yeah um if we were to do because we had put 350 in a long-term financial plan so if we were able to do I guess we we can't I mean if we are able to do the 307 that technically is taking a chunk out of our long-term fin plan even we're saving that ahead of time so the 350 um so we also have there's a air handling unit in that facility too so that 350 accounted for doing some HVAC work as well in 2026 okay so I think we'll we'll expend all those funds by the end of the project if not I was wondering if there's anything left in that 350 if that could help fund having a contractor having you know this third party come in and oh like for the inspection program exactly sure what happens if we were down to two pumps so we've got one out what if one failed right now what would we do um it's a good question I we'd have to we're all going to we have I mean there's there's a lot of storage in that in that line it's a 36 line so there's a a lot of volume of storage in it okay it would there would have to be a lot of things that would be stacked against us to have like a big issue but um I think they have had three pumps on uh from a time or two from past experiences what I heard three pumps off three pumps on okay so three pumps have had to run before well the options listed I would definitely support that number three would place two of the four pumps I'm help me out with this one so it says here that we have sufficient funds in the sewer fund to phase the replacement of all four pumps but two in 2025 so sounds like they must be faced right so we I mean so to say replace all four pumps now that's just future we're not going to actually do all four pumps right now we're still just going to do two so even if we say replace number three replace two of the four that's really what we're getting out of this right yeah so we have enough cash in the sewer fund to fund 156,000 this year and then when we have sufficient funding you know from the next but cycle then that would we'd have enough money to do the last two so does that essentially then take number four actually kind of off the table at this point because if we can't I I can't speak that without having Brent or Lynn in the room so I'm sorry I just don't know answer that question let's see I'm not hearing anybody say no I don't want to do at least two of the pumps correct at least for I would say let's do at least two but maybe we didn't do a cost benefit of doing all four right now and everything else you say it by having the cruise in there that's what I was going to say so um what I'm hearing is the direction is go ahead and let's replace two of the pumps for sure in 2025 but that we want additional information on if we can actually if we have the funding to be able to afford to do all of them in 2025 or do we have to wait on those last two until 2026 I'm seeing a lot of heav yes okay do we have any major replacement projects in the long-term financial plan for this year for the sewer fund or are we just saving up for the pumps for next year right now we did um we're doing the Spring Creek legation pumps okay um what are the state of those do we know they um they're about 70,000 they're they need to be replaced so we actually we actually got quotes for those already I believe okay so um and then have you looked into the cost of doing regular pump inspections I know you mentioned something you'd like to do going forward cost numbers on it we don't have any numbers on it yet that's just something that we're going to you know inquire about just putting a bug are year correct all right so we will go ahead um you have the support to replace at least two of the pumps we're looking if wondering if from a financial standpoint we can do all four of them this year okay that sounds good so if option four is is a is a valid option we'll bring it back um to let you know otherwise The Next Step would be obviously we need to get two quotes So this was just kind of a budgetary exercise so we'll get a second quote then and then the council would see that um and be able to award a quote would be the next step and this is straightforward it's just a pump right there isn't plant and specs and no so it's literally just provide the existing pump data um the pump curve and how much how many gallons per minute it needs the pump and they give us a quote okay all right although just to clarify if you do the four since it's going to exceed the statutory bidding threshold that would have to be a more formal um bidding process where they would advertise and companies would look at it submit bids um you may get two you might get 10 you guys know the how that works but that would change what they have to go through they can get quotes for something under 175,000 but when you go once you go above that you have to actually go okay okay all right all right I think we should chop those up so residents can own a piece of the car May pieces of it and some car brick okay let move on to my favorite topic uh review and discuss for the cannabis dispensary regulation all right yes thank you mayor and councel I'm going to share my screen just so we have something I'm just going to pull the packet up but um so for cannabis you all know that we the council approved some sure this does are you pulling the pack the other one try that other one sometimes that one's finicky that adap um the council approved zoning regulations at the end of 2024 because of the um legalization of recreational cannabis and so now there's some rules in place for where business uh can establish once licensing starts at the state level um have a bring it up so the one piece that we kind of kicked into the first part of this year was um one other component the city has to consider and that's who will handle retail registration for cannabis and hemp retail um businesses state law will require um or does require any business that wants to sell cannabis products or hemp products um to register with the local government um that they are operating in and um many cities are handling the registration piece but it is an administrative burden and cities can under the statute defer that uh registration piece to the counties that they're located in um staff has been in discussions with Carver County for the last few months they've been actually very um transparent about their plans and they went through a process and adopted an ordinance that will actually allow them to not only handle registration for any of the cities and towns that are in the county but also they've imposed the limitation on the number of dispensaries per city um so given the size of Carver we could theoretically as a city if we handled registration limit the amount of dispensaries to just one because we have less than 12,500 people um most cities have to do registration if they want to impose those limits Carver County is one of the few counties that is actually enforcing those on behalf of cities if they want to um defer the registration to the county which um takes an administrative burden off of Staff it also will allow the county to sort of streamline this it's just like they they do tobacco licensing for a