--------- for minute trust June 15 2026. I'm going to start by um kind of a roll call. I'm Lisa Whan. I'm the mayor and present are also council members Kathleen Refkin, Peter Vicky, Claudia Lacy, and Brian Govern. And then we have some staff present. We have Paula Bowman who is our
assistant administrator, Jasper Krugal, our city administrator, Brian Grim, our finance director, and David Ael, who is our community development director. We have a number of items um for discussion. We have the land lease for a cell tower. We have lift assist
ordinance, tobacco ordinance, budget levy considerations, and water utility rate adjustments. So, we're we've got a lot to cover tonight. So, we're going to start with the land lease for the cell tower. >> Yes. Um Madame Mayor, members of council, um what is before you is uh
we've been talking to a vendor. Our vendors been talking with us for a little over a year um about trying to get a cell tower uh on our property. Apparently, we have a location here at around city hall. Um I got Sarah. Sarah just I got to let her in. Um uh over
there to the to the west of city hall that is an ideal area according to uh cell contractor. Um, and they've been working through kind of the location with public works about where the optimal location is for for the tower.
The tower would be 150 ft tall. Um, it would mainly be initially be used for Verizon, but there are a couple maybe up to three vendors that that are available. This comes into play with some of the lease terms potentially. So really tonight, what I'm looking for is um I'll go over the lease terms on this
in general, but I kind of want to get a feeling from city council if they want me to proceed with this or if they just say no, I'll tell them no. Um but right now, what the the um terms that are on the table, and these are significantly higher than what they originally started
off with. So there's, you know, I've been >> That's always the case. >> It is. >> So it's a it's a they have a two-year option with $2,000 upfront. So, we'll get $2,000. That 2-year option allows them to u make sure they get Verizon locked in and then also go through the the planning department to make sure
that the um the tower itself is is um sufficiently sized and and and um permitted correctly. So, that's one piece that if we do want to proceed, we have to figure out um do we want to issue ourselves a conditional use permit because it's technically our land. Um,
but for something that would typically require would typically require a conditional use permit. Um, I think and David can chime in a little bit. We typically haven't given ourselves conditional use permits for things. >> Be an IUP. >> I mean,
>> well, it'd be um, no, cell towers are allowed by conditional use permit. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Like for a water tower. We I don't believe in the last water tower we built, we didn't give ourselves a conditional use permit for that. So, >> but we own it. Yep. So, but we we technically own the land. So, we'll have to figure that out if we want to what
the process would be. A conditional use permit would be um we'd invite some of the public in and they'd have the ability to tell us if they are okay with it or not. So, that's one thing if we get to pass the terms and we want to look at the actual lease and then we can talk about the process. But, um the rent
would be uh $2,000 per month for the the space that you see identified in the the memo. Um that has a 3% adder. uh it would be a 35-year lease and then if there is an additional cell phone vendor that's on the tower, we would get a $250
per month um for that. So, u a lot of numbers, a lot of calculating a long-term lease, obviously. Um the numbers are in the packet. It's, you know, the total between 1.4 and 1.7 million um for the life of the lease. I think the big thing here is kind of
think about does it add some value to the community? Is there cell phone coverage issues in this area? They're telling us there are. I I don't know. There's different perceptions on if there are or not. So, um, so I guess couple things I want information on from the group is do we want to proceed with
these terms, um, and look at an actual lease and then we can kind of look at more details and the process or is this something that we just want to tell them? No. >> Well, the first thing I'm leerary about signing a 35-year lease. That's just me. Um, did you ever talk to
them about maybe a 20-year lease or a 15-year lease? Has that >> we have on the water towers with AT&T in them? >> So, those vary they're different because um they're using our tower to put it on. With this, they're investing between$1
and $1.5 million to build the tower. So, they're investing in that. So, that's why it's a longerterm lease is because they're actually putting the infrastructure in whereas we have it. Our cell phone leases right now I think are on a they're on an autorenewing 10 year cycle. Is that what it is? Fiveyear cycle. >> Yeah.
>> So they auto renew every five years with an escalator um similar. >> So did you talk about a 15 or 20 year lease? >> We I have not. So I don't I think that they wouldn't go for that. If so if that's what we want, we'll just >> Did you ask did you ask um Voss did you
ask him if um what the length of terms are for other ones in the area? So, if it's a standalone, this is this is the standard length for these. >> Okay. >> Um for the standalone, they're building their own um tower. Um if they're putting it on an existing tower, I did
shop out our Highway 7 tower, but apparently it's not in the right location because we do have conduit available for that location. >> Okay. Um and then I talked to you earlier about the location on on the site. I don't know why we would put it
there. Why couldn't we or wouldn't we want to put it way in the back? >> Yes. So, I did have a chance to talk to Gary. Um I think he'll be joining us for the regular meeting, but um this is Gary's preferred location because there is uh an access road that's required.
So, instead of having it cut all the way across the property around the edge or something or cutting off certain parts of the property, this would the access road would go straight off of 110 and to the tower. Um there's already a plan on Gary's side, Gary's team, the public
works side to have a road there that goes to the back corner um of the property as well. So it would be an existing road. So it from a staff side um that's where Gary would like it. Uh just to kind of keep it ease of access and it's not cutting apart our whole
parcel. It's just a small >> but it wouldn't be cutting apart the whole parcel if it was way in the back. You would just have the access road issue. That's the only issue. And you could it could be on the side. >> Yeah. I So Gary, so from my conversation with Gary, if you'd have an access road that would go, let's say, from Highway
110 all the way to the back of the property, that would cut the property in half. And if we >> No, no, no. You don't have to. It can be on the western edge. >> On the western side? I mean, we could. I mean, that that area is very wet. It's a wetland. I know. Um >> lowest part of the property. >> And it's the lowest part of the property
>> on the back side. >> Yeah. So those neighbors complain already about public work. >> I can only imagine if you're going to put a tower right next to them. They don't like it when they burn or we get calls about that all the time. So >> yeah, it's too bad we don't have a site
plan for this. That's that's the thing is we don't know what we're going to do in the future. >> Um we're tying up >> what a half acre more than an acre 25 250 by 250. >> Yeah, not quite. Um >> what acres is 44,000
>> um plus >> the other thing to to mention there's a the reason why that area is not developed or farmed right now is that's our septic drain field. So >> right >> um that area likely we can't do anything on it anyway. So it'd be directly adjacent to that area we can't do anything but if there's a a desire to
move it to a different spot I mean I think should talk to Gary about it. Um, and you know, I don't know if we have a vision for that whole for that side of the property right now. >> We don't. That's the problem. Do we care about what our residents think and what
they're looking at? Cuz I wouldn't want to look at it. And I know people over in Palmer Point absolutely hate that cell tower. And, you know, they're pulling into their $5 million houses looking at this gigantic cell tower, which they absolutely hate. And it's owned by
someone out of state. So when they have complaints, it falls on deaf ears. >> Yeah. So that's where the process comes into play. Depending on if you want to issue ourselves a CUP, we could have a public hearing associated with that and invite folks in so they know about it.
