City Meeting - Regular Meeting

We'll convene for the council meeting.

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.

We'll call Julie Haynes the only absent party tonight. Okay, we'll open it for public comments. If you care to step forward, make public comment, please state your name, your address, and limit your conversation to three minutes. Public comment going once, public comment going twice, going three times. We'll close the public comment. All right, additions to the agenda. We have 12-4, lack of escrow from Stickney. 12-5, water tower inspection and cleaning. 13-1, Ptarmigan Lane. 13-2, Barking Birch. 13.3 hideaway liquor license, 13.4 fishing opener. And then do we have to add this resolution as well that you just gave us?

That is under nine, David Brown, associated, Jason Marie, 26, or 2026, actually. Fantastic.

Okay.

Need a motion to approve the additions?

I'll make a motion to approve or add the additions as just presented.

I'll second.

Okay. Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Ashley. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay, approval of the July 2026 bills paid. Everybody got a chance to review those?

Make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

Brian and Ashley, any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Hearing none, motion carries. Consent agenda. Approval of the Rockville City Council meeting minutes from July 8th Acknowledge of the July building permits. Acknowledgement of the July sheriff's report. Acknowledgement of the July month end reconciliation. The review of the second quarter 2026 expense report and journal entries. Approval of the hideaway bar car show on September 20th for the city parking lot. We need a motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve with a correction in the minutes on page 20, line item seven. My name was misspelled. If that could be fixed, that would be good. Thank you, that's my motion.

Okay, I'll second it.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Hearing none, motion carries. All right, David Brown and Associates, Jason Murray.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the time tonight and the agenda. And I apologize, as I noted a month ago here, you guys were selling today and kind of a rat race to the finish or a rush to the finish line. So you just got the formal resolution just before the meeting. So I do apologize for that, but it's part of kind of the process that we have to deal with. Before I jump into the bond discussion, I do want to recognize the council and the city staff. We were able to, with this process, S&P provided its rating and the city was again rated a double A plus. It's held its rating here and consistent with the state of rating all of them too. So congratulations to council and staff. There is a report to it. I'll just highlight a couple of things. There's usually an upward and downward scenario. They're watching the downwards Scenario is going to be kind of tiny more your debt levels Your debt levels exceed their certain threshold right now. The city is is well below those thresholds and They would have some downward pressure. It was just a We get a lot of projects. We start borrowing for we'll just have to monitor that be careful though We don't have some downward pressure on that on that reading the upward side of it is is there they provide it and But it's really two things. Tightening up some of the policies and practices they talked about during the rating, just doing the reserve policy and some of that stuff during that process. they also then as you grow into this as you maintain this double a plus status your peer groups generally get larger like you're generally compared to larger cities bill would ask what's our what's our chance of upward going to that triple a about you go into a whole nother peer group and that's usually your larger you know metro cities and that stuff so we can certainly monitor that and watch that but there's a portion of that that's totally out of your control when they bump you into a new peer group. So we can control things, we can control on the policies of things, unless she doesn't. But then on the peer group side, that's gonna be S&P and that's out of your hands. So we'll continue to monitor both those scenarios and kind of work through. So congratulations council on the AA plus status for smaller community. That's a very strong point, so congratulations. Thank you to the staff, too, and Ashley for participating on the phone call. It sometimes feels like you're being grilled a little bit, and it's always a little nervous. So thank you to the staff and everybody that participated. Jumping into the bond rating, or the bond, excuse me, from the bond rating. We had a successful sale, and what I view as a successful sale is we had multiple bidders. Usually I look for at least four to six. We had four on this one. Northland Securities was the low bid at a net effective interest rate of 3.8753, which was slightly higher, about 10 basis points higher than my preliminary about a month ago. You've heard the news cycles and that stuff from the Fed. upward push towards increasing interest rates, and I think we're seeing that a little bit in the bond market. So timing sometimes is key to that, but it is, again, only 10 basis points from that point of view. So we're in the ballpark. It's close. We ended up borrowing 970,000. We reduce it a little bit because of some premium that Northland bid with, and what they're doing is they're paying the city to secure some higher yields and interest rates out long term to protect their investment, so to speak. And so they paid you, so since they took that compensation, we reduced the bond down about 20 grand. They put in about 26,000 premium, so. Again, Council, this is split. It's one big bond, $970,000, but it's split between street reconstruction at about $490,000, and then the tax abatement piece of it, which is the stormwater collection, the curb gutter, the stormwater side of things, at about $480,000. Again, council, just to kind of pause for any questions. Again, you have a resolution in front of you. The resolution really does two things. It outlines just kind of what I mentioned as far as the bifurcation, total bond plus the bifurcation. It talks about how you can provide some management from a construction fund, but also to the debt service fund. And then at the end, you're pledging your full faith and credit, and you're pledging your tax liability towards the payment of this debt in full faith. Any questions, counsel?

