--------- Tom, I see you're on. Can you hear me? I see you're on mute and maybe you don't know how to unmute yourself or he's just waiting patiently. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Did you figure out >> Jennifer? It is 5:30 and I'm ready.
Okay. Good evening everybody. We are going to call our city of Nisa City Council budget workshop to order and it is 5:31 p.m. Okay. The first item we have is a budget
discussion. Um, before we get into it, I'm just going to give a friendly reminder again to all of the uh, fellow council and staff um, that please wait to speak until I call on you. If you need to get my attention, just raise your hand and I will get to you. But we
keep getting feedback from folks watching online. They they can't tell who's speaking um, if it's not someone called on and they speak or people aren't speaking close enough into the microphone, so they're not able to hear as well. So, if we can be mindful of that, that would be wonderful. Um, and
before we again dive into our budget workshop, I don't know if everyone here saw the news this week, um, but headlines have been going across our entire state sounding the alarm that according to the department of revenue,
motans could face a nearly $1 billion property tax increase in 2026. So, that's across the state. It's been on every TV station, newspapers, and everything. Last year here in Nisa, the prior council passed um just under a 10%
levy increase, and this year for our preliminary levy, uh this council set it at 6.07%. Um I did vote against that because I it wasn't against any council member up here or reflection on my colleagues or criticism of of them. It's because I
think we can still get a little bit lower. For those of you in attendance tonight, as we're working through the budget, just know that roughly tw approximately every $25,000 equals 1% to the levy. So, that's a good uh benchmark
to use. And I just know this that property taxes are one of the most regressive taxes we have out there because they do not consider whether you're a retiree living on a fixed income, how much you earn, or what other expenses you're trying to meet. they
simply in general increase uh regardless of your life circumstances. I think here in Nisa we can do well to deliver to our city this year. You know inflation for 2026
based on what source you're looking at is currently indexing around 2 to 8.3% and I think that it would be great if we could keep our property levy below um what the inflation index is for next year. So with that, um, gentlemen, we have a
lot to go through and I just ask everyone to consider everything and maybe consider sharpening your pencils a little bit tonight in the discussion. Maggie, >> I just want to note that Tom Blommer is here via Zoom. He's just out of town at some training this week.
>> Okay, perfect. Um, last time we met, we all went through and gave some feedback on things and that's how we got to the 6.07% preliminary levy. But I thought if we start and just go through tab by tab and then we come back at the end to the two uh sheets, the one where I gave
feedback and then the one that Maggie had put together with extras where feedback had been given by council. And so if we start uh on the first tab, it would be the mayor council proposed budget spreadsheet. Um on this one, I just had three quick questions to start,
Megan, and then I'll go around to the rest of council to see if they have anything. What can you remind is transportation mileage reimbursement on the mayor council spreadsheet? >> Yes, I would say that would be the majority of what that would be used for.
>> Okay. And then also then school and training that would be like our attendance fees, lodging if we have it. >> Yes. >> I'm wondering if it's possible at all because it looks like our mileage,
unless I'm reading this wrong, was low. if instead of like if mileage goes down, right, because they're kind of combined with school and training, like if we just say 2500 total for the two line items. I don't know what feedback
Bruce, Jesse, or Joe, if you have any input. >> 2500 for which two line? So, see where it says transportation 500 >> y >> and then school training 2500. If we just scrap like if transportation
goes to let's say 250 and school training goes down to 2250 because I I don't I could be wrong but are Joe and I the only two that did any training so far this year? We both went in February Plymouth and
then I went to the annual conference in Duth. Yeah, I went down the Plymouth. >> Okay. How come you then? I paid for the registration, but I didn't pay for any reimbursement because he didn't submit anything. >> Okay, >> you should do that. >> But otherwise, it's just been
>> you, Jennifer. >> So, unless somebody wants to, you know, do something. I mean, the elected leaders, the league puts on a couple um trainings for elected leaders. If there's anybody thinking that they would like to do something in 26,
um, board of appeals, I think we have enough of the council that has taken the training and certified, but we always encourage all of you to do those every year. And I think mostly the board
of appeals is an online thing. >> Yes. >> But they do have an imperson as well. >> Yeah. So my proposal is just if we can find some dollars to cut there, why not? Because currently for this year, we're only at 1,750 under school and training, but we have
2500 budgeted. If everything stayed the same, and I I'd even consider to, and I think I had said this, if I'm going to go to additional trainings, I'll just pay out of my own pocket. Like, if I'm going to go to the mayor's meetups, I'll just pay for those. >> What is the mayor's meetups?
>> They're for mayors. They happen a couple times a year. I wasn't able to make it this year for personal reasons, but if I'm going to go to them and like next year, I'll just I don't expect to be reimbursed for mileage or anything. I'll just go. >> Is that a leg, isn't it?
>> It's a legal event. >> Yep. >> So, do you all seem good with >> Do you agree, disagree? >> I agree. >> I want some consensus as we move. >> Yeah. We need to Yes. >> I'm good. Good. >> Okay. Everyone seems good on that, Maggie.
>> Okay. >> Does that cover that? >> Yep. >> Um, next spreadsheet is elections. I didn't have any changes to that. Any of the council members have any changes to that one?
>> No. Is what it is. Which one? elections 2026 proposed budget spreadsheet. >> No. >> Okay. Unless I'm out of order. I have admin clerk finance next. >> Mhm.
>> Um this is the one where I had propo. Well, the budget changed a little bit. It originally when we did this last time under salaries and wages had 312,000. I suggested decreasing it to 240, but now as I kind of now that we
actually have the position scoped out now, city admin/clerk, finance specialist/treasurer and deputy clerk, I think that 240 should actually go up to um 260. So my recommendation would be to
change the proposed budget of 280 down to 260. >> Mayor, do you mind? So I put in the new wages based on the new scale from our consultant. So
the um administrator clerk and finance specialist treasurer and our deputy clerk. So, I have put all of those wages in there. Um, for admin clerk and deputy clerk, I did step five, which is the middle grade. So, depending
on where we hire them, I didn't want to underdo it or overdo it, but I figured five was a good stepping point at least in the middle. Can you What's the dollar amount for that? Because what I was I don't know what step it is but in where I was coming up
with the 260 was the admin clerk again giving room putting in 110 and the deputy clerk putting in 60 because I think that position was listed at 50 to 65. So for administrator clerk I have going into 26 rates at $57 an hour and the
deputy clerk I have at 2832. And then one of the things on my list is to um after I'm done with my interim basis, where do I fall? Because this would be a slight promotion for myself. So as we get through this,
I want to put in a right dollar amount for that. I would urge the council to be cautious on uh trying to claw back the wages and salaries prior to even having these positions filled. We are in a deficit. We're going to be having to address this
likely first quarter of next year. >> Yeah. We also don't have the negotiations done. >> Correct. >> Well, those are after which is >> after >> tonight. there tonight or our labor union close meeting is tonight at the end of the regular council meeting.
>> I would just leave it as is knowing >> likewise >> knowing that going into where we are calendarwise though too that we will probably be spending less because we're not going to have somebody start January one, you know, >> but we don't know who we're hiring or
what. So I would say the 280 would be a good compromise. I agree. Okay, just so you know then majority rules here you have the dollar rates Maggie gave. It's 120,000 a year
for the clerk admin/clerker, 58,000 a year for the deputy clerk and $100,000 a year for the finance specialist treasurer. Just so you're aware of those numbers if I did that calculation right. >> No. So um
>> you said 28 3257. >> Yep. So just on the high end of what this I'll say scale of this new job title position would be um about $87,000. I do include about a 10%
overtime just for meetings and counsel and things like that. Now, the administrator potentially depending on how that person's contract would be written, that would probably be a salary position like it was last time, but there are night meetings and things like that that we do need to account for.
>> Okay. Well, where are you? You you are all in agreement to keep it as is. >> Okay. Um Maggie, then I have a question on here. What is the under dues and subscriptions? It's jumping up $3,800 or 43.68%
from 25 to 26. And I don't remember what that was for. >> Um I do not know that off the top of my head. I feel like it's been so long. >> There was some software that you were looking at acquiring for meeting minutes. fee. Yes, there was that. And
that was like 12 or $1,300 >> annual. >> Annual. Yep. And I know that there are rate increases just with our other dues and subscriptions or like um all they wrote was clerk minutes and it
wasn't $3,800. There was something else in it >> for the minutes. Yeah. I thought it was like 1,200 or something, 1200, 1300. which we agreed to do. >> And I thought we were going to not even put that as a line item and just take
that out of the cash so it didn't impact this. >> Well, >> I thought that's what we'll get. >> That's what I did for this year. >> For this year. Okay. >> But since it's an ongoing expense, I kept it in our budget. >> I know we spoke in the past few meetings
in regards to outsourcing HR. >> Yes. There is nothing included in here for that. Correct. >> Correct. Nothing. >> Thanks. Okay. I don't have anything else on that. Does anyone else?
Um, accounting 2026 proposed budget. I didn't have anything on that one. Does anyone else? >> No. City Attorney 2026 proposed budget. >> Peggy, what are we at year to date
offhand? >> Yeah. Well, I I >> Well, as of the end of August, I'm at $46,730. And then so that these professional fees include our labor attorney and our city
attorney. So, August or um September I think our labor attorney is estimating at about $4,000 a month, give or take. Um, so add another 5 to 8,000 on that. And then our city attorney, not all of it gets put in here, because some will go
to planning, zoning, some go to roads, things like that. If you want an updated dollar amount, I certainly can get that to you, but we are probably well over 50,000 sitting today. Do you have any idea why we're >> we have a lot of labor attorney fees
lately? Um what >> unions? Um, well, I haven't I don't think really been build for a whole lot of union stuff, but a lot of it has been this interim basis and um I don't get a whole lot of detail on the invoices, but
um a lot of conversations with the labor attorney in regards to interim city administrator employee issues. I don't get a whole lot of detail outside of that, but th those are mostly >> these line items.
>> These line items would be build based on initiation from somebody at the city in this law. >> Yes. >> Our our labor attorney fees, what the labor attorney has told me because their fees have been high or higher this year is because we basically have been
without a city administrator since April. uh as personnel liaison, we've had to go to the labor attorney more frequently to jump in as we've navigated an interim administrator, another interim a staff coming in to do some of
the duties and responsibilities on an interim basis. And when you have a city administrator clerk here that is able to efficiently run the organization, those fees should go down. That is verbatim what was told to me by
the labor attorney. So likely we could be sitting at year to date north of 60 65 70,000 >> if there's continuing calls and questions outside of trying to work with
staff on some things. Yes. And there haven't really been a lot of calls or questions to that labor attorney since July of this summer other than related to the union discussions where Joe and I have had to connect with them and the work they have to do and the presentations for the unions. I
think I've talked to the labor attorney like twice or three times since July. I'm happy to submit >> invoices to the council so you can see details of what is being >> Yeah, I'd like that >> because I'm looking at a proposed budget for 26 of 50,000 is
>> this high. >> Huh. >> Well, I think but that's the point. I think this can come down because if we're going to have a city administrator clerk in here hopefully ideally by let's just say worst case April. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Um >> I'd like to drop that by 10,000 put it
at 40,000. All right. I think it can go down. >> Do you think that's feasible? >> I think it is. >> 23 actuals, 34,400, 24 actual, 40,000
year to date, 60 6570, and we're going to go to 40 for next year. That's seems reasonable to everybody. Then let's hold to the budget. >> Yeah. every phone call cost. >> Yeah, it's, you know, everything goes up. You know, it was 34 back here. Now,
you're looking at 50. I guess the going rate's going to be, you know, just adjusted. >> I know some of the push in in 24 was with the property. So, that was an increase there, but this is >> where are we at now on attorney fees.
>> My guess is close over about 55 is my best guess right at this point. Do some of the current fees have to have anything to do with some of the easements and land stuff or is that all in planning and zoning and um and uh
public works? >> For public works, anything with road easements would be under public works and then anything under parks and trails would be under that project. >> Where would nothing to do with this line item? What would what did the spirits
conversations fall under this line item? >> That would probably go under spirit's own account. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I would say >> and I drop it to 40. >> I do know that um our city attorney's
rates are going up as of January 1st. I don't think we've had an increase with them for I I'll say maybe 10 years. So, his rates are going up, I believe, $30 an hour. So, just be mindful of that as well. I have I have not heard from the labor attorneys to see if their rates
are going up, but I did hear from our city attorney. >> Okay, it's 40. Let's do our best to stick to it. >> Is that a consensus? 40,000. >> I'm good with 40. >> 40. Yep.
>> Okay. Planning and zoning is next. >> The only two questions I had on here were, and this is one of them I brought up at the last meeting was the PNZ putting the 5900 in the capital reserve of potentially cutting that for next
year. And then the I question the school and training going from 3,000 up to 7,000, but Stephen, we'll let you go through it. >> Sure. Yeah. So, we Maggie and I did some capital reserve crunching. Um looking at
things that could be pulled out. For example, the permitting software was in the continuing improvement uh budget. So, um, conversations with council leading up to this point was to start evaluating that and take it out of the
capital reserve that's already there, um, rather than budgeting it for the future based on the balance in there. Um, so that came down from 7950 to 5,900. School and training that was responsive to uh, a couple needs on the horizon that I see for the city. um
building official limited um was a a desired qualification for city planner and so um indicating that you guys wanted that within staff. So if you want that attained that was in there. um AICP certification was likely likewise in
there and we have recently acquired ARGIS um admin credentials from our engineers for that and we have no staff on for RGis experience. I have personally gone
through like halfway through a curriculum for certification. So I threw that as a lobby option for school and training in there for that reason. Other than that, I have wetland certification and um septic certification for inspector. Um so sum totaling that out,
we initially came out to um an estimate I think of 10,000 and pulled that down to 7,000 um as I achieved a couple of those C requirements for wetlands and septic this year. So I believe that that $7,000 figure also had an adjustment at
the last meeting. um where we were talking about building official specifically listed there at $3,000 and AICP certification holding on on those two items at this time I believe was the consensus. So um
might even be more additional trim there if if need be. I >> Yeah, I would cut it. >> Yeah, I would cut it too >> because like the building certification or whatever if and when we would need that, we just
outsource it like all the other small cities are size. You know, there's an individual that actually lives in this city that does it for Breezy Point, Staples, I don't know, all the other cities around that. He probably has a half a dozen or more cities.