lot of cities and towns as well um and keep in mind this registration is a very I want to call it like you know licensing light if that because the state is licensing these retail businesses and cities have very little regulatory oversight from that standpoint but this local registration piece is one one thing that um that the city does have the ability to do so um I did prepare I I talked to Brent at length about this we have a person from caror County who's planning to attend the meeting on the 21st of this month to just present the county registration program and talk a little bit about how they're going to be doing it um but as we approached that meeting I wanted to have a discussion with this Council about um one whether you are supportive and I think we've we've even talked about this a little bit in the past whether you're supportive of the county handling the registration um and then there's a couple other things that I did include in the ordinance that I think are important two other things specifically one is a uh provision in there just clarifying if we just yeah we can absolutely take a break yeah yeah let's talk about retail registration talk about retail registration before we go on um so I think what I'm hearing you say is regardless if we handle it or if we have a county handle it it will be one license for the city of haror because we are 7,000 people and not 12,51 people yes unless we handled it and chose not to to limit it okay um which we we could do um and you know one one main reason cities are are saying we absolutely want to handle registration is so they can enforce that limit because a lot of counties just aren't focused on localities as specifically in cities and towns they're more worried about County Ride limits but yes they will enforce that and in fact their ordinance already has that built into the framework of okay I have no concern with County doing it remind me I know we've asked this question but does the county charge us back for administering this nope okay no they're going to handle it they can collect the registration fee it's a statuto capped number from all the registra for all the registration but that pays for things that they do like um compliance checks and processing the paperwork it's not a it's not a money-making Endeavor really so you know again I I don't see much if any value to um handling registration knowing that the county is willing to enforce the limitation what I would say is that we always have the ability to do it on our own if we wanted to change our ordinance the only value to doing that I think would be if for some reason one we think the county is doing a bad job and we want to do it or two we want to get rid of a dispensary cap and um or vice versa the county chooses in the future for some reason to get rid of it we want to keep it um but those are things that are to be determined and um I just want to say that you don't you're not stuck to whatever decision you make today you can always change if things aren't working for some reason has the county formally passed their ordinance on I know you said they intend to do this but have they I think they have yeah and we can double check with him when he's at the meeting um his name is David frisman and um I believe they have we saw a draft of it a month or two ago and it was working its way through the County Board review and approval process I just I wouldn't want personally I wouldn't want to sign on to a regulatory scheme that we don't have any certainty what it actually is sure yeah and we can confirm and if it's been approved get a copy of it be great thank you yeah I don't have any problem with the county doing that work for us unless Aaron really wants [Music] it um I think it's a great idea to have the county oversee the regulatory part of it yeah it sounds like we're in a unique position with carber County there's a risk to us why wouldn't we do that all right I think you have for that one sure the second one um it's pretty clear I I'm not necessarily asking for much Direction on it but I wanted to go over it because it is going to be in the the ordinance um state law requires any business before they get a license from the state for any cannabis related business whether a retail or another type of business to submit a form um to the local zoning Authority and the city's um uh zoning staff would then review it and confirm one that they comply with local zoning before they um create their business and and establish and two that they meet all building code fire code those kinds of things um I'm recommending just putting language in here stating that it's the community develop development director's responsibility or that that department to do that um just to provide that transparency to staff to people who want to know who submits who to submit these things too um and again it's it's pretty straightforward language I don't know if you looked at the draft ordinance but I put that in there cuz I feel it's it's helpful and important and I like to tell Aaron what she has to do so so that one should be straightforward but let me know if you have questions and then I can move on to the to the next piece so this is the just the checks and balances so that we don't get somebody saying we're going to break ground on a weed shop right next to next steps exactly or to say hey State give us a license and the state says do you comply with zoning can you can you create your business there and they say yes of course we can but they're full of it or they're wrong I mean they want someone looking at that from the city to say yes indeed they can operate there um yes you're you're right about that all right I have zero concerns with you telling you're the other way around it's probably true um so the the last item is we just before we any concerns with that do we trust Aon no concerns okay she's going to tell us to thank you all right the last piece um these temporary cannabis events we were reading about them the statute allows for them we don't really know what they're going to look like yet they allow for temporary events to take place they can last up to 4 days long the purpose is really to allow people to come together you can buy these products you can use use the products during the events if the city allows you to use the products um again we haven't really seen this yet so we don't know if they're going to be taking place Outdoors if they're going to be indoors if there's going to be some significant influx of these events I I don't feel like this is a very significant issue because I think these events are going to take place sporadically and it's not going to be a uh you know let's have 50 events in Carver this year especially because you can only have up to four days long for each event um and keep in mind to organize and hold these events you do have to have a state license which is going to require a number of you know different requirements to be adhered to before you get that license and operate but the point of the provisions which are fully totally optional um the point really is just to impose any regulations that the council