There's donut sprinkles here. >> We know how to party or what? >> Apparently, it's like And they're pink ones, too. >> There's what? >> Must be Valentine's sprinkles. >> Think it fell out of your sleeve. >> No, no, no. >> All right. No sprinkles. >> I have 7 o'clock. We will call the White Bear Township Board meeting for February 18th, 2026 to order. Uh before we start, I would like to just make a little uh uh comment. U we lost one of our retired public works employees. Uh Reed Walstad passed away last night. Uh he was a employee for how many years? >> Over 20. >> And plus his wife was also an employee for well she's still >> Patty's still with us. But Patty, I just want to give a shout out to you. Our uh our prayers are with you and you guys' family. I know it's a tough time. All right. Agenda. Patrick changes. >> Um Mr. Chair, if it uh pleases the board, just one um change. If you would add the Rice Creek Watershed District um grant contract um for the shoreline stabilization restoration project at the intersection of West Bald Boulevard and St. Anthony Avenue. >> You want that at what? 8B. >> I was going to say it's it's up to you if you want to do it on consent. It's a contract that we've done before. >> No, you just hand it to us. I'd like to at least look at it. So, okay, that's fine. Um, >> as AP Rice Creek Wershed >> works for me. >> All right. Anything else? >> Uh, none from staff, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Board of Anything? >> I have no nothing to add. >> I have nothing. >> Um, I would like to pull one consent agenda item. We'll wait till we get there. Uh, all right. All right. Item three. Steve, did you sign off? I need >> I did move to approve payment of the bills. >> Second. Motion made a second. All in favor? I. >> Did we approve the agenda then? >> I don't know if we did. >> Oh, sorry. Good. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended to adding 8B. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All right. Item four, approval of prior meeting minutes from February 2nd. Anybody have any changes? >> No. >> I did uh minor minor spelling correction on page two of the minutes, which is page five of the packet. Uh halfway down the first that paragraph it says that Ruseek asked if Lionel Lakes it's Lionyl Lakes. So change that just to Lylakes. >> That's the only thing I saw. So I'll move to approve with that change. >> Second. >> Motion's made and second. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Moving on. Item five is a consent agenda. Uh I just have a couple of little comments on items F and G. I'd like to just pull those. Otherwise, uh, I need a motion to approve A through E. >> Um, >> but Chad, did you have something on >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, uh, I think legal had just a comment on 5A. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I I would recommend you pull that one as well. >> Okay. All right. Then I need a motion on B, C, D, and E. >> I'll make a motion to approve B, C, and E. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. >> All right. Uh item 5A uh Verettech anti-issing. Is there uh we have an issue with that one? Chad, >> I also want to point I think we have to modify the resolution uh adopting it. I understand that this is some this is a piece of equipment that public works really wants, but this contract is very one-sided to say the least. What I want to point out is in section 15.1 as I read it, this gives the seller the right to amend terms anytime they want without seeking uh approval and consent of the buyer. And so I'd recommend now it does appear and this is I believe Larry's checking on this that once you confirm the order then the order is frozen. But that has but I would recommend that you would if you were going to approve this it's subject to no changes in the quote that you're approving. In other words, Veritech cannot change any of the terms after after approval. >> That just the terms of the contract or the terms of the warranty or >> terms of the contract. >> Okay. >> If we make that motion, does that supersede that contract? No, you're accep you're just accepting the contract as it is, but you're saying that in Okay. >> that in the event Veritech makes any changes to the contract after you approve it, your approval is rescended. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh do I need a motion to that with the attorney change? uh if it can be done. We're going to do these two parts separately. Are we going to do the second the other part of that separately on the B brine uh the brine maker? Whoops. Cuz this is only or is Veritech? >> I see. I see. Yeah, you're talking about the Veritech contract and the Haze mechanical contract. >> There's two parts to this >> parts. Yes. So, I'll I'll move to to modify the Veritech contract as as discussed by the town attorney uh for the purchase uh as recommended of the uh ice anti-icing unit 1,325 gallons. >> A second. >> All right. Motion's made second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. That motion passes. Then I I guess we could probably do both of these. Uh first one, uh item F on the liquor license. Oh, you still have to approve >> the um >> Brian Brian works. I I'll move to approve that portion of of the uh item we're talking about here under 5A consent. >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion made second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> that just for clarification that is a $10,844 low quote from Hayes Mechanical. >> Do we know it? >> I'll second that. All approved and all. >> Right. Okay, now we