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-31 for the delivery of the $970,000 general obligation bond.

I will second.

Ashley will second. Thank you. We'll motion to second any further discussion. Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Hearing none, motion carries.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Jason.

Thank you, Jason.

Thank you, Jason, very much.

And thank you for staff.

Great job. Yes, thank you for your grueling duration, time on the phone, getting through this.

You did great. And make sure to extend our thank you to Mary, too, because I know she helped a lot.

Okay, number 10 is the approval of the 2027 to 2028 criminal prosecution contract with Stearns County. And that went up 11% from the last contract.

That is correct from this year's motion.

I'll make the motion to approve the criminal prosecution contract.

I'll second it.

Okay, Brian and Jason. Okay, motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. Okay, Department of Report? Mr. Simon?

Lieutenant Whitmer sent the monthly report for July to you early in July. Through the month there was 36 contract hours, total of 109 calls for service, 44 of them were traffic stops. I did some counts, nine citations out of those 44 traffic stops. Seven of them were for speed equipment and then some license issues. There was a list of calls that was all attached to the report as well. Not sure if anyone has any questions on anything. I got a couple notes on a few, but nothing really popped up that is unusual to me when I quickly looked through the calls. But if you have any questions, let me know. And if I can't answer it now, I can always get back to you.

Anybody have any questions for Mr. Simon? Thank you. Keep up the good work. Next you have in front of you the approval of the 2027 sheriff's contract. There is no change from last year on the hourly rate. So we need a motion to approve that contract or deny the contract.

I make a motion to approve the 2027 Sheriff's Contract.

I'll second. Brian and Ashley, motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Hearing none, motion carries. All right, Cody.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. First item on our list is the pay application one for Lake Road project. That is in your packet. It's mostly for the tree clearing work and reclaim of Lake Road. It works through July 24th. Let us know if you have any questions on the pay application, otherwise that will lead to council action.

So we need a motion to approve application number one, and I'll make the motion to approve number one.

I'll second it.

Thank you, Brian. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

Second item on our list is the change order one for the Lake Road project. In the packet, kind of spells out what is in that change order. Two items mainly are the extra tree clearing that was required for the Stearns Electric utility pole relocation. This was onto private property that we had to go past the right-of-way. We did get approval from all the residents at each location to make sure we're The resident was okay with the work we did negotiate with Stern's electric to pay for half of the costs of this additional country clearing. That is in change order 1, we're working with them and the city has sent them an invoice for that request for the extra fees. The other part of it is the additional grading that was added north of the proposed filtration basin up to the top of the hill. The plan is to grade the road away from the lake and then add some ditch grading on the uphill side of Lake Road that would funnel the water down to the filtration basin, the bottom of the hill there. So those are two main items in change order one.

And that was the amount of $36,875. Yep, $36,875. So that covers that regrading and the tree.

And the additional trees as part of Stearns Electric.

I'll make a motion to approve the change order one for the $36,875 with a reimbursement from Stearns Electric for $16,000.

I'll second.

Move motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

Item number three on our list is the Lake Rode easement update. We did finally received a final confirmation from the resident at that filtration basin location that they would not be agreeing to sign that easement document. So we've been working the past week and a half about doing a Plan B design revision, and we've currently sent that off to Stearns Conservation District to get their review and input. We're also looking at the pollution reduction calculations and how that would change from our original design to This significantly smaller because we have to fit it in the right away now between Lake road and the right away. It's also not going to be as deep and only 2 feet instead of original approximately 5 feet. So it'll still be better than the existing conditions, but we got to see what their comments are back on the funding side because they're trying to. Make sure it works for the grant, or if it doesn't, we got to. Reallocate the funds within the project as much as we can. So that's where that is at. We'll wait to hear back on their response here in the next week. That's what it sounds like.

Thank you, Cody.

And item four is the Agate Beach Road update. Just a small update. We worked with the city and Tom Emmer's office to send a letter of support to them for Tom Emmer's office to forward that on to FEMA to get even more additional pressure, hopefully, and get to keep our name out there. And hopefully FEMA can get a response back to us here sometime this fall. I mean, we'll see. That's all I have on the update on that.

Thank you, Cody. Justin?

