had previously requested some road closure, but they recognized with the detour and the work being done that they're like, "We need to leave this open." And staff had agreed. Um the event will be following
all city of Istani rules, regulations, including the um public safety and for trash management of their event. Even though it's outside, they're going to take care of all the cleanup um and any permits. They have filled out all the documentation and they have requested to use cones, barricades, and picnic tables
um from public works, and they can get that and coordinate that through them. So, we're hoping that they have a great event and staff is recommending approval. So, I did have a couple couple questions on the cones and everything they needed. They would be picking them up themselves and we would just have to open the doors basically at public works to them or
would we be delivering them? >> I guess I think that Well, I'll let Mr. Becker spike speak on it. >> I asked the same question to Stephanie. She said we'd probably deliver them. >> Okay. How much time do you think that would take? An hour each way? Maybe.
>> Okay. >> Maybe half hour each way. >> Okay. Uh, and then in our council cover page, it says one food truck, but in their application it says two food trucks. Do we know for sure if it's going to be one or two? >> The applicant is not present, so I'm not
able to ask. Um, I would believe that it was two. Um, given that that's what they had stated in their application, that's what I would go with um for their request. >> Okay. And then um I know there's been traffic concerns in that area, Dalan and Main Street. It's
kind of a blind spot. I I personally worry about a food truck set up there um on the north side of Maine. Uh if you look at this the drawing there, it's in front of pretty little signs. I was wondering if if we allow it on the street if they could move it further uh
east. Uh so it's a little bit further out of that intersection of food truck. you know, they're eight and a half feet wide and that takes up quite a bit more eyesight than a six foot car. Um, so I don't know if we could ask them to either move it further east or there is that big grassy area between the
Rockstep building and that apartment quadplex. I don't know if that could be set up there for for their food vendor. Um, that is >> own >> that is owned by the quadplex. >> Yeah. Yeah. They'd have to get their permission, but the city can't do anything about that, >> right? So, I didn't know I was hoping
they would be here so I could ask those couple questions. Um, but that's that's my concern. Uh, with the heavier traffic flow on Main Street there right now with the roundabout construction, it's a little bit of a concern for myself. >> Unfortunately, I'm not sure why they're
not able to attend this evening. Um it's possible that if you have a recommendation and some stipulations that you could approve with those conditions, we could um could we table this till the next meeting since the date of the event is the 27th.
>> The only thing that could be of potential concern would be if they're trying to um approve all their vendors. They do have a lot of craft vendors coming. if they're not able to tell them until the 17th. I think that that's very short notice. They may lose their vendors.
>> I make a motion to approve it. Maybe like you said, moving that food truck down for line of sight with that construction. They could even park it on the other side of their building on Dolan >> and the in the dirt road or dirt parking lot there. That was
>> Yeah. I mean, that's there's always options. So, and it's one truck or two. It's, you know, we've always stated we're trying to be friendly for these things for food trucks. So, I don't want to put any stipulations on that. >> So, I make a motion to approve it with the consideration that they figure out
different for that food truck. >> I do have one more question on the application page. Two of the required things are unchecked. Do you know if those were completed after we got the copy? >> Yes, I believe that the indemnification and all those requirements were completed. Yeah. I think that staff just didn't check it off before it was
included into the packet. Okay. >> Yep. And yeah, >> second. >> Uh there's a motion from Council Member Lundine, second from Council Member Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Uh motion carries. 5-0. Uh
item L3, resolution to consider approving the cannabis micro business registration for AEY LLC. Mayor and council AEY LLC has submitted a cannabis micro business registration application and they have also submitted the written pre-approval from the OCM
office of cannabis management um to operate a cannabis micro business at 703 East Boulevard Northeast um through review um that has been recommended to proceed forward with the city council and consideration as it is permitted within their zoning location and is
permitted due to having the um approval from the pre-approval from OCM. staff has included a definition of the cannabis micro business uh within the memo and I believe we do have the applicant present. >> So I I did have one question. Uh if you
look at the registered address for the LLC, it's uh at an a shopping mall. Uh it looks to be a kiosk address, not a suite address. Um is there any I guess further explanation on that or is that I guess I'm not sure what the state requires for that. Do you have to have a
physical address location that's not a kiosk or maybe just come on up and state your name and address for the record? >> My name is Kyle. >> Can you come up to the >> Yeah, >> thank you. Thank you for being here also. >> Of course. Yeah. >> Hi, my name is Kyle Cron. Um I'm the
owner of the AU LLC. Uh so your question about the the kiosk in the mall. Uh that's a that's separate. So that's going to have nothing to do with um the new business being established here. So that's actually going to be um I'm either selling that or just dissolving
that altogether. So that's that's going to be something completely separate. Um >> so yeah, that that has nothing to do with uh the establishment that would be at the property here. >> Okay. So would you be registering it under a different LLC then? >> No. >> Okay.
>> So it be AUI LLC would be the same LLC. Um but that business again would be separate. Um that's that's a different establishment under that's under the uh uh hemp hemp license. Um so the cannabis license and hemp license are two
different things. Um so the cannabis uh micro business would be the one here and then that one is under the um the hemp license. >> Okay. >> So >> sounds good. Did you guys have any other questions?
>> Okay. We have a 701 address and you're seeing a different one on the application. >> Is that >> Yeah. So, I always just if there's an LLC doing trying to do business in the city, I always look up the LLC and I just found out that the LLC was associated with the shopping mall
address. >> Okay. >> And I wasn't sure if that was the permanent address or if you were planning on changing that address when the with the license or >> that will be changed. That's just where it currently is. That's where my current operation is held. Um, and that will be changed. So on the application, that's
that's just where it currently is at the moment. >> So if that answers >> it does. >> Okay, cool. >> So if if it were to go through, you'd probably change it to the address up here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. I just since it's not technically here yet established. That's just what I
had put down um to first. >> Okay. It makes perfect sense. >> Did Did you state your name and address? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I just thought he said that. Okay. >> Just just my name. >> What's your address, please? >> Uh the business address or home address, sir?
>> What's required? >> You can give us business address. >> Uh the business address is 8251 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, uh 55344. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. Motion to approve from Council Member Lundine. Second from council member Holmgrren. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? And I will be abstaining from this like I have in the past. >> Can can I make a comment about this? I I
I really want to revisit this whole situation again because when we made the ordinances that we made, we were under the assumption that the state of Minnesota was going to give us x% >> and since they took that away, now all the enforcement
um that is required for these establishments now falls on on taxpayers. And when we set this all up and when we set up our ordinance, that wasn't the case. We figured at that time that um the revenue coming in from the tax
that was going to get spread to the municipalities and and counties would be able to be sufficient enough to cover the enforcement of having these establishments. That's why we kept it open. Let the free market work. We're
all kind of in that mindset, you know, but just think maybe we might want to look at this in the future again and and and talk about it. That's all. >> I agree. And we will be talking later about LMC policy committees. I actually have one that I'm working on for uh
cannabis management recuperation fee um basically from the state for us having to, you know, do our our permitting process and to have PD do enforcement or whatever. So, I I do have a policy recommendation that I'm going to be submitting to the state or hopefully submitting to the state legislature on
that. Uh hopefully that helps us, but I agree. I think uh since since the the state pulled the rug out from under us, which I suspected and said they probably would, we we need to do something. Um but it has nothing to do with this business. I think I'm excited for them to be here. Um and I think it'll be a
good opportunity for everybody. But >> let me bring that up by cow then. >> What? Can we add that to cow then? >> Sure. Quick question. Remember when we had a discussion about fees and we were going to set it, we were almost we talked about setting it at half the maximum, but did we end up agreeing to the
maximum? >> I think we agreed to the maximum. >> Okay, good. Because I thought, >> Miss Wood, >> I'm hoping we did because that will help help cover some expenses anyway. >> Do you remember on the uh registration fees, did we set that to the state allotted maximum? I think it was $1,000
for >> uh not all. So, we were able to set them, some of them were up to 50% of what the OCM charges for their permit fees. >> Okay. >> So, I do believe that we set them as high as we could, >> but I'd have to double check. It's been
a while since we set those fees. >> Yeah. In the meantime, I'd like to revisit that and definitely set them at the maximum only because of what the state did and be able to cover our future expenses that we may have. >> I'll add that to the the cow discussion. >> Okay.
