Good evening, and happy Saint Patrick's Day. Welcome to the Tuesday, 03/17/2026 city council meeting. Call to order. Roll call, please. Mayor Zweifel. President Pro Tem Beamer. Here. Councilor Soukup. Here. Councilor Dahlin. Here. Councilor Holmes? Here. Councilor Ness? Councilor Peterson White? Here. Thank you. That'll move us into open public comment. I do have three cards here for open public comment. Just a reminder, you are allowed to speak for two minutes. There's a button at the bottom of the mic.
So if you push that, that'll turn the little red light on on around the mic, and your two minutes will start. So, first, I have Vivian Nystuen. The grant application discussion at tonight's meeting. No. It it's on. I just it Can you hear me now? No. I'm trying to hear you now. Okay. Woah. Yep. We're good. Alright. Did you guys hear all the rest of the stuff I said before? Alright. I just wanna say I'm opposed to the dam project, and I'll list my reasons here. The information that I've read that the estimates for the total cost of the dam
are projected at approximately $9,000,000. The grant application is for 800,000, and the post donation is estimated at 500,000. Historically, the estimated cost of the city projects have been coming in higher than planned. And if the estimate stays, that equates to a cost to taxpayers of about 8,870,000.00. As you probably are aware, the city of Austin, Minnesota is planning a $10,000,000 dam reengineering project for next or for this year. This is to be funded through the federal, state, and local sources along with an estimated 75% of the cost by the current dam
owner, which is Hormel Foods. So just food for thought, if there's maybe some alternatives to get some additional funding. Mostly what I'm opposed to is the cost of the project, not necessarily the project itself. So do we really need to take over the dam and remove it, or do we want to take over the dam and remove it? With all the financial tolls our citizens in North Hill have already taken, we talk about $24,000,000 for the ice arena, 9 plus million dollars spent on the water treatment plant that's not currently being built, takeover of part of Highway 246,
thousands of dollars spent on consultant projects that haven't materialized, over a $100,000,000 for the high school reimagined and a pending bond renewal does require a ballot vote, plus numerous other expenditures we were probably going to have to subsidize, the taxpayers in Northfield need a break from spending tax. Is the city committed to move forward with the project if a small grant is received? Has there been any discussions with the Minnesota DNR? Perhaps you guys will talk about that tonight, and we'll see. My biggest concern again is really the potential spend and liability to tax payers for
projects that really isn't a top fiscal priority. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have David Mistenhall. Mayor, members of the council, David. Alright. So, I I'm here to talk about the it it we shouldn't refer to it as dam removal. It's really dam replacement. And the reasons for that are two. Number one is if we took the dam out, the co op and all those slab buildings along the river would be sinking, due to the drop in hydrostatic pressure. The other is that if you took the dam out right now past my buildings,
it's just bedrock. According to the Oregon experience in dam removal, I went to a seminar at on it up at the University of Minnesota. There'd be a third of the depth of mud that's above the dam deposited below for several miles that would flood out us. It flood out Carlton's gym. So it it has to be carefully planned. Also you can't add or or cut constrict it at the 4th Street Bridge by
letting material go underneath the bridge. That's a no no. It it would just get blown out the next flood. But, don't underestimate, you know, focus on the recreational aspects of it. That could be the biggest thing, that's come to Downtown Northfield in years because people will drive 200 miles to kayak whitewater. And, there there is no whitewater going west of here for 600 miles. And, there isn't much white water in this state really,
that's cannibal, particularly in the southern part. So I think it's a great project. I'd I'd I'd like to work on it. I'd like to volunteer for any committee. I've been involved in this subject for forty years. Thank you. Thank you. One more comment here from Nathan Nelson. I just start talking? This is my first city council meeting. I didn't know you'd have some light jazz at the beginning. That's, unusual. I, am a retired teacher from the School of Environmental Studies in Apple Valley. Northfield resident, twenty three years.
So we've done Canyon River studies for years, big project every fall, really enjoyed that. I guess one thing, just an analogy at baseball season, I kinda think of this as, if you think of the, the old Brooklyn Dodgers, they they left Brooklyn in 1957 for Los Angeles. Apparently, Brooklyn's never recovered. The Yankees stayed and keep building new stadiums, and they stayed. I think there's a I think that's sort of what this is. You you have to adapt and, evolve, and I think what people want is a more recreation.
And you keep the wheel, keep be able to keep the river, and you keep the white water. I think with the aesthetically, I think what people like, what's pleasing of the dam, is the white water. And getting back to the school part, it would just be an amazing multiyear study, because you'd you would you would study, you know, aquatic life, water chemistry, obviously, the fish for a couple of years before the dam removes and and take your data. And then you would keep studying it at several years after that. That that's that's a wonderful opportunity, and you only get it once.
And so with two colleges and high schools and you can actually, make it understandable for young kids too. So it it I think it would go from graduate level down to elementary kids would would enjoy this process. I think it'd just be amazing to look at every other day, whether it's the especially after the the Rock Rapids Rock Arch Rapid is is, created, what that what's that looking like on a day daily basis as the water fluctuates? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak? Come forward.
If you would please fill out a card that's on the table over there. Sure before or after after is fine, and then just give it to the city clerk. Thank you. Hi. I'm Sarah Fortner, and I'm here to speak kind of in favor of this dam removal. I think it's time for us to be proactive about the fact that our river is flooding and that we need a thriving riverfront development project to address it. And part of that will be removing the dam. I have a background in geology and climate science. And, one of the things that I've been reading about and know about is how,
the dam removal supports, ecological benefits. And, in addition to that, I think we have to face the reality that if you don't do something while there is all this state funding available to do it, you're kind of, like, waiting for an accident to happen, and that funding may or may not exist to do this project later. So while this first step is just, kind of like coming up with a plan, we need that time in order to secure the funding too. So part of the planning is thinking through the the funding of it. So I'm really excited to see that happen, and I think it would be the most proactive way to address the climate challenges
we face. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Alright. We'll move on then. Looking for an approval of of, the agenda. Councilor Holmes. So moved. Thank you. Councilor Soka. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Agenda is approved. Now we will move on to a presentation. We have the oath of office ceremony for Northfield Police Department officer Joshua Ortiz. And for that, we'll turn it over to Chief Schreffer. Good evening, counsel. Tonight, we'll swear in the officer Joshua Ortiz. Excuse me.
Officer Joshua Ortiz was born in Southern California and moved to Minnesota in 2020. He earned his associates degree in law enforcement, aviation science, and completed his law enforcement skills training through Rasmussen University. He's currently working on finishing his bachelor's degree in criminal justice. Oscar Ortiz serves in the United States Army National Guard where he held roles as an infantry team leader, squad leader, and in signals intelligence collection activities, whatever that is. I have no idea. Way smarter than I am. His military experiences provided him with leadership experience as well as a strong foundation and
teamwork in service. He's currently working towards commissioning as a military officer. Outside of work, Josh enjoys flying as a pilot, working out, spending time outdoors, and continuing continually learning new skills. He and his wife, Jessica, who's here tonight, share a passion for aviation and are looking forward to welcome their first child in early April, which Josh told me right before this meeting that she's full term today. So hopefully, it doesn't happen here shortly. But otherwise, officer Ortiz is grateful for the opportunity to serve the Northfield community. So, he's just completing his field training officer or his field training,
which he rides with the field training officer. This is a multi month, thing that new officers have to go through in any department, but here in in Northfield as well. So he's just completing that. So if if child holds off long enough, he'll be able to complete his field training before he goes on baby leave, actually. So, we'll see if that plays out for him or not. So I'll invite Jessica up and city clerk. Do solemnly swear Do solemnly swear. To support the constitution. To support the constitution. Of The United States. Of The United States. The constitution. The constitution. Of the state of Minnesota.
