Call to order for the city of Canon Falls council meeting Tuesday. Oh, this is uh is that the wrong date? Yeah, it's the right one. Got it. September 2nd, uh 2025. Uh if we could get a roll call, please. Diane Johnson, here. Zimmerman here.
Chad Johnson here. Jeepson absent. Noach here. Cronenberger absent. Montgomery here. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. If I could get a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Second from Lisa, second from Chris. All those in favor say I.
Opposed? No. passes. Public input. Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the city council. Public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in total length and each speaker will have no more than 3 minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers
must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, and the topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to city business, and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down. If the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the
meeting. Speakers shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comments shall be made at the public hearing. City council will not generally act on issues raised by the public input, but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. Tonight, we got Jim
Hoffman. All yours There you go. There we go. All right. Like Matt said, Jim Hoffman, 917 Park Street West. Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to speak about ordinance enforcement yet again,
specifically noise. It appears that on September 13th, there's going to be a monster truck mania event at the fairgrounds. In their advertisement, they warn a hearing protection is recommended. That in itself gives the local authorities the heads up that they need to enforce local noise ordinance.
In the in the advertisement, it appears there will more than likely exceed our local noise ordinance, not to mention state noise limit for a residential area. There should be ample time to prepare and get the necessary monitoring equipment in place. Whether it be local equipment or equipment on loan from the
MTCA, having noise monitoring equipment in place should allow the authorities to act accordingly on the date of the event. Every ordinance should be enforced to the fairness and safety of all. If you knew a time and a date an impaired driver was going to speed through downtown over the response
speed, this event on the 13th gives you the same advanced notes. Yet the noise yet the noise ordinance appears as though it will be ignored. Not doing anything, that's dereliction. Someone of authority should do something. The event itself is a slap in
the face of the people of the west side. Hearing protection recommended. Come on. I don't believe the fair board truly needs any extracurricularcurricular events at all ever. The fair board president stood here saying that they are that they need these types of events
to stay in operation. I personally don't believe that for a minute and I don't need any evidence or proof to say to say that or believe that. The fair board certainly doesn't need any proof or evidence to proclaim that they're in rough shape. The fair board has not offered up or been asked by the city for
any proof of their dire finances. They just say they're in tough shape and everyone is supposed to take them at their word. I feel it's only right that the fair board and their largest contributor, the friends of the fair, show their books. I don't have anything against the fair or the way it's been
run, you know, three or four days over the 4th of July. Full transparency here, I don't attend the fair, but I do season. But I do drive by the fairgrounds and it's very wellkept. It appears to be doing just fine. Now, the
city administrator, city attorney, the fairboard attorney have entered into some type of negotiations. They apparently have given the fair board negotiating power that they don't have. These these negotiations are apparently taking place in hopes of moving on to another text amendment vote
text amendment change for the fairgrounds. Why wasn't any citizen represented at all? It really affects them the most. Oh, and by the way, a tech, by the way, a text amendment for a zoning change was already voted down this year by the planning commission and the city
council. This new amendment looks as though it's going to be zoned plain fair zone and affairs and events will be handled by conditional use permits. To me, that's a bit like putting the fox in charge of the headouse. If we're if we're not going to enforce
ordinances here, why haven't picking and choosing what ordinances enforce isn't right either? How do you possibly tell someone that they can't do something and turn around and tell someone else they can do whatever they want? I just don't want to be told that we just didn't see this coming for the
13th. Thank you, ladies, gentlemen. Moving on to the consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as council business tonight. Item A, adjust and correct claims for the accounting period ending August 27th, 2025. Item B,
meeting minutes, August 19th, 2025 city council meeting. Item C, resolution 2825, receiving bids and awarding a contract in the hardwood estates third subdivision. And item D, approve PUD agreement and development agreement for Hardwood State Hardwood Estates Third
Subdivision. Is there anything the council would like to pull down as council? Hearing none, I would take a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda. So move. Motion from Diane, second from Lisa. All those in favor say I. Opposed? That carries. Gets us to
