[PAGE 1]
Item 4Aii
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022 - 6:00 P.M. - 8150 BARBARA AVENUE
1.CALL TO ORDER:
The City Council of Inver Grove Heights met in regular session on Monday, January 10, 2022, in person.
Mayor Bartholomew called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2.ROLL CALL:
Present In-Person: Mayor Bartholomew, Council Members: Dietrich, Murphy, and Gliva; City
Administrator Wilson, City Attorney McCauley Nason, City Clerk Kiernan, Associate Planner Botten,
Community Development Director Rand, Civil Engineer Moser, Police Chief Chiodo, and Parks and
Recreation Director Lares.
Absent: Council Member Piekarski Krech
3.PRESENTATIONS:
4.CONSENT AGENDA:
A. i. Minutes from the November 22, 2021, City Council meeting.
ii.Minutes from the December 6, 2021, City Council Special meeting.
iii.Minutes from the December 6, 2021, City Council Work Session.
B.Resolution 2022-01 approving disbursements for period ending January 4, 2022.
C.Approve personnel actions.
D.Designate 2022 official legal publication/newspaper.
E.Designate 2022 official depositories.
F.Designate 2022 Acting Mayor.
G.Designate Council liaison/committee appointments.
H.Authorize Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT). Resolution 2022-02
I.Authorize budget transfer of donated police funds. Resolution 2022-003
J.Accept updates to IGH Emergency Operations plan. Resolution 2022-004
K.Appoint deputy weed inspector and city forester.
L.Resolutions approving agreements related to new prosecution firm. Resolutions 2022-005 and
2022-006
M.Resolution 2022-007 approving the application for fiscal year 2022 Dakota County Community
Development Block Grant funding.
N.Resolution 2022-008 approving Pathways to Policing grant application.
O.Approve encroachment agreement for landowner improvements within city drainage and utility
easement for 7755 Boyd Ave.
P.Consider Change Order No. 1 for City Project No. 2021-09D – Bryant Lane area improvements.
Q.Authorize Issuance of request for proposals for utility rate study.
R.Approve Axon contract for tasers/body worn cameras/squad car cameras. Resolution 2022-009
S.Consider Change Order No. 1 for public works facility project.
Motion by Dietrich, second by Murphy, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
6. REGULAR AGENDA:

[PAGE 2]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 2 of 11
A. Consider the following actions for property located at 5871 Cahill Avenue:
1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guided land use from NC,
Neighborhood Commercial and LDR, Low Density Residential to LMDR, Low-Medium
Density Residential. Resolution 2022-010
2. A Rezoning from R-1C, Single Family Residential and B-3, General Business to R-3B,
Multiple Family Residential. Ordinance 1422
Associate Planner Heather Botten discussed property located south of Upper 55th Street on the west
side of Cahill Avenue. Cahill Avenue is a designated minor arterial road. The request is for two parcels
at a total of 2.24 acres. Current zoning is B-3 General Business on the north lot and R-1C Single Family
Residential on the south lot. They are guided in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as Neighborhood
Commercial and Low Density Residential. The Applicant would like to develop the two parcels into a
townhome development. In order to do so, a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment are
required to be consistent with the potential development. If the proposed requests are successful, an
application for a plat and Conditional Use Permit would be required before any construction or work
can be done on site. This subsequent process would require a Public Hearing, at which time comments
on site design, setbacks, trees, landscaping, and location of buildings would be done at the next step.
The Applicant has stated the potential development would consist of a maximum of 17 townhome
units. 17 units on 2.24 acres, the density would be 7.6 units per acre. The density would fall under the
LMDR (Low to Medium Density Residential) category. LMDR allows for ranges in the 4-8 units per acre.
She stated the Applicant is also requesting rezoning the parcels to an R-3B, Multiple Family. The R3-B
District is for multi-family dwelling units up to 7 units a building and ranging up to 12 units an acre.
Infrastructure is in place to accommodate a multi-family development. The surrounding land uses
would be single family to the south, single family, and open space to the west, commercial and office to
the north, multi-family, and office to the east. Multiple family housing is a typical type of development
found along arterial roads. Staff believes the proposed zoning and land use designations do not
appear to be out of character for the neighborhood, it would be a good infill transitional use between
residential properties and the commercial and office properties. Based on information presented, what
is in the Staff report and the Conditions listed in the Resolution, Staff recommends approval of the
request. At the Planning Commission’s December 21st, Public Hearing, they unanimously supported the
request with the conditions listed.
