This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context of the municipality and the dialogue provided. *Note: Since the original text did not include timestamps, I have provided estimated markers to denote the flow of the meeting.* [00:00:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** ...the I thought I had it was like a 240 clear which is not which was not um yeah yeah great we are you're ready evidently all right so going to call the city council meeting for the City of Lake Elmo for Tuesday April 2nd order if you'll please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance. [00:00:20] **Group:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you for that. Um Item B on the agenda is to approve this evening's agenda I'll entertain a motion. [00:00:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to approve the agenda as written. [00:00:47] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. [00:00:48] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** A motion in the second council member Holtz, council member Hirn. All in favor please signify by saying I. [00:00:52] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:00:54] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Agenda is hereby approved. Uh item C we have approval of minutes from the March 19th 2024 meeting entertain a motion on that as well. [00:01:00] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So move. [00:01:02] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Second. [00:01:04] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Have a motion by council member Dragisich a second by council member Beckstrom. All those in favor of approval for the minutes March 19th 2024 please signify by saying I. [00:01:10] **Group:** I. I. I. I. [00:01:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Minutes are hereby approved. Uh I don't know if anybody is here to talk tonight anything that's not on the agenda um but there are sign up sheets in the back if you were I don't think we have anybody this evening or anybody want to talk this evening no all right we'll move on we don't have any presentations at least that I'm aware of. Um next can I get a volunteer to read through the consent agenda please? If not you're going to have to listen to me. All right. [00:01:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Consent agenda: Number two approved payment of dispersements. Number three adopt Arbor Day Proclamation. Number four approve Ami antenna installation. Number five approved Sunfish Lake Park stargazing event. Number six approved Tablin Park parking lot expansion. Number seven approved revision of Sally Menzer Nature Center agreement resolution 2024-37. Number eight accept improvements and approve pay request number 12 final for the Parkview Cardinal neighborhood street and utility improvements. Number nine approved pay request number 7 for Old Village phase 7 Street and utility improvements. Number 10 approved 2024 recycling Grant agreement with Washington County and number 11 approve change to .gov website domain. Is there a motion for the consent agenda? [00:02:20] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to approved consent agenda. [00:02:22] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [00:02:23] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion by council member Hirn a second by council member Holtz to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor please signify by saying I. [00:02:28] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:02:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Consent agenda is hereby approved moving on to the regular agenda. Number 12—accept bids and award contract for CSAH 14 trunk water main improvements resolution 2024-40. Jack Griffin, City Engineer to present. [00:02:45] **Jack Griffin (City Engineer):** Thank you mayor members of the council. Um here to present the uh results of the bids that we received on March 19th for the Stillwater Boulevard trunk water main improvements. Uh just a quick where we're at um on the project schedule. Um on February 20th council meeting um the plans and specifications were approved and we authorized the advertisement for bids. We took the bids on March 19th so we're here to award a contract. Um the project is along Stillwater Boulevard. We're connecting trunk water main 12-inch water main uh just a about 4 or 500 feet east of the roundabout and connecting to where um a water main will be extended by the Legacy development in the Old Village area uh just on the east side of Sunfish Lake. The different color blues you see on the screen are um showing the directional drilling area in the darker blue versus the open cut area just as the project scope. Uh the only change in design that occurred along the way was uh when we did the geotechnical on Stillwater Lane we found concrete because it was an Old State Highway so um instead of doing a directional drill there with a reclaim we're doing a open cut taking the concrete out and doing a full reconstruction of Stillwater Lane so that was a change. The end result of your project is a rebuilt road and water main so that's not a change but how we get there in the methodology changed. So with that we had seven bids received on March 19th they're very competitive ranging from just under 2.5 million up to 3 million um the engineers estimate was at about 2.6 million um so we we thought the bids were competitive a lot of bids received good contractors um and they came in pretty close. A1 Excavating who's done quite a bit of work in recent years was the low bid. Uh so once we got bids we took a look at our project status where we are from a budget. Uh you can see two columns: one's the grant agreement—so that's when we did the estimate of the project um to acquire the Grant from the MPCA—and then the post bid is where we stand. So um once we got bids we're able to reduce the contingency funds quite a bit. Um a lot of those contingencies are held for market conditions rather than changes needed during the project but as you can see we're we're right on track with coming in with the project and not needing to go back to the MPCA for more money to finish the project. So with that we're looking for um Council to um approve a resolution accepting the bids and awarding a contract to A1 Excavating in the base bid amount of $2,459,786 um and then after that we're also looking to have the council authorize a material testing contract with Braun Intertec in a not to exceed amount of $25,400 and the construction Engineering Services portion of the contract with SEH in the amount of $197,800 and all those amounts were in those budgets that we were just presented on the last screen that I'll be happy to answer any questions. [00:05:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any questions for Jack? All right I'm hearing none um I'll entertain motion. [00:05:45] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to approve resolution number 2024-40 accepting bids and awarding contract to A1 Excavating LLC for the base bid in the amount of $2,459,786 for the Stillwater Boulevard CSAH 14 trunk water main improvements. [00:06:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [00:06:04] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So we have a motion by council member Hirn second by council member Holtz. Discussion? Hearing none I'll call the question all in favor please signify by saying I. [00:06:12] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:06:14] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Hearing none opposed uh resolution 2024-40 is hereby approved. [00:06:18] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I will be abstaining from the second motion. Move to authorize material testing contract with Braun Intertech and the not to exceed amount of $25,400 and a construction services contract with SEH in the amount of $197,800 for the Stillwater Boulevard CSAH 14 trunk water main improvements. [00:06:35] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [00:06:37] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion by council member Hirn second by council member Holtz. Any discussion on that one? Seeing no takers I'll call the question all those in favor please signify by saying I. [00:06:45] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:06:47] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes thank you. Thank you Jack. Item number 13 on our regular agenda tonight is Royal Golf 6th edition final plat resolution 2024-38. [00:07:00] **Sophia Enberg (Planner):** All right thank you Mayor. The applicant for tonight's applications are US Homes which is a branch of Lennar. This project is located on Outlot I of Royal Golf Fifth Edition. The property is currently zoned Golf Course Community with the Shoreland overlay and guided in the city's comp plan as Golf Course Community. Um this is the final phase of a 191 unit preliminary plat that was approved back in 2017 on the old 3M Tartan Park property and the proposal before you tonight is for 46 single family units. So then I have a visual comparison here of the approved preliminary PUD and plat and the proposed final PUD and plat. The street layout and lot layout is generally consistent. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility consistent with the last five additions. In short they are requesting flexibility for setbacks, impervious surface, lot size, garages, subdivision signs, and street names. I have the the full language on the slide here we can circle back if there's any questions on it. Diving into the details of the proposed request: the density of Royal Golf 6th Edition is 2.19 units per acre when um added into the entire Royal Golf development. This is consistent with the city approved density of 1.26 units per acre and there are no proposed Outlots with this addition. City staff reviewed Park dedication requirements at preliminary plat. The city approved cash and lieu of land um on a per lot basis so $2,101 per lot um at the time it is final platted. In this case for 46 lots that would be $96,646 the developer would be paying to the city. The city also approved deviations for landscaping and tree preservation so they are reducing the amount of trees required to be planted in the development due to how heavily vegetated the lot was originally um in lieu of payment to the park dedication fee. So with this addition the developer would be paying $76,500 into the park dedication fund in lieu of planting those additional trees. The application was sent out for agency review. I've included the memos in the staff report and then added conditions where applicable. The city engineer, fire chief, city attorney, landscape architect, Valley Branch Watershed district, and planning department have all reviewed this application. Staff is recommending 13 findings um in summary it is that the applications are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD approved in 2017, consistent with the intent of the comp plan, consistent with the golf course community zoning district, consistent with the subdivision and PUD regulations, consistent with zoning regulations and then generally consistent with the city engineer and landscape standards subject to the review comments. And staff is recommending 16 conditions for this application this evening. In short that would be that they receive all necessary permits, that the city attorney reviews their HOA documents, that all necessary agreements are signed and in order, that park dedication and development fees are paid, that the city and agency review memo and comments are addressed, following the Wetland Conservation Act, providing quit claim deeds for the fifth edition outlots um encroachments design and architectural standards and then subdivision signs. And with that I can stand for any questions. I have a recommended motion here and the applicant is here tonight if you have any questions. [00:10:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any questions? Yes, Council Member Holtz. [00:10:47] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you Sophia for that. Just clarifying question: I know we've received some of the tree funds from the prior phases as well. Have we segregated those funds at all within the parks fund at all to say these are the ones that are specifically from the tree cause or is it so far it's just in the pile? [00:11:02] **Sophia Enberg (Planner):** I don't believe so. I believe only the $1 million for ball fields is segregated out. [00:11:05] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** All right thank you. [00:11:07] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Anything else? Okay I'll entertain a motion. [00:11:10] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Move to approve resolution 2024-38 approving the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo sixth edition final plat and final PUD plans based on the findings of fact and conditions outlined in the staff report. [00:11:20] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I'll second. [00:11:22] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So we have a motion by council member Holtz second by councilor Dragisich. Discussion? [00:11:26] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I know I had received uh contact about this and earlier phases too and I I just want to reiterate that our job at this point is just to re to affirm or not affirm if this aligns with what was originally already um approved by the city years ago and to me it does and I I appreciate the work that staff put into this and I'm looking forward to uh some of the residents here being able to enjoy Lake Elmo and make it their home. [00:11:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right I'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution 2024-38 please signify by saying I. [00:11:54] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:11:56] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Resolution is approved thank you. Next up on the agenda is number 14—Peanut Poppy Ranch minor subdivision and easement vacation resolution 2024-39. [00:12:05] **Sophia Enberg (Planner):** Thank you mayor. The applicant for these applications is Lucy Weider who is part property owner and then also trustee for the Viola and Gilbert Soulwood Living Trust. The property is comprised of seven PIDs just south of Clear Lake. The property is currently zoned Agriculture and guided Ag Preserve in the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant is seeking to consolidate seven parcels and vacate the existing roadway easement to then split the parcels in half pursuant to the terms of the trust and a minor subdivision is required due to the right of way dedication. So I have a visual of the requests here um essentially it'd be creating two lots, Lot 1 and 2. I've highlighted the proposed property line and the easement to be vacated. The proposed request meets all four minor subdivision criteria: The first is that no new public infrastructure or streets are proposed. The second is that it is not adding any additional lots; instead it's consolidating seven lots into two lots. The third is that it is consistent with the city's agricultural zoning district requirements and fourth is that no tree removal or structural changes are proposed with this request. Zooming in or highlighting the easement vacation request: so the property currently has a roadway easement that covers 47th Street because the property line falls on the south side of the street. So with the minor subdivision you'd be bringing that property line up to the north side where it belongs and then vacating that easement since it would no longer be necessary. This application was sent out for agency review. We received comments from the Watershed District that a permit would be required through them. The city engineer commented that the right of way and easement dedications appear to be satisfied. The City Attorney provided a plat opinion and the fire department and DNR did not have any comments. Staff is recommending three findings of fact for these applications. The first is that the applications are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and future land use map for the area. The second is that the applications are consistent with the agricultural zoning district and the third is that the minor subdivision request meets the minor subdivision regulations and there are three recommended conditions of approval. The first is that all necessary permits are obtained—one of those again would be the Valley Branch Watershed District permit. The second is regarding the City Attorney's plat opinion and the third is that recording deadline. And then a public hearing was sent to surrounding property owners on February 14th, published in the local paper on February 16th. Staff has not received any public comment at this time regarding the applications and the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of these requests at their February 26th meeting and that vote was 5 to zero. With that I can stand for any questions and we do have the applicant here tonight if you have any questions for them. [00:15:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any questions? Anybody like to hear from the applicant? Hearing none I'll seeing none I'll entertain a motion. [00:15:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to approve resolution 2024-39 approving the Peanut Poppy Ranch minor subdivision and easement vacation requests based on the findings of fact and conditions presented in the staff report. [00:15:15] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [00:15:17] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion by council member Hirn and second by council member Holtz. Discussion? I I have a question for staff. [00:15:22] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Um so all of this property—all seven parcels—are recorded as Ag Preserve, correct? Are they going to have to re-record in when they go down to two to make the recordings reflect the current lots to that is that going to be a requirement or expectation? How does that transfer? [00:15:40] **Sophia Enberg (Planner):** That is a good question. I believe the Ag Preserve agreement is between the applicant and Met Council. Um I can definitely circle back with them and and see if they would require a a re-recording. [00:15:52] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** I would request to have that re-recorded. Would the applicant be willing to do that? Um sorry is that a question for the applicant? [00:16:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Was that a question for the applicant? That was a question for the applicant. [00:16:05] **Susanna Tesam (Attorney for Applicant):** Good evening Council I'm Susanna Tesam, attorney for the applicant. And I'm sorry your microphone was sort of cutting out I wasn't really able to hear you. [00:16:12] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** I I will sit closer it's probably my fault it's not the microphone. Um so my my question is in Ag Preserve each each lot has its own uh recorded document with the Met Council. In order to qualify for that it's a recorded document at the county. And my question is are you going to be recreating the Ag Preserve to register these two properties in Ag Preserve since the other seven will no longer be applicable or be very confusing for future staff to look at this? [00:16:45] **Susanna Tesam:** Um I have not contacted Met Council about that however it is the intention of um eventually it's going to be two property owners that own Lot 1 and Lot 2—the children of Viola and Gilbert—and it is their intention to keep it in Ag Preserve so that action will be we'll be working on that. So yes. [00:17:05] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Yes I would appreciate because I'm I'm just looking we've had some other issues with Ag Preserve and it when it goes through generational changes and things get lost and lots are done it gets very confusing for future staff so I'd appreciate if you clarify that and re-record them. [00:17:20] **Susanna Tesam:** Very good thank you. [00:17:22] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other questions? Thank you. Thanks. So I'll call the question all those in favor of approving resolution 2024-39 please signify by saying I. [00:17:30] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:17:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Resolution is approved thank you. Item number 15—Pebble Park playground replacement. Say that five times