[Music] reading Detroit Lake City council's called the order and you automatically rise I 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 thank you the regular agenda is before the council and I would entertain a motion for its approval second motion has been made
seconded to approve the regular agenda discussion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries the consent agenda is before the council all items with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion there will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a council member or citizen request W in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in this normal sequence on the agenda is there any member of the council or any
citizens that would like to either remove or add an item to the consent agenda hearing none I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as printed some move second motion's been made and seconded to approve the consent
agenda discussion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos the motion carries the minutes of the regular city council meeting which was held May 14th 2024 before the council is there anyone in the audience or any members of the council that wish to make any changes to
the minutes as they're printed if not I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes sove second motion has been made in seconded to approve the minutes of the regular city council meeting held May 14th 2024 discussion
all in favor of the motion say I I I oppose the motion carries at this time I'll adjourn the regular meeting and call to order a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed assessments for the 2024 downtown Street utility Improvement
project and I'll call on uh city engineer John frad good evening mayor and Council um we have an assessment hearing tonight for our West downtown Street utility reconstruction project see if I can get
this to go so with any project that we use uh special assessments as part of the financing formula we're required by State Statute to hold a assessment hearing um we'll go over the assessment policy the calculations and procedures I'll I'll talk a little bit about what
the project background was the the scope of the improvements the costs and and then uh ultimately uh the special assessments that are associated with the project in the Le period for question and answer um at the end um so this Project's been been on the city's uh
Capital Improvement plan for a number of years uh we started work on this sort of in Earnest um back in 2023 with a public Hearing in December of 23 went through the design over the winter months and then ultimately awarded uh Construction
contract at the April city council meeting and construction is right now set to commence in June actually uh next Monday on home street so a little bit on existing conditions I'm not going to dwell on this um from a sewer standpoint we had a
wide array of of conditions with the sanitary sewer uh frezy Street Front Street Lake Avenue those all had some very very old sewer was petrified clay pipe we don't know exactly how old it was but probably 70 plus years H Street on the other hand had a PVC pipe that
was in good condition it was replaced in the 80s um water sort of more of the same story um free Street um we had between Oak Grove and Summit and then Lake to Washington we had some old cast iron pipe uh it's under size passed it
service life and then Summit to Lake we had a little bit larger pipe that was in better condition that was replaced in the 80s um hm Street as far as water goes again um Lake to Washington we had good 12in BBC pipe uh didn't need to do
anything with that then on Front Street again um Summit to Lake old cast iron pipe and then Lake to Washington some newer larger BC pipe so and then finally on Lake Avenue back
to Old pipe so very mixed bag but a lot of older water name storm water um same story kind of a mixed B good and bad Lake Avenue in front except the Eastern block those old
uh playay tile pipe we had some good areas um everywhere else we really don't have any lot of significant hydraulic or capacity issues um other than a limited number of inlets in some locations which we'll address uh Street by and large
those are pretty self-explanatory most of the streets were anywhere from poor to very poor condition um lots of cracking potholes various ages but in all cases I think most of the streets were well beyond 40 years in the age um sidewalks
there is a lot of pedestrian traffic on these sidewalks uh in this project area most of which don't meet current Ada standards so the proposed Improvement um in a nutshells replacement of all the the older the deficient sanitary sewer
with generally speaking 8 in p PC Mains new man holes uh if we have good PVC Mains we're going to leave those in place uh same story with the water main replacing that old cast iron pipe um with larger newer Mains uh we've got some large water M because of proximity
to the water tower on a portion of the project uh particular on fre E Street and on Front Street um some of the the existing PBC Mains we were able to leave those in place but generally speaking we replacing hydrants and and things of that
nature so along with the sewer and water mains uh we'll also be doing some surface lateral replacement to the adjacent properties most of the time that's a 1in water service and a 4in sewer service new curb stop new cleanouts um it is a little bit spotty
because there are some locations that those have been replaced other areas they haven't but the goal would be to get any old ones that are in the project area uh replaced and and up to standard while we're while we've got the all ripped up so we'll replace all those to
the edge of the property or to the edge of the RightWay and ultimately a property owner is responsible to replace those from the edge of that right away to the to the building we don't do that as part of the project uh storm sore and drainage um a
little smaller piece of the project we are going to replace portions of of the pipe that are either in the way for other improvements or the old clay tile pipe um we may need to replace some areas just to get at the sanitary sewer of the water M we're going to add some
inlets uh so we have greater capacity as far as collection which should help with uh some of the areas and see a little bit of flooding just due to limitations on how much water we can get into the storm store then we'll be adding some storm sewer uh in the alley um between
State and Front Street alongside the school administration buildy uh Street and sidewalks for the most part things are going back similar to to what they are there are a couple streets that narrow by a couple of feet to sort of bring them in line with what
we typically do in in downtown areas taking from you know 46 ft down to 44 which is kind of our standard and then we're replacing all the sidewalks you just about all of the project area has sidewalk on both sides of the streets
also be six foot side Sidewalk six foot wide sidewalks um and in the commercial areas in the more downtown areas that'll also include a 4T uh colored textured concrete uh Boulevard space between the
sidewalk and the curb the residential areas where we have sidewalk uh that'll be a Turf Boulevard and then we are doing a 10-ft wide sidewalk sort of Slash Trail on one side of Fry Street um from Minnesota down to Washington uh
just continuing that extension of that that trail that we have going along fre E Street East of Washington Avenue uh and then there is no sidewalk on frezy from from Oak to Sun doing some Boulevard trees uh both
in the the commercial areas and the residential areas um you those commercial areas we'll be putting the tree guards and tree grades in like you see in the remainder of the downtown that we've we've already completed also include irrigation Lo some trees also in those residential areas where we're
doing if we have to do some Tre removal generally we try to put some back um and then we're also going to do some Provisions for electrical power for some of the events that take place on Home Street to try to improve and streamline
that situation a bit so on to costs uh like I said we already took BDS so this is based on the asbit costs that we received from the contractor um in total we're looking at about a $1.4 million project uh that
number is pretty close to what we would have presented uh last December when we had the the public hearing for the project so um that's good news did you say 1.4 I did didn't I 4.1 little
difference 4.1 million thank you mayor 1.4 would have been better 4.1 million uh the city's going to pay for that project uh through a variety of sources uh City utility meaning the sewer the water the storm
water funds those pay for a portion of the project improvements general tax levy uh we'll use some Municipal state aid money that we receive these streets are for the most part on our Municipal state aid system so we're use we're able to use some of our MSA dollars uh to
finance portions of those improvements particular the street storm water sidewalk costs and then the balance would be special assessments to the adjacent Property Owners so we split out those costs in accordance with the city's special ass assessment policy
that we do on every project um boil down what that means for sewer and water uh this is a new provision that was adopted here in the last couple of years I would say uh the city assumes 100% of the sanitary sewer and water main replacement costs there used to be a
portion that was assessed uh recently the city has decided to have that be paid by the utility funds rather than assessed and service laterals are 100% assessed benefiting property uh Street reconstruction um a
little bit more complex um in general it's it's a 50/50 split between the city and special assessments that includes alleys uh that's for a standard Street standard streets defined for a residential area to be 36t wide 5 ton
design a surface and most cases if they're larg heavier streets than that uh in residential areas the city assumes that that oversizing cost but by contrast a standard Commercial Street is considered to be at full width wider
Street to a t hun design so the city doesn't pick up that oversizing cost sidewalk 25% is assess to Residential Properties and 50% is assess to commercial properties the city pays 100% of the costs related to the storm sewer Street
Scapes so when you put that down this is what get out the other side uh so out of that $4.1 million project the city's picking up just shy of3 million uh with just a little over $1.1
million being assessed so in total um the city is still assuming um about a little over 70% of the overall project cost about 28% of it being assessed to the adjacent property arms
I should mention if anybody's trying to take fast notes this presentation will be on the city's website as well so so now how do we spread out those assessible costs that were um identified in the previous table at $1.1 million um
again the special assessment policy um dictates how we divide those out in effect we take the assessible costs and divide them out by the accessible units which generally speaking is either front footage or uh by each in the case of
service laterals determine a rate so so much so many dollars per foot or so many dollars per service lateral for streets and alleys uh in terms of accessible units rectangular interior meaning not Corner
Lots it's effectively your your accessible footage is the dimension of the width of your lot that's abing the Improvement again that goes for streets or um Corner Lots again a little bit more complicated if you're on a corner lot
that is seen an improvement on both sides of you on two sides it's that dimension of your front footage which would be your smaller side plus half the dimension of the longer side up to 150 ft and then anything beyond that
150 and then if you happen to have an alley also behind you you would also be assessed for that alley so there are some properties that in this project that could see an assessment on on three sides or two sides uh but you're only assessed for
those sides that are budding and the street that's been improved if we have some irregular shaped Lots there's really not many I don't think on this project we try to look at that and assign an average Dimension if it's a sort of Pi shaped lot we'll we'll look at an average
width so this is how this all shakes out um for Street assessment for Residential Properties uh about $87 per front foot um Commercial Street assessment is about $121 a foot sidewalk for residential
areas about $25 a foot commercial areas just shy of $50 a foot sewer Services about $ 5900 Water Services about $5,600 and then the alleys are assessed at
$645 foot so if you were to do the math on that sort of some typicals a 50ft residential lot is looking at about the $117,000 assessment assuming that they're assessed for Street sidewalk sewer and water services and that's not
always the case we we only assess for what's being done so if you don't have a sewer and water service you wouldn't be assessed for those um likewise a 50ft commercial lot is about $20,000 or 100ft commercial lot is about
$28,000 um second here I wanted to point out I mentioned earlier that the the city council adjusted the assessment policy here recently where they assume the cost of um the cities assuming the cost of the
sewer Mains and the water mains and so to sort of put this into perspective itive a bit if you had a 50ft residential lot under the old policy your assessment would have been closer to 22,500 which is a pretty good jump from the 177,000 that's being
proposed um you know 75t residential lot would have been about 29,000 a 50ft commercial lot would have been about 25,700 or 100t commercial lot about 41,000 so that change in policy did
