As soon as we have an issue and we have to remedy our well or or septic, we'll likely not be given a permit and will be required to hook up to and pay for those services. We're not interested. Loss of appeal to prospective buyers seeking agricultural zoning freedoms and rural agricultural lifestyle. Also, in
cases of industrial or general business zoning, that is the case for a couple of us or a few of us. Buyers will be unlike likely unable to secure residential mortgage. We firmly believe the proposed zoning of our properties does not reflect our wishes and offers no discernable benefit. The current
agricultural zoning supports a rural agricultural character and lifestyle that we chose when we purchased our properties. Preserving our agricultural zoning is essential to maintain the integrity of our rural agriculture community and the quality of life it affords. Beyond our immediate area, the
proposed resoning affects 10,000 other properties throughout the city of Wyoming, most of whom are not aware of this. Only three of the 18 properties in this petition were aware of this. That's less than 20%. Due to limited and ineffective
communication from the city, by signing this petition, we respectively urge the city of Wyoming leadership to take the following actions for the proposed zoning. maintain the agricultural zoning for all citizen-owned properties along East Viking 288th and 275th Street that
are currently zoned agriculture. And there's a map illustrating where we are. Suspend decision or approvals of other affected City of Wyoming properties until meaningful public engagement has occurred. Send direct individual communication to all affected property owners outlining proposed changes and
their implications. When we have a new assessment, we get an individual letter. This should be treated the same. host additional public forums to explain the resoning proposal, answer questions, and gather feedback from residents. We ask that our voices be heard, our concerns taken seriously. We appreciate your time
and consideration on this very important matter. >> Okay. Thank you. You can give that to Mr. Lynwood. >> Great. Thank you. The next person who wants to come up to speak, and again, I'm just reminding you to have something different each time just because there's
so many people. Marge Strand. I live in Forest Lake. I own SRC Recycle Center and Transfer Station here in Wyoming and have been an owner there since 1980. Personally, uh I own quite a bit of land in this
agricultural area that's you're looking at reszoning to single family and multiple family homes. I have every every confidence that Mr. Lynwood, our city administrator, has the ability to direct anyone coming
into his office seeking residential, building potential, commercial, industrial, whatever. I believe that he knows this community that he that he works with and he can direct people appropriately even though they are zoned. I'm zoned
agriculture. If somebody comes in and wants to build something like Polaris, I've got the land to do it. I believe that our current system is not broken right now. So don't fix it. You are taking away my rights as a
property owner to choose my future and the future of my family. And I would urge you to keep the zoning currently as is and allow each property owner to make their own decision on what needs to go forward.
>> Thank you, Miss Strand. Next personal comment on the summer fields uh red design uh several years ago when that addition first went in. Uh things were uh 75 ft lot to lot given number of
houses. Uh they want to go down to 65 ft craml in and hook 258th street up as a through street. Uh we are dirt road from uh the start of my property all the way to the end of 258. Uh strongly object to that. Uh the dust the dirt was already
bad on these dry summers. Uh the previous uh layout had a round turnaround at the end of a new development. This new drawing now has a road that is going to extend further to the an abudded road looking like it's
ready to go into another open field that's taken some room. I request that they redesign that, put the roundabout back in, turn around, not roundabout, turnaround back in and slide things down so that you know, obviously the the builder wants to get as many houses in there as he can.
That's how he makes money. It doesn't make for better community when you cram them in the reduction in lot size just silly. It's going to be like across the across Kettle River Boulevard. Now we have 50 foot lots. You can reach out and touch your neighbor. I'm not sure why the city thinks they
have to cram more and more and more houses in. I believe we're out of met council script. >> Why are we cramming all these in? Somebody please. >> Why maximum density? >> Well, I I will say this. Um there's a
lot of want for smaller land fall smaller plots of land because they don't >> they don't want to people now don't really want to take care of a yard. They want to have enough garage space for their toys that sort of thing. So it's really what need is showing right now
>> was here for various requests for the stuff east of Kettle River Boulevard. Yeah. >> To reduce even more so they could put a threecar garage on. It's like wait a minute now. >> Yeah. >> What's what do you want? >> Yeah. >> You want more room or less room? Yeah. Yeah. Well, we really appreciate >> reduction is doesn't make sense to me.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Russ. >> One quick question. Are you talking the round or a turnaround at the north end of Emerald where it's dirt? >> No, there there's already a turnound there. The bus kind. >> Yeah, I'd like to see.
>> Did they have like a Was it a culde-sac originally? So, >> okay, I know where that is. >> It just cut off. >> So, this is all from >> which way's north on this one. >> Mr. Lynwood, would you be able to
provide the council at the next meeting what Mr. Russell is talking about? >> We certainly can. >> Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Appreciate it. >> Yeah, if we can, Mr. quick if we can provide it at the next meeting please.
It's on page 194. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Be a culdeac and then we put it >> and they had a leg that went and connected it also. The issue is that
culdeac is now I don't have measure in front of 300 ft. That's way longer than that connection and the reason it is the way it is is for future connection to another road.
So that's the plan. >> Okay. All right. Uh, next. Anyone else? Wow, there's a lot of you here and not too many coming up. Okay. All right. We'll move on then to number one. Consider approving the minutes of the regular meeting of the Wyoming Minnesota
City Council for August 6, 2025. If there are no questions or comments, do we have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member Luger and a second by member Schilling. All in favor? I >> opposed. So approved.
>> Um consent agenda number let's see items under the consent agenda will be adopted with one motion. However, council members may request individual items to be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion and action if they choose.
number two, three, four, five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and number 13. Um, do we have any council member that would like to push uh or um pull an item from the consent
agenda? >> Uh, I'd like to pull number three. >> Okay. Uh, member Onstead wants to pull number three. All right. Anybody else? No. All right. We need a motion to approve 245
67 8 9 10 11 12 and 13. Do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> A motion by member Schilling. I'll make the second. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved number three to consider the retirement of Sergeant Brian Rod from the Wyoming Police
Department. Um member onstead. I'd just like to uh thank him for his years of service and and the efforts that he's put in for the community um making this a safer place to be and
uh I know that he's responded when I've called many times and he's always been very professional over the years and I have a feeling that people in the city feel the same way. So he will be missed and uh hopefully whoever's coming in back Phil will set him as an example.
>> Great. Do we have a date set for council time? >> It's at the end of the year. So he was just generous in providing significant notice to allow us to backfill the position. >> Uh give us enough time to do that. So >> Okay. Yes. >> Perfect. Appreciate that. All right. We
need a motion to approve the retirement of Sergeant Brian Rod from the Wyoming Police Department. Um, member Anstead, do you want to make that first? >> I will. >> And we need a second. >> Second. >> We have a second by member Schilling. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved.
>> We'll move on to acknowledge receipts of reports of officer boards and commissions and department heads number 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Is there any report that council wishes to pull?
Seeing none, we'll move on to communication number 19, monthly performance measures fire Q225. Who's taking that one? >> That will be >> that'll be you. Oh, thanks Chief Howard. >> Yes. Uh, Mayor Averson, members of council, as you may remember, we are
starting to track uh, fire department performance measures in 2025. And I realized that there was an error on the heading. It was listed 20 uh, quarter Q1. So, this is Q2. Um just a couple things to bring forward. Uh call volume
uh remains fairly consistent with some increases in May uh and June May they responded to 34 calls which is a significant number. Um bringing the total for the year up to 159 calls so far this year. Um response times still
remain uh favorable uh meeting our our benchmarks that we have set up um with a limitation of some of the information available from dispatch. It's the first responding vehicle, not necessarily the first responding vehicle that can intervene. So still uh working on a
trying to find a better way to report those numbers. Um across the board, our responder numbers remain good, especially for medicals. um uh structure fires and those other type of fires. We're looking at about a 41% of our goal. Um we do have a goal of 10
responders and we still are uh challenged to meet that number and motor vehicle crashes as well. Still looking for additional responders in those um but they continue to good work with with what they're with what is responding. Um incident commander on scene uh still
good numbers there. Um medicals are the one that we're maybe not hitting the 90% of the time, but that's not really the expectation. Um you know, medicals are uh they're first responding on those. We continue to provide much more mutual aid
to other cities than we receive. Um we're only we only have two this year so far that we've received mutual aid and provided seven calls. uh public education and community outreach have been good for June and July and we'll see more of that as the
year goes on and then as winter comes in it does decrease until December when we have our events. Um recruitment retention still looking to try and receive three applications for firefighter and EMS responder. Uh we received two of each of those in the
second quarter. Um and then as you look at the next the our active firefighter numbers continue to decrease starting with 24 and we're down to 21. Um as of June um looking to continue to try and increase those numbers as well. Um then
we'll have the EMS responders this you'll start seeing that in quarter three um being on the books for that. Uh equipment age nothing new here. our ladder truck is at its um end of life. We're working on how to navigate that as
we as we move forward. And then we continue to we're not providing any fire inspections at this time. Um but as we discussed in the budget uh workshop, we are looking for that part-time position for 2026 to help uh with that role. So
uh any questions that council may have? >> Yeah, Chief Power, I have two. Sure. >> Um first one would be the mutual aid and you said versus seven. Who are we providing that mutual aid for? >> Uh, it is across the board. If I remember correctly, when I pulled the
numbers, it was many different agencies across the board. It's not just one specific city. >> Okay. Just >> so that would be Stacy, Forest Lake, all all the surrounding communities. >> Bigger fires, bigger. >> It's just whoever's has things burning. Yeah. >> Okay. Appreciate that. Okay. And then
we're talking retention or bringing more firefighters in. Um, I really do believe the fire department has done really great videos. >> They've been very responsive, millions of views, so on and so forth. >> Absolutely. >> Um what are you seeing the trends within the state in terms of why we may not be
getting um recruits in? >> Uh paid on call is a difficult position to fill in general. Uh people are prioritizing their time differently. Um there's a lot of different factors. Uh facilities is probably one of them um that I believe we're looking at addressing. Um, and just in general,
it's a difficult role to fill. Um, but we're looking at a couple different ways, some wellness initiatives, uh, some compensation changes and those type of things as we move forward to try and mitigate some of those impacts across the state. >> Okay. So, if anybody is watching this or sitting in the audience, we have an
amazing fire department. So, um, if you know friends or whatever that would like to be a part of this great group, then highly recommend you join our fire department. So, that's my commercial for the day. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Um, let's go with member Jerger. >> Oh, no questions.
>> Okay. Uh, member Schilling. >> Uh, no questions on this. Thank you. >> Member Anstad, >> no questions. >> And member Luger, >> also no questions. >> All right. Thank you very much for the report. We appreciate it. New business number 20 to consider resolution 25881, a resolution approving the preliminary
plot D250004, Mayora Meadows, location 7580250th Street, application Neo Mayorga, property ID 21.1058.00. Um, Mr. W.
>> I was not here for the all these. >> Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'll be handling the presentations and then Mr. W and I will be sharing some of the questions uh for for these. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> So, you're welcome. Um mayor, members of council, um overview of this is this is a a subdivision of our preliminary plat
and final plat. Um you can see there the the site location um just west of uh of Comfort Lake. Um and some of the existing conditions. Um currently this is zoned R1, real residential one. Um it isn't uh not it is part of our shoreline
management overlay. Um you can see there where it's just a portion there right by it. Um preliminary plat and final plat you'll see that they have divided this into lot one is 9.78 acres and lot two 4.66 acres with a total wetland area of
4.49 acres total. um zoning standards for this. You can see the different components of this in regards for lot width, lot depth, lot size, front yard setback, sideyard setback, and rear setback um are essentially within the R1 and then the shoreland rules and then the proposed um
are acceptable to this um easements on the east property line. Um there would be a shared access on this and wetland uh the wet line complications would not allow for an additional driveway for this particular property. uh recommendations and next steps. Um
there is conditions outlined in the staff report for the city council that were recommended by the planning commission. So we would recommend that planning commission staff and planning commission have a re recommended approval with those conditions and we can stand for any questions at this point.
>> All right, let's um start with member Schilling. >> I don't have any questions. >> Member Anstead, >> you talk about that uh not nonavvailability of uh entryway. >> So they would they would be utilizing a shared driveway for the particular there
isn't room based on the wetlands there isn't a room to actually have two separate driveways. So there would be a shared driveway for the two parcels >> on the east side of the >> correct Mr. Correct. >> It's an existing driveway to the land
to use the driveway. >> Okay. >> No further questions. >> Member Joerger. >> This property came before us in 2022 for a similar lot split. Did they have to
pay double then because the first uh permit ran out? Yes, they did. >> Oh, and they had to pay double um park fees and all that. >> They have not made the park. >> So, that will be single. >> That'll be just just the application.