Doug Johnson, owner of Blue-Ribbon Builders, stated he has been building since 1997. He built a
townhome project similar to this in Coon Rapids which was home ownership, just like what they would
be doing here. The property they are proposing putting the buildings on fits the neighborhood. He has
been working with his Engineers and Architects and said for density they are actually looking at less
than 17 to meet setbacks. The townhomes would be two-story with two car garages. They would work
with the city on the open space and parking.
Mayor Bartholomew said he wanted to make sure Mr. Johnson was aware of the setback limitations and
does not run into a density issue. Mr. Johnson replied he would not look for a variance, they would
scale back the project to fit within the means of the setbacks and Ordinances.
Mayor Bartholomew asked if Mr. Johnson had looked at the recommendation from Staff and if he had
questions regarding the conditions. Mr. Johnson responded he did not have questions. He mentioned
that Staff did a very good job.
Jenny Finwall, 5905 Cahill Avenue, said her property is located south of the proposed property. Her
concern was about the amount of green space they would have if there were kids. She said they are

[PAGE 3]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 3 of 11
already having issues with the emergency housing down the street because they do not have any place
for the kids to go. They seem to play in everyone’s yards to and from McDonald’s and Walgreens. She
prefers having a privacy fence between. She said there is a heavy spruce tree line there that is going to
get cut through. She was concerned about how many trees she would lose depending on the setbacks
and number of people next door.
Mayor Bartholomew commented if separation and screening could be discussed at the time of
Application. He addressed Ms. Finwall and said her information is on the record. Staff would make sure
that is addressed and discussed.
Councilmember Gliva said this area has been looked at for apartments, it is in between a single-family
home and Walgreens. She said it seems like home ownership townhomes would fit and seemed like a
good transition. She suggested making sure there are barriers to protect the homeowner.
Mayor Bartholomew said he thought this was a good buffer. There is a slope to the west, ownership
product, and densities are in the right spot. Green space, privacy, and separation would be addressed
at the time of application for construction. He supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said
he would encourage this passing; it is a good buffer.
Councilmember Dietrich said she believes it was a good product for the area. She encouraged the
Developer to be very thoughtful about having it be owned and not rented. She appreciated the
Developer’s indication of that.
Councilmember Murphy agreed with all that has been said.
Motion by Murphy, second by Dietrich, to approve the following action for property located at
5871 Cahill Avenue:
1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guided land use from NC,
Neighborhood Commercial and LDR, Low Density Residential to LMDR, Low-Medium
Density Residential. Resolution 2022-010
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
Motion by Dietrich, second by Gliva, to approve the following actions for property located at
5871 Cahill Avenue:
2. A Rezoning from R-1C, Single Family Residential and B-3, General Business to R-3B,
Multiple Family Residential. Ordinance 1422
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
B. Consider approval of rental licenses (18).
Community Development Director Heather Rand said the following is for the approval of license rental
properties/homes within the city. Licenses are valid for up to two years. The city has received an
additional 18 Applications. Staff has reviewed these and found the Applications to be complete. The
Police Department has done background checks. Staff recommends approval of the following 18
Rental Licenses:

[PAGE 4]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 4 of 11
• 4819 Bisset Lane – Jeffrey Campbell
• 6975 Archer Court – Har Mattaparti
• 6973 Archer Place – Har Mattaparti
• 8163 Darcy Lane – Jennifer Sobota
• 2111 78th Court – Ronald Richins
• 7870 Barbara Avenue – Francis Hickey
• 3816 67th Street – Francis Hickey
• 3811 66th Street – Francis Hickey
• 7810 Barbara Avenue – Francis Hickey
• 9395 Old Concord Blvd. – Michael Cassidy
• 4927 Bisset lane – Mohammad Yousaf
• 2586 – 49th Street – Kathleen Pan
• 4888 Boatman Lane – Robert Stefani
• 3484 Cloman Way – Kyle Corniea
• 4852 Bivens Court – Scott Anderson
• 4877 Bitterman Path – Shailesh Koppikar
• 3220 81st Street – Todd Kelm
• 4875 Bryce Avenue – Larry Groppoli
Councilmember Murphy questioned if the Council would be revisiting the Policy around rentals in the
future at a Work Session. Community Development Director Rand agreed and said that is intended to
take place some time in February as a part of a strategic discussion. Staff will bring information and get
input from Council, with possible changes that could be made to improve the process and provide
residents with what Staff hopes to be a greater assurance of the safety and security of these rentals.