Do you have any questions for us or uh not necessarily unless there's anything else that you'd like me to address or I can clean up any other, you know, uh concerns or any >> No, no, it's a great location. I Yeah. >> Awesome. Thank you guys.
>> Justin, did you have something you'd like to say? Come on forward and just state your name and address for the record. Thank you for coming in. >> Yeah. Uh Justin Nielsen, um general manager of Wolfford Electric 101 at Santi Parkway Northeast. I did just want to share with the city and with you all um that this uh you know our business
model changed a little bit um you know we brought distribution inhouse um over the past year and a half and that's been great for business. It's uh really helped us grow um and expand into other parallel uh avenues as well. The
business that we have uh or the building we have right now um it doesn't really fit that model that well. Um there's no dock. Uh it's not the proper height for the type of shelving we need. So we ended up having to rent a warehouse in
Ham Lake that has 15,000 ft² and one in Rush City at 20,000 ft². So by doing this, we're going to be able to bring the distribution centers back into town. Um we are in the process of closing on Evercat as well as there's one other building that we're currently looking at
that might be a good fit. Um it might not be. We're still deciding. Um, but I did want to thank the council uh and the city for uh getting this through because I know it's gonna be a hot topic. So, I really do appreciate it. It's bringing a lot of jobs to the city. So, thank you all. >> Yeah. And thank you for coming in and being a valuable member of our business
community, both to y'all. So, >> and mayor, for the record, could you state the reason for the abstension? >> Uh, because I abstained from the last one and I don't want I don't I have been very vocal against uh the way the state rolled this out and pulled a rug from under us. So, I don't want to vote
against this business, but I don't want to vote for it because I don't believe what the state did was fair for us. All righty. Uh, item L4, resolution, consider approving sale of the Iani fire hall to the Sani area joint operating fire district.
>> In 2021, the city of Icani and the Sani area joint operating fire district entered into a lease purchase agreement for the Iani fireh hall. The agreement attached uh to the council packet outlined the base lease terms uh and payments for 2021 through 2025 for
120,000 per year totaling 600,000. These payments had been applied to the purchase price and which is to be um finalized at closing. The uh fire district submitted and the city received their final payment. So the title to the property may now be transferred to the fire district pursuant to the terms of
the lease purchase agreement. >> So I do have a question. None of us were on council at that time other than uh Lundine. Uh was that priced based on I assume some sort of assessment or appraisal of the property? >> Yes, we did get an appraisal done. >> Okay.
>> Yes, there was an appraisal done on it >> and they've met all requirements of the contract, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. And we do, just for your knowledge, if you're unaware, um we do have an easement carved out for the wellhouse that is there. Um there is language in there included about uh the generator
use and then as well as the community sign. All that is agreed upon which does go transferred over to the fire district. >> So we do we still own the generator >> once the signed contract is signed. >> We still own the generator because we also use it for the wellhouse but they
are able to use it. >> Okay. >> It was all it was all >> we do our regular testing as we normally would because we need to make sure it's operable for us. >> Okay. >> Sounds good. motion to >> question regarding on page one item B how that would apply or if that needs to
be amended uh the Sandy Police Department one. >> Yeah. >> Uh so that is the um the Iani Police Department was in there at the time that we executed this lease to purchase agreement. Um, and it was decided upon by council and I'd have to look up the
date. I'm not 100% on it. Um, but that they were able to occupy it once the um >> PD moved over. >> PD moved over to their new facility. So, they've actually taken over full occupancy of that whole building for year and a half.
>> Yeah, something like that. Maybe January 1st of last year. >> So, this part here is only talking about leasing, not they're not purchasing only half the building, they're purchasing the full building. They're purchasing the full building and property. >> Okay. >> It was just let up as the lease was just for half the building. That's when the
fire department was in there. That was that lease carryover is all it was. >> Yeah. Their lease started like in 2005. The original lease. So, it's a lease um that was modified and then it went to a lease to purchase. Um that was just the best way that the attorneys thought it
was best to move forward to make sure that payments were applied when we established that. But because they were still used in the facility that we owned, we had to still keep some of the original language such as uh they carry their own insurance uh because they're in part of the building. And there's some different things like that that we
wanted to make sure we retain that language, too. >> And the PD did not have to move out until they've made the final payment. So, we moved out early. They moved into the whole building >> and that was decided upon by council.
>> Yep. So I made a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by council member Lundine. Second from council member Homegrren. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. 5-0.
Uh next we will go on to L5. Uh the city ashtree survey presentation and emerald ashbor planning. >> Mayor and councel, I apologize. We're having some tech technical difficulties with our screens tonight. I'll ask you to follow along with me in the the handouts you provided. So earlier this
year, uh, council directed staff to contract with Davy resource group conducted ashtree inventory of the city of all ash trees in the parks and right ofways. And these are the data we received from that. There were 477 total
ash trees. 396 of those are within street rightofways. 81 are within parks or around city buildings. Asht tree was or emerald ashbor was first detect detected in Minnesota in
2009. It's spreading rapidly. It kills virtually all ash trees within 3 to 5 years of infestation. Currently 22% of the inventoried ash trees within the city of Ianti are showing symptoms and they don't show
symptoms within the first year of infection. So we can expect that a higher percentage than that is currently infected and we expect all ash trees in the city to be dead within 6 to 10 years. By city ordinance, trees within the right ofway are currently the
responsibility of the adjacent property owners, which means that residents would be responsible for the removal of those 396 right-of-way trees in addition to any other ash trees that are located on their physical property. >> And is that you said state ordinance? Did you mean city?
>> City ordinance. State. Yeah. >> There is no Is there any state ordinance or restriction on this? >> No. Some cities take care of right ofway trees, some don't. >> Sure. Okay. 81 ash trees, as I said, are located within the maintained areas of city
parks and grounds. To maintain current level of urban canopy, these trees would need to be either treated with pesticides or replaced. So, the pesticide treatments are injected into the base of the tree. They're effective only on uninfested or
very lightly infested trees. If the tree is showing signs of infestation, it's probably too late for the treatments to work. And the treatments need to be repeated every two years to be effective. They cost between 11 and $15
per inch DBH, which is the diameter of the tree at 4 and a half feet off the ground. So, just as an example, the 16 ash trees in Matson Park would cost between $2,321 and $3,165
to treat at current rates and that would have to be repeated every two years. Our recommend staff recommendations are to plan to remove and replace most park ash trees within the next 5 years in locations where removal of ash trees
would cause a significant degradation of aesthetics or public use. Consider either treating the tree possibly treating the trees for a period of 10 to 12 years. that would allow replacement trees the opportunity to get established and start growing so we don't have a
barren area for that period. I do have a quick question if that's okay. On the the treatment, the treatment photo, the pesticide treatment, they show there's PVC uh tubes at the bottom. They must be spiked in and then uh I assume those are removed >> once they have the tree treated. So, they're not just sitting there like
that, >> right? Yeah. Okay. It takes about 2 hours depending on temperature and moisture in the ground for the injection to be completed. >> Okay. Thank you. Replacement trees, boulevard and park trees improve property values, provide shade, reduce runoff, and improve air
quality. Replacement trees should be a diverse number of species to reduce the threat of future invasive pests so that in 30 years we're not back in the same situation with whatever new disease comes from another country and starts killing maples or whatever gets targeted
next. Uh, some good urban trees that can handle salt and temperature and compaction that are common in both parks and rightways are burr oak, northern catalpa, hackberry, Kentucky coffee tree, swamp white oak, and basswood.