>> Okay. >> We haven't received the bills for the >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And member Joerger. I'm sorry, Luger. >> No questions. I was like, I thought you just >> You know what? I was trying to get to
100%. It's not happening tonight. >> Uh, I have no questions. Thank you. >> All right. We need a motion to approve resolution 25881, a resolution approving the preliminary plaque D25004, Mayora Meadows. I'm not going to read all the
rest of it. Do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Anstead. All in favor? I opposed. So approved. Number 21 to consider resolution 25882,
a resolution approving the final plat D250005, Mayora Meadows, location 7580, 250th Street application, Neo Mayora, property ID21.1058.00. Mr. Lynwood. >> Um, again, mayor, this is just the final
that we approved the preliminary uh preliminary plan. This is for the final five for Mayor Meadows. >> Okay. And any further questions? Anybody think anything? Nope. All right. So, we need a motion to approve resolution 2583. Do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> Motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second by member Onstead. All in favor? I. Opposed. So approved. Number 23 to consider resolution 25884, a resolution approving a conditional use permit for 140 foot um pole. Is that how you say that?
>> Monopoly. >> Sorry. >> Did I miss one? >> Oh, Summerfield. Sorry, guys. >> Number 20. >> Jesse's like, "What?" >> All right. Uh, let's see. Did I miss which one? >> Well, I just wanted to I think for the record I think I think you got jumped.
>> So, the last motion I think the last resolution you stated as 25883. That should have been 25882. Yeah, because that's what I have on my agenda. >> Correct. Yeah. So, I think we just got I think we jumped over that top of the
page. So, um if we can just resend the previous motion and just procedurally I the intent I believe was to approve 25882 and then we'll go into 25883. >> Okay. So, we need to make a motion to
resend resolution 25883 as approved. >> Correct. >> Okay. I'll make that motion. Do we have a second? Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. >> Okay. So what number is that one then? >> So now we're we you need to approve
25882 which is the continuation of the mayor of Meadows. >> Okay. Here we go. To consider resolution 25882. >> 82. Yes. >> Yes. >> A resolution approving the final plot um D25005.
Mayor Meadows. All right. No more questions. Any questions? Okay. Am I correct? We're on the right way now. We're on the right lane. Okay. So, uh, we need a motion to approve. >> So, moved. >> We have a motion to approve by, uh,
member Luger. Do we have a second? Second. >> Second by member Anstead. All in favor? >> I. Opposed. >> So, approved. Okay. Ready? >> Okay. So, resolution 25883, a resolution amending the conditional use permit for the planned unit
development, not development, Summerfield's fourth edition C250004, application Central North LLC, property ID 21.1058250. Mr. Wack, >> no, we're still all right.
>> All right, mayors, this is the Summerfield 4th edition CU and PUB amendment. Um, for review by the council right now for that. I don't know. >> Um you can see the location here just being off the um west side of Kettle
River Boulevard um just for proximity for the council. Um background um on January 14th, 2020, the joint park planning commission met to discuss the development and agreed cash in L of the land. Um, on September of 20, excuse me, September of 2020, WSB filed finalized
an EAW uh for the subdivision that concluded the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. On October 20th of 2020, a preliminary plat request of reszoning parcels containing the subdivision R1 residential to R4 one and two family were reviewed and approved by the city council uh with recommended conditions
from staff. In November 2020, the city approved a conditional use permit for a planned unit development that applied to the entire development. The applicant also received final plat approval of a 19 lot subdivision which formed the first phase of summer fields. That would be across the street or excuse me that is the existing uh resolution 2012115.
An additional phase two and three have been approved. In 2024 the applicant received a PUD amendment to allow reduction of sideyard setbacks to 7 1/2 ft to 5T. Um this area you can see the existing there to the north and then this would be the second this this phase the fourth
phase. the amendment to reduce lot width to a minimum of 65 ft for all the remaining lots. Sideyard setbacks remain 5 feet on the interior lots and 15 feet on corner lots. Homelesss with three car garage are 50 feet. Um increase the number of lots from 51 to 60. And then
the change in the 250 street and north now through street rather than the culde-sac prompts the increase in the lots. Um you need the cup and the pud minute, but as of now um that does meet all the 13 conditions. staff has reviewed that and then the planning commission um did that as well. So you
can see the sideyard setback shall be five feet for 15 yard corner lots. There shall be no construction with the standard drainage and utility easements regardless of the building pad shown in the plans. Public utilities located along the lot lines require greater easements and therefore greater sideyard setbacks. All parcels that contain
public utilities will provide expanded sideyard easements and setbacks as required by the city engineer. The final setbacks and easements for of each shall be approved by city staff. The applicant shall install a 258th Avenue paved to city design standards up to the property line of the plat. The applicant uh shall
install a gravel roadway from the property link to link with the existing gravel section of 258th Street. Uh the roadway shall be within the designated rightway of the easement and shall not intrude into the adjoining wetland and shall be 24 ft in width. All other conditions of the conditional use permit
for the PUD resolution number 2012115 remain unchanged. Um that is what the planning commission did do um at their August 12th meeting. So that is uh the recommendation tonight is to approval and amend condition use permit for a planned unit development in the shoreline district to amend the lot west
for summerfield pud with the conditions. >> Okay council would you like the applicant to come up? >> Excuse me. >> Yeah we no sorry no >> yeah sorry we'll just let him talk first and then we'll let you come up. Is that
okay? Okay. All right. Do you want the applicants to come up? >> Yeah. >> Questions. >> Could you guys come on this? >> What are you looking at? This is the same as before. >> He's technically Dave is representing.
>> Sounds good. >> Hi, Mayor. Hi, mayor and council member. My name is David Patber. I'm with Sentra North and the builder Sentra Homes. We've been working with Jesse as we've gone through this process to work on developing the last phases of Summerfield. Um we've it's been a good
relationship as we've worked with staff, talked through a handful of different items. Um as we've come forward here, I just I've we've heard a little bit of feedback um from some of the neighbors. Um one that hasn't been mentioned at this meeting was um kind of storm water
questions. There was a um a neighbor that reached out to staff and had some questions about storm water. Um the storm water rules are are pretty set in stone. We work closely with uh the city engineer to to work on that making sure we retain the storm water on site. Um if
we if you want we can talk through maybe a little bit more about that. The other question that we've heard is about this 258th road extension. That's what it's labeled on the map. Um, as we've come come forward in this latest round with this
amendment, um, we just were totally looking on about safety. Uh, and when I talk about safety, talk about ambulance, fire, police, things of that sort. That does roll in a little bit into snow plowing and school buses and garbage collection and things like that. Um, and
that's why the that's been the major change of that direction from a culde-sac um to a to a connection. The city owns the rideway. Um, from that perspective, um, our application is really more about the lot width and the house type that's going on there. Um, as
we work in the market today, the home buyer market today, we hear more and more from homeowners that they're more interested in the house than in the lot. Um, and so we start with the house and we say, how can what size lot needs to fit? That's where we're coming from. Our
houses are 50 feet wide, 50 feet wide. um and thus having um a 65 foot wide lot allows some flexibility um with sideyard setbacks, things of that sort. So that's really the intent of our application even though we're ready to talk about
the other questions from the neighbors and things of that sort. Um the really the push from this perspective of this change in lot count and is all about being more efficient with the use of the uh the economics of the site allow us we're pushing really hard to be able to
deliver a house all in finished under $400,000. Um that that there's a lot of factors that go into that and part of that is increasing the lot count um as well as the the housing product we're delivering things. We have all of that kind of in our application. Um, so that's kind of
the high level overview. Um, but here for any questions. I'm here with Jesse, um, who's the land owner as we've been working closely on that. But any questions? >> Mr. Lynwood, can you go back to the picture of the development, please? Because I I want to totally I am all about safety and this has come before us
in previous developments. So, I want to understand exactly where we're talking about, where it was before, where you're putting it through. Mr. Wack, you also said there's another road Yeah. So that's where >> the one next to it. Okay.
>> The the dotted line. >> Yeah. >> The Okay. Where the mouse is. >> Yeah. The dotted line show existing. >> Okay. So before it was a um >> called the circle. >> Called the sack circle. Okay. So it ended basically about 10 ft away from
the property line that connected the two. >> Okay. And people coming into this development would be most likely coming in from where? Jesse, you might be able to answer that better. >> The new connection on river is where they're going to come in primarily. >> We we find when people buy a house,
especially a new house, they they use the paved roads. >> Yes, they could come in across the gravel road. um our experiences as is they typically don't. Um but it would be open. We think all our marketing effort, our entrance where we would start would all be down there at the Kettle River.
Um it would just be that last that 258th Street would be the last phase or f last group of lots we would build. Um I did a little bit of math while we were here talking. Staff talked about that the standard length of a culde-sac within the city is 300 ft. I'm estimating that
a little if we kept the old culde-sac at a little over 800 feet um is is what was proposed before. Um so that kind of just gives you some information. >> Okay. And are we sure that fire trucks, EMS,
snowplows and stuff are going to be able to get through what is planned right now? >> Would it would meet normal uh design standards and curve standards for our engineering would be reviewing those So the applicant is here.
We have provided comments that connection to meet our standards. >> Okay. Awesome. All right. And uh questions from council. We'll start um with member Luger. >> Um I am Okay. So with regard to safety,
I'm just wondering the the the proposal here is as you're framing it is this increases the safety. Is that is that something that uh Chief Bower, have you been able to assess that? And is is there like can you speak to kind of like a comparative
like initial propo proposal, current proposal and like what that looks like in terms of better safety? >> Uh not in great detail. That wouldn't be usually I don't review these that that way. Um Mr. >> Off the top of my head, >> can we just get like paddles or
something like The 300 ft was selected for that reason. Okay. To allow things to happen so far that intersection was blocked, they couldn't get down the road to get to
>> Gotcha. Um and then the other question I had was um what Oh. Um so you had talked briefly about affordability. Does this I guess pre and post does this
create more affordable homes? >> So in in the in the world that I operate in I'm always hesitant to use affordability because that implies income restrictions or city contributing to it. This is still a market rate neighborhood. Um it would be for sale to anybody could buy in it. This is all
about allowing us to use the efficiencies of the development and the cost to allow us to sell a house for a little bit less expensive than what was previously proposed. The increase in number of lots allows what I refer to as my lot cost to be a little bit lower
because I'm spreading the same cost over more lots. So, it it allows us to hit an affordability component. I didn't really run the numbers. if if we would have left it at 51 lots of what the house prices would be, I would expect them to be starting mid fours or uppers upper
fours. So, I mean, I could do some homework, but um that's what we that's what we're pretty significant. Part of the reason that I'm partnering with building myself, I don't feel the volume that does. So they're able to
market. >> How many more lots overall? And I apologize if this was in >> it goes it goes from 51 to 60. >> 51. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's all I got. >> Jagger. >> Oh, okay.
The culdeac and you've said it was way too long. How does that compare to what we gave a variance for at Kennedy Estates where they have that long culdeac? >> Believe the reason for that one was because their existing entrance new
entrance they created to the west of where that culdeac would have come too close together. >> Oh, at Kennedy Estates. >> All right. So, we had that do. So, that's just a whole total. >> I did that. Yeah, we did that. Yeah. So,
and that that was the reason why that called forward circle didn't connect to one trail. >> It was too close. >> But now we just make a a loop through uh the road. We have a, you know, Uklid,
two accesses to Kettle River, and then it all just connects. Right. >> Right. >> And It also has on the west side. It also connects over to development
estates. Um there's only three lots there now, but they've got another acres that will be tied into that. >> Okay. So for future planning, that road's really going to have to be connected. >> Okay.
Um, what are the lot sizes on the existing houses on on you on Uklid? Are they 75 foot uh lots? >> Some of them. Yeah, they're 78. I believe they're
>> I think I think there is a minimum of maybe 70 to 75, but as you can see, they kind of pie a little bit. So >> some of them are a little bit narrow, some are a little bit >> Yeah, the because the um the two next to the development are wider lots and it provide it does
provide a nice transition. >> So those lots are 75 ft. Then going down Uklid and the rest of them will you're asking for 65 ft. >> So like a 10. So they'll be visibly
closer together. >> That's to be debated. I don't think normal people that aren't in that industry, they won't they won't notice a foot difference on a lot. >> Five foot sounds like more like 10 foot
difference on a lot. >> Okay. So it's like >> So you would >> you would basically you're not averaging 65 >> on these are you? Or these will all be 65
>> because they have a specific home that they're offering. >> Okay. >> So that's the difference where I'm more of a custom builder. So, I was able to modify as needed for lots. They're not they're not >> on the ones that you built, numbers
seven through 10, are they all 70 foot lots or are they 75 foot lots or >> seven through >> the phase one? >> And I see seven, eight, nine, 10.
