WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=DmbgdqJYWPA

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: DmbgdqJYWPA):
- 00:03:10: Meeting Call to Order; Firefighter Appreciation
- 00:04:35: Approval of Amended Agenda: Spirits Lease Moved
- 00:07:09: Consent Calendar Approval; Public Comment Begins
- 00:07:57: Public Comment: Tina Foster Questioning Water Tower Cost
- 00:12:06: Public Comment: Fire Department Water Supply Assured
- 00:12:44: Public Comment: Inquiry on Local Business Vacancies
- 00:13:34: City Attorney and Engineer Reports; Old Business Starts
- 00:14:23: Administrator/City Clerk Position Search: Timeline Discussion
- 00:21:37: Old Business: Spirits Lease Discussion Begins
- 00:24:05: Spirits Lease: Financial Recap, Issues with Current Situation
- 00:28:27: Spirits Lease: City Attorney and Consultant Recommendations
- 00:34:11: Spirits Lease: Schaefer's Perspective; Council Questioning
- 00:38:55: Spirits Lease: Further Discussion on Business Impact
- 00:45:53: Spirits Lease: Cost Certainty vs. Long-Term Considerations
- 00:51:07: Spirits Lease: Motion for Option Two; Edits to Motion
- 00:55:12: Spirits Lease: Clarification on Parking, Ice Chest; Roll Call
- 01:00:17: Spirits Lease: Tie Vote; Issue Tabled for Next Meeting
- 01:01:21: Old Business: Economic Development Authority Update
- 01:04:04: EDA: Disagreement on Appointment Process; State Statute
- 01:11:30: EDA: Process Debate Continues; Interview Logistics
- 01:16:17: EDA: Issue with Agenda; Public Comment on Transparency
- 01:21:37: Old Business: Grand View Lodge Public Access discussion
- 01:27:46: Grand View: Concerns regarding Shed Placement, Barriers
- 01:35:49: Grand View: Clarification on Barriers; Public Comment
- 01:41:19: Grand View: Discussion of Emergency Access and Docks
- 01:47:19: Grand View: Further Public Concerns on Barrier; Location of Shed
- 02:01:14: Grand View: Passionate Public Comment on Shed
- 02:07:31: Grand View: Process Discussion; No Approval; Discussion
- 02:16:06: Old Business: Zoning Violation Complaint findings
- 02:18:19: Old Business: Approve Hills Crossing Street Lights
- 02:19:44: New Business: Approve Schaefer Sign Proposal
- 02:23:35: New Business: Plan to amend Tower Ordinance
- 02:26:18: New Business: Community Center Pay Application
- 02:27:23: New Business: Public Works Cost Sharing Agreement
- 02:28:45: New Business: Approve Final Engineering for Road Bonds
- 02:30:58: New Business: Lift Station Discussion- Information Only
- 02:34:30: New Business: Approve Employee status change
- 02:35:16: New Business: Approve Resolution for Tax levy
- 02:41:29: New Business: Approve All Business Liquer Licenses
- 02:43:38: New Business: Motion to Dissolve Committee
- 02:48:14: Adjournment and Announcement of Meeting End


Part: 1

1
00:03:10.000 --> 00:04:15.360
Another Good. Okay. I will officially call the city of Nisa regular council meeting on this Tuesday, May 19th, 2026 to order and it is 6 pm. Um, before we stand for the pledge, I just want to acknowledge

2
00:04:15.360 --> 00:04:32.199
our brave firefighters that worked very hard over the weekend to protect uh and care for our area. Uh, we have one of our deputy fire chief here up here, Council Member Hall. And to everyone else, we sincerely appreciate all the efforts.

3
00:04:35.199 --> 00:05:08.400
Okay, with that um please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> Um next we have approve agenda. I would like to make some shifts here just out of respect to folks that are either joining us in person or via Zoom so they

4
00:05:08.400 --> 00:05:24.240
don't have to sit here for an extended period of time and we can move through business in an efficient um and expedient manner. Um so without objection, what I'd like to do is we have administrator city clerk as the number one item under old business. I'd like to move the spirits lease which is

5
00:05:24.240 --> 00:05:40.080
under new business to number two under old business since we have discussed this item at many council meetings before. It should have been under old business to begin with. Um then for number three I would like to recommend the EDA, number four, Grand View Lodge

6
00:05:40.080 --> 00:06:01.440
public access and then number five uh PZ zoning violation complaint. Oh, uh, Hills Crossing. Sorry, I skipped that because they are not able to be in attendance tonight and asked for that agenda item to be moved to June. So, that is not something we would be

7
00:06:01.440 --> 00:06:21.039
discussing tonight. Do I have a motion? Uh, before a motion, uh, Mr. Blommer, I did see some email communication today come through from this group. Is that >> I'm not aware of that being moved to

8
00:06:21.039 --> 00:06:38.000
June. He had emailed all of us saying that he wanted that to move ahead. >> Oh, I didn't see that. >> That's what I recall. >> Okay. >> He called me and asked to move it to June. But if something you know what we can I missed the email. So if something came through after I spoke to him on the

9
00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:53.520
phone, we can leave it on and then just move that one last. >> Okay. So, just so I understand, um, >> we're talking about, uh, amending old business, specifically moving up from new business to old

10
00:06:53.520 --> 00:07:09.840
business, the spirits lease. Correct. >> Correct. >> And then that's the only addition. >> Yep. >> And no removal. >> Correct. >> Oh, okay. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the amended agenda as presented. >> I'll second. >> Any discussion?

11
00:07:09.840 --> 00:07:27.039
All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Um, next up is our consent calendar notice to the public. All matters listed are considered routine by council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good

12
00:07:27.039 --> 00:07:42.800
cause is shown to the time council votes on the motion. >> Madame Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve a consent calendar as presented. >> Second. Motion by council member Hall, second by council member London. Any additional discussion? All those in

13
00:07:42.800 --> 00:07:57.680
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Next up, we have open forum. Um this is uh public comment period. If it's a item that is not currently on the agenda and there's anything that you would like to bring

14
00:07:57.680 --> 00:08:21.520
forward before council, um our time limit is 2 minutes and you would just need to state your first and last name. Then I will start the timer and I will let you know when the two minutes is up. Anybody like to come up for public comment? Hi, my name is Tina Foster. Um I was at

15
00:08:21.520 --> 00:08:38.240
your event last night. Thank you very much for doing that. That was really uh good conversation. Appreciate it. Um, one of the things that I was struck by was the $60 million comment about the water tower situation.

16
00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:53.760
So, I did a little digging into that today because my daughter was really thrown off by it as well. So, I made a couple phone calls today and I just want to get it on the record. just like transparency is great, but I don't feel like we have a whole lot of it because

17
00:08:53.760 --> 00:09:09.680
we hear part of the story and then whatever. I'm just going to read this. So, from my understanding is that years ago, the original plan was that the airport property, Grand View, and the business corners around Schaer's intersection was what we were bringing

18
00:09:09.680 --> 00:09:25.839
water to, and it was uh the long-term plan was to go to Main Street as well. The newest plan is just the airport property which is the city property now and including a water tower. I asked what the budget was for that most recent

19
00:09:25.839 --> 00:09:42.240
one and it was four to five four to 5 million not 60 million. Um, the comment also was that it would pro there'd probably be other people, Grand View and others that would want to jump in on it if that that started, but I'm sure that

20
00:09:42.240 --> 00:09:56.880
they're going to be expected to pay their piece of that, too. So, that $60 million number last night is what prompted me to start asking for this information. Uh, so then I asked about what the type of funding help is available, and I was told that the city was going after a grant that would have

21
00:09:56.880 --> 00:10:14.000
covered much of the cost. However, it had to be unanimous within the council. The vote was 4 to one. I was attempting to find the minutes where that happened. Couldn't locate it, but it's got to be out there somewhere. Um the the things

22
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:29.200
that I think never get said that need to be considered. City the city water conversation has never been about making every resident >> That's Yep. making every resident in Nisa

23
00:10:29.200 --> 00:10:46.800
get on city water. As far as I can tell, the main consideration is growth. And that coat property over there behind Schaers is a perfect example. If a developer comes in to build a bunch of houses, they'd most likely need to hook up to city water, which would be on the developer to pay for, not the city. And

24
00:10:46.800 --> 00:11:03.200
then as regarding the situation with our fire department, I learned that they have a well with limited water supply. Then they draw from the lake which has limits based on the time of the year. Also, I can already hear the lake owners bitching from here about draining the lake. So, what happens when it's hot and

25
00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:18.160
dry and windy and the woods are right around town start on fire? Will everybody be bitching because the fire department ran out of water and your house burnt down seconds? >> The benefits of a water tower and water tower and city water. bring down your

26
00:11:18.160 --> 00:11:33.519
homeowner's insurance and whether you're hooked up or not and a fire hydrant. The last thing I'll say is I called Stubbers's office and I was asked about what I wanted to know how much they had asked for. They told me they couldn't find anything about this grant and then

27
00:11:33.519 --> 00:11:49.680
I found what they came back and told me uh is that the mayor said that it was ter basically without without permission and without community consent. So my question is what requires community consent to move forward and what

28
00:11:49.680 --> 00:12:06.079
doesn't. >> Thank you. >> So thank you. >> Okay. Next up we or do we have anyone else for public comment? >> If you can state your first and last name and then I'll start the timer. But since I gave Miss Foster more time, you can have more time.

29
00:12:06.079 --> 00:12:21.440
>> GI. I'm on the NIST Fire Department. We can draw water out of a lake whether it's froze or not froze. We don't care. We do have a well with limited supply, but we also have a 10,000galon tank underneath our floor that we pump out of and the lakes are great. So, the the

30
00:12:21.440 --> 00:12:42.120
water tower has absolutely zero to do with the fire department. I think this is the second meeting that that's been said. We don't need a water tower. We have plenty of water out there. We'll take it out of a lake. We'll take it out of our system. >> Thank you. Any other folks for public comment?

31
00:12:44.639 --> 00:13:03.120
again if you can just state your first and last name and then I'll start the timer when after. >> Hi Monica Anderson, Camp Lincoln Road. Um I have a question and I was curious to hear from the council about we've got the um Wendy's now I guess empty. I'm

32
00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:19.519
not sure of the details. And we've got the roundhouse. And then we've got that little convenience store that I heard was going to be a restaurant or something. And I'm just curious about um plans for those areas and those prime locations. >> So, we have um the EDA on our agenda

33
00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:34.639
under old business. And we can probably get into some of that there. >> Okay. If you don't mind waiting a little bit. >> Yeah. Is the EDA not just for um that land that was purchased by the city, but is the EDA for the whole city? >> And we'll get into that. We have uh Mr. Glenn here from Bladeuck. >> Perfect. Thanks.

34
00:13:34.639 --> 00:13:52.160
>> Thank you. If we have no other public comment, I will move on to our reports. Okay, we will start with our city attorney. >> Good evening everybody. I don't have anything specific to report here.

35
00:13:52.160 --> 00:14:08.160
>> Okay, our city engineer. Ongoing projects include the street projects that are starting construction and uh for 2026 plus agenda items for future design work.

36
00:14:08.160 --> 00:14:23.279
Okay, thank you. Okay. Uh old business. Is there a way Jane that we can see the faces on the screen? It will be Mike Humple, I believe. Jane, you can just click and drag the

37
00:14:23.279 --> 00:14:44.560
whole window over to the other monitor. Okay, perfect. Um, so our first item under old business is the administrator clerk position and we do have Mike on from SCSC, Mr. Humple. Um, I'll turn it

38
00:14:44.560 --> 00:15:01.680
over to you. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, just um, checking back in. We had sent out a memo of some recommendations and a draft timeline. I guess I'd like to go over the draft timeline real quick if

39
00:15:01.680 --> 00:15:16.800
you have it to see um if that's adequate. We're saying that if it's approved tonight, we would um develop some additional strategy and get some other expectations and a new position

40
00:15:16.800 --> 00:15:34.320
profile put together by the 29th of May and advertise the position on June 1st. Um throughout June, we would rank applications. Um present to council every 7 to 10 days a summary of the number of applicants we

41
00:15:34.320 --> 00:15:51.120
had. Um information about the applicants, education, experience, that sort of thing. Um no names of course. And then July 1, the advertising would close. July 6th and 7th, um we would do some final application review. And then

42
00:15:51.120 --> 00:16:06.800
July 7th to the 23rd, which is 13 working days, we would do Zoom meetings with the top candidates, PXT and leadership management assessments, reference checks, background checks, and that seems like a long time, but we have

43
00:16:06.800 --> 00:16:25.279
to contact 15 references, do two rounds of Zoom meetings, five PXT assessments, and then do the writeups for your um council um binders for the interviews. We would plan to contact the um top five

44
00:16:25.279 --> 00:16:41.199
applicants July 24th and set up interviews for the week of um August 18th um for a one-day interview session much like was held um back this spring. Any questions?

45
00:16:41.199 --> 00:16:56.800
>> Um does council have any questions for Mr. Hump Mr. Humple? Council member Hall. Council member Zan. >> No. Council member London, >> nothing at this time. Thank you. >> Council member Freilley. >> No. >> Okay. I have no question. Uh oh. The

46
00:16:56.800 --> 00:17:12.959
only item uh and Mr. Mr. Humble, you and I had chatted about this uh briefly earlier today. Um and you referenced here at the beginning um is the memo that you sent to the city on April 27th with um some recommendations for the

47
00:17:12.959 --> 00:17:28.480
search process to include a change in the salary, uh severance, vacation, um relocation expenses, and different items like that. Um, as I mentioned to you when you and I spoke, this document did not get distributed to the full

48
00:17:28.480 --> 00:17:45.360
council. Um, it looks like it may have only gone to the personnel committee. Um, and I understand you just sent it to city staff and it was distributed from there. So, not everyone sitting up here has had an opportunity to review that. Um and I just want to remind um

49
00:17:45.360 --> 00:18:01.679
everybody here just for transparency that in a search as important as the hiring of the city administrator that is an important responsibility for all of us as a whole uh a five member equally elected fully governing body. And so I think when communications come to city

50
00:18:01.679 --> 00:18:18.400
hall, they should be equally distributed so that we all have the same information as it relates to the search process, you know, candidate updates, timelines, and different things like that so we can all fairly consider that. But thank you, Mr. Humple. >> And if there's any questions and and as

51
00:18:18.400 --> 00:18:36.960
I said, if if the memo is distributed to the council, you know, between now and the 29th, we'll be setting that strategy. And really the the memo was uh kind of a recap of what we heard from the candidates last time and you know

52
00:18:36.960 --> 00:18:52.960
just to get everybody on the same page before we go into interviews where we think it's going to be important to be on the same page and and have a salary range that's effective and basically the parameters of a of a employment

53
00:18:52.960 --> 00:19:08.160
agreement that are effective. It's our job to get you who you want. And um this memo reflects what um we've been told and my experience with um these kind of searches in your area. I'm down in St.

54
00:19:08.160 --> 00:19:26.320
Augusta. I'll be over in um Rockville here pretty soon. So I I think just just take that into account. Um give me a call with questions or concerns. But if I could get a um

55
00:19:26.320 --> 00:19:44.720
council directive to begin the search um tonight, that would be good. Then it would be official and we'll reactivate our search and put all our resources forward. >> Okay. Council member Hall. >> Yeah. I guess just to clarify, are you

56
00:19:44.720 --> 00:20:00.080
asking us to make a decision on that memo that you sent us then? No, I'm asking you just give me just to to okay the timeline and tell me to get going. If there's questions in that on the memo, as we go forward, we can we can

57
00:20:00.080 --> 00:20:16.000
address those. >> Council member Hall. >> Yeah, cuz right now I would I would not be in agreement with the memo. >> Okay. I think we just just for tonight, we just need a motion if council approves the timeline that Mr. Humble

58
00:20:16.000 --> 00:20:32.799
submitted uh to get the search going again. And then related to the memo, as Mr. Humble said, we can discuss that at a later date. We have some time. Um, do we have a motion to approve the timeline that Mr. Humple has presented?

59
00:20:32.799 --> 00:20:48.240
>> I make a motion. >> Excuse me. I make a motion to approve the draft timeline as presented by SCSC for the city administrator position. >> Do we have a second? >> Okay. Motion by council member Zan, second by council member London. Any additional discussion regarding the

60
00:20:48.240 --> 00:21:04.480
timeline for the search? >> Not timeline. Just looking at title. It's does state city administrator. Um >> we we'll we'll get the we'll get the it's one thing I'll I'll come back around at. We'll have it city administrator um city clerk and I want

61
00:21:04.480 --> 00:21:21.280
to further review the job description before we put it out um as a posting again to make sure that the job description accurately represents what um the city administrator um city clerk

62
00:21:21.280 --> 00:21:37.440
um job duties are and represent. >> Appreciate it. >> Okay. Any additional discussion around the timeline? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Humble, for joining. We

63
00:21:37.440 --> 00:21:52.960
appreciate uh your work. >> Thank you and have a great evening. Appreciate it. >> You too. >> Okay. Next up, um since we shifted here to old business, we have the Spirits lease. And just to give uh a brief

64
00:21:52.960 --> 00:22:09.760
background and overview again for everybody, um we have been having this conversation since last fall, I think it was October or November, where Mr. Schaefer approached the city um as it relates to the Spirits liquor store, which we are leasing space um from the

65
00:22:09.760 --> 00:22:25.919
property that Mr. Schaefer owns. And uh at that time there were discussions about looking at an amended lease agreement to our existing lease based on the new construction development going up. Um as everybody sees it's advancing

66
00:22:25.919 --> 00:22:42.880
fairly nicely um for Mr. Schaefer's building. And so council still has not come to resolution or solution uh with the Schaers on the lease. And so it is back on the agenda. Um,

67
00:22:42.880 --> 00:22:58.720
I think I will. We We have our consultants on. Um, Miss Delaney. Oh, and I can't see the screen. Michael >> Mike Blitzer, >> are you there? Okay. Oh, yeah. Now I see you. And Mr. Blitzer. Um, but I think I

68
00:22:58.720 --> 00:23:15.120
will Go ahead. Council member Freley. >> Can I just ask a question on this? >> Sure. Um, so I know that it it our city attorney recommended, I think it was a year ago, not to redo the contract, the lease agreement, and now we're looking

69
00:23:15.120 --> 00:23:31.840
at changing the lease agreement. I was just wondering what what has changed. >> So, let's >> just so I know. >> Yeah, let's get because I know our consulting firm has said they also put out to not uh redo the lease. So, I just want to know

70
00:23:31.840 --> 00:23:49.679
what >> Okay, let me go to Brian. Do you want to make any comments first before I go to Mr. Pearson and then the consulting firm if you want to? Brian is our manager. So, we'll let him come to the mic first

71
00:23:49.679 --> 00:24:05.200
>> just so I can be informed of why. >> Yeah. And then we'll go to Mr. Pearson because he put together a memo and then the consulting firm is on. So, we'd like to hear from them also. >> Okay. Okay, if you be patient, please and bear with me. I just want to do a recap. I know you did one, but I also did one, so I'd like to go through it.