Motion by Gliva, second by Dietrich, to approve the 18 Rental Licenses.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
C. Consider Resolution receiving Feasibility Report and scheduling a Public Hearing for City
Project No. 2022-09G – Albano Trail and Albright Court rehabilitation. Resolution 2022-011
Civil Engineer Jacob Moser, gave a presentation asking the Council to consider receiving the
Feasibility Report and scheduling the Public Hearing for City Project No. 2022-09G Albano Trail and
Albright Court Area Street Rehabilitation.
Project Background:
• North of Highway 3, South Robert Trail, east of Highway 149/Jefferson Trail.
• Single Family Home Development.
Platted as Ves Valley Estates
o
26 homes
o
• Includes 1.6 lane-miles of urban street with curb.
Constructed in 2002
o
• Past maintenance:
Sealcoat in 2006
o
2014 (Albright Court only)
o
Miscellaneous patching, potholes, and pavement issues
o
Project Progress:

[PAGE 5]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 5 of 11
• Initiated by City Council through the Pavement Management Initiative.
• Council authorized a Feasibility Report in October 2021.
1 of 8 Feasibility Reports
o
Once authorized, Staff prioritized the most cost effective and least complex projects that
o
could benefit the most properties and mileage of streets
Remaining feasibility reports are scheduled to be completed in early 2022
o
Further fiscal and budget review will be necessary for additional projects
o
• Staff hosted a virtual and in-person open house to share feasibility findings with residents in
December.
A slide of the streets was displayed showing Albano Trail, Albright Court, and the 26 single family lots.
There is a non-accessible outlot that is privately owned and encumbered by easement.
Feasibility Recommendation:
• 2” Mill & Overlay.
Grind and replace the upper 2” of pavement
o
• Spot curb replacement.
On an as-needed basis to fix major structural deficiencies to maintain drainage in the
o
curb line. Hair line cracks and aesthetic issues would not be included in the rehab project
• Minor utility maintenance
Includes storm sewer casting adjustments, storm drains, and curb line
o
This neighborhood does not have sewer and water utilities. All are on well and septic
o
Project Cost/Budget:
Total Project Costs:
• Streets: $277,100
• Storm Sewer: $29,200
• Total: $306,300
Total Project Funding:
• Pavement Management Fund: $55,400
• Stormwater Utility Fund: $5,900
• Special Assessments: $245,000
• Total: $306,300
Special Assessments – Single Family:
• Per City Policy for Mill and Overlay projects, 80% of the street and storm costs are assessed to
benefitting property owners.
• Single family lots are assessed on a uniform per parcel basis.
• Preliminary Per Policy Assessment: $9,424
Large assessment for a mill and overlay project
o
Larger lots, average 1.5 acres with large frontages
o
Assessments are fair per Policy
o
• A Special Benefit Analysis was performed by an Independent Appraiser.
Provided a $15,600 Special Benefit Cap per single family residence
o
• 26 single family lots are included on the preliminary roll.
• Recommended 5-year term on special assessment payments.
Approved by the City Council at a later Assessment Hearing
o
Tentative Project Schedule:
• Receive the Feasibility Report, call for an Improvement Hearing: January 10, 2022.
• If approved, Staff would invite residents to a Virtual Information Meeting: February 2022.
• Council would be requested to hold the Improvement Hearing and order the plans and
specifications at the February 28, 2022 City Council Meeting.

[PAGE 6]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 6 of 11
• Plans would be prepared and approved: March 2022.
• Bid Opening: April 2022.
• Council would be asked to receive bids and award the project: April 25, 2022.
• Begin Construction: Late May 2022.
• Substantial completion date: August 2022.
• Assessment Hearing Information Meeting held by Staff to present the final proposed
assessments to the property owners: September 2022.
• Hold an Assessment Hearing to adopt final assessments: October 2022.
He stated that this was a change from the schedule shared with residents at the December open house.
At that time, they had the Assessment Hearing to be held prior to construction. Based on property
owner feedback and Staff discussion, the recommendation is to hold the Assessment Hearing after
construction. This allows for the possibility of realizing cost savings during construction, those would be
reflected in the assessments based on final assessment costs.
Staff Recommendations:
• Adopt Resolution
Receive Feasibility Report
o
Schedule Improvement Hearing for February 28, 2022
o
Mayor Bartholomew asked if Staff had a copy of the Benefit Analysis Report. Civil Engineer Moser
responded yes. Mayor Bartholomew requested the Council be given a copy of that via email. Civil
Engineer Moser agreed.
