Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added based on the provided context and the audio cues. **[0:51] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Back in my TV call to order the City of Cannon Falls City Council meeting for Tuesday, August 1st, 2023. If I could get a roll call, please? **[1:00] City Clerk Sara Peer:** [Zimmerman] He’s absent. Growth? **[1:05] Council Member Jeff Growth:** Here. **[1:06] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Jeppesen? **[1:07] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Here. **[1:08] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Johnson? **[1:09] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Here. **[1:10] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Kronenberger? **[1:11] Council Member Laura Kronenberger:** Here. **[1:12] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Lindell? **[1:13] Council Member Derek Lindo:** Here. **[1:14] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Montgomery? **[1:15] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Here. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. 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. All right. **[1:38] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Before I ask for approval of the agenda, nobody has signed up for public input tonight, but we do have State Representative Pam Altendorf present, and she will give a presentation. So, I'll put that in the agenda. With that said, if I could get an approval motion. **[1:50] Council Member Derek Lindo:** Motion. **[1:52] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Second. **[1:54] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Lindell, second from Diane. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. With no one signed up for public input, Representative Altendorf, the floor is yours. **[2:05] Rep. Pam Altendorf:** Thank you very much. Um, hi everyone. So I'm Representative Pam Altendorf and this was my first legislative session, so it was very busy, January through May. I was able to come here last—last year—but during the session, it was... we were oftentimes there very late. If you're 50 miles or more from the State Capitol, you get a—you get an apartment up in Saint Paul. I'm at 48 and a half miles, so I regularly drive back and forth, and that would definitely extend my day when we were getting off the floor at midnight; oftentimes I wasn't getting home till one o'clock. But I just want to let you know now that I'm out of session, I have been making my rounds and getting to all the city councils in the district, going to some of the school board meetings, and this really is my priority and actually what I love: meeting people in the district, getting to know you, and building those relationships so that as things come up in the future, you know that you can contact me. I will pass around my cards and on here is my personal cell phone, and I just ask even to put it right into your cell phone and put my name and my cell phone—you don't have to text me tonight—but especially during session when it's super busy, it's nothing for me to be getting emails just like *ding ding ding*, but I could be sitting on the floor and anyone in district that texts me and there's something important, I almost can see that right away and even walk off and give you a call or talk to you right away. So I just want to let you know that I'm available and I want to be a resource to everyone here in Cannon Falls. Just a little bit about my background and my first session, my committees I served on was the Energy Committee, Education, and then also Elections. So those are ones really... you specialize. You could ask me almost any questions in those and I would be able to answer it to you. We also have researchers, so if there's something outside of that realm, I usually can find questions very, very quickly. But um, those are—those are kind of the specialties where I put most of my time and energy. Um, just to give you a little bit of a review, and I know in the newspaper in the headlines oftentimes you heard uh, it stated that this was a historic session or a transformational session and um, depending on where you stand, um, you know, how you look at that might be very, very different. There was a record number of bills that were introduced—over 6,000, in fact—we have never seen this kind of amount of bills being pushed through. 75 new laws were signed; however, that number is actually very minuscule because with the Omnibus bills, some of those bills out of the 75 have many, many bills attached inside of them—new laws that have been signed into law. We also started out the session with a historic surplus; it was 17.5 billion dollars, which grew to 19 billion dollars, which is completely unheard of in the state of Minnesota. I'm not even sure in the past if we've had a one billion dollar surplus, to put that into perspective, and to enter this session with a 17.5 billion dollar surplus, like I said, was—was completely unprecedented. Um, the—at the end of the day, our taxes in the state of Minnesota were raised 10 billion, and as a fiscal conservative person, I would say I'm very, very concerned for the state of Minnesota with our budget growing from a 52 billion dollar... I mean, I'm sorry, a budget of 52 billion, and our new budget is 72 billion dollars. That is a 40% increase for the state of Minnesota. Um, so like I said, I'm a fiscal conservative, I'm a business owner, I'm a mom, I'm just like many of you. I would look at wanting to run government a lot more like a business and not like it's just this open credit card. And that to me is very problematic. I'll talk a little bit more about why I see that being a problem, but if you can just quickly, you know, you can research or Google states like California; a few years ago had a... I'm sorry... they had a huge surplus just like us, but then following it, because their spending grew just like us, they had a 24 billion dollar deficit. And so that's what I am very worried about—is that we're heading down that path. Now, there were some good things that happened in the session, and as many of you probably know, um, but we were able to get that bonding for the baseball park here in Cannon Falls money. So I was very happy—Bucky Lindo, Luke Winchell, some of the people from that committee. I had talked to them, and because they were so organized, they were able to get this to us right away. I mean, early in the session; I—it might have even been January. So from day one, typically what happens—even though the Democrats are in charge and I'm a Republican—is they do try to prioritize one project in every district, and because they were so organized and had their project to me from day one, I said the baseball field was our number one priority for our district, and I stood behind that the whole session and was just very happy that we could have that go through. Now, if you look at votes, I did vote against the bonding bill, and it's not because I voted against your project; it is because with