I'll call to order the April 28th regular meeting of Dayton City Council. Stand for the pledge. >> 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. Need a motion, a second for the agenda. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Any changes? >> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> All those oppos say no. That carries 5 to zero. We are on to close session recaps. Let me get the right. I have to give this summary is required by Minnesota statute section 1305 subdivision 3C3. City council met in a closed session on April 14, 2026. Presidents present at the closed meeting were Mayor Dennis Fischer, council members Scott Salonic, Saran Aton, uh, city minister Zach Dow, assistant city administrator Amy Benting, city engineer Jason Quizberg for the purpose of discussing is that missing a few people? um discussing a potential purchase of property listed at 32-120-22-23-4. Overall conclusion was to continue negotiations. >> Yeah, mayor. Um you did miss cultmber fashion and that thank you. >> Um another closed session took place April 14, 2026. Persons present at the closed meeting were Mayor Dennis Fischer, council member Scott Salana, council member Sarah, city administrator Zach Dow, um assistant sitting as administrator Amy Benting to develop or consider offers or counter offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property P31-120-22-33-00009. Overall conclusion was to continue negotiations All right. Next, we have badge pinning for three firefighters. All right. I have the privilege tonight. Chief Henderson is Hendrickson is out sick, but I have the privilege tonight to pin three pro three probational firefighters from probation to full firefighter. Uh so, can I have uh Chris CR, Mary Hoppy, and JT Bernins up? Stand right there. So, put your right hand up. So, repeat after me. So, I my name >> do solemnly swear to do my duty as a firefighter for the city of Dayton. >> Dolely swear to do my duty as firefighter for the city of Dayton. >> To the best of my ability. >> To the best of my ability. >> To serve my commanding officers with respect and dignity. to serve my training officers with respect and dignity. >> To serve the citizens of the city of Dayton. >> to serve the citizens of the city of Dayton. >> With compassion, courage, and integrity. >> with compassion, courage, and integrity. >> And to uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States. >> Law and the state of Minnesota and the city of Dayton. Minnesota. >> Congratulations. So, quick recap on these three. So, this has been roughly uh about 18 months in the making uh since you started the city of Dayton as Pro Street firefighter. in that time uh trained well over 600 to close to 800 hours total between fire 1, fire 2, hazmat, EMT and FAO uh to get to this point to receive their pinning and also receive their promotion of their helmet. Uh so great thanks to them for their dedication, their selflessness to serve the community, their willingness and dedication to this department, to the other firefighters, and to in general uh continue on with this tradition within the city. So I thank you very very much. Uh if you can go ahead and call up, you're going to have pinu chances. >> It's hard to do that down. I tried I just want to thank everybody, you know, from the city from the fire department, all the citizens that reside here. We thank you for all your time and service and continue on and look forward to seeing you around town. So, thank you very much. All right, we're going to be here till about 10:30, 11. You can all stick around. I will. >> All right, let's move on to consent. I need a motion and a second. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Any discussion? >> I just want to make a comment maybe um about item C, the part-time duty crew firefighters. We were able to verify one of their credentials. Correct. Um Kevin, >> Council Member Henderson, we have reached out. We received confirmation with credentials from four of the six at this point. There's two more left and waiting on credentials, but we should have them very soon. >> Not with the fire board, but with like your individual departments, correct? Or how are we verifying that? >> Well, we see our physical certifications. >> Okay. >> With with expiration dates as well. >> Okay. >> Was that that last column? >> So, the um >> it was just one, but >> yeah, just one all across. Just making sure that before >> uh we move forward that we all have all of those credentials before we start. >> Yep. Councelor Henderson, we will verify if we do not have creds for them, the condition offer will be revoked and we will follow that up with council so that you're aware of that so that council's aware that okay, we might we may not move forward with one of them. Just so you know. Um the last column so I did provide a spreadsheet to the council about um qualifications and certifications. Check the boxes for all that they had. There are five of the six that do not have FAO. Um and they will have to get FAO within a year throughout their probationary period. And then once they're if they do not um receive FAO within the probationary period, they will be relieved of their duties here in Dayton. And then we will inform the council of that as well, just so that you're aware. >> Okay. So that that went on. >> Um yes. So the last column, one of the five works for a community that has FAO as one of their requirements. The other five do not, whether that's their requirements or that they are on not on another department at this time. >> Okay. Do you know what the this maybe we could talk about this offline, but the budget impact? What do we pay for FAO right now? It's I know it's going to be small. I'm just trying to again >> assistant chief really answer that. >> Council member Harrison. I think right now FAO is roughly about $550 per person, but with that that is MBFT reimburseable through the state. So through the state grant and program, uh once they go through a program and they accomplish it and they get their certificate, we then submit that to the state for reimbursement and typically we get all those dollars back. >> Understood. So beyond the cert it's mainly just payroll that's all it cost us. >> So a question for me would be Kevin can these six if they're on duty just say two of them are on duty do they have all the requirements to put out a fire >> council member Lanic? Yes I do. >> Okay. Any other questions on consent? Nobody. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Consent passes. 5 to zero. Now we are on to open forum. Get this. Limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. Um these will be limited to three minutes. Anybody here for open forum? >> Yes. >> Come on forum. Come on forward. Forum away. Form away. >> Hi, I'm Liz Todd. I live 14494 Empire Lane North Dayton. Um I was on vacation. We're part of the Cypress Cove. Um I'm part of the HOA along with my husband Bruce. And we were on vacation. And we got notifications that we have a lot of these going around the neighborhood. One little boy was hit by one of these. There's about five, six kids that ride these on the sidewalks on the streets. Um, one almost hit my grandson last week when he was out. Soccer ball from our backyard went scooting across. They're on the sidewalks and the one of the little boys that were riding the bikes dinged his bell. But if if I hadn't heard that, you know, he would have been hit. And I know City of Dayton posted the laws that Minnesota has set up for bikes. And supposedly I stopped a group of five and I said, "What's going on? You almost hit my grandson. He's eight." Um, these are pretty big, pretty powerful bikes. Um, I don't know what the police department we went and complained what was two weeks ago, three weeks ago, and they said there's nothing we can do about it. Then all of a sudden it got posted that there's age categories, who can ride them, if they should have a helmet on. Um, my concern is we have anywhere from 2 months all the way up and these kids play on the sidewalk in a half culde-sac. And these boys whip around, you know, they ride through my lawn. I'm on a corner lot. Um, is there something that can be done? I mean, they don't wear helmets. A lot of them go very fast at times. They don't always aren't always seeing what's out there as far as the kids playing. Um, I just think this is this has become a dangerous situation. So, I would like to figure out, you know, something that can happen whether um if it gets patrolled more through the police department. We have a lot of We're on um Fernbrook and Empire. Nobody stops at that stop sign. They ram right through it. They drive through the the neighborhood like it's, you know, 40 miles per hour. Um I don't know. I think this is going to be a big issue and I want to present at this meeting to see if something either the city of Dayton comes up with something that says guidelines age. I don't think an 8-year-old should be writing this. I mean, back in the day when I was young, yeah, I could do this. We didn't have these unless you were on a farm, but um these can go up to 25 miles per hour and you've got non-licensed children basically riding these. >> Okay, that's your >> three minutes, but staff will >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else for open forum? Hi guys, Stephanie Carol. I'm from Grandstrom. Um, we here in Dayton, we are in more of an unusual situation because we have someone serving in both Dayton and Champlain. So there's always going to be an understanding overlap in some of the discussions that are brought up in Dayton. It is the council and city I think that it's a council and mayor's best interest to create a welcoming environment and to allow concerns and questions to be discussed. when a council member introduces themsself as a city official and makes statements that is interpreted um as a as a statement made on behalf of the city. And it's my understanding that there are rules in place that require councils to get official authorization in order to speak on behalf of the city. And it's unclear to me whether or not these rules were followed. The pro here's the problem. How does a Dayton council member speak at Champlain's council meeting? How does that help prioritize Dayton's residents? Having our city council speak at Champlain doesn't happen often. So, when it did happen, it's unusual and it's just noticeable. Um, you know, it could be a sign that Champlain was made a priority enough so that a council member spoke in Champlain to give clarification, but not here. Why is that? Dayton is not version two of Champlain. So, I don't want the council involved in another city's business. That takes away the focus on Dayton's priorities. Also, how does it benefit Dayton to have one person serving in two cities? Perhaps it's a person's particular views and experience that is what's beneficial? If so, that at the last EDA meeting, a max levy was suggested to cover um signage with an electric billboard. This electric billboard would benefit a few businesses, no doubt. But how does a max levy on Dayton taxpayers? How does that benefit the city of Dayton or the Dayton the people of Dayton? I mean, will the residents get to vote on whether or not this levy will be put into place? Put Dayton first and let's do what's best for Dayton's people. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> I I kind of want to respond to that to put it to bed. Um, I think what we're going to do, we talked a little bit about this, but >> we're going to try to accumulate these things and then at the next council meeting have some answer. >> Okay. Otherwise, it's going to continually happen. >> I know. >> Yep. >> This is just an opinion. >> It's Yep. >> You don't have to look at Facebook. >> Yeah. Yeah. Mayor and council. So, the mayor did stop by and ask what we could do about these open forum questions um and to respond so that people do know that we are reviewing them. So, they are sent out on my weekly update just for anybody who is watching. They are sent out my weekly update. All the council members do get them. I ask them to respond back to me. If I do get enough response from a um consensus group of the council, I may not always get that, but if I do, I will always respond to the applicant or the person who fills out the form, so at least they know they have been answered. Um the mayor said we should probably do something more formal. And so a response will be if I can get again a consensus from the council and that means at least three of the council members can respond back and and give me direction I will provide that direction to the to the mayor and then we will have a response and the following open forum at the following meeting. So um just want to make clarification for everybody in the audience anybody watching afterwards um for the mayor and I's comments and questions but we can also discuss that and I can also send that out in the weekly update to make sure that that is good with the council in in total. So >> I Oh, I need a question about that. When you say that there will be then a formal response is that the viewpoint of the three that gave you um some sort of direct or that that comes out to them individually and then when there's some sort of formal feedback here is that like a discussion piece or is that hey I heard back from three that this is I'm just wondering like how do you make sure that all five voices and viewpoints because I may not agree with the other three I may you know you know what I mean? I'm just kind of wondering what that looks like. Um, so what I mean by three is if there's a general cons. So it takes three to vote on anything and pass it. So if I get three of the same vision or same direction from three council members, then I will utilize that as the direction of the council because that's a majority of the council. If I get a two and two and don't hear from somebody, then I don't have a direction to give and we're at a stalemate to your to your comment. >> So an easy example is uh Liz's thing with the bikes. Yep. >> If >> if we want to pursue something like that um an ordinance or something >> um and and only two say yeah I want to go that direction then there there will be no action taken >> at the following meeting there'll be no response given unless I get at least three responses from council to get a consensus and I mean consensus as in a a kind of an informal directional item given by the council at a three to it could more too as well. >> Would it not be for sake of transparency better to address all of them that maybe if you didn't get enough response like I believe that happened when we talked about um >> what would the address be? >> We we've already done that though. So, I guess what I'm saying is that we did address that when um I believe it was Stephanie came and talked about the masks and then identifying as federal agents and we said, "Oh, we didn't hear enough response." And that was the Yes, we've talked about it enough. Didn't have a strong feeling about it to move forward. So, I'm saying like is that >> you're just saying give out the fact that we're not going to go further with >> I think so. Otherwise, it just making sure that we haven't forgotten anybody. So, you're like, "Oh, I talked it open from you didn't address my thing." you. >> Oh, it'll be for every item that's on open form at the previous meeting. >> That's what I wanted. >> Yes. Yes. It'll be for every item that's on open form. >> That's what I wanted. So, we're not some kind of loop. >> So, we're closing a loop with individuals that come. >> That was my point. Thank you. It was not a way to maybe clarify that. >> I think it was me. >> Okay. Um All right. >> I apologize. >> It's okay. Name and address. >> Jennifer Ze and I live off Pine View. I gave my full address on the form. Um, I'm here tonight to address how a citizen was treated during the open form at the last council meeting as well as seek clarification on an issue that still remains unclear. During that meeting, a citizen asked about council member Salonic's statements at the Champlain City Council meeting. Specifically, the question was whether or not he was speaking in official capacity on behalf of the city of Dayton. I also watched the video of the Champlain meeting and I was also unclear if Mr. Slanic was speaking in an official capacity. In his remarks, he used both I and we statements and said, quote, "I don't see it as being a big issue." End quote. This made it unclear whether he was speaking personally or in an official role representing Dayton. That confusion was not resolved when the question was raised in the last city council meeting. Instead, the response given to the resident felt dismissive and did not provide clarification. When a resident asks a direct and reasonable question, they deserve a clear and respectful answer. Additionally, uh, Mayor Fischer, you commented, "This is Champlain business." Quote, it ra that raised further questions because if it is indeed Champlain business, then why was a Dayton city council member speaking at that meeting and in what capacity? Um, I and other residents also have broader concerns about Mr. Hutner serving in leadership roles in both Dayton and Champlain. Because there is a legal de definition of conflict of interest, many residents are looking for opinions, not opinions, but for a clear legal guidance. And with that in mind, I would like to formally request that the city attorney issue a written opinion on whether Mr. Hutner's roles on the Champlain City Council and the Dayton EVA constitute a conflict of interest. And finally, I would ask that council member council members remember that residents come forward with questions in good faith. Clear and respectful communication helps build trust and ensures that all citizens feel heard and represented. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Hello, mayor, council members. Uh, Lisa Senkll, uh, 121st in Fernbrook. I am just wondering, I hadn't heard back on any of my, um, questions from the last council meeting, and I was wondering if if there's a time frame, um, that you guys had for or do you want me to repeat the questions I had or >> um, >> I would I was not here. Oh, okay. Sorry. >> I'm so sorry. >> No, I don't want to put you on the spot. >> Yeah. No, no. Okay. Um, >> they were about the flat cameras, right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. >> I can go back and rewatch it again, too. And that >> it was just about the budget. Um, what's who's going to pay for it if it goes outside that $21,000 budget? Um, the leasing cuz it's leased equipment. Who pays for it? If there's, you know, um, like the long-term. So, there was Yeah, I think I had like maybe five or six questions. So, I was wondering if there was going to be a time frame. >> I haven't heard back yet. That again comes back to this policy thing that you want to get started, right? >> Correct. >> Oh, okay. So, like what you guys were talking about earlier. So then you'll talk about it at the >> next c next. >> Okay. All right. Perfect. Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Open forum. Anybody online for open forum? >> So, anyone who wants to speak in open forum online if you could use the raise your hand function. >> I think we need to change that video. >> I forget about it every time. My brain sees. Yeah, whatever. Apologize. >> Are we good? No. What else we're opening for him? >> All right, we will move on to staff consultant council updates. Zack >> may council. I'll keep it short and sweet. I am out the rest of the week at a conference. So, if you need to get a hold of me, please call me. Um, you may email me as well, but I may be a little slower to respond. Um, but otherwise, Amy's in charge while I'm out, and I hope you all have a great weekend. So, thank you very much. Pretty >> pretty Amy. Um, elections seem far away but yet fast approaching. So, just as a reminder, candidate filing opens May 19th and it closes June 2nd. Uh, so you'll see publish notice and all the fun things coming. >> Can you remind us of what positions will be open? >> Um, the mayor's seat and then two council member seats. >> Yep. >> Marty, uh, mayor and council have a few items tonight. Um start off with the wellhead treatment plant. It's producing water that is going into the distribution system now. So we are live to a degree. Um well two is still being used to supplement. We are working on on um all the chemical uh feed uh balance and and uh various scenarios uh that we need to have in place for the the skater system. Um so that's going very well. Um it should uh in the next couple of weeks it should be free to run on its own. Um so that's all good. Um the adopt a road program that we started uh last after the last council meeting we have five segments available at the moment. There was a total of 15. So there's five left to uh be picked up. The details are on the website. Um, so if people want to go there and look at that um and and respond to me, then we will get them on the the list for this Saturday. Um, we've had a couple of u water issues over the last two weeks. Um, there was a a water mane uh service line break over in Nature's Crossing. Um, that was caused by the acidic soils they have over there. Uh the fitting that secures the service line to the main line has metal strips and and bolts on it. They deteriorated and corroded and the saddle came away from the water man causing the water to come out. Um we got a contractor out there and got that fixed. That was last Thursday. Um last Wednesday night we had um a power power surge at wellhouse one um which knocked out a couple of uh uh cards on the skater system. Uh the two cards with controllers for the chemical feed at well three. Um luckily we would just be able to run on well well one until we got that repaired the next day. Um >> are they on a UPS? Are they on a filtered power system? >> No. Then that's just a standalone system down there. >> Okay. So, um the generator did kick on and then it kicked off again very shortly after that. So, I don't know between the two things there was some kind of a surge um and it took out two of these cards. Um oh, and then a second water line break um we had about a week ago now. Um that was on the raw water line from well five. Um that line has been in for probably 2 years now. Um it's never been you know fully pressurized with the water in the in the system. It was pressure tested with air air pressure for a period of time. Um when we put the well five online to the wellhead treatment plant um that continuous pressure um caused a leak. When we uh opened up the the ground to find out what it was, there was a 6ft length of uh pipe that um it was pulled in um by on the on the boring system and it must have caught a rock or something because it scarred uh this 6ft length. Um it didn't go all the way through it, but it was enough to make when the pressure was there, it just burst it open. >> So weed were very good about it. It's out out of their warranty, but they still came out and fixed it. Um, standing behind their product, so that was good. Um, the Elsie Stevens, shower, I'm still waiting for a revised quote from Polygon. Um, I did get a optimum size from MSA. Um, I'm hoping that I will get that revised quote in the next day or two and then we can go forward and get the uh, engineer drawings um, sign uh, sorted out for that. um season employees. Um we've advertised that we have had nine applications currently. So it's that's uh the biggest number that we've had in a few years. So that was good. And then the community event specialists, I think we've got 23 >> 28 maybe. >> Oh, is it up that far now? >> 28 um applicants for that position. So we'll be working our way through those over the next couple of weeks. And that's all I have. Marty that you say the treatment plant is is effectively ready to go online. Is it so we need well five to come up in order to be treated and when is that >> it's already done? >> Oh, it is okay. Five is already online. >> Yeah, it's on there. Um it's all linked in and that's why we had to replace that uh raw water line break there and that's how we found out. And so, >> so when is this going to be fully filtering? >> Fully filtering probably within I would say 2 weeks max. It'll be on on and off, but we'll still be supporting with world two. Um, because we want to build it up to its full capacity. Um, and don't want to shock the system. We're putting just fresh water in in there. Um, so we just want to transition period. >> Okay, cool. G. >> Mayor, members of the council, uh just heads up, this Saturday, May 2nd, starting at roughly 8 a.m., we're doing a training burn at the Yansy property, uh Date River Road in Lndale. Uh we'll have trucks there. I'll have signs going out for traffic signs here probably tomorrow or Thursday just to notify traffic. Uh there will be nothing blocking Dayton River Roads. There shouldn't be any obstructions on River Road. Uh but just so everybody's aware of that. Uh, also, uh, maintenance. We had some maintenance on engine 21 here this last week. Uh, we had a brake drum, uh, blowout, a opticon replacement, and then an air leak. Uh, all that's been repaired. The truck remained in service the whole time. Uh, very quick service, quick repair from EAM. Uh, but just know that on the May 12th payment of claims, you'll see some repairs on there. Uh, don't know the exact amount yet. Uh, but more likely it'll be on the May 12th payment of claims. Uh last thing we just got uh uh notified today from the Minnesota State Fire Chief Association. So each year we work with Dayton Elementary to do fire prevention week at the elementary school. And then with that they have a theme each year for fire prevention for the kids to create posters. We then send those in to the state fire chiefs and then from that time they select the top three from each grade. Uh and then from there they win prizes. So, in our first grade, uh, from Dayton Elementary, one of the first graders took second place in the state out of 116 posters for that grade. So, I'll be working with Miss Miss Whipler, Principal Whipler over at Dayton Elementary here next week to uh, get that back to the student and let them know that. >> Cool. Great. Thank you, Chief. >> Evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, just to let you know, we hosted a joint training with other agencies on building clearing last week. um that was held at a house in AIO. I guess it went very well and well perceived by all the officers. Second of all, as you noticed um you probably noticed more officers doing traffic lately. Um with our minimums of two, if we do have an extra car on um they concentrate strictly on traffic enforcement. So we have two call takers and one traffic car. So um we're running that when we have extra shifts. And with that we have seen a increase in uh driving while intoxicated arrests in the past month. So we ask that all the residents um that choose to go out drinking find a sober ride home for the safety of all of us. Thank you. >> No Jason. >> No updates. >> No update Scott. Uh, Marty, not sure not sure how much of this you got done, but to have South Diamond Lake Road all crack sealed by the 1 of May is awesome. >> Yep. >> I don't know what else you've got done, but I travel to South Diamond all the time, so I know that that is completely crack sealed. >> Yeah, >> nice job. Commend the guys. >> Uh, let's see. And as far as the uh the road cleanup, the routes, has anybody doubled up or have you assigned all those already? >> Uh on the the the routes? Yeah. Uh like I said, um out of 15, uh 10 of them have been assigned and there's five left to be assigned and there's two people who have um >> wanted uh routes that were already assigned. So, um I sent them what the remaining routes were and they haven't responded just yet, but >> good >> I got nothing. I'm just trying to get to the end of the semester. So, >> I have nothing. >> Uh nothing from me. >> I have one thing. >> Um I guess I just it's a a request for some information and maybe a discussion. Um, we had a a data request came in um about what we've paid for employee events and um I am also curious and I would like to have a bigger discussion on that. Um I I would like to see back to 2020 what we've paid for specific department events. Um council I know we budget for council food when we have work sessions um department lunches all of that. I would like to know what we've spent on those things. Um, and what we budget for that. Um, I'm all for like employee appreciation and like showing people that they matter and I like a good cookie or snack and when you know Amy's mom makes me a chocolate cake is really great too. Um, but I think we have to also remember that while when you're swiping your card it's not coming out of your bank account, it's coming out of our bank account. Um, and so I guess I just again want to be transparent with what we have spent and then maybe looking at our policy sur like centered around that and um, what is the appropriate amount of money that we should be putting in that pocket or that bucket. >> Sure. Can you just clarify it on an email? That'd be great. Just so I have it in a spot that I can follow up with, Customer Henderson, just because I want to make sure that I'm getting exactly what you're looking for and then we can have a a meeting at the next on May 12th sounds like a fine meeting. It should be shouldn't be that hard to grab. Do we have enough people that want to talk about that? >> I mean, I brought it up last time. So, >> did you I was not here the number is >> I mean I I think I will respond to that data request to everybody. >> Um I I did not respond today, but I am working on it and I definitely will respond to everyone that was on the email, not just the individual who requested it. >> I appreciate that. I just think that, you know, for the citizens also to know for transparency. Um, I'd like to see the last total 5 years just so we can look at, you know, where that has gone, where it's been, has it been consistent, is it, you know, how many more employees do we have? Like, is it go like are they going together? Are we spending more? Like, just fine with me. But again, I just want to make sure that we are make like we are being um diligent about what we're spending money on. >> You're not looking for receipts. So, just a balance. No, no. It should be on all of the like should be documented that this was an employee appreciation. I don't need the receipt for any of that. >> The data request was asking for receipts. I think >> I don't >> I don't remember the language. Maybe it was just for a verification. >> Yeah. And that's why I asked you to follow up with an email that because I'm trying to I just want to make sure I'm getting exactly what you're looking for and not trying to either get more or less or whatever. >> I don't need a receipt. I just would like to know a dollar amount. I trust you. >> Sure. Sounds good. >> I think that's all I have. Oh, no. I lied. Unintentional. Uh, date cleanup days. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> It's Saturday. >> Exact. I was waiting for that was a Marty thing. I don't know who was supposed to say it, but it's coming up. Time to get rid of all your junk. The stuff your neighbors have been staring at that they want you to get rid of. Like, perfect time. >> Or your spouse wants. >> Don't come to my house. But, uh, yeah, it's a great time to get rid of stuff and relatively cheap, much cheaper than going to the dump. Um, so take advantage. And citywide garage sales are also coming up in June. >> June. Yeah. >> I mean, you got to get ready now. >> Yeah. >> So, just shameless plug for some city things. >> Thank you. >> And I we are actually working on an interactive map for the citywide garage sale so that we'll actually bring you to where the garage sale is in the Dayton app. >> Oh, that sounds. Yeah. >> Very cool. >> That That's all I have. >> Okay. Then we are on to uh new business item H concept plan. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh as a con so this is an concept plan for optitin. Um concept plan is a very high level review. Uh does not include the same detail that you would expect out of a preliminary plan or a site plan review. Uh the idea is that each council member will provide their opinions and recommendations. There's no formal action, no approval, no denial. Um you can have one council member that has an opinion, a second council member that has the opposite opinion and it's up to the applicant to figure out what does that mean. Okay. Um this project, uh again, opponent is the applicant for it. Uh they're have a concept plan for 172,000 square foot industrial building. Uh this is located on a vacant property on off of 121st uh avenue um just east of uh the Dayton Mobile Home Park. Uh the project will require a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the land, a zoning map amendment, a preliminary final plan, and site plan review. And I'll go through what each of these are. Uh the first one with with the comprehensive plan amendment is is to reggu it from oh my uh line's off a little bit. Reguide the property from existing mobile home park to an industrial. And with each of these I'm going to ask questions of the council. So the first question is is what is the highest and best use of this property? Is it as a mobile home park or as industrial? >> You want us to answer right now? Yes. >> Um my vote is um I think it should be more mobile not mobile homes but affordable homes. Um I think there's mobile homes get um sometimes uh people have feelings about them that I don't think are accurate to the reality. Um and the reality is we need things like this in our city. Um there's already an existing mobile mobile home park right here. Um, so that's in my opinion I think I would I would like it to stay that way and I would like to expand it personally. Um, you in the packet you brought up we the comprehensive plan and the Met Council requires that we have a certain amount of affordable housing >> or percentage. >> The Met Council requires us to ha to create an environment where affordable housing can be built. We're not required to provide affordable housing, but not to prohibit it from being built. >> And this to me, it seems like a location where that can happen without um cuz not trying to when it happens in other places, we get a lot of people who come in and don't want it in their backyard. Um and this is a place where it already exists. And so the the amount of barriers to having it here is is lower, I would say, than if we tried to make this doable in other parts of the community. I think there would be um more push back and more hurdles. Um and this is a place where it can happen probably the easiest I guess I would say. Um and so with that in mind, I would like to keep it as a as the ability to be a mobile home park. >> I just had a clarifying question. I didn't mean to almost cut you off. Sarah, >> can you define affordable