Good evening and welcome to the regular city council meeting for the city of St. Peter, Minnesota. It is Monday, November 24th, 2025. At 7:02 p.m. we are called to order. Would all please rise for the pledge.
>> 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. >> Uh, everybody has received a copy of the
agenda. Are there any revisions or corrections to the agenda as distributed? Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve? >> Second. >> All those in favor of approval say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? The agenda is approved.
Approval of the minutes. We've all got the packet with a copy of the uh minutes. Are there any revisions or corrections to the minutes as distributed? >> Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor of approval say I. I.
Any opposed? The minutes are approved. Next up, we have two public hearings. The first public hearing is on proposed assessment of non-rightofway projects and miscellaneous charges as provided for instate statute. A public hearing has been scheduled scheduled at this time to consider public comments related
to the proposed assessment for non-right ofway projects and m miscellaneous charges. Notice of the hearing has been duly published in the St. Peter Herald and effective property owners have been notified. Action to consider the assessments is scheduled under new business and the instructions for a
public hearing are printed on page 11 of the packet and Perry is here to provide the staff report. >> Uh so you'll see in the memo from later in the agenda. Uh this is a public hear public hearing. This first one is related to miscellaneous uh charges that
um are for services conducted throughout the year. uh in addition to in this case only one particular that's in relation to a waiver that was signed for some storm water work that was done. Uh so at this time we can hear from the public uh
anyone on that role of of miscellaneous charges if they would like to make comments at this point. >> All right. Thank you. Um are there any members of the public who would like to comment on the proposed assessment of non-right ofway
projects and miscellaneous charges? All right, hearing none, we uh will close the public hearing at 7:04 and we will open our next public hearing at 7:04. And this public hearing is on proposed assessments for unpaid utility
um accounts. >> If if I could sure, mayor, my error um has a part of that right away. The council or city staff received two pieces of correspondence if I may. Oh, sure. That's quite all right. Um, we received two pieces of correspondence. Um, um, typically we might read through
them all, but in this instance, I'll let you know that these are documents that we keep on file so the general public can certainly see them. We have one document from Stacy Meny who's contesting um, the assessment um, for work in the rightway. And we have a second one from Hunt Plumbing and Drain
contesting um, their charge for snow removal. Um both parties mentioned various factors including timeliness of snow, timeliness of letter um whether it makes sense to provide or use taxpayers dollars to provide for this type of service um when sidewalks are are maintained or not maintained
appropriately. And um I I should have read that in earlier. I apologize for that, Madam Mayor. >> No problem. And just for the public to confirm, we did not read these in full, but every council member has received a copy of this >> and they we do keep them on file, so they are available for the public.
>> Okay. >> Ask a question. >> What's the date of this letter? Was it received recently? >> Um, one was received on November 20th and would hand one was handd delivered to my office on Friday. >> Okay. Thank you.
Any additional questions? All right. Now we will really close this public hearing at 7:06. We'll open the public hearing on proposed assessments for unpaid utility at 7:06. >> Um same things apply. There was notice
was notice was published >> utilities through May 31st um of the previous year and then the these move over onto the utility bills of the property owner and then it gets assessed to the property the the amount of the bills that can be assessed to it. >> Okay. Anything to add Todd?
>> Madam Mayor, I think it's important to note that we do have one that's on this list that we believe we've received bankruptcy notice on. And just as a clarification for the process for the council and anyone from the public that's paying attention, um the council has adopted previous policy related to this relative to bank bankruptcy, death,
and amounts under $10. Um it's also a fact that as we provide notice that folks have the ability to come into the finance department and pay this amount before the end of the year and then it is not sent to the county as an assessment to their property taxes. Um, the one that we believe is under
bankruptcy and we believe that we've received a notice on, we want to confirm the name is about 10th down on your list and it's property ID number 19.020.0900. And again, this can certainly stay on this resolution. If it's confirmed that it's bankruptcy, then at that time
before the final role is sent to the county auditor treasurer's office, it would be removed as well as any of those that meet those policy requirements that the council's previously approved. >> Yeah. And so compared to this list, obviously there's a time lag that happens.
Five or 10 on five on one and about seven on the other of these two lists have already been paid and and so there's a little bit of lag there. And then we allow them to pay up until the 30th of December, which is what's in the resolution. Um, and at that point, that's when I send it over
to Jackie at the county, uh, to go through the regular assessment project, uh, process and then be added to the property tax role. So again, these people have the opportunity to pay this if they don't want it to roll over onto their property tax bill up until the
30th of December. >> All right. Thank you. Um, we will have time as an action item. So, if there's any discussion, we'll do that at the action item portion of the of the meeting. Is there any me matter me member of the public who'd like to make
comment on this hearing on proposed assessments for unpaid utility accounts? Okay. Hearing none, we will close uh this public hearing at 7:09. Uh, now we will move on to the visitor
comment portion of our meeting. We have time for visitors who'd like to comment on agenda items. Is there a visitor who'd like to address the council on an agenda item? Hearing none, we also have time for general visitor comments. Is there a member of the audience who'd like to
address the council on a matter that's not on the agenda? Okay. Hearing none, we will move on to the approval of the consent agenda. Consent agenda items appear on pages one or sorry 11 through 54 of the packet and conclude with a resolution that appears
on page 55. The consent agenda includes uh one license previously approved. The date has been corrected now. That's to the church of St. Peter for March 6th, 2026. We have one appointment uh Joe Harmon as a volleyball official for the
wage listed within the packet. the following purchases: an AV systems for council chambers, a Bobcat's kids steer loader, and a utility vehicle. Uh the vendors prices and funding source are all listed within the packet, as well as
the schedule of dispersements for November 6th through 20th, 2025. Is there any discussion of any items on the consent agenda? Brad, >> um Pet could come up to answer some questions on the uh on the on the K Cabota purchasing.
>> Um so anyway, so people know, uh Pete and I have had discussions along with public works about the replacing of EVs with uh with uh internal combustion engines. Um I'm I'm not going to dispute this purchase. Um but I am going to ask
um I you um or point out that the this is the second uh issue uh that essentially we've gone in reverse on as far as sustainability issues. Um and concern I have is one of the things you point out that we're working on in the
sustainability efforts is the electric uh chainsaws um chainsaws, weed whips, and leaf blowers. Um you got those with a grant, correct? >> Correct. Um, and have you actually purchased anything out of pocket uh any
electric uh power tools like that since? >> Not off the top of my head. >> Um, I guess the thing I've brought up in the past is is besides actually them being better for the environment is from a health and safety perspective, um, the electric equipment is is safer. I mean, you don't have the exhaust fumes, you
don't have a combustible engine, you don't have the noise issues. Um, I I guess I would like to see public works take a more proactive approach towards sustainability. Um, understanding such as things as with the uh with with the Polaris, with the Rangers, with those wi
with with those vehicles, yeah, there's a significant CF difference, but looking at other things such as converting over uh discontinuing the use of internal combustion engines for your weed whackers and your small power tools and looking at, you know,
potentially adding an electric, not an electric vehicle to your fleet, like a pickup truck or something like that. Um, right now we're going in reverse. Um, and that's that's no no pun intended on on the fact that we're buying. It really wasn't. Um, and I and we've had a
similar issue with scholarship America and the new construction there. I think we need to actually take a step back. If individuals on the city council have talked about climate change being something of importance, are we actually making progress on a lot of the things
we're doing when we're actually when the decisions are coming down, we're actually in this case, for example, going backwards on an EV, what are we doing to make up for it? Right now, there's nothing to make up for it. Um, so that's I guess and that's not just for public works, that's for other staff
as well is what are we doing um from a greenhouse gas perspective, are we actually making progress um and and can can we be better um instead of waiting for direction from the council to build a solar array? Um what can we do from
our tools? What can we do from our vehicle fleet? there there's a whole world of things we can do and I'd just like staff to actually um take a more proactive approach in that. >> So, thank you. >> If I may. Y >> um decisions like this come through a process that the council's involved in
in many areas. One of the things based on the communication that you've provided to us based on discussion at committee meetings and other activities that you're under has been that as a part of the budget process as we come forward um we will try and identify opportunities for costs and benefits
relative to these changes. That way hopefully the council has a more informed opportunity related to whether we're compare comparing uh K Cabota RTVX2C gas versus uh whatever electric vehicle and so we will work hard to do a better
job with that. I do think there are many areas where you've done well but there are some areas where we can continue to improve and we'll try to do that and provide that opportunity um as we continue to move through budget process and I hope that will feel better work better for you. That's our goal.