shift pretty significant amount of the special assessments away from special assessments and to the utility funds so terms and conditions for the assessments uh that be levied against the benefiting property starting in 2025
so we'll go on the 2025 tax tax roles uh over a 20-year term uh you can do a prepayment on either an all or a portion of that assessment to either reduce or eliminate your your interest charges similar to any any other loan uh whatever isn't paid off um prior to ad
hitting the assessment rle or the tax roles rather um then would be subject to assessment we heid do you remember the assessment we're doing so they go on the tax RS at a 5 a half% interest
rate uh the city does also have a a deferral policy uh for qualifying Properties or owner um generally speaking some of the qualifications that are associated with that 65 years of age or older permanently disabled and or military
personnel and active duty meeting the following criteria property has to be owned in feed simple ownership uh must be homesteaded and you have to meet certain income requirements and if you meet those criteria the
assessments just deferred without interest until one of the following either sale death of owner property becomes non-homesteaded or you no longer have a hardship and meet the income requirements so those applications are
available at City Hall you do have to apply every year uh so it's a reoccurring application that you would need to do annually and there's a $10 application fee if you have questions on that just stop into City Hall back to for questions okay let's do
this in two phases first first of all does anyone have any questions that they would like to ask either our city staff or city engineer any questions then I'll after that I'll allow time if you want to make a
comment so any questions hearing none I would open it up if you want to make a comment if you're for or against the project you can certainly have an opportunity to speak at this time if you do wish to do that i' I'd ask that you uh state your
name and address for our minutes so anyone have any comments if not that public hearing is closed and I would call on Aaron for a motion Public Works makes a motion for considerations or resolution approve an adoption of
assessment Ro for the 2024 downtown Street and improve project is there a second second motions been made the seconded to adopt a resolution approving the adoption of the assessment role for the 2024 downtown Street utility
Improvement project discussion by the council this requires six positive votes correct correct okay any any comments from the council hearing none I'll call the question all all in favor of the motion
say I I oppos the motion carries at this time I'll open up public to receive public comments on the proposed Street improvements for the highway 10 East Water and Sewer extension project and
again I'll call on city engineer John Pratt mayor and Council similar presentation just a lot shorter and simpler this is related to propose sanitary sewer and water man extensions along Highway 10 East again requirements here to meet uh statute requirements uh
for the state since we are planning to use some special assessments for the policy so I'll uh go through the project what the scope of the improvements are the costs and how we're planning to finance it uh this project is a little more unique from the standpoint this is a
developer petition project so the developer of a proposed equipment dealership uh needs City infrastructure um most notably the sewer and water uh for the proposed facility at the site and has asked the city to extend sewer
and water to it and that's what's driving um the need for the Improvement so subsequently we did a preliminary engineering report ear this spring that was adopted by the city council in May uh here's the project location it's just
by southeast of eastshore drive and Highway 10 intersection uh sort of in the area where 290th Avenue also comes out to Highway 10 uh as far as the existing conditions in short there's no sanitary sewer or water
um out adjacent to the proposed project site we do however have water and sewer veins located at at eore drive and Highway tent about a th000 ft to the northwest of the proposed site so the proposed improvements effectively
include extending both 8 in um PVC sanitary sewer and water main uh to the site Associated hydrants valves and manholes and things like like that we do have depth um from the existing sanitary sewer at eore to service the uh the
proposed facility with a gravity s sewer system uh the proposed infrastructure would be contained in a an easement it's going to be provided by the developer outside of the mot RightWay so we won't need to get permits from mot or things of that nature here's a little shot to
the project area pretty hard to to see um we would also be providing service laterals to any un adjacent unserved properties there there is one property served at the intersection of 290th and truck Highway 10 that does not currently
have S Water Service to it so considering extending sort of water to them as well uh we restore that that small Service Road between 290 at the East Shore with just an aggregate surface um been asked you know why why
not pave that or do something more with that and right now there's excuse me a little bit of an un uncertainty as to what's going to happen with uh those two intersections on Highway 10 both at East Shore and 290th there's been some discussion about potentially looking at
some improvements consolidating the intersections or other safety improvements um just because those two intersections are pretty close together so that being said uh we're holding back and investing too much into that road until we know what's going to happen
there project costs uh just a little under $400,000 the bulk of that um is is tied up in the sewer and water um infrastructure that would be extended along with the service laterals we could have a little bit of Street restoration costs on both eore and on uh 290th as
well as putting new aggregate surfacing down on that that small service road uh project will be funded by both City utility funds and and by the developer through a development agreement that they've executed with the city and then there would be potentially
a small portion of the city's share of the project that would be assessed to um the adjacent property that that would benefit from sewer and water being extended to it um so the city in this case uh the the way we're splitting
these costs out is the city is going to pick up 100% of the sanitary sewer and water main cost basically in that area from eore Drive to 290th which then gets that that infrastructure to the edge of their their proposed Development Area
the utility funds would would pick up that we may assess a portion of that again to that unserved property and then the developers assuming 100% of the balance of the cost from 290th all the way over to their
facility so when we apply that um logic this is how it shapes takes out the developer would be paying about $234,000 um by contrast the city is picking up about 157,000 again small portion of that is
potentially going to be assessed to that benefiting property that's not served with sewer water right now um this is all done in accordance with the city's assessment policy and past practices which is provide this would be applicable only to
that that property that we're looking at especially assing the cost of the developers covered by an agreement but to that single property we would be dividing that be accessible cost by the assessible units to determine assessment rate like we've done in the past so
questions does anyone in the audience have any questions of John or or comments hearing none that public hearing is closed Public Works moves to consideration to resolution or
Preparation specifications for the Highway East water and sewage extended project is there a second second motion has been made in seconded to adopt a resolution ordering the preparation of plans of specs for the highway 10 East Water and Sewer extension project
discussion by the council if I may Mr Pratt you said there's 8 in veins going out there does that account for any City growth if or when it happens out that direction the short answer is yes we've considered it um I think there's going to be
limited opportunity to grow that way based on what we looked at because of um available developable land effectively we run into wet land almost immediately okay um so to do anything further out there we would have to do much more than what we can do with what we've got in
place so thank you further questions by the council or comments All in favor of the motion say I I oppose the motion carries this time I'll call to order a public hearing to receive public comments on the matter of annexation of a 78.6 7 acre tract of
land more or less at 13698 270th Avenue Detroit Lakes Becker County Lake new Township and to consider zoning such trative land R A and RM so with that who am I calling on
Larry or John Larry go ahead Larry the property owner has requested annexation of 78.6 7 Acres of property he's also requesting that 10 of those Acres be zoned RM which is multifam and
the remainder would be uh ra which is the city's transition zone and that's basically the request in a nutshell I know there's going to be some questions regarding uh the location of
each of these two designations of zoning Kelsey can you put that map up so the the uh blue area is the ra residential Agriculture and the green area is where the multif family
residential zoning is being requested all right is there anyone in the audience that has any questions or wishes to make a comment Jay hey everybody I'm Jay Hansen um I'm
I live at 201111 270th Avenue um I've been there for 21 years I'm directly across from where the uh RM designation has been requested um it's not a uh a dense zoned area it's all single family homes uh
town homes that's it lry refers to it the ra as being a transition area well you're transitioning from single family homes to a proposed uh it could be Apartments being built and then transitioning to what um if it's ra now
if you're doing a transition that means that you're looking at commercial properties I'm guessing uh if because you're not going to transition back to to a single family homes you wouldn't think the whole area around it uh to the the field to the south of Marty solon's
Edition uh to the southeast is going to be uh Country Homes um and the field uh to the south of the ra is already built up with uh shes and pull bars uh the the
area to the West is wide open that's all woods and swamp and um so I'm requesting I prefer it we've always we've been there for 21 years we've always envisioned that eventually there's going to be homes there we knew that um when
we bought it but not apartment complexes and that's what our view is going to be and we'll never see the sunset again um if you're dead sat on it which I've been to many many Council meetings and other various committee meetings and uh and
almost all of them um it's brought up that the city of Detroit Lakes needs more Apartments so so I get it you know I want to be a good citizen of this town too and have people move in but that entire west side which is the highest portion of the entire property is wide
open and it the way that it it curls around uh with the uh swamp and everything you wouldn't even see it from the road if you put a half dozen Apartments back there so it doesn't really affect anybody um so I'm asking
that if you are still dead set on it at least put a restriction and instead of RM U make it R4 uh which would as I understand it they'd have to get a conditional use to to uh get uh any uh roof Heights higher than 30 ft I think I
I could be wrong I don't I'm not the zon expert you correct okay thank you uh so uh that's my request is that U um if you're going to approve it please make it R4 and I really prefer that it's that whole Field's open for development and I
understand the city wants it I want it to be annexed into the city um because we can see what's going on to the sou of us so and we know what's going on with the townships so it'd be nice to have the city have some control over it so U anybody got any questions for
me thank you thanks J further questions or comments by anyone good evening good evening can we get your name and address please Margaret Gunderson Southshore Drive thank you I have a few
questions I'm wondering when the gas station permit was granted by Becker County does so many on our city staff have that answer because I I don't I don't have the date for that I asked the for that information it was I'd like the
date please I I don't have that right now when does it expire I've also asked the county for that information and they have not provided that yet Kelsey do you have that give me a minute and I'll find it Margaret while they're looking do you
have another question yes I do uh when the city annexes the property that would include where the gas station was permitted does it become grandfathered in that is the permit is it
grandfathered into City Authority then I would call on our City attorney to answer that question for you thank you uh I'm a little when you say grandfather that that is I want to make sure we're
on the same page the county and Kelsey's looking up the date County issued the conditional use permit the conditional use permit we call it runs with the land okay so when the property is annexed
that doesn't change what the county did the landowner has the right to utilize that conditional use permit according to its terms and I do you did you find it yes uh so the conditional use permit
