City Council - Regular Meeting

I call to order the regular meeting of the Albert Lee City Council for Monday, June 8th, 2026. Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Christensen.

Here.

Councillor Baker. Here. Councillor Herman.

Here.

Councillor Olson.

Here.

Councillor Van Beek.

Here.

Councillor Anderson.

Here.

Mayor Murray.

Here. Would you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME TO EVERYONE TONIGHT, WHETHER YOU'RE HERE OR ONLINE, WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE WITH US. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IF YOU ARE HERE TONIGHT AND WISH TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC FORUM, MAKE SURE YOU'RE SIGNED UP, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE ON THAT LIST IN ORDER TO SPEAK. ITEM THREE TONIGHT IS CEREMONIAL ITEMS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY, SO WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO THE PUBLIC FORUM, ITEM FOUR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER TONIGHT IS TODD BRECKIE. COME ON UP.

WELCOME. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE. Short story, I guess, two years ago, my wife Joanne and I moved back to Albert Lee. We were from the Emmons Twin Lakes area. We moved up to Waterville where we lived for four years, wanted to come back, kids, grandkids, bought a house right across the lake over here on North Shore Avenue. Bought it quickly because things seem to happen that way. First thing I did was a survey. With the survey, I learned that my previous permeable allowable hardscape water runoff was already 3% existing over what was allowed. When I bought the house, I thought I'll fix some other houses, built a house. I thought we'll spend some time. We'll fix it up. We'll do some things. With the 3% over, every time I get someone in there trying to do something, it's what do you want to tear out to start? The sidewalk, part of the driveway, you want to lose some of your hardscape to try and get the percentage to get a permit to modernize and do some work there. What I'm here about is I've had some different sets of eyes in there and look at it, kind of try to come up with some ideas what to do. You folks, the city, owns a half lot behind me on Giles. It's about a 10, 12 foot elevation from my property to it. It's steep slope. But the square footage of it, if I was to be able to acquire it, take it off your hands, the square footage of it would allow us to have allowable extra square feet. So if we wanted to do an addition, wanted to do some work, wanted to do some things where my goals take me, it would allow us to do it. In a nutshell, you guys have a half a property behind us there that I could utilize if it was any way doable. And without it, I'm kind of against the hard spot here. I don't want to tear outside Walker driveway just to try and do work in other places of the house. So it's a problem I've dealt with before. I put the other lake property as that. It's not going to go away, but it's just one way here. I thought I'd show up and see if there's a way of remedying it. by taking over some city property, if possible.

Okay, I appreciate that, and then I'm just gonna ask you if you will contact either the city manager or your councilor word for Reed-Olson, and just at least give them your phone number so that they can reach out to you. Okay. All right, thank you. All right, thank you.

Hold it. Could I have a repeat of the address, the address you're referring to?

941 North Shore Avenue. Okay, thank you. Thank you, folks. Thank you, Todd.

The second speaker tonight is Kim Hammer. Welcome.

After I talked to Rachel today, she asked me to come and tell you guys kind of what we spoke about with regard to the cats at large part of the ordinance. My point in this, in fact, I had all your phone numbers written down. I was gonna contact you after last meeting because I got a few phone calls that made me think that maybe you weren't gonna get the effect that you were hoping for with that particular part of the ordinance. I think that with, all right, I'm gonna start by saying statistically, 75% of people, or 75% of the cats that people own come from the streets. So that being said, if you have a cat that wants to go inside, outside, and you're pushed to the line as far as keeping it inside or letting it go again, I would say that in my experience, most people are going to let them go, either re-home them or just put them back outside. having a cat in your house that doesn't want to stay in your house, if you know, you know. It doesn't work very well. And to put that into kind of Albert Lee perspective, statistically 30% of Minnesota households have cats. If they have one cat, they generally have, the average is two. So in Albert Lee, 30% of the homes would mean that there's probably about 4,000 cats in town. And if 75% of those came off the streets, that's about 3,000 cats. So, I just think, I had some phone calls asking if I would help rehome these cats that would have to be inside outside. The Humane Society doesn't adopt out cats to be outside. We always adopt out cats that are inside cats. If we have cats that need to be outside, we have a program called the working cats program and we find homes for them on farms or in businesses that want rodent control or whatever. And they're free. They're part of the agreement is that they'll take good care of these cats and feed them and keep them contained so that they know where home is. But as far as our adopted animals go, they're inside cats. So when people ask us to help them rehome these cats that want to be inside, outside, we don't have a whole lot of resources. to do that. We don't have a lot of farm properties that are begging us for cats and that kind of stuff. We have a few and we do that with the cats that can't be socialized and adopted out into homes. But it kind of panicked me a little bit that this part of the ordinance might have a different effect than what you were hoping for. So I just wanted to... I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT SO THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU, KIM.

