or else presentation. >> I don't have anybody in yet. >> Okay, >> there's no one online yet. >> We moved everything. You moved everything away from the wall. >> Is there a closer one by now? >> All right.
>> You got the words over there. >> Oh, he needs Well, yeah, there's a >> And there's a proposal. The same in one. >> That's a chamber. >> You want to follow this share? Go ahead. >> Well, now we know how involved in this
meeting to open. Take a good one. >> Really wanted that. >> Right up, didn't it? >> Yeah, it did. early morning. >> Oh, yeah. >> We do need the rain. >> Absolutely.
>> Desperately. >> Okay. Recording. >> Okay. Um, this is our June 16th, 2026 monthly city council meeting special.
Um, we'll do a call to order at 6:31. >> Mayor Ior here. >> Mayor uh, councelor Pendergrass >> here. Councelor Phillips here. >> Councelor Ricever here. Councelor Spring >> here. Uh King and myself,
Joe or Mike Flity. >> Mike will join us about 7 o'clock tonight. >> All right. Um approval of agenda. We have some additions and some changes. Uh but uh I make a motion to approve the agenda.
>> Second. >> Okay. Couple things. Uh one is under fire relief. Uh we will add a item B which is a uh carryover from our last meeting
regarding resolution 2026-12 uh the 10% first quarter distribution and then um under those are attachments that are on your >> desk here. both. And then also um under
consent agenda item A, city council meetings, we have B which is the city council regular meeting June 3rd minutes. >> That's the ones that are added are here. >> Now you said that resolution for
>> fire relief is 2026-12. >> Yes. under fire relief >> for people identify as B. >> I thought I recall a different number the other day. Anyway, >> um I don't know carry over in P and Z
is um Mary Nash >> 1153rd Street Southwest Code Enforcement M >> and we'll add that to P and Z. uh before a >> before a
>> we'll reidentify the property tax exemption a to a b and a would be either Mary nash. >> So we eliminate the other B. No, just go all the way down to B will be the property exceptions.
The last item is um this is under employee relations. Uh the motion to a close session initial evaluation of individuals performance subject to city council authority. uh because of
our HR attorney that's going to join us here voluntarily and he has a family commitment that we're going to move that up to before EDA right after the Krauss Anderson and
we'll just move ERC part B up there and we'll take care of ERCA where it's at right now. So if I So if I want to see a a change in what's on the on the personnel policy
as it stands, just wait and we can talk about >> that. I just want to make sure we'll leave it. >> We'll leave the policy where it's at. I just want to add something. I just want to pull that >> close session out after we have the presentation from Carl
Anderson and before ADA Okay, those are my request changes to that motion in addition. Any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the agenda as amended signify by saying I. I
posted Okay. Uh, first item is our public forum. It's a threem minute time limit per person. The city council welcomes and encourages participation from community members. Please keep in mind that your comments must be pertinent to city business and must adhere to that privacy
rules. No employees names may be used. Please do not expect action from the council this evening regarding your concerns. To address the city council during public forum, please step up to the podium. State your name, address, and fill out the form provided. Speakers will be recognized only once, and you
will be timed. Begin speaking when the green card is raised. The yellow card indicates you have 30 seconds left, and the red card indicates you reach your 3minut limit and must stop. So, with that, we'll open the public forum at 6:38.
So, for those here that would like to speak in public forum, please step forward to the podiums, fill out a white card and share that with uh Rachel. >> Hi, my name is Randy Peterson. I live at
1053rd Street Southwest Ornoo and um I believe it was two years ago that um um I was actually followed out to my car and um talked by the uh
attorney and the mayor and they said that they would start the process a little bit more rigid. Um, but it's been four years. It's been costing more and more because nothing was was done about
it. But the shed, number one, cut, dried, it is on a property without a residence. And that number one is a is a rule breaker. Number two, it's possibly too big. And this is regarding the 115
um Third Street Southwest. Um, I follow the law, so I would expect others to do the same. Um, cars parked in the yard or vehicles. Um, I think I want to build a shed and just wait for four years and then I'll tear
it down and maybe I can put my stuff in there. I don't, but um, it's costing more and more money and you know, I feel bad for that, but it's not my fault. So anyway, that's what I'm
here for. >> Just nobody else. Okay. A second call. Second call for public forum. Steven Norland, 8:45 First Street Northwest Orno.
I can imagine you know why I'm here. is to discuss the easements uh and the budget under budget project that this city come uh $670,000 under budget and $600,000 of that I
believe was appropriated by the state Minnesota legislature to have for property acquisitions, permanent easements, temporary ease replacements to pay for. How come you
left out the homeowner? You know, how come they weren't surveyed? I'm sure every other one had a legal surveyor come out or a licensed surveyor come out
and survey those. Uh and it's my recollection that uh those funds at the end of the project should be given back to the state of Minnesota, citizens of
the state of Minnesota or be reappropriated. But that I believe takes the state legislature to decide that. Where are where is that $670,000
at this time? Is it in a is it managed by the city in an account somewhere gaining interest and yet you can't survey? It'll be 173 homes.
Thank you. Third and final call forum. With that, we'll close the public forum at 641. Sheriff's call report. I think the one thing on that I've seen um and heard from people that live here
about kids going around in the middle of the night and knocking or kicking doors. So, if they can do some patrolling in the midnight hours, that would be great. Particularly on the west side. >> That's right. >> On the west side. >> West side.
>> Yep. So, I don't know if they're trying to get in the houses or they're just out being >> wondering. I'm not sure, but um maybe a little more just presents in the later evening hours might be a good thing. >> There's some noisy kids on our side as
well that are out past 11 that are I don't know that they're banging on doors, but you know, that's more disturbing. But >> do you have a video camera? wasn't our our door. So, I don't know. I've just heard in passing from a few folks that
they're it doesn't sound like they're trying to get in, but they're making a big bang and then running away or >> on a bike or something. I'm not sure where they're going. >> I haven't heard it. >> Did see the post on Facebook. It sounds like the uh
>> property owner that posted it had caught somebody on their cameras. So, >> I've heard a few over on the west side, too, talk about it. So, I don't know. They were they were just glad that their dogs were inside at the time. >> Yeah. The kids are coming up to the doors with hoods over their face so they
can't be seen. >> Oh, really? >> Identified by the cameras that >> supposedly. Yeah. >> So maybe just a little more exposure around. Well, I guess it does,
but we can mention Sergeant R. Yes. But it's Have you had River Park your area or your >> I know we had some issues last year. I haven't had any anything like that happening this year outside of noisy
kids on scooters up at past 11:00. >> Um going by and it's summer. >> Yeah. So >> maybe just some residential patrolling >> up to the doors is a problem, right? Like >> and I don't know if it's like their
door, their garage door again. >> Yeah, >> what they're doing or they're throwing something at the house. >> Okay, we'll make a note for Sergeant Ren. Ren follow up on that.
>> Where do you spell that? R I M. Correct. water summaries next. Um previous any comments for billing register I'm sorry for the utilities. Yes. Okay. have
nothing there. We'll go on to presentation. Is she? >> Oh, she is. We're having a little trouble getting around. That's why we're running around. >> Oh, okay. Hi, Mory. We got you in. >> Hi. I'm on my cell phone. It was sent to
me via text. So, I'm going to try and do the best I can here. I don't think I I can't share my screen from my mobile device. So, I don't know if you guys >> want me to resend you the link to your email real quick. >> Yeah. Yeah, cuz the one that I have is
for the 9th of June. So, that would be awesome. >> Here it comes. >> Thank you. Let me make sure I get it and then I'll hop on that one's in the room too. Direct your message up a little bit.