>> And so, >> Wisconsin, >> yeah, >> I know a couple contacts as well who do it. They are few and far between, but that is pretty typical when a municipality has an onset of that requirement is to shift into an
outsourcing type role. Um, I've kind of confirmed that and coordinated um, information around that with multiple PNZ administrators in the area. Um, definitely something that's feasible to not have at a staff level, especially at the on-site, it'd be a lot on one person
and in the feedback that I've received to do both zoning and building official inspections. >> Yeah. So, that's why it's just Yeah. It's not it's not tangible to do both. That's why they outsource so to spend the money on. It doesn't make any sense
to me. >> What do you feel? >> Yeah. So, I would I would cut all that out of it. >> So, cut 4500. >> Yeah. >> I'm in agreement. >> Is that Is that still going to cover like your conference and hotel and
things like that, Stephen? I just don't want to short change you here. >> So, current budget's 3,000 for this year. Um, I think you know if you cut 4500 and brought it down to 2500,
I mean business is flowing like crazy. So my availability to go out to some of these trainings are few and far between. So I try to be pretty selective on on what and what where I go with these. So >> uh Mark, how where do you stand? >> Okay. And Bruce.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, we're going to bring that one down to 2500. And then I had brought up last time about eliminating the capital reserves in the PNZ department because we have I don't have the sheet in front of me,
Maggie, if you know how much we have in P&Z and reserves right now. >> I can try to access that over here. I don't believe we've had any expenses since last we looked. So, it should be hovering right around I'm going to ballmark 52,000 I think was the last
figure I saw. Um, and I think I have a spreadsheet for it for what was what that was being budgeted for up to 2032. The fields for the columns for 2033 and 2034 and 2035 were blank based on
turnover and um I guess not an idea of where you guys wanted to see us 8 n 10 years out in the department. Um >> 58,000 >> 58. >> Yes. And that was including some comp plan things, downtown master plan,
housing study, zoning map. I think the DMV one was in 24. Um but yes, the the comp plan revision, housing study, future land use map study. Um all of those kind of in my mind as a planner fall under that comp
planning like a single line item rather than on their own. But I think it was broken out to kind of clarify if we didn't want to for if we wanted to forego a housing study or we wanted to elect to do a housing study that cost was roughly I think 15,000
>> housing study we have 20,000 and comp plan is about 20 which I think is probably a little under from what comp plans are costing other cities now depending on if it's a whole rewrite or if we're just going to take bits and pieces of
So just setting money aside each year so it doesn't have this one lump sum of excuse me of $20,000 that impacts the budget. So you put a couple thousand away every year for that. And so future land use map study would occur in one fiscal year as budgeted in that comp
plan or continuing improvement and then housing study future land use study and then eventually those two can supplement the creation of a comp plan um which our current one is slotted and stated at 2030. So those would be on the horizon
in the next few years to start executing if we want it to be a part of a comp plan chapter. >> Yeah. I I guess my thoughts on this is we just hold on all this until we got that economic development >> y >> authority rolling. I'd say that's where
I would like to put the money towards something like that versus diving in more of this. >> Yeah, I that was what I said the last time. I think we should take a year off. We have five figures in reserves and we are looking to go in different directions. We've talked about as a council maybe revisioning the comp plan
too. So, but where do you stand council member Freilley? >> On that. >> Okay. Council member London. >> Sure. >> You're not sure. Council member, >> when are we discussing the economic
development authority next? >> January. >> Hoping for January to schedule a workshop with the full council. I know Mark's got some limited availability as well, but I really think it's important that the whole council hear these presentations. So, if we have to maybe
wait till February, early February. >> Yeah, I think a conversation with uh couple of the people that we've been talking to would be very worthwhile of council to know what options come with a board of authority
of an economic development. um whether or not there's financing mechanisms of their own that they can utilize and what the costs would be if we outsourced somebody to assist with the EDA. Um all of that would be
valuable information for you to hear >> and the grants >> grant funding is another mechanism that EDAS are very helpful with. >> Okay, so do we have a decision here? Joe and I are both for pausing this um
reserve for 2026 and pulling it out of the budget. Um Mark and Bruce, you said you need to think about it. Um Jesse didn't hear where you were at. approach I should ask is your approach perhaps to try to styy the capital reserves for
each of the department budgets as >> not necessarily for all of them but if you look at some of them and and I put it my recommendation for parks and the community center too to bring that down when we when we've already collected money from the taxpayers and we have hundreds of thousands sitting aside
um in climates like this I think it is our responsibility at least this is how I feel I still think a 6% 6.07% preliminary levy is high. You guys may feel different. I feel that it's high. I think we can do better for the city, but we can't do better if we're not willing
to look at any line items to shift or take a break from. And it doesn't mean we're putting the city in a bad position. We have over seven figures in reserves combined between all these different departments, right? And it's also trying to be thoughtful about ways to find efficiencies so we're not,
you know, cutting a department off so that we can't drive things forward together as a city. But if we're not willing to look at areas to cut here and there, then all you're going to do is you're just going to keep growing people's taxes every year. And that's just not something that I'm I'm in
alignment with. But I may be the only one. I'm one vote. You guys are four. So if you feel otherwise, you know, we can we can disagree but three or more will go in that direction and it is what it is and and then those are the folks that you know if if the
residents disagree when elections come around, you know, then you can answer to those folks, right? Or get the phone calls after. I'm just trying to find areas to sharpen without so I'm not saying cut the reserves from every department, but I think there are places where if we've
got 50 and we don't think we're doing anything with it next year and we're we know we're doing this EDA and we might be shifting things in general, you know, that might look different anyway for the 27 budget. >> Yeah, thank you for that. I think this entire council is in alignment with you
on that. Uh, none of us want to be able to have a higher levy than what was said on the preliminary piece. Um, so appreciate the clarification on the intent for the reserves. I have no
problem giving my blessing to uh remove that for planning and zoning. >> Anything else for planning and zoning? >> No. >> Okay. Next one is a general government buildings proposed spreadsheet.
I didn't have anything on this. I just couldn't remember, Maggie, what the professional services and communication increases were for. >> I think the other one was for the system, right? The servers, the 54. >> The Yes, the 54 is for the new
technology and security and servers. Yep. >> Um that needs to happen in 2026 or they are recommending and then we have an added $10,000 for newsletters next year. >> Oh, that's right. >> Do we believe that perhaps newsletters
could be done on electronic format to remove the $10,000? >> Yeah, we talked about at our last council meeting, I think doing two mailed and two digital, but we only did one this year. We could do them all digital or maybe just do one mailed and
maybe >> I would do them all digital. >> All digital. >> All right. >> And is there any cost associated to that? Then I'm assuming >> there will be a small a design fee maybe like 500. >> Who designed the last one? >> Um
your neighbor Ron. >> Christy. >> Christy. Christy Ramler. Yep. She has a creative company. She did a good job with the layout. So, that template's already built. It's just kind of >> So, do we need to have any money in here? >> We do because we'll have to give her all the information to change like the
wording and change pictures or things like that. Maybe if we're being conservative, a thousand, but I don't think it would be that much. >> Remove or reduce to 1,000. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. that >> what was it 12 again Maggie or the 20,000 >> the professional services >> yes >> that is just for um like attorney fees
like outside of um any department so like legal fees >> so like if we get sued or something >> yes or if um our city attorney is that's covered that >> coming to meetings and things like that
like that's his fee. If there is any data requests and things like that, that is what that number is for. >> Do we think we need to bring it up that much? >> Well, we're sitting Well, part of this is I mean, we're sitting at $64,000 right
now. I know some of that will go come out and go to like city hall improvements and things like that, but if you look at just our spending over the last handful of years, it was 82 and 24.
So now part of that was because of the land purchase and all those surveys and things like that. I would I guess >> think moving ahead though knowing the projects we have within the city we're still going to
>> we're still going to use that >> all the stuff that we have bonds >> right >> okay Bruce >> I agree it >> okay anything else all right the next one is public
restrooms 2026 I had nothing on that one did anyone All right. And Bruce, will you just make sure your mics are on? Tom says it with >> it. I just checked it. >> So, I'm just wondering, will that be enough to cover with the new bathroom that's going in at Lake Park or is this
>> This is different, isn't it? This is public works. All right, I'm fine with that one. >> Hey, police proposed budget spreadsheet. I >> I have no questions on this. >> I don't have any questions on this one.
>> No good with it. >> Mark, did you have >> No, I'm good with that one. I was just thinking >> I was gonna say just noting I know you guys talked about flock cameras and whether we should do them, not do them. It's still in here because I need to
have a consensus. >> Oh, I'm still against that. Um not that I'm against the police department or doing what they need, but because I think last time it was discussed that Crowing County is putting two flop cameras in somewhere in the county doesn't necessarily mean Nysa. I think
my position was if we can wait and let them uh advance with those flap cameras for a year and see how it is and then see if you know it does make sense then for next year for us to add them. I thought it would be good to remove those and wait a year to give Crowing County the chance to do their diligence.
>> I thought that we stacked hands on that last time. >> I thought we did, but >> yeah, I thought we I thought that's what where we stood with that one because to take those off. We'll say >> I just want to make sure I have a consensus because I don't always get head nods or anything and so don't want to make the assumption.
>> I'm removing it. >> I remember that we all agreed upon that last time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And what was the what was the what was the price tag on that? >> 15 >> 8500 >> two. >> No. >> So you're the 17,000, wasn't it?
>> No, I it's it's just 8,500 for the total of two flock cameras, I believe. >> Okay. Then there was a subscription fee or something >> like a $2,500 subscription fee every year that was included in that or something. Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Okay. Fire administration 2026. I didn't
have anything on that one. Did anyone else up here? >> Does this include the uh what is the fire department's >> the relief? Oh, that's separate. separate >> the increase >> the city's match
>> the city doesn't >> the city doesn't do anything with that >> vote on to >> do the increase but that's that has nothing to do with this that's completely separate that's separate >> so this 116 if you look at line 125 there
we get money from the state and Joe you might be able to explain this 2% a little bit more >> yeah it's 2% everybody's insurance. It's the 2% monies of everyone insurance. So, >> as the insurance rates go up, the 2% rates go up, but that's all set by your
insurance and our our rating, our coverage rating. And so, everybody knows whatever the city of Nisa has the highest possible rating that we can get without a water tower. >> So, sometimes people ask, "What can I do
to get better insurance with the coverage and stuff?" nothing until we get a water tower. So, it's all it's a formula that's rated and stuff that helps. But that's that's what the increase is. It's the 2% because the insurance is going to go up.
>> Yes. And so then we pay um a percentage. So, the fire department has this budget which we have we'll get to as well, but the city of Nisa and the contracted areas split a percentage based on the values of the properties and buildings. And so,
our percent of the fire budget that the city of Nisa needs to pay is 144,000 based on the best guess we can figure out with evaluations. They don't really change much when you compare. I mean, it might be a percentage or two.
throughout all the five contracted areas. So that's my best guess that our portion going up this year would be about 9,000 for Niswah. >> Any questions? >> Nothing. >> Okay. Um next is the public alerts proposed budget spreadsheet.
I had nothing. No questions. Um no changes on that. Uh council members on >> nothing. Nothing. >> Anything, Mark? Okay. Sanitation ad administration. I had nothing there. Anyone else?
>> Okay. Economic development proposed spreadsheet. These are our donations to other civic organizations. I have no questions on this. Does anyone else >> Are these the donations or would these be the >> This is to like Bladec. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And >> membership fees for the economic
development. >> Yes. And I do believe that Blade went up a little bit. It used to be maybe 31 or 32, but I did get notification that it was going up for 26. So those they are the correct fees from what I everything I know.
>> Okay. >> Cemetery. I have nothing. Anyone else? >> Nothing. >> Um debt service is what I show next, but there's >> there's this is just our tiffs. Yeah, it's >> I put it in there so you guys realize this is kind of our principal and
interest payments for the year. >> Um, but there's nothing you can't really lower them. Um, okay. Next is unallocated expenditures. The only thing I have here is under downtown events. Maggie, that
3500, that's what we gave for the fireworks this year. Correct. >> For the four 3rd of July. >> Yeah, it was. >> Yeah. But who paid for that? It came out of a different account. So that's this is something else then.
>> Well, this is really what that's for, but >> we took that out of reserves. >> Reserves, I think, because it wasn't budgeted for, >> correct? Cuz last year was the Well, in 23 was the first year that they came to us and asked for money.
>> Yep. >> So, a lot of I'll say the expenditures that we've spent is a little over $1,000 as of the end of August, like for garbages. Um if we >> Oh, the portaotties things like that.
Okay. >> Donations to civic organizations. >> That is for the library. So that was an agreement at the Nisa Elementary. So that was an agreement >> that the city made when they built it >> and that's been in there for a long time.
>> It's been 50 it since I have been here. So 12 and a half years. It's gone up I think a $100 maybe $200. >> That's the only item in this specific line item. >> Yes. >> But the actuals if you look at for 23 24
year to date. >> I would have to look at what else might be in here. Um budgeting $5700 for it and it's going to be that. Yes. Fine. But if something's going to creep up. >> No, we did. No, it is $5,700. They bill us once a year.
>> Yeah. >> So, I might have just miscoded something which I will look at. >> Okay. >> It happens. >> Um, >> what falls under other cuz that went from 125,000 to 978 to
this is all unallocated. So sometimes I would have to go back and look at those actuals to know what is actually in there, but it's kind of I'll say a catchall or if the council agrees to do a study that we don't have budgeted for, it kind of comes from this unallocated
account or expenses. >> Would this have been an account where we would have taken the like 225,000 that the government allocated to municipals during middle of CO. Do you remember that? I
>> remember that. >> Is that where that is that where that debit would have been then? >> It may have been very well. >> You add 125 to 97. That seems like the numbers spot on, especially because it drops off to 212. >> Yes.
>> Which would then make me wonder why we'd need 40. >> 40. >> But we haven't we've only used 212 this year, >> right? >> So, do we need 40? >> What was It's budgeted. >> We budgeted 40,000 this year,
>> but we've only used 212. >> Exit. >> I'd say half it. >> All of it or half? >> Unless there's something unless there's something justifying what even $1 would be for the other. I >> any business any organization whenever
there's something that says other it's just that black hole and it's >> always allocated or or uh spenced out and there's nothing that's truly
known unless like right here $40,000. >> Yeah. I'm actually kind of I'm surprised that there's 40,000 for 25 and 212's been allocated. That could be considered for decrease.
>> I'm happy to cut it. >> Oh, I'm happy to cut it. I'm talking about also taking >> that piece. Yeah. >> How do you guys feel? Unless you're correct. >> And maybe if you find something that
constitutes $40,000. >> I was just looking at last year's 25 budget just to see we still we actually lowered it to 40,000 from 46,000. I was just seeing if there was some
notes in prior years that would without me digging through comp study. >> So study, that kind of stuff. >> Yeah, >> I was just looking then that was 24
budget. Yeah, >> I believe at that time when that was put in there, there are ideas on some more studies coming forward and that was a line item for that that was discussed. So I would I would ask it. I'm in
agreement. >> So down to zero, Bruce. >> And >> leave it. >> Leave it. >> Yeah. >> Leave it at 40 or >> Okay. Um bring it to zero. >> I would say cut it. >> Jesse says zero. I say zero. Bruce says
leave it at 40. Where are you at, Mark? >> Well, we already have three, so >> I I'll add a >> Yeah, we'll cut it >> aster zero. If you if you find something in the coming weeks that >> okay >> that represents that then please let us know that we >> otherwise I'm in favor of putting it to
zero. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sewer I don't have anything here. Do you council member Zan? >> Uh no. >> Joe Mark Bruce. >> Okay. Interfund transfer out. I mean
that kind of is what it is. I don't have anything there. Does anyone else? >> No. >> Um, Pickle 2026 proposed budget spreadsheet. >> I didn't have anything that really jumped out. Did anyone else? >> No.
>> I had a question. Can you zoom in? >> Joe, >> do you want revenues or expenses? Um, >> oh, might be too big. Just doesn't fit. There we go. >> And my question is, is not anything
specific to this, but I know the liquor committee, I'm not on it, but I know that, you know, there are like new TVs, bar stools, all that stuff. Did did all those plans get done and accomplished in this year? And are there any more,
I'll say, visions for next year? Um, it's not for that. >> Oh, you need do you want to come up Terry to the mic? So, the the two things that I've basically left to do is the walk-in cooler. I'm still I've got two bids
coming into that, one from Superior and one from uh gentleman in Brainard. Um so, I have no idea what that's going to cost, but I've got enough money put away in that um >> capital reserve. >> Capital reserve for all of that. >> And then, uh the other thing too is uh
bar stools. Um, I've been off with the knee surgery the last eight weeks, so we're uh looking at new bar stools, so hopefully they won't be that much. I don't know. >> What about outdoor seating? >> Outdoor seating is good. >> Okay, >> we bought the new uh chairs last summer.
>> Yep. That is my only question with that is if there is anything else with that plan that needed otherwise I'm good. >> Anything else? Any questions for Terry? Thanks, Terry. >> Yep.
>> Okay, Spirits is next for the budget. Um, I did have two things, but I think I might know the answer to one, but Brian, we'll let you state. Under Spirits Rentals, it's a $30,000
increase from 25 to 26. So I I put that in there because I wasn't really sure what we're going to be doing with Schaers. >> Yep. >> So that is still a big question mark >> on how much that will be.
>> Okay. That's what I thought it was. But I wanted to double check. >> Right now we're paying,000. >> Bless you. >> Okay. So, because that's on our regular council agenda, maybe we should note this and come back to it because we
do need our city attendee for part of that discussion related to that lease. Does that sound fair to everyone? >> Yeah. Yep. Okay, Brian. The the only other question I had was Oh, dues and subscriptions went from
6,000 for 25 to 10,000 for 26. So, an increase of 66%. >> Part of that is a firewall replacement. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yes. which is $2,000. So, it was half of that, but I think some of that is with your new >> the city hive. So, we have um with our city online um
shopping that we have that cost us so much money each month and that is put into that. Anyone else have questions for Brian? >> You know, one one question that pops out to me here that thinking about um more
and more businesses are passing on the credit card fees to the consumer >> at the purchase. >> That's getting pretty common everywhere you go. >> So, I don't know if that's something I'm not sure if it's a budget item, something that uh
>> that we want to talk about, but >> you have it right. I would say I don't know 60% of businesses now I've been noticing I've been wondering it myself. So I've been taking note everywhere I go. It's pretty common. So something to
talk about to get passed on. >> So it from the studies that I've looked at it is for the smaller businesses and more the boutique niche businesses that are out there. Um, if you go to restaurants, seems like it's almost
universal with the restaurants and um, when it comes to liquor stores, there are some municipals in the state of Minnesota that are doing that, but um, not very many. I can do some more research on that on my I wasn't sure if you guys are going to have a question on
that credit card. So, I do have that highlighted on mine. And we have um Maggie has filled out a new application for a different credit card processor. They are we're still pretty much on pause with them because we weren't sure
what the city was going to vote on as far as THC and as of right now, they do not take any credit cards for THC products and but they are working on that. Uh >> process. So we are looking at >> how would they discern
>> there are companies out there >> why >> I I'm not sure why tell you the truth but there are companies out there that will not >> let you use a credit card for THC product >> I would love to hear what their response is on that >> I'm sorry what was that >> I would love to hear what their response
is on okay on that >> yeah I I I'm not sure what it is off the top of my head Terry do you have >> more business >> yeah exactly >> what >> but Brian then is Is this $22,000 increase under credit card fees because of a new processor or what?