Yeah, >> thanks Phoenix. >> Thanks. Uh, any other discussion of items on the consent agenda? >> Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call role, please.
>> Council member Weisenfeld. >> I. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> I. >> Council member Devos. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> I. >> Council member Pettis. >> Hi. >> Council member Ram. >> Hi. >> The resolution is approved. We have no items of unfinished business tonight, so
we will move on to new business. Our first item of new business is assessment for unpaid miscellaneous charges. Uh the memo for that appears on pages 56 through 57 of the packet. >> Mayor, members, Perry is here if you have any other additional questions.
This relates to the first hearing that you had as a part of your evening. Again, this is for work miscellaneous charges. Um, and you'll see the reflection of those located on page 57 and what they're for. Perry, I don't know if you have anything to add other
than you put this together, we send the notices, we follow the state statute. >> Yeah, I mean, some of this is, you know, it's it's the goal of council and and I think of our entire community to make sure that we keep our sidewalks safe. We keep properties looking proper so that
they're there. Some of these are, you know, things that happen as as life events happen to property owners where there's there's a, you know, a break in a chain of ownership because of uh, you know, a fatality in a family or, uh, particularly here, you'll notice if you
look at the dates on snow removal, this is a very low late snowfall uh, uh, this past winter. And so sometimes I think people were just, you know, not in the right place. This is a longer list than you normally see in the past. Uh but we still have to keep our sidewalks safe
and we want to keep our our community looking right. And so these things, you know, tend to happen and and you know, maybe as as we look at this list and now we have a new communications and sust sustainability person, we could try to you know, head these things off at the past and do a better job that that we
don't have to provide these services for people if they're being a little more diligent or they understand what what's coming. So um this is a longer list again than you've seen in the past. We do just have the one waiver on it, but the rest are these services that we we
provide to the community um based on our our ordinances that we have in place. >> Anything to add? >> The only thing I'd mention is that the interest rate is set based on your assessment policy. >> Are there and that well and I'll add to that that that's actually a very good
interest rate because it's based on what we just got on our uh bond issue for the new city hall. Um, any questions for Perry or for Todd? Dustin? >> Um, not a question, just a comment on it. I am sympathetic with some of with the people who did reach out to us. Yeah.
>> Frustrated about it. Um, I myself got hit with a bill four years ago right after getting on the council when mine was the only address on the my house was the only one that had any snow removal done on the block, but someone happened
to complain about my address. So, I got hit with a bill. I would like us as a council to not only revisit this and how it's enforced, also how we're enforcing our law and ordinance and how people are getting cited. >> Well, that leads to I I guess I had a
question about whether or not enforcements are happening based on a complaint basis or is it staff making observations generally speaking or maybe it's a combination? >> I'll defer to Pete. Um, when it comes to lawns and
sidewalks, it's basically a complaint driven. We don't go out and look for problems or try to um implement work for our staff because it looks like we should be doing something there. We kind of let the people kind of decide whether
we should be doing some of those activities. Now, if they go for a complaint, like say at Dustin's house, but the next yard looks the same, we will do that as well. And so we're in the area and a lot of these areas that we get complaints are on uh major
walkways where kids are going to school. A parent may see that and call in or whoever it is that calls and complains. It it might be frustrating for them if they have mobility issues or can't get someplace. Um related to yards or lawns. Again, we go through the process. We
have Liliana who does a lot of that investigation first and kind of makes that decision based on what other people see of that and she makes a determination and then crews go to work. >> I have one follow-up question too. Based on one of the letters we received, how
long does it usually take for a resident to receive notice that they've got that that snow was removed or they probably noticed, but not always. >> Yep. Usually it's within a month. Okay. >> You know, we have a couple week period there. Now, this year we did have a snafu in the delivery of the mail.
>> Oh. >> Um, we had some issues with how that got to them. It got there late. By then, most people, you know, it happened in March where a lot of these came through and by the time they got their letters, it was spring and we'd forgot about snow by then except for the invoices that
were out there. >> Sure. Okay. Carrie. Oh, sorry. Todd, do you have something to add? Okay, Carrie. >> The dates. Um, so it looks like it was, you know, mid mid-March the 13th and 14th. Um, one of the letters
references February snow event. >> Um, are the are the dates of the actual snow removal or when the letter is sent out? >> Probably when the invoice went out. >> When the invoice went out. >> Yeah.
>> So then that's rep. So then >> that might not necessarily be the date that the actual snow was removed. I'm just trying to connect what's in this letter about snow accumulation with the dates here. >> Sure. >> But we don't know the the date necessarily.
>> No, I I believe what you see within your packet for the dates are the dates when um snow removal or lawn mowing was completed was took place. um the information related to when people received notice, the notices were mailed
and some people did not receive notice for whatever reason with the postal service. I don't have a rationale for that part of it. Um I think it's important to note as the council reviews this and the council can certainly review any of these rules at any time
that you would like. However, um you do have a number of folks here related to snow removal and lawnmowing. um you have a lot of other folks who did keep track of this or who did make it happen as
well. So the council's always in a tough spot when you're looking at these types of assessments to find that balance within the community that's appropriate or not appropriate, >> right? You know, and it's not that we we have visited this not that long ago. And when you think of the purpose of what the policy is, it is for safety and it
is for um accessibility. Just just going around um as I I walk in the winter uh blocks around my work, it is really frustrating. Um, I understand right when a snow falls that you're not going to have time to get out there, but when
it's been days, um, it is frustrating for people walking, for people pushing a stroller, for people with limited mobility. Um, we have the policy for a reason. I understand it. It does not feel good to get a fine. Um, and it
doesn't feel good for us to hear people upset about that and I understand that. But the policy is there for a reason. And um we can revisit how we're communicating with the community about that, but I would say, you know, we have a communications person now. Let's let
them do their job um this upcoming season to to get spread the word about what the rules are. Um but I don't know that I'd want to spend a a great deal of time on this. We've we've talked about this. >> Additional questions or discussion?
I think I would like to probably revisit this again and see if we have some different opinions. I I think it may not make sense for us to be charging estates when people have passed away to be taking care of their lawn. I think there's room in in this our budget for that level of leniency in certain
circumstances. So, I do think this would be worth revisiting at some point here. >> I will note that's been in the state for a long time. So it might be that the just that the house is in the name of because we've had this one for >> many years. >> With some of these we only have the data
that we have. We can't speak to what the family might be doing or other folks are doing relative to that. But we are certainly always open to that type of correspondence. >> Often times these types of notices >> languish for a long time on a desk or
someplace else. until we get to this point. >> And I'll add that, you know, obviously I'm very new to this and and it's something that I I would like to see my side of things, make sure that I know exactly how to answer these questions about when was this work done, you know,
when were what happens notice-wise and and these events. and I'll strive for as we go through this process in the future and then also revisit it as as you've requested um to make sure we have good data on exactly when these things are happening and we're building a better
and better you know way of communicating with with Pete's shop on how to do this and where things are happening. So, uh I'll consider all that as we move forward. So, I appreciate the feedback. >> Kind of just to piggyback on that, knowing exactly when it took place,
going back and looking at historic weather during that time in St. Peter, it was like 74 degrees. We had a hot March. So, if somebody got a tenth of an inch of snow on Wednesday and they saw it was going to be 74 degrees on Thursday, it's going to melt. You know
what I mean? So, that might have been the thought of some of the people, too, because you're like, "Oh, it's short weather. Let's put the snowb blower away and you know >> well um and we articulate within your snow policy which is on your website for snow removal that residential
enforcement is not your number one priority. There are higher priorities and so your sidewalks and your trails are completed before any enforcement is done whether there's a call or not in that instance. So these are not the
priorities for removal of snow. the property that the city that the community owns, trails, sidewalks, uh, parking lots, roads, all have priority over enforcement of residential snow cleaning rules. >> That's that's a good thing to note
because sometimes I know I've received a, you know, complaint from a resident who says, "My, you know, I've complained about my neighbors sidewalk. The city hasn't done anything about it." It is because we are prioritizing our public spaces first. We are not running
overtime. We are not doing those things in these enforcement issues unless there's a substantial health and safety hazard. >> Each one of these events would have been at least the third day after it the preip came down. So >> the our first priority is streets and
sidewalks of ours and our crews make sure we're completed before we look at anything else even if we get a call the first day. So, what is the city policy as far as uh when residents have to have their sidewalk cleared? Is it >> the ordinance states 24 hours?