may desire putting on these events keep in mind we have a large event ordinance already um so that would be triggered if the event is the size or would take up any public resources or require street closures um so I'm not suggesting or proposing that we have any separate permitting process for these events because if if it's going to trigger the large event ordinance that permit would be required um but I did include a few things that some cities are are adopting um I'll scroll down just to show you what they look like um but they're pretty straightforward I mean first and foremost prohibiting them on city property um that is simply for legal liability reasons the city doesn't necessarily have insurance to allow these types of events and I don't know what that would even look like so if any organizers ever want to do that in a city a lot would have to happen and I think the league of Minnesota City would have to think about its Insurance um liability insurance and if that if that could even happen so that that one's pretty straightforward um another one is that they shouldn't occur in residentially zoned areas um I limited the hours here in the draft to the same hours that you allow for your zoning ordinance that was recently adopted the sale of cannabis um to take place I don't know if that's reasonable to the counsil or not but I felt like it sort of made sense to mirror those hours let me know if you if you feel differently um does anyone know off the top of their heads what our hours are for Amplified noise events it's would go by npca yeah the city doesn't have any noise regulations Beyond npca standards um and then D there is a Prohibition for on-site consumption now that's again totally optional a lot of cities are saying you can have these events you can celebrate these products and sell them do whatever you want to do but we really don't want you know use and smells and other things to um affect neighboring Property Owners or other people that are are nearby um and then e andf are those are the same buffers that we implemented for the freeway commercial District 1,00 ft from schools and the 500 ft from daycare for this one I would like to see we Exempted the central bu business district already so I would like to see that exemption mirrored in this um because I don't think it makes sense to have it in one and not the other my concern too is if we're having so I'm thinking about like the if something were to be grandfathered in you know daycare moves in after the cannabis shop I'm thinking about like if you've ever been in the cycling Community they have a lot of like bike events in the parking lot is this going to have it so that a cannabis dispensary that has been grandfathered in can no longer have an open house or Street sale you know sidewalk sail in their own area of business just because the daycare has already move has since they have moved in moved into the same area it would mean they can't have a temporary cannabis event which is a separate statutory thing than their dispensary business okay I'll have to look into exactly what the definition of that is because I can think of what I can think of a lot of things that would fall under that category that you'd want to be able to do right outside your shop I don't think they can sell outside their shop with their normal dispensary license so if they wanted to have a temporary cannabis event and I don't know if even they would be able to do it unless they got that other license okay um that they'd be able to do it unless we didn't have buffers but this is I mean these temporary events aren't going to have a grandfathering issue because they're temporary by Nature they're not anything that you establish permanently so this isn't really a zoning or a non-conformity issue um I'm not worried about it as a non-conformity issue I'm worrying about it as like as a business if you're going to have an event typically you want to have it near your business near your store right you know you're not going to want to have to go all the way across town and if you have established your store in one location a year later daycare has moved in now you're precluded from having any events near your near your dispensary a temporary Canabis event if the council approved um yep if the council approved buffers so I just I need to look into what what all is covered by the temporary event well and like I said we don't really know what these look like yet oh I know anybody I highly doubt that we're going to have like the Steamboat Days of cannabis events happening down here so but I do think that is important to mirror this to say that we're exempting the central business district no different than we did in the other organs I agree I think is that something that we can do yeah yep yeah and then the only other thing I have on there G with that's just you have to also adhere to All State local laws which is straightforward and then I put a specific reference in there to the large event ordinance which is in chapter 10 criticle 4 um and then the statutory reference to the cannabis event statute which is 34240 um one thing that I did not include on here some cities are saying it others aren't but cities that are really trying to um discourage these events from being located in their City are saying you have to have these events inside of a building they don't want them Outdoors um and I think there's a valid argument if the city wants to Institute that kind of thing that you can do it for just public health safety um welfare reasons um I have no interest in that and yeah that's up to that's up to the coun again I didn't include it on here but I'm pointing it out as something you may see if you look at other city ordinances because some cities are doing that but again I don't want to make this section I mean I think it's important but I I don't know how often we're going to be looking at this section um in Carver I I don't necessarily think we're going to be the capital of temporary cannabis events and I also think just in general these events are going to be relatively few and far between that said it you know these are some of the more standard um Provisions that we're seeing so I figured let's start here and if you want to pick and choose or do them all or Christy and other folks are it sounds like I'm board with we can um car out the central business district from the buffers that's fine that's I agree with the first two but that third component the final one um which one is optional temporary cannabis events I would not I don't see I prefer to keep that out I don't see that that should be in there so the whole section yeah yeah the temporary cannabis events why we do have the um large event ordinance that I think would cover it that doesn't say anything about canvas right but it covers as far as like what would be required from the city um for you know barriers or support or how many days and um so the ordinance now saying that you can't open your shop um within a th we'll just use a th000 ft from the school that then that wouldn't have any bearing on someone doing an event within a thousand so this is