All right. Good afternoon. It is 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. We'll call the city council meeting of the city of New to order. Uh, first item of business is the consent scent agenda. Councilors, what are your wishes? >> I so move second. >> So move motion and a second. Any
additional discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. I. >> I. That motion does carry. Item 2.1 is a fireworks license. >> A motion to approve the issuance of a fireworks license for American promotional events incorporated doing
business as TNT Fireworks Incorporated, 403 Halton Drive, Florence, Alabama to sell fireworks in the Walmart parking lot at 1720 Westridge Road in New for the period beginning June 20th, 2026 ending July 5th, 2026.
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. >> That motion does carry. Item 2.2, American Legion liquor license extension, 2026 downtown events.
>> I'll offer the resolution to authorize the extension of the American Legion Post 312, liquor license into Minnesota Street for the following events to allow alcohol to be consumed, served, subject to conditions. Crazy Days. Minnesota Street closed from First North to Center from Friday, July 24th at 2:00 p.m. till
Sunday, July 26 at 12:00 p.m. Minnesota closed from Third North to First North from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday, July 26th. and First North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Car and bike rollins. Minnesota Street closed from Third North
to First South from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturdays, June 13th, July 11th, uh, August 8th, September 12th. spiking in the street. Minnesota Street closed from 2nd north to center from Minnesota or from Friday, July 31st at 8:00 a.m.
till Sunday, August 2nd at 3 p.m. with the intersection of First North and Minnesota open until 400 p.m. Friday the 1st. First North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 11:00 p.m. Friday the 31st till 3:00 p.m. Sunday, August 2nd.
October Fest. Minnesota Street closed from 1st North to Center Street from Friday, October 2nd at 8:00 a.m. till Sunday, October 4th at 12:00 p.m. Close Center Street from Broadway to Minnesota from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday, October 3rd, including Center and
Minnesota intersection. Lastly, Parade of Lights, Minnesota Street closed from First South to 4th 4th North, 400 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. November 27th. >> Easy second. >> We do have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion?
Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Wormka, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidt, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. >> Motion does carry. Item 2.3 is Sweet Haven Tonics liquor license extension 2026 downtown events.
>> For the resolution, authorize the extension of Sweet Haven Tonics liquor license into Minnesota Street for the following events to allow alcohol to be consumed, served, subject to conditions. Crazy days. Minnesota Street closed from 1st North to Center Street. Friday, July
24th at 2:00 p.m. till Sunday, July 26th at 12:00 p.m. Minnesota closed from Third North to First North from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday, July 26th. First North closed from Minnesota to
Alley from 7:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Car and bike rollins. Minnesota Street closed from 3rd north to 1 south from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturdays, June 13th, July 11th, August 8th, September 12th.
spiking in the street. Minnesota Street closed from Second North to Center from Friday, July 31st at 8:00 a.m. till Sunday, August 2nd at 3 p.m. with the intersection of First North and Minnesota open till 400 p.m. Fridays the
1st. First North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 11:00 p.m. Friday the 31st till 3:00 p.m. Sunday, August 2nd. Pray to Lights. Minnesota Street closed from 1 south to 4th North from 400 p.m. to
700 p.m. November 27th. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Worm, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker,
>> yes. That motion does carry. Item 3.1 is a resoning petition for Wells and M andd Properties LLC. Mr. Nisley. Good afternoon. >> Uh, good evening, council president, counselors. John Nisley, planner with the city of Newm. Just give me one second here to pull up a map on the
screen so um we can all look at what we're discussing. All right. Um, so the proposed action here is to prove is to approve with conditions the petition of Adam and Shana Wells to reszone property from AOS, that's
agricultural open space to R3, the medium density residence district uh for property legally described as lot 1 block 1 Wells subdivision and a street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue. The planning commission at its May 28th, 2026 meeting unanimously recommended
approval of the resoning petition with conditions. I'm going to give a little background or overview of of what's going on in this situation. So, in 2024, the property was petitioned for annexation. The city council subsequently approved the annexation