fast. [00:17:40] **Adam Swanepoel (Public Works Asst. Director):** Thank you mayor members of the council. Uh just a little background on the Pebble Park playground. In October 2022 the Parks Commission made a motion to recommend for future replacement of the Pebble Park. I'm going to stop this hold on one second—wrong one unless you want to watch the Parks Commission slideshow. We watch this one... there we go. So yes, uh the Pebble Park playground set initially was installed in 1992. It's exceeded its 25-year lifespan so we're about 7 or 8 years over that uh lifespan that we we've placed on these playground sets. Um this playground set we've already removed two slides from the set as well as boarded up one of the entryways just for uh because of a hazard. In October 2022 the Parks Commission recommended a future replacement of the playset. It was placed in the CIP for 2024. In December we reviewed it again with the Parks Commission and we proposed the outlines of what they would like the new one to look like—some of the aspects of the new one. Uh last month in March the Parks Commission made a recommendation to city council um on these three options that we go over here shortly. Issue before us tonight is: would the city council like to approve one of the playset options constructed at Pebble Park? Staff reached out to Flagship Recreation right here in Lake Elmo to provide options for us at Pebble Park. Option one offers a multiple structure or tower structure with three slides, climbing cargo net down the middle of it um which brings us to a price of about $120,000 approximately. Another picture of that one. Uh one of our recommendations for this was to include seating—additional seating at the playground set—those have been included in all three examples. Uh this will have a concrete border around the outside that will hold in the the um the wood chips as well our safety chips for the playground set. Option two: very similar to option one but does provide another structure to it, has two slides and an eclipse climbing net structure similar to what we have in our Carriage Station Park. This area again is approximately a little bit smaller than the first one but again right around that total price of $120,000. A third option is a new product that's being brought out by Flagship or their their contractors—it's a Vovo product. This is the one that's being recommended by the Parks Commission to city council for approval. This one again offers two slides, an interior cargo net and an active interactive route map that makes playing enjoyable for kids of all ages I guess from 5 to 12. This one here is priced at $121,000. Initially was set up I sent you two items in your packet—we went back to them to ask for additional seating in this one—this one didn't include seating so the price didn't increase by about $1,000. Financial impact of this: in the 2024 through 2033 the Capital Improvement Plan, um we did have $125,000 put towards the Pebble Park playset. Again in December we reviewed that to arrange that to about $120,000 so that's where we sit with that. With that I'll take any questions or um a motion. [00:21:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Yeah just just a question I'm just a a little um the the surrounding—I understand that make sure that the wood chips don't fall around—but the but the concrete kind of raises a question to me on from a from a kids running around and safety issue where they you know fall down and crack their melon on a concrete. Is there is there any type of um I don't know a foam that goes over that or anything? [00:21:20] **Adam Swanepoel:** No. So in the past we've used a plastic concrete border and we found that those those crack, deteriorate and just from the mowers and stuff like that. So we have started going with the concrete border for ADA compliance as well. That makes this ability to make a ramp up to it with either asphalt trail or concrete curve up to that as well. [00:21:40] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** With it being wood chips what is it right now that is there? Is it wood chips currently? [00:21:45] **Adam Swanepoel:** Currently at Pebble Park it's um rocks or um pebble rocks. [00:21:50] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Do we have any drainage issues there? [00:21:52] **Adam Swanepoel:** So with the with this project actually the public works department will actually remove the old set, actually level off the ground prior to any build there and include the drainage tile with that one um when that before that concrete goes in. [00:22:05] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Gotcha. Just out of curiosity seeing as Pilot Park brand new had drainage issues—but it was it wasn't us, it was the developer. Thank you. [00:22:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other questions for Adam? All right seeing none I'll entertain a motion. [00:22:20] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Move to purchase and install new playground set at Pebble Park and to recommend option three not to exceed $121,000. [00:22:25] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Support. [00:22:27] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion by council member Holtz a second by council member Dragisich. Discussion? Just to confirm that 121 that was with the extra benches, correct? Perfect. All right hearing none I'll call the question. All those in favor of—you pulled it away from me Adam—oops sorry oh yeah there's the rock right there... The move to purchase and install a new playground set at Pebble Park and recommend option three not to exceed $121,000. Please signify by saying I. [00:22:50] **Group:** I. I. [00:22:52] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. All right. Um item number 16. Director Stopa—resolution supporting retention of City Zoning Authority resolution 2024-41. [00:23:00] **Michael Stopa (Comm. Dev. Director):** Thank you Mayor members of the council. This resolution is in response to house file 4009 and senate file 3964 which is collectively known as the "missing middle" housing during the current session. Um both of these there's been several bills submitted but according to the League of Minnesota Cities the legislation has been introduced that would undermine the ability of city officials and the residents to make zoning decisions about um I'm sorry decisions about zoning and land use. So we're being asked by here—we're being asked by the League of Minnesota Cities—to support their effort into to be against this uh both these bills. So what's in the bill? The um bill forces administrative approval of projects that meet standards and prohibits public input in the approval process. So what that really means is that you couldn't deny an application based on a planned unit development, a conditional use permit, um or some other study that you want to you know have findings that could potentially block multi-family development. For a city of our size it would limit the minimum lot size to 4,000 square feet, it would require all cities to accept accessory dwelling units on residential lots regardless of size, and it would set a base level of density allowed on any residential lot by right regardless of size at two units—it could go up to four or even six based on different standards. It also prevents off-street parking from being required close to major transit stops and it limits off-street parking to one parking space. Uh this one is interesting: it allows multi-family developments to be constructed in any zoning district that allows commercial activity as tall as the tallest commercial building or residential structure within a quarter mile radius of the parcel up to 150 ft. So this is would potentially allow buildings that are 150 ft—any of us have done construction that's a really tall building—and you're unlikely to see these. What's interesting is the session goes on through May 20th so there's already been conversation—this is one of them—where they've other bills have already reduced this 150 down to 45 ft for cities like Lake Elmo. Broadly speaking it prohibits design standards for residential developments so some of the design standards that were passed by Lake Elmo as it relates to residential construction would not be permitted if it goes forward. So these consequences come from the League of Minnesota Cities and their concerns with the bill are that cities would need to upgrade or expand their water and sewer infrastructure and the state does not provide financial support to do so. If you read the bills it appears like most of the bills weren't written for cities that um aren't connected to sewer. The question is how does this affect areas um around this area outside of the MUSA? Residents would no longer be able to voice their concern regarding new developments. This specific rule is around affordable housing um and then emergency services and fire departments access would be limited to certain homes especially accessory dwelling units that are behind existing houses. Also the equipment issue for fire if there was a building that's 150 ft—actually we were talking about this today it's not just the equipment it's the training the education how do you fight a fire in a high-rise building? And also solar panels may be blocked by these tall buildings. So we have some solutions with the resolution. It's uh if this does move forward this is part of the resolution that is submitted. It would oppose state proposals that seek to preempt local zoning and land use decision making when it comes to residential development. We believe that this should be at the city level. It urges the legislature to take into consideration the many concerns raised by the League of Minnesota Cities with respects to these bills, supports constructive policy alternatives to incentivize and bolster city efforts for addressing housing challenges, and also advocates for city and state partnerships when considering reforms to promote housing availability and affordability. So we ask to you if you would move to adopt resolution 2024-41 supporting retention of City Zoning Authority. [00:27:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Director Stopa? Council Member Dragisich. [00:27:32] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** As I've been following