>> See on there. >> I don't see any go either. >> Do you notice? >> I think we've got it all figured out now. Sorry, guys. All right. >> We're sorry. No, you're all good. Um, I
don't have sharing capability though. >> Did I do that? No. Hello. Click the blue. There we go. Now we're cooking with gas. All right. Let me get this up to speed
here. Well, okay. Sorry guys for everything. Um, I'm Mari Solomon with Krauss Anderson. Um, I'm a senior facility assessment manager. Um, I'm technically filling in for Travis Evenson. He um actually did this
assessment um on my behalf because I was um assigned to a a big project that I had to be out of town for. So, thank you for having me. Um are we we're ready to go. Should I just go ahead and jump right in? All right,
perfect. All right, so um today's agenda is consistent of, you know, talking about our FCA deliverables. So the facility condition assessment when I say FCA for everyone who's not familiar with that acronym. Um so we'll talk about the
deliverables. Um we'll review the executive summary. um the initial findings um and then get into the nuts and bolts of how we how we draw to the conclusions that we came to um talking about the FCI which is the facility
condition index um which is an industry standard which we'll talk about in a little bit um we'll talk about the annual spend um I did update this presentation a little bit just to give it a little bit more um you know context
um as well as a cost breakdown um per discipline per facility. Um and then we'll conclude and do a recap and then we'll open it up for questions. So we'll jump right in. Um so our uh deliverables consist of you know the executive report
which we're viewing today. Um we also deliver everything via um a a SharePoint portal. Um so everything is digitized um and is available for viewing there. Um the FCA dashboard um it consists of a
10-year plan plus um it captures a 10-year period, but it actually goes out um as long as you know the items that we did a full assessment of your entire facilities whether they were new or old. Um so everything is in there. It just may not be captured in that 10-year
period. Um the facility condition index scores which we'll talk about in depth in the next couple slides. um as well as all the site information, the site interview information, which is that really important anecdotal information um that we got from Kane and team um
regarding these these really important sites for you guys. All right, so we'll jump right in. So um we as Krauss Anderson were hired by the city um to do an assessment on your behalf. Um it consisted of three
facilities that totaled a little over 24,000 square feet. Um the objective was to you know understand help you understand what you have what you need and then ultimately you know this data is to help guide decision making
processes um for future direction for these facilities. Um, so a lot of, you know, future plans will be probably discussed after this presentation is over. Um, and we're absolutely here to help guide the city in those
conversations if if that is warranted and and needed. We're absolutely there for that. Um so for a quick overview and we'll get into the details as we continue through the slides is um so the index ratings um the public works facility came into good range and we'll
talk about how we got to that um and then the fire department and city hall facilities ranged in the poor um and again we'll talk about how that is calculated and determined. Um, overall we found about $4.3 million in, you know, capital and maintenance needs over
the the next 10-year period. And that includes all three facilities. Um, not everything is, you know, critical. Um, there are some things that are are more critical than others. Um, you know, and all of our cost estimates are based off,
you know, historical data that, you know, Krauss Anderson, you know, has experience in in in constructing these types of facilities. Um so we we specialize in in government municipality facilities so we have those databases to pull from. Um obviously hard bids will
be needed once you know projects are kind of developed. Um and the other big thing um that we'll talk about in depth on the future slides is it does not the FCA does not account for any adequacy issues. Um so like space needs um
constraints in in operations of the building. um that's a completely separate um you know task um but we will talk about that and then obviously this is just the straight skinny we have not rebalanced the plan this is the straight
numbers that we got right out of the FCA based on the information that we collected and had a site interview over and we'll talk about how that looks going forward. All right. So, starting with um your
newest facility, your public works facility. Um it's about 5,000 square feet um built in 2015. Uh pre-fabricated building. Um so here you can see in this slide um some data points that are really critical to how we get to this
FCI rating. Um so to just do a quick understanding of what FCI is. So the facility index, facility condition index, it was developed by IFMA. So the international facility managers association. So that's a worldwide um
association um that drives what we do in condition assessments and it gives a rating um when we do facility assessments um and it's really I call it a health check of a facility. So it takes a modern-day replacement cost of a
building you know like for like meaning the square footage is the same and the type of construction is the same. So, no additions or subtractions to the building. So, it gives you a data point in terms of okay, a modern-day replacement cost of a building like this
would be about three $350 a square foot. So, you're looking at, you know, like $1.75 million to replace that building as it is with 5,000 square feet. Um, we found about, you know, a little under $140,000
over the next 10 years. So, um, to calculate that FCI, it takes that deferred maintenance of 140,000 against that 1.75 million to replace the building and it gives that calculation of percentage.
Um, so obviously the lower you are in percentage, so you're at 0.06 on that rating, so you're in really good shape at that building. Um, so the higher you get in percentage obviously the more you know critical we talk about
possibly divesting. Obviously this facility does not fall in that category. It's in a it's in really good shape um in terms of the facility and the ca the improvements to the building. So as we move on um so this is an annual
this is an unbalanced annual plan of what you're expecting over the next 10 years. So you can see 2035 is a big year for this for this building. Um that's because we start to see um typically in our industry 15 to 20 years is when you
start to see a big ramp up in terms of needing a lot of capital improvements for like HVAC and interiors and roofs. It kind of all hits similarly at the same time. Um we use Ashray Bulma standards um industry standards in terms
of life expectancy. Um so since this was built 2015 a lot of things are going to hit in 2035. I will say that this is unbalanced. So meaning you know these green, yellow and red areas. Um the red is what you definitely will want to
absolutely keep in 2035. Um the yellow can be pushed around a little bit and the green is absolutely slush slushy numbers. Like the interiors are in the green. They're low priority meaning they won't impact your operations of your facility. Um yellow
is more like your doors, windows, roof. And then red is, you know, HVAC and electrical and plumbing, the things that if they fail, they could impact the operations of the facility. So that's how we rate um it helps kind of paint
more of a better picture than just an annual spend if that helps. So going on to the next slide. So this is just a different way to show our data. So you can see the different pieces of the pie for public works, you know, over the next 10 years. Um you
know, there's going to need to be some HVAC um replacements coming up in the 10-year period. Um, you know, some some plumbing updates, you know, site work, you know, parking lots, you know, re resealing, you know, maybe a mill and overlay as well. Um, you know, doors and
windows in your exterior enclosure and roofs. And then interiors, um, you know, we put about 20 years on interiors to replace, you know, carpets and ceilings and, you know, spruce things up, so to speak. So, um, to hit on the overview,
um, like I said, you know, site work, interior construction, and HVAC is kind of your biggest drivers for that facility. Um, there's also plumbing in there. Um, to mention that there are no floor drains in that public works facility. Um, so that's kind of a a
problem actually. No, I'm sorry. I'm cons I'm confusing it with the fire department. My my apologies. Um this one um the only thing that I will um convey to you guys is there are space constraints. Even though it's good in
terms of the facility condition being really good um the problem is the operations of the building is is somewhat strained um because um you are at capacity at the building right now with you know all the functions that
work out of this facility. Um, so there's a lot going on in the facility and not a lot of extra space to grow. Um, obviously you don't really have as well any kind of like, you know, yard. Um, you have no like real storage for
any equipment. Um, and no like cold storage or anything really big to, you know, take care of your fleet vehicles or anything like that. Um so this the space constraints can be um obviously a safety issue. Um it can impact employee
morale and retention. Um and you know it advances age on your pieces of equipment if they have to sit outside if if you you know max your space out in your shop areas. Um so it can make operations really challenging for for the folks that work in in that facility. But
overall from a facility condition aspect it's in good condition. Um so again the adequacy part um I would highly recommend on this facility um you know having a space needs study done um once you know we conclude with the facility
assessment um to really understand um you know kind of where you're at with space um against what you know your employee current employee count is and what that future employee count will be and what you know your fleet will grow.