>> Yeah, there should have been 19 total. >> So, I think she's talking. >> Okay. Yeah, those ones look like they would be >> I can't reach it. You'd have to read it, >> Fred. Shad. >> No, the unshaded area. >> Phase one. I was looking at the transition.
>> That was the very first set of lots. >> Yeah, I I remember. >> So, are they all more the 70 lots, the 70 foot lots at that? >> Yep. So, it's not that much of a transition down to 65 foot lots.
>> Again, most I would say honestly 95% notice the difference. >> Okay. Um, and our residents wouldn't quite notice the difference unless they were in the industry.
Okay. The other question. Are you going to allow Mrs. Delo to speak or should I ask their questions? No, I will allow her when we're done. When we're done with the question and then >> you you guys okay with that? >> Okay. You asked your own questions.
>> Um in which case it's done >> um so we've approved all of this back in 2020. We basically have a shrinking lot and um I I have no objection to it. I know some people do, but I'll be the first to tell you when this first came through, my wife and I were looking to
downside and build over there and then you guys capped out before we could get our ducks in a row because we wanted to be over there and now I've thus since moved. So, I'm kind of disappointed because that's where we wanted to be. But, um, this is a mirror image and we're just shrinking a few of the lots
to add a few more to make it more, you know, affordable market rate price point. So, I I don't have any objection to it. It's already been approved and we're we're talking about peanuts on size. So, >> okay. On >> what what we had to put in a resolution
to to make it down to 70 ft previously. Correct. >> The original planning development the lots they provided that became the lot size. So, so development they're not looking at you know the rural res or the
residential requirements every which matches with the area north those lot size to make it more affordable and that's that's the reason why they could exact same
>> as long as it's going from 70 ft At one point there's going to be a transition to 65 ft. >> So it'll be about 15 ft down to 10 ft between each house. >> Yeah.
>> So just >> that we think will there'll be 15 feet between the houses we build. >> And I you said 20. So yeah 20 feet between houses to 15 ft. Sorry, I was slow on my >> That was the on the old section. >> The old site was 20. >> Yeah.
>> The new one will be 15 >> between between buildings. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because it's 5t from the house to the lot line. >> That's what's approved, but we'll we will end up really at seven and a half because our buildings are 50 feet wide
on a 65 foot wide lot. >> Yeah. Because I'm concerned because, you know, you say that most people won't notice it. I disagree with that. I'll notice it. you know, I drive down that road quite a bit >> and it already seems like the ones on the north end of the Uklid um are
already pretty close. Um the reason for wanting to put in more houses is so the the best way I would describe it is the cost to put in the roads is the same whether there's 51 houses or 60. There's a slight difference, don't get me wrong. you you know services are a
little bit but the reality is road sewer water storm that's that's essentially kind of this is the cost to build the roads and we just saw some efficiencies on where the wetlands are and things to if we went to 65 we could get more units
on the same amount of road and so the the cost of the lot is able to re on the average is to go down >> I know that it sounds like you know people want to move into those houses but don't aren't those the same people that want to live in the They were 20 miles out from the outer
ring of St. Paul. >> That's kind of a far drive to live in a a house that has no yard. >> I get on my sign signage. I must get phone calls for people that want to >> from the start of the first project till the last house was sold.
>> Right now, the problem is we went to the other side and did the villa side of this project, right? because that still can work with the existing sewer system. Yeah. >> That's why we ended it at 19 on that side because we had to put in a station. >> Yeah. How long did it take to sell all
those lots? >> One season >> was one season. Seemed like it was longer. >> I think the second house on the east side >> I think the second house on the east side took a while. >> Yeah, there's one lot. >> So, it did take longer than
>> the old city. They're all f >> Got it. Okay. >> So, ours will be 50 wider. >> That's That's a great point. >> That's it. >> Thank you so much. We're going to allow
u Mrs. Delo to come up. My husband, Robert, and I sent an email. >> Can you say name and address, please? >> 25410 Kettle River Boulevard. >> Thank you. >> We're at the bottom spot. This
>> We're going to be the recipient traffic. >> You know, Kettle River is a crazy road right now. I mean, I cycled down that road just to get to the bike trail up here, >> and it's a scary, dangerous place. And now you're going to be
If you take two cars per house, you're putting 120 more cars on the road. We're right in a fishbowl. So any water run off, it's going to flow right down to us because we're going to be low
where they're going to build up the dirt. And you say you have all these things. Okay, if you can address us, please appreciate that. >> We can we can they can address that, but ask your questions.
>> I just don't know what you're thinking. Those teeny tiny little traffic, the noise, the road chemicals that are going to flow on our We don't. That road's a raceway. >> Okay. With more cars.
>> Okay. >> Expect to do it all around. >> Where's that going to go? >> You say it's going to be on site. >> Okay. >> I don't think it's going to be on site, but it's coming to us. >> Okay. >> We're Yeah. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. >> It's not only >> Well, I know you jammed it through, so we haven't jammed anything through. Okay. Well, >> yeah, it was 2020. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Um, can anybody address the whole they're in the bowl part? Is there I'm >> Okay, I got it. Thank you. >> Okay, we got it. Thank you. >> I'm looking at the contour map of the
city. Um the wetlands are elevation 900 that elevation the rest of their properties. Mr. >> Madam Madame Mayor, members of council, I I I have provided an email to the applicants and I think the questions
they are asking are are are normal, right? If you're if you're adjacent to development, I it's okay to have questions and I'm happy to uh assist and go through those and I certainly would be happy to meet with you. I've provided written correspondence on what we've done and part of our review. And again,
this evening is is just specifically addressing the cup and the lot width. They will be back to address the preliminary plat uh for the project, the changes that we're talking about with the lot widths. But in the meantime, I'd be happy to meet with you uh here at city hall. I can bring plans and show
you um the elevations, the locations, the grading, the ponds. I've offered that before and if you if you're inclined to take me up on it, I'd be happy to go through all that and hopefully I'm able to reassure you uh on those things. But we are uh holding the developer to certain standards that are required of us and that's to
pre-development conditions for the rate of runoff for the two 10 and 100year uh rainfall events. I know I included that in my email, but I I can certainly go through a little bit more in depth to go through those types of things both with volume and water quality and and rate
control. And so we can go >> I I'd be happy to do that as well if if you'd like to do that. I'd be happy to happy to do that. >> I'm I'm sorry. What was that? >> I'd be I'd be happy to >> Mr. Dwell, please allow him to speak.
I'd be happy to meet with you and I can um I have your email and I can email and send you some dates that work for you folks and I'd be happy to meet out on site with you >> and we have you have their number or Mr. Lynwood does or whatever >> we do have their contact information. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Russell, does
that answer the question about the turnaround or the why that's being done? >> Yeah, I don't like it. years ago. Not sure I must receive the comment that if they push that road through it would be paved at the builder's expense.
>> Okay. >> Now it's going to be dark. >> Okay. >> I'm already chasing four wheelers out of there. My corner side donuts on the intersection. Everybody's coming.
I think initially when I spoke Russell it was about that access. >> Okay. And Mr. Russell, I will recommend that if you do have people out there doing that, please contact um Chief Bower because that's the only way we can stop that four-wheeler
directly. >> Yeah. If you're not out there all the time, you don't see the guy, you see the tracks. >> Yeah, >> somebody's spinning around. >> Yeah. If you even just make a phone call though that it's out there so it's on record will be a huge help. Am I correct
on that, Chief Power? >> Uh, yes. Calling when it's occurring is always better. Then we can actually >> Okay. >> Just saying it's it's better to always call when it's happening rather than after the fact. Thank you, >> Mr. Delo. One more comment. We need to move on.
Can you come up to the podium, please? >> Okay. We do need to move things along. >> Okay. And then we'll make sure we address that later on. Mr. Lynwood, Mr. Ericson, >> we certainly
>> Okay. >> The existing portion that they can some of the traffic that we're going to have. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Yep. All right. We need a motion to approve 25883,
a resolution amending the conditional. This is only for the conditional use permit for the planned unit development fields fourth edition. Do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> Motion by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. A second by member Luger. All in
favor? I opposed. >> So So approved. >> Number 23 to consider resolution 25884, a resolution approving a conditional use permit for 140 foot manopole
telecommunication tower C25005. Location 5920 250 250th Street. application Excel Energy Property ID 21.10564.00 Mr. Lynwood.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. This is in regards to, as you just stated, the Excel Energy LTE monopole tower. This is a conditional use permit and setback and height variance. Um, you can see that the current overview there, uh, the applicant Excel
Energy is requesting a conditional use permit for an addition of 140 foot LTE monopole. Um it is at the existing site there you can see on 250th street and highway 61. Um that is an electrical substation already on site. So Excel is deploying advanced grid technology
across Minnesota in regards to these monopoles. And the point of that enhances cyber security allows Excel energy assets meter substations to intercommunicate and moves um from a public to a private uh network uh in that capacity.
Sorry about that. You can kind of see the the coverage map in regards to that with the the height and what they're accomplishing with that um with that existing monopole if it were to be approved. Um overview, there's two variances that
are required for the proposed monopole in the R1 district. the height variance for 140 ft tower in a residential uh district which currently 75 foot is permitted and then a setback variance for the monopole from property lines. Um the site characteristics you can see
there pointing uh it's 8 acres it's one parcel intersects again at 250th and highway 61 and then the driveway axis is access is off 250th street. Uh it's currently zoned R1 residential, but lot will be reszoned R3 uh single family
residential in the future. Uh the comp plan guides that land for industrial in the future. Uh the proposed monopole, it's 140 foot monopole in the southwest corner of the parcel. It's inside of the fence, 5 1/2 ft in diameter, 135 uh foot center line
height, and then 140 foot with antenna. Um accessory cabinet, security camera system, monopole property line setback. So be 320 ft, excuse me, 325 ft to the north, 366 to the east, 78 to the south, uh 60 feet to the southwest, and the nearest residence to the monopole in any
direction would be 50 ft. Um the staff recommendation on this would be to approval of the conditional use permit, height variance, and setback variance with six conditions. Um, new building materials comp complement existing substation materials and the applicant must obtain a building permit
for monopol equipment. And then construction would only be allowed during the work working hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and a maximum of five employees on site to minimize traffic disruptions. And with that, we can stand for oh, excuse me, we'll keep going. Uh, for the C portion, uh, approval of
conditions so that vegetation shall remain or be replaced. Uh proposed monopole accessory cabinet and security camera system shall be built consistent with submitted plan sets. Um Wyoming substation electrical layout NH54780 and Wyoming substation general arrangement NH54872
GGN. Uh the monopole cannot exceed the 140 ft uh tall and then property must comply with local state federal regulations including all relevant zoning ordinance requirements. Um you can see right now in section 4778 for variances in a residential zoning
districts other than the designated residential property. Height of tower can exceed 1 foot height for every 1/4 ft of setback from property line with a maximum height of 75 ft. So the pro proposed location would only allow 15 foot mon would only allow for a 15 foot
tall monopole with a 60oot setback from southwest property line. Variance requirements and staff findings. There were seven finds fact seven findings of fact. The request does not impair inadequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
rightway. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Cause an unreasonable strain upon existing municipal facilities and services. Uh be contrary in any way to the spirit intent to this ordinance. have a negative
direct or indirect physical impact upon the city or school district unless the proposed use is determined to be in a public interest. Um also meets the eight criteria for granting the variance. Recommendation next steps would be approval. This was approved by the planning commission at their August 12th
meeting. So this would be um a recommendation for approval for this 140 foot monopole uh 5920 250 streets and the setback variance to accommodate the monopole. With that, we can stand for any questions regarding this item. >> I'm actually going to start with this
one. So, I was at the obviously the leazison at the plating commission. I know it says cannot exceed 140 ft. However, it was brought up that there is going to be a twoft lightning rod on there. So, that then makes it 142 feet
if my math is correct. So, therefore, it already exceeds it exceeds it. Right. The other thing I'm concerned about is, and I asked Mr. Lwood actually to look into what other cities are doing. If you imagine 140
foot tall post, I mean, that's that is super tall. I worry I there's just a lot to that. It's super tall. It's ugly. You're going to see it. Um, but I don't like the fact that it's 140 foot. I'd like to know if
we can make it shorter. I'm not opposed to having that, but I do think that um I would like um uh XL Energy to actually give us some different options seeing that it already is over the 140 foot
um tall. So that's my that's what I'm saying with that. Um otherwise questions will open up and we will start with member Anstad. Uh there are other polls or other intent placements in the city. >> There are
>> do we know like u mayor requires collocation when I spoke to the applicant about that because of some of security and some of those other issues with their facility. They did not want to colllocate on a different location.
