--------- Don't disrupt the meeting. Um, so first, um, I'm going to call the meeting to order. It is 6:30 and I'm going to ask, uh, first order of businesses, will you please join me in pledge of allegiance? >> I aliance 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. So, I'm going to start with some uh introductions. I'm Lisa Whan. I'm the mayor. And to my left, our council
members, Kathleen Refin, Peter Vicky, Claudia Lacy, and Brian Govern. And then we have on the end, we have our director of public works. We have Gary Peters. And then Paula Balman is our assistant city administrator. To my uh right, I have our city administrator, Jasper
Krugal. And then we have Brian Grim, who is our finance director. And then we have uh David Ael who is our community development director. And then we also have with us this evening uh Craig Squires who is our uh police chief. Uh with that are there any changes or
additions to the agenda? Okay. Hearing none then is there approve um is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> All right. Is there any other >> second? >> Second. All right. Thank you Miss Revkin and Mr. Govern. All those in favor
signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. I should also say we have um our city attorney Sarah Sansala and our city clerk um participating remotely. And then uh so first of all, we have a
special presentation. It's to accept the 2024 GFOA award that was awarded to the city based on Brian Governs and his team's efforts. Thank you again, Brian. Do you want to >> Brian Grim? >> Not Brian Govern. >> So, uh, yeah. No. Yeah. Thank you, um,
Madame Mayor and Council. I'll be brief here, but yeah, I just wanted to, um, say that this is always a, um, a good achievement for the city. It's, uh, basically, um, we're probably one of like 10% of cities, 10 15% that go above and beyond and get get this award with our annual audit. And we've been
receiving that since 2004. So, it's been 20 plus years now receiving that award and um we'll plan to apply again for it with our 2025 audit once that's done. And I'd like to thank also Angie B who's our senior accountant and Renee Newman
and our finance department just for all their hard work and that they put into it and that the city council is also supportive of the city receiving this award. >> Thank you. Yeah, and I know that your team, I mean Angie and and Renee help out a lot too. So, we really appreciate
it because it just adds a little more transparency to our finances and it also helps the council to see what's going on a little more clearly. So, that is greatly appreciated. Thank you and congratulations once again. So, uh with that then we'll move on to our next
agenda item and that is uh persons to be heard. We have uh two people signed up. We have Mark Mason on Sunnyfield Road. Um, for persons to be heard, you need to come to the podium. You need to state your name and address for the record and you will have uh
three minutes to present to the council. >> Mark Mason, 6605 Sunnyfield Road. I wasn't able to make the planning commission meeting, although I watched it on the video and I couldn't hardly hear anything. So, just a point of uh interest for the future.
I've lived at Sunnyfield Road for 41 years. Lived there when the Bakoaks were there and running 10 trucks 260 days a year up and down the road. Um to the public works guys, that road is in great shape right now. I like it. And the
Bakoyaks are great neighbors. Kelly and Steve have been great neighbors. And I'm able to say that the noise level is a lot less than it was. I've spent a lot of time at home since I retired in the last year and a half and it's still very
very quiet there. The uh dust is not there anymore. The room rooms are not there anymore. The road isn't giving out in spring when restrictions are going yet. They still had to run trucks there. So, it's gotten lots better. As far as where I live, I'm just to the
south of the property line. And again, that place has always been a business since I moved in there. And I fully expect it to stay to be a business because that's always been the use of the property. It's not agricultural. It's not well, it's somewhat residential, but
um I like businesses that are small businesses out in Minitrista, and I don't feel they really bother anybody or they've affected the nature of the neighborhood. The other thing is a lot of these letters that have been
written in, they aren't stating facts. A lot of it speculative, saying this is going to happen, that's going to happen, the other thing's going to happen. And I don't think a lot of that's proven. If I was defending stuff like that, I would think everything possibly that I could
think of and promote it and see what stuck. So, you know, as far as that goes, in 2040, I believe Met Council and the city of Minatrista can change the zoning in that area.
So, that's only 14 years away. Are we just going to have Minotarista developed by St. Bonnie or Kings Point or is it actually going to be developed by the high school? There's already infrastructure there. There's a water tower there, lots of land around there.
So, does it make sense to bust the kids from Kings Point all the way to Sunnyfield? I think again with all the lots that are there eventually that's all going to be developed. >> Okay. >> So, >> thank you. >> Yep. Again, of the public works, you
guys are doing a good job. That road is fabulous. >> Is that you? >> That's scary. >> So, thank you. >> Thank you. And then we have Kelly Glasby. Uh do you want to wait until we get to your item? All right. Um that's all the people that
we have signed up under persons to be heard. So we'll move on to our uh consent agenda items. Council, are there any that you wish to remove? >> Okay. With none removed, then uh consent agenda items include approve our city
council regular meeting minutes from I think it would be January 21st, >> February. >> February 2nd, I'm sorry. Um and then approve our claims and then a resolution approving a simple subdivision between
7635 Highway 7 and 4520 Grim Road. And D is a resolution approving an amendment to Park Capital improvement plan. and E is an award uh basketball court resurfacing at Jennings Park. And F is approve a joint powers agreement between
Minnesota DNR and the city of Minatrista for the rehabilitation of the public water access on Wheeltail Lake. And G is a motion to approve the squad computer replacements. All these things were in your packets if you have any questions. Okay, hearing none. Then do I have a
motion to approve consent agenda items A through G? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Is there a second? Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Governor. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. So, next we move. We don't have any public hearings
tonight. And I want to make make um make this clear. There's a difference between a public hearing and a public meeting. This is a public meeting. And the public is invited here. um you're welcome to be here that we encourage people to come to our meetings, but it's not a public
hearing where we are legally obligated to listen to everybody that's here. um if if you didn't sign up under um persons to be heard because of our weather because all of these um issues that are on our agenda tonight have been
brought before us before and they were also in front of the planning commission and we have um emails and letters from residents. I'm going to restrict our or eliminate our public comments on these items tonight. I was at the planning
commission meeting and I will be sharing those comments uh with the council. I also know that the council members uh watched the video um of the planning commission and they're very much um appraised at at everything that was said. And so with that being said, we're
going to move on to our first public um business item, and that is the um IUP for the um 1195 and 1205 Sunnyfield Road North for the uh Glesby Cohen IUP. I'm going to hand it over to David first.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madame Mayor and members of council. Um you covered the introduction nicely. The location map is located on your screen for the two properties in question uh requesting the interimm use permit. As the council probably recalls, this request was pre previously reviewed back in 2024. Um but
the item was withdrawn by the applicant before the council could take any action on the item. Uh the council shortly thereafter initiated the legal proceedings regarding the use of the property and following mediation the applicant has now reapplied for an interim use permit which is where we're at this
evening. When we're looking at interimm use permit permits uh the council should determine whether the use conforms with the zoning and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Some of those key considerations include traffic, environmental impacts of the neighborhood character and the
surrounding land uses within that proposed IUP. Um, as the mayor mentioned, there was a public hearing. Notices were sent out to all properties within 1500 ft. Several written comments were submitted as as the mayor alluded to. Those are part of your packet. The planning commission had their public
hearing on January 26. Um, after receiving testimony, the commission ultimately voted four to two to recommend denial of the request. Um, as such, uh, staff has prepared findings and a resolution before you this evening, um, which would deny the IUP,
the interimm use request, uh, permit. Uh, staff is available for questions if you have any. >> Okay. So, I'm first going to take it um to the applicant if you have anything at this time that you'd like to add, if there's any additional information.
I was not able to print stuff tonight. Um, there are things I would like to add because there is in incorrect information that was given. Um, and I just put a little bit of this
together. It's only a few minutes long. >> Miss Con, could you speak into the microphone, please? Thank you. >> Let me get a little this end. Okay. Um, I did put something together I would
like to read and it addresses some of the incorrect factual information. It's only a few minutes long. So, um, it basically is we are here asking for a decision based on facts, long consistent, not personal opinion. This
has been a commercial property since the 40s. It's not disputed in history. It is documented fact. We understand that due to a single complaint, the city dispute that disputes the status of the legal non-conforming use and that it is the matter being obviously addressed through the court systems right now. Um
what is not acceptable is this decision rooted in factual incorrect information. Even before the very first council meeting, the public agenda listed and again tonight denial of our application before deliberation had even occurred at that first meeting. So, it does not reflect a transparent, excuse me, or
open decision-making process. It suggests a predetermined outcome rather than evaluation of evidence. We've also experienced personal commentary and character judgments from a member of this council in place of substantive land use analysis. We've been informed through the legal council
that the city does not like or trust us comes from your legal counsel despite repeated requests for us for dialogue that either gone unanswered or denied. So personal preference should never influence quasi judicial land use decisions. In regarding to the planning
commission findings, traffic on a daily basis at that property has been reduced by well over 60% and that is a conservative number. During the spring and fall hauling season's activity is approximately 1.27 boats per day. That's fewer than two
boats daily. the heavy duty traffic, garbage, jumps, ripping up and down the roads on a daily basis all year round, that has been reduced by over 99.9% so virtually all but eliminated. This activity also occurs during the
workday when the majority of residents are at work. And then address I'd like to address a statement made by the mayor following the planning commission meeting on the 26th after we left the room where it was noted that they have trucks, RVs, trailers, and boats. For the record, the mayor has never visited
our property. Yes, there are boats and boats trailers on the site. That's consistent with the marine storage operation. The renters have personal vehicles. They drive to and from work as should be expected. And the single RV referenced, in fact, is a privatelyowned
fifth wheel that belongs to our family. So, it's important that observations presented in public meetings reflect accurate context and actual understanding. The environmental portion of it. Haha Creek wershed district has raised no objections. We've responded to every
inquiry. The property has gone under significant cleanup and improvement. It is environmentally much safer and far cleaner today than when we acquired it. So, if an environmental stewardship is a concern, the improvements made should weigh in favor of this application, not
against it. As for the comprehensive plan, the city's own words in regarding to the consistency with the miniaturista comp plan, and I quote, "The miniaturista 2040 comprehensive plan sought to provide the opportunity for commercial and job growth. That's the exact language that was used to approve
a similar outdoor marine service storage operation five doors down from this property." And within the egg district, the city is fully aware that the uses such as boat repair, boat storage, outdoor storage, auto repair, and marine storage all exist.
Consistently, consistency and application of standards is essential. Selective enforcement undermines the integrity of this entire process. Yes, oper opposition emails were circled based on a demonstrabably false narrative, including a letter personally
placed in mailboxes against federal regulations with instructions and a QR code directing opposition. Despite that effort, we still have over 80% of nearby residents who do not oppose us. In addition, we have nearly 50 residents in close proximity,
including those on Sunnyfield Game Farm and West Branch, who support us. So that level of neighborhood support is quite significant. I know that we probably both don't want to be here dealing with any of this. I know you guys don't. I don't. And the
amount of havoc this has created for my family and for me from a health-wise standpoint, which at times has been actually crippling. But I'll tell you what, through it all, this process has shown me some stuff. has shown me that many of the Minotarista residents are deeply
concerned about transparency and fairness in this local governance. It has also revealed an overwhelming amount of support throughout the entire Minitrista community for our business and our family. And most importantly, on a personal note,
it's a strengthening my faith and my connection with God. I know God put us in this situation for a reason and I will continue to walk through it faithfully. While it may appear that some decisions were made before facts were heard, which is the case here, I
remember proverbs to do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than the sacrifice. We're simply asking this council to do what is right, to apply standards consistently, to base its decision on evidence, and to ensure this process reflects transparency and
fairness. Our request is not special treatment. It is equal treatment. And with that, we respectfully ask that our IUP application be approved based on the documented facts, the measurable impact reductions, the comprehensive
plan consistency, and demonstrated community support. And I have a copy of the letter if anybody chooses to see it. I have a few of those. >> You can um >> if there is What's that? Yeah, you can hand the letter to um our officer to
Craig there, Chief Squires, and then if >> we can make copies. Thank you. >> Thank you. Right, council. Any questions of the applicant? All right. None at this time. Thank you, Miss Cohen. All right. So, um David,
could you again walk us through the process? I know we've been accused of not being transparent and I think that's a false statement. Um can you kind of walk us through the we went through a CUP um application um
>> in terms >> and then and then an IUP. So um basically kind of have been through this process twice. Is that fair to say? I mean a similar >> uh correct madame mayor. As mentioned in my presentation, back in 2024, an IUP
was applied for and uh >> IUP. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Turn use permit. >> Okay. >> Um and before right before the council took a vote on that, the applicant withdrew that application. Uh it's been reapplied for. Uh we've followed the standard land use guidelines and
proceedings with public hearings and notices and such that have gone out. um and uh took a recommendation from the commission and now brought that to you for council for for consideration. >> Okay. So, there's been public hearings, people have made comments. Um the
planning commission has heard it. They've they've passed on the comments and and um to the council and and here we are today. Correct. >> Okay. Right. Thank you. All right. All right. Um,
>> council, any questions of staff? >> Uh, I did have a question about uh, so just reviewing since this is my first uh, IUP. um with that when it talks about being consistent with uh zoning, if this was
uh a business that was say storing and repairing uh farm implements, would that be consistent with the agricultural? So if they were they had tractors and harvesters and stuff on that, would would that be considered to be consistent with the uh current zoning on
that? Well, uh, if if they were operating a farm business, uh, there was an actual farm, they wouldn't need an IUP. That's an allowable use, okay, within the agricultural zoning district. So, they wouldn't need any special permissions from the council for something like that.
>> Okay. So, it's so if it was essentially repairing farm related stuff and >> well, >> well, if it was a business, they would need one. Correct. >> But if it's just their farm equipment that they're repairing, then they would >> Excuse me. >> Okay. if they're operating a farm
equipment business, they would need an IUP and you're you're back to, you know, the the decision that comes down to the council as to whether or not is that a consistent use with the character of the surroundings of that that neighborhood. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.
