This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the provided context of the Birchwood City Council and staff. **[0:00] Jennifer Arsenault:** [Music] I'd like to call this meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. **[0:24] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. **[0:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** Next on our agenda is the approval of the city council agenda. Does anybody have anything to add or change? **[0:45] Bridget Sperl:** I do. Uh I want to add resolution number 2025-38. **[0:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. We will add that under uh new business uh letter I. **[1:05] Bridget Sperl:** I would also like to add um resolution 2025-40 and that will be letter J under new business. Um do we need to pull out consent agenda items now or— **[1:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, I think you could pull them out. You could if you know what you want to take out. **[1:22] Bridget Sperl:** Sure. I do. Uh oh. Okay. Okay. I'd like to um pull out um letter H from the consent agenda. **[1:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. **[1:34] Ryan Eisele:** And A, the treasurer's report. **[1:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** Anything else? **[1:45] Kathy Weier:** Can we pull out F as well, please? **[1:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** F. Yes. **[1:51] Ryan Hankins:** And let's see. I want to pull out the uh March 11 meeting minutes, please. **[2:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** B. Okay. So, from the consent agenda, I have A, B, F, and H. Is that correct? **[2:19] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. Anything else? Okay. Um, can I get a motion then to approve the council agenda? **[2:32] Bridget Sperl:** Can I add one announcement as well? But I I can do it once we get to announcements. Okay. But otherwise, I will move to approve the agenda with said changes. **[2:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Can I get a second, please? **[2:46] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[2:49] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um, all in favor? **[2:52] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:54] Jennifer Arsenault:** Aye. Motion passes. Um, I would like to open the public forum. Is there anybody here who would like to speak? Okay, Mr. Winter, come on up. **[3:10] Barton Winter:** Barton Winter, 15 Oaks Lane. And uh, I know I'm going to be speaking tonight about the parks committee opening and also possibly about the hockey net. So, I just wanted to say one thing. I did check out the tennis courts today. I hadn't really looked at them for a while. And uh there's some vegetation growing underneath the plastic link surface on the side nearest the road where the the um uh shading is on the on the fence. And uh also I noticed that there is a couple of tears in each side each of the nets on either court in the netting, but it isn't much. So, I just wanted to say I know that there's going to be maybe a competition between my uh net and uh the tennis court nets as far as funding for this year, but I just want to say that the tennis court nets look pretty good in my opinion. They don't really look um like they're degrading except for a couple areas that could be sewn in. Now, maybe that that's not what people want, but nonetheless, they look pretty good. **[4:11] Barton Winter:** So, I would say they could last another year for sure with some minor mending. That's all I had to say. **[4:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Thank you. Is there—Can we ask Jim maybe to take a look at the at the vegetation? **[4:25] Kathy Weier:** The parks committee has it. **[4:28] Jennifer Arsenault:** The parks committee sounds good. Uh, anybody else? Anybody else want to speak? No. **[4:33] Jennifer Arsenault:** Seeing none, um, we'll close the public forum. Um, we'll move on to announcements. Uh, I'll just read them off the agenda here. We have a date change for the board of appeal and equalization meeting. It will now be held on April 21st from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Also, the new 20 mph speed limit will be effective beginning May 1st, and that will go into effect once the signs have been put up. Um, I would also like to publicly thank um several residents who were particularly helpful um this month and that would be um Sirill and Sue Capsner, um Art Arsenault, Jamie Eley, and two of our employees, Therese Bellinger and Jim Rydeen. Um there was a lot of work that has been done in the city and in village hall and I really appreciate their um willingness to step up and volunteer. So with that, Kathy, did you have another announcement? **[5:45] Kathy Weier:** Yes, I do. Um on April 26th, we have a cleanup day that will be here at uh city hall 10:00 a.m. I believe, right? **[5:54] Jennifer Arsenault:** 10 a.m. Yes. **[5:55] Kathy Weier:** Thank you. Uh and then that's being followed by a treasure hunt as well. So, bring your family and your gloves and implements of destruction like shovels um so we can do some clean up around the city to tidy up parks and get our city lovely again. And that's a Saturday, so it's bound to be coffee. **[6:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. Yeah, the city work days are lovely. So, if any of you have not been to one before, please join us. We can get a lot of work done and it's fun as well. **[6:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Um, city council updates. So, we're starting something new with each council meeting. Um, each council person will kind of update our residents on what we've been doing for the past month. So, we'll just start with Bridget. Bridget, would you like to tell us what's been going on? **[6:35] Bridget Sperl:** Sure. Um, I've been working on the Facebook site, the Birchwood Facebook site. Uh, we have 46 people who follow us, so that's more than I thought it would be. and uh trying some new things with posts and uh recognition. So that's been fun. And then uh also have been working on this resolution to uh get the docs fees uh to the parks commission or parks committee uh for them to spend on our parks. **[7:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. Mr. Eisele? **[7:10] Ryan Eisele:** Started assessing the technology needs in our uh staff office and then uh donated two 27-inch monitors to the office that are currently in use. Kind of going through and figuring out what we actually need uh to to help our staff. And then uh started trying to figure out the website, how to use WordPress. And uh piggybacking off that, I just kind of wanted to give everyone a a breakdown of uh how many views our website gets. So last month in the month of March, we had 200 views uh with 597 unique visitors. **[7:53] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you, Ryan. Um Ryan and I have also been um interviewing candidates for the city administrator position, so that's kept us busy. Um, I've been in contact with several residents. They've contacted me about issues in the city and I've returned their emails and work that out with our maintenance man, Jim. So, we're taking care of city business that way. Worked on a mission statement for the council and also did a little bit of updating here at city hall. Mr. Hankins? **[8:30] Ryan Hankins:** I've been dealing with zoning issues. So that's all. **[8:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah, pretty much. That's pretty much all. It's a big job. This month it was a very big job. So, um Kathy? **[8:45] Kathy Weier:** I've been working on the PB Lake or the draining issue there with Prey Lake Halls Marsh um agreement. Uh newsletter update details being pulling those together for our next newsletter. working with the parks committee for nets and fencing that they're looking to add to parks and also um some signage changes within the parks. Um potentially have a temporary location for some signage that we have. Um also doing my monthly check for forestry and marsh grants. **[9:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thanks Kathy. Perfect. Um I appreciate all your work by the way. You guys are a great team to work with. Um, okay. Let's move on to old business. Um, Ryan Hankins, would you like to do a—approve resolution 2025-27? **[9:45] Ryan Hankins:** Yeah. So, I want to give a little background on this. Um, you know, there was a pretty contentious meeting last month. Um what it come down to is I think that uh you know a variance application that wasn't contentious in and of itself um came in and there were some questions uh you know from the city planner about uh related to the city planner's report about uh what variance applied. Um, you know, I I think it's unfortunate that the meeting was uh, you know, kind of went like it did and I'm, you know, I I probably could have handled it better myself, but um, you know, on the other hand, this is probably nearly a million dollars in construction. And I think the result of letting that go through as it was could have been a—and and likely would have been a structure that was illegally constructed. So I think this is an important thing to fix. Um and just to briefly describe the um structure extended—the pre-existing structure extended into the ordinary high water line um setback and in order to increase the height of it, a setback to the height code was requested. But the new structure conformed to the height code. So that wasn't the proper variance. Um you know the proper variance was the setback variance because the expansion occurred within the setback. Um you know I I spent a lot of time fixing this. I want to just emphasize I think how important these things are to fix. Um and with that I think that's a good enough introduction to it. Um, you know, and one thing I will say is we did invite the variance applicant to come talk to us. He's enjoying some time in Italy. Um, but I would just amend the variance a little bit here. Um, to say the whereas clause—whereas the property owner seeks to construct an addition to the existing structure. I would say whereas the property [Music] owner seeks to construct an addition to the existing structure and deck that will increase its height only above areas where the pre-existing structure and deck extended into the setback. And then I would suggest also down here under—we're in the resolved section of the variance that the variance request number one: the variance request by the property owner at 131 Wildwood Avenue to allow a vertical increase in the height of the structure including the deck within the required OHWL setback is hereby granted. And with those two amendments, um I move to adopt resolution. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me make one more amendment. It says "Wild" in the title and it should say "Wildwood." Um, so I would move to adopt resolution 2025-27, a resolution granting a variance to allow an increase in the height of a structure at 131 Wildwood Avenue within the ordinary high water line setback. **[13:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Question for you, Alan, regarding this. Can we do this? because the resident didn't actually come in for this variance specifically. They came in for something else. So, it was an error on the resident. Can the city retroactively change what the resident filed for? **[13:51] Alan (City Attorney):** It's novel to me. At least I've never seen this done this way. And as everyone who was here now was here then, you know, it became contentious over which variance applied. I think it's good to roll this out and talk about it. Um it's a little difficult to recommend it when the applicant is in Italy. Um do—does the applicant know that this is happening? **[14:12] Ryan Hankins:** Yes, they do. **[14:14] Alan (City Attorney):** And did we get any buy-in, any agreement that this is acceptable? **[14:16] Ryan Hankins:** Yep. They—I don't have the—I can find the email, but they basically said they read through it and they agreed with it. They understood and agreed with it. So they pretty clearly said that. **[14:28] Alan (City Attorney):** Okay. Well, taking it on faith that that's what that—that's what they told you. if we're just correcting something that really only affects a variance that was what provisionally granted under the wrong auspices and just from my perspective and I know that you'd wanted something between the planner and myself kind of explaining this and it's tough when both kind of apply if you will. **[14:53] Jennifer Arsenault:** Sure. And I would only amend this to say even in your whereases, Ryan, um the property owner seeks to construct an addition to the existing structure. what got us into this mess or part of it was the fact that the structure was taken away entirely. So, this is a new build. There's nothing in there as far as an existing structure goes, right? **[15:15] Alan (City Attorney):** The proposal is to construct where one existed like you say in the previous whereas there's still a couple of things that I would clean up, but if we have the buy-in from the applicant, um, they just want to just go get going on their on their planning and building. **[15:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Could you make those recommendations to us on what we should clean up here, Alan? **[15:33] Alan (City Attorney):** I just underlined it now because I like everyone else just got to see it firsthand when we got the packet. But I'm just speaking of the one, two, three, fourth whereas—yep, in addition, and it's ticky-tacky, but in addition to the existing structure, which pre-existing structure, you would insert a "pre" in there. **[15:52] Ryan Hankins:** Well, I would put what you put in the previous whereas, which is the "recently existing structure." **[15:57] Alan (City Attorney):** Okay. or just qualify it by saying um they seek to construct you know within the footprint of the previously existing structure and increase the height and so the planner thought well that's an expansion of a nonconformity based on height because that was the only thing that was changing which is why I think he just let that go through as the previous variance was written. **[16:19] Jennifer Arsenault:** But—so so I guess my question is: is this the proper way to handle this? Would this be just to say like we granted that variance in error and then the homeowner has to come in for another variance? Or is this resolution acceptable to resolve the issue? Or is the requirement on the homeowner to actually apply for the variance? Because we're basically saying the variance that we granted is not applicable anymore and this is the variance that you should have and then we're just saying, "oh, this is kind of what you meant. We're going to approve it through this resolution." I just want to make sure that that's okay. That was a little long-winded. Hopefully that made sense. **[17:03] Alan (City Attorney):** I understand what you're saying. And I think in the spirit in which the applicant applied, as if you recall, um went through and—I don't want to butcher his last name, but—the proposal was presented by the by the gentleman that owns the family that owns the lot. And I believe that even Ryan asked, you know, did you go through the code and do this? And he essentially had done it himself. So these were all variances he thought that he needed. And so as a practical matter, I think once you adopt a variance that allows them to build in this area, um I don't think that he cares whether it's a variance from one part of the code or the other part of the code. So I'm just thinking of a good way to phrase this in my own head to make sense of it. We're just uh— **[17:54] Jennifer Arsenault:** um I think we're amending the justification for the variance. **[17:58] Alan (City Attorney):** Perfect. Which is what this says. That's what I was trying to say. **[18:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** think—and since we've got the applicant saying that sounds good, I was just making sure that I had my ducks in a row and got the variances that I needed. So, to me, it makes sense to do it this way, especially if the applicant knows what we're doing and why. So, I want you guys to be comfortable and because the variance really would have been addressed at the public hearing. Um, in other words, whoever had an objection to it before would not have any different objection if we made them go through this process again. So I think due process for the purposes of variance um granting or declining has been honored like the intent of the variance is essentially the same. I want to build to this height. So it's right—they don't care whether it's under this code or that code and we told the neighborhood, "hey something's going here and it's going to be this tall. Come in and talk about it if you have a problem with it." Right. And so aside from review by the DNR, which I think they would have to do anyway for a build there. Um, now that there's nothing there, this is just a variance from what we have to enforce, which is that 50 foot setback. So, I mean, Ryan, I think this is common that it happens and we adjust variances. **[19:15] Ryan Hankins:** It's not common. We've done it quite like we did here where um there was a lot of contention and it got fixed after a meeting. **[19:22] Alan (City Attorney):** Yep. I just want to make sure we're meeting our—getting there. **[19:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, I I just want to make sure we're meeting our requirements by so because the the homeowner is not coming in. We're basically saying we're wiping the other variance out and we're saying, "Oh, you meant to do this." **[19:35] Ryan Hankins:** We're not we're not wiping anything out. Um it doesn't replace—we can't "ungrant" variances, which is part of the reason I was so concerned in that meeting because once you grant it, you can't revoke it unless it was—Yeah. Unless there's a very good reason. So this is amending the rationale for the variance that was granted. Uh and so—well it's not amending anything. It's a new variance. Let's say—let's say we had you know granted variances to allow zero foot setbacks on a lot. We can't just take that back a month later. Us as the council can't—us as the council can't just write a resolution to grant variances. Right. That's correct. it has to go through—it has to be mailed out to people and—I mean I don't disagree with you here. I think we we need to take a very serious look at our processes and understand because this can't happen again. Um and I think in this case we're kind of doing the best we can. Now having said that if you wanted to say I really think this should go and be mailed out to people and go to the planning commission again. I don't think that would be a bad thing to do. **[20:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** I don't either. I just and I'm I'm kind of okay with the resolution as well. I just want to make sure we are on solid legal footing because I don't want to come back here next month and be like, "Oops, we screwed this up again. We have to do another." **[21:00] Ryan Hankins:** What I can say is I think it's really concerning in these applications we're getting where the applications don't actually describe and there are no drawings that actually tell us what the variances that we're granting and what the contours of it are in visual form because without that I think we continue to be at risk here that this may also not be the right variance and I think Ben was pretty articulate in his report that we're granting variances based on incomplete drawings and and I think that's a serious area where the village needs to improve in terms of our variance process. So it's—it seems very very risky to me the way we're handling these in general. **[21:40] Alan (City Attorney):** So and if you want to be belt and suspenders then yes of course the right thing to do would be to consider a different application and go through the process. I can't tell you not to do that because technically this is a different consideration, but you're going to go through the same process that you have with the other variances. **[21:55] Kathy Weier:** It's just the code point out that if we do this for one resident, if we don't do it for the next resident, there is that potential look that it looks like we have favored one group over another. So I—my preference would be to have this one go back to an application to have that additional variance. I have no problem granting it because we technically have done it, but I would like it to go through the same procedures that any other—Yeah. **[22:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Because because technically we've already granted a variance to build the house—their plans ready. Yeah. Yeah. To a certain height. So that really shouldn't hold them back. We're just