Of the state of Minnesota. And to discharge faithfully. And to discharge faithfully. The duties of police officer The duties of police officer for the city of Northfield for the city of Northfield to the best of my knowledge and ability to the best of my knowledge and ability to the best of my knowledge and ability to help me God to help me God. To help me God. Congratulations. Thank you. Then I would invite council. Alright. Thank you, John, and welcome to City of Northfield. Thank you. Alright. Now we'll move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda will be up on our screen. You're in for the audience at home, I believe. Alright. Looking for a motion to, approve the consent agenda.
I Counselor Holmes? I approve I, move the consent agenda. I second. Councilor Silva? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passed. Okay. Now we have a public hearing. The pub public will have an opportunity to address the council on any public hearings. Individuals who registered may take, one opportunity to address counsel for up to two minutes. After all, individuals on the sign up list have spoken, other individuals may speak, persons must give their name and and,
representing business must give the name and business or corporation. If an attorney or consultant is present in the client, representing the client, the client must be identified for the record. Now we're looking for a, we're declare this a, public hearing open and, move on to the staff report. Thank you. President Pro Tem and city council, the city received a new liquor license application from Taco Teraco LLC doing business as Taco Teraco at 303 Water Street South and 307 Water Street South, Suite B. Since this is a new license for the premises,
a public hearing is being held as outlined in city code. Taco Teraco has applied for an on sale and Sunday liquor license. A liquor license background investigation was conducted by the police department, which includes a check of the business and all owners. There was no information discovered of concern. Consideration of approval of the liquor license is scheduled following the public hearing. As stated in the report, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within three fifty feet of 303 And 307 Water Street South on February 18. The public hearing notice was published in the Northfield News on Wednesday,
February 25. The owners are present, and Kara Sutton will speak on behalf of Tac Huaterco. Thank you. Thank you. Kara, if you wanna come forward. Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Daniel Oyer Sabalcarza, and this is my wife, Cara. Together, we are bringing Taco Terco at Froggy Bottoms here in Northfield. It will be a full service restaurant and a bar that we intend to operate with professionalism, pride and deep respect for this community. Our vision is not to open a disorderly drinking establishment. Our vision is to build a well run hospitality business with where quality food,
responsible beverage service and genuine guest experience all work together. Taco Terco is centered around authentic global flavor, offering a variety of dishes with Hispanic roots along with other cultural flavors as well. Our focus is strong hospitality and a distinctive atmosphere that brings people together. We want this restaurant to be a place where residents, families, professionals, visitors, and the local community can gather, enjoy a well executed meal, and have a responsible, well managed dining and bar experience in Downtown Northfield.
My wife and I are not treating this as a side project. This is our business, our livelihood and our commitment. We are investing our time, energy and future into building something lasting here. We want to contribute to Northfield by creating jobs, activating the space, bringing in guests, increasing food traffic and adding to the character and vitality of the area. We also understand clearly that a liquor license is a privilege, not a right. If approved, we will treat that privilege with the seriousness it deserves. We are committed to responsible alcohol service,
proper ID checks, staff training, professional supervision, and maintaining a safe and respectful environment for our guests, our staff, our neighbors and the city. Our goal is to operate a place that Northfield can be proud of. We want to be known not only for great food and hospitality, but for being responsible operators who respect their rules, respect the community and run the business the right way. We are here because we believe in our field and we want to build something positive here for the long term. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this?
Mister Vissendahl. Hi. David Vistendahl. I'm the landlord. I just got to say that these folks are the real deal. They are smart. They are hardworking. They you just can't believe everything they've cleaned down there, and painted. We're I'm working with them to kind of rehab the place. We want to get everything in tip top working order, but they're going to be a huge addition to the food scene in Downtown Northfield. We haven't had a chef driven restaurant in Northfield since the '70s when we had
Garibale's and La Catrami. Maybe I'm missing one, but those are the ones that were truly run by chefs. And so I think we're finally coming of age again in Northfield where we're gonna have some really good food and fine dining experiences. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. Council comments. Council Peters White. Well, I just I hear a lot of excitement about this business in the community. I know you've built a really glowing reputation, at your, spot in Montgomery, I think. Right? Montgomery. And, yeah, looking forward to this.
It's a really key location in Downtown Northfield, and it sounds like you're gonna take really good care of it. It'll be great to have another addition to the downtown food scene. And, yeah, just, I think my only other comment is, you know, our community development department is here to, to is to it's here to support, small businesses in the community. And if there are if you have questions, or, you know, need access to things, questions about city related things, community development staff. I know Lynette, I'm sure, has been really helpful. Community development staff is also available too for a lot of issues.
So, we're glad to have you. Thank you. Any other counsel comments? Alright. With that being said, request a motion to close the meeting or close the public he hearing. Sorry. Thank you. So moved. I'll move to close the public hearing, but not the meeting. Second. And And come second by councilor Holmes. We'll declare the or sorry. Councilor Silke, we will, close the public hearing. Next item on the agenda is, consideration of the new liquor license for Resolute. It's 2026Dash1.
Chair. Yes, sir. We do need to vote on that one too, on closing it. Right? Mhmm. Oh, yeah. Sorry. All in favor of closing the public hearing. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Public hearing is closed. Alright. Now is, item number 16, 26 Dash153 consideration of new liquor license for Taco Terco LLC DBA, Taco Terco at 307 Water Street South, Suite B, And 303 Water Street South. Any council comments? No?
Request motion to approve. Councilor Soukup? I'll move, twenty six dash one five three, consideration of new liquor license for Taco Turco. Second. Councilor Gollum. The second. Council discussion. I don't have anything to add other than to say welcome, and I'm really looking forward to sitting out on that patio again this summer. So congrats. Councilor Dull. Anybody else? I will, say welcome as well. It'll be nice to have that, space filled, and it's a great location. So I wish you very,
very, very well. With that, I will vote all in favor of the resolution or of, 26 Dash one five three, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Alright. Congratulations. On two reports from the mayor and council members. We'll start with councilor Peterson White. I believe since the last I reported, I attended a hospital board meeting that included various updates that I think you all have received at this point about the planned acquisition of the North Carolina Clinic.