this in the newspapers and what's available on the League, I get the sense that if this is passed that you could add accessory buildings to all existing single family residential. It doesn't just apply to new plats but applies to everything that's currently existing? [00:27:50] **Michael Stopa:** That's correct and it would also require—not require—if they requested to subdivide it and create a new lot with that accessory dwelling unit that would also be required. [00:28:00] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Thank you. That was my understanding but I wasn't sure. [00:28:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Would this affect townships or just cities? [00:28:05] **Michael Stopa:** I believe it affects townships also. I believe—I'd have to I would have to look into that though. Anybody who has adopted zoning standards probably in the state which would probably be everybody. And also you have to remember there's multiple bills so they're going to take these bills and put them together so there may be a bill out there that is specific to townships and maybe some that aren't so I'm not exactly sure. [00:28:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay yeah there definitely is a standard for cities below 10,000. [00:28:35] **Michael Stopa:** Yeah some of the meetings I've been in with Metro Cities and League of Minnesota Cities have expressed that this—we this is something we actually should be worried about. There are 4,000 bills that are entered all these sessions so these bills normally don't come and rise to the top of this thing but they say there's a lot of horsepower behind here—there's a lot of initiative and push to get this done. So they are very worried about this whether it's in this iteration or others. They are worried about this that's why they're asking us to weigh in. And um other cities have this—Woodbury last week had legislators out had a workshop to talk about this and try to talk directly to the legislators about this but I think what we're doing here suffices fine for our needs. [00:29:20] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So do we know is this the the boilerplate then for these four things from League of Minnesota Cities? [00:29:25] **Michael Stopa:** This is part of the resolution that's submitted from from us and this resolution has been reviewed by legal. [00:29:30] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** All ju—just cuz I—cuz I yes there are other bills that have some of these parts in it as well and as you mentioned there some have been changed so that there's more than just these two files. That's why I was just curious if there's going to be another resolution coming up next week because certain ones maybe got past committee after the first deadline? But so like I think house file 410 is very similar to yes 409... [00:30:00] **Michael Stopa:** And in every week we get a legislative update from Metro Cities which you all get and I make commentary on my weekly updates also highlighting what I think is important for you to read and this has been on that for the last four weeks so. [00:30:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other questions? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion. [00:30:18] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to adopt resolution 2024-41 supporting retention of City Zoning Authority. [00:30:22] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Support. [00:30:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** A motion by council member Holtz second by council member Dragisich. Discuss. [00:30:27] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** For the obvious reasons already stated by staff that these bills are really bad and I I hope that efforts like these are are listened to. I know full well that both of our legislators are firmly opposed to this and speaking with our Senator she has made it not only explicitly clear to myself but she has made it clear to the bill authors that she will not support this or anything similar. So that is good but I also I hope these efforts are being heard by other cities because I know the underlying goal is to expand housing to help reduce prices—we we get that—but this is not the way and this is not constructive at all and it is the wrong way to do it. [00:31:10] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I generally find that State statutes or things that try to encompass all in everything within the state are not really very well thought out at the time as um as happens from time to time and so this definitely would um take the ability for cities and townships to determine on their own some of their zoning and ordinances that go along with uh the planning for their cities and and really could create some some uh bad policies and and and poor planning. So um I'm glad you brought this to us and uh I'm going to support the resolution. So um anybody else? All right I'm going to call a question. All those in favor... [00:32:00] **Group:** I. I. I. I. [00:32:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Item number 17—City Administrator search. [00:32:10] **Sean Murphy (Consultant, PAA):** Mayor city council tonight uh we'll be going through the six semifinalists that were uh chosen at the two weeks ago meeting thank you and we're going to—since these candidates are not finalist and they're not required to be notified or publicly um names out there—we're going to use the names or the numbers that you see are being handed out right now 1 through 6... 1 through 7... 1 through 7... 1, 2, 3, except it's six because we're missing number 5. We're missing number 5. So um number 6 will be number 5 and number 7 will be number 6. Sounds good. All right and we'll go through that. So there what been handed out today is a couple things: you have a schedule which we will uh look at after we pick our three finalists. We also have some questions and writing exercises which we'll ask you to weigh in and we'll address those issues after we pick three finalists. We are recommending three in order to facilitate the uh interview day on the 9th. If you take a look at the schedule three works all good from 9:00 to noon—we'll have the candidates moving between a tour of the city, a written exercise, and then a department head interview lunch. And then afterwards it would be interviews with city council members—three hours of that 1 hour each and then they'd be free to leave at 4:00. You can pick more candidates if you want but the day gets awfully long you have to extend your day in order to accommodate those types of things and it gets very tiring. Um Hudson just got done with with this with PAA and they ended up with five finalists and it was a very very long day and so we are along with PAA I personally am recommending that we pick three. So with that we'd be looking um to uh if you have any questions for PAA for the candidates about the candidates—they have provided the background information which you have, you have their resumes, you have their videos to look at six minute videos that answer the questions that PAA presented to them and we're asking you to weigh in or ask PAA questions about any of the candidates that you would have questions about. [00:34:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right questions about any candidates? Please refer to them by number. Council Member Hirn. [00:34:25] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Uh with number two um there was brought up some concerns with uh possible legal issues um it sounds like that was dug into a little bit deeper that that um individual contested it. Any more light that you can shed on that situation? [00:34:40] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** No. And again I'm Sean Murphy from public administration Associates. Um the the candidate that you're referring to um there was an anonymous email that was received from a the the last search that we did in the city Hudson which he was a candidate at as well and that included several allegations of inappropriate behavior and some um illegal activities none of which had been provided any um evidence to support that. When we confronted the candidate about it uh we said you know this would be subject to a background criminal background check as well as financial and he said that's fine I I've got nothing to disclose on that. So no I guess the short answer would be no nothing further. [00:35:20] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay great thank you. [00:35:22] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** With candidate three um any additional sites regarding current events or any prior events for a possible termination with cause? [00:35:30] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Kevin Brunner the president did contact um the municipality from which she was uh resigned or dismissed from or separated from um they have under a essentially a gag order so they wouldn't discuss the essentially details of that separation. [00:35:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Is that in reference to one that was recently or one that was previous like years ago? [00:35:48] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Most recently. [00:35:50] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Okay thank you. [00:35:52] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Anything else? Okay. Since we don't have more questions here if you don't have more questions I I would advise you to seek a motion for two or three candidates whatever you think is appropriate that you can call us around. [00:36:05] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I would like to move that we bring in candidate one, candidate two and candidate six as our three finalists. [00:36:12] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I'll I'll second right now. [00:36:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay so we have a motion to bring candidate one, two and six. Those are not three people that are on my list at least one of them is um just just to be frank um I feel that that jumping from smaller to larger at such an extreme at least in reference to one of the candidates is is somewhat problematic for me. Well actually for for two of the candidates to be real honest with you it's just um it's a larger