Call to order the city council regular meeting for the city of Wyoming, Minnesota, February 2nd, 2026. Let the record reflect we do have a quorum. Member Luger, member Anstad, member Schilling, member Joerger, and Mayor Iverson are present. Please stand
for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> All right. First on the agenda is open forum. Is there anybody here for the open forum? >> Seeing none, we'll move on to number one, approval of minutes. Number one, consider approving the minutes of the regular meeting of the Wyoming, Minnesota City Council for January 20th,
26. If there are no um changes or comments, we need a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second. All in favor? I opposed. >> So approved. Did you get who said that?
Sorry, I didn't say it was. Okay. Sorry. >> All right. Moving on to number two, to consider resolution 260217, a resolution to vacate an easement between between properties located at 7346,
255th Street and 7384 255th Street. Um, Mr. Lynwood, will that be you? >> I'll be taking that one. >> Who's saying that? >> I'll be taking that one. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah, honorable mayor and members of the city council, this is a public hearing. Um, the city, this item is a public hearing. Uh, the city has received an
application for vacation of easement um from the Terresa M. Hubert Revocable Trust for the easement located between properties 7346 and 7384 on 250 or 255th Street. You seem to have lost the applicant. One second while I pulled that say it looked like he froze.
>> Oh, my Zoom just crashed. >> Yes. One sec. Sorry. Zoom crashed. All right, I have the applicant back in Zoom. I'm going to reopen it so we can see them on the screen. Um, Now we can't open but we seem to be um
okay you can hear me on our side. Let's see. Looks like we're having internet connectivity issues. Um I'm not able to get it back up on the screen. Mr. Huber, can you hear us? >> Yeah, I was gonna go there next. >> Yeah. So, I'll continue then. Uh, Mr. If
there's questions for him, the applicant is with on screen with me. Um, so if there are questions, I'll just relay them and >> Okay. >> Oh, I can. >> Okay. Apologies for that. Uh the easement that uh application that we received to vacate uh runs between the two properties as mentioned um and are
owned by the applicant and it's comprised of a five foot drainage utility easement on both sides of the property line. Uh the vacation of the easements is needed to allow the applicant to construct a dwelling on their preferred location of the properties. Uh staff and engineering staff as well have uh reviewed the
application and made one small change which is the change of uh the original number of feet that they stated were uh 331.68 68 proceeding from the north facing uh side which has been reduced to 31 or 311.68 ft. That's just to uh accommodate for the standard 10 yard or
10 foot uh rear yard easement required of all city lots. So um staff has completed their uh review of the the application are recommending approval on that. >> Okay. So is this our easement and they bought both lots or what I mean? So, the the
property owner owns both lots. Since they're two separate lots, there's typically an easement, the utility easement that runs between them, the five feet on each side. So, they just want to join these two lots uh to be able to put a house on the spot, which is highlighted in the packet as well. >> Okay, got it. I just needed to make sure
it wasn't two separate entities, all that good stuff. So, perfect. Okay, that's all my questions. Member Luger, questions? >> No questions. >> Member Anstad. >> I'm just assuming it's going to be a doublesized lot then compared to the every other lot in the neighborhood. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's the only change is that it's going to be on what was the former
easement. >> Yeah, it'll be on the Yep. the property line and easement as of right now, but that will go away with this application and then >> Okay, now it makes sense. >> Okay, members. >> Uh I actually do not have any questions for this. >> Member Joerger. >> So the two lots are going to be combined
into one with one house on them. >> Yep. >> Okay. And then given the wetland in the vicinity of the property, will losing the drainage easement uh adversely affect anything because you have a wetland draining into there? Uh so the
the applicants shaking their head no. Uh we had public works and our engineering staff look at this as well as uh the zone administrator and building official forwick and no comments were were raised or concerns were raised regarding that. >> Okay, cool. Thanks. >> All right. Um do we need to open up for public hearing?
Okay. So, uh, we need to go into the public hearing. Do we have a motion? >> So, >> we have a motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Onstead. All in favor? I. We are in the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to speak onto this um vacating of
easements? All right. Seeing none, we need a motion to come out of the public hearing back into the regular meeting. Do we have a motion? >> Some move. >> We have a motion by member Lucer. Do we have a second? So moved. >> Second by member Onstead. All in favor? I opposed. We are back into regular
session. So we need a motion to approve resolution 260217, a resolution to vacate an easement between prop properties located at 7346, 255th Street, and 7384 255th Street. Uh do we have a motion?
>> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Anstad. Um all in favor? I opposed. So approved. >> All right. Consent agenda. Um we will approve all at one time unless somebody
wishes to pull anything. Consent agenda is three, four, five, six, and seven. Does anybody wish to pull an item? No. Okay. I would like our applicant, Ken Ruters, to come up real quick.