>> No. So, I have to put on the my budget the worst case scenario. And so, that is the worst case scenario if this does not work out with a new company. But I would like to see our credit card processing go down, but I can never guarantee that.
So, I put on the worst case scenario on our budget. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. We can we can make that zero if we pass the fees. >> Yeah. So between there and the between there and the pickle. I mean I don't know what the fees were back at the pickle, but
>> I'll tell you >> when you say zero, are you saying going from >> he's saying charge everyone that uses a credit card? >> Charge them at the >> um the pickle is 30,000 proposed. >> Yeah. So that's 50,000 to the city. >> There's two ways of looking at that. I
know a lot of customers out there look at and say, "Hey, if you're going to charge me that extra fee,000, >> they get very annoyed with it and they'll just shop somewhere else." So, a person can do is just increase the percentage that you are marking your product up
>> and um you know mark it up another 2.5% and that covers your credit card fees. Well, that's one way of looking at it. Some some people are saying um it's the cost of business out there. My personal
opinion is that is um that's my line of thinking that it is the cost of business and if we need to make more money then we need to mark our product up two 2.5% more or 2% more whatever it comes out to for the credit card fees. But then
overall you're more expensive across the board too which can drive people away because also too if people know that the whip I don't pay cash at the counter or whatever still. So I know I'll pay cash like you're going to charge me here you go here's some cash. >> Sure. I would love to see
>> on alcohol. I'm just saying on other stuff, >> right? But the only thing I don't I'm just so >> I'm just looking at it, you know, it's discuss discussion if it's 50 grand between >> because because right now the person that's paying cash is getting a a uh
>> we make 2.5% or 2% more on that product because they're paying with cash. >> I Mark, what do you think about it? What we did was we looked at a certain amount and sometimes you can negotiate those fees with the credit card companies, but there's not enough money
going through the spirits there on that. We charged off all of our fees onto the customers and had no problems with it. Like Joe said, if they didn't like their 2 and 12%, 3% or 1% that they got charged, they'd pay cash. Because some people would look at it, if I go in and
I spend $100 and I pay cash, it cost me $100. But then the guy that buys $100 and get his charge, he gets he gets same $100. However, I then have to pay his his percentage. Um and
>> could you clarify what business are you talking about that you had? >> We used to run those systems. >> Okay. Mhm. >> Um and set them up for casinos, hotels, restaurants, bars, um helped with banks. >> I'll ask you,
>> and so forth. So, um, me personally, I push it off onto the onto the customer, but that's just where I stand. Um, and I know we don't have enough revenue to negotiate with the credit card companies. >> Um, okay, Bruce, where do you stand?
Talk closer into the mic because it's hard to hear you. >> I guess that uh, you know, people don't like the extra fee. It's a small amount, but still there's some way you get around it. I don't know. you know, something to do with the company itself. You know, we can work it out. >> You know, the only we can always look at
it and saying, "Okay, no, you know, >> but you you'd be in fa at this point, you'd be I'd be in for it. >> You're in favor of doing it." How do you feel, Jesse? >> I'm in favor of passing along to the customer. And additionally, what if you could offer a a discount to locals
so they don't >> locals don't pay it? >> Yeah. I mean, you're IDing everybody, right? >> Right. >> I guess um I before this the council would make a decision on this, I would just like to say I think we would need
to do some more studying on that. And um I guess my personal opinion is that's what you guys hire me to manage the store and I think it makes sense to keep it and I can make a compelling statement and back that up on why we should keep
doing it the way we are. But um like I've stated, we I am in always in negotiations with different companies and I feel our credit card processing will come down. But once again on the budget, I don't like surprises. So I put
it on there as an increase. Um but that's that's my opinion and obviously you guys are my boss, but I like to know what I like you guys to know how I feel. >> So we have three in favor of passing the credit card fees on. I have
I can see it both ways. I would never do it in my business, but I own my own businesses and I can choose not to do it. But I was thinking today I went and got an oil change and I actually was a bit surprised that Mills charged me 3% for using my credit card. I'm thinking you're charging me 3% for $370 oil
change. Uh maybe I won't be coming back here again, right? Like not >> Yeah, it is >> just it is >> you're driving a big rig. >> Yeah. Just the just the question that I have is if you went into 100 liquor stores in state of Minnesota, how many
do you think would be passing that bill on to the consumer? >> I don't I don't know the answer. >> Everywhere. >> I could see. Are you talking about municipals or privately owned? >> Doesn't matter if it's a municipal or not on a liquor store. I think that's information we should know before we make a decision.
>> I I have an idea if I may. >> Yeah, I think it's more than you think. >> Perhaps, Brian. I mean, it's the 18th of November. We'll be back in December to make the final. >> Perhaps you can get us all some information in the next 15 20 days so we can digest it prior and then
we can make a council decision at that point. And uh >> um >> but T >> might you might get a hold of Bumiji because I think they went through the same thing. >> I'll get a hold of um MMBA and they will have um all kinds of numbers for us.
>> Yeah. And then just do it because the other thing too is if we do it for a time period, see what happens to Joe because you just never know. >> Sure. >> I do. >> I I would Sorry. I was saying to Joe, which I'll just say in public, I think the council either does it or doesn't.
We don't need to kick the can down the road. I don't think a stud is going to tell us any, you know, it might say, "Oh, this percent does this, this percent does that, but then you decide what percent you want to be in." three seem in favor of passing the fees on. As I said, I can see it both ways, but I
would never do it in my own businesses. Um, but we also didn't really hear from Terry because I'm presuming if we're if if the council is directing to pass the credit card fees on at Spirits, they would also h we would have to keep a consistent
>> Are you just talking the off sale or do you want it in the bar, too? Cuz I'll tell you what happened at the Legion when they did it at the bar. Right now they change their hours. They open at 11 in the morning and they close at 8 o'clock at night.
They have nobody going into that store. And then it's all wonky. You know, you get a you order a Windsor Coke for four bucks and it comes to $4 and some odd cents. So then the people that want to pay cash that it's four bucks, but
everything else is all wonky. So I mean, if you if you're going to do it, do you want it in the bar or just in the off sale? Well, I mean, myself, I just went out to eat at um I've been actually watching this very
closely in the area and I just went out to eat at four local bar restaurants within six, seven miles of here and they're all doing it. >> Do you do it? >> What's it? >> Do you do it? >> I am looking at doing it at the first of the year.
>> I won't be getting my planters from you anymore then. I'm just kidding. I I'm looking I'm looking at doing it because the these fe these fees just keep going up and up and like I say doing it >> suppliers suppliers that come to me you
know they're doing it to myself whatever it's just this is rapidly changing even in the al say even in the last 6 months >> okay Bruce just changed his perspective he says >> it customer because it's a it's a trend and it just seems like it's going on everywhere right now
>> right >> okay So, you have four. You have four that are for it. >> Do you want us some blue hair? >> I'm against it, but I'm in the minority. I, like I said, I can see both sides. I would never do it in my own business. Um, me personally, when people do it, if
I'm spending like hundreds of dollars with them and they want to charge me 3%. I'll go spend my money elsewhere, but I'm just one person. I'm in the minority on this. But will I what I will advocate for for the pickle is I will say I don't think we should do it in the bar. It should just be the off sale. rest sale only. But the other thing too is I think
Brian, you should look at the numbers, bring them back to us before we make a final decision on that one. >> I would agree 100% with that. I think we're if we make a decision tonight, we're making it without the clear facts out there. And it we have no idea. We
might be one of three liquor stores in the state of Minnesota that are going to do this. I'm not saying that's the case, but I I think it's irrational to make a decision without having the facts in front of us and seeing what the trend is out there. I agree. I would love to see us not have
$100,000 bill um on credit card fees, >> but um and the trend, I'm not arguing anything about the trend. The trend is going that way, but right now the trend is not liquor stores that are doing it. and I don't necessarily want to be the
one that is paving the way for all the other liquor stores and in the meantime getting um some backlash and losing business because of it. >> You can't control what other people do and vice versa. And additionally um if if everybody agrees, I mean it's
not like we're stacking hands cut it tonight. We're all in favor of going down that path. If the council agrees, perhaps Brian would give you two, three weeks before we reconvene in December to stamp this levy and we got all the information that you're alluding to and
then >> I guess that's all I was asking is to have, you know, the two or three weeks before you guys say tonight, this is what we're doing. >> Yeah, but there has to be council does council does need information then to make a decision in December. It cannot be kicked down the road again because
the levy has to be final at that point. >> I'm okay with that. Okay. It wasn't unanimous. >> Restaurants do pass the fee onto the server. Doesn't >> matter. >> Okay. >> You didn't know that. A lot of restaurants when when they
don't charge you the fee on your credit card, the weight staff pays that fee. Yes, they do. Yes, it is. >> No, no, no, no. I know that. I'm just saying how many people realize that? this kind of, you know, so next time
you're in a restaurant, ask the weight staff and then they go, "What?" And then they go back and check with the manager, come back and say, "Oh my god, I didn't know that." All right. >> Just out of curiosity, um, it's not an official poll. There's five people here in the audience. Just
what are your thoughts? Raise a hands. Pass the credit card fee on. Okay. You don't count as two, Fred. >> Only one vote >> and then two against. Okay. Just just curious. just as a litmus test from the audience.
Um, well, why don't you bring back information and council will make a final decision. >> What would that do to our levy then, Maggie? >> We'll do the math on that. It's 120,000. >> That's 120,000. >> If 25,000 is 1%, that's almost
>> five, >> right? >> 5% right there. if you agree to tra take that $110,000 and put it towards the general levy. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's not a little number when you add it all up. >> Yeah.
>> Right. >> As long as it doesn't hurt our sales because then it doesn't help the levy at all. I mean, since we we're still talking about it, I mean, um, 75 80% of your sales come from
travelers passing through. >> Mhm. >> I mean, they ain't going to know the difference. And again, I brought up UID everybody. You're from Niswah. You don't have to tell them. >> Just
>> we can't do that. >> No. Says who? Says who? You go to a restaurant or whatever and you get your your slip, you know, you're surprised that >> local it first of all, it has to be posted
>> and then if we're not charging somebody and we are charging the next person, I that's very shady and that's that's um just my opinion. That's MPA operation style. >> Goes back to my notion I've been making
all along. I mean, we have so many out oftowners, and God bless them, they're bringing in business and revenue and dollars into this town, don't get me wrong, but who's using the roads? Who's using the city amenities? Who's using this, that, and another thing? I mean,
it's it's the amount that is the wear and tear on all of us, right? and >> and I'm guessing I'm not sure but if if we had to go that direction then um it would be set up on the software system where the credit it would be automatic.
I don't think we would have an option as an employee to say I'm going to give >> No, it's all automatic. >> I'm going to So then >> swipe their credit swipe their ID every time or scan it and then boom. >> I'm just throwing ideas out. Right. >> That's Well, let's let's just we'll come
back on December. come back in December and we'll continue the discussion. Um, thanks Brian. >> Okay, parks is next. The only note I had from this last time we talked was related to the capital reserve. Um,
61,000 being put aside from the parks. I think we have a couple hundred,000 in it. At a minimum, I would say maybe we look at decreasing the 61,000 in the reserve maybe to 30 or 40. So, we're still putting some money in
for parks, but we're not >> How much is in How much is actually in the >> It was like 27. >> Say that again. >> Yeah. >> What What are you typically burning through a year out of that? >> Well, we have millions of projects coming down the pipeline,
>> right? I'm just curious like >> Sorry, Amber. >> There's currently 28,000 in the capital Reserve right now. that's taken us four years to achieve that amount with the initial transfer of $100,000 from the unreserved.
So, the mentality thus far has been a steady steady on the gas. We have millions of dollars coming down the pipeline in repairs and replacements. And so, that's why I have prioritized keeping that money in there. If you guys remember back to April, in all three of my
scenarios, I did not touch the capital reserve. I believe strongly that um if we keep it steady, we reduce the whiplash for the community. Um and so that's why it's been in there. My budget outside of
staffing increased by about $4,000. So I shifted a lot of money around. Not necessarily the increase to the capital reserve as extra money, but I moved a lot of money around. So outside of staffing, the entire park's budget went
up by $4,000. >> I still stand where I am and we make um we look at making a decrease to the reserve for parks and I think we're also going to get to it in the regular council meeting that we have a new energized group that has formed um that is committed and dedicated to raising
hundreds of thousands if not millions or more dollars for the parks. It's a great group of people. They've met multiple times already since the local option sales tax meeting over at the community center and they are off to the races and some some more of that will be shared in
the regular council meeting. So, but if others disagree, so be it. Um, that's where I'm at. I'd like to see us bring it down a little bit. I'm My original thing said take a year off. I'm not saying that anymore. I'm saying maybe go to 30 or 40. So bring it down half or
like 40%. I know council member Freillley is probably not with me on it. So I'll start with council member Hall. Where do you stand? >> Um the other thing too is was talking about taking some of that capital reserve and and looking at some likes and stuff like that. Um,
>> I'll let somebody else set a number on that one because I I I >> So, I'd here here's my only thought on it. You know, there's still no plan of action put together for the park, right? We got this picture, we got
this design, but there's no plan. >> Talk more the So, so there's no plan right now >> for the park. >> Okay, just a second. >> Move forward. >> Um, the committee's been working on a plan because we already know we voted to phase it out. They're looking at phasing
out phase one into different phases. Um, I think that'll I think um Amber might touch on that later tonight. Um, and then in December, I know that they'll be coming back with more the final decision in December because
But but go ahead. >> Sure. So, there's no plan to get get this thing actually rolling as of tonight. Um, we have the picture, we got the concept, we got this huge
number. So, without a plan though, um, the park needs are still the park needs. I mean, we are going to have to maintain and take care of what we have. >> I'll say, you know, kind of put the band-aid on stuff until we actually kick
off and get this plan going, um, the group going. So, to have some money in reserves, um, I don't think is the worst thing right now because we do still have to maintain at least what we have.
or temporary fix whatever to get us by until we can actually kick off a plan. Now, as soon as there is actually a plan in place, which I don't know the timeline on that, maybe you do, Mark, but um you know, once there's a timeline in
place, then I think that this goes away. >> I'm in I'm in favor. >> I agree >> of your point of maintaining what is proposed. But what about if we're gonna So if you guys are majority of you feel keep putting in the reserves, what about at least leaving it flat to what we had last year?
>> That's fine. >> Putting instead of instead of going on the community center instead of putting in 24, let's put in 21. >> So we're putting in but >> Well, actually talk with the parks first. So is everyone fine with leaving it at 50?
>> Yes. Bruce Joe in >> favor of leaving it at the proposed 61,000. >> Okay. Uh I'm suggesting to bring it back to last year's amount 50. I originally said cut it all together. Then I found a concession middle ground. How do you
guys feel? We have over 200,000 sitting in that account. have a group that is moving in terms of a fundraising effort led by some folks here in this room >> and to which I know nothing about and
looking forward to learning more about but I'm looking I'm looking at what's in the hand right now. >> Okay. So, where do you all stand? You've heard where I stand. It's Joe. I wasn't clear. Are you at 50 or are you
at 61? I don't know that I don't know that it matters that much. >> It does because 25 a $25,000 decrease is 1% less to the levy to the people on their property tax levy. >> Yeah, but I'm just wondering, you know,
we've Does anybody have any idea where we are currently at with all the cuts we've already made tonight as far as percentages? >> I did not add this >> money cuts. >> Yeah. Um around 65,000. It's
>> 2% call it >> without the liquor. >> Without the liquor. >> Without the spirits. >> Oh, they're not counting the spirits. >> The attorney fees. You know, you're dropping off 10 grand on that one right there. Uh what did I have under MC?