So staff would like direction moving forward whether we should be planning to remove just parks trees or parks trees and rightway trees, if we should do any pesticide treatments. And there's also a
relief grant from the state of Minnesota that could cover some of these costs potentially. We're wondering if council would like us to apply for that. >> I think we better apply for that grant. Yeah, >> I still I still feel that those boulevard trees is the problem is the city doesn't allow you to plant on a
boulevard anymore. Hasn't for years. Those trees have been here before any of that was all discussed. So, I mean, if we can help offset some of those homeowners on the cost and removing those trees, plus removing our own, we could probably remove some of
our own in the parklands so we're not paying the tree service to do it. I I think we should apply for that grant and move forward. I definitely agree. I think uh if it were if it were just me making the decision, I would like to see us apply for the grant and then if we get awarded
the grant, we use all them grant all that grant money to take out the most dead trees first, then apply for it again and and sort of go along that route. Uh >> I don't disagree. >> Yeah. >> One note with the grant funding is that if grant money is used to remove trees, we're required to replace them in place,
>> right? >> Except for the Boulevard trees. You can't replace them cuz it's it's >> we would still have to if if we use the grant money, we have to replace them in the same location >> and that includes within the boulevard and they would be 2 inch diameter. They'd be very small. >> Two and a half. There's a couple options, but yeah, they have to be very
small. They can't be large. >> What's the average cost per per tree? >> Let's see. >> 200 I got one estimate. We were waiting on another estimate. It'd be um $250 per tree plus the cost for the labor to
plant it plus the cost of the tree at that size. Depending on species, I would think $50 to $75 per tree. >> Oh, you better figure more than that. >> So, it depends how many we buy and what and what species it is, too. Yeah. So, if we did all 396
rightway trees, figuring about 325 average planting per tree, it would be 128,000 >> just to replant. >> And that's why I said we should be planning to do so many a year
within the next 10 years to do it. >> If if we take them down, we are not obligated to replant. >> Correct. If we don't use grant money, we are not obligated to replant. Would it be possible to use the grant money just to replant the park trees if we were just allocate potential grant money for I mean I guess we could probably do
whatever we wanted but and allocate the potential grant money to parks because we would want to replace that tree anyhow, >> right? We could apply for the grant for just parks trees. Yep. >> Okay. I think we apply for the grant and see what we get and take it the money as it
goes. And I think we should start budgeting for removal of so many trees a year. >> Sure. >> I just don't I just don't I I don't know how we would have to be forced to plant them back in a boulevard when we're not allowed to plant them in a boulevard. I
could say moving it off the boulevard. >> So what's on the other side of the sidewalk >> if they choose? Delta property owners have a choice. If they choose no tree, then they get they're not required. >> Say no to us. Yeah. So, >> and it does say within the application, um, Jerry, maybe you could just speak a
little bit more to the grant on So, if it's trees within the parkland, it has to be a minimum of one to one, which then would make you think that if we had requested to plant three trees, as you know, we do budget for planting trees in our parks, a 3 to one, perhaps we could
get some more trees into our parks um if we're taking down ash trees. And also, there are some continued work, right? We have to make sure all the new trees planted are GPSed. We have to have a three-year plan moving forward. So, can you talk a little bit more about what the grant entails each
>> because it will take staff time. >> Each replacement tree has to be GPSed for the grant reporting. DNR wants to know where the trees are. >> And we have to have a three-year establishment plan. We can't just plant the trees and walk away and let them die. So, we have to have a watering
plan. depending on the location, you know, they might need mulch, they might need a barrier for weed whips to not damage them, things like that. And because the size requirement makes them small and vulnerable to deer and people alike,
frankly, damaging them, probably want to have some kind of damage control as part of our plan. So, a lot of the grant requirements do also increase costs and, you know, in some ways offset the gains of the grant. But >> is there for three years we have to make
sure we keep that tree alive then is basically what they're saying, right? >> Does it state anything about if um the tree dies is it the city's responsibility to replant that, >> right? Yep. >> So the only challenge with these smaller
trees and we we had planted them and some of you probably remember in Bluebird Park when that park was newer, we planted little trees and a lot of them got broken. That's why when we reestablished trees going into the parks as part of the budget, we had bigger trees going so because kids just hang
just by nature of being kids and they get damaged. So just so you're aware, we do need to make sure we maintain those. >> Well, I definitely wouldn't I don't care if you spent $50 or $500 on a tree, you don't want it to die on you irregardless. So, I mean, we're going to
definitely want to try to keep them alive anyway. I mean, there's you see a lot of places that have trees that grow them to sell them. You know, they put, lack of words, chicken wire around them. Y >> to keep the deer out of it and it helps
keep people from getting into it. >> So, I mean, there's a simple way of doing that. So, >> yeah, from the sounds of it, I I think I'd be opposed to using the grant funding for the the residential or the rightway. Uh I think there's just a lot of long-term headache from that. uh in
the parks. I think we're there consistently enough as a you know as a staff to watch the trees. Um I don't know how Josh feels about that with the grant requirements. I don't know if you had a chance that that's pretty long. There's a lot of words in that. I tried reading about half of it and it's like oh man a lot of rules in there. Do you
have any opinion on what you see in the the emerald ashbor report and any of that stuff? >> I think it'd be a lot easier to do it in our parks than all over the whole town. >> Sure. with the uh relief application. It says at the same location whenever feasible
and possible. >> Is that black and white or is that gray? >> Suppose technically it's a shade of gray, but I would call it a very dark shade of gray. They're going to want a good reason why it can't be planted there. In most of our boulevard trees,
there's nothing preventing from a from a vegetative biological point of view. There's nothing preventing another tree being planted there. So I think the DNR would expect it to be within five or 10 feet of the same spot >> or there was like any ordinance or code
that prohibited it. >> Right. That might be something to ask. >> Well, it prevents I think city code prevents residents from planting within the right of way. I don't think there's anything that says the city can't. >> But then again, if you're asking your
residents you can't do it, then we shouldn't be doing it. >> That's what I'm saying. That's that's why I said I don't I think I don't if you're removing them from the boulevard, we should not be planting another one in the boulevard. >> I think it's the push from the state. The DNR has, you know, wanted cities to
have tree canopy um just for greenscape and all those other things that trees are good for. So, I'm guessing it's just keeping in with their just to one for one um for canopy and green space. Greenscape >> have and I don't think we've discussed I
know right now it says in our ordinance that uh residents are responsible for this. Is there any way if we have to pay out a lot of money to get these removed is there any way we could just do a cost share type thing with residents? Is that would that be something you guys
would ever consider? >> I have a couple out of the box ideas. One is, do you think you guys could handle doing one tree a week in your in your schedule? Just sure it would take seven and a half years to get them all, but I'm just curious. That's the first
question I have. If if you could do one a week there. >> Well, I guess does that if we don't do the grant, we don't have to do it in a certain time period, >> right? >> Because there is a time period on that, too, right? So, I'm sure we could do a
tree. Not that I want to be in everybody's frame. >> I know. >> I know. >> But, you know, then I mean it's chip away at it. >> Chip away at it. Take the dead ones first. The ones that are completely gone first and >> just you know worse,
>> not as bad, not as bad and then just finally be done with them. >> Right. And then my other question is is if we did offer like you were saying some kind of a rebate if if we wanted to go that direction would be if we gave
the 396 trees in a rightaway at $100 each would be $39,000. But if we did go that direction in the future and decided to say to a homeowner, if you have to pay for a tree service because you can't do it yourself
or have friends that would help you take that tree down, we'd pitch in $100, something like that. I'm just I'm just throwing a number out there because the true cost of all this, I mean, just to do it, we all know it's astronomical.
