approve the uh regular agenda. Does anyone have any questions or any additions or changes to the agenda that has been presented? >> So move. >> So if there's none, I got a motion by Rick Syler and I will second that. So, if there's no questions, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 40. >> Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. Does anyone have any questions? Um, any items on the consent agenda? >> I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> I got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Rick Sire to approve the consent agenda. So, if there's no other questions or any other concerns, all in favor say I. I. >> Opposition. Okay. Passes 40. Next on the agenda is an animal control decision appeal. And Josh, can you kind of enlighten us on that? >> Yeah, I can give a little background information. So, Jay and Carla Linder Holm are requesting the removal of a dangerous dog classification for one of their former dogs. According to the Linder Holmes um and this information is in your packet, the dog in question is no longer living with them and is undergoing training to correct an alleged aggressive behavior um with then placement to a home who can better serve its needs. So I have just for your information I have um and kind of included our city ordinances in your packet and highlighted the ones that I thought were um of note in this particular case. Um I won't go too deep into it. believe uh I have not met the Linder Holmes, but there are people here who I have not seen before, so I'm assuming they're here for this >> and they may be able to speak as well being that this is their appeal. Um I should of note and I I just wanted to make note that there is no kind of large database as far as I'm aware of dangerous dogs. Um really any dog who carries the label in New Prague. We then report it to Scott or Lassour County per our ordinance. Um and as far as I can tell, it kind of stops there. So, for some reason a dog were to make its way over to even Rice County, there's really no reporting me means or mechanisms that we have in place that would have that label continue with the dog. But, um, they may be able to kind of expound on the situation a little bit more as why they feel even though they have um given up this dog, as far as I can understand, they're they're seeking to have this particular label removed. Um, I do also know I have spoke with the chief on this a number of times and hopefully between the two of us we can answer any questions you may have that staff would need to answer. >> The reason I wanted Scott here was so we could ask him. This doesn't have to be in an open hearing um setting. >> This this is not a public hearing. This is an appeal very similar to um uh while last fall there were a couple times when I denied a liquor or not a liquor a tobacco license. Um and in the same way they are now appealing an administrative ruling of a dangerous dog tag. So this isn't a public hearing per se, but it's a hearing um in front of the council. >> Sure. I guess my only question is in the event that we were to remove the label um is there any legal ramifications to the city? >> Not that I can tell per se. I mean, you obviously public perception certainly is there um with many things that a city may or may not do. Um but I mean, unless Tim found something, I don't know if there's a legal liability on our part. Well, I I just want to know is if we were to appear make that decision, that dog goes out and bites somebody, are we now liable? >> Well, that's that's why I'm saying there's any legal ramifications >> and I don't know that answer. Our state statute and our ordinance points to our animal control to make those decisions, not the city or the police department, which is I've invited Sandra with Minnesota Critters here. Maybe she would be better served to answer those questions as that decision maker. >> And I I understand that the dog is currently in training. Um, and where is that dog residing? >> Unleashed. Excuse me. If >> could you speak in the mic just so that >> Yeah, we can get you state your name. >> Ask a couple questions before we start the hearing process. >> Okay. Just take a seat right there and then we'll get you. >> Could you tell me where do we actually sit today? What is the classification that's been assigned? >> I I believe the dog has been assigned a dangerous dog classification. Correct, Tim? >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> One document refers to his potentially dangerous designation. So that changed. >> I I think Yeah. From from my understanding that was a previous designation and the second incident in the um packet kind of signifies when it moved to a dangerous dog. >> And then what did the animal control do with it after it's been classified? What did they >> She's here. Would you like to? >> Right. I guess but I just want to know from us from the city where do where do we understand we stand >> in the process >> the >> you just gave us an additional packet. >> Yeah. >> I just want to know what our starting point is. That's all. >> Yeah. >> Doug was quarantined is my understanding after the second incident. >> But was it in the situation of being an order for destruction or has that been made? No. >> No. I Yes. Yes. As far as I understand, the dog is alive right now and is quarantined or is is going through training at this point. There's been no order for destruction. >> So, animal control has determined to have it quarantined. >> Correct. >> And that's where we stand today. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> You know, not Okay. Go ahead. State your name and address, please. >> I'm Carla Linderhome, 1202 High View Drive, Northeast, New Prague, Minnesota. And when the incident happened, I owned the dog. His name is Lawrence. And I was out in my yard. I had him tied up. I ran in the house to get a garbage bag. >> We have we have all of that here. So, I think what we're trying to establish is where the dog is now and then where will he be in the future and what critter getters why they classified him as a dangerous dog. >> Okay. from from what I the reason that I disputed this is because I turned him back to the Minnesota Boxer Rescue. We decided that we couldn't take that. We just weren't the right home for him and it was a very difficult decision. We had him for a year and seven months um or a year and five months. So when it happened that night, he went to Crittergators for his 10-day quarantine. That was on March 4th, but he had to stay there 12 days because we were on vacation. So, we picked him up on Monday the uh 16th, I believe. Brought him home for two days and then I decided to take him out to Darren at Unleashed and get him. I needed to know for my own, you know, what was going on with him and what he thought if he was a dangerous dog because Dave from Critter Getters, I asked him flat out when I picked him up, is he a dangerous dog? And he said no. So, I took him to Darren to get evaluated and he's been there ever since. Because the boxer rescue can't take him if he's considered a dangerous dog because of liability. There's so much liability with it. Okay, I understand now. I have rescue dogs, so I >> Okay, >> just a second. Rescue can talk. >> Yeah. So, so I I I understand the situation that Lawrence might not be able to get readopted if he has this label or go into rescue. I have rescue dogs. I get it. Um, and I think the determination here is, you know, we have the report from the trainer saying that Lawrence seems to be doing well. Um, he's young. He has some anxiety issues. Um, I I understand that dogs need to mature a bit. Um, and they need to have um training and structure. And this seems to be all in line with the memo from the trainer. Um, and my heart goes out to Lawrence because I would sincerely like to see him find a new home. >> Um, and uh, not be caught in the adoption cycle. Um, I have I have a dog who has been adopted three times. He's finally uh with me and is has been with me for eight years. So I I understand. >> Okay. >> You're coming from Thank you, >> Carla. Who owns the dog right now? >> The boxer Minnesota Boxer Rescue. >> They have ownership of it, >> I believe. Right. >> Yeah. Can I get Who who's representing Critter Getter? >> So Oh, Crittergator or >> Yeah. Can you come forward and kind of explain from your point of view um what's going on? >> Good evening, mayor, members of the council. My name is Sandra Steinmets. I am the owner of Minnesota Critic. We've been doing animal control for New Preg for over 22 years. The way the d the way the potentially dangerous and the dangerous dog work is is twofold. All right. Potentially dangerous dogs. If a dogs attacks another person and or a dog, leaves blood marks, it is the first time always goes potential. All right? If it opens its mouth and bites, that is a potentially dangerous dog. He attacked without provocation. The dangerous dog is per the state of Minnesota. If a dog has a potentially dangerous on them and bites again and it is proven proven bite that we as animal control can designate that dog dangerous which is what we did. Okay. We also quarantine these animals. So we have a one-on-one um relationship with these animals. When Lawrence came in the first time, yes, he was hyper. He was young. We knew this did not pose a threat to anybody in your city or anybody handling him at that time. The dog at that time was recommended to go to training. All right, that what we do, you know, with any dog that potentially is potentially dangerous is please get them into training, have this looked at. All right, the second time we understand that the leash broke, Lawrence got loose, went after a lady with a dog, but there was no blood on this one. This was all hearsay because of the potential dangerous and the dog going after her which is an unprovoked attack. Even though the blood was not there, we did determine that that was a quarantine issue that we needed to take the dog to have the dog assessed again. Dog was with us. Lawrence is a great dog. With the proper training and the proper obedience and the proper handler, this dog has a has a tendency he could go along life. All right. The ramifications for the city. If we drop this down, we will drop it down potentially. I will not take that off the dog. The dog has bitten. He has drawn blood. I cannot do that for the state of Minnesota. I can't. So, but we can take the dangerous part off. As long as the dog leaves the city, as long as the people where this dog is residing tells us, so we can notify the police department that they have a potentially dangerous dog in their premise, which we do. And that we work with that local animal control. And we do this a lot. We've had a lot of bites. The boxer rescue is a great rescue. If they say they're going to take this dog and rehabilitate it and train it, I don't have an issue with this personally. I want to see Lawrence get the best for what life he has. That is where we stand. >> That's very helpful. Thank you. >> That's very helpful. Thank you. >> So, when a dog has a a dangerous tag on it, does that mean the next incident he's put down? We do not ever call for the destruction of a dog unless we're advised. We work closely with our police departments and if a dog has bitten and the owner is not following what we guideline for them, we will talk to the police. Tim and I have had many conversations over animals in this city. I think there's twice when I've called for the destruction of a dog and that's because the owners refused to cooperate at that time. Yes, we will. But because a dog bites a second time, no, we do not. Okay. >> We go straight to training. >> I just want to be clear when you said that it was classified potential and then a second incident occurred and you said it did not bite. What? >> I did not say it did not bite. I said it was not a blood bite. >> Oh, you said it did bite. >> It We were told the dog bit. >> Okay. that there was no blood evidence >> and that's what raised it to a dangerous designation >> because the dog broke leash and attacked went after the lady came off premises and went after the lady. So by state statute, how would you how would you legally take it off of that designation then if it actually did occur? How do you change history? >> It we aren't changing history. Okay. The dog has the two incidences always following it. What we're doing is dropping this dog to potential so it can get the proper training in the proper home with the proper people. >> Okay. Maybe I just don't understand. But if there's if the definition includes two bytes, >> definition does not include two bytes. That is something that >> the city and I the city and us have come up with. >> Okay. I thought that ordinance required. >> Yeah. So yeah, Bruce, as you go in there, it it kind of lays out what a potential dangerous dog is and what a dangerous dog is. It doesn't say specifically one. >> Doesn't say specifically b one, two bites. No. But basically what happens is as our animal control officer, Critter Getters is allowed to make that determination and then um through a hearing such as this, the city council has the ability to basically uphold or >> revoke >> revoke I would yeah revoke I don't know if I use that word but yeah like downgrade the classification maybe um kind of through this process. So yeah, it's not necessarily nobody's removing a tag, but it's kind of stating the tag was never really kind of placed there through the appeal process. >> Is there's not a database of these instances. Is there that >> the state of Minnesota is trying to get a dog dangerous dog database together? Unfortunately, they have not done it. They have been trying to do it for about 10 years. Okay. We have record of every dog that bites. >> You know, we have a list, >> but the state of Minnesota does not. It falls upon your animal control to follow these dogs, which we do. >> Right. >> Right. >> It seems like the definition pretty clearly says bitten one or more persons on two or more occasions. The fact that it's not a person that they bit, is that why we're saying it's not def in the definition? If you continue to read the definition, >> uh, >> um, it will state that if a dog is, if it attacks aggressively, um, if it chases, if it bites, I do not know if there's one or two bites. I'm sorry. >> I guess I'm not seeing that. I'm I'm looking at the definition, but >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so so I see I see the definition you're looking at. >> Are these Is this in our ordinance that we're looking at? >> Correct. Yeah. >> It's the stat it's the statutes actually. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Is that the state stats? >> Uh this would be our local ordinance. >> That's your local ordinance, not the state stats. >> Okay. >> Um yes. Uh but then throughout this whole process, we just go down to then the procedure process that talks about the possibility for a hearing um to possibility possibly remove that dangerous dog situation. >> So then just so I understand, if it's not changed, does that mean that the rescue can't take it? >> Correct. Most rescues most rescues will not take in a dangerous dog. >> All right. A dangerous dog cannot be go through an adoption process. >> I see. >> Um but I do know that that is being um it's not changing it. Most rescues won't do it. All right. I will say that some it can be done. It has been done. >> Okay. Any more questions for >> Thank you. for you. >> Who is the person that called me? >> Oh, that was Gina. >> That was Gina. >> Are you Gina? >> I'm Gina. >> You're Gina. >> You heard everything she just said. >> Okay. And you agree with it all? >> Um Rick, if we could have people come back to speak, that would be And I guess that >> that would be good. I didn't get the caller back. This is the lady that I called you about and I didn't get a call back from you. So, I just I want her to show up so we can at least answer your question. >> I Yeah. Mayor, I guess if you would like to open this up, that that would be up to you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Just state your name and address, please. >> My name is Gina Mach and I live at 500 Ironwood Avenue Northeast. >> Gotcha. If the dog is put back in your custody, is it going to be readdopted out outside this community? And can we be guaranteed of that? >> Well, that's what the boxer rescue would answer. I was just his original foster mom. Um, and then I didn't adopt him because my Boston Terrier didn't want to play with him. I had two other dogs, so um, I ended up adopting him out. Um, so I wouldn't be taking him back in. Where he would be going is to um the intake coordinator in Apple Valley and that they would be fostering him and getting him through training and then adopting him out to the right home for him. >> And you did have the dog for a while then or >> I had him for three weeks in 2024. >> And he didn't get along with your dog then or >> my dog was the instigator. My dog and my little Boston Terrier, she's had four boxer brothers in her lifetime. She's never had to share her toys because none of them ever cared. And when Lawrence came into our home, he wanted to chase the same ball that I threw for her. Even though I threw them each a ball, he went for hers and she'd snap at them. And I just made the decision that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. And I already have two dogs and I chose I did foster to adopt originally and I chose to go ahead and adopt him out. >> Thank you. Because that that was my question whether uh he was attacking your dog or your dog was attacking him. It it was more of just she was snapping at him >> and it just I knew she wasn't gonna accept him into >> into our family like ongoing. >> So at that time I had to make that decision. I only had two weeks to make the decision if I was going to foster him or if I was going to adopt him or I had to let him be adopted. The the rescue at that time was only allowing foster homes two weeks to make the decision. And in that two weeks he also got neutered. So, it was a lot going on to try and make that decision. And I had to make the decision with my head, not my heart at that time. >> And I had to let him be adopted out because I just knew my little Boston Terrier at that time. It just wasn't going to work. >> Okay. Well, thank you for for for answering that question and sorry I didn't get back to you right away. >> Thanks. Thanks, Gina. Does someone I Thank you, Gina. Uh, >> does someone want to talk on behalf of the Minnesota Boxer? Absolutely. >> Sure. >> So, my name is Brenda Belrode. I am the vice president of Minnesota Boxer Rescue. And what we would like since we've seen absolutely no aggressive behavior by Lawrence in our experience and also we the evidence that we have regarding the incidents the picture that the police provided that is that is not a dog bite. That is not a dog bite. That is a scrape from something which I wasn't there but I also worked in the emergency critical care hospital for animals for 10 years. That is not what a dog bite looks like and the incident with the dog. There was no attack to the dog. It was a a typical dog talking to each other. There was no physical altercation. But what we want to do is we want to be able to take this dog back into Minnesota Boxer Rescue's ownership and be responsible for him. But the unfortunate part is because you guys have this label on him, we cannot we cannot take him into some of the counties we want to take him into like Apple Valley. What's the county? >> Dakota County. >> Dakota County. >> I think that I don't know that might be just an Apple Valley. >> Right. So, but that's our limitation. He's a great dog. you all those um uh letters or you there's several letters that say people have come in contact with this dog and he's he's a pleasant dog. He needs to be trained. He needs to be handled by a person who knows what a boxer is like. They can be too hyper for some people. But but Lawrence is not aggressive. This is just an unfortunate situation for a dog who lived by an unfortunate neighbor. Yes, they he broke the leash with the other with the dog. >> Separate incident, but with the neighbor, I I just think he's getting he's getting a very unfortunate label and we're willing to take him back and be responsible for him and give him a good foster home after training. But even we have foster uh foster people that also train dogs have a level of training that we we have options. Lawrence shouldn't, you know, shouldn't get this label to limit his his situation. So that's what we're asking is to remove it so we can take him back into our custody. So, if if it's removed and it goes into your training, like do you verify that he's certified or not? You know, that he will not be a dangerous dog when you're done with his training? >> Well, you can't that you can never guarantee that with any dog, okay? Even the best professional ever could never guarantee that because an a situation is a situation. But what we can ensure is the dog gets the training he he needs and is adopted into a family that is the best fit for him and the family. >> Okay. >> Now, if it's an only a family that's just a a partner, a couples, whatever, no dogs, no children, that might be the option. But maybe he is good with kids. There Gino says he is good with kids. >> Okay. Just Yeah. >> So, it's a very unfortunate situation and we don't want him want to see him put down. We don't want to see somebody else handle him where he's going to be put down. He doesn't deserve that. He's a great dog. We sent videos, but unfortunately like you guys don't take videos playing with other dogs. I mean, even the the prof professional trainer you guys have here in town, Darren, they don't think he's a dangerous dog at all. He just needs training. >> So, where is the dog now? >> He's in >> with with them leashed with Darren and >> with the trainer. New Prague >> in New Prague. With a trainer in New Prague, >> right? Okay. >> Unleashed. >> Unleashed. >> Oh, yeah. Unleashed. And And um Jane brings up a good point. She's um uh the intake coordinator. She's the one that actually accepted Lawrence into our organization because she knew he would be a good fit. But Darren and Haley with Unleash Training, they also agree that that is not a dog bite. And I do believe that says it in their statement. Can I say something about that original? >> Hold on. >> Original incident. >> Hold on one second. I I'll let you talk in a second. Anyone have any questions for >> Well, I just want to make a comment. When you described the second incident, it didn't sound anything like what the uh incident report to the police. It sounded like you're not agreeing at all with what occurred. Um, and I understand the playfulness. I've had dogs and I totally get that and maybe that's what occurred. But it was a very real person for this event for this resident and certainly knowing the person I believe what she said and what occurred and what action she took and the other person in the car took to get away from the situation. So, but what you described didn't seem to be the same thing. So, I guess I was wondering how do you know it didn't occur? based on on the photo of the >> the police report, right, of the first one. >> Well, I'm talking about the second one that you said that it was just playful and you what you described was not what >> then I transposed them. Then I transposed them. >> Go ahead. >> Mine can't reach that. But >> yeah, just >> Can I move it down? >> Yep. >> It'll pick up pick it up. >> Yep. >> It'll pick your It'll pick your voice up. Okay. My name is Jay Lawson. from the placement director and the intake coordinator for Minnesota Box Rescue. I think what you're mentioning is that second report for the police incident is that the police were called because she had said that she was bit and that her dog was bit and then when the police came, it says lower in that police report that she did actually not get bit and that the dog did not have any injuries to it. >> And that's correct. She said that Brendan died being bit by the dog and said she could not find any blood on blood on her dog. So, um >> I agree. That's what it says, but that's not what I understood you saying. >> I apologize. >> Well, it only bit once. >> Well, it bit twice, but the second time it was to be the dog. It bit the dog. >> No, it did not bite the dog. >> It did not. >> The dog attacked his dog. >> It's honestly essential of like two kids in a family getting >> I How do you know if she said it bit their her dog? How do you know it didn't? >> Later in that in that statement, she denies saying that the dog got bit. >> Yeah, it it's right here in the report. Bruce says Brenda denied being bit by the dog and said she could not find any blood on her dog. >> Right. But she said it it doesn't say she said it bit the dog and she doesn't say it didn't bite the dog. >> She just denied it. It's in the report, Bruce. >> It's on page 32. >> I'm reading it. >> Okay. Okay. I'm reading the same thing you're reading, but just because she said it didn't get get any blood doesn't mean it didn't bite the dog. >> I I I think we're all we're at this point. I think it says that she was attacked and then later said she wasn't bit like that's two different things going on. Um >> yeah, she wasn't bit. She never claimed I didn't >> as I'm reading it. It doesn't say she claimed to be bit >> in the beginning. It does. Right. And that's why the police were called. >> And then she later said she was not bit. >> Maybe before she made the statement then because the statement is pretty clear. It didn't say she got bit. >> Am I reading something? Am I missing something? Police chief. So that's the incident report that's filed. But >> but I'm just want to make my point wasn't whether that detail I >> I sympathize with the situation but I just want to be clear that what I heard you saying was not what the bit the sit this statement was and it was a very real event for this resident >> and I'm inclined to believe how her statements that she's made here but >> and I and I'll agree with it that they probably got in a a verbal scuffle. Absolutely. That's possible. Absolutely. 100%. >> And that is very scary. >> Totally. >> I've been around dogs all my life, so I know what you're talking about. So, but >> Right. But >> Tim, were you gonna say something? >> No, I I was just going to go back to I I think we're getting caught on this bite and no bite situation in the second incident. Right. So, according to Minnesota statute, once a dog is labeled a potentially dangerous dog, it doesn't necessarily have to bite somebody. It needs to the the exact wording is unprovoked chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle appro upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public private property other than the dog's owner's property in an apparent attitude of attack. So whether the bite happened or not, the behavior happened. So I don't think we need to get hung up on whether there was an actual bite or not. According to the statute, that did happen, which is why we got to the dangerous dog classification. So just so everyone's on the same page. I don't know that the actual bite the classification hinges on an actual bite, if that makes sense. >> I understand. You can't you can't speak. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Well, I'll call if you have I'll ask for other comments. Uh but we need it on >> the microphone so it can be picked up. So, okay. Um any more questions for these representatives of the Minnesota Boxer Reserve? >> I have a rescue, excuse me. >> I have no more questions. I I I understand the situation. I too have been around dogs all of my life. I have a Jack Russell Terrier as a rescue that has had some emotional issues and so I understand that they can get anxious. Um certain situations can cause certain behavior. Um the sight of another dog can cause certain behavior. Um I have two dogs as neighbors uh very large dogs that fortunately I have a fenced in yard that they charge at my dog. And of course, my dog is going to try to defend itself. Um, my heart goes out to Lawrence, and I want Lawrence to find a good home, the right home. And I would be in favor as long as the city doesn't have a legal ramification of removing the dangerous dog label so that he can go back in the system and find a place where he's going to be a good fit. I am not in favor of destroying a dog unless they are extremely dangerous. Um, from what I've read and from your your testimonies, I'm hoping that with training, Lawrence will just be a normal happy dog and chase his own ball. Um, so that's where I stand. And um, maybe I'm emotional about this because I have been through so many rescue dogs of my own. Um, they all deserve a chance. So that's my decision. >> Okay. Um, I guess staff is recommending that it stays on the the list until after training. Is that something you guys can abide by? >> Well, can I just make one other statement first? >> Sure. >> So, like I've been doing rescue, animal rescue dogs specifically for 22 years and boxer rescue for 21. I had my own rescue in Arizona for 10 years. >> And if a dog is dangerous, it should not be in public. It absolutely should not and I will be the first to say that that yes they should be destroyed is you know the word that's used because it's that's not safe and if you have you know you can't put children at risk you know obviously that's our number one concern even as Minnesota boxer rescue it's always a thing that we ask is a child going to get hurt I don't think that Lawrence is that dog but I do firmly believe in training I think that every dog should have training I know that me personally I think that more that militant no freedom style is really what works well for a dog because if they don't have any decisions to make and they know what the boundaries are, they're not going to screw up. And if we give them that opportunity, they're going to fail. But that's a human error. It's not a dog error. And he is not instinctually a bad dog. And I think there's a very tiny percentage of dogs out there who are actually born with really poor breeding where he unfortunately and it's usually the whole litter doesn't stand a chance. That's not Lawrence. and with his history of where he came from. He did come from a family. He was free roam in their front yard. Never had any incidences, played with children, neighborhood kids as well. No incidences. This is not a dog who is inherently bad. He's just in the wrong home because he need he does need training. He has not received it in the time frame between incident one and incident two. That's not his fault that he wasn't provided the training he needed, but that is something obviously we will do for him. Um, I have the ability to take them into my home and get them through training. Um, we have trainer already set up. I however live in Apple Valley and they have a zero tolerance for dangerous dogs in city limits. So, um, you know, he's safe at Unleashed at the moment. Obviously, he cannot stay there indefinitely um because, you know, that's a that's not great for a boxer. And what Darren had said at Unleashed is that this isn't the dog that we send him because when we do have dogs who are dangerous, we do send them to Darren because we trust him. Is this dog a danger? And if it is, then we will euthanize it. And have we euthanized dogs in the last, you know, and 11 years since I've been part of Mimar? Yes, we have. And because they're dangerous and we will put them through every amount of training we can, but if they cannot exist in a home and they are going to be sensitive to, you know, sound, touch, sight, every single thing and we cannot rehab them, then yes, let's put them down and let them start over in their next body. But I don't really think that this is Lawrence in my experience with this breed. They are energetic. They need a job. They need something to do. And if you don't provide that, they're they don't know how to contain it. They don't know how to handle themselves in a situation when they find themselves in something that they should or shouldn't be doing because of human error. >> Thank you. Ready to bring this into discussion with us? >> I just want to be clear. You said Apple Valley would not take a dangerous designation, but would they take a potentially dangerous? >> Potentially dangerous. Yes. But yeah, I spoke with them because I wanted to make sure like if he was going to come into our home that we were following the right rules as well, but they were a zero tolerance city. >> Okay. >> Um, are we going to bring it in discussion here? >> Yeah, we can. I first want to anyone else want to make a comment before Thank you. Go ahead. Yep. uh take a couple comments and then we're going to council make a discussions and then we will vote on the >> Thank you. Again, if the city does decide to drop the dangerous label. All right. It would be wise for the Boscher to please let the city and myself know where this dog is held, who adopts it, and what city so it goes to so we can keep New Prague safe in all of this. >> Your recommendation is to >> I'm sorry. >> Your recommendation is to drop the dangerous part. >> I would put the dog potentially dangerous. Correct. With the proper training, I think this is would be a good dog. Proper training. >> Does our contract with you and our relationship provide for a procedure that actually will do what you just said? Follow it. Follow the >> work with Tim. >> I mean, we will get back. >> I know you will, but is there a procedure in place that make sure that that happens? >> There's anything in the contract specifically? No, because we're just going off of this is not a normal circumstance. So, this is if we're going to if we're going to back off of if you guys are going to make a the council decides to make a decision to retract that, then we'll have to work together and it's not something that we normally do, I guess. >> But your recommendation is to lower it from a >> lower potential. >> Correct. And Sandra, while you're up there, there is in in the in the law, there is the ability for animal control at 6 months starting six months after there's a dangerous dog designation for review by animal control to have that removed. Is that correct? Can you speak to that? Just explain that to council. >> One thing that the state has recommended is after 6 months on a on any dog, any dangerous dog, they can come to us and say, "We would like to re-evaluate this dog." And at that time we could drop a dog dog. Does not happen that often. I've been involved in two of them my life. Um and I've been doing animal control for over 20 years. So but it does give us a chance to see the dog, see the dog in training, see everything that's happened with the dog and then make a recommendation at that time to the city and to the states. >> How long is the training process? I'm not sure where they would take the dog or how long that would be. >> I'm a little confused if there's a process already in place that could remove the dangerous designation. >> It is had hasn't been six months, >> right? But it there's a potential of that if the training takes six months then you could do in six months and correct do it. >> That's what I was wondering. Is that >> correct? Well, what they're trying to do and I understand what the boxer rescue is trying to do. They're trying to get the dog out of the training where it's at now into their own which is in Apple Valley. Apple Valley as she said has a zero tolerance train. >> Oh, so it's not going to training. >> It won't be going to training here. It would be going to training with the boxer rescue >> in Apple Valley. >> I don't know where their training is. >> It's I believe it's St. Paul. >> Yeah. Like we're set >> I'm sorry >> come to >> and Hopkins. >> Yeah. >> Is that a six-month process or how long is it? >> It depends normally on the dog sir. >> Yeah. So right now the dog is residing in Apple Valley. Apple Valley has a zero tolerance for a dangerous dog. So Lawrence wouldn't be able to stay at the foster home. >> I beg I beg to differ. My dog right now is in New Prague in a training facility. >> I understand. Okay. >> So, I am so sorry. >> That's okay. I >> It's in New Prague right now. >> Okay. So, >> now it's unleashed. >> Yeah. Unleashed. Yeah. Outside city limits. Yes. >> Well, my my only thinking was that if the training takes six months, we don't have to involve the city council. You could just make the designation and >> correct. We do not know how long the training. >> We don't have to. But if it doesn't take six months, I understand why you want that. But >> correct. But to move the dog from here to the training facility, it sounds like their foster care is in Apple Valley. >> That's why they're trying to get it down to potentially, >> right? >> It sounds like Boxer Rescues Foster who's going to take the dog in lives in Apple Valley. Apple Valley has a zero tolerance for dangerous dogs. Period. Strong line. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, any other questions for anyone? No, but I um you know I um the problem I has with it was the same with what he had at first too. Brenda um who's a resident of ours um she was intimidated by a dog coming after her and that is my consideration. I too used to rescue dogs but it was big dogs and a lot easier to say Malamute is angry put it down. Um, this Brenda, um, she has a legitimate complaint that the dog did go after. I mean, psychologically, that's not a good deal. >> About when I walk my dogs. >> No. >> And I get approached. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> So, I walk my dogs a lot through town. And I would say probably five times out of 10 walks, I have dogs run out to us. I have to pick my Boston Terrier up and my boxer stands there and just shakes. And one time I even looked around like, "Come and get your dog." And this dog's just circling us and jumping on us and the neighbor goes, "They're out on their deck in the backyard." So, do I call the police every time this happens? Because that's what it sounds like with more with this Brenda. It was just an unfortunate situation that she called the police. I can start calling the police every single time this happens to me, too. Then, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> You know what? And just what I was saying, just if you want to make the motion, I'll second it. Any other comments? >> So, what's the feeling? >> Josh, did the the people that involved in the incidents have a awareness of this hearing taking place? >> Uh, not that I am aware of. I know. Okay. I've been working with Tim. >> Just wanted to know. >> Okay. I'm comfortable in doing it if we can try to nail down the liability and actually have a procedure in place. And uh are we done with the hearing? >> Yeah. I don't need any more comments. >> No clarification about the six-month training because that is not an accurate statement. >> I think we all understand it's not going to be six months. >> Perfect. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um I'm getting old. I forgot what I just said. that you're in favor of removing >> there was no liability against >> if we get nailed down the liability issue and actually track the dog to make sure that >> I >> unfortunately it's a long tracking process. >> Yep. So I have a note to call Scott and I can call him first thing in the morning. Um I mean if you guys want to make the ruling conditioned on that and I can make that call tomorrow and assuming that's the case because I don't believe we are liable. um assuming that's the case then it would would hold and we could move forward and I'll work with Tim to get that um tracking thing set up on our end and also work with crit. So >> if there is some >> I'm I'm uncomfortable with it but I would that's my feeling. Go >> ahead. If there's some liability, can you check with Scott to see if maybe that second party, whether it's the organization or somebody, purchases additional insurance to a level that he might feel would cover the city, let's say a million dollars or whatever. >> Yeah, I can I can certainly ask him about that. But I do know even within our code if a dangerous dog label is kept on um but the destruction of the dog is not ordered by the city council um like it is right within our code that the city council can require a new owner to carry up to $300,000 of public liability insurance. And so I don't know if that's the case, but I will certainly bring that up with Scott as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, then I will make a motion to remove the dangerous dog designation based on the recommendation uh from our legal council um of how to proceed uh so that in the event um something does happen that the city is not held liable um for another incident. I don't know how how I don't know how better to word it. Second, >> just for clarification, are we saying that or is it understood that the designation will be potentially dangerous? >> The designation would be potentially dangerous. >> Not removing >> not removing both labels. >> So, I'll also say this, for some reason, Scott comes back and says, "Yes, we would be liable, I would put this on the next council agenda so we can discuss this again in two weeks." >> You're all aware of that one. If the attorney says no, see you next time. >> Okay. Okay. So, I have a motion by Maggie Bass and Rick second it. If there's any other questions, comments, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. So, the designation is going to be potential if approved by our attorney. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Next on the agenda, uh, government agency updates. I do not see anyone from any of the government agencies. >> You You guys don't have to hang out if you don't want to. Yeah, we can. Y >> I know it's not the most exciting thing, but uh >> so uh >> I assume someone signed up for the Minnesota Boxer uh rescue. You didn't you don't want to speak besides this? Okay. Just want to clarify that. Okay. Uh public forum. Uh I do not have since these uh people are not going to speak I do not have anyone else on the list but if anyone wants to speak they can all right so then we go there's no public hearings so now Chris it's up to you city engineer updates >> all right thank you very much I I don't have anything in your packet here so I'm just going to kind of go through some of the various projects is involved with um the first being the 2024 street utility project. As you recall, we're still trying to get that one closed out with some uh sanitary service lining and um pavement patching repairs needed. Um our last contact was with the contractor maybe about four weeks ago and it did they did indicate they were um trying to line that up. So, I do believe we're still pushing forward on that. Um if that does hit another stall point, we'll take it to our next level as required with the bonding agency. Um, so hopefully that doesn't get to that point, but that's the indication we have. And now the weather's getting a little better. I I'm hoping that's uh going to be resolved. >> Does we have a retention still on that? >> Correct. Yeah. 2% I believe is what we're holding. So around $80,000, which is um well above what Andy's repairs would would cost. >> Okay. >> Um 2025 street project. Uh this is last year's project and I expect we'll be going to punch list here in the next week or two or at least getting out there and doing our our reviews. Um, so that can be uh completed. Uh, the 2026 project, I do have that further down in the packet, so I'm not going to get into that. Um, lead service line projects, we have the phase one, which is the project u completing 17, um, lead service replacements. Um, and that, uh, construction is expected to start in just over a week. Um, that's being performed by, um, K Wit. So, um, that work will probably take about six weeks, somewhere in that range. It should be done around mid May, I believe, um, is what they're expecting. Um and uh that be >> and just clarify that's stuff that's done in in the facility. >> Uh this is for replacement of lead services from um the outside of the home to the inside of the home. >> Okay. So like >> uh from the curb curb stop outside >> curb to the home. >> Curb stop into the home. Yep. Yep. And they're doing a a methodology called pipe bursting. So um they're going to run a new pipe within the old lead service pipe uh so they don't have to dig up the entire yard. Okay. It's relatively small amount of intrusion and the material the equipment itself is probably not much larger than your TV in front of you here. So it's pretty small equipment they drop down the pit and they can bring that into the house. So um so anyways the first one's out the second uh let service line project uh which is in the design phase was submitted to uh the department of health on March 31st has to go through a certification process um and once it's certified then we can we can bid that project out. So that's for the remaining I think 53 services. So that's for construction later this fall um or next spring or both. So >> and then how do we get reimbursed from the state? >> Yep. The reimbursement is requested directly to um to PFA. So the public facilities authority um has the grant money on that. So as a contractor completes work um they get paid then there's a reimbursement process and that's all going through uh through the utilities new utilities. >> Okay. So, do we pay the contractor or then we we get reimbured? >> Yep. All reimbursement. Same with the CH fees and everything right now is is is covered by the grant. So, there there aren't going to be any costs for the city um for those programs. Um then the last project I I have on here is for Alton Avenue North. And just a reminder, we are continuing to work on that one. We do have a meeting with um uh Scott County um and also New Prague and ourselves to go through the process. So, another kind of just update meeting I guess on Thursday. So, um, >> when do you think that feasibility study will be done? >> We're hoping to be done this month, actually. So, we'll see where we we line up in that, but, uh, at least getting information out for some initial developments that are being considered in that area, but, uh, believe we we're hoping to be around around this time. So, that's about where our deliverable time was. >> Um, so, moving past that, I guess my next item on the agenda is in regard to uh 2026 street improvement project. Um, this is for uh the Milan overlay of 10th Avenue uh southeast from uh 15th Street Southeast or Highway 29, Cassat 29 all the way up to First Street Northeast, I'm sorry, southeast. Uh along with one block of uh Third Street Southeast. Uh improvements on this project are primarily uh surface level um redoing the pavement um mill and overlay of the pavement um throughout uh the construction of a mini roundabout at Third Street Southeast. Uh curb bumpouts at Fifth Street Southeast, 9th Street Southeast, and 12th Street Southeast. Uh and installation of um flashing um pedestrian signs at each of those three intersections as well. Um the roadway will be reconfigured from a threelane configuration to a two-lane configuration um south of um the third street roundabout. Um and uh with those changes all meant to be hopefully improve uh pedestrian safety crossings and um have some amount of uh uh traffic calming as well to hopefully slow traffic down. So, uh, with that said, uh, there was a, uh, grant request made to, uh, the local road improvement program, which was not successful, unfortunately. Um, only one project in district 7 received funding. Um, pretty much the same throughout all the districts in Mindot. So, uh, throughout the state. So, not many not many states received funding on that compared to, uh, the number of requests. I believe about four times as many requests were out there versus the amount of funding that was available. So, um the uh uh bidding on this project was um the schedule for bidding this project was based on finding out about that grant request. So, that's why we're bidding this project in in April and not uh February or March like we would in most cases. So, um with that said, uh I do have a uh uh cost estimate of about $1 million construction is our our latest estimate. Our estimate feas $970,000 plus contingency. So, we do appear to be within that uh expected funding amount or expected cost amount. Uh we do have a little more sidewalk maybe in there than we initially expected after doing a review. There's a lot more craft sidewalk panels than there than we were expecting. Um uh as you may recall at a previous meeting, we did have a um advanced request on state aid to pay for a portion of the funding. Um so, uh with the construction costs at about a million dollars and total project costs probably about 25% more than that. Um there's an expectation that uh stated funding would cover about $950,000 or $900,000 depending on where the the cost line up and the participating portion amount lines up with the remaining funding maybe coming from from the city through through general general funding. Uh so I guess with that explanation of the project um we do have uh uh in front of you a resolution for authorizing us to uh bid the project uh with the anticipated schedule being to um start advertising next week on Thursday uh and open bids on Friday May 18 May May 8th. Uh this would all be in time to award the contract um at the May 18th council meeting. So, see if there are any questions for me. >> Any questions? >> No. I'll make the motion um to approve resolutions CC-26-04-06-01. >> I'll second. >> Okay. I got a motion by Rick Syler, second by Maggie Maggie Bass. Uh there's no other questions for Chris. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. passes 5-0. >> All right, one more item in here for you then. So, uh I do have in front of you uh tonight as well uh two designed two preliminary design proposals. Um these are for um what are being referred to as the northwest lift station and northeast lift station areas service areas. So, these are areas that are um on the basically outer limits of of the city um the northwest and northeast areas. Uh in 2024 a uh sanitary sewer uh study was completed um identifying multiple service areas within the city. Um these two service areas have been determined as as higher priority uh for um for development and expansion around the city limits. Um so uh we have been requested to provide a uh preliminary design proposal. So the feasibility level report is kind of showing things from a pretty high point of view. Um the design um proposal is a uh expectation is about 30% preliminary design uh to the point where um the finer details are kind of brought out, cost estimates are developed, figuring out what all the environmental impacts may be and um get to the point where uh you essentially move straight into production of um bidding documents and eventually construction. Uh so these are more the uh more of the detailed portion of the design um sizing of sizing of items and um and th and those types of things. Um so I do have two proposals in front of you here today. I know Matt had to to leave here, but uh uh with some more specific questions, but um we do have um the two two service areas of Northeast Lift Station uh which we have a proposal in front of you today for $49,700 um which is an hourly not to exceed fee um with deliverables in about 3 months. Um then we also have completion of the Northwest lift station uh which should be uh an amount of $57,700 and that would be for deliverables in October. So, our proposal is to complete these two um studies um in sequence so that the higher priority one being the northeast area is completed first and then the northwest one would follow. Uh if we were to complete them concurrently, it'd probably take uh a little bit less time, but um trying to knock out the higher priority one first. So, I don't know if I Josh, you want to? >> Yeah, I can just throw a few more things in here um of note. So, we are recommending paying for both of these studies out of the trunkline fund. Um, we do collect trunkline fees as um properties are platted and annexed into the city. And so, there's currently about $1.5 million in that trunkline fund for future expansion of the services. So, that's how we would recommend paying for these. We also um did reach out just to kind of do our due diligence to Bolton Mink who currently um helps run our sewer plants and they also provided proposals but those proposals were about 50% higher on um both uh sections with similar work and similar timelines. So we do certainly recommend moving forward with on this. >> The northeast over there um Cedar Lake just put a new lift station in and um are you aware of that? >> I'm not. No, >> you're not. And this is nowhere near that, I'm assuming. >> No, this service area is generally going to be when we refer to the northeast portion, the Alton Avenue project we're we're working on. >> Um it's going to include that portion um and just a general northeast facility right around the city of New. >> Yeah. So, yeah, this is going to kind of go down 12th and then come come up Alton is generally where this pipe >> that lift station that they put in. Would the price be comparable to the lift station that you're putting in? So I could figure out Alman Avenue. Is that going to be part of the county? >> Uh well it wouldn't be >> right now it's part of the county I think. >> Yeah. If we're having a city utility on a county I mean you do have county roads in town right now that have city utilities. So there wouldn't be any any necessarily difference with that. Um same with a mindot road. You've got city utilities. So if if Alton Avenue develops and it's county ownership it wouldn't make any difference for for usage of >> shared cost. Yeah. I would say Rick to Without doing the numbers, I can't be certain. I'm going to guess this lift station might be larger than what Cedar Lake puts in just because it's likely going to handle a lot higher load. The one that they put would put in out there really takes their load and just gets it to the city. This one would be handling much of the newer northeast growth that happens over there. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, the and that's correct. I mean, as far as the amount of um amount of flow in these um there are many smaller communities I work with that don't even come close to the amount of flow that would go in each of these lift stations. So um these are um exceptionally large for >> high capacity type. >> Yeah. High capacity stuff. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? If not, I guess I'll make a motion for the Northeast Lift Station preliminary design proposal. >> Second. We got a second by Rick Siler. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Okay. Passes by. Any opposition? >> Is there a resolution we need to >> No, these are just >> design proposal. Those >> would be accepted. Thank you. >> And then I guess I'll make a motion for the Northwest lift station preliminary design proposal. >> Second. >> So I got a second by Rick Siler. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Chris. >> Ordinance for introduction. Huh? >> Yeah, I do have a quick PowerPoint here for you. Maybe there we go. All right. some front planning commission meeting uh at the end of March. We did have a request that was reviewed um as proposed by uh patio properties and then I'll kind of comment on why the city of New Prague uh and the planning commission recommended in joining on that uh application. But uh it's basically to reszone and regguide because you have to have the comprehensive plan match any reasonzoning you do. So we actually need to technically reu and then reszone the property. But this would move it from um RL90 single family residential to I1 light industrial. Go over the background here a little bit. So Pat Sullivan acquired two properties along First Avenue um Northwest. Um one had a home on it. The other one was the former location of Bevcom. Had a couple of um or I guess a utility building and an open storage building on that property uh kind of within the first block of First Avenue. Um, so the Bevcom property is a legal non-conforming use. Uh, Mr. Sullivan indicated the home that he acquired, which is south of uh, the Bevcom building, uh, was in a poor condition. He does plan to demo that and uh feels that either the two properties combined together will be more valuable for uh industrial redevelopment or um they could each be uh utilized for a smaller maybe 10,000 foot building if somebody wanted to build new. The reason the city looked at um getting involved in the resoning, we have the uh bus garage uh located adjacent, which uh for my 22 plus years with the city has been an issue of getting the zoning and landing approvals for any additions and changes to that building over time being in the residential district. It's never fit well. Um it does fit quite well within the industrial zoning. Uh I spoke with superintendent uh Andy Bulmouth about three weeks ago on the request. He did not indicate any initial um you know trepidation about the zoning change uh happening for the bus garage property to uh light industrial. And then uh in talking to Bruce Rhyrs and uh Matt Renda with uh public works and public utilities, uh the property north of the bus garage, we have um some lift stations and other uh open storage for our obviously uh numerous uh outside type equipment and u material storage out there. Again, that's been kind of a a difficult property to manage within the uh residential zoning. So looking to move that uh along with Mr. solvents uh properties over to the industrial zoning. Um it's not uh the first time we've jumped east of 1 Avenue. If you go north of the creek, which is just a little bit off the map here, um that property chart uh did resone and we amended our comp plan uh about 10 years ago for that. Um as well um I did want to note obviously on the north portion of the area in red there are remaining uh residential homes that are in that area. They were notified of the resoning. Um nobody attended the public hearing uh from that from the area north of the resoning area. However, we did have um a lot of people refer to it as the shouse. It was built in 2024 kind of on the northeast corner of uh 1st Avenue and uh 7th Street Northwest that's owned by the Keners. They did attend the public hearing and they requested that their property be taken out of the resoning. Um they did not petition for it. That was just something that uh uh city staff recommended looking into. So we advertised the hearing to look at reguiding and reszoning their property as well as actually the school district has a strip of property right between the Kenir's home or structure and then that um property right immediately on the corner which is all flood plane. So um at the public hearing they made their comments known uh that they did not want to be included from a planning and zoning standpoint. We just need to have uh basically a budding property uh for residential uh to keep we can't have a donut of one zoning and then have other zoning around it. So, by taking the Kener's property out, uh, which is in kind of the maroon red to brown color on the map, um, on that northeast quadrant of the intersection, the immediate, uh, northeast quadrant, um, we could pull it out and retain its, uh, residential zoning. If at some point in the future and the the Keners kind of built that that home as potentially moving to industrial use, it looks like an industrial use. It kind of looks like a house. It's kind of between the the line of the two. It was actually built under the residential uh building code, but it wouldn't take much to convert it to a full uh industrial building. So, for now, the planning commission recommended keeping their uh property and u that sliver property that's all flood plane out of the resoning request. So that was their formal recommendation from the planning commission is the bright red color is what would uh be the planning commission's recommendation to move to I1 light industrial and everything else would remain um single family. Uh kind of went through all of this detailed here. There's kind of a na natural um I guess buffer from uh the industrial property on this corner to the residential as you go north. there's limited uh redevelopment possibilities. Uh but again, Mr. Sullivan doesn't have a definitive plan for um his two properties that he acquired. However, the one already has been and uh will continue to be uh industrial type use being a former Bevcom warehouse and then he doesn't know exactly what the the former um home site would be used for, but um could be combined with the other property or have a small um industrial uh building constructed on it. So, but again limited very much by uh the flood plane which is indicated by the hatched red, the blue and the orange color. So, it kind of keeps it separated. You do have the little island of the residential to the north on First Avenue, but they've been uh you know, directly across street from the the 2012 chart. Uh new building on that north side of that property there. I think a lot of that propertyy's changed hands um since that was built initially. Um, so anybody that lives up there, you know, kind of knows they got an industrial neighbor and, um, again, they're buffered by the the wetland area as you head further east. So again, uh, public hearing, the Keners really the only public comment that was made. They wanted to be pulled out um, just to keep their options open for their property, but again, they could um, come back in the future and uh, reszone or future owner could reszone that and um, it can kind of go either way. So staff and the planning commission recommend uh moving forward with the uh introduction of the ordinance to reszone all the property uh indicated in the red not including that property highlighted in yellow. And then uh as a companion to that uh really the first action would be to consider the uh amendment to the comprehensive plan via the resolution to reguide uh the property to Iowa and light industrial again excluding the uh Kenir and the other school district property on the corner. And Ken, didn't Chart at one time offer to buy them houses and stuff like that? And then >> they looked at Yeah, Chart actually looked at buying all of the property on both sides of First Avenue um back when they were doing their initial development plans for that uh newer building in 2012 that ended up getting built. Uh but they determined there wasn't enough room for development on that east side of First Avenue to make it worthwhile. And the the residents that were there that were angry with them are no longer there anyway. >> I think there's one resident there. >> Yeah. And the guys that are there though, they don't seem like they're they're willing to fight anything on that. They agreed with everything. >> Yeah. And we have they did not attend the public hearing, so I don't have any more current comment from them. But um yes, we have not any further comment whether they're in favor or against this resoning. Uh they have not made any comment. Does this resoning create a different tax base based for property taxes if it's >> Yeah. So it it definitely would. Um so that is a question actually the Keners asked with their property from a standpoint of the usability of their property. It would have if it was reszoned remain uh usable as a single family home with a home business in it which is what it is currently. Um the county indicated that the use and and the value based for that would not change. What would change is that they would then use comparable sales of industrial property against the Kener's property for changes in the value. So they'd be compared to industrial sales, not residential. So that could be good or bad. But their concern was that, you know, we don't have a ton of industrial sales, so it could jump quickly the values up if if that's where it was trending. And they just and I I don't disagree with them. They're using it as a single family home. They weren't ready to make that jump yet. And being as though it is still contiguous except for the roadway between the area with the uh residential to the south and the school property, it's kind of one of the areas that it could go either either way and they're comfortable with the zoning around it as industrial uh for their type of use. >> But I think to what I may have heard your question as the zoning itself does not change the tax classification. So taxes are based on a use and so for some reason you were allowed to operate an industrial use on your property even though it's residentially zoned. The county would tax you as industrial. It really just has to do with what the city will allow as a future going forward and as Ken stated who your comparables are. >> Okay. Any other questions? So what are the steps here? So would look for the resolution to amend the uh cons comprehensive plan. First of all, that does require a four fifths vote of the council to move the reguiding resolution forward. Um just by statute because it's moving from residential to industrial. That's a special vote, a supermajority. So it would need four out of the five to agree to that. If that passes, then to introduce the resoning ordinance, which would then need a second reading in two weeks at our next council. So, do you want to switch A and B? >> Yeah, they should really be flipped. Got to do the resolution first. >> Yeah. >> Do we uh what was we require a public hearing to do this? >> No, the public hearing actually happened >> at the planning commission. Okay. >> Or no will get approved. >> Maggie, I know you like to read those resolutions. So, >> you don't need to you don't need to flip-flop because you're we're only introducing the ordinance and if >> it's only the first reading. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Well, I'll make a motion, if this is correct, for the first reading of ordinance number 360, reszoning certain properties to the Iowa Light Industrial and Business Park zoning district as a pro proposed. >> No, that isn't an ordinance, the first one. >> Well, yeah, we'll do the ordinance first still. It's just >> Oh, okay. Okay. If the resolution doesn't pass, it wouldn't move forward anyway. >> Gotcha. And that's where four fifths of the >> the resolution needs four fifths. >> We're just >> We're just introducing the We're just introducing the ordinance for the first reading, right? >> Yes. >> That dog thing kind of threw us off. >> Well, I'm still thinking dogs. >> And I don't even have a dog. >> Okay. Well, so the motion is on the table. >> I got a motion. I will second that motion. So, um, this is the one that's requiring four fifths. >> No, the resolution requires it. We're just introducing the ordinance, the first reading of the ordinance. >> Can you second that to call a vote? >> Okay. So, I got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Chuck Nicholife or the first reading of the ordinance. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. passes 5-0. Next were the resolution. I will make a motion to approve resolution number CC-26-04-06-2 amending the comprehensive plan. >> Second. >> Got a second by Rick Syler. Since this requires four fifths, I'm going to call your uh name and and vote that way. So, we are clear on that. So, we'll start with council member Syler. >> Hi. >> Council member Wolf >> I. >> Mayor Nikolai says I. Council member Ryan >> I. >> Council member Bass >> I. >> Okay. Passes 5-0. All right. On the next we have no ordinances for adoption, no resolutions. General business. Um, first thing we have is the massage therapy license. Yeah, discussion. I can give you a background on that. So, um, back at the January 6 council meeting, uh, the council requests that staff conduct research into, um, massage therapy licensing locally since New Prague does not currently provide any licensing, nor does the state of Minnesota provide any licensing. So, we looked into that. Uh, Planner Gary um did some leg work on that. He worked with detective Katie Spicer as well to kind of determine, you know, her thoughts on that, having been involved with the uh for you massage issue. She also indicated that working in Farbo and Northfield that um she's seen this happen over and over again and believes that not having licensing um basically makes it easier for that type of activity to happen. doesn't rule it out completely, just makes it uh easier to monitor if we have a local license for that because typically with your your uh massage therapy, you're requiring proof of education having happened. And there's a few different ways you can look at that, whether it be from the American Massage Therapy Association um or other uh educational programs. There's other ways cities have determined that. Um did uh want to note there was a bill and I guess I didn't check uh today on the status of that um if anything had changed in the past week but um ultimately there was a bill introduced that uh would make statewide licensing become effective on July 1, 2028. Uh I don't believe that's moved forward. I don't know if you >> I haven't seen anything additional. >> Yeah. So I don't think that's move forward and even if it did you're you know you're over two years out on that. Um so um long story short um we're the only um city along with Elanu Market and Credit River in Scott County that does not require um massage therapy licenses at this point. And uh if you go south of uh uh Main Street into Lassur County, nobody requires them. So kind of got that um differing um issue there between the counties. But um I think from staff perspective, it wouldn't be difficult to uh require the licensing, pretty much every massage therapist um that is graduating that operates anywhere in New Prager in the area is calling and asking for our license process and actually are typically surprised to find out that we don't have um a local requirement. Um it's becoming a very common thing. Um I think the state might move in that direction, but it's going to be a few years. So, I think from a uh standpoint of just a local regulation, I don't if Tim would agree with me, I think it would be uh something that we could uh put together an ordinance uh to require that at a local new level here and bring that back for an introduction. And um >> does that require hearings and all that stuff? >> Uh again, not required for a hearing, but you could take public comment. Um because it isn't involving zoning, we don't have to have a hearing, but that would be up to the council to determine if you would like a hearing. >> And you just want a verbal agreement that we should check it out or we'll go ahead and write a >> I'm just looking for direction to staff if we should bring an actual ordinance. >> I there doesn't need to be a formal vote, but certainly if there's direction from council, yeah, there seems to be agreement to bring one back, um we could do that. And then >> I I would be good with that. you guys want to discuss it, but um I would be good with uh bringing up a resolution on that one. >> Yeah, I think I would agree also that we should move forward on it. I think it's something that it should be done. >> Agree. And I am a massage therapist, not operating my own business at the moment, but um uh when I lived in Apple Valley and did massage therapy in Lakeville, um a license was required. and um you know very basic things you know proof of insurance a background check and all of that I think is just essential to ensure that uh you have some reputable people operating Sean >> I agree as well I I like the idea where the city of Farmington here has requires a public hearing for every application um I think it's always good to get >> direct feedback from the constituent So I I'm fine. I think we should do it. But I I like the idea of the public hearing >> all the public hearing >> with every license application >> with every every license application annually. >> For what reason? >> Uh in order for uh the the public to give us input on every application that comes out. >> Would you back up a little bit that annually when they're renewed or just at the initial one? I think just the initial one is what I'm >> I was talking about just >> like similar to the liquor maybe how we do it at the front end. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just the one one time when they're coming into town or going to open up a business. >> I I I wouldn't go that far. I would go as far as saying um um >> it's not a deal. >> Let's have a hearing. Let's have a hearing on the um actual do we want to have the licensing? I I wasn't saying yes to making every single applicant come in for a hearing. >> Oh, you just just the one >> just the one big one here at the at the beginning it >> and I just want to clarify some of my comments. It's not a dealbreaker. I like the idea one way or the other. I just like the idea that the way the city of Farmington requires a public hearing for every application to the city council. Yeah, >> if we did it, I would understand a good compromise would be maybe we have a public hearing just before we change this just to get some feedback because there could be people that >> That's what I was agreeing to. >> I I I think having a public hearing that you're suggesting, Sean, um it would be like having a public hearing to open a pet salon or having a public hearing to open any business. I don't think that's fair to the applicant. There's there's nothing as a massage therapist, you know, it's not alcohol, it's not cannabis, it's not THC, there's nothing dangerous about massage therapy. It would be like saying a chiropractor wants to come in and open a practice and we were going to have a public hearing on a chiropractor. So, I I'm trying to understand the reason why a massage therapist is any different than any other business owner that's not dispensing drugs or alcohol. >> Right. Well, um >> the fact is is that well the the my personal feeling is is that um while many many massage therapists are just fine this there is a element that has been involved in a particular activity that operates outside of that and I think that's where the the public has a legitimate concern much like alcohol or cannabis. How would the public know that that person might be engaging in something illegal? >> We could say that about any business owner, >> right? >> Massage therapist is a trained and certified individual to provide healthy outcomes. So, the training the training is extensive and it's legitimate and there's no reason to fear having a massage therapist in the city limits. >> Um, I understand where you're coming from. I just like that there's a certain segment of the population that would I have a feeling would be against this especially the the fact that we did have a problem right off the bat and anytime I we can offer it's probably going to be more like every other city council public hearing nobody shows up >> the majority of the time but if somebody wants >> counting on that >> but if somebody wants to come up and say hey you know what I'm against it because I live across the street from it or whatever No, no. I I guess I'm misinterpreting what you said. You said every new P person had to come in. >> That's >> when they apply for this license has to come before the city council and get approved. >> That was my first statement. Yes. Just like the last paragraph and it's up on your screen right there, >> right? >> That that the city of Farmington requires. I told Rick it's let me recclarify it. It's not a deal breakaker. He he didn't like that idea, but he liked maybe having a public hearing on the ordinance. >> Yeah, I agree with having a public hearing >> time >> and I would be fine with that. >> Maybe before the first reading of the ordinance, >> right? And I we're going this is taking way too long because even if if if uh Rick and Maggie don't like this and it's not a dealbreaker for me. I still like the idea of just having an ordinance. If we leave that out, that's fine. We don't need the applicate. we don't have to have a public hearing uh for the uh application or not. Like I said, I don't want to >> so I guess >> this Oh, this is >> so basically we're directing staff to work on an ordinance putting this licensing in effect for massage. >> That is how either one or everyone or none at all. I don't really care. I'm going to vote for it either way. I just you wanted our opinion and I said I'm voting for it but I like this idea. >> So we're going to direct them to come up with an ordinance and then we can decide if we want to have a public hearing. >> Sure. >> Before the first reading of the ordinance. >> Perfect. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Is that fine with you, Bruce? >> Yes. >> I know you're still thinking of the dog, but >> get your head out of the dog. Okay. >> You feel like having a boxer. >> Okay. So you know what the direction we're >> thank you. >> Next is the RFP programming of POPS. >> Yeah. I'll give you an overview of uh this item as well. So for the past well I think it's been three months the park board has kind of been talking about you know the best way to approach programming at the new pops facility. Again it will open um sometime in the fall of 26. uh basically be too late for any actual programming to happen there. Um so we're really looking at the 2027 season. Park board feels it's important to have, you know, things booked at the facility. We obviously have per our agreement and the donation agreement with POPS and the Ford New Craig Foundation that they have their summer concert series for a 10-year time period, which is obviously a limited number of days out of the days that are available in good weather for the summer. Um, so the park board uh asked staff to look into, you know, what other cities have done for programming and it's a big variety of different ways that it's done. Some cities um simply just make it available like a baseball field and you could reserve it for whatever you want. Um the park board feels that we should really make a push to to get some programmed activities going on in the facility. Um which should include uh potentially the school as having dates in there. Um they have not determined what dates they would like right off the bat, but that's something we would determine with them. Uh but really to have a a nonprofit um potentially help program that uh we don't really have anything budgeted to have anybody uh provide that programming. Uh we did talk um uh from a staff level with the Chamber of Commerce who did not uh indicate great interest in um you know doing a bunch of work there. They might have a couple of bigger events that they might be interested in holding there. um once they can kind of visualize what the facility looks like and um you know we don't have it fenced in so it makes it not as easy to use for you know potential alcohol sales and keeping everybody in without putting up a temporary fence but um Ford new Foundation was the other um entity we talked to that uh did express um some interest in uh basically providing programming beyond the summer concert series with anything from uh plays and children's programming, educational um things. Um so that was kind of what um moved forward the idea of staff uh drafting this RFP that would look for a nonprofit to operate it um or not operate it but uh provide the programming. The city would basically just provide the facility at no charge. We would take care of our typical maintenance like we would for any other city facility. But again, the idea behind is that we would not have money to move uh forward to help a uh nonprofit actually u you know make money off of this but provided at no charge. And then ultimately if they were able to you know charge um advertising or sponsorships to you know pay for their efforts that would kind of be the way they could do that. Maybe putting banners up on uh the pops facility or um that type of thing. um if they are able to do that. So again, just a way to try to get um somebody um not the city because we really don't have the staff to do it to uh take a little ownership and try to get program um programmed events there um at least for 2027. The RFP says we would look at an option for 2028 um if everything went well for the 2027 year. So that's what's in the packet. Um this is really based off of just past RFPs we've we've used for um other services in in New Prague, but um it's kind of a unique uh RFP that we would be doing again looking for a nonprofit and that they wouldn't really get any monetary uh payment to do um that work other than maybe for their own fulfillment and um vision of the site. So that is what the park board has moved forward for consideration tonight. And um if it were to be moved forward um generally speaking, if we were following the the approval tonight, we would issue the RFP um this week and look to have uh proposals back in front of the council um sometime around June 1st um to find a entity and enter into a contract for the 2027 year. So I don't even know if we'll get anybody interested. Uh uh board new prank foundation even themselves obviously has not seen this at this point but have indicated that they would uh gladly look at it. Um, and we did note in the RFP that um, we may be off base with what we're looking for and we would um, look at other um, you know, proposals from uh, nonprofits should there be one and we could maybe uh, you know, reissue an RFP to tweak that with what might be workable, but we just don't know at this point. So, kind of taking a stab in the dark a little bit. So, you're saying you're looking for someone to do this without getting any money, >> correct? >> But you mentioned somehow that they could sell advertising. >> Yeah. If they have like sponsors and, you know, put up a B, you know, it's >> Coors presents, you know, whatever and that helps pay for their time to find the bands or find the programming. Uh, the park board felt that that was a good exchange for that. Not necessarily I want it to look like Vegas or anything over there, but you know to help them offset their costs, let them recoup a little bit of that through sponsorships or donations or whatever >> like we do at the community center when we got advertising on the side of the rails. >> Yeah, I mean that would be similar. But the deal is, you know, if it if it's just a a banner for that event or if you say, "Well, you can put it on because a lot of times people will want it for, >> you know, I'll I'll put advertising on there, but it's a five-year commitment." >> Oh, we would not not looking at that. Just for like the week of the concert or something. >> Okay. That's what I was kind of concerned. >> We're not going to rename this the Kenitch Pops facility. He buys naming rights. No, I was just wondering if you if you allowed them to do something like that. >> That would be another >> then the next year they already took the five-year money and then the next year someone's going in and well why would I do it? All the >> spaces are taken, you know, like at the baseball field the knee walls are taken. >> Yeah. Not looking at that type of just be temporary, >> you know, for for the event. Gotcha. >> Like a week out maybe. >> Okay. What um what would happen if the the group that let's say a drama club or something has a sponsor like Coburns >> to do all the sets and stuff and then all they want is a sign to go up but the art people that are running the planning want their cut. I mean will that take anything away from some of those arts groups that might go out and get their own sponsors? I'm just playing devil's advocate. I mean, >> we'd have to maybe have some language in there that >> Yeah, that I just I this is a unique thing we're trying to come up with here. I don't know. Yeah, Sean, it's a valid point. >> Yeah, I it's probably won't happen, but I just, you know, we're looking at it, >> right? >> Well, what is it? Yeah. Let's see what the proposals are. >> Yeah. I guess I'll make a motion to um approve this RFP. >> I'll second. >> Got a second by Sean Ryan. >> Any other questions? >> All in favor say I. >> Any opposition? Okay. >> Abstain. >> Okay. Pass zero with one abstination because you were on the board >> because he's very obstinate. >> All right. Next on the agenda, the ambulance service contract, which we uh got to nail down since it ends end of this month. >> Uh yes. So coming out of the last meeting, you guys did ask me to kind of reach out and see what uh both Farbo and Wasika were doing. Um I did reach out to them. Uh neither of them really help us in the situation because in Farbo North Memorial leases a uh private space and in Wasika um they built their own facility. Um that being said, I should mention that uh Bruce did reach out to me uh to see if I could get a hold of North to see what their um see if they would just give up that information for what they lease privately and I was not able to get a hold of them this afternoon. um looking at other cities across Scott and Lassour County um just to kind of see what other places were doing of note of the cities that do provide facilities because the city of Savage does not and Jordan no longer does. Um Prior Lake is the only uh city that uh leases space for a dollar amount. They lease out of their fire station number two for a little under $1,800 a month. >> Significant more than us. >> Not well, not significantly. We're at about 1480 or something like that. So, it's about $300 more a month um for the prior lake space. Um Shakape uh does not they kind of had an exchange going um where they allowed free use of space but also helped train their firefighters and