can move on. Uh, the only reason I want to bring up F and G, this is a liquor license. Uh, I noticed going through it, there's a couple spots here where, let me pull it up here. The site address was listed as White Bear Lake and it needs to be White Bear Township. >> I believe Steve didn't catch that. >> Holy cow. >> Steve did not see it. Okay. >> Oh my. >> That I'm sorry. That was under which one? >> Um, it's Well, E's got it on that one. Find the page number. I know I had it highlighted here someplace, but it's under uh where the applicant signed off as the job address. >> Okay. And then it's the same thing with um G. The same the same issue. >> Okay. >> With the gambling. It's it's a minor, but I'd like to see that corrected. >> I gotcha. That that makes sense. >> Yeah, that that one was on uh the page will come up. That was on 259. All it is is business address. and it says White Bear Lake. It's got the right zip code. It's just the wrong ad. >> Gotcha. But so I don't know if we can do those. We'll just do them separate. So with that minor change, I need a motion to approve item 5F. >> Uh I'll move to approve item 5F, the 2026 liquor license for uh the business located at 1190 County Road J, Sweet 600-700 for Coopers. >> I'll second. >> Motion made second. All in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. And then item 5B. This is the gambling. I'm sorry. 5E G. >> Chief go. Hey, >> now you're getting must be the snow. >> Yes. >> So, is this is this the one with the address issue or >> the same one? Both of them have the same address. >> Just so it's clear that both have to have the address changed to the township versus city. Right. >> Okay. I'll move to uh recommend approval of the gambling license by White Bear Lake Area Hockey Association for the uh business located uh at of Cooper is located and I don't have the address in front of me. >> 1190 County Road >> 1190 County Road J. Same place. >> Yep, there it is. 1190 County Road J. Sweet 600 and 700. >> Mhm. >> Yep. Okay. >> Through. >> All right. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I know the applicants are here. Uh, anything you want to wish to say? Otherwise, you're on your way. >> I don't want to say thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Welcome to the town. >> Address change something. We have to go on our end. >> Uh, I don't uh Patrick, can we >> What I'll have is our our uh head clerk get a hold of you tomorrow >> and see what she'd like to do about it. Um, and we'll just go from there. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good night. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Y >> All right. Moving on. Item 6A, tobacco ordinance. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, this is a followup to the short statement that was uh presented to us from our uh friends at uh oh, the I always forget the acronym for these guys. They're they're working to um have have healthy healthy choices with tobacco and etc. That kind of thing. and they are looking for follow-up discussion on um a an ordinance within Vades Heights that is adapt adopting the in sale of all flavored commercial tobacco products and they want us to review it to potentially adopt here in the township. So, I said I would pass this along to see number one if you're even interested in going down this road. And if so, I'm happy to pass along um Vadness Heights's ordinances for you to review. Um and we would go from there. I would I'm not sure which one of our commissions would review that. Planning. >> It' be public safety. I would >> public safety. >> I was going to say public safety. >> I The only reason I say planning is it's ordinance based. So, but if you if you want to do public safety, that's fine. We can start it there. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, because they get all the presentations from the tobacco ordinance. So >> that's right. >> So that's I'd move to to push this to the P u public safety committee uh for review and consideration. >> All righty. >> And recommendations. >> Right. Do a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> All right. Item item seven is a public hearing for zoning text amendment. Uh this is a public hearing. So, I need a motion to wave the reading. >> I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. >> A second. >> Motion made a second. All in favor say I. >> I. All >> opposed. Then I need a motion to open up the public meeting. >> I'll move to open the public meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> All right, Andrew, you going to take this one? >> Yep. All right, town board. Tonight before you, you have a zoning tax amendment to ordinance number 35, the zoning ordinance. Uh this has been kind of an longstanding uh thing we've been working on the last 6 months or so specifically to address uh I would say the lack of setbacks on driveways as they're considered structures and also looking at a process to allow for reasonable expansion or alteration of legally non-conforming structures through a variance process. Um we met in September and October with the planning commission. We had some feedback from them, the city engineer and the building official. Uh just that additional time gave us the opportunity to look at the DNR's model shoreland or ordinance and update some ordinance language that was found to be inconsistent. Um, in December, consensus was largely achieved at the planning commission, but they kind of wanted to just talk about the corner lot setbacks a little further. Eventually coming to the conclusion that they were going to leave it as is, understanding