They wanted everything on that site as far as the height of it. That's that I also asked about that and I think that had to do with their range of signals that they're sending and how that works out. I think they provided a radio teleomemetry. >> It kind of covers the whole northeast
metro. >> Yeah. >> Uh the but I was curious about other antennas that are in the town. How tall are those? >> I'm just curious to get an idea of the size. Sure. Including the uh water towers. >> I think the water tower was 145 ft.
>> Mhm. I believe that that was so the new water tower is 145 ft. That give you a good idea of how tall that would be. If you remember when we repainted the the existing one on 260th, there were some temporary poles that were put up to attach the tennis there. I think those
were about 120 ft if I remember correctly. >> So that Yeah, just to get an idea of how tall it was. Is there any houses? I I'm concerned that I remember when the uh tower fell in shore view. Um
you know, didn't fall on anybody's house, right? >> You know, my thoughts are could this fall hit anybody's house? >> The closest house was 550 ft away. Okay. >> So, if it were to tip, >> it would not be right. It wouldn't be an issue of it potentially falling on an
actual residence. >> The closest would be probably just on the road. Yeah. Yeah. The >> potential. >> Yeah. It would hit the It would probably cross the road if it fell that direction. I'm not sure about 61, but >> Okay. >> Well, if it if it fell towards 61, I
think it would hit their whole electrical system. So, >> yeah, >> that's it. >> Okay. Member Schilling. >> He just asked all of my questions. >> All right. Yay. >> What part of the property? How tall is
it? Water tower, all of those. Okay, >> member Joerger, >> how tall are the telephone poles and any existing poles near that property? >> That I wouldn't know. Maybe 40 50 ft for existing telephone pole. That my best guess.
>> Okay. And if I recall when we did the radio tower at Marinatha, we were discussing ways of making the tower so that it is unobtrusive. >> Yes. putting in the trees or trying looking at the tree line.
>> Yes. Uh I think it was color of the whole >> Yeah, that was part of it also >> to kind of blend in with the surroundings. Yes. So that you >> it's not sticking out like a sore thumb. >> Y >> does the is the applicant doing anything
like that to >> I think that was one of the conditions to have it compatible with what's there. >> Can you go back to the conditions? >> Say that was listed I believe. Was it? >> Yeah. In regards to the shelby. >> So
>> well compliment existing but it doesn't say anything about minimizing visual impact on the poll. And if I remember other poles were being painted >> like so kind of like a a cloud.
>> Yeah. >> Color just so you >> I the ones I've seen they they've done done like a sky blue a gray some other ones but every time the color of the sky changes the pole doesn't change with it. So So it's kind of it's it's a good idea but I don't I don't know how well it
works. >> Well does it work at Marinatha? >> It's hidden by the trees. >> Okay. And I have not received any complaints about that since >> Okay. since we put it in. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The other thing is your conditions include pole height not
>> not exceeding 140 ft and as the mayor points out you have a two foot antenna. Do we need to change the conditions or do we need to change the height of the pole? >> Are they here? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Come on.
Sorry. >> Sorry. No one know. >> Hello everybody. Good evening. Uh my name is George Wiki. I represent XL Energy Sighting and Land Rights Department. Uh if you need an address, it's 414 Nichollet Mall, Minneapolis uh 551 uh 410. Um so yeah, regarding the
two-foot uh little lightning rod, uh I was just in discussion with the project manager just behind me. He has confirmed with me that that little lightning rod has been taken off. uh that will not be a part of the finalized design when we do you know if we are allowed to apply for building permits so that condition
will be met absolutely um sorry there are a number of questions I want to make sure uh me and the team are able >> color of it I mean how does it blend in >> yeah sure so it does resemble the existing infrastructure that is currently within the substation it's going to be a silver galvanized steel as
well as you know uh uh resemble some of the other infrastructure outside of the substation namely the uh transmission poles that bring power into the substation. And then for reference, those poles along Highway 61 are about 100 ft tall. >> Yeah, I was going to say those are the distribution lines that are outside
there, right? Or are they transmission? Because I know they're 100. >> Yeah, the real tall ones, those are transmission. And then some of those shorter ones, those would be distribution. And >> these ones right here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Those are the ones. >> 100. >> So you don't have to have the lightning
rod on it. Is that what you're saying? or you're shrinking the pole down. >> No, the lightning rod will not be included. >> That's true. >> So, you don't need a lightning rod. You just It was just something you were going to throw on to begin with. >> I'm just kind of curious why you have it and now you don't. >> Come on up. >> Yeah, come on up.
>> He He can answer better than I can for that one. >> I'm confused a little bit because, you know, it was >> Joe and I I'm the project manager XL Energy. Uh same address going forward. Um, so the lightning rod was a part of the initial design, but we went back to
the after we heard some of the comments, we went back to engineering and said, "Do we need to have it there?" Obviously, 140 ft tall, it is a lightning rod, so we do not need to have it. It was something that we incorporated, excuse me, before, but we're just removing it. We do not need to have it.
That pole is actually got three points of contact on the base for any lightning. We've got a grid inside that substation. So, anything that hits on the pole goes immediately to the grid and disappears. >> Okay. So, if you're willing to take off that two-ft pole, would you be willing
to bring that 140 140 foot tower down to maybe 130? >> So, the the 140 ft is so we can achieve the 135 foot center line for the antennas. Our propagation map, which was shown, it was that kind of a pinkish reddish color. um at 135 feet we we are
able to reach all of our all of our fixed assets at that maximum height. So that's why we chose that. So that is very similar to everything else that we do across the metro area is about >> uh well I do know you have some other poles that are different heights than that. You have some that are really high higher and you have some that are lower.
>> Not for this program. This program itself we're at 140 ft. That's our architect uh has designed it. >> Okay. And do you plan on putting any more of these poles in the city of Wyoming? >> Nope. This is it >> to to get for that height. Yeah. That gives us our maximum coverage so that we
can cover everything. >> Uh now that we brought them all up questions. >> Yeah. >> I have a couple questions. Um and just I'm going to lead with that substation is not >> like Smithsonian quality beauty I would argue to start with.
>> I guess my question is more um about the coverage and I just I just wonder where is where's the next closest one of these. >> Sure. So, as we start to move into the metro, we've got other uh uh monopoles
that we're located up in Maple Grove, Rapids, and then as you start to move south, we've got some in St. Paul and Minneapolis as well, covering the rest of the metro. We, you know, have some in the southwest down in Chaza, uh, and Rosemount as well. So, uh, and also, uh, Monaceel up in the northwest. I know
that's getting a little far out there, but, uh, just kind of trying to give you the scope there. >> That's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions? >> I have another question. Um, if you were to reduce the pole to 135 feet, let's say, how much coverage do you lose?
>> Um, we would so you'd start to see significant loss on the outer ridges. So, it would shrink down. So, we would a lot >> your your the pink area would >> correct. So, some of the outlying areas that you even see where we got little shades of pink. So, we would that a lot of that would just go away. And so to
get those little areas of pink, you would need to put in more poles someplace else. >> Correct. >> To pick up those. >> Correct. >> Instead of just covering it all with one tall pole. >> Correct. That's what we call going back to the drawing board. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Um Mr. Onstead, >> just a kind of a nerdy question. the pole. It's not an 8 foot width that's on 132 foot antenna. It's uh an antenna that has, I'm guessing, um
low frequency. It's a tall um transmitting pole. It It's the antenna itself, the element is fairly long. >> Yeah. The the antenna itself is only about six feet. Okay. >> In height, >> it is okay. So it is like a six foot
pole on a 34 foot 134 foot. >> Yeah. The the antenna is the construction of it is plastic around the outside of plastic shell. The uh the mechanical mechanism is on the inside that reflects. >> I know a little bit about antennas. I was wondering if it was just a really
long low wave say am or longer wave antenna but no it is a shorter wave. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Otherwise, you can sit up. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. If there are no other
questions, we need a motion to consider resolution 25884, a resolution approving a conditional use permit for 140 140 foot manopole telecommunication tower C 25005. Do we have a motion? >> So moved.
>> We have a motion by member Luger. Do we have a second? >> Second by member Anstad. All in favor? >> Opposed? Nay. All right, we'll move on to number uh 24 to consider resolution 25885, a resolution approving a variance from
city code section 40778 2 to allow 140 foot mono pole telecommunication power um tower all the rest. Any further questions after we've already gone through this? No. All right. Then we need a motion to
um approve resolution 25885. Do we have a motion? So moved. >> We have a motion to approve by member Schilling. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second by member Anstad. All in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? Nay. Number 25 to consider resolution 25886,
a resolution denying an interim conditional use permit to allow outdoor cannabis cultivation at 7745 Wyoming Trail. Africa applicant Tyler Zerzac. Did I say that right?
>> Yes, he is not. representative. >> Okay. So, property ID 2100358.00. Who is doing this one? >> I will be starting. >> Okay. >> Thank you, mayor, members of council. Uh, this is in regards to the interim conditional use permit for a cannabis
micro business. Um the overview there's a request for an interimm conditional use permit uh for a cannabis micro business cannabis c cultivator and our cannabis or uh ordinance adopted back on 112024
requires for um um lost my train of thought. Uh >> it's been a long >> it has been a long a conditional use permit uh for that cannabis maybe Mr. We should go back to doing this a cannabis cultivator uh in our egg district and in
our industrial district. Um and then we can also have an a cannabis micro business in the egg district uh for that cup. Uh the property is currently zoned R1 rural residential. The proposed uses not permitted by the IC uh that CUP.
Property was zoned agricultural and reszoned R1. The property was being operated as a hobby farm at the time of reszoning. Uh site characteristics. It is a 5 acre site. It is south of Wyoming Trail. Um it was re the reasonzoning to R1 hobby farm and a legal non-conforming use.
Currently um you can expand legal non-conforming agriculture operations but a change to a different use other than those permitted in the than the applicable district. Um the C recommendation denial denial based on the following findings of fact new construction subject to review and
approval. Property is zone R1 rural residential and cannabis cultivator and cannabis micro business are not permitted. conditional or interim uses in the R1 zoning district. The introduction of the cannabis cultiv cultivator or cannabis micro business's use is not an expans expansion of the existing legal non-conforming
agricultural use on site but is rather a change to a different use than what is currently occurring on the property. This is the introduction of a new use not allowed by the ordinance. And with that, we can stand for any questions of the city council may have. >> Okay. All right. Um, starting con uh
questions from council. I think Mr. Onstead, have you started yet? >> Yes, the last one. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, uh, member Luger, do you need a break? >> No, I'm good. I just swallowed down the wrong hole. Sorry. >> All right. Member Luger. Okay.
>> I guess my first question is, and I'm not the planning commission liaison. So, uh, forgive me if this is really uh really super basic. Currently the owner it's it's it was a hobby farm but they're currently farming hay. Is that
correct? >> They they have flowers and they do have if you notice in spring there's a >> yeah that's the same place. So where they're doing the plants >> okay >> that kind of >> so here's where I'm going with this and
I know that cannabis is it's we are all on this new adventure figuring it all out. Um, it seems to me that I I guess I'm not understanding why this is like why this wouldn't be or why this this would be a a
not the non-conforming condition. Like why would this be different than say if they were wanting to grow a different like corn, right? Like I'm I understand the cannabis part. I guess when I'm looking at it back to like agriculture
and what is like growing plants, >> help me out. >> So I I'm sure Mr. L will come in, but I just kind of had an idea, too. So So the corn you you could you could not grow cannabis anywhere in the city before we adopted the ordinance.