petition. As required by the city zoning ordinance, the property is zoned AOS, that's agricultural open space, at the time of its annexation. The approval of a change in the zoning of the property from AOS must follow the established reszoning process, which is
what we're um taking part in today. The comprehensive plan designated uh this property as um medium density residential in the city's comprehensive plan. The property uh proposed for resoning as part of a larger area assigned for this land use
classification. The comprehensive plan states that medium density residential includes housing, a range of housing types such as single family detached and attached housing, twin homes, town homes, duplexes, row houses, and moderate density multifamily housing
consisting of attached and detached housing units. The density range for this category is between 1 and 12 units per acre. In 1996, the comprehensive city's comprehensive plan designated uh this property as a park. In 2007, the
comprehensive plan designated this property as medium density residential. And then in 2024, when that comprehensive plan was approved by the council, it was also um designated as medium density residential. Zoning. Uh the property uh was in
Milford Township until its annexation in 2024. Prior to that time, Brown County had zoned the property A1, that's agriculture. Um, as typical with annexation of property, it was placed in the AOS zoning district in 2024. Uh, the purpose of the R3 medium density
residence district is to provide for medium-density housing including one and two dwellings along with directly related complimentary uses. Um, project information. So, this is background on the specific property. The prop uh the property being proposed
for resoning is 1.9 acres in size or 82,762 square ft. The resoning of the property uh would permit the construction of up to 15 dwelling units. Um the developer is proposing 16 units um and that would
require a variance to build that 16th unit. Uh two detached garages and a storm water retention pond. The developer's proposal in each building is to have two apartments upstairs and then two on the ground level in each of the four units they're proposing. Um the
developer is proposing to construct a private driving lane from the north property line veering to the south then passing through the proposed development and intersecting with North Highland Avenue. I would note that uh staff has consulted with the city engineer as well as the Brown County highway engineer
regarding its access onto North Highland Avenue. Neither of those parties have concerns about the proposed access that they have in their plan. I would also note that proper safety uh signage would be taken into um would be required um as
they're approaching the bike trail that's parallel uh to North Highland Avenue. And then also um what they've done, the city engineer has done in the past is also provide signage on the bikes bike bike trail like they do for the run pit immediately to the north um cautioning folks using that trail that
there is oncoming traffic or could be oncoming traffic. Uh the development plan would include 40 off- streetet parking uh 40 off streetet parking lot. Our zoning ordinance for the city requires 32 off- streetet parking stalls or two per unit.
Uh the property will be required to provide landscaping and meet the provisions found in section 10.2C3 of the city zoning ordinance. That's our landscaping requirements. Screening will also need to be provided along the south property line and in locations abuing the property zoned R1. That would be the
south property line. Screening provisions are found in the city zoning ordinance and the owner uh can provide screening via landscape screening or solid fencing. Uh I would note the south building wall of the proposed uh building closest
building uh will be 70 ft from the property line of the parcel. Um and the driving lane will be 9.5 ft north of the parcel property line. Um pursuant to Minnesota law established by the Minnesota Supreme Court, decisions on resoning requests must be
based on the consideration of the following criteria. One, whether the proposed reasoning corrects an error in the original zoning text or map. and two or two whether the proposed resoning addresses a need arising from a changing condition trend or fact affecting the
subject property. Uh staff believes and the planning commission believe that the proposed reszoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought in the community. The proposed resoning to R3 is consistent with the medium density land
use designation found in the city's comprehensive plan. The planning commission recommended approval of this proposal or this uh reszoning petition with three conditions. One, that the south property line abudding the R1 zoning district shall be screened as required in section
10.2D of the zoning ordinance. Two, a storm water plan showing how low how both lot one block one wells subdivision and lot one block two lakeside edition will meet appropriate engineering standards for this shared stormwater facility.