Well, number six update. The city has secured and closed on the property for purchasing where well number six will go, which is up on the northeast corner of Pleasant Lake near existing wells number four and five. So that's complete. Next step is we're working on a high-level cost estimate, very approximate. We're going to be bringing that back to you guys on what approximately we're thinking about for ballpark range for a new well. And then if the council wants to keep moving forward towards design, would be probably moving forward with at least a 30% design at a minimum. Our next step will be looking closely at the well house to see what is all needed to accommodate the additional well. We look at things such as sizing of the existing piping, sizing of the chemicals, chemical feeds, looking at code compliance with the well, does anything need to be brought up to current code, et cetera. So all of that would be included in kind of looking at that during that 30% design stage. So we'll also be bringing that forward to you next month for your consideration. Other than that, I guess that's the update I have.

Thank you, Justin. Any questions for Justin or Cody?

So do you need an official motion from us to proceed with the 30% design, or are you waiting until next month?

We'll do that next month.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Bill, are you going to take Jim's spot, or is he not going to make it tonight? I don't know. Oh, thank you, Judy.

So in regards to approval of the 2025 budgets to savings, we brought this to the finance committee last week. Their recommendation, if you look at the general fund, the budget was 47,000 for 25, 47,826.74. to 8.80 to go to the bar department once their budget goes in brown you guys for the savings so the remaining portion is four thousand nine hundred ninety seven dollars and ninety four cents you either can put that into the general savings or just roll that back into the general unreserved Another recommendation that I had for them was that the council be no longer tracked. That 31,810 would go to the unreserved. The administration of 26,338 would go back to the unreserved in general. And then we will, proposing not to no longer track the police department for their fines. We have that $91,815, so that was their proposal that basically all four items go back into the general for their own reserve. I just need a motion.

It was $4,000, right, Judy, was the first dollar amount you gave us?

Yeah, for the general? Yeah. So it was $47,826.74. You guys have a policy that the remaining budget items or the remaining budget should go potentially into their savings. But that $42,828, do you see that? Yes. That was in regards to legal? so instead of giving the general fund 47 000 we're proposing to take 42 000 off of that so that would be the remaining portion of four thousand nine hundred ninety seven dollars so instead of throwing that portion into the general savings they're just recommending that for the 31810, the 26338, and the 91815 go back into the reserve. And we no longer will track that.

I'll make a motion to put that in the reserves on the administrative unreserved cash in the general fund.

I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

Um, the next step is, is that scheduling of the public hearing for the water water rate increase at the last finance and the finance before we were talking when Jason was there, we were talking about the 2%. Um, we were looking at wanting you guys to schedule a public hearing for September so that it will take effect. on January 1st, but for the billing cycle in March, because that's when the use starts in January, that we bill in March. So we're asking for approval so that we have that in place on January 1st. Just got to look over here.

Before we schedule, I thought we were on an automatic schedule. Yeah. 2%. But do you still got to do a public hearing?

Until 26. So we're up on that 2%. So now we're looking at three more years.

Oh. So then the next three years would be just an automatic. We wouldn't have to do a public hearing?

Yep. Unless for some reason the finance and Jason get together and say... We need to go more or something. We need to go more.

Okay.

Then I'll make a motion that we schedule the public hearing for the water increase for... September 9th.

I'll second it. Motion and a second for September 9th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

And then your next one is we're having a finance meeting actually tomorrow. August 13th at 5.30, and that will discuss the fire department, EMS, public works, 215, the lid, and then we should have the percentage finalized, and that will go for a proposal in September for you guys to review later.

Perfect. Thank you, Judy. Planning, Bill?

All right, Planning Commission. First on the agenda, it was the annual review of the IUP for the short-term rental on Hubert Lane. We want to be consistent with the two short-term rentals we have right now. We reviewed their IUP. There are no

to approve the IUP short-term, okay.

Need a motion to- I guess I'll make a motion to go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Hubert Lane short-term rental. I'll second it.

Brian and Jason, okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

under subdivision three uh c is in charlie a permit holder must be a natural person not a we crossed out an llc and kept the other words and then on diaz and david we added the llc to that and then under number four on the bottom uh lot size must be conformed and only one rental per parcel. Those were our recommendations from that meeting in regards to loan exchange. So we do appreciate the council's help.

bill just a question wouldn't c and d contradict one another no we would have taken the llc out of c and added it to d it's it's two different things it's saying the permit holder must be that and then it's saying that only one short-term rental is allowed per person yeah

But the red you're adding, right?

We're adding 2D as a D, yes.

So you could be an LLC then?

Okay. Limited liability, a lot of, yeah.

But they're only allowing one per LLC. Per LLC.

So in that discussion. Oh, I got you. I think some of the.

Because I misunderstood it too until you had a question.

So you couldn't be, both the two couldn't be LLCs under the same.

