[Applause] real set. All right. Very good. Thanks, Patrick. All right. The time is 6:31. With us this evening is Kim Van Beck, Mike Roth, Patrick Knight, Michael Gary,
myself, Bill Loves, Ben Peterson, and Craig Schulty. And online is our city attorney. And I apologize it didn't quite get your name when you first said hello. My name's Gavin Kio. Hi. Thanks. All right.
And with that, we are ready for open forum. Is anyone here to speak at open forum, which I will clarify is not the same as the hearing portion of the meeting. All right. With that, I will close open
forum. We'll move on to the consent agenda. Um, if there are any questions or issues with that motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. Second. All right. Anything further.
Okay. Uh, all in favor? Approval of the consent agenda. I I Okay. And with that, we've passed the consent agenda. Um, first up on our list is Superintendent Chris Lynholm to speak
on the school referendum. Thanks for joining us this evening. Yeah, Mayor Benson and members of the city council, thank you so much for um giving us a few minutes just to make sure uh that we're doing our due our job as a district to inform people in the
community all throughout Cook County about uh what the proposed referendum is. My role at being here tonight uh is to be an information um deliverer. I'm here for facts. Uh I'm not here to advocate for or against uh the bond referendum as that would be um out of
line. So um with Patrick's help, we've got a few slides here. The the big uh outline here is is um how did we get here? What are the challenges that the proposed referendum are trying to address? And then what is the plan? And hopefully I can do that in about six,
seven minutes and then answer any questions that you have. So with that, thank you Patrick. Next slide please. Uh so uh as all of you know a year ago the district ran the bond referendum with three questions. Uh question one, which was the big one, $24 million did
pass. Um but questions two and three did not. And when that happened, the board um said, "Well, let's let's look at other funding options and ways to reduce the impact on our taxpayers to get some of the things that were in there um over
the finish line." And so, uh on November 4th, or actually, um because this is 100% mailin, probably sometime next week, all the residents in Cook County will get a mailed ballot. Uh and the ask or the the proposal is for a 6.6 65
million bond referendum. Questions two and three were upwards of over um like 13 million last time around. Uh so this has been shrunk down quite a bit in terms of the impact on taxpayers. Next slide please. The referendum being proposed is pretty
much focused on arts, activities, athletics and outdoor learning. Uh it's the position of the district that uh we know that activities be them in the theater, in the arts or in sports, they really connect kids to their peers and to community and make a big difference
in mental health, in learning about teamwork, in learning about confidence. Uh and and that does ultimately lead to improved academic success. Next slide, please. So, how do we get here? Uh in the last referendum starting back in
2023, uh the district worked through a significantly long needs assessment process where we studied the facilities uh educational adequacy, held multiple listening sessions with student, staff, and community members uh and um took a
look at how our facility meets the MDE standards for uh educational spaces. Next slide, please. uh and went to a referendum a year ago and as I already said uh the the first one of $24.17 million that first
question did pass. Uh that process is well underway and all of that work has gone out to bid as of about this week. Uh we just pushed out bids and expect to have bids back by November 5th. Since then we've worked to to look at other
funding sources. happy to share that the IT RB uh has put forth a a grant, a $5 million matching grant uh for this. So, uh we do not get the 5 million if the referendum fails. If the referendum passes, we get $5 million from the ITRB
and we're really grateful for for that match. The third bullet point up there is we also successfully were able to land a grant, an LCCMR grant uh that is focused on outdoor learning spaces. That will be f the final approval of that will be in the next legislative session.
Uh and then funding will become available uh at that point. That one is locked in. It's not a match. Next slide, please. So, the challenges looking to be addressed uh number one, the uh the AAC as we always refer to it or the Arrowhead Center for the Arts. Uh that
building that part of the building was built in 1998 and some things are just pushing 30 years old. Things like carpet and some of the lighting and some um uh there is no catwalk system and some of the rigging does need to be updated. Um and then also in their proposal is to
replace the lower seating in the auditorium with seating that would be more flexible for doing arrangements like theater in the round. And if you went to the theater this summer, you saw a performance that was a theater in the round. The difficulty with the current seating is that it's very labor
intensive to do that and there's much easier seating available now with modern uh manufacturing that um is on the want list for the AAC. So focus one is the the performing arts center. Next slide please.
The second focus uh is outdoor athletic facilities including uh the fact that we have a very successful track program with 70 to 80 students out in the last couple years uh and no track facility. Uh so uh the proposal is to put in a full track and field facility with long
jump, high jump, all the um events, discus, shot foot along with the track that would go around the football field. We currently can't use our varsity football field about 95% of the time in order to keep it in playable condition
for varsity football games and therefore our community ed kids use it very little. FID doesn't use it at all. Um it just sits empty most of the time. The proposal is to put in an artificial turf field that could be used seven days a week all the time by kids of all grade
levels. uh essentially gaining an additional field uh for all the activities that run through the school district. There's on the proposal some updates to the baseball field including some lighting, some seating, improved drainage. Uh and then um one great thing
about artificial turf is you can double up the purpose. So that field would serve not just track and field and football, but also girls softball. uh bringing the softball program a home field on school grounds um with lights
and all the things that um we would hope for our girls that are playing softball. Yeah. Next slide, please. Now, I'll move into the the the plan. Uh so, what are some of the solutions being proposed? Uh the $6.65 million bond
referendum married to the IT RB uh 5 million puts this project at just over 11 million. Uh and you can see here how it's being paid for on this pie chart. It's fun to point out that the proposal this time around uh homeowners in Cook
County would be paying about 28% of that with obviously almost half paid for by RB and about 20% seasonal recreational cabin owners. Next slide, please. If it passes, uh we would address some
of those uh recommendations for the um performing arts center, including rigging, catwalk, projection screen, uh and more flexible seating on the lower level. It would also, uh be an investment in outdoor learning spaces. Uh we've got a a garden in the back and some amphitheater type seating is in the
proposal to have classes go out there and do some learning and theater work. Uh and then another one um out in the school forest. Next slide, please. and an investment in a full track, a multi-use turf field, upgrades to the
baseball field, and then um inside that complex for the track and field and and field would be usable restrooms, bleachers that are ADA compliant, scoreboards and concession stands, uh that would have plumbing, and some of the things that we currently don't have
out there. If you've been on our on our football field, you know that you have to walk through grass and gravel all the way around the field to get to the bleachers and that's not ADA compliant or navigable by a wheelchair. And part of the intent is to make that more ADA compliant and customer friendly. Next
slide, please. You can just see here a visual uh that this is a highlight of the um the baseball field where that those improvements would take place. the track and field. You can see that uh a year ago it was proposed that there was a an additional parking lot in the back there. That's been removed. The
maintenance garage for the bus um bus maintenance garage. That part's been removed all to reduce the cost of this. Uh so what you see there on that track and field, that's where the current football field sits. It has to move to the east probably 30 yards just to
accommodate the track, you know, going around it. Um but a year ago that was actually moved about 40 50 yards to the east for a parking lot and that's now off the table. It's just basically using the same footprint um of the current football field.
Next slide. If the referendum fails, uh we lose the $5 million grant from my tripleB and the investments uh just simply get kicked down the road for a future date uh when things will likely be much more costly.
And I think that's about it. Next slide, Patrick. Um, tax impact. Yeah, let's talk about that. So, the $6.65 million bond referendum, if passed, uh, would cost homeowners about $4 per month for a $400,000 home.