It's it's it's it's >> it's budget busting. There's no doubt about it. Um, so yeah, there's some other directions I mean I think we could look at if we wanted to go that direction because you were just asking about maybe helping
them out some way. I mean, we'd have to come up with a way that's fair. I mean, if there's an a if I had one on my boulevard, I'm able-bodied. I wouldn't have any problem going up there and cutting a tree down. And >> there have been a lot of people down >> that would block the road. If I'm going to drop it that way and get that thing
cut up. And >> um I I don't know how many residents are willing to do that. There has to be a good majority. I would have to say more than less, but I'm not sure. >> Did the inventory uh account for how many trees would be difficult fells or
require rigging or an arborist to >> It accounted for if there were overhead utilities nearby. the main factor in that for right of way trees. >> What how many were within that >> number? It was a small number. I want to
say 90 something, but don't quote me on that. >> Would it be beneficial? Uh I know right now there's nobody on public works staff that's a like a certified arborist. Do you know how much education and training is goes along with that? Would that be something that would be handy for us to have? >> I I don't I have no idea. Just a total
>> 10 years it probably would. >> What's that? for the next 10 years, it probably would. >> Yeah, it depends, I guess, what the city's plans are for the urban forest going forward. You know, if we're going to try to maintain
a right ofway canopy, then we're going to want to have somebody on staff who can maintain that. If we're just going to have a handful of parks trees, need that past this EAB period. I'm just thinking, would it be cheaper for us to
send someone to training and get this training so that we don't have to do any of the stuff out of house? We can just do it all as public works time with somebody that's certified to do it and they're safe to drop trees around, you know, infrastructure type stuff. >> Well, for tree removal. >> Yeah, I'll let I guess I'll let Josh
speak to that. >> We got guys that have been to I wouldn't say arborists, but they've been to chainsaw trainings and stuff like that. >> Um, they're not tree climbers. The other issue you might run into is how many people want us in their, you know, front
yard, cutting them down. What are we are we taking the stumps out? Do we have to buy a stump grinder? Are we or a backhoe to dig them out or >> I would think that you'd be better off if if you just saying numbers, take 10 trees down,
have somebody come in with a stump grinder and grind the 10 and be done with it. And I'll be honest with you, as a resident, if you're going to take this tree out that's diseased, as long as you don't tear the hell out of my yard or you're going to throw some sod down or throw some black dirt down
and recede it, I don't I wouldn't have a problem with it myself personally. >> I think we should come up with a timeline of of how long we're going to take care of this problem because maybe another option is too. And I don't know if there's liability. If we have a stump there, the height of the stump, if it
can sit for one year, two year till these trees are taken care of, then hire somebody to do the stump removal all at once. Just go through and >> you'll get nothing but complaints from residents about it. I just these few trees from last year's storm. I was getting complaints like every week about the stumps. They're like, "When is the city going to handle these stumps?"
Especially the one across from the tennis courts, even though that's county easement. I was getting nailed for those even though they're county responsibility. Finally, it's out of there. People will complain about the stumps. I don't think that's a realistic option, unfortunately. >> How much is a stump remover? And are they resellable? Could you do a little
research how much one would cost and if after we're done with it if we could sell it because I don't think we're going to have a lot of use for it in the future. >> I did look up like a skidster grinder anywhere from 8 to 12,000. >> Okay. >> And there's definitely resale. I've actually bought a couple myself. But
then again, they may want it for 8 to 12,000 go and do the project. Now they have a stump grinder. They can take out other stumps if they ever had to. Then we're not paying somebody else to do it. But by then it's paid for itself. You're going to probably spend 10 grand to have somebody come out and grind stumps. >> I do think the teeth are fairly
expensive. I didn't price it out, but I've heard they're 500 to 700 for the teeth on them. >> I don't know how long they last. We haven't owned one. >> On ash tree, ash is super hard. One of the hardest woods you'd >> Yeah. And that >> the hardwood usually chips pretty easy.
It's going to be when you hit rocks or something like that. That's what's going to wreck it. >> And you you can attach that to a Bobcat. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> I received one estimate on stump grinding. It was 25 to 75,000 to remove
all 477 stumps. >> We could buy a lot of teeth. >> So yeah, we're way better off having public works do it. >> Yeah. >> How much was that range? 25 to what? >> 25 to 50,000 depending on size, location.
>> So that's less than 100 books a tree, >> right? >> A couple things though to also take in mind. One is the liability of public works is doing this in house. Um even though Mr. Becker is so helpful and willing to take on this task. Thank you.
Um, I would be cautious because we have such a small crew and when you have you can never have one person to fell a tree. You're going to have at least two people and that's at least two people to make sure you're doing it safe and if all of a sudden you have something major happens and we don't like to think of the water main breaks but it does
happen. It comes with all hands on deck they're not able to leave mid cutting down a large tree. So just those things to keep in mind. I think that we run very lean already and we actually do have some things in the works to talk to council about coming up in the next couple weeks or so um with staffing for
the department. But I do think that it's really important to keep in mind that it takes two people away of a department of basically six because we have one on call has to do the on call duties and it's a pretty small department to take
on such a large task. Even though I do believe that they have the skill set for it, I do think that that's could make it tricky. >> I will say that uh I did three stumps in my yard and the amount of cleanup. If I could have paid 100 bucks a piece to get them ground and cleaned up, forget about
it. I wouldn't even touch it myself. So, I I don't know that it's necessarily time or cost efficient for us to buy an attachment and then pay our guys 50 60 bucks an hour to do it when it's going to take you all of an hour to two hours each tree anyway. So >> last month I had 30 stumps ground up for three under 300 bucks.
>> What's that? >> Last month I had under I had 30 stumps ground up for under $300. >> Yeah. All in a small spot though, right? >> Yeah. That's the thing though. It's probably set up and all that. >> Sure. >> See, that's what I'm trying to say. In a mass amount, you know, when you're doing a lot more, I think the price would come
down a lot. Um >> I think at this point with this topic, I think there's a lot of other discussion going on with it. I think right now we should just direct staff to go apply for the grant and let's see what we get and go from there. >> Can we bring it back to next cow? We can talk about more ideas. >> Absolutely. >> Okay.
>> Well, can we proceed? Can we make a motion for that part though? Because either way, we're going to apply for the grant. >> The grant. >> Yes. If we could have a motion um for the grant um for which trees you were talking about, which would be the ones on Parkland. If >> I I I would leave that that motion to be
very broad. apply for the grant because if we could use some of that grant money for some of those trees, it's going to help offset the cost all the way around. That's the way I would leave it. I'd apply for the grant and get what we can get and definitely for our parks for
sure and see what we can do on the boulevard trees. >> Jared, would you be writing that grant stuff? >> I'd be writing the application. Yeah. Do you have do you think it would take you significantly more time to include rightaway trees in that or is that just a couple words that you could have in there?
