[0:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Um, we're going to start with the approval of the council agenda. Um, does anybody have any additions? [0:08] Kathy Weier: I do. Um, I'd like to add under Marcus's section for city engineering um preb outfall um joint powers discussion. [0:22] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay, we'll add it under I. That's fine. And then I would also like to discuss the date of the September meeting if we can change that. [0:36] Kathy Weier: I think that's on there, isn't it? Or was number nine just for the budget. [0:43] Jennifer Arsenault: Uh not special meetings, the actual meeting. [0:48] Kathy Weier: Okay. Okay. [0:49] Jennifer Arsenault: We can add it in there though too. [0:51] Kathy Weier: That's fine. [0:52] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. As long as it's accounted. [0:55] Kathy Weier: That's fine. And that was all I had. Anybody else? [1:02] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay, with those two additions, um, could I hear a motion to approve the agenda? [1:08] Kathy Weier: So moved. [1:10] Jennifer Arsenault: Kathy. [1:11] Ryan Eisele: I'll second. [1:12] Jennifer Arsenault: All in favor? [1:13] Council Members: I. [1:14] Jennifer Arsenault: Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes. Um, we will move on to the public forum. We have, just as a reminder, you may speak for three minutes. And seeing that there looks like there may be many of you to speak, I'm going to kind of hold you to that. Okay. Who would like to go first? Okay. Justin, please state your name and address. [1:36] Justin McCarthy: Uh Justin McCarthy, 515 Lake. Uh first, before my time starts, should I do the public forum or—this relates to an item on the agenda and I think there's a bunch of other people here to talk about the White Bear Lake Conservation District item as well. Um, your choice. [1:55] Jennifer Arsenault: Um, you know, I can I can certainly do it now. [1:58] Justin McCarthy: Um, good evening, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. As you know, Bertwood Village appoints two members to the conservation district. These members are appointed by the council and are entrusted with the responsibility to serve the city's interests at the district. Unfortunately, one of the city's opponents, Miss—or appointees, Miss Susie Mahoney, has taken personal actions that are opposite to the city's interests and that also compromise her ability to advocate for Birwood's interests in the future. As such, I am here today to ask the council to remove her from the board. To provide some context, the Mahonies recently filed a personal complaint against their neighbors, the Herods, alleging that the Herods stole lakefront property from K Beach during a recent property registration action and therefore the Herods must move their dock further south to middle of their property. The true aim of this, as I understand it, is to create space for the Mahonies to place their speedboat on the other side of their already enormous dock. While this complaint was denied by the district in a unanimous decision with Mahoney abstaining, the very fact the complaint was made is troubling for a variety of reasons. First to explain the geography the lake lots from north to south are the Mahonies, the Herods, K Beach, the Duffies, McKenzie's and my lot. The Herods generously allow the city to place its dock next to the north property line of K Beach adjacent to their own property. This allows the city's dock to form a northern border and Judy Duffy's dock to form a southern border to create a nice protected space. Just to the south of K Beach, the lake forms a shallow cove. And properties in this area must have long docks that start far apart at the shore, but converge at their ends, much less like the spokes of a wheel. For example, on my own property, my dock is about 50 ft from my neighbor's dock at the shore, but at the end of the docks, we're only about 10 ft apart. Mahoney's complaint requested that the Herods move their dock south, which would force the city to relocate its own dock, dividing the already limited space and causing further congestion with the neighbors to the south or remove it entirely, depriving the public of the use of that space. The conservation district denied the complaint unanimously at their last meeting for these very reasons, citing the safety of the current dock locations versus the alternatives that would be created if they upheld the complaint. While the city's dock is safe for the time being, I believe that Mahoney's actions require the city to remove her. First, for the following reasons. First, the Mahoney's claim does not appear to be supported by facts. It's my understanding that the property line between the Herods and K Beach has been verified by four separate surveys, two of which were commissioned by the city itself. Mahoney could have learned this if she had just done some research. The reckless and unsupported nature of this complaint does not evidence an individual with the type of judgment that the city should want representing its interests at the district. Second, the complaint advances her own interest at the expense of Birwood's interest. If her complaint was upheld, it would have destroyed K Beach and thrown the neighbors into the south in chaos. Susie even recognized this conflict when during the conservation district meeting. She asked Alan Cantrude, legal counsel for both Birwood and the White Bear Lake Conservation District, to recuse herself, citing a conflict of interest. In making this request, Mahoney admitted that deciding the issue in favor of her would harm Birwood, a city she is supposed to be representing on the board. Third, while Mahoney recused herself from the conservation district's decision regarding the complaint, she did not notify the city of her complaint so it could take action. She did not act transparency and she did not consult or inform Birwood's leadership. Birwood was not notified and had no opportunity to provide comments to the district. Luckily, Sheri Henkins, Birwood's other representative, and some of us residents were able to stick up for the city at the hearing. Fourth, the above complaints could be forgiven in consideration of Susie's long tenure service on the board. However, she has also made threats to sue the White Bear Lake Conservation District over its decision to deny her complaint. And now, it's my understanding they have hired a lawyer. She cannot effectively advocate for Birwood on the district when she is threatening legal action against it. No one at the district will work with her while she is threatening legal action. In some, Birwood's appointees to the conservation district must have integrity, transparency, and the ability to advocate for the city's best interest and not their own. By pursuing her own personal agenda at the expense of Birwood's access to White Bear Lake and by threatening litigation, Susie Mahoney has failed this fundamental responsibility and I respectfully urge you to remove Susie Mahoney from the White Bear Lake Conservation District. Thanks. [6:39] Jennifer Arsenault: Thank you, Justin. [6:42] Justin McCarthy: Yes. Thank you. [6:45] Julie McKenzie: Julie McKenzie, 509 Lake Avenue. Uh my husband Michael and I moved into Birchwood in 1984, 31 years ago. Michael and I are both teachers in White Bear Lake schools. As our family started to grow, we had Megan and Libby Mahoney as our babysitters. Our kids loved going to trick-or-treating at the Mahony's house because Susie and Larry always had special things for them. We also attended Megan's wedding with our neighbors Judy and Jerry Duffy. Um I also crocheted a baby blanket for Megan's first baby. Now, um Deb and Jim moved into the neighborhood 2004. We were very excited because there were no other kids in the neighborhood other than ours. Um they had two young kids. Lexi was three and Owen was nine months. Um at the time our kids were nine, five and three. So our children and our families became very close. So um 31 years is what we're talking about. But however, the past 17 years of that 31, I have heard and witnessed the harassing behavior of Susie and Larry Mahoney against the Herods. Um they have brought many lawsuits against the Herods and even a few against the Kramers on the other side. Um they have ended up in court, city council, planning commission, conservation district multiple times. The Mahonies have also stopped work in progress threatening lawsuits against the Herods. Uh my understanding is that these threats and lawsuits have cost our city thousands of dollars in legal fees and wasted city employee time. I encouraged Deb Herod many years ago to get a restraining order against Susie Mahoney and it was granted due to the many situations of intimidation. Um I was actually with Deb Herod when Susie violated the order and I had to testify on Deb's behalf. Months later, Susie approached me in the morning when I was walking my dog and blamed me for her going to jail. Uh she did not see that her behavior had landed her there. Um Susie has been a bully and likes to attack people when no one else is around. That has been her MO with Deb many times. Um that was kind of the last straw for me. I no longer speak to Susie Mahoney because of the way she has treated me and several other neighbors, but especially Deb and Jim Herod. Um she has been holding our neighborhood hostage for years. Like myself, many of our neighbors have grown tired of Susie and Larry's behavior and tactics. Susie Mahoney should not represent Birwood on the conservation district or hold any position of leadership representing Birwood. She seems to only be there to serve her own needs and not the city of Birwood. I recommend that our city remove her from serving on the conservation district. Thank you. [9:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Thank you, Julie. [9:28] Julie McKenzie: Thank you. [9:29] Jennifer Arsenault: Anybody else? Okay, seeing no other others that are interested in speaking, I'll close the public forum. Um, presentation. We have someone else for public. [9:45] Kathy Mador: Can I speak? [9:46] Jennifer Arsenault: Oh, sure. Of course. [9:53] Kathy Mador: So, Kathy Mador, 413 Lake Avenue. So, I'd like to make a recommendation regarding when you come up Lake Avenue in Wildwood where there's no stop signs on Wildwood, but there's one now at the top of Lake at Wildwood, where in Wildwood coming down, there's a sign to stop when you go down the hill and there's a sign on the other side. There should be signs at the top of Wildwood and not at the base at the top of Lake and Wildwood because the cars come through fast. And I've seen two instances where somebody's coming up the hill stopped and the cars race by them. And that winter in the winter that road is very slippery or can be. And so somebody's going to get stuck—I mean back down the road—instead of having the stop signs on either side of Wildwood and not at the top of Lake and Wildwood. [10:31] Jennifer Arsenault: So you're talking—I don't mean to interrupt your time. I just want to clarify. Are you talking about the intersection where—um— [10:41] Kathy Weier: By J-path? [10:43] Jennifer Arsenault: You come up the— [10:44] Kathy Weier: By J-path by Cathy's house where— [10:47] Jennifer Arsenault: So are you talking by J path over by Hall or the other side? [10:51] Kathy Mador: No. When you come up Lake and you got Wildwood right there? [10:55] Jennifer Arsenault: We have two stop signs— [10:56] Kathy Weier: By Danny Weier's house. [10:58] Kathy Mador: There's only one. There's a stop sign at the top of Wildwood and Lake. There's none on either side of Wildwood where they should be and there should not be one coming up. [11:06] Kathy Weier: There's two. There's one going. Um, sorry. There's one going— [11:12] Jennifer Arsenault: I think you're on—you're probably over by Jay. I'm not the other one. [11:15] Kathy Mador: I thought there were— [11:16] Kathy Weier: We just added a second one. [11:18] Kathy Mador: Did you just do it? [11:19] Kathy Weier: Yes. [11:20] Kathy Mador: Like there's on both sides of Wildwood. [11:21] Kathy Weier: Kathy, if you want, I'll meet you down there at the corner and we'll talk about it. Would that—maybe that would be just a little— [11:28] Kathy Mador: So we're—maybe I'm not— [11:30] Kathy Weier: No, I don't mean to hurry you off but I mean it's just—I'm happy to meet you down there if you give me a call and we can just— [11:36] Kathy Mador: Okay, I'll show you where I—so— [11:39] Kathy Weier: Cuz the one on Jay only has one and that's coming up Jay—or so up up Iris which is what it's labeled at. And then it's uh nothing on Wildwood but the other side on Lake, one going on Wildwood both directions and then the one from Lake is the only one that doesn't stop right now because we just added that. [12:11] Jennifer Arsenault: I think she means Iris. [12:13] Kathy Mador: No, I—I'm on the opposite end. I'm on the opposite end. [12:17] Kathy Weier: She means the iris— [12:20] Jennifer Arsenault: By Iris. [12:21] Kathy Mador: Okay. I'm calling it lake coming up the hill. [12:23] Kathy Weier: I think it says probably lake, but it's a problem with the name—the sign—the wildwood. Okay, that's fine. I'll do that. [12:29] Jennifer Arsenault: Thank you, Kathy. Thanks. Is there anybody else? Okay, now I'll close the public forum. Um, we're going to move on to presentations and the first we have an update regarding White Bear Lake Conservation District. Um, who is here to speak on that? Sheri. [12:56] Sheri Salman Henkins: Good evening. I am Sheri Salman Henkins and I am one of the representatives to the conservation district and I'm going to talk a little bit about our annual report and budgets and just some little things that are going on. So, we are currently working on finalizing budgets for 2026. And so, the current budget is around 77,000, which is projected to input about $1,163. And this estimated amount of revenue from permits and fees is roughly around $77,000. So, that's how we come up with that budget amount we just determined from that. And so the dollars collected from the permits along with each cities allows us to pay for the sheriff to patrol the waters treatment plants and community outreach. So the—just things to clarify—the method for determining how much each city puts in is based off of population and the tax value of each city. Since we are the smallest of the cities surrounding Birwood, our amount is the least amount. And so then you have White Bear that has the biggest amount. Um so currently the total amount that we have within our bank account it's about $125,000 and we have done a lot of work with Mike Prento doing a lot of work working with White Bear Lake to figure out how to take that money that we're currently holding in reserve just in case something big happens that we have to do a huge treatment that's going to cost a lot of money. So it's always good to have a little bit of reserve. So we have put some of the monies on a high interest bearing into CDs and opening a form account and so and all that stuff is posted on the website so that we have transparency to show how we are using the money that the cities and permits are giving us. Um so the latest milfoil check has reported that no new areas have been sprouted up on the lake. So we are just continuing to take care and treat the minor spots that we do each year. So that's about 34 acres of the lake. Um we have a lake use study that is going to be coming out either this month or next month and we'll release that and it'll be on the website. But a couple of key points that came out from the study is that White Bear Lake's water quality remains an A minus rating and it actually has improved. So, some of the things that we're doing is making the lake and a lot better and some of the salt content has been getting better and decreasing. So, that's awesome. Uh, the use of sailboats and fishing boats with small motors has decreased while kayaks and paddle boards have obviously increased. And so that has kind of led to a little bit of congestion on the waters when you have more pontoons, more power boats and single boaters and things like that. Um, so by DNR standards, the boat density in the afternoon on peak days, which is like holidays, weekends, Saturdays, and Sundays has been categorized as crowded. And so currently in—including commercial marinas—there are over 2100 watercraft on this 24 acre lake. So that's a lot and that doesn't include the numbers that are coming in and being put in for the day. So let's see. So the sheriff came to our last meeting and gave us an update on the happenings at the lake. Um the status update is that it's a slow start to the boating season, but it is now in full swing and obviously everyone else we had a couple of deaths in June on the lake, but he was very proud of how everybody came together and reacted and um things were very well with collaborating. It's just the main thing is just remember to wear your life vest is the message. So the district board continues to contribute to our educational outreach. We have contributions to the Laker that comes out in May, June, August, and in December. And all of this information we try to put together to try to educate people on how we can continue to protect our lake. And it goes to every household that is within the watershed district. And that's most of it. So people can look for that in their mailboxes. Um we had a wonderful Manito day lake cleanup where we collected over 20 pounds of trash just over Ramsey County Beach. Um we have signs going for Starry Stonewort that is going out at the two boat launches to try to educate the public that this is not something we want to get into our lake because it is very hard to eradicate. And we are very happy that somebody reported seeing the invasive yellow iris over in Hall's Marsh so we can continue to have people look to see if they have it in their surrounding areas so that we can continue to monitor it and make sure it doesn't get out of control. That's what I have. Do you guys have any questions or anything else that's going on? [18:15] Jennifer Arsenault: Very informative. Thank you. Yeah. [18:22] Kathy Weier: Is there any education going on on starry stonewort? I know I think we did something on the yellow iris just to let people know what not to do. [18:34] Sheri Salman Henkins: That was in the laker and we have it at all the launches because right now most boats that are currently within that are docked—they're not going to have it because they're not being pulled out each and every time. It's the people that are using the landing and going to other lakes. There's like three or four other lakes that have been infested with the stonewort up north and it's coming down this way. So, we're focusing that education right now at the landings and we'll continue every issue of the Lakers just talking about it. And it has pictures and stuff on what it looks like and what you can do to prevent your birth. [19:11] Jennifer Arsenault: Any other questions? Thank you. [19:16] Sheri Salman Henkins: Thank you very much. [19:18] Ryan Eisele: I have a couple questions about a beach. Um if I might, Alan, um there's, you know, I I want to acknowledge the people coming in. Um I have some questions about K Beach. Um my understanding is that an allegation has been made that the village essentially transferred 10 ft of property to Mr. and Mrs. Herod. Um could you address the situation and the city's property interest there and whether we are um—and what the what the risk is there to the city? My understanding is that the borders between K Beach and Mr. and Mrs. Herod's property have not changed in some time, but I just want to get some information from you on what allegations are being made here and the veracity of those allegations. [20:10] Alan Cantrude: Sure. I think I can be relatively brief. The uh complaint that came in alleged that um there was a property registration that the Herods conducted and this was after there was a companion registration that had already been completed by the Mahonies earlier. And so I can only surmise that in reviewing the materials that the Herods were using for their registration, the Mahonies somehow found 10 ft that was being added to their property, at least in their mind. And so when this was um when the registration was initiated quite some time ago, probably 2017 or 18, it was a while ago, uh it was not necessarily complicated, but co—sadly claimed the life of our title examiner in Washington County. And that was a good friend of many of us, Ed Simonette. And so that kind of truncated a lot of things because things were happening. And uh the last thing anyone expected was that he would be a COVID fatality. So anyway, it was an elongated process, but um in any event, the attorney for the Herods when this property registration action was started, uh we spoke and basically the the survey that was used to establish that line—we'll say on the south side, the border between the Herods and K Beach—was a line that had been established by a survey that the city itself had commissioned, I believe, in 2012. And so knowing that the real fight then would be on the north side if you will or the line that had technically changed for them through the previous um title action uh really affected more that north line or the divider between the Herods and the Mahonies. And so not thinking that that was really going to be an issue—it really wasn't for the city. Um however in the reading that the Mahonies made of the survey and of the action, uh they declared that there was a magic 10 feet that had appeared and so therefore to remain consistent with the order that the conservation district had given the parties many years before, probably 2017 2018, um in terms of placement, uh they felt justified the movement of the dock um another we'll say 5 feet to the south towards K beach. So that was the complaint. Hey, they're not consistent—they meaning the Herods—they're not being consistent with the order, so they need to move their dock. So, I think that gets a little further along than what your question was, but I don't think that there is—there's no magic 10 ft that appeared as far as I'm concerned, at least not that the city would claim because again, the line that was used and established—and I believe their attorney is here if you want to have him reinforce that point—um, was a line that had been established by a city survey again more than a decade ago. [23:02] Ryan Eisele: And then Alan quick, did the order get looked at again and then was affirmed essentially? [23:10] Alan Cantrude: Which order are we talking about? [23:12] Ryan Eisele: The the order saying here's where the docks go. [23:14] Alan Cantrude: Well, the order itself came about because of the title action. And so there was some crowding and the district reserves the right to basically play mediator whenever there's a dispute between neighboring property owners and dock placement. essentially someone from the board