City Council - Regular Meeting

7:30 I will call the regular city council meeting of March 2nd, 2026 to order. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All individuals are asked to either silence or turn off all cell phones. pagers and other electronic devices that may disrupt the meeting. Approval of the agenda. Approve of the agenda is posted in accordance with the open meeting law and here in place all agenda items on the table for discussion. We need to amend the agenda. Uh and we need to add under old business. Um item C um sprout ordinance number 67th series. Um, we're bringing that back for further discussion. What is the wish of the council?

Motion by council member Glaze, second by council member Lunberg. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. Approval of minutes. Special works session meeting of February 17, 2026 and the regular meeting of February 17, 2026. Approve. What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Motion by Mayor Zilka, seconded by council member Ljigran. Any discussion? I'll be abstaining council president since I wasn't here. Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I

opposed. Carries. Approval of bills, electronic checks 4081 through 4102 and checks 111454 through 11489 totaling 260,129.19 and void checks 113665 and 11426. Approve. What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve paying the bills. Second. Motion by council member Glaze. Second by Mayor Zilka. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I oppose.

Carries. Awards, donations, presentations, and proclamations. We have none. So, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Underneath the consent agenda, we have the annual day of caring city participation May 6, 2026 approved. Application for exempt permit, Friends of London Hill, Winepole, June 11th, 2026. Approve. Building report January 2026. Receive. Bianual 2025 bodywn camera audit report. Rampart audit LLC police department. Receive. Certificate of compliance. Bianual 2025 bodywn camera audit. Rampart Audit LLC Police Department receive. and the fire report for January 2026. Receive. What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. I'll second it. Motion by council member Goshik, seconded by council member Lindberg. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. Public hearings and letings. Under letings we have rough mower payment update Midwest Machinery Company G approve.

Thank you council president. I'll be filling in for Sony today. So uh I'll do my best to be her. Um with a few months ago July of 25 we council approved the purchase of a John Deere terrain cut lawn mower for our golf course. The Gulf organization had agreed to reimburse the city over fiveyear period at fi $5,340 a year. Uh that was the low quotation from Midwest Machinery at $26,700. This was all approved by council. We recently identified that taxes were not actually included in on that quote uh quote. They just were left off on that. Reaching out to golf organization, they said that they were not willing to cover the taxes. The taxes are in the amount of $1,970. So, today we are coming to council looking for uh approval to authorize the coverage of the taxes from the golf improvement fund. This was not initially budgeted, but this equipment was uh very badly needed at the golf course as we had multiple mowers go down at the time.

What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Lundberg. Any discussion, Mr. Council President? You want to go first? No. Oh, wait. Um, I know it's only $2,000, but where are we getting that money? Yeah, it it's coming out of the golf improvement fund. Okay. So on they have it there in their budget to they have extra money. I I don't get it. They had a budget and they're adding $2,000 more to their budget. I don't understand. We do believe that the budget can accommodate it. Okay. Okay.

Frank, mine was more on the line of a question. We're nonprofit, but yet we're paying taxes on Do we do that with all the equipment we buy or just the golf course? Uh, explain it.

So, the golf course is an enterprise fund. It's supposed to be a for-profit um entity, and that's why we have to pay taxes on on that stuff for the golf course. Other things like plow trucks, automobiles, we have to pay taxes on that as well. Um, but other equipment that we use for city business, we we don't. As long as it's for the government entity portion of it. When it falls to like the golf course or an enterprise, that's when it becomes taxable. Well, Mr. President, go ahead. Did didn't Midwest Machinery have that on their bill when we got it or what? Why is it?

So, as I understand it, it was initially um put in there as for the city because they have provided um equipment for us. For instance, the So, when we buy mowers for the parks department, we don't pay taxes on it because it's for the parks. Um but once it gets to the for-profit or the enterprise fund at the golf course, that's when taxes are required. So, in their account, they had it set up as going through the city, which is non-t taxable. Yes. And that was just an error that was missing. It was our mistake. It was an oversight on both parties. Yes. But it's a mistake, right? So, which is why we're bringing I can understand that, but it's Yep. Which is why we're bringing it back to council to um get that rectified.

So, if we vote against it, then what then? I don't actually know. I just thought I'm with you, Wayne. What do we say? No. And I want to pay the taxes. Do they take the machine back or what? If you say no, then um I get to go back to the drawing board and figure that out. I have one more question. Uh, help my mind here. That went out for bids. I don't know exactly on that one. I wasn't involved too much. I think that one was off the state bid if I remember correctly. I believe I believe so. I believe that one was off the state bid um for the for the purchase of that. I'd have to dig back through the minutes, but I believe that's correct. Typically, that's where we get it is off the state bid.

If you'd like, we can dig in and get back to you. Yeah, just for curiosity. We're going to vote now, so it isn't going to make a difference, but uh I'd like to keep on top of things. Sure. Is there any other discussion?