Well, yeah, you can't. The idea is not to allow an LLC to have multiples.

Correct.

That is correct.

Okay.

Okay, so we need a motion to set a date for a public hearing on this? Yes.

Let me add the other two. Can I do that? Yes. Okay.

So that would also be on September 9th?

Two more things he's got to add.

So the second thing I'd like to add is on your second page of your handout, up on our lapse of variance, it says if within one year after granting a variance, the work permit is not started, such variance shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension has been approved by the city council. My question is, can they ask for it two years later? Do they have to ask for it within a year? So I have suggested the next two paragraphs to clean that up. And then the last comment would be, take it out. So my next one would be, unless a petition for an extension has been filed within that year, in other words, your variance has been freed here, So if it has been filed within that year, it would be okay. And then my next paragraph would just, would say it has been filed, no time limit.

I think, I think, yep. So you're asking for one of these three options?

Correct.

And you want that on the same public hearing?

That's why I'm asking for it.

I'll make that motion to include both of these.

Which one do you want?

Oh.

I think we would be fine with the second one because it already states if within one year after granting the variance at the very beginning, right?

Well, we currently have a situation pending that they apply for variance A year and a half, almost two years ago. Yep. The barriers is only good for a year. But they want to go ahead down the middle.

Yep.

So that's where this came up. Do we allow that?

Right, but the way I read this, it says, if within one year after granting the variance, the work permitted is not started, such variance shall become null and void. So adding in within that year, isn't that doubling up on it? Or is there a different meaning there that I'm missing?

No, they would have to apply within that year on the variance. Whereas my second paragraph, they just have to file it whenever they want.

I got you.

My thinking about it is the planning council have approved the variance already. Why do we want it to come back?

So this would just extend that?

If you want it to.

So let me ask you this. You're presenting three options. Wouldn't it be best to have those three options presented to the public and have input on those three options and then whatever they say we use?

I think we should just take it out because if we already granted it and said yes, they've already gone through everything.

What? But then you're allowing it to go on forever, and if the codes change or setbacks change, then it nullifies it. I guess I would be the opinion that if you come in for a variance and 10 months in, you know you're not going to start the project, that would be the time to come and plead your case. Hey, we couldn't have stayed in financing. We'd like two years or something. and give permission, because I think by not doing a limit on it, we're allowing for some other problems down the road as well.

You're leaving it open, isn't it?

But just hypothetically, so the situation, they're coming for variance for obvious reasons. If the ordinance would change and they haven't did what they needed to do for that variance, wouldn't it become null and void then anyway? Because now it's a new ordinance. They didn't abide by what their variance conditions were. Now the ordinance changed, so then that would close that window.

That's the question Judy and I have been discussing. The way it's written now, So within that year, it'd be a year later? Well, two years later. Then let's go back a couple years.

You couldn't get materials for certain projects. So you've been looking for this material for six months. Now you can get it in October. That's not the time to start building. And then... they could come in and ask for permission to extend it into the next year. Is that doable?

Well, I think there's always going to be some extenuating circumstances. And I think if they would plead the scenario why, I think the council and the planning commission would be pretty conceding. I do. But if they're just doing it because, kicking this down the road because ah we just had a baby or my shoe strings broke or whatever the situation is that they don't go forward with it if they're just proverbially kicking that can down the road i think if the ordinance would change and that would close that window would close it out anyway because they didn't do anything i don't think one year is long enough

You're going through it.

Exactly, that's my point. So if we would have filed when we thought we were going to start, I would be redoing it all over again. And do you really want me to come back and go through the situation when you approved it?

I don't think you need to, but if you complete your case of why...

Right, but then you're putting another step on the homeowner to come back and do it again, and it's already a pain in the beginning to go through that process. I don't, I mean, I'd be fine with this if we maybe change it to two years, but I just think one year is too short of time. I mean, look at our own internal projects we got going on. They keep getting pushed out.

And I get stuff happens. I do, I do. I just, I don't know what the right answer is. Because like in your case, if you would happen to forget to come in for whatever reason, now you're in trouble.

Well, most people are going to forget with whatever they got going on if they're coming in for a project like this.

Because obviously things are in a scuttlebutt to begin with. I don't know. What do you guys think?

Well, you're right, Brian. You could just allow it to continue, and when the ordinance changes, nothing happens. Then it's null and void. Well, that's the way I look at it. Then we'd probably change the language.

I think we could change it that the variance is good until the ordinance would change, if they don't complete it prior. And who's going to monitor that?

Well, that's the thing.

I mean, who's going to monitor any of this to be realistic?