asking them to apply for another variance. **[22:25] Alan (City Attorney):** Paper the file. You can you can wave the fee for it because— **[22:29] Kathy Weier:** Wave the fee then for—Yeah. But this this should not hinder construction in any way. No. because they can still do their plans based on what we've granted. So, it's just a "t's and i's." **[22:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah. Yeah. But would like to have them plans. **[22:45] Ryan Hankins:** I I will say this to you is the planning commission—basically at the planning commission, the city planner stood up and said this variance is helpful and causes no harm and the planning commission didn't discuss it in any way and waved it through. So, I think it would be good for maybe my drawings at least to be submitted to the planning commission so they kind of understand and can give an original opinion on this. **[23:09] Jennifer Arsenault:** I have no problem with you having the planning commission review what's written as far as any of the materials. issue with that whatsoever. But, and you know, I I also want to say I think as an aside, I'm I'm really sorry to the homeowner on this that this—this is playing out this way. Like, this is not a good process. **[23:30] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, I mean, think about it. We—they're not going to be harmed in any way going—I mean, going forward. We're we're doing something that yes, it's annoying that they have to apply for another variance, but I do think it's a good exercise. It's for the planning commission and us just to make sure we're doing—and as long as it doesn't delay their construction. I doubt they care a whole lot, but like it's—it would be better to have these buttoned down much much better than we have here. **[23:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** I agree with everybody. I think which is what you guys are saying—be best to have another application recognizing that it's needed by the homeowner too. That that wouldn't—not just an email saying go for it. So yeah, I agree. I mean I agree. **[24:12] Alan (City Attorney):** So, back—they said the end of the month. I think the end of April they're off and I won't say where—I shouldn't say that. I don't like to tell when people are on vacation in public meetings, but that's all. So, but yeah, it's—it'll be a few weeks here, but I mean maybe Len could handle this, but luckily there's nothing to break into there, so we should be okay. Um, I do think though that um when we get back to the owner or the you know the person who's building this that we say that we have learned a lot from this that we don't like how it went that it wasn't particularly client focused and we're going to be working to make it better. Hopefully they're watching. **[24:50] Jennifer Arsenault:** It'll be a video. I'm okay with kicking it back to the planning commission. or having them fill out new variances. I just do not want it to cost the homeowner. We're just— **[25:05] Ryan Hankins:** So, I will withdraw my motion and move to wave the reapplication fee. Okay. For this specific—it's not going to delay construction. No, because we already granted the variance that they could—No, we haven't granted the variance. They need this variance to get their permits. They just need a different variance than what they applied for. The one of the reasons I was kind of pushing this was—just clicked. Basically, the city planner was pretty insistent that the height variance was the one that was needed. Mhm. And I think the concern there that I had was that if permits were issued based on his opinion there that those could easily be contested in court and then you're at a significant risk that somebody could shut down construction there of a very expensive project. And you know the best case scenario is that we come through again and basically do an emergency variance and fix it for them. And as long as you have basically council agreement that this should be built. That's fine. In the worst case scenario, you have a major litigation going on where you know there's stuff in question in court and we've been through that a couple times as a city and and so you know that's why I kind of stood my ground last meeting wasn't because I was just trying to be a jerk. I do that at other times. It was just because I'm really worried here that there's a lot of risk to the city. So, I hope people kind of understand that. So, but again, will it cause any delay in construction? Well, here's the thing, right? Send out their 10-day notice. They can send out their 10-day notices and we can hold special meetings. Both the planning commission and the council can hold special meetings to move this through more quickly. Yes, if that is what's needed. There is—it's no matter what, it's hard to do it faster than about a month. It's probably going to take a little longer than that, but we can move it. We can move it faster. We can move it basically as fast as we can if that's what we want to do. **[27:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So, I don't want to cause them hardship. Well, I think that's—everybody wants to cause them hardship. Doesn't want to cause them hardship. Sorry. What? Ryan, maybe don't speak for us. I think we want to—what we you know my my number one goal in these things is always to make sure that everybody is kind of protected. Yeah. So the city, the homeowner, the contractor, but also the city planner too. **[27:42] Kathy Weier:** But is this a situation though Alan that since we've already gone through the processes can we retroactively say hey you needed to file for this variance too or is it one of those things like we missed it it's to your benefit. So what you're saying is do permits— **[27:58] Alan (City Attorney):** So this—this was something that came up in the Nicholas lawsuit was whether you—if you're granted a permit without a variance, can you build what that permit says you can build? And there's a whole bunch of cases on that. One of the cases was up there. A permit doesn't allow you to build something contrary to code. Only a variance does that. And so they would still end up even if it were permitted, they would still end up with an illegal structure. So, and the city can rescind permits a lot easier than they can variances. So, a lot of cities go through that where they realize after the fact that someone lied, someone's done something else and permits get rescinded all the time. So, to answer your question, I think they're going to have to go back through the process. Um, it'll be made a lot easier because they just have to apply for the right one. Their justification for it is right here. So, they don't have to make their case at all. But because it is a different application and it's being handled like that, I do think the notice has to go out and it's going to be subject to the public hearing in front of the planning commission. I mean, we can accelerate it because we kind of know the result, right? And we know how much um resistance there was to the last one, but I think you should go through the regular steps since we're starting that way. We should end that way. **[29:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. I mean, we appreciate you saying let's stop this train and do it right because I I really appreciate that, Al. **[29:18] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, it just keeps things in the file the way they should be. Yeah. you you know and I think this is very helpful right in a way that uh I don't know the planning commission couldn't not understand it and so to make it easy on the applicants all they got to do is show up and say did you sign it right because it speaks for itself and they've gotten all of their other variances anyway— **[29:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** we need to be doing resolutions like that for every single variance that's coming through. **[29:38] Alan (City Attorney):** well that's part of the streamlining and probably the betterment of the process going forward. **[29:43] Jennifer Arsenault:** so so how do we grease the wheels on this? so how do to make this as painless for the homeowner as possible? and how do we accelerate the guidelines that aren't statutorily required? **[29:55] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah, it starts with talking to them and telling them, you know, just spoon feeding what needs to go into the application, right? I don't think we should write it for them, right? Because that's probably going a little bit over the top, right? But wait till that comes in and allow them to do it electronically if they want to take the time to do that while they're on vacation just to get it going as soon as possible. Wouldn't it be nice if they could get onto the planning commission agenda in April if we can? I mean, however we can do that to make it work, we'll do that, right? And then it'll be back before you guys in May. And that's about as accelerated a process, I think, as we can get for them. And that will certainly not interrupt construction, right? It's a big hole in the ground. So, they've got a ways to go before they're going to be doing anything that will rely on it. They also still have to get their DNR and everything. So, they still, if they haven't drawn their plans yet, those have to be approved. And that's not a quick process to review yet. So I mean it'll take a while. **[30:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So I don't think it should slow them by any means even if it were—they're still in planning process. So Okay. **[31:02] Ryan Hankins:** And you've rescinded your motion. At least that's what I've noted. I rescinded it. Yeah. Did you want to make a motion to wave the fee? I made—I think I made a motion. I heard you say it, but I don't think I got a second. **[31:18] Kathy Weier:** Well, I'll second the um waving of the fee for this specific one as we heard on the second variance that was initially granted. **[31:26] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? **[31:30] Council Members:** Aye. **[31:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed? Sorry. Motion passes. **[31:38] Alan (City Attorney):** Could—could we um just make kind of a casual request that they give us at least some sort of—if they don't have final plans—some sort of a sketch of the elevation of how the structure is being expanded in the OHWL so we can just—there—what's that to include with the to include with the application? and just so you guys kind of as the decision-makers now that it's back in your hands um I'll be more than happy to reach out Ryan if you want to get me the email of the folks— **[32:05] Ryan Hankins:** have Yeah, I'll do it. **[32:07] Jennifer Arsenault:** I would appreciate—I really don't want to be in the middle of these. So, please—I really appreciate that. **[32:15] Kathy Weier:** So, can I ask a question regarding—we had another variance that was supposed to be at the planning commission this last month but the planning commission meeting didn't happen that the the wall shifts—the retaining wall. Yes. Are we going to miss our 60-day window? **[32:32] Alan (City Attorney):** Because I don't believe they've removed that. We sent the letter to extend to 120. **[32:38] Kathy Weier:** Did we? Oh, we did 120. Okay, we're fine. Okay, never mind then. We're okay. **[32:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Um, let's move on to B then. Go ahead, Ryan. **[32:55] Ryan Hankins:** That nightmare is done. Bring in the—the circus. Yes, exactly. So B is amend animal fees and animal code section 605. What page is this on? I'm sorry. Uh 10. Okay. Sorry. We're just figuring out—our agendas are a little bit understaffed right now. So it's—it's going pretty well for for for how much staff we have. Um this is just—we're revising making a few animal code updates. I introduced this um last time. Today we need to do a first reading on it. I think the big summary is this simplifies the code significantly. It reduces—removes um you know the requirement that people get chicken licenses because it's not clear there's any real city interest in controlling that. You know it makes a number of changes a number of cleanups. Um reduces the idea that people can be searched for—eliminates the idea that people can be searched for dog pickup devices. Um, so I won't go through it in any more detail, if there's any questions, um, I tried to incorporate the feedback that you made last time, Bridget. **[34:02] Bridget Sperl:** So, notice that. Thank you. You did a nice job, Ryan. **[34:05] Ryan Hankins:** Thanks. Yeah. **[34:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Can I have a motion to—Would you want this passed? **[34:14] Ryan Hankins:** Pass as a first reading. **[34:16] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Can I—can I get a motion to pass this amended animal fee and animal code section 605 um for the first reading? **[34:25] Bridget Sperl:** So moved. **[34:27] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[34:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Second. All in favor? **[34:33] Council Members:** Aye. **[34:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Good work, Ryan. **[34:40] Alan (City Attorney):** A quick question on this one. Yeah. It wasn't totally clear to me whether or not you were just sticking things in and out or if this is a complete redux of 605. **[34:52] Ryan Hankins:** It's a complete redux and in the workshop agenda there were was the markup. **[34:56] Alan (City Attorney):** Got it. So new it's—well there is—I mean it's a replacement of existing animal code which is fine. So, we should amend this for the second reading. That actually repeals the old. It doesn't. Well, it—Yeah, it—I can put in like "repeals and replaces." This all talks about just amending, but if it's a complete uh supplanting of what's there, we should put a a repealer in there, saying we're getting rid of all of what was old and putting in what's new. **[35:28] Ryan Hankins:** I I will do that. Yeah. **[35:30] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, we can just—That is important. Second reading so we don't have two 605s kicking around out there. **[35:33] Ryan Hankins:** Yeah, I mean it says ordinance is is amended to read as follows, but I can change it. **[35:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** So is ordinance 605 is repealed and replaced with the following—if that you think would be wise. **[35:47] Alan (City Attorney):** If you have access to that, then do that. **[35:49] Ryan Hankins:** I have a word processor. So good. Sorry. **[35:54] Alan (City Attorney):** I'm used to writing these things so it's not normally what I do here is to say please put this in the ordinance. **[35:59] Jennifer Arsenault:** So do we—do we vote on that? **[36:02] Alan (City Attorney):** Mhm. **[36:04] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Thanks, Alan. **[36:07] Alan (City Attorney):** Good. That was just housekeeping from my perspective. Yeah. Thank you. **[36:12] Ryan Hankins:** Thanks. We appreciate the—You're still up. All right. So, I'll shut up for the next for the second half of the meeting. **[36:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So, we're on to C, amendment of ordinance 310 administrative appeals. **[36:27] Ryan Hankins:** Yeah. So, this—we were when we went through a couple of administrative appeals, we found some shortcomings in our appeals process. This makes a number of revisions to um clarify the requirements and the procedures for appeals. Um since this I added a section that if somebody is denied an appeal um they can request a variance and the case the likely case there would be maybe not different than what we just talked about but city approves a permit application. city makes a mistake and some code is violated in the permit application. Somebody calls that out, an appeal comes to the city and we say, well, the appeal is sustained because the application was granted an error, but we give the applicant an opportunity to request a variance or an exception to that. Um, you know, it's a lot of procedure for a town with this many people, but um, you know, that's that's the idea behind that. else just cleaned up the words in a couple places, too. So, that's what it is. **[37:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** Any questions for Ryan? Would someone like to make a motion? **[37:45] Bridget Sperl:** So moved. **[37:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** Second. Do we need to—Does that—Should that be a little clearer? Maybe. Yeah. of the motion. Maybe we want to—what are we moving—just moving first reading of this? **[38:00] Ryan Hankins:** Second reading. **[38:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Second reading of this. So technically under A then it should be the—move the resolution or or motion should be move to approve second reading of the amendment to ordinances 2014-2025-0101. Isn't that what you meant Bridget? **[38:23] Bridget Sperl:** Couldn't have said it better myself. **[38:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** Now everybody's got a—assuming that that's the motion. We still need a second by my count. **[38:32] Ryan Eisele:** I'll second. **[38:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[38:35] Council Members:** Aye. **[38:37] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Hearing none. Motion passes. Okay. So then the next one here is an ordinance amending the fee schedule to adopt the $300 fee for appeals. **[38:50] Ryan Hankins:** And so I will move to adopt ordinance 2024-102, an ordinance amending the fee schedule. Um that's my motion. **[39:02] Kathy Weier:** Second. **[39:04] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. All in favor? **[39:06] Council Members:** Aye. **[39:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. **[39:13] Ryan Hankins:** And and then there's one more here and that is Uh, a resolution approving summary publication of ordinance 2025-101 and ordinance amending ordinance number 310 um, titled administrative appeals. And this is a something that allows us to publish not the full text of the ordinance. I wrote it myself, Alan. If you can look through it and if after the fact you decide it's not any good, we'll come through and do it again. **[39:55] Alan (City Attorney):** So, I read through that part. It's fine. I do think we'll have to change something when you get done looking back a couple of pieces, but go ahead. **[40:02] Ryan Hankins:** Okay. So I will move to adopt resolution 2025-28 approving summary publication of ordinance 2025-0101 an ordinance amending ordinance number 310 titled administrative appeals. So okay— **[40:15] Bridget Sperl:** I'll second it. **[40:17] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[40:18] Council Members:** Aye. **[40:19] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. That's I think that's the end of the Ryan show. Um, if it is— **[40:32] Alan (City Attorney):** if I may, Madame Mayor. **[40:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** Sure. **[40:36] Alan (City Attorney):** I misspoke under C before we got to A and B. I think I cited or I think I spoke for Bridget when I said that the motion was to approve the amendment of those ordinances that are listed in A. And so just correct the record to say what Bridget meant to say was that the uh vote was to approve the second reading of the amendment to ordinance 310 regarding administrative appeals. Right, Bridget? **[41:03] Bridget Sperl:** Yes. So I'm glad you caught that. **[41:06] Jennifer Arsenault:** Do we need to—second and vote again? **[41:09] Alan (City Attorney):** No, I'm just correcting the record because that was technically what the vote was for. **[41:14] Jennifer Arsenault:** Got it. **[41:15] Alan (City Attorney):** And so I didn't see that there was a vote for that. I just went to A and B as opposed to—Okay. Okay. Big agenda—little—little—as separate votes. Would it hurt if we voted again? **[41:25] Alan (City Attorney):** Uh certainly wouldn't but whoever seconded— **[41:28] Ryan Eisele:** Want a second again? **[41:31] Jennifer Arsenault:** Second. Bridget is still getting the first on that one. Okay. So, for the record, for the record, I'll—So, member Sperl moved to approve the second reading of the amendment to ordinance 310 regarding administrative appeals. Seconded by Ryan. Okay. All in favor? **[41:48] Council Members:** Aye. **[41:50] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. We've been corrected. Thank you. It's good to have you here. We need you. Okay. Um, run to new business. So, next up is interview new applicants for parks and natural resources committee. Do I want to give—a get three-minute speech from everybody? I don't care. Okay. Um, so we had two applicants for the position on the parks and natural resource committee. One