All right. Um I know we all have had an opportunity to uh watch the planning commission meeting. Um, and also there were a number of emails later on this afternoon that came in um, in support and um, so I'm I'm going to make a
couple comments. We're not questioning the character or the integrity of the applicant. That's not our job. Our job is to look at the city ordinances and to apply them in the way that we see appropriate. And I think
that's a fair statement. And when we receive an IUP, each IUP is reviewed on its own merits and on its own on its own. And so there are um Miss um
Glasby Cohen is correct. We did approve um a um operation um on Sunnyfield and we looked at how it would affect the surrounding properties, what would be the the impact to the road, what would
be what are the impacts and and so on. And so we have to look at every application in and of itself. We can't look and say, well, we did this for this person and now that's going to set a precedence for the next one. We we don't
that's not how this works. We look at everyone and we say okay is this the right one for this property for this neighborhood. We also I think one of the planning commissioners stated um you know we do look at residents and what is
their input and what do they have to say and how is it going to affect them. And we've again at the planning commission meeting and at at the um city council meetings and in our packet and the um information that we've gotten, it is an
overwhelming um amount of individuals that have said no. But that's not that's not why we're saying whatever decision we make, we have to base it on the findings of fact. We have to base it on our ordinances.
So whether the killespies are a wonderful asset to the community or whether they're um have great integrity and great that's that's not part of our ordinance and I said this before and I'm going to say it again. We need to base
it on what we the council feels is most appropriate and what what um what we see from our side of the fence so to speak. And I don't think we've been unfair. I don't think we've been non-transparent.
I think we've gone through the process and we've gone through it multiple times. So, with that, I'm going to ask the council, what is your pleasure? Is there any um desire to approve this? >> No. >> No.
>> Um I'd be inclined to approve it. >> Okay. Claudia, just as you said, we have ordinances Um, we've had I Miss Gillespie said there's a lot of support for her, but I I've seen
far more against it. Um, but for me, it's following the rules, ordinances, and procedures, and I didn't see that happen. >> All right. So, is there a motion then to deny the application for the IUP um at
uh I think it's uh 129 1195 Sunnyfield Road um with the findings of fact as presented in our packet. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Vicky. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Are there any further comments?
All right, hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed? >> Nay. Motion passes for one and Mr. Govern says nay. Um so with that um we will move on to our next business item
and that is and that is approving a comprehensive plan amendment at 7385 7501 and 7365 highway 7. Um I know some people are here for some of the um comp
plan amendments and um let's see this one the property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we're going to do that one first and then we have the uh bowl property and I believe you folks might be here for that. Uh no. Okay. Um so
with that I'm going to first hand it over to David. >> Yeah. Thank you again, Madame Mayor, members of council. Um, as stated before you tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment which affects about 162 acres located on the south side of Highway 7
near the Oak Road intersection. Um, you can see the location on the the screen above uh on on the big screen there of the property. Uh, the property the properties in question are currently guided urban reserve in our 2040 comprehensive plan and they are zone
stage development district. Um, with this request, the applicant is requesting that we reguide the properties to residential low medium to and with that we'd be expanding our metropolitan urban service area, more commonly referred to as the Musa. This would allow for development of the
property. The applicant uh is working with Mi Homes and Rachel Development on a concept plan for the site. The proposed development uh is designed to meet the Metropolitan Council's 2050 requirements of 3.5 units per acre overall for the city. You can see the
concept plan on the screen before you. Um I'm not going to spend too much time on this because the applicants do have a PowerPoint presentation that will give you much more information as to how they got to where they are and where they're at um in the process of of this whole uh proposal. Um, in addition to the um
amendment of these properties, we also need to do a slight modification to our residential low category in our comp plan. We need to move the minimum of 1.15 units per acre to two units per acre and that is a direct a directive of
the mech council which helps us achieve that 3.5 minimum. Um, so >> average >> average corre correct. So, this this is the um easiest path, if you will, for us to get to that 3.5 average across the city. So, we've included that in as part
of this uh amendment if it were uh to to be approved. Um staff has reviewed the request and does find it consistent with the goals and policies of our 2040 comprehensive plan. the current stage development district uh zoning aligns with this proposed future land use and
the amendment does not alter the metropolitan council system statements or the forecast that they've set for the city. Um in terms of public input, we did send notices out to property owners within 500 ft. Staff had one uh neighboring property have a uh call in
and we did have a phone conversation. Um we did not receive any formal comments prior to the planning commission public hearing. The planning commission did have a hearing on October 25th. There were approximately nine individuals that spoke um at that meeting. The primary
concern was uh traffic safety and access on the Highway 7 was really the the most of the concerns that were were talked about. Long-term growth planning was brought up as well. Um but following that discussion, the commission ended up voting 4 to1 to recommend approval of
this request and forward it on to the council. Um based on the findings outlined in the staff report, um staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment subject to the conditions that are in the report. I'm certainly available for questions and as I said the applicants um have a PowerPoint
presentation that they can present. >> Okay. So give me just a second and then we'll you'll do your presentation. Can you share with us you said one resident called in and you had a conversation. Can you share that their concerns? Yeah, I think sim similar to the tone of the planning commission meeting with a lot
of questions, but I think the overall um access and >> the access to highway 7 >> highway 7 how that would >> out of what out of Grim Road possibly or what I mean >> just access in general at the time there wasn't a concept plan put together.
Okay. Um so access was unknown. It was just the overall I think uh concern with safety of highway 7 as >> yeah all are well aware >> very well >> safety studies that have been occurring and such. So yes >> then can you also walk us through the
process of of this because I think people are somewhat concerned that they won't have any more opportunity to weigh in and where are we at currently in the process? >> Sure. So yeah, we we held the public hearing regarding the specific request
right now is for a comprehensive plan amendment and and that is it that is to change the guidance of these properties from the stage development to that residential lowmedium density. Um the the next if that is successful our next step is we'd have to submit that to the
metropolitan council. They have anywhere from a 60 to 120 day review period for them to approve it. And if they approve it, we we then have to uh we can bring that back to you and ultimately uh approve that that comp plan uh update.
Um so that's that's the first step in the process. Next would come most likely potentially will be a a concept sketch plan review. It depends on um how things go with the review with mindot and access and those sorts of things. How
much will this concept change going through that process? Um, so there could be a concept sketch pla plan review that would go through planning commission, park commission, and city council. Um, most certainly, as we do with any development of this scale, we require the developer to hold a neighborhood
meeting uh with the residents within uh the circumference of the property. We uh it'd be uh a neighborhood meeting held by the developer. We we require that prior to them submitting a preliminary plat application to the city. And that would be the next step would be a
preliminary plat application and a reszoning application which again would go there'd be public hearing notices that would go out for those um that would go through our parks commission for park dedication requirements that would go to the planning commission where they would hold the public hearing
take comment take written comment um and then they would ultimately make a recommendation to the city council to approve that preliminary plat with the resoning to a PUD. The step after that would be moving towards a final plat uh when they're really getting close to
starting on uh getting work done on the site. Um so a final plat does not go through planning commission and council. That goes straight to you uh planning commission and parks commission. It goes straight to city council. Um and that that would be uh the last step in the process if you will. Um all of this as
um you'll probably hear from the applicant is going to take some time given the scale of this. Um, I'll let them give a little more detail on their their timeline and where they're at in the process, but um, it's it's certainly going to take some time with all the the different agencies involved in what they're they're looking at here.
>> And I I just want to make it clear for the public. We're not approving the this plan tonight. This is a concept. They just kind of want to show the council and the neighborhood kind of what some ideas that they have. And obviously I think the safety we heard this um on the
other application as well. The safety issues and the access to Highway 7 is going to be really important and that's going to be kind of beyond beyond our control. That's going to be Mindot that's going to make that decision and the applicant or the the developer, they're going to have to work with
Mindot to assure that everybody in this development along with all of the other residents um in the area have um safe access to Highway 7. So, those are going to be some more discussions that we are going to have. So, tonight um it's just
they're doing this as a courtesy to us um to present us and talk walk us through what their initial ideas are and we're not approving those ideas. We're just approving whether or not we want to even bring this property into the metropolitan urban service area. So,
with that, I think we have Paul Robinson. Okay. Um if you want to come forward. Okay. Good. Good. Yes, that's fine. Thank you very much. >> Okay, that's the big button. >> The big button. Y >> and if you could introduce yourself,
that would be helpful. Thank you. >> Good evening, madame mayor, council members. I'm Steph Griffin with MI Homes. Uh I'm the vice president of land acquisition for MI Homes. And I'm joined by Paul Robinson, director of development for Rachel Development. Um we're happy to be here tonight to discuss the comprehensive plan
amendment. And I also have on here our simple subdivision application that was on consent tonight. This will all kind of come together as part of our presentation to understand that a little bit better. Um, MI Homes and Rachel Development are under contract to purchase the Acarate owned parcels of
approximately 160 acres south of Highway 7 and west of Victoria Drive east of Grim Road. Um, with over 25 communities in the Twin Cities, um, Metro, notably Woodland Cove, MI Homes is one of the top three
homebuilders in the Twin Cities area. MI and Rachel Development, another experienced developer with over 100 projects and 6,000 residential units developed, uh, have a long history of partnership over multiple projects in the Twin Cities. Our team's experience
in Minitrista includes both development and home building, particularly in Woodland Cove. And in addition, Rachel Development, I just would like to note, is also affiliated with the Charles Cud Company, a renowned luxury home builder uh in the Twin Cities. So, I'm going to
turn it over to Paul right now to walk through the comprehensive plan amendment in more detail. >> We saw this like on the Emmys and Oscars, you know, people kind of >> And welcome back, Paul. I know it's been a while, but you've been here before, so yes.
>> Paul Robinson, racial development. I used to be with the band core group many years ago and worked with Carlson Companies uh doing Woodland Cove over a decade and uh like I said to Lisa when I got here kind of feels like coming home so I really appreciate it. Um my what
>> I'm still going to hold your feet to the fire though. >> That's fine. I don't I don't expect any of us. So um first we just kind of wanted to go through you know why would it be why is this a good property to pick? And so um it's the current 2030 Musa area is very limited. there isn't
much land left. The 2040 Musa areas are starting are also quite small and they're made up of a lot of smaller parcels that are really hard to assemble. Um with the Karate property, we have a willing seller which is always good. It's also right, you know, adjacent to Woodland Cove and it's
really in the urban reserve and next it's in that next stage of development and so it's also has easy access to cities who are in water and so it's it kind of logistically in the right area. Um, I already talked about Woodland Cove. Um, it meets some of the goals of
the 2040 plan. I think it'll also meet the 2050 goals. And then, uh, I think we're pretty well-known development team. And so, I think you have somebody who's pretty reputable with MI Homes, Charles Cud Homes, um, who's also built number of homes in Woodland Cove. And
so, it's just I think it's a well-known team, so you know you're going to be handled and treated well. Um, so I just again this is just to give a visual of where we're at. So we have the the 2030 area like there we go. Um, again looks like a lot of red but that's a lot of
that's lake then. Okay, there's a lag in this and I'm kind of blowing it. I'm going to go back and try again here. >> Okay, >> but anyway, so then we go into the 2040 area which again as I mentioned is just limited. Um, and I did this big screen
so you can see there is a fair amount of urban reserve area. Um, you know, when you look at different pockets in the city and so and then the Aquati property obviously fits nicely into that right next to Will. I was going to blow that up and just look at it a little closer. Again,
here's the Accate property. Uh, we have Upland Farms for across the road. That's more of a rural development. Um, but also we have these three other urban developments right right around in that area. Uh again, we have the water tower and the water treatment plant right at
Wland Cove. A 12-in water main kind of going along the north side of seven, the MCS twin force mains going on the south side and then eventually goes to their force man lipstation which is also kind of a regional benefit. Uh again there's the 2040 and I'm just showing you kind
of see now more clearly all the different individual parcels that make that up. And then finally, here we are with the urban reserve with the Accate property in it. And I know you all know this, but it's just kind of nice to see it sometimes. The
we we at the public hearing, we were going to bring all of that area into the Musa uh that you see on the screen today. With the lot split this evening, we're going to be taking out a portion of that. And part of what happened is we had a a wetland delineation done. And so that's what we we were relying on
initially. Uh and then after the public hearing, we got all our alto uh information back and there was a conservation easement on the property that actually is quite a bit larger than the wetland and basically rendered some of that property for urban development. A little made it difficult to develop it
urbanly. So um now we've split that off and we have a little bit slighter more limited area for the Musa that doesn't abut those west properties. >> Okay, >> does that make sense? >> Yeah. And so that was why the lot split so that then we can kind of just >> So then it'll be nice because it would
there would be a buffer. >> There's a buffer to the grim road folks. >> To the grim road. Okay. And then um >> go back to the I'm sorry question. So below the green and then to the west of the yellow is that park property?
>> Um >> show me what? Yeah. >> You're talking about this? >> Yeah. >> No, that's not >> okay. That's their Okay. All right. All right. >> Okay. >> I thought it was your priority.