and three to provide appropriate cross easements between lot one block one wells subdivision and lot one block two lakeside edition including but not limited to storm water utilities, water, sanitary sewer, parking and garage access as well as a private drive. Um
one of the um you should know that um if if this were approved by the city council, the city attorney would draft an ordinance on reszoning said property and the first consideration of said ordinance would follow. Um, we did have uh a number of folks that were attended
the planning commission meeting um and spoke at the planning commission meeting um in opposition to the project as well as provided written comments as well. I did include those or attach those in your city council agenda packets, but I did want to summarize some of the major
concerns that they had regarding the project. Um, one is that medium density development is incompatible with the neighborhood character. two, that additional traffic generated from the development will cause safety concerns for pedestrians using the bike
trail parallel to North Highland Avenue. Uh three, apartments and single family dwellings are not compatible. Uh four, this resoning should be considered spot zoning. Five, the development will lower property and resale values of surrounding single
family homes. Six, that the site is suitable and attractive for single family development. And then seven, uh, the de the development is too dense for the site and surrounding neighborhood. Um, staff did try to respond staff and commission did try to respond to these
concerns at the planning commission meeting. Again, I uh, further comments are included in the letters attached to this item by Mr. Mayday and and Miss Conungle. Um, there are four attachments. We have the staff report to the planning commission. We have the letters from uh,
the Kungls, Mr. Mayday and then also the planning commission signed findings of fact regarding the petition. And that would conclude the staff report. >> Thank you, Mr. Nisley. >> I got one question for Mr. Nisley.
Across the street zoned R3 by Ridgeway and 23rd, they wouldn't all they would have to do on that property is come in with a permit for four apartments. Correct. >> Yeah. as long as they meet our square footage per unit. Correct. >> And I see the R3 to what I call New Alm
Northwest. >> All right. I was going to say I've I have been in contact with some of my neighbors over in in this neighborhood and and that was their biggest concern was was safety was I mean this has potential of 32 adults living in this quadrant pulling out onto
the street but it sounds like there's ideas addressed with that and going out the backside too. But um I'm I I'm concerned about safety as well. I mean it is a lot of foot traffic on that bike path and I do want to make sure that it's very open, very clear, very seen so
there isn't incidents but that was one of the bigger concerns that I had. >> Right. So one of the um when we go if we were to get a building permit application uh for a project like this, the city engineer um will review that to um ensure that sight lines are
maintained and that proper safety measures are put in place. This also gets a second look by the county highway engineer as well because they have to approve the curb cut as well. >> Okay, >> John, I got a question that was brought up to me uh since the planning commission meeting last week. Would it
be possible to ask the the developer to take a look at putting the driveway onto the gravel pit road so it's not, you know, so we don't have an additional driveway right onto the trail versus Highland. you know, might have to reconfigure their layout, but
>> uh we we could >> more of a controlled intersection. That's >> that was something that was brought up to me over the weekend. >> Sure, we could ask them to take a look at that. Um but I don't know that um we I won't be able to answer that tonight certainly. Um,
but we could discuss that um as as far as in review of the building permit application and if they want to change the the layout of the road. That would also require a private agreement with the neighboring property to access that road because it's not a public road.
>> Okay. That was another question I had whether it was a private road or not. Right. have some comments. >> I really don't have a a comment at this point. I think it was reviewed by planning. uh the issues that were
brought forth were addressed and um uh council person uh Wormka uh brought up some issues that he had concerns about, but it sounds as if staff has looked at the safety issues. And I like the fact that it gets reviewed again by city
staff, by engineering, and then goes to the county because that too would be a concern would be the the uh concentration of traffic and foot traffic as well. What I'm say Mr. May if you want to >> or no
you want to be careful about that. >> I'll try to make this simple and sweet. My name is Paul Mayday. I currently live at 6 2605 North Highland close to to the proposed resoning area having built my single family residence at that location
and moved in as November 13th 2025 paying taxes in the city of New. I am not opposed to adding more apartment complexes in Newm but I am am opposed to re the reasonzoning for this proposed apartment complex in my neighborhood. Yes, there is a comprehensive study that
new needs more housing, but the neighborhood that the land developer plans to reszone and build this apartment complex would be better suited for residential lodge, which there would be four available. It would fit this area better. Would this be considered spot zoning? I was never informed of
