This transcript details the Canon Falls City Council meeting. Please note that while the context list provided some names, the actual transcript contains names of current sitting members (such as Derek Lindell and Abdi Guesmi) who were not on your initial list but are clearly identified in the roll call and dialogue. [0:28] **(Music/Silence)** [0:58] **(Music/Silence)** [1:28] **(Music/Silence)** [1:58] **(Music/Silence)** [2:28] **(Music/Silence)** [2:51] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I call to order our city council meeting for Tuesday, November 21st. If I could get a roll call, please. [2:55] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Guesmi? **Abdi Guesmi:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Groth? **Steve Groth:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Jeppesen? **Ryan Jeppesen:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Johnson? **Diane Johnson:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Kronenberger? **Laura Kronenberger:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Lindell? **Derek Lindell:** Here. **Sara Peer:** Montgomery? **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Here. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If I could get an approval for tonight's agenda? [3:24] **Lisa Zimmerman:** So moved. [3:26] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Lisa. Do I have a second? [3:28] **Steve Groth:** Second. [3:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Steve. All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. That brings us to public input. Before I read through this, everybody that signed up—if you signed up to talk about 72nd Avenue, save that for the public hearing. There are a few people on here that signed up for something else; they will be called in for public input, and then when we open the public hearing, you'll get called to the microphone. Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the city council. The public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in total length. Each speaker will have no more than 3 minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance, must provide their name, address, and the topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to City business, and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down. If the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the meeting. Speakers shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing; all such comments shall be made at the public hearing. The city council will not generally act on issues raised by the public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. Becky Youngmark. [4:50] **Becky Youngmark:** Park Board. Do I need to turn this on or is it open? Yep, go ahead. The button should be right at the base. It should be green, I think. Is that better? Okay, thank you. My name is Becky Youngmark. I'm here to discuss the combination of the Park Board and the Public Works. That's an agenda item on tonight's agenda. I'm very disappointed at the lack of communication and transparency that seems to be a consistent trait of the city. As a taxpaying citizen of Cannon Falls, I feel one of my jobs is to help keep you guys accountable. On October 17th, council member Derek Lindell, who sits on both boards, proposed at the city council meeting that those boards be put together under Public Works. He stated that this was to save time for the staff. I'm a member of the Park Board, and the Park Board November 2nd meeting was cancelled because there were no agenda items. Yet, the elimination of the Park Board wasn't important enough to tell its members that it was being eliminated so it could be discussed at the November 2nd meeting. I read about Derek's proposal in the *Cannon Falls Beacon*. I emailed Ken Carpenter, the head of the Park Board, and City Administrator Neil Jensen. Ken emailed me back stating he also was not aware of it and read about it in the *Beacon*. I got no response from Neil. Last Monday, Finance met, and the Park Board was an agenda item for them. They decided to recommend to City Council that Park Board be combined and be placed under Public Works. The Park Board currently has four citizens and one council member. Public Works has two council members and one citizen. The recommendation for the new committee is three citizens and two city council members. My question is: why did this get on the Finance agenda and what authority do they have to make a recommendation that Park Board be changed? The combination of the Park Board and Public Works is on the agenda for tonight's city council with no communication with those of us that sit on the Park Board. This process involves the repealing of city ordinances 369 and 373 and then approving a new ordinance 401 to establish a Public Works and Park Advisory Board. Once again, there's a lack of communication and transparency on the city's part. We've been serving on the Park Board for several years, and yet no one has discussed the possibility of the board being put into Public Works with any of us that are on the Park Board. I understand that after many years of having no Park Board, the city council revived the Park Board in 2016 because the parks had been neglected. Parks were not high on the priority list for the Public Works board. In the seven years since, there's been significant improvement to the parks, but there's still a lot to do, and that's proved by a list of needed improvements that was submitted to the Park Board a while back. The concern is that we will end up with that same neglect because of the priority that will be given to Public Works over the needs of the parks. There are three housing developments in the works along with the Cannon Falls apartment building. Parks are a big draw for people to move into the community. Derek would like to combine these two boards to make it easier for staff. I thought an elected office was to make good decisions for the citizens of this community, not to accommodate schedules. As stated earlier, our parks were neglected in the past when this plan was in effect before 2016. Why would it suddenly work when it has failed in the past? We are finally making headway with the parks and have four citizens willing to volunteer for the good of the community and to ensure our parks are a priority. I would recommend that the city council consider leaving the committees the way they are. Cannon Falls should be a community that puts our parks as a priority to encourage new families to move into our community. It's time for the council to consider what's best for the citizens of Cannon Falls and not change the rules to accommodate elected officials and staff; that's what they get paid for. Thank you. [8:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Thanks, Becky. Next up, Tim Deer. [8:47] **Tim Deer:** Thank you. Tim Deer. Thank you, Council, Mayor, and citizens. I was going to just back out or change my mind to speak, but I kind of echoed what they asked... can they flip the camera to face... I don't know which one is... there he goes, perfect. So I guess to start with, I was just going to ask about what's the last part of this paragraph you read about the issues raised by the public input. It starts out by saying "the City Council of Cannon Falls will not generally act." Does that mean you *could*? It's the way I'm reading "not generally," but "you may choose a scheduled consideration of the item on a future agenda." And that's kind of what I'm asking related to flag etiquette partly, and just the upkeep of flags for the city. My title I used for what I was going to talk about is just "Community Common Sense." I was going to make handouts and actually, I was just going to make copies of our cents, our coins, and I could hand out the coins, but I'm sure you guys got some. The three main things on every coin besides a date, you know, it says these three parts of Liberty: the "In God We Trust" part, which many people come together with, and the main one is *E pluribus unum*. It's on every single coin and a $1 bill. It's hard to find on the dollar bill, but *E pluribus unum*—"Out of many, one"—to be united, to be working together and so forth. So thank you for your time. [11:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thanks, Tim. [11:12] **Tim Deer:** Do you comment on if it'll be considered, or do I find out? [11:14] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** We'll have to talk about the flag etiquette. Is that what you were...? [11:16] **Tim Deer:** I'm just talking about if you'll schedule a consideration. [11:18] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Do I bring it up? We can see if we can put something on the agenda in the future. Thanks. That leads us to public hearings. Item A tonight: 2024 final budget and levy public hearing. Neil, when I open this, will you give a presentation on the budget to begin? All right, so we have officially opened the public hearing for the 2024 final budget and levy. Neil will start off with a presentation, and then if people would like to speak on that after, they can. [11:52] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** This is no action required tonight. Our action will be taken at the second meeting of December. So this is the public hearing that's mandated by statute. It's for the 2024 general fund levy and non-general funds: EDA, Library, Fire. The general fund levy will increase this year 4.22% from the 2023 levy to about $2.45 million. The non-general fund, which includes the EDA, the library, the fire—they increase 5.45% or $30,000. And I'm going to do a high level. You guys have been through all the small numbers during the preliminary, and just so you know, none of those numbers have changed. Everything that you see in the full line-item budget is all the same. So I'll just hit the high level so we can get done with this and move on. Bond levy only went up 0.17% this year, which is no new bonds being issued for '23. I don't anticipate anything coming for '24, which is good. Tax abatement: if you remember, Timber Ridge, we just approved one for—I believe that was last meeting—for $50,000. Otherwise, that will begin taxes payable in '24 or taxes '24 payable '25. The abatements that we got on the books now is GrandStay and Meyer's property. That went up 0.48% or just 200 bucks; it's a real small increase. Some of the highlights of the '24 budget: our levy increase from the general fund is $128,000 some change. Invenergy, that's our peaking plant out on the industrial park, actually increased $62,000, almost $63,000. We had a nice increase from the state; our local government aid went up $109,000, almost $110,000. You know, that took a lot of our inflation away from us; that was a nice increase. And then I talked a little bit about the investment income in our preliminary, and that went up $90,000. It went up more than that—remember our discussion was I didn't... we had some bonds that were going to be callable or CDs that were going to be callable, so I backed that off a little bit. One of the things I didn't get in for revenues was the small cities street assistance; it's about $35,000. So one of the big expenses that we had for this year was you undertook a pay study, tried to get wages in line with their peers or the local neighboring towns. When that was all finished up—and we're not quite done as you know—we still have two union contracts to go. One was ratified actually this week, thanks to Steve and Lisa, and so then we still have one more to go. But as of today, the pay study wage increase will be about $197,000. That includes all steps, everything up to date on the union increases, and it's not just levy dollars; that's Enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Ambulance)—that's everybody. So that's not $197,000 in levy money. Capital equipment increase went up about $60,000—59 and some change—but our overall general levy increase was 3.89%. If we wouldn't have gotten our local government aid increase and some of that other stuff, it would have been considerably more. So what are we going to do next year? Right now, we got our '23/'24 reconstruction project. We did that in two phases. We did the lift station and the under-the-river sewer line; that is still underway. The controls have yet to come due to supply chain issues. And then we approved the '23/'24 reconstruction Phase 2 project, which consists of Third Street, Fourth Street, Cannon, etc. That's what we'll do in '24. We also got $469,000 from the state bonding bill that will help us out considerably with the John Birch Park wall, which consists of the wall seating, concrete seating above that, and the first base dugout. And then with the help of our friends from John Birch Park, they'll be doing the third base—which, if you guys haven't seen it, it is gone. The lights are moved, so they're ready to start building; I think they'll begin that in the spring. And also, as you know, we've been working on... the EDA is constructing 29 residential lots out on the east side of town, just south of the school. Their construction has begun; they're out there grading as we speak and should be completed mid-summer '24, weather depending. Getting back to Public Works, we have... if we can get some of this stuff, it's been very hard to secure pickups. As Jed said, we have to order a pickup, but they just keep pushing it back. But we do have a new John Deere mower that is scheduled, and then our yearly trade-in for the skid steer. Jeff has been working