As I've said a few times before, if anybody has any questions about that, I don't need to get in the weeds on it here, but I'm happy to discuss, as is Xander Abbott, the hospital's CEO, should that be of interest. Thanks, everyone. Councilor Soke. Yeah. I've been to a couple zoning related meetings in the last week or so as a part of kind of kicking off and starting the conversation around rewriting the zoning code for City Of Northfield. So I think the only thing to really push out about that is that there's a, there's a community wide survey around,
the kinds of zoning and land use you'd like to see in town. There's a QR code you can find, on the website if you're interested. Thank you. Councilor Dahlen. Thank you, president Prochamp. Nothing to report. Councilor Holmes? I also have nothing to report. Thank you. I too attended a couple of, zoning policy advisory meetings, the same ones that councilor Soka passed. Tuesday was the committee meeting, and then, Wednesday was the zoning code open house, so we're at the Depot. Last Tuesday, I also had the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon meeting. And the big thing there is we're planning our Memorial Day event that will be
down at, the Lions Park Pavilion after the veterans or after the Memorial Day, celebration down there. So or memorial. But that is all I have to report as well. Now we move on to the regular agenda. First, we have, ordinance ordinance, ten ninety two consideration of the ordinate ordinance ten ninety two amending Northfield City Code, chapter 74 related to allowing the lodging tax administrative collection responsibilities be transferred from the city finance department to the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
Mister Mardeg has got the presentation on that. Thank you, president Pro Tem, members of city council. So at a high level, state law does allow for a 3% lodging tax in Minnesota for the purposes of promoting tourism and convention activities. The tax, Northfield does has taken advantage of this tax, and it's used to generate visitor dollars who are staying in our hotels to, use for marketing, of events and activities in the community, which helps, put dollars into our local economy and restaurants, retail, entertainment. And we are certainly a destination tourist community.
Over about a 110 cities in Minnesota currently have the lodging tax. The state, requires that 95% of the, receipts received have to go towards the to the convention visitors bureau to determine how to spend those dollars. And we've been at about a little over $200,000 a year related to that. So the amendment this evening, creates the ability to transfer the lodging tax collection from the finance department to the Minnesota State Department of Revenue. Most local governments collect their own lodging taxes, but there is the opportunity to contract with the Department of Revenue.
They would then collect the revenue and cover the costs. The monies would be distributed to the city, and then we would then in turn distribute those dollars to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. There's a number of municipalities who have taken advantage of that, Saint Paul Rochester, Bloomington, Cottage Grove, Faribault. One of the primary benefits, is the emerging changes, the complexity around, short term rentals. So in 2025, we did, make some amendments to the code that added the, short term rentals into the, additional in in addition to hotels to be taxable.
And there is some complexity with third party vendors with that, and we think the state will be in a much better position. It will take time and effort off of the finance department to, try and educate and coordinate all of that activities. It will be much more seamless with the state of Minnesota, with that opportunity. There's no other real applicable changes besides that. So again, it reduces the burden on both the city, and we think it will also be more seamless for the host and owners of our short term rentals within the community. Long term, we'll make the collection easier. We'll be able to do some comparisons of,
the costs and things of these sales. The, some of the benefit the past ordinance changed, so since we're just giving a little more background on that, some of the reasons we went through those additions was to ensure life safety protections through license and inspections, equalizing low local lodging taxes to include short term rental license in addition to those traditional hotels and breakfast bed and breakfast, and then generate additional revenue for marketing for Northfield via the convention of visitor activity. Some of the safety things we look at are like fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, egress,
so that we can ensure those that are visiting have a safe experience within some of these areas, as well as taking into consideration potential neighborhood impacts related to the location of some of these facilities as well related to enforcement mechanisms with that. So Northfield, we're estimating about 35 short term rentals and then we have what they're calling seven legacy institutions that we're currently collecting on. Again, none of those are changing. This is the schedule that if you approve the first reading, we are required to take have a second reading that would come at the next
regular meeting. Then after a waiting period under our ordinance adoption, we'll be looking at taking effect in May. And then the full transition with the state is expected to happen in October. So there's a little bit of time. Staff has been working on educating those that we're aware of with short term rentals, and we'll continue to educate them on how to make this transition seamless for them. And so more information will be coming. Should people have short term rentals and be interested about the inspection regulations to to get added, it's not too late. We can certainly do that. We've already started doing inspections, and there'll be more information related to the collection of those dollars.
So, more specific questions about license and inspecting can go through the building inspections department at this phone number. Emery, John, or Brenda can answer questions around the pending, processing by the state of Minnesota. So just wanted to provide the opportunity for information. If if the public has questions about where some of these are located to. We have the information available through building inspections about location and if there's any concerns related to regulations around that. So that concludes the presentation. Probably primarily just an education opportunity related to this agenda item.
I'm certainly available to have any questions answered that you might have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No? Alright. Any public comment? Alright. With no public comment, looking for a motion. Councilor Holmes? I move ordinance ten ninety two, amending city code chapter 74 taxation. Second? Second. Councilor Peters Knight, second. All in favor? Sorry, comment first. Sorry, yes. Sure. I'll just say thank you to staff for working on this. I think especially as we look at, I know we had discussed previously the short term rentals and how we deal with
that and this is the challenges that we have in terms of the manual operation that we have. So I think finding those efficiencies and being able to better use these funds, is a great win for us. And, and so I appreciate all the work that's gone into that. Thank you. I'll just chime in too and say, I really appreciate staff's thoughtfulness and care and patience figuring this out. My business is an Airbnb host. My bookstore downtown, we have an Airbnb upstairs that we use to mostly host authors and people who are visiting the community as part of the bookstore business, but it's also available to guests. And, it is, part of what makes it a viable business is the ease of handling the finances
through these platforms. That's the main reason people use them. And this step is gonna make it really seamless for hosts to ensure that their taxes are that their lodging taxes are submitted appropriately and are submitted to the city. And I've it seems like a no brainer to me. It's really great that they were that staff was able to work this out, because it just it it makes it a lot less work for everyone, to get those taxes submitted and reported. And that's that's kind of how it works on these platforms, but it requires these extra steps to build that in.
So if people have questions about any of the logistics of it, I'm happy to answer as a user of one of these platforms. But I think it's a really positive thing. So thank you. Any other questions? Then I guess we can move to a vote now. Chair, could I make one comment? I should have mentioned this earlier. I presented this evening because Emery John could not be here. She did the legwork. So thank you to Emery for her hard work and then coordinating with the finance department on doing that. So I basically did the presentation, but all the hard work was done by staff. Thank you. Alright. Sounds good. Thank you. I guess all, we already made a motion.
So looking for a vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Next agenda item is 20 six-one 155, consider motion authorizing submittal of grant application for final designs and construction plans for the removal of Ames Mill Dam. Mister Bennett. Yeah. President Pro Tem and members of council, before you you tonight is consideration of this grant. Probably one of many times we'll be back, trying to search and secure funding for the project. The proposed grant before you this evening is from the Legislative Citizens Commission on the
Minnesota Resources through the environmental and natural resources, the trust. So just a little background on the program. So, really, the purpose of the funding is to protect, conserve, enhance the state's air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. And then really a key component in that is the to really implement measures to restore natural hydrology of rivers. So let the proposed project that is, really before council and that that really aligns well with the funding.
The funding does come through the state's pro 40% from the state's proceeds and their lottery revenue. A little bit on background. So, currently, in this, application period, there's a 121,000,000 available beginning in next July. So in 2026, there was a 109 projects that were selected. There was 400 applicants that requested 359,000,000. So, certainly, if you go look at the year before in 2025, there was 214 applicants requesting a 183,000,000.