>> How are you tonight? doing good. Help yourself. >> Good. Just a couple questions. I know I was at the planning commission when you were there, too. So, there's just couple questions. Yeah. >> I'm like, >> yeah, >> yeah, it's for planning. So, yep. You wrote a great letter. My question is on
a couple things. Um, one of them was you had a lot of ideas. What are some ideas that you have for planning commission for this particular board? >> I look at the growth of our of our town and where we're going to go and where we're at now. We need to grow onto some
more businesses here to help our taxes and how can we work as together as a team to get these businesses in here in our beautiful industrial parks. We got two of them weld open uh looking the freeway. How can we present it to these other people at the same time with not
just taxes that's going to also help our schools along with our other parts of our community at the same time as I reach out myself to our community to help out during stage coat days. I bring up my own personal antique tractors and my trucks and cars over here for
everyone to to joy. And uh to me it's giving back what I can give back there into the community. That's how I can sit there and help here. And my other ideas I have it just I ponder different weird things at night. How can we make not
taxes but different ways of the city can make more money or help our lower our taxes layer down somewhere down the line and bring in the community of all cultures and everyone feel safe and happy in our community. >> Okay. Thank you. And one last question. You did also mention saving money. What
ideas do you have for planning to help us save money? and some of the stuff that I I see what we had spent our money on in the past. It kind of erupts me. Um, one of the things we have a street sweeper that's sitting there. How can we make let that thing make our money? We
pay for this thing. We pay for somebody to get trained on it. We pay for somebody to run this thing. Can we benefit this out of city of Lynwood to clean up theirs? You know, renting out our guy to them and our piece of machinery so we make recovery some of
that money out of this. Same thing of other, you know, Stacy and other towns around. You know, we're watching a company down on Forest Lake that did us before at a really reasonable price as I compared to other places that have done.
um why can't we recoup that which saves the city money, saves the wages on a person, make them do something instead of sitting around the shop going pushing a broom and it saves the taxpayers money. >> Okay, perfect. Well, that was my only question. Does anybody else have a
question for the applicants? >> Replied. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> All right, so we need a motion to approve three, four, five, six, and seven. Do we have a motion? So moved. >> We have a motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Second by member Luger. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. Acknowledge of receipts of reports. Officer boards, commissions, and department heads number 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Does anybody wish
to pull an item from the um reports? Seeing none, we'll move on to new business number 13 to consider resolution 260220, a resolution approving an interim conditional use permit to operate a cannabis micro business at 7745
Wyoming Trail Applicant Tyler Zerzac. Did I say that correctly? >> Thank you. Property ID 21.00358.00 Mr. Lynwood. >> Yes, I will be handling that tonight. Thank you, mayor, members of council. Um, as just stated, this is for the
interim use permit for cannabis micro business at 7745 Wyoming Trail. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm in control of this. Waiting for I was waiting for Mr. McFarland. That wasn't correct. Overview. This is a request for an
interitional use permit. Um, cannabis micro businesses are allowed within the agricultural district and the property was recently reszoned to agricultural. Uh the site characteristics, it's approximately 5.10 acres. Uh the proposed location off of 7745 Wyoming
Trail uh currently has residents and acultural buildings. And for this particular project, there would be two greenhouse buildings to be south with a semi-trail for pro processing. Uh the semi-trail not supported. The cup standards and development
issues. that does conform with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with adjacent uses will not impact or harm existing uses and properties. Site and structures still need to be constructed and the ordinance allows use for the compliance of IUP standards and then there are conditions in there
regarding odor, lighting and water use. uh IUP standards here you can kind of see in regards to the setup in this in regards to the 9 9,000 square feet of the flowering canopy there in the diagram and it goes through a little bit of that in regards to security cameras um ID lot security doors security window
bars smoke alarm carbon monoxide detectors motion alarms um basically in regards to what they need to be uh in compliance with state standards but in regards for the city components it conforms with their zoning regulations uh the staff and the planning commission recommending that the IUP be terminated
a change of owner, sale of property or loss of state license or after 10 years. Uh permission will not impose additional costs to the public. The recommendations uh the applicant shall adhere to all setback requirements for the agricultural district. The development of the site must comply with all representations of the applicant and
application materials spec specifically relating to lighting, outdoor, water use, and employee count and provide proper maintenance of the system to ensure compliance. The property needs to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations necessary for operations of a cannabis micro business, including meeting all zoning ordinance
requirements. The IEP will terminate upon the sale of the property, a change in business ownership, or if the applicant does not maintain his license through the office of cannabis management. Permanent will expire on January 1st, 2036. fence installation around the cannabis use storage and operations building comply with zoning
and building code regulations. Work with city engineer for grading and storm water runoff and final final site plan submitt for staff review and approval. Uh recommendations as earlier stated for city staff and planning commission with as they had this application go before
them last week are to recommending approval for the request for the conditions listed in the staff report and resolution. >> Okay. All right, questions from council. We'll start with member Hansstead. >> Um, this in the city, we have other businesses that uh have, if I recall,
one employee on site um and that's all that we would allow >> for the the other one the other business similar to this that we approved. That was the that was the um status of that when there was one employee. Correct. Um um I can think of a couple that we may
have had. Um but I don't think it needs to go into that right now. >> The most recent. Yeah. >> Yeah. The uh um this is looking like they're going to have six employees. >> I believe that is correct. I don't know if the applicant wants to to confirm if
that's correct or appropriate. >> I'm sorry. We want to turn the mic on. >> I think that that would be a that was part of the condition that can have up to six, but I'll let the applicant speak for himself. >> Okay. >> All right. Yeah. So, we we may have up to six employees um depending on needs
at the time, but no more than that. We should be shuffling around. >> Would that that wouldn't be six like all year round and just maybe six at harvest or >> Yeah, that may be six in peak. >> Okay. So just in peak times, but more
than likely we'll be well below that. >> My biggest concern would be that we'd have six people there all the time when we have other companies in town that are allowed one. Granted, I think those are more in residential areas rather than agricultural. >> Yeah. No, you know, it's it's an
agricultural thing. So more sometimes you need more than one pair of hands. >> Exactly. Is there places that are going to be built for them to you know break rooms, restrooms? >> Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah, we will have all we will adhere to all state and county
recommendations. >> Okay. >> We need to have a biffy on site than we do, you know, during harvest time, outdoor harvest or anything, but the house is not too far away. So, I can always use the house. >> That raised a red flag that you'd be
using the house as opposed to a professional building. Well, if there's so if more than one person has to use the restroom at that time, I don't see an issue with them running into the house to use the bathroom. Given that
the owner say it's okay, obviously. >> Okay. Um, >> not planning on that, you know. >> Yeah. And just out of curiosity, how often is like during harvest? I I would assume it's kind of like, you know, regular agricultural with uh um crops
like wheat or something that I know that, you know, farmers that are doing that are harvesting once a year. How often uh would you be harvesting? I'm just kind of curious. >> So that could be anywhere from three times to six times >> a year. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's not that much.