animal than than maybe the experiences provided for for two of those candidates and so that's that's uh that's a problem for me. Was one two and what was that? [00:36:50] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Uh he said one, two and six. [00:37:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So I I would not support that motion mayor. I would only only um advise for a personal experience—I went from a city of 9,000 to a city of 200,000 in a management position so I don't know it's necessarily the size of the community it's the skill of the person. Some of that but and I would also say that given some of the parameters that happen within a um urban some semiurban area that we live in is uh is quite different than not just size—some of the complexities that are there. That's my opinion and I respect that. [00:37:35] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And and I seconded the motion cuz I had two of those three. I had um number one, two, four as as my top. Um I guess when I was looking at the trying to go for consensus obviously but when I was looking through the candidates to me the size of the city was a factor. I was also looking at leadership skills and how much there was an emphasis on the ability to develop employees, manage employees and not be a micromanager and also seeing things from this the standpoint of being a a true public servant. And um obviously there was another candidate who had the correct experience and I do not believe should be brought forth as a finalist. Um candidate three I I cannot in any way I I do agree with in terms of numbers. We do have multiple candidates number six and seven in this case that definitely we can have the discussion of size of the city um they've renumbered to five and six. Yup. Remember we renumbered it so it's five and six at the bottom so make sure we're talking about the same the same numbers please. [00:38:35] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Well in that case—oh oh wait then mine was I I want to recorrect my motion—I was going by the numbers that were typed on here. Okay so it would be one, two and five. Okay. [00:38:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I'm in one and two other areas of overlap but um I'll defer it's going to be a long discussion so I'll if I may make a recommendation: maybe everybody just give us three choices and then we see where our commonality at and then we can just look at the last one if there are commonalities if we have to deal with that. So my top three were one, four and six. [00:39:15] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** All right see you had 1, 4, 6. I had 1... [00:39:18] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** You had one, two and four. [00:39:20] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And four. [00:39:22] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** You had one, two and five. [00:39:24] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Here to share—I had one and six. I didn't have a third. [00:39:28] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay one and six. [00:39:30] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** I had one, three and four. [00:39:35] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I guess I'm I must be missing Jeff. Um I I'm missing something there. Okay thank you then I will then I will take that back. Yeah was it in the report? No? Okay got it thank you. [00:39:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So if if I'm just looking at a high level here it looks like we have everybody's fine number one. We have three council members for candidate number number four and then a mattering of others—two for two and two for six. [00:40:05] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I would I could live with candidate four as a third. I was kind of 50/50 but as I looked at the two—my my thought with candidate 4 was there was a real lack of any financial management experience that I could find anywhere in in the skills. That was my concern but I could uh I could support candidate four as opposed to candidate five on my list. [00:40:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay I would just say with relationship to some of that um you know it's hard for anybody to encapsulate all of the um the um things that happen within a city right? And then some things grow with time and and really my thought is that looking for somebody to be a leader of the team and let the experts in their groups do their do their jam right? So um I mean we have good staff here that knows what they're doing in those areas and and that's really somebody to to you know hunker down and if if there's an issue to deal with that help out with with that but you know um yeah. [00:41:10] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** I I would say you know if you look at myself you know my skill set is not being a finance director. Your previous administrator had all the skills and the talents to be a finance director—that's not me. My skills are elsewhere and I think you want to look at these other candidates to say what is their aptitude just like the mayor said to be a leader versus being a technician. [00:41:35] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** I wasn't a big fan of number 4 um for a couple reasons. I her um I shouldn't say her—their video was not all that impressive um from a leader standpoint and I think looking at the the reference summary um confidence and um being a stronger leader is is an area of opportunity which I think we need someone that can come in and um lead strongly um and so I I didn't see that in in that candidate so so I deferred to six. Six I thought would be a better—what was it about six? I think it was the experience. Pull that one up they all kind of run together yeah. There were a few things with this one and I know it's it's a more unique experience background um but from a skill set standpoint um I think transferable skills um and what else was it? Um yeah I mean it's a a large IT oversight for a large number number of departments 60 departments and um and so to me with that experience would override number four from an assistant standpoint and remember we can you know one of the things is it'll be more real when we interview them we sit down and talk to them. We're looking for three people—you're not making a final choice tonight you're basically saying you know maybe the other maybe the other choice we we flip this thing on the head and say who do you guys really just don't want to come in for an interview and maybe they left what's left would be who you interview. [00:43:00] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** To comment on on candidate three—and I did quite a big extensive research in all these candidates—and candidate 3 has actually been basically either asked or terminated from his last from candy's last three positions and some were very short-term like less than 2 years and that was a concern to me. It wasn't that they were out their welcome and they decided to leave their bodies that they worked for asked them to leave and I don't know that we're concerned about that one any longer. [00:43:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** There was only one person that that had them in their top three and and that's been withdrawn so um could fortunate that that was not in the report um I guess that raises some concerns for me just in general um I mean that was kind of the purpose of doing this I so I appreciate putting in that extra work because I would have had no idea otherwise. I still thought you had candidate three in the mix—that was why I brought... [00:43:55] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** No absolute... [00:43:57] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** If I he's it sounds like it's not just one person that uh understands that something else was going on there so I I trust you guys on that absolutely. Well and that and that's a kicker for me in watching the video and the information provided—the scoring I had for number three was amongst "yes, interview" but given other information that does exist, no way at all. And I I I agree with council member Beckstrom about number four in regards to the the skills that I was hoping to see at least have the confidence thereof but I I don't also want to make that necessary conclusion that that therefore means X and I feel the same way about number number two in that there are some reasons why that wasn't my highest one but I do think between two and four they both have the same potential as as number one at least from where I standpoint. I I actually for the last two I basically had them in the same um likely could do it but I I don't necessarily feel as confident with those two but it's going to be a group decision so I I I think we no matter what we'll have more than enough to make a very quality choice. It's more so how we round off the third and third or possibly fourth one. [00:45:15] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** So can we probably agree that number three is not in the mix? [00:45:17] **Group:** Yup. (Head nods) [00:45:20] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** So we'll take number three out. I think we all had one, correct? [00:45:22] **Group:** Yup. [00:45:24] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Yup. And one and four had four. I've only had one so it's probably another one where we can just say no or did I miss that we only had one vote for for five? [00:45:35] **Group:** One for five. [00:45:37] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** That gets us down to four. So are we are we saying number five is out? [00:45:40] **Group:** Yes. (Head nods) [00:45:42] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Yup. Really comes down to 2 and 6. Number six if you if you look at the background and the type of environment that they work in I I think that's fairly challenging from what I understand um to be able to um maybe deal with some of the—I want this to um just see the the the number of different personalities and the size of the group being coordinated with presents difficulties into and of its own right that to be able to manage that I think takes a fair bit of skill and ability to uh have productive