a 17 and a half billion dollar surplus, I would have wanted to pay cash for the bonding. And I think it is fiscally irresponsible for the state of Minnesota to be borrowing money against the state which we are now, you know, being charged interest on that money. So it's not that I didn't support the project, it's that with 17—again, this is such an unheard of surplus—we could have paid for all of our bonding projects by cash and not borrowed an extra dollar. And so that's why I voted against it, but also just know in the background I was working hard to make sure it was in—in the project. Um, you know, there are some other good things I passed. I'm not sure what the city is working on, but you know, there was some money for local tree planting with all the trees that have um, died. Um, there's some good infrastructure projects; obviously, we had a large problem this last year with potholes and um, just to also tell you, it's—I'm a business person, I understand borrowing money, I would never be someone that 100% would never want to do bonding or would not do binding, but you also have to be wise with your money. And again, it just came down to a year with such a—with such a historic surplus, it was not to me a wise decision to be borrowing extra money. Um, another thing that I'm concerned about is our 2040 energy um, plan that passed, and although it sounds great on the outside—you know, everyone, 2040, I think they call it clean energy—we started calling it "The Blackout Bill." Um, and the reason why is we do not have the infrastructure to go 2040 um, carbon-free energy. We do not have the infrastructure; in fact, I believe the Star Tribune even reported this. We do not have the infrastructure to get there. So we are part of a 15-state MISO grid, and we are not just using the electricity that's being produced here in Minnesota. We are having shared electricity from, you know, coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, wind from 15 states. We're a part of a grid. We're not, you know, an entity all by ourselves; Minnesota is not creating our own energy and using our own energy. So by 2040, when we close down the coal plants, when we close down the natural gas plants, all that's going to happen is we are going to be putting more pressure on the overall 15-state grid because the state of Minnesota is not going to be able to produce the energy that we were producing before. And it's really actually very interesting—I'm kind of an energy geek now—but you can Google MISO (M-I-S-O); you can any day look at what we're using, and usually on a regular day we might be producing only two or three percent solar. On good days I've seen up to 20 percent wind on a—you know, on a good day for wind—but typically even in the summer now, wind has only been at like three to five percent. Um, so that worries me, because energy does affect every aspect of our economy. Okay, and just um, to finish, I wanted to state again why I'm worried is I want to look at the overall... you know, you want to take the pulse of the state, you want to be making good decisions for the whole state. And the facts are... so, you know, the one thing the IRS does is they like to tax us, right? So they also like to keep track of our income, and this is a provable fact: you can go to the IRS website and in 2020, um, we are—what we are seeing right now in the state of Minnesota is we are losing income earners. So people who are actually production—producing, who are working, who have good jobs are leaving. Now, if you look—if you just look at the population, we have been pretty flat, so we are losing people but we're actually losing income earners. It doesn't mean that our population is decreasing when I'm saying that, so both can be true. But according to 2020 statistics is um, you know, because some people say, "Well, people are leaving Minnesota because of our weather." Well, let's compare another state right next to us, and that would be Wisconsin. So in 2020, Wisconsin lost—and this is in adjusted gross income—61.4 million in gross income. Any guesses what Minnesota lost? **[12:35] Council Member Diane Johnson:** A lot more. **[12:40] Rep. Pam Altendorf:** 1.56 billion. That's in our income. That's in what the—that's what the federal government is—is charging taxes on. And that is a very good indicator, you know, because for the first time, especially after COVID, people can kind of shop around for states. We have a lot of people working at home and people don't have to stay in Minnesota. And that's why, you know, when you put your finger on the pulse of Minnesota, it is not very healthy right now because we are passing laws that are not business-friendly and that are chasing some of our highest income producers out of our state, and we're raising our taxes. Um, so again, I want to let you know that um, we're working hard. Um, I... but also I want you to know my main priority of coming here tonight is: Cannon Falls is a priority to me. Um, I have been really, really trying to be a voice for common sense and fighting for small-town Minnesota. Because even with the schools, being on the Education Committee, there's a real discrepancy between what per-pupil students are getting in Minneapolis-St. Paul and what we're getting. And so um, you know, I just want to let you know that I am definitely trying to be a voice of reason and really, really trying to help small-town Minnesota and concerned about the state and the health of all of us. Oh, and just a little advice for the um, Cannon Falls City Council is: even though I know you got funds—different funds that came in—when I've been talking to some of the other cities is, if they're using those funds, they're—they're trying to use them in areas that's needed: infrastructure, one-time spending. But I would try to advise very seriously not to be raising your budgets. Because again, when we're looking at this 40% increase of the state budget, that doesn't look like that's going to be sustainable long-term. And so these are just facts: you know, if we're losing our income producers and that's our tax base, that's a problem for our future. And so I just want you as city council members to know, even though it may have seemed like we had this huge influx of money, that as I'm talking to other cities, they're being very wise with their dollars and they are putting them towards more one-time spending and things that need to be done, but not necessarily increasing their overall budget. So I don't know if it's typical to ask questions, otherwise I'll just pass these out and—and again, please just... I—I always lose these cards, so just go ahead and enter my cell phone right in your—in your phone and that way you have it, and if you ever need me, I—I'm—I'm a text away. You can just—just text me. Are there any questions from the council? **[15:37] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** I don't think so. All right, thank you for having me. **[15:42] Rep. Pam Altendorf:** Thank you. **[15:44] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. All right, uh, moving on to the public hearing. Uh, we will open up Resolution 2689, certifying unpaid utility charges to be collected by taxes. So, public hearing is open. If anybody would like to speak about collecting the taxes? Second call for speaking in the public hearing Resolution 2689. Third and final hearing, none. We will close the public hearing. Council, look for approval to Resolution 2689, certifying unpaid utility charges to be collected by taxes. **[16:26] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So moved. **[16:28] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion by Diane. Second? **[16:30] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Second. **[16:31] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Ryan. Any further discussion? Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. That moves us to the consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. Item A: Adjust and correct claims for the accounting period that ended on July 27, 2023. B: Meeting minutes for July 11th, 2023 city council meeting. Item C: Approve the chamber event request. Item D: Resolution 2690, approving conditional use permit for 31265 County 24 Boulevard. Is there anything the council would like to pull down? **[17:15] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** I'll pull down Adjust and Correct Claims. **[17:18] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay, that will become Council business Item E. Anything else from the council? Hearing none, I would take a motion to approve the consent agenda. **[17:28] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** So moved. **[17:30] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Lisa. Do I have a second? **[17:32] Council Member Derek Lindo:** Second. **[17:34] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Derek. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That carries. That moves us on to Council Business Item A: Purchase Agreement for Sandstone Ridge. Jon? **[17:48] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** We have been working diligently with Endris Cannon Falls LLC; it’s um, pair of developers. They're sitting back here—they're sitting back in the back. Their development manager, Mark, will be coming up and and I think Laura is going to get it set up. But uh, we brought this to the Finance Committee. And Sandstone Ridge—everybody knows where Sandstone Ridge is—um, it's been kind of a thorn in Cannon Falls' side for, oh, go on, what, 20-25 years now? We have a—a pair of gentlemen here that are interested in purchasing it. We've been working diligently with them. They're going to provide you with a few slides here. Mark will probably be doing it on what their plans are. I just want to go over the purchase agreement first to say, like we had in the past, the purchase will be for one dollar. Um, one of the caveats that was brought forth in the uh, Finance Committee was that they want a tax abatement on the property of fifty thousand dollars to remove all the old curbing out of the—I would just call it the north half of Sandstone and part of Sandstone Road and—and I believe to take it all out. So when we did some math with uh, our city engineer, it was—it was determined it was approximately fifty thousand dollars. Now, how does it... it would be a city-only tax abatement for 10 years. How does that work? Uh, we would abate uh, the taxes. We got one abatement uh, right now—actually two abatements that we're working on. It would be a city-only 10-year tax abatement for any new homes that are—are built up there. We would collect the—the city-only taxes and abate it back to the developer to cover the cost of the curb removal. Um, other than that, it would be at uh, of course, interest uh, at the time of signing; it does collect interest as we go. So, Diane, you had something? **[20:25] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Well, and I just—is that 5,000 per year or 10,000? **[20:28] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** Okay, so only total. That's—it's—it's like saying, "Okay, we're gonna do an abatement for fifty thousand dollars." When we reach that number plus interest, we're done—whether it's two years, five years, or the end is 10 years. **[20:41] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Okay, thank you. **[20:42] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** Um, and it's all based on the curb removal of the development. So I don't know if Mark wants to come on up and he's gonna... he's got, I don't know, half a dozen slides that he'll—he'll talk to you about what they plan on doing up there. **[20:56] Mark Saucard (Developer Representative):** That's great. Good evening Mayor, members of the council. Again, my name is Mark Saucard; I'm representing the ownership group for the Endris property. With me this evening is Leon Endris and Andrew Endris, a couple of the um, from the owners group. Um, so what I've got up on the screen right now is our concept plan—our rendering of what you'll be seeing soon for a preliminary plat application. And as Mr. [Radermacher] mentioned, we have included the—the City's old Sandstone, or the old Sandstone development that the city currently owns, with this application. Going back to the—that slide, you can see how the Endris property is adjacent to the old Sandstone development. So it made sense, as you're looking at developing the Endris property, to include um, development of—or redevelopment, or remodeling, or bringing it back from death—um, the old Sandstone development. This slide basically just kind of organizes: the city property is the purchase agreement that we've been working on with City staff, and then the rest of that 47 acres is what is currently owned by the Endris property. All right, Endris group. Um, with the development, with our agreement and as we work through a preliminary plat application, this is kind of... we're dialing in a little bit on the old Sandstone development or what's remaining of it. The—the red is where we plan to vacate and then also remove all those streets, and then the blue are the streets which have failed, which our development... we will be removing all those streets and um, and then rebuilding. So the fifty thousand dollars we—we asked for some in addition to the purchase of the property, or taking the property and redeveloping it, we've also asked for some assistance in some of the demolition. And where we landed was, you know, the city would help out with the curb removal; all the asphalt and Class 5 removal will be doing ourselves with the development work. So this kind of shows just a good exhibit of, you know, where that all this needs to get doubled out and rebuilt. Um, just briefly again, we'll be back here soon with our preliminary plat application, but Mr. [Radermacher] asked I just do a real high overview of what the development looks like. Um, so the concept came in and as we looked at this property, as you guys are aware, um, there's a lot of fat clays up here and development is tricky. We've been spending