that with corner lot setbacks, two 35 ft um front yard setbacks, two 10 yard setbacks, just typically puts things into variance territory. Um, we looked at city ordinances from Ardan Hills, Birchwood Village, Hugo, and White Bear Lake explicitly as these cities allow for reasonable expansion and/or alteration of legally non-conforming structures. We looked at six or seven other cities that had less defined language on this, and that wasn't entirely helpful. So, we really just wanted to look at the cities that do allow for expansion or alterations of legally non-conforming structures. just to kind of go through some new definitions that were added. Um structural alteration, alleys, which are not referenced in the zoning code, but there are 18 to 20 of them in the township. Um buffers, expansions, uh expansion defined as any increase in dimension such as number of units, size, area, volume, or height of an existing structure, accessory, structure, or facility. government buildings. Um, kind of along the lines of that alteration or expansion of non-conformings, we also add definitions for improvements, maintenance and repair, um, impervious surface, and then reasonable use, which is a legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory taking cases. within the context of these cases and for the purposes of what we want to use reasonable use for as far as the variance goes, it's means the uh any use allowed in the zoning district by Whitebear Township and shall not mean the subdivision of property. You can't use a variance to necessarily subvert the subdivision ordinance and you can't say you have a property in an R1 district. You can't use a variance or reasonable use to allow a use that's only allowed in the industrial district. It only refers to the uses that are allowed in that zoning district as being reasonable uses. So, if it's not defined, it's not allowed. Some amended definitions include accessory structure, just acknowledging the because of the nature of its subordinate and inordinate use, um maybe reasonably located at a closer distance than a primary structure. And then the DNR ordinance also included illustrations, which as a planner, I think if we're kind of looking to make interpretations or measurements, things that can just lend themselves to different interpretations, I think as a planner, it helps just to have as many graphic images as possible in your zoning code if you're asking people to measure certain things. That way, everyone is kind of operating off the exact same uh playing field. And so quite a few of these amendments are also just including those graphics just because we deal with a lot of properties on the shoreland. Um there's lots of questions kind of like how are you measuring this or like what does this mean? And so I think just by adding these visual references that'll just kind of help make everyone understand the zoning code a little bit better and how it's applied. um you know new image for bluff impact zone and the top of bluff. Just again showing how we measure these um coverage amending it to include that imperous surfaces that prevent or significantly reduce infiltration of water into the soil. uh dimensional requirements essentially that the minimum and maximum setbacks yard regulations height and size regulations applies to structures, driveways and other permanently established features. driveways. We wanted to just change the definition to acknowledge that these are not considered structures because that was one of the things that was kind of causing a lot of pain points uh with residents this past summer was just the um having to tell them that this is a structure and that it's being held to the same standards as like a building would be. Um then we've got non-conforming structure definition. Again, just acknowledging that this may be altered or expanded through a variance if the proposal is determined to meet the criteria for reasonable use. Um, including a graphic for shore impact zone, graphic for shoreland, and then they also recommended just some changes to steep slope definitions and the DNR's mile ordinance recommended basically slashing anything that I have struck through in that. So steep slope will mean lands having average slopes over 12% as measured over horizontal distances of 50 ft or more that are not bluffs. Um structure again we tweaked that just to recognize that driveways are not structures. And then water plan commissioners who's a structural engineer so I was not going to um argue with him on retaining walls because he's like wait a minute retaining walls they can be structures once they're at a certain height. So, we tweaked that definition to just reflect that once you hit a certain height with a retaining wall, yes, it does require a building permit and engineering, but it does become kind of like a a structure at that point. And so, that was just something that the plan commission wanted to see included um before this. >> Question for you on that. There's that property that um they took all the uh it's a very steep slope and they took out all the vegetation on it and you can see it's it keeps eroding and eroding. Did did you address that in the um or I mean I gota I I've got to imagine that at some point this thing is really gonna need a lot of shoring up. >> What's the address on that? Just >> I want it's on um Ridgeway and East Bald Eagle Boulevard. >> Would you mind just sending me an email about that just so I can put that on my radar and then address that? >> Because you know you can just see it. It's just washing away and washing away. Yeah, I'll let