>> Okay. >> So So there's kind of that. So So if you had say a farm that had cows, right? Right now we don't allow tigers. So if we had a it's got it's it's a it's an animal but it's not it's not an
animal we allow. It's cannabis is a plant that we don't allow. >> Just please be respectful by we're talking please. >> Okay. So and so yep. Okay. So I point taken. But if we know so assuming that we had it if we if we did have an ordinance if
then would that I mean would that meet the the criteria for it? >> But the issue but the problem is it it's actually still illegal under federal law. So so that's kind of part of the problem is it it was never allowed to be grown anywhere in the city at any time until the state allowed it.
>> Right. So maybe I can provide some clarity and you're exactly right. cannabis. This is a new animal and the request here >> not a 10 >> uh the request here being a basically a
legal non-conforming. Um at the time the property was zoned from egg back to residential. They were operating this hobby farm. they were growing crops and they continue to be allowed to do that under the legal
non-conforming statute under the city's legal non-conforming the the issue here and and I mean really it is a determination planning comm you know we've looked at it from a legal sense provided an analysis and certainly we'll talk about that and can answer
questions about that planning commission did their review and now council does their review um really is the the question about the concept of what is or is not a crop. And as Mr. Wack indicated, at the time that this property was a legal conforming use, at
the time that it was egg, you couldn't grow cannabis. Was illegal. You can now grow cannabis in Minnesota, but the statute gives city governments authority to regulate that through
zoning. and the city uh has adopted its zoning maps and established where c cannabis cultivation is permitted. It's not permitted in a residential district. Um so at the time that their property transition from an egg property to a
residential, they could continue to do everything that they could do at the time of the zoning change. They could not grow cannabis at the time of the zoning change. where the where it the issue does have a bit of gray and and there's no case law and this is an interpretation of how the statutes are
written by our legislature is that cannabis under Minnesota statutes technically wouldn't be defined as a crop. Um and so it's it's its own regulated it's
regulated under its own chapter 342. Um and so it's it's it's different regulated entity, a different regulated commodity. And so in looking at this and saying, well, the legal non-conforming that is certainly legal non-conforming
can continue to operate. The addition into that legal non-conforming into that right to grow cops does not allow for an expansion to grow cannabis because it wasn't permitted at the time that the property went to from conforming to
non-conforming and it isn't technically considered a crop as regulated under Minnesota statute. And so that's why in looking at this and conducting our own legal analysis, um the determination was the statute as drafted uh in interpretation with the
city's zoning code does not require the city to say that this is a continuation of illegal non-conforming. Again, the laws are brand new. We can't look to any sort of cases. All we can do is interpret it as the best we can. And
that's the analysis. Planning commission has made their recommendation. Council now has an opportunity to weigh in and make a determination um on on their opinion. I'm happy to answer what legal questions I can uh and discuss it, but ultimately that's the basis for the
legal analysis that was provided. Um is those considerations, the the fact that it was illegal at the time that they transitioned to residential and the the fact that a uh a cannabis plant um is not technically a crop or regulated like
a crop would be within the state statute. It's separated under its own statute. >> Okay, I appreciate that. And I that delineation um makes sense uh to me under what circumstances if hypothetically the city had an ordinance under what circumst I mean would that be
what the ordinance then determines like could could they grow it if they had if they were zone egg >> if they were zone egg yes with a interim conditioning permit >> even though it's not considered a crop >> because our zoning orders allowed it to be and we determined that the a district was a place to do that and also the
industrial district so normally we don't see too agricultural use in industrial district but in this case they'd be growing inside. >> Okay. >> And and all that. So so we looked at places where it would work. >> So and just to elaborate on that more regarding the analysis with this
property is the city has adopted an updated zoning code in conjunction with the power that's granted under chapter 342 again the cannabis chapter. And we have established the zoning district. The city has adopted the zoning districts where cannabis cultivation is permitted. and it is now permitted in an
egg district. This is a residential district. If a district that's currently egg right now were to be reszoned residential and if they were um conducting egg business, then theoretically that non-conforming use, if they were growing cannabis, we
switched to residential, they could continue those operations because they would have had that legal non-conforming status. At the time this became legal non-conforming status wasn't there. It doesn't extend or expand u because the laws uh the zoning law has subsequently
changed because they were not permitted to do it within the district. >> Okay. Right. That's all I've got. All right. Um member Joerger. So even if he if somewhere down the line we
decide that can uh cannabis cultivation is a crop just you know like corn corn or soybeans by our zoning ordinance we would not be the cannabis micro business would not be permitted is that correct
>> I'm sorry >> okay let's say we changed a little bit and started considering cannabis a >> crop Right. >> But I think the state but the state would have to do that. >> All right. Fine. But the micro business >> would not be permitted anyway.
>> It would be permitted in the districts is allowed in. I I have to >> it would not be permitted in the residential district or where the subject property is. Right. Anyway, right. You know, even if you even if somebody decided cannabis was a crop. >> I see what you're saying. >> Right. You got it. >> Yeah. Yeah. You still couldn't have the
micro bit. You couldn't do the micro business side of it anyway, >> right? >> Okay. Does that make sense to you guys? >> Maybe. >> Yeah. I was like, >> did you have any other questions? >> Well, the cannabis micro business covers a lot of different, you know, selling
and and the pro and the packaging and all that kind of stuff. >> The cultivation is just the growing of it, >> right? >> So, so what we're council member Jagger is getting at is is ignoring the cultivation part of it. If they just applied for the micro business
license, would they be able to do that in the residential district? And they would not be able to do that. So just taking out the cultivation part of it, the other part of their application is the micro business. Well, the micro business wouldn't be allowed in the residential district either. >> So it's it's a little bit more than just
cultivation. It's it's more. >> It's it's the other part of the business. >> Okay. >> Member Shilling. >> Okay. A couple of questions and I believe this will be for you, Mr. Wood. Okay. What are we looking at a quantity? Um, what does state law say that an
individual can grow without a license? >> Uh, an adult over 21 can grow up to uh eight mature plants. >> Okay. So, this would require a state license to grow or no? >> Yes. Okay. So, a license can be granted
to it. That was my two questions on that. And in the circle around when uh you were saying this. So if they were egg, it would be fine now. But it was egg, it went to R1. And if it was an
egg and growing and then move to an R1, it could stay as a legal non-conforming and they can continue to grow. >> Yeah. the way that the legal non-conforming statute and the way that the city code is um is drafted is that
any use that you were permitted at the time that you were permitted and doing at the time um you can continue to do um and then egg there's a couple of other special circumstances but yes that is accurate. Okay. >> And then is this being grown indoors or
outdoors? >> Okay. So now are there any provisions from the state that says it has to be secure because it is classified as a drug. So >> yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, please if you because these are my
questions. So >> so yeah I was curious obviously we've answered the quantity um you so you're required to have the license you have that license. >> Yes I do. Um my next concern was is per that license are they, you know, saying what do you have to surround it with?
>> Six foot chain link with slot panels so they can't see through it. Y >> cameras every 30 yards. >> Okay. >> Closed circuit. >> Okay. >> Um >> Okay. >> We we have Let's go back to the zoning of the property. We had it zoned back in
>> Yep. >> 20 uh 92. >> Okay. We never heard anything different that that zoning ever changed. >> Right. >> And when I talked to Fred, we still can have animals on there. We can have large animals on there. We can continue our
greenhouse. We continue growing agricultural crops in the back field where this is going to take place. >> Yep. >> Um since we moved in in early 90s, it's been a pumpkin patch. It's been a corn field. It's been a hay field. It's a a hay field right now. >> Okay.
>> We are only looking to grow anchor. We did talk to the neighbors on both sides. >> They are in post of it. >> We did talk to the police department and they are okay with that. >> Well, yeah. Go ahead. Can I clarify?
>> Yeah, that's not exactly my role in this. My concern is the security >> of the facility and he addressed those concerns. My this is not my not my monkey. >> Yeah. No. And and those were the questions that I had. So, I'm kind of
glad everything is kind of pecked away as we've gotten through here. >> Can I ask one question before you go on? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Who is the applicant? Because there's a different applicant than you. It's this gentleman. So, who's the applicant? >> So, >> can you answer? >> Yeah. So, he's out of town right now.
He's dealing with another portion of the business. So, I was here representing him. >> Okay. I'm still confused. I'm still very confused. We have Mr. Worsta up here. >> Was >> up here. And it's your land, but it's your business. Is that
>> it's Tyler's business? He is basically going to be renting the land for from me to grow his crop. I am going to be overseeing make sure nobody gets in there. I'm going to be watering it, but they are going to be doing the planting, the weeding, the harvesting, and the
hauling out. That's all it is is a grow. >> And how do you two know each other? >> He approached me. >> So, you looked for land. Yeah. >> And then you contacted him for it. Wait, let him answer, please. Right. Is that Is that my understanding? >> Correct. >> Go ahead. I had to figure out who's who
and what's >> Those were the last of my questions. The other thing was the security cameras. How does that work? Because this isn't corn. I'm not going to come over and steal your corn, but I may come over and steal your cannabis, you know, because that actually does something. But the corn, >> we eat enough corn.
>> I don't know. >> There's good corn, >> but anybody? >> Yeah. So, those were my questions. So, thank you very much for answering that. So, >> all right. Um, that was all your questions. >> That was it. That was all my questions. >> Mr. Lunan, I bring this up because anytime
something is coming before us and it has a lot of implications down the road, if we were to approve this based on the fact that your finding is that it's not um legal in our city based on the
ordinance, where does that what does that open us to for some like I don't know somebody else in the audience to come out and say somebody approached me and now I want to do the same thing. >> So, first of all, it is legal in the
city. Again, it's >> legal but not on the the zoning that it is. >> Correct. But it's it's important because it's legal in the appropriately zoned district. >> Correct. So one of the things here is uh again there is a legal non-conforming
operation in place and now we have permitted um cannabis cultivation in egg which this property previously was and is operating as a legal non-conforming. Essentially, the applicant is asking the
city to retroactively now allow what are now permitted operations in egg retroactively to his legal non-conforming that was established when it reszoned to R2. R1 went
>> started out as R12 looking through research after contact by your office. The city of the township adopted a new zoning orders and a zoning map in 1996. At that time they changed it to the res back to residential. Looking at the
zoning orders that the city adopted when city and the township murders that has also And what year was that? >> 2009. >> Okay. >> So, so as I often tell you when you are
evaluating land use applications, conditional use permit varants that those are not precedential because you look at the facts of the actual situation here to to make a determination and say, well, this this is legal non-conforming. it can
retroactively be applied to legal non-conforming. You potentially are establishing some precedent where other properties, whether it's cannabis or something different, if the zoning changes and someone's operating legal non-conforming, uh they may want to say, "Well, I used
to be zoned as industrial and I've been operating this little garage here, but now you allow this, so I want to start doing that now. It's legal non-conforming." And and that's kind of one of the concerns here. So, I think what the applicant is looking to do is really to expand on the legal non-conforming under their cup. And
again, it's it's sort of asking you to retroactively apply what is now permitted. You know, what may be a more appropriate sense in this instance would be potentially a variance um through the R1 to see if those standards apply. >> Yeah. I mean it would be it would be a
determination on the factual basis of this particular property or you know potentially they ask for a reszone of the parcel but ultimately if you if there's a determination to say that what is now permitted as egg is going to retroactively apply to any property that
is operating legal non-conforming as a then any other business again assuming they meet the state standards could come forward and say all right well I want to do cannabis here now I do cannabis here now and I don't know how many that applies to. But theoretically then the impact of that may extend beyond just
cannabis. It may be any zoning changes and any legal non-conforming if people wish to bring those before the council and say this is what I'm going to be doing because I was allowed to do it when it would have been zoned under that specific district. >> All right. Any other questions for the
applicant? >> I do have a a question for Mr. Lunan. Why can't this be classified as a home business? Okay. >> Okay. >> Just an idea. >> Okay. You have a question?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um and I just want to make sure your answer to Council Member Luger just see if I'm getting this right. It sounds like the land would was grandfathered in for uh the use as a farm which at that
time did not have cannabis included because it was grandfathered in. It would stay have to stay under what it had been at that time. We can't amend what the grandfathering is. And if we did, it would set a precedence that we could do that anywhere across the city.
And you know that I I don't I really look for precedents. Would that be accurate to say that >> that is the potential implication in this instance? Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> I would just Mr. W.
>> I just want to give one example of a of a legal non-conforming agricultural the R1 think of the they were looking to grow >> because they cultivate and do the business.