Yeah, Council President, I was I'll just add to it. You know, with this amount of money, this oversight, so to speak, we're now 56 rounds in the red. That's going to take 56 rounds of golf to make up $2,000. We all know how tight the margins are out at the golf course. And um you know, the season hasn't even started. So, I hope we can find a way to boost play out there. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed? Carries. Item two, prop uh proposal for a professional services wastewater treatment facility improvements award. Greg,

thank you, Mr. President. In front of you, we have the uh proposal for construction administration services for phase two of our wastewater and wastewater um treatment plant improvements. Um if you recall, we've been working on this one ever since the first phase was uh was completed. So, roughly about four years now. We enlisted back in 2024 to do the design on it. We've been working on that. We finally have the design done. We've been looking at uh various funding opportunities for uh the portion of this and we believe that PFA um we're in what's they call the the fundable range. So they have a set number of um funds that PFA gets. They'll be able to um submit or be able to to to get low interest loans for for the project for this. Um, and so we're currently going out for bids. We anticipate probably in about a month we'll have final bids on the the construction portion of it. And so we'll bring that to the council once that is uh what is obtained. But this particular contract is for the construction administration. So the engineer to be able to um view it, prepare the um the pays and stuff like that for for the project as it goes on. And that is in the amount of $610,700. This is a not to exceed. So if they don't use that much work or that much time and money then um we wouldn't be required to pay the full amount if if it comes in less. And actually when did the original portion of it when we did the um phase one in 2019 when we rehabed the entire thing um they actually came in under budget uh for that one as well. So it does happen um and I anticipate that to happen as well in this time. What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to award. I'll second. Is that Dave? That was Ligin. Okay. Motion by Mayor Zilka. Second by council member Ligin. Any discussion? Mr. Council President, I have a question. Now, this has already been budgeted for. We do. We do have this in the capital improvement budget. Yes. Okay. it for 26 or 27 27 27 and and on. Yes, 27 and on. It's not happening till 27 or typically what happens is what we is we'll we'll sell bonds um in this case we'll get a loan out from it from PFA and so we front the money and then we get reimbursed through PFA and so the first payment if you will will be in 27th and then the following ones will be in successful years after that.

Okay. Thank you. I have a question council president. So this 610,000 is just for the engineering services. That's correct. Do you have any idea what the construction costs are going to be? Ballpark. Um total cost of the project is about 5.5 million. So I would say the construction is probably going to be 4.34.4 million for it. And we're going to bond for that or we have a grant. We would get uh loans for that. Low interest loans through PFA. last we just put 20 million into that plant.

Yeah. The one and I'm going on a tangent here. The when you have got critical services like the wastewater treatment facility, you don't want to have kind of a bottleneck where if one piece of equipment goes down, you're dead in the water. Right now, the only piece of equipment that we have for dewatering is a centrifuge. So, we've got one piece um which was installed in 2004 with the the original plant update before this one was done. Um and so we're looking to get a second one which is supposed to be less energy intensive in order to to basically have two of them available to us so if one goes down we can use the other one and vice versa. Um this is just one of those bottlenecks that we're trying to trying to take care of and make sure that we've got capacity and and service available when we need it.

I have another question. This was approved in 19 phase one was done in 2019. Uh that was well and what takes so I don't understand what takes so long. Excuse me for

we had a phase one and a phase two. Um because when you redo a a water treatment or wastewater treatment facility, you don't know what type of sludge you're going to get afterwards. The bugs have to be able to to do their work to find out what what it is. Um, so after that, after the project was done, the 2019 project was done, we let the facility basically run its course for a couple years to get settled in and find out, fine-tune how that facility is going to work. We brought in three vendors to basically do a a bench test or a jar test on the sludge that we're producing to see what's going to work best for us. Um, because we didn't want to throw a piece of equipment on it that wasn't going to work the best. Some There's multiple different types of deatering. One is a centuge, one is a screw press, there's a fan press, and there's a couple and a belt press. Um, depending on the type of sludge, one of or the other might work better. Um, and so we do have a centuge, which does work good, but it's very highly um intensive for electricity. The next option is is a screw press that we we've tried that works fairly well. Um, it's not nearly as energy intensive, and so we're looking at utilizing that quite a bit to try to bring down some of our energy costs out at the at the waste plant. Um I does the state get involved with their guidelines for this?

Not really. Okay. I just wondering if they if they did if it was updated so you know. No. So they're not correct. And the feds aren't either. No. Okay. No. Like the EPA or anything? No. Okay. No. Thank you. Any other discussion? Which of the council? It's already been Oh, that's right. Uh thinking about sludge and all this other slush. All righty then. All those in favor? I

I opposed carries. Moving on to old business. First item is resolution 2026-14 ordering surface andor utility improvements public improvement 416 1st Avenue Southeast. Adopt. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. If you recall uh at our last meeting on February 17th, we had a public hearing for our First Avenue Southeast project. Um this is a staff initiated project. So I do need a 7/8 vote in order to move the project forward to the next step. Um we are asking the council to approve resolution 2026-14. This would uh essentially start the process uh for staff to be able to do the plans and specs and get that moving forward uh to make this project a reality. We're asking council this evening to approve resolution 2026-14. What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. We'll second it.

Motion by council member Glaze. Second by council member Lunberg. Any discussion? Yes. One council member is gone. We need a 7/8. That's correct. So, if I vote no, ain't going to matter. It's going to come back before us again anyway. Uh, potentially. Um, if the vote is no, then we would be looking to see if it would come back at a at a future meeting, but I'm hoping it's all yeses, but

I'm not I'm not voting no. Okay. more curious because it seems like we've uh recently we've had votes but then I see them back on as soon as a few more members come back. Sure. So, uh I wonder if we shouldn't just wait to vote on things when all the members are here. So, that would be my request is to postpone this one until the next meeting. Um, and hopefully we've got a full council at that point. Okay. Do you think someone's gonna say no to this? Frank said he was gonna say no. He's going to vote yes. No. He's just trying to scare you.