>> Okay. >> Real life citizens. >> And and we'll you know what? I since it's one of you, I'll give one of you an opportunity to say a few words since you're going to be right next door if that's okay. So, um but we're also going
to require you to do a a neighborhood meeting and so you'll have plenty of to them as well. So, >> where does it drain to then? Does the property drain to the >> You give me just a second. I'll >> Okay. All right. All right. I'm sorry I interrupted you. Paul, go ahead. >> Okay. And so, if we go through public
hearing comments, I think you know um David, you went through basically most of them, but um again, a lot of lot of comments about traffic, which makes sense, right? We're on seven. Uh we we are meeting with Minda. We are working through that process. And I don't know if you brought up the EAW, but another
piece of this has is that right we're working through an environmental assessment worksheet or and in that is a traffic study and and so that will be also informing uh your decision in the future and how all the access works and on highway 7. Uh we had there's
questions about sewer water capacity. I think Allison was able to answer some of those not at the hearing but in general that there is capacity available. Um the again the grim road we talked about that there would there be a buffer now to those folks. Um there is there was this
concern about loss of rural character and being pushed out of the steeling and again it's in the urban reserve and it was guided toward future development. So I think that was just really the response at that and um questions about why you know the 3.5 acres which has been sort of a new mech council mandate
as you all know and maybe you helped fight that back. It was >> we fought it. It was four units. See you at the break. Now it's 3. >> I'm in a community that went from 8 to 14. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And um and then I just wanted this
is a disclaimer on the comp plan. I think you already or on the concept plan. You already kind of said this. It's an early draft, right? This is we're trying to give you an idea of what we're looking at doing, but it's we're going to get informed by your comments by maybe Minihaha Creek or other governmental units, some additional work and due diligence that we're doing. But
we did give it a good shot and we did study the property. So this isn't a willy-nilly concept. This is an actual real concept that could be built. But I think it will be changed probably over time. And so again, the karate property in red and just this is just giving some idea
where what's around it. So we have the three park district obviously to the south. Um we have Woodland Cove over to the east. um a lot of just larger single family lots to the north and some existing farms to the west primarily and then uh the res the commercial area in
Woodland Cove and then some on Highway 7. So when we look at a property we look at all of the constraints of the property. So in this case obviously highway 7 and the rightway that's going to be need to be dedicated for that is a significant one. Um we get it we went and delineated
the wetlands. This is the area of wetlands and buffer. Um on the as shown there's about 21 acres of wetlands. Uh we we will do a tree survey. We haven't done that yet, but on aerial photo you can kind of see this is generally where there are trees. So there will be some tree impacts. I mean
we are saving some of the forested area. It's fairly limited. It's not like covering the whole site. Um not like Woodland Cove which is more woodland, >> right? Uh and then we obviously look at the existing topography and how does that affect the drainage and where do what
does the water go? So um there there's two primary low spots. There's another low spot I didn't show on the east side but it's a very teeny little wet uh watershed area but the lowest point is at 940 in the north. So eventually all the water gets up to that point and then
goes west >> and um >> seems counter you know >> it does you know it seems counter >> but then the high point of the property and you can kind of see the color it goes you know greens yellows up to red so that just kind of follow the color up to the highest point is a 1046 so
there's um 106 feet of elevation change on the property which is again it's very similar to wooden cove that was about over 100 feet there as well although that was a much bigger property and And so then how does that affect water flow? So we have uh water that's coming
into the site uh across uh seven right up in the north kind of comes into that wetland and then for the most part most the majority of the water goes to the west. Um it follows that 966 where I have that label there and goes into the wetland and then um goes north and flows
again up to that 940. So you can kind of see how the water kind of flows off the site and then um This is just in general, you know, some of it. Obviously, the everything flows from the high to the low. So, and down into the wetland complex and then out
>> and then in total we have about 18 acres of of ponds. And I I kind of went fast, but that what all that does is kind of inform us uh about where the ponds should go. And so, when you see the concept plan, it kind of makes logical sense that they're at these low points before the wetlands, before the water
leaves the site. And again, we're going to be looking at this again. This >> and these ponds could change in size. I mean, we haven't done a complete storm water management plan, but we're but we have a pretty good feel, right? Like where where this has to happen. And this is the initial steps.
>> Um access on seven, you know, obviously one of the big issues. So, we look at the current accesses, right? Grim Road, Upland Farms, Oak Road. We we proposed the high point. We had an early meeting with Mindad and they we did get some initial indication that that seemed to make sense to put it in the center and
at the high point of the of the site. Um we also are proposing a right in right out just to help alleviate some of that pressure on that on that area. Uh it won't you know so um and provide another access in and out to the site. And then again, this is just the location of the
sewer and water, which I kind of talked about earlier, the that water man on the north side, and then the twin um force mains on the south side going up to the lift station. Um and then we take all that information, put it together, and put together a concept plan. And you'll just kind of see it sort of emerge from the
bottom here. And and that kind of makes sense how we fit it into the site that we have. And now I'm going to turn it over. This is our part of our tag team. and have uh Stephanie go through stuff go through the uh >> and again all this is preface it on whether or not Met Council approves the
amendment. I mean so >> if you want to approve it all tonight that's fine. >> Yeah. No, no, no. That's not going to happen. You're going to kick it off easy. No, it's going to go through the process and uh we're going to and I'm sure there'll be some changes. So >> yeah. >> And and I think too important to note you were at the planning commission
meeting and we heard we we have been we were working on this. what we were waiting for at that time was our alta and our title commitment. There was just a lot coming together at that time, which is part of why it's taken us from October till now um to to get here. But I think it was really important to show
a site plan that was well thought through. A site plan, as Paul mentioned, can be generally engineered and and built, but obviously there's going to be feedback and and much more taken into account as the process move forward. So I I will just quick touch on um kind of
giving you a vision of of what we see the home types being. I think it's really important as we're talking about a comp plan amendment of how does this come back to the comp plan amendment. This comes back to the comp plan and and how we meet the goals of the city, which just to kind of reiterate a couple of the comp plan points that I think are
important to as we talk about um uh home types is Minatrista would like to attract families to homes with yards for for kids and families. At the same time, Minitrista's comp plan says they would like to provide a variety of housing styles to allow residents to remain in
Minitrista throughout their lives and support their efforts to live and maintain an engaged life in the city. So, I think that's what we achieve here um with a variety of housing types all in the same context of that net density, that key number of three and a
half units to the acre. So, we've designed this site um with all the characteristics and constraints that Paul has discussed. So, I'll just start with on the west side here. Let's see if I can get the clicking done right. We intend to have uh town homes both uh these would be our two-story town homes
both with uh slab on grade. And then here you see walkout uh basement the clicker works. Then those would be the uh slab on grade. Just how the topography works there. Uh our town homes begin at about 1,600 square feet and go up to just around 2,000 square
feet. And then we come to the east of the on the site here and we would plan a range of detached single family homes. These ones we're looking at right here would all be MI homes uh similar to what you see in Woodland Cove. So a range of
different uh lot sizes. What this allows us to do is provide again a variety of housing types for a variety of needs and families. Um, and we would also provide twostory and single level living uh all detached single family homes with a
variety of two and threecar garages. Um, a mix of basement and slab on grade. And these home sizes range about 1,700 square feet all the way to above 3,000 square feet. And then as we get down to the southeast portion of the site, this is where we
envision um really taking advantage, this whole site really does take advantage of the beauty and the vistas and maintaining a lot of the natural uh beauty the site that site does boast. um this side as we get closer to the park which is bordering us to the south. Um
we envision this being a Charles Cud company more of a luxury um renowned kind of luxury home site for um likely one level HOA maintained luxury villa living and I know that is also in Woodland Cove as well. Um, and so as we
get to put it all together, oops, sorry, >> the clicking is really challenging. Uh, as we put all of it together, you can see everything coming together to that 357 total units. And we're going to go to the next slide and show you how this
all comes out with a net acre calculation, which is so important, tying it back to this comp plan amendment. How are we meeting met council's requirements of the three and a half units per acre and also meeting the city's needs and desires through your via your comp plan.
So we have the 147 gross acres just again this is approximate concept plan stating the asterisk again uh we're going to take out wetlands and buffers ponds and out lots as well as the right of way that would be required for
highway 7 and we net approximately 99.3 acres. That gets us to around the three and a half 3.6 units per acre that we're going to need to meet for Met Council's requirements. Again, yeah, important to note what we are this this density is important to note too
that we do I mean we this will need to be worked through as we work through the process here that this does net out um pond outlots. So something that might be uh a little unique here um and those would have to be in a public outlot in order to be removed from our our density calculation.
>> Okay. >> All right. Okay. And then we got I'm going to keep moving here for you so we can just tie this up. I think just important we have very limited wetland impacts on here. Roughly 4% of all wetlands. Um so we're really trying to
conserve those. And let's just get through buffer along Highway 7 was also considered in this and getting us as Paul had mentioned some significant open space um totaling almost 50 acres which is about 33% of the entire gross area of the site
we go and I think we already kind of walked through the timeline so I think David did a great job of explaining the process again early stages plenty more opportunities one thing um just to note we heard a lot of questions of when would first homes be there. At this
rate, we would expect starting development spring of 27 first homes beginning in the fall of 2027. >> So, you have to put in some infrastructure first. >> Just a few. And important to note too, the environmental assessment worksheet is really a key here too that will be a
a process that we are already well underway on. >> Okay. So I think that I will try to just keep it short and sweet and >> okay stand for any questions and let Paul join me if you'd like. >> Do we have any questions? I again so one of the things that was on the bull
property that's but similar I mean it's you know that came up uh by the planning commission and I did mention and I think Paul mentioned this just so you are aware we have very few um lots and units available and as you know we're building
a very expensive water treatment plant so um we would welcome um a few more units um they won't come immediately but they'll this seems seems like good timing, but the other thing I think that needs to be pointed out is we're on the
cusp of having to update um and um um update our comprehensive plan. And so this is really um only a a year or two ahead of the game, so to speak. It's not like this is this could be postponed for
another 10 years. That's probably not going to happen. Even if this isn't approved right now, this is probably going to happen within the next year or two. Um I I think that's fair to say that this would be the area where we would add more MUSA and and so where we would expand the MUSA. Is that fair to
say, David? >> I think that's a lot. I mean, yeah, correct, Madame Mayor. I mean, we do have another comp plan update coming up and as you said, our inventory is low, so there there is a need for the through that process to find more land. Um logically, you you work around in the
stage development areas where you have your utilities. So, it would not surprise me that this area or or others around here would be part of that >> part of that. And also, um, we're we'll be on the hook. The Met Council will determine how many units we have to
incorporate into our comp plan, into our updated comp plan. And so, with that said, then we have to look around and we have to say, okay, we have this land available, this many units available, and we have to put in X number of units. So this is um something and the these
are willing sellers, willing um developers coming. So again, we're not jumping the gun by eight or nine years. We're jumping the gun maybe by two years. Um just just so we're aware of that. Uh I think um that's that's
something that we should be cognizant of. So any questions of Jennifer or Paul staff? Um all right. Thank you. I'm just going to ask a quick question of the neighbors that are right next door to
this. What are your if you can come to the podium and just answer a quick question. What are your primary concerns? If you or you have none, you have none. But there you go. You're covered.
>> Mark Segar, 4705 Grim Road. Okay. Um, so I represent our family. >> Okay. Okay. Um, we've been farming there for 145 years. Um, >> Wow. >> So, it's easy for
you guys to come in and and I don't mean you got the money coming in commission, you know, I I get it. But this is land that we've worked our whole life. >> Our families through generations have worked this whole life. and then you
know it doesn't mean as much to you guys >> to come in and and deal with that but and I understand the development that you all have to go through and and do what you have to do >> right >> okay >> so and I get it it it's a timeline of of
what's going to happen it's the future I get it >> um I guess otherwise besides all the other issues that have been brought up my concern is if I and step away a minute. >> Sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, we are here. Okay. >> Mhm. >> This is all um pasture land. >> Okay. >> Okay. This entire area, this of course
is going to be the issue of importance. >> Right. Right. >> We have 30 head usually around 30 head of beef cattle out there. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we >> do they move a lot. What >> do they move a lot? I know. Seriously, that's that's a good question. And that
tra that sound travels and Okay. Okay. >> Only in the fall when they get rid of the babies. >> But the the issue is so fencing around the area is is um adequate at the moment. Okay. Um, it
will need to be upgraded and I'm not that concerned about the cattle getting out. Worried about the residents getting in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, obviously I mean, >> right, >> I don't want but like trespassing,
>> right? >> Um, noise levels of um all sorts of I mean >> where >> right >> my home is, I cannot see that area from there. Okay. >> So, is there is there have you ever put
anything of thought >> I have to ask a question >> what we can do kind of minimize the something to keep that from happening. >> Mark, some of these are exactly the
reasons why we require the developer to have a neighborhood meeting and um find out what your concerns are and how they can address them. And we we had to do this with um Woodland Cove Development and they had a um a meeting and then
people and you guys would want to be there and give them all this information because not only are we concerned about you and what how it's going to impact you and how we could possibly um minimize that impact, but we're also concerned about the new residents that
are going to be there and how they're going to how they're going to be affected or how they need to understand what the limit what their limitations are. So, if I could um to kind of move this along if you don't mind say you need to sit down with a developer and
and then and even if staff I don't know if usually staff isn't there but if you wanted if there's only a few people you could meet here at city hall and you could go over your concerns because we too are concerned about that. I'm not we're not >> I'm just bringing it up. That's a good
good points. And I know we had those same issues um with the Turtle Creek development. I don't know if you were here at that time, but they buted up to a farm and and we had same issues. I mean, same concerns. So, I'm sure we'll be able to work them out hopefully. So,
so thank you. But thank you, Mark, for those comments. And again, um the sketch plan is a sketch plan and those concerns are going to be addressed and we'll um walk work through those. So, >> madam, hopefully. >> Yes. >> Yes, Sarah.
>> Yes. >> Um yes. Um I just wanted to point out there is a right to farm law and that protects farmers and ranchers from public and private nuisance actions. So basically that protects them from if somebody's complaining about the noise or the smell um you know basically the
city can't take action against them because they were there first and they have the right to farm. So that's just something to keep in mind here. >> Okay. Good good point. Thank you Sarah. Thank you. And that's something I think the developer needs to be aware of as well because they need to make every
because they'll want to make an effort so that their new residents are aren't impacted as well. So, um, we'll work through that. All right. Um, then any other questions at this time? Again, this is high level, just the Musa amendment. All right.
>> How's our water capacity for 357 more homes >> when the new when the new plant and clear well storage are? >> That'll have to be addressed with this development. We'll have to look at piping being brought all the way down from the new water treatment plant into this development. So, that's something
that will have to be addressed. capacity. >> I I think that was the plan. >> That's the plan. >> Yeah, we had a 20 2050 plan and and and the other good thing is um you were saying 2027 28 um new homes would be
there. So, the plant should be done by then or very close to being done. So, uh that's the other reason I think we're um in a time frame that really would work for for everyone. But good question. All right, any other questions?
Otherwise, um, is there a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment at 73857501 7365 Highway 7. This would be the Accate property. >> So moved. Thank you, Miss Refkin. 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. So you will be in touch and um you will be in touch with them. So all right, thank you. Next um we have another
comprehensive plan amendment at 9400 Highway 7 and I think so I'm going to first hand it over to David and then the applicant is here if you wish to add anything. All right. >> Yeah. Thank you again, Madame Mayor and members of council. Same request for a
different property 9400 State Highway 7. Uh location maps on your screen. uh bo it's the kind of the bottom southwestern corner of the city of Minatrista right on the uh county line if you will between Henipin and and Carver County uh
there's 68 acres that is uh part of this site uh this property is currently guided permanent agriculture in its zoned agricultural preserve uh as similar to the last request they're requesting that we regu the property to residential low medium and expand our
Musa area to allow for future development Um, in this case, the applicant is working with Brandle Anderson on a concept plan, which is on your screen. Again, similar to the last one, this is a concept plan. It'll go through all those same stages as we just discussed with the neighborhood meeting,
uh, so on and so forth. Um, the plan that's being presented to you on your screen this evening does meet the density goals as we've been talking about at that minimum of 3.5 units per acre. Um, and they're achieving that with a plan that, uh, is being presented. Um, similar to the last, um,
we do find that that is consistent with our 2040 comprehensive plan. Um, there is a slight difference here. This property is currently guided permanent agricultural, but if some of you will recall back in our 2030 plan, um, this property and the one next to it was
actually in the urban reserve. Um, we so we did at one time plan to have these properties um, in in the same state as what you previously just approved. So, um it's not too far of a stretch uh to to change the designations here for
future urbanization because that was part of our 2030 plan at one one time and point. Um again, this does not alter our metropolitan council forecast for the city or our system statements. Um similarly, we had notices uh go out within 500 ft. Um, similar to our last
request, we only had one call from one of the adjacent property owners uh with staff and a discussion similar discussion about um traffic uh future uh growth in the city and th those sorts of conversations. There was no written uh
comments submitted. The planning commission held their hearing on January 26. Several people did get up and speak and again very similar uh in nature to our last request. This is on State Highway 7. um largely the the big elephant if in the room if you will.