discussions. That's where I was coming with number six and that's my understanding of of that environment I I mean I could be wrong but that's fair. [00:46:25] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** If I could just add I think you you raise a good point that that candidate has good experience in dealing with a diverse set of opinions and priorities with their governing body. Um the the jump might be or the distinction might be that it's it's a little different governing environment than is for uh a local government right? And so there would be a bit of a learning curve that one whereas the other candidate, number two, um does have some good experience in building collaboration and working with some diverse groups that also have competing interest and does have some of that local government experience right. You are correctly pointing out coming from a smaller environment community um but did have some good experience in his initial position State. [00:47:10] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Yeah and I will say I I did have a half hour conversation with candidate number six the other day. Um I I you know not my decision but I personally am impressed with the let's say the aptitude and myself just being three miles away whatever your candidate is I'll work with you—the Council and your administrator—on whatever transition and training is needed to facilitate you know bringing somebody up to speed and so um you know let's weigh on aptitude and we can probably build in knowledge. [00:47:45] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Excellent point. I didn't really like number two either. Okay I didn't think his uh experience it's comparable to some of the others. [00:47:55] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** My concern with candidate 6 was there just was no local government experience at all. Right that was my that was my concern and we have an organization that's going through a lot of local government stuff right now and while we have great department heads to support candidate six or any candidate we choose, I was just concerned that there was virtually no local government experience or something I could see reasonably related in my mind. [00:48:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So maybe maybe I need a little education on this but that form of government in unto itself is is that not a local type of government or is that a... um it's really hard to say anything without like yes that's the difficulty yeah but you know what I'm getting at right? I mean it's a local government? [00:48:40] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** It is an elected local governing board yes. So in that regard it is similar. The other thing that's analogous that maybe that PAA has had experience with is military—military leaders who have never had Municipal experience have become great leaders in municipal government because they're just leaders. They're natural leaders and they have to learn the idiosyncrasies of this but it's hard to teach leadership. [00:49:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I think that yeah I was just thinking that former government has its its police or sheriff, it has its fire, it has its utilities, it it has it commercial businesses, it's got its... I mean I don't know what it looks like from a zoning or ordinance type thing but I would think it has those. It has its finances um I'm not sure exactly what services that formal government has. I know when you look at people who come out of the military often they've run a military base that provides all the basic services that a city provides—water, wastewater, um you know public works—all those kinds of things. I'm not exactly sure what this other form of government provides and that may ignorance may be something that's coloring my thought. [00:49:50] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** And they do provide the same wide range of services—fire, police, wastewater, water, um Community Development, Economic Development. In addition they actually provide some um you know health services um some things that are traditionally left to the county level um in terms of um administering that. So there that individual had a little wider breath of experience in dealing with some things that are not traditional local government services. [00:50:20] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** I think the grant writing is particularly intriguing um given we've had some of those conversations for that need in the city. [00:50:30] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I would switch my... I had one, four and three obviously and I'd be happy to switch mine support six. I I that was a good discussion you know I had some concerns too with the different type of government um and so thanks for shedding light on that. I think um from hearing that I feel confident that number six would be able to step into the role again not that we're looking for somebody that can do everything um but could step into that position if they have the leadership prerequisite skills or the prerequisite skills to be a good leader. I feel confident in in that individual or interviewing and moving forward at least. [00:51:10] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Well statistically you had have your three then we would prefer a a motion um but a moot there's a motion currently on the floor yes maybe you could amend the motion or have a friendly amendment. [00:51:25] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Can I make a friendly amendment to your motion council member Dragisich—removing two and five and replacing them with four and six? So 1, 4, 6. That would be my request. [00:51:40] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Sure thank you. [00:51:42] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So motion is amended to include candidates 1, 4 and 6. Any further discussion? If not I'll call the question all those in favor of advancing to request further discussions with interviews with candidates number 1, 4 and 6 please signify by saying I. [00:51:55] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:51:57] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. Okay. And that is um one of the things that Nick had brought up was you know contingent on them accepting right. I guess what we are going to do is we won't announce them to the public until they accept an interview correct. Um and then final on uh I guess this is just more Council uh inqu—maybe a question—if somebody drops out do we want to come back to another meeting or do you just want to go forth with two? [00:52:30] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I um well I heard that the majority of people were okay with the if we're just... this would be this would require another motion yes you're right. Um and and not that I'm planning that but you know last time we picked seven and we had three that... [00:52:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So I'll make a motion that in the in the chance that one of the three previously selected candidates decides to um remove themselves from a potential uh hiring, that candidate number two be extended the offer to interview. [00:53:05] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. [00:53:07] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Discussion? And part of the reason I'm I was thinking about candidate number two is just some of the um actually the the very first experience was in a growth area community that was growing fairly rapidly and um also dealing with some high expectations of the community that is currently in given the the where the properties are and what they're located at and how they're uh used and how they're viewed um I guess is why I mean he was somebody I looked at just from an experience standpoint on on and again um trying to get people together on the same page has sometimes uh working with businesses that have been around a long time and expect certain things done a certain way. So um that's why I offered that up and it's my recommendation we do vote for a backup just because you can see this process is a very fluid process you know people drop out things move on and I'd hate to come back to another meeting and then you lose somebody else. So we're trying to move the process forward so um I appreciate the consideration for Council uh to have a backup. [00:54:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay I'll call the question all those in favor of uh having um candidate number two be included if one of the previous three candidates uh pulls out of contention. All those in favor please signify by saying I. [00:54:30] **Group:** I. I. I. [00:54:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes thank you. There we go. All right so thank you we have a couple more decisions to handle here. You have uh the writing examples or the writing test so this is an assessment—there's 12 there's 12 questions on here and they'll be having an hourlong um session at a computer here uh in the morning on the 9th. And you have a couple decisions: PAA has had a lot of experience just with picking one question and the person write—everybody writes to that question then you can easily rate that person. Um I've had experience with this where I would get a choice of three questions. Again one of the things we're trying to ascertain is aptitude, writing style, and maybe you know if you just have one question that you're not well versed in then you're really sunk. So you know and if you wanted to go with three questions Karissa did have three questions that she had recommended the PAA um I can't remember which ones they were—they were 6, 9 and 11. I say I had six I definitely had six and so... So the the the first one of the first decisions is: do you want to just go with one question and land in one question or do you want to pick three or another number which it's up to a Council to decide? Um I wouldn't want to go too many questions because um you might end up with everybody having a different one and again you're rating partly aptitude and writing style and partly technical expertise and skill. So those are kind of the things we're looking for in this document that they're going to be writing to us. PAA will be reviewing these at 4 