So there was definitely, in 2026, a large jump in applicants, for the funding. In terms of the timeline, so we are really, tonight with council of council, we're to approve the submittal of the grant. We would submit the grant, and then it gets into their evaluation process that really runs through the July, through their committee process, reviewing all the projects that are submitted. And that's when the recommendations come out of the committees. And then the the LCCMR staff begin reviewing the projects and under peer review.
And then ultimately, it would go the recommendations we made for the next legislative session, and then, if I identified for funding, it would really be really next July. They'd begin working on the agreement, so funding really won't be secured until September 2027. So really eighteen months from now. And if we go back, really, this started out of the riverfront enhancement action plan in 2020 where the dam removal was identified. And then in 2023, we prepared the feasibility study and looked at different options related to,
do you leave the dam in place? Do we modify it, do partial removal? And then we looked at different, options for, like, the rapids, Long Rock Rapids, and arrived at a recommendation with counsel for the Long Rock Rapids. And I got a concept of that after the slide. So really phase one is complete, and we're really in this phase two where we're working with Post on the ownership transfer of the dam to the city. And we're looking for and trying to secure funding to continue to continue steps through
the preliminary design, environmental, and final design, and ultimately working towards a construction phase and pursuing grants and funding and opportunities. From the feasibility study in 2023, so this is the conceptual rap Long Rock Rapids is what it was called. So from where the dam is, by the mill, the the rapids would step back to near the 5th Street Bridge, maintaining the upper pool elevation and then tearing its way down to the to the elevation of the water that currently exists below the dam. In the council current strategic plan,
this is, removal of the dam is identified as a strategic priority from council. I think some of these phases and steps kinda were outlined in the timeline, but we're really in this phase two grants, funding, ownership transfer, and would be moving into preliminary and final design based on really grant success, with the project. So again, like I stated, this the removal of the dam and the rap rack rapids, really restoring the ecological benefits of the river and river recreation, aligns well with the the goals of the program.
This grant does require, a 25% local match, and it's funded 75% through the states. So the current estimated design is a little over a million dollars. The grant requested 800,000. The local match would be 108,000 currently proposed out of the stormwater fund. And then our previous funding that we spent during the the preliminary design phase would would go towards our local match that we've already spent, that 159,000. So we've been working with and meeting with post on agreement. That is nearing completion.
We're hopefully bringing that forward here later this spring summer for council to consider. We have a preliminary design environmental cost proposal from BAR to begin some of the preliminary environmental work that would be also coming forward. And then that would really carry us, you know, through '26 into early twenty seven. So, like, if this funding comes through to move us into that next phase, it really would line up well with where we're at in the project process. In terms of, funding, so, you know, this is this middle column is the grant that we're pursuing through the LCCMR grant.
I I don't think this would be our last grant to that program. We would as we move through the process, we would continue to apply for grants. There's dam safety grants, so this would be another grant. Typically, it goes up to a million dollars. And then through the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there's up to $2,000,000 grants. So I think we will be looking at all those programming, programs and funding opportunities through each phase of this project. Again, tonight's action is to consider approval of submittal of the the grant to the LCCMR. And then I don't know if, Ben, did you have anything you wanted to add on this?
So Yeah. Thank you, mister Bennett. One thing maybe just as additional context, as Dave mentioned, we've been working with Post to work out the transfer agreement, and they're concurrently have a bar engineering agreement that we'd be ready to go hand in hand with those. We've been fine tuning negotiations with, Post on those agreements. And as Dave said, we're really close, I think, to bringing that action. Ideally, we would have had this to you prior to this grant submission. We weren't able to get that done, but this grant is basically once a year. So we felt that is this,
you know, is a strategic priority of the council to bring this action forward for you to consider this grant submittal. I think from my perspective, even though ideally, we'd rather have those pinned down, my understanding with mister Bennett is the grant application does allow that ownership to be in negotiations and not finalized. It might have an impact on the competitiveness, but waiting a year might delay things. Sometimes you never know if there are less applications one year to the next. So if the council still sees this as a priority, we could put the application in. Even if not funded, we could go back another in a in the future,
with that as well. A couple of things related to the post agreement, probably don't wanna get too much in the weeds on that because that's pending to come back to you. But in the application, you could see that there was some reference to $500,000 and there was some testimony tonight related to that. In the current draft that we're working with Post on, the 500,000 is just on the initial design phase work, and it would be looking at cost sharing that up up, you know, $50.50 basically with the city to cost share on those preliminary designs after any grants that we would get.
So it's super helpful if we can get large grants like this potentially could cover because then we can use those city matching dollars and the post dollars to get those accomplished. We are gonna come back and talk more about that agreement, but post is leaving the door open for construction phase, donations. But from a corporate standpoint, they really can only do this one phase at a time, so they're only willing to commit at this phase. And I think from both the city and post, one thing is that if if we're pursuing this collaboratively that the city's identified some public purpose to try and initiate this rather than be more reactive and allowing the
dam to stay as it is for some of the reasons discussed, ecology of the river, tourism dollars, it's not actively being used. The process is gonna have a lot of uncertainty with it, and some of these grants might become available, not. So each phase, there's gonna have to be some good faith, and there is gonna be unknowns. And that's gonna if if the council sees this as a priority, that's gonna be the process that's gonna be normal and how we'll have to work through each one of the phases. Knowing that each step along the way is always an opportunity to pause a project pause the project if funding doesn't come through or if,
in post would have future opportunities to step back to. So I think there's a good faith effort going forward that should this stay a strategic priority of the council. This is really the prac the process to go through in the appropriate way. It's what the DNR is telling us, with the processes. So I do wanna emphasize that that I do think that staff feels that this is, is good to proceed with even though we might ideally like to have those other agreements wrapped up, and we're gonna be transparent on the, grant applications with that. And, so we we support that, but certainly it could be an alternative if the council wants to pause it.
That would be an option for you as well, but realize that could delay us, and you never know year to year what the competitiveness might be related to that. One other issue I wanted to note is just we're gonna try and emphasize this in our project funding, but, I know there's been in the past a focus on how dollars might change on cost estimates. The cost estimate that we have on the total is a conceptual design phase with a lot of unknowns. So you gotta realize that it's normal when you go through project steps that costs get more refined and known as you go through the steps.
So after there's preliminary analysis done on conditions, current existing conditions and construction documents, that number will get more much more detailed. And so that is a fluid number. It is not fixed in time and is not is not based on, like, construction dollars. So just realize that that number will change over time and each step along the way, we will have information updated as we can make that available. But anyway, that's just a little additional support. We, we are recommending the the grant based on the council's strategic priority, a direction that's given to staff to work through those.