>> It wouldn't include more time. My only hesitation in doing that without direct council instructions is that it's creating a bit of long-term policy since it would obligate us to replant more right-of-way trees. So, I just want to
be clear, if the city wants to do that going forward, then I'll include that in the grant. But if we're not sure, then we might not want to include that in a grant application because we don't want to get those grant funds and then then not use them. Then we'd be unlikely to get future DNR grant
funding. >> That's what I was going to ask. Can we see what they'll offer and then decide then? Because yeah, the expense could be very high if we accept the that grant and have to do it under the terms that you were talking about earlier.
Um, >> have we talked to any other cities? I know Zimmerman is applying for this grant. Have we talked to any other cities about if they're applying or do we have any consensus? I know there's I think it the DNR grant said roughly 7 million dollars available. Um, would we
I would think we'd be more likely to get it if we have a smaller amount, but I don't know if the applicant pool is going to be big. If we have any idea, >> I would expect most, especially smaller communities are going to at least try for it. How much they're going to ask for is hard to say. As we've seen with
just our numbers, it gets very expensive very quick. And like you said, there's 7.5 million available with up to 500,000 being granted per application. Whether we whether it's better to ask for everything we want or to go for
less, I'm not certain. >> So the maximum is 700,000 per application. >> 500,000. >> Okay. And clarify exactly the requirements of the I mean >> that's a lot. If we if we accept the grant, are you saying
we it was replanting >> replanting of approved tree species >> of specific sizes, basically 2 and 1/2 inch diameter, fairly small trees in more or less the same locations and they
have to be GPSed and have a three-year establishment plan. >> Okay. So if you were to take just say for hypothetical 100% of the cities in the state applied uh that's $7.5 million roughly each city would be allocated if
it was even roughly $16,000. So that's not very much. I don't think 100% will apply. Um probably for the reasons we've already talked about it's probably too too much headache for some cities to deal with this stuff. Um so I don't know if we if it's more realistic that we
just apply for say like a $100,000 range for the the park trees. >> Yeah. I I I agree. I don't think 500,000 would even come close to what we would have to do um if we did all the boulevard trees and the park. So, we'd
be looking at at least that much or more. The estimate that I received for removing all 477 trees would be 263,000 to 550,000.
Again, depending on size, how difficult they are to get to if they have overhead utilities, plus 50,000 for stumps, plus about 155,000 for replanting. >> So, okay, >> most likely well over the $500,000 limit.
>> So, 15200 >> anywhere from 500 to anywhere from 500 to 750 >> roughly. When is the deadline? >> October 13th, I believe. >> Yeah, October 14th.
>> Wait, >> I think he gave us a lot to think about. I think we should just put this on cow or something. We have a couple >> meetings we can discuss this. >> I don't think he'll have the time. Grants take a lot of time to write. That's only just over a month away.
Josh, what's your perspective on this whole deal? Let's hear it straight. >> Um, I don't think we want to get involved with the residential trees. I think we do our park ones and >> as far as the grant goes or as far as at
all. >> I think at all. I mean, it's just a lot of different people to deal with and pleasing them all is tough, I think. But that's just my opinion. >> Jared, as far as just doing a park,
what's your opinion? >> That'll generate fewer phone calls, I'm sure. Um, you know, with residents, you're going to get you're going to win and lose both ways. There will be people who think they're city trees and we should remove them. There will be pe be
people who think it's their tree and who are we to come and take it even though it's going to die next year anyway. That's a policy decision. I'll leave that to the council. >> I kind of like the idea of offering like a few hundred or $400 or $500 or
something per tree if the resident takes it out themselves. depending on the size of the tree, maybe we could do it by per inch, like a rebate type program. They pay a contractor to get rid of it and then they deal with that contractor. We don't have the headaches of having to take all
these calls and everything. Um, but they still get some sort of money back. >> How many individual properties were the trees located on? >> That I'm not sure of. One thing to keep in mind is to multiply it by whatever number that is by the number that you're thinking to make sure
if it is legally possible to give public funds like that. I'm not sure. I'd have to look into that um just to verify, but I know that if we were able to do so, it'd have to be done fairly. >> Yeah, if we did it per inch, you could add the inches together per tree. So, if there's two 11in trees, there's 22
inches type of thing. Just just an idea. I don't know. Maybe that's something for Kyle, but I think for the grant, do you guys think you should just do this parks or all of it or >> I would just focus on the parks right now? But and then I think we should add
it to the cow and come up with a actual long-term plan. So maybe uh Jared, it would be good if you could write the grant for the parks and then have most of it done but don't submit it until after cow in case for some reason we maybe decide to add a few
words or take a few words out as far as what we cover. Is that would that be fair? >> Yeah, that's fair. >> Okay. Are you guys all okay with that? I'll entertain a motion then >> second. >> Okay. A motion by myself, second by council member Lundine. All in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? Uh motion carries 5-0. Uh next L6 2026 preliminary budget and levy adoption. Mr. Soulberg. >> All right. So first thing that we are seeing on there is setting the date for
when our final budget and levy meeting will be. So that will be December 2nd is the date that I've set on there. So that's kind of matched up within the past. try to meet that first meeting in December and then if there's any sort of
issues that arise there that gives us time to bring it back with that second meeting in December if there's any last minute changes that need to be had. Then the next resolution down is just to approve our 2026 preliminary budgets. Um
like we've discussed earlier, none of this is set in stone. We've still got a little bit of ways to go kind of on our budget discussions and comparing our current year to figure out what we have going next year. So, just to get that approved to allow us to then give our proposed tax levy to the county, which
is that next resolution down. And that resolution has it broke out what we are levying for by fund. Any questions on any of those items? >> I did have a question. and the EDA uh the amount is 164675.