72
00:24:05.200 --> 00:24:20.799
Uh, Spirits in Niswah has been leasing the building since 2002 from the Schaefer family. We are currently in our second amended lease, and we are paying 1789 a square foot, which equals out to $18,628

73
00:24:20.799 --> 00:24:36.720
annually. Uh, this contract goes until March of 29, and the current contract states that we have a right to another another seven-year amended lease to it. And that would be based off the base plus the CPI. Uh, the Schaefer family

74
00:24:36.720 --> 00:24:50.720
would like to change our current contract from 1789 a square foot up to $21 a square foot, which would increase our lease amount $18,883 annually.

75
00:24:50.720 --> 00:25:08.480
So, if we averaged a 7% net profit, we would have to sell $269,000 and or 269757 um,000 in merchandise to break just to pay for that $18,000.

76
00:25:08.480 --> 00:25:25.679
Now, if we do not um agree to that change, Schaers have stated that we'll no longer be able to use the loading dock area um which we've been using for the last 24 years. Here's some of So, that was just a recap of the situation, but here are some

77
00:25:25.679 --> 00:25:42.880
immediate um attention needs that we have to look at because if these aren't addressed tonight, um they will definitely hurt our business. Uh so, we've been using a portion of the front of our building for two ice chests. Last year,

78
00:25:42.880 --> 00:25:58.720
Schaers had the sidewalk redone, so they um they wanted those two ice chests removed, which was no problem. And we had a smaller one brought over the winter. Now, our ice company has come to us this year and said, you know what, we

79
00:25:58.720 --> 00:26:15.919
can stop every day and stock your ice. It's just not financial for them. So, what they want to do is they want to not replace the two that we had last year, but they want to replace one larger one, which would be a 4x12 ice chest, and that would be sufficient. It doesn't

80
00:26:15.919 --> 00:26:31.520
take any more electricity and it holds a little bit more of the ice. So, we need that placed ASAP. We have a holiday coming up in just a few days. And literally, I need that that ice chest put on the sidewalk this week. I know

81
00:26:31.520 --> 00:26:48.559
Schaers has um having somebody come out and look at the sidewalk because there was ice melt put on it and um some of that ice melt has deteriorated the concrete where the ice chest would go. That concrete is in really nice shape. So, I don't really see where that would

82
00:26:48.559 --> 00:27:05.120
be a problem placing that chest there. The other thing is um I did get a letter from Andy and it was um passed on to um to me from um from Monty the parking situation for the summer and they're

83
00:27:05.120 --> 00:27:22.000
going to put a initial coat of tar down. I'm not sure if it's going to be this week or not, but um according to the letter that I got, the final coat is not going to go on till the end of August or sometime in August. And so I'm wondering

84
00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:37.840
um is that fence going to be up in our parking lot the whole time? Because it has really not been good for our business. And uh if it is going to be up, where's it going to be put? Because right now our customers, we are losing

85
00:27:37.840 --> 00:27:53.760
business every day with um this construction site. And um we need to get some answers on that. And I do want to um I know Delaney will talk about this um but they have exactly

86
00:27:53.760 --> 00:28:09.360
what Mark said. they have made a recommendation to the council and um I just you know wanted to make sure that the council is reminded about that action and what they recommended was not to not

87
00:28:09.360 --> 00:28:27.279
to do an increase in space not to do um a change in the lease. Um so that's pretty much all I had for for my um comments. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Frell. I'd like to go to Mr. Pearson and then Delaney Consulting before I open it up to and if

88
00:28:27.279 --> 00:28:44.640
Mr. Schaefer wants to come up after as well before we open it up for council discussion. Mr. Pearson. >> Um Miss Carneahan and council. I put a memo in uh for the council packet. Hopefully you've had a chance to review that. It really sums up the current status of conversations uh over the last

89
00:28:44.640 --> 00:29:01.440
few weeks with the between the liquor committee and um Andy Schaefer. So, if anybody's got any questions about that memo, but I don't know that it's necessary to reiterate what I wrote there. >> Um, do any council members have questions right now for Mr. Pearson

90
00:29:01.440 --> 00:29:18.480
before I move to Delaney Consulting? Okay. I would like to recognize I don't know, uh, Mr. Blitzer or Miss Flora, which one of you wants to address. Okay, go ahead. >> Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor, council members, uh, citizens, and, uh, staff.

91
00:29:18.480 --> 00:29:35.600
Um would you like me to recap our our recommendation? Would that be helpful? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um we presented uh last month uh to this group um in in a city council meeting and in another forum uh we

92
00:29:35.600 --> 00:29:52.640
presented a five-page document and I can recap that uh very simply for you. Um there's two dimensions to our recommendation. The first is financial and the second is time and decision consideration. So the first dimension uh is financial.

93
00:29:52.640 --> 00:30:08.320
We found that there was no uh no business need for the spirits to expand their space uh which was a financial decision. Uh we found that there was uh uh no return on that investment that we could find in any of our modeling. Uh

94
00:30:08.320 --> 00:30:26.000
the second was we couldn't find a reason for the city to incur any additional expense within the lease term for what we found to be little to no benefit. Um so those are the two financial reasons that we recommended against uh doing

95
00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:42.960
anything with the lease. The second dimension is time and consideration. Uh the reason we presented our recommendation to not do anything but to continue to operate under the current lease in time and consideration is it

96
00:30:42.960 --> 00:30:59.039
puts the city in the best position possible to continue to make as many decisions as possible for as long as you can. renewing a lease and locking in uh a 7-year period, a 10-year period, a a

97
00:30:59.039 --> 00:31:14.480
9-year period, uh any duration would would um limit the city's decisions to make further um decisions around um the business and we feel that flexibility is

98
00:31:14.480 --> 00:31:31.039
in the in the city and the business best interest. So, those were our recommendations and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have regarding our our findings and our recommendations. >> Does council have any questions for

99
00:31:31.039 --> 00:31:47.279
Michael? Uh, council member Freilley, council member London, >> are you closer to them >> sending out further reports on this uh matter? >> Um, not on this matter. Um we considered this matter uh as far as our

100
00:31:47.279 --> 00:32:04.080
recommendations closed in April when we delivered that final uh that part of our report. We have uh further deliverables for the city as part of our scope of work that are delivered during your June um uh business rhythms, your June city

101
00:32:04.080 --> 00:32:19.519
council meetings. >> Thank you. Okay, council members on >> only clarifying question perhaps for you, Tom. Uh, in regards to a comment that Mr. Blitzer made, this lease is structured for the city to be able to

102
00:32:19.519 --> 00:32:37.200
exit at any point within given notice. Is that correct? Yeah. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. >> Tom, be sure to turn on your mic, please. Sorry about that. Do you want me to repeat that?

103
00:32:37.200 --> 00:32:52.320
>> If you wouldn't mind, that would be great. >> Yes. Um, what I heard there from Michael was a little bit incorrect as to the suggestion of locking in the city with further extensions or even this concept that's discussed in this memo I wrote to

104
00:32:52.320 --> 00:33:07.760
the city council. The original lease, which includes all extensions thereof, no matter how that's done, has a one-way opt out termination clause in favor of the city with a moderate I got to remember this 60 days, I want to say

105
00:33:07.760 --> 00:33:24.399
something like that notice to shapers. >> It's not much. >> Y >> it's it's build. >> There isn't anything about extensions or even this concept that would somehow lock the city in for a term. So if to follow up on council member Zan's question, so if the city were to enter

106
00:33:24.399 --> 00:33:40.559
into a new agreement that was seven years or 10 years and decided, let's say two years down the road, hey, we want to shift it's just a 60-day notice and then the city is absolved from the rest of the lease.

107
00:33:40.559 --> 00:33:55.200
>> Correct. >> Yes. That original provision from 2002 remains the same and it has remained the same through these first two extensions and would through the third extension. >> Okay. Um do you have any additional

108
00:33:55.200 --> 00:34:11.760
council member Hall? Any questions for anyone? >> Not right now. I just be interested to hear what Andy has to say and everyone else. >> Okay, let's turn it over to Mr. Schaefer. Um, >> and Andy, I'm sorry to interrupt you before you start, but I might have

109
00:34:11.760 --> 00:34:27.440
written terms wrong in this memo. These extensions are five years, not seven years. >> They're seven. >> They're seven. >> They're seven. >> They are seven. Okay. >> It was originally five and we moved them to seven last >> some of my math in this memo as far as the years out then are incorrect.

110
00:34:27.440 --> 00:34:44.000
They're based on fiveyear extensions rather than seven. So, I apologize for that. >> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Sh. Uh Delaney did that whole thing and never once talked to me. So, um again, I'm here for the

111
00:34:44.000 --> 00:35:01.920
10th month in a row trying to talk to you guys and people still aren't talking. We finally had a good conversation with the liquor committee. Thought we had something and now we're blindsided by Delaney again. Um I just want to move forward. It's not that difficult.

112
00:35:01.920 --> 00:35:20.000
>> Does council have any questions for Mr. Schaefer? Um I I don't have a question. I do have a comment and I I have mentioned this at past meetings. Mr. Schaefer did approach the city quite some time ago and I do feel that our our responsibility is to

113
00:35:20.000 --> 00:35:35.440
try to move decisions in a timely manner um because I think that's fair to everybody and in the best interest. So understand your frustration and um thank you for being here again. All right. If we don't have any

114
00:35:35.440 --> 00:35:57.280
additional questions or discussion from council, is there a motion um from anyone on councel? >> I do have one question for Go ahead. Council member option >> one out of your memo would either be

115
00:35:57.280 --> 00:36:14.560
one, two, or three. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um just for those here in the audience that maybe don't have the packet in front of you. Um option one is in short on a CPI calculation done by Schaefers and also

116
00:36:14.560 --> 00:36:30.560
done by the city. There was a slight variation in results. Um the CPI indexed a new lease rate of 22 per foot the city. So that's what uh Schaers came up with. The city came up with $20 per square foot. The concept discussed among the group was to meet in the middle at

117
00:36:30.560 --> 00:36:45.920
$21 per square foot on the lease rate. That's what Mr. Frell discussed uh when he was at the microphone. So that would begin immediately through the rest of the term of the second extension um and then continue through the third and final extension which would end in 2032.

118
00:36:45.920 --> 00:37:04.320
So that's option one. Option two, again the group discussed rewriting the second extension. Um, so we're in the middle of now and have it begin in 2026 and extend through 2031 again at $21 per square foot. Then when

119
00:37:04.320 --> 00:37:19.839
the third extension is available to the city, it would trigger a new CPI index calculation to determine a lease rate and that le lease rate would continue through 2036. Um, option number three is leave the lease as is, make no amendments to the current lease or

120
00:37:19.839 --> 00:37:35.839
extensions, and spirits will simply take their deliveries through the front door. And those are the three options. Just as a reminder for everyone and for those um that don't have the packet in front of them, council member

121
00:37:35.839 --> 00:37:52.240
>> Yeah. at the liquor committee. Then was there a um consensus amongst the committee which option with Schaers would be the best both for Schaers and the committee? Was there a recommendation from the committee? Then >> we'll let council members on answer that

122
00:37:52.240 --> 00:38:08.560
one. >> I would say it was more of a consensus stacked hand on option number two uh to be presented to the council. um city attorney was going to draft the memo as he did uh based on the first liquor

123
00:38:08.560 --> 00:38:23.280
liquor committee meeting we had two and a half weeks ago. Uh the appro uh the proposal was presented by city attorney to help kind of get ourselves moving forward because we knew we were going to be running into a decision uh based on

124
00:38:23.280 --> 00:38:39.440
this loading dock um and being able to take deliveries through the front door versus being able to have access to the new loading dock since there's been expansion made. So um hopefully that answers your question. >> Yeah, I that that's what the information I was looking for since I wasn't there.

125
00:38:39.440 --> 00:38:55.040
So, sounds like two was the consensus thing with that group. >> I think like the price per square foot based on the CPI um escalator was agreed upon. >> Okay. At $21 per square foot.

126
00:38:55.040 --> 00:39:11.440
>> I have a question. >> Go ahead, Council Member Zan. Brian, uh, if you could come up to the mic and just walk us through, um, perhaps what the outcome will be if if no actions taken and you take deliveries through

127
00:39:11.440 --> 00:39:26.960
the front door, is that viable for your business that you're running on behalf of the city? Um, the other amenities that have been discussed such as the heated sidewalk at the liquor committee meeting. Um, additionally, I believe placement of garbage cans if I'm not mistaken. kind

128
00:39:26.960 --> 00:39:43.760
of walk us through and help paint a better picture for those that were not at the liquor committee meeting. >> Sure. If we did nothing, we would either have two choices. we um we'd either go to litigation with the Schaefer family and fight for our what we believe is in

129
00:39:43.760 --> 00:39:59.599
the contract and um and what we've been using for the last 24 years or we would accept the terms or we would accept what Schaers is saying and then we would not be able to use the loading dock. Um, that means we would have to take

130
00:39:59.599 --> 00:40:15.119
deliveries through the front door, possibly the side door, but I on facing the highway, but I doubt if they would let us use that door either. It taking deliveries through the front door would be a nightmare and it would be bad for everybody. It'd be bad for Spirits in

131
00:40:15.119 --> 00:40:31.920
this. It'd be bad for the clinic. It'd be bad for any other tenants that are in there because you have semis. I'm not sure how long they are, but they're 50 60 feet probably long and they're going to be clogging up the parking lot and screaming to customers, hey, don't stop

132
00:40:31.920 --> 00:40:49.440
here because it's congested. Um, so deliveries would have to come through the front door the way it has been presented to us and we would have to take all recycling, lock it through the front door around to the back of the building and put it in the dumpster on

133
00:40:49.440 --> 00:41:06.160
the recycling and the garbage. Um, and the sidewalks up in question. I'm not sure really um what the situation on the sidewalk would be. If we get to use a sidewalk for an ice school or not, I don't know. Um,

134
00:41:06.160 --> 00:41:21.599
so >> question for you on that. >> Go ahead. >> If I may. Um, the original question was not, you know, what's the fallout going to be if if nothing is done. question is how is this going to affect your business that you're running on behalf of the city in

135
00:41:21.599 --> 00:41:38.400
the event that nothing is done? So litigation piece aside, in the event that there was potential conflict from the original contract to the proposed third or fourth amended lease, um if you take deliveries through the front door,

136
00:41:38.400 --> 00:41:54.240
is that feasible? it is feasible but um it wouldn't be wouldn't be pleasant. So the another question I would have is in regards to the actual cost of this.

137
00:41:54.240 --> 00:42:10.720
We have the price per square foot but I apologize I don't have notes from that liquor committee meeting last Wednesday. What is the total dollar per month adder? Does anybody happen to have that off hand? Well, I can give you the annual amount

138
00:42:10.720 --> 00:42:31.000
and you can just divide it by 12. >> Or did I write it on the back? >> Maggie, please answer this. >> Maggie, would you be able to >> I think it was like $1,500 a month extra. >> It's So, it's $18,000

139
00:42:32.240 --> 00:42:48.560
$18,883. So >> annual >> annually >> additional >> thanks thanks thanks Mike for showing your calculator on your iPhone or Flora. Um so the question I have for you then

140
00:42:48.560 --> 00:43:06.160
Brian is is it worth it for the spirits of Nisa as you are the direct manager of that business enterprise for the city. Is it worth having access to these additional

141
00:43:06.160 --> 00:43:27.839
amenities that have been discussed for the cost of $18,000 and change? I'm having a hard time saying yes. I, you know, I want to work with the Schaefer family. I think $18,000. Is it worth it? Oh boy.

142
00:43:27.839 --> 00:43:44.240
>> What did you say your figure was in terms of sales to cover the additional $18,000? I thought you had me. >> A little over It's almost 270,000. And that we'd have to sell to pay for that 18,000. >> Can you achieve that? Do you feel that's

143
00:43:44.240 --> 00:44:01.839
achievable? >> Well, we can, but Oh, go ahead, Flora. >> Miss Delaney, go ahead. >> Yeah. at their current run rate, they need to bring in an extra $22,470 a month in sales to cover that uh

144
00:44:01.839 --> 00:44:18.160
increase in rent. Um, I think a good question would be if the city is aware of the current trends for topline sales and bottom line profit from the store and whether or not it seems reasonable

145
00:44:18.160 --> 00:44:41.920
to think that that additional profit would be something that the store can deliver without negatively impacting what it's been transferring to the city each year. You have something? >> Yeah, I do. >> Oh, go ahead, Mr. Pearson.