>> As one of the other examples of >> Got it. >> So, so in other words, if the pumpkin patch wanted to grow cannabis instead of pumpkins, they couldn't do it for the same reasons that we would deny this. >> Correct. >> Okay. But I guess my point is when did that get resold? And we were never
notified that it was even getting resold. It was >> I can't say anything about 1996 and I can just say that we >> but but since 199 when I started in 1998 >> the map that hung on my wall has always had you as
>> yeah but I got that >> you know what I'm talking about 1996 >> read the minutes I did everything else I don't know what happened between 96 >> right in the minutes it said egg it didn't say anything with egg with restrictions it didn't say anything else
that was like back in 1992. If I said, "Hang on a minute. I'm going to ask Siri about this." It didn't exist back in 92. >> Yeah. And you it wasn't legal to grow cannabis. >> That's correct. But cannabis is legal in Minnesota and it is an agricultural crop
now, >> but not >> I would like to find out when that got reszoned and how it got reszoned because under my understanding it was zil still zoned egg and I do have animals on there and I do grow properties. That's okay. If we can do this, I think this is we're
we're too far out what the original purpose is. So, appreciate it. Um, we have to go what's before us. We have legal counsel. We have state definition. Um, so, um, we have to go what's in front of us, not what happened. None of
us were here in '92. >> No, I'm just trying to figure out when this got resolved. >> Yeah. And we don't know, right? We're I don't know how to get you that answer, honestly. When the city adopted the zoning map and zoning orders in 2009, >> yeah, >> it was res. >> Okay. Okay. There we go. All right.
Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Okay. As usual, the state of Minnesota leaves us without clear anything. All right. Um, so to consider resolution 25886, a resolution denying an interim
conditional use permit to allow outdoor cannabis cultivation um at 7745 Wyoming Trail. We need a motion to deny. I will make that motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Okay, we have a second. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> Nay. >> So, it does it is denied. Okay. Now, if it should change again, please by all means, we're we're come on back. So, >> this is the end of the road for us
except for we go to another meeting. >> Nope. This is it. >> This is it. >> Yep. All right. Thank you. Can I Can the applicant apply for variance at all? there's a and that's where I kind of you can't grant up for use. >> Okay.
>> So I think that's part of the issue maybe look at some you know that's where I kind of defer that generally speaking you can't you can't give a variance we're saying building the hospital so that that's a different kind of use.
So I think that's one question I just question like so I I have agriculture if I wanted to grow it on my land and I
>> directly next door >> you touched his property. >> Yes. Are you sure? >> I have five. >> Well, he looks up the zoning map. I mean, just to anticipate your question, depending on what it is, egg, the the
cannabis ordinance that was adopted permits it in in egg. So, if you have an egg district and you meet the state requirements, the city's zoning >> correct >> we got to be easier because I know it's a
and everything, you know, the whole marijuana thing. But I was just wondering if that would be easier, you know, >> all right. Are we good? Is there a way I can find out when this was?
>> I believe Mr. Yeah, I believe Mr. W has done that already. Have you not? >> Well, I provided to the city attorney, so I can send you that information. >> Okay, perfect. >> Okay. Or can we talk about it right now? >> No, we're we're still meeting. Yeah, >> I thought this was part of the meeting. >> We're done. We We already denied it.
>> If we knew that this was not zone A, why did you take $1,200 from public hearing? I'm not going to go into that right now because there was a lot more that's not being spoken about right now. So, >> okay.
>> Okay. We're we're I need you to now we're done. We've answered your questions. You can come back later and have a conversation with Mr. Lynwood, Mr. Lunan, or Mr. Wack. I would say all three at that point in time. But we need to move on now. It's been answered.
>> What's that? >> Yep. >> Yep. Thank you. Okay. Number 26 to consider an automatic license plate reader ALPR policy of the
city of Wyoming. Chief Bower. >> That would be you. >> That's me. >> Okay. You're on. >> I'm read through a the the as you know um we had numerous discussions about this already. Um one of the agreements with with council was to uh provide the
policy to council for approval. Um generally our policies are not approved by council. Um however this one was uh requested that that we go through that process. Uh the other one that was approved by council is the body warn camera policy as required by statute. Um
uh the policy was provided to council um several months ago uh with some and then some revisions as of last week. Uh I'll just do a brief summary of kind of the the content of that policy. Um we're looking for adoption of the ALPR policy
to guide responsible use of the APR system. Um purpose is it captures license plate data, time, date, and location uh to support law enforcement activities such as locating stolen vehicles, missing persons, and suspects tied to criminal investigations.
Um the system will not be used for personal reasons, harassments, intimidation or immigration enforcement. Uh the chief of police, me or designate oversees the ALPR installation, maintenance and data retention and the system access. Uh only trained and
authorized officers may operate the system. Uh all alerts must be verified by the officers before any enforcement action is taken. uh ALPR data unrelated to an active investigation must be deleted within 30 days with limited ex exceptions for
exculpatory evidence or to address the uh address confidentiality program participants. Uh public log is available and maintained documenting the LPR usage including the times, number of plates and the match results. Um, data will
only be accessible through secure password protected systems with complete audit trails. Uh, the BCA, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will be notified and already has been notified of installations or fixed locations. Uh, it cannot be used to track individuals without a warrant or exit circumstances.
Uh, all data access is logged. It's subject subject to banual by bianial we'll get there. Audits and violations are subject to discipline or prosecution. data may only be shared with law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies
for legitimate investigations and only by written request approved by the chief of police. Um in summary, policy en ensures that the ALPR system is used solely for legitimate law enforcement purposes with
safeguards for privacy, accountability, and transparency. It aligns with Minnesota state statutes and re reflects best practices in protecting community trust while enhancing public safety. Um the basic outline of the policy and content is established by Lexiple, our
policy company that we use. Um with and we don't want to deviate a ton from those policies for numerous reasons I can get into if you'd like to know. >> No. >> Um Yep. Right. Uh but we did make some modifications per some of the discussions with council
previously. So uh looking for approval or any other uh questions you may have on this policy. >> Okay. Well, we'll start with member. >> No, I have no questions. Um I appreciate all of the time and effort and and diligence that's gone into this um and making sure that this will be an
appropriate appropriately used tool uh to enhance community safety. So I got nothing else. >> Perfect. Memberstead. >> No questions. I have no questions. Member Schilling, >> I just have one question. Are these the ones that mount on the top of the car or is it going to be a fixed? >> They're fixed. >> Okay. I have no questions.
>> Member Jagger. Never mind. >> Are all the cameras installed? >> Two of the four are installed. >> Okay. So, we still have two more to go. When will these cameras be turned on? >> Once uh the policy is approved and then our officers are trained in the use and we have not started that process. And so
timeline >> uh once they complete it, I would guess within a a month we could get all the officers through the training. >> It's all online training. >> And will all the cameras be installed then? >> It's we're not sure when those last two. They're they're a separate type of uh
breakaway poll that DOT requires. So those are the DOT rightaways. Um and they have they're on back order for those polls. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the automatic license plate reader ALPR policy for the city of Wyoming. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second by member Luger. All in favor? >> I opposed. So approved. Number 27. Consider donation to the historical society. Mr. McFarland. I'm reading Q's. I saw you bring up that microphone. >> Honorable mayor and members of the city council. Uh the city has received a
request from the Chicago County Historical Society for a donation. Um, typically we wouldn't bring an item like this before you because under Minnesota law, municipalities are generally prohibited from donating public fund funds to private organizations unless the expenditure is both expressly authorized by statute and serves a
public purpose. However, in this case, Minnesota statute section 138.053 authorizes a statutory home rule home rule charter city to appropriate money annually from its general fund to the historical society of its city, town, or county. To qualify for such a donation,
the historical societ society must be affiliated with and approved by the Minnesota Historical Society itself. Uh Minnesota Historical Society maintains a dire directory of approved local and county historical organizations and the Chicago County Historical Society is listed on that directory which confirms
that it would meet the statute requirements um for the Minnesota Historical Society affiliation and approval. Um, so we received a letter from Chicago County Historical Society uh last week uh asking for a donation from $500 to $1,500. We thought um we'd
bring it before you. Should be noted that a donation um was not budgeted for in 2025. Um so simply we're recommending that you consider uh whether or not you want to donate to the historical society. >> Okay. Thank you. Um questions starting
with member Schilling. >> No questions. So move >> me. Okay. Members, >> no questions. >> Thank you. Um, member Joerger. >> Um, I am open to making the donation.
However, I'd like to see it out out of another pot of money rather than general fund. For example, when we have a contract with the Lake Center, that comes out of a separate police fund or when we donate to the initiative fund
that comes out of the EDA. So, uh you can say they promote the city of Wyoming through history and telling a telling our story, which does have some value.
Are you um suggesting a pot for it to come out of? >> Do we have a pot that we could bring it out of? >> You have to ask these guys. >> I don't have anything um budgeted for 2025. I think it's a little different too for the Lake Center for Youth and
Family. That's actually a contractual service that's provided to the city. So, just to be but it is allowable by statute as Mr. McFarland stated. Um, we didn't budget anything for this in 2025, but you know, we do have some other funds from time to time that we address, whether it be EDA or um, we have our
capital revolving fund. I think there's a couple. I think it's just a matter of what council wants to do, I guess, via your your recommendation. >> Um, what would the where would the money come from if it were if it were it to be a continuing donation?
>> Um, we don't have it. It's a unique It's a unique um situation in this because like I said, most most of these were not allowed by statute to to do this, but this is unique. So, >> it's kind of un um uncharted territory, I guess, for us. We, you know, I guess
it could come out of um our administration and our operations or we could make a new light item for donations. Um like I said, we just don't have anything, like I said, being the newness of this and kind of the mid year of it, we have any time to really an
appropriate spot for it. >> Yeah, it's the the contract to Lakes Area, that's the yearly thing. The initiative fund is also a yearly thing. So, looking ahead,
if the historical society wishes to make this a yearly thing uh rather than a oneoff, I was just curious how that would be handled. I mean, if that was something from council wanted to give us direction,
whether it's a onetime donation now or just to put something annually in budget, um we could certainly find a place for it. If you just wanted to utilize whether you have a a a fund that you want to use or you want to levy for it and just put in our um normal operations or operational budget, we can
certainly do that. Well, I said I I g I already gave two examples of al alternative funds that could be used. Are there park funds that could be used since they're putting a sign and
QR code in Mro Park? >> They are putting um they are putting uh some signage and we're asking I think the council to Mr. McFarland to purchase some signage. Is that correct? >> Yeah, I believe that was already approved. So, it was the $500 for the post and then the sign will be going to
Railroad Park in the future. I guess regarding it, you know, if any park >> Oh, I thought that that that sign was totally free for I free for us. >> Oh, maybe the I'd have I'd have to recheck the item should be free. Okay, then if you have so Mr. Leonard
remembers and you Yeah, like free. >> Yeah. So that those would be my suggestions if council wish to move forward. >> Did you go? >> Yeah, he did. >> Totally. This has been so long. I'm like
trying to figure out where we're at. >> He attempted to make a motion that you didn't accept. >> Yeah. >> Well, because nobody got a chance to ask their questions yet. >> I know. That's >> Well, that's why that's the why you didn't accept, but that's, you know. >> Okay. All right. Uh, member Luger. Um, I
am 1,000% in favor of this. I think it should be we should aim for the 1500. I don't think that at this point we are being asked to do this on an ongoing basis. Um, if I'm interpreting this correctly and so I am totally comfortable with this. I think it's a great partnership. Um, I've seen uh the
Chicago County Historical Society's um, uh, like I was at the Amlan like threshing show the other week and and their their display was awesome. Um, and I think, yeah, it's a really great partnership that and celebrates heritage and all of that stuff. So, um, I'm comfortable with the $1,500 from
wherever staff deems it most appropriate. >> Memberstead, >> I echo her sentiments. >> I'm going to throw a wrench into this just for one minute because it's been that kind of night.
So, what if we were to, it's now almost September. What if we were to table this, take a look at where the funds may come from, and bring it back early next year? >> I like that idea.