So, essentially, you can do the math. It's about a dollar a month per $100,000 in value. So, a $300,000 house would be about $3 a month. A $500,000 house would be about $5 a month. By comparison, that was that that stuff was about $8 a month
a year ago because they didn't we didn't have the RB grant a year ago. Next slide, please. When did the ballots go out? They go out probably next week in the mail and they're due by election day, which is November 4th. Uh all of the information
about voting and and the project and the proposal and all of that is on vikingsvision.org, or the website that the QR code is for. Uh, and we invite the public and ask the public to look at that website, look at the information, and then if they have questions to submit questions through that site. I
think that's it now. I'm getting close to the end here. Yeah, we're getting close to the end. So, um, with that, I don't want to take up a bunch of your time, but my purpose here was to make sure people are informed and they know the facts about the referendum. So, are there any questions about it that I can
answer or about the process or anything like that? Yeah. Yeah. Chris, I was just wondering, I'm not familiar with LCCMR. That's the um Minnesota Lottery dollars that uh I don't know know the acronym off the top of my head. Citizen Commission for Community
Resources. Oh, something like that. All right. Yeah. And then they get like 400 proposals every year for their funding stream. And some of them are like 20 million. Some of them are and ours is very small at a quarter. Yeah. Million. Um but yeah, it's a state
lottery dollars. Okay. Pot of pot of money. There you go. Great. And what is the I mean what do we expect in terms of longevity for the the field for the astroturf? Yeah, it has to be
replaced on a on a cycle like you would expect. Um, average is 15 to 20 years if it's cared for well. Um, there are annual processes in order to keep putting more material down and, you know, taking care of it. Um, that said, the labor to take
care of an artificial turf is like 20% the labor of taking care of a natural turf. Um, so there are pros and cons and when you look at that kind of math, so you've got a replacement schedule every 15 to 20 years. Um, the good news is the replacement schedule. You're just
replacing the turf. You're not replacing the whole base and the infrastructure of all of that as long as you take care of it well. It's very popular in north north northern Minnesota because of our seasons and snow and the ability to plow it. We figure we'll gain about a month on playable time for our softball
players. Um because right now we ship them to other places with artificial turf and to play in that first month of the season. Gotcha. Anything else? Thank you. Yeah. Appreciate your time. Thank you. If I can be of any help answering
questions, you know where to find me. So, all right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um Oops. I went too far. One second. Oh, no. I'm in the right spot. All right. Next
up is the notice of hearing on the third street improvement. And this is simply a hearing. It's the public's opportunity to give voice to this potential project. This is not a time of decision making. It's a time for the public to speak.
Anyone would like to let's start with a little you want to give us background while it this is the um origin of this plan. We're looking at the block now on Third Street
between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue. And you can see there's a small green and a small blue line there, which is utilities being proposed to be extended on Third Street, one block from 6th Avenue to 7th
Avenue. Most of that extension is something that's already included in a project that John Peters is planning on doing and that we have a development agreement with him to do. So, most of these utilities will be installed by
him. Uh the council's question was then do we want to do the rest of the block as long as we've got this much done and then back in time we had already been talking about does third street need to be widened and improved to accommodate
existing traffic but then also potential new development that is being proposed there. So, new utilities um really these utilities will be designed to serve uh whoever might need to connect to them.
There will be service connections for that block between 6th and 7th Avenue, potentially on both sides of the street, but definitely on the north side of the street and then ready to connect to 7th Avenue West going north from there when
those properties are looking to be developed. Um that's the extent of the utilities. So the utilities aren't going further than that. And what was the distance we calculated extending it from the end of Peter's project to 7th above? We asked that,
right? About um $35,000 more dollars to do that. I meant distance. Sorry. Was it like a third of the distance? Yes. Maybe 70 80 more feet of utilities.
And 30,000. Is that what you just said? Yeah. And I'm going to join the meeting again. Doesn't like me sharing. You want me to kick you? I've only got one tab open with this on
it, but I can see myself sharing still. Yes, please do. This feasibility report was what the council ordered in response to the original Bjorkberg project. And when the question was asked, do we need to improve Third
Street regardless of whether that project moves forward? This is what we received. I'm not going to read it for you, but I will just skip to the most important parts, which is
it's this entire area from 6th to 8th Avenue. We know that the pavement that's there now is 14 to 16 ft wide. It's not a very nice base. Um there's rock in you can see rock in a number of areas. There's no curb and
gutter or any drainage features of any variety on it. It perfectly acceptable for a rural doesn't connect anything driveway type road, but if it's going to be used for traffic of any amount, it's really not designed for that.
So, these two blocks would propose to widen the street 20 to 22 feet, put curb and gutter on the south side of the road, not the north side. The existing road. And if you look at 8th Avenue, which is the lower left hand corner of
this picture, you can barely see, but I think you are all familiar with and since you're neighbors, that there's a curb cut on 8th Avenue that's quite a bit wider than the pavement is. And the pavement is really snug down on the
south curb cut and has to be uh 20 feet away from the north curb cut in some places. So the widening at least on the 8th Avenue side would occur on this north side of the road, not the south side. The southside line would probably
stay where it is. The north side would be widened until it's about 22 20 to 22 feet wide. The road does creep just a touch north as you get to 6th Avenue. So it's possible that the widening will be a little bit on both sides. Then the
utilities that are extending from sixth to 7th are all going to be on the north side of that road. Um so one of the things that'll happen is that some of those trees will have to be removed in order to put the utilities in. And I'm sure that some of the trees between seventh and eth would also need to be
removed in order to accommodate the widening. We're not talking about necessarily um changing the way that the road lays on the ground a lot, but we don't have construction details yet because we haven't asked our engineers to prepare that. That would be
significant expense to move forward with that. And then we'll just share one more thing. this $100,000 estimate. Oh, you're not seeing this. Let's see if I can get it
to do it. Did I boot you again? No. I'm going to try one more thing. The other part that I'm sure everyone's really excited about is the assessment. We did say we would offer a proposed
assessment amount. I have to tell you, and I'd be happy to share these numbers, but I intend to change them a number of times during this meeting, too. So don't don't get attached to any of this yet that it's really difficult to determine what the appropriate assessment ought to
be for this. So we've got about a $240,000 project. of that 35,000 is utilities that's serving not necessarily anyone right now uh but
could be used to serve everybody that's in the vicinity of that 3rd Street 7th Avenue intersection and then the rest of the project is just pavement improvements and curb and how much of that do we assess? So a question someone might ask and I'll just go ahead and
assume someone will tonight is what's your policy on assessing these sorts of things? We don't have one for this type of project. This is really a one-off that's different than other projects we've assessed. In the past, we've assessed anywhere from
30 to 80% of pavement improvements. And it depends on how much those improvements are changing the existing conditions, how many property owners are affected by it. In this case, there are um a big chunk of project costs that you
don't see in this 240,000 because they're being borne by Peters and his development directly. So, a lot of the cost for that first block between sixth and 7th isn't being paid for by anyone other than John. Um the rest of it
though is up to 244,000. How much of that do we assess? And just to give you an idea of what effect that has on properties, if we decide to assess 25% of that, that means the city share is $183,000. And the remaining share, there's not a
lot of properties there to assess it towards. So, if we just do front footage of the properties that we sent notice to, this is everyone that's on third street between 6th and 8th and also two additional properties on 7th
Avenue. We're talking about assessments in the 8 to $16,000 per property, but three of the properties owned by one person. So that's actually more like 25,000
if we This is going to be tricky. If we get rid of the properties on 7th Avenue, you can see even assessing 20% of it, 25% of it just based on front footage, we've got a $20,000 assessment for the
Hayes, a $30,000 assessment for the Dawkins, and an $11,000 assessment for the Smiths. So, significant numbers for an improvement of this street. for folks that really all three of those already have street access, utility
access, other services. And that's at 25% and 183 for us. So, it's really hard for me to say this is what I recommend because I don't have any way to tell you what makes sense here. That's as much as we know about the project.