146
00:44:41.920 --> 00:44:58.880
>> There are other considerations here beyond just buying out of this loading dock dispute. Okay. If the CPI um calculation is accelerated to current rather than having to deal with that in a few years, then whatever

147
00:44:58.880 --> 00:45:16.319
that unknown CPI that will inform the third extension is going to be higher. You're going to be having this conversation. This will lock this in for a new extension period of seven years and then also buy the city further extension

148
00:45:16.319 --> 00:45:35.200
beyond what the city currently has. If this remains the same and we get to our third extension in a few years, get our new rate, then um that's going to be the third and final extension. This proposal does extend that because

149
00:45:35.200 --> 00:45:53.119
when and if we get to a third and final extension, we're done under this lease. It's a brand new uh horizon there with um full market rates to apply to be applied to be expected from the landlord. So, there's all that to take

150
00:45:53.119 --> 00:46:09.680
into consideration here. some cost certainty for the city on the current CPI, getting an extension and kicking out that problem that will eventually come to roost if the city stays in this building of a lease rate that will be

151
00:46:09.680 --> 00:46:25.599
far in excess of what the numbers are currently and what will be dictated by CPIs or CPI calculation at the third extension. >> Excuse me, Tom. Can I follow follow-up question? How many amendments do we get on this new contract if we sign the new

152
00:46:25.599 --> 00:46:39.839
one? >> This proposal concept two basically rewrites the second expansion to a new term. >> So just to you know for an accurate picture right now we have approximately three years left on our existing

153
00:46:39.839 --> 00:46:57.359
contract and then we have a guaranteed 7-year renewal which would be 10 years. If we sign today then we would get 14 years. So it would be four extra years, correct? Four extra years of buying down an

154
00:46:57.359 --> 00:47:14.079
unknown lease rate that will occur. That could be who knows what at that point. $30 a foot, $35 a foot, I don't know the number. Don't want to speculate. >> Okay. We council member Zan wanted to speak and council member Hall also would like to speak. Well, I think to that

155
00:47:14.079 --> 00:47:30.720
point too, you know, putting an economic hat on, we are in a scenario where consumer price index is now rising. It was ironic when we met last Wednesday because it was the morning before, last Tuesday, when fresh CPI data came out,

156
00:47:30.720 --> 00:47:46.800
which was at 3.8. Now, we were sitting in these council chambers on the follow following couple years from when CO first came out and we were floating around the 10% threshold. So a 10% CPI figure for example that would be a

157
00:47:46.800 --> 00:48:03.359
significant adder to CG attorney's point um that is a gamble that is uh that has to be considered by the council. However, this this price right now uh on a early renewal is

158
00:48:03.359 --> 00:48:28.000
is just that I I believe the figure if I'm not mistaken was around 2.5 2.6 six CPI or less. >> Did you have anything else or I'll go to Council Member Hall? So, just a question, you know, and I understand Tom's point, you know, it's a

159
00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:42.960
hit right now basically, but long-term it's the the best bang for the buck and locks the city in, you know, but question for the consultants, you know, um the extra $1,500 a month doesn't necessarily have to only come out of

160
00:48:42.960 --> 00:48:58.960
sales. Are you guys far enough into your process? Are there any um operational overhead cuts that could also achieve um um more financial profitability to help

161
00:48:58.960 --> 00:49:16.800
with a increase like this? >> Sure. You've got two ways to bring that money in. You can either increase your sales or decrease your costs or both. we will give them give planks to do platforms to do both of those things and

162
00:49:16.800 --> 00:49:31.760
make recommendations around both of those things. Um, so you're correct. If you could reduce your costs by that amount, you would not have to increase your sales to the number that I gave earlier

163
00:49:31.760 --> 00:49:48.559
>> or potentially go both directions, you know, is would be the ultimate thing to do, I would think. >> Yes. And so with that, um, are you guys, is that a potential thing that you're going to come back to us with? Hey, you

164
00:49:48.559 --> 00:50:04.079
could do this to decrease your overhead. Is that something that we're going to see in the future from you? >> Yes, there will be recommendations to decrease overhead there and increase sales. The question is whether or not the city is going to be able to implement those

165
00:50:04.079 --> 00:50:19.520
successfully, you know, and get those done. But we will provide those recommendations. There is one thing that I keep thinking about which is whether you're locking in for seven or 10 or 14, it is seeming to

166
00:50:19.520 --> 00:50:34.880
be done with the presumption that you absolutely believe that this is the best location for that store and you want to stay there and lock in at those rates. What it doesn't provide you is a chance to look at other locations which was a part of the statement of work that we

167
00:50:34.880 --> 00:50:50.880
were given which was to say hey we would like you to make some recommendations about facilities as well. >> So I'm I hear you and I'll speak for myself but I'm fully on board implementing all of that or we're wasting our time and money with you

168
00:50:50.880 --> 00:51:07.119
guys. So I mean that would be foolish not to implement that. Good. >> That with that um I would like to make a motion to go with option two based upon all this this discussion here. And um >> yeah, >> do we have >> option two?

169
00:51:07.119 --> 00:51:23.760
>> Council member Hall is making a motion for option two, which is to rewrite the second extension and have it begin in 2026 and extending through 2031 at $21 per square foot. Then in

170
00:51:23.760 --> 00:51:39.599
2031, when the third extension is available to the city, it would trigger a new CPI index calculation to determine a lease rate and that lease rate would continue through 2036. Um, that is a motion made by council member Hall. Do we have a second? >> Second that.

171
00:51:39.599 --> 00:51:55.280
>> Can I? >> Yeah, Maggie. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead, Miss Wentler. >> Yes. The dates are incorrect based on um these are seven-year. So the first one if we are renewing in 2026

172
00:51:55.280 --> 00:52:12.720
7 years from that would be 2033 plus additional 7 years would be 2040. >> Okay. >> And you agree with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> math. >> All right. So >> I have a motion in a second. >> The motion and a second with the

173
00:52:12.720 --> 00:52:27.920
corrected dates because they were um just off by two years here. Is there any additional discussion or questions from council? I have one >> council members on >> I don't think what's been discussed too and Andy correct me if I'm wrong if there's been any other conversation

174
00:52:27.920 --> 00:52:45.839
about it but not brought up to the liquor committee is when would this go into effect uh when is the construction being completed? Um, and then furthermore, if that's a estimated time frame,

175
00:52:45.839 --> 00:53:01.760
their reports out in June, how do we get this all to flow together if this is the route that ends up going? Does that make sense? Well, if if I can speak to that, the the motion is to choose option number two,

176
00:53:01.760 --> 00:53:17.280
but then it's also to direct city staff and uh the landlord to get a rewritten lease to you to review at your June council meeting re rewritten with respect to these extensions. >> So, we still have another council

177
00:53:17.280 --> 00:53:34.240
meeting. So there would still be so a secondary council motion or a second council motion at the next meeting when this amended lease is >> yes and giving us this instructions if this motive passes to implement option number two then the paperwork's got to be done and you need to review it and

178
00:53:34.240 --> 00:53:49.440
approve it >> and I believe you had mentioned council members on uh and I believe with Delaney consulting we are getting the full report in June correct from the assessment, right? And

179
00:53:49.440 --> 00:54:05.599
for everybody here in the public that doesn't remember, we did retain Delaney Consulting as a council. Um, and I think we're the contract is around 70,000 or a little higher to assess the businesses. Um, it is my understanding then that we would perhaps do a workshop before the

180
00:54:05.599 --> 00:54:22.079
council meeting to have you do the full debrief with the council on all of the entire statement of work that you guys have been doing on both the city's municipal businesses. >> That's correct.

181
00:54:22.079 --> 00:54:37.760
which is fantastic in the event that we can have justification before uh what is then going to be a final vote on this in June if I'm not mistaken. Okay. Um because any increase in fixed cost that we're going to have at this business is

182
00:54:37.760 --> 00:54:54.960
going to have to be methodically planned out to be able to cover versus loss of of net income. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor for option number two. Um, questions have been asked that

183
00:54:54.960 --> 00:55:12.480
this isn't final until the council votes on the actual legal lease which would come to us at the June council meeting. Is there any additional discussion from council? Otherwise, I will do a roll call vote on this. >> I would like to have a comment. >> Mr. Frell, go ahead.

184
00:55:12.480 --> 00:55:27.520
>> With you a couple of the things that I had on attention needed. I guess to me it really makes sense for us to discuss that a little bit right now because if we if we have partial use of the parking lot like we've had for the last nine

185
00:55:27.520 --> 00:55:43.920
months, it is going to hurt us drastically this summer. And um the same thing with the ice chest. We didn't have that it wasn't even a that busy of a weekend, but we ran out of ice over the weekend. And um we have a contract with

186
00:55:43.920 --> 00:56:00.000
our ice supplier and that's based off of so many deliveries a year. So we can't keep our price per bag if they have to make more deliveries. And just a couple things that I would love to see um

187
00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:16.319
clarification before the final vote. >> Well, as Mr. Pearson mentioned, a final vote would take place in June. Or are you asking for clarification right now? I would like to have clarification right now because if we go a month without um having clarification on those two items,

188
00:56:16.319 --> 00:56:31.680
it um >> So you're looking for clarification on parking and the ice chest. >> Okay. I don't think those are Go ahead, Council Member. >> Going to agree with Mayor Carneahan here on this, Brian. Um you're the direct manager of this enterprise.

189
00:56:31.680 --> 00:56:47.839
you have the ability to be able to hopefully troubleshoot this issue with the ice, have conversations with Andy in regards to the location of it on the sidewalk, find a solution if there's issues, >> elevate them, of course, but I think Mr.

190
00:56:47.839 --> 00:57:06.000
Schaefer is going to be cooperative to be able to help find a solution to that. I don't think that there's a specific minute council action for us to make right now in regards to saying, you know, the size of the ice chest. Um, and the timing of it. Memorial Day is

191
00:57:06.000 --> 00:57:21.359
Memorial Day weekend is three days away. >> I really should have been on this, you know, quick. So, I don't have any I don't have any suggestions. >> I'll go to council. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear what um council member Joe Hall said.

192
00:57:21.359 --> 00:57:36.079
>> Oh. All all of your questions will be covered in the lease. >> Sure. >> You know, that's that's what Tom's going to put together. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, that's fine. I I say in my opinion and um Thank you. >> I should ask really quickly, does anyone from the public have any comments before

193
00:57:36.079 --> 00:57:58.240
I go to a roll call vote? If you can state your first and last name and your address. >> Hi, I'm Bobby Cochver of 4196 Upper Roy Lake Road. I'm trying to follow the discussion. I have no dog in this race. Um although I'm a customer of um the

194
00:57:58.240 --> 00:58:13.680
liquor store. Um if I'm hearing this correctly, you threw out a rather large 70,000 plus number that we are paying consultants to make recommendations. And I'm hearing you all leaning towards option two. And I and some great points were made and I would hope that our

195
00:58:13.680 --> 00:58:29.280
consultants drilled into all of this all these considerations in making your recommendation. But was your recommendation actually option three or is your recommendation option two? >> Uh Miss Delaney, do you did you hear that question?

196
00:58:29.280 --> 00:58:45.200
>> Yeah, our recommendation was option three >> as is and it was not option two. >> Okay. Then my only comment would be I'm not sure why we would pay consultants that kind of money to make a recommendation to us and then we just

197
00:58:45.200 --> 00:59:01.599
disregard what they're saying and do our own thing. Just a comment. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Otherwise, I'm going to do a roll call vote. The roll call vote is on option two. All right. I will start with you. Council member Hall. >> Yes. >> Council member Zan.

198
00:59:01.599 --> 00:59:34.960
>> Nay. >> Council member London. Council member Freilley. >> Nay. Oh, it's a tie. Yeah, I'm thinking. So, I I was just saying this happened to me at the last meeting, too, but sorry. >> Well, you're paid the big bucks. >> Yeah.

199
00:59:34.960 --> 00:59:54.240
$50 more a month than the rest of you. Um, I am not comfortable voting right now on this. Um, I would like to wait for the consultants full report to come in in June. Um, and revisit this. Mr. Pearson, what does

200
00:59:54.240 --> 01:00:17.280
that mean if I abstain from voting? >> If I can make a comment, please. >> I I've got Mr. Frell. I'm sorry. No, we've got >> if you have a tie and you don't have a tiebreaking vote, then you don't have a pass motion. >> Okay.

201
01:00:17.280 --> 01:00:33.680
>> Well, I'm going to abstain. >> Then it does, right? >> No, I said I'd like to wait for the full report, >> but it dies. So, a tiebreaking vote dies and it gets voted down. Correct. >> It just doesn't break the tie. So

202
01:00:33.680 --> 01:00:49.440
there's no passed motion, >> right? >> So then it doesn't pass. >> Okay. Um Jane, did you capture everything? Council member Hall and London were a yay vote. Council member Zan and Frankly were a no vote and I'm abstaining at this point in time, but

203
01:00:49.440 --> 01:01:04.079
I'm giving the reason I'm abstaining because I would like to wait for the full report to come out and um have that debrief. So to me, this issue is not closed. The full report >> it is

204
01:01:04.079 --> 01:01:21.119
You have no reason not to vote to me. >> Mr. Frell, I can choose whether or not I want to vote and I'm choosing to abstain. Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. All right. We are going to move on to the next agenda item, which is um the EDA. So, I've got an update on that. And we

205
01:01:21.119 --> 01:01:37.119
have Mr. Glenn here from Bladec. Uh he and I spent several hours together today. Um last uh evening um I held a discussion with the community members showed up and there were questions

206
01:01:37.119 --> 01:01:54.240
specifically about the EDA um and how it works. A lot of people were it's a new terminology and economic development authority. Um so essentially it's uh at past council meetings council has motioned there has been a resolution put forward to move forward with having

207
01:01:54.240 --> 01:02:09.520
an economic development authority for the city that will help um inform guide decide uh different actions for the city as it relates to economic development. So new development, existing development and whatnot. Um, just to give an update

208
01:02:09.520 --> 01:02:25.119
to everybody, there was an application window where to apply to be considered for the EDA was put on the city's website and the city received a number of applications. I don't remember if the exact number is 11 or 12. Um, that window closed the other

209
01:02:25.119 --> 01:02:42.559
week. Um, but that does not prohibit us from talking to other folks that maybe did not submit an application through the city's website if we think they're a good fit. Um, so all the folks that did submit applications, we will be reaching out to, if we haven't already, to set up a time to interview them in 30-inut

210
01:02:42.559 --> 01:02:59.359
increments. And the interview process includes myself and uh, Mr. Glenn from Bladec. And we interviewed today uh, five, I think it was five. We did five in 30 minute increments. We're going to come back um, I think after Memorial

211
01:02:59.359 --> 01:03:16.000
Day. So, I'm going to be reaching out to the rest of the applicants that I have not reached out to yet for them to set up interviews which are with Tyler and myself. Once we get through all of the interviews, then Tyler and I will debrief, kind of share perspectives,

212
01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:31.920
thoughts, and then ultimately I will make the decision about the seven that will be on this economic development authority. It's five members of the public, two from the council, and that will come before this body. um to either

213
01:03:31.920 --> 01:03:48.000
vote that up or vote that down. If we get into a situation where council is not in favor of those appointments, then we will go through the process again. Um I'd like to call up Mr. Glenn. Uh we spent a lot of time together and it was

214
01:03:48.000 --> 01:04:04.160
a very productive and positive day to make additional comments >> before. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead, Council Member Hall. Um, you just explained all that, but I don't remember us voting to do it that way or have that process done. So, I guess I'm

215
01:04:04.160 --> 01:04:21.039
I'm confused by how this all came about without any council directive um authorizing you to do that. >> So, this is the council motion to establish an EDA, not an EDC. Um, an EDA under Minnesota state statute 469.095

216
01:04:21.039 --> 01:04:37.359
095 is very clear in the process and specifically and I can go print off copies of this. Commissioners shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. That means the mayor makes the appointments and then as I mentioned the council exercises its authority to approve or reject those

217
01:04:37.359 --> 01:04:54.000
appointments. Uh people may prefer a more collaborative and informal process and input is always welcome, but that is different from what Minnesota state statute actually requires. And this structure is not unusual at all. It is similar to how presidents appoint cabinet officials or

218
01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:09.920
judges subject to Senate confirmation or how governors appoint agency leaders subject to legislative oversight. Um the EDA is an important body with significant authority. These are political appointments established by statute and the law clearly defines the

219
01:05:09.920 --> 01:05:27.440
respective roles of the mayor and council and so these are per state statute. It doesn't say that council has to approve the process that this is done in. If that's what council would prefer, then council should reconsider the EDA

220
01:05:27.440 --> 01:05:44.480
and consider an EDC because then that is different and that goes through a more collaborative process. I guess >> the statute is very clear and I have reached out to the attorney general's office on this. >> All right. I guess I'd like to hear from our attorney and Tyler on that because

221
01:05:44.480 --> 01:06:01.440
um that has not been my understanding with this process and um you know just referring back to earlier in this exact meeting you know when you brought up you know we should all be a part of um picking the city administrator and that

222
01:06:01.440 --> 01:06:19.359
process with that. I would ask how this would be any different, >> but that's this is a state statute. This is codified under Minnesota law. >> Okay. >> Going through a city administrator, that's process policy, right? So, and we are a five equally elected body. This is

223
01:06:19.359 --> 01:06:36.240
under state statute. The the I'm pretty sure Governor Wells or whatever governor we've ever had or President Trump or Biden or whoever we've had, they're not sitting down and determining what the process is. They're they're making their appointments. They're going through a process and then they're coming back to

224
01:06:36.240 --> 01:06:52.000
the body as I had mentioned in here to exercise its authority to approve or reject. No different than the US Senate has if it's presidential appointments. >> Sure. So, can I ask Tyler, you know, he's worked with numerous cities, you know, what is the standard process with

225
01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:08.319
the cities, you know, for something like this? If you could explain that to us. >> Yeah, happy to. There's there's a bit of a mixed bag. I would say it that way. The city of Brainard operates um under the the guidance of applications are

226
01:07:08.319 --> 01:07:23.920
submitted to their mayor. Their mayor then makes appointment requests to their council. Um the city of Cross Lake, we we've gone through an interview process with the city of Cross Lake with their city administrator, typically their mayor. If we do um if

227
01:07:23.920 --> 01:07:40.880
they're adding new um EDA members, then their sitting president sits on those meetings along with myself. Um the other the other commissions are um those are strictly applications straight through to the

228
01:07:40.880 --> 01:07:56.640
city. This the the council or the mayor then reviews the applications and makes a recommendation to the to the council. There isn't really I guess I defi define it as there's not a set standard for this. Um

229
01:07:56.640 --> 01:08:13.200
Mayor Carneahan reached out last week and asked if I'd be willing to sit through these interview processes and I of course as a contracted um employee if you will or our organization is a contracted um contracted by the city I said absolutely I would sit through

230
01:08:13.200 --> 01:08:28.719
those. Um it was a good process today. I I just my thing with this is is that I just don't want to continue to delay this. I think if we continue to move forward, I think we can have some recommendations hopefully at the June council meeting and get the EDA moving

231
01:08:28.719 --> 01:08:46.400
forward, but there is no set standard if you will, uh, council member Hall. >> Okay. Yeah. Because last time we had voted and then throughout this process, Maggie, city administrator, she's been sending us all the applicants to look at and do. And so then also out there, you

232
01:08:46.400 --> 01:09:01.920
know, there's been um different correspondents going out there and I think there's some confusion amongst the staff, the city council, and even some of the people applying for the position, how this process works, where to even apply, what to do, and so I'm just

233
01:09:01.920 --> 01:09:19.440
trying to clarify all that. And yeah, and I had commented back on the there was an email that was sent out and my only stipulation and I think that uh that attorney Pearson would would uh also agree with this is that whatever

234
01:09:19.440 --> 01:09:35.759
application whoever applies and if there is a an appointment if if someone they need to complete the city's application whatever that look that whatever the city application that has been put out there and made to the public anyone that is applying would need to complete the

235
01:09:35.759 --> 01:09:50.719
city's application before they can be considered. Now, I would look to I would look to attorney Pearson for that, but that would be every city that I've worked with, their application is consistent with other commission applications.