o'clock on that day after the interviews are done and then coming back to you with a score of what they feel is the uh you know the candidates weight in there. In addition to a online emotional equivalency test EQ—no equivalent—it is emotional intelligence. Yeah and basically that's you know ascertaining you know what how stable is their personality and how do they interact with people what is their method of management type things. Uh so those things will be part of your packet that you'll get on the 9th when you make a decision. [00:56:50] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** So and just to piggyback on Mr. Cadenhead's comments on the interviews, asking one question focuses more on their communication style, their ability to um convey ideas, um not so much the content because they're all going to be as the same questions. It's a little easier to rank them in terms of that scenario. If there are three questions then that's something that you look into more at the content and they skill level in addressing that. [00:57:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So is the question you're saying offer them up three questions and they answer one? [00:57:25] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Yes. That yeah so the the first question for Council consideration on this topic: do you want one question and if that's the case then we need to pick one? Or do you want to offer three questions for candidates to pick one from to write on during their writing exercise? [00:57:40] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I guess I would just maybe like to request a hybrid of that and adding a fourth question where two of the questions are more about um the EQ side of it and two can be more about the IQ and and they can pick from those two from the IQ some of the financial stuff. Um if the Tiff comes up and they don't know about that they still have the second option but I don't want to give someone the option to only answer one but not the other I feel like we're only getting half the picture. [00:58:10] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Well their experience is you only answer one question—they spend the whole 50 minutes writing on one thing. Okay that's their recommendation and that's their experience in process. [00:58:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And you do an EQ assessment right? They can correct that. That actually generates a numerical score and you and you'll see that uh you know on the night because we'll present that to these three candidates that you've selected kind of time to take. [00:58:35] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I like the idea of one question. Okay. It's hard if everybody picks a different question to really I don't know I I just like the one question approach. [00:58:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Would you uh would you make that a motion? I don't know how others feel I mean you sure... [00:58:50] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I move to... do I have to pick a question in my motion? [00:58:52] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** No because I can do that too that'll be the second like that one I mean... All right I moved I don't... do you have a written motion for me? Okay I move that we provide one question to the candidates to answer in the writing. [00:59:10] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yup. I'll second that. [00:59:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Discussion? [00:59:14] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I think it just gives us the ability to uh to see the differences and when you have two different questions I think it's kind of hard to uh understand what the differences are at least for me that's my uh left brain thinking. [00:59:30] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Can just add to that? Yeah so I I agree. I think that one question getting the contrast isn't to be good. My my only concern is I personally when I see this I think it's going to be—and this is just probably me personally and this could be different for each person—but I think the question that we choose is very important to me. Um so I'm I'm a little nervous voting for one question um without maybe some context of of which one we're voting for. [00:59:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I like question four. Okay jeez both guys council member Dragisich I like question four but I actually I actually like question nine because I think of all the issues in in trying to move the city forward communication is really key so everyone is on the same page understands the issues and and things of that nature and so what they do in their first 90 days. Question four is is a good question but I think for the longer term of success the communication between the administrator, staff, elected official, the public provides a better measure of the long-term opportunity for success. [01:00:35] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** It appears like number nine has some of number four in it no? [01:00:38] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** It's communication so they're both communication and I think that's an important piece. [01:00:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I mean I was going to reiterate the agreement that having the same question for all is obviously spectacular so the so you have a valid and reliable comparison. I actually liked council member Hirn's let's try to do two but if that's not part of the process and what we're paying for that's a whole other story. I actually had number six but I get nine. I do. It's it's a valid and useful I don't think I don't think any of these are bad questions. They're all useful they're all critical things in a perfect world they would sit down for eight hours and answer every single one of them and do an ACT writing exam but and and cheat on it yes. [01:01:25] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Question number nine was one of your top three is that correct? [01:01:27] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** That is correct. [01:01:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right would you be amenable to to nine? [01:01:32] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Nine? Yeah I would I I think that's fine they're both communication related and I think that's an important thing that everyone should be able to respond to without having intimate knowledge of City business. [01:01:45] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** That hits in the... yeah because again I just feel more about the EQ side. [01:01:50] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Can I make a friendly amendment to your motion and add that the one question be number nine? [01:01:55] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** You may I accept that. [01:01:57] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So question on the assessment that they're taking: what type of what's the assessment? Who who you're buying it from? What's the output? What do we see then? [01:02:10] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Think I might have one here... um it is uh I took it out... um it is one that has been uh we've utilized in actually 400 communities and um it does measure their ability to as Mr. Cadenhead said their communication style but their ability also to deal with confrontation and and try to de-escalate. Um and also how to convey complex um issues or topics um to you other persons. Um it does generate a numerical score that is um the ranges will tell you and actually has two parts: it has an emotional intelligence and then it also has um the the other aspect is the the communication um essentially intelligence if you will. And um many times they rank very high in one but a little bit lower on the other one and and we kind of try to and mix them together and show you a a weighted average score for this as well. We we generally say anything—and the testing service says anything below 80—it's a ranked zero to 100—anything below 80 um means they're deficient in some key areas. So essentially 80 and above is what you're what you're looking for. [01:03:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So obviously you feel confident the reliable reliability and validity of it is enough to make comparisons between individuals? [01:03:35] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** Yeah what I can do is when I get back we can send you um a copy of it um that would be lovely one and then you can take a look at it. [01:03:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right thank you. All right so the amended motion on the floor is to have one question provided for the candidates and that question being question number nine from the 12 that were uh proposed. If there's no further discussion I'll call the question all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying I. [01:04:00] **Group:** I. I. I. [01:04:02] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes thank you. One more thing: so this is the uh this is the schedule which you have in front of you also—two-page document. The uh we're having the tour in the morning, writing exercise, and then the department heads. We have they're going to meet with each of the candidates were the first thing that uh the and Clarissa will be leading that discussion I'll be taking people on a tour she'll be asking the candidates just to ask questions of the city staff—what do they feel you know what do they want to know about the city staff? And then she has a series of questions like 25 questions which PAA has provided that she can lead them through. If the candidates don't have any more questions of City staff after that we're going to the uh PAA will meet meet with the department heads and we were going to ask the department heads to weigh in and uh rank the candidates one through three as a group. Um we feel it'd be too complicated to have everybody say I want this one I want that one so they're going to have to coalesce around that just like you guys are going to have to do the same thing they'll get that um during uh the lunch hour. Between noon and 1:00 you're all invited to come to a lunch we'll be having in the community room