do anything other than look at stuff that they told me I have 7 o'clock we will call the town board meeting for November 3rd 2025 to order first item is the agenda any changes Patrick >> uh none from staff Mr. Sure. >> Report of anything? >> No. >> Motion to approve. >> Move to approve the agenda as submitted. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> Opposed. >> All right. Uh item three is approval payment of the bills. >> I signed off. Move to approve payment of the bills. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. >> All right. Item four is the approval of minutes of October 20th. Uh I know we got them late. I kind of read through them. They're kind of condensed. I expected them to be a lot longer. >> Really? I thought they were pretty Well, whatever. No. >> Uh, anybody have any changes? >> I saw none. Move to approve the prior meeting minutes of uh, October 20. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Five is a consent agenda item. Look like we have six of them. Anybody have a problem with these? Oh, eight of them. >> Nope. >> Nope. >> Need a motion? >> Move to approve consent. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All opposed. All right. Uh item six, full business, the Bime automation purchase. Patrick, you that you? >> I can take that one. >> That one's for >> We did have a discussion. They basically said take it or leave it. >> This was what the board pulled two meetings ago because uh there was a question about the the legal obligation or disclaimer that was on the form. >> Their identification clause and their their allocation of attorney's fees. I don't like, but they're not going to change the contract. And apparently this is equipment that they only they're it. >> Okay. >> So, I would say this though that I really wouldn't be too concerned about it. The township always pays its bills on time. >> Yeah. >> And it sounds to me like the uh public works has a pretty good relationship with this with this company. So, I think it's probably worth the risk just approving as is. >> All right. Any other questions or comments? >> No. >> All right. I need a motion to approve the purchase. >> I'll move to approve the purchase of the brine automation p of equipment for cost of $27,544 with funding from the capital improvement plan. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Uh item C. This is Alina Lakes North Oaks JPA discussion. >> Oh, did we just Sorry. Three Oaks. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Three Oaks Homeowners Association. >> Uh yeah, Mr. Chair, the uh uh president of the Three Oaks Home Home Homeowners Association is requesting the township support in acquiring grant funds for uh trees along Peterson Road for uh noise mitigation. There is no obligation on part of the town uh the township. Just a support from a local government body. >> Couldn't get any of those trees alongside Centerville Road. Just asking. >> All right. Where exactly they want these? >> Along Peterson Road, it looked like, >> but there's a whole row of them on the southern house on Mayagen. >> Okay. >> So, is it is this the Shield Mayagen or the Townships on the uh east? >> Hold on. I thought >> I thought it was east and south of >> That's all I thought it was. is the west side of Peterson Road. >> But the west side they there's a big screening of of Evergreens along Mayhagen unless it's north of Mayhagen. >> Uh submitting a grant proposal department and transportation community roadside blah blah blah blah. West side or Peterson road. >> It doesn't say where on the west side. >> West side. >> Yeah. But where on? >> Oh, I don't know. Uh, let's see. They didn't put in a map, did they? >> No. >> So, I was a little confused when I read this. >> I have to admit, I thought I understood it to be on the other side of the >> Well, maybe Andrew could just call up cut up the map real >> because there's a whole line of trees south of me, big evergreens, >> blocking that first house. up. >> Now, the the house on the north side, uh I don't know if it's purposely let off because there's a retention pond that runs down into there. >> Yeah. I This is adjacent to H2. >> Um Oh, it's wouldn't be north of H2, wouldn't it? >> It'd be north of H2. >> Yes, that area. >> Yes. North up here. >> Up there. We'll follow Peterson Road to Garly Park, which is Garly up north of there. better. >> Okay. So, I'm looking at it right now. >> I think it's in front of the wetlands. >> Yeah. So, west side must be >> just looking at the wetland. >> See, that's me. There's a whole line of trees blocking this house. >> Why would they want trees along this side where it's all >> It's all open space. You think it >> sure it's not on the south side. >> I thought was complaining. >> Their letter says west side. >> Yeah. >> See, when they when we when they were talking about it, I was almost positive it was closer to 35 >> E and it was on the south side of um H2 >> as west. >> I