236
01:09:50.719 --> 01:10:07.760
>> Yeah, I I I guess I would agree with that. And then also just say that state statute doesn't dictate the process of sending out applications, what the application form looks like, who does the interviewing, any of that. Okay. Um, in reviewing your minutes from the

237
01:10:07.760 --> 01:10:23.600
April meeting, I saw a different protocol approved by the city council for how this process of requesting application submissions, vetting through those. And I

238
01:10:23.600 --> 01:10:40.640
how the process changed unilaterally, I'm not sure. But just to be clear, there's nothing in the statute that speaks to the mayor's unilateral right to differ from what the city council motion was in April about how this process

239
01:10:40.640 --> 01:10:57.199
would go. My opinion, >> that's what I'm confused about. >> So there's nothing in the statute as Mr. Pearson says, but there's nothing in the statute that says it isn't the mayor's purview either. These are mayoral appointments per state statute subject or with the approval of the city

240
01:10:57.199 --> 01:11:13.760
council. So if the council wants to interview every application that came forward, go right ahead. But at the end of the day, these are mayoral appointments. And I'm going to follow state statute best practice guidance that I've gotten from other mayors um in other cities and talking to, as I said,

241
01:11:13.760 --> 01:11:30.960
the attorney general's office. To Mr. Glenn's point, I think we don't want to delay this. We're trying to move things forward in a professional uh way and that's the path we're going. So, as I said, we if you want to disagree or have

242
01:11:30.960 --> 01:11:46.159
a different perspective on process, you can. But this is a process that I'm going to continue with >> or just not follow a city council motion. >> It's this isn't these aren't but these aren't this is not like an adv a volunteer like a parks commission or a parks committee or a public works. This

243
01:11:46.159 --> 01:12:01.199
is very different. This is state statute. We can we can take this to the attorney general's office and pause this process and we can get an advisory opinion back from there. So, I'm happy to take that process if we'd like to do that. >> Go ahead, Council Member London. >> Mr. Tyler, um, as I understand it, the

244
01:12:01.199 --> 01:12:16.480
way things are set up here now, the mayor makes the appointments and then city council later reviews it. Do we have any say in the final thing? >> Yeah, you do. You do. That's I've said that multiple times. >> Deal after the mayor. >> Correct. You could you could disagree

245
01:12:16.480 --> 01:12:31.679
with my appointments and say no to all seven of them, right? Absolutely. That's your right as a voting member of this body. You >> know, these these appointments are very important thing. you know these you want to get the best qualified person for the position

246
01:12:31.679 --> 01:12:47.120
>> and we we've got the applicants here in applications and some of these people are just outstanding qualifications >> and you know in the best interest of the the city the residents business owners and stuff like that we want to pick the best candidates

247
01:12:47.120 --> 01:13:02.640
>> and that's that's my concern >> but we're not So basically your concern is you're saying you don't trust my judgment to be professional and pick the best candidates that's that I heard >> I didn't say that >> uh the again the process council member London these are mayoral appointments so

248
01:13:02.640 --> 01:13:19.600
I will come with a seven appointed seven individuals that I think are great based on this process we're going through which was from my perspective has been done professionally and then it will come to council and that is your right at that point in time if you disagree or

249
01:13:19.600 --> 01:13:35.520
have a differing perspective you can vote no >> I haven't disagreed with anything yet I'm what I'm wondering is you know down the road when after the mayor makes the appointments and that we have a say in it and so forth and that and of course we haven't seen the appointments yet we

250
01:13:35.520 --> 01:13:51.280
don't know who's getting picked so can't say anything at this point >> right we have to continue going through a process >> not doubting decisions you know I'm just wondering you know what our options are what we can or can't do >> yeah and and so far you know as we as we

251
01:13:51.280 --> 01:14:06.320
look at this is there a is there a triedand-rue process for just there's not it's it's really it's independent of any type of statute. It is just a process that the the mayor made a decision to move forward with um

252
01:14:06.320 --> 01:14:23.199
and asked me to be included. The best part about that is is that I'm able to ask questions around the the and and it's it's it's exciting to see this type of interest in an economic development authority. This is uncommon

253
01:14:23.199 --> 01:14:39.280
to other communities. It really is. You've got 11 or 12 people that are applying to to hold seven positions. Actually, five positions because you have two council appointments. >> We're all 12 interviewed to only had time to do five today, but the we're

254
01:14:39.280 --> 01:14:56.679
scheduled for June 2nd to do to >> I just said we're going to reach in my opening. I mentioned we're >> had to run out. So, >> Oh, you weren't here. Can you say that then? >> We're Yeah. everybody that applied we're reaching out to to get them scheduled.

255
01:14:57.120 --> 01:15:13.280
>> And so just the the understanding of >> the process I think is is important for those that are applying to understand and that's where I come in with this. It's really to understand what an EDA is designed to do and how they're going to these individuals can assist the city.

256
01:15:13.280 --> 01:15:28.800
It's can assist the EDA in making recommendations to the council on how to move forward with development um you know processes around grant applications, funding, all sorts of things. So >> yeah, and I guess that's what started my

257
01:15:28.800 --> 01:15:45.679
question is, you know, Tom kind of hit on the head. Last month we all voted as a council to go one direction and it didn't go that direction. You went your own direction. And so that's what I'm asking. Are we following the way that

258
01:15:45.679 --> 01:16:02.719
you're going or are we going off of what the council motion was last month? >> Well, as I >> That's my whole question, >> right? And as I mentioned, I think Mr. Pearson and I are in extreme disagreement on this. The state statute doesn't provide for a full, you know,

259
01:16:02.719 --> 01:16:17.440
council interview process. These are mayoral appointments. And so if if council would like a different approach and process, then council should reconsider and look at an EDC instead because that is more like a parks committee or a public works and that is

260
01:16:17.440 --> 01:16:35.440
a collaborative uh process. But I'm going to follow this process. Again, if you guys want to interview folks, go right ahead. But I'm going to follow state statute and follow best practice, the guidance I've gotten from the League of Minnesota Cities, the guidance I've gotten from other mayors, um, guidance

261
01:16:35.440 --> 01:16:52.080
that I've gotten from other people that have a depth of experience around the EDA. council members on >> I guess my only question that I have after this discussion is if we have this on the agenda to have two council

262
01:16:52.080 --> 01:17:09.120
actions one appointing members and then two for the organizational resolution with the appointment of members to the I believe the positions right >> um if interviews are the contingent piece and we're pushing it down the road

263
01:17:09.120 --> 01:17:25.040
another 30 days I mean why why didn't we get this done right >> ahead of time so we can make action tonight. That's that's my comment back. >> I and I would coun go ahead council member. >> I think it's a fair question. >> I apologize because I had to go out. So

264
01:17:25.040 --> 01:17:40.080
in your opening you said that you did five now you're doing the rest later >> have more to do. Correct. >> Okay. And then you'll come forth. So all right. So shouldn't this be off the docket? >> This this should not I was confused why this was on the agenda because we're not

265
01:17:40.080 --> 01:17:57.199
in a position. I'm not ready to provide appointments because I haven't even reached out to everybody that sent in an application. I mean, we got the applications late last week and um >> it's it's on the agenda. >> I would like to say something. >> It was the first application to come in

266
01:17:57.199 --> 01:18:13.199
for the ADA. >> Can you please state your name and address? >> PO Box 539 Niswah. I have had zero communication. People have been hearing from you over a week ago regarding this. Two hours ago after you conducted five interviews, you posted about

267
01:18:13.199 --> 01:18:29.280
transparency and ensuring that to the people of NISLA. There is no transparency. None of us knew that there were five interviews going on except for the five people that you chose to do. And you're sitting here saying that you're going to interview the rest of us on June 2nd is complete knowledge to the rest of us

268
01:18:29.280 --> 01:18:44.880
that weren't aware of that. You sent out an email, Mayor Carneahan, to the council, Tyler Glenn, and Maggie saying that you were going to be having your own application to choose who was on this EDA committee. >> It says, "I will only be considering

269
01:18:44.880 --> 01:19:00.960
those for the appointment who submit the >> Please business owner in Nisah. The email states, "Anyone else can choose to solicit applications in any manner or on any form in which they wish, but I will only be considering those for appointment who submit the application

270
01:19:00.960 --> 01:19:16.800
form that I will be circulating." So, how would other members that submitted their application, potential application, even be considered for an interview if we didn't know about this hidden process that was put out there? >> What was the criteria for the five people that you interviewed today? and

271
01:19:16.800 --> 01:19:40.719
what qualifications made them to come today with agenda items appointing members in organizational resolution. This agenda went out last Thursday. It's public knowledge that all 12 applicants had their applications in there. Such drama. Um,

272
01:19:40.719 --> 01:19:55.120
the five people that were interviewed today are five that submitted applications that are in the packet. Everybody else that is in the packet will be contacted this week to get on the schedule for June 2nd.

273
01:19:55.120 --> 01:20:12.480
>> The June 2nd date was literally decided today at the end of our last interview at 1:30 p.m. >> Um, I had to rush to my business and help my employee with something. I had to rush over to the Legion. I have not had a chance to even check emails or

274
01:20:12.480 --> 01:20:29.360
whatnot. Right. So, there was one applicant that did email that I caught the email uh when we were in our interview and I replied to that candidate saying I would be in touch with her this week to follow up and that is my plan for everyone that has submitted an application. So, there's no lack of transparency. Um I do own two

275
01:20:29.360 --> 01:20:46.880
businesses. I have a lot on my plate as well. Um so, I'm trying to fit everything in. So giving the grace of patience and that we're getting to the process would be appreciated. It will be fair. As uh Mr. Glenn knows, we're we're working as best as we can, but the the

276
01:20:46.880 --> 01:21:02.960
folks that were set up for today, some of these were individuals that had reached out way before the application period knew and we knew they were interested and those were folks that were were before all the applications came in. So, it's not done to give

277
01:21:02.960 --> 01:21:19.280
priority or preference or say this candidate's more important than that candidate. And I'm sorry if you're assuming negative intent um and negative action there, but that's not the case. We're trying to go through a process, but time is also, you know, restrictive and so we're all trying to do the best

278
01:21:19.280 --> 01:21:36.000
we can in that regard. Uh Mr. Glenn is back at the mic. I don't know if he wants to add anything. >> I work at the guidance of all of you. I'm under contract with you. So, if I'm asked to to participate, I will participate >> if >> um but that's the applications that I

279
01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:51.199
saw today were the ones that were submitted through the city is my knowledge. >> But to to the point that council member Freley and council member Z brought up, I don't even know why we're discussing this yet and why this is on here because we're just not to that point. >> So, you're planning on doing all 12?

280
01:21:51.199 --> 01:22:06.159
>> Absolutely. Everyone that submitted an application through the city will be interviewed and will be equally considered in a fair process. And then I will make decisions with Mr. Glenn's input from his extensive experience working on economic development in our

281
01:22:06.159 --> 01:22:22.159
county to come up with a recommendation to this council that we believe is going to be in the best interest of the city and the purposes of economic development authorities. But what what >> there's no secret application.

282
01:22:22.159 --> 01:22:37.280
>> But but if all 12 interviews were going to be today, how come only five people were selected for an interview today and these weren't? >> We would have to start 6 a.m. >> Yeah, we we don't have the time. >> We would have had to start at 6 a.m. to do 12 people. But I guess my my question

283
01:22:37.280 --> 01:22:54.320
Jennifer is this information that you're saying this whole process even June 2nd we're hearing all that as council people for the first time right here right now. None of us know there is >> Tyler and I just how we just discussed

284
01:22:54.320 --> 01:23:09.360
this at 1:30 this afternoon and it's 7:30. That's 6 hours ago. So I don't I'm not allowed legally to text all of you in a group text or an email, right? Because open meeting laws. I knew we had a council meeting tonight. I think >> my personal lenses I I just feel like

285
01:23:09.360 --> 01:23:26.320
this is I'm speaking still, please. I feel like this is just a lot of nitpicking and finding reasons to just, I don't know, throw a wrench into the system. Maybe folks aren't my biggest fan. That's fine. But I'm going to run a professional organization and I think we need to move on from this and go to the

286
01:23:26.320 --> 01:23:41.040
next agenda item because there is nothing for us to vote on as it is written on our agenda. So, I'll let you say one last thing and then I'm moving on. Council member Hall, >> this was put on the agenda because us as a council voted last month to have it on

287
01:23:41.040 --> 01:23:55.920
the agenda. So, to not know this, to try and do 12 interviews the day of the council meeting to, like our city attorney says, we we're not following the motion that we

288
01:23:55.920 --> 01:24:12.080
set forward for this process. um in in your own email it says you have your own your own application out there. Nobody knows about it. It's not on the city website. You know, I guess

289
01:24:12.080 --> 01:24:27.600
where's this transparency? >> There's no I I answered this already, so I'm going to move on. I don't have my own application. >> I I would like to talk about this and discuss it. We're all here. It's an

290
01:24:27.600 --> 01:24:43.120
agenda item. You know, Tyler's here. >> The agenda item is appointing members. So, it's it's based on >> I'm still not clear on what this process is. So, you're going to you're going to interview >> I can restate it. Y

291
01:24:43.120 --> 01:24:59.600
>> wait. Can I finish talking? Just so I understand. You're going to interview all 12 candidates. Then you're going to pick them. None of us will interview them. >> You can interview them if you want to. I I said that three times in this conversation. If you guys want to

292
01:24:59.600 --> 01:25:15.120
interview all the candidates, you have the applications. Feel free to interview them. But >> but why together? >> Because per state statute, I'm making those appointments. It's harder to coordinate five people's schedules. This is a process I'm If you want to

293
01:25:15.120 --> 01:25:32.400
interview folks, please go ahead. Um and you know what? If you want to share your feedback on the interviews that you conduct with me for consideration, absolutely. I'm open to that, but I'm going to continue following this process. And the goal on my end was never to try to do 11 or 12 interviews

294
01:25:32.400 --> 01:25:48.400
today and never to come to this meeting to have appointments ready today. That's not realistic. When the application window just closed, >> a week ago when this agenda item came out, you you sat down with Maggie as the mayor and created this, you and Maggie did, you know, and reviewed the agenda

295
01:25:48.400 --> 01:26:02.880
items. >> So why why didn't you do anything at that time when you reviewed the agenda items? Miss Wetler and I did have a discussion about this at that time. I don't always control we have a discussion about the agenda, but sometimes things that are discussed may

296
01:26:02.880 --> 01:26:19.040
not make it or they may or there might be new things on. Again, we're just going down into a rabbit hole here and I don't think we need to go there. We've got a lot of other important things on the agenda. We have Grand View Lodge, a lot of people here for that. Um, there's items under new business. I would

297
01:26:19.040 --> 01:26:34.080
respectfully ask this council, let's uh move on to the next agenda item, if you all want to interview folks, please go ahead. I'm happy to send out an email uh recapping what the process that Tyler and I are working through is. You can

298
01:26:34.080 --> 01:26:55.120
provide feedback if you would like, but we're going to continue forward with this process. >> Did you have something? I was hoping we were going to have an EDA established. >> Well, we don't have it's not possible. I'm not I'm not in a position at all to

299
01:26:55.120 --> 01:27:11.520
make appointments. I have not had the chance to sit down or even reach out to everyone that submitted an application. >> So, people >> I I can't do that. >> So, people that have submitted an application, they don't even know yet what the process is. >> Well, I have to contact them. I haven't

300
01:27:11.520 --> 01:27:28.960
had a chance to contact everybody yet. Well, I guess you you had a chance to contact five. >> Well, there were three that have been reaching out about the EDA for like months. >> Okay. I guess

301
01:27:28.960 --> 01:27:46.080
um you you clearly have your plan and I guess um keep us all up to date on what that's going to be. >> Absolutely. Okay. Thank you everyone. Let's move on. The next item is the Grand View Lodge public access. Um, thank you, Mr. Glenn, for being here.

