[Music] We have no monitors. Good evening and welcome to the Rapids City Council meeting for Tuesday, October 7th, 2025. If you could please rise and join us 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. >> Please call the role. >> Council member Griscoak >> here. >> Council member Butler >> here.
>> Council member Novak. >> Council member Gesler >> here. >> Council member Armstrong >> here. >> Council member Carlson >> here. >> Mayor Cook >> here. >> One absent Novak. Thank you. Um All right. Well, why don't we adopt this evening's agenda? >> Motion to adopt the agenda.
>> Second. >> Motion by Butler and a second by Grisco to adopt the agenda. Is there any corrections or changes? >> Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. And the agenda is adopted. Moves us up to the first item tonight.
Proclamation honoring the 50th anniversary of the Rapids Senior Center. How is that even possible? Holy cow. Um, let's see here. Get back to item one. And
um, since 1975, I'll bet all this is in the proclamation. So, I'm not going to go through it. I'll wait. Stephanie, what would you like to do? Would you like to come up or would you like to >> come up and have you? >> All right. Well, I'll bring the
proclamation along. All right. Well, why don't we why don't we go ahead and start with the proclamation? Well, the only one up here isn't Stephanie. I was looking for Stephanie for some affirmation. I'll start with the proclamation and then you can introduce yourselves and
talk about what's going on. Um we have a proclamation honoring the 50th anniversary of the Rapids Senior Center. Whereas the city of Rapids is proud to recognize and honor the Rapids Senior Center and Super Senior Club for 50 years of dedicated service
to adults age 55 and over in our community. And whereas since its establishment in 1975, the Rapid Senior Center has served as a welcoming place for friendship, lifelong learning, health and wellness, volunteerism, and
community engagement. And whereas the Super Senior Club has supported the Senior Center through donations, program support, volunteerism, and social engagement. And whereas the senior center has grown and evolved with the
changing needs of older adults, providing a wide range of programs and services that promote independence, dignity, and quality of life. And whereas the center continues to be a vital resource for seniors and their families, offering transport
transportation, social activities, educational programs, support services, and opportunities for civic involvement. And whereas the Rapids Senior Center and Super Senior Club have built a strong legacy of compassion, community, and connection, enriching the
lives of thousands of residents over five decades. And whereas the success of the senior center and the programs offered to the community would not be possible without the dedication of the senior services staff, senior center volunteers, community partners, and the
ongoing support of the city of Rapids. Now therefore, the Rapids City Council does hereby proclaim October 9th, 2025 as Rapids Senior Center 50th anniversary day in the city of
Rapids and encourages all residents to recognize and celebrate the cent's remarkable contributions to our community and the dedication of our senior services staff proclaimed this 7th day of October, 2025.
All right, that's a lot. >> Thank you. >> I'm Ryan Gunderson. I'm the recreation supervisor here at the city of Rapids, and I have the great privilege of working with this great team of individuals that uh put on our programs
here at the senior center. Uh for 50 years, the senior center has provided these programs, the last 30 in this building. Um Cindy Olsen here is our program coordinator who's the mind behind all the different programs that
go on at our our senior center. Julie Beanick is our events and senior center specialist. She's behind all the transportation and the bus service and the grocery store runs and the van
service that gets people to our to our um facility. Uh, Jen Graham is our administrative assistant. She's the face of our team at the front desk. She's behind making sure all of our registrations are taken care of. Um, six
times a year we do registration. And on a given the first day of each time, it's not unprecedented to do over $15,000 in registrations in one day. And Jen makes that happen with our team and making sure everybody uh gets into their
program. I'll hand it over to Cindy to say a few words and she'll introduce our super senior guests. >> I do want to introduce we have the vice president of the super senior club is Lori DeForge and we have Ruth Berg who
is the treasurer and we are lucky to have a partnership with them. They uh bring so much to the community. There are so many needs out there and they do scholarships. They are always looking for ways to improve the community and we're very proud to be a part of that.
And just reiterating what uh Ryan had said, I'm very lucky with Jen and Julie in they understand the importance of the senior center to the community. Um years ago it started off in a church, then it was in a fire station and then it was at
family services centers and look at what we have now. So, we're very fortunate to have this building and we're so fortunate to have our volunteers that help us do this job. Thank you. >> All right. Who Who am I actually handing
this to? >> Oh, all right. Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all so much. Thank you. >> Bernice, you're welcome to stay. even though you're not on the agenda tonight with a parking thing or
anything. >> All right. Uh we're looking to approve the minutes from the September 15th meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Geisler and a second by Butler to approve the minutes from the September 15th, 2025 meeting. Is there
any discussion or corrections? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed and that motion carries. Um, next item, we are now on our consent agenda. And item three,
here we go. Um, item, this is our first item on the consent agenda is to receive the schedule of electronic payments. Minnesota state statute requires a list of transactions made by electronic funds transfer be provided to the city council
at the next regular meeting after the transaction. So we are looking we are looking this evening to receive the schedule of electronic payments from September 11th 2025 to October 1st 2025. Uh the second item on our consent agenda
is to accept an easement agreement for project 24-22 Foley Monopole planning case 24-18. The attached agreement is valid from November 1st, 2025 through August 1st, 2026 and it is needed to extend the use
of the premises as work continues on the project. The extension is required to allow additional time for AT&T and AT&T will be reimbursing us for the cost of the easement extension. So, we're looking to accept the temporary
easement with Jeffrey Smith and authorize the execution of the agreement. Uh, next item on our consent agenda is to approve the 2026 SCORE recycling and non-resident use
agreements and accept resolution 25-11 accepting funds with an NOA County. Rapids is entitled to receive reimbursement for eligible activities up to $289,586.88 88. And this amount includes nearly
$200,000 for the total population and household aotment for the recycling program, $20,000 dedicated to facility improve improvements, and uh just over $70,000 for non-resident use. Uh we are
looking to approve the 2026 score recycling and non-resident use agreements from Anoka County and authorize staff to execute the agreement for the residential recycling program. Now let me go back to item
six. Next item on the consent agenda um is to approve the amendment to I'm sorry, approve an amendment to the 20125 crisis response grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs. This amendment simply
extends the grant period from June 30th, 2026 to December 31st, 2026. There are no additional funds as a result of this amendment. So, we're looking to approve the grant amendment extending the 2025
crisis response grant from June 30th, 2026 to December 31st, 2026. Next item on the consent agenda is to adopt resolution 25-114 accepting the 2025
statewide health improvement program or SHIP grant and approving an agreement with Enoka County. The city of Rapids has been approved to receive up to $3,000 in grant money thanks to a partnership with the Ina County Ship Program and the state of Minnesota. The