>> So, it has to at least a day has to expire, correct? Before the city would even go out, even if they got a say it snowed in the morning and somebody complained in the afternoon, correct? They wouldn't they wouldn't actually >> enforcement wouldn't even be looked at until the next day at at the at the earliest.
>> Right. And and just to be clear, it's the end of the snowfall. So, as an example, it snows Monday, doesn't snow Tuesday, Wednesday, now snows again on Thursday. Um, we probably aren't out there until a week after that initial snowfall based on the prioritization
under the policy that the council sent or put together. In addition to that, it is not our goal to clean people's sidewalks. We want them to clean their own. And one of the questions that previous councils had said is, "Well, why is it $100? It doesn't cost $100 to
take care of that sidewalk. I'm not going to speak to the cost of that, but the previous councils have determined that it's important to set a rate so that it's not attractive for people not to take care of their own sidewalks. And so that's why the rate is set at the
rate that it's set at as well. Um so again, we're happy to revisit this if you want. You do have a resolution in front of you that provides for the assessment um that's listed on um page 60. Is there additional are there additional
questions or discussion? Hearing nothing further, the resolution adopting assessment for unpaid charges for municipal utilities and writing off bad debt utility charges. Oh, am I on the right one? >> Uh, one before. >> I think I skipped I think I skipped ahead.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. I'm on the wrong page as well. >> Page 58. >> You know what? I think it appears we have a typo in there resolution. Okay, that's what it is. All right. Yep. So,
we are looking at page 58. The title will be corrected. It is assessment for unpaid utility charges. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Council member Shroom. >> I.
>> Council member Devos. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> Hi. >> Council member Johnson. >> Hi. >> Council member Pettis. I, >> Council Member Ram. >> I, >> Council Member Weisenfeld. >> I, >> the resolution is approved. >> Madam Mayor, just to clarify, the resolution that you just approved has
been modified to include unpaid miscellaneous charges. The next one would be utility charges, ma'am. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Gotcha. Um, so the next one, uh, the memo starts on page 61 of the packet and
Perry is here to talk to us about that. Um, again, this is based upon uh utility charges that have gone into um an unpaid status and also involves writing off smaller amounts under $10, ones where
there's um a bankruptcy or a um fatality that are um a deceased utility owner and the details of that are listed in the exhibit. Madame Mayor, because Perry is new to us and this is the first time through this
process for him, I do want to articulate that these are for utility bills where the cuto off date is the end of May 2025. So this not does not include this summer. Um I think that's important to understand and it does not include electricity because under the state
statute you cannot assess electric. The remainder of this including wastewater, storm water, water utilities are allowed for under state law and this follows your process and the state law under Minnesota statute 429. >> All right, questions for Perry Ben.
>> So, real quick question. So, we've got the total, the electric total, the assessment amount, and the nonassessed amount, right? So, what we're assessing is what's under the assessed column, correct? >> Anything on that list under $10 will be written off. >> Yeah. And they shouldn't >> No, they're still on there. There's
>> There are some on there. >> Yep. RLJ Holdings for $1.21. >> Oh. >> Um >> I apologize for that then. >> No, I just wanted to confirm. Smalland LLC for.36, >> Mary J. Larway Living Trust for 53
>> and Ramston Real Estate LLC. So, those will be written off. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's I was just confirming based off of what was in the memo and what was showing up on the assessment. >> Yeah, when I do the final role that I sent to the county, um I'll pull that off, but I'll I'll do in the future I'll
make sure that that happens before it comes to hearing andor uh the resolution. >> No problem. >> Well, and it is kind of nice to see the the total >> the whole thing. Well, and madam mayor, if I can, the reason that we provide the whole total is because the remainder
then by passing this resolution is written off as well. >> So, you're really doing a couple of different things potentially here. >> Yeah, >> I think I can summarize that better in the memo, though. So, >> yeah. >> Um, no. >> Understood. Thanks. >> Yeah. Additional questions.
just look just kind of breezing through this and and thinking back to previous years, it seemed to me like there were more rental properties than we've seen in previous years. Is that just >> I wouldn't disagree agree with you on that. Um
>> I would agree. I mean I think it does feel that way or has felt that way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> These vacasillate quite a little bit as we articulate in the memo. If we have a larger business that this has struggled, this can change the trend line in the total amount quite a little bit. It
might also be important to note that as we look at the number of delin the amount of delinquencies here and the range of what we're assessing in the $12,000 range, that's on a book of business that is approximately 17 18 million give or take a little bit.
>> Yeah. 22 >> 22. Thank you. Uh any further discussion? >> Actually, I want to add one comment to this is something that I'm hearing as I go through this process because I've talked to a number of landlords who are
trying to rethink um how they understand this because again, if as you look at these delinquent bills, they don't necessarily go to they don't go to the customer, they go to the property owner ultimately. And I think some of them are are using this information to maybe figure out how they want to strategize.
Hopefully, they're when we send delinquent notices, they not only go to the to the utility customer, but they also go to the landlord um of the particular property. And I'm hoping that they will pay more attention to that. And we're going to try to do a better and better job of communicating that in a timely manner so that a landlord
before it gets to this point can make sure they're communicating with customers and that they know if somebody's moving out, oh, I should check when they move out, maybe I should make sure their water or sewer bill is paid and maybe take that out of a deposit or something like that. So, I think I think through better
communication as I get to know our customers and our process better, uh, we can do a better job with that. And I I hope to make this list smaller in the future. >> Yes. And I know Brad is a uh we've talked about this in previous assessment and whether or not um landlords want to
pay those utilities themselves and and some there are other strategies as well, Brad. >> Yeah. Um yeah, I would agree. Yeah, as a former landlord, I would recommend to have the landlords just pick it up and and essentially monthly assess it. Uh the thing I was going to note was also looking through this similar to Ben is
I'm seeing um well for example 1 2 3 the Nicollet Hotel they have a number of ones that have a total of like uh the fifth line down has $300.68 total bill electric is $368 but you have $300.68
being assessed which we've been told the electric is nonassessible. >> Yeah. There must be an error there. >> Okay. Yeah, and I'm just seeing I'm seeing quite honestly uh well all all of them for the Nickellet Hotel are that way and then I saw that further down as some so just something correction
>> corrections that that are going to be double check that one too. Um there there certainly with rental properties can be house accounts as well. >> Okay. No, I'm just saying you have uh you have the total equal to the electric and you have it as a you have it you have it as access.
>> Yeah, that could be that could be a formula error in the SPE. Yeah, that that's all I just to make sure that these things are cleaned up before. >> Nope. We'll do >> anything. >> One of those beauties of legacy spreadsheets, right? >> Always check your formulas. >> Mhm.
>> Um, anything else? >> No further discussion. The resolution adopting assessment for unpaid charges for municipal utilities and writing off bad debt utility charges begins on page 63 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. Second.
>> We have a motion and a second to call the role, please. >> Council member DVOS. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> I. >> Council member Pettis. >> I. >> Council member Ram. >> I. >> Council member Weisenfeld. >> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> Hi.
>> The resolution is approved. Thank you. Um, next up, area transportation partnership application for South Third Street. And Pete is coming up to talk to us about that. I'm going to be here for a while. >> Um, on page 66, we start with a memo
that talks about uh completing an application for area transfer area transportation partnership ATP funding. Um, so we in South Third Street, we have about a $2.46 million project plan for 28 or 29. Uh some of this funding here
relates to the calendar year 2030. So we would have the opportunity if the grant is successful to use it at a variety of different times. We just have to front the money and go forward. Uh from that point of view, um as you know, this project here coincides with some of the
other work that we're doing in town here. So we've kind of got a lot of applications that are going to come to you for approval tonight. Uh this is to get funding uh on the federal level for some of the roadway improvements. Uh anything we receive for federal funding funding on this project would also um
require a 20% matching fund from the city which is normal for the federal funding projects that we do get. Um, currently we have a transportation alternative grant in the amount of $575,000 and that's for traffic calming, ADA
improvements, and uh, alternate methods of transportation that would go along with this corridor. So, you can see we're making a pretty good size impact on this. If this grant is successful, um, we would be looking at trying to um,
cover the other cost through the utilities with water and sewer, the main scope of work along here. And the reason we're taking the street out is because of utility needs underneath that. Um going forward, as I also mentioned, um
we'll have some other applications here and uh we are going to continue to work on the ATP and transportation alternative grant side uh for some additional fundings that we have identified. And what we're hoping is that council will authorize staff to go ahead with an application and we'll get
that submitted um in January. All right. Thank you, Pete. Any questions? Anything to add, Todd? >> No. >> All right. Hearing nothing. The resolution for support of an area transportation partnership STP small urban roadway
funding application for improvements to South Street Third Street from Broadway Avenue to Malberry Street appears on page 68 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Mayor Noel. I, >> Council Member Johnson.