um you know as long as you know your city's growing. So of course your city facilities also have to be right sized for that growth and that's what that um that space adequacy study will do is you know help you kind of guide you in terms
of okay we need this space today but then we also need to consider that growth in the future. So not just building a building for what you need today but in the future. So, all right. So, we'll keep going here. Um, so the
city hall, your one of your oldest buildings. Um, you know, the original build of this building was 1927. Um, and then there was some additions added in 1950. Um, the building is a little bit under 14,000 square feet. Um, we're
anticipating, you know, if you were to replace this building like for like, same square footage, um, and same construction, it would be a little under $6 million to replace the building. Um, we found about a little over three million, 3.1 million in deferred
maintenance and capital needs over the next 10 years. So, we're we're in a really high FCI rating right now. um we're almost at 50% of the value of the building in terms of needs for the building. Um a lot of it is because you
know the original build was 1927 and 1950 and you know a lot has changed with you know uh code requirements you know ADA and air quality and HVAC efficiencies. Um you know a lot has has
changed in a long in that long period of time. Um so we will jump into that detail in the next slide here. Um so you can see here a very large chunk of what is needed is needed you know pretty soon
here. Um you know that red bar is is a big chunk of what you need. Um and it's you know HVAC and you know conveyance and you know all of those bigger ticketed items. And you can see here um almost 50% of of
that um $3 million that we found is in HVAC um needs. Um there is no, you know, real air exchange system in the building um during the summer times and the warmer weather, you know, you're having windows and doors open. um from an
efficiency standpoint, utility cost standpoint, you know, safety and security and you know, critters getting in the building. Um you know, it's recommended that we, you know, that there's a full upgrade to the HVAC system um for all of those reasons. Um
exterior enclosure, you know, there's a lot of dated windows and doors. Again, that impacts, you know, the comfort the comfortability of the building. um you know and the efficiency of the building utility wise. We're all talking about you know how utility costs are
continuing to rise. So these things will severely help you know with you know running a more efficient building with new windows, new doors, new HVAC. Um so it's more the enclosure is tight. Um and
you have an efficient HVAC system and it's you know providing fresh air for everyone in the building. Um the roofs, they're at end of life as well. Um the interiors, there's a lot of aged interiors. Um a lot of it is ADA
compliant, um code compliancy that needs to be um addressed. Um there is no um elevator at all in the building. Um so obviously from a staffing perspective, if you have anyone with you know any kind of disability or public um facing,
they can't really utilize the the upper levels of that building. So it's kind of a constraint for the city for sure. Um so those are the real big drivers um within the plan that we found. So you can see um just a kind of a recap
there's also you know asbestous concerns as well as lead based paint concerns um you know due to the age of the building. Um so there there are some some things I mean asbestous if you don't disturb it it's fine. Um, but there's just aged
pieces in here that that should be addressed. Um, and just to kind of reiterate um, what I said earlier, you know, the ventilation and the air exchange is a really uh, big driver. Um, you know, code compliance has changed over many
years um, with, you know, having positive indoor air quality for, you know, buildings. Um, so it is regulated by code. Um and and the building just currently does not meet that requirement. Um definitely we already
know there's definitely some um asbestous containing materials and most likely some lead paint in the building. Um and ADA that's a huge thing. Um you know it it's new from the 1990s. Um but you know ADA requirements especially
from a a public-f facing um building you know and you probably have voting happening in the building and things like that. It's just you know imperative to be code compliant when it comes to you know people with you know challenges or disabilities um trying to get into a
building. Um and just the building systems in general um including the mechanical and the fire protection all of that um is outdated. Um it it does need to be updated. So all right um the fire station fire
department um original build 1970 um and then there was a little addition in 1995. Um it's about 5400 square feet. Um again this is similar to the public works facility. It's a it's a almost a prefabricated building. Um, we put about
$350 a square foot on a building this this the type and size that it is. Um, so you're at about, you know, just $1 almost 9 million to replace that building. Um, we've got about a little over a million dollars in needs over the
10 years that we we found. Um, so when you put that up against, you know, the building replacement cost, it's it's again very high on that FCI chart. Um, so it's in it's getting close to that 50% range in terms of poor poor
condition. So a lot of what is needed is in that first year here in 2027. Um, so just just over $900,000 of that 1.1 is is kind of recommended to
be done in that first year. Obviously that green section um a little over 200,000 can can probably be kicked a little bit down the road. Um but the the red and the yellow um I wouldn't you know defer it too long.
So you can see here the breakdown um of the biggest areas of improvement. Obviously HVAC is a huge driver. um you know it's imperative that you have you know good again with that air quality um you know c um concerns with running
apparatuses in the bays um also this is where I made the mistake I got them too confused my apologies again um there's no floor drains um in the fire station um so if they were to you know do any kind of cleaning of their apparatuses um
there's nowhere for water to go Um, and obviously that's kind of a critical piece of having a fire station. You need to have, you know, floor drains um, in an apparatus bay. Um, and then obviously interior construction, um, you know,
just updating the finishes, that's a pretty lowhanging fruit, but then the roof um, replacement as well as, you know, the doors and the windows um, need to be replaced as well. Um there's obviously some site work, you know, just um you know, sidewalk improvements and
you know, any parking improvements are included in there as well. Um so just, you know, this is kind of reiterating what we've talked about um in terms of this the sighting and and the door enclosures and the roof um and
floor drains are are pretty high up there on the list. Um but then we we talk again about the safety and code compliance. Um you know the floor drains um you know this this can lead to you know operation problems
with the building obviously um you know mold growth and you know moisture issues as well as impacting the air quality. Um, and just from a functional standpoint, it's ch it can be really challenging, especially um, you know, being in the wintertime in in Minnesota,
we know how much snow is brought in and out on vehicles and, you know, sand and salt as well. So, it can impact the floor, um, the concrete floor in the apparatus bays as well. um exhaust. I mentioned this earlier. Um it's really really important to have CO
um systems with makeup air units um that control you know fresh air coming out and expelling you know the the harmful um you know carbon and nitrogen dioxide in in the air. Um, you know, it's just a huge safety concern, especially when you
have apparatuses that need to potentially start with, you know, the doors down, especially in, you know, the winter time. Um, and then there's again that that pesky thing about size limitations. Um, which is also, you know, an issue with your public works
facility. Um, it is at capacity. Um, there is no room for growth at all. Um, so if you know your city continues to grow, um, your fire department is greatly limited to how much, you know, it can serve the community. Um, the
other thing is, um, it's pretty typical in in fire station uh, construction to have, you know, pullth through bays where, you know, you're going in one door and out the other. Um, it's an efficiency and a timing standpoint from a safety aspect to, you know, be very
responsive, not having to pull out, pull in. um you know and it's safety for people around the building as well. Um and the bays are are undersized. Um you know if if you're looking to again expand your fire station um personnel
and you're growing with your city um you know the the apparatuses will grow as well. Um and those are very expensive pieces of equipment. Um so you definitely want to home for those as you grow. Um and then just interior spaces
for you know your employees to to work out of as they are you know not necessarily in the field all the time. Um so you know training and meeting spaces and you know just rest areas for you know your fire departments pretty critical. Um you know as they have a
pretty tough job in the field. So, so just to recap, I know I've thrown a lot at you and I am definitely here to answer any questions you have. Um, but uh the public works facility from a condition assessment um side of things
is in a good spa a good range. Um it's in really good shape. Um it does lack space which I think you know again warrants that space adequacy study. Um and the fire department and the city hall were rated in poor. Um we found about that $4.3 million um needed over
the next 10 years. Um and you know balancing that plan will help kind of delineate some of that really important items versus you know the kind of lowerhanging fruit. um but it does not address the adequacy issues that you're
facing which I think would be you know a good next step in the process to really drill down um your real needs for these facilities um because obviously you're going to continue to maintain these facilities depending no matter what
direction you go you still have to live in these facilities even if you were to you know potentially build a new facility um so there is maint containing as you go. Um, but our FCA is really a do nothing plan. This means if you were
to just stay in the facilities as you are, this is what you're facing. So, 4.3 million over the next 10 years. So, all right, I'm going to open it up to questions for anybody who has anything for me.