a lot of time with soils engineers and our engineer on how to develop this. And ultimately, this—this street layout basically puts the main street on the top ridge, and then all the building pads are sitting basically with little—very little grading. So we're not doing any big cuts or, more specifically, big fills on this development. So all our footings are—are designed to be on existing soils. Um, so—so as we laid it out, it came about with a, you know, unique variety of homes as we work this out. And that's one of the neat things about this development: that it is going to be a variety of homes in one neighborhood. I'm going to go around; I'll start with the smaller homes that area C. We've got a... this is where the, you know, park was supposed to be built, but it lays out better for a small villa neighborhood here. So this would be your empty-nester, your retirement folks. And then from there we got the B lots, which are 60 to 65-foot wide lots; would be your first-time family lots. And then the—the—the A lots are what... the only thing that will remain from the original plat; we're gonna just rebuild that street and those 80-foot lots around that cul-de-sac would remain. And then the interesting lots are these V lots, which are... we're calling them Bluff Lots. Those are—excited to go with larger lots there, 80 to 90-foot lots. And then again, due to the soil types, um, you know, we laid out other site plans that put more homes in here but we just couldn't get the grade to work. So these ended up with a rather large backyards. So we came up with the concept of doing this rear alley. So not only do you have a 80 or 90-foot lot, you've got an alley running in the back or you can have your own accessory building back there for um, all the toys you like to have down here in Cannon Falls. And then down the hill and then along the county road, we've got some acreage down there. What we'd like to um, you know, are anticipating four estate lots with well and septic. This area is in the city limits, but to get water and sewer down here is—is extremely difficult. So what we'll be asking with the preliminary plat is that a couple of estate lots could be placed down there. And then back up in that F area, again, we're looking at a new number—no, a number of different type of multi-family housing in here, so there's a nice spot right there for an apartment building. So that's what's planned there. And then we've got an active park planned, and then through the wooded area in the hills, we're looking at a passive park with a public—trails through it. So that's a quick overview of the development. Um, Phase 1 of the development will get—hope to get started this year and probably wrap up next year, but Phase 1 does include most of the lots or the lots that the city currently owns. The apartment would be coming soon, but the—the single-family lots and the park is part of the early development plan. So just so you can see how that lays out in timing. And with that, I look forward to seeing you in a couple weeks, but we would appreciate your support on this purchase agreement. Thanks. **[27:26] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Any questions from the council on the purchase agreement? Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, I would take a motion to approve the purchase agreement for Sandstone Ridge. **[27:40] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So moved. **[27:42] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. A second? **[27:44] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Second. **[27:45] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Ryan. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Moves us on to Item B: Purchase Agreement of Riverside Terrace. Jon? **[27:59] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** Part of the 2023 reconstruction project, we had three areas that we needed to purchase for parcels. One of them that we have completed, and one of them that was kind of uh, delayed. We have now come to terms with the landowners and we brought it to the Finance Committee. Um, the purchase is for fifty thousand dollars and now—now we can proceed with putting in our stormwater pond, the river crossing, getting everything cleaned up down below and—and uh, we can do things right now. So what we're looking for is a uh, approval for the purchase agreement. There may be a—a few minor tweaks that, as we work through it... I know uh, Shelley and and Mr. Johnson have been talking actually today. Um, if she's got anything to add, we'll uh... but otherwise, it's fifty thousand dollars for them two parcels where the stormwater pond and the river crossing and—and sanitary sewer and water main—it's—it's all going through there. So um, if you remember, our initial offer was a little bit under 40,000, so they came back at fifty thousand as their final offer, and—and the Finance Committee uh, said, "Okay, uh, we're good." So now it's up to you guys uh, to uh, approve. Got anything, Shelley? **[29:43] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Uh, just on the purchase agreement, uh, we'd ask that this be subject to final review by the City Attorney and City Administrator. This is a form agreement. Um, you know, there's not a lot that we've changed here, but there's been some questions about what form of deed we obtain, and we'll just be looking at that in conjunction with the title work we've obtained to make sure the city is protected against—my goal uh, principally is any unknown, unforeseeable financial burdens that run with this land. So we're just going to make sure that that's all clean. We've got appropriate title work to protect—city title commitment. And then being as this is—you guys know the history—um, the—the seller Riverside Terrace is an LLC. Uh, so there needs to be some documentation from them authorizing the sale that does involve the uncle and the niece and the nephew who don't live here, um, and all three of them are going to have to sign off on that process. We're just working hard to keep it front and center and get them signing off on everything. So those would be sort of those things that have to come back to us; it's not a change to the material terms of the deal. **[30:57] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay. Questions from the council? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve the purchase agreement with Riverside Terrace. **[31:08] Council Member Derek Lindo:** Motion. **[31:10] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** I'll second it. **[31:11] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion by Lindell, second by Jeppesen. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Moves us on to Item C: Resolution 2691, denying development application for the Molnar property. **[31:27] Unidentified Audience Member:** Okay, Mr. Mayor, is this open for comment or no? **[31:30] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** This is—this is not, uh, no. **[31:33] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Mr. Mayor, and in fact, that—that's where we'd start. Uh, we did receive—City received a development application that sought preliminary plat approval and two variances uh, for a development of... it's a subdivision if you will. And this went to the Planning Commission on uh, sorry, July 10th—and I've just had my eyes corrected, so I'm a little bit trying to figure out where I need to sit. Uh, so it did go to the Planning Commission and with that, when a memo that that essentially is in the—the form of this resolution that's been brought before you tonight. Um, the high-level issues with the proposal are that the subdivision is premature, primarily due to a lack of information that was provided by the applicant. As you know, city code subdivision requirements um, require a very detailed list of information including utilities, public streets, things of that nature. Based on the information that we did have, we were not able to determine a lot of whether their submission complies with those requirements, but what we did find is that this—this is a premature subdivision in the sense that there is no provision for a public street; that's primarily the problem. Um, they did seek variances. Um, one of the variances they sought was from the subdivision requirement that all lots have frontage on a public street. They would prefer to rely on a private easement which, if it exists to the extent it exists, that's fine, but it does not—uh, private easement does not a road make, if you will. And there was no provision for paying for that, which is required under our city code. That was issue one. And a variance to a subdivision requirement, under state law, it can be done. Each individual city must provide a process and the standards for granting such variance; again, to a subdivision requirement in their code. We don't do that. So as a matter of law, the Planning Commission could not reasonably recommend approval to you based on that ground. Um, the other variance they sought was from a really more of a zoning requirement which is permissible if the city wanted to consider it. It was to allow uh, change the minimal acreage in the Urban Reserve zone, so that that became sort of a less issue. Because when you're faced with a premature subdivision and an inability to grant the variances that the applicant sought, it became quite clear that the best recommendation was to deny the application. So that's what's before you in the resolution. Um, very detailed findings here to assert the correct legal standards, the city code provisions under which this is being analyzed under. So this would be a final decision from the council, appealable in accordance with the city council—or city code provisions. **[35:12] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Uh, Shelley, the denial uh, that's before us is just for this application. This doesn't mean denial forever; they could come back to the table with a different plan that would follow city code. This is just for this single application. **[35:28] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Yes, Mr. Mayor, and absolutely. There is a timing—uh, they must wait uh, I think it's a period of six months before they can reapply in that. And there was some conversation, and I applaud the Planning Commission for trying to find some different avenues to help them, um, but the—the complete inability to—to address that street issue became the crux of the problem. And so they were stuck with a legal issue in addition to um, the prematurity of it. **[35:58] Unidentified Audience Member:** My only question about the Planning Commission, the Public Works Commission, Police Commission for advisory commissions to the city council... I didn't realize their decisions were final before it ever come to you. **[36:12] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Next—discussion from the council. Any questions they might have for Shelley or about the issue? **[36:26] Council Member Jeff Growth:** I guess I have a question about like putting in a street. Like, how—like what would be the process for any of that to put a street in where they're talking, legally? Like who pays for it? What's—who does the infrastructure? **[36:47] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Great questions, Council Member Growth. And this also was discussed at the Planning Commission level and uh, our city engineer does have some good insights on that as well. Essentially, under city code in terms of the subdivision requirements, um, the applicant has to make plans and demonstrate to the city the costs—that they're going to cover the costs of the street. Um, there's some alternatives in there, um, but ultimately in this case, the cost would have fallen on the developer or the applicant. Um, so that was piece one in terms of the platting and how you create that. Had there been a willingness to do that, we would have worked through the planning process with them uh, so that a street could be planted and then eventually opened uh, as a public right-of-way. To be distinguished between this private easement that the city—or the city as an owner of property has a right to use this easement to drive its vehicles to access. But that's not a public roadway, and that's a very clear distinction by city code. **[38:11] Council Member Jeff Growth:** Okay. Can you just have a house without—I mean, like, I get it if you're out in the country, you know, you live on a gravel road, like you don't have to have a curb, you don't have to have certain things. Um, but that far—I mean, can you do that that close in town? **[38:21] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** We did not get uh, that far along to make that determination. **[38:26] Council Member Jeff Growth:** I mean, because that's technically within the proper city limits, correct? **[38:30] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Right. And there are city code requirements—and we call them performance standards—uh, for public right-of-way. And one of the more concerning is having the proper width, not only just the pavement itself and whether it's gravel, bituminous, but having the proper width and the turnaround. I mean, you're serving a neighborhood now when you subdivide property; uh, it kicks in all of those requirements of how do you provide public services and all necessary public services to a new neighborhood—a more densely developed neighborhood. Even though this was only going to bring in a few more homes, it still fell within the subdivision requirements and then kicked in those street requirements. And to your point, whether gravel would have been permissible or not, again, we didn't get there because it still needed to be public in some form. **[39:27] Council Member Jeff Growth:** Right, okay. **[39:31] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions or discussion from the council? **[39:34] Council Member Laura Kronenberger:** Just for sake of clarification, um, this is... the recommendation is to deny that... [was it] unanimous from the Public Works or Planning