>> No, depends on cultivation scheme we plan to use um and how often we plan to harvest, but No more than six. You can't you can't >> and that's the peak time I would assume is during harvesting. >> Correct. >> Okay, that's all the questions I have.
>> Perfect. Member Schilling. >> Uh I actually have no questions. We've uh seen a lot of this well before this and I thought the report was very detailed and I didn't have anything to ask. So, thank you. >> Member Joerger. >> Well, not a ton of them. So, now same cannabis idea but with a different
applicant this time. No, I'm the horicultural scientist that'll be running. >> Okay. >> There was a different name on the last >> Yeah. And it's it's still Tyler and that was on the application and Brandon. They're going to be overseeing it. Um
and then they have a couple guys that work. Kelly and I are going to be watching over the product as it grows. So, it's just going to be that 35 to 40 days when the the product, I guess, is ready for harvest. >> That's when we'll need help.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then you're going from the first open field idea to green houses. >> Green houses. Yes. >> We might supplement with open field depending on depending on space and availability.
It really boils down to how much money it costs, you know, small businesses. you can and can't. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, next question. The conditions includes the installation of fencing. There was something in this uh the
planning commission minutes about a six-foot fence, but an 8 foot fence was mentioned. >> Depends, excuse me, it depends on some of the the front and side setbacks. So, usually side can be six and then for back can be eight. Um I I don't know if it reference I guess I did not look at
those minutes to see the reference there other than the application materials. >> I was there. What was the question? >> Uh in the minutes it talked about an eight foot fence and then I know our standard is a sixoot fence. So >> is it going to be six? Is it going to be eight? >> Yeah. I don't know where that eight foot
came from. >> Okay. >> From from everything from the state side of it is a sixoot fence. Cameras every 30 yards. >> Okay. So it's going to be a sixoot fence. >> Six foot fence. And there will be uh pickets in it. >> Those are the privacy >> privacy. >> Okay. >> So slants.
>> Cool. >> I do excuse me, but I do think at the planning commission it was 6 and8. You guys hadn't decided yet. >> No, I don't even know where that came from. >> Okay. >> It was almost six. All the information that we turned in was six. >> Six. Okay. Okay.
>> Planning commission brought up eight. >> Yeah. >> Six or eight. I don't But it's six. Okay. >> Six. >> Okay. Cool. Um, and then there was a mention of security fencing in this in the staff report. What is there a difference between what you're putting up and security fencing?
>> I think in regards to the component to um comply with the state statute that the chain link the chain link is acceptable in regards to quote unquote security fence. So, >> but there's no there's no difference between them. Whatever they're doing is fine. >> Correct. That is my understanding that
that chain link fence does meet the criteria as essentially having a type of fence that can be um acting as that barrier um you know security and it has to be but it has to be slotted too for >> the state doesn't want us to have like
somebody to put like a wood fence up like she f >> yeah if I can just jump in the the office of cannabis management has security protocols that they have to adhere to and the fencing they have specific fencing requirements So they're going to have to adhere to the state
requirements as he's indicating and so they you know the the application and the approval of the permit will require all that to be met. So they've set forth those security criteria through the OC. >> I didn't know if there was a difference between security fencing and regular fence.
>> I think the in the definition on OCM so they do have to be six six feet but they have to be a commercial or security grade. So that's different from like your normal residential or agricultural. They're a little more beefed up and that'll be um to comply with that state
and the OCM standards for that. >> I'm assuming the applicant is well versed in. >> So that's basically it. It's the fence has to be a security grade rather than what's in the backyard >> like a residential agricultural. Correct. >> Yes. >> Cool. Um and then are the staff's
lighting and odor concerns adequately addressed in condition number two? I'm concerned about neighbors complaining. Yes. Um they were we have filteration systems put on each of the green houses with light filtration on each greenhouse also.
>> I saw that. Yeah. >> Yep. So I don't know if you need any more information on that. >> No, I just wanted to make sure every it's all adequate that we're not going to have neighbor complaints down the line. >> And speaking Yeah. In speaking with Mr. act in regards to what they have to do in regards to the state regulations that
what they were proposing were adequate to both for the lighting and for the potential smell that these would keep that contained within the site area. >> Okay, cool. >> And there was some notes from our neighbors that that gave a recommendation that they were fine with
it. So, >> okay. >> And that should be in your guys's table. >> I don't recall seeing that. So, but that's okay. Uh, will the private well be adequate to meet the increased needs of the business? >> Say that again.