>> I, >> Council Member Pettis. >> Hi, >> Council Member Ram. >> Hi, >> Council Member Weisenfeld. >> Hi, >> Council Member Sharstrom. >> I council member Deboss. >> I >> The resolution is approved. This is going to be an exciting and impactful project for our downtown. So, I hope
residents will pay attention as this evolves in the next few years. >> Great. >> Uh, moving on to feasibility study for North Fourth Street improvements from Cadam to Scarrell. >> Right, Madame Mayor and City Council. Uh this is part of the you've probably seen this identified in the budget process.
Um we are looking at doing a twob block section of North Four Street uh Chattam Scarrow that's been identified as having some of the highest needs in our both our street surface and utility improvements along the way. Uh what we're asking you tonight to do is to approve the feasibility or to approve
the staff going out and working with Bolton and Mink to complete a feasibility study to find out if this project is uh feasible. Um, we are planning to work this project as a 429 project, which means that we'll go through that feasibility and we'll
create a a list of improvements along with the anticipated costs for our citizens along the route there. As you know, the city is going to be one of the major um property owners along that area where the pool's located. Uh, which brings up timing for this project if
things would go ahead. You've got a schedule um on the back page here. I believe it's page 70 that talks about our timeline. And again, we would be looking at starting this work later in 26 than we usually would do. Usually try to get these bid out in January,
February. But because the pool takes operational um time, uh we would probably be starting this work late in August with the idea that we have a few months to complete this work. That's why we cut it down to just two blocks in this calendar year because we didn't
know if we'd have time to do a third block. And so, um, with your permission and approval of the resolution, uh, we'd authorize a feasibility report and some of the engineering practices that would go along with that, uh, in the amount of
$70,000. And again, if the feasibility comes back that it is not, uh, feasible to do, then some of these fees would not be implemented. So that is kind of where we stand. Uh there is a resolution on pages uh 71 and 72 that um
declare our intent. >> All right. Questions for Pete. Hearing no questions. The resolution authorizing Bolton and Mink to prevent to prepare a feasibility report and complete engineering for the 2026 North Fourth Street Chattam Darrow Street
project is on pages 71 and 72. Is there a motion to approve? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Council member Johnson, >> I. >> Council member Pettis, >> I. >> Council member Ramp. >> I. >> Council member Wisenfeld. >> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> Hi.
>> Council member Devos. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. The resolution is approved. >> Thank you. >> Next up, intent to participate trunk highway one. Is that trunk highway? 169 improvements project. >> Yeah, correct. >> There's so many abbreviations. you you
question yourself. >> I'll try to add a couple more during our conversation here. >> Um we've been working with Mandot on the North Minnesota Avenue project here for about a year right now. And um our goal
with this is that MDOT likes to look at this and have participations from the communities they work in because a lot of times there's utilities, sidewalk, curbon, gutter, tree improvements, medians, turning lanes, all these things that to mind uh
really don't make a difference. They're trying to get cars from A to B. And by agreeing to the intent to participate is they allow us to work with our engineers and their engineers to come up with a project that really meets the needs of our community. And so by working with uh
Mandot, we get a little more out of this than just an assessment project and or utilities that are improved because if we had to pay for that street above where our utilities are, your your assessments would be not cover very much
of the project. As you can tell, we've got about $2.41 million in improvements that we're looking at. uh that includes engineering and all of the things that we talked about that I'd mentioned here as far as utilities and lighting and and all of the others. And what Mandot would
like us to do is um approve the resolution on page 75 that talks about our intent to participate with them on the project. And right now that project is scheduled to go forward in 2028. As you know, it was originally scheduled for 27. They've pushed it to 28 because
of some other needs in our region. Uh that still works for us. Uh we do have a couple of sewers that we're keeping an eye on that are in failure mode right now. So we're hoping that we can keep them flowing without additional cost. So it's kind of critical to some of our citizens that this does move forward. Um
but we'll work with them the best we can to make sure this happens and what we're asking you to do is approve the resolution indicating our willingness or intent to participate. >> All right. Thanks Pete. Any questions or discussion? I think it is worth noting that the reason for this discussion is
when we reroute the traffic on Washington and Broadway. Correct. >> The council has presented that we're going to have traffic issues there. >> Correct. >> And MDOT has been responsive to our concerns. >> Great. >> They have done additional work such as
traffic counts uh looking at a variety of different uh incidents that happen along those routes for detours. So uh they're not going to put us in a position where we cannot be successful. >> Um so as we uh discussed in a workshop, one of the concerns and we discussed
this with Mindot present was uh speed along 169 and a big concern was the speed limit being raised. >> Um as Mandot indicated uh um and I I see no speed study is included in here is if they don't conduct a speed study, the speed limit will not be increased. And
is is that accurate that at this point MI mind that MDOT will not be conducting a speed study to >> it is their practice once a project is completed to see what the speeds dictate. I don't know what their plans are as far as if they're going to conduct a speed survey or not. But the
way our design uh what we're working with on a design, we hope to be able to um reduce the speed just by doing the traffic calming and the other activities such as narrow lanes
um along that route. And so um speed studies can also be a benefit to us. So if we see people driving over what they feel is going to be the design, every road has a design and a speed that should fit that accommodation. So if
they see that traffic, some of that's enforcement on our side. And so we would work with our local u police department to make sure that those things happen. >> Um well, I will say I'm not in favor of participation if the opportunity is
there for Mandot to actually increase the speed regardless of what intent is. As the MDOT representative said, if they do a speed study and the 85% threshold says it should go up to 45 or 50 miles an hour, they will raise it to that. Um,
I I'm not I'm not interested in participating in that event because my concern is that people will see a uh traffic flowing better. Um, you're going to have turn lanes, so there's going to be more accessibility for people to just
keep traveling. Um, I think you could see uh I I think you could see an opportunity for speeds to increase. Um, I would be interested in in if we were to do this resolution. Um, I'm wondering how the rest of the council feels on
this is introducing uh a portion that indicate uh that uh that um the council is not in favor of the speed limit increasing. Uh let me clarify that uh for the count this this is more of an agreement of intent to
participate with the design and the corrections that we've identified. Um I don't want to sound harsh but mindat doesn't need our permission or our disagreement to do a speed study. They can do what they want to and we are by
far better by trying to participate with them to implement some of the changes that we feel are worthy such as lower speeds. uh by working with a design crew. >> If I can add, staff at DOT is well aware of the
council's desire not to see speeds increase. That is one of the reasons that they've been collaborative in entertaining medians and other design I'm trying to think of the right term
design criteria that it's believed will help reduce speed. Um, I think the challenge that we find ourselves in is that it is it is not likely that DOT will do a study right after this, but they're not going to guarantee that they're never going to do a speed study.
>> So, I that's that's the challenge that that you have. >> Um, and as we send this information to them, if the council approves it, we are happy to articulate that in writing. We want to make sure that we're clear as we send this resolution based on the discussions that we had had with
multiple design team members over the last year that the council is not interested in seeing an increase in speed in the area in in 169, but certainly in the area from Cadam to Union. >> I would I would appreciate that. I mean, I know we had a recent conversation with
Nick and Jen, >> and so they I think they heard us loud and clear on that, but it never hurts to >> say it once again. >> Um, >> and I can make sure that as we provide this correspondence that we also ensure
that the district engineer, and I'm sure that he is because he and I have spoke about that, but as we provide the letter, we can make sure that he is on the receiving end of that letter. Additional Ben, >> from my recollection of the conversation that we had with them, them doing this
project doesn't trigger a speed study unless we request it. However, down the road, five years down the road, eight years, six and a half months after the project, they could do a speed study, but we would have to request them to do a speed study after this project's
complete for them to do a speed study. is that >> it is not their intent to do a speed study as a part of this or directly after this project. But Pete and I can't guarantee that they won't come back in the future 10 years from now or whenever. >> It was unless we request it. We would
have to request a speed study after the project for them to do a speed study. >> All right. I'm not seeing any more raised hands. Uh the resolution indicating that the city of St. Peter support the intent to participate in costs for certain improvements on trunk
highway 169 in conjunction with state project uh 5209-81 is on 70 page 75 and 76. Is there a motion to approve? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Pettis.