don't know why I think that, but >> the east side of Three Oaks neighborhood parentheses west side of west side of Peterson Road. >> Road. >> Yeah. >> Maybe it's that part that's a little bit further than I don't know. >> I don't know what they're trying to screen. It's all wetland there. >> Well, it says to provide natural sound mitigation to reduce freeway noise. >> Yep. >> And I thought Yeah, and I thought it was close to 35. >> Let me do this, folks, before we run ourselves ragged. Um, if you're comfortable passing it subsequent to clarification of placement of trees, we can do that, right? >> Sure. >> Well, I'm concern question is why? Who are you screening it from? >> They they they want to keep noise from the freeway. >> No, I get it. the houses are already almost close to Centerville that are affected by it. >> Otherwise, it's all open in wetland. >> I for some reason I think it's it's on it's it's on the um east side >> on the south side of H2. That's why I think there's something in >> it can't be on the south side. >> No, >> it's the it's the Three Oaks homeowners. That's north of me, which is on Mayhagen. >> That whole area between Peterson and Cine Road. >> I thought that they came down further. They were part of the Pine Hill. Okay. that I've got >> three out all by themselves. >> So, I'm not sure how they're screening freeway noise >> because there is, like I said, there is screening to the house to the south on May and Peterson. The guy to the north, I'm positive there was a wetland uh proposed back behind that gentleman. And I don't know if you could put trees there to be in that drainage ement if I'm not mistaken. So that means then it's going to be farther north which all your screening is open space and wetland. So I the whole thing didn't make sense to me but >> okay I I can get clarification send it out to the board tomorrow. If you want to make a motion to pass it subject to that clarification you can. >> Yeah. Now that the property to the east on Peterson Road, there's an empty five acre spot there, which is pretty much wide open from Peterson to the freeway. >> That that that I can see where noise is traveling there. But now you're another whole block over to anybody's house. >> That's not their property either. >> No, >> no, >> no. It's privately owned. I >> I personally think we should do what Pat says. Um this is just to com to ask for fun in support of funding to do this. these up, >> but they have to work with the township as to the location where they're going to go. >> I can be okay with that. >> Yeah, Mr. P. >> Yeah, I'm okay. >> Well, as long as it doesn't cost us anything. I don't I don't see how it's going to benefit. >> Do you want to make sure you get more trees in your yard, Ed? >> They took down trees and they did mine. I I just don't want to be in support of placement of the trees and that I see nothing here that says they're where they're placing them or all they're asking us to do is support their request to see if they can get some trees. They're not going to give them mature trees anyway. >> That's true. There is there is a study that says a freeway um soundwall is the same as 100 ft of vegetation. So if they're looking to to screen the freeway noise, a line of trees is not going to do anything. >> But ju just for their information, it it they're >> but visually it the thing is the wood screens are sometimes kind of ugly to look at and they don't always maintain it. >> I think MDOT already made a decision that they didn't say it warranted uh screening along the east the west side of 35 there. So they weren't going to this is the best solution they got in develop on Pat's suggestion. You could always approve it conditioned upon town input into the location of set of the trees. >> Did this go through the park board? >> Nope. >> No. >> This is just a >> Yeah. I don't know if it really would >> be a It was actually the homeowners actually um came to us with it, I think. Didn't they find it? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Planning Commission. Yeah. Uh, no. Homeowners. >> Homeowners association did. >> Okay. But who did they go to? Just the staff >> apparently. >> Yeah. The president initially reached out to me of the uh homeowners association. >> Right. So again, I it seems like they didn't follow protocol here. >> It's not really a planning issue. >> No, it's not. >> Or a park issue. No. >> Or a safety. Well, it could be a safety issue possibly. But that's why you may want to condition upon upon town input into the location of the trees. not only that if it's going to be in the rightway or >> and I am concerned on all that there's definitely some drainage there. So we would need our engineers to look at that where they're planning on >> again this is only a request to put letter of support >> for them to go forward with grand funding. >> So am I too far in the weeds? >> I think you are legitimate. They wouldn't go for the deer