But they came to us now saying, hey, we're going to build. And then we talked about it. Well, that's when this came.

How long of time span are we talking about here? She said about two years.

Okay. My opinion is that that resident applied for it. We shouldn't have to monitor it. It's on now. Correct. So you keep it. Next thing is, is now you leave this until the ordinance changed. What if they change hands? You bought my house and I had a variance. Now you can come back and say, well, that variance is still open. Can I do what she wanted to do?

I would think once the ownership changes that any variance would be done to me.

I don't think they would transfer.

No different than a lot of car warranties. When you buy a different or sell it, that warranty stops at you.

We file it as a granting of a variance to the Stearns County. It's going to the property. It's not going to the homeowner.

That was my next question.

My thing is you put it on the homeowner. They can't. ask just like a building permit, if it lasts for 180 days, if that person chooses not to get the inspection, they need to ask for an extension. If they don't, then building official can say .

Right.

Yeah, but the building official is, they are reaching out, telling you that your window's closing. So is the city gonna reach out and say, hey, your window is closing?

We've had situations where they do lapse over 180 days.

Because you can file for an extension. I mean, I've had to do that before. But they usually reach out to you to have that done before they close it out.

But then again, they reach out, but then the homeowner doesn't apply for that extension. We've had that numerous times.

Right.

And then they have to read.

Right, but I'm just saying the city is not going to call people who have a variance and say, did you do this? Did you complete it?

So, and that's where I go back and say, okay, let's take it out in the city. Let the homeowner that's there. They're the ones that wanted the variance left down or conditional use or IEP just like, for example, close for granted. They want to come back with an IEP. Well, that's on them to make sure that they apply for that within that year to either renew it or now ask for another.

Mm-hmm.

Just starting suggestions, though.

Yeah, these are suggestions if you have other language.

So do we log our variances when they're granted?

We file them with the county. No, other than that.

Well, and it's on a spreadsheet. Each year we... We have your building permits, your variances, your IEPs, your structures.

We have that all. Okay, because that's where I'm going with this. So if you're logging them and Joe Homeowner forgets about it and then they get into a situation where they now want to come forward, can you look that up easy? If it's logged, it should be easy to look up.

We can log it up, but we're not monitoring it. Right, right.

he didn't come up until i had a conversation with this person about well now they want to build and we talked and my question then would be is being that bill took it maybe he should recommend to go to council saying okay it's been two years i'm on to do the same thing that i currently got approved for my variance will you honor that and then you guys can say oh yeah or no Or maybe that person now all of a sudden now decided to change their layout. Well, if they changed their layout, the neighbors all knew that what their current layout was granted for the variance and now they're changing the layout. Well, now they're going to need to potentially apply for a new variance because it's changing

So you like the within-the-ear file thing would make you comfortable? No, I agree. I totally understand both sides of this thing.

I don't really understand the difference if we grant them the variance today and whether they do it today or in two years, regardless if the rules change, they could have did it right away because it was approved. So it doesn't really change the future down the road if they do it now or in two years. So I'm not really understanding why there's a time limit anyways.

I mean, I get the need for a time limit. I mean, I don't know that we want to go five years down the road or 10 years down the road or 15 years down the road, but I get that maybe a year is a little too short.

Right.

So I mean, is it too, do you ask that we re-up, if not every year, at least every two years, where you need to file an extension? I mean, that at least- These are just examples. Yeah, I mean, at least, I mean, so if a homeowner is struggling to get the project done, because like Mark had mentioned, because of lumber or some other reason, at least if you have a two-year re-up, Where they have to come in and reapply, whether there's a fee attached to that or not. I don't know. But if they have to come in and reapply, at least it keeps the project on everybody's mind. And and then that's the, that's that check again to look if there's any ordinances or. What have you that change otherwise they'll take their original variance and complete their project and not even check if there's been any changes.

So, with that discussion.

I'd be on board with that.

Be fair.

I mean, you could change it.

I mean, I'm just, I, I'm not real comfortable leaving it completely open. But yet at the same time, I get, you know, because something I mentioned, like, some of the projects we've been. Working with here, we're going over here and.

And not to be the devil's advocate, but if you put a three year window on something, even a two year, it's pretty easy for staff.

personnel changes, forget about it. And if the homeowner forgets about it, and then all of a sudden the light comes on, hey, I want to say, yeah, I got the okay for that. Then what? You know what I mean? That gets to be a clouded situation too.

That's what we had to do in this case. I had to look at her file, or their file, excuse me, and found out that it was over a year of it.

And see, that's what I mean. I don't have a problem. It's like you said, a variance is a variance. I mean, it's no more effect today or this next week. You know what I mean? So I get that part of it. But like Jason says, I don't think we want to put a forever on it.

