I'm sure that was another letter. >> I have 7:00. We will call the White Bear Township Town Board meeting for March 16th, 2026 to order. Um before we get going, I would like to just make a little u statement here. Uh for the township residents and the greater White Bear region, it's with heavy hearts that we as a community mourn the loss of Sergeant First Class Nicole M. Amore uh who was killed during the military action in Iraq. Elected officials, staff, and our residents wish to express our deepest condolences to Sergeant Amore's family, friends, and request that we all keep her in our thoughts. All right. Item two is the approval of the agenda. Patrick, anything any change? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, um staff proposes that we uh remove item 6 B, small case B, the three-party consideration for the North Oaks Joint Powers Agreement. We will remain with uh 6B, the two-party consideration this evening. >> All right. Uh the board have anything? >> No. No. >> I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> Move to approve the agenda as amended. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. All opposed. >> All right. [snorts] Item three is approval of payment of the bills. You signed, Steve? >> I did move to approve payment of the bills. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Item four is approval of prior meeting minutes. This is from March 2nd. Does anybody have any changes, corrections? >> I did not. >> I did not either. Um move to approve uh the uh minutes as written. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Item five is a consent agenda. We have seven if the board is all right with them or you want to pull any of them. >> Mr. Chair, I would like to pull 5G for clarification. >> All right. Uh otherwise, you want to move to approve the other ones? [clears throat] >> I'm going to second it. All right. All in favor? I >> I >> All right. 5G. Steve, what do you got? >> Uh, >> this is a solicitor's license. >> Yes. The the problem is the name as requested is not the same as we were given. So, uh, [clears throat] something's wrong. Uh, it it says it's um, M O N, but on their application, it's M O W I N. Mowen as the applicant. So, it's not correct. >> Got it. >> Any idea which one it is? >> No. [laughter] Um, you can pass it contingent upon confirmation of those of the appropriate names on the solicitor license. >> Does the insurance have to be amended then, Steve? >> I I didn't even see the insurance to be honest with you. So, um, it's a solicitor license. So, >> okay. I don't think they require it, but yes, their applications are M O W I N Moan M O N and it's Kyle Mowen. M O N is applying, but we should have clarification of the name so the residents know who is actually showing up at their door. >> Sure. >> Um so with with that uh clarification, um I'd move to approve item 5G. >> I'll second. >> Motion's made and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> All right, moving on. Uh item six, this is a county road H2 trail project. Larry, you going to give us a overview? >> Yes. Uh thanks Mr. Chair and town board. I got a short little uh presentation to showcase the plans a little bit. Um but the H2 trail, we've been talking about this project. Uh I think the the kickoff was in September when they started in on um the design and coordinating for the project. Um but this project started uh long before that with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan um was approved uh a decade ago which uh shows the county road H2 trail from uh Centerville Road to West Bald Eagle Boulevard and we are looking to improve uh and and complete the segment from Otter Ottertale to West Bald Eagle with this project. >> Excuse me. It's Otter Lake Road. You mean >> out of Lake Road? Yep. >> Thank you. >> Um, so these are some uh plans. Uh the the upper is uh up near uh Otter uh Ottertale and then uh on the lower is toward West Bald Eagle. So the the plan would be to install new 8ft wide trail from Ottertale to uh um Cottage Avenue on the north side where it would cross to the south side and continue on the south side to West Bald Eagle Boulevard. There is a existing uh 6ft trail on the north side all the way to Lake View Avenue um that's in [clears throat] poor condition. We'd like to replace that with uh 6' wide concrete sidewalk. We had looked at 8ft trail all the way to uh Lake View Avenue, but we were having some issues with uh fitting it within the rideway with the grades that are there. So, we've uh changed that design. That's new to you. Um going from an 8ft wide um trail to a 6' wide sidewalk. Um the project also incorporates uh a number of drainage structures. You can see those in um uh circles and lines connecting improving the drainage at all the intersections on the north side. And we'd be filling the ditch on the south side. So we have additional um catch catch basin inlets to capture um drainage from the yards and from the roadway. We'd plan for curb um on the south side from Cottage all the way to West Bald Eagle and then on the north side between um Cottage and Lake View Avenue. We'd also propose we're also proposing a crosswalk not only at Cottage Avenue here but also at Lake View Avenue. [clears throat] These are a few of the sections of what it would look like when it's complete. Um they are a little bit dated. So this shows the 8 8ft trail on that north side, but it's really a 6ft sidewalk now. But starting on Otter Lake Road, um 8t wide trail on the north side. um when it gets to Cottage Avenue would be a six-foot um sidewalk on the north side to Lake View and then a 8ft trail on