Um I know that we believe in the free market uh generally as a as a council group and I know EDA is important but I also see that um other cities and jurisdictions are making decisions that make ice more desirable and I don't know that we need to take taxpayer money to
set aside for economic development in the city. think it's on a on a good natural growth course, but uh I know we wanted to put some money in there for potential signage, but I would propose that we uh lower that amount um maybe 20 or $30,000 so it's more around the
$140,000 um into the EDA. I don't know how you guys felt about that. And then we can work down from there if if we need to. But that was one thing that I think I think we're ahead of the curve with our market growth and I don't think we need to continue to
subsidize like other cities are. >> Are you looking to um keep the uh restaurant recruitment program in place? >> Yeah. And that was sound it's right now it's listed as 164,000. I don't think I mean the restaurant recruitment program
the max grant was $10,000. We're not going to get 15 restaurants next year. >> Exactly. >> Maybe one or two tops. And at that point, the market works too. So >> with that EDA funding too, that's also covering our staff time related to those EDA items, too. So,
>> okay, >> just to highlight kind of where we are. Uh currently the EDA fund was projected to have a $52,000 net income amount would be where we would sit just what we have projected for 26 which like we discussed that was to help save up funds
for the potential dynamic sign. So if we do drop that levy by 20 or 30,000 that maybe just pushes that off a few more years just so that you guys are kind of aware of what will be kind of getting cut out with that decision. So >> potentially, have we ever really had a
discussion with the current council about a community sign? I know we've talked a lot about the liquor alcohol sign, liquor store sign, but have we ever between the five of us had a conversation about the community sign? I don't with after we had the presentation with the huge cost, you know,$100 to $200,000 for a sign. I don't know that
I'm necessarily in favor of it anymore. Um so maybe that's a discussion item for a later date, too. >> Are you talking about the sign out on 65 and 5? it would be a community sign on that corner parcel property. Now, we put the banners up now. And for me, I mean, I I don't see really the the value of a
community sign at that kind of a cost. When we have the banners there, and then at the fire district, we still have the sign there that has our our dates for our meetings. I assume we're going to retain that sign because it's in the easement. Um, but I don't know that we necessarily need to spend taxpayer money
on a a sign, a dynamic sign like that. >> So, the fire district sign will become theirs. that is not ours. It was a council decision when that lease to purchase agreement was made that we would not retain uh ownership of that sign. Just so you're aware of that. Um but you're right, we haven't discussed
it in a while because unfortunately, well, not it's not unfortunate, but it just is the way that it went that it's taken quite a long time to obtain the parcel property on that corner. Um, but the last time it was really discussed in depth was when we allocated the 10,000
up to 10,000 I should say to purchase that corner. >> Um, but but no, other than um thinking that it's an idea and we know we're not going to bond for it. So, do we want to just set a set aside a little every year and maybe in five years we would look at
it? I I would I'm in favor of a sign there, but I like Jos's idea of maybe putting a little bit each year into until we have enough money to put a sign up there. I think it I think it'd be a great spot to put one. Can we do any of any liquor store advertising on that
sign? Also, >> I don't believe we're going to be able to do liquor store off premise at that location. Um, no. But we still are working to try to get that liquor sign too and work with a partnership with a a business on the east side. Yeah, I'd like to see that a top priority to get
get that sign. >> Yeah, the liquor store sign. The liquor store sign will pay for itself in a year. That's >> exactly. >> But the comm the community sign, it's great and and awesome and all, but that doesn't I mean, it brings, you know, obviously it informs people of things,
but it doesn't bring in monetary value necessarily, and that means higher taxes for everybody. So, I I don't know. That's just a hard sell. I I don't know what we can do about the the public notice sign that we have with the fire district. I was not aware that was not part of our deal, which is kind of
shocking. It says city by standing on it. It's in the easement. So, is that >> it was brought up? It was brought up as its own item for discussion. That's just the direction the council had at that time. >> Yeah. For what, four or five years ago? >> Uh it was probably in I'd have to look it up for sure, but either in 2021 or
maybe the beginning of 2022. >> Okay. That's a brick structure, isn't it? >> No green tree. >> There's some block around that has some landscape being within it, but otherwise it's really just um coated metal, actually. I think it is. >> But there's the sliders that you put the
the letters in for >> um the the council boards and dates and stuff, you know, in the center. And then the side has just some um printed signs in place. >> Would it be a bad idea to move that sign out to the corner for now till we figure something else out? So that sign going
goes with to the fire district with the sale of the building. So they will own the sign. >> You could probably just ask him. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest. Why don't we ask if we can keep using it? >> I think that Chief Jenovich was at the time when it was discussed um that his
plan was to still allow us to put our dates on there. I don't have that in writing, but um his plan was not to take it over and not let us use it at that time. Well, I guess back to the the budget discussion, I think we should only put 30,000 aside for potential for a sign,
not the 52,000. >> I'll second that. >> I I just think we don't need if we're going to do a community sign, we don't have to do a Mercedes of a community sign. We don't have to spend $200,000 on a community sign. >> I was surprised the operating cost when >> operating cost is astronomical. What was
it like 88$8 to $10,000 a year just for electricity for one of those signs? I think it was when I talked to him, he said it was like $800 to $1,000 a month for electricity is what the thing was at full brightness both sides with the panels he was talking about. >> Yeah. So 9 to 12,000 just an electricity cost. Yeah. >> And then you're not talking depreciation
either. You're going to have to replace that sign in 10 years. >> Let's get that. Should we get it back on cow and have more in-depth discussion about this? See if there's other options that we can get up there if if we want it, you know, if we're in agreement that >> print a lot of banners for H12 grand.
Here's here's the whole thing, and I've said this every cotton picking year. What we set it at today, >> we can go way under it. We just can't go over it. You could you could sit there and have this discussion and drag it down to the
last minute and we'll still be in in the same boat as you are having this. Let's move it down. Let's move it. Let's move it. No, we're setting it so he can send the information to the county and we can go way under it. It doesn't matter. We
just can't go over that dollar amount. >> That's that's it. That's the whole point of the matter is we can't We said it and we say we're not we can't go over it. We can't. There's no way you can go over that. >> We We can come way down, but we just
can't go over it. I just feel like it should be accurate and not just right overshoot it recklessly like other cities do. >> Um that's why I always push it off. So especially now that we have the ashbor
issue and then there's contracts that haven't been settled. Um so I think just getting a an educated guess on what it should be and is the way we should go. So, I thought we'd just uh set this at our next meeting, which we have to set it by the
end of September, right, Nick? >> Correct. Yes. Has to go to the county by September 30th. >> Okay. And I I think that if we need to have some more discussions at at our next cow, I think we should have them. But I just
it should be an educated guess and it should be with plenty of thought instead of just shooting high. That's just my two cents. >> I agree. >> I agree. As do I. >> So, do you guys want to um maybe let
Nick continue to go through this and then we can talk about maybe pushing into the next meeting to decide on a preliminary? Is that the direction I'm hearing? >> Sure. >> Yeah. But you better show up. Just saying.
Any other questions about this the stuff that Nick has already covered? Otherwise, uh, feel free to carry on if there's more on each thing that you'd like to discuss. >> I don't have much more than that. If you guys are not comfortable with where
those numbers are at currently to approve that tonight, we can bring it back. But I would like to have some more specific information on changes you guys would like to see just so that I can come back with something that we think is the correct working numbers for when
we get here on the 16th if that's the direction we want to go. Like Steve said too, this is just our ceiling. There's nothing that says that at the next meeting we can't come down and say, "Yep, we know that EDA budget's going to come down that $20,000 or whatever that is, too." But really up to you guys. I
just want to make sure we've got concrete amounts and are ready to go because we don't want to be bumping up to the end of it on the 16th and be nickel and diamond down to the end when we still kind of have a couple of months to work at that. Al. So,
>> I think it's good to do it the whole time. If we can find ways to be more efficient from here until the end of the year, I think that's our job. Uh, I would propose that we change the EDA contribution from 52,000 for a sign to 30,000. Uh, that would be my only
change requested change at this point and maybe you could come back with that next meeting. I don't know if anybody else has any requested changes or ideas >> that I'll agree with that requested change and I I think the majority of us up here in the back of our minds are
thinking, you know, it's a little to me it's just early to set even a preliminary because we have so much going on on the there's a lot on the plate that could be coming forward and I hate to set an amount right now until we have more time
passes and more things get clarified. Um, so you're probably seeing a delay tactic from all of us up here for that reason. Um, not that we don't want to set a budget. We just want to be certain what we set is going to work.
>> It's my opinion, >> but not too high at the same point. A lot of cities get in that rut. They approve a preliminary and then they'll get to the final and say, "Well, we already approve approved the preliminary. Let's just approve it." And then you have you're not doing your most efficient work in my opinion. But >> did we want to set any money aside for
the ashbor issue? >> I think if public works can do do it in in any spare time, I think that would be a a good way to hit it at the request of residents on those residential ones. I think that might be a a fair way to start and not have to actually put any
more money into it. That's my opinion until we see what happens with the grant >> for emergency ones. I mean, ones that really need to be cut down. I mean, if it's a top four, two feet or something, it's going to need to get cut down, but
it probably I since they both left, I'm not sure what the lifespan is of once it starts, how fast it goes. I mean, >> 3 to 5 years, what it said. >> That's what I thought. >> I can tell you. >> So, there's a little bit of time, unless they're half dead already or three or a third even.