There's um lots of concerns and and talks and studies that have been going on there with that. Uh similarly, they're going to have to work with MDOT on this. Um it's already been brought up as a concern. There's only as proposed there's only one access to the site. Um
preliminarily there's been some talk about you can see the narrow strip that goes down to Highway 7. There's been some very early conversations about is there an opportunity there to gain a just a right in right out type access point so you have more than one. Uh but
again without without the the property next door developing it gets pretty limited to what you can do with access to to State Highway 7. But as we said we'll have to work with MDOT on that to figure out what they're willing to allow or not allow there and what makes sense from a public safety standpoint for
ingress and egress to the site. Um the commission did vote 60 to recommend approval. Uh based on the findings in the staff report, uh we are recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment subject to the conditions and uh just like our last one, we pending your action tonight, we'd send this on
to the Met Council for review. >> Okay. Thank you. Um >> can I just ask something with the Met Council review? Do they usually approve them? >> The Yeah, if you're following the guidelines, correct? Yes. Yes. Um, and so the difference, little bit of difference here, this this property
doesn't meet the threshold of a EAW, whereas the last one did. So, this one might go a little quicker. Uh, they have to go through their EAW process. But, um, yes, I mean, then that's why you have to put a concept together to show that you can meet the the requirements
and we're we're following their guidance too with change changing some of our categories. Um, so I I would suspect um we've already had much contact with them at council and our reps and showed them these plans and been working with them on making tweaks. So um I can't
guarantee it, but I I would um think that they would. >> Okay. And I know the um there's a representative if is there anything you need to add or would like to add? Do you have a PowerPoint? Thank Thank you.
one you just saw, but I can talk about a lot of the same items. My name is John Anderson. I represent Brandal Anderson Homes. Uh Brandle Anderson Homes is a local builder, been in business for quite a few years. They're based out of Burnsville and they build about 75 to 100 homes a year. Um some of the closer
projects that they're working on right now is they have a site in Carver that they're just about finished out with. I think they about dozen lots left in there. They got a new site in Chanhasson which has the villa product and the town home product that you see on this concept plan that's currently under construction and they'll have houses
going up there probably midsummer and a new site they're going to be developing in Mononia as well which is a 56 lot single family project that'll be a summer project as well. So a lot of stuff in the Dakota Scott County areas also. So um basically we have done a lot
of the background stuff like wetland delineation, tree inventory, the alta survey. Uh we don't have any title issues or anything like that that we're dealing with. Uh we do have the wetlands delineated. There's one very small one up in kind of the very northern thing. It's a farm wetland. I think it's like a couple ten of an acre and that's the
only one we're projecting to impact. Uh there's most of the site is a farm field. So there's not a lot of trees that'll be impacted either. Maybe along the backyards. We might touch into a couple little areas like on the kind of northwest side of the site, but overall it's pretty much open at this point. Um
we have been talking with the city along with we've already met with Minihaha Creek wershed. We've talked with Mindot about the access points and some of that discussion. We've also looked at, you know, like I said, the DNR uh for wetlands and different things of that nature. So we've kind of gone through
that, looked at our soil borings. Everything's looking pretty positive from a a design engineering type standpoint. Um, this layout here currently shows uh 233 units. That' be 110 of the larger single family lots, which is the yellow product on the map.
Uh, 52 villa lots, which is kind of the orange. And then there's a townhouse is on the south end kind of closer to Highway 7. And that's 71 units. Um, as we are working into our details on our engineering, which would be ponding, uh, working with the water reuse for the irrigation for the site, there are some
tweaks that are being made right now with grades and elevations and different things like that. Uh, we have looked at how the roadways will also stubb to the property to the east and I know that property is not part of this development, but some point in time most likely that will be developed. Whether
it's a year from now or 20 years from now, we just don't know at this point. But um the big one that we've been dealing with is uh Mandot. Uh we are going to be upgrading uh Buck Lake Road. Technically that roadway is a Watertown Township road in Carver County. So that will be upgraded uh paved. We've um had
initial discussions. Don't seem to be any major issues with that long term with Mandot. The access point um the rightin right out through that little stub. Uh that's looked at as possibly a temporary right-in. And at one point in time, uh, the property to the east
develop, uh, there is proposed to be another access point kind of down the south east corner of that site. It's right where Wildwood Avenue and, um, Hunter Trail come together. That would be a full or a threequarters intersection on Highway 7 based on their
law that would extend north and probably tie into the the middle access point. So that's where we would have a long-term secondary access. At that point, if that right in right out is constructed, that would most likely go away at that point and could be replaced with a trail
access tying that development out to maybe a future trail on Highway 7 or something like that. So, specific details, we're not quite there yet, but we're getting closer. Um, so we do have, you know, all that's being looked at and in the design. Another item that we've been dealing with is the sewer uh uh
lines and things like that. There will be a lift station needed uh for this property. And if you look in the middle, there's kind of a middle pond that's kind of touching to the wetland area, kind of the northwest of the site. We're expecting the lift station will be somewhere in that location or adjacent
to that. And talking about drainage, like you did earlier, pretty much most of this site will drain to the northwest, then it kind of loops back around back to the east as it gets further north. Uh there's a few areas on the edges of the properties that might drain different directions, but the majority of property and all our storm water drainage will go that direction uh
at that time. Um, overall this site does meet the the the new threshold for the MAC council. We're approximately 3.7 units an acre right now. So, a little bit above that 3.5. Uh, to achieve that, we did have to have the um like town homes and villa
product, which is very similar to what you've seen in the last layout, having a couple different types of products. >> So, you'll have competition. >> Uh, yeah, they'll have competition. >> Yeah. >> Build faster. >> No, no, we're very excited about this location. And Brandon Anderson Homes actually was one of the builders way
back in the Hunter Crest days. So they have built in this community before. It's been quite a few years uh when that was all built out, but they were one of the original builders into that project. So very very familiar with the location. Um basically uh you know that's something
that I think we know you know kind of where we're going and like I said we're here tonight to ask for the comp plan amendment which is kind of the first step. Uh we know we'll be scheduling a neighborhood meeting probably I don't know maybe in the next month or two is kind of our plan as we get a little more of the details worked out because I know we are tweaking a couple of the
locations of some of the villa lots versus the town home lots due to Greg there's a lot of up and down in this site as well with the hills out there and it's easier to put the town homes on a flatter site than a hillier site. So we're trying to get them in the areas that you know to limit our gradient so we're not you know moving dirt all over
the place save a little money that way. >> Mr. Emerson, have you had a chance to talk to any of the surrounding properties yet? >> Uh, we have have talked to some of the neighbors to the west. Um, I know at the planning commission meeting when we were here, I talked to for quite a while afterwards. >> Okay. >> And, um, you know, obviously the biggest concern is traffic out to Highway 7,
which I think you heard from the last one as well. >> Um, you know, we are going to be upgrading those roads and have been dealing with Mandot on that. So, we have, uh, I don't want to say a final this is what we're doing, but I think we have an understanding where this is going. Obviously, we have to submit a permit with any application through them
and we have to meet their requirements. >> I think their their issue was um where the road comes out to Highway 7 and there's a big hill. That's one of the things that they mentioned and how that is going to be addressed. Um so that that's something you'll have to be talking with the neighborhood about. Correct. Um
>> and we have been looking at that with MDOT and Okay. >> discussions we've had as far as all that. So >> I'm sorry. When you say you were talking to Mindot about it, the Buck Lake Road, are they talking about just leaving that as a general intersection or doing a roundabout or what?
>> Um, right now I think it's just the the thought is it just be a general intersection where we'd have the turn lanes like a normal roadway. Longterm it depends what happens. You know, for instance, west of Manitrista in Carver County, there's some properties over
there and I know with if you look at where our lift station is and what areas could be potentially served by that, it could serve quite a bit area to the west as well with the capacity available and and how that would all flow. Now, not saying that's going to come into the city anytime soon or anything, but long-term if MDOT looks at, and this is
kind of what the discussion I've had is that road might get shifted west a little bit to offset that. Also, with where that lines up, if you were to make that a full intersection to the south, you would run into the Hunter Crest neighborhood. So, you have to shift that to west to make that a full intersection
to begin with. But for the time being, as this project goes, you know, where the location is, it's my understanding this is a site that or a location that would work. And then as longterm development happens, you know, potentially to the west there, um, which might be decades, who knows? Then maybe
that gets shifted at that point and there's a whole new intersection or, you know, whether that's a roundabout or a threequarters. I'm not I don't know that answer at this point. But that is >> I think we'll have to Yeah, we'll have to look at that because I think that's really important because if you're going to have how many homes here?
>> 233 is the current that could shift one way or the other a little bit. >> That's that's a lot of >> Yeah, it's going to be a lot of traffic in and out. So, um we'll want to make sure that everybody can get in and out. Um not and also the existing uh
residents there that live on Lake Ro. So >> um yeah, I think that'll have to be a >> big discussion. >> We have to meet the requirements of men do and you know whatever needs to be there for capacity on that. >> Allison for the highway 7 coalition. Was
that intersection talked about ever? uh that intersection was not we've uh we kind of ended the the discussions at at Wildwood and and Hunter Crest and and you know I think the last time we talked about it looking at the the 3/4
intersection at Hunter Hunter Trail with this with this property coming in and looking at um you know potential once the property to the east develops looking at that connection to Highway 7. I think that would be probably the the the full access point would make more
sense at Hunter's Trail. Um just off the cuff. Um and then as Mr. Anderson indicated is is looking at the next inter the next intersection being pushed potentially to the west. But um you know certainly this is is is down the road so
to speak um when it comes to improvements on Highway 7 corridor. And I've also had conversations with Mindot about that study in and Buck Lake um road and kind of the comment was we wish we would have added it but it's past that time now and it's one of those items that it is what it is I guess.
>> So >> they've got a lot of work already in the corridor that they already selected. So we will and they don't have enough money to even do that. So um timeline >> uh yeah so timeline um basically our plan is like I said we don't have to do the we don't meet the EAW threshold like
the previous project. Um so our goal is we're working on design stuff right now and we do hope to have a neighborhood meeting here in the next say 60 days and then be looking to submit you know plans to the city for uh review. And our goal is to have dirt moving out there yet
this year and hopefully have some ability to get a couple model homes at best case scenario or worst case scenario um up going this fall before winter. So we could have a spring kind of opening next spring with those model homes. So and we're looking at approximately as of right now about four phases that could adjust depending how
the market and sales go. Um one other point I want to make about this property you have the new city water tower directly adjacent to the south. this property or that water tower site was actually purchased off of this property by the city a few years back when they put that in. So, this is kind of the
remainder of that parcel at this point. Um, so water obviously water uh lines and you know towers right there sewer lines. We're working on that. >> It doesn't just because you can see the tower doesn't mean that water is available. >> But we have
>> um we are looking at the sewer. There's a sewer in Hunter Crest has sewer down there and we are working with that right now. I've submitted a >> a kind of a concept plan. We're actually meeting with the Hunter Crest wershed I think it's Tuesday next week or not wershed homeowners association. Okay. H >> to discuss you know all that and talk
about you because we do have to connect them into a manhole and just let them know what's going on and try to find the best route and the most um or the easiest way to >> I think you have to talk with St. Bonnie as well. >> Yep. >> Yep. So okay. Yep. So, so yeah, that's where we're at, I guess. Um
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I think you're you're going to be challenged with the Highway 7 and the access, a safe um access for everybody. So, um keep that in mind. >> Yep. No worries. >> We'll try and come up with a really good solution. Um I think staff and engineers
and everything will hopefully be able to all work together to come up with the the best solution for everyone. So, um, that's always been a big issue, um, with the Woodland Code development, and I know it's going to be for for both of these, uh, developments. So, all right.
Um, any other questions? So, this is the first step and and a few few more to come. Um, any other there's no more questions or no more comments. Um, is there a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment at 9400
Highway 7? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Vickery. Any further questions, comments, hearing? None. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. So,
next, uh, speaking of streets, uh, we're moving on to our, uh, 2026, uh, street improvement project. Good news. Yes, Mayor Whan and members of council, um we had good news. We had um we had the bid opening for the project and
>> Alison, just a minute. >> And I apologize for being late. It took me almost an hour to get here from 41. There was two semis that were coming out on a shoot >> on a truck. I missed that. >> Missed housekeeping. All I can anybody
that was late only loses two points. I was late to the work session because of it. >> Yeah, it was a nightmare out there. So, >> yeah. >> All right. Well, um here we are this evening. So, just a quick background. Everybody's pretty clear on this, but um
just wanted to go over the scope of the project. The map here shows the streets that are included in this year's project. We identifi identified these streets based on the pavement conditions and then had corores to go and uh confirm the scope of the work. majority
majority of the project being a milling overlay and then there's portions where um we will have to do full depth removal and replacement. So here's some uh examples recent uh photos from recent projects showing
what's been done. Uh Trillium Lane and Windridge Trail uh were both done this year. Um I mentioned the the street work that we'll be doing. We'll also be doing some spot curb and gutter repair. Uh we'll go out and mark that up after uh we get the spring thaw in there and we
can identify what what curb needs to be replaced. Um we included a bid alternate for the unders seal of game farm road which is where you essentially do like a a seal coat in between the two layers of pavement. Uh there's been some good um
some good research showing that that helps uh increase the longevity of a road and with it being a state aid project um or portion of that road being state aid uh with a portion of that cost would be state aid fund eligible. So we thought that that would be a good
alternate to include um in the bid package but the portion that's going to get the under seal is not part of um our MSA funding. Correct. >> Um, no, it would be >> it would be. >> Yeah, we went we did the, if I recall
correctly, we had a underseal bid for the whole for the whole length of game farm. >> So, the portion the portion that's that's state aid that's a state aid route is eligible for >> just the portion that's Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yep. So, we included that as
a bid alternate. We also included trail improvements as a bid alternate. Um and then as well as pedest uh but uh included in the base bid would be pedestrian ramps because that's required by the ADA the federal ADA requirements.