the south side um [clears throat] from from Cottage all the way over to West Bell. So, this is what it would look like if you're driving down the road. [clears throat] The town board asked uh that we look at some pedestrian safety elements of this project. We looked at um uh including bumpouts which would bring the curb line in at strategic spots. Uh after evaluating that with the county, um we are not proposing that, but we are proposing some digital um signage for those two crossings, one at Cottage and one at at Lake View. And so these are push button activated. So you can see the LED lights uh on the sign itself. They would light up on both sides of the um roadway and on both sides of the sign. The sign is two facing. And so that would light up when a pedestrian is looking to cross and that's a bid as an alternate on this project and that would be entirely township funded. >> [sighs] >> Okay. So, the costs have uh jumped up a little bit since you last saw this as with as the um team were evaluating costs again most most recently. Some of the the storm sewer costs and um the uncertain climate we're in for for bidding um have kind of raised our prices here. So, um you can see the the street improvements are really the the trail improvements are 610,000 611,000. Um a lot of that storm sewer work has kind of ratcheted up with the filling of the ditch and uh all the the storm sewer um catch basins and pipe network involved. And so we're at 1 point just over 1.7 million right now. Of course, uh we're asking tonight to to vote for bids, which would really tell us what this project is really going to cost. Um looking at the funding, Ramsey County's project cost 590,000 is capped. And so, um, any additional costs above, uh, of above half of that 590,000 are, um, are on the township. Um, communications, we've had, um, several neighborhood meetings for this project, very well attended neighborhood meetings. Um but our really our clearing house for any information is on the website and that link is on the on the slide here. Um otherwise it can be found on the on the township website. Um fairly easy going to um engineering on the township website. You can find it. Um if the project moves forward, we would also have some project newsletters for those properties that are affected along County Road H2. Um, we also have on this uh website um daily updates on the construction or you can sign up for for that to be emailed to you. And if you live on the project, we can also meet with folks uh um as things are happening. Um so our schedule, we've had several neighborhood meetings. Um tonight we're accepting the plans and authorizing advertisement for bids. Um we'd go out for bids and bring those bids back to you. um sometime in May and award a project if those bids are favorable enough that you feel comfortable moving forward and then construction would occur from June to September um within that time frame. So tonight we're just looking to approve the plans and specifications and authorize bidding for the project. And um again I th those that pricing is uh a little bit um nebulous right now with the current climate. We'd like to get a bid and see where we end up. >> Not committing to anything at this point. >> Not committing anything. You can still um if you're not comfortable with the project either now or when those bids come back, um you do [clears throat] not have to move forward. Beth, questions, comments? >> My only comment is it's a lot of money and I have to admit I kind of like things to look a little prettier. >> What do you mean? Well, it's a little generic and I think um as somebody else mentioned the t you know the tax increases in the township have really gotten honorous and I know we're getting [clears throat] a lot of feedback from residents. I don't know if this is a great look to spend that kind of money on this project for the moment. >> Patrick, if this comes out of park acquisition, does it affect the levy? >> Uh no, it would not. >> But here's the thing, the optics. Well, that may be, but it's it's not going to affect what Okay. >> who's how much they're taxed. So, I mean, that's what park acquisition is for. Trails, parks. >> Yep. >> So, we had a a pretty extended conversation on CIP projects at the at the annual meeting. Um, this one would not impact the levy, but couple things. That's a lot of money. >> It is. I was just going to say best comments are valid. I I mean, you know, without a pretty decent or decent background or understanding of how the township's budget process works and what funds we use, where and when, um, it is a tough look. The other thing though to comment on your suggestion that it's a bit generic. The design came out of conversations with the folks who attended the meetings and this was basically the one that >> No, I understand that >> got the most or garnered the most support. However, there was no discussion really on landscaping. I think that's what she's driving towards is that okay, it it some areas might need some >> I'm just talking about the bones. >> Sure. [laughter] >> Um >> I think people like to see tree canopy, you know, maybe even some pollinators. Um I'm just concerned at this point. I think the optics are a little rough on this one. >> Yeah. I would also, and I don't know much difficulty this would be, but you know, from uh where the trail crosses over at Cottage down to Lake View on the north side, putting a sidewalk in there, who's maintaining the sidewalk, >> the township would be >> the township is. So, what's you know, that's not like a one-year maintenance deal. So, why are we putting a sidewalk where we