was Margaret Ford and the other was Barton Winter. Um, does not look like Margaret is here, but Barton, did you want to speak about this or do you want to read your letter that you submitted? **[42:32] Barton Winter:** Uh, no. I'll just say something. **[42:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. **[42:35] Barton Winter:** Barton Winter, 15 Oaks Lane. And uh first of all, I just want to make sure that you have my name. A lot of people have wanted to pluralize my last name, right? And it's Winter, singular. And um I am uh interested in being a uh voting member on the Parks and Natural Resources Committee. You've seen me quite a bit here in public forum and I'm certainly interested in uh the rinks and the hockey rink and making sure we maintain that and um you know I've investigated I've done work down there. Um so I've uh you know done a lot more than what I've seen and and that's what I'm concerned. Uh I want to make sure that that's represented and uh that you know the belief that this is a valuable asset and we want to keep it we want to keep it in good shape. We want to make sure the ice is is kept in good shape. Um, I've also done some uh research on the tennis courts and you know I I was around in this neighborhood and I just want to make sure you know I was here since been living in the same address since 1976 essentially with a few brief hiatuses. And uh so my parents basically been paying property tax here for quite a long time. one of the longer lived residents here. Um, not saying they're the the longest lived, but uh we've enjoyed being here and uh we've—we've made use of the facilities. You know, we used the tennis courts when they—they first came in in the late '70s and they were, you know, really nice and we liked them. And um I you know probably am a little unhappy with the plastic link surface although I haven't even played on it but uh you know I did criticize a little bit that dimensions were not exact and in fact um a couple years ago when it was initially being investigated we had one extra tile on one of the sides of the service court. So, I I was just saying it was a little lax in that area and the fact that we put pickle ball lines in there also has placed the tennis uh lines. So, there's something there to consider. Okay. Um I'm also interested in of course the uh the drainage issue on Tyghe Schmidt and um you know I've done a little bit of investigation. I am somewhat concerned about the fact that maybe people want to alter the the park just for all. **[45:54] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you, Barton. Thank you. I appreciate you speaking. Um I'm going to read what um Margaret Ford has submitted as well. Um "dear parks committee members, Mayor Jennifer and city council, thank you for your invitation to address the council on April 8th about my interest in joining the parks committee. I have a prior engagement on that date. Please consider my written application below. I believe the committee's goals, past accomplishments, and work in progress are in great alignment with Birchwood's vision to continue to improve the city's beautiful green spaces and recreational areas. I commend the city's efforts to highlight safety as a priority. I applaud the committee's success in obtaining grant money for Tyghe Schmidt's improvements. Work continues on managing our tree population. I am happy to join in all of the work noted above. I am eager to help investigate and seek funding for projects that will benefit Birchwood's parks and natural resources." Um, best regards, Margaret Ford. So, we've heard from um Barton and from Margaret. Um, does anybody have any discussion or questions? **[47:15] Kathy Weier:** I'm really glad we got—Thank you for applying both both Margaret and Barton. Right. It's good to have two people interested. If not, um, do you have any questions or anything, Kathy? Ryan? Um, well, my personal thought is that the more the merrier when it comes to our parks committees in general to get um, individuals involved. I know Mr. Winter is very busy and helps us with a lot of the parks, but I know he will be an active volunteer in general. So I also know that Margaret had helped us a lot in the—as her time as mayor working on several grants for the forest and um tree grants that we ended up getting last few years and money will be good. So that's my thought. **[48:12] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Anybody else have any comments, questions? Okay. Would someone like to make a motion on who they would like to recommend for parks committee? **[48:25] Alan (City Attorney):** Hey, Madame Mayor. **[48:28] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. **[48:29] Alan (City Attorney):** One thing that wasn't in the preamble to this. It says new interview new applicants, but I don't think anyone ever mentioned if there's more than one spot open. **[48:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, I can answer that question. We have one spot open. It's a two-year term. Mhm. It's—so just I'm just looking at clarification for the thousands of viewers that are just curious how many spots there are open. **[48:58] Kathy Weier:** That's right. We have one open spot for an individual who—well it was actually Jennifer um when she became mayor, she came off of the parks committee as a voting member for that. And then um Bridget replaced uh Justin as the other council member with myself as were the liaison for the parks committee. So, we have five voting members for this. Yep. **[49:12] Alan (City Attorney):** I'm just clarifying because it's clear from the agenda how many people you're considering for how many spots. **[49:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes, we have one spot available. **[49:22] Alan (City Attorney):** Got it. **[49:24] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Well, we certainly have two dedicated people um that want that want this spot. **[49:32] Bridget Sperl:** I will make a a motion to um—hire I guess—appoint—Thank you—appoint Margaret to this position just because of her experience as mayor, her experience in uh seeking out grants, her experience in really running Birchwood for a couple of years and um so—a difficult decision, but that—that's what I would uh propose. **[50:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Can I get a second on that? **[50:13] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[50:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Second, Ryan. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. All in favor? **[50:24] Council Members:** Aye. **[50:26] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed? **[50:35] Barton Winter:** Artin, thank you so much for your interest. I'm not so happy about her coming in like that. And she's had her shot as the mayor and um you know, anyway, her perspective is different than mine and mine is entirely different than the the rest of the committee. And you know, that's why I've been here all the time complaining because it seems like there's, you know, there's one trend and that's people that don't really use the athletic facilities very much uh if at all and—uh letting things go. **[51:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Well, anyway, uh— **[51:12] Barton Winter:** probably would have been ideal for me not to be, you know, really not to have to um but—Well, thank you. **[51:22] Kathy Weier:** I just realized today I I don't—how long did you know that she was in the running—she had submitted her letter I believe mid—like right after the newsletter came out is my understanding from what Theresa had said but I don't know I don't know I just saw it in the packet today yeah our packet came out yesterday so I can't verify specifically what day ash path fencing—yep well thank you Barton we really appreciate—appreciate your work in the city. We appreciate that you're a dedicated volunteer. Thank you so much for applying. **[51:38] Barton Winter:** Thank you. **[51:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** And I guess we're—there's still another item there. Um moving on. Um the hockey league it's coming up here—nets and such. I think it's right after the fencing, right? **[51:50] Kathy Weier:** That's H—H at the bottom of that list. **[51:53] Jennifer Arsenault:** Are we allowed to do that? **[51:55] Ryan Hankins:** If you want to move it up just for the benefit of Barton, let's do it. **[51:58] Jennifer Arsenault:** That's fine. Okay. Let's discuss—that's all you're here for, Barton. Yeah. Let's discuss letter H then. The approved hockey net donation and $1,000 net budget. Kathy. **[52:08] Kathy Weier:** Yes. Let me find my page. Get us out of order here. It's uh 58. Thank you. I wasn't scrolling far enough here. Okay. All right. I'm sorry I spelled your last name wrong. I'll correct that in my future ones. Um, so Barton has graciously reached out regarding um, hockey nets. He and Jennifer had reviewed the ones we currently have in our um—well it was in storage now at this point—but the ones that we had on the ice rink this year and then um he had purchased two nets and had requested that the parks committee accept that as a donation. So I wanted to include that um which is the receipts are in there from the ones that he purchased. He did purchase it during a end of season sale which I understand why we did that. But I am moving to accept the gift of one of the hockey nets with the value of $247 which is what the resolution 2025-29 is the resolution to approve acceptance of a gift for that one net. So if we want to do that one first— **[53:20] Ryan Eisele:** second—fabulous. **[53:24] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. All in favor? **[53:26] Council Members:** Aye. **[53:28] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Motion carries. **[53:30] Kathy Weier:** And then um the other portion of this one as well is that um the parks committee had also reviewed the h—uh hockey nets and then also the tennis nets. Um as Barton had mentioned when he was walking, there are a few areas on that fence that is being held together with zip ties. It has been several years since we've replaced those nets and we found a good option for those nets potentially through the parks committee. So, they had put together a budget of replacing the hockey nets that needed to be replaced as well as the other at $1,000. Um, I am suggesting we leave that $1,000 for the total of it would now be one hockey net because we've approved the gift of one and then also replacing the two nets that we have for tennis. And then there are two anchors that are in the tennis court that is used to keep the tennis net lower for when it's being used for pickle ball. Those anchors have come loose and need to be re-cemented in. So the $1,000 should cover all all of that. So I moved that we uh approve the parks committee to spend up to $1,000 on the replacement of two tennis nets and one hockey net. And I did not include the anchors, but as fixing those tennis courts. **[54:55] Ryan Eisele:** Um, is this—is this something going out—coming out of the um out of the special revenue? **[55:00] Kathy Weier:** Yes. **[55:02] Ryan Eisele:** Okay. Then I will move in favor of adopting resolution 2025-30, $1,000 budget cap. **[55:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Are you seconding that? **[55:12] Ryan Eisele:** Oh, was there—Did you move? **[55:14] Kathy Weier:** I—I had moved. Yes. **[55:16] Ryan Eisele:** Then I'll second. **[55:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? **[55:22] Council Members:** Aye. **[55:24] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion carries. I just have one comment. Um, while the city is very appreciative of gifts, um, donations, they need to be approved prior to purchase. Um, we need to have some sort of knowledge of what's going on in the city. So although it's very gracious and generous of people to want to donate things and like I said we are appreciative, we do need to know that in advance of purchase. We can't be retroactively um reimbursing people without any knowledge of their purchase. So I don't want to see that happening again. **[56:12] Barton Winter:** Okay. Right. And I just—that you know I also submitted some board replacement requests. I gave that to the mayor and— **[56:22] Kathy Weier:** yep that actually I'm uh sent over to the parks committee because we are going to do a review our annual review. Um, I actually think I have my—my binder of all the parks committee walkthroughs of all of the uh parks equipment to confirm that everything is in working order and and any of the uh boards and/or posts or um playground equipment. What else do we have? Um picnic tables, etc. That everything is—is in good shape and any repairs are set up on a list so that our maintenance team can start working on them for the summer. **[56:56] Barton Winter:** Thank you, Barton. Thank you for the donation. **[57:00] Kathy Weier:** Yes, thank you. **[57:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** And thank you, Kathy. Um, since we are out of order here anyway, um, seeing Mr. Mitchell, would you like to speak? Um, we'll go on to letter G, approve funding and 2025 music in the park schedule. Do we know what page? I'm sorry. **[57:25] Alan Mitchell:** Oh, thank you, Madame Mayor and Council. You're welcome. I'm Alan Mitchell. I'm a member of the parks committee and I also help organize music in the park each summer and I'm happy to report there's another music in the park series coming up this summer. All the same groups we had last year. They've all got their favorites and they all love coming to Birchwood. So it looks just like last year. Um thanks to the council, we have uh $3,700 budgeted for music in the park. $3,000 of that goes to the musicians. $300 a week for 10 weeks. And then there's $700 beyond that for whatever kinds of cost. Two years ago, we spent $150 and bought uh one of those A-frame signs that I put out on the corner at Century uh the Sunday, the weekend of the concert. Uh last year uh we had an 11th week of music, so we had another $300. And both times we came back to the council and got approval to do that. uh even though there's a resolution that a continuing resolution that says 3,700 bucks each year, but we've come back and got approvals. So, I went to the parks committee at our last meeting and said, um, anybody have any ideas how we might improve the aesthetics down there in our hockey rink, which we affectionately refer to as the Birchwood Ice Palace. But uh the two ideas that we came up with was to maybe get like a 12 by 12 foot of indoor outdoor carpeting for the musicians to stand on and then maybe some kind of canopy which not only makes it kind of cool to have the musicians under that but uh we had some groups caught in the rain last year so it will provide some protection as well. So, I've—I've done a little checking on the cost and I think for 300 bucks we can get both of—both of those, a carpet and a canopy of some sort. I talked to uh Jim and he helps every Sunday setting up and taking down and he said shouldn't be a problem and we can roll the carpet up and store it in the warming house and the canopy comes down. Um, so I don't think we really need a resolution, but maybe a motion saying the parks committee can work with the city administrator to and Jim probably to uh implement both of those two for a total cost of $300, which comes out of the already authorized 3,700. **[59:45] Bridget Sperl:** Okay. Thank you. Would someone like to make that motion? I'm happy to make that motion for spending uh you said up to $300, Alan. Up to $300 coming out of the 3,700. So up to $300 for a canopy and indoor/outdoor carpet for music in the park. **[1:00:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Can we have a second? **[1:00:13] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[1:00:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Uh all in favor? **[1:00:17] Council Members:** Aye. **[1:00:19] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. **[1:00:22] Alan Mitchell:** Okay. Thank you very much. **[1:00:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** Hey, thanks for your continued work on Music in the Park. Thank you. It is such—It is—It is such a great—I was going to ask you—and I should have asked this beforehand. Um I know we had sought some grant funding for—I guess we didn't have a motion on this. We had sought some grant funding for music in the park— **[1:00:52] Alan Mitchell:** we are seeking some grant funding. Is that—is that—so you probably don't know this, but—Well, I have—I have talked to Sue Capsner. called—contacted me and I see that that's on the consent agenda here. The only— **[1:01:05] Ryan Hankins:** I was just going to—I was just going to—Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Um I was just going to ask if uh—I was just going to ask if there's any issue with the grant. Well, the grant I think would be for next year, right? So that wouldn't apply to this at all. I was just going to ask if we can fund something from a grant that we've already allocated funding for, but I think that would be for next year anyway. So this probably doesn't matter. **[1:01:40] Alan Mitchell:** So, as far as I understand, it's for next year. Plus, it's to look beyond music in the park, you know, art, other arts and uh things in—things in the city hall here. And but I've been—I've been in contact with Sue and—Got—Okay. Continue to do that. Well, good. It'd be lovely to do some music in the city hall during the winter. Yeah, I would come to that. Yep. We can ring the bell. Um, so we're so off topic, but yes, Sue Capsner is doing a a lovely job. Um, and she's got great ideas. **[1:02:18] Alan Mitchell:** So, can I take you aside on one other item? And sure, you don't have to act on the item, but it'll let me leave. Yeah. Um, Bridget has her motion uh resolution. Uh I want to say that I went to the uh Birchwood uh doc association meeting on Saturday and Mary Sue Simmons, another parks committee committee member was there too and we mentioned that that was going to come up and I can trans—transfer to you that the information that the parks the uh doc committee would—they would be delighted uh to have—have uh the parks committee handle the money and account for where it's going and solicit ideas from the doc committee me—the doc association members so that you have their support for those. Thanks. **[1:03:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Well, go ahead. I can get ready. Yes. Yeah. Next. Hi, John. Would you like to come to the mic? Are you here to speak or— **[1:03:15] John Manship:** No, if you have questions. **[1:03:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, okay. Then let's move on to—where is John's? **[1:03:22] Kathy Weier:** say since we're kind of not quite on the next agenda item, I've been in communication with another gentleman we'll be talking about but not two. And so apparently Therese said, "Don't bother." And so when I said, "Do you want to come by and—and and show off?" He's like, "Well, I'm already mostly home," but he offered to come back. He could be here by 8:30, but I just question whether or not we've got enough to keep us busy until 8:30. **[1:03:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, he's he's fine. **[1:03:47] Alan (City Attorney):** I will say for the record that he offered to do an informal meet and greet assuming things go the way we want to just to introduce himself. So if that's acceptable to you guys, I'll tell him that that's—Yeah, I know. Yeah, that's—put on his jammies. Okay. **[1:04:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** I mean, I had a list of questions. Oh, I cannot find John's. Where is it? You guys come again. What are—What are we talking about? I'm sorry. I don't know the top. **[1:04:12] Kathy Weier:** I want Mr. Manship, right? Yeah. But where is it? **[1:04:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Plumbing. Item E, consider a new water line locator for water superintendent. Yeah, I just could not see. Letter E. Yep. Okay. Um, there's a resolution with this. Okay. Where is that even? It's in there. We'll get back to page number soon. Page 42 was the rail fence, I think. So somewhere after that. Okay. Yeah, it's uh—Well, I guess I don't have the number. Sorry, John. What it is? There we go. It's around page 50, you guys. I thought it'd be easier having paper. 