funds will be used to pay for a program designed to educate people in our community about the importance of slowing down on park trails and watching out for others. So, we're looking to accept the ship grant program, I'm sorry, the ship grant grant funds and
terms of the attached memorandum of understanding,ou to support the happy trails campaign. item. Next item on our consent agenda is to adopt resolution 25-113 calling for a public hearing to vacate
drainage and utility easements 1945 130th Lane Northwest. Uh Paul and Margaret Anderson are property owners at 1945 130th Lane. Several years ago, they bought and combined an adjacent lot along 131st Avenue. The sideyard
drainage and utility easements were never vacated as part of that combination. and the property owners now want to build a garage but are unable to because the foundation would overlap the unvacated easements. Property requests the council adopt a resolution to begin
the process of vacating the drainage and utility easements. A vacation petition may be initiated by the city council upon adoption of a resolution by a 4-fifths majority. And resolution 25-113 calls for a public hearing on November
4th, 2025 for council to consider the vacation. So, we're looking to adopt resolution 25-113, which calls for a public hearing on November 4th, 2025 for a vacation of
drainage and utility easements. Um, the next item, and that's the last one on our consent agenda, is to adopt resolution 25-106, accepting donations and business sponsorships. Between July 1st and September 30th, the
city received a litany of donations and sponsorships for various city events and activities for which we are very thankful. Um, and the businesses or entities involved that that donated were Rapids Fire Department, Community
Fund, Rapids Police Association, Vending Minnesota, Texas Roadhouse, Raising Canes, Kexus Energy, Chick-fil-A, Target, Chuck and Don's Pet Supplies, Cub Foods, Shanner Pizza, Jimmy John's, and Stone Mountain Pet
Lodge. We would like to thank all of the donors and businesses that supported events and programs. And we're looking to adopt resolution 25-106 to accept contributions made to the city between July 1st and September 30th,
2025. And that is I'm sorry, that is the consent agenda. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Butler, >> I move we adopt the consent agenda. >> Second motion by Butler and a second by Armstrong. Um, I have one quick question. I I realize council has to
accept the donations. Um, but there's two park benches on here. Didn't we already accept those at a council meeting or are these new? >> Mr. Mayor, >> typically if they're new, I'll recognize them. I'm just >> Typically, we do the park benches
independent of this. So, this may be a duplication, I would suspect. >> Okay. Okay. I hate to not recognize them if they This is new, but well, let's You know what? Just to be sure, >> just to be sure, we'd like to thank Patrick and Darlene Kennedy and Lacy
Hinsson who both who um each put up $700 uh to donate a park bench for our park bench program and we thank them for that. Okay, we have a motion and a second to adopt the consent agenda. Now, is there any questions or >> Mr. Mayor? >> Council member
>> uh Question for Mr. Himmer. Um just uh as far as the monopole extending AT&T taking longer, is that going to have any impacts to when we finish the project then? Because it seems to be pre-requisite. Are there any going to be budget carryovers for 26 or any impacts that we'd have to council member
Gistler? Um as of right now, they're working on the fencing perimeter work. Uh the materials for the poll are going to be delivered the week of the 20th, I believe. So, uh it's going to take them, it sounds like two, three days to have the thing up. So, we believe we'll have the permanent monopole constructed by
November 1st. It's just we got to wait to move the facilities over. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions or discussion on the consent agenda? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying I.
>> I opposed. And the consent agenda is adopted and we are up to item 10. All right. Consider resolutions 25-102, 25-103, and 25-104
approving miscellaneous 2022-2 assessment levy. Um, Miss Hansen. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so following a public hearing on on the unopposed assessments, um, we're asking you to
adopt the resolutions on those. Um, as of 430, the amount is $80,48.92. Um, we do have three appeals that will be referred to the board of adjustment and appeals, um, which is who are expected to meet on November 6th.
>> Okay. All right. Does anybody have any questions before I open the public hearing? And to be clear, this is only a public hearing for them to present to us appeals in writing. So, if anybody is here to address or uh to present a
written appeal for these assessments, now is the time. And I'm going to do I have to say it three times or >> how about once more? >> How about once more? All right. Is anybody here to present a written appeal for our uh miscellaneous special
assessments? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and look to council to take some action here. >> Mr. Council member Gisler. >> I will move uh that we accept resolution 25-102 adopting the 2025 sub 2
miscellaneous special assessments unopposed for one year. Adopt resolution 25-103 adopting 2025 sub2 miscellaneous special assessments unopposed three-year and adopt resolution 25-104 adopting 2025 sub2 miscellaneous special
assessments unopposed 5-year. >> Second motion by Gesler and a second by Armstrong. Is there discussion hearing? None. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. And that motion carries. Item 11 is to conduct a public
hearing and consider approval of non-domemestic animal exhibition permit to Little Blues Traveling Zoo. Miss Lensmire. >> Mayor and councel. There will be a spooktacular event on October 18th at Riverdale Village and uh they will in
they would like to include Little Blues Traveling Zoo as a petting zoo and the city's code requires council conduct a public hearing before considering approval of that permit. >> All right, very good. Um anybody have
any questions on this before we open the public hearing? Nobody's even gonna ask if like they're bringing really big animals or All right, >> I like to know. >> Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my. All right, we'll open the public hearing and
u on the uh as we consider non-domemestic animal exhibition to Little Blues Traveling Zoo. Anybody here to address council for the public hearing on the non-domemestic animals?
All right. Seeing none, we're going to close the public hearing and look to councel. >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member Butler, >> I move we approve a non-domemestic animal exhibition permit to Little Blues Traveling Zoo at the Spooktacular Event located at Riverdale Village, 12701
Riverdale Boulevard on October 18, 2025. >> Second. >> Motion by Butler and a second by Geesler. Do we have the time on that? >> Okay, October. >> I'll find it for us. October 18th. All right, that's fine. Maybe maybe we'll mention it at the end under other business.
>> Sounds good. >> Any any discussion on this, >> Mr. Mayor? It's one to five. >> One to five. One to five. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Council member Carlson. >> I have experienced the Little Blues traveling zoo >> and you're still traumatized. >> It is absolut No, it was. It was a great
day. It's fantastic. It's really, really cool. It's a really nice little event. So I think that's that's the same day as our um pumpkin patch in the morning, isn't it? >> So families can just make a big old day of this, >> you know, >> one the other.
>> All right. One to five. Is there any other discussion on this? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. And that motion carries. Item 12 is to consider planning case 25-7.
Consider updated approval lots split and subdivision variance 85184th Lane Northwest. Candace Tosso, Mr. Passner. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> You're so freshly quafted. I almost didn't recognize you since the planning commission.