what's covering so that the other ordinance doesn't play into this yeah the other ordinance only relates to actual brick and retail like a say like an off sale lior store um it's going to be a dispensary and this is just for these short-term events which are like I said they're going to they're going to be in one time they're going to be sporadic in terms of timing and also probably the locations I don't know where they're going to be located or where they're going to want to do these things but tell I feel like we've already made a commitment to establish this 1,500 ft distance through the ordinance I think this needs to mirror that I don't I agree keeping the central business district open but we uh if we pull this out then we've kind of created a back door to hold a cannabis of that next to a a school which I know the schools are going to be happy about I see what you're saying ER G because if you say okay you can't you can't have the brick and mor building there but you can have the event right next to it instead doesn't they don't Jive to me like saying okay fine but that back door see I'm my thing about it is I'm thinking about it from like a if this weren't cannabis let's say this were alcohol right so instead of this being a temporary can this event what if this was a like local micro brute beer tasting and I know it's not Apples to Apples because there's no consumption and all those sorts of things but you know we would we be arguing that a weekend event within 500 ft of an elementary school is is that really going against the spirit of not having a liquor store within 500 ft of an elementary school does that I I I guess they're not as well I've thought of it from that term um I think it's also important to remember that these could be up to four day events so it wouldn't necessarily be just limited to a weekend yeah um which is why I need to look more into what is all covered by the temporary cannabis events stat determining no I'm not talking about our I'm saying what is that defined as at the state level yeah I think that's some of the issues that we're running up against and that's really frustrating from sitting on the side of the issue is that it's really nebulous at this point yeah and the League's been doing a great job as stuff gets passed down to kind of deciphering it and translating it and cutting it off into bite-sized chunks for us but at this point I think um we have to determine what we want I definitely want my make sure that this is part of um the ordinance that we're working on right now um I just I agree with amending enf so that it mirrors our ordinances to where you can sell um just so that I understand V are band on city property and let's see D prohibits onsite consumption regard of what we say in here that's already because of the state statute that statute allows cities to prohibit it okay so the pursuant to means pursuant to the authority that were given to make that decision in that provision and subvision a that choosing to do that you don't have to prohibit onsite consumption I would like to see the prohibition of onsite consumption kept in there any other thoughts mentioned so again I'm repeating the same thing I agree with the have it mirror the ordinance we've already adopted I don't see a reason to pull any of these things out I think that's in conflict with the ordinance we just passed and I don't think schools want to see banners that close to the school for a 4-day event so the 500 ft barriers make sense to me I mean technically they could let's say they could go to Fleet Farm and say we're going to rent your parking lot we're going to have it up there that's no big deal sure that's totally yeah I think private parking lots are going to be places where these events happen convention centers and indoor there'll be some indoors too I mean onsite consumption will be um not work for the indoor places because of the Minnesota Clean Air Act and all that um at least with respect to the like the actual smoke or vaping of things but um for the out dorance it certainly would and you're right about the parking lot example and that's helpful to think about like Fleet Farm wouldn't have any buffers because schools and dayc carees aren't near it but thinking about Carver square has been helpful for me even in this discussion so if someone rented like mes to throw a party it's close to uh o to be kids so that's the the change with the buffers if you want to include them you couldn't rent mes or STP nutrition or the vet clinic if the buffers are imposed sure and I guess for me having it where you can't consume on site because I've been I've been thinking about this trying from both sides like again if it was alcohol what we what we feel about this but alcohol doesn't travel through the air right so you could have it's not a nuisance in you could have 50 people smoking weed and it's drifting over to you know ABC residential house right so alcohol isn't going to walk through the air so for me I'm okay with the non-consumption on site because I think you just can't contain that um that offut from the Cannabis and again with any of this stuff if we decide we've made a mistake we can always retract and change this but you say we're not perfect there I'm not saying I'm not perfect I I have a feeling that even when you're not making policy changes there's going to be tweaks to these ordinances that are going to be naturally have to have to happen just knowing as the state gets everything together as as they decide how they want to do things because we're all kind of blindly adopting rules and regulations because cities want to do it before they start licensing but we also don't know how they're going to function um they still don't have a director even and now they KCK the can down the road on all the on all the lotteries and things saw that in the news so um so yes we can and we probably will at least if not for policy things for technical changes so I too like we're doing the best we can with the information we have so it's like there may be things we revisit yeah sure I think this is really hard because to me if it's legal right and alcohol is legal and they're not that different but we are getting thrown well nothing to very little from I feel like there's just lot with the stigma mhm there is for sure you know and we want to be inclusive um and for some people the orders a nu but also for some people a grill cooking red meat isn't Ence so it's like or if you're you're I so it is try to like keep that on the outside and just you know you know what's good for the city balancing for the city's responsibility what do the residents want we still want to embrace business opportunities and then have some regulations that we can enforce or with the County's partnership enforce and I think it's really fair to say we're going to end up looking at this again one way or the other because things will come out of the state eventually that we're going to have to re this and maybe we say you know what some of this was just unnecessary it doesn't need to be this restricted some of the stigma of it has gone away the states figured