becomes null and void on September 19th 2025 so if if they Implement what the permit authorized before that date there's nothing that the city can do about it
thereafter that conditional use permit if they don't implement it goes poof doesn't exist anymore and we're back dealing with whatever the city would do with regard to that property so that
conditional use permit stays in effect for as long as the development occurs if the development occurs before that date but after that date they wouldn't be able to utilize that permit for development and they would have to come to the city for any
further plan okay that answer your question thank you thank you Margaret I believe there was another yes sir good evening good evening um Brad ericon my wife and I live at 21103 270th Avenue just I'm Jay's neighbor so we're
Direct across from the proposed RM multif family residential district kind of like some of the things that J Echo I do have a question so this because of the way they're requesting this like I said the RM and the ra I know the ra is kind of a transition zone
so because of the RM request I want to know is there a developer that is planning on developing that today anybody do we have that answer the property owner has a purchase agreement and the one of the
contingencies is that this be zoned multifam so the answer would be yes the answer is yes right so like like Jay said um based on the fact of what our our neighborhood is now you know we just have a little bit of issue with that
being placed right next to you know an existing single family and Town Home Development um like he said there's I agree with the same thing you have 78 acres to work with there is a different place to me that is a better fit for that property than there um you know
it'd be different let's say across from us there was homes built right but this whole development was planned and they saw in that plan that there was going to be homes and there was going to be multif family and more homes and those people that were going that development would have that choice to then choose to build homes or buy a home in that area
we built there been there for 25 years and all of a sudden you know there's potential 60 story or 60 ft four story apartment building that might be across from us and I just have a huge issue with that and don't feel that's right necessarily either but that's why I want to know if there was an actual purchase
agreement or plan for that if this goes through so my request is just like Jay that if if the I have nothing against annexation at all I just had problem with the with the RM designation I'd rather see the R4 or even the R2 and if
the RM uh you guys feel as a need for this area I just ask that it get be moved further west so that we can have a transition between you know the residential neighborhood um and this other family destination thank you okay thank you are
there further comments or questions yes good evening good evening um my neighbor Sheila fth asked me to read her letter is that okay sure she's at 622 sore drive and this is her word
so um Planning Commission and council members we are writing to state that we are against the city accommodating the request from gared properties to designate the um Anchorage as RM multi family housing for over a year and a half we've been attending meetings and
calling council members to voice our concerns about safety crime loitering garbage lighting and other issues that come with apartment buildings and commercialization of neighborhoods more than 50 residents have shown up to voice their concerns about all these issues at Council and Planning Commission meetings
relating to the Southwood Shores Estates and a petition was signed by over 150 residents in an effort to stop the commercialization of our neighborhood on sore Drive gar Garrett keeps going back and forth between the city and Becker County in an effort to get what he wants
we don't understand why the city council Planning Commission specifically our Representatives continue to vote against their um against their wishes eventi proposed a beautiful senior housing facility on eastshore drive to to help seniors in the community have access to housing as they
age and it would have provided 40 full-time positions in an area where jobs are desperately needed before the vot on even TI project four residents got to speak one was Mr Fritz and he said I have lived on eore for close to 50 years and I am against the rezoning
really because it is zon single family I am Pro DL I Am pro investment and development but I don't believe this is the right location the eventi project was immediately voted down three four and six against Matt bokei and Wendy spry both voted against it but a month
later were fully on board for the gearig project which would commercialize and allow for apartment buildings in a similar neighborhood please help the residents of sore Drive understand why our voices don't matter our council members seem to think even tide which has proven to do beautiful work is not a
good fit but some unknown developer from fire will do a great job on sore drive with no plan shared other than the outline of proposed lots and a request for businesses Twin Homes and Apartments in his development also we keep hearing about how Garrick's project is part of the
city comprehensive plan and if it is the city should go through the state of Minnesota process to get an Annex in rather than accommodating the latest request by Garrick so he will will willingly let the City Annex it the city council shut down even tide with some
vague comments and it wasn't a good fit but yet keeps spending over backward to help girel with no explanation other than it is part of the comprehensive plan why doesn't sore after hundreds of residents of POS get the treated the same as the four eastshore people who
spoke out against even tide as you can tell we are disappointed Beyond Bel we haven't lived here 50 years but after 20 years we have the same feelings as Mr Fritz we are pro development and pro DL but believe in keeping neighborhoods neighborhoods in this amazing Community
please represent residents and vote against this request Mike and Sheila fth thank you for letting me read that and on my behalf I live at 641 sore amber Abraham I've been here many times
um spoke against the gas station I sure you all I don't know if you remember not but I my husband and I we lived on the north side of town in an area that wasn't just single family homes we had commercial we had Apartments um Twin
Homes I mean we lived in basically what is being proposed be put out in that field um we made the choice we wanted to live in a neighborhood that is family homes um we have a beautiful home we worked hard for it to get where we are
and honestly if those apartment buildings were there we would have purchased it and I love that area um I understand on the flip side um if my neighbors are willing to live live next to an apartment building that is pushed over into the field to allow
for a transition to Apartments I'm willing to stand by them I understand that there is a shorting of housing in Detroit Lakes I actually talked to my girlfriend who lives in an apartment she said it was rather hard to find one in DL when she moved here um with
Apartments though you know it's it's it depends who owns them who manages them it's a lot of risk in the neighborhood who's going to be coming in and I guess if that's something the city is willing to do I'm not for it I I met some of my best friends in apartments
it's not that it's just there's a lot of risk and unknowns in it um I feel that you know the max that he can have there is a four-story apartment building I talked to Mr reman and just going off a basic numbers it could be up to 150
units it's a lot of extra traffic out there safety was a concern prior to all this it's a concern out there now um I would I got to do my push for safety I do it every time I'm up here and I want that to be looked into um there's many
options there's planning studies there's funding something has to be done out there um it's multimodal there's Side by Sid there's kids on bikes there's I mean anything you can imagine goes on there's a really cool neighborhood actually I love it um people enjoy it and that's
what I like you know I don't want to change it um so I just hope that it's all taken into consideration you know I kind of have this feeling going into it talking to the people I had that we don't have a chance this is going through um but I'm not the person just to sit down and be
like okay I can't say anything I just had to come up and St my peace and um I really appreciate you all letting me do that thank you thank you is there anyone else that wishes to make a comment good
evening so John Lowry with all engineering I'm uh here on behalf of the developer and uh we've met before uh thank you for your time this evening um you know this was initiated both by the city starting an annexation process over
the past winter you guys voted to try and Annex the property and then through some further discussions and a u you know as Larry referenced a purchase agreement uh coming forward um the the plan before you is consistent with the plan that's been considered
previously uh and discussed that length with neighborhood commercial uh kind of in the northeast corner some MP family in the Southeast and then further Sango family throughout the subdivision um you know with City staff I think it's had recommendations for
approval in the past that it meanss a comprehensive plan and uh we're we're asking for your support this evening in that regard so I'd be happy to have answer any questions and considerations uh that you might
have go ahead I guess my concern is the city council voted down the communion store and then your company you represent went to the county to get what they wanted I don't like that it's dirty pool that's how I feel about it
you're trying to get the trust from the people in that neighborhood and they told you they didn't want a communion store in that neighborhood and then you go to the county so I guess I feel uneasy with this whole project I think you need to work with the residents over
there maybe look at this whole R4 residential thing before we proceed and that's all I got to say any further questions for John thank you thank
you hearing no go ahead sir yeah sorry I got one more question and it's a new question it's a new one all right okay so in the proposed RM multif family residential if you go back to the county approval for the gas station is covered
in part of that RM area how does that work because now you have an RM designation and plus it overlaps with what the county approved for a 5 Acre Site for that gas station to the extent that it overlaps sorry to the extent that it overlaps the
County's conditional use permit will affect either Zone okay uh in other words that conditional use permit would would allow the landowner to do what the conditional use permit
allows the landowner to do through its expiration regardless of which way this is so just okay thank you thank you any further
question sure well why don't we close the public hearing if nobody else has any comments and get a motion on the table and then I would open it up for Council discussion if that's all right okay I would entertain a motion for giving first read reading to ordinance
523 and consideration to the first reading of ordinance 523 for the annexation of the 78.6 7 acre tract of land more or less of 13698 270th Avenue Detroit Lakes specker County Lake View Township and to consider the zoning such tract of land are a agricultural
residential district and RM multif Family Residence District the CDC discussed this yesterday recommends approval and I so move is there a second second motions been made in second it to give first reading to ordinance 523 as Sean
outlined and now I would open it up to any Council disc discussion so on Jackie yes I had a few um few questions comments I guess remind me does 270th have curve and gutter no and yes it does part of it
does part of it does part of it does and but no sideb right so if there was increased traffic would we as a city want to do finish the curb and gutter put in sidewalk for safety reasons so that's one of my questions is how would that how would that happen and
would we be willing to do that because now you've got more people right on those streets so that's a question um general question does any of the city staff want to venture comment to
Jack mayor and councel um our current understanding of what is being proposed on that RM tra is that we can service it with the existing infrastructure if there's more development further south we will have to do some sort of extension of Water
and Sewer Service as you know the two sems where there's curban gutter where it ends is basically where our water and sewer service ends so somewhere down the road there could be an improvement project further down to 70th which I'm sure the um the residences who live on
the East Side are also going to be interested in because that's Direct in front of them and also would include extended Water and Sewer to their residences as well but as of right now what they're proposing that can be served with the existing infrastructure future development further south would
require Water and Sewer extension which is going to probably require that that extension of to 70th where we would continue the street curbing gutter um you know probably all the way to the South edge of our city limits and potentially
yeah currently we don't put sidewalk in on new subdivisions um we just haven't been doing that okay okay and then if we changed it say to the R4 um if if if we didn't do the RM and we did the