>> Have to pay for that. >> Uh the public hearing >> the vendor >> have to pay for the public hearing. >> Yeah. Speaking of somebody that has terrible Verizon screen, I mean literally have to walk to one
part of my house to to make phone calls. >> Um, you know, I think there is a need for more coverage. Um, so um I would be okay with a a tower um because it would mean I could communicate with the world. But uh
>> you could get T-Mobile. No, just kidding. Well, we do have a I do see water tower from my house. >> Yeah. And and oh, sorry. I was going to say just for reference on the height of the tower, there is a tower to the north of us here that you can already see.
That one's about 350 ft tall. So, this one significantly not as tall as that one, but it still would be to your point uh >> quite noticeable. Is there any renegotiating um let's say price after
15 or 20 >> yet for theirs? >> Yeah. So, um we're in this area. So, met we're in the area where on we're on the low side of what we would consider a metro community where you have higher traffic volumes and we're on the mid to high side for greater Minnesota. So, um
the number that I threw out there originally was like 2500 per month is where where you know the sweet spot might be. They were at a thousand per month for the longest time. That's why this has been sitting out here for a year. Um, they moved to 2,000. I thought, well, that's intriguing. I'll
bring it to city council. So, >> well, but what what do neighboring communities get for the ones that they have? >> I guess I don't I don't know. Going off what Bob what uh >> going off what Bob tells me, um
2,000 is a fair price for this area. He's kind of got a a good check in. He was going to try to sign in, but he's not here. But >> price for a rural area, but not for the metro area. So, this is what they're >> that's what they're trying to do.
They're trying to they're trying to hit it um before we're too big. And then uh they'd have to come in with three or $4,000 a month. And that's why I'm saying a 35-y year lease at $2,000 a month. >> Um it's I would say 3,000 or go away.
>> Yeah. I mean, it seems low and without any comparables from neighboring cities, I don't know why we would just take two. >> Well, I guess >> what do we get per month for the tower leases? >> Some of those are 40 to 50,000 a year. So, I mean, so that would be
>> double this. So, this is low, especially, >> but we but we provide the infrastructure for them to put the stuff on. That's the difference. So, we could build a tower. So figure out if they have to spend a million dollars to build the tower, if that's what the true cost is over 35 years, how much is that per year, we're
only talking a few hundred. >> So um so then then the $2,000 a month is a steal. If we're if we're getting 50,000 a year for for stuff on our towers. >> Yeah, I did talk to Bob of communities
are building their own towers because it could be lucrative obviously. um few have. A lot of them have acquired them through just transfer of of deeds on properties. So, >> um but from what I'm hearing is we want more money per month.
>> I can bring that feedback to them as well. Um but as far as the market goes, I mean it's hard to place us, right? We're we're mostly rural, but we're in Henipin County. We should be somewhere in between what Bloomington >> Henipin County, we're taxed like we're a metro town. There's no reason to give
the vendor a discount. No kidding. >> I mean, we're in Hiping County, so whatever we want. >> This area is zoned for what size lots? I mean, how many houses are around here? Like >> 10. >> And it's
we're growing, >> but we're outside of it's outside the Musa line now, too. So, >> but it's going to be servicing people within the Musa. >> Well, that's true. But my point is that it's it's a very rural area right here. >> Right here. Yeah. But the tower is going
to extend past it. >> Yeah. But nobody's, you know, there's just a handful of residents in this area. So, >> yeah. And it's it's based a lot on traffic volume. That's the core user of cell phones, >> right? >> You know, or people driving on Highway 7 and around the area. It helps the
obvious people that live here. Um, if they have Verizon and they have poor coverage, but it's a lot a lot of it's based on average daily traffic counts and things like that. So, >> well, again, I think it's they're trying to get a a you know, head ahead of the
curve because they're thinking this is a growing area and they don't want to come in 10 years from now when it's all built up and then they have to pay the full, you know, the same as what Bloomington might charge or whatever. And so, I'd like to
find out, okay, maybe we don't charge or maybe we don't ask what Bloomington is getting, but maybe we don't get the 2,000. Maybe there's something in between because 35 years from now, I can imagine that this whole area from 110
over to Highway 7 is probably going to be built out. >> Well, I can tell you, well, from what they told me, this is their highest and best offer. So, I can go back to them to see if there's even any wiggle room. And if there's not, I'm just going to put it to bed and let it and if they want to, you know, come back with a different offer, that's that's great. Um, but this
was uh, you know, a year in the making of of them just I us kind of waiting them out and saying no and no and no and then they came up with this. And so, >> how do you guys feel if it was a shorter lease at the the 2000 cuz obviously, >> you know, if it was say a 10 or 15 year
lease that was we where we could renegotiate after that point when it is built up. I'm just thinking if that uh you know that's their highest that they're willing to go right now. Would they be willing to uh shorten that lease period? >> Well, that's why I was asking if they'd be willing to go to a 10 or maybe 15
year lease. >> Yeah. Um would it also clue would the lease include depreciation of the tower after its useful life or >> I don't know exactly what the lease terms would be. Um we haven't talked about that part of it. No, >> but there's some maintenance that you
know from time to time they'll have to pull permits on. I did ask about the permit, you know, there's they'd have to pull a permit to build this. The permit cost would likely be between 10 and $15,000. So, there'd be a little revenue piece there, but as far as the depreciation, we'd have to look and see what they'd
have in the the lease if they we would get that far. >> Okay. So, >> yeah. It just feels I have to imagine in 35 years we'll be satellites or quantum something and be stuck with a rusting >> pole stuck next to city hall. >> Okay. At the risk of you all rolling
your eyes at me, there's a lot of critics that say 5G towers have a lot of radio frequency radiation and they can have poss one. So I think the people that will be living next to that deserve to hear about it. And
>> well if again then that would be the cup process. But I think the first step is um seeing if they'd be willing to do a if it's 35 year lease, however, at the 10-year mark, it's renegotiating. >> Maybe every 10 years you renegotiate the
um the lease cost or something. I don't know. >> Just do like a market checkin every 10 years and then um or 10 or 15 years and see if what the market is. I know >> unfortunately Bob's not was for some reason isn't able to to get on, but he's
I mean we've we've dealt with him on a couple other communications projects and whenever we get a lease, you know, Verizon's constantly trying to renegotiate with us or T-Mobile or whoever on our tower leases and we we check in with Bob. He's got a really good finger um on the pulse of the
market. >> Okay. >> He does a lot of these. So what would be the remedy if start or just under this hypothetical situation if you build it in 10 years you get to an impass or something you know where where the you want to renegotiate but they say the two
or three still is good enough and we say >> well then maybe maybe we have to say um 10 year lease this is the amount 10 to 20 years then this is the amount >> maybe you want to have some yes >> and then 30 to 35 years it's this amount
>> so rather Then and in between the 1 and 10 years, it's the 3% increase. And then you have a new amount year 11 and then you have a new amount year 20 and every every time you had that new amount, it still increases the 3 or 4%.