You scared him. You're just expecting me to say no. Okay. All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Resolution call. Roll, please. Lunberg, yes. Ligrin, yes. Meyer, yes. Zilka, yes. Canopha, yes. Glaze, yes. Go, yes. Curies. I want to wait. No.

Okay. Next item. Resolution 2026-17. Joint resolution of the city of Little Falls Community Schools future use of middle school facility. Uh this one was uh on our agenda at our last meeting. Um it was u voted down at that time. However, according to the rules, uh if a no vote a no vote can bring back um an item for further discussion. Um and with that, I will turn that over to Mayor Zilka. First of all, I want to apologize to staff and city council and the residents of Little Falls for the meetings I've missed. I was going through some health problems and uh I'm back and ready to go. Um this resolution, I kind of blame myself for this because if I would have been here, it might have passed. Uh so you know there was a couple years ago that we met with Rodamacher and talked about building a new city hall and a new police department and the price came to about $33 million and uh I just think that this is an opportunity that would greatly benefit us to work with the schools. Uh they're great to work with. We've met with them before and I just think it'd be great to work with them to try to find a solution. Get the police department out of that hole they're in and get the city staff out of this place. Uh because uh this isn't the best either. So that's what I have.

And if I just go ahead.

Okay. Let me go. Let me go first and then I'll um I just want to I just want to remind uh people on the council that um this resolution um is a resolution that shows that we have an intent of interest. It doesn't it doesn't hold us or say anything that yes, if the referendum passes um yeah, we're we're jumping right in at it or whatever. It's just uh as that we are interested in it and we're just stating the fact that if everything works out, we're interested. It's not saying that we're going to go through it. Alex,

that's basically what I was about to say is this resolution simply states should the school district vacate the middle school, we are agreeing to talk. That is the only thing that we are agreeing to with the resolution. There is no financial implication. There is no um promise of moving forward just that we will come to the table to talk. Council council president if I may in interest of what you both just said would it make sense and would it be beneficial to read the resolution as it's stated as we're voting on it to the public like right now? Is that something that's I know it's not typically done but just so we're all I've heard Mayor Zilka read them before all the wherees,

right? I don't know if I have it. I can volunteer to do it if you would like. I'm not a great public reader, but I'll give it a shot here. So, um, the item item for consideration is resolution 2026. Is that okay if I do this? Good. Yeah. I'm just wondering if we have to have if we have to make a motion and have a discussion on it. I don't know. Okay. I just I just wanted to be completely transparent. Read it and then make up the motion. We could we could read it so that we know what this what the the motion is about and then I will call for the council.

Mr. President, I think I was frantically looking through Robert Rules, so I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I believe what you need to do is make a motion to reconsider this particular item. So, resolution uh or ordinance number 60. Nope, not that one. Resolution 2026-17. If that passes, then you would discuss then you'd have discussion and then you'd make a motion to approve resolution 2026-17. So the first one would be make a motion to reconsider that um that item. Thank you. Do I have that motion? That motion. I'll second it. Motion by council member Glaze, second by council member Goshik. Any discussion on that? Yes, Mr. President.

Go ahead. I was one of the people who voted against it last time. There was only two of us, but because a few people were absent, it didn't go through. Yep. Their vote counted as a no.

Yes. And uh I'm probably more in favor of us at some point moving into the middle school than most. Uh the only thing I had against the way we were handling it is a lot of people in the community look at us that under the table we're all doing things and it doesn't matter what they say we're going to do it. And uh that was my only adversity to that. And I think I could probably say the same with Mr. Hansen. Uh he's probably in favor of it too because we do want to see a better police station to get 30ome million dollars which is probably higher now to build what we

wanted to think you should talk for. No, I don't think you should.

Well, I'm not talking for Leif right now. I said anyway, I kind of listened to what he said that night and it was pretty much why I made the decision I did. Anyway, uh we need this. We'll never be able to have it. So, if the opportunity comes up, I'm more than willing to participate in that. Uh, but I'd like to see the community. I really want to see what their thoughts are on it. And I don't know if we're swaying them in any way or anything. Uh, I have heard some talk already like, "Yep, they're just trying to get this thing. It's a done deal before even community involvement." And I was only worried about that. But otherwise, if we stated in a way that if it carries through with the with the school district, we are interested. And I'm probably willing to say that, you know. So anyway,

I think

and that's that's what that's what this says. And when when Dave goes through and reads that, um, it literally says that we uh we would be interested in talking not necessarily buying, not necessarily influencing anything else, just that we would be have an intent of interest in talking and that's it. There's no commitment as far as um money, any any any kind of thing whatsoever. It's just that if everything goes the way the school district would like with their referendum that we are letting them know that if that happens, we would be willing to sit down and listen and talk and that's it. No commit

talking and negotiating. Yeah. So it's that would that's the only thing that that conversation. I think the mayor said that when he when he discussed it he said this is you know and and I don't see why not. I mean you think about it save you know $33 million but you know that's it's another story

but uh yeah it's just we're interested in talking with them and you know and I look at it this way if you can work with the schools and we got good school system right now. It sure invites a lot more people moving to our our facilities, you know, if we've got those facilities. And so that's that's one thing I look at. You know, we have to work with the schools because they do have a a great impact on our community. Any other discussion on bringing this resolution back? You going to read it? Dave read. I would say vote through vote this bringing back then a motion to Yeah.

approve. We'll get it straightened up. All right. Um, all those in favor? Oh, no. Nope. I gota call a resolution. Gota call Jerry. This This was just a motion. This is just Yeah, this is just a motion. That's what I thought. Yeah. So, we just vote. Yes. So, it's all a A or nay. All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. Now, I need a motion to bring back. are uh now you the motion on resolution 2026-7. I'll make that motion also. I'll second it.