APPRECIATE IT.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE BRAD KERSHNER.

WELCOME.

THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. I HAD AN IDEA AFTER YOUR LAST MEETING OR I WOULD HAVE SHARED IT SOONER. It might be a little late, but when people have a lot of animals, I know tons of people that have lots of animals, they generally take very good care of them. And the people that generally you see animals running amok and rampant, not being taken care of well, they usually just... DON'T PAY MUCH OF ATTENTION. AND THE THOUGHT THAT I HAD IS IF YOU, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE POLICE ARE TRACKING THE NUMBER OF CALLS BECAUSE THEY CITED HOW MANY CALLS THEY HAD. IF A GOOGLE DOC COULD SIMPLY BE CREATED AND A DEMERIT SYSTEM CREATED WHERE IF SO MANY VISITS HAPPEN TO A HOUSE, AND WHEN I SAY VISITS, JUSTIFIABLE ABUSE OR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT DOING SOMETHING, NOT JUST A NEIGHBOR TRYING TO GET MAD AT ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. and get back at them by calling and complaining because they know they have a pet. But a demerit system that would allow the police at that point to take it to another level, know what that another level is or how many demerits it is. But just a simple system that would say, okay, obviously this particular household has a problem and deal with it one at a time versus, you know, I work for a company and sometimes we get rules that cover everybody AND EVERYBODY ISN'T BREAKING THE RULES. SO TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, I KNOW WE HAVE LIMITED STAFF AND PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ALL THIS. SO JUST SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OF A CASE WHERE YOU COULD GO IN AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A PROBLEM. WE'RE GOING TO EITHER TAKE THOSE ANIMALS AWAY OR DEAL WITH FINES OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE TO TRY TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR. BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ANIMALS. AND I MEAN, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE ANIMALS, TOO. KIDS GET TAKEN AWAY FROM BAD HOMES. ANIMALS SHOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT AS HIGH ON THE CHAIN, BUT FOR SOME PEOPLE, ANIMALS ARE THEIR KIDS. SO, THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY.

ALL RIGHT, APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. All right, item five is consent and approval of agenda. A is the approval of minutes of the May 26, 2026 regular council meeting. Item B is the approval of minutes of the May 26, 2026 work session. Item C is license and permits. Item D is a resolution of approving plans and specifications. AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE AIRPORT SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT BUILDING DOOR, JOB 2608. COUNCIL? MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA, YOUR HONOR. MOTION BY COUNCILOR BAKER. IS THERE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND, YOUR HONOR.

SECOND BY COUNCILOR HERMAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 6 IS PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE NONE TONIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO ITEM 7, UNFINISHED BUSINESS. AND A IS ORDINANCE 26-156, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 2, ANIMAL CONTROL, SECOND READING. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. The proposed amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance update and modernization of the city's approach to responsible pet ownership, public safety, and community expectations. Several sections of the existing ordinance were outdated and no longer aligned with current best practices, enforcement needs, or community concerns. The revisions aim to clarify definitions, strengthen nuisance and safety provisions, and ensure consistent enforceable standards for both pet owners and animal control staff. Key amendments are outlined in the summary included. Excuse me, that line is no longer added. I would say that the key summary of the changes since the last time the council discussed this and passed the ordinance as amended did reduce, excuse me, took away the separation of cats and dogs at two each and made it four animals all together per household. So it could be three dogs, one cat, four cats, four dogs, or less, of course. So that was the key change that was made since the last meeting.