out I have a question for your date in the research so that third um the first time I saw it was in the packet came out the temporary was there anything else that like would have been aord or like oh I heard little Rumblings or like one city did this like uh on the ordinance like no no I mean I my goal with like you can't walk your dog and do it at the same time I always come to dogs when I try to think of an example anything that like this was a couple years ago but the council already prohibited this um in city parks on sidewalks and the use of It Outdoors um so this is generally consistent with that notion given the fact that a lot of these events will probably be proposed for outdoor um things but um no I don't nothing jumps to mind so outdoor consumption so if there would be an outdoor event even if we weren't to have a Prohibition of consumption they would not be allowed to consume based on our currency or no that's just on streets side so if they were in Fleet Farm parking lot they' still be able to people can go in their backyard and do it you can do it on private property um that that was just a u kind of a public safety measure to keep it off streets and you know away from maybe kids that are walking on the sidewalk at parks where they're sit at playgrounds yeah y um do we have is there anything equivalent I'm think I'm trying to think we're talking about the nuisance issue right that we have quite with alcohol do we have a similar type of temporary event for tobacco based no I you know to be honest I don't I don't know if these are going to take off I don't think there's a big push to have tobacco parties and events um I think this is really coming from the legislature they maybe saw what other states are doing as they were legalizing this I think there was maybe a big push for some of these events um as like a celebration because there are people out there that are like you know really gungho about about their weed um and so they're having these you know events I this could be a fad and it could last a year or two and maybe we'll never see him again but I think that's probably why we don't see them for tobacco it's because that's really always been legal at least for adults to use and um you know tobacco shops exist all over the place including the type where you can go and you know try products and theming rooms all that yeah so I I'm not aware of the same sort of framework for for tobacco okay do you have the direction you I do yes I do thank you all right um let's skip ahead to legislative priorities um review discussion of our 2025 legislative priorities so um I can see this up every year as you guys know kale this is something we do annually you just kind of take a look at um what we want to let our folks know um who we have elected and are sending to St Paul what is important to us in the city of Carver so once these are approved which will generally take place I think at our next meeting um Brent always sends this to representative Harter and Senator grunhagen so taking a look at this um a lot of this stuff isn't brand new um the first one on the list is the support of local decisionmaking um I think Council you guys remember last year that there was some pretty alarming legislation that was proposed um at the state level as it dealt with um preempting local control of um zoning regulations um which thankfully didn't get passed but I think this is kind of the the number one kind of umbrella support of local decision- making like humbly we know our communities better than the folks in St Paul um or somebody who's from Del or whatever so um want to make sure that we protect that um we're always seeking funding for the levy system um it's a $13 million project that we have about $9.5 million um already um identified for but we still need some money last year was supposed to be a bonding year and unfortunately uh there was not a bonding bill so continue to ask for that that's number two um remote participation in City Council meetings um um right now the way it stands Kayla if any of us want or need to participate remotely we have to share our address and if Joe public wants to come you've got to let them into your kitchen table to sit next to you if you want it's weird regardless hot Lobby somebody come or just having to share the address you had no you just have just sharing the address is like so weird like if you're in Pennsylvania I met day in in eie Pennsylvania now I have to sit in the lobby like I'm aware of this law I'm very aware of this law I did one for a a couple weeks another city a couple weeks ago the guy was participating from from Georgia not the state of Georgia the Republican and believe it or not nobody showed up at his hotel lobby to watch him do the council meeting in the country of Georgia at like 4 in the morning it was it was 2:15 in the morning um the other thing is is like potentially I think you've used this where you've had some health concerns and you might not want to have somebody when you're wearing your pajama pants you know on the other end of the zoom so um that is number three um number four is pretty self-explanatory um and then Minnesota paid leave Law that's kind of um the please don't give us any more unfunded mandates I would like to talk about that one um so they enacted the earn sfe and earned sick and safe time and what's can you talk a little bit more about what does the Minnesota pay leave like is that because I I mean I have EST at my job but I don't know what the Minnesota paid leave is yeah we so this is very similar to unemployment the state is creating like a a pool of funds that every single employee and employer well employer actually pays into we talked about this very briefly when we renewed The Union contract a couple weeks ago because there was a provision in there that says the city's going to pay those premiums so as a payroll tax um much like unemployment um cities pay into this and every employer throughout the state pays into this big fund and then when um an employee wants to take paid leave due to circumstances that would trigger it under the law um they are eligible to do it and then they would be paid a percentage of their salary during that time from that pool so it's it's almost like again the unemployment pool um where the money is coming from a state run fund it's you know going to build up a huge balance and then when any employee throughout the state wants to rely on it or needs to rely on it um they would be able to do that and it's still sort of changing a little bit it doesn't go into effect until technically 2026 um so it goes into effect the very beginning next year um but we expect like little tweaks here and there because um there's a lot of imperfections and there's the legislature Believe It or Not didn't really think through um how it would impact all employers even though it implies to all employers like like public entities for example yeah a lot of public entities already provide some of these benefits to their employees um and sorry no no go ahead um so the earn safe and I sick and safe safe and sick um I am not necessarily in favor of including