goes in and basically arbitrates uh—or arbitrarily—does the best they can and basically says here's what we're going to do to get along. Uh we've gone very close to actually having people combine docks and saying you're just going to have a community dock because there's not enough room especially when you think about about a dozen years ago when the lake was really down. Um you heard Justin talk about sort of the the difference—and they've got there's convex and concave areas of the lake and as the lake goes down that's when you get into trouble because everyone's pointing out basically at an angle of their own property farther you have to go out eventually things just converge. So it was really difficult there for probably three four five years for sure especially on the Mahtomedi side where it tends to be a little shallower. But anyway uh that order placed the docks and established those um pretty much for in perpetuity. So basically you get the options of putting it in the center of your lot—these are addressed to both of the parties—or you can be within 20 ft of your property line but only if you keep all your watercraft on the non-border side of that dock. And so those are the options that the homeowners were given. [24:35] Jennifer Arsenault: So so nothing has materially changed since that order was— [24:40] Alan Cantrude: Nothing has materially changed since that order came out. And there's been what we call peace in the kingdom there for, you know, at least the last seven years, absent a few hiccups. But um from what I can tell and what I can gather from the LUC, which is the committee that actually oversees that and goes out and plays dock cop for the board, uh the Herods have been very consistent about where they place their dock because of a history. I think they placed it essentially where someone had done it before they bought the home. But it's also been established and I believe there's a string that was set out there and there's some geographic markers that are on the far side of the lake so they create a nice target so you can maintain the angle. [25:20] Jennifer Arsenault: Mhm. [25:21] Alan Cantrude: And so there's never been a complaint and there certainly has never been a navigational issue. So the—I guess you could say—the way to characterize the response from the district was um we're not in the habit of arbitrarily asking people to move when something's working. And so the complaint was really technical and had to do with some terrestrial matters that may or may not be true because we didn't get into them. We just looked at it from a pragmatic standpoint of is there a safety issue? Is there a navigational issue? Is there something that makes this no longer tenable and since there was nothing alleged, uh there was nothing found and there was therefore no reason to ask anyone to move anything. [26:01] Kathy Weier: Alan, uh, in 2021, I think it was, didn't the city redo the survey on K Beach as well, and the lines were at the same spot? [26:10] Alan Cantrude: Um, I would have to look back at the survey, but I think so— [26:13] Kathy Weier: Because we had—I remember reading about a fence issue at one point, so we were looking at it. I think it was for the other side, but I think for the south side of the total and nothing changed on that property line. [26:22] Alan Cantrude: No, that was a cornerstone survey and we went through and basically established surveys for each of those easement lots. [26:31] Kathy Weier: Yes, I remember reading that. So, I don't think anything has changed on the survey itself. [26:36] Alan Cantrude: We didn't go to the next extent which was to go ahead and register each of those because it's expensive and time-consuming etc. etc. but at least the city has the data on what they actually have which was the point of it at the time— [26:49] Kathy Weier: And it matched what the previous survey was. [26:52] Jennifer Arsenault: Do you want to speak? [26:56] Herod Attorney: Yeah. Um I'm the attorney that Alan is referencing for 485 Lake Avenue. Um the registration process is based off of the registry. So I don't know—I don't want to bore people with the details of registering your property. But there are two types of property in Minnesota: abstract and Torrens. Torrens is a registration process. If you have a certificate of title, your property's Torrens. Torrens means is essentially things like adverse possession and other things can't occur to your property. In the instance of the Mahonies, when they went through the process and the lawsuit and everything that ended up ensnaring the Herods in that too, they registered their property and they put judicial land monuments along the south side of their property, meaning that the court issued an order saying you have to place these monuments, these iron capped monuments along that property line. Um what ended up happening falling out of that—one of the repercussions that occurred to the Herods after that title registration—was their legal description that they purchased from Dave McMullen back in the day didn't match what they actually owned now. So the decision was made either to reform the deed which would have gone through roughly the same process we went through or register the property. And since we already had a registration line on the north side of the property with judicial land monuments, the decision was made by the Herods to register their property in Torrens because it was abstract. As a result of that, we had to have a survey done. Our survey matched the 2012 survey that the city had done. Alan reached out because we have to notify the adjacent property owners of the registration action and specifically asked if we were going to follow the line that the city had established in the 2012 survey. The answer was yes because that's the line and I think everybody presumed that was the line because the fence is there—all the stuff is there. So we went through the process and—as Mr. Cantrude pointed out—Ed Simonette had died in the middle of this. So it became a very elongated process and as a result we had two separate title examiners look at this exact same facts and they arrived at the exact same conclusion. Um so ultimately what ended up happening is we registered the Herod's property reforming their legal description of their property to conform with what they now own because of the litigation they had with the Mahonies on the other side. And now the property's registered. So if you go along the south side of the line, there are judicial land monuments placed along the south side of the Herods property that match the survey. There isn't any magic 10 feet. There never has been any magic 10 feet. After the meeting, when I talked with Mr. Mahoney about this, he claimed that there was some plat that said that there was—that that lot was smaller than it was. Well, that plat has never been produced. I've never seen it. And we would have seen it through this process because it would have been provided by the title examiner if there were questions. Since it wasn't, it doesn't exist. And even if it did exist, it doesn't exist anymore because the property's registered. So, it's irrelevant. So, what I'm saying is is that there is no magical 10 feet. The Herods have owned exactly what they registered and they've owned exactly what they bought. There's nothing that's changed. There's no reason to change anything. And now the city K beach is the beneficiary of that. It's also beneficiary of a 1982 registration action that occurred in the Duffy's property on the south of that which I also happen to know a lot about because I grew up in that house. Um never nevertheless the 1982 that property was registered—or excuse me 1984 that property was registered and there were landmarks put—monuments pushed along that property line too. [30:19] Jennifer Arsenault: I—I mean I—I don't want to cut you off too much, but I'm—I guess to me it's not up to us to decide the dispute. That's up to the conservation district. What I want to understand is the village is also a property owner and indeed of of K Beach and the outcome of this. There are two things that are true of the outcome. Number one, the outcome of any complaint that's resolved by the conservation district is subject to challenge in district court. Is that correct? [31:01] Alan Cantrude: Well, at this stage of the game, if you want to call it that, the complaint came in and it was addressed by the LUC. The LUC made its decision, which I just informed you of, and so now that's essentially been challenged. And so that was the last presentation that Justin was mentioning that he came in. Um many people spoke, Mr. Duffy was there and so the Mahonies were there and so then the official position of the board came out which was essentially to establish that uh it was an affirmation basically of what the LUC had done. [31:36] Jennifer Arsenault: We were supporting that decision. [31:38] Alan Cantrude: That decision could be challenged in district court. Correct. [31:41] Jennifer Arsenault: Yes. [31:42] Alan Cantrude: And essentially that was the—that was what was suggested—was that if they—if it doesn't get moved then they were going to—they meaning the complaintants—at least entertain the idea of going in and getting it judicially decided. [31:55] Ryan Eisele: And so such a change in the decision by the conservation district could affect—if it could affect the property of K beach. I'm not saying that it necessarily that there's a strong case there. I'm just saying that a district court could come in and could change the property line there. Could overturn potentially the White Bear Conservation District decision. [32:16] Alan Cantrude: Well, let's not talk about property lines because that would not be what the— [32:20] Ryan Eisele: Or or could change the dock placement there, for example, in a way that would affect the dock placement at K Beach. Is that a correct way of putting it? [32:28] Alan Cantrude: Right. What you would do is you would—well doesn't matter. If they wanted to challenge the decision of the district, they would have to go in and essentially, you know, we take what we call quasi-judicial actions. And so to challenge that, there's a fairly high evidentiary burden that you have to meet if you're going to actually challenge and prevail. And I'm pretty confident that they wouldn't. You know, there's always a chance, but— [32:47] Ryan Eisele: Well, that's what I'm asking about. There's only a chance here. And to your knowledge, have Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney retained counsel? [32:56] Alan Cantrude: Not that's been formally sent to me. You know, I've gotten a call from an attorney, but that was not very um wasn't a very material call. [33:05] Ryan Eisele: I mean, my understanding from going kind of watching the conservation district meeting was that I don't—I understand you have a dual role here—was that basically communications were going through you because this was becoming a matter of litigation. [33:16] Alan Cantrude: Yeah. I mean, the letter had um essentially was mine for the official position of the board only because of the threatened litigation. So I've been doing this for a long time for them, meaning the conservation district. So I'm pretty good at making these decisions and we're well backstopped. [33:37] Ryan Eisele: I understand that. I just want to understand that the posture here that's being presented from the complainant is one that would—that could lead to litigation. [33:46] Alan Cantrude: Not initiated by us, but yes, anyone can sue anyone. So agree no control over that. [33:53] Ryan Eisele: Yes. [33:54] Ryan Hankins: Alan, I'm just curious. Can you give a rough estimate of how much this has cost the city over the years? [34:02] Ryan Eisele: This—meaning the rancor between the parties? [34:05] Ryan Hankins: Yes. [34:06] Alan Cantrude: Well, I guess since I've been around since what about 2012 or 13. Um, I've been a retainer guy as we call me. So, it's never cost you anything other than my time. And so, I don't bill for that. So, it's always been just absorbed by me. Um, has it taken a lot of staff time? Uh, yes, certainly. I would say the biggest incursion of expense was probably the last series of appeals over the Herod's construction project when they redid their deck and and their little divider. We don't want to call it a fence or a wall. I'll just say the partition in the way that was—that was well—well discussed and it just that that absorbed an awful lot of staff time for sure— [34:50] Ryan Eisele: And my time and Becky's time and and everyone who was involved last fall. [34:55] Jennifer Arsenault: I think Ryan um the—the board made its decision. Correct? [34:58] Ryan Eisele: Right. [35:01] Jennifer Arsenault: So I think what the speakers that we've had have asked is for—um—Miss Mahoney's resignation. [35:08] Ryan Eisele: I mean, I think they've asked us to remove her, but yeah. [35:10] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. So, I don't think that—I mean, the—the decision's already been made by the the board that the docks are supposed to be in perpetuity in the center of their lots or the alternative. [35:26] Herod Attorney: Can I say one more thing? I may have one more comment and and I will go back to my seat. Um, it's been—it's been our position that the—the conservation district has the ability to interpret its own orders and what they mean on the ground in terms of real time measurements and in—in space—in real space. And as a result of the 2017 order, members of the conservation district came out and literally tape measured the—the Herod's property and put a pin in the ground dictating where their dock is should go. Period. That has been the case. They have put their dock right there. There's photos of it. It's right there. Um, and so our position is that's settled. There isn't anything else to talk about. That was in 2017. Whatever appeal period may have been the case is no longer alive. So that pin placement dictates where they put their dock. That's where they're putting their dock. So in our position—my position as her attorney—is that if if—you know, like Mr. Cantrude pointed out—anyone can sue anybody. We'll respond accordingly when that happens—if it happens. But at the end of the day, we're doing exactly what the—what the conservation district told my clients to do. They are doing exactly what they were told to do. No, no less, no more. So, thank you for thank you for your time. [36:51] Jennifer Arsenault: So, I guess my only question um is what the our residents are asking council to do, right? I mean, is that what Justin who spoke? Sorry, Julie and Justin, I guess. So, are you— [37:11] Justin McCarthy: I imagine there's a few other people in the building as well who feel that way as well. [37:15] Jennifer Arsenault: They just don't want to speak. [37:17] Justin McCarthy: Yeah. And that's fine. [37:18] Jennifer Arsenault: I think I think it's safe to say that instead of all this getting up and saying the same thing, it was easier to have a couple people do it if you would like—and certainly for people to do it, but um at the end of the day, I think for the sake of your efficiency and time and everything else and everybody's time, I guess we just let Julie thank you. So I guess we have to decide is—do we agree that there's a conflict? Is there a conflict between having Susie Mahoney serving on the conservation district and as representing Birwood in addition to possibly taking action to—if the docks had to move it would harm Birwood because it would— [37:57] Kathy Weier: Having not brought it up to to Birwood and bringing it up to us I actually feel it is conflict of interest. So, I would suggest that she be removed. Um, I would be fine with her coming and giving an opportunity at our September meeting to defend her position if she'd like to to stay on it. I don't care about the litigation. That's a whole different situation. [38:17] Ryan Hankins: Well, I think we invited Miss Mahoney to come into this meeting tonight and just provide us a little bit of context. [38:22] Kathy Weier: Was she invited? I was not aware of that. So, aren't they both on the agenda for presentation? [38:35] Ryan Hankins: Yes. But I'm not—was she invited, Scott? Do you know? [38:39] Scott (Administrator): I believe so. Yes. [38:40] Kathy Weier: If she was invited to give us an update on the White Bear Lake Conservation District current actions, I think that's different than her being removed. So, I'm okay with her coming back for that, but I would move to remove her and appoint a new person. [38:53] Ryan Eisele: Does anybody else have any comments on it? You know, I guess lots of comments, but—yeah, I'm asking the other—one sec. Um, I agree with Kathy and I think that I feel bad for the Herods having to have gone through this and that the members of the community have spoken about this. It seems like people are going through a lot of stuff and that um it doesn't seem like Susie Mahoney has Birwood's best interest. So I second Kathy's motion. [39:46] Jennifer Arsenault: I mean I think that if you are um appointed to a board to represent city, your job is to represent the city, not your own interests. So, I would agree that there's a conflict as well. Bridget, do you want to add anything on that? [39:54] Bridget Sperl: It just seems like an enormous waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Um, so that's a shame, but I agree. [40:02] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Do we need a motion then, Alan? [40:05] Ryan Eisele: I'd like to make—I'd just like to say I—Julie, I appreciated your comments here. I also grew up knowing the Mahonies and um you know I think Susie's done a lot of service and been around a long time and I I think that's worth acknowledging. Um but I guess I think um this isn't probably the place for her to remain. I hope she'll continue in some capacity at a later date. So thank you. [40:32] Alan Cantrude: Yes. This obviously wasn't teed up as an action item. So, I don't know if you'd have any interest in just directing your administrator to just ask for her resignation from the board at this time. And if that doesn't come in, it could be an action item for removal next month. [40:48] Ryan Eisele: Okay. But it seemed fair, I'd prefer to ask for— [40:53] Alan Cantrude: I think at this point the discussion is clear. And for the record, um, I've been doing the conservation district consistently for a quarter century and we've never run into this and we've certainly never had litigation threatened by a sitting board member and their family. So, even from my perspective, I think that makes it very difficult for her to serve. Um, just as a—on a personal level, never mind some of the things that you've heard about maybe not keeping Birwood's best interests in mind, but um, I would give her the opportunity to resign the position. [41:21] Jennifer Arsenault: So, Scott, would you do that? [41:23] Scott (Administrator): Yes. Thank you. [41:25] Ryan Eisele: Can—can we rescind the motion that's on the table? [41:28] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, there's no second, so I mean there's—there was no— [41:31] Ryan Eisele: I did second. [41:33] Jennifer Arsenault: Did you? I'm sorry. That's my bad. [41:36] Kathy Weier: So, I can rescind mine and request that Scott send a letter asking for a resignation for lack of uh representing Birwood to the best of their ability and our own interests and the conflict. Had she come to talk to the city, I would feel different about it. [41:51] Jennifer Arsenault: And this will be added to the September meeting. [41:54] Kathy Weier: Uh I—I would like us to send that before September. But as far as u—that we would like that resignation by September's meeting. [42:07] Jennifer Arsenault: Yes. [42:08] Kathy Weier: And then for September, I would actually like to have—if we have the ability to request people to take that spot so that we can reappoint someone. [42:16] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. I would think I would give her a couple of weeks instead of that full month just in case it needs to be teed up on the September agenda. [42:26] Ryan Eisele: Give her to—I would just amend the motion to suggest we give her till the end of August. [42:31] Alan Cantrude: We're in presentations so we can't do motions. Can't do motion during the presentation. [42:36] Kathy Weier: Did she just say that? [42:37] Alan Cantrude: I'm just hearing this is more of a direction to your city administrator. Okay. Again, it's not an action item. This is really technically an update from one of your members and so it's hard to take actions when it's not an action item. So, okay, I think Scott can take that because you have an administrator who's listening to what you have to say. So, that's why I'm saying as an action item next month if you don't get the resignation, then you can make the uh the motion to remove—and that'll be fine. [43:05] Jennifer Arsenault: All right. Any other discussion on this? [43:08] Herod Attorney: So, you guys are not going to do this with a motion and second and vote. You're just going to—we're directing Scott to write a letter requesting. [43:16] Alan Cantrude: But there was no—let's—should we—we should do this with a motion and second and vote though, right Alan? Direct him to write a letter. [43:25] Alan Cantrude: No, I think we can just do it as staff action without a without a vote. Yeah, at this point it's just directing your administrator and everyone has spoken about the issue and just telling the administrator to send a letter politely asking for a resignation. [43:35] Kathy Weier: Okay. And then it'll be on the— [43:38] Alan Cantrude: You don't need to take action to remove someone if they remove themselves. Sounds good. [43:40] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Okay. Thank you all for speaking, Scott. Thank you. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Um, next on the presentations is the 2026 parks committee budget proposal. [44:05] Alan Mitchell: Madam Mayor, members of the council, I'm Alan Mitchell. I'm a member of the parks committee. We also have Amy Huelet in the back there and Mary Sue who are also members. Now you'll remember in April you passed a resolution directing the parks committee to report periodically and to prepare a proposal for a budget and an action plan for 2026. So we thought August-September is the time where you start thinking about the levy and the budget. So we'd give you the information we have. Um, it's hard to come up with any firm cost estimates when we're not even sure what the projects are yet. We just know what we want to achieve. For example, we want to address the runoff at Elm Beach, but we don't know exactly what that will entail. So, anyway, we submitted a update report and I—I'll just give you a quick rundown and and maybe for people at home too to grasp what's going on. So, first we mentioned a couple of observations. We said maintenance is becoming important uh with our grants just for our own purposes and we can't count on maintenance with either the staff or volunteers in all cases. So, we're going to have to be aware that we may have to spend some money for maintenance. We also um recognize that we're going to need some professional help. We—we can't the parks committee and the council and the staff can't really design some of these projects—we may—may need help from Department of Natural Resources or or you know private firms that do that kind of work. Um we're always on the outlook for grants and I know the council is as well. Um and we'll continue to do that and of course we have this big grant for the Ty Schmidt park work going on right now. We're very cognizant about soliciting ideas from the public and keeping them advised about what they would prefer we do. Um we did uh talk to the Birchwood dock association people and came up with their ideas. Uh and so we've taken that into account. Also um although we wanted to bring you the best information we have right now in August, the parks committee's projects are probably going to be funded primarily out of the uh special revenue fund which is the Birchwood dock association money they pay for the docks and the and the boat lifts and the boat slips. Um, so it doesn't really affect the levy all that much, but we gave you the best information we have. Uh, so in the memorandum, which is in the agenda packet, uh, we told you what's going on right now. There's a few minor things we're finishing up like we the back stop down at Ty Schmidt has been removed. We're going to go put a net up behind the—we're going to put a net up behind the—the goal on the hockey rink on the street side and a few other things. But going forward, our top priority of course is to do the Ty Schmidt Park work with the with the grant money we have. Uh and that's hopefully will be completed—and better be completed in 2026. Um learning from the doc association that Elm Beach is in trouble and really needs work with the runoff situation down there. So that's a top priority. We also heard from the dock association that they'd like to see some improvements at—at Ash Beach just as far as access. So that's on our list. uh a little lower priority, but what we're hoping to get to is Pauly's Park that's got some runoff problems there as well. And then there's the Kurt Feisner memorial preserve. Um we're hoping that something will happen in 2026 on that as well. So you have the quarterly report and a little bit of budget information and I don't think there's any action necessary from you tonight but we'll give you another report in December which will set forth this annual action plan that's supposed to be approved according to that resolution. So thank you very much and thank you for all your hard work. [48:02] Jennifer Arsenault: It's the whole committee and and our two council liaison too are major help. [48:06] Alan Mitchell: And just one is do we have enough here? It looks like it's pretty detailed. Do we have enough here to go forward with our budgeting process? [48:10] Jennifer Arsenault: I think we do and I think that's great. So, we'll start— [48:15] Bridget Sperl: All of—all of the parks is coming out of the special revenue fund. So, none of this requires an additional levy. [48:21] Jennifer Arsenault: We'll get it into the great Birwood bureaucracy. Thank you very much. [48:33] Alan Mitchell: Thank you. [48:34] Jennifer Arsenault: Um, I would just like to say too, um, Dana Klimp had texted me and he and a, um, friend had cleaned up Elm easement the other day, the weed whipped and just generally um, maintained it a little bit for us and I just wanted to thank him for that. [48:51] Kathy Weier: I would—I would also say I think it's great that the parks committee is reaching out to docks to find out what their input is. I think that's probably the first time that's happened—and and so kudos to you guys. Thank you. [49:04] Alan Mitchell: Thank you. Yeah. [49:06] Jessica Granic: Hi, uh, Jessica Granic, 363 Liquid Lane. Kind of glad most of the audience is gone, so that's good. That's why I don't like the audience—myself. But here we go. Um I'm here representing the Lake Links Task Force. Um we have been working hard for quite a while now considering ideas and recommendations um to utilize a $70,000 grant that has became available of leftover stuff—money that Mahtomedi did not use when they were doing the trail. Um we have been in collaboration with both the parks and the road safety committees. Um we've had community input and um so we are here to present kind of our hopefully our final recommendations. Um we do have a drop-dead deadline of December 31st 2026 which means everything has to—all receipts have to be submitted for reimbursement by then which would mean the work has to be done. Um, how this grant works is you can submit receipts kind of as an ongoing basis. So it doesn't have to all be done and do one bulk thing. You can do a project and submit. You can submit as it goes. So that's kind of nice in that we um we have that flexibility for—for money that way. Um all work and reimbursements must be submitted by that date. Obviously, a lot of this will be dependent on vendor availability and timing of that. So, um we're urging proactively getting started because any money not used by that time will be forfeited. So, um I believe we have a resolution—that was did we get that resolution, Scott? Did we do it at the previous meeting? I believe— [51:04] Scott (Administrator): Um not at the previous meeting. I had emailed you a couple weeks ago. Not done. Okay. So, we need to get that done. [51:10] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. I was thinking it was at the previous meeting was when we had it. [51:11] Jessica Granic: Um—I don't think—couple months ago. I don't think we had an official resolution. We'll talk and get that done because we can't move forward with any of this until that resolution's— [51:24] Kathy Weier: When we admit. Um we met about it, but then I don't think it's been officially signed. [51:30] Ryan Eisele: I think you said that it would be coming and you gave a heads up to the council to expect it. So it's not here now. So we have to— [51:37] Jessica Granic: So it'll have to wait till— [51:39] Jennifer Arsenault: Sep—will it have to wait till the September meeting then to be approved or— [51:43] Scott (Administrator): I—Yes. [51:44] Ryan Eisele: Can—if it's—talk to—if it's really urgent—like if—if we miss something we're going to miss a deadline then you know things can happen but usually it waits a month. So— [52:05] Jennifer Arsenault: I think it would be nice if we could get it done because you guys are ready to start on a bunch of actions. What—what would it take to get a resolution together tonight? Um I could probably put one together. Can we need to amend the agenda? I guess. Uh, all right. [52:13] Jessica Granic: The timing goes we can't—we can't do anything until that resolution is approved because—in order to do anything with the funding um that resolution has to be approved because council has to agree that they're going to fund the projects for reimbursement and I—that's what that resolution—so I mean it can as—as long as it's getting going to get done in September I think—I don't really think between now and then anything—any projects are going to— [52:51] Kathy Weier: Okay. [52:52] Jessica Granic: Magically— [52:54] Jennifer Arsenault: We are looking at a sooner date also which will be discussed later. I can let you know. [52:58] Kathy Weier: Okay. I don't think it's controversial so I don't know why—like I mean you'd be surprised but— [53:06] Ryan Eisele: We could also do a special meeting—a five minute special meeting and just pass— [53:11] Jennifer Arsenault: Well we'll probably have some other emergency in about 20 minutes anyway so—um I just think we should get it to them before September. Agree. So okay great. We will get it to you before September. [53:23] Jessica Granic: Perfect. Um, so, sorry, last—one spot here. Okay. Um, we've got some—I—I think you guys have the spreadsheet. Um, so with that, we—we as a committee went through and prioritized what we felt was first priority and then um and then some extra things and then there's some things on here that didn't make the list for multiple reasons, most of which they're just not going to be covered. Um, and so, you know, as you as we're going through, um, the priority was safety. We really went with that as our main thing. So those items include the—um—so there was some talk about the traffic mirrors as far as really once we start thinking about where they possibly are going to go. Are they really going to do the job that they're meant to do? There's a fair bit of maintenance that goes with them. They really can't be left up in the winter because our climate doesn't agree with them. Um, so we did—we—we kind of left it as a—do we want those or could we do an alternative option of putting up blind corner signs um that just indicate to all users that hey pay attention this is just not a great corner. Um those—the two places that they were looking at was one was on—um—as you come down J toward J path there where you're coming down and it's just—it—it's overgrown and really blind. Um and then the other one was on Cedar and Wildwood. Um the—the Cedar—the Cedar—the Cedar here then the Cedar here that connects with Wildwood. Um so you know as we talked we're not sure what the best one was—the best option is—um going forward we're happy to consult—we're happy to give what we know. We're kind of just providing recommendations and at this point kind of saying you—you know council needs to decide what's best for the community and the um final decisions. Um the electronic speed signs—um though there was two that were recommended—um by the—and these were actually came from the road safety committee. Those placements um partially um based on location for enough sun because they're solar. Um and then one is on the bike route and one is on the pedestrian route. So that gives both—well actually Wildwood is the combined—um and then the one on Hall would be the bike route that that we say is the bike route. Um Sharrows, those are those things that go on the road and we—um research says they're effective. Um they're just recommend them. Um, and then there's some share the road signs. Um, and there's a walker or a road stencil. Not a—not a Sharrow. I mean, we could put a Sharrow in, but basically it was suggested that we get a stencil that then you can paint to kind of delineate where the bike—where the bikers go, where the walkers go. It's unclear if that actually would be covered. That stencil, the painting of it and the—and the—um supplies for that would not be—it's about $100. We would, you know, I guess we would recommend doing it and if it doesn't get covered or reimbursed, it's a $100 that maybe the city could put toward the safety. Um, so the priority safety totals about 20 grand out of that 70,000. Then we went to the enhancements of the trail. And these include four benches, a bike repair station at Wildwood Park, and a water station at Ty Schmidt Park, which would include a water bottle filling station. Um, and then the four benches, two of them would be at Ty Schmidt and two would be at Wildwood. The budgeted amounts for those include our best guess um as far as concrete and installation costs. We don't have—we came up kind of blank on any sort of vendors that were willing to give us any concrete—concrete numbers. Um but we took a—we took a stab at what we thought might be um a good number. And so those—the total for that section is about 27,000 which puts us up to about 47,000 out of that 70. Um and then the miscellaneous expenditures would be uh engineering consults on planning and placement and and that kind of thing. Um budgeted about 4,000 for that and then the plumbing work for the water station. Um actually John Manship called Mary Cahill back and said probably around 500 but we—I mean thousand is budgeted. So um total we've got ourselves up to about 52,000 out of that 70 which leaves about 18 left. Um the extra items from the parks committee recommendation would be to do um exercise equipment stations in Ty Schmidt. Um what that all includes and the locations and the logistics and the—the specific pieces. We didn't really go into much based on we would recommend doing all of these other items first. Anything left over, we would be very in favor of putting toward that. Not sure how much that would actually cover. Um parks committee had indicated at one point um that they you know had some money so maybe they would collaborate and add some in if there was some overage in there. Um but that's where we're at with that. Um items not covered with the crosswalk repainting and road restriping because nothing—it can't be maintenance, it can't be replacement, it can't be that kind of thing. Um, oh, and then the picnic tables that were um suggested, they were suggested down at Ty Schmidt. There are picnic tables down there, so it would be considered a replacement item. So, that doesn't work. Um, the Kurt Feisner preserve resting spot that was um suggested I think is fabulous. It just comes up to be time constraint and prohibitive on our timeline. Um if that comes in and there's money—I—I mean we—there's nothing that says we weren't for doing it. It just our time constraints just seemed like that was not going to work. So um— [1:00:46] Bridget Sperl: And Jesse, I think the other thing that you looked into was whether we could buy equipment to—um clear off the sides of the roads to make it safer. [1:00:58] Jessica Granic: We did. And it has to—everything has to be permanent—nothing. You can't do any equipment or anything. Everything has to be permanently installed. So, uh, thanks Bridget. Yeah. So, like the benches have to be permanently installed in concrete. The water station, all of that has to be permanently installed. It can't be movable. The—and that was the same with the electronic speed signs. We had talked about getting a movable one to move it around, but again, you can't. It has to be permanently installed. So— [1:01:29] Bridget Sperl: And the reason that I bring that up to the council is because I still think it's important from a safety standpoint to do. It's just that we have to find a different way to pay for it. [1:01:38] Jessica Granic: Yes. Um, and so, yes, that brings me to my final one is there are a few things that we don't—don't meet the requirements for this, but would be very beneficial if you'd be willing to consider it in your next budget. One would be some sort of brush cutting or some money toward rem—brush removal so that we can clear out some of those blinder or—blinder—blind corners areas um just for safety. Um the crosswalk repainting and road restriping would be great um along those lines as well. So, um, uh, Lake Links committee members, we're—we're still w—or we're still willing to answer questions or consult or do whatever. Um, at this point, we're turning our recommendations over to you guys. Um, and probably not holding regular meetings unless there's questions or items that you want us to discuss. [1:02:46] Jennifer Arsenault: Oh, thank you for all your work. This is awesome. Any questions or— [1:02:51] Kathy Weier: I—go ahead, Kathy. I was going to ask as far as uh once we approve all of this wonderful information. Um is the installation and um moving forward with all of these, is that something that your committee will be helping with or do you want to hand over to the city to do? [1:03:03] Jessica Granic: We would prefer to hand it over to the city if you want. Well, none of us on the committee have really a lot of— [1:03:13] Bridget Sperl: Jesse, I—I can add Mary Cahill and I met with Scott to find out exactly how this would work and we had said it will be handed over to the city to project manage. So this hard work—they will be done. Fabulous. [1:03:26] Kathy Weier: Okay. [1:03:27] Jessica Granic: I do have some quotes that we did get on a few items that I am happy to pass along and you can do whatever you want with those. Um but—and again we're happy to answer questions or give input on what information we already have as far as that goes. So um yeah. [1:03:51] Kathy Weier: I guess I have one more question regarding that. So let's say we come in under budget for all of the things and we determined that we wanted to eventually do the Kurt Feisner Memorial Preserve. If we poured the cement pad, would that work? [1:04:00] Jessica Granic: I believe so. So even if there's not a bench or whatever else that potentially we could do a portion of something that is for— [1:04:12] Kathy Weier: I believe so I think we'd have to check with the specifics of the grant but I—my understanding is anything that's permanent that enhances the safety um or enhances the trail. [1:04:19] Jessica Granic: Okay. And I mean I guess cement pad and I mean if you can stand on it you know or rest— [1:04:26] Kathy Weier: It's a sign—it's a point of interest because the sign would go up. [1:04:29] Jessica Granic: So then it could be okay. So, in the event we had extra— [1:04:33] Jennifer Arsenault: Jesse, um, thank you. [1:04:37] Ryan Eisele: My—my neighbor—um—a speed limit sign, one of those signs is scheduled for his yard and I just want to double check with him to make sure that's okay with him. Um, is that something—are those signs can meet—they mean moved—once the grant—once I mean—is there a point where we have to kind of say that's going or that's not going? I'm not sure how he feels about it, but I just want to kind of smooth the waters there a little bit. And if it has to be moved, there's maybe a little different placement or something. [1:05:07] Jessica Granic: I would say that if it has to be moved and reinstalled permanently, I don't see why that would be okay. Um— [1:05:14] Jennifer Arsenault: I don't see why—I mean—I don't see why that would be an issue. I mean— [1:05:18] Ryan Eisele: I would— [1:05:19] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, that's a—that's a possible point. Yeah, it would be the other side of the road, but yeah. Okay. Not—not necessarily a sunny easement though. [1:05:27] Jessica Granic: Well, it would have to be. Yeah. And so the—I know the placements—so the—the road safety—we got the placement from—placements of these from road safety recommendations. [1:05:38] Ryan Eisele: So they would probably be a—a better resource as far as why. And I mean I'm fine with that. I guess it's just that I want to make sure that the neighbor—I don't know that—I don't want to derail this whole thing. I think it's great work. I just want to make sure that nobody's upset that a sign's going in their yard. And so I'll just maybe I'll just talk to my neighbor as a first step here. [1:06:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Are they always on or only when someone runs by or drives by? [1:06:04] Jessica Granic: Um I believe it only flashes when someone goes by. Um so I mean theoretically there's not a lot of traffic. [1:06:12] Ryan Eisele: At night—I'm usually going too fast to see them, but— [1:06:15] Jennifer Arsenault: Well when I run past it doesn't flash either. It's—I'm too slow. Um, but uh, you know, I mean it doesn't—and it—and it's just a regular size. [1:06:24] Kathy Weier: It's not it's not it's not the gigantic monster has really. [1:06:27] Jessica Granic: Yeah, it's not—it's not the gigantic one we had on hall for a while and where it's like flashing probably in, you know, it's—it's a regular size sign. Um, and I don't know you—I—there might be an option to time it so it only goes on during certain hours, which I don't know. And that could be an option, too, if there's upgrades to that to put a little bit more money into something a little bit more higher tech. I don't know. I haven't—we haven't done all the research on all of them, but— [1:06:56] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, we'll iron out the kinks. [1:07:01] Kathy Weier: Okay. Okay. And so just to be clear, we pass a resolution and then this whole project is handed over to the city to manage and then who turns in the receipts? [1:07:12] Scott (Administrator): Uh that would be the city. [1:07:14] Kathy Weier: The city does to make links. [1:07:16] Jessica Granic: Um nope. There's the whole the grant application and stuff. You have that Scott right? [1:07:21] Scott (Administrator): We met in June and then July earlier. [1:07:23] Kathy Weier: Okay. So clear. [1:07:25] Scott (Administrator): Yeah. [1:07:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. But it's probably worth a walk through when we go live to make sure that everybody's— [1:07:31] Jessica Granic: Yep. [1:07:32] Jennifer Arsenault: —you know, sort of all lined up. [1:07:34] Jessica Granic: And I'm—I mean, she's not here to—to argue with me. I'm going to throw Mary Cahill under the bus. She did a lot of research on that. So, she would be the expert to consult on that. [1:07:46] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Thank you so much for coming in. Great information. [1:07:51] Bridget Sperl: And—and I will say I joined this committee at the first of the year. This committee is the hardest working committee. They do so much research. They do so much investigation. Um and uh I think you can tell by how thorough this is and what a good recommendation it is. [1:08:12] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, thank you Bridget. We appreciate your time and effort on that, too. So, thank you so much. Are any other questions? All right. Thank you. [1:08:26] Jessica Granic: Thank you. [1:08:27] Jennifer Arsenault: Good job. We have some exceptional committees. It's one very nice. [1:08:31] Kathy Weier: We do. [1:08:32] Jennifer Arsenault: All right. Let's move on here. Um, can I have a motion from someone to approve the consent agenda or to accept the consent agenda? [1:08:44] Ryan Eisele: I'd like to pull out item one, the regular council—or I'm sorry, item two. Item one is fine. Item two, the July 14th special council meeting minutes will be number 10. Just city business. [1:08:56] Jennifer Arsenault: You're going to add that as number. That's fine. It's just a quick nitpick. Anything else? Okay. With number two pulled out, can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? [1:09:13] Bridget Sperl: So move. [1:09:15] Ryan Eisele: Oh, Bridget can have it. Seconded. [1:09:17] Jennifer Arsenault: Seconds. All in favor? [1:09:18] Council Members: I. [1:09:19] Jennifer Arsenault: Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes. Um, we'll move on then to staff reports. Uh Scott. [1:09:34] Scott (Administrator): the first thing I had on was just the July maintenance report. Obviously, John was off most of the month. So, this is something that we started working on a spreadsheet to—this is obviously more Bridget's saying, but—to keep council updated as to what's taking place and then not just what's taking place, but then hopefully get like an annual thing. So, that's down the road when John isn't around, we know every month by month by month what needs done and