Well, thank you for the presentation. Um, no, we went into this. We don't know what we don't know. >> Yeah. >> Know now what we know. But >> yeah, >> it's it's a it's a big challenge ahead
of that for sure. >> It is. And we are absolutely here to help you in any way we can to, you know, make the next steps easier. So, I think I mean from my opinion and you probably don't have an answer for this
but that 4.3 is a big number. Um and in there right you're saying not all items are critical. I think we would need to decide you know what is a appropriate amount that could be spent on maintenance or is that even really a new facility? I think we'd still have to figure that out and start to think about
planning >> um so we're not impacting our tax base as much as possible. I would assume there's potentially even some grants or other things that we could look at or state funding to help. Um, but that 4.3 million is a a big number when we think
about it. But understanding that all of these things are probably what staff and fire and city hall and and public works are feeling. So, appreciate the overview. >> Absolutely. So, in your estimation, your ex
experience. You know, this amount of dollars is usually ends up being a bonding referendum. Um, you know, 20, 30-year bond or something like that. Is that typically how cities would attack or approach this
project? >> Yeah. And there's also, you know, potentially grants out there um, you know, and federal funding depending on, you know, how how you want to approach it. um which we we have people on staff that can kind of help guide those
conversations at KA in terms of how you want to if if you wanted to finance, you know, any anything improvement wise. Um we we have people on staff that can help drive that conversation. But I don't I don't think it's all just going to be, you know, a tax based situation. It's
definitely there's bonds and grants and, you know, from a federal level, from a state level. So, um I think that needs to be explored for sure. um to determine, you know, what what you need to, you know, take care of like immediately at the building versus, you
know, what we're going to, you know, you want to wait on and then kind of in the meantime figure out what that future looks like for the facilities in general. So when we look at the three buckets, community center, public works, fire
department, in your experience, which of those three are more um likely to get funding from either the federal or the state government? >> That's kind of a tough a tough question.
Um I mean fire departments have you know typically they get a lot of support because of what they do um in the community. So, that one will probably be, you know, probably be more likely to be the easiest to fund. Um, but we would
have to we would have to look into, you know, the other the other areas of financing. I think the other thing, all of these facilities are landlocked. Um, and and there's not a whole lot of room to grow. So, we would need to think about
positioning if we weren't going to continue with those facilities or move somewhere else. Um, that would be a consideration we'd have to think about, too. >> Yeah. And the good news is um like the for instance, you know, your current public works facility, you could still
utilize it a as some as part of your fleet of facilities. It's in good shape. It just can't house all the people that you currently have in there right now. Um you know, and same with the fire department. Um the building's not in terrible condition, you know, for what it's being for if you were not to put a
fire station in there. if you were to just, you know, if it were more like cold storage for public works or something to that degree, it may be a little bit more, you know, easier to utilize. So, there's there's ways that we can reimagine, you know, some of these facilities. City Hall is going to
be more of a challenge in terms of reuse just because um you know, it's such an older building that it just simply doesn't meet the current code requirements. So, um, but at least, you know, I think for sure the public works facility, you can reuse, um, the fire
station. I think you could still reuse part of it for for some other use. Um, I don't know if, you know, the city has other properties that they own that they currently aren't, you know, occupying with any kind of facility on it. Um, but
we certainly can, you know, we have, um, you know, some space planning people on staff that can, you know, do some modeling of, you know, what size building can fit on properties. Um, you know, to determine, you know, you can future projects, you can fit, you know,
a a need of your building need on that piece of property. I mean, they could even take the one that you're you're on right now and see what what it could, you know, potentially look like in the future, but I'll leave that for future conversations. >> Well, you you mentioned the the
different departments working out of the public works building. Do we know how much space each one of those departments are dedicated to in that? >> I wouldn't personally know that. Um Kane may >> Kane may have be the one to answer it.
You got water and sewer, streets and roads. Is there anything dedicated to, >> you know, it's it's just a aort building, you know, it doesn't >> I understand. >> It's not just one department. It's everything, you know. So, we're
>> Well, I guess I guess I guess I guess kind of where I'm going is some of the water and sewer stuff could be moved out to the sewer plant for for those kind of needs, you know. >> Oh, absolutely. you know, stuff like that. >> Yep. >> You know, I just one of my concerns that
it might alleviate some pressure off here temporarily. >> Not much room out at the plant really. Uh >> well, there's office there's there is office space for some of that. >> There's a lab. >> Yeah. >> And a break room, a conference room,
>> but we we can go into that later. It just >> it it may seem like a large facility out there at the plant, but it's >> build it's built up. I mean, >> not much extra room. We can't park a vehicle out there. There's not enough
room to park a pickup truck right now. So, >> that's where we are with space out there >> or a fire truck. >> Okay. Well, that's this is excellent information going strategically ahead of us and I think it's u it probably be
referenced a lot as we decide what we're going to do and any other questions for comments at this point. >> No, I'd like to thank her for the time they put in it. So, >> yeah, still been recording. >> All right. Thank you very much.
Appreciate your time. >> Yeah, thanks for having me. get in touch and and we'll get a copy of the what you presented then as well. >> Yes. Yep. It's actually live. I'll make sure to get it over to Kane and he can redistribute it. So, it was just some added verbiage in there for you. So, but
thank you for your time everyone and if you have any questions feel free to reach out. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. page. Next item and we moved it up is our um
performance evaluation. So let me have some a script to follow and we'll start that is is Nico still there. Okay. So the agenda item for this special meeting is initial evaluation of an
individual's performance subject to city council authority under Minnesota statute sections 13D.05 subdivision 3A. The individual is city clerk Rachel Chkins Minnesota statute section 13D.05 5
subdivision 3A provides that any portion of a meeting may be closed for this reason unless the individual who is subject to the meeting request that it be open. I understand city clerk Rachel did not request an open meeting. Is that correct?
>> That is >> the port this portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant to such statutes because the city council will be evaluating the performance of an individual subject to the city's authority. City Clerk Rachel Shapkins. I will now entertain a motion to close the
meeting. >> Make a motion to close. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. The time is uh 7:22 p.m. The city will now go into close session
and uh we will ask um Nicholas is the only one on the line right now. >> Rachel before you leave. >> No, I'm not. I'm just the door. >> Okay. Thank you. The council will now go into close
session here in the city council chambers. Only the city council, Rachel and legal council may attend the closed session. Closed portion of this meeting is being electronically recorded. Uh Mu Minnesota statute section 13D.05
and I will Oops. Start that recording right now. just wasn't sure because he didn't announce that he was >> fair. Thank you. Yep.
Members, we go back to an open meeting. Following a closed meeting for performance evaluation of a city employee, the city council meeting is now open. time is 7:56 and with that we can move to the agenda item. So, um,
in open session, I would make a motion that we terminate, uh, Rachel Shipkins, uh, effective immediately. And, uh, if necessary, I can meet Rachel
in the morning at 7 a.m. Uh, whatever is left to be collected, we need passwords, keys, cars. We'll second >> Daniel. Any other comments? >> Seeing none, uh, all those in favor
signify by saying I. >> Do we have to do voice vote? >> What's that? >> Do we have to do voice vote? >> I don't think so. >> Hey, >> oppose. Motion's carried. And uh with that we'll
uh take a fivem minute break and u while wait to collect her things and uh we'll come back at uh 8:10 back there. Yeah, it's 8:10 and uh Mike is with us. So,
um the next item is our e no EDA. Um in your packet was a um recommendation for the approving the color black and white logos tagline business card designs. Um,
so that was in your packet from the steering committee and put there's also, let me just ask you, there's one other sheet that wasn't in the packet that came in about six o'clock tonight. It's a summary of all
the potential options that u you can see using and how to use them. that will kind of give you a flavor of the different versions and official versions of the brand standards is what Whitney
referred to it as. So there was one question about the uh the font on the tagline. Is that still >> I think that we can still like work on that. I don't know if anybody else sees that. There just were more than a couple of comments about the font on the
tagline that it may be fought with the type that is in the logo. So, I think that can still be adjusted. We're not approving the >> the bridging traditions, >> right? And maybe just make that maybe not so bold or try a couple >> words are okay. It's just a font.
>> Yeah, I think the tagline's really good. >> Okay. So with that, I make a motion we approve the recommendation from EDA, the steering committee for the new locals. >> We'll second that. >> Which one of those would that be?
>> They're all the same. Well, in the packet was the symbol for each of the diagrams. >> Yeah, I did see. And this one here is just a summary of the different versions. We can use them officially as I guess is the right way to say it.