housing? >> No. >> So I guess yeah, like what does the Met Council mess is? >> Yeah, there's a there's an amount. It's $36,500 is the definition of affordable housing >> a month. >> No, a year like the cost of um cost of an affordable home by Met Council standards is $36,500. That is the >> the definition officially by Met Council for affordable housing, >> which I think I think is we had this conversation with the community survey that was discussed at the last council meeting. One of the questions was affordable housing. We removed it because we asked for starter homes which was 300,000 affordable housing at 36,500. They felt like the same question from the council. There was direction to remove it. That's the only reason I know. But great question. >> Oh, I'm sorry. When you get an affordable rental housing, there there is a scale. It depends on how many bedrooms and and how large the family is. You know, it's different if it's a single uh one person living in a unit versus a family of four. I think the only way we're ever going to get there by that definition is apartments. >> Yes, I agree with you. >> Um, and again, just asking clarifying questions because I want to make sure I have all of the information. There is a percentage of Dayton that has to be a number of units that need to be affordable like what is that measured on and by? >> I'm not sorry. >> I can give you a detailed answer. So, I'd rather give you a detailed answer than an assumption. I'm just wondering are we are we close? >> I don't think there are requirements on that. >> We just have to have some ambiguous. We just can't prohibit it, >> right? To make it available. >> I think it I think it goes a little more specific than that. And that's kind of goes to my question too is that for the 2040 plan that we're living on today use this area as um potentially area for meeting the requirement for affordable housing. So if we are going to reszone that to something else do are we then required to uh replicate that that amount of space somewhere else in the city and where would that be? That is exactly what I >> asked a very high level question to that by the our Met council representative and the answer is we're we're in good shape. >> So I don't know how close we are to >> and in that plan I don't know that we because this was originally industrial. So when we moved it to >> whenever the classification was >> um I don't know that that required I don't think we did we amend I think we just provided a zoning change right >> um >> either way >> comp plan I think showed it as industrial >> I think you're correct >> I don't remember what it was in 2022 when when the comp plan adopted >> it was industrial. >> Okay. >> Um in fact it was changed to >> uh is the classification mobile home. Is it specifically >> residential mobile home? >> Residential home that was that was not long ago. Um that was like four years ago I want to say. >> So mayor members of council it is officially reszoned. It has been zoned as mobile home district. The only reason I clarify that and then for everybody in the audience and watching is that the actual zoning and directed land use can be very confusing for individuals. So I want to make sure that when we're talking about things the actual physical zoning is mobile home district. So it has it is going to be anything else. It needs to be reszoned. Sometimes when things are egg it can be anything as long as it meets the direction of land use. So that why it can be a little confusing for even though I wanted to clarify that yet it is officially reszoned to mobile home district. >> That was in 2021. >> Um and as far as you know highest and best use versus what we would like to see there I think there's a difference there. Um because to me um it here's my problem with residential there. You're going to have industry on three sides of this thing. Um, and I mean we we we know what kind of problems we have when we have industry on one side of things. So I and and the fact that it sounds like there's no market for it right now. Um, however, it does and planning commission kind of conveyed this too. It does irk me that we that we would have a an industrial activity this close to homes. And I and I don't know how we resolve that other than I I I don't know. I'm at the same loss that the I think the planning commission was at is you almost need a fairly significant buffer >> between those um I mean this this mess was was concocted you know 12 years ago or 10 years ago when we when we kind of made this whole area industrial and right in the middle of it sits a uh residential area. So I highest and best use I'd say is industrial, but I I don't I I don't know how we make those compatible. >> I tend to agree. It used to be industrial. You have the uh owner that no longer says mobile home is feasible and wants out. Um, I don't see a problem with the industrial part of it. >> We can all have different opinions. >> No, I agree. I just This is like a half um baked idea or like thought, but >> there's no easy answer here. >> No, there there is not an easy answer. But I think I land a little closer to where Sarah is, where to me, affordable housing is not an apartment building dressed to the nines with EV charging underneath that rents for $3,000 for a studio apartment. Like, and I don't know where else you're going to have truly affordable, I hate that word, affordable housing somewhere else in Dayton. like I don't think that you're going to get another um mobile home park that's going to pop up um over here, you know, I don't think you're going to get that. And I think that if again we need to have all levels of um housing and I'm just I guess at this point not in a position to say that in industrial again not the right area like it's it's a not well placed spot. Um, but if it's going to be somewhere, it's going to be less barriers to have it here than somewhere else. So, I think that that I don't know that I have an appetite to change it right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I don't know what to do with it either. I mean, I think we we got here because the the area was industrial. The previous owner of the mobile home park also owned this property and had intended to to expand the mobile home park. I think I don't know if that went to final plat or how far it got, but there it went through the zoning change at any rate and then the then they sold, right? And the new owner apparently did not want this bare land. They just wanted the existing mobile home park and so that there now it sits with a different owner or the original owner who has no intention of of developing it that way and if there was a market for it they would probably be here. Um how do you how do you make this work? It's surrounded by industrial land. So >> whether whether we were to make this change or not, it's still surrounded by industrial land. And so I don't think I don't think we fix it. But, you know, where can we go with um with buffering it to make it as as livable as possible? I think planning commission brought up a number of things like parking lot lighting and that that kind of stuff. Um hours of operation would be interesting to know about uh as well. Is this a, you know, intended to be, I know it's a spec deal, but it's is it intended to be 24-hour kind of operation or is it, you know, 7 to six kind of thing. Um, I don't have those answers, but this is going to be a hard one to to fix. I also, you know, I think that we need more affordable housing. You know, what that means seems a bit different to everybody. I mean, I guess there's definitions there, but for me personally, I don't think new houses are affordable, no matter how small you build them. Um, so there has to be a better answer than that if we're going to get anywhere on that issue. And to me, that's that's our existing stock of homes and and how we support residents um rehabilitating or just keeping them up so that they are still available as starter homes. So, I've gone around in a whole circle. I don't know what to do with this. >> I I had hoped it was going to be mobile home park. I guess that was my original >> vision around. >> Yes, it does alarm me that if it's more palatable as a as not a mobile home park. I wonder what that says about the financial pressure on the mobile home park to stay a mobile home park. But I I don't know. >> Can you ask how long the mo the park has been there? This residential area. long time >> ever since. So it was here first in the industry and so it was here and then you all were like yeah let's surround you with industrial >> I >> well >> okay just clear I wanted to clarify >> we'll have an answer before the end of this discussion I just don't know what it is off the >> top I just I I was not here then so that's why I wanted to clarify this order >> yeah it's probably 60 plus years >> okay so they've been here all along >> I'm guessing somebody in the back could probably Mhm. >> Um >> okay. Go ahead, Joe. >> Okay. Uh so the second item is to amend the zoning map um from mobile home resident residential mobile home to industrial. I I don't don't have any questions on this. Um with the preliminary final plaid in the site plan review, this is kind of a together. Um the question is is there anything on this concept plan any changes that you would recommend that would make this a better project? Um I'll say u there's different variation. This project has kind of evolved since the beginning. So that we're on kind of I'm going to say phase three or design three. Um the plan commission made a number of recommendations. Oppedin had kind of revised their plan based on those recommendations. So, um the building is still the same size and still same location. Um there is a uh kind of a burm landscape burm that's along the western property line. Um the driveway comes down off of 121st back into uh this is the kind of the passenger vehicle parking lot and then the trailer uh parking lot. Um the trailer uh parking stalls has been reduced and it's also planned that these would not be built unless it's needed. So this is essentially proof of parking. Um there is a substantial buffer. Um I want and I'll have the applicant correct me. I believe it's 75 ft to the uh edge of the asphalt or the driveway and about 120 ft to the uh building or the edge of the building. Um this is kind of a complex property because of the number of wetlands here. There are also a couple of ditches. Um one of them on the south ditch I I believe is under the um the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers. So it's likely that that cannot be um altered. Um and then we have elevation drawings or a rendering of what the building would look like and then elevations of the building itself. So my question for the council um and you can treat this different ways is is there anything that would make this a better project from both the site plan review and then also the the architecture itself. Well, I guess from this I'm not architecture. I'm not that's not my deal. But as far as the site plan, I mean, you you have this original issue. I mean, the whole the whole issue with this thing is the residency the the the proximity to residents. So, you know, I don't know if anything can be adjusted there. Um, I know the planning commission had suggested um thinning out some of the activity on the on the west side, but I'm I'm more inclined to think that, you know, every every single landscaping requirement we have should be on the west side, every tree, every bush. >> Um, >> I'm sorry. I've got Oh, thank you. I don't know how you make this thing. I mean, we had we had a similar issue with, you know, the property on on uh uh next to the next to Rainry there. Um >> it was a threetory going into next to a bunch of homes. Uh like I said, I I we we're dealt a number of historical cards here and and the fact of the matter is this area is surrounded by industry and you know even if we yeah I don't know >> I'm for reducing the uh parking stalls to make more room if that works. the truck stalls or the >> Well, currently there no passenger cars. >> Our code requires 86 and right now there's 140 proposed, which theoretically means you could technically cut 80 55 of them out of there. Whether that helps make any more room. Um I I don't believe it would make more room for trailer parking. No, no, I'm not talking for trailer parking. We don't need They don't need any specifically. >> Yeah. >> Does it give more room for uh getting it farther away from the trailer park? I see. >> Oh, to slide the whole building over. You still have to have a road there. >> Yeah. >> But all right. >> I mean, yeah. As as much space as much buffer as we can give between um this and the residential area. Uh and as much landscaping. I agree. like as much landscaping we can get as much you know whether it's fencing landscaping burm a combination of all of the above um a smaller building also there's the wetlands um if the if this is the direction it goes then yes I want to prioritize I mean the the reality is these residents were here first and then people made decisions to surround them by this and then and yes we're stuck we're stuck in this current situation so let's minimize the damage cuz I I mean, I'm looking at the MTL property just south of it. They are, I mean, right up next to it with almost no buffer. Um, that's not okay. And like, come on now. Um, so I do not want to copy and paste that situation to the north. Um, so cuz here it is. If you put it on the the most recent um updates, they're right up on them. Um, so as much buffer, as much buffer as we can get would be my preference. And if that means shrinking the building and eliminating parking stalls, you know, whatever it is to minimize that footprint. >> Do we have the authority to shrink the building? >> Well, council plan, you could tell them whatever you'd like. >> No, right now. I mean like when it comes forward >> do we have do we have the authority >> to say >> I I'm going to say within reason the the idea is to provide an adequate buffer you need to define what what is adequate that means a little bit of gray area um but generally in the code it it's a combination of birming landscaping and fencing um it's not going to stop noise it's you're still going to see 13t tall trailers above a 6ft fence But that goes back into the use and like minimizing, you know, a 24/7 versus not and how much say can we have in that? And that's one of the one of the struggles with the speculative building versus a here is someone we want to build this building for this reason. That's a lot easier to say, oh, okay, that is at least we can minimize. >> Yeah, but we can't >> they could change that to your >> Well, yeah, exactly. So even that um but it goes to Stephanie to your point though if we don't change the zoning >> then it's not happening. >> I guess that's what I'm saying like in that >> Yes sir. That's exactly what I'm saying. Like if we say no we're not changing the zoning this whole thing dies right now or down whatever if we want to keep going down this road it dies. But if we say, "Okay, so this, you know, really large, we want it to be small." Like, how much authority do we have to say? The building's way too big. If you shrunk it down and you shifted it over, done deal. Add some more trees, throw it all on the west side, and like we move forward. >> Sure. So, as a permitted use, so and I'm, you know, there's you I could be wrong here. So, we allow 80% impervious surface area. you know, there's a certain minimum parking that's required and all that. >> However, that 80% is filled. It's kind of up to the applicant. So, they're proposing 172,000 foot building. We can't require that be reduced to 150. >> Okay. Then, I don't have any appetite to to change the zoning. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just It's a huge building buted right up against people's homes. And I don't like you said there no matter no amount of we put a fence here or I put a shrub in or is going to change the fact that they're going to hear that see that and I just again like I'm a mom. I think of my four kids and I wouldn't want them to stare at that either. Um >> but if you do let's say you put homes in there now they have industry on three sides of them. So, is that I mean, you're worried about the one side I understand what you're saying. Um, but >> it's a turd no matter what. Listen, sorry, that was probably not apologies. It I'm just going to be honest. It It is like there's there's no way to come out ahead in the situation. >> Um, >> we're trying to minimize >> We're trying to minimize it. And again, like the building is huge and it's too close for my comfort. And so even if it ends up being mobile home park down the road, then I guess it does. Um, and it's on three sid >> or a different project that is >> or a different project that is fits better on this space being up against people's homes. Like that's my thing. Like I maybe this just isn't for me the right building to be there. So, is it because of the the wetland and the core of engineers ditch that the the trailer parking can't um like mirror the MTL? >> Oh, and I'm going to have to defer to Jason who's more knowledgeable about that than I am. >> Well, certainly more limitations. The ditch is the jurisdiction of the Army Corps which really limits what can be done for impacts to that. So difficult to do what M it would be more restrictive than that and then wetlands had an additional challenge. >> When you say difficult to do the build like what would have to change in order to make that doable. >> Um I don't know if the permit could be acquired to do I think there's a certain percentage or a certain length that can be altered of the ditch but it's pretty limited. Okay. >> Um, so I I guess just an obstacle to work around. So what would need to happen is an alteration to the proposed site plan, which what's shown here is avoiding it altogether. So from the standpoint of the ditch restrictions, this accommodates it. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? I don't think so. You know, it would be I mean, this is what's being proposed. You know, it it just I just hope for a more compatible use. I would say that doesn't involve, you know, 100 trailers being parked. >> Yep. >> Around. And, you know, my assumption is that's where the market is is for these kind of warehouses. But it is this doesn't seem the right location for that. >> But I' I'd like to remind that the city council's job is not to ensure that property owners make as much money as possible. The city council's job is to ensure that our city for all of our residents, current and future, have the best city that they can have. We are not obligated to the property owners. We are obligated to the entire city. >> This is true. >> I guess I I have one more comment in that same vein too. like the highest and best use. Like I I don't like that phrasing because highest and best use isn't always monetary. It's not always what brings the city the most taxes. It's not always what >> um like Sarah said, it's a holistic approach and is that the highest and best use for everyone? And this is not in my opinion. >> Subjective subjective to interpretation. Um, but to me personally, this is not the highest and best use. >> If it was, say it was, I mean, this probably makes it not feasible, but if the building was half the size and it was on the one side, would it then be >> I would I would have more of an appetite to have the discussion. I still am a little bit like on the fence as far as having again that whole affordable. There's all of these big buzzwords that don't necessarily mean what we all think that they do. And so like that affordable housing and I say in air quotes very strongly. Um that's still going to be an issue for me, but I would have more of an appetite to say, yeah, okay, like I could I could be talked around it if the building was not the size the building is or if there wasn't all of these trailers, right? I'm guessing that the only thing affordable that could go in here that would meet the criteria would be either um manufactured homes or apartments. And it sounds like there's no market for the former. So would a big honking five four or five story apartment be better >> than that? >> Than this? I know we've heard from other residents, not so much. >> So, >> yeah. Are you going to be able to sell that? >> Yeah, >> you got the same problem. I mean, you're going to put an apartment building right in the middle of uh industrial. >> So, I I apartment building >> and maybe not the one with the EV chargers underneath and the >> Well, that's what residents >> billion dollar price tag. That's what the market is. >> Well, I understand that. I >> we can't dictate the market or what's going to sell or you know and again it's all based on the market and I'm sure there is there is well I'm not sure I know there was a market for big industrial buildings like this and I get that. I just >> it's too big. >> It's too big and this is a turd not your business but this is a turd situation no matter which way you put it. I have to stop saying that David. Um, and I just it's not I don't feel good about moving in this direction. And then I will stop saying turn. Mayor, mayor and members of council, there's a specific reason why staff uses highest and best use. It's not because we want to put it in monetary. It's because of the exact thing that you just mentioned, customer Henderson, is because highest and best use doesn't always mean monitored everybody, which is why we continue to use that that saying is for the exact reason what you just stated is because highest and best use for one person might be monetary. Highest and best use for somebody else might be architectural and how the fit looks like and what the neighboring properties do. So that's why we use highest and best use and not specifically call it highest and best monetary or highest and best um um architectural or visual. We always used highest and best and that's it as a question mark because that is it is different for every person and that's exactly why. So I think it's a great point. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Mayor, we do have the applicants that would like to speak to and just for clarity so and I failed to to discuss this. So MTL is to the south of the property. We have Invent. Uh that's an industrial um warehouse that's to the north. Uh this is industrial zone that is currently marketed for sale and then also an industrially zoned property that um council previously approved a small manufacturing firm or company to locate there. >> Anybody have any more questions for staff? >> Applicant want to come forward? I do have a resident that wants to speak as >> Okay. Name and address. >> Ryan Durant, 400 Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. Jmore, 400 Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. Um, on here today to speak on behalf of the applicant. Um, John, are you able to go back to our first site plan for the site? >> Oh, um, in a very I don't think so. Um, no. I I have it in the staff packets, but I don't have it as a slide. >> The one where? >> I'm sorry. This is the the second version that was presented to the planning commission. And then this is the current version. >> So, our initial plan, which is not shown here, but sounds like you all have in your packets that obviously would have been the most um impactful on the residents to the west. Uh, additionally, our wetland delineation revealed a number of wetlands on the site, uh, which we then presented to the TP and they voiced concerns regarding the impacts of those specifically along the southern edge of the property and wetland two to the south east southwest, excuse me, of the property, wetland 2. In response to those concerns, we reduced the size of the building and shifted its orientation. That plan fully avoided impacting wetland to the southern waterway that flows across the bottom of the parcel and removes the need to eliminate the large number of mature trees that currently are present in that area. Uh when we presented the second plan on the top up there to planning commission, numerous residents came out voicing concerns regarding our building's proximity to their property. Uh the main concern was noise originating from our property that would impact them. In response to these concerns, the building was further shifted to the east to accommodate a fully landscaped burm containing evergreen trees to reduce noise and sight pollution. Um, we can prepare a rendering of that for the staff if that would be helpful and and city council. Um, in addition to that burm, which will be, you know, 10 ft tall with trees on top of it, fully blocking any sight lines from the west to the east, we will also have a sound uh mitigating fence that can be up to 12 ft tall. uh that will line from the entrance to the property down and all the way along the southern border of the property. Um we're placing it as close as we can to where truck traffic would be in an effort to fully mitigate sound, you know, as best as possible. Additionally, the concern was raised similar to council member Salonic regarding the truck parking on the southern part of the property. I'd like to reiterate that will not be constructed unless absolutely necessary for a tenant. It will be left vacant. Um, as you'll see by the design, there's, like he noted, a number of office and car parking stalls. The intent is for this to operate from 9:00 to 5:00. It will not be 24/7 like MTL to the south. There will not be numerous truck trailers visible and heard throughout the middle of the night. Um, we're looking to eliminate that fully. Um, you know, both of these shifts have been made to accommodate what we think in our interpretation is the highest and best use. Like was stated previous previously in 2021 it was reszoned from industrial to mobile home park but unfortunately since that time it has proven unfeasible to be pursued in that capacity. We have received numerous um requests for more information regarding this building and we believe that this would be successful for this use and would be a higher and better use than as currently sits a vacant property. Um we thank you for for your input and if you have any further questions we'd be happy to answer those right now. And I just want to acknowledge it's no one in this space is responsible for the weird mess that we're all in. We're just trying to find a solution that to move forward in the best way possible. >> Council member, you have totally understand. >> Y >> um one question for city staff would be what is the code setback minimum >> uh for buildings? >> Yeah, >> I don't want to misquote it. I believe it's 30 ft >> and it I know it was discussed and I don't know where where we landed and it came up when it was the rain plaza with the whatever it was if there is when we have residential up against whatever does that change like do we have different setbacks in those particular circumstances and if not should we I don't think we should buffer so and it it's >> it's intended to be flexible based on the the site Right. So above >> if there's a hill or not, that makes a difference. >> And council member, to answer your question, 30 is the minimum. We have 120 ft. Right. So we're we're attempting our best to to accommodate with the parcel that we have and under our control to set it back as as far as possible. Again, understand that the burm doesn't change how far the building is. But if it if it's 10 ft tall with with trees on top of it, a sound mitigating fence, again, in the best of our our ability, we're we're trying to accommodate for everybody here. Compromise for all parties. And if I could, Andrew, could you hand out your uh materials? Uh we have our architect and civil engineer here from Arco. They printed out some further visuals and uh pieces of information I think that might be helpful if we do that. And >> just as this is going around, the slide that I've got on the screen is recommendations from the EDA and the planning commission. Uh so just in summary, EDA's opinion was the highest investigation was industrial. uh planning commission that the majority of the commission believe is um highest best use is industrial. There is some opposition to having industrial next to residential. Um other recommendations. Thank you. Uh we're increasing the buffer both uh the I'm going to say the type and the quality of landscaping as well as the distance between uh residential and industrial. Mayor and council, one thing I did not touch on, we had a phototric study uh completed to address the concern regarding glow from parking lot lights. There's some complicated numbers in there. Essentially, what it what it represents, and I'm happy to have our architect and civil engineer come up here to explain further, no light is visible from the west from the way that the lights are oriented and given the vegetation and the the fence and the burm, there will be no light visible at night to the residents based on the study that was conducted. And this is more for I think clarity for everybody. I think I think when we hear industrial different people have different ideas of what that means. So what what are you thinking of when you say this is industrial? What kind of businesses are you expecting would want to be here? >> Uh council member, we have a member of our proposed leasing team here. He might be able to better answer that question. >> My name is My name is John Roush. I'm uh with Kushman in Wakefield. I actually used to own this property at one point as well, so we got a little bit of history with it. Um I I'll answer his question first if you don't mind. But this this building is going to be very similar to ENB or something further to the north. This is not an MTL sort of building. We'd call it a flex building is what the terminology I would use. It's not a heavy industrial I1 use. We are not looking to do that. Um, there's no market for that for people that are going to lease them out. It's going to be a speculative building and it's got to be very classy. We got to be the image that Rogers and Sego and Maple Grove and everybody else have um in order to make this thing successful. So, um, you're not going to have dumpsters and trailers and things clinging and clanging out back. I want you to I want you to know that. >> Um, it just economically it it won't work. Uh secondly, I'm here on behalf of Brian Fitter. I'm selling this property for Brian. He's the guy that used to own the mobile home park. Um he bought this public record for I think $140,000 is what he paid for this land. So it it wasn't much. It's about the same as farmland in the in the area. Um he's in the business of making mobile home parks and it's not viable for him today. And he's very good at it. He's got a lot of these around the country. He would have done it if if possible. We have other land in the area. I've heard people at, you know, just talk about apartments. The apartments today want to be quite amenized. They need walkability to retail. There's going to be a lot of kids and playground and things like that. This is not a good apartment site. I've been doing this for 25 years, sold thousands of units of apartment land. It It's not for that in my opinion today. Um, uh, I don't know what other questions you guys might have, but I do have a little history and I know the market a little bit, so I'm glad to answer anything if there's anything else. >> Any questions from that standpoint, members of the council? >> I appreciate the additional context. >> Yeah. So, I just want to also reiterate that this site from a from a design standpoint, and Ryan touched on it a little bit, is there there are a lot of wetlands and some streams on this site, whether it's industrial or residential. Everyone that touches this property is going to have to deal with that and deal with the TP. And so, we're on our third version here where we do impact some wetlands, but it's minimized greatly. And so let's just say this did turn into a a town home townhouse development for example. There are tons and tons of wetlands and prohibitants on this site to make the economic town home project viable. So we think that we have, you know, a very sound project. We've moved the building away as far as possible. One thing that we heard from the residents last time we were here earlier this month is we like the trees. We like the wilderness aspect. We like the animals, specifically the opossums and the deer that hang out in the back here. Our project basically is leaving half of this land undisturbed with the natural vegetation that's there today. So all these trees in the spring and fall are going to shield the m majority of that building from just natural vegetation and the walkability that still exists. We're not fencing the perimeter like MTL, the project to the south. That's completely different. We also heard that there's noise. Every resident hears noise at 3:00 in the morning. You know, that's that's not going to be because of this project. It's already what has been approved and what's in the area specifically MTL because that's 247 365 operation. You know what we're proposing and and John talked about it is this is called office warehouse where there are people that come every single day to an office in the front third of this office building. Very nice buildouts, very nice jobs, quality businesses. I would I would say an example is the Turbine Pros building off of Dayton Parkway there. That building is a similar type quality, similar construction, similar type tenant. That those people come in the morning and leave at night. No semis, no trucks. It's a daytime operation. So, there are a lot of businesses that want to locate in the Northwest. And Dayton is a prime hub for industrial space. It's called industrial. That's just the zoning terminology, but this is more office warehouse. That's why I wanted clarification on that because we've seen lots of things that are all under that same name of industrial but feel and look very >> and we do sympathize with the residents and the noise but if if we drew out of this area and looked at the amount of res industrial buildings that are in with close proximity within a half mile I've counted 13 buildings. So there's already noise there. There's already commerce here. We're just trying to fulfill a need and use this land that's been vacant for a very long time with a pretty we think sound plan. We also have uh Melissa Barrett in the audience to talk about wetlands if you are interested in hearing about that topic. >> Can I just make a comment to kind of echo what Sarah said? All of that context is very helpful. Um especially having the analogy of like a like and same or what you're envisioning will be here cuz when you first look at this and you see all of those um stalls in the back, it's looks a lot like a 24/7. We're coming in and out. This is um like the heavier industrial than maybe what you're intending. >> Um I appreciate your lovely picture. Um, the