Mayor Bartholomew commented he felt it was wise to wait until after construction to hold the
Assessment Hearing. It is a lot of money. The rationale was correct due to the size of the lots and
frontage, shows a benefit that he believes would be supported by the analysis.
Mayor Bartholomew referred to the Outlot and permanent easement and asked if it was from the
HOA, the city, agreement with the city, or the landowners. He asked if that information was known. Civil
Engineer Moser responded the outlot is listed as owned by the HOA. In reading the development
contracts he knows it was a part of the Development Contract.
Mayor Bartholomew said it was a permanent outlot, there was no way someone could acquire it. Civil
Engineer Moser responded that was correct. It has the easements encumbrance on it.
Councilmember Dietrich asked how well attended the in-person and virtual meetings were. Civil
Engineer Moser responded the virtual meeting had pretty good attendance with 12 participants. For
the in-person meeting there were no residents for this project.
Councilmember Dietrich asked what some of the feedback received was. Civil Engineer Moser
responded the general comment received is usually about the cost of the assessments and questioning
why taxes do not pay for that. He said Staff explained this was a part of the city Assessment Policy. It is
the way it has been determined to fairly pay for local streets in the city. There was no substantial
opposition to the project.
Councilmember Dietrich said it was something they were discussing in the Citizen’s Task Force, about
conversations and getting more awareness out there of how the Policy is put into play. She said
hopefully Staff will not have to answer that same question.

[PAGE 7]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 7 of 11
Motion by Murphy, second by Dietrich, to approve Resolution 2022-011 receiving the Feasibility
Report and scheduling a Public Hearing for City Project No. 2022-09G – Albano Trail and
Albright Court rehabilitation.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
D. Consider First Reading of Small Cell Ordinance.
City Attorney Bridget McCauley Nason stated she did not have a large presentation to bring forward to
the Council regarding this item at the First Reading. She has spoken with Staff and would be working
with the incoming Public Works Director. As this moves forward, there may be additional presentation
materials including some visuals. This could take place at the next meeting or the meeting after that.
She provided background to this item stating in 2017 there were a number of Legislative changes
made and FCC Regulation changes that impacted the roll out of small wireless facilities. These are not
the big cell facilities noticed on water towers or stand-alone poles. These are smaller facilities that may
be attached to light poles or a similar structure. With the Legislative changes came requirements for
cities to allow these small wireless facilities within the city right of way as a permitted user within the
rights of way. The city is allowed to provide some regulation of these facilities. It cannot be prohibited,
dictated where they are going to go, and cannot establish high fees that exceed those established by
Statute. The city does have some ability to require, for example, aesthetic standards for certain right of
way facilities, that small wireless facilities enter into a Co-location Agreement with the city if they are
going to be co-locating their facilities on a city structure such as a city owned light post or a city owned
stop light.
She stated in 2017/2018, the city moved forward with the First Reading of an Ordinance adopting the
League of Minnesota Cities Model Ordinance for small wireless facilities. The city also adopted
aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities. Looking at the Fee Schedule, there are actually fees
related to small wireless facilities. She said for whatever reason after the First Reading passed
unanimously, it did not come back before the Council for adoption. This is why this item is back before
the Council this evening. It is being started at a First Reading standpoint because it is a new Council
and the first time, they are seeing it. This would then come before the Council for a Second and Third
Reading. She said there would also be some Zoning Ordinance Amendments that come forward
along with this. The city is circumscribed from adopting regulations outside of those that it is authorized
to do so by Statute and regulation. The city can require a Conditional Use Permit for small wireless
facilities to be located in single family residential zoning districts which gives the city some slightly
larger modicum of control over the placement of those facilities to ensure they are not too disruptive to
those residential neighborhoods. This is probably the broadest discretion the city has with respect to
these facilities and placement.
She stated the plan is to bring forward for Council consideration after it goes through Planning
Commission, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment which would make small wireless facilities a
conditional use within the single-family residential zoning district. The Ordinance itself is adopted from
the Leagues Model Ordinance. It has been adopted by many cities within the State of Minnesota. She
said there was not any significant changes to this Ordinance from what was brought forward to the
Council for a First Reading a few years ago. The request is for Council to consider the First Reading of
this Ordinance knowing it would be brought back twice. The goal is to have the final reading coincide
with adopting the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adoption of a standard co-location agreement, and
a few other agreements the city can adopt as part of its regulation of these small cell facilities.