>> It's still me. >> You'll know because I'm giving a presentation. All right. So, I'm bringing back before you tonight the request for lot split and variance for 851 84th Lane Northwest. So, this was a request for a single family um lot on the culde-sac
and 84th lane to be split into two single family lots and then a variance to reduce the minimum uh required uh lot width at the 40 foot setback by 19 feet. The reason I'm bringing it back before the council is because it was um pointed
out to staff that the original approval was using the um requirements in the ordinance for a uh subdivision variance. The original approval of the variance for a subdivision variance which has um standards that are no longer up to date
with state statute. So the subdivision variance um ordinance that we have in our city code references hardship which the state did change in statute to be a new uh set of standards which are the practical difficulty standards. Um in
order to meet both our own ordinance which requires a hardship uh standard be met as well as the state statute which requires a practical difficulty be met. Um staff are requesting that the city council reaffirm the approval of the variance and the findings of fact as
well as the approval of the lot split uh affirming that it meets both the hardship and practical difficulty requirements. Um and just for a little bit of context, the um ordinance in the city code for subdivision variance is different than the ordinance for standard variance. We did update the
standard variance ordinance to reflect the practical difficulty requirement. We did not update the subdivision ordinance when that changed in state statute which is why they are different right now. So for the time being when we have a subdivision variance we have to show that it meets both the hardship and practical difficulty requirements. Um
generally the practical difficulty requirements are seen as being easier to meet than the hardship requirements. So if a variance meets the requirements for hardship usually it meets the requirements for practical difficulty as well. Um, so I won't go over the case in depth again, but just remember that this is a request for a residential lot split
where the second lot was not able to be made as wide as is uh required by our ordinance which is 100 ft wide at the 40ft setback. Um, so the applicant was requesting a 19 ft reduction uh via a subdivision variance. Um planning
commission did recommend approval initially and the city council did approve back in the summer of the original um item. Uh in September the planning commission recommended approval once again uh affirming both the hardship findings and practical difficulty findings were met um and
recommended approval of the lots split as well. Um so the hardship findings which were already met are generally that it meets the intent of the code uh does not uh diminish public safety that there's a unique circumstance that the proposed use is a reasonable use um that the unique circum or sorry that the
hardship was not created by the actions of the applicant and that there is an unusual hardship on the property. And then the practical difficulty standards that the state requires be met for a variance are that the proposed variance is in harmony with uh the existing neighborhood that it's in within keeping
with a comprehensive plan and that um the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The variance requested is the minimum necessary that the unique circumstances on the on the lot are not created by the applicant and that the proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Um so with that
staff are recommending that the city council approve the requested variance based on this finding stated in the packet and uh as a second motion adopt resolution 25-107 uh approving the proposed lot split uh second time. That's all I have for
presentation. Thank you. >> Questions for Mr. Passner? >> Mr. Pastor, the aerial overlay that you just had up there about four or five slides ago that showed the Yeah, that one 813 ft across is I can't read the
green. Is that showing it four 40t back? >> That's correct. That's correct. >> So that's that is the setback where the house would be >> correct. >> Okay. And then would you go forward um just one slide first? Um okay, one more. There was something about the hardship
findings and and I thought it was interesting because you said um as long as it's not caused it's not not caused by the uh >> what was it you you were kind of
>> practical difficulty >> was that it was under the practical difficulty. >> Yeah. >> Oh okay. Um >> the unique circumstance. All right. Okay. I I thought I thought while you
were going through there maybe you were paraphrasing quickly that it was something that as long as it wasn't caused by the homeowners and I and I I I wasn't sure what that meant. I probably heard that wrong. Then >> Mr. Mayor, to clarify a little bit, uh it is that the the requirement that the unique circumstance not be a creation of
the applicant. So, for example, the applicant can't request um something to be approved uh build that item and then request a variance based on >> the you know, this structure that we just built that was just approved by the
city council now requires me to uh request a variance in order to do something else I would like to do. Generally, it's seen as if there's a structure that's existing on site and was not built by the applicant, that is an existing um uh circumstance of the
site or or existing status of the site and would not be considered created by the applicant. >> Okay. Very good. All right. All right. Um, yeah, I I watched I watched the planning commission meeting and um
I I I guess I have I I'm still I still think it's the best thing the best use of this highest and best use of the land. Um let's see here. All right. So, this is so we're actually looking for action tonight. This isn't
an introduction because it's already been to the planning commission. Okay. Council, any questions of Mr. Patzer? >> Questions? >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Gisler. Uh, I'll make a motion that in planned case 25-7, uh, the city council approve the
requested variance under city code 11-304.8 and 11-1504.7 based on the findings located within our packet. And in planning case 25-7, I move that the city council adopt resolution 25-107
approving the proposed lot split subject to the following conditions. the approval of the requested variance as part of planning case 25-7. New drainage and utility e easements must be dedicated along all new lot lines. Number three, any new development abide
by the MRCCA regulations detailed in city code section 11-10001, including that a vegetation permit must be approved before any removal of vegetation can occur within the MRCCA bluff impact zone or significant existing vegetative stand.
>> Second. >> Okay. A motion by Gesler and a second by Butler. Is there further discussion on this? Your >> honor, I apologize, >> Mr. Brody. >> Take those separately. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor, I'd revise my motion to incorporate just the first item of
approving the requested variance. >> I apologize that I waited for him to read the entire second motion before second. >> Okay. So, so just just to clarify, your motion was to approve the requested variance under city code 11-304.8 and
11-504.7 based on the above stated findings. >> Correct. >> And the second is from council member Carlson. >> Um, do we have any discussion on that? All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> And that motion carries from Geyser.
>> And then M bro, would you like me to restate the whole thing? Are we good? Let me just say as the condition stated in the uh >> Got it. Uh I'll move that in planned case 25-7 the city council adopt resolution 25-107 approving the proposed lots bit split subject to the conditions listed in the packet.
>> Second >> motion by Gesler and a second by Butler and we should probably say the three stated conditions. Correct. >> Three stated conditions. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I.
>> I opposed. And that motion carries. Item 13 is to consider adoption of resolution 25-105 levying the 2025 delinquent utilities. Miss Hansen. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council. Um
so each year the um city is asked or the council is asked to approve assessment of delinquent utility balances. Um in lie of shutting off water for non-payment. Uh the city chooses to collect delinquent utilities in this
manner. Um the at the time of the poll here the the total amount is 1,298,994. Um it's 2576 parcels. Um we will be se uh we will be um taking payment until November 10th, 2025. So typically what
will happen is that we do see the amount to be assessed does drop um significantly. Um and then we will be sending letters out here once the uh assessment is approved. All right.
Just kind of wondering what you what you can read into that for trends, you know. Um 2576 parcels. That's like 10% of our parcels, give or take. >> All right. Um council, any questions on
this? here. Council >> member Carlson >> make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-105 resolution certifying delinquent utilities to taxes. >> Second motion by Carlson. A second by Armstrong. There discussion on this.