>> Anyway, >> so you'd have to spell that out. I think um I'd be more comfortable with that versus just 2,00 because $2,000 in today's dollar even if at 3% you don't
know what what's you know inflation is going to do it could mean only like $400 a month you know in 35 years when I think about 35 years ago what what we could buy you know think about it okay I know some of you
aren't that old, but uh No, I'm just kidding. Um >> so, so if I It sounds like there's maybe a little appetite now um for me to go back and say if we can shorten the lease, maybe put some market check-in parameters in a lease that says after 10
or 15 years, we do a market check-in. Um I think Brian has a valid point like they have their infrastructure here. If we say sorry, lease is done, you know. >> No, that's why I'm saying we say after 10 years then >> fine then check in or something. Yeah. 000 versus 2,000
>> more like if they're stuck on the 2,000 then we increased the escalator. >> Yeah. So they're they're >> so it goes up more. >> It was u they were at two% and it took quite a while to get them to come to three. >> Um >> Okay.
>> But 2% really blows the I mean it's yeah we wouldn't even look at it but I mean yeah maybe after year 10 we have a 4% escalator or something like that. We could look at what that does for the numbers. I don't know what it does, but I'd have to crunch them. >> Okay.
>> But so shorter lease, lower lease number, um, and then some mechanism, some way to get more money maybe after 10 or 15 years, >> right? Okay. >> I'll see what they have to say. They might just say, "Sorry." >> They might just say, "Sorry, go away."
And that's okay. I mean, anybody Sorry, Peter. You're going to have to switch to T-Mobile. Sorry. All right. >> Satellite option might be ready to go. >> All right. Next, we have the uh lift assist ordinance review.
>> Yeah. Um madame mayor, members of council, this is uh a product of a previous work session where we floated the eye of doing or idea of doing a lift assist ordinance. Uh this one kind of the bones of it came from Maple Plane. Uh I got feedback at that meeting to
include both residential and um the residential and the independent living and then in one tier and then have um the assisted living facilities in another. So you'll see those basic fee schedules um for the assisted living
facilities being at 1 to5 calls at $250, 6 to 8 at uh 500 and then greater than 9 or greater is at 850 per call. This is all in a a one-year period. Um so one one year rolling period for the residential independent living lift
assist fee schedule. Um lift assist one through three are no charge, four to eight are 250 and nine or greater are 500. >> And so my only question is is it for the entire um facility for the assisted
living or is it per individual at the facility? So the for the assisted living um in per the ordinance we would if there would be an assisted living facility that would come into Minotrista we would then um it requires an agreement that we have with them. >> Okay.
>> So in that case it would be the assisted living it would be for the facility. >> Okay. So it doesn't matter if um Joe res resident Joe needs assistance five times we would still but resident Sue needs it
one time. It it's 250 no matter what. Okay. It's for the whole facility. >> For the facility whereas the other one would be for the individual property. >> Individual property. Okay. All right. Or person. Yeah. Okay. >> U thinking out loud here, but uh would
we want to build in a mechanism to essentially forgive fees in certain cases? Um, I realize it's probably opening a can of worms because then everybody would, but on the other hand, I I don't think I'd want grandma sitting on the floor because she's afraid to
call and get charged for the fourth. Uh, >> well, she Well, I think it would be Well, that so if she falls and gets hurt, then she goes to the hospital and then she doesn't have the fee. It's just if you fall and you can't get up and then then if in theory if it happens four times, you probably
shouldn't be living at home anymore. So >> where you should be calling a friend or neighbor. >> Yeah. >> Um >> a lot of these people so it is but a lot of these are um very large people that are very
difficult to to lift and so that's why they have to call the fire department or the police. >> I mean odds are if grandma falls she's going to the hospital cuz they're checking her hip or her bones and stuff like that. Yeah. >> So then there wouldn't be the fee because there would be transport to the hospital. So
>> and if somebody doesn't pay the bill fee, would that be added to property taxes, >> right? >> Yeah. It would go through the certification process just as if anybody wouldn't pay an invoice for the city. So there would be potentially a a touch point for city council to forgive that um during that certification process in
the fall. Um it could be similar to like a utility bill situation where the individual would come to persons to be heard and request forgiveness um as well. But those would be kind of the two two ways city council could forgive the bill if they wanted to. >> Does it need to say one-year rolling
period or because one-year period seems vague. So should it specify rolling or calendar? >> Let's see. >> Um cuz just one year period to me is vague. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean it to us the interpretation
of one-year period is from the last lift assist request. So I mean we could put >> So if you get if you get a lift assist request from assisted living facility on March 1st and that's the first one you got then they will would have till March 1st of the next year.
>> Yeah. So if we want to say a one year rolling or something like that. >> Yeah. Because I mean if you fall in at the assisted living facility if someone gets hurt in July and then they call again in January and be like it's a new year this shouldn't you know like >> Right. >> Yeah. Rolling. >> Yeah. Just rolling.
>> Yeah. So just in the just to be clear the in the fees fee description we'll have one year rolling period instead of just one year period. >> Yeah. And then my only question is do we have any numbers do we know of people that are still living in their home or
we don't have any um um facilities that are um independent living. So I don't think Yeah, we don't. Anyhow, so do we have any numbers of people calling for lift assist? Do you know in Minitrista? >> There aren't a lot based on the fire
reports. I think it's preemptive to >> right for the um >> facilities for the >> and they're not we don't have repeat offenders like that one park do. So the ones that are calling aren't >> okay. I >> I talked to both Eric and Vicki um over
in Mound and we don't have anybody in the residential area that would meet the threshold to even be charged. Okay. So >> All right. >> Yeah. >> All right. So the only question I would have and it probably won't come up much anyway is I think Craig's not here on the alarm feed or when the alarm finds you know they get a couple free our
freebie and then it goes up. I think that is actually not a 100% sure but I think because they bill or send it to us to bill but I think that's on a calendar year like when you were saying calendar rolling because then if it is a new year then I think they almost do get >> like hey it's a fresh year and I don't know
>> is it easier to monitor if it's what I was more just for tracking >> for tracking okay I'm fine with that too >> calendar >> calendar >> calendar year then okay >> from 1 January to 31 December Okay.
>> And then the unpaid invoices, the rate of interest at the 8%. How is that set or what is that based on >> that? Jasper must have put in there. >> I would have done something I would have done something more like five or so. That's what we do. >> So I don't I'm not sure where he's got that or something.
>> Yeah, we can put whatever we want in there. That's just what was in the or maybe the plane >> ordinance that we originally looked at. So >> I think five is good. We charge on water bills, right? >> Yeah. So that's under subdivision 3. >> Yep. >> B 5%. Okay.
>> Okay. Okay. Any other comments? >> So we have uh All right. >> And then we'll we could bring this forward um for adoption in July. >> And well, so we want to talk I want to talk about the date in July for our
meeting, >> but that's not on our agenda. >> Oh, yeah. Well, so the next meeting we have, we can either we can bring it forward, whatever that date is. And then um do you want it on is it okay to put it on consent or would you like it on business? >> Consent is fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Perfect.