really don't want them to have a sidewalk anyway? My other thought was that uh we can we could create that link that continues that link that's there already um from Lake View on that north side. Right now the the trail is is there the 6ft trail is there right now. We continue that link for those Lake View residents. But you're encouraging people coming from the from Otter Lake Road down to Cottage to continue straight ahead down to Lake View when we're trying to get them to cross at Cottage by having it a sidewalk there. That and then putting up two pedestrian signs versus one. It just I I I suggest that we look at bidding it two different ways. I don't know what you would That's my own thought. I think we're spending extra park fund money that we may not need to we could use elsewhere on the trail on Otter Lake Road. I >> It's just a small piece. >> Part of that because obviously there's a lot of drainage problems along that road. >> It's part of the reasoning for that setup to to address those drainage issues. >> It would by putting those Well, it'd either be addressed >> now or be addressed with those cottage pro cottage prospect >> lake view projects. Um but those uh those um storm water leads I guess I'd like to do with this project. Well, I I don't disagree with that because it has been a constant pain since they did their preservation project on that road. And he's chuckling because it's one of my points of contention. So, but whether it's a sidewalk or not a sidewalk, I don't think is going to affect whether they do the storm water issue or not. personally. So, I I'm just saying I think we'd be put it out for bids, fine, but I think you should look at it two different parts of that with or without that section from cottage to lake view on the north side. I >> just the sidewalk piece. >> Yeah, I just don't see where that benefits a whole lot. That's just my view of this. >> Okay. So, I mean, we can certainly do that. you can bid the the uh digital signage as an alternate, but then also the the sidewalk on the north side as an alternate. Is that what you're suggesting? Would that include the the um curbing? I I think we'd probably still want to do the curbing at those intersections. >> Oh, abs. I think so. >> Yeah, >> I think we have to. >> Um >> so that wouldn't be part of the alternative. That'd be part of the the project. It would be just the the sidewalk piece >> since we're maintaining it. It just seems like and it's not a huge [clears throat] section, but it still takes resources to plow it, mow the boat, whatever's left of there to mow and everything else where I guess they still have to mow it. >> The rem the removal of do we would with the existing trail, would we keep just keep that in place? >> I'd remove it. >> Just remove it and and put sod over it. Yes. Or seed. That's my thought, but you you guys both have a voice. So, >> yeah. >> When will this go out for bids right away? >> Um, we still have to get through the mind um and county review of the plans. So, we're maybe the first to review it or uh to approve it, but the county and the state um need to review it. So, it's probably 3 weeks before it would hit the um paper for advertisement. And would you show that option of eliminating that portion of the trail Steve's talking about? >> They would have to approve that also if it's an option. >> Well, it if we'd have to make a change in the plans to show that as a as an alternative, >> which is fine. >> So it it get it would get covered in this bid. So I mean if you if the board decided that they wanted to go in a different direction, [clears throat] we wouldn't have to go out through the whole bidding process again. It's just bid as an alternate. >> It'd be bid as an alternate. >> All right, >> Patrick, any idea how our funds are sitting in the park acquisition fund? >> I thought it was a couple million. >> That one is healthy, but what Tom will tell you is that they're going to >> It's gone. It's gone. >> Yeah, they're going to be committed here over the next 10 to 15 years. But yeah, right now it's a healthy account. >> Yeah, I remember him talking about that. And we got this other H2 project north of um well north of Johnquil that they want to do up as a [clears throat] safe route to school also >> and the county wasn't prepared to fund it this time around but I think there that's out for some grant money or comparative money also. So between these two projects it'll probably take the money. >> Is there go ahead? Is there anything else on the radar with the comp plan for trails besides those that we just talked about? >> Um, >> or is this pretty much it? >> Not uh not in the near future. >> So, my >> this project and then the Otter Lake Trail, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Because like I said that when that fund is gone, unless we have another development, we get park acquisition money, there will be no more funds for that. >> Yeah. But that's what it's [clears throat] designated for. So, >> and that fund represents years of >> accumulation. >> Accumulation. Yeah, it's true. But I think this is an appropriate use. That's my opinion. >> And I concur with what Beth said that it the optics do not look good because it's have to have an understanding that this is not a direct tax impact. Um it and we have to make it clearer that this is not a immediate tax impact. It's been funds that have accumulated for construction projects within the township where they've had to dedicate funds. >> Correct. >> 30 years, 40 years. >> Larry, have you talked to Met Council at all? The only reason I'm asking is I sat in on a um Zoom meeting