Um and then we also have utility improvements included within the project. Um in the base bid would be to put inflow and infiltration barriers and sanitary sewer manholes. You can see a picture of that in the top right hand corner. You know just I know I know you guys love seeing those pictures so I
like to include them. Um, we also have some culvert work on game farm road based on some recommendations from public works. We included that as the base bid. And then we also included an alternate for the hydrant replacement. You can see on the bottom photo there,
there's a hydrant in the walkway. Uh, we included a bid alternate to move that to the south side of the road. Um, and and we'll keep the council posted. Um, if council wants to pursue with that option, um, we did get a good price on that. And just today, uh, public works
director Peters and I were talking about we might want to look at moving that, um, re keeping that relocation on the north side so that we're not going up against a retaining wall. So to be, um, discussion to be continued, but um, we did get some good prices on that and
want to get that hydrant out of pavement. Yeah. Um, a recommendation I should say to get the hydrant out of we want people running into it. um for kids jump over. >> So, we had a bid opening last week. Uh
we received six bids and um included in the packet and on the on the table here. Um this is the total bid that includes a 5% uh construction contingency and a 20% indirect cost. So, you can see here we
had uh before we opened bids, we were just over 3.5 million in our estimate. Um if that's and that's with all three bid alternates. If we look at all three B all three bid alternates, uh Northwest is the lowest at two just over 2.7
million. And if we um we included W and Mueller um as as a um as an opportunity to look at um if we don't do bid alternate one um they they came in at 2.7. And so I wanted to have a bit of a
discussion with that this evening because they had um I talked to them after the bid opening. I said, "Did you have a data entry error?" And they said, "Yes, we did." And the trail cost. Um so uh so as you can see their their price um for the trail improvement that uh is
much higher than what we saw for the other uh for the other bids. And included in your packet is a summary of all the bids received. And you can see that the trail improvements were I think between 27 and and like 35. I have that on a later slide here. So I wanted to
include um the the lowest two bids for discussion this evening um because staff recommendation um based on the staff recommendation um we're looking at not putting not awarding bid alternate one and I'll go into that in a little more
detail here. So, if you look at the difference in the base bids between Northwest and WM Mueller, um you've got about $79,000 um cost savings with Mueller's base bid. And then if you look at the bid price
range that we had for bid alternate one, it's between $25,000 and 37,000. So what staff discussed doing is if if um if bid alternate one is not awarded with this project, we have the plans to
do the trail work and um public works director Peters did reach out to a couple contractor that he's used for trail work um in the past and they would be interested in submitting a quote and so we talked about instead of doing it with this project that we would have it
as a quote instead. um with the contractors that um Mr. Peters has been in contact with and we would certainly ask if Mueller would like to submit a price to that, but we can't do it as part of this project because that would be um violation violation of the of the
competitive bidding. >> Well, and actually it's good that we did these alternates because you can take out alternates and you can say no, we don't want them and we'll do them later or whatever. That's correct. >> Right. So, I think that's that was a good call. >> Okay. So, are there any questions on on the math here? I I was I I kind of went
through the slide a little too too much longer um than I should have, but I wanted to demonstrate um the math behind the the recommendation not to award bill but alternate one. And we've t I've we've spoken to both Northwest and Mueller to talk about what the staff
recommendation is. So there's there isn't any surprise um in you know if they were to pick up the packet and see what staff recommendation is. We did we did chat with them >> and Mueller has worked here before. We've worked with them. Yes. Yep. Mueller was here in 2023. They were the
paving contractor for the reconstruction project. And then the next year in 2024, they came in and got that that project in and out very quickly and efficiently. So, >> so they've been a good Northwest has been a good contractor too. They did the Sunny Field Road project in 2020.
>> Yep. >> So, we would do base bid and alternate two and three. >> That is staff's recommendation, >> right? for a total of 2571478. >> Yep. So I have that on the later slide, but I just wanted to quickly go through um because we are uh proposing to assess
a portion of the project cost and the one of the actions here for council this evening is a request to call the assessment hearing. Um so it's the accessible portion of the project is the full depth removal and replacement of a portion of Game Farm Road that's just to
the west of um the water treatment facility. And so we have um there we go. So this is a map from um that was pulled from the feasibility report um that shows the parcels that were proposed to be assessed. And then I just wanted to note
that parcels three and five um have been combined. So the the the proposed assessment for parcel 5 is now zero. Um and that was that was based on um if council recalls from last year's street improvement project, we had a
couple property owners that did that. So um we were proactive in this instance and and reached out to those property owner this property owner and they opted to do that. So, um we are looking at proposed assessments capped at $10,000
based on the um special benefit analysis that was done for the 2023 street improvement projects. If um we did not cap those those assessments, I would I would estimate I did a quick calculation today. Um the the assessments based on
what we received for bids would be just over 16,500. So, even though we got some really good bids, um those assessments based on on the city's assessment policy still would exceed $10,000. So, well, and I know we we keep saying we're going
to be running into this because um of construction costs and and what the actual improvement value is to the properties. And so, that's why we've been using the 20 23 um numbers. And I think that's fair. That that's, you
know, so anyhow, I think 16,000 would just be way over >> way too much. >> Yeah. Way too much. All right. So this um this slide here shows the proposed funding based on staff's recommendation. So we're looking at funding sources, multiple funding sources. Um the
majority being from the city of Minotrista, the street improvement fund at just over 1.6 million. Uh we do have state aid funds available for this project. um coming in at an estimated $700,000 and then other funds um special
assessments which I just went over as $140,000 per the recommendation and then city of mound for that western portion of w pardon me the eastern portion of west edge um that came in just over 55,000 um and and we've been in contact
with their staff as well and and again as as we discussed last time um before we request council approved the contract. Um, city staff here and and we'll work out with Mound to make sure that we have that pinned down that they're they're okay with that cost
share. Um, and so that's that's our estimated funding through here um at just over $2.5 million for the total project cost. >> Okay. So, with that, we're here is here's our schedule. Um we're here this
evening um to so council accepts bids which is does not require an action but because we are uh with a 429 project um we would um request that council call the assessment hearing which um a resolution to that effect is included in
your packet and with that oh there we go. So, but why wouldn't we want to award the the contract or the bid? >> Um, >> we we're accepting them, but why wouldn't we want to award it? >> So, um, Mayor Whan, um, certainly the
council could award the the the contract. Um, however, as I mentioned, I I recommend that we have everything ironed out with the city of Mound before the count the miniaturista council award the project and that we have all those details ironed out for that funding
source. And we would have to do that by a certain time otherwise the contracts or the the bids are that's basically null and void 60 days. Is it 60? I was thinking use 30. Okay. And so then when will this come back? Like you're thinking March 2nd or um Febru March
2nd. >> Yeah. >> 16th March 16th. >> I just messed this up. But it would be that second meeting in March 2nd. Okay. just because of the the advertising requirements for the assessment hearing >> just to do it all in one meeting.
>> Oh, you want to do it all in one? Okay, >> that's fine. We wouldn't have to, but I'm just I'm more concerned about the contract being awarded. Correct. And we've we um at the bid opening um I did did state that we were looking at that second meeting, I gave the date to the
to the the contractors on the call that that's the date that we would be looking to award the contract >> and they're okay with that. >> Okay. All right. So, um, my apologies. I I I went through I hit the back button. I thought, oh, wait, maybe not. There we go. >> It's not working right for a lot of
people today. >> I just have sticky fingers. Right. >> All right. Um so included in your packet as I mentioned is a resolution and we are um the the the staff recommendation is that the council approve a res resolution declaring the cost to be
assessed ordering the preparation of the proposed assessments and calling for the public hearing on the proposed assessment um for the street improvement project. >> And do we have to list the date for the public hearing for the assessments? >> Um it's it's in the resolution. Um the
city attorney might want to clarify if that has to be included in the motion. That would be appreciated. >> Then maybe just one other clarification that I assume everyone saw in the packet the proposed interest rate at the basically was for our policy the with one bonding the 5.5. >> Are we going to have to bond? That's
what I was going to ask. Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. >> 20-year term at the 5.55%. Everyone was fine with that's pretty much following our our policy or whatever. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Clara, any comments? >> Um, no. I think it's fine as long as it's in the resolution. You don't need
to put it in the motion. >> Okay. So, when would that date be? Do we know 16? >> This would that be would the public hearing for the assessments also be on the 16th? >> Yeah, I think March 16th, right? >> So, why don't we just put it in the res in in the motion? I mean, if if we know
it's going to be the 16th, then it's just another publicformational thing. So, >> I think that's the intent to have the public hearing and a lot of times we've adopted the assessments the same night or the contract and >> Okay. If it works do it all one night. >> All right. >> Oh, Mayor Whan, if I may.
>> Yeah. >> Um, if I just realized I pulled this from a past resolution and I did not update that the city council hearing um would be held at 6:30 p.m. on March 16th. in the included in the packet it
says 7 pm. Um so if it's if the council um would be so kind to make um yeah a motion to that effect. >> All right. So first of all um number D here says we're going to receive the bids for the 2026 street improvement project city project number 01-26. So
first is there a motion to receive the bids? >> So moved. >> Thank you Miss Refkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you Mr. Govern. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5. So, next we're um a resolution to declare costs to be
assessed and order the preparation of proposed assessments and call for the hearing on the pro proposed assessments which will be $10,000 per perc improvement projects and that hearing will be held at on 16th of March 2026 at
6:30 and those um then they will be notified. So, is there a motion to that effect? >> So moved. Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Vickery. Any further questions? Any comments? Did we cover everything? And then we'll also be
awarding uh the contract at that time as well. So, all those in favor signify with I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes. We'll be bringing back the a resolution for the contract at the 16th. So, we don't need to actually include that in this
motion. So, all right. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah, good news that it's um a lot less than we thought. So, that is great. Uh next we move on to staff reports. >> I don't have anything. Madame Mayor, >> you don't? Come on. What do we do today?
>> I thought you were going to talk about that. >> Okay, I'll talk about it. All right. >> You talk about it. >> Well, if you I can talk about it if you'd like, but >> Sure. Quickly. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um Madame Mayor and I uh went to the state capital. We beat the snowstorm a little bit. little bit of track uh you know snow coming down but
um we met with uh representative uh Marge Fogelman from district 21B. She's on the uh House Capital Investment Committee. >> She's one of the co-chairs. >> She's one of the co-chairs. So that if you remember that's a the House split. So we have two chairs and two co-chairs,
one Democrat, one Republican for for each one. So we met with her. Um we had a very I think a very good conversation. We pitched our project. She didn't really She didn't know about our project yet, which um you know, we've been talking about it for a few years. Uh >> kind of disturbing that she didn't know about it.
>> Yeah. Well, now she does. Um and but there is good good feedback. You know, she was comparing our project to some of the other projects that that she has heard. Um and gave us the feedback that this sounds like it's a, you know, potentially a better bang for the buck, higher priority. >> You know, we're being reasonable with
our ask. We're not asking for the whole amount. we're asking for, you know, less than 50% of our total total cost. Um, so she seemed open to it. Uh, you know, the feedback we got was, you know, she's not very optimistic about passing a a bonding bill. Um, and we just asked, hey, if there is a bonding bill, you
know, we just we want to make sure that we're considered, you know, about our project. So, I think it went well. Um, I have a follow-up email to send with her. I'm updating all of the 2026 you water rates. um the kind of table that I have if anybody's interested in seeing that um you can uh there's quite a wide
variety of people way up here and communities way down here. So I mean I think just from from my rough recollection there's some that are averaging around $265 a month um all the way down to $35 a month. So you get a big wide range. Um I
think when we're talking about using about 10,000 gallons a month here, um we're at about $101. So pretty significantly more than what we were at. We're on the top end of the spectrum. We're probably in the top 15%. Um so and that's in 2026.
2027 we'll likely have to continue to increase rates depending on how revenues come in. So but I think the meeting was very >> Yeah. Yeah. that's development will help because it'll put a >> connection fees >> connection fees um area charges and then
user fees as well. So that'll all help a little bit. But um I think you know the the takeaway too and if anybody asks or talks to you about our increased rates, keep in mind that a lot of communities base their sewer rates on how much water
people use. So and their their sewer is is based on their water meter. So, we don't do that. We just have a flat fee for for sewer. So, if you use a lot of water, you're you're not paying that much for sewer. So, I mean, it kind of averages out or helps a little bit in
terms of of our utility charges, but >> I just tell them we're building a $21 million plant with no state money. >> Yeah. Right. Well, we're trying. And we have some other um ones coming up next week. Um Jasper and I will be attending and trying to convince them. So we have
about and then we also on March 11th we have I think you'll be there at the capital day we have several um lined up to meet with um senators and representatives on that day as well. >> Council member Governor will also be there. >> Oh okay. Sorry I >> we do have for that meeting just so
everybody knows we do have two we have um uh Senator uh Papus and we have Lee. Okay. On that date, and Senator Papus is the chair for the Senate uh capital investment and then uh Lee is
the co-chair for the um House um uh capital investment. So, they're two important individuals. So, we'll uh be meeting with those and that's again if if a c if a bonding bill is passed, we don't know yet. Generally, this would be a year where they would pass a bonding
bill, but um we don't know. It's it's an election year, so nothing might happen. So, we'll see. We'll do our best. >> Lee, is that the same one we presented in front of last year? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Or not. Or the year before. >> No, you the one that you and I with Andrew went to. Yeah.
>> Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah. Um, but then I'll kind of piggy back on that. I'll go. >> Sure. >> You're done. But any other staff? Do you need somebody for planning? >> No. For parks? Nothing. Okay. All right. Anything else? All right. Um, so, uh, I
was at Northwest League and, um, I'm now the chair for Northwest League. Big whoopy. So, um, and it was just a a city updates and it's nice to kind of share information and so on. Of course, I shared our water infrastructure and there's a couple other communities that
now have to build treatment plants and they were shocked and I said, "Yeah, welcome to the party." So, so we're not the only ones in this this uh game. So, the other thing is um uh I got a email from Andrew Meyers and he asked I don't know if any of you probably all got it.