>> And then in addition, that word Minnesota inside the dashes can be customized to say public works or fire department or it doesn't have to say Minnesota. We can have that customized for different departments too. city. >> You know, she suggested departments, but
the word Minnesota could be exchanged for public works or um emergency management, whatever have you. >> Is there a reason why that last tagline like Minnesota is not black? Is that
intentional that it's green? So if you look at the color palette, any of the any of those colors could be used for the word Minnesota or for the word say public works or emergency management. Maybe we want public works to always be green and
>> we want emergency management to always be like the yellow. Anyway, you can use those colors interchangeably for that word Minnesota underneath. >> Okay. >> Emergency management should almost be in red. It says no bottom.
>> That's for managing your emergencies. >> Looks pretty nice. >> Yeah, >> they get out of the way. The one thing I have now that we have the official files to
um we'll initiate discussion with Chad Tracy about replacing or getting quotes replacing our two highway signs. >> Okay. >> The piece of vinyl that's in it will be replaced and printed. So, one cabin on the northbound was
originally meant to have lights in it, but it was too expensive to run light electricity to it from the road. So, >> does it have solar on it? Pardon? >> I thought that had solar. >> Yeah, it does. So, we put solar lights on them. So, for >> But they were shining on it, not in it.
You were saying that it need it was planned on being in the in the sign or just >> No, no, we'll keep it outside external. >> Okay. has been >> requires fine except for >> it didn't require a different sign completely to put an innote sign
>> because it's just a back it's just a backboard it's >> prelit. >> We also are working on new signs for the park but we didn't want to do those new signs without the logo. So there'll be some new signage for all the parks too
which is within the budget. >> Any other comments? Are you working with the audience to get them included? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
Approved. Moving to administration and licensing tobacco license revoked. Revocation. I make a motion we approve. I'll second that.
We still haven't had any kind of update with anything from them. Correct. >> Not that I know. >> She seen a body up there last week. >> They were open Matt like a couple weeks ago. >> I think they've been open last couple of days.
>> Yeah. Uh I think that with these revokants though that we need to make sure that it's being enforced too. >> Right. Right. the sheriff stopped by stopped by and uh shared there with the sheriff too. So >> okay. So are they allowed to display
stuff if they have if they don't have a license to sell it like or do they need to clear their shelves? >> So their their liquor license has been revoked >> right >> now. The tobacco license has been revoked. So >> So how do they do that? Do they then re remove the inventory? >> Yeah, that's what
>> they should be there for. Yeah, I would think so. your responsibility to follow the statemandated portion of that law and if they continue to do sales of either of those things after the cities revoke their license
then we have local law enforcement. >> Okay. >> Have you heard anything from them with the liquor license? >> Um they were notified via certified mail which is what we do >> but you haven't heard anything back >> their liquor license is still sitting my on my desk from last December. They like never even picked it up.
>> Oh okay. Okay. >> So, we'll send this license to the address that we have for you. >> All right. >> Did we take that vote? >> All Yeah, we that's approved. Okay. >> Did we take that? No. So, we do need a
vote yet, right? That's our >> Yeah, we got a motion. >> We have a motion. We haven't voted. >> All in favor say I. >> I. No, >> we have a motion to approve the duck derby gambling permit for gold brush.
>> Make a motion to approve that. >> Second. >> Comments. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I approved down to fire relief. Resolution
20.6-15 accepting the 10% healthy gambling donations. I make a motion to approve the $46145 for 10% for the gambling. >> Any other comments?
This is a voice vote. >> Mayor Ist. >> Hi. Councelor Pendergrass. >> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Riceer. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi. >> It's approved. Uh this is the one item that was added
with resolution 2026-12 which is the approving the charitable distributions the first quarter of 2026 from the 10% gambling fund. This is a carryover from our June uh third meeting
discussing a couple different items. One was AED for the community building. Another one was a some of the details of course rescue vehicle.
I make a motion for discussion. >> Second. Um, you guys were looking at either a purchase, which is what I thought we had talked about with the AED going that direction, and then I heard that there was some discussion on on on
renting it through was it one of our who was it who you were going to rent it from? So it is >> it does one of them not provide you >> but I just think if it's good for five
years we should just go ahead and purchase it which would be the easiest way to take care of it for the purchase directly for the 10%. >> Now there was so last on on June 3rd there was discussion about whether or
not we could do that the funds. Did anybody check with the Minnesota Fire Assoc? >> I did >> and I did and we did put out a memo, too. >> Yeah, >> we're all good with that. >> So then the rest of that would go to the
decals. The total uh what was that total amount? $3,39.36. >> That's for the AD. >> Yeah, the AD was about 3,000
And then the other would go towards the decals. >> Do we know paying for that 3,000? And it says approximately like is that >> well the uh >> like with shipping and everything or >> the uh the 38 ads that were purchased
for the fire first responders earlier this year that was through the source well uh source well I think the program for municipalities right a discount for municipalities fire first
responders So we are a part of that program. We are a member. So we would get the same pricing as uh the ones we previously purchased. >> So >> and then I just made the motion the
addition whatever's left over. So >> yes, it's it's the same as uh ornamental fire and first responders as well as uh mail clinic ambulance service. So, it's >> it's all the same technology, all the same pads.
>> If I remember correctly, we swapped all of them this year, correct? And all of the old ones were those were expired. >> They were gone. >> Okay. >> Believe
trying to find the exact number that that we purchased or the first responders purchased some for. >> Okay. Okay. Trying to find two. Yeah. >> So, we'll need some signage or something so people know where to find them and
how to use it if needed. >> Yep. I think we'll get some some signs some some vinyl signage out here. >> Yep. >> You going to mount it in a traffic area out here or >> No, you you want it centrally located.
So, I'm imagining the hallway, you know, >> that'd be the right place to put it. >> Building the library, >> other buildings that I've seen the AED installed on the walls. It's it's kind of a peculiar place to have it up high because there's some sharp corners on
the cases. So, I don't know if there's anything you can, >> you know, >> other than whatever. >> Yeah. Put a sign on it. >> Bubble wrap it. >> Yeah. Like the pressure mounted so close to the job. So the
>> the first responders purchased four, right? We purchased four. Engine one, engine two, rescue one, brush one for a grand total of 12,96734. So that comes out to 3,24184.
Peace. Okay. may all just be used for that because there's $3,39.36. >> I think that'd be a nice nice add for those everybody taking CPR. That's that's in process with an AED as well.
So, >> all right. Um, any other comments? have a vote or voice vote for the 12 years a distributions for purchasing an AED equipment.
>> Mayor Isti, >> councelor Pendergrass. >> I councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Riceer. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi. >> Approve. >> Okay. Um I added Mary dash is the first item
under planning and zoning. So there was a package for what was given onto the tables. It was a um summary from uh Jason back in March, April 16th I guess it was.
We talked to Lou. So there's also been a pretty client privilege letter that Mike sent council for review went into a little more details about option one two and three
and um had a chance to look at that if they would like to make a a motion how to proceed. I make a motion for option three. >> Second, Daniel three.
