it's uh welcome to Mountain City council meeting it's Tuesday March 26 it's uh 7 o'clock we're in Mountain City council chambers can you rise for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for it stands one nation God indivisible with and Justice all right we got our agenda do we have any amendments no amendments okay and I get a motion to approve the agenda I Mo that we approve the agenda okay and can I get a second second all those in favor please say I I I those oppose all right that passes then we got the consent agenda does someone want to go through [Music] those see well I can read the consent agenda I have one thing on C it should I think say 7:30 p.m. to 12:30 12:30 it should say 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. oh am versus p.m. yeah so the consent agenda a approved payment of claims B approved minutes March 12th 2024 regular meeting March 12th 2024 Workshop meeting C approve resolution approving public gathering permit for 2024 Mount Farmers Market uh Saturday March 25th through Saturday October 12th and again it should say 7 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. with reduced fee due to community benefits D approved 2024 Planning Commission work plan and staff project list and E Pay request number three in the amount of 15,646 650 to minger construction for the 2023 lift station Improvement city project PW 233 okay does anybody want to pull any of those talk voting all right can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda all right can I get a second second okay roll call council member Larson I council member mckin hi council member pew hi council member castalano hi mayor Hol hi all right thanks all that passes uh number five we got comments and suggestions from anyone that the topic is not on the agenda anybody want to come up you're the only one all right well here and none we'll go to number six Mound uh state of the water good evening Mr Mayor members of the council Brian Simmons your Consulting city engineer uh today we are back in front of you to discuss where the state is of our water uh I think this is timely and pertinent there's been some news lately some things happening we've got some money uh also it's uh worth taking this time I think to remind us all of you everyone watching at home where things are at uh and how we are proceeding on their half uh as well as you know what is being done behind the scenes to strive for Safe Water for Mount residents hit it Jesse so purpose and process I kind of hit that but uh our purpose here provide them residents of Mound with safe and affordable drinking water uh that is a a statement that's sort of cobbled together from a couple of title slides and some things that we've talked about in the past in this venue um if you think I got something wrong there please hit me with it but I think it's pretty safe to say that we are all aligned in that that purpose and vision uh not to go too far back but just to remind everyone uh we studied the solution we looked at a number of different options we talked about it at length uh and what we've come up with is the solution is to construct a water treatment plant to remove the manganese it will remove some other things but our primary suspect that we are after is the manganese uh this solution and all of its pieces and parts has a $36 million price T so that's that's sort of setting the playing field for where we are today why we've been after money why we uh are struggling to figure out how to pay for this especially with knowing that we have made all these investments in mound's water system in the past so our drinking water at the source uh in these two tables the test results on the left were taken in 2021 after the notifications from the Department of Health uh and and I zoomed in there on the manganese I left all the rest of the test results that Max contamination limit in this case uh it it sort of it has an asterisk I took that off cuz I didn't want to include all the other test text but that Max contamination limit you've heard this term for me before is a health-based limit which means that it's not hard science but that is the milligrams per liter that we are using as a guide uh and so just to sort of audit ourselves we went out and we took some tests we want to look and see where things were at and as you can see um actually we're missing a zero and some of those but um no that is correct so you can see uh well number three in 2021 had 761 milligram per liter and in well number 8475 and you can see these these samples were taken from across the community in different places we wanted to get a good idea of what the water is like coming out of the Taps and we are still in that high range and that is you know scattered around we go anywhere from0 4 3 to 634 so that does leave us in a place where the notification that we made previously to our residents uh that we were exceeding the health based limit you know that if you are consuming the water especially for infants children you know formula fed infants you should consider those other measures so um go ahead Jesse funding to date uh this is a one where we get to actually celebrate some of our efforts a little bit uh many of you up there uh Jesse been working hard on this you know we've been at this for a couple of years now uh but we have asked a number of places the state of Minnesota for direct Appropriations we've asked the federal government for direct Appropriations and then we continue to submit our project to the drinking water revolving fund which is the iup and the PPL the intended use plan and the project priority list and those are considerations for funding that exists on an annual basis uh that's primarily doled out as lowest loans and small grants um so to date we've received 10.3 million from the state of Minnesota via direct Appropriations uh and then we've received just a little under a million dollars recently from the federal government via direct Appropriations uh so that's that's new that's a a thing to celebrate we're getting some money we're gaining some critical mass but there is still a 24.5 million gap in the funding for us to complete the whole project so uh We've made some progress but also we have a long ways to go um one one thing to mention you know that hopefully we see soon is the change the amendment to that bill that lets us unlock that 10.3 million Jesse why don't you flip to the next slide uh the iupp PPL um apologize for continuing to use those acronyms we we rattle that off a lot but those money monies are administered by the public facilities Authority uh ironically they're the same body that is being tasked with managing the 10.3 million in direct Appropriations that we received uh and so I just wanted to go back and revisit every year that we have submitted Mound uh and you can see it's been a little bit all over the place but we're trending upward and so in 2022 we got 10 points we were ranked 343 somehow and possibly we went down in 2023 we got less points uh but in 2024 was when some new rules took effect and the PFA has started factoring in manganes uh up until 2024 in this scoring system they did not consider manganese a contaminant and so uh I think we're going to see that continue to Trend upwards um also if you look at the full list Mound is is sort of among friends unfortunately but there are a number of communities that also have a similar manganese problem from a similar similar aquifer uh and we're all clustered together in that 15 points while that might not sound like a lot you know there's almost a thousand submittal on this list and so for us to go from 3 343 and 658 up to 135 like I said we're trending upward unfortunately but also that is good for us um this is in my mind sort of a back stop you know we're going to keep asking for these other sources of funding these other uh you directed Grant programs for Safe Drinking Water But ultimately if we are ever asked to come up with a match uh or we are ever asked to close a funding gap or we are presented with a funding Gap this is one likely Source uh one thing one tool that PFA has in their box is sometimes they like to refinance existing debt uh and so I I don't want to make any promises because obviously nothing is in front of us uh but one thing that we may be presented with in the future is an option to refinance some of our existing bonds that paid for water projects along with a low interest loan and hopefully that is very small because we are able to procure most of the remaining 24.5 million so fingers crossed on that account so implementing the solution it's a little wordy bear with me uh like I mentioned we are working to unlock that existing funding uh and I hesitate to use this term because I know there are some politicians that throw it around but that would bring the project to shovel ready status that means that you could unleash us we could begin design we could have plans and specs ready to go uh even for the things that we don't have funding to build quite yet and that would be a move on our part that would show how serious we are and sometimes there are certain types of funding that ask that question specifically are you shovel ready and you need to be able to hand them plans ins specs and say here you go may I have some money please uh we're going to Comm continue to submit for direct Appropriations uh those follow you know usually the two-year banal budgeting cycle on both the federal and state levels so we will continue to ask for those monies um I want to call out you know efforts by the mayor council members and Jesse uh and also former city manager Mr hoverson um there's a lot of things happening behind the scenes for people that are asking for money on our behalf in general we will also continue to submit this project to the iup and PPL again administered by the PFA uh one reason we do that is that there are other sources of funding that also ask are you on that list and so for us to even be considered for direct Appropriations we have to tell them that we have gotten in line for the low interest interest loans uh and also please understand our plate and how we got here uh and why we are asking for Grants you know in lie of the low interest loan and frankly the PFA at this point would struggle to fund the remainder of