302
01:27:46.080 --> 01:28:02.320
Um, so last Tuesday, May 12th, the city held a special council meeting specific to discussing Grand View Lodge. Uh, the meeting really ended up centering around the public access at the end of Woodward Avenue. Uh, full council was in attendance as well as Grand View

303
01:28:02.320 --> 01:28:17.760
leadership and members of the community, including residents um that live on East and West Lyndon. The main concerns the community brought up were as follows. a shed uh placed on the beach that is not wholly contained within Grandfuse

304
01:28:17.760 --> 01:28:32.719
property to house their equipment for the busy summer season for their uh guests. Barriers that run across the end of Woodward Avenue separating the street from the beach. Um discussed public safety reasons and concerns for those uh

305
01:28:32.719 --> 01:28:49.360
temporary barriers or fences being there. Um, other other items brought up by the public were docks in the water on Grand Views Beach that run parallel to the beach and perpendicular to Woodward Avenue and uh the impact on the public

306
01:28:49.360 --> 01:29:06.000
access. So, that was a two-hour special meeting that we held last week. A motion was made by council member Hall to allow Grand View to have the shed placed on their property or on their property and part of the public access or the public rightway from April through October uh

307
01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:22.320
to keep the barricades but add signage so people understand that it's a public access. Also, there was alignment here that it's not about landing but a public and or pedestrian access and that anything pertaining to the docks um related to the docks would fall to the

308
01:29:22.320 --> 01:29:38.320
DNR. That motion failed 3 to two. Then a second motion was made by council member Zan to put together a workg group to come back to the council at this evening's meeting that would include a recommendation for how um everyone could

309
01:29:38.320 --> 01:29:55.840
best move forward. Uh included in that motion, the group was the motion included myself, council member Hall, uh Mr. Timlin, our planning and zoning director, uh Mr. Blommer, our public works director, Miss Wentler, our interim city administrator, and then

310
01:29:55.840 --> 01:30:11.040
Grand View leadership. And so that's so that's why this is on the agenda. And um Mr. Timberlin, I guess I'll call you up to the microphone. And I also want to note too that um we

311
01:30:11.040 --> 01:30:27.920
have invited uh Mr. Jacob Free from the DNR to be on this because I'd like him to address some of the items that were brought up at last last week's special council meeting. But Mr. Timlin, we'll start with you. >> Thank you. Uh yeah, so following a chance to review the proceedings of May

312
01:30:27.920 --> 01:30:45.679
12th, um I did bring forward a conversation with city attorney and city administrator um of how we could possibly proceed to kind of harmonizing the original motion and uh still preserving due process. So all of that recommendation is in your packet here um

313
01:30:45.679 --> 01:31:01.120
with a consideration to issue provisional approval for structural placement as previously last year subject to concurrent submission of application materials for zoning approval as well as potentially a secondary motion uh for signs and barricades speaking to parking and

314
01:31:01.120 --> 01:31:16.880
access to be permissible and handled through public works public safety thereby exempted from sign permitting requirements. here to answer any questions that this body may have on that. >> Um, I'll start with council. If council has any questions for Mr. Timberlin, council member Hall,

315
01:31:16.880 --> 01:31:33.120
>> the signs and the barricades, those would be city of Nisa property and provided by the city. Correct. >> They could be >> Well, it's on it's going to be on our property. So, that's Mhm. I >> I would say that's what we'd want.

316
01:31:33.120 --> 01:31:48.080
>> I think that was the consensus received at the 12th as well. Okay. uh council members on >> Stephen uh missed you at the last one. Um understand you had a prior arrangement. So glad to have you here. I

317
01:31:48.080 --> 01:32:04.080
think that was the objective uh kind of a underwritten objective of mine from that last motion last Wednesday. So with that being said, was there a meeting or a conversation with that entire group that I made a motion for?

318
01:32:04.080 --> 01:32:20.239
>> Uh task force sit down meeting per se. Um so coming back to work on Wednesday following the meeting I did watch the meeting um provided to immediate staff available city administrator Maggie Wentler and Tom Pearson city attorney um

319
01:32:20.239 --> 01:32:35.600
a proposed path to move forward uh that then I delivered to the task force offering availability for a sitdown meeting if that didn't harmonize with that group. if if that didn't harmonize with that group. >> The recommendation that I stated and is

320
01:32:35.600 --> 01:32:50.400
in the packet here. Um just drafted an email kind of with my thoughts following observance of the meeting. >> So I wasn't there, right? I asked these two to quarterback it with the staff and Grand View Lodge's leadership. So um just for clarity, was Council Member

321
01:32:50.400 --> 01:33:06.719
Hall and Mayor Cardahan? Were they both in harmony? >> I have received no response from my >> I didn't respond. I responded via Maggie and yeah, I agreed with what Stephen put forward. >> I did not I the only communication that

322
01:33:06.719 --> 01:33:23.920
I saw that I was copied on was an email exchange between Mr. Timlin and Miss Southworth from Grand View. I did not get copied on any communication from Council Member Hall. I myself did not uh respond because I wasn't sure. I I

323
01:33:23.920 --> 01:33:38.960
thought we were having a meeting. I had stopped by city hall after and I did give Mr. Timberlin all my availability um leading up to tonight's meeting to sit down and go over that. Um but then I didn't I didn't hear you know I think you had put in your email if people have

324
01:33:38.960 --> 01:33:54.639
a need for a meeting that you had my availability but then I didn't hear back regarding a meeting. Um, I will say I did go and drive down again at the end of Woodward, um, and took a look at it. And then I also took the time to drive.

325
01:33:54.639 --> 01:34:12.000
I didn't get down West London, but on East London and was able to talk to multiple residents there. I did speak to some residents that are on West London via phone um or ran into them in other places, but

326
01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:27.120
I didn't opine on that email because I hadn't I wasn't able to gather all the feedback that I felt comfortable with at that point in time. >> Does that make sense? Council members on or >> I think so. >> Okay.

327
01:34:27.120 --> 01:34:44.560
Um, Stephen, the proposed solution, I mean, I'm I'm I did my best to to understand it. So, please don't take this as any slight. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're proposing here or at

328
01:34:44.560 --> 01:35:00.960
least what the what the harmony was. >> Okay. Mhm. >> So layman's terms for a layman. This is essentially going to be permitting that the barricades will remain in place. Yes or no?

329
01:35:00.960 --> 01:35:16.800
>> That would be the second part of my um action requested there for the signs barricades speaking to parking and access to be permissible and handled through public works public safety. So if motioned and approved then yes. >> That was that was C. Can you say that

330
01:35:16.800 --> 01:35:32.400
again a little bit slower into the microphone? I even had a hard time. >> I got some young ears. >> Yes. In in essence, yes. If you >> Okay. >> allow for them to be placed there. Um my recommendation would be to function that through public works and public safety

331
01:35:32.400 --> 01:35:49.040
for placement. >> Who owns those barricades? >> The current ones. >> No. Who will own the barricades? >> That's what I see. That's what council member Hall was asking. >> Yeah. That the city would own them. Okay. Right. >> Okay.

332
01:35:49.040 --> 01:36:05.440
>> That way. That way. Yeah. That way if there's an issue, we can get through them, move them, do whatever we want for fire safety, whatever. Okay. >> Go ahead, council members on. And

333
01:36:05.440 --> 01:36:22.719
then is the as for the structure is is if I'm reading this right there's a conditional use >> uh the ordinance amendment proposal there's an interimm use permit pathway proposed for temporary structures in the commercial waterfront district >> duration. >> Yes.

334
01:36:22.719 --> 01:36:38.560
>> Uh based on the structuring of the IUP. So there could be a terminable event or a date that would sunset that IUP approval thereby creating a renewal pathway for it. So, I'm going to reference my motion that I made last Wednesday for everybody

335
01:36:38.560 --> 01:36:56.159
to be refreshed because why not? Uh my motion was to commission a a task force committee comprised of Mayor Carneahan, council member Hall, Maggie, Steven, and Tom to find an immediate resolution regarding access intimidation/restriction plus as well as a solution for temporary

336
01:36:56.159 --> 01:37:10.400
non-permitted shed structure used for business purpose with the proposed solution presented to the full council at this council meeting. So >> that's what he's done. I I I understand

337
01:37:10.400 --> 01:37:27.920
my but my question is is a permanent solution. Um do we have are you under the impression that this is the long-term proposed solution? Yeah, I think that this would be the temporary as motioned a temporary solution on the

338
01:37:27.920 --> 01:37:43.920
immediate basis to allow placement if you guys so motion and approve it still preserving the the due process of getting it through that zoning approval through the planning commission uh which would be the permanent solution aspect of it. Yeah, >> the idea being

339
01:37:43.920 --> 01:38:00.719
that Stephen is recommending on a pretty short time frame to come up with a solution here or provisional placement of that structure now then to run it through the IP IUP chain >> so we can establish findings of facts

340
01:38:00.719 --> 01:38:16.960
that are relevant to the placement >> with the zord zoning ordinance changes that are happening now that make that IUP process more available to this situation. But if an IUP gets granted, then it has a term on it. >> So, it's not a permanent solution

341
01:38:16.960 --> 01:38:32.960
because it's an interim use permit. It'll have a term on it, which will allow the city then to reconsider another application for an IUP in the future. But this process allows what the applicant wants which is

342
01:38:32.960 --> 01:38:47.440
provisionally to put that structure where it's being discussed then to run it through the proper channels through an IUP application then you have a solution at least for longer than just temporary interim I

343
01:38:47.440 --> 01:39:05.199
guess questions. >> Okay, any questions council member London? It seems to be pretty reasonable, Steve. And I imagine that uh signs will be in place, foot traffic only, and so forth. Correct. >> Uh the language on the signs, I guess, would be for you guys to determine. Um

344
01:39:05.199 --> 01:39:20.400
whether it's foot traffic, >> emergency vehicles can still go down there if they need it. >> Yeah. >> Public can go back in there. Correct. >> Call it fire lane, no parking, whatever. >> And as needed in the future, you know, I imagine the thing may need to be tweaked somewhat.

345
01:39:20.400 --> 01:39:37.600
You might nominate differently in the future. >> Okay. Council member Freley, do you have any questions for Mr. Timlin? >> Okay. Um, we have Grand View leadership here again tonight. Is there anything you would like to add or contribute at this point in time?

346
01:39:37.600 --> 01:40:00.400
Okay. We also have members of the public. Um, is there anything that the members of the public would like to comment? If you can again just state your first and last name and your address. >> Uh Jim Anderson, 4354 East London. And

347
01:40:00.400 --> 01:40:16.239
um I was uh able to talk last time. Thank you uh for that opportunity. Uh since then I have gone down and walked around the public access again. I live nearby there. I've walked by there many times over the years, but this time I

348
01:40:16.239 --> 01:40:33.199
really took a look and I do not see any reason why Grand View needs to have a shed on a public access that is already someplace between 25 and 50 feet. Nobody seemed to really know and I don't know how big that shed is, but it's it's got

349
01:40:33.199 --> 01:40:49.119
to take up at least 10 15 feet I imagine of that public access. And I think it inhibits people from coming down there. The public come down and they see here's Grand View, here's their shed. I think the Grand View help will act like it's

350
01:40:49.119 --> 01:41:04.239
Grand View property. I don't know if they're going to turn people away like they have in the past, but I think it it it gives them the thought that maybe they can do that. And I think it inhibits people from coming down to the public access. Um, I also think that

351
01:41:04.239 --> 01:41:20.560
that dock going straight out should not be there if for no other reason than emergency access to the lake because launching the Zodiac or whatever that this fire department might put in there, they're going to have to figure out how to get around that whole dock system.

352
01:41:20.560 --> 01:41:37.360
So, um, I continue in that position and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Um, since you brought before I go to you, ma'am, if you don't mind, since you brought up the dock, um, I do want we have, uh, Mr. free here on from the the DNR and you and I had had a a

353
01:41:37.360 --> 01:41:54.080
conversation I think a couple days ago um about you know I think the discussion at our special council meeting last week was that the comment was made from council member Hall that the DNR uh maintains everything was it the

354
01:41:54.080 --> 01:42:09.600
>> the OW so Mr. free if you wouldn't mind uh chiming in. We'd really appreciate to hear from you. >> All right. Hopefully everyone can hear me. Okay. I'm sorry I couldn't join you in person. Uh Madame Mayor and members

355
01:42:09.600 --> 01:42:25.760
of the council. Um I'm Jake Free. I'm the area hydraologist. Um I my work areas are Crowin County and Aken County and I work at the Briner DNR uh DNR office and I live in Crowing County. So I'm uh pretty well into the community.

356
01:42:25.760 --> 01:42:42.239
I've been at this spot for three years. Prior to that, I I worked as the planning and zoning administrator for uh Crowing County. So, just a little bit about uh who I am uh and then I'll kind of get into the kind of the crux of the issue. So, um I want to walk back just a

357
01:42:42.239 --> 01:42:58.560
little bit and then get to the answer to the question at hand, which is uh is there any issues with the the dock near um Woodward uh Street or Avenue? So in general the jurisdictional boundary between where the DNR regulates

358
01:42:58.560 --> 01:43:15.280
activities and where for example the city of Nisah regulates planning and zoning or setbacks and things like that. That's that ordinary high water mark that was mentioned. And the the boundary is a set elevation. It's generally at the point where water remains high enough for a small period of time to

359
01:43:15.280 --> 01:43:33.360
leave a mark on the landscape. And uh generally below that mark, public water rules determine the kinds of activities and structures that are allowed. So this includes like culverts, bridges, excavation, fill. Docks are also included in this, but not all aspects of

360
01:43:33.360 --> 01:43:50.639
dock placement. And so there's a statute and rules that regulate that. There's a couple of exceptions to the DNR's role of administering activity below the ordinary high water mark. Uh for example, the number of mooring spaces in commercial and residential what we call

361
01:43:50.639 --> 01:44:07.280
plan unit developments. So like a resort or a campground or a common interest community residential development with that common open space. The for example the number of mooring spaces that a boat could moore on that's regulated by the

362
01:44:07.280 --> 01:44:22.719
local shoreland ordinance for example city of Niswah. also the position of docks in relation to property lines. So that would be regulated by Crowing County's water surface ordinance which is administered by the sheriff's office.

363
01:44:22.719 --> 01:44:38.239
So other things that the surface water ordinance regulates would be swimming platforms, slalom water courses, no wake zones, etc. That would be not something that the DNR would regulate. That would be a uh surface water ordinance. So I wanted

364
01:44:38.239 --> 01:44:54.320
to give you a couple of exceptions because while generally it is true that below the ordinary high water marks public water rules DNR administered there's a few exceptions out there. All right in the case of the Grand View Lodge situation our regulation of public waters is

365
01:44:54.320 --> 01:45:11.440
limited to whether the dock structure placed in public water falls under the prohibited placement of structures category in public rules. So, in order for a structure or a temporary structure or a floating structure to be prohibited, it would need to be

366
01:45:11.440 --> 01:45:27.360
demonstrated that they're obstructing navigation or creating a water safety hazard according to a a set rule that we have. So, to determine this, we usually take a look at the existing and past use of such an area. Um, based on what I

367
01:45:27.360 --> 01:45:44.400
saw, um, took a look at some aerial photos, 2024, 2025, things like that. Um there doesn't appear to be a designated uh public or private access ramp or a launch area that's consistently ramping off watercraft. Um looks to be an area

368
01:45:44.400 --> 01:46:01.440
that is a walk-in for canoes or kayaks or maybe maybe very small boats. That's just my observations. Um, given the current dock arrangement from at least the last couple years from the photos that I saw, um, there appears to be

369
01:46:01.440 --> 01:46:18.960
areas of open uh, public water that the kinds of uses that I described, those kayaks, paddle boards, things like that, they could navigate around to get to get to open water and and vice versa, vis versa for the watercraft coming from open water to inside the dock area. That

370
01:46:18.960 --> 01:46:34.239
appears to be possible. So I would say we would not say in this situation in this case that there appears to be a structure that constitutes like we said that navigation obstruction or creating a water safety hazard and it's not

371
01:46:34.239 --> 01:46:50.239
something at this point that the DNR uh would pursue as a we've got a problem. We need to make sure this is moved in this case. Um, it is possible that there could be some things in the county's water surface ordinance that may regulate this, but that would be

372
01:46:50.239 --> 01:47:06.719
something to reach out to their team and um, the folks at the sheriff's office that would look into that. Certainly, if this was a DNR, public water access with a ramp and wakeboats and things like that going in, advertised to the public, maintained as such by the city, etc.,

373
01:47:06.719 --> 01:47:22.560
etc. We may see this differently, but that's that's a little hypothetical. Um, and that's usually for a DNR's administration of a formal public access. So, um, hopefully I know that was long. That was like a two-minute speech by the DNR, but hopefully that

374
01:47:22.560 --> 01:47:40.080
was helpful. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can. Otherwise, hopefully that was the kind of scope or information that you guys are looking for. >> Does council have any questions for Mr. Free? >> No. No. >> Just crystal clear then from your point

375
01:47:40.080 --> 01:47:55.520
of view. No issue with the existing placement and layout of the dock from what you've seen. >> Not not as it relates to the existing current use and the rules that I administer which is the public water rules.