this because I had read it was only needed to be sent to properties within 30 ft of the proposal, which I am out of that area. The Highland Avenue is in the city limits, but is still considered county road 13. Currently, the county still plows and maintains that road. The
city does no maintenance on this road. Kim Conl, who bought the lots number four and five to the left of the brick house owned by Mandy and Carol Hel Helgot, had just started to build a new patio house the day she got the notice from the city of the pending zoning
change. She brought this property from Adam Wells, the owner of this property be considered reszoned. Kim was not able to make this meeting tonight and after talking to Kim this morning, she said I could voice her opinion. Kim is moving from the Madison Lake area and had considered building in Mano but wanted
to get out of that area. She considered in New to be the rightsiz town after researching it and found the lots that she purchased. Kim told me if they had not already started digging, she would have not built her house there and is and she knew about the had she known
about the proposed apartment complex. Mandy and Carol Helgot who are here as well who live in the brick house are also opposed to this apartment complex next to them. I have talked to several owners owners in that lake development which I still call the Rothmeer development behind it behind the
proposing that are opposed as well and not and were not informed. After studying the plans for the driveway going to Highland Avenue from this proposed apartment complex of 16 units, I have noticed that they intend to extend the driveway from the existing
apartments of 24 units complex that is behind it that this developer owned and to allow traffic to come through there and exit and on to Highland Avenue. And um uh John, if you could pull that picture
up, I would like to point that out to him where that >> and I just want to let you know I normally don't allow public comment at all. Um I'm going to give you just one more minute. Okay. Thank you. >> Pardon me. I didn't hear all John was talking. >> Um I normally do not allow public comments at things like this. Um that we
have the information in our packets. Um but I will give you one more minute. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Real quick, as you look at this driveway, this is Highland Avenue private drive. Those apartment complexes are back there. He's planning to extend that driveway going into that. So, if you do the math
along with it, 16 units, 24 units, two cars, you have a potential of 80 cars going in and out of that driveway to to that. With that said, the city of New has designated a bike walking path right as you would exec exit this development with no control from the city because it's a private driveway. So will be a
big safety issue with the city bike walking path on the side of the proposed area. From living in my house since November, there is a lot of family with children. Sometimes children are by themselves that are bicycles or scooter food traffic with people jogging and walking their dogs. I have seen people in the winter months using this pass.
Can I ask how many of you seen children riding a scooter or bicycle really paying attention as they cross? I should be I I believe this should be looked into with the new home safety commission to address this before any approval of this development goes through. City Council members, please consider not to
approve this resoning of this apartment complex. The 16 unit that are approved will be >> Thank you, Mr. Mayday. Thank you. >> Okay. Can I pass out my whole thing to each of them? It's brand new. >> I don't allow it at prior meetings. That is the precedent. So, I'm not going to allow it today. I >> printed out the same everything I
>> I understand. Thank you very much. All right. >> Thank you. My feeling is that there's more information that we need to glean and I am personally not comfortable voting on this today. >> I just wanted to provide one clarification. I think Mr. Mayday meant
to say this, but we we sent out uh notification as required by our zoning ordinance to everybody within 350 ft. >> Yes, I did hear that. Um he said 35. I read the letter prior. I knew it was 350. Thank you. >> Thank you for that uh point of clarification.
>> One question for Mr. Na. That private drive the engineer had looked at that. >> He did. >> That that was his intention was to dump onto the >> right. And I think part of part of that uh consideration as well is that whether it goes back onto Mac Lane and then onto
Lake Avenue or comes out directly to North Highland Avenue, that traffic would be coming onto North Highland Avenue. >> And also it could also keep additional traffic from in front of those residential houses along Mac Lane and Lake Avenue as well if they're using that private access drive rather than
driving through the neighborhood to get to the apartments. Okay. And John, it would take a lot more effort and discussions with the other property owner about going onto that other private road for this developer potentially. >> Oh, I would I would believe so. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, that part is that even corporate city limits? No. >> No, I didn't think so. I'll say that I understand the comprehensive plan. I understand our need for housing. I understand how many units we're expected to have online by 2030, which is 637.