council business. Uh tonight we have nursing home discussion. John, thank you, mayor. Uh so I sent a message out uh earlier discussing potential options for the nursing home if we ever get to the position where it we the city
has to instigate the building being being torn up. So upon uh conversation with the city attorney about that process, she confirmed that those are they're accurate. That's the the end result of you know what we would need to
do. So if the in the in the interim um if we were able to engage with the property owner and come to some sort of discussion or understanding about the condition of the building and and where they need to go that's a you know kind of part of our ordinances as well that
we can you know work with them to try to get something done and establish a timeline in which it needs to be uh addressed. that that would likely be probably the the quickest, you know, least costly um exper or situation and
process for for the city to go through that might end up yielding a result that we want. So, um I did receive today from uh the police chief uh the list kind of broken down. It's all I mean it had to, you know, we had to separate out all the
times we just do the the building checks like because we have been doing that from uh for the last couple years, but seems that since the March of 23 when the building was officially shut down that we've had about 60 um engagements where
we've actually physically either had to go into the building or respond to some some complaint or issue that that has happened there. So, it has been pretty frequent over that time. Um, back in January, we uh the city directed the our building officials uh from Good County
to um look at the building and make a determination whether or not it could be uh it was safe to enter. They determined that it was indeed hazardous and it should be placed as such that warning any individuals that the building is hazardous and entering it is they're
doing so at their own risk even though it's not in safe condition. The reason um you know since January to today why we haven't been you know taking a more expedient action on this is that that property had a active purchase agreement
on it between Quick Trip and the building owner. Um, since that time, uh, since a couple weeks ago, uh, Quick Trip has no longer, uh, extended or continued to purchase agreement on the site, um, for the store building, um, that they're
looking for within our community. So, they are kind of moving on to trying to identify a different location. Um so since that is no longer active and I don't have or have received or any indication of any you know immediate form um prospects for redevelopment for
that site um I do believe it is time for us to to kind of start that action. So I've already placed one phone call and left a message for the building owner to to respond to me. I haven't got response back. That was last Wednesday. So I um
you know still kind of waiting for for that answer. If not um you know a certified letter will be sent to detail the the direction that we want to go or making sure they're on notice of the condition of the building and that the
city does intend to seek actions to to having addressed if they're not working. So, the point of tonight's meeting was hopefully um you know, get some input and uh from the council on, you know, how far potentially do you want to take
this. Um I kind of outlined those last four objects of um you know, the the cost, the expense, the risk uh that might take. I don't think we need to, you know, take action on any one of those four things right now, but uh we certainly want to to know that
something's going to be done about the building and supporting council's commitment actions. Discussion and questions from council. Um I know we talked before about it having asbestous and then quick they
were going to do we were applying for a grant for it. Would that still apply if we had to help or tear it down or whoever tore it down? Yep. So the grant that the the grant that we indicated that we would um you know file in support or actually the
city has to apply for initially is uh through the department of economic development employment economic development deed and there's uh there's a scoring matrix for those applications and they're generally competitive but they have multiple rounds of of fund
grant reviews. One's due in August, the other is due in February. Um, and there generally funds in that every single every single review period. Uh, I've applied for that in my past cities and they generally score well if you have an
end user that you know you is identified in the way the property is going to be redeveloped. So you can have um Quick Trip say for you know as an example they're going to come in the city can apply for that use the funds to support Quick Trip in in tearing a building down
offsetting some of that cost. Um and then um we might we score a lot better because Quick Trip is going to redevelop an East site. What we tried to apply for in my past on this was the city owning a structure had no uh idea who the end
user was going to be because it was a you know facility that was you know in the middle of a block in downtown in a very old building. Um so we were going to you know needed to get it. We weren't going to tear it down but we could also use the funds to clean it up. So, we're going to do that to clean up the site.