on trying to get police squads; they're supposed to be replaced every 2 years. That was supposed to be this year and in 2025—it looks like maybe '24 and '22—but we are yet to get any, right? So that's really hard on our capital equipment schedule when you start pushing things around like that and we can't get our equipment when it's scheduled. Because usually what happens is then you've got stuff retiring all at the same time in the next round, it gets clumped up, and you don't like things clumped up because that raises havoc with your levy. So the proposed levy for 2024 is $3,435,062, which is a 3.89% increase from 2023. Now, that's minus the abatements. Remember I said it was 4.22, but 3.89. The date of the adoption is December 19th at 6:30. No action tonight. If you have any questions, I will answer if I can. Thank you. [19:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any discussion from the Council at this time? Remember the public hearing is still open. I'll call people to the mic if they'd like to speak on the final budget and levy, but is there anything from the Council after Neil's presentation? All right, public hearing is open if there's anybody that likes to speak up on the budget... going once, going twice, third and final call. All right, we will close the public hearing. Anything else then from up here regarding this? Moving on to Item B... we'll be talking about it in December. There we go. All right, thank you. Public hearing: Resolution 2718 ordering improvements and directing preparation of the final plans and specifications for 72nd Avenue Way improvements. The public hearing is going to start with a presentation from our engineer, Bill Angerman. After his presentation, then we will open up for questions and comments. Just want to remind you that the questions and comments are directed more at the Council, and we will decide if those questions get answered and who we can defer them to. Then, after the public input portion is closed, then the Council can have the discussion. Okay, Bill, the floor is yours. [20:34] **(Music/Setup)** [20:57] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry, just waiting for my screen to catch up. All right, so tonight, as Mayor, you mentioned, you'll be entertaining a resolution. So tonight is the first hearing. This is really our first public process other than the report and some of the discussions that you guys have been having. As you've heard me mention, tonight the only action you'll be taking is to proceed or not to proceed. I've referred to this as the "thumbs up or thumbs down" meeting. Okay? So things such as details of the project, project financing, project dollar amounts, project interest, assessment percentages—that is not being decided tonight. Though from a staff perspective, you know, it's always good for us to hear opinions. Those final decisions will really be made over this winter. So for tonight, here's what we're going to go over: area background, construction process, schedule, cost, and public comments. So we jump right in. The area we're talking about: 72nd Avenue Way. It's nine parcels. I think everybody knows where this is, right off of Highway 19, kind of southeast of the high school. And this project is adjacent to Hardwood Estates 2. That project to the south and east has begun. The intent is to really construct these projects at the same time. Part of the reasoning for that is to get better prices. Also, some of the background we'll go into as well about maybe how we got here with 72nd Avenue. Again, the background: Council, we did have a report that you reviewed. That is one of the statutory steps; you do have to commission an engineer's report. There are certain things that you have to address in that report; you have done that. One of the things we talk about is we have to basically explain what we have out there. So you have a gravel road; it's aggregate rock. It's narrow in spots; it does not meet standards. So even for ambulances and fire engine trucks to pass—typically your required minimum width is 20 feet; 22 is normal. So you have a substandard gravel road that doesn't meet any standards. Secondly, you have storm water out there that is collected and transported via ditch to the highway right-of-way. You also have sewer and water that was installed there in the past, and that has been previously assessed to the property owners. And then lastly, from a staff perspective, just a reminder: we don't set the policy, but your policy is that you will assess 100%. So when we do an engineer's report, we base it on the policy, and then we talk to the finance committee, the council, public works commission, and it's up to you to deviate or modify or change that policy. So that's really kind of the basis of tonight's presentation. Some more background items: part of this is this project was started almost 10 years ago. I believe none of us were here at that time. So that's been part of a challenge for Neil and I: what's the history? How did we end up with a gravel road with sewer and water in city limits? Because that is not normal. Your actual policy, your subdivision ordinance, says that you will have paved roads and curb and gutter in the city. So you have a project that doesn't have that; we're trying to figure some of that out, how that happened. Back in February of 2014, you had a preliminary plat and plans submitted for these nine lots and the entire subdivision that is now proceeded as Hardwood Estates Second. And that back then in 2014 identified two phases. The first phase was what we're looking at tonight—the nine lots in 72nd Avenue Way—and the second phase was the remainder of the subdivision. And actually, depending upon which version you had, that might have been divided up into three, four, or five phases, but they clearly called out two phases. It was submitted for review; the city did officially review that as well. In that review or in that process, the developer did propose that 72nd Avenue Way would not be paved during Phase 1; it would be paved in Phase 2. No timelines were established for that. Often times when you move forward with this—I shouldn't say often times, I'd say all of the time—a development agreement is prepared to memorialize this, and then also things like assurances that it will happen. So if a project starts and finishes, there's a bond or surety of some sort. Neil and I are not aware of that; we've not been able to find one. So as far as we know, no development agreement was entered into, basically making sure someone comes through and finishes something or if they pave the road, etc. And as far as... we've been asked, "Well, who was going to pay for the road back then?" We do not know. We've heard things, but there's no agreements to that. So basically then, when there's no agreements, you default back to what the ordinance says, and hence why we're here tonight beginning with an assessment process. Last time there, which I thought was something to note, was the developer back in 2014 did propose that it would be a "rural section." What do I mean by a rural section? Typically, when we say rural section, we mean something you'd find not in a city. That is a narrow road with ditches. Subdivisions in the city, though, are not allowed to have a rural section. Now, there are some ways that you can variance, etc., but the city standard is that you have a 32-foot road with curb and gutter and no ditches. The developer proposed that; the engineer at the time reviewed that and recommended against it, but there was never a resolution. It stopped at that point. Final plans were not completed—or final plans that we have record of. Continuing on, basically just... that's a little bit about the past. So then we look at: okay, what are we proposing? Again, we're required by statute to lay out what's proposed, and we lay that out based on what your ordinance says. Your ordinance says that you're required to have a 32-foot road, concrete curb and gutter, and basically that's it. (I was going to say sewer and water, but you already have that in as well.) Second item there is we would add some storm sewer to collect the drainage. The third item there is there is a pond being built. One of the things that you are required to do by the state is you're required to treat your storm water and you're required to make sure that when you build homes and roads that the amount of water coming off doesn't come off faster than it does now. You are satisfying that by a new pond. So if this project moves forward, the storm water from 72nd Avenue Way will be diverted into that same pond. Again, there's some economy of scale, some things that we're trying to do to make sure if we do move forward that we're being efficient and spending assessment dollars or tax dollars as wisely as possible. And then lastly, your ordinance also calls for sidewalk. Your ordinance calls for sidewalk on one side of the street, so we have that as being proposed as well. One of the things we have to do in the process—again, this is our first meeting for public input—is we do have to explain the process. First thing that you have to do is you have to determine a need for a project. The Council did that this summer. How you do that is you authorize an engineering study; that's the first formal step. In that engineering study, which you reviewed in your October meeting, it basically goes over costs and all the things we're kind of talking about tonight. It kind of lays it out in more detail for the public; they can find that online if they go back into the October 17th meeting. Third one: this is your first public meeting, so tonight you are... this is the public hearing, so you are gathering input on this project because ultimately, again, your resolution is "proceed" or "not proceed." Again, thumbs up, thumbs down. So you will consider that input tonight. This is what's called a council-initiated action, meaning you were not petitioned to do this; you took this on on your own, which is really common. So tonight, to pass that resolution, you have to have a four-fifths majority. That's what the statute says: four-fifths majority. And that's commonly interpreted then... you basically take the number of people and round up, which would be five out of six if Neil and I did our math correctly. Continuing out the process: in that resolution, then you would authorize the preparation of plans and specs. At the last meeting, some people had asked about the design; the project has not been designed. You haven't actually authorized the design. So decisions as far as driveways, how they connect, how the ditch gets filled in, where the sidewalk goes—those sorts of things have not been determined at this point. The next step then is that the project is publicly bid. That's what we have to do for all projects. All projects, basically, you as the city direct plans and specs, which are really the instruction manual on how you build a project, and then the low bidder... you know, you have to award the contract to the low bid. You cannot pick who does the project. At that point, then you will know the amount. So up until now, everything is preliminary. Everything that we're talking about, all the dollar amounts we're talking about, are preliminary. We will not know the actual amounts until we take bids, and I'll go over that timeframe in a little bit. Everything tonight is preliminary. Now, we hope it's a little on the high side, but lately we're always cautious in what we say because until we open bids, it's been really hard to predict. We've had a hard time predicting our bids over the last couple of years. But ideally, we're on the high side and it'll be what it is at that point. At that point, then you will have a hearing, and then you'll tell everybody, "Okay, here was your preliminary, here's your final amount." That is when someone can contest the amount. So at that point, which would be the spring, they would present evidence to you, and that evidence would be that their property will not be worth more after the project than before. That's the statutory requirement. You are the decider of that. So you would hear that evidence in the springtime, then you make a decision, and then if someone does not agree with that decision, there is an appeal process; basically, you can appeal to District Court. All those instructions we will go through if we proceed tonight; we'll go through that in the spring. Then lastly, the project would be built. The timeframe that has been previously laid out is that this project would be built in 2024, roughly probably in the June timeframe or so. Here's specific dates: here tonight we're here for that order hearing on improvements, the up or down vote ordering the improvements. As we sit today, we would come back—we're looking for that first meeting in February—so that would be... you would have the plans and specifications, and you would approve the plans, and that starts the public bidding process. Then we'd receive bids in March. Not sure if it's the first meeting or second meeting. We'd have that hearing again, targeting April. As I mentioned earlier, begin construction in June, wrap up construction in the fall. Again, some of those other timeframes will depend upon how things go with design, permitting, etc. And then the part that everybody's probably most interested in is the costs. As I mentioned, these are preliminary costs; they're estimated. The estimated cost is $300,000. Because this is a gravel road and without sidewalk, as your policy says today, that is 