All right. Motion by Council Member Glaze, second by Council or Mayor Zilka. Uh any discussion? Yes. Dave, would you like to read that?

So again, a lot of conversation has been happening and and and I just want to be transparent on what we're what we're talking about here. So I will just bear with me. I'll read through the uh resolution here word for word. Um title of a title of the item for consideration resolution 2026-17 joint resolution of the city of Little Falls and Little Falls Community Schools future use of middle school. Background Little Falls Community Schools has requested consideration for a joint resolution expressing shared interest in future discussions regarding potential use of the middle school facility. should the school district relocate program currently housed in that building. The res this resolution is intended to serve as a public statement of mutual mutual interest only contingent upon the vacation of the middle school. The resolution states that the city and school district would be interested in exploring further discussions related to a potential partnership including the possibility of the city utilizing a portion of the middle, excuse me, building as a government center. The proposed resolution does not constitute a commitment, promise, or agreement regarding the future use of the facility. No terms, costs, design concepts, timelines, or obligations are established by approval of this resolution. Any future consideration of the use would require additional planning, evaluation, and formal agreement subject to approval by both governing bodies. This approach is similar to in nature to a joint resolution previously adopted by the city and school district in 2022 related to the child care center grant which likewise served as a statement of shared intent without creating binding obligations. Approval of this resolution carries no financial impact to the city and I'll just leave it at that. The action is to

going to read the request. I'll read the action request. Yeah. The city council adopt resolution. The action request title the city council adoption resolution 2026-17 joint resolution of the city of Little Falls and the Little Falls community schools regarding future use of the middle school facility. Thank you, Dave. Yes. Uh any other discussion? This isn't going to be on the referendum net. No. No. Has nothing to do with the referendum. Not at all. Absolutely nothing. This is only if the referendum passes. Any other discussion? Hearing none in resolution call role, please. Ligrin, yes. Meyer, yes. Silka, yes. Canafa, yes. Glaze,

yes. Gosh, I'll say yes after hearing that. Lunberg, yes. Carries. Okay, moving on. Um at our last meeting also uh we had a discussion of ordinance number 67 series uh pertaining to uh a purchase of a of land from uh Sprout. Um did you not hear that first announcement I made there?

I did, but for some reason that thing rang. I turned off everything else and that's too funny. Um so um being a no vote um because uh council member Lunberg was not here at that time and it is an ordinance uh no votes have an opportunity to bring back uh an item for discussion. Um so I will turn that over to um Council Member Lundberg and what she would like to do.

So I missed the last meeting and I apologize for that. there was a bug going around the school that I picked up and I didn't want to pass it on to all of you so I stayed home. Um and this um ordinance was regarding the sale of a piece of property to sprout for community garden for $1 um with the contingency that if they didn't make their garden that we could buy it back for a dollar. And so I'd like to bring that back for a vote. Okay. Do I have a motion to uh reinstate? I make that motion. Oh, okay. I'll second it.

Okay. So, motion by council member Lunberg, second by Mayor Zilka. I'll any discussion on that?

Yes. I originally voted against it and I will do it again because there are people in that neighborhood who do not want it. We haven't checked into the compost matter. There's a lot of things that go on with that. Usually that does not go in a residential area. Uh we have a large investment in that property. I used to know all the people who lived in the houses before a fire took one. The other ones just became derelch. Uh, and we had a lot of abatement, a lot of just to get the property where it was cleaned up. Uh, it's next to a school. It's going to add traffic. There's a lot of reasons. If I was looking for a place to have one, I wouldn't have it there. The sand the soil's too sandy. We have alternatives. And I still think uh I still think the Gamer Park area, we invested in a water system there, a place keep tools, and I think that end of the park still would fit into it. We have nothing down on that end. There is other properties in town we could look at, uh Sprout could look at, even considering if they approach St. Francis, there's a lot of property back there and a lot of garden area that's not being used. If they would work out a deal with them, uh, it's been set up for gardening for years and it's large. Uh, has good they've been fertilizing it and everything for years. It's good good land. So, I am against it. Uh anyway,

again, one of our members isn't here. Uh I would like to see that person be able to discuss it again. Anyway, but I'll go with the wishes of the council anyway. Any other discussion on the motion to reinstate? Excuse me. This is a motion to reinstate. Motion to reinstate. Reconsider. Reconsider.

Oh, reconsider. Okay. Um, yeah. I I am I I I I tell you, I'm so for this project. Um, I support Sprout and what their mission is and what they're trying to accomplish here. Um, I would love to see a a a parcel on the west side that would be more conducive to this type of I mean, again, I in my mind, this sounds a lot more like a commercial site than a private residential site. And um, you know, if a person has their own private garden, that's one thing. If it's a, you know, we're making compost compost and teaching people how to do compost, well, compost smells. And I just hate to see another situation like we had with the holding water pond where all of a sudden we said it was okay to plop this pond right in people's backyards and they didn't not asking permission not asking for not having a public hearing of any sort and all of a sudden we're dealing with upset neighbors and we already have one neighbor who two neighbors I believe two one neighbor was concerned and one neighbor was upset if I

one neighbor um was severely against the project and the other neighbor likes the idea the community garden, but wasn't wildly thrilled about being on the next property. So, they were they weren't it was a a soft no from them. Okay. Again, I I I hope we can find a piece of a a parcel that works. I just don't feel that this is the correct parcel and I don't want to have upset neighbors. So, I will hold true to my vote that I had last two weeks ago. Any other council president? this consider Sprout came to the park board. In fact, let me just stop you one one second. Okay.