Um, and then, you know, hopefully that makes it more attractive for an end user. Ultimately, we didn't score very well when we weren't working for it. So, if we can still, you know, make that effort, apply for it, but it works a lot better if we do have an end user. So, if
there's a a means for that to be redeveloped for something, um, I think it's we have pretty strong chance of success receiving those funds to help us. um they're not they're not certainly going to cover the full extent of it, but it definitely would probably offset
larger, you know, any hazardous materials that like asbestous. Um I do not know of or have a report that indicates what's in there, but that would be one of the first things that would need to be done even in the instance of you know directing the the
current building warranties. I imagine Quick Trip crunched the numbers of how much it would cost them to take care of all this. Do we have those numbers like ballpark of an idea of what clearing the thing out would be? No, there's and theirs is different,
too. It's it's they're going to they're going to take the site down and redevelop it to the what they want to do for and what they need. So they're going to, you know, probably have larger activation uh costs associated with the project to fill the the tanks for the the fueling stations. They might have,
you know, different levels of foundation that they need. You know, in our instance of just mitigating hazardous structure, it's take it down to the to the foundation and make sure there's no hazardous material left over and leave it as a brown field for for redevelopment. So, um it if we would
want to if that's the direction for the council, then you know that's using resources uh to to generate that on a site that we don't own uh right now. So, um certainly something that if we did get to the point where whatever the best
decision that we have available to us is is there. Yeah. I just look at it. They've had three years. They haven't done anything with it. They sat on it. They know it's an issue. there's that rush into getting it cleaned up. It's it's a eyes sore to the community and it's land that personally if it was clear I think
developers would have bidding more for though we we the first stop was Quick Drip but if it was clear I can see other things wanting to go there. Yeah. I I would I would I totally agree with you that the site is definitely attractive for redevelopment and and just again state
you know our conversation with Quick Trip was also contingent upon some conversations that we were having with Mindot which uh took longer than any of us anticipated and ended up with you know less certainty at the at the end point than it did even when we first
started talking to them. So, um, that, yeah, yes, it's been since March 2023. I would I would give them break. I would give the owner a little bit of a break on, you know, maybe the past 10 months because it was kind of known to to them
at that time that Quick Trip had a purchase agreement. Um, and we're waiting on we were we were also in the process of conversations with Midnot trying to figure out the best way to redevelop that site for traffic purposes. I'm not too concerned about
their feelings. They the nursing home run down and people had 6-hour notice had to be relocated. So, now the city's problem. They didn't do their job. I'm not totally familiar if this owner was the owner of the nursing home at that
time or if they yes something is there anything any one of those four options that's like a distinct disadvantage to the city I mean you know more costly I guess to the city
um certainly uh I think the mo absolutely the most costly is going to be eminent domain taking property um you know if we were which is an option to the city that if we did want to take it the owner isn't willing to give it up we
could you know go through that route that's it's you're going to end up with a lot more legal challenge to that um as the owner is not going to want to give up those rights you are going to pay market value for the property so you're going to end up settling for some some dollar amount to paying that person to
take their property and then we're owning it we're totally on the hook and responsible for the condition of the property and tearing it down to whatever extent we want. So, what what happens if we choose one of the options where we we demo it or we tell them what we want want fixed and if
they don't do it, I mean, are we on the hook? What I guess what I don't want to see happen is this person has sat on this property. Yes, they have a purchase agreement, but I don't want to do work for them and then them not pay us back or pay the bill or the assessment. What happens now?