>> Will the will your existing well, yes, >> your private well be adequate to meet the water demands on having this growing cannabis? >> Um, it's going to come up to 250 gallons every two days with a wick system, drip system, irrigation.
>> Okay. >> So, Fred looked at it and I think they could have used up to 10,000 gallons per day. So we ain't even come close. >> Oh, okay. Cool. So we don't need to discuss to talk about if there's a plan if it's not.
>> Yep. And he said that there was no extra permitting through the Department of Natural Resources Watershed District for that. >> Okay. And then are you still going to be doing tour groups? And if you are, is there going to be adequate like a lot of separation?
>> It's going to be separated. >> Yeah. Between the cannabis and the tour groups. >> Yep. Office of Canvas doesn't allow those kinds of >> Well, yeah, >> it's going to be that's what we're setting up way in the back. >> Okay. >> So, we can have the greenhouse up front
that we run as a Boston farm and garden greenhouse that we've been running for 30 years because we do do school. >> Yeah. >> So, yes, we want to keep it totally separate. >> So, they're not the kiddies aren't going to see >> No, they're not going to see it. They're not going back.
>> They're not going to smell it. We want to keep download too. I mean, we don't want a bunch of people knowing about it just because it's one of them deals. So, >> it seems like everybody knows about it already. So, I don't
>> every place I go, how's it going? >> Um, you going to be having trucks coming to the property? >> No, it's going to be uh two delivery trucks with soil. You talking like hail trucks? >> No, I'm talking apparently. Are you
going to be processing the product on your property? >> Yeah, but it won't require large trucks. >> Okay. You But I I assume that you were going to have a truck that's going to come take the product to wherever you're going to sell it. >> Yes. They won't be large semi trucks.
>> So, they'll be small trucks. >> Yeah. Messenger vans. Maybe a panel van depending on the service. We could only wish we had somebody's coming in there. >> Um, and how often do you expect them?
>> Every 45 days. >> Yeah. Depending on the harvest. >> Okay. >> And then the planning commission minutes say that the the city would get a small kickback from allowing sales of the product in the city. Are you is that
comment talking about retail sales? >> That was tongue and cheek. I don't if it was tongue and cheek and it made the minutes, but I'm that would not be >> that would not be the case at all. No, we >> for any anything like that requires a retail sales license. >> The comment was made just because the
state has a small fund or something. Mr. Lunan, you might know this a little bit better. there's some type of um small fund that um the sellers or the growers pay into and then it gets distributed among the cities or the state.
>> I think that's what it was that's what they were talking was most likely a tongue and cheek. There's a very small amount the city may receive but not any direct benefit from the city. That's not a consideration here. >> Okay. I saw when it made the minutes I mean it caught my eye. >> Yeah.
>> The way it was correctly because I was going to ask how small the kickback was. >> And I don't think kickback is the right word for it. >> Well, that's what's in the minutes. >> Yeah. Should be. >> So, what the heck? I don't know if they if the planning commission approved it
that way. >> And do you anticipate establishing a a retail spot in the city at a later date? >> Yes, they do have licenses and that they're looking at different locations right now, but they Oh, okay. But you're you're looking. >> They are looking. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. That's all I had. >> Member Luger. >> I have no questions. >> Okay. I have a few. Um Okay. So, who owns the license? >> Who owns the I'm sorry. >> Tyler. >> Tyler. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, not you. >> No. >> And not you? >> No. >> Okay. So, and Tyler has not been here or was he here at the first meeting? >> No, Tyler has not been here. >> Okay. And where does Tyler live? I mean, >> Tyler is in California.
>> Okay. >> And his partner Brandon lives in Florida and he also has an apartment here. He's going to be moving up to Minnesota to oversee it. >> Who's Brandon? >> Brandon is Tyler's partner. >> And we haven't met him yet either.
>> We haven't met him either. >> Okay. And how did they um get in touch with you? >> They I think they were looking on on Google Maps and calling people in the area that had smaller chunks of land that was not right up by the road kind
of back in. >> Yeah. >> And and they were just doing a search at that. >> Okay. And you have to remind me who you are again because I know your role, but your name again is >> I'm Brian Jones. >> Okay. And Brian, so you Bryant Bryant,
sorry. Bryant, Bryant, you state that you are I'm gonna say professor of growing uh cannabis. I know there's a special title to that. So, where else have you worked to grow cannabis? And you know, where what other places have you worked within? >> I've held licenses in three different
states. Um Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, and this is my home state. I also have a license here as well. I also serve on the canvas advisory council. I'm the state's representative for cannabis cultivation.
>> Okay. And will you be moving here to Wyoming or are you you're working on the far? I'm trying to get all the players here. So that's trying to understand. >> I don't I won't move to Wyoming. I I have a house. >> Okay. >> So I won't operations.
>> Okay. Um Mr. Luna, my question is this and maybe whoever can answer this. I know there's um one of the statements is if that license is sold, how would we know if that license is sold if the applicants are not in our state?