Commission, sorry? **[39:51] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Yes. Just—just to respond to that, Council Member Kronenberger—and I think the comment from the audience was a little... uh, I think it was taken in comments versus what the code states... that the Planning Commission did make a recommendation. It was unanimous. It was after a long, lengthy discussion; that is... there will be minutes, it is on the record. Um, so they're recommending to you. Now you, as the governing body of the city, can choose to follow that recommendation. Uh, that would be, as your legal counsel, also my recommendation principally because of that variance. That if you—if you granted that variance from the street requirement, that subdivision requirement, that's subject to legal challenge, and I—I do believe you'd have a very difficult time defending that. So that's just the legal side of it. The rest of the findings I think speak for themselves um, and support the again, recommendation. **[40:53] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Anything else from the council? Hearing none, I would approve a motion to pass Resolution 2691, denying development of the application for the Molnar property. **[41:06] Council Member Diane Johnson:** I so move. **[41:07] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. Do I have a second? **[41:09] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** I'll second it. **[41:10] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Ryan. Any further discussion? All those in favor? [Aye]. Opposed? Carries. That moves us to Item D: Towering Bluffs. Shelley? **[41:25] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, the third item that was before the Planning Commission is a package from Towering Bluffs. Um, this had started late last year before the Planning Commission and a recommendation to approve a um, preliminary plat for a residential—a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Urban Reserve to accommodate a residential development that will be done in phases. Uh, so they've moved forward with Phase 1. Um, I believe is 12 lots, 11 lots, or 20 some lots. Um, and so they—they need to obtain from the city not only the preliminary plat and final plat, they need a rezoning and they also need a Planned Unit Development because they've rezoned to the PUD zoning. So we need to overlay the Planned Unit Development as well. So over the summer, we caught them up to the Planning Commission, the public hearing, and the Planned Unit Development stage of things. So that had completed all the necessary public hearings both for the zoning, the plat, and the PUD. So those were complete as of July 10th, and then what was left then was to bring everything back to the Council in final form with the Planning Commission's recommendation. So what you guys have before you tonight is, uh, as [Jon] has set this up, the first introduction and first reading of... we need an ordinance to rezone, uh, to make sure that we get it into the uh, recommended PUD zoning classification. So that's issue one. Uh, then you need a resolution approving the preliminary plat and the final plat for the development, and then you need a resolution to approve the Planned Unit Development. And within those approvals, I—I set it out like this uh, for clarity purposes. In my mind, I think rezoning, because it requires an ordinance... that you don't—you can do that by motion. You can adopt the uh, the uh, ordinance in the first reading by motion; uh, you don't need a resolution for the rezoning. Uh, that—that would be done, and then the the second reading would come at the next meeting. Uh, I did separate the PUD from the plat, and I think that's the way we're going to move forward with some of these other new developments that you're going to be seeing over the next few months. Because in my view, a plat is really a very surface level—that's—that's subdividing the land itself, preparing for the eventual upward development of residential or apartments or what's going on there. And I think it makes sense to view the plat and the final plat with the development agreement, which has been circulated; uh, it has been reviewed also so by our city engineer. That will be entered into by both the city and the developer as a contractual arrangement. So I tied that to the the plat and then with the PUD process, uh, there is a PUD agreement. Um, it's kind of belt and suspenders in a lot of ways; it's also required by your code. But it—it just... we wanted to make sure that—that everything was tied together. All the approvals are consistent; they're all conditioned on each other. So if tonight... I've recommended a conditional approval of everything—of the two resolutions—so that, you know, if something—something happens and the developer says, "I'm not signing that agreement," either the PUD or the development agreement, that approval is conditioned on that. So, you know, it's all tied together in a complete package. Um, so if there's questions on how we did that or the development itself, uh, some of the other requirements from engineering, we certainly can answer that. **[46:17] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Questions? Comments? We'll start with the first reading. **[46:21] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Can I just have an overall question? Absolutely. Hey, and this kind of goes to all of these plan developments, because they all include like dedicated parkland. And now somewhere in there I read it, you know, whatever these agreements are kind of go with the land. So that—like if [twonsky], who's been doing this for a number of years as we all know, if for some reason he only gets Phase 1 done and then he can't finish it and somebody else takes it, the requirement for the park continues with whoever would be the next developer or whatever? Am I reading that right or not? Because I want to make sure I know the Park District was uh, you know, looking at the parks—that we don't lose our parks if it suddenly goes to three separate developers. **[47:11] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Yes, Council Member Johnson, that's an excellent question, and you are correct. Um, the purpose of the agreements is to record them against the property. And so the development agreement in this case will have the park dedication requirements, um, you know, whether that's shown on the plat and things of that nature, supporting documents. So those will be there and recorded against the property and enforceable against current and future owners. **[47:40] Council Member Diane Johnson:** All right, any other questions? Comments? **[47:43] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** We'll do these just one... the Park Board did approve this park dedication, so they're all on board. Actually, they approved all three of them um, on Monday, I believe it was, so. **[47:53] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Great, they looked them over. Thank you. **[47:57] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay, uh, introduction and first reading of Ordinance 394: Ordinance of the City of Cannon Falls, Minnesota, to amend Cannon Falls Zoning Ordinance by amending a zoning district. Do I have a motion to approve? **[48:15] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** So moved. **[48:17] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Jeppesen. Do I have a second? **[48:19] Council Member Derek Lindo:** Second. **[48:21] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Mr. Lindell. Any further discussion? All those in favor? [Aye]. Opposed? That carries. Resolution 2692, approving Towering Bluffs Planned Unit Development Phase 1. Any questions? I would accept a motion to approve. **[48:42] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So moved. **[48:44] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. Do I have a second? **[48:46] Council Member Laura Kronenberger:** Second. **[48:48] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Laura. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That also carries. Resolution 2693, granting final plat approval for Towering Bluffs First Addition. **[49:05] Council Member Derek Lindo:** So move. **[49:07] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Lindell. Do I have a second? **[49:08] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Second. **[49:10] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Ryan. All those in favor? [Aye]. Opposed? That also carries. That moves us to Item E, which was pulled down: Adjust and Correct Claims. Lisa, you pulled that down. **[49:33] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** [Quest done] that cost us 220 dollars, I think it was. Pointing it out. **[49:40] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Do I have a motion to approve our Adjust and Correct Claims, the accounting period that ended on July 27, 2023? **[49:48] Council Member Diane Johnson:** So moved. **[49:50] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. Do I have a second? **[49:52] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** Second. **[49:54] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Lisa. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That also carries. That gets us to reports. We will start with the Chamber of Commerce, Maggie. **[50:11] Maggie (Chamber of Commerce):** All right, good evening Mayor and Council. Just a couple of quick updates from the Chamber. Last weekend we wrapped up Crazy Days; we had a handful of businesses downtown participate in that. So that was fun to see. We hope to make this an annual—annual event. Um, so if any businesses weren't able to participate this year, they can do so next year. Unfortunately, we had to cancel Fun Fest for our August event; we just didn't have enough vendors sign up. So we're going to... that's actually wraps up the Fun Fest for this year. So we'll meet in the winter and set a good schedule for Fun Fest for 2024. Um, this weekend though, the Car Cruise is happening with the Cannon Cruisers. They are meeting at Artisan Plaza at five; they'll have two food trucks out there, and then they leave at seven for the cruise. Uh, the cruise route is posted on the police Facebook page and ours, but it is Fourth Street, um, right on Mill Street, left on Second, right on 19. And then we are also going to have a couple food trucks now downtown at the—the old Lee Chevrolet lot, hoping the spectators can grab a bite to eat and then watch the cruise. Keep in mind there's other events going on: there's Annie Chileans has Bargo, and then there's a meat raffle at the VFW. So all these events are going on this weekend in downtown Cannon Falls. So that's all I have for you guys. Thank you. **[51:30] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Joint Powers Trail Board—they met on July 25th? **[51:38] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Yeah, it was a brief... um, we did a Zoom and we submitted the grant request for fixing the trail. **[51:48] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Great. Fingers crossed. Uh, the Park Board also met... did not... that was canceled? **[51:57] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** The month of August is canceled, but July 25th they met—no, that's all right—it was a special meeting on Monday because we met and uh, we talked about the three developments that we have and the park dedication. They approved all three: one of them you just talked about tonight, the second one would be the Endris Timber Ridge, and then the third one would be Laura's and the EDA's Hardwood Estates. So, and that's all they had on there. **[52:28] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Great. Uh, Department heads. Jed, anything from Public Works? **[52:33] Public Works Director Jed Petersen:** Um, part of that Park Board meeting, they also approved the Deck the Falls fireworks thinking about winter. Bill, as alluded to, you will be seeing a lot of development applications the next couple Council meetings. Uh, the one construction project... I actually have a couple construction projects but they haven't started. The big one being the first half of the 2023 Street Project, which is the lift station and the drilling the pipeline of the river. Uh, tentative time frame was mid-August, but uh, the contractor's still—still waiting on some equipment delivery, so we don't have a firm date. But uh, ideally that'll start in the next couple weeks. **[53:08] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Perfect. Thank you. Zach? **[53:11] Zach:** I don't have any comments at this time. **[53:14] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Laura? **[53:15] Laura Qualey (Community & Business Development Specialist):** We've got EDA this week and we'll be kind of diving into Hardwood Estates. We do have that coming to Planning Commission on the 14th, so we'll kind of be just reviewing the phases and going over all that. **[53:28] City Administrator Jon Radermacher:** Zach was too timid; I think this council meeting next—next week or next month he'll be more. **[53:35] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** Chief, a couple of things. Thank you, Mayor. First, Maggie already talked about the Cruisers event on Friday. There will be some traffic disruption along 4th Street and—and the other routes as they leave town. I don't think it'll be um, too big of an impact on—on residents, but just be aware. The—the road is on their Facebook page, it was in the Beacon, so it's—it's well-advertised as far as what streets are going to be impacted. Uh, the second thing uh, council, is I received an email from the Sheriff on Friday; this would have been after packets and agenda were put together. He has requested assistance from the police departments within the county for the Goodhue County Fair. As you know, almost all of the agencies in the county have been, you know, working to get their staffing levels back up; the Sheriff's Department is—is still in that process, and so they're finding themselves short of bodies for the fair event. Normally