What are our uh priorities? What I told him I think our council would think our priorities are bonding money number one and hopefully he can push forward and help push forward a bonding bill um and that we would get some of it. Um, number
two, I said, um, local control over local issues because the housing and zoning is going to be another big issue. Um, I've been talking with not only Andrew, but also Senator, um, an Johnson Stewart and, um, that's another big issue. The other one I also mentioned is
that we really need to look at um I asked if they could figure out some kind of a bill that would help cities that are in joint powers um agreements or working on JPA for fire districts or for fire because across the state uh there's
going to be these these discussions and one of the issues that we're running into right now is the fire relief funds and we have to be able to fix and merge them and that's that can be a a big um financial burden. So, we're looking at that. I kind of mentioned that that
might be something on their radar screen. There were five things I mentioned and I can't remember all of them, but I think they were all um priorities of course um public safety. I also asked them asked him if we could get more money for our um transportation
management organization for Highway 7 so that we can continue to um promote safet um improvements on Highway 7 for um safety improvements. There's two different coalitions. One is the public safety coalition which Craig is a part
of and that's more for policing and for police issues if you will. um and they address uh current safety issues, speeding and and um driving without uh you know whatever all all those issues. That's a different coalition. Our
coalition is more focused on how we can um attract attention to Highway 7 by MINDOT that will then address the safety driving safety issues on Highway 7. So that was another one I asked if they could promote a bill for that. Um,
that's all I remember. So, sorry, I'm going off the top of my head here. And then I've I've had a few other meetings with um different elected officials and and talks again surrounding the needs for Minatrista. So, that's it.
Um, Jasper and I attended the Mound Fire Commission meeting um last Thursday. Uh, the chief position has been posted. They're going to start interviewing candidates for Chief Peterson's replacement. Uh, they moved up the timeline by 3 months. So hopefully they'll get someone in about April. So that'll be an overlap between the new
chief and when Chief Peterson retires. Uh because they moved that position up three months. They pushed back the deputy chief position that was approved 3 months back. Um so that one would look like to start September October versus mid year, which makes sense. Um I did
ask Vicki when she plans to retire. Um since she's does everything for Chief. So we knew they'd be somewhat close in timeline. She said she will stay 12 to 18 months after Chief Peterson retires. So, that's good. Um, really good because she knows how everything works and all
the computers and all that. So, it'll be good to keep her as long as possible after that. Um, they did get their actuarial for the pension fund. Um, they the relief fund chose to increase their payout to 7,100 to match St. Bonnie's.
Um, so their fund is now 105% funded. um they will not get rid of their monthly payouts. So the by our district meeting uh that was supposed to be yesterday was cancelled and I foresee the >> all of them being cancelled between now
and when the new chief starts >> probably >> and then cuz same money is also going to be getting a chief at some point. So I'm assuming it's just permanently on hold now. Um but they will not stop their monthly payouts. The mindset at that meeting was that St. Bonnie, you should
just accept the monthly payouts, which St. Bonnie won't do. Um, so again, that's at a standstill. Um, Andy Drilling, um, he's in charge of the relief association. He did reach out to the state, I want to say Rose, is that her name? Rose. Um, to see if
there's any way the state could help so that they could split the relief fund and have it one set up for the monthlies and fully fund that and then take the rest for the other. so we could split it. Um they're going to add that to their discussion points. Um and I know
um I think um Representative Danny Nadu is on that and um I know Danny so I was thinking of calling him and talking to him about this too. So that might also be helpful. But yeah >> and and just so you know and so every you you know this um you know this um so
a reminder too I forgot to say this. So on the 26th we're having our um strategic planning session and then afterwards we're doing the joint um joint meeting and we'll be talking about fire at that meeting too. So we'll get more details and I think the fire
chief's going to be there. >> Yes. >> Okay. So so um besides Kathleen's report now we'll also have more time to um get more information and digest it a little bit more. Go. Sorry. >> No, you're good. Um, just a reminder,
there's only 23 fire departments in the state that still do monthly payouts. So, >> yeah. >> Um, Mound currently has 38 firefighters. Uh, they just added their first female one. So, that's awesome. Um, they added 13 firefighters in the last 18 months,
but lost 14. So, net, they're down one, but they're happy with 38. So, that's doing good. Total calls for 2025 were 779. Of that, 54 were duty officers and an additional 28 for mutual aid calls. Again, the off the firefighters all like
the mutual aid calls because they're fires, so that's they like responding to those. Um, so for a total of 807 calls, which equaled 10,788 hours. >> Um, of the 807 calls, 494 were medical
and then 313 were fire. So, kind of going to the work session of why the lift assist um ordinance would be a good idea. Hopefully lower the >> a lot of those a lot of those medicals are >> lift and a lot of frequent flyers. >> Yeah. >> So, flyers
>> everybody can do that would hopefully drag down that number a little bit which would be good. Um great news for 2026. WAFTA got federal funding which Chief Peterson has been working on for like 30 years. >> Yeah. >> Um they got 1.2 2 million, which is a
great start. Um, the total cost to clean up the site will be 2.3 million. >> But they also have some funding. >> They do. They have $416,000 in funding. So, with the 1.2 million, they're going to start phase one, which is around $900,000. >> Then after they get that, they'll see
what else they can get done. And then they'll likely go to Excel and Centerpoint and ask them to give money because they also use the site. So phase one will get started which will be great. >> I'm not familiar with that. Where where is that? And
>> the Nike site up um >> Oh, it's the Nike old missile missile site. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. >> So, they will start the clean up on that site hopefully soon. Um they're doing ISO testing which is their rating. Um
St. Bonnie is also doing it this year um in the next couple weeks. So, they'll be basically both getting rated around the same time. Chief Peterson, uh, for the hydranted areas, they're a three, which is good. It's out of 10. Um, he figures they'll stay a three. And then the other interesting news is Shane Gardner was
mound firefighter of the year for 2025. He loves him. He's great. He came over from Long Lake. So, it was a good meeting. It was short. It was actually under two hours, which is rare. So, it was good. >> Okay. All right, Peter. >> Well, I have tomorrow night. They have
the pioneer creek meeting. >> Hopefully better road conditions. >> No. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Other than that, nothing. >> Of course you will. Gary's guys are going to plow and make him all wonderful for the morning commute. >> I saw him going by.
>> All right. Claudia, anything? >> Not really. >> Okay. All right. And Ryan, >> nothing for me. >> Okay. So, um, any other reports, comments? Okay. Hearing none then, um, all those in Is there a motion to All those in favor? I'm trying to rush this thing. All
right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Thank you, Peter. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Claudia. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes 50. Imagine that. >> Okay. >> Everybody wants to >> I didn't pull something. and Part: 2
I would, but you know what I would do? I wouldn't just stop. I would pull in front of the car that was stopped and get off onto the shoulder. This car literally stopped in the middle of Highway 7. Oh jeez. >> Talk about the I learned that I was caught behind. It was literally his blinkers on just idle the entire way
down seven. >> Oh my god. Oh my god. >> And actually, I got lucky. There's a truck couldn't couldn't make it up the hill at St. Bonnie. >> Yeah, that's what somebody was saying. Yeah. that on 92 because of that hill. You were saying that, right? >> Yeah. That's uh
>> you have to get a really good running start. >> And it could be 90 cars. I'm likewheel drive. Why are you out right now? Like why? Where could you possibly need to be? >> I drove the I drove our truck in four-wheel high. I was smart enough not to take my little tiny Mazda, you know,
with my with my high performance summer tires on it. Yes. Right. >> Right. When I lived in Dallas for 13 years, it would snow and I would literally be the only one in Morgan. Like, what is wrong
with you? They're like, "What are you doing here?" Like, there's a half an inch of snow on the ground. >> All right. So, we're going to start um now for the fire department budget. Um is anybody going to be here for that? Is Eric going to be here? >> No. So that's just an item where we look
at there's a there's an overage. So it's >> that's fine. All right. So we're going to start um I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the uh February 18th uh city u Minotrista City Council work session and it is uh 5:06.
We're we are starting late but just for the record it is um snowing out and the roads are horrific. They're very bad. So, uh, today this evening, um, I'm Lisa Whan, um, the mayor. Also council members present are Kathleen Refukin, Peter Vicky, Claudia Lacy, and Brian Gn.
And then we also have Jasper Krugal and Brian Grim and, uh, um, Paula Bowman. Right, I got all the names right. All right, so with that, we have three things on our agenda for the work session. Uh, we have a lift assist billing ordinance, and then we have a water bill adjustment request and, uh,
discussion on a policy. And then we have the St. B St. Bonnie Fire Department budget reconciliation request. So, we're going to start with the lift assist and I'm going to hand that over to >> Yeah, >> thank you, Madam Mayor, members of council. Um, this is an item that uh
kind of came up through our uh fire uh advisory committee meeting at Mound. And we we talk a lot about lift assists and how much um they actually cost the the fire department to do. In Minitrista, we don't have many. Um, but cities like
Spring Park have quite a few if they have a senior facility. Um, and one of the things that was shared at at a meeting was this ordinance from Maple Plane. Now, a little bit about this ordinance. It it maybe isn't the right if if we want to pursue something isn't really the right thing for us. It's more
centered on on senior living facilities or senior assisted living facilities. Um but the city we we can we can if we choose to we can form that ordinance however we want. So it could be for residential. I know that um we've talked a little bit about maybe there's a
certain amount of of lift assist that you don't charge for for residential um you know property. If we do get assisted living facilities here at some point we can always adjust the ordinance or actually build it in um with the current ordinance if we just say well if it's an
assisted living facility you get charged. um if it's a residence uh for example, you could say the first three or first five um in any annual year are free and then after that we charge a certain amount. So really what I wanted to do is just provide that ordinance
from a community in our area that has something on the books for these lift assists um and then engage with city council about uh discussion if we want to pursue something like this. >> Okay. >> Is
um is mound or St. Bonnie considering things like that because it seems like that's where our expense is right now with know the joint with them covering us. >> The I think they're looking at it. I think Spring Park's looking at it. Um >> and Spring Park and Mound are the ones that have the most lift assists in our
area >> and they're both looking at the same thing. I don't know where they're at in the process or if they've decided to to pursue it or not, but um you know the billing piece is is you know probably the most challenging part because uh we have to wait to get a report from mound.
>> Close that >> oh >> door. I think Gary's out there talking too. But um we have to wait, you know, we'd have to get a report monthly report from each um agency. So, uh, and then we'd send out a bill ourselves and then they would likely submit that to insurance and then there's a process for
that and it might take a month or 45 days or longer to have them respond. Um, so it logistically, you know, it's another thing if we would actually start billing, but right now there's not enough really in Minitrista that we that would trigger um anything. We don't have
any assisted living facilities here right now currently. And I got a report from from Mound and St. Bonnie, um the most that we've had as far as you know frequent flyer, lift assist and miniaturista in a given year. So um >> but not all the same.
>> No, all all Yes. All the same residents. Yeah. Yeah. And it's and I talked to um Chief Peterson and our our chief squires here about it. And it's usually elderly folks that are kind of staying at home maybe a little too long and then that is the driver while they find um care
somewhere else. So, >> okay. Okay. >> From the discussions at Mountfire and this all stems from Mountfire, not St. Bonnie discussions. It's a big issue um not just with the senior living facility with the as Chasper said, the people that are staying their homes past when they should be and they call them
frequent flyers. I think it's good for us to be proactive and have something on the books for it. Um I don't think it would be an issue to have one for residents if they call more than five times in a year that they start paying for them. I mean, you know, everyone could get hurt. I've had to call for a
lift assist. I couldn't walk down my steps cuz my back. So, I mean, I get it. But if it's a continual issue where you shouldn't be living at home, I think we should be billing and then they can run it through their insurance or whatever the case may be. And then having one on the books just for if we do ever have
assisted living facility seems like a good move. >> Then it's already there. >> Then it's there and we're not targeting them after the fact. Yes, >> I thought I read in the material that um the excuse me um that uh these facilities are supposed
to be able to >> they're supposed to >> but they still call it like >> yeah they don't have the staffing. >> Okay. >> And then the police respond and the police call fire because they know fire has all the people and the um equipment to do the lifts >> because sometimes one person might not
be able to lift them or whatever. Yeah, >> I think it's a good idea. I experienced that with my parents where they all in their community and got to know the EMT people and it was again >> it really was I really liked them but um
but it did factor into finally getting them to be able you know to agree to move to assisted living where you know they were much safer. >> So I think it's probably a good idea to limit to have like >> one to five or something. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um, I called the uh the facility in Spring Park Presbyterian Homes and I asked them, you know, I know they have three levels of care there, >> right? >> And the woman that I spoke to said, you
know, everybody thinks um if someone from the fully independent living falls, we can just go get someone from the >> assisted and we cannot. >> Oh. >> Um, it's not a staff thing. they can't
do it. They have to call 911 or they have to call the fire department. Um so that was one thing I thought was interesting. And then another thing um within mound um one of their frequent uh families that needs assistance lived
on the third floor of the Grand View Apartments. The owner of the building doesn't live in Minnesota. He doesn't care so much about the building. And for months the elevator was out of service. Um I think that should be something
where we find the owner of a building because the firefighters >> you don't have that here. >> Well I but if you have an apartment building and they've got to walk up three floors carry someone down three floors repeatedly con that's that's an issue. I don't know where we address that or
>> but lift lift assist is basically um they don't necessarily get an ambulance to take them up. They're just picking them up. >> Like they fell out of bed. They couldn't get off the toilet. They couldn't felt they couldn't get out of their shower. They're not hurt. They don't need to go anywhere. They just need help getting
back into their chair or bed or whatever. >> Are still running up? >> Oh, sure. >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> Um and then my my >> second or my third point would be um are most of these people, you know, like Peter was saying, sometimes they're staying a little bit
too long in a situation they shouldn't be in. Is that because of financial reasons and then how billing them? Who's are they? >> Well, it would go through insurance or >> do we think they have insurance? >> Well, it's I don't know that um that the
Medicare pays for lift assist. That's that's the thing. Um I'm pretty sure they don't. And so um >> so is the ordinance a moot point? I I don't know. Yeah, but nonetheless, it, you know, if they're living at home
because they can't afford assisted living, I get that, but then they also don't have the expense of assisted living. So maybe after five calls, they're going to say, "Okay, um, I'm going to have to call a relative or or I'm I'm going to have to pay." >> I thought what I read on the packet, it
it showed for the first through the fifth call, there was a charge, >> but we can change that. >> Yeah, we can change that, >> too. Yeah, >> that was Maple Plains and and that was also for the facility. So, Maple Plains only addresses um for the senior um assisted living facilities, but our our
ordinance could say for residential properties, it's zero cost 1 to five a year. For for um assisted living, maybe they get >> I don't know how you would do it, but maybe then they would char be charged. >> Um >> yeah,
>> you could follow this ordinance. So, I mean, if for assist, you could have two different sections if I may. Um, one section for residential properties and one for um assisted living facilities, >> even though we don't have any. And you could follow you could have different fee schedules for each one. So, you could follow what kind of Maple Plane
has here. >> Would would there be any question I guess so here's a couple questions. Um, how does this work if our ordinance is different than let's say what Mound eventually does? And, you know, does it matter? Will they be able to figure out who get who gets build?