R4 could the developer come back and re um um um what's the word I'm looking for um a different Zone based on their plans because I I I think what I'm hearing from the citizens is they don't know
what's going in there and that that concerns them um and um per perhaps if we started with an R4 and then move to an RM when there is better
information if it was zoned R4 the developer could come in and request either a zoning change or a conditional use permit to do multif family development in an R4 District the difference is that in the
RM District the building height is 39 ft in the Shoreland District or 60 feet outside of the Shoreland district and the R4 is limited to 30 fet in height Although our shorel district allows 39 ft so we would have to amend the
ordinance if we wanted them to be able to go to 39 ft the other difference is the uh density would be quite different in the RM District than it is in the R4 District there's about a 27% difference in
density if you would get a conditional use permit in the R4 District okay but you the R4 does allow for multif family it's just small it would be a conditional use perent what I find interesting is that
many people have stated that they're in favor of multifam development but there never seems to be a location where multif family development is acceptable but if I'm looking at R4 correctly it says one or two family dwelling units multif family dwelling
units with no more than four units that's correct but then if you look further on conditional use permit they can be they would have to apply for a conditional use permit to do multif family greater four
units I understand that okay any further Jackie um does this need to be unanimous to go through no it needs to pass by a majority we're not changing from a commercial to a residential or
residential to commercial do we have other questions from the council at this time or comments I have some comments go ahead J couple things that come to mind my mind um I do get an uneasy feeling just
like Aon dolman mentioned I feel like this is been a this has been discussed numerous times in the past and it's been uh turned down by previous Council um and then the concern I have
is it seems to me it's a roundabout way to come to the end conclusion of obtaining a neighborhood commercial District in the uh ra area um and so I think this is kind of the roundabout
plan let's start with this and then we're going to come back and and try to get a a neighborhood commercial District zon into that remaining ra area and I don't like that number two
um I hear a lot about this is in our the city's comprehensive plan well um the comprehensive metabol comprehensive plan is a plan it's not set in stone
just like our we heard from a previous meeting of the city council that our ordinances for zones um are tenative too we can make changes to those to accommodate well we
can make changes to our compens and metabolic our metabolic plans of Physicians uh comprehensive City plan that's not set in stone so just because it's out there doesn't mean we
have to follow it according to that plan that's been set up um other thing that I don't that comes to my mind is we as a city seem like we're trying to we're trying to make this property economically feasible
for the developers or for the land owner it's not the city's job to make zoning changes to make that property more economically attractive to investors the other thing that I don't
like is exactly what the lady had uh spoken her letter is we gave consideration to those uh homeowners on East Shore Drive when even TI wanted to put in um their facility Well I think we
need to give uh similar consideration to the land own owners or to the homeowners to the east of this property um that's all I have to say Okay further [Music] comments
not Dan so first off I guess I'd like to you know thank everybody for showing up tonight it has been a long process and it keeps on being a long process because that's what it is and and you do need to show up and and pay attention to what's going on with your city government
because you know it doesn't happen under the cloak of dark even though you might think it does um responding a little bit to some of the comments that have been made you know this is on the comprehensive plan it is a plan and it is a piece of paper that is a working document and if we've got a developer
that wants to come in and propose the option for the use of the property that we're we want uh included in our city because that's the growth pattern of what we need to get to because we are boxed in we just had the conversation about uh going Highway 10 we got swamps
and and not a lot of developable land there we've got on the North side we're bu into to uh another you know natural construction so it seems very obvious and it was pointed out by many of the residents down there that it it is a
good spot for for homes it it is a spot that you know when you purchase your home 20 years ago 25 years ago that you know it it might not be an NOA field forever um I think that you know the
comment of going the end round game and and playing dirty pool I don't really believe that that's kind of the game that that has to be played if you're going to purchase a piece of property in in the adjacent location to anywhere you need to do what you need to do to uh
make it Ser serviceable for what your needs are if you want to grow Al ala on a $2 million field that's up to you but if you want to develop that and do it through other means you need two the city said no the other option was to go to the township at the county and I I applaud them for for doing that because
that's part of the process we said no and there's other avenues out there we f it was within the best interests of the city to start the annexation process it got the developer back into the conversation of hey let's try to do
something and you know birth point where where we do need to do something and I I think this is a plan that that's put forth and no we shouldn't uh you know give away money and and give away the farm for for a developer but this is a proposed uh location for for
development we do need housing we've had conversation this the last year and a half two years about where do we put these these apartments where do we put homes we need to get people to come to our community it's a great Community people would you know bend over backwards from other other areas around
the state that are looking to grow and we got an opportunity to further what we need is bringing more people to our community and to our our area so I guess I'm in favor of of this uh annexation and the and the
resoning I would I would add to that that the way to prevent the county from controlling the zoning in this property is to Annex it J have something new to add well I like to just make a rebuttal um I'm not opposed to annexation nor I opposed to
an RM District I our Zone however I don't necessarily think the proposed RM Zone um is the appropriate Zone on on that 7080 Acres any any further I just I I would agree with Jamie that I'm not opposed to
the annexation I'm not opposed to the putting some housing on there but I'm I'm just not comfortable with an RM I be more comfortable with an R4 m I guess looking at this is it sounds like even the neighborhood talking tonight we're all in favor of annexation
if that doesn't happen there could be going back to the county and this could all be apartments no single family homes so I think we all need to Annex this tonight I do look at the at everything and I guess my job for my seat where I sit in it's twofold what's good for DL
for 10 15 20 years down the road how do we grow and there's a ton of other towns along Highway 10 that would kill to have this project and build new homes tax base everything like that the other side is balance that out with what we currently have how do we make that work
with the neighborhood and what does that look like I don't know I've Got Friends that live in this neighborhood I'm going to live a about a mile away maybe a little bit more um but to me this is something that's got to be annexed and also I guess I'm okay with the RM so
that's where I'm at anything further from the council I'm going to call the question I think I'll take a roll call oh go ahead could just ask a clarification so it's either an annexation with the proposed RM where
it's sitting not we can't adjust it it's either an all or none well that's the request the develop at that location on that 78 Acres correct that's his request but also this is the first reading corre that's correct okay we'll
have to have a second reading next month if it passes tonight so with that I'm going to take a roll call vot Ken no Dan yes Jackie no Matt yes Mike yes Sean yes Jay no the
motion passes thank you for coming this evening we appreciate your poess and you're interest in city government I think so is there anyone else in May for a second I must have done something wrong
no mayor as long as they deting can I go back to Mrs Abraham's point about safety that I think that's something we need to look at whether it's nodes the just slow traffic down there or Jack is point sidewalks I do think that is something that we need to
consider the entire process through EXC is there is there something pending here that I'm waiting for mayor the question is since there's two gone we have a quorum we have we have seven voting members so a majority
voted in favor four to three the question is on certain instances you need a majority of the council to approve an action which would require five votes so we're trying to discern that but we know you're not uh you're not rezoning residential to commercial
so we know you don't need a super majority but we're just trying to find out if we still need a majority of the council which would be five so we're going to see how fast our City attorney can work yes an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the council shall be required for the adoption so your answer is what a majority of the council was F so the motion does not pass correct so what is the the next step for the council and for the
developer anything mayor I mean the other options is there could be another motion made um if there's something more palatable for the annexation um again we just talked about this is what the application was uh by
the developer just like this before um when the developer submitted an application and it was denied by the council uh the developer subsequent withdrew their application so if there is a different resoning plan that is more pable to the council you can make
that motion just understand the developer could withdraw their application once again and we' be back to kind of where we were a couple months ago with trying to initiate a state um how would you put it State
issu yeah and just so the council's aware um we did initiate U what is called annexation by order which is then requesting that um the
state department administration boundary adjustments um order an annexation of the property whether the landowner wants it or not so not by petition um and in that situation the
administrative law judge is authorized to determine the zoning of the property so just so that you are aware if we are not going to be able to do this process through uh voluntary request by the
owner um and we have to revert to the annexation by order procedure uh then we may have um we may have zoning that none of us like because
the the administrative law judges authorized to proceed to that zoning but Charlie can that zoning be changed it can be changed it can be changed by the usual process for
rezoning so is it also an option that this first reading could be reconsidered when we had a full council at a subsequent council meeting is that an option or not yes to rehearing to rear it
no I don't think he it would be the same process be a reconsideration you could make a motion to reconsider it at a later time or as Kelsey indicated there could be a different motion put forth now mean the city
has um by custom um allowed land owners to withdraw annexation petitions based upon zoning but there's nothing in the
statute that allows them to do that so for example the city could pass an ordinance annexing the property that is not consistent with the zoning
requested by the landowner and that would then request the force the landowner to request a resoning like you said so you can approve if there were a different motion made you
could approve and give first reading to the annexation with a zoning different than what the landowner is requesting again we have by custom allowed them to withdraw it but there's nothing that requires us to allow them
to withdraw it go ahead Sean um it's a question for Mr Lowry um would the developer be be amenable to an R4 zoning versus an RM zoning they would not and we would withdraw our application if
that was a forward anation that the part of the annexation is okay well I guess there's nothing Matt I don't know if this legal but I going to throw it out there J so can I make a motion to Annex the property
defer the zoning until next next month for the first reading then can you make the motion yes I'd like to make that motion okay why don't to restate it I make the motion to Annex the the
property as it stands give first reading I get first reading for that but defer the zoning until the July meeting okay is there a second to the motion for discussion yeah I was just going to say okay we have Motion in a second how does
that work like do we have to hear then is it do it become two separate motions at that point is it two separate readings two separate hearings if I could request you just request that you have the second reading for both at the same time so that
they're concurrent if you would consider that so you you are not in favor of this motion I he he you correctly the owner is not in favor of annexing without an R own and so if the