>> In in real life, it's more like six to eight or nine years. I had one that was infected probably about 8 years ago and I just cut it down and replanted about two months ago. >> Um, >> so I mean maybe look at it in that perspective. Get the ones that are
really really bad out first and if if we're going to do that approach >> at the request of the resident. I think >> I mean some residents might just want to do it themselves. How many residents don't even know though that like we would do it. So you're going to
>> we'd have to publicize that for sure, >> right? >> See, we only have the capacity to do X amount and we would have to >> we'd have to lay it out that way. First come, first there's only going to be one a week or that's all we can do. So >> that's probably prioritized by severity
of how far along and the decay cycle it is. >> Sure. >> Because we we did talk about what if somebody doesn't want somebody else on their property doing it. So they have the option to cut it down themselves and then they take care of their property how they want or if they ask us to do it, we do it for them as we have the
time. I I think that's the fairest way to do it myself. I don't know. I don't know how the ones that would come into play where if they're by utility that works may not be comfortable with how we're going to tackle that then. Well, we're going to have further
discussion on this at the next meeting. So, let's let's put it there and put some more thought into it and maybe staff will have some more ideas by then, too. >> Any other items that you'd like uh Mr. Soulberg to look at or have preliminarily planned for the next
meeting that we can talk about or he can do analysis on. Otherwise, we'll talk about it at the next cow and set the set the preliminary in in council that night. That sounds good to everybody. >> Yep.
>> Can we get a motion to postpone this to the September 16th meeting, please? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Hongren. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. 5-0.
Thank you, >> Mayor, if I could. We do have two items that have been added to the agenda this evening. I'm not sure um how lengthy those may go. Uh, do we want to take a recess for EVA? It's going to be a short EVA meeting as we just have one item on there. Or would you like to continue
going forward with council? >> The personnel policy, how long of a discussion is that? I don't think LMC will be >> should not be a long discussion at all. >> Okay. >> I don't think it should be. >> I would like to just keep going. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Just for continuity and ease on Facebook live for people.
Uh, so number seven, the LMC discussion. So, I have uh talked about this quite a bit. Uh myself and Council Member Molgomrren are the LMC reps. Uh we go down to the policy committees and basically make policy recommendations to uh the board down there which is made of
all 480 cities or whatever is in in Minnesota and we all vote on um language for the policies to recommend to the state house and the state senate. Uh that takes they take a lot of LMC feedback to heart. Um so I think it's very important that we do it. Uh so there are four different committees. Uh
one is human resources, one is improving local economies, one is uh fiscal futures and the other is improving service delivery. Um each of those has quite a few different uh policies. And I had wanted all of us to kind of go through at some point um before the next
meeting and bring forward any recommendations we have for policies or things that we see shortcomings on from the state. Um, so the first thing that uh I came up with uh that we' talked about briefly tonight was the cannabis management. I would like to present
something uh for a recuperation fee or a reimbursement fee from the state for our um having to implement this stuff without getting any of the percentage of the sales back which was you know George you touched on that and that's a really crippling thing for especially cities
that are they want the free market to work. I suspect we're going to see a large influx of of cannabis stuff here because we want the free market to work and we were under the initial impression that we would get some of that back for taxpayers. Um, but we will not. So, I would like to uh recommend a policy
which would be a new policy as far as I know uh to get a recuperation fee. I didn't know how you guys felt on that or if we could get, you know, tell staff or ask staff to maybe get a a round number for how much it would be per type of business like how how you know how many
hours are we going to have into it. I know we might not have exact figures but >> or enforcement and compliance >> enforcement compliance and the permitting process. you know, we we are charging, you know, the applicant, but at the same point, the state just took any sort of
potential revenue from us and just gave us the liability. >> We have all the all the liability and none of the benefit from it. So, I think if we if we go in there with, you know, a reasonable number, $1,500 or $2,000 per uh cannabis establishment or, you know, >> per year
>> per application. I I was thinking and are the applications every year on that or is it every does it depend on the business the application for the cannabis license? >> So there's a most of the license are there's initial application then there's a renewal. >> So maybe we we'd narrow it out as you
know the initial application is more and then the renewal the state gives back more. Um it's just our way to ensure that the city gets a fair cut of the revenue from that because at the end of the day the city allocates um far more of their revenue to the metro area than
they do to us out here. So I think if it's more fair across the board, it's just better for every city. Um so that's one idea I had. You guys have anything to add to that or do you just want me to work with city staff and League of Minnesota staff to draft something up or what do you think? and Travis >> and Travis
>> still have a good idea of of what his time's going to be involved in that. >> Do do you have any idea roughly? Do are they compliance checks every month or >> I haven't checked the initial one that we looked at just says it's forthcoming as far as the
guidance to >> okay like everything else >> when that forthcoming date was. So I'll check again but I can't have assumption. It still says it's forthcoming, but okay. Definitely have to look into that. >> So, if you guys are okay with that, I can work with city staff and league staff to draft up something on that. I'm
not sure that might be in Jeff's committee. It might be in mine. I'm not really sure where they're going to place that. Um, but that's one thing. Uh, and then another thing I talked about last month was to require jurisdictions to save for expected local matches on um infrastructure projects. There's a lot
of cities that do not do capital improvement um funds for local matches and they have huge highways that go through their cities and then at the end of the day they have this project come through and they say, "Oh no, we don't have any money. We need the state to pay for this." And that affects our taxpayers. Um so I want to bring forward
a policy to require jurisdictions to save for expected local matches. And uh that's going to be I expect that that one won't go through this year because there's a lot of avenues and different little I guess quirks with something like that. But that's something I'd like to present uh just to get it, you know,
on people's minds this year and we can come back with more specifics next year. Um and then the last one I have um is the paid family medical leave. I would like to um have local jurisdiction choice whether it's a city or county choice. Right now the state says that
all cities and counties regardless have to abide by this unfunded paid leave uh paid family medical leave push. And I don't think that's fair. Um, I think cities should have the choice. If the city of Icani were to have the choice to not require businesses to do the paid
leave, it might be an incentive or a disincentive, but I think that local jurisdictions should have that choice. So, that's something I I I plan to bring forward. Um, I don't think that'll be very wellreceived. Uh, but that's something that I want to bring forward just because we always talk about preeemption and they talk about it down
there. Every city down there hates preeemption, but then they vote for it. So, that's something I'm going to bring forward. Um, and we'll see where that goes. >> There are a lot of metro cities that want local control, too. Yeah. >> That we talked about in our meeting, one of our meetings, and and I don't think
anybody said anything negative about that, >> right? So, I'm hoping maybe I can we can write that up with league staff and and myself, the league Minnesota staff. >> They tried to pass it the last year and it didn't go anywhere. So, I think there's already a resolution put forward, but they can just tweak it and everything. >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah, when I asked the
league staff about it, they they hadn't heard of the idea, but maybe I'm maybe it's in one of your committees. >> I think so. Okay. It seemed like they was it was already tried before. It just didn't go anywhere at the state level in the committees. >> Okay. Well, I'll bring it up anyways. I
think that's a I mean, that's human resources and local economies and pretty much all four of the committees will be affected by that one. So, maybe I can bring it forward in a different committee and see if it gets through. >> Yep. Jeeoff, you're 100% correct, too. You know, being the League of Minnesota
Cities is the largest lobbying group in the state of Minnesota and the majority of their money comes from the larger cities and so they advocate for the policies of the larger cities and policies and then they filter down to us or smaller cities that those type of
policies just don't work for us. I mean that's you know large city policies are not the same as small city policies. So, yes, local local control is way better and I think I wish we would had somebody on that that board a long time ago. And
thanks for all the work you do. And >> reading over this, I realize that uh I hope future councils never get rid of this committee and that we always find a representative to get down and represent our small city because I wish we could
advocate to other small cities to get involved too. so that um can get more benefit out of their lobbying because we get ignored in the process. I believe >> yeah I'd say it's probably about a 5 to1
ratio of metro city versus rural just because it's easier for metro cities to travel 15 minutes versus rural traveling four hours. Well, a lot of the bigger cities have councilmen that get paid 40 or 50 >> or staff >> or staff and so they're full-time city
employees. They can take the time. I mean, if I didn't have a full-time job and I was doing this as a full-time job, I'd be Yeah. be down there as much as possible advocating for our city. So, they have a lot of advantages that we don't have as a smaller city to be able
to get our voice heard. And I'm I really like all the work you're doing on this. This is this is great, Luke. Thanks. >> Yeah, you're welcome. That's a This one I'm very passionate about just trying to influence change on a bigger scale because our hands are always tied it seems like with a lot of things. So Jeff, did you have anything um as far as
the LMC stuff other than I know last last week or two weekends ago or two weeks ago, whatever, you had talked about um police recruitment and police retention stuff. uh did you have anything specific that you're working on with that or do you need help from us with that or >> Nope. I was going to uh really push for
and there's a lot of other cities on board with uh doing something about the um hiring and retention of uh police officers. That's a statewide issue and it's not just at the LMC. there's meetings at um you know in other organizations around the state but it
just doesn't seem like it's gaining traction or and I don't know if it's in a committee at the some committee at the state level or what but the LMC knows about it and there's a lot of police chiefs around the state that
were in on the meeting and talked about it um so I'll be bringing some forward you know try to bring more awareness but Um, >> has anybody author authored an amendment to the policies that are there yet? >> Not that I know of. >> Okay. That's that you have to do that
otherwise. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But then um there's a fluoride issue and I know there's several House bills that were um brought forward last session. Didn't go anywhere. Um so um I'd imagine that that's going to be brought forward
several more times this uh next legislative session. Um, another thing I would like to do is um for the park dedication funds is using some of those funds to repair >> your current structures.