>> That if this if the license is sold one, it's a social equity license. So, it can't leave hands for three years. That's state's law. >> Okay? >> And once it does, then you guys will have to be notified immediately. >> The state will notify us or you guys will? We will
let you know that that property if someone else were to show up there, we wouldn't want them to be fraudul. So it would be in our best interest to put you guys. >> Okay. >> And the current license owners, how many other um cannabis I'm going to say farms
do they have? Do they have other ones? >> Yeah. >> How many do they have? operation in California, Florida, >> but none here in Minnesota. This will be the first. >> Okay. Um and then um the semi-trailers because that's a big deal, right? So,
what have you come up in place of those semi-trailers? >> I have a pole barn that's 30 by 45. We're going to use that instead. >> Okay. >> And Okay. And will that meet what planning had talked about, Mr. Lunan?
Because we weren't supposed to They can't have semi-trailers. So, I just want to see if because at that time you didn't know. So, I'm curious as to if that's going to meet criteria. >> What do you currently have in that pole barn? >> My vehicles.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> If they won't let us use semi-trail, can we use a pod? Would that be >> I don't think so. No. So, >> I'm just kind of wondering how you guys pass someone a block down the road and they were going to use a semi-trail for
their hearing and processing. >> I don't think so because I don't think there we can use that at all. We'd have to go back and look, but that was my understanding is with this uh semi-trailers that that's not allowed. >> No, it's not him. That's
>> I don't for that one. >> I thought they did too. >> I I thought they it was a part of the approval. >> They used it for Y. >> Okay. And then why aren't they allowed to use it then? >> Yeah. Can we double check that? >> Because you you remember that that way, right? We allowed them.
>> I don't remember that way. So, because I don't know why we would allow one and not the other. >> I mean, it's a big long container on wheels. It's nice. They work great for it. So, I believe it was more that they're coming in with >> according to this. I'm just looking at
the application um review. Is the semi-trail going to be permanent on site and not actually just being used for transportation? >> Yeah, it it'll be for storage. I was going to say it'll still move, but >> well, the conditions would prohibit a
semi-trail for storage. >> So, I guess the the question then would be the definition of semi-trail and whether or not the size they're using would qualify as a semi-trail. Um, and I'd have to go look at the code and see
if the city has a definition within our own code ordinance as to what length would qualify as a semi-trail. For what it sounds like you're more so looking at more of a box truck. >> Well, not a box truck neither. They're called pods. It's the size of a semi-trail with no chassis on it. So,
they bring it in a flatbed. They dump it. They set it right on the ground. You can walk right in and out. You don't have to worry about steps or any kind of safety rails going up into it. Um, they use these things on every construction site around. Basically, it says the storage and operations building shall
comply with appropriate building code requirements and use of a semi-trail for storage is prohibited >> for storage. >> Right. So, I actually have a question um because I these are as he had said we use these in construction all the time.
It sits on the back of a large trailer. It is called a storage container and or cargo container and it's used to facilitate the grow or the drying process I'm going to assume. >> Correct. >> So I don't view that. I view that as part of the storage but my definition of
what they're planning on using is not a semi-trail. It's a cargo container storage container. >> So then we have a verbiage issue. >> Well, that's what I'm asking. I'm asking Mr. Luna because we don't allow pods in
the city I work in, but we allow the they call them big giant storage pods. They're not pods, but they're cargo containers. I mean, they're 40 ft long. We we bought a couple of them just to keep because we use them for that sole purpose of storage.
>> Well, it says use a semi-trail for storage, etc. That etc is kind of weird, too. I agree that it creates an ambiguity that would not necessarily be beneficial for you. It probably wouldn't be beneficial for the city. We may want to look at revising the verbiage. Um
perhaps council member Schilling um wants to just shift that as you stated certainly we have the minutes here. Um because semi-trail I think can be broadly construed. Um and again just to for the benefit of you guys to make sure we have clarity and if we're looking
more so at like a cargo cargo storage or cargo trailer is I think how you describe. >> Yep. Because they lift them off the flatbed and they set them in place. So what I council is inclined I suppose my recommendation would be to modify the
condition number six maintain that use of a semi-trail for storage shall be prohibited. >> Yes. >> Um however the um the property may use
cargo trailer. Yeah. Go ahead. So, okay, cargo. Basically, it's a cargo container. And I'll give you a little further because it has to meet the the uh requirements of the building code. ICC now recognizes them and has their
entire code now on storage container builds. We literally build homes out of these now because they meet the building home require building code requirements. So, I think we call it an actual storage container. It's not a semi-trail. >> It's completely separate from wheels.
It's a you'll see semis driving around with the flatbeds that hold these containers, but ICC in the building code recognize them as meeting code requirements. Wind load, rating, structural loads. They use them to build houses now. I have three of them now in the last five years that have been built
out of homes that have been built out of these. >> These are the same containers that they use on ships. >> Correct. >> And >> those are cargo >> and they're stronger than I think a semi-tra in the fact that they have to be stacked. >> Yep. And a semi-trail is light aluminum, thin. These things are heavy corrugated steel.