100% assessable. So that means all of it is assessed. Then the method: there's a couple of different methods that you have. The method that is proposed right now is "front foot." At the finance committee, we did talk about: do you do it by residential equivalency unit? We talked about some different methods, but as laid out tonight, it's by the front foot. So that results in an assessment range from $20,900 to about $58,000. We recognize... we understand assessment amounts; we understand that those are high. When I say high, that's a large assessment. We understand that. So we did go to the finance committee—we had two different finance committee meetings—and we talked about this at the city council meeting, and we talked about what options do we have. We talked about options such as: we could change the policy; we could change it for this project; we could modify terms. We went through what options the council has. You can change your policy to assess a different amount; you can adjust your interest rate. Your ordinance says that you would charge it over 10 years, so it'd be payable on your taxes over 10 years, and your ordinance says two points higher than the Bond Buyer Index. But you can set that differently. So if you wanted to extend this longer or pick a different interest rate, you can do those things, but you don't do that now; you do that in the spring. But again, these are just things we want to make sure everybody understands what discretion the council has. Really, going back to that second bullet, I think it's important to say that we had a lot of opinions, but both the finance committee and the previous Council... you know, that wasn't the place to make decisions. Really, it's not until the spring. But all the people here tonight are going to give you their opinions on this. I think it's helpful for them to know where you guys sit, and obviously, that'll be your discussion and your call on that. But I just want to reiterate: no action has been taken. And again, I'm saying probably for the third time, it would not have been appropriate or wasn't the time for you to take action because, again, this is really the first part of that public process. So that is the end of the presentation. So, Mayor, I will sit down, and then as you mentioned, people can come up and address their comments to you. So I appreciate it. Thank you. [36:06] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you, Bill. Thanks, Bill. For everybody that signed up for the public input, I can follow this similar to public input and just call, and you can take turns if you would prefer that way, or we can just do public hearing and just open it up and step up as you prefer. Is there any general consensus? I'll just go off the list; we'll start that way. All right, Drew Ai. Mayor, can you have them state their name and address? So for public record, name and address. [36:34] **Drew Ai:** Good evening. I'll begin by introducing myself. My name is Drew Ai, and my girlfriend and I reside at 30320 72nd Avenue Way. I'm here this evening along with my fellow neighbors, and in kinder words would like to express our thoughts and concerns with the surprise project that has been proposed. To begin, I'd like to address the lack of information given to us residents on 72nd Avenue Way. We only received two small pamphlets informing the upcoming plans in this new development. We found out about such a project from another resident one day prior to the last meeting being on November 7th. The lack of acknowledgment on the City of Cannon Falls puts us... each household in an unsettling position as this puts every single one of us on 72nd in a financial burden. Your expectation for such project to be our responsibility, though we feel largely such should be placed on the City or the developer. This should have taken place prior to the project's push to start. Secondly, my fellow neighbors aside for a moment, I'd like to express my household's thoughts and where this could potentially leave us. We closed on 30320 on July 31st of this year with the dream of beginning our adult lives at the ages of 21 and 20, only to be woken up with this surprise. If you vote as us neighbors being responsible for your project, we are left with the fear of where this will put us. Will we be able to reside here? Now, I'm putting you in somewhat of an uncomfortable position. If you pass this and I have to sell because of the position placed upon us, when a buyer finds out there's a $40,000 assessment on our home, how am I supposed to sell? Would you guys buy? In closing, I am asking that you think very hard about your proposal being placed on us at 72nd Avenue Way. I understand you're wanting to keep your figures on this project in budget that you would like to see. I appreciate your time for listening to our concerns and hope that you can make an appropriate decision. I'm asking you consider it if you were in our position: would you be up here addressing our same thoughts and emotions as us? I believe yes. Thank you. [38:45] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thanks, Drew. Thank you, Drew. Next up, Chris Ill. [38:52] **Chris Ill:** My thoughts... Chris Ill at 30350 72nd Avenue Way. It's been told that 72nd Avenue is not up to city standards. So then why didn't the city follow the rules when homes on the other side were annexed into the city? This is a city project; you will benefit, we will suffer this financial burden, and to us it's not acceptable. The City made this mistake years ago when they should have done the road then. The seller of this lot didn't know, the builder didn't know, the realtor didn't know... disclose any of this upcoming assessment to me. It was commented in the November 2nd *Beacon*—road should have been taken care of upon annexation or when more homes were built, but for whatever reason, that did not happen. That was in the *Beacon*. The city needs to admit they kind of screwed up and now expect us innocents to pay. Thank you. [40:14] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thanks. Christina Seben. [40:27] **Christina Seben:** Thank you for hearing me out. My name is Christina Seben. I live at 30379 72nd Avenue Way. I am just curious how the city allowed six houses to be built on the east side of 72nd Avenue Way without the road being paved, and now the city wants the homeowners to be 100% responsible for these assessments. To put in this development, it will be a major financial burden on me when the road should have already been paved. It will benefit the city more than it will benefit me. Thank you. [41:00] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Thank you. Mike Bowen. [41:04] **Mike Bowen:** Hello. I'm Mike Bowen, 30360 72nd Avenue Way. Just to give you a little bit of background, my wife and I moved into the first house in Hardwood Estates Block 1—whatever you want to call it—six years ago in 2017. And it was built by a private builder, so we're the... and since then it's been completed on that block. So basically, first off, my request as well as my neighbors' is not to be assessed to pay 100% of the cost of the road construction, which is only for the benefit of the EDA and the subdivision 2 developers. Originally when we moved in, it was to be a dead end with a cul-de-sac, which was a nice private quiet road. Now it's been changed, and without any input from us, but it's been changed to have the entrance off of Highway 19, which would be a thoroughfare past our house to the entire development, which would be a lot of traffic. And that is really, I consider, to our detriment, not our benefit. Now the city has proposed—or policy or whatever—that all roads must be paved in the city limits. Well, that's actually not being done in the city right now. There's other roads just a block away from us that are gravel, not paved, and there's plenty of other roads all around Cannon Falls that are paved but with no curb or gutter. And I see no sense of urgency to have any of those roads worked on or improved, but the sense of urgency is our road because our road connects to the construction of the Phase 2 subdivision. So anyway, that's my request: we should not be required to pay all that cost. Thank you. [43:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thanks. Thank you. Next up, is it Mark Rosler? [44:06] **Mark Rosler:** Rosler. I'm Mark Rosler. We own the house on 30319 and it's the corner house there. And just... you know, this is a huge... I'm just a retired truck driver, and this is a rental property. It's a part of my retirement income, and it's a huge, it's a life-changing assessment on us. It's a monthly income that... and I can't increase my rent to my renter by anywhere near that. He's got to pay market rate, of course. We worked and did a good job, I think, getting a really good renter; he's a good guy, gets along with all the neighbors, and you know, I can't force him out of there by charging anywhere near the increase in the assessment that this is. And just that the cost of the improvement... the benefit to us is negligible, but the benefit of course to the city and developer is where the benefit is. So once again, I'm in agreement with my guys. I just hope that the city and developer can shoulder more of the cost of that, even most of the cost of that, since our benefit is negligible and the benefit to the city and the developer is... you know, and I'm not against development, I just... you know, it's just the development is going to cost us a lot of money, life-changing amount of money. So thank you. [45:34] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Thanks, Mark. Next up, Heidi Blunt. [45:43] **Heidi Blunt:** Thank you, City Council and Mayor, for taking the time to listen to my neighbors and I and what we have to say. My name is Heidi Blunt. I live at 30370 72nd Avenue Way. I have lived in Cannon Falls for almost 36 years. I was born in the old hospital that was up by Highway 52. So when I say that I am a lifetime resident, I truly mean that. My husband and I are homeowners for two years now. We were able to be fortunate enough to purchase the schoolhouse that was built by Mr. Walter's construction class because of the housing initiative of Cannon Falls. Nowhere was it stated that we were going to have to be responsible for paving, curb, gutter, anything like that. Kind of defeats the purpose of being part of the housing initiative if it's meant to be affordable. The thing that we are not understanding is: why now? Why not when the road was annexed 20 years ago and city water and sewer was done? We don't understand who this could be benefiting. We love the fact that we are on a gravel road; it gives us the feeling of being just out in the country enough with the convenience of being in the city. Why is it not the developer's responsibility? The biggest thing that we are wishing for is transparency. We weren't aware of any of this until two days before the meeting. We just want to be included, and we don't want to have to face the financial burden. I have two small children. I work full-time. My husband and I both work in the Cannon Falls city limits and have—I just had my 13-year anniversary at my job in town. If this is placed on all of us, we won't be able to afford to live where we live, and to me, that's not fair. I love this town; I'm a big advocate for this town, but not when I feel like we have to pay for the sins of the past. I just don't think that's fair. So I really hope you consider adjusting this process for us. Thank you. [47:50] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you, Heidi. Thank you. The public hearing is still open. These were just the people that had pre-signed up for public input. If there's anybody else that would like to stand up and speak on this issue, just please state name and address when you can. [48:04] **Andy Cummings:** Yeah, hello. My name is Andy Cummings. I'm actually an investor-developer and a builder out of the Rochester, Minnesota area. And I own 30330 as well as 30340 72nd Way, I'm sorry. I guess probably just more comments than anything, and I appreciate you guys listening to this because I know you guys are capable of potentially amending this if possible. But I guess, me being a developer too, I do know that we run into scenarios like this—there's obstacles for developers when they run into these things. And my curiosity is: is the MPCA holding this up for the developer first of all, because of how this is set up currently? Obviously, the developer has to do certain things for the MPCA, and for them to make that work for their subdivision, we are downhill of them. I just wanted to ensure that that's not what triggered this scenario. I guess one other question probably is: who is the engineer that we are planning on working with, or is that one of the ones you said we're going to hire an engineer, or do you have an engineer lined up, or is that the same engineer as the developer that's using up the street? [49:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** City engineer will be WHKS, that Bill represents, yes. [49:21] **Andy Cummings:** City engineer, yep. And is that the same one the developer's using too? [49:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Yes. [49:27] **Andy Cummings:** Yes, okay. I guess my last comment probably... again, this was obviously a city mistake. The way I look at the subdivision, these lots were sold as if they were going to be a future developed... and future developed meaning that they were going to have a curb and gutter or