We um have approximately like 300, it says 364 right now. Um I'm not I'm not opposed to it. Um, you know, all things I'm going to reread the
findings of facts again, but I want I would I would be looking for some more clarity on kind of the layout just as a follow-up to Mr. Mac's comment and the conversation that he had. >> Do do would you guys mind if I went through some of the proposed projects that are currently happening right now
in Newing of how many units we're looking at? >> Sure. So the the first project is the one up on North Highland Avenue. That's the Keepers or Highland uh Highland Apartments project. That's 148 units. It's two phases. First two buildings are
being constructed uh as phase one. They each have 38 units. The next two will follow uh construction completion of phase one and those are two 36 units uh apartments. Uh the second those are also market rate. Uh the second set of
apartments that are being constructed are 39 units. It's currently under construction and that would let's call it Garden Terrace 3 down on North Garden Street. Those are supposed to be restricted to 55 plus uh for senior senior living. Uh there's River Haven
Housing that's uh 96 units that is not under construction. We've not received a building permit application and no dirt has been moved. Uh we have George's Ballroom which is proposed to have 80 units total. 240 unit buildings. Um that too we have not seen a building permit
application um or and we not have not seen any dirt moved for actual construction of that site. There's no plans to date for the mall at all. Um as far as building uh apartments there, tiny homes, uh they're hoping to break ground uh for 15 units down there. Um,
and they're hoping to do that starts uh soon with two, let's call them um um model homes down there. So, the the total I came up with um is 378 units from those projects that are being proposed.
>> And I'm going to voice my opinion on that 378. I believe we can cut that in half in reality with the shovel ready programs and what proposals as like George's or I'll believe it when I see it on north the end of North Highland
that that project gets started. My comment is I'm looking at this you know a comprehensive study agricultural property turning it into R3. I understand the concerns of the the residential, the R1's, but behind it is
R3 across the street. Ridgeway could come in today, build their units. I mean, it won't even come in front of council. That's where I'm teetering back and forth. I mean, zoning, I always go by what the zoning says or the excuse me, the
planning commission, the unanimously recommended approval. That's where I sit on it. Well, and from the planning commission, you know, we look at the three items, you know, meets the criteria, you know, and we can't, you know, so if we deny it, are we going to be sued then that we denied? Then we
have to fill out the finding the facts and say, >> how how do you not justify the housing? And when we're trying to be consistent within the city, you know, when we have, just like Dave just said, already existing R3 and we have our twin homes on the edge of end of a block or a
segment and apartments, it's kind of hard to deny uh you know, you know, converting it from aculture open space to >> I agree with councelor Mack. I mean, staff went through a lot of work with the criteria that we never used to have.
Bing bing bing spelled out to us. All counselors read it. So, somebody tell me why we're going to deny it when they met all the criteria. Why are we going to deny it? >> Yeah. Yeah. And like I say, I was approached by someone this weekend that just said, you know, did you think about
putting a different way for the driveway? You know, and instead of having one more access point on the Highland, and can you direct it? And John answered my question. It's another private drive. That would take other, you know, development agreements, but, you know,
M go ahead >> madame president and counselors. Uh it's my opinion uh that this is an appropriate residential development and uh my thoughts would be to allow it to proceed is what I'm thinking
and I don't disagree. I'm fully in support. I just was curious if we need to do some more followup on I guess the driveway location >> and excuse me madam president counselors uh um Mr. Nisley there will be further
opportunities to review that is is that true or >> with yeah with the developer as as they apply through the building permit process. >> Yeah. So that is still going to be coming to us or available for review, >> but still going to take could take up to
60 days because it's going to have to come back, you know, the city attorney to write it and we have to draft it in and that takes 30 days and then it takes another 30 days and and then the developer still is proposing one unit over >> the recommendations which is going to
require a variance. We tabled that part of the >> um the agenda item on Thursday for further more information from the city attorney to review to make sure we're consistent. >> Okay. So, cuz that was my next question is, you know, we're approving and doing
the change, but then we're also allowing an extra unit on there. So, you're saying um just so I'm understanding, councelor Mack, that like the uh planning and zoning approved up to up to the 15 units. >> No, right now we're just dealing with the land. tonight. It's not we're not okaying any
units. No units. >> It's just reszoning from egg to R3 >> and they they will have to come back, >> but the city attorney >> was in discussions with the planning uh staff that he would like to review it and look at our comp plan and all of our
zoning, make sure we're consistent in what they're asking for and how we're going to handle that situation. >> So, but then there again, we're going to have to adopt rules. So this >> this isn't >> preliminary >> is how I'm going to say it. >> Um and so Mr. Nisley just like um
councelor Christian said um so essentially the neighbor you know Ridgeway if they if they had that land or came to you know acquire that land they could actually build something like that on that land. Is that >> not the one that we're talking about
tonight? Um I think let me just pull it up >> street. >> This land right here. >> Okay. That's zoned R3 currently. >> Okay. >> That would not come in front of us. >> No, it would. >> The land use says however many square feet they need, that's what they could
build. >> Mhm. Okay. >> Then I would approve the resoning. Madam President, councilors, I'd like to make a motion uh to approve with conditions the petition of Adam and Shana Wells to reszone property from AOS
agricultural open space to R3 medium density resident district for property legally described as lot one block 1 Wells subdivision street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue. >> Second.