with them this afternoon and they had basically um they were asking and I'll find the link for you, but they literally had $5 million. You could have a $5 million project. You didn't have to match and it was all had to do with trails and bike infrastructure. Have Have you looked at any of that? >> Because that would be that would be wonderful if we didn't have to. You know, >> I like to make our money stretch. >> Yeah. I I haven't looked at that. I know we went for the funding with Ramsey County and we also applied for other funding through maybe it was my council. >> The guy's name was Joe Whiting and but he had I mean he was literally begging for people to you know apply for money and it didn't have to be matched. >> Yeah. But you know what happens because it's a township. [laughter] >> That's right. >> Yeah. were not on the list. But no, >> we applied for some funding several years ago. I'm I'm not recalling what that source was, but um >> Oh, you know what? We pay a million bucks into the mech council every year. >> They could give us something back. Come on. You know, >> well, that's something you could still pursue even if we put this out for bids. Correct. >> Well, you it's usually a time frame >> and when it's available. Well, you we're probably past the deadline for that and for this year's cycle of projects. >> However, it could be something if if there is money available to finish the H2 project, which really goes from Otter Lake Road to the west. Yep. >> To the bridge toward your way, which would connect up with the park 35E trail, >> right? >> It comes through there. >> And then it would connect up north uh on Outer Lake Road eventually. Even though I think the comp plan has the trail going through Peterson Road, doesn't it? Up north then along the freeway. >> Yeah. >> But something to look at. >> Well, how does the board feel about pursuing at least put it out for bids to see where we're sitting? Maybe we'll get pleasantly surprised. >> Well, I think it's prudent to do that at this point. It doesn't cost us anything to ask. So, >> well, yeah, because we've already spent the money on planning and design. So yeah, so I'd move to uh move forward with the uh bidding process specifications. And >> you want this [clears throat] in two motions, Larry? >> Um no, just one is fine. Although I if you are wanting us to bid the sidewalk as an alternate, if you could put that in your motion. >> Yes. with with that uh alternate added for the uh not adding the sidewalk from I guess it's from cottage to lake view and turning removing the the buminous surface that's there turning it into grass uh and doing the curbs as part of this project and the and the uh sanitary sewer work that needs to be done. Storm sewer. >> Storm sewer, excuse me. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I. >> All opposed? I >> All right. Motion passed. Item 6B is the North Oaks Joint Powers Agreement. Uh this is a two-party consideration for supplying water to the city of North Oaks. >> Mhm. [clears throat] So, we Mr. Chair, as you're aware, we've been working through this for quite some time. Um we are in the the home stretch uh with this. You should have in your packet the final and legal appro legal council approved uh draft of the two-party JPA between the township and city of North Oaks. Um we did receive uh an email this afternoon that I sent on to you all for your review. Um stating some very important components to executing [clears throat] the the final version of this JPA. Um, let's see if I can hit those. So, company being North Oaks uh LLC has agreed to install all water meters that have been a sticking point for quite some time in our discussions um by the deadline in the two-party JPA which is at the 1231 2026 uh and to turn the water and sewer systems over to the city, North Oak City. And as such, the city requests township approve the two two-party JPA this evening. [clears throat] They do recognize and the reason I struck from the agenda discussion on a three-party JPA, they do recognize there are some more um details to hash out in that language. So, we've uh tabled that until it seems like all the key players in this discussion are on vacation this week uh and out of town. So getting this type of a commitment is has been a stretch. So Mr. Chair, I I would defer to legal counsel on their direction um for the the last motion on this JPA. I mean, we've got agreement uh at least by email that LLC is going to uh execute all the requirements that are needed to fulfill the the JPA. Can we, if the board so chooses, can they pass this contingent upon this being made official? >> Yes, they can. >> Okay. So, that's what I would suggest. >> But that's being made official between the city of North Oaks and North Oaks LLC. >> Correct. >> Because Larry, if I'm not mistaken, is it in the JPA that there was some question about getting access and that's all been resolved with what Patrick is telling us? that they're going to turn over the the pits to the city so we'll be able to access them for inspection. >> Yeah, that I think that was the last thing we were waiting for. Okay. >> And the commitment to building the water meter pits. So, >> and you're happy. It's just >> Oh, yes. I'm fine. >> Okay. >> Well, it only took two years. [laughter] Well, I'm going to I'm I'm going to say I you know I'm still uncomfortable with what do we have from We got an email. >> Did the city council of of North Oaks approve this? >> So that's what they were waiting for. They're waiting from word from LLC to to fulfill this part. >> So the answer is no. >> No, they haven't. >> Okay. >> The only