>> I. >> Council member Ram. >> I. >> Council member Weisenfeld. >> I. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> I. >> Council member DVOS. >> Nay. Mayor Noel. >> I, >> Council Member Johnson, >> I. >> The resolution is approved.
Next up, Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding for Washington uh Broadway intersection. Pete. >> All right. Highway Safety Improvement Program. HZIP um is a federal aid grant program that
we're trying to receive funds for. Uh if you remember a year or so back, we did an ICE study intersection control evaluation uh which is a requirement in order to receive grant funds for a potential project. Uh we completed that
uh submitted that uh since we've uh studied the intersection already. Uh it would be our intent as we mentioned back then to apply for some federal aid for this. Um where this comes and becomes a tricky situation is of course this would
be on the um detour route for the Minnesota Avenue project. Um and Mandot has planned for certain improvements at that intersection regardless of whether this roundabout goes in or not. Uh they're planning for it not to go in in
time uh or have funding for that project at that time uh which would mean additional traffic concerns at that intersection. One of the things that they are very positive about is that if a roundabout funding should come in, it would be very beneficial from Mandot's
point of view to keep traffic moving and more safe at that intersection. So, what we would like for the council to do um is to authorize us to um apply for up to 75 uh 7 thou uh $750,000
which would require roughly a 10% match for funding in that um expected expected cost for roundabout now is over $2 million. So, you would have some funds coming in from that and we were still looking for additional funding along that route. And what we're asking is
that you allow us to put our name in the hat and see if we can uh receive some grant funds for that. Uh the resolution is on page 79. >> All right, questions for Pete about this one. >> Brad, >> um quick about this. So I'm I'm in favor of this. I think a roundabout in that
intersection would be helpful, even, you know, ignoring the 169 project. I think from a long-term planning perspective um uh I did receive a email asking about um one of the things they had mentioned was in enhanced uh for example uh potential
pedestrian crossing lights um uh opportunity for uh like pedestrian enabled crossing lights um just because from a visibility perspective particularly there visibility for pedestrians might be um a little more difficult and that's a busier intersection. So is that something that
might be is that something to that I'm assuming would be entertained in the future as far as when we look at this >> right um during the detour that is one of the major considerations there is pedestrian traffic um >> again working through design would uh
solve some of those issues and improve pedestrian safety there. >> Great. Thank you Pete. Is it accurate to say that often as a part of the design process, not just crossing lighting, but regular street lighting is a consideration and part of the reviewing
the design process. So that might make that intersection brighter from many aspects. >> Correct. Yeah, lighting is very important there. >> And it's also worth noting that the there's a visual on page 81 of that intersection. That's not a finalized
design. That is just >> conceptual. >> That is just let people see and imagine that is not a final design. >> Right, Dustin? >> Actually where I was going with it. When we originally came up with this design, I expressed concerns about the parking
on Washington and on Broadway and question why we couldn't move the roundabout further towards the little triangle of >> quality. Correct. Correct. So, I would like to see us shift that
direction to have a lesser impact on the houses right there and the apartment complex. >> That will be part of the design work that gets done. Um, there'll be a review that's done of many different opportunities. I can't guarantee that's
how it finally ends up, but it is certainly something that we have and will be reviewed as a part of the process. >> I would just like it on the record that I still hold that position. Yep. >> All right. Any further discussion about the resolution on page
79? All right. Hearing none, the resolution of support for 2026 highway safety improvement program funding for the intersection of Washington Avenue and Broadway is on page one uh 79. Is there a motion to approve?
>> So move. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Ramp. >> Hi. >> Council member Wisenfeld. >> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> Hi. >> Council member Devos. >> Hi. >> Mayor Noel. >> Hi. >> Council member Johnson. >> Hi. >> Council member Pettis.
>> Hi. >> The resolution is approved. Dustin and I already jumped forward and gave the folks at home a little sneak preview of uh our next discussion which is the local road improvement program for Washington Broadway intersection. And there is a visual on the second page of
that memo. >> Right. Correct. Um this uh this is basically the state the state uh program uh what we just asked you about for the federal aid side. Uh without repeating myself again um local road improvements uh similar to what we've applied for in
the past for um Sunrise and Broadway uh and Magnar Parkway where we received grant funds for that and participated and helped us build that project. Uh this would be needed again in order to get this project moving.
All right. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, the resolution approving support for local road improvement program application for Broadway in Washington Avenue is on page 82 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion and a second. Call the roll, please.
>> Council member Weisenfeld. >> I. >> Council member Charstrom. >> I. >> Council member Devos. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> I. >> Council member Pettis. >> Hi. >> Council member Ram. >> Hi. The resolution is approved. Pete, >> break it all yet or
>> everybody stand up and stretch. Let's talk about a street sweeper purchase. >> All right, now some serious business here. Uh 2026 equipment certificate and our budget uh includes money to trade in one of our uh 2013 sweepers and purchase a new sweeper. Um the last couple of
years we've um tried to make that extend because we had some other uh equipment certificate needs within our organization and so um we we did some um what I would call major repairs to our sweeper to get it to last a couple more
years. Um that has happened. We're uh uh we did get the two years out of it we needed and it still has fairly decent tradein value. Um, so what we're asking tonight since this is a an equipment certificate purchase is that you authorize us to order the equipment. It
won't be in until um after January, uh, and get things moving for next year. Uh, this would also allow us to trade in the existing sweeper, uh, receiving a credit of 39881 for that. And, uh, we would come in right on budget at $280,000 for
the equipment certificate. Uh as you can tell, especially uh at certain times of the year, we use both of our sweepers uh very consistently. Uh and we are making an impact uh as Brad had mentioned earlier on some of our sustainability issues and goals there, not only with
leaf collection, but with uh solids on the streets. Um and we keep pretty clean streets. and it does show an impact uh because we do uh sump maintenance on a lot of our major thoroughares and we're seeing a volume reduction in that area.
So we know that the sweeping program that we have is very effective. I'm asking that you approve the resolution on page 85 which would authorize us to get the ball rolling. >> All right, questions for Pete.
Uh hearing none, we're considering a resolution authorizing the purchase of an Elgen Pelican NP street sweeper 2026 equipment certificate. Is there a motion to approve the resolution? >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion and second to call the role, please.
