[0:28] (Silence) [3:52] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: This is different than I got. 6:30 by my phone. It must be a goal because we go... I was going to say it was a different screen. There we go. Call to order for the City of Cannon Falls City Council meeting, Tuesday, November 12th, 2024. If I could get a roll call please. [3:52] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Gasmi? **Council Member Gasmi**: Here. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Grot? **Council Member Grot**: Here. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen, is he on? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Nope, he's absent. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Okay. Johnson? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Here. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Here. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lindell? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Here. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Montgomery? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Here. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If I could get a motion to approve tonight's amended agenda. [4:38] **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: So moved. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Lisa, second from Diane. All those in favor? (Council: Aye). Opposed? We will just do regular voting until Ryan joins in online, then we have to do roll call vote. Okay, so it is approved. That gets us to public input. Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in total length and each speaker will have no more than three minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, and the topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to City business and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down. If the speaker refuses to comply, they may be removed from the meeting. Speakers shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comments shall be made at the public hearing. The city council will not generally act on issues raised by the general public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. Um, we will start off, Chad Johnson talking about Wells. [6:09] **Chad Johnson (Citizen)**: Hello, I'm Chad Johnson and I know a lot of people are here to talk about the racetrack and God, but I'd like to bring up what you're going to discuss which is ordinance 404 regarding the private well sealing. Um, while I understand it's being presented as potential concerns for contamination to the water supply, has there been any contamination? Um, how is this going to impact farmers in the area that are in the city limits? Um, are there going to be any effects on the businesses in town? And are we more strict than the state regulations, do we need to be? So that's what I got. [6:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you. Uh, brings up, is it Kevin Nude? Did I get the name right? **Kevin Nude (Citizen)**: Yes. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, um, also speaking on the wells. **Kevin Nude (Citizen)**: All right, so I was given a letter October 8th from Mr. Petersen regarding the well stating that the reason for this email is that upon the sale of any existing wells, the property transferred in the city, that they need to be sealed according to city code. Well, my realtor looked into this and there was no city code, there was no ordinance that stated that, which is now brought up tonight that they want to make one. Um, I do have letters from the state of Minnesota, Goodhue County, who has no problem whatsoever with wells. Um, I don't know what's wrong with your own statement that's in your city code right now—as long as the well is in proper working order, I don't see why... I guess I'm wondering why, you know, I've had it many years and it's worked just fine and I use it now for irrigation only. Um, they've been inspected twice to make sure that it's only for irrigation; it's not hooked up to anything else in the house. It's been in good working order. Um, water's probably better quality out of that than it is out of my faucet. So, um, yeah, that's... I'm just like I said, asking why. Thank you. [8:28] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you. Brings us to Brandon Allison, Bethel Rock Church. **Brandon Allison (Pastor)**: I just introduce myself, Brandon Allison, Pastor, Bethel Rock Church. Uh, just wanted to take a moment to just talk about our conditional use permit. Just say first and foremost, thank you, City of Cannon Falls for the long process, but just that we're coming to an end and hopefully this is the last time I have to be here. So I just wanted to say thank you and just say that we would love to be of benefit to this community, looking forward to partner with you guys for many years and anything that you need. So thank you. [9:13] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you. All right, that's it for public input tonight. Or, uh, actually, Brad Anderson. So Brad is with the County and he said that he's got something that he'd like to say tonight. Uh, technically this falls under public input, but if he goes over three minutes we're going to let him, so go ahead. **Brad Anderson (Goodhue County Official)**: Appreciate that, thank you. Um, I just wanted to come, haven't been here for a while and just wanted to show my face and say a few words. First, to those of you that were elected or reelected, congratulations. Um, I've been through that process probably too many times to really want to admit that. Um, and to the counselors that are leaving and retiring from this board, thank you for your service. Public service is not as easy as it used to be, and I say that going back to the first public office I was elected to as a school board member here in Cannon Falls back in the late 80s, early 90s, which was the pinnacle of my elected service because as a school board member you are a technically a state elected official, not a lower county elected official like I am now. [10:47] **Brad Anderson**: So, um, couple things I wanted to talk about. One was the cannabis that's coming forward that's going to hit all of us. Um, the county did an ordinance around cannabis. The city is delegating the regulation, the registration, and the compliance checks to the county, and we appreciate that. We think consistency across the county is going to be better when most of the cities have done that delegation. The challenge is we're working on zoning ordinance changes as is Cannon Falls; they're going to be working on it too to get the zoning changes needed for your city. Our zoning changes are going to happen within the next two meetings at the county and they'll only cover out-county, which is different than what you guys need in the city, so we're glad you're working on that. [11:34] **Brad Anderson**: The other thing I kind of wanted to talk about, and it was recently published in the Beacon, a letter from one of our Senators about the Tyler versus Hennepin decision. And the reason I want to talk about it is all the counties in the state followed state statute in dealing with tax foreclosure properties or tax forfeit properties. We followed the same standards for everybody; Hennepin County did that also. And I don't think the article that was written by our Senator really illustrated that piece of it. The problem was really with the state statute which they have changed. So going forward, we will handle tax forfeit properties a little bit different, but it didn't illustrate that we were all following state statute. It made it sound like the county was really not doing things correctly, and following state statute, those extra dollars from a sold tax forfeited property were to go into the general coffers of the county, and there's not an avenue to give that back. State statute didn't give us the opportunity to give it back, so it really needed to get fixed at the state level so that we could go forward with that. [13:08] **Brad Anderson**: The other thing I wanted to just mention is we're all going to be coming up to truth and taxation meetings soon. Ours is December 5th at 6 o'clock in the courthouse. And truth and taxation is really about budgets, it's not about valuations. Valuations were decided way back in June and I could talk for an hour about valuations and how the Department of Revenue regulates how we do valuation, but it's really about budgets and going forward with budgets and the thought process that counties and cities and school districts put long-term in those budgets, and I think people need to understand that piece as well. Um, one other thing, anybody can contact me. The phone number on the website, the email on the website—it's my cell phone, I'm going to get it right away. I usually respond right away. City Council people call me all the time, talk about different issues. So I'm just available if you have questions, get in contact. Thank you. [14:40] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you, Brad. That gets us to our public hearing for resolution 2785 certifying unpaid utility charges to be collected via taxes. So we will open up the public hearing. If there's anybody in the crowd that wants to speak on certifying unpaid utility charges, you can approach the podium. First call. Second call. Third and final call. Nobody. All right, we will close the public hearing. Uh, to the Council, I would accept a motion to approve resolution 2785 certifying unpaid utility charges that are collected with taxes. **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: So moved. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion by Lisa, second by Diane. All those in favor? Uh, Ryan has joined us, so we will have to go roll call vote. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Gasmi? **Council Member Gasmi**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Grot? **Council Member Grot**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: That was an I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Hi. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Hi. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lindell? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Hi. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Pass. [16:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, gets us to tonight's consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. I'll go through them for you. Item A: Just and correct claims, the accounting period ending November 7th, 2024. B: Meeting minutes for October 9th, 2024, City Council work session. C: Meeting minutes for October 15th, 2024, special session. D: Meeting minutes for October 15th, 2024, City Council meeting. Item E: Resolution 2786, canvas returns and declare election results for City general election. Item F: Approve 2025 State Building Code Administration agreement with Goodhue County. Item G: Approve mobile data terminal user agreement with Goodhue County. Item H: Resolution 2787, accepting a donation of $141,000 from Friends of John Burch Park. Item I: Approve change order number three for John Burch Park wall project. Item J: Resolution 2788, accepting a grant of $17,000 from Taylor Family Farms Foundation to the fire department. Item K: Resolution 2789, approving conditional use permit for Bethel Rock Church. Item L: Resolution 2790, authorizing 2025 City license renewals. Item M: Approved John Deere 325G compact track loader trade. Item N: Approve the ash tree removal quote. Item O: Approve well number five inspection and repair. Item P: Resolution 2791, approving a cooperative snow removal agreement with MnDOT. And Item Q: Approve City Administrator employment agreement. Is there anything the council would like to pull down for further discussion? [17:45] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I've just got a couple questions on the ash tree removal. I know the quote is to remove 15 trees. The grant said we're supposed to do 50. Have we already removed another number of them and replanted? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: No, we haven't yet. We're starting with Hannah's Bend Park, then we're going to remove the trees in John Burch Park, and then also we'll go to the trees in Evergreen Park, all the ash trees there. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Okay, and then replace those with... So part of the grant is not only to remove the trees, but to replace them with something. How much is a new tree, like $400? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: It depends on what we get, whether it's bare root or potted and whatnot. But this is a pretty darn good quote. Other quotes we've got are over $1,000 per tree removed. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Oh no, I had no problem with that. I just wanted a clarification on where we’re at. Thank you. That was it. [18:31] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. I would entertain a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda. **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: So moved. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Second. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Lisa, second from Laura. Roll call vote. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Gasmi? **Council Member Gasmi**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Grot? **Council Member Grot**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: That was an I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Johnson? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Hi. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Hi. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lindell? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Hi. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Passes. [19:16] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, that gets us to Council business. Item A tonight, introduction and first reading of ordinance 407, an ordinance of the City of Cannon Falls amending city code chapters 51 and 52 relating to Public Utilities. Jed? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Mayor and Council, this is just changing city code so that when a home is annexed into the city and connects to City water and sewer, at the time of annexation when they connect—I think they have what, 12 months to connect to the city water—that we'd require that their private well be sealed at that point as well. And then also part of that code is those that have, or currently have, in-use private wells, when the property changes hands, that upon the sale of that property, that well be sealed. Our biggest concern is that a lot of these wells go unused, and when they go unused and become stagnant, they build up bacteria and they can be contaminated and it's a direct source of contamination to groundwater. Yes, it is like you said, a little bit stricter than state, but it is protecting our groundwater. So any questions, concerns? [20:01] **Council Member Steve Grot**: Of course. Yeah, go ahead. And how many contaminated wells have you discovered so far? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: None. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Okay. And in talking to the county, indeed the county does not require that. And I don't know the state, but basically what it says is, you know, if you've got a well that's no longer connected to the city well—you've now connected up to the city, you've got a private well, it's in working order, you keep it running, used for irrigation—I see absolutely no reason why we can't do that. If somebody has a private well, takes out the pump and leaves it open, then it has to be sealed, but that's kind of that whole state right thing, so we're covered by the state requirements that if a well is contaminated, if it's open, it has to be sealed. But for a perfectly fine working private well... considering how much we charge for sewer which you don't even use, even if it's only half price, but that's still money that, quite frankly, my sprinkler is not going in the sewer system so I don't know why I'm paying anything. It's $60 to get a kit to inspect—if we want to say everybody with a private well has to inspect it once a year with their little $60 kit and report it to us, I have no problem with that. But I see absolutely no reason why we would not let people continue to use their private wells. Red Wing actually, with the new high school, allowed them to drill a private well just for irrigation. So I find this to be kind of overkill, and therefore I would like us not to pass this. [22:23] **Council Member Gasmi**: I don't have a problem with people having wells either as long as they're used. Um, I don't know, a lot of people on Cedar Hills I think use some or have them. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Why you got to call out Cedar Hills? Forgot you live there. Do you have a well? **Council Member Gasmi**: I don't. **Council Member Steve Grot**: You have an inspected? **Council Member Gasmi**: No, oh sorry, no no no, go ahead. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: My issue is with, um, if there's cross-contamination. Are wells hooked up somehow with their actual City water? Is that possible? Is that that? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: That is very... whether it's happening or not, we don't go into all the homes looking for cross-contamination. Is it a possibility that it could be that way? Yes. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Okay, so is there any way of... first of all we don't know how many private wells there are, right? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Correct. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Okay, so that would be my biggest concern, right? We're tied into our water system that we have to... and current code allows that a private well be inspected and shown that it is, you know, for irrigation purposes only, but that's not to say that, you know, a homeowner does their own plumbing and changes things and there could be cross-contamination there. So by having homeowners eliminate their wells, we just eliminate, you know, different points of concern. And along that lines, I mean a new home isn't allowed to go and drill a new well just for irrigation. [23:54] **Council Member Steve Grot**: Some of us would like to, right. Um, but we also say, you know, "no water pipe of the city water system shall be connected to any device." We do. Yeah, so I mean we have that in there to say when you get hooked up to the City line, you disconnect that outside. That's really not that difficult to do, nor is it that difficult to check. I... to me we don't have a problem. There is no problem right now. Nobody's getting sick. People might be saving a few bucks on the sewer, and as far as I can tell, we certainly have plenty of money in our sewer fund. So I really... sometimes if it's not broken, don't fix it. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is there any further explanation as to what brought this about at this time, or the amending of ordinances 51 and 52 chapters? **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Yeah, all along... and he's correct, I did send out that email. Um, I blew that one. Um, I've been sealing wells for... I don't know how many we did this year, but anytime there's a connection or a sale, we've been sealing. The city shouldn't look like a pin cushion, as I say, you know, all these wells that are drilled. And it only takes one or two if they're contaminated, and the city should really work on cleaning that up. You know, the Wellhead Protection Plan has been going on over 20, 25 years with the concerns of these types of wells. And it's not mandated immediately upon sale—you know, we had one up on Cedar Hills that sold here recently, I think it was mid-June somewhere, I don't remember the date. But there was no issue. Unfortunately, that person was the last one on a list of many that used the well over time, and she was the last one and she had to pay for it. [26:13] **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Um, we do have grants. The state has grants that pay for 50% of it. We apply for it, the city takes the money in, and we send the money out to the well company that does a sealing. It is a choice. Contamination is real. You never know when it's going to hit. It's not a "if it's not broke," it's "when it's going to break." So but it's up to you guys. Um, it is, of course, irrigation purposes, but these were all home wells. These aren't small wells; these are home wells that were used for their homes. And in fact, that one we just sealed here not too long ago was for several homes, so it was a fairly large one. But it'll be... it's up to you. You're right, the state says irrigation wells are okay. But when the annexation came in 25 years ago, whatever it was, there was a lot of wells and we've been working on them, you know, over time. And so it's up to you. Um, it's not going to make or break, but it is good to get some of these things cleaned up. And yeah, that was one of the loopholes that I didn't realize we had through irrigation because I've been working on them ever since I got here, sealing up wells. So but it's up to you guys. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: So as it stands right now, like we'll say I don't have a well, but if I did, I could keep mine until I sold the property or...? **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Correct. Okay, correct. And if you have the ability... you've got a water main going by your house and if you're hooked up to the well, you would have to hook up to that well, or... and seal it upon sale. Okay, not until then. **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Okay, so anyone who has a well right now is still good until they sell their house? **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: But then the only loophole that... 12 months of the sale... the only loophole we did find was if it was kept for irrigation purposes. **Council Member Steve Grot**: That's not a loophole, that's a permitted use. You can call it a loophole, but I would call it a permitted use. Makes... thank you. [28:33] **Council Member Gasmi**: Well, my question is, how many people would this refer to? Because I'm hearing this sound like this is mostly for development and that there aren't many of these that would be left for irrigation purposes within city limits to begin with. **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: I'm not sure how many wells there are. We just would like to seal them up and just eliminate those points of contamination. So, and it's like Jon said, it's not going to happen overnight; this is upon sale of homes. And then if we annex in another development or whatever, go across 52 or whatever, all those homes that are on wells would seal those as soon as they connected or were able to connect to city water. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: And has the city sealed the well underneath Roosters that keeps flooding? The artesian well? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Yeah, I don't believe so. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Is this... that's another private well, but that's the one that's causing problems. It's not used for anything. **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Not used for anything... it's not used for anything is what he's saying. But it floods when it rains, it runs through an abandoned storm sewer and floods into the bank property over there. So we're working on it. Um, it's technically a private well, so, but because it's under the building, it's near impossible to seal. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, if there's any other discussion from the council, otherwise I would entertain if anybody wants to make a motion. Does this... if we do no action or a motion to deny? Either or. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I move that we deny. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Second. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Diane, second from Steve to deny the introduction and first reading of ordinance 407 amending the city code chapters 51 and 52 to Public Utilities. Roll call vote. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Gasmi? **Council Member Gasmi**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Grot? **Council Member Grot**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Jeppesen? (No response). Johnson? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Kronenberger? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Hi. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Lindell? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: No. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: 5-1. Pass. [30:54] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Brings us to Item B, Cannon Valley Fair racetrack. Jon, if you want to start that one off. **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: Well, back a few meetings ago, we had a discussion on the racetrack that's going on at the fairgrounds and it was the council's request to move this up ahead a few meetings so everybody could be here. And Shelley is here to present a few options, uh, to have the discussion, find out which direction we're going to go with this thing. Um, I think it's time to make some sort of decisions. I know you've had a lot of conversation with residents on both sides of the issue and I think it's time to go in a direction whatever you feel staff should move. So I'm going to turn it over to Shelley. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, Shelley, if you'd like to start maybe with the options that I saw in the write-up here for the agenda. Um, or if we want to do... do you want to take question and answer from the council immediately or do you want to go with options and then we'll progress from there? [32:27] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, perhaps the council would like to hear the options and then that will frame and drive the conversation. As Jon mentioned, staff is looking for guidance from the council. You're the ones hearing from your constituents and you know, based on our prior conversations, have thoughts on this issue. So I'd like to direct the conversation to a few options that might be doable here. Essentially ranging from taking no action to taking full-on legal action and some things in between. One option at this end of the spectrum is of course we take no action. The council takes no action. Potential risk there is drawing a legal challenge from individuals who might be less than thrilled to have the racetrack or you're hearing some complaints from residents. That would not foreclose the possibility that they could bring some form of an action. [33:58] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: The next sort of layer here is this is brought on by a relationship with the Fair Association which exists, it's in your community, and it does operate a fair every year. There is a possibility of negotiating a resolution with the Fair Association and its board to allow the racetrack use which again is the issue—the racetrack. It's not, from my understanding, the other aspects of the fair. So it would be some form of negotiated resolution to allow the racing at the fair under conditions that all parties can live with. That is something that we could do through a cooperative effort to introduce some zoning amendments, for example, that would allow the use under reasonable conditions. I do believe we started down that route, kind of had some conversations with the Fair Association. I have reached out to and had just very brief conversations with attorneys for the Fair Association. That is an available path forward for everyone. [34:44] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: As another option, if negotiation is not palatable or for some reason does not proceed, the city can move forward itself with zoning amendments as a way to address neighborhood complaints to allow racing on the fair property again under reasonable conditions. That would be developed through planning—normal process, Planning Commission, and then presented to the Council for review and approval. If there is no, I'd say, "buy-in" if you will from the Fair Association and they continue after these regulations are in place, there would be follow-up through enforcement after the fact. But that approach... what I mean, candidly, what I like about that approach is that it allows the city to... both that and the negotiating process allows the city to address what I understand to be concerns from residents but in a measured way that can somehow, as we work through it, allow the use with conditions and you'd have control over that. [36:17] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: There was also a possibility now, if all of that fails or we're not looking at making more permanent changes through a zoning amendment, there is legal processes available. One way to do that to get your toe wet, if you will—put your toe in the water, I think that's the phrase, lawyers get the metaphors wrong all the time—would be you could proactively seek judicial relief in the form of a declaration that would help the city and Fair Association finally determine their rights with respect to racetracks. What that would look like is we'd ask the Court to declare that this particular Fair Association is more characterized as an Agricultural Society. I know we've talked about that in the past, I'm certainly willing to answer your questions about that. But that characterization matters because only the Ag Society, which already exists in Goodhue County, is exempt from zoning. So as a Fair Association, we would seek clarity that this association is an association and is subject to local regulation. Under those local regulations, racing is not a permitted use on their property and therefore prohibited. [37:49] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: The more, the most extreme I guess, path forward would be to just initiate straight-up litigation and go full on to enforce what you have currently in your code. Again, racetracks are not a permitted or a conditional use in either the Urban Reserve or I think there are R1 or R2. And we'd fight the fight through the courts. You know, there are costs and risks associated with each of these varying degrees of options. Obviously, from doing nothing, your cost is primarily your feedback from your community and the pressure that some of you may be experiencing, to the litigation end which would be born... the costs would be borne by the city. These fights, I've done them before on behalf of other cities, they are costly, burdensome in the sense that staff is going to be involved in litigation versus their daily jobs. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, it's just a practical reality to be weighed in your decision-making process. And again, we're not looking for a decision tonight, we're looking for guidance in terms of... this is an issue, staff is looking for direction on which sort of options you guys might be looking at. [38:37] **Council Member Derek Lindell**: I have a question. In your research or whatever, there's a state law or something that said, I think it was start after 1996, there somewhere thereabouts, tracks are not allowed in cities. Wouldn't... if that's the case, wouldn't that override even if we wanted to allow it? We wouldn't be allowed to. **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Lindell, that is an excellent question and I did look that... my thoughts for today were focused on some other issues. But I did come to the conclusion that that would not prohibit this. That is an MPCA-type regulation and a noise regulation. Here we're regulating... my recommendation would be regulating on a land-use zoning platform. And if there's some confusion or reluctance on a zoning concept, you also have your backup nuisance authority which does play into the sound. But I did not see any preemption by that statute, and I think the dates were problematic there too. So I'm not concerned though about that statute. [40:08] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I'm just going to get to the point on this. We've been dealing with this for a year and nine months. This Council, some members are leaving when we turn over into January 2025. Do we try to deal with this immediately, which I would really like to because it's been a year and nine months with these people and with Jon, our city administrator, in January, that's all going to be changing. And that means, in a way, I feel like we're almost starting back at square one with some of the members coming on to this issue. So it is my firm belief that we do at least give guidance and come to an actionable item before the end of this calendar year. With that said, my questions are this: I know you're giving us guidelines and looking for guidance of which one to go, but I still have questions of was it done legally? Because if we as a council and the city allow some group, an association, whatever they are, to break the law knowingly and we don't hold them accountable, we have to do something. And if that means to try to stop them, shut them down and say it's not closing the door, it's resetting to say go back to square one. If they did this illegally from the get-go, they should have to retrace their steps and start over and do it legally. That is an action that I would like to see happen. I know that we've talked about compromise. If you know that somebody did something wrong, if a citizen does something wrong with their property, if they build a building that doesn't follow code, if they don't pull permits, if they do all these things in violation and we sit there knowingly and let them do it and then just say "Oh sure we'll compromise, it's fine," then we are not doing our job. So we can have the discussion tonight, but I think answering those questions of "is it legal or illegal," that's the simple first question. And I know that you say it's murky because Ag Society and all of these other things but... [42:30] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Okay, Mr. Mayor. I'm hearing two questions: the legality, and then there's a second question relating to a timing component in terms of how you address it, the time you address it, and how effectively you can address it in the time and changes that are upcoming. So the legality issue: again, the legal framework has not changed since we last discussed this process of reviewing the statute which is ancient in my view—pre-1900s is ancient to me in statutory land. In reviewing the legislative history, discussions with other communities, discussions with the State Agricultural Society and kind of revolving all of these thoughts, my conclusion remains that the statute, Chapter 38, plainly and expressly distinguishes between Fair associations and Agricultural societies. You are one or the other. The statutory history goes back through at least 1905, and the legislature consistently through about 1923 only allowed one Ag Society per county, and that was the Goodhue County Agricultural Society. It has existed, it predates the Fair Association—I think that's pretty clear in the records, though we don't have an exact formation of the Fair Association other than to say that they claim to have existed or maybe been active with fairs since about 1914, 1915 according to the Minnesota Secretary of State's website. They actually weren't formed as a legal entity, a legal nonprofit, until about 1945. [44:50] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: So those are things that sort of work into the history and the relationship of these parties. I also looked through the developments in the statute. Interestingly enough, I think a key development and change in the formation... again, this is the statute governing the formation of Agricultural societies and their powers. That statute was amended in 1923 and 1937 to allow a second Agricultural Society within a county under very narrow circumstances. And those circumstances are based on districts and township districts and population, and it was a very interesting development—not that you guys care, lawyers care about stuff like that. What's key from that legislative history is as of 1937, when a second Agricultural Society might have been formed in Goodhue County, the only recognized Agricultural Society was the Goodhue County Fair Association—let me back up because I think I minced my words. As of 1937, the only Agricultural Society recognized was Goodhue County. Cannon Valley Fair Association was not recognized by the legislature as an existing Agricultural Society. What this means for you guys is that by 1955, when they amended the statute again and added the language that distinguishes between associations—created that distinction between a society and association—we know that there's a distinction between those two types of entities. That distinction is borne out by the language in the chapter that affords Agricultural societies almost equivalent powers as local government. For example: eminent domain, exemption from zoning, things of that nature. Fair associations were not granted those powers and exemptions, and I think that's a key consideration here. [47:11] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: So when you look at regulating the formation and the legal status of the Fair Association, I don't know that that's not anywhere in public documents that we were able to examine, if you will. We know that the Fair Association by 1955, when the legislature added the option to be an association because there was already a society present, the legislature acknowledged the Cannon Valley Fair Association and appropriated money to them. So we know that from a legal perspective they are at least they are a Fair Association. They are entitled, from what I can gather, that characterization entitles them to share in appropriations for fair purposes but does not grant them any exemptions from local regulation because they're not an Agricultural Society. So again, the legal framework stays the same, and as you approach your options moving forward, that is a legal issue—potentially some fact issues wrapped up in that—that if there's nothing negotiated between the two parties, that would have to be addressed by the courts. [48:42] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Mr. Mayor, I think your second component was a timing issue. All of the various options do require some time. Negotiations... that's probably the most efficient if both parties are amenable to a reasonable solution. But the court options are going to take a year or more. Even getting a restraining order, some kind of temporary relief prohibiting racing while you move forward through the process—it's not an emergency situation. To my understanding, the races are going to wrap up here or already have. So that again, that's going to take some time as well. So in terms of timing and the rotation and the new council members, you know, we may be able to put in place some frameworks, depending on cooperation with Fair Association, where we all stand. Certainly if we move past that into development of zoning regulations, you know, we're already into December Planning Commission meetings and there's some time there too. [49:31] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I think that we have to be careful, or let me just remind... when this first came to us, we were told there's nothing we can do about it. That was what our advice... that's what we were advised. So I think we need to be careful when we're saying things like "they did it illegally." We agreed they... we had no control, right? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, they did it without permits. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yeah, isn't it their responsibility to know what they are and aren't allowed to do though legally? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: We were told, City Attorney... they started construction in March. The meeting that you're referring to I believe was in May. We were working under the assumption that they were Ag Society because that's what they told us. There was trust. And if you're citing what Shelley said at that meeting, she said there's a lot of gray zone and the burden of proof that they're Ag Society falls on the fairboard. We asked them, they couldn't prove it. We shouldn't have to do their homework for them, and Shelley has tried to do that work and prove they're an association, not the Ag Society. So what we were being told was a bunch of BS. Fast forward to where we're at now: they continued to build it, they started the racing with an outside agency on their land in our city limits. I don't think that any responsibility should be thrown on Shelley because they say she told us they could, when they started building two and a half months before that. [51:02] **Council Member Gasmi**: Yeah, we all found out about this on Facebook, like they were already started before any of this. And if you've been around 109, 110 years, and if you don't even know if you're an Ag Society or not, that's their problem. I mean, if any other business just started building a racetrack and said, "Oh, we're going to do it, we can," we would never let them do it. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: And again, I want to bring this back. This isn't about being in favor of a racetrack or not. This is about holding them accountable for what they've done within our city limits and how it has imposed on our citizens. Like Derek said, if there were other people that were trying to do this, we would say "Where's the permit?" The work that should have been done at the beginning was not done—permits were not pulled. Working with the city... it's been brought up that we compromise, that we work together. It's been 109 years. This project, we didn't work together. We invited them to the table, we pulled them into meetings to have discussions. There was no actionable item that we've seen before that meeting. There was no actionable item on the table, it was a discussion. And when we asked questions, they didn't have answers. "How loud is it going to be?" "Not loud." "When are you going to run?" "Oh, it won't be that bad, just a couple times." **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So what are you saying? That you just want to go straight to litigation? You don't want to compromise? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: No, I'm saying who's the regulatory authority? Do they get to call their own shots or does this fall under the city? Because then that will give us more guidance. I don't want to go to court and cost the city thousands of dollars and I don't want to put that on the fairboard, but I want to come to a resolution that is legally okay, to the palate of our citizens, and that we are doing our job. If we allow something that was done illegally—and I'm sorry if you want a different word for that, but they didn't pull permits, they didn't do anything by the book, they went completely rogue. Holding them accountable is not the wrong thing to do. [53:21] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I wasn't at meetings. It's my understanding though we did try to come to an agreement with them and they declined any offer. I wasn't at the meeting, Jon, were you at that or am I mistaken? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Brian... oh okay. Can I... maybe it was okay. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Let me... and I certainly, Matt, understand and I also say if somebody breaks a law, so to speak, they should be held accountable. I also realize that—and this is the question I was going to have for our attorney—is we have people in town building illegal fences, storing trash in their yards. Our police chief has said, you know, we send citations, we do this, we do that, and nothing happens, nothing changes. So in terms of holding all of us responsible to follow the ordinances and the codes of the city and be good neighbors, when we talk of enforcement, how can we get to the point where we actually are able to enforce what is right and what is wrong? Because it appears right now if I want to go ahead and put up a 10-foot fence and don't pull a permit and put it up, you can send me all kinds of notices and my fence stays up and nothing happens. Isn't that what happened? I know we went through this on Planning Commission back and forth, back and forth. [54:55] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: Yeah, so what will happen is it would get to us. Let me distinguish between where we are today and where we were six years ago. When we had a City Attorney that handled our criminal prosecution, we would write the citations and they would get prosecuted—plead guilty, found guilty. The objective for the City Attorney's office was to try to get compliance. Typically they would put a request into the court to give them enough time to come into compliance. We now contract with Goodhue County. The County Attorney's position is that's a civil matter that our city civil City Attorney should handle, not them, and they essentially have just dismissed the citations that we issue on those offenses. And that's really taken a toll... that would use to try to gain compliance. Because ultimately it's not issuing citations, right? It's gaining compliance, because somebody's made a complaint, it's impacting, you know, neighbors, people that drive by, whomever it may be, and we want to try to get it into compliance. But that tool has been taken away from us. And so subsequently the cost to the city would be to go through the civil process through our City Attorney's office, as you know has been alluded, that is long and lengthy. That is correct—long and lengthy. So gaining compliance could be 18, 24 months. [56:27] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So when we talk about... well even any of the options once you get past "do nothing" all involve basically the threat of enforcement, which we now know doesn't... isn't much a threat. And this is what is frustrating to me on any issue that we come up with of non-compliance, is we don't seem to have any teeth and I don't know how to get around that because it certainly does seem to tie our hands. That's a fair criticism for sure. I... what do we do about that? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Johnson, that is a fair point and enforcement is difficult for all cities. You know, it is a lengthy process. Civil enforcement is the direction most cities go because there's a lower burden of proof than in criminal cases, makes it a little bit easier to establish a case. And a lot of criminal prosecutors, County Prosecutors, don't want to be bothered with this type of neighborhood dispute. I don't want to underscore the importance of enforcement and there is teeth to it, and that's why we include enforcement mechanisms in our city code. That's why in the zoning ordinance, enforcement is important because you have a use that the city has very good arguments is presently unlawful because it is not allowed where the property is located, and that has rolling consequences to it. [57:58] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: The civil process is lengthy, it is costly. I do that for my cities, and it involves a complaint, it involves a normal lawsuit-type posture, animosity, staff time, all of that. But for the Council, it's a policy decision in determining which issues are important enough to you as policy makers to pursue and say, "Yes, I understand that that's a burdensome process, but it needs to be done." And it may not be warranted for a fence; it may be extremely warranted for a dangerous dog; it may be warranted in this case for a zoning violation. Nuisances are always difficult—property maintenance things of that nature, we've had several of those. I think Sarah is familiar with that. So it's always a weighing for the Council on a case-by-case basis because there is nothing compelling you to enforce your code. It's very difficult for a property owner or a third party to do because you have your discretion and in determining how to allocate resources towards issues. This is a big one. Which issues are you amenable to pushing resources towards to alleviate a problem? So there's no, Council Member Johnson, there's no right or wrong answer and there's no bright line. [59:30] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I was going to say, my experience has been if you enforce the little ones and they know you're going to do it, then you don't want to really get hit with the big one. And I... you know, I... back where I was down in Cisco, I forgot to put the numbers on my garage in the alley after I painted and I got a citation in the mail with a $50 fine. If I didn't fix it immediately in two weeks I would get a $500 fine and in four, who knows. Needless to say, we all complied immediately. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So you moved to Minnesota. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yeah, moved back here where you're not going to fine me for putting a number on my garage. But I... you know, it's... yes we can let the little things go and then do the big ones, but I keep thinking if people know that, then you just ignore it and then it's like, "Well, but you didn't enforce it there." And it's like, I guess you know if you have something wrong, you do it across the board and yes I know it costs money, but I really think people can be trained fairly. [1:01:02] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Fair, and maybe we have to have fines, I don't know—that's a different issue, the administrative penalties and that. But I think you're, you know, you're along the lines of a "broken windows" sort of concept where if you don't enforce that, it leads to greater and better. But the point I want to bring you back to is that it is a policy discussion for you guys. That's why we're bringing it back to you tonight in terms of this particular situation with the racetrack. Again, we've done our homework, staff and consultant-wise. I do see a path forward for you on multiple different avenues. Um, it remains my recommendation that this is a use that's not permitted and you have a wide range of options to address it. **Council Member Gasmi**: So if we went one of your options, let's say option one through four, whatever, you know, the legal process and you seek clarification... am I getting that right so far? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: In general, yes. **Council Member Gasmi**: Okay. What if we went that route, the end, what would the end result be? What would the two answers be? "Yes, it's permitted," "No, absolutely not"? Is that where this comes out at? [1:02:36] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Gasmi, that is how we would structure it for that type of outcome. Knowing that judges in courts can go a variety of different directions with what we perceive to be a simple issue, but the goal of a sort of preemptory, proactive position would be to ask the court, submit what we know to the court, and ask for a declaration primarily: is the Cannon Valley Fair Association an Agricultural Society or not? And then we would seek some potentially some additional clarifications on scope of their authority, things of that nature, so that we could... the point of that process would be to come back to the council and report back and say, "The judge said they're not an Agricultural Society, therefore under the statute we can regulate them." And then you can proceed, and that diminishes the Fair Association's argument—if we had gotten that type of order—diminishes the Fair Association's argument that they can proceed without regulation. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Well, that always seems to be the question. We argue about this and we argue about this and "Yes we are," "No you aren't," "Yes we are," "No you aren't." And that's where we end up and everybody goes home and then we talk about it and we come back and it always comes down to that same certain point: are they or aren't they? I think we have to have that cleared up. [1:03:22] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I feel like Shelley made it pretty clear earlier though. She... this law came out in what'd you say, 1905? I mean the Fair wasn't even around till 10 years later. I mean, what she said before, I think it's pretty clear they're a Fair Association, they're not an Agricultural Society. Because if they were, they could... like she said, they could do eminent domain, they could possibly levy taxes. I mean, they're just... it's just a fair, it's a group. **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: They can't do taxes. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: No, they can't. No. **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: No, nobody can. Okay, just clarify. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: But but you're saying that regardless, it's going to take a judge's legal opinion to straighten this out? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Johnson, more than likely. Absent a negotiated, all-stakeholder agreement to reduce the impact of their racetrack use. We can, back to your comments about enforcement, we can send letters until we're blue in the face, but we cannot exercise self-help, as you know—we cannot send the police department to block, put blocks up on their property. So it would be... it would need to be done through the courts. And whether you frame it as an enforcement action to get them to stop racing or you frame it as a declaration to declare the rights of the parties, it still ends up at the same spot: is it an Agricultural Society or not? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: And if... how long? If we went that route to ask the court to make that determination as to are they a society or an association and what rights do they therefore have, how long would that take? [1:05:40] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Johnson, I mean, it's proceeding with a civil lawsuit. It will be filed, there's pleadings, there's a court-issued scheduling order. Depending on cooperation between the parties, there may be some methods of... I would hope the Fair Association would want this resolved before the next racing season. There's maybe some opportunities to seek some expedited review process. Certainly if we initiate litigation even this year and it looks like the racing's going to start and that's the critical issue central to our case, you can move for temporary relief next spring. But I would not count on this being a short or slow process. A year or more is not unreasonable. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So let's play a hypothetical here. Oh boy. If they are a Fair Association, not an Ag Society, who is the regulatory authority? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: They are a nonprofit entity. Just like any other business in the city, the city would be... they would be subject to all applicable local, state, county laws and regulations. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So if we took action to say, you know, "zoning amendments, conditional use, resolution, compromise," whatever... if they're a Fair Association, they have to abide by the city rules. If they're not, then it comes back to that gray area of Ag Society, because even then we talk about what for the Fair versus an outside party. [1:07:59] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: And that's a great point, Mr. Mayor. When you are... let's put on our Ag Society... we've talked about the Fair Association. If they're a Fair Association, you have wide, expansive regulatory authority under the language of Chapter 38. If it's an Agricultural Society, you do not have such wide-reaching authority. Again, an Agricultural Society is treated more similar to local government. They have a lot of exemptions, they have tort limits—you know, that's not something a private entity has. They are exempt—an Ag Society is exempt—from zoning regulations all year. A society is also exempt from local regulations pertaining to lands and the buildings all year. And of course, it doesn't help that the courts have never construed any of the provisions that we're looking at. You know, we're in that new frontier of never been decided. Arguably, under the statutes as written, the city would have authority to regulate an Agricultural Society for nuisance purposes. I'm not saying that's guaranteed and that we wouldn't have a fight over that, but there does appear to be an openness on something other than zoning that doesn't pertain to the building or the land—and I'm talking more about the use hat here. Splitting hairs a bit, but you get the concept. [1:09:33] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So I'm getting the feeling that we can't act under the assumption that they're a Fair Association and say try to enforce anything. We would have to prove that in the court of law that they're not, and then move forward. Or we go for zoning amendments and a conditional use permit as is, without having to go to the court system. Does that sound accurate? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: All the above. It's all the above. Kind of a combination of those things. It depends on how much faith you have in your City Attorney—if you believe that my opinion is enough to proceed with litigation, you can do that and the court will ultimately decide. The Fair Association will have ample time and ability to counter and bring forth their arguments and a judge will decide. You can negotiate—it's fine. You can amend the zoning code, and if the Fair Association doesn't like that, they can intervene with their own lawsuit at any time. We can amend the zoning code, give them opportunity to have a racetrack under conditions and apply for the permit. If they fail to do it and they conduct the races, then you're into court under the enforcement for "this is prohibited and you can't do it anymore." And then they would come back and say, "Yes, we can, we're an Ag Society, we can do anything we want." So again, you end up there. Again, you have coverage through the League insurance-wise. That does not kick in on anything you do as a proactive prosecutorial stance. So if you sue them, that's on city resources. Now, if you were to draw a lawsuit from the Fair Association or from neighbors, that may or may not be covered—I don't know, that's a different question entirely. I just want to point that out, that it's a significant difference in your risk exposure. [1:11:54] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: Well, it's my understanding there's a new president of the Association, so I don't understand why we wouldn't try to come to an agreement. I mean, why would we want to immediately go to litigation and cost the city money? I mean, that's my opinion. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I would like to avoid litigation as well, but I think what I heard Shelley say is that we can still act in the best interest of the community, and then if they want to challenge that, that would be their call. Because the proof of... again, the burden of proof of a society has still never been brought forward, right? So I would move down that our stance is they are not—they are subject to zoning. So let's figure out a way to zone the area that would allow them to have a racetrack but also address the citizens' concerns that say, you know, "Not after 10:00" or "No sprint cars" or whatever the underlying issues are. **Council Member Gasmi**: Can we get the fair board to agree that they aren't a society? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Why does it matter? **Council Member Gasmi**: Well, because then it wouldn't fall under our jurisdiction. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Just a question: when we talk about rezoning... because right now they're in two different zoning classifications. Isn't it the owner of the land that has to apply to be rezoned, or can the city decide to change somebody's zoning? [1:13:26] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Good question, Council Member Johnson, and the city can proactively. The use is not allowed in the zone at all, either zone that they're in. So the city can, whether you rezone it or create a zoning overlay, what you would be doing is creating more uses available to the property owner than are currently available with conditions. So you're not taking anything away. And the city can, and often cities do when encountering a new use, change their zoning laws to accommodate the use in whatever way the city deems reasonable if they want to allow it. Is it conditional? Is it permitted? What are the conditions on it? You can move forward with that proactively without the landowner's consent. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: And if we were to make the change though, like last time, it applies to every zone, not just the Fairgrounds. So if we change like we talked about doing for Urban Reserve, or if we change it for whatever they are now, R2, that applies to the whole city. And that was kind of a quagmire we didn't want to deal with last time. **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Lindell, that is a great point. And having heard those types of comments and some of that feedback, there would be a path to consider an overlay—an area where a racetrack would be allowed without expanding it beyond an area that the Council deems reasonable. So you would not necessarily have to allow it in an entire zone. So you could address that. I would also point out through the Planning Commission process, there would be public hearing, zoning of course notice, public hearings, input. You would not be enacting a new zoning ordinance in a bubble, if that's helpful. [1:15:47] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Good. Another meeting goes on till 10:30. I like you guys. It's okay. So to bring it back, tonight does not necessarily need action. You just need guidance to lead us to the solution, correct? If you're not going to be making a motion to say to, you know, "Shut them down, let them race, no action," whatever... tonight is not actionable? It's discussion to give you guidance as to a solution? Is that correct? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. If you were pursuing litigation and all of you look to be headstrong into "let's sue them," then I'd ask for some definitive clarification on that through a motion. Does not appear that's the case. So some general consensus on the direction to either explore negotiations or to initiate the process to resolve the racetrack issue through the zoning amendment process, which would initiate essentially Zach's department to start working on what the amendment would look like, what the conditions would be, and then set this up for Planning Commission review. Or if the fair board wanted to seek rezoning, absolutely, that could be that same process. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Absolutely, yes. It would... just then we would be able to maybe get rid of the current two zones and make instead an overlay, make a whole new zone or something? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: That's possible. If we're doing zoning, it could come from either the city or from the Fair Association. Yes. Okay. [1:17:19] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: And if we couldn't come to an agreement? I mean, if we were to say "The only zoning CUP we'd consider with conditions that races are 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., no micros, only go-karts, only four days per month, May through September," and if they didn't agree to it, then it probably ends up in court again? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Council Member Johnson, likely. The city can still enact again what it deems to be reasonable regulations on that use, and if there's no compliance with those regulations, then yes, there would be enforcement and either party would likely pursue legal action. In other words, there's no good answer. **Council Member Gasmi**: Any other questions, comments, concerns? Point of discussion from the council? My biggest thing is if we can get an agreement from the fair board to say, "Okay, we're not an Ag Society," so we can move forward with the application if they want to rezone or whatever. Because it seems like if they don't like our answer, then they go back to the association or the society again and then we're back to square one. So I guess if we can talk to them out of court and say, "Here's the deal, it's got to be this way or this way," so we can start moving forward however we do that. [1:19:18] **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Would the Council like discussion to go through the options again and see which one we think is the consensus of most popular to give to Shelley, or...? I just don't... sorry, I just don't want to kick the can down the road again. I mean, we've... I don't either. You know, if we just more meetings, more talking... then we've got three new people in a month and we start over, like... right? What's the point? They're not... you know, even if they do agree to zone, do we even have a consensus that we want to allow racing there? We haven't even talked about that. I mean, whether it's legal or not is one thing. Do we want to have a racetrack in the middle of town? That's another question that we haven't even discussed. You know, I can't say I love the idea. So even if we were to meet, unless they're going to say "We're getting rid of the loudest three classes, we're just having the lawnmowers"—okay, maybe. But how long is that going to last? A year later they'll come back and say, "Oh, want to get the micros, we ain't making enough money." Right? I don't know. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So what are you saying we should do? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: I mean, it's not going to get resolved in three weeks. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So it's not... which is why I didn't want to meet in the middle of November, I wanted to meet a month ago, but nobody else did. So I don't know, whatever you guys want to do. I guess to me, I think if we're not going to enforce our rules... like Diane said, if we're not going to enforce stuff, why have them? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So then you're kind of looking more at saying go to the judicial thing? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: I don't want to... I would actually like it if they would just maybe voluntarily shut it down so we don't have to spend taxpayer money. But I don't think they're going to do that either. But yeah, I guess if I was forced to choose, I would pick the legal. [1:21:44] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Anything else from the Council? Course of action? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: My vote is a negotiated resolution. **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: I think it'd be nice to negotiate, but I don't know that it's going to be feasible. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Do you want actionable or end result? I guess you could say that too. If you said "shutdown," I think... I don't think negotiation is going to do anything. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I would like to negotiate, but my fear with so many things that I see in town is that with limited teeth to enforce anything, I... you know, I'm torn. I really am. And I don't want to spend the money on getting judicial relief, but at least that would answer the question of what options do we as a city have, in the sense of do we even have the right to regulate or do we not? And if we have the right to regulate, how far can we regulate? You know, that to me is the beginning of negotiation, is to know what legally we have the right to demand or ask for and what they have the right to demand or ask for. But if we don't know that—if it's that big gray area, fuzzy area—I don't... you know, I really don't know. I'm torn. **Council Member Steve Grot**: I'm still leaning toward the judicial clarification. It just always ends up seeming like the same argument. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Would that be what you call the Declaration of Rights? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Yes. Not necessarily litigation that we're going after, I'm just... it's litigation, it would be a lawsuit, but it would be seeking more of a declaration. [1:24:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Ryan, your mic hasn't been working tonight. Is there anything that you'd like to say? (Silence). Nothing. All right, I'm glad I'm not the only one that couldn't get the mic. Well, it didn't work for me either, so there might be something... it could be on our end. How about this: let's go back around the horn again and let's say what is the end goal and we'll see what it takes to get there. So what do you want to see? Ranging from what they currently did this last year—600cc mini sprints, noise, let them go—all the way to shutdown. Does that seem fair to the Council? What the end goal at least, and not necessarily the end goal but just what the next step is? The step that we would try to get to for whether that be the beginning of negotiations for trying to make it legal or permits or whatever. Does that sound fair to the Council for discussion purposes? All right. Laura, what would the end goal be? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: A track, but addressing some of the citizens' concerns with noise and timing. Track operation with conditions. **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: Although I don't want to go to court, I feel like we need to know what they are as an entity—if they're an Ag Society truly or not. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Let's talk about the track specifically. Do you want to see shutdown? Do you want to say let them race? Because what I'm trying to look for is the end goal, the objective that we are going to try to achieve. **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: That's hard. Um, I guess all in all, no track. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: I guess a two-phrase answer: if there's going to be a track, it needs to be legally done. But if it were my choice, I would say either no track or, if there is one, then those loud ones got to go. Can't have it loud or terrible. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I would say if there is a track that's going to be used outside of during the fair—that definitely would only be the go-karts that don't seem to bother people, and low noise. And hours to operate in, limited operation and no expansion. Track with low noise and no expansion. **Council Member Steve Grot**: That's a slippery slope. I think everybody here that's anti-track is anti-noise. I think that's the number one concern. If they want to go around and have fun, that's fine with me too, but you can't annoy the neighbors. So noise levels that won't... I mean, no track if it comes down to it, but yes, it can be peaceably done with everybody. [1:27:07] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Ryan, I know the mic's not working. Okay, no opinion on this one. We'll just... okay. Someone you want a lip reader? We should test that sometimes. Pretty sure. My opinion would be no track, but it's not to shut it down indefinitely, it's to get back to the starting point so that we can correct this, clear this up, and do it right. If we were to continue the track, I think my goal would be similar to the low noise. When they talk about the kids, the small carts that don't make any noise, you can't even hear it off the property. I think anything that makes additional noise is technically against the law and we shouldn't allow it. The city law shouldn't be in that residential or urban renewal area to begin with. So I'd start with no track and negotiate from there. Again, if the case that has to be made is their burden, not ours. We're regulating. I would go to no track and then start over. So with all of those answers, Shelley, does that give you more guidance now? If we were to negotiate, who would even do it? It wouldn't be all of us, would it? [1:28:42] **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: They do have an attorney, so it would funnel down from the attorneys. Okay. And I will note that she is present today and has heard. But you know, that was not an agenda item, so... um, there, you know, that firm is well-versed in local land-use laws and regulations. So perhaps the next step is to follow up with her after they have heard the comments from the Council this evening and see if there is a path forward with the reasonable regulations on the racetrack. You know, again, I know you're loathe to push this out to so many meetings. So you know, if those... if if you know, and again I think and I don't think it'll come as a big surprise to them that the big cars, whatever you call those, those are the problem. And the issue is whether they can race those in a quiet manner. If not, will the Fair Association do its part in prohibiting that use of its property? I'm not sure. Will we know by the next meeting? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yes. **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Yeah, I anticipate that the Fair Association doesn't want to drag this out needlessly either, so I would anticipate that there would be some indication earlier or sooner rather than later on whether they would be receptive to that particular outcome. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: So what is the next step from up here? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Nothing further tonight, Mayor Montgomery. As long as everyone feels they've said what they need to say, given me direction they each individually feel... I feel as a Council you've indicated that reasonable restrictions on racing is the top priority within this issue. Whether that can be done through negotiated resolution with the Fair Association is yet to be determined. I will work on that and can report that back obviously to staff, and then decide if and how that gets circulated up to you guys in terms of the next step. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Sound fair to the Council? (Council: Yep). All right, thank you everybody. [1:31:26] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: That gets us to the point of the night where we've got reports. We can go through Maggie, Chamber of Commerce. **Maggie (Chamber of Commerce)**: Good evening, Council, Mayor. I'm here to talk about Deck The Falls. We're going to put everybody in a cheerful mood. First of all, I want to say thanks to Public Works. I think you guys probably noticed the lights are up in the City parking lot, and then the snowflakes were up today and they look great. So thank you to the Public Works guys—they do a lot of work putting those together. Garland will go up in a couple weeks and then the community Christmas tree will be lit also. So thank you to Public Works. Quick recap for Deck The Falls: it is November 30th. It'll start in the morning with a Lions Club pancake feed, followed by Small Business Saturday. This is a great chance to support our local businesses—they'll have different sales, open houses, specials going on throughout the day. Santa will be at the library at 1:00 p.m. for story time and then you can visit Santa and Mrs. Claus at Cannon Bells from 2:00 to 4:00. The Cannon Falls Diamond Club, the baseball team, is going to do a chili feed again this year. They did it at Tann last year, it was a great turnout—it's a fundraiser for them, that's from 3:00 to 7:00. And then our parade starts at 5:00. We currently have 25 entries, we welcome more, so if anybody would like to sign up, that information can be found on our website or our social media. And then after the parade, we do raffle drawings at the Gazebo, the tree is lit, and then we have fireworks. So any questions? **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Good job. All right, thank you. Thanks, Maggie. [1:33:15] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: The Planning Commission met all the way back on October 21st. Is there any report from Planning Commission? **Council Member Gasmi**: Uh, we discussed Bethel Rock, the conditional use permit, and that was it. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yeah, and we approved that tonight. All right. Joint Powers Trail Board, October 22nd. **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Yeah, um, we were awarded the grant for the mile 14 and 16 slope failure. So that's a good one, we'll be fixing stuff. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: There we go. Always good to fix stuff. The EDA met on November 7th. Laura gave us an update on Hardwood Estates, some lot sales updates. And our EDA President, John Do—we accepted his letter of resignation, so he will, at the end of 2024, he will be stepping down. And then we awarded the 2025 CEDA contract to Laura for her work as EDA and the contract interns. Public Works and Park Board also met that same night, November 7th. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Well, we talked about the well and then everything else was on the consent agenda. [1:34:00] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you. We'll go around the horn. Jed, anything? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Got a couple punch list items on John Burch Park and also the 2023-2024 project, and they're just about wrapped up. The walls are looking awesome. They were out there today doing some finishing touches. Um, they got a catwalk, they got to put some railing up over first base still. But yeah, things are wrapping up, looking good. Um, tomorrow MnDOT is going to mill and overlay from on 20 from 19 all the way to River Road here. They're going to shut everything down. I just want the public to know that you cannot get through there. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: It's just a one-day thing, right? **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: It's supposed to be a one-day thing. Um, as long as it doesn't rain hard, I think they should be able to do it. So I've been watching the weather today, it looks like intermittent showers so it shouldn't hamper them too bad, but just the public to know that it is going to be shut down. They've been dropping off equipment all day today so it is happening. So other than that, that's all I got. Thank you. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. The mailman will get through? Oh, the mailman will get through, but nobody else. Zach, you got anything tonight? (No response). All right. Chief? [1:35:33] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: So Maggie talked about Deck The Falls. The parade... there will be some traffic disruption. Um, some of the streets will be posted for non-parking. So for residents, just when you're going downtown on that Saturday, just be aware there will be some restrictions. They should be pretty minimal and, as usual, I expect that the parade will be a good time for all. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, thank you, Chief. Sarah? **City Clerk Sara Peer**: I just wanted to give a shout-out to all of my election judges that worked the election on the 5th. They did a fantastic job and everything went very smooth. Um, I will say that they balanced at the end of the night. We went to the county and it was a nice quick in-and-out versus some people had to start over at the county and we were leaving at 11:45 and they were just starting. So my judges are fantastic. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, and I want to say congratulations to our community because if my sixth grade math skills prove me right, did we have like almost an 89% voter turnout from registered people to tablets? Or it had to have been pretty close. **City Clerk Sara Peer**: It was almost 90%. We had that day almost 2,000 people come into City Hall to vote, um, and then there was about 500 absentees. So there was 2,514 which was one less than 2020. Wow. 2020 we had 2,515. So it's pretty cool. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Someone forgot to show up. Someone did. They didn't do their job. Shelley, would you like anything else to say today? **City Attorney Shelley Ryan**: Nothing further. Thanks for your time. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you, Shelley. Thank you, Jon. **City Administrator Jon Radermacher**: I'm good. [1:37:54] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right, around the horn. Laura? **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I'm good. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Lisa? **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: I'm good. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Ryan, see if the mic works this time. **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Hi! **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right! Derek? **Council Member Derek Lindell**: Just want to congratulate the new council members: Chris Nobach, Chad Johnson, Lisa Zimmerman, and of course Laura for winning another term. Congratulations, wish you well. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Nicely said. Diane? **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Yeah, it's good to see some folks here. Yeah, absolutely. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Steve? **Council Member Steve Grot**: Me too. And then, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. We won't see each other till after Thanksgiving, so have a great holiday. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I assume you're getting your Ferndale turkey, right? **Council Member Steve Grot**: Absolutely. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: There you go. You have to. Don't we all get Ferndale turkeys? I hope you do. I hope everybody does. But I hope you come to the store. **Council Member Steve Grot**: No, can't... can't afford that. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yeah, go find John, he'll see if he can help you out. I want to say the same thing—congratulations to everybody. It's nice to see you guys here becoming a part of the process, and we appreciate that you want to serve the community. As Brad said earlier, being an elected official is not always the most fun, but we appreciate that you guys are willing to put your best foot forward and serve the community. And also Sarah, you still... I mean, that night almost 90%, that's amazing. It speaks well for the community. That's pretty much all I got. So I would take a motion to adjourn. And Ryan, you can just turn your computer off so that you're absent for the vote so we don't have to do roll call. We'll see you later. I would accept a motion to adjourn. **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So moved. **Council Member Steve Grot**: Second. **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Diane, second from Steve. All those in favor? (Council: I). Opposed? And we are done. Thank you everybody.