Call the meeting to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Roll call. Mayor Stone is absent. Uh, approval of the agenda. I see two additions. 7 I authorizing execution of closing documents and 7J Keley underground payment request. Is there any other additions or changes?
>> Okay. under unfinished business. >> Okay. I didn't have H as a change on mine. Okay. >> Just updated staff reports, I think. >> Okay. Any other changes? >> No. >> Is there a motion to approve the uh agenda as written? >> Uh >> with those changes, >> motion to approve. >> Motion by Joe. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second. >> Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. Approval approval of the minutes July 16th regular meeting. I was not present for that meeting. So I
will be abstaining if there are any other changes or adjustments. >> Yep. >> I didn't see any edits needed. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the July 16th meeting. >> Motion by Brad. Is there a second? Second. >> Second by Joe. All in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Excuse me. Opposed. Abstensions. I. Motion carries. Three in favor. One abstension. Uh it is now time for a public open forum. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to the council?
Okay. Can you please speak uh stand at the podium? Speak your name and address. >> And as a reminder, you have two minutes to address the council. >> Three. >> Three minutes. >> Three. Excuse me. Thank you for your time, acting mayor, members of the council. My name is
attorney Gary Lustico. I represent um Jeff and Beverly Lake in regard to a consideration request um for the appeal of a penalty order. My understanding at the opportunity to address the council is during the open forum. Now, I understand later be
considered tonight. And if the council at the later consideration time has any questions that I don't get covered now, I'm glad to answer those. Um, this is a matter that the lakes have been dealing with now since last year and what it
started out as is they have a lake lot and they desired to protect trees to furnish access to their lot just like anyone else that owns lake property. And what they did was they went in and they applied for a permit with the city on
March 26th of 2021. At that time they then received a response on March 30th of 2021 and the response simply said you'll likely need a permit from the Sock River Wershed District. They then at that time
applied for a permit with the watershed district on April 2nd of 2021 and they were granted a permit from the watershed district on April 19th of 2021. Um that's permit number 21-017
with the watershed district. They've been in complete compliance with that. Um they've had no issues with that. Um, and now the city is coming forward with a hefty penalty amount and maybe other conditions. And the city did send out a letter that
they acknowledged that the majority of the work on the site was granted under Minnesota statute. It's section 15.99, commonly referred to as a 60-day rule, which we agree with that. And in
addition to that, now the city's coming forward and saying, "But you still violated some law. You still didn't have a a permit." And we disagree with that today. I think what is before the council is the penalty amount. And and the city is basically saying you
violated the rules, you have to pay some penalty. But the statute sets out that the permit is to be issued after 60 days, which it was. And they they came in, they didn't hide any of this. Nothing was done in the middle of the night. It's all public record. Anybody
could, you know, look at the records from the Saka River Watershed District. They talked to everybody they could talk to. What they're trying to do is keep the trees from falling in the lake. And they they did work accordingly to that. Um, under the ordinance, what is
required, and it's section 156.006 006 uppercase C is that once a permit is applied for, the city has 10 days to complete a completeness review. And what the purpose of that is so that um the
applicant can know if there's something they still need to provide. And they weren't provided anything. There wasn't a checklist. There was no response. And for 1,418 days, no one said anything to them, every
agency they worked with to to build the lot in a handsome um workable way. Um there was never a problem until the city came forward with a restoration order. And we think no penalty is appropriate.
But the penalty that has been assessed is based on if they had a permit for none of this. And there's under any position there was a permit for the vast majority of this. And again, this isn't they didn't go out and do this trying not to follow the rules. They checked
with everybody and in good faith. And I think they were, I'm not saying the city, anyone at the city sat up at night thinking of calculated ways to get the lakes, but the result is is they got led astray by applying for it, never being told they needed to do anything else
except for one thing, which was check with the watershed district, which they did, and they're completely compliant with the watershed district. >> I'm going to stop you just out of respect for anyone else who'd like to speak uh to the council. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the council?
>> I can pick it up from there. Okay. >> Please state your name and address. >> When you get to the podium, please state your name and address for the minutes. >> Jeff Lake. What else you need? >> Uh, address, please. >> Address. >> Yes.
>> 707 Lake Shore Drive. So basically when we applied for the permit I was told to go to the wershed which I did picking up where Gary was. Um never heard anything from the city. Had to do anything else. Got the permit. The changes that happened versus the
first permit. I actually checked with the wershed because they gave me a permit and asked if I need to do anything else with these changes I want to make. One is we got rid of we found a way not to have steps. So, we moved it down and made a sidewalk down to the lake. They said, "Nope, we're good with
we're good with everything you're doing." So, we went ahead and did it. Again, it's been 2021 when this happened and last year is when all this started. Um, what else should I touch on?
Uh, the DNR came out in 2022 find me for putting too much sand in the lake. I paid it. They said they had two years to tell me if I had to do anything else. Never said a word. That was in 2022. So last summer that expired also.
So this started basically August of last year from the city. So, I'm not sure what I could have did differently. I'm not sure I did anything wrong. I heard nothing from the city. Um, nobody told me how to do anything else. I got no
letters that said I had to wait for the city. And after it was complete or the the project underway, I never heard from the city that I was missing anything like Gary referred to. You know, was there something else I needed to check off? I didn't do anything outside of
that lake shore and I checked on everything with with watershed. I didn't, you know, I didn't build a a different house in the backyard. I didn't I didn't do anything outside of that lake shore permit. >> Okay.
>> Anything? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Third last call. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the council? >> Okay. Again, state your name and address. Amy T. Schaefer, 813 Lake Rich Drive.
I'm basically just going to read the letter that I did email to the city council um city administrator and then the planning commission. Um it's regarding the moratorium on the lakeshore restorations on Sock Lake um city residents. So, I'm writing on behalf of myself and fellow city
residents who reside on Sock Lake to express serious concerns regarding the recently implemented moratorum prohibiting lakeshore restorations for property owners within the city limits while allowing non- city residents around Sock Lake to continue such work. This policy is both inequitable and
damaging. As residents of the city, we contribute significantly to local revenue, particularly through high property taxes. In fact, a quick review of the county tax records reveals that city properties along Sock Lake pay some of the highest annual property taxes in
the area. It is deeply unjust that those contributing most to the city's tax base are being restricted from protecting their lakeshore properties while neighboring land owners outside city limits face no restrictions. While I support the goal of ensuring environmentally sound restoration, this
moratorum creates a clear double standard. City lakes shore owners are barred from stabilizing their eroding banks while others on the same lake are allowed to implement restorative and even decorative landscaping measures without restriction. This inequality undermines both fairness and and sorry
environmental stewardship. There are dozens of city lakeshore properties on sock lake now left exposed to worsening erosion particularly following recent storms on our own property. Storm damage caused serious washouts beneath trees and the soil is visibly collapsing into
the lake. Why are we not allowed to take reasonable regulated steps to protect our land? A pattern of poor oversight. In previous years, when the city did issue shoreline restoration permits, there was little to no enforcement. In several documented or witnessed cases, landowners proceeded with work that did
not align with state or local guidelines, altering natural vegetation, importing rip wrap without setbacks, or removing shoreline buffers. These actions often were unchecked, and in some cases, neighboring properties owners who followed the rules were left frustrated and disadvantaged.