On your view screen on the lower right, can you make go closer? Will that percentage enlarge your screen view? I think I could do that. Slider maybe not down below. What makes this extra complicated is
these are all properties that have development potential, which doesn't mean the owners have any interest in accessing that development potential right now. Hopefully they'll share that with us when they do come up to speak. Uh but when we do special
assessments, we need to make the case that the assessment actually improves the property value. And unfortunately, I think we can make that case in in most of these lots that the addition of the utilities and the
improvement of the street makes a portion of their undeveloped properties much more developable. um potentially developable right now, whereas there wouldn't be without these improvements. So, I think now would be an appropriate
time to turn it over to our neighbors who we invited to the meeting and see if they have anything that they want to say to us. So, let's clarify where exactly are the utilities going.
They'll go from 6th Avenue West to 7th Avenue West. And then backing up, you have names up there that aren't on Third, right? When we send a notice out, we have to notify anyone we might potentially
assess. Yeah, I know that. But I'm just looking at um the assessments will only be towards those people who have property along third. That's what I'm showing on this table
right now. Okay. The $35,000 of additional utility extension. I think the reason why we might talk about assessing people on Seventh Avenue is if we were ever going to put utilities up Seventh Avenue, that would be required, that that extra
$35,000 work would be required. As a matter of fact, the only reason we would do that extra $35,000 of utility work would be so that we could go up 7th Avenue and access those properties. So, you're saying for $35,000 we can
finish going up sixth or up half of that second lot and all the way up to the top of seventh. Nope. I'm saying we we can't even start seventh without spending the 35. So the 35 gets us from 2/3 of the way to that
intersection to all the way to that intersection. To the intersection. Yep. And you've made this table flexible. Yeah. So you can look at it from different angles. Yeah. Yeah. because we this is a a hearing
and we have not made any decisions and there's options about how this can be done. So, this is just to illustrate different ways to slice and dice this, I guess. Right. I have a question. Maybe
couple hundred years too late, but how much if you show show that picture of the the lots the I don't know if that's Google Earth or whatever. Is that a Google Earth picture
of the lots? Yeah. How many cubic yards of fill can a land owner put into a piece of land to make it buildable within the city limits of Grammar Ray? Do we have a rule of thumb or we don't have a rule? We don't have any guidelines. We have a number that if
if the threshold is exceeded, a person needs to have an erosion control plan, but it's a big number. Very there's not a limit. Okay. So, did any of these properties require an erosion control plan before they got
filled in? Mhm. We'll definitely have time for more questions, but I do think we should turn it over. I just wanted to clarify that to the public if they have any they want to make. [Applause] Y'all probably know, but I'm John Haye
and we own property from 7th Avenue 8th Avenue on Third Street. Um, guess I just have a couple of questions, but maybe this isn't the time. Um, we own
because we own between seventh and 8th. Would we also be assessed going for the property going up seventh potentially? I think that's on the table. So, when we do assessments on corner lots, we typically only assess
for one of the distances. Um, because we're not doing improvements on seventh right now. Um, would there be some amount of improvement that you would get if utilities are brought up seventh? So, for sure that remnant piece
that's above the alley, for instance, is big enough to be developed if there's water and sewer connected to it. Sure. And so I'm sure there would be an assessment discussed for that improvement as well. Okay.
And my understanding is also that the widening of the street in front of our house would be to the north. Mhm. Is there potential blasting that would have to take place to do that? There's no plans for doing any blasting
for for the street. I'm sure they'll do blasting for the water and sewer on the block east of you. Um I think we'll probably try to do something cheaper than blasting like filling for instance to make the street work
uh going north. And yeah, there's uh the original plan, this original plan, see if I can find the cost estimate. I think it's down below. included an amount for modular block retaining wall.
There's $15,000 in this number to do retaining wall. So, I think the concept was rather than blast and dig into the rock, it would be fill and potentially have to retain in some spots on the south side.
And one other question I have is what what's going to happen to our driveway? When we do road improvements, uh existing driveways get uh put back the way they were. There won't be any curb and gutter on the north side. So they'll just be uh
first we got to figure out elevations, what would have to happen there, but it'll get put back so that it works. So it's still drivable. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions or
comments this evening? Okay, I guess we're good then. Yeah. So, this is the improvement hearing. Your next step, council, is talk about this and at some point decide whether or not
you want to continue this process or not. continuing the process would be in ordering the improvement. And so if we're going to move that direction, we don't have to do that tonight. We'll bring a resolution to a future meeting that says the things it needs to say in order to order the improvement. But that
means we're going to hire an engineer to do the real design. We're going to go out and seek bids for the work. So the next step is more resources are going to get spent on this at a higher rate than we've done so far. And the next decision
after that that you would make is whether or not you'd accept the bids and hire the contractor. All right. Thanks everyone. Thanks Mike. together that Excel spreadsheet will be useful to be able to play around and move
numbers efficiently and look at things depending on where all this goes. But anyways, appreciate that being something you can kind of plug and play. Yeah, I would we would like to do it right now. I wasn't prepared for that, but what are we doing?
What? What are we doing? Well, I need some feedback before we can figure out how to move forward on assessments. And I think we probably need to give as much clarity as we can to the folks that are affected about what our intentions are. So, if we don't
know yet, that's okay. But if if there's a way for us to explore that and give some direction to staff and to the neighbors, be good. I'd like to I I'd be fine if you guys
want to spend a little time looking at this, but before I'd want to do anything, I'd want to sit down, have something to actually read and think about. I mean, I wouldn't be ready personally to say much this evening, but anyways, if you guys want to spend some
time looking at that spreadsheet, whatever. Is that helpful? Yeah. Is that a good ask more questions? Well, I would just, you know, just point out that just given the few amount of properties affected by this project that that 25% does seem at the at the
appropriate to me for some reason. 25% cost sharing seems like a good that we're going to add some some great value to that neighborhood for relatively low cost at 25% of this project cost.
Um, I think part of it is still like who would be involved, right? Which property the part of it is deciding, you know, like you said a percentage, but then that your sheet shows who do we actually
include on this and that makes a difference to get to the final numbers as well, right? On all of that. And I know earlier is the the piece of John Peters a fixed
piece within that or is there still some play in in how that works too? No, there's he at this point there's the the lot by 7th, but then there's still a separate property owner for the lot to the right,
but that street improvement is both lot across both lots or just it's hard to say without the map. Yeah, I think across both lots. I think it's it is across both lots. But so then you have one person's
work affecting one lot they own and one lot they don't own. Right. I guess I mean that's saying that right? I don't think it's quite that black and
white but yeah that's that's right. and and uh I didn't include Peters on this spreadsheet at all because any amount that if we took his costs for his project and included him in here and then tried to figure out a way to divide
it per foot, there isn't any way we would do it where he would pay more than he's currently going to be paying based on the project that he has in front of him. So that's why I think it makes more sense to just take the work that he's already agreed to do out of the number
and then not assess his properties for the rest of the work. And he ends up paying a much higher share than than anybody else. His number is going to be over $100,000, probably quite a bit more. And it's fixed in a sense that the scope of his project is fixed, but the price is not fixed. We don't have any
bids yet. And he's responsible for whatever that price ends up being. That's what our development agreement says with him. Does that I guess that would be his agreement that we would not be aware of. But so getting back to the two lots, right?
He's assuming at this point in that agreement for all of that improvement, but one of those properties are still not his. Is there anything there that could alter that and make that
but maybe maybe that's something we're not aware of. I don't know if does that question make sense because he's so maybe it doesn't matter because either way he's taking all that cost or whatever happens with that other lot. So
we don't so it doesn't really it doesn't matter at all. Okay. Yeah. And when you say his cost is higher, are you really um just considering the cost right against the road, not up into the
lots? Right. Just the part that's in the public space. Space. Yeah. Okay. I think we saw that in his development or in some we saw his numbers. I think it was interest 100,000.