some sort of a road on them. So at the time of whoever bought these lots was assuming, and even the city probably back in the day was assuming, that these lots were going to eventually be paved by the developer who developed the street up the hill. And I guess: why wouldn't that developer up the hill be responsible at this point, just like they would have back in 2017 or whatever timeframe that would have been? So that's all I have. Thank you. [50:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on this matter? Going twice. Third and final call for public input here on the public hearing for Resolution 2718. All right, we will close the public hearing. Council, it is our time for questions, discussion. A reminder that tonight we are not going through details of project—those have already been displayed with Bill's presentation. Tonight is just discussion for the project: thumbs up or thumbs down. Questions? Comments? [50:47] **Ryan Jeppesen:** One comment I have: I know we're not necessarily determining exactly how this would be paid for tonight, but how can we approve it if we don't know how we're going to pay for it? You know, if it's going to be 100% assessed... whatever we come up with, not knowing what it's going to be makes it difficult to give it the thumbs up right now, in my opinion. [51:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Sure, no, that's a very fair question. I think it's just the order of operations—that we need to decide if this is a project that is a priority that we have to go through with, and then we'll figure out the details later. I know that's not necessarily the best scenario, but it's what we've got in front of us. Anything else from the Council? [51:24] **Derek Lindell:** I would like to say that I don't think anything's... anybody's going to expect that to always be a gravel road. I think we've got to approve it; we have to improve it over what is there now. So moving forward, I think we need to discuss that. We need to get that road in there. And if people think it's just to benefit future construction behind that, I don't think that's a good argument. I think if there was never anything going to be going on behind there, that road was still going to be improved eventually. Number two, as long as I'm on a roll here: everybody I've talked to in the city said that they paid their share on the lots they owned, and anything that the city does to help out the costs is on the backs of the people that already paid their 100%. So we really need to keep that in mind also. [52:43] **Lisa Zimmerman:** Agreed. [52:47] **Diane Johnson:** Any other questions? Comments? One comment. And I have struggled with this whole concept. I understand the 100%. As I drove around town and made a list of all the streets that are not up to code or in need of assistance... I guess I'm at the point where I want to say, I believe the engineer at one point said the reason it's coming... there are trigger events that set in motion why we have to suddenly pave this one, why we're not paving 71st at this time is because it doesn't have a trigger event. I am not comfortable at this point going forward with this project until we can have a game plan for all of the streets that are in need of upgrading or whatever, and kind of a ballpark figure of what years we're planning to do it so that all of our residents are not going to get blindsided by this. And so... and I've asked before if Public Works has a list of all the streets and when they need to be upgraded. We don't seem to have that, or at least I've never seen it. And I would think we should have a master plan of what we're doing for all the streets in town. [54:12] **Derek Lindell:** Well, I think we can move forward with the project, but we can also work on assessments. Like, we don't have to kill everybody with the cost, but we can still move forward with the development. I think we can figure it all out. [54:20] **Laura Kronenberger:** Yeah, this is obviously a very difficult situation, not one that any of us want to be dealing with. We just paid off our assessment last year that was, like, 15 years ago. It was a long... and it was to put a curb and gutter in and sidewalks so that there could be a development up the hill that never happened. But it's happening now, so 15 years later. But I've been paying for it for 15 years, so I'm very sympathetic to assessments and how much they cost and they suck. But I paid it. So I don't know; it's a hard decision. I've thought about it for three days—like, my entire three days off, this is what I've thought about. It sucks. [55:45] **Ryan Jeppesen:** I think the difference in this one is just the amounts to me, you know. I don't know what yours were, Laura—I'm sure they were very high—but you know, $58,000 I think on the high end, a couple are in the 40s. I agree, I mean that yes, everybody has paid their fair share at one point or another, but I don't think anyone's paid... even when you adjust for inflation or whatnot in the past, I don't think anything's been even close to that high. That's what really... [56:15] **Derek Lindell:** Well, I think a lot of times when you have a developer, it's included in the purchase price, so you never have to think about it. You're not worried about it; it all happens when you buy the lot, right? And so since these lots didn't have a developer, that didn't happen. So is it a non-existent developer's fault, or is it the city's fault? It's not the city's fault; it's not necessarily your fault either. It's just a crappy situation that we're all in right now. [56:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I think that it's pretty obvious we're very sympathetic to everybody. This is a unique situation. We've had the discussion at the finance committee; we talked about all the different things that we can do, as Bill kind of alluded to—the length of the payment, the interest rate, if the city does chime in. All of these things... the agreement that was around until 2017 and then went away, and then once the land is sold, those agreements are all thrown out legally anyway, so those are not standing. So now it's back on the city. I'm frustrated with the 2006 annexation—I wish it would have been taken care of then. In 2006, I was living in Oregon; I would have never thought that I'd be here. I know that nobody was on the council, none of the city staff—they weren't here either. But I hate to just blame them and scapegoat because regardless of how we got here, here we are. So this problem needs to be dealt with. This project does need to happen to move forward. It's the "how do we pay for it to be equitable to our other citizens?" How do we try to make it so that our citizens who... yes, they may have gotten a better deal on the land and the lot, but they were unaware of the road and the situation? And now if we throw it 100% on them, the risk of getting kicked out of their house because they can't afford it... I hate to do that to any of our citizens. So it's my goal moving forward to be as creative as we can be. I understand that we are a town of more than 4,000 citizens. I'm not saying that the city takes the 100%, but what I'm saying is this is a unique situation. Like Derek had said, but also like Laura had said, there are plenty of residents who said, "Wait, wait, wait, we just got done paying for ours, and we paid it 100%," because that's what the ordinance... that's what the statutes... we have rules that we have to follow as well. So we are in a tight situation. I think it is my goal to be as creative as we possibly can be. In situations like this, it's hard to make everybody happy, but we'd like to make it so that everybody can walk away and say that the skin in the game that they have is fair and equitable, and we can move on, and it shows improvement. And that everybody at least can walk away with peace of what happened—kept them in their home, kept them supporting the town, kept their kids in the district, looked forward to their future family. So with all of that said, tonight it is our responsibility to decide if this project moves forward at this phase. So if there's more questions, comments, or concern, it's welcomed. But I would entertain a motion to approve Resolution 2718. [59:10] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Go ahead, again. Do we have the $300,000 available upfront, or would this have to be something to go out to bond? [59:25] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** No, we would never bond for 300; that's a pretty small amount to go out for bonding for that. You know, I'd like to just touch on something. If you approve this resolution tonight, I think you as a council should gather in a couple of work sessions immediately. What this does is it begins plans and specs; it begins putting together, drafting all the stuff that you previously approved. I know there's been a call to me, a couple calls, saying that maybe we could change it. Well, if we change it a little bit, that affects Bill's crew in drafting the plans and specs. So I think if it goes through and you guys decide as a council that this thing should change a little, vary from what Bill is in his feasibility study, we need to get that decided—not now or not in April, but it's got to get done now because Bill's got to do his plans. [1:00:35] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Are you speaking to like the layout of the project? [1:00:39] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Correct, okay. One of them would be—and I'm just going to throw things up in the air, right?—rural section versus urban section, sidewalk versus no sidewalk, curb one side, curb both sides. You know, there's ideas out there that you could float, and I'm not saying any of them are correct, but it all affects Bill and his crew to put together plans and specs, and that's what this motion is going to do if you approve it now. And I had talked to one of you in person about some of the way and thoughts that I have seen over the years, and one of them was: we had a development that was going to be very financially burdensome for this person, and he developed this land and they did a 429 process on it, which is the assessment process that we're talking about today. It wasn't developed with the developer's money; it was brought through the development process or assessment process. What they had done at that time is they gave the developer or the person a five years interest-free upfront. It gives a chance for the people to pay down their principal before the interest kicks in. I don't know what five years out of 15... a third of it would be paid off; you don't pay interest on that. You can do most things; you can do a lot of things as Bill laid out I think last meeting, that under certain circumstances, you guys have the right to adjust. And that would be a way to not bust your assessment policy. You've got to think about the people that are going to come in from behind you, right? There's going to be seven other people sitting up here in 10 years or whenever you guys decide you've had enough, and they're going to be looking at projects also. So that assessment policy is going to be reviewed more than once in the next years, right? You don't want to bust that thing because precedents are tough to take back. But you can be creative. And if you think about 30% of an assessment, or reducing the cost... maybe one of them is, you know what? That sidewalk is going to serve a hundred lots, the Meyer's property maybe coming up from the top of the hill behind Grove Street and Jablonsky—maybe the city could take care of some of that or pay for that. Yeah, is it a lot? No, but it's 25 grand with restoration. And say, you know what? It's heading to the school; this is where the funnel will be for the sidewalk. So there's a lot of things that you can be creative with, but I think you need to do it immediately because those guys are going to want to get started. It takes a long time to get those plans and specs built if you approve it now, mind you. But I think there are ways to reduce this. I get it, man; it's a lot of money when you think about the young man back there just picking up that house. It's a big lot; he's got a big lot, he's got a lot of frontage. But there's ways, I think, you guys can think outside the box without busting your assessment policy. Because you've got to think about the people behind you coming up. Sorry for rambling on, but that's just some of my thoughts, as Lisa said. I've been thinking about this a lot too as those numbers started coming in, and I'm going, "Whoa, a lot of money, a lot of money." The numbers are high. You think about the 20,000 in that group... of 20,000, there's several of them. You had 20,000 up here on Third Street just this year. So the 20,000 may seem like a lot, but I think you're going to find that's going to be a new norm with the new prices. It used to be 7 to 10, but new prices... if we had done this project 10 years ago, prices would have probably been 5 to 10 instead of what we've got today. So it's kind of unfortunate, but we're all getting used to new prices. But that's all. Just kind of giving you some ideas. Well, there's... and without being redundant, you know, we've got to try to make all you people happier, but there's 4,000 other people out here too that we've got to make sure they stay happy also. My suggestion would be to get the plan rolling and set up a meeting right away with Bill and explore some of the different development options or the different