That's a $750. Um planning and zoning, taking $2500 off of that one. Um plus another 5,900 for planning and zoning. Uh you're looking at police taking off
the Well, I don't think the the flax wasn't on. >> Yeah, it was. >> Okay. My rough a quick estimate is about 70,000 because we're taking out that big 40,000 from unallocated to zero. So >> you're you're at about 67,000. Yeah. So
roughly 70,000. So you can say right there, what would that be? Uh one 2.8 Eight points five. >> What's >> Okay, so you guys want to all It sounds
like you guys all want to stay at 61. I'm just trying to watch the time. We have 10 minutes and we still have a couple more pages to get through. So, >> yeah, I was just doing some math on it. >> Yeah, I just I shared where I was at. It sounds like you guys might be in a different place. >> Can we come back to it? Let's look at
the other slide. >> Okay. Well, the community center one, the only thing I had there too is we had Amber had in 24,000 set aside in reserves and I had said at our last workshop to take a year off on that one, but I'll say the same thing here. Just cut it down a little bit.
>> I'll say, >> but it's going to be the same conversation, right? >> Yeah. Year-over-year, the community center is much closer in percentage to covering our costs than the parks is. Parks has a much larger spread that is not being covered. Um, so if we're going
to look at picking and choosing, I would recommend to you to decrease from the community center versus parks. Um, I am still in contact with North and Hi-Tech regarding some of those updates. I don't have those numbers back. Um, but that'd be my recommendation within my world is
community center, reduce that more than parks. >> This might be way off uh Mark on that one, but I know that um um the repairs to the community center due to the leakage um we got a rough estimate cost on that.
>> Not yet. That one um may in part be tied with the road bond um kind of dealing with those issues when we deal with the parking lot. >> What's the total dollar amount in reserves right now for the bill >> that has 150,000
which is not much >> and it can get us our immediate need. >> What's that? >> Remove remove it to its entirety. get rid of >> if you're giving are you saying that you are feeling comfortable that it's >> I am saying if I'm picking and choosing I pick from the community center
>> to reduce versus parks. >> Okay. >> Because year-over-year community center budget is much closer to what we're trying to put away versus parks is a larger gap. >> So get rid of the whole 24. >> Get rid of the whole 24 this year. And I
am hopeful that I'll have information back from Hi-Tech and Noran for some of the repairs to update that scope of work for the inside um in December as well. So >> Mark, how do you feel about it? >> You can take it off.
>> Okay. I think Maggie, you have more than three or three at least. So, I'm taking 24,000 >> 24,000 from the reserves from the community center to zero >> and we're going to leave park at 61,000. >> I'm in favor of that.
>> Okay. I have two in favor. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Um, fire >> again. I moved that page. It should be on the back side.
>> I I have notions on it. >> I didn't have anything on that page. >> Anybody else? >> Sorry guys. >> Yeah. Nothing. >> I didn't have anything. >> Okay. >> We don't have anything.
>> The last the front page that you had. >> Yes. >> That's the last thing I had. There was no fire on the back of your community center, but you have no changes. >> Oh, no changes. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Everybody was confused. >> No, sorry. Everybody's saying no. No
changes. No changes. Just >> like, >> okay, then let me go to not this one. >> Any other bells and whistles? paid
looking at my next door post. >> This one we probably just have a few items left here on this. I know I >> family leave. Joe, you had a perspective on that last time. >> Doesn't PDF whatever. >> Well, we have the ability to pay it all
or just our percentage. >> Yes. >> And I would say that we just do our percentage, but also too, I think that's going to be in >> our discussion tonight. >> Our discussion of the contracts. So this one I think we have to come back to, >> right? >> Okay.
>> We talked we talked about well union contracts we're doing tonight. Organization building code training we already discussed that correct under P&Z. >> Yes. >> And AICP training flap camera system we discussed newsletter we discussed. >> Yep.
>> Computer technology server we discussed. >> Yes. I just wanted to reiterate because I know the last budget meeting we had I was just throwing numbers. So, this is kind of a a better estimate of where we're going to be sitting. And then at the very bottom here, I just detailed
all of the things that are included in that 54,000 um are obviously our servers for PD and city hall are quite expensive. So, that's where the majority of that comes from. And then the only other thing is wages
for >> myself. So, I kind of put a very quick um spreadsheet together just to show you um as a finance specialist, my estimated wages would be 3548. Um our consultant stated that I would
with the new title and duties, I would be at a grade 12. And so, here are the steps above what I'd be making there. So, I don't know that a motion needs to be made. I I budgeted step 10 just to
make sure we had money in the budget for that. Um knowing that I mean you guys can make this you can't really make motion in our workshop but knowing that this is coming down the pipeline. >> Thank you Maggie. >> Thanks. And then I have one more thing
quick because I just wanted to um I was able to get some it's a really bad scam, but I was able to get um a citizen of Nisa's property taxes um their proposed statement. If you look at their valuations, I'm going to try and zoom in here a little bit. Um their valuations
didn't change a whole lot over year after year. And just coming down to Nysa's taxes, um their taxes at the 6.07 actually went down. So they were last 25 is at 637 and the proposed at 2026 with
our preliminary at the 6% was 599. So just it's one piece of it but I wanted to just throw it out there. >> They were the fortunate one. >> Well let's uh let's bring it >> mine went up. >> Okay. So all right a motion unless
there's anything else a motion to adjurnn would be in order. >> I so move second. Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. Okay, we are adjourned. Um why don't we take a few minutes before we gave in for our Part: 2
Andy, I see that you're on Zoom. Can you hear us or me? >> Hey, Joe, I sent you a picture. Do you see Richard's uh deal? Okay, I got I just talked to him. I
>> Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? He's put a lot of hours in to get that. >> Andy, I don't hear anything from you. >> Can you hear me now? >> Hello. Um, I think we are good. I do have Andy and Toms.
>> Yeah. >> Can you hear me now? Okay, you have to ask me that because you know I do >> Maggie, can you hear me now? >> Yes, Andy, I can hear you now. I think it's just a little loud in here.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And yep, Andy, I can hear you. >> Perfect. Thanks. Yes. >> Okay, Jennifer, I am ready. We are recording. We're good. >> Okay. Good evening, everyone. I would
like to officially call the city of Nisa regular council meeting to order at 7:04. If we can all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. >> Thank you. Um, the first item we have is to approve the agenda. I actually would like to make a motion to amend the
agenda to add two items under old business. Um, item one would be to just add the city administrator clerk/ finance specialist job description update as item 2A. And then the second
is to add um the city administrator/clerk search firm um contract update as item 3A. Do we have a second?
>> Second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Um, next up is our consent calendar. A notice to the public that all matters listed are considered routine by the
council and will all be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the time the council votes on the motion. Do we have a motion? Make a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. The consent calendar passes. Next up is our open forum. If there are any members of the public that would like to come up and address the council for any items that are not on
the agenda, um, we limit to two minutes. You just need to come to the microphone, state your full name and your address. Going once. Going twice. Okay, we will move along and close open
forum. Next up are our reports. We'll start with our city attorney Tom. Do you have an update for the council? >> Good evening everybody. Nothing new to report here tonight. >> Okay. And city engineer, >> we don't have any specific agenda items
for you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we'll move next to old business. The first item under old business is the Verizon cell tower draft lease agreement fire station location. Um, Stephen is our head of
planning and zoning and Tom Pearson, our city attorney. Stephen, I'll let you start. Good evening, council. Uh, so the Verizon cell tower draft lease agreement is on the agenda tonight for review. I've had conversations with the city attorney as well regarding that matter.
Um, just an FYI to that. Um, there were a couple items that we needed to plug in. We just got a couple blanks filled by Verizon for exhibit A, exhibit B on the draft agreement. Um,
Pearson, anything that think I should add in regards to this specific agenda item? Well, only that only that um Verizon has just sent us today what they think is the final draft of that lease agreement. Previously, they had supplied
a version that was not populated with legal descriptions and other particulars because it was early in the consideration. So, they've done that now. So, we'll have time to look at it, but we've also have probably an intervening issue um that will stop us
from I mean certainly we're reviewing that lease agreement now in preparation for whatever is going to happen. But >> yeah, >> yeah, we have a we we have an appeal that just um came up I think yesterday um for the planning commission and board
of adjustments the board of adjustments decision on the variances um that were approved in November and the planning commission's um approval of the CUP. Um, so we've got a petition um to appeal to the city council, which you obviously can't hear tonight. So that'll
have to be on the December agenda. Um, so the the final review of the lease agreement and the finalization of that, if that's going to happen, will await the outcome of that appeal, I think, makes the most sense. >> So the appeal will be in December. >> Yeah, there's really no choice. It just
it just came as came yesterday. Um, so, uh, that timing is what it is, but it doesn't afford you the ability, I think, to process that appeal tonight. >> Um, so those of us on the council did receive several, well, I'm assuming everybody received emails. I received emails related to the Verizon cell
tower. I will I did email everyone back and said I would uh let the folks know at the meeting that I was in receipt of these. I did receive an email from one individual who is in favor of the tower. Um, and then the others that I received,
I think it's related to the appeal. They're they're not in favor of it. And there also was a petition. Some of those folks are here tonight. So, is it Are you saying it's not appropriate to let them come to the mic and address council tonight? We should wait until December. >> Yeah, I think that's the best because I don't I just don't think you can take
any action on it tonight given the timing of it. Um, not to stop anybody from speaking to what they want to speak to, but it might be premature to speak to it tonight and maybe repetitive of whatever gets brought up during the presentation of the appeal in December. >> I I I don't want to stifle free speech
because I do see some of the people that sent emails here tonight. Um, you did hear from our city attorney. I if you feel like coming to the mic and you want to address council, you can. If you feel it might be redundant and you want to wait until the appeal in December, that's fine, too. But I want to give the opportunity if if anyone would like
that. Okay. Council. Uh well, we'll go to council members on first and then council member Hall second. >> Miss Maggie, could you by chance pull some data for us as to when the tower
was discussed in our past uh meetings? Just >> Sure. >> Just knowing the dates. >> Yep. And if there if you're able to pull any supplemental information that was presented by Verizon during those meetings. >> Y >> I have a recollection haven't thought about this for a while but three or four
meetings where Verizon was uh zooming in. >> Yes. >> And if there's any supplemental information that they shared for us to review. >> Okay. >> Um please share that as well. >> Okay. I'll work on that. >> Council member Hall. >> Yeah. I was going to say the same thing
and maybe uh if we want to provide like a summary of this just because a lot of the questions that I saw in the email coming in um you know for instance other locations in town and stuff like that that that
has been thoroughly exhausted by city staff by people over the years. This definitely is not a new issue. Maggie informed me earlier that it's probably been talked about for close to how many years now? >> At least I would say eight.
>> Eight years. >> Close. >> Quite a long. >> Remember the alternate site that was talked about for downtown before that got ruled out because of the DNR situation. So, >> correct. And so, so everybody knows there is a ton of information out on
this over eight years. I mean, a lot of time, work, energy, efforts have gone into this and maybe I don't know, directing them. >> Yeah, I like what Jesse said to to hunt up some of this information, see past meetings, you could probably get a lot
of your questions answered from those resources. And if Maggie is going to go back and look through historicals and we're going to do a summary maybe just a high level Maggie or and or Stephen a highle timeline as well for folks because I think that is a valid point. Um, last
Friday I was approached by a group of people that this was new to them or they thought this just came up and I said, "Well, no, I remember this is at least before I was I ever ran for mayor because I remember coming to a council meeting and seeing it on the agenda."
Um, but didn't know how far along it was. So, that probably is great all around for everybody to have full transparency, full information, and then we can come back in December. Um, Council Member London, do you have anything? Yeah, I think let's push it off for a while and see what we got. Take a good look at it.
>> Okay, Council Member Freillley. >> Boy, how much time do we have? Uh, one, I was thinking this was going through with the property over here, we might have one or two variances. Six to me is way too crazy that they authorized said good. Um, the other thing too is I did have a discussion. Um, some people were
asking why this why the tower could not go on to the new city land. Two things I'll address. One thing, one is finding out that the city has a variance, I mean an ordinance as to communication towers must be on city-
owned property. >> Sure. So, we have a land use chart that designates what uses can occur where, um, and determines the usage pathway for permitting. Um, communication towers are only listed as a conditional use permit in the public and recreation district,
whereas any other zoned property would be a prohibited use for that to occur. >> Okay. Any Oh, >> sorry. Council member Freley, go ahead. And the reason why it can't go to the new city property is because it isn't zoned parks. And >> the current zoning designations of the
recently acquired property are highway business and I believe urban residential. Um neither of them meeting the public and recreation classification currently without entertainment of a reszone. So
would it be possible to inquire with the Verizon rep? I forget his name. Is it Brian or something? >> Woody. >> Woody to inquire to see if Mr. Woody would be available to >> December. >> Yep. >> The other thing, too, is I was wondering
if we could Why are we going to the height that we're going cuz it's just because you go higher doesn't mean you get better coverage. >> That was all figured out in his charts that he shared with us. I'm not sure if you were at that meeting, but he had he had all that laid out, the coverage and
the height. Yeah, he had some DT propagation data. Um, I remember vividly a request came in for that to be um proprietary data, not to be shared. I will have to work with Bele consulting to find out whether or not they wish to
re reveal that if they gave it to us with uh private information. How how would you advise that I treat that Tom? >> Well, I think that's right, Stephen. find out it's I don't know how BU consulting whatever contracts they have
with Verizon about that information but you certainly can inquire about that >> seek consent to release and then bring it um a lot of this the reasoning for it to be put to December instead of tonight's for the appeal specifically would be I have to provide notice to all
original parties in mail um the receipt of the appeal did not afford that for tonight's >> that last piece again good The receipt of the appeal did not afford time to put notices out into all the original parties um to let them know that an appeal hearing was being heard and a
decision to be made. So, >> but you're able to get it out, >> not only get the notices out, >> the information that you're requesting um that appellants can request >> compilation of all that information.
>> Yeah. And and when we come back in December, we were just talking about this. We ask for all those pieces. It's almost like a mini re-education piece at the beginning. >> Will be valuable to have Verizon here as well so that everyone can be hearing the same information at the same time. Um,
does anyone else have anything for Stephen? Otherwise, we can move on to the next item. >> Sir, >> thank you, Stephen. >> Okay. Next up, this is a again a continuation from old business. We've carried this over from multiple special council meetings, a discussion regarding
the uh committees, but specifically this one was putting together a um draft of the role of the personnel committee. So that is in everyone's packet. Um, just for background on this, we did reach out
to multiple other cities asking for how they are structured, how their personnel committee structures, and we got multiple different um, documents back and took a look at all of them, compiled these together. Joe and I both agreed to
this. So, now this is coming forward to council uh, for consideration. And council member Freley, you had responded because I think I did pass it out last time, but we didn't have it in the packet so we couldn't vote on it. Um, you looked like you had
Did you have comment or question >> on the draft of >> On the draft of the personnel committee overview? >> Yes, >> I I kind of do. Um, this might be a question for the city attorney, but um, and it kind of is. So,
we have in here uh that the committee shall consist of two council members um, appointed annually by the mayor. Um if I remember correctly uh in the past yes mayors have appointed
persons to be leaison I mean >> committee members >> what's that >> committee members >> yes so um what I was wondering was is but that has to go through the council to approve >> um
>> it's the organizational meeting. Council member Freley, that happens every January. >> Right. Right. And I won't be there. I was just wondering is is that the is that the proper way that that should be that the mayor appoints to all the committees or is it
>> Yeah, I mean that's it. It it obviously takes a council vote to approve that and sometimes those things result in changes to the plan proposed as far as uh nominations to committees. But certainly here that's the way we've always done it where at the organizational meeting the
mayor suggests appointments and that's voted up. >> Okay. >> But the council has full ability to be able to >> Yeah. often >> modify that pocket and say no. >> Often times that those conversations result in some changes to those appointments. Y
>> council member Freley I I too see that same point that you have there. I don't see that necessarily needing to be an appointment by the mayor. I think that can be by the council as a whole. Yes. Um uh just lost my train of
thought. My question is do we actually need a personnel committee? I mean that's been discussed for for a few years on whether we actually need a personnel committee. That's just a question I'm going to throw out there.