The original estimate was 100,000. Yeah. Yeah. I think that the there might be a slightly higher Sure. estimate. I know he's gone out and see numbers with with contractors to do the work. I don't have those in front of me, but Right. It it's a lot.
Yeah. and and uh you know ours is still just an estimate too. We haven't gone out and and had any bids on this. So and just to I think we all get it. But just to clarify and in an earlier proposal there was a set dollar amount
that he was willing to contribute but that is not a factor in how this goes now. Just to say that publicly now right now now it's going to go up or down depending on probably up. Well, that project didn't happen,
right? But I just mean if people, you know, just so there's no confusion, you know, that that was that's from an earlier, as you said, didn't withdrew. So, okay. Well, how how about some um hopefully easier questions? Is anyone interested
in not doing this the ent the project? Yeah. Just Okay, we've learned enough. This is a bad idea. Let's stop now. Well, as of right now, I'm not interested in doing it because I got a lot of questions, okay, about stuff that I don't know if we can
answer it here or if I need to um do a little research on a few things, but I would be one that would say no right now simply because I'm not quite understanding the assessments
and I have a little bit of difficulty trying to wrap my head around how these assessments are going to add value to everybody's property that's in here. I can see where it's going to add value to some. I don't think it's adding value to
others. Well, that's your decision to make for sure. That's my question. I mean, this is a the adding value. There is a legal test. I'm sure there's evidentiary process, but in the end, well, I understand that, but it's up to you to decide too what there's some people are going to benefit greatly from this, some people that aren't. And if you want to continue
water sewer up seventh, there's people that are going to benefit from that. But those prices are definitely going to change because I hate seeing maps that don't show elevations. And this is what we look at all the time is maps with no elevations. And when you start talking about retaining walls and those kinds of
things, I know a land owner that called me today and wants to know how his land is going to be affected if the roaded is raised. And I said, I don't know. I don't have those answers. Yeah, you may have to add fill on your land to
be able to access the road, which I don't know. So, that's a question I have. Those are questions I have about how the road is going to shake out in the development process in the repaving process. And the price of the answer is
to hire the engineer to do the design. All right. The 35,000 additional for utilities is the reason why we talked about 7th Avenue West being included in this assessment at all because the purpose of
that extension is to reach 7th Avenue so that it could potentially be improved in the future. So, it's a bit of a logical stretch right now to say that the 7th Avenue properties are currently
being improved by this. Potentially though, in the future, they are that to do this work now saves them a lot of effort and money rather than wait until they're ready and come back and dig up a road and and add these features. So there is some future value
and maybe something that we could uh defer on an assessment to future if those projects happened on 7th Avenue. So there's a possibility of doing something like that. The other part of it is there is an IT RB grant
application right now for some of the utility work that's going to be done. we're not a participant in it, but if we are interested, like we're sure we want to do that extra work, then we should be a participant in it and we should be up
at the tripb offices advocating for it and asking for a small piece of it. Yeah. And would that be for that extension to seventh? Yeah. Okay. Does that sound right, Jeeoff? Yeah, that's accurate. Okay.
Everybody knows Jeff Jeff Brand HR director and knowing the position on that sooner rather than later would be important like tonight would be a good time to know do we want to move down that direction and talk to IT RB about
utility extensions. I mean I think so. I mean, if we're just talking that last bit there, because I do think there's that potential future development maybe up seventh there, that would be is kind of where this all started from. Like it's like almost there. Like why don't we just go to
seventh, you know, and have that as a potential and then we can assess when that comes. I mean, we can pay for it now as a city and know that, okay, when these properties develop,
this would be part of that assessment of putting those utilities up will include paying for some of that that we already did to bring it to seventh to begin with. I think that's fair. Well, the road doesn't work for us anymore, right?
Oh, right. I mean, and so that's what started the like, right? We're not going to rip the road up and we know some people want to plug in and we know we want housing and so like we we know we got to do the utilities now. So and if half of its block is being done
the other half is like like okay. Yeah. So to me I'm I'm I'm full I'm in like I want I think we should do the work. Yeah. I mean I think I think the road does need improving. I mean, I know
we've gone over and looked at the whole map and we've looked at all the other places in town that could also be improved and all that kind of thing, but here is the project that is before us and we've spent a lot of time talking about this and you know if if we're talking about
getting utilities to seventh and that's what we're talking about and we're going to tear up the road anyway. seems like, yeah, let's let's just do that and let's see if we can get some triple RB money to help out with that. I mean, that's
not our biggest expense and and it, but it's still still pricey. My two cents. Do you have some thoughts, Phil? Yeah, I think the only reason we're talking about this is because of Peters.
I hear zero support from the neighborhood and the town for doing anything. The road is perfectly fine the way it is, the way it has been, unless you're trying to accommodate petters.
I did actually sit down with one of the homeowners there uh the other year and they did ask us and urge us to widen that road. This wasn't about utility conversations, right? to widen the road because as we
know it is not a two-lane pass or twocar passable road and they felt sitting there watching the increase of people walking and traffic they thought that something needed to be done. So I mean
that's an informal it's not a formal and I understand your your point too about like the timing of it right and at very early stages during the peters conversation maybe it was the first planning and zoning we heard from many
people in the area that says this road is inadequate it's insufficient for any development you can't put you know I don't I don't want to put a petter's name on it or a docking name on it or whoever owns it in a 100 years name on it. But we have a responsibility that's
been our part of the comprehensive plan that says we infill lots. We want to support infill, right? We don't want to expand infrastructure yet, but we do want to take care of these lots and maximize their potential or at least pave the way to do that. You could argue
you don't want to do that anymore, but that's currently the way we see it. And um so I understand your point. Yes, it coincided with a development that a potential development, but if it wasn't this one, it's going to be one 5 years
from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now. Yeah. And it is difficult passing. It just is. I drive on it every day and
got to be watchful. I mean, I said this before, so it's nothing new. Personally, I love it just the way it is. I like walking my dog by there, but I totally get it. It doesn't work and it's not fair to anyone in the community when they can't pass a car and
there's just enough rise in that hill. If it was level and you could see, but there's just that angle. Um, especially coming, you mean coming down to Yeah, when you come down and whatever, you don't quite see below there. So anyways
um and I think the utilities is like an you know has become an after thing with where things are standing now you know at the latest whatevers I just I guess I said that enough too. It just seems like an efficient use of
time and energy and you know things are going to get developed there. There's things already um up toward the top of the hill that have been in the works for some times. There's now been conversation from people that would are are um back in
behind and up on six with interest. Um so it would seem I guess like what you're saying Ben that um we we can't pretend that there is an interest um from a variety of people in things
happening in that area. Um and the if you are living in there you this is a small step but how many times are you going to be you know have your neighborhood in kind of a
chaotic buildings going on and maybe this is one small way of kind of condensing some of some of that bit of it. I don't know. So, did that give you any direction?
Yeah, it did. It's helpful. Um, I don't know if it was helpful for everybody else, but what I think the next appropriate step is is I'm going to go talk to MSA who does have construction plans for Peter's part of a project and talk to them about what it would take to
expand that into the whole project. and we'll be able to come to the next meeting with that information, a timeline and a price for what that would take and also maybe some answers about some of the questions Craig that you might have about design. We may already have some answers because of the work
that they did on the peters portion of the project in terms of what are the grades look like. Uh the other thing is I'll work with Jeff to talk about what the IT RB situation is, what we might need to do
to update that application and become a a part of it and an advocate for it. Okay. Um why do I have it in my memory that this earlier conversation did we offer the LHB plans to MSA or didn't we?