thing is the mayor just sent me a message saying it's it's done with them. So I'm assuming that she's she's in >> part of this. not official till the city council determines that they agree to it. >> That's what we mean. >> I I I just think that's out of order to >> I I think in principle I think we could have an agreement, but I I don't feel comfortable until the city council has taken action in my own opinion that they're satisfied that all the terms have been met. >> Okay. So, go ahead, Chad. >> Keep in mind that if they make any changes this agreement, >> it's it's gone. That's why we're wasting our time if they haven't agreed to it. >> Yes. Well, no. No. Here's what I'm saying is that the their approval has to mirror your approval and if it makes any variations whatsoever, there's no agreement. >> Okay. So, I'll go to my question that I have on part B A and B uh of the agreement. And you you guys have worked I know the chair has worked and and you two over there have worked on this where it talks about billing and payment and the city obligations. the unmetered water portion as it relates to fire emergencies, etc. Um, and the usage to me is is not 100% clear. Uh, and the city's obligations for billing and payments. Um, I I I just am a little unsure of how we get our money back cuz it talks about billing residents for their for their usage, but the unmetered part is going to be build at x number rates per minute, >> but did you want to talk about the unmetered portion? I know that. >> Yeah, cuz actually you wrote that part in there. >> Yeah. So, the unmetered portion is a is if there's other there's emergencies that um >> forget the emergency fire. They need it for fire. So the fire department opens an unmetered well and it's pumping water to suppress a fire. >> Sure. So just let me just describe our billing. So we will have these meter pits installed and we will be able to charge the city of North Oaks based on the the values of those of what flows through the meter. Now there until there's there's there's the meter pits but then there's the apartment that's there. Um until that links up to the other system um we will be relying on the metering at that building for one additional year. >> Okay. What what I'm trying to avoid is us sitting on an unpaid bill because the city of North Oaks decides that they have somebody else that might be responsible. Yet, our agreement is with the joint powers agreement is with the city of North Oaks. I want them to pay us for the amount of water they use at the time within 30 days of the time that the money is or the the water is used and they can fight with whoever they want if there is indeed a fight. Yeah. I I just want the township not to be on the hook, >> right, >> for a long-term payment. And >> I think that's the way it's set up. >> That's exactly the way it's set up. >> If you're if you think it's clear, I'm >> It gets murkier if they have to open other valves for a fire emergency or a water main break that we need to and we have provisions in there to address that. um if those cases arise on how we would calculate the water that's flowing to the city of North Oaks during those instances. >> Like I said, you you guys worked on this, so you're a lot clearer than I am. But if if if our town attorney, our town uh staff >> staff is satisfied that it's taken care of, I'm with >> the question isn't who's going to pay for it. The question is how much they're going to pay for it >> and when. That's what and that was that's what Larry was trying to address at that meeting what two weeks ago 3 weeks ago and I this is about as good I think this is about as good as you're going to get in terms of unmetered water and emergencies and and and main you know and water main breaks. >> Yeah, I I I get the you know what it's very clear what they're going to pay. It's when they pay it is what I want to make sure. >> Well, they it's all going to be part of the of the quarterly bills. >> Mhm. And and the obligor is the city of North Oaks versus independent residents of North Oaks. >> The obligor is the city. >> And so it's you're comfortable. It's clear enough that it says unmetered water is you is the cities and you fight with whoever you want if you don't agree with that. >> Well, correct. Especially when it deals with water manes because under the under the tra under the terms of the JPA, the water manes are the city's responsibility to maintain. So if there's a break, it's their problem. I guess looking down the road if it if something happened with his new development in Lino Lakes which comes apart in the third party GPA JPA I don't want to have them say well it's not ours that's them and you're not going to get paid either and that's why I want to make sure that the township isn't paying and sitting on a pile of >> understand once the water crosses the border >> it's up to North Oaks and Lakes to figure out who pays for what. I agree with that, >> but I want to know when >> they have to pay it within 30 days of the date we send the bill to them. >> Okay. >> Under statute. >> Under statute. [clears throat] Okay. >> You can't under statute, municipalities cannot allow bills to go unpaid for 30 days >> because in Okay, I'll you're a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. So, if that is the case, I I'll go along with that. Anything else? >> Oh, I did my piece. >> That's I'm sure you dissected this thing. >> I did. I'm with Steve. It's like I just want to make sure that they understand they've got to pay up. >> Yep. >> And there's not an argument. >> That's not the argument really. Who's, you know, the argument are they