>> Mr. Mayor Council member Gesler. >> Question from Miss Hansen. So delinquent will be over 90 days past due. But what's the delineator? >> Um so council member Geser our typical process is to take any outstanding balances as of the end of July. Um and
then so it's a year yearly look back at that point. Um so we pull that in and then uh any outstanding payment before um so the due date to the county is November 15th. So any delinquent amount of that balance that's pulled um as of
November 10th will get certified. So historically the the amount always starts high. It does include one of our cycles ends up with just one of their summer bills where they if they haven't paid it just because of the timing. Um but they do tend to uh to drop.
Typically we will end up assessing around 60% of the original amount. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I actually think this is an incredible service because there are communities that that maybe not around here but when I go to national conferences there are communities that turn water off for
non-payment and it's like we just levy it against the taxes eventually we're going to get paid. >> All right. Any further discussion on this hearing? None. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. And that motion
carries. Item 14 is to consider introduction of ordinances amending chapters 8-100, 8-500, and sections 8-903, 8-904, and 8-905. Mr. Brody, you're going to give us the
update on this one. >> I think it's going to be Mr. Brown, even though my name is on it. Guess we didn't rehearse this beforehand, but I think Mr. Brown. >> Yes, I can provide a quick overview. Uh, you may remember the council talked
about this update in work sessions in both March and September of this year. This is basically a housekeeping update to the code enforcement or property maintenance sections of our city code. The goal is just to kind of up update
the language, make it clear so in the event uh any of our residents receive a courtesy notice or citation, it's just clear. Uh everything is kind of consolidated into a few sections of the code. So it doesn't include really any
substantive changes. Uh primarily just housekeeping. >> All right. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Brown on this? >> Yes. >> Council member Geyser. Just a general comment that again I always thank staff for their efforts to clean this up to make it easier for folks to understand what we want them to do. Uh so all all
of this is always worthwhile I think for we want people to know what we want them to do and make it easy for them to do it. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none. We will consider uh the amending amendments of chapters
8-100 8-500 and sections 8- You know what? I'm going to read the bottom instead of the top. Sorry. We are going to consider the ordinances amending chapters 8-100 nuisances 8-500 maintenance of vegetation and
landscaping and sections 8-903 8-94 and 8-905 storage of wood. We're going to consider those introduced and we will be readressing these at a future council
meeting. Item 15 is to consider planning case 25-12 consider a comprehensive plan amendment for 2831 113th Avenue Northwest city of
Rapids. Mr. Passner. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members have combined 15 and 16 into the same presentation because they regard the same lot. But this is the old fire station 3 um where uh the city has requested proposals for uh potential single family home development from
developers. Um and uh coming out ahead of re of accepting a proposal, city staff are requesting that the um property be regguided in the comprehensive plan and reszoned um to be uh the correct comprehensive plan land
use guidance and zoning for single family homes. So it's a twoacre site under the 3acre threshold for a PUD. So a reszoning to something other PUD other than a PUD will be required for this. Um proposals uh for single family homes for this property would generally be six or
sorry seven or eight single family home lots depending on the arrangement. Um, so what's being requested by staff is to reguide this from institutional in the 2040 comprehensive plan, which doesn't allow for residential development, to lowdensity residential, which would allow for residential development at 3
to 5 units per acre. And then a request to reszone the property from MDR or moderate density residential in the bottom half and low density residential 2 in the top half um to low density residential 3, which is the new zoning district that was created this year. Um,
and that would be for the entire property. So, staff are proposing a a reszoning to LDR3 in order to properly utilize the the property for um single family homes and and have efficient use of the space.
So, just a reminder, the LDR3 zoning district uh has a minimum lot area 7200 square feet, 50% lot coverage, a minimum lot width of 60 ft, minimum lot depth of 120 ft, and then 25 ft front and rear and 7 and 1/2 ft side setbacks for
residential use. Um so, just a mockup of what the property could look like under LDR3 district standards. Um and it is worth noting that under almost any um arrangement of property uh one or possibly two variances would be
required. Um the main reason for that is the depth between 113th Avenue to the south and 113th lane which runs through the property is just under 240 ft. So it would not be possible to have two 120 foot uh deep lots. So there likely would
be a variance request along with any platting of this property. However, this is just a visual to show what seven lots on the property could look like. There is a drainage and utility easement running north and south through the middle of the property. That's represented by dotted blue lines. It's a
30foot wide easement, I believe. Um and then a second mockup showing what eight lots could look like. So that northeastern lot south of 113th Lane could be divided into two. Um and then the northwestern lot south of 113th lane
could be reduced in size a little bit. And then that northern lot north of 113th lane um it might be close to the 120 foot depth. So that's where a second variance may be requested by a potential future applicant looking to plat the property. So with this all staff are
requesting is that the council um uh approve the resolution reguiduing the property and then introduce uh the ordinance reszoning the property. And this is just to get um the entitlements in place for uh a developer whose
proposal the city may accept for residential development. Um so I did list recommended findings of fact for the comp plan amendment and for the reszoning ordinance and these findings are are basically the same for each. Um and these are listed in the packet. I'd be happy to discuss these further on
request but I do want to move along. Um, so with this I have a recommended motion for item 15, which is um a motion to adopt resolution 25-108. And then for item 16, I have the recommendation to introduce the ordinance reszoning the
property. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Any questions of Mr. Patner on this, >> Mr. Mayor? Council Butler. I move that in planning case 25-12, the city council adopt resolution 25-108, approving the proposed comprehensive plan amendment based on the following
findings. One, the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Two, the proposed amendment is compatible with adjacent land uses and zoning. And three, the proposed amendment is consistent with future land use guidance and policies of the 2040 comprehensive plan.
>> Second motion by Butler and a second by Geisler. Is there further discussion on this, >> Mr. Mayor? >> Council member Butler, >> I I just want to thank staff for working on this. You know, I I know this was sort of an awkward property. It's kind of hard to figure out what would fit there. We we do have a housing affordability problem in Rapids. I
think every little bit helps and I just want to thank staff again for finding this opportunity. >> All right, any further discussion on this hearing? None. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> And that motion carries. Item 16 is the
ordinance reszoning to LDR3. This is the introduction only. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Patner on the on this? If not, Mr. He'll go ahead. >> Uh I I just to reiterate to the public,
this is exactly why we created LDR3 was for these little tiny infills uh to maximize their value to the city and to its residents. So, uh, this is a good spot to try it out and make sure see how it works with our developer friends. >> Yeah, that's a good point because when
you're in a primarily developed community, really all you've got is little infills here and there. >> Um, all right. Any other questions, Mr. Pastor, or comments? Hearing none. In planning case 25-13,
we will consider the ordinance reszoning the subject property based on the following three findings introduced. Is that good or you want me to read those? >> It's good. All right, that was item 16.