Yeah. So primarily the the main and it's even in our ordinances to do this and the main the main resources we have to to be recouped those costs is to assess the property owner. So if it stays in their ownership and we came in and mitigated the hazards and tear the
building down um we build that back to them and assess that onto their property taxes. That's at least the the the means in which we're going to get something back. Um it's it can in some instances be risky that you're not going to get
much back if the property owner has no resources at all and the property is has no value in since it does have value. So, even if we came in, tore it down, assess it to that, the owner still has the property, ultimately posted to tax
forfeite, there's going to be a we can we can work with the county to set the minimum bid price for a tax forfeiture auction. Um, and we could set it to a dollar amount at which we want to say, hey, we want to get this much back at least out of this property. This is the
first bid. We can't accept anything below that. So usually so like with the house doesn't it usually like when there's assessments and stuff done they go on to the next it doesn't work like that with this um no that was that's worst case scenario say they don't have any money. Okay.
Better case scenario is the owner still has a property it's we've cleaned it up now it's you know sellable again and they sell the property. Well those assessments are on the taxes and those got to get paid some there. That's a negotiation between usually between buyers and sellers on who pays those
assessments. They have to get paid. In in the instance of a sale of a of a property, somebody's going to assume paying that cost. So, if it, you know, they sell it to the seller, seller says, "Yeah, I will assume the assessments
they get paid." And they're not uh assessments in this instance. uh the stat statutory authority, you're not spreading those costs out for super, you know, like a street assessments for 15 years. There's a there's a much shorter window of time in which you can those
assessments on do No, go ahead. Go ahead. Um, do you have any indication if the property owner is willing to work with the city in terms of doing something to
make the building less hazard or are they just kind of unresponsive or we don't know? Um, I see I've I've unfortunately not had any direct conversation. Jeff has probably had the most in perspective.
So when we found new um issues, we have reached out. Um typically we don't hear anything back. Um it actually took action by this body to get them to board up the the windows that were broken. Um
shortly after that, another one got broken. That one's still broken and not boarded up and he's been notified by us a few times. So, I would not put uh responsive in the category of this owner. Was the owner responsive when there was
the purchase agreement in place with the Quick Trip? No. My understanding is is that he was supposed to keep it secure. Obviously, that was not at all. He wasn't even responsive to Quick Trip's offer or at least significant amount of cash, but all they
had to do was blow up some windows. I heard Shelly commission pretty responsive and I there's they're current on water bills and things like that today third March
I everything is turned off we had issues last year first with a wall toilets or something that been broken shut off some of the lines then we had sprinklers because there apparently a separate line for that so now I believe there is absolutely No
water going into that facility, but they're current on property taxes for the best we I don't know cuz looking right now. You mean up until the beginning of 25? I know they were current. I have not looked at
25s. Um because I keep thinking if the water shut off, they're current on any outstanding bills related to property. But it's been an ongoing issue in terms of response to this to
power is still on. So whether they're they're paying the bills or not, we're not the utility. So I couldn't answer that question. Um do we if if we were going to go with the uh order remediation one first, which is
seems to be like the least costly to us. Do we have an actual list of what we want them to do with the link to make it? Yep. Yeah, we would need to probably do that. And um that's also hiring a
structural engineer, somebody of of that nature that can, you know, give us a professional opinion as to what it's going to take to keep that building secure. I mean, just boarding the windows and and certainly hasn't proved
to be enough at times. Um, so it's mitigating it is a tougher task I think in this instance where you have so many when we viewed it and I actually was in the building in that January time frame
there's just so many hacks and you have so many windows to these rooms with the kind of the three wings of the of the building lots of doors that you know can sometimes don't want to open and other times are probably pretty easily to to get in. Um, that's that's going to be
tough and that's going to be costly as well to to really secure it. You would have to board over all the windows because even just screwing them shut, they're still breaking. Um, and then you get to the the doors, which uh, you
know, the administrator alluded to, some of them function on magnetic security. Um, as long as there's juice, they work. Um, but when the juice gets turned off, they won't work. And so they're going to need to be secured in a manner that
isn't easily defeated. Um, whether it's from the inside and there's one access point that still functions. Um, but regardless, it's going to be quite a project. Um, and I am guessing there's at least I know there's at least one
roof hatch, depending multiple. Some parts of that roof are very very structurally questionable and that's why they got shut down I believe because they're roof terms on it for six months of a year.