that in these legislative priorities you know I think if you are healthy and your family's healthy you don't think about this until you are taking someone to the doctor and you are needing to be off for something that might be out of sick time now if you're a very 10ar employee you may have a lot of sick time built up but if you're a newer and spouse or mother or whatever comes down with something where you're taking them to and just throwing out your driving to chemo treatments or you you know have these other things going on I don't think that is a bad supplement to our employees the paid leave one with the with it similar to the unemployment one that one I can take or leave but for me that earns sick and safe time when you are helping out family members again you might not think of it when you're younger or you're in good health I think it's a I think it's a very important thing to have I think the state state did a good job by um supplying this and thinking okay A little outside the box here but if you're taking care of a family member now you could be burning up all of your sick times so what happens when you're sick now because you burnt it all up taking a family member somewhere so our time off we have PTO which is second vacation time and then we have a catastrophic sick bank and in that bank you can only use it for pretty specific things so you can't use catastrophic sick for a cold but you can use it y i but for me this is bigger than saying city of Carver CU if we're asking the state of Minnesota to take this out not every city has catastrophic sick Banks right you get your so many hours they're capped at the end of the year you don't you lose them whatever it might be and that this allows people to have an opportunity to care for someone in their household that they may not be able to without taking like not being paid for it because they run out of Si time for it and not every business um had allowed the share program where you can give it to another employee so I just think for me that one is a hard one to pull out of here um or not to pull out of here but to put in here to say Minnesota State Legislature we want you to change this and I don't think that's the goal like the last sentence here I think is impactful so it's specifically to exempt cities because we're using taxpayer dollars to pay into that fund still not on board with it thank you for clarifying have we calculated what the impact is to caror if when this goes through do we know that I which one the ESS or the well whatever the cost will be as a result of this because we have to pay into a fund it's like a 0.7% payroll tax I believe and that was the original number Flo but it might change a little bit because there was some study done by the state and of course the number they included was not going to be enough for the pay Le I'm sorry is already a thing yeah SST is already place um that one I just pull it up to remind myself but that one it's to Aaron's point it's relatively um wide it's a pretty wide array of things you can use it for like if your kid's school is canceled because of we you can use it because you you know be in stay home with them and they don't have care and domestic abuse situations and mental health situations um all kinds of different things that I think the catastrophic we wouldn't cover um and so just for all of your information and that is has been in place for two years now I want this is year number two or three of it um that's starting now um and you know it's sort of a bank of time and then it's it I think if employees don't use it um it just kind of grows a little bit every year but then it gets wiped at some point so I I don't remember all the details they can save time I think it's use it or lose it per year isn't it yeah that's what I saying I think it gets wiped at some point if you don't use if you don't use it I would be fine putting forward the Minnesota paid leave but I I would like to see the UR can sa time taken out of this Courtney is this a league of Minnesota's League of Minnesota cities initiative um that's a really good question I would imagine it's one of their legislative priorities um but I would have to double check I wonder if that just impacts other cities more than it does us and that's why is an initiative yeah so I um clearly there are ones in here that I feel away strongly way more strongly about um if you guys have heard me talk about the you know nobody's going to that one so but this one um I think I agree with you on all the things about when you're young you don't realize what a benefit it is but when you need to attend doctor's appointments and how like an hour's doctor's appointment and if you have to drive an hour to get there that's 3 hours of your day and how that impacts folks I do like this because I think that what it's saying is just kind of looking at the bolded part at the bottom is making cities exempt from this because this is a requirement that's coming down from the state that we are passing along to taxpayers and it's going to cost our residents more to do this when and it could be different at the city of Carver or at any one of the employer employers that we have within the city of Carver um but we already have a generous catastrophic sick bank and we give paid time off which is really fair um to all of our employees at the city level all our full-time employees so um I think that's what I'm holding in on if we removed ear SI and safe time I don't have any concern with that and focused on Minnesota paid leave um but for me it's coming from a place of unfunded mandate and then we don't want that bur against that yeah the ear sick and safe time I mean I guess we're yes we're paying out as you would pay out for any other sick time um I just I don't know I feel really personally strongly about keeping the S safe and sick out if we want to go forward with the paid leave I am all on board with that one correct me if I'm wrong Courtney I think um I'm just curious and I'm kind of pin shating for Brent tonight so that's why I keep chiming in non-legal policy thing so forgive me because I know I'm not policy maker that's that's your job um but the paragraph is sort of just a kind of an introduction the Bold language the italicized bold language in blue is really sort of the legislative directives or legislative um priorities is that correct and I think if I'm hearing that's the way I'm reading it I it's like we don't want to use ESS as the example here um maybe we use paid leave as one of these it kind of comes back to the zoning thing last year it's like we as the city should decide what we spend money on and what benefits we give our employees you shouldn't tell us um what those things are um because it's spare money and for the the local elected officials who get to make those calls or should get to make those calls I agree with um Christie mock as far as taking that part out so in the packet it's 100 page 13 of the packet but there is the league has the things about the difference in the two I would and after just kind of skimming over that I agree with Christie I would feel different if