the wershed district know because that and the DNR might have a role just if there are kind of like exposed soils. Um, so let me know what that address is and I'll make sure that they are aware of it as well. >> Okay. >> Andrew, you want to go back this >> definition of shoreland. Um, is it is there a conflict or does that address the high watermark through the DNR or >> this is the the only thing that's changing with this definition and this is the DNR's model um language is just the inclusion of the graphic. Um, I'm not sure. It does reference the ordinary high water level 1,000 ft from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage and then 300 ft from a river or stream or the lakeward extent of a flood plane designated by the ordinance on a river or stream. Does that answer your question? >> Yep. >> Do we address the trees? because you see a lot of people when they buy property on the lake clear cutting it and it's like it's kind of foolish in a lot of instances when they do that. >> That's on my radar um to update the tree preservation landscaping ordinance. We do have uh controls in place already cuz that if that is occurring on the shoreland that is considered uh to be a shoreline alteration and so you >> I don't think a lot of people understand what they're doing you know. So if are there other is this still the same one property or there other >> there's several of them right now. >> Okay. If you want just let me know what those are. I'll work with Mike and Larry and we can address that. >> Okay. >> And then these are the last of the definitions. Again just including graphics so that people just understand what they're being asked to interpret. Um, some of the other changes, we have a lot of different uses that kind of just are in outline form. And so, one of my things I've kind of done in other places is just try to use form based coding wherever possible, just because you can kind of eliminate 20ish pages of the same repetitive text by kind of putting things into a table format that is very easy to read if you're in this district. >> See, he's saving trees for you. Thank you. >> This will be the last time for a while that I have to include the entire zoning code um in the packet, but there's no use changes. We just wanted to put this into a more readable format. Residential uses on this slide and then commercial and industrial uses on the next. And this is just basically the exact same information that was in the zoning text previously, but just put into a table and then the redundancy is removed. Did you have anything to do with rip wrap and how it's put down in the shores? >> What's that? >> Rip. >> Did you have anything in the ordinance about rip wrap? >> About rip wrap? What's that? >> The rocks that people put down um >> between the water and the shore >> to avoid erosion of the shoreline. >> Interesting. Not >> that part is that part of the um wershed. >> Um I didn't see anything on that. I can look at the existing code um if that is something you'd like to see addressed or we can kind of address it as part of you know >> I'll send them to you. >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Yeah. >> And then just um there are a number of overlay districts as well that also reference, you know, the allowed uses. And basically the way the overlays work is if the overlay is on like a R1 or an R2, it just incorporates the allowed uses of those districts already. So it seemed a little redundant to just list the exact same information a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh time, if that makes sense. And so we just kind of included, you know, keeping those overlay districts because they still exist, but just including the references that these are the allowed uses in R1, R2. Did you find that you were going to have any um issues with We used to always kind of refer to the um East Bald Eagle like east, you know, like going north of Buffalo >> because it's it seemed to be a lot of requests there when they were people were redoing houses, >> but you know, the land was cut up really weird. We always thought we'd call it an historic overlay district. Did you have to do any tweaking for that? No, that's not referenced in the zoning code. At least the overlay the historic overlay district. Is that >> that was just the name we were thinking of giving it because there were so many oddities like you know you had flag lots and that kind of thing. >> Interesting. No, I did not see that. >> Just curious. >> I appreciate that. And then just kind of continuing on to general regulations. really the driveway thing was kind of what started this initially and then it kind of segueed into the expansion or alteration of non-conforming structures. um plane commission went through a series of variances this summer for the uh driveway setback and they issued a variance for 3 ft. And so that kind of helped drive what they ultimately decided the setbacks for driveways should be 5 ft for anything paved, anything unpaved, 3 ft from the property line because we still wanted people to be able to maintain it from their property line and not have to cross into their neighbors property. Um, and then the other part of uh section 7 is just using that 60% language for undersized lots to also apply to front yard uh setbacks. They basically said the existing code had said that you could do it up to 20 ft uh 20 foot front yard setback with a variance, but it seemed like you already had existing language addressing the undersized lots. And so it just seemed like an opportunity to basically use that same 60% for the sideyard setbacks for