Is that it? That is it. All right, thank you. Council. MOVE TO APPROVE, YOUR HONOR. MOTION BY COUNSELOR ANDERSON. IS THERE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND, YOUR HONOR.

SECOND BY COUNSELOR HERMAN. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNSELOR BAKER. I WOULD LIKE POLICE CHIEF HANSON TO COME UP AND SPEAK ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE. AND I'VE HAD PEOPLE ASK HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. AND JUST TO MAYBE CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AGAIN WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE. CHIEF HANSON, WELCOME.

Good afternoon, or good evening, I should say. Yes, and enforcement is one of those topics that there is a lot of discretion in it, because you do have a lot of good pet owners that maybe make a mistake once, and you have others where it's repeated and we need to adjust that behavior somehow. Sometimes we can do it through education, sometimes that's not effective. We're currently dealing with one property in town where we've issued, I believe, five citations recently for dog at large, trying to change that behavior. So we're working hard to adjust those behaviors as we identify them.

So in a situation like that, you have five citations. What does that amount to as far as the homeowner? Is there penalties?

You know, that's for court. Okay. I believe there's probably some sort of standard fine that they can pay. They probably do not have to go to court on it unless we force that issue.

Okay. Additional questions or discussion? City Manager.

To also explain a little bit more as to, as it relates to enforcement. Of course, when you get into this, you might have to get the courts involved, potentially, or have certain exigent circumstances, but we do also have the ability under the ordinance to remove the animal from a situation where there is a potential danger or a continued nuisance or unsanitary conditions. So that is something that has been added that was not in the ordinance previously. Previously, it was always about fines. And this, I believe, was added that we could actually remove the animal from the home if that was what was necessary.

Previously, or currently, we can only remove the animal if the animal's in danger or causing a danger to someone else.

Okay. So, with this new ordinance, if you write a citation, are there fines that, I mean, can it be like?

I believe it's a petty misdemeanor violation, so it would only be a fine. Yeah. There's not jail time or anything like that.

No, but it would be like a speeding ticket or something like that. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, there are fines.

May I comment briefly? Is there any attorney? Be aware that a citation results in a first appearance at court, which currently is going to be October or November. So there's this belief that issuing a citation causes some sort of expedited response. In fact, issuing a citation to a person almost inevitably delays their obligation to deal with the issue. A first appearance results typically in a setting of either a settlement conference or a pretrial jury trial calendar, which means A FIRST APPEARANCE IN OCTOBER IS LIKELY GOING TO BE DEALT WITH IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY. THE NEXT COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE AS TO FINES, YES, WE HAVE STANDARD FINES AND WE ASSESS THEM ALL THE TIME AND WE RARELY COLLECT THEM BECAUSE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF OFFENDERS ARE PEOPLE THAT QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER, MEANING THEY ARE Politely said, under-resourced. And so a defendant like that will get a fine, whether it's mandatory or not, but if they can't pay it, we don't put them in jail for non-payment of fine. We tend to certify it into the state collection system, which means they're deducted from future tax returns or tax refunds is the premise. The people that we have that are under-resourced and getting a citation and a $300 fine or $250 fine generally are not getting... tax refunds. So they essentially are just accumulating unpaid fines that we don't have a realistic means of collecting. So the educational component and the personal contact that the department has as a response is the most effective tool that I've seen work. It is just good old fashioned human beings from the community talking to people in the community and making an evaluation of that individual circumstances is what's dealing with the problem. The courts are really a lousy way to deal with the issue, because they're just not very effective. Our police department is very effective.

All right, thank you. Your Honor. Councilor Anderson.

Well, Chief Hanson is up here. I wanted him to discuss the trap and release. I've had a few comments about people are concerning that we're outlawing the feeding of cats, but really you're just, we're controlling it a little bit better. You want to know where they're being fed so that it's coordinated so we can further, please elaborate.