376
01:47:55.520 --> 01:48:10.800
>> All right. Thank you. >> Um do any of the folks from the public while we have Mr. Free have any questions for Mr. Free? >> Just one? Oh, no I don't. >> You don't? >> Well, I'm just wondering you didn't look at the county um doc ordinance, did you?

377
01:48:10.800 --> 01:48:26.560
as far as whether this would violate the county doc ordinance. >> Um, is that is that a question for me? Sorry. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Um, well, even if I did, it would probably not be good practice for me to get into the business of interpreting

378
01:48:26.560 --> 01:48:42.080
someone else's ordinance. I I wouldn't feel very comfortable opining on that. I would say that's something that would be if there is a concern about a different ordinance that I I don't administer, I would u refer you to the county sheriff's office. I believe probably of

379
01:48:42.080 --> 01:48:57.040
their recreation um boat they have kind of a boat area that kind of deals with that. They might they might have some thoughts on that, but I would defer on that one respectfully. >> Ladies, did you have a question for Mr. Free? If you just want to state your name so

380
01:48:57.040 --> 01:49:12.719
he can hear you. My name is Don Music. Um, I have a question. We had a special meeting a couple what last week. >> Last week >> about this access and there was a gentleman here who I don't see in the audience tonight,

381
01:49:12.719 --> 01:49:28.719
>> but he was talking about when he brought his kayak down to the access then he had to carry it. I don't know if he went left or right, but he had to carry it 100 150 yards down the beach before he could get out onto the lake because

382
01:49:28.719 --> 01:49:45.280
there's that dock that there's a box when you come down off of the access. There's a dock on the left, a dock on the right, and last year there was a dock going across. So, I guess we could carry our stuff over the dock to get to the lake. And I

383
01:49:45.280 --> 01:50:00.800
would think that one going across would be blocking the access. It basically it boxes us in. >> Um uh council, do you want is it right if I help answer this one a little bit? >> Yes, please go ahead.

384
01:50:00.800 --> 01:50:17.119
>> Okay. Um, so, um, to be, uh, to be clear, I, um, only looked at the 2024 and the 2025 aerial photos, which is pretty recent considering we're at the beginning of the 2026 season. So, I I have to admit,

385
01:50:17.119 --> 01:50:31.440
if there's something new out there that's going on that I haven't seen, but just to give you a clear example of where we would say is a like a a home run blockage, it would be. And we've had to deal with these in certain areas. If

386
01:50:31.440 --> 01:50:48.719
someone arranged a dock where it was a literally a box, does that make sense? Where there there was just no way that anybody from open water could get in there because it's literally like a box, you know what I mean? Just just boxing

387
01:50:48.719 --> 01:51:04.719
off an area of public water um in or out. then then that would be um likely an issue. Um based on the dock arrangement that I saw, at least on the area photos, like I said, information that I had, I didn't see that, but I'll

388
01:51:04.719 --> 01:51:20.560
always happy to take a look at things as um we get new information. So, >> okay, thank you for that. As the summer goes on, we might call you. Okay, >> understood. Yep. >> Okay. Um if there's nothing else for Mr.

389
01:51:20.560 --> 01:51:36.639
free from anyone. I'd love to let him jump off and thank him for attending because I know you were not feeling great today. So, we do appreciate your time. >> All right. Thank you very much. U is it all right if I hop off or do you guys need me for anything else?

390
01:51:36.639 --> 01:51:52.639
>> I think we're good. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Have a good night. >> You too. Okay. If you want to come and state your name and your address. um Julie Anderhome um Dutchman's Bluff and I've been a resident of Nisa for 32 years. So we've seen a lot of changes in the area.

391
01:51:52.639 --> 01:52:10.239
So I guess I wasn't at the previous meetings. So this is kind of new when we've done some research over this past week about just what's happened over the past couple weeks. But questions for that I have for the council and for Grand View. Um, if it's a public access

392
01:52:10.239 --> 01:52:26.560
access, shouldn't it be a public access? And why would we have barriers there? I'm unclear what the signage is going to say. If it's just no parking, do we need barriers where there's no parking, but we could still easily walk to the lake

393
01:52:26.560 --> 01:52:44.400
or carry a kayak or a canoe to the lake. Um, I'm a little bit concerned that if we grant um let I'm going to step back. The other concern is um Grand View has a lot of lot of land, a lot of acreage, a lot of

394
01:52:44.400 --> 01:53:02.159
footage, square footage on the on the lake. Couldn't the building be moved off the public access? Why does the the business building, the little shed have to be on the public access land? How many feet does the public access

395
01:53:02.159 --> 01:53:18.400
include? Do we know what like how many feet it is? Do we have an answer to that? >> 25ish. >> 25ish. >> 20 25 >> 25 I believe that I believe the number at the last >> council meeting >> um >> is 25

396
01:53:18.400 --> 01:53:34.239
>> was roughly we thought 25. >> So they I don't know what Grand View's you probably know how many feet you have a frontage there. >> Not from Grand View. I'm a city employee. >> Oh, you're a city employee. But Grand View probably knows how many how many feet they have. if the building is 12

397
01:53:34.239 --> 01:53:50.080
feet, just can't they put it on their other property? Why do why do they have to put it on the public access? Um, and I guess the other comment I'd like to make is I'm a little concerned if we grant um a business this use of public

398
01:53:50.080 --> 01:54:05.760
access land, what's the next ask going to be? Will it will it be year round? Will be there will there be a permanent structure? Will it not just be April to October? So, I'm kind of concerned about the long-term implications of of

399
01:54:05.760 --> 01:54:21.920
approving this and what it could lead to and what the next asks could be because I don't know what benefit it is to the citizens of Nisa to put barriers and signage up there. It helps Sorry, I keep

400
01:54:21.920 --> 01:54:39.119
thinking you're with Grand View. It helps Grand View, but it does it really help all the citizens of of Nisa and the community. So, >> did you have anything else or >> That's it for now, unless someone has a question. Okay. >> Um, council member Hall would like to respond. >> Just how it benefits you. Um, it's

401
01:54:39.119 --> 01:54:55.520
basically a fire lane. So, you on Dutchman's Bluff, your house catches fire. That is where we would go and access the lake to pump water to go to your house. >> No, I I think we should have the public access, but why would we have barriers and >> way a vehicle would be in a way? We come

402
01:54:55.520 --> 01:55:11.520
in there with fire trucks. So we can throw the barrier out of the way and and get in there, >> which which would make sense, but do we need cement barriers? Couldn't it just be a no? >> It's not going to be a cement barrier. It' be more like um >> a plastic barrier. >> Yeah. They've had them there before.

403
01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:26.480
Yeah, cuz I walk there all the time. So >> because then in the winter time, you know, it's has traditionally been the access for >> people to get on the lake. So it's a it's a portable movable barrier, >> but >> that we can move by hand. And I I guess

404
01:55:26.480 --> 01:55:41.840
I disagree with having the barrier there to begin with. And you're just saying so people don't park there in case there's a fire. >> Yeah, correct. Um with without um sometimes when people park and there's

405
01:55:41.840 --> 01:55:57.040
not a lot of parking and they're busy, they'll just park anywhere. That that happens. So to have more barriers, more signage, maybe some paint on the asphalt. I don't know if all those deals or decisions have been made. You know, that would be made by the public works.

406
01:55:57.040 --> 01:56:11.920
You know, the best way to >> kind of define that and um you know, put a sign down there to say, "Hey, stay out of here. No parking. Leave this open." >> Yeah. And >> is what is what the goal would be. >> Yeah. And I think what I think people

407
01:56:11.920 --> 01:56:29.679
would view it as, oh, this is Grand View's land and Grand View has the use to it because they have the dock on the other side and it's really it's really public. So, I I don't know. It just it just seems like once we approve it,

408
01:56:29.679 --> 01:56:47.520
there's kind of no turning back and the access for the citizens of Nisa decreases versus providing benefit to them. And I I I understand what you're saying with the fire, but I just this just my opinion.

409
01:56:47.520 --> 01:57:07.199
So, thank you. I just have one more thing for the council or maybe it's for Tom. I'm not sure. The signage that says pedestrians only or whatever you're going to put on it that says nobody should drive through there. Is that going to be temporary and

410
01:57:07.199 --> 01:57:25.280
taken away in the winter also because people do drive through there to access the lake for fishing or snowmobiling? >> Go ahead, Mr. Timberlin. I could nominate like a seasonal aspect to it. Um like some aspect that says

411
01:57:25.280 --> 01:57:41.119
that this is seasonally pedestrian only and seasonally winter on access for vehicles. >> Something just to make it so we're not breaking the law if we drive out onto the lake. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that had

412
01:57:41.119 --> 01:58:11.599
anything for council? Okay. Um, council, any last questions? Do we have a motion? >> I have a question. >> Go ahead, council member on >> Stephen. Uh if this is approved per se by a council

413
01:58:11.599 --> 01:58:28.880
motion uh now >> uh reiterate to me one more time again uh the this will then go back to the PCBa. >> Yeah. PCBOA. Yep. Um next next meeting or the following month. The timeline that we're currently

414
01:58:28.880 --> 01:58:44.320
working towards for complete application would be June 12th for public hearing on July 7th. Um this approval would be the temporary um mechanism that gets them to that. >> Okay. >> What what was that last part, Stephen?

415
01:58:44.320 --> 01:59:01.360
The approval would what? >> This would be the me the temporary mechanism that gets them to that formal approval. >> So they would get but they would get immediate ability to put the shut up that doesn't have to wait through this process. >> At your pleasure if you so choose.

416
01:59:01.360 --> 01:59:19.679
>> Okay. Motion on this should be careful to say that if the provisional placement of the structure where desired is approved by the council that's contingent on the applicant then following through to make the proper

417
01:59:19.679 --> 01:59:35.760
interim use permit application and to follow that through those channels. >> Okay. >> Correct. I would have one followup to that too. typically our our IUPs and CUPs and our variances um are final

418
01:59:35.760 --> 01:59:52.159
authority with the planning commission and board of adjustment. Um because this is tying in aspects of lands that the city holds in trust for the public, it would be my recommendation that the PCBOA operates as an advisory capacity to council subject to your final

419
01:59:52.159 --> 02:00:08.639
approval at that same same month's you know following meeting. >> Okay. We have a member of the public that would like to speak. if you can just state your first and last name and your address. >> Kind of nervous. Okay. >> Oh, and if you want to put the mic maybe closer to you so we can all hear. >> I'm Alyssa Rice and I live on West

420
02:00:08.639 --> 02:00:25.119
London Boulevard. Um I'll get emotional, but I just don't want that shed there. I don't like it there. I don't want it there. It does not make me feel like I'm welcome there. Um it takes away part of our public access. It's not very big. Put up the barriers. Make it safe for

421
02:00:25.119 --> 02:00:41.440
you guys to move, to get your fire trucks, to get your water, but don't let somebody put a shed there. I can't put a shed there. Can I apply to put a shed there to keep my water toys for my kids? I can't do that. I won't get approved to do that. Keep it open. I live on West Lynon. I'm across the street from the

422
02:00:41.440 --> 02:00:58.080
lake. I would love to walk down there and take my kids to play in the sand, you know, put our chairs down. We can't do that. We don't feel welcome to do that. If Gran View wants to put a shed, am I going to go over to their beach since they took part of my beach? Is that going to make it fair? Are you going to allow me to do that or am I

423
02:00:58.080 --> 02:01:14.320
going to get harassed and kicked off the property? I mean, it's a public beach. I'm a public person. I walk there daily with my kids, with my dog. This affects the neighborhood. It doesn't just affect how Grand View does their business. Put

424
02:01:14.320 --> 02:01:30.080
your life jacket somewhere else. You have so much lakefront property to put a shed. put it somewhere else. There's a couple buildings over there or even, you know, rental properties. Take one away. I know you need your business, but we need our public access. The summer is

425
02:01:30.080 --> 02:01:45.840
short for everyone. If you take it away the months that it's the best place to be for the best community that we all love to be in, it's just it's very frustrating. So, please do not approve them to put the shed there. Put the barriers for safety. We want you to

426
02:01:45.840 --> 02:02:03.000
go get your water to put out fires. I understand that, but approving someone to put a shed on a public access does not make it public anymore. It makes it more part of Grand View. So, that's all I have to say. Thank you.

427
02:02:03.119 --> 02:02:27.840
Does council have any questions? Um, otherwise, I would entertain a motion. Council member Hall, >> I have a question. Stephen, as part of your process moving ahead, you know, with this with the planning commission, you know, I I think maybe this is one

428
02:02:27.840 --> 02:02:45.199
point that's overlooked right now. Um, I don't think it's clear or anybody knows actually if that shed building is actually on city property or on Grand View property. and and that's

429
02:02:45.199 --> 02:03:00.719
that's the goal to get figured out correct with your process because that's where the gray area is. It it depends upon you know um which survey is looked at in in that process. So >> sure

430
02:03:00.719 --> 02:03:17.119
>> the the shed be in there it might not even be on city property. >> That is a wrinkle for sure. Um, as I understand it, the chronology of that axis, and I'm going to probably pull dates that aren't 100% accurate, um, is

431
02:03:17.119 --> 02:03:33.119
plotted in about 1916. It's a 50ft corridor, and >> say a 50ft corridor. >> 50 ft. Correct. Um, moving forward from that, once it's dedicated to the public, um, there's the

432
02:03:33.119 --> 02:03:50.239
vacation process that would mechanize it out of that holding and trust for the public. Um, that would be the proper process to dispense of any portion that is there of dedicated. um in about the 40s from what I've understood to be heard is that there was

433
02:03:50.239 --> 02:04:05.599
a mechanism from the original plat holders deeding the easterly 25 ft of that to ETO. Now there in lies the argument of is it 25 ft or is it 50 ft. Um, typically that would take

434
02:04:05.599 --> 02:04:21.360
outside review from a title company, an examiner of title for example, to really better out true ownership. Um, if that's what you're getting at, that would not be part of my process. My process would be to demonstrate it on a certificate of survey, which is one of the submission

435
02:04:21.360 --> 02:04:37.199
requirements for public hearing. just depict where it is, how it is in relation to both a 25 foot or a 50- foot corridor so that the proper planning agency can vet that approval, potentially put conditions on it, or if

436
02:04:37.199 --> 02:04:53.119
it's an IUP that seems reasonable to those higher authorities than staff, being myself, um that IUP could be tendered for a year, two years, five years for the first term, whatever.

437
02:04:53.119 --> 02:05:08.560
is the agreed upon thing from the planning commission. They could try it for a year, they could try it for two years. Um, we could build up length of that IUP. Um, but part of my process to answer your question barely would not be to establish ownership of that. Um,

438
02:05:08.560 --> 02:05:26.560
those things get very costly very quickly. >> Just another clarifying point to add to this. That isn't an access. It's a publicly dedicated city street that just happens to end at the water. There is a difference between those two things.

439
02:05:26.560 --> 02:05:43.199
It's never been a city access to the lake. It hasn't there hasn't been a boat ramp there. Yes, it gets used in the winter for onoff as has been described, but whether it makes a difference to anybody that there is no access there per se.

440
02:05:43.199 --> 02:06:02.480
It's just a dedicated city street, Woodward Avenue, that happens to end near the water. >> I would agree with that. >> Did Did you have one other thing? >> I think he's saying like boat like a boat. It's not a boat ramp, which we all

441
02:06:02.480 --> 02:06:17.599
I think at our Yeah. At the special meeting last week, everyone agreed with that interpretation. Maybe you have to, you know, change the verbiage on it on the sign to make it more >> um Well, >> whose sign is it?

442
02:06:17.599 --> 02:06:40.320
>> Yeah. So, do you have do you have a motion? Does anyone want to make a motion? >> Is it a city sign? >> We don't know. >> It says city at the bottom. >> That's a city sign. Okay. We're not even talking about

443
02:06:40.320 --> 02:07:01.119
but that sign has disappeared. I don't know who takes it down. >> So >> it's been there for a good long while. >> Appreciate it. >> Yeah. if and and I would just ask if if you're going to respond, please come to the microphone because there are people that watch this online and they're not going to be able to hear anything you

444
02:07:01.119 --> 02:07:15.679
just said. >> So, >> go ahead, Council Member Hall. >> Just like we saw last week, you know, with the information that we have available, you pull up the GIS mapping right now with the way it's plotted with the county, it is plotted at 25 ft on

445
02:07:15.679 --> 02:07:31.199
the GIS mapping. >> Okay. So, we did discuss this topic for two hours last week and we're discussing it again tonight. I I didn't want to cut anybody off and wanted to give everyone their time, but

446
02:07:31.199 --> 02:07:48.880
is there anyone on council that would like to make a motion? I would entertain a motion. So, I guess I would like to make a motion to approve um the uh plan put together by Stephen as presented.