second reading were to occur at the same meeting in August you could defer or delay the The Zing request until then until you get Council just end on the same d as what what we're asking
for so do you want to continue with your motion of second you want to withdraw it's a hell question um the the ultimate goal that I'm looking at is to gain annexation we've got to get this in the
city so we don't go back to the township so we don't go back to the county and now it's all commercial we've got to get this in in the city so we can control our own destiny at that point that's why I say defer it till we have a full Council here with everybody to discuss what
zoning we want to do in July so maybe I maybe it's amend the motion to have the first reading in July July both of it yes so just move to table until July is knowing this is very important to the neighborhood I know there's councilmen that are
gone are you okay with that you the second or Sean was the second oh I'm sorry M okay so the motion is well again that doesn't essentially that does nothing um and by custom we have
allowed um the developers or land owners to withdraw so I suspect what would happen is you get the withdraw um I think that you know you should approve if we're going to Annex this property you should
approve a first reading of something tonight um Charlie if no other actions taken tonight the issue could be reconsidered next month by a vote of the council is that correct yes assuming that you know the the
application is still it's not withdrawn it's not withdrawn but so your motion is basically saying let's wait till July when we have a full counil hopefully and take up this the motion was
to Annex the property which passed on a 4 to3 vote so isn't that first reading or uh it the ordinances have to be passed by a majority in the council the council is nine people so a majority is I thought it was just the zoning you were talking about
okay so basically Matt's motion with Mike second is pushing back to July consideration to this first reading in the zoning change correct correct okay all in favor of the motion say
I so I'm lost because withdrawing their motion to move forward with just annexation with no zoning and I guess my thought process here is we had a motion to approve we didn't have a motion to
deny so if we don't take action on anything we just kind of that we took no action tonight take it up next month but I don't know there could be a motion to reconsider that's correct um next month if not no action
is taken tonight um the only question is is then does the developer in the meantime withdraw the application kind of of our control at that point yes whereas if we adopt an ordinance tonight a first reading it's
not out of our control okay well we have a motion in a second to push this back to the July meeting all in favor of the motion say I I I think it passed three to nothing was there three eyes I
said opposed all right let let me do a roll call all in favor of the motion say I ER yeah no Jack let me
clarify the motion is to Annex no no the motion is to defer any action until next month on the first reading Rec I'll come back to you yes please M yeah I Mike I John i j no
so if we if we if I say then the options are make another motion options are with what I guess if I say no that means that we're not going to be able to Annex
and we we lose control of what happens no if you if you say yes we lose control of what happens because we're not taking any action on the ordinance tonight if if you
say no okay so you're not in favor of this motion to defer okay then the question would be is there another motion to give first reading to an annexation
tonight I'm getting pretty confused here yeah me too I am sorry sorry so mayor can I take a way sure so Charlie you're recommending that we adopt a first reading of the annexation without any resoning which
our per our ordinance anything that's annexed without any type of designated zoning comes in as ra correct so the question is that maybe it's an unknown factor is if we do the first reading of doing the whole thing
at ra and the developer subse ly revokes his application and we PS we continue to pursue the annexation by ordinance with the developer protesting the petition do we know the outcome do I know the outcome no I never
know the outcome but I think I've never I've never I've never had an annexation by ordinance that's required by petition to then have the petition withdrawn and then try to go to the state and say we should annex by petition when we
don't have a petition we have a pending petition right now for annexation um and I think you can act upon that motion give first reading and now we are scheduled for second reading
of that ordinance you can you choose what your ordinances are not developers or other people you choose to adopt what you uh make a motion for and so if you think that this
property should be next I think there can be a motion tonight to give first reading to an ordinance it doesn't necessarily have to be the ordinance that the developer is requesting right but I'm hearing the developer say that he's going to withdraw his his uh request for
annexation if he doesn't get the zoning the way he wants it once you give first reading I don't think they have the right to withdraw period but we voted down the first reading that was in you can make another
motion and Matt's motion was simply to defer it until next week or next month in which case I do think the developer would have the ability to withdraw so that motion is on the you're the only one that hasn't voted and this has to be
a majority of those present a majority of those present this motion the big bucks you know Charlie so so if we vote uh for annexation tonight without any resoning coming in as an RA even he has no right to the developer
has no right to withdraw this uh proposed zoning that from tonight even though even though it's different than what he desires correct and what his request has been
already he still doesn't have a right to withdraw correct I mean again because you will have acted upon the ordinance if you don't act upon it I think that they do have historically have we allowed them to withraw after the first reading
that's a better question for Larry to answer yes historically we have allowed people to withdraw if they don't care for the [Music] motion so mayor based upon Charlie's
advice I think Jackie wants to vote no on this so that way we don't postpone it to next month someone should make a motion to proceed with the annexation as ra um I think it'll still be an interesting discussion next month um as
we proceed to Second reading and you know there there could be proposal next month to also rezone it to something else we'd have to go through another first reading but they they could also Zone the 10 acres are four if they felt
that was acceptable that is another option correct if if the council feels that that as more pable than with the past than what's beened so if I say no but then U move to proceed with the
annexation with either an r or R4 that's another motion to consider for the council to correct and that would be considered first reading if we voted if the council agre by a vote of five
members I'm going to say no and I'm going to move to so so the motion does not pass but I'd like to make a motion to proceed with the annexation with the zoning Des designation of
R for the entire and R4 whatever we're talking about this that was named in the the 10 acre truck yes and the rest of it would be R yes is there a second for the motion second motion's been made and
seconded to give first reading to the annexation with the ra designation and the R4 designation in that area that they proposed to be our aite correct okay all in favor of that motion
say y oh boy go ahead D all right I guess you know hearing with the developers saying they don't want R4 and it's not going to work with R4 I guess I'd be more comfortable with it staying ra and we
kind of figure out a way to create a path forward because it sounded like the developer wanted to both the annexation and the zoning to be on the same day so could we vote for annexation figure out what we want for zoning have it come in at at
r and then in the August we could do the second reading of the of the or do we have to have second reading next month that's kind of one one question could we do first reading tonight second reading in August have first reading of
a of the proposed zoning in July and then second reading zoning August the short answer is there's no requirement that you have second reading the next regular meeting so you can have first reading
tonight you could have a second reading of this ordinance in August if you chose to do that I could I would be willing to amend my motion for your your comment but you yeah I I look at this guys and go if
we deny annexation we're going to end up in the same spot we are with the gas station and could be 60 condos down there could be 60 apartment build buildings we've got to control what's down there we've got to get our hands on this
if not the developer whether he chooses or not could do the same thing go back to the township Township and County are not on our side looking at this is correct but I'm also going to say that we just sat in a
strategic meeting and talked about how badly we need housing how badly we need housing also we also talked about Nim and nobody wants us in their backyard but at some point guys we got to put this somewhere we're talking about a
attractive land that is outside the city limits we're not talking about dropping this in a neighborhood this is not part of the city this is going into a new chunk of the city at some point we've got to put this somewhere to keep DL
growing to me I think this is a very fair out of 80 acres the developers asking for five or 10 of RM I hate to say it but guys this property was for sale anybody could have bought it the
developer chose everybody assumed that this will be single family homes shame on all of us for thinking that because we didn't buy it the developer did had a different vision and now we're stuck in a rock in a hard place which sucks it
really does but we've got to get our hands on this so we don't have another gas station or more shes that cuts off all the growth of the city to the South I'm in favor of annexing this but then talking about rezoning because I think that's a fair assessment that out
of the 80 out of the 90% of this would be single family homes other than the small portion that we're talking about RM so if I changed if I amended my motion to ra and then we have another you know proposal for a different
looking at the zoning yeah I'd be in favor we've got to get this annexed but then we've got to rezone it look at that what that looks like we need Apartments we also need s single family so what's our motion is see any other comment from the
council the only comment I want to make is yesterday at the community development committee meeting Mr Keane made a comment about the apartment buildings he's proposing on Randolph Ro and the rent associated with those is going to be about $1,800 a month and I
know we need we need affordable housing in this town I don't know if $1800 Apartments is considered affordable housing but just just the throw there but that's assumption no two yeah we don't know that I mean I think to your point we've talked over and over and
over and over again about the need for housing about how how expensive housing is we you look at the median in income of Detroit Lakes and you look at the cost of a new house it's not affordable it's in the same ballpark as uh as the the mortgage isn't the same
ballpark as rent but it's the down payments it's those types of things that make it unaffordable and there story after Story just even run in this room about people not being able to find a place to live I have employees at where I work that drive you know 45 minutes because they
have a hard time finding a place to live close to work we have business businesses that want to come into town and they have their employees need places to live we've talked about housing and yet we keep turning down opportunities for housing and we have both a project here that expands the
city that gives an opportunity for multif family housing single family housing a developer that's ready to build something and and and grow with the city in a new in a new addition to the city and we're saying no I mean at what point are we going to say enough's
enough and we're going to go ahead and expand our city and provide the housing or at least the opportunity for the housing I had one comment go ahead um your your development Sean your development Sean I stuck up for your development you guys didn't
want city sewer and water we listen to you I want you to listen to the same people on Southshore what they got to wake up to and what they got to live to next to every day I think that's only fair for them and that's all I want from this I want an agreement between the developer and the people that live in
that area so they can all agree upon what they want in their neighborhood some people lived out there for 20 years people in Willow Springs they didn't want city sewer and water and we respected that all I ask is we we respect the same people on Salt Shore Drive thank
you and and my comment is I I agree we we should Annex this Pro property I don't oppose housing the I would just like to see it more um you know not a four-story apartment building across from a single house but can we be can we
work with a developer um to have the housing a little bit more amendable to those that live in the neighborhood and that RM allows businesses as well and again I don't know what the proposal is if it if it if it is a four-story apartment building with businesses