So, we'll see how that goes. >> So, would that be in the improving service delivery or do you know which category that would be in? I would love to be involved in presenting something on that. >> I forget which which one it is, but yeah, I'll be bringing something forward on that.
>> Yeah, that was something we had talked about. you know, we we have all this park dedication funds and it's only for new parks or new park amenities, but then after the end of end of life cycle of that new park amenity, we have to tax taxpayers to pay to replace it. So that it would be nice if there was a way to
maybe split that part of it with development and part of it with maintenance. Um, so that would be a good state policy change that would affect us in a positive way. Steve, Nick, George, I know you guys haven't had a lot of time to think about state stuff that maybe needs some help
that we've come across, but if if you got anything otherwise, uh the next meeting is actually the morning my next two meetings are the morning of uh our next city council meeting. So, we won't have a council meeting before. Um, but if you guys think of anything that you want me to do work on, any sort of
subcategory or policy, uh, please email that to Miss Wood. And Miss Wood, can you email that out to all of us? Um, that way we can all kind of think about it and maybe I can come up with with something for that. >> Yes, I can. Uh, so hopefully um I would like if you guys could get me something,
anything you guys have by the end of this weekend or next sometime early next week so we have a week so I can work with the League of Minnesota City staff and our staff to uh author some stuff if that sounds fair. Otherwise, if you guys have any other ideas,
>> we need to just choose wisely and just pick a couple two or three. And I I really >> really like your CIP um effort, but It doesn't benefit us at all, but it sure would happen. >> It will benefit our residents. >> It would Well,
>> yeah. Future councils decide not to do it that way. >> No, only because right now, just say, I don't know, Minneapolis, they have five highways going through. They're not putting much if any money aside for capital improvement funds. And when the project comes, they say, "Oh, no, state bail us out." So now they take what our
residents pay into the state and they give like 80% of their state revenue to metro cities and we only get the 20% even though we pay in 50. So there's a a our taxpayers are taxed more than what they're returning back getting back from the state in value. So if you require
them to have their local match and not get bailed out by the state then we aren't our residents are getting a better value for their dollar that they paid to the state. >> Right. >> So that's that's where that actually comes in. >> Great argument. Sorry, so box there, but >> I'm just I'm just shocked at how many
cities don't do it and they just decide what to do with the money each year on their interest. Insane. >> There's there's no there's no requirement to why would they if they can take that money and spend it somewhere else and then just get bailed out. I mean, >> when you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you subsidize failure,
you get more failure. Mhm. >> Well, if you guys have anything uh before just say next Tuesday, uh please send it my way or Jeff's or I send it to Josie and then Josie has to send it to me and Jeff and council or whatever. Um and then we can see what we can come up
with and I can recommend to uh LMC two weeks from tonight. >> Sounds great. >> All right. Uh item L8. Was that personnel was the title for that one? Sorry.
>> Personnel policy discussion. This is a section that I believe that council member Peterson wants to discuss. >> All right, Mr. Peterson, whenever you're ready, take it away. So last month after the uh discussion about the park board,
I was told that city employees are prohibited from exercising their second amendment right with a carry permit on city property. So I want to revoke this policy and allow them to protect themselves. >> That's easy for me. I'm >> I never knew this was a policy on that
one. >> So we've always been allowed as council members to carry any public place. any this is a public place but apparently for workers it's different. So I I have no problem revoking this uh at least for for firearms. I don't
know if you know I I assume a knife too. I don't know under a state statute uh dangerous weapon includes firearms but also like air rifles I think are including that too. And I I can pull that up.
>> I mean, Travis, isn't there a >> within the personel policy as it's defined with for weapons? Weapons are defined to include all legal and illegal firearms, switchblades, knives, or any other object that has been modified to serve as a weapon or that has the primary purpose of serving as a weapon.
That's the definition that's referenced within this section. And just to clarify, we would be allowing city staff to potentially do this pro to protect themselves in a situation that they need to. It's not for any ill will or anything like that.
>> I have absolutely zero problem with it. I mean, there can't even be an argument, well, we can't have this policy. What if we have a an employee that bl, you know, is disgruntled? Well, doesn't matter because they're going to bring it in illegally anyway. or against policy. So, it be just doesn't make sense to have
that policy at all. I'm Yeah, can strike it. >> Chief Myers, how do you feel about uh striking that item? Is there any concerns that you would have with just striking it or would you rather we amend it? >> Uh, honestly, I'd rather not be involved
in that conversation at all. Um, not because I'm for against, but just because we my officers carry firearms, we train them. our responsibility as a chief to retrain those officers. So I don't want to blur that line, right? So I want to make sure there's a standard
line there. So I don't Yeah, that makes sense. I just don't want to get into that discussion with other employees because I don't want to have any responsibility coming back to my department for training and responsibility for that. >> Sure. I mean, if we keep the only I mean, if we're going to keep anything under that
section, it could just say employees legally in possession of a firearm for which the employee holds a valid permit. >> If we wanted to keep that in there, >> under state statute, they would require to have a valid permit to be carrying in public either way. So this >> okay >> is
>> ours our policy says the firearm is has to be secured within an attended personal vehicle or concealed from view within a locked unattended personal vehicle while the person is working on city property. So they cannot carry in city hall based on how this is written. They can have it in their vehicle but if
something hits the fan in the vehicle doesn't really do a whole lot. >> Under state law you can't prohibit an employee from storing a firearm in their vehicle. >> So that's why they made that allowance for that. The only thing I would say to clarify that is if they have a permit to carry and as long as they're not banishing it in any way in the city, I
don't see a problem with it. If they have a permit to carry, >> they should be allowed to if if I have a permit to carry and I can walk in here with my gun, that's no different than