The lack of this enforcement is not a reason to penalize responsible homeowners through a broad moratorum. Instead, it underscores the need for better processes, clearer standards, routine inspections, and consequences for non-compliance. The absence of past enforcement should not be used to deny
current property owners the ability to protect their land, especially those who are ready and willing to follow regulations. Furthermore, shoreline erosion is not merely an aesthetic issue. It leads to environmental degradation, property loss, and long-term cost increases for
both residents and the city. Lakeshore restoration efforts, especially those done responsibly with natural buffers and environmentally sound practices, actually protect the lakes's health and reduce sedimentation and runoff. We urge the city to reconsider this moratorum or at the very least to provide a
transparent explanation for implementation and a clear timeline or conditions for lifting it. Better yet, the city city should explore fair and environmentally reasonable guidelines that apply uniformly across the lake, ensuring equal treatment and shared
responsibility among all who enjoy and impact Zach Lake. All residents in inside city limits or out share the same environmental risks and benefits. The current approach punishes those who pay the most while leaving shorelines vulnerable. An equitable interimm policy
will protect property values and natural assets. It will encourage reasonable uniform management and it demonstrates fair treatment to all citizens. I respectfully request the council to approve an expedited process for city resident permit applications that comply with DNR setbacks and vegetation buffer
standards. I also urge transparent communication on when full ordinance updates will occur and assurance that the city residents won't be forced to wait once as their shorelines erode further. Please take swift action to address this this disparity and allow Sock Lake City residents the same rights
to protect and restore their properties as others around the lake currently enjoy. Thank you for your time and considerations and we welcome the opportunity to work with the city on a fair, environmentally responsible shoreline policies and interimm solutions for affected residents. Thank
you. Thanks Amy. Anyone else that would like to speak to the council? Anyone else that would like to speak to the council last time? Anyone who would like to speak to the council hearing? No one. We will move on to
public hearings, which there are none. Uh reports and pre presentation. City engineer Keith. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Quick update on the 2025 project. It's going uh very very well out there even with all the rains that we continue to still
have, but things are going well. Um as a total we're probably about 63 to 65% complete with the entire project at this point in time. Uh and things are still on schedule for to get everything done uh in 2025. Um all pipe work is anticipated to be
done by se by Labor Day roughly. We should be done with all all pipe work. They're currently working on phase three um putting in pipe between uh on Pine Street between fourth and fifth at this point in time. So really and the sewer
and water is in. Got a little bit of storm sewer in there, but otherwise we're uh basically have three blocks left on utilities. So it's going very very well. Um sidewalk is in on on Pine and Birch from like Fifth Street to Seventh Street and most of Sixth Street
and Seventh Street. Um they are working on streets within phase 2 which are basically pine and birch from 7th to 8th as well as 8th and 9inth street themselves. So they'll be working on those those streets getting those ready for for gravel and ultimately paving in
those areas that gets followed behind with the the prep prepping for the walk in those areas as well. So all that sort of different activities happening at the same time, but I would anticipate that we'll be largely done with phase two,
phase one and two street work probably just into September and then it's really a phase three, those last four blocks that will be September and into October to to get those complete. So things are going uh very very well and and u at
this point in time right on schedule with things. So, with that, I will ask any if you have any questions for me. >> I have a couple questions, Keith. >> Yep. >> Um, and I want to I'm just going to speak in reference to 8th Street. >> Yep. >> And, um, obviously you can drive by, you
can see we got a significant S-curve right there by Main Street. And also, when I looked at the final plans and I visited with Vicki, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the streets through that area are supposed to be 13 feet driving with seven feet parking. Correct. That's correct.
>> So black top there would be 20 feet >> 20 essentially 20 ft face to face of curve. Y >> yep. Well I went out and measured and there is nothing greater than 17 and the majority of it is 16 and I would ask you to go out and measure it again.
>> We will definitely do that and go check. >> Okay. >> There's some issues in >> I can give you the addresses and the locations that I checked. >> Yep. And it's the intersection of um pine and a >> okay >> and it's the block between ash and birch
>> and directly in the center of the block. >> Okay. >> One of them, the one to the farthest west is just shy of 16 ft. And the one to the farthest east is just shy of 17 feet. >> Okay. I we will definitely check that
out and make sure that there's no issues there. >> Okay. And then furthermore, I just thought it was interesting while I was out there. So I went and measured what we did on Ash Street many, many years ago where we put uh parking on one side
of the road. So I just measured from the center of the road to the opposite side of the parking. So basically from the center of a street to the west curb. >> Yep. >> That's 23 feet roughly. >> Okay. If we had 23 to 36 feet or 38 feet
between Main Street and Ash Street, is there a reason why we narrowed it all the way down to a 13 ft drive lane? I'm trying to understand because by the by a naked eye, you can look at it and say, are we crazy? I mean, just look at it as
you drive and look down there. It doesn't even truly make sense to me. >> Okay. So I feel that there needs to be a lot of review of what's been done and I think we certainly need to go out and measure it and make sure it's right
on the ladder. Absolutely. As I already said, we'll definitely be measuring that as it relates to the width. That was something that was reflected with the council on a couple of occasions of varying widths for that for those streets, different types of scenarios
with parking both sides, no parking at all, two-ways, those kinds of things. Um there was a public meeting that was held actually on site where at the time we had um the extent of the the the curbs marked for all different scenarios. So
everyone was able to look at what those what those were. Ultimately, then it was the council who made the decision of what we moved forward with out there. >> Um, but that's we only have uh, so everyone's clear, we only have 33 feet
of rightway for between Birch and Pine, a little bit past Pine actually to the west and then it widens out as you get towards Maine. Uh, from Birch to Ash, we actually have um 53 feet in there and the 20 additional feet is on the north
side actually. So that's the rightway. Those those are the scenarios that we are working with is there's just not much room in there. We talked about whether um you know purchasing rightaway was something that we wish to do or we wish to work within the rightways that
we that we have and that's kind of where we're at with with the 20 foot width essentially is a 21 foot from back to back of curb to curb and then there's a five foot walk. You're at 26 ft in total width through there is what the is what the plan is at the moment.