the project as a whole as well uh and so then we will continue to push manganese and manganese as a contaminant at the state level uh that's sort of a Grassroots thing that that I'm working on other engineers in the background in our interactions with the Department of Health and the mpca because they are part and parcel to the situation that we find ourselves in you know we were instructed that one was almost four years ago now during our our weird midco times meetings right over over in the uh the theater uh when we had to stand in front of the public and tell them we knew we had a problem with our water and part of that message was mandated by those State agents es uh yet they have very little skin in the game in participating with us so far to help us solve the problem part of that is that their hands are tied that manganese is not lead it's not arsenic it's not things that have very solid very well-known maximum contaminant levels and so we will continue to push for manganese to be considered in the same way that will do a couple of things it will bring the sense of urgency that I think we all feel already in wanting to fix problem for our residents uh but it will bring that sense of urgency to the funding sources as well our scores at the PFA on the iupp and the PPL will continue to go up if manganese is finally considered a true contaminant so that will help us and then um we're likely to see some additional funding set aside for direct Appropriations at which point in time manganese is considered a true contaminant so and then hold on Jesse I got the E yelling at the bottom there that is in in all caps and bold which is to keep advocating continue telling our story don't stop asking uh I don't think I have to remind anyone in here because I think you were all staish advocates for this but uh I want anybody who goes back and listens to this at home reads this later looks at this presentation is reminded that we are all part of asking for the solution so hit it man uh continued guidance for residents uh I wanted to bring some clarity here because it's been a couple years we don't talk about this real often uh and so maintain your water softener and this includes regular salt or if you're using potassium that's fine too uh but also make sure that your resin media is not out ofd uh we know based on the science of how most water softeners work but that process is likely removing the manganese now that can vary widely based on how old your water softener is what condition it's in you know how you have your water softener set when the last time was it recharge whether it's demand based or whether it's time based so I don't want to put any guarantees on that and if anybody is relying on this to bring them safe drinking water we strongly strongly encourage that you have your water tested post water softer but you need to know that that water softening process does remove manganese in the correct situations which is most if it's working properly if it's softening your water it's likely already flocking out that maganese uh so I threw a couple of names up there uh just to remind people and there is a list out there that we have linked to from the water page on our website I believe Still Of The Testing Laboratories in the Twin Cities and the these are the closest ones that also will test for manganese not all water testing Labs will test for manganes um that Tri City William Lloyd analytical lab actually happens to be the back door of the Bloomington water treatment plant that's probably the one I've been to most often um just another reminder I me mentioned this before but bottled water is still recommended for infants those Health health-based limits that3 Mig per liter for infants obviously you saw the test results before we are exceeding that and so if you have infants that are drinking formula made with water that should be bottled water unless you have a high level of confidence that you are removing that manganese and then that healthbase limit is one 1 milligram per liter for adults uh also because we've talked about this before manganese is poorly absorbed through the skin so bathing washing showering using untreated water to wash your own dishes or to wash your car uh is a pretty safe way you're unlikely to absorb manganese from the water that way so you want to put people at ease if they are using unsoftened untreated water you don't need to get bottles of water to wash your car that would be wasteful so let's not do that so that is the bulk of my presentation but I anticipate there may be some questions up here from you all it's called have any questions for Brian we're doing that good of a job there's no questions doing a good job we we not me us together I just have some kind of boldness on what we're talking about just to kind of re recap everything um so this was brought to us I remember I was it January or February of 21 yes and it's March to 24 right so we get that that's been a long time it's been as long as I've been sitting here it's getting old it's it's also a good example right of of like how sometimes other government moves even though all of you up at the day have been able to move on it and say we want to do something with it right we're still waiting for money so in the last how many years we've been doing a lot of things so one of the things is we're working with uh both representative Myers and Morrison that's our state uh legislators and again I don't know about the rest of you but multiple phone calls emails meetings um we just in December mailed the letter to the governor that was signed by all of us uh requesting help now he didn't do kind of a project list this year unfortunately like he did last year but at least you know he got our letter uh we Pro maybe not every meeting but I'd say every you know handful of meetings we're definitely talking about water updates what's going on um it's in a lot of our newsletters it's on our website we have a water tab on our on our website um again we did get 10.3 million for this last year we're trying to unlock that money we can't spend it right now um I got a message from representative admires that it was just uh passed out of the house committee the the correct verbiage per se so we had to correct our verbiage saying that we don't have to have all of our funding upfront to be able to spend this money so we had to read verbiage this thing send it back again just got passed out of the committee so that's a good thing uh now I guess it goes to Senate and then um hopefully gets past year by the end of session uh again once we get that money we're gone I mean it's full speed ah had that'll pay for the design as well as some water man works right um Can can I add to that Jason so so I want to make it clear we are all in lock step that the full solution is is the 36 million that we're talking about but looking at the pieces of that there are some things some trunk water main prepping the site drilling another well right you know the treatment plant itself that can be bid and constructed separately and so we're going to do our best to make sure that we use the money but use it as soon as possible use it responsibly so I don't want anybody to think well you guys were able to get going with just 10.3 why do you need more the full solution still cost 36 million but we're going to get going and I I'll actually just read it here it's uh for grant for uh to the city of mound to predesign design and construct a new clean water well decommission and seal of wells for and number seven installation and replacement of trunk water mains between water towers 3 and 8 pre-design and design of a water treatment facility that's it that's the whole thing but those exact words I guess lets us unlock this money if it gets passed so hopefully uh that'll go like you said your last uh slide again residents emails phone calls anybody on the committee um anybody down there just bug them until we get this uh we just got $959,900 and our Congressman for that um we just spent uh basically a day on on the hill um we had again meetings with uh Smith and or sorry uh KY uh Kelly Morrison and uh Andrew Myers so we had our kind of a personal meeting we spent the day down there uh you guys came and Magie so we appreciate that the time and energy on that um a a couple things to comment on is why aren't we just doing this tonight and being done with it right now we could we could just literally just pass something right now and say we're all just going to pay for it right now the problem is that your water bill is going to double basically it's not it's not going to work so we could if we wanted to but that's we can't we already have one of the highest water bills as it is and it's just not going to work and I'm not for that unless anybody else wants to talk about that that's just not going to happen the other thing is we're 4 million in a hole and our water fund as it is so um couple handful of years ago Council of the past decided to not raise and I think do they just freeze it or did they actually cut it I one year they cut it but I believe the next year it came back up again and then it was frozen then they froze it for how many years so don't don't trust my memory on that either yeah so unfortunately that's where we're at so we're in a big hole as it is um I've tried to figure out other ways could we somehow throw this in the levy somehow just can't be done it has to go on the water side has to be uh in the utility funding so the only way to get this done is for us either to just say hey we're all just going to raise your water bills overnight drastically or we get funding from outside sources so we're trying to get funding from outside sources um like you said we're going to our our numbers came up on on our ranking which is good and bad I mean it's good for funding bad for we don't want to go up but um so that's good we're going to keep trying to do that uh keep advocating on the state level and uh again the federal side and just uh kind of a last thing our our website we try to keep it as up to date as we can we have a water tab on there um like you just said check check your own water I've done it I think some of us have done it um it's was it 26 bucks or something and me you throw it you send it to Eden Prairie wherever it is