have more clarity with that. There's some of that documentation, but it's something that is—it's going to be a project that needs to be improved on. Um, I had the culvert unplugging on that, which not much is happening, but that's actually Marcus'. And then, um, I had the spreadsheet that was requested for variance and planning procedures. That's probably something we can present at a council work session just to go through and really discuss. And that's also something that will be discussed at planning. So, again, just trying to get the council and everybody on the same page regarding uh, just proper procedures for that. [1:10:48] Bridget Sperl: So, just so I understand—because I'm sort of a nut about this as you know—um the July maintenance report, we're in the process of still building it. [1:10:56] Scott (Administrator): Well, there wasn't a lot of maintenance done because John was gone. Jim did a lot of tree removal. Well, small tree removal that was perfect for his size. But then um the main thing is we're trying to build a report so that every month we have a consistent report to build—to provide to them. [1:11:06] Bridget Sperl: So next month we should see more specifics. [1:11:08] Scott (Administrator): Correct. [1:11:09] Jennifer Arsenault: Sorry, who's John? What am I missing? [1:11:11] Scott (Administrator): Manship. [1:11:12] Jennifer Arsenault: John Manship was doing—and we're just talking about the plumbing system maintenance— [1:11:15] Scott (Administrator): the maintenance that he does also. [1:11:16] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay, got it. [1:11:17] Scott (Administrator): But also Jim does maintenance as well. [1:11:18] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. I just didn't—I just wanted to make sure it was John Manship. Okay. [1:11:21] Scott (Administrator): Correct. [1:11:22] Jennifer Arsenault: Got it. Thank you. [1:11:23] Kathy Weier: Is there another John? [1:11:24] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, that was what I was confused about. [1:11:26] Bridget Sperl: That's what I was worried about. [1:11:28] Scott (Administrator): So, probably—he's hiding in the closet. [1:11:32] Ryan Eisele: You haven't—You haven't been meeting with John. [1:11:34] Jennifer Arsenault: Just don't warn him about the Ryans. All right. Any other questions for Scott? Thanks, Marcus. [1:11:52] Marcus Johnson: Thanks, council. Um, so I'll try to keep it short tonight. I know I'm chatty. I threw a grant at um a grant that is—I'm not sure if it's fully released yet, but the bank is kind of one of their biggest suppliers of um applications. So, we've been working with the state on it. There's an LRI grant coming out. It's a grant that comes out every two years. Usually it's um when legislation approves funding. In summary, it's pretty much the only road grant that is out. So, a couple things to note on it is it's uh re—they prefer projects that are regional significance. So whether that's, you know, a through road like Cedar or a road that's going to like a very large park—or—or some have even applied for—for landing stuff like that. Um it's 10 ton design so for the public it's a—like a county road design. So it's a larger road um as far as the thickness goes and like and stuff. That's kind of a new um requirement, but nothing here for tonight, but just an FYI of the grant is either out or it's coming out. Um so there should be stuff in your packet on it. And I just sent Scott a little bit more information of our internal notes um for you guys to review. The application is not due until December. The application is pretty, in my opinion, pretty easy to fill out. So if the city wants to fill it out themselves and just need um my support that's um possible or otherwise we have a whole team designated for just writing these. Um rough idea for cost-wise goes it's pro—in the document it says 7 to 10,000 but most communities it's closer to seven. I think when I was out in 2023 most of my applications were 5,000 or less. So— [1:13:56] Jennifer Arsenault: $5,000. [1:13:57] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, for when we're writing the whole thing—reapplications, it's all pretty much—unless if we change anything in the grant or in the—excuse me, in the application, all that's needed is for me to update my numbers for the cost estimate and update the dates and it's usually a couple grand at most and we're just reapplying. [1:14:19] Ryan Eisele: Is it—is it something I could write? [1:14:21] Marcus Johnson: You could probably. [1:14:22] Ryan Eisele: Okay, maybe I'll— [1:14:23] Marcus Johnson: Most communities can write their own. some just don't have the time. Um, but yeah, the main thing is is thinking about projects of regional significance. So, the first thing just for an example that came to my mind is since I've been here, there's been talks about adding a bike lane to Cedar in spots. So, it has to be a re—has to be a reconstruction project or a construction project. It can't be like a known overlay or maintenance. So, it has to be a larger project, but something like that. And then another thing is it's a max award of 1.5 million. So—um yeah. [1:15:03] Bridget Sperl: So I was looking at this Marcus and I can't find where I read this so hopefully I'm not speaking out of place but it covers the construction costs—not engine— [1:15:16] Marcus Johnson: —not engineering. Correct. [1:15:18] Bridget Sperl: Correct. So we—we would be on the hook for the engine—like basically everything except the construction. [1:15:24] Marcus Johnson: Yep. The thing about this one is is it covers 100% of the construction cost versus like the grant we have for the lift station—that's an 80/20—and then a lot of other grants are a 50/50. So it's 100% of the construction costs but it does not cover engineering. [1:15:42] Ryan Eisele: Did I recall you also saying that the only road this would apply to is Cedar or Hall because of the— [1:15:52] Marcus Johnson: I think—yeah—most of the town or the roads in Birwood Village are nowhere close to a 10 ton or like a five ton kind of design. Um because the other thing to think about this too is if you apply for road funding, it has to meet all state design standards and there's a lot of roads in Birwood Village that are nowhere close to meeting that. So—it would take some undertaking for any other road. Um Cedar spots might not meet it as well, but that's a different story. So um that's one thing to take in consideration. And so if the city were to go out for a road project on its own without funding, we had some flexibility there. But for this grant specifically and pretty much all state or federal grants, you have to follow by their regulation—regulations—and it's a little bit more stringent than what communities like to see. [1:16:42] Bridget Sperl: So then just the example of the Cedar and the—in the bike lane. [1:16:48] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [1:16:49] Bridget Sperl: Then does that extend or complement what's been done for Lake Links? [1:16:54] Marcus Johnson: It would. Yeah. I know Lake Links at one point looked at it. They asked me to kind of look at it. And with how it sits right now, you wouldn't be able to just easily just add it. And that also wouldn't be a project that they would even consider. They—they want to look at like the whole road essentially. And it—and the um on-track bike lane would be accessory if that makes sense. It would still be covered, but you wouldn't just be able to add like a bike lane to it, if that makes sense. You would have to redo the—the whole road. Does that make sense, Bridget? [1:17:26] Bridget Sperl: Yep. And I assume then uh people's property would be impacted. I know it's the city's property, but— [1:17:34] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, the rightway that is currently grass that would—would be impacted. Yep. [1:17:39] Bridget Sperl: Okay. [1:17:40] Marcus Johnson: Yep. And in reality, we'd probably have to look at drainage and think of how we're going to manage drainage and alternate ways and what it currently is. [1:17:51] Bridget Sperl: Okay. Thanks. [1:17:53] Jennifer Arsenault: Uh so any other questions on the LRI? [1:17:56] Ryan Eisele: Just two in December. We have some time. So um is this the same one we filled out previously? That I filled out that LRI. I think that is what the same thing, right? [1:18:14] Marcus Johnson: Maybe that's—maybe that's what it is. [1:18:17] Ryan Eisele: The—So, okay. [1:18:19] Marcus Johnson: I don't have any records of—of—of it, but it might—might have been because you filled it out and that might— [1:18:24] Ryan Eisele: I filled it out and I can do it again. The question I had and the—the issue I had with that was just the traffic study data. [1:18:32] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [1:18:33] Ryan Eisele: Is—so—Okay. And—and that sounds like something that— [1:18:39] Marcus Johnson: —we can—Yeah, that is what I did. Okay, I'll do it. [1:18:43] Ryan Eisele: Yeah, but yeah, just look at your application cuz they did kind of refine some of their requirements, specifically the 10 ton, which is kind of pushing a lot of projects out and—and we're having to revisit like what's worth applying for and what's not. So— [1:19:00] Jennifer Arsenault: When you—when you say 10 ton, what do you mean? [1:19:02] Marcus Johnson: Essentially, it's it's a big road, a big thick section, a big—like not talking wide width. It's you're allowing heavy traffic through. It doesn't mean you're kind of probably widening it just because you're following state standards, but usually like a 10 ton road is going to have some kind of sand section and then a gravel with more asphalt. So, the cost increases. It doesn't matter to you guys at this point, but when we come to redo the road in the future, it would be a larger section to maintain. [1:19:32] Ryan Hankins: So, is 10 ton referring to the size of vehicle that can travel? [1:19:37] Marcus Johnson: Yep. Yep. So, when the strict restrictions go on in the—in the spring, um it would say it's restricted to 10 tons versus most of the things that I think are five or six. So, anything else on that? Perfect. Um, so Bolten-Menk got lead service inventory funding. Um, that is also in your packet. I kind of spoke with Scott on the possibilities um of it. And in summary, unless that the council has any objections, is I'm going to try to get—we have a short timeline and 90% of my staff is on construction projects right now, but with the people that are free up, I'm planning on sending out to shoot uh the utilities in the street and hopefully work with um John Manship to shoot as many curb stops as we can get um done this year. In addition to that, um, Bolten-Menk plans on hiring John's knowledge to finish out the remainder of the unknowns in town. Um, talking with him before, it sounds like he has either inspected or been in the houses that we don't know and he can file a report um and fill it out for MDH. So, the council doesn't see any of these invoices. Um it's a—in your packet—but it's a contract directly from Bolton-Menk or—with Bolton-Menk and MDH but just so you guys know um that—that's work going on in the city. So if there's any other ideas or stuff what we'd like to use—I think it's $74,000 or something like that. So it's a lot of money. Um reach out to me. There's a lot of restrictions on it, but the goal is to get all the unknowns from the resident side marked off this year. [1:21:38] Ryan Eisele: Hold on a second. I'm just putting this together. Are you giving John Manship a separate contract? [1:21:45] Marcus Johnson: We would—we'd be hiring John Manship. Yeah. Bolton would be— [1:21:49] Ryan Eisele: —for city information. So information the city should have. [1:21:52] Marcus Johnson: Correct. Yep. Well, and it—it's—it's more of a recordkeeping thing. So, [1:22:04] Ryan Eisele: —so records that the city should have that we should be able to provide you, you have to hire John Manship for— [1:22:10] Marcus Johnson: —um—essentially. Yep. Yep. But— [1:22:15] Ryan Eisele: —can—can we in this process are we going to create records? [1:22:16] Marcus Johnson: Yep. And start documenting all this kind of stuff. So having the records on there and then when I'm shooting stuff in the road and curb stop and stuff trying to get what's in the city just more easily accessible and more accurate just updating maps and making it a lot more easy for— [1:22:38] Bridget Sperl: So when you say shooting is that uh basically like scanning— [1:22:42] Marcus Johnson: —me having a GPS or someone having a GPS and physically— [1:22:47] Bridget Sperl: —using GIS—the GIS system to mark like water main uh— [1:22:55] Marcus Johnson: —turn offs etc. I don't—we might even send survey out here because if they have time—I mean it depends on who's available because we're—it's a busy season for us. So whoever can come out here um that's kind of the goal. [1:23:10] Bridget Sperl: Marcus, can you just do a C-spot run explanation of this like on my house? [1:23:15] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [1:23:16] Bridget Sperl: So live in my house. Yep. [1:23:17] Marcus Johnson: We don't know. I'm one of those that are unidentified. [1:23:19] Bridget Sperl: Yep. So—the city has what records? [1:23:25] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [1:23:26] Bridget Sperl: And then what records are we creating? [1:23:28] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [1:23:29] Bridget Sperl: And how will it work to do that? [1:23:31] Marcus Johnson: So, as far as the lead service inventory, we have the—the your side of your service from the where your water shut off is. So, if you remember from last year, we sent out a handful of notices and flyers and we had someone walking around. Um, so the ones that we didn't hit or—yeah, pretty much the ones that we didn't hit or couldn't couldn't get a hold of, those are the ones that we don't know or they're unknown still. Otherwise, a handful of the other ones still or are known. So, we—we're not worried about those— [1:24:06] Bridget Sperl: —and we've documented those. [1:24:07] Marcus Johnson: —we've documented those. We have all those. We have photos of them. Those have been cleared by the Department of Health. Those are good. [1:24:14] Bridget Sperl: Okay. [1:24:15] Marcus Johnson: So, it's just for those unknowns that we don't know at the moment. There's not in Birwood—don't have—it's not a significant amount. So, with that additional funds um that we can mark off because I don't want to send a bunch of flyers out to residences again because if they didn't answer the first one or four, they're not going to answer the next. So to be efficient, um I'm trying to use John's knowledge to the best of my abilities, mark off the rest of the city, and then start getting better documentation for the rest of the city. [1:24:50] Jennifer Arsenault: Do we want to ding people by email a couple times and just say, "Hey, if you haven't gotten checked out, like it might be worth just—" [1:24:59] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, I—um—I—they're requiring four notices total. And I have to go through to see how many notices we had sent out last year. I think we're already at over four. So, with those that were unknown, we'll be sending just out to those. Um but that being said is is yeah that's kind of the goal. So from your curb stop or your water shut off to the city—since the city water main is um put in before the 80s um and we didn't docu—when it was put in no material was documented um on the record plans. We can't say it's good to go. So even after this after this period ends, everything on the city's side of things will be still unknown. That's okay. There'll be more funding. Um they're planning on coming out this fall with funding to start marking off the city side of things. So they say. [1:25:47] Bridget Sperl: Okay. So I sort of understood that. Um but not all the—not all the way. So John Manship is providing what about my property—and then what happens? Do you knock at my door? Do you come in? Do you look at things? How does that work? [1:26:06] Marcus Johnson: Yep. So um at the moment there'll be a form that John has to fill out since he has said he's—he knows exactly what it is um of what's in the house. So he's going to fill that out. We're going to send it into MDH. They're going to say this works, this does not work. Um, at the moment they're not requiring photos, but they're highly recommending photos. So, if John has photos of what's been done in the house, um, we'll add them. But essentially, for this funding package, we're trying to either give the green light for everyone's every resident's side of the service and not the city side. Does that make sense? [1:26:53] Jennifer Arsenault: Getting clearer. Well, you just want to clear the resident side so the state knows exactly what materials their service lines are made of. [1:27:00] Marcus Johnson: Correct. Yeah. [1:27:01] Jennifer Arsenault: Just the resident side just this year— [1:27:04] Marcus Johnson: —just because they— [1:27:05] Scott (Administrator): our number is what Marcus—Excuse me. Sorry. Go ahead. Marcus was telling me they're—they're trying to get to zero unknowns. So the state wants every city to document all residents uh supply lines. [1:27:20] Bridget Sperl: But does John Manship know what I have already? [1:27:24] Marcus Johnson: He claims he does. [1:27:25] Scott (Administrator): He says he does. sits in his head, right? So, we—but we don't have any paper copy of that. [1:27:30] Bridget Sperl: Okay. [1:27:31] Scott (Administrator): So, um he's going to John because according to Marcus, it's on John's license. He's going to fill out the form saying what that service line is made of. [1:27:42] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [1:27:43] Scott (Administrator): Using his license to back that documentation and then um Bolton-Menk will turn it into the state. Is that right? [1:27:49] Marcus Johnson: Correct. Yep. So, the city has to have a—a licensed um—I'm drawing a blank on it, but he—he—he's the one that manages the city's water main. He has a a specific license for that and that's what is on MDH's record. So, if they find false information or anything like that on here, it first goes back to John saying, "Hey, what is this?" So, that's—that's part of the reason why um I'm reaching out to John about it first. So, we could hire anyone that has plumbed or— [1:28:18] Scott (Administrator): —has that license. [1:28:19] Marcus Johnson: —has that license. Yeah. [1:28:21] Ryan Eisele: So, Alan or Scott, this is a question for you. I need to know if there's some sort of ordinance that's out there that says that the water superintendent needs to keep these records. And if that's the case, I want these records from John to be submitted to the city and then the city can submit them to Bolton and Menk. I find this—I've already—I'm very—I'm already upset about the fact that there's no records to be had and there never has been and the fact that now someone's profiting off the fact that we don't have these records I'm very uncomfortable with. [1:28:57] Scott (Administrator): I want to clarify part of the conversation that we had and it's splitting hairs. Um it's not uncommon for small communities not to have these records written down in a separate book here. John's using his license. He's putting it on a specific form for—which again will go to MDH. So again, that's knowledge that has never been written down that's supposedly is up here will be written down on the form. So that will be our documentation for here into perpetuity. The city is not paying for John during this time. That's the other thing I need to make clear is the—the city's not paying him for that. This is totally coming from Bolton and Menk. Should he have been writing down all along? Yes. But is it uncommon that in other small communities they don't write things down? No. [1:29:46] Ryan Eisele: I get being upset. [1:29:47] Scott (Administrator): There is an ordinance if—if that's what you're asking. [1:29:50] Ryan Eisele: Yeah. Clients have zero to or minimal documentation in all small communities and it's—it's a common thing and it's something that we're working to kind of correct as you know. But sorry for— [1:30:08] Jennifer Arsenault: John is on retainer. Why would this not be a part of what we pay him a fee every—every month to do? [1:30:17] Scott (Administrator): Fair question. Um I don't know if I have that answer. [1:30:20] Ryan Eisele: He should have been doing this the whole time. [1:30:22] Scott (Administrator): But even if he's reporting in now, he's on a retainer. [1:30:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. [1:30:27] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. So, I was good—planning on when I got the invoices, I was planning on sending the invoices to the city just so you guys can see what work he's done with us. Make sure there's no duplicates. That was kind of my thought of how to go about the process. [1:30:45] Ryan Eisele: Is my ethics radar off here, Alan? [1:30:48] Alan Cantrude: What was the question? [1:30:49] Ryan Eisele: Is my ethics radar off here? [1:30:52] Alan Cantrude: Needless to say, this is the first I've heard of it, but seems to me providing records that your water superintendent has and maintains uh should kind of come with the territory um for the retainer. You know, if I had a record as your retained city attorney and any one of you asked to see my file, I would not think of that as a billable an extra chance to bill the client. I mean, I can't tell you what the arrangement is with Mr. Manship, but uh I can understand your distress for sure. And you can say that Bolton and Menk's paying him, but who's paying Bolton and Menk? [1:31:33] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. [1:31:34] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, we all are actually. The state. [1:31:37] Ryan Eisele: Isn't there an old—aren't we the state? Also, there's an old saying, isn't there somewhere? I'm not a member of any organized community—I live in Birwood to kind of paraphrase it. Anyway, yeah, that—that's what we're planning. [1:31:54] Bridget Sperl: Right. That's part of what—and I guess my question is, and I think I don't—I don't disagree with you, Ryan. I just it doesn't surprise me either, but um when we're making electronic records, how do we ensure that those don't just disappear if Bolton and Menk merges with some fan—or something at some point, right? Like how do we kind of keep track of that? [1:32:27] Scott (Administrator): What's that? I asked that same question. [1:32:30] Bridget Sperl: Yeah. [1:32:31] Marcus Johnson: Yep. Do you want to answer me too? [1:32:34] Bridget Sperl: Okay. See if I got it right. So this GIS—um the city holds the um is registered right the license yes for it so the license stays with the city regardless so the city can access the GIS records— [1:32:51] Marcus Johnson: —and Marcus's um idea going forward is to every project we do in the city then will be put into