>> Okay. Well, when I look at the final plan that we approved, which is this um you had a gradual scurve at the end. I guess I don't do view that as gradual, but and I will also agree with you that the council did have a lot of conversations about being one way, you
know, parking on one side versus the other. I don't know that we had conversations about the total width and that 13 ft was going to be driving and seven was going to be parking. However, um I guess if you drive emergency services vehicles
and somebody ain't all the way over to the far well basically on top of the curb, there will be a tough time driving down that street with emergency service vehicles. 13 ft is not a lot of width.
So, I'm not we we voted on it as a group. Of course, I voted against it, but I'm not here to to say we did it wrong. What I'm saying is what's done today does not appear right. And I would ask to please look into it. >> We'll definitely measure the width and we'll also verify those curves as uh as
you indicated perhaps they they look like they're sharper than what they actually are the plans. I will verify those things. >> Thank you. Um, I just had a question as we get closer to um the school timing with a lot of walkers in that area because
there aren't bus pickup. Um, making plans, letting families be notified of the best route to school instead of kids trapesing through unsidewalked, unfinished roads. Um, that could be >> Yep. >> a safety hazard.
>> We will be in touch with the school and the bus to make sure where so they know where everything's at. they know if there needs to be any preliminary adjustments or where pickups need to be. Um, and then like I said, we'll mar largely things will be in the with the
exception of people living on Birch between Sinclair Lewis and Fort the majority of that should be in really good shape by the start of school or very close to that. Um, but we will definitely coordinate with the with the school. >> Anyone else have any questions for
Keith? Oh, thank you, Keith. >> Thank you. >> 6B EDA report, Vicki. >> So, the EDA uh met today in regular session. We just have a couple items on their agenda, which are recommendations
tonight. Uh they review and recommend proceeding with the Cana Avenue project, and that would be Cana Avenue and Tractor Trail, uh down by Walmart and Tractor Supply. Uh they do approve the TIFF PGO payments for the first half of 25. that'll actually be on your agenda at the next meeting. And then we have
two lot sales for author's edition that they're going to request that you approve us to execute at tonight's meeting as well. And then we just took a look at the progress of the main streeter abatement repayment. That was where the city purchased the land and put in the utilities and then we u did the main streeter project and their
property taxes were diverted to pay us back for those. And so we're at the very end of that. uh the first half of taxes in 26 will more than cover paying that back to the city. So just a couple action items for you tonight. Otherwise, it was a nice short meeting. Okay, any
questions regarding EDA? Thank you, Vicki. Move on to action item 7A, uh resolution ordering feasibility study trunk highway 71 project. So, as you know, we've been we've been starting the trunk highway 71 Main Street project. Uh it's in the design phase
with Mindot and the city as part of the project will be designing the city utilities as well as any work outside the Mindot Road rightway with some side street work. If you remember, we had some side street connections that we needed to make and so we were trying to incorporate those into this project.
Because the project will potentially involve special assessments, the city must proceed under Minnesota chapter 429. This requires a feasibility report and public hearings on the proposal. In order to proceed, the city should direct the city engineer to prepare a feasibility report for the project to be
presented to the city council. You probably won't see it till late winter or early spring. There's a lot of moving parts with this project. The scope of the project, uh Keith is going to kind of give that or show you the scope of the project here after which we should uh order that the formal feasibility
report be presented. So I will hopefully turn this on. >> Hopefully this will work. so everyone at home is able to see. I've tried two different lasers to work to show with the TV and they don't seem to go on there. So, I'm going to go up
there and we'll be we'll be pointing uh instead. I think that'll be that will be best. But the purpose of this is to really talk about and make sure that we're all on the same page of what the scope would be of the feasibility report. What I'm showing you is really
what's been talked about for a while now in terms of that it would be everything along 71 corridor itself, but also one block off for all the streets that haven't been recently done. And we'll go through those uh and and talk about
that. Hopefully this will pick up and go. Maybe it won't. Okay. Don't know why that's not going, but it's not. So, we'll just do it this way. Hopefully. This way. Uh oh. Hold on.
>> Technology. >> Now, maybe it's gonna work. Okay. Just had to get it started up again, I guess. All right. So, starting really at the north end of the project. Make sure I'm on the first slide. So, we're at We've
got Lynen Lane right here. That's right next to the to the gas station up there. We've got Fourth Street North shown. The green is the sanitary sewer. The blue is the water main through those areas. Um
I've gotten here in the red sort of be some storm sewer, which we really have don't know exactly the sizes of that yet, but generally where the storm sewer improvements would need to be. Um the streets are what are in that kind of hatched um brownish area. So basically,
as you can see, it's one block off, you know, Third Street from from Maine to Pine a little bit. We've already done Lake Street. We did not do this little section here just to tie in through there. We also have Second Street uh south, excuse me, north through there.
Um we're looking at storm sewer that would probably go down this street and ultimately come into the property, which I'll show a little bit later there. That's um off of between First and Second. Um, this shows uh Second Street North,
which kind of shows where that storm sewer would potentially go into. Once again, this would be a main trunk water man that would be going down and connecting into the existing trunk water man that's located here on First Street North. Once again, the street
improvements between Maine and Pine Street on on that on First Street North. We go across the the the to to the south across the river. We've got First Street South. We also have a main water mane
tie in up there. That's a 12 in. So, we'd be tying it to there. That 12-in trunk water mane basically goes all the way down kind of from the whole north end all the way down to the south end. It really provides the utility a main spine, which we don't really have that
kind of is in the middle of town to move our water around town. That's our That's our trunk that we that we really don't have. Second Street South, both sides. If you remember, this w this section was talked about as it relates to the uh the 20 22 project out here and it was pulled
off uh thinking that we would do it with this particular project. So, those are those two blocks. Um to the south we've already done you know fifth street we've done fourth uh excuse me this is Sinclair Lewis we've
done those or fourth street we've done Sinclair Lewis so we're not doing those on the side street once again this would be just the main spine of of Santa sewer as well as water main to south we have fifth street south and that's the block that we have remember
we pulled off of the 2025 project so that we could do it in conjunction with that project that was related to some uh some storm or excuse me some uh some services that are in that lot that's in the north west corner there. So that was the reason for those. We've recently
done uh fifth street on the other side. This comes down to sixth street. We've done sixth street. That's what we're doing now on this other side. So it would be sixth street on the east side. We then come down to seventh street. So it would be seventh street down here.
Here's an area we have some, you know, potential questions. We have sanitary sewer going here, but as you'll note, we do have a short segment that goes up the up the alley and does it make sense at this point in time if we're going to do that. Should we do that little stub that
goes up the alley? So, that would be kind of a question whether that should or should not be within the scope of the project. We had to replace a small lift station that's down here just on the north side of the Wiggun Trail on the west side of of 71. There is talking to
utility. There is a potential to actually eliminate this lift station and run it gravity actually to the north, but that's that main sewer line would be deeper through there. So, we'd look at that potentially as a as a a cost alternative to see does it make sense to
do that or does it not make sense to do that. As you would imagine, we're going some of the deepest part right through the heart of downtown, the main the main block there. So, does it make sense? Is it feasible to even consider doing that? But that could be an option as well. Um
down here on the south side, we've got uh we got 8th Street South coming all the way over to to Getty. And then once again, further to the south, these are the San Sewer, the water man. Once again, um we've got this block. This is another segment as to do
we consider doing this segment in between because they're connected together. So that's kind of a should that or should that not be potentially part of the scope of the project. This is you know a couple blocks north and then a block or excuse me a couple lots to the north and then a lot to the to
the east to make that connection. Moving on down, uh, we've got Cast Street, we've got, uh, Tent Street. Once again, a block either side. We keep coming down to the south with the sewer and the water. The water ultimately moves to the other side of the road. At
least that's where it is now. Uh, and then the sewer actually comes down, kind of makes a U-turn, and heads back north on the other side. Um, so probably replace it where it's at. the water comes down, it would connect into the trunk down on 12th Street South. So,
that's kind of the extent of the utilities and the majority of the street work with the exception of this is something as it relates to we've talked about this as another relief valve. So, this is 8th Street to continue all the way down and
that discharge into the into the flood plane on the far east side there. And then obviously the streets through here would be totally torn up. They would need to be replaced or at least the majority of it if not all of it. Most of it's not in real good shape. So it's probably the time to actually redo
everything at the same time we we do this. But we don't have capacity from 71. This would be something that we'd be discussing with Minda as it relates to cost sharing. So because they've got water that's coming through there currently. It's been in there a long
long time. existing main comes out through here um and just doesn't have enough capacity as we've talked about previously. The other thing would be back here on First Street North because of the improvements they're looking at at the
bridge. We're looking at having to do potentially a bypass roadway that comes through First Street and then connects all the way over here to to Morning View Road. Um, and that's what Mindot is suggesting that we're going to need to have because the bridge will be closed
down so that we have emergency vehicles and others will be able to get through there. What type of roadway that is at the moment? You know, that probably is where we want a permanent roadway, but is it maybe it's just a gravel roadway for the for the short term. Perhaps it's
a rural type section where it's got pavement on it, but there's no curb and gutter. Those kinds of things. So, there's a couple different options that we could look at for that uh bypass roadway through there. And once again, up here is kind of that storm ponding
area so we can catch all that water before we discharge it and discharge it down into the creek. So, that's kind of the the total and the the draft scope um that I have for the project for you to react to. Let
me just go back. I can go back to any page that you would like, but I guess we're looking for, you know, is is this the scope that you would envision? Is there anything that you think we shouldn't include? Things that we should include that are not on here uh to move
forward with. So, looking for some some input from from you. We don't we have some time as Vicki said, it's going to take a while. don't have to necessit say, "Hey, let's define this for sure tonight, but we need to do that sometime in the near term." So, if you say,
"Let's let's let's not look at these blocks," we could be um we could be cutting those out fairly early in the in the process. So, we need to fair fairly soon know if there's something you don't want. Once again, is based upon what we did when we looked at doing the the
halfsent sales tax. It looked at going one block off of the streets all the way through. Um, if there's any desire to make any adjustments to that, you know, now would be the time to consider that. So, with that, I'll turn it over to you for any any questions and comments.
>> Your legend shows the the orange slash marks on the previous. So, looking at each block, those are full reconstructs. >> Yes, those would be full reconstructs. That's correct. Let me see if I can get down to a couple of them here. >> Okay. And mainly because we we're we're going
to end up pulling all the water, all the sewer. Yeah. So, we'd be doing once we get down, take all the sewer and water out, it's the streets pretty well gone and most of those streets are not in very good shape. >> But we do have the opportunity because
of the timing and the identificated or identified need with the local option sales tax to tie this in because we that was our our goal. That was our stated goal. That's our goal and that's where we're that's where our the dollars that we're collecting the budget. Um obviously our numbers that'll be part of
the feasibility to update the cost estimates and see where we are as it relates to the dollars that we have the projections and are they matching up at that point in time before we actually move forward imple into implementation. You could make those decisions. Hey
let's not do this or this. You know those that those kind of decisions can come later. We're really talking about the feasibility of what we're going to look at in terms of the total scope. You can actually cut back if you wish to um to a final implementation.
>> Council thoughts. >> Just one question with the bridge. Are they replacing that or just redecking it or what's the plan with the bridge over the dam? >> Uh Victor, they're talking about doing there's lighting. They're doing redecking of it. Um what else is there?
>> Railing. railings. Look at trying to do a a pedestrian or trail across it. So, make that from a safer perspective from what it is now for pedestrians. So, that'll I don't really know at this
stage how long that would be out of you know from us being able to use it for traffic, but it would be a while. And obviously, Morning View Drive is residential and >> is tight. There's really no other really good route to be able to
try to get there, unfortunately. >> And I'm just thinking on the fire department side, too. We have a third of our department that lives north of that bridge. And >> yeah, >> for responding, but >> yeah. >> Okay. >> That's that's why we're talking about
really trying to need it. And and I don't know if if Vickiy's if you could address whether you've talked to Mindad as relates to cost share for a a bypass roadway. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> So that's
typically it would be, but I haven't been part of those discussions yet. So >> it would seem that we would I mean if we're going to attempt to work with Mandot to do cost sharing that we would move forward with at least getting the feasibility study on all of it because
some or all of it could be cost shared and if we don't have the data to share with Mandot then yep we can't even attempt to you know request cost sharing for >> because it's the feasibility it's does you know does it make sense in the big
scope does it um does it fit, you know, what's what the city's uh goals are and what the project's overall uh plans are. So, I think I mean I don't see anything in the feasibility study that's way out of line or where we
wouldn't say, "Well, absolutely not." I mean, it seems like it's all tied one way or another to trunk Highway 71. Even the part about going all the way across the school property because we've talked for years that this has been a issue of
being able to go somewhere with the water and we've always been undersized. I mean and if Mandot is looking at this from a big scope picture and we got lots of years to work through all this um but it goes quick. I think doing the
feasibility is is the right thing to do. My question to you is what is the cost? >> The cost so for it's based upon our contract which is an hourly and then that gets put into the the total cost of of the project. That's the way it is in
our contract currently. Um if we the council has the ability to ask for a specific you know proposal for it and we certainly can do that if if that's what the council's wishes we can do that. So we just once again it has to define what
are we looking at as it relates to so I can put together that number to go forward but that's um but that is your prerogative to to ask for that um and to be just to reiterate on your comment about um Mindot's cost participation. They really won't participate in the
side streets, but all that storm sewer, some of those major like on the north side th those things that's that's a lot of their water and there's some, you know, there's no they have to go someplace with it. The go someplace goes all the way down, you know, second or first and through there. So, you know,
there's going to be cost participation for that, for the bypass roadway, for the um for the uh the relief on a street, all those things. They're already well aware of that at this point in time. So, they know, they've already got the hydraulics on it, so they know
that those things are needed. Just to be clear with the council. >> Y Scott, >> I mean, I, you know, first time seeing the report, there's nothing that I can think of that would be added off the top of my head. Um, I think the bypass and
the cost share opportunities make sense to look at. We're going to need a bypass, and that's the logical place to go with that. So, I think it makes sense to move forward, find out, we can always cut back once we see what it is. I mean, versus not including it and then asking for it later. >> Th those couple of small sanitary things
they pointed out that were sort of off the streets, is that something you feel that should be included that it's sort of connecting the end is one little tag that goes up an alley and the other one's kind of connecting two pieces that would be new. Um, but it's not right on that corridor. So, that's why I wanted
to bring it to your attention. in the scheme of what you're doing, adding those half blocks and couple off blocks, I think again it's infrastructure that needs something done and it's, you know, it's it's well past
replacement that it should be included in my opinion >> and and the utility I know is has been budgeting and for all of those things. So I my understanding talking to Glenn that that's kind of in his budgets. I've been updating him on, you know, as it's gone through since we first put together
initial preliminary. So, he's been kind of updating his numbers every year that's gone by and and and is continuing to do that moving forward. I guess just my last comment is is I would um prefer to get a cost estimate
prior to us moving forward. That way, we get an idea what these costs are going to be. >> Yep. and you can make that part of your action if you if you wish to do that and we certainly can can do that. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Any other questions or discussion? Otherwise, I'll be looking for a motion to approve resolution 2025-69 ordering preparation of feasibility report for 2028 project. >> I'll make a mo excuse me. I'll make a
motion to approve resolution 25 2569 ordering preparation of feasibility report for 2028 project with the condition that an approved agreed upon cost is in place prior to execution.
>> Okay, that is a motion by Brad. Would anyone like to second? >> I'll second it. >> A second by Joe. All in favor signify by saying I. I I >> oppose. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. >> 7B, consider request for appeal of penalty lake.
>> Okay. So, you you spoke to the attorney earlier this evening regarding the Jeff Lake appeal of just kind of what the what the question or what the request is to appeal to or appear to the council tonight is to contest the administrative penalty that was assessed to them for the shoreline alteration violation. And
they also stated they wish to work with the city to attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution to the alleged violations. um little bit little bit past what he was saying. Um the issues with the permit for the wall and all of those things, those are not part of this. This
is solely the sand that was brought in and the walkway. So the permit from the watershed, you know, that we agree that was approved. That's all done. This is just for bringing in the sand and the walkway that was in front of you tonight. And that was what the uh letter
was sent to him regarding of both of those is that that uh paved walkway within the shore impact zone which is 25 ft from the ordinary high water mark landward is an issue. If you recall we had a violation before where that was required to be taken out on another
property that we dealt with. And then the other one was the sand blanket. How many cubic yards of sand were brought into the property? And to complicate things, it's also in the flood plane where it's not allowed to be done at all. And so there's other steps that need to be taken. So those are the two
items that are really at issue here. We're not contesting the wall or any of those other permit or items that he got from the watershed. So this is on ongoing process. I don't know how you wish to proceed. His request of course
is to uh repeal the fine and then uh move forward from there. At this point, it may be a better option for it to go to one of the committees, maybe the policy committee or the operations committees to sit around a table with them so we can come to some
kind of agreement rather than trying to hash it out right here unless you feel that that's something you want to do tonight. >> Well, I think it'd be really difficult to hash this out tonight. I mean, I think there's new information that was uh presented during the open forum that
wasn't in this this letter. Um, as it related to the fine from the DNR that was paid, and there was a two-year window for that. Um, you know, indicated there was an approach back to the watershed. Um, they sounded like they gave them the okay from verbally, whether it's written or not. So, I think
we as a council would need to do more research before we could make a decision one way or the other on that. I would think there would be a benefit for them to work with with one of the committees versus trying to litigate and have a discussion through a council meeting and say, "Hey, let's let's use I mean, we
could be talking for an hour discussing these type of things, but if we get one of the committees to to work on it, have those discussions, understand where they're at, the perspective from the council and the the ordinance rules and kind of figure it out there. Um because yeah, I mean there's there's no way I
think we can take action on it in any capacity with some of this information that um really wasn't it wasn't in the the packet here um from their letters or um our our letter there. So that's my thoughts. >> I agree with Joel.
>> I think there's too much to we need the back and forth conversation too so we make sure everything is you know square and everything that we know all the details. they know where we're coming from and with the light I think yeah it needs to go to the operations committee or or
something that we we do that but then we also need to look at the is the the penalty still occurring right now >> uh that will be up to the council that was as of that date that's what it was >> okay because if that's the case and we want to move this on to the committee I
think we need to pause that >> well I we can always amend it at at that point to say, "Okay, we made that decision at this point. We're not going to acrew from there forward or we'll go back to a certain point, you know, with with what it currently was in this letter, I think was 7,800 for 78 days, which is June
>> obviously has passed, you know, beyond that. So, it would be additional acrruel there. Um, but I think that's where we need to just figure this all out and then we can figure out what that adjustment would need to be from a council level on any type of amendment for the penalty or
again, yeah, just figuring this all out from all the conversations between the other entities that have been involved in this, which obviously part of the shoreland moratorum is the different agencies without clear communication and understanding of what
needs to be done. I I agree with all points made. I I would hope that maybe if we can include in this, as Scott mentioned, the question of whether the penalties are acrewing, can we make that part of the motion whatever we consider to to stop
at this moment um to reconsider so they have clear information leaving this um expectations moving forward? Is that a >> Yeah, I I I personally would be in support of um you know pausing any additional expenditure or penalty that
would seem to be >> that would make sense. I know Joe has a good point. We can always go back and change the penalty to any date. But I think for for just for their own sense of mind and clarity there's no you know we got a lot of work ahead of us. Not only you know we're going to talk about this and work through it but you know we
got other things on the agenda tonight about the moratorum. So I think uh I think too that this needs to go to whether it's operations or policy is kind of where my where my head is where the best spot is. I'm not 100% sure. Vicki, you have a >> can we get together together?
>> Uh operations usually handles like physical things that are going to change the policy committee is probably going to be setting policy going forward. >> Forward operation >> it's a more of a policy issue. >> Yeah. Um, okay.
>> I guess then I I will I'll make the motion. Uh, >> can't Sorry, there may >> as enacting. >> Can I? >> Yes, she can. >> Okay. >> I'll I'll wait. Just to be clear, I'll
let somebody else make the motion um for action on this. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead if you want. >> I don't want to be in violation of any any rules. So, >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, I'll make the motion then that we pause any penalty as it stands right now just for their peace of mind
and then push this off to the policy committee so we can have that two-way conversation and come to a conclusion on the resolution for this. >> Okay, >> I'll second.
>> So, a motion by Scott, second by Brad. All in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. >> So I I will just before we go ahead. I will I'll try to get that set up as soon as I can, inviting them to the meeting
and the policy committee. And if we have to do something teams, we can do it that way too um to make it work. So I'll I'll work on that tomorrow. Okay. 7. >> Thank you. >> 7C approved change order number two
adding Ken Avenue to 2025 project. So the city or the EDA has recommended the city proceed with the construction of the Cana Avenue to support the development on the property adjacent to Walmart. We had a cost of construction estimate of 74,000 for the Cana Avenue
portion which is on page 21 of your packet. It's the north south and just a little bit of an L. And then we also got an estimate to construct the portion that Tractor Supply will be building as part of their project. and uh they um that estimate was construction cost of
55,000 and then there's some storm costs as well. So what we're proposing is that the EDA construct or the city construct the whole thing. Tractor Supply will contribute back the amount that they were going to spend to build the road anyway. And any balance would be assessed to the property owner, which is
the the developer of the property. And then they recommend that it would be paid back to the city upon sale of the first lot or no later than 10 years. And so that's kind of what the how the EDA discussed it today. They thought that was a a good way to further it. That way it would be a public road. It would be
built to public commercial standards. It would be curbon gutter. Um it would be a a road instead of us doing a public road and then matching it up with um I believe they were looking at a five ton like residential local road standard for the other part of it. So the EDA felt it
was in the best interest of the city to get a commercial type road in there from the beginning. And so what this would do was it would be a change order to Keeley Underground who is in here for our other project. So when they get paused because they're waiting for Centerpoint Energy or
something, they can bounce over there and get that done. Okay, just just to clarify. So this would be approving the changer. This would be approving the final design to get the numbers for chang. >> So we're we're asking to
>> I'm just trying to wrap my brain around what Keith just said. We're asking him to compile the numbers. We're asking to approve the change of the design and get the numbers from it. >> Okay. To then go and request change order. >> Yeah. Because because we have all the estimates that you gave us. So, we want
to solidify those. >> Okay. And then this the the the cost goes back to the EDA EDA after the sale of the first lot. This goes back to the the >> money would come back to pay the city back. Yeah. >> Okay. Back to the EDA.
>> Yeah. The EDA fund. Yeah. was uh the um consultant or adviser there to the owner. Did he get back to you with what Tractor Supply was going to pay? Was he able to get that number of that 55,000 >> since the meeting? No. >> Okay. >> Any other?
>> So, there's still some moving parts. We just want to keep it moving forward >> and I think the EDA kind of landed on that. Let's just get this done. >> I think this makes the most sense with the timing of the the project, too. So, if we can combine it all. Um, is there a
motion to approve the change order number two with Keley Underground to construct Canon Avenue to the tractor trail to and tractor trail? >> So move. >> Motion by Brad. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by Joe. All in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor,
none against. >> Resolution 25-65 calling for a hearing on final assessments 2025. So this is for the 2025 street project which is the Birch Pine project that Keith reported on earlier. We had the public hearing in 24 that held to notify all affected
property owners of the project and a reasonable estimate of the amount of each assessment was provided at that time. And then we sent an updated estimated assessment after bid. So now we need to have the public hearing for the final assessment and we're recommending it be held on August 1st which is the first council meeting of
August. All affected property owners will be sent a notification which will include their final assessment amount following the public hearing and adoption of the assessment. Owners can prepay their assessment city hall up to November 15th with no interest. Otherwise, it would go on their property taxes for payment back to the city over
15 years. So, what we're looking for tonight is to call the resolution or call the public hearing on the final special assessments for the 2025 street project for October 1st. >> October 1st. Thank you for clarifying. I just want to let the council know that
I will not be at that meeting. So, if there's anyone else who wouldn't, just to let you know. Is there anyone who has any other comments? Otherwise, I'm looking for motion to approve resolution 2025-65 for public hearing on finalist special assessments.
>> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Motion by Scott. Second. >> I'll second. >> Second by Joe. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. Resolution 2566 calling for hearing on assessments unpaid bills. So each year the city
council reviews outstanding invoices for utilities and service payments and has the option to certify those unpaid invoices for collection of property taxes. We do have a listing that has been prepared for your review and I will send that out to you on email. Uh prior to certification to the property taxes, the owners of said properties are
afforded the option of attending a public hearing on the proposal. We're requesting that that meeting also be held on October 1st uh for that public hearing. So that's resolution uh calling for the public hearing to consider the certification of special assessments.
Any questions? This I I believe we do this every year around the same time. Uh is there a motion to approve the call for public hearing? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Joe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Brad. All in favor say I. >> I oppose. Four in favor, none against.
uh authorizing execution of closing documents resolution 25-67. So we have uh 7F and 7 I are actually almost identical action items. Um what these are is purchase agreement uh has been completed for the sale of lot one
of block three of author's edition. So we're looking for the council to authorize the mayor and city administrator to extricate all closing documents necessary to complete the sale. And so that is 2025-67. And on the the image that's on your on your uh packet, you can see which lot
that is. >> Is there a way to combine your motions on both and cover both? >> The the other one on 7i is uh lot one block one completely on the opposite side of the development and the EDA recommends that the city council proceed
with with both sales. Okay. I don't know why we would not. So, is there a motion to approve both 7F and 7 I? >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 67 and 71, approving the sale of those two lots. >> Motion by Brad. Is there a second?
>> I'll second. >> Second by Scott. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Four in favor, none against. Motion carries. 7G, approve resolution 2563, accepting bid for roof repair street garage. So,
the 2025 budget includes repairs to the old part of the street department garage. Uh, at the time I wrote the packet, I thought it was 80s, but now I found out that it was in the early 70s that that roof was put on. Uh, the bud budgeted amount is 20,000. We reached out to contractors, received two quotes.
Uh, Steve Mort's construction for 21780 and Shan Kelly construction for 20,90540. So, we're recommending that we go with the low bid to Shan Kelly construction resolution 2025-63. Okay. Any questions?
I have one question. Was Was this considered during budget meeting last year? Is this new? >> Yeah. No, it was in the budget. >> Okay. >> I didn't recall this. So, I just wanted to clarify >> it. It rains in there. It comes through the light fixtures. So, >> okay. Is there a motion to approve
resolution 2563 accepting quote from Shan Kelly Construction for 20,90540? Motion to approve. >> Motion by Joe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Scott. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries.
Four in favor, none against. >> 7H. Accept 2568 accepting quote for senior center AC compressor repair. >> And this is an updated report that you got in your packet tonight because we have a revised estimate. But the AC unit at the senior center has failed. Upon
inspection, we found considerable hail damage to the unit. So, I have filed an insurance claim on that. We did get two quotes we received for the repair. We had Central Heating and Air for 6741 and Ellingsson's for 7,716. Uh, Central Heating and Air bid the
replacement with electrical extra. Ellingsson's included the act the electrical, but it's only about 1 hour's worth of work. So, uh, we are recommending that we go with the low bid for central heating and air with the understanding there will be about an hour's worth of electrical we'll have to
hire on top of that. So, that's resolution 2025-68 accepting the quote for the senior center AC repairs. >> Okay, any questions? >> Where is this? Was it where are these funds coming out of to >> It would be out of the senior center
fund. Separate fund the senior center. They have a repair and maintenance budget. >> Okay. And it's that has not been used obviously and where this falls within it. >> Correct. >> I think we we've made some changes to our uh staff that has allowed us a little bit extra room there.
>> Right. Right. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve 2568 accepting quote for senior center uh AC repairs for central heating and air. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Scott. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Brad. All in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. 7J, pay request number four, Keequley Underground. So, this is uh pay request number four for the 2025 Birch and Birch Pine project from Keeley Underground. Um, as
you know, the contract is 4.77 million to them. They have completed 2.4 million or 2.461. We have paid uh quite a bit of money, 1.627 to date. There's a typo in there on the subtotal. And uh so the amount
due this request is 78718412 and this is after retaining 5%. Any questions? >> Well, I have a question. Do we pay this uh request when there's questions about the performance of work? >> The eighth street is not in this one.
This one ended before that curb went in. >> Fair enough. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? Otherwise, is there a motion to approve pay request number four to Keeley Underground? >> So moved. >> Motion by Brad. Second. >> I'll second.
>> Second by Joe. All in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. Right. Unfinished business. Uh 8A policy on assessment storm water utility easements. So the policy committee and since they're already having another
meeting, this will work good with them. I was planning on getting them together prior to the August 20th council meeting to make a recommendation on how storm water special assessments will be treated in the future on properties with storm pond easements. Essentially, you have a property, the city has an easement on your property for storm
pond. Do you have to pay a storm water utility assessment on the land that we're using for a storm pond? And that would be a change to our special assessment policy. So, we'd go through the official policy committee review it and see if that's what they want to do. Um, the reason
that I want to get that in front of the policy committee is we have a couple lots in our existing project that do have storm pond easements on them that would be affected. And then I would bring to the policy committee the impact of that uh to those properties. So if I'm recommending the policy committee
and we talked about that before and I think you just uh keep that moving forward. Okay. Uh 8B shoreland alteration permit moratorum. So because we've had inquiries about the shoreland uh alteration permit moratorium, you know that we adopted
that on the issuance of shoreline alteration permits. It was put in place so that we gave some clear and effective procedures and processes to develop and implement. The planning commission was tasked with that project. Uh once that's completed, the planning commission will make a recommendation to the city council and a mortorium will be lifted.
Now we had the one-year maximum on that. That's the outside maximum. It can be lifted at any time once we have it have everything in order. Uh currently we have been looking at all the different jurisdictions. Uh you know that there are multiple jurisdictions. We have city
of Sock Center, we have Saxin Township, we have Penota Township, we have Birchdale Township, we have Sterns County, we have Todd County, we have the watershed district. So there's a lot of moving parts to look at uh all of the ordinances and our ordinances are are very similar. It's how you enforce them,
review them, look at them, educate the public and and so that everybody is looking at them the same way. So what we're are proposing to do is to have, you know, checklist, brochures, all of those kinds of recommendations to develop those so that there is a a very
clear and concise procedure and handout so people know what they can and cannot do and what's good for sock center. Uh our problem that we have is that Sock Lake is entirely cir has a circumference of flood plane and we do have flood plane ordinance as well and that has a whole different set of rules with FEMA.
So we're trying to figure out how to merge those two things together. Um the planning commission is probably going to ask the city council for input during the process on various items on how you look at it. Uh but that'll be up to them. So we don't have a specific date for implementation right now. Um we will
we are working on it. We'll be working on it. But I understand the frustration, especially with the lake being as high as it is right now. It's 1.8 in above the ordinary high water mark. So, it's gone back down to where pretty much close to the summer pool level. Um, so
hopefully we won't see more erosion and uh we'll just uh keep pushing it forward. I don't know if you have any questions for us at this time of any other questions I can answer or provide any more information to you but I did want to put an update on the agenda
because I know people are asking >> so when did we put this into place Vicki when did we put the mortorium in place >> the date the yeah the date >> I don't know Sarah do you remember this April >> April >> April >> and we don't haven't had a lot of okay
so in the last few years we've had seven. One of them applied ahead of time. Six of them we found about after the fact and we had to do um restoration. And so that's where our issue is is we need to educate people because most people we don't we don't
have a city boat. Well, we do, but the fire department doesn't let us take it out. >> We just got that too. So, >> but um but so we don't know about it till someone rats somebody out. And then that just makes it all the more difficult to deal with it after the work has been done. We much prefer to work with people upfront. This is what you
can and can't do. And that's great, but I would say 90% of the people do it. In fact, they've even told us we just did it. We want to just pay the fine and be done with it. And that that's what we're wrestling with is how do you balance that?
So it's not it's not just clear procedures. It's it's education. >> So, will will the planning commission be seen this this month? Like just updates us as they go along with this conversation or where they at as far as their next time to see this in front of them?
>> I thought you would have to ask Sarah, but I think the planning commission meeting at the next meeting has like four public hearings for other items. So, I don't know if they'll be working on it or not. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, we're only meeting once a month. and we started in April. We're already six months by the time you potentially even start working on this. That's a long time. And I know Vicki exactly what you said about the fact that it needs to, you know, we need to
educate people. But if we're not looking at changing our processes in a whole lot or changing our rules, so to speak, because if you look at the cities and you compare to Todd County and Sterns County, we're very similar. Matter of fact, when I talked to Sarah, I think, you know, she made a comment, we're
almost identical to Sterns County, which we are if you look at the two side by side, which I've been looking at. So, it's more of an education, but I don't want to penalize those that are having problems because we as a city can't figure out how to educate them. So, I would just ask to take it back to the
planning and zoning and say, you know, what's your goal? If the goal is education, then let's put together some type of a checklist, some type of an education, whatever that is. But we don't have to take a year to do it. And I know you said we can end at any time, but if it doesn't become a priority for
the planning and zoning, it ain't coming back to us >> for quite a while. And so I would like personally to see a timeline set on it, whether it's 60 days or 90 days or 3 weeks. I mean, leaving it open-ended to me is not the right thing to do for our
community. uh for those that are being challenged with the issues of uh eroding shoreline. So, I don't know, you know, how the council feels, but somehow we got to get it active. And
Sarah, I know that's that's your, you know, that's your area. And so, it kind of, you know, goes back to you and working with your committee about, you know, do we want, you know, when and how are we going to attack this? And if we don't, then send it back to a to a
committee on the council or we'll make an ad hoc committee and we'll work on it. But somewhere somehow some people's got to be working on it. I mean, if the planning and zoning are going to have all the questions and they're all come back to the city anyways for answers, then maybe a committee within the city
needs to, you know, from the council needs to work on. I'm just throwing ideas out there so that we can keep this moving. I think we should be able to have it done in 60 to 90 days and that would have been July.
>> Would the most appropriate committee be the policy committee? And if so, do we have who is on it? A representative from planning I mean or just ask that Sarah be involved. >> You sure Warren's on the policy committee, isn't he? >> Warren is Warren. >> Warren is and he is the head of the
planning commission, too. >> Okay. >> Brad, are you the other one on the policy committee? I am, but I still think we need to have the planning. This is their enforce. This is this lays in their, you know, in their avenue. So, we do need them engaged. I just would like
them to be able to come back to the council with a timeline. That's what everybody needs. Everybody wants so they can plan accordingly. It's all I'm asking. But if Sarah, I guess to you, if if they choose they can't, then I think we need to welcome it and move it to the policy
committee and continue it forward. >> And they have their meeting next week, correct? So then we'd by the next council meeting, we'd know what their feel was on it. If you briefly touch on it as far as like if they want it remanded to policy, they'd prefer to
send somewhere else >> or get their timelines. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments, questions, suggestions? If not, we will move on to new business. Old Mill Apartments proceedings.
Um, the owner of the Old Mill Apartments on First Street has been asked to allow an inspection of his building for public safety purposes. Um, he's had some damage due to the storms. Uh, the water that has been leaking through is getting down more than the top level. And so we're looking at inspections by the
rental inspector and the building inspector inspector, the fire chief and the or the fire marshall and the chief of police. This is and we have talked to him about it. He said he would allow us in there. But he's also bringing his insurance insurance engineer I think is what he said. So they'll all go in together at the same time and and do an
inspection so we really know what the condition is in there. And um so just to let you know if you hear anything out on the street and we're going through the process of of getting the inspections done and see where it takes us. Okay.
Uh, any questions regarding that? Uh, if not, paid family leave medical law 90. Yeah. So, as you know, there's new legislation in implementing a paid family medical leave program goes into effect on January 1st, 2020 2026.
Employees have the option to apply for paid leave when time off is needed to care for themselves or family members. Uh the program is similar to how unemployment works is that they um apply for it through the state and there are some private insurance companies that are also doing it. Uh the program is uh
funded by a tax on wages unlike unemployment but this is actually more like Medicare when it comes to that. They have established the actuaries have determined that it would take 088% of wages to fund this program at the state and the city can has the option to pay the entire amount or pay or pass half on
to the employees as a payroll deduction similar to the way Medicare is handled. So we need to determine if we want to pay half the tax and have the employees pay half or if the city wants to play the whole amount. Uh it's going to be about $20,000 annually to the city to to
make those payments. So, um, if we determine that we're going to pass it on, it may involve bargaining with the union. So, I wanted to get in front of this a little early. >> So, I I'm recommending it go to the personnel committee to look at it further.
>> The 19,500 annually, is that the8% to the city? >> I think I I'm agreeable to it going to the personnel committee. When is the next time we bargain unions? I don't have any when is the what >> or when is the next time we discuss unions that our contract is up
>> in 26 >> but we have to so this would have to be an amendment because this would go into effect on January 1st of 26 our next union negotiation will be in 26 for 27. >> Okay. So, >> general consent personnel committee. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Uh, that brings us to our consent agenda. Schedule of claims, unpaid claims, $1,547,92955 for a total of the same minus campground refunds of $5,690.65 >> plus campground
>> plus, excuse me. So the total total is 1,ion553,620 and 20. Attachment 10B uh resolution 2570 accepting contributions from the men's card playing plane group of $157.80
to the senior senior center Dwight S. Williams of $500 each to the fire department, ambulance department, and police department. And we would uh as a city like to acknowledge those contributions from the men's card plane group and Dwight S. Williams
10 10 C. We have a request for Missy Terrace DBA Mustang Bar 3 Incorporated for a temporary extension of per premise permits for anniversary and band on September 6th, 2025 in the back parking lots behind me building and Old Main Street Drug Building from 8:30 p.m. to
12:30 a.m. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented or any questions? What's the campground refunds related to those? Like >> So, what that is is our credit card uh processor for refunds like if people uh
cancel a reservation, change a reservation or anything that involves that. Um we can used to be able to just refund them straight through the software, but with the new rules that anything older than six months, it won't
refund back. And because we allow reservations a year in advance, this is the entire year so far that we've had to refund this way. Uh the 5600 and some change. So that's what it is. We're trying to get to trying to get it worked out where where they will uh process
them, but I didn't want these people to have to wait any longer for their refunds. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> Okay. Motion by Joe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Scott. All in favor say I.
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. Uh we have noformational items. So is there a mo motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Is that Joe? >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion by Joe. Is there a second? >> All second.
>> Second by Brad. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> Four in favor. None against. Meeting adjourned.