47 numbers on paper. Okay, we'll get there eventually. Okay, 47. **[1:05:12] Ryan Eisele:** I have questions about this. Okay, go for it. Do—did you want to present anything for it or are you good for questions here? **[1:05:22] John Manship:** Present to the council of a request for a better locator, a good locator. Um, part of it because of like the new lift station that's going in. They need to know exactly where those lines are underground before they start digging and remodeling. Um, we've got multiple requests for water service locates. One of them was just um I worked on it Saturday, worked on it yesterday, was there again today. Um finally found it or got it located. Um these lines are put in in 1963, 1965. And in 60 years, they've put up fences and mailboxes and other metal structures that um screw up our ability to locate things. And what this is, a line tracer. we be able to trace the the lay of the line going from the house out to the street and um be able to locate these things better. **[1:06:15] Ryan Eisele:** What are we using currently more accurately? **[1:06:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** How—how are we doing this currently? **[1:06:22] John Manship:** Pardon? **[1:06:23] Jennifer Arsenault:** How are we doing this currently? **[1:06:25] John Manship:** Like divining rods. a divining rod. Basically, a divining rod um using two wires and um divining rod will give us—and I've got 60 years of experience with city of Birchwood and so um put that expertise to use and put things together and you can get a rough estimate and but there's some of them like the one um 310 312 was super difficult to locate. There was all kinds of metal parts, uh, car parts, and we've got a metal locator that will locate the curb stop, which is the valve at the near the street. Mhm. But it's a metal locator. So, there's on that residence there was brake drums and springs and fence posts and other miscellaneous things over the last 60 years uh, in there. So, it—it just makes it pretty much impossible. ended up having capas located and we were able to get a range of where the line is and then once we could that then we could find the curb stop and get the water shut off. The problem was there they'd broken. They're remodeling the house and the um people working on the system had broken the water line and so water was spraying. It becomes an emergency type thing. **[1:07:45] Ryan Eisele:** And how long did that would make life—this would make life better. It's a something that's probably a 15-year lifespan. Um, I did talk with the contractor. If you see on your notes, um, they'll give a lifetime of the unit, uh, warranty and expertise and training. Um, which I think is a real good value to the city. **[1:08:12] Kathy Weier:** Just a couple questions. Um, who will own this? Will it be the city under the city's own? **[1:08:22] John Manship:** City will own it. **[1:08:24] Kathy Weier:** And then the next question is where will it be stored? **[1:08:28] John Manship:** Probably under my control. **[1:08:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Um it's um the thing is to have it readily available when like with this water service they break this line and it's—it's gushing. You need to be able to react fairly quickly and get things uh contained. **[1:08:50] Ryan Eisele:** Are there concerns, Alan, with having equipment like this stored under private control? **[1:09:02] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah. Yeah, that's a concern, I guess. So he can never vacation. I mean the one of the obvious ones would be what? Say you have one of these emergency situations and your preferred contractor vendor is not available to take care of it. So you've got the tool but he's got the tool. So someone else has to get brought in and there's no tool. So I know that's remote John. I'm not besmirching your—He can get a hold of me. I know readily. I'm just—I have to point out that there is some risk there by having it be under the control of a contractor. **[1:09:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** So when you're—when you're talking about water lines, John, are you talking only from the street to the valve? **[1:09:42] John Manship:** All of the system, but—but what's the city's responsibility and what's the homeowner's responsibility? The—the homeowner needs to know—the city finds the curb stop. The homeowner or the contractor or somebody will call and need a water shut off um like the one down here on—on Wildwood Avenue and they need the water shut off. We have to go and find the curb stop and shut the water off. And we charge them $150 to do that. The city charges $150. And so this is only to find the curb stop. **[1:10:22] Ryan Eisele:** Well, there's also the need for if you've ever done digging on your property where you need a line located. So isn't that 1-800-Gopher or whatever that is? **[1:10:35] John Manship:** They get called. We're part of Gopher. The city is a piece of Gopher. **[1:10:40] Ryan Eisele:** So if you called the city to have your water line—like I did, what they never came out. So, I still don't know what—where my water line is from when I moved in, but I had called in to have all the utilities checked to figure out where everything was, and the water was the only one that never showed up. So, it would be useful to have the ability to find it quickly, but it also has the use of other things. **[1:11:02] John Manship:** But part of the problem is that they uh like Excel is replacing a ton of telephone poles and all of a sudden you get this call, locate, recall, and they're digging down seven, eight feet to put those poles in the ground. a big liability to um to the city and to the residents to have those damaged. So if we know where the service is, where the water service is, then we can have the pole one side or another moved a different direction. The nice thing to me—the things wander I don't know if around the city pretty good system but things do wander and I I kind of feel like control-wise have a better control to have it with me. **[1:11:58] Jennifer Arsenault:** So um I know we have later which is I'm jumping again. I'm sorry but we have a keyless entry for the city hall as part of the items that we're going to be discussing. I am curious if we could potentially put this in the city in a locker in the event that you ever decide you want to do a vacation in the store room down here. **[1:12:20] Ryan Eisele:** Well, I would say not even that. Like I think it would stay here unless—No, no. In general, like it would live here, but my reasoning is not necessarily because I don't trust John. It's my reasoning is I want John to not be the only option in the event we need to turn off water fast and John happens to be out of town. that someone who knows what they're doing—there's a problem—can potentially—well I would anticipate that there is—wise with the unit operation-wise it takes—so it's not easy to use it's not like going starting up your car—no well I mean anybody if we were to hire John would hopefully have some sort of understanding of how—how to use this or have the—have a tool like this themselves. I'm—here's what I'm uncomfortable about—$6,000 so it's expensive tool or 5600—Um, and that's probably today. So, let's see what it is after midnight tonight. Uh, and then the the personal use of it—because you do have your own um plumbing business. And so, I wouldn't want to use a city asset being used for personal reasons. **[1:13:30] John Manship:** That's not what it's for. **[1:13:32] Ryan Eisele:** No, I I I'm not saying that's what you would use it for, but the the option would be there if it's in your truck. So that's why if something like this was purchased by the city, I would want it under strict city control unless I'm completely off base. **[1:13:48] Kathy Weier:** I mean, that makes sense. I assume it has a life frame of how long it lasts for, and I would anticipate the fewer times you're using it, the longer it will last. Mhm. **[1:14:00] Ryan Eisele:** Could city council members play with it? Usewise is probably three or four times a week for locating. **[1:14:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** Pardon? **[1:14:10] John Manship:** For locating things. Okay. Normally that's what it would come up. You've had there's been three so far this week. **[1:14:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** So what were the three this week? What were the—what were the three this week? **[1:14:23] John Manship:** There's um I mean it's only telephone poles, two telephone poles. Um the city lift station and Wildwood between Wildwood and Lake Avenue across from your house. **[1:14:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** Is that the average three four a week all year? **[1:14:42] John Manship:** Quite often in the winter it slows down. This winter they did quite a few telephone polls. **[1:14:50] Ryan Eisele:** And were all of those chargeable events? **[1:14:52] John Manship:** The telephone poles are not. Okay. The city mains are not the residents. Um if we have to shut the water off or if we just locate, we don't charge for just locate. Same as like Mahtomedi, White Bear, Oakdale. They don't charge for finding where the line is. But the residents need to know where the line is for somebody doing footings or um digging something down, putting these helical piers that they put down when they put um an addition or post on their house. Somebody was doing one on— **[1:15:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** but that's the homeowner's cost, right? **[1:15:34] Alan (City Attorney):** Not—well through the gopher because the city is in charge of lines. There's no fee for that. **[1:15:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** There's no fee. **[1:15:43] John Manship:** If you charge a fee, then they won't call. **[1:15:45] Kathy Weier:** No, they won't locate and then they damage the facility. **[1:15:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** some reimbursement to somebody because we're a part of Gopher. I mean, is there any money? **[1:16:02] Alan (City Attorney):** I don't think there is any money for that. There's no charge for Gopher. No, no. I mean, as far as like uh—how do they pay the utilities for said Gopher locations? **[1:16:15] Ryan Hankins:** We don't. We—we basically provide John's services for that. We're required to provide it. So, we provide it state law and we actually tried to charge for it and we—the person who reads all the state laws found it and took it out. So me. **[1:16:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** Uh yeah. So that's just—that's just something you pay as a city. **[1:16:42] Kathy Weier:** So—if we were to purchase this, where would—what account would it come after out of—we didn't budget for this? **[1:16:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** Correct. I mean I would propose that this come out of the water fund and I think we have some buffer there and some flexibility. Um, I'm all concerned with the cost and the storage, too, but I also don't like to um say we shouldn't—I feel like we so often don't buy things we need in this town. **[1:17:15] Ryan Eisele:** Well, yeah, but I mean, is this the—the right one? Like, I just did a quick V-Loc 3 Pro alternatives and they're all $1,500 and below. And so I don't know like the quality or like the—like what is the minimally viable product here. Do we want to take a month, Ryan, and just evaluate this? **[1:17:35] Kathy Weier:** I think—I think so. Like I mean I'm not good. I don't—it doesn't sound like this is an emergency—like it's not an e—. I do think it sounds to—to me like everybody would like to kind of just do a little due diligence for a month. Okay. It's okay with you. **[1:17:55] John Manship:** done various research on this thing. And you can buy a Yugo if you don't remember those. A what? Yugo car. Oh, for—throwaway cars or like a $3,500 throwaway car, but you get what you pay for it. Um I've tried other ones, other locators. This is what works. **[1:18:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Have you used this locator? Have you used this particular one, John? **[1:18:20] John Manship:** Yeah. Okay. And I've used other ones. I've used um some of the other cities. And so— **[1:18:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** this looks like it's battery operated. Is that right? **[1:18:35] John Manship:** It is. **[1:18:37] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, I think though it needs to live at the city and be plugged in for the city. **[1:18:42] John Manship:** But that's—that's fine. **[1:18:43] Jennifer Arsenault:** But then we have other things we need to think about if that's the case. **[1:18:47] Ryan Eisele:** Yeah. I mean, we have to figure out how we're going to store it, how it's going to be secured here. **[1:18:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** I I don't—I can't think through all that right now. Sounds like we need a month to— **[1:19:02] Ryan Hankins:** Yeah, I think we need—table because it has to be convenient for John to get it, but also has to be secure. So, yeah. Can we just think about this? **[1:19:15] John Manship:** And it's got to be charged up. So, when you go to use it, it's charged up. So, how do you—how do we maintain it? Just something else. I do have to do, right? But then, you know, ideally, the person who's bringing it back is plugging it in. I don't know if that happens at your house or not, but it doesn't happen at mine. **[1:19:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, all right, let's—Can we just—Thank you for coming. Can we put this on next month's agenda and we'll revisit it then? **[1:19:42] John Manship:** Look at something come down the pike. It's just that more and more locates are coming out and it just becomes um cumbersome. I understand. Like I say, this lift station, they need to know real close on what they're doing and right—um is this something we could charge partly against the lift station grant? **[1:20:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Nobody probably knows that and I would guess not, but I don't think so. Okay. They're pretty strict standards through the EPA. Okay. All right. We will revisit this next month and we'll get an answer for you. Thank you. **[1:20:18] John Manship:** There may be some grants available. There's um Rural Water Service. Okay. um is one of the places to take a look at. There may be some grants available which would help the city. Thanks, John. Water association. **[1:20:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. **[1:20:36] John Manship:** The beauty of this one is it comes with the warranty and the training. Okay, you buy it on Amazon and you don't get all that. **[1:20:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** I think that's valuable. **[1:20:47] John Manship:** And like I say, it's not like starting up your car. It's there's some training, schooling, education to go with it. **[1:20:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, if we have one other person who doesn't go on vacation at the same time as John—and do the cities around us have this already, John, do the cities around us have this? Does White Bear, does Mahtomedi, does Willernie? **[1:21:12] John Manship:** Willerney does not—Willernie. **[1:21:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, Willernie. I was going to say we can't get behind Willernie. Okay, we'll table this till next month, John. We'll have a decision for you next month. Thank you. **[1:21:28] John Manship:** Thank you for for joining us tonight. **[1:21:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you. All right. Up to B. Yeah. B, review quote for additional rail fence on Ash Path. Kathy. **[1:21:42] Kathy Weier:** Yes. Um, so we had done fencing on one side of Ash Path after we had done the survey over—I think it took over two years to get our surveys done. Um, actually it was probably three because it was before we started, right? So we had a survey done on Ash Path to determine all of the the paths' um borders and due to that we found that um the city's path was meandering very close to some property lines and very far away from others. So we had redone the location of the path to kind of fit more snugly within our area. But we put up a fence on one side of the path but hadn't done the other side. the other side. We don't have as big of an issue as far as currently cutting those corners, but I would like to be able to remove those survey lines that are the pink flag things. So I am recommending that like we have on J Path and some of the other paths we have a split—uh—separate split rail fence portions along that line to prevent um citizens and property lines from being mixed and so we're not cutting those corners with the the path eventually when it's path of least resistance um to do that. So, we had requested that um Ron and Jim give us a quote for materials and labor for doing that. They actually did the one on J Path. I experienced them watching or digging those holes and everything, so I know they can do it and I believe they did the other side of Ash Path as well. Um but I am suggesting that we do similar to the um little graph that is on page 43 of just doing the various corners. Um there's the new fence two-rail cedar. That's an example. That's not a fence that we're putting in. It's just the um two corners and then three additional pieces along that side just to delineate that line that we have so we don't lose that survey line. **[1:23:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** So with—with how this fence is laid out, would it be possible to do some sort of Birchwood slalom? **[1:23:55] Ryan Hankins:** Maybe. Um, yeah, this—I really like how you laid that out. Um, does anybody have any questions for Kathy about the project? I like it. **[1:24:12] Kathy Weier:** Have we covered it off with Bev? Is she okay? Um, Bev did talk to um, let's see. Mary Sue talked to Bev and Bev was uh asking about the barbed wire fence that's back there. So, I have volunteered to remove the barbed wire fence if we get approved to do this. So, I will go out on the 26th and take down that fence for her if she— **[1:24:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** But is she okay with this? It sounds like—Yes. Well, this isn't on her property. It would be on the city's property on the east. No, I know. I know that. But she had expressed some concern. She wasn't sure how it would look property, etc. **[1:24:55] Kathy Weier:** Yeah, she—she had been uh—I had mentioned to Mary Sue and Mary Sue had talked to her directly and said that she was okay with initially she was concerned regarding the fence being a full fence all the way around with wildlife etc. But it's still—So we're good. That's that's great. And 27 bucks an hour is a very good rate for two people doing for this labor rate. So very good rate. Y and that's just our staff doing it. So that was the cost to do that. So, I'm recommending that we take that um fund out of the special revenue fund, which is for the parks to then put those fences and finish that specific— **[1:25:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** a resolution or is this just you want to make a motion? **[1:25:45] Kathy Weier:** Um I'm going to make a motion. This came in after—Okay. Uh it was I believe we got it Friday. So, just want to—I just am—I'll make a motion that we uh have up to $1,002. I actually will just round this up to 1,050 just to make it—okay—a little bit of a gap for taxes etc. for materials potentially um so that they can put in those fencing. **[1:26:15] Ryan Eisele:** Um I'll second—Ash—okay. **[1:26:19] Jennifer Arsenault:** Any more discussion? **[1:26:22] Ryan Eisele:** all in favor—what—one more thing—sorry—there is a tree or a root that sticks out of this path that they spray painted orange that I have tripped over. Oh, so many times there up there with my— **[1:26:42] Kathy Weier:** Did that run through? Yeah, I ran through there. **[1:26:45] Ryan Eisele:** It's still a problem because Jim took care of them. There's a lot of orange paint there. No, he took care of them. Okay. Well, I'll double check. If not, I'm going to go—I'm going to go hit it with a—with a—I mean, not like—like a full face plant. **[1:27:12] Kathy Weier:** Two were spray painted by a concerned resident and then two went in and chopped them down from what I understand. **[1:27:18] Ryan Eisele:** Okay. cut them down. I'll go through there tomorrow and if not, I'll go up there with many tools and—and and knock them down and then just take care of it. So, so we have a second. **[1:27:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** Are we ready to vote? I had to say that before I forgot about it and it was all—I—but—No. Yeah. I got—Okay, motion passes. Um, let's move on to C. Review street sweeping estimates. Um, so Therese put this together and told her there was no need for her to be at the meeting tonight. So she got two estimates, one from Nent and one from McPhillips who used to do our street sweeping. Um, what the recommendation is twice a year to do street sweeping, spring and fall. Um, we have $4,000 currently budgeted for street sweeping. I would still—I would still just do it twice even if budget. So, if we went with the cheapest quote, it would