going to pay for? The question is how much are they going to pay and how do we calculate how much they're going to pay? >> Well, that's pretty. >> It's pretty clear. >> Well, it is. And Larry's language [clears throat] is pretty good, I think. >> And and paragraph 3 A talks about billing and payment by the city. >> So, >> well, it it does, but it talks about their residents, their users. It doesn't say them. >> No, it the town will bill the city directly for all water and sewer charges. >> That's what we do >> under this agreement. >> This is the main reason to have the meters. Once we hit the meter, it's out of our hands. We only charge what goes through the meter. >> Yeah. Then it's up to them to disperse, figure out how they're going to collect from every individual. >> The first sense in 3A says the town will build the city directly for all water sewer charges. >> I see that >> and how they how the city collects the money to pay for it is not an issue we have to deal worry about. >> What I didn't see and you told me is by statute that I don't care what the city how they bill it out. I just want to make sure we get paid timely. And you told me statute says 30 days. supposed under statute miss supposed to pay their bills within 30 days the date of being built >> cuz to fight a fire and including in a larger development it might be a lot of lot of money and water usage >> true >> and we shouldn't be sitting on it for not getting paid so that's all I was >> and we have access points that are outside the meter pits correct >> yeah I believe so >> so how do we keep and Larry said we can calculate it Yeah. So they will be shut. >> Okay. When >> once the meters are installed, those those other connection points will be closed. >> They then there's no way they can open them. >> They can open them. >> They will open them only in the case of a emergency >> for fire or a water rain break. They need to notify us. And the the the um agreement stipulates if they if they need to open those, they need to contact us. And it includes our uh emergency contact number in the in the agreement. >> No, that's what >> Okay. By the agreement, they absolutely have to do that. And if they there's a penalty if they don't >> Well, the penalty they breach the agreement, we could shut the water off. >> Yep. >> That's the hammer. >> Okay, I'm good. >> There there there is some trust here. I mean, you you can't you can't have this cast in stone and but I think >> I think we tried to put in print >> every scenario that correct. >> No, but but we had trust that they were going to get this done two two plus years ago and they violated that trust but yet we continued to provide water. So I understand that but >> you know enough is enough. >> Weary is a good word. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I understand. But keep in mind if you make agreements that have too many permutations in them, you end up creating a Gordian knot and that you end up in the middle of that Gordian knot. This is I think a pretty fair and act pretty fair compromise dealing with all the factors we have involved. >> Well Chad, what we were waiting for with the North Oaks LLC is already in the JPA. We were just waiting for them to confirm what we have in the JPAC. >> Exactly. So basically, if we if we move to okay this, it's it's still obviously on the condition that the city of North Oaks goes to their council and approves it now. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Exactly. They >> But nothing's going to if something changes, then it's got to come back to us. They're not going to do that. Correct. I I think the mayor is very >> determined to have this thing wrapped up. So >> under law, you cannot change the terms of an agreement with a party unless they agree to it. And as the board directed staff, they are aware being the city of North Oaks that if this stretches out beyond March, um their tier levels of payment for water is going to go up. So I they there is a they have incentive to get this completed now. So I I think we're who've been working on this, I think we're comfortable that we're going to be covered in this JPA. >> So what are we looking for tonight? >> We are looking Chad, you want to articulate it better than I can? >> Basically, we're looking for a resolution from this from the board approving the JPA, the two parts, the two-party JPA as presented. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it >> with the stipulation that the city council of North Oaks approves it. >> Thank you. >> Contingent upon North Oak City Council passage. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> All right. Do I have a second on a motion? >> I did second. >> All right. Motion's made in second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. All right. Moving on. Item 6 C. This is a fire contract discussion. Uh we had to bring this forward because of a article in the Whitebear press >> um not showing the township in a very nice way. So, I I uh staff and the town board is has a a uh statement we'd like to put out to the public and also we'd like to see it in the White Bear Press >> in the same spot where [laughter] >> would you like a copy? >> We'll also get it on on our uh >> Patrick. >> Yep. So, this is to [clears throat] our township residents. Um, as I'm sure many of you are aware, the new mayor of White Bear Lake expressed her opinion regarding the protracted disagreement over the current fire services contract between Whitebear Township, the city of White Bear Lake, and several other partners in an article for the White Bear Press publications on March 11th, 2026. Township