>> Is that what you're talking about? >> Yes. >> Yes. These things are no joke. They're legit >> verbiage matters. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. I got a couple more questions. So, you need to write that down >> because I think that's what the other uh >> could be >> was was going to use. >> Yeah. So,
>> can we confirm what the other what we approved in the other site? >> The one that was a couple months ago. So just kind of go off of council member Schilling and make sure that we are on the same page with what you guys are intending. You know the that condition specifically condition six does
specifically state storage and operation of the building shall comply with appropriate building code requirements. And if what um council member Schilling and in his professional experience in his job understands the building code more than anybody here without uh administrator wack that the building
code would identify a difference between a semi-trail as we know it and what these gentlemen will be using on the property for their operations. >> Y >> because the the condition does reference to the building code and so if you're saying the building code does specify that out then I think it is covered under here and can be can be fine
because the building code is referenced. It has to comply with that. If you're saying that that's what's out there, then you Yeah. >> Yep. >> So, did So, in your application, did you specifically state that you were going to have a semi-trail, though? >> I mean, Tyler put semi-tra.
>> Okay, that's the issue. >> That's why. >> Okay. So, >> we just modify the condition. >> Well, my Yeah, as long as we can put on there, I mean, if we go out and check the business and it's a semi-trail, then you're not in compliance, right? So, um I mean, that's kind of um vague. So my
other question if you work on that. >> No, you go ahead. >> My other question is you just referenced open space that you would like to do some open space for cannabis. So that's on your property I'm assuming. >> Yes, but we are going for the two green
houses now because the licenses well that's what we can grow is two green houses. >> Okay. So when does the open space come in then? >> What's that? When does the open when are you thinking what tell me more about that open space because then you don't have odor control you don't have all
that kind of stuff. So >> I don't know anything about that and I wouldn't go for that. I want to see what the turnaround is. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Lunan open space. What is that? Is that >> that was just a reference to so under
the license you are okay to grow half an acre. So that was just stated just because under the license that's what you can do. So, it's not like >> it's not like something that would just shoot from the hip and say we're just gonna >> Okay. Because it does smell and when you do have families come in, I would not be
in favor for that, right? I just would that would be my no-go on that if that's what you're planning on doing. So, it was brought up. So, that's why I'm questioning that. >> That that was just stated just because it was part of the licensing. >> Okay. >> Wouldn't want to mislead anyone.
>> Okay. All right. And then um Mr. Mr. Lynwood, does um Mr. Wet go out and make sure all of this is >> in regards to the IUP? Yes, that's part of that. And then office cannabis management. The office of cannabis management will as well. >> Okay. And so it'll be more than just a
one-time visit. It could be spot check at any point in time. >> He has Yeah. schedules in regards for CS or IUPs to check those. I don't I know he isn't here to speak on on his behalf for that, but yes. >> Okay. That'll be done. Okay. My last question is this and I kind of referenced to that is I do worry about
you do have a lot of kids that come and that sort of thing. Um there's going to be odor no matter what, right? I mean you could do there's going to be there'll be some >> what what they're telling me. >> Yeah. So we can't control I mean that's
it's a act of God you know but the way the wind blows if someone opens the door at that moment I can't control that. Right. >> For the most part, odors will be mitigated >> as much as we can without >> containing the whole situation under a dome.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. But um odors themselves are nontoxic just for the council's reference. They don't alter the brain chemistry at all. It's a scent. So it's there's nothing to be
necessarily worried about with smelling cannabis, but catch your drift and I will make sure that we will not make you know stink up the neighborhood. >> As somebody who does not smoke and it's around a lot of different places, think
the state fair. It's kind of obnoxious. So I don't want kids to be smelling that when they're on your farm if you understand what I'm saying. >> It's going to be a different smell, but what you're smelling at the state fair. >> Yeah. >> Is smoke different.
>> Okay. But it'll still have an odor. Correct. some at some point in time. >> Smells like a >> very much so. >> I would not know. >> The plant smells like a skunk. That's the best way to describe it. When you smoke it, it's a completely different Yeah. >> scent. >> Okay. All right. Uh that is all the
questions that I have. So, thank you. Appreciate that. Um All right. Are there any further questions? Okay. Then we need a motion to approve resolution 260220. A resolution approving an interim conditional use permit to
operate a cannabis micro business. Do you have an addition you want to add to that? >> So do we just modify that condition six to eliminate semi trailer? >> Yes. And I think the building code is an important component of that to make sure it's >> Yep. And I already know they do. I'll actually pull the code and send if Fred
doesn't have it. The only reason I have it is because we've had three homes built from them. So, and then also for the other application, there was like a construction trailer that was utilized as an office. So, that's the trailer reference for the other application. >> Just for clarification on that, >> that makes sense. >> Um, my I guess I have one other question
though. So, none of this takes place until all these conditions. They can't start anything until the conditions are met. Correct. >> Correct. The use is conditioned upon them meeting all those >> all those requirements. Okay. >> So, we just strike the semi-trail for
storage container. Well, then then you need to state that >> ICC building code. >> Yeah, I think I don't know how we want >> as long as we're refer I mean I think we have a reference right now. >> Yeah. >> All right. What you want to mo what you will move is that you will move for
passage with the revised condition number six >> where the phrase use the semi-trail for storage etc. is prohibited is stricken. >> That's actually the best way to do it.