take care of one street sweep and then we'd have the extra 500 to put towards the next one. **[1:28:45] Ryan Eisele:** Who—who was the one we got last year that like went for $2,000 worth and then ran out of gas and quit? **[1:28:54] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah, I don't know about that. **[1:28:56] Ryan Eisele:** I—I don't want to hire them. No, but it wasn't McPhillips. **[1:29:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah, it might have been Nent. I don't know. **[1:29:05] Ryan Eisele:** But—I don't remember though. **[1:29:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um there are options. There's been talk of um grants coming down the pike for street sweeping as well. So, if we did it this year um twice, if we if we can continue to do it twice a year, you know, it benefits our lake, which we're right trying to preserve and keep clean. All that u—since our roads are in such bad condition, all the gravel and asphalt from the roads just washes down, right? **[1:29:43] Kathy Weier:** So, street sweeping, salt and sand, too. **[1:29:46] Jennifer Arsenault:** Correct. And street sweeping can prevent that pollution going into the lake as well as all the organic materials that are left after the leaves fall. And that—it looks like both of these are doing hallway as opposed to pushing it to the side. Right. Correct. Well, I—I would move to uh—hire Mike McFillips. Mike Phillips. **[1:30:15] Kathy Weier:** Just a question. Do we know why he was a prior contractor um and why he wasn't or— **[1:30:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. **[1:30:27] Kathy Weier:** And is it—would it be helpful in our decision making? **[1:30:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um he had a bad experience with the city. **[1:30:34] Kathy Weier:** Okay. I could—Okay. **[1:30:36] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, so he—but he—Therese has spoken with him and assured him that he will not have that same experience. **[1:30:45] Kathy Weier:** Okay. She did some sweet talking. **[1:30:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** She did. All right. So, it's not a performance issue on his correct. Um, and just to clarify, Kathy, when you—your motion is for both spring and fall. **[1:31:02] Ryan Eisele:** Uh, initially, mine is for spring. I am open to potentially doing fall as well. Ideally, I would like to be able to do both, but I'm going to start with spring and see how we do for our lift station. and I'm holding up a lot of my money for—that's not the worst idea is to defer that. But let's make sure it comes back then. Yep. **[1:31:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, we'll revisit it. We have a little more budget information. Hopefully the price is still—that's what my hope is. But if it's not, we can live without street sweeping. I guess everyone go outside with your own push broom. So if we're going to go forward—Oh, no. That's why I have a kid. That's right. So the 3500 actually is, which is what this quote is. um is actually less than the 4,000 that we have in the budget for street sweeping. So, can I—can I make a recommendation for that additional—So, the street sweeping typically also has a vacuum thing to pick up all of that. We need to vacuum out the uh there's various culverts along the um drainage areas that are full of leaves right now from winter runoff, etc. We might want to see if they could vacuum those out when they're doing that. That's a good idea. And we also have, I believe, the rain garden that's on—Oh, my map's gone. Uh, one of the easements has a rain garden. I can't recall which one it is, but that one needed to be vacuumed out because it's full of gunk at this point. So, if that additional $500 can be used to clean out some of that and vacuum out some of the debris and leaves and Okay. salt, sand, etc. **[1:33:05] Kathy Weier:** Could you um contact Therese and ask her to call them back? **[1:33:12] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Um and she can confirm that they have the vacuum tool. I I don't see that listed here. So, if they don't, then that's something that I would potentially like to roll into finding clean those out because there's—they're quite full in quite a few areas. **[1:33:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to approve street? **[1:33:38] Ryan Eisele:** I did. **[1:33:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** You did just for spring. Uh, yes. Is that what you said? **[1:33:45] Kathy Weier:** Okay. I think it might be helpful to amend it to say to spend up to $4,000 with McMillips, right? Okay. With vacuuming. Yes. If they have the ability to vacuum out those areas or the various collection suck. **[1:34:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes, that. Okay. Up to 4,000. **[1:34:08] Ryan Eisele:** Up to 4,000. **[1:34:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Can I get a second? **[1:34:12] Bridget Sperl:** Second. **[1:34:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[1:34:16] Council Members:** Aye. **[1:34:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Okay. Motion passes. **[1:34:22] Kathy Weier:** Yeah. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind contacting Teresa, that would be great. **[1:34:28] Jennifer Arsenault:** Kathy, you refer to that as the suck truck. Uh, next up is D. Review estimate for 2025 Top Green Lawn Service. So, I'm not sure what we paid last year, honestly. Um, I do know last year we were doing weekly trims and we talked about moving to every other week and we do have the—was it 2,000 or is it 2200 from the soccer group? 2,00 200 200 and I'm thinking if it's um that their 2,000 was that field cut every other week. I don't think it was cut every week. Uh it's—it—we had True Green doing all of the mowing last year. So I believe we—I thought it was weekly that they were doing. **[1:35:32] Kathy Weier:** They were doing weekly last year, but it was pretty expensive. But people also really liked it. They did a great job. I'm just looking when you look at the invoice here, it's broken down into Tyghe Schmidt's. That's one thing. And then the rest if you look at that. So that's why I'm asking if it was weekly or bi-weekly. **[1:35:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, that's um I don't recall as far as how often. **[1:36:02] Ryan Eisele:** I bet Justin would know because he lived across the street. Was it Tyghe Schmidt was every week? It was—I thought the whole city was every week. It was—there was a lot of mowing. um might have been all the other parks one week and then Tyghe the other. **[1:36:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** We can also—the other thing is you can start out every other week and then if grass starts growing really fast we can—Yeah. we can bump up the frequency. I mean and we also tell them not to mow if it's dry. Yeah. So maybe do we want to just have—authorize up to weekly mowing but ask that city staff kind of play it by ear a little bit right because if it's really dry we don't want to pay and I don't want to micromanage like mowing honestly if we did the weekly mow where one week is Tyghe Schmidt and one week is the other parks because I think it's about equid sized. **[1:37:12] Kathy Weier:** Yes, that would make sense to me to do it by—and see if Tyghe Schmidt is growing excessively long in which case maybe we have to have them hit that as every week and the other parks every other cuz right—I think in—I would feel like the Tyghe Schmidts could be if needed since we're going to have the soccer kids there it could be once a week but um the rest I could see every other week because it's just the little easements and you know along the road— **[1:37:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** we know what days they do soccer practices. **[1:37:50] Kathy Weier:** No. Okay. I assume it's not during the day though, right? Because the kids have to get there somewhere and I presume none of them drive, right? So, do you have any idea, Ryan, as to what dates they actually do the soccer for all the different age groups? **[1:38:12] Ryan Eisele:** I don't. All right. Well, I'm going to assume that we can just pick a date when we convene with the soccer group to figure out the day that's not the exact same day that you're—Yeah. where we don't end up with—if it starts raining, you have half a field. So, okay. Um, but I—I would move to do that and use our $2,000 from the soccer group to offset that because that's what we were hoping to do. **[1:38:42] Kathy Weier:** Um, last year we did not do the fall cleanup or spring cleanup and we did not do fertilizer weed control that ends up in the lake. We don't want to do that. **[1:38:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So this would just be for mowing—this—mowing—blowing—whatever—for Tyghe Schmidz and the rest. Um so what's the motion going to read? You're going to authorize it? **[1:39:10] Kathy Weier:** I'm going to—Oh, I don't know. However, are we going to do it up? Uh should we authorize for once a week for both? And then—Well, so if—if we were doing let's say it's once a week and it's every other that we're doing. Um that would be $400 per week. There are approximately 10 weeks during these summer months. **[1:39:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah. So as far as—that would be $4,000, which would be—I don't know how much we authorized last year, though. **[1:39:45] Kathy Weier:** So, are we committing to a price for the whole season every other week? Because I think it would be a better deal if we could call it week by week. I don't think they won't allow us. Yeah. I don't think Top Green's going to go for that. **[1:40:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. We could ask, I guess, but I I would assume if we reach out to them and say we need to suspend for this week because it's really dry that they would potentially do that. But I assume that they would want a contract. At least when it's a homeowner, they do. **[1:40:22] Kathy Weier:** Yeah, I—I like that idea, Kathy, of doing Tyghe's one week and the rest the next. I would—I would hope it doesn't grow fast enough. **[1:40:34] Jennifer Arsenault:** I think it depends on how wet it is, basically. So, right. But if we want to try that and need to add—Yeah. more, I don't think they'll be opposed to adding, but I have a feeling they'd be more upset about removing. Uh we did mow into fall last year. So I don't know if we want to do more than the 10 weeks of summer, but this says uh through mid-October—weekly mowing through mid-October. So that is longer then. That would be—that's just part of—that's—Oh yeah, you're right. Right there. Okay. So calendar wise, when did would they start mowing? Do we know June? You think? Okay. After the pollinators are all happy. One, two, three. 16 18 weeks. 18 weeks. Minimum. Yeah. 16 more weeks. So, and I'm assuming we still have plenty of other things for Jim and Ron to be doing around. Yeah. Okay. Um, so if we did 16 weeks at 400 a week, it's $6,400. Okay. I think we have—Well, we must have the paperwork somewhere from whatever we paid last year. And we have the 2,000 from the soccer club. So, it would be 4,400 out of the city's pocket. And then in the event that the soccer club also wanted fall, that would be another 2,000 because we did not contract that. **[1:42:26] Kathy Weier:** So I'm—I—will make a motion that we approve every other week for one Tyghe Schmidt well mowing every week but every other week doing Tyghe Schmidt and then other right um for the the city from Top Green. **[1:42:50] Ryan Eisele:** I'll second. **[1:42:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[1:42:54] Council Members:** Aye. **[1:42:56] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Okay, motion carries. Okay. Um on to F. So Therese set up three interviews with candidates for the city administrator position and Ryan Eisele. Um Therese and I interviewed all three candidates. Uh we advertised the position as a 20 to 30 hour position. So it's part-time. um with flexible duties. We're going to try to rethink this a little bit. Um after speaking with all three candidates, um we unanimously came to the conclusion that um Scott Hildebrand um was someone the city could work with and would be a positive addition to our staff. Um, Ryan, I know I'm putting you on the spot, but do you have any—So, sorry. Do you have anything to add about Scott? I was going to go over some of his qualifications. **[1:44:22] Ryan Eisele:** I I would say Scott um came across as very competent and very knowledgeable about um the city administrator position. He's done it for multiple years. Um, and it seems like he would bring a lot to the table that the city could take from him to kind of streamline and um, you know, make our processes a lot more efficient. **[1:44:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** Thank you guys for doing those interviews. Yeah, some of the things I just wanted to point out was um like he some of his experience was establishing partnerships between the city school, chamber of commerce, industrial development groups. So that you know strengthening um ties with our community, neighboring communities. That was one of um the goals I wanted to work on. Um he also has uh quite a bit of uh experience with grants both writing, managing you know, um, and knowledge of grants available. Um, he here he's worked with, um, city zoning ordinances. I see that twice on his resume. And he just really, um, appeared that he has a system down to where he knows how to run a city efficiently and just process and procedure. Thank God. along. Yeah, just really—he was—really seemed quite competent. Yep. So, Alan—Alan, do you want to add anything to any of this discussion um about the contract or because we full disclosure, Alan, you work with them? **[1:46:25] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah, we won't have a contract to review yet. That'll be next month assuming that all this goes um the way it should go. But I think in—Yeah, full disclosure, you know, to the extent that you guys don't know, uh Mr. Hildebrand has been our city administrator in Landfall now for a while, I'll just say, and just picked up another job in Maple Lake. So, he's already wearing two hats, and he can do that because he is very efficient. He is very organized, uh, very diligent. Uh, we've had good experience with him. So, and I've seen a lot of city administrators and managers through the years. And so, certainly, if I was asked and I said run away, I would have said run away based on his skill sets and competence. And so I think for what you guys need—and we had this discussion a couple months ago—um it got kind of transmogrified into this bigger thing than I think it needs to be. And certainly with you know you all doing the things that you're doing you know streamlining focusing and—and he'll be a good addition I think for that goal. I just do and he'll be the first one—I think he'd rather back off than fall on his face. And so if it gets to be too much, um, one of the things that we'd talked about before being here tonight was just giving a few, uh, incremental reviews to see how things are going and make it more of a provisional appointment, assuming that he accepts. And that way we can see just how he does, especially since we're coming into the busy season and so a lot of these projects and things are already moving along. So it'll be a chance to see him jumping onto a train that's already going down the road. **[1:48:02] Kathy Weier:** So—so just—so I'm—sorry. Thank you. Um, just so I understand, we're not making him an offer tonight. We're just— **[1:48:12] Alan (City Attorney):** You're authorizing to send an offer letter to him and then if assuming that he accepts, then we'll work on the contract. **[1:48:20] Kathy Weier:** But the offer letter would be non-binding. **[1:48:22] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, it's an offer. It would be binding on us. It would be binding on us. **[1:48:28] Kathy Weier:** So, but the contract isn't in front of us. **[1:48:32] Alan (City Attorney):** No, because we haven't made an offer to them yet. We need your approval to extend the offer. **[1:48:38] Kathy Weier:** Well, wait. So, I'm—I guess I just want to find out like we can extend the offer, but until the council ratifies the contract, how is it binding on us? **[1:48:50] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, the offer would be an official overture to hire on these terms, right? And—but can we see the terms though before we vote on them? That's why we're talking now. Do you guys want to— **[1:49:03] Kathy Weier:** Well, you said the offer that we make to him is the offer that we make to him—non-binding until we ratify it next month. **[1:49:15] Alan (City Attorney):** If you put out an offer, let's just say that we talk about it and you come up with four or five provisions that you want to put in the offer for employment. Yeah, provisional for the next, you know, several weeks, right? at some rate of pay with minimum expectations. That becomes the offer and we would memorialize that into a contract. **[1:49:38] Kathy Weier:** So, you're saying that I would put the offer forward to him without seeing the offer myself? **[1:49:42] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, we're going to be talking about it so you'll know exactly what it is. **[1:49:46] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, okay. All right, fine. We need to—we need to populate the offer letter with enough—to—we can't just say, "Hey, come on aboard and we'll figure it out." So, we need to entice him with something to say yes to. Once he does that, we'll bring it back as a contract. **[1:50:06] Kathy Weier:** So, all right. Just a question about his resume. Did—it looks like he stays in a position for two to three years. Did you talk to him about why he left the city of Pine City or Turtle Lake housing? **[1:50:28] Alan (City Attorney):** I can tell you Turtle Lake was just a bridge too far. I mean, that's a ways out. So, after talking to him personally, I don't mean to, you know, whatever you have to say, Alan, is helpful. Maybe the mayor put, you know, that to—to the test with him, but, you know, he was running a pretty big circuit and so something had to give and so I think he had devoted his time to the job here. **[1:50:52] Kathy Weier:** Looks like he actually went back to them as well. So, I'm going to go with that he started at one point and then came back for something. So, they clearly didn't hate him. **[1:51:04] Jennifer Arsenault:** And I I will say like he—he didn't have to tell us this and he did, but he—and I can't remember which city he worked for, but basically they brought him in as a full-time administrator and he—he told the council, "This is not a full-time job." Like there is not enough work to keep me busy for 40 hours a week. Um so so he ended up working 10— **[1:51:26] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah. 10 versus 40. **[1:51:28] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. And so like there—there—there was that—that honesty—like he wasn't trying to, you know, milk the city for 40 hours a week. **[1:51:38] Kathy Weier:** Well, it does look like he has a couple jobs currently, which is a little bit of a concern as far as how much. **[1:51:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** And we're—we're concerned about that, too. like we don't want him um spread too thin, but after talking to him and the experience that he has and uh him explaining some of the processes and procedures he's put in and efficiencies he's put on other cities, I think he would be a good fit. **[1:52:12] Kathy Weier:** Has he—did you happen to talk about the systems that we're currently using here, the software and such? Does he have experience with that? because we did previously hire an accountant who was we were thinking would be fabulous and then they found out that the system we were using is totally incompatible with their experience and so they quit almost immediately after we finished training—so we hired again. I'd love to avoid that. **[1:52:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** So yeah, we talked specifically about the accounting software and he—pretty much said whatever works. There's no need to change anything if it's working for you. **[1:52:54] Kathy Weier:** Okay. Right. And we're such a small city. I was thinking the permitting software is the big one—that he knew about that, didn't he? **[1:53:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** He did. And it—it sounded like he had done something—I don't want to say automate because automate is the wrong word, but uh—um implemented something similar to that in a previous city. And I don't know if it was exactly permitting software, but it was some sort of