construction options. Maybe that ends up being less than the 300, and like Neil alluded to, maybe that sidewalk isn't benefiting them as much as it's benefiting the whole of many developments where we could kick in on that portion also. But I really think we've got to move forward with improving that road. [1:06:11] **Laura Kronenberger:** I think the workshop's a really good idea. [1:06:13] **Diane Johnson:** But couldn't the workshop... can't we table this motion until after we've had the workshops? I mean, I would... well, we can't... Bill can't officially do anything. Well, no, but he can't officially... if we're going to talk about changing things at these workshops, then he can't do anything anyway. [1:06:47] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** But I guess... I think there's a danger of kicking this can down the road. I understand that you have other spots that we should look at, and that's absolutely fair. But as Neil just said, if this would have been done in 2006, or if this would have been done five or 10 years ago, the cost would have been less. And if we sit here today and say that we're doing these people a favor by trying to turn this down, we're not, because the construction cost is only going to go up. And as Neil said, there's going to be a different Council here in a couple years, and if this problem comes up with any development in the future, those costs are only going to continue to go up. We can try to... I love the idea of trying to be creative in how we can solve this, but at the end of the day, the problem isn't keeping people happy; it's not about getting votes, it's not about favorability. There's a gravel road where there should have been a paved one almost 20 years ago. That is the issue. [1:07:44] **Diane Johnson:** There's two gravel roads. [1:07:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I know there's multiple gravel roads, and we should take... [1:07:49] **Diane Johnson:** Those are the only two in town. [1:07:51] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, then the notes that you have for different places... [1:07:53] **Diane Johnson:** Oh, there are also... I'm just talking no curb, no sewer. Got it, got it. All of the roads that look like... I mean, there's a couple little areas that are gravel, but I can't quite figure out if they're actually city roads or not. [1:08:08] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** And that's a fair question too. And so when we're talking about kicking... or setting precedence... we have two gravel roads right now that got annexed into the town that weren't upgraded when they should have been. We don't have any other problems like that. And if we're wise and don't allow any more to happen in the future, then this gives us the ability to clean up a mess that's been 20 years in the making without setting a precedent that would hurt people in the future. [1:08:44] **Diane Johnson:** Right, but I think we have to deal with both 72nd and 71st at the same time. And that's why I'm saying I would just like to basically table this until we can have a couple work sessions and come up with a plan on how we're going to address it. Because once we say, you know, boom, start it, then we're kind of always... I don't know, I don't feel comfortable with that. It's not that I don't trust you guys, but maybe that's the fire we need to get us moving. [1:09:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I think if we basically table it, then we've got a fire because we need to figure out what we're doing before the end of the year. But I don't want us to give the green light right now, because then we lose the incentive to figure out what we're doing with these two remaining gravel roads in town. [1:09:20] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** Bill, just... just a comment. It's not appropriate for me to comment whether to table or not, but just what kind of timeframe do you have? If you did decide to move forward tonight, so what would occur right away is the fieldwork, the work that's going to occur under another option. We're probably a month or so before we've got to pick the fork in the road. Okay? If you don't do the project at all, well, that's a different story. But if you want to do a rural section versus an urban section, we've got about a month of work to do to get to that point. So if you had a workshop in December and you came back and said, "All right, go left or go right," we will not have lost any time. Now, if you stop the process, well, then that's a different story. [1:10:20] **Ryan Jeppesen:** If we did a workshop, would we also discuss not just if we change anything but different options to pay, too? Would that be one workshop? [1:10:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** To do everything. Everything will just be... everything will be on the table. I think it's appropriate that we not wait until April. Yeah, we can decide what this project looks like. But I don't like... as somebody said, the "11th hour." If you know how I work, we had our budget done in September. I would like to have this completed so we understand how we're going to do this, and I think there are a lot of options out there. I just named a few; I couldn't think of them all. But Bill and I will talk, too—what can we do? You've got to understand when you do the 429 process that there's hearings, there's publications, there's all this stuff that goes with this. To stop it all now is... we would have to start it all over again. And at the end of the day, they have what, the final number? They have the ability to appeal. Correct? [1:11:15] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** Correct. [1:11:16] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** And is it—remind me—is it appeal that it didn't improve their property, or it didn't improve it by their assessment amount? [1:11:21] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** Correct, by the assessment amount. [1:11:23] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Yes. So they have the ability to come back and say, "You assessed me 38,000; it will not improve my value by 38,000, and here's my documentation." Right? And then we have to figure out what to do then. Correct? But before that, you could come up with a plan to say that 38,000 is now 28,000 or whatever that number might be, right? So when that final assessment comes, that's when you guys have got to have your ducks in a row and be saying, "Okay, 72nd Avenue Way residents, this is what we're going to do." But I would not wait until two weeks prior to the hearing and have this. I personally would like to start that right away. [1:12:15] **Ryan Jeppesen:** So how much, Bill—how much work can you do not having anything approved tonight? I mean, we can still... if the project isn't approved, I would imagine it sits still, just gets tabled. [1:12:35] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** I think, yeah, we would not do anything. Basically, we would wait. [1:12:44] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Yep, because if you did work, we'd be responsible to pay for it, and it might be a project that doesn't even happen. And that... I understand the... yeah, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what discretion, you know, the Administrator has to do stuff, but generally speaking with the assessment process, you don't want your Administrator authorizing things outside of the Council. [1:13:30] **Diane Johnson:** If it's tabled, do we have to start the whole public hearing thing over again? [1:13:38] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Even if it's just tabled. Okay. [1:13:40] **Derek Lindell:** I think, you know... it sounds like we all want to find solutions both maybe on the design and the payment. I do think if we were to put this off, it's just going to cost the City, which means the taxpayers and probably these guys more, because next year it'll probably be 350. So I think, since we all kind of have a goal that we want to keep the prices as low as we can, I'd be willing to advance it, go to the next step anyway. [1:14:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** This has all been a very good, respectful discussion. I appreciate that. But with that said, Resolution 2718—if there is a motion to approve? [1:14:17] **Derek Lindell:** So moved. [1:14:19] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion by council member Lindell. Do I...? [1:14:21] **Abdi Guesmi:** Second. [1:14:22] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second by Mr. Guesmi. All those in favor... roll call please. Roll call? Can we take the roll call vote? [1:14:28] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Sure, we can do a roll call vote. Guesmi? **Abdi Guesmi:** Aye. **Sara Peer:** Groth? **Steve Groth:** Aye. **Sara Peer:** Jeppesen? **Ryan Jeppesen:** Aye. **Sara Peer:** Johnson? **Diane Johnson:** No. **Sara Peer:** Kronenberger? **Laura Kronenberger:** Aye. **Sara Peer:** Lindell? **Derek Lindell:** Aye. [1:14:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Passes 5 to 1. That closes Item B. Moving on to consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. We'll go through them: Item A: just and correct claims for the accounting period that ended on November 16th. Item B: meeting minutes for November 7th city council meeting. Item C: second reading and adoption of Ordinance 399 and summary of publication, an ordinance amending city code 151.12 relating to private wells and individual sewer treatment systems. Item D: Resolution 2716 approving limited use permit number 26-26 with MnDOT. Item E: Resolution 2717 accepting a monetary donation of $2,500 from Lorraine Reuter to the fire department. Item F: approve Professional Services agreement with WHKS for 72nd Avenue Way improvements project. Item G: approve Professional Services agreement with WHKS for Hardwood Estates Second subdivision. Item H: approve revised pay study. Item I: approve letter of support for Progressive Rail's application for Minnesota Rail Service Improvement Program. Item J: approve massage license for Jessica Morton. Item K: Resolution 2719 authorizing the 2024 city license renewals. Are there any items that the council would like to move down? [1:16:13] **Ryan Jeppesen:** I want to pull down G. Item G, Professional Services. [1:16:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Anything else that the Council would like to have pulled down? Hearing none, I would take a motion to approve the consent agenda minus Item G. [1:16:20] **Ryan Jeppesen:** So moved. [1:16:22] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** We'll go with a motion from Jeppesen. Second from Diane? All those in favor, Aye? Opposed? Carries. Moves us on to council business. We'll start with Item A. G will get thrown to the bottom; it will be Item D. Item A: MnDOT Active Transportation Planning assistance grant application. Laura, if you would like to take this one. [1:17:04] **Laura Kronenberger:** Okay. So there is... MnDOT has an Active Transportation Planning assistance grant, and basically what I'm asking permission for this evening is to apply for that. And what it would do—they select eight different communities throughout the state, and it isn't necessarily a dollar amount that we would be granted, but it would be basically engineering services (sorry, Bill) by a MnDOT-selected engineer. And what they would do is that they would help us create a master bike and walking plan for our community and help identify where there are some gaps in our community. Especially with the new development that we've got coming with the new apartments on the south end of town and really no safe way to get to and from downtown, that's what that planning assistance grant would help with. So they would identify that, and then we would also get a demonstration—or they call it like a "quick demo" project—that would go with that. And it could be where they would identify an area in town where they would set up something either for one or two days, where maybe they would put striping down or they would maybe set up a new crosswalk that maybe doesn't exist, or maybe it would be for a season. And that would be part of that planning grant, and then they would basically test it, monitor it, and then determine if that would be something where then we could move forward with applying for an infrastructure grant where a permanent solution could be put in. Anyway, I just figured that with our city... our inner city trail system with the Mill Towns State Trail, our Cannon Valley State... Cannon Valley Trail... that this would help give us that master plan over the course of however many years. So, just asking permission to apply. And it costs us nothing; there's no matching funds, like I said, and then it would just be time maybe from the Public Works department to sit in on some meetings and work with that process if we're awarded. So that's it. [1:19:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any questions for Laura? Nope. Go take a motion to approve the MnDOT Active Transportation Planning assistance grant application. [1:19:22] **Lisa Zimmerman:** Moved. [1:19:23] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Got a motion from Lisa. Second? [1:19:24] **Steve Groth:** Second. [1:19:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Steve. All those in favor, Aye? Opposed? Carries. Item B: Fire Department Relief Association bylaw amendment. Chief Miller, you returned just in time if you would like to speak on the relief association bylaw amendment. [1:20:00] **Brice Miller (Fire Chief):** Thank you. Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. [1:20:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** You putting fires out? [1:20:06] **Brice Miller (Fire Chief):** I was. Yeah, I was putting fires out in the entry. No, good discussion going on out there, too. So what we have on the Council agenda for tonight is from the Relief Association. Our Board of Trustees was looking at some stuff all year; we're kind of actually behind the game a little bit in this, from my two cents on it. But we're just always looking at things on how to stay with the times, stay with what's going on within our department. I put on there 40 years—that's because, you know, you can dig back through all the handwritten minutes, I don't even know how far back it actually goes because paperwork wasn't great that long ago. We were on this 10-20 vesting; that's kind of the big ticket item that's on that. There's just a couple little language things that really are pretty minor and more just... I think the one was basically just giving a title to a second signer for checks. We've always had to have two signers; we just had a title and then another. So that was really the only other change other than the big thing, which is the vesting. And the way our pension is right now is, you know, you've got to be on 20 years on the fire department to be fully vested within our pension program. And that's kind of a lot these days. We used to see 30, 40—almost 40-year firefighters as volunteers. We don't see that anymore; it just seems to be less and less. We have lots of firefighters leaving less than 10 years, whether they move, something happens, something changes in life, too many kids, they get too busy, whatever. And so our thought was: how can we provide some kind of a benefit to someone who still comes and gives us five years or 10 years, instead of just saying bye? Because they have to be on 10 years to even be partially vested, and then it tiers up from there. And our accountant that works with us takes care of a lot of other fire department Relief Associations, and we were the last one of his... the last one that still is at 10-20. There's a lot of our neighbors around—some are like 6-12, a lot have gone to 5-10 from what we've noticed. So there's still some out there that are 10-20 that haven't budged. But we just... we felt our Board of Trustees and then we put it to a vote to the membership, and it was unanimous to make this change. Financially—and if you've got some real questions on numbers, I do have Zach who's our treasurer here tonight; he knows the number, he's our numbers guy—financially, it doesn't change much percentage at all, you know, as far as what our liabilities are. And really the big liability number that you folks need to be worried about is if we're vested 100% or not. And that would just be in the case really if all of a sudden you had to pay all 30 firefighters, or really in a bad case scenario you'd have to pay our spouses out if something bad were to happen. And if we were a severely underfunded fire department, or severely underfunded and maybe we just hit a realm where 10 people retire within two or three years and we don't have the money—that's why we're actually here tonight and why you guys have a say in our bylaws, because then the taxpayers are on the hook for that. It is state statute then that the city would have to come up with pension funding if we don't have it in our bucket of cash to be able to pay out. So that's the link and why we're even here, because I've even... I think that question is asked, like, "Why do we have a say in your Relief Association?" That's why. If we do become an underfunded fire department or Relief Association, the taxpayers have to pick up that burden. You're funded pretty... we are, yeah. And I put those amounts... even with that, that's with the change what our projection is over the next—I think I put three or four years on there on what it would... and that calculates from who we know is retiring and things going on. And that's even... that's a live snapshot of right now on where our investments are. They're down right now, so if that changes in a good way, which we would hope over the next few years... we kind of hit a kind of a sore spot about a year ago and we've actually been going up again. We do pretty safe investments; we're not radical with what we do. So we keep it pretty on an even keel. So it does look really... our portfolio looks really good right now and always seems to. We seem to weather the storms pretty well. So that came from a recommendation from our accountant; he was comfortable with it. The Board of Trustees were comfortable with it, and the membership was comfortable with it as well. So our next step is to come to you folks and see what you think. If you've got any questions anything at all, that's why we've got Greg and Zach here. Greg's the president of the Relief Association; Zach's our treasurer. [1:24:45] **Derek Lindell:** What's the average amount of time, years of service right now, roughly? [1:24:50] **Brice Miller (Fire Chief):** Around 20. 20 to 25. So really the ones with gold longevity like that... that doesn't change it at all. We're always there. The only thing that would hurt us going to this would be some of those people in that 6, 7, 8, maybe 10-year range... when they hit the 10 years, are they going to drop off instead of wait? And that's a great question. You know, most... we don't use this as a hiring tool, per se. We could in the future, and that's one of the reasons that we're actually doing this—our recruitment numbers are down. You know, we know we've got some openings coming up next year, so we've already advertised for applications for it. We're holding one application for multiple openings again right now, and that seems to be the trend we're seeing. I know when I got hired in 2003, I was one of, I think, nine or 10 applicants for two spots at that point. That was kind of the norm back then. Now we're calling people and recruiting trying to get applications in. So that's the concern we have too—is maybe this... you don't have to be here 20 years to get something. We're not advertising that, but it could be something; it's a tool we could pull out if we need to. That was one of our thoughts behind it. The other thought—and we haven't... this is our 2024 top topic for Board of Trustees—would be something called "reciprocity." This would align us then with other fire departments in the immediate area. So say someone were to move here from Kenyon or Zumbrota—they'd have to be a Minnesota fire department. If they move here and they're not fully vested in their fire department, and then put four or five years into here, group-wise then hit a vesting number between the two of us... we would be then responsible for the four or five years here, the other fire department for theirs, but they would be at 100%. So if we kind of marry up our vesting policies with everybody else, that kind of cleans that up too. But that's a new thing that the state's brought; that's kind of one of our topics that we're going to be diving into in 2024—to see if that's something we want to do a bylaw change again and allow reciprocity, which helps. And we do get those phone calls. We actually have a firefighter right now that would benefit from... we have one that I know is the one that's leaving, that's moving to Kenyon, that would benefit them. But yeah, so that's kind of the overall gist of it. But if you had any questions whatsoever... I know most of you don't probably know any of the ins and outs about this at all. This isn't something you guys really deal with; this is kind of an internal thing that we mostly do. We don't do a lot of bylaw changes—I think we've only done one or two in the 20 years I've been around. So, unique thing that you get to be a part of here. [1:27:40] **Laura Kronenberger:** Doesn't affect anyone who's currently retired, right? [1:27:42] **Brice Miller (Fire Chief):** Just... no, this is not retroactive. So this would be anybody from the January... we would put in approval January 1. So anyone January 1 and beyond. Doesn't go retroactive to anybody; that would really hurt the funding. [1:27:52] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions or comments directed at the Chief? Sounds good. With that, I would entertain a motion to approve the Fire Department Relief Association bylaw amendment. [1:28:00] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Motion. [1:28:01] **Diane Johnson:** Second. [1:28:02] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion by Mr. Jeppesen. Second by Diane. All those in favor, Aye? Opposed? Carries. Thank you, Chief. Item C: Public Works and Park Advisory Board. This is a two-part. We have to introduce and read the Ordinance 400 that repeals Ordinances 369 and 373, and then the second part will be introducing the first reading of Ordinance 401, the ordinance for establishing the Public Works and Park Advisory Board. This is basically a combination of Park Board and Public Works board. It changes the amount of people that are needed, and it kind of is more efficient with time but also with the effort, because all of the things that were done with the Park Board before usually had to clear Public Works as well because the parks are run by Public Works. It's... we had had the discussion on this—the duplicative nature of the boards. The fact that, as was said before, the Park Board had gone away for many years then they tried to revive it. I served on the Park Board in my time on Council. This is something that we brought up and had a discussion; it had been talked about before. I don't want this to... I know that Derek's name is attached to it just because of introduction and maybe the article in the *Beacon*—this was discussed at the entire meeting. So you can address that with me also if you'd like. But we just felt that this is moving forward more efficient, and it's a way that we can try to save Jed's time but also make it so that the works that are done through the parks are more streamlined to go directly to Public Works instead of a two-step process. We can effectively do it in one. [1:29:40] **Diane Johnson:** Is it true that it was never discussed at the Park Board level? [1:29:43] **Derek Lindell:** I'm not sure if it ever made it on a Park Board agenda. It wasn't... we didn't have a meeting in November. Then the October... I don't remember when the October meeting was. I mentioned it at the end of a meeting, I think it was our second October meeting if I remember right, and it was just an idea. And then we talked about it more in-depth at—was it Finance last week? [1:30:11] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Yep. [1:30:12] **Diane Johnson:** So no, it wasn't. I did have somebody ask why it was discussed at Finance. [1:30:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** And I'm like, I don't know. You know, and I'll be fair—when I used to sit over there in the council when the finance committee started, I said, "You know, we'd have a discussion of why does a thing fall in the finance." Unfortunately, anything can be put into Finance if it deals with time, pay, the rate of pay, hourly... all that stuff can fall into Finance. And with something like this, it's almost like... I don't know if there would have been a better... like if we had a Personnel or something like that, but those are usually closed-door meetings. [1:30:45] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Finance used to be Personnel. [1:30:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** That's the way I considered Finance—is kind of a co-personnel committee. [1:30:50] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** They changed names. How I would explain it is it's a catch-all for city council, right? Instead of... it's not specifically to this, it's something that I would bring to them. And if it's not for to deal with Finance per se, but they... like I said, they used to be the Personnel committee. Well, then they... I don't know what happened there and then they changed it to Finance. Maybe it isn't quite the appropriate name for the committee, but they do a lot of other stuff to talk about than just finance. And if you've ever looked at the agendas, they do. [1:31:35] **Diane Johnson:** Well, so the Park Board was three citizens, two Council? [1:31:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Yes. No, it was four citizens, one Council. [1:31:40] **Diane Johnson:** Yep. Oh, it was a fairly larger board. It used to be... I mean, a couple years ago it was even larger than that and had a Public Works employee that was a voting member, and we... so it's changed a few times in recent years. Now, if this were to pass, would it be effective like January? [1:32:00] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** I assume I believe it would be. We have to have two readings, correct? And then in January, we reset all the boards and committees. [1:32:10] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** Yes. If it passes, this would be the first reading, and both of them would be on the second meeting and then published, which is a week after that. [1:32:20] **Diane Johnson:** Okay. The Park Board is four citizens, one Council. Public Works is one citizen, two Council. [1:32:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Parks is four and one Council. There's only one