with the candidates. We uh Chris will get something to eat here and uh it'll be basically you and me and PAA and Clarissa to just kind of have an informal get to know you at lunch. And how many people are available for lunch on the 9th? I got five great okay. 1:00 then uh we basically will have interviews and so what will happen is PAA will providing you with the questions and the candidates will get the same questions for all three interviews. So they'll get obviously markedly and progressively better at them but that way the Council can get this get the same answer from the same from different candidates that's kind of a kind of a difference there. What you know do you want to have new ones? But we feel it's more it's more consistent to have the same questions to all candidates instead of trying to come up with you know 45 different questions. So that will happen between uh between 1:00 and 4:00. And uh Miss Beckstrom is not able to attend she has a work schedule conflict uh for the interview. So what we'll do is we'll have we will have um we have three we have PAA—myself and two PAA members—so we'll basically just meet and we'll have one group will be a two council members and somebody and then council member and somebody and council member somebody. So that that way we have that put together. We'll also give you a handout um that uh is well put together that Clarissa has uh got to have guide you in the interview process to make sure you're asking or not asking inappropriate questions which are illegal for you to ask during the hiring process. So we'll ask you to review that obviously beforehand and then um we'll come back a PAA will'll do all their tabulation between 4:00 and 6:30. We have a regular workshop uh agenda although it's not too heavy and then after that we will go into a city council member meeting and hopefully pick a candidate after that. Uh we are working on the draft contract as we speak and we will have a legal review it. We'll have finance and HR review it and then PAA will'll work. We will ask that city council uh direct the Mayor and staff to come back with a contract for the meeting on the 16th and we would work with PAA. We'll do the negotiation but they would ask for you know guidance from the city um to make sure we're in line with what we kind of want to see. There's not an awful lot to discuss besides salary you know severance benefit levels when you step in moving expenses if you got to move those kind of things. [01:08:15] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** Just uh I think council member Beckstrom and myself won't be able to be here on the 16th to work travel yup. [01:08:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So we'll have to make our comments or suggestions to you to be presented to the rest of the Council and hope that the rest of the Council is here to have a quorum and in the contract negotiations we kind of look for direction from you in terms of parameters right. [01:08:40] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** And so yeah you you don't need to nail down each one but right right just making that clear. [01:08:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** That's okay have the three greatest minds of the city council making decision. Uh yes I I feel very good thought that no no one thought. [01:09:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Question on the EQ assessment again: did any of the ones that were interviewing have any of them already completed it because they were a finalist for somewhere else? Will they be taking it again or okay is that normal? [01:09:20] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** We generally like to do it if if they haven't taken for six months. The one candidate has taken it basically just a month ago so we could probably wave it for that that one. I mean my my working in that field my recommendation would be to wave it because often times with those types of personality or leadership tests when you take it soon after you're not going to get a similar result and a person has the ability to not manipulate your answers but they there's inconsistencies in what you get the second time around. [01:09:50] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Do they get better at it? [01:09:52] **Sean Murphy (PAA):** I wouldn't say better but the results different. They're well and I don't want to say invalid—it's it's valid for that time but it's not something that is preferred within the assessment field. [01:10:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** No I think it's a valid point especially since it's been so recent since the one candidate. It would be one thing if it was two years or three years out but usually it's not something you do. Yup. And you should um Council will be getting both the draft agreement employment agreement um as well as the interview questions that you'll be looking at um that we're suggesting um probably tonight if not tomorrow morning so you can disseminate them and basically what we the short answer is what we look for is stick to the script. You can ask clarification questions on the interview questions but don't deviate off of that too much. [01:11:00] **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay. We have a comment I do—I just wanted to point out there's been a lot of talk about background checks and information on that and in Minnesota we cannot do a background check until we make an offer so we won't be able to see any background check information on the candidates until we pick the final one and then that offer would be contingent on that. [01:11:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Good to know thank you. Yup. All right any other questions or comments on the process going forward? I I have appreciate you guys sticking with this and working through it so it's a it's a difficult task to to coalesce around so thank you for being flexible. [01:11:50] **Group:** Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. [01:11:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right next on the agenda is Council reports. None for me. Council Member Holtz. [01:12:00] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I turned 40! Yay! I'm no report. [01:12:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Uh I have no report as well. Um the only thing I'll add is on the 16th we have the what is it called the tax assessment meeting truth and... [01:12:15] **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Yes that meeting. [01:12:17] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I will be uh remote calling into that um since the Mayor's also out of town and one of the two of us have to be there so but I won't be at the council meeting. [01:12:25] **Council Member Kendra Beckstrom:** No report. [01:12:28] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** A couple things. Um City staff I know that are not here are watching this meeting so um there's no parking at City Hall tomorrow or at least right in frontier. We have a Public Works training session with 36 other people coming so if staff could park elsewhere either on the street or the old City Hall we sure would appreciate it for our guests who will be coming here for training. That's all I have thank you. Miss Johnson? [01:12:55] **Julie Johnson (City Clerk):** No report thank you. [01:12:57] **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** No report. [01:12:58] **Jennifer Doyle (Admin. Services Director):** No report. [01:12:59] **Michael Stopa (Comm. Dev. Director):** No report. [01:13:00] **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Chief? Uh next week severe weather awareness week and the Statewide tornado drills will be on Thursday uh 1:45 and 6:45 next week. So um we'll have information on Facebook and the city's website for people to be prepared. [01:13:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Does that mean that our Sirens will go off? [01:13:17] **Dustin Kalis:** Yup at 1:45 and 6:45... 1:45 and 6:45 on April... [01:13:25] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right thank you. [01:13:27] **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Uh I did just want to mention that we are moving to the new new uh utility billing payment portal over the next few months. Um so the link is on the city website. So far um we've gotten good reviews—we're up to about 40% of our autopay customers moved over. We're about um 15% of all customers signed up for the site. [01:13:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So I just used it yesterday and what did you think? [01:13:48] **Clarissa Hadler:** And if if I could make it through it anybody should be able to make it through it cuz I am a luddite. [01:13:55] **Adam Swanepoel (Public Works Asst. Director):** All right Mr Swanepoel. Um April 27th we have our tree giveaway for Arbor Day. Uh we just approved that on the consent item so um that'll happen at Public Works from 9:00 to 11:00. [01:14:10] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right hopefully we'll get some decent weather I think it's been a little cold uh last couple years. Yes Marty? [01:14:15] **Pete "Marty" Tholen (Public Works Director):** Um couple of things: water tower is online. Okay. Um still lots of punch item punch list items but it is working and we now have more storage available so good. Um ash trees: Public Works are working hard on removing a lot of infected ash trees with the emerald ash borer. Uh we have hundreds and hundreds—we're prioritizing based off kind of hazards and starting with City properties first and then we're moving into the developments. So we'll keep everybody updated on that but uh residents have been very supportive of it so far. So sure. Um end of next week Public Works is hosting second grade classes—there's over 110 students in a field trip um out to Public Works uh kind of based off of erosion control and MS4 and just uh yeah support our community good. [01:15:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Jack? [01:15:22] **Jack Griffin (City Engineer):** Uh no report okay. [01:15:24] **Sophia Enberg (Planner):** Miss Enberg? No report. [01:15:25] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right sounds good we've made it through all that thank you for everybody time meeting is adjourned.