Yeah, the LHB plans are what we're looking at. You know, when we saw that drawing, the picture, that's about the level of detail that the design is. They made some assumptions about the amounts that they need to use just based on uh
elevation drawings that we have, but not they didn't survey. They didn't go out and actually do a buildable design. So, there's that's there's really none of that that MSA can use to to do the work. They they could use it to come up with cost estimates. But
that's what I say. They I thought we did that so because he came back with those estimates. Yep. Yeah. Okay. And the number that we're talking about this 240ome thousand is mostly using LHB's cost estimate
for the project because the work that MSA did estimating John's didn't include a lot of this. Didn't include the the curb and gutter on the south side. Didn't include some of this pavement work. So I what we did to come up with that number was take LHB's number, remove
half the curb and gutter and add the utilities that MSA told us to add at about 35,000. Now when when when John Peters does that section of the street, does that then not include that
the south half with the It wouldn't touch all of it. Yeah, it would his work would not have to dig up all of that street. So it wouldn't affect gut or whatever the gutter the curb the curb gutter down. Yeah. Great. That
would then that little side half of it would be part of the city's Well, now keep in mind one of your development agreement um contingencies was we're only going to do this if we figure out how to coordinate our projects, which we don't have figured out yet. I
don't think there's any reason to think we won't. We'll we'll be able to coordinate these projects. We just don't have that strategy selected yet. For instance, will we hire one contractor only? Will that contract be with the city only? That we we just need to sort through
some of those details to make sure that he pays for the share that he's agreed to pay for and that we minimize the logistical complications so that it's as easy as it can be for the neighborhood and it's as cheap as it can be mobilized one time.
Yeah. How many streets do we have in Gram that have curbon gutter on one side? I'm not sure I can think of any. I don't think we have any. So, I'm Yeah,
that's another thing that's been bothering me. If we're going to fix up Third Street, we're only kind of doing half of it. I mean, you know, we're doing it because of costs, obviously. Right. That's the reason. Yeah. Right. But how does not putting curbon gutter on the north side, how does it
affect Mr. He's 270 ft as far as soil erosion cuz we're going to be cutting into his city right away. I understand that.
That's also on a solid rock that goes that that continually goes up. Those are a lot of considerations that I think anybody who's looking at doing this project needs to especially engineer Yeah. needs to look at how that's going to look,
how it's going to affect, you know, those are the things. I mean, we're all sitting here going, "Yeah, do it, do it, do it, do it." But I think these numbers are way off. But that's my opinion because there's a reason why nothing's been done in there for 100 years because it's all solid
rock. And that's pretty much everybody knows it. Dwayne knows it. You know it, Steve Dawan knows it. As a matter of fact, I think there was somebody else that was a land owner in there that came down in 2000 a few years
ago to talk about it and realized it was all rock. So, they didn't move ahead with their project either. So anyway, I'm just trying to look ahead at what's going to be coming down the pike. And I don't want to get thousands and thousands of thousands of
dollars into this before we realize that this maybe isn't a good thing for everybody. It might be good for Peters because he's willing to pay to put in his if he wants to pay to put in his sewer and water, that's fine. That's his money, right? But now it's starting to
affect other people's pocketbooks, too. And what do they benefit from it? So I want to make sure that they benefit from it, you know, in the long run. In the short run and the long run, right? Well, I think that's a fair
conversation to have, too, because when we did remove the curb and gutter from the north side, the whole concept was we got to cut this price down. Uh I don't know that we had significant assessments on the table at that time.
and now we do. So maybe we need to think about putting it back in or just talking to the neighbors about would they be willing to pay just a little bit more to have that curb and gutter in. Um
I mean it it was 15$20,000 more to put the curbing gutter in on the north side. So and was that for the entire length from six to eight? Okay. Well, I think Craig's other point to money
aside is also the most important is and when we talked about this on the earlier potential development on the upper side there is what does happen when water runs down and there's no curbon gutter and And it's just and that's kind of
part of what you're getting at, right Craig? Is then all that's just running into that street. There's no gutter. I mean, that would happen that what happens right now, right? There is no curbon gutter there. There's a lot of runoff that just goes onto that street. I think the reason we wanted to put it
on the south side because we saw an opportunity to actually make an improvement in the neighborhood particularly for the block below Third Street to try and catch some of that water and divert it over into the gutter on 6th Avenue. Yeah. And so primarily that's the direction it
will go. Well, I think eventually if you don't put carbon gutter on it this this round, you're going to be doing it at some point in time because as soon as those lots on fourth get developed. Yeah. Um that's on a hill. That water only has
one place to go and that's down the hill to eventually third. Yeah. Like even the first set, right? Like even the first side development up is going to influence well the first the pet's development is going to influence the water runoff
going down by sixth but the other developments potentially will impact you know that part of third that stretches to seventh. Mhm. Yeah. And then everything below seventh is on a downgrade.
Yep. So you're everything below third I mean is a downgrade. Everything goes down. Yeah. Right. The 7th Avenue between third and fourth probably never gets built all the way. I mean, that's really steep at the top.
And it wouldn't surprise me if when those lots do develop that the vehicle access for the stuff on top of those blocks is just Fourth Street. There wouldn't be a connection. But it may it still makes sense to bring the utilities up Seventh. But I don't think there's going to be a direct
street connection there where runoff would come straight down that block. It's still going to get it's going to have to go across those lots. It's one of the things that we don't get when we do the development this way where we're putting the utilities in and then the private land owners are doing
their own thing is we don't get that storm water management plan that actually is has to think about those questions and build ponds for them. Well, or not, but potentially once all if all this gets developed like you you
saw the pictures, right? You saw the fill. You saw all the fill that's going in up there. And at some point in time, that's going to be maybe houses. It's going to be roofs, shingles, and black top. Maybe, maybe not. That water has to go somewhere. Yep. So, if we don't plan for it or look at
it or even think about it, um it highly impacts those people who are on the bottom end of that, you know, eventually maybe unless we unless it's handled correctly. So, I don't know. I'm just looking at
because I read what Julie Julie Carlson had sent a letter and I think she wanted that read tonight. But did you see that? Did uh I I apologize. She wanted to be at the meeting, but she wanted her letter read. Yes, she did. And um yeah, that was
partially my boooo because I thought it was for your planning commission. Oh, be happy to read it right now. So, yeah. So, that would be perfect. Hello, mayor, city councilors, and city administrator. I may not be able to attend the council meeting if I'm not present. Read the letter. I received notice from
the city administrator concerning the hearing. The notice was received in a timely manner which is appreciated. However, the notice uh in the letter sent via USPS and printed at incorrect avenues. This is true. It said 7th Avenue East instead of west.
She's attaching her letter. Um, I'm writing to formally object to any consideration the council may have to assess 7th Avenue West between third and fourth street for the benefit of properties on Third Street between 6th and 8th. The properties on 7th Avenue West do not benefit from these
improvements. Serious concerns should be raised regarding the fairness of the city's assessment process. Assessments are generally justified on the basis of benefit to the properties charged. Below are my questions. What is the reason for the city to propose assessing properties
that are not directly benefited by the improvements? Why isn't the project including the section from Fifth Avenue West to 6th Avenue West? What is the city's definition of benefit in this context? And how does it apply to properties on 7th Avenue West? How is
the proposed assessment consistent with other special assessments within the city? If benefited properties are not assessed, how do you justify special assessments in the future? Should property owners who have paid special assessments in the past request a refund? I'm not opposed to special assessments.