>> Can I talk ask about the July meeting? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, it's scheduled for the second Monday in the month. So, usually we miss the first. That's our standard. >> The fourth and no one's going to be here. >> Yeah. folks. So, no, it's usually the
first first and third. And this, for some reason or other, it was logged in as the second Monday for our one and only meeting in July. I'd like to do the 20th instead. That would be our regular third Monday of the month. Does anybody
have a issue with that? >> I'm fine with it. >> I like it better. I like it better. >> It kind of stays with our schedule. Is there >> true? I just never >> Well, you're out voted. >> We have three. We have three.
>> It doesn't matter what you guys think. >> I think we should be fine. >> Yeah. On the 20th. >> On the 20th. >> Okay. >> So, does that work for you? >> My phone's thinking, but it probably is. >> Okay. All right. So, what do we have to do to move that?
>> Um, let's see here. We just need to notice it correctly. I mean, we have we do we publish or we'll put it on our website, but we'll just have to notice it within the three days, which is what we do anyway, >> right? >> Yeah, we have the one that month. So, plenty of notice. What's the first?
>> I'm good. For the 20th, >> July 6th. >> We don't have a meeting then. >> Why don't we just do that? Why don't we have it on July 6th? >> No, that's right after the 4th of July. >> Everyone's on vacation. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I won't be here. >> I won't be here yet. >> You won't you can tell for >> All right. Hey, it is the 250th
celebration. All right, so we're going to move it to the 20th. All right. Um, let me know if we need to do anything besides that. Okay. Now, on to the tobacco ordinance review. >> Yeah. Thank you, uh, mayor and councel.
Um, as you all remember, we last year placed a moratorum on the establishments or expansions of tobacco shops. Um and so working with Sarah um at Kenning Graven, we have a draft ordinance here that um basically um based on the
discussions that were was had with the moratorum um the direction for Sarah was come up with the most restrictive ordinance you possibly can that is allowed in the state of Minnesota and this is what you have here. So, um, the ordinance does prohibit
licenses for businesses that are primarily engaged in selling tobacco products. So, no tobacco shop would be permitted uh within the city of Milita. Um, we did um offer the the caveat there that grocery stores, convenience stores,
gas stations, or similar retail establishments that would be approved by city council would be able to sell tobacco. Um, but as you'll notice in the ordinance, there are buffer distances that go along with that. So there again, it's it's technically allowed. Um, but
uh there are there are buffers and restrictions that go along with that. Um, it's my understanding that the current grocery store we have in our community does not sell tobacco. Um, and so it didn't sound like I I think Jasper had a conversation with the manager and it didn't sound like they had any
interest of ever doing that either. So, um we should be pretty good. We don't have any uh gas stations obviously in our in our community either. So, um but if if if a grocery store or a convenience store did did want to do it, we do have the buffer restrictions that
go along with that that would uh uh be looked at if they were to do something like that. So, other than that, like I said, it it uh is as strict as it can be and does not allow uh for the primary use of tobacco products being sold at a store. Um, and uh, like I said, it's
about as uh, restrictive as we can be uh, within the state of Minnesota. >> Okay, thank you, David. >> Yeah, >> questions. >> Okay, looks good. So, you want to bring that back um, also under consent um, for
the July 20th meeting. All right. >> Y >> um, and then we have our budget levy consideration or discussions. I'll hand that over to Brian. Yes, Madame Mayor and Council, I can start that. So, gosh, 27 seems like a long ways away, but it really isn't, I guess, right? Or I don't
know. I guess we got to start looking ahead. We we got our audit done last time, 25, we're in 26, and we'll start looking ahead. But um yeah, the main uh reason for this uh discussion or right off the bat before we really get into it in August is to see I guess what the
council thinks as far as parameters while while laying out what some of the different whether they're commitments or whether they're you know potential items on the horizon for 27 or you know things that are existing or or future items. Um so I tried to lay that out starting I
think it's on page 25 of the packet. Um it's a little different year as far as the last few years the the union contracts it's always a three-year contract. So we're going into a a new um I guess contract for 27 28 29 or you know hopefully be a three-year contract
I think is the plan or but um so that's open right now as well as obviously the uh you know the assoc or I guess the non-union um adjustments as well. Um but some things are I guess you know we're starting to be talked about you know referenced there at the bottom of page
uh 25 the the fire contracts we you know there'll be obviously discussions that uh uh staff and council members will be involved in there as far as where those are going to go. Um I know there's been uh there'll be some upcoming information on the cafeteria plan other benefits. So you know that'll be brought to the
personnel committee and the council. Um so those are some of the first items. Um you know there is the comprehensive plan update there going into page 26 there. Um that'll be some dollars budgeted there for that. That obviously hasn't had to be budgeted the last few years. Um inflation, who knows? I guess I mean
I guess some of the CPI is a little high right now, but we know where that ends up at as far as you know fuel costs and other things like that. So that's was the first section there. Um then a transition. >> Brian, can I just ask a question real quick on the compensation that 3%
increase? What about the unions? And I I'm hearing that a lot of the um police departments are getting a much bigger increase than 3%. >> So this is 3% of the total levy. So it's it's so you're looking at almost different numbers. Our levy is close to
that, you know, $8 million. So it's 3% of that where it's taking into effect that I think I've >> plugged in something higher than that for the union contracts at least for, you know, a ballpark figure. But that's the difference is 6% of the levy not really 3% of just year-over-year on the
personnel cost if that >> makes sense or >> the so that also for that one the cafeteria plan other benefits the estimated impact of 100,000 what is that based on >> so that um and maybe Jasper can speak more to that but in other years that's been
less and we we've kept our pretty much the you know what we offer >> employees right now that 950 for quite a while so I think that's more of a what potentially could happen there is why that at least is a little higher number budgeted there. I think last year's
number might have been 3540,000 or something, but based on maybe that family number needing to be bumped up, I >> um so this is going to go to personnel committee. So that this is kind of a planning number um based on some of the
averages that we had. I had to give Brian something. So I'd rather put something in and then take it out later, >> right? >> If that's what we want to do. So >> okay >> could be whether you call that potentially highest scenario or you know it could be hopefully less than that but at least it's something that depending
on what like the personnel committee talks about and then ultimately brings to council. >> Okay. >> So >> all right comprehensive plan update. Are there any funds from Met Council? I know not for us but I know for smaller cities. Can't
we pretend to be a smaller city? Okay. >> They call us a smaller city. I know. >> Well, that Yeah, that's that's in including even taking some from the general fund, some you know, a little bit some from utilities as well as and then some David said most of it would be probably in 27 there will be some