system, IT system. **[1:53:25] Kathy Weier:** Okay. and—and and then we would—Therese was asking him about that particular software as well because there's so it's un—being underused right now—underutilized. So that was supposed to save us lots of money so I would love to see that actually do what we were sold on. **[1:53:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** We—I know we actually—we talked to him about that and it seemed like he could figure that out. **[1:53:52] Kathy Weier:** Okay. And then we would still have our accountant who is part-time and Therese who is part. **[1:54:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So basically between—have one full-timer across all potentially—pardon—one—one person—one person full-time across everything—or—um I guess it'd be a little 40 hours total plus the accounting Marsha—yeah right now Theresa's working between 20 and 30. Okay. Um and this I think we could just—I don't want to overextend. So, we could start at 20 and if it's not working out, we'll see if he needs more hours. But that was kind of my thinking since he's done this. He's got—he's got a pretty good system down. **[1:54:55] Kathy Weier:** Okay. **[1:54:56] Alan (City Attorney):** So, I can tell you if it helps at all when he took the Maple Lake job, he had to come back to council because he was contracted with Landfall to provide a full-time job. And I didn't think it was a full-time job, but it's not my decision to do that. So, he approached the council and made the same argument that you were referring to, Ryan, and basically said the same thing. "This is not a full-time job. You know, you're wasting my time and your money by having me sit and do nothing. And so, I can do both. Test me. I'll prove it." And that's what we did. And it's been working. So, okay. **[1:55:36] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, Alan, do we have to talk about contract tonight? **[1:55:42] Alan (City Attorney):** It would be helpful to have some basic terms to offer him so he knows what he's getting into. And so I don't know if anyone—certainly I don't know what those are. So we should at least have some bare bones to just populate the offer letter. **[1:56:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** All right. So we talked a little bit. **[1:56:05] Kathy Weier:** Curious if you have the—it was an RFP that we sent like the actual application. Do we have that handy? **[1:56:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** I don't have it handy. Okay. But we advertised at $36 an hour. Okay. And um 20 to 30 hours a week. Um, so I would suggest that we write the contract for 20 and just see how that goes. Um, we also, Ryan, Theresa, and I had talked about um, what was it? Six-month um, probationary period. Thank you. Six month probationary period with a review at 90 days. Um, basically I didn't enjoy staff turnover in January and um, shocking. I don't want to do this again and I don't want to go through that whole drill. So, by making it, you know, a provisional employment until we're—we're happy and feel good about it, um, I'm hoping to avoid some of that. **[1:57:42] Kathy Weier:** Okay. Um so from our—let's see—we had wanted someone who could make edits to the website etc. So all of the items that we had listed are items that he felt comfortable doing. **[1:58:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** I don't think we talked website did we? No because these two guys said they were going to do it. **[1:58:12] Kathy Weier:** Oh did you know you were staying on forever? The Ryans. **[1:58:16] Jennifer Arsenault:** The Ryan team is coming. **[1:58:18] Ryan Eisele:** We were going to make some design changes. I don't know that I was planning to do any sort of like long-term maintenance. **[1:58:24] Kathy Weier:** That's right. Right. Like updating—I think—I think somebody who's reasonably tech-savvy would get it pretty quick. **[1:58:32] Ryan Eisele:** Yeah. Okay. I just haven't wanted to add it to Theresa's plate because—No, that's a lot right now. Her plate is—No, we can figure that out. Pretty full. So updating is a problem once. I I think anybody, you know, he'll get it. We'll—we'll explain it. **[1:58:55] Kathy Weier:** And I guess my other question as well is um so if he is working part-time here like he he said—you said Landfall was the one that he had done part-time. **[1:59:08] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah. **[1:59:10] Kathy Weier:** Did they also have other staff there or— **[1:59:15] Alan (City Attorney):** Landfall has essentially Scott as the city administrator, but the city's laid out a little differently. So the whole city is actually a park made up of manufactured homes. So the city runs the streets and all the public works and the the park is its own sort of separate entity and that's run by a park manager and then we have nominally a a two-thirds FTE for the financial piece more the city clerk and uh and finance. **[1:59:45] Kathy Weier:** Okay. So there's staff there too. So it's not one person that he's magically doing 10 hours for a full-time job for that. Okay. Do we want to specify as hours worked—like when specifically he's going to be here? **[2:00:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um we are sort of in a rethinking mode on all of that. Um what we found from those surveys is people like automation—right—doing things online. So, if we can beef up the website to take care of—where people can take care of business online, where they have very little need to come into the office, then we really don't need a person physically here. Um, so we were trying to balance that with customer service, right? Because we want to be available to our residents. So, yes, he said he could come here, you know, for a certain amount of hours. I think it was Thursday, he said. **[2:01:02] Ryan Eisele:** I think—Yeah, I think you're right. **[2:01:05] Alan (City Attorney):** Um, if it helps, I can tell you how he manages that in landfall. Yeah. So, we've modified the phone system so that if he gives out his number for his desk, it's if he's not there to answer it, it automatically goes to his cell phone, his mobile. So, he's always on, if you will. **[2:01:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, I'm just wondering from a contractual standpoint if we have to say these are the hours we want you working, right? No. Um, basically we're gonna allow him flexibility. Okay. Uh, I think what we all talked about is we just want—there's going to be certain tasks that are assigned to Therese and certain tasks that are assigned to Scott. Just get your job done. You know, you got 20 hours to get your job done. Okay. So, or being independent, you know. So, if he's here on Thursday, are we having Therese? She enjoys being here. **[2:02:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, I'm I'm never going to keep someone from being here. But as far as—No, she works. She likes to physically be here to work. Okay. So, she is here. Just the door is not unlocked because when the door is open, then you know, and rightly so, residents have an opportunity to come in and and chat, which is great, and they should be allowed to do that, but she can't get her stuff done when she's visiting. So, um but she is here. **[2:02:46] Kathy Weier:** Okay. So, we just have to, you know, we're rethinking this whole thing, right? And how the city can be run without a full-time. **[2:03:02] Ryan Eisele:** I think residents will be pretty understanding of less—of fewer office hours if we don't have full-time staff. That's my feeling is that one of the reasons was people saw that we seem to have full-time staff and that the office wasn't staffed. And I think residents will be pretty understanding of that. So, I'm fine with that. I'm thinking as long as we are meeting their needs—that's—that's right—you know—and we need to be able to do that—what—you know—and if that is going to require more physical time here—fine—but I would like just to explore a different—it—a different way of doing things. **[2:03:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** we can do appointment as well right right fine with me y just try it out if it doesn't work that's why it's provisional if it doesn't work well— **[2:03:52] Kathy Weier:** I assume we would have that that individual well Scott potentially here for meetings as well then to go through all of their portion. **[2:04:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** So that I would make non-conditional. Okay. As far as like you must be at our city council meeting. Okay. Because that has a specific time and date for each month. Yeah. **[2:04:18] Kathy Weier:** Other than that, if we're doing 20 hours a week, if he wants to do two, what would that be? four hours a day for across all five days or 20 hours over two days. Two days actually. **[2:04:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** I don't have a preference again as long as everything's getting done and and residents are getting their answers answered. And I think with realigning um job responsibilities between him and Therese, it can be run that way. You know, she can take care of things that maybe you have to be here physically to take care of. So ideally there should be a little bit of cross training so people can vacation etc. **[2:05:15] Kathy Weier:** but absolutely we also talked about that. Yes. And then the other portion as far as staffing would be um we do have some older residents that like to be walked through things. So in the event that let's say permitting was on his plate and I don't want to take Theresa's time to then have her doing his portion if someone needs additional help. So I would like him available potentially for appointment only. **[2:05:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. But that would be my my two cents as far as what I would like. Thank you. Anybody else? Can we just um ESST? Are we doing any of that, do you think? **[2:06:05] Alan (City Attorney):** I don't think we do normally would do that. **[2:06:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, we would do ESST and we're proposing a policy on that. If you want to establish vacation, we could amend our policy for his vacation. And I would suggest that in the contract we refer to our policy and then if he wants to negotiate something, we update our policy based on his preferences. if you want to negotiate vacation with him. And so, I mean, we can put it in the contract, too. But if if we do that, then we have we can eliminate our conflicts. We just refer to the policy in the contract. **[2:06:48] Alan (City Attorney):** Okay. If it's truly part-time and it truly is provisional, yeah, we can call it that and just say no contract until we get through that provisional period. And that gives us time to kind of feel out whether it works, right? And it's just not a benefit or or vacation um what do you want to say—accruing position. It's just straight part-time with some expectations and then we can deal with the with the vacation stuff and the actual contract. That's just one way to do it as opposed to having to worry about a contract long-term. **[2:07:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** That's a good idea. We also anticipate if he's part-time elsewhere as well, he might have health insurance, etc. that's going to be carrying over already for those. **[2:07:45] Alan (City Attorney):** I think he's in Maple Lake because that's full-time. **[2:07:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** Oh, okay. **[2:07:50] Kathy Weier:** So, in the event he's keeping that and doesn't need dual insurance because that would be impressive but probably not necessary. Um, I'm—I'm okay adjusting other aspects when we're not paying that. But Okay. **[2:08:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. So, can I get a motion to extend the offer to Mr. Hildebrand? Would you like me to— **[2:08:18] Alan (City Attorney):** articulate a motion? **[2:08:20] Jennifer Arsenault:** Conditions. Would you please? **[2:08:22] Alan (City Attorney):** Sure. I think—suggesting—is that an offer letter go out to Mr. Hildebrand um offering employment part-time employment by with the city to be the city's um provisional city clerk administrator for 20 hours a week at a rate of $36 per hour. And that appointment would be six months provisionally with a review after 90 and then after the final 90 days. And the expectations would be to prepare for and attend city council meetings to provide uh Thursday afternoon office hours as well as availability for appointment only appointments with residents. Perfect. **[2:08:58] Bridget Sperl:** Would you move that? Yes. **[2:09:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** So moved. Can I second? **[2:09:05] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[2:09:07] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:09:08] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:09:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** you okay, Ryan? **[2:09:12] Ryan Eisele:** I'm just happy with what you guys did. I'm happy with it. I'm just—This wasn't my thing to pay attention to. So, good job. **[2:09:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah. All right. Where are we at now? So, we're now—we're doing the pull outs from the consent agenda. So, the first one was—I—I think Kathy, you asked for that to be pulled, was it? **[2:09:40] Kathy Weier:** No. No. **[2:09:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Kathy. Let's just start with A then—the treasurer's report. And the only reason I asked to have that pulled out is I wanted just to point out to you guys that I asked Marsha if she could um provide a different way of reporting. **[2:10:02] Kathy Weier:** Oh, I saw that chart in there. That's great. Yeah. **[2:10:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** I was wonder—I just wanted to get your feedback on it. **[2:10:08] Ryan Eisele:** Great. Yeah. **[2:10:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um it's the one towards the end. Wish I had page numbers. Um, it's—the—where it's the horizontal chart that has the gray and white like alternating lines. It's getting late. I told you I can't do late meetings. **[2:10:35] Kathy Weier:** We're on page 84. Or is that the money? Oh, I don't know where. **[2:10:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** But anyway, if—if you notice the chart itself, um reports out by month um how much each of the general funds categories are spending per month and it compares it to budget and it'll give us a percentage of the budget that we've spent already. **[1:55:00] Kathy Weier:** Is that the one on page 95? **[1:55:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** If you were looking, I gave up looking. interim financial report monthly system. Yeah, thank you. That's what it is. Page 95. Thanks. Yes. Um, so I wanted—It's hard for me to make good financial decisions without good data and um I thought this would be helpful. The only thing we're going to change if you guys like this format, I was um this breaks down quarter—like the total budget quarterly. So, if you look at—I was looking at the street sweeping for example and if you look at that one it says $1,000 and I had a question for her about that because I didn't understand why our total amount budgeted was a thousand and then I come here and I see a thousand and Marsha explained that that's because this is a quarterly report so you get a quarter of the actual budget. Okay, which is confusing to me. So she said that she could do it differently and just give us the annual. **[1:56:12] Ryan Hankins:** We could do annual. I think that would be right. **[1:56:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** Do you like the looks of this and does this give you enough data um so that we can make good decisions? **[1:56:24] Kathy Weier:** I I thought it was helpful too in that when we—because we're entering budgeting season for next year already and it would be nice to see where we stand each month—like how much we're spending in the different categories. **[1:56:42] Ryan Eisele:** Can—can you have them um adjust slightly on the—like where it says total account 310. Yeah. Um I don't know the accounts specifically. Right. So if we could just include a word or two after that that says general fund or you know whatever it happens to be that we're actually pulling from them. **[1:57:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well that total account for 310 includes the two above. **[1:57:12] Ryan Eisele:** Right. Yeah. Or one above. I assumed as much but I wanted to verify that what we're looking at kind of thing. And then the other portion that I would love to include if we have the ability is anything we have already earmarked for something later in the year. **[1:57:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** Earmark that is already set up to be spent. Got it. Pork barrel. **[1:57:38] Kathy Weier:** Yeah. Like earmarked funds. For instance, like we have the—the parks committee—that special revenue fund. We have $10,000 we've committed to the match grant. We can't spend that. **[1:57:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay, good. That's a good suggestion. That would be the other thing. I I don't know how she wants to differentiate that it's unspent at this point, but earmarked, but I would like to have that in front of me when I'm reviewing in general if possible. **[1:58:12] Kathy Weier:** And anybody else have suggestions? Is there a way that she could flag areas of concern? **[1:58:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yeah. Um I was just going by the percent of—percent of budget, but she could. I think that would be helpful. **[1:58:40] Ryan Eisele:** Okay. Anything else? **[1:58:42] Kathy Weier:** I know we haven't gotten our taxes uh funds yet this year, so that will adjust some of these numbers, right? So, if—if you're concerned about totals that hasn't happened yet to and like refill the coffers. **[1:58:58] Ryan Eisele:** I have a just a thing to pull out of the treasure's report when we get a chance. Is that—is this an okay time or we— **[1:59:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Sure. I'm just—Are you guys—Is there any—Okay, I like it. **[1:59:12] Ryan Eisele:** A grade. Yeah, I like it a lot. So, I would like to on page 69 of the agenda um there's a uh—it's the second one down from the bottom. It's from Andy Sorenson. It's the window from—for the warming house. Um, this is the second time this has happened with supplies for the ice rank purchased without authorization. Um, I don't think we can—not pay this, but I do think, um, could we just pull this out for a month and—and just have Andy come into the meeting next month? **[1:59:58] Jennifer Arsenault:** I did get some information on that. Yeah. **[2:00:02] Ryan Eisele:** Was that—Go ahead then. Huh? Go ahead. **[2:00:08] Jennifer Arsenault:** Um, so apparently what had happened—this occurred in December of last year. Yep. And the window was broken. Uh, Jim had boarded it up and it was a matter of like—we need to get an a new window in there and because it was under 500, um, he was just told to go ahead and replace it. **[2:00:32] Ryan Eisele:** Oh, so this was staff authorized. **[2:00:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. **[2:00:36] Ryan Eisele:** Okay. Okay. Then I won't—then let's just leave that be. I'm glad we got an explanation and like going like—Okay, great. Thank you. **[2:00:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, with that, I will move to approve the treasurer's report. **[2:00:54] Ryan Eisele:** Great. Can I get a second? **[2:00:56] Kathy Weier:** I'll second, Kathy. **[2:00:58] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:01:00] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:01:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** Motion passes. Um, okay. The next thing pull out was B the March um city council meeting minutes. **[2:01:15] Bridget Sperl:** Yeah, I had something I thought was wrong and now I can't find it. So, I'm just going to move—move to approve the March 11th city council meeting. **[2:01:28] Ryan Eisele:** Second. **[2:01:32] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:01:34] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:01:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** Motion passes. Um, let's go on to F. Um, Kathy, that was the keyless entry. **[2:01:45] Kathy Weier:** Yes. Um, since we had approved this before. Yes. Did we purchase anything last time? Because they brought in a sample for us to look at. **[2:01:58] Jennifer Arsenault:** It was never purchased. You had authorized a—What do you mean by—be—What do you say—before? Or do you mean like when we authorized it last time like two years ago? **[2:02:10] Kathy Weier:** Years