in the weeds, but you have to planning. >> I don't see there's anything wrong with issuing a letter of support if they can if they can get the trees, but but the issue really goes to where are they going to go and how many they may not be able to >> I can make that very clear to them. >> Yes. And I >> Okay, fine. >> Just let it go. >> Your name's not on it. >> Well, I'm sorry. You're the chair. >> I do I have a motion. >> Get paid the big bucks. >> Make a motion to approve the uh Three Oaks Homeowners Association grant project subject to clarification by our town clerk. >> Thank you. >> Or staff. >> Got a second. >> I'll second that. All >> in favor? >> I >> I >> I All right. Item C, Milana Lakes, North Oaks, JPA. >> Mr. Chair, board. Um, I was uh told from parties involved in the discussions of a three-part JPA between the uh township, city of North Oaks, and uh Lo, City of Lo. Uh that there would be a um some kind of a draft addit of that JPA for discussion tonight. I kept this on the agenda. I haven't received anything. So I I don't know if there's really anything that we need to talk to about unless the board wants to get some background on this. >> Well, other than the fact that we did give them till the first week of December to get us something. That's when we were kind of expecting something. >> But that's that's the government of North Oaks. This is Lionyl Lakes, which is another subuser >> through North Oaks, not even the community. I I just go on record. I think none of this is is is valid until we get a JPA in place with the city of North Oaks. >> And I did let all parties know that last week very clearly. >> I mean, government to government, our JPA is with the city of North Oaks. Well, actually we don't. >> Well, you are correct. The one that expired >> Yes. City of North. Correct. >> Um and which we were trying to get a renewal or a revised JPA for the last two and one half years. >> Two and three/4ers here. >> Okay. I'm short, but so >> going on three, Steve. >> I mean, I I value Lionel Lakes trying to move forward with their project. Yes. >> And the seller of the property with their interests in the property, >> but I think it's premature until we have an agreement with the city. >> And I think our attorney said it best when we were discussing the logistics uh involved with this potential JPA is that we'll sell you water. >> Yes. And >> that's it. Um the rest of it is I as Chad has said, I don't think we need to be involved in that. We're just here as the the vendor essentially. >> Well, and as I was saying, I'd gone through their master infrastructure plan. I read the entire thing today and they actually don't think we can give them enough water and they basically want to do business with Shore View. So, I'm kind of unsure why we're even kind of doing this whole thing. I mean, it seems like and I I have questions about how many people are involved in this thing because when you read through it, North Oaks company is getting out of the picture. their HOA, their city government, and then Waverly Gardens and all the other subsets were also to be included with discussions according to this stuff. I'm very confused. >> Um Logan, just for you, your edification. Um there have been there was a public statement made at the city of North Oaks council this last month um by the administrator that specifically said that uh in his opinion the township uh wants to cut the water source off from city of North Oaks. >> That is 100% inaccurate. Um, we worked for two years, myself, Ed, Chad, um, Council Member, uh, Watson, who's no longer there, as well as the administrator, Kevin Crest, for two years, um, for a new and revised JPA, uh, with the expectation that it would have been passed long ago and we would be in the midst of selling them water from our water source. Um, that line of thinking makes no sense. uh and to put us into that type of a position to me quite frankly is really offensive and is completely unnecessary. Um we have given them as Mr. Ruseek said almost three years to work through this. Um and I think I got to tell you I think our board's patience is wearing thin. Uh we are basically providing them water in good faith at this point with nothing tying us legally. So to say something like that to >> this deadline the first week in December, they've always said they had a plan B or another source coming. Well, we have not seen anything. No proposals, no nothing. So if they do have something, we'd like at least know what it is or what's their timeline. So that's kind of also what we're waiting for. There's been talk of them pulling water from the St. Paul Waterworks >> or or extending Shore Views lines. They have all these grander ideas, but it's just pie in the sky. Until they put it on paper, we don't know. >> Or water towers and their own water treatment facilities, >> right? All that stuff is major expenses. >> Um, just so that camera has me on record. Yes. Logan Gillan, wiper