[PAGE 8]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 8 of 11
Mayor Bartholomew said when this was discussed prior, one of his concerns was with overlay areas, in
particular the airport overlay area where there is a height constraint. He said there was a height
limitation in the airport area of 35 feet. None of these, if recalling correctly, were over that scale and
were well under that with this Ordinance. City Attorney McCauley Nason responded yes, typically. She
stated there is some reference to height regulations with respects to facilities. The news has shown that
there has been quite a bit of talk and some tension with the FAA and the roll out of the 5G Network and
some concerns with respect to potential airport interference that may or may not exist. These are
typically the small wireless facilities, they attach to standard light poles, streetlamps, or utility poles. It is
not the larger towers that might come into play with the airport or other zones.
Mayor Bartholomew said when he was in Edina, he saw the school baseball field and it looked like
every light pole had a tower on it. He asked if a capacity issue could be addressed. City Attorney
McCauley Nason responded there is no limitations on the number of these facilities. The city does not
have the authority to put a limitation on them. It is up to the wireless providers. The only thing the city
has much discretion with is dealing with those facilities in the single-family residential zoning district,
and then require a Conditional Use Permit. She advised the Council that they do not have to go that
route. Some cities have chosen to not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Council does not have to if
they do not want to. It provides the only space where the Council could have some oversite in the
placement of these facilities in the single-family residential zoning districts to ensure that they do not
interfere as much as possible, with the use of the single-family residential district.
Mayor Bartholomew said it offers a chance for discretion.
Councilmember Murphy wanted clarification if most cities have adopted what the League of Minnesota
Cities has helped with. He asked if that was an accurate assessment. City Attorney McCauley Nason
responded she did not know if it was most/many but the discussions in the City Attorney universe when
this first came to light in 2017 was that most cities did adopt the League’s Model Ordinance. The city is
limited as to how they can regulate these facilities. The League Ordinance does comply with the
Statutory and other regulatory constraints.
Councilmember Murphy asked if the First Reading included the potential of it being a Conditional Use
in residential. City Attorney McCauley Nason responded yes.
Councilmember Murphy asked what these do. He questioned if it was cell service. City Attorney
McCauley Nason replied when Cellular came out they were big and shot cellular signals from faraway
places. Now the way the Network is more distributed, smaller sites are needed to send signals around.
Mayor Bartholomew believed the Council should consider the First Reading and look at the revised
work.
Motion by Gliva, second by Murphy, to accept the First Reading of Small Cell Ordinance.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Corey Clarin, 1120 Alaureate Court, addressed road flooding stating he lives just to the south of where
the Civil Engineer was discussing the road project on Albano and Albright. Highway 3/Robert Trail runs

[PAGE 9]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 9 of 11
east/west in that section. On the south side of Robert Trail there is a pond. He said that part of Highway
3 also had MnDOT’s road project for 2018. Prior to that the road had been there for 50 years without a
single incidence of flooding. They put in curb and gutter. The whole design was sent to the city for
approval by City Engineers. He said they started experiencing road flooding before that project was
even done. The water has gone up about 4 feet at its peak. He said Mr. Kaldunski in the Engineering
Department could give exact figures. As the water kept rising, they were driving through at least a foot
of water at times to get to their homes. Alaureate Trail is the only way in or out of their neighborhood.
There are 12 families there that were losing sleep every time it rained wondering if they would be able
to get out of the neighborhood. It was the same for garbage trucks, Amazon vehicles, and emergency
vehicles. He said he has spent numerous hours talking with MnDOT, their Engineers, our City
Engineers, Commissioner Atkins, the Watershed, our State Representative, and Senators. Nobody
would help them determine what was going on with the flooding. He said it got to the point where they
had to do something so their neighborhood paid to have it raised with gravel three times so they can
get in and out. With the drought last summer, the water has receded 18 inches from its peak. They are
no longer worried about getting in and out, but spring thaw is coming, and the water is still way higher
than it was before the MnDOT project. He said what had reminded him of this was that he just received
his Stormwater Utility Fee in the mail and have been paying it without complaints. They have no city
sewer, no water, no plowing, no salting, no sanding, they take care of all of that as a neighborhood.
They have been paying for 10 years and nobody has offered to help them with the flooding.