lighting is also very helpful. So, I guess this is like like gold star of above and beyond of, hey, we looked at all of this and I'm not doing that to toot your horn. It's this is the kind of stuff that we need to know before. So, again, when we look at this, we're like, um, it looks sometimes different than having all of the context. Um, I do have one other comment. knew that somewhere in the packet there was a number of units for affordable housing. >> It is in the packet. I know I had seen it. Um and so again, like maybe this is more of a question for like us, but in the 2050 comp plan, we're required to plan for 487 affordable units and 154 of those have to be at or below 30% of the average median income. So if not here where if we're not planning which again we all know that the plan is not always what actually is going to happen >> we have to plan but >> where is my question because I don't know where else and I think maybe that's part of my hang-up as well. So, but again, another you're right here. Thank you for the clarification for this because this is really helpful. >> Um, pretty much anywhere we have high density guided now. >> We're just assuming that those are going to be something that some average person like myself could actually afford to live in. >> No, we're not assuming that. We just say that this is where the high density area is. But but your assumption in there then is that all high density would be affordable which is >> not mine. >> No. >> So then that does not meet those requirements. >> Affordable is going to meet the currently built. >> Yeah. Our the Met council's requirement for us is that we create um I'll say the zoning where higher density can occur that it could be affordable housing. It doesn't have to be. Um, so okay. The >> the answer to this is really going to come out with the 2050 comprehensive plan in a couple years. Um, I'm anticipating that somewhere in Dayton, we're we're probably revisit the city center again where it's I think it's more likely going to be a higher density area >> and those will still not be affordable. But we're playing the Met Council game. We're playing the the public game of we know they will never actually be, but we're going to say that they are, which is the kind of stuff that drives people. >> But we can't mandate the price. We can't mandate, but you know damn well there won't be a fork. Sorry, I said I've said all kinds. >> But all we can do is say here's where the high density goes. That's >> But you are more likely to have it here, actually have it here than you are there. And I I don't know if you're going to convince me and that's okay. We don't have to agree. >> I don't disagree with you. I mean, obviously, if the if the property could put could put manufact and bailed on it. So, I I mean, that would I don't know that would get us out of the pickle, though, because you still have industry on three sides of that. So I >> So you're saying >> because when I look at this building just from a picture, I'm I'm seeing a >> 16-hour a day warehouse trucks come and go, but you're saying you're not you're not marketing it that way. It's hard for me to get my arms around spec buildings in general that, >> you know, could be anybody. >> Sure, council member. We're happy to follow up with examples of businesses that operate that we we would anticipate this operating similar to if that would help the council. So, is anybody comfortable with some terms added to the DA that that states that? >> I don't think we can >> because I mean these guys are going out of their way to I mean our our uh setback is 30 ft. They're giving us 120. >> Yeah, the setback thing even if we did have a setback between industry and housing, my guess is this would still meet it. C could I offer just one more maybe uh suggestion is as I heard you mayor talk about >> you know whatever landscaping is required put it all on the west I mean we would be willing you know there's a specific tree ordinance in the city there are a number of trees that have to come down here I don't know if there's any way we could maybe trade or barter for a tree fee in lie of planting twice as much landscape or mature spruce and pine trees on that burm so they're all day one. That would be something I think we could absolutely work towards if that's a goal of the city. >> Maybe that helps at least for me to to get back to Scott's point. Um is there any way to put any language in the DA that is binding for what goes into that? I don't know how you do that, but >> Well, um the the DA would be associated with the plat. Does this property have to be platted? >> Yes. >> Um generally, um the zoning and the setback type of things wouldn't be in here, but uh we could identify tree preservation, landscaping, >> right? >> Um buffers and things like that in the in the development agreement. But like if we did a different zoning like could we if we had a zoning that wasn't indust like like if we had >> but we don't we don't what you're trying to do is you're trying to use a cup a conditional use permit type usage where this would be allowed on this property if you follow XYZ requirements and I don't think you could do that with this property with usage if they're looking to do a full reszoning. Although I'm willing to look into it and follow up, John, and I will take a look and see if that's something that we can do um and follow up with the council, but I don't believe you could put a CUP in use if they're going to do a full reszoning. And that's that's my understanding of the high level. >> Um yeah, so I guess the question that I anticipate the council asking is can there be a restriction that it cannot be a 24-hour day operation in the DA? >> Well, that's a land use restriction. >> Yep. And if it's going to be zoned industrial, then they would have to comply with the industrial zone. >> And mayor call this would be a permitted use within that industrial district. So then we're not at a CUP type level. >> So that's what I'm wondering like is there another zoning that we could do that wasn't necessarily industrial, but that we could then do a cup on. So that like >> Yeah. Um so since it has to be reszoned anyway, right? Like if we're going to reszone it anyway, if there's a different zoning that we already have in the city that can meet their needs, meet, you know, meet everyone's needs. >> Sure. Yeah. We we have a business park zoning. I'm thinking of this business park we could utilize. That's its own thing. >> Okay. We had Yeah, I think we had industrial in there as permitted use, but I thought there was further requirements on it. >> I mean, that's exactly what we want. >> Yeah, there's restrictions. So, and and I I don't have the this part of the code memorized. So essentially it encourages more manufacturing versus where versus distribution businesses. Um I don't know it sounds like that would work for the model. Um but that does restrict uh the types of uses or tenants that you can have. >> But that might be a middle that might be a way forward. And I'm not sure what we had in there for like hours of operation or I I didn't I'm surprised if we put anything in there for that but might be >> um I don't I don't believe we have a restriction on that. >> I mean it's worth looking right if that's if that's what >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, mayor runs council, it wouldn't necessarily be hours of usage, but what we would look to try to do is if we could make >> a type of zoning work that would be allow this type of building within a cup usage and then you would approve both the reszoning and the cup with the hours of usage that you're looking to do and that would also suffice for the for the applicant. So, um that's how we would have to make that work in order to do that. But the only thing that a different commercial district or business district would do would allow different setbacks or different types of usage was on the property, but would not dictate hours of use. Um, unless we did it through SCUP. So, city staff will follow back up with the mining council and then obviously work with the applicant to let you guys know. >> If I could talk about two more things and I promise I'm done. Uh, Council Member Salonic, you you talked about reducing your parking. You know, since we do not know who's who's potentially going to show up, you know, that might be a heavy office uh build out with a lot of employees. So, parking is is key to preserve so we're not underparked. >> You know, and it's uh those stalls are 18 ft long. So, we've been removing 18 ft. It's in the percentage- wise it's it's pretty negligent compared to the distance, but we we really tried to focus on getting the setback on that western side as far away from the residents as possible. So, that's key to preserving the integrity of the building and the parking. Um, and then in the staff report, uh, uh, John, you had mentioned that you would like to see, uh, staff recommends pushing the building back to stay out of wetland 5. We have Melissa Barrett here from Shellhog. She's a wetland uh, scientist. And we do have slides in the in the back of the uh presentation here, but I don't want to speak for Melissa, but her view of wetland 5 is not really a wetland. It's incidental. And so for the integrity of keeping the building as far forward as possible, we would like to if this can gain support, keep building in its current location. >> At this point, you have to do wetland mitigation no matter what, right? >> That's correct. So, I mean, >> they will tell us if it's a wet land or not. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> But the goal as we sit here today is, as John mentioned in the first minute, is do we have enough comfort and support from city staff to to spend the money and to go through the six-month process with with the core and with the TB and get a ruling and then come back in front of this body. So, it's a long process. >> Yep. >> Yep. If I can just add on to that. So, to be fair to the applicant, it I would say it would not be fair for them to go throughout this whole process and then be denied. So, um just generally a quick no is better than a a slow one with the combination of the buildings. I I I'm kind of a Well, I'll just say no for now. >> Yeah, I will provide >> until we get more information. >> I'll provide I I just discovered that the business commercial districts and both industrial districts that we have um I am not able to find anything that would um allow us to do a cup process without this being a permitted use, which would not be able to limit hours of use just by a quick review of our cups. Um the only thing we do have, we do have cups available in the industrial districts. However, it's over 300,000 ft of a building. This is only 172,000 and so it doesn't meet that requirement. So, there's nothing they're able to do for hours of operation. Different setbacks and stuff we can mostly do, but hours of operation would not be able to be something we can adjust. >> So, question about a speculative building. Um, do you plan to maintain ownership and rent it out or is the plan to sell it to someone who wants to buy it from you? You're just buying, you know what I mean? Like, who's the long-term owner, you guys or someone else? >> We are. We rent it to 10. >> Yep. >> Yeah. But you maintain ownership. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Today. >> Today. Well, yes. But there but there are some people who build speculative with the intention of selling, right? Like we're going to build it with the hope to sell it. And your bu your current plan is to build it and rent it. So I'm on the fence, which is not helpful for you guys at all. I'm sorry. Um, but I'm kind of with the um, if this is what's happening, I do like the effort and attention you've put into the the burm and the trees and the fencing and all that and I really appreciate that and the shift of the building. Um, but yeah, I I'm on the fence. I'm sorry that's not helpful at all for you. Um, >> I'm on the fence leaning towards no. Let's say a 55% no, 45% yes. >> Where you at? >> I think I can get there. >> Um, >> go ahead. you know, it I think you you've heard loud and clear that we we are concerned about the mobile home park next to this building and that um you know, all of the things that you're you're suggesting um would need to be done to make this attractive enough to me to vote yes. I also like what you're saying about the the type of user. Um, you know, not that I'm holding anything against MTL, but we don't need another one of those that the u the manufacturing distribution kind of thing where distribution is not the core business, you know, that makes a lot more sense to me to try sort of soften the blow of what this space would do to the area. Are are you saying you want to see you what would you want to see to get you to a yes that's kind of where I'm struggling right now as I see it I don't like what I see but really because that area this area right here >> mayor what area is that >> the area right next to the >> corner of the building northwest I'm sorry >> right next to the residence >> the closest proximity corner to the residence. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So for mayor for you it would be just a smaller building. >> Well a smaller impact. I don't know how you get there. Um you you could have a smaller building. you could have. Again, I don't know what what it would look like to to move all that landscaping to a a BM between the the areas. Um I don't agree that uh BMS and and screening don't work. I think they do work to some extent. Um I mean, if I if I looked at this rendering, I'd say that's that's pretty good. Um, I'd like to see a little more, you know, of the uh conifers on the on the burm, but um, and I don't know what to do about the hours operation. That's another worms, too. So, does it help or is it feasible? I know it's not desired. Is it feasible to take 50 feet off of that uh northwest corner? >> I know. I know that's dollars. >> Do you Scott, >> that certainly helps one issue? >> You mean snipping the corner similar to how it is on the >> other corner on the other side? >> So there's a snipped corner here. Are you talking about sniff corner or just shortening the building? Well, you could snip the corner. That would that would fix it. >> You have to snip the corner. I was originally talking just shortening up the building, but snipping the corner would make more economical sense. That's Noman right there. We got a solution. Think we're about to lose that. Does that help anybody? We're beating this thing to death. So, >> yeah, >> I think that corner is the, you know, is the problematic end of the building, you know, whether the building got smaller or that this is where I struggle with. We're, you know, we're trying to design your building and that's none of us are experts at that. And >> well, you're either going to design, you're either going to help them design the whole plot or you're going to tell them no. Which one's worse? >> There's that. Um the corner of the building that's that's clipped the it's called the south corner there is that I assume that's kind of a function an office sort of um entrance area to the building. No, that's entirely lost square footage, but it's it's needed because we're preserving the ditch, that blue line that's there. We're preserving that existing ditch way waterway. And so >> in order to get the truck or not the the vehicle lane through there for full circulation, fire department included that's needed to notch that building like that. It's not it's not ideal, but that's what was happening there. >> Yeah, the it's got the corner. I I I guess I'm more concerned about, you know, the excess parking of the the stalls not far from the residents. >> We we can eliminate that entirely. >> Oh, that's that extra proof of parking. Would you what you call it, John? >> Uh yes. So, >> yeah, the additional storage for trailers is what you're talking about. >> The future future trailer parking stalls. Yeah, that can be eliminated and then more natural trees will remain intact >> as another natural buffer. >> That helps. >> The biggest question is is is anybody willing to work it, make it work out and say that now or are you just going to burn the building? Not directly burning. I think it's workable. And then to me it it it fits the uh the area. It puts something there that likely won't have anything there for the next 20 years. >> Yeah. I would like to reiterate what what John Ralph said. You know, from the amenity side, there's no parks, there's no sidewalks, there's there's no play areas. How do you get to walkability for shopping, for groceries, things like that? I think this is not an ideal area for amenities and you look at what already exists and has been built in and around that area, it makes a lot of sense. This is why we're here in front of an industrial park. >> That's right. That's exactly right. I think eliminating that future trailer parking from the plan that that helps me quite a bit. Um, and it at least visually makes it um I think more more um pointed toward a different kind of use user than somebody with 150 trucks and and places to put those. >> Yes. I mean the typical user that comes in here the building elevation that John you put this up earlier I think we have 14 dock doors behind this building maybe 5 10 trips per dock bay per per day during business hours. It's not It's nothing like what's adjacent to us with 24/7 365 trucks. >> Dennis, is that corner