this GIS system so from here on starting in 2025 we'll have electronic records of all work done in the city. Correct. [1:33:11] Scott (Administrator): Correct. [1:33:12] Bridget Sperl: Can I add to that a little bit? [1:33:14] Marcus Johnson: Sure. [1:33:15] Bridget Sperl: So, GIS is geographical infrastructure systems technology and it is a ongoing record where you can access all um plat lines and all utility lines and all the things under the surface of the earth so that you can actually go and map everything and see all those spots. So, it is a database across every state that you can review and pull at any point from any—anybody really can. Mhm. [1:33:41] Kathy Weier: Um I do have a question for—regarding—I actually am one of the houses that is marked as a red on your little map. [1:33:48] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [1:33:49] Kathy Weier: Um what am I supposed to be doing—um at the moment? I didn't get a message or anything. It just said you have a—a one that should be replaced and I'm like— [1:33:59] Ryan Eisele: —the mob of engineers comes to your door. [1:34:02] Kathy Weier: Well, I'm—I'm curious as far as like uh— [1:34:04] Marcus Johnson: —so MDH says that there's funding out there for residents. As I've gotten a handful of calls from other people, it is impossible to find on their website. I—uh—I—personally cannot find it. So to the easy answer is is—is—just know that— [1:34:25] Kathy Weier: —so can I send my engineer regarding—so—so that you can do it yourself um on your own— [1:34:31] Marcus Johnson: —dime hold to the records and then submit it to MDH—I don't recommend that—I recommend waiting till funding is out—you apply for it—or funding is official you can find it—you apply for it and then you know as—then you can you know replace my water lines and drink my water. [1:34:52] Kathy Weier: The only funding that we can find is the citywide replacement. Um, and— [1:35:00] Jennifer Arsenault: —that's for the water main, I would assume. [1:35:02] Marcus Johnson: Well, there's a service one as well. So, there's a water main one and then there's a service one as well. So, that would—um you'd look at each— [1:35:14] Jennifer Arsenault: —because I think we have seven right now. [1:35:16] Marcus Johnson: Yep. Correct. Yep. [1:35:18] Kathy Weier: Yep. So would that be one that's a grant available for the city to get to replace those seven—potentially? Yep. Yep. At the moment there is a overwhelming amount of services that need to be replaced. And so when I—when the grant um guys reached out to me on the services that we applied for earlier um I think there was three in that one maybe four I don't remember off the top of my head but he said that we are on the radar but there are other projects that have a lot more. Well, I'm sure there's people who actually have lead pipe. Mine is I think— [1:35:57] Kathy Weier: —galvanized. Yep. [1:35:59] Marcus Johnson: Okay. Yep. So, at the moment, do nothing. [1:36:03] Kathy Weier: Hold off. [1:36:04] Marcus Johnson: Okay. Yep. Until they make that funding actually more clear. [1:36:10] Jennifer Arsenault: All right. You're right, Jennifer. That—that—that's how it goes. So, we're managing the GIS because my staff has all the—the knowledge on how to manage it and run it and stuff like that. But should you guys get a new engineer in here or a GIS person who knows how to run it, um, we can train them, give them access to all that jazz. So— [1:36:43] Bridget Sperl: I actually have a license in that. [1:36:46] Marcus Johnson: Fancy. [1:36:48] Bridget Sperl: Yeah. [1:36:49] Ryan Eisele: So just going back to this contract with John Manship. [1:36:52] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [1:36:53] Ryan Eisele: So he's our water superintendent, right? We have him on retainer. He is obligated by ordinance to keep these records. Why can't you pay—pay Birwood for the records? [1:37:06] Marcus Johnson: Say it one more time. Why can't I what? [1:37:09] Ryan Eisele: Why can't we pay—why can't you pay Birwood? You need the records, right? You're going to pay John Manship. He's on retainer for us. He's obligated to keep these records. So, as our water superintendent, he should be giving them to you. So, if you're paying— [1:37:25] Marcus Johnson: —why aren't you paying MDH won't pay the city to have the records that you're supposed to have already. And I think that is actually a direct quote from MDH. But legally I can through that agreement I can hire—I mean I can hire a teacher if I wanted to—um like to go around and do some of this. It—this sounds very utilitarian like—John—John's the one that has—plumbers are the best at recommended. Um and so I wasn't even going to argue it at John's rates were way cheaper than ours. So, it's easier—it's easier to just um help him however he needs to, but have him do his thing, get the bill, and kind of check the city off. [1:38:13] Kathy Weier: How many houses do we have left? [1:38:15] Marcus Johnson: There's like 124. [1:38:18] Kathy Weier: That's a lot that didn't respond. That's a third in the city. Come on, people. Um, since this actually isn't coming out of our money or uh—our actual budget, I'm okay with them getting that because we'll end up with the records. [1:38:31] Marcus Johnson: Correct. It's a lot of money. There's no way I can spend $74,000 in the 90 days that we have. Um, even if I—want—even if I tried really hard. So just trying to get as much one of the budget used in an efficient way for Birchwood and then try to get us so we don't have to send notices out to residents essentially. [1:38:51] Kathy Weier: Are you able to also whilst you're getting this information find out where the water shut offs are for all of the different houses because that was something that was brought up for—John had come last year I think for that tool that he wanted that was— [1:39:06] Jennifer Arsenault: —really expensive. [1:39:07] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, I can try to get some of them, but as—as— [1:39:11] Jennifer Arsenault: —do you guys have that tool? [1:39:13] Marcus Johnson: Uh, we do. Not that I'm aware of. We might, but it's not readily available. [1:39:18] Kathy Weier: Can we get that added to our GIS map so we don't have to do this all over again? [1:39:23] Marcus Johnson: When we tried last year, um, the intern that we had hired and John Lake, I found two or three in the matter of a day. It took—it takes a long time. But that being said, with the funding coming out this fall slash winter, there's a chance that we're going to have to find all of those shut offs and in that funding—with that funding. So, at that point, we'll— [1:39:48] Kathy Weier: —do it then. [1:39:49] Marcus Johnson: —do it then. But— [1:39:51] Kathy Weier: —we don't want to use the state's money if we don't need to. [1:39:54] Marcus Johnson: The goal is to try to get as many shot as we can. And even like with projects and stuff like um—confirmed that we shot all the—all of them but like with Oakidge's drive— [1:40:07] Kathy Weier: —where you're putting in a new road you were doing— [1:40:10] Marcus Johnson: —we try to shoot—try to shoot them with the surveys and stuff already too. [1:14:36] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. So we don't really need to approve anything information unless you guys have any recommendations on what else you'd like to see or something different. So yeah. [1:14:52] Ryan Eisele: I have thoughts on it, but I don't really care about it that much because it's gonna— [1:41:00] Jennifer Arsenault: All right, let's go on Ty Schmidt. [1:41:02] Marcus Johnson: All right, so Ty Schmidt's projects. Um, they reached out to me on a couple of things. Wanted to create a contract for coming out—or for bidding the project and then um the construction administration plus services stuff. I don't remember anything being approved yet and I didn't get a chance to draft anything. So, um— [1:41:25] Bridget Sperl: —for the actual activity— [1:41:27] Marcus Johnson: —for the actual—for my—for—for us to bill yeah for me to you know try to stand underneath. So I if we have a council meeting here sounds like maybe sooner in September I can draft one up but that is coming. I know that there's a grant available August 21st that they asked me to apply for. So I haven't looked at that but I would guess it probably take a couple hours um at most if council's okay with it. Um but um just want to give you a heads up that I'll edit that—that's kind of planning and then if you guys have an idea of a recommendation how if you want to see me out there often or not. Um yeah— [1:42:07] Bridget Sperl: I think we had approved previously I think it was up to 7500 for engineering expenses if I recall. [1:42:16] Marcus Johnson: Is that what it is? [1:42:17] Bridget Sperl: I believe so. Um, what grant are they wanting you to apply for? [1:42:24] Marcus Johnson: It's a Rice Creek grant and that is the amount of—information that I have. I—I had to email Lori back. [1:42:35] Scott (Administrator): It's that second grant that they were looking for. So, the 7,500 plus I think it was a 10,000,000, right? [1:42:43] Marcus Johnson: So, what it is—they didn't all the tell me— [1:42:47] Scott (Administrator): I think it's the 10,000 one. So, we definitely want to apply for that. [1:42:51] Marcus Johnson: Okay. And then on the same topic, um we have the 2025 street maintenance project approved. Um but I did not get a construction services budget approved yet. I haven't sent one to the council and I didn't realize that until yesterday. If the council's okay with it, I have a remaining $5,000 of our design budget left, roughly speaking, um I would just use that $5,000 to start construction services because I have to start marking out all the potholes and stuff within the month. Um— [1:43:24] Ryan Hankins: —tell me what budget this is. This the budget for the—the um lift station? No, [1:43:30] Bridget Sperl: for the confused—mill overlay over on—um— [1:43:35] Jennifer Arsenault: Oh, there's— [1:43:37] Marcus Johnson: —so I think—that—we allocated that we're not going to spend there—for the design. Yep. So, we had a budget for the survey and then me designing the project and we—I didn't spend $5,000 of that budget. [1:43:56] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. So, if you guys are okay with it, I'm just going to roll that into the construction services since I didn't get a memo drafted up yet of an actual budget. And in reality, I—I don't even know if it'd be another 5,000 that I would ask for. But— [1:44:11] Ryan Hankins: —should we make a motion to approve that, do you think, to—if that's shifting what we previously approved? Would you prefer a motion, Marcus, or does it not? Or is that— [1:44:23] Scott (Administrator): Did we allocate—to specific buckets for that? [1:44:27] Jennifer Arsenault: I don't—Did we even allocate? But I thought we just did it as one big wad and say—I think it was just a—just a design and—and surveying one, but I—I normally like to split it up just so you guys know where your money's going. [1:44:42] Ryan Hankins: Well, that's always good. [1:44:44] Marcus Johnson: So, okay. Um, as long as you guys are fine with it, I'll—I'll allocate a different—so when you guys see the bills, there'll be a different line item for construction services, but that'll be where the budget starts if that's fine with you guys. [1:44:57] Jennifer Arsenault: Good. I'm good with that. [1:44:59] Kathy Weier: Yep. [1:45:00] Marcus Johnson: Um, okay. lift station. You guys should have the pay app too in front of you. Um it has been going decently smooth. Couple hiccups. Nothing that's costing the city money yet. Um—yet—I don't—I don't expect anything to happen. We're pretty far along in the project. So um Bituminous as of last week was three to four weeks out still. Um I reached out today. They're going to be sweeping the street by the end of the week before and then there's some clean up other cleanup items. But essentially we have some electrical, a lot of testing still and then um deactivating the existing lift station and bringing the new one online and then a lot of restoration. [1:45:41] Kathy Weier: And when do we expect the road might open down there again? Next— [1:45:45] Marcus Johnson: —uh three or four weeks. [1:45:47] Kathy Weier: Three to four week. Yeah. Yeah. Pretty much as soon as the asphalt's down. Um— [1:45:54] Marcus Johnson: —end of September. Okay. [1:45:56] Kathy Weier: Yeah. Yeah. [1:45:57] Jennifer Arsenault: People are going to start asking as soon as it starts winding down. People start asking. So, thank you. [1:46:02] Marcus Johnson: As soon as the asphalt goes down, we'll have to start planning on where that crosswalk's going. So, is there some person I should specifically reach out to? I'm just making sure we're—we're having— [1:46:13] Kathy Weier: I think we had approved it going from where Owl meets up over to the easement if I recall, but I think the the road safety committee had drawn up a location for that. So, there might actually be a map for that already. [1:46:27] Marcus Johnson: Okay. [1:46:28] Scott (Administrator): I have the—I have a folder. [1:46:31] Marcus Johnson: Okay. [1:46:32] Scott (Administrator): From the road safety committee. So, let me look in there and I'll get back with you to see if there's a map in there of that. [1:46:38] Marcus Johnson: Yep. Otherwise, I think we're sitting pretty well. I mean, the project in general has been going—good. If we can quit smirking, that'd be great. But any questions as far as the station the project goes? [1:46:56] Jennifer Arsenault: Do we have the signage for the crosswalk and such already ordered as well? I know it's— [1:47:01] Marcus Johnson: —part of the project. [1:47:02] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. [1:47:03] Marcus Johnson: I remember it. I'm pretty confident in that one actually. And I think we also had wanted a sign that says crosswalk ahead or something like that where it was going to be further up the road because it is kind of a blind corner. [1:47:18] Jennifer Arsenault: Yep. That—that I believe is in the project. [1:47:22] Kathy Weier: Okay. [1:47:23] Marcus Johnson: So, as long as council's fine with it or has questions, um yeah, if we can approve pay app too. Um as far as your question, Kathy, it goes last week—last month about the taxes. Mhm. [1:47:41] Kathy Weier: Um, normally we wouldn't even see anything like that. Um, we're paying for the service and they're paying for all the materials. So, it's— [1:47:51] Marcus Johnson: —it's because we're not paying for the materials that we're paying taxes. [1:47:55] Kathy Weier: Yeah. Yeah. It's built into their their costs. We're paying the—is it 585—$585,000 and it's just part of it. So, okay. [1:48:07] Marcus Johnson: You'll see the retainage pulled out this time. Um, and we're back to order. So, [1:48:13] Jennifer Arsenault: This is a really small point, but we've got lots of age going up. Has anybody looked in aggregate as to where they are all lining up and should we do that—or can—has roads done that? [1:48:26] Marcus Johnson: I could go look. [1:48:28] Jennifer Arsenault: It might make sense. [1:48:30] Marcus Johnson: Okay. [1:48:31] Kathy Weier: Agreed. Especially where the crosswalk signs are kind of going. There's a lot of driveways and not a whole lot of room. I know when we're looking at putting the temporary traffic control signs, there wasn't a whole lot of space to put them, but—without blocking a driveway. [1:48:47] Jennifer Arsenault: Right. And Lake Links now has got a plan for signs. [1:48:53] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [1:48:54] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. [1:48:55] Marcus Johnson: We can go check it out. [1:48:57] Kathy Weier: Do you need an approval on paying this—to 16? Yeah. 460. Well, I'll move to—do that second payment. I get a second on that. the second payout. [1:49:15] Ryan Eisele: I'll second. [1:49:17] Jennifer Arsenault: You guys with us? Yeah. All in favor? [1:49:19] Council Members: I. [1:49:20] Jennifer Arsenault: Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes. [1:49:24] Kathy Weier: Marcus, do we—I guess—is there any—It sounds like we could—I'm worried about school buses with the road closed there. Is there—could we kind of say, hey, let's—maybe September, early September. What time—What time does school start? [1:49:43] Bridget Sperl: The week after Memorial—week after Memorial. Sorry, not uh—Labor Day—or—Yeah, I know what you meant. Okay. [1:49:55] Marcus Johnson: It starts before. [1:49:57] Scott (Administrator): Do—does the city have a contact? [1:50:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Uh, so White Bear Lake starts the week after. [1:50:04] Kathy Weier: I don't know when Mahtomedi starts. [1:50:07] Jennifer Arsenault: It's the same. [1:50:08] Kathy Weier: Is it? [1:50:09] Jennifer Arsenault: It's September 2nd is Mona. Is that what you—is White Bear September 2nd? They're a week after that. They're—they're after. They are the— [1:50:20] Marcus Johnson: —I'll get you a—I have their map. [1:50:24] Kathy Weier: I'll kind of bring it up to the henches. I'm guessing they're going to want to be done with the project before the school starts. [1:50:31] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, I think that—that would be—that would be kind of my guess. Because that's a—a lot of people do go—yeah—that way. That's what I've heard. Yeah. And it's not the biggest burden, but it's not something we want to prolong. [1:50:50] Bridget Sperl: White Bear Lake school starts on—it's like—Yeah. that that week after. So the second, third, fourth, fifth. [1:51:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. I knew that some some schools start next week. [1:51:04] Kathy Weier: Yeah. Or two weeks. No one's local. So not with the buses here. [1:51:12] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. I think Mahtomedi is the same where it's uh—the Tuesday after Labor Day, right? [1:51:18] Ryan Eisele: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. is that's when my kid starts detention. [1:51:24] Kathy Weier: Okay, good point. Thanks for bringing that up. [1:51:28] Marcus Johnson: Um, yeah, all of the White Bearer schools, uh, EC through K12 is by the 8th—all of them start. Yeah, but they're staggered. I see that. I don't—I didn't draft a discussion for the asbelt survey. Is there—I guess a discussion or questions or anything that the council has on it? [1:52:03] Bridget Sperl: I don't know what it is. [1:52:05] Marcus Johnson: So, okay. Um, as-built in general, just for going way back—is—it's a certification that the project got put in as planned or if not they on the as-built it notes the changes in the plan. Best example would be is the lift station—any changes that from what you guys approved already city will get an as-built record. So hench is actually is required to provide a as-built to Bolton-Menk—we review it—um—if accepted by us. We then give it to the city for your guys' records and then we'll actually—we'll put it on the GIS as well just so when we go back it's already right there of what's in there. Um, for example, when we're digging, we found a—what we think is an old old lift station buried. Um, so—so three lift stations back—old old. So we have the one that's put—put in right now, the one that's running, and we're guessing it's the one that was put in prior to that. That's our best guess. It's removed now because we had other stuff that needed to go there. But so as far as moving projects forward, if—if and when my kids build a new lift station there, we know exactly what's in the ground. Um—make there. So that—that's kind of this the general basis of an as-built. So, my recommendation as far as building um records go, when we get a building permit in, they provide an uh survey of what the plan is and stuff like that—is just providing having them required—requiring them to provide an as-built. [1:53:57] Ryan Eisele: Let me work on a code change. To do that, I want to make sure we make it no broader and no narrower than it should be. um if—and we can maybe just do it—and if we need you to review it then we can allocate an hour of time. [1:54:15] Marcus Johnson: It wouldn't take long—month or so. So, it's essentially just us verifying that. I mean, we have our—we have our checks and—and stuff, but me going out there. I'm not—I'm not going and shooting specifically like grade. I know on Avery's property, there's a lot of concerns about drainage, make sure it stays on his property, stuff like that. And I'm pretty confident in saying that it is how it was planned. But it's a good practice to require the builder or whoever's building it to put their stamp of approval on it. This is—this is what was done. What we proposed is what was done. If not, these are the changes—if that makes sense. [1:55:04] Ryan Hankins: Is there something regarding—it says Morse property? I'm not aware of what this issue is. [1:55:10] Jennifer Arsenault: There was discussion of that—a specific person's property. Issue. Yeah. It was just discussion that since there was um—of appeal on it that we should require an as-built and I think we're just remember we—we decided that we're not going to enforce it or there wasn't a whole lot of flags to enforce it if I remember— [1:55:36] Alan Cantrude: —well we don't have an ordinance—we don't have an ordinance that really—so—requires it. So— [1:55:46] Jennifer Arsenault: —looking back at that situation, you think based on the recommendation of—I believe it was you and Ben and— [1:55:54] Marcus Johnson: —Yeah. [1:55:55] Jennifer Arsenault: —Jack that we should require as-built surveys. [1:55:59] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [1:56:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Going forward because we can't enforce—we can't enforce old ones but—um— [1:56:10] Bridget Sperl: —devil's advocate here. How much extra administrative time is this going to take to keep records for as builts in addition? Like is this something we're planning on recording here and then having you enter into— [1:56:26] Marcus Johnson: —It should just be a—it should just be saved a save copy of what the building permit with the building permit. [1:56:32] Bridget Sperl: So it's something that just gets attached to a existing permit to say that—what was planned is actually what was built or what actually was built is what it is. [1:56:44] Ryan Eisele: Yeah. Make sure we're not doing this for fences. We need to make sure like we're doing this for—I haven't—specifically for like buildings—specifically for like a new—if it's a new house you know—remodels that are changing you know—talking about permanent structures—new shed maybe not so— [1:57:12] Ryan Hankins: —say one more time—wouldn't you just have the—the history of change orders for any kind of project—um in theory yes but it's—and most of those should be tracked, but it's essentially this—if something got changed and it wasn't either tracked or it's essentially taking the liability off the city of of—um if—if a