>> I mean, I'm just I think I think we need a little bit of, you know, I don't know enough about this. I'm not saying the president is what, you know, I'm not saying I don't trust him, but I would like a little more information. I would like us to know where this possibly would come out of. I think there's just
some unknowns and we're at the end of the year. If we can somehow bring it back the first part of next year after doing a little bit of where should this come out if they if we do decide to do it yearly, what does that look like? Where is it coming out? I'm all about
processes and procedures. So, that's my suggestion. You can all tell me no. >> No, it's I I have a question for Mr. Lynwood. >> What's in the current EDA budget left over already this year? >> I know we've spent some money. So, >> I think there's approximately at this
point what's left. I think there's around $44,000 approximately. >> Um All right. We don't have anything planned for that. Um I don't think well there's some discussion right now but I I think we'll have some there's some a few items that
we still but potentially but >> does this fall in the realm that you can EDM without it being approved by EDA? >> Um statutoily I'd have to check in regards to >> statutoily I'd have to check in regards for EDA. I know that we can as a city
from our general fund. I guess I want to take a quick look on EDA if you give me a second. >> Huh? >> Yeah. In all honesty, we've already had discussion
table. >> So, he doesn't have to keep doing that. We still got more items to go and there's one of them on here that's going to be >> Okay. I'll make a motion to table it until we can find out where to take the money out of and table it until 2026,
the first part of the year. That's my motion. Do we have a second? >> Have a second. >> You don't have to. I'm just saying there's a first out there. Do we have a second? >> Anybody can second it or not? >> No, >> I'll second it. >> Okay, so we have a second. All in favor?
I >> opposed. >> Name. So it passes to be tabled. That was three to two. Okay. Mr. Lynwood, you have the direction on that then where we want to go. >> We'll probably have a little discussion on this if we're going to bring it back in January. Probably have some
discussion on if we want where we'd want to take it out of our budget yet for 26. >> January and February. >> Yeah, we'll probably talk about it this year. So, okay. Noted. >> All right. Um, number 28. This is going to take a while. You are correct.
All right. to consider entering into a purchase agreement for the property located at 26263 Forest Boulevard, Wyoming, Minnesota 55092. Mr. Lynwood, Mr. Who? >> I'll I'll be starting uh with a little
background um on the request and the property and then Mr. Lun will go into some of the legal components of the potential uh purchase agreement. Um, just to give the council um, some background, in 2020, the city uh, began
a very methodical multi-year effort to address our facility needs um, across all of our city departments. Um, we evaluated this building, including um, our our from our administrative component to our fire department to our
police department that is shared by public works and the public works uh, facility. And then we did a needs assessment that was conducted by W Architects um as part of that. That 2020 study identified um significant deficiencies and future demands in all
of our um operating um facilities that the city currently has and that the generally found that city um facilities were undersized. They're outdated and not equipped to meet operational needs uh or standards of today. Um, just to go through a little bit, our police
department um, currently operates out of a steel pole barn that's over 50 years old and was not designed for modern law enforcement operations. Um, it lacks adequate space for training, interviews, victim support, uh, vigor centered victim centered interview space. There's no 247
secure safe room for victims. Um, we have no meeting or trainee support staff development or any kind of regional collaboration if we want to work with other departments. Um, it has limited climate control, minimal security for sensitive areas, and insufficient space for specialized equipment, making it
increasingly inadequate for the demands of um, the department and the community. Um, the fire department um, built in 1977, the fire station um, faces multiple operational and safety issues. There's no decontamination area to separate turnout gear from clean spaces.
Um, that increases cancer exposure risk to our firefighters. Uh poor air exchange and climate control affects apparatus bays and turnout gears within this and office areas. Um turnout gear should not be exposed to some of the temperatures and humidity that it currently does. Um bays are double
stacked limiting access to response efficiency. There's no dedicated training room. Space between vehicles and gear racks is limited. Storage is inadequate. Low ceiling heights preventing garage servicing of trucks. Um, no SB SBA filling area or the one that is there is excessively noisy and
the shower restroom facilities are insufficient or not ADA compliant. Um, public works. The facility has inadequate vehicle storage uh forcing equipment to be stored outdoors exposed to weather. Bays are under sides for modern vehicles, limiting maintenance capabil capabilities, poor ventilation
and heating systems affect employee safety and comfort. Um, there is limited secure storage for tools and materials and no dedicated trading room, meeting or breaka spaces for staff. And as we talked about at our budget session, they're currently work out of construction trailer and has been since 2021. Um, city hall and administration
uh spaces are limited for for public meeting rooms, staff training, um sometimes even community events where we used to utilize that until we had to put temporary offices in it. Um reducing available public meeting space and staff space. uh storage for records is lacking
and accessibility grades are limited. Um we don't have any kind of um ADA compliance within our restrooms and we don't have a designated public or private side um for our staff. Um since that completion of that needs assessment, we developed conceptual plans for a public safety and fire
building. Um we secured those cost estimates working with W Architects and a construction manager through Carol Anderson. Um, initially that those costs were approximately 13 million and later escalating to nearly 19 million due to inflation and other construction cost
increases. Um, we have sought federal funding through congressional direct spending through uh Senator Clolobashar and Senator Smith's office. Um, we have also sent requests to Congressman Pete Stalbert for his backing. We have also included the conclusion uh for state
funding for bonding during three separate sessions. Um unfortunately we are unable to secure any kind of funding uh for those for not either not being inclusionary or not actually having the state go forward with the bonding bill. Um we have engaged our regional partners and stakeholders in the in the community
and we've done tried to build that support and have had letters of support through um different partners that we have uh regionally and within the community and we have explored alternative approaches to reduce cost while still meeting our operational operational needs. um we have not been
able to find that or work through that and receive the money that's necessary for the public safety building that we've looked at on the north end of town. Um like I said with the cost um due to just normal construction inflation inflation have just considered um continued to go up escalating costs
to a point where um our staff has looked at other opportunities because we didn't think it was financially responsible to continue down that path. Um, in 2025, um, there was a new opportunity as their a property located at 26263 Forest Boulevard became available.
Um, working with our city council staff began evaluating the site and negotiating a potential purchase. Um, based on that needs assessment criteria, we worked with our architect, W um, and the site could be could be considered for relocation of city hall and police department. Um the current concept would
be to purchase and renovate this property uh for administrative and police operations and then um excuse me and then the existing city fireh hall that we're in right now would meet be renovated into a dedicated fire station. Uh public works facility improvements would remain a future capital project.
Um, next steps that we would ask the council tonight would be to exclude ex um executing a purchase agreement for the property at 26263 and beginning the due diligence period to conduct feasibility uh more in-depth costs and design evaluation uh for this property.
We would look at the overall funding mechanisms for this including how the bonding for the projects would work through the structure. Um and then staff would work with council to come back with those findings um if approved through the purchase agreement working with with W for that schematic design
and make sure that the initial cost cost estimates could actually come in to the budget that we have discussed with the council. Um we are working through those funding strategies to the plan. Um the city has gone had our legal counsel um work through a purchase agreement in
greater detail. Um and he can uh Mr. Lun can discuss those in regards to the the actual purchase agreement that is in place. So with that I can stand for any questions the council may have on this but gives a little background and history to how we got here and then like I said Mr. Lunan I believe is a able to
answer any questions regarding that purchase agreement. >> Thank you. Um Member Joerger I believe it's your turn to start. Okay. Will the city lo what kind of will the city lose money if they back out of the purchase after the due diligence
period? So, the purchase agreement provides for a 60-day due diligence period um which you can find in section 4B of the transaction. Um
yes, generally upon the during during the um due diligence period, the city is provided the right and its absolute and sole discretion to terminate the agreement um for any reason if we find the property unsuitable
after the expiration of 60 days. Um generally the property or the earnest money um what we call it goes hard means that now um the earnest money is due to the seller.
>> Okay. You would lose the money after 60 days. Earnest money after 60 days. In other words, >> it would depend on the reason for the cancellation. There still are ways depending what the reason is. But if we cancel if we don't have a material
purpose for cancelling then yes. >> Okay. And then what happens to the tenants in the meet in the building now? Do they have a lease? Is will the lease expire? >> So as part of the due diligence period we are provided all property documents
which will include the leases. Um those have to be delivered to us to me um essentially upon execution. Uh it's just kind of within a reasonable time. Um but
we get to review all those. What I have been told is that the one major lease belonging to the call center um has already notified that they are cancelling and I think they are terminating either October or November
um and they already have notice of termination and in addition to that the eye clinic lease um does expire in two years and there's a potential to talk with them about an
early cancellation. And I know as we've discussed and evaluated this property in close session, there were some discussions that they may have been longer. I did ask the broker um about that. She did indicate that there was a transfer in ownership and there was a
look at um them potentially expanding um but ultimately nothing happened and so the she said the lease is still just has two years left on it. >> Okay. What is the approximate cost of the entire project?
>> The the estimates that we received um the preliminary aspects in regards to um from W from W Architects. So the the three projects for the for the city hall for the police and for the renovation of this would be approximately $9 million.
>> Okay. And how does this compare to what the city would have paid if a new building was state was paid was built with state money? >> So if if we were we were asking the state um that we were asking for half on
the from the state. So depending upon what the year it was and the inflationary cost that was the ask >> doesn't necessarily mean that we would have received half. So example for that public safety building we are estimating this year approximately 19 million. So we would have received approximately half of that from the state. So give or
take nine and a half million dollars would have been what we potentially would have received. So the city still would have been on the hook for the one building for the nine and a half million because we for through bonding bill you have to give at least half. Now >> yeah, >> not to say that the state sometimes the the second year of bonding when there
was a a bonding bill and there wasn't or that looked like there was going to be a bonding bill. Um we had asked for half. It sounded like there was a good chance if there would have been a bonding bill, we would receive money, but it probably would have been about twothirds of our half ask. It wouldn't have been the half. So, we don't know for sure, but if we got half, it would have been nine and a half million,
>> but if we had >> So, basically, this project is coming out to be about the same price as if we >> did if we did. >> Correct. Where you're the only difference is you're accomplishing
>> Yeah. If we had built the building, we'd we'd still be paying about the same price. >> Correct. And you're just you're accomplishing essentially the the fire and police component and the and the administrative. So you're accomplishing three instead of just the >> instead of just two. >> Correct. >> Okay. Is there a do not exceed cost at
which the project then becomes too expensive to continue with? I think the I think from that probably be that'll be part of the diligence period with the council when we're looking at that and in regards to um working with our financial planner and the bond implications on that and the different
way we can structure those bonds. Um I think we've looked at it from a staff standpoint that the 9 million is um kind of in regards to just how we look at and able to continue to do our normal operations and provide services to the city that that's really um kind of about the maximum amount that we'd want to go.
will certainly go through that diligence with the council and allow you to to weigh in on that as we get that information from our bond council and what those implications of those bonds would be. um you know we're going to work with um old architects and that if the council were to move forward with this we'll have um representatives from
that kind of talking about that schematic design and making sure you know they gave us the initial high level but we would at that point be able to once we have that during this diligence period to get that good information from mold to really say this looks like it is what we believe it was that it is um a
chance to accomplish what we what we thought we could for that money. So basically if I want really firm numbers, we got to have that contract with Walt. >> Agreed. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Um so asking if a do not exceed cost can be
set. It's kind of moot. >> I think you can you can look once we get the information back from old. I think it'd be challenging at this point. um just based on that's very high level what they did and I think the schematic design will really bring into what what
those costs are were um I think they're um believe that there is a good chance for that and they're positive uh in that but you know that's why we we move forward with this and kind of the information that the council received from them um but right until we actually go through that process that's when we'll really know.
>> Okay. And your memo says it's, you know, public works would be in the future and they're just buying a trailer. How long in the future are we talking? You know, I think that's a challenging. You know, I think there's a couple different things. Um, you know, we look
at for this project, we still potentially, you know, Mr. McFarland and I did submit for bonding through the state of Minnesota for 2026. We would have to change our bonding request a little. there's still some potential that we could receive some money for it, even though the bonding has been challenging. Um, we've talked to the
council a little bit about exploring other funding options, but I think it's going to come down to, you know, the duration of a bond for this project is probably going to be somewhere from 15 to 20 years. Um, it's just going to be a matter of what what the solution for public works is and that cost is and how
that fits into our capital improvement projects and what is um reasonable to start taking on another project in that time. I think um everyone I I don't want to speak for the council, but I think you've all made the mo the majority has made this a priority to try to fix um
some of the deficiencies in these facilities. So, um we would certainly work with council to try to explore options on that, but I don't know if I really have to say it's five years, to say it's 10 years, to say it's we have no idea whether it's short-term, long term, >> challenging at this point, I would say.
>> Okay. Um, I'm not totally against this. I can see where if the cost is of the project is kept in line or under a do not exceed amount, um, I I could see this working. Uh, I do have some still some lingering
concerns and I'll be quite frankly, I didn't receive the purchase agreement until one after one o'clock this afternoon. I have not had time to read it, research it, and digest it. So, I will be abstaining from making a
decision because I I I mean, I can't I'm not comfortable doing it. Making a a responsible choice before I read it. >> Member Schilling. >> Um I only had one question. I maybe you said it or I'm just losing my mind, but
um I with this this is off the subject, so I guess you could call point order on me. A public works facility, can we lobby the state for that. >> You could you could >> certainly that was my question. Otherwise, that's it for this.