To answer the the taxes question they are they have been paid first half tax payment wasn't made this year. John, if you had to to guess the timeline of the best case scenario versus the worst case scenario, what do you think? I I'd say if best case if we get
compliance and action from the property owner we could probably have the building secured in in a few months maybe up to 6 months if we don't get any action on it. I think in terms of what we have to take for for action directed
from the council to getting the court orders minimum minimum of that is probably in the 6 to 9 month range depending on which level you have. We're talking up to a year. I had one instance where we had multiple court orders over
the course of four years but getting the initial one was the most difficult. It took about 9 months from kind of first point of contact before we ended up getting a court order where we're we actually city staff and paid you know
services to to go in and make it confined the property and that was only exterior that wasn't anything else inside the office. you I I mean I I really like that option consent to de to the uh demolition
where they let us demolish and then we put it back on their taxes for a little 5 years um because that number one for them would make the property more salailable for us it would eliminate an eyesore and hazard
and bunch of time police I I and I don't want completely say that the building is not savable. I mean, there's probably plenty of parts of it that could be redeveloped or reused, I think, just based on my
site visit and then the opinion of the inspectors when they went in that that's probably going to be as close to the same price as demo, especially when you have a grants offsetting. mitigation cost.
I I think the for me like just knowing, hey, the the city's willing to to work with you so long as we're committed to paying for our cost in this is kind of the best way to kind of keep the process moving. Um,
and you know, trying to get to a point of action. if it's oh the city is just you have to do this and this is the timeline in which you're going to do it and you don't expect any help from the city just get it done and if you don't we're going to go you know start taking
action through legal uh recourse um yeah if they're not really willing to do much which is kind of been part of the case right now they're pretty absentee to the property um I think we're going to we're going to struggle to to get
that to get through without offering something, you know, to get it done faster. Not saying we're offering anything to that we're going to 100% pay for it. I don't I would not advise that. I've been through a different city that did that in the previous before I got
there in a couple instances kind of bailing out property owners for letting the buildings go. But um we don't want to I wouldn't advise that at all. definitely would say, "Hey, if you can, if you're willing to work with us and willing to take on the cost when it's
done, I think we can get something to happen pretty quickly." So, what can we do? Like, uh, send them a 30-day letter. We want to work with you, get back to us because obviously they're not talking to us at 30 days, 60 days. You got plenty of time.
Yeah. I think I think the shorten up the response time and making sure that something's done and then you know if it's not then we're we're starting to take those those next steps and action. I would recommend something to that effect. I Shel would best advise us on
what those timelines should be, but my advice to console would be do not let this look cracks. that problem is not going away. We're end up with another building like we have across the the rear of tracks if we don't stay on top of it.