whatnot. um on medical techniques. It does look like that agreement has kind of gone away as well. Um only in that there is no more space in the facility for for them to park a vehicle that I was told they are still allowed to use parking lot space and the rest of the facilities um but they cannot keep a vehicle inside anymore just due to lack of space. Um and the other I guess smaller cities across uh Scott County uh provide ambulance charge of ambulance space free of charge to whatever ambulances happen to be in their area. Lassour was kind of on the other side as there are still are a few Lassour County cities who operate their own ambulance services and so obviously they have their own space and then both Lassour and Lndale even though I guess they're just outside but they're close enough that they get compared and a lot of the stuff that we end up reaching for comparisons on do provide free space. I guess of note, uh, one of the things that North Memorial does provide to us is exceptional call times. And maybe Tim can speak to that even a little bit further as he works with them a little bit more. I know talking to uh Chief Renda, he he would mention occasionally just how almost the horror stories that come out of other communities for the wait times that they sometimes have um when they call for an ambulance and you're sitting there waiting for 25 30 minutes sometimes um we're here. They respond very very quickly. I know I did reach out to North Memorial um to see if the representatives there while would be open to while they did ask for free uh use of the space if they'd be open to paying a proportion of the facilities and we did not discuss an exact amount. Um, and as I mentioned in the memo, because of the building, uh, right now, I think that would be tougher to gauge. Um, but the expiring contract does have North Memorial paying up to $5,000 a year to the city in contribution. And that did seem to me like a fair place to start since we would be reducing the size of their space that they would be using um, both uh, in size of bays as well as size of interior space. um including having them now shared meeting room that would have normally in the old space been just theirs. And so I guess the other change that I put just in the drafts that I sent you is that council seemed more agreeable or more comfortable I should say with the five-year term. And so I did just add switch out the 10 year for a five-year term in there. But um obviously all of those are certainly open for discussion. So, just I guess looking for feedback at this point as to uh where you all would like me to go with this. Oh, one other thing. I I think it was Sean that brought it up. Um the potential taxing district similar to the rural fire district. So, I did talk to Scott about that. Um there are ambulance taxing districts. I'm not sure what the exact language is that's written for in state code. He did say he had heard of them. Um he said none of the cities he works with currently have one. So he's never really set one up, but he did have someone in his office kind of starting to do research on that. Uh because he even recommended even if we for whatever reason um don't decide to use it now, it may be something good to set up so that way in the future if we do want to use it or need to use it, it will be set up and ready to go and not something we're having to wade through at that point. Um, but that is not something. Further details on that I don't have for you tonight as they are still doing research on that exact process of setting that up and what it would entail. But as far as I know, it would be very similar to a rural fire district where um basically property owners I believe pay in just whatever amount whether $6 a year or whatever it would be to help fund whether it's the ambulance service. And as my understanding of it, it would be as if it came back to it, it would help fund the facility or help make payments to the ambulance service, whatever would possibly be needed from that particular fund. But as I said, I don't have many more details on exactly the formation of that district tonight. >> I'm glad that I would be okay with the five-year and um I don't I would rather charge in the full rate that we were charging before for for space. Um I don't want to tick them off either. However, >> well, I would be in favor of not charging them to lease the space, but to contribute to utilities. >> I I I will say, Rick, there is nothing that forces them to have to lease from us, per se. Like, it is entirely possible they could run the service without leasing space. I know. Um, you hear of I think more urban services do that where they just kind of park ambulances and then never really make it back to the bays until the shift's over type of situation. >> I had a situation where I had to talk to the paramedic. They were down over there and I had to convince that paramedic to get that ambulance over to where um I was with a a a down person. Um I'm not good with that if it wasn't for his guy showing up. Um, but you know, well, so, so their attitude has changed a little bit. They're down there doing something. I'm not okay with an ambulance service parked in a parking lot. That just seems pretty generic. I mean, it's not a taxi service. It's not it's not even a squad car. I mean, it's an ambulance. And um I I prefer they be there and when they get called, get here. You know, I don't want to answer questions on the phone. I'm I'm sorry. And that's what they would do. They would sit over there. Are you sure you need an ambulance? >> So I believe they would take the same call from dispatch. They would just instead of being parked >> there, they're instead of parked in a garage, they're not parked in the garage. >> Dispatch is who hooked me up with them. >> Uh Scott County, correct? >> Yep. >> Yeah. And to your point, Josh, like you had mentioned earlier, we are very fortunate to have the response times that we that we do have. Um, both Steve and I have talked about it and even mayor at our last meeting with North, we looked at the times and you you don't appreciate it until you need it or your family needs it or it becomes real in your life. Um, I think a lot of that can sometimes get overlooked and you're standing there over someone that you love and wondering where the ambulance is and you hear on the radio that's going to be 25 minutes or 30 minutes for an ambulance. And for me, that would be really hard to hear and listen to. And I think that the service that and the response times that we do have is is a testament to the service that we want to provide to our residents. And I think that's an important thing that we need to continue to do and have that service here. Um, I think that's I think that makes the community feel safe. They know that there's help when they need it. And in talking with Steve, we feel that that's very important because to to the same point, if we have a medical where we're going to be there for 35 minutes, our officers going to be tied up for 35 minutes. we can't we can't leave until that ambulance we can't just leave a patient there and say well the ambulance is on the way see you later um we can certainly call the fire department out um and they can assist us but you know I I I just I have a hard time with the really long time the the long response times when we have an opportunity to to have better times >> just I guess the point uh we're not talking tonight about not using North Memorial. >> No. Correct. >> We're not talking about anything that would influence response times. >> Right. >> If they decide to uh park their thing on the other side of town, they can do that now. They can affect response times on their own without us influencing it whether we rent to them or not. Um, so I don't >> No, I mean, >> you're talking about changing service providers, then I think we that that's a thing we have to consider, but I think we're really talking about rental rates. >> No, and I think I was seeing that more of um obviously we have our service area and then and they could park anywhere within the service area per Right. Yeah. And so Yeah. >> And they do now. >> And and I'm assuming it would probably be within city limits. That just makes more sense. But um that yeah they would have flexibility to move that around and maybe it would and it was much more of a comment of where they could be parking. >> You know I say that did they say to you if we don't rent if you don't provide a place for us to stay rent free we're going to provide less service. Did they say >> no? >> They say they're not going to get out in the same time or >> No. No. I mean it was it was more just discussed of >> talking about the possibilities since we we talk about a lot of possibilities when we discuss stuff. So >> they were they weren't going to ask for some fee from the city to have their service as of now. But they and we kind of talked about it that they thought well maybe instead of going down that road you don't charge them rent. That really was the discussion at hand because obviously they're doing it at a loss >> when they're doing it obviously in Fairbolt and they're paying rent and they >> paying cost for a building in Wasika, >> right? >> So they have real estate costs now, >> right? >> And we can never get them numbers. You know, when it's a nonprofit, we should be able to get their numbers and see them. And they don't allow that. So I don't know. You know what? May Mayo said they would rent the space as well. You you can get their numbers, Rick. It's just a very complicated North Memorial record. I It's you have to go through a lot of information. Um I just wanted to clarify because what you what I thought heard >> what number you talking about, Rick, because I got their financials from last year that they present to us and we had it at the last meeting. So what numbers are you looking for? >> Let me see them. This is their financial for last year and their budget >> compiled information they >> right and then also in that packet that I think Josh you provided us last time >> what I was looking for last time and they would they wouldn't provide it but I what I was looking for is what kind of profit they turn over here but everything went into the general fund so that we couldn't see it see because what they're saying is they're these sad satellite cities and all this, they're they're they're not making money off of enough money. Well, that I would beg to differ with that. I I seen some of them bills to the uh insurance companies and I cannot say, >> but >> well, it's >> Medicare is only going to pay so much, >> right? But there's still it's still pretty hefty. >> Yeah. I I I guess I guess my experience when we were in Dodge Center and we ran our ambulance um Medicare was paying at most 66% of the actual cost of sending out the ambulance. And so you were trying to make up your money then with insurance companies on the private side. And so it the more at least at least in Dodge Center's perspective when I was there, the more Medicare Medicaid runs you had, the harder it was to >> make the money work at at that level. But anyway, >> the uh question I had uh when you talk about parking a rig on a parking lot and or providing that or whatever, >> um what I heard you say, it made it sound like they don't need the office sleeping area. I I you know so the way I understood it speaking with the shock city administrator is that they use the office and sleeping day area type of thing but there's not space in the um the parking the like the larger garage for any of their rigs and jockaby because the fire department takes all that space >> right I was referring to new prague >> oh >> and north memorial do they need in the future >> I the way you described how they're They they they might not be needing it. I >> I believe they're only using two rigs at this point. They're parking two rigs there, >> right? >> Are they using the office then and the sleeping area? >> They they are using the office and the sleeping area. >> Okay. So, that 2,000 square ft area they're using. >> Okay. >> And then what happens if they decide not to use it? So, if their business model changes and they decide they're just going to park one over here and park one over there and not use the space as much, is there a way we can use part of it? I mean, I suppose if if they're not using it, I'm I'm sure something will get parked in that garage. It I mean, it's it's two climate controlled garage spaces that I'm sure we'd be able to find a use for. I mean, would they would the lease allow us to say, "Okay, that part of the property is no longer leased to you. We can use it." >> And the only reason I'm bringing this up is that the world changes quite a bit in a year and certainly in three years and five years. And I don't know what ambulance service is going to look like, but I know there's a lot of financial problems with it and the model. I mean, the state of Minnesota is subsidizing a lot of it now, but so I don't know what the future's going to be, but if they decide that they want the service, but they're going to do it differently. So, so at the moment, section 17 of the lease agreement states that the lease may be terminated by either party either 270 days in advance of a renewal um or at an earlier time if both parties agree to and the or the tenant doesn't use the space. And so, or if it doesn't use the space >> or pre doesn't provide ambulance service. >> And so there are kind of three ways that it could be done. Either 270 days in advance. >> So four years from now >> four years from now or if both parties agree to change or terminate the agreement or if the tenant no longer provides ambulance services. >> So my my hypothetical if they decide no longer to use it, we couldn't use it. >> Yeah. It would be we'd talk to them and say, "Do you guys Yeah. want to open up the >> Yeah. You want to continue paying utilities on the space that you're not using anymore or um do you want to open it up? We could put something into that termination clause, I guess, that would allow us >> Well, actually, an easier thing to do is put in an amendment clause that either party, you know, we can meet at the table and amend the contract. So it's not just um in uh section 17 or whatever the what section did you >> 17 of the building