over there Bloomington or something like that yeah um it comes back with the I think it was the email that we got back uh straight up just tells you exactly where you're at so uh if you're worried at all and you're drinking the water make sure you're you're doing that um otherwise you do have other options you can do again go to the Minnesota Department Health uh was it reverse osmosis again water softener drink you know bottle water get your own uh system per se so beyond that again we we are working this is literally the the main priority of me and I think the rest of us if if we can if I can speak for them uh we're this every day this is what we think about so we're trying uh so again if anybody sees this after the fact um again next steps is Do Your Own Thing If you can because it's going to be a while even if we get the fing tomorrow all of it tomorrow it's still going to be years before this thing is up and running so obviously take care of your your own house and family um if you told me go today it would be two years before we' be drinking water from the I was thinking like four so good you're not going to tell me go today so no I know but right yeah so even if we can unlock this money and then we say we get more next year whatever or over time it's still a multi-year uh deal so I want to say thank you to the staff I know we've been on lots of emails and calls and uh appreciate you again our old city manager as well um any of the staff that that has their hands in this as well as you guys thank you I mean I've told you I've told you our um last minute emails to get funding and you know that's that that $1 million came from literally a 24-hour turnaround or whatever it was it was pretty fast so again I appreciate you doing this and being part of this and keep fighting for us have I ever told you that I submitted one of those over Wi-Fi shared from my phone on a trail outside of duth there you go but I don't I don't say that to margar myself I say that because yeah I understand how important this is for both of us so you know it's it's worth that kind of time okay thank you Brian what ises anybody else haveing for you guys comments or questions or want to say anything all right thank you I appreciate it thank you thank you thank you all right so now we're on number seven motorized watercraft rentals business license ordinance and you want I can just introduce it but I will end up passing it off to Scott so okay okay this is in response to the workshop that was on February 28th um essentially the discussion was can the city license for the rental businesses that use Mounds various uh launches specifically surf sides so um with that I suppose I can pass it off you're going to be the expert on it yeah and this is uh for discussion at this point um and if depending on where the discussion goes I think the plan is to bring this back at the next meeting is that correct yes okay um so starting on page 780 um this is so just R know this is a draft ordinance um if if you look through it and there's any changes or suggestions please provide those I you know I welcome them um I I want to start out by saying is that this this is focused on um watercraft rental business businesses and those are businesses that rent or lease motorized watercraft to other persons okay or another person and a water and a motorized watercraft is something that uses a motor to go through water something is such as a boat a jet ski or personal watercraft you can see those definitions at the top of the uh of of that page um the idea here is that this is a business license to operate within the city of Mound this is not licensing the individual watercraft um those that is still uh subject to DNR and and requirements of the lake Min Tonka Conservation District so the and I did and this is a broad net too this is going to this is going to capture any business that does it whether they are in the city or out of the city um one of the issues we want to make sure is that if they are if if city property is being utilized including roadways that that these that these businesses um will be subject to certain regulations um and I'll go through that in a little bit here I actually bring it down to um page 782 under Section 388 they have to comply with the law this is you'll see a b they need to maintain insurance and the insurance requirements are the section above but it meets the city's minimum tort liability um something happens um the city would be named additional insured um and they and some other requirements in there that are they're standard that you would see in in Insurance that's provided and that has to be maintained the whole time they have the license um they also need to provide a regist or a u a uh they have to have those Vehicles registered as I said with the lak cons Lake minona Conservation District and also the whatever regulations there are with regards to um vehicles um and those may be changing from my understand but we're not waiting for that situation but they still have we're not but they have to have that uh registration requirement then they also need to provide the city with a list of the vehicles that they're using showing and and with other information that we're requiring like by the registration number and to show us up to date if they change um which happens they add a new vehicle in they need to up it's their duty to update that list okay um it's non-transferable and I came up with the idea that as of right now they just need to make sure that it's if you look at e that the license to operate the business um has to be somehow displayed on their vehicles that are transporting their motorized watercraft if it's a better idea or change the ideas we can always amend this ordinance or whatever however we do it cuz but right now that that's the what I came up with um so going back up with regard to the application process starting on 780 um we're going to ask them they go to the city clerk get a application in there um there's some of the information is going to be required is we need your full name name your residential ad residential and business address and we're going to look make sure that's an actual address um as a u telephone numbers email addresses um name of the business of which the license is sought um then that list I talked about the motorized vehicles or motorized watercraft um and any the information that is we is deemed by the city required um and if it's a business entity there's more information need provided let's see who's involved okay um the and then the license itself going back going down to well the I'm back up a little bit D on here in the next page the city it's an administrative act to whether or not to issue the license um if it is to you know they make a determination that they've complied with everything that's there if if it's denied they can uh they have the ability to appeal to the council the license is Good from I the next an E I picked a date I said April 1st to March 31st gives it a year um but it terminates each year so they they have to make reapplication each year um one of the things that um the city council will need determine maybe this would help with discussion is what's the application fee going to be that would be a separate we have to update the fee schedule um that and once we make a termination that could be on along with the ordinance um there is going back down at 782 page 782 and section 38-3 389 there's procedures for uh for suspension revocation um they they have they do have a right to to a hearing so it's going to be revoked I'm Sorry by the there's a right to a hearing with if if for the revocation now if they are acting without a license to do the business um it's like any other code violation it's you know it's a right now it's at any code violation unless it's otherwise stated is set as a misom meter so I think what I would suggest at this point is I I know that you know this isn't just this isn't just focus on Surf Side it's any but that's the main spot um if there my my understanding is that there's going to be some an increased uh probably CSO presence there um through oral police um they can check they can check those licenses and make sure I mean I think there's been Jesse can bring up to speed but there's been discussions with that and if they don't have it they can you know provide them warning you away but if they continue to do it they're um they are subject to uh criminal misdemeanor per occurrence or like how does that work if it's yeah I mean it's misdemeanors are each violation is a separate violation so if you show up then that's a violation show up again it's another violation but we but that would be between um uh uh a criminal prosecutor and and the police would figure that part out would the process of like the Fe schedule just be kind of up to us for discussion on what maybe other cities have done for the same type of thing well I don't know if you're going to find other cities that have done quite the same thing okay um but you know this is akin to as I I've said in the work session um the the tree services because they're outside and they come and use the roadways and the infrastructure um you can look at transient Merchants kind of the same same situation so um you I I don't know what those fees are I haven't looked at those um but that is you know I I I think the idea here is to not not to make it burdensome but to have some you know in line with what what other application fees we have and can always be Revisited if you decide that that it's that maybe it's not enough or too much you can can be changed year by year what's a good standard procedure for like turnaround time like if we were implementing something like this you know for a business to get notified and purchase the license and well I I I did talk to when I was discussing with Jesse um even if this we put went implemented in June once it's implemented then we'd have to send out notice and they have to be licensed but the idea here give you a week or something or like what do you you know well I it's it's right away but and that's why I mean the first year may be kind of a learning period but at least it's it'll tell them you can't be here because you're not licensed I mean that's the whole idea here um but I I believe that when the letters