So we think this is one of the primary grant programs that will be eligible. So I guess those are my concluding comments. Thank you. Thank you. Council questions? Vince Schramartigue and Director Bennett, we've exchanged e mails today, so I'll just follow-up on those emails with you. So none of the questions I'm asking are going to be a surprise because it seems like there would be a stronger application if the owner of the dam was in on it. Is that not right? Mayor, members of council, I think we could, with our application, get letters of support from post. I think we're we're working in good faith with them on the on the ownership
transfer, related to it and the cost. And and they've been very supportive and open along the way of being, part of the project. So I I feel like they they probably would provide, as the owner, supporting documents to go with our grant application. I could do a follow-up or I could others as well. Anybody else. Yeah. Go ahead go ahead, counsel Don. Well, is the grants due tomorrow? That is correct. Yep. Anybody else have any questions? Yeah. Is there a home? I just think I think administrator Martic might have had a response to that question. Did you have a response to that? Maybe just to add that,
I think that the grant application doesn't require that. I realize that a day might be a short turnaround. Maybe they take supplemental information, but I think that's a good suggestion. We can certainly, you know, I'm not sure we can get it turned around in a day, but we can do that. But if it's not required, I think we intend to submit it even if we didn't have that formal, support at that time. Councilor Silko? Thanks. Mister Bennett, can you talk about what, the ongoing maintenance of the dam would be once the if the city were to take ownership of it before
any removal or, construction on the dam, what does the kind of maintenance then look like on the city's end, and what are we are we do you feel like we're well positioned and prepared to do to keep up the dam while it still exists? President Pro Tem and council, that's a good very good question. I I mean, I think the city's goal is to secure the funding and not have long term, like, ownership for many, many years, related to the dam. Typically, maybe, like, the annual cost that potentially could be on there is when you have trees that
are hung up on the dam. Sometimes the city is helping coordinate that work and removal that, but that's certainly something that we could explore and bring back to council from a long term o and m. But I think our goal is to not have long term o and m would be to really get into these grant programs and try to really move through the design and secure construction dollars to get it removed. Sorry, mister Ben Martig, you have a follow-up on that? Thank you, president Pro Tem. Councilors, just to add to what mister Bennett said on the earlier slide that we had where we showed the project schedule,
the transfer agreement doesn't actually transfer the property. It's a pending agreement subject to conditions in the future. So when I think when Dave says to limiting our operating and maintenance is we don't have the specific details of what the DNR worked out, but we'll be getting into those more fine details. But, basically, we would time the final funding of the construction to the transfer to be as seamless to those two schedules happening at the same time, which would really limit the time period, that the city would technically be owners of of this physical dam that's there.
Once the dam is removed and replaced with the Rock Rapids, it's in effect part of the river at that point and it's the DNR is ultimately going to be managing that part of the river. So this is kind of a temporary period. So when he talks about that, we don't have the specifics yet, but we're the transfer again to be timed. And hopefully, we'd have the construction documents done, the grant for any construction completed, and any additional contribution by post figured out with all of those things at the same time so that we knew with confidence what the final costs were before accepting
the property and executing the transfer of the agreement. Again, sorry. Some of these are details that had we had that agreement done already, we would have probably covered all this in much more detail with you. But we can try and without seeing those, terms, we can try and answer these types of questions because I think they're good questions to ask with that. Yeah. That's really helpful. Thank you. Because I think there's a there is a concern about the the gap between and what that means for the city to have ownership, whatever that we'll learn what that means. But, I think that's a valid concern if it's viewed as the city's responsibility for a
number at least at least three years, if not more. So thank you. That's that's helpful. Any other questions from council? Councilor Dolan? Both through Director Benedanta and City Administrator Marte. Would Post be the better lead in this project in the sense that they took the lead with approving the designs phase, being part of the removal of the dam rather than the city. So I'll ask that open ended question first and then follow-up if I can.
Mayor, members of council. It's hard to say. I mean, I feel like we have a collaborative team with all the multi agencies there. Post is also attending the medium. So I think, like, we have a the entire team onboard working through these steps. So the city, the DNR, MPCA, Army Corps, everybody's we're all at the table working through the project together and identifying pathways and funding to try to move the project along. So, I'm I'm not sure if they wanna lead the project. I think they're at the table, and we're helping coordinate that work and as part of it.
Administrator Martin. Thank you, President Pro Tem. I would just add to what Mr. Bennett said that under this process, to reiterate, I think what Mr. Bennett is saying too is with the city being interested to initiate this effort, this is the city would have to be involved and be the lead. The DNR has advised that under this relationship. And an alternative process would be if the council wanted to not make it a priority to try and encourage the dam to be removed and to take more of a back seat to it and a more passive approach, that would be an alternative. But then it would basically be post it'd be post responsibility to determine if and
when they felt that was a priority to do that, and then they would be working directly with the state, and the city could basically be off on the side. But that could be ten years, twenty years, more. It would really be in their court. And in that process, then it would be entirely the responsibility of post to be involved with the state on that process. But because of the city's engagement and interest in this in the past to try and expedite it for those public purposes, this is the really the only way is for the city to be directly involved in the processes for that. Thank you.
Any other questions? Thank you, President Pro Tem. My point on asking that question is that they have ownership. So at any stage of the process post consumer brands could say, we leave the table. And then you've put all this work into it, and you've got, the partners all lined up to do something. Right? But Post has ownership, and ownership is 100%. And in fact, they've benefited for one hundred years, one hundred plus years from having that. And they're also looking at the future, right? The building is next door.
It's part of the hydrologic thing that we've been hearing about. So it's really I think it takes a lot more study as to what our role is, as much as we would like to have a certain outcome, what our role is. And if we start spending money where we then, whether it's property taxpayers or state money or lottery money, we then try to foreordain what's going to happen. And I think that's risky unless we know where Post sits on all of these questions. So what if you can tell more about what post is saying in the negotiations,
that would help explain why ownership ownership just means you can walk away. So even if whatever. And then they say, well, they'll give less amounts of money if they instead of, I've been walking away with even less of a contribution towards the project. I can handle this one, David, if you're okay with that one. I mean, you can add if you'd like today, if you wanna add. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. I would articulate it that we're having those same conversations. The post is actually raising the same questions with us. Those are some of the fine tuning details that we're working out as along the
way, post could back out. I think they're committed as long as we're pursuing these grants. They wanna know what the costs are along the way they've committed on the predesign. They've asked the same questions that the council could change their minds at any step along the way too. So I think that's where we're trying to trying to build this relationship that we're working in good faith. And I think what we do too when we get this agreement kind of tied up, we will have some post officials will be requested to be here to speak to some of those questions because they're saying those same things. So each step of the way,
again, there is uncertainty. The the funding's uncertain. As we get into it more, we'll learn more about what the cost might be. Is there any environmental issues as part of it? But you really are going to need to go into these early phases of design work and commitments in order to get those questions answered, unless we want to just pause and not pursue it any further. Those are going to have to be the steps we go through. So I would say that, that's a good point and the same conversations are going on on the post side with us, as we're trying to finalize the transfer agreement draft. Counselor Holmes. Thanks. I'm changing course
big time here. But, can you talk a little bit about because the, for this initial phase or the work that's happening here, our match is gonna come through stormwater funds. Can you just, for the benefit of the public, talk a little bit more about, like, what can stormwater funds be used for, and are there restrictions, and just a little bit more about that. Yeah. Mayor, members of council, we really use the stormwater funds to support the surface water, in the community, whether it's through conveyance, through improving the ecology, the water quality, the restoration. And this this would be a a project that does help align with with that
and and ties well to our our stormwater utility. Not only that, we would use it on the on the creeks in the community or in our our ponds, our our small, treatment systems, but it's really for the management of our surface water in our community. And the Canton River does have a large watershed, but we also contribute to that. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White? I think I I've decided that I have a comment and not a question, so I'll wait. Okay. Thank you. Any any other questions? Okay. Now I have a few. Mister Bennett, what other types of liabilities does the city have in taking ownership like insurance costs,
bodily harm type things. You know, what if what we do somehow, you know, because I know the plan is to cut portion of the top of the dam off. If we own it, we do that, and something happens to the foundation at Aims Mill or fro the the Froggy Buildings or any of the buildings downstream because of hydronic pressure changes, things like that. What what type of liability does the city have in those particular instances? President Pro Tem and members of council. I think that's a lot of the the environmental and preliminary engineering work that's that
we have scheduled is really gonna be looking at a lot of those things related to the the groundwater, the buildings around, vibration monitoring, water existing water table monitoring, and really looking at that and understanding that really to plan for, really limiting any future liability because that should be accounted for in the design. I mean, we're not the we're not the first community that's taken out of the dam. So I think, like, we're gonna we can learn from the other communities that have have taken them out and and and really work through that in the in the processes ahead.