I think the property owners adjacent to Third Street where improvements are to be made should be assessed. Equal dollar amounts per linear foot of ownership. Improvements benefit and add value to the properties on Third Street. I would like water, sewer, and road brought to my property on 7th Avenue West. If that
were to happen, I would expect to be assessed for the improvements benefiting my property. Okay, thanks for that reminder. Was were there any others that needed to be read? There was one other that we sent out to folks. No one said please read this at
the meeting, but you all got Oh, yeah. Yeah. Also wasn't included in the proposed assessed properties. So, I don't think we were ever talking about assessing properties above Fourth Street, for instance. Yeah. We did hear from the owner of the garage
on 7th Avenue that they're not interested in utilities or assessments. Mike, we talked about this earlier and I was assured that we would not be special assessing these people on third for this project. When the council had a work
session, I don't remember how many months ago, but a number of months ago, that was the question that was asked at that time. Are we going to do assessments? And the council's position at that time was no. And that's changed. You still have not decided to do assessments,
right? I was We're just continuing this conversation about assessments because if you want that to be an option, you have to continue the conversation. Yeah. And I think that was it is I think that we hadn't concluded 100% like we do want to assess, but we needed to
continue the conversation to have this kind of this meeting in order for that to be a possibility. And I think there was a time where the council specifically said, "No, we're not interested in assessments." Yes. No, that is Yeah. That's Yeah.
Anything else then for that piece of it? I'm trying to remember. Did you ask us one more question too? I Oh, you started. You said this is where I'll start with this qu. Did you have others you wanted to anything? I got the feedback that I want. So, I already explained what I think the next
steps should be, what I'm intending to do if that makes sense to people. We'll come back to your next meeting and with more information about what the design process and price will be and then also hopefully some more information about the IT RB grant.
Great. Um and then would this look then as Craig has suggested um looking at curbon gutter on the north side then
or is that something that I mean just an element we would know how to price that into or what or is that too much too much in the weeds of what we're you need right now? Uh I think that it's not in the weeds at all. we have the information about what
curbon gutter costs as much as we do on the south side on the north side. So it's it's more of a strategy question. Do you want to continue to minimize the cost of this project or do you want to consider adding back some of the
features of it? Okay. to the north side also, you know, is part of it John Patter is taking in in his property. And would that be something then that we would be making if we went this direction, we'd
be making that a requirement he was going to do it anyways or how does that fit into all of this curbon gutter on the north side? Yeah. Was that already something he was going to do with his? Would it be something we would say as a requirement of that work?
Um, I mean there would be no point to this if it didn't go all the way across, right? Or I I mean I totally understand where you're coming from, Craig, on the dealing with with runoff. One of my concerns about putting curb on the north side of this road is we maybe aren't
done widening it yet at 20 ft, particularly if a lot more units get built. And you know, our our narrowest street that we have in the city with curb gutter on both sides is 24 feet. And people don't like that street
because it's pretty narrow. Uh 28 feet's okay on First Avenue West, 32 feet. We've got some 30foot streets, Second Avenue or Second Street West of 8th Avenue. So there are examples out there of other curb on both side roads, but
none of them are this narrow. And so it might be that we want to just give ourselves an ability to widen it in the future, too. And I don't know whether that's feasible or not until we really get the engineers in there looking at it. So the proposal here is 20. Yeah.
Okay. Basically from the edge of the black top that's currently there on the south side. Yeah. Okay. So, we're talking about widening that pavement five or six feet in some places, two or three feet in others,
but maintaining a straight line to Yeah. the dump trail. A straight line. Uh, normally when we would build a road, we would try to center it in the rightway and make it perfectly straight, right? In this case, I think we'll give that up
and instead it'll be on the south. It'll be it'll be centered. It'll be south of centered and we may not try to make it perfectly straight. We probably will try to maintain that edge as much as possible or just give whatever their land will give us in terms of where's
the easiest 20 ft to go here. Well, at least so some land owners that are present here have some idea of what it might look like. They can measure and take a look at what it's going to how it's going to affect their property if it goes forward. So,
Well, that's an interesting concept to say that curbon gutter might be something left for later if it requires even greater widening. Which then brings me to a whole another conversation just like this sometime in the future, right? Yeah. When you think you're being efficient
and trying to get something kind of done, um it kind of Well, we are getting something kind of done. Yeah, kind of. But it kind of eats away at that. Yeah, I mean, it's still an improvement. Potentially. Okay. Yeah.
All right. Thanks everyone for asking really good questions. And a lot of this we did talk about a while ago and you think about it in the moment and you're kind of in the details and then you're not again and then you're back again. So,
Anything else done on that night? No. And then maybe some like I know Ben said the 25% but maybe then some I mean I know your spreadsheets super quick to flip around and change numbers.
But maybe just for our next convers there's some some sample ones that we can stare at. Sure. I can send some out. Yeah. to see how it maybe once you have better numbers. Is that the way to Well, we're not going to have better
numbers anytime soon. Okay. So, taking the numbers that we have. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, you might you might have more information on our triple RB and what that buy down would look like. Yeah,
it's just the the expense side that we don't No, the next improvement will be going out for bid, right? Every week we'll know a little bit more. All right, thanks everyone. Uh, next up is the planning commission's
report on resolution 2025-12, Mueller conditional use. Do I look at you? Sure. Okay. Uh we had a meeting of the planning and zoning commission um and yeah we had a pretty uh robust
conversation I think um about this property um I think everybody would be familiar with it coming up fifth there and um I think the the
discussion or where at least myself and Commissioner Johnson kind of a little bit hung up and wanted to have more of a conversation was uh the there's, you know, part of the the findings, you know, is a a desirable pattern of
development. And, you know, we're looking at a property that has gone from being a home to being a rental and now we're talking about making a short sale. And so, of course, in some ways, it's like, okay, wait a minute. you know, we
know that that's not really the direction we want to go generally speaking. Um, but then in further conversation, it also says a desirable pattern of development for the area. So
looking where this property is, what other properties are around it, um what's been happening there. I mean it is, you know, in a pretty great location to have a short stay and um so there's
no denying that piece like that seemed pretty um compelling ultimately. And if we look at the rest of our findings, I mean, certainly, does it fit into the neighborhood? Yes, obviously it does. Um, you know, you know, is it
compatible? Yes. You know, it just it kind of hit all the all the buttons. That was the one area where we, you know, Commissioner Johnson and myself were a little bit um uh hesitant, but in the end, it does seem like that's
still a good a good use of of that property. and at at our meeting um it did not I get into the minutes but one of the neighbors um was there and didn't he didn't make any statement but he lives right next door and and we were
all saying well we're a little ambivalent and he said he's ambivalent too. Um so he wasn't strongly one way or another and kind of just threw in his two cents that way and um he didn't make any firm statement to give his name or any of that kind of thing. So that's why
it was not included, but for your knowledge, that's kind of how that went. Um anyway, um Ben, do you have more to add to that? I don't. I think you summarized it pretty well. Um I think it in the end, yeah, there was some good conversation
and you know, of course, everybody's got their own, you know, take on um you know, housing in general and what that looks like and you know, the zone. Um Stacy made some good comments about like
being mixed use, but she didn't really understand the mix, right? Like what's the desired mix and um how does you know that might be a fun conversation to get into at some other point, right? So it in the end it just came down to hey does
it meet the criteria for what this what the allowed use is by condition and um does it does it check all of our boxes? And it did. Does anyone have any questions for the planning commissioner thoughts
in general? I think I saw Justin hop on think is that did I see him? Yeah, Justin, if you speak, you can show We might have put him to sleep.
Doesn't look like it. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hey, I'm sorry. I haven't been on a video call since co and I don't have I'm not very well set up. So, I haven't really been able to hear you very well. Um, but
if you have any questions, uh, yeah, I'd be happy to chime in. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? I don't. And just for everybody's feedback,
there were two conditions applied. Not sure if they're redundant or not, but there um one was that there was going to maintain two off- streetet parking spaces um for the property and that the conditional use is not transferable. Yeah, thanks Ben. That's great
conditions. Really good. Good. No. I would make a motion to approve. Okay. Would anyone like to second that?