go out with regards to what Andy sends out saying you know here is the here's the rules the this is going to be included in that cool um plus I I I'm assuming we're looking at once we do pass it or I'm sorry if it is passed I should say and enacted um there was discussion about signage too to help sign and and then if the whoever is there with you know with regard to enforcement they can they'll have the knowledge of the code provision with to licensing and tell them to so there's going to be several different points so that's why I think that that this it's going to be the first year of implementation maybe more of U getting people on board um and and if they aren't if it happens that's great but we'll this will make sure that if and in any year if they're coming down with using the the city property and we find out without a license then um then we have a mechanism to uh for enforcement I think I was the one that had brought up the signage at the workshop and just saying how like the word launch wasn't anywhere on there it was like park hours you know no drinking whatever but it would give a CSO or anybody like something to reference if they are asking someone for a license down there to be like it's like what are you talking about sign and it's not a license to use the launch yep that's what's important here this is a license to operated business um within the the the city that that utilizes is um the the city's infrastructure yeah I'm just talking about any sign that could make communicating that when it happens down there easier yeah you know and I and I do think that um like I said that this is a this is a way to make sure that somebody's on a roadway just like we do with uh um other businesses for instance I keep going back to the the tree service but that's an example there's there's Insurance there just or in the transit Merchant just in case something happens that's why I have insurance so it'll capture that um so I I guess the the areas where I want to make sure are you are we I mean are we okay with I want to give a full year so it seems to me April 1st to March 31st is okay because obviously you know it's usually memorial date to labor date so well it's good good timing yeah and I what I was thinking about was um the fact that voting season kind of you know gears up maybe April May and so usually it's not as warm as it has been so people don't put boats in usually but you know um so that that's and I said you know this is uh can be a little bit of a learning curve too so there can be know this can be modified if you know after the first year make determination there's other things that need to be made but this is a general license ing General licensing um ordinance and so it it provide it does provide what you normally would see in a licensing ordinance you know I think you've just done an amazing job capturing everything and this is such a win for mound because these four or five businesses that's been going on for years profit handsomely off the backs of the taxpayers and they have had no accountability to M whatsoever so I think this really helps them be accountable I do have one thing you know one of the companies was planning on this year renting snowmobiles and launching them down at Surf Side so I don't know if we want to add snows to the mix or if this would just be a whole separate thing for snowmobiles well we've been focusing on on watercraft right now um I mean that's out I mean I don't know how the council feels but if you want I mean one of the things I was looking at before was what's you know any motorized um rentals but then I brought it back onto watercraft because I was looking at the biggest issue that Isa was not not I mean you're talking about one company as of right now there were several companies using a roadways using launches and could be in other launches too and this was addressing the immediate need well I'm just bringing this up because we're discussing oh no I'm I'm not yeah I'm just saying I I this it can be expanded I mean um yeah I mean I think you did a great job uh the only thing I don't see which is which goes out in the letters but do we need to be mentioning again because this is what they really take advantage of is they use our park to service their clients to Stage their business basically they move in to Surf Side and that's their business location so I I feel that I I'm not sure if this goes here in the letter that typically goes out I do have a copy of the letter that goes out and they do talk about staging the business but that's one of the biggest problems outside of them taking advantage of our wonderful Park well and I and I do understand that and so if you take a look at um page 782 38- 388 a they have to comply with all local in state and federal rules and regulations I did talk to Andy I believe it's he looked at you know he looked it over with the uh Orono police and there was a feeling that the ordinances that we have in place are sufficient um and so with that we don't need to expand on that in this ordinance itself if if we if there's a determination that the that ordinance is not sufficient um then we would deal with that ordinance itself not in here because this is more of a whatever it whatever city code and laws apply you need to you need to okay follow those so so the um staging in the business can continue to be added to the letter that goes out annually yeah I mean that's and that and that will okay isn't there a separate portion of the city code and I kind of feel like I remember seeing this at the workshop too that there's already something in there about operating a commercial business without a permit in the park like you're not supposed to be doing that anyway but that would be not in this but it'd be a separate violation yeah that that well that's what I was talking about is that that that is a that obviously that's a separate violation and but if you violate that um code provision that can subject you you to license revocation or not it's a catch off for well yeah because if they're offending this they're offending other yeah and so instead of saying well you have to apply to this code this code this code say you have to apply to anything that's applicable okay and that's and you're right there is that provision that's available with regard that's there with regard to commercial activity now and remember this is going to be this is this is a as I said before this is a wide net so it's going to capture you know with regard to that ordinance section any any ordinance section in this licensing is going to capture that to bring everybody into Conformity so that um with the idea that um it'll bring some uniformity with regards to the use of City infrastructure and and the uniformity means uh responsibility insurance and what's make sure that you're using vehicles that you should be using back I said has nothing to do with the use of the launch itself has nothing to do with the licensing of the watercraft this is the business itself exactly what we asked for great well yeah so are there any other questions on this at all um it's great so well I mean there there what so is there any interest at all in having it expanded Beyond just the watercraft at this point um I don't know I mean I guess the winter is obviously not as busy but that's really not the point I mean the point is if you're using the infrastructure to get a license for motorized rentals so I don't know how the rest of you guys feel about it but I mean it's a lot quiet there in the winter but if it's an annual business license it might as well include everything right well this year they didn't get a chance CU we had no snow but they were revved up and ready to go and even if they do or don't it's like the the license is for a full calendar year yeah you know that's why I don't know if you can just frozen water is water right so couldn't you just had snow well the lake is the lake you know yeah well I I think that we probably I mean the way this works out is that it's even if they delivered it to somebody's house and then they from their house maybe they had it for a week and they took it somewhere that's still you that's still here here you know that's still part of it's not just a delivery to the launch so even snowmobiles that somebody maybe have delivered anywhere in the City commercial activity then we would include that in here so I would have to think about how cuz right now it was really easy to say water motorized watercrafts because MH yeah you know so I just have to think about how we want to if we do want to expand it to more than that you know how we're going to to do that because there's other things that are uh uh rented too there's I mean not that we have a spot for it but people do rent four-wheelers but not that we rent them here but maybe they bring them to their house um what if they rent out scooters who know you know who you know who knows where this is going the rentals are going to expand to um so so I mean I if if the council wants I can look at trying to expand it out more um I or or just focus on the immediate issue that we see right now I mean I'm either way is it's doable well I think it's spot on for the watercraft okay and you know just making them be accountable to Mound I just think is it's a brav maybe may maybe what we do is is work on the immediate May a suggest work on the immediate need let's see what kind of winter we do have next year if it is a you know if it becomes a problem we can this ordinance can be modified to capture them for we could Institute it probably that year and say you need to have it or the following year depending on how you how the council decides um because there is part of it too is that there is a I see a need to get this to the next council meeting because the boting season is starting soon you know supposed to starting to make more changes bring it back what do you think yeah I don't know like I said to to your point on that then maybe we just stick with what it is now and then make fixing later if fixing is needed so do we have to have a public hearing for this no business licensing you don't have to have public hearing um so and the other issue is I guess the fee do you know what we charge I didn't even look into it for um say like the the tree service or