>> We've been trying to get this thing done since 2012 >> and every year it's gone up by a million dollars and it keeps going up and it's going to continue to go up and it continue anyway. So, I'm just going to leave that right there. This kills three projects for $9 million was what we were
going to spend for the two and then I think we still go down that avenue for the public works for looking money to fund that as well. >> Mr. Lunan, um, you've been our council for how long?
>> Since he's since Rob was made administrator. >> Yeah, I think I think a little bit after that. Seven years maybe. >> Okay. >> My first year and a half. >> Okay. And so you've been looking at all our documents the last seven years whenever we've had questions on it.
You've drawn up different documents. I believe you drew up this document as well, purchase agreement or >> uh th So, this document was prepared by the broker. I reviewed it and redlinined it um for the city's terms. Uh frankly, aside from government work, I I do
commercial real estate. This is not a overly complicated transaction. The complications really come on the back end with working with your architects and such. Um, and again, as we talked in close session, the big consideration in the city and negotiating making sure this agreement worked for this project
and what the city's trying to accomplish was ensuring that we had a proper amount of due diligence time to allow for the property to be fully evaluated. Um, and had the right to get out of it during that due diligence time to recuperate the earnest money that we have to put
down to hold the property. Um, aside from that, the really the terms on this transaction, we're not buying it as a commercial investor. We're buying it as an owner occupant. Um, we're buying it to renovate. That's why we're going to do the due diligence. Uh, it's not a it's not a terribly complicated
transaction. So, the agreement itself is a fairly straightforward commercial real estate purchase agreement. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Mr. Onstead, member, >> no questions. >> Member Luger. >> No questions. All right.
Um, I will make the motion to enter into a purchase agreement for the property located at 26263 Forest Boulevard, Wyoming, Minnesota 55092. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Which one of you want to do second and
third? Member on is second. >> Member Luger is third. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. And we have one person >> abstension. Yeah. Okay. So passes number 29 to consider into an agreement with Walt Architects for AC architectural
services related to 26 263 Forest Boulevard property in Wyoming City Hall Fire Department. Mr. Lynwood, >> thank you Mayor Iverson, members of council. Um just to give some background on this, the city is um now um going
through a due diligence uh period um with the approved purchase agreement for the property um located at 26264 Boulevard. Um to ensure the city can make an informed decision on this property and regarding the significant investment um it's really essential that we conduct some detailed planning with
this um the site analysis, the pre preliminary design work and due diligence um during that due diligence period. Um this required the city to confirm the property and propose improvements can fully meet operational and community needs. So um with that W
architects and engineers has provided a proposal for schematic design for the base services for both facilities. So a combined facility of police department and city hall at 26263 Foolish Boulevard and then here at the fire department renovation and expansion of the existing city hall um here at 26885 Forest
Boulevard. Um so the schematic design will really u establish project goals and requirements include meetings um with the city uh once they complete some of that work and the staff and to really talk about what we're trying to accomplish and if it's accomplishable within that budget. Um develop the site
plans, floor plans, evaluations and renderings. um address any zoning or judicial considerations and provide um probable constru construction c cost estimates and then deliver a comprehensive report documenting the decisions and conceptual designs for the
council. Um the world architects is proposing a fixed fee for this phase in an amount of 54,000 plus estimated reimburseables of 23 $2350 for a total schematic design of approximately $56,350.
Um we do have um present with us I believe online um Mr. to say Jonathan I don't know M uh would you like to add anything to the proposal and discussed in a little greater depth than I've given some high level >> No I thanks Rob uh thank you madame
mayor and council um guys have been through a lot here and uh we're excited this is a definitely a tremendous opportunity for the city uh I think we have the goal in mind and getting through schematic design will really help us see um how close we are
maybe even um better off than the than the 9 million. But that's really the the goal is to align those efforts with that due diligence period so that the city has the confidence that they can continue forward into that next design phase. So that's why we're suggesting you just
take out this first bite and learn a little bit more about what actually has to be done and uh we'll continue to report to council and administration along the way here. >> Perfect. Questions from council. We'll start with member Schilling. Uh, I have no questions. >> Member Anstad,
>> no questions. >> Member Luger, >> no questions. Member Joerger. >> Oh, my question was answered already. >> Okay. >> All right. And I have none either. I'll make a motion to enter into an agreement with Wald Architects for architectural services related to 262634 is Boulevard
Property and Wyoming City Hall Fire Department. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in favor? I opposed or abstained. Are you abstained? >> No. I want actually I want to see his cards
and last I heard in poker I need to pay to see his cards. >> Okay. So, are you a yes or no? >> Yes. >> You're a yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um so that carries. Thank you, Jonathan. We look forward to seeing your um recommendations. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> All right. Number 30. We are going to have to add a 31. I heard that. >> So just hold on tight. Number 30 to consider communications and community engagement services with golf public.
Mr. Lynwood. >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, as you know, the city has uh now moved forward with a due diligence phase uh for the potential purchase of property and to serve as our future city hall facility and also conjunction with trying to do a
renovation here for our um the needs of our Wyoming fire department. Um we have extensive u needs here for safety space operational and these are really truly transformative projects for the community and we're really looking at
this as in a public investment and to really make sure that we're um making sure that these have appropriate scope, scale, visibility um efforts to make clear, consistent and proactive communication to the community and engagement um and really talk about the reason the city is pursuing the
projects, the process, the the due diligence decision-m and approvals, how these improvements will address current and future service needs and the anticipated timelines and opportunities uh for potential engagement and public input. Um the effect of messaging will help build understanding uh really
dispel misinformation um as we know that's something that we is really challenging for um a city or any city now um trying to go forward with any um certainly a project of this scale and then um try to foster some trust in the city's process that it'll be doing. Um
and it also helped to ensure that stakeholders, residents, businesses and partner agencies um and media potentially and media receive timely and accurate information of every stage. Um Goff public is a Minnesota based communications and public engagement firm with extensive municipal
experience. Um they have made a proposal for services to us and that'll be to develop key messages and a comprehensive communications plan to coordinate public engagement strategies during due diligence and beyond. um respond to inquiries and provide ongoing updates to the community and adjust communications
tactics based on the public feedback. Um the fir firm's proposal includes a hourly rate of $225 and the initial budget of 10,000. Um staff is recommending this. We do have Sarah Swenson here and she's been waiting patiently for quite some time um to talk
to you all and I think she's able to stand um come up and stand for any questions either directed to me or her. Actually, Miss Swenson, if you'd be so kind, could you give a little bit of more background than I did maybe about golf and Sure. >> and what you hope to accomplish. >> Yeah. Hi, I'm Sarah Swinson. Um, my
address is 444 Cedar Street uh in St. Paul. Um, I am a vice president uh for public relations at Golf Public. We have been in business for almost 60 years. A lot of our work is around municipal communications. So, we work with a
variety of of governments of all sizes to help you communicate transparently with your residents and other stakeholders who are important to you, making sure that your information gets out, that you're telling the accurate stories about the work that you're doing, um, and including these big consequential projects like this one.
Um, so our goal is to help staff add capacity to Mr. Lynwood's team u to help make sure that your residents get the information that they need to make informed decisions. Um, have there been projects that you've done before like this for other cities?
Can you give an example? >> Yeah, so we we've worked extensively with the city of St. Paul um on a number of their projects that have had impacts on you know property tax levies. Um, an example of that would be, um, you know, they have a lot of, uh, government
properties and, um, nonprofit properties within the city and so they had some issues with their payments in le of taxes and so that added a lot of, uh, uh, burden on the taxpayers and so things like that. Um, we helped with messaging around that, communications planning. It wasn't a specific building.
Um, but we have extensive experience on bonding projects in general and communications around those. >> Okay, great. Thank you. That's all my questions. Um, member Anstad, >> no questions. >> Member Luger, no questions. Um, member Joerger. >> Okay. According to Rob's email, um,
wait, not email, memo with the purchase agreement, we've been doing community engagement since 2020 on this matter. we've had updates and uh weekly emails that go out to the community and then we have a web page that's dedicated um yeah to have all the information that we have
from our needs assessment um and the ongoing components to that. So um I guess I would consider that public engagement. >> We So we've already been doing that. I mean for me if the plan is a good one it's going to sell itself. But one thing I've noticed in in the community as
we've been going through the recently, especially with the resoning, that people are becoming increasingly skeptical of um glib sales campaigns. In in other words, as you try to sell
the reasonzoning, nobody's buying it and people are skeptical. And I have I think a communications campaign has a high probability of backfiring and would turn more people off than
um accepting it. >> If I remember correctly, this would be the first time we would have a professional person coming in. Is that correct? We've never in in the time here, we haven't used any kind of professional public relations or public
communications um consultant in this. And I think for like I said the um the size um of this potential project and I think how important it is going to be to make sure that um the communication and messaging to the community um is really going to be key. And I certainly um of
the opinion that um we have I don't know if we've our communication on the resoning has been an attempt to provide information. I don't think we have individuals that are not um necessarily agreeing with that process and understood on that. But um I think this brings in a professional um partner um
that has experience with this and really will help through this process to make it transparent, transparent,formational, and really give um good information to our residents. >> Okay. Member Schilling. >> I have no questions. >> Okay. Um, seeing that there are no more
questions, I'm going to move to consider communications and community engagement services with G public. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second by member onstead. All in favor? I opposed. >> So approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, I do need to add number
31 onto our agenda. It's to put on um a work session for September 2nd at 5:30m. Um the session would include budget and our due diligence to continue with that budget um and the property at 26263.
Um so do I we just need to make a motion now? >> Yeah, we would just >> we need to add that to the agenda and then have them make Do we need a motion, Mr. Luna, to add and add that to the agenda? Uh, we're just setting the workshop. >> We're just setting the workshop.
>> Okay. Okay. So, um, we're everybody check their calendars. September 2nd. >> I'm not available. >> You're not available >> potentially, but most likely not. >> Okay. We'll just say you're not. >> It's first day of school. >> I'll be school. Can we do a Wednesday then? Can we do a Thursday? No.
>> Can we do >> It's also my birthday, so like it'll like >> We'll bring a cake. Come on. >> There you go. Bring a cake. Okay. >> Uh, I was going to miss it, but my plans I I talked to Mr. Lynwood and I did get confirmation that I will now be able to
attend the September 2nd meeting. My plans have changed. >> Okay, Linda. >> Oh, I I take it this is before a council meeting, so I'd be here anyway. >> Okay, so three out of five of us still.
I think. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. M council member said you cannot attend >> me. You're saying you can't attend? >> There's a slight possibility I will be out of town. >> Okay. >> Okay. And Claire, I understand. Yeah, I get it. Totally get it. You never miss a
meeting. So, I get it. So, yeah, that's fine. Is there a different day that we can possibly figure this out >> on your calendar? >> I think if we've got four out of five, >> we don't know if Brett's it would be three. Why? >> She can be here. >> I'm gonna be here. >> Oh, I thought you didn't want to be.
>> No, I No, no, no. But she's good. >> Do you want to be here for your birthday? >> I couldn't. >> I mean, my gosh, I couldn't think of a better way than that. >> I can't. >> That's dedication. >> I'm only hoping September 2nd extends to 9:30 again.
>> Okay. So, all right. So, I need a motion to approve the September 2nd 5:30 work session um for budget and due diligence on the property. Do I have a first? >> So, move. Yeah. >> Do I have a second?
>> I will second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> We set the date. Seeing that it's so late, we're just going to forego council reports. Is that okay? >> Unless you really have something that you want to talk about. do it all at the same time.
>> I've been I don't have any reports, so don't >> Okay. Do you want to do a report on sewer? >> I don't want to do a report on sewer. >> Okay. But stomp out suicide. >> Oh, go ahead. Yeah, it was amazing. >> Stompout suicide. Thank you to city
staff and public safety fear for for facilitating a really important uh community event every year. It was the turnout was awesome. The weather was interesting. It was delightful. >> And um Member Luger is being just a little uh
she actually ran the whole entire thing. So kudos for that because I didn't run any of it. So good job. Um and then also stage coach days is coming up. >> So we'll just put that out there. All right. With that, we need a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Do we have a second? Second.
>> All in favor? I