>> Council member Sharstrom. >> I. >> Council member DVOS. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> Hi. >> Council member Pettis. >> Hi. >> Council member Ramp. >> Hi. >> Council member Weisenfeld. >> Hi. >> The resolution is approved. >> Yeah. Uh, could we have maybe a naming
contest for street sweeper? Kind of like they do for the snow blocks. >> Good. >> Well, we'll talk to Corey about that. >> Um, All right, next up, wastewater treatment facility engineering. Pete,
>> um, mayor and city council, as you know, we have been working with Bolton and Mink Engineering and Rice Lake Construction, who is our, uh, construction manager at risk uh to identify needs and solutions for our bioolids um, processing at the
wastewater treatment plant. Your wastewater plant is 21 years old. It has been in service since February of 2004. Um and it has run its useful life as far as the bioolids are concerned. Um some
of the things that we still have going on um that have been finalized is um bioolids. We're looking at changing our operation from a lime pasteurization process to a drier process. And the benefits behind that is something we
talked about at workshop where we have a reduction in volume and hopefully uh a lower chemical cost. Um we'll have a little higher electric utility bill uh just for the mere fact that we are
replacing electricity with chem the chemicals. So chemicals will be reduced, electricity and heat will be um in addition. Um the selection process is keyed around class A exceptional quality bioolids. Uh that is where your current
bioolids are. There are less restrictions uh when it comes to disposal. As you know bioolids disposal has come under scrutiny in the last few years because of PAS and other inner materials in the bioolid. Uh we feel pretty comfortable with the process we
have. We'll be able to meet the needs for the next 20 years. We do not anticipate a PAS um permit requirement for at least 10 years and then usually what you have after that is about a 5 to 10year period where they allow you to implement your changes and meet
compliance. And so we think we can do a very high quality job with this existing system that we're proposing and we will have a reduction and or less of a disposal requirement. Um we will have waste load volume reduction. will be uh
a lot lower than the current volume that we currently pos uh dispose of. And then uh we're going to do some major increases inside our bioolids liquid storage tank. That is before it is dewatered. Uh if you remember back in 2004, well you guys wouldn't have been
there in 2004, but one of the engineering practices that we did was to eliminate one of the walls inside the bioolid storage tank. And what what gives us flexibility going forward is that we're able to shut off half the tank and do maintenance on the other
half. Now we have to take the whole tank down uh in order to perform maintenance. And that is uh all hands on deck type of materials where you can't make a mistake and it's really caused us some operational issues. And so we're going to put that wall back in and try to help
our staff operate that facility a little better. Um again, uh the design of the facility will qualify us for uh clean water revolving fund dollars. Um grant dollars may be a little tough for us to
go after just based on the expected uh rate increases that we will be discussing within the next year or so. Once we identify that design, we can come up with some numbers that'll talk about rate impacts. Um and then the Seymar uh will study what we have going
on, work work on our behalf to identify a guaranteed maximum price. And what that means is similar to what we did with city hall, we will break that down into sections uh roughly 15 to 16 sections and then they will break down each area. Uh Rice Lake will then
determine who can perform that work and give us a guaranteed maximum price. uh and then we can still shop or do whatever we need to from that point of view and hopefully come up with a project that can reduce the cost. Uh it's very similar to value engineering,
something that we've gone through on most of our major projects where we look at things and try to decide can we cut this or change this in order for these things to happen. Um, we have to have a plan set ready by uh March 27th to
qualify for for some of the funding and uh it would be our goal to get Bolt the Mink rolling on that. Right now they're at about 30% plans and that was the preliminary engineering that you guys did or authorized uh so that we could work with Rice Lake to get things kind of laid out and see how the uh system
would fit together and how we could uh work with our either silo or bagging operations. and we're getting pretty close on that, too. Um, but the schedule that uh talks about our improvements is on page 87 and a cost breakdown on the engineering is on page 88. And we're
anticipating that engineering cost to be about $996,000. Uh, and then the resolution authorizing us to proceed is on page 89 and 90. And it's worth pointing out that um your council and your staff are working
really hard to seek bonding funding. Who knows what will come of that? But one thing we do know is that they really want you to be pretty shovel ready for your project. They don't want to say, "Yeah, we'll give you bonding dollars, but this is a something we're not even going to be ready to work on for another
three years." And so we really do have to be prepared and start this work. We should be shovel. Well, we should have a a bid package, design package by March. So, >> we'll be right in that neighborhood. I believe uh legislate legislature starts in February. So,
>> be working hard. >> Anything to add, Todd, or >> No, ma'am. Council members, Brad, >> I think one thing you pointed out, Pete, was that the PAS I mean that that it is going to be coming down the road and as I understand it, this is going to help us address right now. And right now, we don't have any PA tests show we do not
have any POS in our >> We do not have any POS in our uh our source of supply which is groundwater. That's very low risk. We do have treatment at our water treatment facility because of other contaminants in our our groundwater. Um but they do
are are effective on our drinking water. So drinking water is pretty much covered for the next several years. Um what happens though is if you do have POS in your drinking water, >> it does go to your wastewater stream and that's where a lot of places are picking this up. Now we've tested our bioolids
and our wastewater and don't have any residual. We don't have any industries that are likely to carry PAS like some communities have which causes a major issue. Um, and so we feel pretty comfortable about how our growth has been and who we're treating and having an eye on him.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion, the resolution authorizing the design engineering for bioolids improvements from Bolton and Mink appears on 80 pages 89 and 90 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the RO, please. >> Council member Devos. Hi, >> Mayor Noel. >> Hi, >> Council Member Johnson. >> I, >> Council Member Pettis. >> Hi, >> Council Member Ram. >> Hi, >> Council Member Weisenfeld. >> Hi,
>> Council Member Sharstrom. >> I The resolution is approved. Thanks so much, Pete. >> See you next week. >> Give Ben. >> We'll let Ben have a turn to uh talk to us about Conor site selection and timeline.
>> Ben, I'm going to leave this lead this discussion and certainly more complex questions or other questions. Ben is here to provide additional information as um best we can for you. The information on this one starts on page 91 of your packet. Members, you've
talked about this for over a year now. Multiple multiple meetings. The information that's included in your packet. I'd love to tell you that there's a lot of new information in here, but there there really isn't. This is information that you've seen before. You've had the opportunity to discuss. Um you've been able to weigh the pros
and cons of this. Um, as you know, this is to potentially move forward on a site um to work with potential partners Cone North if you enter into a development agreement on a new type of housing development that's higher density and
use uses facility built housing. Um, you've talked about a couple of primary locations and staff indicated to you at the last workshop. We believe that there's maybe three, could be more potential locations, but one of the challenges that we have is trying to ensure that we're putting our energy and
resources in an appropriate location. I do want to mention without talking and as you know, we've talked for hours on this. So, and you know me well enough, I could talk for hours on this alone. So, it's not my goal to do that to you or with you, but I do want to mention that on the bottom of page 93 or towards the
bottom of page 93, I think are the two most salient questions that are really before the council tonight. And I don't know that there's a right answer. I think this is somewhat subjective and based on your belief on what's going to happen with pros and cons moving forward that range everything from cost to the
receipt of grant dollars through Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to the ability to see financing in place for facility built housing. um to what could happen if we use land for this purchase to what can we purchase other parcels of land for if we if the council decides
not to use land that you currently utilize. And so those two bullet points I think articulate those questions which really get to is a somewhat better site with higher complexity and extended timeline better than a good site with lower complexity and a clearer timeline
and then therefore what do you focus on? The council suggested that it makes sense to be on the record to provide direction to staff as to where you want us to go with this type of development with your potential partners on this. In addition to this, you had a discussion
at your workshop that asked for utilization of housing dollars. You have some housing dollars that are set aside that are primarily derived from housing tiff districts that are available to use driven for workforce and low to moderate income housing. And so we've provided
that information and the information I think is good information. My hope is is that's not necessarily the basis for any decision moving forward. Um but really how you view the future and what could happen. We're happy to answer questions as best we can, but really the
resolution that's in front of you says um you're directing staff based on the staff's recommendation to focus on a Klein Street location. If not, if you vote in the negative on that resolution, um then staff will work towards trying
to find and acquire other potential locations that meet the requirements that either you've established or you've established in cooperation with CO North, this housing notforprofit that you've worked with. Um the resolution is on page 96. And again, other than those
two questions, I would focus on page 95, which is what happens if you don't act. What happens if you don't approve the resolution, and certainly it's always an option of the council to modify that resolution. There's boatloads of stuff that you could discuss. You've talked about this many, many times. So, we're
happy to provide whatever we can as you try and make a decision on the resolution that's in front of you. >> All right. Thanks, Todd and Ben. Um, I myself will be voting in negative for moving forward with Co North and Clin Seed. I love the Co North project. It's
a great great idea. Um, the location I don't think fits the use of of this project. And here's here's a couple reasons why. Um, last election, one big push was what are we going to do to bring businesses in town? If we donate,
because that's what we're going to do. We're going to donate h 10 and a half acres for CO North um in the industrial park which actually has a value of of $46,000 an acre $15 per square foot times 44,000 square feet per acre times
10.5 it's just under $500,000. So the actual cost of land that we would be giving would actually be twice of what it would be if we purchased new land. If we were to utilize housing dollars to purchase different land, we would only use 10 and a half acres, we
would have more acres to be able to utilize for other housing dollars uh or other um workforce housing or low to moderate income housing like with u Habitat for Humanity, Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership and things
like that. Um, if we were to donate 10 and a half acres in the industrial park, what would we have left for acreage that's not spoken for? Cuz I remember four years ago, it was really empty and
now it's almost full. So, this is kind of giving away one of the last large footholds in the industrial park for housing. Like I said, I love the project, but I will be voting in negative for it. And those are the reasons. >> All right. Thanks, Josh.