Um, that's the only thing I have on that one. >> Okay. Well, your first item, let's take your first because those are two totally different things. So, the first one, yes, we were just following the ordinances. Our city ordinances state that the mayor does appoint to
committees and the council affirms. So, we can change that language to match the ordinance um if council is in agreement. You brought it up. So, As long as it matches the ordinance. Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll update this to match the
ordinance. >> Any other bullet points because your second one is a totally different topic. >> Yeah, that's a totally different topic. >> So, I was just throwing that. >> What's on here is to approve this. >> Yep. I I know that was just a that was a thought I threw out there. Different
>> topic, but yes, that's where I'm at on that one. That was what I had on mine. >> Okay. Council member London, do you have any changes, additions, deletions, input to this document? >> Nothing at this time. >> Okay. Council member ZH,
>> I don't exactly feel overly comfortable with how this is laid out right now. Um, strictly due to the fact that I feel like it's pretty broad. Um, I will also echo council member Freley's point in regards to we've had a lot of discussions regarding the personnel
committee. We have gone from creating set of guidelines or bylaws more or less for that committee to actually scrapping it as an entirety. Um, I personally don't feel comfortable moving forward with having this much authority within
the one or two individuals that are on there based off how it is. Um, we also do not have uh full-time city administrator clerk yet the deputy clerk as well. There's a lot of moving pieces.
I don't believe that this is a high enough priority item to be able to drive forward for me to give my blessing to move forward with this today. Council member Hall, how do you have any input? >> My input on it is being on the committee and especially over the last year being
asked all these various things or roles or positions, you know, during this interimm time and having no guidance right now as it currently sits on exactly what we do. It's made it challenging for us as being on the
personnel committee. So, um, this is what it is. It's a draft. It's a conversation. It's a starting point because, um, we do want to really get this defined, you know, so it it works the best for
the city and for future councils because right now it's just been open-ended. >> Yeah. Um it's been open to interpretation from the way that it's being done now to the way it was done past with prior um people. Um also to um
talking to staff, why this committee actually started and got originated. I think that started way over here and where we are now is way over here too when this first started and the intent
of this committee and so that's why there just needs to be some discussion around it and this put together um I guess is when I've when I've asked questions about it too like to your point Mark do we even need it? Well,
yes, it does serve legitimate needs and roles and purposes, but also too, I would say that there's a pretty big gray area as we have talked to some other cities, the way that they operate, whatever. There is no cut and dry line.
And so I I don't know if we have enough time to maybe discuss this all tonight or if it's something that we want to schedule we can continue specifically talk about you know >> or I don't know if it
>> we we cut our budget for the labor attorney but you know is it something that we want to talk with him about or >> I >> or get guidance from the league on. So, I did reach out to the league as a part of this, right, before you and I uh approved this final document. So, what I
would say is I've been on this council almost a year now and I I just being completely honest, I feel like it's a constant pingpong game. People are here, they're here, they're here. Emotions are coming into play, right? And
I've worked in a lot of organizations in my lifetime. I've been with some of the most prestigious Fortune 500 companies. I own my own small business. I led a political party and there is a lot of dysfunction in the city of Nisa and we were asked and council members on you
were the one that brought this up of asking for some parameters a description around it. Right. So we took a stab at it and we did the right process which is reaching out to other cities in the area, other cities around the state that are similar sizes, the League of Minnesota cities, right? talking with
other uh mayors and folks that are a part of personnel committees um reaching out to the attorney as well just to see if they had any input but what they sent us I think wasn't it was totally in a different realm so we compiled all that and came with this and are coming to a
draft with council and I don't know if council is sometimes thinking um you know hey this staff is coming to us about this or this staff is coming to us about this and they might have an issue with this council member or that council member they might maybe not like how the mayor did this or that. And then are we
adapting based on what personal people are coming and saying individually or are we looking at taking the people out of the roles, the the personalities and looking at what is the best structure for the organization? Because sometimes I feel that in my time here as mayor,
that's where the city has failed. That's my personal opinion. Um, we were just trying to help draft a structure and an organization and a guide to set the future city up for success by having some guidelines. If you don't have any guidelines, like Joe
said, what are we supposed to do? It's like when when we first came in on this, when Jenny Max was still here, it was like anything um any new hire, that all had to come through the personnel and sit down with that department head to talk about, hey, what what are you department head? what are you
recommending for a starting wage and why and what's the offer and then it would go through the personnel to give their input but ultimately it comes to the council right so it's really just a body that advisory it's no different than the liquor committee right we might discuss
things related to the liquor businesses but ultimately the decision is made with the council um so we can put this back on the merrygoround and kick down the road and wait until we have an administrator clerk that's fine too,
but it's like back and forth. We don't need a personnel. We do. Every other city around here has a personnel committee, and it's always the mayor and one council member. That's how it is everywhere that has one. Um, if we don't have to do what everybody else does, we
can do our own thing. But again, it just it seems like we just get into the weeds on some of this organizational stuff that doesn't need to be as messy as it is. If you're in a privately held company, it's not this difficult. Don't
think we need to over complicate it. So, if we're not comfortable approving the draft or we want to go back and wait till we have an administrator clerk and we want to look at a new draft, that's fine. But, you know, keep in mind people did put work into this and and it and it was
with good intentions to try to set up organization and operation. >> So, that's all I have to say. I'd like to make a motion to table this item until further notice. >> Second. >> Any additional discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Um 2A is the item we added which is the city administrator, clerk, financial specialist, deputy clerk job descriptions. Maggie had sent out an email to all of us after our last special council meeting. I was taking
notes. She was taking notes. Um, and I had sent Maggie back some changes, but I'm not sure the changes made its way to the rest of the council because I received an email back that three responded approved. But in normal process, all the changes any of us submitted should have come before all of
us to just take a look at first before approving. So that's all this is. The changes are minimal. It just adds the words in conjunction with city administrator clerk and or finance specialist treasurer in bulletointed
areas and that is it. So you guys can take a moment to look at it. Again, these are not significant changes. They're just what I had captured on my notes that um didn't make it into. So if there's a motion, if not, we can leave it as is. I'm fine with the changes.
>> Is that a motion? >> No, that's not a motion. >> I'll make a motion to leave the job descriptions as is. Second it. >> Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I I
>> opposed. Okay. Motion carries. The next item up is ordinances, policies, personnel policy discussion. Uh we left this on just so we don't forget it that when a new city administrator clerk comes in that they would go through that personnel policy manual. So I don't
believe that there's a motion here. >> Did we have any other ordinances that we were hoping to discuss as well? Uh such as the accessory structure. And I thought there was another one >> that was some planning and zoning which I think Stephen is working on with some
of these final changes that Chris Pence reviewed. >> Okay. Yeah, I can provide a quick summary on that. So working through a markup um disseminating that to state agencies for um review. Uh there's going to be DNR shorland rule that needs to be affirmed
that we are not changing anything that would be less restrictive than the state mandates. We are um one question I have. You brought up accessory structure specifically. What are you honing in on specifically regarded to them?
>> My only feedback on it was similar to the one I brought up to you in regards to the uh city sewer connection for commercial versus residential, right? was I feel like it's inappropriate to constrain a land owner in the city of
Niswah to only being able to construct a 2500 foot accessory structure if they have 10 acres, 100 acres, you name it. And I know you and I talked about this. It's the day old. We're going to go to the
highest end of the scale. But it still stands true though. If a farmer wants to come into town here and they got their homestead and then they got a 2500 foot square foot chicken coupe or or cattle yard, um, doesn't make sense. >> So, I think what you're talking about is that that use table within the section
20-93 that designates the permitting pathway. Um, permit being a P overthe counter, C being a conditional use permit through the planning commission, >> and a void cell being a prohibited use is it's a land use chart specifically in
that section. So the notion of introducing a use pathway that could allow it subject to other standards like impervious surface coverage, other things >> but we we already have that pathway. There's setbacks or square footage or
supervious coverage that's all defined. All right. >> So yeah, I agree with Jesse. Um I know >> when the time frame, the background on the 2500 square foot and it just needs to go away. Bottom line. So that's my vote on it. Second that.
>> Can I get a suggestion as to whether or not this consensus would be to have that as a conditional use pathway? >> No. >> No. >> Over the counter permit pathway.
Somebody coming in wants to build a garage, whatever. 3,000 square feet, whatever it is. Like Jesse said, whatever over-the-c counter permit, get it at the counter, move on with life. We don't need to make it more complicated.
If people own the land, we already have all the setbacks, all the previous coverage calculations, the heights, everything already defined in our current ordinance to allow this to happen. And this was allowed to be
happening before it was roughly about five to six years ago this got put in place. We need to go back to the way it was. So it's it's already dialed in. You used to be able to come into the counter, get a permit for this, and be on your way. >> Sure. There's additional language in
that specific section that talks about the relation of the size of an accessory structure to the principal structure on the lot. >> Get rid of that terminology, too. That needs to go. just break it. Any discussion? >> I think a good pathway for this would be
to bring it to PNZ. >> Yeah. Doesn't it need to go to PNZ? >> Yes. But we got to give >> No. When we met with Chris Pence, we set the rules and then it goes PNZ, not the other way around. Chris Pence sat in that room. Jennifer, when we went and we
set the rules, then it goes >> We're setting direction. It's going to go to P&Z for review. they're going to provide any feedback, but it then comes back up to us to final stamp it. Right. >> Right. But all that all that language, all that terminology, all those li additional limiting factors, you know,
even you know, the garage size on on your current structure can only be x amount of size. Let's face it, in our area, people have a boat, they have a pontoon, they have the four-wheelers, the RVs, all this stuff.
just just for knowledge out there for people too. When was the last one that was denied for a variance for something like this? I can't remember. Now, we're still allowing people to do it, but we're
making them jump through hoops for several months to come in and get a variance, but still they're granted the variance. Just in the last couple months, we've granted a couple different variances for this exact same thing. And all that we're doing is is um making it
more expensive and drawing it out for somebody to get their building and just cleaner pathway, simpler and and move on. So, like you say, I would like to see the term what what I'd like to see
is bring the language that was written prior to these changes with the 2500 squid square foot structure and also to the principal size ratio dwelling garage space and go back to the old way.
>> Sure. So the ask as I understand it is to bring versioning information as it relates to principal structure size requirements, accessory structure size requirements, what the standards were when on a timeline back to 19
20. >> No, this this all happened this this all happened within the last five six years. That's when this all changed. It was like I could look up the date specifically and give it to you probably tomorrow, but it was
>> Joe. Was that all the sh talk? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It was about a It was about six months prior to when I got on P&Z, which was in the fall of Yes. So, >> so safe to say time stamp the versioning analysis back to 2017 would cover the period.
>> Yeah. I there were certain people in town that wanted to do certain things and there was, you know, I'll I'll say it was actually an a vindictive rule that got put in place to limit certain people
from doing stuff and it and it's got to change. >> We're in 411. Dad's in 413. >> Who is that? >> Who is talking? >> It's Andy. He's on Zoom. >> Sorry. >> We can't see him. >> No. >> What What did you have to say, Andy?
>> Nothing. >> All right. So, I think we had a motion and a second on the floor. >> Is that an acceptable? >> Do you want it re >> based on discussion? I'd like to make a motion to uh uh revise the ordinance
29-3 >> to bring information forward to the public hearing that'll occur at planning commission when we have the final draft pertaining to section 20-83 and 20-93 in current code. Those those section
numbers are a new organizational structure. We used to have it slightly different like 4.6 six instead of chapter 20 for example. Um but Municode should be able to assist me in tracking where that exists on those previous versions. So I'll bring that information
forward. >> Yeah. Second. >> Okay. Any additional discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Um 2 A 3A.
Um 3A was the consultant for the city administrator clerk. Just to call out, uh Maggie sent this out to everybody. It's a questionnaire to the council from the search firm to
fill out. If you guys didn't get it, if you So, here's why I'm putting this on the agenda. fill this out and get it to Maggie if you can before Thanksgiving because this is going to start our search process off. >> There's nothing else there.
>> That's the second. >> Did you email this out to us? >> She did. >> Yeah, I did. >> Yes, I did. >> See, that's the second thing that you've emailed out that I didn't get the the the paperwork. >> Yep. But Council Member Freley and I have filled it out and turned it in. So, if the three of you can do it and get it
to Maggie before Thanksgiving, that would be great. Um because then we can get the process going um with the search firm. >> Okay. Any questions on the doc? Okay. Next up is the performance evaluations. There's
not really a motion per se that needs to be made here. Um Maggie gave me the self-re. um we received like 20 of them from the league of motans from Minnesota cities from what other city cities do for the
self-evaluation and then for the performance evaluation normally you'd have the city administrator doing this for all the department heads but we motion to do it so you don't have to use this evaluation form as council you can write things on a piece of paper you can do what you want right it's up to
council's perview um but it's just on here to see uh what was put together and compiled and again Um, if the staff wants to use the existing form, that's fine, too. We just added a few things based on other forms that we received
from the 20 plus other cities around the state. But there really doesn't need to be a motion here. It's just for information. >> Did we make a council motion in the past to proceed forward with >> Yep. and to do the review before the end of the year? >> But again, it doesn't have to be a specific form. It can just be
>> so the employees are going to be able to make their own decision to be able to choose which form they do. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And is uh is the intent for the entire council to be conducting >> these reviews? >> Yes. >> Will these meetings be open or closed?
>> If the employee requests them to be open, it'll be open. Otherwise, they will be closed. >> Are we targeting the month of December >> before your end? So, we can either try to do it in one day or we can try to split it into two days because ideally we'd think maybe a half
hour for each one. And I think there are what, Maggie? Eight or nine. >> I believe eight. >> Eight. >> So, I think Maggie did send an email asking for some date availability from everybody as well. Um, if you guys can just get back to Maggie so then we can
go from there, that would be great. Okay. Can I ask one clarifying question, please? Um, you mentioned Jesse kind of touched on this, like for staff to use the one you presented or >> You can use the old one. >> Can I just have direction from council so I can send it out to staff so there's
no questions on our end on what needs to be done, please? >> Do you guys have a preference of which one? Do you want to just use the old one? C, >> can I just jump in here real quick? So, when I was looking this over, to me it was a little too much. Um, and some of the some of the questions in
here. >> That's not the second page. Sorry, that wasn't supposed to be there. That that's just a >> the second page is what just a front page. >> See? Yeah, cuz I'd like to make it simple. Keep it simple. >> Yeah. No, no, the second page. That was my mistake when I sent her a document. >> So, if I look at the employee self
review, um, have these been done in the past? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> I couldn't remember. And they're approved by the unions, correct? No. >> Yes. >> Do they need to be? >> I don't I don't think they need to be. >> I don't think they need to be. Council
member Freillley, >> self-reidly used with other city government employees all across the state. It's standard. >> I know they use them military, private, so forth. If if it were me, I I we usually asked,
"What were your goals last year? Did you meet them? What are your goals coming up? Where do you have areas of improvement?" I just like to keep it simple, but that's just my opinion. >> So then make then you would want to make a motion to use the existing form. >> I so move. >> Okay. Is there a second? Cuz that's what
the existing form says. Okay. >> Did somebody second that that I missed? >> I'll second. >> All right. Any additional discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Um, next up we have the spirits
of Nisa lease discussion. Um, so for this we did hold a special council meeting two or three weeks ago now. Um, specifically related to this topic. So, as you all know, the Spirits Inisa
building is um we're renting from Schaers over on the other side of the Schaefer parking lot, and they are doing an addition expansion to the building. Um so, Schaers has presented the city of Nisa with an amended, which is called a
third amended lease agreement. Um this was all part of our last council meeting and discussion. Um due to the addition uh that they're building over there, it would shift some things around and build a um loading dock area at the other at
the other end of what will be called their strip mall. Um right now Spirits has a a door coming in for deliveries. And then there's a new sidewalk out front which is a heated sidewalk. So the city was presented with a third, it's called a third amended lease agreement.
And the two material changes in there were related to the rent per square foot. Um the city of Nisa is currently at $17.90 per square foot and that third amended lease agreement brings that up to $21 a foot. And then the other change in there
was I think our current lease expires. Correct me if I'm wrong, Tom. It's either 28 or 29 and the new rate moving forward for an additional term would be based on the CPI at that time.
>> Correct. Okay. I'm I remember that well. So anyway, that's that was a discussion and then there was discussion about is a city required to sign this third amended lease agreement? Does existing
lease at the 1790 per foot um with the addition or ability to extend the lease uh prevail? And I do believe Andy is on via Zoom and we did want to hear from our city attorney. We had talked about this within the
liquor committee. Um but I think it, you know, interpreting a legal lease document, that interpretation would fall more to the attorney than um the rest of us up here. >> Do you want to hear from Andy first?