>> We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I I opposed. That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Nicely. Uh item 4.1 under old business is the airport crosswind runway
uh 927 construction CDS con congressionally direct spending grant offer. Assistant engineer windshel >> councilors. We are looking for preapproval to accept the federal grant to construct new 927 crosswind runway.
Uh the federal grant will cover 95% of the project and then we'll also have a state grant that'll cover another two and a half percent. Mr. Speaker, it's an ongoing project. I'm going to offer the resolution granting pre-approval of acceptance of
the grant offer for congressionally directed spending project number 3-27007-28 20226 for the New Municipal Airport and authorize the city manager and city attorney to execute the grant offer when received from the FAA and further authorize the city manager and finance
director to execute any amendments. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian, >> yes. >> Councelor Warma, >> yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Ber,
>> yes. That motion carries. Item 4.2, airport cross wind runway 427 construction, Mandot grant offer. >> So, this is for the same Crosswind project. Um, this is just pre-approval for the state grant that covers two 2
and a.5%. Well, all off the resolution granting pre-approval of acceptance of the mindot office of aeronautics grant agreement for project A0801-88 agreement number TBD for the new all municipal airport and authorize the city manager and finance director to execute
the grant offer when received from MIDOT and execute any amendments. >> Second. >> We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian. Yes. >> Councelor Wormka. Yes. Councelor Schmidz. >> Yes. >> Councelor Mack. >> Yes.
>> President Becker. >> Yes. Motion carries. Under new item 4.3, ordinance number 2026-112, second consideration, annexation of property. >> All right. I would note that this is the second consideration and nothing has
been changed from the first consideration. >> This should be final for this part of it, right? The annexation. >> Yes. uh conduct a second consideration and adoption of an ordinance number 2026-112 approving the annexation of the property
identified on exhibit A and adjoining the new alm airport and approve the summary of the ordinance to be published to the newspaper >> second >> we have a motion and a second any further discussion those in favor signal by saying I >> I opposed that motion does carry under
new business item 5.1 is 2026 general obligation permanent improvement revolving fund bonds. >> I'll for the resolution authorize the issuance of establishing the terms and conditions of sale and set the date for August 4th, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the
amount of 2,280,000 for general obligation permanent improvement revolving fund bonds series 2026. >> Second. >> We have motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensson, please call the role. >> Councelor Christian,
>> yes. Councelor Wormka. >> Yes. >> Councelor Schmidz, >> yes. >> Councelor Mack, >> yes. >> President Becker, >> yes. Motion carries. Item 5.2, New Battery Cannon Shoot Military Appreciation Night. Madame President and counselors, I'd like to make a motion to authorize the Dwall battery to conduct a
cannon shoot at Johnson Park, 500 North German Street after the national anthem to fire up to three rounds from the cannon in celebration of military appreciation night on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. I >> opposed. That motion does carry. Under claims and estimates 6.1, report of claims paid. >> I'll make a motion to accept the list of
claims paid in the amount of 7,847,59649. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. That motion does carry. And with no additional business, today's
meeting is adjourned. Thank you.