>> Um, I will also be voting negative for this. Um, I really, similar to Ben, appreciate and like the project and think that their goal is certainly fit for somewhere in St. Peter. However, I
strongly believe that while we're building affordable housing, we need to build affordable housing as a part of the community and not place affordable housing on the outskirts of town. I also think that when we zone the area for industrial use, it makes far more sense
to have industrial uses in there. I I've publicly come out against the building of residential housing in the industrial district in general and believe that that area is better suited for business development. Um, but in general, I believe there are other properties in
town that are more suited towards Co North and their goal that will be more integrated in the community and serve them for a longer and and more fruitful purpose. Brad. >> Well, um, once again, uh, I'm also in
favor of Co North in general. Um, similar to Josh and Ben, I'm not in favor of this location. Um, Ben and Josh spoke very well as to the reasons why. So, I won't reiterate that. Um, the one thing I will raise is people ask, well, we've already done residential in in in
in our business in our business industrial park up there. Um the opposition I have to this particular residential uh one I should say one of the reasons I believe integrating them but this differs from the other residential up there in the fact that
our other residential is tied to you can is directly tied to other residential in the area whereas this there would be three different business/industrial facilities in between the next residential development from the city.
Um you can look at the Solless Apartments which back up to Washington Terrace. Um then new apartments that are being built up there. They have the state facility followed by the Benedicting facilities. This we're this essentially we're hopscotching and
skipping over and just putting this um away from the other residential. Um so that's that that that's another factor as to why although I voted for a residential up there, I don't like this particular location. Um, and I do
believe as Josh said, um, there there are locations that can make them more a more integrated part of the city. So, so that's why I I believe this development will be successful regardless of location. I think it will fill up because there's a desire for this
housing. Um, but even with the loc with it filling up at the Klein Street location doesn't mean that was the best location for it. Um, so that's but uh so that's my opinions on it. Carrie. >> Yeah, I support the Co North project. I
support the location on Klein Street. I've talked about this at length and I don't think I'm going to change any minds here today, but I do want to explain why. I um want to support the Klein Street location. I think um as we
look at our comprehensive plan, there's a lot of planning that we're going to do about industrial, business, residential. Um you know, this isn't the only opportunity here for a business park. And um you know,
the business park, there's still there's still room for businesses there. And sometimes what can spur development is having more people in the area, more people that might work at those businesses. Um, and
so I do think it's a happy marriage of those two things. Um, when you know with my work on Rita, the the biggest challenges for businesses really is workforce right now. Um, and then of course that relates to housing. Um, so
I've I've talked about this at length. Um, I do I do support Klein Street and I will be voting for it. >> Dustin, >> obviously I think all of us agree that we're in favor of the project and even
if there is a no vote, it's not no that we want to work with CO North. It's just geographically where we want it. I agree that the project is wonderful. I also agree with the people voting no that it is not the most ideal location but it is
land the city owns. I did reach out to city administrator Pvkkey to question an alternative is we did within the last couple years purchase a large chunk of land from the school district with the direction the
school district wanted us to develop housing. They had held on to that piece of property for years thinking it was going to be an additional school, but they took a step back and said, "Well, wait a minute. If the city can't add housing, we aren't going to need another
school." So, the statement that that's the only land the city owns is not it's not accurate. I think we should go back into workshop and we should try looking at all options and make sure that we make the right choice here.
Daryl, >> has Co North, this is question for Todd actually. Has Co North um indicated what property is they desire to develop on? >> Yeah. When they were at your goal setting session, I believe it was your last goal setting session, they were
very clear that they believed that the location on Klein Street had the best potential for them. They saw it as a positive site. Um different in some respects than some of the council members had mentioned. They will continue to try and be happy to work with us on any site, but they did prefer
the Klein Street site. >> Thank you. >> And Todd, was that mainly because of timing? >> Um because having to acquire land would would add six to eight months to the opening of the project. >> Um
certainly timing is an issue. Um there's not been a projection on six to eight months. If you go on other sites other than the site that was mentioned in Traverse Green, you still have to provide for acquisition and negotiate purchase and a number of other things.
So from a staff perspective, um we have not speculated what the timeline is just longer for an additional site and they have other resources that are timeline driven as well. So that's that that I
mean at least from my perspective is the biggest challenge that you all face. it becomes increasingly more complex to do a project at another location, especially if it's a location that you still have to acquire, do all the
engineering, do all of that work that's necessary. And I think a private developer would tell you that the opportunity to purchase a lot or 40 acre track or any acre track and have it move from purchase to building within six to
eight months is that the the possibility of that is very low. It's not impossible, but it's very low. Many of the projects you guys have worked on take well and this one has been on the books for a couple of years potentially already and and we're still at this
location or still at this point in the process as to where we going. So >> well my and my concern is because we all are supportive of this project. I mean across the board I think that there's consensus that we see the need for
varied housing options and affordable housing in our community. I think because it isn't perfect, I fear that we are going to lose the opportunity alto together. And so I just I I don't know that I'm going
to convince anybody because we have talked about this a lot and I did push for us to just vote on it already because we've talked about it so frequently. I think in pursuit of perfect, we might lose something that we have a great opportunity with right
here. And so I will vote in in favor of it. I also happen to feel like it's a good location. Uh long-term Washington will connect out there and so it's feels a little bit in the middle of nowhere right now, but eventually it'll be connected. Um some other parcels of land
that for sale that are for sale I I think are just as on the edge of town as as this is and not as um connected in some ways. So, I'll I'll vote in favor of it. Brad, >> um just a quick question. I'm
referencing council me council member Charstrom's uh comment about the fact of the school property that we acquired. Um is to a take if there is a negative vote on this um is to take that into consideration. Um or and maybe you could potentially elaborate on had you
considered that up to this point? Um if so, why not? or or and and if you've determined >> from a staff perspective, >> we have considered that up to this point. From my view, it would take a change a policydriven change on the part
of the council in relation to the Traverse Green neighborhood. Let me define that more clearly if I may. First of all, if everybody can kind of picture Cullen Street and how it divides that property, about four fifths is east of Cullen Street and about 1/5 can is west
of Cullen Street. Um certainly the area um where platting has been discussed and platting has taken place contemplated for that area east of Cullen Street has larger lot development focusing on opportunity for culde-sac and lots that
are generally larger than 10,000 square ft. For those folks that might be listening in that aren't aware, um that's a lot where you might typically see a lot cost and assessment in the $ 80 to $90,000 range or more. And that
homes that are generally valued, at least in today's market, more than $400,000 are placed. The area west of Cullen Street was really contemplated for a similar lot size development for
starter single family homes that were in that neighborhood of 250 to low $300,000 and would maybe more closely replicate what we've seen in successful neighborhoods you've had like Nicollet
Meadows um Washington Terrace and the first phase of Traver Could it certainly be put in any of those locations? Yes, you could certainly change direction and do that. Um, my perspective has been, at least based on the work that the
council's done to this point, is that that wasn't something that you were necessarily going to entertain now until other opportunities were exhausted because, at least from my perspective, I believe that you felt you had a solid development plan within that Traverse
Green neighborhood really impacting across the marketplace except for that high density manufactured home development opportunity, which this is. Um, so I hope that answers that's that's where we're at,
>> which I will circle back to that. I I do wish that an option was presented to the council to explore that you have a neighborhood, you have a park right there, you have trails right there. Looking at it from a geography perspective,
we then would have a neighborhood there that has virtually every level of income housing available to us. My fear is my fear is that yes, if we vote no, we could completely miss out at this point in time. That's my concern
with a no vote. >> That is my concern, too. This is affordable housing. This is something that we all care about and we're so stuck on the location and we have opportunities to work with our community
on making a plan for all of the concerns that were raised housing first. All right. If there's no further discussion, the resolution that we are considering for directing staff to provide development agreement to CO
North for property on Klein Street is on page 96. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Mayor Noel, >> I. >> Council member Johnson, >> I. >> Council member Pettis, >> I.
>> Council member Ramp. >> Nay. >> Council member Weisenfeld, >> no. >> Council member Sharstrom, >> nay. Council member DVOS >> nay. >> The resolution does not pass. Moving on. H repayment agreement.