>> I just don't think the other two make sense. I like they're not they're not going to be able to get a variance >> because they don't meet those conditions and we absolutely can't just allow it
and set that precedent right now with the new code coming out and everything like we just can't can't do that >> and and they've taken advantage of it for years let's say and known >> that this was going to be coming. So, I
think it's just get it over with. >> So, then um if the council can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> So, I had I had just switched to my iPhone. The Zoom crashed for me and Nico each a couple times. So, I don't know if it's on our end. It might be, but um so
I'll send the letter. We'll start drafting a letter, but I think it would be beneficial. I I was involved when we cleaned up Mary Nash's property the first time. I think when they built the shed >> and there was a gentleman that was helping her. Does anybody know I think
Jason was aware of this. Does anybody know who I'm talking about, >> Steve? And we I have his contact info, too. >> Oh, yeah. Okay, good. >> So, I'll start putting the letter together, but I think it would be beneficial if to pursue option three. And I think that's probably if you want to remove the shed, I think that's I
mean, I don't think they would even apply. Even if you got them to apply, you know, ask them to apply, I don't think they would. But um maybe somebody wants to reach out to that gentleman and help me schedule a meeting and we could prepare the letter and just give him a
copy of the letter that we'll mail to her and maybe he we can work with them on resolving it that way. Um but pursue option three. But I just that would be part of that. Um you know would be to try and resolve it. But I think that would be a good idea because you know he
was able to help us the first time. you you don't know maybe he will this time too >> um wi with pursuing option three I think that it would be reasonable to look at our code enforcement and put a timeline
on and have fees start compiling um if they choose to be non-compliant I think that we need to have record of fees starting and start compi compiling against that property if they're not
going to be compliant. So, I don't know if that's something we can do in tandem. Um, or >> what fees? Which fees are you talking? Well, what fees would the city >> Well, they would have there's compliance issues, right? Because it's uh or
enforcement issues. So, if we don't have fees in the the schedule for enforcement, then then I think that um or if we do, then I think those should apply. We we have um like a three-letter
approach. We send one letter, 10 days, nothing happens. You send a second letter, 10 days, nothing happens. If you send a third letter and nothing happens, then there's a fee. The CD go out like in the case of weeds, you'd mow it. So, I don't know if that applies. You know,
we're not going to move the building. It's up to them to move the building. But >> I think there's cars too there, right? Is that the way you see it, Mike? >> Well, I think we've already sent at least one letter before. Isn't that what Jason's memo sort of says is that we've
we've already done that at least once. But I mean, >> I'm guessing we have We don't have a copy here. >> Do we need to start the 30-day process over? >> No. No, >> I think what we should I think what we should do is >> I think what we should do is send them a letter,
>> give them until the date of the July meeting, whenever that is. Um, and invite them if they want to address the council, they can do that, and then tell them that it's they're not in compliance by the July meeting. The council's going to the letter would say this. The
council is then going to vote to pursue um seeking an injunction to have the um shed removed. And then I would send him that one one letter. Um and then I would also try to call that gentleman and see
if we can meet before the next council meeting. And if if they stonewall you, we should just vote to do it then at the next meeting. And if they if they want to say something, they can, you know, you should give them a right to you know, make a statement or something or or present to the council if they're
going to move it move the shed. I don't know. Even if it can be moved, you know, it might have to be demolished. I don't know what what the building materials are or anything. >> It was built. >> It's on a foundation.
>> Oh, no. >> It's on a It is on a pad, I believe. >> Yeah. Wood underneath, but it was built there. It wasn't brought in. It was built. What is there? Um, what about the cars that were referenced there? That wasn't in his memo, I don't think. Are there
are there still cars? I thought we removed those. >> There's a boat. There's two trailers and truck. I >> think that's about it. >> You know, there's two buildings here. There's a small
6x6 white shed and there's also this >> the new shed that we're talking about next to the fence. >> Now I don't know what that one shed is. It's it's >> like a garden shed if we don't have >> it's like a garden shed a small one.
Yeah. Well, on the ground be awesome. >> So, it might be helpful when I write this letter if somebody can go take a picture of this >> so we can attach it to the letter and explain what we mean. I I didn't know there was two sheds until just now. So, we might need to do a little factual
work on that just to figure out what because I don't think you can have any sheds the way I read the code. >> That's right. You know, you know, so if we >> was standing before the building was taken down. >> Well, you can't have it, right? >> I'll take a photo of the area tomorrow,
Mike, and send it to you. >> Perfect. Yeah. And we'll work on it. We'll we'll get them a letter out and give them until the July meeting and see what they do. And if not, we can pursue the court action at that time if the council votes to do that. >> And there's there could be some fees
with that, the city, but that's Hopefully, >> I mean, there'll be court filing fees and legal fees, but it's not I don't think it's a terribly complicated issue. It it'll really boil down to whether they challenge it and try and um litigate the issue or if you know, if
they don't show up and there's a default, then it's not it's not as >> complicated or it's just a matter of time. >> All right, any other comments? >> See none. All in favor signify by saying I. I
>> oppos Ryland because of the tech issues I'm just going to log off. Is Is anybody in need? Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh next item is a motion to approve all any or none of the property
tax exemption applications that are listed in your your most of our city properties. You said something. >> I make a motion. >> Yeah.
>> I'll second them. >> Are these >> So these are And now I guess I'd ask you to comment too. It's my understanding that we could um lump these into one city properties.
Is that your understanding? Or do we just all do the individual ones first and come back? >> So, I mean kind of what it says and I think I included Evan's information as well too. Um Evan did review this um just for feasibility if there were any
of these lots that it made sense for the city to save money on taxes or um if we had plans for any of these properties if it was a good idea to combine them. That's fine. There's no real uh pro or con to combining them or not
combining them. um it's just an option that the county provides every year for us to review in case we were in the planning stages or um had something else going on near one of those properties. So, it's it's an opportunity that we have to review it every year.
>> Well, from reading through the packet, I kind of recall something about combining lots that they have to be side by side or within the same section. They're different sections. You can't combine them. >> And those
>> but but the one but the big one is >> the one along the lake >> and those are properties that are never going to be subdivided or changed out. >> So I would suggest that we would probably combine those to make it one property because it's all in Lake Bed is
where it's at now. >> There's all 20 of them. That's >> and the and the others probably just need to remain where they're at. Yeah, I think the the 20 link bit could be combined because it's just it just causes confusion more than anything when somebody looks at the county website and
see it's not the city but they're all city that it's a it's landlocked. It's just more of a convenience and easy to do. So I would delete those. I would say anything else that we would be
considering the developer sell we should leave out of that not combined because it does say that it makes it uh limits flexibility for selling subdividing and repurposing >> no >> in the future. So >> that'd be an important part of not
combining any of the outlets that we're talking about like in the Riverwood Hills >> and River Park keeping stuff all individual. Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll leave the city's individual right now and combine the
Lake Shady properties, >> the U worth. Yeah. seven parts on Lake Shady. >> Yeah. >> And those are all subdivision. I don't
have the names right in front of me here. I thought I did. Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I post
approved. This one is a employee relations committee about the approving the city of Waro updated personnel policy. It's a document that Marie and I have been working on
for some time and um >> I recognize there's maybe some things that >> you make a Did you make a motion? >> Uh I make a motion. Do you approve? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Discussion.
>> Yeah. I would like to uh go to section 213. the page number. >> Uh, it was page 160. And what was emailed to me? >> Start there. >> And it talks about driving while
impaired. >> Small hole. >> Oh, okay. That's right. 160. Yeah. On page 94 of the >> 94. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just >> of the personnel >> of the personnel policy. But the package number is page 160
>> section 21.03. >> Okay. Where it says said it after the comma in the second line it says or an employee owned vehicle while conducting city of
Oronoko business. I would like that I would like to remove or eliminate the conducting city of Oronoko business because when it comes to a DWI or a driving impaired, whatever you want
to call it, uh it affects your insurance no matter what. So it doesn't matter if it's a private vehicle at your own day off or what if if there's somebody that operates city city vehicles, a DWI is a
insurance killer and basically it's a it's a it's a discharge and any of the trucking industry or >> so you would like >> even even I worked for the schools if you had a DWI you were kind of done if
you were something that you did Yeah. >> And driving company vehicles, which is what I had that. Yeah, you got that. It's >> blood test within 24 instantly with well within 24 hours and then you're you're up. >> You wanted to read the conviction of
driving while impaired in a city-owned vehicle at any time during business or non-b businessiness hours or in an employeeowned vehicle may result in discipline up to and including discharge. You want to remove the part that said I want to eliminate where it says >> while conducting city of war no
business. >> You're saying it shouldn't matter if it's off the clock or on the clock. >> Once it's on their driver's license, that's said for insurance for us as a city. >> So, so by saying by saying while on while while conducting city or local
business, that means it doesn't matter if it happens at their personal in their personal time. And that should that that will matter when it comes to your insurance rate. >> One thing I want to um talk a little bit about is while we were working through
some of these updates, a lot of them were given to us from um Nico and Flattery Hood in base of best practices. Um we saw some of them happen today and so a lot of it is really just formality and making sure we have the right
verbiage. The one thing I would like to pull out um and we can talk about it later would be 12 point I got to find it sorry 12.02
which talks about um vacation pay. So it has in there years of service, what they acrew and their annual acral rate. Um it talks about separation pay, earned pay, unpaid pay, and then we added a section about
max acral cap. And so that was the recommendation from Nico to cap it at 280 hours. I'd like to pull that section from the policy and have um some conversations with staff to make sure that their one voice is heard on that.
um cap as well as maybe even thinking about some of our employees are close to that hour. So even offering maybe a cash out option if they are thinking about that. So maybe just for awareness that we'll have some additional conversations with ERC and staff um and bring that
back but really cut that whole max approval cap section out for approval today. >> So section 12.02 O2. >> I I think that that makes sense off of that, you know, for sure that and I think that that the
uh the payout is is a smart way to do it that they're not losing anything because I don't want them to lose something. >> The other thing we clarified um was the earn sick um earn sick and save time in our policy prior. Um it was vague on do
we pay that out or not. We've um had a lot of conversations with the attorney and we've made it really clear that we will not be paying out any unused earn and sick time um when an employee leaves. So, we've made it very clear that that is not uh a payable um piece.