the front yard setbacks as well, just for those undersized lots. This would not apply to any lots that do meet, you know, dimensional standards for size area. Um, and then width. So they would be required to meet the existing setback of I believe it's 30 35 ft. Um, it's just kind of giving those smaller substandard lots a little bit more flexibility as they kind of have, you know, needs. >> Okay. >> And then the only changes to the shoreland section are just again including references to driveways. They're not structures. I don't think the township wants to consider them as structures anymore. And so we just wanted to make sure that that was consistent throughout. And then the last changes are in regards to just variances. Um worked with chat on this. It seems like we previously had a variance board and when that was in place that allowed for different pathways of for variance. Um but since that board was dissolved uh the only pathway for variance >> not dissolved it was just combined with the planning commission planning. >> So we still we still have a variance. >> Oh the variance board >> process. Yeah, >> let's say we moth balled it. >> We It was a frustration for the for for our residents because they could go through three people on the on the variance board, one of which was on the planning commission and if they if it got passed there, it comes to the planning commission anyway and it would just delay delayed the process. We felt it was better to combine it at the planning commission level. >> Okay, so >> that makes sense. >> Fair. Chad, do you have any >> I don't like to think residents think that we've eliminated it. So >> there's still a process for variances. >> Yes, >> he's just talking about the variance. >> The variance board though, Chad, correct? Was that like did they get rid of it? >> The absorbed. >> Yes. >> Absorbed. >> It was absorbed. Yeah. >> Okay. So the only pathway for variance is through a planning commission and then public hearing at the town board. >> That's right. At town board. And so that's what we wanted to kind of get rid of the administrative variance just because without the explicit presence of that variance board, it has to go to plan commission and then to a public hearing at town board and that is the only way statutoily that a variance can be approved. Um, and then just to kind of tie that all together, there are variances for hardships and then you can also use variances for reasonable uses, which some of the issues that we've been dealing with, um, you know, someone wants to add a second story to an existing structure. They want to, you know, uh, expand a legally non-conforming driveway. um anything that is essentially existing and non-conforming is not allowed to be expanded or altered under the current ordinance. It just says outright this is not allowed. We're not going to encourage this. So there isn't really even a pathway to a variance at this point. So we basically worked uh me and Chad just to try to understand okay what does use look like and are there parameters in which you know that is clearly defined. Um uses allowed in the zoning district where the property is are I would say reasonable uses because the zoning code says that they are either permitted or conditional. Um and then so it'll be up to myself, the planning commission, the town board kind of collectively to work on these on individual basises, but also kind of to provide more consistency to the variance process so that people can understand, okay, this is where a variance is applicable or no, this is not allowed, a variance can't work here. And so it's just going to kind of give people more flexibility, particularly because White Bear Township has so many properties on the lake within the shoreland, you're considered like a fully developed community. And so just with the way the ordinance language is now, it severely limits what people can do with their properties. And I think just seeing the or uh variances that kind of came through this summer, you guys seem to have a really good feel for what is a good fit for your community. And so that's kind of what the process that we wanted to put together. >> It's going to help us in our much discussed future of redevelopment. >> Should be pointed out that the our building officer, inspection officer was in in heavily involved in this too because he's the one that has to face it on the street >> uh on a daily basis and he wanted to be comfortable. Uh >> the building official, township engineer, and township attorney reviewed the amendments. I haven't received any initially. I know when we were doing this in September, Larry wanted me to kind of look at the short model uh DNR shoreline ordinance just to identify if there were any opportunities to kind of be more consistent with consistent with it. And so those are really the only comments that I've received. Chad, do you feel comfortable with the variance as we kind of have amended it? >> I do. I feel comfortable with the language. provides the board more flexibility than we had than it had before. >> And so the town board has the following options for this request. Approve the amendment with or without changes, deny the request with findings for denial, or table the request for further review and study. And with that, I can take any questions you guys have. >> Nope. I've sat through the meetings. >> Can this still be considered a work in process? I mean, sometimes I was reading through things things and I kind of had questions about them. I mean, we can still at some point make changes. Correct. >> Absolutely. Um, are there any changes