that'll carry into 28 or so. Um, so that's those numbers and then I think think this has been discussed with council but as you know right now we're at about that 40% fund balance they're in number two but you know as expenditures go up in order to keep that we have to pretty much put money to the
bottom line. So that you know could be in that 100 to$120 $150,000 range based on um where our expenditures land. So so that's something to keep in mind. So that's really the general fund impact there then is subtotaled
and then you know the last items there are the I guess more of our capital items the roads and the you know ke equipment plan um you know we have been putting money to the roads levy and then now we've sort of done additional levies for the 2023 bigger projects and on the
2026 will come online next year. So we we are putting more money to roads it's just some of the some of it's been you know dedicated debt money versus actually into the roads fund. But then I, you know, I did want to point out the road fund is at about two 2 million. I think we've talked about that. >> That's the fund balance. >> That's the fund balance in the fund. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The levy is more the
the actual levy that went into the fund this year is 400,000, but the fund the balance in the fund is is 2 million. So, >> um so we, you know, might have some flexibility there, but obviously council can decide how much money they want to you put into that for the annual um
aotment for 2027 as we get into that. Um and then >> so you're figuring um pre Okay. How many dollars are you figuring? >> Well, so right now I mean I guess if you look at what we've done the last several years. So the I mean right now I think you know I thought you know we'd maybe
bump that up. You know we have been adding 100 to 150,000 you know so that would bump the the cash levy up to like 500 525 but then knowing that we have that 135,000 for the 2026 project coming online for 27. So really that's that's new money that'll have to be levied for
next year. So >> right, but I'm saying there's a difference between 100,000 and 150,000. Oh, so you're saying 1.3 to 1.8. So let's just let's just for say 1.8 right now and then we can figure out >> there. So yep. So that's that one. And
then um we'll be talking at our um staff level this week about the the capital equipment plan and that'll come to council in August. Um, but that we've been levying about or for 26 we levy 250,000. We've been trying to increase that, you know, by 50,000 a year to get
to try to get away from having to do an equipment certificate. I mean, we may not be able to do that for 27 with just I've seen the initial drafts and >> um, you know, we will have the other part of the water, you know, project to bond for in 27. So, you know, a lot of times if we're going out to bond for
that already, it's it's not bad to add an equipment certificate to help spread out the levy impact over. >> But if we're trying to get away from equipment certificates, shouldn't we be kind of ratcheting it down so that So, do we have one that's falling off in 27?
>> I think we have one that might be falling off for 50 or 100,000. I'll have to double check, but there's either one that >> just fell off this last year or is falling off for 20. >> Can you check because then be So, here's the thing with everything
that's on here, um, we might want to start with 12%. And then ratchet it back, >> you know. But what I'm saying is if we can look at the, um, equipment certificates and say, okay, this is falling off in 27. We could replace it
with the same amount. What would that amount be? You know what I'm saying? So, so it doesn't increase it by 2%. >> I just I just looked that up. It's 101,000. It's falling off this year or it's the last payment is this year. >> Is this year? So, next year if we did a
certificate versus cash cuz we're we're trying to get up to where we can do cash. >> Yeah. >> Um so, if we did a certificate next year and the payment was a h 100,000, we should be even. Right. Correct. I mean, >> yeah, potentially
>> you're the banker. >> And that would be whether we'd even want to bump maybe the cash levy up a little more too to try to get that base higher. So, I mean, there's different ways we can we look at um >> So, if you did that, so let's just say you did an equipment certificate where the debt payment was 100,000 because
it's replacing the one that's falling off and then you just raised the CIP by 50,000. Now, all of a sudden, it's 300,000 that you're levying every year. Right. >> Correct. Y >> and then it would only be about a.75 a 3/4% increase. Is that about right?
>> A 50 50,000 on a $8 million budget is around 6.7%. >> Okay. I I'm just saying think of it that way. See if you can work those numbers. >> Yeah. And yeah, obviously I think some of the numbers there are based on from the initial drafts of the CIP like it
was in that $750 to a million dollar range. So that'll even something staff will need to talk about and obviously Gary will have us say and Craig and they'll have to say why they need it to the council and you know how that always going cuz >> you know they're going to have to be the advocates cuz I don't know how badly they need this loader this you know two
squads versus one versus three you know so >> okay >> um >> I think the the prelim CIP I think is at 939 right now it's getting up there but we haven't really refined it. >> Yeah. Yeah. sort of just the initial I guess request from or lack of a better
word >> they always say ask for more hope for knowing you'll probably get less. Okay. Um >> so yeah so I guess when you basically to sum that up when you add that all together it's in that you know depending on what we do with the capital you know equipment it's still probably in that
you know 8 to 900,000 you know so you know in that 10 11 12 range for a initial blush um you know first glance I guess. Um and whether that's even you know whether that's fine with city council for I mean obviously for September that's the
preliminary levy you can always the ceiling or the maximum and >> and some of it's going to depend on the union contracts. We may not even have those completed by September. So I would caution that we I'd rather go high and
then once we know those contracts then we can adjust. But if we go too low and then those contracts come in, then we, you know, then we might not have as much wiggle room. But I I'd like to be >> 10 or less. But I think we need to start
out more at the 12 and see where we can what we can do. >> I guess yeah, another question I was going to ask. I assume everyone's still or I guess what is everyone thinking that 40% is I mean that's what our policy says right now as far as I mean I
know I think I've mentioned before some cities go 35 to or the state otter says 35 to 50%. I've always been fine with the 40%. >> 40 I think we need to stay at 40 especially since we're going to be bonding next year again. Um and I know that they they look at that um and they
say yeah you have a healthy fund balance and you you're adding to it. I think we need to do that. >> Yeah, they have commented that our financial performance and being able to stay consistent at that level has been something they >> I get a little nervous when it's below 40%. >> So, okay.
>> I noticed there's nothing for new employees. Uh are you thinking of adding anybody or anybody to police department or that sort of thing? >> No, at this time there are no requests for 2027. But the police already have a
16th officer um budgeted for, right? So that's not and that's going to be in this budget. That's not going to go away. And they actually have to hire two people, too. I think >> we have two vacancies. Never going to be at >> I know. Well, that's all the more reason we have to maybe that's why we have to
really look at our our union contract to make sure that we're very competitive. >> I think there just aren't police. I don't think we're not competitive. There just aren't any. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's tough out there. It is.