press representative. They are speaking to me. Also, our press is very aware of it. We are so sick of covering this story. I have a friend who is from college. She is um a pretty well-connected producer in Hollywood. and I gave her the 10,000 foot overview of the story and she said, "You know what? I call this stupid Aaron Brachovich." Um, that was her response. So, yes, we are up to date. We are aware of um the statements made from all parties and we have been tracking this story, we hope to God, accurately um from whence before I first started >> hovering the township. So hopefully we continue to represent truthfully what everyone has been saying. >> As long as you make it clear that it's up to Lino Lakes and North Oaks to decide how the infrastructure is to be maintained and constructed that the town has with the exception of the sanatory sewer trunk line. The town has no interest in that. >> And that's the new JPA. That's not even the old one. >> The old one isn't ratified yet. So I just >> Yes, we are. And we are also very aware that all you want to do is sell them water when they have a contract ready to go. We are I am trying to be as neutral as possible here as a journalist right now. And I >> thank you. >> Hopefully just under the surface you can read between the lines how I um >> well plus too this board is receiving calls from residents from North Oaks. We all we're neighbors. We all know each other and the rumors that are flying around are just rumors. They're just it's all hearsay. >> Wonderful. We will uh at the press continue to monitor the situation much to our chagrin and um we will hopefully you know I I hope that you are satisfied with the reporting that it's accurate to what is happening. >> I've had no problem with it. >> Great. Awesome. I'll be back up here later. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. So, as of now, we still just waiting on that deadline of December. >> Yep. That's for the Lo North Oaks JPA. >> No. No, that's for hours. >> Okay. There is one comment I should make about this. I did talk to the city attorney last Thursday >> of Lal or >> of North Oaks. >> And I mentioned to I informed her that the the city that the township has not built is acrewing the bills. She requested that the town send the bill to North Oaks as soon as possible at the rate of 125% of the tier one. >> Uh I thought we had originally said tier three. >> I did say that and she I'm just telling you what she said >> and her basis is that was that the initial discussion was tier one >> but you didn't take the deal. >> Well, and that's a good point. Yes, that's exactly right. >> I I think we should proceed as personally as as we outlined at a tier three and they can do what they want with the bill. >> It's fine. I just want to let the board know because yeah, the better the sooner you make a decision or >> the sooner the sooner the town goes forward the better off I think the town is. So, if North Oaks progresses to the I mean pretty hard deadline at this point at the end of the first week of December to have a feasibility study in place as we have agreed upon. It would still be time for us to build them at tier three because we would in theory have an agreement at that point. So, the ball's back in their court. >> Well, it'd be nice if we had it by the 21st, which is our exec board meeting. >> Mhm. because we're going to get this the first week of December. Um and then we're only >> if we do >> Yeah. And we have a meeting December 1st. >> Uh Yep. That's the big boy meeting. That's the budget and tax meeting. >> Yeah. So we don't exactly have time to be beating up a JPA. >> So we said at the end of the first week of December. I mean that goes out to the 5th. But >> then again, it doesn't give us any time for the board to get together until the 15th. Does >> Would the board ask, would the board like me to contact the city attorneys and tell her that the board would like to see at least see a proposed JPA prior, you know, by the 19th of November so it can be reviewed at the uh November exec meeting. >> Oh, >> like fleshed out framework. >> Yeah. Proposal. That would at least give us staff time to at least look over their general guidelines. So >> I can do that. >> What about >> I mean they only had two and a half years. What you know? >> Yeah. >> Coming up on three rapidly. >> So where do we leave it with the get the bill as soon as possible? >> Yes. >> Uh she requested. >> I think we still stay with that December billing. >> I do too. >> Okay. If you didn't like the first deal, you got to take the second deal. >> We are trying as best we can here to accommodate what's happening in city of North Oaks. >> And I understand they change engineers, they change attorneys, get all that, but they've had the same city administrator. >> Yeah, that's the consistent. So, what rate are we is we billing them for the December billing? We had been doing 125% of tier one. >> Correct. >> That