What we're what we're discussing right now is what we need to discuss after we get the get the So, right now all I want to Okay, I just want there any other discussion on the move to reconsider the motion. Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor? I opposed. I of reconsidering reconsidering. You're opposed to reconsidering it. Well, I voted no last time. This is not Well, no. Well, it doesn't make a difference because it still it still passed. It still passed. Yeah. You voted no on the resolution. This resolution the ordinance. No, this was just a vote to bring it back up for discussion. Oh, just if we want to discuss it again. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sure.

Okay. So, long couple weeks, guys. I'm sorry. So, so that so that passes. So, um, just for clarification, um, Meyer, what is your vote? Oh, I Yes, I vote yes. And Gosh was a a no, correct? Correct. I was misled also. Okay. So, you're voting yes now, too. Okay. So, it's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, now um up for consideration is Sprout Ordinance 67th series. Okay. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Approve and I'll second it.

Okay. So, motion by council member Glaive, second by council member Lundberg. Now, any discussion on that ordinance? Yes, council president. Go ahead. We'll start with

Sprout came to the park board and wanted to put this at Gamrod Park. The park board said no. Gamrod Park was not given to the city to be a garden. It was given to the city to be a park. And so the park board voted it down, but after further discussion thought that this piece of land would be a good piece of property to put it on. The park board then recommended it to made this recommendation to the HA and the HA who owned that property also thought it was a good idea and recommended the sale of this property to sprout for a dollar to put in a community garden with a contingency that if it ceased to be a garden or if what didn't become a garden within a year it would come back for the same price it was sold. The HA then made the recommendation to the city council to bring this ordinance forward. And I think it's a great idea and I think we should do it. I think Sprouts got grant money to make this happen. A community garden is not is is perfect in a residential neighborhood. the it'll all it'll do is make the the the neighborhood nicer because there'll be a nice garden in this neighborhood. If it doesn't work out, we get the land back and we're out nothing but trying. We're not out not out any money and we've provided an opportunity for Sprout to put in this garden. So, I say vote yes to this.

I'd like to speak again. Go ahead. The park board doesn't have the right to say where we put a garden or not. No, they made a recommendation.

Will you let me finish for once? I'll be discussing this at the end of the meeting, but they do not have the right to rem recommend property that isn't even part of the park system. Number one, I will go back to that meeting, the next park board meeting, just like you're doing tonight. I'm going to say I wasn't there, but I'd like to bring it up again because I have a few things to talk to them about as with H. I'll do the same thing. I wasn't at that meeting either. I had to come in later and try to discuss it. Uh we are looking for ways to save money in this community and raise money. This parcel over there is a prime area to put homes back where they used to be and get them back on the tax market, but we seem very frivolous with giving away properties for a dollar. And uh I think there is a better location. As Dave said, I am for gardening. I worked really hard to get that first garden going at Gameamra. That place was a hole. And you can talk to Greg. I pushed it to get it cleaned up to the point it is. I contacted Mr. Gamro to have him come up because I found out there was some money and stuff. Uh I want a garden. It hasn't worked on the west side so far apparently. And uh I'm not I just think this is a bad location. I think we can find something better. So uh again, I'm in disagreement with it

for multiple reasons. Parking will be bad there. There's enough if you ever see that place when people are picking up kids, it's there's a lot of traffic down that road. So, I think uh I don't know why people think that's the ideal spot. You have your opinion that this is going to be something nice. Compost is not nice. It should be out. We might as well get chickens in town because it's no different. The big thing about the chickens is the smell, the rats that might move in. Compost piles draw in vermin. It's just a fact and that's a bad location. Anyway, I'll let it go at that. Any other discussion?

Okay, now we're into this a little bit. So I'm going to ask so why what was the reasoning in the first place place that it was not wanted that gamer park? Can you fill fill me in on that Mr. Keman?

Yeah and I think we talked about it at our last meeting as well. Um at the park board they felt that it was more u that game park specifically was more geared towards park. Um we've done a lot of improvements over there to get playgrounds and such to to be there. And so, um, it didn't seem to fit the the direction that the park board was going with Camrock Park because of the equipment and everything that we were bringing at that location. Um, and at that point, they had saw this this particular piece that that's on ordinance number 60 that um was available and suggested that it be brought before the HA for their consideration at that point in time. Um, so that's really how this kind of came about.

Okay. And then so Chief Johnson, if we is there is there a smell ordinance in town? That's a concern of mine. I mean, okay. So that's one thing that I would think have to be addressed. I I I if compost smells, I've been around it my most my career. So um just really concerning for me and I'm I'm again I'm not against this project. I just want to make sure it's done in a responsible manner. And then a final question, if the neighbors request, is there has there any been any discussion with sprout as far as putting up a fence or putting up some sort of uh um not just around their garden so the rodents stay out, but like or the excuse me, the squirrels and whatnot stay out, but um just like around the entire property. So it's not is if there's a greenhouse, what type of greenhouse is it? Is it an attractive greenhouse or is it a plastic greenhouse? Do we have answers to these questions?