Yeah. Well, I mean, if we granted a variance tonight... Two years from now, there could be a whole new council to look at the next one. Yeah, so it's...

I don't know, let's put a two-year in there.

Just put a two-year window on it and...

Because the way it's stated here is they can still apply for an extension if they need to, and then that would kick them down another two years, right? Let's go to, and then use that middle paragraph.

The first one.

So the one in the middle with the first highlighting. Yes, the first highlighted one. So two years after granting variance.

Yes.

And I'll add that to the motion for the public hearing for these two public hearings.

I just wanted one more quick comment on that. So then if we're going to do that, would it pay to add some sort of a disclaimer line that says it's the homeowner's responsibility to keep up with any ordinance changes that may have occurred in that time frame.

Or is that too much of a question?

Right. Then I'll second the motion.

Okay, and then the last one I have. Don't we need to vote on this?

I was going to have to put all three together.

And you want to make it?

I want to make it all uniform.

I'll add that to the public hearing as well.

Okay. So we have the short-term rental.

Yep.

We have the variance. Yep. And then we have the right-of-way. Those three I would ask for a motion on. Okay.

That will be my motion.

That will be your motion. I will second the motion. And we want a motion and a second, and we want to schedule that for September 9th as well.

Yes. Yes. Right?

Yes. All right. We have a motion and a second to schedule a hearing for the short-term rental, the variance, and the right-of-way on September 9th. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you, that's all I have for that. Thank you, Bill. Okay, Judy, the PTO payout?

We're looking for a motion to pay out the PTO for our city administrator

make that motion i'll second brian and jason and brian any other discussion hearing none all in favor indicate by saying aye aye aye any nays motion carries i think that's me um

in your packet. Like I previously said, I did go out

And this is analysis of everybody. For everybody. Fire department, city administration, everybody. Okay. You guys want to have this done?

When's the last time we've had this done?

Too long ago.

17.

It's been a while, ain't it? It's been a while, yeah. Man, it's almost 10 years. I'll make a motion that we accept this offer from the Brown and Associates to move forward.

You got to specify option one. There's a bunch of different options. So you're going to want to option one for 4,025. Page 103.

Option one would cover the 10 different titles we have, correct?

Yeah, option one.

I've worked with these folks over the years and they do a really good job.

Okay, so you make it a motion for option one for the $4,025? Yeah. I'll second. Thank you, Ashley. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Bill, for the research.

And then the Delta electric... I'll grab the next one. That's okay. The Delta electric contracts attached. We did file a claim with Allstate Insurance Company, and they did issue us a check. to cover the entire amount of $9,851.26 for all the materials that may be replaced that way.

But we still need to make a motion to pay the bill, is that it?

Yes.

So I'll make a motion that we pay Delta Electric the $9,851.26. And thank you guys for getting the insurance company to pay.

Yeah. I think it was like two hours and 13 minutes.

I'll second it.

Moral of the story, don't hit a like button. They get expensive. They're expensive.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. Okay, item number 12-4. It's a lack of escrow from Stickney. So I vote... Justin helped out here, so motion to be due to Stickney not paying an escrow. As previously requested, Rockville will deny Stickney's previous request to study additional sewer treatment options to accommodate Stickney's sewer usage.

Is that your motion? I'll second.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. Thank you, Justin. Item 12.5, water tower inspection cleaning. We're combining the core tower and Pleasant Lake Tower for a grand total of $95.62. Yep. And half that amount was previously approved already, correct? So I'll make the motion to approve the water tower inspection and cleaning of $9,562.

I'll second it.

Thank you, Brian. I'll have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. under other 13-1, you want to talk about that, Bill?

We have a notice that was sent out to this homeowner for a 45-day cleanup. That's the latest one, but it's been about two and a half, three years from the beginning to clean up their yard. That expired on July 29th. I'm just asking how you want me to proceed.

So have we made a phone call to him?

I have not this time, but we have previously.

So you've spoken to him. I know when it started out, he emptied out that barn because they were moving the barn because the foundation went to heck. And the guy that was going to move it, that fell apart and he ended up getting somebody else. So that was... long term because of that. But now the barn is moved and it's in position and he should be cleaning up his stuff. But I was just wondering if we've actually talked to him rather than sent a letter.

Not this last time, no.

Because maybe that would do some good to just call him and say hey we need to

Actually, she wanted to extend it up till October 1st before I sent the letter. I did talk to her. And as we discussed later on, we felt that that's too far on. It needs to be done early. But I did talk to her previously.

So you have that. Okay.

She wanted till October 1st.