Item 17. Got a big uh big real estate sale here, Mr. Brown. >> Yes. $1,100. This is a uh.11 acre remnant parcel. If you can kind of picture the burm along Crooked Lake
Boulevard where it runs along Highway 10 uh back about 25 years ago when the city had realigned that street. A number of properties were purchased. Most of the remnants were sold to adjacent property owners. For whatever reason, this one was not. Perhaps because the neighbor at
the time wasn't really interested in it. We were approached just recently by the uh current owner of property at 12339 Gladiola Street. He is interested in purchasing this. Uh so the council's asked to introduce the ordinance
authorizing the sale. Uh once that ordinance is considered for adoption uh in a couple of weeks, you will also consider a purchase agreement. >> Right. Thank you. It appears there's only one little remnant left there and it's probably like four feet or
something. So, all right. All right. Um, anybody have any questions of Mr. Brown on this? If not, we will consider the ordinance authorizing the sale of real estate at 123x Gladiola Street
introduced. And item 18 uh is to consider introduction of an ordinance establishing fees for 2026. Miss Hansen. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council. Um so in um in front of you today is an
ordinance to establish fees for certain um establish an ordinance for certain fees. Our our city code calls for some fees to be established by ordinance and some fees to be established by resolution. Um for ease of presentation, we are presenting them all in one uh fee
schedule here. Um so for 2026, what we did was take a look at our existing fees and then applied a 4% adjustment factor um that relates to our uh proposed budget for 2026. If the amounts were um rounded up enough, then a recommendation
to change that fee is being made. Um some of the notable ones, uh business licensing, we do have some fees that are proposed to increase by that 4%. Um the state is taking over cannabis license fees. So, uh we are transitioning out of the THC license fees are being phased
out. Um there are no changes to building inspection or permit fees except for um an increase in the refundable escrow for new residential construction. Um, we'll see recommending slight increases in golf and um recreational fees in terms
of uh building rentals. Um, rental licensing. We're uh proposing to add a fee to encourage timely renewals. Um, and then the the fees that are most impactful to residents would be the utility fees. So, over the last few
years, we've done a lot of long range planning related to our water, sewer, and storm water. making sure that funds, making sure that we have enough revenue to cover um you know, significant capital investments into our community. Uh so for 2026, along with those plans, we're proposing an overall 8% increase
in water rates. Um that would translate to a $2 increase in the base fee per quarter uh for residential or actually it's for all accounts. And then the multifamily per unit per quarter would increase 70 cents. And then the usage
rates increased by 20 cents, 25 cents, and 30 cents per thousand gallons. Uh sewer fees were um proposing a 5% increase. Um that would translate to a uh $1.75 increase on the base P for a
quarter and then usage fees would increase by 15 cents per 1,000 gallons. Uh we did see an increase in the disposal charges from Met Council uh significantly, couple hundred thousand. So, an increase in the usage fee is justified to help pay for that um fee.
And then storm water, uh we're requesting a 5% increase. Um that would be for a single family residential fee would be increased from $1848 to $19.40 per quarter. Overall, an average
residential user would see a um increase of $46.18 over the year. Um so, less than $5 a month. Um the second item on the agenda would be to um set a public hearing for
certain fees related to liquor. Um so that would be the offsale on sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses, the tavern license, and the on sale intoxicating liquor license, the micro distillery cocktail room license, and the brewer
tap room. Um council's asked uh set the public hearing for October 21st, 2025. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> The the one outlier on here seems to be the on sale intoxicating liquor license
is going up $500. Is that is there a reason? Is there is that more labor intensive or >> Mr. Mayor, that number is bigger because that license fee is bigger. It's just inflationary, >> but is it percentage? >> Percentage.
>> Um, our costs to manage and conduct compliance inspections and all of the staff related requirements for managing an on sale license have gone up and will go up next year. So, that's our proposal. We're open for conversation,
of course. >> Yeah. I'm just curious, >> Mr. Mayor. Council member Butler, >> I I had the same exact thought looking at this. I I appreciate that it went up 4% just like all the other proposed revenues and and I appreciate why overall that license is substantially
more than anything else in the book. I I don't think there's any business license anywhere close to that because there's not as much enforcement. But I I was thinking to myself if there's any way we could provide even just a slightly smaller increase, it might be worth it given that my understanding is
historically it's always gone up about 4%. that does start compounding as you're looking at 11,000 12,000 and you know I'm not saying we should just keep it flat but you know even if it's 400 instead of 500 or 350 I I would love to have that conversation if folks are
interested >> I always have that that Walmart thing you know if you just get her below that 12,000 you know 119 it just doesn't sound as much >> $11990 you know >> m Mr. Mayor Council member Geyser >> and and I know we're just introducing
tonight, so just making some comments. Um, you know, I I guess I I personally I watch the state warn list and I just have it feed into my inbox which tells you who's closing and how many people are getting laid off and that list has been about three times busier this year
than last year. So I have concerns not so much about you know I think the water the utility stuff we have a lot of deep grounding of how those costs get to there but from the business licensing perspective we I I worry about putting additional pressure when it's not going
so great right now and you know the increases while they will generate some money don't generate a ton of money but can mean a lot to a business especially if they're already being pinched on supply side especially if they're being pinched on lower traffic Um, so I I I
have some questions on the one-time licenses. I think it makes sense keeping those up, things that we do once, planning things, those kinds of activities. But the annual uplift on for when you know every business it just gets more expensive every year, which in contributes to more and more. So I I do
have some concern about just keeping the press there when it's hard right now and and it's harder than it has been. Um, and I don't know how much I want to contribute to that right now. So, that's I I don't have a specific adjustment in mind. I don't have a specific number.
Um, but I do have just concerns about pushing in that space currently. >> How how much can that how much can we wiggle that number and still have a consider this introduced? I mean, it's just an introduction tonight. we're going to we'll move on it at the next
meeting. But if between now and then we think, you know, boy, if that was 11750 or or something and and there was a consensus, is that something that we can we could do then or would have to we have to reintroduce? I think given the fact that we would
move be moving down and the changes probably aren't going to be dramatic one way or the other, even if we wanted to move up, that we'd probably uh okay leaving it as is that we considered introduced tonight and then we could adopt it even with some small tweaks at the next uh next uh meeting.