So before the vote went through, there was not a discussion regarding offense. Um but it was brought up by the attorneys that if and this is regardless of where community garden may take place or be in the city, we could easily put policies in place that are requiring fencing um rules around composting the greenhouse, that sort of thing. So we could put uh more stipulations in place. None exist today. Um, so and and again, nothing to speak to as far as the type of greenhouse. I mean, are we talking a plastic roll over some two, you know, some homemade trusses, which is going to not look very nice at all. I mean, this is I mean, we've got this is our school kids are at school. This is a highly visible area of our community. And um I mean if you have like a beautiful glass greenhouse, I guess I want to know more about the vision of this before I would vote yes on a project like this in that spot. Again, I will reiterate as I always do. I'm for this project. I'm for a community garden on the west side. I just want to make sure that the spot and that there's a comprehensive plan in place before a spot such as this is chosen. Any other discussion?

Okay. Ordinance. Uh, hearing none. Ordinance call roll please. Meyer. No. Silka. Yes. Canophyla. Yes. Glaze. Yes. Go. No. Lunberg. Yes. Ligrin. Yes. Carries. Moving on to new business under item A, Lynen Hill Pavilion restroom improvements authorization for utility installation. Approve and accept. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. As you heard at our last council meeting, Lynen Hill is looking at doing some improvements for uh the pavilion that uh that they currently have. They're looking at putting bathrooms on the north end. um they've reached out to the city to see if uh we would be willing to partner with them to do the installation of the utilities um to that location. Lynen Hill or the friends of Lynen Hill would provide all the material for that. We would supply the labor and the uh the equipment in order to to dig the water and sewer services connections in. Um and so we did look at our uh staffing and our our workload over the summer and it looks like it will fit within our um our workload to be able to to fit that in. So, we are recommending that the council um go ahead and authorize staff to work with Lynen Hill to install the sewer and water services to the new restroom facility at their pavilion.

What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it. Motion by Mayor Zila, second by council member Gosh. Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Council President. um this wasn't in our budget, but now explain what we're going to do about that when we use all our people and it was not in our budget to do that.

Yeah. So, um we've got a number of staff members obviously over at the at the street department. Um we would not be asking the guys to work overtime or anything like that to to do this work. Uh we feel we'll be able to fit it in within our normal 40-hour work week that we would all lot to the to the staff to be able to do that. Um, and we see this is just another project that we'd be able to do um around the city. So, we'd be we'd be looking to to fit that within our our typical hours that we would have um at the street garage. Okay. Thank you. And Lynen Hill will be responsible for the hookup and all that kind of stuff. That's correct. Yep. Any other discussion? Yes.

Go ahead. Seems like I always hear we don't have enough staff in our parks, so we got to hire staff. But we're always farming them out to other projects. We have enough uh staff to do stuff like that, but then a lot of times when we discuss doing stuff for the parks, well, we just don't have time. We need to get somebody else in there. It's kind of a two-way approach here and I don't like that. Uh how much is this actually going to cost the city of Little Falls? You know, we discussed the Rosener house. We never had enough money to stick into the porch, but we have enough money for things like this, which to me, I don't see any difference. So, uh, I would like to know how much totally time-wise and everything it's going to cost to do that because it does affect the functions of the of the rest of the city. So,

so you had two points there. I'll if Mr. President, I'd like to kind of address the one of them is in regards to the number of staff in the parks. Currently, we run with three staff members in the parks right now. Um, we re routinely pull, we've been budgeted for a fourth person. We haven't hired that fourth person because we've been pulling one of the guys from the street garage to be able to uh to do that. Now, once the workload in the street garage um increases, that won't be there, but we've got budgeted uh already to account for that additional staff member in the parks. Um so, we're kind of making do with what we've got um in order to make that as efficient and cost-effective as possible. Um, and then the other point that you had was in regards to Rosener House. That work on the porch is not something that our staff member is capable or of doing. A lot of that is specialty woodworking that we just wouldn't be able to do. And so that's something that we would have to cut a check to somebody else and pay them to be able to do that work because we're just not specialized in that. Whereas this type of work, we've got the manpower, we've got the the equipment and the knowledge to be able to do that work to install that sewer and water. And that's the difference between to be between the two is something that we can handle in-house versus not in-house and have to hire it out. Um, so that's that's why we're looking at if we didn't know how to do this, we wouldn't be we wouldn't be able to to to um accommodate it, but we do have the staff to be able to accommodate it and the and the knowledge to be able to do that. That's why we're looking at doing it.