transient Merchants for an application tree service is $200 okay for the total whole deal for the whole year so we're talking per watercraft no we're talking no no this bus just the business itself okay but they got to have a sticker on each watercraft well no um to get it insured they would so that's on that's that's on them okay yeah well what they need to do is because right now is we're not we're not looking at the individual watercraft themselves and if we what we're looking at is make give us a list you have to have that list with you maybe I'll modify this too is that you have to have your license available and in the whatever so they show up at um at a boat launch they have to have that license available so that it can be shown and maybe one change in here is list has to be shown too so whoever can they can verify list of the of the of the vehicles that they're using watercraft they're using um I didn't put a sticker on here because we don't have I mean we I I know you probably could create one but but I don't know if we need to go that far at this point I I it would be nice to see um how uh how the enforcement goes with that list and then with the with the uh license itself um but well $200 seems crazy I mean can't we amp it up a little I mean if you if you think about you know the businesses like for example the watercraft business down at across from uh back Channel what's the name of that one the boat rental place or the marina yeah the marina or um um you know Bay rentals they're only open for four or five months a year but what are what's the tax revenue we get from them I think Katherine POS she said at one point uh Bay rentals generates $200,000 of tax per Mound a year I mean I think we should be considering that because that's part of the whole point here to make them accountable well remember this is a this requirement for a license is also Bay rentals as part of this too yeah so if there if we have a higher fire fee they're going to have to pay that higher fee too well I mean I mean I'm not here advocating for Bay rentals I'm here to advocate for M right right I was just saying that you look at the capture of taxes versus that it's it's well I just think we should consider I mean $200 isn't much of a detriment but but I agree if we actually enforce this um which we haven't done in the past and if Oro police actually enforces it you know I think we're going to be able to tackle this pretty well and and I will say that that if you price some if you make it so you price people out of the market it will cause um it will have implications that you wouldn't want that's why I was asking before about like I want I want to about the fee schedule and like what we could compare it to like yeah I don't want to fall out of line but it's hard to find an ex example like I think we all want to be Commerce friendly as much as we can and just having the license is the most important part and I agree $200 seems pretty low but I don't really have a means to see where to increase it like getting the license is the important part I don't want to drive people away and make it like a like a punishment to operate here you know like so I don't know I guess that was why I was asking about trying to find a comparison and maybe the tree the tree people that's like you know maybe that's fair um do we do we have a fee for the transient Merchants you know it's it's there's different rates dependent on the length of time like from from a month or from a day through a year so I think it goes from graduates from like $75 to some 75 I think is like a week to like um I think 200 bucks is a I can't I can't remember off the top of my head but it we have a graduated rate but there's a but but it seems like the maximum year seems to fall in line with what we do with the shade the tree tree not shade merant we don't have a annualized date I mean it's based on when they want the rent when they want to provide that service or do that service so okay I think the most important part is getting them a license like there aren't that many of them where it's going to be like a revenue generator it's just you know there's only a handful and be fine with leaving it at like two 300 bucks and and I said this can be this is a yearly thing so your fee schedule is looked at each year you can always increase and decrease it um you know it's I always looks that you kind of Base it on some if you want to Ras it on something that has a rational basis um look to you know what's the administrative cost of issuing a license not putting this program together but us license and it's basically it comes to staff they look through it there's no background investigation you know we don't have that and then if they meet all the requirements then you issue the license and you know right now we've said for something similar we've said 200 is kind of Falls ON LINE whether that's too low too I I think it takes away any leverage for an argument like I mean the benefits there if you pay 200 bucks have a license and you get to use the launch I mean I know it's not a license to use the launch get to use the road you get to use the road yeah you you get to be there you know like I mean that kind of it's a good deal for the business too like we could just set it at that to get it on the next Council and the agenda and modify every year from there yeah after one year we'd be able to see the usage we'd know how many times they came through with their votes and then we can make adjustments yeah and and if this addresses the over usage of our infrastructure then the price must would be seem like it would be would be appropriate if it doesn't then you know the infrastructure is still being overburdened you know then it can be looked at at that time that's that's that's that's my thought but I'm not the policy maker so I I think what we're putting in place if this passes is just a really big win so I think you wrote it really really well so what happens for like the marina that already has both in the water do they still have to get a license since they're using the roads to get them into the water at one point so they're not they're not they're they're the one are they're the ones who are bringing people's personal watercraft down right I I so I can go there and ran a pontoon okay for four hours and then I bring it back there to the dock and then I drive my car out of there but it's their dock but it's their dock it's their and it's their parking lot but how did they get the boat there in the first place we use our yeah well I mean according to how I drafted that that's the wide net that that's brought in if we want but if we can there can be an exception for if you want to accept out if they have their own because they have a marina they have a marina yeah you know so they so they they're using in some sense the infrastructure us tax is lessened they're paying tax because they're not they're not using infrastructure we you can make exceptions well that would apply to Bay rentals too because they have a brick and mortar that they're pay pank taxes so where do we draw the line yeah they're yeah they're delivering but this but this a little B more yeah but the same but at the same time at the same time remember it's not a per bat thing it's just a $200 get your license in get some make sure you have insurance because that's the big thing and and maybe we want to make sure they have insurance for what they're doing we I don't know if that this just applies to rentals yeah anytime you do rentals it applies now if there's a marina that is not rentals you know so where where some where it's just that does not does not apply to that y you know um cuz I the whole idea my understanding was we want to make you know having these boats here and there and whether it's at a launch or or using our streets they there's there's no insurance and that's what I heard is that we we want to make sure they're following the law and they have insurance that's the biggest two things I heard that and and they also don't have a place of business where they can service their clients so they bring them to search side to as the their business location right that's one that's one of that's but you've covered that right that's that's covered correct so um because they have to comply with their buiness the business activity has to comply with the law and it has to have a legitimate address well that's one of what we've dealt with that's one of the things when we look at the application it'll be reviewed and if it comes up as French Regional Park and not not the natural address that would be a basis for not uh you know a complete application right all right well back to the fee I think my vote is just to cover the cost of the staff I don't want to make it hard to do yeah rentals here but yeah cover whatever cost kind of go off what we've done before for other things I guess uh and then do we talking about signage at the launch I guess there's a couple options but anyway would we want to put that part of that or is that a separate thing you put this on there um we do a separate I I guess that's when when the signage is put together for information I guess that's administrative level they can go through that and figure out what would be the best to convey the message I I would expect that we would just add that a city of Mound rental license is required something to that effect I mean the the message from OPD is essentially put it in writing so that they can like say point at it so when somebody says I didn't know you know that is no longer an excuse so we're trying to cover as many bases as we can so the signs aren't printed yet so it's a that's likely an addition and I think the idea let's make it as simple as possible possible so instead of this it's just a few words what you just said was perfect so just so you know I there are a few changes I'm going to massage it a little bit but the but the whole the concept is going to stay the same okay and hear if that's what the council the direction from the council um one thing that was a constant problem down there and we all know the parking is so limited down there SE side does it state in here is it going to State on the sign that there's no no business parking of customers cars there in our in that little bitt we have it's