447
02:07:48.880 --> 02:08:09.599
>> I'll second it. >> Okay, we have a motion by council member Hall to approve the plan as Steven presented and a second by council member London. Are there additional questions or comments from councel? Yeah. The motion

448
02:08:09.599 --> 02:08:27.040
the motion or what what Mr. Timberlin presented. Do you want to just give the high level, Stephen? It's it's to allow the shed and it's to have the barricades, but the city would take responsibility for the barricades,

449
02:08:27.040 --> 02:08:42.320
not Grand View. >> In summary, yes. >> Okay. >> That is what you guys are now considering. Okay. Any additional questions or discussion from councel? Okay. I'd like Did you have something on this specific

450
02:08:42.320 --> 02:08:59.840
topic or that's urgent while I'm trying to call the vote? My name is Fred Hidman. The only the thing I have to say is it seems like there's an awful lot of confusion, a lot of chaos, uncertainty on the width of the property. How about just saying,

451
02:08:59.840 --> 02:09:16.400
"Hey, and I know it's kicking the can down the road, but to take the pressure off, why not say Grand View, let's just kind of do what we did last year and let's look to re let's look to investigate, find out what the city actually owns and and then bring it up

452
02:09:16.400 --> 02:09:33.360
in the fall again or something. Right now, there's a lot of pressure trying to make a decision. Grand View obviously would like to get their docks in. What is it really? would have hurt anything just to kick it down the road and try it again. Comment. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we have

453
02:09:33.360 --> 02:09:50.000
a motion in a second. There's no additional discussion or question. So, I am going to do a roll call vote. >> I will start with you. Council member Freley. >> Nay. >> Council member London. >> Yes. >> Council member Zan. >> Nay. >> Council member Hall. >> Yes.

454
02:09:50.000 --> 02:10:06.239
Um, it's always every >> you can't abstain twice. >> I can't. I can, but I won't. Um, with respect to everybody in this room, my vote is not personal. It's based on

455
02:10:06.239 --> 02:10:27.040
public input and months of conversation around this, I will vote nay. >> Okay. Um, >> still think that leaves still unsettled business? >> There is, but I I actually would like to ask this council to consider

456
02:10:27.040 --> 02:10:43.119
another motion perhaps is the discussion around is it 25 ft, is it 50 feet, what are longer term solutions. To me, there there should be a real task force, right? that includes

457
02:10:43.119 --> 02:10:58.159
some members of the public, that includes Grand View, that could include a council member or two, uh, you know, key staff members, right? To look for longer term solutions, um, as I've said at past meetings, so we can find a

458
02:10:58.159 --> 02:11:14.560
win-win, right, where there isn't so much heightened, you know, perspective on one end or another. And I think that trying to do something you and I get the intent behind what you were trying to do and it's very admirable right with the motion to get

459
02:11:14.560 --> 02:11:31.920
us to a solution for a week, but it's hard to really truly find a long-term solution in a week. So maybe that's something um doesn't necessarily have to be voted on tonight, but maybe that's something we can put at a future meeting for discussion and see if there's an appetite for something like that uh with

460
02:11:31.920 --> 02:11:47.040
the broader community that's inclusive of parties on all different sides. Council members on >> Stephen, what is uh with this vote? Um just advise the council where that now leaves us so we're all aware. uh without

461
02:11:47.040 --> 02:12:02.960
any provisional approval or permitted status of any structural placement down there. So, >> I'm having a hard time here tonight. I don't know why. >> With no approval of placement of a structure there. >> Okay. And what are next steps for

462
02:12:02.960 --> 02:12:20.000
Gran View? Um if they want to place and permit a a new structure placement on there to submit the relevant application. So, an IEP um for example, demonstrating it with a certificate of survey of where they would propose to place it so that

463
02:12:20.000 --> 02:12:36.159
the planning commission can review. Okay. Question on that matter. If Gran View Lodge was to make an application for said uh said item, when that permit or that application is

464
02:12:36.159 --> 02:12:51.280
being considered, it's just that item that's going to be reviewed and discussed. Correct. >> Correct. >> Is that standard protocol across the board for all within the city's limits in this law? >> Yeah. So, we would review it based on the site conditions existing and

465
02:12:51.280 --> 02:13:07.599
proposed. Um, the ordinance provisions on the table tonight have that temporary structure IEP pathway in there and a new phrase in there that says that it's not subject to storm water management mitigation. Uh, as it's a transient feature upon the landscape, um, seasonal

466
02:13:07.599 --> 02:13:23.440
if you will. And yeah, the application would be weighed against the merits thereof as posted. Okay. Um, I think one thing worth noting to quite a few in the room, I think the passion's

467
02:13:23.440 --> 02:13:39.360
appreciated. I think we all want to mutually find solutions together. Okay. West London, East London, Grand View Lodge, it's one neighborhood over there and it's a complicated matter because

468
02:13:39.360 --> 02:13:54.880
it's so long-standing, but there's obviously opportunities for this city and the property owners to be able to have clarity for true decisions going forward. And I think that's been discussed at length. So, I look forward to seeing this develop properly and the

469
02:13:54.880 --> 02:14:12.560
true findings of fact come out to be able to get us, the residents, Grand View Lodge into, as the mayor stated, a win-win solution. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Being on the fire department, now that

470
02:14:12.560 --> 02:14:27.520
there's no motion, are the barricades coming down or are they staying up? So when I leave the fire hall for a water rescue call or a fire call there, should I automatically go to G Lake or Zorbas, I I don't have time to go down there and

471
02:14:27.520 --> 02:14:45.760
look and go, geez, now I got cars in the way and then turn around and go back. So do I head straight for Zorbas or straight for the highway? Or are there going to be barricades up there so I know I have access to that? >> Go ahead, Mr. Timberlin. If I may, uh,

472
02:14:45.760 --> 02:15:02.239
we in my recommendation or consideration for council, there's essentially two parts. One is relation to the structure. The other is in relation to the signage and the barricades. I think that you guys could consider parsing those two out and making potentially a motion as

473
02:15:02.239 --> 02:15:18.320
it relates to just the signage and just the barricades. >> Okay. Um, would anyone on council like to make a motion related to the barricades and signage as Steven just indicated? I'll make a motion that the barricades and the signage stay as is.

474
02:15:18.320 --> 02:15:34.560
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Okay. We have a motion by council member Freley and a second by council member Hall. Any additional discussion? >> All right. I'll do a roll call vote. Council member Freilley >> I. >> Council member London. >> Council member Zand

475
02:15:34.560 --> 02:15:50.639
>> I. >> Council member Hall. >> Yes. >> And I also vote I. Um motion carries. Thank you everyone. >> Go ahead. >> And are they now? City Grand. Who's are

476
02:15:50.639 --> 02:16:06.320
they? >> Cities. City. >> Cities. Okay. Thank you everybody. All right. Um, next under old business we have did I say the >> Thanks, Rich. That's a good point. >> Thank you. Uh, planning and zoning.

477
02:16:06.320 --> 02:16:26.800
Stephen zoning violation complaint. >> May I also note, I'm not sure, did we pull the Hills Crossing ones off the agenda by chance? I'm just curious. >> Pardon? I can't hear you either. >> Did we pull the hill? Sorry, it's low.

478
02:16:26.800 --> 02:16:43.599
Did we pull the Hills Crossing? >> No, we didn't, but I thought it was pulled, so I think I added it and said that would just be last. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. All right. So, in your report, I have a zoning complaint initial findings uh pursuant to a site visit that was performed

479
02:16:43.599 --> 02:16:59.599
um on 42926. Um upon my site visit responsive to the complaint, I tried to parse out in my report uh an analysis section as it relates to different portions of it. Um

480
02:16:59.599 --> 02:17:15.439
my findings were that largely that there's not an ongoing commercial operation out there. Um again based on that site visit there. So happy to be responsive if you have questions as it relates to that. I did include also the permit for the

481
02:17:15.439 --> 02:17:32.399
structure and analysis that as it was permitted we didn't have the same guardrails in place that would structure the footprint thereof. Um, so it's essentially a nonconformity of a structure that predates official controls that would otherwise have prohibited it.

482
02:17:32.399 --> 02:17:49.439
>> Okay. Did everybody get that? >> Okay. >> I read his report. Um, and just to make sure, >> go ahead, comologize. I don't I don't know if I'm having a hard time hearing you or not, or maybe it's my ears, but every single complaint that was made, your response to them in

483
02:17:49.439 --> 02:18:05.840
summary is they're either unsubstantiated or un or the complaint is unregulated. Is that >> correct? >> Correct. Okay. >> I read through it, too, and I think it's time to just close this and move on. That's my perspective. Um,

484
02:18:05.840 --> 02:18:19.920
I would entertain a motion. >> Do we need a motion if there's no action? No. Okay. >> Unless All right. Thank you, Stephen. >> Okay. Now we have the Hills Crossing

485
02:18:19.920 --> 02:18:42.000
Street lights. Uh Mr. Blomber. Good evening everyone. Um so this is an issue that's been with us for a few months. Um however, the up there is an update to this. Uh on May 11th, we had a special public works meeting, public public works committee meeting, and the

486
02:18:42.000 --> 02:18:59.200
committee re reviewed a checklist that was used as a decision maker for when and where to place uh street lights. Uh we use that for the hills crossing. And with that, the committee made a recommendation to allow those um

487
02:18:59.200 --> 02:19:14.080
street lights to be placed with the caveat that they would be paid for by Hills Crossing. Uh after consulting with the administrator for Hills Crossing, he agreed that they would pay for those and that we should proceed with that. So,

488
02:19:14.080 --> 02:19:30.319
I'm asking for council confirmation to add those street lights. >> Do we have any questions for Mr. plumber. >> I'll make a motion to approve the Hills Crossing Street lights proposal. >> Do we have a second?

489
02:19:30.319 --> 02:19:44.319
>> I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion by council members on second by council member London. Any additional questions or discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. >> Thank you.

490
02:19:44.319 --> 02:20:04.479
>> Thank you. All right. Um, new business, uh, planning and zoning, Schaefer sign proposal. Mr. Timlin, >> thank you. I'm going try to speak as close to this as I can moving forward

491
02:20:04.479 --> 02:20:20.080
here. Um, so Andrew Schaefer has provided a survey depicting and proposing a freestanding dynamic display sign. Um the placement as depicted on the survey is on the subject property. However, it's in in an area encumbered

492
02:20:20.080 --> 02:20:36.080
by the Smiley Road rightway. Um Andy has requested that concurrently with application submission for a C for this sign that uh he weighs in with city council as it relates to um dispensing

493
02:20:36.080 --> 02:20:52.560
with the right of way aspect as as it comes forward. uh very similar to the other because it involves area that is in that corridor. Um it would be my recommendation to have the planning commission function in an advisory capacity to this subject to your guys's

494
02:20:52.560 --> 02:21:09.840
concurrent approval thereafter. So almost a condition on the CUP if recommended by planning commission that you guys also weigh in on it and execute an agreement that I've laid out in my staff report. Um happy to field any questions. Um, Andrew is here as well to

495
02:21:09.840 --> 02:21:26.560
talk about his proposal. >> Um, does council have any questions for Stephen? We'll start with you, Councelor Hall. >> Um, this sign that you're speaking of, it's the pre-existing location and sign that's always been out there.

496
02:21:26.560 --> 02:21:44.880
>> In my time here, I've not seen an a sign on that island. >> On the island? >> Is it in replacement of the existing one? >> No. No, this is replacing the really old one that used to be in the median next to the pay phone, >> right? Yeah, there there used to be one

497
02:21:44.880 --> 02:21:59.280
out. >> Yeah, there used to be one out there, but it's not replacing spirits, >> right? But there was there was one there. Correct. >> Back in the day. Yep. >> Right. >> Back when there was a pay phone, >> right? That's what I was asking. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any more questions? Council member

498
02:21:59.280 --> 02:22:15.600
Zan. >> Council member London. Well, as I understand it, this sign is in replacing an older sign. Correct. >> It sounds like >> there's nothing currently there, but there used to be >> there used to be one years ago. Yeah.

499
02:22:15.600 --> 02:22:30.880
>> Thank you, >> Council Member Freley. No questions. All right. I would entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to accept the signed proposal in action as submitted. >> I'll second it.

500
02:22:30.880 --> 02:22:45.840
>> Okay. Okay, we have a motion by council member Hall, a second by council member London. Uh Mr. Schaefer, >> just before it goes through, I I was proposing the two post and I have pictures of two and one post just for clarification. I left those both in

501
02:22:45.840 --> 02:23:01.920
there. Let you guys decide that it was brought up uh being able to see around it for traffic. I would rather have two supporting it, but if you so choose to have just one for traffic site, that's something we could do.

502
02:23:01.920 --> 02:23:18.160
>> Do you want to >> I don't recall the ordinance is specific enough to specify one or two, so I'd leave that up to you. >> Okay. I just was throwing that out there for people that said that traffic site, line of sight might be an issue. I just

503
02:23:18.160 --> 02:23:35.600
>> Okay. Um, any other discussion or questions from council? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Next we have Steven. Still you. Um, planning and zoning chapter 20

504
02:23:35.600 --> 02:23:51.760
ordinance amendments. >> Thank you. Uh so the planning commission board of adjustment over the last three months and relative meetings has done extensive review of proposed draft changes responsive to the consultants recommendations that were rendered to

505
02:23:51.760 --> 02:24:10.720
the city. Um that body is now recommending to city council adoption of those changes. >> Okay. Uh council, do we have any questions for Mr. Timberlin? I'll start with you. Mr. Council member Freley. I think some uh residents uh contact me

506
02:24:10.720 --> 02:24:28.160
about the tower specifically. Um did anybody ask you any questions about uh towers? >> Yeah. Um so the two citizens had come into the public hearing at the planning commission at the regular meeting this month. Um they

507
02:24:28.160 --> 02:24:43.760
do have nominal changes that they would propose for that section of the ordinance which would be my recommendation to take on its own legislative pathway for review. Um, we could perhaps motion that we initiate that they are coming under new business to the planning commission board of

508
02:24:43.760 --> 02:25:00.479
adjustment to propose those specific changes and provide their documents on where they would envision that the regulation could go. Um, following that, we could hold a public hearing for adoption and a recommendation to city council if if that's the direction that they want to go and is the consensus

509
02:25:00.479 --> 02:25:15.760
received at that body. >> So, that's coming >> coming >> and I too am having a hard time hearing you. Yeah, it's hard to hear you tonight for some reason. >> I apologize about that. I'm not sure what's going on. >> Okay. Any additional questions? Council member Freilley, Council Member London,

510
02:25:15.760 --> 02:25:32.560
Council Member Zan. >> No, sir. >> Council member Hall. >> Ma'am, that's okay. Any Okay. Uh, I would entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the uh chapter 20 ordinance as presented.

511
02:25:32.560 --> 02:25:46.960
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Motion by council member Zhan, second by council member Freilley. Any additional questions or discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. >> I'd also like to make another motion to

512
02:25:46.960 --> 02:26:02.479
publish the summary of the chapter 20 ordinance amendments. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by council member Zan, second by council member Hall. >> That's what you get for >> any additional discussion or questions here, Stephen. >> Yes. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I

513
02:26:02.479 --> 02:26:18.240
>> I opposed. Okay, motion carries. All right, thank you. Next up, community center pay application one for the community center. >> Awesome. Thank you. Good evening. Um, pretty straightforward here. This is pay application one for the community center

514
02:26:18.240 --> 02:26:33.920
updates. Um, the work is substantially completed inside if you have not had the pleasure of touring it yet. So, there's minor work to be done still on the sighting. Amber, thank you for staying here for two hours, 23 minutes to go over this

515
02:26:33.920 --> 02:26:50.000
pay application for the >> so welcome. I think >> I think in the future perhaps maybe if that comes up maybe somebody can take that off of your plate and vice versa so we don't have to have you guys sit >> here for questions. So if you have any shoot

516
02:26:50.000 --> 02:27:07.520
>> and the updates in the community center look beautiful. So great work. Um any questions or comments for Amber? I'll make a motion to accept the pay application as presented. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by council member Hall, second by council member Freillley. Any

517
02:27:07.520 --> 02:27:23.840
additional questions or discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thanks, Amber. >> Okay. Uh, public works cost sharing agreement for the 2027 road bond Lakers Lane and Independent School District

518
02:27:23.840 --> 02:27:40.640
181. >> Okay. This is um basically we needed to figure out a way to split the costs for improvements needed um with Lakers Lane relative to the school. Um you will see that there is a document in there that

519
02:27:40.640 --> 02:27:57.200
was drafted by Mr. Pearson for this purpose. Um are there any questions on that? It was included in your packet. >> Any questions for Mr. Blommer? is the 23% their best and final.

520
02:27:57.200 --> 02:28:13.680
>> I guess uh the percentages were determined. Uh >> I could speak to that. It's representative of what went into the school's property. >> Yeah. Right. >> I I I was actually thinking it might end

521
02:28:13.680 --> 02:28:31.120
up being a little bit lower, but >> I'm good with it. Looks good. >> Okay. I would entertain a motion. I'll make I would like to make a motion to approve the cost sharing agreement for the 2027 road bond uh for Lakers Lane and ISD 181. A second.

522
02:28:31.120 --> 02:28:45.680
>> Um so I heard the motion by council member Z. I think I heard council member Hall first. So second by council member Hall. Any additional discussion or questions? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Thank

523
02:28:45.680 --> 02:29:02.800
you. Next up, final engineering for 2027 road bond construction. All right. This is a followup to the Monday, May 11th, special public works committee meeting, uh, our sidewalk summit. Um, the public works committee made a recommendation for the work

524
02:29:02.800 --> 02:29:20.160
outlined in the proposal from WIDST for final engineering for the 2027 road bond to be approved. Um, any questions? I'll probably defer those to Dave. Any any questions for

525
02:29:20.160 --> 02:29:37.920
Mr. Reese or Mr. Blomber? Council member Freillley, >> did did we ever come to a decision on the length of the sidewalk that would go down church? You know, because I was under the impression it was going to go all the way down church. Is it or >> So, yes and no. Um, so what we've

526
02:29:37.920 --> 02:29:52.880
decided is that we will be running two lengths of sidewalk or excuse me, a sidewalk on either side of Church Street from Lakers Lane to the entrance uh, excuse me, to the end of the church parking lot. There'll be a sidewalk that

527
02:29:52.880 --> 02:30:09.280
runs then likely all the way to Popppler from there. Although uh there is a caveat in the final engineering agreement that we will have um some additional a additional public work uh public

528
02:30:09.280 --> 02:30:25.359
information or meeting to talk about that that aspect of it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any questions? Council member London. >> Nothing. >> Council member Zan. Council member Hall. Okay. I would entertain a motion. Make a

529
02:30:25.359 --> 02:30:41.520
motion to approve the final engineering for 2027 robot construction as presented for 345,000. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Motion by council member Zan, second by council member Freillley. Any additional questions or discussion? >> Public knowledge this is going to be reimbured from the road bond. >> Correct.