employees were coming to us or if we were you know hearing through their department heads like wow like it would have been really nice if they had you know this extra bucket of you know earned sick and safe time you know I I just don't feel like it's a need um so did I hear so just make sure I heard you so you would be for putting the Minnesota paid leave forward but removing this time yes okay than um yeah so to the mandates at times conflict not only with the other but existing laws and it's it at first I think thought it was more for big cities too but it talks about it you know can be burdensome for the smaller cities yeah I would feel really different if we were hearing that people didn't have that work life balance or you know somebody's negative in their PTO um Eric clearly I didn't spoll far enough in the packet but as lbert pointed out all the leagues 2025 priorities are in there I don't know that I can search that document but was positive that it's yeah it's kind of confusing it's page 107 of the league ofs document but it's page um 113 in our packet so yes it is priority from the league but like clearly as you can see the league has priorities and when we went through through this it was quite quite the issues to tackle um but what we're doing is distilling and just saying you know so our representatives are getting this from the league but then they're getting this from us that is car Centric um all right Kayla do you have any thoughts I support the language as it's currently written um I think anything we can do to allow us as a city to be able to best serve our employees without input from people who aren't dealing with our employees on a day-to-day basis is a good thing so you know I agree with uh christe's assessment of the need for this but since we do these things as a city it is just it's an additional burden to our taxpayers to have another level of support that we aren't making a decision about so I actually agree with the language the way it is if we didn't provide these Services if we didn't have that bank for our employees I would I would uh have a different opinion but I think we make Provisions oh jeez love you all right so I think um L I'm sorry what would was your opinion on this leading is I I would um support having Minnesota paid leap but but not super strong on it um but I don't think that we need to have the earns in safe time okay so the language here would eliminate it from the proposer resolution Lor are you saying pull out the earns that can save time from this resolution um I'm not tracking to P include so the city we encourage legislative to eliminate the expansion of mandated benefits and excessive on so I would eliminate the expansion of I guess I really you want I can make this I can support as written um because I think really this is the narrative our ask and maybe cuz we're stumbling with this I wonder if we don't kind of flip these when they're presented where it says number five Minnesota plate pain leave Law and then our ask is really clear that uh the Bold paragraph is at the top TR legisl to eliminate and then we can have a narrative but it's eliminating the expansion so it's not asking to eliminate if I read that correctly we're encouraging the legisl to eliminate expansion of the mandated benefits and excess of what's legally required so this is saying okay but don't go any further so I read it okay I'm fine with that if we make that more prominent then um and maybe there's a little word smithing that has to happen in here to make that in the Nar and I think throughout it's the issue our ask and then the narrative so everything I think that's more consistent just because we're stumbling on with that because we we're fine where you're at don't exceed it okay okay so I think the direction have got there is that with the exception of making the changes of having the ask placed right after the the bullet um keeping as is okay is there any feedback in one through four or do you want additional information we them all those so they all sure we'll make the form the same throughout back to number one just since you've had some additional exposure to it did that die on the vine where are we with local decision making it died on the vine the specific uh stuff that was being proposed last year but we absolutely expect to see it again it it comes in a wave it happens it dies it happens it dies so having something I think is important and helpful yeah is there a champion a different Champion that will take this up do we expect or did we just have somebody with a loud voice last year um I think it's a little bit of playing defense depending on what comes out um because last year it was zoning I think it's still going to continue to be a zoning issue based off of some of the interests that are at play in St Paul um but I think um you know it could be other issues because really this the earn you know the one that we just spent so much time debating on the Minnesota paid laad law that's an unfunded mandate and that's kind of folks telling us what to do with our policies here in the city of Carver so if it doesn't take the form of zoning bills it could very easily be something else par dedication a couple years ago okay building permit fees it's always something yeah well it's really important so should be number one next to the ly which should be number one point so Brent showed me a draft of this and I think Levy might have been number one but I just think that because local decision- making is such an umbrella issue that maybe they'll tell us that levies now need to be 30 feet tall across the state you know like no let us make our own decisions so I think that that needs to be the first thing that our elected officials see because it's just important with L be number two um okay let's see all good on that any unless we have any others that we need to provide feedback on thanks for going through that I just in br's absence I think we can keep this moving along to set a discussion level yeah okay um let's see up next we have vehicle and parking operations but I think we will wait um for that for our next uh work session when Brent is back I'm happy to take it tonight I talked to him and he said if there's time and you guys want to talk about it I I helped him on these things and I would be the or so we can we can get it done yeah let's tackle yeah so the first is engine braking there's been some concerns from a couple um a handful of residents in Wildwood Glenn and all three neighborhoods related to um loud noises coming from these semi trucks and there's an issue with our code language right now and the sheriff is saying we can't enforce it we looked at it we talked to the Sheriff's Office I found some better language that other cities are using and so we proposed some different language here that the sheriff has signed off on um and we also worked with um with Paul to make sure that Paul Schultz to make sure that we um kind of understood how these engine Brak systems work because I certainly not an expert France not either um and we we came up with this language if the council is interested in you know um