And this was, you said the first communication was back when?

About two and a half, three years ago.

So three years ago. So, I mean, I think we should be acting on these types of things much faster. I would make the recommendation that we final a letter, and I don't know how short of a notice we can give it, 10 days, 30 days, that this is the final notice, and if it's not completed, then the city will clean it up at a rate of... $300 an hour.

That's kind of what the last letter I sent the state.

Oh, so then can I make a motion that we go clean it up in Biller?

I don't know.

But there's a little bit of an issue entering that property from a trespass standpoint. Didn't we go through that with Mill Street, that if we enter the property, clean it up, the city could be held on trespassing charges?

I think it could be, yes.

And I think we do need to go through the legal route before we just go walking.

Do we want to have Joseph send them a letter as well? I mean, I think we have to, just so we don't get caught up in that trespassing thing.

Yeah, and just keep in mind when we did the one on Mill Street, The legal stuff came back and we had to pay that. That is correct.

We didn't clean it up.

No, no, no. I realize that. I'm just saying that those costs incurred, I believe, are going to still be on us, even if we go clean it up. So that's where I don't know how far we want to push this thing. I know the guy quite well personally, and I just, maybe it would merit just to go talk to him.

You want to try that first, Brad?

I certainly can do that.

That would be awesome. That would be great.

I will do that, just to see what, and I'll report back to you, and then if we've got to go to the legal side of it, then that's where we go.

You can just bring it back to September's meeting.

Yep. Thank you, Brad. Thank you. 13-2, Barkley Birch, the sack flea and water meter. We want to discuss that.

Yeah, currently, Barkley Birch wants to come onto our wastewater system. They have a failing septic system. We did, the city did charge them two sack fees, $4,100 each. We looked at it, the city looked at the rate of other institutions or merchant titles in the area. The city is recommending, the city staff is recommending that we apply one sack fee and then add a meter at their cost and then go to the rate 445 per thousand gallons. And then as we discussed earlier, take a look, monitor that in a year, and then if we need to change, we change.

So they actually paid the two sack fees? Yes, yes. So we would be reimbursing them one? That's correct.

We didn't cash that check.

Oh.

So we knew we were gonna bring it to you guys. And their rates will change if you guys choose to change the super, so it's not necessarily that it would stay there for one year at $60 at $445. Thank you.

So are they actually hooked up now? No, not really not yet. Oh. The reason I was wondering is because you could see where they were doing some work in the woods there.

Yeah, they're working on it. I think they've got their system there, but they haven't connected yet.

Oh.

And they would have to...

So is there a manhole right there? Is that what they would go into?

Yes. I'm assuming they just directional drill over there and get into that manhole. So it stays the same for us.

So the elephant in the closet. So they're going to be using a grinder station. And you know what the grinder station things have caused in our sewer system on the lakes. We're going to end up potentially have that same gasification issue in a manhole.

Well, most of the grinder station issues are at the grinder station itself.

But the gasification ends up in the manholes. We just fixed three lift stations because of that. So I want you to be aware that we've got an issue that's potentially going to start looming. Because this is all gravity down here and we don't have that problem. And now you're going to, when you start pumping sewage and grinding it, it starts decomposing. And when it decomposes is when it gives off the gas. And we're going to have that.

But that waste is not going to sit in that manhole like the other manholes.

But it still creates the gas.

I understand it creates the gas, but it's not going to sit there either. Like, like it wouldn't like in our lift stations today.

Right because there's a horrendous volume there compared to this here. So, in the record, I think it should be noted that if some issues come down the road that we have some means of addressing it. That's my concern. Sure. Granted, that's going to be a manhole versus a lift station. Manhole is going to be a lot easier, a lot less expensive to fix if it creates a problem.

Although you're right, that was the manhole they fixed on Lake Road, wasn't it? That was just a ground good manhole that they had fixed.

Yes.

That's right, you're right.

So it's going to create a potential problem. Granted, the volume is going to be considerably less, but...

So...

What would that cost? Just off the, I'm not holding you to it.

It's a couple hundred bucks in vertical fields. So I don't know how deep the manhole is. Do you have any idea? 10 feet would be two grand, 15 feet would be three grand. I'm guessing three grand or so.

It's cheaper the earlier to do it too. Wait till what happened on Lake Road. That was far more expensive because there was nothing left of the animal.

Right, right.

I mean, if that's the case, I would leave BOSAC fees to cover that. Yes, it would.

And do it right away. Just do it right away. Yes, it would.

And then they're tied onto the system and we don't have problems and everyone's hunky-dory.

Maybe we should just deal with it that way. And then whatever is, if you're comfortable, whatever is left over, we reimburse them that.