So I think that is then a motion. >> I don't know if you're for the motion. >> Are you making the first motion? >> You can make it. I You just said it. I'm not going to repeat because I'll second it. >> Fine. >> Okay. >> All right. You made the motion. I'll second the motion. >> Okay. >> You got it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Rob, just let us know. >> Got it. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I opposed. It does um carry. I just have concerns. So Uh, okay. Number 14 to consider resolution 260221,
a resolution contracting the Momentum Advocacy LLP as lobbyists for the city of Wyoming in the amount of 13,200. Mr. Lynwood. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Um, as you're aware, we've continued um to what I think is make
meaningful progress towards um securing state funding for our public safety facilities that support our um police and fire services. Um as you know the project has advanced. Uh the city has purchased a dedicated building for a new uh a new facility that will both city
hall and the police but we will be um doing renovations as part of that project and then along as well with the existing fire department city halls uh strictly for um the fire department. Um this concept has evolved why that it does though reflect normal project
development. Um that's something feedback that we received often from state legislators in regards to is there ways that you can look at the project or piece it up or look at ways to break it to try to go through this. So really in regards to what we've done and it's still the project is still eligible in
regards for the fire and the police portion. So, um staff has been continued to have conversations with legislators along with our um contracted lobbyist momentum advocacy um to move forward with trying to secure uh funding once
again through this um quicker session through the 2026 legislative session. Um Momentum has represented the city prior sessions and we've established relationships with with legislators uh committee members and many people on the uh capital investment committee. We've
had visits to our all of our buildings from key legislators including members of that capital investment committee and then also made numerous visits among um to different um committee member um organ organizations or um different
different uh um things maybeo that are hosted by momentum advocacy or different um potential other opportunities to speak to those people. So, um, we do believe that this is still a viable, um, plan to try to do this. I know that we have not, the state has not come through
with the bonding bill now for a few sessions. Um, I'll let probably let um, Miss Allison Nessie speak a little more to um, this year why we feel that there is hope for that. Um, and we think it is worthy um, to go through this year and see if we can't secure some funding
towards that police and fire building. And I think that um through this project, we've been trying to remain um strategically and financially conservative to try to get three buildings done um for quite a bit less than we were originally looking at just the public safety building. And I think
um to only to add to that story if we could secure some funding from the state for some of those fire services and police services. Um with that, I can stand any for any questions and I don't if you'd like to hear from Miss Nessie, she is here and available for questions as well. You can bring the cute puppy, too.
>> Very well behaved. >> All right, >> Linda, are you to start? >> Yeah, I I do have a couple of questions. >> So, it's my understanding that we have to have the state money in place before we bond, >> right? >> Um,
well, we should know that we have with the state money before based on the the quick session because the session will be done in May. So is that we had first we had talked about wants bonding beginning the bonding process in February. Is that going to be delayed until after the legislative?
>> Yeah, we wouldn't be the the based on that was one of the original scopes of this is potentially looking at bonding in February, but where where we're at right now along with we still have um both Boulder Architects and K going through the design development as a council approved that. So we would have
bonding later on as we get closer. Um we'd want to see the outcome of what happens in sessions. Um that should align fairly well with in regards to if the council were to approve going out for bid and then we wouldn't probably look for construction of these to start and probably till the end of summer if
if it were approved by the city council. >> Okay. So everything's being pushed back basically to see what happens in the legislative session. >> It would have it would have still been pushed back. They've been going essentially the architect and KA has been going through the design and the estimate, but just through the normal
process of that, it was still going to be delayed a little bit. Right now, they probably be looking at potentially going out um for the actual bidding if approved by the city council probably sometime in May or June, but we believe that we can line that up as the session ends on May 16th. We believe we can be
strategic um with what the outcome of that is along with our actual bonding when we move forward with that. Also, um as you as a council knows, this will be broken up into two different projects. The first one being um the initial for the fire and police and the secondary um
when the lease of the existing building um that lease is over. So, we wouldn't look into construction for the police department until 2029. >> So, you could just bond for the first part and then try to get state money for the second part. you could utilize that
state money towards potentially the first part and the second part and I can maybe let Miss Nessie in regards to the duration of that funding from the state is available. I believe there's a duration of years that it can be utilized but it doesn't have to be all used at once if I'm correct on that. >> Correct. Um Mayor, city council members
Allison Nessie with Momentum Advocacy and you have four years to execute your G grant contract with the state and at least make an initial draw. So you have to make a draw within four years >> and and there may be something in regards to how they want us to utilize
those those funding or may be suggested. I don't I want to speak out of turn is um Miss Nestie is our expert here in regards to a portion of the fire or portion of that police building if necessary. We'd have to put those in the property buckets essentially. >> Yes, you have flexibility. What you need
is um for the state for what you execute the grant agreement with the state that total project amount has to be fully funded. So you can kind of but there's flexibility in how you define what the total project amount is based off of the
phase or the piece that you're funding. >> So it just sounds up in the air. Now, I also heard that uh public safety buildings are not going to be a priority for anyone. I had a conversation with represent with
Senator Kuran the other day. So, if if it's not going to be a priority, why hire a lobbyist if we're not going to get anywhere? >> I think there are a lot of opinions on what types of projects will be competitive or not. Um that
is an opinion. Um I would not take that as a fact. There are a lot of communities coming forward with local public safety police and fire buildings because the cost is just not it's the cost to to build the facilities is not
um sustainable for just on the property taxpayers. So I I would push back on that statement that that's again just an opinion. >> I I will additionally every single bonding bill that includes local
projects has always included public safety facilities >> and I spoke with Representative Rhymer. So um he thinks that there's a good chance we could get it. So to your point, different difference of opinions.