Mr. President, go ahead. I think from this point on because we're sticking little money here, little money there, giving away property for a dollar where we could have actually brought some revenue into the city and then we're going to budget this fall and everybody wants to have a 0% levy. It's easy to say we want that, but we're not making the hard choices to actually approach that. So, from this time on, I think we need to consider every choice we make and maybe we should start tightening up the belt a little bit here and look at things little little different than we just can continue as we are. Anyway,

um Mr. Council President, if I may, in my mind, I look at it that uh Lynen Hills is a little more viable entity versus the Rosaire House. We're not getting any money from the Rosemire House. In the future, we may, but right now, we're not. So, I don't think you can compare the Rosener House to Lynen Hills because Lynen Hills is uh are they leasing from us? Is that it? Or are they buying or what? It's a management agreement that we have. Okay. Well, we're getting money. No, no, no,

no. Okay. But they're bringing in money to the to the city if I remember right. Okay. It's a little more viable to me than what anything else is right now. It may change in the future, but right now I look at it that way. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? carries. Second item, Pinerrove Zoo funding advancement approve. Alex,

thank you, Council President. Uh, so the Pinerove Zoo is asking that they receive their check for quarter 2 in addition to their their quarter 1 at one time. Uh, this is something the city has done previously. They're just looking for an advancement on the second quarter. They're not looking for any additional dollars or anything of that sort. It just allows them to get working on some of their projects ahead of time and before the uh zoo season begins. Mish the council. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Motion by council member or mayor Zilka. Second by council member Lundberg. Any discussion? Yes. I do. Excuse me, Wayne. If I may.

Um last year they wanted what three quarters to pay for their payroll on the offseason. Now, what are they? They're spending uh their second quarter on something else. What are they going to come up with for later on if they can't hit payroll and stuff? Are they going to want the rest of their money and then nothing? I don't get it. I I can tell you that they know the dollar amount that is allocated for them for this year and they have not asked or given any sign that they'll ask for additional funds. Okay. Well, last year they did. That's why I'm asking. So, this year they're not going to ask far as you know for more funds than have been allocated. No, I I have no reason to believe that they would at this time. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. President. When does the second quarter start? I mean, when would they normally get this? April, they wanted April. April one. So, it's just they wanted a month early. Yes. Is what they're saying. Y if I were Sony, I'd have that answer, but Greg seems confident. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I I opposed carries. Third item, resolution 2026-18 2025 year-end transfers adopt. Alex,

thank you, Council President. Um I will do my best on this one. So these are just annual year-end transfers, normal business. Um the this is the this goes along with the budget items that have already been approved. I can tell you that the numbers so far are looking nice and healthy, but we won't have final information until the 2025 audit is complete, which is about to start soon. So, and this is standard business at the year-end transfers that happen every year. What is wish of the council? I'll make a motion.

Second motion by council member Liger, second by council member Glaze. Any discussion? Hearing none, resolution call. Roll, please. Silka, yes. Kafla, yes. Glaze, yes. Gosh, yes. Lunberg, yes. Ligrand, yes. Meyer, yes. Carries. Next item. Resolution 2026-9 authorizing execution of grant agreement with MDOT Camp Ripley Spur Crossings Improvement Project. Adopt. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. As you recall, um we've been working on um the two railroad crossings, one over here at First Street and the other one over at Fourth Street. Um and we we've been getting or we have received uh two grants for the project. One is the transportation alternatives. The other one is the MRSI, which is the railroad um portion of it. And so part this is this resolution is for the MRSI component of it. Essentially what this resolution does is it kind of lays out where the grant or where the funds are coming from to complete the project. They want to ensure that when they execute the grant agreement with the with the city in this case that there's sufficient funds in order to to complete the project. And so this resolution essentially details that out in that second um or that middle paragraph uh with all the different funds MRSI state aid um transportation alternatives and the city's street uh improvement fund. So, we're asking the council to approve resolution, excuse me, 2026-9. Essentially lays out all of that uh that information for the for the funding component to comply with our MS MRSI grant.

Right. Wish the council. I'll move to adopt resolution 2026-9. Second. Motion by council member Lundberg, second by council member Glaze. Any discussion? Hearing none. Resolution call. Roll please. Kafla, yes. Glee, yes. Gosh, yes. Lunberg, yes. Ligrand, yes. Meyer, yes. Silka, yes. Carries. Next item, resolution 2026-20, approve plans and specifica specifications and calling for bids public improvement 416 1st Avenue Southeast. Adopt. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. As you mentioned, this is for um 1 Avenue Southeast improvements. I apologize. I left the plans and specs in my office. Um, we're asking the council to approve this resolution. This will allow us to go out and get bids for the project. Um, and then we will be able to to bid the project and get final uh close to final numbers for the construction of that project and move forward with that. So, we're asking the council to approve resolution 2026-20. What is wish the council? I'll make a motion to adopt. I'll second. Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Meyer. Any discussion?

Uh, Mr. Council President, did you say last time when this was brought up or sometime how long will this take again? Somebody was asking me how long it would take. So, it's less than a construction season. There's not Most of the project is mill and overlay. Um, the bulk of the work is going to be between First Street and Second Street. Um, we'll be replacing all the sidewalk and all the road gravel, that type of stuff in that that section. Um, realistically, if the contractor hits it hard, it's probably a 6 to 8 week project. Um, and that's being a little bit generous in terms of the timeline. Um, so it should go relatively quick. How will it affect First Avenue auto? I'm actually meeting with Jim tomorrow morning to kind of go over that. Okay. Is that's why I was wondering.

Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? Yes. You know, it will affect Jim, but every time we do a project in this town, it affects somebody. Yep. It's just part of fixing up things. Right. You're right. Any other discussion? Resolution call roll, please. Glaze. Yes. Gosh, yes. Lunberg, yes. Ligrin, yes. Meyer, yes. Zilka, yes. Kafa, yes. carries. Last item, waiver of Riverwood Drive assessment. Greg,

thank you, Mr. President. And Christina, if you wouldn't mind pulling up the um the beacon map of that. Um we received a um can't think of it right now. We received a uh a request to look at what the assessment assessment search Thank you. Um for this particular parcel um 48.6667. Um, so what happened in 2020 or 2003, the city put utilities down Riverwood Drive, uh, as you can see there, uh, Riverwood Drive and then there's a parcel that's highlighted on the left side, uh, that is on the Riverside. And then the owner also owns the property on the east side. When I looked at the uh assessment role for this this project for Riverwood project, I noticed that the left side had an assessment on it. The right side also had an assessment that but that one was already paid for. Um it struck me a little bit as odd that the left side had an assessment on it as well because that parcel right there, um even though it's decent size, um the shape of it and the location of it makes it an unbuildable lot. And so I started looking at, well, what did some of the other lots um south of there look like? And so if you can go just two two lots down, you'll see that there's a house that owns property on both the east and the west side of the of the road. But in that case, the entire parcel isn't split at the road. It continues through. when I looked at the assessment role for that parcel itself um and both of them are are the same way uh they were only charged for one side of the road for the assessment and so it was a little bit different in terms of this parcel versus the one uh in question here and so I wanted to at least bring it up to the council and and and see if if this is something that we'd be uh interested or considering waving the assessment on that parcel there because it is an

unbuildable lot um with that particular ular project from the 2003 we would be collecting when they hook up to city utilities. Realistically, it's an unbuildable lot. They're not going to hook up to city utilities. We didn't even stub sewer and water services out to the left side or to the river side of that property because it's unbuildable. So, it doesn't in my mind it doesn't make sense to have an assessment on there that's really not collectible um and not consistent with what the other properties in the area were were done. Um, I will note that the residents or the property owners didn't request this. Um, it was something that I saw and it was like just didn't seem right and fair to or consistent with the rest of the assessments in the area. So, it's something that we brought up just because we wanted to to make it consistent and make it fair for for those properties.

What's the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Ligin. Any discussion? Mr. Council President, real quick. So this this lot's unbuildable because of the river setbacks or this lot's unbuil buildable because of our own city codes?

Both. So the setback from the high water mark is seven, it's 100 feet from the um from the bluff on there because there is quite a steep bank. And then when you look at that parcel, even though the property line is the center of the road, we actually have 33 feet of rightway on both sides. And so when you take that that 100 feet from the bluff and that uh the rightway into account, there's really and that's not to take into account setbacks from the road right away, which would be that 303. There's really no area to to build at all on that on that property. Okay. So if he does put something up there, then do you assess them?

He doesn't even have a water and sewer service. Well, I mean, so I like a garage. He wouldn't be able to. Okay. It's it's a non-buildable lot. He could put you can't build anything on it. He could put a small shed 10 by uh 10 x 20 less than that for um because we don't require building code at that point. But um he wouldn't be able to do it within that that 100 ft of the bluff. He would have to be beyond that. Okay. And this is pretty much what you're saying between the 33 foot road setback and the 100 foot bluff set back. It's pinched it's pretty much pinched out. It is pinched out. Yes, completely. It's not because the the size of the lot's too small or anything like that. I mean, it's too small road both of them to the river, but not because of the

you got a zero foot front setback. You've got a small triangle on the north end. But once you put that 33 ft on or that 30 foot front setback, it takes it away. Okay. And based on it, all the other houses along the road are being assessed for that piece of land on the left side of the road either. Correct. Correct. In other words, you're being a nice guy. I'm being fair. Okay, Mr. President, you don't want to get be nice. Yeah. Yeah. There's been issues similar on the west side along the river where people want to put up a nice storage building or something and and when they're denied and it isn't just by us, they

have to go with uh whatever the riverbank is and stuff. So, uh, they can't build down there. So, after your explanation here, it just there's really no purpose for that land. Was anyone interested in buying it and joining it with their own property or

Well, it is for sale with the parcel to the east if you go back to the um to the picture. So, the same owner owns that one as there's a residence on the other side of the of the road on the east. Yeah. East side of the road. Um, but it's two partial IDs. For whatever reason, it's been left at left as two parcel IDs. Um, and like I said, when I looked at the parcels just to the south, um, it's all one parcel ID. They were only assessed one side of the road. This one, it was two parcel ID, so they were assessed two sides of the road. Didn't seem consistent um, when I looked at it. That's why I was bringing it in front of the council to reconsider that. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor?

I opposed carries. Any announcements?

Yes. I'd like to say something. Uh I attended a county commissioner meeting and I was impressed with how well their meetings are run. And I'm talking to myself right now. When I was online last week, I couldn't hear any discussions because it seems like we're always interrupting one another. And it really doesn't sit well with me. And if I ever do it, I'm in the wrong, too. When somebody is discussing something, I think we need to let that person talk and go along and make these meetings look a lot better. Sometimes two or three of us are interjecting while somebody's trying to say something and they're just not getting it out. If you look according to that's why we have Robert's rule to keep order. Uh I would challenge you to go to a county commissioner meeting and how well they run them is unbelievable. I wish we were more like that. Well, maybe I have to do a better job of

quiet quieting those people down and just letting one person speak at a time. If I get out of line, put me because we all we get emotional then we start saying things. So, moving forward, I will interrupt those people that are interrupting other people and tell them to wait. Thank you. So, don't be don't be angry at me that I'm telling you to do that. Okay. Not you. I'm looking at everybody. Any other announcements? Then we will adjourn at 8:37. It's good to see our uh our president here. Let's