changing that language so that the sheriffs have the ability the deputies have the ability to actually enforce it um we can do that and we would also consider when we adopt the ordinance um the council maybe authorizing the purchase of some signage that would go out there that's you know makes everyone know that especially on JCP or some of the more well traveled roadways that um using your brake systems in a way unless it's an emergency when you can prove it and you need to do it is unlawful because it's really loud and a lot of times it happens in the middle of the night so um that is something that the sheriff Department can enforce I am all I agree I like edine breaking is one of those things you know it when you see it you know when you hear it you don't see anything you know it when you hear it but um wow so many different um adjectives for it so okay just time I agree with it it's a can be a difficult thing though because a lot of those trucks are set to automatic which means the driver has to actively disengage it yeah but they have to for a lot of cities too there's reason why they can't do it that's why that's why we need we ask and a lot of times the threat of just being pull over and confronted about it with these truckers who are trying to hit deadlines and you know meet their miles and all that is a big enough deal to prevent it even if you can't take it them but I do think it would help even with especially with e logs log okay on Street marking um this is just uh kind of from time to time staff gets calls from residents about people that aren't moving their vehicles they park for weeks months maybe they'll leave it there for super long time because it's not operating and they need to fix it different things are coming up and we talked about whether the uh Council has any desire we're curious about that to implement some sort of limitation for example like a 72-hour limit on how long you can park in the street um we did talk to the Sheriff's Office about that too just given the kind of the Practical consideration that would come with that um they did say they they have a method that you know they can Mark tires that wouldn't necessarily prevent somebody from just moving their car across the street or moving it from one part in front of their house maybe 10 ft um but it it could curtail some of the people who you know are snowbirds and they leave their car in the street all summer long or people that are you know they have a kid going off to college or something and they don't need a car so they just park their kids car in the street and just ignore it forever um and again at the very least you know notwithstanding the difficulty in enforcing it and maybe ticketing people you could at least get the word out and say that it's unlawful and it would potentially appease um the folks that are complaining because it's you know it gets to be I guess bothersome um I don't exactly know who's why the complaints are coming in and what the issue is other than you know some people just don't like to look at the same car out in front of their house or in their neighborhood every single day for whatever reason um but there could be some more Bonafide reasons for it too I I'm not the one taking any complaints there's some complaints that are coming in about people with really extended trailers parking in front of people's homes and blocking like entire like your entire front yard with like your extended big enclosed trailer things like that for week you know for like more than just a day or two and they're staying there for yep we both running businesses out of their homes that have a lot of a fleet of work trucks that are parked on the street so um I don't have any issues with the 72 hour um although I definitely see the downside of not good here okay I'm going to move it six feet up how out here you know at least it moves I don't think I don't think that it's a silver bullet solution that we're looking for but I don't think it'll hurt agreed agreed I like with an ordinance there's some tee that you know we can do some follow up and get a resolution well then there's something that they can actually tell so if you're if there's nothing in place and you go up and say hey we've got this complaint yeah whatever vehicle a has been sitting here for a month and they say there what you going do about it then we say we can't do anything about it so at least this gives us an option to take care of if we need to I don't know my concern is you know I think about like my family you know we my husband is you know he's in the military he leaves for two weeks every few months you know if you in a situation where you have a resident that's a resident in good standing and for whatever reason their garage is full or there's been an accident and they need the space for something else or whatever and they have to park their car on the street and they are leaving for a legitimate reason I mean we're really backing ourselves to a corner if someone then calls and complains and says you need to enforce this and it's like you want us to tow and a resident in good standings vehicle or ticket their vehicle when there's a reason why it's there and reason why it's not moving and I disagree if your garage is full that's your own problem if your garage is too full then I guess you better have a garage sale because you have a garage you have a driveway and if you're just you can't just abandon a vehicle on the street for two months I or I understand that your husband may leave but you're there you can move it to but not not everyone who's in those situations is married you know things then they have a driveway or then they have to figure out where they're going to par I think I have confidence in our police force where I think they'd be compassionate at least like be a get a Waring first or like you know know the community and I don't think we have to be really careful we have to make yeah what we decide on has to be good for everybody we can't take a look at a resident in good standing it has know what I saying husband I'm I'm saying that my argument is that the resident in good standing is a good enough reason not to put I don't think it's a necessary ordinance I think it's people some people don't like having a car parked in front of their place for a certain period of time but there I I don't see why if it's a public road um I don't see a reason for that for a passenger vehicle there I got to be honest I'm surprised we didn't have this ordinance that seems like an oversight in the first place because we have to have the ability to enforce um I agree um with Lori that you know a resident with a car is probably going to have somebody ask a question or maybe give a warning and say hey did you know but we need to have a way to enforce uh 20ft trailer in front of a house for 3 weeks this just makes sense it allows us to uh to have teeth when we need it so I support it all right let's hold off on Municipal parking lots and till the meeting if that's okay that's going to require a little more time with that I would entertain a motion tojn I'll make a motion to adjourn all say