such a premium to get a parking space down there my understanding it is part of the letter it's part of the letter it's part of the letter but it was never enforced but again we've had enough conversations with ch forc so we can watch to make sure that's but it says right here um uh you are advised that with the exception of launching the boats at Surfside and Beach and sequent first come first serve no commercial activities are allowed the storage are staging including personal watercraft units trailers in the park and the beach is not permitted between user equipment handling and turnover actions such condition inspections maintenance checks refueling um are not permitted in the park and also it says business and customer vehicle shall not Park in the surfite park and Beach parking lot you are expected to accommodate client parking within your premises so that's already in the letter okay but do we have an ordinance well I don't know if that that's what I was asking if some of letter needs to be included in there I I was just told by Andy that we have the ordinances in place okay um if we now I will say with regard to the obviously this code it's kind of a catch all it's like comply with the law right and if you don't you won't get a license or your license is going to be revoked um and which means that as we start working through possibly more the more enforcement here um we'll see the deficiencies that we have I'm not saying what is there in there right now um as once once it's tested won't be prob may may not need to be changed but I was told there's no reason to change what's there right now okay and then but don't be surprised if we come back to for an ordinance change because we've learned something well and if it if it gets again included with the letter and actually enforced between between the business registration and the letter it seems that all bases are covered it's just boils down to enforcement then right and and apparently having you know appropriate signage you can point to yeah so I agree with con Larson I mean if we don't put no business parking on there then that's still going to be an issue so we got to I think we got to say that on there and remember the point of the park is not to rent jet skis and park your or park your car there I guess um so I think we we have this pass by that have to remember when we look at the that both those things are on and I think before we say go I'm going to work with you know the parking thing and the rental license right tid it up yeah yeah cuz we'll have this all right any other comments or questions do you anything from us no I I mean I will double what I'll do uh council member Larson is I will double check with Andy too on your issu I just I I mean I I was just I was told that it's covered but I I I'll will double check and if there is simply because we passed this doesn't mean you can't pass another modification to your code after the fact but what's you know like doesn't have to be done at the same time but let's get the licensing you know the idea is get the licensing um mechanism in place and I'll check with uh Andy just to make sure that your concerns on you know we have the commercial activity but your concerns with regard to the um the parking and the use of the parking lot are covered and the park so if we're going to look at this no that's that is covered that one is covered if we were going to look at this at the next meeting wouldn't we want to look at like a signage proof too maybe to say can you mock one up sure and then where do we want them like Surf Side and Center view is there anywhere else you know and those are the two right I I don't know I don't know if there's any thinking of whatever else might be a problem but the other dockings are not guys know of any others do noten those are the only two that I could think of well I I don't know if there's any on Dutch Lake there is but but they're not they're not identified like you know on the maps they're not identified as public docking okay I could only think of those two I couldn't think of another one well but I mean it's pretty specific that it is a launch yeah so think think I think we should include that okay I'm just thinking of like other places like in my neighborhood for example if you were do at three points there's nowhere to park anyway oh you're talking about the end of on a road you know that there isn't anywhere to so the parking isn't part of the issue it's like not every launch needs one just the congestion areas although people have complained on three points because people park in front of their houses but is there rental activity going on down there well what I'm thinking is they're just going to move move on to the next place well they that's our goal make more sign keep them moving on but out of Mound yep we can make more signs if we yeah the two of them for now sure and then and I want to pref the idea is that those that aren't going to comply with the licensing requirements aren't going to be in Mound you know this isn't you know obviously that if you know anybody wants to has a legitimate business whether they're station in on or not this allows them to all come into conformance right okay okay do you need a motion to no direction or anything this was just more of a instead of having a workshop did it here okay may I ask a question have we determined it is this going to be Kevin's job to monitor all these applications who's going to do that I'm just curious do we know that yet well it's the duty of the city clerk to be the one that processes licenses though um this has kind of come together sort of quickly so offline I was going to offer that we could make this a team effort this is kind of getting uh put up you know as the season is already sort of commencing so um all hands on deck as it were and then hopefully by you know a year into this it can be something that's smooth but um yeah and we're not talking that many businesses no we're talking a handful yeah a handful it's new and it could be you know there will be wrinkles so of course yeah so good yeah so don't don't don't expect Perfection the first time around but at least it's in motion and we we'll wrinkle out the uh we'll iron out the wrinkles so just reminded to do the proofs with whatever verbiage you guys would recommend with covering everything we just said got it thanks okay we're going to move to number thank you eight statutory City plan a/ Plan B memorandum and discussion who's taking that one I think that's me again okay um in your uh in your packet in the agenda starting on page 784 is a memorandum from me the council um this just outlays the the what a plan a city is and a plan B city is as you know we're the city of M is a plan B city um there was some questions or discussion with regards to you know if we did want to change how do we change um just and briefly a plan B city which city is is the council is more of a policy maker your only real employee is is the city manager who uh you know runs the uh the that side of the city on a on a plan a city um everybody is the employee of the council the council has more of a uh micro role in the city um the in in here I've talked about in the memo I've talked about how to change the form of government takes a vote it it's basically it once you get once you get to the point where you want to initiate a proposal takes a v a voter approval um and then once it's once it's approved you work towards the change of city um things to look at if you is um that have to be reviewed is the city code the ordinances policies employee handbooks and any contracts and they need to be reviewed to determine if changes need to be made um it can be uh you know all this I don't have a cost on it it wasn't what I was charged with but there is uh uh it can be a lengthy process and I'm assuming it would take uh certain number of uh Personnel hours to go through all these the the these changes so um I don't want to go through and I don't want to go through like word for word what's in here but if there's any questions I'm more than happy to take them well I think initially when we started talking about this we were having issues so I think that in hoping we could look at options would be we would have as a council a little bit more control over over some of the issues we were having at that point I think we've solved a lot of those issues um and beyond that I thought part of the other reason we were looking at possibly switching to an a was that we we would have more ability to um do fines and collect fines for some of these things and if that's not the case that's kind of what I was understanding early on this is well this is going on two years since people started going why aren't we a statutory a and part of that was I thought there was a little more ease in trying to do the feed process and collecting so statutory cities are are governed by uh by Statute the optional plan a or optional Plan B that's just the structure of the government of it but the laws are the same to it so with regards to as you said collection of feeds and and enforcement and those issues nothing changes if you go to A to B or B to a okay it where the difference is and I do not suggest this because this would is if you went to a charter City a charter city um that's where the change would happen but Charter cities are that's a much more expensive and lengthy process with regards to it and then you create Wards and it creates changes the structure of CC commission and I mean there are cities that are like that um uh I think Plymouth is a charter city um so they have Wards cities like Maple Grove it's a stary a city does not have Wards so and they're in the same boat as Mound with regards to code enforcement I'd kind of like to hear from Jesse since you've been in a position a of a statutory a versus Your Role now in a statutory B are you seeing a big change I am as I get more established as it were um we just you know we've been kind of going through I was just I was going to say it at the end but you know we just uh filled the vacant streets position earlier this week um we are now as of tomorrow going to be posted for Public Works director for position we've been uh it's been vacant now for a few months and it's it's been interesting um because I was a