Thank you. Does anybody else have another one? I guess I've also heard that there's, you know, some environmental cleanup type things that that, could potentially be there when we get into, you know, removing whatever portion of the dam that we're looking at moving. Do you know if there's any truths to that or whatnot? Is it or is it just one of those things we'll have to just kinda wait and see? Yep. President Pro Tem, I think in the really the initial phases, we'd be moving into a phase one and phase two environmental work to really look
at and try to identify if there's any of those things. That's, you know, part of the agreement that we're working out with post is making sure there's, you know, protections for the city if any of those things were found related to that. I'm not, aware of anything. Nothing's been disclosed to the city related to any contamination. If you're hearing things, certainly, we'd like to know about it. We're not aware of anything right now that's been disclosed. We do know from construction projects around the river, not really you know, you find a lot of times, people dump stuff.
You find buried material, buried debris. So that's not uncommon in our work along the rivers. We know when we do excavation in our ponds, when we remove sediment, we know that sometimes the sediment does have, some contaminated soils or some high levels of usually, it's from coal based tar sealants that have been phased out over time, and we've done projects where some of that material has had to be landfilled. So that's really that early initial environmental work that we'd be undertaking. Thank you. Did you have a okay. I have I have one more question.
Is there a chance that well, I I guess, is there is there a scenario I from what I've been hearing you say, I guess, we don't we don't have so once the dam like the dam is removed and the rock rapids are installed, there's there's really nothing to own at that point. So so if the Rock Rapids get damaged in flooding or anything like that, how do how do those get repaired if if nobody really owns it? Or is it something that just gets left alone at that point?
President Pro Tem and certainly, we'd have to look at what the extents of the damages would be to the Rock Rapids. Is it a flooding incident that there's a state declaration or there's a federal declaration where there's FEMA money involved to do restoration related to those things? So that'd be something that we'd have to think about as possible financial, you know, items that could be eligible if they're damaged during a a major flood event. The the intent of the Rock Rapids is really to put them in place so they they aren't moving during that those types of flooding
events unless it's the really, really extreme events where maybe you're you're getting into the the state mitigation or federal mitigation type items. So certainly, it's something that we could explore more during the preliminary design and understanding too. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilor Dolan? Thank you, President Potem. One last question for this. So we're gonna get the five year CIP pretty soon. What number will be placed on that for this project? Because it is within five years. President Scholten and council, I think,
so certainly in the in the feasibility study, we had cost ranges from, like, 4.8 to 9,000,000, and that's $20.23. So every year, based on funding, if the project is sliding, we're always gonna add construction inflation. So, like, every year, the project is gonna increase out into the future, and and it could move beyond 2030 if we're not successful in grants. So I think it could be a 2031 project. The project could go up by, you know, the construction cost inflation. So I think we that's not only for,
the Ames Mill Dam project, but we do that on all of our projects on our capital improvement plan. So things are moving around, things are sliding. We're adding inflation to them, to the future years. The the West River Wall that we wanna do for the flooding, when when that happened back in, I think we that project got proposed in 2020. We're already in 2026. I think initially, we're we're at, like, little over 2,000,000 worth right now, I think we have $3.03 and a half million dollars in the CIP to to do that project. So, I mean, costs continue to go up related to,
as the as the schedule lengthens out, we need to add construction inflation. But I think the goal is to try to be active, pursue the grants, and try to get try to get the funding secured. So right now, it's really up to council what year it gets programmed in. I think the schedule right now is lining up for 2030 construction. So we'd be programming it for 2030. If we're not successful, it'd probably be adjusted and move based on where we think the funding lines up. Thank you, President Pro Tem. And probably to be specific, there won't be any more construction updates from the feasibility report by the time we
have our first discussion on the capital improvement plan. So my guess is in the project description, we'd have the range plus the inflation number from 2023 based on what Mr. Bennett just talked about. We'd probably use the higher number to start with and then make we'd have to make assumptions about grants, which we would disclose in the description of the capital improvement plan detail page. Thank you. Any other accounts or questions? Councillor Soka? Just to, talk a little bit more about grants, I'm curious if there if you can just flag other grants the other communities have
used and when if you know when those line up with this process. And I know this grant is one of the main ones, but are there any other large larger grants that, you're looking at so far? And when and what's the timeline for those? Present pro tem then council. Those I think we can bring those back. I think the two that were listed in in this program, we can get the dates and timelines related to the dam safety grant and the US Fish and Wildlife and, like, when when their application period is open, when it closes and reviews.
And we could bring that back to share more, and more in-depth on the schedules of the grants. But those are two of the other primary program, that you'd be looking at. I mean, you could pursue a capital bonding project just separate making a request to as a certainly another option and avenue for council to consider in the future years too. I just have one more quick question. How long ago did we know about the deadline for this grant application? President Pro Tem and council, I think probably in the last month,
we knew that this one was coming, on our radar. I think we we we were hoping we were further along with the agreement with Post, and that would already be have been before council. So that's why it's before council tonight and for consideration. Thank you. Any other questions? Any public comment on this item? Alright. Request a motion. Councilor Peterson White. I is there a resolution here, or am I just moving to authorize submission of the grant application? Just a motion to authorize or submit the grant. Thank you. I'm moving, to authorize the middle of the grant application for final design and construction plans for
the removal of Ames Mill Dam. Second. Councilor Holmes. Second. All in favor? We need to discuss this. Sorry. Sorry. I did that again. Thank you. Discussion. May I? Councilor Peterson White. Thank you. I I think it's important for people to be clear that this is just exactly what it what the motion says it is. It's a submission of a grant application. The grant money would go to final design and construction plans for the removal of the Ames Mill Dam. I think that, this has been discussed for decades in Northfield, probably. Certainly, for my entire fourteen years on the council, this has been a topic of discussion and generally enthusiasm for environmental reasons,
for recreational reasons, for economic development reasons, for aesthetic reasons. And the, it's, it's kind of a a complex series of events that have to come together. I think that, counselor Dolan's question of questions about the the ownership and how that plays in, and does it make sense for us to do anything when Post still owns this. I I think those are very understandable questions. They're very lawyerly questions in my mind, and I appreciate that. I think that the way this kind of policy change is made, though, really requires deep partnership over many years, which is what we have developed,
what staff have worked hard to build, and what we are moving forward with, I think, in a really clear eyed way. And there with any kind of major projects like this, there are unknowns. But at this point, all we're committing to is to submit a grant application, to create a final design and construction plans for the removal of the dam. I do believe that the pieces are in place to move this forward in a way that'll be really good for the community. I think people should be really clear. We are in no way committing to spend any dollar amount on this.