was according to previous JPA. >> Uh the board at our executive meeting requested another level. >> I agree. I just want to make sure we're we're we're at >> Okay. >> tier three level. >> Yep. >> And this is only to to at least motivate them because it doesn't seem like anything else is working. >> You're right. >> No, you can say talk about good faith and all this. It's awfully far down the road. >> Yeah, >> we've done nothing but accommodate. >> And there are going to be some people who see their water bills in North Oak that are going to go, "What just happened?" >> Enough. >> All right. Any other discussion on this? >> No. >> Uh, if I do get something along the lines of a draft JPA, I will share that with the board. >> All right. Moving on. Seven is no public hearing. Eight. Uh, Metallands Drive use standards permit requests. This is for their out the store storage. >> Yep. For their uh temporary greenhouse that they do every summer. And as you mentioned, it's 1059 Milandlands Drive. Um, Kalski Companies doing business as Cub Foods of White Bear Township are making their annual application for their temporary greenhouse. Uh, previously it was approved by the plan commission and board in 2014. Um, that was kind of when it was relocated to a different part of the property. Uh, it was renewed for 5 years in 2015 and 2020. The greenhouse will be in the northeast corner of the property across from the building where the 5,500 ft greenhouse will temporarily occupy two tiers of parking or 28 spaces. Uh the site still has enough parking to accommodate the grocery use. Um Cub Foods of White Bear Township is approximately 75,000 square ft. Uh which is considered sales or services in the off streetet parking table. Um as I mentioned, the greenhouse was located further from the exit door in response to a request from the planning commission in 2014 and does not block any access lane. Uh the hours of operation are expected to be daily during the summer spring months from 8:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. from mid April till the end of June typically. Um the application is good for the next 5 years as the last couple times they've done it. Um the procedures for permitted uses are listed in section 9-3. The plan commission reviewed the request at the October 23rd meeting requesting that language about the temporary fencing be removed as this is not something that they've typically done. Um gave it a positive recommendation to the town board and the town board can grant approval or denial of the request. Um >> Andrew, maybe I have a brain meltdown, but I thought this was under a conditional use permit. >> Not for the greenhouse from my understanding. They have typically um come under the permit use standards >> and so because I know you can do a condition for five. I didn't know we could do a US for five. >> Um that's how we've done these the last couple times they've come around 2015 and 2020. They've been for a period of five years. >> I remember chairing the planning commission when Cub Foods came in and originally there was to be no outside storage. None. Then it was a little bit on the curb and on the sidewalk. And now here we are taking out I >> They can say all they want, but when that place gets busy, it's that it's busy. >> They take out a lot of parking spaces there. >> Yep. And I did a parking count just based on what the township's requirements are. Um they do have two more than what is technically required >> after you take out for the >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um the zoning ordinance section 9-3 permit use standards just kind of reviews the criteria for permitted standards permit. Uh first the use shall be planned designed constructed and maintained to avoid unnecessary detraction from the appearance of adjacent properties or from the town as whole. Aesthetic oral incompatibility damage to vegetation. Traffic pattern incompatibility. erosion of soils or unnecessary loss of existing natural features, increased flood potential. Um, this really isn't is less of a development per se and more just kind of like a business license. So, the development isn't going to affect anything that is already there. Uh, no development shall be allowed which will result in unusual maintenance or repair costs of roads, parking areas, or utility lines. development shall only be permitted in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. Um, it's a parking lot, so they're really not going to be doing too much to it that hasn't already been done. Um, no concern with the type and density of land uses proposed for the site. Um, the proposed site shall be cited, design, oriented, and landscaped to produce a harmonious relationship of building and grounds to building and ne and properties in the neighborhood. Um the proposed use shall preserve the objectives of the ordinance and be consistent with the policy and recommendations of the comprehensive