We want to make sure that staff are using that. That is consistent with the Minnesota law, too. >> That's that's that's sick time and what else? >> It's earn sick and safe time. there's a max of 80 hours that they can acrewue that they can use that. So that's separate from like their PTO,
>> but that but that's something they can't take with if they leave. >> Yes. >> Before we didn't have it in there very clear. It was kind of vague. It left it up to interpretation. Minnesota state statute said that it really is based on um a company or an
employer to determine if we pay that out or not. Um so we made it clear that we would not be paying that out in terms of um resignation, termination, retirement, any other separation. >> So the
I I am okay with pulling the cap out um initially, but I do think that there needs to be a cap, right? Okay. >> Yeah. um because that could put the city in a pretty big financial behind if
we've got to pay 800 hours of PTO out in one shot, right? >> Also by capping it and encourages employees to actually use >> their time. Um, and then as far as the
payout, um, or buyback or however you want to, um, phrase that, unless we have a better way of managing and tracking PTO, I
think we should defer a a buyback until we have >> a way to to >> make sure that it's being tracked. >> That's something that could be put into the payroll system where that's acred
because that would be acred each week. We know if it's installed in this office saying we don't have a good oversight of if PTO is actually being added and used um >> of which one's being used is what you're
saying, right? >> Oh, or at all or if it's flex time or if it's Um, so >> and that's not all employees. So we've seen that in a couple of instances where we probably need to have again some type of HR function to have an oversight to
say, okay, Marie was gone and Marie didn't put in any eight hours of time, have some conversations and get it in there. >> Yeah, I I understand. >> Yeah, that's not across the board. So I don't want it to sound like every I mean >> that's not the correct majority of
staff. Yes, it's but it is something that has to be addressed. >> Yeah. >> With especially with as small of a department as we have with the the oversight that and the trust and everything. So,
>> so is that something that we need to address with HR on the clarity side of it? >> Yeah, we have we have some policies in place or um drafted. Um, again, I think we can talk to staff and let their voice
kind of um, be part of that. We can bring that back to ERC and then bring that up. But I think right, we're in a unique spot. We don't have a city administrator. We don't have an HR function. Um, so we want to be sensitive to that too and not add a whole lot of
oversight, but we do need some type of >> tracking. Absolutely. Okay. >> Great. Good discussion. >> Tracking and probably a way to define which which what's being used, you know,
whether it be whether it be the >> Yeah. In the policy there are like where they can use earn and sick earn sick and safe time like what's allowable versus what's not. >> Well, that's state regulated anyway, right? Like
>> it's not. So, as far as the motion goes, we have 12.02 and vacation leave and 12.01 ESST we want to pull out or >> we would pull out in the 12.02 just the
um max acrruel and cap section. We would leave the others in there because it talks about their annual what they get every pay period eligibility acural rate. um separation payout, deferred comp. So, we'd leave that in
there. But there's a max acrruel cap um paragraph, we would remove in that 12.02. And then the comment um that Paul made about the 21103 about removing that while conducting city or noco business for impaired.
>> So, the max cruel gap, you're going to you pull that out until you talk with the employee to see >> see what they think a good max would be. is that basically this is uh it's u
>> is that something we can leave in and just adjust every conversation to and that makes it stay on our radar to >> I just want to be sensitive some of our employees are near that >> that max and so making sure that their
voice is heard and that we're not cutting that off with them not being able to use that time too. I think what I would recommend is we'll be back with something in there, but wanting to make sure that we're giving our staff and employees kind of time to react and what
would be a maybe a a tiered approach to get us there. But yes, we do need some type of max level. Again, this is not meant to be punitive. We want to encourage staff to use their time that they're acrewing and be away from the city and enjoy other things in
life, too. So, but we want to make sure that we give advanced notice >> and that's why it's available >> for them to use. Just assume they use it. >> Might be might be kind of hard if you're short staff though. That's probably more
the issue than anything. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> None. All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed those changes. >> So do we have to have another discussion when it comes back adding that back in then
>> probably with the amount of time the cap >> effective date or something like that. >> Yep. >> To the index. All right. Uh financials. >> I've got a couple >> I've got a couple things on the
financials page 197. Um and I'm looking at uh 42305 on page 197. legal fees.
We had budgeted uh 20,000 for this year and we're at 40,812. >> We have got to watch that. Uh the other thing that I I had on it was uh on the next page which would be
198 uh 42302 and 42303 planning services. We didn't have anything budgeted and we've been charged $36,98. That's some of the corrections that are
happening um with the merging of of 2025 and 2026 and over invoicing and other things. So, anything in parentheses, those are credited back. >> I'm just checking. >> Well, I'm not Mel's Mel's trying to
clean it up. Um >> Thank you. Okay. I mean I just efforts >> and there's just also just to note like in that planning code and in one other um there are we are still waiting on
$89,000 worth of um LCCMR reimbursements for SE. So some of those budgets look like they're over. We are getting reimbursed for like $89,000 of some of those costs. So, this should be really cleaned up um
for you. I I'm hoping by July. Um I I think some of these accounts are going to look a lot better when we start um getting >> Okay. As long as you you've got it, which is great. I mean the legal thing we've got to >> we've had a lot of unique situations
that require advocacy and and right we've been talking about the personnel policy to make sure that we have really strong documents to help support decisions and accountability. But I I hear you. >> If we can use LMC let's use LMC. Okay.
>> Y >> they do a pretty good job too. That's just yeah what's in the budget. So >> I can say anything else before consent agenda. Um motion we approve the consent agenda.
>> I'll second the only thing I saw was in the meeting minutes. If we can pull out this last meeting and it says it was approved by nothing. >> January 3rd or June 30, right? >> Yeah. Um I wasn't there so it couldn't
be 50. It seems to be 40. >> I mean I don't know that it matters but >> it good to have that. Thank you. >> So you that you guys voted for me there. I would like to pull the fire department minutes.
June June 10th minutes. Yeah. >> Right. >> 228 question. >> Let's see. Do we want to make a you want to approve the motion except for the one fire department? No. I make a friendly
motion to approve all of them except for fire department. Is a friendly motion to that? Am I motion? >> Second. >> So now we have a motion to approve the agenda with the exception of fire department. >> Right. >> Why are we pulling that? My question.