>> Madame Mayor, members, this information starts on page 97 as the members may be aware that you know more for more than a couple years ago you were awarded resources both from the federal government and from the state of Minnesota. Those dollars from the state of Minnesota came through DED and these
were for dollars for um improvements to the roof and mechanical systems at Parkview Manor. Um DED has done a review of all the activities that have gone along as a part of that and they are requesting that we have in place a repayment agreement between the HA and
the city of St. Peter. Technically those dollars received by the state or from the state of Minnesota were received by the city of St. Peter and not the HR. So that's why DED is wants to make sure that there's a repayment agreement. Generally speaking, the repayment agreement provides for a couple of
things. The primary of which and the most concerning um or the thing that they want to address primarily as a part of the agreement is to ensure that um this property stays has naturally occurring affordable housing. And so
that we don't make an improvement and now all of a sudden someone sells this and it becomes luxury housing and is remodeled for luxury housing that if they're putting resources in for roofing and mechanical that it's used for its intended purpose which again is naturally affordable um occurring
housing with within the community. Um that's the basis for the agreement that you see. You'll note that this has been signed and approved by the St. Peter Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the resolution that's on page 100 provides the opportunity for you to
direct the city administrator and mayor to also sign that agreement to meet meet that requirement from deed. Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, the resolution entering into a repayment agreement with the St. Peter Housing Redevelopment
Authority is on page 100 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Council member Johnson, >> I. >> Council member Pettis, >> I. >> Council member Ram. >> I. >> Council member Weisenfeld.
>> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> Hi. >> Council member Devos. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. The resolution is approved. Last item of new business. MRVT Federal Transportation Administration Drug and Alcohol Policy. Mayor, members, this is
a policy that is exclusively applied if approved, if the modifications are approved by the city council um to Minnesota River Valley Transit employees, primarily drivers in this instance. I want to make clear that again this is for drivers with Minnesota
River Valley Transit. And although similar provisions apply for all of your employees that have CDL license, this one is specifically set up for MRVT. The reason that this comes in front of you after review by MRVT is that while MRVT could take action, they weren't asked to
take action because MRVT really doesn't have any employees. The city of St. Peter maintains all of the employees. So any personnel policies that you adopt really do apply and that this is the proper place for this to occur. Um, there aren't any what I would call
significant policy changes to this and this comes after a review by the Minnesota Office of Transportation who has perview over reviewing this and frankly the federal government in the state of Minnesota provide at least today up to 90% of the funds for running
your transit system both here in St. Peter and Lassour which is the joint powers entity. Um so the recommendation from staff is for you to approve this um addendum to your personnel policy and all these rules again relate to MRVT
employees primarily drivers. Happy to answer specific questions as best I can. Um these are really drug alcohol testing policies and procedures. Again happy to answer any questions you have might have. the resolutions included in your
packet, I believe, on page 120 or 121. >> 121. >> Thank you. >> Any discussion, Dustin? >> I did reach out to city administrator Pry um about specifically on page 107 when you look at THC and marijuana
questioning why essentially it is forbidden entirely from use. And I would like him to provide clarification or the same explanation he gave me earlier for the public. Yeah, as you know and as I mentioned earlier, um federal transportation dollars are used for this and although we've had a lot of
discussion within the state of Minnesota and particularly with this council related to cannabis licensing and other issues related to cannabis use and licensing, um that is not necessarily the case for the federal government who's providing the resources for this. um they review these documents and
without having the appropriate language and following the appropriate policy um you could be or MRBT u could be subject to a reduction or loss of all those funds. Um this is not unusual. Um these
continue to be similarly placed as to rules with CDL drivers and I'm happy to talk about policies and procedures more on that. But what it comes down to is that they provide a lot of resources and the rules related to marijuana and other drug use within the federal government
has not changed. And so here's where you are. Um me asking you to approve a policy so that um we can meet the requirements based on the audit that was done by Minnesota Office of Transportation. >> Thank you. >> Additional questions or discussion?
>> Yes. >> This was reviewed at our last uh transit committee meeting. Brad and I attended and was given the once over by them. So, >> thank you. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion, the resolution providing for
modifications to the city of St. Peter personnel policy manual for MRV um MRVT assigned employees is on page 121. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Council member Pettis,
>> I. >> Council member Ramp. >> I. Council member Weisenfeld. >> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> Hi. >> Council member DVOS. >> I. >> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> I. >> The resolution is approved. Uh we will move on to reports. I have no reports at
this time. Are there any council members who'd like to make a report? Carrie. >> I'll just make a quick report on the fall uh Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities conference. Um that's the conference where policy positions um are approved by the membership and um this
upcoming legislative session is just really going to be about protecting LGA and bonding. Um it's going to be hard to get much else done. And so as we, you know, locally here think about our legislative priorities,
focusing on bonding and LGA is something that we've done in the past and might be worth our uh time in the future since that's pretty much um there's, you know, not a lot of policy making will likely go through in the upcoming legislative
session and and bonding is so critically important and we have our own projects uh to request. So, um, otherwise it was a lot of learning and great connections and, uh, Council Member Pettis, do you have anything to add? >> Um, housing, housing, housing, housing.
Uh, Coalition Greater Minnesota Cities, uh, you should be receiving emails from them, usually about once a week, and they've, um, they're reaching out to council members, uh, city staff also, just to talk about some of the perceived threats to housing. Um
there's been a fairly um strong push at the legislature the past couple years um about undoing some local control, local zoning, uh parking densities, things like that. There's a feeling and it's it's it's according to the people who
are speaking there, it's it's not really a red or blue feeling. It's it comes from different parts of the state. Um there's too much red tape. If we cut the red tape, we can fix affordable housing. Um, if we don't require this color
siding, we can fix affordable housing. Things like that. And all of us know it's not that simple. So, um, please fill out the the email or the um the questionnaire that they have sent out. and please be prepared um to possibly
testify if we need to at the legislature on in short at short notice due to some of the things that are coming up with housing and some of the things that could be fairly detrimental to um some of our efforts within this community as far as providing housing. So,
>> and one thing to add on that. Um, while we were at the conference, I asked Ben Baker, our community development director, to fill out the the study or the the survey, and he did. And so, the lobbyists through the coalition are
going to really use our positive stories that, you know, all the creative things we've done in our community um to really share that, you know, communities across the state are not the bad actors. is there's very few bad actors. Um but we're that that we're making a lot of
moves um in a positive direction for housing and being creative and um so >> and yeah, >> the other housing piece, the the frustration um um over some of the Minnesota housing,
some of the grants that have gone out there that have really been slowwalked out. These funds were approved in 23 if I'm not mistaken and they're now just making some of the grants. Um, and
some of the choices that were made for some of the projects like for some of the grants are real head scratchers putting uh housing developments in cities of 600 people. Um, I think the largest one was 6,700 people. That was the largest community that received any of the
housing infrastructure grants. It's a pretty small city. Um, and just the there's dollars there at the state supposedly waiting to come out and fund some of these programs, but they're not being released. So, Todd probably knows a lot more about it than than we do, but
there's a lot of frustration within that room on there was supposed to be housing or supposed to be dollars available for this and it's it's just being slow walked out. Well, I I signed a letter um regarding that to Minnesota Housing as my role with as president of the
coalition. Um and so there's, you know, a request to engage with Minnesota Housing about what that criteria is and how it really addresses the workforce housing needs. Um and just clarification on how how those funds were rolled out.
So accountability is also a a big important uh matter too. Thanks to both of you for attending uh the conference and Carrie for serving as president of CGMC. It's really important work. Um any other reports, Brad?
>> Um well, I've I've made uh I've called out Mano Ballet before for their performances. So this weekend I'm going to call out uh our our local high school in their production of The Little Mermaid. Um it was honestly a spectacular production. I saw it yesterday. Um, of course, hard part of
about feeling old is remembering when a lot of the main characters were in preschool. Um, but I just a a big kudos to our the performers as well as as well as the staff who went into it. Um, and if we we are privileged to have such a
great theater available for these performances. Um, and I just uh big congratulations to them. So, >> any other reports from council members? All right. How about our city administrator? >> Um, madame mayor, I don't have any others other than a request for close
session or technically multiple close sessions for union negotiations under Minnesota statute. And so, um, I do not anticipate coming back into open session other than to adjourn. The close session would be for negotiations related to
your utilities group which is water wastewater storm water, your parks group, your streets or maintenance group and your police unions. >> All right. So we we will >> go someplace >> go downstairs and >> Yep. >> All right. Um is there are there any
questions? The resolution calling for close session is on page 122. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Council member Ramp. >> I. >> Council member Wisenfeld. >> Hi. >> Council member Sharstrom. >> I. >> Council member Voss. >> I.
>> Mayor Noel. >> I. >> Council member Johnson. >> I. >> Council member PZ. >> Hi. >> The resolution is approved and we will uh adjourn to close session. And it is 8:38 p.m.