>> Okay. >> Because and and essentially most of it I presume the fees are going to stay as they are introduced. >> Okay. Council Butler. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I'd be interested too in just seeing sort of what our projections are for the cost of enforcement next year because I I agree
the cost of enforcement is going to go up. I I don't necessarily want to just say we're going to keep it flat with no increase. But seeing those options of oh if we raised it 150 bucks maybe we're short for enforcement or if we raise it to 400 are we still okay but maybe not
as close as we'd like and you know we we'd have a bit of time in the next couple weeks to get that information. >> Yeah. I mean, I just I just know as those guys when they when they write that check every year, you know, it's it's a it's a big check to write and
when we need a drink, right? So, all right. Um, any other questions or discussion on this? Okay. Hearing none, we will uh we will consider an ordinance to establish fees
effective January 1st, 2026 introduced. And we will set a public hearing for October 21st, 2025 at 7 p.m. regarding fee increases for certain alcoholic beverage licenses and that would include
those. Right. So that would be an opportunity for >> adjustments. >> Adjustment and discussion. >> That's correct, Mayor and Council. We will also be notifying current license holders of the proposed increase. So we'll see if there's any feedback related to the proposal. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So that's introduced. Um item 19 is to consider resolution 25-110 amending the 2025 fee schedule to add registration fees for cannabis
businesses. As less fire, >> mayor and council members, as noted in the memo, the office of cannabis management has announced their intent to begin lenture of low potency hemp, what we have called in our code THC. Uh that license period opened or application
period with the state opened October one will end at the end of October and the that would mean that the licensing then falls away from the city and goes to OCM. So now what we need is a registration fee. We're allowed to require them to register and um collect
that $125 registration fee, which is the state's offering for our compliance requirements that we need to do. Uh the other thing staff is proposing is a temporary cannabis event permit. We did
not add that yet. it needs to be added because it is something that I believe will be coming along because they're starting to get those licenses organized and ready at the state level. Staff suggest a fee of 2500 for those temporary events to cover all of the
potential enforcement situations we could incur and I'll answer any questions. >> Will that cover the overtime do you think for having a cannabis event in town? It see will they have buses or how are they going to get them home? One of the conditions of our under the
cannabis ordinance that we did enact is that there is no use at the cannabis event. >> Really? >> No on-site consumption is how it reads. >> Thank you. >> Interesting. >> Does it mean they're going to I don't know. But >> all right. Um Mr. Mayor Council member
Gler. >> Uh so Mr. Bro, that a temporary cannabis event is defined in the in that ordinance in the cannabis ordinance then >> and there's a state statute regarding it as well as our ordinance when we enacted our cannabis ordinance that addresses it, the requirements to get a permit, things like that, the conditions on that
permit. >> Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Uh, Council Member Carlson, >> make a motion to adopt resolution 25- 110 amending the city's adopted 2025 fee schedule.
>> Second. Motion by AR Carlson and a second by Grescoviaak. Is there wasn't it? Was it Butler? >> All right. >> It was Butler. >> Okay. A motion by Carlson, second by Butler. Is there further discussion on this,
>> Mr. Mayor? >> Council Butler. I I'd just like to express too to our staff that as we're thinking about feedback to the legislature, it would be good to give feedback that at least having some sort of exception for inflationary increases and this fee makes sense. It it feels
really weird that we're discussing 4% inflation for business fees and then the next item is 125 bucks and that's it. >> Yep. Mayor and council, that um certainly something we can raise as part of our legislative platform. As council may recall, we were supposed to also
receive some cannabis aid, uh, which was taken off the table this past session. It was, you know, here and gone too quickly. So, uh, you know, the the whole area around cannabis and the adult use cannabis law will evolve, I'm sure, over the next several years, and there'll be opportunities, I'm sure, to provide that
feedback. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Council member Gisler. sense you're talking about. I think it'd be great to make sure we collect what our actual enforcement fees are, what our times are to give hard facts back of if we got
$125 and it cost 125 plus X and Y. >> Providing that back is pretty concrete information of we're not getting it back. So, >> y'all be mindful. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
>> Mr. Mayor, council member. So, if I'm reading this right, the the the fee is just a flat $125 for for cannabis. Is this similar to I mean, it's $11,600 for liquor. >> Well, this is just our registration.
>> State gets a license fee. Correct. >> Mr. Mayor and Council Member Griscoak. Yes. So we were allowed to do lensure through the city and we had set our fee the same as our intoxicating liquor because similar compliance concerns and
uh costs and now that goes away and yes there's a license fee through the state for the low-level hemp and uh the state only allows us to do what's called a registration and they set the the allowed amount at 125 per year.
>> So this is it. our our police have to, you know, verify and and check and make compliance checks and, you know, figure out is it actually low potency or high potency and $125 to cover all that. >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Grisco, that's correct. The situation is, as city
manager Stem Waddle mentioned, that was with the understanding that because we were not allowed to charge an actual license fee, we were going to receive proceeds, right? And now that's off the table. So, it would seem fair that we have a conversation about making an
amendment to that and allowing us to control the license fee, but we shall see. >> Okay. And I think to council guys Gisler's point, we need to keep track of what this is costing the city and our taxpayers and then >> the legislature to reimburse us or do
something. >> Yeah, correct. The compliance check alone is 125 on >> it's not going to cover it. So, >> thank you. Yeah. >> All right. Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second for to adopt
resolution 25-110. I'm sorry, 25-110 amending the city's adopted 2025 fee schedule. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. And that motion carries. Item 20 is to consider a memorandum of understanding
with the Noah Henipin District 11 for school resource and prevention program officer services. Mr. Steiner. >> Thank you, Mayor Cook, council members. Uh yeah, before you tonight is the uh request to approve the memorandum of
understanding with a long word for SRO for school resource officer. Now, um and that's for the 2025 2026 school year. We're already back in school. We're running a little behind here, which isn't all that uncommon. working out
some um contract language and whatnot that still is being tweaked from what happened a few years ago uh with the school resource officer program. But this will um provide uh funding in about $332,345
for school resource officer services for the Rapids High School, Kun Rapids Middle School, Northdale Middle Northdale Middle School, River Trail Learning Center, and the Compass programs. It also uh includes money for teaching DARE which we do at all the elementary schools or the public
elementary schools rather. And uh as you know we have a long history with the school resource officer program. Uh maybe the longest in the state depends who you ask. I think a couple people claim that but we've been there since 1974 and uh teaching DARE since 1989. So, it's our recommendation that uh
council approve uh the uh 2025 2026 memorandum under of understanding with the school district. >> All right. Any questions of Mr. Stanner? >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Carlson. >> This one's kind of near and dear to me. >> Make a motion to approve the 2526
memorandum of understanding for school resource and prevention program officer services with the NOA Henipman School District 11. Second >> motion by Carlson and a second by Armstrong. Is there further discussion on this? >> Mr. Mayor.
>> No, Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Carlson. Go ahead. >> These are great programs and it's not just the like immediiacy too. Some of the relationships that you build and such like with the kids. Uh it's uh really incredible. And when you look at,
you know, with the SRO program going back to 1974 with Pete Bberg, um, yeah, just the, like I said, it's about the relationships and the kind of that, um, small town feel in the schools where everybody knows the school cop kind of a thing. It's it's really a good thing.