As noted, it's in the I mean, we're we're committing to to do this final design and construction plan should the grant be awarded. But the questions around what will the whole project cost, when are we gonna do it, those are all really open questions. We don't know yet because we don't know what the timeline is. And staff are doing a really good job of putting together the pieces. And it's it's the same with this than it is with major road projects or remodeling the high school, things like that. That, like, a lot of pieces and a lot of partners have to come together in order to make this happen, and that's what we're working towards. So,
and I think it I just wanna note that I think staff have done a great job of kinda pulling together all these threads to keep folks moving in the right direction. To me, what is required for me to believe to move this forward tonight is that it is in the public interest to pursue reengineering this section of the river. I believe that is in the public interest. And that's really the big reason why, the city should be driving this forward because the city is the agent of the people of Northfields. And, Post is not. Post is invested in the community, and but has a very different role from the government that is of by and
for the people. So, and I I think all the reasons that have been discussed to do this work long term are in the public interest. They are about environmental restoration. They're about recreation. They're about having a thriving local economy. And that is why a public entity is the right one to move this forward. So, I appreciate staff's great work on this. This is just one more step. It's gonna be a lot of steps. It might take a long time, and we'll we'll get to go into each step with eyes wide open and, with more information with every step about what'll be required,
what funds will be available from elsewhere, all of that. So, but this is this is a great next step to be taking, and I appreciate staff's moving on it quickly since it needed to be moved on quickly. So thank you. Thank you. Councilor Holmes. Thank you. I support and and, echo what, councilor Peterson White has shared. I would say that, it might seem that we haven't discussed this as a council this body that this is new information. But as Councilor Peterson White said, it's been going on for decades. I have been involved with,
in fact, this exact drawing I think almost six years to the day when the Riverfront Enhancement Committee had started meeting and started to put forth plans. So it's something that while we have not discussed at this body, it has been discussed. There has been a lot of work that has gone into this and the deep partnerships have been built. And I trust in the work that our staff is doing with POST, with all of the other stakeholders, because that has been going on for several years, specifically on this project and and what we what we see here.
I think that this work and what we're voting on tonight meets two important strategic priorities we have. One, seeking outside funding different unique funding sources that's not coming from our taxpayers or our residents and two, removing the dam. Both of those are in our strategic plan. Both of those are in our comprehensive plan. So I feel like this is it's important for us to look at all of the possibilities, that we are here to we can't even decide if this is a project worthy or
not worthy if we don't even get to plans. I I at least some of us might think that we can and some of our community might think it's a no all the way or a yes all the way. I think we need to get more information and we can't get that in the information that's going to be really valuable to us without this step in the process. So I think it's important that we keep those doors open and stay open to what could be possible, and respect the work that has been going on. I also do think that this opens up opportunity for us to think about how do we do additional
education and engagement with the community because I think that there is a lot that we can do, about the different benefits that that this project could bring, particularly, the ecological and economical benefit that this would have for our not just our downtown but for the entire community. And I think that that's just incredibly important for us to recognize. One thing I will add that just the line of questioning there at the end raised some things for me that if you've ever worked in grants or had to
apply for a grant, you know that it's very last minute work and it's and it's getting all the information you can to get it in. That very rarely do, and I apologize if I offend anyone in the audience who might be an exceptional. There are exceptional grant writers throughout our community, and I would think that all of them would say that it comes at the very last minute so that any any hint that this is a, that this is a shortcoming of our staff, I think, is just false and and is and is just not appropriate for us to be to be thinking or to be to be placing that on our staff that they
are working very hard to find these opportunities for us and working with what they have as any grant writer would say, you know, this is this is what we do and we get it in on time. We get it in at the the deadline and and that's that's what that's how grant writing works. So I just wanted to make sure that that's not, the word has escaped me. And that that that's just not any, reflection of the professionalism of our staff. Thank you. Mister Marty. Yes. Thank you, President Pro Tem. Thank you for allowing me in the middle of comment to make a response.
We didn't focus on the public engagement piece of it, but I would be remiss since it was noted that, we have we are in conversations with Clean River Partners to assist us. We work with them on other stormwater management and education as you know on an annual basis. Jennifer Tonko is here in the audience as a Director. And we're looking at them to potentially assist with education of the public and doing some engagements as part of the process too. But again, we are working on getting the other agreements completed first, before bringing forward some of those potential partnerships to help complement what we have for
capacity within our current staffing as well. Thank you. My comments on that weren't saying that we should have done engagement prior to this, but just that, wow, it looks like there's opportunity as we spend the next five years plus working on this project. Thank you. Any other comments? Councilor Silke? Thanks. I think I just have two points to make. I agree that I think for the last three years, I've been asking that we apply to every grant that we can. And so I would feel like
personally a hypocrite if I didn't support us submitting a grant for a major chunk of funding for something that, is in our strategic plan. I, at the same time, wanna respect the, kind of the the people who don't feel comfortable with this project, whether it's because they just really love the dam and the sound and the sight and the history of it, or if it's because they're uncomfortable with, the city taking on any large projects because of the tax, property tax burden that could occur,
from a large project like this. So, I think it's it's always a strange it's always like an uncomfortable tension between believing in a large project and not knowing any answers around what is it going to actually cost, and are we going to get any grants. And that's kind of the place we find ourselves in right now. I don't personally want to I would wouldn't want to vote no on this tonight, just because those questions are unanswered. I think that there's
it's right now, the idea of construction in 2029 or 2030, those things are also so up in the air because we don't know what's happening tomorrow. We don't know what's happening a a month from now, a year from now, in terms of how small local governments can operate within a state government, a federal government that we have zero control over. So I think not being able to answer those questions right now for me is not a reason to vote no. I think if if,
you know, three years from now, if I'm still part of this body, like and the cost is astronomical and it's all being funded through property taxes, I would have a really hard time supporting that. I'm really hopeful, though, that, in submitting grants like this and other ones in the future, we can cut that cost down and then see the huge benefits to being able to use a lot more of our river. I love the idea of being able to tube down and kayak down these rapids and not have to start at a weird part
of the arb to do so. I think it's an excellent opportunity. At the same time, I'll really miss the old dam and the sound and the sight as something I grew up with and and associate Northfield really strongly with. So I think those things, I really respect all of the those, concerns and questions that the public has. And, I think I'm leaning on the fact that this is a years long process and that, I wanna support the city and staff going after whatever funding opportunities we can go after that don't rely on our property tax base.