underneath is it um is it just businesses I mean I I don't know what that what the proposed development is so it's hard to support it uh and again listening to the citizens as well I you
know a twostory maybe apartment or a 4lex or something like that I don't know that the citizens are completely opposed to seeing some housing out there I think it's the size of the housing that they're concerned about that's what I'm hearing
so if I need to amend my motion to ra and then we study this further and bring bring back another um uh proposal um I'd be fine with that I just I I I do agree to annexation I I
do agree we need housing but can we can we can we have some kind of medium ground between the citizens and what we need as a community there's a couple of things I wanted to point out one is the RM District does not allow commercial
use I'm sure you're right but that's maybe I just read that wrong then unless it's unless it's as a condition use I don't believe it does is a pred use the other thing is if we do rezoning that would have to have a public hearing that
public hearing would take place at the July Planning Commission meeting so it wouldn't come before the council until their August meeting for first reading Sean can you speak to Planning Commission and CDC of how this came to be through those two
subcommittees the this particular yes well this particular one didn't come through Planning Commission it was just a discussion point for us so do you want to amend your motion Jackie you made the motion didn't you the motion seems like it was hours ago I
I know proceed with the annexation with an RA a designation and who seconded that motion I I I'm sorry that my motion was the r for I would like to amend my motion to oh
that's right okay who who seconded that I did are you okay with the amended motion of the just ra no it's ra and it's going to be R4 in that no that's what I'm saying I'm
amending my motion to say that the it would be R and and then we would we would all r a yes and then look at you okay at some point we got to vote because we're going to be here all
night understand so let's try it again all in favor of the motion say I I opposed motion carries in first reading is given for the annexation coming in as
ra I I promise we're done with this for now so we'll move on to the rest of the agenda is there anyone here that's got another item that they'd like moved up you've already been here for an hour and a
half if not I I would like to jump forward to the finance committee agenda Dan and we would hear from our Auditors and sure um finance committee um item a we have uh Janelle bson from
Bergen kdv uh she's got a presentation of on our audit for this past uh year so I'll hand things over Janelle ahead so I have the results for you tonight of your 2023 audit um the first
thing that I want to cover with you is the reports that we issue as part of the audit process um the first one being the independent auditor report um this report does talk about the financial statements being Management's responsibility that's where you're
relying on your um Administration to put together the information the numbers as well as the disclosures themselves and then our responsibility is to express an opinion based on the results of our our audit we did Issue an
unmodified opinion that's what's considered a clean opinion or the best that we can um offer on your statements it states that your financial stat present fairly in all material respects the second report we issue is a
report in accordance with government auditing standards these standards require that we look at internal controls over financial reporting as well as compliance with various laws regulations contracts and grants um when it comes to inter internal controls we had one finding the
lack of segregation of accounting duties um you've seen this before very common in in cities of your size due to the limited staff that you have within your your finance office and then when it comes to compliance we had no findings to
report the next report that we issue is our report on uniform guidance or the single audit report this is the federal funding that the city receives um this year we tested the Clean Water revolving funds and the airport Improvement program so we're looking at compliance
over the um different requirements of each of these major federal programs and we had no instances of non-compliance so another clean report for the city and then the last report we issue is our report on Minnesota legal compliance each year the state auditor's office
gives us a list of um State statutes to test compliance with um and we had no compliance findings here so again another clean report for the city and then moving on from there we've got some um charts and graphs that show
some Tri Financial TRS for the city for the Last 5 Years um the first graph here is the general fund sources of revenues um for 20203 your revenues increased about 7.1% or
$524,000 the largest increases were in the the property tax levy category and then also the miscellaneous income um and much of that was related to investment income with the change in the market rates and better market conditions you did see see some
decreases in the intergovernmental revenues you had a decrease in the local government Aid received and then also the the federal arpa funds that we related to co dollars and the pie charts here break out the different components of your
revenues as a percentage of the whole um so fairly consistent when you're looking at the the pieces of the pie from one year to the next um the intergovernmental revenues did decrease some as I mentioned and then can see that larger component in the the
miscellaneous category and then following that is the general fund sources of for expenditures um in total they increased about 7.4% um you did see increases um kind of across the board in public safety culture and wreck and then the
miscellaneous category and that included um additional Staffing in the public safety um increases in salaries and benefits across the board and then the miscellaneous increase related to the the capital contribution for the uh the food
pantry and then those expenditures are broken out by program as a percentage of the whole um Public Safety continues to be the largest component of your expenditures within the general fund um and that's going to include um largely
the police fire and building inspection categories and then the next table here shows your budget to actual results for the general fund the First Column of numbers is the budget that you as the council approved as directive to management of where the fund should come
out um you did approve a balanced budget or essentially no change in your fund balance the actual results was a decrease of about $40,000 um some variances going into that your total revenues were about
$674,000 over budget um the largest component of that is that intergovernmental line item you did receive a one-time Public Safety Aid in 2023 that was not budgeted for and then the miscellaneous category was over budget again much of that is
investment income historically you've budgeted conservatively for that category as you don't know where those Market rates are going to be on the expenditure side we're about $263,000 over budget um the bulk of that is in that missell
line item and again that relates to the the capital contribution for the food pantry not being part of the budget and then on the transfers out you did have about $450,000 transfers out that was not budgeted for and that related to um a
transfer to project fund I'm kind of covering the city's portion of some assessments within that fund the next graph summarizes the overall general fund oper operations um total revenues expenditures and fund balance um revenues did exceed
expenditures um in each of the years presented here except for um 2021 um at the end of 2023 your total fund balance was about $6.9 million of that about $3.8 million is
unassigned or unspoken for essentially um and that's about 43.7% of your your expenditure budget for 2024 um the city's policy is to have about 35 to 50% of the next year's budget in that um unassigned fund
balance so you're right in line with where the policy is set for the city and then the next graph here is the electric fund um for this fund you did see a decrease in operating revenues um the overall electric sales themselves
increased but um in 2022 had some larger refunds in there so that number did decline slightly in 2023 on the expenditure side you did see an increase of about 3.6% U much of that related to increases in salaries and
benefits this fund did have an overall operating income of about $3.2 million um and then you did transfer some dollars out of this fund um to help Finance the city hall project so overall the unrestricted net position decreased
about $147,000 the next graph here is the water fund um this fund had an increase in operating revenues with an overall increase in usage and rates um your operating expenses stayed relatively
consistent kind of a net effect you did have a decrease um relating to in the prior year you had some expenses relating to the the meter Replacements um didn't have that in this year but then you did have some additional expenses with some leaks and repairs
that were needed during the year um this fund had operating income of about $645,000 um an overall increase in the unrestricted net position of about $1.7 million and then next is the Wastewater
fund um this fund had an increase in operating revenues of about 3 and a half% in increase in expenses of about 2% um and then your operating income in each of the years presented for 2023 it was about $1.1 million and your
unrestricted net position increased about $2.4 million and then the last fund is the liquor fund um this fund also had an increase your gross profit increased about 4.7% um so the highest point in the 5
years presented here um your operating expenses decreased about 15.9% and then you had an operating income in this fund of about $1.3 million um the unrestricted net position
did decrease about $2.1 million um this fund also made a transfer to help Finance the city hall project so um within the electric and the liquor fund that was where a large amount of the financing for that project came from
so kind of a a quick summary for the 2023 numbers certainly open to any questions if any of you any any questions for Janelle so overall we're financially in good shape
right did we have a new credit rating established this year or is it same we don't actually look at the credit ratings your bond council is the one who okay any further
questions if not I would entertain a motion for approval of the 2023 audit report so that's a consideration to approval of the 2023 audit report uh finance committee reviewed this this afternoon recommends approval and I so move second
motion's been made and seconded to approve the 2023 audit report discussion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries thank you for coming tonight G know we appreciate it is again is there anyone in the
audience that has an item on the agenda that I can move up so you can get out of here at a decent time Mr may move Public Utilities sure we can do that um Mike you want to take the public
utility item sure uh Mr Mayor um the public utilities met this morning uh they have a couple of items under consideration the first is for for consideration to approve a quote for a new sewer camera system and since he put me on the spot maybe able to have Mr Roberts uh speak on it a little bit to
get a little more detail since I didn't have my computer up and running sorry yeah M mer and Council the sewer camera system is a system we looked at purchasing over a year ago or so and this will replace outside vendor and
Contracting to inspect the collection system of the sanctuary sewer system we give us a little bit idea of asset management when Mr Pratt does a design on future Capital replacements for Street projects we'll be able to go in and take a look at the sanitary
condition before he does his design we'll know what we need for material we need know what needs to be replaced what can be rehabed just give us a better idea of what's going on in the system the work we've been doing for outside contractors gotten very very expensive so it makes sense to move this I believe
uh commissioner Sterns has the council member Sterns has the Financial numbers there it's 300 and some thousand sorry I popped up the next one already so jump ready John dollar Mike are you going to make a
motion uh uh the combined cost for the uh the system and the camera is $364,800 yeah so is that a motion um I'll have item 10A consideration for approving a quote for Su camera system I so
Move Motion been made seconded to approve a quote is that a quote and a purchase yes of of the new sewer U System camera system discussion one question for Mr grenell since you said this was a third party running this and
doing this for us prior is this somebody that we have to send to train to use this fancy camera or is there somebody on staff that can already do it run it for us no We've Got U the vendor will come in and provide training for that specific camera but we're going to be ready to go our water waste water supervisors got years of experience with
this stuff awesome great thank you further discussion all in favor the motion say I I oppose motion carries all right and uh we have item 10B consideration to the acceptance of bids for a water tower project and awarding the contract to landmark
structures Public Utilities met this morning morning uh the Apex engineering had reviewed two bids uh one came in at 8,3 8335 million and that was uh landmark structures there was a second bid now this is pretty unique type of