ago. **[2:02:12] Jennifer Arsenault:** So I bought something. You had brought it. **[2:02:15] Kathy Weier:** I had bought something and then there were some concerns about the wireless technology and um I returned it to the store and it was okay. **[2:02:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** So there's—I would just do it fresh again here. That was a long—No, I absolutely agree to that. But as—I wanted to make sure if we had this laying around that we were using— **[2:02:35] Kathy Weier:** I returned it. **[2:02:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** So what I found. Yeah. So, we're going to refer um Therese to Tucky Dudes and see what they— **[2:02:48] Kathy Weier:** Sounds great. **[2:02:50] Jennifer Arsenault:** Go from there. Um so, any other questions about the keyless entry? **[2:02:58] Kathy Weier:** I mean, I have questions, but I think it's going to be based on whatever they recommend and—and how that works afterwards. **[2:03:05] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. Well, are we just going to say like whatever they recommend—like whether that be a key fob or a pad or— **[2:03:12] Ryan Eisele:** keypad—I don't know. **[2:03:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** We're going to go—we're going to explore options. Okay. We want something so we can make it available to people via remote access so they can call up Scott in wherever Scott lives and get access to the city hall. **[2:03:32] Ryan Eisele:** Well, if somebody wants to—Oh, someone's renting the facility that they can log in. **[2:03:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** That's right. That's what it is. Yeah. But um there's different ways of doing it where um like I've had experience with the keypads where each person gets a code. So you know and you know who's in the building then. **[2:03:55] Ryan Eisele:** Yep. Right. And I think we'll just have to explore it. Something like that. But yeah, whatever you guys—Yeah. just—Yeah. If—if it has a time frame too where it's your code can expire by a certain point. I've seen that as well which is lovely because then if someone has rented the facility for right—whatever time frame that—Yep. you can punch in—they don't get that code forever. So that's—that's—so yeah we'll explore all those options. **[2:04:30] Jennifer Arsenault:** Any other questions about it? Okay. Can I have a motion to— **[2:04:38] Bridget Sperl:** I'll move to approve the—I've over this. I don't know what page it's on. 33. Resolution 2025-33. Um, I would move that we approve—What page did you say it was? Sorry. Oh, here it is. I found it. Found it. Okay. Um resolution 2025-33 to spend up to $1,000 on keyless entry system. **[2:05:15] Jennifer Arsenault:** I have a second. **[2:05:18] Ryan Eisele:** I'll second. **[2:05:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:05:24] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:05:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. Okay. H. **[2:05:35] Jennifer Arsenault:** H is um resolution 2025-35 to approve a request for bid for a planning firm and permit processing service. Um, as—and I pulled it out because as Ryan Hankins has stated, he's got some current concerns about the current um application of ordinances to permitting and to variances and I I think his concern is valid. Um, we as caretakers of the city do not want to put our city in legal jeopardy, right? We want to take—be careful with how our money is spent, be careful with the way we make decisions. Um and going forward, we need to make sure that our processes are sound and legally—what am I trying to say? Defensible. Defensible. Thank you. Wow. Same word from two people. **[2:06:45] Ryan Hankins:** Clearly the correct word then. **[2:06:48] Jennifer Arsenault:** Yes. So, it was suggested that we um put permitting out to an RFP, which I'm not totally against. However, um I was wondering—I just want to open this up for discussion to see what everybody else thinks about it. Um i'm willing to have a trial period. Uh, one of the planning commissioners mentioned possibly doing a uh, workshop with our current planner and the planning commission to go over code and how it's applied and whatever. I'm willing to explore that possibility if other people are interested in it. But basically, I want to know um, what the rest of you think. I know Ryan has some strong feelings, but why don't we let other people talk before—before I go? **[2:07:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, does anybody have any ideas? Bridget, do you— **[2:07:55] Bridget Sperl:** I really like the idea of—of the RFP and bringing somebody in who has got a lot of experience, who's got a lot of systems, who's got backup. So, that's what I am. **[2:08:12] Jennifer Arsenault:** Have you thought anything about it, Ryan? **[2:08:15] Ryan Eisele:** Like I—I'm torn. I mean, to be honest, I don't feel like I have—like I—I don't know what software we have. I don't know—like are we—is it going to be redundant? We're going to be paying for this software for permitting and then get a RFP and—um—RFB, I'm sorry. and then like have redundant software—like I don't feel like I have a full grasp of the situation to really make a intelligent decision on this and those are—I mean that's kind of one of the reasons why—another one is like—like these things are coming out of the planning commission and is it strictly the fault of the city planner and not the the people looking at it like where—those—those things should—not—should all be finished and finalized by the city planner. **[2:09:12] Ryan Hankins:** The only thing the planning commission should be doing is voting the variances up or down and basically adopting the findings of fact that were put forward by the city planner. And the city planner should provide you a guarantee that the permit that will be issued as a result of those variances is um is fully allowed by those variances. And that's kind of the, you know, the immediate issue here that we were discussing earlier is we have to know that the variances that are coming through allow the permit to be issued. **[2:09:45] Ryan Eisele:** So, so then what's the point of the planning commission? **[2:09:50] Alan (City Attorney):** The planning commission recommends to the council whether variances should be approved or denied. And so if those variances are approved, then the permit can be issued. If the variances are not approved, then the permit has to be modified or can't be issued. That's also recognized in the zoning um ordinance or I should say statute at the state level. So it talks about a planning agency for cities and that for many cities is called the planning commission. So it's a chance to slow down projects and ask the questions of does it fit what we want to do here, things of that nature. **[2:10:35] Ryan Eisele:** One of the things I need—I—sorry I was going to say—but if their sole purpose is only to say yes or no when it still has to go to council to say yes or no with the exact same information. It seems like it's redundant to me. **[2:10:55] Alan (City Attorney):** Sometimes it changes and it's really a citizen review kind of a gut check by the by the residents for what's going on. **[2:11:05] Ryan Eisele:** And so that's the thing. It's like if there's not a critical eye at the—like at that step, you know what I mean? For them to say like, oh, like this doesn't seem right either, or we, you know, that I think that's a process issue here. **[2:11:25] Ryan Hankins:** And I think, you know, there's—there's a bigger picture here, which is the planning commission has been really frustrated because for the same reason we were frustrated—well, maybe not you guys, but me—last meeting was that I didn't have enough information to evaluate the variances there. And I I don't think what's coming in from the planner is the only issue, but I think we need to work really hard to—to empower the planning commission to make good decisions. And we've really—we've passed ordinances. We passed a ordinance, you know, adding a bunch of requirements for variances for appeals. um for other things. Um we've really struggled to get to a point where the planning commission even understands what it's voting on and in fact in the last meeting it was—I didn't understand and few people will rival me in Birchwood in terms of zoning nerdiness. So like—so we—we I think you know and so that's but I think the planning commission can be a really valuable thing for us and it can take and—and one of the other things that happened at the planning commission meeting and this is actually a really good step—we've started these pre-meetings and so there was a variance up at five five four five Oaks Lane—up—up there somewhere—um and they came into the planning commission and the planning commission—it wasn't even an application—it was just a discussion. They said, "We're not likely to approve this." So, they didn't apply. And so, that kept that off our plate. What we've been doing before was basically everybody who wanted to apply went to the planning commission with an application and that would come to the council no matter what. And then you would get kind of this—people had paid their fee. So, they're going to come to the council meeting even if it wasn't likely they get an acceptance. So, um, in this case, the planning commission at least runs a little bit of interference for us. In some bigger cities, and we could do this here, too, though I don't know that it's a great idea. The planning commission actually does the approvals of variances itself. So, but I I think we're a long way from getting to that point. **[2:13:32] Ryan Eisele:** I I just am I guess a little skeptical that someone's just gonna come here and save us. You know what I mean? But and and that's what—and let me rephrase that. I I don't feel like our ducks are in a row on some of this stuff and is it better serve for us to get our ducks in a row before we do a request for a bid? **[2:13:58] Ryan Hankins:** I guess my—so I can give you a little bit of an answer to that is I have been very hesitant to try to get the—to try to empower the—the planning commission um to be a little more effective um because I think we need to make sure that they have the inputs they need to be effective and we so far haven't gotten those from our current planner and that we haven't gotten those—well from our current planner—that means that They need when there's a height variance, they need a clear diagram of the height of the structure. Um, you know, when there's a retaining wall variance in play, they need it to be called out that a retaining wall over 7 ft, they need all the variances called out to them so that they can be effective at all. It's not and will never and should never be the function of the planning commission to determine what does and doesn't meet code or not. That's the—and that's really the function of city staff. And we—we—and that's really my concern here—is we seem to have a real deficit, a lack of capacity in the city to take in a zoning application and determine whether or not it meets code and which codes it does or doesn't meet. And that responsibility has been coming to me quite a bit. Um, I'm not going to, and you saw that in the meeting there, was basically that responsibility for determining what met code was coming to me. And that kind of can't happen here. **[2:15:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, and I agree with that. I I don't think it's any council member's place to be doing that function. It should be city staff. **[2:15:52] Ryan Hankins:** And then I think the question is we've—and—and so the other thing I can tell you is we've done a lot of work in our ordinances. There are still ambiguities. People want to—there's a lot of discussion about the tops of retaining walls—and I accept that those—Ellen's smiling—but I accept that those you know ambiguities in our code. There are other things that are not ambiguous—like what—whether a variance is required for a 7 foot retaining wall um when a—the code says that retaining walls are limited to four feet. and we've seen those things not being called out and it's been kind of a consistent issue there um with variances coming through. I would guess some of that is happening on permits as well, though I don't look at those—where we can't necessarily define our codes anymore clearly. There's no ambiguity there and yet these things are making it often all the way to the council without the kind of unambiguous variance request in place. **[2:17:02] Bridget Sperl:** And then—so—so well when we talked with [redacted] the thing that I really liked about them but it could be any kind of agency that does this is they said a couple of things. One they will look at our ordinances understand them and suggest ways to make them better. Two they will make sure that the process is clean. So they're the ones that are checking that everything is complete. It's our most complicated process. It's our most high visibility process. If they have turnover in one of these large organization, they've got backfill. If we have turnover in our little organization, we just have a mess. Yeah. and—and so for that reason alone, I would say let's get somebody in here who does this really well and who's got backup and then—I can't remember Ryan what their sort of culpability is but—but they are on the line for making sure that this stuff is right and I I don't know that—was one of the things we were really struggling with here—with the—with this recent one was—right I had asked the city planner, can you go from this? Can you assure me that from these variance approvals, you can legally issue permits? and I got something about four lawyers and um that's one thing I think [redacted] will do clearly is that they'll put their reputation on the line and basically say based on my liability assurance based on my professional reputation I guarantee you—or in you know they won't say I guarantee but in the best of my opinion they'll lawyer it a little bit right and say that it's my opinion that these permits can be issued at this time—it give us more protection. **[2:18:42] Kathy Weier:** Yeah. So, I I have a few comments about all this. Um I agree with Ryan Eisele regarding um we already have a permit process services that we've paid quite dearly for at this point and it's one of our largest functions of our administration staff that if we are taking that out of house, what are we having our staff do that will change roles? That is a big concern. I also have a big concern about moving this outside of the city because records are not maintained as well when it's outside of the city. There is another concern. We can't have this leaving the city. We need to have it here. The other portion that I'm concerned about—Bolton and Menk or any other person because I assume if we're opening this up anyone could apply. Um if they are professional planner, Ben is as well as far as the information that they submit for that—the best of their ability, they are reviewing something that exists and will be making a recommendation based on what they have available. But if they don't get all the information from the person or they change—which we know no one in our city would ever try and change the plans after they've already been approved, but it happens. So, no one is going to give you a legal confirmation that there's no way any of this will ever change because they legally can't. So, if we're getting rid of an individual or requesting that person resubmit for this job, I'm actually leaning towards having the planning commission meet with our current planner instead of breaking down what we already have and see if we can fix what we already have because we're also looking at hiring a new individual. And if we have a six-month time frame for that, if—if we are discovering that we don't need that much uh individual use for the administrator, there's a lot of variables going on here. So, I'm not necessarily a fan of actually doing the RFP for this because I feel like we have several steps before we throw out the bath water with the baby. **[2:20:55] Ryan Eisele:** I I'm torn, but I also like the idea of having more than one person having their eyes on things. So like if it was a bigger firm like it would be hopefully not just one guy saying, "I think that looks good" and sending it through. it would be—little—a little more of a critical or a little more of a process to get it from, you know, submission to actual execution of the permit. Um, the other thing I'm concerned with is just—and I don't know how to articulate this very well. Hopefully, I can, but I might need your help with this, Alan. as the council, right? And someone applies for a permit, they need a variance and then it goes to the planning commission, it was done incorrectly and they come to us—is really our only job to vote yes or no to that. And then if we find out something was done incorrectly, direct staff to correct that issue—or it's not our job to then tell that individual, hey, you missed all these variances and—can—I'm just—I'm trying to think of the address that a little bit. **[2:21:55] Ryan Hankins:** Ryan, maybe I need to read Robert's rules again or something. I mean, I guess one of the things is—the planners seem to send a lot of people emails lately. Um, but one of the concerns I have is he basically said you have to trust your staff. And I agree that we have to develop trust in our staff. The problem is I think we—that the council also has an oversight role and um, you know, here where there's something objectively wrong and we're seeing it in a council meeting, I think it's absolutely our responsibility to fix it and to protect the city. Now, having said that, um, you know, I'm getting applications or portions of applications sent to me with comments like, "Hey, Ryan, is this good enough for you?" Um, which that—that's unacceptable. **[2:22:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** That's not acceptable to me. **[2:22:48] Ryan Hankins:** Yes. And I basically have—I've kind of said to Jen, um, you know, there's been a lot of this going on. I it's—I don't think a lot of people in the council have necessarily seen it. And I've kind of said to Jen that I'm not going to do that role anymore. And as these things kind of arise, as did this issue with Pratt last month, we're basically I think going to move—have to move toward handling all those at the council level. So, for example, I got the retaining wall variance corrected between the planning commission—actually and the planning commission meeting. Um, going forward, I'm just going to let all that stuff come up to the council because I think it's really it's at this point it's really important for people to see the quality of the applications that are coming forward rather than—the other thing is on this 425 Lake Avenue one where an application was accepted without all the criteria being completed. I said, "Hey, maybe we need to—I actually talked to Allan. I said, "Hey, need to push this out a month. I think the council going forward probably—I think we should bring all those forward to the council." This is such a—we can see all those—just this conversation. It is so broken. It's got to get fixed. **[2:24:00] Ryan Eisele:** So, so here—here is—is my concern because I see how—in my interpretation of things—is the way that things should be going um or or should be done is basically it comes to us we say yes or no and then let's say we say no and then I just envision this perpetual cycle of us being like—you did it wrong go back to the planning commission—you did it wrong go back to the planning commission—and I think Ryan has been gracious with his time on the planning commission to try to resolve these issues and then try to resolve them on council when I don't necessarily think it's in council's scope to be doing that. And so—so I would—I would if—if the fact is that that these applications have not been coming in correct and that there's so many issues then I I do think that an an RFP is going to be required because we need—like Bridget said—we need to fix this process. I mean, and am I wrong by like outlining the—what the process should look like, Alan, or am I like— **[2:24:55] Alan (City Attorney):** Well, I'll offer a couple of things. Hopefully, they're helpful. You know, let's just take a—a new application, right? Just start from that. So, everyone has a right to apply for anyone, anything, right? And all of this stuff rolls up to you because the planning commission is merely advisory, right? they're there and they might throw up their hands and say, "We can't even make you a recommendation because we're evenly split." And that's happened before. And so the important critical steps are to start with the planning, basically the 15/60 rule, which talks about what happens when these applications come in. It starts a clock