neighbor, for example, says, "Hey, you're draining—you're draining water on our property." The owner is like, "Well, it was inspected by the city." We send a surveyor out there. Is like, "Hey, this wasn't done per plan." It's like, "Well, you guys signed off on it." We can go back and say, "Well, your as-built said that it should have been like this. Why is it not like this?" Like, "Oh, we changed that. We forgot to tell you about it." So, it's—it's the city saying, "Hey, was there any changes? We should have known about them by now, but just as a second—like chance to record any changes." So, we have—we have the original building permit or the original building plans, but it's good—just a good second check. [1:58:24] Kathy Weier: Oh, Kathy, can you come up to the mic, please? [1:58:27] Kathy Mador: So, when we built the old house came down, there was garage on the back side. They removed the garage and they dug down. I came home one day and they—they were down way below. I mean, you could not see equipment. There was a big old cesspool way buried deep. I don't know if they keep a record of that if that means any difference within the city because there's a lot of old structures here in terms of record keeping—nobody knew— [1:59:14] Marcus Johnson: —yeah there shouldn't be any changes essentially it's not—if—if everything went to per plan they don't have to get a surveyor out there. They just—they're going to need a stamp on it as-built dated with a name on it and it's— [1:59:30] Jennifer Arsenault: —so it's just a filed copy. We're not adding anything else that people have to type in. [1:59:35] Marcus Johnson: If they change stuff then they—they need to show it but it's kind of on them to—to do it if that makes sense. [1:59:43] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Marcus? Thanks for bringing something to us, Marcus. Thank you for raising an issue with the code. Yeah. Then the preb lake joint powers. Yep. You want to start there? Yeah. Me, too. [2:00:07] Kathy Weier: All right. Um, so we've been working on the preb drainage halls marsh um agreement for two and a half years now. Um, and we've had the same contacts at Rice Creek for over a couple months now. So, we actually have made some progress. Um when we were looking at the last draft that we received, there was a issue that we brought up to Rice Creek that um we don't own the entire marsh. So right now we had requested or we have in our portion to accept is that Birwood Village accepts responsibility for vegetative and habitat management. And um since we don't own the entire thing, we had suggested that that be added to Mahtomedi as well uh because they own the portion that has the outflow. Um—I think that's what it's called. [2:00:54] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, we thought that they owned it, but continue. [2:00:58] Kathy Weier: Um but it's not within Birwood Villages' property line. It's actually in the Mahtomedi district. But um when we reached out to Rice Creek regarding that, they said that Mahtomedi was not interested in um—maintaining—maintaining that and therefore they didn't want any details for that. So with that um we were hoping to reach out to Mahtomedi um if this is the case to ask them for uh joint powers that would allow the city to take over the ability to do make decisions regarding habitat and vegetative um management of the entire marsh so that all things could be happening and so that it somewhat holds us non-liable from Mahtomedi if—if we take out let's say we do a grant and we remove all of the invasive species and restore the grant or the marsh to its um uh it's a reserve I believe is what we currently have it set up as um so that it can function as a correct marsh that it would allow us to make the decisions for that without having to have Mahtomedi weigh in on that. I think it's less than an eighth of the marsh that is actually under them. [2:02:16] Ryan Eisele: Can we annex it? [2:02:18] Jennifer Arsenault: Do—Do Ryan and Bridget—do you guys understand the—kind of the background of all this and why this is—I—I think that there's a great deal here and we're kind of jumping into the—the middle of it. [2:02:32] Ryan Hankins: No, but it's 8:45. [2:02:35] Ryan Eisele: It would help me—lesson. It would help me a lot to have—I know that's—that's the concern here is I—I—I have a lot of concerns about this project. Um I think maybe we need to involve the council a little more and get some—a presentation or some information to people so we can make informed decisions because this has been dragging out a long time and it seems like you know there's no—this is the first time in a long time this is—there's been any update. I just like a little more information and I don't think tonight is the night to try to put all those pieces together. [2:03:12] Bridget Sperl: Kathy, if there—if there is time, I think that a good idea is a presentation. The thing that I reacted to immediately is what does it mean to manage this thing? Yeah, I'm concerned—way out for Rice Creek. What's going on here? [2:03:30] Kathy Weier: Well, so Rice Creek doesn't want anything to do with it. So right now, no one is taking responsibility for that portion of making sure that the uh—we—we have to get people up to speed on this because that's not acceptable. Can't be finished. So, [2:03:47] Ryan Eisele: —so the reason I'm bringing this up is because if we would like to reach out to Mahtomedi to uh determine if a joint powers would make sense, then we can actually submit that to the Rice Creek Watershed District and then have an actual document that we can then review because right now it's been going back and forth for two and a half years um to try and get something that is agreed upon by all—I think it's seven communities at this point and this is—we are holding it up at this point. We—we need to be the long pole in the tent on this. This is— [2:04:26] Kathy Weier: —and we have been um which is why we've been asking for a lot of things for this. So this is the one portion that we—they initially gave us all the information like that it's all ours and that is not the case. So we wanted to make sure we dot our eyes and cross our tees and our J's. [2:04:47] Jennifer Arsenault: Can we get a update on this that actually tells the story of it for like next month so that we can start getting this kind of finalized? [2:04:56] Scott (Administrator): Is this something for work session first? It can be whatever. I mean, I think it affects the public, but like this, we can't just jump into the middle of this. This is a complex matter, and I think we need to think about how we're going to get everybody up to speed so we can make some informed decisions that are—that protect the village's interests here. The last I think this was before the council was basically an allocation of some funding to do some engineering on this. [2:05:25] Kathy Weier: Oh, no, no, no. This is the Preb Lake drainage issue of uh Preb Lake into Hall's Marsh. This is— [2:05:32] Ryan Eisele: —the last time before the—Yeah, let me finish this time. The last time this was before the council was basically an allocation of some funding to go to Marcus to get some engineering advice and I don't think there's been any information or updates to us since that point. So, I think that I'm concerned that this is just kind of off to the side here, and I'd like to see this get a little more to the front. [2:06:01] Kathy Weier: So, would it be helpful if we brought the actual agreement that we've been working on and tee it up that way? Because that's what's driving this was that we saw that Mahtomedi was excluded and since they have technically half the marsh it was our suggestion that they should basically have the same obligations that we do. So that's what brought— [2:06:21] Ryan Eisele: I think whether we have any obligation at all here—I mean I think we need to consider whether we let Preb Lake continue to drain into Hall's Marsh at all. Well, that's been the ongoing thing for the last two and a half years that we've been arguing—and this—this needs to—just—just—we need to get serious and if—if that's what's going to happen, then we have to send—send a letter saying that. So, [2:06:48] Kathy Weier: —um we've been working on this for two and a half years. This has never been a non-serious issue. I'd like to point that out. So, um we've been meeting with them and discussing with them for two and a half years. This has not been under the rug. I'd like to be—I guess to me like I guess I'd like to just be a little more included in terms of having this kind of a council issue. [2:07:11] Jennifer Arsenault: You're welcome to look at the agreement. We can definitely bring it in to a special session. [2:07:16] Ryan Hankins: Who's—who's we? [2:07:18] Kathy Weier: Uh Alan—Marcus and I have been working on this for two and a half years. And then prior to that, we also had um— [2:07:27] Alan Cantrude: —Justin—Justin McCarthy was on it and we also had the um various Ruth and Bud had been involved. So it's not been a—under the rug. [2:07:37] Bridget Sperl: So it sounds like it's been really hard. [2:07:39] Alan Cantrude: It's been a fun process. Not all that much fun. And now new people have dropped in which makes it harder. [2:07:46] Ryan Eisele: It needs to be um—Colin, can you just send us all the information you have? Email us all the information you have. I can read it. Yeah we'll— [2:07:56] Alan Cantrude: —try to do something of a high level synopsis event because it involves the DNR and a big project that doesn't even start in Birwood. So, yeah, there's—there's a lot of tentacles here. This is actually the end result. So, this is the maintenance agreement once this project gets done, but—all will become clear next month. Perfect. Thank you, Al. Okay. Thank you. Clearer. [2:08:21] Kathy Weier: Thanks, Kathy, for working on all this. It's been a fun one. [2:08:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Is there anything else for Marcus then? Are you done Marcus? [2:08:29] Marcus Johnson: That's all I have. [2:08:31] Jennifer Arsenault: There's a highlighted one that was on here. Discussion of possible action—that the constru—construction service. [2:08:39] Kathy Weier: That's the one you made a motion on, right? To do take that money from— [2:08:44] Jennifer Arsenault: Oh, I thought that was F. Oh, you're talking about moving the—5,000. Yeah. talk about the sewer and the catch basin. [2:08:52] Marcus Johnson: Oh, no. The catch basin thing that was on city administrator he said was actually engineering. Can you discuss that one? The culvert. [2:09:00] Scott (Administrator): Yeah. Oh, good good point. Um, so after last council meeting um the council instructed to—they allocated $500 to clean the culverts. I reached out to John Manship um instructing him that. He responded saying $500 wasn't enough money and um that he recommended rep—replacing or removing the culverts completely and talking with um Scott and Jennifer. I don't think it is in the city's best interest to remove the culverts. Um I asked him what it would cost and stuff, but I haven't heard back and I know he's been on vacation for a while. [2:09:41] Ryan Hankins: Okay, this is—again—just clarify this for me. If he's in charge of the water mains, what's that have to do with runoff? [2:09:51] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, from my—from my um from what I was told is John was the one that was maintaining the storm sewer with the cleaning and stuff. So that—that's his part in it. So I'm—I'm not—that's—I guess that's what I was told um from Rebecca. [2:10:11] Ryan Hankins: Oh, okay. So, so if that's the case, it was his responsibility the entire time to keep that clean. [2:10:19] Marcus Johnson: Correct. [2:10:20] Ryan Hankins: And now he's saying we're not paying him enough to clean it out. [2:10:24] Marcus Johnson: He's saying he can't hire someone to—to clean it for $500. It would be more than that, but he's recommending us to just replace them or to remove them completely. [2:10:35] Ryan Hankins: Your recommendation is just to leave them—until we can maybe—I noticed that driveways down the line are—they don't have culverts and probably should and why I'm—should be on me. I mean we had all that rain and there's no standing water. [2:10:55] Marcus Johnson: Yeah, good good question. Um, I don't have a good—I don't have a good answer for you because I don't have a good idea of what the city's storm sewer is yet and I'm hoping to get kind of thatification. I know that there's an inlet right over there. So, um, the culverts, the best way I can explain is culverts are a safety precaution. So, like in—I want to say it might have been Milwaukee where they got 15 inches of rain. It's a freak event—or you have a water main break like above the water and next thing you know you're getting millions of gallons coming down the street. It's a safety precaution. You guys have a lot of green space so in general you guys soak in very well. But like should we have a freak event? It's—it's a safety precaution. [2:11:42] Ryan Hankins: But wasn't there an original issue that a neighbor was raising and then that's how this all—he wanted to replace his driveway, right? So what's happening to the neighbor? [2:11:58] Jennifer Arsenault: So he—Well, I don't think there's a neighbor involved. [2:12:02] Scott (Administrator): No, it's the guy who owner wants to replace—the homeowner wants to replace his driveway. [2:12:07] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. The homeowner. [2:12:08] Scott (Administrator): Yeah. He—he submitted his permit and so at this point he's planning on replacing the driveway. [2:12:13] Kathy Weier: I think he's already replaced one. [2:12:15] Scott (Administrator): Yeah, I believe so. His permit was approved. Was it last week? I think. So, at this point, I think we just should just clean it. And even if they're structurally not the best, I mean, we can put it on a—not hold his driveway, though, right? [2:12:28] Marcus Johnson: Yeah. [2:12:29] Kathy Weier: Okay. That would be awful if we have it collapse, right? That's what started this whole thing. [2:12:35] Marcus Johnson: Uh-huh. It's not going to collap—I—I wouldn't think so, but if it's damaged or something, I mean, if construction equipment's not going to collapse it, his—his car isn't going to collapse it. So, all right. [2:12:51] Jennifer Arsenault: I think um—this is probably part of a more comprehensive storm water management project. The culverts, ditches, the whole thing. Maybe when you're done with this lift station project, we can—y—start on something else like that. [2:13:08] Marcus Johnson: Yep. [2:13:09] Jennifer Arsenault: Does that make sense to you too or not? [2:13:11] Marcus Johnson: Nope. I—I agree. I I know next year's potential project for maintenance, it's a cheaper and lighter project, so we could potentially—budget money to do some storm corrections at that point. [2:13:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Wasn't—Weren't we doing a lighter year that year to account for a heavy year the following year so that we were equal? That's okay. We're still doing budgeting. We have a lot to talk about. Yep. All right. Anything else for Marcus? Thank you for all your work, Marcus. [2:13:42] Marcus Johnson: Perfect. Thank you, guys. [2:13:44] Jennifer Arsenault: All right. City business action items. You want to check with Kathy and see if she's here for a specific thing? Oh, sorry, Kathy. No, you're just enjoying the show. It's good to have you, Kathy. Well welcome. All right. [2:14:02] Ryan Hankins: Hey, Jen, before you move on, Scott, um, just with everything that we've talked about tonight regarding John Manship, can you nail down the scope of his position—or the—the scope of a water superintendent in general? [2:14:23] Scott (Administrator): Yeah. Thank you. [2:14:24] Ryan Hankins: I think there's a section of city code, too. [2:14:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Definitely. I read it. Exactly. 202—what the job description is. But while you guys are doing that, can we move on here? I think we need to kind of keep going. Yeah. 9:00. All right. Number one, discussion update regarding water main replacement task force. Um I'll just give a short update and Bridget wasn't at the last meeting. Um basically what happened was the task force came up with good questions. Marcus answered them. Um—um Max who is one of the task force members um volunteered to write a report to present to council. He had um included me on the draft uh report. He asked for feedback from the um task force and I have not seen a final report. Um so that's all I know about that. But they came up with—they did really serious work and they did—they really did a good job. So really pleased with the way they worked together. Um— [2:15:33] Ryan Hankins: —and they did give an indication of the direction— [2:15:36] Jennifer Arsenault: —in the draft but I don't know—I don't want to overstep their—good—their report. So when they're ready they can bring it forward. Um number two under city business is discussion and possible action regarding sewer and catch basin. [2:15:52] Ryan Hankins: Yeah. Oh, that's not that. That is something different. [2:15:55] Jennifer Arsenault: Scott, do you want to do that or do you want me to do that? [2:15:58] Scott (Administrator): You can go ahead. [2:16:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. So, we have um a sump inspection report and there are 15 items on here and I was asking Marcus what outflows were prior to the meeting, but um we are supposed to have these outflows, storm sewers um cleaned out. Last year we did five and this year we're going to do the remaining 10. And so we need council approval to go ahead with this. Um it looks like Miller Excavating did it for us last year. [2:16:33] Ryan Hankins: Was that one we budgeted for as well? [2:16:36] Scott (Administrator): You know, I don't know. Um—out of weight water maintenance. Yeah, I don't know what you budgeted for last year. [2:16:49] Kathy Weier: I don't recall if we did this one or not. [2:16:51] Scott (Administrator): And I don't know. I could um have uh Therese get a quote on this and then— [2:16:59] Jennifer Arsenault: —Yeah. —come back, but can we approve maybe a top amount? Oh, I know what it— [2:17:05] Ryan Hankins: —Do we know how much it was? [2:17:07] Jennifer Arsenault: It was 14 last year to do the five—1400. Okay. So if we did—this would be like double 10—three grand. Can council just approve—spending 3,000 to clean the rest out. [2:17:22] Ryan Hankins: Clean the rest. If—it goes over to come back and ask for more. [2:17:32] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. Can we get a motion from someone saying that? [2:17:36] Kathy Weier: So move. [2:17:38] Ryan Hankins: I'll second. [2:17:39] Jennifer Arsenault: All in favor? [2:17:41] Council Members: I. [2:17:42] Jennifer Arsenault: Opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes. Okay. Um, number three, discussion and possible action regarding toilet efficiency rebate. [2:17:52] Scott (Administrator): So, I had a resident contact me. Um, the question was the Met Council or White Bear Lake had applied to the Met Council for as a rebate for people that install low-flow toilets. And obviously her question was, well, because we're on White Bear Lake's system, why can't the city of Birwood get that? Uh contacting the council. Obviously, that application's kind of come and gone, but is that something that either a—the council would be interested in a—kind of forming a grant possibly to help somebody—some sort of rebate program or obviously if it comes up again, we could apply for it. [2:18:29] Kathy Weier: We—we had this years ago, I remember. I mean, I'd be interested. Um, yeah, the resident thing. She talked to me as well and it was asking if possibly the two city administrators from White Bear and Birwood could talk and because White Bear has leftover money from this grant. [2:18:49] Scott (Administrator): Correct. [2:18:50] Jennifer Arsenault: Perhaps they would be willing to share. [2:18:53] Ryan Hankins: I mean, I have four new toilets, three. I—I mean I—I get her angle is that again if—if White Bear is not using it and because we're on their system anyway, right? [2:19:06] Scott (Administrator): So—So can't hurt to ask. [2:19:08] Jennifer Arsenault: Right. Okay. Yeah. So if you could contact whoever the administrator is over there, that'd be great. Um do we want to do number four? Should we push it to a work session? Discussion regarding city planning process and responsibility. [2:19:23] Ryan Eisele: I mean I think we need to lay out some of this here. Um, you know, I—personally like it on record if we're doing something like that. [2:19:33] Bridget Sperl: I—I—I kind of agree. I think it's good to have this on record. Um, [2:19:39] Scott (Administrator): You still have a record at a work session still. [2:19:42] Ryan Eisele: I—I want the—the video, right? Um, okay. Um, you know, I think we've seen a number of—later—what's that?