they just handle it with their own staff, but they are unable to this year. However, if you recall when we talked about contracted police services, we set the rates and—and stuff and in the parameters of how we would do that for persons within wishing to contract officers for events for security purposes—that type of thing. Um, we specifically excluded providing assistance to other agencies. If you recall at that time, the—the discussion was, "Well, Prairie Island puts on their concerts and they, you know, want to contract and hire officers to come in there, pay reimbursement back to the—the communities," and we didn't do that. And specifically I said, "Should we receive those requests, I'll bring it to council." So I wasn't comfortable in responding to the—the Sheriff without bringing it to this body. Um, what he's requesting would be... uh, they would reimburse the cities for any overtime costs associated with staffing personnel to that. So while the agenda had already been put together, I did want to bring this to you because it sort of has a timely aspect, being that the fair gets underway August 8th. And if this is something that you would want to extend the um, ability for the officers to work those—those shifts with the fair, I can let the Sheriff know. If it's not, that's fine; I'll let the Sheriff know that as well. **[55:58] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** So they would—Goodhue County would cover—we would invoice Goodhue County for our cost of sending personnel? **[56:06] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** Correct. **[56:07] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Have any officers that would like to pick up the extra hours? **[56:10] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** I haven't even put this out to the officers simply because, without the approval from this body, I wasn't comfortable telling them that it was available. **[56:19] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Do you know what the hours request... how much they're... obviously they're short-staffed. **[56:22] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** They're looking for evenings from 5:00 to 1:00 a.m. for all four nights—or five nights—of the fair. **[56:30] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions from the council? **[56:33] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Do we have enough staff to...? **[56:35] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** We would—we would... I would—I would open it up and it would be the caveat that you don't get the night off here to go work that, right? We take care of our business before we would take care of, you know, somebody else's uh, needs. **[56:49] Council Member Diane Johnson:** I think it's a nice gesture if we have the man—willing to do it and if they cover the cost. **[56:56] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** And they—they want to cover, I have no problem. **[57:00] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Yeah. Uh, do we need action or just a consensus? **[57:04] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** Based—based on the direction from council the last time that I would need their approval to do it, I would request action. **[57:12] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Okay. Any other discussion? Everybody feel okay about it? All right. I'd uh, seek a motion to approve uh, our police officers covering shifts at the Goodhue County Fair. **[57:24] Council Member Diane Johnson:** I shall move. **[57:26] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane. Do I have a second? **[57:27] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** I'll second. **[57:28] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Lisa. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It carries. **[57:33] Police Chief Jeff McCormick:** Thank you, Council. That's all I had. **[57:36] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Shelley, anything you'd like to add? **[57:38] City Attorney Shelley Ryan:** Uh, nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[57:40] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. [Jon]? All right. Sara? **[57:50] City Clerk Sara Peer:** All right. All right. I know I do. Um, I just wanted to let you know that I know a while back there was discussion about the um, getting the minutes and agendas on the city website, and that has happened. So boards and commission agendas and minutes are out there. The minutes are out there if they're approved first, so we won't um, put them out there unless they're approved. So you can find it under the calendar um, and then you can go back to the date of the meeting and just click on that meeting that you're looking for, and it should show up—agenda and then below that, the minutes. If you have any questions, just let me know. Thank you. **[58:38] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Thank you, Sara. Council—we'll start with Laura. **[58:43] Council Member Laura Kronenberger:** I'm good. Thank you. **[58:44] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** All right. Lisa? **[58:46] Council Member Lisa Zimmerman:** Um, I had a community member tell me that I don't ask enough questions. So, if I get my information and I read it and I feel like I understand the material, I probably won't ask questions. But if any community members do have questions, please come talk to me. I will ask for you or I will explain if I understand. But by all means, that's why we're up here: is to be representatives for the city. So ask away y'all. That's it. **[59:15] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** Nope. **[59:17] Council Member Derek Lindo:** All right. **[59:18] Council Member Diane Johnson:** Derek? Oh, Diane. Thank you, Sara. **[59:22] City Clerk Sara Peer:** Oh, Sara—it wasn't just me. I do have to clarify that I know Laura had a hand in it and Ellen did too, so it was a teamwork—a team effort. **[59:32] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Great. Uh, I don't really have anything. Uh, if you're gonna be around, enjoy the uh, Cannon Car—the Cruisers. A lot of cool cars; that's a fun night. Hope for good weather. Uh, tonight is uh, National Night Out or Night to Unite; obviously we're here at the meeting, but I hope that citizens have got a chance to get together and uh, get to know their neighbors and have a fun night out. Um, I think that's all. So with all that said, thank you for coming to the early work session. Thank you for your work on the budget, I appreciate it. Uh, we've got a little ways to go, but good job. Uh, with that I would accept a motion to adjourn. **[1:00:04] Council Member Ryan Jeppesen:** So moved. **[1:00:05] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Jeppesen. **[1:00:06] Council Member Chad Johnson:** Second. **[1:00:07] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Second from Johnson. Those in favor? **[1:00:08] Council Members:** Aye. **[1:00:09] Mayor Matt Montgomery:** Those opposed? We're adjourned.