Correct, we have several areas where they've become makeshift feeding stations, so to speak. And we do have new ones that pop up from time to time. We'd like to be able to monitor them and know where the feeding stations are because the feeding stations work hand in hand with our TNR program. When we have a new feeding station pop up that may bring more animals in, it takes us time to identify it and It makes the problem kind of grow exponentially with the cats. Instead of being able to focus our efforts on a handful of feeding stations, Camp Companion needs to spread their efforts out wider to look at other areas where feeding stations are popping up. Where we have done the TNR, we have had good success controlling the numbers. It brings the numbers down. The cats appear to be less aggressive in my opinion.

So would you say that the way that the ordinance is written will actually help your efforts with TNR more, getting the public coordinating with that, so to speak?

To my understanding, yes. Camp Companion is the one that truly runs the TNR program. I try and give them the resources they need to be effective with what they do.

Your Honor? Councilor Christensen. Thank you. Chief Hanson, do you have a specific officer that is to be the liaison with the Humane Society?

We don't have someone designated that. Lieutenant Strom has taken that role. He communicates somewhat regularly with Kim.

Is that, I'm wondering if we're being as effective as we can be with our communications. and I'm wondering if a little better, REGULARITY OR STRUCTURE TO THAT RELATIONSHIP MIGHT HELP BECAUSE I KNOW THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED, IF THEY HAVE, LIKE, WE KNOW THAT EVERY THIRD MONDAY WE'RE GOING TO DO A CHECK-IN OR E-MAIL OR SOMETHING SO THAT THERE'S A SET EXPECTATION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REACH-OUT AND A RESPONSE, THAT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL.

Point taken. Communication is always beneficial. Yeah. Yes, and I guess I'm a little naive that there was discrepancy or not enough communication going back and forth. So we can improve that. We've kind of been in a little bit of a holding pattern knowing the animal ordinance is going to change, and we really want to look at what our response is and how can we improve that response.

THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD.

BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE NOT KNOWING WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS GOING TO BE.

GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS MY FEELINGS ON ANIMALS. I'M AN ANIMAL PERSON THROUGH AND THROUGH. What I appreciate about this community is that we have so many people who are caring about the animals. It's to the least of these that we share our humanity, and that also lifts us up as a community. And I'm not talking to you necessarily, I'm just talking to the public. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINES, OUR POLICE AND OUR HUMANE SOCIETY, THE CAMP COMPANION PEOPLE AND THE VOLUNTEERS THAT ARE WORKING SO HARD. WE ALL RECEIVED AN E-MAIL TODAY, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY POIGNANT AND ELOQUENT, VERY WELL STATED, AND IT ENCOURAGES NOT JUST US BUT OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY TO GET ACTIVE AND INVOLVED TO CARE Last meeting I was kind of making a point, you know, be a good neighbor. Take care of your animal. Do the things that you're supposed to do so people don't have to complain about you. Or, you know, if you're being bothered, don't be afraid to just do a neighborly reach out and say, how can I help? I mean, your dog is barking all the time, and is there anything that we can do to solve this together? Because you guys don't have time to be dealing with that sort of stuff. IT ENDS UP BEING KIND OF NONSENSE FOR YOU TO HAVE TO, I MEAN, YOUR SKILLS AND YOUR NEED IS SO MUCH GREATER THAN THOSE THINGS. SO THAT'S MY POINT. THAT'S MY, IT'S UP TO A DOLLAR NOW.

And we do see that. The neighborhoods where the neighbors know each other, they work out their problems amongst themselves. In the neighborhoods where they don't know each other, sometimes they have no interest in knowing their neighbors, and that's where we get lots of the nuisance type calls, where I think a lot of those could be handled with a conversation if they knew each other. But when you get the police dispatched to your door, that doesn't build those bridges.

In honor. Mr. Baker. To Chief Hanson's point about the neighborhood, getting to know your neighbors, I live in a neighborhood that everybody pretty much knows everybody, and there's a lot of dogs in the neighborhood. And I can't remember any time that we've ever had any issues with dogs. Typically, they all get along. Everybody takes care of their dogs. And, you know, we're a dog-loving neighborhood, so it can work. That's all I needed to say.

All right, any further discussion or questions? Your Honor. Councilor Anderson.