I don't have the number. I'll second. Um 2025-12. That's what it is. That's what it is. I'd like to say that I find this
completely difficult. Um I get the the concept and and the part that it's sitting right in there in mixed use. There's a neighbor above who's who treats that still as their home. They don't have to, but they do. And the neighbor I I believe the neighbor below
does the same. And of course, we're I always feel like we're caught in this small town because it's developed long before there was, you know, really good zoning. And sometimes I feel like our zoning is does really nothing meaningful. Um, and then when I look at
the cost of housing and the lack of housing available, um, I would prefer that houses like this that are single family homes stay as single family homes because it's just way too expensive to replace them.
And if there's one thing people can do easily when getting a property like this is finance it and turn into short-term rental and it becomes way more affordable for more people to do that. And we know that there's going to be more shortstay rentals coming just up
the roadway for us. That's never something we're in a shortage of, but I find it really difficult to watch something that was truly created to and designed to be a home no longer be available to be a home. Not that these
present owners couldn't make it a long-term rental as the last owners did. I mean so I mean that that could could happen in the past but um that's the part knowing the struggle we are having
right now to put people in homes this is where when we get to this area in our zoning um is is a very difficult one for me and not and as you're saying Ben you know this is what we've set up right now but
this is where I get real pause on this because I think and I've said it enough times, right? Are we going to be one long unorganized resort here or are we going to maintain homes to have a real community? Um,
and that that's my difficult thought on this. Can I make a comment? Sure. Okay. You know, one this also came up and sorry Craig if you were gonna say something. Um, but it came up also in our planning and zoning meeting. We were talking about
when in 2015 I think it was and we um you know said like well we're going to make sure that we don't allow for um short stays in the R1
and um that and that is a big chunk of our of our at least you know on a map you're looking at it and there's the R1 and it is a pretty big chunk and so we did take a big chunk out of the short stay market said like okay nothing in
this area can be a short stay and there were people who were already doing short stays and not people were not happy about it and it's still not like it didn't keep going anyway but anyway point is we had we did have a further conversation about that that there but but we did say
though like okay you know we got to have not have to but having a release valve of like okay we do have some areas where potentially it might work and other areas where we say like yes definitely it will work but and this was one of those in between zones
and that's why it's hard because you can kind of see it both ways like yeah and that was part of our conversation yeah and I and that's where I think we do need future conversations to fine-tune it I don't mean throw the you
know bath water out baby out the bath water anyways you know I totally Right. But I think we could certainly do some fine tuning on this. Um I mean just looking what I've seen in other communities who had to face this same thing where they, you know, they're a
huge resort community or tourism community and they've really had to face this a lot too. Yeah. Not just us. I think there are some things we could do um to make it work a little bit better.
Yeah. And that came up in the in conversation as well like when the city collectively the five of us or whatever um decide that we want to change direction on that use and that mixed use or whatever that looks like you know the
solution to that so that there's some backbone behind the decisions when in you know in in the planning and zoning that would be helpful right because I don't I think the attitude in there generally was like yeah we don't we don't really love this option, right?
But this is where we do it, you know, and but I I I do want to say like the this particular zone is a tricky zone and it's not a big one, right? I mean, there's not a lot of it. It's it's and it is tricky and that's why it's a
conditional use, which means have lots of conversations, right? You know, and it's dynamic, right? It's not static, right? people come in and out of that scene, right? And you know, one day it's a short term, one day it's a longterm, one day it's a, you know, whatever.
So, yeah, it is a dynamic. Well, the problem that I see with it is as a mixed zone and how it's currently set up is um the more of these conditional use
permits you hand out for short-term stays. the more and more uh house the dwelling that was a single family home disappears. So eventually this zone we have is going to be a
business or short-term stay. You know that's what it's going to be. So it's so what's the definition of a mixed use then? I mean, no residential houses because that's eventually what's going to happen. I mean,
yeah, the demand is great. It's happening and people are buying these houses for prices that the whatever they want to pay for them. I don't care. But we all
know that short-term stays justifies the purchase price on some of this stuff. And that's kind of the problem that we have on trying to keep residential. Um, you know, my opinion, the RS R1 zone
just isn't it's not a sacred zone anymore. To me, it's disappearing in our city. That's how I see it. I would disagree. No. What do you mean? And how is it disappearing? You mean as a resial? No, it's getting infiltrated with the way we have done our zoning. We're
infilling and we're having more and more rentals. And if they're long-term rentals, that's great, right? But, you know, we also have other things we should be concerned with of how things develop and how things,
you know, same concerns that I have, Tracy has, other people that I talk to have. Um, that's my opinion. I mean, I'm not against the RBOS's and all those types of things. But I'm kind of maybe, you know, we don't have any limit on them.
We just have a zone. The county has no limit on them. Um, it's your personal attitude of what you feel you want to portray towards it. Some people think it's great. Some
people don't like it. Some people think all kinds of things about it. It causes a lot more traffic in certain areas. Mhm. You know, that maybe a homeowner is not used to having. There's an upside and a downside to it. You know,
that's my opinion. And I just kind of see, well, that's another house off the market that's going to be a single family house. You know, I So, that's kind of what I see. And there'll be another one that another month from now, we'll have another one. I mean, it's just eventually it's going to happen to all these houses. who have
a pretty good strip really for me when I look west there on first and below that really have just been residential neighborhoods but they have every ability to do this and to me so this is a conversation beyond tonight and tonight's project but I that's where I'm like not like I
think we've stretched it too far that we're clearly have been neighborhoods and I would hate to see them not be neighborhoods anymore and it's um and that's where you get into mixed use and then all of a sudden which one feels more comfortable? You know, do you want
to be a homeowner in that or would you rather be the short stay in that? I mean, what where does that tips? And I I'm not sure if that's kind of what you're saying, Craig. I mean, obviously an R1 is an R1. That that's going to be what it is. But
I still think within the area we've set is mixed use, there's way too many current homes that I would hate to see lose. And it might not be so bad if we had endless space, if we weren't expensive to build, whatever. But it seems
like just not a good path for us to go. And even 10 homes is significant in a community our size. Yeah. To watch go away. Um and we aren't helping ourselves in any way, shape, or form when we can't
have people living here who are part of our community. Right. Yeah. There's no upside to it for somebody that lives here when you turn them into more short stays. I I'm getting tired of every day people asking me at the hospital,
do you know of an affordable place for me to live? And they're applying for this uh tiered apartment stuff like the one up by Harbor Light and they fall right between
the cracks. They make too much so they don't they can't get a reduced rent. So it's too too expensive. So their choice is leave town and we get more travelers who
we buy rental housing for them. I don't see it. And it's not like we're unique. This is a conversation going on everywhere. And it's not like we're some anomaly
here. It's a struggle. And it's a struggle international. So, you know, we we'll muddle through this the best we can, but I just wanted to say this evening that this is where it's it's really hard for me. And I get that,
you know, we have set this up the way we set it up. And so you guys have gone through the findings and, you know, it applies, but I think we really do need to re look at this and find a balance in here a
little bit again, a fine-tuning which is beyond tonight or anything I have for this evening, you know, about and certainly to what what Ben was saying too, just having that clarity. I mean, if that's what we're saying, you guys want Yeah. no no uh short stays in the mixed use,
like Okay, fine. Cuz let's make that a rule, right? Write it up. Wait a second. Don't assume what the answer is. No, no, I know. But but it's the clarity. It's the clarity. It's like, you know, we're taking we have to take
these rules that we have and I wasn't trying to say that. Yeah. Yeah. Don't twist my words around. I I just see that the full-time residential house is disappearing. Yes.
Okay. We're not adding it in this zone. No, we're not. Okay. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. So, that's one that's gone. Yeah. There's probably quite a few more we can talk about that are gone, too, right? So, that's my point.