>> Difference of opinions. Not not a not a fact either way. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> What what what are you going to be h why do you think you'll be successful this time when you haven't been successful any other time?
>> Well, there's only been one year that has had a bonding bill. Um that was our first year. And it is not common for projects in their first year. you really have to get in the queue and it takes a couple years being in that queue um to be you know I would say because it's a
competition to be competitive. Um so this would be year four. Last year is one of they did pass a bonding bill but it was only for state assets. So only state agencies there were no local county or city projects in it. So the demand is very pent up. You are kind of
at the head of the queue because you've been at it for multiple years. the chairs remember, the members remember. So kind of kind of get in line and wait. >> Okay. >> And um it is a bonding year was technically every year is a bonding
year, but um it since it's not a budget year, the focus is on a bonding bill. You have three bonding chairs because we have co-chairs in the house. All three chairs very much want a bonding bill. So that's Yeah. >> Okay. Miss Ni, I'm gonna add to that
because I think over we've been doing this is it I think it's five years Rob you and I tried we kind of tried on our own. >> Yeah. Which which we learned out. Yeah. There's definitely um strategy to this and actually having being able to get to the right people and talk to the right
people and actually have our project heard and seen and having the capital investment committee come out and actually see our projects and um momentum has been key um to having this actually be brought forward to the appropriate legislators and actually make these projects known. And like I
said, they have evolved a bit and we'll um be sharing some of that story with those legislators this session. But um I have no doubt that Momentum will share that story along with the staff doing whatever we need to do to help to help share that. >> Yeah. And I believe last year was the
first year we were able to be heard, right? To be able to actually get in front of everybody to be able to talk. Um how many different times have you brought us forward to meet um at different events? I want to say I is
there like four every year or some crazy amount. Um, we have had you at four of our caucus events. Um, so >> every year, >> every year. Um, and then we've also made sure that you've been at caucus fundraising events. So, so Rob actually
spent a day at a fundraiser with Lisa Damoth in a golf cart for six hours. So, she knows everything in and out and I'm sorry, Speaker Damoth. Yeah. Um, everything in and out about the public safety project. And it's it's one of those things where
it's It's like this is the year for local projects if there's a bonding bill and there's always it's always if um and you have taken the feedback of lawmakers particularly uh chair Franen on looking how you could change the scope or could it be phased. So your acquisition of an
existing building and moving in that direction is you know you're >> phasing >> we're we're you're phasing you're taking their feedback and you're coming back with a project with that includes their feedback in it. >> Yeah. Otherwise, I don't think we could have gotten in front of so many people without having a lobbyist group. And I'
I've been talking to a lot of cities and that don't have lobbyists that are like, "We need a lobbyist group." So, if that helps at all. So, I'm sorry, member Luker. I kind of took your time. No, you're fine. >> So, go ahead. I just want >> Yeah,
>> everybody should bring a dog in to be. >> So, yeah, we had a daycare snafu, so she uh is going She's my assistant tonight. >> Yeah. Perfect. Do you have any questions? >> I don't. >> Okay. Member Anstead, >> I have no questions. Uh, but you asked both the questions. Can I ask?
>> Thank you. Sorry I took that extra time. I apologize for that. Can you stay for after the meeting for five minutes? Perfect. All right. Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. I'll make the motion to approve resolution 260221, a resolution contracting with Momentum Advocacy LLP
as lobbyists for the city of Wyoming in the amount of 13,200. Do we have a second? second and third by member Onstad and member Luger. Um, all in favor? >> I opposed. >> So approved. All right. Uh, last thing on the agenda. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Last thing on the agenda is consider a work session on February 17, 2026. Mr. Lynwood. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Uh, this is an annual activity for the uh, city council. This is just to go through our strategic planning and goal setting work session. Um, last year the
city completed our goal session for our 2025 goals and initiatives. And those are um goals that are really developed by the city council and used to uh help staff direct some of our work priorities and our normal day work assignments that we encounter. So, we'd like to set a date for our city council 2026 goals and
initiative work session. Uh staff is asking for that to take place on Tuesday, February 17th at 5:30 p.m. >> Okay, everybody check their calendars? >> Good to go. >> We're all good. Okay. Um, I'll make the motion to approve the council work session February 17, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.
Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Luger. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. Council reports. We'll start with member Luger. I attended the um joint sewer commission meeting. It was lively as always. That's
all I've got. Thank you for coming. >> Member on. >> I have no report. Thanks for coming. >> Okay. Did Oh, we had park right tonight. >> Remember? >> No, park is no park tonight because of park is next week. >> Is it next week? Oh my gosh. Okay.
>> All right. >> Please come and attend that. >> Come. Yes. Very true. Okay. Um uh let's see. Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me member Sch shilling. >> I have no reports. >> Member Joerger. >> No report. Thank you for coming and thank you for watching. I also attended
the joint sewer commission and I had the privilege of walking in the torch light parade on Saturday. It was chilly but it was wonderful. Mayor um her brought back the torch light parade mayor's invitation and um like to thank her for
that. There was probably 125 people there. I would say out of the 125 there was at least half were the mayors there. So, it was actually very very um kind of like the >> Yeah, it was a lot of fun. So, actually a lot of fun. I just wish it was a
little warmer. So, um with that, we need a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move. >> We have a motion to adjourn by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I oppose. We are adjourned at