in Park. [1:32:40] **Diane Johnson:** Number one, I am definitely not comfortable with the process that has happened here. I would have preferred to have the Park Board weigh in on this. The other thing is, you know, we keep saying we need more citizens to be involved. Park Board seems to be one of those where we actually have citizens that are excited about being on Park Board—they want to be there, they want to be part of it. I'm not so sure that smooshing them into Public Works is going to have that same kind of excitement. And so before we do something like this, I would think we should schedule a work session with the whole city council, not just finance committee, to look at all of the committee, commission, board structures and say, "You know, we keep putting you know the tree board which is one of our little groups that can be given to Public Works which we always seem to do even if we don't say that quite correctly but you know let's before we start moving things around let's look at the whole the whole setup and say should we be tweaking all of this?" You know, I'm not comfortable with Finance just having three council members. I think whatever that committee is, it should have two Council and at least one citizen. But I would think we should have a work session to look at the whole thing before we go start changing ordinances. [1:34:10] **Abdi Guesmi:** This is going to be hard to say, but I think I agree with Diane and Becky in saying that I think this needs a little bit more thought and I think a little bit more input from the Park Board. And I think before I'm comfortable with it myself... I know I've... at Finance committee, I thought it was a good idea, but... [1:34:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** That will push it back a year, though, because we redo everything in January. [1:34:45] **Abdi Guesmi:** That's fine. [1:34:47] **Derek Lindell:** Well, I'm just saying. I mean, I have no problem with them being combined; I think it's a great idea. I mean, it's two boards for the same department. You know, I mean, everything that goes through both boards probably ends up on Jed's desk, whereas this way it's... [1:35:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** And that's not necessarily the only... if it has to go through him, to me it's just more efficient. And Diane, your point of us talking about struggling to have citizens involved—having fewer citizen requirements makes it easier to fulfill that. So I'm not saying that Park Board members are gone; I'm saying the Park Board changes to fall under Public Works. That makes it easier for us to fulfill that obligation as well. I feel like this is a win-win. Now, the way things were communicated... do people get told when they're let go? Do they get... do they have a meeting to... you know what I mean? Like in a situation like this where a thing is getting cut, they don't necessarily get a say in how things get cut. Like when the Park Board dissolved 15-20 years ago, were they... did they have meetings where they got to try to stand up and say "no, keep us"? I think... or did it dissolve because nobody was there? [1:36:10] **Diane Johnson:** But like I said, I don't understand why we need to rush into this. You know, we haven't talked about this at city council before tonight. I mean, I know you made the... you had brought it up as a possibility, but that was as far as we went. [1:36:25] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Is there always a preference to have an even number for voting purposes, or is that really not an issue? [1:36:30] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Odd number. [1:36:31] **Ryan Jeppesen:** That's so... preference not to have an even, right? [1:36:38] **Diane Johnson:** So there's four citizens in the Park Board and one council member. And one citizen in Public Works and two Council. One of those Council is double, so it's really two, right? If we combine them... it's Derek and I, so that's not an issue. So what you're talking about is going from five citizens to three. Can't we just do five citizens and move on? [1:37:05] **Derek Lindell:** It would be a seven... I think it sounds reasonable. [1:37:07] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** If we're worried about losing citizen input, then just make it... literally the existing members, just mush it together. Could we...? Would we have to... since the ordinance is written, though, are we allowed to make changes like that right now? [1:37:25] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Sure. Well, you say "sure," yeah, but I... or else we just don't do anything. [1:37:35] **Diane Johnson:** You can vote it down and address something... [1:37:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Why do we have to just push it down the street? You can change the ordinance and approve it, okay? And then we'll bring the final... what you adopted tonight to the final reading, the second reading. [1:37:50] **Laura Kronenberger:** Sweet. Can't we say that we would like to make a motion to approve with five citizens and two Council? [1:37:57] **Derek Lindell:** I'd agree with that. [1:38:00] **Laura Kronenberger:** And then we can keep the existing people that are on the boards, but just have one meeting, right? [1:38:05] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** One of the things that I have a concern with is people participating in the future as it's getting so hard. How many do we have on Planning Commission? Right, we have no people coming to the plate. Would any of the... if you did five and two, and five boards on this one, would any of the members of the Park Board or Public Works come over to the Planning Commission? We've been two down on the Planning Commission forever. Sarah, when's the last time we got an applicant or somebody that showed interest in the planning? [1:38:45] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** I have somebody that... [1:38:46] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** When's the last time? How long ago has it been? [1:38:50] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** It's been quite a while. [1:38:52] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Right, we struggled. We struggled to have a meeting the other day and we have a special meeting to do a plat fix on... I don't know if it was a fourth or like that. And we've got Ryan sitting in standby in the weeds in case we can't get a hold of Bruce, because we've got to have them all. And if we did the five and the three, maybe a couple on the Park/Public Works... would they mind moving over to the Planning Commission? It's a new experience. And I don't know... you know, Ken Carpenter, he sat on Council for a while, and Becky ran for Mayor and it's a good experience. I don't know, but it's finding seven... because eventually, you know, Chuck is not going to be there. [1:40:05] **Diane Johnson:** Well, how often do you have a full group in Park Board? [1:40:10] **Derek Lindell:** I'm usually the only one that misses meetings. So I think the other four are usually there, as far as I know. [1:40:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Yeah, from what you hear for Public Works, there's always one missing. [1:40:25] **Derek Lindell:** Pretty much, yeah. [1:40:26] **Abdi Guesmi:** So if you have... why to me I'm like all for combining this... wait, why don't we just dissolve Public Works? Just Jed can be his own... doesn't have to go through anything. Jed, do what you want! The thought of trying to get seven people in the future is going to be... [1:40:50] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Then I would say somehow you get your quorum to... like we have to have three at the Planning Commission because it's a five-member board. We've got to be careful on quorums and being able to hold meetings, and pretty soon three people are gone or four people are gone. And so if we adjust the number of a board like citizen and council-wise, can we just reduce it or add to it as we see fit, or is that changing the ordinance? [1:41:25] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** It's based on ordinance, so whatever we set it at, we have to keep it. [1:41:30] **Diane Johnson:** Can't you do an ordinance where you say two Council people plus a council alternate and then three to five members of the public? [1:41:40] **Sara Peer (City Clerk):** You can't say three to five because you have to have some way of determining a quorum. Well, three or five. Well, you can appoint three or five. We have for Planning Commission... we have an alternate. Yeah, now it's still to be determined if that alternate is for Steve or is it for a resident, or can it be for both. Well, because I don't think commission says it can be for either the citizen or the... [1:42:05] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Yeah, I reread that. So you could do that same here. If you're worried about a... and put an alternate, it gets troublesome sometimes. [1:42:20] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Well, if we changed it tonight, we'd get a better turnout for the other committee meeting, correct? [1:42:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Right, you're saying if you change it, we'd have better attendance with the combination? [1:42:35] **Ryan Jeppesen:** I would assume so. I think that's part of the goal—is, like I said, I think we're more effective with the combined group involvement, attendance, community obligation, council obligation, Jed's obligation. [1:42:45] **Diane Johnson:** Becky, are all the Park Board members going to be part of Public Works/Park Board? [1:42:55] **Becky Youngmark:** I mean, I can't speak for the other people. I do know two people that applied last January to serve on boards; they were never called. So I don't know what's up with that. But I do know two people that put in applications before January 1st and never got a position as a citizen. [1:43:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Did they apply for a specific...? [1:43:15] **Becky Youngmark:** One person applied for three boards and I don't know how many boards the other one applied for, but I'm just saying there are people out there willing to serve. I knocked on over a thousand doors when I ran for Mayor; I talked to people who wanted to serve but were so frustrated with the City that they didn't want to put themselves through it. [1:43:35] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, that's how you change. That's how you change the city, and that's what I told them. They're not here now. How many come? Because I encourage them all to come and sit in on the meeting so that they could be heard. [1:43:55] **Laura Kronenberger:** What if we did... I don't know what you want. What if we did four citizens, one Council? I mean, why does it have to be two Council people when you're going to want to try to go through anything? Anything that goes through those boards has to go to Council anyway. So do four citizens and one council person then one alternate? [1:44:15] **Diane Johnson:** One alternate from the Council? [1:44:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** The biggest thing that I... this is just my interpretation of all the committees and boards—is the higher the Council involvement, because remember, that's where the work gets done, that's where the bigger discussions happen. When it comes to here, it's usually just the up or down. Those... the more people that we have involved, too, then those sentiments get brought a little bit more in front of the Council when it comes to discussion. If it's just one, like say Derek said, or if somebody's not in attendance, I feel like two is... and then I forget what the two... for in January, when I mentioned people, it was just more of a the way things are if that makes it more efficient to try to have members diversified in their involvement. But no, I just think that having two instead of one brings more of... all the stuff that gets discussed at the meeting comes a little bit more the whole message gets brought before the Council when it's on our agenda. But I suppose if the... if we're looking at the total number... [1:45:15] **Diane Johnson:** Well, the other thing is, Matt, the alternate can come to all the meetings; they just can't vote. Well, or a council member can come and sit in the... yeah. [1:45:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any other discussion on this item? Hearing none, do these need to be individual? Nope. Correct. So we'll start with Item 1: the introduction and first reading of Ordinance 400 that would repeal the ordinances that exist, 369 and 373. [1:45:45] **Derek Lindell:** So moved. [1:45:47] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Oh, sorry. Motion from Lindell. Is there a second? [1:45:50] **Diane Johnson:** So we're doing a motion to combine the two? Is that this? [1:45:55] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** This is the one to repeal the previous committees. Right. Now what you're basically getting rid of is both the Park Board and the Public Works board in the first motion. [1:46:05] **Diane Johnson:** Right. And the second motion establishes a new one to replace it. [1:46:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay, yep. Motion on the table from Derek. Second? [1:46:15] **Steve Groth:** Second. [1:46:17] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Steve. All those in favor, Aye? **Council Members:** Aye. **Diane