>> Um Andy, do you have anything you want to add first before I go to our city attorney? Well, in that last meeting, it was stated that we were going to have communications between the seating attorney and I, and I have heard nothing.
>> Did you hear or no? >> I think I did. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, then we'll turn it. Andy, did you have anything else? Otherwise, I'm going to turn it over to Tom. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. I'm not quite sure how to frame this, right? Um, I've had no
conversations with Andy about this since that last meeting. Um, at that meeting there were a bunch of different topics discussed, including whether the city would be interested in taking some extra space in that expansion. And I think the council ruled that out because the
scenarios that Ryan uh put together for increased revenue that would be needed in order to offset the additional lease payment for extra space didn't seem to make sense to the council. Um, so at that point, in my opinion, it got
to where you basically were ruling out the idea of an amended lease because the amended lease would really be meant to cover any additional space you might be willing to lease, but you ruled that out. Um, there was a conversation that took place at the end of that meeting.
Um, it had to do with that sidewalk and had to do with really involving the way that that building is taking its deliveries now with a door that's on the southeast side of that building. Um Andy made a comment about uh with the expansion uh would I think negate that
space and would force um Spirit's uh store to take its deliveries in a different way than it has taken them throughout the whole time of this lease which goes back 20ome years >> through the front door. >> Right. That was right at the tail end of
that conversation which kind of turned everybody sort of sideways a little bit and then I think the council uh then made its motion not to lease extra space and then I think that's at that point it was give it to the city attorney. So I have not had any conversation with Andy
about any of that. Um my my opinion, if that's what people are looking for right now, um if I've framed this correctly, is that we have a lease and it has two more years left on its current term and then the city's ability to extend it
again in 2029 with the appropriate notice. That lease includes uh an escalator clause, the CPI clause that we all know about that's always been in that lease since the inception of that building. Um it's it's a huge obviously important
thing for the city to have that escalator determine what an extension lease rate would be. The third amended lease that was put in front of you um not only suggests that there will be u added square footage now under for the current space but it also
removes that CPI language which dictates what the extension lease price will be. Um my opinion on this is if the city doesn't want to lease extra space there, which it did rule out at your last meeting, then we have a lease. Um the
lease defines what our leased space is. Um project plans um going back to those project plans from over 20 years ago define what that space is. If the space is now going to change in any shape or form because of the expansion, that
would need our consent. And the main the main driver here is that delivery door on that southeast corner. That's going to be blocked off now by an expansion. In my opinion, that violates the terms of our current lease. And there would need to be some
provision made in that expansion that would allow us to continue to take deliveries the way we've taken them. Whether that's through the loading dock, through that back hall, uh to the existing door modified as it needs to be, whatever it might be. But the city can't be in a position of having its
lease space modified now because of this expansion and be told that it's going to take deliveries in a way that is different than it has for the last 23 years. >> Do we have any questions or comment uh for Tom? Yeah, council member Hall. Go
ahead. So, is there any language in the lease right now that um allows um Andy to make improvements and charge the city for any improvements on the
property? >> Not that I'm not that I'm aware of. No. >> Yep. Not not without consent. >> Correct. >> On on the front end, >> it would be a modification, >> right? Yeah. So, so then the next question would be, you know, I'm not on
the liquor committee or anything, but when the construction has started in the plans, you know, did the liquor committee have these meetings, these conversations with the Schaers prior to the construction about like the back
door access, the loading dock, you know, did did the city engage with Andy on on any of that at any meetings to discuss this on the front end. >> I I think the term engage needs to be kind of cleared.
>> I think that there had been there had been conversations that turned into um talking points for the for the liquor committee. There was nothing that was derived from those that gave from my perspective that gave any direction from
anybody on the liquor committee to uh Andy or the Schaefer family for that specific expansion that would have warranted uh a a third amended lease uh specifically even in regards to any of
the amenity changes to the to the property. um conversations with with uh Brian, there was nothing that was formally put down in regards to a request or that would have been blessed by not Brian because he doesn't have the
authority to do so or the liquor committee as a whole, the council. It was trying to we explored that trying to find any potential avenues here before was this third lease uh amendment
applicable and appropriate and from my perspective everything that I found or through conversations it was not. >> Yeah, I'm just asking questions. And so then also too, I know the um building
was removed for the extra storage, correct? You know, right? We had the outside ex the outside storage. >> Oh, be just to clarify this for everyone in in the audience or listening if they're not aware, there was an
additional storage unit behind Spirits, like a not like a truck, but you know what I mean, to store extra storage in cuz the storage room was small. So that's what council member Hall is referencing, >> right? And so with that, do you do you
have storage needs? You know, um what um you know, with the loading dock, uh I looked at some plans, you know, back there. Is there storage in the loading dock now or is that not part of the conversation?
This this specific line item is just about this third amended lease. So the next line item is about or number six under old business is the expansion. So that I think Joe that's what you're talking about, but this is specifically about the
>> the third amended lease agreement. Y >> yeah, I'm just trying to get a a clearer picture on what's taking place. And they kind of I mean they kind of they're separate but yes they there's some overlap but yes that is where we were trying to get clarity
uh a position from our city attorney tonight you know basically around you know is that third amended lease agreement the lease that is in place for the city moving forward based on
the building changes or does our current lease agreement stay in place and does that have like I don't know what the right word is legal priority. Well, we have a current lease and we
don't have any motivation to change that lease given decisions you've already made about any extra space. The extra space is what would have driven a third amended lease because you were incorporating more space if you were to do that. You ruled that out. um if
there's a building modification of some kind in conjunction with this expansion that needs to be made in order to allow that store to take its deliveries in the sort of fashion that it has somewhere in that rear area. I guess my assumption is always going was that when that loading
dock is constructed on the east side of the expansion, Spirits would take its deliveries through that loading dock down that back hallway to its currently leased space. And there would be a door constructed there in order to take those deliveries.
that would replace the current delivery method that is in place now which is on the rear of that building but that won't be apparently feasible anymore. So to that extent would the lease need to be modified I suppose in in in a minor
fashion just to articulate the fact that that's where deliveries are being taken through that loading dock down that back hallway to our space. >> That's the way I've looked at that. Maybe that's not correct, but that's the way I've looked at that. And that's why I was taken by surprise at the comment
about you'll be taking your deliveries through the front door >> when the expansion is done. >> Do we have any other questions, comments, input for Tom from any council members?
>> Nothing. >> Nothing. Mark. Um, Andy, were you able to hear the conversation on council end? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have anything additional you'd like to add?
>> I There is a huge disconnect here and I don't understand why. um around the amended lease or the existing lease or both or >> going back five years to when we first
started talking about this three for sure. Uh Joe was even a liazison on the liquor committee. This has all been talked about. None of this should be a surprise. It's been in front of the liquor committee with a different mayor, different
I don't know liquor committee liaison or I guess prom or whatever they call that. And then just he Tom said that you guys voted not to take any more space. I don't remember that at the last meeting either. Sorry, the last part you said you didn't
remember the council take voting not to take more space. >> Correct. >> Did I mischaracterize that? Maybe I made a mistake. >> No, that was the discussion we had. I so my
my understanding of it was >> but mine might be off so we'd have to ask everyone up here was that yeah at that time at that special meeting the council voted not to take more space but I thought Joe had brought up he was voting that because he wanted to see the
financial business model around it if we were to take more space how much what would those financials look like what are the products that you'd put there. How would Right. What are But I might have misheard that. >> Yeah. I mean, so I'm not on the liquor
committee. When I was on the liquor committee, it was very much the motive of Brian to increase the space, take more space, get more storage, you know, in the back because we just lost our outside storage during this.
And so, >> can I add something to that? >> Yep. You are correct with the exception of knowing what the financial terms were going to be on that. We looked back at that motion and we brought that up. >> Yeah, >> there was there was a caveat there. It's
not carp launch go forward with XYZ project expansion. We are interested in space. Need to know what the financial terms are going to be before we oblige the city to >> Right. >> Yeah, for sure. And so I'm just, you know, sharing what I knew, but obviously
now there's been this year plus gap that I haven't been on there. And so I'm trying to get myself up to speed, which yeah, makes sense, you know, because it was going to be a business plan, what the square footage cost was, like you said, Jesse, you know, and so, you know,
I guess what I'm asking, you know, and Jennifer is right. last time when I made the motion like, yeah, if we do not have a business plan to go forward and show how how acquiring more space is
going to financially benefit the city, then we just stay as is. >> But that's that's where I asked, you know, has a plan been put in place? Is a business plan put in place? because
between the time I got off the committee till now, you know, it seems like it's 180° swing and I just don't know all that information in between. I I can add there Brian went through uh
a pretty elaborate scenario of three particular expansion per square foot scenarios of what he would have to what Spirits of Niswah would have to accommodate for an influx of sales for all three. Um
what what other data was on there that I'm >> That was that was the main data. It was adding the the new rent costs per square foot which I think is 25 in the new space and then goes to 27 maybe at year three or year five I can't
remember exactly. So Brian did have different scenarios, but I think what Joe, so I'm hearing everything here. I think what Joe is saying is asking, so Brian did put together a spreadsheet with different scenarios of, you know, if it's this and we take this much space, here's how much our rent goes up,
we'd have to sell this much more to be at a break even point, right, at that. So he did those different scenarios. Now, that hasn't been presented to the full council yet. I think that was just brought forward to us at liquor committee. But I think what Joe was asking for Yeah. share that. But also, what are the what are the products?
Would you be adding more coolers for beer? Would you be would we be adding THC? Would would it be more wine? Right? Like I think Joe was also asking what does that product mix look like in addition to again only the those of us on the liquor committee saw that. But
going back to the right cuz we're getting into the expansion discussion going back to what the agenda item we're on the spirits of Nisa lease discussion it seems that there is a difference or a disconnect here between
however it happened whatever the history is right um Andy seems to have a different understanding than perhaps our city attorney has um Andy is not here he's on Zoom Um, I'm not trying to kick the can down the road, but I'm just asking in fairness to
the situation, does Tom, I'll ask you. Does council need to make a motion here around this around the lease? Is it better if we bring this item back up in December perhaps maybe when Andy can be here? Um,
from a from a city attorney perspective, what would be your guidance? Well, just from logistics, it's hard to talk to Andy when he's on Zoom, so it would make sense to me to have this conversation continue in December. But regardless, I don't know if the if there's a motion to be made at this
point. You were asking for an interpretation of what the current lease and what our rights are under it, and I think I sort of summarized that. Um if there's further conversations to be had about potentially looking at leasing extra space um then that can be part of
a conversation certainly. >> I don't think that I think some of Tom's point without him saying it. So I'm going to paint a little different picture. I don't think it's the position of the city attorney to uh make that decision for us is what his point is if
I'm not too mistaken with that. It is for council to decide and if there's more time or information that needs to be had then what would it be for otherwise? >> What? >> Yeah. No.
>> So who am I supposed to talk to? >> Come to the next council meeting. So >> yeah, I think >> we had a special council meeting for this and you guys didn't talk about it. >> We did. We had a special council meeting specifically to discuss the lease leases
at that time because there was there were two different leases, a third amended lease agreement and the shopping center lease agreement and then also our existing lease agreement. So we had that meeting. Now we're having this meeting.
Well, at the end of the last meeting when we talked about all this was a little bit of a surprise that came at least to me about the idea that we would be taking our deliveries through that front door. >> That surprised me as well. >> And so to me it would make sense um uh
to have a discussion with Andy present here in December so that we can understand what his intentions are if the city doesn't choose to modify a lease. >> Right. >> Okay.
And so just cl I think all this helped clarify up the lease discussion tonight from me though and asking my questions. I'm still you know some of the stuff just got presented to liquor committee which is great and fine and it seems
like a decision got made there to not do anything or >> no no decision. Well let's let's close out item five so we can move to item six. is item six that >> Yeah, that is. So, if if council is okay with it, then let's continue this lease
discussion to December when Andy can be here so we can have the conversation that we've been having, but it's difficult and probably not completely fair to him to have over Zoom is come. That's my motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Is there any additional
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed? >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion carries. Now Joe uh or council member Hall, the spirits of Nisa expansion discussion. You are asking this wasn't present. Yes, it I've seen
it. Um I'm assuming council members on has seen the financials, but there wasn't a vote or a motion or a recommendation to council. So if we want, we can also continue this one to December and have Brian in the packet present those financials so every council member has uh equal visibility
to it. and can come back and have discussion on that. >> Yeah. So, that was my original question, you know, um a month or so ago. Is there any plan put together any path moving forward? Where are we at with it? You know, since I haven't been on it. So,
that was my original question kind of asking for that. So, it seemed like >> maybe >> maybe it's in flip-flop order. were talking about the lease before, but the answer then is no. There is not. And
then you know my question is then too if we came to a no answer and we got rid of the additional storage. My basic question is what what are we doing now? We got we got rid of our space. I remember if I
remember correctly on the meeting when Brian stood up was talking okay if the at least goes up to this amount or the year they have the addition this is how much we'd have to bring in gross to cover that um I think also at that time I might be wrong but Brian
said that uh if that storage conx was gone that they would uh just cut back on the amount of sales or order um so that wouldn't be too much of a problem if I understand correctly or if I understood
Brian correctly he can correct me is and kind of a consensus was is we don't want to expand the we don't need the extra space now so let's not do the expansion that was my understanding
>> just a friendly reminder please let me call on everyone because I'm I get a lot of emails and calls after the meeting like I can't tell who talked so let me just call on you but continue on Council member Freilley. >> Okay. >> Um I will say yes,
that was a discussion, Council Member Hall, and Brian did say that that he would just buy differently. He would find a way to make it work, but I think that there was a misinterpretation in what that vote was from you versus others on the council.
>> Yeah, I'm just trying to get myself up to speed with, you know, maybe the meetings at the liquor committee. I'd make a motion that we don't uh that we leave the spirits as is without an expansion. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Is there any additional discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. We are on to new business. The first item is the Wonder Cheek Wonder Trek Children's Museum presentation. Um
Peter Olsen. Um, I don't believe he he had a death in the family, I believe. So, I don't believe that he's going to be here tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. We will pass on that. Um, the second item under new business
is pay application number six for the Gull Lake Trail. Amber, awesome. Thank you. Good evening. Um, I'll be super brief and then Dave can step in on this one. This is, uh, pay application six for the Gol Lake Trail.
Um, we did reach substantial completion earlier this month. Um, and so happy to answer any questions on this. We do have a punch list. Uh, kind of looking looking at spring items. Now, >> Dave, do you have anything to add?
>> That's correct. Um we'll have some work to do in the spring, but all of the uh essential items have been completed so that the trail can be opened up for use. So we have the pay application in front
of you. Um the amount for this recommended for payment is $97,58323 and we're still retaining retainage for uh the work remaining. >> Did they get done before the end of the month?
>> Um they did not. They got close to being finished. Um they were given a basically a dead drop drop dead date uh where they would be assessed liquidated damages. They were able to complete it within
that time period. >> Fantastic. What about the fence? >> The fence will be completed in the spring. Right now there's a temporary fence that's been put up. it matches
with uh the fence that uh Grand View has put up. So, we think that the concerns been addressed from the standpoint of protecting the golf course from snowmobiles. >> Any other questions from council?
>> Like to make a motion to approve pay application number six for the G Lake Trail for the total amount of $97,58323. >> I'll second. Any additional discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Next is the G Lake Trail bathroom purchase.
Amber. Uh, thank you. Uh, so if you guys remember back over the summer, we looked at amending the scope of the G Lake Trail project. The main point in this one was adding a trail to a bathroom at Niswah Lake Park. Um, we've been working
through the layout and finalizing some of the budget, the quantities, and all of that. Um and so we are here tonight. Um the huff cut bathroom was included in your budget with other quotes back in June and this is what was incorporated into the budget that got submitted for
the amended scope. So we have the submitts here and looking for um for council's affirmations to continue with the purchase of this bathroom. Um now that the trail portion is looking at about 94% complete. Um,
looks like we have an estimated budget of 240,000. What we estimated at the beginning for the this project was going to be 230,000. So, this falls within the uh the timeline and the budget as we predicted. >> Where are the funds coming from for
this? Again, Amber >> Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails. >> And how much of that is dollars from the taxpayers city? We had a matching amount of 80,000 on the 935,000 that was awarded.