—so, I can go back and watch it and reminisce later. You know, I think we've seen a number of failures lately in our planning and zoning processes where there are variances going through. We're missing, you know, 60-day deadlines. Um, you know, a number of variances have gone through without the right codes called out for variances. Um, you know, variances down at the Pratt Galado thing, there was no elevation drawing showing the retaining wall. I know people are upset about that. planning commission is receiving their planning commission agendas with three-day notice which is not enough for them to review complex matters like this. Um you know applications are coming in with kind of the same issues where they're just kind of not complete at all and you know there's require—required notifications for example to the DNR aren't being made. um you know the full kind of set of variances that are required aren't called out and um you know missing 60-day deadlines. We've—it looks like we've missed two of those now and so— [2:20:53] Bridget Sperl: —could I—could I just interrupt respectfully—please—and I know you did a lot of work on this and I thought it looked very very tight—but for me to be helpful and smart. Yeah. I want that walkthrough that we talked about so that we can see the thing end to end—before we start to opine on this. [2:21:23] Ryan Eisele: I—I—I don't disagree with that. Um I think that's why we kind of hoped to have Ben come in tonight. And I—I know he was invited to come in and I don't know why he didn't come in. [2:21:38] Scott (Administrator): He asked—he—he said he could—he could make it but he could zoom in. [2:21:44] Ryan Eisele: Yeah. We—you know—volunteered to do that—but I think we need to—you know—as part of kind of our planning process. The problem is we've been messing around with the city planner for almost six months now. And you know this—I'm—I'm fine with more information here. I guess I'm very—very frustrated. The planning commission is frustrated. People are asking me why walls are going up and I'm just saying because we granted variances without seeing what was even granted there. So I know we have, you know, a planning process and an RFP going out here, but I don't think it's reasonable to—to kind of extend this process out. So, let's—if we want to get more information, can we do that sort of—sort of quickly here? So, because I think we have some real problems in our processes. I don't think you disagree with that. I just can't, you know, we can't—we can't just delay this forever. We're going to get ourselves in trouble. So, [2:22:26] Bridget Sperl: —did we have a working session? Sure. Absolutely. On this? Yeah. Did we miss two deadline—like recent another two? [2:22:36] Ryan Eisele: On the Galatawitch, the subsequent variance was granted automatically. And on the Shifts, the subsequent variance was granted automatically. [2:22:46] Bridget Sperl: The wall—and the problem is on the Shiftsky one, there were variances in there, you know, the planners report says—well, we discussed that one here, right? So, was it the—what was the other one? [2:22:56] Ryan Eisele: It was subsequent to that. It was just a couple months ago. you know, the—the report and the planners report said that the only thing being built was a wall, but there was also a stairway being built on there that required additional variances. And I don't understand how that went through without the planner saying, "Hey, additional variances are required here." So, I think there are kind of these, you know, and I get that I'm saying something's wrong, and you're saying, "Well, we need to understand why those things are compatible." But I think that um you know as we kind of move—move forward with an RFP for a planner, we need to be putting into place a process where things work. So— [2:23:24] Bridget Sperl: —well, you know better. You know this process way better than me. So what's your recommendation in terms of what we should do? [2:23:31] Ryan Eisele: I'm—I'm happy to provide any information we want. Um I'm not sure our current planner is the best person to make those recommendations. Um, but I think Scott might be able to do that in terms of—or I—I mean I can lay out a process for you. I think how—I—I can lay something out too. [2:23:51] Bridget Sperl: How do you think that that would differ from this document? Do you want to describe our current processes—because I don't think we have any. [2:24:02] Ryan Eisele: I think Bridget wants to see soup—soup to nuts application coming in—like how is it processed? What's—who's processing it? [2:24:12] Bridget Sperl: That's right. And that's a question maybe for city staff because I didn't want to write a process—a process that says like this is—like a high-level process. I didn't want to write a low-level process that says when a variance comes in you fill in this line and check the box. So that might be where we're missing—what the thing is missing. [2:24:32] Ryan Eisele: So who is uh—so if I recall the application comes in—the city is the one who does the initial approval. Is that still the case? Gets the—the application. [2:24:40] Scott (Administrator): Okay. So then after—after she gets an application, what happens? Because I don't know that process, right? [2:24:50] Bridget Sperl: So I know I asked for this last time. [2:24:53] Scott (Administrator): Yes, you did. [2:24:54] Bridget Sperl: And it was really specific—that I want to see spot run starting from the very get-go. What does the app look like? What does—what happens first, second, third? Where are the handoffs? What does the system look like? Who's inputting what? I don't think—how long it takes to get from here to there. What the problem is unless somebody—does that. [2:25:14] Ryan Eisele: I agree. I mean, to me, this is the—the basically the reason to go to kind of an all-encompassing zoning platform because I don't—I think that's hard for us to do as a city. [2:25:21] Bridget Sperl: I don't think we're big enough to be able to do that either, would we? [2:25:25] Ryan Eisele: And I don't think honestly I'm suspicious we don't have that process—at all right now. There's our answer. create the process—but then we need staff to take this document and basically flush that out for us. [2:25:38] Bridget Sperl: I would like to have them do that because they're the ones doing the work. I want to know how long it actually takes for—once you get an application to review to—like what that timeline is and things like that. [2:25:50] Ryan Eisele: Is it a 15 days? You have—15 day limit—15 day limit but I mean Kathy's asking is—does it take two or three hours—or does it take six or eight hours—I'm sure it depends on the scope of the project obviously but as far as like when it—when it reaches her desk—when does that clock start ticking and when does she get to actually see it because if—if she gets it on Monday but isn't able to address it until Friday we've lost five days—right so I used to do this in my work—did you okay—just process—process. I would be happy to volunteer on behalf of the council to do that walk through with staff and just do soup to nuts and maybe then I can be helpful—figure out where our—figure out where we have a catch. [2:26:38] Ryan Eisele: But I—I guess I think the question is that we also need to answer here is where stuff isn't getting called out on zoning applications. [2:26:45] Bridget Sperl: Well, I agree. Yeah. [2:26:47] Ryan Eisele: How—how come we're missing variances? then I don't—you know—let's—let's just make sure we encompass that too here and make sure we have the expertise we need. So and if you want to work together on that I'd be happy to. So— [2:27:01] Bridget Sperl: —sure if you—Yeah, the two of us can do Scott if you could tell us work with the staff and tell us when we can have I suppose four hours with them to do that. Um and I don't think there needs to be a lot of prep. We can just look at an old variance and they can walk us through all of the pieces that happened. [2:27:18] Scott (Administrator): Okay. So, let us know and I'd like it in the next couple of weeks. Are you okay with that, Ryan? [2:27:23] Ryan Eisele: I'll do my best. Okay. If I—we can figure—we'll figure something out. [2:27:27] Bridget Sperl: Okay. So you're talking about that. [2:27:29] Ryan Eisele: I—I hate to tell you, and I guess you're a person that I'm thinking about when we're talking about that—is unfortunately that was one of the variances where I don't think it was ever presented fully and it was granted automatically and I'm sorry that happened. [2:27:50] Herod Attorney: Oh, I thought that— [2:27:52] Ryan Eisele: —they did, but um the city missed the deadline. So, so they're—I don't—I don't know what they'll do and I'm sorry. Um—it was granted automatically and you know and I think you should have had an opportunity to present your opinion there. So, I'm sorry. I—I appreciate—you know it's upsetting to—it's upsetting to us. It's upsetting to me that this is happening. Yes. Because it—it shouldn't happen. No, we're supposed to, right? You know, and—to miss a 60-day deadline, that's a matter of a calendar event. This is not rocket science. We—some—whoever is in charge of this should not have missed a 60-day deadline. [2:28:46] Bridget Sperl: Well, they also knew that they get it. If it's passed. I—I mean it—we didn't have the meeting—so they had no way to come back if— [2:29:00] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, I think those are the questions that Bridget is—is going to ask. [2:29:04] Ryan Eisele: So, we can't cancel a planning meeting if we have a deadline coming up either. So, that would be good. But I—personally I think planning should be meeting every month. there's—they are scheduled to initially but if there's nothing on the docket but if they—if the city doesn't tell them—like I'm not expecting the planning commission to be like let me look at my calendar and what's due on 60 days because that's not their area—that's the city's—person—they—they—should—they probably do it benefits them if they don't come forward so— [2:29:40] Kathy Weier: —so is there anything that's coming forward right Now? [2:29:43] Jennifer Arsenault: That's what I'd like to know because I—I'm not involved. Like, do we have anything due that should be in front of the planning commission? [2:29:46] Scott (Administrator): I don't believe so. [2:29:47] Bridget Sperl: But I would—my assumption and I have not seen the planning software or the permitting software is that there is a calendar feature in there somewhere for us to actually schedule like—this has an action date of this date that we could actually tag that. [2:29:57] Scott (Administrator): I believe that was something that was mentioned when they sold us. Right on the front of our variance form, we have it says received by date. You know, was it extension sent extension needed? Reading—read it. I don't care whether staff use that or not. And I feel like it's not my job necessarily to—to prescribe that, but we do. It is on the form there. The keeping track of the deadline. The problem is I think if you ask the question of who keeps track of the deadline—to me in this case—since it went to the city planner it was his responsibility to make sure they got to the planning commission in that amount of time. Now if—and I don't understand quite where that gap is—but obviously there is some gap. So— [2:30:50] Alan Cantrude: —we really need to define roles and responsibilities, you know, and I think it in Ryan's attempt—beautiful document. I mean that's attempting to define what the role and responsibilities of a planner is. Now um Ben did have some feedback on that as well, you know, saying that some of that is city staff responsibility, but I think there's this uh nebulous area in there and that's where we're getting caught up. Of the whose problem is this. [2:31:22] Scott (Administrator): Correct. [2:31:23] Bridget Sperl: Right. That's—that's why a process—y—walk through step by step will say where we've got gaps. [2:31:33] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. It would be nice as well if—if we have it on a calendar and we're not seeing something from Ben that we are reaching out because it is our deadline to then because we have to send a letter or etc. There is additional administrative that has to have happen to extend deadline to— [2:31:48] Alan Cantrude: —but I think that does need to be the onus on the city. One of the easiest things you can do, and I recommend this to all small cities, the statute allows you an extension just by saying we're taking it. And so the 60 days is just the initial statutory time. [2:32:04] Kathy Weier: And so I have no idea why that hasn't been used here because of the fact that you meet infrequently. [2:32:11] Jennifer Arsenault: I thought we had told them to do that. [2:32:12] Alan Cantrude: And you have mentioned that at least three times since I've been on council. [2:32:15] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. And I think we had told the staff to just start doing that whenever we got a permit, but I don't know if it's ever happened because— [2:32:24] Ryan Eisele: —I think the other question is is—why is it—why were those variances—why did they take more than two months in the first place? [2:32:32] Bridget Sperl: That's your process question. [2:32:33] Ryan Eisele: Yeah, because that's a breakdown someplace in here, you know. Well, also, and I've talked a little bit, and I don't remember with whom about it, but when the application comes in, it should be rejected immediately if it's not complete. I mean, I saw in one of the packets these applications and you know, 10 things are missing. No, send it right back. [2:33:01] Alan Cantrude: —and that's a process problem because the statute lays out you have a time frame to do it in to reject it for that. Otherwise, you have to accept it as is. [2:33:11] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, simple. I mean the—the decision—the decision on—incomplete homework—the decision on whether an application is complete or not has to fall to the planner on a planning application. Who sends the letter I think is subject to discussion and we can—we can—define that. Um but it looks to me like the decision is maybe never even getting made on whether an application is complete or not. And that's, you know, so anyway, there's a rat's nest and—it's after 9. [2:33:43] Bridget Sperl: Okay, my two cents is we need to fix this by the end of the year. [2:33:47] Ryan Hankins: You need to fix it sooner than that. [2:33:48] Jennifer Arsenault: I'm all for it. [2:33:49] Bridget Sperl: But this was one of the things we all ran on is fixing the variance process and we need it fixed. [2:33:55] Jennifer Arsenault: I think it's also important too that we—Well, hi Marcus. while we're defining—we're defining roles on this like—we define what the council's role actually is in this this process—like we are just essentially voting yes or no on these variances. So like—here's a city planner, here's staff does, here's what council's responsibility. [2:34:17] Ryan Eisele: It shouldn't be my role honestly writing documents. [2:34:19] Jennifer Arsenault: Correct. [2:34:20] Ryan Eisele: I don't know who does it and it feels like the work isn't getting done. So there's the document and if somebody wants to write a way better one great—I get it. [2:34:28] Marcus Johnson: This one's good. Earlier I just thought of something earlier. You guys asked if there's any thing out there right now. There's not. But I did get an email this morning about a application. And I don't know if it's for a variance or not coming in for a new build. So— [2:34:46] Kathy Weier: —Oh, thanks. [2:34:47] Marcus Johnson: —just so you guys know, there's one coming in. [2:34:49] Jennifer Arsenault: You better write that ordinance quick about the built—it on the books. Okay. Well, they can't possibly have built it yet right? All right. We'll get—Can you look and make sure that that application is complete so that we can deny that sucker real fast? All eyes are on you. All right. Hey, any more on this, right? Well, let's make sure it's somebody see if it's somebody we like first. Oh, I shouldn't say that. I should not say that, should I? Well, that's going to be taken out of context. Um, let's—let's—any more on this? [2:35:32] Ryan Eisele: No, I think we've beaten this to death. [2:35:34] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay, you're satisfied. [2:35:35] Ryan Eisele: Well, we need to—I think we need to kick—kick—this—keep moving forward on this quickly. [2:35:41] Kathy Mador: Question. Do they have an extension of days? Oh, you better go to the mic again. It was—we can't hear you online. So, as—I want to know what you have to say on—on the shift— [2:35:58] Ryan Eisele: Kathy asked on the Shiftsky variance whether this was—so do they have an extension? The city extended it. So they applied—the city—and there's a longer story than this but the short answer is it was—this—they made an application—the city extended the application to the 120 days and still didn't make the 120 day deadline and so even after the extension it was granted automatically after 120 days—it never made it back—because it never made it to the council or—that's all you get. So once that's up it's up. [2:36:43] Kathy Mador: Okay. I missed that. I thought they maybe had another 60-day extension. [2:36:48] Alan Cantrude: Okay. The applicant could have extended it, but they rarely do. But the city only gets one shot. [2:36:58] Kathy Mador: I thought it was a very good document. I just like all the—I don't know the back portion of it. [2:37:04] Ryan Eisele: It's an okay document. [2:37:05] Kathy Mador: He writes very detailed document. This is still good. You're a good writer. [2:37:14] Jennifer Arsenault: All right, let's move on. Let's move on. Number five update regarding storm damage, debris removal. I guess that's Scott or me. Who is this? [2:37:25] Scott (Administrator): We're still removing. We have some up at the park. We're trying to get everybody out to White Bear Township for the majority of it. So, the more people go to White Bear Township, the better. We don't want it necessarily in the city because we're getting inundated at the park, but it's a process. I'll keep it brief. [2:37:40] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. I just have—if anybody's watching anymore. Um, so question—was there a couple transformers that went down? [2:37:50] Kathy Weier: Yeah. Well, a couple posts, utility poles broke and took down the wires. Yeah. Um so um Steve, Dean, Jim, and Ron have been just really—they've really done a great job removing. We had um six, seven, eight trees down over the road, large trees that all got um chopped up, stacked on the side of the road, and the brush removed. Um now we have residents stacking uh their own yard waste on the sides of the road. So, I want um our residents to know that's not going to be removed by the city. Um the city has done its job to take care of all the trees that were down on the roads and in the rightways. We're done removing trees from the—until the next storm comes. As far as Poly's Park goes, that is off limits now for dumping. We do have two options for clearing that out. One is chipping and one is a big bonfire party in the winter. Um, both options are on the table and we may end up doing both. [2:39:21] Bridget Sperl: I'll bring my splitting maul. [2:39:23] Jennifer Arsenault: Um, so that's all I have for that. [2:39:25] Kathy Weier: Can I ask a question? [2:39:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Sure. [2:39:27] Kathy Weier: All right. So, if somebody has their own private tree and it's sitting on city property, do we tell them that they have to move it? And if they don't move this stuff, what happens? [2:39:38] Jennifer Arsenault: I don't know if there's an ordinance. I haven't had a time to check time to check. Is there an ordinance about removal? There isn't. But I mean, Alan will explain that this is, as you've explained to me before, like this is the oldest legal question in the book or something, right? I think you—you—that basically the portion of it that's on city property is the city's responsibility. [2:40:02] Alan Cantrude: No, not when you drag it from your backyard. If you—as a—as a human being with agency move it onto city property. [2:40:10] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, did anybody see it—as a human? As a human. And this human is helping Jim and Ron and this human goes down Hall and Cedar and realizes they've cleaned everything up. And then the human comes back two hours later and there's more piles on the side of the road. Do you really need a—I mean, do we really need—do we really need Alan to tell us the answer to that? The humanity. I just think it's really like poor behavior to do that because the city ends up paying—the city by the way is all of our residents. So, right. So, not to belabor this. I know it's it's late, but so that beautiful tree that came down over Birchwood that—Yes.—sort of stopped everything for a day. Yes. Okay. They've cleared that tree, but now all the brush is on arguably city property. So what happens there? [2:41:13] Kathy Weier: All those—they need to remove it. [2:41:15] Ryan Eisele: So the big uh—because there's still logs there from when they cut it up, right? So is that the residents—the residents tree—the Okay. [2:41:24] Kathy Weier: And the—the brush fell on city—onto the resident's property. [2:41:28] Ryan Eisele: No, the brush fell onto the city property—across the road. Then I think that would be the city's responsibility to remove. [2:41:35] Jennifer Arsenault: No, the city did. Okay, listen. The tree is on the resident's property. When it fell, it fell across the road to the other side of the road. Yeah, we—the city came in and moved the tree off the road and cleaned up the rightway of like—all everything that was on the road was cleaned up back to the grass. Yeah. Then we're done. It's the residency. So that person would be responsible for cleaning up. [2:42:07] Bridget Sperl: So my guess is people don't understand that. So maybe we have to— [2:42:10] Kathy Weier: It's also only been a couple weeks and everybody's busy. You know what I mean? That's true. I want to give them a little grace, but yeah, it sits there for another couple weeks. [2:42:24] Ryan Eisele: Should we just write a little post and put it on the website just to kind of explain it or something? Little bonus Facebook post—or you know something—do that if it's not removed letters. It's always nice to have something so that when it comes up again, you say, "Hey, we wrote this a long time ago and didn't change it just for you." So— [2:42:47] Kathy Weier: —I—I can draft something. I want somebody to review it before it goes. [2:42:51] Ryan Hankins: Yeah, I'll do it for you if you want. [2:42:53] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Any other questions about that? All right. Six discussion possible approval of tree inspector proposal. In your packet is a proposal from Cameron Blake who is—I believe Washington County Conservation District. Yep, that's him. Um he was out last year to inspect our trees and he did not get through the entire city. So, if you had a chance to read his proposal, um it's quoted as saying $3,000 max to do the rest of the city that he could not finish last year. [2:43:24] Ryan Hankins: I move to approve the Cameron Black tree inspector proposal. [2:43:28] Bridget Sperl: I second. [2:43:29] Jennifer Arsenault: All in favor? [2:43:30] Council Members: I. [2:43:31] Jennifer Arsenault: Very reasonable passes. [2:43:34] Kathy Weier: He has very reasonable rates. [2:43:36] Jennifer Arsenault: Yes. Marcus was nice enough too to give him the GIS information so he can figure out what's—mark the property lines are. [2:43:44] Kathy Weier: The trees are pretty diseased. It's not that hard to pick up. [2:43:47] Jennifer Arsenault: No, but um I think we're required by statute to have a trans vector. Number eight, um discussion and possible approval of agreement between the Washington Conservation District and City of Birwood. [2:44:03] Kathy Weier: Oh, you skipped seven—the tree removal quote. Steve, [2:44:07] Jennifer Arsenault: —yes. Uh, tree removal. I talked to Steve Dean. Um, we discussed having him come down Cedar and Hall, trimming up all the trees—not getting rid of the canopy or anything, but just getting it back off from the road. But since then, Excel has notified all of us that they're going to come through and take down some of those trees or branches that are in the power lines. So, we're putting Steve on hold again because we're going to see what Excel does and then Steve will come through. Um, but he's also going to work on removing a couple of dead elms and some of the tree work that Ron and Jim cannot do. Continued conversations with him. I feel like we had—we had approved a tree removal budget for him before. [2:44:56] Scott (Administrator): There's 15,000 in the budget. Okay. [2:44:58] Jennifer Arsenault: Number eight, discussion and