Johnson:** No. [1:46:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Passes 5 to 1. Takes us to Item 2: the introduction and first reading of Ordinance 401, an ordinance that establishes Public Works and Park Advisory Board. This is, as Neil said, this is where if you'd like to make an adjustment, you can. [1:46:40] **Laura Kronenberger:** Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve Ordinance 401 with five citizens and two Council, establishing a Public Works and Park... [1:46:50] **Diane Johnson:** Five, three, and one alternate? And one alternate? [1:46:55] **Laura Kronenberger:** So you're going to have seven people and you want another alternate too? [1:46:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Is that alternate a citizen or a Council? [1:47:00] **Diane Johnson:** Council member. [1:47:02] **Abdi Guesmi:** So three council members involved in this now? Is that necessary to have a third potential? [1:47:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, you well if we reach the quorum with four... [1:47:20] **Laura Kronenberger:** So five citizens, two Council, and one Council is an alternate is what is on the table. I personally don't think it's necessary, but if that's what people want, that's fine. [1:47:35] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Jed, would you weigh in on that with the Public Works versus Park Board—if there's any what you see as a difference—if there were five citizens, two Council, and one alternate? Because you have the experience of attending these meetings and seeing the attendance. [1:47:50] **Jed Petersen (Public Works Director):** Yeah, so like we mentioned earlier, the Public Works is usually missing a member. So I guess I don't really see any benefit of having seven versus... I don't know, I don't know. There's a lot of input in the park... on the Park Board, and less input on the Public Works. So I mean, it'd be nice for a little bit more input on the Public Works side of things. [1:48:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay. Right now, the motion from Laura that is on the table is 5 and 2. If a council member would like to change that or second and bring it to a vote with or without an alternate? [1:48:45] **Laura Kronenberger:** I'm just saying the motion I motioned without it. So I'm motioning five citizens, two Council. [1:48:55] **Steve Groth:** I'm going to second that. [1:48:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Steve. Any further discussion? All those in favor, Aye? Opposed? [1:49:05] **Diane Johnson:** I abstain. [1:49:07] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** That carries. That brings you... abstain from voting. All right, so it is 5-0, with the abstaining. It's like a tie in hockey—a third column. All right, brings us down to Item D, which was Item G: approve Professional Services agreement with WHKS for Hardwood Estates Second subdivision. This was pulled up by council member Jeppesen. [1:49:35] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Yeah, I just haven't agreed with Hardwood Estates this whole time and I just wanted to bring it to a vote. [1:49:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay. Item G as a standalone, yep. We can click on... why isn't my thing working? All right, mine's not opening either. Do you want it...? No, that's right. Bill, if you would like to go through what Item G—the approving the Professional Services agreement—your name is attached to that item. [1:49:55] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** Yes, thank you. This is for the construction observation admin. The council has awarded a contract, so this is the engineering for construction. The agreements were split up to cover the design; they're just being separate. This agreement is billed hourly based on the contractor's production schedule. [1:50:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any questions for Bill or discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve Council Business Item D: approve Professional Services agreement with WHKS for Hardwood Estates Second subdivision. [1:50:35] **Lisa Zimmerman:** So moved. [1:50:36] **Derek Lindell:** Second. [1:50:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Lisa, second from Derek. All those in favor, Aye? **Council Members:** Aye. **Ryan Jeppesen:** No. **Diane Johnson:** No. [1:50:41] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** 4 to 2. It carries. Reports. We'll go... I'm supposed to report for Maggie. [1:50:50] **Steve Groth:** Okay, well, Chamber of Commerce. She just wanted me to remind all the citizens that this Saturday we have special doings downtown: Deck the Falls. And I think for a full schedule you can go to the Chamber's website and get all the times and all the activities. [1:51:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Small Business Saturday. [1:51:12] **Steve Groth:** Small Business Saturday. There, I think there's pancakes in the morning—is that lions? [1:51:17] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Lions are doing that, yep. [1:51:20] **Steve Groth:** So it starts early and come early and stay late. [1:51:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Finance Committee—most of what we had was in here. Library Board? [1:51:29] **Lisa Zimmerman:** We went over the financial report. We're not going to have a December meeting, and we updated the Libraries on Wheels policy. [1:51:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Oh, great. Thank you. We'll go around the horn. Jed? [1:51:42] **Jed Petersen (Public Works Director):** Fitzgerald just showed up with equipment tonight. Going to break ground up on Grove Street pond tomorrow. Hopefully, that'll all be done next week. [1:51:55] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** So by next week? Awesome. Ground is still soft enough. [1:52:00] **Jed Petersen (Public Works Director):** There's... yeah, nothing... we've been lucky. [1:52:05] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** It's 50 degrees tomorrow. Bill, what do you got? [1:52:10] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** If we haven't been busy enough! Hardwood Estates, I mentioned work's beginning. The 2023-24 street project—the contractor Fitzgerald is anticipating moving to that after they finish up on Grove. So thank you, Mayor. [1:52:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Perfect. Thank you. Zach, you got anything? [1:52:27] **Zach (Fire Relief Treasurer):** Nothing for me tonight. [1:52:29] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right, just what we wanted to hear. Laura? [1:52:31] **Laura Kronenberger:** I'm good, thank you. [1:52:33] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Chief? [1:52:35] **Jeff McCormick (Police Chief):** Well, Steve talked about the upcoming Saturday festivities already. Took my thunder! I was wondering what was going on. We'll have a little bit of impact on some of our commuters on Saturday evening, but we try to minimize that impact, especially for the Highway 19 traffic. Neil mentioned during his presentation on the budget the interesting and fun dynamics we're having on getting vehicles. I've talked with the state's vendor for the state contract—they do not have the pricing for the next one yet. They believe they're going to open in February, but they don't know when they're going to get filled, much like the one that approved last year. So I'll be putting a memo together essentially asking you guys to authorize me to order it on state bid—whatever that price is, we don't know—coming up before the end of the year so that I'm ready if it opens early, we're set to go. I just... I don't want to miss that window. We're already on year six for that squad, and keep it longer, it just keeps getting more expensive when it comes to your fleet of squads. [1:53:35] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Is there a brand that's attached to...? Are you contractually obligated to be with a certain...? [1:53:40] **Jeff McCormick (Police Chief):** No, we've just found the Fords to be very good vehicles for us. We could switch to another one. One problem is... [1:53:48] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Easier to get to? Are production... [1:53:50] **Jeff McCormick (Police Chief):** I think they're almost all the same. All the same, okay. One of the things is that, you know, all of our vehicles are keyed the same, and so suddenly we have to have multiple keys, which we can do—it just becomes more challenging when you're trying to wrestle with somebody that doesn't want to get in the back seat of the car and the car is locked and you're trying to unlock the Chevy but the Ford key is getting used. So that's the primary reason why we tried to stay with one and it also keeps them consistent through the fleet. Equipment, buttons, everything's in the same spots. [1:54:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right, thank you, Chief. Sarah? All right. [1:54:30] **Diane Johnson:** Did we ever get a final number of... like, you remember that number that Northfield got, like so much money from the state or something to help? [1:54:40] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Every city received... I don't know off the top of my head what our final number was. We did get noticed on it. I'm thinking it was about 70, maybe a little more. [1:54:55] **Diane Johnson:** 70,000? [1:54:57] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** 70,000, yep. But we can't spend any of it until after I think the 27th of December. Anything we spend it on before then doesn't count. So we're sort of stuck. The state has set the amounts, but the rules that go with it are still percolating down. Okay. [1:55:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Neil, anything you'd like to add? [1:55:24] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** Yes. When do you want to do a work session on 72nd Avenue Way? [1:55:30] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, let's get it decided. Let's... before next meeting. If we do December... maybe the first one? Because the second one you get a little closer. [1:55:40] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** I'm going to be gone the first meeting. [1:55:45] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Well, that's why we should do it... when are you available? [1:55:50] **Neil Jensen (City Administrator):** You do have assessment hearing on the 5th for the final assessment hearing for the '23-'24 street project. [1:56:00] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** So what are you thinking? What are you...? If you want to do it on the 5th, that's fine. We could do the night... I think we should do it at one of those two. Should we do... can you...? Is everybody available next Tuesday, the 28th? [1:56:10] **Diane Johnson / Abdi Guesmi:** I don't know, yeah. [1:56:15] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Yes, we have we have Joint Powers Board but I mean, whatever, we can skip it. Brad Anderson left, so we can... [1:56:20] **Diane Johnson:** I am not available on the 28th. No. [1:56:25] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** NOP. So the 5th before the meeting, but Neil will be absent. Does that have to be Tuesday? [1:56:35] **Abdi Guesmi:** It just... yeah, because we'll all be here. [1:56:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Monday? Monday the 4th? We can meet on Mondays. Bill, I'm talking Monday the... what time next Monday? [1:56:45] **Bill Angerman (City Engineer):** The 27th? [1:56:50] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Oh, the 27th! Okay. Oh, 27th, I guess yes. Feels like a high-stakes game of poker! Yeah, exactly. All right, Monday the 27th. Monday the 27th, all right. What time? [1:57:00] **Laura Kronenberger:** 5:00? The later the better. I work that day. [1:57:05] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** 5:00? Can you make 5:00 work? [1:57:10] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Yeah, I thought you were retired! [1:57:12] **Abdi Guesmi:** We all work! Guesmi got a job at Cannon! Pay your tab! [1:57:20] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Set it for five. I should be able to... 5:00, Monday the 27th. Put it in your calendars. I might not be off by five. All right. Council members, Laura? [1:57:30] **Laura Kronenberger:** I'm good. [1:57:32] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Lisa? [1:57:34] **Lisa Zimmerman:** Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. [1:57:35] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Ryan? [1:57:36] **Ryan Jeppesen:** Good. [1:57:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Derek? [1:57:38] **Derek Lindell:** Nope. [1:57:39] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Diane? [1:57:40] **Diane Johnson:** Nope. [1:57:41] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Steve? [1:57:42] **Steve Groth:** Gobble gobble! [1:57:44] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right, Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Congratulations to the Bombers football team making it to the state semi-finals. Congratulations to the musical *Beauty and the Beast*. Are there any groups that I missed out? Diane, that was really good. Yes! All right, motion to adjourn? [1:57:55] **Ryan Jeppesen:** So moved. [1:57:57] **Derek Lindell:** Second. [1:57:58] **Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All in favor? Opposed? Thank you everybody. [1:58:02] **(End of Transcript)**