530
02:30:41.520 --> 02:30:58.399
>> That'll be coming through. It's not coming out of Cath. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Um item number seven under new business has been removed. um at the request of the individual that had requested to have it

531
02:30:58.399 --> 02:31:13.760
on. So, we're jumping now to item number eight, which is lift station number one information only. >> Okay. So, what you have uh in your packet is a memo from our engineer for lift station one. Um basically, it's

532
02:31:13.760 --> 02:31:30.800
just a summary of where they are stating that they have completed their plans to 98%. Uh we're waiting on um the purchase of the property for the expansion before we can move any further. Um we're working on that. I

533
02:31:30.800 --> 02:31:48.080
think we're getting close to having that done. Um we're anticipating that uh there'll be additional work that's done through the winter. Uh outlines in there. There's some uh lead times on things like the electrical panel. Uh we're expecting to be constructing this

534
02:31:48.080 --> 02:32:05.520
uh as early as spring of 27. >> Any questions for Mr. Blom? Council members on >> you anticipate any um issues with this project moving forward if there's issues with the uh pond um

535
02:32:05.520 --> 02:32:22.160
>> lining. No, this project is independent of that. >> Just on the financing aspect. financing. This one would be covered the pond the P. So I probably if you'll allow me I can give you a quick update on the that great if that would be helpful.

536
02:32:22.160 --> 02:32:39.200
>> So we've discussed this a little bit um at our public works meeting on the 27th of this month. We're going to be receiving a proposal from WIDSH to uh begin the engineering for the pond liner replacement. Um what that'll do is identify the

537
02:32:39.200 --> 02:32:56.240
problem and and a method to to replace that. Um from that we will engage with um our financial advisors to get placed onto the PPL. Uh basically it's a priority so we can get financing from

538
02:32:56.240 --> 02:33:12.640
PFA public financing authority. That's the same uh funding that we've used for past expansion projects of the sewer pond. Concurrently with that, we're going to also be talking to Rural Water for

539
02:33:12.640 --> 02:33:28.000
interim funding for that. Um, that would allow us to begin work on that sooner rather than later. It does take a significant amount of time to get on this PPL for consideration for uh low

540
02:33:28.000 --> 02:33:44.160
low interest financing. Um that stuff will has yet to be determined to give I can't give you much more detail in that just to say that that's the process that we're going to start on. Uh additional money I think uh Jesse you've asked me

541
02:33:44.160 --> 02:33:59.120
about is there any grants or anything like that? Uh probably not >> grants for the >> for the pond liner >> liner. No. um what you could p pursue are legislation action

542
02:33:59.120 --> 02:34:15.520
but um that's a long shot obviously. So >> what we wisengger say >> what's that? >> What did we insurance? >> Well uh we haven't con uh contacted them on that but um what I would say is this uh we looked back at the original documentation from the pond liner

543
02:34:15.520 --> 02:34:30.399
installation. That pond liner came with a 20-year warranty. We are now at year 35. >> It's 15 years. >> Yeah. >> So I guess what I would say to that is I

544
02:34:30.399 --> 02:34:45.600
don't think anyone would warranty that or ensure that past its life expectancy. >> Well, it's no I mean it's no different. I mean just like consideration of a professional liability policy. So there there's some coverages for additional times or monies that are going to have

545
02:34:45.600 --> 02:35:01.359
to be expended to perhaps even say find a solution. If there's any considerations, it might be worth a phone call. Perhaps >> we can give them a phone call. >> Okay. Um this is just information. >> Yeah. Okay. Um any other questions for

546
02:35:01.359 --> 02:35:16.560
Mr. Blommer on this? Otherwise, we'll move on to the next item. Okay. Uh item number nine, remove Cole Johnson from probation status. Yeah. So, Cole was hired on October 15th of 2025.

547
02:35:16.560 --> 02:35:32.800
Um, he was eligible to be removed as early as April 15th. Uh, we should have I should have brought that forward then. I apologize to >> However, um, he has done outstanding work for us. Um, the staff loves him. Uh, been fantastic addition to our

548
02:35:32.800 --> 02:35:50.240
department and we fully recommend his removal from probation status. I'd be happy to make a motion to re re review, excuse me, remove uh Cole Johnson from probation.

549
02:35:50.240 --> 02:36:06.560
>> Sorry about that, Tom. >> Okay. Um motion by council member Zan, second by council member London. Any additional questions or discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right.

550
02:36:06.560 --> 02:36:22.479
of 2026 GO street reconstruction resolution. Mr. Blomber, I >> think I would defer this to our financial advisor, Heather, Heather Casper. >> Oh, sorry, I didn't see you there.

551
02:36:22.479 --> 02:36:38.319
>> She's been waiting the longest. >> Yeah, sorry to keep you waiting. Go ahead. >> She should have been at top of the list. >> Yeah, thank you, Tom. Um, Mayor Carneahan and and members of the city council, thank you so much. Um, so right the next thing on the agenda is the

552
02:36:38.319 --> 02:36:54.479
resolution which would be I I'll just read it officially. Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of 3,645,000 general obligation street reconstruction bonds series 2026A and levying a tax for the payment

553
02:36:54.479 --> 02:37:09.200
thereof. You should have some updated information in your packets. I believe Jane printed out for you the updated resolution what you had in your packet prior to the meeting had blanks and and also there is a recommendation letter

554
02:37:09.200 --> 02:37:24.960
from from me from PFM. So the city had a bond sale this morning. Bids were received at 11:15 this morning and there were four bids for the bonds which were received and on the first page of that letter outlines the lowest bidder was

555
02:37:24.960 --> 02:37:40.080
from a company called Robert W. Bard and Company and uh there were three other bidding firms. So the the sale was very successful. The rates bid on the bonds. Um you may recall at the workshop uh on

556
02:37:40.080 --> 02:37:57.760
April 21st uh we pro provided some information and the results received today were better than those estimates. Um in total the total interest cost is lower by about half a million. What that equates to is about $30,000 roughly on

557
02:37:57.760 --> 02:38:14.640
an annual basis. I also want to mention and uh give some credit to Maggie and to Tom for their participation in the credit rating discussion that we had with Moody's investor service. They both did a very good job presenting the city

558
02:38:14.640 --> 02:38:29.600
and the finances in this project. And as a result of uh their work and your work as a council, Moody's has affirmed for this bond issue and your outstanding debt a double A2 credit rating. That is uh two notches lower than the best

559
02:38:29.600 --> 02:38:46.720
rating. The best rating is a AAA. Uh next best rating is a double A1. And then the third best is a double A2. So so you should congratulate yourselves for having such a high credit rating. that also played a part in receiving the four bids that you did and the rates

560
02:38:46.720 --> 02:39:04.479
that they were. So, what we have again for action, uh we will need a roll call vote tonight and um I would recommend that the city award this bond issue to Robert W. Bar & Company and um pass the resolution that is before you. Uh happy

561
02:39:04.479 --> 02:39:21.200
to answer any questions that you may have. >> Okay. Um questions. We'll start with you, Council Member Freley. >> Um, I hate to go over this question again with you. We addressed it at the little seminar, but some of the people weren't here and they haven't watched it. Um, but they're still under the

562
02:39:21.200 --> 02:39:36.720
impression that this bond will affect our levy. Can you explain that real quick? >> Uh, sure. So, this is just a component of the levy. Um, of course, you know, the the city uh levies for for other items for your general fund, for your,

563
02:39:36.720 --> 02:39:53.439
you know, uh u utility rates, but what we have done in conjunction with planning with Tom and with Maggie is to make the debt service levy component um as steady as possible so that it is um it does not vary you know greatly from

564
02:39:53.439 --> 02:40:08.880
year to year. There is a presumption that the net tax capacity which is how the rate is calculated uh will continue to rise at a very uh small conservative level. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Council member London.

565
02:40:08.880 --> 02:40:22.880
>> Question. >> Council member Z. Council member Hall. I have none either. Um anything else before I call for a motion? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. I would entertain a motion.

566
02:40:22.880 --> 02:40:41.439
I will make a motion to recommend for the go street reconstruction resolution that the city of Nisa move forward with Robert W. Bar & Company uh for the series 2026A bonds as

567
02:40:41.439 --> 02:40:55.920
presented. >> I'll second. >> Did I get that good, Heather? I >> think you have to resolution. >> Yeah. >> Yes, that works just fine. Thank you. >> Okay. And then we will do a roll call vote. So I will start with you council member Freilley >> I.

568
02:40:55.920 --> 02:41:12.160
>> Council member London council member Zan >> I. >> Council member Hall >> yes. >> Um and I vote I as well. >> Do you need anything else? >> No. The only thing I would just say is that we have the this bond issue will

569
02:41:12.160 --> 02:41:29.040
set to close and so that Tom and his crew will get the funds on June 2nd. Um and thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Yep. Thank you. >> Oh, uh, Council Member Freley. >> Yeah,

570
02:41:29.040 --> 02:41:44.720
>> sorry. Council member Zan and Freley. Okay. Um, thank you. Liquor licenses. Um, council action. We have a sheet in our packet. Miss Wentler, I don't know if you want to say anything to this. >> Yes. This is just a standard renewal for

571
02:41:44.720 --> 02:42:00.000
all of our, um, businesses within the city limits that have liquor licensing. So, um it's just kind of a final approval contingent on that everybody supplies all of the documents that are required for their liquor license.

572
02:42:00.000 --> 02:42:16.880
Okay. Um any questions for Miss Wentler? Otherwise, I would entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the 2026 2027 liquor licenses as presented. >> Okay. Motion by council member Freley, second by council member London. Any additional questions or discussion? All

573
02:42:16.880 --> 02:42:31.920
those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. And last up we have liquor committee meetings. Um I know council members on requested this be on the agenda. I have brought this up too at past meetings

574
02:42:31.920 --> 02:42:48.000
about if you look at our ordinances, liquor committee is listed in there with all the other committees, parks, public works, planning and zoning. And so this was on the agenda. to correct me if I'm wrong because I do believe we should notice these meetings and hold them in the chamber as we do with all of our

575
02:42:48.000 --> 02:43:05.120
other uh meetings, but I'll let you chime in to add that because you requested it to be on the agenda. >> I did and I actually put more thought into this and I want to make a recommendation that the city council consider uh dissolving the liquor committee entirely. Um why? My two reasons are this. These

576
02:43:05.120 --> 02:43:22.000
are two revenue generating business enterprises. Um, this council is not always made up of business owners. Um, I think it's great to have a variety of leadership on the council makeup, but we

577
02:43:22.000 --> 02:43:38.319
are on the cusp of getting a report that obviously is expensive, but it's hopefully going to provide this council with the greatest clarity that we've had for these two business enterprises uh, in decades. to be able to have that input and that insight. I don't think it

578
02:43:38.319 --> 02:43:54.960
should fall on one council member. Um I've been on this council for four years and couple months and change, but I think during that time I've been on the liquor committee as liaison or prom for almost all of it. Um we don't have

579
02:43:54.960 --> 02:44:11.840
regularly scheduled meetings. We don't have meetings that are in the public. Can we have meetings that are in the public? Sure. But these are two um enterprises owned by the city of Niswah that actually compete against other privately held businesses in this

580
02:44:11.840 --> 02:44:29.040
community. And you want my honest opinion on it after the last four years and change. I think it's just too murky. And I think that this rep report, especially after having the interview that I did with Florida Flora Delaney, >> uh owner of the consulting firm, I think

581
02:44:29.040 --> 02:44:46.000
there's going to be quite a bit of suggestions that'll come across the bow for us to evaluate. Um, and dissolving the liquor committee to its entirety doesn't mean that they're that

582
02:44:46.000 --> 02:45:02.160
Spirits and Niswah and the pickle factory are not going to have support or they're not going to have leadership or guidance. Um, I don't own a restaurant. I don't know what I don't know what it or excuse me, I don't own a bar. Um, I I don't own a a liquor store. These are it's a totally separate industry than

583
02:45:02.160 --> 02:45:19.920
that I have zero experience in. I build solar farms. Okay. Um I'm confident that the suggestions that are going to be coming forward from Delaney are going to provide better clarity and structure. So that being said, I'd be happy to make a

584
02:45:19.920 --> 02:45:35.920
motion for the consideration of this. And I'm also going to say before I make the motion, I have not talked to Terry nor Brian about this. So this will be catching them off guard. So if you guys want, we can absolutely take some time to be able to consult with them and have

585
02:45:35.920 --> 02:45:52.080
another liquor committee meeting before sunsets's considerated. Suns setting the committee is considerated, but perhaps open for discussion. >> Do you want me to start with you or >> No, I'm I'm all for dissolving the committee because like you say, I mean

586
02:45:52.080 --> 02:46:07.439
it might meet uh every three months, it might meet once a year. I mean, it's here and there, but yes, I'm all for that. >> Okay, Council Member London, your thoughts? >> I think the committee is it's a good thing, but be used as needed as well, but going forward, I think they've done

587
02:46:07.439 --> 02:46:24.399
a good job. And uh you want to dissolve it, that's fine. >> Council member Hall. >> Yeah, no comment. >> Okay. Um my comments would be I actually am in agreement with council members on I think that the liquor committee it

588
02:46:24.399 --> 02:46:39.359
it's it's not consistent. It meets inconsistently and unlike our other committees or commissions it doesn't involve or include anyone from the public. These are two revenue generating streams and I also met with uh Miss Delaney and uh Mr. Blitzer earlier this

589
02:46:39.359 --> 02:46:54.640
week about the assessment they're doing and I do think we are going to get some uh very impactful strategic and important findings next month. So I would also be in favor. >> I mean are we interested in making a motion tonight or do we out of respect

590
02:46:54.640 --> 02:47:10.640
to consult with or not excuse not to consult but to uh um speak to those two managers um perhaps Maggie as well because >> it's up to the council. I can see both sides. I can see taking the time to sit

591
02:47:10.640 --> 02:47:27.120
down and speak with both managers. Um because this isn't anything they've heard before and we can take this vote at next month's meeting. Um it's fine either way. It's up to council. >> Are you in favor of that? >> I'm in favor of that.

592
02:47:27.120 --> 02:47:43.600
>> Next month. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, last up we have council liaison report on that. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Schaefer. So, >> the uh the whole point of bringing that up was to have an open meeting if you do

593
02:47:43.600 --> 02:47:58.399
have another meeting. So, if you're going to meet with them and you were supposed to vote on whether or not to do something there, weren't you on the agenda? Council motion. So, I feel like you guys

594
02:47:58.399 --> 02:48:14.960
should vote on something whether or not to have them open or closed. And I agree dissolving it would be good because I had a meeting with three of you and then two of you changed your mind when it came to the vote. So, why not have these open so people can hear what's

595
02:48:14.960 --> 02:48:31.279
happening? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Ian said I will make a motion to dissolve the liquor committee. >> Second. >> Okay. Any additional discussion or questions? We have a motion by council member Hall, a second by council member

596
02:48:31.279 --> 02:48:47.120
Zan. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Last up here, we've got council and liaison reports. Um, the only update I have right now is last night I held a straight talk with the mayor over at the

597
02:48:47.120 --> 02:49:02.479
Legion. There were there was a great turnout. Um, lots of topics were brought up. I have not had time to put it into a summary. I'm going to work on that. Um probably won't get to it until after Memorial Day and then I will get it to staff so that uh council can all see

598
02:49:02.479 --> 02:49:18.560
that. Um council reports. Uh council member Freley. >> I have none. >> Council member London. >> Yeah. Look, I also recognize our fantastic fire department, the sacrifice they made, their families and stuff and the danger they encountered over there. They did a great job in that. A lot of

599
02:49:18.560 --> 02:49:34.560
people in area are talking about it. And um also the generosity of people in our community, Emma from the A&W, the Rafferties, um the Lakes Area Heroes and the American Legion took good care of our firefighters and very grateful for all

600
02:49:34.560 --> 02:49:50.560
that and they deserve a good thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Absolutely. Council members on >> uh I do have one motion I'd like to make for consideration. Uh, I just happened to somehow stumble across the uh, agenda for the city of Cross Lake. Probably

601
02:49:50.560 --> 02:50:07.920
because Mayor Perverse is always over on social media sharing everything. Um, but I saw something on his agenda that I thought was potentially worthwhile for us to consider as a council. They actually have their open forum and council reports flip-flopped. So they

602
02:50:07.920 --> 02:50:23.439
have uh public or excuse me they have this specific uh council reports and liaison reports at at well after the after the consent calendar and open

603
02:50:23.439 --> 02:50:39.680
forum towards the end. Um is anybody interested in entertaining that in the future? >> Yeah, it's fine. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion for that. I'll second. >> Okay. Uh motion by council member Zan,

604
02:50:39.680 --> 02:50:55.279
second by council member Freillley. Any discussion or questions? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Um >> any report? >> No. >> Okay. Next up, we have announcements and

605
02:50:55.279 --> 02:51:11.920
upcoming meeting dates. Those can be found on this agenda also on the city's website. A motion to adjurnn would now be in order. >> I so move. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Freley. Second by council member Zan. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Meeting is adjourned.

606
02:51:11.920 --> 02:51:48.640
Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. Have a good night. I don't think very flat.