construction so they're basically four companies in the nation to do these we did get two bids so that was very favorable the second one came in about $1.3 million higher um and Apex has worked with Landmark uh structures in the past has a decent relationship with
them and uh feels they do a good job job so I have item 10B consideration to the acceptance of bids for the Water Tower project and awarding the contract to landmark structures nice I'll move second motion has been made in second to accept the bid of landmark
structures for our new city water tower discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries anyone else in the audience that wants to move an item up otherwise we'll
go back to wh we left off and I have no idea what that [Music] is I think it's the Community Development Committee and I think Sean you're going to take that tonight in the absence Matt wasn't there yester H all
right uh item 5A discussion on downtown business requirements uh this was just a discussion last night uh Kelsey maybe you can give a quick overview mayor and Council um the discussion revolved around basically temporary businesses in our downtown business district a current ordinance
really doesn't allow for that uh think like a popup business business running off a tent or the discussion yesterday was like a storage container um again I think we all talk about there's certain instances where maybe that makes sense maybe that's acceptable to the city but
um there's a lot of instances if someone did it wrong that's something you don't want in your downtown uh commercial districts so I think the consensus from the CDC was to have staff look at it you know look at some possibilities of some sort of interim use um ordinance um that
would ultimately have to go to the Planning Commission and city council uh subsequent to that but that was the discussion um it's just is that something that we want to have a little more latitude to be able to do kind of temporary store locations in our commercial districts and I think that
reflects it well in general we just wanted to be conscientious and careful about how we proceed but I mean personally I think it's a good idea and we should look at the at the possibility doesn't work so is that going to remain under consideration with the
CDC in the future yes and ultimately it would have to go to the Planning Commission be a zoning change okay so no action tonight question for that though does it have to be a zoning change or could is this something we could put on a transient Merchant and and renew it annually if
it's something that isn't that falls in favor or is against short answer it might be both okay um the issue that we run into is a zoning issue and we also may have to look at what our Transit merant license States
um that's the short answer okay thank you thanks item 5 b consideration to approving a purchase agreement for 21 Union Street celsey Mayor in Council this is a a property that uh the city received when
we basically issue the new violation uh the city had the pro the the house demoed uh we had to do some quiet title action to clear title and then we subsequently put it for sale with a minimum bid of $22,500 in your packet is a purchase agreement
for $24,500 that we did through a u bid process we only received one bid and it is fortunately over our minimum bid so we would recommend approval can reviewed recommends approval and IA move second
motion's been made in seconded to approve the purchase agreement for 211 Union Street discussion all in favor of the motion say I I opposed motion carries item 5 C consideration to a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Grover
subdivision at 1255 US Highway 10 West Grover development Larry I'm on okay uh this is a four lot commercial plat the internal roads are private drives and the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the preliminary plan as
Larry stated uh we also reviewed this the CDC recommend approval and ISO move second motion has been made seconded to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Grover subdivision at 12:55 Highway 10 West discussion all in favor of the motion
say I I opposed motion carries item 5D consideration to a resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow 36 unit plan unit development in the Shoreland District at 1510 Randolph Road luminary Holdings LLP this is also related to item 5e but Larry if you
could cover both of those really quick essentially this is a uh planned unit development to allow a conditional use permit to allow a planned unit development they're asking for 36 units the building height would be 39 ft and
that's what prompted the changing in the zoning from R4 to R M because the R4 zoning limits them to 30 ft and they do need to have 39 ft in order to have a three-story building uh the Planning Commission
recommends approval uh this was approved previously for a 29 unit apartment building in that same area but that was never constructed and so this is a new proposal and it meets the setback and it would be limited to 30% impious surface
coverage cdcw R this we recommend approval and I so move second motion's been made and second to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit allowing a 36 unit develop PUD development in the shorel district at
1510 Randol Road discussion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries item 5e consideration of the first reading of ordinance 524 rezoning from R4 limited multif family to RM multif Family Residence District at 1510 Randolph Road
luminary Holdings LLC this is the rezoning request associated with f item 5D uh the uh CDC reviewed this recommends approval and ISO move second motions been made second to give first reading to ordinance 524 resoning
resoning 1510 Randolph Road from R4 to RM discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries I have your honor Sean your honor the public doesn't need to comment on
these or cannot comment on these sure you can well you already made a motion to pass we can still comment and we'll take it under advisement well
um I'm sorry Dennis I didn't realize that anybody had any additional items here so I apologize Dennick Lemon Road that um you know you talked about popping down apartment buildings in residential areas that's exactly what's
happening here and I know we went through all the meetings and everything and we can't seem to you know have it the way we like but um I just got a few pictures here of uh a three-story unit in that
area which just I don't think it fits up on Highland Drive but I would pass this around you guys at it and we still have to give second reading next month Dennis so comments on at that time mayor the
the public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting so that's why there's no public hearing tonight but you can certainly come back to the council meeting okay and after if I see you in the crowd I'll make sure you could talk first before any motions so that and
after the second um heing if that that's the then if it passes okay thank you quickly pass these around and then we'll resume so which Council memb to take the Public
Works agenda Aon are you taking it sure why don't we go ahead while the pictures are going um 6A up up updates regarding the site um talked about some of the fees
that are going for people that aren't following the rules out there um we discussed what the findes are um you else you want to elaborate more on it i' maybe deferred to our Public Works
director yes Baron Council this uh was brought up last month about in regards to the compost site and just so everyone is aware um the first offense out there we do uh verbal warning and a chance to remove the violation after the second
offense there's an administrative penalty and we charge them the cost to remove that violation and if if that uh fee is not paid then we do send it to uh PD where they will
issue an offense uh Minnesota statute 69.98 is just unlawful deposited garbage litter or like and that is a petty Mis meanor okay and then 6B I believe Charlie there's something in this
wait yes sir um there's something in this agreement that you want there were coup excuse me there were U Charlie want we do the quick version yeah go ahead this this all explain Public Works
um you were sleep so the agreement we sent to Sanford actually Charlie put together a list of things that him and actually the league of Minnesota cities wanted to see change I'd say they made 90 8 5% of the changes I think the real sticking point is item number nine under
indemnification um they added a provision about to the extent such claims and damages are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of of Sanford um they added that provision that's a sticking point for us we'd like to have them removed have that point removed uh charler was saying
there was a few other administrative things in here like you know has Charlie as the contact it probably should be me those type of things I think are administrative but um the recommendation that I share with the public works is if the council so chooses to move ahead with the agreement make it contingent
upon changing that section number nine and then the other administrative changes and Public Works moves consideration and improving agreement the utilization of s kids Grant dollars for life jacket ler station on the outside of the B
house with three CH with the changes with the changes second motion been made second to approve an agreement for the utilization of kid save Grant dollars for a life jacket laner station down in the beach with the is it section n has
to Beed remote the suggested changes that I had were just again the administrative one I was a contact person I think it should be the city administrator um they have included a provision in there that allows them to cancel on 30 days notice which might be
just fine but it didn't allow us to cancel it on 30 days notice without cause um I think that should be mutual in other words they can bail out in 30 days we should be able to bail out in 30 days and then the indemnity provision which I concur with uh Kelsey I think
those limitations on the indemnity effectively nullify the indemnity that they wanted and so I'm asking for removal of those limitations discussion all in favor of the motion
say I I opposed MO and then we get to hear from Mr Pratt it's been about 5 hours since we heard the talk so go ahead and give us monthly project status report a brief one please mayor and
C got plenty of construction going on uh the Campbell Avenue and Lyon Lane project is effectively 99% the final wour and turf for in we're just waiting for the grass to grow and we'll issue final payment the same is true with Summit Avenue um Terry Street and dandrew there's been
no progress but I expect that they will finish the uh or complete the paving and and the remaining grading work there in the next couple weeks and that will also be finalized um the street where reab project started off with a bang um then
it's been very rainy that has completely derailed that project um so there's a lot of things that are unfortunately um partway done uh the contractors assured us that they're going to get back at that here later this week and next week and get what they have started completed there's
going to be a break in the action for for those that are interested on some of the remaining portions of that project like Northshore Drive and things like that until probably the middle of July um will of Springs is included in that project uh nothing to report number six
uh the West downtown project uh I think I mentioned this earlier we had a precon we met with a contractor again today that work is going to start uh next Monday and the first phase of that is going to be effectively limited to Holm Street between Lake Avenue in
Washington Avenue so look for that construction activity to get underway uh the next piece of that will be uh on free Street starting over by Oak Grove by the Water Tower and heading East on free so that'll take us through the
first month or so of that project and we already touched on the water tower that's all I have thank you John anything else I'll make a motion to accept the the report second motion has been made seconded to accept the monthly City
Engineers project status report discussion all in favor of the motion say I I I oppose motion cares and we'll move to the balance of the finance committee all right uh item 7B and 7 are kind of generally related to each other
about the sales tax provision to authorize that to go to the um put out the ballot for for November for the pilant project so Item B is consideration to resolution approving the 2023 Minnesota laws chapter 64
article 10 section 31 allowing the city to Trad Lakes to impose a sales and use tax of 1 half of 1% for the purpose of construction and renovation of the TR bilan including Park improvements Beach improvements and parking improvements um
finance committee reviewed this this afternoon or recommends approval and I shall move second motion's been made and seconded to adopt a resolution uh allowing the city to impose the sales tax for a new pavilion Park improvements Beach improvements and
parking improvements discussion just one comment is this is just basically authorizing this to be put on the ballot it still needs to go for public to approve uh this so it's not closing the sales St tonight discussion further discussion
all in favor of the motion say I I I oppose motion carries item c um is consideration to a resolution approving the local sales tax question and authorizing an election there on of 2024 general election uh finance committee recommends approval and I so move second