So thank you for the work that you've done so far. Councilor Holland. Thank you, president Prosheim. I'll pick up on the last comment. I agree that there's a lot of vagaries in grant applications and when projects start, who participates, who the project partners are. And with that, as a given that we all recognize, I would support waiting till the next budget cycle. And so we make application in next year after we presumably own the dam. Ownership will then be controlled by the city of Northfield. And
we understand the real partnership or the cost sharing that's going to go on. And it comes at a particular time, and I'll be very quick with this because I want to make it as really the strongest point. If we're going to look at a five year CIP in the next few months, we will have to put something in there for this project. So having put $1,000,000 in this month, because that's what this is going to be, 1,000,000 of grant money put towards whatever the final amount is, is now part of that.
So I I would just support waiting a year to make application after we own the dam. Thank you. Any other counselor comments? Hey. I just have a few comments to make too. Anybody that's followed me since I decided to to do what I'm doing sitting here, will know where I sit with the dam with the removal of the dam. Having grown up here, I that to me, that dam is part of our part of our big history and part of our part of our identity, and it's not something that I really would like to see removed.
I I also kinda have an issue, you know, taking ownership of something that, you know, and post. Now Post have been trying to rid themselves of for decades, without having or at least knowing what type of partnership we're gonna we're gonna fully gain out of them. To me, there seems to be some questions that that, that I would really like to see answered before I could decide one way or the other, or to to try and maybe even move into to an in favor prod part
of it. I just one of the one of my big worries is that we we keep moving along, and and all of a sudden we're we've stuck millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money and grant money. Granted, we all know that grant money is essentially taxpayer money as well. And I and then to two years down the road when it comes to a final vote on construction costs or whatever, we have a completely different makeup of people sitting up here,
and they say no, and then all of a sudden we're out millions of dollars again, similar to the water treatment plant. I that's one of the one of the big things I just to me, there's just too many what ifs, too many not real positive, and I understand that that we need to move forward to answer some of those questions, but I think there's also some questions that that we could potentially get answered before that. The reason I that I asked when you knew about it was,
to me, it would seem like if we could have popped this on maybe last week's on last week's work session agenda might have given us a chance to ask a few questions that we could have potentially maybe have gotten some answers for tonight. Maybe we wouldn't get some of those answers. I know staff has done a really good job of answering a lot of the questions that we that we had here tonight, and I know that there's a lot of unknowns with a project like this too, which is also one of the reasons why I'm really skeptical about it. I guess with that being said,
that's you know, I I just don't think that I can that I that I can support anything with the dam removal at this time. So are there any other comments? We'll ask for a vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. Roll call, please. Councilor Silke? Yes. President Pro Tem Beemer? No. Councilor Dahlin? No. Councilor Holmes? Yes. Councilor Peterson White? Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Thanks, President Pro Tem, members of the council. Just a couple of items.
With the legislative session rolling forward, I did get notice today that our sales tax, bill question, has been filed and they have the jackets all ready to go. So we should be getting a bill number soon on the House side. And our Senator had, has given verbal support for that as well and is waiting to hit the senate side of that as well. And we're, on a number of our projects, including the state bonding for the Northfield Community Resource Center, including the food shelf expansion idea. We do have, we are requesting hearings on that and trying to get to the legislators where you
rely on our senator and representative to do that. And the same thing on the sales tax bill. I would say when they attended the day at the Capitol at the League of Cities, they covered a number of topics. But, I I would say I was optimistic cautiously optimistic on the leadership of the minority majority or they kinda split, I guess. Now I'm trying to remember if they're technically shared still on at least one of the houses. I think that I was fairly heartened to hear that there's some openness to a bonding bill in the end. You never know on that. And I think there's some openness to that and that would likely come at the
end of the session. I think also there was a lot of discussion about what types of projects would be included. And I also think our particular bonding bill meets a lot of the criteria on both political parties on how the leadership articulated it today on the capital. Food insecurity and being able to keep food out of landfills and they're captured, food ways to actually make it productive and use, I think, would resonate with them. And our Senator in a recent exchange agreed with that as well. And so looking to continue to move that work forward
and keep you updated on kind of what the status of those are. I did verbally give some updates to some of you since it was a work session last week. The county did, meet, related to the request of the four way stop at Woodley in Spring Creek with that project, and they did, support it four to zero with one member that was not in attendance. And I think at least some of them also articulated the feedback that they received from the community and council members with that as well related to their decision. The direction that you gave where the council was unanimous in support of the interest
to explore that, Mr. Bennett's taking that as direction. And so they're working on the construction plan updates, and we'll share back that design work when it comes back to you on the specifics. There were, pedestrian activated flashers that were part of the dollars that we had with the was that with the trail project, Dave, that we might not be able to use that we're committed to as part of that project, that we might not be able to move to another part of town with that funding, but we're gonna explore if there are other options because we know as an example
over on the, by Greenville, school and, what street crossing was it? We were looking at adding potentially on that street. We didn't get yeah. Linden, we didn't get the grant application, but we were thinking potentially if we got a good price on those rapid, pedestrian rapid activated, crossings that maybe we could move them over there if there were some dollars to potentially accomplish that. So I think mister Bennett's exploring that too and come back. So I don't do you have anything to add on that one, Dave? No. I think you covered it. So we'll yeah. I think we'll look for funding to review what we have received for bids and
look at funding opportunities to see if we could move them to a different location in the community versus, like, what the restock fee might be that we'd have to pay if we just restock those and see if we could see what that difference cost would be. The other item I thought I would just note for you since, I do attend the Charter Commission meetings kind of as a staff liaison to them. Even though they're an independent body, I can be there to give feedback related to how some of the charter provisions are actually lived out on the council or if there's questions on how things operate. They've been noodling on one section of a charter amendment on 4.1
for about a year. I'm not saying this is a particularly complicated section, but they're meeting about once every other month, and there was, a number of reasons why that was delayed. But it relates to the swearing in of new council members and how we do that. You might recall a little clunkiness the last time around where the charter language kind of has where it has language where it has to be the first item of business to do the swearing in, but we didn't have a quorum of the council. And so the only way to have accomplished that would have been to ask the prior elected officials to come to be able to meet that initial quorum,
which you can't legally even if you ask them, you can't legally compel anybody to show up. So I think there's kind of a catch 22 there. So our city attorney and I actually initiated awareness around this challenge and that there might be a way to do some cleanup language after that happened, and so they've been looking at that. We actually the city attorney actually found a unique other provision of statute specific to charter cities that we he wasn't aware of previously in their firm. So, anyway, I think the short answer is, they had a good robust discussion including with two new members,
on the Charter Commission at their last meeting. And they're teeing it up for potentially acting on that to make a recommendation of the council at their meeting in May. So if you want to tune into that discussion in May or the recording still in process, should be getting posted in the next day or two. And if you want to track some of that conversation, you can do that if you'd like to. But I thought it would draw some attention to that one since we don't have representation from council specifically on that one. So with that, that's my only reports. Thank you. Motion to adjourn? Councilor Holmes. Wow.
New people get to do it this time. I move to adjourn. Second. Councilor Silke. Second. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. I don't We don't we don't have to vote on it? I think we do we do we have to vote? We do have to vote on it? Okay. Vote on it. Well, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed.