Good evening and welcome to the regular city council meeting for the city of St. Peter, Minnesota. It is Monday, May 27th, 2025. At 7 p.m. we are called to order. Would all please rise for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh, you should all have a copy of the agenda. Are there any revisions or
corrections to the agenda? Madam, yes. I would like to move the temporary tobacco license off of the consent agenda. Uh would that be item A of new business or would that become item the end? We can make item.
All right. Which one do you prefer, Kesha? Normally we would do it as the last business. Then we'll move it to item H under new business. Are there any revision other revisions or corrections? Yes. I would like to move the three professional service agreements off of the consent agenda
onto regular business. Okay. Any other items? So, the consent agenda uh has been revised to remove the temporary tobacco licenses. Make that item H under new business and the professional uh
services. Uh that was originally Under item number four, Daryl. Yes. All right. Item number four. All right. The with uh those revisions, the consent agenda would include the following. Temporary gambling licenses. I'm not going to read them all. There are they
are numerous and they are listed on page 39 of the packet for folks at home. Uh, temporary gambling, temporary on sale liquor, on sale liquor, Sunday sale, offsale liquor, 32 off sale beer, uh,
tree worker, and brewer off sale. Uh, those are listed in the packet with the name of the organization, the location, as well as the dates. Uh employee appointments, Hayden Locker as community development specialist, Braxen Hale,
Derek uh Dale rather, Derek Hoffman, and Jenny Wilkin as umpires. The wages are listed within the packet. The following purchases would be approved to Resco uh for
30500 three-phase pad mount transformers at a cost of $54,974. JT Services, two double-headed and five single-headed street light structures for $57,690 to Border States for 4,000
lineal feet of 4-in diameter PVC conduit at a cost of $10,972 and Motorola Solutions for eight replacement portable radios. The cost is $20,66369. Um, the 2001 Dodge Caravan Sport van is
declared as surplus and uh staff is authorized to dispose of it. A donation in the amount of $1,51 from the St. Peters Skate Park Association for the purchase of equipment from OC Ramps is approved and the schedule of dispersements from May
8th, 2025 through May 20th, 2025. Uh, hearing that and additional Yes. I I had no issue with Neielson concrete. That one is fine to stay on there. Apologize for that. Oh. Um, the first item on number four. Are there any
uh concerns about keeping that one on the consent agenda? Are we just to clarify, are we talking about the consent agenda or we do we still need to approve the agenda in minutes? We're talking Oh, sorry. Did I skip over approval of the agenda? Okay. Yeah.
Sorry. Uh, let's let's go back to the con the the approval of the agenda. Are there any revisions or corrections to the agenda? You want us to restate them? Uh when we get to consent agenda, I'll cover those again, but um if are there
any revisions? A motion to approve. Okay. Sorry. All those in favor of approval, say I. I. Any revisions? The agenda is approved. Thanks for pointing that out, Carrie. Uh approval of the minutes. The minutes are printed
in the packet. Are there any revisions or corrections to the minutes as distributed hearing? None. Is there um all those in favor of a Wait, we need a motion and a second. All those in favor or anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes? I will make that motion. Second. All those in favor of
approval say I. I. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. We have time on our agenda for visitors. Is there any visitor who'd like to address the council on any uh agenda item? Hearing none, we have time for general visitor comments. Is there a
visitor who'd like to address the council on an item not on the agenda? Hearing none, we will move on to the consent agenda, which I just walked through in detail. Um you'll recall that we moved some things off the consent agenda. We are going to keep
um under item number four Neielson concrete but the three Bolton and Mink agenda items we've moved to new business. Um any other any questions or discussion on the consent agenda. So mayor members just for clarification on
the part of staff on page 39 temporary tobacco has been moved or could be moved to the regular agenda under new business item H. And then three items under item number four on page 40. All three being bold and mink, um would be moved to a
separate agenda item um under item I. Am I understanding that correctly? Just so that we're clear. Yes. Okay. Thank you. As well. All right. Thanks for bearing with me on this one. Uh is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Moved. Second. Uh we have a motion and a
second. Call the role, please. Council member Weisenfeld. I. Council member Sharstrom. Hi, Council Member Devos. I, Mayor Noel. I, Council Member Johnson. I, Council Member Pettis. Hi. The resolution is approved. Uh, our first item of new business tonight is the 2027
Minnesota Avenue Improvements Engineering. And Pete is here to talk to us about that. Madame Mayor and City Council, um as you heard at workshop last week, uh we are working with Mandot to uh prepare a project, a rebuild
project on Minnesota Avenue from Chestnut to Union. Um the improvements would include sanitary sewer mainline, sanitary sewer, sewer services, water services, storm water improvements, sidewalk, street, curb, and gutter. Uh
the water man was installed in 2009 when we did the downtown project. Uh the 12-in loop was completed at that time. Uh some of the improvements that we are planning are to be funded by property owners. Uh according to our assessment policy, uh we are required to follow
statute 429, Minnesota statute. Um and also we have a project schedule that complies with that process. On page 43, it talks about the processes and procedures that we would plan to take to work with homeowners to identify the
corrections uh mostly with the utilities that are needed. Uh for the next couple of months, your engineer will prepare a feasibility study that will outline uh the needs of that project. Uh we'll bring that back to council for a review and then we will call for a public
hearing for those improvements. Um our plan is to work with Mindot to create a 60% plan uh by the end of November of this year. Um then uh after reviewing with council and going through the processes that are allowed uh we
would have a project ready for you by the spring of 2026. This project is scheduled to begin in 2027. So as you can see our timeline is pretty methodical. Uh MDOT does a nice job of spreading that out. That gives us ample time to work with the
homeowners along that area uh related to the condition of their private services and any assessments that would be uh levied against them. Uh what we're asking you tonight is that you allow Bolton and Mink uh to prepare a plan uh to work with Mandot on that plan and to
prepare a feasibility study. Uh I am open for questions. I'm requesting that you approve the resolution on page 44 to 45 authorizing engineering services for the Minnesota Avenue project. Thanks, Pete. Questions, Brad? Um, so clarification in case people are asking
about this. Um, this has nothing to do with municipal consent. This is just simply engineering for the city's portion of the work. That's correct. Okay. That in case people are wondering what why on that side, right? Okay. Thank you. Additional
questions hearing nothing further. The resolution authorizing engineering services for the 2027 Minnesota Avenue 169 improvements Chestnut Street to Union Street appears on pages 44 through 45 of the packet. Is there a
motion to approve? So move. Second. Have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Dro. I. Council member Das. I. Mayor Noel. I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, hi. Council member Weisenfeld,
I. The resolution is approved. Uh, next up, South Front Street traffic modifications. And Pete is here again. Madame Mayor and City Council, as you remember about a year ago, uh, there were some concerned citizens that came to the city council meeting to express a
concern over a variety of issues on South Front Street. Um they came to talk about speed, large trucks, uh pedestrian conditions in that area and just overall safety required uh to be living along
that area. Um so what we did is we worked in cooperation with the statewide health improvement partnership which is called ship uh to get a grant for some engineering services. Alulta Engineering came in, studied the area, uh worked with the citizens along that route, uh
get some feedback through a survey and through public input, several public meetings uh to develop uh goals for a demonstration project which would identify um really traffic calming areas that would work or wouldn't work
depending on how the citizens and people that drive that area would provide feedback. Um, I think we had a very successful demonstration, meaning that not everything was rosy. Uh, there were a few issues along the route there, but
the overall goal was we were looking at traffic calming situations, especially through the residential area. Uh, we did get some uh very positive feedback through that process. We also got some negative feedback and some of the negative feedback uh came from outside
of our jurisdiction where our our citizens live but from people that use that route and use St. Peter as a flow through in traffic uh to get from Highway 99 mostly to the south uh heading towards Mano. Uh taking that
into consideration, it still means that we we need to provide some level of uh discrepancy for the decision- making in that process. And so that is why we wanted to use outside engineering uh to get some of that honest feedback from traffic engineers. With that came the
following recommendations. Uh narrow the lanes down to 11 foot between this is all between Elm and Walnut Street. So on Walnut Street as you're heading south, that's basically the uh street that's on the south side of the courthouse parking
lot. all the way to Elm is where the residential kind of ends. And then you get into a couple of residential properties on the west side, but you're mostly going into that uh undefined street where there's no curb and gutter and you're getting closer to Quick Trip.
Narrow the uh lanes down to 11 ft. Uh using bumpouts on both entrances to encourage people to slow down in those areas. use signage to reduce the speed if it's so desired by the city council
from 30 to 25. And my recommendation says 20 and my city engineer has told me that I can't do that um unless it's in a school zone. And so you have you have two options there. One is to leave it at 30 and work with other um traffic
calming scenarios there such as uh driveovers or something that would encourage traffic to slow down or you can reduce it to 25 and then have enforcement and then allow parking on both sides to calm traffic and then clearly paint and identify lines with
center striping in that area. One of your practices has been not to paint in residential areas. Um, but we feel that with 11 foot lanes, if you clearly define the traffic lanes, you will encourage uh traffic to slow down in
that area. Um, not addressed is this the pedestrian safety to the degree we would like to have it and that is mostly because we're not looking at sidewalks in that area exactly right now. You'll be looking at a rebuild of South Front Street in the next four to six years.
And at that time, we can look at sidewalk conditions to improve that pedestrian uh safety issue in that area. Uh the cost um to initially get this completed is about $2,000. Uh and that can be done in a
fairly quick turnaround. Uh you would have some signage costs for no trucks past uh Elm and uh Walnut. Um uh we do have a situation. One of our council members did inquire about what would happen with garbage trucks and we'd have
to work that out or include that in our resolution is that garbage trucks would be the only trucks allowed uh where we do have it posted no trucks. So you've got a little bit of conflict from that point of view. Otherwise, we'd have to figure out an alternate route for garbage collection, which again would be
labor intensive. So I would ask the council to probably consider the use of garbage trucks in that area. And then um every year thereafter we would take the ballards down in the wintertime to allow for ease of snow plowing. As you guys saw on South Third Street, it'd be
really difficult uh if we had to plow around the obstacles that are there. And usually by that time or about the second snowfall, there's no obstacles left to work around. So, uh, but after that it would be about $750, uh, annually to
reestablish that until such a time as we undertake a rebuild project there. Uh, you have maps that are on pages 48, 49, and 50. Uh, there's a resolution on page 51. Again, with that modification, uh,
my recommendation would be from 30 to 25. Uh, that's what we can do by state statute. Um or if the council desires, if you want to leave it at 30 mph according to state law, then we can consider other
obstacles in there to try to slow the traffic down. And the other revision to the resolution, you were suggesting something maybe on item three, excluding garbage trucks from the correct um being closed to truck traffic. Yes. Um all
right. Discussion or questions? Question right away. bottom of 46 saying that it's reducing the speed limit to 20 m hour. Yes. Is that a typo? No, that is a typo. It should be 25. I had originally put 20 in there, but you can only apply the 20 to school zones. Okay. That's
what you had said. So when I looked at it, right? And so what the council has the authority to do is uh break away from the 30 mph state state law. you can reduce it to 25 because you're the jurisdictional authority, but no more
than that. So, when I take when we take a motion to approve the resolution, we should approve the resolution with two modifications. the exclusion of um garbage trucks from the prohibition on uh truck traffic. And we need to determine what we want to we could
either strike bullet point number four in which case it would be 30 miles per hour or if somebody wanted to suggest it 25 that is the minimum that we can approve. Uh Josh, so on this Walnut Street, it looks like these dots are the bumpouts.
Are the bumpouts smaller than they were last year relative to the curb? Um like less intruding into the street. I believe we had 11t lanes in there last year. Mhm. Um not necessarily at Walnut. We had a traffic circle in there, but if
you remember how Elm Street was, that would be very similar to what we had last year. Okay. I'm just curious because we had a lot a lot of the feedback we got was that folks thought the bumpouts at the intersections were too constricting and so I'm just curious if trying slightly less constricting
bumpouts even with a narrower traffic lane um was maybe less intrusive. We we heard the same thing. Um and what what we modified was is the positioning of the ballard. So they
continued around to make the east west traffic 11t also. Mhm. Those would stay the same size and it would be really just the narrow opening going on front street at Walnut. Mhm. So you'd have easier turning movements coming out and
going in. Sure. Okay. Brad, um just a recommendation on the garbage trucks is maybe refer to them as a a sanitation vehicle servicing neighborhood residents so that you don't just make it garbage trucks at it specifically servicing uh local or servicing
neighborhood residents. So additional questions or discussion Dustin I was just going to point out I did have a large number of residents reach out with concerns about the bumpouts. Um I get this was discussed at workshop. Unfortunately I was unable to contribute those thoughts at workshop.
So because of that I will be abstaining. I was not present to be able to provide my thoughts then. Sure. Carrie as someone who drove on I know we're not talking about Third Street but um I feel like a
lot of the feedback that I personally received was more related to Third Street. um and and complaints about the bumpouts I also drove. The reason it feels so painful to people is because it forces you to slow down and to think
about how you're driving. Those bumpouts are doing their job. So I am happy to champion bumpouts. Additional questions or discussion? We do need to resolve the uh matter of
speed limit. Is there any uh discussion or anything anybody'd like to add about that? I don't have any I I don't have any objection to 25 in in the residential zone if that they had. So, Madame Mayor, if I can help. Yeah,
the appropriate action would be to modify as discussed with the speed limit being set at 25 miles an hour. So there if you had a motion um modifying the resolution in that way that would take precedence and you could move forward. So we've discussed two modifications to
the resolution. The one relative to garbage trucks and to 25 miles per hour. Is there somebody who'd like to uh make make a motion to approve with those two amendments? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. We have a motion
and a second. Call the roll, please. Council member Devos, I. Mayor Noel, I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, no. Council member Weisenfeld, I. Council member Sharstrom, abstain. All right, the resolution um
passes. We will move on to our next item of new business, a searchcharge fee for water and or electric. Madam Mayor and city council, as you're aware, we're in about the fifth year of our AMI program. Um we're about 70% with
electricity and 70% with water. Um trying to get to a point where uh this year we're going to be installing the last of the electric meters. Uh and in the following two to three years we'll be pulling up the water meters and
making sure that they communicate through our electric meters. Um, we've run into a small obstacle with a minute number of of citizens either not wanting the new AMI meters or not wanting us to
come into their property. Uh, as I put in my memo, uh, we have the right to entry. Um, it's in our ordinances. Um, but I understand fully why some people think that way and that can lead us down the road of additional cost through our
finance, invoicing, billing, and meter reading scenarios. We haven't had a large number of uh constituents who are telling us no at this time and over the course of the next few years. We'd like to edge into this with handling
difficult situations one by one instead of waiting till the end of our meter reading pro or our meter installation program and then tackling 30 or 40. And so what we're asking tonight is that you put a search charge fee uh in your fee
schedule. Uh this would be a fee in addition to our customer charges that are there on a monthly basis. So their customer charges will stay there and the search charge fee will only apply after we have had contact with them, discussed what's going on, and we send them a
letter of notification with a timeline so that they have time to adjust and get there. Again, I don't think there's going to be a huge number, but there will be a number. And so, what we're trying to do is make this go as smoothly as we can and not be a huge issue at the end of the meter reading program
installation. Um, our our AMI program so far has gone very well. Uh, we're really really happy with how that's turned out. I just wish we would have had better funding uh to complete this in a in a shorter time
frame, but remember we set this program out so that we wouldn't have to raise rates for that purpose. And so to me, that's that's a success. Uh if you would take a look on page 54, there's a resolution that I'm seeking
authorization for. Questions for Pete? Darl, a quick question for Pete. a fee that you came up with here that additional fee that was based on a calculation of so much time for somebody manually entering and that's correct. So there there's a basis
behind this fee. It's not just a number. Yes, that's correct. And so as our costs go up um next year we would come forward and say okay last year this fee was 3320. We're seeing about a 2% increase. So we're asking for this time this this
amount this year. So it's in the fee schedule. We'd be adjusting it as our normal December January timeline somewhere in there. Thank you. Appreciate that. Additional questions or discussion? Have we been in contact with all the
folks that already that have not wanted to have the new AMI meters put in multiple times? And does it seem like we're going to get anywhere with them or unlikely? I think that's the key thing. If if if
they're determined that they would prefer not to have it this way, they can. It's just a cost that we're going to incur to get their meter readings or make changes. Yeah, I I totally understand. I just
have a tough time implementing more fees on folks in the same time that we've increased fees across the board. Um, so it just feels like it feels like this can be solved without the cost associated with it, but I but I
understand the need as it's as it's set up. Brad, um, so chance to, uh, answer Mr. uh, Weisenfeld, um, so that I can tell you sitting in the in the public works, they've been trying for several years to work on these people. Um, I I'm
actually very much in favor of this because they've been very diligent in in their outreach, often not getting a response. Um, and this is a fee people can avoid. Um, unlike our regular base charges and stuff where understandable, it's like we're adding those fees. This
is a very avoidable fee. It's a fee I won't be paying because I've already had my meter swapped out. Um, and I can tell you the water meter, it's a 10-minute job. So, um, so in that way, I think I I I do think our public works staff has done their due diligence in in
attempting to, uh, solve this and you and and we just have to move forward move forward based off of this. Um, and if once they have their meter installed, their bill will go down. They'll they'll have they'll have the $33 removed from their bill. So Krie,
um Pete, can you estimate the amount of households affected that are unreachable or I would say we have between five and 10 right now and we're at 70%. So it's a fairly small number,
additional questions or discussion. Hearing nothing further. The resolution authorizing the revising of the fee schedule for meter searchcharge fee for electric and or water meters is on page 54 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? So move second. We have a
motion and a second call. Roll please. Mayor Noel. I. Council member Johnson I. Council member Pettis. I. Council member Wisenfeld. No. Council member Sharstrom. I. Council member Devos. Not. I. Uh, the resolution carries. Uh, next up, a
request for Thanks, Keith. Uh, next up, a request for city assistance for the Minnesota Original Music Festival. So, Madame Mayor members, this is a request that you've seen for the last few years. It is the same organizers as in previous years. Um, they are looking and have
reserved um, Minnesota Square Park, looking to use Minnesota Square Park from July 16th through the 20th. And this would be a very similar event to what you approved last year. Certainly we have requirements for utilization in this way of the park that include having
the appropriate lure ensuring vendors have the appropriate lure like food vendors those types of folks. Um probably one of the or two of the most significant is that they bring the park back to the standard at which they received it um from the 15th to the 16th of July and then ensuring that they have
the appropriate level of liability insurance which as the council is aware is $1.5 million for each occurrence. Um again substantially similar to what you've seen in the past few years. um this community event and festival
continues to grow and you will also see in your packet the formal request that they provided to you. The resolution is included in your packet. Um that starts on page um 63. Happy to answer any questions that you might have and um we wish them great
luck with their event. Uh questions for Todd. Hearing no questions. the resolution approving a request for city. Yeah, Dustin Todd looking at it was trying to find where it was on the page 59. Um, under point B, what's the new
rule for dogs in the park? They said that they're asking for guidance from the city on how to deal with dogs in the park. So, you you as you may recall, you modified the ordinance related to that and that is taken into account within the body of the resolution. previous years would have had a stipulation that
said the organizers are required as they promote the event to ensure that they advertise that no dogs are allowed in the park. Um that is no longer the requirement under your ordinance. So that is not a part of the resolution. So we are not requiring them to do that any
longer. I get what was in their request. Um but our response to that is in the body of the resolution which is they're not required to provide Okay. So, they're not actually waiting for additional information from us. Um um they may be waiting for additional information because you haven't taken
action yet, but the ordinance is clear and we have had that discussion. Yep. Additional questions? Hearing nothing further. The resolution approving a request for city assistance for Minnesota Original Music Festival occur uh appears on pages 63 through 64
of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? Some moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, hi. Council member Weisenfeld, I. Council member Sharstrom, I. Council member Devos, I.
Mayor Noel, I. Resolution is approved. Uh, next up, request for city assistance, John Denver Fest and Blues Nest. Mayor, members, this is one of the first meetings that we've had where you get a two for one on a resolution um related to events and activities within
the city of St. Peter. This is put on by the St. Peter ambassadors and I'd love to say that it's substantially similar to previous requests and it is for Bluesfest. Um this would be the first year of the Y Young John Denver Fest and so that's the difference. The
requirements for both are substantially similar. They're looking to use Minnesota Square Park for an event on Friday the 13th and then on Saturday the 14th. So, Friday the 13th would be the John Young John Denver Festival and then Saturday would be the Bluesfest that's
been in place now for about a decade or so. Um, the information is included in your packet with all the normal things that we see about restrooms and parking and all of that kind of stuff. Um, and so the request from staff or the recommendation from staff is that you approve the one resolution that provides
for both of these two events. we would allow them to have one coverage um for both events that covers both days, one insurance coverage just as you do with the Rockben Folk Festival that's over multiple days. It's the same organizers um same type of activity that they're
asking for. Um this too contemplates the dog issue that we talked about just a few moments ago as a part of the resolution. And so that resolution, Madame Mayor, members, starts on page 69. Any questions for Todd or any discussion? Hearing none. The resolution
approving a request for city assistance for Ambassadors Bluesfest and Young John Denverfest is on pages 69 through 70 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. We have a mo a motion and a second call, please. Council member Pettis, I. Council member
Weisenfeld, I. Council member Sharstrom. Hi. Council member Devos. I. Mayor Noel. I. Council member Johnson. I. Motion carries. Uh, next up, request for city assistance, old-fashioned Fourth of July celebration. So, mayor, members, this request comes, as it has over the past
decades, from the St. Peter Chamber of Commerce. This is for an event on July 4th that includes utilization of uh um Washington Avenue and a couple of other streets and some area north of Broadway Avenue for staging um for the parade itself and Minnesota Square Park for the
events and activities that really occur mostly after the parade is concluded. Um page 74 shows and and is the first page that is the resolution for this. Um there again this is substantially similar to what they've requested in
previous years. Um this does take into account your modification in your dog ordinance as we talked about previously with other ones. Um the recommendation is to provide approval. Again the resolution is on page 74 and 75. Any questions for
Todd? Hearing no questions or discussion. The resolution authorizing city assistance for the for the Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July event is on pages 47 and 45 or sorry 74 and 75. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.
Second. Uh we have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Weisenfeld. I. Council member Sharstrom. Hi. Council member Devos. Hi. Mayor Noel. Hi. Council member Johnson. Hi. Council member Pettis. I think I started I
I started with Josh. Oh, sorry. I The res We're going pretty fast here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh [Laughter] uh. The resolution is approved. Next up, city and school district 508 cultural liaison services agreement. Mayor
members, I gave Kesha and errant a memo that starts on page 76 that in includes for your input and discussion. And while that is true, it is always for your input and discussion. Um, I am asking you to take action to enter an agreement with school district 508 related to
cultural liaison and their utilization. I would tell you that this is, at least from my perspective, a contract that's organized in a substantially similar nature to what you see SRO's except maybe flip-flopped. In this instance, we
would be paying the school district $5,000 for additional access to their cultural liaison. This falls in line with some of the work that the council has done related to your community conversations program and part of the discussion that you've had previously um with the joint school board and city
council meeting and the superintendent and I have had over the last four or five months. Really the goal of this agreement is to provide some resources to the school district and they provide access to your recreation staff and MRVT staff to help promote programs that you
already have in place. Um, we see barriers on occasion, some of them related to language or other issues in ensuring that everyone within your community has equal access to the programming that you currently provide. This is not establishing new programming. This is ensuring that
everyone within your um community has access to the programs that you have in place currently. Um, the the school board took action at their meeting last week to approve this agreement. And um if you're so willing, the recommendation is for you to approve this agreement. This is a one-year agreement, so we're
really looking at this as an experiment to see if it has some impact um related to and a comparison of uh demographics that we have within the community. Um the contracts included within your packet and the resolution is on page 83.
All right, questions for Todd? We previously discussed this as a council and in a joint meeting with the school board. So we've had opportunity to discuss previously. Hearing no additional
discussion, the resolution entering into a school cultural liaison agreement is on page 83 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the vote, please. Council member
Sharstrom. I. Council member Dvos. I, Mayor Noel, I, Council Member Johnson, I, Council Member Pettis, I, Council Member Weisenfeld, I, the resolution is approved. Uh, next up, temporary and annual license renewals, specifically
uh, temporary tobacco licenses. So, mayor, members, you had asked originally with the change to the resolution or the motion approving the agenda have to have this taken off your consent agenda and put under new business. Um, I'm looking back at what
is page 8. And so, how staff took this and why I asked for the clarification is that this related only to the temporary tobacco license, not to all of the temporary licenses. Correct. And so, um, as you'll see on page eight, and I'm counting the paragraphs, one, two,
three. Um, this would be, I believe, the third paragraph that's listed on page eight, um, within the consent agenda materials. Um, this is an application that you have seen before. So, at least from my perspective, from a process standpoint, it's appropriate that it can
be on the consent agenda under your rules. Um, but certainly issuing of these licenses at the pleasure of the city council. um we would see nothing that would prohibit them from having this license from a conviction standpoint or anything else. Um but certainly the council can weigh in on
this and you've asked to have this as a separate agenda item. Um if you take no action um that means that the license will not be provided. So if you there is no motion to approve it um then there's no license provided. Um so for you to
provide this action you've got to take some level of affirmative action. Generally how we would handle this would be that you would give staff a little bit of latitude to assemble a resolution a few whereases and approvals just like you might see in a normal format. We
wouldn't try and wordsmith this at the desk unless the council preferred to do that and then we could certainly do that. Um but certainly this is something that the council can discuss and you can take off consent agenda and have separate discussion on. Uh the only thing I would add is this is for Moulder Cigar Emporium and they are a licensed
business in the city of St. Peter. They are a licensed business in the city of St. Peter. All right. Uh questions or discussion? Um so I wholeheartedly expect this to pass. So I I just didn't want to vote for it myself personally on the consent agenda. Um I uh secondhand
smoke is uh does impact the personal space of other people at these festivals. Well, I myself uh find find it uh annoying. Other non-smokers find it very annoying when secondhand smoke drifts. You may be by the stage and it
drifts over there. Uh while we can prevent people from from coming into the park with it, I do think it sets a bad precedent to be selling it in the park, which encourages the the uh increased usage and uh and consumption of smoking products. It's not necessarily tobacco
in general, it's smoking products. uh it's smoking products uh as as well. Um that that's my opinion. I I I just think it um I like I said, I I'm sure it will pass, but I think it's I think it's a
bad example to be setting. Well, and just to be clear, I know you know this that uh your general opposition to smoking products, but this temporary license is only for tobacco. Exactly. Just to be clear. Yeah. And and it's it's specifically Yes. this temporary license at this time is what I'm opposed
to. Yes. Okay. Yep. Uh other questions or discussion? So, we're not voting on this tonight or we will vote on it. Um it would the process would be that someone would make
a motion to approve a resolution providing for this license and then we'd kind of fill in the blanks later if the council is good with that. Sounds good. I was just curious since this event's coming up in like, you know, two and a half weeks and we would meet three days before it or four days before it or
something. It would be very unusual for the council to call an emergency meeting for this type of license or activity. Sure. All right. Yes. I will go ahead and make a motion to approve it. I'll second. Uh
we have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member DVOS. No. Mayor Noel. Hi, Council Member Johnson. I, Council Member Pettis. Hi, Council Member Weisenfeld. Hi, Council Member Sharstrom. Hi. The resolution will be
created, but we have voted to uh to grant that temporary tobacco license. Um, next up, we're going to go back to page starting on page 15 of the packet. Um, we had three items. Uh the first of
which is Klein Street Improvements, the second of which is Cullen Street Improvements, and the third of which is Klein Street Improvements. Mayor Members, as we talked about with the last item that was pulled from the consent agenda, you can certainly take
this in three parts. I was going to say that you could triate these and have three separate actions or you could certainly take them all together if you chose to. Um, but it is certainly at the pledge of the council to have items such as this taken off of the consent agenda
and put on under new business. Um, these three items provide support services for construction projects that you have underway. Um, and Pete is here if there are questions or if you would like additional explanation. Well, I'll follow up with council member Pettis who uh removed these from the consent
agenda. How you would like to discuss them. Are you thinking of them as three separate things you'd want to One item together is fine. All three of them. I fully support these items all being approved. I would just like to remind our consultant engineer and our staff that we should be approving these before
the projects are started versus a year later. All three of these projects were bid last over a year ago or almost a year ago. And we're now approving their construction services for staking, project inspection, contract administration for projects that about 90% done. So, let's not do that in the
future. let's bid a project. Um, for our consultant to be charging us for work on these projects, they should have a up-to-date uh, professional services agreement from us or they shouldn't be billing us for their services. Daryl's exactly right from that process point of
view. Um, if you look at the projects, part of um, what we did or what we do in a process like this, I'll just take Cullen Street as we laid that out. We go into a couple different processes. One is design and build or bidding and we
have a fee that usually is authorized right up front. That's council's say of let's get going on this project. Um during both of these projects uh where I made a mistake was not bringing construction services back was because we continually talked about here's what this lot will cost, here's what this lot
will cost with all the charges in there. And that got by me. And so one of the things I have to do is make sure as council member Pettis said is that we have that contract in services even though we knew those numbers and those will still be the numbers that they
agreed to. Um I need to make sure that that authorization's done up front and I apologize for that. Um Pete, thank you for acknowledging that. I had the same concerns as Darl when I when I looked at the agenda was these projects are already underway. Why
are we doing this now? So, thank you for acknowledging that. With that, I would make a motion to approve the three professional services agreement with both M for Klein, Colin and the safe routes to schools. I'll second uh if I could just as a point of
clarification so that we can include that in the minute. So, Pete, my recollection of this is that these costs were included in the overall project costs. It's just a matter we did not have them approved. That's correct. Thank you very much. And thank you. When
I first uh uh introduced this, I did not uh turn pages far enough. This I think I originally said three, but it is actually the four including the state safe routes to school. So um just is it just the three
one's only related to Bolton and Mink. How staff took the original um change was only Bolton and Mink. There were three purchase items that are listed under item number four and consent. And so again, in this instance, we would generate a resolution that includes the
approval of those three items, each of which is to vote to make. Gotcha. Thank you. I correct my notes here. All right, we do have a motion and a second. If you'd call the role, please. Mayor Noah, I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, I. Council member
Weisenfeld, I. Council member Shstrom. Hi. Council member Debbas. I. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you again. Uh we are going to move on to reports. The only report from the mayor tonight is to thank everybody who was involved in uh the planning and execution of the
Memorial Day service. Thank you especially to the Legion for that. Uh they do a wonderful job with that service. It's a very meaningful uh opportunity to uh reflect and uh I really just want to thank everybody who who played a part in that. We'll move on
to reports from council members. Brad, um I just like to bring up this weekend uh that the Mano Ballet Company, despite the name Mano, uh had their spring performance uh this past weekend at this at the St. Peter uh performing arts center at the high school. Um which
they've been doing since 2018. Um there are a number of young ladies and gentlemen who are from St. Peter who are part of Mano Ballet Company. An excellent performance. Uh I believe they drew over 2,000 attendees um to all to to the four in total to the
four performances. Um which is also great for a great show for St. Peter um great for our local economy and shows off our beautiful performing arts center we have in town here. So just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. Thanks. Additional reports from council members
hearing none. How about our city administrator? Madame Mayor, I only have two reports for you and then a request for executive session. The first of which is and arguably maybe it's three. Um, with the rain that we had, I think it's important for folks to note that
our park system is growing all over. And so Pete and his team have a bunch of stuff to do and so people have been enjoying parks like crazy and we'll see a lot of activity with parks. that coupled with um many of the summer programs through the recck department are blooming as well. And so those
events and activities will start um as I mentioned even this week with only four days of the week arguably there are over 45 different events and activities going on in the recck department. So I wanted to mention that. And the last which is really important collaborative effort
with Pete's team and with John's team is that the pool opens on the 31st. We always bark summer by when the pool opens. And so it opens on the 31st. So it continues to be thanks to the council members um thoughts and decisions related to that. The best entertainment value in St. Peter for a family. You
know, you can get a family swim pass for around 50 bucks whether you have one child or five. And it's a fantastic deal and a great way to spend a lot of your summers down at the pool. Um and so I wanted to mention that again on the 31st the pool opens. If you want more information, you can certainly check it
out on Facebook and on our website. There'll be a lot of great information related to the pool. Thank you. Uh we are going to move on to a resolution for an executive session. Madame Mayor, members, I'm asking for this executive session for discussion of the electric
line worker union negotiations and contract. I anticipate that we will come back into open session to take action. Um that would be at the pleasure of the council. Um but I anticipate that we'll come back into regular session. I would expect that your close session last for
a few minutes. Um and we just want to make sure that we're crossing all the tees and dotting all the eyes appropriately. There is a resolution to this effect on page 84 of your packet. All right. Any questions for Todd? Hearing none. Uh the is there a
motion to approve the resolution calling for a close session? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the RO, please. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis. Hi. Council member Wisenfeld. Hi. Council member
Sharstrom. Hi. Council member Devos. I. Mayor Noel. I. The resolution is approved and at 7:49 we will go into close session. All right. We are returning to open session at 8:00 p.m. This is a open
session of the St. Peter City Council on Tuesday the 27th of May 2025. Mayor, members, there's information included on your desks related to entering an agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 70, the electric line
workers contract. Um, you had multiple closed or executive sessions related to this negotiations. I think the negotiations have concluded. there's a contract in front of you um that the union has agreed to and signed off on. Uh the recommendation from city staff is
to approve the resolution entering into the contract. The most significant portions of the contract include it's a one-year deal from January 6th to December 31st of 2025. It would be a pay modification of $3 an hour for all
classifications within the contract plus $2 per hour. an on call increase from 300 to 325. A change in the definition of probation from 12 months to six months. This is um congruent with your
non-union and most of your other union groups. Jury duty pay change, which amounts to about $20 modification to this. Again, that falls in line with what you see in other union contracts and your non-unized folks. Um and then a clarification related to safety
equipment, primarily eyeglasses and footwear. Um again, the contract is provided with you. The union has voted to accept the contract. The resolution providing approval for the mayor and I to sign the agreement is included in your packet. And again, I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have, madame mayor, members. Sure. Any questions for Todd or discussion? Hearing nothing. Uh we are considering a resolution approving a contract by and between the city of St. Peter and International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 70 AFL CIO electric lineman for calendar year 2025. Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the RO, please. Council member Pettis. I. Council member
Wisenfeld. Hi. Council member Sharstrom. Hi. Council member Devos. Hi. Mayor Noel. Hi. Council member Johnson. I The resolution is approved. That was our last item of business this evening. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. All those in favor of
adjournment say I. I. I. Any opposed? We are ajourned. Thank you. Darl, I want to