One more thing, I just wanted to say that I supported this last time, the first treaty, I'm going to support it again. knowing full well that it's not perfect, but there's no such thing as a perfect ordinance. I would argue that the ordinance as it exists today is even less perfect. I think there's gonna be a little bit more enforcement tools for you guys, and I would like to bring back what the city attorney said. I think those are great points, because those conversations that you guys have, that education, I think it started a public discussion about this, about being better pet owners, because really that's what it boils down to. All an ordinance is is a framework, a framework probably for enforcement, and a lot of this is gonna fall on the police department's shoulders, but I think we've heard from a lot of people, and I think their voices have been, they've spoken, the public has spoken, and it's not gonna be perfect, but I think this is an improvement.

Your Honor. All right, thank you, Chief Hanson. We appreciate your comments tonight. All right, if there's no further comments or discussion, clerk, please call the roll.

Councilor Christensen. Aye. Councilor Baker?

Aye.

Councilor Herman?

Aye.

Councilor Olsen?

No.

Councilor Van Beek?

No.

Councilor Anderson?

Aye.

And Mayor Murray?

Aye. Motion carries. Item B is a resolution permitting the publication of Ordinance 26-156, Summary Chapter 8, Animals, Article 2, Animal Control. City Manager? Aye.

Thank you, Your Honor. Ordinance summaries may be published if they reasonably inform the public of the effect and intent of the ordinance. Summaries fulfill the legal requirements as if the entire summarized matter had been published and also direct the public on how to obtain the complete ordinance. Staff recommends approval. Approval requires five-sevenths vote.

Council? Move to approve, Your Honor. Motion by Councilor Baker. Is there a second? I'll second, Your Honor. Second by Councilor Anderson. Any further discussion? Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilor Baker?

Aye.

Councilor Herman?

Aye.

Councilor Olsen? Aye. Councilor Van Beek?

Aye.

Councilor Anderson? Aye. Councilor Christensen? Aye. And Mayor Murray?

Aye. Motion carries. Item eight is new business, and A is resolution approving the final plat of Battleston Renton Edition. City Manager? Thank you, Your Honor.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2nd, 2026, to review the preliminary plat of Battleston Renton Edition. for compliance with Chapter 38 subdivisions. Purpose of the plat is to subdivide a smaller four-acre parcel out lot A in order to facilitate the eventual sale to Vortex Cold Storage for future expansion. The property is currently zoned R1 or single-family residential. However, an application to rezone out lot A from the residential to industrial zoning was submitted in conjunction with the plat application. Planning Commission recommends approval of the final plat of the Bettelson-Rinchin addition. Staff recommends approval.

Council? Move to approve, Your Honor. Motion by Councilor Baker. Is there a second?

I'll second, Chair.

Second by Councilor Herman. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Item B is the ordinance amending zoning and the land use map from single family residence R1 to industrial district I2. FOR OUTLET A OF BATTLESON-RENCHEN EDITION. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

CITY MANAGER? Thank you, Your Honor. The owner has applied to rezone Outlot A of the addition from single-family to industrial in order to accommodate the eventual sale and future expansion with Vortex Cold Storage. The property directly abutting to the south is also owned by Vortex Cold Storage, and the remaining Port Authority Lot, Port Authority Number 3, or Alita Jobs Park, is currently zoned industrial, which eliminates concern of spot zoning. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan use plan identifies this area as residential in nature. However, as Alita Jobs Park has failed over time, industrial users have continued to grow and expand while housing this area has not. STAP believes that the market has demonstrated that this area is better suited for industrial rather than housing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2nd, and after consideration in the staff report, in addition to public testimony, the Commission recommends approval based on the following. Rezoning the property will not have an adverse effect on the existing and adjoining properties as the area is largely industrial. The use meets the general zoning requirements of the surrounding industrial district. Planning Commission and staff recommend approval.

Council?

MOVE TO APPROVE, YOUR HONOR.

MESHED BY COUNCILOR CHRISTIANSON. IS THERE A SECOND? NO SECOND, YOUR HONOR. SECOND BY COUNCILOR ANDERSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE NOW GOING TO JUMP DOWN TO ITEM I IN THE NEW BUSINESS LIST, AND THIS IS THE RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $5,310,000 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2026A. CITY MANAGER?