motion has been made second and to adopt a res resolution approving a local sales tax question authorizing an election there on during the 2024 general election discussion all in favor of the motion say I I I opposed motion carries um
going along with that Kelsey I'm going to hand it over to you to kind of give a little bit of a however long however long the mayor would like you to talk about Pilan mayor and Council uh K's going to pull up kind of updated rendering of
Pavilion again this is a continuation of our discussion last month um again there was some discussion about trying to make some improvements to that West entrance so uh the architect took another stab at that um again basically same uh
basically floor plan that we've looked at before um this is what is still using the white sighting option uh something we talked about last month on the east side uh the other drwing had
basically split roof this is one continual roof a little bit further out for a little bit more of a covered um porch area um this is a view from the southwest you can see there's a different uh kind of a Gable and entry
on the west side of um The Pavilion again this is another view from the southeast uh view from the lake again the main difference here you can see the the extra Gable on the west end kind of jutting out a little bit on the west
side and then uh one continual R line on the east side is really the the change from last time there's a closeup view again of that covered area on the East another picture of the East and kind of the water feature and the um
kind of the the new bath house and um covered presentation area view from the park to the north and again this is kind of that
updated West Side uh they tried to mimic um The Arches that were on uh the north and south side and did a different um entryway again I think think we all know like the script and stuff of the sign uh
probably isn't our first choice but really that's a placeholder for some sort of signage whatever that sign ends up being but that's kind of a place for it to be uh this is the aerial view again this is largely the same as what you've seen
before this is some contrast this is um what you call that the U Brown sighting versus the white sighting uh this is option A is kind of what you saw last month and option b is
with that different Gable end on the West Side gu okay yet um I also included an updated um budget um you know basically the summary there is you know it's been a long time since I've asked for an
update from the consultant uh the cost of the Pavilion has come down a little bit because the square footage has come down because before we were looking at a story and a half and or I guess a two story option that price has come down but um the bath house has gotten quite a bit more elaborate than what we looked
at 18 months ago so that cost went up uh so if you look they actually have a total budget actually a little bit over 17.3 it doesn't matter we can't go any higher than 17.3 that's what's Allowed by the legislation also this point out
pretty hefty contingencies that are in the budget I think there's like a 20% contingency in there so again with some of the unknowns about uh construction um I think it's wise to have a pretty
regenerate contingency in it so that's all I have thank you moving on to items d and e I'll just hand it over to KC because those are both closely closely related and then we'll do
motions mayor and Council there are two uh memorandum of agreements that are in the council packet this is something uh finance committee has talked about over the last several months um again we are in year two of a three-year contract U
with all the bargain units um what we've seen over the last 18 months is a lot of cities and counties um really make big increases in um different wage adjustments versus especially for law
enforcement right law enforcement has seen a very uh tight labor market and as we compare Detroit Lakes to our other comparables we saw ourselveses being slipped down in the market even despite having a contract that is only again about 18 months old uh we saw a lot of
cities Implement um wage studies that result in pretty big increases we saw some of them again make contract adjustments which led to them being higher in the market and the city falling behind so the mo MOA uh in both cases makes a mid-contract uh wage
adjustment uh the ls M MOA our Patrol officers and in both cases uh we're also doing midyear adjustments so we're looking at July 1 of 2024 uh basically a new wage scale going
to uh effect uh for both unions and then uh January 1 of 2025 it's basically the uh 3% Cola that's already in the contract plus we're adding an extra step to the U our
pay schedule so there's a new Step 14 for those who are maxed out on the current scale um as we talked about the midyear adjustments really that's made possible by Public Safety Aid money that we received at the end of last year it's
one-time funding that we received from the state of Minnesota uh the intent is to use that to kind of soften uh the cost of these uh wage adjustments mid year since our Levy and everything else is set um you know roughly uh percentage
wise uh the ls contract the adjustments for uh 2024 are an 8% increase and the mpa which is our Sergeant is 3% uh wage increase so with that uh item D is
consideration to approving the memorandum of under of agreement with ls uh finance committee reviewed this recommends approval I so move second motion has been made and second to approve a memorandum of agreement with the ls Union
discussion all in favor of the motion say I I I opposed motion carries it e is consideration to approving a me memorandum of agreement with the mpa finance committee reviewed this recommends approval and I so move second motion's been made seconded to approve a
memorandum agreement with the mpa Union discussion all in favor of motion say I I oppos motion carries and we I think that's it Dan right yes okay we'll move to the public
safety and I have no idea who's taking J okay uh item 8 a discussion regarding new oosha regulations this is regarding proposed update to OSHA cfr1 1910 which could create could create unfunded
mandates possibly creating burdens for DL fire department and city of Detroit leges and our illustrious Chief Hansen will elaborate I'll try and keep it pretty short so uh I put in the packet if you
price saw I made a b a letter from the TR fire department that you can read sent into Federal OSHA and then a pretty decent list of things that could possibly change that's a pretty small snippet of this 600 page revision to
191016 uh again we're just in the comment period right now so this how it's going to come out but I wanted to give bring it to you guys early enough because if it does come out like OSHA wants it to they're going to push it forward and it'll likely happen in the middle of our next budget year so
we need to be prepared for it but I'll go into it's seven kind of big points that we take away from it so first is going to be training competency standards so enhanced training requirements to ensure all members possess upto-date that's a big one upto-date Knowledge and Skills
reflecting the latest in Fire Safety Science and Technology refresher courses and competency evaluations will be mandated they currently are not we do our best meeting four times a month but we're going to have to meet more than that to meet those thresholds uh
equipment and technology is number two specification of modern uh equipment standards ensuring firefighters are equipped with state-of-the-art tools and protective gear including Advanced firefighting technology potential upgrades to our breathing apparatus
number three Incident Management System uh implementing a more robust incident command system to improve coordination communication during emergencies including detailed protocol protocols for incident reporting command structure and post incident
analysis health and safety protocols so strengthen our health and safety guidelines protect firefighters from the hazards associated with firefighting this covers physical fitness requirements mental health support and shares um exposure to hazardous materials recordkeeping and Reporting
more stringent record keeping and Reporting obligations to ensure compliance and enable um thorough analysis of fire activities including detailed logs of training equipment maintenance and incident reports number six integration of public fire services
to improve guidelines for collaboration between industrial fire brigades and Municipal services and then seven risk assessment and management comprehensive risk assessment procedures identify potential fire hazards within facilities and develop Target mitigation strategies and regular audits of all of these
things so again that's a really executive report of what is kind of coming down the line we as firefighters not in the face of progress but it's coming anyway so I just kind of wanted to give you guys an update on what is potentially come down
the PIP for the next few years question Chief any questions for chief Anon so there aren't different levels for the volunteer fire departments versus full police not currently okay so there's no dis motion
any needed J right uh 8 B consideration to approving the final payment for miky Johnson for the new police department uh this is a payment of 63,9 7299 which includes labor materials um
and the uh Public Safety Committee uh moves to recommend approval second motion been made seconded to approve the final payment on the new police department discussion mayor hi to reminded me I
should just add in there we are waiting for some more paperwork I guess from M ke Johnson so just it'll be contingent upon us getting the paperwork so I'll give you that's fine all in favor of the motion say I I I oppos motion
carries and we'll move to the liquor gambling control committee Aaron 9A we had a discussion regarding cannabis regulations we just want to make sure we're doing everything right so we got Charlie looking into it um else you want to that I think we'll be talking more
about it in July okay 9B is uh liquor store and gambling commission makes a motion to consideration cross trail L Chamber of Commerce for a sponsorship of the 4 of July fireworks 2019 we gave 1250 2021 we gave 4,000 2022 we gave
3,000 2023 we gave 3,000 and we all unanimously agreed that we should give $55,000 this year morehead's not having fireworks anymore so hopefully that'll bring more people to the tril area sounds good to me and that's a
motion that's a motion is there a second motion has been made and seconded to appe the requests for the fireworks of $5,000 in liquor fund discussion all in favor of the motion say I I oppos motion carries and Dan we have an 11a item yes
this is a city administrator item Kelsey you want to talk about before I try to take a s at it long version sure mayor and Council there is a grant agreement in the in the packet um related to our airport hanger project so
this is the second phase of federal funding needed to do the taxi Way Extension and the state Grant component includes our match for the taxi way and also funding of the actual slabs themselves for the two hangers and then there's our local map so that's the the
basis for a grant so the motion is consideration to a resolution authorizing a grant agreement with mot for the airport motion's been made seconded to adopt a resolution authorizing a grant agreement with mot for the airport discussion all in favor of the motion
say I I oppos motion carries I would like to recommend to the council that we appoint Nate Hunter to the sports arena Commission as the youth hockey representative and he is fulfilling the term vacated by judge severon whose term expires December of this year sove
second motion has been made seconded to appoint M Hunter to the arena commission discussion all in favor of the motion to say I I oppose motion carries and it looks like we're going to have an open house at City Hall on July
1st from 5:00 p.m. to 7 p.m. so hopefully all the council can be there and meet and greet all the folks that are going to come and look at our beautiful new facility and this will be the last time we have to meet here because we're going to be in our new
building in July Kelsey [Music] promise also tonight would have been Glory French's last council meeting which she's not feeling well this evening so we're going to have a little get together for her on the last day of
her employment ju like through and I think she's been with us for 16 years so also we had a in is this a surprise do I not see
anything at least I asked first the balance of the meetings for the year including the joint governance meetings the City Council meetings that are listed also uh filings will open on July 30th for uh
city council members and mayor for coming up here and that stays open until August 13th so anything else from the city staff that we need to take up this
evening we were do for a long time Aon anything more I have nothing your honor Dan I just want to thank Heidi for her work on the audit and getting clean AIT to CL back and i' also like to thank Kelsey for his Forward Thinking on the uh opening up a union
negotiations and uh some of that stuff because was a lot of moving pieces there on trying to see what how we could move that forward and then also the impacts of the rest of the employees Jackie uh just great job in public works I know with all the rain and uh Parks
partment we had this you know you're watching Facebook Buzz Boy that City dog park got hammered but uh with the rain dried up nice job thanks for taking care of that making the city look great mik nothing SE J nothing the
business of this city council has come to a conclusion [Music]