Yeah. No, I absolutely agree. you know. Yeah. Yep. So, all right. Any further discussion or questions? All right. Would anyone like to make a motion for
resolution 2025-2? Moved and seconded. Moved and Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. That was the discussion portion. Yeah, we we were in discussion there and it's been a robust discussion. thorough. Good. Time to go home.
It's a busy day, huh? You want to vote? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Oh my god. Okay. All in favor resolution 2025-12 Mueller conditional use. I I I
No. No. All right. Did you catch that, Kim? All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Zoning. That's the problem. get rid of the zoning and save our problems. Um, used to be commercially zoned. It was
never residentially zoned. Used to be commercial. When the house was built, there wasn't any zoning at all. The first zoning that was on that piece of property was C1, the same zoning that we're sitting in right here now. That mixeduse zone was created as a way to try and preserve single family homes in that zone.
Just that was a different but short but shortterm stays hasn't helped us in that. That's the problem, right? That was before they arrived, right? It's worth more conversation. It worked years ago. Yeah. Yeah. This is a new economy, right?
And that part wasn't part of the conversation when that zone was created. I get it. Yeah. I know the the bigger issue still is not short-term rentals, it's second homes. And that it's a factor of 10 more of a problem. It really is. We've done we've done the mapping, right? Like it's
staggering. So, even if we didn't allow any more short-term rentals, we're not going to change that price that those houses sell for. Well, we will partially because a short stay is based on a business of cash flow potential and so it will have some effect.
The second and third homes don't care about the cash flow potential. They don't care what they pay for the propert. That's right. They can pay the next sit in there for six weeks and they don't care. No, but the next class of buyers do care about the capital and those are the ones buying the short term downstream. That's quite a ways
downstream to make that prediction. But anyways, it's it's I think we still we will have a conversation. But anyways, um tomorrow is a very big day. Yes. So let me let me just say how important
tomorrow is at 2 o'clock. Two 2 o'clock 2 o'clock tomorrow. We have started our decorations. We will have food here. Uh we'll have the room looking even snazzier by tomorrow when you all appear. And I hope
you can all appear tomorrow. Um we'll have name tags. Um we'll have two. We should be here at two. Yes, please. Okay. Okay. If if that works with you if you have that flexibility be a little early if you
have that flexibility. Oh, yeah. That's what I meant. Like what was the comfortable time to arrive? Oh, before. Okay. So, 1:45. Yes, I would say that they have an itinerary that's supposed to take into account road construction. So, we're hoping they actually appear on time.
Yeah. Okay. And their their calendar is like minuteby minute. So, they're going to get in here and go to the bathroom and we're going to say a few short words and have food out and about and screens will be playing just quietly. They can watch
them if they want. They'll highlight some of our current city projects around the lake. They will highlight the wastewater treatment plant in more closer detail photos. Right. Is that just a couple? We actually didn't add much because we're going to bring them there. They're going to go there and
then um Visit Cook County has one of their little visitor videos that they're going to play. Were you able to split the screens, Patrick, you think? Or how I played around with it and I hope not dumping 20,000 gallons tomorrow. Oh, okay.
Maybe show it. And then they get back on a bus and they go over to the wastewater treatment plant and um ask some questions, look around, take some photos and then they get on the bus enough they go to Elely and the next morning we
repeat the same process again for a little bit shorter period of time at the Senate with a little smaller group in the Senate. Yeah. And I've already forgotten 9 or 9:30. 9:15. 9:15. 15. Okay. Thank you. 9:00 would be good
once again with additional food and an even shorter conversation and then I believe they head down the shore. They're in reverse order. They're coming in Elely on Wednesday coming here on Thursday.
Um so wonderful day tomorrow and Thursday. Excellent. Were your talking points that you sent, Mike? Are those still the ones we should be championing? We yeah everybody get that the we want to keep our message relatively simple and we think that
those points are the important ones. We're serving a great population with a very small population in a small tax base and we need help. Yeah. Big small need help. And then what I think the selling point is is literally
having them stand in the parking lot of the wastewater treatment plant and see the East Bay in all of its beauty and that close to downtown and that close to the neighbors and then look at the condition of the facility and just know
this is it's time. So, um I don't believe I have any other reports. Michael Uh, no. You know about it. Yeah. Any updates? They want to talk.
Oh, yeah. I got nothing. Okay. I just had a parks board meeting um before I went over to the water plant, so I might as well update you on that. Um, we did tentatively,
well, we're not finished with our rate adjustment. We did part of it. We didn't finish the other part of it because we have a few more questions on rate increases, but we're probably looking at around a 3% raise on half of it as of right now. The other half we got to look at. Some sites are going to roll over to
different revenue generating possibilities. So we have to take a look at whether we need what we need to do to those sites. Um otherwise we are um outpacing last year by about 2%.
Um and predictions for the end of the year if October stays pretty stable which we did end up with a really nice week two weekends in a row here. we could possibly finish out the year up 200,000
at the rec park work than what was uh um predicted for 2025 which would be a nice shot of money into the city. Um what else we talk about? Oh um working with funding for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative that Tracy's been working on with the consultants from Stantech. They're finishing up or what? They're doing some stuff on a monthly. They should have something to us by November, I think is what Dave said, possibly.
Um those are improvements for Bula Park and the eastern seaw wall of the harbor and Coast Guard parking lot. Um what else? The golf course is in the process of closing up. However, it was pretty nice weather lately, so there are
locals that are still going up there golfing. and um they're letting you can still golf until they actually get everything closed up, but as long as the weather stays nice, we're going to try to stretch that as much as we can. Um
let's see. Park has started cleaning the um bathous. One of them will be closed, but the other one's going to be reopened now for the end of the season. MEA is uh our last big weekend down there and it is book solid
for MEA weekend already. So um that's good news. Go Moose. Yeah. Um other than that, that is Oh, later this month, the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails
Commission will be hosting their fall meeting of commissioners here at our city hall. Um, was that a two-day thing? I do not recall.
He has in here 10:22 and 1023. Okay. Anyway, it's going to be uh here and that's a regional group of recreation leaders. So, um, those are the people that
look at the application that we turned in on behalf of the the wreck park for um, helping to finance the improvements that we want to move ahead with for the next
phase that we're doing. So, it does have some importance and Dave will be um greeting and giving a little bit of a um update on what we got going on here at our in our town. Well, so that's kind of a good it's kind of an
important meeting. Yeah. Is that the first time they've come here? I we've hosted this. Do we know? Certainly the first time we've hosted it. I don't know if they've been at the county before. Yeah. But that we've hosted it. Wow. So that and the fact that they want to see our
new stadium that we built, you know, that's kind of a neat thing. They'll like to enjoy our new city hall and take a look at the things we've been doing here and um look at the wreck park and how it's been um operated operation wise. So it's a
good thing. That's really good. That's all. We'll have to get our decorations back out again for that meeting. Indeed. They've got to fall. We got the welcome banner. So, we put it back up. Yeah. Yeah. Just cross out and say parks and
trails. Just get out a permanent marker. Yeah. They review. Sorry, I forgot the proper term. They review our our legacy application that submitted. So, that's
big. Yeah. Cool. Mike, did you have some? Just thanks everybody for coming to the water treatment plant for our work session beforehand. It's really nice to give Scott a chance to talk to you about some of the improvements that are happening over there. We've been spending so much
time on the wastewater plant, but really Scott spent more time doing things at the water treatment plant. So, I'm glad we got a chance to show them to you. Well, he's done a lot of a lot of things. So, yeah, it's good for us to see all that. He and his crew are getting a lot of work done. It's very good.
And thanks everyone. These were two big topics tonight. So, I really appreciate the time we spent on it. I think we do need to think both of these through real real thoroughly. And I think everybody gets stuff going that someone else didn't think about. So, y that was good. Thank you.
All right.