You had said at the beginning um obviously the uh first agreement quick has fallen through. Um, do you feel that if we are quick in reacting to trying to uh demolish the building and move on,
would that be incentivized quick trip to come back to the location again? Are they already moving on to look elsewhere? I'm just saying does this incentivize us to be more aggressive? Obviously, we're going to do something, but how aggressive? I don't have any official uh positions
from from Quick Trip in that regard. I think there's if I can just interpret based on, you know, I wasn't part of the original conversations with it, but just seeing how the process played out and what was explained to me at the end was
just the costs associated with with carrying it, you know, carrying on this process and not having any sort of timeline in which the store is going to get built. That was that was a risk. like they could probably bought the building and and and sat on it, but they don't want to, you know, they want to
have something up and running in a certain period of time. So, if they're going to make a massive multi-million dollar investment, they want to start get getting that to the point of um where they they can generate revenue onto that site as soon as they can. So
if it's if that site is coming to them, if they're able to access that property and it's very little cost, then maybe they could hold on to it for longer while we work through our situation with Mindot. Um but as but they're we we're
pretty I I'm pretty clear in understanding Bill you can confirm or deny this or correct me but I think the the earliest we see any action with correct you know a major improvement of that intersection with INDOT is 2029
um because it's not in their current plans um they don't have resources until that year that they could even allocate budget to a project like just um and you know we that or we secure we'd have to secure funding through some other means
for that to to Can I can I ask a question about Midnot? So if if that was a blank slate right there and somebody also identified another quick trip. Do they still have to do their traffic studies and stuff like that and approve down street to you
know still function I guess or if they want to close out that access or whatever? Yes. Yeah. Even if it were just a house put up houses back there basic uh basically yes houses wouldn't be an
issue because the traffic would be minimal but anything there were going to be going back to yeah it it was I think we asked I asked the question anything that is if anything were to increase traffic flow from Highway 19
onto DA or DA on Highway 18 if that were to increase the amount of traffic on anything developed on that site, would there some would something have to be done? And the answer was yes, something would have to be done. And that would either be the cheaper options are
medians enclosure of DAO or a bigger, you know, more expensive as a roundabout in which multiple legs could come off of that that site to be still be able to access. That's the official opinion that I received back. So, but if it was
housing, there would not necessarily housing would likely not gen single family homes would likely not generate enough increased traffic flow that would warrant direction at this. So it there is
possibilities for redevelopment of that property that might sneak by the I mean not obviously what we were looking for but the other question is if we split that into uh residential homes the cost per
lot how many lots we get out of that versus the demo costs and everything I think you're even yeah I understand that I'm just saying that I primary concern tonight from what I understand for John is what do we do about a building that's
an eyesore and a hazard? Yeah, it's been that way for over 2 years and I think regardless of what we see that site in the future, we as a city need to do something to clean it up or to
I think a good example would be thinking of like the canon. Now granted that was something different but that same type of that parcel that building became very problematic for us and so getting that out of there solved that problem and then later was able to
you know get cleaned up and and something put into it. the situation might be somewhat different to what people because of this doubt situation. So I I would my recommendation would be to to have city staff and especially if
the attorney draft the letter to the owner suggesting they sweep out on their behalf and charge them or and if they're not willing to work with us and doing something. On the agenda, it says that this is uh just discussion, but if we give you a
consensus of something along those lines that Diane just said, that's that's all you need from us tonight. For me, it's it's I I think I have enough of engage the owner and know that I have the backing of the council that some level of action is going to be taken if
the if the response is no or or the response is I or there's no response. No response. Exactly. responses is no. So that's that's the key element that I'm I'm came you know wanted to bring
this to your attention because I don't want to you know I don't want to instigate a conversation and then you know have the you know back into or not have it back into council when you know action does need to happen and being commercial development at this
point with the problem of midnight we're not going to get somebody else like some similar business to come and tear it down because they can't not until the not until we get through
our you know conversation with the and that's and that that's a whole another whole another element and something that I would still like the support of the council at some some point to we want to figure out a solution we want to be able to go through the channels proper
channels there are grant different grants and things that are available that would help expediate the process. Um the fund current funding pools that and what do we what do we address or what I explained to you the current funding pools available in district 6
for MDOT those funds aren't available to them until 2029 that of things that we could use that city could help apply for that they could take and put towards this project. Now, we could try to, you know, do something like a bond. Well,
you can't bond for transportation, but you could try to get increase in allocation for a specific project related to transportation, state legislature, but you need some really strong advocates for it and really good justification for for how it's going to
be a state benefit, not just a local benefit. Um, it's going to get close soon. So, if we can get them voted off, that would be the the letter getting get them closed. Um, and I can see there
being structured fires and people camping there if the electricity or whatever gets turned off. Um, it just seems like it's going to come real quick. Nice. Yeah,
I think I'm leaning towards 10 or 15 days. Anything else from the council or from John? All right. Thank you everybody. Uh we're on the horn. Jet.