that you have identified? >> I just when I was looking at it, we made a bunch of notes, but I'm just going to send them to you and let you deal with it. >> All right. Hearing no other questions to the board. I need a motion to open it up for public comment. >> I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment. >> I'll second. All >> in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. If anyone here would like to speak to this fascinating subject, Well, you make it very exciting, Andrew. >> I Good job, Andrew. >> Work. >> We're trying to make it less exciting is what we're trying to do. >> Yes, but his presentation is just >> Oh, yeah. Good presentation. No question, but >> hearing none. I need a motion to close the public portion. >> I'll move to close the public portion of the hearing. >> I'll second. >> All say I. >> I. >> All right. What's the pleasure of the board? >> Um, >> I'm fine with approving it, aren't you? >> Excuse me, >> sir. I'm fine with approving it. >> Yeah. I I move to approve the zoning text amendment to the township ordinance number 35 zoning ordinance. >> I'll second. >> Motion's made and second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion passes. All right. Item 8A. >> Nope. Do we have to There's another piece. Do we have to do this uh moratorum? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Good point. I don't know if I add that to the agenda. >> Says the action you're asking for is to terminate the moratorum. So, are we at a point where you're comfortable doing that? >> Very good point. We, you know, if you adopt this ordinance, there's no point having the moratorum anymore, >> right? I think I prepared a resolution for resending the moratorum and you guys don't have a 30-day. It It goes into effect immediately. So, >> see it in here. >> It's at the It's at the uh public hearing part right there. >> I should have add that as an agenda item. My apologies. I think I just added it as another resolution as part of this. It is in there, but it's part of the the min the topic public hearing 7A. I'm perfect. So, >> oh, here it is. >> Yeah. So, I would also recommend adopting uh the termination of the moratorum prohibiting acceptance or consideration of applications for variance to legally non-conforming uses and structures. >> I'll second. >> Motion's made a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Good catch, Steve. >> You made up for catch and wiper Lake City. >> I don't know how that happened. I'm so consistent on that. Dang. >> Well, I think only because the applicant wrote it in. >> That's how we got by. >> I probably zip right past that. >> All right. Now, we can move on. >> Yes. >> Uh item 8, the city for safe and stable communities. >> Mr. Chair, I did add this at the request of this group that has been uh working through messaging um and presenting a a united front for municipalities and townships. Uh just as the the name says, safe and stable communities. Um it was done, you know, and and while we had um ice a heavy ice presence here in the state of Minnesota, uh it's ratcheting back. Uh there hasn't been a lot of communication on this in the last few days. Um I I I don't see any harm in our being part of it. We're not required to do anything. um if there's relevant messaging that is applicable to the township, we have, you know, that right to get that out. Uh but beyond that, there's I mean there's really no harm in just being part of that group. >> Steve, I've read through it more than once and I have I really don't have an objection to the way that it's written, but I again the question was is it even in its final format? I >> No, not yet. No. >> No. >> Uh, >> but the the >> but conceptually, >> yes, conceptually the group is the group and they're just looking for people who want to be involved or organizations that want to be involved. >> Conceptually, I you know, I I do stand for the rule of law >> and I think we all do that. I think it does have an impact on our community, >> rightly, wrongly, however. Um, but I don't I don't see anything negative about it as it was provided to us. So, I'd support it. Yeah, >> I'd support it too just because, you know, we've got a lot of residents who have brought up this and I think it's probably at this point the best format. >> Yeah. You know, >> I I personally, like I said, I've read it a couple times, too. I'm I'm still a little concerned that it's I don't want to say one-sided, but it also doesn't address the civil unrest of protesters, which I think should be part of this. And I it so it seems like they just glossed over that. And and plus two, this is just another layer of government. I don't know if township wants to be involved in. Plus two, what are there any costs involved? Somebody's got to be putting this together. There's got to be costs for somebody. >> No cost. >> So, so how do they make how do you form a group? And and so far, no meetings, no. >> No. So, it's kind of like I mean it's kind of like our working group with the the water situation um with the White Bear White Bear Lake level lawsuit with all the communities that are involved in that. This is an example of network governance essentially. So it's when um organizations outside of their formal municipality or government structure uh are working together towards a goal and there really isn't a lot of I mean like there is no cost. There isn't a lot of hierarchy. It's just trying to find a a consistent message or approach to what might be a pertinent situation currently. >> Yeah. I uh I I say I I was just going to add to that that you know because it's it's