Uh, I was one of those people for 27 years between DARE and SRO. It's just such a valuable those are valuable programs, not just for whatever the kids learn at the moment, but just for those relationships. All right, Mr. Mayor. Council member,
>> I just want I just want to echo that if you if you go to any of the the high school football games or any of the the sporting events where where law enforcement needs to to be there. Uh, a lot of our city events, etc., you see
kids from middle school, high school coming up and and talking to these officers like they're they're buddies. And if somebody doesn't think that these uh SRO's don't make a difference, they need to go out and get out in the public
and look because they make a fantastic difference. >> Agreed. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Opposed. That motion passes. Thank
you, Chief Steiner. Item 21 is to consider resolution 25-109 accepting grant funds from Creek Watershed District and approved water quality cost share agreement. Um, you want me to just read the details or
Mr. Hammer? You want to do this one? >> Certainly, Mr. Mayor, Council, I'll give you a brief overview. It's uh yet another request for some water quality grants through the Creek Wershed District. Uh we've received some uh complaints or concerns about just some some channel issues right in the the
manufactured home park just south of um Egret Boulevard there. It it's on Woodcrest Creek. It feeds right into Creek. It appears as if some people have taken liberties with how they're grading and what they're doing. So we're going to work with that property owner on on making sure this sticks in the
long run. Uh we estimated the costs around 52,000. So we applied for what they would match up to 50%. So, we do have funds in our storm water utility for maintenance of ditch channels for this and we thought we'd supplement our funds. So, we applied for the grant and were successful. So, I'm happy to answer
questions about this. >> All right. Excellent. Any questions of Mr. Hammer on this? >> Mr. Mayor, >> Councler, >> I move that we adopt the resolution 25-109 accepting grant funds from the Creek Wershed District and authorize execution of the water quality cost
share agreement. >> Second. Motion by Butler and a second by Geisler. Is there discussion on this? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. And that motion carries. Item 22
is to consider resolution 25-115 terminating participation in the North Metro Regional Street Maintenance JPA. Mr. Hammer, you don't play well with others or what's going on? >> Mr. Mayor, council, that's that's not the case at all. I I think this uh this
consortium, this joint powers agreement has overrun its course through evolution. It it it has turned into something um far beyond what was established to be. And quite frankly, it's probably part of our doing in trying to add more into a program, but
uh trying to administer that for multiple cities and the time constraints it puts on us for opting out and awarding contracts. Uh not to mention we're one of the biggest users of the program. So the economies of scale have kind of lost their luster. So it's really the time commitment and and the
the work we put into it and the the liability that comes with something like that. We we've been trying to work with that group to to keep it going and and it will still continue. Um and we're happy to assist them in any way we can. But, uh, I think for the the benefit of the city and for what we do, we're going
to continue to do the program, but we're going to do it in-house and we'll be able to be, uh, a little more efficient with how we do that. So, uh, it it's not an easy choice, but I think it's the right choice. And, uh, I'm happy to stand for any questions. >> Yeah, it really became a very large
thing to maintain, and this makes sense. Any questions of Mr. Hammer? >> Mr. Mayor >> Council Member Carlson >> make a motion to adopt resolution 25-115 terminating participation in the North Metro Regional Street Maintenance JPA.
>> Second. >> Motion by Carlson and a second by Armstrong. Is there discussion on this? >> Council member Gisler. >> Uh I just wanted to uh since it's not overly visible, we discussed this quite a bit at a work session and why we're doing it and what its costs and what the benefits are to the city. So we have
quite a bit of background going into this of why we're doing it. It's not just snapping out. But I appreciate Mr. Hemer and his staff walking through basically the costbenefit analysis and uh I hope the other communities can figure it out to keep getting a benefit from it. But uh we need to look after Rapids first.
>> So Council Member Butler >> Grisco I should have moved closer. No, I want to basically echo the same thing. We talked about this a couple of times in work session, but I just wanted, you know, everyone to be aware. We're not the the regional street
program isn't being abolished. We're just stepping away from it. So, it's not like we've left all those other communities where we've been lead agency all those years, you know, high and dry. It's still going to be there for them. We're just we're just moving out of it right now. Just wanted to be clear. >> Mr. Mayor,
>> Council Member Armstrong. >> Yep. I will echo that as well. with a lot of these contracts when they've been around for years or or agreements when they've been around for years and years and years, sometimes it's difficult to step away from the legacy type stuff and and re-evaluate
it. So, kudos to you for recognizing this and and for looking out for the city's best interest. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I opposed and that motion
carries. Item 23 is to consider an agreement and resolution 25-116 budget amendment for a failing retaining wall. Uh Mr. Hammer. >> Yes, Mayor Council. Um this is a a wall that has been in rough shape for a
little while. We've kind of been keeping an eye on it, hoping that either through some redevelopment project or a street reconstruction project uh that we may be able to address it with with a funding source. um we've noticed chunks now started to fall into the roadway and and there's really not a lot of room between
this wall and the roadway. So, uh it's becoming a hazard now that we need to resolve. But, um kudos to our staff again. They they really looked at, you know, do we just rebuild it in its current configuration? Um there's no room to build it. We would have to close the road down. So, we've been working
with some area residents that we can stage on their property. Um, one resident uh with the agreement here is has been so gracious to allow us to grade it back to reduce the height of that wall in exchange for just planting some trees and doing some screening. So, it improves his ability to maintain it.
It gives us a smaller wall, less to maintain in the long run. Um, it it's a lesser cost from what the original estimates were. Um, but I I don't want to go too much longer and end up with concerns with um, you know, failing wall and a roadway and and potential for
damage and harm. So, uh, I'm requesting that budget amendment to get the work done. They're they're hot to trot and ready to go as, as soon as we, um, allow this to move forward if it moves forward. Um, and again, appreciation to the property owner for really working with us and coming up with a solution that's kind of good for both parties.