>> It's a good bargain. Hopefully people are happy with it. >> Hope so. Any questions for Amber? >> Is the intent of this bathroom to be open year round? >> Um, that is something that I had in my
council reports um over the last few months. It is not going to be open year round. That was the initial hope. Um, but it is not going to be open year round. >> Do we know the dates it will be open or >> if it stays on track with our other bathroom out at Between the Lakes Park
as well as the brush pit, it would close November 1st and reopen May 1st. >> Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the G Lake Trail bathroom purchase uh for the
>> Oh boy, I lost it. >> $230 >> $230,000. >> Second. >> For reference, the toilet does not cost that much money. That's the entirety of that structure. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any additional discussion or questions for Amber? All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Next up is the local option sales tax resolution. Amber. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so in your packet there is some background information. Um we've been talking about this for several several meetings months it feels
like. Um included in that memo there is uh some results of a survey that was conducted at the November 5th business info session. So you can kind of see a synopsis of um some feedback we received there. Uh also with it you have um some
preliminary draft information regarding the regional significance that is required to go along with a resolution. Um and then the actual resolution has already gone through legal review. So that feedback is incorporated into the
resolution in your packet. When you're looking at the resolution um we had been talking with PFM. You guys did receive some of those bonding scenarios back in October. At that time we did not have any discussion regarding the scenarios. So we took a conservative
approach and what we put into that resolution um based off of the scenarios that were presented as well as the estimated revenue. So you have a proposed tax rate of a half percent amount to be raised 10 million and then estimated length of time was 15 years.
Um, additionally, I just want to make note that uh last Friday I did speak with our state representatives um to let them know that uh loss was being discussed here in Niswah. I originally sent them that press release that went out in October and then followed up with
a phone call here last week um in which they said that they are open to having discussions regarding funding opportunities um and did note that this needs to be a united effort. So, in that business info session, I half jokingly said this is a communitywide group
project. Um, but wholeheartedly this is something that we need to work together if we're going to pursue this funding mechanism. >> Do we have any questions for Amber from council? I'll start with you, Council Member Hall. >> Um, are there any current grants out there available right now that we're
looking at pursuing? The main grant that we have talked about in the past is the DNR outdoor wreck grant. That is $350,000 last year. Um I've not seen the updated criteria. Um so that would be maybe the
largest grant we've looked at. There are some smaller ones that we're aware of. All require matching funds and various criterias. So yes, there are grants out there at various points throughout the year. Are we going to pursue the DNR one?
>> That also ties maybe into our next discussion. Okay. >> Um, council member Zan, >> when you said united front on it, what does that imply or at least what were our reps implying when they said that? >> Um,
I would say that we need to come together on this. We know that there's various opinions. We know there's various concerns with amongst council, amongst the community. Um, if this is something we are going to pursue, it cannot be adversarial.
>> If you go look at history with state legislature and local options, they're looking for a 50 or a 70, right? A council vote, you know, >> and I don't I they didn't say anything of that nature. Um, but I would say obviously we have the opportunity here to vote and everybody's opinion deserves
to be heard. you know, a council, you get the opportunity to vote. If it I would say if it's the majority that decide that it is to go forward that we I see that as we need to be united with that decision. You may have your own personal beliefs on it, but as a
community, as a council, it's a majority and we need to back what the majority decided. That's how I interpret it personally. >> Okay? Not that you are going to vote yes on it but um that we cannot detract from
the majority. >> Understood. Okay. Is there any other feedback that they were able to provide us? >> Um no they just said they were open to discussions be it lost or bonding or LCCMR speaking of grants like other
funding mechanisms. They said they were open to having discussions with the city and how they can support. >> Fantastic. Well, I hope we can uh take this rare opportunity and be able to pass a decision that u this council uh doesn't exactly have the full authority
to be able to make, but actually pass along to the voters in this town. >> I uh I welcome those rare opportunities. So hopefully we can do it. >> Council member London. Thank you. Council member Freley,
>> I have nothing. I just I agree with Mr. Zan. Um I think you know even if there's something that moves forward and not this and that that the majority says, "Yeah, we're going to move forward with something." Uh even if I didn't want it,
I'll still be supportive of it. I think with this Yeah. me. I'd like to see it go to the go to the voters, but that's just where I'm at. That's it. >> By the people for the people. >> Yep. I've stated my position before. It hasn't changed. I'm against the local
option sales tax. I wrote an opinion piece in the Echo Journal and the Brainer Dispatch as to why. Uh the business community is largely against this. Um but everyone knows where I stand. I haven't changed. Is there anyone from the p the public that's here
tonight that would like to say anything about this before I call a motion here from council. >> If you can just state your name and your address that would be appreciated. >> Yeah, I'm Ronald Dwey Jr. at 26735 Middle Cullen Road. um
you made reference to a committee that was being formed or is formed to help with um generating funding or obtaining funding. Uh we have five people from the community interested in doing that. They're very motivated. Um I've spent
about four or five hours with Amber already um trying to get a plan together so we can move forward with trying to get funds. >> Um Um, I've not found anybody that wants a local option sales tax yet. Um, it's
another tax upon the other thousand taxes that we have to pay. Uh, myself, I'm totally opposed to it. Um, I will aggressively, you know, be against it. Um, I'll spend
thousands of dollars to stop it if I can because people don't really realize what that tax is going to be doing to us. Everything that we pay tax on now will be tax another half a percent. So it's
another tax upon the many taxes we pay. Um I looked at my telephone bill and I think I've got about five six taxes on there already. So this is another half percent. You know, it may not be a lot to some people, but the population or
the property owners in Nisah consist of about 38% u of people aged 60 years or older. So, most of those are going to be retired are on fixed incomes. And this is what I hear a lot. We're on a fixed income and
our cost of a living allowance might go up two 3% a year, but our taxes keep skyrocketing and we can't do it anymore, Ron. You know, we have to sell our properties. We can't be here anymore. And we've been here for 50 years, 75 years. The home has been in the family
forever, you know, and now we just can't stay here anymore because we don't have the funds. I hear it from property owners on lakes um and then property owners in the city um is pretty constant.
What uh we have done with our committee is we have five members on the committee. I've spoken with XT Creative uh Christine Ramler in regards to creating a website
to obtain funds for the park. um that website in round figures between $2 and $3,000 for a year. That website is already fully funded by the volunteers. So, we don't need any more uh funding to fund that website.
Um if you folks give us a chance, I think we can get around this local option sales tax, you know, where we don't have to be putting another half percent tax on people. um give us a chance. You know, we've not
had the committee yet. We've not had the connection between the city and the public where the public can try to generate or or collect those funds for the park. >> Thank you. >> Questions for Mr. D? >> I can keep I'll keep going.
>> Well, let's hear from council members on and then I want to see if anyone else wants to speak too. >> I have a little more I'd like to present. >> Mr. Thank you. I appreciate that and uh I appreciate you all the time you've spent here with us. I I know it's obviously picking up um is your knowledge of the city and how it
functions is very strong. So, I commend you for that and the time you spend here with us. Um but let me ask you this, sir. Um I think you've heard our position. At least two council members up here have been vocal enough in stating that it's not exactly that we are uh 100% for a local option sales
tax. is that we are 100% for it going to the vote by the people. Is that something that you and the others that you have spoken to are against that? You do not want it to even get to the ballots for the people to let their voices be heard.
>> I can't speak for other people. I can only speak for myself. >> Sure. >> What I see is people aren't being told the inclusive truth about the tax. That tax can be used to create the buildings. It can be used to create the hockey
rink, but it cannot be used to maintain it in the future. You can only build it, you can't maintain it with that tax. >> Mhm. >> So, say for instance, right now, um we're spending about $450,000 for parks
and wreck uh maintenance. I maintenance, I think. Is that correct, Amber? >> Operating. Okay. So, say if it costs us another $250,000 or $500,000 a year when we start doing repairs on this equipment and these buildings, it's my
understanding that has to go right to the levy. The taxpayers themselves have to pay to maintain it because it's been built through tax dollars. And that's the part that I don't think is being clearly represented to the people. So, if we can kill this thing right here and
now, I'm 100% in favor of it because I don't believe the property owners are going to realize the implications of the tax upon them. >> I would I would like to say one thing too because council members on you you muttered of the people by the people because I do say that all the time. If
the legislature wanted the people to just directly vote, they wouldn't have set it up where this had to come through the council first because they are entrusting. >> But let me understand this though. >> But that is correct. So >> every other city in the state of Minnesota that has gone through this
same exact scenarios put it to the voters for the voters to decide. >> Not every other city where it's come up there. It has died in councils before. >> No, I understand that. But for the councils that have >> right >> taken that initiative to allow the
voters to be able to say yes or say no, why can't we afford the good people in this spot to do that as well? And other people feel differently. I think it's like one of those things. People have perspectives on it and they have their reasons. And maybe you can
convince some, but you're not going to convince all, right? Like I might not convince you to view it the way I do. You're not going to convince me to view it the way you do. And that's okay. Uh we were each independently elected. We can each cast our vote and we we will see where it lands. But did you have a
few more things, Mr. Dwey, before I see if anyone else wants to address the council? >> Real brief. Yeah. Um like I say, I don't believe that a uh a committee has been given the opportunity to collect funds. You know, um we're ready to roll. just
get us a plan and we're ready to roll. Um, >> I want to add right there though too, sir, is tonight's the first night I even heard that there was a committee forum. So, I commend the people that are doing that. That is fantastic. Um, it's a great step in the right direction. But,
as a one of the one of the five council members up here, I found out about that tonight as I was sitting here. >> Right. >> Right. It's a it's a new committee. Exactly. >> Yes, it is. and and I am 100% for the tax. I'll stand up for you guys anytime
I can. And that's what I'm doing right now, trying to prevent another tax being put on the people because I believe we have a lot of business owners who are willing to donate to this to this park. And I don't think they've been given the chance because when I talk to people,
say my accountant for instance, I'm asking him specific information um about certain things about this and I tell him what we're doing and he says, "Yeah, I love the park. I go there. I'm willing to donate. I didn't know about this." So there's so many people that don't know
about it. And those are the ones that um I think we want to reach, you know, and they haven't been reached. So why just put that tax on them? Oh, you're going to be taxed for a park, you know. And the park to me is a want. It is not a
need. The taxpayers don't need a park. The taxpayers might want it, but the rest of them who are on fixed incomes, they don't need it. You know, I I can see taxing for roads. Okay, you need roads. You need infrastructure. You need
employees. I get that part. But we don't need a park. We want a park and people are willing to donate to that park. Give us the chance. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else um from the public
that would like to speak on the local option sales tax? >> Fred. Um come to the microphone. State your name and your address. >> Good evening. Fred Hidman, 4794 Central Avenue. Um, you know, I this park is
really a a big issue um in many ways and you know, we have a park that's fairly dilapitated getting there, getting more so every year probably needs some work done. Um,
and I I don't think there's too much denial to that. Um there is the question of what do we what does the city do and you know the city a can do nothing. The city can levy the whole amount whatever
that is um the city could seek um through fundraising as uh Ron brought up um and and see where that goes. And then there's the city tax. Um, and I think, you know, I would just like to share
that I believe it go, you know, that there and I agree with I agree with Ron. Um, once whatever it is is built, what's it going to cost to maintain? I mean, you know, we had a budget meeting
tonight and it's like, my gosh, dollars going everywhere. Where do we get the money? How much do we raise the taxes? Um, this park improvements are going to add to the city budget. Now, when I say
that, I'm not against the park and but I do think that really need to take a look at the really big picture. And if there's a group that is interested in fundraising,
uh that might be a good start, um a good place to go. Um maybe a city tax idea comes late that that discussion comes later if funds being raised don't add
up. I do I have just from past experience being involved with the city I tend to I shouldn't say I tend I know that when a project is started and it starts to
move if it doesn't meet expectations the city almost always has to step in and pick up the bag and dole out the money. It happened. It's happened in
more than one instance in the city. It'll happen again. Um, you know, I think there's just so much to discuss. Um, and I think even and I I do really like the idea of this going out to
the taxpayers of the city to get their input. I think that's really important. But before that happens, if or I would say I should say if that was to happen, there needs to be a lot of things discussed, put down on paper so that
when the citizens get a chance to give input that they actually have all the information and it's not just well maybe there's a group that'll raise money. Um, what happens? Does anything do any
improvements start with the park before we know if there's any money? I mean, it it's a very deep well and I would just encourage I know we have a great council. have a good mayor and I know you guys are smart and
I just hope you take the time to gather all the information get it get it so that all the answers that you have all the answers the citizens can get the answers and then it looks to move forward. You know, I
commend Ron and in this group, but if I mean, just as an example, if the if the council was to say, "Okay, like tonight, you guys just go for it." What are they what are they going for? You know, I mean, what how much money are they
looking to raise? I mean, if they raise 2 million, is the city going to put in 2 million? I mean, you know, I mean, there's just so much to be discussed and figured out. Um, and maybe, you know, maybe we just need to take a little slower, you know,
and u and work our way through this a step at a time. Thanks. >> Thanks, Fred. Is there anyone else? If not, I um think we'll see if there's a motion.
>> Oh, go ahead, Ron. >> I apologize. I forgot one thing. Um the next topic is park transfer discussion and I've spoken with two of our uh committee members. If
this council dedicates a certain amount of money um the number that was passed around before was 500,000 to 600,000 for the um for the playground. If that happens and that's approved, I believe our committee
will move forward with the tennis and pickle ball courts and then maybe we can put both those into the first phase and get both those done at the same time. Um Amber who was great to work with, I think she suggested somewhere around
450,000 to 500,000 for the pickle ball and uh tennis court. Um that would be a goal that our committee would be shooting for to to make that happen. And it sounds like it's going to be a year or so, you know,
um before anything might be built. So that would allow us a lot of time. And we would shoot for getting those funds much before, you know, one year. We could be in communication with Amber and the uh council, you know, as as things
progress. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, council, do we have a motion as it relates to the local option sales tax? >> I'll make a motion to move forward with the local option sales tax resolution as presented.
>> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay, we're going to do a roll call vote on this. Um, I'll start. I'm going to vote no. Joe, >> uh, no. >> Jesse, >> yes. >> Bruce, >> yes. Mark. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Motion carries. Thank you, Amber. Um, while you're still up, park transfer discussion. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, Ron already highlighted a lot of those those things um for me. Uh, but just go over some of
my notes here. Uh, the November Parks Commission meeting, there was a very healthy discussion about what's been done um and what the plan is going forward. And so a piece of that discussion um was in regards to who's leading who. So Joe, we've talked about there's no plan and um and as Ron kind
of talked about they we all need some guidance here. Um and so at this point the parks commission plans to discuss like so we're going down like a lot of avenues here still with the last motion. Um but at that point we were planning to
discuss any phasing that would need to happen as we go forward. um as well as what funding requirements there'd be. So um then we would if we're still looking at
a funds transfer, we would bring that recommendation to city council. Um, and then I was just also going to notify you that in the last couple of weeks, um, literally within the last two, this group of individuals have started coming
together. Um, and so they've had a few meetings to my understanding in their discussions. Um, and I think one of the things that they talked about is just understanding the plan better. And then maybe we need to look at next level like site planning.