really an indication of numbers of the of the metropolitan area in it in in its entirety supporting a statement that says, you know, enough is enough. Basically, we got to we just got to stand up for that. I mean, I I I know from a personal standpoint, a person that was born a US citizen and was challenged, a white person challenged for his citizenship. And that to me is collectively wrong. No one that's born in this country that's a true born here should have anybody question whether they are true American had to show proper identification that he is an existing American. And and I just that that's the far side of this. I don't think this goes there. I think this is more of a middle-of the road statement. >> It's very general. >> Yes. And I don't see anything wrong with it. >> Rule of law. I I believe we all believe in that. >> Well, that was our original uh stance when they when they wanted us to join this conglomerate that they were wanted to sue. >> It's like I just feel like >> townships don't want to I don't think we should be involved in any of that. So that >> you're right. I totally agree. We just I think we need to say something. I mean I you know I mean you know like I I'm kind of in touch with a lot of school teachers and they're suffering. >> Yes. >> You know and I think as small as it is it it's acknowledging >> but this isn't really going to solve anything. >> I know. But and the thing is we there's not a lot we can do. But you do kind of want to acknowledge the fact that a lot of what's happening isn't quite right. >> Well, where is this at right now, Patrick? Like I said, there hasn't been a lot of chatter on it because I do believe the environment is changing. >> Well, things are calming down and it's it's going to go away here shortly and then it's like, well, that was all for not. >> I'll tell you what, I mean, whatever correspondence I get from the group over the next however long I get it, get it out to you all and you can review it, see if we need to touch on anything in particular. Um, and we are under no obligation to be involved in anything that the group does other than we are, as Mr. Ruseek stated, in favor of the rule of law. It's pretty general. >> You can always withdraw anytime you want to. >> There's there's no obligation. >> Yeah, it's >> pretty as it stands. >> Yeah. >> So, as it stands now, there's there's going to be updates and changes on this thing. So, it's >> we'll see. Well, that's another reason why I don't feel comfortable associating the township with any of it until they have a a steadfast final instead of the draft we got. >> Oh, okay. So, I see what you're saying. So, I think what the request here is tonight is just to be a part of this group. It's not necessarily, we're not waiting for any kind of a specific statement to encapsulate what the group is doing right now other than standing for the rule of law. The rest of it messaging, you know, and and if we choose to be involved in that, that is our choice. Um I and I hope that answers your question, but I don't think that we're going to be in a position of if any time there is a statement that's being made on behalf of the group, we have to be involved or we have to approve of it or disapprove of it. It's just we're part of the group. >> Yeah. That gets back to my original statement that if their statement and we agree to join this, we are basically stating that we approve of whatever they come out with for statements. Correct. >> Not necessarily. I don't know. I feel a little edgy on this one, but >> Well, I mean, this isn't the final statement, isn't that what you said? This isn't the final one. >> It's not the final one. >> You're just You're just They're just looking to take our temperature. >> Yeah. So, I I'll go back to the the lake level lawsuit again. >> We have not We've been part of that working group trying to come up with a solution to the groundwater issue that's affecting White Bear Lake. We send Chad uh we've been sending engineers for their input and discussion of where this case is and I'm proud to say that we have stood uh alone in a lot of our points with that that lawsuit. Right, Chad? I mean >> Oh yeah. >> Just because we're part of a group doesn't mean we have to agree with everybody. >> No. Um and I and like I said, I'm I'm pretty proud of uh our being independent on that one and I think we can walk that same line with this. >> Yeah, there can be huge discussions on how what the rule of law is and and the statement says we are calling for improved coordinated coordination grounded in the rule of law, due process and respect for local governance. It it gives local governance the as you were saying we don't want to be politically involved. gives us that we give some assurances to the citizens >> that >> we realize there's an issue here and we're making a statement that the rule of law whatever the courts determined is the rule of law should apply and it's being characterized in many different ways today uh as to what they can and cannot do in ICE operations. So I mean if if it's the pleasure of the board to at least uh tenatively be part of this, I can put us in as um a measured member who would like to evaluate uh messaging in the immediate from the group before we jump full on board. Something along those lines. >> Yeah. >> Do they even allow for that? Is there even a >> um I can sure try. Chad, is this any way if if for some reason these cities form a group and go after or try to sue the federal government, is there any way we're attached to that by this group? >> No. >> No, no, >> I think it's pretty informal, but it's