>> One. >> Well, we're hoping to add one at least. All right. Did we ever talk about hiring retired police officers um at part-time? I mean, >> yes. >> Okay. >> So, we've I've talked to Craig about
this and it's it's kind of a pipe dream is what it kind of comes out to be. If you get the perfect person that wants to do it, then it works. And that person is highly unlike it's very very unlikely that we'll be able to get them. So, >> um there is they they are I mean they
all talk, right? They we talk to the other agencies and we know who's retiring and whatnot. And um but typically they like to go if they do retire into a less dangerous field, you know, in even even in law enforcement like you'll see them go to be a jailer
or a baiff or at school. We have some retired ones at Providence. They're great. They're the nicest guys ever. >> So >> typically to get back on the road and do that, they they don't >> generally do that, but there are I know one community that has had success.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. So, do you have enough good direction? >> So, yeah, probably and this transitions maybe into the the next item, but the only place that me personally could maybe see and that wouldn't affect the tax levy is depending on where the utilities billing stuff go is whether we
need to add somebody for finance utility additional support there, but that would obviously be something we'll have maybe more data after we get through this summer, I guess. And council obviously would you get >> what do you have in your contingency fund uh budget? uh
>> 50,000 >> right now. I think it's just for the current year it's it's just 30. We really haven't gotten into the operation. I mean, I'd like to bump it up to like 50 or something, you know, because I think we've it it was pretty like 15 and 20. We've gotten up to 30. It would be nice to keep >> cuz that's where we're able to if you don't have to touch that contingency, you're able to help put to that fund
balance number. >> Go to the fund balance, right? >> Yeah. I would if if it's able to work or something and maybe the council's okay with bumping that up, but knowing that hopefully we don't have to spend it or whatever. So, >> the other question I would have is um uh building permits. Are we on track so
far? >> This Yeah, we're going to actually we've done okay for this year. We've hit our our amount for 2026 and as long as we're able to keep Yeah. when we really had ratchet that >> going, David, >> well, conservatively and whatever, which was good. So, but yeah. So, there might
I mean if we end up that might be something where we'll end up in a little better position hopefully at the end of 26 based on that we really had brought that number down. So, >> all right. All right. >> All right. Utilities next. So, you've got good direction. All right.
>> Thank you. That' be a good start for then bringing you know that information in August to council. So, I'm working at the staff level. So um so yeah I guess or you mean transition into that last item then mayor or the >> yeah water utilities. So yeah, I guess
um and the the uh brunt of the information or is this in the regular meeting packet, but I guess uh so I don't know if uh council has that open too, but is was there any more just wanted to bring it to the work session if there was any questions or um
basically the numbers that were put in were were from the 2026 budget process and transitioning from you know the first part of the year was quarterly billing and the base rate was going to be this and then we were going to you bounce the base rate as well as you know the the tiers to the monthly um configuration as of July 1st of of this
year you know um so I guess whether there was any questions on what was included in the packet for that ordinance to adopt to publish that or any other thoughts or >> No I did ran the numbers and um so at a $35 base rate and if somebody used
16,000 gallons so they'd be um 0 to 8,000 would be $6 and zero And then $8,000 or more than $8,000 to 16 would be $9. And you run the numbers and it comes out to about $155 for water on a monthly basis. So, and we were thinking
roughly 10,000 a month is is what an average or typical. So, this would be a little bit higher. Um, >> yes, that's the minitrista average. The actual average is around six, right? >> We don't use 10,000 and I got there's five of us. So,
>> yeah. So, it seems like we that shouldn't be too big of a pill to swallow. But here's the thing. I always say, think about this. Our rates are actually slightly lower than Mounds. And we deliver clean, healthy, drinkable
water to their home, whereas Mound is >> Well, I actually had a discussion with a resident about that. She's like, "Why are rates high?" I'm like, "Well, they're actually not that high." And then if you lived in Mound, you couldn't drink your water. And she was like, "Serious?" kind of like, yeah, they can't drink their water there. So, our rates are good and we're putting in a plan. So,
>> yeah, >> we have an actual structure going in. >> So, if anybody asks you to >> pacify everybody. >> Okay. >> So, and and then >> is there any concerns with the uh
outsourced billing uh having two different cadences for the water and nonwater people? No, we've had discussions with them as far as the ones that will basically get their monthly bills in July and August and then the quarterly staying on quarterly. Is that like your question? Or the one or the ones that aren't on water staying on
just getting the quarterly billing? Yeah, >> that should be fine cuz we're actually reconfiguring or just basically converting the way we basically the first two account numbers or whatever just the nonwater people are going to go from what they have now to the if they look at their bill be 50 and we'll be
able to segregate based on those pull those and just add those into every third month or whatever. So like July and August will be accounts that start with 01 through 49 and they'll get their monthly bills. We'll send that to, you know, info send and then we'll just add
in accounts 50 or whatever, which is basically your your sewer recycling, storm water accounts, >> storm water recycling. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. Um and then yeah, it was even reflected, you know, in the fee schedule. So yeah, the ones that don't have water will stay on because we figured, you know, the sew even the
sewer accounts get $175 every quarter. That's I think a manageable bill in their use. >> Okay. So they if they're not on water, they even if they're on sewer, they still just get quarterly. >> Correct. Yeah. Okay. So, it just be the water users that'll get the monthly bill. It's basically if you don't have
water, you'll stay on the quarterly >> repetition of receiving your bills or cycle. So, and yeah, we that wasn't something that came up with with the company as far as, you know, so basically we'll have the 2,300 accounts in July and August and then we'll send them 3,500 accounts in September and
then repeat cycle. So, that makes sense. The ordinance fee schedule is missing the word gallons after the third tier under commercial. >> Okay. I wonder if that just cut. So just yeah add that in the final publish one or whatever. So >> y
>> commercial we can do that for the clean copy or even I guess notate it when we adopt it too or just that you know or >> um but no thanks for that catch. Um and then yeah I guess the yeah the the late fee would just be I think we even talked about a late fee earlier. will be 5% for monthly. We do the 15% which is
basically you know for quarterly. Um still I don't know if anyone else have any other questions or or cons or comments or >> anybody >> and then yeah one other thing I guess during the work session I was going to
ask I know it came up at the last meeting to start maybe do like a like or a tracking sheet you know by a few different categories. Do we want to start that for July after the last second quarter billing or just start it in August after the monthly first monthly billing? Is there any thoughts
as far as having a baseline or of the quarterly or just start it once the monthly bills go out or I'm fine either way? I guess >> Jul baseline of how many people. So, okay. >> I mean, people are kind of used to Well, yeah, but I might as well start it. >> Yeah, I was just starting July or
August. Just wanted to be I guess or >> get get everyone's thoughts I guess. >> Right. Yep. >> Cuz then yeah, we can coordinate with staff. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um any idea what we have for the work session coming up on July 20th?
>> Oh yeah. Um >> there's quite a bit. >> Oh jeez. Okay. >> Uh let me just read that off here. Um so we have a water meter software update. So, uh, we have to up update our software that Renee uses for processing
the water, um, reads. Um, it's kind of a year and a half out, but we want to get it in front of you. It's not entirely that much, but it's a it's a different process. Uh, we have the comp plan, uh, task force interviews. So, there's a bunch of people that going
to be interviewing on the 13th. Uh, now is the time 20th >> or the 20th. Yes. >> But residents that are going to be part of the committee. Okay. Yep. Yeah. >> Um we're going to do a city council pay checkin because this is the window that we can adjust city council pay before
the election and then have it enacted um starting in >> the last pay increase was when >> 2020. >> Yeah, that sounds before it was >> it was it's been longer than that. >> Went up by like >> it went up before I started. That's when they voted on it. So
>> that was the most recent one. Yeah. >> So it it started in 2021. So, I'll just provide some baseline data from communities around us and then you guys get to choose if you want to give yourself a raise or give >> I guess potentially the three people that will for sure be here in 2027.