Um, so just coming back to you guys, uh, >> Amber, what does next level site planning mean? >> So right now we only have existing conditions and a concept design. So trying to lay out things a little better. We know where some of our conflicts exist
>> with existing conditions and like the proposed plan. So how do things need to >> move? Um, >> a revised park design for >> No. >> Okay. No, >> what's the difference? >> Um, and so just looking at like the
footprint of everything. >> Okay. >> So, we have the concept and Joe, I know you've talked about having, you know, the sequential order of some of these things, but ultimately what I'm trying to say is they need more concrete plans than concept design. That's the feedback I've been giving from the committee. And
obviously to get anywhere on any of this, we need to move past conceptual. there has to be um just more dialogue. So, I'm I'm bringing it to you guys. I did not put this item on the agenda, but I do want to you guys to know that the
parks commission has been discussing this. That number was thrown out there and so wanting to get direction from council to bring back to the parks commission. Um, if you are in agreement on these next steps for us to look at
phasing funding, what I'm I'm looking for feedback. This committee is looking for feedback. Um, we want to try and get the parks commission to work through that. >> Can I interject real quick? >> No. >> All right. Council member Freley here.
calling. >> So, uh, at the last parks committee meeting, since there were only two members there and me being the liaison, I was the third vote. I and and and the committee
was ready to bring something forward tonight, I didn't feel that it was in my position as a council member to vote to bring something forward to the council. So, but yes, they're working on phasing it, where to go, and getting more
detailed plans so the committee can go, you know, what they want and everything. >> I don't. >> So, if I understand correctly, if since we're moving forward with loss, there's no more committee. >> It's >> what >> I I can't I can't hear. He's Ron said
there's no reason to move forward the committee if the local option sales tax is moving forward. Ron, I will say this, it's not necessarily moving forward. It passed with a 3-2 vote. >> I used I I used to work in party politics. I will tell you legislators
the legislature doesn't like carrying a bill forward with a 3-2 vote. They wanted to see a 50- vote. Um >> yeah, we're >> and something else might have been hurt. We need to see what happens with the legislature, right? Because it's not necessarily coming back yet. So, but
that's a decision for you guys to make. Um, I'm just sharing that and I know you know the representatives. So, you're also welcome to reach out to them and and see if if you have a different understanding than perhaps Amber did or perhaps uh my experience historically
with with how things work this way. >> Yeah. >> Right. Things things could have changed. So, >> yeah. I I see the conflict in the finances. Um if the local option sales tax is moving forward and we're trying to get funds, it's it's going to work. This is what's going to happen with us, it's going to be so much more difficult
for this this committee. >> Um so at until we know what's going to happen with the local option sales tax, I don't want to spend thousands of dollars pursuing >> understood. >> You know, this and I was willing to spend thousands of dollars to pursue the
funds. It's a fair position to have and it's understandable. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can I have a word here too, >> Andy? Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, I'm also on the committee and um just now realizing apparently some
council members didn't know back in June I had a committee of people that met with Miss Carneahan and Miss Amber about fundraising and we hadn't heard anything back. Now we have formed another new committee after this and I agree with
Ron that until this is done with wherever it goes from here with the local a sales tax there is no reason for us to move forward and raise money especially
without a plan as Amber was talking. So once again, we have had to table stuff in this city. >> Thank you, Andy. >> Um, Amber, sorry. Did you >> No, I lost where we were because of all
the >> I'm looking for council direction here. >> We have a lot of people. >> Oh, is that Bruce? Sorry, I can't see. >> Trying to understand how to help move this forward and we're going down multiple We were going down multiple >> I think Bruce wants to address the
council. >> All right. Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. Bruce Tim Holt, Wooddale Road, and this I'm also on the parks commission. Um, I would say, you know, I've heard a couple people compliment Amber, and I would, having been on the parks commission since February, I do the same thing.
She's done her job in terms of the u you know the community a few years ago put together this master plan and she's tried to shepherd that through. Uh her job though is is not to figure out how to pay for it. That's a poly policy decision. Uh you know ultimately the
council's decision. Uh when I got on the on the parks commission though that there was nothing happening. I mean there was this $40,000 that had been pledged but that was about it in three years. So, uh, the parks commission trying to move this forward, trying to
get something going on, uh, suggested this the sales tax option because I think as a couple of council people mentioned, the um, you know, a number of the cities, there's like 50 cities in that that have this and I I understand that Crosby and and Peekquat Lakes are
looking at it now, but that discussion is fine. You guys already had that discussion tonight. I'm not here to promote that or not promote it. That actually to be I was kind of surprised that it passed to be honest with you, but whatever. Um, so what I would say though is is Amber's right. We do need
we need to get some specs done. You guys need to authorize that in order to move this forward. Whether it's a sales tax vote or whether the people that are generous enough to want to do fundraising, however you want to do that, however you want to fund it, we need to get the specs done. and and the
parks commission back in June said the playground is the most immediate thing. It's it's great to have people that want to be interested in pickle ball and tennis and the ice arena, but we feel as a as a parks commission that the the playground is the most immediate thing.
And there's no reason why if there's a fundraising committee and people are interested in that playground, you can't raise that money and get that done next year. I mean that that playground needs work >> and it's uh it's something that I I
think as a city of Nisa we would want to have some pride in at least having a a nice playground. So I would encouraging you to go forward from this meeting tonight and authorize those specs. Um I did hear a comment about the maintenance. Well whether you either do
sales tax or or fundraising you're going to have the maintenance on the on the equipment and the buildings anyway. So that that's irrevalent. But um if there's a committee out there, if there are people that are willing in the community to to fund raise, I I encourage that. Let's go for it. Let's try to get that playground done. But
before you guys decide, here's why I'm I wanted to come up on this transfer thing. And I've been through this many many times when I was on the council in Detroit Lakes and I've been on 20 different fundraising committees and I would offer my experience and advice having been involved in this over over
40 years on different committees. There's a way to put that together. It's got to be more than a website. You got to have a people that are willing to walk out and walk into a business, into a bank, into other businesses, and knock on the door and say, "I don't need a
th000. I need a h 100,000. I don't need a h 100,000. I need 200,000." You need people that are willing to do that. And if you can find the people that are willing to do that, that's great. But before you as a council commit to the transfer to the dollar amount on the transfer, my advice is challenge the
fundraising people first to come up with the number and then as as I heard somebody mentioned earlier, if it's not going to happen, you haven't committed to a number that you now have to fill in the gap. And again, I was involved in that where some fundraisers didn't get
the way they were supposed to and yes, the city had to come up. So, first get those people to challenge them, get the number out there, and it's got to be more than a website. It's got to be knocking on doors. And my last piece of knocking on doors is I understand
Caillonga Medical is building a new building down there on the corner. To me, that would be one of the first doors I'd be knocking on right there. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. Um, let's hear from Emma and then
>> Hi. Hi, Emma Krueger, A&W Ineswa. I just want to say that the last vote was one of the most polarizing things that you could have done to your business community. There was a clear meeting that the city held with Amber at the lead and the vote there by your business
community in NESA was to not pursue that tax and you just voted for it. We are a group of dedicated individuals to this town that have grown up here, that have lived here, that want the chance. And you just voted to tax us more, to tax
our customers more. Thank you, Emma. >> All right. Um, we've heard from Amber, we've heard from folks on the parks commission, we've heard from the parks liaison. Um, is there interest from the council in making a motion to allow, you know,
to allow the parks commission to go forward with the specs for this playground? >> Well, >> or any other type of motion. >> Amber's looking for some guidance maybe before, but I I guess I just have a couple thoughts. Um,
too, you know, the group that's been put together um I think all the discussion tonight and and a week or so ago at the chamber is actually positive. it's the most positive thing, you know, even though there's very differing sides here, it's actually um getting some
attention um you know, from everybody on on both sides of the aisle or whatever you want to call it, right? And so, like I said over there a couple weeks ago, it's not an eitheror, but we got to come together and figure out how to do it. in
my opinion to you know um the local opt option sales tax just like Jesse said which you know I don't disagree let the voters vote on it you know it doesn't mean that it's going to pass there's still so many hurdles for it to go also
too you know if uh you know the people I would actually look at it as a challenge more than a defeat tonight like hey if we want to defeat the local option sales tax. Let's see how much money we can raise and how
quickly to show the community, hey, you don't even need to vote for this. So, I'd actually go a little bit the other way and go look at it as more of a challenge and go, let's get this done quicker, faster with fundraising so people in the community say, "Hey, we
don't need to vote for that." That'd be my opinion. >> You're here. Absolutely. you know, so so that's that's but I'm kind of excited about this. You know, Amber, looking for some vision, you know, on doing this. I think, you know, a little bit into this. I don't know who's on your group, who's
on the committee, who's doing this, but some value engineering needs to go into this. We still have a pretty picture, but you know what what's going over there. Also too, you know, I think sooner than later, if we're getting to this point, before we take too many
steps too far and get people's hopes up, you know, I mean, yes, we do want to have a plan. We do want to specify maybe the top two or three things, but also too, at the end of the counter down there with Dave, we have an expert sitting here that I would think if we're
finally here, I would like to start engaging on a high level. I'm not saying we need a lot of drawings or plans, but I'm just saying that, you know, from their perspective on knowing how things would be built, you
know, what would what would their recommendations for building first, second, third, fourth be? you know, just looking at it, you know, high level and how does that overlay with what the parks committee wants to do. And I guess
I would I would say that would be my starting route is to give this conceptual plan to WSN to just look at high level to start to put together this is what makes sense and why and then how
that overlays with you guys. And so that's what I would say maybe the first step would be. That way we don't get too far down and hopes and feelings are dashed when we get to that point. So start right away >> on the
start right away on both fronts. >> Is that a motion? Do you have a specific motion? >> Well, yeah. I guess if we want to make a motion, um I I would say then that we'd want to make a motion to have Amber connect with Dave to go over the plans
and Dave come back with a high um a proposal for kind of a highlevel initial engagement with this for the council to review to go ahead as well as Amber to put together, you know, this committee
with your top five over 10 and then let's see how they overlay. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any additional discussion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
>> All right. Um we still have quite a few on here and it's uh coming on 9:00. Spirits THC sales. Brian I gave each of the council members a um sheet on THC sales and this is compiled
from the MMBA. I um have 2023 sales on there, 2024 and then the first half of 2025. Now, this is not a complete list of all the MMBA, but this is a list that the um cities
were available were willing to share. So, there's 31 stores on there. And um if you look at um those 31 stores on an average for um or two um for for or this year they're
selling $64,000 in the first half of 2025 per store. No, I think that's not um a shock to anybody, but um I am not a huge fan of THC at all. I
would been um pretty much the assembly block and why we do not carry it at um Spirits and Niswah, but I've always told the city that it's not my decision, it is the council's decision. Um and I just for me, I have not wanted to bring it in
because um just I don't love the idea. It's not um not the direction that I like, but um going back once again, it's not my decision, it's your decision. And um so I've always said there's money to be made on it. And it's right now I
guess it's up to the council to decide if Spirits in this wall is going to carry it or not. >> Um do we have any questions for Brian? I'll start in this direction. Council member Freley, >> I have none. Council member London, >> Council Member Zan, Council Member Hall,
>> question. In the liquor business, is THC one of the top new growing products within the industry? >> It is um I would say the fastest growing industry, the fastest growing sales for liquor stores. Yes.
Do you have any sort of numbers on averages, you know, for stores that it's contributed 5, 10, 20% to their sales growth? I don't have that exact number. I know
numbers are being thrown out there and I haven't seen anything yet that is in a double digit, but um I have um I would have to do more research on that. And then
I mean going back to me last conversation, you know, adding a whole new line. I see the lines in other places, businesses, whatever. Do we physically have the room in the store to add this whole new line?
>> Well, in every store almost out there, you have the players and the non-players. I'm talking products that turn and don't turn. and um a person would just have to sometimes you have products in your store because
you want to be a full service store and you don't want that person to say well I know they're more of a convenience type liquor store and they're not going to have this product or that product. So sometimes you you carry slowmoving items just so that you can make sure that customers are able to get all the
products that they want and they can depend on you. Now what we would have to do is we'd have to look and say okay which items are not necessary and which items are necessary and I mean the bottom line is would there be room in the in our store there would be room I
mean I'm trying even though I don't like the sale of THC on a manager side I need to try to give you guys all the information and um can you work THC into spirits in this way? You definitely can. I mean it it's who there's no one saying
that you have to have 30 feet of it. You could have four feet of it. You could have two feet of it. Um you know so that there there's room for to answer your question. As far as exact percentage of sales, I don't have that right here. I do have this scenario on
um the 31 stores on what they're doing for an average sales what they have for gross sales of all their products and then um how much of that is THC. So I mean if a person had a calculator in front of them they could figure it
out u on those 31 stores. >> Is council interested in making a motion or would you like to gather more information and push this another month? I would like to make a motion to approve Spirits uh selling THC. >> Do we have a second?
>> I'll second. Is there any discussion? Additional discussion? All right. Um >> Oh, >> I'm just not in favor of it. >> Okay, I'll call the vote. We'll do a we'll do a roll call vote. Uh we'll go to Council Member Freley first.
>> I. >> Council member London >> here. Council member Zan >> I. >> Council member Hall. >> No. >> I vote I. Motion carries. Okay. Next up, um, if Tom Blommer is
still on. Tom is still here. I believe he's still showing. Wastewater lift station number one design and engineering proposal. I I'm guessing he's on his phone. >> He's on his phones. >> Here we go. Here we go.
>> I think that was you. >> I think that was you, Maggie. >> Sorry about that. Um I'm just trying to get my uh tablet to work. Um so what you have in front of you is a proposal for engineering for uh the rebuild of lift station one. Um I believe Morgan Salo
with Bolton and Mink might be there to talk about this. Um, >> yes, he's here. Yes, he's here. >> Uh, if you have any questions, he could probably a answer them. Uh, if you have anything beyond what I will offer. So, the proposal for the engineering is for
$45,900 to do the work. That is a budgeted amount. Uh, we did have a unanimous vote by our public works committee to do to recommend doing this work. And, um, it would be a project that commences uh, in the summer of 2026.
And I guess with that, I would look for if uh Morgan has anything he'd like to add to that or if the council has any questions. >> Do you have anything you have anything you'd like to add? >> Uh mayor, mayor, council, members of
council, thank you. >> Tommy, Tom, you need to turn off your devices or mute. >> I just muted Tom. Okay. >> So we won't Okay, go ahead. >> Apologies about that. Um so quick introduction. Morgan Salo. I'm a uh principal engineer with Bolton and Mink in our water and wastewater sweater
division. Um you know excited to partner with the city of Niswah looking at this lift station design um to help facilitate growth within the city and continue to provide um adequate water wastewater services uh you know with this lift station uh design and and
construction uh moving forward. So if there's any questions I will entertain them um regarding lift station design or a proposal. Um I'll be around for the rest of the meeting as well. Does council have any questions? Um, we'll start with our public works leazison on council members on anything. >> No, I'm happy to make a motion.
>> Okay, go ahead. >> Like to make a motion to approve lift station number one, design and engineering proposal as presented by Bolton Mech. >> Second it. >> Any additional discussion or any questions from the rest of council? All right. All those in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Next up is wastewater sewer delinquent accounts resolution. >> I can just speak on this. This is just our annual um sewer delinquent charges
uh for everybody or anybody who hasn't paid throughout the past year that we just need to make a motion to approve this resolution and anybody who is not paid by the end of the day on the 21st of November would be certified to
their property taxes next year. You go ahead. >> I'll make a motion to approve the sewer delinquent accounts resolution as presented. >> Second it. >> Um any discussion or additional questions? All those in favor signify by
saying I. >> I opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Um number nine, the 2026 newsletter. We already >> you missed one. I did >> number nine, but it's not the it's the consult consult to a consultant to
evaluate liquor operations. >> Oh, I must have the wrong agenda because I just came and told you guys that was off the agenda. Um, okay. What is Okay, thanks. All right. Number nine, consultant to evaluate the liquor
operations. Um, council member Hall, you had asked about this being on new business. So, I'll guess turn it to you. >> So, what was question or what do you want me to talk about? >> Oh, the agenda item is a consultant to
evaluate the liquor businesses. Yeah, just that you know with both the liquor businesses um with the city of Nisa obviously we've got a lot of questions all the way all the way around the liquor um the liquor businesses both
with the spirits and the pickle in town the future of them obviously the pickle still needs something done with the building and just to bring in an outside consultant to look at the operations of
the liquor businesses in as a whole and uh provide us with some feedback on what we might what we might want to do looking ahead. You know, uh threeyear, fiveyear plan, something like that, and
just help give us some guidance on on the municipal liquor business as a whole. So, do any council members have que asked that this be on the agenda, so there's nothing really in the packet for it. Um, does anyone have any questions
or comments for Joe? >> I think we can take it up at our next lecture committee meeting >> and then come back. >> A good step. >> Does that work, Joe? >> Yeah, that's good. >> Okay, sounds good. We'll do that. Then next is the 2026 newsletter schedule budget approval, but we already killed
this from the budget in terms of the uh mailed newsletters. We're going to go to just the digital online newsletters for 2026. So >> maybe we'll have an anominous anom anom >> maybe we'll have a donor to be able to
throw some some dollars out. Yeah, it's been day. I just had my wife just had a baby so I'm sleeping a lot. >> Okay. So unless council has anything else, we'll move on to the next agenda item which is to set the organizational
meeting for January 20th at 5. So we would just do that ahead of our regular council meeting. >> So moved. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion, questions, comments? All those in favor signify by saying I. Oppose. Same sign. Okay. Motion carries.
All right. Um, the next agenda item is labor negotiation strategy under Minnesota statute sections 13D.03 subdivision 1 clause B. A portion of the
meeting will be closed pursuant to such statute upon duty upon duly approved motion of the city council. I will now entertain a motion to close this portion of the meeting. So >> moved. Second. Um, all those in favor signify by saying
I. I. >> Opposed. Okay. The time is 9:06. The city council will now go into a closed session in chambers. Um, only the city council and authorized city representatives may be in
attendance in any portion of the closed session. I barely got to come up.