ticking. And I've t—I've told you guys before, as soon as we get an application, I think staff should push out an extension letter immediately, right? because these things come up and because you've got a fairly complex zoning code with a lot of working parts that really need to be addressed and we've seen some of that firsthand. So buy yourselves the extra 60 days right off the bat, right? because that takes some of the pressure off of staff no matter who's doing the work, right? And you've only got a couple of weeks basically to decide whether or not the application is complete. So to your point, by the time it gets up to you after it's gone through staff, the planning commission, and then for a final vote, if it gets kicked back at that point because well, hey, it's not complete or hey, you're missing one of these. I mean, the look is bad, right? but it should be caught long before that going on, right? Is we—is—and I want to—like—I want to defer to Jen because you've been looking for a chance to say something, right? **[2:26:12] Jennifer Arsenault:** I just have one question. And when someone—when a resident comes to the office and wants to fill out a building permit, fills it out online, whatever, what's the next step? Who gets it? **[2:26:30] Alan (City Attorney):** Is it—It depends what it is. If it's—like—we have a diagram for [redacted] that basically is a flowchart. **[2:26:40] Jennifer Arsenault:** But now what's our current process currently—Hankins? **[2:26:45] Ryan Hankins:** I think we need a—what I was going is we need a flowchart and we need to be documenting our processes if we're going to like right now. I think basically somebody in the city makes a decision about where this goes and everything should be going to one individual probably the city planner and then the city planner should send it out based on his judgment. Is there storm water management? It goes to the engineer. Is there stuff for the building inspector? Almost always that goes to him. Is there stuff for um the DNR? Something that goes to the DNR and then you have kind of one place. Now you can do that with our permit management system. We can also have an outside firm and this kind of resolves the records management issues. Basically they—they would store everything in our own records management permitting system there. But—like—that flow and that process is something that's—we basically treat the planner as kind of as Therese's person and then that goes to the planner. The problem is sometimes staff make a judgment that the planner isn't needed. This is just a building permit issue and that was kind of what happened down at this variance on Lake Avenue. Um, and—not the variance—the appeal down there on Lake Avenue, the Mahoney and Herrods there where was basically the planner got missed on that because okay Theresa or Becky or whoever determined that that was not a planning issue and it only went to the building inspector and it got approved without going through that process. And so yeah, the other thing is—I think Alan, can—do—do you have something else? Okay, so the other thing I think is—one of the things that's really been difficult is we have this 14-day and Alan mentioned 15/60. We have 14 days after we get a variance or a traditional use permit basically to say this document is good enough. It has all the information the planning commission needs and it can go—it can go to the planning commission and they can decide it based on this. Once that 14 days has expired we can ask nicely but we can't reject the application as not having stuff and that's something that's really been a struggle and that's where we've been defining those lists of things. Um but even after having defined lists of things—like—stuff is still coming in that is nowhere near complete going to the planning commission and then we're just getting a really—really bad results because— **[2:29:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** but that should not be getting to the planning commission. **[2:29:45] Ryan Hankins:** It's—correct. It shouldn't be—it should be sent back to the applicant. And that was also that discussion we had right with the with the Shyski variance last week was um Ben did you determine that this application was incomplete? He said no therefore it's come to us it doesn't meet our requirements that are encoded in the ordinance and yet the 14-day window is expired. So we're kind of—that's—and that's one of the things when you saw in that letter this person has been back five times in front of the planning commission or council. **[2:30:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** No, it can't. And it starts with the staff here who are—not—I mean—who are not experts in this but we expect them to be experts in this and then they turn over and then we expect some new person to become expert. It it just doesn't make sense. And— **[2:30:52] Alan (City Attorney):** if I may, just in defense of not only the process, but really the planner that's currently in that role for a small city, it's pretty typical to expect that a lot of these folks do their homework before they approach the city, right? So there's always that tension there of, you know, how much of this work should be on the person who wants to do these things and do the homework upfront before they put an application in so that the city isn't caught going, "Well, we'll give you this, but did we tell you that we need you to do this and this and this, too. Sorry if we didn't tell you, you know, we'll see you next month sort of a thing." So it it's tough when you don't have a full-time planning staff and department that can actually meet for these pre-planning sessions so that the planning—bigger cities can do that, right? they can sit down and say where you're going to need a variance for this and a permit for that etc etc and go through the code. You just don't have that luxury here. So that's part of the problem. **[2:31:54] Kathy Weier:** We—we were told when we bought the software that we had that there was a checklist of some sort that was going to be used. I don't believe that that was—I haven't seen it. **[2:32:05] Ryan Eisele:** Yeah. So as far as whatever software we currently have—if we are hiring someone new who has the ability to look at that there is a potential that we are not utilizing the software that we already have. **[2:32:20] Jennifer Arsenault:** Well, Hankins, you said that there's firms out there that can utilize that software or can plug into it— **[2:32:30] Ryan Hankins:** when—I would think any major planning firm, they basically—when we talked to [redacted] and they did say—they basically said specifically that they were going to get logged into that. There would be no and that everybody who would do—who was doing paper permitting would have to pay a little extra. Don't do that. And then it'll basically be a pretty streamlined process where you know you've got a big—Yeah. And— **[2:32:55] Alan (City Attorney):** perhaps the answer for you guys is that you do have sort of a pre-application process with whatever you move forward with so that it's a little more, you know, fully vetted before the application comes in or two weeks goes by real fast once you've got an application. And it's a big thing with multiple variances being requested. I mean, and that's not something you can extend. That's the problem. **[2:33:22] Kathy Weier:** So, I'm fine with that. I guess—I think we've added pretty significant codes that describe basically what our application requirements are. It just doesn't seem to me like it should take 14 days to determine whether a variance application is complete. It would take me on most of these an hour or two. So, but I have a feeling that our city staff is trying to fit that in amongst all the other things that they're doing. So, if there's interruptions, etc. **[2:33:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** And I understand you can do it fast, but if our staff isn't—isn't as knowledgeable of our—our codes as they potentially should be, I do feel like there's a training m—miss that we're missing. And then also they're the person that's going to be called. It's not a city clerk's job. It should go directly to planner. **[2:34:12] Ryan Hankins:** Seems to me the city clerk can accept it, but then it goes straight to the planner who makes the decision. And that's the knowledge base there we—and I'm not sure how much there is going on there of like saying—oh hey a height variance is needed then it's reasonable to request a a drawing of this or a drawing of that. And I'm afraid to define that too clearly in policy because I think once you define something in policy then it becomes well this always has to happen and then you end up demanding documents that aren't always necessary there too. So like there there has to be in that part I think a little bit of judgment too. **[2:34:55] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. Well let let's—can I—I think we all agree that there's a problem—right—a serious problem with this procedure. whether we try to work it out in house or send it out for contract whatever—we have to solve this problem. So I guess—I think we've heard enough about what's going on. our—our decision tonight is whether we go out for a bid or not. I guess that's the resolution on the table. So, what I am wondering is—for one of our upcoming working sessions, would it make sense for um Therese to walk through the process and the software that they use downstairs and then maybe have um Bolton and Menk come in and explain their process so at least we can see sort of both sides of the house. **[2:35:45] Ryan Eisele:** That's correct. Yeah. Before we—Is there any decision—Is there any harm of doing a request for a bid? **[2:35:55] Alan (City Attorney):** There's none. We don't take any bids. What's that? **[2:36:02] Ryan Hankins:** The only thing I do think is—we have the—the one thing I think we need to think about here is—if we're going to do a request for a bid, we probably need to provide Ben an opportunity to bid. **[2:36:15] Alan (City Attorney):** So, we could—anybody can bid to this. Yeah, it's—it's open. So, I mean, you can— **[2:36:20] Ryan Eisele:** And then we have to decide. Okay. **[2:36:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, that's fine. We can do that—any—but we don't have to accept any bids either. We could just say hey we want bids to see what's out there. **[2:36:32] Bridget Sperl:** That's all it is. That's all it is. **[2:36:34] Kathy Weier:** I don't think there's—there's a harm in that. And like—I mean—we also have to take into account our budget as well. So we are going to not be able to afford all of the things that we potentially want because our budget is very limited. **[2:36:52] Ryan Hankins:** So—I—you know—and—we talked to [redacted] about that a little bit and basically— **[2:37:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** I think we should stop mentioning the specific uh company because I feel like that's favoritism to a group that hasn't actually applied yet. **[2:37:12] Ryan Hankins:** So I'm—no when we talked with them we said—we did say—we want—we will want to have other competitors in this. You are the first people we're talking with. So we were really clear and—it's our only example that we can— **[2:37:25] Jennifer Arsenault:** And I think that's why we're doing a an RFP here potentially—is, you know, we've just talked to one outfit. I don't know how many will are—are willing to do this. **[2:37:38] Ryan Hankins:** Bridget was excellent in the meeting and said, "Give me your competitors." So, and—and so, you know, I think that's what it is. Um but I—my estimation is that we would probably on balance be able to—one of the problems with Ben is—and and the way he's compensated is basically with a retainer and then he's billing through to the city. He has a proposal that would I think worsen things for us. So we're pay—paying him more or less out of tax levy dollars. I don't know that—I think it would be any worse on an hourly rate. I think we would likely actually end up with less coming out of tax levy dollars. So, yeah. And at this point, we're kind of getting in the weeds as opposed to just what you're here to talk about. **[2:38:32] Ryan Hankins:** So, I move to approve resolution 2025-35. **[2:38:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** Can I get a second? **[2:38:40] Bridget Sperl:** I'll second. **[2:38:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:38:44] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:38:45] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed. Motion passes. One other thing um before we adjourn. We have the two variances out there that have been just dragging—dragging. That is a disservice to our residents. How are we going to clean these up so these people can get on with their lives? Um yeah, I guess. Do you have any ideas? **[2:39:15] Kathy Weier:** Pardon? one is the wall which was the other one—we're talking about the one that we just talked about—for the variant—so the Pratt one I know we can probably clean up right in the next month and move—let them move on—but what about the wall—can we just figure this out somehow— **[2:39:35] Alan (City Attorney):** well so—Alan—can we—I think have we moved the wall variance basically fully over to Bolton and Menk the Shipsky variance? **[2:39:52] Jennifer Arsenault:** I don't think so. **[2:39:53] Alan (City Attorney):** could we move the—well in the background just so that everyone's aware we've been talking about how to move that forward and so um sort of some bullet point positions were pushed over to Boltland Bank—to—to our—to our city engineer frankly and so haven't heard back yet to see if we can't meet sometime this week and sort of a blessing on what we're thinking because that variance has come in like five with five revisions now. **[2:40:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** is—can we move that variance and the handling of that variance to Bolton and Menk? **[2:40:35] Kathy Weier:** We'd be paying for it, wouldn't we? **[2:40:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** I would be willing to—I'm willing to pay for it on this given how I think the handling that has gone so far. **[2:40:48] Alan (City Attorney):** I'm a little—the—the reservation I have is they're going to have to kind of come up to speed on codes pretty quickly. Um if we do that, what's that? They would—I don't um have your current planner contract in—in front of me, so I can't tell you whether there's any sort of exclusivity in there. Right. So that would be the only reservation I would have is you already have someone doing that job. So yeah. **[2:41:20] Jennifer Arsenault:** So how do we hold the city planner accountable to get that job done? **[2:41:25] Alan (City Attorney):** You tell him to get the job done. And I don't know where it's at in terms of what he's doing and looking at. I really don't. So, I'd be happy to reach out to him and and try to—to—I mean, I—I don't understand how this thing happened, but like it's just come back and come back and—like—it was—it's—it's—this is super frustrating and independent of my feelings on the variance. Um, you know, I—this has—come through again and again and we just were not able to assess which variances were needed on it. **[2:42:00] Alan Mitchell:** So, I'm fine with leaving it in the current process, but maybe what we just say is Allan, could we—could you just let us know? **[2:42:08] Alan (City Attorney):** I try to stay independent of that. **[2:42:10] Jennifer Arsenault:** If you notice that thing is backing up, could we just call a special meeting? Let us know and call a special meeting and figure out what we need to do to move that forward. **[2:42:20] Alan (City Attorney):** Sure. **[2:42:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** I'm—I'm—would like to move it to Bolton and Menk to get it forward, but I'm afraid that might back things up, but I am willing to come in and do a special meeting if we need to—like—do something just to kind of start moving these things forward. So, we need that one to move along for sure. So, and and—if you notice anything backing up—like—let's—let's have a special meeting. So, the other one I don't know—that one seems kind of wrapped up at this point, right? I think. **[2:42:48] Alan (City Attorney):** Yeah. And thank you for the email. I did get that. I think it's probably best since the person with the most experience with this is still your current city planner. So, I will reach out with the list that we came up with and try to gauge what kind of time it's going to take and if we can wrap that up this month. I mean, definitively. Yeah. If that's not realistic, then I don't mind reaching out to another um provider of that service, but you're already kind of in for the penny at this point. And so I would hate to have something that complex be thrown into another um firm's lap to start from zero. That seems inefficient. **[2:43:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Going forward, I mean, we'll get this cleaned up, the the Shipsky one, the Pratt one, but going forward, we cannot do this. It has to be a streamlined process. It's not fair to our residents to come in. If they come in with an incomplete application, the city shouldn't even accept it. It's just no, sorry, try again. Mhm. that it should stop right at the door. Yep. **[2:43:52] Alan (City Attorney):** And if it helps at all, I don't think that—assuming Scott's the person who's sitting next to me moving forward, he's got some experience in that regard. And so that'll be a very different set of eyes on these things when they come in. And I never get to see him with all due respect. And so it'd be nice. I mean, there are other folks that have been around that could have looked at some of this stuff that just have never had the opportunity. So, I think it might correct itself very quickly just with some changing of the guard. **[2:44:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Okay. **[2:44:23] Alan (City Attorney):** But I'll work on these specifically just because—I—I—get what you're laying down. Let's get them done. **[2:44:28] Ryan Hankins:** Well, I'm willing to look at processes, but I I guess—I think we—and I think we need to do that. I'm—I think we need to get over this current hump here with this—this other stuff going through. And I'll spend the next month thinking about that a little bit. **[2:44:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** So, we owe it to, as you said, the residents because I mean it's kind of unfair to them, especially when it all has to get meted out here, right? You know, that hurts everybody. **[2:44:55] Ryan Hankins:** So, it does. Yeah, because it's 9:30. [Laughter] **[2:45:02] Bridget Sperl:** Anyway, and I know you want to adjourn, but was this just FYI? No. That's what I thought. This is still—I'm just bringing it up because we haven't talked about it. So, go ahead. So, we've talked about this. I think this is my third time. **[2:45:18] Jennifer Arsenault:** Did it get added to the agenda? **[2:45:20] Bridget Sperl:** No. Um, it was accidentally left out tonight. **[2:45:22] Jennifer Arsenault:** Did you add it at the beginning? **[2:45:24] Bridget Sperl:** I was downstairs. I didn't get a chance to number anyway. I just feel like—Okay. Third time's one more. Yeah, we've talked about this. This uh resolution gives Parks and Natural Resources Committee the ability to um plan and budget and use DOC fees uh to um spend on parks and all of these good things. I move to approve resolution 2025-38. **[2:46:02] Ryan Eisele:** Do we want to put it up on the thing to get it actually in the record since no one else has a copy of it? **[2:46:08] Bridget Sperl:** Sure. Don't you have a copy? **[2:46:12] Ryan Eisele:** Well, I mean, I have a copy. The people who potentially would be watching from home should they want to actually look at it. I see. **[2:46:22] Bridget Sperl:** Turn on the specially named viewing device. Yeah, whatever that thing is called. I know it has a name, but anyway, we have a motion on the table. **[2:46:32] Ryan Eisele:** We have a second. Mhm. We can vote and we can show, right? Yep. **[2:46:38] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:46:40] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:46:42] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Any opposed? Motion passes. **[2:46:48] Bridget Sperl:** There it is. In all its glory. **[2:46:50] Jennifer Arsenault:** All its glory. **[2:46:52] Bridget Sperl:** Move to adjourn. **[2:46:54] Ryan Eisele:** I second. **[2:46:56] Jennifer Arsenault:** All in favor? **[2:46:58] Council Members:** Aye. **[2:47:02] Jennifer Arsenault:** I. Meeting adjourned. Thanks everyone. **[2:47:05] Bridget Sperl:** We did it. We did. We did it. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]