lease. >> So there's two agreements there. There's the service building lease. >> Yep. Yeah. So yeah, just just put in an amendment clause because that way it just opens it up to amend any portion of the contract. the parties can come to the table and talk and it's not just in the um uh >> rental >> the termination clause. >> So would that include the um >> well I would just like something with the ability that the city in New Prague if the prop to be able to use the property if you have to do an agreement actually come to an agreement. Why would they agree to it? But I guess you got to think maybe they would. Well, I just by adding an amendment clause, you can address any issues within the contract. So, >> and would they be able to do that, too? Then, >> of course, >> with an amendment clause in there that we put in there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Either party, you know, can agree to amend. I mean, the parties have to come together and agree to amend the contract. So, it's not just a unilateral decision. Would would that be similar to what's already in there in section 13 that just says let's take a look >> any additional amendments between the landlord and tenant must be in writing and signed by both parties to be effective. >> Yes, thank you Josh. Yep. I didn't see that. >> Yeah. So, I mean that that covers a multitude of things whether it be that we get to use the space or the utilities amount of $5,000 a year changes or whatever the case may be. Then my only other comments I guess is um I'm in favor of looking into the taxing district. Not because I want to raise taxes, but I think it's it's more fair that all the people that benefit from it would pay for the cost of providing the service if we're going to be subsidizing it. So I would be in favor of looking into it. If if everyone pays a dollar a year or $2 or something, that would more than enough. Well, couple dollars anyway to pay what the previous rent that we were getting on it. Um, and then I guess I'd be more in favor of waving 36 months of rent or doing a threeyear instead of a fiveyear just because the world can change so quickly. North Memorial and a lot of other service providers were awarded grants um because of the financial condition of ambulance services in the state of Minnesota and I think we're getting over 100,000 for Fairbolt and over 100,000 for and I think I think you told me that we we didn't qualify because >> more than half of the district is in >> Scott County Scott County >> and um that might change and maybe they can qualify for a grant a year from now or two years from now. Something might change that their circumstances are different for our market. But so it what about this? Um would you be interested in doing a five-year service contract? I think that was the most important thing to them was getting at least a fiveyear capital >> use or service agreement >> and then but doing a three-year lease agreement knowing that we'll be back to talk lease agreement where we could either extend it for the next two years of the contract or whatever here in three years. >> I'd be that >> I'd be more in favor in that of that just because that >> it can change so quickly. >> Is it does that threeyear okay with everybody else? >> Yes, that works. Y >> make those changes and then we can >> approve it at the next meeting. >> So I will make these changes and I will get them over to North Memorial just to >> kind of get their blessings on them and yeah hopefully we can get it approved at the next meeting then >> and I still would look at the taxing district. Yeah, I I think that's eventually if things don't change and they get less money from the state and all this other stuff, they're going to be >> any service is going to be looking for some kind of a subsidy from the city. >> Yeah. >> And I think we got to be ready to react to similar rural association like you said Sean, you know, >> I think we got better be in great fear that the state is going to be raising taxes and um I don't think we should be. Well, well, I think best case scenario is we'd have the district but never have to use it. >> This is true, >> right? >> The uh you mentioned 5,000 and you use the words to start. What did you mean when you said that? It's not in your computer. You said those darts. >> Did you mean that that's the lowest amount you're going to try to get more? >> Oh, I think that was I think I did say that in my memo as I'm trying to think back. Oh, you're really wordsmithing me tonight. Well, I thought >> I I I think I think the part of it is to as we start the discussions on what to potentially charge for utilities, it felt like a fair place to begin those discussions. Not that we might try to get more out of them, but as we talked tonight, because I I just foresaw the question of, well, how much do we charge for utilities? And so, because we have it currently in our contract for 5,000, it just felt like a good place to start the discussion >> for us, >> meaning that you might try to get 7,000 That's sort of we get more great. Yeah. I don't know. Well, >> because we right now we don't know what square foot utilities is going to be in a new facility for >> Yeah. For all we know is designed to be an airtight facility and doesn't leak a dollar and Yeah. >> Well, I I don't want to keep badgering this, but are you saying you're putting a fixed price number or are you actually trying to get the actual cost to the utilities? At this point, I would be looking at putting in the contract an up to amount similar to what's written there now. Okay? >> Up to $5,000 per year. And so it if it does come out that their utility costs are lower, then that number might be lower. If the utility costs are higher, that that's just where it's capped, >> not to exceed 5,000. >> If that's what it was before, >> correct? >> And inflation has brought costs up. >> But they got square footage, >> but their square footage is less. Well, yeah. >> The square footage now is less than it was in the old facility. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because they got only two bays instead of three. >> And then small and smaller office place some of their space is shared now, >> right? >> The fuel keeps going up. They're not going to sit not keeping all that. >> That does make sense. Thanks for clarifying that. >> Yeah, they got they're going to have less square footage than they have now. >> All right. Make those changes. Thank you. >> Uh miscellaneous. Um, Rick, you got anything? >> Yeah, but I I'll wait till I'm more prepared with it. >> Okay. >> No, I don't have nothing. >> Bruce, >> nothing. >> Sean, >> I just had uh one thing Maggie brought up a couple months ago about a ebike maybe looking at um there were some concerns out there that she had heard from and I heard a couple over in the last two weeks, too. Now that the weather's getting nice and they're out riding around, >> they actually opened that bill up today at the state. They're going to reclassify electric bicycles and bicycles as two different things. >> Okay, go ahead. >> So, I was just curious if there was any new movement on it other than I didn't hadn't heard the state stuff yet, but um if did you guys ever look or ask into any other cities that might have ordinances on it or or maybe there's nothing we can do right now? >> Yeah. Ken can probably speak better than I, but we we have been talking about it and we're not alone. Like there's cities that are in the same boat like on our forums or within the groups of chiefs of police, what do you guys have? What are you doing? How do you do? Like it's all over the place. So I think now the new the new legislation, just like much of the cannabis stuff, we want to wait and see what the legislation says. So we don't create an ordinance and then have to go back and change what the legislation said. So yes, 100% we are trying to monitor and keep up with it, but the technology with these things is just >> changes. >> It changes so much that trying to classify and define these when you buy one at Target or Walmart and one on Amazon and one comes from overseas. And you know, trying to classify these things is very difficult because you're looking at there's no stickers on it and you have to try and find the motor, electric, the engine, you know, all of these things. So to answer your question, we have no answers for you, but we're continuing to monitor it. Okay, >> that makes sense. And try >> there's basic stuff like if they're under 16, they have to wear a helmet or >> Yeah, there is that. And we put that out last year on our Facebook page and some the the rules of what is is law and sidewalks and things like that. So, and we'll certainly do that again here now that the weather's getting nicer, too. So, but there there are those general provisions. But as far as getting into all the the motors and the you know the watts and all of these things that are controlled by these I think we're looking for some direction from the state on what that looks like so we can then implement that into some ordinance >> and that's where the debate was because you can take one ebike and another ebike and one goes 40 miles an hour and the other one goes 100. You know what I mean? And there so that you got to regulate. You can't just say, "Okay, this is a lane for the ebikes." Well, it's almost a motorcycle. You know what I mean? No. >> Speed is another one. Whether they're certain wattage like Yeah. It's hard to >> Mhm. >> put it in a category. >> Yeah. Well, this one was mainly just that kids that are 10, 12 years old are operating a motorized vehicle where any other motorized vehicle they have to have a license, they have to have training, they have to have wear seat belts and put the cell phones away. You know, there's rules behind it, but I >> without a doubt, they have the the skateboard now with a wheel in the middle. >> Yeah. >> Um they they go faster by my my wheelchair >> and I I seen a kid out there by the by the um Wells Fargo and um he was young kid and really good on that thing, but he was moving. >> I think that's a fair point. The one wheels, the scooters, and the ebikes are all >> different >> kind of part of that, too. >> And the the law is pretty clear on ebikes. the three classes and they're pretty well defined. But the what you're mentioning is I think if we could get a bit better grasp on because those are the ones that are coming down the sidewalks. I think the ebikes I haven't seen as much recklessness with ebikes and then as you mentioned it's the ones that come from out of the United States or out of state that are that are coming from wherever and they're they're they're not falling into the ebike classification. They're they're motorized bicycles. And that's the ones that are the hastings situation where that lady got hit and >> that was actually that type of a bicycle or if you call it a bicycle. >> Yeah. And some cities are looking at just a complete like they don't allow them at all. You can't there is we're just not doing it for that reason because of that trying to create that separation of what you can and can't have and then trying to enforce it is we're just not going to have them. So I don't know if that's the right answer either. Yeah. I don't even Well, thank you. >> Well, we definitely would have a full room if that was the case. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? >> No. No, that was it. >> Maggie, >> I don't have anything. >> Not agree. >> Josh, you have anything else? >> Uh, yeah. I just wanted to give one update to you guys. I know it's come up occasionally just as a question. Um, so just wanted to update you on where with the police station stand in terms of remaining contingency here as we kind of hopefully come into the last couple months. We did start with a budgeted contingency of $966,000 and some of that was to be covered by in-house dollars. So, we didn't bond for it. We do currently still have about $730,000 in contingency remaining available. Um, so crossing our fingers we get to the end of the project and not spend that. Uh, some of that money uh that was originally um can't think of the word I'm looking for. >> Earmked. earmarked out of budget out of the general fund for that will will stay in the bet general fund where it's at and then the remaining of that money will can go into the debt service fund to help uh offset tax levy and help pay down the bond and going forward. So >> So Josh, do we have change orders to reflect the the difference between the two numbers you talked about the $230 some thousand? >> Yes. >> And were they approved by >> uh Yes. Yeah. I I I see those change orders and then when we get a group of them, I think they've come forward three times now to you guys to kind of >> to us. I haven't seen them >> instead of coming in bulk. >> I don't remember seeing any. >> I don't remember seeing any. Are you talking about an extent in it? Do you throw them in there? >> No. I'll I will go back and I can pull some for you. I know. >> Original one with the oil drum or the >> red digging the >> soil was soil was contaminated. >> I'll go back and look at that because it happened. That was but yes I I have seen all those change orders they come across usually it it turns out to be that I think one of them was there was a pipe going across the property and we had to basically reroute that pipe um because it was a water pipe going over the facility but then we also were able to take a 7in pipe and go down to a 5-in pipe for something and so that saved us a certain amount of money and it's a lot of smaller just little stuff like that as we've gone through and actually built the project out as to what those look like. So that 900,000 was part of that overall bid, correct? The 10.2. So that >> correct. >> Or whatever it was. Yeah. Okay. >> Anything else? >> That was all I got. >> Ken. >> Nope. >> Tim. All good. Mitch, Brian, Patrick, I don't have anything. So I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second by >> Rick. >> All in favor of German say I. >> I. Any opposition? We're out of here. Thank you everyone. >> You know that dog thing that I just I just couldn't grasp why it was even coming to your house. >> Yeah. I I don't know that >> I mean to me that should >> I get it a little I get the reason that they should be a way to