that northwest corner is still an issue? >> No, I don't know that that it is going to fix anything. Plus, it it Yeah, I don't think that fixes. The parking to me is significantly better. I mean, you're removing those that parking along >> the the trailer parking >> the the the future trailer parking stalls the plus. >> Yeah. Because that also is going to wipe out a boatload of trees. >> I I I think I think that can move me over. >> So then it sounds like you have three S's. Do you guys move? >> Yeah. >> So far? >> Yeah. >> Guess we'll have to see what uh >> two and I'm fence. Where are you at, Stephanie? Are you still a solid no or are you on the fence? >> I am a no. Not because of anything you've presented. Not because of all of the work you've, you know, done cuz it's I appreciate all of that and all the clarification. And I just don't like the idea of saying we're going to put something somewhere knowing that it's never going to actually happen. And if it's going to happen, I understand there's no market for it, but at least it has a spot. So, it's something to do with you guys, nothing to do with your project. Um, >> are there no other residential spots targeted or zoned in the city that could be or annexed in the future >> for high density? I don't think that solves our problem because we're never going to get highdensity homes that even I could afford to live in. The ones that we have coming in are astronomical. They are built to the nines and we're not going to have a place in Dayton that is actually affordable. Um so if it's going to be somewhere, this would be the spot where it would be. And if we're just going to plug it in somewhere else knowing that it's not actually going to be affordable or it doesn't have the possibility of being affordable, I'm just I don't like >> What would be it be? If you could wave a wand, what would you put here? >> It would probably be a mobile. It would it would be and I understand there's no market for that or would be different town homes. It would be something that is actually attainable for people who aren't going to live in the bougie apartments that we just, you know, we've been working on for the last year and a half. Like, >> but even even new town homes, they're coming in at >> 4 400. >> Yes, I understand that. But I'm saying >> you're not going to make a a new current built house affordable. >> Agreed. But then maybe nothing will ever go there. I don't know. That's not mine me to say. But if you're going to have it somewhere, this is where it's going to end up going because no one else is going to want it anywhere else. And you're taking that possibility off the table >> permanently. >> Permanently. >> You are you 18. Did you say something? >> No. Yeah, mayor council. I don't think we need to argue back and forth. >> I'm not a little confrontational. I apologize. I could have been a better >> It's not going to happen for me. And again, I really appreciate everything. I just again if it's going to be somewhere, it's going to be here. It's going to be nowhere, but at least it has a spot where it would be more feasible or if it has a chance to happen, this is where it's going to be. It's not going to be in our city center. Um it's just not >> No. Anything affordable in this city is going to be something that's been built for the last 50 years. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> That's not even affordable anymore. >> According to this definition, is that what you >> Yeah. I'm So I'm I'm >> Yeah. coach. I think he's got I can leave enough direction. So, I appreciate the conversation. >> Thank you. >> Um, one last question and um Jo put did a great job of putting together about 90 years of history and there's a question of when did the mobile home park start. Um, >> 1964. >> Yep. 1964ish. >> That's not the actual answer. >> You're off by yours. uh somewhere between 1953 and 1964. >> That's a big gap. >> Well, that's at least back to 62. >> Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. Go ahead. Ask the questioning that the gentleman that's >> got to state your name for Alyssa Senis 121st in Fernbrook. um the gentleman that's selling that property, would he be able to give a amount of homes that would be able to go on that property if it was kept a mobile home park? Um, is that something that I'm just I'm just wondering. Um, I am all in favor of keeping it the zone, the mobile home park, just because there's there is no other areas for that, but I'm wondering with the wetlands and everything, how many additional homes would be would actually be able to go in there if it was mobile homes on the >> buyer? That's a great question. >> So, the 2021 plan was for 65 additional question. 21. >> How many are in the current park? >> Oh, 247. >> 24. >> Yeah. So, the answer was 247. >> So, does that meet the requirement? >> Uh 65 doesn't get us to the 400. >> So, we still need more. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's okay. That's all I needed. >> That's all I need. Yep. >> John, that Brian Fitter, John Roush, um previously up here, but Brian Fitterer, he did present a plan to you. I think it was >> 2021. Yes. >> Um, that plan's not feasible due to the fees. So, we got trees. We got to knock down a bunch of trees and and butternuts, which I think are like $2,000 a piece >> and wetlands and so forth. So, um, it was millions of dollars, I think, for the wetland, the trees, and the fees to be able to put a mobile home park back there. So, it's economically infeasible to do it right there. But Stephanie, maybe sometime offline um town homes I think may be one of the solutions that you've kind of been maybe going towards. I mean the portable it's a medium density project 6 to8 so maybe at some point in the future. Um glad to have a discussion with you or the staff or anybody else about about that as an affordable product that the city might be interested in. >> Roll homes. And then you got to take town home. See, they'll either start at more than that's what they're going to. Yeah, I we're going to beat this up all multiple different types of you know 6 to 12 unit to acre density town homes that you know a lot of lot of people are interested in building today. >> Yeah. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> And just for reference for anyone that's listening who doesn't know what to Tom this is Tom Dean's project for DCM farms that's currently under construction. Yeah, >> as includes Ro Holmes or Tom Holmes. >> Go ahead. >> Not that I want to keep you here all night for a history lesson. Keith Grover in Fernburg. Um, the best of my recollection that mobile home court was built in like 1960. And the reason I know that because in 1962 when my parents moved to Dayton, we lived in that mobile home court and we lived on York Avenue and all these folks that are here concerned about this project lived on. When I moved into that court, there were two well three streets actually. There was Auburn and Burns. first two coming up from the south and York on the on the very east side that most of these folks live on that you know that borders this project that we're talking about. I have a have a lot of issues but um we've talked about this before and you guys talked about it some tonight. We have an obligation to the people that live in the city and people live in residential areas not to be sticking commercial projects in their backyard. We have an opportunity to have zoning so that we have some kind of a decent buffer. Now, whether that's 150 ft or 200 ft or whatever it is, I don't have the magic number, but I know that we shouldn't be sticking these kinds of activities in people's backyards. Now, I know these folks are telling us that that's not the project that they want to put in there. That's something that's noisy, that's 247. we can change the parking. But yet in the next breath I I hear everybody say, "Well, we really can't demand that that's what goes on in the future." I could tell you that that's not what I want to go in there. I can't tell you that two years from now, I will own that project or that building. I can't I can't tell you what kind of project is going to be or what kind of businesses are going to be in there. The next guy that goes in there might want semi-parking in the back and the next thing he's going to want is a bigger parking lot. And can we at that time tell him no, we can't have a bigger parking lot. If we zone it industrial like they're asking for, you can't tell them no, right? Because it fits the zoning that we have. So, this is a really a slippery slope that I see us putting ourselves in that even we can jump through hoops and jump through windows and do all we want to make it sound like it's really cool up front, but a year from now or two years from now, it could be a whole different thing that we're looking at and we won't have any control over it then because we will have we will have zoned it industrial and then they follow the rules from our for our industrial park. what we did to the folks on the south end of York Avenue, which is where I lived when I was in grade school long time ago. I think it's horrible. You know, I'm not looking at you guys and saying you guys did it cuz I don't even know that any of you were were even involved in this. I know most of you weren't. You weren't even here then. You were probably still back in high school when some of that was going on. what we allowed to have happen in those folks's residential backyard is horrible. And I just don't want to see that happen again. All the years that I've been coming to to meetings, both planning commission and city council meetings, I've never had a meeting that was more well attended over this one issue from folks that live in that residential area that are that's adjacent or very closely adjacent to this project that's going on. I understand why the why the the folks that that own it want to sell it and want to figure out something to do with it, but I don't know that it's our responsibility to destroy the livelihoods or the the quality of life of the people in the residential area that's adjacent to that. You get all the people that live on York that's all across the street from York, you know, that's 25 or 30 feet in of street there. Those people are all adjacent to that, too. We won't have a parking lot in the back. We won't have lighting in the back. I you know I was born at night but not last night. Okay, I know that that's what's going to happen. That's my opinion that that's what's going to happen in the future. The uh the water issue with the the uh you know the swamp land and stuff or what the fancy name they call it nowadays. I mean, every piece of water that we're looking at on that map, all of those ponds are all man-made. Those were not there when I was a kid. Okay. The only waterway that that still is there and it still exists is the one on the south end of the property that they had pointed out that ran from almost from York through into onto this property from the adjacent property that we let the trucking company built on that ran across there and ran all the way around and all the way back on the same path that it is now. and it dumped into French Lake. I guess I don't see I don't see us in the future not having truck parking in the back there. If that's what the person that rents from thinks they need for their business, I think that's what you're going to see. Um I already mentioned the light. I think if they think they need light back there, if they have truck parking back there, they're going to want lights for security. It's going to happen. We don't have any ordinances against that to my knowledge. We don't have any rules uh regarding hours of operation. Again, I hear what the applicant says. That's not, you know, that's not the the niche that they're trying to work this building into. But they don't know who they're going to rent to. They don't know who's going to be there this year or next year or the year after that. Maybe that person that's there thinks they need to run two shifts in their operation in order to make this work. Maybe they think they need to have trucks in their back to make the operation work. I think there's just too many things up in the air that if you change the rules here and and and uh reszone this to industrial that it opens up a can of worms that it's not what these folks are looking for in their backyard in their residential backyard. I just it I just whole thing just kind of hits me personally because when I was a kid I lived there. I know how important that is. where this trucking outfit is now would have been in the backyard from when I lived there. When we lived there, what was behind us was initially pasture, which this property that that they're looking at now was part of that same pasture. and the 40 acres directly behind us that's all developed all the way to French Lake Road that the garbage guys are on and that these these this other trucking outfit is on that u you know that we gave permission here years back to build on that all was pasture and it got turned into um eggplowed field we were we didn't like the fact that it got turned from a woods into a plowed field but then we turned around and we put industrial in people's backyards I just think we we just got to do better in the future. I'm sorry. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Come on. My name is John Waldron. I'm a resident of the Dayton Mobile Home Park. Um, just want to point out quick that where I reside is that lower lower left corner where MTL is at and they put in that BM with the trees and the privacy fence just sheet metal. It don't work. And the lights right through my bedroom window. I'm literally right down there in that corner. That's me. Um, and you know how they're talking about the position and the angle of this building and everything. Well, I was here here for the the uh um meeting a few weeks back when they were proposing this. And one of the things that they're not mentioning here tonight is the fact that the reason why they want to put it that way is so they can have the view of the lake. Well, what about the property before that in front of that? That was brought up too in a concern. Well, what's going to happen to that view of the lake when someone buys that piece of property and puts a building or a warehouse right there? You know, it's just and and then one of the other guys on the on the on the board up here uh during that, you know, admitted what they did with MTL going in there was wrong, but the damage is done, so we might as well move ahead. I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. It It really doesn't. And it just even the construction it's going to take is going to affect the community again all over again. We've been we've been impacted by so many things over the last five years with it the the ownership changing hands three times within the last five years. And you know, we're still dealing with our new owners, Haven Park, and infrastructure issues. In fact, our water is going to be shut off again tomorrow to repair another water line. This happens constantly. Uh getting back to the fact of the proposed site of an additional mobile home park in that area, I honestly I that's the only thing I could see that would feasibly make sense because this park needs where where we're at now. Something needs to be done with that community and the infrastructure for residents to be able to continue living there and some sort of a quality of life. and and we we but I guess that's up for a different subject and topic at a different time. But just even with their proposal of a burm and the trees and stuff like that there, it it's not going to make a difference. We're just it's just going to add to more more havoc that we're dealing with and that's Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, guess we can move on. >> The hand went down. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, Mayor C. We We're not looking for action at all, but they give us Okay. Item I >> Thank you. M council. Um in front of you is the consideration of the personal policy update. City staff worked with the um HR consultant um to be able to update this. We did take the language that was suggested by Council Henderson, tried to put it in there and um adjust it as best we can. Again, the HR consultant kind of ran through the process. Um, this is related to a couple of personal policy updates that we've been had to work on. I think it was a month ago, maybe a month and a half ago now. And um, bring you back for your consideration. >> Um, I stand for any questions and or we have our >> I just have a typo that we I mentioned that I wanted to clarify. So, this is on it's page 64 of the packet, page 29 of the policy. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, under the and it's the red additional language for the extended leave without pay. For any employee that requests time off not covered under an existing policy or provision, the city council may grant up to a maximum of one year. It I I think the word may should be in there. >> I apologize. What page? I found it. >> Yep. I just think it should say this page numbers. >> I know. That's why I was like, >> which one are you looking at? If you're in the actual policy, it's page. I think I think it should say the city council may grant up to a maximum one year >> cuz otherwise this implies that we will. So >> is that >> Yeah. >> Fine. Does that >> I just want to make a comment that >> I appreciate the words smithing of the language that I sent and this hits exactly what I was trying to get at. So >> thank you. >> Yeah. And thank you. Um I do like the fact that the specification of after a leave was taken out. It gives us the ability to use it when we need it. Doesn't mandate it. Doesn't single any particular situation out. I like that there is an approval process of this is who it goes to to approve that. I feel like that gets back to our own process situation that we talked about a little bit of knowing who it goes to, who approves it, and then >> um so I just wanted to say thank you. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I think it was a really great job. >> Yeah, valuable feedback. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? >> I just wanted to make sure everyone saw it. There were also change changes on page 40 of the policy that wasn't called out in the um or at least it's still in red. Maybe it's not supposed to still be in red. I just saw red on page 40. >> Yeah. So mayor members are called this is related to the andor item for when we were doing drug testing is because we wanted to make sure that we were >> um considering both options because we have had an incident where only one of them happened and based on the personal policy we were supposed to update both. I think it was noted in this airport or it should have been but it may not reference on the right page when maybe >> that that's right. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew >> there was an and as an only statement. So that mean both situations had to play out and we wanted to make sure there was an and/or because if you have only an or then if both of them happen you cannot then test. So if you have to have and/or we have language. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure we knew about that cuz I didn't see it on the word. title. >> I was just going through her red, making sure I didn't miss any red. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Are we good? I need a motion and a second. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. Too late. >> That was an easy one. Let's do that every time. >> Any Well, we were only given 10 minutes to handle this deal. >> Yeah. >> Any any more discussion? >> The other one went an hour and a half over. >> Maybe we just take the times off. All those in favor say I. I. >> All right I. All those oppos say no. Carries five to zero. On item J. >> U. Mayor, members of council, tonight before you is the um consideration of posting. I we apologize. We meant to remove senior planner out of the um agenda, but again I noted senior planner only because that was the previous position that we were replacing. So that's why it's noted there. Um this is to post two positions. So I want to make sure that um it's clarified not actually three positions which is what it sounds like. Um, city staff, um, oh, Brett. Okay. >> Um, city staff brought up the ability to hire an HR staff member during the 2026 budget creation. I'm going to I'll text her quick. Um, during 2026 budget creation, I was not able to make it based on the budget adopted. Um, Hayden Stengar, recent senior planner, left the city um, uh, for another job opportunity and we needed to replace his position. and we were able to bring on board a consulting HR company to assist the city in stepping in the direction of an HR employee in 2025. All that background comes back to how the scenario played out that what we're looking at doing. City staff is looking to hire uh post for two positions, one associate planner, one city planner, and also the part-time HR position in effort to only hire one of the two planner positions. Um, this is something that was done by Rapids, um, after talking with their city administrator and it sounds like it went really well because they picked the best applicant possible. Not necessarily the best applicant for each position, but the best applicant in total, which one would show the most growth, which one shows the most expertise, which one shows the most um, in information we can utilize as the city. And so, we want to post both positions with the intent to only hire one of those positions. I did lay out several scenarios that could happen. Um, I used both high and low ends just to give generalities. It will likely be somewhere in the middle um, in in all honesty um, for both of these sit situations, but I do want to provide that it will likely have a budget impact for 2027 both based on these things. So, I do want to make sure the council is aware of it. It could potentially be um no budget impact if both um the associate pos planner position and an HR position was hired at the bottom pay which would be obviously the best intention of city staff but um if we hire the associate planner but it may not be. So I do want to make sure that that is clear from the council's perspective. Um and we like to hire the best candidate. Um we have been utilizing a consultant planner from landform um to fill in the time frame that Hayden has not been here. Um but there are still budget savings based on the fact that their work is completed and can be also charged to developers as well. So their time is not all within general fund dollars that are being paid for today. So um city staff will stand for any questions and I know HR professional is back here to answer any questions. So >> my apolog I didn't mean to say leave you. >> I was LIKE >> it's been a long day. I do have a couple of questions somebody else wants to start. M um so I know like we got the HR the job description and all that. I'm just wondering if um maybe you could just sum up what from an HR perspective and you've been doing this for a while. Um how do you see this person spending like 20 hours a week? >> Yeah, great question. And I realized earlier I did not introduce myself so I should just do that formally. Brena Remy from Abdo. Pleasure to be here. Um yeah, great question. So, I think um a couple of different things. So, right now, Dena is the and I apologize for my voice. I've been presenting a lot this week. That Dena is doing some Minnesota paid leave administrative. Um she's the paid leave administrator, I should say. Um and so that's through the new Minnesota paid leave work. So, I and that would probably come over to this position. Um there is also candidly there's just a lot of opportunity to streamline and create processes. There's um a lot of opportunity. So right now Dena is doing a lot of like the benefit information and the information that's going out and most significantly if we use the hiring example um it is actually a really significant amount of time Amy can attest to this and you can attest this with your positions um I see this being pretty heavily on helping that um we call it the employment employee life cycle right so getting a position posted going through the candidates eliminating people who aren't don't meet the minimum qualifications doing we call like um can you have a conversation phone screens right calling people so essentially that your department leaders are interviewing the best and final candidates um and so it really takes that is the generally the best practice for um hiring it just takes a lot of time and make sure that your pointing is consistent that your process follows the requirements um things like veterans preferences how you track all of that so I would think a significant portion of their time um would be spent again on that kind of employee life cycle. So getting somebody from an hiring all the way into or sorry applying all the way into entered and into the system and then in their employment life cycle anything that's like moving um you know moving boxes around on the cart so to say and making sure the information gets right their open enrollment stuff um simple things like workers compensation filing that again those all actually are pretty they're not overly complicated but they're pretty um administratively heavy tasks. Good question. >> Particularly, I guess if you don't do it normally, like if it's not something you've done regularly, then you're like, "What do I got to do?" >> It's very, it's like again, like you're learning the whole process versus somebody who um and we did talk it is on there, but Abdo would would essentially continue to act as like their HR director because really the key is making sure they're set up and doing things the right way, right? So, we're like, "Hey, here's the process. Here's the system. Here's the ensuring it's compliant." and um and really again taking it off the the the shoulders of the leaders that are doing a lot of it and or between Amy and the leaders. They're kind of white knuckling it through the process. >> I have a piggyback question on that. Um as far as that transition period um as far as like length and milestones, how will we know like >> how will we know that this person will be successful and without the support of um you or the firm? Like what are the milestones? How long do we anticipate that taking? >> Yeah, great question. I mean, it really comes down to the candidate. So, I think hard to answer unequivocally, but I would say as a general role, um what you would look at is what are all the things? A lot of that would be whoever they report to directly. I think it reports to one of you too, um would be like um like other positions. If you think about um Dena's position, how do we know she's successful? Because people get paid on time. Things are taken care of on time. people aren't reaching out to to Zach and Amy and saying I'm not getting what I need. It would be the same thing. So it would be hey is the person getting the job done. Um simple things like are I mean min some things are very easy to measure actually in the world of HR like you either filed the paperwork or you didn't right you responded to the state or you didn't. So it would just come down to the manager managing their performance like the other roles. >> How long is our our current contract is for the remainder of the year? >> Um it goes through August >> 12 months. Yeah, 12 months from >> I believe we signed the contract in August last year, so I think it's August to August, August to July. >> And our role would be to get them up and running. Um I know and I could I could follow up and send Zach an exact answer to that. Um we we track that and pay attention to all of it. So >> I'm just thinking because this is a $37 to $47 an hour job. This is not peanuts. And so this person probably would have some background. And so I guess I'm just wondering from staff's perspective, we're looking to hire someone who the hope would be, not that you haven't been great and you're not a wonderful human being, the hope would be that there wouldn't be a ton of overlap there. That August we would have, you know, maybe we've got 60 days, so it's two full months of this kind of partnership and then this person should, I would think, be ready >> to hit the ground running. >> I assume >> I I would assume so. I guess I'm just wondering like I'm not going to hold anybody to that. But I'm just thinking again out loud of >> we need the guidance in order for this position to succeed. >> Yeah, >> fully understanding that, but I don't want to be doubling up or making sure that we have enough to support this person for 20 hours, which I believe that we do. >> And I have always been an opponent. I've been very vocal about us needing full-time HR in house. And so I'm just like thinking like as we move forward, how do we set this person up for success? And >> yeah, we normally are our process with this, we work with a lot of both public and private clients who reach a point where they say, "Hey, we're ready for an in-house person in some capacity." Um, and our process for that is crawl, walk, run, right? So like we start, let's get them crawling, let's set a strong foundation, learning again the really the first the very first thing we focus on is like learn your people, meet your managers, get to know the employees, right? right? Like you're just creating a presence and understanding that then we're walking and by the time they're ready to start running, we're just kind of hands off like you're, you know, on a training wheels and we're just there to catch if they fall. Um and so we do that really intentionally. Um and again that we work we would work with whoever their manager is. In this case, they act to >> Mayor M's cult. The idea would be exactly what um Brena had mentioned is do a crawl, walk, run. Um, we've always had ABDO as our in quotes consultant HR, but they've always just been like a retainer that doesn't cost any money. It's like, hey, if I need you, I call you. I need you to charge me an hourly rate. That's kind of what we envision this to be longterm is that we'd pay them for, you know, maybe it's a month or two just to kind of get them, make sure they're moving and grooving and doing what they need to do and then kind of wean them off and then basically if you have something that you need to fall on, call them. Otherwise, you're on your own. Um, and that's the reason for the position, what the pointing was, how the dollar amounts landed, is we don't want somebody who's fresh out of school, doesn't know what they're doing. We're looking for somebody who's professional, who's been around for a while. Um, one of the things that I did ask, Brena, is can we find a qualified person that will be able to do this part-time? Um, it sounds like it is a very feasible job. >> There's a large population of people who want to work and don't want to work a full-time equivalent job. Um, and so there's a lot there is. Um, in fact, I actually think in some ways it's easier to find that than it is to find um a full-time person who particularly because in public entities you're in person, there's very little hybrid opportunity. And so um yeah, there's absolutely now, you know, don't like come at me in a week when there's not a lineup of candidates. Um so it still is going to take the right candidate but yes I do think um and it would be you know we look at in the world of HR and staffing we say um for highly automated organizations public or private the ratio is normally one HR person to 75 employees. Um for those that are not as automated it's 1 to 50. So a full-time would I think especially at that level of experience get bored and and not add as much value as it could. So, I think it's a great first step and it gives you the opportunity to grow and um and like I said, ours are we're always going to be there to help. We're not we're not going anywhere. >> I don't see it, you know, quite as straightforward as this. I I'm I think there's the need. I think there has been for some time for an on-site presence, but you're talking about someone in a HR generalist capacity. That's not the whole story, right? I mean, if you think of it like Jason, we ask all our questions to Jason, >> right? But he's not the guy doing the mechanical engineering or the electrical work or the >> you know, nobody's a specialist at everything. >> Yeah. >> And I don't see that being this person either. I mean, you you maybe know that person. I don't. >> Yeah. who could fill all of those roles. And something that's not talked about in the the essential job duties at all, the majority of of our employees here are are under collective bargaining agreements >> who is, you know, our our labor relations person in this in this model >> who deals with grievances. >> Um, I don't think that's somebody who's new. >> Yep. And so I don't see us going from, you know, from using you now to hiring this person and then you fade into the sunset. I don't see how that happens. >> Yeah, it's a great statement and I would say um we really intentionally give a lot. So we have clients that are in again situations like yours and when they hire somebody, we stay on on a still as a fractional HR director level but a much smaller scale, right? So we're still meeting maybe sometimes we're meeting with them monthly sometimes quarterly where we say hey we want you to stay on and we want you to handle grievances whatever comes up there's a lot of flexibility once we hire that candidate in essentially what we try to do is say don't decide what you need until you figure out what you've hired and then let's see what we need to backfill and kind of give partnership with um and who who can partner with that and what it looks like. So yeah, I think there's our goal is for this person to be able to do as much as possible to honor the budget and the ex but there's we can fill or be as fractional scope-wise as small or as big as the city says this is what we want you to do. So lots of options and you're not guaranteed to any of those options. You can you're not no matter what you hire you can decide what you want to do with this. >> Right. I do some things about the actual job um posting. So under required knowledge and experience um it says experience with workers compensation claims or the ability to quickly learn these processes. >> I don't think that should be there because it's obviously not a required because they can learn it. So if it's something that they can learn that shouldn't be listed as a required like thing, right? Um so that wording seemed odd to me. Yeah, we could change that to workers compensation experience preferred or highly preferable >> and then it would go in the preferred. Yeah, it just it seemed odd to put on that. I didn't bring my pen. >> It seemed odd to put it in required, but then be like, but also you could learn on the job cuz I was like, well, then it's not actually required, is it? It's a preferred qualification. Um, second, I know this is just boilerplate language, but it has physical demands of lifting up to 25 lbs. Um, and then needing to um, walk like requires walking or frequently requires walking, reaching with hands and arms. And I I feel and I that's just boiler plate, but I don't think it's really required for this job. And I think, you know, when we talk about um reasonable accommodations, right, I don't feel like that language should be here for this position. And so I was curious why it was >> Yeah, we generally include that when an employer has paper files. So that's related to paper files. You guys do not use electronic filing systems at this point. And so that is kind of one of we do review that as a part of creating a job description like this. So when you're thinking about, hey, if you're doing your benefit open enrollment, you're all of that is is >> it's still paper. So that's why I think you could if you're like, hey, is 25 too high? You could move that to 10 or 15. But again, it still comes down to um uh you're still pretty manual uh when it comes to your filing systems. >> Okay. Um, and then why does it require a driver's license? >> Um, because you have multiple locations. And so if a it would be a requirement, I would assume. Um, and you could say preferable, you could say, um, you just need to be able some employers will say you need to be able to get from location A, you know, between, you might have multiple firehouses, right? Public utilities, you have different locations. Um, HR is an expectation to get to them. So, but you could if you said, "Hey, we don't want it to be a driver's license requirement." You could say need to have the ability to during the regular course of your business day get from >> different occasions. So, you could say that either way. Candidly, it I think 50% do it one way, 50% do the other. >> Okay. I was just curious about those requirements. >> Really good questions. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. The that was it for me. >> All right. Anybody else? Okay. I'm hiding motion. I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those oppos say no. >> Carries 5 to zero. >> Am I really really clear? >> I really didn't mean to. As soon as you said that, I was like, duh. Of course. Sorry, I was in a one direct mind. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Payment of claims. Mayor and members of councils, um, city staff and myself are here to address any questions on payment of claims. >> Okay, first I got a couple. >> Dave, I got ahead of you. >> All right, >> let's see. Kevin, you may not know $31,000 on safety equipment. >> 31,000 773 >> 773 specific. >> You were going to ask too? Do you know what page that's on? >> No, we've already talked about that. Okay. >> Well, technically it has to go back to the payment claims in order for us to kind of check out. >> Oh, no. It was on the last >> Sometimes that does happen. We try to do our best to get them on the same meeting, but it does happen once. >> Council member Sonic, um, I have a copy of the P of claims here. I don't see that cost in there, but I verify that. I would assume that that's extrication. I can ask administrator down the number, but >> it's McQueen Emergency Group Other Equipment Unit 2616. I don't know if that's how >> that's out. >> I was like that's that's chief that's police. >> Okay. >> Um that would be Yeah, that will be outfitting the new um squads that we got from Enterprise this year. >> Okay. >> Squads plural squad. Um that might be just that be one squad. That's one squad. >> One squad. Yes, >> that's one squad. >> Yeah. The budgeted amount for each squad is about $50,000 of everything put onto it. >> Uh, one more. And I don't recall this being this kind of money. Marty, dust control is 68 grand. >> Hazard control. >> Dust. >> Dust. Dust control. >> Is it 68,000 bucks? >> No. >> I don't recall it being that kind of money. >> Where is that? That dust control was on the payment of claims. I don't think there was 68,000. We haven't even done it yet. Is that on the payment of claims on the consent agenda? >> Yes, I know. I know. >> That's >> in the payment of claims. There's uh it says dust control. >> Where? >> Yeah. It's $68,000. >> Oh, what? >> Five and a half miles of roadway for 68,000. >> But is it in the payment of claims? >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> What page is it on s? M I don't know of the agenda, but I'm just in the claims roster. >> I've never I've never recalled it being that that much money. >> No, that seems excessive to me. Uh let me try and find it. >> Or is that a bid? >> There was a might be a bid. I think that's was there one bid on the um on the uh staff report. I think the second bid was that because they were putting two products on. >> Yeah. Envirrote which is the quote that we had for 68,000 >> is definitely not in the payment of claims from my review of the payment of claims. Um >> that's just in the stock report. >> There were two quality. >> We're not doing that. No, we're not doing that. No, quality propane is the one that's doing it, which is not 68,000. It'll be $135 per gallon >> for 5 12 miles of city gravel roads. >> And I don't understand why Envirro Tech always quote it that way. Um, we did we did look at another company this year, but they didn't submit a quote in time for us to get it into the packet. >> Okay, that's all I got. >> Can I ask something? Uh, >> so it's 20,925 which will be cut to quality propane. It's $135 per gallon times by the 15,500 gallons of mark. >> Oh, they also did cuz I'm looking at the thing. They actually list how many gallons there. >> 15,500 gallons is applied, which at $135 is 20,925. >> Luckily, we already approved all that. That can be a consent agenda. >> Yeah, we did. >> Just saying you can't change your minds now. >> Yep. Okay. Anybody else? >> I have just a general question. We have multiple departments with cell phones. Why do we not have one plan? >> We probably do have a plan. I'm assuming it gets separated into the departments. >> Yeah. So, we have mayor's council. We have T-Mobile, which is handled by most of the city. Um, and I would say that that was probably who was unanimous. And then the other one I'm aware of is is it first net? >> First net. >> First net. >> How many cell phones does the fire department have? >> I'm not chief. >> Customer Henderson. Currently we have two cell phones, myself and Chief Hendrickson, but then we also have service plans for all the tablets and all the trucks. >> Okay. >> So each each tablet and every apparatus has its own cell plan through FirstNet that we use for all of our devices uh like first due emergency reporting and so forth. >> That makes a lot more sense. >> Yeah. It may we did have T-Mobile for everybody in total, but then FirstNet gets first you got that's why we've switched to FirstNet for the fire department so they would have whatever you want to call it. >> But knowing how much FirstNet costs and looking at $331 every time was a lot and so that makes more sense though. So thank you for that. It's cheaper than T-Mobile. >> True. >> It's way cheaper. You can get it just being a first responder but you can only be on the plan. No one else. >> Council member Anderson. probably approximately about 14 tablets on that service plan. >> Yes, that well when you said that made a lot more sense of why it was so expensive, but just looking at two cell phones didn't equate in my mind. So, thank you for that clarification. >> I've been meaning to ask that for like a year and a half. So, >> okay, any other questions? >> I have one. Um maybe more, but I'll ask this one and um Kevin, maybe you can answer this, maybe not. Uh, we had an annual license for $721 for Knox boxes. I know what a Knox box is. I'm just wondering why we license them or what what that could be about. Uh, Cash Sean. So, Knox, so that is our e key system. So, each apparatus has a special box that's mounted in the truck that has a cell service. There's a subscription to that box uh that gives it the cell service that then operates the box. Uh so right now we can have up to six devices or six keys under that subscription. Once you go over six devices, it goes from 7 to 25 devices. The cost of that time goes up to approximately 1,500 a year. Uh so it's a one once once a year cost subscription for the Knox Connect system, which is the e key system. Uh so what that does from um a difference from what we used to use in the past, in the past we had the Dama key, which is the physical hard key that we used to open the fire department box. The Knox e key system is a digital key that has a trail connected to it. So when we operate that key, each firefighter has their own personal code they type in and then there's also a department code so we know who took the key out, what time what what time the box was open, what time it was restored. there's a whole entire paper trail and history of where that key went versus in the olden days you had just the dama hard key that if somebody lost that obviously that's a big concern where this key there's much more management much more visibility accountability and if the key was to be lost we can deactivate that key so it's a once a year subscription that we're paying >> so this subscription is related to kind of this electronic key technology didn't think >> and and all the the new facilities within the last three years have that new e key system built in. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for payment of claims? >> Need a motion and a second. >> I make a motion. >> So second. >> All those in favor say I. >> All those post say no. Carries 5 to zero. Item L, strategic plan adoption. May council, this is a follow-up from last uh meeting's work session. Um there was conversation around the goal setting conversation that continued and then we also got into the strategic plan to update that. Um I did try to highlight and adjust things that were discussed at that meeting ads adjustments. Um what we're looking for is to just to adopt that strategic plan so that we can have that as the official updated strategic plan on both the website and also for uh city staff direction. I will stand for any questions. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those opposed say no. Carries 5 to zero. Item M. >> Yeah. Uh, may council. Um, just trying to see how we're getting closer back on time. It looks like we are. Um, consideration of the AT&T lease renewal for the water tower. Um, I did try to provide this out to the council as well in the packet. I tried to get this to be a close session, but was overruled by the city attorney. um as much as I wanted it to be a close session for conversation with a negotiation, but I think it's important for the council to be aware of where we're at today and what this agreement will mean. So um current agreement does go through 2038. So there's nothing we have to do today. Um but this is being requested by AT&T based on the fact that they are um wanting to preserve this tower for a much longer time frame. Their adjustment is going to be for both the initial amount and also what the um annual inflator is. Currently, our current amount for 2024 is $34,63353 and for 2026 they're proposing 27,275. So, a reduction of about $7,000 give or take $7500 and then also the reduction of the inflator from 4% to 3%. I did do some comparable city agreements that I had reached out to a number of cities around me around us and uh and there were people that I had known throughout the business of city admin and so a number of them reached back out to me and gave me their numbers. I specifically looked at AT&T cuz that's who we're dealing with today and most of the agreements are larger than ours. And so, um, which I don't know if that's good or bad from AT&T's perspective when negotiating, but I do know that a number of them had reached back out to me that they had been contacted by AT&T and or other ones to try to reduce the amount or or whatnot. The average inflator amount was about 3%. Um, so um, on averages, but um, I will say that we didn't have anything set in the fee schedule and so that's just what we have today. Um the question I have request is that is the council want to go forward with this action. Um if you do go forward, I just need direction. I do not need an approval tonight. Um but my thought is either we should not adjust to the inflator or we should not reduce the amount based on other communities that what they're paying and what we're paying. Um I will say that we will continually grow over the next number of years and our tower will become more and more desirable. So, I would presume that we will have um additional individuals looking to use our tower um because of the ability to have um access and because AT&T is saying that it's going to be a long-term um facility, it must mean that it is somewhat desirable. So, I would presume that we'd want to keep that um >> so intact. So, any questions? >> Um this would be like if when I when I was renting an apartment, if I went to my landlord and said, "I would like to extend my lease. I would also like to pay you less money and I want to clarify that you can like and limit how much you can increase my rent every year. Is that is that basically they're they're coming to us and saying we want to extend our lease and also we want to pay you less >> pay you less and reduce the correct. >> So no you can pay us what you're currently paying us and continue this. I would >> be I mean my my my first vote is no you you can extend the lease. Sure, but like you're paying us what you're paying us and the inflator is the inflator. >> Is there any reason to believe that they have more opportunity to go elsewhere? >> Um, mayor, I'm going to say no. Um, they have a significant investment in that water tower. So, if you look at the base of the water tower, which I just learned the other day, that um actual facility that's right below the water tower isn't actually ours. That's AT&T's and that's where all of their um stuff is at. And so, that's a quite quite large investment. So, I don't see them going anywhere. Um, but again, I don't know. And I will tell you that I've gotten more phone calls from AT&T over the last 2 months after I told them no than I've ever gotten in my life. So, >> keep going. >> Um, >> I don't see the reason. >> No, I I mean, we're compelled to do nothing. We have a contract until 2038 and they are asking us to take less money and >> correct >> and extend it for a longer period of time. I don't see any >> what's in it for the city and it's my answer is nothing. >> Um at this point I think you know geographically and they have to have towers you know every x number of miles to to get the coverage that their customers need. >> Um >> you want an actual motion or you >> Nope. I think I have enough direction with three nos. So um >> this wasn't closed because it's not property negotiation. Um, so yeah. So what what I will do is I will follow back up with AT&T. You may see this on another item on the future agenda so that you guys have all of the information um so that I can provide that for you. So >> okay, are we good for the next? >> If if we want to use a bathroom break, what's the best? >> Take a break. >> But wait, wait, wait. Cuz Amy, is it better to Cuz last time go into a session and then do the break? >> Yes. >> Cuz otherwise we have to pause and unpause and pause and unpause. Yes. So, go into close session then we'll use the >> correct please and thank you >> what she said. >> Okay. >> For recording >> for the purpose of the zoom and recording and everything. >> All right. Uh close session pursuant to MS statute 13D5 subdivision 3C3. Close session shall be conducted to develop or consider offer offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property P 31-120-22-33-00009. That's a motion. I need a second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. We are in close session. Say hi. >> I was supposed to say no. >> Okay, now you can do it. I guess >> apologize. That's going to be one more recording for you, Chris. >> 5,000 recording. >> Bill is an extra half hour. >> That's a half hour just I don't know. See? >> Holy cow. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, now >> do we have three? >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> well, as of 8 minutes ago, there was >> 12 and a half minutes left. >> Oh, do you guys care about baseball? >> This is hockey. Hockey. >> I don't care about they say a two goal lead is the worst lead in hockey. >> Don't care about any sports. >> Pretty good. Yeah. Do we have to motion to go in? >> So, it's open right now? >> No. >> Yeah, it should be open right now. >> I get it. The Olympics. Well, I used to get >> Okay, we we are open. >> Yeah, we're open. >> Okay, go ahead. Fire away. >> Here we go. City Council is closing the meeting to the public pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D05 subdivision 3A which allows the public meeting to be closed for the city council to evaluate the performance of an individual uh which is subject to our authority. During this closed meeting the council will be evaluating the performance of city ministers act out a summary of our conclusions regarding this evaluation will be given at our next open meeting. That's a motion. Second. >> Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those post say no. >> No. Closed. I got you. If there are no other issues, we'll be journed. All right, we're