I think a preventative measure would make more sense.

Well, an ounce of cure is better than a pound of prevention. Or the other way around, I guess. No, I think we should still have that water meter in there because if they, if all of a sudden they're using 5000 gallons a month, that's a lot more stress on our system too. And they should be paying accordingly.

Can you take the water meter fee out of that ?

Oh, I hear what you're saying. Yes.

The fee to install the water meter you're talking, right? Yeah. Okay, that'd be fair. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Okay. So the motion is to hold both fees, or we've collected the two SACS charges we would reimburse them after the, any funds that were remaining after the manhole was lined and after the meter chart, we would refund that balance, whether that's $500 or $1,000. Correct. From those two stack charges.

But what if we're short? I'm just saying.

Well, then they pay the remaining balance.

Because they should be brought into the loop on this before we go ahead and actually do this so that they know what potentially could be there. I mean, your rough estimate.

You want to charge them one sack regardless. You should take one sack and put that in your coffers. Correct.

Correct.

Yeah, so to clarify, one SAC is being put away. Correct. Cash. Correct. And then the other SAC charge would be only what you would be reimbursing potentially. Correct. Any left over. Correct. All right.

Yep.

Yes.

So, so we want to, pause on the motion until we get an actual footage of that manhole?

I think maybe we should.

At a true cost?

Get a true estimate cost and then get, yes, that makes the most sense.

Is the second two checks or just one check?

I'm assuming you'll get us.

We'll work with Tom to, yeah.

On the rate, and then if for some reason it costs us $4,100, then we will charge them for a meter. Okay. But we probably should charge them for a meter now so that if they finalize their hookup and start putting flow through, we can have a meter on there.

We want that right away, yes. Correct. Let's do that, yep.

So do we need a motion on that tonight at all? We're just going to table it until we get further discussion.

And why are we charging them for a line? I just want to be fair.

Well, we, the only other place that we have a. And knowing that they have actually a gravity line coming out to a manual that's at the 400 club. There's a manhole there. The 400 club is gravity to that system. Because from that manhole out in front of the 400 club, gravity is over to that main lift. So it's just the opposite of this.

So the grinders do pump into that manhole. That's where the gasification is coming.

From all the way up the hill and stuff.

That's kind of the point I'm making.

think there's a difference there because when you when you first when you first move in you first hook up hook up there's costs associated and that's what those sac fees are are there for right to cover that cost so in order to get them hooked up and to protect everyone else that has to happen for them to hook up so i think it's fair in this scenario and i just

Yep. Yeah. Appreciate the information. No, thanks for the question, Bill, because it makes sense. We do want to be fair as well. All right, so that piece of the table. Thank you, guys. Okay, 13-3, the transfer of the liquor license for the hideaway.

Motion to approve.

I will second it. A motion, a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries. 13-4 is the governor's official. Are you going to touch that one, Brian?

So... I WAS APPROACHED LAST THURSDAY AT THE RECORD TRAIL BOARD MEETING TO SEE IF THE CITY OF ROCKFIELD WOULD WANT TO BE PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S OPENER THAT'S COMING THIS NEXT SPRING, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. THE CHAMBER OF COAL SPRING IS KIND OF SPEARHEADING THIS, AND I SPOKE WITH HER TODAY, AND SHE WOULD LIKE IF ROCKFIELD JOINED their um endeavors richmond is on board cold spring is on board and it would be like a announced as a record area um and there'd be more information coming as far as what in depth our capacity would be um i don't didn't sound like there's going to be money involved i don't know that but they definitely want us to be part of it because of our eagle park and the county park and the big fish on the On the gas station is all kind of luring things and festivities would start Thursday evening. So I would like to be part of it and I think Jason would like to be part of that committee. And if the council is okay with us moving forward with that, we give you more information and see where we're at.

Just for the record, the fishing, they're pursuing the fishing open to be here in the area. There's no guarantee that's going to happen.

I can't say that for certain. It sounds like it is.

Okay.

And it's going to be at Cozy Corners is where the launch is going to be.

Okay.

And they might be looking for host boats. for people to go take them out on the chain um they're expecting at least 250 people coming to the community to go fishing so i'm in support of that so if if you guys are okay with that me and jason will take the reins and be part of that committee and see what happens and we'll get more information as we get it so do we need to make a motion to do that um probably should just to make it official

Okay, I'll make a motion that we support that Governor Fischer's opener and Jason and Brian would be part of that committee, the welcoming committee, I guess it would be.

I'll second that motion.

Motion to second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor to give us an aye. Aye. Any nays? Motion carries.

Looks like it. With that, a motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.