He referenced the city website and the Stormwater Facility FAQ where it says, “Why do we have this,” it
states “The northwest area of Inver Grove Heights is projected to be fully developed in the future
requiring construction of new measures to treat and manage stormwater. Since there are no
stormwater outlets for these areas, the new measures will include the use of low impact infiltration
practices so that the landlocked basins will not become flooded.” He said that is not working out for
them and nobody is using any of those dollars to help them. He requests the Council consider helping
them. He said he talks to Mr. Kaldunski frequently. He mentioned that Barr Engineering was here last
summer because the city is discussing what to do with landlocked basins when they flood and how to
respond. He said ideas are being floated around about having all of the landowners whose land
contributes to a landlocked basin help pay for things like this. He said he would like the city to consider
this if and when it comes around. If spring brings more flooding they would be right back where they
were and have to raise their road more.
Mayor Bartholomew responded that he appreciates Mr. Clarin’s comments. He would task the City
Administrator to get his contact information and reach out to him as well as receive input from
engineering regarding this situation. He said there is a new Public Works Director coming on board.
Mr. Clarin mentioned after the Barr Engineering meeting the city hosted a follow up meeting a month
later for the public to attend, engage in the process, and shape the policy. He was dismayed to find out
that the city had actually pumped water from a pond near their area. A gentleman had complained that
the water was getting near his shed. He believed this went before a previous City Council, but they
agreed and pumped water for three days. He asked Mr. Kaldunski how much that cost and was told it
was almost $70,000 that the city paid to help reduce the pond level so the gentleman’s shed would not
get wet. He said yet there are people losing sleep because they are worried about whether they can
get to and from their house or have their garbage picked up and nobody would do anything to help
them.
Mayor Bartholomew said he understands Mr. Clarin’s input and has it on record. He would follow up
with City Administrator Wilson tomorrow and make sure they get ahead of this.

[PAGE 10]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 10 of
11
8. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Mayor Bartholomew read the following updates from the Inver Grove Heights Police Department:
• There is a Citizen’s Policy Academy on Wednesday’s from 6:00 to 9:00 beginning April 6th
through May 11th at the Police Department. Must be 18 years or older. Registrations are now
open online. Limited space available. Email Police Chief Chiodo with questions.
• There is a 2022 Community Safety Survey from the Inver Grove Heights Police Department
available online until February 1st. It takes about 5-7 minutes to do. Questions or concerns can be sent
to Police Chief Chiodo. Please take part in the survey so Staff and the Council can hear and receive
input.
City Administrator Wilson welcomed and introduced the new Parks and Recreation Director Adam
Lares.
Parks and Recreation Director Adam Lares introduced himself and said he is very excited to be here
this evening. He is officially on Day 6. He said a lot of the opportunities that are presenting itself here in
Inver Grove Heights are very exciting, particularly for a Park Professional with the development in the
northwest quadrant, and many other areas within the city that have park development or
redevelopment opportunities and funding allocations at times. He was very pleasantly surprised with
the great welcoming he has had from all city Staff. He gave a shoutout to all Park and Recreation Staff
that have really stepped up over the last year with the vacancy of a full time Parks and Recreation
Director. He said he knows that Jon Oyanagi and Bob Bierscheid did a great job interim. He knows the
department has longed for some leadership and direction, which he hopes he can provide. He looks
forward to working with each and every one of the Council Members and hoped to get some time on
their calendars to get to know them, have an introductory meeting, hear their priorities, and some of
the directions they have for where they would like to see the Parks and Recreation Department.
He said he is a big believer in livability within the Park and Recreation Department that helps support
community. He is interested to see where the Council falls within that and where he can make some of
those things come to fruition. He is also a big believer in Public Service. He said he is here to listen to
the Council’s constituents and anybody that is willing to talk about parks and recreation and beyond.
Mayor Bartholomew welcomed Adam. He said his hands will be full. There is great opportunity here
and a lot of things to do. They look forward to his energy and input.
Councilmember Dietrich thanked Parks and Recreation Director Lares for staying for six days so far. She
thanked him for choosing Inver Grove Heights to work at. They are really excited to have him here.
Parks and Recreation Director Lares said he has been a part of one system for about 18 years. The
systems, processes, and language are completely different. If he accidentally calls the Council
Commissioner’s, it is because he is used to a Board of Commissioner’s in the Minneapolis Parks and
Recreation Board. There was also a Superintendent. He asked for a little bit of grace and apologized on
the front end. He looks forward to working with all.
9. ADJOURN:
Motion by Gliva, second by Murphy, to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Ayes: 4

[PAGE 11]
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING – January 10, 2022 Page 11 of
11
Nays: 0 Motion carried.
Minutes prepared by Recording Clerk Sheri Yourczek