possible approval agreement between the Washington Conservation District and the city of Birchwood Village. [2:45:07] Bridget Sperl: That's the same as— [2:45:09] Jennifer Arsenault: Oh, no. Is it? [2:45:11] Bridget Sperl: I thought it was the same as the Cameron Black agreement. [2:45:14] Jennifer Arsenault: No. Uh there's no page number with the Cameron Black agreement. Oh, you're right. I did. [2:45:22] Kathy Weier: It's the same thing. It just goes on. [2:45:24] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Well, yep, it's the same. Okay, cool. With that number nine, discussion and possible schedule of special meetings for preliminary 2026 budget presentation. Okay, Kathy, why don't you—um— [2:45:44] Kathy Weier: Well, so I actually wanted to see if we could move the the council meeting for September. Uh my sister-in-law passed away and her memorial was that day. So, um, Jennifer is also out on the 9th. So, I was hoping we could move the council meeting to the fourth because it is arguably the most important of our council meetings and I would like very much to be able to vote at that one. [2:46:11] Jennifer Arsenault: Fourth of September. [2:46:13] Kathy Weier: September instead of the 9th. [2:46:16] Jennifer Arsenault: Yes. [2:46:17] Kathy Weier: So, we cancel the 9th and move it to the fourth. Is there—I picked the fourth because that was the date that Scott suggested as well as potentially Chris would be available to record. Um the alternative date I believe you had said the 29th—29th of September. [2:46:38] Jennifer Arsenault: Yes. 29th. [2:46:39] Ryan Eisele: Can I propose maybe that we add a meeting on the 4th to do the budget as a special meeting and if we want to add other stuff in there that's fine but that we leave the regular meeting in place just in case we have—because I don't know if finance—if—like accounting people are able to get stuff processed by the 4th in their normal sense just to—and the—then the us who aren't—who are more—who are available in that time we can just come in and kind of do the trivial stuff and you guys can move what you think is important to the 4th just to kind of make sure this—we don't disrupt the flow of the city and I'll stop. [2:47:20] Kathy Weier: I'm okay with—I just want to make sure we are all to be—on—and I'm agreed. I don't have any any issue with making sure it's available to you guys. I just don't want to like cancel the—regular meeting and disrupt the flow of things. [2:47:35] Jennifer Arsenault: What do the rest of you think? Can everybody make the fourth? [2:47:39] Bridget Sperl: Yep. [2:47:40] Ryan Hankins: Yeah. [2:47:41] Jennifer Arsenault: We good, Scott? Are we going to have a quorum on the 9th? I know two will be gone, but will everybody else be here on the 9th? That's a good question. Okay, the very Yeah. [2:47:57] Kathy Weier: So, September 4th will be a special meeting for the budget, right? [2:48:02] Jennifer Arsenault: That's fine. Yeah. [2:48:04] Kathy Weier: And I would—Can we video have that on video just so people can see it? [2:48:09] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah, that was the request. That's Yes. So, I—I picked the fourth based on dates that Chris was available to record. We might not be able to uh broadcast on the—Here you go. [2:48:20] Chris (Recording): We can broadcast on the fourth. If I can't make it on the 4th, I'll have somebody come and broadcast it for us. [2:48:26] Jennifer Arsenault: Perfect. So, thank you. You guys are good for the fourth. Okay. Yes. So, then we we would be able to put it on the uh cable and then also the YouTube channel that we already have. So everyone would be able to watch it at some—6:45. Yes. Thank you so much. Now I just told um Granic—Ms. Granic. What's her first name? [2:48:58] Bridget Sperl: Jesse. [2:48:59] Jennifer Arsenault: Jesse. Sorry, Jesse. That we would get that resolution done for her ASAP. Now, um, long as we're talking dates, is there a time we can come in? Tomorrow, the next day, can we do that on the 4th or you'd like to try and get that in? [2:49:15] Alan Cantrude: Three days. Yeah. Yeah. You have to post notice. [2:49:19] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. Today is the 12th. The fourth is something we could add because that's going to be a special meeting. [2:49:25] Ryan Eisele: You were hoping to get them going, right? By them meaning us. [2:49:31] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. [2:49:32] Ryan Eisele: I—I mean, we need to pass the resolution, but then the city's taking over the project, correct? And the city and is—like what? one and a half people. So, yeah, we need as much time as we can get. [2:49:46] Kathy Weier: She was fine with the fourth or the 1st of September. [2:49:49] Ryan Eisele: Okay. Does that give us enough time to get rolling on—Well, can we start on getting quotes from places without that? [2:49:58] Kathy Weier: Probably not. [2:49:59] Jennifer Arsenault: She's already got so— [2:50:00] Kathy Weier: —Oh, she's got so many quotes. [2:50:02] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. [2:50:03] Kathy Weier: Okay. It's about getting— [2:50:04] Jennifer Arsenault: —It's just doing the contracts and everything that we can't get growing until we've approved it, right? [2:50:11] Scott (Administrator): Yeah. We can't spend any money until it's approved. So, we— [2:50:16] Alan Cantrude: You can solicit contracts, you just can't spend the money. [2:50:20] Jennifer Arsenault: We can't order anything. Okay. I mean, what date are you suggesting? [2:50:25] Ryan Eisele: How slow everything moves around here. I'm thinking we don't want to get—We don't want to screw up Lake Links after they did all this work and they have all this money invested. We need to get it done. Yes. What—when are you suggesting? What are you looking at me like? [2:50:41] Kathy Weier: Can we just go to Sonic and vote from our cars? [2:50:45] Jennifer Arsenault: Kathy, um I'm suggesting—just I'll—like Monday, I don't know, the 18th. Quickly write up a resolution. We'll pass it on the 18th. That would give us at least another two weeks where we can start ordering things and finding people to install these benches. [2:51:00] Ryan Hankins: You're thinking like a five minute meeting or— [2:51:02] Jennifer Arsenault: —five minutes? Yes. [2:51:04] Kathy Weier: Can we meet at 5:00 instead of 6:45? [2:51:07] Alan Cantrude: You can do whatever— [2:51:08] Jennifer Arsenault: —you make it 5:15. I—I mean, you don't have to be here. If you don't—I—I'll see you agenda. It's okay if you're not here. I can post the J and I'll have it here. I mean, we can just, you know, you don't need to be there for that one. [2:51:24] Kathy Weier: Seriously, we're just going to pop in and pop out. So, [2:51:28] Jennifer Arsenault: —that's when you probably have to remind me. Stop. 18. I'll pick you up on—We can have a standup meeting. [2:51:41] Ryan Hankins: So, stand up, Ryan. [2:51:43] Jennifer Arsenault: Just suppose it's 5:15. That's what I want. Okay. 5:15 on the 18th. Are we all good with that? Yep. Okay. I'll get the resolution drafted and notice of the meeting. Thank you. I just don't want to. We have a lot going on. It would be good. They can start to do stuff that—that will take effect this fall. So, sooner the better. Yeah. And it's a lot of work for our staff city. Yep. All right. Um, anything else we need on the—on the number nine item? [2:52:19] Scott (Administrator): Well, so with the budget real quick and I can kind of fly through. I did hand out the kind of the proposed budget spreadsheet. I know there's two spreadsheets. One's for you to go through and kind of fill in numbers. The other is a—I explained this to Kathy—is a—um just rough form that can be used. Um, ideally the general, as I kind of talked before at a previous meeting, your—your general fund, um, budget I wouldn't spend too much time on because usually these are expenses that are what they are and it's almost a copy and paste from year to year. The big notice or the big difference that you notice from 2025 compared to prior years is your budget's roughly 600,000 higher. That was because of the grant. Um, I left those in there just for reference. But again, ideally, your budget's going to come in probably at that 600,000 range because you're not going to have those grant funds. Where I want you to focus though is where we talk about visioning. And where do we want to start planning ahead? And again, I listed an example. This big sheet is just an example of how other communities do it. So, we don't need all of this equipment. It's just example how other communities do it. Um, we've worked on— [2:53:30] Ryan Hankins: —So, we're not getting a Bobcat. [2:53:32] Ryan Eisele: I was hoping for a Zamboni. [2:53:34] Scott (Administrator): Well, it may be a Zamboni, but ideally, you need to plan that. There's going to be a time we need to—a roof for this building. There's going to be a time we need to redo the parking lot. Um, there's some other things that you're going to want to invest in that we're going to want to set back 5,000, 10,000, whatever, a year, and maybe in 2030 we're this going to be a purchase. So all I was doing is kind of setting this out as—just that form for here's a way that we can track this, we can keep history, but um what do we need to be saving for? You know, these are the things that we need the bigger discussion on. The ideally your general fund budget doesn't need a lot of discussion. There may be some minor changes, but it doesn't need a lot. Focus on what we need to be budgeting for in the future and think about that. [2:54:23] Bridget Sperl: Can I just—Sorry. Okay, I'll just really quickly just—I was just writing some numbers down. You know, Marcus when he talked about the whole citywide water main replacement if it came out of our pocket in 2025 would be 10—$10 million. If over the next, let's say from now until 20—or next 20 years, 2065—no 2065, right? Then that's when the water main would be 100 years old. So that's what 40—50 years—40 years—30 40 years, right? We would have to save $250,000 a year for 40 years to get to the 10 million— [2:55:18] Kathy Weier: —and that pricing for now. [2:55:21] Bridget Sperl: —So my whole thing is when you just said our budget is $600,000 and if—and it's to—if—if we just wanted to save to replace water mains, it would cost us 250,000 a year extra— [2:55:36] Jennifer Arsenault: —for 40 years. [2:55:38] Bridget Sperl: —40 years. [2:55:39] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. I mean, [2:55:40] Ryan Eisele: —I've done some hard living. I don't think I'm making it that long. [2:55:45] Jennifer Arsenault: I think I'm going to have to move before. [2:55:49] Kathy Weier: Do we need water? We've got a lake. [2:55:54] Ryan Hankins: I'm out of here, man. [2:55:55] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay, that's all I have to say about that. [2:55:58] Kathy Weier: I—I have a a logistical question. So, you know, when we talk about capital improvement projects, I don't think we can save enough. [2:56:09] Jennifer Arsenault: You can't. No. [2:56:11] Ryan Hankins: Every city's burden. You can't. Yeah, maybe we just have to make the assumption that, you know, on some of these large scale things, there's got to be government money. [2:56:22] Jennifer Arsenault: I mean, on some level, we have to be able to find the rate where we would just sustain things and probably it's not as high as we think, but like— [2:56:32] Ryan Hankins: —Yeah, I think we've—I think that's right. You know, I guess I just think we're—we haven't spent anything on water mains since the 1960s. Right. Right. And I don't care. I mean, I'm not— [2:56:48] Kathy Weier: —as soon as we put in the new ones, we better start saving for more. [2:56:52] Jennifer Arsenault: I don't really care. I'm just saying as an example. Well, we got to save money, folks. Um, [2:57:02] Kathy Weier: —in regards to the amounts that you have for the budgets in here, I know you had mentioned that I think it's line D is the grant that we currently have for the lift station um in the proposed budget correct? So um is the one that's also the federal grant above that the 3000 is—that's a grant as well. So neither of those should be considered as— [2:57:28] Scott (Administrator): You always hope to get grants. We don't have any right on the books right now. So that's why I don't put numbers in there. But yeah, the 3,000 I actually took out the 600 I left, but ideally that's going to—should not be there. [2:57:42] Kathy Weier: And then we don't need to put in the parks grant that we got or do we have any other grants right now? I don't think so. [2:57:51] Jennifer Arsenault: The parks grant would be one that could be put in. But again, it's—it's more specifically for parks. So, do we want to keep it in that budget? [2:58:02] Scott (Administrator): I call it a balance because again, I'm—I'm putting 60 in, but I'm also taking 60 out because those—the plan is to—to spend that as it comes in. [2:58:12] Kathy Weier: Okay. So, is the special revenue fund included in here as well? Yeah, I believe that's—it's usually—because that's where our 7500 match is coming out of. So, we have to make sure we account for that. Really, that's all parks. So, I wanted to find out if we wanted to add the grant in there because we can only spend it in that area. I wasn't sure. I don't see—I don't either. Maybe I didn't. So, I'm wondering if we should leave out that grant because it's already allocated for parks only and we don't have the general revenue which is a different—It could be. Yeah. [2:59:04] Jennifer Arsenault: All right. That's great. So, how do we best prepare for the 4th? What—what's our assignment? What should we be doing? [2:59:13] Scott (Administrator): One again, although adjustments to the general fund are small, the budget here's small enough that if you—there's something on there as a red flag that, hey, we can reduce this significantly or whatever, let me know. But ideally, there's not going to be like, oh, we're taking $10,000 off of this or minor adjustments. That's why we don't spend a lot of time on it. Spend time on it. Let me know. It's not going to be a hindrance. But in larger cities, they really don't focus on that. Where you need to spend your time is again a roof is $40,000 and I don't know, we want to replace that in four years or maybe five, whatever. It's more going back and doing the spreadsheet of—okay, how do we spread out $10,000, $5,000, whatever that may be. What other park equipment that may not fall under the grant? Um, you know, maybe it's extra, I don't know, extra mower, whatever. Something that you realize is a piece of equipment that's needed that—or something—asset that the city really needs to budget for. [3:00:10] Jennifer Arsenault: Maybe something that we don't have. That's a goal. That's the Zamboni. [3:00:15] Scott (Administrator): I'm throwing that out there as crazy, but sometimes there's a legitimate need. [3:00:20] Ryan Hankins: I don't think we actually own any equipment. I think it comes with our staff, right? which is—odd. [3:00:27] Jennifer Arsenault: I think we should start budgeting for some equipment, but then you have to pay for the maintenance and all the things with it, which— [3:00:36] Ryan Hankins: —are we a real city or are we not a real city? [3:00:38] Jennifer Arsenault: Well, sure, but as far as like uh—if we're—we generally end up hiring people because of said things. So, I know labor might be the biggest money. [3:00:49] Bridget Sperl: To me, I think that the regular run the business budget needs to be increased for maintenance. So I think that we have to talk about what it is that we want to increase on maintenance. [3:00:59] Scott (Administrator): Correct. Which is—and then—and then maybe it's a conversation about how much do you—we think we can put aside every year? What will the—what will the community be able to afford? [3:01:10] Ryan Hankins: As opposed to—it's a roof. It's a—put your numbers in and then do the math. [3:01:17] Bridget Sperl: Yeah. Is it—Yeah. Is it worth doing an inventory of essentially every piece of equipment in the city? [3:01:23] Scott (Administrator): We're supposed to have that. [3:01:25] Bridget Sperl: We should. Why would it be that hard in Birwood to just go do that? Like—I could walk around with a clipboard and somebody else could do the real work. [3:01:35] Jennifer Arsenault: Like what equipment? It's what equipment. It's probably not—mostly—in this building. The equipment we have is mostly in this building in the garage. Yeah. I mean, there's hardly anything in the garage. [3:01:54] Bridget Sperl: It seems like this could take a couple people a half a day. And maybe it's a couple people a full day, but it just doesn't seem like it would be—It seems like it might just be worth doing. [3:02:04] Kathy Weier: If we think we can maintain it long term, I agree. We also have some stuff in the warming house. [3:02:11] Jennifer Arsenault: That's the only other place. Uh Jim does. Um, so logistics wise, did we already up the—I think police and fire both said they were going to be higher this year. Did you already— [3:02:24] Kathy Weier: —police has come in higher? Well, yeah, I see that 97 versus 48, but—I know that that's coming in higher. I haven't seen fire—or maybe have seen fire—but—um, can we have the numbers up? Well, I know we just did tree inspection for 3,000 versus five, but as far as like the—the big numbers on here for like fire and our budget last year, I think we gave Alan a raise. So, making sure that we actually put that in and the things that we had approved last year as well. [3:02:59] Jennifer Arsenault: That's right. Let's make sure if we're not just car—carrying forward balance rate from last year—did we—and—and again all these are things we can discuss on the fourth and go line by line and—well, yes, but—I'd—like the numbers available at that time so if—if you can confirm what we actually are now—or any that have actually submitted theirs because I know some of those we had—what was last year where we had approved our budget and then—fire or something like that came in. They're like, "Oh, by the way, it's going to be 20,000 more." So, you missed the email. He hiked the price. Yeah, that was—and it was—it was a fire drill. Yeah, it was. But we had to find that money from—because we can't change the budget up. We obviously can go down. And then I believe Marcus had mentioned the road project that we had already approved for 2026. I think we had a budget that we had set for that, but I I believe we were planning on doing 100,000 per each, but we had just discussed using that money that was the extra for something. [3:04:02] Scott (Administrator): We can revisit that when we talk budget, too. [3:04:05] Kathy Weier: Yeah. But I'd like those in there because I'm not going to be able to remember what all the amounts are. Those are the only ones that are popping in my head as far as what they currently have. And then we also need to probably look at why we are 80,000 down on our building permits, which is our only income typically. We—we were expecting 90. Yeah. Well, we—we were expecting 90 and we've had 10 this year, which means we are significantly below on our income because I would think that number is incorrect, but I could be completely wrong on that, too. [3:04:50] Jennifer Arsenault: How are we getting $90,000 from building permits? [3:04:54] Kathy Weier: Because there were so many building permits. That's our biggest outside of property. [3:04:59] Jennifer Arsenault: How much is—How much is a building permit? 3,000 is the the base for—that number doesn't seem too far off to me. [3:05:07] Kathy Weier: The 10,000. No, the 90,000—90 to 100,000. Lots. I mean, you got to remember like Jack running around between the three or four people that handle that, that's a good portion of a full-time employee. That's, you know, it's—Yeah. If we're only at 10,000 for that, we have a serious problem because that's our planner costs significantly more than that. And—well, typically you try to make your building permits be a pass through where they're paying for your your planner, your inspector, your processing, your publications, things like that. So that number is concerning to me. So I'd like that looked at again because we're at 13,000 when we were expecting 92 for this last year on this document. I don't—I'm hoping it's not right. I know there's more projects going on than that in the city. So— [3:06:11] Bridget Sperl: So what happens if we don't hit our budget? [3:06:14] Kathy Weier: If we don't get our money, it comes out of the budget for this year for projects etc. [3:06:19] Jennifer Arsenault: If we don't hit—you mean if we go over—if we don't—if we go over our budget this year. [3:06:24] Alan Cantrude: Just draw from reserves. Is that a big deal to do? Okay. No, I mean— [3:06:33] Jennifer Arsenault: —right now our reserves—do that all the time. Okay. [3:06:37] Alan Cantrude: —right now our reserves are being used to pay the uh like the lift station items in advance until we get our EPA money back. So, right now we are—we will be running slightly low because of that, but it will be in theory reimbursed. So, we were a little careful. [3:06:56] Jennifer Arsenault: Yeah. [3:06:57] Alan Cantrude: Yep. [3:06:58] Jennifer Arsenault: Right now, but I think we're just fine. So, no parties, but—do you think we can wrap this up? Please. All right, Ryan, you have one more consent agenda. Wanted that pulled out. Number two. [3:07:14] Ryan Eisele: Yeah. The only thing I wanted to say about it is especially since this is a really big allocation. Um, I want to just—would just ask that we add—um contract for Bituminous Roadways for the 2025 road improvement plan was approved by a 4-0 vote. [3:07:33] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. [3:07:34] Ryan Eisele: Um, not a big deal, but just to record the vote on there for a large— [3:07:40] Jennifer Arsenault: —I was at that one. I wasn't at the next one. Who wasn't in the previous— [3:07:46] Scott (Administrator): Bridget wasn't there. [3:07:49] Jennifer Arsenault: Okay. [3:07:50] Ryan Eisele: So, with that, I move to um adopt—approved the minutes from July 14th, 2025 as amended. [3:07:59] Jennifer Arsenault: Get a second. [3:08:00] Bridget Sperl: Second. [3:08:01] Jennifer Arsenault: You guys with us? All in favor? [3:08:03] Council Members: I. [3:08:04] Jennifer Arsenault: I hear none. Motion passes. Does anybody have any updates they feel compelled to announce right now? Is it time to adjourn? That's my update. Okay, good. announcements or upcoming events. Anybody? Good. [3:08:21] Scott (Administrator): Um, we have a city newsletter that will be coming out at the end of this month. I need anything you want in that newsletter to me by the 22nd to make the print date. [3:08:34] Jennifer Arsenault: Perfect. I get a motion to adjourn. [3:08:37] Kathy Weier: So moved. [3:08:38] Ryan Hankins: Second. [3:08:39] Jennifer Arsenault: Second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes and we are adjourned.