>> Well, we have to figure that out. We're the ones that would be doing the billing. Okay. So, it would be us sending an invoice to whoever it is. We'd get the report from mound. Okay. >> Um so, the ordinances wouldn't have to match up. >> Okay. And then, um the other question I would have is uh would it seem unfair
that if you live in a residential home versus if you live in an an assisted living facility that you get charged? I mean, >> yeah. They were living with without any assistance like you were talking about. >> They said they they were very they were happy to speak with us or with me and
say >> in this in this fully independent living just like you're living away from >> right >> seems independent living should >> you have a higher standard of care. >> You could do like three or more so everyone gets two calls no matter where
you live and then after that then it's an issue. >> Yeah. I like three strikes. >> You just have one ordinance not differentiating between the two. >> The only question I have is so when you say not differentiating so but let's say it's an assisted living and they have 50
people living there. Is it three calls or is it 150 calls? >> 150 >> because is it per person or per per you know per person then? So you'd have to be able to segregate that. I mean, same. >> We could we could we could differentiate
between the two and define what residential means and we could have that be part of if you live in an independent living community but you don't have the ability to have lift assist that would fall under the residential too. So you could you could form it in that manner. >> Um we just you know
>> we don't have an assisted living facility yet but like they're pretty regulated and there's clear boundaries in in each of the areas. So yeah, >> we could look at it that way. And um honestly, the fire department would know better than anybody as far as what where
they're working at. And you know, they work with Presbyterian Homes very closely. They they've had a lot of meetings with them one-on-one to try to figure out this lift assist thing >> um with them just get called. >> There's another one in mound um isn't what is it called? B um or
>> like on the corner there? >> No, it's on the um >> Harrison Bay. >> Harrison Bay. >> Thank you. That's also a um it's three stages. >> And yeah, it is. >> So, if I may, if we if we want to, you know, we're kind of just spitballing
some ideas right now. If we want to look at an ordinance in the future, I kind of need a little guidance as far as framework and then we can develop something and bring it forward for probably another work session to see if it's what we like. There's no real urgency here. Um but it's just kind of an ongoing project that we could work on. Seems like there's maybe some
appetite to move forward with something. Sure. Might as well now versus later. I mean, it's >> and we can always change the framework however we want, but I kind of just need a couple ideas on what you like and what would like what you'd like to see in the future organiz or um not nonassisted
living. >> What do you call them? >> Independent living. >> Independent living. So, residential and independent living would be one to three or one to four. What? >> I 1 to three. um no charge after that. Um in a calendar year after that it's
250 um and then for assisted living um it would be 0 to3 then would be 250. I'm I'm just throwing something out and then after that maybe or maybe use um
>> maple maple break >> for just use maple plains for the assisted living facilities. So for the back to the residential, so just for the tiers, we have 1 to three and then four to six or what are you thinking for the next tier? Um
>> four to eight. Four to >> four to eight and then would you charge >> like 250 per call then? You can kind of follow the right. It would shift down 250. Y >> and then over over eight it would be 500. >> Yeah.
>> If you have eight calls in a year. So then then the next tier would just be greater than eight. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Would be 500 per >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then um assisted will follow uh the maple plane or
>> right 1 to 5 250 6 to 8. Yeah. Do you know is Spring Park following the Maple Plane one? Is that their >> I know they were going to look at it. Um I don't know. I don't know if they passed anything yet, but I think we might be the first city that's kind of looking at it. It was I think given to
us at the November meeting or the LA the last meeting of the year last year, October. >> Okay. All right. And maybe in the meantime, um, Navy Spring Park and our mound will come up with a draft of theirs that we could
take a look at. >> Yeah, I'll throw something something together here. Um, >> see, we're in February, maybe April. I can get a draft, something like that. Unless you want it sooner. We could do it in March, but we have >> not It's not urgent. I mean, >> okay.
>> You want to implement it Jan one anyway. So, >> sure. >> The fall calendar year. Okay. And then we have um the water bill adjustment. >> Yes. Um Madame Mayor, members of city
council, uh we discussed this uh at the February 2nd meeting. I think we only had three individuals here at that meeting and um uh Mr. Christians came and kind of talked about the the request which then spurred uh an idea to
evaluate a potential policy from a staff perspective. Um, right now we don't we don't have any discretion to adjust water bills or any utility bills. Um, what the policy does is is kind of gives a little framework for a bill adjustment. Um, we'd prefer to keep any
bill adjustments out of our hands and more into the hands of city council just because then there's a framework. Um, so and this is the the the situation that this was developed um in in Lassour is a little bit different than the one here.
um it was more related to a trailer park and a water service line than um like a water uh softener I think was the situation here. Um so it's just you know an example of a policy and maybe some framework that we could use if we choose to. So there's a couple things on the on
the table, a couple questions I think we need to have answered. One um is related to Mr. Christian's uh bill reduction request. And number two is uh if we want to look at adopting a policy that's similar to the one that's in the packet,
um we'd likely make some adjustments to it based on city council feedback. So, um we do have Gary here. I think, you know, I think we were going to have Mark here, um who's our in-house plumber, but he's out plowing snow now. So, um to answer any questions, you know, about
what what may have may have happened. So, and we obviously have uh Mr. Christians here, too. >> So, um I'm going to say something. We need to have a if if we decide we are going to give um credits, then we need to have a
a policy in place. Um because otherwise it's willy-nilly. Now, having said that, I don't think that we should have a policy that gives credit for faulty fixtures. I mean, when you think about it, I mean, again, and I you can
disagree with me, that's fine. But when you think about it, when I talk about fixtures, I mean, it could be a a running toilet, it could be um a it could be a a water softener, it could be um a leaky faucet, it could be um irrigation u malfunction. I mean,
there's so many things that that could be um if you will labeled fixtures. And then we have to consider um if you do this then how many more requests are you going to get and how are you going to
prove that it was the city's fault or it was let's say negligence on the homeowner's part or just a a bad luck. I mean so it's it's a really really difficult situation. I understand that.
But um it it's also a slippery slope. And then once you do it, as you know, Bob, as you know, sitting on the council, once you do it for one person, the next person comes forward and says the same thing. And then all of a sudden, now we're giving multiple
thousands and thousands of dollars a year to credit to to people. I I I we need to be very very careful how we move forward on this. So for sure we need to have a policy in place if we're going to do anything. One of the things I would
suggest if if we do a policy I can clearly state that if it's um um an a accident such as so I'll give you an example. My nephew and his family went on vacation in the winter. The day they left, after they left, a water line
froze and broke and they they had like a 100,000 gallons flood their basement. Their basement was totally and they were gone for like 10 days. Something like that is beyond the homeowner's how do you say ability, if you will. >> You could then consider something like
that. But when you have somebody, we recently, we don't have city water, so I can't tell you how many gallons it was, but we recently were gone and somebody a relative came to check on our house and used our toilet and flushed the toilet and the toilet ran for two
weeks >> and I So for us, I mean, I don't know how many gallons it was, but it was a lot of gallons and I was more concerned about our septic system than our water, but you know, so how do you how do you justify saying, "Okay, well certainly is
that I mean," and then the question is, "What if you got an astronomical bill from the gas company because you had a faulty furnace? Would you go to the gas company and would they give you a credit?" I mean, these are legitimate questions. Um, I think I think those are
just legitimate questions. Um, so I think a policy is needed if we're going to make any kind of consideration. So, I'll give you two minutes, Bob, or less. >> Well, first of all, I'm very happy to hear that this doesn't happen very
often. Uh, this is >> But it will happen more frequently. >> It has happened more frequently. >> It will happen more frequently. >> Well, I'm very happy to hear it hasn't happened in the past because, you know, previous city council. >> Yeah. Uh, unfortunately, I I I say this,
but because of what happened in the over 100,000 gallons of water that ran through there, and of course, I went crazy right away. What happened? That's why I called the plumber out right away. And unfortunately, it doesn't happen to a lot of different people. Okay. Uh,
there's a whole lot of people that have asked me, is >> that doesn't matter, Bob. I want to know. It doesn't matter what people have said to you. I want to know what your plumber said and then we can discuss it. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I I'm sorry it happened. I mean, I wouldn't be here. I'm really
sorry it happened. And I would think that we would do something that you can participate in something to do some >> Okay. >> part of some responsibility. >> I I understand Bob. I really do. But we have to be careful because as you know we a slippery slope and everybody will
we're going to have a lot more people in here asking for a reduction in their water bills especially since we have to raise our water rates. So um so here's my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong. You had a a significant water bill in quarter three and you had
and the plumber came in and fixed it and now you got another significant water bill in quarter four. But it's after the fact. And the other thing too, >> but you got another significant water bill in quarter 4. Is that correct? >> Well, it's all it all pertains to one incident, the initial one, because he
fixed it and but it ran for the water bill is adjusted. In other words, it was due yesterday. I brought my checkbook. I want to pay the bill. I brought my checkbook, but I wanted to get a I thought you could do something to help me with it. It's not the money. It's more the principal. I
I understand, but we also understand and we've talked to plumbers that it couldn't possibly be the city's fault that your water softener failed or >> that went into it that kept it open. Um
and and our water softener did something very unusual too not too long ago and we had water all over our basement floor and again I didn't go you know we took care of it ourselves because >> I wouldn't see it the responsibility of somebody with a pipe broke but thousands of gallons of water come in being in
>> Bob I'm not going to argue with I'm not going to argue with you >> I'm not going to argue with you this isn't about that I wanted to find out what happened we know what happened it happened in in quarter three and then supposedly got fixed, but I understand that you had another water bill in
quarter 4 that was also significant. So, it's really really hard for us to take this information and say, "Well, it was the water softener and it was the city's fault and >> it was a water softener." >> Okay, we'll we'll we'll give you that much.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Sit down. We're not >> I have my checkbook, but I would like to pay the bill because it was due yesterday. Jasper said it would be okay if I'm a little bit late. Remember, I have a checkbook with me. I'd like to get it resolved and you will move on. >> Okay. Then I would say pay it. And if
there's a credit that we decide on, we can do that later. But if you want to pay it today, that's great. You can do that. >> Well, it's due. That's why. >> Okay. >> Gary, do you have any um >> I have the part and the Mark walked me through it. So >> Okay.
>> Oh, good. So, you did talk to Mark. He's he's water software qualified for the last 35 years. >> Okay. >> So, he keeps his license. That's his sideline business. He knows he knows a lot about software. So, I'm sorry I
should print more off. But this is the internal diagrams of everything that is in Bob's >> pump his water soft. >> And I'll I'll add Mark did talk to your talk to Bob's. Yeah. On the phone. >> So, this is the main unit right here
that was causing a problem. And what Mark said was, and he sees it a lot in well water, that these seals get eaten up. You can see there's a lot of them in here. >> Yeah. Because of the iron and and maganesees, >> even in city water, because in ours too, there's water. There's there's iron and there's manganesees and all that. Not so
much anymore, but there used to be. But what happens is these start to break up and these are what get jammed in there. And when it gets in here, this thing lifts and these get stuck >> inside here as it holds it. Adjust it. He's seen it. He's seen it hundreds of
times. >> So that's that's the cost. It's nothing in our water. It's the >> You need to sit down now. Bob, you need to sit down now. We will be done here soon and then you can talk to staff.
>> So it's the breakdown of the of mainly the seals that are going. So Mark said it's it's very common. I mean that's a very common thing to replace. And he said, "If you do not replace this whole inner seal in here, this whole thing comes off. If you don't replace this piston, which can wear out and groove,
you can see this one's been grooved here already. They eat up the they they'll eat up as much as of the seals, too. So >> where is that? Like if I'm looking at my water softener where >> So yeah, I'm thinking we should
>> we just replaced ours. >> So this would be inlets coming in at the bottom. This would go down to your to the tank. Okay. >> And then up top here would sit the actual clock. >> Okay. >> So, this is the inside. So, in between what would sit on top of the tank and your clock up there. >> Okay.