>> Um then we have the ATV ordinance discussion. >> Okay. >> And then uh I did confirm with uh fire chief Greg Peterson that he he wasn't able to come to this meeting. He's out of town, but um he will be able to come. I'll have to double check on the on the 20th. >> Sorry. >> Yep. And then we have uh on the 20th
I'll have to tell all the employees that we have employee service recognition. Um I asked them to come on the 13th. I'll ask them to come on the 20th. So >> I think there's seven seven folks that are >> I think there's >> So we're going to do that um during the work session?
>> Uh it's during special presentations meeting. Okay. I think there's I think if I might be wrong, but I think there's 95 years of police um recognition, which is kind of I mean this cycle that are hitting the 5year increments. So that's pretty amazing.
>> Okay. Okay. Then um we can be adjourned until uh 6:30. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Revkin. All those in favor signify with I.
>> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 50. And there's food. >> Yay. >> In the lunchroom. Um, aunt said that Part: 2
All right. Um, it's time to get started. I'm going to call the meeting to order. And this is the regular city council meeting for Minatrista for June 15th, 2026. Um, first order, I'd like to ask that you join me in pledge of 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. >> Welcome everybody here this evening as well as those joining us on watching on YouTube later on. I'd like to start with
introductions. I'm Lisa Whan and I'm the mayor. To my uh right, our uh city administrator, Jasper Krugal. Brian Grim is our finance director. David Ael is our community development director. And on the end, we have our chief of police,
Craig Guersires. And then next to me on my left, we have uh council members Kathleen Refkin, Peter Vickery, Claudia Lacy, and Brighton Govern. And then on the end we also have our assistant administrator Paula Bowman. We have a few people um joining us remotely. We
have Sarah Sansala who is our legal adviser um with Kennedy and Graven. We have an Minerhoff who is our city clerk. And we have Gary Peters our uh director of public works. And who else do we have? >> Uh Allison Fowski.
>> Allison Falski who is our city engineer. So welcome everybody. Um thank you for joining us. I'd like to ask, are there any changes to the agenda or any additions? Hearing none, then is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented?
>> So moved. >> Thank you. All those in favor? Any Is there a second? >> Second. >> I'm just trying to move it along because there's a storm coming, you know. Come on. Um, all those in favor signify with I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes. >> Um,
Stephanie, you don't need to um add anything. Okay. Um, next we go on to persons to be heard. So, um, Stephanie is just here to observe. Uh, we're going to move on to consent agenda items. Are there any you wish to remove?
Hearing none, then it goes, um, A is approve our city council regular meeting minutes from June 1st, 2026. B is a resolution to approve claims. C is a resolution to approve findings of fact and record and the record of decision for the EAW for the property south of
Highway 7, which is 7635 State Highway 7. D is a resolution to approve election judge appointments for the 2026 primary and general election. E is a resolution for the sanitary sewer lining project, approve plans and specifications, and
authorize advertisement for bids. F is a resolution for street improvement project. Approve the task order 18 to prepare feasibility report and prelim preliminary design. G is approved a temporary liquor license for Northwest
Tonk Alliance and H is authorizing the hire of two public works seasonal employees. Is there a motion to approve consent agenda items A through H? >> So move. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Any further
questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 50. You're good to go. Thank you. So, um under we have no um other public
hearings. Uh we have one item under business and that's approving ordinance number 506 which is a water user utility fees update which will take effect July 1st of this year 2026 and then a resolution approving the publication of
ordinance 506 by title and summary. Do you want want to weigh in or say anything to this >> briefly madame mayor and council? So yeah we had talked about this item at during the work session as well as during the uh 2026 budget process. there was, you know, pretty much the uh the
phased in changes to the water rates based on, you know, going to monthly um uh billing in July 1st as well as, you know, just funding some of our uh infrastructure, you know, the uh water treatment plant that's being built right now. And um so this ordinance that's in
front of you on page 106 uh would do that to basically um update the fees from quarterly to monthly for water rates as well as updating the base rate and those tiers by you know gallon usage and um the associated I guess uh utility
rates for recycling, sewer and storm that'll be the rates for monthly versus the quarterly users that will for the uh residents that'll be staying on uh quarter bas or billing. based on not having the water service. >> So, anybody that's not on city water
will continue to get quarterly billing and they So, some of them are sewer, storm water, and uh recycling. Some are just storm water and recycling. Those that are on city water will get a monthly bill starting July 1st.
>> Correct. They'll get Yeah. Basically there'll be a their last quarterly bill will be at the end of June here for the basically the April May June usage and then at the end of July they'll get a monthly bill that would be from you know the July 1st through July 31st usage and so forth I guess after that monthly
>> right and there's a slight increase but we just want to make a note that our water rates are lower than some of our surrounding communities and our water that we deliver to the homes are is clean healthy drinkable water from your
faucet. So, just want to make a note of that because I know some people have complained about their their water rates, but we have far better water quality than some of our surrounding communities. So, having said that, um any questions, comments? All right.
Then, um is there um a motion to approve ordinance number 506, which is the water users utility fee update effective July 1st, 2026? >> So moved. Thank you, Miss Revkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Peter. Mr. Peter,
Mr. Vickery. All those Any other comments or questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 50. And next then, a resolution to approve publication of ordinance number 506 by
title and summary. Is there a motion? >> So, Peter, M. >> Mr. Ricky, thank you for that motion. And is there a second? Second. >> Second. Thank you, Miss Revkin. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed. Again, motion
passes 5. So, we'll move on to administrative items. I'll hand this over to Mr. Krugal. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, members of city council, we have a few items uh to our newly moved meeting work session on uh July 20th. It was on the 13th. We'll be moving it to the the 20th. Uh we have a
water meter software update uh on that. We have the comprehensive plan task force interviews, uh, city council paycheck-in and, uh, an ATV ordinance discussion. At the regular meeting on the 20th, we will have, uh, a recognition of mound uh, fire chief Greg
Peterson and then an employee service recognition uh, kind of program as well. So, those are the things that are on the horizon here. Um, I do have one thing I want to just bring up to you guys. it's related to uh the ability of um uh
developments to use storm water ponds for irrigation. Um there's some things moving u through the Minnesota plumbing board and the department of labor of industry which is a board of the the plumbing board is a board of the department of labor industry. They want
to not allow storm water reuse for irrigation um for a variety of reasons. So, I wanted to bring that up as that's very um pertinent to some of the things that we have going on. There's a lot of opposition to this just from watershed districts to other municipalities and
and um all kinds of stuff. So, there might be a resolution uh that I'll bring forward uh at the next meeting on the 20th um where we don't support this. So, u I want to talk to the building official uh about this first, get some input on that. He's the local authority
um for this type of thing. So, um, but there is a draft resolution that I could bring forward on the on the 20th. So, I think we like that. Um, the alternative, which doesn't make a lot of sense for, um, you know, water conservation is that these instead of using storm water ponds, uh, for irrigation, they would
likely just put in a well u, which would then start potentially affecting our water supply and other water supplies of people who have wells in the community. So um the storm water reuse the the the main issue is the the backflow prevention you know the bacteria
potential of getting into our system um is what the plumbing plumbing board is mostly concerned about. So I think there's things that you know we do and can be done with backflow preventers and just uh separate systems that that can isolate those things. So, um I don't I
hopefully it doesn't doesn't happen as this is something that we use to to try to um curb some of the spikes in the summer for irrigation, but I just wanted to make you guys aware. Um Allison brought this to my attention on Friday and uh wanted to talk to you guys about it. So, on the 20th, there likely will
be a resolution on consent saying that we don't like this move. >> All right. >> How's that any different than letting people pull water from the lake and water with it? um >> separate systems that you wouldn't be inter. They're concerned about it getting into
the the drinkable water in a residential neighborhood. Those on most of those on the lake, they're regulated by so many gallons. If they do too many gallons, they need a separate permit. But it's a complete separate system where we our irrigation systems are completely separate. So, we should be fine.
>> Yeah, that's what I was going to say. >> I think some of the other communities, they're too interconnected. where some of the concerns are coming up. >> I'm just trying to figure out how that would I'm like it's not like it's it's separate. That's >> our only connection is like there's a
pipe going into a storm water pond that's elevated and that's the this you know that's connected to our municipal system. A lot of communities have like a valve that you can switch between the two. >> Um which might be more efficient than putting water into a pond and then having it evaporate, but
>> we we're just generally against it. We want to have the option to be able to to do this. >> Okay. I mean, I guess if we lose it, we'll make a lot more money on water again. >> Well, but but then you're you're you're watering your lawn with very expensive treated water. >> They'll probably, as Jasper mentioned,
they'll have to drill a bigger well and just um or do some, you know, we'll have to cross that when we get there, but yeah, possibly. >> But there's there's a there's a lot of opposition. And I mean the list that I have um I mean it's basically every watershed
district um >> right >> League of Minnesota cities, Stormwater Coalition, Minnesota Farmers Union. Let's see if there's any other that are printed to us. >> Well, we'll hear more about it or you'll bring it back on the 20th too. So
>> yeah, I'll bring it back. That's about our role right now is to tell them we don't like it and then we'll we'll kind of >> All right. And I just want to make note in our packet it says 7:13 is our next meeting and it is 7:20 um is our next meeting. We changed that. So just want to make that put that out
there. So we'll be meeting the third Monday in July which is July 20th. So thank you for saying that multiple times too. So, um that's >> all I have. >> Any other do you need? Um
>> I think I Peter, right? Peter volunteer already. >> Oh, for the uh yes. Yep. >> Okay. Um any council reports? >> Nope. Okay. >> Um yeah, go ahead. >> I had a couple things. Um first off, I
went to Officer White's uh going away party and it was kind of fun to see most of the department all in one place. You know, that's that's pretty rare. So that was that was fun. Uh sorry to see him go though. Um and then uh last week they
started the alum treatment on whale tail >> and um after a day they realized that the uh pH factor in the lake was was dropping too much. Um that alum is is combined with sulfuric acid which sounds
terrible. U but that was uh endangering the plant life. So, so they've stopped and um they will come back in the fall and and do the rest of the treatment uh which then should be safe. Uh and
they're not going to charge us anymore for that. Um so, we'll see. But, um our funding from uh I can never remember all the initials of the state agencies. >> Bowser. >> It probably was. Yeah. Bowser. >> It's probably Bowser. Yeah. Board of Soil, Water
>> is set to expire. And so, um, Brian Beach of Three Rivers is working with them to, uh, uh, extend that. >> Okay. That grant. >> Really need that money. Yeah. >> So, we'll see what happens. So, >> okay. Keep us posted. >> We'll do.
>> Can they How much is it? >> Can they use the Bowser grant funding to pay them the first half? >> Uh, I don't know the details. >> Okay. So, okay. >> But, um, yeah, I Brian seems positive that we'll be able to work through it.
So, he he really knows what he's doing. So, >> yeah, >> keep our fingers crossed. >> Okay, good. Um, so I attended Northwest League and um at that meeting there was um just a legislative um session update or overview. As you can imagine, um much
of the um overview and discussion was regarding the preemptive uh preeemption of city um authority over planning and zoning. And one of the things um they mentioned is that a lot of people don't understand what when we say preeemption,
you know, what does that mean? And so if you're talking to people, please let them know that it's very important that we keep and maintain uh local authority over local issues, especially when it pertains to planning and zoning. And
there's a lot of concern regarding the upcoming um comprehensive plan updates and how that would how this if some of these bills next year go through, how that would affect our comp plans. Met council is concerned about it as well.
Um, so we're we're kind of uh but we need to keep on top of this and we need to continue to talk to our legislators about this and tell them they absolutely shouldn't be passing these kind of laws bills because it's really bad for all of our communities. So there's a lot of
talk about that. We had some um other talks. Uh I didn't know this and I'm sure chief you found out about this that now when you sell or um trade in a vehicle, you now have to remove everything from that vehicle that is
remotely um police um so lights um signage, all of that has to be removed from the vehicle. Obviously, it's because of the Hortman um assassinations. uh that's the reason they decided to do go this route. Um but again, it's just
something we need to be aware of and it's also probably going to add a little bit to the bottom line, but um it's it's for um safety reasons that they that they passed this. So, um those were some of the big things that they talked
about. Um there's Yeah. And then so we had three people there. We had um Patty uh Nman from um the it's called West Metro uh or um Metro Cities, I'm sorry, Metro Cities. And then Anne Flynn was
there from Finn was there from um League of Minnesota Cities and then also Chuck something or other from small cities. So we had a report from each of them a little bit different uh take on some of them but um mostly it was regarding uh
this um preemptive preeemption of uh city authority is what we talked about and how we can continue to battle it. So all three are on board with not trying to um eliminate or trying to stop these bills from going through but they're
going to come back next year. So we have to keep on top of that. That's about it. >> So, any questions? >> Is there any news on the development on 110 here that like was started the trailer one
>> January and >> um nothing significant. They're still in a redemption period that is supposedly going to end in 2 weeks from now. And so once that ends, if that ends smoothly, a
new group potentially would be coming in with uh approvals of the same previous plan. >> So what is the redemption? I don't know what that means. >> There's inner lawsuits >> with the previous group >> that uh brought that forward.
>> So that the redemption period is come up with the money or win a lawsuit basically. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. >> So, it's not going anywhere. >> Pro probably not. Not for a while. All right. All right. Um, then with that, is
there a motion to adjurnn? >> So, move. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Uh, Miss Ruffin made that and Miss Lacy seconded that. Sorry, Peter, you weren't fast enough. Um, all those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes.
We'll see you on July 20th. >> July 20th. So have a good vacation. My tool was on the deck, right?