And so, I'm recommending uh, approval of the budget amendment as well as the agreement. And I will stand for any questions you may have. >> All right. Any questions of Mr. Hammer there? >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member Gisler. >> Mr. Chairman, are we maintaining the materials? Because it's kind of a like a
a stacked stone wall, isn't it? Or are we changing it or converting it to something else? >> Council member Gesler, it's just going to be a boulder wall now. Really just some very large boulder wall. So, it'll go away from that stacked um configuration, >> less likely to fail then too. >> Correct.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. Council member Guscovia >> looking at that area first. Um there's a lot of property on Rapids Boulevard between there and 94th that is ripe for redevelopment. >> Um it it seems to me like it would make
sense to redevelop that in conjunction with a project like this or vice versa. Um the uh the uh wall itself is that stack stone. It seems like there's just one
area where it's starting to crumble from uh forces from the other side. Uh are you going to redo the entire wall or are you just going to do that's sections where we're having issues? That's my first question. Council member MCOIC,
the the plan is to do the entire wall. It if you just try to chunk it where the break is, you still have to dig back. You still have all the tree impacts. Um, and and being able to reduce the height of the wall will also be beneficial for us. >> And then I mean, are we going to be
happy with a boulder wall right there when that's redeveloped? Is that going to be the right type of wall to have for for redevelopment? I'm getting nods over here. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, that's what everybody does when you look at the the really nice landscape projects. It's the
big boulders, you know, seems. >> Um, and the other thing, >> that's probably a question for you, Mr. hammer. I was just jumping ahead. >> What we found, aside from the aesthetics, the price was less and and it it it gets away from the stacking and
the tiebacks and all the engineering that goes with that extra work. >> I mean, ideally, quite frankly, I'd like to vacate the roadway and allow redevelopment to occur in between there. that hope for a promise for youth or something that you know that that's that's a consideration that could be
there, but there's just too many property owners and how long are you going to wait and and it's it's only a matter of time. So that's why we want to move this forward now. >> Okay. No, that's a good point on maybe vacating the roadway because I wouldn't think there'd be very many cars passing through there in any one day. And then
lastly, I did look at this because I $125,000 budget amendment this late in the year kind of jumps out at me, but um is what was my question on that? Oh, the uh the maintenance of that area in general back there. Doesn't look like
we've ever done any maintenance to that wall. There's there's trees growing out of the wall. There's shrubs. It doesn't look like the city I'm surprised it's even city property the way it has been neglected. So, is there going to be uh I mean, we're going to maintain it once we
rebuild it, so it's going to look decent. Another concern of mine. >> Yeah, Council Member Scog, that's one of the reasons why we wanted to talk to the the property owners out there. The the one in particular with this access agreement is is very clear that, you know, we'll plant some native vegetation in there. We'll put up some trees. Um
that way, he has his screening, he's able to go out and still enjoy his backyard and have something that's maintainable. a little further to the west, it it tails out on on that on that adjacent lot. So, we were able to handle that just within the existing rightaway. And this this was a a strange scenario
in that it's not platted. It's part of an auditor subdivision. So, we don't have dedicated rightaway. It was acquired over time for the roadway. So, we've already got a narrower corridor and and that's why I think some of the neglect has been there. Not to mention the overhead power lines are directly
above it >> and and trying to they go in and just chop down what's good for them and the property owners just don't go back there because they like the full lush growth and the the screening. So this this will kind of open the area up a little bit but um the the idea is to make it easier
for them to maintain such that everything up above there. So we're responsible for the wall that is for sure. Um, but the the mowing and and the maintenance and the landscaping component is the resident's responsibility. Got >> it. And then lastly, a question maybe just a followup for the for the council.
I mean, we're looking at our revolving construction fund. It was getting kind of getting down there a little bit. Is everyone comfortable with using the money out of that revolving construction fund for this or should it be in the 2027 budget? Yeah, 2027 because we're we can't
because we've already done 2026. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I I'm good with it. I mean, I think this emergency repairs are are things you pull out of that, but um that that neighborhood is kind of an
unusual neighborhood. It was kind of an orphan neighborhood that was primarily owned by one one company that originally was planning they were hoping to develop the whole neighborhood. So most of those were rental properties for over 30 years. And it wasn't until 2018 that
they started selling off all the homes and bringing it back to single family ownership. We didn't even know what to do with the street reconstruction however many years ago because there was no curbs or anything in there. So it's like how do you you know how are you going to redo this? But so yeah, so
there there's going to be some unusual things I think that'll pop up now that now that it's primarily owner occupied again. Got it. But >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Carlson, >> I'm also good with it given the situation. If something comes up, then
something comes up. We'll figure it out. You okay? You can feel you can vote no. >> All right. Any other questions of Mr. Hammer on this? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Butler. >> I move that council approve the access
agreement and adopt resolution 25-116 amending the 2025 revolving construction fund budget to complete emergency replacement of a failing retaining wall. >> Second. >> Motion by Butler and a second by Geisler. Is there further discussion on this? >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, Council Brisco,
>> did for Mr. Hammer, I should have asked this before the motion, but did we get a quote to just try to do the repairs because there's a stacking, you know, flat rocks. We have them further down on Rapids Boulevard, the same type of rocks. They just, you know, stack up and these are cemented together. Did we get
a quote to try to repair that failing section? >> Council member Scoviaak, we received multiple quotes in looking at it any different way, but there's a crack right down the middle of that wall. So, so you can't just fix half of it and tie it back in because the wall supports
itself. And now that the the wall has failed, you have to anything you do has to get tied back into what's around it. And and because of that vegetation and because of that small area, once you open up the
center, you're basically excavating 80% of it. >> Making a lot harder for me to vote no. I I also think because you the commercial properties you were talking about between 94th and Kun Rabbits Boulevard, something ultimately has to
happen there and for for this to actually be a nicel looking wall now I think actually would would help that project. But >> and I will add that those are the properties that were agreeable also to allow us to stage on their site such that the roadway doesn't get closed and we're able to access it. So they they've
been good as well just to allow us to to stage on their site. >> All right. Further discussion >> hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. And the motion carries
unanimously. Mr. Amr. >> Thank you. >> All right. We're up to the open mic public comment portion of the meeting. Is anybody here to address council for open mic this evening? Anybody here for open mic? All right, we'll close that. And we're I
don't have any reports on previous open mics. And we're up to other business. And we've got a open house coming up Saturday. I can't believe it's already time for that. It's like, oh my gosh, where did the year go? Fire department
open house on Saturday 11th, October 11th. There it is. Look at that. Fire station 3, 3150 111th Avenue. This is right across from the Noka Ramsey Community College on Mississippi Boulevard. And uh yeah, 10:00 a.m. to
noon. Uh meet the firefighters, fire, see the fire trucks. Uh they usually have that the helicopter come in. Um emergency vehicle safety demo. Sparky the fire dog. Spray a real fire hose as opposed to a fake hose. I don't know.
And then the uh oh and then the police are getting involved with the K9 team. Nice. Um it really is a great event and kids kids love it and people you know come out and see where where a lot of your um property tax money goes. You know
stuff is expensive. >> Um other business um Rocky's pumpkin patches. We have a meeting in between now and then. >> Nope. Oh actually >> there it is. >> October 18th. Octo Saturday, October 18th, 10:00 a.m. to 1 pm at San Creek
Park. Every child receives a pumpkin. They'll be playing musical chairs, prizes, candy, inflatables, face painting, games, free photo booth, trick-or-treating, trick-or-treating, and it's close together. I mean, it's like tent to tent to tent, and there's a
lot of candy there. So, it's it's a target-rich environment trick-or-treating. Um, so make sure you come out to that and uh you probably want to get out there early because it gets to be a pretty good lineup around uh when when it opens up.
>> Um, yeah, that's October 18th, 10 to1 St. Creek Park, Rocky's Pumpkin Patch. >> And then you're going to want to zip over to Riverdale right after that. >> And then you're going to want to zip over to see over to Riverdale for the uh Tiny Tim Exotic Animals or whatever that was.
>> Something like that. Spooktacular. All right. Any other business come before councel? >> Motion to adjurnn, Mr. Second. >> Motion by Carlson and a second by Butler to adjurnn. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. We'rejourned.