>> And then how often should you be um >> looking at that and replace >> I mean you look and I looked it up. I mean every run cleaner through your through your softener to clean it. >> Okay. >> And but Mark said I mean you know I mean it could go 10 years, it can go five years, it go a year. You know, that kind
of depends on, you know, is it was it a flaw in the design? You know, when they built, was it, you know, was the quality not there? Did the plumber put in a cheaper part? He said there's a lot of things that weigh into that. But, I mean, it all kind of depends. It's a, you know, roll the dice, how long they last? It's like any
going to last, you know, type deal. So, but yeah, that's what happens when that gets stuck >> and that's what holds the water open. So, when that gets stuck open, water just continuously cycles through. >> Okay. >> So, Gary, I have a question. So because Minatrista has so much u
minerals in our water, this could happen to every single person on city water in Minotarista. >> No, with the with the treatment plant, we've eliminated a lot of it. I mean, there's not hardly we take through the process of ariation, the iron is reduced. Um manganese is taken out at
the plant. >> Um you're always going to have the white residual that you see, the calcium buildup. You're always going to have that no matter what. Um, but as far as particles go, I mean, there's very little in our water anymore. It used to be worse. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If you looked at the when we took
old water meters out, replace them, the inside was just lined with gunk. >> Yeah. >> You know, but now with when we put the plant online, you know, did the major flushing at that time. We switched out meters. We, you know, we've done, we do flushing twice a year. We're not seeing
a problem like that. So, >> and when did that go online? that went online in 2017. >> March March of 17. >> Yep. Full service. So, >> both the north and the south. >> So, then Mark said the other common problem that
>> he sees with that that he gets calls on is bridging of the salt. >> So, in the tank where the salt is, >> oh yeah, >> it's the water comes in from the bottom to kind of, you know, what the salt does is help regenerate your um the mineral in the U brine tank or the it's the
brine tank. that brine goes into the um filter media and that's what takes and cleans it out and it discharges it. So what it does is if you have salt it can bridge in there so the salt doesn't drop down and keep going. And when you get that well now it's not cleaning. So
softener says hey it's not clean. It goes through another cycle and it keeps going keeps going. That's another common problem. I had that happen in Waconia. I mean that ran for an entire weekend I was up north. So I mean I've had the high water bill. So I think I was only a weekend when I came home. I could hear it running. Oh >> you know. So
>> right. You can usually hear it running. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, but that's the 5600. I mean, he said and that's the most common head out there. That is the most common head. So, >> well, I I don't disagree that we need to have some kind of policy. So, um and I don't
dis and I don't think um as Jasper said, we want to put it on the shoulders of of um staff to make those decisions. So, we could come back with a policy, but I I'm very very reluctant to say that it's going to cover fixtures unless there's unless it a fix a pipe broke or
something during the winter months and you're gone. I mean, something like that might be, you know, you could consider, but a running toilet or a running faucet, it can you can man, you can really rack up the gallons. >> Well, even even a toilet running, even a running toilet will use a lot of water
in a month. >> It will. Yeah. >> It's unbelievable. That's why, you know, we're out of die pass. We used to have them here and we should probably get some more appeal just to to do that. I mean, just a simple $10 flapper can save you hundreds of dollars. So, >> and you know, and I can I think Brian will agree with me. I think we've had
people come in. Our biggest complaint, you know, is when the sprinklers run. So, I mean, they're going to have to deal with that if you're going to put a policy in to make sure that, hey, my sprinkler ran too long. Well, that's not our problem, you know. So, I mean, there's we've had that happen several times that people have complained about
that. So I remember that. >> Yeah. I have a old building and I just had all the inner workings of the toilet replaced in the back of it in the tank and again it it stuck because this thing
that goes up and down that makes the water. Okay. It it got um it got the white calcium on it. >> It stuck. My bill was normally $91. This is a charity, mind you. um two weeks I wasn't there. It was $795
and that was >> wow >> on me, >> you know. And so it can be devastating. So I know it's a devastating the only thing I would suggest is that the policy could say that we would allow the the
homeowner maybe two months or whatever for payment. I don't know if that's something we want to consider a little bit of relief. I'm just I'm just asking for certain things. >> Well, we'll be switching to a monthly building so that we >> will help
>> alert people faster, but as I understand in this situation, the city alerted you that didn't because you saw the high >> well there was there was the initial third quarter billing and then I think as you know Mr. Christian said there was some plumbing work done that sounds like
it didn't quite fix it or something or >> take care of it and then there was another bill in the fourth quarter that was also high because it the software was still running is the way I understand it or how whatever the case was where there was the water going through the meter. >> So >> I I think it transcended Q3 and Q4.
>> So it started in Q3 and then and then he got the bill and and then it continued in Q4. Gary, >> has it been fixed now, Bob? >> I'm sorry. What? >> Has it been fixed now? >> Yeah, it was fixed now when I got the this deal here. >> How did it get fixed?
>> Uh, I had the plumber, Mark, and Gary knows who he is. He's talked to him. Come out. But what he says when I watched him fix it. First, I had to check everything because I said it was a huge problem. And then in the area where it goes into the softener there, there was particles that were in there that
separated it, the valve or whatever you want to call it, and which made it run 247. And I I don't get down there that often, but when I did, I I went down immediately when I got the bill. I I had the bumper come out immediately when I got the bill. >> And then he replaced that valve or did
you Okay. >> It had to be replaced because the particles it was it was bad. It was bad, >> Gary. Um, are you in agreement with the plumber, Bob's plumber? >> Do you all particles? >> Yeah, I'm sure there's particles in
there, but it's not from our water. I'm I'm 99.9% positive there's not particles flowing our water. So, >> where would they? >> Especially inside, you know, this mechanism the way it is. So, >> well, where would they come from? >> The disintegration of the of the rubber in here,
>> rubber gasket, >> you know, I mean, it'll get eaten up, he said, by chlorine and that stuff will eat these up, too. So chlorine is very cor I mean it's a you know it's a corrosive chemical. So I mean that's >> he did tell you the particles. He did show you the particles. I mean I seen
them partic >> well there were particles. They whatever they came from there were particles. So what if we do or it's not a fixture but in this case if it's a unit the pump on the softener
broke down you would get like a 50% reduction on well when we go monthly on the one month if it continues over a month then >> you don't know how much water the water softener has used versus your regular
usage you know that's it gets really complicated >> they the resident would have to provide a bill from the plumber showing what was replaced, showing what the issue was. >> I'm just asking for >> I I
>> we are >> But it was your fixture that malfunctioned and now you're saying it should be our responsibility and that that's what I'm having an issue with, Bob, because it wasn't our water that created the problem. It was your water
softener and I have a real problem because what >> but that's what our experts >> but our pl our plumber is telling us that and so we're there's a conflicting
um issue here. I mean your plumber says one thing because of course they want to blame the city and our plumber is saying that's not possible. I'm I'm thinking 35 years of expert knowledge and experience with water softeners. That tells me a
lot. And so I'm saying, wait a second. Your fixture was the problem, not our water. And now you want us >> I don't want big deal. I just want >> Now you want us to give you a credit because you had a faulty fixture. And that's what I'm having a problem with.
What if somebody comes and what if you know Miss Claudia says, "Hey, I have a faulty toilet." >> All right. So, >> so council, that's just my opinion. My opinion. >> I'm sorry, but I would agree with her. I
mean, we didn't help out people that had the um their sprinklers running and I remember that that that you know, they spent a lot of money on on water and you know the uh department came out and helped them you know solve that problem,
>> right? which I think is a great function of of government. But I yeah I I just think we just can't do this because it we won't be able to decide each one fairly and >> right.
Anybody else? Brian, >> I concur for the same reasons that um Peter um expressed. Okay, Claudia, I have to trust our Bob is an expert,
but I have to trust our city saying we have water that's rich in minerals and you have to I I think this would open up a huge Pandora's box because I don't know I I I know
almost everyone I know has had a situation like this happen at least once in their life and it's terrible. >> Yeah. and it feels terrible and I would love to, but I'm here to be a good steward over the city's funds. I I I'm I'm I'd love to pay for half,
but I just I No one has proven to me that it's our fault. >> If it's our fault, yes, we should pay the whole thing, but I don't think it's our fault. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> So, the plumber So, I have a problem with >> Yes, you do. No, you have a problem with your water softener, Bob. >> Well, that's so >> Yeah. Well, >> that is >> Yeah. And again, being on the city council, you know, as Claudia said, we
have to be good stewards of of city funds. We have to be consistent in our in our findings. We have to be con cognizant of of future possibilities. So, for all of those reasons, I don't think we can I think you're going to have to pay the bill. And if you don't
like it, you'll have to take it to court. I don't recommend that >> because you won't win. >> There's a check for the entire bill there. I'm very, very sorry of the decision that is being made along with a number of other people because whatever you were going to give
me credit was being donated to the food shelf. >> Well, >> it wasn't the money, it's the principal. >> Okay. >> The food shelf would be very disappointed. >> Okay. Thank you, Bob. All right. Um, so just to the other aspect on here, um, no to doing policy.
>> Well, I don't know how you do a policy. >> Yeah. >> Like I I just don't know how we do it. >> Yeah. It it is, if I may, it is challenging, right? Because you could somebody could, you know, use a lot of water for irrigation, but say
that their water softener failed, right? Like there's every one of them would come to city council like this. So there'd just be you'd have to kind of be the the judge and the jury on it and determine if you you know believe the person that's applying. Um the one thing
with the policy the way the lassur one was written is that you get basically one and done. So one time adjustment >> but we have 2300 accounts. So think about it if 2300 >> accounts everyone quarter three this year says oh no but >> no exactly. So
>> including myself. >> Yeah. It's it'd be it'd be challenging. Um, it's not that we we couldn't do it and we likely wouldn't get that many requests because it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to do it. So, it's um >> I think I think Kathleen has a point and so if
>> unfortunately 100,000 gallons of water that was wasted and I'm assuming now that it's a dead issue and as I used to say at the bat that he's saying >> right correct correct correct okay sorry
Bob. All right. So, no policy. We'll just deal with them one-on-one um as they come. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh with that, we'll move on to the St. Bonnie Fire Department budget reconciliation request. We've done this before.
>> Um >> I'm sorry, Lisa. Forgive me. >> Oh, Madam Mayor. Okay. So, we don't want to adopt a policy like Lassour. I think that was really clear like we're not touching your water bill unless I
like that policy. You don't like that? >> Why not? Is it difficult to do that? >> That seems real clear. >> Um well, it's not much different than if they just come to the city council meeting and and and you can address it one-on-one. You'd still have to do it.
What the policy really does is it limit the this policy in Lassour. The whole point of it was to limit people from coming back to the city, multiple years, and requesting multiple years of um not at the same time, but multiple years of of bill forgiveness. Um because we were
running into >> breathing that policy would make me go, "Oh, okay. It's a waste of my time. I'm not going to bug the city." >> That's you really. >> Well, I mean, okay, who I mean, does it cost us to implement that to have that letter? I love that. I would read that
once and go, "Well, they're not going to pay for this. I'm done. Not going to go. >> You know, I think what Kathleen's point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you have this policy, then people might think they can come in. >> Good point. >> So maybe not having a policy and they
still would have to come in and you know, >> I defer to your wisdom. Thank you. >> Okay, >> all right. There you go. >> That was >> Yeah, now thank you for hearing me. >> All right. Are we then we're agreed
because that was painful. All right. >> All right. All right. Next. Um then the St. Bonnie. >> Yeah. >> Are we ready to move on? Let's go to >> Okay. They spent less with me. This is good. All right. Yes. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, members of city council, um we get this request whenever
uh the reserve fund is above 10% of uh or greater than the oper 10% above the great uh operating cost. Sorry. Um so this year the they finalized the 2025 revenues and expenses and they came in $44,367
um that would got added to the reserve fund that met the threshold of being 10% or greater than 10% over. And what they ask is if we want to either have it go into the reserve fund or if we want to have it be um re have a reduction of our
our bill. And just a little history, generally we've always just put it in the reserve fund. Um, >> what is the reserve fund at right now percentage-wise of the let's say 2026 budget? >> Um, well, the reserve fund is at 102,000.
>> Okay. >> Um, which is the budget I'm trying Brian has to do some quick math in his head of what 80% of whatever we pay this year is. Um, it's probably 20%.
What is the I'm trying to think. I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> But it's it's a significant amount. The deal with St. Bonnie though too is they generally they pay cash for their equipment. So that's >> that was my next question. Right. >> And they just um they're not necessarily related to this, but that our council
did approve the two duty officer vehicles. >> Okay. >> So, and they'll that'll kind of eat up the full 102 probably. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, >> well, they they also have a capital fund that they use that money for for for those types of purchases. The reserve is
for they can move it into capital if they want. Um but it's just there for Okay. >> reserve. >> So, of the four So, it's a $44,000 um amount that could go into the reserve fund or if we request it, we would get
80% of that. Actually, 72% of it. No, we would get the 44,000 is our portion of what's left over. Yeah. So, if you look at the the letter, you can kind of it's kind of there's a lot of numbers in there. >> In the past, it's only been like a couple thousand smaller amount. >> And so, we it's been pretty small.
>> So, we've just said fine, just keep it. But if if they have a capital >> if they have a capital budget and then this reserve fund is for something else, I guess we'd have to find out what the reserve fund is for.
>> In the past, he's used it for um they like their um >> their furnace. >> Thank you. The furnace in the garage. They needed to do that. They did the concrete outside of this the building because it was all eaten up. So, um, in the last few years, he's used it very judiciously to cover stuff that wasn't
budgeted that needs to be done. >> Um, do they have any plans for 2026 for using the reserve fund? >> Cuz if it's at 102 right now and then this other 44,000 goes into it, you know, we're talking nearly 150,000. >> I don't I'm just wondering. I'm just
>> I don't believe so. Um, they will be getting a new chief at some point though, >> right? >> So, I don't know. >> So, I almost have the question if they Yeah. Yeah, I mean if they've got good plans for it, it's great to help reduce like next year's budget or keep next year's budget at a good level. But if they're starting to like just build it up, it's no different than like our
general fund policy, you know, that 40, you know, I've got, you know, if we start to get too high, it's like do you spend down a little the fund balance to, you know, to offset needing to, you know, in a case charge our taxpayer, you know, our residents as much in taxes, you know, so the same type of thing you charging
>> the partners in the fire or us, I guess, and townships. Well, here. Yeah. I mean, I'm fine using it to pay off our bill. >> Well, and then we do have that request for the new laptops for the police department, which u
>> And that was budgeted, too. That was budgeted. Okay. >> That was budgeted. But I I I would be because it's a fair amount. Um I would be more comfortable having them use it towards our our um contract.
I mean, am I makes sense >> again? I mean, last year we rolled it over and then um Watertown Township and um Lake Township took theirs towards their contracted amount. So, I mean, and I we rolled ours in and
I think it was a couple thousand or something, four or 5,000 or >> No, it was it was it was five figures last year, too, I think. >> Was it? >> Well, then I think we should >> maybe timed maybe. >> Yeah, I'm thinking 44,000. That that'll cover a lot. I mean, >> especially since we want to hire another
police officer and that wasn't budgeted for I I think we should Yeah. put it towards our contract this year. >> Well, the police officers budgeted this year. >> Yeah, it was more last year. >> It was last year. It wasn't. Yeah, >> I thought we had one budgeted. I thought we're higher. Well, anyhow,
>> we have we we have 16 authorized police officers. Last year we were at 15. We authorized 16 without >> You're correct. We threw it in at the end and adjusted things. Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. So, but but in 2026 it's fully budgeted for >> Okay. Okay. Um All right. So, we'll
we'll just use it towards our contract. Is everybody okay with that? >> Okay. Good. Thank you. Um anything else that >> Okay. >> So, we can uh be adjourned and then at
6:30 we will be back here. Hopefully not have a big crowd. I I I can't see across the parking lot. I know. I know. Earlier, Jasper asked if Sarah should be here for a regular meeting. I said,
"It'd be really good if she's here in person." 4:00 I called and I said, "Tell her she can she can she can participate remotely." So, um anyhow, all right. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Ruffkin. Is there a second? Thank you, Claudia. All those in
favor signify with I. >> I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes by vote and we will be back for a regular meeting at 6:30. It's not winding down.