>> Um >> well we had to make that first before he gets into it. So >> I know that. So we have one motion now on the consent agenda except for the fire department. >> So that's why >> we'll vote on that first and then we'll if there's anything we make a motion
>> we're pulling that. So that's part of that's part of the consent agenda it >> but but everything else was approved with that one. That's why I made the friendly amendment friendly motion to my amendment to be able to do that. So okay
>> my question is why are we pulling it? Well, we have to do this first and now we'll find out. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um, question for the fire department and your minutes. I I really appreciate what you've done in the past. The last one that I could see was like
this January 12th minutes with your attendance and detail >> items. Yeah, I thought Yeah, I'll get that on there. >> Okay. >> Adam must not have gotten the minutes in. Um, >> I sent the minutes, but I didn't look to
see if that was the the rest or what's included in it. >> We've been Yeah, Ryland, what we typically do is I'll send the letter, you know. Um, >> we get the memo. >> Yep. That's the memo. That's the letter, you know, first city statute, right? That I have to send and then Adam br um
is our secretary and he puts in the send a >> Yeah. And I sent those in. What's that? I send those in before. So I had those sent the minute. >> They just didn't get in the packet. >> They didn't because I had those sent in on Wednesday before noon, which is the
cut off time that there was this last month. >> I always every month. Make sure they're in. >> Okay, that's good. We'll we'll do better going forward. Uh, so I do have a question on the um that was in the memo on June 10th
about the um the tanker 2 having a valve temporary discont disc discontinued use of the booster reel um and with a $1,200 repair. So why can't that be put on a insurance claim
to get it fixed? >> Well um >> we talked about that. We did we did talk about that. So, >> and and it's it's not really something that's insurance type thing. So, >> wear and tear. It's it's
>> wear insurance doesn't cover things. >> There wasn't some event. >> It's like a faucet at at home. Okay. If your faucet doesn't work at home, you don't turn around and put a claim on to your insurance company because the faucet doesn't work and it doesn't get turned off. So,
>> the car warranty doesn't cover your wiper blades and brake shoes either. So it it's it's one of those things that it's it's not an insurance type claim deal. So we paid so any type of repair we pay full full repair cost and we don't blame anything
on insurance in or other trucks and fire >> probably it's just wear and tear normal replacement >> mostly just wear and tear right you know like you know just just like anything with use right a valve is just like anything with use right it's a wear part it's kind of like you know your brakes on your on your car right it you know
it's open closed open closed under pressure not under pressure >> because I think we looked that when that happened, they thought that there might have been a little bit of moisture left into it when the winter hit and with the freezing of that it it got
caused a problem with the valve. If I remember what our discussion was on that so you can't put insurance in for, you know, not having moisture inside that valve when it gets to be cold. >> I just I just raised a question if that
could be taken care of. So >> yeah, I mean we talked about we did. So >> I mean it was it was a discussion just so you know and and >> so the last item um and you there's been previous memos about these six
applicants you have >> yes >> so my concern is we have 26 people right now on the fire department. You actually have 24. >> 24 and six is 30. But my concern is what's the cost to the city
to support six new people. Is it really do we need six more people? I'm I'm looking at strictly from a cost basis. I'm I'm sure they could do a well job. It's just a cost issue that we're really bumping up against our budget
going into 2027. And Right. So this is something that we get asked all the time. >> Yeah. >> Um you know where where is what's the number what's the right number right? >> Um how many people do we need on a call
right? Um >> how many how much how much training do we have to pay for? Actually it's that's all chambers. Um how much is the cost of turnout gear? Right. How much do we pay people to be to go to calls, to go to training, to go to meetings? Right. We
pay them $15 whole $15 an hour. Um not an hour, just a $15 a time. Um so yeah, right. That's that's the that's the question is what is that right number? Right now we have, you know, 26 people
on the first responders and we had two people respond to a call the other day, right? We're volunteers. We all have jobs. >> Mhm. >> Um we all have families. We some have cabins, some have whatever, right? We're not always available. So it's it's also
during the day, you know, a lot of people are at work and in town. You know, how do we staff truck, right? When I not here, when I was on Hayfield Fire, we would roll with three because we knew that we had three of us in town. Not safe,
right? You can run with three, but it's better with four or more, right? Um, so that's that's the question, right? Um, it's, you know, volunteerism is is dying. People are busier. We'll have more
commitments. um people, you know, they they do more or they want more relaxation time. We have a really good problem here problem here because we have so many people that want to do this. Look at what the state is doing. You know, um
they're doing a study on it because it's such a bad problem. Um now we do we what we do is when we bring somebody on you know we want them to go to fire one two and hazmat right that's the standard training it's 160 hoursish
right we get reimbured from the state for that right um and then you know what we do like to do is we like we want to outfit them with gear right >> so that's you know there that there's where the there's where the expense really really hits us right it's it's
$4,000 a set of gear. Now, we don't give them a new set of gear right away um because of that cost. We make them we make them be they're on a year plus they have to be done with their classes. So, usually when they're done with their
classes and been here a year, then we then we start that process. >> Y >> um you know, turnout gear is it's also a revolving door, right? We get it for 10 years. if it doesn't get broken. We've had repairs too um this year and last year
>> um you know that it's just a revolving door of cost. Same with SCBAs, right? We're saving for SCBAs because that's a revolving door of a of a great cost, >> you know. So, right, you know, it's
it's a hard thing to quantify. >> Yeah. But you when you're when you or your loved one needs help, you want someone there. >> I I I appreciate your comments. I mean, I have nothing against training and
everything. It's just um I think you just need to be mindful. >> I I I the officers and we we have meetings once a month and we're always talking about that. How can we how can we better make sure that you know we're we're starting like an actual interview
process which hasn't been done in the past really and you know we want to make sure that that if we bring someone on or you know send to you guys that we want to bring someone on that they're going to be around. We're not time and effort because just like any employee full-time
employee there's time and effort too. when we bring somebody on, it's four nights of an onboarding process >> and then everything else, right? So, it's it's a big ask on our side to bring somebody on and then again, it's also an
ask to you guys to bring someone on. >> So, has there been any discussion about tightening the radius where you'll take applicants from for new applicants, not necessarily current people? because I feel like you guys have uh they're
either responding from Rochester or Township or whatever or they aren't and you guys clean house. Um so implementing a a tighter radius especially when we get closer to that >> our higher number. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um yes there. Yeah, we did. We talked
about that this last officer's meeting. um and you know putting well an applicant that is um you know in town or in the township or works in town ahead of the ahead of the rest. Um over twothirds it's actually almost threequarters of our people are actually
in town or or um in township. So yeah we do we do pull from Rochester um too. So yeah. >> So I I don't think we're questioning your process. Just be mindful. But at the same time, these six applicants, are
they local or are they Rochester? >> We have uh see two in Rochester, two in the township, and two in the city. >> So you got four. >> We also we also do look at too like if they've had experience elsewhere or you know if they're already coming in with
fire one, two, and hazmat ops, great. You know, they like we like Taylor Armstrong, one of our captains, he was on Mazeppa fire for three, four years and then they moved and and we stole them >> and every time we're on scene or with Mappa fire like can we have him back?
No. >> So, we do we do look for that too. >> I do have a question. This temporary hose rail issue. >> Is there a plan to get that taken care of probably next year? Okay.
>> Yep. >> So, in the meantime, we have a truck with a hose reel not working on it. >> There's still a bunch of >> There's still two more reels on that truck. >> Okay. >> Sorry to bounce around, but for that applicant, um what's your process to
look at when people are disengaging and like terminate, not terminating or asking removal? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> What's like what does that cadence look like? maybe for both departments. >> So, I'm glad you asked that. Um, so we are we're we're nearing the finish line
of putting together like I think we've talked about um creating SOPs, right? So, standard operating procedures like the admin side of stuff, right? And then which would go to council and then go to city um you know, city count city lawyers, whatever. Um council um so
we're we're nearing the end of that and that's and it is spelled out. Okay. Um in that um we also have so and actually we did our first review session of it with um the fire department at large too not just the officers going going back and forth
with it. Um and then our second doc and that's about 20 pages. Our second document um is the SOGS which is kind of which are standard operating guidelines which is kind of like how we do business right goes off type of call what we're rolling how we're doing it how we go
about doing our business right again available for everyone but the the thing that you guys need to ratify is the is the SOPs so and make sure again that they're in compliance with our um personnel policy right that we're follow >> great things thanks to appreciate you
working on those. >> Thank you. >> It's been a It's been a process, but it's been really good. >> It is a It's a It is a undertaking. So, >> we're still talking about the personnel policy, too. So, we're all figuring out >> much needed undertaking for everybody
>> right there with you on that. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, exactly. I'm preaching the fire there. So, yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Any other comments for consent agenda? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I.
Oh, it's approved. >> Make a motion to return. >> Second pass. >> All in favor signify by saying >> I 907. Thank you very much. >> Thanks for sticking around.
>> Appreciate that.