has until this point chosen to remain respectful of not conducting a media campaign to perpetuate a chosen narrative. But with all due respect, we do feel we need to provide clarification for our residents. [clears throat] Number one, this is a contract dispute between two organizations, nothing more, nothing less, and we are approaching it in that manner. Number two, this was a contract developed and devised by the city of White Bear Lake. We believe we are operating within the language of their contract. Number three, the two-year notice of intent to terminate that contract is our right within that language. This is done in order to have the opportunity to negotiate terms going forward. Again, this was language put forth by the city of White Bear Lake. [clears throat] Your fire and ambulance services will be in place during that 2-year notice of intent to terminate while we try to reach agreement with the city of White Bear Lake. The actual date of termination would be December 31st, 2027. Township has always been pleased with the level of service from both the fire department and ambulance services, and I believe we've been really clear and consistent about that. Um, at our budget and levy meetings for the last two years in December, our residents were very clear with our elected officials and staff that we were to exercise our options to secure the most valuable in or most value in all of our contracts. For instance, our community law enforcement group is given the opportunity to negotiate our contract with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office annually. These discussions are professional and respectful and we always reach an accord. There is a dispute um this is a dispute over significant dollars that will have a real impact on the financial tax burden of our residents. The mayor's comments are very pointed, excuse me, [clears throat] in that they paint a picture of the township being unreasonable and non-communicative. This could not be further from the truth. There have been three separate occasions over the last two years where staff, elected officials, and council have met to work through our issues. Each time, the outgoing mayor for White Bear Lake City told us all in no uncertain terms there will be no negotiations. The new mayor was invited to chat with our board chair as well as Supervisor Artner. Uh the mayor said she would try to be present at the board chair's invitation, but did not show. and Supervisor Arnner's invitation was ignored. Our legal council has suggested mediation several times and for some reason this has not been agreed to. Um the township did in fact extend a settlement offer to the city of White Bear Lake and not surprisingly it was rejected without any alternative suggestions coming from the city of White Bear Lake. The only response from the city was a demand that the p town pay whatever amount the city demands. All the above statements are indisputable. This board and our staff take the safety of our residents very seriously and this is reflected in our community being one of the safest places to live and work in the entire metropolitan area. We will continue to work at a solution with the city of White Bear Lake, but not at the cost of our integrity and existent contractual language. Uh, we will share this with Whitebear Publications and we will also post it on our website if anyone would like to review. >> Beth, any comments or questions? I know we all was a kind of a joint effort. >> Nope. I think this is excellent. Steve, >> no. I think it's excellent and I do think it belongs in the paper. >> Uh, I think believe some residents here maybe concern us. You're going to have to come up, state your name and address. Yeah, I'm Robert Price. We live at uh 5680 Aspen Lane, Whitebeard. It's Whitebeard uh our townhouse association. And we were kind of concerned because we've got an elderly community there. And we were worried about the all the emergency services. And when that's when we read the paper paper here, we kind of, you know, threw our our hands up in the air saying what what's going on. So, we wanted to come here and and find out exactly. and his statement there kind of kind of clarified it for us. So, we're we're happy because uh like I said, we we were actually worried about uh you know, >> you'd never get left in the lurch. That wouldn't happen. You'd never get left in the lurch. That would not happen. >> Like I said, we were just we were just concerned. So, we wanted to come and you know, and listen to >> both sides. We heard what they had to say. So, >> perfectly fair. We got able to hear a response from you people, too. >> Mhm. >> No, thank you for asking. Really? That's I love it that somebody came and asked. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Well, this was part of the reason why we didn't want to go public with these negotiations because it it does create uncertainty and the way the paper read it the first time, it just like you're saying it it left holes in the story. So that's why we want to make very sure >> one little paragraph up here at the end said this our services were you know we didn't have any emergency services anymore. So it's kind of and then most of the time when you're and when you're in litigation most of the time you cannot >> correct >> you cannot talk about it. So >> exactly right. >> Oh yeah. So like I said we just wanted to come and >> and listen to what you had and we're happy to hear what we got to we got to hear tonight. Thank you very much. >> And like I said that will be on the website if you want to review it and okay hopefully the White Beard