lot more in the Weeds on some things that I am not as much anymore and um I think it gives a lot more freedom to this for the staff to to really not that anybody should ever be afraid of their city council but it doesn't but they're they get to work with a almost like a layer of uh between that and that buffer I think I don't know this from talking to anybody I'm just totally guessing but I think there's a certain amount of freedom to that and then I think it really if I was going to Advocate to keep it this way it would be that it really allows the city council to focus on policy and part of that policy is code enforcement and how strict you want to be and how much you want to enforce it so um I work for you and if the if the decision as we've already been talking about is with with the business licensing is that code enforcement needs to be stepped up then that's task to me and and then that'll trickle down if that means we need to staff better or change how we you know have our codes and we work amongst ourselves to figure that out I I I think I think you I think you'd like to keep it this way only because I think that it it allows you that freedom to to think high level and count on it to get done and if it doesn't then you know you don't have to worry about anybody but me and if it's uh hopefully you don't have to worry about that but um I I I really think this is uh it's an interesting style there's only 40 or so cities that are that have this but I 18 18 Oh I thought it was more that was from the league of Minnesota City well either way I I I'm I'm a fan as someone that's only been in it for a few months but um I I do think it allows you to really focus on policy and I quite honestly I don't think you'd want to get into them to that level of detail but um I work for you I appreciate your perspective on and Jesse your number maybe that where you're higher is that Charter cities have a manager and so you know with the word city manager you don't know off hand if it's a charter City or if it's a plan B City that's probably what it is so if I I I just want to make sure I understand this because I tended to be the one that wanted to switch to the a but I had the impression that the reason we're a complaint-based city and we don't really respond and they don't really in my opinion enforce the ordinances is because we are a b and not an A and I thought if we switch to an a we could put some teeth in our ordinances and we could get out there and you know just enforce what we have on the books but if you're telling me there's no difference between a and b as far as as far as our ordinances go I personally I like I don't as a council member I don't want to micromanage the staff I think you need one person they know what's going on we don't know I don't know the day-to-day operation so when I was reading that and then I thought oh that's not what I was led to believe so uh because this question has been asked before about switching so we could uh uh switch from a complaint-based city but I I understand if you see something as a resident of this town you don't ask you don't call up I said you've got to call the city you know not me you got to call the city and say you've got a concern with the the way they keep their yard or whatever that de is so I I would my personal opinion is we stay where we are that's my opinion and think of the difference between a and b is really if you want to summarize it in like in a few words management style MH that that's really what is the laws because you're a statutory City the only time you're going to have differences between statutory and Charter cities okay so I agree I don't want to have to be involved no with managing a staff that I I don't see on on even a weekly basis so so far you've been doing a great job so I I agree I was more um inclined to switch truly based on fees so if there's no difference it sounds like we're kind of unique being that we're one of only 18 cities in Minnesota that is a statutory be so yeah I mean I would say that it's kind of it has the benefits it has that that benefit of what you get of a charter City but you're still governed by the by the but you don't have some of the oddness I think of a charter City sorry for anybody who's a charter city um and uh you know but you're still subject to the to the uh to the uh um statute with regards to a statutory City mhm okay good I'm comfortable staying as a b then to you guys any thoughts I'm fine good no no questions at all no questions all right we're staying okay let's go to the next one thanks for looking all that thank you it has been big question for a long time number nine middle missing middle housing bills opposition resolution so I have a brief introduction and then some LMC model or not model but uh some programs that were put out uh regarding this bill it's called The Missing middle housing bill which in the very very short version is it's a it's a bill that's being heard legislature that um preempts certain aspects of City's ability to Zone and um if if you don't mind Council M minini I will say we spoke about this briefly um so I know you're familiar but the league items are in the packet and then along with that is a resolution which would um basically say that the city of mountain opposes the the um the language in the current bill um I understand Scott that it's changed a little bit since committee but um the gist of it is still there and for what it's worth I would say when I I think my first meeting here was the city of m city council approving a year-long comp plan Amendment regarding um you know zoning so this is very pertinent um this this is one of those bills where I go did anybody even read it before voting on this I I mean it's just an appalling Bill literally dripping cities and really it gets right down to homeowners choice to move for their City forward in a fashion they see fit um and I've been following we we probably all have been since it got put in our inbox in February from the league of Minnesota cities and I've been following it ever since I got out of committees so um when I was in a delegate meeting last week there were several cities that were contemplating doing resolutions so Jesse and I had a conversation about it and I appreciate you're putting this together um and this would be a letter if we end up passing it that would go to our legislators in St Paul and we could also put this on our website and social media for residents to reach out to their legislators as well um if they're opposing this government overreach is really what it is so I I'll just say to summarize the the legislation and I will say that there's been some modifications that just came out of committee but the intent of the bill is to allow um high density housing four to eight units on in basically anywhere in the city in so including R1 zones or residential zones with single family homes next to it without regard with no regard to parking no regard to um any infrastructure and no ability to capture Park dedication none none of the things that you normally would see so you could you could uh have a single family home and if you have a te down next to you next year you know you've got a fourplex that's that's and it can be up to 150 ft tall no I will say that um and it's an administrative Council would never see it so it's an admin would be administrative act you check check check go ahead and build like getting a building permit it would never go it would basically it would never go to the plan commission would never go to the city council it be no neighborhood neighborhood or citizen input on it that's the intent now I just got an update uh yesterday I looked from the league and and the bill that came out of committee they did listen to the league of Minnesota cities so some of the and some of the changes are the let's see this is this is what's added to the bill the multif family development may not be constructed on a lot zone for single family detached home unless otherwise authorized by law rule or ordinance that's new so that takes away that issue now that was I talked about if you're in a single family residential area there's ability for conditional use permits um then they had language in here talking about adequacy of existing public infrastructure those are added in and then they've also added something in about some off street parking requirements now I will say that um the original intent of the bill that was there in legislation is what I just said which was build it anywhere without any public input at all um and no council oversight um you could wake up next day you know you know you have anart something being built I I think if you look at the resolution it talks about what the what the city has done with regard to its long-term plan and this time takes away with it and the de you know takes away the The public's ability to have any input what their what goes on in their City Plus the comp plan you you took a year and a lot of work to get to that point with met Council approving it it doesn't also your 2020 2040 plan has gone through a long process lot of input um the resolution itself is still there even though there's been these changes nothing's done until it becomes a law and there it could be changed again it could be you you don't know and so there's nothing it's so misleading the missing middle housing it literally does nothing to solve that problem and that's where I go do people actually read these bills or do they just go Oh missing middle housing uh I'm concerned about that so I'll pass it it doesn't do anything to solve that so so the the intent of the resolution I believe is just to State rationale for the opposition and that the city council is is opposed to it regardless of what comes out um but it sounds like there is some movement on it but it's it I think there's other cities still putting out that opposition that you don't want to go back to where it was so in regards to this resolution how often would we want or need to be keeping up on the revisions and then well until it passes it's it's talks about future well this is the one changes in the bill yeah this the league the league is doing their part with lobbying okay on it um they've been uh they've been at the committee meetings they've done a lot of uh speaking at