Thank you, Your Honor. Per the city charter, the city of Albert Lee has the authority to issue general obligation improvement bonds to provide financing for public improvement projects undertaken by the city. Staff recommends the sizing of the bond to be 5,310,000 to finance the bonding costs, assessments, water portion, and levy funded portions of the projects as estimated below. The original sale report that the council had received was for a term of 15 years. However, if the council wishes to reduce that to 10 years, that is certainly a viable option. The bonds will be sold on July 13th, 2026. The project amounts were summarized below. Staff does recommend approval. However, the difference between 10 years and 15 years is a policy decision for the council. And I would make that as part of the recommendation if a recommendation is made. Council.

Your Honor. Councilor Christensen. I move we approve the resolution and issue the bond for a 10-year maturity.

Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Second by Councilor Anderson. Any further discussion? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL MOVE BACK UP TO ITEM C, RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRIDGE R1144 REPLACEMENT ON THE SONGBURG TRAIL. CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

The City of Albert Lee, in partnership with Freeborn County, applied for a conditional use permit for a pedestrian bridge replacement in the F1 Floodway District. The bridge is situated within the former Union Pacific Rail Corridor as part of the overall Songbird Trail development and needs replacement in order to correct safety issue. The proposed bridge meets the conditions of the flood district by not impacting public waterways, wetlands, and having proper erosion and sediment prevention plans, and by eliminating a design that will not change the current flow characteristics of the channel for what is existing. In addition, while the bridge itself is within the F1 flood district, most of the staging and construction will take place in the UP rail corridor, which is outside the district. Lastly, the proposed bridge is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which designates Songbird Trail as a future trail network. Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be kept on file as part of the CUP approval. Staff recommends approval.

Council? Move to approve, Your Honor. Motion by Councilor Baker. Is there a second? I'll second, Your Honor. Second by Councilor Herman. Any further discussion? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM D IS A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEED CLEANUP GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER 281697 FOR THE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAPESTRY, JOB 2611. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THIS RESOLUTION IS TO EXECUTE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEED cleanup grant agreement for the Family Housing Development Project, also known as Tapestry Project. The grant can fund approximately 75% eligible work with a total reimbursement amount not to exceed $267,487. This project involves excavating and disposal of contaminated soil, backfilling and grading of onsite clean soil throughout the project area for development of the Family Housing Development Project. Engineering is recommending entering into this agreement. Staff recommends approval.

All right, council. Move to approve, your honor. Motion by Councilor Baker, is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Councilor Christensen. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Item E is a resolution calling a public hearing for declaring no public purpose and waiving Planning Commission review, portion of Warren Park, job 2612. City Manager?

Thank you, Your Honor. This is calling for a hearing that will be held on July 13th, 2026 at 7 p.m. for the purpose of authorizing the sale to Minnesota Department of Transportation of a small piece of the southeast corner of Morton Park that is currently owned by the city of Albert Lee, but for which permanent easement has been granted to the DOT. This would be for the existing sidewalks, Americans with Disability Acts, and roadway improvements. No additional property aside from what has already been granted in a permanent easement is currently being used and what is currently being used by the state for these purposes would be sold within this transfer. Staff recommends approval.

Council? Move to approve, Your Honor. Motion by Councilor Baker. Is there a second?

I'll second, Your Honor.

Second by Councilor Herman. Any further discussion? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, NAY. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM F IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE MNDNR MEYER BIG ISLAND STATE PARK SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN AND SERVICE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, JOB 2619. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, HONOR. STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE DNR SINCE 2017 TO GET MEYER BIG ISLAND STATE PARK CONNECTED TO THE CITY SEWER AND ABANDON THEIR CURRENT POND WASTEWATER SYSTEM. The project will involve the DNR construction and collection system and lift station at the park, and then constructing a force main from the state park along the State Park Road, 780th Avenue, to a city manhole located near the East Main Street and 780th Avenue. The highlights include a 25-year service cooperative agreement with Florida's