Press will put that in there too. So >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else? All right. Hearing none, I'm going to move on. Item seven, it's public hearing. We have none. Item eight is White Bear Lake Conservation District. Uh, who's going to take this? Patrick. >> Just reappointing a couple of folks to three-year terms. Um, >> no one's really beating down the door for this one. So, [laughter] uh, we were happy that these two have, uh, recommitted to this. So, I'm just looking for an approval. I'm I'll make that motion to reappoint Brian Desmet and Diane Longville to the three-year term as White Bear Lake Conservation District board members rep from the township. >> I'll second. >> Motion made a second. All in favor say I. I. >> I opposed. >> All right. Item 8 B is the equipment purchase front and loader with a metal plow. Larry. >> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair and town board. Yes. Before you tonight is a equipment purchase for a a front end loader with a with a plow. Um the public works uses this uh front end loader all year long for different um um park improvements and then also in the winter time for uh snow removal um as well. So we're looking tonight to approve a a contract for the loader. This is a significant amount, so we wanted to put it on the agenda for discussion versus having it be on consent agenda. Um, but uh the current front end loader is uh 17 years old. Um has 238 hours of operation on it. It's in good condition yet, but um it is 17 years old. Um, we looked at, um, receiving a quote on the Minnesota state contract. Um, and with, uh, with the tradein of roughly $60,000, we're looking at expenditure for this piece of equipment of $172,000. Um, that includes the tradein. So, the the quote on the state contract was uh 232,000. And so subtracting the $60,000 in trade in, we're looking for an expenditure tonight of $172,39.88 for the new loader. Our uh approved budget for in our CIP for this piece of equipment was 350,000. So it's well below that. >> 350,000. >> Yes. Okay. >> So a good savings going through the state contract. um and the the the good positive trade in value that we're seeing on it. We did look at some other options um um including uh rental in instead of uh replacement. Rental would be roughly $75,000 per year. Um, we also researched um, used loaders and the best option we found was a 3-year-old loader um, with $541 hours of operation for $229,700. So, that didn't seem to make sense. So, we're recommending replacement of the loader um approving the purchase of the Caterpillar 926 frontend loader with a metal police plow uh from Ziggler Caterpillar for $172,39.88 88 and to accept the trade in value of uh 60,750 for the township's current Caterpillar um 928 um loader with uh blocket and bucket and plow wing. We trade that in with that. >> I know I've asked this question before, but why are we always bound to buy through certain distributors? You're not bound to buy through the state contract, but you have roughly 30% savings when you do that off a new loader. >> Mhm. >> Really? It seems to me the last time I had this discussion with Dale, uh, four or five years ago, we could go outside of it. I think it was for a lawn mower. Just a local dealer was cheaper. So, I Is that always true? Do Do you >> It may not be always true. Do we shop outside of these uh authorized dealers? >> Yeah, in this case we did shop and we found used equipment for um nearly the same price. >> I'm talking about new though cuz I suppose in this area there's only one. I don't know. I like I said I I just when you buy an equipment you always want to get the best deal. Obviously it's a great tradein number especially if you buy a used one for twice that amount. >> Mhm. Beth, comments, questions? >> Yeah. Do we uh do we name our snowplows? I mean, you know, like plowabanga or something. [laughter] I mean, other [clears throat] place other places, you know, they you know, have contests where the residents get to name the snow plows. >> You want to name Is that a parkboard job? [laughter] >> Probably could be. >> Utility commission. >> I'll go with plowabanga. >> Plowabunga. Any questions, Steve? >> No, I I do not. Um, but I agree with Ed that when you do future biddings, if you identify the state contract bidder and then couple other sources so that we it's very clear that you went outside. Um, I think that answers that question a little bit as you know, are we getting taken to the cleaners or is it really the best at your 30% savings that we probably could and to be clear that 17203988 is net of their salvage. >> Yes. No. Yeah. So, we're not Someone thinks we're not we're getting 60ome thousand back after we buy it. Nope. >> Good. >> Hearing no other questions. I need a motion to approve the purchase. >> I'll make a motion based on the staff review and recommendations. approved the purchase of a replacement Caterpillar 926 front end loader and metal plus1242-19LE snowplow with from Ziggler Caterpillar for 172,3988 and accept the tradein value of $60,750 for the current Caterpillar 928HZ with bucket and snowplow with wing. A second. >> Motion's made in second. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. >> All right. That motion carries. That ends our added agenda items. Uh, it's open time. >> There's your chance. >> Television. [laughter] >> Nothing. >> All right. Hearing none. Uh, item 11. I need a motion to receive agenda materials and supplements. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I need a motion to adjurnn at 7:50. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. We are journed.