plan. And then finally, fire prevention and fighting equipment of acceptable the board of fire underwriters and town board uh shall be readily available when any activity involving the handling or storage of flammable or explosive materials is carried on. Uh we had the building official and the fire inspector review the application and the only comment that they had is just that building permit is required at the time of install with plans and tent specifications prior to the installation and then they would do um an inspection before um they can operate. So the town board has the following three options for this request. First is recommend approval of the request with or without conditions. Second, recommend denial of the request with findings for denial. Or three, table the request for further review and study. >> Questions, comments? >> Nope. I'm I'm good with it. Fact, I think I made the fiveear suggestion when it happened. >> I'm good with it. >> All right. Hearing no discussion. Uh is there a motion? I'll I'll move based on the planning commission's recommendation that the board approve of the uh seasonal PU request for 1059 Meadowlands Drive. >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. All right. Motion carries. >> Item nine. We have no added agenda items. Item 10, we have open time. >> Hi. Uh Logan Gueon, Gio N12599 Europe Avenue North. Hugo. Um, >> used your turn already. Sorry. >> I know. I know. Um, so, uh, really like my relationship with you guys. Wednesday might change feelings. Um, but, uh, yes. So, I submitted a story regarding um, public hearings from the previous two town board meetings um, regarding street improvement. Uh, that story is already in. However, they asked a question that I am figuring I'm going to ask you guys here. Um, they uh did an assessment for Anderson Lane and one of the lots is 1.5 lots. And my editor and the copy editor both wanted to know what that meant and why. And I realized I didn't really know an answer. I thought I did. >> It's actually pretty easy. Okay, >> it's 1.5 units and the assessment policy of the town of White Bear is based on number of units. So if you have multiple units, you get multiple, you know, you have the base assessment, you multiply the number of units. So the TKDA, the consulting engineers determine that there's 1.5 units. So consistent with the township policy, they're assessed 1.5 times. Gotcha. >> 1.5. Yeah. 1.5 times. >> All right. >> It usually means they sit on a corner. >> That is exactly what I told my editor. And so I'm just doing due diligence, double checking. >> You have a county road and then a township road. So you're only getting assessed half because you got a county road on one side. >> Oh, that's where the other half depends. >> Yeah. Yeah. I uh I figured that was the case and that's what I told my editor, but I figured I'd also just double check with you guys. So I took As Chad had talked about during those meetings, the township has spent a lot of time trying to figure out assessment values to make it fair to everyone. And it we beat this one up and this is the best solution that we have. >> The um I took your words to heart with the story. I think I was kind and I also um >> your address. >> Yeah, I know. I already It's all right. I already said it. Um I'm not in the township. You can't come after me. Um the >> actually that makes it easier. >> Yeah. Yeah, it does. It does. Uh no, as the longer I've worked now as a journalist, the more I uh the less tolerance I have for comments that are uh ignorant of the workings of local government and not constructive. So I believe I included comments that work towards a solution. So I'll leave it at that. >> The chair is right. It's corner lots are always 1.5. >> That makes a lot of sense. >> Not always. Not always, but they're they're skewed half, you know, that that cuts it in half. One unit is half. >> That's that makes a lot of sense. And that's pretty much what I told my editor. So, I'm glad to know we did it right. So, >> so correct. It's not always 1.5, but the one because it's a corner lot, there's a half uh potential half, potential half. She just wanted to know because one one of the comments in the open or the public hearing was like they wanted all 18.5 lots and we were like 18.5 that's a weird number and she just wanted to know what it meant and I was like oh it's the 1.5 it's probably because it's a corner lot and it not necessarily but it was in this case. So >> all right thank you very much. >> Oh that's it Logan? >> That really is it? >> Oh okay. Sure you want anything else? >> What? >> Sure you don't want to say anything else? >> No I I think uh no >> while you're ahead 11 I need a motion to receive agenda materials and supplements. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. I need a motion to adjourn at 7:32. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thanks board. >> Way to go. >> Those are good questions.