All right. Bill. Uh additional. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Izzy Laura. Yep. You covered it tonight. Wonderful. Chief, I just want to thank the council for discussion for John and myself.
Sarah, we do have something. All right. Um, there is going to be a referendum election on November 4th and that is ran by the school and um there there are laws out there that say the school
actually has to hold the referendum here because we have the jurisdiction or whatever. So, we will be holding the referendum here. We'll have to change the council meeting, but we can do that at a later date. I think John will we'll talk about that, but I know there's track stuff that has to work with that.
But um I also we're going to work with the school. We the school had asked us if they to do their absentee voting. Um instead of holding the absentee voting, which begins September 19th, instead of
having it at the school, they would like it here as well. So, there is two staff members from the school that will be moving into the motor vehicle office and they will be holding their absentee voting there. And we city staff um
myself, Michelle and Ellen, um we are election judges as well, so we can help them and assist them if something should happen. They're short staffed or whatever. It just makes it easier all around that we don't have to go up there, help them. It's all right here. So, they are moving two offices here.
They're going to work on a motor vehicle, and this is where all of the voting will be happening from September 19th to November 4th. And then the election will be in council chambers from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Thank you, Sarah. John. Yes. So just to reiterate on the council meeting so that um because of right now the schedule for approvals with tracked um it is possible that that first
meeting in November is one of would would land as one of the final approval meetings. So I don't want to just you know forego that like council has in past years. I know this last year 2024 general election plan running house meeting just you know just cancel that
meeting and just ring one in November. I think there would be you know it'd be beneficial for us to have a separate date. So just wanted to make sure if you do have feedback um either likely the the Monday or Monday before the
Wednesday after. We just need to make sure we have enough uh notice for that. So probably moving it a day later. I know Wednesdays can tend to have some conflicts with other uh activities going on, but um just wanted to get that
input. If you can make sure you email me or or let me know um if you know know of or right now if that meeting date or even moving it to the minute actually the following week doesn't work either because that's going to be veterans and we can't meet on that day any so the follow those two first two Tuesdays are
not open. So keep that in mind as you as you make those considerations. In fact to con also on considering dates uh I sent out um some uh possible dates for next week for a special budget meeting so that we can have a preliminary
discussion about the preliminary levy. Um just want to make sure I got a few responses already. So I know that none of you know none of those dates but specific times potentially conflict. Um preferably would want to do something during the day. I I have gotten feedback from one of the council members on that
is I have some other family conflicts for that. So anytime between 10 and 2 uh during the day can so any of those just make sure you let me know. I need to kind of have that set so that we can get that posted.
Um give me two hours that'll be great. I only got one. I can make it happen. All right, Chris. Uh, I guess I got two things here. So, library board update. Um, they did hire
a assistant librarian. Um, did 69 applications, which is a lot. Uh, that person started today. Um, that's pretty much library board stuff. We went through a grievance policy, too. Um, and
then just I think I'm allowed to ask this. Where where are we at with fair board and negotiation update? I guess I haven't seen anything on that in a couple weeks. Yep. So I uh just last week we had a um near I think final draft couple pieces
in there. I've actually had forwarded that to the police department because I'd like their input on our ordinances and making sure that we, you know, have means in which we can enforce them. and we got some feedback from them on that. So, there's a couple pieces we just want to add for for clarity. Uh, but we're
we're getting to the pretty close to the final stages and that final stage is both parties agree on it and then it comes to planning commission and the council. Yep. All right. Damn. How was this going to
noise monitors do we even have those in town? The short answer would be no. We have one but it's not calibrated one. It's what we used previously to kind of just get some general numbers,
but you know, the the existing ordinance is very technical and it makes it very hard to be in compliance with the the components that we need to unaff they they have the they're the