I think it was more just kind of a way to make a statement. >> A legal you can't be involved in legal loss unless you agree to it, consent to it. And I and I think the town you guys the board um has been in agreement with Chad and his direction as to how our position is with what's going on with um ICE in the state. >> Was there an article in the White Press about this? >> I think there was I think >> was there >> I think that I think the council had addressed it. >> I thought there was a different one. Was the um >> Was it this one or not? >> I don't think it was this one. And I think it was um the other one that came through um the other was it Brian Curran? I think there was there were there have been a cut two of them. >> They were having a work session but I don't know what came out of it but but again I think this is pretty >> all right. So you're just looking for a >> a consensus basically. >> Well, it sounds like you got a two to one. um we can be supportive, you know, at arms length um for the comfort of the board um for right now. >> Well, either way, if they're going to keep us updated on changes in it because it sounds like this is just kind of a fly by night all of a sudden thrown together and it's going to it may massage and turn into something different, too. >> It might. You're right. I don't, like I said, I feel a little edgy on it, though. It's >> Don't I know, but I like I said, whatever comes out, I'll share with the board from here on. >> All right. Anything else on that? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chair, that will do it. >> All right, then. Uh, item 8B, the Rice Creek Wershed. I don't know. You just handed these pamphlets out. >> Yep. That was a late addition. um came down the pipe uh yesterday approving um half of the cost of a shoreline restoration project. So I don't know if you any of you got see Andrew um capability on your um tablets there to pull up a Google map for Bald Eagle Lake. You can see where St. Anthony uh comes down to Bald Eagle Boulevard uh and slopes right into the lake and there has been considerable runoff that has uh caused erosion to that uh portion of the shoreline. This project is specifically to address that. Um, all we're looking for tonight is um approval of the board and then our shiny new public works director slash township engineer will give them um a schedule of uh how we're going to go or go about approaching this plan. >> They going to be able to fish and do the same things like they do. Is it I'm trying is it on west or summit? I can't remember where >> is it. Summit. >> Yes. >> Same similar situation. That's a great >> rain garden there, isn't it? Something similar. >> Yeah, but you know, you see a lot of little kids fishing over there. >> I don't think it affects uh use of the shoreline at all. I think it's there to protect it so we can continue to use. >> You know, this this is another plus for the community on a lake that was called impaired and has now improved and this is just further improvement for it. So, >> going to help us out. >> It's uh to me it looks like money well spent. >> And this is another example, Mr. Chair. Uh we will be >> Are you picking on me? >> No, no, no. I because you've been an advocate for this at each one of our budget and tax meetings for the last several years. This is another project that we have to attend to, but our staff and consultants are working pretty hard at getting grant funding to cover these costs as best we can. >> You should highlight this and then >> we are starting a a laundry list. >> People should understand the good things that they're getting. >> Yes. And this is this is a good one. It is good. >> Uh, yes. And the most current term is at the March meeting. >> Yes. >> And this does kind of fall under the heading of the lawsuit. We have to account for all our water, all our runoff, all our >> and we can't impair our lakes with pollution. So, um, this keeps us out of trouble and it helps beautify the shoreline. So, major amenity for the township gets to be improved and we're getting half of the cost covered. >> So, do you need a motion on this? >> I do. to accept it. >> Yep. To accept it and to have >> the grant application. >> Yep. >> I'll move to accept the Rice Creek Wershed water quality grant application uh as as presented uh for through a letter dated February 17th, 2026 to the township. >> I'll second. >> Motion made a second. All in favor? >> I >> I. And you should also also authorize the town chair and the town clerk to execute the a application >> and move to the same as the attorney recommended that the town uh board chair and clerk uh or sign the agreement there. >> Second all >> I >> I >> thank you board. >> All right. That concludes our regular agenda. We don't have any added. We do have open time. I think we have a student maybe. >> Now's your time. Come on up to the podium and give your name and address and be famous >> or infamous. >> No. No. Come on. >> Who's asking if you want to say anything? >> You don't want to say anything? >> Uh, no. >> That's perfectly acceptable. >> At the end of the meeting, come on up and get that signed. >> Should be a minute. >> How about dad? >> No. That's a no, too. >> All right. Seeing none, I need a motion to >> details. You guys disagreed on something more interesting. >> There you go. >> I need a motion to receive agenda material supplement. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I need a motion to adjourn at 7:48. >> Look at that. So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Now we'll sign it for you. >> We make you stay till the end.