the Committees and I think they've had um I believe based on what what I'm looking at right here from the league they've had an impact and and this is just the resolution that says hey we're we don't we don't like what's going on here it's non-binding just we don't like it um probably wouldn't revisit it again but I want to keep up on what's going on just just so you know but I hate reading I do hate reading bills because you know so many that don't pass and that do pass and and I'm more con my end I'm you know I'm more concerned of what's the law going to be but the but this this one has a direct impact to strip the city and the citizens of that local input and local control I don't know if you guys saw Andrew Myers's last email but he addressed it to and voted no on it so did a good job he's the only person that voted no he did a good job explaining why you know so he called me I'm sure he called probably you guys too but well I've had several conversations with him since February about this when it when he first came out and said hey are you are you for local control or not like um okay uh then we went down to City day on the hill and the room was packed I don't know how many people were in there couple hundred people couple hundred and uh there was uh a Republican and a Democrat on the house side and same on the Senate side so there's four of them up there talking about it and anyway when this subject came up the whole place booed so it doesn't doesn't sound like it's a very popular thing um well it got to the committee at that point well and you can either read the notes or what I don't know if it's videotape but at one time wasn't there going to be cities under a certain population well was like 10,000 at one point we're under 10,000 right it's not good for any Minnesota City so bottom line this just a resolution that um says that we oppose it as as our city we just all this time and energy money doing our comp plan Amendment last year that which is funny cuz when Myers called me I was like well we just did all that he's like well it could be a waste of time like what we just did it so anyway any other questions on this okay well can I get a motion to approve this resolution what page is I'll make a motion uh for the city of mound to to approve resolution opposing proposed legislation missing middle housing hf4 009 and SF 3964 and similar Bills going forward to pass this okay got a motion can I get a second second any other discussion all those in favor please say I I I I those oppos I'm in obain obstain okay and then juste will you once we've once this is now that it's passed will you be forward forwarding this to all the legislators yes yes and then can we somehow put on this information on our website or social media because there has been a lot of impact from residents also reaching out to the legislators regarding this thank you all right number 10 we got count comments and reports from Council Members council member Pew um nothing from okay council member Larson um I attended the police commission meeting along with uh Jesse and Jason that was on the 13th I believe of March and um I don't know do you have notes on that I I think so okay I'll let you I'll let you talk about it then okay all right that's it yes all right council member m no thank council member counc nothing okay well say the the notes uh embedded social worker um we're going to do a request to have her come out and talk again I think it's been a year she covers a lot more than I thought she did I guess all right anyway it sounded more yeah like a lot but anyway can you Jesse have her come out you know and speaking about that could we could we get a presentation from maybe her and the fire department about the position that the emergency response people are around Falls I think we need to have an update on that conversation yeah good point you want to have you hear what I was saying I'm sorry I okay I was asking if we could have maybe the fire chief as well as social worker give us an update on what's happening around around emergency response because there's a lot of change in how people want to address that and the cost of it and I think we should get updated the fall is assisted LIF yeah I think the police chief police um I think last time that they were out they mentioned it too but there's there's some underlying legislation going on proposal and we're gonna have we requested a workshop yet on the fire department tentatively our second meeting in April we did intend to have a uh the fire chief at a oh 6 PM Workshop to discuss um ongoing fire coverage and um kind of how Chief Peterson's laying out the future of Duty Crews and and that's actually I'm sure a topic that he would love to cover and has covered uh at Fire Commission meeting and some other meetings so probably just something that maybe is included in that but um if if we get social work here maybe that evening too it could maybe we could just roll that into 7 o'clock too so okay so yeah at the Fire Commission we did talk about that as well and uh the duty crew thing would help yeah on that but yeah we we we're on having him out in April he couldn't make it in today or the first right he's uh he's out of the state right now yeah uh take valuables with you lock cars and doors of your house and your car uh at the dog park over in Oro um if you see any issues just call the department call the Polie uh there's a group that's keeps well I guess this is a new one but there's a group that's uh targeting people there um don't leave your window down don't leave your purse or your wallet or cash and you know in visible uh they are at full staff now which is good um we talked about potential coffee with a cop and that's something that maybe we want to have them come out to one of our spots here uh they they kind of offered it they with you know Co or whatever they kind of tailed down a little bit but now they're kind of doing a lot more so I don't know if we've really been on that with with them so we should we should get on that so you're suggesting with gu council members or as Citizens uh no like citizens so we would throw it on social or maybe the next newsletter and then say Hey you know June 1st you know Saturday June 1st come have coffee with a cop at Caribou or whatever um they buy their own coffee but they would be able to talk to the cops and you know be able to interact with them and stuff so um I only really have one thing really we did a joint meeting me and you in um a lot of the WCC group has there any been any contact with them after that really not on that just yet but um okay it's been a discussion with staff and so we're um gearing up for the next event okay but so everybody knows WCC um they do a lot of events in town and stuff and I guess they don't don't quite feel like they're being heard from the city and like maybe not as supportive per se and so I you know I was a little defensive and part of it saying well you know we we appointed for the first time ever someone to the WCC cons MC and I guess nobody knew that so I said okay well that's it was brand new I I'll take the sword on that one but uh we want to anyway kind of increase our communication Channels with with them and uh they do a lot of good in our community so we want to make sure that they're being heard as well as we you know we have things that we need uh to be taken care of as well so um anyway so we just had a meeting and just kind of talked about that high level and said that uh Jesse would reach out and um I know you and Council M go to a lot of the meetings and if not all of them so anyway hopefully we can work on that a little bit good for the park commission to also meet with him and talk about the events park because you know before Eric was kind of the lays on with this and them but we do need to talk about the opportunity of Partnerships and events for that okay well that's something if you want to set that up too um or maybe you can invite them out to to a Parks meeting or I don't know if you guys do a workshop or something or maybe just invite him to a to the next Parks meeting just see there's ways I think you guys can collab better so yeah um that's kind of it so you have any other comments on that not on that no okay all right if there's nothing else take a motion to say uh excuse me Mr I forget about you comments and reports from the city maor I had a brief conversation on the address redacting it's come up at a couple meetings um it was explained to me that it was something that happened at a staff level I don't know when or where or why so I guess I would come back to the council and say if you want it return the way it was it sounds like nobody had or opds too concern about it except for there will always or there will be times when if either miners are involved or there's certain sensitive subjects it but I think that was already sort of the way it was so I wasn't just going to say yes go ahead but I assume based off conversations here that that would be preferred what are you talking about all the addresses out street name Street yeah okay it was helpy problem we get the right yeah so that's great so we can get it back um I don't know if the report for I suppose March wouldn't have been done yet but so that will be changed and then I'll just wanted to mention that there was supposed to be a really really huge storm Sunday and Ryan had all the guys all fired up and they did a good job thankfully it wasn't as bad as it was and then today was supposed to be not that and the guys still got out there and Ryan had them all going early this morning so very happy about that um job we didn't hear anything at City Hall that I'm aware of or at least I didn't um and I think expect that tomorrow there will be some clean up in the morning but yeah I saw them 5:00 Monday morning well yeah I mean went down my street it's like you don't hear anything cuz everything is going great you know I mean on our road it was like they were out there on Sunday and yeah I mean nothing even got a chance to accumulate those guys are aw awesome yes we're very happy all right anything else all right I'll take a motion to adjourn so moved all right can I get a second second all right and discussion all those in favor please say I I those opposed all right we're adour