arbitrator of noise. So, um I can reach out to them and determine if we can what either the device is or if they would even be able to to come down to test at that time because I have had experiences with noise complaints before and NPCA's
response often is well, you know, we can't if the noise happened in the past, we can't verify whether it was too loud or not. So, um they also like to uh try to pass it along to locally to to be
more um of the authority on it, but our ordinances do kind of refer back to MPCA regulations. So, I will reach out to them at the meeting. And then I was just aside um planning
commission is meeting this coming Monday. Um, five public hearings are are scheduled. Um, no, more. Yeah, there's five public hearings for track that are scheduled and then there's three two more. Two more. One
IEP and one. Okay. It'll be a really fun, exciting meeting with public hearings that I always but uh especially on the one for the proposed development. uh paperwork is here in town hall in city hall. It is
open for everybody to review. It is fascinating reading. Uh you know, make sure you bring a pillow and and water, but I I would encourage people to look at it. It does have, you know, the list very specific of variances that the
developer would like to put on on this particular property. And I think those are the things that at least I feel are very important for us to deal seriously with and to know what they are, what they're asking for because once those are granted, it kind
of goes with the plan. And so it would behoove us to make sure that we we already found out that the 14 ft security fence, although the picture has the white picket fences all the way around the outside of the property, the
their variance requests for variance will allow 14T security fence to be on the property that which I know you said that they're going to but those are the kind of things that we need to look at closely to make sure that that doesn't get overwhelmed.
Correct. All right, Lisa. Uh, did the fairgrounds take out a permit for September 13th? There was no permit for this event to be done. Okay. But there was conversations about making
us aware of the event and we did discuss it at the time. We anticipated that the ordinance may be even to the point where it was ready for approval to that um before that event could take place. But it is now
and then hardwood way second phase that what's the question the the bid for the second second phase for hardwood states um what do you have specific questions I
mean the information that we had we had eight biders I believe for the project engineering estimate was 1.55 5 million. Uh the lowest bidder came back in at 1.2 1 1.123 million. So we it came in well under
under estimate um for based on the engineering scope. So the way the project will work based on the previous uh plan is we do need to establish the lot prices that we're going to uh have on that site and that uh revenue
generated from the sale of those lots will help offset or help to pay for the next phase of the lot. And then once that if you know you go through phase three um and you do the same thing for phase three bid the project out set the lot prices sell the lots then that
generates the revenue for phase 4 you sell the lots of phase 4 that generates the revenue to pay back the original loan made to the EDA from from the city of 1.2 million. I think in terms of uh our opinion, I
think we're very satisfied and excited for for the contractor that was awarded the bid and um and the cost at which it the prices came in and where we can, you know, set the the lot prices that they are still going to be in that window
that's um that we've seen already. Uh the lots are selling and homes are building. Um there is kind of that that market window right now um for that uh in our community and uh we want hopefully that works to continue um the success and we get more homes
generated. Anybody else? All right, Jack. Well, I wasn't planning on bringing up, but since you guys are talking about the noise and the thing, John said like two months ago that we were going to like we he asked like I'm not trying to overstep my boundaries
with letting them do this and that's when they announced that they were going to do the monster trucks. The monster trucks are not there with loud noise like the racetrack was. It's supposed to be a kids event. There's videos on YouTube and they because it's kids, they
always say you should have noise protection. It's young children are on cars. Doesn't matter where they are. Um if they're blowing smoke up, then they'll never get a permit again. So hopefully everything is what they say it
is. Uh were there any other uh EDA's meeting here on Thursday? I was just wondering if there are any other boards uh or committees that met in between that needed any reports. Did the joint powers trail board meet? Okay,
that's fine. Just wanted to make sure we had updates that uh so we've got the public up to date on that. Um just to let the council know, I will be absent uh the next council meeting. I will be in Kansas City at a workrelated event. So Monday and Tuesday get back
around 11:00 that night. So apologies, but I will be absent. So uh we will adjourn. Uh and uh take a motion. Motion. Lisa, second with Chris. All those in favor? Opposed? We're ajourned.